On the quiet it is not unlikely that the wealthy are also investing in genetic research, head transplants and other medical life extension investigations that are not at all crackpot, just mainly unsavory. But we will not be told about them of course.
Information still leaks out...like the rumors that Peter Thiel is getting blood transfusions from young people. There may be some merit to such a procedure. Other than that, there's cryogenic corpse-freezing (which the rich are quite interested in) and then just the various crackpot stuff.
(Replying O/T to post this as close to the top as possible)
To help express that Slashdot should not go forward with this interview, tag the article "cancel" until it's the top tag. Thank you and don't reply with a question for the Q&A.
I think that wonkey_monkey's post above describing why not posting in this thread is a good course of action has sound reasoning, but I will reply to second your point.
Slashdot, cancel this Q&A, do not submit these questions to him. In fact, if this whole article were deleted I wouldn't complain.
The answer to this is publicly available. He bought it to "keep it from the people" in response to a crowdfunding campaign to buy the record and release it to the public, and as such has no plans to release it himself.
It also seems he has no plans to improve his public image, quite the opposite.
First, I think this is an exceptional situation - there's a stupid, childish, hotheaded racist demagogue close to taking the White House. If we don't take exceptional (but legal) steps to stop this exceptionally bad situation from happening, then the lessons of history have been wasted.
Next, even though the rules have changed in an undesirable way, BuzzFeed is playing by the new rules, they're not doing anything the other side isn't. While it would be morally admirable to abstain from the newly legal behavior, if you're going to admonish them for playing by the rules then you should be consistent - you're the one showing selective, partisan outrage by singling out BuzzFeed.
Finally, Hillary has promised to overturn Citizens United within her first 30 days in office. Trump, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have a real position on campaign finance reform. On one hand, he implies that he doesn't like corporate money in politics in his campaigning, but on the other he's put forth far-right judges as potential supreme court picks, which would serve to maintain the status quo or even make it worse if possible. So, Buzzfeed's actions could serve to ultimately reduce corporate money's interference in politics, if Hillary keeps her promise.
If you knew how to game the system the way Trump, Gates, Jobs or Clinton did, you would do it too.
Wrong, I know how to game the system and choose not to, because I like to put a fair share of my money into funding the civilization I live in, so I just do my taxes vanilla style. Much easier too.
No you're just making that up. The energy to run a horseless carriage wasn't unprecedented: it was about the same needed to run a conventional carriage. You're correct that a manufacturing line and economies of scale were the major factor in making cars affordable though, because the cost of manufacture was what made cars rich people toys for over a hundred years before the model A came out, not energy costs.
This is one of those things that will remain a rich people toy at best for the foreseeable future simply due to the amount of energy required. See also: Civilian supersonic flight, space tourism.
Gonna need a source for that. Consumer-led boycotts for political reasons in general are a neutral tool that could be used for good or bad. There have only been a few we'd consider bad today, most were explicitly organized by governments or political parties. Whether a boycott against Palmer Luckey or anyone else ends up on the wrong side of history depends on the intent and effect of the boycott, not on the simple fact that it is a boycott based on objections to an individuals' political donations.
Again, would you consider a boycott of my hypothetical supermarket where John Smith, ISIS donor, works to be evil? Answer that plainly for me please, and maybe we can get to the root of your assertion that this type of action is categorically evil.
We'll just have to disagree on whether ceasing to fund a business due to contributions to political activity you disagree with is evil. I think it isn't.
And BTW, we do basically live in a society where everyone does every evil thing they think they can get away with - almost all of the population does in at least some areas, some do in almost all areas. Laws are there to set the boundaries on behavior, limiting how much "evil" people can get away with. Some activities flourish on the fringes however...see: Tax avoidance, predator colleges, the mugshot shaming industry, PacNet, etc.
What you call "blacklisting" is just the collective effect of people using the freedom. So should people have the freedom but all politely agree to not use it?
How are my examples different, because I didn't use an employee's name? Well let's say a high-ranking employee named John Smith at the hypothetical company is making the donations out of his pay. If the company fires John Smith, money you spend at the company will cease to fund the activity in question as a result. Now tell me if you would continue to support my hypothetical ISIS-funding supermarket, and at what point you feel a line is crossed between an acceptable and unacceptable boycott.
I will now go on record specifically supporting and endorsing the right to cease doing business with Oculus over Palmer Luckey's donations. Throughout this discussion I've supported freedom of association in business relationships for political reasons so this should be no surprise to you, this particular situation is no exception.
Now you're just resorting to name-calling. I'm not in charge of any blacklist. I just have the freedom to choose who I do business with for political reasons, and I am willing to exercise it, and see no reason not to. Many others happen to think the same way.
It's laughable to call no longer patronizing a business nasty or evil. Hurtful or punishing, perhaps in a small way, but I might find the offending action they've taken hurtful or punishing, or even nasty and evil as well. There are plenty of companies I have no problem with that I haven't given any business, am I being nasty and evil to Lamborghini? If a company uses the money I've given them to do things I find abhorrent, and I simply wish to cease indirectly funding this activity, how is that nasty or evil?
Furthermore at what point is it OK to stop funding harmful activity indirectly? I assume it would be acceptable to you to stop patronizing a supermarket that was found to be making donations to ISIS (for the sake of argument - if they could legally get away with that). But at what point would it be wrong to change your business practices? If they were funding the KKK? A local communist party or neo-nazi party? Is there some Overton window or legal definition that the activity must fall within where you draw the line, or would you indeed find it wrong to stop patronizing my hypothetical ISIS-funding supermarket?
So it seems you're actually interested in equating the collective effect of freedom of association with industry and government employment blacklists. They're simply different things. One is enforced by a centralized authority and makes it impossible to be hired regardless of the politics of a company's customer base, the other is simply an effect of decentralized freedom of association and as I've said, would require strict controls on freedom of association to prevent. It doesn't prevent someone from working with a customer base that agrees with them - Palmer Luckey could get a job managing a Trump hat production fac- uh, final assembly plant right now.
Branding the intent of those who choose not to fund people who contribute to political efforts they find abhorrent as evil, hatred and an attempt to hurt is (like,) just your opinion (, man). I, for one, think the things that Brendan Eich and Palmer Luckey support are evil, hateful and hurtful. What now?
What is the issue then? If you just want to call anyone who supports or exercises their freedom of association in business for political reasons a "blacklister" then you're only interested in name-calling and I'll leave you to it.
Exactly. If he put any thought into that statement, he's certainly a closeted Social Injustice Enthusiast of some kind. They want special protection for their political speech and will try to twist logic into a pretzel to make it seem like a reasonable goal possible outside of a totalitarian dictatorship.
You misrepresent the collective effect of people being free to choose who they do business with for political reasons as a "blacklist." I, for one, will publicly state my support for freedom of choice in business relationships, including for political reasons, by any arbitrary number of people.
The alternative would require a state policing mechanism to offer special protection for certain political speech and force business relationships to continue where there is a suspicion that they may have been discontinued for political reasons. Is that what you want?
Slashdot Mirror
My wife used to work for hospice.
When she says "transitioned" she means "died."
Makes sense. The people "transition" into corpses :-P
There are huge industries built around things that fail the toothbrush test. Does Google not like getting a return on their investments?
They're probably finishing up the feature right now...it's nothing a few dummy accounts posing as staffing agencies can't fix.
On the quiet it is not unlikely that the wealthy are also investing in genetic research, head transplants and other medical life extension investigations that are not at all crackpot, just mainly unsavory. But we will not be told about them of course.
Information still leaks out...like the rumors that Peter Thiel is getting blood transfusions from young people. There may be some merit to such a procedure. Other than that, there's cryogenic corpse-freezing (which the rich are quite interested in) and then just the various crackpot stuff.
(Replying O/T to post this as close to the top as possible)
To help express that Slashdot should not go forward with this interview, tag the article "cancel" until it's the top tag. Thank you and don't reply with a question for the Q&A.
Here's how you can break the cancellation to him.
I think that wonkey_monkey's post above describing why not posting in this thread is a good course of action has sound reasoning, but I will reply to second your point.
Slashdot, cancel this Q&A, do not submit these questions to him. In fact, if this whole article were deleted I wouldn't complain.
The answer to this is publicly available. He bought it to "keep it from the people" in response to a crowdfunding campaign to buy the record and release it to the public, and as such has no plans to release it himself.
It also seems he has no plans to improve his public image, quite the opposite.
Sure, if the decision is overturned and they do it again they should be arrested!
First, I think this is an exceptional situation - there's a stupid, childish, hotheaded racist demagogue close to taking the White House. If we don't take exceptional (but legal) steps to stop this exceptionally bad situation from happening, then the lessons of history have been wasted.
Next, even though the rules have changed in an undesirable way, BuzzFeed is playing by the new rules, they're not doing anything the other side isn't. While it would be morally admirable to abstain from the newly legal behavior, if you're going to admonish them for playing by the rules then you should be consistent - you're the one showing selective, partisan outrage by singling out BuzzFeed.
Finally, Hillary has promised to overturn Citizens United within her first 30 days in office. Trump, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have a real position on campaign finance reform. On one hand, he implies that he doesn't like corporate money in politics in his campaigning, but on the other he's put forth far-right judges as potential supreme court picks, which would serve to maintain the status quo or even make it worse if possible. So, Buzzfeed's actions could serve to ultimately reduce corporate money's interference in politics, if Hillary keeps her promise.
If you knew how to game the system the way Trump, Gates, Jobs or Clinton did, you would do it too.
Wrong, I know how to game the system and choose not to, because I like to put a fair share of my money into funding the civilization I live in, so I just do my taxes vanilla style. Much easier too.
Vote for Trump = Drop napalm on the whole F-ing thing.
(including yourself, the economy, social progress, etc)
I was dreading the day that the record companies would learn that they'd been voluntarily uploading their music to a new Napster for years.
No you're just making that up. The energy to run a horseless carriage wasn't unprecedented: it was about the same needed to run a conventional carriage. You're correct that a manufacturing line and economies of scale were the major factor in making cars affordable though, because the cost of manufacture was what made cars rich people toys for over a hundred years before the model A came out, not energy costs.
This is one of those things that will remain a rich people toy at best for the foreseeable future simply due to the amount of energy required. See also: Civilian supersonic flight, space tourism.
Gonna need a source for that. Consumer-led boycotts for political reasons in general are a neutral tool that could be used for good or bad. There have only been a few we'd consider bad today, most were explicitly organized by governments or political parties. Whether a boycott against Palmer Luckey or anyone else ends up on the wrong side of history depends on the intent and effect of the boycott, not on the simple fact that it is a boycott based on objections to an individuals' political donations.
Again, would you consider a boycott of my hypothetical supermarket where John Smith, ISIS donor, works to be evil? Answer that plainly for me please, and maybe we can get to the root of your assertion that this type of action is categorically evil.
We'll just have to disagree on whether ceasing to fund a business due to contributions to political activity you disagree with is evil. I think it isn't.
And BTW, we do basically live in a society where everyone does every evil thing they think they can get away with - almost all of the population does in at least some areas, some do in almost all areas. Laws are there to set the boundaries on behavior, limiting how much "evil" people can get away with. Some activities flourish on the fringes however...see: Tax avoidance, predator colleges, the mugshot shaming industry, PacNet, etc.
What you call "blacklisting" is just the collective effect of people using the freedom. So should people have the freedom but all politely agree to not use it?
How are my examples different, because I didn't use an employee's name? Well let's say a high-ranking employee named John Smith at the hypothetical company is making the donations out of his pay. If the company fires John Smith, money you spend at the company will cease to fund the activity in question as a result. Now tell me if you would continue to support my hypothetical ISIS-funding supermarket, and at what point you feel a line is crossed between an acceptable and unacceptable boycott.
I will now go on record specifically supporting and endorsing the right to cease doing business with Oculus over Palmer Luckey's donations. Throughout this discussion I've supported freedom of association in business relationships for political reasons so this should be no surprise to you, this particular situation is no exception.
Your move.
Now you're just resorting to name-calling. I'm not in charge of any blacklist. I just have the freedom to choose who I do business with for political reasons, and I am willing to exercise it, and see no reason not to. Many others happen to think the same way.
It's laughable to call no longer patronizing a business nasty or evil. Hurtful or punishing, perhaps in a small way, but I might find the offending action they've taken hurtful or punishing, or even nasty and evil as well. There are plenty of companies I have no problem with that I haven't given any business, am I being nasty and evil to Lamborghini? If a company uses the money I've given them to do things I find abhorrent, and I simply wish to cease indirectly funding this activity, how is that nasty or evil?
Furthermore at what point is it OK to stop funding harmful activity indirectly? I assume it would be acceptable to you to stop patronizing a supermarket that was found to be making donations to ISIS (for the sake of argument - if they could legally get away with that). But at what point would it be wrong to change your business practices? If they were funding the KKK? A local communist party or neo-nazi party? Is there some Overton window or legal definition that the activity must fall within where you draw the line, or would you indeed find it wrong to stop patronizing my hypothetical ISIS-funding supermarket?
So it seems you're actually interested in equating the collective effect of freedom of association with industry and government employment blacklists. They're simply different things. One is enforced by a centralized authority and makes it impossible to be hired regardless of the politics of a company's customer base, the other is simply an effect of decentralized freedom of association and as I've said, would require strict controls on freedom of association to prevent. It doesn't prevent someone from working with a customer base that agrees with them - Palmer Luckey could get a job managing a Trump hat production fac- uh, final assembly plant right now.
Branding the intent of those who choose not to fund people who contribute to political efforts they find abhorrent as evil, hatred and an attempt to hurt is (like,) just your opinion (, man). I, for one, think the things that Brendan Eich and Palmer Luckey support are evil, hateful and hurtful. What now?
What is the issue then? If you just want to call anyone who supports or exercises their freedom of association in business for political reasons a "blacklister" then you're only interested in name-calling and I'll leave you to it.
Exactly. If he put any thought into that statement, he's certainly a closeted Social Injustice Enthusiast of some kind. They want special protection for their political speech and will try to twist logic into a pretzel to make it seem like a reasonable goal possible outside of a totalitarian dictatorship.
You misrepresent the collective effect of people being free to choose who they do business with for political reasons as a "blacklist." I, for one, will publicly state my support for freedom of choice in business relationships, including for political reasons, by any arbitrary number of people.
The alternative would require a state policing mechanism to offer special protection for certain political speech and force business relationships to continue where there is a suspicion that they may have been discontinued for political reasons. Is that what you want?
GCHQ actually has the software to facilitate this...
Awesome, if I'd had this option earlier, I could've avoided installing this piece of shit that scans every single file on your computer at startup!