The law is but one force guiding the lives of people today. It is, by necessity, an abstract force, given physical presence only by those who enforce it. An unpopular law (speed limits) is one that almost no one will follow without compulsion (cop car nearby). A popular law (no non-military possession of nuclear weapons) only needs enforcement in rare cases, as most people will take steps to enforce it when they see a possible breach, and consciously steer themselves away from committing violations.
If you can break the law in a way that no one who has cause to hurt you can prove, the law ceases to apply in that situation. Microsoft's monopoly, for instance, was brought down because of complaints from those they stepped on. Meanwhile, politicians and the media are free to slander the unpopular (for instance, with stereotypes of the Pervert and the Con Artist), even if this slander is technically illegal, because the injured parties won't complain: there are too few of them. In practical terms, though, clueless politicians' speeches and unenforceable (either unpopular, infeasable, or contradicting higher laws) bills can typically be ignored, at least in the short term.
But the question must be asked: what lies down this path of apathy?
"When they came for the jews, I thought I wasn't a jew, so I did nothing. When they came for the gypsies, I wasn't a gypsy, so I did nothing. When they came for the homosexuals, I wasn't gay, so I did nothing. When they came for me, there was noone left to do anything for me." And thus have Holocausts occurred...
(I would also suggest that in supporting Microsoft, you are not perhaps as consistent a libertarian as you think you are).
Perhaps an illustrative example would help...
Say the DoJ suit never happened. Microsoft continues to gain dominance. In the spirit of extending the Internet, Microsoft changes Windows to require a 'Net connection (with an offer of cheap MSN-sat hookups if you live in an unwired area). Every time Windows starts up (is rebooted, or whatnot), it checks the central registry of Micro$oft to see if this computer's license is still valid. If not, it refuses to activate. (And the technical support costs continue to escalate...)
An up-and-coming MS business manager is given responsibility for handling some license renewals. The latest upgrade to Windows includes reports on what software a machine has installed on it (and we've seen stuff like this happen already, from time to time). A number of businesses are using Medzilla, a popular doctor's aide program which happens to compete with MS Micromed. The manager, possibly in collusion with his bosses or possibly just following what he believes is standard practice, revokes the licenses of all these computers for "unlicensed use of Microsoft property".
It only takes a month for people to figure out why several large hospitals' computers simultaneously crashed (it would have taken a week, but everyone suspects some foreign cyberterrorist finally struck, diverting most investigators' attention towards tracing accesses). Public backlash eventually forces reinstatement of the licenses, but the funeral industry has already chalked up a record year by July...
Anyone with that kind of power governs the lives of people, and is thus a government, regardless of whether they call themselves "government" or "corporation", and regardless of whether there is another "government" which claims to rule the governed. Libertarianism, if I understand it correctly, thus calls for limiting corporate power too, when it threatens to reach these levels.
I wonder if it would be beneficial to RBL every organization that is a member of the DMA simply for being a member of the DMA? On second thought, that's probably not the best of ideas...but maybe it would provide someone a list of targets to watch for reasons to RBL? (Or is proactive vengeance like this generally not a good idea?)
Let's say Country Z also has ten missiles. Let's also say that some of the candidates fighting for leadership of Country Z genuinely don't care if they get wiped off the face of the earth, so long as the demonic capitalists of Country X and the formerly-cool-but-now-just-lackeys-of-X in Country Y are sent to oblivion.
That kind of changes the balance towards deploying those anti-ballistic missiles, doesn't it?
At first, while the concepts are getting worked out, don't worry about property claims in space. It costs a million to get you to the Moon, it's going to cost a million to get someone who wants to steal something from you to the Moon. It's usually not worth it, and anyone who actually spends enough to steal something from you up there is going to irk a few of the Powers That Be down here, treaty be damned.
So, how do you enforce claims? Salvage. Anything that you return to Earth immediately goes under normal property law, just as if, say, a meteorite (even a zero-g-constructed, medicine producing meteorite) had landed in your back yard. It'd be your rock, just like any rock you pick up.
An open source FAQ, eh? Not a bad idea. And then, for the (guesstimate) 50+% of wannabe dotcoms who come your way and obviously don't know the basics, you can just ask them to read the FAQ (and provide a link) rather than having to retype extensive answers to their questions for each one. (And if multiple VCs point to it, it'll just become all the more widely used - and refined by the occasional person with a more comprehensible answer to certain specific questions.)
Their use of GOP instead of HRC makes me particularly suspicious that the intent of the site is for party business, not HRC business. They are using the HRC's government status to get access to an address they would otherwise not have access to. A political party should never masquerade as a government entity, we are not the Soviet Union (nor is Russia anymore).
Hate to break it to you, but the political parties pretty much act like they are the elected government...and for good reason. Hopefully, this reason will go away within our lifetimes - but until then, the Democrats and Republicans are, for the most part, the de facto American government.
People can be "perfect" in different ways. Even strengths can be weaknesses. Take, for instance, sickle-cell anemia. This genetic "disease" evolved to fight viruses (malaria, IIRC) and actually gave a benefit to the "victim". If everyone had perfect teeth, the physical potential for Michael Jordan's prowess, the mental potential for Edison's inventiveness, et cetera...there would still be differences. Some would become sports stars, some would become celebs, et cetera with little difference from the way things are now. One of the main differences that would exist would be that no one would be born missing arms or legs, and thus society would have to spend less resources bringing such people up to what society considers a minimum functionality standard. As for diseases threatening via genetic diversity...ok, boost the immune system while you're designing everything else. Don't give me a piecemeal job; if my kids will be redesigned, I'm not going to ignore ANY benefits just because I'm lazy. And corporate ownership of people won't happen because it'd be utterly unenforceable today. Un-engineered child's genetic code infringing on IP rights? What are you going to do, rip out the kid's genes? There's a limit to what people will stand for, and any corp that seriously tries to do that will find the public rebelling against it. Genes thought to bring success may be bought and sold, but that's no worse than sperm and eggs of successful people being bought and sold today - and you don't see the world collapsing right now because of it, do you? Kids can sue their parents for any reason today...but that affects only a tiny minority of families apart, and those families tend to be dysfunctional to the point that they were just looking for an excuse to fly apart anyway. Third world children mostly won't be genetically engineered until the procedure's cheap - and then, well, what do you do today about children born into lives of slavery and prostitution even if they're not engineered for it? Please, people. When a new technology comes along, there's many types of fears that people predict but ultimately have little to do with the tech. Whether it's projection of current reality ugliness with the new tech slapped on (engineering for prostitution, as opposed to just turning normal kids over to prostitution), applications that only have the bad aspects without the good (genetic diversity loss without compensating boosts to thwart the ill effects thereof), or just are not based in reality (genes making exact clones, ignoring different environmental contributions), worrying about these things does nobody any good whatsoever. These fears will fail to actually stop the tech (whether because they were already present without the tech or because they can not actually appear), only slow down applications that would bring its benefits to those who need it. This applies to genetic engineering, cybernetics, the Internet, and in fact probably most new technologies that get discussed on Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Gah...that's what I get for trying to look the quote up instead of knowing it myself: someone else's misquote.
The law is but one force guiding the lives of people today. It is, by necessity, an abstract force, given physical presence only by those who enforce it. An unpopular law (speed limits) is one that almost no one will follow without compulsion (cop car nearby). A popular law (no non-military possession of nuclear weapons) only needs enforcement in rare cases, as most people will take steps to enforce it when they see a possible breach, and consciously steer themselves away from committing violations.
If you can break the law in a way that no one who has cause to hurt you can prove, the law ceases to apply in that situation. Microsoft's monopoly, for instance, was brought down because of complaints from those they stepped on. Meanwhile, politicians and the media are free to slander the unpopular (for instance, with stereotypes of the Pervert and the Con Artist), even if this slander is technically illegal, because the injured parties won't complain: there are too few of them. In practical terms, though, clueless politicians' speeches and unenforceable (either unpopular, infeasable, or contradicting higher laws) bills can typically be ignored, at least in the short term.
But the question must be asked: what lies down this path of apathy?
"When they came for the jews, I thought I wasn't a jew, so I did nothing.
When they came for the gypsies, I wasn't a gypsy, so I did nothing.
When they came for the homosexuals, I wasn't gay, so I did nothing.
When they came for me, there was noone left to do anything for me."
And thus have Holocausts occurred...
(I would also suggest that in supporting Microsoft, you are not perhaps as consistent a libertarian as you think you are).
Perhaps an illustrative example would help...
Say the DoJ suit never happened. Microsoft continues to gain dominance. In the spirit of extending the Internet, Microsoft changes Windows to require a 'Net connection (with an offer of cheap MSN-sat hookups if you live in an unwired area). Every time Windows starts up (is rebooted, or whatnot), it checks the central registry of Micro$oft to see if this computer's license is still valid. If not, it refuses to activate. (And the technical support costs continue to escalate...)
An up-and-coming MS business manager is given responsibility for handling some license renewals. The latest upgrade to Windows includes reports on what software a machine has installed on it (and we've seen stuff like this happen already, from time to time). A number of businesses are using Medzilla, a popular doctor's aide program which happens to compete with MS Micromed. The manager, possibly in collusion with his bosses or possibly just following what he believes is standard practice, revokes the licenses of all these computers for "unlicensed use of Microsoft property".
It only takes a month for people to figure out why several large hospitals' computers simultaneously crashed (it would have taken a week, but everyone suspects some foreign cyberterrorist finally struck, diverting most investigators' attention towards tracing accesses). Public backlash eventually forces reinstatement of the licenses, but the funeral industry has already chalked up a record year by July...
Anyone with that kind of power governs the lives of people, and is thus a government, regardless of whether they call themselves "government" or "corporation", and regardless of whether there is another "government" which claims to rule the governed. Libertarianism, if I understand it correctly, thus calls for limiting corporate power too, when it threatens to reach these levels.
I wonder if it would be beneficial to RBL every organization that is a member of the DMA simply for being a member of the DMA? On second thought, that's probably not the best of ideas...but maybe it would provide someone a list of targets to watch for reasons to RBL? (Or is proactive vengeance like this generally not a good idea?)
Let's say Country Z also has ten missiles. Let's also say that some of the candidates fighting for leadership of Country Z genuinely don't care if they get wiped off the face of the earth, so long as the demonic capitalists of Country X and the formerly-cool-but-now-just-lackeys-of-X in Country Y are sent to oblivion.
That kind of changes the balance towards deploying those anti-ballistic missiles, doesn't it?
At first, while the concepts are getting worked out, don't worry about property claims in space. It costs a million to get you to the Moon, it's going to cost a million to get someone who wants to steal something from you to the Moon. It's usually not worth it, and anyone who actually spends enough to steal something from you up there is going to irk a few of the Powers That Be down here, treaty be damned.
So, how do you enforce claims? Salvage. Anything that you return to Earth immediately goes under normal property law, just as if, say, a meteorite (even a zero-g-constructed, medicine producing meteorite) had landed in your back yard. It'd be your rock, just like any rock you pick up.
An open source FAQ, eh? Not a bad idea. And then, for the (guesstimate) 50+% of wannabe dotcoms who come your way and obviously don't know the basics, you can just ask them to read the FAQ (and provide a link) rather than having to retype extensive answers to their questions for each one. (And if multiple VCs point to it, it'll just become all the more widely used - and refined by the occasional person with a more comprehensible answer to certain specific questions.)
Hate to break it to you, but the political parties pretty much act like they are the elected government...and for good reason. Hopefully, this reason will go away within our lifetimes - but until then, the Democrats and Republicans are, for the most part, the de facto American government.
People can be "perfect" in different ways. Even strengths can be weaknesses. Take, for instance, sickle-cell anemia. This genetic "disease" evolved to fight viruses (malaria, IIRC) and actually gave a benefit to the "victim". If everyone had perfect teeth, the physical potential for Michael Jordan's prowess, the mental potential for Edison's inventiveness, et cetera...there would still be differences. Some would become sports stars, some would become celebs, et cetera with little difference from the way things are now. One of the main differences that would exist would be that no one would be born missing arms or legs, and thus society would have to spend less resources bringing such people up to what society considers a minimum functionality standard. As for diseases threatening via genetic diversity...ok, boost the immune system while you're designing everything else. Don't give me a piecemeal job; if my kids will be redesigned, I'm not going to ignore ANY benefits just because I'm lazy. And corporate ownership of people won't happen because it'd be utterly unenforceable today. Un-engineered child's genetic code infringing on IP rights? What are you going to do, rip out the kid's genes? There's a limit to what people will stand for, and any corp that seriously tries to do that will find the public rebelling against it. Genes thought to bring success may be bought and sold, but that's no worse than sperm and eggs of successful people being bought and sold today - and you don't see the world collapsing right now because of it, do you? Kids can sue their parents for any reason today...but that affects only a tiny minority of families apart, and those families tend to be dysfunctional to the point that they were just looking for an excuse to fly apart anyway. Third world children mostly won't be genetically engineered until the procedure's cheap - and then, well, what do you do today about children born into lives of slavery and prostitution even if they're not engineered for it? Please, people. When a new technology comes along, there's many types of fears that people predict but ultimately have little to do with the tech. Whether it's projection of current reality ugliness with the new tech slapped on (engineering for prostitution, as opposed to just turning normal kids over to prostitution), applications that only have the bad aspects without the good (genetic diversity loss without compensating boosts to thwart the ill effects thereof), or just are not based in reality (genes making exact clones, ignoring different environmental contributions), worrying about these things does nobody any good whatsoever. These fears will fail to actually stop the tech (whether because they were already present without the tech or because they can not actually appear), only slow down applications that would bring its benefits to those who need it. This applies to genetic engineering, cybernetics, the Internet, and in fact probably most new technologies that get discussed on Slashdot.