No, sorry. Politics is simply too subjective to make it an issue of intelligence. We simply cannot prove that Libertarianism is "better" than any other ideology. Hell, we can't even agree as a society what "better" means! It's perfectly reasonable, giving as much freedom and choice as we can to the people, but then again, so is the concept of efficiency through uniformity. The two ideologies are completely incompatible. Can you give me one objective, absolute, concrete reason why one is greater than the other (for everybody)?
As the people lose rights, the government gains power over them. The rulers are the only ones who benefit from that.
Ah, but in a democracy, no clear line exists between the people and the government. The government is part of the people, and the people are the government (by proxy). Every politician is an average person, who has to live by the same rules that you do. They get elected to do what the people want. Sometimes the people want to lose a right for the good of society.
That's in theory. There's nothing to say that the rules cannot be broken occasionally by some rogue politician.
My instinct as a nerd is libertarian, and it took me a little while to understand why:
Being a nerd means being different. Many of us have that "nerd complex" that helps us celebrate our diversity and our ability to do things and think things differently. Consequently, there's a great importance placed on the individual and the liberty of doing unusual things. Authority figures, who always found things simpler when everyone behaves and thinks the same way, are treated with great suspicion. Nerds understands the plight of people living in the fringes of the law and outside the fringes of orthodox morality, since they were often outsiders themselves as kids.
I don't get it. Why would you provide the right to relicense if you don't actually want that happening? Isn't that what the GPL is for? And what are these pros that BSD licenses have over GPL licenses that outweigh the cons?
You're parable doesn't fit. It neglects the changing nature of software and hardware. Your parable would work if everyone had stock-standard hardware that never, ever changed, and if software weren't allowed to be modified. It neglects to factor in how companies with large software budgets can take a program, change/improve on it greatly, break compatibility with the original, and sell the software, closed source. Sure the original is still good, but now the other proprietary program has taken over and cannibalised the market for the software. After the sweeter, bigger, juicier apples, the original apples aren't the same.
That's why I like the GPL. It uses corporate involvement to enrich itself, and forces them to give back what they've taken from the community.
Is anyone else getting sick of tags that "answer" the question asked in the subject?
Yes. I, for one, do not welcome our new frivolous-tagging overlords. I guess people discovered that tags were the perfect way of presenting their opinions so that they would be seen by everybody, and so no-one would be able to challenge their views. All it does is solidify the groupthink that is often prevalent in Slashdot discussions.
What? This is an abomination! How did this get modded up?! Did the moderator actually read the comment? I guess he must've missed the part where the parent said windoze is better than Mac OSX! Flamebait! Troll! Offtopic! Redundant!:)
The schedule for SP1 indicates MS is under zero pressure to deliver anything or do anything innovative. No point fantasizing about it.
The SP1 schedule doesn't indicate that at all. If anything, they are under a lot of pressure to deliver SP1, since so many people out there distrust recently released software, Windows especially. I would say that the schedule says that there is a lot of work to be done to make Vista attractive to potential consumers.
Allow me the ability to choose the entertainment I ACTUALLY want and give it to me at a price that someone living paycheque to paycheque could afford (i.e. broken down to individual services as much as possible) and I'll stop pirating.
You know what's also affordable, but legal? Not buying or pirating from the RIAA! Seriously, it sounds mildly pathetic when people act like the RIAA is somehow trapping them into buying their wares. Unwrap your lips from their teat, and try out some alternatives, who truly will give you better pricing on CDs. It's 100% legal and non-binding. Enjoy!
Piracy competes with its own supplier (the RIAA in this case). It's not really competition since it's completely reliant on the very thing it's competing with. It can simulate some of the effects of competition, such as lowering the price of existing products, but it doesn't provide an alternative. We're still stuck with the same ol' RIAA, and we will forever be if we rely on piracy.
The point is that they used to be able to sell CDs at high prices, but now (thanks to piracy) their demand pool is drying up, so they're lowering the price to encompass those who want CDs but aren't prepared to pay inflated prices for them. So yes, this is a result of piracy. What they don't mention is that piracy is partially a result of high CD prices in the first place
Someone/something's got to be responsible for illegal content posting, and I for one don't want that person/thing to be the automated posting system, or the operators of the system. It'd be a disturbing precedent if a company is held responsible for content posted on their sites. It'd result in draconian measures to prevent inappropriate content being posted, and generally hurt the site. Personally, I'm in favour personal responsibility.
The Parent is right. By the GP's definition, most "professional" IT companies are fucked. They are all made of human beings with human weaknesses. The name gives the first impression, and no matter how misleading it may be, people will always put some stock into it.
The society is already in deep apathy (if not slumber)
No, society isn't in "deep apathy", they are in "deep apathy" about Microsoft, and other issues that you care about. The fact that next to no-one cares that Microsoft just closed down a website is not a sad commentary on modern society, rather an eye-opening message that people don't always agree with you. Perhaps you are the one in "deep apathy", because you aren't doing anything constructive to feed the homeless, save the whales, etc, etc.
critical thought is about to send you to jail.
I call BS.
Bloggers on/. will rage and fume for a few days, but nobody will notice that anyhow, and all that rage will dissipate in a week, but the good business remains.
Microsoft has a reputation among certain circles, and this does nothing to improve it. Hell, with all the bad press on sites like/., even if they cleaned up their game tomorrow, it would take years for the hate to dissipate. If the public does forget every bit of negative press after a few days, why do we still hate Hitler?
I know with the rootkit, many people will justifiably pirate/refuse to purchase the game.
If you decide to pirate the game, all you're doing is sending the message that more time and effort is needed to stop/catch/sue pirates, meaning more "rootkits". It's a vicious cycle. Remember: if you decide to pirate, you are minutely responsible for copy protection, DRM, and disproportionate, negligently prepared lawsuits.
You aren't entitled to chances of returns unless you actually put money down. "I was going to buy it" doesn't count. Just like if you were going to buy a book, and the last copy sold out. You missed out, you didn't pay the money, you don't get the goods. If you don't pay the money, you don't get a chance at the lottery.
Also, are you saying it's perfectly fine for a pokie machine to take people's money, and not give any chance of return? You think that should be legal?
Consider the following: if I know how to paint, can I paint a picture by Dali and give it to one of my friends?
Yes. You'd be most likely making a derivative work, depending on how closely the painting resembles the original. Even if it's deemed a copy (on a case-by-case basis), it's sharing amongst friends, which is/should be covered by fair use.
What if I go buy a sculpture and want to give copies to my friends. But I sculpt it myself. Is that stealing? Do I need to go buy the sculpture from the store even though I can make it myself? What if I don't know how to sculpt but I have one of those laser scanners and modelers that is able to make a perfect 3d replica. Was it ok to sculpt myself but NOT ok to use the machine? Why? Because it's faster?
It's OK to do it yourself, but again, if the sculptures are similar enough to be copies, rather than derivative works, then it is copyright infringement. Using the machine guarantees that the sculpture will be a copy, since it will (more likely than not) be more accurate and precise. Also, the machine has no artistic capability, so it's works cannot be called artistic.
Finally, *theoretically* what if I were able to hear music and type out the 1s and 0s and make it sounds like a song on the radio. Am I not allowed to type out those 1s and 0s? If I am, then why can't I use a computer? Because it's faster?
You are allowed to type any combination of 1s and 0s that you like. It's only if you make them or keep them with intention making a copy of another artistic work. If you use them for different purposes, then it isn't copyright infringement.
You're stealing potential profits from the copyright holder. Whether or not you think the sale would have been made if you hadn't pirated their work is irrelevant. If there is even a minuscule chance that you would have paid for it (and there always is), you are stealing potential profits.
It'd be like a pokie machine not paying its players. The payout wouldn't necessarily happen, but you pay for the chance of a big payout (or the thrill really, because you stand next to no chance making steady money from them). The pokie (or whoever owns it) would be stealing from you, even if you didn't happen to get a payout.
Music really has gotten worse. The RIAA purposely pushes the music that they make the most on, and that music is often NOT the best music but rather the music of those who signed deals that were most favorable to the RIAA. Quality be damned. What do you think Payola is?!
The RIAA pushes artists that they think radio listeners will buy. They do payola because they'd much prefer the pop music to be theirs rather than some competitor. Why would they need to force a certain type of artist onto the public, when they have no shortage of popular or potentially popular artists? How exactly would they do that anyway? You can't manufacture musical taste in any realistic time-frame, so what's the point?
No, you should not be so quick to accept that. It sounds sensible, but is it really true?
I'm perfectly aware of the lack of reliable studies. I think the best we can do is look at sales figures for music, and they have been declining. Anyway, that's why I said "common sense", because there is reasoning behind the argument, in leu of hard figures. It makes sense that information that's freely and unlimitedly distributed is worth nothing - it's an old economic truth. If distribution is artificially limited, the value is increased. People won't pay for something they can get for free. Even if most of the people who pirate now wouldn't pay for the music they copied, piracy has a lot of potential for loss. But, in theory, there should be a significant increase in sales, should piracy disappear tomorrow (since most people like music).
Just as a side note, such rhetorical approaches like that fall under the "strawman" heading.
Don't forget to factor in all the sales gained thanks to piracy. That can even work out to a net gain.
Don't forget the sheer volume of pirates, and pirated content. Don't forget that this culture of piracy begets more piracy ("Why do I pay for music like a sucker when Mr Jones gets it for free?"). Don't forget that most of our culture relies on respect for IP.
Slashdot Mirror
No, sorry. Politics is simply too subjective to make it an issue of intelligence. We simply cannot prove that Libertarianism is "better" than any other ideology. Hell, we can't even agree as a society what "better" means! It's perfectly reasonable, giving as much freedom and choice as we can to the people, but then again, so is the concept of efficiency through uniformity. The two ideologies are completely incompatible. Can you give me one objective, absolute, concrete reason why one is greater than the other (for everybody)?
That's in theory. There's nothing to say that the rules cannot be broken occasionally by some rogue politician.
My instinct as a nerd is libertarian, and it took me a little while to understand why:
Being a nerd means being different. Many of us have that "nerd complex" that helps us celebrate our diversity and our ability to do things and think things differently. Consequently, there's a great importance placed on the individual and the liberty of doing unusual things. Authority figures, who always found things simpler when everyone behaves and thinks the same way, are treated with great suspicion. Nerds understands the plight of people living in the fringes of the law and outside the fringes of orthodox morality, since they were often outsiders themselves as kids.
I don't get it. Why would you provide the right to relicense if you don't actually want that happening? Isn't that what the GPL is for? And what are these pros that BSD licenses have over GPL licenses that outweigh the cons?
You're parable doesn't fit. It neglects the changing nature of software and hardware. Your parable would work if everyone had stock-standard hardware that never, ever changed, and if software weren't allowed to be modified. It neglects to factor in how companies with large software budgets can take a program, change/improve on it greatly, break compatibility with the original, and sell the software, closed source. Sure the original is still good, but now the other proprietary program has taken over and cannibalised the market for the software. After the sweeter, bigger, juicier apples, the original apples aren't the same.
That's why I like the GPL. It uses corporate involvement to enrich itself, and forces them to give back what they've taken from the community.
What? This is an abomination! How did this get modded up?! Did the moderator actually read the comment? I guess he must've missed the part where the parent said windoze is better than Mac OSX! Flamebait! Troll! Offtopic! Redundant! :)
Ooo-hooo, I heard it through the steak vine...
Piracy competes with its own supplier (the RIAA in this case). It's not really competition since it's completely reliant on the very thing it's competing with. It can simulate some of the effects of competition, such as lowering the price of existing products, but it doesn't provide an alternative. We're still stuck with the same ol' RIAA, and we will forever be if we rely on piracy.
The point is that they used to be able to sell CDs at high prices, but now (thanks to piracy) their demand pool is drying up, so they're lowering the price to encompass those who want CDs but aren't prepared to pay inflated prices for them. So yes, this is a result of piracy. What they don't mention is that piracy is partially a result of high CD prices in the first place
Superman doesn't need payphones, he can use mobiles like the rest of us.
And he's superman. Any payphone could become mobile if he feels like lugging it around.
Someone/something's got to be responsible for illegal content posting, and I for one don't want that person/thing to be the automated posting system, or the operators of the system. It'd be a disturbing precedent if a company is held responsible for content posted on their sites. It'd result in draconian measures to prevent inappropriate content being posted, and generally hurt the site. Personally, I'm in favour personal responsibility.
... why do you consider the pre-release codenames "elitist"?
The Parent is right. By the GP's definition, most "professional" IT companies are fucked. They are all made of human beings with human weaknesses. The name gives the first impression, and no matter how misleading it may be, people will always put some stock into it.
He could just hack and sell one of the other iPhones for cash to pay off the taxes.
You aren't entitled to chances of returns unless you actually put money down. "I was going to buy it" doesn't count. Just like if you were going to buy a book, and the last copy sold out. You missed out, you didn't pay the money, you don't get the goods. If you don't pay the money, you don't get a chance at the lottery.
Also, are you saying it's perfectly fine for a pokie machine to take people's money, and not give any chance of return? You think that should be legal?
You're stealing potential profits from the copyright holder. Whether or not you think the sale would have been made if you hadn't pirated their work is irrelevant. If there is even a minuscule chance that you would have paid for it (and there always is), you are stealing potential profits.
It'd be like a pokie machine not paying its players. The payout wouldn't necessarily happen, but you pay for the chance of a big payout (or the thrill really, because you stand next to no chance making steady money from them). The pokie (or whoever owns it) would be stealing from you, even if you didn't happen to get a payout.
Just as a side note, such rhetorical approaches like that fall under the "strawman" heading.Don't forget the sheer volume of pirates, and pirated content. Don't forget that this culture of piracy begets more piracy ("Why do I pay for music like a sucker when Mr Jones gets it for free?"). Don't forget that most of our culture relies on respect for IP.
Me personally, I don't need God to get high, I get high off life.