In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 7
<website_has_email@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Thu, 01 Nov 2007 08:17:56 GMT
<UYfWi.40434$c_1.25572@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Microsoft continues pursuit of software pirates
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Wednesday's moves are part of Microsoft's Genuine Software Initiative
>> | (GSI), which the company launched in July 2005 to prevent pirated and
>> | counterfeited versions of Microsoft software being sold to users.
>> `----
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20071031/tc_infoworld/93027
>>
>> "Arrr...."
>>
>> Microsoft calls "pirates" the very same people which
>> it tries to get addicted and wants to 'steal' their
>> software. Bloody, greedy hypocrites. The only "thief"
>> is Microsoft, just like the record companies that rob
>> and rape the artists, to quote the artists themselves.
>
> Its a lot worse than that now for the music and film industry.
> They are one of the biggest industries that profit from immoral earnings.
Maybe, but the revenue from Microsoft appears to dwarf them.
MSFT: revenue $54B, gross profit $40B, net income $14.88B
SNE: revenue $76B, gross profit $15.86B, net income $2B
(Of course part of Sony's problem is that it's primarily
a hardware manufacturer, so the margins aren't as good.
I don't know how much of this is from their Entertainment
division.)
>
> A large part of their revenue is from drug addicted artists and stars.
>
> They are living off immoral earnings.
>
> Doing drugs is where many cheating artists get their so called talent.
> Without it they are deflated into ordinary mortals.
> Instead of profiting from drug addicted artists, the music
> and film industry have a duty
> to remove from all shelves anyone who has taken drugs to get into the
> film and music industry. Just like drug taking athletes that are removed
> from competing because they are cheats,
> the music and film industry have a duty
> to remove from their shelves drug taking artists and their material
> or find themselves accused of profiting from immoral earnings.
>
Drugs might be construed as a sin, admittedly, but the
philosophical and pragmatic questions get ridiculous.
For example, is coffee a drug? Should alcohol be banned,
as it is a factor in many of the more than 30,000-40,000
fatalities per year on US roadways? (Another major
factor is lack of sleep.) Bear also in mind Prohibition
in the 1920s was a spectacular failure, and the War On
(Some) Drugs isn't working much better than the banning
of "speakeasies" back then, and alcohol -- along with
methamphetames! -- is easy enough to distill/manufacture,
with some expertise and a source (for alcohol, it's
foods, mostly grain or other such; methamphetamines are
produceable from cold tablets, which now must be sold
from the prescription counter; we'll see how that works).
An interesting corner case: marijuana beer or liquor,
assuming such is possible without destroying the THC during
fermentation or distillation.
Is marijuana more dangerous than wine, liquor, or spirits?
Large numbers bemoan "killer weed" (the only thing it
might kill is large chunks of the paper industry and many
lung cells -- a death vector it shares with tobacco),
but either shrug off or ignore the alcoholism issue as
the price of doing bar business.
As for music moguls profiting from drug-addled artists --
an interesting question from a sin/moralistic standpoint
as well, but any legislation would probably prove
unenforceable, if not downright unConstitutional, absent
consensus on the issue (e.g., a performance artist doing
serial murders would rightfully be prosecuted as a serial
murderer in all venues; a performance artist doing multiple
rapes would be prosecuted in most venues for the rapes).
Granted, one might prosecute the moguls under fraud or
breach of contract if the artists aren't fairly compensated.
And of course Linux programmers might be under the
affluence of incohol or worse when writing code (though one
hopes they rewrite it later if bugs creep in!). Should we
ban open source, as one cannot prove that Linux programmers
are *not* provable to be drug-free in the privacy of their
own homes or in various venues (the one coming to mind
is Internet cafes), whereas Microsoft gets a free pass
solely because it has a drug-free enforcement policy in
its workplace?
Yeah, verily! Can't be too careful with al Qaeda running
amuck; it might lead to dancing.
[rest snipped for brevity]
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fptr); }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
