Are you joking? Your explanation is far too rational. Where's the extortion? Where's the racketeering? Where's the corruption? Where's the MAFIAA smackronym? Where are the good guys and the bad guys? You seem to have no grasp on reality.
However, a music codec is just a way for me to store music on my computer and portable music player. Why should I care about compatibility?
Because without compatibility, all you can do is store the damn things. If you want to actually listen to your music, it forces you to only buy/use the extremely limited subset of players that do. It forces you to choose players you wouldn't normally choose. It also restricts certain avenues for music-listening. I, for example, contemplated using the format, but in the end it wasn't compatible with my car CD player in the same way the MP3 format was.
Both MP3 and WMV are restricted by patents Both MP3 and WMV are both available on Linux illegally Both MP3 and WMV codecs are available legally from fluendo WMV is produced by a company you don't like
Last reply, anonymous troll, and then I'm going to find something better to do.
Care to prove me wrong? I think we can all pretty much agree on what a 'better' country is... You know, something like: less crime, better economy, nicer people, better healthcare, better schools, higher 'quality of life', etc.etc.
Yeah, I get your drift! Things like vibrant culture, better international relations, stronger economy, a population who aren't assholes, less prejudice, etc, etc. Oh wait, these can all be helped by immigration. And since you said we can all agree on it, then surely you must agree with me, right? Right? I thought not...
The burden of proof lies with you, BTW. You can't simply make a random ridiculous statement and expect me to disprove it. You find yourself some solid evidence, and I'll poke holes in it, understood?
The spaghetti monster exists. Anyone care to prove me wrong?
Seriously, without an agreed definition of a subjective term like "better", all you'll be doing is sounding like a racist asshole, not some fantasy realist in a sea of PC hysteria (always the average mouth-breathing racist's dream).
What makes people think a government bureaucracy is the answer to anything when they can't even handle the DMV or post office? What is this fear of the free market in the last bastion of bureaucrats run amuck?
Oh, I never said it was preferable in every (or even most) situations. I was originally contesting your statement that the government is no better than a private monopoly. All I was saying was that the government does have the potential advantage of being accountable to us, rather than the shareholders. If we all cared about our public sector as much as the average shareholder cares about his company, believe me, these inefficiencies would go quick-smart. The difference is that we are not true shareholders, and we are generally happy as long as we have basic public services, and our choice between other services from the private sector.
Why the heck do people want competition and choice in everything except government?
People don't generally want competition or choice, but a government that represents them personally. Choice and competition happen to be a tried and true way to obtain a government that is tune with its people. If there is consistently two choices between good and similarly good, then there is little need for other choices, which is how and why two party systems continue to exist.
What a load of angst.
What, trusting the government somewhat is suddenly considered angst, whereas being paranoid of any concentration of power, no matter how fragile, is not? What is this? Doublespeak?
The bureaucrats which count are not the few elected ones but the vast civil service.
OK, finally some specifics on the government side. But who are we referring to on the business side? On the business side, the bureaucrats are more akin to the elected officials. The civil servants are like the smaller companies contracted to perform certain jobs for the business, and their accountability is similarly indirect. However, if a civil servant or a contracted company majorly fucks up (like, for example, a teacher sleeping with one of their students), then no amount of indirectness in their accountability will protect them. If the people want blood, they will have it.
However, if you're expecting some major and expensive reshuffling over a minor (but widespread) issue that comparatively few people care about, or even acknowledge the existence of, then you're expecting far too much from the government. That's the way I want things to work. No, sorry, I'm mistaken. I really want the government to obey me, and do whatever I tell it to, but I acknowledge that will not happen, so I'm happy to settle with it catering to the will of the people equally.
As for alternative political parties, not in the US. The two which count are so similar in their quest for power that they are not useful alternatives.
It's true. We have two parties who are so adept at their jobs that they can essentially pre-empt what the people want, and stop the search for any alternatives. The political game, like any game, has individual strategies that will work best in different circumstances. Since the circumstances are essentially the same for both parties, so too will be their policies.
You must really be living in some kind of fantasy world to think the government actually cares about you and your petty complaints.
Not really. It's just that you happen to live in the hell of liberal paranoia and electoral fringes. You have beliefs that the mainstream do not share, which means that, unless you be really proactive, you are doomed to be oppressed by the majority. It's just the way the system works. In a population that contains diametrically opposing views on a variety of subjects, someone always has to miss out, and it just happens to be you. Don't worry though, there are alternative governments out there who are possibly more in line with your ideology.
I can't imagine what kind of upbringing would mislead someone as you have been.
Oh, you know, white middle class, caring, left wing environmentalist parents, constantly worrying about the local government's development of the local coastline. I grew up with my fair share of government hatred, which I shared for a while. That is, until I heard some famous, intelligent woman (I can't remember who) on the radio. In response to some question about the unhappiness of some people with their elected government, she responded by saying she always had believed that a people must take responsibility for their government. It took me a while to realise what she meant, but a couple of months later, it hit me out of the blue. We are responsible for our government! Even if we don't vote for the people in power, even if the system isn't responding to the cries of the people, we are responsible. It is our responsibility to make our voices heard, if we so wish to do so. We don't have just one vote, we have the unlimited power to influence others into thinking the same way. We have the right to fight other people's ideals with our own ideals. The flipside is, however, that the people also have a right not to agree with or even listen to you.
The government has too many shareholders and none of them have any alternative. It is controlled by bureaucrats who are in more danger of losing their jobs from doing something -- anything -- than doing the wrong thing
... like, for example, not responding to public outcry?
Compare that to multiple companies, where not only are the bureaucrats capable of being fired, whether for doing the wrong thing or for any other reason
What makes you think the government bureaucrats don't get fired? If we think they're doing a bad job, we elect them out! In fact, I would argue that the government jobs are, on average, less secure than the bureaucrats in monopolies, because the people aren't always rational about little misdemeanours in the way a seasoned businessman is.
but if the complainer doesn't like the response, they have an alternative.
Yeah, like alternative political parties. In the case of private monopolies, well, they wouldn't be a private monopoly if there were any viable alternatives.
One by one our freedoms are being taken away, and the majority of the American populace is too busy watching who is going to be the next American Idol or seeing who is Dancing with the Stars to give two shits.
That's because TV is more important than fringe freedoms. At least, that's how the people democratically voted it. The founding fathers are going to have to deal with face-slaps because in a democracy, you simply can't control what people believe in. As soon as you do, the system becomes decidedly less democratic. If people no longer believe that privacy or anonymity are as important as (for example) security, no amount of constitutional safeguards will protect those rights from erosion.
For all of those people out there who agree with the founding fathers, I suggest you don't hide behind the constitution, and I certainly recommend you don't flee the country. You need to convince the people that what you believe is important is important to them. The constitution is only a goddamned piece of paper if it has no ideological oompf behind it.
But monopolies are just as bad on the business side as they are on the government side
Or quite a bit worse. Each monopoly answers to its shareholders, and we are the government's shareholders. Which is more likely to respond to public outcry? The government, of course.
I fail to see why it would be labeled as 'offensive'. Can you expand on that?
Sure. It's associated with a bunch of potentially offensive concepts including, but not limited to, stupidity, greed, selfishness, permissiveness, and exploitation.
That's like saying they hate us because we're free, which we all know to be politically charged bullshit spewed forth by those who think blowing up Iraq is a good thing.
That's gotta be the weakest proof I've ever seen. Wouldn't it be "politically charged bullshit" because my statement is false, rather than the other way 'round? The truth is, there is some truth in it. There's a fundamental incompatibility between the two cultures, one who believes in freedom, and the other that believes many of those freedoms are sinful. On both sides, there are people prepared to kill the other over this.
Yes, the US did fuck up in the middle east, and yes that probably gets a bunch of recruits. Hell, I'll even give you that it probably the biggest factor in terrorism. I just wouldn't be so naive as assume that the deep ideological prejudices, and bad blood between anti-US terrorists and the US itself can be solved by packing up and going home. I'm not saying the war against terror is helping, but neither would stopping the war or dropping our guard. We'll probably continues hating each other for centuries to come.
Incentive? Do you think there's "incentive" for the government to be eavesdropping on domestic use of the internet or telephones? Do you think there's "incentive" for holding US citizens without habeas corpus or searches and seizures without warrants?
Yes. More searches, more discoveries of terrorist plots, or at least more people to watch for terrorist activity, bigger numbers of terrorists caught/tracked when they report back to the people, and finally, bigger re-election prospects from the paranoid voters. Are you actually suggesting there is no incentive to do something as risky as what they're doing now?
If everyone started using encryption, it would be a sign that people either have stopped caring to the same extent as they did when the government was elected, or they care about their fellow citizen's privacy and rights. Either way, banning encryption would become a stupid political move, as opposed to now, when it would be a much smarter political move.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you joking? Your explanation is far too rational. Where's the extortion? Where's the racketeering? Where's the corruption? Where's the MAFIAA smackronym? Where are the good guys and the bad guys? You seem to have no grasp on reality.
... when you accuse everyone in power with a different opinion of being corrupt.
Catchy.
I don't think so. Let me check again...
... nope, no "haha" tag. Funny that.
Let's compare:
Both MP3 and WMV are restricted by patents
Both MP3 and WMV are both available on Linux illegally
Both MP3 and WMV codecs are available legally from fluendo
WMV is produced by a company you don't like
Pretty much sums it up, huh?
I thought not...
The burden of proof lies with you, BTW. You can't simply make a random ridiculous statement and expect me to disprove it. You find yourself some solid evidence, and I'll poke holes in it, understood?
However, if you're expecting some major and expensive reshuffling over a minor (but widespread) issue that comparatively few people care about, or even acknowledge the existence of, then you're expecting far too much from the government. That's the way I want things to work. No, sorry, I'm mistaken. I really want the government to obey me, and do whatever I tell it to, but I acknowledge that will not happen, so I'm happy to settle with it catering to the will of the people equally.It's true. We have two parties who are so adept at their jobs that they can essentially pre-empt what the people want, and stop the search for any alternatives. The political game, like any game, has individual strategies that will work best in different circumstances. Since the circumstances are essentially the same for both parties, so too will be their policies.Not really. It's just that you happen to live in the hell of liberal paranoia and electoral fringes. You have beliefs that the mainstream do not share, which means that, unless you be really proactive, you are doomed to be oppressed by the majority. It's just the way the system works. In a population that contains diametrically opposing views on a variety of subjects, someone always has to miss out, and it just happens to be you. Don't worry though, there are alternative governments out there who are possibly more in line with your ideology.Oh, you know, white middle class, caring, left wing environmentalist parents, constantly worrying about the local government's development of the local coastline. I grew up with my fair share of government hatred, which I shared for a while. That is, until I heard some famous, intelligent woman (I can't remember who) on the radio. In response to some question about the unhappiness of some people with their elected government, she responded by saying she always had believed that a people must take responsibility for their government. It took me a while to realise what she meant, but a couple of months later, it hit me out of the blue. We are responsible for our government! Even if we don't vote for the people in power, even if the system isn't responding to the cries of the people, we are responsible. It is our responsibility to make our voices heard, if we so wish to do so. We don't have just one vote, we have the unlimited power to influence others into thinking the same way. We have the right to fight other people's ideals with our own ideals. The flipside is, however, that the people also have a right not to agree with or even listen to you.
For all of those people out there who agree with the founding fathers, I suggest you don't hide behind the constitution, and I certainly recommend you don't flee the country. You need to convince the people that what you believe is important is important to them. The constitution is only a goddamned piece of paper if it has no ideological oompf behind it.
Can someone give me his name and address? I want to personally congratulate him on his noble crusade for anonymity!
Duh. The stockholders are the owners. They get iron-fist rule over the company. We can only hope that the stockholders want what we want.
Facebook denied that.
...anybody?
What? Surely a company's word counts for something around here? Who's with me?
Yeah, and then he can file a motion to get his case thrown out of court.
It's guys like these who critically obfuscate intellectual property law, and end up giving it a bad name.
Yes, the US did fuck up in the middle east, and yes that probably gets a bunch of recruits. Hell, I'll even give you that it probably the biggest factor in terrorism. I just wouldn't be so naive as assume that the deep ideological prejudices, and bad blood between anti-US terrorists and the US itself can be solved by packing up and going home. I'm not saying the war against terror is helping, but neither would stopping the war or dropping our guard. We'll probably continues hating each other for centuries to come.
Just a heads up: heresay, speculation, specious reasoning, misunderstandings, and vague redefinitions of the word "corruption" won't help you.
If everyone started using encryption, it would be a sign that people either have stopped caring to the same extent as they did when the government was elected, or they care about their fellow citizen's privacy and rights. Either way, banning encryption would become a stupid political move, as opposed to now, when it would be a much smarter political move.
... less consumer choice!
Yay! Yay! Yaaaaaaaay!