hadeishi@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (mitsuharu hadeishi) (07/09/87)
><no consideration for the other points of view. This is a typically ><white-male style of negotiation (i.e., no compromise negotiation.) > >Actually, this is closer to the typical left-wing style of negotiation >"we think it's bad, make it go away!" I suggest you take a look at the very interesting book _Getting to YES_, recently published (it should be in Cody's or one of those stores.) It is a very penetrating look at the typical styles of aggresive negotiation used by both sides very commonly in this country, and the terrible shortcomings of this style. Although the two sides may be on "opposite" sides of the coin, they tend to be on the "same side" culturally, particularly when it comes to negotiation style. Thus I stick by my assertion. >Since I tend to be a conservative when it comes to economics, that's >not surprising. I've yet to hear a good argument along the lines of >"forcing everyone to do this means fewer people get hurt, at small >inconvenience to everyone." The correct answer is almost always >"consider it evolution in action." That includes copy protection. I do not quite understand what you mean by "consider it evolution in action." I take it you would be in disagreement with state or federally mandated maternity leave regulations (for companies with over 15 employees), most of OSHA, automobile safety and pollution control regulations, nationalized medical insurance, welfare (as opposed to private charity), and so on, all of which involve sacrifices on the part of the whole for the benefit of a few, or the protection of people or prevention of certain injustices. Most of which, by the way, I feel are justified in principle, in particular the health and safety regulations. It is certainly true that the laws in general restrict our liberties for the sake of the general welfare, in many cases at the inconvenience of much of the population. And yet you do not advocate anarchy, I presume. Do you feel that all of the aforementioned systems and programs be abolished or not enacted? Given your philosophical position it would seem so. Yet many of these things I feel are well justified, not to mention left-wing. (By the way, please do not continue to assume that you are the only person with left-influenced political ideas.) ><>Ah, so you think the Amiga is a game machine, then. Or you want the ><>populace to percieve it that way. >< >< Non sequitur. > >No, it isn't, you keep yammering about games. If the Amiga isn't a >game machine, then game makers should be a small part of the market. >If they are an important part of the market, then it's a game machine. Huh? The original discussion was about CP (which is over now) and my argument happened to be that CP was tolerable in game software. Thus my yammering about games. Not only do I not want the populace to perceive the Amiga as a game machine, such an interpretation in no way follows from my discussion of CP. Also, it is _your_ definition of game machine that you use above, not mine, and, most likely, not the "populace"'s. >[ I ] didn't try to play on peoples moral sense Hoo hoo, hee hee, ha ha. >About the worst I've seen is people claiming that other people have >quit buying software from companies because they keep getting burned. >That's legitimate information to pass on about a company. > > <mike Agreed. -Mits #
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (07/10/87)
This long ago stopped being apropriate for the comp.sys.amiga, and
should have moved elsehwere. I just couldn't find the elsewhere. Mitsu
decided to point followups to misc.misc (not very appropriate,
especially considering the topic) and didn't bother telling anyone.
Cute, mitsu, real cute. And not confrontational at all. We'll just try
to get people to put things in a place no one will expect to find
them. Since your postinging shows that you play talk.politics, you
should know that it exists, and would have been appropriate for
crossposting and pointing folloups to.
In any case, there is now an appropriate newsgroup to move this to, so
I did. This is being cross-posted to talk.politics, and followups are
being directed there.
I also put "copy protection" back in the subject line, for those who
are using that phrase to trigger killing articles.
In article <2497@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
<><no consideration for the other points of view. This is a typically
<><white-male style of negotiation (i.e., no compromise negotiation.)
<
<Although the two sides may be on "opposite" sides of the coin,
<they tend to be on the "same side" culturally, particularly when it
<comes to negotiation style. Thus I stick by my assertion.
So what culture does your "silent censorship" approach come from? Of
course, that tactic also makes considering the other sides point of
view almost impossible.
< I do not quite understand what you mean by "consider it
<evolution in action."
Basically, that laws that are "for the good of other people" (from the
viewpoint of the passers) make it inconvenient for everybody at the
expense of protecting some part of the populace from themselves. An
inability to take care of yourself puts you at an evolutionary
disadvantage. Allowing nature to take it's course in those cases is
"evolution in action."
<Yet many of these things
<I feel are well justified, not to mention left-wing. (By the way,
<please do not continue to assume that you are the only person with
<left-influenced political ideas.)
I don't consider myself left-wing. I even made a comment about that
very early in this discussion, being amused at finding myself holding
the anti-capitalist end of an argument. Of course, you've really
warped things by making keeping some companies (like the one you work
for) in business a "social good." That's even stranger than than my
being on the socialist side of an argument.
My political position is one that seems to be very popular among
computer types, but doesn't fit well on the idiotic
left-wing/right-wing scale. For more information, check out John
Ringer's "Restoring the American Dream." There's a lot more
literature, that's just what I happen to have handy. The bibliography
in it will point you in other directions.
<>[ I ] didn't try to play on peoples moral sense
Quoting out of context - my best evidence that you know that
talk.politics exists.
<mike
--
How many times do you have to fall Mike Meyer
While people stand there gawking? mwm@berkeley.edu
How many times do you have to fall ucbvax!mwm
Before you end up walking? mwm@ucbjade.BITNEThadeishi@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (mitsuharu hadeishi) (07/10/87)
In article <4318@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >This long ago stopped being apropriate for the comp.sys.amiga, and >should have moved elsehwere. I just couldn't find the elsewhere. Mitsu >decided to point followups to misc.misc (not very appropriate, >especially considering the topic) and didn't bother telling anyone. > >Cute, mitsu, real cute. And not confrontational at all. We'll just try >to get people to put things in a place no one will expect to find >them. That was supposed to be a joke. I thought people would be smart enough to end this debate there (on a note of agreement) rather than continuing to drag in on anywhere (misc.misc, talk.politics, or elsewhere). I am personally uninterested in talk.politics, never read it, and probably never will. Unfortunately for everyone (me and you included) this pseudo-debate flame-war is dragging on. You may not believe me, but I am somewhat sympathetic to your views. I respect your position, and find myself in accord with many of your arguments in its favor. I simply wanted to add some balance to the debate by advocating a mild antagonistic stance, just so SOMEone would be saying something on behalf of the other side. Clearly I am in the minority on this net, and I have made enemies out of friends. I apologize for this, and I am sincerely sorry about it. That is all I have to say. Good night, all. -Mitsu