*Voluntary* charity was not considered a character flaw
Rand seemed to view the world in black and white terms, where, to use her words, selfishness is good and altruism is bad. I applaud her for being a strong voice that what people do should be voluntary, but that doesn't mean we need a moral case against wanting to do things for other people.
People connect to the balloon network using a special Internet antenna attached to their building. The signal bounces from balloon to balloon, then to the global Internet back on Earth.
Interesting, although I wonder what the latency will be like. Although I guess if it's meant for off-the-grid places then better that than nothing?
The Mozilla Science Lab is funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which definitely has real money. And three dedicated people who know what they're doing can accomplish a lot.
He's spent years researching the problem in his capacity as a constitutional law professor and he proposes a very specific solution which has been demonstrated to work well in other western democracies.
What, public financing of candidates? Sorry, no sale. And he wants to get there by holding a second constitutional convention, which has the potential to be a complete disaster since too many people naively believe government should do more rather than less.
That suggests you think there can be a system where there is a lot of centralized power, but money doesn't buy access to it because those with power only magnanimously serve the interests of others. Good luck with that.
The reason the money is there is that there's so much for power for it to buy. I appreciate Lessig's work in general, but those who think that campaign finance measures will ever be anything more than an endless game of whack-a-mole are kidding themselves. (And even then that's without factoring in SCOTUS hostility toward the idea.)
What third party? Do you really think that would make any difference? Under the current system anyone elected is controlled or made irrelevant. Until the money is removed from the electoral process this won't change.
Money is a symptom, not the disease. There's so much money precisely because there's so much federal power available to buy. Until political power is radically decentralized, this will not change.
If you think that free markets and deregulation are pro-corporate policies, you're not paying enough attention. The whole point of corporatism is to use "consumer protection" as an excuse to prevent new entrants into the marketplace.
Because they're not a "they", they're a huge set of individuals who differ from one another, in many cases by a great deal. If you're not keen to help those who want to resist their oppressors then that's your call, but many of us do.
I know what you mean, but I decided to let it go when I remembered that even in TOS Spock shows emotion at unexpectedly seeing Kirk alive at the end of Amok Time.
Not at all. I'm simply disagreeing that the government is the most reliable institution to provide that sort of information. For example, Certified Humane has a special seal of approval that is meant to help consumers who eat things like eggs and meat make the choice to only buy from providers who treat the animals involved in a reasonably humane fashion. One could argue government could mandate this, but given the influence of agribusiness on politicians and bureaucrats, that solution is not realistic. Fortunately, we see that this private labelling system can do the same job to provide information to those who want it.
Now, you evidently disagree that non-profit groups are ideal for this, and if that's the case, well, we're each entitled to our own observations. But come on, does that really mean that either of us are doing mental gymnastics, making unreasonable justifications, moving goalposts, or violating core principles (routinely or otherwise)?
That's not because we intrinsically hate labels that help people make informed decisions about what they eat. It's because (1) we think if consumers who don't want to eat GMOs are serious, they'll refuse to buy food unless there's a seal of approval from a trustworthy private organization that has real standards, and (2) when a government that's in Monsanto's pocket inevitably comes up with a shitty labeling system it will crowd out the possibility of such private organizations developing because people will falsely believe it's a solved problem.
It's fair enough if you disagree, but don't assume bad faith.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, you're right, that was a pretty big whoosh. On the other hand, it doesn't mean you have to be an asshole.
*Voluntary* charity was not considered a character flaw
Rand seemed to view the world in black and white terms, where, to use her words, selfishness is good and altruism is bad. I applaud her for being a strong voice that what people do should be voluntary, but that doesn't mean we need a moral case against wanting to do things for other people.
No kidding. I always figure these "why don't they just..." suggestions are from people without families. Seriously, that changes everything.
People connect to the balloon network using a special Internet antenna attached to their building. The signal bounces from balloon to balloon, then to the global Internet back on Earth.
Interesting, although I wonder what the latency will be like. Although I guess if it's meant for off-the-grid places then better that than nothing?
I know, right? That's teeny tiny sky? They'll fill it in no time!
Not to be pedantic, but the "Ayn Rand mentality" is pretty much the opposite of what you think it is.
I don't think I'd want to live in a world where charity is considered a character flaw, but in fairness I've read her books and c0d3g33k is right.
I do, actually. It's free, runs everywhere, has an equalizer, and doesn't try to do a bunch of cataloguing/internal database shit that I don't want.
No problem, I just asked my Jewish friends to knock it off and they said they were sorry and would stop enslaving us all.
Good luck to them if they think that helps. Me, I'm pretty sure I've been on their enemies list for years.
The Mozilla Science Lab is funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which definitely has real money. And three dedicated people who know what they're doing can accomplish a lot.
He's spent years researching the problem in his capacity as a constitutional law professor and he proposes a very specific solution which has been demonstrated to work well in other western democracies.
What, public financing of candidates? Sorry, no sale. And he wants to get there by holding a second constitutional convention, which has the potential to be a complete disaster since too many people naively believe government should do more rather than less.
Because that's not even slightly arrogant.
That suggests you think there can be a system where there is a lot of centralized power, but money doesn't buy access to it because those with power only magnanimously serve the interests of others. Good luck with that.
The reason the money is there is that there's so much for power for it to buy. I appreciate Lessig's work in general, but those who think that campaign finance measures will ever be anything more than an endless game of whack-a-mole are kidding themselves. (And even then that's without factoring in SCOTUS hostility toward the idea.)
What third party? Do you really think that would make any difference? Under the current system anyone elected is controlled or made irrelevant. Until the money is removed from the electoral process this won't change.
Money is a symptom, not the disease. There's so much money precisely because there's so much federal power available to buy. Until political power is radically decentralized, this will not change.
It's her stripper name.
If you think that free markets and deregulation are pro-corporate policies, you're not paying enough attention. The whole point of corporatism is to use "consumer protection" as an excuse to prevent new entrants into the marketplace.
Now now, not your users' data, just their metadata. That's just fine, I know because the Surpeme Court says so. ~
Because they're not a "they", they're a huge set of individuals who differ from one another, in many cases by a great deal. If you're not keen to help those who want to resist their oppressors then that's your call, but many of us do.
I know what you mean, but I decided to let it go when I remembered that even in TOS Spock shows emotion at unexpectedly seeing Kirk alive at the end of Amok Time.
Are there many 19th century reporters in Louisville?
Or have they not made it that far yet?
In corporatist America, politicians bugger you.
Not at all. I'm simply disagreeing that the government is the most reliable institution to provide that sort of information. For example, Certified Humane has a special seal of approval that is meant to help consumers who eat things like eggs and meat make the choice to only buy from providers who treat the animals involved in a reasonably humane fashion. One could argue government could mandate this, but given the influence of agribusiness on politicians and bureaucrats, that solution is not realistic. Fortunately, we see that this private labelling system can do the same job to provide information to those who want it.
Now, you evidently disagree that non-profit groups are ideal for this, and if that's the case, well, we're each entitled to our own observations. But come on, does that really mean that either of us are doing mental gymnastics, making unreasonable justifications, moving goalposts, or violating core principles (routinely or otherwise)?
That's not because we intrinsically hate labels that help people make informed decisions about what they eat. It's because (1) we think if consumers who don't want to eat GMOs are serious, they'll refuse to buy food unless there's a seal of approval from a trustworthy private organization that has real standards, and (2) when a government that's in Monsanto's pocket inevitably comes up with a shitty labeling system it will crowd out the possibility of such private organizations developing because people will falsely believe it's a solved problem.
It's fair enough if you disagree, but don't assume bad faith.
Troll? Troll?!
[robot voice] "I am a moderator. I am hypersentitive and humorless...." [/robot voice]