It is amazing how many people seem to have forgotten what this thread is about. It is about whether it is better to have powerful corporations which I can chose not to do business with or a government which can theoretically be voted out of office. So, let's ask this another way. Which is easier? Not doing business with Comcast if I decide that their terms of service, price, and invasion of my privacy are not worth it in order to have access to the Internet? Or voting the government out of office in such a way as to actually change the DHS which I don't like for more or less the same reasons?
People seem to forget that if I am willing to do without the products or services a particular company provides, I can easily not do business with them. On the other hand, it is very hard to actually vote a change in the government (possible, but very hard).
Perhaps you have not heard of the Civil Service Act? Elected officials do not actually have the power to fire bureaucrats (well, at least not without a lot more difficulty than it takes for me to refuse to do business with a corporation).
Of course it is easy to get 97% consensus when you count anyone who does not explicitly state their disagreement as agreeing (which is what the study which that "97% consensus" is based on did).
That is great, if you are talking about a business that will earn you hundreds of thousands of euros, but what if you anticipate that your business idea will bring in a dew thousand a year?
In fact the biggest complaint from the small business owners is usually that once the initial help package is used up, the "drop" in support tends to sink small business.../quote
And right there, you point out the problem. Small businesses get that assistance and as a result have to become bigger than the entrepreneur is ready to handle so that when the assistance runs out, they do not yet have the skills and cash flow to maintain the business. As to wanting replacement income early, you exactly miss my point. I know full well that it is going to take a long time for a small business to earn a replacement income. That is exactly why I want to keep my regular job while I start a business. Government support will not, and cannot, solve the problem created by excessive government regulation. Regulation does NOT hurt big business. It never has and it never will.
Wow, you have clearly never attempted to start a business. I have looked into several businesses. They were all things I could have easily started as part time and held done a full time job until they started bringing in enough money to replace my income. Unfortunately, it would have cost me more than I could afford to satisfy the government regulations and the business would not have provided enough income to cover those costs for several years.
Really, you can vote the bureaucrats at the IRS out of office? Or the agents of the BATF? These are both agencies which the Obama Administration claims are too big for the President to control.
Too many scientists use science to promote their own agenda. In addition, quite a bit of the conclusions one reaches from the facts depends on one's starting assumptions.
The biggest obstacle to small business in today's economy is the barrier to entry created by government regulations. It is not large international conglomerates, nor is it the globalization of the economy.
You seem to think that small businesses can stay in business if the cost of obeying local laws increases their costs above what the market will bear. I find your view frightening.
I do not interpret your words in the opposite way they are intended. I interpret your words on the basis of the consequences of the policies you espouse. The only way to avoid that is policies which drive up costs for consumers by eliminating competition from companies not based in a particular country.
So, basically what you are saying is that you are OK with the world being dominated by large corporations that can afford to deal with the various and sundry regulations that exist only because the governments were able to convince the population that they needed more power in order to prevent those large corporations from dominating the world.
Having read your posts further down, you appear to believe it is OK for the EU to extend at least some of their laws to people who do not live in the EU. So, if I post something to the Internet that is legal to post in my country, but is illegal to post in the EU, it is perfectly appropriate for the EU to consider me a criminal if someone in the EU reads it.
The basic problem is that you think of these laws as applying to big companies such as Google or Amazon, but forget that they also apply to a one-man operation that someone in the EU may make a purchase from. Under your concept of what is a good idea for laws, a company that is too small to afford a lawyer familiar with the laws of any particular country cannot do business with someone from that country without risking being considered in violation of that country's laws.
If they don't delete it (no, that would NOT be censorship -...
If they delete it because they chose to delete it, it is not censorship. If they delete it because the government told them to, it IS censorship, whether or not that information is available elsewhere.
The problem is that there is no reason for people like this guy to NOT take them to court over this, even if he does not qualify for being "forgotten". His reasons for wanting this article de-listed are important enough to him to be worth what it would cost him to challenge Google in court. Basically, there are no "efficient procedures that everybody can live with." No matter what procedures Google put in place, this guy, and people like him, would go to court. It is not worth Google's trouble to deal with that. While it is possible that the EU could put such procedures in place, Google cannot do so because, no matter what procedures they choose, people will challenge them in court.
You are missing the point. When Google was requested to "forget" what this guy had done, they did so, even though the EU court ruling might have allowed them to continue to link to the article. Why did they do this? Because it was easier and cheaper than fighting it through the courts. Since they lost the first case, they have nothing to gain from fighting this one.
Wish I had mod points, because this is the answer. A few years back the state I live in had a problem with drivers hitting, or almost hitting, road construction workers because they were speeding through construction zones. Their solution was to increase the penalties for speeding in a construction zone. Of course, they never considered the fact that there were rarely any police anywhere NEAR road construction zones, so the increased penalties had zero impact on the problem.
I was actually at the first ever meeting of the IT department for my company from all over the country and about half of them did not understand why I do not like Windows 8...confirming the contempt I have developed for them based on the interactions I have had with them.
You are correct that it is motivated reasoning. However, not in the way you seem to think. Farmers are highly motivated to understand what the weather is going to be like from year to year (how hot is it going to be, how much is it going to rain, etc), because if they get it wrong they go broke and starve. If enough farmers get it wrong, we all starve. In summary, it is more important to a farmer to get it right than it is to a climatologist.
A base rate is funded by the taxpayers, activities (like smoking) that provide a significant and measurable burden to the system beyond what is funded by the taxpayers...
Except that detailed studies have suggested that, because they tend to die significantly younger, smokers actually put a lesser burden, over their lifetime, on the healthcare system than non-smokers.
Well before even a hint of a public conversation about universal healthcare.
Um...actually, no. The public conversation about universal healthcare goes back to the late 1800s, coincidentally about the same time that the march towards the government telling people how to live their lives started (actually, not so coincidentally, it was part of the same "progressive" movement which believes that we would be better off if "scientific experts" made our decisions for us).
I thought we were talking about Amazon. Jeff Bezos is a Democrat, or at least, the overwhelming majority of his political donations are to Democratic Party candidates and causes.
I do not trust my doctor because they are a doctor. I trust my doctor for the same reason I trust my mechanic, because they have proven themselves to be trustworthy. The primary reason I do not trust my insurance company is because I do not actually know any of the individuals who work there, let alone the ones who might be making decisions about what to do with my personal infor.
Slashdot Mirror
It is amazing how many people seem to have forgotten what this thread is about. It is about whether it is better to have powerful corporations which I can chose not to do business with or a government which can theoretically be voted out of office. So, let's ask this another way. Which is easier? Not doing business with Comcast if I decide that their terms of service, price, and invasion of my privacy are not worth it in order to have access to the Internet? Or voting the government out of office in such a way as to actually change the DHS which I don't like for more or less the same reasons?
People seem to forget that if I am willing to do without the products or services a particular company provides, I can easily not do business with them. On the other hand, it is very hard to actually vote a change in the government (possible, but very hard).
Perhaps you have not heard of the Civil Service Act? Elected officials do not actually have the power to fire bureaucrats (well, at least not without a lot more difficulty than it takes for me to refuse to do business with a corporation).
Of course it is easy to get 97% consensus when you count anyone who does not explicitly state their disagreement as agreeing (which is what the study which that "97% consensus" is based on did).
In fact the biggest complaint from the small business owners is usually that once the initial help package is used up, the "drop" in support tends to sink small business.../quote And right there, you point out the problem. Small businesses get that assistance and as a result have to become bigger than the entrepreneur is ready to handle so that when the assistance runs out, they do not yet have the skills and cash flow to maintain the business. As to wanting replacement income early, you exactly miss my point. I know full well that it is going to take a long time for a small business to earn a replacement income. That is exactly why I want to keep my regular job while I start a business. Government support will not, and cannot, solve the problem created by excessive government regulation. Regulation does NOT hurt big business. It never has and it never will.
Wow, you have clearly never attempted to start a business. I have looked into several businesses. They were all things I could have easily started as part time and held done a full time job until they started bringing in enough money to replace my income. Unfortunately, it would have cost me more than I could afford to satisfy the government regulations and the business would not have provided enough income to cover those costs for several years.
Really, you can vote the bureaucrats at the IRS out of office? Or the agents of the BATF? These are both agencies which the Obama Administration claims are too big for the President to control.
Too many scientists use science to promote their own agenda. In addition, quite a bit of the conclusions one reaches from the facts depends on one's starting assumptions.
The biggest obstacle to small business in today's economy is the barrier to entry created by government regulations. It is not large international conglomerates, nor is it the globalization of the economy.
You seem to think that small businesses can stay in business if the cost of obeying local laws increases their costs above what the market will bear. I find your view frightening.
I do not interpret your words in the opposite way they are intended. I interpret your words on the basis of the consequences of the policies you espouse. The only way to avoid that is policies which drive up costs for consumers by eliminating competition from companies not based in a particular country.
So, basically what you are saying is that you are OK with the world being dominated by large corporations that can afford to deal with the various and sundry regulations that exist only because the governments were able to convince the population that they needed more power in order to prevent those large corporations from dominating the world.
Having read your posts further down, you appear to believe it is OK for the EU to extend at least some of their laws to people who do not live in the EU. So, if I post something to the Internet that is legal to post in my country, but is illegal to post in the EU, it is perfectly appropriate for the EU to consider me a criminal if someone in the EU reads it.
The basic problem is that you think of these laws as applying to big companies such as Google or Amazon, but forget that they also apply to a one-man operation that someone in the EU may make a purchase from. Under your concept of what is a good idea for laws, a company that is too small to afford a lawyer familiar with the laws of any particular country cannot do business with someone from that country without risking being considered in violation of that country's laws.
If they don't delete it (no, that would NOT be censorship -...
If they delete it because they chose to delete it, it is not censorship. If they delete it because the government told them to, it IS censorship, whether or not that information is available elsewhere.
The problem is that there is no reason for people like this guy to NOT take them to court over this, even if he does not qualify for being "forgotten". His reasons for wanting this article de-listed are important enough to him to be worth what it would cost him to challenge Google in court. Basically, there are no "efficient procedures that everybody can live with." No matter what procedures Google put in place, this guy, and people like him, would go to court. It is not worth Google's trouble to deal with that. While it is possible that the EU could put such procedures in place, Google cannot do so because, no matter what procedures they choose, people will challenge them in court.
You are missing the point. When Google was requested to "forget" what this guy had done, they did so, even though the EU court ruling might have allowed them to continue to link to the article. Why did they do this? Because it was easier and cheaper than fighting it through the courts. Since they lost the first case, they have nothing to gain from fighting this one.
Wish I had mod points, because this is the answer. A few years back the state I live in had a problem with drivers hitting, or almost hitting, road construction workers because they were speeding through construction zones. Their solution was to increase the penalties for speeding in a construction zone. Of course, they never considered the fact that there were rarely any police anywhere NEAR road construction zones, so the increased penalties had zero impact on the problem.
I was actually at the first ever meeting of the IT department for my company from all over the country and about half of them did not understand why I do not like Windows 8...confirming the contempt I have developed for them based on the interactions I have had with them.
You are correct that it is motivated reasoning. However, not in the way you seem to think. Farmers are highly motivated to understand what the weather is going to be like from year to year (how hot is it going to be, how much is it going to rain, etc), because if they get it wrong they go broke and starve. If enough farmers get it wrong, we all starve. In summary, it is more important to a farmer to get it right than it is to a climatologist.
If you believe that, than what you really believe is that no one makes decisions. Everything you do is determined by external stimuli.
A base rate is funded by the taxpayers, activities (like smoking) that provide a significant and measurable burden to the system beyond what is funded by the taxpayers...
Except that detailed studies have suggested that, because they tend to die significantly younger, smokers actually put a lesser burden, over their lifetime, on the healthcare system than non-smokers.
Well before even a hint of a public conversation about universal healthcare.
Um...actually, no. The public conversation about universal healthcare goes back to the late 1800s, coincidentally about the same time that the march towards the government telling people how to live their lives started (actually, not so coincidentally, it was part of the same "progressive" movement which believes that we would be better off if "scientific experts" made our decisions for us).
Well, if he meant Democrat he should have said so.
working for a violent, racist Republican
I thought we were talking about Amazon. Jeff Bezos is a Democrat, or at least, the overwhelming majority of his political donations are to Democratic Party candidates and causes.
Yes, but what if the law firm received it from someone other than me because of a court order (or for some other reason)?
I do not trust my doctor because they are a doctor. I trust my doctor for the same reason I trust my mechanic, because they have proven themselves to be trustworthy. The primary reason I do not trust my insurance company is because I do not actually know any of the individuals who work there, let alone the ones who might be making decisions about what to do with my personal infor.