This AC is spot-on. I wouldn't go so far as say we need to raise money, but I do think Slashdotters should be aware that if they ever stumble across Hans and Nina's kids, they deserve a little extra consideration.
I take your comments as a friendly amendment. In fact, it's really only an elaboration. My information is an abstraction of my sphere of direct, personal influence. My house and other possessions (car, papers, hardware/software/data) are the concrete manifestation of my sphere of influence. They are a logical extension of "knowing about me." I have a right to exclusive power over them, barring some VERY urgent social need to forestall harm to others. Of course, that's the argument used to invade privacy all the time, but, like you, I go with an originalist interpretation of the rights of the individual.
Agreed, it's not that complex. I didn't RTFE/B, nor your FE, but we talked about this at length back in my grad school. It comes down to this:
Privacy = I decide who knows what about me.
This, to me, does away with the "I have nothing to hide" fallacy, because that attitude surrenders power. It's not about what they find, it's about who decides when and where they can look in the first place.
To put it another way, if you argue that the authorities can do whatever they like because you haven't done anything wrong, you surrender any right to make a case that they might be doing something wrong.
Nader has never joined the Green Party, and hasn't been its candidate since 2000. In 2004, the candidate was David Cobb, and this year, it looks like it will be Cynthia McKinney.
Furthermore, I doubt that Google would gain much from taking sides. They are the premier provider of web services and that is where they should stay. Desktop applications are the past, web services are the future. How is that not taking sides? In the unlikely event web services eclipse desktop apps, Google will have an enormous head start, and they'll most likely allow and even encourage folks to use ODT.
More likely is that the line between desktop and webtop apps will gradually blur (e.g., "cloud computing"), and... Google will still have an enormous head start. Rather than OOo and Google Docs trying to replace each other, they will probably fade into each other over time.
Here is the fallacy I see with this, a corporation does not come into being with small amounts of capital. In otherwords, the amount of money a corporation requires would be diluted by the number of workers hired. So outside capital is required. Uh, yes. Co-ops get loans every day. Some do tens of millions of dollars of business every year.
Those individuals who provide that capital are going to want to get paid back (with interest) for loaning that money out. If the employees could loan that type of money out, then more than likely they would either start their own business. Which exactly what happens when people start a co-op.
And while yes, there are individuals who would work towards building something bigger than themselves, at the end of the day it still comes down to shelter, food, transportation, and entertainment. Those are hardly exclusive of being your own boss. Arguably, that could well put you in a *better* economic situation.
Of COURSE you have employees who want to make money. That's the whole point. To clarify, let's pull out two sentences from your post:
So do most people who work at corporations, though the majority never reach those dreams.
You may dislike corporations, but history has shown they are very effective at making money, and at the end of the day that is what matters to the shareholders. So, the corporation is an economic structure that is good at putting wealth in the hands of people who are not the ones actually generating it.
The solution is to make the workers and the shareholders the exact same people, so that the people who generate the wealth get to benefit from it. The economic structure that allows that to happen is called a cooperative.
Today, the very concept of a corporation entails the idea of profit maximization. That's why singling out one (Nike, Monsanto, Microsoft) and getting angry at it for making short-sighted moves in the name of profit is like getting angry at an alligator for eating meat. What did you expect? That's what it does.
"Corporate citizenship" or "corporate responsibility" are nothing more than marketing slogans. You can't ask an alligator to eat veggieburgers, and you can't ask a corporation to play nice. Even if it actually did so, its competitors would roll over it.
If you want an economy that responds to more than the richest 1% of 1% of the population, you need economic entities that are qualitatively different -- that measure success differently. That doesn't mean more government interference, because the state and the corporation have the same flaws, for the same reasons. The state and the corporation are rivals, not enemies.
Rather, what we need are economic bodies that are expressly designed in the interests of their employees and clients. The effective way to do it is through cooperatives.
There are countless examples that demonstrate that employee control works. It avoids practically all the evils of the corporate model: outsourcing, management/labor tension, secrecy, poor working conditions, creative accounting, and the list goes on.
Co-ops automatically are what corporations want you to believe they are. A co-op is a citizen of your community in a way a corporation never could be, because all its owners are citizens of your community.
It corrodes the living sh#% out of virtually all of our liquid fuel transportation infrastructure. Well, perhaps building our liquid fuel transportation infrastructure out of living shit was not a good move.
Gonna have to disagree with you. I like it a lot, though I would have used a single-pixel border and square buttons, just to save on vertical space. But a visual manifestation of the way comments relate to each other is a welcome change!
And, it also appears to be AJAX-driven, which makes it fully buzzword-compliant.
Thanks for that. Now that I've read the article, I think it's spot on. And it explains why there are so many people who are resistant to switching, no matter how much sense it makes at an intellectual level. They don't really like their computers, and see no point in learning another system they won't like any better. They believe that the difficulties they currently have will follow them to Linux, because they are inherent to computers. What we see as challenges to be met, they see as chores to be slogged through.
This is basically why I've really backed off on pushing Linux on family and friends.
Slashdot Mirror
This AC is spot-on. I wouldn't go so far as say we need to raise money, but I do think Slashdotters should be aware that if they ever stumble across Hans and Nina's kids, they deserve a little extra consideration.
Unless they're flying almost constantly, that means they're actually losing several per flight.
"I can't believe it. I lost another three laptops today!"
I can't believe you left out the biggest problem of all: what to do with all that solar waste.
I know I sure as heck don't want a bunch of depleted sunlight in my backyard!
Thanks for the boost, and also for "has," and not "have." Well done to you, too.
All this science, I don't understand.
Yes, you are correct
Better yet, your comment was
Almost a haiku
For service above and beyond the call of duty, Captain Obvious has been promoted.
He is now Major Obvious.
What if they simply sentence him to an additional three years of high school?
I take your comments as a friendly amendment. In fact, it's really only an elaboration. My information is an abstraction of my sphere of direct, personal influence. My house and other possessions (car, papers, hardware/software/data) are the concrete manifestation of my sphere of influence. They are a logical extension of "knowing about me." I have a right to exclusive power over them, barring some VERY urgent social need to forestall harm to others. Of course, that's the argument used to invade privacy all the time, but, like you, I go with an originalist interpretation of the rights of the individual.
Agreed, it's not that complex. I didn't RTFE/B, nor your FE, but we talked about this at length back in my grad school. It comes down to this:
Privacy = I decide who knows what about me.
This, to me, does away with the "I have nothing to hide" fallacy, because that attitude surrenders power. It's not about what they find, it's about who decides when and where they can look in the first place.
To put it another way, if you argue that the authorities can do whatever they like because you haven't done anything wrong, you surrender any right to make a case that they might be doing something wrong.
Hit the highway divider right on the concrete post.
Nader has never joined the Green Party, and hasn't been its candidate since 2000. In 2004, the candidate was David Cobb, and this year, it looks like it will be Cynthia McKinney.
More likely is that the line between desktop and webtop apps will gradually blur (e.g., "cloud computing"), and... Google will still have an enormous head start. Rather than OOo and Google Docs trying to replace each other, they will probably fade into each other over time.
You may dislike corporations, but history has shown they are very effective at making money, and at the end of the day that is what matters to the shareholders. So, the corporation is an economic structure that is good at putting wealth in the hands of people who are not the ones actually generating it.
The solution is to make the workers and the shareholders the exact same people, so that the people who generate the wealth get to benefit from it. The economic structure that allows that to happen is called a cooperative.
Today, the very concept of a corporation entails the idea of profit maximization. That's why singling out one (Nike, Monsanto, Microsoft) and getting angry at it for making short-sighted moves in the name of profit is like getting angry at an alligator for eating meat. What did you expect? That's what it does.
"Corporate citizenship" or "corporate responsibility" are nothing more than marketing slogans. You can't ask an alligator to eat veggieburgers, and you can't ask a corporation to play nice. Even if it actually did so, its competitors would roll over it.
If you want an economy that responds to more than the richest 1% of 1% of the population, you need economic entities that are qualitatively different -- that measure success differently. That doesn't mean more government interference, because the state and the corporation have the same flaws, for the same reasons. The state and the corporation are rivals, not enemies.
Rather, what we need are economic bodies that are expressly designed in the interests of their employees and clients. The effective way to do it is through cooperatives.
There are countless examples that demonstrate that employee control works. It avoids practically all the evils of the corporate model: outsourcing, management/labor tension, secrecy, poor working conditions, creative accounting, and the list goes on.
Co-ops automatically are what corporations want you to believe they are. A co-op is a citizen of your community in a way a corporation never could be, because all its owners are citizens of your community.
...a hat and bullwhip?
Don't keep us in suspense! What time is it?
...I'm the only one!
Wait, let me read that headline again...
Gonna have to disagree with you. I like it a lot, though I would have used a single-pixel border and square buttons, just to save on vertical space. But a visual manifestation of the way comments relate to each other is a welcome change!
And, it also appears to be AJAX-driven, which makes it fully buzzword-compliant.
Perhaps we could come up with some sort of arrangement where this tag is removed once someone identifies something that could possibly go wrong.
Thanks for that. Now that I've read the article, I think it's spot on. And it explains why there are so many people who are resistant to switching, no matter how much sense it makes at an intellectual level. They don't really like their computers, and see no point in learning another system they won't like any better. They believe that the difficulties they currently have will follow them to Linux, because they are inherent to computers. What we see as challenges to be met, they see as chores to be slogged through.
This is basically why I've really backed off on pushing Linux on family and friends.