No, but trying to be an honest company among a bunch of poopyhead competitors that aren't afraid to roll up their sleeves and play dirty isn't all that easy.
Trying to do business fair and square is like trying to box with one hand behind your back.
As long as unethical companies get a blind eye from the ref, there is no incentive to play fair, because once one guy cheats to get ahead and gets away with it, everyone else must either eat their dust or follow suit.
People are just plain selfish. You'd get the same result no matter what government you used.
See also: NIMBY, Prisoner's Dilemma, Tragedy of the Commons.
More to the point...there's a reason that the science of economics, which is based on the invisible hand of the profit motive, works so damn well in practice. It's because it sees people for what they really are, greedy selfish hooligans.
In theory, all legal cases should be decided on the merits.
In practice, as with all situations, dissing the people in power will bring holy shit of vengeance upon your head.
The sad part is that often times the shit will fall in the form of a prejudicial ruling, rather than a contempt of court fine.
Another thing that pisses me off in legal proceedings is how if you screw up, you're toast. Case in point: e390 v. Spamhaus. Technically, the us court didn't have jurisdiction. But once it was removed to federal court, "you automatically waived the right to contest any jurisdictional issues". A booby-trap.
Our legal system is hosed and strewn with traps that, you guessed it, only high priced lawyers are smart enough to work around. I'd call it a damned protection racket if you asked me.
And police protection. Fire protection. You know, things that are simply more important than internet access, and which should be given priority in the event of resource constraints.
I just believe that there are things more important than internet access.
You missed my point...and are now engaging in ad hominems to boot.
I'm not talking about net neutrality regs, which I'm all for. What I'm talking about is potentially trying to force broadband providers to build out into areas that don't even have basic services.
I'm all for fair and open internet access, and for network neutrality.
However, I do believe that there are more important things, like a basic civic infrastructure, that need to be taken care of before a community should even be worrying about internet access.
We put our fate into the hands of the senate which is probably corrupted up the wazoo by the very same special interest groups that have the privilege of clearance to these classified documents.
Sadly, I've come to accept that the bad guys have already won.
Big powerful people have us citizens by the balls, and if I were to try to start a grass-roots movement, I'd either get whacked, sued into the ground, or both.
I don't know if I'm ready to martyr myself for that cause yet.
The thing is that for coffee, we have competition. No java factory would dare make shitty coffee (no pun intended) when their outraged customers could flock to a better brand.
Google only did that because China forced them to. And by forced, I mean that Google didn't want to.
Google's position seems to be:
Well, we would rather have open search, but big gold conehat government won't let us unless we agree to it.
Now, if we don't go there, someone else will and will be more than happy to play 10 times dirtier than us.
Hmm...I think the chinese would be better off with a little of us than a bunch of someone else.
Don't blame google for something that the chinese government forced them into. If you want to blame them for choosing to stay and cooperate, instead of leaving a vacuum behind for someone even sleazier, go right ahead.
The reason I believe that net neutrality should be enforced is that using anything except a court order to strangle traffic makes it very difficult to avoid collateral damage.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but trying to be an honest company among a bunch of poopyhead competitors that aren't afraid to roll up their sleeves and play dirty isn't all that easy.
Trying to do business fair and square is like trying to box with one hand behind your back.
As long as unethical companies get a blind eye from the ref, there is no incentive to play fair, because once one guy cheats to get ahead and gets away with it, everyone else must either eat their dust or follow suit.
It has nothing to do with democracy.
People are just plain selfish. You'd get the same result no matter what government you used.
See also: NIMBY, Prisoner's Dilemma, Tragedy of the Commons.
More to the point...there's a reason that the science of economics, which is based on the invisible hand of the profit motive, works so damn well in practice. It's because it sees people for what they really are, greedy selfish hooligans.
Usually, I'd agree with you.
However, clean air is a public resource that, like the shared range in "Tragedy of the Commons", cannot safely be left to the invisible hand.
You'd do well to research the concept of externalities such as pollution.
I'd say it had something to do with the Tower of Babel.
The critical difference in this case is that chrome frame is entirely opt-in. You aren't forced to install it.
Even doughnuts taste disgusting if they're rammed down your throat.
I consider any plugin installed without my consent to be malicious, especially if it's a plugin FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S SOFTWARE.
+1 sad but true.
Although that should be "charisma modifier"
In theory, all legal cases should be decided on the merits.
In practice, as with all situations, dissing the people in power will bring holy shit of vengeance upon your head.
The sad part is that often times the shit will fall in the form of a prejudicial ruling, rather than a contempt of court fine.
Another thing that pisses me off in legal proceedings is how if you screw up, you're toast. Case in point: e390 v. Spamhaus. Technically, the us court didn't have jurisdiction. But once it was removed to federal court, "you automatically waived the right to contest any jurisdictional issues". A booby-trap.
Our legal system is hosed and strewn with traps that, you guessed it, only high priced lawyers are smart enough to work around. I'd call it a damned protection racket if you asked me.
For starters, water.
And police protection. Fire protection. You know, things that are simply more important than internet access, and which should be given priority in the event of resource constraints.
I just believe that there are things more important than internet access.
Blasphemy? Only on slashdot :)
You missed my point...and are now engaging in ad hominems to boot.
I'm not talking about net neutrality regs, which I'm all for. What I'm talking about is potentially trying to force broadband providers to build out into areas that don't even have basic services.
I'm all for fair and open internet access, and for network neutrality.
However, I do believe that there are more important things, like a basic civic infrastructure, that need to be taken care of before a community should even be worrying about internet access.
Personally, I'd say LEAVE the disenfranchised communities behind.
Not to say they don't deserve to have internet, but I'd propose we make sure everyone has good water, good power, and good fire protection, yes?
Case in point: My grandmother used to live in eltopia. Internet access? Hell no! We had to use well water, and we didn't even have a fire district.
I don't think internet access would be the first thing on their minds.
Yay for open access, but let's not forget life's essentials first.
http://beginningruby.org/what-ive-earned-and-learned/
Redirects to:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/don/don_0.asp
I can think of two possibilities:
1) Article is bogus
2) Article site got hacked
Same here.
CmdrTaco, are you drunk?
Even worse.
We put our fate into the hands of the senate which is probably corrupted up the wazoo by the very same special interest groups that have the privilege of clearance to these classified documents.
Yes...after we've already committed ourselves by making a binding international agreement to enforce it.
Once it's time to vote on it we will have little choice as a nation to reject it without some international repercussions.
Sadly, I've come to accept that the bad guys have already won.
Big powerful people have us citizens by the balls, and if I were to try to start a grass-roots movement, I'd either get whacked, sued into the ground, or both.
I don't know if I'm ready to martyr myself for that cause yet.
Which is exactly what makes it outrageous.
What the fuck kind of business does MS have with patching someone else's friggin software?
I'd say that MS is illegally making a derivative binary work and should get nailed for infringing on mozilla copyrights.
Additionally, I also say that MS is engaging in anti-competitive behavior by sabotaging a rival product.
As long as it is a part of human nature to lust for power, governments will always suck.
You can consent pretty easy if you're dead.
The thing is that for coffee, we have competition. No java factory would dare make shitty coffee (no pun intended) when their outraged customers could flock to a better brand.
Market based solutions don't work AT ALL in cases of monopoly or cartel.
That's different.
Google only did that because China forced them to. And by forced, I mean that Google didn't want to.
Google's position seems to be:
Well, we would rather have open search, but big gold conehat government won't let us unless we agree to it.
Now, if we don't go there, someone else will and will be more than happy to play 10 times dirtier than us.
Hmm...I think the chinese would be better off with a little of us than a bunch of someone else.
Don't blame google for something that the chinese government forced them into. If you want to blame them for choosing to stay and cooperate, instead of leaving a vacuum behind for someone even sleazier, go right ahead.
So they switch from greenbacks to Soylent Green.
The reason I believe that net neutrality should be enforced is that using anything except a court order to strangle traffic makes it very difficult to avoid collateral damage.