Maybe not, but the hypothetical extreme libertarian examples that I've read are unsustainable and would rapidly change into either anarchy or stronger government.
I agree with a lot of PRINCIPLES that libertarians espouse, but the suggested implementations and radical extremes that some people extrapolate to are crazy.
Usually 1973 catalogs look old, so it is fairly obvious that they aren't valid anymore.
It is also not the property of the store once they mail it to you, and they no longer have the right (or ability, for that matter) to change it.
However, if the company sent you a brand-new copy of the 1973 catalog today (like the restaurant sent a brand new copy of the menu from the website) then even having the old date, and a small-print notice that the prices are only good in 1973, might not be enough to get dinged for false advertising.
The Sony MD (which came out with CD's, never really took off, probably because they kept it proprietary, but has made some inroads as an mp3 player medium) is magneto-optical.
They are giving access. Who do you think should fund the access, if not the people that are using it?
The library has nothing to do with whether the pictures are in the public domain or not.
A work being in the public domain doesn't mean that no one will charge you for access to it. It (more-or-less) means that ANYONE can charge for access to it. (See if your local bookstore is giving away free copies of _A Tale of Two Cities_.)
If you think that you can provide the service more cheaply try it. You may have just found out what the "???" stand for in the step before "Profit!".
Quote: "I don't get why publically-funded institutions can charge for their services like this. "
Kind of like paying to pay to get into a tax-subsidized stadium to see a sports event. Kind of like paying tuition at public universities. Kind of like paying for a stamp when the USPS was a part of the government. Kind of like getting a tax assesment to fund the local library. Kind of like paying a sewer bill. Kind of like paying to use a public golf course. Kind of like paying to get into a national or state park. Kind of like paying your dues to the Lions, and donating extra for a certain project. Kind of like paying the parking meter at the national mall. Kind or like paying a toll on a public turnpike/bridge/tunnel.
Quote: "Is this fair?"
Response quote: "Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."
These things may or not be fair, but public libraries charging for non-basic services shouldn't be a big surprise.
Thomas Jefferson, in the first quote on the page you linked to, was not suggesting that people should not be ALLOWED to own ideas. He was stating that it is not possible for people to own (as in, keep other people from thinking them) ideas.
It is very interesting, to me, that Jefferson puts the ownership of the products of the mind on the same level (rights-wise) as ownership of physical property (he uses land as an example). In other words, he thinks the right to own land is no more (or less) inherent than the the right to profit from an invention.
So, from following Jefferson's argument, if it is ethical to make laws allowing you to make copies of my invention, then it is ethical to make laws that allow me to appropriate your computer(s) for my own use.
I think that you're not understanding the market. The cell phone market isn't driven by utility. It's driven by gimmicks. There is no other way to explain people buying $20 (or more) worth of ring tones.
The majority pay more for the new gimmick on the phone than they do for more bandwidth. The gimmicks are cheaper to develop. They are cheaper to introduce. And they are easily replaceable by the next gimmick, since they have no actual usefulness that needs to be maintained.
I just have this picture in my mind of Jason with Medusa's head in a sack, I think from Clash of the Titans.
And another one of someone nonchalantly carrying around this blood-dripping, stinking, rotting 20 lb (9 kg) sack of decaying flesh, and no one notices when he takes out the head to make a phone call.
Handguns are not good at all for hunting, and among (the many) real hunters that I have known they are not popular for hunting. Though they are popular for shooting. Rifles (and shotguns) are good for hunting. Handguns are designed for close range, mostly for killing people.
FUD notwithstanding, this argument strengthens the application of the "right to bear arms" to handguns. It is doubtful that that right was included in the US Constitution to help people hunt.
The real reason they want to charge more is that it will increase the market value of piracy, thus the marketing value of piracy, but not substantially increase what they really lose from piracy.
Example of their current arithmetic: 1,000,000 songs at $0.50 each = $500,000
but, if they charge more it suddnly becomes: 1,000,000 songs at $0.75 each = $750,000
A relatively small amount of thought should convince you that starvation is not caused by insufficient resources, as there is more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet. The food just isn't distributed evenly.
Once you realize that fact it should become apparent to you that getting gain (money, power, fame) unethically is the root of the problem of starvation and oppression.
Philanthropy with ill-gotten gains (of any kind) will never be enough to compensate for the damage done in acquiring them.
This doesn't only apply to multi-billion dollar companies, but to individuals also.
Are evil actions justified by doing good ones actions later? Is theft OK if I use the stolen money for "good"? If I start out good, then become evil, is my earlier good cancelled?
I would suggest that the good that I do doesn't give me the right to do evil. Nor does evil that I do mean that good acts of mine have no virtue.
Confudious was peaceful, and EXTREMELY influential. It seems that his influence is responsible for ending the practice of killing people and horses to bury with dead Chinese emperors, to serve them in the afterlife, among other reforms.
Someone that answered phone sales calls for Sears, before they got rid of their catalog business, was fired for copying down customer credit card numbers and purchasing stuff for themself with them.
True, but it is under (anti-trust) obligation to not exclude a person running an emulator from getting updates to their MS software (like office), even it that obligation hasn't been court tested, yet.
MS says that someone running an emulator can get the updates somewhere else, but it is still a practical exclusion.
The only way to stop advertising is for advertising to stop working. Human nature is unlikely to universally change so fundamentally in the near future.
Slashdot Mirror
I drove several hours to go to Pork-N-More in Farmville, VA.
The most amazing roast beef sandwich on a potato roll that you can imagine.
And the BLT is perfect, and the twice-baked potatoes are very good, and on Fridays the bbq ribs are amazing.
"libertarian != anarchist"
Maybe not, but the hypothetical extreme libertarian examples that I've read are unsustainable and would rapidly change into either anarchy or stronger government.
I agree with a lot of PRINCIPLES that libertarians espouse, but the suggested implementations and radical extremes that some people extrapolate to are crazy.
Usually 1973 catalogs look old, so it is fairly obvious that they aren't valid anymore.
It is also not the property of the store once they mail it to you, and they no longer have the right (or ability, for that matter) to change it.
However, if the company sent you a brand-new copy of the 1973 catalog today (like the restaurant sent a brand new copy of the menu from the website) then even having the old date, and a small-print notice that the prices are only good in 1973, might not be enough to get dinged for false advertising.
The Sony MD (which came out with CD's, never really took off, probably because they kept it proprietary, but has made some inroads as an mp3 player medium) is magneto-optical.
If they're in charge of the elections they don't need to bribe, and can keep the money.
Does OSX run outside the box?
The BOFH hates OS/2, and you DON'T want to make him mad.
They are giving access. Who do you think should fund the access, if not the people that are using it?
The library has nothing to do with whether the pictures are in the public domain or not.
A work being in the public domain doesn't mean that no one will charge you for access to it. It (more-or-less) means that ANYONE can charge for access to it. (See if your local bookstore is giving away free copies of _A Tale of Two Cities_.)
If you think that you can provide the service more cheaply try it. You may have just found out what the "???" stand for in the step before "Profit!".
Quote: "I don't get why publically-funded institutions can charge for their services like this. "
Kind of like paying to pay to get into a tax-subsidized stadium to see a sports event.
Kind of like paying tuition at public universities.
Kind of like paying for a stamp when the USPS was a part of the government.
Kind of like getting a tax assesment to fund the local library.
Kind of like paying a sewer bill.
Kind of like paying to use a public golf course.
Kind of like paying to get into a national or state park.
Kind of like paying your dues to the Lions, and donating extra for a certain project.
Kind of like paying the parking meter at the national mall.
Kind or like paying a toll on a public turnpike/bridge/tunnel.
Quote: "Is this fair?"
Response quote: "Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."
These things may or not be fair, but public libraries charging for non-basic services shouldn't be a big surprise.
I understand and acknowledge the difference between copies and originals. Jefferson's argument, however, does not.
(I'm hoping here, that you merely didn't read my (grandparent) post very closely, and aren't deliberately misinterpreting it.)
Thomas Jefferson, in the first quote on the page you linked to, was not suggesting that people should not be ALLOWED to own ideas. He was stating that it is not possible for people to own (as in, keep other people from thinking them) ideas.
It is very interesting, to me, that Jefferson puts the ownership of the products of the mind on the same level (rights-wise) as ownership of physical property (he uses land as an example). In other words, he thinks the right to own land is no more (or less) inherent than the the right to profit from an invention.
So, from following Jefferson's argument, if it is ethical to make laws allowing you to make copies of my invention, then it is ethical to make laws that allow me to appropriate your computer(s) for my own use.
I think that you're not understanding the market.
The cell phone market isn't driven by utility. It's driven by gimmicks. There is no other way to explain people buying $20 (or more) worth of ring tones.
The majority pay more for the new gimmick on the phone than they do for more bandwidth. The gimmicks are cheaper to develop. They are cheaper to introduce. And they are easily replaceable by the next gimmick, since they have no actual usefulness that needs to be maintained.
I just have this picture in my mind of Jason with Medusa's head in a sack, I think from Clash of the Titans.
And another one of someone nonchalantly carrying around this blood-dripping, stinking, rotting 20 lb (9 kg) sack of decaying flesh, and no one notices when he takes out the head to make a phone call.
Handguns are not good at all for hunting, and among (the many) real hunters that I have known they are not popular for hunting. Though they are popular for shooting.
Rifles (and shotguns) are good for hunting.
Handguns are designed for close range, mostly for killing people.
FUD notwithstanding, this argument strengthens the application of the "right to bear arms" to handguns. It is doubtful that that right was included in the US Constitution to help people hunt.
The major (not only) cause of depression is not doing what you know you should.
The best cure for nearly all depression is doing what you know is right.
(Note: I do not suggest that depression begins and ends in relation to what others think you should do, but in relation to what YOU KNOW is right.)
The real reason they want to charge more is that it will increase the market value of piracy, thus the marketing value of piracy, but not substantially increase what they really lose from piracy.
Example of their current arithmetic:
1,000,000 songs at $0.50 each = $500,000
but, if they charge more it suddnly becomes:
1,000,000 songs at $0.75 each = $750,000
Oh, no! Piracy has just gone up 50%!
Just a thought.
A relatively small amount of thought should convince you that starvation is not caused by insufficient resources, as there is more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet. The food just isn't distributed evenly.
Once you realize that fact it should become apparent to you that getting gain (money, power, fame) unethically is the root of the problem of starvation and oppression.
Philanthropy with ill-gotten gains (of any kind) will never be enough to compensate for the damage done in acquiring them.
This doesn't only apply to multi-billion dollar companies, but to individuals also.
If only the dialog, plotting, characterization, and editing hadn't deteriorated greatly after a few of his books were successful.
The question(s) your post suggests to me is:
Are evil actions justified by doing good ones actions later?
Is theft OK if I use the stolen money for "good"?
If I start out good, then become evil, is my earlier good cancelled?
I would suggest that the good that I do doesn't give me the right to do evil. Nor does evil that I do mean that good acts of mine have no virtue.
Confudious was peaceful, and EXTREMELY influential. It seems that his influence is responsible for ending the practice of killing people and horses to bury with dead Chinese emperors, to serve them in the afterlife, among other reforms.
If the manager is managing technology, he should understand it.
If, however, the manager is managing technologists, he has more need of understanding the people than the technology.
Whatever he manages, the manager needs to recognize his own limitations, and seek advice for things outside his expertise.
Someone that answered phone sales calls for Sears, before they got rid of their catalog business, was fired for copying down customer credit card numbers and purchasing stuff for themself with them.
When I did support for WordPerfect Suite 7 and 8:
Some beta version of IE had a substantial conflict with WP7 (been a while, specifics gone). WP worked around it so WP8 didn't have the conflict.
WP8 came out, and shortly afterward the "final" of that version of IE did too, with a very similar conflict with WP8.
Maybe it was just coincidence.
True, but it is under (anti-trust) obligation to not exclude a person running an emulator from getting updates to their MS software (like office), even it that obligation hasn't been court tested, yet.
MS says that someone running an emulator can get the updates somewhere else, but it is still a practical exclusion.
The only way to stop advertising is for advertising to stop working. Human nature is unlikely to universally change so fundamentally in the near future.