It's not a division of Church and State issue, so much as a proportional representation one.
PR leads to coalition governments in which minority parties such as the Ultra Orthodox have a disproportionate amount of influence.
OK - so if I take a photo from a public place, what restrictions are there on my publishing it? Child porn and national security are the only ones I can think of.
Well, once you have taken the photograph, you then own the copyright on it. This entitles you to do pretty much whatever you like with it. If someone considered it appeared to show them doing something they were not then they might sue I suppose, but otherwise unless the picture is taken on private property you can generally do whatever the hell you like with it.
Yeah, so YOU might be able to opt out. But most people aren't going to worry about Face book photos, or not use credit cards online, or especially, run their own email server. Because the value they place on those things is greater than the value they place on their privacy. It doesn't matter what YOU do - you're not individually very important, and the real value is in the aggregate data. So you might be able to win the battle for your own privacy - but not for the general public. As they just don't really care.
is that the privacy battle has been lost and lost comprehensively. For the average person doing average things it effectively no longer exists. Sure, there are ways round it, but you are just not going to get most people to use them, most of the time.
I don't think here is a way to put the genie back in the bottle, so we need to instead think of how we can live with it. The problem is not so much that privacy dissapears, but that it is asymmetric. Corporations and governments know a lot more about us than we do about them. Google could start by publishing minutes of ALL their meetings, salaries of all their employees etc, Similarly the balance of Freedom of Information to Security in government needs to change. I don't see why people in positions to affect markets or pass legislation should have any expectation of privacy AT ALL while they are in those positions. Lets stick 24 hour live feeds on all legislators and executives and really live in a post privacy world.
I think it's fine and valuable to teach what different religions believe in school. Teaching that any particular religon is true is a different matter and is not fine.
Surely NDA's and Non-competes distort free market economies? The platonic ideal of a free market economy is free movement of goods and services and all actors having perfect knowledge.
I don't care if Apple has reasons for this or not. I don't like Apple, so they should fuck off.
Re:Taking care of people is not wrong
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
No - as I said we DO. I am saying that's not a sensible way to decide on a policy, and that the policy should instead counter balance peoples tendency to assign their resources to people more like them. Or do you like entrenched elites and no prospects for the poor?
Every bodies life has the same value.
Re:Taking care of people is not wrong
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
Why is it acceptable to value the lives of people you love more that those you don't? OK - we all DO on a personal level, but public policy should promote the opposite, in part to counter-balance peoples tendency to prioritize their friends.
Slashdot Mirror
Without US news shows there would be no Anchorman. This excuses all the complaints above.
It's not a division of Church and State issue, so much as a proportional representation one. PR leads to coalition governments in which minority parties such as the Ultra Orthodox have a disproportionate amount of influence.
Like I always say - If a things worth doing it can be done in Notepad.
Oh do fuck off.
the BEST thing is that the sockpuppet defending Mr Morris on the thread that the case is about is called 'Dirk Manly'.
if it wasn't for http://xkcd.com/386/.
So most pictures on Flickr are illegal then?
OK - so if I take a photo from a public place, what restrictions are there on my publishing it? Child porn and national security are the only ones I can think of.
Well, once you have taken the photograph, you then own the copyright on it. This entitles you to do pretty much whatever you like with it. If someone considered it appeared to show them doing something they were not then they might sue I suppose, but otherwise unless the picture is taken on private property you can generally do whatever the hell you like with it.
Why? Companies aren't loyal to them.
Yeah, so YOU might be able to opt out. But most people aren't going to worry about Face book photos, or not use credit cards online, or especially, run their own email server. Because the value they place on those things is greater than the value they place on their privacy. It doesn't matter what YOU do - you're not individually very important, and the real value is in the aggregate data. So you might be able to win the battle for your own privacy - but not for the general public. As they just don't really care.
is that the privacy battle has been lost and lost comprehensively. For the average person doing average things it effectively no longer exists. Sure, there are ways round it, but you are just not going to get most people to use them, most of the time. I don't think here is a way to put the genie back in the bottle, so we need to instead think of how we can live with it. The problem is not so much that privacy dissapears, but that it is asymmetric. Corporations and governments know a lot more about us than we do about them. Google could start by publishing minutes of ALL their meetings, salaries of all their employees etc, Similarly the balance of Freedom of Information to Security in government needs to change. I don't see why people in positions to affect markets or pass legislation should have any expectation of privacy AT ALL while they are in those positions. Lets stick 24 hour live feeds on all legislators and executives and really live in a post privacy world.
Whoosh.
I think it's fine and valuable to teach what different religions believe in school. Teaching that any particular religon is true is a different matter and is not fine.
available then let other people build the apps.
Or if you use a modulators as well you can then have one box per channel per building and have multiple channels.
contributor to the BBC's 'Today Progamme' (flagship morning news show), I can confirm that this is an accurate description.
Is 'gay' a synonym for 'good' now then? I'd prefer that. It sits better with me than all this juvenile homophobia.
moaning about Obama? At least you lot have GOT a head of Government at the moment.
£365.11 actually.
Surely NDA's and Non-competes distort free market economies? The platonic ideal of a free market economy is free movement of goods and services and all actors having perfect knowledge.
I don't care if Apple has reasons for this or not. I don't like Apple, so they should fuck off.
No - as I said we DO. I am saying that's not a sensible way to decide on a policy, and that the policy should instead counter balance peoples tendency to assign their resources to people more like them. Or do you like entrenched elites and no prospects for the poor? Every bodies life has the same value.
Why is it acceptable to value the lives of people you love more that those you don't? OK - we all DO on a personal level, but public policy should promote the opposite, in part to counter-balance peoples tendency to prioritize their friends.