Some people are true assholes, poor fucking users who run into this. Imagine what will happen in the future, with self driving cars and somebody figuring out a way to take over and not let you out of the car until you pay, but if you don't pay within a time limit they will crash your car, drive it off a cliff or something...
Security needs to become part of culture, but with people sharing every bit of their lives on sites like FB, etc., with people not caring about NSA stealing their data... I don't know, there will be deaths because of this eventually. System security has to become central when relying on more and more computers and robots, drones, it has to be done.
I take it you are a big specialist on China and its government over the last century? What, in your not so humble opinion makes Chinese form of government not a Communist State? Before capitalism of the last few decades, over a billion people was in poverty due to an authoritarian system that prevented people from private enterprise. Not Communist? People who genuinely held anti capitalist views, as they were marching together into more poverty while their meager possessions were taken from them under the banner of 'from each, based on his ability to each based on his need', not Communist? They had all of the Communist rhetoric and all of the Communist poverty throughout except for the elite. So your position is: their government did not share in their misery, so they were not Communist. I say they were Communist regardless of what you believe, you are regurgitating other people's regurgitated points on how something you do not like not being something you aspire to simply because it does not fall into your very neat and tight view of such things.
They were not Marxist, that would require abolition of the State power and actual cooperation on Communist ideas, instead they were oppressed into Communism -sharing the misery and poverty and not letting the non elite normal people to improve their lives by working as individuals and not a collective, they were Communist more than you can imagine or understand.
China is a dictatorial country, a country ruled by an elite class of people, the moniker is fully irrelevant but the point stands: an oppressive government system, centrally planning everything caused massive deaths of tens of millions by being able to deliver only poverty and misery - everything that government can deliver.
Capitalism in a much freer market over the last 3-4 decades created enough wealth that people in China may be able to address some of the issues of pollution, which exist today specifically because of all the poverty that decades of centrally planned government oppression has created (and even if the pollution resulted in the last few decades of massive development, the preceding poverty and thus government oppression is to blame for this outcome).
You don't like the word 'Communist'? Well, the Chinese government explicitly calls themselves Communist, take up the naming conventions with them.
Wait wait, so you are saying that in a COMMUNIST country there is not enough government and that is the issue? In a country that was under a complete Communist rule for decades, where tens of millions of people died from starvation, where introduction of at least some free market capitalism led to significant rise of standard of living it was lack of government oppression that was the problem?
How about this: without decades of government oppression people's standard of living would be much higher in China today and people who have higher standard of living can afford to think about water and other forms of pollution and can afford to do something about it.
People need freedom from government to build a wealthy economy and they need a wealthy economy to start thinking about pollution and other factors that reduce their quality of life. Private companies will be providing people with clean water, the solution is in having enough wealth to be able to afford clean water and no government can give you any wealth, wealth can only be taken away by governments.
Or the person who wants to discriminate can move to a country that does not have anti-discrimination laws. When a society decides that discrimination is unlawful it is a good thing.
- no, it's a horrible thing to use government oppression to dictate behaviour, especially discriminating behaviour.
Society deciding that discrimination is immoral and thus businesses or individuals who discriminate suffering PR consequences is one thing, using the government oppression to 'stop discrimination' while in reality discriminating through government laws is a different thing altogether.
So you think government does not discriminate? Laws should apply to people in the same way, why are people running businesses all of a sudden having their rights taken away from them? Government discriminates even with the very 'anti-discrimination' laws by splitting people into categories and then applying different rules to them.
I don't think you need a church at all to get married or buried, you will likely not get a Muslim marriage if you are not a Muslim, you will not get a Christian pope or whatever they are for a burial if you are not a Christian.
I don't know if that's legal or not actually, good question. They are a place of business, maybe by the laws they should be forced to do all that.
Making sure I am clear on this: I am an atheist, I don't see any reason whatsoever for any person to believe in anything supernatural, AFAIC there is no god, no soul, no hell, no heaven, no ghosts, no zombies (except for the ones falling for collectivist propaganda).
Now, are churches discriminatory? Absolutely. Worse than that, religion permeates everything, our holidays are based on religious believes and I for one object to all religion based holidays. AFAIC there shouldn't be any national holidays whatsoever in the first place.
Given that I still do not see what makes churches illegal under law, they are not denying you entry if you are of a different religion, or do they?
Am I racist and does it matter? I run a company, I have various people working for me that I hired, I have a black individual, a Chinese person, a Jewish person, some Ukrainians and Russians. I had all sorts of people working for me, of Indian, Chinese, Arabic, African, Russian, Ukrainian, American descent. Whether I am a racist or not is a moot question, I hire people based on their ability and that is all it is. My clients are of all sorts of races, colours, religions, languages, etc.
Now, am I naive? Do I not understand that there will be people who will discriminate and there will be those, who will be inconvenienced? Hardly. I understand what discrimination is and what it can do, it can even cause death on a severe occasion.
Do I think that any of the above matters to my point? Not even slightly. My point is about individual freedom to discriminate, not about anybody's entitlements (which shouldn't exist) or convenience (which may or may not be provided by other private individuals running their own businesses).
No, I am not naive, I know that there are racist people, no I don't think I am racist but more importantly I do not act racist.
Does the same argument apply to gender or sex or ethnicity or religion or language as to race discrimination? I think so.
My point stands. Nobody should be forced by any government to provide anybody with any services or products under any circumstances regardless of the morality of the situation.
I agree, it would be difficult to get a cab for a homosexual (if he or she was identified as such) to get a cab in a town with one cab company that discriminated because vast majority of residents didn't care or discriminated as well. So what? I don't see the problem with this at all, nobody should be forced to provide any service to anybody.
You are free to set up a different cab company that didn't do this, you have alternatives, such as other means of public transportation, you can lease or purchase your own vehicle, you can live somewhere else.
There is no and there should be no obligation upon anybody to provide anybody with anything under any circumstances whatever your morals of today are.
Ok now I know you are trolling. Please try harder.
- you know nothing.
Inflation is murder. Inflation is expansion of money supply, in today's world all money is fiat, so inflation is money printing. Money printing goes together with interest rate manipulation below market savings rate. Destroying savings by interest rate manipulation destroys ability to invest into productive land, capital and labour, which prevents business formation and destroys existing businesses.
Destroying business leads to unemployment, unemployment leads to murder and other forms of death.
No, I am saying that a society where majority discriminates against one group will pass laws making that discrimination legal, so the point is moot, because unless that happens there will be no massive discrimination against one group by any type of majority (of businesses or individuals).
If that argument is too complicated for you, I understand.
The world isn't fair. I'm sorry if attempts to make it more fair are sometimes applied inconsistently.
- there shouldn't be any attempts to 'make world more fair' in the first place, that's what leads to destruction of society by destroying the economy since it requires a huge collectivist State to take away individual freedoms.
Don't forget that government usurped the authority to engage in all sorts of activities that government works hard to deny to individuals, for example murder. Murder is used by government on daily basis whether it is death penalty, improper police activity, any sort of military conflict, trade barriers, anything that stops free trade between people. Even inflation (money printing) leads to murder because it destroys the health of the economy. Unhealthy economies breed criminality and murder.
Government has authority over individuals that it denies individuals to have. When we outsource violence to governments, give them the license to kill, we end up with governments that use these authorities more and more just because they can.
Violence must be kept to individuals, government violence is what should be outlawed.
But claiming that there's something wrong with the idea that a targeted class would prefer not to be targets is just disingenuous crap.
- you are very clearly missing my entire point, which is - there shouldn't be any special protections by any government for any special group and with that in mind it must mean that if an individual wants to set up a company to serve only women, he or she should be able to do so. If an individual wants to set up a company to serve only white people, he or she must be able to do so. If an individual wants to set up a company to serve only Muslims, he or she must be able to do it, etc.
Hypocrisy or not, it is illegal to set up a company to cater to a group defined by sex, religion, race, physical ability (to exclude certain types of disability), people go to court because of these ridiculous laws every day and it hurts the economy obviously, but most importantly it hurts the freedom of an individual to discriminate and everybody must be able to discriminate freely if they wish to do so and suffer any type of societal consequences (but not be prevented by any laws).
Slavery was law not because the government demanded it but because the (white) people did.
- slavery was law because it was acceptable for slavery to exist. There were black slave owners as well, by the way, plenty.
Today slavery is not acceptable for vast majority of people so to say that many businesses would have slaves simply because the laws regarding prohibition of slavery would disappear is disingenuous. There are *always some* people who would own slaves, laws or no laws. Vast majority of businesses today do not discriminate not because of laws but because it is bad for business.
My point stands, people must be able discriminate if they wish so, it is their right. Most people would not discriminate as business owners because it is bad for business. A business discriminating today will face PR nightmare in the social media and other news. IF they do not care about it then it must not be that relevant for vast majority of their customers because a business will very rarely take a hit to the bottom line for any type of ideology.
What happens if all taxi services decide to discriminate against one class of people? That is the problem with laws; it is almost impossible to write a law that allows some discrimination.
- in today's society for ALL cabs to decide to discriminate requires an interesting turn of events, the only way for that to happen would be with massive support from most of the entire population, and when you have that type of support that means the laws are about to be written to that effect.
My point is: on your property you must be able to discriminate whether you are doing any business or not, you shouldn't be losing any rights at all just because you are selling something, you are still an individual dealing with other individuals. Laws that divide people into groups and apply differently to those groups are not good laws, those are horrible laws that lead to destruction of society.
If it's MY car I can decide who and what sex, color and/or what part of town I operate(period) Just as I can decide whether or not to work with a taxi service that discriminates. You can't fix stupid.
- that should be the case, but it's not. The collectivists in government backed by the mob have collectively decided that an individual running a business on his or her own private property must lose his or her rights to discriminate because they run a business now, though they had this right as individual. The moment you start selling cakes from your place is the moment you lose your rights, that's what the government is telling you.
I am 100% certain they will tell you that your car is a 'place of business' and because of that you lost your natural right to discriminate.
At the same time the actual real problem of discrimination, racism, slavery originates in the government and gets government protections. People forget, but slavery was legal, it was lawful, Slave Codes weren't just an idea, they were laws.
OK, isn't it interesting though that the same type of service aimed only at white customers or only for a specific religion would cause a massive outcry and also would be illegal?
- a correction: there is no entitlement to profit. A right is a protection of an individual against government oppression. An entitlement is an obligation by somebody to supply someone else with something under market value.
Everybody has the right to profit unless there is a law that prohibits that person or a group from profiting. Nobody should have an entitlement to profit, but unfortunately welfare is just that - an entitlement to profit.
And yet the US has lead the way in shutting down probably the most infamous haven; the Swiss banks
- you are clearly blissfully unaware that the biggest tax haven in the world is the USA.
If you are an American company that's one thing, you want your money out of the States, but if you are a foreign entity you want to move money into the USA, nobody will be able to track you. USA hosts more foreign money avoiding and evading taxes than the rest of the world combined.
So you find it to be 'trickery' to reinvest all profits to build more products, services, investment opportunities, even bloody jobs as opposed to using them to buy larger yachts? Interesting definition of 'trickery'.
My thoughts exactly. Punishment for a crime is supposed to be objective, measurable, and above all, finite. We go out of our way to ruin people's lives forever over seemingly trivial transgressions like speeding or jaywalking or smoking pot.
- it's not supposed to be a 'punishment for crime', it's supposed to be a way to either rehabilitate a person or at least keep the society safe from a dangerous offender. USA system fails hard at both of these.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people are true assholes, poor fucking users who run into this. Imagine what will happen in the future, with self driving cars and somebody figuring out a way to take over and not let you out of the car until you pay, but if you don't pay within a time limit they will crash your car, drive it off a cliff or something...
Security needs to become part of culture, but with people sharing every bit of their lives on sites like FB, etc., with people not caring about NSA stealing their data... I don't know, there will be deaths because of this eventually. System security has to become central when relying on more and more computers and robots, drones, it has to be done.
I take it you are a big specialist on China and its government over the last century? What, in your not so humble opinion makes Chinese form of government not a Communist State? Before capitalism of the last few decades, over a billion people was in poverty due to an authoritarian system that prevented people from private enterprise. Not Communist? People who genuinely held anti capitalist views, as they were marching together into more poverty while their meager possessions were taken from them under the banner of 'from each, based on his ability to each based on his need', not Communist? They had all of the Communist rhetoric and all of the Communist poverty throughout except for the elite. So your position is: their government did not share in their misery, so they were not Communist. I say they were Communist regardless of what you believe, you are regurgitating other people's regurgitated points on how something you do not like not being something you aspire to simply because it does not fall into your very neat and tight view of such things.
They were not Marxist, that would require abolition of the State power and actual cooperation on Communist ideas, instead they were oppressed into Communism -sharing the misery and poverty and not letting the non elite normal people to improve their lives by working as individuals and not a collective, they were Communist more than you can imagine or understand.
China is a dictatorial country, a country ruled by an elite class of people, the moniker is fully irrelevant but the point stands: an oppressive government system, centrally planning everything caused massive deaths of tens of millions by being able to deliver only poverty and misery - everything that government can deliver.
Capitalism in a much freer market over the last 3-4 decades created enough wealth that people in China may be able to address some of the issues of pollution, which exist today specifically because of all the poverty that decades of centrally planned government oppression has created (and even if the pollution resulted in the last few decades of massive development, the preceding poverty and thus government oppression is to blame for this outcome).
You don't like the word 'Communist'? Well, the Chinese government explicitly calls themselves Communist, take up the naming conventions with them.
Wait wait, so you are saying that in a COMMUNIST country there is not enough government and that is the issue? In a country that was under a complete Communist rule for decades, where tens of millions of people died from starvation, where introduction of at least some free market capitalism led to significant rise of standard of living it was lack of government oppression that was the problem?
How about this: without decades of government oppression people's standard of living would be much higher in China today and people who have higher standard of living can afford to think about water and other forms of pollution and can afford to do something about it.
People need freedom from government to build a wealthy economy and they need a wealthy economy to start thinking about pollution and other factors that reduce their quality of life. Private companies will be providing people with clean water, the solution is in having enough wealth to be able to afford clean water and no government can give you any wealth, wealth can only be taken away by governments.
Is it? Did YOU end up profiting from the housing collapse? How about the coming dollar and bond collapse, do you know what to do? Legend indeed.
Or the person who wants to discriminate can move to a country that does not have anti-discrimination laws. When a society decides that discrimination is unlawful it is a good thing.
- no, it's a horrible thing to use government oppression to dictate behaviour, especially discriminating behaviour.
Society deciding that discrimination is immoral and thus businesses or individuals who discriminate suffering PR consequences is one thing, using the government oppression to 'stop discrimination' while in reality discriminating through government laws is a different thing altogether.
So you think government does not discriminate? Laws should apply to people in the same way, why are people running businesses all of a sudden having their rights taken away from them? Government discriminates even with the very 'anti-discrimination' laws by splitting people into categories and then applying different rules to them.
I don't think you need a church at all to get married or buried, you will likely not get a Muslim marriage if you are not a Muslim, you will not get a Christian pope or whatever they are for a burial if you are not a Christian.
I don't know if that's legal or not actually, good question. They are a place of business, maybe by the laws they should be forced to do all that.
Making sure I am clear on this: I am an atheist, I don't see any reason whatsoever for any person to believe in anything supernatural, AFAIC there is no god, no soul, no hell, no heaven, no ghosts, no zombies (except for the ones falling for collectivist propaganda).
Now, are churches discriminatory? Absolutely. Worse than that, religion permeates everything, our holidays are based on religious believes and I for one object to all religion based holidays. AFAIC there shouldn't be any national holidays whatsoever in the first place.
Given that I still do not see what makes churches illegal under law, they are not denying you entry if you are of a different religion, or do they?
Am I racist and does it matter? I run a company, I have various people working for me that I hired, I have a black individual, a Chinese person, a Jewish person, some Ukrainians and Russians. I had all sorts of people working for me, of Indian, Chinese, Arabic, African, Russian, Ukrainian, American descent. Whether I am a racist or not is a moot question, I hire people based on their ability and that is all it is. My clients are of all sorts of races, colours, religions, languages, etc.
Now, am I naive? Do I not understand that there will be people who will discriminate and there will be those, who will be inconvenienced? Hardly. I understand what discrimination is and what it can do, it can even cause death on a severe occasion.
Do I think that any of the above matters to my point? Not even slightly. My point is about individual freedom to discriminate, not about anybody's entitlements (which shouldn't exist) or convenience (which may or may not be provided by other private individuals running their own businesses).
No, I am not naive, I know that there are racist people, no I don't think I am racist but more importantly I do not act racist.
Does the same argument apply to gender or sex or ethnicity or religion or language as to race discrimination? I think so.
My point stands. Nobody should be forced by any government to provide anybody with any services or products under any circumstances regardless of the morality of the situation.
I agree, it would be difficult to get a cab for a homosexual (if he or she was identified as such) to get a cab in a town with one cab company that discriminated because vast majority of residents didn't care or discriminated as well. So what? I don't see the problem with this at all, nobody should be forced to provide any service to anybody.
You are free to set up a different cab company that didn't do this, you have alternatives, such as other means of public transportation, you can lease or purchase your own vehicle, you can live somewhere else.
There is no and there should be no obligation upon anybody to provide anybody with anything under any circumstances whatever your morals of today are.
"Inflation is murder"
Ok now I know you are trolling. Please try harder.
- you know nothing.
Inflation is murder. Inflation is expansion of money supply, in today's world all money is fiat, so inflation is money printing. Money printing goes together with interest rate manipulation below market savings rate. Destroying savings by interest rate manipulation destroys ability to invest into productive land, capital and labour, which prevents business formation and destroys existing businesses.
Destroying business leads to unemployment, unemployment leads to murder and other forms of death.
No, I am saying that a society where majority discriminates against one group will pass laws making that discrimination legal, so the point is moot, because unless that happens there will be no massive discrimination against one group by any type of majority (of businesses or individuals).
If that argument is too complicated for you, I understand.
The world isn't fair. I'm sorry if attempts to make it more fair are sometimes applied inconsistently.
- there shouldn't be any attempts to 'make world more fair' in the first place, that's what leads to destruction of society by destroying the economy since it requires a huge collectivist State to take away individual freedoms.
Don't forget that government usurped the authority to engage in all sorts of activities that government works hard to deny to individuals, for example murder. Murder is used by government on daily basis whether it is death penalty, improper police activity, any sort of military conflict, trade barriers, anything that stops free trade between people. Even inflation (money printing) leads to murder because it destroys the health of the economy. Unhealthy economies breed criminality and murder.
Government has authority over individuals that it denies individuals to have. When we outsource violence to governments, give them the license to kill, we end up with governments that use these authorities more and more just because they can.
Violence must be kept to individuals, government violence is what should be outlawed.
But claiming that there's something wrong with the idea that a targeted class would prefer not to be targets is just disingenuous crap.
- you are very clearly missing my entire point, which is - there shouldn't be any special protections by any government for any special group and with that in mind it must mean that if an individual wants to set up a company to serve only women, he or she should be able to do so. If an individual wants to set up a company to serve only white people, he or she must be able to do so. If an individual wants to set up a company to serve only Muslims, he or she must be able to do it, etc.
Hypocrisy or not, it is illegal to set up a company to cater to a group defined by sex, religion, race, physical ability (to exclude certain types of disability), people go to court because of these ridiculous laws every day and it hurts the economy obviously, but most importantly it hurts the freedom of an individual to discriminate and everybody must be able to discriminate freely if they wish to do so and suffer any type of societal consequences (but not be prevented by any laws).
Slavery was law not because the government demanded it but because the (white) people did.
- slavery was law because it was acceptable for slavery to exist. There were black slave owners as well, by the way, plenty.
Today slavery is not acceptable for vast majority of people so to say that many businesses would have slaves simply because the laws regarding prohibition of slavery would disappear is disingenuous. There are *always some* people who would own slaves, laws or no laws. Vast majority of businesses today do not discriminate not because of laws but because it is bad for business.
My point stands, people must be able discriminate if they wish so, it is their right. Most people would not discriminate as business owners because it is bad for business. A business discriminating today will face PR nightmare in the social media and other news. IF they do not care about it then it must not be that relevant for vast majority of their customers because a business will very rarely take a hit to the bottom line for any type of ideology.
What happens if all taxi services decide to discriminate against one class of people? That is the problem with laws; it is almost impossible to write a law that allows some discrimination.
- in today's society for ALL cabs to decide to discriminate requires an interesting turn of events, the only way for that to happen would be with massive support from most of the entire population, and when you have that type of support that means the laws are about to be written to that effect.
My point is: on your property you must be able to discriminate whether you are doing any business or not, you shouldn't be losing any rights at all just because you are selling something, you are still an individual dealing with other individuals. Laws that divide people into groups and apply differently to those groups are not good laws, those are horrible laws that lead to destruction of society.
If it's MY car I can decide who and what sex, color and/or what part of town I operate(period) Just as I can decide whether or not to work with a taxi service that discriminates. You can't fix stupid.
- that should be the case, but it's not. The collectivists in government backed by the mob have collectively decided that an individual running a business on his or her own private property must lose his or her rights to discriminate because they run a business now, though they had this right as individual. The moment you start selling cakes from your place is the moment you lose your rights, that's what the government is telling you.
I am 100% certain they will tell you that your car is a 'place of business' and because of that you lost your natural right to discriminate.
At the same time the actual real problem of discrimination, racism, slavery originates in the government and gets government protections. People forget, but slavery was legal, it was lawful, Slave Codes weren't just an idea, they were laws.
OK, isn't it interesting though that the same type of service aimed only at white customers or only for a specific religion would cause a massive outcry and also would be illegal?
I am 100% ideological, my ideology is objective reality.
There is no right to profit.
- a correction: there is no entitlement to profit. A right is a protection of an individual against government oppression. An entitlement is an obligation by somebody to supply someone else with something under market value.
Everybody has the right to profit unless there is a law that prohibits that person or a group from profiting. Nobody should have an entitlement to profit, but unfortunately welfare is just that - an entitlement to profit.
And yet the US has lead the way in shutting down probably the most infamous haven; the Swiss banks
- you are clearly blissfully unaware that the biggest tax haven in the world is the USA.
If you are an American company that's one thing, you want your money out of the States, but if you are a foreign entity you want to move money into the USA, nobody will be able to track you. USA hosts more foreign money avoiding and evading taxes than the rest of the world combined.
It isn't a matter of blame so much as who's going to lose big when we do something about global warming.
If I could get my electricity and heat from non-fossil sources and drive an electric car, I'd be fine.
- one word: price.
So you find it to be 'trickery' to reinvest all profits to build more products, services, investment opportunities, even bloody jobs as opposed to using them to buy larger yachts? Interesting definition of 'trickery'.
My thoughts exactly. Punishment for a crime is supposed to be objective, measurable, and above all, finite. We go out of our way to ruin people's lives forever over seemingly trivial transgressions like speeding or jaywalking or smoking pot.
- it's not supposed to be a 'punishment for crime', it's supposed to be a way to either rehabilitate a person or at least keep the society safe from a dangerous offender. USA system fails hard at both of these.