You don't think people in America have a knee-jerk reaction against socialism for the poor? I say socialism for the poor because our country is founded on the principle of socialism for the rich.
The smiley negated nothing, and here is a raspberry just for you:-P
I'd put the EU in that list as well. Was the EU left out because it is just assumed they will be a major player, or because they are so socialist and it is assumed they won't be?
The agressor or defrauder is likely a third party. However, I believe in the concept of negligence, and I believe that people who allow others to come to harm through negligence should be held responsible for the harm caused. Do you disagree?
Without a law forcing companies to disclose breaches of privacy, do you think any will do so? How else would people even be notified that their identity and credit were at risk? You give vague generalities, but nothing concrete that can be analyzed objectively.
I ask you once again, how would you handle this situation without resorting to regulation? It's all well and good to espouse an anarchist ideal, I consider myself an anarchist as well, but you have to come up with workable solutions, not simplistic platitudes.
So far, the level of analysis I have seen from you is around that of "Laws are bad, m'kay!" Mouthing empty platitudes in place of real analysis and problem solving gives all anarchists and libertarians a bad name. If you can't actually come up with solutions, keep your mouth shut so you don't make the rest of us look bad.
I know what the rule of law means. I never suggested that every action or inaction be regulated. We agree there has to be a balance, but probably differ on where the correct balance lies. In general, I agree that creating a new law should be a last resort.
However, you were not arguing against any specific case. You appeared to be arguing against all laws in general. Now that I know where you actually stand, I can ask you specifically: how should this situation be handled? Because this certainly seems to fit your criteria of "Laws [that] are created to help ensure that the individual is free from force or fraud." This is a law to protect against force and fraud. Why is this the wrong approach? By your own logic, this is exactly the type of situation where laws are needed.
Let me ask you then, do you think that societies should have rules? Should there be consequences for breaking those rules? How should those rules be decided upon?
You can't just throw away one of the most basic tenets of civilization of the past 5,000 years without some explanation of why this most universal and ancient system should be demolished, and what it should be replaced with. I mean, sure, you could do what you just did, and apparently there are even a few people with mod points willing to reward you for your stance, but I think you'll find the vast majority of people are not so willing to give up the rule of law based solely on your very sparse critique.
Even most anarchists still believe in codified rules with enforced consequences. What's your alternative?
Without more analysis and explanation on your part, you come across as one of those street punk anarchists with the mohawk and pins, all anger and no theory, shouting "Nyah nyah nyah, you're not the boss of me!"
Yeah, well if YOUR so omniscient, you'd know the poor guy can't type very well. Not to mention, if you're so omnipotent and omni-benevolent, why'd you go and do that to poor Stephen in the first place, huh?
I mean really, you simply ARE. Real Godheads neither exist nor don't exist.
Well put. One would need a flexible plot engine to deal with AI. As long as the story itself is hard coded, there is no room for real AI. Bethesda had to remove their advanced AI engine from Oblivion because the AI kept doing unexpected things and breaking the story. If one instead made stories that were generated on the fly based on in-game circumstance, AI would have a place.
What does a beefed up rag-doll physics engine have to do with AI?
Re:Your excuses for business immorality are shocki
on
Amazon Sues Alexaholic
·
· Score: 1
You obviously don't understand the difference between an explanation and an excuse.
Oh man, I'm sorry. That's exactly the same line I use on my wife;-). It was a knee-jerk reaction on my part. I've just seen far to many apologists for the status quo here lately and it irks me. I thought you were one of them. Anyway, I agree with you, we need to make companies bear the real social and economic costs of their unethical behavior before they will stop behaving unethically.
Your excuses for business immorality are shocking
on
Amazon Sues Alexaholic
·
· Score: 1
Did you even read the summary, for God's sake? This is about a conference where Bezos is trying to get a bunch of web 2.0 developers to buy into using his APIs while his company, Alexa, gave tacit permission to Alexaholic, who are paying them for data, to use their API. Then Alexa steals all Alexaholic's ideas and plans to sue them into oblivion.
"Yeah, dudes, web 2.0 is totally open. Sharing is caring. Oh by the way, if you get big enough, we'll steal all your ideas and sue the pants off you."
As consumers wise up under the continued pressure of immoral and unethical businesses who only care about making money, the businesses who offer consumers what they want: morality, fairness, ethics, and reciprocity, will be the ones who succede. Businesses will need to act like ethical entities if they want to continue to make money.
You aren't being in any way insightful or wise when you point out that businesses want to make money. By presenting it in such a simplistic manner, you are offering up an excuse for immoral behavior on the part of these companies and simultaneously denigrating those of us who do not enjoy doing business with scoundrels as naive fools who don't know how the real world works.
News flash: We know how the world works, Einstein. We just don't like it.
All I could think of when reading this headline was Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. Specifically the second season, when they introduced Twiki's robot girlfriend. You know, the one who said "bootybootybooty," instead of "bidibidibidi."
As far as Windows crashing, I'm sorry but I just haven't seen it recently. XP seems as stable as a rock on my hardware. I used to complain about this as loudly and as often as anyone else, when it was a problem. Nowadays, frequent crashes are a sure sign you need better drivers, not an unavoidable cost of using Tinyflaccid products. (That's my new nickname for Micorsoft, like it?)
As far as the games go, Dell could include a copy of Cedega for less than the cost of Windows. At first you'd see people sharing the configurations that got popular games working. Then if this new Open Source Dell thing took off, you'd see game companies offering patches to make their games work under Cedega. Then you'd see game companies testing under Cedega before release. It would be much easier to release one Windows/Cedega tested version than it would be to release one Windows version and one Linux version.
Market failure, in economic terms, indicates a condition where the market fails to allocate goods and services efficiently. Specifically, imbalance of information leads to the failure mode where there is an inadequate expression of costs or benefits in prices that skews microeconomic decsion making in markets.
Please read the wiki page (as a starting point) on Information asymmetry to understand more about why this situation is sub-optimal.
Your use of tautology helps make my point about the utter banality of libertarian thought. It boils down to "The free market is perfect and there are no market failures because, if there were, the free market would have found a way around those failures." Are you even capable of comprehending how inane that line of reasoning is?
There are ways around those failures, the free market is just not capable of providing them at a cost that people find attractive. It's not that people don't want the solutions, it's that the free market is not capable of providing the solutions people want.
Actually, if you ask the people participating in those systems, it has. But I'm not even advocating socialism, as that must be enforced from above. In fact, I'm not yet advocating anything, as I'm trying to work it all out in my head. I want a system that gives people equitable opportunities, advocates social responsibility, protects basic human rights, damps down the out of control positive feedback loops of the pure free market, and does it all without imposition by force from above, all based on voluntary contract. I'd hardly call those simple goals, and if there was a simple solution, I think I would have thought of it by now. The very fact that I'm still trying to work it all out tells me it won't be a simple solution when I come up with it. Or it tells me I'm not as smart as I think I am.;-)
As as for powerful people influencing things? Welcome to the real world.
Hey, I'm a powerful person, want to bend over and be my bitch? Oh, you don't? Then STFU when others complain. Just because something is the way it is does not mean that's the way it should be.
Do you really think that a small minority of powerful people should be in charge of all our news? You may be happy being spoon-fed all your information from a few biased sources, but the rest of us aren't.
Damn, man, every time I start to think, "this daveschroeder isn't as bad as I thought," you come out with a gem like this that just makes me picture you wearing a brown shirt.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh God. He actually refers to himself as "whurly" in his bio? I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Is it like a swirly? Oh, it's William Hurley. Of course. That non-famous guy I've never heard of before.
This synopsis annoys me because it is written as if we're all just supposed to know what the hell a whurly and a BMC are.
If you feel the urge to blog, you should be kicked in the nuts or ovaries. If you are still standing afterwards, you get your blogger's license.
Does Cole's law help or hinder picnics?
Discuss.
You forgot the part about him calling the artist he stole from a pedophile in the very same forum he's now suing said artist for slander!
You don't think people in America have a knee-jerk reaction against socialism for the poor? I say socialism for the poor because our country is founded on the principle of socialism for the rich.
:-P
The smiley negated nothing, and here is a raspberry just for you
That's the reason I hoped you had left them off, rather than the typical US "dang soshlist ferners cain't do nutin' right!" reasoning. ;-)
I'd put the EU in that list as well. Was the EU left out because it is just assumed they will be a major player, or because they are so socialist and it is assumed they won't be?
You sure sound like an anarchist. You do know that libertarians are but a minor offshoot of anarchism, don't you? Are you a libertarian?
I won't even dignify the next paragraph with a response, except to say, I hope to God that was a poor attempt at sarcasm or irony or some such.
And the last paragraph is more empty platitudes with no thought behind them. I feel dirty from merely having had this conversation. I'm done here.
The agressor or defrauder is likely a third party. However, I believe in the concept of negligence, and I believe that people who allow others to come to harm through negligence should be held responsible for the harm caused. Do you disagree?
Without a law forcing companies to disclose breaches of privacy, do you think any will do so? How else would people even be notified that their identity and credit were at risk? You give vague generalities, but nothing concrete that can be analyzed objectively.
I ask you once again, how would you handle this situation without resorting to regulation? It's all well and good to espouse an anarchist ideal, I consider myself an anarchist as well, but you have to come up with workable solutions, not simplistic platitudes.
So far, the level of analysis I have seen from you is around that of "Laws are bad, m'kay!" Mouthing empty platitudes in place of real analysis and problem solving gives all anarchists and libertarians a bad name. If you can't actually come up with solutions, keep your mouth shut so you don't make the rest of us look bad.
I know what the rule of law means. I never suggested that every action or inaction be regulated. We agree there has to be a balance, but probably differ on where the correct balance lies. In general, I agree that creating a new law should be a last resort.
However, you were not arguing against any specific case. You appeared to be arguing against all laws in general. Now that I know where you actually stand, I can ask you specifically: how should this situation be handled? Because this certainly seems to fit your criteria of "Laws [that] are created to help ensure that the individual is free from force or fraud." This is a law to protect against force and fraud. Why is this the wrong approach? By your own logic, this is exactly the type of situation where laws are needed.
Let me ask you then, do you think that societies should have rules? Should there be consequences for breaking those rules? How should those rules be decided upon?
You can't just throw away one of the most basic tenets of civilization of the past 5,000 years without some explanation of why this most universal and ancient system should be demolished, and what it should be replaced with. I mean, sure, you could do what you just did, and apparently there are even a few people with mod points willing to reward you for your stance, but I think you'll find the vast majority of people are not so willing to give up the rule of law based solely on your very sparse critique.
Even most anarchists still believe in codified rules with enforced consequences. What's your alternative?
Without more analysis and explanation on your part, you come across as one of those street punk anarchists with the mohawk and pins, all anger and no theory, shouting "Nyah nyah nyah, you're not the boss of me!"
You have to learn to separate marketing hype from reality.
Yeah, well if YOUR so omniscient, you'd know the poor guy can't type very well. Not to mention, if you're so omnipotent and omni-benevolent, why'd you go and do that to poor Stephen in the first place, huh?
I mean really, you simply ARE. Real Godheads neither exist nor don't exist.
Sincerely,
Brahman
Well put. One would need a flexible plot engine to deal with AI. As long as the story itself is hard coded, there is no room for real AI. Bethesda had to remove their advanced AI engine from Oblivion because the AI kept doing unexpected things and breaking the story. If one instead made stories that were generated on the fly based on in-game circumstance, AI would have a place.
What does a beefed up rag-doll physics engine have to do with AI?
You obviously don't understand the difference between an explanation and an excuse.
;-). It was a knee-jerk reaction on my part. I've just seen far to many apologists for the status quo here lately and it irks me. I thought you were one of them. Anyway, I agree with you, we need to make companies bear the real social and economic costs of their unethical behavior before they will stop behaving unethically.
Oh man, I'm sorry. That's exactly the same line I use on my wife
Did you even read the summary, for God's sake? This is about a conference where Bezos is trying to get a bunch of web 2.0 developers to buy into using his APIs while his company, Alexa, gave tacit permission to Alexaholic, who are paying them for data, to use their API. Then Alexa steals all Alexaholic's ideas and plans to sue them into oblivion.
"Yeah, dudes, web 2.0 is totally open. Sharing is caring. Oh by the way, if you get big enough, we'll steal all your ideas and sue the pants off you."
As consumers wise up under the continued pressure of immoral and unethical businesses who only care about making money, the businesses who offer consumers what they want: morality, fairness, ethics, and reciprocity, will be the ones who succede. Businesses will need to act like ethical entities if they want to continue to make money.
You aren't being in any way insightful or wise when you point out that businesses want to make money. By presenting it in such a simplistic manner, you are offering up an excuse for immoral behavior on the part of these companies and simultaneously denigrating those of us who do not enjoy doing business with scoundrels as naive fools who don't know how the real world works.
News flash: We know how the world works, Einstein. We just don't like it.
All I could think of when reading this headline was Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. Specifically the second season, when they introduced Twiki's robot girlfriend. You know, the one who said "bootybootybooty," instead of "bidibidibidi."
As far as Windows crashing, I'm sorry but I just haven't seen it recently. XP seems as stable as a rock on my hardware. I used to complain about this as loudly and as often as anyone else, when it was a problem. Nowadays, frequent crashes are a sure sign you need better drivers, not an unavoidable cost of using Tinyflaccid products. (That's my new nickname for Micorsoft, like it?)
As far as the games go, Dell could include a copy of Cedega for less than the cost of Windows. At first you'd see people sharing the configurations that got popular games working. Then if this new Open Source Dell thing took off, you'd see game companies offering patches to make their games work under Cedega. Then you'd see game companies testing under Cedega before release. It would be much easier to release one Windows/Cedega tested version than it would be to release one Windows version and one Linux version.
Market failure, in economic terms, indicates a condition where the market fails to allocate goods and services efficiently. Specifically, imbalance of information leads to the failure mode where there is an inadequate expression of costs or benefits in prices that skews microeconomic decsion making in markets.
Please read the wiki page (as a starting point) on Information asymmetry to understand more about why this situation is sub-optimal.
Your use of tautology helps make my point about the utter banality of libertarian thought. It boils down to "The free market is perfect and there are no market failures because, if there were, the free market would have found a way around those failures." Are you even capable of comprehending how inane that line of reasoning is?
There are ways around those failures, the free market is just not capable of providing them at a cost that people find attractive. It's not that people don't want the solutions, it's that the free market is not capable of providing the solutions people want.
Actually, if you ask the people participating in those systems, it has. But I'm not even advocating socialism, as that must be enforced from above. In fact, I'm not yet advocating anything, as I'm trying to work it all out in my head. I want a system that gives people equitable opportunities, advocates social responsibility, protects basic human rights, damps down the out of control positive feedback loops of the pure free market, and does it all without imposition by force from above, all based on voluntary contract. I'd hardly call those simple goals, and if there was a simple solution, I think I would have thought of it by now. The very fact that I'm still trying to work it all out tells me it won't be a simple solution when I come up with it. Or it tells me I'm not as smart as I think I am. ;-)
As as for powerful people influencing things? Welcome to the real world.
Hey, I'm a powerful person, want to bend over and be my bitch? Oh, you don't? Then STFU when others complain. Just because something is the way it is does not mean that's the way it should be.
Do you really think that a small minority of powerful people should be in charge of all our news? You may be happy being spoon-fed all your information from a few biased sources, but the rest of us aren't.
Damn, man, every time I start to think, "this daveschroeder isn't as bad as I thought," you come out with a gem like this that just makes me picture you wearing a brown shirt.
Wow. That makes this story even more pointless than I first thought.
;-P
Wow, Zonk, just... wow. Is there an Excellence in Online Editing Award we could nominate you for?
Hehe, you know we still love you though, right?