Republican or Democrat, this is what you get when you vote for deal makers and not leaders. You get politicians who work for corporate lobbyists. Americans are suckers for the line of bullshit from their Democrat or Republican darlings who say that they are the only ethical ones, while the "other party" are the ones to blame for corruption. Voting for the least corrupt candidate is still voting for a crook.
sounds to me like he is in jail for ignoring a subpoena. While I agree that he should not be legally obligated to turn over the videotape, he is obligated to respond to the subpoena. This guy is just generating press for himself with this shell game, stating that he is taking a stand for journalism when he is really taking a stand for thumbing his nose at a subpoena. Even Hunter Thompson knew when he needed to show up in court. Ethically obligated to turn over the videotape is another discussion.
Guess again Dorothy. Democrats are only civil libertarians when it doesn't conflict with their lobbyist interest. And to say that only the Republicans are for sale is ludicrous. They are all for sale. I can think of two or three who aren't. I dare you to name one.
I've quoted that old line that government does what a private business does half as well and for twice as much. I still believe it, with exceptions for police, fire dept, public roads, sewers, and the like.
You said "the municipality won't be able to react" to the newer technology, but the fact is that this municipality is the only reaction to new technology now.
No one is suffering because they don't have broadband. They are not isolated from the world for lack of broadband.
Here's the rub, the laws for competition among telcos are designed to ultimately serve everyone. Regulation's purpose is prevention of capitalism's competitive drive for monopolistic or duopolistic dominance. It's the paradox of capitalism. Competition keeps things fair, but the goal is to wipe out the competition. Hence regulation to keep competitors in the game.
Here's what I suspect happened. The telcos paid lobbyist to pay legislators to legislate in favor of the telcos. Never mind the fact that telco legislation is bad for competition and in certain cases the public. This gives us collusion for the commanding heights between big business and government. But the public voted for each of the politicians. So what's that line about getting the government we deserve?
rules, ethics, morals, laws, principles, are constructed to protect and further the common good. If an action furthers the common good but breaks the rules, is the action still wrong, do the principles still apply? Pedophiles are evil incarnate, because their victims often grow up to be really f'ed up adults, perpetuating a cycle that affects us all. From what I could understand of the article, he wasn't trespassing against anyone who didn't take numerous and deliberate steps to acquire photos of children in erotic poses. It did not sound like he was randomly monitoring internet traffic or randomly hacking into citizen's hard drives.
If an action breaks a rule but benefits the common good, is the action still wrong? It is that simple. The only reason someone would want to enforce the rules in such a case is to place their own interest before the collective interest. I'm not thrilled about the fbi patrolling usenet by proxy, but in this particular case, the mouse wouldn't be in the trap if he hadn't gone for the cheese.
Amen, Before anyone cites Corel's failure to turn a profit, they should realize that a successful business requires more than a great product. You need sound business decisions and great sales/marketing. Of course if you haven't got any of these, you just need a Microsoft buyout.
I would roughly estimate that criticism of Stallman addresses how he says as much as what he says. Is he shrill at times? Yes. Is he wrong because he is shrill? Definitely not. There is a way to speak and write directly without becoming shrill. It usually involves pointing out the consequences of current trends in copyrights, patent law, and drm, for everyone involved. Intellectual property is a business with no a priori claims to legitimacy. It is this way because legislators chose to make it this way. If Stallman spent more time pointing out who is making money from abusing copyright law and abusing the American system of political lobbying, rather than debating what we should call something, I suspect he would reach a larger audience, and maybe even get what he ultimately wants.
Cheers.
"The reason why americans are driving SUVs is because US goverment is subsidizing personal driving, by not taxing car owners the cost that are associated with using cars."
You sir are a complete, ideology-addled moron. Roads cost money, repairing roads cost money. Driving an SUV does not damage a road any more than driving a Ford Taurus does, or Chevy Caprice, or Acura RL, or Toyota Camry, or VW Bug. Payload may be larger, but most SUV don't operate at full payload the way commercial trucks do, hence the equality, and hence the penalty for using a private vehicle for commercial purposes. Private use of a larger vehicle doesn't increase operating cost for the government, just for the owner. Subsidizing is giving someone money. Period. Tax-abatement is charging less taxes than the tax laws say you should pay. The cost associated with using SUVs is what? More wear and tear on the asphalt? Or more wear and tear on the environment? You need to be clear. Wear and tear on the asphalt is not a debatable fact. Wear and tear on the the environment is quite debatable. You just weren't around for the last round of b.s. that said we would be out of oil by the end of the eighties, or the last batch of scientist who said we were headed for the next ice-age. One of these days when you grow up, you will understand that just because a Ph.D. says something, does not make it true. Ask any Ph.D. how many folks they know with Ph.D.s. Then ask them how many of these Ph.D.s are opinionated egomaniacs. It's like growing up Catholic and thinking that every Priest knows what he is talking about. It's the same cabal, just a different field. "you can fool some of the people all of the time........" Fool.
The issue is that it is not THEIR music, the music belongs to the artists and the distibutors operate like they own it because they have set up signifigant roadblocks to going around their distribution channels. Try to find an unsigned band on the radio. In North America 99% of music played on the radio is distibuted by major labels. How's that for controlling what gets heard by the consumer. If you want to make it in the music business, having a great product is not enough. You have to get signed and into the distribution channels designed to screw the artists. Granted, you have exceptions like Ani DiFranco (sp?), but if you want to buy the music in the U.S.A. you have to deal with this. It's not like we can go to another bakery to buy our bread because we don't like the prices at one. If you want bread you gotta get it from these guys.
Unless you literally meant, don't buy it, which is exactly what is happening. The RIAA gangsters aren't the only distribution anymore. The internet is replacing them. The loosers are the Metallicas and Sheryl Crows who won't be making millions of dollars off of a rigged system. I'm a capitalist and an entrepeneur, so I know a scam when I see one. For every Sheryl Crow making a million dollars, there are a dozen more good artists who couldn't make a living because they couldn't get signed. It's not that the system makes a lot of money for Sheryl Crow (a good thing), the issue is that the system kills off opportunities for a lot of others to startup their own business as a musician and make money (a bad thing).
>Bringing the owning class down and to empower those people actually working in some kind of revolution for the common good is a traditional socialist position. And even one of the more radical one. Calling it business model is nothing more than a fig leaf.
Horse-shit, I'm not promoting bringing down the owning class. The owning class here is the musicians and artist who actually create the work. I'm promoting getting the money to the people who actually make the music. The recording industry has conned their way into the middle between the producer and the consumer taking a huge cut of the profits. Granted, distribution is part of the production process, but in this case the distributer has taken control of the whole process and screwed others to maintain control. I am not talking about bringing down the ownership class you simp, I'm talking about creating a new distribution that streamlines the assholes in the recording business out of the picture. We don't need them to hear great music or see great bands. It is a business model because it is about creating a more effective distribution that doesn't drive customers away. File-sharing filled a need for a better deal. The customers got tired of getting screwed and went someplace else to get their music.
the revolution is a new business model that worked for bands like Dave Mathews, Phish, and the Grateful Dead. Don't misassociate here. I don't have a single mp3 of any of these three bands, but their business model was built on good music and fan/customer loyalty. The revolution is not for the common man. You people need to read the whole post before you fire off half-baked responses. The new revolutionary business model puts the artist at the profit center, making money in a business structure perhaps like itunes and from touring. There is no communism with money being redistributed. Revolutions operate outside the law and by definition function to replace old structures. That is what I was advocating, a new business model that serves the artist, and furthers creativity and innovation. The current model promotes a lot of crap, and makes it difficult for a lot of good bands to get themselves heard. If you spent a half a day in a public school, you would see the Brittany Spears effect, where girls are dressed like prostitutes and the music they listen too sucks. I haven't listened to a radio station in five years, because the distribution channels for music is so heavily controlled by the industry that I have to listen to ten lousy songs to hear one good one.
nothing socialist about file-sharing. socialism is government being mommy and daddy providing for needs, controlling and subsidizing unprofitable industry, and promoting mediocrity.
file-sharing is breaking laws that make it tough for independent bands to compete with brittany spears, marilyn manson and whatever major act is being promoted through major media channels.
This distribution model is broken, it doesn't serve the artists, the fans, or foster creativity and innovation. Take a good look at how the recording industry operates, it's not a monopoly any more than microsoft is a monopoly. Bill Gates has nothing on these guys.
I'm not saying the music should be free, I am saying that the recording industry needs to be brought down to erect a new business model where the recording artist are the profit center, not the recording industry. Socialism my ass, this is a Revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Republican or Democrat, this is what you get when you vote for deal makers and not leaders. You get politicians who work for corporate lobbyists. Americans are suckers for the line of bullshit from their Democrat or Republican darlings who say that they are the only ethical ones, while the "other party" are the ones to blame for corruption. Voting for the least corrupt candidate is still voting for a crook.
sounds to me like he is in jail for ignoring a subpoena. While I agree that he should not be legally obligated to turn over the videotape, he is obligated to respond to the subpoena. This guy is just generating press for himself with this shell game, stating that he is taking a stand for journalism when he is really taking a stand for thumbing his nose at a subpoena. Even Hunter Thompson knew when he needed to show up in court. Ethically obligated to turn over the videotape is another discussion.
Guess again Dorothy. Democrats are only civil libertarians when it doesn't conflict with their lobbyist interest. And to say that only the Republicans are for sale is ludicrous. They are all for sale. I can think of two or three who aren't. I dare you to name one.
I've quoted that old line that government does what a private business does half as well and for twice as much. I still believe it, with exceptions for police, fire dept, public roads, sewers, and the like.
You said "the municipality won't be able to react" to the newer technology, but the fact is that this municipality is the only reaction to new technology now.
No one is suffering because they don't have broadband. They are not isolated from the world for lack of broadband.
Here's the rub, the laws for competition among telcos are designed to ultimately serve everyone. Regulation's purpose is prevention of capitalism's competitive drive for monopolistic or duopolistic dominance.
It's the paradox of capitalism. Competition keeps things fair, but the goal is to wipe out the competition. Hence regulation to keep competitors in the game.
Here's what I suspect happened. The telcos paid lobbyist to pay legislators to legislate in favor of the telcos. Never mind the fact that telco legislation is bad for competition and in certain cases the public.
This gives us collusion for the commanding heights between big business and government. But the public voted for each of the politicians. So what's that line about getting the government we deserve?
rules, ethics, morals, laws, principles, are constructed to protect and further the common good.
If an action furthers the common good but breaks the rules, is the action still wrong, do the principles still apply? Pedophiles are evil incarnate, because their victims often grow up to be really f'ed up adults, perpetuating a cycle that affects us all. From what I could understand of the article, he wasn't trespassing against anyone who didn't take numerous and deliberate steps to acquire photos of children in erotic poses. It did not sound like he was randomly monitoring internet traffic or randomly hacking into citizen's hard drives.
If an action breaks a rule but benefits the common good, is the action still wrong?
It is that simple. The only reason someone would want to enforce the rules in such a case is to place their own interest before the collective interest. I'm not thrilled about the fbi patrolling usenet by proxy, but in this particular case, the mouse wouldn't be in the trap if he hadn't gone for the cheese.
Amen,
Before anyone cites Corel's failure to turn a profit, they should realize that a successful business requires more than a great product. You need sound business decisions and great sales/marketing. Of course if you haven't got any of these, you just need a Microsoft buyout.
I would roughly estimate that criticism of Stallman addresses how he says as much as what he says. Is he shrill at times? Yes. Is he wrong because he is shrill? Definitely not. There is a way to speak and write directly without becoming shrill. It usually involves pointing out the consequences of current trends in copyrights, patent law, and drm, for everyone involved. Intellectual property is a business with no a priori claims to legitimacy. It is this way because legislators chose to make it this way. If Stallman spent more time pointing out who is making money from abusing copyright law and abusing the American system of political lobbying, rather than debating what we should call something, I suspect he would reach a larger audience, and maybe even get what he ultimately wants. Cheers.
"The reason why americans are driving SUVs is because US goverment is subsidizing personal driving, by not taxing car owners the cost that are associated with using cars."
You sir are a complete, ideology-addled moron. Roads cost money, repairing roads cost money. Driving an SUV does not damage a road any more than driving a Ford Taurus does, or Chevy Caprice, or Acura RL, or Toyota Camry, or VW Bug. Payload may be larger, but most SUV don't operate at full payload the way commercial trucks do, hence the equality, and hence the penalty for using a private vehicle for commercial purposes. Private use of a larger vehicle doesn't increase operating cost for the government, just for the owner.
Subsidizing is giving someone money. Period. Tax-abatement is charging less taxes than the tax laws say you should pay. The cost associated with using SUVs is what? More wear and tear on the asphalt? Or more wear and tear on the environment? You need to be clear. Wear and tear on the asphalt is not a debatable fact. Wear and tear on the the environment is quite debatable. You just weren't around for the last round of b.s. that said we would be out of oil by the end of the eighties, or the last batch of scientist who said we were headed for the next ice-age. One of these days when you grow up, you will understand that just because a Ph.D. says something, does not make it true. Ask any Ph.D. how many folks they know with Ph.D.s. Then ask them how many of these Ph.D.s are opinionated egomaniacs. It's like growing up Catholic and thinking that every Priest knows what he is talking about. It's the same cabal, just a different field. "you can fool some of the people all of the time........"
Fool.
The issue is that it is not THEIR music, the music belongs to the artists and the distibutors operate like they own it because they have set up signifigant roadblocks to going around their distribution channels. Try to find an unsigned band on the radio. In North America 99% of music played on the radio is distibuted by major labels. How's that for controlling what gets heard by the consumer. If you want to make it in the music business, having a great product is not enough. You have to get signed and into the distribution channels designed to screw the artists. Granted, you have exceptions like Ani DiFranco (sp?), but if you want to buy the music in the U.S.A. you have to deal with this. It's not like we can go to another bakery to buy our bread because we don't like the prices at one. If you want bread you gotta get it from these guys.
Unless you literally meant, don't buy it, which is exactly what is happening. The RIAA gangsters aren't the only distribution anymore. The internet is replacing them. The loosers are the Metallicas and Sheryl Crows who won't be making millions of dollars off of a rigged system. I'm a capitalist and an entrepeneur, so I know a scam when I see one. For every Sheryl Crow making a million dollars, there are a dozen more good artists who couldn't make a living because they couldn't get signed. It's not that the system makes a lot of money for Sheryl Crow (a good thing), the issue is that the system kills off opportunities for a lot of others to startup their own business as a musician and make money (a bad thing).
>Bringing the owning class down and to empower those people actually working in some kind of revolution for the common good is a traditional socialist position. And even one of the more radical one. Calling it business model is nothing more than a fig leaf. Horse-shit, I'm not promoting bringing down the owning class. The owning class here is the musicians and artist who actually create the work. I'm promoting getting the money to the people who actually make the music. The recording industry has conned their way into the middle between the producer and the consumer taking a huge cut of the profits. Granted, distribution is part of the production process, but in this case the distributer has taken control of the whole process and screwed others to maintain control. I am not talking about bringing down the ownership class you simp, I'm talking about creating a new distribution that streamlines the assholes in the recording business out of the picture. We don't need them to hear great music or see great bands. It is a business model because it is about creating a more effective distribution that doesn't drive customers away. File-sharing filled a need for a better deal. The customers got tired of getting screwed and went someplace else to get their music.
the revolution is a new business model that worked for bands like Dave Mathews, Phish, and the Grateful Dead. Don't misassociate here. I don't have a single mp3 of any of these three bands, but their business model was built on good music and fan/customer loyalty. The revolution is not for the common man. You people need to read the whole post before you fire off half-baked responses. The new revolutionary business model puts the artist at the profit center, making money in a business structure perhaps like itunes and from touring. There is no communism with money being redistributed. Revolutions operate outside the law and by definition function to replace old structures. That is what I was advocating, a new business model that serves the artist, and furthers creativity and innovation.
The current model promotes a lot of crap, and makes it difficult for a lot of good bands to get themselves heard. If you spent a half a day in a public school, you would see the Brittany Spears effect, where girls are dressed like prostitutes and the music they listen too sucks. I haven't listened to a radio station in five years, because the distribution channels for music is so heavily controlled by the industry that I have to listen to ten lousy songs to hear one good one.
nothing socialist about file-sharing. socialism is government being mommy and daddy providing for needs, controlling and subsidizing unprofitable industry, and promoting mediocrity. file-sharing is breaking laws that make it tough for independent bands to compete with brittany spears, marilyn manson and whatever major act is being promoted through major media channels. This distribution model is broken, it doesn't serve the artists, the fans, or foster creativity and innovation. Take a good look at how the recording industry operates, it's not a monopoly any more than microsoft is a monopoly. Bill Gates has nothing on these guys. I'm not saying the music should be free, I am saying that the recording industry needs to be brought down to erect a new business model where the recording artist are the profit center, not the recording industry. Socialism my ass, this is a Revolution.