So, some people are allowed to exercise their rights, and that is 'a good thing', but other people exercising THEIR rights is 'a bad thing'?
Yes, exactly! What part of "the only important rights are the rights to do things other people see as bad" was unclear? You don't believe in free speech unless you believe in the right to vile, despicable speech. You don't believe in the freedom of a business owner to run his business unless you believe in the right for that business to make decisions you think are harmful, or stupid.
What you seem to be saying is that Reddit, for example, should give up it's rights - explain why that is true.
I see the things Redditt is doing as bad. Is some part of "the only important rights are the rights to do things other people see as bad" still unclear?
then surely you would have no problem with me painting 'death to all (any group)' on your car or house, right?
Non-sequitur. I support your right to paint those things on your car, even though I have a problem with them, because the only important rights are the rights to do things other people see as bad.
This isn't about rights, it's about the fact that free speech is better for society than "freedom from being offended". I applaud sites that stand for "post anything legal, just keep it in the right place (or create a new place for it)". It's bad when those places change to be less free.
Actually, neither is astounding, considering how shallow their bench is
Particularly to find a young face to put in ads. The average Dem in congress is something like 5 years older now than the average Republican. The GOP has clearly been shaken up in the past decade, with lots of new faces (and the shaking hasn't stopped - lots of conservative blogs now spend more time criticizing Republicans than Democrats).
Yes, they have some toxic folks among them (e.g. Trump), but they'll flame out long before the primaries are underway.
Trump is an "issue candidate", not a real contender. He's using the race to get a soapbox to stand on, a long tradition in American, and I think a good one. It's the only way to bring some points of view into the political discussion at all, and it's good to have these arguments about issues during the primaries..
Sanders has the populist imagination
I've come to like Sanders: much as I fine his politics vile, his quite upfront and honest about what he stands for. We need more of that in politics!
"Social justice warrior" - a mashup of "social justice", which people often self-describe as being concerned with, and the derogatory "keyboard warrior". The term was orginally used to describe people whose concern with social justice seemed to end at the keyboard, and trivial first-world problems that affected themselves, not real problems in the world.
Even without a "right to be heard", an uncensored public place is still a good thing. Reddit has ever right to change it's nature, but it's still a bad thing. After all, the only important rights are the rights to do things other people see as bad!
It's good for society to have at least one place to congregate without censorship - best of luck to voat, hope they succeed in being that.
Advertisers won't want to go near a site where their ads could potentially end up on/rFatPeopleHate or next to stolen nude photos of a 16 year old gymnast.
Oh, sure, there's no reason at all for a "barely legal" porn site to want to advertise on a teen selfie board, or for a weight-loss product to advertise on fatpeoplehate. Nope, those groups simply have no common interests that can be monetized.
But then, you're still trying to sell the narrative that gamergate is about "abuse and rage" after all these months, so I doubt many of your posts are sincere.
Your personal definition of "censorship" simply isn't shared by most people. You can admit that and move on, or keep insisting "words mean what I want them to mean", but the latter won't lead to successful communication on the topic.
You severely overestimate adults if you think racists aren't the grown-ups in the group.
I dunno - I'd say 90% of the racism I've seen online has pretty obviously been kids looking for something, anything, that would offend their parents. I understand it's a bit different in other parts of the world, though.
A Citizen's Dividend of 17% would end poverty.
Have you ever explained your utopian idea? Every time I see your sig I think "oh, another nutter", but maybe I'm making some poor assumptions.
Can't you use VMware Workstation now as a substitute for the horrible vSphere client? The UI of Workstation was always worlds better, and they added full vSphere support several years ago IIRC.
My ideal is that everyone else takes public transport, and my 40 minute commute then becomes a 4 minute commute. I might need to remove the speed governor from my car, and get better tires, and add a rocket or two, but money well spent!
Acting in your own self interest is the default state if you will. You can call it a moral or ethical "code" if you like, but that's like debating whether Atheism is a religion - it doesn't really matter.
I would personally reject any moral code that excludes my self-interest, as I believe moral codes should concern themselves with the interests of people, and I'm a people too! Moral codes that exclude my interest because of my race or sex or whatever don't count in my book.
But my point was: humanity will likely never agree on the definition for moral behavior, but simple self-interest is much easier to discuss, and action which server neither your self-interest nor any moral code, well, don't do those.
China has a decade or two of growth over India (and you can't believe a word the government approves about conditions in China - this is a totalitarian state with total information control, and many Potemkin Businesses). It may have been the right decision 30 years ago, but does anyone really doubt manufacturing is on its way out? China has had rough economic times for the past decade as American manufacturing returns to American robots (at least, if the Chinese stock market is any guide - hard to be certain).
60% of Indians work as subsistence farmers on tiny family plots
Sure - they have a long way to go (though they're far better off than a lot of the world), but real economic change takes generations, and they're far ahead of where they were 20 years ago. Eh, opinions vary, but I can at least say I've researched it considerably before putting my money where my mouth is.
, and less than 0.0001% work for the space agency.
Does the word "symbol" in my initial post confuse you? What about the word "inspiration"? As in "half the people my age I know who work in tech were inspired by NASA and science fiction". It's important for mankind that our reach exceed our grasp. It's important to see it's not just other nations who can do these things. Don't worry, as you point out most tech workers on local projects are doing much more practical things, but dammit, symbols are important.
I'm glad India is a success in the space business... I'm not so glad of funding them out of my own pocket.
Oh? So you think India's "commercial space business" operates at a loss? I rather doubt more than $10 has gone out of "your own pocket" to India in any case, as foreign aid is a tiny percentage of US government spending.
I give thousands in charity to groups that will spend it on the needy (though I suspect little of it goes to India, as they're doing relatively well, compared to the worst places); I also invest thousands in India's economy. There's a good reason for each, but they are different reasons - the latter isn't out of charity. On the one hand, children need to survive, and become educated, and capable of supporting themselves in the modern world.* On the other hand, there also need to be jobs, and an economy to sustain them.
India in particular refuses to be the manufacturing center for the developed world, perhaps seeing the coming robots taking all that work. Instead they focus on jobs that make sense for the modern world, and a space program is an important symbol of that. I say more power to them.
*There are still plenty of places where outside assistance is needed to allow girls to attend school safely, and plenty where the local barbarians still prevent that in the name of religion - you know which one.
It costs next to nothing to put a web front-end up for an existing DB of documents (and most FOIA requests in fact cost nothing). It costs a lot to censor and redact everyday government documents in order to prevent embarrassing politicians, senior bureaucrats, or donors - that requires painstaking detail. (SS numbers are a freaking regular expression - don't give me that BS. And with the OPM leaks, all the most personal details contained in every government record have already leaked anyway.)
Personal responsibility isn't even a moral issue - things you do that hurt or help others are moral issues (by most codes of ethics), this is simple enlightened self-interest, no morality required. Shit happens: be prepared.
Ah, I guess the 6-month workers are then employees of the 1099 contracting company in the normal case (with shit benefits and a tiny portion of the billed cost as pay).
MS has the staffing to do this right, even if it means wholesale re-writing of large chunks of Office - something they used to be capable of, once upon a time. The code base is pretty horrible, from what I hear, but that's a problem that you can fix with a few programmer-centuries of effort, and it's not like Office has had any actual new features for a while.
100% of my savings against becoming unemployed are retained by me, plus some (tiny) amount of interest after taxes. That's efficient. Saving for unexpected unemployment, at least to the amount UI pays out, is every adults fundamental responsibility. That's not "lucky", that's "grown up". Few enough grow-ups around these days, I guess.
If the employer tells you every day that you need to be there at 5 PM, then you are an employee. If your continued association with the employer is dependent on constantly meeting a time and place requirement, you are an employee.
None of that is in any way true. Why would you believe that? Or are you talking about your personal ideal utopia? 1099 contractors often work the same hours and conditions as employees, in a desk next to employees, indistinguishable from employees, for some fixed duration. Many states now have a law that if you keep the contractor for a year or two, indistinguishable from employees in the work they do, then they're forced to employee status.
This is a common game played by employers who don't want to pay social security, workers comp, minimum wage, etc.
It's not just "a common game", it's the way things have always worked. The government mostly cares about getting its cut for SS from contractors (double what employees pay, what fun), but as long as taxes are paid, most states don't care.
Way too much crap of "must work like this proprietary project", and too many uses of other proprietary things.
There's nothing wrong with taking one company's proprietary approach and making it, as-is, an ISO standard. That happens a lot (the SCSI standard, for example, for many years), and it's the only way to take something already successful and make it open. But if you can't implement the standard from reading the doc, that's epic fail on the part of the committee. If new vendors can't interoperate just by reading the standard, that's not a standard.
The problem isn't "must work like this proprietary project" - that's very common for standards. The problem is that MS did a crap job of documenting how to do that
I don't know much about Bain Capitol, but the SCOTUS has not "found" any rights for public corporations. Partnerships on the other hand (and tighty-held corporations, which are really a kind of partnership) have the rights implicit in the partners. A partnership can buy a political ad, just like the individuals can, and after all you need some way for a group to pitch in to collectively fund an ad buy. The individuals in a partnership have the same rights under the RFRA as they do as individuals: the government must clear a high bar before compelling you to act against your religious beliefs. None of that applies to "normal" corporations, because it's too abstract and diffuse.
The question was whether said partnership/closely held corporation had first amendment rights of its own.
No, that's just it: that was never the question. A partnership isn't "an entity on its own" when it comes to civil rights, it's a few people who run a business. Just as a few people can individually buy political ads, the same people can pool their money to buy a single, bigger political ad. You need some kind of joint accounting for that, some way to have a checking account where the money is pooled, so a partnership or (tightly held) corporation is appropriate: that was exactly the Citizens United case.
I believe the corporate entity should not have any religious rights
You have the right not to be compelled to act against your religious beliefs (the right to do nothing) by the government, unless the government can show both a compelling state interest is being server, and that the law that compels you is the narrowest possible law that serves that interest. In other words, if the government is going to force you to do something that you think is Evil, the state needs to prove it has no other option.
You don't lose the above-stated right when you form a partnership or (tightly held) corporation, and in that case forcing the business to do something is the same as forcing you to do it, as you are the business. That's what the Hobby Lobby case was about. That doesn't apply to "normal" corporations, where you're just buying some ticker symbol - even if you're on the board, it's still not "your company" in the same way that it is with a partnership, and so you do lose that right against compulsion.
In none of these cases has any right been assigned to a corporation, instead it's the rights of small groups of people who directly own and manage a business are still protected.
What you meant to say is that the SCotUS granted Corporations all the benefits of citizenship, with none of the responsibilities.
This is such bullshit, and I wish people would stop repeating this urban legend. The only way in which "corporations are people" is in that laws restrict "person or persons" restrict corporations as well (which had nothing to do with the SCOTUS, and is good thing).
What the SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld is that people don't lose their first amendment rights when they form partnerships or tightly-held corporations (as the latter are effectively partnerships). You don't lose the right to free speech, or the right to freedom of religion, or the right to peacefully assemble, just because you start a business.
None of that applies to public corporations like Comcast in any case: not that it stops them from abusing the system to bribe congresscritters in other ways, but that's a very different problem than Citizens United, and conflating the two issues doesn't help fix anything!
The plenty to be pissed about the SCOTUS shredding the constitution, especially this past couple of years, without making up false distractions.
And that 230k is less than a drop in a very, very, large bucket.
Maybe so, but it's enough to make the point. The lady who got harassed gets nicely compensated, and it's enough that Comcast will probably fire someone over it -- a scapegoat, of course, but that's enough to scare the guy who's really at fault and maybe fix something.
This kind of money won't result in any corporate culture change, to be sure, but it might be enough to motivate one manager to give a shit, which it likely all the problem will take to get fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
So, some people are allowed to exercise their rights, and that is 'a good thing', but other people exercising THEIR rights is 'a bad thing'?
Yes, exactly! What part of "the only important rights are the rights to do things other people see as bad" was unclear? You don't believe in free speech unless you believe in the right to vile, despicable speech. You don't believe in the freedom of a business owner to run his business unless you believe in the right for that business to make decisions you think are harmful, or stupid.
What you seem to be saying is that Reddit, for example, should give up it's rights - explain why that is true.
I see the things Redditt is doing as bad. Is some part of "the only important rights are the rights to do things other people see as bad" still unclear?
then surely you would have no problem with me painting 'death to all (any group)' on your car or house, right?
Non-sequitur. I support your right to paint those things on your car, even though I have a problem with them, because the only important rights are the rights to do things other people see as bad.
This isn't about rights, it's about the fact that free speech is better for society than "freedom from being offended". I applaud sites that stand for "post anything legal, just keep it in the right place (or create a new place for it)". It's bad when those places change to be less free.
Actually, neither is astounding, considering how shallow their bench is
Particularly to find a young face to put in ads. The average Dem in congress is something like 5 years older now than the average Republican. The GOP has clearly been shaken up in the past decade, with lots of new faces (and the shaking hasn't stopped - lots of conservative blogs now spend more time criticizing Republicans than Democrats).
Yes, they have some toxic folks among them (e.g. Trump), but they'll flame out long before the primaries are underway.
Trump is an "issue candidate", not a real contender. He's using the race to get a soapbox to stand on, a long tradition in American, and I think a good one. It's the only way to bring some points of view into the political discussion at all, and it's good to have these arguments about issues during the primaries..
Sanders has the populist imagination
I've come to like Sanders: much as I fine his politics vile, his quite upfront and honest about what he stands for. We need more of that in politics!
"Social justice warrior" - a mashup of "social justice", which people often self-describe as being concerned with, and the derogatory "keyboard warrior". The term was orginally used to describe people whose concern with social justice seemed to end at the keyboard, and trivial first-world problems that affected themselves, not real problems in the world.
Even without a "right to be heard", an uncensored public place is still a good thing. Reddit has ever right to change it's nature, but it's still a bad thing. After all, the only important rights are the rights to do things other people see as bad!
It's good for society to have at least one place to congregate without censorship - best of luck to voat, hope they succeed in being that.
Advertisers won't want to go near a site where their ads could potentially end up on /rFatPeopleHate or next to stolen nude photos of a 16 year old gymnast.
Oh, sure, there's no reason at all for a "barely legal" porn site to want to advertise on a teen selfie board, or for a weight-loss product to advertise on fatpeoplehate. Nope, those groups simply have no common interests that can be monetized.
But then, you're still trying to sell the narrative that gamergate is about "abuse and rage" after all these months, so I doubt many of your posts are sincere.
Your personal definition of "censorship" simply isn't shared by most people. You can admit that and move on, or keep insisting "words mean what I want them to mean", but the latter won't lead to successful communication on the topic.
You severely overestimate adults if you think racists aren't the grown-ups in the group.
I dunno - I'd say 90% of the racism I've seen online has pretty obviously been kids looking for something, anything, that would offend their parents. I understand it's a bit different in other parts of the world, though.
A Citizen's Dividend of 17% would end poverty.
Have you ever explained your utopian idea? Every time I see your sig I think "oh, another nutter", but maybe I'm making some poor assumptions.
The Workstation team added all those concepts to their UI, though, just to be a full replacement for vSphere.
Can't you use VMware Workstation now as a substitute for the horrible vSphere client? The UI of Workstation was always worlds better, and they added full vSphere support several years ago IIRC.
My ideal is that everyone else takes public transport, and my 40 minute commute then becomes a 4 minute commute. I might need to remove the speed governor from my car, and get better tires, and add a rocket or two, but money well spent!
Only trivially so.
Acting in your own self interest is the default state if you will. You can call it a moral or ethical "code" if you like, but that's like debating whether Atheism is a religion - it doesn't really matter.
I would personally reject any moral code that excludes my self-interest, as I believe moral codes should concern themselves with the interests of people, and I'm a people too! Moral codes that exclude my interest because of my race or sex or whatever don't count in my book.
But my point was: humanity will likely never agree on the definition for moral behavior, but simple self-interest is much easier to discuss, and action which server neither your self-interest nor any moral code, well, don't do those.
China, which 30 years ago was poorer than India
China has a decade or two of growth over India (and you can't believe a word the government approves about conditions in China - this is a totalitarian state with total information control, and many Potemkin Businesses). It may have been the right decision 30 years ago, but does anyone really doubt manufacturing is on its way out? China has had rough economic times for the past decade as American manufacturing returns to American robots (at least, if the Chinese stock market is any guide - hard to be certain).
60% of Indians work as subsistence farmers on tiny family plots
Sure - they have a long way to go (though they're far better off than a lot of the world), but real economic change takes generations, and they're far ahead of where they were 20 years ago. Eh, opinions vary, but I can at least say I've researched it considerably before putting my money where my mouth is.
, and less than 0.0001% work for the space agency.
Does the word "symbol" in my initial post confuse you? What about the word "inspiration"? As in "half the people my age I know who work in tech were inspired by NASA and science fiction". It's important for mankind that our reach exceed our grasp. It's important to see it's not just other nations who can do these things. Don't worry, as you point out most tech workers on local projects are doing much more practical things, but dammit, symbols are important.
I'm glad India is a success in the space business... I'm not so glad of funding them out of my own pocket.
Oh? So you think India's "commercial space business" operates at a loss? I rather doubt more than $10 has gone out of "your own pocket" to India in any case, as foreign aid is a tiny percentage of US government spending.
I give thousands in charity to groups that will spend it on the needy (though I suspect little of it goes to India, as they're doing relatively well, compared to the worst places); I also invest thousands in India's economy. There's a good reason for each, but they are different reasons - the latter isn't out of charity. On the one hand, children need to survive, and become educated, and capable of supporting themselves in the modern world.* On the other hand, there also need to be jobs, and an economy to sustain them.
India in particular refuses to be the manufacturing center for the developed world, perhaps seeing the coming robots taking all that work. Instead they focus on jobs that make sense for the modern world, and a space program is an important symbol of that. I say more power to them.
*There are still plenty of places where outside assistance is needed to allow girls to attend school safely, and plenty where the local barbarians still prevent that in the name of religion - you know which one.
It costs next to nothing to put a web front-end up for an existing DB of documents (and most FOIA requests in fact cost nothing). It costs a lot to censor and redact everyday government documents in order to prevent embarrassing politicians, senior bureaucrats, or donors - that requires painstaking detail. (SS numbers are a freaking regular expression - don't give me that BS. And with the OPM leaks, all the most personal details contained in every government record have already leaked anyway.)
Thanks for the moralizing douche bag.
Personal responsibility isn't even a moral issue - things you do that hurt or help others are moral issues (by most codes of ethics), this is simple enlightened self-interest, no morality required. Shit happens: be prepared.
Ah, I guess the 6-month workers are then employees of the 1099 contracting company in the normal case (with shit benefits and a tiny portion of the billed cost as pay).
MS has the staffing to do this right, even if it means wholesale re-writing of large chunks of Office - something they used to be capable of, once upon a time. The code base is pretty horrible, from what I hear, but that's a problem that you can fix with a few programmer-centuries of effort, and it's not like Office has had any actual new features for a while.
100% of my savings against becoming unemployed are retained by me, plus some (tiny) amount of interest after taxes. That's efficient. Saving for unexpected unemployment, at least to the amount UI pays out, is every adults fundamental responsibility. That's not "lucky", that's "grown up". Few enough grow-ups around these days, I guess.
If the employer tells you every day that you need to be there at 5 PM, then you are an employee. If your continued association with the employer is dependent on constantly meeting a time and place requirement, you are an employee.
None of that is in any way true. Why would you believe that? Or are you talking about your personal ideal utopia? 1099 contractors often work the same hours and conditions as employees, in a desk next to employees, indistinguishable from employees, for some fixed duration. Many states now have a law that if you keep the contractor for a year or two, indistinguishable from employees in the work they do, then they're forced to employee status.
This is a common game played by employers who don't want to pay social security, workers comp, minimum wage, etc.
It's not just "a common game", it's the way things have always worked. The government mostly cares about getting its cut for SS from contractors (double what employees pay, what fun), but as long as taxes are paid, most states don't care.
Way too much crap of "must work like this proprietary project", and too many uses of other proprietary things.
There's nothing wrong with taking one company's proprietary approach and making it, as-is, an ISO standard. That happens a lot (the SCSI standard, for example, for many years), and it's the only way to take something already successful and make it open. But if you can't implement the standard from reading the doc, that's epic fail on the part of the committee. If new vendors can't interoperate just by reading the standard, that's not a standard.
The problem isn't "must work like this proprietary project" - that's very common for standards. The problem is that MS did a crap job of documenting how to do that
I don't know much about Bain Capitol, but the SCOTUS has not "found" any rights for public corporations. Partnerships on the other hand (and tighty-held corporations, which are really a kind of partnership) have the rights implicit in the partners. A partnership can buy a political ad, just like the individuals can, and after all you need some way for a group to pitch in to collectively fund an ad buy. The individuals in a partnership have the same rights under the RFRA as they do as individuals: the government must clear a high bar before compelling you to act against your religious beliefs. None of that applies to "normal" corporations, because it's too abstract and diffuse.
The question was whether said partnership/closely held corporation had first amendment rights of its own.
No, that's just it: that was never the question. A partnership isn't "an entity on its own" when it comes to civil rights, it's a few people who run a business. Just as a few people can individually buy political ads, the same people can pool their money to buy a single, bigger political ad. You need some kind of joint accounting for that, some way to have a checking account where the money is pooled, so a partnership or (tightly held) corporation is appropriate: that was exactly the Citizens United case.
I believe the corporate entity should not have any religious rights
You have the right not to be compelled to act against your religious beliefs (the right to do nothing) by the government, unless the government can show both a compelling state interest is being server, and that the law that compels you is the narrowest possible law that serves that interest. In other words, if the government is going to force you to do something that you think is Evil, the state needs to prove it has no other option.
You don't lose the above-stated right when you form a partnership or (tightly held) corporation, and in that case forcing the business to do something is the same as forcing you to do it, as you are the business. That's what the Hobby Lobby case was about. That doesn't apply to "normal" corporations, where you're just buying some ticker symbol - even if you're on the board, it's still not "your company" in the same way that it is with a partnership, and so you do lose that right against compulsion.
In none of these cases has any right been assigned to a corporation, instead it's the rights of small groups of people who directly own and manage a business are still protected.
What, read TFS? You must be new here. Heh, I just assume all misbehavior is Comcast - it usually works!
What you meant to say is that the SCotUS granted Corporations all the benefits of citizenship, with none of the responsibilities.
This is such bullshit, and I wish people would stop repeating this urban legend. The only way in which "corporations are people" is in that laws restrict "person or persons" restrict corporations as well (which had nothing to do with the SCOTUS, and is good thing).
What the SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld is that people don't lose their first amendment rights when they form partnerships or tightly-held corporations (as the latter are effectively partnerships). You don't lose the right to free speech, or the right to freedom of religion, or the right to peacefully assemble, just because you start a business.
None of that applies to public corporations like Comcast in any case: not that it stops them from abusing the system to bribe congresscritters in other ways, but that's a very different problem than Citizens United, and conflating the two issues doesn't help fix anything!
The plenty to be pissed about the SCOTUS shredding the constitution, especially this past couple of years, without making up false distractions.
And that 230k is less than a drop in a very, very, large bucket.
Maybe so, but it's enough to make the point. The lady who got harassed gets nicely compensated, and it's enough that Comcast will probably fire someone over it -- a scapegoat, of course, but that's enough to scare the guy who's really at fault and maybe fix something.
This kind of money won't result in any corporate culture change, to be sure, but it might be enough to motivate one manager to give a shit, which it likely all the problem will take to get fixed.