They have the right to choose to do business this way
they dont have a right to do business this way. its like selling a car, but leaving out the mirrors, and then charging to install them.
its selling an incomplete product. its basic fraud. these are now legal because we let them do so - they sell a 'game', but the definition of amenities in the game are not defined in detail, and also a shitty 'game experience may change' dropped into eula. this covers their ass from selling an incomplete product. it shouldnt happen.
".... and I will move the Earth", said archimede, in regard to levers.
the correct application of this as a metaphor for this situation would be, "Give me 1000 fools like this to put in charge, and they will destroy Earth" i think.
2 - they can create things that they can see firsthand, use firsthand and show off to others firsthand on the web. (great incentive and motivation)
3 - php is an enterprise level language itself, used with many serious web presences and has serious backing with more to come. it will be a good start for them
4 - its easy to learn and possible to make extremely complex applications with, as well as making 20 line, working and useful scripts.
If it were really a free market in the beginning there would have been no politicians to lobby. In a free market there is exactly one immutable law: the Non-Aggression Principle. There are no lawmakers, and no opportunity to lobby that the law be changed in anyone's favor.
irrelevant. at the start of u.s. there were no rules or regulations. this is why your entire country almost ended up being owned by 3 individuals, whom we now name as historic 'tycoons'. from transportation to publishing, your country was at the brink of being totally dominated by 3 individuals. only with theodore roosevelt and antitrust laws you avoided that shit.
it was the right thing to do, and it brought more even distribution of wealth, creating the fleeting american wealth you experienced post ww2.
however you see, it would be stupid to expect the wealthy to stop pursuing their agenda just because some people wisened up and put up some laws and regulations. they lobbied for circumventing, amending, breaching them and now we have innumerable conglomerates holding innumerable corporations which in turn holding innumerable companies. if you follow the trails you end up reaching the same group of people on top of the same conglomerate group in most sectors. 'non aggression' -> there is no such thing in society. in any unrestrained, unregulated area of social life protected by laws, there have always been and always be those who aggressively attack others in whatever means to get on top of them and live off them. back in middle ages this was the force of arms, now it is the force of bigger wealth.
this is an eternal fight in between 'the people' vs 'the elite'. back in earlier centuries it was a fight in between the peasants & burghers and the nobles. when the former won and aristocracy was toppled, it transformed into a fight in between the ordinary people and the rich as we see it today. nothing new.
The problem isn't any imbalance in wealth, but rather the imbalance in authority: the artificial division of naturally equal human beings into those who make the rules (politicians) and those required to follow them (civilians). You're trying to blame those offering the bribes when the responsibility for assuming this "right" to govern others and altering the law for their own benefit lies squarely with those accepting the bribes, i.e. the politicians. I'm not saying that those lobbying for the application of political power toward their own ends are blameless, of course, only that their influence is minor by comparison. Special-interest laws are the symptom; aggression, especially political aggression, is the disease.
and what do you think will happen if you remove the governments and go laissez faire. a few individuals will end up owning A LOT of things, including vast tracts of land which hold your water resources ( im talking about a fresh start, they already own your water sources), to your minerals, to your services and your food (your ass belongs to monsanto now, globally).
the owners of any product/service reserve the right to choose how to utilize them.
so ? doesnt this end up being the same as a feudal lord, in which the owner of the land decides what happens with what's there ?
there. we have just gone through another historic process with which feudal aristocracy was created. EXACTLY the same way - in a lawless, governmentless environment, those who had the power or hereditary rights to a tract of land, became de facto rulers of it.
what i mean is, i expected to be pro ip at least a bit. tho i hoped, i didnt expect he would be ip abolitionist.
i totally didnt think he would go all medieval, al feudal, as if he was a henchman of a feudal lord. and especially after he owed his victory to the internet and all the new and rebellious things it represented.
the concept behind this is too arrogant and in its ultimate consequence, stupid.
it assumes that any civilization should develop technology in the way we did, and have the same values as we do. ie, think mathematic is universal, and try to communicate over mathematical patterns and regular expressions that repeat themselves. even if they do, it is still extremely naive to expect the radio waves to reach here without losing their precise nature, or getting garbled due to innumerable sources of interference.
whereas if you remove or diminish the government, this time private organizations and people take its place. it is far worse, since you can have no claim over anything privately owned, whereas you can claim your right to government.
soviet, chinese, albanian, all these countries were located in geographies with long standing traditions of repression and authoritarianism. they just changed the mantle of authoritarianism they had on. however still, despite all that totalitarianism, repression and (on the surface) lack of freedoms, the citizens of those countries have never had that high living standards and liberties if you compare to their history. why, serfdom (eastern european serfdom was akin to slavery) was only abolished in russia in 1865. mind that, not a minority, but the entirety of the society were practically slaves up to this point.
in either case its the extreme end of the spectrum, even if it provided russians with much more freedom than their ancestors comparably had. not to mention that, the citizens of those countries have never had proper education, countries were never able to have a middle class (either aristocrats or serfs), therefore the basic liberties, human rights, principles of equality, tolerance etc were totally unknown in those parts. naturally after their revolutions their governments reflected their attitude, with all the intolerance and ignorance.
as i said before, so far the best method humanity has invented and saw working has been social democracy, in which citizen's, public's needs and wants are put forth over anything else, assured and provided by the state, and corporations kept in check with rules and regulations that prevent them from behaving like the ones in usa, as if they were owners of the nation.
so, the crowning jewel of this entire human civilization now sits, maybe rather tellingly, on the top of its head, in scandinavia. their success in regards to liberties, freedoms, standard of living, fair distribution of income, education, innovation compared to their population and natural resources, dwarf all other countries that came to being.
(ps im not scandinavian neither i am a social democrat.)
he promised change, reform. he didnt do any of these. and what he stands for now, is not anything other than something being pushed into people by circumventing democracy itself, to limit their freedoms for profits of the few.
the difference in capitalism is that, in capitalism the illusion of 'you can do it too' is maintained. so, despise the chances of 'making it' way to the top is less than getting to be a baron while starting off as a peasant in middle ages, people are deceived that they also can 'make it'.
the system also keeps an illusion of a participative democratic process - supposedly you elect your representative and they legislate on your behalf, but no candidate can overcome others without getting support of the wealthy elite.
if you compare it to feudalism, you find it much harder to combat against - in feudalism the oppressors are the same as the wealthy elite, and target and its methods are clear as day. you can unite people against it and fight it, and effect a result. this is the story of american and french revolutions.
in capitalist democracy however, whereas the wealthy elite runs the country, they rule it through a people elected proxy in assemblies and administration. so, you cant establish the legalese to fight against them.
capitalism and communism are extreme ends of the same spectrum on both sides.
solution, is, since you seem to be interested in it, social democracy. which is wrongly termed socialism in usa, however correctly termed as social democracy in europe. this ideology has been dominant in northern european countries in the last 50 years, and judging by their success, it works beyond well.
yea. a market restricted with copyright and patent monopolies is not a free market.
but, it was a free market before those patent and copyright monopolies came into being.
and those patent and copyright monopolies came into being because the first groups to be able to garner more wealth than others used their wealth to corner the market and then to lobby politicians to put out rules in their favor. and now youre in this situation.
its precisely because the market was free in the first place, allowing groups to gather much more wealth than others. for it not to happen, you need to have a controlled market, with rules and regulations to ensure that noone garners huge heaps of wealth to the extent of becoming practical feudal lords. ironic and contradictory it seems, it is not. we use similar regulations and laws in civil life. we need same kinds of limitations in money and wealth too.
never forget this - it never changed at ANY point in history, even when emperors or dictators were about : wealth is power.
EU passed a resolution that banned any form of 3strikes anywhere in europe. Held the regulations and rules it put out before over anything proposed in acta. this means no isp liability of policing their networks for private parties' copyrights. it mandates that cutting an individual's internet access cannot happen unless through a court. it demanded full disclosure of the acta text to all members of the parliament, as mandated by eu laws. eu laws also mandate that parliament share anything with eu public, so anything that is disclosed to eu parliament has to be disclosed to entire european public.
european commission has to abide by it. there is no other route that they can take. commission already said that they are going to push the other acta negotiating parties for full disclosure. if they dont, commission wont be able to stay on the table any more, for they are not allowed to negotiate and sign anything before eu parliament knows it.
and if the text is disclosed, that means shit will hit the fan.
so yea, eu parliament seems to really have shot acta down. and probably not only for europe, for entire world.
but if an individual cannot distinguish the importance of freedoms over 'right of ownership' over thought processes, and comes up defending the private interests that seek to monopolize thought, there is nothing to defend about him.
acta is evil. it is the most evil thing since spanish inquisition. the very fact that whole thing proceeds by CIRCUMVENTING democratical procedures is itself appalling from the start, leave aside all the 'measures' that seek to cramp down freedoms for some parties' interests.
it wouldnt be radical to say that anyone who sides with evil, for WHATEVER reason, is the enemy, for, by siding with such kind of evil, they have become dangerous to our freedoms themselves.
this is precisely capitalism, and precisely what you term as 'free market'.
in any environment in which you allow groups or individuals to become more powerful than others, eventually those who get to the top first subdue or eliminate others and a power hierarchy gets established. this is how precisely feudalism came to being in the first place.
this is the nature of social dynamics, and it will never change. unless there are rules and laws preventing anyone from becoming more powerful than others, there will always be a pyramid of power in the long run.
wealth is power.
put in layman's terms, your 'free market' can exist and be free only in the early times. like in the initial times of united states. later, when some groups get more wealth than others, they will get to the top and establish a hierarchy. so, this is the EXACT thing you should have expected to happen - groups who set up the pyramid first, ensuring that pyramid continues to be, and they stay on top of it.
enjoy your 'free' market capitalism. its much more hard to combat than aristocracy.
it was substantiated repeated times in the past, and slashdot ran stories on them. if you search it, you can find. latest was a research from netherlands that showed the pirates bought much more cds than anyone else, ironically.
despite i have been a staunch supporter of him and quarreled with my conservative american friends for close to a year since his candidacy to his election and even beyond.
really, from this point on, i dont think i will be hypocritical to defend him in any regard. there are things that can be overlooked and forgiven, noone is perfect. but ransoming rights and liberties of the thought process to private individuals is nothing less than feudalism at its best. and someone who can justify this to himself cannot be defended in anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
They have the right to choose to do business this way
they dont have a right to do business this way. its like selling a car, but leaving out the mirrors, and then charging to install them.
its selling an incomplete product. its basic fraud. these are now legal because we let them do so - they sell a 'game', but the definition of amenities in the game are not defined in detail, and also a shitty 'game experience may change' dropped into eula. this covers their ass from selling an incomplete product. it shouldnt happen.
" .... and I will move the Earth", said archimede, in regard to levers.
the correct application of this as a metaphor for this situation would be, "Give me 1000 fools like this to put in charge, and they will destroy Earth" i think.
in this link on the left menu list http://www.keygenmusic.net/?lang=en
they will set iran government straight if they have the motivation to. after all this is a valid case of freedom - people vs tyrants.
btw site compiles keygen musics. top 100 list really worth listening to.
http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonVsPhp
this is from python's own wikia. i dont see why some of you try to lord it over everyone over php. and despise the latter.
1 - syntax is similar with C
2 - they can create things that they can see firsthand, use firsthand and show off to others firsthand on the web. (great incentive and motivation)
3 - php is an enterprise level language itself, used with many serious web presences and has serious backing with more to come. it will be a good start for them
4 - its easy to learn and possible to make extremely complex applications with, as well as making 20 line, working and useful scripts.
If it were really a free market in the beginning there would have been no politicians to lobby. In a free market there is exactly one immutable law: the Non-Aggression Principle. There are no lawmakers, and no opportunity to lobby that the law be changed in anyone's favor.
irrelevant. at the start of u.s. there were no rules or regulations. this is why your entire country almost ended up being owned by 3 individuals, whom we now name as historic 'tycoons'. from transportation to publishing, your country was at the brink of being totally dominated by 3 individuals. only with theodore roosevelt and antitrust laws you avoided that shit.
it was the right thing to do, and it brought more even distribution of wealth, creating the fleeting american wealth you experienced post ww2.
however you see, it would be stupid to expect the wealthy to stop pursuing their agenda just because some people wisened up and put up some laws and regulations. they lobbied for circumventing, amending, breaching them and now we have innumerable conglomerates holding innumerable corporations which in turn holding innumerable companies. if you follow the trails you end up reaching the same group of people on top of the same conglomerate group in most sectors. 'non aggression' -> there is no such thing in society. in any unrestrained, unregulated area of social life protected by laws, there have always been and always be those who aggressively attack others in whatever means to get on top of them and live off them. back in middle ages this was the force of arms, now it is the force of bigger wealth.
this is an eternal fight in between 'the people' vs 'the elite'. back in earlier centuries it was a fight in between the peasants & burghers and the nobles. when the former won and aristocracy was toppled, it transformed into a fight in between the ordinary people and the rich as we see it today. nothing new.
The problem isn't any imbalance in wealth, but rather the imbalance in authority: the artificial division of naturally equal human beings into those who make the rules (politicians) and those required to follow them (civilians). You're trying to blame those offering the bribes when the responsibility for assuming this "right" to govern others and altering the law for their own benefit lies squarely with those accepting the bribes, i.e. the politicians. I'm not saying that those lobbying for the application of political power toward their own ends are blameless, of course, only that their influence is minor by comparison. Special-interest laws are the symptom; aggression, especially political aggression, is the disease.
and what do you think will happen if you remove the governments and go laissez faire. a few individuals will end up owning A LOT of things, including vast tracts of land which hold your water resources ( im talking about a fresh start, they already own your water sources), to your minerals, to your services and your food (your ass belongs to monsanto now, globally).
the owners of any product/service reserve the right to choose how to utilize them.
so ? doesnt this end up being the same as a feudal lord, in which the owner of the land decides what happens with what's there ?
there. we have just gone through another historic process with which feudal aristocracy was created. EXACTLY the same way - in a lawless, governmentless environment, those who had the power or hereditary rights to a tract of land, became de facto rulers of it.
what i mean is, i expected to be pro ip at least a bit. tho i hoped, i didnt expect he would be ip abolitionist.
i totally didnt think he would go all medieval, al feudal, as if he was a henchman of a feudal lord. and especially after he owed his victory to the internet and all the new and rebellious things it represented.
the concept behind this is too arrogant and in its ultimate consequence, stupid.
it assumes that any civilization should develop technology in the way we did, and have the same values as we do. ie, think mathematic is universal, and try to communicate over mathematical patterns and regular expressions that repeat themselves. even if they do, it is still extremely naive to expect the radio waves to reach here without losing their precise nature, or getting garbled due to innumerable sources of interference.
whereas if you remove or diminish the government, this time private organizations and people take its place. it is far worse, since you can have no claim over anything privately owned, whereas you can claim your right to government.
soviet, chinese, albanian, all these countries were located in geographies with long standing traditions of repression and authoritarianism. they just changed the mantle of authoritarianism they had on. however still, despite all that totalitarianism, repression and (on the surface) lack of freedoms, the citizens of those countries have never had that high living standards and liberties if you compare to their history. why, serfdom (eastern european serfdom was akin to slavery) was only abolished in russia in 1865. mind that, not a minority, but the entirety of the society were practically slaves up to this point.
in either case its the extreme end of the spectrum, even if it provided russians with much more freedom than their ancestors comparably had. not to mention that, the citizens of those countries have never had proper education, countries were never able to have a middle class (either aristocrats or serfs), therefore the basic liberties, human rights, principles of equality, tolerance etc were totally unknown in those parts. naturally after their revolutions their governments reflected their attitude, with all the intolerance and ignorance.
as i said before, so far the best method humanity has invented and saw working has been social democracy, in which citizen's, public's needs and wants are put forth over anything else, assured and provided by the state, and corporations kept in check with rules and regulations that prevent them from behaving like the ones in usa, as if they were owners of the nation.
so, the crowning jewel of this entire human civilization now sits, maybe rather tellingly, on the top of its head, in scandinavia. their success in regards to liberties, freedoms, standard of living, fair distribution of income, education, innovation compared to their population and natural resources, dwarf all other countries that came to being.
(ps im not scandinavian neither i am a social democrat.)
the first
he promised change, reform. he didnt do any of these. and what he stands for now, is not anything other than something being pushed into people by circumventing democracy itself, to limit their freedoms for profits of the few.
that cannot be promised in no election speech.
read the comments. no 'leftie' is justifying it. this is not something that can be justified.
there could be made no better quotation at this time and point.
only way is to change the system.
on google :
http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+backs+acta&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
so what difference does it make ? he is not a member, but he helps them to reach their evil agenda. what is the end result ?
the difference in capitalism is that, in capitalism the illusion of 'you can do it too' is maintained. so, despise the chances of 'making it' way to the top is less than getting to be a baron while starting off as a peasant in middle ages, people are deceived that they also can 'make it'.
the system also keeps an illusion of a participative democratic process - supposedly you elect your representative and they legislate on your behalf, but no candidate can overcome others without getting support of the wealthy elite.
if you compare it to feudalism, you find it much harder to combat against - in feudalism the oppressors are the same as the wealthy elite, and target and its methods are clear as day. you can unite people against it and fight it, and effect a result. this is the story of american and french revolutions.
in capitalist democracy however, whereas the wealthy elite runs the country, they rule it through a people elected proxy in assemblies and administration. so, you cant establish the legalese to fight against them.
capitalism and communism are extreme ends of the same spectrum on both sides.
solution, is, since you seem to be interested in it, social democracy. which is wrongly termed socialism in usa, however correctly termed as social democracy in europe. this ideology has been dominant in northern european countries in the last 50 years, and judging by their success, it works beyond well.
http://votewatch.eu/cx_vote_details.php?id_act=456&lang=en#1
votes by members. surprisingly, the votes are also in line with their national party lines.
you still didnt get it it seems.
yea. a market restricted with copyright and patent monopolies is not a free market.
but, it was a free market before those patent and copyright monopolies came into being.
and those patent and copyright monopolies came into being because the first groups to be able to garner more wealth than others used their wealth to corner the market and then to lobby politicians to put out rules in their favor. and now youre in this situation.
its precisely because the market was free in the first place, allowing groups to gather much more wealth than others. for it not to happen, you need to have a controlled market, with rules and regulations to ensure that noone garners huge heaps of wealth to the extent of becoming practical feudal lords. ironic and contradictory it seems, it is not. we use similar regulations and laws in civil life. we need same kinds of limitations in money and wealth too.
never forget this - it never changed at ANY point in history, even when emperors or dictators were about : wealth is power.
well then, if that great technology is so enabling, please find me those links and prove me that it is really that effortless.
you have to read well.
EU passed a resolution that banned any form of 3strikes anywhere in europe. Held the regulations and rules it put out before over anything proposed in acta. this means no isp liability of policing their networks for private parties' copyrights. it mandates that cutting an individual's internet access cannot happen unless through a court. it demanded full disclosure of the acta text to all members of the parliament, as mandated by eu laws. eu laws also mandate that parliament share anything with eu public, so anything that is disclosed to eu parliament has to be disclosed to entire european public.
european commission has to abide by it. there is no other route that they can take. commission already said that they are going to push the other acta negotiating parties for full disclosure. if they dont, commission wont be able to stay on the table any more, for they are not allowed to negotiate and sign anything before eu parliament knows it.
and if the text is disclosed, that means shit will hit the fan.
so yea, eu parliament seems to really have shot acta down. and probably not only for europe, for entire world.
but if an individual cannot distinguish the importance of freedoms over 'right of ownership' over thought processes, and comes up defending the private interests that seek to monopolize thought, there is nothing to defend about him.
acta is evil. it is the most evil thing since spanish inquisition. the very fact that whole thing proceeds by CIRCUMVENTING democratical procedures is itself appalling from the start, leave aside all the 'measures' that seek to cramp down freedoms for some parties' interests.
it wouldnt be radical to say that anyone who sides with evil, for WHATEVER reason, is the enemy, for, by siding with such kind of evil, they have become dangerous to our freedoms themselves.
this is precisely capitalism, and precisely what you term as 'free market'.
in any environment in which you allow groups or individuals to become more powerful than others, eventually those who get to the top first subdue or eliminate others and a power hierarchy gets established. this is how precisely feudalism came to being in the first place.
this is the nature of social dynamics, and it will never change. unless there are rules and laws preventing anyone from becoming more powerful than others, there will always be a pyramid of power in the long run.
wealth is power.
put in layman's terms, your 'free market' can exist and be free only in the early times. like in the initial times of united states. later, when some groups get more wealth than others, they will get to the top and establish a hierarchy. so, this is the EXACT thing you should have expected to happen - groups who set up the pyramid first, ensuring that pyramid continues to be, and they stay on top of it.
enjoy your 'free' market capitalism. its much more hard to combat than aristocracy.
it was substantiated repeated times in the past, and slashdot ran stories on them. if you search it, you can find. latest was a research from netherlands that showed the pirates bought much more cds than anyone else, ironically.
despite i have been a staunch supporter of him and quarreled with my conservative american friends for close to a year since his candidacy to his election and even beyond.
really, from this point on, i dont think i will be hypocritical to defend him in any regard. there are things that can be overlooked and forgiven, noone is perfect. but ransoming rights and liberties of the thought process to private individuals is nothing less than feudalism at its best. and someone who can justify this to himself cannot be defended in anything else.
the latter is much more dreadful and hard to combat in my opinion. because in the former, you at least know who is your enemy and who to go after.