Right, let's sue everyone who gives false information. That's a great way to get your side of the story out. They should do what most scientists do, afaik, publish corrections and send letters, and try to educate people, and stuff alone those lines.
Maybe getting a news story about it, made it worth it?
Maybe just standing up for you rights, is worth it?
People have given their lives for the sake of their rights, this guy gives up a weekend and 25 hundred bucks. I don't know how i would handle the situation, but i applaud him for standing up for his rights.
You're wrong. most people have choices. There's public libraries, there's dialup, there's satellite, 3g, and ofc various forms of broadband. those may not be ideal, but again, it never is, and the internet is not very old.
Broadband companies won't really compete with each other because there is no financial incentive so many people can't go elsewhere.
Umm... but they do compete. i get letters from comcast all the time, and i was a former comcast user.
I don't believe the government should baby people but I don't think companies can be trusted
I never said they should be trusted, but competition forces people's hands. You don't have to worry very much about the cars you buy, because of competition. There's always exceptions, but when you rely on the government instead of competition, you end up with far worse problems.
There is a sensible middle ground that requires constant evaluation because things change and you can't come up with a one size fits all solution that'll last forever.
The government should ensure people play by the rules, that we agree to (ie enter into a contract of some sort).
The government cannot adapt to changing market places, it's monolithic and slow. And worse, most of the rules are written by people who don't know anything about the subject. The government usually ends up doing more harm than good.
Rarely is a for-profit company motivated by a need to do things right.
except, they're motivated to get the money of their consumers, so the consumers determine who's doing something right. And if you're giving some company money, they must be doing something right.
You would think on slashdot, that people would understand the principles of what they're arguing against.
The point isn't that corporations wouldn't try to screw you over, or want to. It's that competition makes it so that, if you want my money, I have to choose to give it to you. Most of the places i, and most others, put their money, they are happy with. So thus, corporations screwing over their customers, is biting the hand that feeds them (Not generally a good idea).
There is no perfect market, anywhere. all the markets have different companies with different strengths competing and sometimes cooperating, all for the money of people who have to CHOOSE to give them their money.
The 'do gooders' who try to regulate business, usually fail miserably. most of the people who write laws have absolutely no experience with the stuff they're writing laws about. Even if they did, so called experts can rarely write laws that apply to all the situations fairly.
Another fundamental flaw, is that all regulations make the assumption that people can't do for themselves. That they are too incompetent, stupid, whatever. I suppose that view would get a lot of support on/. but it's not actually true.
If all corporations were limited in their power, there wouldn't be a problem. Unregulated markets like America are filled with oligopolies.
what markets are unregulated? most markets have a lot of regulation (federal/state/local). the few areas that don't, have a lot of competition.
Do you really think you have a choice to not buy a car because there's a reasonable public transportation option? Can you make the choice not to use a bank? To buy a home? If you use money, you're dealing with a corporation. Unless all you do is work for yourself, walk home, and then work on your victory garden.
Car insurance is a very different beast and i'm not really sure how i stand on it. Avoiding a bank, would be difficult, but it's still not forced by government, so it's no where near as bad. You certainly don't have to buy a home, and again it's not forced by government. And in all those places, there are competition, if i don't like x, i take my buisness to y.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the rest of your post. other than to continue to insult me and i suppose others who might have the same opinions. I never said anything about what our foreign policy should look like, except to criticize a few points of it.
He never promised to end it immediately. He promised to do so within a given amount of time, and by most measures, he's doing that.
So promising to end it, is continuing the same policy as bush's?
He's attempted to close Gitmo, have a trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed in NYC, but you know what?
Symbolic acts, not acts of substance. So what they closed gitmo, when they just move it to whever, because enemy combatants can still be held indefinitely.
A company can be as nepotistic as it wants to be internally; there's no law against that. It doesn't matter how many years you've put in. Hence, tyranny. If some kid wants an office just because of who is daddy was, governments have the potential to deny him thus. But, notice the word potential. Ergo Bush.
and all those internal things, are made up of people choosing to be there. They are not forced. Government, does however, force me to do many things, and I have no say in the matter, unless i break the law and risk being forcefully jailed.
California is already getting what they deserve, for so many stupid policies. But they shouldn't worry, Bernanke and company will bailout cali, i mean, they help bailout grease, how could they turn down cali? SO i guess, they're not getting what they deserve, oh well.
What has been created by this half-century of massive corporate propaganda is called anti-politics. So anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change, the one institution you can affect by participation without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear is directed against the government. The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect, they're pure tyrannies.
But he is so incredibly wrong. We can change Safeway, so much easier than we can change the government. Safeway is constantly trying to sell new things, rearranging things, trying to better serve us(aka get our money). Our money is a much faster vote than waiting 2/4/4 years to maybe vote someone out, when the alternatives are really no better. And the real kicker is, I don't have to do business with any corporation i don't' want to. I HAVE to do business with the government.
Even still, he passed a conservative health care bill and signed treaties to significantly reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles.
conservative health care bill?? forcing EVERYONE to buy insurance? I don't see, how this bill is a good thing, even if you think the government should be involved. And other treaties have been signed before, it'll do nothing, yay, it's entirely obama's gig though, do nothing, but look good.
It's just because you don't have a values system. Don't worry, you're certainly not alone.
OK now you're off partisan politics and on to insulting me. Sure buddy, i have no values. Enjoy your obama presidency, as he takes us further down the same fucking path we've been going down. Bush Hit the accelerator and obama is hitting it harder, cheer him on! w00t.
Is he starting an underfunded, ill conceived war while cutting taxes for the wealthy and destroying a budget surplus?
He's continuing it. not ending it, as promised.
Is he suspending basic rights like habeas corpus and performing searches and seizures without warrants?
he hasn't exactly reversed the trend. enemy combatants can still be held indefinitely. he left plenty of loopholes for torture. didn't reverse the patriot act. Ect.
is he staffing FEMA with idiots, and then doing nothing while they fuck up a hurricane response?
We'll find out if another katrina hits, personally i'd have no faith.
Is he standing on an aircraft carrier during some publicity stunt, claiming mission accomplished and the end of combat operations WEEKS into a war that has now lasted seven years?
Same as pretzel.
Is he nominating some inexperienced random woman for the Supreme Court?
we'll see what happens with that.
Give me a fucking break. I have my issues with Obama, but you're comparing the former editor of the Harvard Law review with a guy who would've flunked out of college if his father wasn't running the CIA.
well, the said harvard law review guy is continuing most all the policies of said guy who would have flunked college.
And onto your sig.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
I'll never understand why Chomsky is held in any sort of high regard. A corporation can't force anyone to do anything, without the government, or breaking the law.. Thus, as tyrannical, as it might like to be, it cannot. Government, on the other hand, can, and constantly tries to be. Even though, it's not an intentional thing.
Yikes. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? You do realize that sentence one is the definition of racist?
you do realize there is a difference between saying something should be legal, and actually doing said act?
You're correct that not being able to freely say to a black man "Niggers are like rats, and should not mingle with the White Race" is a restriction on your freedom. Just like not being able to shoot anyone you want on sight is a restriction on your freedom, or not being able to fuck any woman you want, regardless of whether she agrees or not, or taking somebody's car, regardless of whether they want to give it to you
Except one is merely offensive, the others are harmful, and force an action upon an unwilling person. A big difference.
great. and for every you there is, there is how many more people, that become dependent on the system. Not to mention that before the government got into welfare/charity, there were private groups that did these things. You subsidize something, you get more of it.
Then you don't want no regulation, you want some regulations, but just the ones you want. Any less isn't enough, and any more is too much.
If you consider contract enforcement, regulation, then sure.
Yes. If you bribe your customers $1 cash to not buy from the competition, and that payment causes you to lose money and your competitor to lose even more money and you "win" only because you can afford to bribe them longer than your competitor can stay in business, then yes. And if you bribe your customers to kill your competitor, that's bad too.
So one company can offer a product for a lower price than the other company, and that kills the other company? Sounds fine to me.
But without regulation they will lie to you to separate you from your money, and you also ignore the fact that they not only want to harm you (by taking as much money from you as possible for the worst possible product acceptable), but that they will also take acts to harm their competitors.
Again with the contract enforcement, none of this is much an issue.
umm what? I've worked in 2 places that required resume doc submissions, neither did i have to use word much(occasional doc in word was about it). I think you're jumping to conclusions.
Killing them? If there are truly no regulations, then you are thinking too small.
How can you kill something else? all the regulation you need is fraud.
And what prevents you from bribing your customers to not buy from the other guy, like the Intel acts against AMD
OK and bribing your customers is bad?
You are thinking too honorably with your ideas of lack of regulation, and not like amoral corporations with no accountability.
Again, if all contracts are voluntary.. it takes care of itself. I don't have to enter into a contract with GM or Ford or whoever, I choose to. I dont' care that all they want is to maximize the amount of mmoney they take from me, because i'm trying to maximize the amount of car I get out of them:P so we have to agree to a trade.
i have the freedom to make contracts because government enforces contracts. that's true.
and it turns out that absent regulation, it's cheaper to keep all competitors out than to innovate. They can get maximum profits by offering the shittiest product that will do the work and make sure you cannot access any other product.
how can they keep out competitors if there is no government regulating the market? they can't. big companies love regulations. No, they odn't love all of the regulations, but in general they do.
You're missing the point, that as much resistance to innovation and catering to customer needs as there is, and there is a lot, open competition *MAKES* them do that. regulations don't. That's why your car today meets your needs/wants far better than 20 years ago. That's why your food is fresh and edible (i can keep going on..). not because some government bureaucrat made some stupid law that has a billion side affects, and doesn't fulfill the intended purpose.
Because any corporation that isn't involved with the government, I choose to involve myself with. Thus, I can sever ties with them, also at my choosing.
right anyone who doesn't agree with you is brain dead. good call. if you don't use something of mine, as we agree to, what gives you expectation of privacy?
Slashdot Mirror
Right, let's sue everyone who gives false information. That's a great way to get your side of the story out. They should do what most scientists do, afaik, publish corrections and send letters, and try to educate people, and stuff alone those lines.
Maybe getting a news story about it, made it worth it?
Maybe just standing up for you rights, is worth it?
People have given their lives for the sake of their rights, this guy gives up a weekend and 25 hundred bucks. I don't know how i would handle the situation, but i applaud him for standing up for his rights.
You're wrong. most people have choices. There's public libraries, there's dialup, there's satellite, 3g, and ofc various forms of broadband. those may not be ideal, but again, it never is, and the internet is not very old.
Broadband companies won't really compete with each other because there is no financial incentive so many people can't go elsewhere.
Umm... but they do compete. i get letters from comcast all the time, and i was a former comcast user.
I don't believe the government should baby people but I don't think companies can be trusted
I never said they should be trusted, but competition forces people's hands. You don't have to worry very much about the cars you buy, because of competition. There's always exceptions, but when you rely on the government instead of competition, you end up with far worse problems.
There is a sensible middle ground that requires constant evaluation because things change and you can't come up with a one size fits all solution that'll last forever.
The government should ensure people play by the rules, that we agree to (ie enter into a contract of some sort).
The government cannot adapt to changing market places, it's monolithic and slow. And worse, most of the rules are written by people who don't know anything about the subject. The government usually ends up doing more harm than good.
Rarely is a for-profit company motivated by a need to do things right.
except, they're motivated to get the money of their consumers, so the consumers determine who's doing something right. And if you're giving some company money, they must be doing something right.
remember that the FAA is in charge.
You would think on slashdot, that people would understand the principles of what they're arguing against.
The point isn't that corporations wouldn't try to screw you over, or want to. It's that competition makes it so that, if you want my money, I have to choose to give it to you. Most of the places i, and most others, put their money, they are happy with. So thus, corporations screwing over their customers, is biting the hand that feeds them (Not generally a good idea).
There is no perfect market, anywhere. all the markets have different companies with different strengths competing and sometimes cooperating, all for the money of people who have to CHOOSE to give them their money.
The 'do gooders' who try to regulate business, usually fail miserably. most of the people who write laws have absolutely no experience with the stuff they're writing laws about. Even if they did, so called experts can rarely write laws that apply to all the situations fairly.
Another fundamental flaw, is that all regulations make the assumption that people can't do for themselves. That they are too incompetent, stupid, whatever. I suppose that view would get a lot of support on /. but it's not actually true.
i should say for the removal requests, the data requests, is way more for the US, which is kind of scary
on a more serious note, Canada's population is 10% of the US. Coincidentally, the number of requests is about 10% of the US's.
yeah i'm really trolling there. I love you mods, you're never biased, and never mod down stuff because you don't agree politically!! <3 <3 <3
hahaha yeah. i deserved that one.
If all corporations were limited in their power, there wouldn't be a problem. Unregulated markets like America are filled with oligopolies.
what markets are unregulated? most markets have a lot of regulation (federal/state/local). the few areas that don't, have a lot of competition.
Do you really think you have a choice to not buy a car because there's a reasonable public transportation option? Can you make the choice not to use a bank? To buy a home? If you use money, you're dealing with a corporation. Unless all you do is work for yourself, walk home, and then work on your victory garden.
Car insurance is a very different beast and i'm not really sure how i stand on it.
Avoiding a bank, would be difficult, but it's still not forced by government, so it's no where near as bad. You certainly don't have to buy a home, and again it's not forced by government. And in all those places, there are competition, if i don't like x, i take my buisness to y.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the rest of your post. other than to continue to insult me and i suppose others who might have the same opinions. I never said anything about what our foreign policy should look like, except to criticize a few points of it.
He never promised to end it immediately. He promised to do so within a given amount of time, and by most measures, he's doing that.
So promising to end it, is continuing the same policy as bush's?
He's attempted to close Gitmo, have a trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed in NYC, but you know what?
Symbolic acts, not acts of substance. So what they closed gitmo, when they just move it to whever, because enemy combatants can still be held indefinitely.
A company can be as nepotistic as it wants to be internally; there's no law against that. It doesn't matter how many years you've put in. Hence, tyranny. If some kid wants an office just because of who is daddy was, governments have the potential to deny him thus. But, notice the word potential. Ergo Bush.
and all those internal things, are made up of people choosing to be there. They are not forced. Government, does however, force me to do many things, and I have no say in the matter, unless i break the law and risk being forcefully jailed.
California is already getting what they deserve, for so many stupid policies. But they shouldn't worry, Bernanke and company will bailout cali, i mean, they help bailout grease, how could they turn down cali? SO i guess, they're not getting what they deserve, oh well.
What has been created by this half-century of massive corporate propaganda is called anti-politics. So anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change, the one institution you can affect by participation without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear is directed against the government. The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect, they're pure tyrannies.
But he is so incredibly wrong. We can change Safeway, so much easier than we can change the government. Safeway is constantly trying to sell new things, rearranging things, trying to better serve us(aka get our money). Our money is a much faster vote than waiting 2/4/4 years to maybe vote someone out, when the alternatives are really no better. And the real kicker is, I don't have to do business with any corporation i don't' want to. I HAVE to do business with the government.
Even still, he passed a conservative health care bill and signed treaties to significantly reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles.
conservative health care bill?? forcing EVERYONE to buy insurance? I don't see, how this bill is a good thing, even if you think the government should be involved. And other treaties have been signed before, it'll do nothing, yay, it's entirely obama's gig though, do nothing, but look good.
It's just because you don't have a values system. Don't worry, you're certainly not alone.
OK now you're off partisan politics and on to insulting me. Sure buddy, i have no values. Enjoy your obama presidency, as he takes us further down the same fucking path we've been going down. Bush Hit the accelerator and obama is hitting it harder, cheer him on! w00t.
Did he nearly die choking on a pretzel?
Who cares?
Is he starting an underfunded, ill conceived war while cutting taxes for the wealthy and destroying a budget surplus?
He's continuing it. not ending it, as promised.
Is he suspending basic rights like habeas corpus and performing searches and seizures without warrants?
he hasn't exactly reversed the trend. enemy combatants can still be held indefinitely. he left plenty of loopholes for torture. didn't reverse the patriot act. Ect.
is he staffing FEMA with idiots, and then doing nothing while they fuck up a hurricane response?
We'll find out if another katrina hits, personally i'd have no faith.
Is he standing on an aircraft carrier during some publicity stunt, claiming mission accomplished and the end of combat operations WEEKS into a war that has now lasted seven years?
Same as pretzel.
Is he nominating some inexperienced random woman for the Supreme Court?
we'll see what happens with that.
Give me a fucking break. I have my issues with Obama, but you're comparing the former editor of the Harvard Law review with a guy who would've flunked out of college if his father wasn't running the CIA.
well, the said harvard law review guy is continuing most all the policies of said guy who would have flunked college.
And onto your sig.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
I'll never understand why Chomsky is held in any sort of high regard. A corporation can't force anyone to do anything, without the government, or breaking the law.. Thus, as tyrannical, as it might like to be, it cannot. Government, on the other hand, can, and constantly tries to be. Even though, it's not an intentional thing.
Yikes. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? You do realize that sentence one is the definition of racist?
you do realize there is a difference between saying something should be legal, and actually doing said act?
You're correct that not being able to freely say to a black man "Niggers are like rats, and should not mingle with the White Race" is a restriction on your freedom. Just like not being able to shoot anyone you want on sight is a restriction on your freedom, or not being able to fuck any woman you want, regardless of whether she agrees or not, or taking somebody's car, regardless of whether they want to give it to you
Except one is merely offensive, the others are harmful, and force an action upon an unwilling person. A big difference.
great. and for every you there is, there is how many more people, that become dependent on the system. Not to mention that before the government got into welfare/charity, there were private groups that did these things. You subsidize something, you get more of it.
Then you don't want no regulation, you want some regulations, but just the ones you want. Any less isn't enough, and any more is too much.
If you consider contract enforcement, regulation, then sure.
Yes. If you bribe your customers $1 cash to not buy from the competition, and that payment causes you to lose money and your competitor to lose even more money and you "win" only because you can afford to bribe them longer than your competitor can stay in business, then yes. And if you bribe your customers to kill your competitor, that's bad too.
So one company can offer a product for a lower price than the other company, and that kills the other company? Sounds fine to me.
But without regulation they will lie to you to separate you from your money, and you also ignore the fact that they not only want to harm you (by taking as much money from you as possible for the worst possible product acceptable), but that they will also take acts to harm their competitors.
Again with the contract enforcement, none of this is much an issue.
umm what? I've worked in 2 places that required resume doc submissions, neither did i have to use word much(occasional doc in word was about it). I think you're jumping to conclusions.
Killing them? If there are truly no regulations, then you are thinking too small.
How can you kill something else? all the regulation you need is fraud.
And what prevents you from bribing your customers to not buy from the other guy, like the Intel acts against AMD
OK and bribing your customers is bad?
You are thinking too honorably with your ideas of lack of regulation, and not like amoral corporations with no accountability.
Again, if all contracts are voluntary.. it takes care of itself. I don't have to enter into a contract with GM or Ford or whoever, I choose to. I dont' care that all they want is to maximize the amount of mmoney they take from me, because i'm trying to maximize the amount of car I get out of them :P so we have to agree to a trade.
I have no problem at all with banning online gambling worldwide.
yeah, fuck freedom, who needs that?
Actually I got suckered into reading user comments on CNN.com the other day.
I had this happen too. I feel your pain my /. brother.
i have the freedom to make contracts because government enforces contracts. that's true.
and it turns out that absent regulation, it's cheaper to keep all competitors out than to innovate. They can get maximum profits by offering the shittiest product that will do the work and make sure you cannot access any other product.
how can they keep out competitors if there is no government regulating the market? they can't. big companies love regulations. No, they odn't love all of the regulations, but in general they do.
You're missing the point, that as much resistance to innovation and catering to customer needs as there is, and there is a lot, open competition *MAKES* them do that. regulations don't. That's why your car today meets your needs/wants far better than 20 years ago. That's why your food is fresh and edible (i can keep going on..). not because some government bureaucrat made some stupid law that has a billion side affects, and doesn't fulfill the intended purpose.
Because any corporation that isn't involved with the government, I choose to involve myself with. Thus, I can sever ties with them, also at my choosing.
Kind of boils down to that whole freedom thing.
right anyone who doesn't agree with you is brain dead. good call. if you don't use something of mine, as we agree to, what gives you expectation of privacy?