I'd have to say Govt because shareholders/owners historically have been an impotent force for change. I say so with reservations, because while Govt has a better track record, it also can go too far.
To your opinion that you've posted, I would agree with you to a point. Rational self interest is good for society, as long as such interest is indeed "rational". The flaw in your logic is that you are not accounting for human individuality and history. You are assuming that everyone else is "rational" like you. But as you undoubtedly have seen, you are unique in your perspective and that is the problem. That's why we have to have government oversight *to a degree* over private companies with private ownership. There is no other way to guard against the wrong kind of people taking over - those who would rapaciously consume and destroy without regard for anyone else or the duties/responsibilities they are given. Boards and shareholders cannot do it. They have historically been impotent, and continue to be so. Even Carl Icahn and Kirk Kerkorian can't effect change. They're great takeover artists, but they cannot effect change unless they directly own a company.
They're missing the point. I'm fine if someone like you runs a company. But what about a sociopath? At what point do we say "self-regard becomes toxic when in X degree proximity to power"?
I vote we identify exactly which manufactured computers are secretly feeding information back to China, and then we take full advantage of this loophole and send them explicit information about our deviant pr0n addictions! All Tubgirl/Goatse/2-girls-and-cup/Mogging/Gainer_furries all the time! Let's spam their secret government agency servers with so much perversion, filth, horror, and revolting-yet-strangely-exciting deviant sexual behavior that they have no choice but to shut down their entire spyware program to spare what's left of their sanity!
and then we can unleash the Scientologists upon them to help "cure" their scarred psyches! We can kill two birds with one stone! Who's with me????
I don't think your analogy is quite right. The man in the story lived in the city, and he's just as vulnerable as I am. Most of his cohorts probably are in cities as well. Those 'desolate' regions that you talk about in China are very desolate. Computers are cheap in the cities, but there's a vast disconnect between the cities and the country. Most country dwellers in China are trying to move to the cities because there's more opportunity there. My point is that this isn't necessarily something to fear.
But that's just it. That's all they're doing: infecting computer, stealing passwords, etc. If you're telling me that there's hundreds of thousands of guys like this just in China alone doing this, then where are the small armies? Where's the hacker mafias? Why aren't they branching out and taking on organized crime? If they are such deviant evil bastards, then where are the results? I don't think there are any. I think we're making these guys to be more badass than they actually are, and buying their lines that they "make mad money". I don't think they are. I think they're getting by on chump change.
Why is this guy living with his mom if he's such a great and skilled hacker? Where's his money? Where's his grandiose lifestyle? What is he doing with all those computers he's woven into a bot-net? If he's making all that money, why isn't he spending it?
I wonder if we're making the Chinese Dragon out to be far more fearsome than it actually is. Why exactly should I be afraid of him, and all his Chinese brethren? Yes, they can hack, yes they can start and fight a cyber-war. But I am underwhelmed by their power if all they do is sit there day after day, coding, hacking, "making money", and not doing anything with it. And if they do eventually start and fight a cyber war, then they will end up losing the only medium that gives their life meaning. What happens to these guys when we counter-strike (because I refuse to believe that my fellow Western neckbeards would take a cyber-ass-whuppin' from the Chinese lying down)? When their networks go down and their computers are infected or taken out, what then? I can get up and leave my computer. Can they?
I'm a naive bumpkin most likely, I just fail to see how these guys are so formidable. Pathetic is more like it, like a boxer with a glass jaw. Their greatest strength is actually their weakness.
Have the stars finally aligned? There's two 4 UID'rs and two 5 digit UID'rs who've posted within one good scroll wheel spin on this thread. Never thought I'd see the day when THAT happened... who knew discussing reproduction control would bring you tentacled, frothy horrors out of the ravening deeps!
think I'm going to go run for the hills. If a 3 digit UID surfaces, Nyarlathotep can't be too far behind...
One of the issues I've been thinking a lot about lately is the psychological principle of certainty. When you say "...scientists just keep reforming their ideas until it conforms to observable reality. How can they expect anyone to believe what they say when they're just going to keep changing their minds?" you hit upon something important: certainty of belief. How can the average layperson trust scientific opinion when said scientific opinion says "This is FACT... until it's not"? People require certainty of belief in order to operate. They have to know that gravity means you're pulled down, the sun will rise in the east, that the Bernoulli theorem will always work when they're flying. They incorporate these facts into their daily operation and worldview.
So when scientists say "X is true" and then come along several years later and say "No, we were wrong, Y is true" and then come along several years alter and say "Both X and Y were wrong, now Z is true", the average person cannot count on the certainty of X, Y, or Z, or that the scientists are correct. Regardless of the fact that most citizens are taught the scientific process in school, most of them don't retain it because it has little to no impact on their daily lives (they take for granted the progress we've made). And thus, we get people who deny global climate change, or that we walked on the moon, or that vaccines work.
Here on/., we all argue over these topics and for the most part, we understand the scientific process (whether we agree with its findings is a whole other story). We may argue, fight, and haggle, but eventually we do reach a consensus. However, the average citizen never does, and I think that's why we have so much skepticism towards evolution, or climate change, or space flight, or vaccines, or science in general, and why so many choose to cling to organized religion (Up until Vatican II for instance, Catholic dogma had not changed much since the seventh century - that's pretty damn static).
I hope you don't mind me airing my opinion here. I just thought you raised a really interesting point and wanted to call some attention to it. We on/. tend to forget that most of the world's population has no idea what Science is: to them, scientific progress is indistinguishable from magic.
I think this is a good step, in my opinion. And in my opinion, this ruling will allow corporations to fund political statements, and thus candidates directly. This brings them out into the open, where we can truly see them for who they are. Let's say that Megacorp X does what you describe. Do you really think the media will let that go unreported, especially on a hot topic? People will feel resentful that they're being manipulated. Let's allow them to do this: we'll be able to see them and deal with them.
That people are mindless drones who will automatically vote for whomever spends the most dollars to communicate to them. If we were indeed mindless automata who would vote depending on who spent enough money, then yes, you're right. But we're not. And that is what undermines your argument. The SCOTUS is basing their decision on the basis that voters can and will decide for themselves. Now, whether voters choose to vote for he/she who has the most money to spend, that's a whole other beast.
This is interesting. I've always wondered what the downside is to working out hard and building up loads of muscle. I have to wonder: does the heart consider 100 excess pounds of fat and 100 excess pounds of muscle the same? I would think so, because it's the same amount of weight. Your story makes me wonder if we do as much harm to ourselves by pushing ourselves to the limit, as we do sitting on our asses. Perhaps moderation in exercise really is the key.
They're the ones who can outrun a horse (in distance only) and can run up to fifty miles a day, if not more. Men's Health did an article on them about three years back or so? Unbelievable fuckers. Only thing is, they eat and drink a grain/vegetable mash, and that's ALL they eat and drink (for kicks, they ferment it).
And then do some research on how language and culture intermingle with each other to produce certain characteristics in society. Then come back to me and we'll talk about your disdain for moral relativism. Like it or not, nothing is absolute and everything to some degree is relative.
I'm going to disagree somewhat. I'm playing Bioshock right now, and not only am I getting my jollies from one hell of a shooter, but I'm also exposed to a very well written story which includes a good rebuttal to the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. I'm not going to get that from being in the wilderness for two weeks. The game makes me THINK, and ponder, and I tend to enjoy that.
I see your point about breaking away from technology and all, but part of what makes us truly human is the ability to see, analyze, review, and enjoy our creations, and see the universe we built for ourselves, with all its inherent complexities. While breaking away to the wilderness and cutting our technological ties is good for silencing the ego and reconnecting with our selves, that has to be balanced with being engaged with the world as it is, because otherwise you're missing out on half of existence.
I fully accept and agree that you're willing to pay the price of potentially being blown up (potentially equalling extremely far-fetched odds), because you know the true probabilities are close to nil. However, most of these measures being put in place now are being done so because you, me, and most every reader on/. are outnumbered about a thousand to one by Ma and Pa Jones, who may fly only twice a year to see relatives in Chicago or Buffalo, have never been overseas, and want the Government to DO SOMETHING. They vote quite often, aren't quite up to date on the world as we'd like them to be, and more than anything cannot stand to see "Them idiots in congress doing nothin' while terrorists blow up our planes".
When I flew back from Michigan after the Crotch Bomber incident, I remember seeing TV interviews where people in airports were cheerfully saying that they wanted to see the government implement more security measures in response. There were no armed federal soldiers backed up by bureaucrats telling these people what to say. These were average, everyday American citizens telling the government that they want additional security measures in place because they want something to be done about this.
We here on/. tend to get into groupthink and believe that everyone else in the world thinks like we do. Well, we don't. We're a small libertarian-leaning minority in the midst of a whole lot of law-and-order type citizens who want the government to do something about all the dirtbags so they can get on with their lives. So remember that the next time you start ranting about the price to pay for freedom - you are outnumbered and in the minority. Try telling some 40-year-old mother from Peoria that you'd rather sacrifice security for freedom. She'll tell you that no price is too high to make sure her children, and other people's children remain safe.
Re:From an American Point of View
on
Sir Patrick Stewart
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I don't believe that's true of Elizabeth. Charles... maybe, but not his sons William or Henry. From what little I know, Elizabeth's a very formidable politician. She learned from Churchill himself, and I'm sure has passed on her savvy and expertise to Charles (who has shown he's not worthy of it) and to William and Henry (both of whom I think have absorbed their lessons far better). I can see how the armies of the Queen would support her against the parliament should Parliament ever truly screw things up.
I'd argue that it depends on what the Queen (or the King) is trying to veto. There is no guarantee that your Parliament will retain the will of the people - much like we've seen here in the States. There have been occasions in history where small, determined political minorities have gained control of governments because of the vast inaction/disinterest/apathy of the majority and have gone on to do horrible things despite the protests of segments of their population. If that were to ever happen to the UK, I'd say at that point you'd be thrilled that there is a check-and-balance in the form of the monarch and the royal veto.
I suspect there may come a day when England will be glad they have a monarch, and not just for ceremonial purposes. There's an awful lot of power that comes with that crown - there just hasn't been any need for it to show itself in the last hundred years
From an American Point of View
on
Sir Patrick Stewart
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The Queen is a lot more powerful than most people seem to believe. Yes, she is a ceremonial monarch, but her assent (correct me if I'm wrong) is required to convene Parliament in Canada, Australia, and the UK. She is the Defender of the Kingdom, the head of the Anglican Church, and all the UK, Canadian, and Australian armed forces ceremoniously answer to her. Also, she does possess that veto power, but I suspect that if she ever had to use it, there would not be a Constitutional reform movement because most likely the situation would have been so dire that her subjects would agree with her actions, and therefore guarantee no reprisal from any Parliament. She is the Queen of Canada, Australia, and the UK, and she holds the allegiance of millions. If the UK parliament were ever to screw up so badly that it loses the absolute faith of its constituents, then I could see how the monarchy could reassert itself as an applicable executive branch of government.
Perhaps it's like Captain Carrot - a king should remain hidden in the background, coming forward only when needed. I can certainly imagine that if worst came to worst, the British Empire would reunite under Elizabeth's banner, or that of William (couldn't even begin to see that with Charles)
Slashdot Mirror
Is that you???
I'd have to say Govt because shareholders/owners historically have been an impotent force for change. I say so with reservations, because while Govt has a better track record, it also can go too far.
To your opinion that you've posted, I would agree with you to a point. Rational self interest is good for society, as long as such interest is indeed "rational". The flaw in your logic is that you are not accounting for human individuality and history. You are assuming that everyone else is "rational" like you. But as you undoubtedly have seen, you are unique in your perspective and that is the problem. That's why we have to have government oversight *to a degree* over private companies with private ownership. There is no other way to guard against the wrong kind of people taking over - those who would rapaciously consume and destroy without regard for anyone else or the duties/responsibilities they are given. Boards and shareholders cannot do it. They have historically been impotent, and continue to be so. Even Carl Icahn and Kirk Kerkorian can't effect change. They're great takeover artists, but they cannot effect change unless they directly own a company.
They're missing the point. I'm fine if someone like you runs a company. But what about a sociopath? At what point do we say "self-regard becomes toxic when in X degree proximity to power"?
They'll come HERE.
I vote we identify exactly which manufactured computers are secretly feeding information back to China, and then we take full advantage of this loophole and send them explicit information about our deviant pr0n addictions! All Tubgirl/Goatse/2-girls-and-cup/Mogging/Gainer_furries all the time! Let's spam their secret government agency servers with so much perversion, filth, horror, and revolting-yet-strangely-exciting deviant sexual behavior that they have no choice but to shut down their entire spyware program to spare what's left of their sanity!
and then we can unleash the Scientologists upon them to help "cure" their scarred psyches! We can kill two birds with one stone! Who's with me????
I don't think your analogy is quite right. The man in the story lived in the city, and he's just as vulnerable as I am. Most of his cohorts probably are in cities as well. Those 'desolate' regions that you talk about in China are very desolate. Computers are cheap in the cities, but there's a vast disconnect between the cities and the country. Most country dwellers in China are trying to move to the cities because there's more opportunity there. My point is that this isn't necessarily something to fear.
But that's just it. That's all they're doing: infecting computer, stealing passwords, etc. If you're telling me that there's hundreds of thousands of guys like this just in China alone doing this, then where are the small armies? Where's the hacker mafias? Why aren't they branching out and taking on organized crime? If they are such deviant evil bastards, then where are the results? I don't think there are any. I think we're making these guys to be more badass than they actually are, and buying their lines that they "make mad money". I don't think they are. I think they're getting by on chump change.
Why is this guy living with his mom if he's such a great and skilled hacker? Where's his money? Where's his grandiose lifestyle? What is he doing with all those computers he's woven into a bot-net? If he's making all that money, why isn't he spending it?
I wonder if we're making the Chinese Dragon out to be far more fearsome than it actually is. Why exactly should I be afraid of him, and all his Chinese brethren? Yes, they can hack, yes they can start and fight a cyber-war. But I am underwhelmed by their power if all they do is sit there day after day, coding, hacking, "making money", and not doing anything with it. And if they do eventually start and fight a cyber war, then they will end up losing the only medium that gives their life meaning. What happens to these guys when we counter-strike (because I refuse to believe that my fellow Western neckbeards would take a cyber-ass-whuppin' from the Chinese lying down)? When their networks go down and their computers are infected or taken out, what then? I can get up and leave my computer. Can they?
I'm a naive bumpkin most likely, I just fail to see how these guys are so formidable. Pathetic is more like it, like a boxer with a glass jaw. Their greatest strength is actually their weakness.
Have the stars finally aligned? There's two 4 UID'rs and two 5 digit UID'rs who've posted within one good scroll wheel spin on this thread. Never thought I'd see the day when THAT happened... who knew discussing reproduction control would bring you tentacled, frothy horrors out of the ravening deeps!
think I'm going to go run for the hills. If a 3 digit UID surfaces, Nyarlathotep can't be too far behind...
One of the issues I've been thinking a lot about lately is the psychological principle of certainty. When you say "...scientists just keep reforming their ideas until it conforms to observable reality. How can they expect anyone to believe what they say when they're just going to keep changing their minds?" you hit upon something important: certainty of belief. How can the average layperson trust scientific opinion when said scientific opinion says "This is FACT... until it's not"? People require certainty of belief in order to operate. They have to know that gravity means you're pulled down, the sun will rise in the east, that the Bernoulli theorem will always work when they're flying. They incorporate these facts into their daily operation and worldview.
So when scientists say "X is true" and then come along several years later and say "No, we were wrong, Y is true" and then come along several years alter and say "Both X and Y were wrong, now Z is true", the average person cannot count on the certainty of X, Y, or Z, or that the scientists are correct. Regardless of the fact that most citizens are taught the scientific process in school, most of them don't retain it because it has little to no impact on their daily lives (they take for granted the progress we've made). And thus, we get people who deny global climate change, or that we walked on the moon, or that vaccines work.
Here on /., we all argue over these topics and for the most part, we understand the scientific process (whether we agree with its findings is a whole other story). We may argue, fight, and haggle, but eventually we do reach a consensus. However, the average citizen never does, and I think that's why we have so much skepticism towards evolution, or climate change, or space flight, or vaccines, or science in general, and why so many choose to cling to organized religion (Up until Vatican II for instance, Catholic dogma had not changed much since the seventh century - that's pretty damn static).
I hope you don't mind me airing my opinion here. I just thought you raised a really interesting point and wanted to call some attention to it. We on /. tend to forget that most of the world's population has no idea what Science is: to them, scientific progress is indistinguishable from magic.
I think this is a good step, in my opinion. And in my opinion, this ruling will allow corporations to fund political statements, and thus candidates directly. This brings them out into the open, where we can truly see them for who they are. Let's say that Megacorp X does what you describe. Do you really think the media will let that go unreported, especially on a hot topic? People will feel resentful that they're being manipulated. Let's allow them to do this: we'll be able to see them and deal with them.
That people are mindless drones who will automatically vote for whomever spends the most dollars to communicate to them. If we were indeed mindless automata who would vote depending on who spent enough money, then yes, you're right. But we're not. And that is what undermines your argument. The SCOTUS is basing their decision on the basis that voters can and will decide for themselves. Now, whether voters choose to vote for he/she who has the most money to spend, that's a whole other beast.
Who was the brave, yet utterly retarded soul who would dare to catalogue the taste sensations?
This is interesting. I've always wondered what the downside is to working out hard and building up loads of muscle. I have to wonder: does the heart consider 100 excess pounds of fat and 100 excess pounds of muscle the same? I would think so, because it's the same amount of weight. Your story makes me wonder if we do as much harm to ourselves by pushing ourselves to the limit, as we do sitting on our asses. Perhaps moderation in exercise really is the key.
They're the ones who can outrun a horse (in distance only) and can run up to fifty miles a day, if not more. Men's Health did an article on them about three years back or so? Unbelievable fuckers. Only thing is, they eat and drink a grain/vegetable mash, and that's ALL they eat and drink (for kicks, they ferment it).
And then do some research on how language and culture intermingle with each other to produce certain characteristics in society. Then come back to me and we'll talk about your disdain for moral relativism. Like it or not, nothing is absolute and everything to some degree is relative.
And it's been going on for hundreds of years. You are wise to point this out, and I salute you, sir.
I'm going to disagree somewhat. I'm playing Bioshock right now, and not only am I getting my jollies from one hell of a shooter, but I'm also exposed to a very well written story which includes a good rebuttal to the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. I'm not going to get that from being in the wilderness for two weeks. The game makes me THINK, and ponder, and I tend to enjoy that.
I see your point about breaking away from technology and all, but part of what makes us truly human is the ability to see, analyze, review, and enjoy our creations, and see the universe we built for ourselves, with all its inherent complexities. While breaking away to the wilderness and cutting our technological ties is good for silencing the ego and reconnecting with our selves, that has to be balanced with being engaged with the world as it is, because otherwise you're missing out on half of existence.
Depends on how the goose gets used... he could be so very, very NOT vanilla.
FEATHERS!!!
I fully accept and agree that you're willing to pay the price of potentially being blown up (potentially equalling extremely far-fetched odds), because you know the true probabilities are close to nil. However, most of these measures being put in place now are being done so because you, me, and most every reader on /. are outnumbered about a thousand to one by Ma and Pa Jones, who may fly only twice a year to see relatives in Chicago or Buffalo, have never been overseas, and want the Government to DO SOMETHING. They vote quite often, aren't quite up to date on the world as we'd like them to be, and more than anything cannot stand to see "Them idiots in congress doing nothin' while terrorists blow up our planes".
When I flew back from Michigan after the Crotch Bomber incident, I remember seeing TV interviews where people in airports were cheerfully saying that they wanted to see the government implement more security measures in response. There were no armed federal soldiers backed up by bureaucrats telling these people what to say. These were average, everyday American citizens telling the government that they want additional security measures in place because they want something to be done about this.
We here on /. tend to get into groupthink and believe that everyone else in the world thinks like we do. Well, we don't. We're a small libertarian-leaning minority in the midst of a whole lot of law-and-order type citizens who want the government to do something about all the dirtbags so they can get on with their lives. So remember that the next time you start ranting about the price to pay for freedom - you are outnumbered and in the minority. Try telling some 40-year-old mother from Peoria that you'd rather sacrifice security for freedom. She'll tell you that no price is too high to make sure her children, and other people's children remain safe.
I don't believe that's true of Elizabeth. Charles... maybe, but not his sons William or Henry. From what little I know, Elizabeth's a very formidable politician. She learned from Churchill himself, and I'm sure has passed on her savvy and expertise to Charles (who has shown he's not worthy of it) and to William and Henry (both of whom I think have absorbed their lessons far better). I can see how the armies of the Queen would support her against the parliament should Parliament ever truly screw things up.
I'd argue that it depends on what the Queen (or the King) is trying to veto. There is no guarantee that your Parliament will retain the will of the people - much like we've seen here in the States. There have been occasions in history where small, determined political minorities have gained control of governments because of the vast inaction/disinterest/apathy of the majority and have gone on to do horrible things despite the protests of segments of their population. If that were to ever happen to the UK, I'd say at that point you'd be thrilled that there is a check-and-balance in the form of the monarch and the royal veto.
I suspect there may come a day when England will be glad they have a monarch, and not just for ceremonial purposes. There's an awful lot of power that comes with that crown - there just hasn't been any need for it to show itself in the last hundred years
The Queen is a lot more powerful than most people seem to believe. Yes, she is a ceremonial monarch, but her assent (correct me if I'm wrong) is required to convene Parliament in Canada, Australia, and the UK. She is the Defender of the Kingdom, the head of the Anglican Church, and all the UK, Canadian, and Australian armed forces ceremoniously answer to her. Also, she does possess that veto power, but I suspect that if she ever had to use it, there would not be a Constitutional reform movement because most likely the situation would have been so dire that her subjects would agree with her actions, and therefore guarantee no reprisal from any Parliament. She is the Queen of Canada, Australia, and the UK, and she holds the allegiance of millions. If the UK parliament were ever to screw up so badly that it loses the absolute faith of its constituents, then I could see how the monarchy could reassert itself as an applicable executive branch of government.
Perhaps it's like Captain Carrot - a king should remain hidden in the background, coming forward only when needed. I can certainly imagine that if worst came to worst, the British Empire would reunite under Elizabeth's banner, or that of William (couldn't even begin to see that with Charles)
God bless you, Adolf. I needed that this morning :-)
Dude, that'd be the most bad-ass tiki hut on the planet