The more names of 'important' people who are on the list, the more it should be published. Maybe then someone will actually decide that prosecuting consensual crimes like this isn't generally worth the risk.
Though, waiting until she and her partner are found guilty might be a good plan.
Believe it or not, there are libertarians who believe the ability to incorporate at all should be strictly limited, and corporate dissolution should be liberally applied to companies who break the law.
Yeah, libertarian or not, I'm in that camp. A modern corporation is a state sponsored way to dodge responsibility while still wielding vast authority.
Then go live in a country where the constitution is just paper. Or, wait, I guess you are (if you live in the same country I do).
Most freedoms worth having require a powerful entity to give up some of the freedom it has to impose its will on others. And not all forms of coercion involve a gun or a club.
What fallacy? The poster that brought up government interference here was you. And isn't essentially correct that libertarians believe that a private corporation can do what it wants outside of illegal activities? So their choice to exclude him from debates - too damn bad. I don't remember a Constitutional right to appear in debates.
The fallacy that because you don't believe in government interference in corporate affairs, you don't believe that corporations should ever be criticized for doing anything that isn't illegal.
No, of course, there's no constitutional right to appear in a debate. And if you feel like it's fine for them to exclude him, that's great too. But implying that he should feel just hunky-dory about being excluded because all decisions made by a corporation are automatically above any sort of reproach at all is ridiculous and wrong.
The media doesn't want to upset the applecart, especially by putting on one of those dirty 'libertarians'. Heck, even in this Slashdot article you have people erecting strawman arguments and then asking why you're upset.
But really, what it is is that the media loves the advertising money from the candidates. It's in their best interests to promulgate the idea that advertising and money wins elections, because that money is spent on them. So they go out of their way to avoid providing free advertising to any candidate who hasn't paid them for enough paid advertising.
And the two party system is a great source of the kind of fake controversy over irrelevant issues that is the bread and butter of mass media. So they don't really want that to go away either. Too much money tied up in keeping things just as they are.
This is ABC's decision. As a Libertarian surely you wouldn't want to interfere with the choice that a private company made.
Ahh, yes, that old trotted out stupid fallacy. If you don't want a government to interfere in a decision, that must mean you think every decision made by a corporate entity should be met with a tub full of KY-jelly and a re-enactment of the scene from goatse.
For your information, it is possible to object to a decision, or even something someone said, without asking a government to back up your objection with violence. It's even possible to arrange a boycott, or a protest outside a studio, or any number of other private or popular actions in protest of a decision you don't like, yet none of those require the invocation of coercive force.
Not that I'm really much of a liberatarian in many ways. But this stupidity always really irritates me.
That's exactly the argument I knew you would bring up.
nVidia makes the best graphics hardware in the world. Their only competitor is ATI/AMD and they're a somewhat distant second.
The 'choice' you speak of is the choice between having decent graphics capabilities and giving up my freedom, or not having them. Modern UI elements, modern games, many things require these graphics capabilities to work. It's nearly to the point where I have the choice between stuck back at 2003 level computing or giving up my freedom.
That's not really much of a choice.
It isn't quite as bad as that as nVidia does have competitors, and those competitors produce things that bring me up to 2009 or 2010 without having to give up my freedom. But really, nobody should ever be faced with a choice of buying a product and using it's capabilities or freedom.
There are many cases where these kinds of choices that are considered to be freedom hostile are removed. For example, supposedly the US constitution denies us the choice to vote for laws that render us insecure from search and seizure, even if those laws would result in a complete lack of risk of being the victim of a criminal. We are denied the right to give up our freedom to work elsewhere in exchange for a job. We lack the freedom to vote for laws that disallow people from saying things we don't want to hear.
This is exactly the same kind of choice. When the choice is available for companies to take away the freedom of their users in exchange for even a perceived ability to make more money, or even just control the market, that's exactly what they will do, almost invariably.
They shouldn't have that choice. It should be removed from the field of things that they are allowed to do. Taking away that freedom from them disallows them from forcing thousands of users into the uncomfortable choice between a decent standard of product or service and their freedom.
*grin* Or, it could be argued, the GPL is being used to prevent the device manufacturer from taking away the user's freedom.
The nVidia driver's are buggy security holes (a known fact, there was a recently discovered security hole that nVidia sat on for years without ever bothering to fix), and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they had code that was designed to prevent me from doing certain things with my computer or even spy on me. They are inimical to my freedom as a user.
Rubbish, it absolutely does not, nobody can close BSD-licensed code. It allows the ability to create a closed source derivative of a BSD-licensed work but your extrapolation of that to a scenario where suddenly everyone is dependent on a proprietary version is completely erroneous and without merit. True altruism comes from people choosing to be altruistic, not being forced to be.
Really? If that's true, then why bother with the GPL at all then? I mean, nobody bothers to close the code up anyway, so what's the point?
Strangely, your comment is relevant to my post as well as the one you intended to reply to.:-) Jenkins CI is a great tool for achieving the goal of being able to push to production anytime you want.
My freedoms all come with a 'but'. I can swing my fists all I want, but not if I hit someone. I can own anything I want, but not other people. I consider the BSD license less free because it allows others to infringe on people's freedom. I avoid BSD licensed code as much as is feasible for this reason. In the long run it is poisonous to my freedom even if it provides no obstacles in the short-term.
I would rather know exactly what software my hardware is running that having it run secret software that does who knows what. I don't particularly care how 'incredibly useful' that software proclaims to be. If the creators won't open it up to me, it almost certainly serves their interests over my own and is a tool to enslave me.
The goal is to always be able to push to production. Have a continuous integration and test system that allows you to have confidence that you can always push the latest build to production. Automate as much of your testing as possible so your build and test process can produce something that a human test team actually has to work hard to break.
Also, you should pipeline your approval process. Always be in the process of approving a new build to go out while you're working on the next one. This will put a lot of pressure on this process to be faster and more efficient. Holding the people responsible for this process accountable for production breaks will put counter-pressure ensuring that they do not become more efficient at the expense of actually doing the job.
My eyes can distinguish between several different point sources of EM radiation with quite a wide spectral range. I suppose that radio waves are a bit harder to handle using a focusing mechanism. But you can use timing difference between different antennas if all you care about is a point source.
Unfortunately for your argument, I actually do have a problem with FCC regulations about physical transmitters. I would rather the receiver be made smart enough to be able to distinguish one point-source of EM radiation from another than restrict what people can broadcast and with what equipment.
Public education starts with a cultural intolerance for the activity, just like you demonstrated. People who do this should either have the cops called on them, or confronted and told that their behavior is out-of-line and what they're doing constitutes assault.
But no, no ban. No licensing. That's a ridiculous imposition on freedom. Once it becomes clear that it's considered the same and will be treated the same as if they slugged someone in the face people will stop doing it.
This is so clearly and obviously a poblem, and avoiding the behavior so simple and unrestrictive of rights that I don't feel having this activity be criminal is a bad idea. Yes, there should be a technical solution as well, for a wide variety of reasons. But I see that as an adjunct to legal protection, not a replacement for it.
Basically, shining a laser (even a low-power laser) at someone should be considered a form of assault. And it needs to be societally recognized that this is the case. Just as two people can play fight, or you can play fight with your cat (until your cat's had enough and bites you that is) you can play assault each other with a laser pointer. You don't have to get ridiculous about enforcing it. But it should be considered assault if it's non-consensual, and the acknowledgement that it is is a cultural expectation we need to all do our parts to help uphold.
I disagree. They presented an idea of what they wanted to accomplish and where they wanted to go and why they wanted to go there. That idea resonated with a lot of people. Yes, they wanted to build a replacement for Facebook, but everybody else expected an immediate Facebook killer that everybody would immediately be able to jump to. The real world doesn't work like that. Even if their initial version was flawless it would still necessarily have had limited functionality (what can actually be accomplished in 3 months of development from a fresh start by 4 people, no matter how much money they have?), and it's quite clear that it would've taken quite awhile for everybody to switch to it from Facebook.
I was somewhat disappointed with the mass of security flaws that my money bought. But once I put in my money, I knew that I was taking a risk. And I felt that what I did get out of it was worth the money I put in. Because part of what I got out of it was a large community of people who all shared the same vision and pushed the project forward even after the initial disappointing (though clearly an honest and strong effort) start.
My hopes were high, and my expectations low. That's how I treat all the Kickstarter projects I donate to. It's a 'donation' for a reason.
Well, the project is still going strong. I've been keeping tabs on it from afar, waiting until I felt it was likely safe and reasonable to bring up my own seed.
I've seen it mentioned a few other places. A maker space I follow debated hosting a Diaspora instance. A few other people I know have talked about it spontaneously.
Slashdot Mirror
That stinks to high heaven. But, I assume that the 'suicide' story was the official line and they never investigated for a possible murder?
The more names of 'important' people who are on the list, the more it should be published. Maybe then someone will actually decide that prosecuting consensual crimes like this isn't generally worth the risk.
Though, waiting until she and her partner are found guilty might be a good plan.
Believe it or not, there are libertarians who believe the ability to incorporate at all should be strictly limited, and corporate dissolution should be liberally applied to companies who break the law.
Yeah, libertarian or not, I'm in that camp. A modern corporation is a state sponsored way to dodge responsibility while still wielding vast authority.
The anonymous coward who replied to you said it as good or better than I could've.
I'm not much of a libertarian, but you have let your hatred of an ideology blind you to what it's actually about.
Then go live in a country where the constitution is just paper. Or, wait, I guess you are (if you live in the same country I do).
Most freedoms worth having require a powerful entity to give up some of the freedom it has to impose its will on others. And not all forms of coercion involve a gun or a club.
Getting people to boycott the station or write letters or otherwise give them really bad publicity is also a perfectly valid option.
What fallacy? The poster that brought up government interference here was you. And isn't essentially correct that libertarians believe that a private corporation can do what it wants outside of illegal activities? So their choice to exclude him from debates - too damn bad. I don't remember a Constitutional right to appear in debates.
The fallacy that because you don't believe in government interference in corporate affairs, you don't believe that corporations should ever be criticized for doing anything that isn't illegal.
No, of course, there's no constitutional right to appear in a debate. And if you feel like it's fine for them to exclude him, that's great too. But implying that he should feel just hunky-dory about being excluded because all decisions made by a corporation are automatically above any sort of reproach at all is ridiculous and wrong.
The media doesn't want to upset the applecart, especially by putting on one of those dirty 'libertarians'. Heck, even in this Slashdot article you have people erecting strawman arguments and then asking why you're upset.
But really, what it is is that the media loves the advertising money from the candidates. It's in their best interests to promulgate the idea that advertising and money wins elections, because that money is spent on them. So they go out of their way to avoid providing free advertising to any candidate who hasn't paid them for enough paid advertising.
And the two party system is a great source of the kind of fake controversy over irrelevant issues that is the bread and butter of mass media. So they don't really want that to go away either. Too much money tied up in keeping things just as they are.
This is ABC's decision. As a Libertarian surely you wouldn't want to interfere with the choice that a private company made.
Ahh, yes, that old trotted out stupid fallacy. If you don't want a government to interfere in a decision, that must mean you think every decision made by a corporate entity should be met with a tub full of KY-jelly and a re-enactment of the scene from goatse.
For your information, it is possible to object to a decision, or even something someone said, without asking a government to back up your objection with violence. It's even possible to arrange a boycott, or a protest outside a studio, or any number of other private or popular actions in protest of a decision you don't like, yet none of those require the invocation of coercive force.
Not that I'm really much of a liberatarian in many ways. But this stupidity always really irritates me.
That's exactly the argument I knew you would bring up.
nVidia makes the best graphics hardware in the world. Their only competitor is ATI/AMD and they're a somewhat distant second.
The 'choice' you speak of is the choice between having decent graphics capabilities and giving up my freedom, or not having them. Modern UI elements, modern games, many things require these graphics capabilities to work. It's nearly to the point where I have the choice between stuck back at 2003 level computing or giving up my freedom.
That's not really much of a choice.
It isn't quite as bad as that as nVidia does have competitors, and those competitors produce things that bring me up to 2009 or 2010 without having to give up my freedom. But really, nobody should ever be faced with a choice of buying a product and using it's capabilities or freedom.
There are many cases where these kinds of choices that are considered to be freedom hostile are removed. For example, supposedly the US constitution denies us the choice to vote for laws that render us insecure from search and seizure, even if those laws would result in a complete lack of risk of being the victim of a criminal. We are denied the right to give up our freedom to work elsewhere in exchange for a job. We lack the freedom to vote for laws that disallow people from saying things we don't want to hear.
This is exactly the same kind of choice. When the choice is available for companies to take away the freedom of their users in exchange for even a perceived ability to make more money, or even just control the market, that's exactly what they will do, almost invariably.
They shouldn't have that choice. It should be removed from the field of things that they are allowed to do. Taking away that freedom from them disallows them from forcing thousands of users into the uncomfortable choice between a decent standard of product or service and their freedom.
*grin* Or, it could be argued, the GPL is being used to prevent the device manufacturer from taking away the user's freedom.
The nVidia driver's are buggy security holes (a known fact, there was a recently discovered security hole that nVidia sat on for years without ever bothering to fix), and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they had code that was designed to prevent me from doing certain things with my computer or even spy on me. They are inimical to my freedom as a user.
If that's true, then why is the BSD license a win over the GPL?
Rubbish, it absolutely does not, nobody can close BSD-licensed code. It allows the ability to create a closed source derivative of a BSD-licensed work but your extrapolation of that to a scenario where suddenly everyone is dependent on a proprietary version is completely erroneous and without merit. True altruism comes from people choosing to be altruistic, not being forced to be.
Really? If that's true, then why bother with the GPL at all then? I mean, nobody bothers to close the code up anyway, so what's the point?
It eventually leads to code that everybody needs to use and nobody has access to. It leads inevitably to proprietary software.
Strangely, your comment is relevant to my post as well as the one you intended to reply to. :-) Jenkins CI is a great tool for achieving the goal of being able to push to production anytime you want.
My freedoms all come with a 'but'. I can swing my fists all I want, but not if I hit someone. I can own anything I want, but not other people. I consider the BSD license less free because it allows others to infringe on people's freedom. I avoid BSD licensed code as much as is feasible for this reason. In the long run it is poisonous to my freedom even if it provides no obstacles in the short-term.
I would rather know exactly what software my hardware is running that having it run secret software that does who knows what. I don't particularly care how 'incredibly useful' that software proclaims to be. If the creators won't open it up to me, it almost certainly serves their interests over my own and is a tool to enslave me.
The goal is to always be able to push to production. Have a continuous integration and test system that allows you to have confidence that you can always push the latest build to production. Automate as much of your testing as possible so your build and test process can produce something that a human test team actually has to work hard to break.
Also, you should pipeline your approval process. Always be in the process of approving a new build to go out while you're working on the next one. This will put a lot of pressure on this process to be faster and more efficient. Holding the people responsible for this process accountable for production breaks will put counter-pressure ensuring that they do not become more efficient at the expense of actually doing the job.
My eyes can distinguish between several different point sources of EM radiation with quite a wide spectral range. I suppose that radio waves are a bit harder to handle using a focusing mechanism. But you can use timing difference between different antennas if all you care about is a point source.
Unfortunately for your argument, I actually do have a problem with FCC regulations about physical transmitters. I would rather the receiver be made smart enough to be able to distinguish one point-source of EM radiation from another than restrict what people can broadcast and with what equipment.
Public education starts with a cultural intolerance for the activity, just like you demonstrated. People who do this should either have the cops called on them, or confronted and told that their behavior is out-of-line and what they're doing constitutes assault.
But no, no ban. No licensing. That's a ridiculous imposition on freedom. Once it becomes clear that it's considered the same and will be treated the same as if they slugged someone in the face people will stop doing it.
This is so clearly and obviously a poblem, and avoiding the behavior so simple and unrestrictive of rights that I don't feel having this activity be criminal is a bad idea. Yes, there should be a technical solution as well, for a wide variety of reasons. But I see that as an adjunct to legal protection, not a replacement for it.
Basically, shining a laser (even a low-power laser) at someone should be considered a form of assault. And it needs to be societally recognized that this is the case. Just as two people can play fight, or you can play fight with your cat (until your cat's had enough and bites you that is) you can play assault each other with a laser pointer. You don't have to get ridiculous about enforcing it. But it should be considered assault if it's non-consensual, and the acknowledgement that it is is a cultural expectation we need to all do our parts to help uphold.
I disagree. They presented an idea of what they wanted to accomplish and where they wanted to go and why they wanted to go there. That idea resonated with a lot of people. Yes, they wanted to build a replacement for Facebook, but everybody else expected an immediate Facebook killer that everybody would immediately be able to jump to. The real world doesn't work like that. Even if their initial version was flawless it would still necessarily have had limited functionality (what can actually be accomplished in 3 months of development from a fresh start by 4 people, no matter how much money they have?), and it's quite clear that it would've taken quite awhile for everybody to switch to it from Facebook.
I was somewhat disappointed with the mass of security flaws that my money bought. But once I put in my money, I knew that I was taking a risk. And I felt that what I did get out of it was worth the money I put in. Because part of what I got out of it was a large community of people who all shared the same vision and pushed the project forward even after the initial disappointing (though clearly an honest and strong effort) start.
My hopes were high, and my expectations low. That's how I treat all the Kickstarter projects I donate to. It's a 'donation' for a reason.
Well, the project is still going strong. I've been keeping tabs on it from afar, waiting until I felt it was likely safe and reasonable to bring up my own seed.
I've seen it mentioned a few other places. A maker space I follow debated hosting a Diaspora instance. A few other people I know have talked about it spontaneously.