Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score 1) 818

All of that hand-waving and justification without a single primary source to back up any claim. Well done sir!

FYI - there is not a single person living who was alive at the time this all happened. The best and only sources we have are primary documents from politicians, generals, and state legislatures. If you want to prove your claims, cite the primary sources that back you up. No one is interested in stories they heard from their grandfather about what his grandfather told him about was his father did. We already have plenty of writings from the time explaining exactly why they decided to secede, so let's stick to those sources.

As I said, slavery was a bit of a political talking point because it sounded so much better than a dispute over tariffs, on both sides. (from your reply below)

Right, because taxes and tariffs never angered and pushed Americans to do anything, did they?

Comment Re:Confederate soldiers in fact fought for slavery (Score 1) 818

The confederate 99% didn't make the decision to go to war, you are partially correct that they were generally not economically vested in slavery and most likely not willing to risk their lives to defend slavery. So the 1% had to sell the war to the 99% using different arguments.

One argument I saw was that the existence of an inferior race was necessary for Southern white society. There might have been poor members of white society, but to the elites they were still white, they were still better than the black people, so the elites would still stand up for the poor white people as being "like them". In their view this held society together. If there was not an inferior race then the poor white people would be equal to the black people and would be left out of society. So, they sold the war by saying that, if slavery is outlawed, you're going to be no better than the black people. They contrasted their society with the north, where people of any race might be "greasy mechanics" or whatever, not the "refined gentlemen" that you find in the South. The mechanic in the South was still better than all of the black people he had working for him.

Comment Re:Whatever means necessary? (Score 3) 818

Basically it was offer to the South to keeep their slaves, if only they would not leave the Union!

They still fought the war to leave, so it was not "all about slavery", more about tariffs.

Stop being a revisionist douche. If you're claiming that the South seceded because of tariffs, you better be prepared to show ample firsthand evidence. For you, I've got the Cornerstone Speech by the CSA's Vice President (emphasis is mine):

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions - African slavery as it exists among us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it - when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

You'll need to point out where he talks about tariffs, because I'm not seeing it.

Although you're right about Lincoln deciding that he would preserve the Union without freeing a single slave if it were possible to do that. Obviously, that didn't happen though. One of the major reasons the Southern states seceded, and you can verify this in their statements of justification for secession, is because they were upset that the Northern states were no longer following the Fugitive Slave Act where a Northern state would have to return a fugitive slave to their Southern owner. In fact, several Northern states specifically criminalized the return of a fugitive slave. Many Southern states stated that, without that clause in the Constitution, the Southern states would not have agreed to it at all. Now that the Northern states were no longer doing their part to keep slavery around, the South wanted out. More than one state cited estimates of $3 or $4 billion in lost property that this would inflict on their economy. And, of course, when they said "property" they were referring to "people".

Another major reason were the laws which outlawed slavery in new states admitted to the Union. Since the slaveholding states were not able to increase their numbers then their percentage of representation in the Federal government was bound to fall and the writing was already on the wall with regard to the end of slavery. So, they wanted out, they wanted to return to being sovereign nations free to continue practicing their God-given rights to rule over and legally own black people.

It had fuck all to do with tariffs, so don't act like it did.

Even so, the Confederate Battle Flag died out as a symbol until the racist "Dixiecrat" party ran Strom Thurmond as their presidential candidate in 1948, and they brought the flag back as the symbol of their party. Then, in the 1950s and 1960s leading up to the surge in the civil rights movement, white Southerners opposed to civil rights seized upon the flag as a symbol of their opposition (helped in no small part by the KKK also using the flag). So, if a white Southerner opposed civil rights for black people, do you think the reason for their opposition had anything to do with tariffs and taxes, or was it just because they were a bunch of racist dickheads who didn't like black people and felt justified because their great-grandparents also didn't like black people?

Comment Re:Whatever means necessary? (Score 4, Informative) 818

You left out the Cornerstone Speech, specifically:

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
- Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America
Savannah, Georgia; March 21, 1861

Comment Re:obvious solution (Score 5, Insightful) 176

You probably wouldn't even need firearms -- maybe some kind of EMP pulse and let the drone fall into the fire.

Right, because an EMP is so much easier to create, more portable, and less likely to cause collateral damage than a beanbag fired from a shotgun.

Or a non-lethal shotgun round designed to take out propellers.

Or a beanbag that carries enough kinetic energy to knock it down no matter where you hit it.

a big tangle if nylon fishing line

Right, let's launch loads of plastic all over the place.

I wonder if there's some kind of compromise. Like, drones can scout out the situation until aircraft are deployed, and then must leave the area or risk destruction and/or heavy fines.

Fine, let the fire department fly their scout drones to recon the fire before moving in. As far as civilians are concerned, stay the fuck away and let the professionals do their jobs.

Comment Re:Apple picks up the costs (Score 1) 134

I would argue that this is time-sensitive content, in that new releases can be expected to be played a lot initially but may decline after that. So bands releasing during the trial would be at a disadvantage of not receiving that initial release income. I would also argue that the bands had no say in the agreement with Apple, but I suppose that's their fault for signing over the rights to everything they make.

Comment Re:Apple picks up the costs (Score 1) 134

Really? So I can open, for example, a new restaurant where I'm specializing in fresh ingredients, local farms, flying in same-day seafood, etc. I can contact all of my future suppliers and explain that I want them to give me their food for free for three months, so that I can give it to free for all of my future customers. This does not happen in other industries. My suppliers would tell me that it's great if they want to give my stuff away for free, but they still need to pay me to even send it to them in the first place.

In this case the owners of the copyrights made a deal with Apple

You think they made that deal with the full agreement of the artists? Or would this be another example of the music industry in general screwing over the people who actually create the music?

The irony, yes irony, is that you are probably someone who complains when companies do not take a long-term approach and concentrate on quarterly growth.

I'll have to check my OED, but I'm pretty sure that irony isn't defined by what you imagine.

Comment Re: that's funny... (Score 1) 368

And that's what this argument is; since Apple decided to pay the Artists during the "Trial" period, anyway.

Since you're no longer debating the actual question, I'll take this statement as a concession that you don't want to try to defend your earlier position. Yes, Apple decided they were wrong and switched their stance. Apparently you have also. I'm not an attorney, but I did win this one by virtue of no one defending it.

So, you must just like arguing for argument's sake. Not a very good trait in a lawyer.

You don't think so? Millennia of philosophers might disagree with you.

Comment Re:Apple picks up the costs (Score 2) 134

It seems unfair since the artists since the artists are receiving some benefit of exposure during the trial too. I think it would be fair to have some sort of reduced fees during the trial period to recognize the fact that Apple still has expenses related to providing the service.

Can you think of an example of that happening in any other industry?

I'm opening a new store specializing in _____. Please send me some of your inventory at no cost to me so that I can offer it for less or free in order to attract future paying customers to my business. Eventually I'll start paying you for your product.

Comment Re: that's funny... (Score 2) 368

And do the (mostly) indie artists, who ought to be tickled-pink that ANYONE is giving their music a listen

Oh, that argument again, huh? Hey assholes, you should be THANKING us for stealing your product and using it to enrich our lives at all!

You're an entitled prick. What about the band who went into debt in order to record their first album, and it's getting ready to be released, and the songs are good, and people will listen regardless of whatever Apple does, so they are expecting a quick surge in royalties when it gets released in order to pay off that debt and help launch their career. Now they get to stay in debt because Apple volunteered them for free plays? Wow, thanks Apple! But hey, make sure you thank Apple for letting you stay in debt, you miserable little greedy fucking simpleton musicians!

Again, you're a dick. You should be thanking the artists for creating the music that you choose to listen to, not the other way around.

By the way, I don't own a Mac. I can see by your username that you think everyone should, so you should buy one for me from my local Apple store, and THANK ME for bothering to try it at all!

Comment Re: that's funny... (Score 2) 368

But simply treating royalty as "if we get money, you get money". I see nothing wrong with this model.

Really? Apple has more money than any other company. They have a new streaming service. They want customers to use their service, because it's going to make money for Apple. The product that Apple is selling through this service is created by other people not affiliated with Apple. Apple, the most profitable company, has volunteered all of those creators for 3 months of not making any money in order for customers to sign up for Apple's service so that Apple can make even more money in the future. You don't see a problem with that? How about this: if Apple wants to not charge customers for 3 months for trying their service, how about that cost comes out of Apple's pocket instead of all of the creators? Your idea of royalties means that I can publicly perform any copyrighted work, and as long as I'm not making any money from doing so, everything is just fine. What do you think the content industry thinks of a model like that?

Like she says, Taylor Swift isn't personally going to be hurt very much by this, either way. But what about the new band getting ready to release their big single, and the release date happens to coincide with Apple's free trial? That band was counting on success from this single, but now Apple decides that they don't get paid for any plays through their service? How is that fair to the band? You see "nothing wrong with this model", so how is that fair? Why should Apple ask that band to take 3 months of income off the table when, again, Apple is the most profitable company ever? If Apple is selling their new service, why aren't they paying the costs of the free trial?

Slashdot Top Deals

Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.

Working...