The world today is worse than it was 100 years ago. The food isn't as good, as a result, cancer and heart disease are more popular now. The water isnt good, and overall there is more misery in the world.
There is more misery in 2006 than there was in 1906. I admit, that during the 1920s-30s or so, there were some tough times, but we will face tough times as well. The laws swing back and forth, perhaps the laws have changed, but personality types are basically the same because knowledge has not increased on the individual level. People don't read enough, people don't go to college enough, and in general ignorance is the difference now.
100 years ago, the knowledge gap was nothing like it is now. The gap between knowledge and class is higher than its ever been due to the digital divide, the broken public school system, and the high cost of college education.
We have made some improvements, we have a stronger military than ever. We have the most sophisticated security in the entire world. We have the greatest economy in the history of humanity, and have gone to the moon. There are some high points, but we arent focused on space tourism, or building houses under the ocean, on the moon, on mars, we arent focused on making any improvements at this time. Technology may be improving but society is the same as it has been since the 1980s. We don't have flying cars. We don't have a solution to an astriod hitting us from space but we actually think we can build a missle defense system. We have a lot of work to do, and I don't think we are focusing on the survival of America, the American way of life, and of the species itself. If we don't focus on our own survival and on our neighbors survival, eventually we will simply die out. If we don't build a better world for our childrens children then there will be no world, and until you or some politician shows me the plan, I don't think there will be a future.
It's simple, show me the plan for the future, and I'll have hope. If all I see is peak oil, global warming, wars, and bad food, sorry but I don't see any hope, especially when you add nanotechnology and a huge increase of poverty/criminality. We arent even creating high paying jobs, and if we arent going to create jobs then we are going to create criminals.
I know what you are trying to say, but its a matter of surviving the global warming peak oil economic collapse. Look at how the third world looks now, thats how life will be for our children. Starvation, disease, and many other things will be more common, life will be much shorter than it is now.
The near future, or at least the next 100 years, will be filled with wars, bad weather, bad food, etc. If you manage to survive you might get to see things improve, but most of us wont survive, its just the odds.
The hunter gatherer instinct is only one method of survival. Some humans evolved into farmers, created tribal communities complete with democracies and chiefs, and this moved on into formal governments. It may have started as hunter gatherer, but thats just one type of human. There are definately others ways to survive.
Hunter Gatherers have the advantage only when theres something to hunt. When theres nothing to hunt, the hunter gatherers hunt each other. It took the evolution of farmers to prevent humanity from hunting itself into extinction, and it will take further evolution to prevent it again, however I doubt we have enough time due to the pace technology is moving. While some of us would use the technology to live for a longer time.
Maybe hunter gatherers should play more first person shooters, perhaps virtual war is better than real wars. It's definately safer. I think if we can survive peak oil and global warming, then we have a chance to move a more virtual playing field.
I never said a violent revolution. I'm saying if you have a chip in you and you are watched 24/7, you'll be too afraid of your boss to even think of revolution.
Revolution? By who? Some computer geeks on the internet? Most people don't care about cyberspace, maybe thats why theres so much freedom in cyberspace, but what happens once people decide to control cyberspace?
I don't think there will be a revolution, but hey if there is a revolution, I won't be a party of it. The revolution will be rich millionaire vs rich millionaire, it will be Bill Gates vs Rockefeller vs Larry Page vs Warner vs whoever is in the billionaire boys club. I guarentee you that you'll have nothing to do with it because you don't have the money to bribe politicians, hire lobbyists, and I doubt you have the political wit to even control your state party or even your block. Look, some street gang controls your block, then the mayor controls them, then the governor controls the mayor, and so on. You know the system. You are a civilian, so unless you control a billion dollar corporation, you arent going to get far leading a revolution.
I suggest you change your mind, I'd hate to see you end up in some prison getting tortured all day and night. Is it worth it? Years of torture? How does that sound?
Human nature is both self destructive, and self healing.
Right now, death is better than life for the majority of our grandchildren, so we simply will cease to exist as we use up all the earths resources.
The other option is if we decide to exist and live in a utopia, but this is not going to happen unless people choose that, and right now people would rather die than live like that. Sad but true.
Humans enjoy being miserable slaves. We like working 40 hours a week, and more importantly, we like making someone else work 80 hours a week so we can feel better about our 40 hours a week. We like hard work as long as someone else has to work twice as hard. We like being happy as long as in the process we make others miserable. We like to accomplish our goals and win as long as others lose and are homeless.
Lets face it, we like creating the world we are creating, we like it, else we wouldnt be doing it. If we collectively wanted a better world, then why do we collectively like having wars, like creating poverty, like creating ignorance, like to starve children, and eat our young?
In one sentence, we are cannibals.
Ok enough bashing my species, on the other side, a small small 10% want to live in peace, take care of each other and survive, but will that 10% be able to survive when all the air, water, food, gives cancer?
I don't know, but if we want answers, we have to actually be looking for them, and I doubt even the majority of slashdot wants answers beyond profiting and buying a new car.
I don't mean to insult women, I love women, but lets be honest here. Society is run by men not women. When there is a female president, that is when women are truly free. When Hilary Clinton wins the election, this is when women are people.
Currently, women are just property, as are minorities and anyone who does not make millions. Look, if you arent a millionaire by now, you should choose your slave master, because in federalism, you are someone elses property, and you own property.
Who owns who, is defined and decided by how much money and power you have.
I suppose there is more security in a world where everyone is owned by someone else.
No, most crimes are commited by white males. Black males just happen to get caught most often.
If Black people were commiting all the crimes, then I'm sure your boss would be Black and African tribes would be telling you how to live your life.
Most criminals don't get caught, only the low hanging fruit gets caught. Most criminals, the smart ones, simply learn to bend the law, change the law, or bribe the law. Either way, the real criminals arent going to be caught because we don't want to lose our job. If you catch the real criminals, like those Enron guys, all that will happen is they'll get a day in jail, and the people who convicted them, the jury, the judge, these people will get life in jail.
In the end, the criminals always win and the good guys always lose. It's the exact opposite from the BS disney movies you grew up watching.
Look, slavery never ended, racism never ended, poverty never ended, and peoples minds havent changed much. People still think the same, the same personality types dominate, and nothing much has changed.
Now that the obvious has been stated, accept that you are going to either be a slave or a slave master, and figure out how to profit so you can buy your freedom before you go into debt.
You sound like a terrorist. If you want a revolution, go to Cube or talk to Hugo Chavez, but it's ridiculous for you to even think of revolution here. It's even more stupid to post your thoughts on Slashdot, I mean if you are a terrorist you arent a very smart terrorist.
There will be no revolution. The reason? People don't want a revolution. The people on the internet complaining about civil liberties arent the people who actually care about civil liberties. The people who actually care about civil liberties are in prison.
Face it, if you want more freedom, you'll go straight to jail, so just accept having no freedom and be a good citizen. It's what our parents wanted all along isnt it?
Your logic if it makes sense, well America shouldnt be the best because we always cooperate during times of war, and always seem to win. So now you are saying we shouldnt have a strong military?
Strong military means cooperation, because you cannot have a strong defense if you have no unity, if its every man, woman, child, for his or herself, what you have here is exactly that, every man, woman, child, for his or herself, a giant prison.
Look in prison to see how life is when the strongest compete with each other.
Look at a corporation like Google to see when the strongest cooperate with each other.
You can make more money by cooperating with Microsoft than by competition. You can make more money by buying Microsoft and forming a super company than by competition. If what you say is to make any sense then it has to apply to corporations not just individuals.
You have your opinion, but if you post something like that please back it up with something. Otherwise you'll basically have Slashdot rate you as troll and turn against you in unity.
Maybe its our job to make sure they do. Perhaps it is better if corporations are given more power and rights than people. What if the corporations deserve these rights and individuals don't?
Yes some CEO's are dictators, not all. You can be any kinda CEO you want, if you don't like how the other CEO's govern their companies, start your own company.
Every economy works on bribes. You think bribery does not exist in America? This is as crazy as thinking crime only exists in foreign countries. Anyone involved in any business or job knows that bribery not only exists, but it's part of the system itself.
This is bigger than politics, this is about money. Google represents a lot of money for a lot of people, millions of people. If you own Google stock, or if you want to get rich in the tech industry, your success depends on the success of companies like Google.
The Government is simply the top of the country, the people who are awake. If you are in the technology industry, then your government is Google, Microsoft and whichever corporations are most profitable at that period of time. It's that simple.
You arent going to have ethical government if corporations arent ethical. I'm all for ethics, but the majority of consumers don't really think before they shop, or invest, they only think about the moment and how to profit in the now, not really caring what happens in 5 years.
If you want this to change, then invest in companies which have your values and ethics, and work for a company which has your values and ethics. I don't think it's wise however for the industry to attack itself, if Google and Cisco are attacked, it does NOT make America stronger, it does NOT make this country more stable. When the stock market goes crazy, that is NOT good, at least not while its happening.
If you'd like to be smart, wait for all the companies Google has pissed off to attack Google and make their stock price go down, and then buy stock. You'll profit in the longterm because Google is a good investment no matter what the ethics say.
Ultimately, ethics matter to most of us when it has to do with us personally, and for the majority of us, most of us are more concerned about whats going on over here than what happens to people in China. I mean really, do you care more about workplace standards in China than about workplace standards in America?
This does not make any sense to me. Google actually hires American workers, not Chinese, so why do I care if Google censors in China?
Out of all the companies we decide to declare anti-American, Google is the first company that comes to your mind?! You have many companies which hire slave labor in China, and there are no huge slashdot debates about human rights when this happens. You have many big companies that outsource American jobs to China, and no one does anything about it. You have many situations where companies hire illiegal immigrant workers in this country and no one calls these companies or practices anti-American, and then we have one company which just happens to disobey the US-Government, and suddenly this makes them anti-American?
It's not like China was telling Google to turn over their trade secrets to Yahoo and Microsoft. It's not like China is suing individual users who bypass the filter. Sure it's a filtered internet in China, yes censorship is bad, but the words you choose to use to make your arguement make it seem like you are Chinese. Do you really care about human rights in China? Do you care about human rights in America? Are you really against censorship? Be honest.
It's fine to stand up for principles you actually have, but this post of yours looks political, and thats fine if you admit its a political position you hold and not simply ethical. Of all the corporations with ethical problems, I just find it interesting that Google, and all the technology companies are being singled out. This is slashdot, some people here work for Google, Cisco, and half of these companies mentioned, and if we don't, then our businesses depend on these companies. There are entire industries at stake here, so it's bigger than partisanship in my opinion. Google may not be ethical 100% of the time, but Google is an American company, which hires American workers, and which is making lots of Americans rich as hell with their stock, their advertising, etc.
Well then the recording companies should charge more for their Cds. I don't think its fair to tell people they cannot rent their DVD's our after they buy the license. Now if they simply change the license and raise the price, thats fine, thats between the RIAA and Apple.
If the price of Cds are raised to $20, fair enough, if the price of CDs are raised to $50, fair enough, download your $50 CD and re-sell it for $70-100 to get your money back.
Looks like the videostore industry has to be outlawed. I mean since you arent actually paying for the video when you rent it, they are actually video pirates.
Look, the video rental industry has something to lose here if the laws are changed. There are industries at stake here, so its a much more serious issue than piracy.
Which congress are you talking about? State congress? which state?
As far as the music industry goes, if you want to launch an investigation into the music industry, you won't be doing it from congress because the music industry has more lobbyists than the tech industry.
When Google decides to investigate the music industry, that will be the end of the music industry. It's simple, Google simply has to give up the search information on specific industry execs to the state, federal government, or the media and that would be the investigation.
Honestly, I'd prefer if politics were left out of the music industry so I can enjoy music, but I suppose if you own stock in Google or in the traditional media companies, you might have something at stake here besides just a few CDs and your ipod.
IF we are buying the license, then we should have the ability to sell the license to someone else.
This will certainly be taken to court. Look, if you purchase a car, and your car company expects you to pay insurance to protect your car, but suddenly the state tries to claim that they actually own your car and that you only can purchase a license to drive it, and to top it off you don't even own the license, I'm sorry but thats just robbery.
If you pay for a license but don't gain any rights, if you buy an ipod and purchase the music, but somehow you don't have the right to resell the music, then what are you purchasing?
When the time comes where we have to buy licenses to breathe air and drink water, and some company comes along and strips you of your license, well I guess you'll just die.
It's one thing to allow the traditional recording industries to exist, by buying their music on ipod, but its another to give them the right to strip you of ownership, if you are basically providing welfare for these record companies, then if they were wise they'd actually be sitting down at the table to make a deal with Apple, and with consumers.
If they refuse to sit at the table, then Apple and consumers will eventually replace them with companies who do respect the right to sell Ipods on Ebay. To be frank, they are over-reaching here, and its hurting them over and over again. You cannot maintain a monopoly by force. Google is smart enough to know that the best way to maintain their monopoly is by actually putting the consumer first. The artists know this too, they make music that their fans want because they have to sell both CDs and concert tickets.
Look, here are our options, either we can have a fake corporatized art and music industry, where corporate bosses tell artists what music to make, and then tell consumers what music to buy, and then force both the artist and consumer to be caught in a loop similar to Microsofts tactics, or we the artists, consumers, CEOs, programmers and lawyers can get together and decide to offer an alternative.
Ipod, Itunes, Google, Open Source, GPL, GNU, Creative Commons, these are some of the alternatives. If the traditional industries were smart, they'd simply adapt to the market instead of trying to control it. The market ultimately cannot be controlled, and the more control you try to put on the market, the bigger you make the market for any competition which decides to offer freedom as a product. So it's simply, the recording industry is helping to fund new freedom industries and freedom based products.
The world isnt black and white, its yes and no. 60% yes or 60% no.
why would you pigeonhole people into "us" and "them", based on such crude criterea? wouldn't you agree that this is not exactly the best strategy to get the best out of interaction with others?
Because people are usually either one way or the other based on percentages. Even if the world isnt black and white, people are what they do based on how much they do it. If a person lies more than they are honest, they are a liar. If a person talks more than they think to themselves, they are an extrovert. If a person thinks more than they talk, they are an introvert.
It's always us vs them, not because I choose for it to be that way, but because people refuse to actually get along and cooperate. Why do you think money was invented? Why do you think the concept of winners and losers was invented? Why do you think war was invented? All of these things were invented because people want the world not to be "us" vs "them", but "me" vs "world".
So its questionable if there is even an us, but if there is an us, its those who want to cooperate vs those who want to compete.
The problem is the flu being carried to America by the birds. What makes you think bird flu will spread when everyone knows about it? SARs never got here.
Slashdot Mirror
The world today is worse than it was 100 years ago. The food isn't as good, as a result, cancer and heart disease are more popular now. The water isnt good, and overall there is more misery in the world.
There is more misery in 2006 than there was in 1906. I admit, that during the 1920s-30s or so, there were some tough times, but we will face tough times as well. The laws swing back and forth, perhaps the laws have changed, but personality types are basically the same because knowledge has not increased on the individual level. People don't read enough, people don't go to college enough, and in general ignorance is the difference now.
100 years ago, the knowledge gap was nothing like it is now. The gap between knowledge and class is higher than its ever been due to the digital divide, the broken public school system, and the high cost of college education.
We have made some improvements, we have a stronger military than ever. We have the most sophisticated security in the entire world. We have the greatest economy in the history of humanity, and have gone to the moon. There are some high points, but we arent focused on space tourism, or building houses under the ocean, on the moon, on mars, we arent focused on making any improvements at this time. Technology may be improving but society is the same as it has been since the 1980s. We don't have flying cars. We don't have a solution to an astriod hitting us from space but we actually think we can build a missle defense system. We have a lot of work to do, and I don't think we are focusing on the survival of America, the American way of life, and of the species itself. If we don't focus on our own survival and on our neighbors survival, eventually we will simply die out. If we don't build a better world for our childrens children then there will be no world, and until you or some politician shows me the plan, I don't think there will be a future.
It's simple, show me the plan for the future, and I'll have hope. If all I see is peak oil, global warming, wars, and bad food, sorry but I don't see any hope, especially when you add nanotechnology and a huge increase of poverty/criminality. We arent even creating high paying jobs, and if we arent going to create jobs then we are going to create criminals.
I know what you are trying to say, but its a matter of surviving the global warming peak oil economic collapse. Look at how the third world looks now, thats how life will be for our children. Starvation, disease, and many other things will be more common, life will be much shorter than it is now.
The near future, or at least the next 100 years, will be filled with wars, bad weather, bad food, etc. If you manage to survive you might get to see things improve, but most of us wont survive, its just the odds.
The hunter gatherer instinct is only one method of survival. Some humans evolved into farmers, created tribal communities complete with democracies and chiefs, and this moved on into formal governments. It may have started as hunter gatherer, but thats just one type of human. There are definately others ways to survive.
Hunter Gatherers have the advantage only when theres something to hunt. When theres nothing to hunt, the hunter gatherers hunt each other. It took the evolution of farmers to prevent humanity from hunting itself into extinction, and it will take further evolution to prevent it again, however I doubt we have enough time due to the pace technology is moving. While some of us would use the technology to live for a longer time.
Maybe hunter gatherers should play more first person shooters, perhaps virtual war is better than real wars. It's definately safer. I think if we can survive peak oil and global warming, then we have a chance to move a more virtual playing field.
I never said a violent revolution. I'm saying if you have a chip in you and you are watched 24/7, you'll be too afraid of your boss to even think of revolution.
Revolution? By who? Some computer geeks on the internet? Most people don't care about cyberspace, maybe thats why theres so much freedom in cyberspace, but what happens once people decide to control cyberspace?
I don't think there will be a revolution, but hey if there is a revolution, I won't be a party of it. The revolution will be rich millionaire vs rich millionaire, it will be Bill Gates vs Rockefeller vs Larry Page vs Warner vs whoever is in the billionaire boys club. I guarentee you that you'll have nothing to do with it because you don't have the money to bribe politicians, hire lobbyists, and I doubt you have the political wit to even control your state party or even your block. Look, some street gang controls your block, then the mayor controls them, then the governor controls the mayor, and so on. You know the system. You are a civilian, so unless you control a billion dollar corporation, you arent going to get far leading a revolution.
I suggest you change your mind, I'd hate to see you end up in some prison getting tortured all day and night. Is it worth it? Years of torture? How does that sound?
Human nature is both self destructive, and self healing.
Right now, death is better than life for the majority of our grandchildren, so we simply will cease to exist as we use up all the earths resources.
The other option is if we decide to exist and live in a utopia, but this is not going to happen unless people choose that, and right now people would rather die than live like that. Sad but true.
Humans enjoy being miserable slaves. We like working 40 hours a week, and more importantly, we like making someone else work 80 hours a week so we can feel better about our 40 hours a week. We like hard work as long as someone else has to work twice as hard. We like being happy as long as in the process we make others miserable. We like to accomplish our goals and win as long as others lose and are homeless.
Lets face it, we like creating the world we are creating, we like it, else we wouldnt be doing it. If we collectively wanted a better world, then why do we collectively like having wars, like creating poverty, like creating ignorance, like to starve children, and eat our young?
In one sentence, we are cannibals.
Ok enough bashing my species, on the other side, a small small 10% want to live in peace, take care of each other and survive, but will that 10% be able to survive when all the air, water, food, gives cancer?
I don't know, but if we want answers, we have to actually be looking for them, and I doubt even the majority of slashdot wants answers beyond profiting and buying a new car.
I don't mean to insult women, I love women, but lets be honest here. Society is run by men not women. When there is a female president, that is when women are truly free. When Hilary Clinton wins the election, this is when women are people.
Currently, women are just property, as are minorities and anyone who does not make millions. Look, if you arent a millionaire by now, you should choose your slave master, because in federalism, you are someone elses property, and you own property.
Who owns who, is defined and decided by how much money and power you have.
I suppose there is more security in a world where everyone is owned by someone else.
No, most crimes are commited by white males. Black males just happen to get caught most often.
If Black people were commiting all the crimes, then I'm sure your boss would be Black and African tribes would be telling you how to live your life.
Most criminals don't get caught, only the low hanging fruit gets caught. Most criminals, the smart ones, simply learn to bend the law, change the law, or bribe the law. Either way, the real criminals arent going to be caught because we don't want to lose our job. If you catch the real criminals, like those Enron guys, all that will happen is they'll get a day in jail, and the people who convicted them, the jury, the judge, these people will get life in jail.
In the end, the criminals always win and the good guys always lose. It's the exact opposite from the BS disney movies you grew up watching.
Look, slavery never ended, racism never ended, poverty never ended, and peoples minds havent changed much. People still think the same, the same personality types dominate, and nothing much has changed.
Now that the obvious has been stated, accept that you are going to either be a slave or a slave master, and figure out how to profit so you can buy your freedom before you go into debt.
You sound like a terrorist. If you want a revolution, go to Cube or talk to Hugo Chavez, but it's ridiculous for you to even think of revolution here. It's even more stupid to post your thoughts on Slashdot, I mean if you are a terrorist you arent a very smart terrorist.
There will be no revolution. The reason? People don't want a revolution. The people on the internet complaining about civil liberties arent the people who actually care about civil liberties. The people who actually care about civil liberties are in prison.
Face it, if you want more freedom, you'll go straight to jail, so just accept having no freedom and be a good citizen. It's what our parents wanted all along isnt it?
I don't see what the big deal is. Why should we run out of fish? Just create more. Why should we only fish in one lake?
Your logic if it makes sense, well America shouldnt be the best because we always cooperate during times of war, and always seem to win. So now you are saying we shouldnt have a strong military?
Strong military means cooperation, because you cannot have a strong defense if you have no unity, if its every man, woman, child, for his or herself, what you have here is exactly that, every man, woman, child, for his or herself, a giant prison.
Look in prison to see how life is when the strongest compete with each other.
Look at a corporation like Google to see when the strongest cooperate with each other.
You can make more money by cooperating with Microsoft than by competition. You can make more money by buying Microsoft and forming a super company than by competition. If what you say is to make any sense then it has to apply to corporations not just individuals.
You have your opinion, but if you post something like that please back it up with something. Otherwise you'll basically have Slashdot rate you as troll and turn against you in unity.
Maybe its our job to make sure they do. Perhaps it is better if corporations are given more power and rights than people. What if the corporations deserve these rights and individuals don't?
Yes some CEO's are dictators, not all. You can be any kinda CEO you want, if you don't like how the other CEO's govern their companies, start your own company.
I understand your point of view now. I wish I could say that you were right and the dollar exists to serve us, but thats not really how things seem.
Every economy works on bribes. You think bribery does not exist in America? This is as crazy as thinking crime only exists in foreign countries. Anyone involved in any business or job knows that bribery not only exists, but it's part of the system itself.
Google could just move headquarters to another country and be immune to the law. They won't have to pay any taxes either.
This is bigger than politics, this is about money. Google represents a lot of money for a lot of people, millions of people. If you own Google stock, or if you want to get rich in the tech industry, your success depends on the success of companies like Google.
The Government is simply the top of the country, the people who are awake. If you are in the technology industry, then your government is Google, Microsoft and whichever corporations are most profitable at that period of time. It's that simple.
You arent going to have ethical government if corporations arent ethical. I'm all for ethics, but the majority of consumers don't really think before they shop, or invest, they only think about the moment and how to profit in the now, not really caring what happens in 5 years.
If you want this to change, then invest in companies which have your values and ethics, and work for a company which has your values and ethics. I don't think it's wise however for the industry to attack itself, if Google and Cisco are attacked, it does NOT make America stronger, it does NOT make this country more stable. When the stock market goes crazy, that is NOT good, at least not while its happening.
If you'd like to be smart, wait for all the companies Google has pissed off to attack Google and make their stock price go down, and then buy stock. You'll profit in the longterm because Google is a good investment no matter what the ethics say.
Ultimately, ethics matter to most of us when it has to do with us personally, and for the majority of us, most of us are more concerned about whats going on over here than what happens to people in China. I mean really, do you care more about workplace standards in China than about workplace standards in America?
This does not make any sense to me. Google actually hires American workers, not Chinese, so why do I care if Google censors in China?
Out of all the companies we decide to declare anti-American, Google is the first company that comes to your mind?! You have many companies which hire slave labor in China, and there are no huge slashdot debates about human rights when this happens. You have many big companies that outsource American jobs to China, and no one does anything about it. You have many situations where companies hire illiegal immigrant workers in this country and no one calls these companies or practices anti-American, and then we have one company which just happens to disobey the US-Government, and suddenly this makes them anti-American?
It's not like China was telling Google to turn over their trade secrets to Yahoo and Microsoft. It's not like China is suing individual users who bypass the filter. Sure it's a filtered internet in China, yes censorship is bad, but the words you choose to use to make your arguement make it seem like you are Chinese. Do you really care about human rights in China? Do you care about human rights in America? Are you really against censorship? Be honest.
It's fine to stand up for principles you actually have, but this post of yours looks political, and thats fine if you admit its a political position you hold and not simply ethical. Of all the corporations with ethical problems, I just find it interesting that Google, and all the technology companies are being singled out. This is slashdot, some people here work for Google, Cisco, and half of these companies mentioned, and if we don't, then our businesses depend on these companies. There are entire industries at stake here, so it's bigger than partisanship in my opinion. Google may not be ethical 100% of the time, but Google is an American company, which hires American workers, and which is making lots of Americans rich as hell with their stock, their advertising, etc.
Well then the recording companies should charge more for their Cds. I don't think its fair to tell people they cannot rent their DVD's our after they buy the license. Now if they simply change the license and raise the price, thats fine, thats between the RIAA and Apple.
If the price of Cds are raised to $20, fair enough, if the price of CDs are raised to $50, fair enough, download your $50 CD and re-sell it for $70-100 to get your money back.
Looks like the videostore industry has to be outlawed. I mean since you arent actually paying for the video when you rent it, they are actually video pirates.
Look, the video rental industry has something to lose here if the laws are changed. There are industries at stake here, so its a much more serious issue than piracy.
Well
Which congress are you talking about? State congress? which state?
As far as the music industry goes, if you want to launch an investigation into the music industry, you won't be doing it from congress because the music industry has more lobbyists than the tech industry.
When Google decides to investigate the music industry, that will be the end of the music industry. It's simple, Google simply has to give up the search information on specific industry execs to the state, federal government, or the media and that would be the investigation.
Honestly, I'd prefer if politics were left out of the music industry so I can enjoy music, but I suppose if you own stock in Google or in the traditional media companies, you might have something at stake here besides just a few CDs and your ipod.
IF we are buying the license, then we should have the ability to sell the license to someone else.
This will certainly be taken to court. Look, if you purchase a car, and your car company expects you to pay insurance to protect your car, but suddenly the state tries to claim that they actually own your car and that you only can purchase a license to drive it, and to top it off you don't even own the license, I'm sorry but thats just robbery.
If you pay for a license but don't gain any rights, if you buy an ipod and purchase the music, but somehow you don't have the right to resell the music, then what are you purchasing?
When the time comes where we have to buy licenses to breathe air and drink water, and some company comes along and strips you of your license, well I guess you'll just die.
It's one thing to allow the traditional recording industries to exist, by buying their music on ipod, but its another to give them the right to strip you of ownership, if you are basically providing welfare for these record companies, then if they were wise they'd actually be sitting down at the table to make a deal with Apple, and with consumers.
If they refuse to sit at the table, then Apple and consumers will eventually replace them with companies who do respect the right to sell Ipods on Ebay. To be frank, they are over-reaching here, and its hurting them over and over again. You cannot maintain a monopoly by force. Google is smart enough to know that the best way to maintain their monopoly is by actually putting the consumer first. The artists know this too, they make music that their fans want because they have to sell both CDs and concert tickets.
Look, here are our options, either we can have a fake corporatized art and music industry, where corporate bosses tell artists what music to make, and then tell consumers what music to buy, and then force both the artist and consumer to be caught in a loop similar to Microsofts tactics, or we the artists, consumers, CEOs, programmers and lawyers can get together and decide to offer an alternative.
Ipod, Itunes, Google, Open Source, GPL, GNU, Creative Commons, these are some of the alternatives. If the traditional industries were smart, they'd simply adapt to the market instead of trying to control it. The market ultimately cannot be controlled, and the more control you try to put on the market, the bigger you make the market for any competition which decides to offer freedom as a product. So it's simply, the recording industry is helping to fund new freedom industries and freedom based products.
The world isnt black and white, its yes and no. 60% yes or 60% no.
why would you pigeonhole people into "us" and "them", based on such crude criterea? wouldn't you agree that this is not exactly the best strategy to get the best out of interaction with others?
Because people are usually either one way or the other based on percentages. Even if the world isnt black and white, people are what they do based on how much they do it. If a person lies more than they are honest, they are a liar. If a person talks more than they think to themselves, they are an extrovert. If a person thinks more than they talk, they are an introvert.
It's always us vs them, not because I choose for it to be that way, but because people refuse to actually get along and cooperate. Why do you think money was invented? Why do you think the concept of winners and losers was invented? Why do you think war was invented? All of these things were invented because people want the world not to be "us" vs "them", but "me" vs "world".
So its questionable if there is even an us, but if there is an us, its those who want to cooperate vs those who want to compete.
The problem is the flu being carried to America by the birds. What makes you think bird flu will spread when everyone knows about it? SARs never got here.
I see no point in voting at all when its done the diebold way. Do you know what Dieb means in german?
I mean its so damn obvious that its funny.