I've familiarized myself thoroughly with common implementations of IP, thank you very much.
Obviously not, if you still insist that copyright covers ideas. And copyright IS the issue here. The original argument was justifying piracy based on a) the assumption that record companies constitute a monopoly and b) an individual is justified in violating the rights of IP holders because he or she disagrees with the pricing model.
No, they are _allowed_ to do so, not entitled. And the _reason_ they were permitted such control over is because it was thought that such an legislated-control would encourage innovation to the overall benefit of society.
Per the Constitution, as interpreted by law, they are entitled to do so. You might as well say that you are "allowed" to own a firearm, or you are "allowed" to speak freely.
Ideas are ideas. Property is property. The two aren't the same, no matter how much you try and make them so.
Let me correct you AGAIN. Ideas are ideas. Specific works, whether a song, a book, or a track on the latest album of choice, are specific works. Failure to distinguish between IDEAS, which present a general framework for a specific work, and specific works, which are specific, quantifiable bits of creation, is a failure to understand copyright law.
Free markets only deal with real, physical property (goods) and services, not "pretend" property like IP.
Oh really? So that electronic money I have sitting in my bank account is real, physical property, despite the fact that most of it has no real-world counterpart, can be electronically duplicated with the right tools, and could indeed be copied using those same tools to hundreds of thousands of people? That someone suffers incidental loss is irrelevant... after all, I'm only trading pretend property.
If you have to use the government to enforce any other kind of behavior other than private property ownership and/or contracts, then the market can no longer be considered "free".
Aah. This argument. This also applies to the above. What's more, it should also leave the government out of protecting your identity. After all, your identity is an abstract construct of credit scores, criminal records, and purchase histories. My using your identity does not prevent you from using it, right? You may suffer an inconvenience or a loss of income if I use your identity to get credit, but that's not MY problem. I'm just taking an action that does not infringe on your property or your contracts.. an action that government should have control over.
Until you acknowledge that all IP laws are a government-enforced legal construct designed to artificially distort normal market forces...
Your "distortion of normal market forces" is also known as the Constitution of the United States of America. Until you acknowledge that abstract property does have value, both monetary and societal (you do value your bank account and your money, right?), you're basing your arguments on an anarchist ideal that will never come to pass because it makes absolutely no sense to those who create and those who support creation.
It only makes you hang your head because you don't quite grasp the concept of copyright, I imagine. You seem to have this false impression that copyright covers ideas. It does not.
Copyright law protects specific works, not ideas. Go ahead, look it up.
But, to address your other points... no, companies are not entitled to profit. They are, however, entitled to the exclusive distribution rights of any IP that they control, for the time period permitted by law. If they determine that they want to sell copies of the IP under a limited license (also their right), then they are entitled to do so. You're not required to use their IP, and thus, they are not entitled to the profit they'd get if you were to use it under their terms.
And... socialist experiment? That's amusing. If anything is socialist in the conversation, it is the belief that specific works should be instantly public no matter what. Yay, let's all force people to share for the greater good! IP laws do not prevent the free flow of ideas as ideas are not subject to copyright. They do, however, protect creators' rights to their IP for a reasonable time period.
If you're going to pirate, pirate. Just don't pretend that it's some moral crusade against those evil people who have the audacity to actually want to be compensated for something they own the IP rights for. You want to argue length of time copyright should be valid? Think it should be shorter? Me too. Think the the length of copyright stifles innovation and cultural growth? Me too. Think that your opinion gives you the right to other people's IP? Sorry, no.
Again, ignorance. The recording industry is not a monopoly. While it holds a siginificant portion of the market share, it does not hold enough to constitute a monopoly. If you believe different, prove it legally.
Second... "freely copied by free enterprise" means "no copyright", which is simply Unconstitutional.
Third... since when does the price of manufacture matter, except in that it sets the absolute minimum sales price a company can offer an item? I shouldn't even have to mention that the cost of manufacture is NOT the only expense involved in producing music and movies.
If you can come up with an argument that doesn't amount to "I'm entitled to other people's work", I'd like to hear it.
However, the cost to manufacture a CD is less than a dollar, yet their product goes for around twenty. Corporate robber barons, the de facto government today, bring to mind the attitude, espoused by Thomas Jefferson, that rebellion, every now and then, is a healthy thing.
When I read things like this, it makes me hang my head in shame. What, do you think you're entitled to music? Thomas Jefferson would have explained to you that in a free market, the price is set by the demand for the item. If people are willing to pay the price set by the companies selling the CDs, it is a fair price. It is an elementary concept.
If you don't like the record companies, I'm sure there are plenty of local bands who would be overjoyed to get a new fan interested in their work... so why not support them instead of violating other peoples' Constitutional rights?
No, affirmative action was meant to combat discrimination in hiring and college admissions, not the higher prevalence of crime amongst black males. In essence, affirmative action is another example of "preventative measures" against another group that is being judged before an injustice is committed... it says to employers and colleges "we don't care if you are a bigot or not; we intend to treat you that way because we feel you may be prone to bigotry." In doing so, affirmative action is itself a bigoted law.
I would never state that black males should be punished as a group any more than I would say that all rural families should be investigated for incest. In MY society, you are punished for the crimes you actually commit, not the crimes you may be inclined to commit statistically.
You're advocating punishing people for crimes they have not committed. I suggest punishing those that actually commit crimes. Again, the price of a free society is the risk that someone will break the law in a way that harms others. I'd rather have the freedom than the security, personally.
Vidoe games may cause people to think more violently for a short time, this is true. However, so does television. So do sports. Shall we ban children from football, soccer, and basketball games as well? While we're at it, why not prevent children from playing with other children? Playing can cause violence too; most kids get into arguments with other children while playing at least 10, 15 times in their lives.
Parents should be making the judgement call on what is "too" violent for their kids. If they choose poorly and their child is one of the few prone to violence, society will take care of the problem when it BECOMES a problem.
By your logic, I could take "preventative measures" against black males because they are more likely to commit crimes, statistically speaking. Would you support that? I doubt it.
One of the tradeoffs of living in a free society is that we must take the risk of someone abusing their position of freedom to harm others. Granted, we would probably be -safer- if we took preventative measures, but we would also be a good deal less free.
Yes, you can probably hear quite fine with the regular cooling system and some nice speakers. However, the person who buys a $500 - $600 video card is not likely to want her gaming environment to be anything less than as close to perfection is possible. When you can hear the constant hum of Rosie the Robot under the gunfire and mood music, you're not as close to perfection as possible.
Look, it is obvious that your only interest is to try to get a rise out of me. Considering that you will not be able to do so, and considering that you seem to harbor a hate for anyone that does not share your world view, I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation.
When I consider the fact that I PAY for those schools to stay open... no, I don't feel bad at all. When my money goes to pay for the upkeep of that institution, I feel justified using the facilities. Granted, I would prefer that colleges be run on private donations... but until they ARE, I'm going to use the resource I pay for. I'd prefer that gas prices were not subsidized either, but that doesn't mean I am going to insist on paying more at the pump to make some idiotic statement that no one would notice.
See, my tax dollars currently pay for those things. I might prefer that they didn't (in the case of gasoline), but they do right now. If I'm spending the money, I get to use the resources I'm paying for. Easy, right? If I were given the choice of whether or not to pay into higher public education, I would choose to pay into it. It is a worthy investment to me. Primary school public education... not so much.
As for the public education system, yes, I attended public school. Considering I was a minor at the time with no say in the matter, there's no shame in doing so. My fiancee's daughter goes to private school because I believe it to be a better investment of my money... despite the fact that I am essentially paying twice.
Despite the failings of society, the -ideals- of the Constitution have always been the same. That ignorant people with little understanding of history or the Constitution itself misinterpret it on a daily basis does not make them correct. On the state and local level, you are correct. A locality does, Constitutionally speaking, have the right to implement social programs for the benefit of its citizens, and if they disagree they can a) move or b) change the laws. On the national level, there is NO justification for socialism except a lack of respect for the nation's founding principles.
Reading your past posts, I can see that we will never agree. You believe in forcible redistribution of wealth and you harbor a misguided hatred of the rich... based, no doubt, on the mistaken assumption that they exploited someone else to get their money.
Again... if you prefer socialism, why not be a voluntary socialist? Otherwise, you're just an authoritarian with a desire for other people's money.
Why should I move, when proper enforcement of the Constitution supports what I believe?
What you have just said is akin to a thief telling his victim that "sorry, this is the way the world works... if you don't like me violating your Constitutional rights to property, then you need to move because I am entitled to the fruits of your labors."
Sorry, but I'm staying right here. My nation was not founded on a socialist ideal, it was not meant to be a socialist nation, and I'll be damned if I'll sit by and let it crumble under a system that punishes hard work and rewards laziness in the name of fairness. No, I'll stay right here.
What's funny is that you're telling me to leave, but I have no inclination to do the same to you. If you want to practice VOLUNTARY socialism in the U.S., by all means... spend your money like that! If it makes you feel all squishy inside, who am I to tell you not to do it? Kindly stop telling ME what I can do with MY money, though. I should not have to suffer because you are unwilling to excel.
Simple and to the Point: I do not like your way of life. I feel that an individual should be able to choose to be charitable or not, without being forced (at gunpoint, no less) to spend money on people that are less fortunate due to choice or circumstance. The difference between you and me is that YOU feel entitled to other people money, whereas I feel that any money I get should be earned or given freely.
The claim that one cannot advance if one does not begin with resources is incorrect as well. I started with nothing, and fought my way up to being college educated, skilled, and middle class. At my current rate of advancement, I will be in the upper tax brackets before I am 40. Tell me how the system isn't working?
As for health care, we have a system that provides the OPPORTUNITY for health care to everyone. Its called personal responsibility and intelligent decision making. If you do not like it and you wish to provide for our masses, feel free to voluntarily donate money to help them.
Plenty of coffee drinkers go to Starbucks. Perhaps not the ones too hung up on being "leet coffee drinkers", but plenty of other coffee drinkers.
Reason? Well... the same reason people go to the supermarket for produce. It may not be the best around, but its convenient, it is of acceptable quality, and finding the absolute perfect item often takes more effort than most people can spare at 5am.
The Americano thing did start out as an insult, if I recall correctly. Whether americans just didn't get the joke, or took the joke and chose to laugh too, I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, it tastes good and I like it, so that's all that matters.
(I also find the standard plunger/americano weak, though, so I tend to have them add shots. For an amusing insight into cultural differences, I get stares and giggles when I ask for essentially half espresso and half water here).
When I was overseas, espresso was the casual coffee drink. The drinks people order here as standard morning drinks (Mocha, Latte, etc.) were considered desserts, from what I understood.
To answer, though... making a proper cup of coffee takes a small bit of skill. Following a pre-printed set of burger assembly instructions takes decidedly less skill. Anyone who has learned to pull a proper espresso shot knows how annoying it can be to learn consistency.
Coffee drinkers are, as a rule, pickier than burger eaters, too. A burger eater is happy if the burger contains the proper ingredients. A coffee drinker is often picky over a perceived difference in a drink's temperature.
Funny, my shop said that too.... but I later discovered that they were simply buying from the same distributor that all the other people were buying from. I've not found a reference as to obvious inferiority of Starbucks' beans... but I did find a posting for a paid position with Starbucks that involved traveling around the world to find coffees suitable for consumption.
Granted, that's not evidence of perfection or superiority, but it does seem odd that a company willing to pay for exotic travel to discover coffee would go with an inferior product.
In the end, though, the final determination lies with each and every coffee drinker. I can preach the virtues of Folgers crystals to the masses and not be wrong, or I could stick my nose up and refuse to drink anything that didn't come from impoverised third world amputees suffering under the iron fist of a washed up dictator. Either way, the end result is opinion.
Perhaps we suffer from regional differences. A specialty shop is simply a shop that serves the traditional coffee shop drinks, rather than a selection of off-the-shelf generics served in a pot on a burner. Compare Waffle House / Wawa / IHOP... which simply serve coffee... to a shop specializing in coffee drinks, like Starbucks or Caribou Coffee.
From what I understand, Starbucks does own roasting facilities. That makes them a roaster, if not a local roaster. To contrast that, most small companies around here contract with external roasters... though they choose the blends, they are not producing it themselves.
As far as an Americano... and Americano is a basic drink consisting of shots of espresso over steamed water. The idea is to offer a more substantial drink, while maintaining the fresh flavor of the espresso. I drink it because it offers something more than a dixie cup worth of liquid.
Re:Starbucks is good coffee
on
Drink Decaf and Die
·
· Score: 5, Informative
As a former barista at a Starbucks competitor, I have to disagree. While Starbucks coffee might not be the premium coffee on the planet, it is no worse (and oftentimes, better) that competing specialty shops. Granted, you are right about people adding so much to the coffee that it becomes a dessert rather than coffee. Still, I can get a good Americano or French press at Starbucks too... and they pull the shots properly, unlike a few other places around here.
I do understand the difference. Theft involves depriving someone of something, and copyright infringement involves the abuse of someone's right to profit from their work. However, the concept of copyright infringement is understood whether I choose to use the word theft or not, is it not?
One wonders how anti-copyright proponents feel about identity infringement... after all, the same concepts apply. Nothing is taken, the identity is still usable by the original holder, and the existence of both is simply a socially constructed idea. Granted, the value of the identity becomes essentially zero if it is distributed and used by all, but that's not the problem of the infringer, if one is using anti-copyright logic.
It has only been in the past few hundred years that duplication of art has become easy. In the past, prevention of theft... or infringement, if you prefer... was simple; few people had the means to duplicate works... whether the limiting factor was a medium to duplicate it on, educational level, or financial. Now, all but the most poor can duplicate a work of art and distribute it worldwide. Different situation entirely.
Less specifically, the world of 1000 A.D. and the world of today are vastly different places. You're attempting to apply modern necessities to an ancient culture, and it just does not work. Using the same general logic, one might say that standards in food and medicine are worthless because obviously people could operate without them in the past.
No, you have that wrong.
Lack of copyright law makes sense to the greedy and lazy. Copyright law makes sense to those members of society who value creativity, art, and music. It is not greedy to want something for days, weeks, months, or years worth of effort. It is not revolting to acknowledge an individual's contribution to society by offering a living for thier efforts. What is revolting it the attitude of those who feel entitled to other people's creativity and money.
Me, I have no problem rewarding someone for their efforts to create something that amuses, saddens, enlightens, or entertains. I feel that it fosters growth. There are few limitations on my listening, reading, or viewing material without paying legally, either... I can turn on the radio, check out a CD from the library, borrow a friend's CD, check out a book from the library, borrow a friend's book, borrow a DVD, or go to a free screening.
To use the old line "information must be free" is simply a way to say "I'm lazy and cheap, and value little other than my own personal gratification."
Question 1: What do you classify as "bullshit"? The news I listen to seems to cover the important things like potential violations of the Constitution, abuses of government, and the positions of those running for local office. Perhaps you need to choose your outlets more carefully.
Two, one could hardly say that the media doesn't report on anything. They report on quite a bit. Whether that information is interesting or relevant to your life is another story. Perhaps it is best to remember that the media isn't the "Justice League of Responsible Reporting"... more accurately, they're the "Will Embarass and Humiliate Just About Anyone For A Buck League."
In other words, they print / air what sells. If it isn't marketable, it isn't news.
Okay... point. Microsoft did make the system backwards compatible after they realized there was a demand for it. However... Microsoft was the company that made the equipment incompatible in the first place; they designed the Xbox 360. Additionally, not recognizing the need for backwards compatibility was somewhat blind of them, I have to say.
Slashdot Mirror
I've familiarized myself thoroughly with common implementations of IP, thank you very much.
Obviously not, if you still insist that copyright covers ideas. And copyright IS the issue here. The original argument was justifying piracy based on a) the assumption that record companies constitute a monopoly and b) an individual is justified in violating the rights of IP holders because he or she disagrees with the pricing model.
No, they are _allowed_ to do so, not entitled. And the _reason_ they were permitted such control over is because it was thought that such an legislated-control would encourage innovation to the overall benefit of society.
Per the Constitution, as interpreted by law, they are entitled to do so. You might as well say that you are "allowed" to own a firearm, or you are "allowed" to speak freely.
Ideas are ideas. Property is property. The two aren't the same, no matter how much you try and make them so.
Let me correct you AGAIN. Ideas are ideas. Specific works, whether a song, a book, or a track on the latest album of choice, are specific works. Failure to distinguish between IDEAS, which present a general framework for a specific work, and specific works, which are specific, quantifiable bits of creation, is a failure to understand copyright law.
Free markets only deal with real, physical property (goods) and services, not "pretend" property like IP.
Oh really? So that electronic money I have sitting in my bank account is real, physical property, despite the fact that most of it has no real-world counterpart, can be electronically duplicated with the right tools, and could indeed be copied using those same tools to hundreds of thousands of people? That someone suffers incidental loss is irrelevant... after all, I'm only trading pretend property.
If you have to use the government to enforce any other kind of behavior other than private property ownership and/or contracts, then the market can no longer be considered "free".
Aah. This argument. This also applies to the above. What's more, it should also leave the government out of protecting your identity. After all, your identity is an abstract construct of credit scores, criminal records, and purchase histories. My using your identity does not prevent you from using it, right? You may suffer an inconvenience or a loss of income if I use your identity to get credit, but that's not MY problem. I'm just taking an action that does not infringe on your property or your contracts.. an action that government should have control over.
Until you acknowledge that all IP laws are a government-enforced legal construct designed to artificially distort normal market forces...
Your "distortion of normal market forces" is also known as the Constitution of the United States of America. Until you acknowledge that abstract property does have value, both monetary and societal (you do value your bank account and your money, right?), you're basing your arguments on an anarchist ideal that will never come to pass because it makes absolutely no sense to those who create and those who support creation.
It only makes you hang your head because you don't quite grasp the concept of copyright, I imagine. You seem to have this false impression that copyright covers ideas. It does not.
Copyright law protects specific works, not ideas. Go ahead, look it up.
But, to address your other points... no, companies are not entitled to profit. They are, however, entitled to the exclusive distribution rights of any IP that they control, for the time period permitted by law. If they determine that they want to sell copies of the IP under a limited license (also their right), then they are entitled to do so. You're not required to use their IP, and thus, they are not entitled to the profit they'd get if you were to use it under their terms.
And... socialist experiment? That's amusing. If anything is socialist in the conversation, it is the belief that specific works should be instantly public no matter what. Yay, let's all force people to share for the greater good! IP laws do not prevent the free flow of ideas as ideas are not subject to copyright. They do, however, protect creators' rights to their IP for a reasonable time period.
If you're going to pirate, pirate. Just don't pretend that it's some moral crusade against those evil people who have the audacity to actually want to be compensated for something they own the IP rights for. You want to argue length of time copyright should be valid? Think it should be shorter? Me too. Think the the length of copyright stifles innovation and cultural growth? Me too. Think that your opinion gives you the right to other people's IP? Sorry, no.
Again, ignorance. The recording industry is not a monopoly. While it holds a siginificant portion of the market share, it does not hold enough to constitute a monopoly. If you believe different, prove it legally.
Second... "freely copied by free enterprise" means "no copyright", which is simply Unconstitutional.
Third... since when does the price of manufacture matter, except in that it sets the absolute minimum sales price a company can offer an item? I shouldn't even have to mention that the cost of manufacture is NOT the only expense involved in producing music and movies.
If you can come up with an argument that doesn't amount to "I'm entitled to other people's work", I'd like to hear it.
However, the cost to manufacture a CD is less than a dollar, yet their product goes for around twenty. Corporate robber barons, the de facto government today, bring to mind the attitude, espoused by Thomas Jefferson, that rebellion, every now and then, is a healthy thing.
When I read things like this, it makes me hang my head in shame. What, do you think you're entitled to music? Thomas Jefferson would have explained to you that in a free market, the price is set by the demand for the item. If people are willing to pay the price set by the companies selling the CDs, it is a fair price. It is an elementary concept.
If you don't like the record companies, I'm sure there are plenty of local bands who would be overjoyed to get a new fan interested in their work... so why not support them instead of violating other peoples' Constitutional rights?
No, affirmative action was meant to combat discrimination in hiring and college admissions, not the higher prevalence of crime amongst black males. In essence, affirmative action is another example of "preventative measures" against another group that is being judged before an injustice is committed... it says to employers and colleges "we don't care if you are a bigot or not; we intend to treat you that way because we feel you may be prone to bigotry." In doing so, affirmative action is itself a bigoted law.
I would never state that black males should be punished as a group any more than I would say that all rural families should be investigated for incest. In MY society, you are punished for the crimes you actually commit, not the crimes you may be inclined to commit statistically.
You're advocating punishing people for crimes they have not committed. I suggest punishing those that actually commit crimes. Again, the price of a free society is the risk that someone will break the law in a way that harms others. I'd rather have the freedom than the security, personally.
Vidoe games may cause people to think more violently for a short time, this is true. However, so does television. So do sports. Shall we ban children from football, soccer, and basketball games as well? While we're at it, why not prevent children from playing with other children? Playing can cause violence too; most kids get into arguments with other children while playing at least 10, 15 times in their lives.
Parents should be making the judgement call on what is "too" violent for their kids. If they choose poorly and their child is one of the few prone to violence, society will take care of the problem when it BECOMES a problem.
By your logic, I could take "preventative measures" against black males because they are more likely to commit crimes, statistically speaking. Would you support that? I doubt it.
One of the tradeoffs of living in a free society is that we must take the risk of someone abusing their position of freedom to harm others. Granted, we would probably be -safer- if we took preventative measures, but we would also be a good deal less free.
Yes, you can probably hear quite fine with the regular cooling system and some nice speakers. However, the person who buys a $500 - $600 video card is not likely to want her gaming environment to be anything less than as close to perfection is possible. When you can hear the constant hum of Rosie the Robot under the gunfire and mood music, you're not as close to perfection as possible.
Then again, what do I know? I'm no gamer.
Look, it is obvious that your only interest is to try to get a rise out of me. Considering that you will not be able to do so, and considering that you seem to harbor a hate for anyone that does not share your world view, I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation.
When I consider the fact that I PAY for those schools to stay open... no, I don't feel bad at all. When my money goes to pay for the upkeep of that institution, I feel justified using the facilities. Granted, I would prefer that colleges be run on private donations... but until they ARE, I'm going to use the resource I pay for. I'd prefer that gas prices were not subsidized either, but that doesn't mean I am going to insist on paying more at the pump to make some idiotic statement that no one would notice. See, my tax dollars currently pay for those things. I might prefer that they didn't (in the case of gasoline), but they do right now. If I'm spending the money, I get to use the resources I'm paying for. Easy, right? If I were given the choice of whether or not to pay into higher public education, I would choose to pay into it. It is a worthy investment to me. Primary school public education... not so much. As for the public education system, yes, I attended public school. Considering I was a minor at the time with no say in the matter, there's no shame in doing so. My fiancee's daughter goes to private school because I believe it to be a better investment of my money... despite the fact that I am essentially paying twice.
Despite the failings of society, the -ideals- of the Constitution have always been the same. That ignorant people with little understanding of history or the Constitution itself misinterpret it on a daily basis does not make them correct. On the state and local level, you are correct. A locality does, Constitutionally speaking, have the right to implement social programs for the benefit of its citizens, and if they disagree they can a) move or b) change the laws. On the national level, there is NO justification for socialism except a lack of respect for the nation's founding principles.
Reading your past posts, I can see that we will never agree. You believe in forcible redistribution of wealth and you harbor a misguided hatred of the rich... based, no doubt, on the mistaken assumption that they exploited someone else to get their money.
Again... if you prefer socialism, why not be a voluntary socialist? Otherwise, you're just an authoritarian with a desire for other people's money.
Why should I move, when proper enforcement of the Constitution supports what I believe?
What you have just said is akin to a thief telling his victim that "sorry, this is the way the world works... if you don't like me violating your Constitutional rights to property, then you need to move because I am entitled to the fruits of your labors."
Sorry, but I'm staying right here. My nation was not founded on a socialist ideal, it was not meant to be a socialist nation, and I'll be damned if I'll sit by and let it crumble under a system that punishes hard work and rewards laziness in the name of fairness. No, I'll stay right here.
What's funny is that you're telling me to leave, but I have no inclination to do the same to you. If you want to practice VOLUNTARY socialism in the U.S., by all means... spend your money like that! If it makes you feel all squishy inside, who am I to tell you not to do it? Kindly stop telling ME what I can do with MY money, though. I should not have to suffer because you are unwilling to excel.
Simple and to the Point: I do not like your way of life. I feel that an individual should be able to choose to be charitable or not, without being forced (at gunpoint, no less) to spend money on people that are less fortunate due to choice or circumstance. The difference between you and me is that YOU feel entitled to other people money, whereas I feel that any money I get should be earned or given freely.
The claim that one cannot advance if one does not begin with resources is incorrect as well. I started with nothing, and fought my way up to being college educated, skilled, and middle class. At my current rate of advancement, I will be in the upper tax brackets before I am 40. Tell me how the system isn't working?
As for health care, we have a system that provides the OPPORTUNITY for health care to everyone. Its called personal responsibility and intelligent decision making. If you do not like it and you wish to provide for our masses, feel free to voluntarily donate money to help them.
I sigh.
Natural process of science used to forward political agendas.
Plenty of coffee drinkers go to Starbucks. Perhaps not the ones too hung up on being "leet coffee drinkers", but plenty of other coffee drinkers. Reason? Well... the same reason people go to the supermarket for produce. It may not be the best around, but its convenient, it is of acceptable quality, and finding the absolute perfect item often takes more effort than most people can spare at 5am.
You ask me, that was more of a moronic lack of understanding that extremely hot liquid in the vicinity of one's groin is a decidedly bad idea.
The Americano thing did start out as an insult, if I recall correctly. Whether americans just didn't get the joke, or took the joke and chose to laugh too, I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, it tastes good and I like it, so that's all that matters.
(I also find the standard plunger/americano weak, though, so I tend to have them add shots. For an amusing insight into cultural differences, I get stares and giggles when I ask for essentially half espresso and half water here).
When I was overseas, espresso was the casual coffee drink. The drinks people order here as standard morning drinks (Mocha, Latte, etc.) were considered desserts, from what I understood.
Who works at Starbucks?
To answer, though... making a proper cup of coffee takes a small bit of skill. Following a pre-printed set of burger assembly instructions takes decidedly less skill. Anyone who has learned to pull a proper espresso shot knows how annoying it can be to learn consistency.
Coffee drinkers are, as a rule, pickier than burger eaters, too. A burger eater is happy if the burger contains the proper ingredients. A coffee drinker is often picky over a perceived difference in a drink's temperature.
Funny, my shop said that too.... but I later discovered that they were simply buying from the same distributor that all the other people were buying from. I've not found a reference as to obvious inferiority of Starbucks' beans... but I did find a posting for a paid position with Starbucks that involved traveling around the world to find coffees suitable for consumption.
Granted, that's not evidence of perfection or superiority, but it does seem odd that a company willing to pay for exotic travel to discover coffee would go with an inferior product.
In the end, though, the final determination lies with each and every coffee drinker. I can preach the virtues of Folgers crystals to the masses and not be wrong, or I could stick my nose up and refuse to drink anything that didn't come from impoverised third world amputees suffering under the iron fist of a washed up dictator. Either way, the end result is opinion.
Perhaps we suffer from regional differences. A specialty shop is simply a shop that serves the traditional coffee shop drinks, rather than a selection of off-the-shelf generics served in a pot on a burner. Compare Waffle House / Wawa / IHOP... which simply serve coffee... to a shop specializing in coffee drinks, like Starbucks or Caribou Coffee. From what I understand, Starbucks does own roasting facilities. That makes them a roaster, if not a local roaster. To contrast that, most small companies around here contract with external roasters... though they choose the blends, they are not producing it themselves. As far as an Americano... and Americano is a basic drink consisting of shots of espresso over steamed water. The idea is to offer a more substantial drink, while maintaining the fresh flavor of the espresso. I drink it because it offers something more than a dixie cup worth of liquid.
As a former barista at a Starbucks competitor, I have to disagree. While Starbucks coffee might not be the premium coffee on the planet, it is no worse (and oftentimes, better) that competing specialty shops. Granted, you are right about people adding so much to the coffee that it becomes a dessert rather than coffee. Still, I can get a good Americano or French press at Starbucks too... and they pull the shots properly, unlike a few other places around here.
The prioes are, alas, competitive too.
I do understand the difference. Theft involves depriving someone of something, and copyright infringement involves the abuse of someone's right to profit from their work. However, the concept of copyright infringement is understood whether I choose to use the word theft or not, is it not? One wonders how anti-copyright proponents feel about identity infringement... after all, the same concepts apply. Nothing is taken, the identity is still usable by the original holder, and the existence of both is simply a socially constructed idea. Granted, the value of the identity becomes essentially zero if it is distributed and used by all, but that's not the problem of the infringer, if one is using anti-copyright logic.
It has only been in the past few hundred years that duplication of art has become easy. In the past, prevention of theft... or infringement, if you prefer... was simple; few people had the means to duplicate works... whether the limiting factor was a medium to duplicate it on, educational level, or financial. Now, all but the most poor can duplicate a work of art and distribute it worldwide. Different situation entirely.
Less specifically, the world of 1000 A.D. and the world of today are vastly different places. You're attempting to apply modern necessities to an ancient culture, and it just does not work. Using the same general logic, one might say that standards in food and medicine are worthless because obviously people could operate without them in the past.
No, you have that wrong. Lack of copyright law makes sense to the greedy and lazy. Copyright law makes sense to those members of society who value creativity, art, and music. It is not greedy to want something for days, weeks, months, or years worth of effort. It is not revolting to acknowledge an individual's contribution to society by offering a living for thier efforts. What is revolting it the attitude of those who feel entitled to other people's creativity and money.
Me, I have no problem rewarding someone for their efforts to create something that amuses, saddens, enlightens, or entertains. I feel that it fosters growth. There are few limitations on my listening, reading, or viewing material without paying legally, either... I can turn on the radio, check out a CD from the library, borrow a friend's CD, check out a book from the library, borrow a friend's book, borrow a DVD, or go to a free screening.
To use the old line "information must be free" is simply a way to say "I'm lazy and cheap, and value little other than my own personal gratification."
Question 1: What do you classify as "bullshit"? The news I listen to seems to cover the important things like potential violations of the Constitution, abuses of government, and the positions of those running for local office. Perhaps you need to choose your outlets more carefully. Two, one could hardly say that the media doesn't report on anything. They report on quite a bit. Whether that information is interesting or relevant to your life is another story. Perhaps it is best to remember that the media isn't the "Justice League of Responsible Reporting"... more accurately, they're the "Will Embarass and Humiliate Just About Anyone For A Buck League." In other words, they print / air what sells. If it isn't marketable, it isn't news.
Okay... point. Microsoft did make the system backwards compatible after they realized there was a demand for it. However... Microsoft was the company that made the equipment incompatible in the first place; they designed the Xbox 360. Additionally, not recognizing the need for backwards compatibility was somewhat blind of them, I have to say.