No Canadian can grow up to be the leader of their country because the leader of the country is the head of the Church of England who must by definition be born in England. While I do like to bash to the south that doesn't mean we don't have things to work on up here.
I'm sorry, I'm having a heck of a time parsing this. Are you suggesting that the head of the Church of England is the leader of Canada (then I'm confused as to the role of the office of the Prime Minister and our Supreme Court)??
I must be reading your post incredibly wrong (or, it could be the whiskey).
I think this is the great information age challenge; how do content producers (and I am not necessarily talking about the publishers here but potentially the 'artist' themselves - more on that in a following paragraph) receive compensation and how do I as a consumer support them. This is not a new topic since single sign on and micro-payments have been a topic discussed for quite a few years.
Personally I would like to support the creators of content, however, bulk payment (i.e. monthly subscriptions) just doesn't work in the newly connected world where potentially anyone can be a content producer (how many monthly subscriptions would I have to have, and how economical would that be). If I could pay per article so that I could support the newspaper or the blogger, then the content providers have incentive to continue and I get the greatest number of possible sources for news and entertainment (currently, advertising is the only way most of these content producers get paid today and that is definitely not ideal on multiple levels).
There is another industry that is undergoing a similar transformative process and that is music. How long until the artists can skip the labels entirely (for some, that day is already here, for others it is very close). If we consider a song to be somewhat equivalent to an article, then there is an existing model out there that, with modifications, can support the information industry.
I have a feeling that Apple and their iTunes ecosystem might just be headed down that path, since they provide a type of single sign-on (my iTunes account) and they provide multiple forms of media (and if we believe the rumors, books and other information media is coming soon). They would be in a position to create a micro-payment environment for all content producers to get paid directly with out the reliance on advertising.
Now, I don't actually believe iTunes will become the new internet, just pointing out that it can be used as something of a template for the greater internet.
Which is why I said "(I know, I know, this is a horrible over-simplification)".
You _must_ become bigger or perish?
Kind of like IBM's continual growth since its inception? No that's not right. Kind of like IBM's bankruptcy after it shrank in size? No that's not right either.
You may have confused must have annual growth in monetary units not corrected with inflation to not eventually dissappear with must have real annual growth. But there is no need for any business to actually grow perpetually or at all. To say that is not supported by logic or empirical evidence.
I would say that there is some evidence to support this such as the gradual disappearance of mom and pop shops as the big chain stores multiply (or haven't you seen Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan's You've Got Mail - what more proof can be required) or the gradual consolidation of companies across a range of industry from the oil patch (Petro Canada by Suncor), electronics (DEC, Compaq, HP) and I'm sure if I spent 30 seconds googling it I could find a ton more.
It was an over-simplification whose basis I believe is supported, but I could have more accurately said, companies must grow and reach a certain size threshold to increase their chances of survival.
When was the last time you were in a mall and you saw that the majority (or even significant percentage) of the stores being mom and pop?
1. The Fascism comment was tongue in cheek (hence, the ism comment) which is why you probably snipped that middle bit out there. Everyone else seemed to get it.
added for your convenient re-puruesal.
... as socialism or communism (and for the Republicans out there, I'll add Fascism, since it ends in an ism).
2. I said Corps have to make money, which, obviously if they don't make money they go out of business, and investors and employees alike don't get paid. I made no such statement as to rights or entitlements.
1. The Fascism comment was tongue in cheek (hence, the ism comment) which is why you probably snipped that middle bit out there.
added for your convenient re-puruesal.
... as socialism or communism (and for the Republicans out there, I'll add Fascism, since it ends in an ism).
2. I said Corps have to make money, which, obviously if they don't make money they go out of business, and investors and employees alike don't get paid. I made no such statement as to rights or entitlements.
I think most objections to socialism refer to socialism-by-coercion, not 'voluntary' socialism. Only when sharing is mandatory and enforced (i.e. coerced) does it become objectionable.
I guess defining coercion in this context becomes the challenge. For instance, the political right is constantly screaming socialism at anything that isn't entirely free market based (i.e. health care reform. Now, most industrialized nations in the world include a government sponsored health care platform, and most are not classically defined socialist countries, although there are socialist aspects to their governance).
The challenge I think is that the propaganda war that began in earnest a couple of decades ago has reached fruition; that being anything that is not strictly speaking corporate run (and profit producing), is socialist (which of course is silly, since the government builds roads, subsidizes telecom build outs, medicare and even the military, if viewed through the appropriate lens)
If a president receives a plurality running on a platform of greater shared work and benefits, then I argue that those changes are not coerced. However, the folks on the right (in this particular case) will of course feel coerced (the last couple of election cycles it was the left feeling coerced by the move to a more corporatist governance model)
The problem I see there is one of risk/reward. If someone is required to expose themselves to a great degree of financial risk, then the rewards should also be there.
Unfortunately, the way the financial world is currently constructed, you have to get bigger or perish (Walmart is the perfect poster child for this), because along with increased throughput comes the ability to apply a great degree of pressure to ones suppliers. Unfortunately, this has a trickle down effect where the supplier lowers their prices under pressure, then, their employees either take wage cuts or the labor is moved overseas.
The business world is almost like the U.S. political process; it's almost a first past the post winner takes all (I know, I know, this is a horrible over-simplification).
The problem with that is incentive. Capitalism provides a means of incentive and score keeping for those with the desire to create (whether what they create has some 'objective' value is certainly up for debate). Those with the desire to create often bring jobs along for those who don't have the desire or propensity for risk taking.
Things will get very interesting when capitalism has to move from the non-zero sum environment it has been operating in (i.e. constantly requiring the overall market to grow) to a sustainable zero-sum environment.
of course, the other side of the equation is the governance model, and it would sure be nice if we all operated in a true democracy where the needs and desires of the voter were foremost in the governing bodies minds. Instead, since the election cycle is so long and requires so much money, that has put the lobbyists and the their corporate employers in the drivers seat. We have more of a Corporatist model of governance with a veneer of democracy.
While funny, the point of the article is quite saddening. People have been involved in 'socialist' activities since before we were human and only just recently, has it become something of a curse to help one another out (sharing) at the expense of a Corporation potentially losing a sale opportunity.
Don't get me wrong, Corps have to make money, but there has been an amazing full court press of propaganda that has twisted the case for helping and sharing the burden to some degree as socialism or communism (and for the Republicans out there, I'll add Fascism, since it ends in an ism).
We won't even talk about all the infrastructure that government puts in place because, well, that is a form of socialism too, and its far better to little to no government so everyone can look after themselves.
I wonder who would be best able to take care of themselves in such a scenario, individual voters and their families or large corporations (since they have most of the benefits of being a 'person' but none of the responsibilities)?
there are several aspects to this creeping dissipation of privacy:
first, they give you some more granular control over your postings which is nice, then take away control over some other potentially sensitive data (like who your friends are).
worse, they then don't even give you the ability to opt out of having all that data shipped to a web partner of theirs; imagine, you go to an amazon like website that is a facebook partner, they can retrieve your name, your picture, your city, the names of all your friends etc.
This IS my privacy concern. I would be less concerned if it stayed just within FB, but between the apps and now external websites, they are getting a lot of my information I would NEVER give a retailer.
P.S. I'm not even sure what you meant by the following but it doesn't matter.
Hmm, lower UID, long comment history, and excellent karma... think that over again, huh?
his quote: "Read carefully apps can ONLY see what you leave available to everyone."
in which he is saying the apps can see ONLY what you leave available to everyone.
my quote:
When you visit a Facebook-enhanced application or website, it may access any information you have made visible to Everyone (Edit Profile Privacy) as well as your publicly available information. This includes your Name, Profile Picture, Gender, Current City, Networks, Friend List, and Pages. The application will request your permission to access any additional information it needs.
in which I am saying that there is information that you have no control over that is made available to apps and websites. Fairly straight forward
Read carefully apps can ONLY see what you leave available to everyone.
again with this disinformation:
When you visit a Facebook-enhanced application or website, it may access any information you have made visible to Everyone (Edit Profile Privacy) as well as your publicly available information. This includes your Name, Profile Picture, Gender, Current City, Networks, Friend List, and Pages. The application will request your permission to access any additional information it needs.
Read your own words: "it may access any information you have made visible to Everyone (Edit Profile Privacy)"
This is still controllable via your privacy settings. Also, don't use apps that request additional permissions.
seriously, did you not make it all the way to the end of the sentence or paragraph before you had an uncontrollable urge to reply? (I've bolded some bits that you might find helpful if you aren't a shill for FB)
When you visit a Facebook-enhanced application or website, it may access any information you have made visible to Everyone (Edit Profile Privacy) as well as your publicly available information. This includes your Name, Profile Picture, Gender, Current City, Networks, Friend List, and Pages. The application will request your permission to access any additional information it needs.
Please read a little before you post. The following text is directly from FB's privacy pages:
When you visit a Facebook-enhanced application or website, it may access any information you have made visible to Everyone (Edit Profile Privacy) as well as your publicly available information. This includes your Name, Profile Picture, Gender, Current City, Networks, Friend List, and Pages. The application will request your permission to access any additional information it needs.
Much of that information was manageable under the prior privacy settings, now you have no choice. Additionally, if you want to blank out your current city, the edit page will let you (and you can even save it). However, if you put a blank city there and save it, it will keep your current city without complaint or acknowledgement that it is doing so. You HAVE to have a current city.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd very much appreciate an invite as well if anyone can spare one. kevin(dot)skaalrud (atat) gmail
Cheers!
No Canadian can grow up to be the leader of their country because the leader of the country is the head of the Church of England who must by definition be born in England. While I do like to bash to the south that doesn't mean we don't have things to work on up here.
I'm sorry, I'm having a heck of a time parsing this. Are you suggesting that the head of the Church of England is the leader of Canada (then I'm confused as to the role of the office of the Prime Minister and our Supreme Court)??
I must be reading your post incredibly wrong (or, it could be the whiskey).
I think this is the great information age challenge; how do content producers (and I am not necessarily talking about the publishers here but potentially the 'artist' themselves - more on that in a following paragraph) receive compensation and how do I as a consumer support them. This is not a new topic since single sign on and micro-payments have been a topic discussed for quite a few years.
Personally I would like to support the creators of content, however, bulk payment (i.e. monthly subscriptions) just doesn't work in the newly connected world where potentially anyone can be a content producer (how many monthly subscriptions would I have to have, and how economical would that be). If I could pay per article so that I could support the newspaper or the blogger, then the content providers have incentive to continue and I get the greatest number of possible sources for news and entertainment (currently, advertising is the only way most of these content producers get paid today and that is definitely not ideal on multiple levels).
There is another industry that is undergoing a similar transformative process and that is music. How long until the artists can skip the labels entirely (for some, that day is already here, for others it is very close). If we consider a song to be somewhat equivalent to an article, then there is an existing model out there that, with modifications, can support the information industry.
I have a feeling that Apple and their iTunes ecosystem might just be headed down that path, since they provide a type of single sign-on (my iTunes account) and they provide multiple forms of media (and if we believe the rumors, books and other information media is coming soon). They would be in a position to create a micro-payment environment for all content producers to get paid directly with out the reliance on advertising.
Now, I don't actually believe iTunes will become the new internet, just pointing out that it can be used as something of a template for the greater internet.
You _must_ become bigger or perish? Kind of like IBM's continual growth since its inception? No that's not right. Kind of like IBM's bankruptcy after it shrank in size? No that's not right either. You may have confused must have annual growth in monetary units not corrected with inflation to not eventually dissappear with must have real annual growth. But there is no need for any business to actually grow perpetually or at all. To say that is not supported by logic or empirical evidence.
I would say that there is some evidence to support this such as the gradual disappearance of mom and pop shops as the big chain stores multiply (or haven't you seen Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan's You've Got Mail - what more proof can be required) or the gradual consolidation of companies across a range of industry from the oil patch (Petro Canada by Suncor), electronics (DEC, Compaq, HP) and I'm sure if I spent 30 seconds googling it I could find a ton more.
It was an over-simplification whose basis I believe is supported, but I could have more accurately said, companies must grow and reach a certain size threshold to increase their chances of survival. When was the last time you were in a mall and you saw that the majority (or even significant percentage) of the stores being mom and pop?
I completely screwed the previous comment up:
... as socialism or communism (and for the Republicans out there, I'll add Fascism, since it ends in an ism).
socialism or communism... Fascism
One of these things is not like the other.
Dude, a couple of points.
1. The Fascism comment was tongue in cheek (hence, the ism comment) which is why you probably snipped that middle bit out there. Everyone else seemed to get it.
added for your convenient re-puruesal.
2. I said Corps have to make money, which, obviously if they don't make money they go out of business, and investors and employees alike don't get paid. I made no such statement as to rights or entitlements.
One of these things is not like the other.
... as socialism or communism (and for the Republicans out there, I'll add Fascism, since it ends in an ism).
2. I said Corps have to make money, which, obviously if they don't make money they go out of business, and investors and employees alike don't get paid. I made no such statement as to rights or entitlements.
Dude, a couple of points.
1. The Fascism comment was tongue in cheek (hence, the ism comment) which is why you probably snipped that middle bit out there.
added for your convenient re-puruesal.
I think most objections to socialism refer to socialism-by-coercion, not 'voluntary' socialism. Only when sharing is mandatory and enforced (i.e. coerced) does it become objectionable.
I guess defining coercion in this context becomes the challenge. For instance, the political right is constantly screaming socialism at anything that isn't entirely free market based (i.e. health care reform. Now, most industrialized nations in the world include a government sponsored health care platform, and most are not classically defined socialist countries, although there are socialist aspects to their governance).
The challenge I think is that the propaganda war that began in earnest a couple of decades ago has reached fruition; that being anything that is not strictly speaking corporate run (and profit producing), is socialist (which of course is silly, since the government builds roads, subsidizes telecom build outs, medicare and even the military, if viewed through the appropriate lens)
If a president receives a plurality running on a platform of greater shared work and benefits, then I argue that those changes are not coerced. However, the folks on the right (in this particular case) will of course feel coerced (the last couple of election cycles it was the left feeling coerced by the move to a more corporatist governance model)
The problem I see there is one of risk/reward. If someone is required to expose themselves to a great degree of financial risk, then the rewards should also be there.
Unfortunately, the way the financial world is currently constructed, you have to get bigger or perish (Walmart is the perfect poster child for this), because along with increased throughput comes the ability to apply a great degree of pressure to ones suppliers. Unfortunately, this has a trickle down effect where the supplier lowers their prices under pressure, then, their employees either take wage cuts or the labor is moved overseas.
The business world is almost like the U.S. political process; it's almost a first past the post winner takes all (I know, I know, this is a horrible over-simplification).
The problem with that is incentive. Capitalism provides a means of incentive and score keeping for those with the desire to create (whether what they create has some 'objective' value is certainly up for debate). Those with the desire to create often bring jobs along for those who don't have the desire or propensity for risk taking.
Things will get very interesting when capitalism has to move from the non-zero sum environment it has been operating in (i.e. constantly requiring the overall market to grow) to a sustainable zero-sum environment.
of course, the other side of the equation is the governance model, and it would sure be nice if we all operated in a true democracy where the needs and desires of the voter were foremost in the governing bodies minds. Instead, since the election cycle is so long and requires so much money, that has put the lobbyists and the their corporate employers in the drivers seat. We have more of a Corporatist model of governance with a veneer of democracy.
While funny, the point of the article is quite saddening. People have been involved in 'socialist' activities since before we were human and only just recently, has it become something of a curse to help one another out (sharing) at the expense of a Corporation potentially losing a sale opportunity.
Don't get me wrong, Corps have to make money, but there has been an amazing full court press of propaganda that has twisted the case for helping and sharing the burden to some degree as socialism or communism (and for the Republicans out there, I'll add Fascism, since it ends in an ism).
We won't even talk about all the infrastructure that government puts in place because, well, that is a form of socialism too, and its far better to little to no government so everyone can look after themselves.
I wonder who would be best able to take care of themselves in such a scenario, individual voters and their families or large corporations (since they have most of the benefits of being a 'person' but none of the responsibilities)?
first, they give you some more granular control over your postings which is nice, then take away control over some other potentially sensitive data (like who your friends are).
worse, they then don't even give you the ability to opt out of having all that data shipped to a web partner of theirs; imagine, you go to an amazon like website that is a facebook partner, they can retrieve your name, your picture, your city, the names of all your friends etc.
This IS my privacy concern. I would be less concerned if it stayed just within FB, but between the apps and now external websites, they are getting a lot of my information I would NEVER give a retailer.
P.S. I'm not even sure what you meant by the following but it doesn't matter.
Hmm, lower UID, long comment history, and excellent karma... think that over again, huh?
if we are being childish: comprehension failure.
his quote: "Read carefully apps can ONLY see what you leave available to everyone."
in which he is saying the apps can see ONLY what you leave available to everyone.
my quote:
When you visit a Facebook-enhanced application or website, it may access any information you have made visible to Everyone (Edit Profile Privacy) as well as your publicly available information. This includes your Name, Profile Picture, Gender, Current City, Networks, Friend List, and Pages. The application will request your permission to access any additional information it needs.
in which I am saying that there is information that you have no control over that is made available to apps and websites. Fairly straight forward
I apologize if this is a dup.
Read carefully apps can ONLY see what you leave available to everyone.
again with this disinformation:
When you visit a Facebook-enhanced application or website, it may access any information you have made visible to Everyone (Edit Profile Privacy) as well as your publicly available information. This includes your Name, Profile Picture, Gender, Current City, Networks, Friend List, and Pages. The application will request your permission to access any additional information it needs.
Read your own words: "it may access any information you have made visible to Everyone (Edit Profile Privacy)"
This is still controllable via your privacy settings. Also, don't use apps that request additional permissions.
seriously, did you not make it all the way to the end of the sentence or paragraph before you had an uncontrollable urge to reply? (I've bolded some bits that you might find helpful if you aren't a shill for FB)
When you visit a Facebook-enhanced application or website, it may access any information you have made visible to Everyone (Edit Profile Privacy) as well as your publicly available information. This includes your Name, Profile Picture, Gender, Current City, Networks, Friend List, and Pages. The application will request your permission to access any additional information it needs.
Please read a little before you post. The following text is directly from FB's privacy pages:
When you visit a Facebook-enhanced application or website, it may access any information you have made visible to Everyone (Edit Profile Privacy) as well as your publicly available information. This includes your Name, Profile Picture, Gender, Current City, Networks, Friend List, and Pages. The application will request your permission to access any additional information it needs.
Much of that information was manageable under the prior privacy settings, now you have no choice. Additionally, if you want to blank out your current city, the edit page will let you (and you can even save it). However, if you put a blank city there and save it, it will keep your current city without complaint or acknowledgement that it is doing so. You HAVE to have a current city.