The sad thing is, that the 'good parents' you speak of are in a sad state of shortage these days.
I agree, but the solution is not to stop businesses from making children want their products. The solution is to spread the right ideas (like personal responsibility) that lead to good parenting.
What ever happened to equality under the law? You're suggesting that once a company becomes too big (i.e., too successful), they must have special restrictions placed on them. In other words, equality of results. Not exactly a successful (or particularly moral) idea when implemented, as history should indicate.
New technology being thought of in terms of how much you can make a child coerce its parent into buying cereal?
How does a child "coerce" his or her parent? Yes, children can whine and scream, but a good parent asserts authority and simply says "no." It's called personal responsibility.
Stop blaming McDonalds for making your kids fat, people! You're the one who bought the food!
This is in response to tepples too, since he also argues about the discounts.
Sir, offering discounts to manufacturers who install Windows exclusively is emphatically not mafia-like activity. I'm sure you also believe Walmart's enticingly low prices "forces" people to go there instead of their mom-n-pop stores.
I am apalled that anti-Microsoft sentiment has led people to these extremes. This is normal business activity, and it happens everywhere. Manufacturers can turn down the discount deal if they want - the fact that they don't simply means they *gasp* want to make money.
Please stop parroting the MS marketing speak; MS Office isn't running on most PC's because the consumers chose to use it, but because the PC manufactures preinstalled it.
This still leaves open the question of why PC makers preinstall their software and none others. Clue: it's not because the MS Mafia forced them to.
Google owns its servers - it's called the "right to property." It can block porn from them if it wants to. When the GOVERNMENT censors, it tells OTHER people what to do with their own property. In one case, property rights are respected; in the other case, they're violated.
I won't speak for HoboMaster, but I certainly think so, and I resent the appeal to intimidation Bogtha made when he said "only trolls and ignorant people could claim that the UN is not worth supporting."
The UN lacks standards - it gives the most disgusting regimes the dignity of a soapbox, all for the sake of "neutrality." Whatever good they do for the poor is eclipsed by the sanction they give to the world's murderers.
You know, you'd do well to clarify yourself, because it sounds like you're saying we shouldn't devise our way of living in our head. Is there another body part you'd prefer?
For the record, Ayn Rand would be proud of your assessment of libertarians.
As for the question of whether the state will start regulating more than just consigners, you don't need to read a 1,000+ page book for the answer. You just need common sense.
Ever notice that every practice of communism is never the "true" communism? You, sir, need to check your premises. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" always turns out to mean "dictatorship of the man claiming to be the voice of the proleteriat." Call him the leader, der Fuhrer, or il Duce.
There is an odd number of reds on Slashdot. Wonder why.
(FYI: I'm the one who's been writing the last two replies.)
i am not expecting that an item i buy metamorphize into another item totally.
I don't think you got the point of my example. The absurdity of demanding a pony after buying a lamb is that you knew it was a lamb. Nobody committed fraud against you.
When you buy a gaming console, you know it prevents you from doing some things you may want to do. Again, nobody is committing fraud or being "dishonest."
artificial restrictions against the owner of the product is pure evil.
And it is within your right to boycot such a company. You may not like the way they are maufacturing their products, but to suggest using the force (in this case, the law) to take care of things you dislike is what gangs do, not free, civilized societies.
Slashdot Mirror
The sad thing is, that the 'good parents' you speak of are in a sad state of shortage these days.
I agree, but the solution is not to stop businesses from making children want their products. The solution is to spread the right ideas (like personal responsibility) that lead to good parenting.
What ever happened to equality under the law? You're suggesting that once a company becomes too big (i.e., too successful), they must have special restrictions placed on them. In other words, equality of results. Not exactly a successful (or particularly moral) idea when implemented, as history should indicate.
Sorry, that should read: Children can't "coerce" their parents
New technology being thought of in terms of how much you can make a child coerce its parent into buying cereal?
How does a child "coerce" his or her parent? Yes, children can whine and scream, but a good parent asserts authority and simply says "no." It's called personal responsibility.
Stop blaming McDonalds for making your kids fat, people! You're the one who bought the food!
This is in response to tepples too, since he also argues about the discounts.
Sir, offering discounts to manufacturers who install Windows exclusively is emphatically not mafia-like activity. I'm sure you also believe Walmart's enticingly low prices "forces" people to go there instead of their mom-n-pop stores.
I am apalled that anti-Microsoft sentiment has led people to these extremes. This is normal business activity, and it happens everywhere. Manufacturers can turn down the discount deal if they want - the fact that they don't simply means they *gasp* want to make money.
Please stop parroting the MS marketing speak; MS Office isn't running on most PC's because the consumers chose to use it, but because the PC manufactures preinstalled it.
This still leaves open the question of why PC makers preinstall their software and none others. Clue: it's not because the MS Mafia forced them to.
Google owns its servers - it's called the "right to property." It can block porn from them if it wants to. When the GOVERNMENT censors, it tells OTHER people what to do with their own property. In one case, property rights are respected; in the other case, they're violated.
That's the difference.
I won't speak for HoboMaster, but I certainly think so, and I resent the appeal to intimidation Bogtha made when he said "only trolls and ignorant people could claim that the UN is not worth supporting."
The UN lacks standards - it gives the most disgusting regimes the dignity of a soapbox, all for the sake of "neutrality." Whatever good they do for the poor is eclipsed by the sanction they give to the world's murderers.
You know, you'd do well to clarify yourself, because it sounds like you're saying we shouldn't devise our way of living in our head. Is there another body part you'd prefer?
Wait, nevermind.
For the record, Ayn Rand would be proud of your assessment of libertarians.
As for the question of whether the state will start regulating more than just consigners, you don't need to read a 1,000+ page book for the answer. You just need common sense.
Ever notice that every practice of communism is never the "true" communism? You, sir, need to check your premises. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" always turns out to mean "dictatorship of the man claiming to be the voice of the proleteriat." Call him the leader, der Fuhrer, or il Duce.
There is an odd number of reds on Slashdot. Wonder why.
(FYI: I'm the one who's been writing the last two replies.)
i am not expecting that an item i buy metamorphize into another item totally.
I don't think you got the point of my example. The absurdity of demanding a pony after buying a lamb is that you knew it was a lamb. Nobody committed fraud against you.
When you buy a gaming console, you know it prevents you from doing some things you may want to do. Again, nobody is committing fraud or being "dishonest."
artificial restrictions against the owner of the product is pure evil.
And it is within your right to boycot such a company. You may not like the way they are maufacturing their products, but to suggest using the force (in this case, the law) to take care of things you dislike is what gangs do, not free, civilized societies.