Charles Anthony

I believe the long term benefits of small government far outweighs temporary "severe economic disruptions" because Canada, as a whole, is productive and does not mooch off of other countries.The detriment of big government in Canada (or any country, for that matter) is internal waste and inefficiency.

The ability to pay their own way makes Albertans stand out. So what? In my view, the differences between ALL people in the world are trivial. Does that mean we should ALL submit ourselves to one great big happy government? A sense of co-dependence and parasitizm.

Thank you. I like that opinion. I have now voted YES to the poll for your reason -- without which I would have continued to abstain. The problems I see are: 1) who wants the task of moderating such discussions??? 2) without moderation, what would it become??? 3) I do not care for moderators who also participate in the discussions Having said that, I would LOVE to discuss artsy-fartsy stuff but my hesitancy comes from the logistics.

That is the price the loser will have to pay to prevent the divorce from going to trial and hence, going public. If a divorcing couple settles out of court, things can stay private. If they go to court, everything becomes public.

I agree -- as far as "Favorite Book With A Message" is concerned. In the realm of "Favorite Book With An Influence On My Political Evolution" I have often spent time examining that question. If anybody cares, here is my list in chronological order: 1) "Perry Mason" mysteries by Erle Stanley Gardner - individual books are bland, most of them follow the same predictable pattern of story - the influence is cummulative after reading ALL of them - the author is extremely well-versed on the American justice system and the media business - each book contains a snippet of incite which led me to start doubting the superficiality of authority and the status quo 2) "On The Rock" by Alvin Karpis - the only Public Enemy #1 of his time to NOT get shot dead at a crime scene - biographical sketch of his life including his stay at and release from Alcatraz - he exposes a lot of slimey justice 3) Barry Goldwater's books (old and new) - he exposes a lot of slimey politics 3) "For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto" by Murray Rothbard (surprise!) - excellent book which helped form the logic and thinking patterns - however, it seemed a bit too permissive in certain issues for my liking 4) "Anarchist Cookbook" by William Powell (surprise, surprise!!!!) - picked it up mainly for its collector's value and intrigue at the time - a shamefully stupid book at best, written for terrorists and miscreants - directed me to understand the dissappointing confusion of the "anarchist" label These are just the highlights. Interspersed among the timeline would include various political rants, a few economics and game theory books and TONS of true crime.

Personally, I think Canada should bend over and side with the Americans only for practical and strategic reasons. Whatever Canadians do will not likely make much of a difference to the average Canadian outside of North America. Canadians need American friends more than any other friends. Not siding with the Americans will make an American enemy faster than a foreign friend. Now, if anybody is worried about being immoral with such a stance, ask yourself: What is the worst that can happen? and ask: What is the best you can get? The worst that can happen is that a North American international criminal goes unpunished. Big deal. The international criminal is confined to North America. He gets nabbed once he visits a foreign country. There is no deterrent to future international crime. Big deal. Like as if future politicians will think twice. If he never leaves North America, he continues to live unpunished and we, the North Americans, are victims. Yes, he gets away scott-free. If we are hell-bent on punishment and revenge, the world will never get it. Too bad. The "world" rarely gets it anyway. Justice is a bizarre thing to demand. It is similar to peace, joy and happiness in its practicality. Here is an extreme (albeit not original) idea: - the International Criminal Court invites the alleged North American criminal to stand trial - upon refusal, the Court holds a trial in absencia - after the trial, the Court offers rewards for the live capture of international criminals - bounty hunters will clear the market Problem solved -- at least within the same level of morality. Now, you guys fight it out or get back to your regularly scheduled statism.

That is one strategy indeed. Some people believe that anything that continues drug use -- SIS are one of them -- will continue addiction. They would suggest that starting with prevention or treatment or enforcement would be a wiser effort. What is harm reduction? It sounds vague. The first thing that comes to my mind is that it is a euphemism for continued-addiction-our-strategy-did-not-work such that the Insite program can never really seem to fail.

Comprendo. If you are asking what is morally right or wrong, my anarcho-reflex is on the inherent side as opposed to the depending-on-somebody-else's-charity-and-good-grace side. There can not be coersion nor theft for it to be right. If you determine that our laws of "copyright" are the right way to do things, fine. They are only "right" in the same way as it is "right" to be charitable after stealing from somebody else. [i know, I know. Eventually, everything devolves down to a simple-minded argument conditional upon a clepto-maniacal world involving nebulous "social contracts" that do not exist but strategically include taxation and yadda yadda yadda to which everybody gives their consent because they always have the option to run away into the deep blue ocean and yadda yadda yadda. Even I am getting tired of it -- however, I will still object whenever I can muster up enough energy.]

Your choice of the word "frame" could not be better. I agree. Are you kidding?? That is the problem with making too many assumptions or starting off with motive: not everything must be logical. Those questions are ridiculous. The event already took place. Those questions must have been asked of the FOREIGN participants too and guess what?? they obviously managed to pull it off. Those questions are useless because they do not need to be answered. The answers to those questions do not eliminate the possibility that there was an inside connection. Now, you have crossed the line. Where were YOU in August1977? Never touch The King. Never.

Granted. That was then. This is now. No. It is illogical to bring up "historical" issues to explain what we do today. I believe there are more simpler reasons. I doubt women's skill or competency or flair in sports will ever matter much at all. Here is a reality check: I hate watching tennis but I enjoy watching women's tennis.

I only attribute responsibility to them. I do not know what they could do. That is why I shrug my shoulders and just leave it to the market. Easier that way. In my example, yes. Yes. Nevertheless, I believe such a transgression is still wrong. Further indeed. What are you talking about? I do not believe possession is the only definition of ownership. However, I will say: "Yes! possession is the only definition of ownership -- final answer." because I am intrigued. Yeah, I am starting to get tired of it too! By the way, since the thread is examining digital media and we have touched upon operating system platforms, please tell me: how in the world do you quote like this: QUOTE(theloniusfleabag @ Sep 24 2006, 07:54 AM) in your forum post? Are you just trying to be old-fashioned?

It is my property because it is a piece of metal with magnetic ions in a structured order. How I interpret or what I do with that ordered magnetizm is irrelevent -- and intellectual. The same onus that a person has to protect their home from robbery. I am identify a transgression. Even if the onus is on the home owner to put up triple locks on all doors and bullet-proof glass and bars on all windows and hire a 24/7 security guard, if there is a successful home invasion, there is a transgression. Yes, in that case I would blame Toyota. Show me how software vendors have done that.I thought I did up in a previous post but I now see that I repeated a link instead of adding a second one. I would edit my previous post but somebody has alread quoted it so I will leave the mistake. I will post the link here: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showAr...cleID=175700809[/indent]Also, the example of the Sony DRM fiasco is obvious: the operating system permitted it. Correct. However, there would be no valid grievance. Furthermore, the software manufacturers would did have a better record for reliability would stand out. Neither. My attitude is that I have no valid grievance against my software. Your example may also serve as further evidence that "intellectual property" is a phony concept. A lot of small-time independent acts are marketing themselves this way now. When we are all dead and gone, the big-time music industry may in fact depend on downloading. Indeed. Windows is a hell of a lot more convenient to get things rolling. There is something fishy going on.... Who is obligated to ensure incentives for invention? or compensation? The market does not need to be efficient for it to exist. True, but the question was whether they considered it theft. Even if people do walk across a private property, they don't consider it theft.The decision to NOT walk across would not necessarily be a moral issue: they may fear punishment or danger. Would you permit downloading if it had no effect? or if it had a detrimental effect? I would.

In the long run, that is the most effective way to maintain a balance. Start one. I wonder how fast it will evolve into the immorality of restricting enterprise. [i had to say that.] That is silly. There were never any "new developments" throughout the history of mankind until the good grace of copyight law was bestowed upon us. Yes, copyright law props up markets which would otherwise not exist in the same manner -- maybe. So what??? How about I propose a "prop-up-market law" which functions thusly: - a manufacturer petitions the "government" to bestow a monopoly on a particular product - the "government" agents rough up anybody who tries to compete with the monopolist How does that sound? I find this statement exciting (seriously, I am not being sarcastic) because it examines how "intellectual property" would be marketed in an alternate social organization. I do not agree with your view. Without coersion, the idea is that people would not lay claim on "intellectual property" in the same way as people do not lay claim to owning clouds or air or the planet Pluto or the game of hopscotch or the art of origami or flowery cake decorations or the colors of the rainbow or anything else in the public domain. Following your venture, I could say that we already live in a "communist collective" with respect to how we share clouds or air or the planet Pluto or the game of hopscotch or the art of origami or flowery cake decorations to the colors of the rainbow. We do accept a certain level of anarchy right now. Your examination is exciting because, in a world without coersion, there would naturally be more public domain and intellectual property would fall within it. I would say that the development of digital media bootlegging presents strong evidence of man's inherent desire for non-coersion rather than any respect for copyright nor communism. Whoever it was would look at a different way to market the new product instead of collecting a mark-up for also selling air. Correct. We have reverse engineering happening all of the time today and it seems like a transgression. The anarchist would say "Yes! The windshield wiper inventor is not making as much money as he could. Too bad. He is making as much money as he should." Period. If that leads to less inventions, so be it. I could also say that, for the sake of maximizing inventions, the government should tax us even more and throw that money to the invention market as a subsidy. Who is right??? Furthermore, I could say that without copyright law enforcement, we may in fact see more innovation. The music industry would stop selling air and would sell music in a different way -- maybe live performances -- maybe sell only cheap quality vinyl (the assumption being that it does not last long) instead of digital media. Your re-claiming The Rolling Stones as your own music is interesting because we currently do that all of the time anyway. When was the last time that Beethoven or Shakespeare earned a royalty??? In fact, if you went back in time and explained our modern copyright law to those two, what they would say? I bet they would first think: "I have already figured out how to make money with my art on my own terms." Bootleggers and copy-cats existed long before copyright law anyway. Somebody else asked in a previous thread: "Who owns copyright over all of the knock-knock jokes?" or something to that effect.

What is that point? My parents never allowed us to carry those boxes on principle: they did not trust where the money was going. Actually, I always thought that it was a bad practice. I think it is unwise to get kids into a knock-on-door-beg-for-money-from-strangers mode at a young age. Very risky thing to breed.

I understand that. It is rarely a true fault of the operating system; software support usually says so as a weasly excuse. My beef is simple: they should not make the claim that it will work. What claim they CAN make to cover their asses, I do not know, but the onus is on them to be honest. No. You hear that all of the time but it is false. Can you see a successful virus attack that requires the user to: - stop what they are doing - permit the virus download - log out of their user account - log into the root administrator account - find the virus file - type "chmod" at a command prompt to change the priviledges of the virus file to make it executable before going back to what they were doing so that the virus file can run??? Actually, my demand is simple: the software vendor must be accountable for their claims and their product. If they say it should work, than it should work. If it "works" by also doing damage to me someplace else, the software vendor is responsible. Nevertheless, all of this is permitted by us because it is still more convenient. We, as consumers, facilitate it all. I do not. However, the software vendor is responsible if their "system requirements" are fulfilled but still does not work or does damage. I think the technology and the demands of the market will eventually grant your wish. Your example is excellent: The existence of this black market will lead legitimate DVD creators to smarten up, so to speak. I have a slightly different beef with respect to bootleg multi-media. I get ENRAGED with bootleggers who pretend that their knock-offs are actually original. I buy collector's items and I have tons of worthless copies. Since they were purchased online, my recourse is limited. Nevertheless, those are the risks I take as a consumer. I guess a lot of people bought marshland in Florida or crossed the ocean to live in the land-of-milk-and-honey under similar pretenses.

You wasted bandwidth and electricity.

This quote from the article demonstrates the complete stupidity of this "religious" war: I wonder how these "religious" warriors would deliver water to a drought stricken part of the world???

Marketing slogans are not just confined to software.No. I call it fraud. Excusing it as a marketing slogan is not fair. No, I have not. Nevertheless, did the hair coloring perform as they said it would in their marketing campaign? Since we are looking at things in a moral context (as opposed to a bland legal one), a marketing slogan should not be brushed off. If I was blind or illiterate would there be a different marketing morality for me? If I heard the advertizement on television and ran to the store to buy NiceAndEasy hair products, it would be unreasonable to say that I must read the fine print connected to the asterisk on the bottom of the back side of the label. The marketing slogan, if proved false, makes the marketing an act of fraud. To me, that is immoral. I would be just as harsh and critical with them too. I do not believe it is a different discussion. It examines the difference between copying and original sources. Of course it is my property because I put it there and I own the hardware upon which it lies. I do not care about somebody else making copies but rather I am concerned about my original copy. No, your analogy is mistaken. Toyota would be blamed if they made copies of my car key and made security codes available to crooks and told them where I parked my car every night. I agree. We accept our own dupery in the same way as we accept bad service in a restaurant without complaining. We walk out saying "Yeah, everything was great." and still leaving a tip because we do not want to raise a fuss. I think that is the salient feature of why the dynamics of the software market is so unique to others. If the "recommended system requirements" are fulfilled by the consumer, the technical culprit does not matter. The vendor is responsible for the product. Interesting assumption. Forgive me but where have you been? Surely you have heard of Linux? All of my software is legit and free. I have not spent a red cent on firewalls nor on anti-virus software nor on anti-this nor on anti-that in nearly ten years. The only thing I pay is PC hardware and ISP service. Those CDs damaged people's computers without their consent. Well, since they were bought in Chinatown, that might make a difference.... you may have a case there..... Actually, I believe a comparison is impossible by the very nature of intellectual property. It is possible to construct scenarios whereby copying somebody's song creates more harm and an other whereby copying the weapon technology does more harm. That is the nature of intellectual property: it does not exist but for how we apply it.

No. You are wrong and blinded from the subtlety. It is possible to do good by NOT taxing and NOT spending other people's money. That is what distinguishes some "do-gooders" from other true do-gooders. Why? I spun my D&D die and it said Dion. I spun it again and it said Rae. I spun it one more time for good measure and it turned out to be Iggy.

That would make sense but old traditions die hard. I think we are stuck with tradition.

When something says: "Plug and play" but it does not, I see myself as having been suckered into buying something that does not work. Furthermore, if I must spend countles hours on a telephone between software support and operating system support, each giving excuses that it is not their fault but the other's responsibility, I call that a "rip-off" however little recourse I may have. When a consumer picks up a plastic-wrapped-software-box that clearly states the system requirements, if that software does not work on a system that fulfills that requirement, it is a rip off. I do not care how much fine print must be read to find the loop-holes or excuses. - losing data to any form of malware permitted by the operating system http://www.frsirt.com/english/advisories/2006/1218 - insecure browsers bundled with operating systems permitting security breaches and resulting in computer system non-functionality http://www.frsirt.com/english/advisories/2006/1218 Any software that permits or is the conduit of malware does that. Any form of malware permitted by the operating system without your knowledge or consent and leads you to lose data or require service is destroying your property. I do not. I stopped long ago. Why would someone else? It may still be easier and cheaper for them to do so compared to the alternatives. It is all relative. If I buy a car, I understand that I must accept the hassle of a periodic oil change and maybe some rust-proofing. If my periodic oil change becomes a weekly service call and then monthly visit to a body-shop, maybe I should junk it. The different standard for technology consumerism is bizarre. The time delay between functionality and defunctionality is rapid and muffled by the demand for firewalls and anti-software-ware. The nature of the market is that of "YOU are the fool because YOU did not buy a firewall or a spam filter or an anti-virus or an anit-spyware or a window-washer or browser filter or an anti-rootkit or you listened to a CD from Sony and it buggered your operating system" and we accept it. With other markets, we would see a consumer backlash or a massive product recall, whichever came first. With computers, we keep buying more!

So what are you going to do with 50% of the athletic population that wants to participate in sports? The lower-skilled races should set up a segregated league. I am being flippant.Personally, I do not care. There is no 100% all-fair non-discriminating solution except to have it completely out of the hands of a government and keep it in a private market. The true problem that I see is that this issue deals with a "school" sports league. Since they are spending tax-payer's money, it is impossible to come up with a "fair" solution. If it was a private club, it would be fair to discriminate.

Males commonly have a physical advantage. If sports competitions did not discriminate, we will likely see women not EVER getting a chance to compete. Basketball leagues do not discriminate over player height. It just turns out that taller players perform better. Therefore, short basketball players rarely get a chance to compete in the same leagues.

Government IS the uncontrollable nature of human desires for power and control.

Forgive me but you are making a mistake by assuming what the goals or intentions of the forum owner should be. Greg may likely want the forum to deal exclusively with a limited subject matter.