A fair point. The fact is that complete transparency is kinda like completely free markets, it only works if everybody involved is rational and fully informed. Some discussions need to be held in private because otherwise some less informed individual may hear part of a discussion that they don't like and run away with it. They might not have all the information necessary to see the full context and grasp the full consequences of what's being discussed. Of course, the flip side is that meeting in private can also be abused to do stuff that nobody would like for personal gain.
Fair enough. The technology that would be required is obviously non-trivial and is an interesting avenue to explore in its own right, but is tangential to the point of Scott Adams post. So I apologize for being a bit dickish in my post. The "FFS" wasn't necessary.
Before everybody get's their panties in a bunch, the key line from TFA is this:
This is just an economic thought experiment.
So don't take it too seriously. Scott Adams isn't proposing this as a good idea, attacking your privacy or making excuses for attacking your privacy. He set up a premise and explored what he thinks the consequences might be. You can disagree with his conclusions, but try and keep some perspective.
I think you are missing the premise of Scott Adam's thought experiment here. In his experiment everybody knows everything about everybody. So there really aren't any watchers, or everybody is a watcher if you prefer.
So if everybody is a watcher, who watches the watchers? Answer: everybody.
You are being a little silly here. When you sign up for the card, they get your address so they can sell it to junk mailers. They do not, however, know your current address if you have moved since getting the card (and I'm sure many people have).
I don't know if that's entirely true. When we moved a few years back, I'm pretty sure the grocery store wasn't on our list of people to inform. Yet somehow they still manage to send us coupons at our new address (and not just generic coupons, they send you coupons based on what you buy). I don't think I even really thought about it until now.
When he is cooking his tv dinner, he just wants a microwave that works.
I doubt his TV dinner is open sourced either. Most people would be (or, at least, ought to be) more concerned about what's in their food that what's in their software.
I find that nonsensical. The public unions and their relationships with local government are a big part of the reason Wisconsin is in its current hole.
That is out and out bullshit. Did you miss the collapse of the banks? That is the reason everybody is in a hole, not the unions. But did the GOP want to do anything to regulate the banks? The one's that caused the problem in the first place? No! They'd rather take the opportunity for union busting. If you listen to Walker on the Koch prank call he makes no bones about it, it's about union busting, not Wisconsin's finances (which, on the whole, aren't that bad).
It's nothing to do with long-term fiscal health. There was nothing wrong with their contracts before the bust and they'll be nothing wrong with them after the recovery. It's just screwing public workers.
The unions have yet to agree to reduce their power to negotiate. So they haven't given him "absolutely everything" he wants in terms of pay and benefit cuts. He's not just looking for budget cuts this fiscal year, but the long term fiscal health of Wisconsin as well. Public unions are incompatible with that.
Bullshit. He want to completely remove (not reduce) their power to negotiate so that when the economy recovers (which it will) he doesn't have to give them back what he's taken away. He's not asking for a temporary sacrifice in this difficult time, his looking to tear away everything they have for good.
On the bright-side, this is a wake up call for complacent union members.
Walker has tried to frame this as a budget issue, but the union have agreed to give him absolutely everything he wants in terms of pay and benefit cuts. Cutting off the union's right to collective bargaining doesn't save 1 cent. It's just a cynical attempt to undermine the workers.
I think the, admittedly non-sequitur, comment was about internet censorship and not suggesting Clinton had any involvement with the unions. Clinton was complaining about shutting off the internet in Egypt, et al.
Since this absorbs light rather than reflects it, I think the correct response is or you could just use anything that is opaque (e.g. a brick wall, a thick piece of cardboard, your cat).
Slashdot Mirror
A fair point. The fact is that complete transparency is kinda like completely free markets, it only works if everybody involved is rational and fully informed. Some discussions need to be held in private because otherwise some less informed individual may hear part of a discussion that they don't like and run away with it. They might not have all the information necessary to see the full context and grasp the full consequences of what's being discussed. Of course, the flip side is that meeting in private can also be abused to do stuff that nobody would like for personal gain.
Short version: people suck
Fair enough. The technology that would be required is obviously non-trivial and is an interesting avenue to explore in its own right, but is tangential to the point of Scott Adams post. So I apologize for being a bit dickish in my post. The "FFS" wasn't necessary.
That's probably it. We did fill in the change of address card with the USPS. I didn't really think that would get feed back to my grocery store.
Way to make a totally irrelevant comment dude.
Before everybody get's their panties in a bunch, the key line from TFA is this:
So don't take it too seriously. Scott Adams isn't proposing this as a good idea, attacking your privacy or making excuses for attacking your privacy. He set up a premise and explored what he thinks the consequences might be. You can disagree with his conclusions, but try and keep some perspective.
I think you are missing the premise of Scott Adam's thought experiment here. In his experiment everybody knows everything about everybody. So there really aren't any watchers, or everybody is a watcher if you prefer.
So if everybody is a watcher, who watches the watchers? Answer: everybody.
You are being a little silly here. When you sign up for the card, they get your address so they can sell it to junk mailers. They do not, however, know your current address if you have moved since getting the card (and I'm sure many people have).
I don't know if that's entirely true. When we moved a few years back, I'm pretty sure the grocery store wasn't on our list of people to inform. Yet somehow they still manage to send us coupons at our new address (and not just generic coupons, they send you coupons based on what you buy). I don't think I even really thought about it until now.
From TFA:
So, no.
From TFA:
So you argument is moot. It's a thought experiment FFS.
Yeah, kids are starving in Africa but this stuff still matters.
Perhaps we can feed them with old Linux distros?
When he is cooking his tv dinner, he just wants a microwave that works.
I doubt his TV dinner is open sourced either. Most people would be (or, at least, ought to be) more concerned about what's in their food that what's in their software.
Dances with Smurfs more like.
I find that nonsensical. The public unions and their relationships with local government are a big part of the reason Wisconsin is in its current hole.
That is out and out bullshit. Did you miss the collapse of the banks? That is the reason everybody is in a hole, not the unions. But did the GOP want to do anything to regulate the banks? The one's that caused the problem in the first place? No! They'd rather take the opportunity for union busting. If you listen to Walker on the Koch prank call he makes no bones about it, it's about union busting, not Wisconsin's finances (which, on the whole, aren't that bad).
It's nothing to do with long-term fiscal health. There was nothing wrong with their contracts before the bust and they'll be nothing wrong with them after the recovery. It's just screwing public workers.
The unions have yet to agree to reduce their power to negotiate. So they haven't given him "absolutely everything" he wants in terms of pay and benefit cuts. He's not just looking for budget cuts this fiscal year, but the long term fiscal health of Wisconsin as well. Public unions are incompatible with that.
Bullshit. He want to completely remove (not reduce) their power to negotiate so that when the economy recovers (which it will) he doesn't have to give them back what he's taken away. He's not asking for a temporary sacrifice in this difficult time, his looking to tear away everything they have for good.
On the bright-side, this is a wake up call for complacent union members.
How is that relevant? It's not. It has nothing to do with the topic and you are simply trolling.
No idea what you're talking about. No idea how it's even remotely relevant.
Wow. Aren't you clever. Now go fuck yourself asshole.
Exactly this^
Walker has tried to frame this as a budget issue, but the union have agreed to give him absolutely everything he wants in terms of pay and benefit cuts. Cutting off the union's right to collective bargaining doesn't save 1 cent. It's just a cynical attempt to undermine the workers.
I think the, admittedly non-sequitur, comment was about internet censorship and not suggesting Clinton had any involvement with the unions. Clinton was complaining about shutting off the internet in Egypt, et al.
If it's your union, then it is part of your work.
Until Apple came out with the iANAL!
Read a book
Depends on the power of the laser. Besides, they've still blocked the laser for at least some period of time.
Since this absorbs light rather than reflects it, I think the correct response is or you could just use anything that is opaque (e.g. a brick wall, a thick piece of cardboard, your cat).