The Leased Life?

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."

'Leasing' software vs leasing physical goods

If you contract out the provision of air conditioning in your office, it's in your supplier's interest to install a reliable and high-quality unit to start with. Then they won't have to go back a couple of years later and spend money installing a new one. What's good for the supplier is also good for the customer. And if you think their service is poor, there are plenty of other companies providing the same service; a changeover during winter would not be painful.

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.

It's hard to document "common sense" but lawyers make it a requirement. Most people -- one would assume -- know their coffee is hot. So when you sterilize yourself in a hideous coffee accident, you get to sue McDonalds because they didn't put a flashing neon sign on the cup to the effect of "Hey, dumbass! This coffee is freakin' hot."

Well, since you brought it up...

Of the many injury cases that have been decided over the past ten years, none have received as much publicity as the case of Stella Lieback v. McDonald's Corp. In this case, a 79 year old New Mexico woman suffered third degree burns as a result of spilling a cup of coffee she had purchased at a McDonald's restaurant. the case has been endlessly criticized and made fun of in radio commercials, on talk shows and the like. In fact, if you ask the average person what they think of the case, the usual response is something like, "Can you believe a jury gave millions of dollars to a woman for simply spilling a cup of coffee? Isn't that ridiculous?"

However, a closer look at the facts shows that this case was actually an example of where the system worked.

At the trial of this case, it was revealed that while coffee served in your home, in a restaurant, on an airplane or in a fast food establishment is normally in the range of 135-145 degrees, McDonald's routinely sold its coffee nationwide at 180-190 degrees. Liquid heated to such a high temperature becomes extremely dangerous when it comes in contact with human body tissue. That is why on the date of her accident, after the car in which she was a passenger came to a full stop - and Ms. Lieback tried to lift the lid of the cup of coffee off while she held the cup between her knees and accidentally spilled the liquid on her thighs and genital area - the burns were immediate, painful, and serious.

As a result of these burns, Ms. Lieback had to undergo skin grafts, required hospitalization for several weeks, and incurred medical bills in excess of $10,000. Later, when her family attempted to negotiate with McDonald's to at least have the medical bills paid, and McDonald's was not willing to do so, it is understandable why a lawsuit was filed.

In pretrial discovery, Ms. Lieback's attorney learned that McDonald's had already been sued some 700 other times(!) for burn injuries caused by their hot coffee- and that they had routinely settled with the injured party, requiring each person to sign a confidentiality agreement, barring the person from talking about the nature of settlement. At the trial of the case, a McDonald's representative maintained that it was appropriate to continue to serve the coffee at 180 degrees, although people were going to get burned, because the numbers of burned people were "statistically insignificant."

The jury, which was inclined at the beginning of the trial to laugh the case out of court, was so enraged by McDonald's attitude that they found for Ms. Lieback. They awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced to $160,000 after the jury concluded that 20% of the fault belonged to her. They also awarded punitive damages - to punish McDonald's and to deter other corporations from doing the same thing in the future - in an amount equal to what McDonald's earns from selling coffee in only two days nationwide, $2.7 million. This figure was widely publicized, so that radio commercials and other sources have reported that "the woman got millions." In fact, the judge later reduced the punitive damage award to $480,000 and the parties settled for a lesser amount - facts which the commercials fail to disclose.

Importantly, as a result of this lawsuit, McDonald's eventually announced that it was going to begin serving coffee at a lower temperature - and reportedly that change has occurred. The McDonald's case is a good example of how the press and other interest groups can sometimes misreport an incident to serve their own purposes.

Found at http://www.injurycases.com/coffee.html [injurycases.com]

Jay (=

What's the Point?

Nobody reads the license agreement before they hit 'OK'.

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!

<p><i>your cities seem strangely hostile to you doing anything other than working, sleeping, or spending.</i>

<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...

Our society has changed from lots of time and not as many goods (money) to lots of money, and no time. It is also driven by instant gratification. Do you remember the last toy you got? Think back to when you got it, or even when you first heard about it. You really wanted it, didn't you? Now think about how much you use it now.

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

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 - [e-mail]

Re:Mud to Mud

I do think there is some validity to the notion that the moral decline in our country is very much due to the mindsets of people who have abandoned any Code, who forsake all religion, just because the primary religion observed in our country (Christianity, but you knew that) for such a long period of time was realized to be tainted with holes, contradictions, and hypocrisy. This strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

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

I don't really know where you get off saying unstable and disjointed, but with regards to mobile and fragemented here's an interesting point...

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

I don't think so. I choose whether i want to lease a car or not; I choose to live in an apartment or buy a house; and I choose a job with ``job security'' or one without. What this new wave of legislation is doing is taking away my right to choose which option I want. I can choose free software today, sure, but what happens when I can't write a free program I need because of patent restrictions, laws against reverse enginerring, etc? This trend needs to be stopped.

Yes.

The original premise of the market economy is that customers would be smart enough to choose the best service over a weaker service. Now, that's not the case anymore. Nobody reads the license agreement before they hit 'OK'. Is this good for the consumer? No! Is this what corporate america wants? Yes!

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.

If leasing bugs you:

1. Make do with what you already have
2. Do without
3. Find alternatives
4. Ask yourself whether you really need it
5. 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

"Fight Club" is a production of Fox 2000 Pictures, distributed in the USA by 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, both wholly owned subsidiaries of News Corp.

"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?

I'm going to make some broad generalizations here:

- 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...

it kindof strike me as similar to feudalism.

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

This has been accelerating for years.

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 /. community is well aware of this, which is why the YRO section consistently has the highest number of posts (not counting jonkatz emotional flamebait).

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.

Here's a couple reasons not to rent or lease. The first of course is you don't own it. You can't do anything to it, you are enriching someone else yet getting little back in return and you live by your landlord (or their managers) whims. If they want to enter your apartment for any reason they can. Sure, legally they have to give notice (at least here) unless it's a emergency but be honest people, they can come up with one if they want. Just as you wouldn't give someone the password to your accounts and system you shouldn't be allowing anyone the access to your personal space.

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.

I'll bet 90% of the population doesn't really grok the concept of a software license.

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?

I think it is pretty extreme to say that the tech sector is driving the way society is headed. Instead look perhaps what you are seeing is the economy changing in areas to the attitude of the tech sector. What you are really doing is redefining a capitolistic system in the tech sector. In a real economy the goods available will change to suit the consumers. All of your examples are also examples of how the system has changed in order to make more profit from goods that require no real resources (relativly.) To me what you have stated is nothing more then capitolism at work.

What an Excellent Question!!!

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!

"your cities seem strangely hostile to you doing anything other than working, sleeping, or spending. "

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

It's all part of the devaluing of life itself. I do think there is some validity to the notion that the moral decline in our country is very much due to the mindsets of people who have abandoned any Code, who forsake all religion, just because the primary religion observed in our country (Christianity, but you knew that) for such a long period of time was realized to be tainted with holes, contradictions, and hypocrisy. This strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The "from mud to mud and nothing else really matters" mentality that seems to be prevalent amongst my generation and in those who are following means that while they still know, for the most part, what is right and what is wrong, they don't care all that much. There is no eternal reward, no eternal punishment, no great purpose, and within a few hundred years your actions, good or bad, are usually completely forgotten. So who cares? I am not advocating a return to the status quo, by any means. There were injustices and inequities and all sorts of problems with the old system. But I don't think that a sense of wonderment or a sense of spirituality were amongst those problems. People know right and wrong. They need a reason to care. "So you scream from behind your door. You say, 'what's mine is mine, and not yours. I may have too much, but I'll take my chances, cause God stopped keeping score.'" - George Michael, "Praying For Time"

Re:hypocrisy

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

(Yes, I'm the same Effugas who submitted the original question.)

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

I'd appreciate your comments.

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

I don't think it's fair to say that "Christianity" is "tainted with holes, contradictions, and hypocrisy." Today, we have fragments of Christ's teachings embedded into man-made religions, but all are a far cry from what I'm sure Christ had intended. This may be a rather insignificant statement to some, but quite significant to other I would imagine.

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.

"Nobody reads the license agreement before they hit 'OK'"

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

Especially if you work in IT, your life may have a deep sense of transience. IT people travel more, get transferred more, and tend to spend more time isolated than any other group (except maybe labratory scientists!).

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

And when was this wonderful golden age when people knew right from wrong, again? Half a century ago, the age of Jim Crow and McCarthyism? A century ago, when the US was completing its genocide of the Indians? A century and a half, when a third of the country's economic system was built on slavery? Two centuries, when (as was true until fairly recently, in fact) orphans and the sick and old routinely starved to death?

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

This Ask Slashdot reminds me of something wise [gospelcom.net]:

Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

Don't measure your life or your worth by what you own. Things break, rust, get stolen, lose value, burn, and generally disappoint.

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.

Surely every man walks about as a phantom;

Surely they make an uproar for nothing;
He amasses riches and does not know who will gather them...

That 's [gospelcom.net] wisdom, too. Ok. I'm going outside, now.

Digital and Real Ownership and Social Class

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.