That reminds me of that time that a elite group of people managed to manipulate the media into such a place where it polarized the populace into two different groups that were, at their core, basically the same people with the same core. This elite group of people then went on to do as they please, further enriching themselves at the cost of said populace.
Because maintaining the moral high-ground by spreading the good word based upon what little we know resulted in keeping HADOPI, the PROTECT IP act, the PATRIOT act, and DMCA down, right? It's what's going to keep ACTA from being forced into reality? The moral high ground is putting down the corruption in the two party system? What has smiling and taking it actually won us?
And if that's not a solid enough argument, I have this thought in parting: If what they're doing is so bad, why can I not help but smile when I read about it?
-1 Failing to realize that Republicans aren't the problem: Republicans AND DEMOCRATS (really, Two-party systems in general) are.
-1 Rant disguised as content.
-1 "Pee Tardy"? Seriously? We really are regressing as a race, aren't we? That shit's something I'd expect a 10 year old to come up with, and we're not talking the clever 10 year olds here.
Neither. One doesn't contribute to society, and the other doesn't set an example for others to follow. Publicly announcing acts of charity draws attention to the cause, and it says, "Hey, I'm rich and powerful, and I'm still doing these good works for others." Everyone wants to be like the rich/famous/powerful. If they didn't, there wouldn't be so many lower-middle class voting Republican. Or voting period, for that matter. He is trying to be something we're woefully lacking in this day and age: A Role-Model.
I'm reasonably sure that the only thing Jobs has ever donated to was the Democratic Party election campaign fund. But that's more an investment than a donation.
"communist" - While your post is interesting, and I think I agree with your overall message, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Oh? What if it's a matter of fatigue causing symptoms similar to being drunk? What if, when they were thrown from their car, they injured themselves such as to be walking around in a daze?
I guess your friend is at least a former EMT and qualified to make that differentiation. Not like the police deciding to take it upon themselves.
Do you have an exhaustive list of these privileges? I've often wondered what exactly they must be. Surely if the system of determining what is a privilege is permissive, there must be some list somewhere.
...but more like a focus away from what I can only call "traditional intellectualism". It's the "I'm smart enough to drop out of school at 16 and get my GED so that I can start on real life rather than high school bullshit" mentality. I know a guy who did that. Started working at a mom & pop ISP back in the 90s, and then went on to be a successful network engineer. Also, college IS overrated. Sure, the piece of paper looks nice, might get you another $AMOUNT of money on your paycheck, but at the end of the day, it's still sophistry to the highest degree, and you spend that additional $AMOUNT of money paying it back for years to come. For anyone actually genuinely interested in learning, and not just looking for a job, we have Internet resources like Khan academy, tutorial sites, and Wikipedia (love it or hate it, it is informative enough to be a starting point). Honestly, I trust Wikipedia more than I trust most of the "professors" I had in college, but perhaps I'm just bitter, and/or perhaps I just picked a shit school.
On the other side of the coin, I could also see Mr. Sanger having a legitimate point. I refuse to accept any research on 'controversial' issues with large amounts of political or corporate interest behind them. I refuse to believe in or against global warming, for example. For some reason, people are too polarized on the topic, and I can't find any information I trust on the subject, so I willfully ignore anything I encounter concerning the topic, and do not take a stand as I do not feel well informed enough to feel justified. Most 'studies' I read that aren't paywalled in a journal somewhere always have that 'corporate slime' feel to them, and so I hear about the new medical breakthrough or recent scientific finding, and I can't help but think to myself, "Is that real? How are they going to market that?"
Is it right, wrong, good, bad, or otherwise? I wish I knew. I'm not informed enough to be able to make a decision.
Well, yeah... and if it weren't for all these security measures, then the security wouldn't have existed to able to wave the dangerous passengers on to where they would be subdued!
I also have some volcano insurance I'd like to sell you, should you be interested. I also sell rocks that protect from bear attacks.
Yeah, I see your point. As another person posted, it might be more advantageous to threaten to sell it to a competitor. I realize that it won't affect the company directly, so I guess the hope would be to scare the other shareholders enough that they don't call my bluff. This is exactly the reason why I posted this here though.
I've been thinking about these kinds of problems that plague civilization when corporations have a louder voice than humans, and are able to manhandle laws into doing everything they can to keep the plebs in their places. The problem to me appears to be that corporations are completely amoral, and dedicated toward doing absolutely whatever it takes to make as much money as possible. They do this due to their obligations to the shareholders. I'm going to pause along this train of thought to abuse the corollary: Somewhere along the line, "The customer is always right", transformed into, "the shareholder is always right."
Basically what I'm getting at here is that I now believe that in order to effect change, the only way to proceed is to play their same game against them. I propose creating a holdings company, getting it classified as a NPO, and then using donations generated by those interested in the lofty goals of the organization to purchase stock in the companies that are causing the problems. Any and all dividends made from the stock would go toward operational costs of the organization itself, and any surplus would go toward purchasing additional stock. The purpose of this is to be able to try to lobby within the stockholder's meetings with the stockholders themselves, and at worst case and assuming that the organization has enough stock to do so, threaten to tank the company by liquidating the stock for pennies. I'm no market analyst, but I'm pretty sure that it would play havoc with all the automated trading systems were a couple thousand shares of stock to be put out there for 1% of the current asking price.
Anyway, I thought I'd leave this here, figuring that if anyone was cynical enough to be able to shred this to pieces, it'd be Slashdot. Obviously, it has flaws. I'm no genius, and it was just something that came to me the other day, so I've hardly spent much time considering it.
This is something that used to bug me, but then I realized something important. I just do like a large amount of other people from unstable regions have done for the last 30 years, and flee like a rat from a sinking ship. The US fails and I just get a tech job in a different (and much more stable) country. I work for a multinational corporation: Transfers are nontrivial, but relatively easy. It's more a question of motivation.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah. "Basically the same people with the same core goals and ideals."
That reminds me of that time that a elite group of people managed to manipulate the media into such a place where it polarized the populace into two different groups that were, at their core, basically the same people with the same core. This elite group of people then went on to do as they please, further enriching themselves at the cost of said populace.
Actually, I was going to say because one of them was creative enough to come up with an alternative means of filesharing.
Unless you were trying to be funny, in which case I completely agree.
There's a joke in there somewhere.
Oh, I get it. Check the site, it's a Apple only thing. That actually makes sense in a lot of ways.
Capital Face-palm.
Because maintaining the moral high-ground by spreading the good word based upon what little we know resulted in keeping HADOPI, the PROTECT IP act, the PATRIOT act, and DMCA down, right? It's what's going to keep ACTA from being forced into reality? The moral high ground is putting down the corruption in the two party system? What has smiling and taking it actually won us? And if that's not a solid enough argument, I have this thought in parting: If what they're doing is so bad, why can I not help but smile when I read about it?
-1 Failing to realize that Republicans aren't the problem: Republicans AND DEMOCRATS (really, Two-party systems in general) are.
-1 Rant disguised as content.
-1 "Pee Tardy"? Seriously? We really are regressing as a race, aren't we? That shit's something I'd expect a 10 year old to come up with, and we're not talking the clever 10 year olds here.
Neither. One doesn't contribute to society, and the other doesn't set an example for others to follow. Publicly announcing acts of charity draws attention to the cause, and it says, "Hey, I'm rich and powerful, and I'm still doing these good works for others." Everyone wants to be like the rich/famous/powerful. If they didn't, there wouldn't be so many lower-middle class voting Republican. Or voting period, for that matter. He is trying to be something we're woefully lacking in this day and age: A Role-Model.
I'm reasonably sure that the only thing Jobs has ever donated to was the Democratic Party election campaign fund. But that's more an investment than a donation.
One man's "solution" resulting in someone else's "sacrifice" is hardly unique to copyright problems.
Well, I mean, I'm not going to risk MY computer to some random virus infection. Of course I'm going to use an office computer!
While I agree that as a whole it should be reduced there are many places where it should be expanded
Where do you think our criminal code needs to be expanded? I cannot think of any such category of behavior, but maybe I am not creative enough.
Politics.
"communist" - While your post is interesting, and I think I agree with your overall message, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Oh? What if it's a matter of fatigue causing symptoms similar to being drunk? What if, when they were thrown from their car, they injured themselves such as to be walking around in a daze?
I guess your friend is at least a former EMT and qualified to make that differentiation. Not like the police deciding to take it upon themselves.
Do you have an exhaustive list of these privileges? I've often wondered what exactly they must be. Surely if the system of determining what is a privilege is permissive, there must be some list somewhere.
...but more like a focus away from what I can only call "traditional intellectualism". It's the "I'm smart enough to drop out of school at 16 and get my GED so that I can start on real life rather than high school bullshit" mentality. I know a guy who did that. Started working at a mom & pop ISP back in the 90s, and then went on to be a successful network engineer. Also, college IS overrated. Sure, the piece of paper looks nice, might get you another $AMOUNT of money on your paycheck, but at the end of the day, it's still sophistry to the highest degree, and you spend that additional $AMOUNT of money paying it back for years to come. For anyone actually genuinely interested in learning, and not just looking for a job, we have Internet resources like Khan academy, tutorial sites, and Wikipedia (love it or hate it, it is informative enough to be a starting point). Honestly, I trust Wikipedia more than I trust most of the "professors" I had in college, but perhaps I'm just bitter, and/or perhaps I just picked a shit school.
On the other side of the coin, I could also see Mr. Sanger having a legitimate point. I refuse to accept any research on 'controversial' issues with large amounts of political or corporate interest behind them. I refuse to believe in or against global warming, for example. For some reason, people are too polarized on the topic, and I can't find any information I trust on the subject, so I willfully ignore anything I encounter concerning the topic, and do not take a stand as I do not feel well informed enough to feel justified. Most 'studies' I read that aren't paywalled in a journal somewhere always have that 'corporate slime' feel to them, and so I hear about the new medical breakthrough or recent scientific finding, and I can't help but think to myself, "Is that real? How are they going to market that?"
Is it right, wrong, good, bad, or otherwise? I wish I knew. I'm not informed enough to be able to make a decision.
Yes. Please. Why not get rid of ALL the useless stories and actually focus on those which actually add value?
Well, yeah... and if it weren't for all these security measures, then the security wouldn't have existed to able to wave the dangerous passengers on to where they would be subdued!
I also have some volcano insurance I'd like to sell you, should you be interested. I also sell rocks that protect from bear attacks.
Okay. How well has that been working so far? What methods for doing so do you propose?
Yeah, I see your point. As another person posted, it might be more advantageous to threaten to sell it to a competitor. I realize that it won't affect the company directly, so I guess the hope would be to scare the other shareholders enough that they don't call my bluff. This is exactly the reason why I posted this here though.
I've been thinking about these kinds of problems that plague civilization when corporations have a louder voice than humans, and are able to manhandle laws into doing everything they can to keep the plebs in their places. The problem to me appears to be that corporations are completely amoral, and dedicated toward doing absolutely whatever it takes to make as much money as possible. They do this due to their obligations to the shareholders. I'm going to pause along this train of thought to abuse the corollary: Somewhere along the line, "The customer is always right", transformed into, "the shareholder is always right."
Basically what I'm getting at here is that I now believe that in order to effect change, the only way to proceed is to play their same game against them. I propose creating a holdings company, getting it classified as a NPO, and then using donations generated by those interested in the lofty goals of the organization to purchase stock in the companies that are causing the problems. Any and all dividends made from the stock would go toward operational costs of the organization itself, and any surplus would go toward purchasing additional stock. The purpose of this is to be able to try to lobby within the stockholder's meetings with the stockholders themselves, and at worst case and assuming that the organization has enough stock to do so, threaten to tank the company by liquidating the stock for pennies. I'm no market analyst, but I'm pretty sure that it would play havoc with all the automated trading systems were a couple thousand shares of stock to be put out there for 1% of the current asking price.
Anyway, I thought I'd leave this here, figuring that if anyone was cynical enough to be able to shred this to pieces, it'd be Slashdot. Obviously, it has flaws. I'm no genius, and it was just something that came to me the other day, so I've hardly spent much time considering it.
Well, this IS a Gaga story.
You heard it here first folks. Anonymous is revolting! :)
I kid because I love.
Read all about it in this arbitrarily nonsensical review guaranteed to increase page clicks here!
This is something that used to bug me, but then I realized something important. I just do like a large amount of other people from unstable regions have done for the last 30 years, and flee like a rat from a sinking ship. The US fails and I just get a tech job in a different (and much more stable) country. I work for a multinational corporation: Transfers are nontrivial, but relatively easy. It's more a question of motivation.