Why I would like SoW to go DD (Digital Distribution)

[Feuerfalke]

Originally Posted by tater

No one is forbidden by the government from using the net, but there is no such thing as universal access by law, I have no idea where that comes from. In general, many fundamental US Rights are negative with respect to the government... The government SHALL NOT. Rights are not granted by the State, Rights belong to man.

We have free internet in public libraries, that's about it for universal access.

It's not that easy, I think.

1. The government is not the law.
2. The law guarantees a lot of things, even in the US, like freedom of speech, access to education, cultural and religious institutions, ability to participate in democratic votes, that firefighters and ambulances can reach you in a set time, as long as you don't live outside rural areas and take it to your own responsibility, etc

And it also guarantees the right to have access to information and media. And as such it was planned statistically to equip a certain percentage in the US with access to the internet.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

It's not that easy, I think.

1. The government is not the law.
2. The law guarantees a lot of things, even in the US, like freedom of speech, access to education, cultural and religious institutions, ability to participate in democratic votes, that firefighters and ambulances can reach you in a set time, as long as you don't live outside rural areas and take it to your own responsibility, etc

Wrong. I suppose if you live someplace where your very existence and Liberty is at the whim of the State, then you might be correct. In that case you are not truly free.

Freedom of speech, for example.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of speech exists for human beings because they exist, as a "natural right," it is not granted by the State. The "right" in the US is protection from any interference by the State. The Right belongs to man, it cannot be taken (or granted, any more than the air can) by the State. The Right is not GRANTED by the state, the PEOPLE demand that the State not interfere.

And it also guarantees the right to have access to information and media. And as such it was planned statistically to equip a certain percentage in the US with access to the internet.

That is not a Right, it's a government welfare program. Such "public access" is done by equipping public libraries with internet connections. Anyone can get a library card, and reserve a computer for some period of time for free. It is not a Right, but a program. Very very different. The RIGHT would be for the government no to be able to take the internet away from you.

The creation of "positive" rights is dangerous because it sets the precedence that there are Rights somehow owned by the State that they can chose to give, OR NOT GIVE, arbitrarily. This is a grave threat to Liberty, and exactly the sort of thing the US Founders were against (which is why by and large they followed the British system of common law and natural rights).


tater

[ElAurens]

I sure wish the government would foot the bill for my "universal" access...



Freaking cable is expensive, and service in the US, in terms of bandwidth is like two tin cans and a string compared to say, Japan.

[Feuerfalke]

Originally Posted by tater

Wrong. I suppose if you live someplace where your very existence and Liberty is at the whim of the State, then you might be correct. In that case you are not truly free.

Freedom of speech, for example.



Freedom of speech exists for human beings because they exist, it is not granted by the State. The "right" in the US is protection from any interference by the State. The Right belongs to man, it cannot be taken by the State. the Right is not GRANTED by the state, the PEOPLE demand that the State not interfere.




That is not a Right, it's a government welfare program. Such "public access" is done by equipping public libraries with internet connections. Anyone can get a library card, and reserve a computer for some period of time for free. It is not a Right, but a program. Very very different. The RIGHT would be for the government no to be able to take the internet away from you.

tater

tater, that is exactly why I posted that LAW is not the correct expression for this. But I am puzzled enough that legislative, judiciary and executive are held in the same hands in the US, as this would ruin the fundamentals of the democracy itself.

Well, I am not a lawyer, I do not live in the US, I'm not in the White House BUT I think I made my point: The percentage of internet-users in the US is BY FAR larger than in any other country and it is due to political programs and demands. For example: In 2001 36.2% of all internet-users lived in the US, the second most were the Japanese with merely 7.2%!


Anyway, I honestly doubt, that it will help answering if 1C can publish SoW via DD or not.

So, I'd be really glad if you send me a PM to give me some insights what programs are responsible for the numbers above and who initiated these programs, but maybe we can stay on topic in this thread, please?

[Feuerfalke]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I sure wish the government would foot the bill for my "universal" access...



Freaking cable is expensive, and service in the US, in terms of bandwidth is like two tin cans and a string compared to say, Japan.

Making something available doesn't mean you'll get it for free.

[Former_Older]

Goodness, some degree of confusion exists. Well, firstly, the USA is not a democracy. We never have been. We are a Republic. There's a difference. We use democratic process for sure, but we are nonetheless a Republic. Even people who live here don't understand this in many cases, as typically they are seen as the same thing, but democracy is a political philosophy that in general holds that the will of the majority holds sway, while a Republic holds that in general Liberty holds sway. It can be complicated to see the exact difference, because "democracy" is such a hard term to clearly define. But the USA is not a Democracy, the USA is a Republic

Legislative, judiciary and executive are NOT held in the same hands in the USA. Make no mistake here. They are three separate branches

Hope this helps our worldly neighbors

On topic-

I'd prefer no DD. That's my view. I like to, as odd as it seems, actually go somewhere and purchase a thing.

[Feuerfalke]

A democratic system allows the citizens to directly or indirectly vote for parties and individuals to join their government. Last thing I heard was, that this is true for the US, too.

That the states are organized in a presidential republic is a different question. But you are correct that many people use the term "democracy" when describing a form of state, which is not always true, as a democracy has many different faces and the democratic republic is only one of them and there are even republics that are not at all democratic.


I'm also very much with you on the buying thing. I maybe old-fashioned, but I like to get something to hold in my hands for my money.

[Former_Older]

Yes, there's something about holding the product

About the US- like I say, even people who live here think the US is a democracy. But believe me, we are a Republic The last time you heard that the US used democratic process, you were right- but honest to God, that doesn't make us a democracy Our founding principles are based on the ideal of Liberty, with democracy as a means to gain those ideals. The idea back in the 1770s was not just to get a new form of government in an English land where they could have a say- Scotland beat us to that with democracy The idea was to have the People govern -

"We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice and secure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution"

That's the preamble to our Constitution the *people* ordained it, not the US Government. We didn't just want a chance to be democratic. We wanted to ensure our Liberty above all else, and to be truthful, our founding Fathers thought a little revolution now and again might be a good thing. They'd all be in jail today. Me, I guess I'm a Jeffersonian mostly, States Rights and all that

But enough US Civics It's a complex thing sometimes. Too complex for a game forum



Buying a product in person is nice But I can see how DD might actually lower cost per unit

[Feuerfalke]

Remember the days when they had even real manuals with the games? Like Falcon or the great games from Janes? That was IMHO also the best copy protection ever.


@ politics: Actually most of the so-called democracies in the world are actually other stateforms. Just look at the former DDR (eastern Germany). The word even says "democratic republic", yet we all know that they were neither democratic nor a republic.

[proton45]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I sure wish the government would foot the bill for my "universal" access...



Freaking cable is expensive, and service in the US, in terms of bandwidth is like two tin cans and a string compared to say, Japan.

No ship...I pay $50 a month for a download rate the fluctuates hour to hour. Its pretty good from midnight til 6AM but during EST business hours its really inconsistent.
rip-off...