The Leased Life? 382
Effugas asks: "I've been thinking about something off and on for some time now...perhaps, in all of our complaining that the patent office equates 'net' with 'new', we've done a bit of this ourselves? I'm thinking particularly in regards to non-computer related economic trends that look suspiciously like what the computer industry has taught us to expect. To wit: You don't own your apps (ASP's), you can't control your software (UCITA), your music isn't yours (SDMI), your privacy isn't yours, etc. Now look at the real world in areas where tech savviness is on the rise: leased cars, rented houses, long term apartments / condos / duplexes...your employment is at will and can disappear anytime, and your cities seem strangely hostile to you doing anything other than working, sleeping, or spending. Note the lack of any kind of long term commitments, ownerships, investments, or so on... Is there a relationship between tech patterns and what's going on outside? I'd appreciate your comments."
Nothing much new... (Score:2)
Owning your own house was also a new, post WWII, thing. Yeah, it's slipping away, with two-income families struggling to buy a house remotely close to their workplace, but it isn't something new -- we're just going back to 'the good old days'.
Of course, there's a limit to how much people are willing to let slip away before they fight back, so it's not all gone for good...
Re:Yes. (Score:2)
I took quite a few headers off the old Schwinn and it never hurt me any!
Re:You rotten bastard. :) (Score:2)
Re:Mud to Mud (Score:2)
For a couple with no kids, there's no real problem, they just divvy up (maybe messily, but that's irrelevant) and go their separate ways (yes, that doesn't always work, but that's irrelevant too).
For a couple with kids, those kids are probably better off with divorced parents than ones that stay together "for the kids". Yes, it's messy and upsetting for the kids, but that's far better than living with parents that hate each other and are force to live with each other.
Now, I'm still in my first marriage (comming on 9 years) with two kids and I'm hoping that it will be "death do us part" (or 50 years, that's what we jokingly promised each other), but if it should ever come to the point where my wife and I hate each other, we won't be staying together "for the kids". That would cause them more harm than good. Sure, we came close to splitting up a few years ago, but that was due to external problems and missunderstandings, but fortunatly we realised what the problem was and that we still wanted to be with each other before it was too late.
Couples that don't want to be together (and remember, it takes two), should be allowed to split up, no matter what. I will conceed, however, that many give up too early (as my wife and I almost did), but they do still have the option of getting back together again, should they decide that splitting was a mistake. I believe it is peaple being forced to live together when they don't want to that causes most domestic violence (there are exceptions).
Re:Mud to Mud (Score:2)
I see your point, but I disagree with your assertion that it makes us all worse off. Just because a couple gets together knowing they can `just get a divorce' if things don't turn out doesn't mean they aren't committed. Heck, every other legal contract (and that's exactly what a marriage is) has an out; why should marriage be any different? (ok, that doesn't support my argument, but still...). Having an out make it easier to make a commitment. How does divorce not being available help anybody?
Hmm, I just realised the flaw in your argument. Having divorce as an option actually strengthens the commitment in a marriage, if it doesn't create it in the first place. If there is no option, there can be no commitment as there is no choice.
With divorce available, the couple is committing to making their marriage work. Without divorce, where is the commitment? What are they committing to? When my wife and I got married, we went in saying to each other "it's a gamble and if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but let's do the best we can to make it work". And as I said earlier, we're still married after almost 9 years (and I'm only 29:).
it's all about - (Score:2)
In this case, it's all about CASH FLOW.
It's psychologically easier to sell a couch for $35 a month than it is to sell it for $2000. Once you get folks to accept that, you can jack up the price in increments that are much more difficult to track, $40 doesn't seem too much more, until you multiply that over 5 years: $300. Even better when 5 years down the road, those $ are worth close to the same they are now (low inflation). Wonder why inflation has been so low in the past few years?
Companies can pose a much better case for future success if they have regular cash flow. Income. Which is funny, because I have a much easier time financing a house if I have a big chunk of money up front, than I do if I present my salary. It's what they want, continuous payments, a steadily increasing stream of income. Monthly service this, monthly payment that. Companies' employees demand monthly payments as salaries. Why not break down the income into monthlies as well? Easier on the accounting. Easier to dupe with.
The sick thing about it is, the people who CAN afford to buy things like cars outright with cash, are the same ones that can qualify for reasonable financing. The others get bent over with high rates, because they are higher-risk borrowers. A big stinky crock of shit, no?
To say nothing that when the day personal property is eliminated from the capitalistic system (hows THAT for a switch), we basically become economic slaves - not only are we running on an income treadmill, but we're pursuing a carrot merchandise on a stick.
This is the ONE reason I will not buy a TiVo. I will NOT buy into their monthly service crap. $12 is way too much to pay for downloading a TV directory, when my Satellite system downloads a new one every 5 seconds.
The only thing that has mitigated this downward spiral over the last decade has been the trend towards giving employees stock options, especially in the tech industry. Only then can a person break from the economic strata they started in. It worked for me. I'm one of the lucky few. I don't know who's back I stepped on to get here either. But I'm here, and I have a 9.9% rate Visa card, and a Home Equity Line of Credit, and OWN both of my cars.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Re:Argh! (Score:2)
Everybody that dies from accidents is stupid?
Tell that to the families of sober people who happened to be in a car that was hit by one being driven by a drunk driver.
Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock" (Score:2)
I know Amazon ain't kosher. You got better URLs on Toffler?
What about a Slashdot interview with Mr. Toffler?
__
Re:Oh BOO HOO! (Score:2)
You can't own information. You _CAN_ be the only person allowed to do certain things with it, but that's not at all the same. (copyright is: a temporary monopoly on the distribution of copies of the music, sometimes)
However, what he was complaining about was that copyright holders are attempting to control how he can use material he paid for a copy of which flies in the face of the first amendment and the tradition of first sale.
As for RMS, you're missing two issues. First, that the GPL only kicks in if you want to redistribute someone elses' GPL'ed code. You may of course use it in any other way you want, which is traditional for all copyrighted material. Copyright has nothing to do with use. It concerns itself with some, but not all cases of distribution of copies.
Moneyed copyright holders are trying to change this even though it's unconstitutional. Their efforts are a Bad Thing.
And of course, if there were no copyrights on software (personally I can accept copyrights, but the current system both sucks and blows) then while the GPL would no longer work, there would be no point in hiding source code - people could legally copy everything anyway. I suspect RMS would not have as big a problem with that as you might think. The GPL is only a good solution within the current rules.
But the point remains, no one owns information. It's not property. It's nothing like property. Attempts to treat it as though it were are doomed to failure, which is why the law doesn't do that anyway. Copyright isn't property law.
Public transport systems (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:People are not stupid (Score:2)
Re:Do not rent or lease. (Score:2)
right to remove any vehicle for any reason they deem appropriate."
The local statutes might protect you here.
You can't put something in a contract that
supercedes the laws of your city or state.
I'd be filing a complaint with the attorney general, not with slashdot.
However, I would have never signed this lease as written. At the VERY least, I would have had
a specific list of what those "reasons" do and
do not include. You have to negotiate these things. It is *VERY* important to not be homeless while you are shopping for your next apartment.
When you have the luxury of using your feet to
negotiate, you have power over them.
Re:you left out an important one... (Score:2)
Spoken by somebody who has never "oopsed" himself
into child support.
Re:Not a matter of influence (Score:2)
Oh but you probably can afford "a house"
Not one overlooking San Diego, perhaps, or
one in Downtown San Jose.
There is plenty of available real estate in America. I could have bought the last house
I lived in near Dallas Texas, for under $30,000,
nice big yard, two bedroom house. For under $200,000 you can still find 4/5 bedroom houses
on a couple of ACRES around there. But that's
around Dallas. The same places in Austin will be
either impossible or millions of dollars already.
But I'd MUCH rather rent in a place with some
excitement than own in a boring place. I'll
bet you could pick up a farm or two in Oklahoma or
Kansas on your income.
I'm guessing that your lifestyle doesn't consider
isolation to be a plus however, and you want to live someplace that is more "desirable".
I agree, by the way. I'd go absolutely bananas
if I had to deal with a rural lifestyle right now.
When your grandfather bought his first house, it was in a relatively small town, where less than
1000 people a day were moving there, I'd hazard a guess.
If you picked such a spot, I'll bet you could afford to live there tool
If your grandfather was trying to get into downtown Manhattan, even in his day, I'll bet he
would understand.
Re:Yes. (Score:2)
> that they rent. Do they understand that they
> don't own the video they "purchase"
They have an underlying framework by which they are allowed the complacency of knowing that any means of TAKING the video from them will be a violation of something more fundamental. So in a broader sense, they "DO" own the video, so long as they keep it.
When the police start breaking down doors and
waving their bulk erasers over the tapes, we have
a mechanism that deals with that. Until it gets
to that point, we have complacency.
Complacency is what people think they pay taxes for. It's what we got when we were promised leisure time, back in the 30's and 50's.
Until you do something that takes the Cable TV away from the rednecks, I'm afraid none of these issues are going to be significant enough to engender change.
Re:What's the Point? (Score:2)
Awareness. If masses of people were *aware* that
they were being "done" to an extent they hadn't expected, they would become *angry*.
"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
" The civil court system is reserved for rich people"
That is one way of looking at it. So in those
masses of people who would become aware by reading what they are agreeing to, perhaps there are one or two rich people, or even the odd person who is industrious enough to realize that it's not literally true that only the rich can use the court system to their advantage. Or perhaps they
do vote and write their congressional representative, which I susped you do not do.
" Lawyers will not take contingency cases that don't offer the prospect of large judgements. "
Some lawyers will work for a reasonable hourly rate. Mine will, and does. I don't want to take on a software licensor, but then, I have no quarrel with any such entity.
What was this topic about? Oh, the EULA's are unnecessarily binding. If you say so. Write an
office suite and publish it under a less restrictive license, if it bothers you.
Re:Not a matter of influence (Score:2)
house somewhere on the seashore a few hundred miles to the north of Cisco"
I think you're missing my point.
Where your dream house would be located is
in one of the desirable places. Everybody can't
have a house on the cliffs overlooking the pacific! Or next to a waterfall! The problem
with being able to telecommute with ease will be
that your house will just as well be in Nebraska or Iowa, as on the West Coast, or anywhere glamorous.
You totally misunderstood what I meant by "rural lifestyle".
I would consider a cottage near Florence OR and a telecommuting job in Eugene, to qualify as "Glamorous". Think, "oklahoma panhandle",
to get an idea of what I meant. Cisco has reasons to pay you enough to live reasonably well. But
another company might not have the same motivations. If they can get somebody for $30K which makes them among the wealthiest people in their town, they might get more motivation and productivity out of them than they would for $300K for someone living in the bay area!
The thing is, if they can support the glamorous lifestyle among their employees, that might be
a selling point with which they can attract good talent, and therefore worthwhile.
I'm rambling. Sorry.
Re:Your penis can be controlled by your frontal lo (Score:2)
Take a hypothetical situation:
A woman and a man are in a relationship.
Woman uses birth control. Birth control method
is not 100% effective. Woman gets pregnant. Wants to keep the child. Does not want to marry
the man or the man does not want to marry her.
(Either way).
She has the child, breaks off the relationship with the man.
Man gets sued for child support, loses big, and gets labelled as a deadbeat dad, gets to pay, and
never sees his child once.
It happens. You might be shocked at how often it happens, how expensive it can be for the man, and how universally frowned upon any dissent to this situation is.
You *NEVER* hear of the man getting to keep the child and receive support payments from the woman.
*EVER*.
Re:hypocrisy (Score:2)
please go back and re-read the original post, and see how what you're arguing against is not at all what the post was saying. to begin with, the major claim of the post that you're replyign to is that by largely abandoning religion (in the way society has done in this century -- which doesn't prevent a large part of the population from having religious belifs), something good has also been lost. we may agree with that or not (i'm a bit doubtful myself, though I see his point), but how can you compare that to claims of "all [linux users / christians / etc] are dumb" ? no-one said that!
no-one here has insulted Christianity (nor Linux, nor anything else, for that matter). the original post just made the observation that the social credibility and influence of christianity has gone down a *lot*, and that this is perceived as a backlash to widespread hypocrisy by religious powers. as far as I can tell, this observation is perfectly valid; christianity doesn't have the weight that it used to have, and Christian churches are quite widely perceived as having given a less than stellar performance when it comes to integrity.
no-one is invalidating anyone's belifs here, so there's no need to rant about how narrow-minded that would be.
Re:Cease and Desist (Score:2)
don't underestimate the power of the fringes, though. our mainstream pop-culture is 0wned... but it's also the least interesting part of what is being produced!
Lease a single-family house, not an apartment (Score:2)
I found, curiously, that even though I'm still renting, I feel a much more settled connection with my house and neighborhood than I ever did in the old place.
I think the sense of having your own domain is much stronger in a house than an apartment; a house is a more personal space. And, oddly enough, in many areas the price difference isn't what you might think. In Woodland Hills, CA (in the Los Angeles metro area) where I'm currently renting a house, I'm paying $1,325 a month; I would have had to pay $ 1,200 a month for a similar-sized apartment in one of the mega-complexes nearby. I don't have a pool or fitness centre, but I do have a front and back yard (be they ever so puny) and an attractive neighborhood to return to at night instead of a bunch of impersonal corridors.
Something to think of next time you're checking out rentals. House rentals are usually harder to find than apartments; check out your local free ad paper for advertising.
Hope that helps some people.
D
----
Not true -- see attached URL (OT) (Score:2)
http://www.injurycases.com/coffee.html [injurycases.com]
In short, the coffee was served about 40-50 degrees hotter than most establishments serve their hot beverages, the woman had parked her car as she was attempting to get the lid off, and she suffered such terrible burns that she had to have skin grafts and was in the hospital for weeks -- hardly the case of "Oh, no! This stings! I'm gonna sue" that everyone makes it out to be.
Jay (=
Of Course (Score:2)
Seriously - why to we need dogma for morality? I consider myself a decently moral person - and I hold to no faith whatsoever. Morality can be found just by looking at what is positive & negative human interaction. Many people have proposed what can be considered very high minded morality - and do not need a god to back it up. Two examples are the humanist movement (Human interaction that causes negative repercussions is probably bad, actions that make people's lives (and perhaps the world as a whole) better are porbably good.), and the writings of Ayn Rand (basically - don't steal - murder is stealing a body, fraud is stealing, etc...)
But I honestly resent the implication that the reason society is becoming more impersonal, and life is being devalued - is that soceity is increasingly filled with godless masses..... Ya know.....Atheists can be moral too.....
Re:Stop analyzing (Score:2)
You've hit on something crucial, behind HOW is WHY (Score:2)
This is quite an astute set of observations on your part, in my opinion. The leased life is a reality. And we do almost nothing to notice this fact. The bandwidth in our mediasphere is completely plugged with messages about the new and the better, the sexy, the without-which-you-can't-hope-to-mate.
Slashdotters and the like spend their lives struggling towards new innovations and 'better' applications of technology, with the assumption that 'forwards' is always better, no matter what. But, who owns the game?
Think about the answer really carefully before you put in that next all-nighter. Successful consumers ( the relevance of citizenship approached an epsilon sometime in the seventies ) struggle for that next promotion so that they can have the money to buy that better car/condo/computer/SUV/GPS/PDA so that they can have the status to mix with those of higher status so that they can get that next promotion so that they can
And what is the end game of technology? (At least, as it is applied in our culture) More productivity. But why? So I can enjoy my life more fully? I don't think so. What life? I have to work like mad to keep my skills current and meet that next OH-SO-IMPORTANT deadline, (like someone is going to starve if we ship a week later) while this 'prosperity' passes by my car window as I drive from my sleep unit to my workstation.
This culture is hostile to activities other than sleeping, working, and spending. You are not a citizen, you are a consumer. So, go forth, and fulfill your role, slave! And be grateful for the gilding of your cell! Don't question who owns this 'prosperity', or you will be denied its fruits! Get your hands off those control levers, we are in control now, just sit and watch your (our) television, and learn what will make you happy next!
So, the next time you stretch for that 'heroic' all-nighter, consider what you are struggling for. Are you really making the world a better place, or are you simply making the machinery of America[tm] more efficient?
Re:Yes. (Score:2)
You're joking, right?
Smoking.
Drinking (to excess).
Doing drugs (ditto).
Overeating.
Buying lottery tickets.
Using Windows
Replying to comments on Slashdot...
Re:Yes. (Score:2)
You're simply making a distinction between short-term self interest (immediate gratification) vs long-term self interest. In the long run, it's the latter that counts.
Life Imitates Art? (Score:2)
Maybe we should ask whether this is a case of life imitating art or art imitating life, ie: perhaps the computing industry just happens to magnify the changes going on in the rest of the world. eg: RMS keeps worrying about things like the SDMI for books. For that matter, as computers become a part of more and more things in the world, more and more things are going to be subject to the properties of computers.
It's also interesting that the first few posters interpret some of these things as being bad. They certainly could be, but they don't have to be. Renting everything will keep people from being locked into lifestyles. If geeks are leading this trend then, as a culture or cohort, we're becoming more flexible. Just as massive, old companies can't change, people who have paid off their mortage are unlikely to move.
The Universe is bigger then Christianity. (Score:2)
People should be sent to see Niagra
People should gaze into the skies
People should play in the snow
People should go to the beach
Living is life, religion is your beliefs. Life != religion and Morals != religion either.
More people have died and more civilizations and societies have dissapeared because of ones "religious" belifes. I only know of a few people that died from looking at a waterfall or watching the skies or playing at the beach.
Lets not make life Moral or Ethnic or Religious, lets make life Freedom, Choice and Living. Life is not religion and you can't think of religion being life since most religions don't accept other living organisms as practicing when they to are alive and living. Its too bad my cats are only animals to most religions whenever they're really just furry loving lil people under a different disguise..
maybe i should be buddah or somethin :) but you get my point. If the way people live is to seperate themselves from society and be on the move well then maybe some people are just nomadic and getting back into the 21st century lifestyle of an 18th century nomad.
But i tell you what. Your work life can suck, your girlfriend can ditch you, but to just look around you and watch things for a bit you just can't help but feel small, you can't help but wonder what is around you and how things work and what life is.
Its people that don't care that have lost it. It is the people who don't wonder, who don't think and who gave up that ruin it for everyone else. Its the people who don't have any money that result to crime that bring down the people who work for the lil things that keep them going. I can go on and on, but for one simple matter of fact, its the grip of the lost hope that is making everyone else loose hope.
Re:Lease a single-family house, not an apartment (Score:2)
There is a service in town called HomeExchange (which I can't find on the web), where you pay $60 for three months of day by day updates on all the rental homes in the city. It was a thousand times more convenient than searching through the paper and there are some rental agencies that have exclusive arangements with this listing service. If Indianapolis has a service like this, I'm sure tons of other places do too.
-B
Technology seeps in everywhere (Score:2)
Just think, 25 years ago men with certain personal "shortcomings" owned V8 big blocks. Today they have 2 ounce cell phones.
-B
Re:Yes. (Score:2)
When I first learned about mp3s I had know idea that they were illegal (if you don't pay for the cd). The idea of a data file being illegal was completely foreign to me.
But also look at our terminology. We say we go out and rent a video from the video store, but if we want to keep it, we buy the video. Buy has always implied ownership. We don't buy the right to view the movie, we buy the movie. The way people refer to things says a lot about how they think.
Re:Yes. (Score:2)
Very true. However, when I was in engineering school, I had to take one ethics/legal class. In that class they gave us a couple of examples of warning labels and products liability. Basically companies had started putting so many warning labels on products to limit liability that people had stop reading the warning labels. There were even some court cases that found against the companies because the jury found that a "reasonable" person would not read through so many warnings. (Example where ladders and lawn mowers. - Ladders have more warning labels than you can shack a stick at and there was this person who used a lawn mower to trim his hedges with disastrous results.)
Shouldn't the same principles apply to software licenses? If they make the licenses so long and tedious that you need a lawyer to understand them that the average person can no longer read the licenses and know what they are agreeing to, will they continue to remain valid?
Quack
Kiss my karma, ACboy! (Score:2)
I regularly forget to switch from Extrans to HTML; do you think I can be bothered to piss around with the other controls?
Suck my karma, ACboy! (Score:2)
Loser, yerself. I just write what I want. I didn't ask for high karma, and I'm still not going to be bothered with self-moderating.
The real moral of this story: (Score:2)
Re:Oh BOO HOO! (Score:2)
Wrong. You own copies of someone else's music. You own copies of someone else's software.
This "my" business is important. The only transfer of ownership was materials -- the box and the CD. The bits encoded into the CD are the product of someone else's hard work. They are not transferring ownership of those bits to you because $13.95 is not adequate consideration for x hours in a studio. $89.00 is not enough to repay dozens (hundreds?) of developers working thousands of hours.
Therefore, they loan you the bits. They let you use them.
I agree some of the new copyright terms are onerous -- that's why I don't buy the software (and I don't pirate it, either). "Voting with your dollars" and all that. When I really need something, I'll either tolerate someone else's license or I'll write the thing myself. If I write it myself and decide to release it, I'll release it under whatever terms I damn well please. Why? Because I still OWN it.
Oh, and to mister downmoderation, I'm terribly sorry. I keep forgetting that Slashdork won't tolerate dissenting opinions because it thinks it IS the dissenting opinion.
Re:Oh BOO HOO! (Score:2)
Next to my keyboard is a CD of Devo's Greatest Hits. I do not own Devo's Greatest Hits; if I did, I would get royalty checks off of "Whip it!". But since I bought this at the record store, I own a copy of Devo's Greatest Hits.
Owning a copy has legal significance. I can play it all day long, and Devo can't sue me. I can play it backwards. I can reverse engineer the sheet music. I can convert it to MIDI and rearrange it. I can even copy it onto a cassette tape so that I can play it in my car. I can't play it publicly, I can't make a copy for my friends, and I can't take any derivative work and hand it to others.
Some software companies are trying to eliminate the concept of owning a copy. They say that they are granting you a license to use. This is entirely different. Microsoft wants to tell me that I don't own Windows (I agree; I wouldn't want to), but even that I don't own the copy of Windows that is on the CD that shipped with my computer! They want to tell me that I have limited rights to use the software, less rights than I would have if I owned a copy of the software.
AFAIK, this is all legal posturing and bull. If you make a CD with your copyrighted property on it, and I legally buy it, I have bought a copy of that material. I have a very limited right to copy, but a fairly unlimited right to use.
I don't own my music. I own copies of my music. I don't own most of my software. I believe that I own copies of my software. Some vendors disagree.
The Metered Society (Score:2)
For example, 20 some years ago, banking service charges simply didn't exist. Only when banking started automating did they figure out "hey we can charge "nominal" amounts for every transaction the customer does, we'll be RICH RICH!"
In shory, if you ask why corporations want to charge, lease and meter everything?
Thank you for reading. A charge of 0.98 cent has been applied to your SlashCash account#990237327895
---
Re:return of feudalism... (Score:2)
Feudalism, eh? Do you lease your computer? Is your clothing rented? Just because you have the choice to borrow your stuff from companies for small monthly fees doesn't mean that you _have_ to.
Yes, feudalism... While it is true that you can purchase any of the mentioned items for cash, the computer can be leased, the clothes can be purchased on a credit card - which if the only the minimum payment is made, you will pay multiples of the original price. So, it is very easy so you dont actually "own" anything"
For example: You can lease a car. At the end of the lease, you have no equity in it at all (unless you choose to buy the car, which I'll ignore for this part of the example), but because you leased it, you were able to drive a nicer car than you could afford if you bought it outright, which is the point. You are offered the choice of driving a Lexus ES300 on Toyota Camry payments. And if you choose to buy, you have made another choice.
At what point does Toyota own you? Does a three year lease mean "forever"?
It becomes "forever" because you do not own anything at the end of the three years, and, probably will go to lease another car for another three years, ad nausaeum.
The point here is that if you owe money to someone, anyone, you are not "free" to do as you see fit, and must sacrifice your time in the form of working in order to pay off this debt.
People who borrow, lease or owe people money will never be able to be completely free. By limiting our options to outright purchase items, large corporations are enslaving us for our lifetimes.
I think that i'll get off my soap box now...
Re:return of feudalism... (Score:2)
The question is not whether you own or lease your car, your video tapes, etc. The question is whether or not you own the tools of your trade and the place in which you earn a living.
We are approaching a corporo-feudalism because the vast majority of people do not own the tools with which they work or the facilities in which they needs must earn their living.
They can be deprived of the ability to make a livelihood on the whim of their feudal overlords^d^demployers, and cannot fend for themselves if no employer will take them in. It is easy for a high-tech worker in today's economy to be blasé about their ability to hop from fiefdom to fiefdom -- especially if he owns his house and a reasonable computer. But it is not so easy for everyone now, and in the next recession you'll see just how much freedom you have.
How much freedom does Jane R. Secretary have if losing her job also means losing not only the ability to feed her kids and keep a roof over their heads, but their health care? Her child care? Her public-transit-accessible apartment? Her company subsidized transit pass? Her (gasp!) internet access?
Are we to be surprized, then that when Jane R. Secretary is told to shred documents which the EPA, SEC, or NRC[*] would very much like to see to the discomfort of her employer, she doesn't ask too many questions and doesn't raise a stink?
(This is why I temp/contract/freelance. I insist on being a free tradesman, in so far as possible. It works for doctors, lawyers and plumbers; it works for me.)
[*] Yes, as it happens, a client of mine actually once asked me to falsify radiation safety records, when I was basically a glorified secretary. Might have worked, too, except for the fact the secretary in question knew a geiger counter when she saw one.
----------------------------------------------
Re:credit card consumers (Score:2)
And I understand that war - or at least organized inter-tribe violence - was not unknown.
I'm surprised no one seems to have mentioned Brunner's classic The Shockwave Rider yet.
Re:Very well written! (Score:2)
That is what I meant, but you said it much better. I'll plead exhaustion after spending so much time on such a long post
I've had this conversation with many economists before, but always in a social context over beer in the evenings. At one time I had honed my argument to be fairly concise and thought out, but it was never on the professional level of those who do it as a day job. Beer helps the loquaciousness (is that a word in english?), but not the razor edged rationalisation needed to hold the conversation.
With your ideas on violence, I've got some new arguments for friday night.
The wild west was defined by those explorers and early settlers who got there first. What it resembles today is just like every other part of american society, which has its good and bad points. Violence came to the wild west in the form of lawless lawmen, who imposed their own forms of justice on a citizenry who mostly wanted to be left alone. Look at the L.A. police scandals today, they are the results of 90 years of wild west style justice, with no reprisals possible against corrupt cops.
The internet was defined by altruistic university researchers and hackish corporate developers. What it resembles today is a frontier being tamed by greedy corporate bean counters and suits. Violence is coming to the internet in the form of a corrupt judiciary, imposing the will of deep pocket corporations, using the courts as a weapon to punish and kill the opposition. Victory always goes to the rich corporations, and justice is almost never served.
the AC
Re:Of course we've progressed! (Score:2)
You can prove this? How do you know that these people weren't miserable? The only way you could argue they weren't is the fact that they didn't know a different life so they couldn't be angst ridden about it.
As for obese Americans... yes that's not incredibly heathly but you don't see them keeling over at thirty or forty from smallpox, the common cold, or the flu do you? We really are better off then we once were. We're better educated, wealthier, and healthier. If I had to chose a time in history to be alive it would be right here and now.
Commerce Similarities (Score:2)
Capitalism (Score:2)
We are being made commodities. Communism was a revolt against the industrial revolution commoditizing our physical bodies. Well, now we've replaced ourselves with machines, we have become mental commodities. That is my theory anyway. We ever speeding onward to more optimal guys-behind-the-desk. Everybody is somebody else's guy-behind the desk. That's my little theory anyway...and it scares me.
In the beginning of Asimov's Robot series, a robot is sent to the future to see what it is like. When the robot comes back it says everything is wonderful. There is no disease and everybody is happy. What has really happened is that the human race has died out, leaving only robot progeny.
Let's make sure we do not optimize ourselves out of the equation.
Re:Capitalism (Score:2)
Your government has done a good job of ensuring your ingorance. The Iroquois (Iroquois Confederacy, 6 Nations: Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas), one time allies, was one of the largest, if not THE largest, native american nation. They had an agriculture-based economy that dwarfed any other in scale, efficiency, and technology. Unfortunately, due to ignorace, duplicity, lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, and genocide that lasted up to modern times (forced sterilization ~1980s), the Iroquois were largely exterminated, and actively deprived of their culture (laws against practicing their culture). Today, the Iroquois are still here, mostly in New York state, trying to pick up the pieces and just live decent lives, although US citizens are STILL trying to shove them off their land. They are still owed a gigantic amount of land and monetary compensation from treaties (which our founding fathers declared was THE law of the land) and IMO reparations, which unfortunately they will probably never get as long as US citizens are still under the delusion that Indians just disappeared off the face of this continent after we came (which is party true...due to us).
Enlighten yourself, and read a few books:
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/#HM
/shift/ of community, lack of continuity (Score:2)
City hostility? or stupid old people hostility??? (Score:2)
>doing anything other than working, sleeping, or
>spending.
Hell, I recently moven to San Francisco for a new programming job, and if you were to read the editorial sections of certian bay area pubications, you's think that the city doesn't even want you doing that much.
According to these old geezer editors, computer geeks are this rapacious horde descending upon the city to rape, pillage, and plunder the innocent natives. We'll destroy the city. We'll bring TOO MUCH muney into the local economy?!?!? Hyperinflation will, of course, follow, causing a loaf of bread to cost >$20. No one except computer geeks will be able to afford to eat, drive, and rent an apartment. The neighborhoods will be homogenous. We're here ONLY because of the good jobs that MIGHT make us rich (hmmm... anyone else here remember how the football team got it's name???). There're NO other reasons that we choose to live in San Francisco instead of the valley or any of the MANY other places we could work. We're here ONLY because we want to rape the city...
Or at least that's what these old codgers would have you beleive. I dunno what it really is. Methinks it's another variant on the old "the newcomer is always evil" syndrome so prevelant in any area facing an influx of immigrants. Either that or they never grew out of their high school "lets beat up on the computer nerds" cliqueishness.
But now that I've actually got to know some real people, as opposed to reading the insanely leftist, exclusionary, luddite infested press, I've found none of the hostility you would guess exists, were you to judge from their writings. People are, if anything, MORE friendly here than in my former home, Orlando, FL. No one seems particularly concerned that I'm a computer geek, assuming the topic of work comes up at all. Far from seeing a homogenous wasteland of subrubanite geekiness, SanFran has maintained its diversity. There's plenty of fun stuff to do outside of Quake. Plenty of live bands, plenty of everything (including my job) that I cane to the city for.
And except for those newspapers, I've found the city to be quite welcomeing.
john
are options really not there, or not exercised? (Score:2)
That said, I still have four more years until my stock fully vests. Yes, Silicon Valley is "strangely hostile to you doing anything other than working, sleeping, or spending", but why is that? I predict it has a lot more to do with the motives of the people who now occupy it (like me, here to gain money) than anything else.
Options for combatting this exist:
1) Get out on the weekend. Drive to Yosemite, go on an 8 hour hike, sea kayak, mountain bike. Better yet, organize an event involving one of these.
2) Minimize your billing commitments. I have rent, phone, heat, and cellphone bills. That's about it.
3) Explore your community. I know there is a park near my house -- i run by it every morning. I have also been to the library. Go find a hole in the wall restaurant.
Not to get too offtopic -- the nature of online life dictates that anything can and will change at any time, anywhere. Reality (currently) is a bit more constant. We're all trying to make sense of an existence somewhere in between.
Re:Yes. (Score:2)
In this day-and-age, one must assume people have a negative IQ. If most lawyers weren't the evil little spawns of satan that they are, maybe we wouldn't have to think like this... (there are very few Perry Mason's in the world.)
But I want this option (Score:2)
Well, in the real world I generally at least get the choice to buy my house, car, what-have-you. Often by borrowing the money from someone else of course.
It is not unreasonable that the right to own something (particularly a hard physical thing that you can't copy in ten minutes with a blank CDR) should be more expensive than the right to borrow it for some determined period of time
And for me at least (no car, no house, just loads of books) the flexibility of leasing is its justification; if I get itchy feet I can move house or swap cars at a moment's notice.
Re:Yes. (Score:2)
I'll tell you this, I think most people have an understanding that copying software or a video is wrong, but that belief is based on copyright ideas, and the notion that the creator of a piece of software or a video has the right to profit from their work. I would argue that most people would totally reject the idea that MS or whoever actually owns a piece of software that they bought and can dictate the terms of how it's used. Copyright is understandable and relatively intuitive. Licensing is counterintutitve and kind of silly when you think about it. It certainly does not benefit the consumer.
Another thing, I think notions of copyright are only skin deep among the general populace. If it is very easy to copy something and get it for free, they will, regardless of the moral implications (witness Napster). If they really like what they copied, they are also likely to purchase a legal, original copy in order to have a nice "unsullied" copy.
Face it, the numbers companies throw around about how much $$$ piracy costs them are silly. The typical pirate wouldn't have bought the product anyway. If they couldn't get it for free, the wouldn't get it at all, therefore no one really lost any money. There was no potential revenue there to begin with. I say let things be copied freely. Make money on the partnerships that can be built on distribution and content delivery.
Re:Mud to Mud (Score:2)
In case anyone is interested, I understand Christianity to be a radical religion. I beleive it's about putting others before yourself, challenging societal norms, appreciating your blessings, becoming a blessing to others, and turning the other cheak when attacked.
I wish more people would do those things, in the name of Christianity or any other religion, code, or sense of ethics.
BTW- Next time put your name on it.
I don't own my OS or apps... (Score:2)
Actually, I'm happy with my computer, OS, and most of my apps. Can't say that for all my drivers, or internet connection though.
Not a matter of influence (Score:2)
Not that I think any car dealership or software house is actually thinking that, but "the world" seems to be. Ownership of anything has gotten more difficult to come by, in direct proportion to the growing influence of gov'ts and corporations on our daily lives.
Not that the following proves anything, but it is an example:
My grandfather, an inventor/mad scientist, bought his first house w/ land at the age of 18. Largely unchanged since then, it's currently assessed at about $1,000,000. My father, an engineer/union boss, bought his at 23. Unchanged, currently assessed at about $300,000. I'm 25, own nothing much, and there's only a slim chance I could buy anything like either of my "forefathers'" homes before retirement age. Can't qualify for a home loan, because my income fluctuates so much (writer/musician; banks hate me, despite my somehow managing to pay $1300/month rent for the past four years--very irresponsible of me).
I don't even know anyone who owns a house. One woman I know thinks she "owns" a condo. But when she wants to install a toilet that flushes right, she can't--violates EPA regulations and the condo-EULA. Even the most basic enfranchisements (like a place you live that's yours to paint purple as you please) are inaccesible to a growing portion of the population. My grandfather can't for the life of him figure out how I can't afford a house; I make about 10x the money he did at my age.
I think the idea is to get people used to this leased existence, because it's the way things are going to be in all facets of life shortly. There will be no "mine." And, in my opinion, no "mine"= no "me." And isn't that what gov'ts/corps want? Voting blocs and demographic groups. Not crazy unpredictable individuals who might vote for Harry Browne or make rocket fuel from Diet Pepsi and change everything.
A little rambling, but there's a point there somewhere.
Re:...lack of community, lack of continuity (Score:2)
ligion and duty as 'geselleschaft' and the new ones, defined by employment and socialization, as 'gemeinschaft'.
It's not capitalism per se, it's the effect of capitalism and other social and intellectual trends. Monetary systems, the belief in reason and rationality, nationhood, the widespread acceptance of science and scientific method, the concept of fundamental human rights, written law and stable legal system, industrialization, widespread literacy, transportation, corporatism, communication and others contributed to it.
Without being pendantic (if I haven't been already), the trend toward leasing an d licensing rather than ownership is another expression of the larger (idealized) trend: You, as the individual, are free to take your physical and mental capital anywhere you choose, apply it as you choose, succeed or fail more or less on your own terms, and can consciously choose how you define yourself and what ties bind you to communities of your choosing.
Corporations are responding to this and, once they've found the revenue stream, are doing what they can to maintain it. However, we, collectively, are choosing these things or they would go away. The Corporations can only take what we give them and what they may steal while we aren't looking.
...anyway enough ranting.
-technik
Cyberlemmings (Score:2)
So what are you going to do? Move out to some shithole area that's really unfriendly to humanity and live in a shack? Burn your credit cards and pay cash for everything? My Romanian friends told me Americans like to have the right to disappear, well, you can still do that, but anywhere you disappear to will be exactly the same. This is the New World Order. Governments will continue to erode until one day there's nothing left but the corporations who run your life for you. Your best bet is to be part of the rich 10% because life's going to suck for the other 90%.
At the very least you can take some comfort in the fact that our own stupidity got us where we are and our own stupidity keeps us there.
Corporations are eternal (Score:2)
And that's the problem about letting them own anything. The net effect is that corporations have more power -- and effectively, far expanded rights and privileges -- than any individual could ever achieve.
Should corporations, then, have limits on their effective lifespans? Disband after, say, 10 years more than the average lifetime expectancy at the time of incorporation?
Or should intellectual property rights be based on the lifespans of the individual creator(s) working for the corporation which holds the copyrights?
There's certainly something out-of-whack with the current system. How soon will we see Rent-A-Life, the way things are going? :)
To those who would point out that bankruptcy is a corporation's death -- yeah, it is, currently. But that's the equivalent of a fatal accident. The point remains that barring mishaps, corporations never go away. That may be good for things like incorporated town governments, but we're seeing the effects of granting immortality to for-profit entities...
Re:Life Imitates Art? (Score:2)
Not necessarily. In some cases its easier to move if you've paid off your mortgage: You sell the house and buy the new place cash.
The point is that as long as you rent you are just throwing money away. When you own you are building value. Value that you can get back when you sell to put into the new house/car/whatever. Value that can appreciate. Value that you can borrow against (in the case of a home). Not too mention the fact that mortgage interest is tax detuctable, where rent is not in most cases.
Re:Yes. (Score:2)
Customers have demonstrated that they may be manipulated into spending choices by playing upon their emotions, anxieties, and desires.
The sad corollary to Mr Lincoln's observation
is thatThis is as true for the political and governmental choices that you think you are making independently, as it is true for spending and buying decisions, as it is true for decisions of how you spend your leisure time (plugged into the TV/Matrix perhaps?).
For some interesting perspectives on this theme, see, for example Adbusters. [adbusters.org], which is typically available at one of your more complete magazine racks.
Next time you watch or read a slick ad for a computer product, pay a little closer attention and watch which of your buttons (or your bosses) they're pushing -- it's interesting in that they're not the dreary objective ones!
Re:credit card consumers (Score:2)
Diamond puts to rest the 18th and 19th century romantic notion of the "Noble Savage". Take for instance the austronesian expansion: on island after island that the people we now call Polynesians settled, they killed off all large mammals and flighless birds. The same seem to have happened in Australia. Within centuries of the arrival of the "Aboriginis" all large mammals beside the kangoroo vanished.
The Hunters/Gatherers of New Guinea seem to live a "stable and congenial" life till they raid the neighboring tribe or they get raided by them.
--
"Web Users Should Not Engage in Promiscuous Browsing" --CERT
credit card consumers (Score:2)
Of course, my explanation doesn't explain information (software, music, movies, data) very well, but we already feel comfortable with the idea.
--
Re:credit card consumers (Score:2)
The Indian tribes in North America came way after what I was talking about. I was refering to when humans were hunter/gather's before there was any strict social structure. I'm sure that dominant males were violent with each other, but there is no evidence of any wars. When people became to abundant, or food became scarce, then they would split up and travel to where there was more food or less people.
With regards to Understudy's comment, I am unaware of what happened on the islands in the SE seas. Perhaps the lack of land for people to spread out into caused them to become territorial long before other areas of the world.
I guess I did needed to be more specific. I'm still willing to accept that I am wrong, but I think I was refering to a time earlier then you thought.
--
Re:credit card consumers (Score:2)
Oil tycoons give the best advice (Score:2)
Let's get some perspective here. This isn't a trend, it's just the greater availability of consumer credit. With all this consumer renting and leasing going on, stock ownership is higher and more widespread than ever before.
"What I cannot create, I do not understand."
If bandwidth were like electricity... (Score:2)
Everyone wants to control their users. (Score:2)
I've been pondering this very situation.... (Score:2)
And ya know what? I'm loving it! I do some P.C. consulting every once in a while and it pays for my needs. No more worrying about getting ahead; no bills to juggle...just peace....try it!
'Leasing' software vs leasing physical goods (Score:3)
Compare this to leasing an office software suite. The marginal costs to the supplier of forcing an upgrade on you are zero - indeed it may be profitable to them, if Foo2001 (rented) only works properly if you also upgrade to Bar2001 (which is licensed per-seat). I'm sure you can think of products to substitute for Foo and Bar.
Furthermore, you'll probably be locked in soon after signing the contract, and so be in a poor bargaining position subsequently. Even if file formats are completely open (which rarely happens), it's pretty hard to change your office suite, MTA, SAP type thingy or whatever else. So you must go with what your supplier demands - and there isn't the price ceiling set by being able to go out and buy copies at the same price as everyone else.
I believe that many British universities are locked into a deal with Microsoft where they are _forced_ to upgrade to Office2k, Win2k and so on within a couple of years of the software's release.
So-called software rental seems like a Faustian bargain to me.
Re:Yes. (Score:3)
Well, since you brought it up...
Found at http://www.injurycases.com/coffee.html [injurycases.com]
Jay (=
What's the Point? (Score:3)
I'll admit that I usually don't bother reading license agreements. What's the point? Do you think that anyone would actually be willing to negotiate changes in the license? Most of them contain the same verbiage, as if they were all written by the same lawyer. They boil down to:
- You own nothing.
- You waive all your rights.
- We disclaim all warranties.
What are you going to do if the product is defective? Sue them? The civil court system is reserved for rich people and corporations who can afford lawyers. Lawyers will not take contingency cases that don't offer the prospect of large judgements.Not true! (Score:3)
<p>Blatantly false: they are clearly hostile to sleeping, too. Electric lights, late shows, night clubs, internet access: all designed to keep you working, spending, or viewing advertising when you should be sleeping.
This has been going on for a long time... (Score:3)
Think about your job. How long have you been there? Can you imagine working for the same company for 20-50 years?
We have microwaves, fast food, and the internet. Is there anything you can't get within 24 hours given enough money?
Now here's the crux of the matter: People get tired of the same old things. Unless a product or offering changes occasionally, then we don't want it after awhile. So businesses have devised a model where we pay for a non-existant product (called a service) and when we don't want it, we stop paying them. We don't have to keep up with the maintenance of ANY object within our home, our time is too precious. We buy something called 'bandwidth', but it doesn't exist! The instant we use it it's gone; if you don't use it, it's gone. [lament on] Oh, if only bandwidth were like electricity, we only pay for what we use! [lament off]. We drive up to, into, and through an oil change place. It isn't worth the five dollars to us to spend 20 minutes on it instead of the ten the oil place offers.
In the end, a person owns very little, or nothing at all. In fact, a person makes money by what they know (another non-existant thing), and they spend money on things which also don't really exist.
So, in a sense, we've been giving businesses nothing for years as employees, and now they are taking it out of our hide!
-Adam
A crow was sitting on a fence post, doing nothing.
Noticed by a passing rabbit, the rabbit inquired of the crow,
"That looks comfortable. Mind if I sit and do nothing as well?"
The crow accepted, and the rabbit sat at the base of the post.
Just as the rabbit settled, a fox jumped out of the bush
and gobbled him down before he knew what hit him.
Moral of the story: You must be very high up
before you can sit and do nothing.
Re:It's all capitalism's fault (Score:3)
Capitalism couldn't be responsible for anything in society that's more than a couple hundred years old, because capitalism basically didn't exist until a couple hundred years ago.
Giving that devilish capitalism its due, it is real efficient at what Marx called primitive accumulation. Similarly gasoline is good for powering your car, but you might not want to gargle with it, bathe in it, or put it into your baby's bottle. But here in the U.S.A., where "socialism" is a dirty word, we Americans let capitalists control everything in this so-called society of ours. I mean, look at the presidential candidates this year: not one but two third or fourth generation trust-fund kids who never in their lives had to work for a living, both of them devoted heart-and-soul to capital uber alles.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:Mud to Mud (Score:3)
I've been thinking the same thing for some time. A code to live by is important. Spirituality is also important. I know religion is not for everyone, but there is also a lot to be learned from non-religious philosophies (eg: Taoism) that help people put things in perspective. Good role models also help.
My view of religion is that it seeks to give us an explanation for the things that we are incapable of understanding. This is not a bad thing. It also gets a lot of people in touch with their spiritual side which is a great thing. The bad thing about religion is that people tend to subvert it and use it to control other people.
It's the lack of understanding that we are part of something bigger that is leading us down "the path to destruction." I don't mean just understanding it, but really grokking it. People just don't feel like they're part of the big picture. They feel like their actions are irrelevant. This just isn't true.
Don't look to material things for happiness. They're nice, but they aren't going to make you as happy as you think they are. Of course, this is what the people that are selling you these things don't want you to know. If you can't be happy without them, then you probably won't be happy just because you have them.
Take a look at someone else's [source] code before you try to come up with your own--a code for living is no minor task to design on your own. I found the Tao Te Ching to be very insightful even though it was written ~500 BC. I particularly liked the fact that it doesn't pass judgement or shove things down your throat. Besides that it's pretty short and isn't seem unecessarily complicated.
numb
Re:credit card consumers (Score:3)
Back when society was composed of only Hunters and Gatherers we were entirely mobile and fragmented. Yet during the same time periods, archeologists have found no evidence of war, overpopulation, starvation (limited bandwidth, electronic censorship). It wasn't until after we settled down and developed cities that archeologists found evidence of the above mentioned.
Because of this, I claim that a mobile and fragemented society is more stable and more congenial then one which is locked up in position and with roots.
Sorry that I can't back up my facts with more details, but this was a main point of one of the archaelogy classes that I took.
--
Choice vs Control (Score:3)
Yes. (Score:3)
It's very nice for them - they can put basically put anything they want into agreement, and people will go along with it. They'll lease instead of buy, because they don't know what they're signing.
---------------------------------
Re:Don't like it? Don't buy into it. (Score:3)
- Make do with what you already have
- Do without
- Find alternatives
- Ask yourself whether you really need it
- Don't give out saleable personal info in exchange for "free" services
And then there's the alternative of buying things outright in cash. Remember cash? It's still very handy.Cease and Desist (Score:4)
"American Beauty" is a production of DreamWorks SKG, filmed at Warner Bros. Studios.
"The Matrix" is a production of Village Roadshow Productions, distributed in the USA by Warner Bros., both wholly owned subsidiaries of AOL/Time-Warner.
We'll both be long dead before ownership of these properties reverts to the public domain, if they ever do. Our pop culture is already 0wned. The name of the game is ownership; companies can't ensure a continued revenue stream by allowing you to own anything outright.
However, the same companies depend on the public's acquiescence for their power. If people refuse to merely lease, then the option to buy will remain. Alas, the fewer people choose this option, the more expensive it becomes.
Now's the time when I plug Doug Rushkoff [rushkoff.com]'s insightful book on the subject, called "Coercion"
-Isaac
Have comsumers lost something? (Score:4)
- People lease cars to get a lower monthly payment
- People rent because it's cheaper than mortgage
- The OS is insignificant to the average computer user
- Those who buy a music CD just want to listen
etc.
Most people don't realize how unfair they are being treated because the bottom line seems good:
I can lease a nicer car or buy a lesser one for the same. My sense of ownership may not be as keen as my sense of paying more money each month. And on the outside it probably seems like the same thing; I drive my car, I make a monthly payment in both situations. It's convenient. Life is good.
Maybe I don't own my computer's OS. But do I care? I probably don't even realize it. All I know is that I can use my PC for the things I think I need it for. It's convenient. Life is good.
I can't play my U.S. Made DVD in Europe? I didn't know that; never been there. Doesn't bother me. And does it bother me that only a licensed Commercial DVD player will play it on Linux? Probably not. DVDs are better than videos. Life is better now.
The MP3 limitations aren't causing me any physical pain. I can still listen to my CDs. That's better than tapes. Life is so much better.
We didn't have any of these things fifty years ago. Now those who provide the technology want to control it, and the comsumers are quite satisfied abiding by their rules. After all, they are getting more and more all the time.
The ones who complain are those on the cutting edge of things. They are frustrated because they understand how it works and can guess into the future. They have a sense of ownership because they are contributors. They don't like being kept out by a few greedy companies who would like it all to themselves.
Some people are satisfied being fed all the time. Other people can find their own food, and have discovered their tastes.
return of feudalism... (Score:4)
The big companies are the "Lords" and own everything, and we are the vassals required to pay them forever in return for using their property...
this way, there is no "ownership" and the companies will always have a revenue stream... keeping their duchys sustained...
Basic application of optimal economics (Score:4)
Centuries ago, possession of a material good meant ownership. Creating a copy required the same effort as creating the original, and a copy could earn the same profit as the original. As the industrial revolution progressed, it became easier to create a copy for less money than the original, but with the same profit. There is a point where selling the copies reaches a plateau for profits. The only way to earn more profit from copying an original work or idea is to ensure people do not own the copy, but are merely renting or leasing for a period of time. If the item continues to have value, then the item should continue to create profit.
This is the basis of modern economics. It has been taught increasingly over the last few decades, and now that those modern economists are in positions of power, they are influencing the laws of nations to tip the balance of profit towards corporations and away from individuals. Moving from the industrial age to the information age is changing the economic model of the world.
Micro$oft, Intel, and many other large information age corporations have been discussing this economic model for more than a decade. The only way to turn revenue from a single purchase to a steady stream of payments is to move towards the ASP model. It has taken a while, but we are now seeing the components start to fit into place. Intel has tested a cryptologically secure ID function in its chips, necessary for CPU locking a license. M$ has changed its entire licensing scheme over the last 10 years, from selling copies of its OS to licensing based on the number of people in an organisation.
The transition will take another decade at least, but expect that all the major players will create a system for extracting larger and larger payments out of corporate IT departments, as well as individuals. If it weren't for larger profits, you wouldn't be seeing everyone moving towards the model.
If you are in charge of an IT department budget, you should be very afraid right about now. Because computing and communication is about to become much more expensive as the only modern applications switch to extortionate licenses. Payments will be on a per kb/hour/use basis, and you will only have access to the user interface of the applications, never having complete control of your systems again.
Free (as in liberty and beer) software is the kid looking at the emporer's clothes, and the major hope for the future in many IT departments. But free (as in liberty) software can, and has been, outlawed in many cases.
The greedy people now in power have sold their votes to the large corporations. They are creating laws such as the DMCA and UCITA to prevent free (as in liberty) software from harming potential future profits by multinationals. Notice how it is becoming illegal to reverse engineer many proprietary formats or functions? It is possible to criminalise free (as in liberty) software, to prevent it from duplicating the efforts of the proprietary world and thereby hurting profits. The people behind these laws are not stupid, they know the laws are not just enough, there must be some precedent setting cases, and they have been chosing their battles carefully. The
I truly believe as the economic model removes the last vestiges of individuals owning anything, the hackers of society will just come up with bigger, better, faster, and more twisted ideas. Life will go on, but the old ways are dying fast, and the new ways are always being defined by those who get there first.
the AC
Do not rent or lease. (Score:4)
I haven't been driving my car for several weeks now (V-8; gas way too expensive). The other day I walked out and say that my car was gone. I called the police and told them that I thought it had been stolen. I called the apartment to let them know that this had happened. At that point they tell me it had been towed because people had been complaining about parking and the tire had gone flat. No warning on it. When I asked for them to please return it and pay any fees involved I got a copy of my lease with a one word note ("Read your lease") and the passage highlighted that said "Manager retains the right to remove any vehicle for any reason they deem appropriate." Now I'm looking at hundreds of dollars in fees to get it out of impound.
That is the most compelling agurment to own your property. If this had happened anywhere else it would be theft (taking something that isn't yours) and extortion (demanding money for something that was taken), but since it's a rental property it's just business as usual. Needless to say I'm searching for a place to own now.
If you say that you can't afford a down payment then just think about how much you have to put down in deposits and then realize that many areas have programs to help with the down payment and closing costs. The same goes for a car. Own it, dont' rent or lease it. At least when you own something you can get sell it and get some if not all of your money back.
(Yes, I should have given a rant warning on this one...)
Re:Yes. (Score:4)
How can they? Software licenses don't "look" like other licenses, like renting an apartment or leasing a car. Software licenses don't have a built-in expiration (now there's a novel idea!), so people "buy" the software, take it home, and use it without much afterthought. There are still people out there using software from the mid 80's, happily computing away like they have been for 15 years.
When you rent an apartment, you have to sign a multitude of forms, and it's very obvious to everyone that you're only allowed to live there until your lease expires (typically 12 months). You have to pay every month, and your rent usually goes up when you renew your lease (which isn't always an option - sometimes the landlord wants to kick you out!).
Software is completely different. You plunk down a chunk of money, and with the exception of the Y2K bug, as long as you don't change your hardware or OS, you can use that software for decades, and no one can stop you.
Is Up Down? (Score:4)
What an Excellent Question!!! (Score:4)
I definitely agree with many of the points you made. America certainly does seem to be moving towards a corporate dystopia with a definite lack of individual ownership. As to whether that's actually bad or good, is an excersize I leave to the reader, though I'd lean towards the bad side.
This very theme has been the focus of several movies (sort of), recently... The "single serving life" offered up in Fight Club, for example, and the general boredom with life as shown in American Beauty.
There definitely seems to be a general malaise surrounding the country, a sort of optimistic pessimism (heh), Sort of like, computers are good, but....
The matrix, a prime example of a fairly anti-technology movie, loved by geeks... an optimistic pessimism towards the future.
Hm.. I've begun to ramble, please forgive me.
Hey Molly! (Score:4)
How is this any different from a hundred years ago? Work 16 hours a day as a coal miner or a sharecropper. Come home. And you owe the company store.
Of course, we'd like to believe that we've progressed in some way. We have progressed, right?
joel
Mud to Mud (Score:4)
Re:hypocrisy (Score:5)
Ok, I agree with your remark about the sad lack of values, but here's something you should consider before insulting Christianity: you claim hypocrisy on the part of the entire religion. I'm getting a little tired of the me-too attitude that you can just say "hypocrisy" and expect everyone to agree. But let's bring that a little closer to home.
I see a televangelist or anyone else claiming to speak for Christ. He then does something hypocritical/contradictory. Well, obviously Christianity is wrong.
I see a Linux user griping about Microsoft's instability and promising 100% stability from Linux. I try to install Linux and the installer crashes all over the place, taking down my partition table (this really happened, btw). Obviously, Linux users are grossly hypocritical - or just dumb.
I hear slashdotters yell about even the slightest form of censorship and then moderate down remarks solely because they don't agree with them.
People are imperfect. Some mess up, others overstate their case, and still others try to manipulate people's beliefs - be they religious, political, whatever - to get others to follow them and do as they say.
Complaining about a person's actions? Fine. Or a whole group's actions. But invalidating a set of beliefs due to bad experiences with a few people who hold, or claim to hold, those beliefs? That's flat-out narrow-minded.
Privitizing Oppression (Score:5)
Wow, you've all come up with some fascinating commentary. I'll probably be looking at it for quite some time, digesting everything that I've seen(and been sent via email, for those who wish to be more private).
There is some question of why it matters whether or not you own something. My concerns aren't particularly materialistic, folks--do you plan to ever send your kids to college? Do you plan to work until the day you drop dead? Do you hope and pray to never become sick, because the moment your health insurance falls out from under you(and you know it will), it's all over?
There's something to be said about a nest egg, or about amassing something after years of life. How strange is it to think that, maybe, just maybe a vicious end run around inheritance taxes is just to never have anything to inherit--all that which would otherwise go to the state ends up in the hands of an organization that can never die.
Law of unintended consequences, no?
Corporations aren't necessarily good nor evil, but one has to wonder about whether, in certain regions, an economic upturn and subsequent increase in quality of life is being paid for with the college tuitions of our children.
It's not about taking it with you. It's about taking care of yourself and not needing to beg for handouts or bailouts.
I'll be blunt--I simply don't know how all this is going to come together. But I do understand that, in the long term, oppression is just as privitizable as everybody else--you just need to lease out the freedom, and define the terms of that leasing as arbitrarily as you can get away with.
I'll write more on this later. Too much work to do...
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
I'd appreciate your comments (Score:5)
Sorry, I don't own any. I'd be happy to let you lease some comments as soon as I borrow them from someone else though..
Re:Mud to Mud (Score:5)
Futher, I am apt to disagree that "People know right and wrong." I don't think such a thing as right and wrong exists.
For instance, if I kill someone, you might say to me, "That was wrong." But I say, "wrong for who?" Because we live in a society that deems it "uncivilized" to kill each other, then as a collective, we have deemed that behavior as "wrong." But some might look from a biological standpoint -- are we not an agressive lifeform? Many of us can appreciate the rage and anger of human emotions. Not that these emotions mean we are required to kill each other, but we don't look at animals in nature who kill each other and think, "That is wrong."
And so another perspective -- it is "wrong" according to our laws. So what happens when my feelings contradict with the law, does that mean I am "wrong?" What makes my viewpoint any more invalid than the lawmakers? Because it is a popular concensus? Slavery was once the popular concensus.
As far as needing "a reason to care", I agree that our country appears to suffer from a lack of "values", and many seem not to care whatsoever.
But I attribute this to the inability to think for ourselves. There was a republican nominee who was very articulate and extremely intellegent. He carried himself with dignity and grace. He told it how he felt it was, and one never had to guess whether or not he was being honest. And although he was receiving a solid 3-7% of the votes in each state, when my absentee ballot from Pennsylvania arrived in the mail, his name wasn't even on it.
We have a society that is becoming more and more ignorant by the day. Look at our presidential candidates, easily the worst of the litter compared to all of the primary candidates, but they're the nominees nonetheless because mainstream media picked them as such. People aren't taking the time to educate themselves and would rather get the quick, spoon fed version than invest their time in learning. I think this is the real reason for our decline.
So I come back to the question of "right and wrong." If I take the time to consider the pro's and con's of killing other people, it won't take long to come to the conclusion that I would rather not end the life of another human being, excluding perhaps to save my own. But that process, while it might seem simple on paper, actually involves taking the time to sit down and consider my thoughts and feelings on the matter, to put weight into both arguments and make a genuine concious decision. I think many people lack such skills, or at least refuse to use them.
We are a nation overcome by our own excesses. Right and wrong aside, we have allowed techonology to think for us, and computers don't have a soul.
Re:Yes. (Score:5)
Therein lies the root of the problem. The whole notion of "licensing" is flawed. When you pay money for something, you expect that you own what you paid for, and can do with it what you wish. Licensing is counterintuitive. I'll bet 90% of the population doesn't really grok the concept of a software license. When they buy a copy of MS Office, most people think they own it and can use it however they wish (most people do have a basic grasp of copyright, in that they understand you shouldn't distribute copies of software, but the idea that that don't actually own what they paid for is lost on them).
The same goes for music and video. I have a feeling that when consumers start to understand what licensing really means, there will be a huge backlash against the industries which seek to exploit them. Just look how angry the technically savvy crowd has gotten over this issue. When it starts to affect consumers more directly through lawsuits and other actions by corporations seeking to limit how consumers use the products they purchased, then we might see some changes.
But then again, most people are sheep and will accept whatever you shove down their throats.
...lack of community, lack of continuity (Score:5)
Leased houses, apartments, cars, etc just fit into a sense of never quite belonging, or being there. We develop online communities (like Slashdot, or my old MUD, Tsunami) to combat the transience of the of our lives. As long as I can get online, I can be with my friends, I can be informed, I can be part of a group.
I don't know if this wandered off-topic or not, but all of these things seem to be symptoms of a growing seperation between physical ownership and the things we metaphysically own (like friendships).
(just my 2 sleep and caffeine deprived cents!)
Re:Mud to Mud (Score:5)
By every meaningful standard, we live in an age which is more moral than any previous one. The only way this isn't the case is if you define poverty and misery as moral and wealth and happiness as immoral -- which many religions do, of course, but that's _their_ psychosis, not mine. "Mud to mud" is the most liberating, the most realistic, the most useful, and far and away the most moral worldview in human history.
Life is more than things (Score:5)
We (nerds) need adequate time in the Big Blue Room and to get out of ourselves and surroundings once in a while to see a bigger picture.
You might as well lease everything because, you're not taking it with you.
That 's [gospelcom.net] wisdom, too. Ok. I'm going outside, now.Digital and Real Ownership and Social Class (Score:5)
What you are talking about is the main delineation between the 'upper' and 'lower' classes in the United States. Throughout the history of this country, a minority of people have owned the majority of land, goods, and means of production, while the rest are generally shackled in debt and lease nearly everything they need.
The trick to joining the rich in America is to be very careful about spending your money and making sure to actually OWN things that you throw money at. Living below your means will give one the ability to purchase the means of production (stocks), more money in the future (bonds), and real estate (get a mortgage, you dont pay much more than rent and it goes into a real investment, rather than the landlord). You also pay less for everything when you are able to pay up front.
This principle works similarly in the digital world. One difference is that companies may have more power to keep users in 'rental space' rather than 'ownership space' by only putting digital property up for lease. As in the real world, one should always try to pay up front and attempt to gain true ownership of the 'goods' which you acquire.
I believe that this relates to the holy crusade of RMS for free software. When you get win98, you are essentially giving money to MS with no return ownership of anything. When you download gnu/linux, you have true ownership of the software on your computer. This may seem economically irrelevant right now, but as the real world further integrates with the internet (go watch lain) the economic importance of digital property will become very economically important, and ownership of webspace, software, and customized services will make you rich. For this reason, companies carefully guard the ownership of their goods.