There are no competing lines now because railways are (mostly) unprofitable now - with the explosion of "personal travel" (cars, bikes) and air travel, which is almost always cheaper than taking a train, the railroads are simply less profitable entites than they were when there was an explosion of competitors.
And let's talk about the competitors for a moment. Part of the reason that the ICC was formed in the first place is that every competitor found it necessary to use their own rails with their own shapes and sizes - meaning that another company's cars couldn't travel those tracks. Finding the results of this insanity unacceptable, railway measurements were standardized, and the physical changes were mostly accomplished by richer rail companies buying out the smaller ones and replacing their rails (since the land was already allocated to rails, it was like getting free land).
It's interesting you bring up just walking away...
I have spent an inordinate amount of time figuring out what "walking away" really means, in the Daniel-Quinn sense of the phrase. If you haven't read his work, he basically advocates that the best way to get out of all this insanity is just to well, get out of it.. walk away. The government, this culture, cannot control what does not willingly play the same game. If I choose to just live on a small piece of land growing tomatoes all day, what are they going to do, outlaw growing tomatoes and dedicate $12 million to capturing me? What kind of public outroar would that cause?
But "walking away" has other meanings, too.
For example, when the "Iraq War" started, people on both sides argued about whether it was "right" or "wrong" to invade a nation preemtively - but the implicit statement was, on both sides, that it was even an issue worth talking about. The first thing people inside this culture do, when presented with an issue, is look for evidence why one way or another of looking at it, is correct.
Well, walking away basically would mean.. don't. To say "it's not my war" would be an overstatement - it's not even my conceptual cup of tea. Our culture is so busy controlling and touching everything, everywhere, all the time, that walking away begins to mean, just living the life that is within 1000 feet of you and stop living everyone else's life for them.
But I digress.
In practice, to "walk away" would simply mean leaving this civilization behind and living the way you want to, away from it all. There's still plenty of open land that can be used to such a purpose, though it still be 'owned' by this government, such as it is. If fairly purchased and gently used, they'll never have any reason to pay attention to you, until they realize you're convincing everyone else to walk away too by giving them a far superior way of life.
But at that point, the governments of the world would be doomed anyway.
Ideally, I would much prefer to just walk away. And for most, that is what I would advocate, and that is what I want to give to my family and my children and all those I care about.
Two weeks ago, no less than THREE government agencies were given FAILING GRADES FOR PROPERLY SECURING THEIR DATA. THREE. The FBI, The Department of Homeland Security, and one other I forget at the moment.
THREE. And these were just the ones investigated.
Two days ago, the IRS was given a "barely passing" grade when it was discovered that their employees STILL answer over 60% of tax filing questions WRONG.
And THESE are the people we want to entrust our most secret daily lives and data to?
Yeah right. I'll take a stereo broadcasting my credit card number into a stadium before I would ever trust the government with one iota of important information..
Particularly given that I am a government contractor and EVERY DAY get to see how incompetent these people really are.
I've been thinking of doing the same thing in my district (Montgomery County, Maryland, just 15 minutes north of Washington, DC).
I wouldn't say any kind of demonstration or "march" would be in the slightest effective; politicians stopped paying attention to those years ago. However, paying a "visit" to a few local politicians might get some eyebrows raised.
We should talk.
Is there a way to message privately here? I'm quite certain that posting my email address here would result in more email than my server can handle within about 45 seconds.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions."
I'm pretty sure the "wire, satellite, and cable" part didn't used to be there. How they expanded their powers themselves, I don't know. Although, it would only require an order from the President to do so, not something voted on by Congress (being that Commissions are considered authorized by the President as an extension of his job as Executive of the Congress' orders)"
Even if it's not true, it would be a safe assumption that "Any technology that can be used for oppression, WILL be used for oppression."
Needless to say, there are cases when this is false. But living by that motto will at least force us to ask ourselves EVERY SINGLE TIME whether a technological advance is worth it.
That aside:
I am an atheist, and yet I would say - do not discount the power of Christian's fear of the "Mark of the Beast." Because Christians are so widespread, it may just be that fear, and that fear alone, that prevents RFID implants from becoming a tool of oppression.
I may find the Bible and religion to be useless to me, but in this case, that fear is VERY useful if my purpose is to keep RFID tags out of my body.
"Technology is a means to an end, not an end in itself."
You are talking to a population that has lost sight of this fact. In a world obsessed with getting rich no matter the price, technology becomes an end in itself - or more specifically, technology for the sake of technology just so that the inventor can get rich.
We've gone way beyond inventing to fill a need, or to solve a problem; we've gone instead to inventing to get rich, and society be damned if what I invented destroys civilization.
I fully expect RFID implants (or "microchip implants" of any kind) to be fully mandatory within the next few decades.
The day I wake up and realize that freedom is a ridiculous myth, will be the day I form my own army and work till I die to destabilize and destroy the world. I would rather destroy the world than pass on such a horrific future to my children and my children's children.
At least then we'd have a chance to start over and maybe do it right the second time.
"just 'cos they're not physically harmfull doesn't mean they're anything other than pure unmitigated evil"
Pure unmitigated evil is just about right.
I want to know I have the freedom to move around without 1) the government knowing where I am every second of the day and 2) being afraid that some loser is out scavanging RFID tags and that I'm going to get home and have all my credit cards maxed and my bank account drained.
These things offer absolutely ZERO benefit with HUGE accompanying risk. I do not understand the appeal.
Investor: What in the world are people going to use these for? It just seems like an invasion of privacy and there's NO security, so really.. how is this useful?
Inventor: Oh, uh.. uh.. home automation! Yes, that's a good idea, wouldn't you like the lighting to go how you want when you walk into a room?
Investor: Umm.. dude, I can just flip a light switch. I don't even have a dimmer, so there's no point in talking about 'lighting' and what if I don't want the living room the same temperature as my wife?
Inventor: Ok, how about unlocking your car! No more lost keys!
Investor: Ok, now you want people cutting my arm off to steal my car?
Inventor: Oh, umm.. logging into your computer! No more lost passwords!
Investor: Ok, so now it's even EASIER to steal my credit card information?
Inventor: Ok look man, you'll make alot of money. Just don't talk about the downsides, and you'll be rich!
and let her know that she's an idiot and that you won't be voting for her in the next election.
I intend to send her office a letter (not an email, a letter) - but I am not in her district so in the end, she doesn't have to listen to me. Mine will be a philosophical plea; yours needs to be an outright threat to not vote for her.
Sad part is, there's really nowhere else to move. Throughout history, people could always just go someplace else not settled yet. Now, there's nowhere else to run.
"Corporations get zero votes, which is infinitely fewer votes than citizens."
You can't possibly be so naive.
Most of our representatives are owned mind, body, and soul by corporations - they couldn't afford to get into office otherwise. You can vote until your hands bleed and you'd still have less sway over the votes of your representative than one phone call by a CEO.
We trade freedom for safety a hundred different ways every day.
All of Western Civilization is based on the Hobbes-ian concept of the "Social Contract" - you give up a little of your absolute freedom for the stability and security of the society as a whole.
However, that comes with an important caveat - that you ONLY give up as much freedom as is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to secure the stability of the society. These are the freedoms we give up - I don't mind getting a driver's license if it means I can drive to the supermarket with a reasonable expectation of getting there safely, for example, and NOT having a driver's license is not essential to my freedom (to reference the Franklin quote).
However, those small things we give up are far different than what the government would like to take - absolute control over essentially every moment of your life. In a perfectly orchestrated world, nobody would be violent, nobody would hate, nobody would cause an accident, nobody would [fill in horrible misfortune here], everyone would be educated, everyone would pay taxes, nobody would disagree because disagreements cause strife, etc. My freedom to disagree, to fail, or to not pay my taxes ARE essential to my freedom (the not paying taxes part, I mention because that is one method of non-violent protest).
The problem is, that kind of control is the antitheses of freedom - and it certainly is not necessary to guarantee the long term health and stability of a culture. 200,000 years of human history should be enough to convince you of that - our societies, when left essentially alone, are amazingly robust (we're still here, aren't we?).
The claim that we need more control "for the safety of the people" does not stand up to the scrutiny of history and should not be used as an argument for more laws and the restriction of freedom. It's not that I think you're saying we need those kinds of restrictions, I just wanted to point out how some restrictions on freedom are not the ones Franklin was talking about.
"Oh.. You're one of those "all government is evil" types.
If I'd have known, I wouldn't have appealed to reason but left you ruminating happily, satisfied that you've picked the right dogma."
Well, while we could delve into the details of the context I should have put that statement in, I would rather point out that of everything I said, that was what you chose to respond to, telling me that it is pointless to attempt to put my statement in context.
Well, how dare you present a contextually accurate picture of the country at that time! Slavery is bad! Slavery is evil! Bah!
Well. While I find slavery to be one of the most heinous inventions of man, I also find it valuable to understand that once, there were millions of people who did not believe so - and that in fact, slavery was a very, very common part of human history. Until the Americas, slaves in most cultures were treated extremely well.
But then, presenting such a point of view is blasphemous in a culture so bent on idealogical control. The freedom to think what you want to think is not a freedom most people care about.. they just want you to agree with them.
Right, she was 'detained', just like all the people in the US who have disappeared since 9/11 are being 'detained' at Gitmo.
It's so conveneint to say you're being 'detained' instead of 'arrested.' Once you're arrested, your Constitutional rights kick in. So long as you're just being 'detained,' the government can do whatever they want to you.
Or didn't you realize that's why the Gitmo prisoners are 'detainees' instead of 'prisoners.'
Right. A totalitarian government would never think of introducing the infrastructure and then abuse it.
No government would be so obvious these days; the past 100 years of revolutions in the world have taught people that blatant dictatorships don't stand for very long.
No, it's much more effective to trick people into thinking they're free until one day someone wakes up and realizes they're not, by which time it's way too late.
As the future marches closer, it will be easier for governments who want absolute control to get it piece by piece rather than all at once. (Read: all governments. There's no such thing as a "Good" government; only ones that are less evil than others, and exist only because they are necessary) No government would be stupid enough to become totalitarian all at once.
No, instead our freedoms, our rights, and our *expectations of freedom* will be gradually worn away until we accept absolute dictatorship as freedom and foolishly believe we are free.
I agree completely. In fact, one of the current EFF Action items is preventing the RIAA/MPAA from forcing a bill through Congress that would require all digital radio and TV receivers to have built in DRM that would prohibit recording - in other words, the universally-loved American pasttime of recording your favorite show to watch later would be come illegal.
By naming the group "consumer," you've in one-fell-swoop stripped them of any semblance of humanity. They're not people, with problems, hopes, and dreams - no, we're "consumers." Who cares if we go bankrupt buying the next best thing just to serve the greed of these corporations - we're just a "consumer," a nameless, faceless entity that is the source of money. They don't care how they get it, they just want all of it, and it makes it easier to take it from us by calling us "consumers."
It is this kind of double-speak that is the essence of evil... is a slave, still a slave, if he doesn't know he is one?
The answer is yes; the corporations want you to believe otherwise, if you even ever ask the question at all.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no intention of ever buying a player for a "new format" or of re-purchasing movies I already own because of a marginal increase in resolution. They're pushing the limit of what the human eye can discern anyway; what's next, pure analog 100000GB/sec data streams with 10000i resolution? There's no point.
I will not give them the satisfaction of making me buy all my favorites over again. I will upgrade in 25 years or so when there's actually a reason to because my players are breaking and my DVDs are starting to warp.
This entire subject is nothing but unadulterated greed on the part of the content providers and those who provide the physical media.
And I, for one, will have no part of it.
More power to the pirates - it is you who expose the corruption of those who claim to be serving our interests..
That's not a particularly good argument. By that reasoning, states can't set the minimum drinking/smoking age, because those items usually are obtained through interstate commerce.
Slashdot Mirror
There are no competing lines now because railways are (mostly) unprofitable now - with the explosion of "personal travel" (cars, bikes) and air travel, which is almost always cheaper than taking a train, the railroads are simply less profitable entites than they were when there was an explosion of competitors.
And let's talk about the competitors for a moment. Part of the reason that the ICC was formed in the first place is that every competitor found it necessary to use their own rails with their own shapes and sizes - meaning that another company's cars couldn't travel those tracks. Finding the results of this insanity unacceptable, railway measurements were standardized, and the physical changes were mostly accomplished by richer rail companies buying out the smaller ones and replacing their rails (since the land was already allocated to rails, it was like getting free land).
Railway history
It's interesting you bring up just walking away...
I have spent an inordinate amount of time figuring out what "walking away" really means, in the Daniel-Quinn sense of the phrase. If you haven't read his work, he basically advocates that the best way to get out of all this insanity is just to well, get out of it.. walk away. The government, this culture, cannot control what does not willingly play the same game. If I choose to just live on a small piece of land growing tomatoes all day, what are they going to do, outlaw growing tomatoes and dedicate $12 million to capturing me? What kind of public outroar would that cause?
But "walking away" has other meanings, too.
For example, when the "Iraq War" started, people on both sides argued about whether it was "right" or "wrong" to invade a nation preemtively - but the implicit statement was, on both sides, that it was even an issue worth talking about. The first thing people inside this culture do, when presented with an issue, is look for evidence why one way or another of looking at it, is correct.
Well, walking away basically would mean.. don't. To say "it's not my war" would be an overstatement - it's not even my conceptual cup of tea. Our culture is so busy controlling and touching everything, everywhere, all the time, that walking away begins to mean, just living the life that is within 1000 feet of you and stop living everyone else's life for them.
But I digress.
In practice, to "walk away" would simply mean leaving this civilization behind and living the way you want to, away from it all. There's still plenty of open land that can be used to such a purpose, though it still be 'owned' by this government, such as it is. If fairly purchased and gently used, they'll never have any reason to pay attention to you, until they realize you're convincing everyone else to walk away too by giving them a far superior way of life.
But at that point, the governments of the world would be doomed anyway.
Ideally, I would much prefer to just walk away. And for most, that is what I would advocate, and that is what I want to give to my family and my children and all those I care about.
"Otherwise, what stops them from basically taking over the US communication entirely?"
What stops them, indeed. In their opinion, nothing. In the President's opinion, nothing.
So, unless the American people themselves stand up and say "Screw you, bitches", well, your answer is...
Nothing.
"No government is worth killing or dying for."
Unless you're dying to destroy that government, if it has violated the social contract that allows it to operate.
This government, has. This government, and almost every Western government in the world, is guilty of high treason against its own people.
There will come a day when they pay the price for treason.. and there is only one price for treason.
I can't wait for that day.
And to expand on THAT idea a little...
Two weeks ago, no less than THREE government agencies were given FAILING GRADES FOR PROPERLY SECURING THEIR DATA. THREE. The FBI, The Department of Homeland Security, and one other I forget at the moment.
THREE. And these were just the ones investigated.
Two days ago, the IRS was given a "barely passing" grade when it was discovered that their employees STILL answer over 60% of tax filing questions WRONG.
And THESE are the people we want to entrust our most secret daily lives and data to?
Yeah right. I'll take a stereo broadcasting my credit card number into a stadium before I would ever trust the government with one iota of important information..
Particularly given that I am a government contractor and EVERY DAY get to see how incompetent these people really are.
Hey,
I've been thinking of doing the same thing in my district (Montgomery County, Maryland, just 15 minutes north of Washington, DC).
I wouldn't say any kind of demonstration or "march" would be in the slightest effective; politicians stopped paying attention to those years ago. However, paying a "visit" to a few local politicians might get some eyebrows raised.
We should talk.
Is there a way to message privately here? I'm quite certain that posting my email address here would result in more email than my server can handle within about 45 seconds.
"About the FCC
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions."
I'm pretty sure the "wire, satellite, and cable" part didn't used to be there. How they expanded their powers themselves, I don't know. Although, it would only require an order from the President to do so, not something voted on by Congress (being that Commissions are considered authorized by the President as an extension of his job as Executive of the Congress' orders)"
"Any technology can be used for opression"
Even if it's not true, it would be a safe assumption that "Any technology that can be used for oppression, WILL be used for oppression."
Needless to say, there are cases when this is false. But living by that motto will at least force us to ask ourselves EVERY SINGLE TIME whether a technological advance is worth it.
That aside:
I am an atheist, and yet I would say - do not discount the power of Christian's fear of the "Mark of the Beast." Because Christians are so widespread, it may just be that fear, and that fear alone, that prevents RFID implants from becoming a tool of oppression.
I may find the Bible and religion to be useless to me, but in this case, that fear is VERY useful if my purpose is to keep RFID tags out of my body.
"Technology is a means to an end, not an end in itself."
You are talking to a population that has lost sight of this fact. In a world obsessed with getting rich no matter the price, technology becomes an end in itself - or more specifically, technology for the sake of technology just so that the inventor can get rich.
We've gone way beyond inventing to fill a need, or to solve a problem; we've gone instead to inventing to get rich, and society be damned if what I invented destroys civilization.
I fully expect RFID implants (or "microchip implants" of any kind) to be fully mandatory within the next few decades.
The day I wake up and realize that freedom is a ridiculous myth, will be the day I form my own army and work till I die to destabilize and destroy the world. I would rather destroy the world than pass on such a horrific future to my children and my children's children.
At least then we'd have a chance to start over and maybe do it right the second time.
"just 'cos they're not physically harmfull doesn't mean they're anything other than pure unmitigated evil"
Pure unmitigated evil is just about right.
I want to know I have the freedom to move around without 1) the government knowing where I am every second of the day and 2) being afraid that some loser is out scavanging RFID tags and that I'm going to get home and have all my credit cards maxed and my bank account drained.
These things offer absolutely ZERO benefit with HUGE accompanying risk. I do not understand the appeal.
Investor: What in the world are people going to use these for? It just seems like an invasion of privacy and there's NO security, so really.. how is this useful?
Inventor: Oh, uh.. uh.. home automation! Yes, that's a good idea, wouldn't you like the lighting to go how you want when you walk into a room?
Investor: Umm.. dude, I can just flip a light switch. I don't even have a dimmer, so there's no point in talking about 'lighting' and what if I don't want the living room the same temperature as my wife?
Inventor: Ok, how about unlocking your car! No more lost keys!
Investor: Ok, now you want people cutting my arm off to steal my car?
Inventor: Oh, umm.. logging into your computer! No more lost passwords!
Investor: Ok, so now it's even EASIER to steal my credit card information?
Inventor: Ok look man, you'll make alot of money. Just don't talk about the downsides, and you'll be rich!
Investor: Woohoo, rich money money money rich rich! Let's do it!
-- fin --
Then seriously, contact her here:
http://www.house.gov/degette/contact.shtml
and let her know that she's an idiot and that you won't be voting for her in the next election.
I intend to send her office a letter (not an email, a letter) - but I am not in her district so in the end, she doesn't have to listen to me. Mine will be a philosophical plea; yours needs to be an outright threat to not vote for her.
Sometimes I seriously consider moving.
Sad part is, there's really nowhere else to move. Throughout history, people could always just go someplace else not settled yet. Now, there's nowhere else to run.
"Corporations get zero votes, which is infinitely fewer votes than citizens."
You can't possibly be so naive.
Most of our representatives are owned mind, body, and soul by corporations - they couldn't afford to get into office otherwise. You can vote until your hands bleed and you'd still have less sway over the votes of your representative than one phone call by a CEO.
We trade freedom for safety a hundred different ways every day.
All of Western Civilization is based on the Hobbes-ian concept of the "Social Contract" - you give up a little of your absolute freedom for the stability and security of the society as a whole.
However, that comes with an important caveat - that you ONLY give up as much freedom as is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to secure the stability of the society. These are the freedoms we give up - I don't mind getting a driver's license if it means I can drive to the supermarket with a reasonable expectation of getting there safely, for example, and NOT having a driver's license is not essential to my freedom (to reference the Franklin quote).
However, those small things we give up are far different than what the government would like to take - absolute control over essentially every moment of your life. In a perfectly orchestrated world, nobody would be violent, nobody would hate, nobody would cause an accident, nobody would [fill in horrible misfortune here], everyone would be educated, everyone would pay taxes, nobody would disagree because disagreements cause strife, etc. My freedom to disagree, to fail, or to not pay my taxes ARE essential to my freedom (the not paying taxes part, I mention because that is one method of non-violent protest).
The problem is, that kind of control is the antitheses of freedom - and it certainly is not necessary to guarantee the long term health and stability of a culture. 200,000 years of human history should be enough to convince you of that - our societies, when left essentially alone, are amazingly robust (we're still here, aren't we?).
The claim that we need more control "for the safety of the people" does not stand up to the scrutiny of history and should not be used as an argument for more laws and the restriction of freedom. It's not that I think you're saying we need those kinds of restrictions, I just wanted to point out how some restrictions on freedom are not the ones Franklin was talking about.
"Oh.. You're one of those "all government is evil" types.
If I'd have known, I wouldn't have appealed to reason but left you ruminating happily, satisfied that you've picked the right dogma."
Well, while we could delve into the details of the context I should have put that statement in, I would rather point out that of everything I said, that was what you chose to respond to, telling me that it is pointless to attempt to put my statement in context.
What a mouthfull.
Haha, that's hilarious.
/. story today...
To borrow from another
"Crap, here comes Wal-Mart! Quick, hit the self-destruct!"
Well, how dare you present a contextually accurate picture of the country at that time! Slavery is bad! Slavery is evil! Bah!
Well. While I find slavery to be one of the most heinous inventions of man, I also find it valuable to understand that once, there were millions of people who did not believe so - and that in fact, slavery was a very, very common part of human history. Until the Americas, slaves in most cultures were treated extremely well.
But then, presenting such a point of view is blasphemous in a culture so bent on idealogical control. The freedom to think what you want to think is not a freedom most people care about.. they just want you to agree with them.
I miss the days of Thomas Paine.
Right, she was 'detained', just like all the people in the US who have disappeared since 9/11 are being 'detained' at Gitmo.
It's so conveneint to say you're being 'detained' instead of 'arrested.' Once you're arrested, your Constitutional rights kick in. So long as you're just being 'detained,' the government can do whatever they want to you.
Or didn't you realize that's why the Gitmo prisoners are 'detainees' instead of 'prisoners.'
Right. A totalitarian government would never think of introducing the infrastructure and then abuse it.
No government would be so obvious these days; the past 100 years of revolutions in the world have taught people that blatant dictatorships don't stand for very long.
No, it's much more effective to trick people into thinking they're free until one day someone wakes up and realizes they're not, by which time it's way too late.
As the future marches closer, it will be easier for governments who want absolute control to get it piece by piece rather than all at once. (Read: all governments. There's no such thing as a "Good" government; only ones that are less evil than others, and exist only because they are necessary) No government would be stupid enough to become totalitarian all at once.
No, instead our freedoms, our rights, and our *expectations of freedom* will be gradually worn away until we accept absolute dictatorship as freedom and foolishly believe we are free.
MOD PARENT UP please.
p age=UserAction&id=216p age=UserAction&id=205
I agree completely. In fact, one of the current EFF Action items is preventing the RIAA/MPAA from forcing a bill through Congress that would require all digital radio and TV receivers to have built in DRM that would prohibit recording - in other words, the universally-loved American pasttime of recording your favorite show to watch later would be come illegal.
How's that for land of the free.
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&
But that's exactly what it's about:
By naming the group "consumer," you've in one-fell-swoop stripped them of any semblance of humanity. They're not people, with problems, hopes, and dreams - no, we're "consumers." Who cares if we go bankrupt buying the next best thing just to serve the greed of these corporations - we're just a "consumer," a nameless, faceless entity that is the source of money. They don't care how they get it, they just want all of it, and it makes it easier to take it from us by calling us "consumers."
It is this kind of double-speak that is the essence of evil... is a slave, still a slave, if he doesn't know he is one?
The answer is yes; the corporations want you to believe otherwise, if you even ever ask the question at all.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no intention of ever buying a player for a "new format" or of re-purchasing movies I already own because of a marginal increase in resolution. They're pushing the limit of what the human eye can discern anyway; what's next, pure analog 100000GB/sec data streams with 10000i resolution? There's no point.
I will not give them the satisfaction of making me buy all my favorites over again. I will upgrade in 25 years or so when there's actually a reason to because my players are breaking and my DVDs are starting to warp.
This entire subject is nothing but unadulterated greed on the part of the content providers and those who provide the physical media.
And I, for one, will have no part of it.
More power to the pirates - it is you who expose the corruption of those who claim to be serving our interests..
That's not a particularly good argument. By that reasoning, states can't set the minimum drinking/smoking age, because those items usually are obtained through interstate commerce.
Ok, so I'll just lay down and die.
Much better alternative.