The point you are both missing is that in Nazi germany a majority of the people would have been raged if they knew exactly what was going on i Auswitch - Birkenau. A few people and the government thought it was right.
My original post didn't question the end product of the parents reasoning but the way he got there lacked several vital parts and was in my opinion totally outrageous. A more civilized way to get to the same conclusion would be this:(imo)
Currently the U.S. is a democracy. Democracy means the rule of the people. The U.S. being a indirect democracy means that formally the elected senators and congressmen are the people. Otherwise it would not be a democracy as one people would rule another instead of one people ruling itself.
If a majority of the people think copyright is wrong compared to the miniority who thinks it's right then the system is not working. If the government says the country is democratic but it is in fact not then you could expect some kind of revoloution. Thus it would be right of the people to ignore the law since more people oppose it than those who support it.
If on the other hand you know that a miniority of the people oppose copyright laws but an even smaller miniority really supports them and that the majority has been tricked by record companies and their media machine then you can have your revoloution and you might win but in the end you will be placed right beside Lenin in the history books. He happened to think that way.
If the above is the case then you are better off informing the majority the way the democratic system intends you to.
To answer the parent of this post: I think doing anything is right but you need to be prepared to have other people do what they think is right. If they think it was stupid to kill jews then they might just kill you off if they get the chance. I think it's wrong to ignore what other people think without trying to analyse it and if anarchists or nazis would do that througly I believe that they might be turned over.
These retailers at least think that they have a viable market and that spending a lot of money to make the product worse hurts their sales.
The interesting part is not that the retailers realize this but that the records fail to realize this. While you're at it you might want to look into wether or not I'm willing to give my money to you so that you can sue my friends.
"I don't see anything wrong with "blatantly ignoring" a law I don't believe is right."
I'm not signed up for the copyright laws fanclub either but with that reasoning you declare that everyone can act based on their own beliefs, blatantly ignoring the governmental system they are a part of. Going by your reasoning Anarchists would be allowed to do what the hell they wanted to, thus forcing everyone else to act as Anarchists to defend themselves. If a nazi thinks it's right to kill jews it's ok for him to go out on his own crusade?
Liberalism in Europe means the same thing as everywhere else. The meaning of the word doesn't change because it is misused to represent something that it isn't.
When liberalism was created people wanted freedom but they also realized that anarchism would be a war of all. Because of this liberals accept a smaller government so that people can live together. One of the more extreme forms of liberalism is Manchester-liberalism which represents a very free market. If you can compete and feed yourself you die. Pretty much.
It is true that liberals in Europe have realized that they have to give up some free market value in favor for social security and health care to prevent a cynical society but that doesn't change the meaning of the word Liberal in Europe. The kind of liberals you describe sound more like social liberalism. Look at Swedeb for an example. The big parties are all social liberal but with diffrent opinion on how much market freedom should be dropped for a bit of socialism.
"There's Communist Parties, Socialist Parties and Green Parties who all believe in government interference in the market as well as disagree with the conservatives on social issues."
Conservatism as an ideology doesn't define how free the market should be or what political freedom there should be. Conservatism focuses on slow developement so that bad decisions can easily be reverted. The ideology was created because of disgust over the french revoloution that had overthrown the government. Consevatism focuses on the point that the government is the work of generations and that it represents the culture and history of the country and if changes are made too fast bad changes will be made because so few people, only one generation, will make the decisions.
This means conservatists can have diffrent opinions about socialism/liberalism and what changes to make but they agree that the changes should be made slowly.
I am aware that conservatism has been used by rich, greedy people who are actually pretty happy with no changes what so ever or even reactionary because they liked the system where they would actually still be very rich. Again this doesn't change the meaning of the word, making conservatism an ideology that always opposes socialism. Revoloutinary socialism as described by Carl Marx as "communism" on the other hand...
Actually you are wrong. Political parties are from time to time defined on a scale. Sometimes the scale is more like a circle just to show how closely National Socialism resembles Socialism.
The German worker party were anti-socialists and so are most nazis today but they were also in fact anti-capitalists. I do not actually know exactly what they wanted with economics. Racial superiority is not all there is to national socialism even though that might seem like the case today. Many National Socialists during the 30s thought the people were too stupid and didn't know what they wanted to rule a country. That part was much like what Voltaire thought before the French Revolution. The idea that some nazis had was that the society should be built from bottom to top like the army. Something along the lines that humans need clear direction or they'll be confused and weak.
Just in case you wonder, what Voltaire suggested was something similar to the democratic centralism that Lenin used to describe his system in russia after the revolution. I.e. one person makes the calls but others can make suggestions that the leader can choose from. About the only thing that was really democratic about that was the word "democratic".
To those saying "Did you think energy-saving would come with out cost?": Well if the cost is energy then it's pointless right? Think about: 1. Mining and refining materials used in drive. 2. Manufacturing drive. 3. Trucks shipping the drive from factory to customer. After all that the drive comes home to you only to have a much shorter lifetime because you want to save energy. Now you just have to buy a new drive because that's the cost of saving energy, and transport the old one to proper recycling facilities.
1. Choose to donate to EFF at slashdots charity auction. 2. Choose the auctioned object that suits you the best. 3. Fail to account for the massive traffic your choice will generate. 4. ??? 5. Profit!
If the data on the disk is not encrypted it's your own fault. With a little more hassle the same thing is possible today by booting a Linux disc or simply stealing the HDD.
Look at what music has become. A great way to express your opinion huh?
Think about it! The whole thing is ridiculous. The labels decide what the artists sing so it's not really the artists opinion and the labels just make them sing what gives the most money.
If they sing about anarchy then it's no ones opinion? It might just affect the listeners but what if the listeners know it's not the artists opinion?
If you are sending out legit marketing emails, what about actually having a "this email-adress is not live link"? I mean, if you send out marketing emails you might be interested in finding a way to tell if people at the emails you send them and if they don't, stop sending them. Most probably they only find them annoying.
I'd not want to buy anything from Sony and I'd not buy anything from MS. This is right! Another more serious point is that I want a player to play BOTH formats because otherwise I might end up with a player for a unpopular format. For now I'll just wait though.
I wonder who actually considers its use to be more difficult than hunting the internet for shareware and crapware until you find the right one.
I think you are so wrong about this. The avarage windows user probably doesn't know how to install a program from a icon on their desktop, barely. I don't know too many people that will actually search for share-free or crack(hush, no one does this, really) ware. I know you could argue that everyone at least remotely advanced as a user should switch, but without a critical mass switching anyone playing certain games won't switch what so ever. (User who knows something but not much, might possibly be a gamer)
Yea, that's right! I totally forgot exactly what it all was about.
On another note though, I think if this resolved nicely it could team up with the story about record companies ditching DRM and maybe it will all go away. (or not) I really don't see why there is a point in DRM. People go to TBB and download music. (No DRM) People go to TBP and download music. (With DRM) I mean it's not like it's changing anything right now? Except I can't easily LAN with a friend and give him my iTunes music. Though that doesn't STOP me from giving him the music, it deters me from buying it.
An open market is good whether it's Apple or Microsoft that are being told about it. I can't see how this DRM enhances the user experience or is godd in any other way than to force consumers into one label. It's good Norway is doing something about it. (I live in Sweden and i thought that the nordic consumer rights bla bla people had joined together sometime last year because of this. I might be wrong though.)
Slashdot Mirror
The point you are both missing is that in Nazi germany a majority of the people would have been raged if they knew exactly what was going on i Auswitch - Birkenau. A few people and the government thought it was right.
My original post didn't question the end product of the parents reasoning but the way he got there lacked several vital parts and was in my opinion totally outrageous. A more civilized way to get to the same conclusion would be this:(imo)
Currently the U.S. is a democracy. Democracy means the rule of the people. The U.S. being a indirect democracy means that formally the elected senators and congressmen are the people. Otherwise it would not be a democracy as one people would rule another instead of one people ruling itself.
If a majority of the people think copyright is wrong compared to the miniority who thinks it's right then the system is not working. If the government says the country is democratic but it is in fact not then you could expect some kind of revoloution. Thus it would be right of the people to ignore the law since more people oppose it than those who support it.
If on the other hand you know that a miniority of the people oppose copyright laws but an even smaller miniority really supports them and that the majority has been tricked by record companies and their media machine then you can have your revoloution and you might win but in the end you will be placed right beside Lenin in the history books. He happened to think that way.
If the above is the case then you are better off informing the majority the way the democratic system intends you to.
To answer the parent of this post:
I think doing anything is right but you need to be prepared to have other people do what they think is right. If they think it was stupid to kill jews then they might just kill you off if they get the chance. I think it's wrong to ignore what other people think without trying to analyse it and if anarchists or nazis would do that througly I believe that they might be turned over.
These retailers at least think that they have a viable market and that spending a lot of money to make the product worse hurts their sales.
The interesting part is not that the retailers realize this but that the records fail to realize this. While you're at it you might want to look into wether or not I'm willing to give my money to you so that you can sue my friends.
"I don't see anything wrong with "blatantly ignoring" a law I don't believe is right."
I'm not signed up for the copyright laws fanclub either but with that reasoning you declare that everyone can act based on their own beliefs, blatantly ignoring the governmental system they are a part of. Going by your reasoning Anarchists would be allowed to do what the hell they wanted to, thus forcing everyone else to act as Anarchists to defend themselves. If a nazi thinks it's right to kill jews it's ok for him to go out on his own crusade?
Liberalism in Europe means the same thing as everywhere else. The meaning of the word doesn't change because it is misused to represent something that it isn't.
When liberalism was created people wanted freedom but they also realized that anarchism would be a war of all. Because of this liberals accept a smaller government so that people can live together. One of the more extreme forms of liberalism is Manchester-liberalism which represents a very free market. If you can compete and feed yourself you die. Pretty much.
It is true that liberals in Europe have realized that they have to give up some free market value in favor for social security and health care to prevent a cynical society but that doesn't change the meaning of the word Liberal in Europe. The kind of liberals you describe sound more like social liberalism. Look at Swedeb for an example. The big parties are all social liberal but with diffrent opinion on how much market freedom should be dropped for a bit of socialism.
"There's Communist Parties, Socialist Parties and Green Parties who all believe in government interference in the market as well as disagree with the conservatives on social issues."
Conservatism as an ideology doesn't define how free the market should be or what political freedom there should be. Conservatism focuses on slow developement so that bad decisions can easily be reverted. The ideology was created because of disgust over the french revoloution that had overthrown the government. Consevatism focuses on the point that the government is the work of generations and that it represents the culture and history of the country and if changes are made too fast bad changes will be made because so few people, only one generation, will make the decisions.
This means conservatists can have diffrent opinions about socialism/liberalism and what changes to make but they agree that the changes should be made slowly.
I am aware that conservatism has been used by rich, greedy people who are actually pretty happy with no changes what so ever or even reactionary because they liked the system where they would actually still be very rich. Again this doesn't change the meaning of the word, making conservatism an ideology that always opposes socialism. Revoloutinary socialism as described by Carl Marx as "communism" on the other hand...
Actually you are wrong. Political parties are from time to time defined on a scale. Sometimes the scale is more like a circle just to show how closely National Socialism resembles Socialism.
The German worker party were anti-socialists and so are most nazis today but they were also in fact anti-capitalists. I do not actually know exactly what they wanted with economics. Racial superiority is not all there is to national socialism even though that might seem like the case today. Many National Socialists during the 30s thought the people were too stupid and didn't know what they wanted to rule a country. That part was much like what Voltaire thought before the French Revolution. The idea that some nazis had was that the society should be built from bottom to top like the army. Something along the lines that humans need clear direction or they'll be confused and weak.
Just in case you wonder, what Voltaire suggested was something similar to the democratic centralism that Lenin used to describe his system in russia after the revolution. I.e. one person makes the calls but others can make suggestions that the leader can choose from. About the only thing that was really democratic about that was the word "democratic".
I think you could get in trouble for writing the entire book there without paying someone somewhere. I do indeed believe that you could.
To those saying "Did you think energy-saving would come with out cost?":
Well if the cost is energy then it's pointless right? Think about:
1. Mining and refining materials used in drive.
2. Manufacturing drive.
3. Trucks shipping the drive from factory to customer.
After all that the drive comes home to you only to have a much shorter lifetime because you want to save energy. Now you just have to buy a new drive because that's the cost of saving energy, and transport the old one to proper recycling facilities.
Tags if you replace all instances of Ubuntu with Vista:
haha, defectivebydesign, MS, vistafailure, vista
1. Choose to donate to EFF at slashdots charity auction.
2. Choose the auctioned object that suits you the best.
3. Fail to account for the massive traffic your choice will generate.
4. ???
5. Profit!
"International Federation of Pirates Interests should not be confused with {The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry}[ifpi.org]."
If the data on the disk is not encrypted it's your own fault. With a little more hassle the same thing is possible today by booting a Linux disc or simply stealing the HDD.
"...Microsoft thinks it is good if OOXML becomes a standard."
O rly? I couldn't have guessed!!
"But almost all customers we have been talking to thinks it would be good if OOXML became an ISO standard."
And I suppose you talked to other companies customers and not just your own?
More storage makes it easier to tak backups but with more storage I will also store more data and then the backups will get larger and.. :(
I am now king of this playground and there is nothing you can say to stop it in any way forever and ever.
Results 1 - 10 of about 678,000 for phonographic
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,300,000 for pornographic
Maybe that you automatically assumed it was the word that you were the most likely to read?
Look at what music has become. A great way to express your opinion huh?
Think about it! The whole thing is ridiculous. The labels decide what the artists sing so it's not really the artists opinion and the labels just make them sing what gives the most money.
If they sing about anarchy then it's no ones opinion? It might just affect the listeners but what if the listeners know it's not the artists opinion?
Ok! Let's do it! Start Up PING:
64 bytes from 207.218.203.242 64 bytes from 207.218.203.242 64 bytes from 207.218.203.242
I just realized another language that would be a great addition to Google Language Tools.
If you are sending out legit marketing emails, what about actually having a "this email-adress is not live link"? I mean, if you send out marketing emails you might be interested in finding a way to tell if people at the emails you send them and if they don't, stop sending them. Most probably they only find them annoying.
I'd not want to buy anything from Sony and I'd not buy anything from MS. This is right! Another more serious point is that I want a player to play BOTH formats because otherwise I might end up with a player for a unpopular format. For now I'll just wait though.
I think you are so wrong about this. The avarage windows user probably doesn't know how to install a program from a icon on their desktop, barely. I don't know too many people that will actually search for share-free or crack(hush, no one does this, really) ware. I know you could argue that everyone at least remotely advanced as a user should switch, but without a critical mass switching anyone playing certain games won't switch what so ever. (User who knows something but not much, might possibly be a gamer)
On another note though, I think if this resolved nicely it could team up with the story about record companies ditching DRM and maybe it will all go away. (or not) I really don't see why there is a point in DRM. People go to TBB and download music. (No DRM) People go to TBP and download music. (With DRM) I mean it's not like it's changing anything right now? Except I can't easily LAN with a friend and give him my iTunes music. Though that doesn't STOP me from giving him the music, it deters me from buying it.
An open market is good whether it's Apple or Microsoft that are being told about it. I can't see how this DRM enhances the user experience or is godd in any other way than to force consumers into one label. It's good Norway is doing something about it. (I live in Sweden and i thought that the nordic consumer rights bla bla people had joined together sometime last year because of this. I might be wrong though.)
Suddenly the word "Typo" get more respect if you're holding the phone pointed at your stomach while writing an email.
That is true. Hating both equally doesn't make him neutral but by hating everyone equally he doesn't discriminate anyone.