Interesting to see you mention Northern Ireland. With it close by, I get to see more of it than you do, most likely.. And having quite a lot of friends there, and spending time there, the people are pretty happy with things the way they are. Except of course, the paramilitary organisations (IRA etc), and the people wish they'd just go away.
As for the rest of the little list you put out, it'd be interesting to see what your take is on all of it.. The intervention of the UN has been in the case of one country attacking another, and then gearing up to prevent it.
As far as I'm aware, France, Germany, England, Spain, and the rest of Europe aren't involved in any racial cleansing. Care to quote me more on what you're getting at, rather than just spouting bits and pieces without backing stuff up?
If you're going back in history, Germany once tried genocide of the Jews. Under one extremely nasty leader. And trust me, they still find that part of their history extremely distasteful.
England.. Can't think of any quests of Genocide. Nor spain, Italy etc. etc.
Does your moral high horse include the near Genocide of the Native Americans? I hear that there are a few tribes that ceased to exist by being completely annihilated. That must count for a few ticks in the genocide box for you guys.
As for the police state.. Last time I was there (about 10 months ago) I was stuck in queues for about 2 hours, having luggage checked multiple times. But I had no quibble with that, it was understandable. What gets me is all the other intrusions into privacy, especially as someone who used to travel there a lot (I now refuse, on the grounds of just how intrusive travel to the States has become). I didn't say you were in a police state right now.. But the signs, from the perspective of someone who's travelled there rather a lot, and watched things change over the last 15 years, aren't very encouraging..
As for believing there will be no retributive attacks, or terror actions, just because you've not seen any.. Plans take a long time.. You'll see the fruits over the next few decades, not the next few days..
As for Saddam doing what he wants, so why can't the US...
He once stepped out into Kuwait, and got his ass rightfully kicked back into Iraq, and had so many sanctions levelled that it crucified the country.
Since then, he's been extremely nasty, inside the country he rules. This is the big distinction. Your argument goes along the lines of "If Saddam can do what he wants in his own country then America has the right to do what it wants in Saddam's country too."
Like saying, if your neighbour can do what he wants in his house, in privacy, you have the right to go into his house, and do exactly what you want too.. Try that on, and you'll be in front of the courts for trespass, and lord alone knows what else very sharpish.
As for China, it's learning, but slowly. Russia too, is on the right path, but slowly. If you want to claim the moral high ground, don't look to history.. The US history isn't particularly salubrious itself.
And as for America being a true melting pot.. It's basically variations on the theme of American.. You don't get the culture in the same way as actually going to a foreign country and living there.. Europe is about the most cosmopolitan place around at the moment.. And living on each other's back doors, we get well acquainted with each other's customs and ways..
Actually, I just want a game that I can play without having to reboot to a windows partition. And I want a game that'll play in ten years time. Loads of my old favourites now pretty much refuse to work happily with win2k or above(which soon will be the oldest supported release, and you'll need a current version of DX to play the latest games, which won't install on your older windows machine). I use Linux (StarOffice, Mozilla and Evolution on Mandrake, Red Hat or Debian, whichever is my favourite flavour at the time..) for most of my needs, and have windows exclusively to run games. I'd really like to not have to pay for a Windows license, just to play a game. Companies porting these days to Linux isn't out of the goodness of their hearts.. It's because they've heard of Linux. As have a good many other people, and they realise that the numbers are growing. If they build the tools for cross platform development now, if Linux does really take off, they they're ahead of the competition by already having tools to get the next games out for less cost (the engine is good for a couple of years and a few game releases on it). Given the choice of a windows, or a Linux install, I'd take the linux one any day of the week. If I'm offered both on the same disk set, I'd praise the company highly for not trying to gouge by selling the same thing on two different formats (like the RIAA). It's not about M$, and not about being philanthropic. It's about watching where the market seems to be going.. Which is rather heartening!
Basic bulk CD copier, just like the industry, and the REAL pirates use? All the big pirates don't use PCs... Read up on the background material before you post.
I'll agree that the might is right is entirely wrong, which is what I was attempting to table. I'll agree that you need a rational objective guiding actions. I wholeheartedly subscribe to that school of thought.
I just don't believe any such rational objective was acquired. And if it was, the foundation was laid on a very shaky premise.
I'll note that book.. I've heard of it before, and it sounds an interesting read.
Sort of.. The big problem being that the war is now being held to try and dig up the evidence that backs Bush. Much like the spanish inquisition. There is no innocent once they said you were guilty. If they tortured you hard enough to confess, you were guilty. If you died, then you were still guilty, you just hadn't recieved absolution before you went. The legal ground of the offense is very dodgy. Much like trying to convict someone of murder, just because you couldn't find things there that you expected to. But yes, on the whole, less of a crime than taking the vote, being told no, there wasn't any evidence, then going ahead. Also, another point that irks the UN is that the 'harsh consequences' does not say 'We'll invade'. It was originally intended as harsher embargos, and diplomatic pressure. Wonder how long Saddam could last if nobody bought oil from Iraq... That oil would still be there for a 'rebuild' after Saddam was ousted, by the Iraqis, for the Iraqis. That way, would lead more to world peace, basically passing on the message "Don't piss us off.. Otherwise you'll go.. And not only that, you'll be a laughing stock of the world..". The problem as stands is that, even though most of the world (rightly, from all that I know) despises Saddam and his cronies, he is now perceived to have a legitimate complaint. Much as the UN is loathe to do so, they need to address that complaint. And the sad conclusion is that Spain, Australia, the UK and the US are operating outside the scope of the previous resolution, and against the express majority of the UN (which is essentially a Jury). Yes, the claim can be made, but it's very very tenuous. It's contrary to the spirit of the resolution (otherwise, the vote would have gone with the US press for war), but the word, if mangled enough could possibly cover. Much like the US courts saying in theory the Constitution saying that copyright was allowable for a 'limited period' essentially meant eternity minus one year. By the word, you could say that removing all life from Iraq and leaving it a sterile wasteland was a 'harsh consequence'. But that is very against the spirit, which is why the UN is a jury of different countries. To make sure you don't get (or have much less chance of) misinterpretations of the law, as it was intended to be enacted.
And the right of the individual countries to rule themselves, even though it be in a fashion disliked by other countries? Hey, does that mean all the middle east is now free to bomb America and the UK into the ground in interests of 'Security'?
By the way, much of what's taken for granted in the US is illegal in Muslim countries, and the fact that these activities are condoned is very contrary to the foundation ideas of these countries. Does that mean they have the right to invade your country? Didn't think so.
As for an irrational use of force that oppresses freedom.. You only have to look at the Texan proposing file sharers be locked up for three years.. The incarceration of Sklyarov and so on and so forth...
What, praytell, would you counter that with? Force?
Side note. England was formed by war. First tribal, then war between small kingdoms. Finally, it ended up being what it is now, after winning some country level wars, losing others.
But, I get the gist of what yer saying.. Just adding a quick history note.:)
I think the large amount of support two years ago would have been a great asset in that course.
However, it doesn't look as if there was sufficient time put into that avenue of action. So, we'll never know.
No, it was time for quiet assassination. Do you think then, if Russia, China, and a good portion of the rest of the world is really pissed at Bush causing the invasion of a soverign country (contrary to all international law. This is a BIG war crime), then that gives them the right to start bombing America?
Sadam was a nasty, spiteful perhaps evil person, yes.
But, what has war achieved, apart from splitting Europe (hey, America now has one less 'federal superpower' to contend with..), putting a good many people's lives in danger (all the troops, and Iraqi civilians, who're supposed to be being saved), and generally costing a fortune?
Not a lot that some nice covert actions couldn't have achieved at a fraction the cost, no great upheaval, and allowing the US to keep the good will it had a couple of years back. Not to mention, not getting the innocent killed.
Hmm.. And America's better?
At least, at this point in Europe, people are actively looking for ways to avoid killing and war. Trying, for once, to put the power of thinking, and applying rational arguments to reach a solution.
Europe's large gripe with the US at the moment is that it didn't follow international law (which up to now, it's been clamouring for), and, as far as can be seen, simply got bored of waiting for the weapons inspectors to come to conclusions. So went ahead and waged war.
Many of the inspectors came to the conclusion that there was nothing more to find.. Incidentally, I wonder what would happen in the US was forced to account for all it's fissile material.. Last accounts were that there was a lot that couldn't be accounted for.
The politicians know that just because nothing's been found, you can never conclusively say there was nothing. However, finding one thing proves your argument. The know they can 'keep searching' forever for something that's not there, and still hold the moral high ground. It just got to the point that this was a pretty shaky argument, that most of Europe found too flimsy to wage a full war on.
So, to the eden free of bloodshed. Most of Europe wanted to keep this free of bloodshed. Guess which country plowed right on in there to spill blood at this current moment of time?
Point being, the US sticks it's nose into things that it doesn't understand.
Those big oceans give rise to a huge amount of ignorance in the American populace about how the rest of the world works. And more so, they honestly don't care about this ignorance.
In Europe, we're all forced to understand that there are other cultures, and other ways of thinking. This expands the mind somewhat, and stops the narrow, blinkered view that your way is the only way.
Just a couple of years ago, near the whole world was behind America. It was the sole, largest chance I think that has ever been seen to rise up and start things in motion that would have helped true world peace, and formed a lasting tribute to a 'land of the free'.
However, Bush has squandered this freely, used the excuses to repress his own people, and start down the road of a police state, while giving the rest of the world the view of America as an aggressive empire builder.
A large portion of world view is now against America. The land that places so much in the law, and the freedom of a vote. The land that wouldn't let the resolution to go to war hit a vote, as it knew it would lose. And thus broke international law to go to war. Strange, American law should be worldwide (Can you say Sklyarov?), yet the views of the rest of the world mean so little.
I think that's what the parent meant by isolationist. American politicians think they're in a nice little container apart from the rest of the world. They can do what they want when the want, anywhere they want, and the rest of the world doesn't exist in their calculations of the effects.
This doesn't mean I dislike America, or it's people. It just means I have absolutely no faith in it's politicians, or their thinking.
Ok, so shoes are used in all bank robberies. Lets tax those, and give the proceeds to banks. Clothes are worn by people to take staplers from offices. Hey, lets tax those too, and give the proceeds to office suppliers. Your assumption that all home users copy software/music illegally is entirely flawed. Some small percentage do. But hey, they're already taxing the CDs... And those proceeds are going to 'make up for lost sales honest!'.. I disagree with you saying that most people will break the law if they think they'll get something extra... I'd say most people would break the law, if the law made no sense.. Most people, I seem to find, won't break the law if it's a sensible one..
I honestly can't find one sane point in your post.. All people who copy software also eat food, and breathe air. So those are tools for the activity.
Your hypothesis seems to be that "Some people who use computers copy illegal things. Therefore, all people who use computers copy illegal things". I'm sure you can spot the flaw in that argument. Basic logic that any 10 year old could spot holes in. This law follows that premise. It's flawed. There is no rationalisation for it, apart from a money grab, because they've seen it happen elsewhere.
Give me an argument that stands up to analysys, and I'll listen, but please don't bother to post rebuttals that are completely full of holes.. I know my analogy wasn't on the nail, but your reply had more holes than swiss cheese. The rest was fallacy.
As for covering costs.. I run a business, thank you, and do quite well, so, I know how to keep customers happy, and how to treat them well.. Accusing them of being criminals before you deal with them is pretty much a bad thing.
*Cough* So, by your arguments there, practicing insurance fraud would make the price of a tub of ice cream more expensive, without affecting the price of insurance.
How strange..
If it were a case of a goodly many computers being stolen from the factory, or something weird happened to increase the fail rate at manufacture, then, sure, the price of PCs would climb. That, indeed, is just business..
However, one business claims, without hard evidence to back it up that one business, in a completely different market segment, affects it's profits. And for this, lobbies to put a levvy, payable to it, on that other business..
It would be very similar to a car construction company saying that road construction companies made roads of lesser quality, meaning that they had to spend more per car, as bits wore out more quickly, losing them money, as they just have to keep the price constant.. Then lobbying the government to get every construction company to pay them a fixed fee, plus a percentage of the cost of the road, for every mile of road built.
What the don't take into account is that the (allegedly) rougher roads lead to people buying better bits for their cars anyway, and more repeat custom (just as exposure to new music actually seems to lead to more sales.. I know I've bought a lot of music I wouldn't have ever known about, if someone hadn't played it for me/lent me a disk/whatever).
All they see, is the chance to get a gib wadge of hard cash, gouged from another company, for doing nothing apart from pointing an accusing finger.
It saddens me to see so many companies these days not concentrating on making a good, solid product that people want, and instead expecting to make money just by pointing fingers and accusing other people of being not nice, and not getting off their collective arses to do anything that makes people want to buy their own product..
Go visit Packet Storm. It's a pretty good site to grab admin tools. And a good place to read about what exploits you need to keep your eyes open for.
Not sure how much you'll pick up for just your webserver, but it's a good starting point to pick up from.
Interesting theory, but:
Microsoft uses all kinds of methods, including changing the data formats, hiding protocols etc, that keep someone locked in.
Once you use MS to run something, you're stuck with it pretty much.
Google, on the other hand, runs right out of any browser around. If you want to swap, you can run the same query in another engine, no problem, no hassle.
IF, however, Google started forcing you to use a special browser to access it's site, which disallowed other browsers on the system, and prevented you accessing any other search engine, I'd have to say, yes, they were like MS at that point.
I don't know if they're evil, or not.. I just prefer to think of them as handy. They can do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, and they don't play silly buggers with my system, and make claims to it. If it starts to be useless, I'll go onto the next thing that's not..
For now, however, it's very useful. And I like it.
Most of the posts I've read here have been along the lines of 'The author of the article is just having a rant', and 'Hey, these guys have to get paid.. They did work, why does she want them to give it away for free?'.
Reading the article more closely gives the real picture.
The article's author is aggrieved that the two major Law information sellers refuse to sell a database to a public library.
Now, if this database wasn't for sale, fine, and no problem.
However, it is for sale. To libraries. Except these libraries are at Universities, and Governmental libraries.
The gripe is that a public library isn't treated in the same way as an academic library. In other words, you need to shell out the money to go to higher education that some interested layman would not be able to afford, to get access, or you would have to shell out the full cost of commercial access on the online version.
I don't think paying for the data was the problem, just that the public library was told they couldn't renew an existing subscription, or commence a new one, although it was available to Academic and Government libraries.
Which badly hits out at the guy in the street that wants to read!
It would be a sad world if the latest data on Comp Sci, or Chemistry or Physics were only held in Academic libraries, instead of available to the interested layman.
It's not a case of getting things for free, it's about the cutting off of the information to the average person. And I must admit, that irritates me.
Interesting they go after the small, relatively unknown person, rather than the big hulking brand with enough money to spend on Lawyers to make this case stand out as the stupidity that it is!
If they'd taken on Weetabix (that well known breakfast cereal), I'd have perhaps thought they were actually trying to be serious about things (like keeping everything with an 'ix' suffix in their control)..
However, it's a case of hit on the small guy and be a bully.. That's the last Asterix book I read!
Or buy for anyone else..
Interesting.. Many people think that Humans are at the height of the evolutionary chain, simply because we eat most of the lower animals, and we've made inroads on a lot of diseases.
However, the big problem currently is that Bacteria seem to evolve a darn sight faster than we do. Currently there are strains around that we can do the square root of sod all about, apart from stick the infected person into isolation until they die or get over it themselves.
These resistant strains are only going to get more predominant as they share genes, which will probably give humanity a run for it's money in the nearish future.
We may be the most advanced life on Earth (probably anyway), but, don't let that fool you into thinking we're the end of the line. If evolution gets arsy about us, the little guys still have plenty of tricks up their sleeves we don't have a clue about yet..
I'd like to think Humanity's got the potential for the best, in the evolutionary terms.. But we could still head for a fall yet.
Oh, and a monopoly isn't the end point of evolutionary capitalism. Monopoly is to Capitalism what Cancer is to a biological entity.
Grows fast, spreads out as far as it can, until it's all there is left. Usually killing it's own environment in the process.
Evolution actually requires competition to improve. MS doesn't even want to allow anything else in the arena whatsoever. Given that it's the only player in the field, you end up with stagnation, and an end to evolution. This in turn leads to degredation and decay.
MS, curerrently is definately a false maximum fitness speaking, and it's using non-evolutionary measures (read lawyers) to tip the balance, to prevent evolution taking it's course.
A large part of the reason MS still has it's dominance is keeping everyone else running scared of it's Lawyers. Oh, and it's political lobbying. None of which is Capitalism, more like Corruption.
Please don't mistake the two.:)
Capitalism is about operating in a free market. Now, a Free Market is defined as a market operating with little to no restriction on supply and demand.
Take the new licensing agreement for example. You do things when MS want you to, or you pay WAY more. This creates an artificial demand (thus, no longer a free market for that product, unless you have alternatives).
As for alternatives, MS are definately unhappy about people using the methods for reading their data, or interoperation with their OS. This restricts supply of products rather badly, if you're already in MS territory (unless you want to spend WAY more escaping their clutches).
In the Sendo case, they promised supply of a product (namely the operating system for the phone), then failed to produce it while Sendo went down the tubes. That's seriously restricting supply to Sendo.
As soon as they starved a partner, not a competitor even, they opened supply wide open.
I'm sure your economics class that you got while not doing your comp sci one will let you pick and choose a whole slew of tactics used by MS to avoid coming out into a Free Market.
And a Free Market is what Capitalism is all about.
No Free Market, no Capitalism.
Uhh.. Score 5? Someone's got an odd concept of Capitalism.
Capitalism works fine when everyone's honourable, and keeps their word, and basically plays the game. People make products and make money. Best product wins (votes=money).
MS, as usual, are breaking the rules, and pulling their own game (kill all other contenders), which isn't Capitalism.
In Capitalism, you end up with a flourishing ecosystem of companies providing a variety of competing products. Evolution selects the best.
In the MS game, you end up with one monolithic power providing what it thinks is best for people.
In fact, MS' way is more like communism than capitalism. "To each unto their needs'..
MS decides what each person needs, and that's what they get, like it or not. It attempts to take all competition out of the arena, so, if you want an office suite, you have MS office, as MS has killed the competition.
So, really, MS is anti-capitalist.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting to see you mention Northern Ireland. With it close by, I get to see more of it than you do, most likely.. And having quite a lot of friends there, and spending time there, the people are pretty happy with things the way they are. Except of course, the paramilitary organisations (IRA etc), and the people wish they'd just go away.
As for the rest of the little list you put out, it'd be interesting to see what your take is on all of it.. The intervention of the UN has been in the case of one country attacking another, and then gearing up to prevent it.
As far as I'm aware, France, Germany, England, Spain, and the rest of Europe aren't involved in any racial cleansing. Care to quote me more on what you're getting at, rather than just spouting bits and pieces without backing stuff up?
If you're going back in history, Germany once tried genocide of the Jews. Under one extremely nasty leader. And trust me, they still find that part of their history extremely distasteful.
England.. Can't think of any quests of Genocide. Nor spain, Italy etc. etc.
Does your moral high horse include the near Genocide of the Native Americans? I hear that there are a few tribes that ceased to exist by being completely annihilated. That must count for a few ticks in the genocide box for you guys.
As for the police state.. Last time I was there (about 10 months ago) I was stuck in queues for about 2 hours, having luggage checked multiple times. But I had no quibble with that, it was understandable. What gets me is all the other intrusions into privacy, especially as someone who used to travel there a lot (I now refuse, on the grounds of just how intrusive travel to the States has become). I didn't say you were in a police state right now.. But the signs, from the perspective of someone who's travelled there rather a lot, and watched things change over the last 15 years, aren't very encouraging..
As for believing there will be no retributive attacks, or terror actions, just because you've not seen any.. Plans take a long time.. You'll see the fruits over the next few decades, not the next few days..
As for Saddam doing what he wants, so why can't the US...
He once stepped out into Kuwait, and got his ass rightfully kicked back into Iraq, and had so many sanctions levelled that it crucified the country.
Since then, he's been extremely nasty, inside the country he rules. This is the big distinction. Your argument goes along the lines of "If Saddam can do what he wants in his own country then America has the right to do what it wants in Saddam's country too."
Like saying, if your neighbour can do what he wants in his house, in privacy, you have the right to go into his house, and do exactly what you want too.. Try that on, and you'll be in front of the courts for trespass, and lord alone knows what else very sharpish.
As for China, it's learning, but slowly. Russia too, is on the right path, but slowly. If you want to claim the moral high ground, don't look to history.. The US history isn't particularly salubrious itself.
And as for America being a true melting pot.. It's basically variations on the theme of American.. You don't get the culture in the same way as actually going to a foreign country and living there.. Europe is about the most cosmopolitan place around at the moment.. And living on each other's back doors, we get well acquainted with each other's customs and ways..
Actually, I just want a game that I can play without having to reboot to a windows partition.
And I want a game that'll play in ten years time. Loads of my old favourites now pretty much refuse to work happily with win2k or above(which soon will be the oldest supported release, and you'll need a current version of DX to play the latest games, which won't install on your older windows machine).
I use Linux (StarOffice, Mozilla and Evolution on Mandrake, Red Hat or Debian, whichever is my favourite flavour at the time..) for most of my needs, and have windows exclusively to run games.
I'd really like to not have to pay for a Windows license, just to play a game.
Companies porting these days to Linux isn't out of the goodness of their hearts.. It's because they've heard of Linux. As have a good many other people, and they realise that the numbers are growing.
If they build the tools for cross platform development now, if Linux does really take off, they they're ahead of the competition by already having tools to get the next games out for less cost (the engine is good for a couple of years and a few game releases on it).
Given the choice of a windows, or a Linux install, I'd take the linux one any day of the week.
If I'm offered both on the same disk set, I'd praise the company highly for not trying to gouge by selling the same thing on two different formats (like the RIAA).
It's not about M$, and not about being philanthropic. It's about watching where the market seems to be going.. Which is rather heartening!
Basic bulk CD copier, just like the industry, and the REAL pirates use?
All the big pirates don't use PCs... Read up on the background material before you post.
I'll agree that the might is right is entirely wrong, which is what I was attempting to table. I'll agree that you need a rational objective guiding actions. I wholeheartedly subscribe to that school of thought.
I just don't believe any such rational objective was acquired. And if it was, the foundation was laid on a very shaky premise.
I'll note that book.. I've heard of it before, and it sounds an interesting read.
Sort of.. The big problem being that the war is now being held to try and dig up the evidence that backs Bush.
Much like the spanish inquisition. There is no innocent once they said you were guilty. If they tortured you hard enough to confess, you were guilty. If you died, then you were still guilty, you just hadn't recieved absolution before you went.
The legal ground of the offense is very dodgy. Much like trying to convict someone of murder, just because you couldn't find things there that you expected to. But yes, on the whole, less of a crime than taking the vote, being told no, there wasn't any evidence, then going ahead.
Also, another point that irks the UN is that the 'harsh consequences' does not say 'We'll invade'. It was originally intended as harsher embargos, and diplomatic pressure. Wonder how long Saddam could last if nobody bought oil from Iraq...
That oil would still be there for a 'rebuild' after Saddam was ousted, by the Iraqis, for the Iraqis.
That way, would lead more to world peace, basically passing on the message "Don't piss us off.. Otherwise you'll go.. And not only that, you'll be a laughing stock of the world..".
The problem as stands is that, even though most of the world (rightly, from all that I know) despises Saddam and his cronies, he is now perceived to have a legitimate complaint.
Much as the UN is loathe to do so, they need to address that complaint.
And the sad conclusion is that Spain, Australia, the UK and the US are operating outside the scope of the previous resolution, and against the express majority of the UN (which is essentially a Jury).
Yes, the claim can be made, but it's very very tenuous. It's contrary to the spirit of the resolution (otherwise, the vote would have gone with the US press for war), but the word, if mangled enough could possibly cover.
Much like the US courts saying in theory the Constitution saying that copyright was allowable for a 'limited period' essentially meant eternity minus one year.
By the word, you could say that removing all life from Iraq and leaving it a sterile wasteland was a 'harsh consequence'.
But that is very against the spirit, which is why the UN is a jury of different countries. To make sure you don't get (or have much less chance of) misinterpretations of the law, as it was intended to be enacted.
Where on earth do you get the idea Iraq would ever have the force to attack the UK? You, old chap, are living in cloud cuckooland.
Actually, I think the whole thrust of my argument was most eloquently proved in the other followup post.
And the right of the individual countries to rule themselves, even though it be in a fashion disliked by other countries? Hey, does that mean all the middle east is now free to bomb America and the UK into the ground in interests of 'Security'?
By the way, much of what's taken for granted in the US is illegal in Muslim countries, and the fact that these activities are condoned is very contrary to the foundation ideas of these countries. Does that mean they have the right to invade your country? Didn't think so.
As for an irrational use of force that oppresses freedom.. You only have to look at the Texan proposing file sharers be locked up for three years.. The incarceration of Sklyarov and so on and so forth...
What, praytell, would you counter that with? Force?
Side note. England was formed by war. First tribal, then war between small kingdoms. Finally, it ended up being what it is now, after winning some country level wars, losing others. :)
But, I get the gist of what yer saying.. Just adding a quick history note.
We do? Hey, your next newsflash is that the moon is made of cheese, yes?
I think the large amount of support two years ago would have been a great asset in that course.
However, it doesn't look as if there was sufficient time put into that avenue of action. So, we'll never know.
Hear hear. I don't have the mod points to give support to that view, but, it deserves the words insightful.
No, it was time for quiet assassination. Do you think then, if Russia, China, and a good portion of the rest of the world is really pissed at Bush causing the invasion of a soverign country (contrary to all international law. This is a BIG war crime), then that gives them the right to start bombing America?
Sadam was a nasty, spiteful perhaps evil person, yes.
But, what has war achieved, apart from splitting Europe (hey, America now has one less 'federal superpower' to contend with..), putting a good many people's lives in danger (all the troops, and Iraqi civilians, who're supposed to be being saved), and generally costing a fortune?
Not a lot that some nice covert actions couldn't have achieved at a fraction the cost, no great upheaval, and allowing the US to keep the good will it had a couple of years back. Not to mention, not getting the innocent killed.
Hmm.. And America's better?
At least, at this point in Europe, people are actively looking for ways to avoid killing and war. Trying, for once, to put the power of thinking, and applying rational arguments to reach a solution.
Europe's large gripe with the US at the moment is that it didn't follow international law (which up to now, it's been clamouring for), and, as far as can be seen, simply got bored of waiting for the weapons inspectors to come to conclusions. So went ahead and waged war.
Many of the inspectors came to the conclusion that there was nothing more to find.. Incidentally, I wonder what would happen in the US was forced to account for all it's fissile material.. Last accounts were that there was a lot that couldn't be accounted for.
The politicians know that just because nothing's been found, you can never conclusively say there was nothing. However, finding one thing proves your argument. The know they can 'keep searching' forever for something that's not there, and still hold the moral high ground. It just got to the point that this was a pretty shaky argument, that most of Europe found too flimsy to wage a full war on.
So, to the eden free of bloodshed. Most of Europe wanted to keep this free of bloodshed. Guess which country plowed right on in there to spill blood at this current moment of time?
Point being, the US sticks it's nose into things that it doesn't understand.
Those big oceans give rise to a huge amount of ignorance in the American populace about how the rest of the world works. And more so, they honestly don't care about this ignorance.
In Europe, we're all forced to understand that there are other cultures, and other ways of thinking. This expands the mind somewhat, and stops the narrow, blinkered view that your way is the only way.
Just a couple of years ago, near the whole world was behind America. It was the sole, largest chance I think that has ever been seen to rise up and start things in motion that would have helped true world peace, and formed a lasting tribute to a 'land of the free'.
However, Bush has squandered this freely, used the excuses to repress his own people, and start down the road of a police state, while giving the rest of the world the view of America as an aggressive empire builder.
A large portion of world view is now against America. The land that places so much in the law, and the freedom of a vote. The land that wouldn't let the resolution to go to war hit a vote, as it knew it would lose. And thus broke international law to go to war. Strange, American law should be worldwide (Can you say Sklyarov?), yet the views of the rest of the world mean so little.
I think that's what the parent meant by isolationist. American politicians think they're in a nice little container apart from the rest of the world. They can do what they want when the want, anywhere they want, and the rest of the world doesn't exist in their calculations of the effects.
This doesn't mean I dislike America, or it's people. It just means I have absolutely no faith in it's politicians, or their thinking.
Ok, so shoes are used in all bank robberies. Lets tax those, and give the proceeds to banks.
Clothes are worn by people to take staplers from offices. Hey, lets tax those too, and give the proceeds to office suppliers.
Your assumption that all home users copy software/music illegally is entirely flawed. Some small percentage do. But hey, they're already taxing the CDs... And those proceeds are going to 'make up for lost sales honest!'..
I disagree with you saying that most people will break the law if they think they'll get something extra...
I'd say most people would break the law, if the law made no sense.. Most people, I seem to find, won't break the law if it's a sensible one..
I honestly can't find one sane point in your post.. All people who copy software also eat food, and breathe air.
So those are tools for the activity.
Your hypothesis seems to be that "Some people who use computers copy illegal things. Therefore, all people who use computers copy illegal things". I'm sure you can spot the flaw in that argument. Basic logic that any 10 year old could spot holes in.
This law follows that premise. It's flawed. There is no rationalisation for it, apart from a money grab, because they've seen it happen elsewhere.
Give me an argument that stands up to analysys, and I'll listen, but please don't bother to post rebuttals that are completely full of holes.. I know my analogy wasn't on the nail, but your reply had more holes than swiss cheese. The rest was fallacy.
As for covering costs.. I run a business, thank you, and do quite well, so, I know how to keep customers happy, and how to treat them well.. Accusing them of being criminals before you deal with them is pretty much a bad thing.
*Cough* So, by your arguments there, practicing insurance fraud would make the price of a tub of ice cream more expensive, without affecting the price of insurance.
How strange..
If it were a case of a goodly many computers being stolen from the factory, or something weird happened to increase the fail rate at manufacture, then, sure, the price of PCs would climb. That, indeed, is just business..
However, one business claims, without hard evidence to back it up that one business, in a completely different market segment, affects it's profits. And for this, lobbies to put a levvy, payable to it, on that other business..
It would be very similar to a car construction company saying that road construction companies made roads of lesser quality, meaning that they had to spend more per car, as bits wore out more quickly, losing them money, as they just have to keep the price constant.. Then lobbying the government to get every construction company to pay them a fixed fee, plus a percentage of the cost of the road, for every mile of road built.
What the don't take into account is that the (allegedly) rougher roads lead to people buying better bits for their cars anyway, and more repeat custom (just as exposure to new music actually seems to lead to more sales.. I know I've bought a lot of music I wouldn't have ever known about, if someone hadn't played it for me/lent me a disk/whatever).
All they see, is the chance to get a gib wadge of hard cash, gouged from another company, for doing nothing apart from pointing an accusing finger.
It saddens me to see so many companies these days not concentrating on making a good, solid product that people want, and instead expecting to make money just by pointing fingers and accusing other people of being not nice, and not getting off their collective arses to do anything that makes people want to buy their own product..
Just my frustrated tuppence,
Malk
Go visit Packet Storm. It's a pretty good site to grab admin tools. And a good place to read about what exploits you need to keep your eyes open for.
Not sure how much you'll pick up for just your webserver, but it's a good starting point to pick up from.
Malk
Pah! It's just a newsideline for the RIAA.. Just think of all the royalties they'd pick up per trip!!!
Interesting theory, but:
Microsoft uses all kinds of methods, including changing the data formats, hiding protocols etc, that keep someone locked in.
Once you use MS to run something, you're stuck with it pretty much.
Google, on the other hand, runs right out of any browser around. If you want to swap, you can run the same query in another engine, no problem, no hassle.
IF, however, Google started forcing you to use a special browser to access it's site, which disallowed other browsers on the system, and prevented you accessing any other search engine, I'd have to say, yes, they were like MS at that point.
I don't know if they're evil, or not.. I just prefer to think of them as handy. They can do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, and they don't play silly buggers with my system, and make claims to it. If it starts to be useless, I'll go onto the next thing that's not..
For now, however, it's very useful. And I like it.
Malk
Most of the posts I've read here have been along the lines of 'The author of the article is just having a rant', and 'Hey, these guys have to get paid.. They did work, why does she want them to give it away for free?'.
Reading the article more closely gives the real picture.
The article's author is aggrieved that the two major Law information sellers refuse to sell a database to a public library.
Now, if this database wasn't for sale, fine, and no problem.
However, it is for sale. To libraries. Except these libraries are at Universities, and Governmental libraries.
The gripe is that a public library isn't treated in the same way as an academic library. In other words, you need to shell out the money to go to higher education that some interested layman would not be able to afford, to get access, or you would have to shell out the full cost of commercial access on the online version.
I don't think paying for the data was the problem, just that the public library was told they couldn't renew an existing subscription, or commence a new one, although it was available to Academic and Government libraries.
Which badly hits out at the guy in the street that wants to read!
It would be a sad world if the latest data on Comp Sci, or Chemistry or Physics were only held in Academic libraries, instead of available to the interested layman.
It's not a case of getting things for free, it's about the cutting off of the information to the average person. And I must admit, that irritates me.
Malk
Interesting they go after the small, relatively unknown person, rather than the big hulking brand with enough money to spend on Lawyers to make this case stand out as the stupidity that it is!
If they'd taken on Weetabix (that well known breakfast cereal), I'd have perhaps thought they were actually trying to be serious about things (like keeping everything with an 'ix' suffix in their control)..
However, it's a case of hit on the small guy and be a bully..
That's the last Asterix book I read!
Or buy for anyone else..
Malk
Interesting.. Many people think that Humans are at the height of the evolutionary chain, simply because we eat most of the lower animals, and we've made inroads on a lot of diseases.
However, the big problem currently is that Bacteria seem to evolve a darn sight faster than we do. Currently there are strains around that we can do the square root of sod all about, apart from stick the infected person into isolation until they die or get over it themselves.
These resistant strains are only going to get more predominant as they share genes, which will probably give humanity a run for it's money in the nearish future.
We may be the most advanced life on Earth (probably anyway), but, don't let that fool you into thinking we're the end of the line. If evolution gets arsy about us, the little guys still have plenty of tricks up their sleeves we don't have a clue about yet..
I'd like to think Humanity's got the potential for the best, in the evolutionary terms.. But we could still head for a fall yet.
Oh, and a monopoly isn't the end point of evolutionary capitalism. Monopoly is to Capitalism what Cancer is to a biological entity.
Grows fast, spreads out as far as it can, until it's all there is left. Usually killing it's own environment in the process.
Malk
Evolution actually requires competition to improve. MS doesn't even want to allow anything else in the arena whatsoever. Given that it's the only player in the field, you end up with stagnation, and an end to evolution. This in turn leads to degredation and decay. :)
MS, curerrently is definately a false maximum fitness speaking, and it's using non-evolutionary measures (read lawyers) to tip the balance, to prevent evolution taking it's course.
A large part of the reason MS still has it's dominance is keeping everyone else running scared of it's Lawyers. Oh, and it's political lobbying. None of which is Capitalism, more like Corruption.
Please don't mistake the two.
Capitalism is about operating in a free market. Now, a Free Market is defined as a market operating with little to no restriction on supply and demand.
Take the new licensing agreement for example. You do things when MS want you to, or you pay WAY more. This creates an artificial demand (thus, no longer a free market for that product, unless you have alternatives).
As for alternatives, MS are definately unhappy about people using the methods for reading their data, or interoperation with their OS. This restricts supply of products rather badly, if you're already in MS territory (unless you want to spend WAY more escaping their clutches).
In the Sendo case, they promised supply of a product (namely the operating system for the phone), then failed to produce it while Sendo went down the tubes. That's seriously restricting supply to Sendo.
As soon as they starved a partner, not a competitor even, they opened supply wide open.
I'm sure your economics class that you got while not doing your comp sci one will let you pick and choose a whole slew of tactics used by MS to avoid coming out into a Free Market.
And a Free Market is what Capitalism is all about.
No Free Market, no Capitalism.
Malk.
Uhh.. Score 5? Someone's got an odd concept of Capitalism.
Capitalism works fine when everyone's honourable, and keeps their word, and basically plays the game. People make products and make money. Best product wins (votes=money).
MS, as usual, are breaking the rules, and pulling their own game (kill all other contenders), which isn't Capitalism.
In Capitalism, you end up with a flourishing ecosystem of companies providing a variety of competing products. Evolution selects the best.
In the MS game, you end up with one monolithic power providing what it thinks is best for people.
In fact, MS' way is more like communism than capitalism.
"To each unto their needs'..
MS decides what each person needs, and that's what they get, like it or not. It attempts to take all competition out of the arena, so, if you want an office suite, you have MS office, as MS has killed the competition.
So, really, MS is anti-capitalist.
Malk