Who decides what an asshole is? Religious people will claim that all atheists are assholes by their very existence. How will the law adjudge such claims?
This is not about me. Personally I try not to be an asshole, but I should have the right to be one if I want to without consequences imposed by the state.
Why should the law or the government get to mandate good manners? Either something is legal or not. The law has to be blind to everything else. The contract I have with society is that I get my rights in return for my taxes and my compliance with the law. There's no mention of "good manners" anywhere.
It's as if two companies have a contract between them and one of them says "Well, in addition to our agreed clauses, it'll also be 'good manners' if you were to do this, this and this. Otherwise you're an asshole":D
As an Indian, I hope the US will continue to have stewardship over the Internet for the foreseeable future. My own government is run by assholes who think "blasphemy" should be censored on the net. And since India has 1/3rd of the world's population and China has another 1/3rds, we're essentially screwed if the UN works on a pure "democracy" basis.
There are a lot of things I hate about the US, but free speech is NOT one of them. The first amendment is one of the most amazing pieces of legislation ever and people like me in India can only drool in envy. But I'm not complaining. Even if I don't personally live in a country where free speech is not...you know...free, at least I can be happy that it EXISTS somewhere on this planet. At least I can be grateful that my ideals are upheld SOMEWHERE.
But give the Internet to the UN, and all that goes out of the window. I don't like the net being run by megacorps. But I like it being run by countries like dictatorial countries like China, India and the Middle East even less.
How many here have ever posted a question on social networks asking their friends which laptop/smartphone etc. to buy? I don't. I either start from Google or go directly to Amazon.
You like doing business with Google. Lots of people like doing business with Apple. So what?
Apple can get even more customers by being nice. Being nice never drove anyone away. But by doing stuff like this, launching frivolous patent wars etc, Apple fails the "nice" test. So it loses a chance to get even more customers. So simple no?
Sorry, a person is nice by their actions in totality. I like doing business with Google and I trust Google because they're nice. So "nice" IS a viable business model if it gains the trust of your customers.
Why on earth should Apple spend significant amounts of money to develop a free tool...
Because that's what "nice" companies do. And I like doing business with "nice" companies. Google for example makes my life easier for free with great tools and so I don't mind buying from them when I have to.
Since Apple isn't a "nice" company, I avoid doing business with them. Simple.
It's still ridiculous. Imagine if the EULA of an IDE like Eclipse were to demand that any programs compiled using it have to give a cut to the creators of Eclipse!
I'm not saying it's illegal. It's just that Apple is a jerk for doing it.
And Einstein was never in a spaceship and never conducted a single experiment in his whole life. That's what theorists do! It doesn't mean they're wrong.
Honestly, it's not the business of scientists to get into the question of whether the costs are worth it or not. I'm willing to trust them if they say climate change is happening (and how much). But they can go no further than that in a professional capacity.
1. Google isn't claiming that this is the new standard. If they did, they would just drop support for Javascript
2. Insisting on a consensus before every new technological upgrade would be frustratingly slow and the whole process can be held back by one individual. That's not how technology improves.
So how does a company create something better than the standards? Or are you perhaps implying that standards once set are the best for ever and ever? It's not as if Google is DROPPING support for Javascript. That would be...outrageously stupid. What exactly is your problem here?
Slashdot Mirror
Who decides what an asshole is? Religious people will claim that all atheists are assholes by their very existence. How will the law adjudge such claims?
This is not about me. Personally I try not to be an asshole, but I should have the right to be one if I want to without consequences imposed by the state.
I meant consequences imposed by law by the state.
I should have clarified. Consequences imposed by the state. I thought I would be understood.
And who decides what an asshole is? A muslim cleric would say that insulting allah makes you an asshole and you should be fined (or worse).
If a particular action has no penalty or consequence, then it's meaningless for the government to mention them. And it's arrogance if they do.
Why should the law or the government get to mandate good manners? Either something is legal or not. The law has to be blind to everything else. The contract I have with society is that I get my rights in return for my taxes and my compliance with the law. There's no mention of "good manners" anywhere.
:D
It's as if two companies have a contract between them and one of them says "Well, in addition to our agreed clauses, it'll also be 'good manners' if you were to do this, this and this. Otherwise you're an asshole"
Doesn't make sense.
Correction - 1/6th of the world's population for each. So 1/3rd overall with both countries combined.
As an Indian, I hope the US will continue to have stewardship over the Internet for the foreseeable future. My own government is run by assholes who think "blasphemy" should be censored on the net. And since India has 1/3rd of the world's population and China has another 1/3rds, we're essentially screwed if the UN works on a pure "democracy" basis.
There are a lot of things I hate about the US, but free speech is NOT one of them. The first amendment is one of the most amazing pieces of legislation ever and people like me in India can only drool in envy. But I'm not complaining. Even if I don't personally live in a country where free speech is not...you know...free, at least I can be happy that it EXISTS somewhere on this planet. At least I can be grateful that my ideals are upheld SOMEWHERE.
But give the Internet to the UN, and all that goes out of the window. I don't like the net being run by megacorps. But I like it being run by countries like dictatorial countries like China, India and the Middle East even less.
How many here have ever posted a question on social networks asking their friends which laptop/smartphone etc. to buy? I don't. I either start from Google or go directly to Amazon.
I think "social search" is massively hyped up.
You like doing business with Google. Lots of people like doing business with Apple. So what?
Apple can get even more customers by being nice. Being nice never drove anyone away. But by doing stuff like this, launching frivolous patent wars etc, Apple fails the "nice" test. So it loses a chance to get even more customers. So simple no?
Proof that you can't write something Anti-Microsoft with Word?
Sorry, a person is nice by their actions in totality. I like doing business with Google and I trust Google because they're nice. So "nice" IS a viable business model if it gains the trust of your customers.
Why on earth should Apple spend significant amounts of money to develop a free tool...
Because that's what "nice" companies do. And I like doing business with "nice" companies. Google for example makes my life easier for free with great tools and so I don't mind buying from them when I have to.
Since Apple isn't a "nice" company, I avoid doing business with them. Simple.
It's still ridiculous. Imagine if the EULA of an IDE like Eclipse were to demand that any programs compiled using it have to give a cut to the creators of Eclipse!
I'm not saying it's illegal. It's just that Apple is a jerk for doing it.
And Einstein was never in a spaceship and never conducted a single experiment in his whole life. That's what theorists do! It doesn't mean they're wrong.
You've just called 98% of climate scientists in the world regardless of nation, race and ethnicity liars, cheats and con men. Conspiracy theory much?
Honestly, it's not the business of scientists to get into the question of whether the costs are worth it or not. I'm willing to trust them if they say climate change is happening (and how much). But they can go no further than that in a professional capacity.
Infiltrated by Google employees and well-wishers,
Given what you've just posted, you can say this with a straight face? Oh the irony!
There's no point to start learning and using something that will be dead soon.
But your problem is already solved then. So what's the fuss over?
1. Google isn't claiming that this is the new standard. If they did, they would just drop support for Javascript
2. Insisting on a consensus before every new technological upgrade would be frustratingly slow and the whole process can be held back by one individual. That's not how technology improves.
So how does a company create something better than the standards? Or are you perhaps implying that standards once set are the best for ever and ever? It's not as if Google is DROPPING support for Javascript. That would be...outrageously stupid. What exactly is your problem here?
So according to you, not caring for dead strangers = willing to kill random people?
Dead strangers in general don't really concern me. I only care about those dying who're close to me.
Need to bathe me in some virgin blood - Ahahahahaha!