Pretty much everything which occurs in the way of laws/treaties/etc is specifically engineered to directly or indirectly benefit the lawyers and bankers, at the expense of everybody.
I know what ya mean--I've been trying to watch one full anime series a week on Netflix and there's still a number near 100 in my queue to be watched still.
I could care less when it's in the theatre, I've not the time or money. Don't care when it's showing on cable--I cut that cord long ago.
To make a long story short: If it doesn't appear in front of me the way I want to view it--screw it. I'll watch something else.
Smoking is a horrid example to choose. Just because somebody does something you do not like doesn't mean it should be banned.
It sounds to me like you take a real issue with free will--damn them people are their wrong choices! We'll just have to force them to make the right choice next time.
Envision this: A world with no laws where nobody would ever even contemplate driving while intoxicated--not because it's illegal, but because they know at the core of their being somebody else could get hurt. No laws required, no mandated punishments enforced, just enlightened self interest.
You are preaching falsehoods which lead only to a fascist nanny state; where everything you do is controlled--for your own good--and if you do not choose what we've chosen for you, then you'll suffer as violently as necessary until you do choose what's been already decided for you.. Do you not see the dystopia you're aiming for??!?
It is every humans God given right to kill themselves at whatever speed and in whatever manner they wish. Be it slowly by beer and lack of exercise or quickly via skydiving and dynamite--or anything in between.
Kindly piss off with your whole "nanny state" rhetoric. The purpose of the state is to SERVE the population, not dominate every aspect of their existence.
Perhaps it would be possible to get a Constitutional Amendment passed which says something like "No person, entity, company. or agency shall suggest, request, or require in any manner that any person or persons give up any rights in any way."
Of course, the law of unintended consequences on that one would be amazing to watch...
On the post: Reddit Writes A Law: First Draft Of The Free Internet Act Emerges
Re: Free Liberty!
On the post: If You Want To Compete With Free, This Is What You Need To Know
Re: Re: Re: Re: This could be known as the four factors test of piracy vs. buy
On the post: If You Want To Compete With Free, This Is What You Need To Know
Re: This could be known as the four factors test of piracy vs. buy
On the post: Online Technology Entrepreneurship Class At Stanford Postponed... Because Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re: $
Hell, I don't even breathe in the morning until somebody hands me a dollar.
On the post: Did Universal Music Try To Expense The Costs Of Eminem's Producers Suing Over Unpaid Royalties... Back To Eminem's Producers?
Re: Riposte!
Although technically, the MAFIAA's brand of white-collar theft/fraud isn't illegal (yet), just immoral.
On the post: Did Universal Music Try To Expense The Costs Of Eminem's Producers Suing Over Unpaid Royalties... Back To Eminem's Producers?
Re: So...
On the post: DailyDirt: Who Drives Best -- Men, Women... Or Robots?
Re: Crying games
On the post: Bradley Manning Formally Charged; Defers Plea
Enemy Mine
Given this definition of "enemy" there is no doubt the charge of "aiding the enemy" will stick.
On the post: Real Scarcity Is An Important Part Of A Business Model; Artificial Scarcity Is A Terrible Business Model
Re: Re: An artificial distinction between scarcities
On the post: Real Scarcity Is An Important Part Of A Business Model; Artificial Scarcity Is A Terrible Business Model
Re: An artificial distinction between scarcities
It's a good thing there's that patent exclusion thing, or nobody would have ever invented anything ever.
It's a known fact nothing was invented before the invention of the patent office.
Also, prior to money. Nothing was invented prior to money and the patent office.
And, never has anybody ever invented something in the name of pure self interest or the betterment of mankind. Nope, not ever!
On the post: Real Scarcity Is An Important Part Of A Business Model; Artificial Scarcity Is A Terrible Business Model
Re: Netflix
I could care less when it's in the theatre, I've not the time or money. Don't care when it's showing on cable--I cut that cord long ago.
To make a long story short: If it doesn't appear in front of me the way I want to view it--screw it. I'll watch something else.
On the post: New Rules To Block 'Distracted Driving' Will Likely Make Things Worse, Not Better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...NOT make the bad choice.
It sounds to me like you take a real issue with free will--damn them people are their wrong choices! We'll just have to force them to make the right choice next time.
Envision this: A world with no laws where nobody would ever even contemplate driving while intoxicated--not because it's illegal, but because they know at the core of their being somebody else could get hurt. No laws required, no mandated punishments enforced, just enlightened self interest.
You are preaching falsehoods which lead only to a fascist nanny state; where everything you do is controlled--for your own good--and if you do not choose what we've chosen for you, then you'll suffer as violently as necessary until you do choose what's been already decided for you.. Do you not see the dystopia you're aiming for??!?
On the post: New Rules To Block 'Distracted Driving' Will Likely Make Things Worse, Not Better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Final Solution
But, a well engineered microkernel on a purpose built (eg NOT general purpose) system can run until hardware failure with nary a glitch.
Jus' sayin.
On the post: New Rules To Block 'Distracted Driving' Will Likely Make Things Worse, Not Better
Re: Re: Re: ...NOT make the bad choice.
More laws make people pay attention to the laws rather than what's around them.
The correct answer is "less laws, more education."
On the post: New Rules To Block 'Distracted Driving' Will Likely Make Things Worse, Not Better
Re: Re: Final Solution
On the post: New Rules To Block 'Distracted Driving' Will Likely Make Things Worse, Not Better
Re: ...NOT make the bad choice.
Kindly piss off with your whole "nanny state" rhetoric. The purpose of the state is to SERVE the population, not dominate every aspect of their existence.
On the post: New Rules To Block 'Distracted Driving' Will Likely Make Things Worse, Not Better
Final Solution
In case you don't know, autonomous vehicles are a reality.
If they want to save people from distracted drivers, just ban drivers. Problem solved.
On the plus side, think of the amazingly wide-open market demand this will create for all sorts of upcoming driverless cars!
On the post: Could A Consumer Privacy Bill Of Rights Even Work?
Re: With opt-outs?
Perhaps it would be possible to get a Constitutional Amendment passed which says something like "No person, entity, company. or agency shall suggest, request, or require in any manner that any person or persons give up any rights in any way."
Of course, the law of unintended consequences on that one would be amazing to watch...
On the post: Could A Consumer Privacy Bill Of Rights Even Work?
Wishful Thinking
If it's going to be a law, it'll need ALOT more vague and ALOT less common sense.
On the post: How New Internet Spying Laws Will Actually ENABLE Stalkers, Spammers, Phishers And, Yes, Pedophiles & Terrorists
...
Next >>