Jesus christ, you could have a a story about what Eric ate for breakfast and you'd get people spouting this line over and over again.
Also, why the hell do they all get it slightly wrong? It's "don't be evil" not "do no evil".
Uh, most employers ask for any previous names you might have had. You know, to catch people escaping their past. I think a few people have tried that before.
Of course, before facebook, the solution was to just use a pseudonym. Not that it's a real solid solution, more like a cheap masterlock.
Really? You don't get the idea that you can't take an idea away from someone? (short of serious drugs and lobotomy)
Like, your sig. I've read your sig. I've "taken it". I know it now. I don't particularly get it, but I could repeat it if need be. What have you lost? Where is the theft? What was stolen?
The state of that information being public or private doesn't change any of that. It makes the the act a breach of privacy, copyright infringement, or espionage. But not theft.
It's kind of a nitpicky distinction, like the difference between manslaughter and murder, but it's there.
I dunno, I'm usually on Google's side. I really don't understand why people chose to fear them. I mean, I understand they have a HUGE potential for evil. But only slightly more so then Microsoft. And M$ has actually been evil, in moderate amounts. I think part of it is hating them for being successful.
Anyway, even I have to say that some of these rebuttals are kinda weak. There's a lot of compromise on wireless when, go figure, they're coming together with Verizon, whose mostly a wireless (cellular) company. Yeah yeah, FiOS, whatever. So if they ever got, say, Mediacom to come to the table, would they compromise on cable lines too?
Associating with Verizon in any way shape or form is tainting Google. So what if shit isn't progressing? Let it get bad to the point you can implement real fixes. If it doesn't get that bad? Well then what's the problem. But get these half-assed compromises on the books, then it's going to be really hard to fix.
OOOOOhhhh, you're broadening this out to other nations. You know, I thought that 100Mill value looked a little big. You see, when you said "agency", in the singular, I thought you meant my current government. All I could think of was executions, you know, of criminals. There's also stuff like the trail of tears, but that's before the 100 year mark. With that broader view though, yeah, I'd agree with you. Governments, throughout history, have had more atrocities then Corporations.
Oh, but hey, when trying to muster up a rebuttal, let's selectively only count coal mine deaths in the USA.
And ignore black lung.
And then claim that anyone who worked in a dirty job chose to get sick and die. Like they had some viable alternatives.
Yeah, lawyers commenting on law. I guess that makes sense. Lawyers commenting on an open letter is a little weird, but it's not an open letter, it's a a brokered compromise between two giants. I get the free speech thing, I do, and damn to hell anyone who says that me, Google, or Verison can't send letters to the FCC.
But it's that they're acting like they're sitting down at a table and negotiating power sharing rather then asking the FCC "please mother may I".
I guess my problem is that if all of slashdot came together and wrote what we wanted the law should be, it would be dismissed out of hand by everyone. But Google and Verizon write their version of the law, and it carries weight? It's a story? why?
We've always had network neutrality. At least to a certain extent. There was peering and a "gentleman's agreement", back when there was more then a handful of gentlemen. Now single providers HAVE ALREADY monopolized huge areas. What you fear has already happened. And guess what? Now that they have power over regions, they're starting to break down the time-honored rules of a neutral internet. And they're doing so to make a buck. Fuck 'em. Regulate them. Or bust them up.
But seriously people, stop modding up cowards who are probably verizon astroturfers.
Please, don't think that the president is the almighty who is all knowing and all powerful. We have elections for different positions on 2, 4, and 6 year cycles, all of which are staggered so there's near constant change.
So how many people died in coal mines? Or of black lung? Those people weren't exactly executed, but they were worked to death.
Which agency is responsible for executing over 100 million of its own citizens over the last hundred years?...it must be government.
Most of them deserved it. Not all sadly, but most.
Corporations don't have power to throw me in jail, bust down my door, send me to Afghanistan to die,
And neither does our government, without justification. But then again, a corp guard can kill you if he has justification.
or suck money directly from my wallet
Ah, well. You got me there. But then again, how much do you pay all the corporations? Sure you get something in return, usually, but you also get something for your taxes. Which is more valuable to you? That new TV or the security from roving band of TV-taking brigands?
Also "free market" simply means "power to the citizen"
It means a lot of different things to different people. It really means power to the people with money and power. For the last decade that meant that if you tried to sell something, then Wang Chung in China would make it cheaper then you, Wally would undercut you, and you'd go broke.
And oh yes, because while we're talking about network neutrality, let's bring up the housing bubble! All sorts of people were responsible for that. Get over it.
Anyone else think it's odd that we're reading an article about a group of lawyers commenting about two companies coming together to broker a deal about what the government should be allowed to do?
Isn't that a little backwards? I mean, I like the EFF. But the idea that we need lawyers to tell us what's good and what's bad seems odd.
And having two giants acting like they can simply write legislature is balls to the walls wrong. The FCC can do whatever the laws says they can do, Google and Verizon be damned. Who writes those laws? Those that We The People (tm) put in power.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
There is no true free market. If you want to trade goods or services in exchange for money, then the market isn't free due to the monetary policy of whoever controls the money. If you want there to be repercussions when the barbarians scoffs at your price, lops off your head, and simply takes your pelts, then the market isn't free because the cops will gun down his ass. If you want the right to not be enslaved and forced to work in a coal mine, that right destroys the free market.
The free market is one of those ideals that doesn't really exist. Like a perfect circle, a perfect government be it anarchy or totalitarianism, or true freedom. The world is about 6 billion shades of gray.
And he did. His course of action was not to have a heart attack and leave the country at the hands of a crazy moonbat who would assuredly invade France for... whatever reason, let's say not being American enough.
Similarly, he didn't invade Iran or Pakistan as soon as the merest opportunity presented itself. Not that I really want to call McCain a war-monger, but he IS indoctrinated to the military way of thought. We'd be sending in more and more good blood in after bad.
So whatever his faults, he's still the best option we had.
Hmmm. Ultimately I guess you're right. But it depends on how you look at it.
Say if you have a bell curve of people based on their Evil Quotient. You put an evil activity in front of them with some reward and/or financial/social/legal pressure to perform it. At some point on the curve, there will be a threshold where the better people will refuse, and the worse people will comply. Increase the pressure and you'll see that threshold move. Increase it enough, and both you and I will comply, while the people better then us will refuse.
So two things. First, yeah, you're right, these people below the threshold ARE evil. Relative to the people above them. We judge people (and companies) based on their actions. To do otherwise is to simply throw out rational judgment, and that's dangerous.
Secondly, there's really no such thing as evil. It's just different people with different levels of desperation and fear, or susceptibility to various forces.
But this is straying into a philosophical debate on the nature of man. Or in other words: useless. Stick to reality, companies do evil things, punish them accordingly.
And for as evil as the guy was, why doesn't anyone ever think about all the good that Hitler did? I mean, for as much as Madam Circle rages about respecting the dead, she's apparently fine with dancing on Hilter's grave.
Oh yes, because the greatness of a politician is the quantity of porking they perform...
Pork you motherporker, funneling money to your state just so it lands in the hands of your friends is called corruption. Building hoover dam, a benefit to society and a source of clean energy for generations. Building a bridge to nowhere benefits a construction company for a few months. Know the difference. As for dearly departed Ted, I imagine he had a little for column A, and a little for column B.
Yeah, I have to side with you jvk. I came to call bullshit on the ancestor's "one obligation". The founders still have the controlling vote, so they don't have to do jack shit when the board tells them to jump. And for publicly traded companies that are truly publicly controlled, the CEO can still justify NEARLY ANYTHING as being good for profit.
Fire everyone? Reducing cost.
Double the payroll? Aggressively cornering the market.
Scrapping the product and making something new? Re-inventing the company in a bold new direction.
Using the same old shit as last year? Providing a stable and well-known product.
So even if profit is paramount, it doesn't mean anything when it comes to determining how a company is run. But profit all by itself isn't (or at least shouldn't) be paramount. I'd prefer long-term viability. Day traders want instant profits. I want my 401k to be worth something in 40 years.
But EasterBerry does have a point. I just think he takes it too far. Companies whose competition uses morally questionable but legal practices face financial pressure to do likewise. Companies that are required by law to do questionable actives have a very difficult decision.
But if cops come by and force a company to do blatantly evil things, the company is at risk of being evil complicity. For being evil through inaction.
If only he had traveled by tube!
But really, as much as I dislike the guy, and as poor at his job as he was, if he's really dead then these comments are going to be in poor taste and my heart goes out to his family. Hopefully everyone is ok.
That sounds fantastic. Actually, it sounds like something that should have been in place 20 years ago. While I can appreciate my government not rushing to the bleeding edge of technology, they are just ludicrously behind the times.
No. That's not a good thing.
First off, the cold war was a WAR. People shot bullets at each other and died. Remember Vietnam and Afghanistan? Just because we're spreading McDonalds as opposed to democracy doesn't make it any better. So don't liken it to the cold war. That's a bad start... Ah, I think you were shooting for the space race. Yeah, that makes more sense now.
Secondly, an economic struggle doesn't mean it's going to be a race for an environmentally sound economy. You just kind of threw that in there. That IE is a leap of logic. You missed a step. If push came to shove, we'd dump toxins into our own well water if it meant we'd be able to undercut eat today.
Thirdly, realize that China is trying to clean up their act because their workers are DIEING before getting the job done. China's environmental woes is starting to take it's toll on their manufacturing capabilities. China is doing this so they can make a buck. Which is fine.
And this final point is one I really want to press home: You CANNOT depend on consumers' desire for "green" to influence environmental standards. Only a select few of the upper-crust give a shit about being green and actually buy accordingly. Because you're right, it is a hard sell. But selling the "green" lifestyle doesn't mean the product is green. And they are CONSUMERS. By definition, they are not green. They are kind of the anti-green. I'm hoping for the day that people move on from "green" and look at "meaningful society benefiting productivity" per "green" unit. Because, come on, mass murder is a pretty "green" activity.
Right? I mean, this is exactly what a lot of people have been wanting China to do for a while. So this is fantastic. Where's the celebration?
Why does good news in the east cause complaints about the west? The west pollutes a lot less then China, but somehow an announcement about shutting down antiquated steel mills makes China greener then us? I understand their rate-of-change might be better, but that's not sustainable. They are not going to forgo dams tomorrow as being too environmentally destructive. "If current trends continue" is a straight faced lie.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus christ, you could have a a story about what Eric ate for breakfast and you'd get people spouting this line over and over again.
Also, why the hell do they all get it slightly wrong? It's "don't be evil" not "do no evil".
Uh, most employers ask for any previous names you might have had. You know, to catch people escaping their past. I think a few people have tried that before.
Of course, before facebook, the solution was to just use a pseudonym. Not that it's a real solid solution, more like a cheap masterlock.
Really? You don't get the idea that you can't take an idea away from someone? (short of serious drugs and lobotomy)
Like, your sig. I've read your sig. I've "taken it". I know it now. I don't particularly get it, but I could repeat it if need be. What have you lost? Where is the theft? What was stolen?
The state of that information being public or private doesn't change any of that. It makes the the act a breach of privacy, copyright infringement, or espionage. But not theft.
It's kind of a nitpicky distinction, like the difference between manslaughter and murder, but it's there.
That's a weird spelling of SUV.
oh neat, you can strap small jet engines onto these suckers. Scrap that (very slow) modifier.
Ahh, the age of cheap home-built UAVs. All sorts of applications. Like this wi-fi sniffing, which is pretty neat.
But strap a modestly sized brick of C-4 and you have yourself a (very slow) smart missile.
I dunno, I'm usually on Google's side. I really don't understand why people chose to fear them. I mean, I understand they have a HUGE potential for evil. But only slightly more so then Microsoft. And M$ has actually been evil, in moderate amounts. I think part of it is hating them for being successful.
Anyway, even I have to say that some of these rebuttals are kinda weak. There's a lot of compromise on wireless when, go figure, they're coming together with Verizon, whose mostly a wireless (cellular) company. Yeah yeah, FiOS, whatever. So if they ever got, say, Mediacom to come to the table, would they compromise on cable lines too?
Associating with Verizon in any way shape or form is tainting Google. So what if shit isn't progressing? Let it get bad to the point you can implement real fixes. If it doesn't get that bad? Well then what's the problem. But get these half-assed compromises on the books, then it's going to be really hard to fix.
Oh yeah, there's hardly any difference between California and Texas laws.
OOOOOhhhh, you're broadening this out to other nations. You know, I thought that 100Mill value looked a little big. You see, when you said "agency", in the singular, I thought you meant my current government. All I could think of was executions, you know, of criminals. There's also stuff like the trail of tears, but that's before the 100 year mark. With that broader view though, yeah, I'd agree with you. Governments, throughout history, have had more atrocities then Corporations.
Oh, but hey, when trying to muster up a rebuttal, let's selectively only count coal mine deaths in the USA.
And ignore black lung.
And then claim that anyone who worked in a dirty job chose to get sick and die. Like they had some viable alternatives.
Yeah, lawyers commenting on law. I guess that makes sense. Lawyers commenting on an open letter is a little weird, but it's not an open letter, it's a a brokered compromise between two giants. I get the free speech thing, I do, and damn to hell anyone who says that me, Google, or Verison can't send letters to the FCC.
But it's that they're acting like they're sitting down at a table and negotiating power sharing rather then asking the FCC "please mother may I".
I guess my problem is that if all of slashdot came together and wrote what we wanted the law should be, it would be dismissed out of hand by everyone. But Google and Verizon write their version of the law, and it carries weight? It's a story? why?
Did you know there are laws against reading other people's mail?
Yeah, horribly broken system right there.
We've always had network neutrality. At least to a certain extent. There was peering and a "gentleman's agreement", back when there was more then a handful of gentlemen. Now single providers HAVE ALREADY monopolized huge areas. What you fear has already happened. And guess what? Now that they have power over regions, they're starting to break down the time-honored rules of a neutral internet. And they're doing so to make a buck. Fuck 'em. Regulate them. Or bust them up.
But seriously people, stop modding up cowards who are probably verizon astroturfers.
Please, don't think that the president is the almighty who is all knowing and all powerful. We have elections for different positions on 2, 4, and 6 year cycles, all of which are staggered so there's near constant change.
Which agency is responsible for executing over 100 million of its own citizens over the last hundred years? ...it must be government.
Most of them deserved it. Not all sadly, but most.
Corporations don't have power to throw me in jail, bust down my door, send me to Afghanistan to die,
And neither does our government, without justification. But then again, a corp guard can kill you if he has justification.
or suck money directly from my wallet
Ah, well. You got me there. But then again, how much do you pay all the corporations? Sure you get something in return, usually, but you also get something for your taxes. Which is more valuable to you? That new TV or the security from roving band of TV-taking brigands?
Also "free market" simply means "power to the citizen"
It means a lot of different things to different people. It really means power to the people with money and power. For the last decade that meant that if you tried to sell something, then Wang Chung in China would make it cheaper then you, Wally would undercut you, and you'd go broke.
And oh yes, because while we're talking about network neutrality, let's bring up the housing bubble! All sorts of people were responsible for that. Get over it.
Anyone else think it's odd that we're reading an article about a group of lawyers commenting about two companies coming together to broker a deal about what the government should be allowed to do?
Isn't that a little backwards? I mean, I like the EFF. But the idea that we need lawyers to tell us what's good and what's bad seems odd.
And having two giants acting like they can simply write legislature is balls to the walls wrong. The FCC can do whatever the laws says they can do, Google and Verizon be damned. Who writes those laws? Those that We The People (tm) put in power.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
There is no true free market. If you want to trade goods or services in exchange for money, then the market isn't free due to the monetary policy of whoever controls the money. If you want there to be repercussions when the barbarians scoffs at your price, lops off your head, and simply takes your pelts, then the market isn't free because the cops will gun down his ass. If you want the right to not be enslaved and forced to work in a coal mine, that right destroys the free market.
The free market is one of those ideals that doesn't really exist. Like a perfect circle, a perfect government be it anarchy or totalitarianism, or true freedom. The world is about 6 billion shades of gray.
And he did. His course of action was not to have a heart attack and leave the country at the hands of a crazy moonbat who would assuredly invade France for... whatever reason, let's say not being American enough.
Similarly, he didn't invade Iran or Pakistan as soon as the merest opportunity presented itself. Not that I really want to call McCain a war-monger, but he IS indoctrinated to the military way of thought. We'd be sending in more and more good blood in after bad.
So whatever his faults, he's still the best option we had.
Hmmm. Ultimately I guess you're right. But it depends on how you look at it.
Say if you have a bell curve of people based on their Evil Quotient. You put an evil activity in front of them with some reward and/or financial/social/legal pressure to perform it. At some point on the curve, there will be a threshold where the better people will refuse, and the worse people will comply. Increase the pressure and you'll see that threshold move. Increase it enough, and both you and I will comply, while the people better then us will refuse.
So two things. First, yeah, you're right, these people below the threshold ARE evil. Relative to the people above them. We judge people (and companies) based on their actions. To do otherwise is to simply throw out rational judgment, and that's dangerous.
Secondly, there's really no such thing as evil. It's just different people with different levels of desperation and fear, or susceptibility to various forces.
But this is straying into a philosophical debate on the nature of man. Or in other words: useless. Stick to reality, companies do evil things, punish them accordingly.
And for as evil as the guy was, why doesn't anyone ever think about all the good that Hitler did? I mean, for as much as Madam Circle rages about respecting the dead, she's apparently fine with dancing on Hilter's grave.
Oh yes, because the greatness of a politician is the quantity of porking they perform...
Pork you motherporker, funneling money to your state just so it lands in the hands of your friends is called corruption. Building hoover dam, a benefit to society and a source of clean energy for generations. Building a bridge to nowhere benefits a construction company for a few months. Know the difference. As for dearly departed Ted, I imagine he had a little for column A, and a little for column B.
Yeah, I have to side with you jvk. I came to call bullshit on the ancestor's "one obligation". The founders still have the controlling vote, so they don't have to do jack shit when the board tells them to jump. And for publicly traded companies that are truly publicly controlled, the CEO can still justify NEARLY ANYTHING as being good for profit.
Fire everyone? Reducing cost.
Double the payroll? Aggressively cornering the market.
Scrapping the product and making something new? Re-inventing the company in a bold new direction.
Using the same old shit as last year? Providing a stable and well-known product.
So even if profit is paramount, it doesn't mean anything when it comes to determining how a company is run. But profit all by itself isn't (or at least shouldn't) be paramount. I'd prefer long-term viability. Day traders want instant profits. I want my 401k to be worth something in 40 years.
But EasterBerry does have a point. I just think he takes it too far. Companies whose competition uses morally questionable but legal practices face financial pressure to do likewise. Companies that are required by law to do questionable actives have a very difficult decision.
But if cops come by and force a company to do blatantly evil things, the company is at risk of being evil complicity. For being evil through inaction.
If only he had traveled by tube!
But really, as much as I dislike the guy, and as poor at his job as he was, if he's really dead then these comments are going to be in poor taste and my heart goes out to his family. Hopefully everyone is ok.
That sounds fantastic. Actually, it sounds like something that should have been in place 20 years ago. While I can appreciate my government not rushing to the bleeding edge of technology, they are just ludicrously behind the times.
No. That's not a good thing.
First off, the cold war was a WAR. People shot bullets at each other and died. Remember Vietnam and Afghanistan? Just because we're spreading McDonalds as opposed to democracy doesn't make it any better. So don't liken it to the cold war. That's a bad start... Ah, I think you were shooting for the space race. Yeah, that makes more sense now.
Secondly, an economic struggle doesn't mean it's going to be a race for an environmentally sound economy. You just kind of threw that in there. That IE is a leap of logic. You missed a step. If push came to shove, we'd dump toxins into our own well water if it meant we'd be able to undercut eat today.
Thirdly, realize that China is trying to clean up their act because their workers are DIEING before getting the job done. China's environmental woes is starting to take it's toll on their manufacturing capabilities. China is doing this so they can make a buck. Which is fine.
And this final point is one I really want to press home: You CANNOT depend on consumers' desire for "green" to influence environmental standards. Only a select few of the upper-crust give a shit about being green and actually buy accordingly. Because you're right, it is a hard sell. But selling the "green" lifestyle doesn't mean the product is green. And they are CONSUMERS. By definition, they are not green. They are kind of the anti-green. I'm hoping for the day that people move on from "green" and look at "meaningful society benefiting productivity" per "green" unit. Because, come on, mass murder is a pretty "green" activity.
Right? I mean, this is exactly what a lot of people have been wanting China to do for a while. So this is fantastic. Where's the celebration?
Why does good news in the east cause complaints about the west? The west pollutes a lot less then China, but somehow an announcement about shutting down antiquated steel mills makes China greener then us? I understand their rate-of-change might be better, but that's not sustainable. They are not going to forgo dams tomorrow as being too environmentally destructive. "If current trends continue" is a straight faced lie.