On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 04:07:47PM -0400, David Kramer wrote: > Derek Martin wrote: > > All I really want is for a vendor to sell me something at a reasonable > > price, and then let me do whatever I want with it. That's sort of the > > definition of property ownership. > > I challenge your definition. > Can you do whatever you want in your house or on your property? Nope. > Can you do whatever you want with your car? Nope. > Can you do whatever you want with a legal sized knife?? Nope. I most definitely can. There may (or may not) be consequences after the fact, but the *vendor* isn't stopping me from doing whatever I want. I challenge your challenge. > Can you take your kitchen microwave and kill yourself by sticking your > head in it and turning it on? Nope. As with the above, what you're talking about actions that have clear and substantial negative consequences on other people (in this case, someone has to clean up your exploded corpse, and someone has to deal with the law suit that will inevitably follow in our litigious society, which is an entirely separate and equally annoying problem). Adding apps to my computing device that aren't approved by some arbitrary authority can impact only me. You're also talking about breaking laws, which I explicitly excluded in my earlier statements. Your challenge has no merit whatever. As for your comments about the free market, yeah, I already commented on that too. I'm all in favor of the free market, so long as the folks participating in it think like I do. ;-) It's the problem of living in a market where the masses consistently place higher value on things (or, more accurately I think, have a harder time not getting sucked into overpaying for things with "cool" factor) than I do. Life sucks, and then your progeny overpay for your funeral. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.