... if possible. Sure, it is possible that a Borne or Bond movie could be financed this way. Sure, if people can overcome the inevitable apathy and resist the inevitable tragedy of the commons, I could even see this becoming a stable business practice. But what about people who's tastes don't fit in the mainstream? Who's going to finance their movies?
As a matter of fact, I can just see movies becoming like the political system today:
a) Art becomes a matter of popular opinion, and people can vote (but with their wallet, in this case) b) People will be apathetic in their vote, secure in the belief that someone else will take care of it c) What we actually get is something that makes nobody really happy, but relatively few truly unhappy either d) The field will become dominated by rich, corporate interests, since they are the ones with the most money and influence
Excessive government control ==> It's a crime simply to engage in a certain type of business transaction ==> People who engage in those business transactions have little incentive not to break other laws ==> Violent business practices
So you are referring to ineffective excessive government control. I guess, in effect, it would be very similar to absolutely no government control.
for example, yet the mob still finds it profitable to involve themselves in casinos.
So you would think that the mafia being violent is a result of business practices they do being illegal, rather than the other way around? The way I see it, the mob is naturally violent. That's their MO. They use intimidation and violence to practice their business. Since they already break one of the largest taboos we have (murder), they figure they might as well go after something lucrative like gambling.
So what?
So, to characterise excessive government control as less competition is extremely misleading.
The only one waving their hand about how common or rare this situation is, is you.
Perhaps, but then again, no-one asked me to delve any further on that point. I had assumed it was obvious, after people looked beyond the one or two cases of government regulation being anti-competition (in free markets), and realised that there really aren't that many examples, whereas antitrust laws are part of the law itself, and are actually enforced (I know, not as much as some would like, but they are enforced).
Well, that's another interesting theory, but being unable to prove it one way or the other, and having vast tracts of circumstantial evidence backing up each, let's just stick to the theoretical, shall we? After all, we were originally talking about "ultimate expressions", which really should be purely theoretical. The mafia is one of the closest things we have to the ultimate expression of deregulation.
As far as I can decipher it, the OP's argument breaks down as follows:
Excessive government control ==> Insignificant competition ==> Violent business practices
I broke down both of those connections. Excessive government control doesn't stifle competition. Government control is a normalising force, designed to keep the system working and the interests of the people first and foremost on the agenda. Unfortunately, just like with pretty much anything, excessive use of it ends up doing more harm than good. To say that excessive regulation results in less competition focuses on one relatively small, rarely used aspect of government regulation. More often than not, government regulation actually encourages more competition. The real danger of using in excess is that companies will suffer from the tall poppy phenomenon, and will have no motivation to stand out from the crowd, but certainly not that there won't be competition.
As for the second connection, that makes little sense either, especially when taken in the context of government regulation. Regulation is designed to prevent shady practices, the most glaringly obvious of which is violence and intimidation. Only if the government stepped out of the business world completely could so obviously immoral, detrimental, and dangerous behaviour be allowed in the marketplace.
So there you go: that's my interpretation of the OP's argument, and my argument explained carefully.
Oh, and to the moderator who modded this thread offtopic: Remember, this is an article about Microsoft, and adopting code which could break their monopoly on their proprietary web browser. More competition, etc. Sound familiar?
Your argument has two glaring problems. Firstly, government regulation does not equal less competition. In many cases it results in more competition, especially in the case of monopolies and collusion between companies. Secondly, the mafia cannot legally exist because of laws limiting them, in other words, government regulation. Without the most basic regulation, then any business could (and probably would) become like the mafia. Competition would be limited to companies competing to be the most intimidating, and whoever could intimidate enough people into paying them. In a world with excessive government regulation, even the kind that produces less competition, at least the government would be regulating against such behaviour.
Mod me up or down, who gives a shit. Modpoints aren't like $USD they're only valuable if the default slashdot discussion settings treat them like they have value.
There is one advantage I can see to all of this. Big Brother will block anything illegal and offensive to me, right? So I can download absolutely anything I DO find since it MUST be legal. After all, the censorship is perfect!
That argument is stupid, and a strawman. Censorship doesn't have to block everything, it just has to have no false positives. What you actually can assume, in that ironic way, about this censorship is that anything censored will be illegal. Nothing more, nothing less.
He's right. Moderation is here to promote discussion, not to promote your own viewpoints or logged in users, or anything else for that matter. If a comment is worth reading, mod it up. If it challenged your viewpoints in a unique way, even to the point of making angry, mod it up. I know it's hard to award what looks like accolades to something you find offensive, but it'll make for a better slashdot. Trust me.
A crucial difference between the standard mathematical and conventional notions of a knot is that mathematical knots are closed--there are no ends to tie or untie on a mathematical knot.
When normal people make statements that amount to "I'm not going to send data packets in that electric current running from my house. I might want to save them for later." with a straight face and expect to be taken seriously, clearly, the culture is not particularly sane and rational.
Either that, or at least somewhat intelligent, with a basic grasp of what makes the internet feasible. What, you think electricity will just control itself and form your packets for free? You do? How very sane and rational of you.
Yep. I prefer our Aussie way. We share our apples with our mates if we can, but mercilessly torment anyone, through cruel teases and jibes, who actually gathers the courage to ask us for them.
Well, to be fair, the evil only comes from the "extinguish" phase, and even then it relies on whether or not we actually want OpenID at all. Maybe extinguishing is not such an evil idea...
If the security angle is playing up, push through Patriot Act-like legislation. If the public are using the child pornography ramrod, push through censorship legislation. You wouldn't want to look soft on paedophiles, would you?
Slashdot Mirror
... if possible. Sure, it is possible that a Borne or Bond movie could be financed this way. Sure, if people can overcome the inevitable apathy and resist the inevitable tragedy of the commons, I could even see this becoming a stable business practice. But what about people who's tastes don't fit in the mainstream? Who's going to finance their movies?
As a matter of fact, I can just see movies becoming like the political system today:
a) Art becomes a matter of popular opinion, and people can vote (but with their wallet, in this case)
b) People will be apathetic in their vote, secure in the belief that someone else will take care of it
c) What we actually get is something that makes nobody really happy, but relatively few truly unhappy either
d) The field will become dominated by rich, corporate interests, since they are the ones with the most money and influence
So you are referring to ineffective excessive government control. I guess, in effect, it would be very similar to absolutely no government control.
So you would think that the mafia being violent is a result of business practices they do being illegal, rather than the other way around? The way I see it, the mob is naturally violent. That's their MO. They use intimidation and violence to practice their business. Since they already break one of the largest taboos we have (murder), they figure they might as well go after something lucrative like gambling.
So, to characterise excessive government control as less competition is extremely misleading.
Perhaps, but then again, no-one asked me to delve any further on that point. I had assumed it was obvious, after people looked beyond the one or two cases of government regulation being anti-competition (in free markets), and realised that there really aren't that many examples, whereas antitrust laws are part of the law itself, and are actually enforced (I know, not as much as some would like, but they are enforced).
Well, that's another interesting theory, but being unable to prove it one way or the other, and having vast tracts of circumstantial evidence backing up each, let's just stick to the theoretical, shall we? After all, we were originally talking about "ultimate expressions", which really should be purely theoretical. The mafia is one of the closest things we have to the ultimate expression of deregulation.
It's funny because the parent poster can't tell the difference between the BPI and the government!
As far as I can decipher it, the OP's argument breaks down as follows:
Excessive government control ==>
Insignificant competition ==>
Violent business practices
I broke down both of those connections. Excessive government control doesn't stifle competition. Government control is a normalising force, designed to keep the system working and the interests of the people first and foremost on the agenda. Unfortunately, just like with pretty much anything, excessive use of it ends up doing more harm than good. To say that excessive regulation results in less competition focuses on one relatively small, rarely used aspect of government regulation. More often than not, government regulation actually encourages more competition. The real danger of using in excess is that companies will suffer from the tall poppy phenomenon, and will have no motivation to stand out from the crowd, but certainly not that there won't be competition.
As for the second connection, that makes little sense either, especially when taken in the context of government regulation. Regulation is designed to prevent shady practices, the most glaringly obvious of which is violence and intimidation. Only if the government stepped out of the business world completely could so obviously immoral, detrimental, and dangerous behaviour be allowed in the marketplace.
So there you go: that's my interpretation of the OP's argument, and my argument explained carefully.
Oh, and to the moderator who modded this thread offtopic: Remember, this is an article about Microsoft, and adopting code which could break their monopoly on their proprietary web browser. More competition, etc. Sound familiar?
Your argument has two glaring problems. Firstly, government regulation does not equal less competition. In many cases it results in more competition, especially in the case of monopolies and collusion between companies. Secondly, the mafia cannot legally exist because of laws limiting them, in other words, government regulation. Without the most basic regulation, then any business could (and probably would) become like the mafia. Competition would be limited to companies competing to be the most intimidating, and whoever could intimidate enough people into paying them. In a world with excessive government regulation, even the kind that produces less competition, at least the government would be regulating against such behaviour.
In other words, your argument makes no sense.
That's why I've always preferred the silicone mathematician.
Fixed that for you.
That argument is stupid, and a strawman. Censorship doesn't have to block everything, it just has to have no false positives. What you actually can assume, in that ironic way, about this censorship is that anything censored will be illegal. Nothing more, nothing less.
Just out of curiosity, which blocked legal sites could we test this on?
Really?
Tag this: notsosuddenbreakoutofgroupthink
Oh, most certainly. I simply can't imagine a more rabidly politically correct bunch than Slashdotters.
He's right. Moderation is here to promote discussion, not to promote your own viewpoints or logged in users, or anything else for that matter. If a comment is worth reading, mod it up. If it challenged your viewpoints in a unique way, even to the point of making angry, mod it up. I know it's hard to award what looks like accolades to something you find offensive, but it'll make for a better slashdot. Trust me.
Ha! So true! A fine debut for your new account!
He's right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_(mathematics)
... or if the person is a deluded acerbic asshole. Sure, you're more of a flamebait, but I don't think we need to nitpick that much.
Either that, or at least somewhat intelligent, with a basic grasp of what makes the internet feasible. What, you think electricity will just control itself and form your packets for free? You do? How very sane and rational of you.
Yep. I prefer our Aussie way. We share our apples with our mates if we can, but mercilessly torment anyone, through cruel teases and jibes, who actually gathers the courage to ask us for them.
Well, to be fair, the evil only comes from the "extinguish" phase, and even then it relies on whether or not we actually want OpenID at all. Maybe extinguishing is not such an evil idea...
How about a ruler?
One and two.
Mods, be kind! He's been modded down already!
I think you have it backwards:
If the security angle is playing up, push through Patriot Act-like legislation.
If the public are using the child pornography ramrod, push through censorship legislation. You wouldn't want to look soft on paedophiles, would you?
Possibly, if child pornography becomes as popular as alcohol in the next couple of months.
Well, we never have had to resort to violence in much more tumultuous times than these. I doubt it'll come to that.