Guess what, that is the point of the Constitution - protecting the rights of the individuals against of the oppression by the collective and its government. What are rights? Rights are protections against government protections. Why do individuals need these? Because nobody will ever be held personally accountable in a 'democratic' collectivist system.
The system cannot be punished by punishing any one individual and even individuals will not be punished, the Democratic system ensures that there is no personal responsibility
Democracy does not mean good government or good outcome, it means mobocracy, it means discrimination by majority against minority, it means 51% voting to tax the other 49% and not themselves.
Human rights are being trumpled, the socialist/communist/fascist collective works to undermine individual rights.
Without individual rights there can be no justice in the system, there can be no rule based process. Individual circumstances cannot be used to justify taking away the rights of the individuals. Rights are not entitlements to any service or product, they are not there to ensure equality of outcome. They are there to protect against the government oppression and abuse. Abuse such as taxing some people at rates different from other people.
There can be no real justice without equal application of law to all. There can be no equal application of law while people are being treated differently due to their personal circumstances.
The actual problem is the very idea of democracy and elections that let groups form that try to provide themselves with benefits while trying to take money away to those, who are not in the group.
Democracy doesn't work, it breaks down the rule based system. Democracy mixed with q government that can pass new laws does not work at all. We will have to learn that the hard way of course.
Society doesn't matter one bit, only individuals matter. Understanding this is actually growing up, what you believe to be growing up is actually giving up the idea of freedom.
It's idiotic, this pro-union propaganda argues that because of commoditization of labour and the fact that in any place there are always people in the middle, on top and on the bottom of the performance scale that this means unions are the answer, when the reality is that free market is the answer. Instead of trying to push for less freedoms, individuals needs to push for more, they need to start abolishing governments rather than creating new ones.
As to software developers, very few of them actually see themselves in management in 30 months as this clearly one sided and propagandistic story suggests. In fact most developers want to keep being developers, all they are after is some form of challenging work and good pay and given the relative lack of regulations in the tech sector (thank heavens), those who are doing good work are capable of getting that good pay.
Commoditization of labour is not a problem, lack of freedoms in the market place that prevent new companies from starting up is the problem and unions cannot solve that, they can only make the situation worse.
Now, certainly for the people who are not really interested in the work unions are a cushy answer, but luckily the way the technology sector moves, unions cannot really take hold in it, they just have no legs to stand on, they will trip and fall most of the time as companies shift jobs, outsource, automate more and that's a good thing. Last thing this world needs is more government and unions.
Hasn't Bruce Schneier ever seen this xkcd cartoon on security? Ok, so it doesn't have to be done by force, but couldn't it be done by some sort of social engineering?
Absolutely wrong. First of all saying that taxing and redistributing to taxis makes any kind of sense instead of having Uber is idiotic. Taxing oppresses everybody who is being taxed, Uber is not oppressing anybody, it is providing people with opportunities to participate on a completely voluntary basis. Drivers, riders, investors, employees - all voluntary participating to get a better outcome for themselves, you want to take that away and install government oppression instead.
As to insurance companies 'subsidising' and rates being 'higher' as a result, that is just a bold face lie!
How many accidents are prevented and what is the difference on the balance between some drivers using their normal insurance plus whatever insurance Uber supplies and the reduced number of accidents caused by less drunk driving?
You are moderated as 'insightfull', I am moderated as 'troll'. Figures.
That US vs THEM mentality is expressed through these feelings of 'national pride'. Most people don't actually accomplish anything spectacular in their entire lives, so they want to feel that they have something to show off just by being associated with some group. Sports, wars.... All of these are sides of that same coin.
The reality is that most peoples' lives are empty, robotic, devoid of any meaning. And these people also vote....
The real problem is lack of self expression through productive means, which results from giant government, centrally planned systems of the world. The question individuals need to ask themselves is: what am I? A replaceable nobody, good for mob action of political/sport events or am I actually a thinking person, with my own distinct goals and ideas and tries and failures and successes that I am responsible for? Sure, many things are out of our control, but if a person does not even try, he or she will be reduced to the position of a cheerleader for those who do ask themselves that question and try regardless of how difficult, exhausting, often thankless the thing that they want to do actually is.
I am against of all forms of socialism against of all forms of nationalism, internationalism, collectivism.
AFAIC the only real way to mean something in this life is by doing your own thing in a nonviolent manner and that means absent any government controls. You are born and you are going to die. There are no gods, there is no afterlife, this is all you have, all that anybody ever had. Don't waste it by delegating goals and decisions that you should be making to anything 'greater than yourself'. There is nothing that is 'greater than yourself', it is an illusion and an excuse of the irrelevant.
Be relevant l do something you actually want to do, always try and if you die trying be happy that you were so lucky not to wither away in shame and guilt of never trying
The USA Founders never meant for everybody to vote in the elections and they were correct about that. Voting leads to creating new laws and people that create new laws should not be able to break the Constitution with those laws. Allowing people who are net entitlement receivers to vote to take more from those who are net tax payers was not the intention at all.
Allowing people to vote to increase taxes on others is the opposite of human rights and individual freedoms, it is oppression and slavery.
Senate was supposed to be appointed, not elected. New laws pushed by the panderers to any constituents were supposed to die there.
What this shows is how short-sighted Google was for not buying Sun before Oracle did. These insane lawsuits would have been completely impossible. What is this, a cry for help by Oracle, a cry to preserve their place under the Sun? (I didn't intend that, it just happened that way.)
Does Oracle want Google to offer a few billion dollars to buy Java from them? They probably wouldn't sell, Larry thinks that since he cannot himself come up with a mobile phone system, he should be able to profit from somebody else who can, and why? Because he bought some ephemeral 'rights' to a set of library functions???
Wait, so you are telling me that people buy Lenovo computers and don't simply install their favourite version of Linux/Unix but actually run Windows on those?????? Seriously??? I am on Lenovo W510, had it for a few years, it has an older version of Ubuntu and I am going to replace it soon with a Mint distro, why would I want Windows on it?
Wrong, you are the monkey, in need of a leader to beat the crap out of you when you misbehave. We are humans and ensuring that we have our individual freedoms instead of communal mob mentality is what makes us humans.
You are absolutely wrong, the 'biggest companies' dominate and steal from 'the little guy' today, except today they have the nuclear option in their hands already - government compliance with the wishes of the biggest companies.
To allow Free Market to exist is the exact opposite of creating monopolies by using government intervention, you are providing a wonderfully ironic example of Orwellian type of doublespeak here.
The on-going balance in the Free Market is provided by the market participants, not by anybody with special powers, like that of governments. The only cancer that is destroying society is government oppression and lack of individual freedom is exactly like lack of oxygen to the brain.
Government must not be in business protecting any business or any individual. The socialist/Marxist/fascist collectivist retards have created this situation of corruption and abuse and they must be stoppedm. All works, businesses and individuals must survive on their own and on their own merits. If something or someone does not serve enough purpose in a free market capitalist economy and none would even provide them charity, there should not be any kind of government oppression directed against anybody to 'save' those people, businesses and business models.
Government must be put in its place and we will put it there.
"they have to release the data so the public knows that they are being transparent and that they are committed to doing the right thing."
- which is what? The right thing for Apple, its investors and customers is to hire the best candidate for the job, not to pander to any politically motivated propaganda, which is the wrong thing.
Industry is regulated by free market, which is the collective desires of all people only without government supplied violence. Actually I would rather see the life on this plant completely exterminated than enslaved.
I will never stand even for most trivial amount of socialism, which to me is slavery. Not even a trivial amount of slavery, 1% slavery is completely unacceptable as far as I am concerned.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha, did you just compare damage to a 'bridge inside borders' to a bridge over the ocean?
Of course, I am not a bridge engineer
- correct.
Large container freighters can be loaded in a port, unloaded in a port half world away in 10 days. Then the existing train / truck network can pick up the containers and move them further.
The only bottleneck there is a port and ports are much easier and faster to build than additional bridges to increase throughput.
And what you say about damage is downright silly, because the same concern applies equally for a bridge inside our borders. In fact, by your standards, the docks where those boats load their cargo should never have been built, because if one of the minimum-wage immigrants carrying cargo on his shoulders out to a small boat in waist-deep water dies of a heart attack
- ha, talk about silly.
A burning bridge stops all cargo from being moved, while a burning ship only stops that ship. Shipping docks are a scalable solution, while a bridge is a fixed throughput solution that cannot be scaled without building a second bridge.
Container ships can be easily redirected where they are needed at the time when they are needed, while a bridge cannot be moved where it is needed.
Also obviously you haven't seen Russian infrastructure, which is nonexistent in that part of the world and beside that there is no American/Canadian infrastructure to use a bridge like that either.
At the end if this project goes ahead it will never be for any economic reasons, only for political ones, so at the end there will be a gigantic price tag on this bridge to nowhere.
You are clearly not taking into account the upfront capital costs and bridge maintenance and repairs and changing political situations. Do that, amortise all those costs (real ones, not fake and improbably low ones) and try to answer the same question. A damaged boat doesn't prevent other boats from moving in the ocean and a boat can be used for other purposes if the political climate shuts down one route.
What are you going to move over that bridge that cannot be moved cheaper by a boat and faster by a plane?
Put a train on that maybe? What happens when a multi megaton train filled with oil (what else)? Goes off the rail there? There has to be an economic reason for anything like this, not a political one, because if it is all politics, it will be the most epic bridge to nowhere.
Come up with an economically sound reason first, before coming up with a solution like that.
As they say in Russian (a rough translation): saving those, who are drowning is up to those who are drowning. They also say: while you can hope that a god will help you, you should help yourself.
Basically there are enough people on the African continent to make it possible for those very people to figure out how to solve their own problems. I don't see African solutions to problems in Indonesia related to Avian Flu as an example.
Of-course people have these rights. You, as a person, have the right (meaning that you cannot be oppressed by government) to move out of a country and do your business in such a way as to minimise your taxes. Not having an entitlement to do that does not mean you do not, as a person, have the right (protection against government oppression).
Not being able to afford something does not mean you don't have a right to do it, having the right to do it does not mean you are also supposed to be given an entitlement to afford doing it.
Your lack of understanding of the concept of rights is not unique, most people don't get it.
That lack of global jurisdiction is used by both the rich and the multinational corps to skirt laws and taxation that are unfavorable to them in their home country.
- which is an extremely important right of people, the right not to be enslaved and kept in any particular country against their own will, the right to freedom of association, of private property, liberty and life.
Compassion very often requires that rationality is disregarded and even thrown away. Also ideas of compassion are often used to play the mob and destroy individual human rights. Compassion is a very dangerous emotion that leads to conflicts and wars in real life. Maybe AI and robots should be instructed to follow a Constitution instead, that would define individuals as the highest form of life and individual rights as absolute (right not tone murdered by government, right not to be imprisoned by government, right not to be robbed by government). Then criminal code could be added (authority of justice system to isolate a violent individual to protect against murder, assault, rape, robbery).
Compassion will lead to conflict, class warfare, violence. Constitution and criminal code will lead to some form of peace. Be careful with compassion, it is used to justify most vile acts on this planet.
Tariffs that are there to prevent free trade shouldn't exist, they are immoral, they raise consumer prices and prevent good deals and hurt the people who are unable to pay more.
Everybody should be against tariffs that prevent free trade.
reduce the country's reliance on nuclear power from 75% to 50% by 2025.
- ok, stupid but doable.
reducing the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030, compared to the level in 1990.
- ok, by itself it does not mean anything, as it doesn't say how that is supposed to be done. But together with the first statement (reducing nuclear power) looks suspiciously contradictory.
The new law aims to eventually halve France's energy consumption by 2050 from the 2012 level.
- WHAT?????
Ok, unless the goal is to half the population and production by 2050 from the 2012 levels while simultaneously switching to non-nuclear power, that's one thing. But if the goal is also to reduce 'green house gas emissions'...
Explain this to me: half the energy consumption, reduce reliance on nuclear power and at the same time reduce green house emissions.
Unless the real goal there is to reduce population then I have a bridge to sell you.
I also may want a unicorn and a tooth fairy and I can even enact legislation about it but legislation that requires unicorns and tooth fairies to become available to me upon the request by the authorities cannot in fact magically produce unicorns and tooth fairies!
Slashdot Mirror
Guess what, that is the point of the Constitution - protecting the rights of the individuals against of the oppression by the collective and its government. What are rights? Rights are protections against government protections. Why do individuals need these? Because nobody will ever be held personally accountable in a 'democratic' collectivist system.
The system cannot be punished by punishing any one individual and even individuals will not be punished, the Democratic system ensures that there is no personal responsibility
Democracy does not mean good government or good outcome, it means mobocracy, it means discrimination by majority against minority, it means 51% voting to tax the other 49% and not themselves.
Human rights are being trumpled, the socialist/communist/fascist collective works to undermine individual rights.
Without individual rights there can be no justice in the system, there can be no rule based process. Individual circumstances cannot be used to justify taking away the rights of the individuals. Rights are not entitlements to any service or product, they are not there to ensure equality of outcome. They are there to protect against the government oppression and abuse. Abuse such as taxing some people at rates different from other people.
There can be no real justice without equal application of law to all. There can be no equal application of law while people are being treated differently due to their personal circumstances.
The actual problem is the very idea of democracy and elections that let groups form that try to provide themselves with benefits while trying to take money away to those, who are not in the group.
Democracy doesn't work, it breaks down the rule based system. Democracy mixed with q government that can pass new laws does not work at all. We will have to learn that the hard way of course.
Society doesn't matter one bit, only individuals matter. Understanding this is actually growing up, what you believe to be growing up is actually giving up the idea of freedom.
It's idiotic, this pro-union propaganda argues that because of commoditization of labour and the fact that in any place there are always people in the middle, on top and on the bottom of the performance scale that this means unions are the answer, when the reality is that free market is the answer. Instead of trying to push for less freedoms, individuals needs to push for more, they need to start abolishing governments rather than creating new ones.
As to software developers, very few of them actually see themselves in management in 30 months as this clearly one sided and propagandistic story suggests. In fact most developers want to keep being developers, all they are after is some form of challenging work and good pay and given the relative lack of regulations in the tech sector (thank heavens), those who are doing good work are capable of getting that good pay.
Commoditization of labour is not a problem, lack of freedoms in the market place that prevent new companies from starting up is the problem and unions cannot solve that, they can only make the situation worse.
Now, certainly for the people who are not really interested in the work unions are a cushy answer, but luckily the way the technology sector moves, unions cannot really take hold in it, they just have no legs to stand on, they will trip and fall most of the time as companies shift jobs, outsource, automate more and that's a good thing. Last thing this world needs is more government and unions.
I am writing this on an older Ubuntu machine, I have text editors, office, Skype among other things that I use on daily basis.
The real problem is clearly not lack of any of these instruments, which are present.
Hasn't Bruce Schneier ever seen this xkcd cartoon on security? Ok, so it doesn't have to be done by force, but couldn't it be done by some sort of social engineering?
My wife owns a Tesla. She won't let me drive it, but she will let me ride in the passenger seat.
- you seem to be confused. She is the husband, you are the wife.
Absolutely wrong. First of all saying that taxing and redistributing to taxis makes any kind of sense instead of having Uber is idiotic. Taxing oppresses everybody who is being taxed, Uber is not oppressing anybody, it is providing people with opportunities to participate on a completely voluntary basis. Drivers, riders, investors, employees - all voluntary participating to get a better outcome for themselves, you want to take that away and install government oppression instead.
As to insurance companies 'subsidising' and rates being 'higher' as a result, that is just a bold face lie!
How many accidents are prevented and what is the difference on the balance between some drivers using their normal insurance plus whatever insurance Uber supplies and the reduced number of accidents caused by less drunk driving?
You are moderated as 'insightfull', I am moderated as 'troll'. Figures.
That US vs THEM mentality is expressed through these feelings of 'national pride'. Most people don't actually accomplish anything spectacular in their entire lives, so they want to feel that they have something to show off just by being associated with some group. Sports, wars.... All of these are sides of that same coin.
The reality is that most peoples' lives are empty, robotic, devoid of any meaning. And these people also vote....
The real problem is lack of self expression through productive means, which results from giant government, centrally planned systems of the world. The question individuals need to ask themselves is: what am I? A replaceable nobody, good for mob action of political/sport events or am I actually a thinking person, with my own distinct goals and ideas and tries and failures and successes that I am responsible for? Sure, many things are out of our control, but if a person does not even try, he or she will be reduced to the position of a cheerleader for those who do ask themselves that question and try regardless of how difficult, exhausting, often thankless the thing that they want to do actually is.
I am against of all forms of socialism against of all forms of nationalism, internationalism, collectivism.
AFAIC the only real way to mean something in this life is by doing your own thing in a nonviolent manner and that means absent any government controls. You are born and you are going to die. There are no gods, there is no afterlife, this is all you have, all that anybody ever had. Don't waste it by delegating goals and decisions that you should be making to anything 'greater than yourself'. There is nothing that is 'greater than yourself', it is an illusion and an excuse of the irrelevant.
Be relevant l do something you actually want to do, always try and if you die trying be happy that you were so lucky not to wither away in shame and guilt of never trying
The USA Founders never meant for everybody to vote in the elections and they were correct about that. Voting leads to creating new laws and people that create new laws should not be able to break the Constitution with those laws. Allowing people who are net entitlement receivers to vote to take more from those who are net tax payers was not the intention at all.
Allowing people to vote to increase taxes on others is the opposite of human rights and individual freedoms, it is oppression and slavery.
Senate was supposed to be appointed, not elected. New laws pushed by the panderers to any constituents were supposed to die there.
Party system is an abomination in itself.
What this shows is how short-sighted Google was for not buying Sun before Oracle did. These insane lawsuits would have been completely impossible. What is this, a cry for help by Oracle, a cry to preserve their place under the Sun? (I didn't intend that, it just happened that way.)
Does Oracle want Google to offer a few billion dollars to buy Java from them? They probably wouldn't sell, Larry thinks that since he cannot himself come up with a mobile phone system, he should be able to profit from somebody else who can, and why? Because he bought some ephemeral 'rights' to a set of library functions???
Wait, so you are telling me that people buy Lenovo computers and don't simply install their favourite version of Linux/Unix but actually run Windows on those?????? Seriously??? I am on Lenovo W510, had it for a few years, it has an older version of Ubuntu and I am going to replace it soon with a Mint distro, why would I want Windows on it?
Wrong, you are the monkey, in need of a leader to beat the crap out of you when you misbehave. We are humans and ensuring that we have our individual freedoms instead of communal mob mentality is what makes us humans.
You are absolutely wrong, the 'biggest companies' dominate and steal from 'the little guy' today, except today they have the nuclear option in their hands already - government compliance with the wishes of the biggest companies.
To allow Free Market to exist is the exact opposite of creating monopolies by using government intervention, you are providing a wonderfully ironic example of Orwellian type of doublespeak here.
The on-going balance in the Free Market is provided by the market participants, not by anybody with special powers, like that of governments. The only cancer that is destroying society is government oppression and lack of individual freedom is exactly like lack of oxygen to the brain.
Will repeat this here again: patents and copyrights must die.
Government must not be in business protecting any business or any individual. The socialist/Marxist/fascist collectivist retards have created this situation of corruption and abuse and they must be stoppedm. All works, businesses and individuals must survive on their own and on their own merits. If something or someone does not serve enough purpose in a free market capitalist economy and none would even provide them charity, there should not be any kind of government oppression directed against anybody to 'save' those people, businesses and business models.
Government must be put in its place and we will put it there.
"they have to release the data so the public knows that they are being transparent and that they are committed to doing the right thing."
- which is what? The right thing for Apple, its investors and customers is to hire the best candidate for the job, not to pander to any politically motivated propaganda, which is the wrong thing.
Industry is regulated by free market, which is the collective desires of all people only without government supplied violence. Actually I would rather see the life on this plant completely exterminated than enslaved.
I will never stand even for most trivial amount of socialism, which to me is slavery. Not even a trivial amount of slavery, 1% slavery is completely unacceptable as far as I am concerned.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha, did you just compare damage to a 'bridge inside borders' to a bridge over the ocean?
Of course, I am not a bridge engineer
- correct.
Large container freighters can be loaded in a port, unloaded in a port half world away in 10 days. Then the existing train / truck network can pick up the containers and move them further.
The only bottleneck there is a port and ports are much easier and faster to build than additional bridges to increase throughput.
And what you say about damage is downright silly, because the same concern applies equally for a bridge inside our borders. In fact, by your standards, the docks where those boats load their cargo should never have been built, because if one of the minimum-wage immigrants carrying cargo on his shoulders out to a small boat in waist-deep water dies of a heart attack
- ha, talk about silly.
A burning bridge stops all cargo from being moved, while a burning ship only stops that ship. Shipping docks are a scalable solution, while a bridge is a fixed throughput solution that cannot be scaled without building a second bridge.
Container ships can be easily redirected where they are needed at the time when they are needed, while a bridge cannot be moved where it is needed.
Also obviously you haven't seen Russian infrastructure, which is nonexistent in that part of the world and beside that there is no American/Canadian infrastructure to use a bridge like that either.
At the end if this project goes ahead it will never be for any economic reasons, only for political ones, so at the end there will be a gigantic price tag on this bridge to nowhere.
You are clearly not taking into account the upfront capital costs and bridge maintenance and repairs and changing political situations. Do that, amortise all those costs (real ones, not fake and improbably low ones) and try to answer the same question. A damaged boat doesn't prevent other boats from moving in the ocean and a boat can be used for other purposes if the political climate shuts down one route.
What are you going to move over that bridge that cannot be moved cheaper by a boat and faster by a plane?
Put a train on that maybe? What happens when a multi megaton train filled with oil (what else)? Goes off the rail there? There has to be an economic reason for anything like this, not a political one, because if it is all politics, it will be the most epic bridge to nowhere.
Come up with an economically sound reason first, before coming up with a solution like that.
As they say in Russian (a rough translation): saving those, who are drowning is up to those who are drowning. They also say: while you can hope that a god will help you, you should help yourself.
Basically there are enough people on the African continent to make it possible for those very people to figure out how to solve their own problems. I don't see African solutions to problems in Indonesia related to Avian Flu as an example.
Of-course people have these rights. You, as a person, have the right (meaning that you cannot be oppressed by government) to move out of a country and do your business in such a way as to minimise your taxes. Not having an entitlement to do that does not mean you do not, as a person, have the right (protection against government oppression).
Not being able to afford something does not mean you don't have a right to do it, having the right to do it does not mean you are also supposed to be given an entitlement to afford doing it.
Your lack of understanding of the concept of rights is not unique, most people don't get it.
That lack of global jurisdiction is used by both the rich and the multinational corps to skirt laws and taxation that are unfavorable to them in their home country.
- which is an extremely important right of people, the right not to be enslaved and kept in any particular country against their own will, the right to freedom of association, of private property, liberty and life.
Compassion very often requires that rationality is disregarded and even thrown away. Also ideas of compassion are often used to play the mob and destroy individual human rights. Compassion is a very dangerous emotion that leads to conflicts and wars in real life. Maybe AI and robots should be instructed to follow a Constitution instead, that would define individuals as the highest form of life and individual rights as absolute (right not tone murdered by government, right not to be imprisoned by government, right not to be robbed by government). Then criminal code could be added (authority of justice system to isolate a violent individual to protect against murder, assault, rape, robbery).
Compassion will lead to conflict, class warfare, violence. Constitution and criminal code will lead to some form of peace. Be careful with compassion, it is used to justify most vile acts on this planet.
Tariffs that are there to prevent free trade shouldn't exist, they are immoral, they raise consumer prices and prevent good deals and hurt the people who are unable to pay more.
Everybody should be against tariffs that prevent free trade.
reduce the country's reliance on nuclear power from 75% to 50% by 2025.
- ok, stupid but doable.
reducing the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030, compared to the level in 1990.
- ok, by itself it does not mean anything, as it doesn't say how that is supposed to be done. But together with the first statement (reducing nuclear power) looks suspiciously contradictory.
The new law aims to eventually halve France's energy consumption by 2050 from the 2012 level.
- WHAT?????
Ok, unless the goal is to half the population and production by 2050 from the 2012 levels while simultaneously switching to non-nuclear power, that's one thing. But if the goal is also to reduce 'green house gas emissions'...
Explain this to me: half the energy consumption, reduce reliance on nuclear power and at the same time reduce green house emissions.
Unless the real goal there is to reduce population then I have a bridge to sell you.
I also may want a unicorn and a tooth fairy and I can even enact legislation about it but legislation that requires unicorns and tooth fairies to become available to me upon the request by the authorities cannot in fact magically produce unicorns and tooth fairies!