It's hard to believe that a EULA actually violates the law. If it did, why haven't we seen all the big software companies sued into oblivion yet? It seems more likely that the provisions outlined in the EULA would not be legally enforceable - not that it is unlawful to actually put a EULA on a product.
But if it is illegal, then shouldn't somebody be bringing those lawsuits?
Because normal, adjusted people do not prostitute themselves so they can watch TV.
That's a very strange definition of addiction. Why do you use it? The thing is, TV is much easier to come by than drugs. If TV was harder to get, then people would start prostituting themselves for it.
Also, many people use drugs, but do not prostitute themselves for it. Does that mean no drugs are addictive?
Again, it's a question of access. Many people are addicted to coffee. But coffee is easy to get at work. So, people can appear "normal" while having a coffee addiction, because coffee is a "normal" addiction. If you made coffee illegal and hard to obtain, you can bet your ass that people will start sucking dick for coffee.
Click fraud serves those motherfuckers right, for turning an interesting communication medium filled with real communities, into a wasteland of advertising and commercial interests. Most of the advertisers on the internet use fraud (or at least lies and exaggeration) in their own advertising. How can they call foul when someone uses fraud against them?
E-voting machines are specialized computers with known, controlled hardware and limited, controlled software.
Do you know anything about these machines? They ARE general-purpose machines, running Windows - which cannot be considered "limioted, controlled software." They are very much like an office worker's Dell. Probably crappier and less reliable, though.
This whole "slashdot is a Democratic-biased conspiracy against republicans" is about as stupid as posts that contain the word "AmeriKKKa." There are plenty of Republicans and conservatives on slashdot. But instead of engaging in debate, you prefer partisan politics.
Nonsense. Computers do make mistakes. Hardware can go buggy because of temperature issues, a bad batch of silicon, or thousands of other reasons. I'm not sure where you get the idea that computers are flawless and work perfectly from.
Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft does not want people to create PDFs. It wants to create its own, incompatible document format, and have people use that by default, instead of PDF.
Neo-liberal would probably be republican too, considering it's based on a lack of state intervention in the market [wikipedia.org].
That doesn't make any sense, because the Republicans have a huge hard-on for government intervention in the market. Have you been asleep the last few years? National debt has skyrocketed, the government has funded unnecessary wars, bailed out corporations, and given kickbacks to companies like Halliburton. As well as interfering as much as possible in the lives of citizens, and interfering with science, for example stem-cell research.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that Republicans don't like big government intervening in the market.
USB-powered cities
on
USB Batteries
·
· Score: 3, Funny
At the rate things are going, cities will be powered not with nuclear power stations, but by a gigantic laptop, with the grid plugged into the USB port. Better watch out the battery doesn't explode, though.
No, DJs don't use vinyl because of audio quality - they like it because you can play it like an instrument. It has a very direct "user interface" which makes it possible to scratch, play backwards or at different speeds without any technological intervention. Trying to do the same thing with CDs is clumsy and doesn't sound right.
Why, some bright young entrepreneur -- like Michael Dell himself, once upon a time -- will come along and realize he can make a killing in the PC market by exposing all the lies and selling boxes that don't have the fatal weakness.
That's a rather idealistic hope. It'ws pretty unrealistic, as that kind of thing doesn't happen very often. In the time that it takes to happen, those in power could abuse the situation. not to mention that in a Libertarian world, those powers could easily shut that person up or kill them, etc.
Your Michael Dell example is very curious, as Dell basically rode on the backs of what came before, and has definite interests in protecting the industry overall. And he uses the same components as everybody else.
Er...have you actually worked for a company in a competitive industry, or been in business at all, or are you just speaking from pure theory?
Sure I have. And it's frustrating, because usually the innovative lose to the established oligarchies. Just look at Microsoft. There have been many better ways of making an OS, but somehow Microsoft still sells junk to 95% of the computing world. Why hasn't an innovative competitor been able to unseat MS yet?
Their sales forces disparage each other all the time. They watch jealously to see if the other guys have some minute advantage and quickly try to copy it or neutralize it or slander it as quickly as possible.
That's usually pretty superficial. If something came up that threatened a fundamental foundation of the entire industry - they would be sure to band together against the threat. What computer companies fear most is people not buying computers at all. That is more scary than some people choosing a competitor's computer, because there's always a way to win them back. If some kind of super-alternative arose, those companies would quickly work together to launch a FUD campaign against the computer alternative.
Look, if it were that natural for people to just all go along and do what's best for the group, we wouldn't be having a big discussion about global warming, would we?
No, this is exactly why there is atill "debate" about global warming. The established industry have invested themselves in "dirty" technology and wasteful practices. So, they band together to keep making money from them. So, even though there are many more individual humans, the corporations have more power - and those powerful people banding together have managed to stifle solutions and spread disinformation. That's why there is a fuss over global warming.
So you are saying that if you were to make something, you would not own it.
Well, what is it made from? Wood? Who gave you ownership rights of tree? metal? Who gave you mining rights? etc.
You would not be able to exchange it for something else (like food), and anyone could take it from you without giving you anything for it. Hmmm, I think not.
I never argued any of that. I simply questioned the idea of libertarianism being about liberty. Of course, you can do all of those things, but without government, things tend to get pretty hairy - and people can come along and take stuff. If libertarianism WAS about liberty, then it stands to reason that anyone could come along and take stuff you "own" - because there would be no laws to interfere with your liberty. But libertarians disagree with this notion. So, what is Libertarianism really all about?
I would suggest that if you were able to go back in time and try to take a flint from a caveman, you would get a spear in your gut. Try to take a kill from a pack of wolves, you should prepare for teeth, lots of nasty, pointy teeth
Right - and all of those things are much more of an infringement on liberty than the lack of an "ownership" right. Being killed is the ultimate loss of liberty. Also, it seems by this logic, that it is OK for strong guys with guns to take stuff from weak nerds.
But since we have advanced a bit since our caveman days, we delegate that enforcement to government.
And libertarianism is opposed to that. So, people's liberty will be eroded, as the strong and powerful do whatever they like without punishment.
Corporations are not libertarian in nature because they require government, which incidentally is the head of a corporation.
Why do corporations require government? They can be powerful enough to establish their own armies and police forces. On the other hand, the concept of individual ownership DOES require government, because most individuals don't have the power to enforce their own security and right to property, without a government/police force to do it for them. One would have to be obscenely wealthy to enforce one's property rights without government intervention.
If Dell wants to bullshit you about what's inside their boxen, it won't work, not because Michael Dell has a conscience, but because HP and Sony would gleefully jump on the chance to expose the lie in the hopes of stealing Dell's market share.
But what if Dell, HP and Sony all use the same parts in their boxes, and all have a vested interest in bullshitting you? That's how much of the market works - via oligopoly. In other words, strength in numbers. Much like all of the movie studios or record labels working together to spread lies through the RIAA and MPAA. These companies often scratch each others' backs, because they gain more from strengthening the industry as a whole, than they do by competing with each other, or by informing the consumer.
In most ways, these companies are more friendly with each other than they are with the consumer. I don't see Libertarianism changing that. It would just remove and government restrictions on their collusion and dishonesty.
Libertqarians talk a l0ot about liberty, but if you look at the actual belief, it is more about capitalism and business, so called "property rights." As I note downthread, property is at odds with liberty. It's not really natural for anybody to "own" anything, especially non-human entities like corporations. Someone must be deprived of liberty for somebody to own something. And how do you enforce those ownership rights? By asking nicely, or by theatening infringers with loss of liberty?
I turned my office into a den of pyratical intrigue. 'Twas so much fun, that I be extendin' the occassion into Talk Like a Pyrate Week. One day be not enough.
Upon boardin' the IT department, I was shocked to find that nought of those scallywags was speaking the tongue. Ought to be keelhauled, I say. Runnin' a department o marauders and forgetting the day of days? Shiver me timbers!
Slashdot Mirror
But if it is illegal, then shouldn't somebody be bringing those lawsuits?
Please keep your dirty fetishes to yourself. I don't care if you AAGL in the privacy of your own home, but don't do it on slashdot.
That's a very strange definition of addiction. Why do you use it? The thing is, TV is much easier to come by than drugs. If TV was harder to get, then people would start prostituting themselves for it.
Also, many people use drugs, but do not prostitute themselves for it. Does that mean no drugs are addictive?
Again, it's a question of access. Many people are addicted to coffee. But coffee is easy to get at work. So, people can appear "normal" while having a coffee addiction, because coffee is a "normal" addiction. If you made coffee illegal and hard to obtain, you can bet your ass that people will start sucking dick for coffee.
Unscientifically sound? What the heck does that mean?
Damn, I went there looking for recipes. Please stop using misleading domain names.
Click fraud serves those motherfuckers right, for turning an interesting communication medium filled with real communities, into a wasteland of advertising and commercial interests. Most of the advertisers on the internet use fraud (or at least lies and exaggeration) in their own advertising. How can they call foul when someone uses fraud against them?
Wouldn't that make it shortevity?
Do you know anything about these machines? They ARE general-purpose machines, running Windows - which cannot be considered "limioted, controlled software." They are very much like an office worker's Dell. Probably crappier and less reliable, though.
This whole "slashdot is a Democratic-biased conspiracy against republicans" is about as stupid as posts that contain the word "AmeriKKKa." There are plenty of Republicans and conservatives on slashdot. But instead of engaging in debate, you prefer partisan politics.
Nonsense. Computers do make mistakes. Hardware can go buggy because of temperature issues, a bad batch of silicon, or thousands of other reasons. I'm not sure where you get the idea that computers are flawless and work perfectly from.
What happens when jumping the shark jumps the shark? Does it create an anti-gravity machine?
Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft does not want people to create PDFs. It wants to create its own, incompatible document format, and have people use that by default, instead of PDF.
That doesn't make any sense, because the Republicans have a huge hard-on for government intervention in the market. Have you been asleep the last few years? National debt has skyrocketed, the government has funded unnecessary wars, bailed out corporations, and given kickbacks to companies like Halliburton. As well as interfering as much as possible in the lives of citizens, and interfering with science, for example stem-cell research.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that Republicans don't like big government intervening in the market.
At the rate things are going, cities will be powered not with nuclear power stations, but by a gigantic laptop, with the grid plugged into the USB port. Better watch out the battery doesn't explode, though.
No, DJs don't use vinyl because of audio quality - they like it because you can play it like an instrument. It has a very direct "user interface" which makes it possible to scratch, play backwards or at different speeds without any technological intervention. Trying to do the same thing with CDs is clumsy and doesn't sound right.
That's a rather idealistic hope. It'ws pretty unrealistic, as that kind of thing doesn't happen very often. In the time that it takes to happen, those in power could abuse the situation. not to mention that in a Libertarian world, those powers could easily shut that person up or kill them, etc.
Your Michael Dell example is very curious, as Dell basically rode on the backs of what came before, and has definite interests in protecting the industry overall. And he uses the same components as everybody else.
Er...have you actually worked for a company in a competitive industry, or been in business at all, or are you just speaking from pure theory?
Sure I have. And it's frustrating, because usually the innovative lose to the established oligarchies. Just look at Microsoft. There have been many better ways of making an OS, but somehow Microsoft still sells junk to 95% of the computing world. Why hasn't an innovative competitor been able to unseat MS yet?
Their sales forces disparage each other all the time. They watch jealously to see if the other guys have some minute advantage and quickly try to copy it or neutralize it or slander it as quickly as possible.
That's usually pretty superficial. If something came up that threatened a fundamental foundation of the entire industry - they would be sure to band together against the threat. What computer companies fear most is people not buying computers at all. That is more scary than some people choosing a competitor's computer, because there's always a way to win them back. If some kind of super-alternative arose, those companies would quickly work together to launch a FUD campaign against the computer alternative.
Look, if it were that natural for people to just all go along and do what's best for the group, we wouldn't be having a big discussion about global warming, would we?
No, this is exactly why there is atill "debate" about global warming. The established industry have invested themselves in "dirty" technology and wasteful practices. So, they band together to keep making money from them. So, even though there are many more individual humans, the corporations have more power - and those powerful people banding together have managed to stifle solutions and spread disinformation. That's why there is a fuss over global warming.
Well, what is it made from? Wood? Who gave you ownership rights of tree? metal? Who gave you mining rights? etc.
You would not be able to exchange it for something else (like food), and anyone could take it from you without giving you anything for it. Hmmm, I think not.
I never argued any of that. I simply questioned the idea of libertarianism being about liberty. Of course, you can do all of those things, but without government, things tend to get pretty hairy - and people can come along and take stuff. If libertarianism WAS about liberty, then it stands to reason that anyone could come along and take stuff you "own" - because there would be no laws to interfere with your liberty. But libertarians disagree with this notion. So, what is Libertarianism really all about?
I would suggest that if you were able to go back in time and try to take a flint from a caveman, you would get a spear in your gut. Try to take a kill from a pack of wolves, you should prepare for teeth, lots of nasty, pointy teeth
Right - and all of those things are much more of an infringement on liberty than the lack of an "ownership" right. Being killed is the ultimate loss of liberty. Also, it seems by this logic, that it is OK for strong guys with guns to take stuff from weak nerds.
But since we have advanced a bit since our caveman days, we delegate that enforcement to government.
And libertarianism is opposed to that. So, people's liberty will be eroded, as the strong and powerful do whatever they like without punishment.
Why do corporations require government? They can be powerful enough to establish their own armies and police forces. On the other hand, the concept of individual ownership DOES require government, because most individuals don't have the power to enforce their own security and right to property, without a government/police force to do it for them. One would have to be obscenely wealthy to enforce one's property rights without government intervention.
So, why did you say "I hat buying music from iTunes" if you don't buy music from iTunes?
But what if Dell, HP and Sony all use the same parts in their boxes, and all have a vested interest in bullshitting you? That's how much of the market works - via oligopoly. In other words, strength in numbers. Much like all of the movie studios or record labels working together to spread lies through the RIAA and MPAA. These companies often scratch each others' backs, because they gain more from strengthening the industry as a whole, than they do by competing with each other, or by informing the consumer.
In most ways, these companies are more friendly with each other than they are with the consumer. I don't see Libertarianism changing that. It would just remove and government restrictions on their collusion and dishonesty.
So tell me - how do you provide law & order, without the power to deny anyone their liberty?
Libertqarians talk a l0ot about liberty, but if you look at the actual belief, it is more about capitalism and business, so called "property rights." As I note downthread, property is at odds with liberty. It's not really natural for anybody to "own" anything, especially non-human entities like corporations. Someone must be deprived of liberty for somebody to own something. And how do you enforce those ownership rights? By asking nicely, or by theatening infringers with loss of liberty?
Property is essentially the opposite to liberty. So, I'm not sure why libertarians bang on about freedom, when what they really want is ownership.
Those promoting global warming? You mean, like the big oil companies and other people who want to accelerate humanity's destruction?
Upon boardin' the IT department, I was shocked to find that nought of those scallywags was speaking the tongue. Ought to be keelhauled, I say. Runnin' a department o marauders and forgetting the day of days? Shiver me timbers!