I'm concerned with things like the following:
I took a picture at a party. I posted the picture. In the background, Jane Doe is [doing something embarrassing/foolish/dangerous]. Can Jane compel the deletion of my photo?
If I write an article about John Doe discussing things he wished would be forgotten, can he compel the deletion of my article?
I emphatically disagree. At least as stated this is a terrible idea because of all of the horrible unintended consequences when "my data" intersects with "data about you."
If I take a picture demonstrating a protest or political dissent and joe Government happens to be in the background, can he have my photo deleted? it's a photo of him, and maybe he doesn't want it out there. If I make a comment and quote Jeff Anyguy, can he have my comment deleted? It contains statements he made, and maybe he's changed his mind and doesn't want those words haunting him. Or maybe he just didn't like my response. What if Benny Politician has The Internet "forget" something in his past, can he sue me if I post a blog to "remind" The Internet what that sleeze has done before? Can he compel me to delete my post, because it's about him and he doesn't like it?
What happens to The Internet Archive?
The obvious counter is that Google's store isn't the only game in town for Android. just because Google isn't selling something doesn't mean Android's not an open platform.
If you're trying to replicate a human hand, I think you're looking at the problem wrong. We rely on tools to really get work done -- all the hand does is grip the tool. If we can make modular "hand" attachments for our robots, we cut out the middleman in a way that biological creatures can't really do (yet).
Is there really a practical difference? If food cost $2 and a suit cost $5, then we'd all be making $30 or $40 a month instead of $3000 or $4000. It's an abstraction of bartering no matter how you slice it, so what does it matter if everything is 10 cubits of 100 cubits?
There's no such thing as a completely secured system, and that's where the flaw in this plan lies. If the policy is to attack the last link, a third party can use you as an attack dog against anyone they want -- they might not even need to actually exploit the "target" if they can spoof the attack to make it look like the target is the last link.
Yeah. I had had a couple more points to make in that last post (like how he has NO place to judge you because he knows next to NOTHING about you), but could literally feel my blood pressure sky-rocketing, so I cut short. I'm out.
You would blame the viewer of your ads for doing the very thing you set out to convince them to do, wouldn't you?
Pardon me for butting in, but ads set out to sell products. they do not, as a rule, set out to cause financial ruin. The reason for this is because someone who ruins themselves can not then spend more money later on -- take that as you will, but ads are therefore *not* meant to make people over-extend themselves, buy more than they can afford, or even really buy more than they need. If someone does any of these things, yes, it's their fault.
ow. How does it spread organically? What does it do to people in order to get them to "pass the word on to their friends?" What else spreads organically by getting people to pass it on to their friends? If you try to wake up from your self induced coma and think before you write, you may end up not making absurd self contradictory comments.
Are you incapable of understanding a figurative notion? It doesn't *do* anything. Viral marketing is not something Companies do; it's something customers do. It's when I like something and start extolling the virtues of that something to anyone who will listen, because I believe in the product. When a company tries to induce that, it's guerrilla marketing, or astroturfing. I'm not even really sure what it is you're trying to do except chain something like marketing -> viral marketing -> viruses -> disease -> bad -> evil.
you keep crying 'lies, lies, lies!' But you haven't produced any. Show me where an add lies. Give me an example where some add says something about the product that isn't true. They legally can't -- that's false advertising. They can't even be really misleading for the same reasons. So where are all these lies you're talking about? He didn't get the girl because he ate the gum, he got the girl because he was confident and approach her, and she received him well. Any other interpretation is a flaw in your reasoning.
Well, I wasn't around before 1920, so I can't speak for the kind of epiphany someone may or may not have had then. And maybe you'd argue that I've been manipulated from birth due to the vicious advertising we're subjected to. But, frankly, I find bad breath to be undesirable in myself and the;people I spend my time around because I don't like things that stink. And the fact that there *is* something to remedy it combines nicely with the fact that I think it ought to be remedied, and viola we have a marketable product. We can dance around this for days, where you say the things we think are undesirable are just so because we've been told so and I say they're undesirable because they're gross, or inconvenient, or whatever. You seem to claim that every convenience or luxury is a shame and a crime because it's not ending world hunger or settling unrest in the Middle East.
There's a lot of things that people didn't historically think needed to be fixed that we can manage today that make our lives easier. What about refrigeration, or pasteurization, or air conditioning, or the Internet? None of those are *needs*. No one in the Middle Ages would have thought, 'Gee, I wish I could keep meat from spoiling for weeks' because there was no intelligible solution. He might as well have thought, 'Gee, I wish I could fly to France!' But we do that today, too, and no one blinks an eye.
I won't fall into your trap of blaming the victim, but just that same I'm sure you wouldn't tell your daughter to go out dressed 'like that,' or that you wouldn't be concerned knowing she was walking home alone after dark. You WOULD tell a user to patch his system, though, and if he refused to do so you'd call him a fool. You'd blame him for not taking appropriate care.
I think your appeal to sanity is absurd; you imply that insecurity or desire is madness. Maybe a fully 'rational' or fully 'disciplined' human race, but even then I think you're wrong about advertising. We would have and need advertising because of what it does -- connects consumers with a producer. For some reason you seem to think Consumer Reports is not a kind of advertising; I can only assume because they don't seem to prey on human insecurities. OK, fair enough, but even still it's not advertising you hate, it's sleazy advertising, and I still hold that most advertising isn't sleazy.
Ending sleazy advertising would not make smarter people. But making smarter people would end sleazy advertising. You can't appeal to a weakness that isn't there, after all.
I can't believe you think 'publicizing a product' is a stretch on the term 'advertising.'
Let's look at the evidence. Listerine invented haslitosis. DeBeers invented the engagement ring. Hallmark invented Valentines day. Did anyone really worry about dandruff before Head & Shoulders started telling everyone they are undesireable if they have flakes? Advertisers and marketers create artificial demand for a product rather than just pointing people who already want a product towards a supplier. Do you dispute that?
I do indeed! Halitosis -- bad breath to the layman -- was not invented by Listerine. I defy you to not brush you teeth for a couple weeks and tell me there's no noticeable, undesirable odor (let alone how your mouth might feel, or the organisms that would be growing in there; those are health risks). DeBeers, or anyone else, did not invent the engagement ring; the ring is an ancient symbol that has been in use at least since ancient Celtic society, though I'd argue much longer in other parts of the world. And Hallmark did not invent Valentine's Day; even as we understand the day now, it was established long before Hallmark decided to build a business on greeting cards. Advertisers can ATTEMPT to create artificial demand, but any demand generated is built upon a real human desire, to solve a real human concern. Even washing one's hair is at it's base a matter of hygiene. Dirty, smell people are undesirable because they're dirty and small, not to mention health concerns that crop up from not bathing oneself. Yes, it's an extreme to say, "either you're using dandruff shampoo or you aten't bathing yourself," but it's more of a stretch to say, "there's no actual need or value in dandruff shampoo."
I can hardly believe we're arguing about this.
Yes, a lot of advertising preys on human weaknesses. And yeah, they're at fault for that, but we're at fault for being susceptible. You may complain that people shouldn't write viruses, but I bet you still install patches when they come out. Even at that, I submit that advertising has value even in the Utopian light of a full-patched humanity -- because at it's base, advertising points consumers toward a producer who has a service they want.
Advertising doesn't make people dumber. It may prey upon dumb people, but simply being subject to a commercial doesn't mean I'm going to be suddenly compelled, against all my reason and learning, to do something I know is ridiculous. And I'd still argue that they don't *create* suffering; even if they take advantage of the human condition, that condition and all it's suffering was *already* there. They don't add suffering by offering you a product, even if that product *is* snake oil (which, again, I argue almost none of it is). At worst you could argue they prevent someone from investing in a true solution to what ails them, but I think you'll find yourself hard pressed to solve man's problems. And by that I mean to say that man would be clueless on where to invest himself even in the absence of advertising -- and in reality, advertising does serve some good, however small, in connecting consumer with supplier. Can you deny that
That's a false claim based on a false assumption. You don't need everything you consume. I don't need, for example, a high-end computer to play video games on. That's something I want, and something I'm able to have because of disposable income. If people only ever bought what they needed, there would be a much smaller economy. Further, even if someone needs something, that doesn't mean they'll find it. if they don't know it exists, if they don't know it could possibly exist, they don't even have a reason to go looking. And even if they DID go looking, if no one's saying, "hey, we made this thing, anyone want it?" then they have very little chance of stumbling upon it at random.
it is about making people want products they don't have.
That's a true claim. But... I don't know, it seems like stating the obvious. There's no point in making you want what you DO have. There's no point in making you NOT want what you don't have. And I guess there might be some very mall point in making you NOT want what you DO have, but that seems a little ridiculous. They make you want what you don't have because they have a product or serve they'd like to offer you; ideally, it's a product or service that would benefit you and that you wouldn't necessarily know about if they didn't tell you. Ideally, it's a win-win situation.
You're right, though, that the world isn't ideal. And you're right that ads often times appeal to the lowest common denominator, the need for humans to feel accepted or, perhaps more basic, sex. That's so that it appeals to a wider audience, turns more heads and, yes, sells more products. But I don't think you're really upset about businesses wanting to sell products. Expecting anything else -- what, wanting to NOT sell products? -- just seems unreasonable.
What you're upset with is either (1) a company selling a product it knows is cheep, dysfunctional, or useless or (2) someone being negatively effected by the direction of an add campaign. I don't know that (1) is really that much of a problem, not because it's not bad but because it's not prevalent. Most companies, IMO, believe they have something worthwhile to offer customers, if for no other reason that not doing so would end them by virtue of the free market. Vote with your feet and all that. (2) is more of a problem, but... Well, there are relatively few ads that say "you, yes you, on the couch. You suck. You're useless and un-liked and a failure. But this, and it will all be better." Instead they tend to be more positive, showing people being happy, getting the girl, making the swim team, whatever. If they hinge on insecurities, it's only through the knowledge that people *already* feel bad about their lives. they *already* feel lost, alone, and scared. And they'll see the ad, see the happy, positive implied results of Having, and they'll think, "hey, maybe THAT will make me happy."
This isn't a flaw in the ads. It's not Marketing telling you you suck. It's you believing you suck and buying into the idea that This Thing, or That Thing, will make you happy. It's a flaw in the viewer, not the viewed.
So, as others have said, I conclude that the solution to the problem you perceive is not ending adds, but making smarter people. Making people who can think critically, who can see what they have and why they feel the way they do, and who can make reasoned decisions on what it is they want, what they need, and what they can get.
At the VERY least, we need people who won't collapse under a negative-but-empty assault. If you followed me around for a year saying I suck, I might punch you in the face but I wouldn't base my self-worth on what you said.
Pushing the problem down the pipe doesn't adequately address the issue, I think.
If you tax energy, you tax businesses more than individuals -- arguably proportionally more, but more none the less. it would fall heavier on businesses than individuals by virtue of the fact that businesses consume more energy. Your whole point is that those who use more energy will pay more tax, after all. That may very well drive efficiency, but not at first I think. If the customers are meant to pay, then that means the price for products and services will rise. Rising prices, even in the face of a greater share of one's own paycheck, doesn't sound like a good idea for the economy to me.
But then we'll allow that a more-efficient, and therefore less-taxed, competitor comes into the picture and the company loses customers. This may mean that the company drives toward more efficient means. Or it could mean, as I posit, that the company lowers prices to the customer at the cost of employee salaries. Or, more severe, the company buckles and begins to lose jobs. That doesn't sound good for the economy, either.
And none of this addresses my concerns for the little guy vice the established corporations. A large business can bleed revenue a lot longer while it tries to ride the market and either (1) change it's business practices appropriately, which takes time, or (2) outlive it's competition. The little guy, or the start-up company can't bleed as much as long, which means they'll have a harder time getting going, higher prices and lower salaries -- generally, they will be at a great disadvantage. Which, again, sounds bad for the economy.
I still like the idea. But I'm now less convinced that it's practical.
I like the idea, but... who pays for the increased cost of businesses? That is, right now, my company pays for the lights, computers, heating etc in their building. If you move the tax off or my income and onto energy, it'll mean more of my pay goes to me, but there's a higher cost to the company -- which at first blush at least implies that I won't see any benefit because the company will have to cut my salary to make up the increased taxes (so I'm not being taxed, I'm just being paid less) and worse off it would make it much more difficult for smaller companies to get off the ground, firstly because they can't pay the energy tax and secondly because they can't compete with the higher-salaries possible at already-established businesses.
At least, that's my first impression. I can't really claim to know what I'm talking about.
I think, maybe, it's less of a contradiction if you note that he said "it does not have a reason to exist" (present tense) and "in relation to the purpose it served" (past tense). That is, it's possible that it was originally implemented for a good reason, but that reason is no longer applicable. This interpretation of the GP makes more sense when you look at the example he oppened with about laws on land ownership.
You know, hindsight is 20/20, but I'd like to point out that Kazaa wasn't a phenomenon of 2004 or 2005. Kazaa and others had been around for quite some time before filesharing to the sort of attention it has these days, and IANAL but the legality of file sharing was pretty obscure for those first several years. tack on the fact that this lady and others like her are probably not as tech-savvy or software-aware as most of us on slashdot, and I think it's pretty ridiculous to compare their activities to clearly-legislated bits like speed limits and drug trafficking.
I see your point, but I think it's rather misguided. Let's see if I can explain why in a meaningful, organized way.
You argue that the Chinese people are better off being fed nothing but what their government wants to hear because (1) if they heard anything else they'd get disgruntled, (2) they have no means within their government to make change except for bloody revolt, and (3) it's better that they live in an oppressive regime. That's a bit of a value judgment there at the end, but it seems that the rest of your argument basically boils down to, "their society is broken and if we try to fix it people will get hurt."
You also seem to think that censorship isn't abuse. OK, maybe not in all cases. I don't let my daughter watch the evening news, let's say, because a young child doesn't need to see some of the graphic images they show. But the reasoning there is that the young child has not developed to the point where she can properly process such information -- presumably by the time she's, say, 14 or 15 I'll expect her to keep abreast of current events, at least as much as you can expect that from a teenager. Regardless, the same thing doesn't apply to a 45-year old Japanese business man. He is denied information not in an attempt to protect him but rather in an effort to control him -- to prevent him from discovering how mistreated he is.
You argue that's better because with so many people you need to have unquestioned loyalty, unlimited authority, or else everything devolves into crime and waste. But what about the rest of the world? Surely there are at least 1.7 billion other people on the planet. The only difference between those 1.7 billion and the population of China would be the regime which they're under. And to say that the Chinese regime must use censorship to control it's people is to say "because it is the way it is, it must be the way it is." If there was no reason for the Chinese people to be disgruntled, there would be no reason to censor their information.
As for our country and access to harmful information... Well, we don't have censors. We HAVE access to harmful information. If any one of us chose we could find, as other have, information on how to make home-made explosives, for example. At the very least, everyone here on/. could find information on hacking into computer systems and defacing websites. It's out there. The thing is, just because dangerous information is there doesn't mean people will look for it or, if they do, it doesn't mean they'll act on it. How many people do you know who would build biological weapons if they could? (That's rhetorical, I really don't need to know.)
Anyways, you argue that the regime must use censorship to remain in power, and my point is that's exactly why the regime needs to change. It's not about this law or that law, it's about basic human dignity and self-determination.
I knew of a doctor who once said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Someone made him an organ donor, too, but that doesn't mean he was wrong to say what he said.
No one has the right to oppress, I don't care what the governments tell each other.
Slashdot Mirror
DDoS != modern sit-in
Voluntary Botnet == modern sit-in
See the difference?
I'm concerned with things like the following: I took a picture at a party. I posted the picture. In the background, Jane Doe is [doing something embarrassing/foolish/dangerous]. Can Jane compel the deletion of my photo? If I write an article about John Doe discussing things he wished would be forgotten, can he compel the deletion of my article?
I emphatically disagree. At least as stated this is a terrible idea because of all of the horrible unintended consequences when "my data" intersects with "data about you." If I take a picture demonstrating a protest or political dissent and joe Government happens to be in the background, can he have my photo deleted? it's a photo of him, and maybe he doesn't want it out there. If I make a comment and quote Jeff Anyguy, can he have my comment deleted? It contains statements he made, and maybe he's changed his mind and doesn't want those words haunting him. Or maybe he just didn't like my response. What if Benny Politician has The Internet "forget" something in his past, can he sue me if I post a blog to "remind" The Internet what that sleeze has done before? Can he compel me to delete my post, because it's about him and he doesn't like it? What happens to The Internet Archive?
The obvious counter is that Google's store isn't the only game in town for Android. just because Google isn't selling something doesn't mean Android's not an open platform.
If having physical access to a machine is enough to excuse all malicious intent then there's no such thing as an insider threat.
If you're trying to replicate a human hand, I think you're looking at the problem wrong. We rely on tools to really get work done -- all the hand does is grip the tool. If we can make modular "hand" attachments for our robots, we cut out the middleman in a way that biological creatures can't really do (yet).
Current marriage laws say nothing about long-term or loving. You got the monogamous part right, though.
Is there really a practical difference? If food cost $2 and a suit cost $5, then we'd all be making $30 or $40 a month instead of $3000 or $4000. It's an abstraction of bartering no matter how you slice it, so what does it matter if everything is 10 cubits of 100 cubits?
There's no such thing as a completely secured system, and that's where the flaw in this plan lies. If the policy is to attack the last link, a third party can use you as an attack dog against anyone they want -- they might not even need to actually exploit the "target" if they can spoof the attack to make it look like the target is the last link.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
They want your money any way they can get it. Inaccurate. They want your money every way they can get it.
Yeah. I had had a couple more points to make in that last post (like how he has NO place to judge you because he knows next to NOTHING about you), but could literally feel my blood pressure sky-rocketing, so I cut short. I'm out.
You would blame the viewer of your ads for doing the very thing you set out to convince them to do, wouldn't you?
Pardon me for butting in, but ads set out to sell products. they do not, as a rule, set out to cause financial ruin. The reason for this is because someone who ruins themselves can not then spend more money later on -- take that as you will, but ads are therefore *not* meant to make people over-extend themselves, buy more than they can afford, or even really buy more than they need. If someone does any of these things, yes, it's their fault.
ow. How does it spread organically? What does it do to people in order to get them to "pass the word on to their friends?" What else spreads organically by getting people to pass it on to their friends? If you try to wake up from your self induced coma and think before you write, you may end up not making absurd self contradictory comments.
Are you incapable of understanding a figurative notion? It doesn't *do* anything. Viral marketing is not something Companies do; it's something customers do. It's when I like something and start extolling the virtues of that something to anyone who will listen, because I believe in the product. When a company tries to induce that, it's guerrilla marketing, or astroturfing. I'm not even really sure what it is you're trying to do except chain something like marketing -> viral marketing -> viruses -> disease -> bad -> evil.
you keep crying 'lies, lies, lies!' But you haven't produced any. Show me where an add lies. Give me an example where some add says something about the product that isn't true. They legally can't -- that's false advertising. They can't even be really misleading for the same reasons. So where are all these lies you're talking about? He didn't get the girl because he ate the gum, he got the girl because he was confident and approach her, and she received him well. Any other interpretation is a flaw in your reasoning.
Well, I wasn't around before 1920, so I can't speak for the kind of epiphany someone may or may not have had then. And maybe you'd argue that I've been manipulated from birth due to the vicious advertising we're subjected to. But, frankly, I find bad breath to be undesirable in myself and the ;people I spend my time around because I don't like things that stink. And the fact that there *is* something to remedy it combines nicely with the fact that I think it ought to be remedied, and viola we have a marketable product. We can dance around this for days, where you say the things we think are undesirable are just so because we've been told so and I say they're undesirable because they're gross, or inconvenient, or whatever. You seem to claim that every convenience or luxury is a shame and a crime because it's not ending world hunger or settling unrest in the Middle East.
There's a lot of things that people didn't historically think needed to be fixed that we can manage today that make our lives easier. What about refrigeration, or pasteurization, or air conditioning, or the Internet? None of those are *needs*. No one in the Middle Ages would have thought, 'Gee, I wish I could keep meat from spoiling for weeks' because there was no intelligible solution. He might as well have thought, 'Gee, I wish I could fly to France!' But we do that today, too, and no one blinks an eye.
I won't fall into your trap of blaming the victim, but just that same I'm sure you wouldn't tell your daughter to go out dressed 'like that,' or that you wouldn't be concerned knowing she was walking home alone after dark. You WOULD tell a user to patch his system, though, and if he refused to do so you'd call him a fool. You'd blame him for not taking appropriate care.
I think your appeal to sanity is absurd; you imply that insecurity or desire is madness. Maybe a fully 'rational' or fully 'disciplined' human race, but even then I think you're wrong about advertising. We would have and need advertising because of what it does -- connects consumers with a producer. For some reason you seem to think Consumer Reports is not a kind of advertising; I can only assume because they don't seem to prey on human insecurities. OK, fair enough, but even still it's not advertising you hate, it's sleazy advertising, and I still hold that most advertising isn't sleazy.
Ending sleazy advertising would not make smarter people. But making smarter people would end sleazy advertising. You can't appeal to a weakness that isn't there, after all.
I can't believe you think 'publicizing a product' is a stretch on the term 'advertising.'
Let's look at the evidence. Listerine invented haslitosis. DeBeers invented the engagement ring. Hallmark invented Valentines day. Did anyone really worry about dandruff before Head & Shoulders started telling everyone they are undesireable if they have flakes? Advertisers and marketers create artificial demand for a product rather than just pointing people who already want a product towards a supplier. Do you dispute that?
I do indeed! Halitosis -- bad breath to the layman -- was not invented by Listerine. I defy you to not brush you teeth for a couple weeks and tell me there's no noticeable, undesirable odor (let alone how your mouth might feel, or the organisms that would be growing in there; those are health risks). DeBeers, or anyone else, did not invent the engagement ring; the ring is an ancient symbol that has been in use at least since ancient Celtic society, though I'd argue much longer in other parts of the world. And Hallmark did not invent Valentine's Day; even as we understand the day now, it was established long before Hallmark decided to build a business on greeting cards. Advertisers can ATTEMPT to create artificial demand, but any demand generated is built upon a real human desire, to solve a real human concern. Even washing one's hair is at it's base a matter of hygiene. Dirty, smell people are undesirable because they're dirty and small, not to mention health concerns that crop up from not bathing oneself. Yes, it's an extreme to say, "either you're using dandruff shampoo or you aten't bathing yourself," but it's more of a stretch to say, "there's no actual need or value in dandruff shampoo."
I can hardly believe we're arguing about this.
Yes, a lot of advertising preys on human weaknesses. And yeah, they're at fault for that, but we're at fault for being susceptible. You may complain that people shouldn't write viruses, but I bet you still install patches when they come out. Even at that, I submit that advertising has value even in the Utopian light of a full-patched humanity -- because at it's base, advertising points consumers toward a producer who has a service they want.
Advertising doesn't make people dumber. It may prey upon dumb people, but simply being subject to a commercial doesn't mean I'm going to be suddenly compelled, against all my reason and learning, to do something I know is ridiculous. And I'd still argue that they don't *create* suffering; even if they take advantage of the human condition, that condition and all it's suffering was *already* there. They don't add suffering by offering you a product, even if that product *is* snake oil (which, again, I argue almost none of it is). At worst you could argue they prevent someone from investing in a true solution to what ails them, but I think you'll find yourself hard pressed to solve man's problems. And by that I mean to say that man would be clueless on where to invest himself even in the absence of advertising -- and in reality, advertising does serve some good, however small, in connecting consumer with supplier. Can you deny that
they would find them.
That's a false claim based on a false assumption. You don't need everything you consume. I don't need, for example, a high-end computer to play video games on. That's something I want, and something I'm able to have because of disposable income. If people only ever bought what they needed, there would be a much smaller economy. Further, even if someone needs something, that doesn't mean they'll find it. if they don't know it exists, if they don't know it could possibly exist, they don't even have a reason to go looking. And even if they DID go looking, if no one's saying, "hey, we made this thing, anyone want it?" then they have very little chance of stumbling upon it at random.
it is about making people want products they don't have.
That's a true claim. But... I don't know, it seems like stating the obvious. There's no point in making you want what you DO have. There's no point in making you NOT want what you don't have. And I guess there might be some very mall point in making you NOT want what you DO have, but that seems a little ridiculous. They make you want what you don't have because they have a product or serve they'd like to offer you; ideally, it's a product or service that would benefit you and that you wouldn't necessarily know about if they didn't tell you. Ideally, it's a win-win situation.
You're right, though, that the world isn't ideal. And you're right that ads often times appeal to the lowest common denominator, the need for humans to feel accepted or, perhaps more basic, sex. That's so that it appeals to a wider audience, turns more heads and, yes, sells more products. But I don't think you're really upset about businesses wanting to sell products. Expecting anything else -- what, wanting to NOT sell products? -- just seems unreasonable.
What you're upset with is either (1) a company selling a product it knows is cheep, dysfunctional, or useless or (2) someone being negatively effected by the direction of an add campaign. I don't know that (1) is really that much of a problem, not because it's not bad but because it's not prevalent. Most companies, IMO, believe they have something worthwhile to offer customers, if for no other reason that not doing so would end them by virtue of the free market. Vote with your feet and all that. (2) is more of a problem, but... Well, there are relatively few ads that say "you, yes you, on the couch. You suck. You're useless and un-liked and a failure. But this, and it will all be better." Instead they tend to be more positive, showing people being happy, getting the girl, making the swim team, whatever. If they hinge on insecurities, it's only through the knowledge that people *already* feel bad about their lives. they *already* feel lost, alone, and scared. And they'll see the ad, see the happy, positive implied results of Having, and they'll think, "hey, maybe THAT will make me happy."
This isn't a flaw in the ads. It's not Marketing telling you you suck. It's you believing you suck and buying into the idea that This Thing, or That Thing, will make you happy. It's a flaw in the viewer, not the viewed.
So, as others have said, I conclude that the solution to the problem you perceive is not ending adds, but making smarter people. Making people who can think critically, who can see what they have and why they feel the way they do, and who can make reasoned decisions on what it is they want, what they need, and what they can get.
At the VERY least, we need people who won't collapse under a negative-but-empty assault. If you followed me around for a year saying I suck, I might punch you in the face but I wouldn't base my self-worth on what you said.
Pushing the problem down the pipe doesn't adequately address the issue, I think.
If you tax energy, you tax businesses more than individuals -- arguably proportionally more, but more none the less. it would fall heavier on businesses than individuals by virtue of the fact that businesses consume more energy. Your whole point is that those who use more energy will pay more tax, after all. That may very well drive efficiency, but not at first I think. If the customers are meant to pay, then that means the price for products and services will rise. Rising prices, even in the face of a greater share of one's own paycheck, doesn't sound like a good idea for the economy to me.
But then we'll allow that a more-efficient, and therefore less-taxed, competitor comes into the picture and the company loses customers. This may mean that the company drives toward more efficient means. Or it could mean, as I posit, that the company lowers prices to the customer at the cost of employee salaries. Or, more severe, the company buckles and begins to lose jobs. That doesn't sound good for the economy, either.
And none of this addresses my concerns for the little guy vice the established corporations. A large business can bleed revenue a lot longer while it tries to ride the market and either (1) change it's business practices appropriately, which takes time, or (2) outlive it's competition. The little guy, or the start-up company can't bleed as much as long, which means they'll have a harder time getting going, higher prices and lower salaries -- generally, they will be at a great disadvantage. Which, again, sounds bad for the economy.
I still like the idea. But I'm now less convinced that it's practical.
I like the idea, but... who pays for the increased cost of businesses? That is, right now, my company pays for the lights, computers, heating etc in their building. If you move the tax off or my income and onto energy, it'll mean more of my pay goes to me, but there's a higher cost to the company -- which at first blush at least implies that I won't see any benefit because the company will have to cut my salary to make up the increased taxes (so I'm not being taxed, I'm just being paid less) and worse off it would make it much more difficult for smaller companies to get off the ground, firstly because they can't pay the energy tax and secondly because they can't compete with the higher-salaries possible at already-established businesses.
At least, that's my first impression. I can't really claim to know what I'm talking about.
I think, maybe, it's less of a contradiction if you note that he said "it does not have a reason to exist" (present tense) and "in relation to the purpose it served" (past tense). That is, it's possible that it was originally implemented for a good reason, but that reason is no longer applicable. This interpretation of the GP makes more sense when you look at the example he oppened with about laws on land ownership.
You know, hindsight is 20/20, but I'd like to point out that Kazaa wasn't a phenomenon of 2004 or 2005. Kazaa and others had been around for quite some time before filesharing to the sort of attention it has these days, and IANAL but the legality of file sharing was pretty obscure for those first several years. tack on the fact that this lady and others like her are probably not as tech-savvy or software-aware as most of us on slashdot, and I think it's pretty ridiculous to compare their activities to clearly-legislated bits like speed limits and drug trafficking.
I see your point, but I think it's rather misguided. Let's see if I can explain why in a meaningful, organized way.
/. could find information on hacking into computer systems and defacing websites. It's out there. The thing is, just because dangerous information is there doesn't mean people will look for it or, if they do, it doesn't mean they'll act on it. How many people do you know who would build biological weapons if they could? (That's rhetorical, I really don't need to know.)
You argue that the Chinese people are better off being fed nothing but what their government wants to hear because (1) if they heard anything else they'd get disgruntled, (2) they have no means within their government to make change except for bloody revolt, and (3) it's better that they live in an oppressive regime. That's a bit of a value judgment there at the end, but it seems that the rest of your argument basically boils down to, "their society is broken and if we try to fix it people will get hurt."
You also seem to think that censorship isn't abuse. OK, maybe not in all cases. I don't let my daughter watch the evening news, let's say, because a young child doesn't need to see some of the graphic images they show. But the reasoning there is that the young child has not developed to the point where she can properly process such information -- presumably by the time she's, say, 14 or 15 I'll expect her to keep abreast of current events, at least as much as you can expect that from a teenager. Regardless, the same thing doesn't apply to a 45-year old Japanese business man. He is denied information not in an attempt to protect him but rather in an effort to control him -- to prevent him from discovering how mistreated he is.
You argue that's better because with so many people you need to have unquestioned loyalty, unlimited authority, or else everything devolves into crime and waste. But what about the rest of the world? Surely there are at least 1.7 billion other people on the planet. The only difference between those 1.7 billion and the population of China would be the regime which they're under. And to say that the Chinese regime must use censorship to control it's people is to say "because it is the way it is, it must be the way it is." If there was no reason for the Chinese people to be disgruntled, there would be no reason to censor their information.
As for our country and access to harmful information... Well, we don't have censors. We HAVE access to harmful information. If any one of us chose we could find, as other have, information on how to make home-made explosives, for example. At the very least, everyone here on
Anyways, you argue that the regime must use censorship to remain in power, and my point is that's exactly why the regime needs to change. It's not about this law or that law, it's about basic human dignity and self-determination.
I knew of a doctor who once said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Someone made him an organ donor, too, but that doesn't mean he was wrong to say what he said. No one has the right to oppress, I don't care what the governments tell each other.