RoR: Forum

...and the new patent laws for software (currently still in limbo) will not only put me out of a job, but make every bright idea I ever had accessible/exploitable by right to the state

Wow, remember in Atlas when the government made Reardon give up his patent to Reardon Steel?

...these laws are intended to be vague, intended to be doubtful, intended to be implemented under subterfuge, intended to be abused, so nobody can actually define their content...

I remember the same thing being expounded in Atlas...

I do see that in Germany and Europe these things are getting worse as well as in the US. One thing I always find annoying is when someone from Europe complains about how Bush is taking away all our civil liberties (regardless of how true or not it may be) when they have fewer protections than the US does! I would rather we consider our common foe, that being oppressive government.

The other problem is how they are so narrowly defined... take away our property, that is fine to Mr. Kennedy. Laws against "hate speech" - no problem from Mr. Kennedy, but spy on Al-Quaeda and whomever they speak to in the US, oh my no!

Real Objectivist principals are needed now more than ever. However, to not end on a negative, I think that the process of globalization works to our benefit greatly, because it means spreading capitalism, less control of people by specific governments, more competition for business (tax rates, etc), greater migration of people (so they can leave when they don't like their government), and a slow march towards our goals... but it is slow, and for every 2 steps forward expect one back.

Post 21

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 8:56am

From noms-de-plume to lois-de-folle....

Post 22

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 12:16pm

Vera: "these laws are intended to be vague, intended to be doubtful, intended to be implemented under subterfuge, intended to be abused, so nobody can actually define their content, criticize their applicability or refuse their implementation and use (if they actually manage to see through this maze) - what else could be the reason to pass such ridiculous laws?"

Vera,

You are undoubtedly right and I am one of the stupid ones. ;) I stand by my right not to be harassed by phone, mail, home visits, email with unsolicited materials. Do I need to give an example of this? In the middle of solving a very difficult painting problem in my studio and the phone rings, it takes me a moment to understand it is not a friend, student, or collector, it is someone I don�t know and don�t have an interest in their product and they want me to be polite and generous with them. My train of thought is totally fucked up then, I lose momentum and have to back track...losing much more than the time of the phone conversation. That is a malicious result. Think of the mom fixing dinner for 3 kids after she got home from work! There are countless public formats for such advertizing. Perhaps we are dealing with similar issues�the question is how protect and enforce individual rights...and there I am not a student of political studies but I know I would not be interested in living in a anarchist society where any asshole as a "right" to harass me.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 1/11, 12:19pm)

Post 23

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 1:08pm

Kurt:
the German Union spread capitalism by buying East Germany and paying through the nose for it ever since - the European Union spread capitalism by buying every cow on a pasture south of the demarcation line and paying through the nose for it ever since - the World Union spread capitalism by buying every stupid law ever published and paying through the nose for it ever since ... hey: wait a moment - World Union hasn't happened yet :)
I'm not saying it's not possible - I'm saying this is not the way to do it - and I'm not even sure we should invest any more energy in a world that is capable of producing such laws - but that should not stop you from bringing capitalism and a free market to the world :))
Michael:
where did I ever say I'm pro harrassment? my point is that this law will not protect you from a single spammer - I'm currently 'annoying' you with my posts and that new law of yours cannot protect you even if I were using an alias because I'm not even living in your country - or is there a legislative boundary saying 'internet protection zone - do not cross'? if this law is used to send one single spammer to jail I'll recant and praise all these wonderful little laws that are simply beyond my understanding - but if one more of these laws is sneakily slipped in on me to give a parasite even one more bite out of my flesh I'm going on strike - and I'm talking Ragnar Danneskj�ld striking ;)
Both:
the point of my post is that these laws are intended to be vague and controversial so we loose ourselves in pointless discussions about their illogical details (which I've already given in to too much) instead of rejecting them outright for what they are: ridiculous laws!
as for that little bit of paranoia at the end - just ask yourself who is actually profiting from these laws - why do they need to be published under subterfuge - why are they vague if they have a definite intention - you'll soon find that it's a parasite standing right behind every such law waiting for his share ...
VSD

Post 24

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:12pm

Am surprised a message machine is not in use, then, with sound down... even if it were a friend, etc., it still would be an interruption of thought, which seems, on the surface, to be the main irritant.

Post 25

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:18pm

Vera, to clear up any possible confusion, it's not your identity that I'm protecting (you are NOT my un-named transgressor).

Ed

Post 26

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 3:22pm

... didn't think so Ed ... we're both not shy with words ... if our mails got to 'annoying' we'd both say so in no uncertain terms :) ...
I am however surprised you're protecting someone who's pissing you off - what's the point of having a law to kick his ass when you offer sanctuary?
... not questioning your decission - just baiting the law question ...
VSD

Post 27

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 7:51pm

Vera asked Ed: "I am however surprised you're protecting someone who's pissing you off - what's the point of having a law to kick his ass when you offer sanctuary?"

Perhaps because they were right?

Michael

Post 28

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 8:15pm

Not to mince too many words, but it's 2-bit dimestore psychologizing & arbitrary conjecture -- that you folks are engaging in.

Michael, you've recently been jib-jabbing me like I was a freakin' pinata (pronounced pin-yah-tah) or something, is it because I stood up to you?

Vera, in spite of our differences, I at least feel respected by you (I can't tell if Newberry respects a hair on my head, or not) -- so my answer is aimed at your question (not Newberry's jib-jab, hmph!).

I am however surprised you're protecting someone who's pissing you off

That's just it, they've ceased the "off-pissing" (and my self-esteem has already recovered to it's previous level!). I consider myself squared with said transgressor, because I realize that for them to get-to-the-point in order to say the things they did -- they must've been pretty harmed by my words.

what's the point of having a law to kick his ass when you offer sanctuary?

Of course, in my case [looks in mirror, runs fingers through hair, winks at self] this law is not that much of a potential problem. But how many folks are as cool-headed and benevolent as am I? Most probably less than 1% of the human population, I should think.

;-)

Ed

Post 29

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 8:48pm

Ed: "Michael, you've recently been jib-jabbing me like I was a freakin' pinata..."

Ed,

First you suggest that I have something to learn from abstract art and then you imply that I am blind, me (!), when I jab.

(A "pinata" is a Mexican paper-mache donkey filled with candy that you beat the shit out of with a stick, blindfolded, until the poor paper donkey spills its innards.)

Michael

Post 30

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 11:14am

Michael

First you suggest that I have something to learn from abstract art

Ah, c'mon Michael, you could (should) be more pedantic than that! What I s-u-g-g-e-s-t-e-d was that you -- in this instance -- would've best reacted to my obfuscatory muddlings by "looking at the whole, not drowning in a single, incongruent detail."

then you imply that I am blind

Well, that was actually unintended. I hadn't consciously made the pinata-blindfold connection. You, in this particular case, have given me too much credit. I was just ranting about your "Snidely Whiplash"-like behavior toward me ...

Post 31

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 6:37pm

Ed wrote: "Well, that was actually unintended. I hadn't consciously made the pinata-blindfold connection. You, in this particular case, have given me too much credit."

hahahahah, Ed. If I gave you too much credit then I would have to accept that I japped you blindly.

Michael

Post 32

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 6:46pm

Man, this guy (Oldmelon) gets under one's skin!

Aaaaargh!

Ed
[and no, I won't apologize for the surname parody this time--I figure you've earned some payback by now]

Post 33

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 8:05pm

Ed,

I have some real lapses of knowledge...I didn't understand your "surname parody" , for sure not enough to ask you to apologise (!), and what, who is Oldmelon???

Michael

Post 34

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 5:13am

Would 'Agedprune' be preferable?

Post 35

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 8:49am

Hey Ed,

I need to write this now before I forget. ;)

A good retort, has several things going on in it. It has either a literal or/and an implied meaning that wasn�t noticed before. It grasped the idea it is commenting on. And it gives an added level of either or both an emotional and intellectual depth. From there is spirals out into the oblivion.

A great retort can do all the above and hold the theme of the thread, topic, larger context.

It is also important to be able to manually check for spelling mistakes, like correctly replacing a "g" for "c".

If a retort does not add another level of meaning to exchange it falls flat or at worst sounds childish.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 1/13, 8:51am)

Post 36

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 2:47pm

Now comes the "Fair Share Health Care Fund Act" from Maryland. Tell me that that does not sound like something from Atlas Shrugged?

See: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060113/wal_mart_law.html?.v=4

Just sickening.

Post 37

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 9:27pm

and that affects only ONE company - Wal-Mart.......

Post 38

Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 8:13am

Kurt, the Fair Health Care thing IS sickening -- thanks for posting that.

And Newberry, I wrote ...

Man, this guy (Oldmelon) gets under one's skin!
Aaaaargh!

... and you wrote the following ...

what, who is Oldmelon???

A good retort, has several things going on in it. It has either a literal or/and an implied meaning that wasn�t noticed before.

If a retort does not add another level of meaning to exchange it falls flat or at worst sounds childish.

Apparently, there is something "going on" that wasn't "noticed before" ...

(New)(berry) ---> (Old)(melon)

Nah, nah, nah-nah, nah!

That ought to teach you to pretend to lecture me and call me childish, you overconfident windbag!

hahaha,

Ed

Post 39

Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 10:36am