Or the people who review the information just rubber stamp the classification. The documents then sit in a filing cabinet somewhere, until they are 'lost', just before they were supposed to become public.
Well the US army knows what information was released, so they can go and protect the people whose names were revealed (and their families). Or is spending some money only justified when it results in a high bodycount of 'terrorists'.
There is a difference between the actions of a government official, trying to embarrass an individual, and a private citizen trying to embarrass a major government, even if they both do it by divulging state secrets.
Now imagine you're not a cop but an intelligence agent, and your goal is to gather information that will cause the death of as many of your enemies as possible. You also know that your superiors don't have any qualms about 'collateral' damage, such as the families of the targets you identify. Why should the world protect you and your family from retribution? (your side should protect your of course, but don't try to make it a moral imperative for other parties)
But what if you calculate where the ball will hit the ground, then drop it in another spot, or something hits it in the air, or there is an earthquake and the ground breaks open?
Calculations are always based upon certain guesses about what is going/not going to happen. Knowing the future would eliminate the need to guess about it.
So if god knows what is going to happen, and god can't be wrong, then you don't have the free will to do anything else.
If there is an omniscient god, then it can see all possible futures. If this god is also omnipotent, then he can cause any possible future to take place, simply by using it's powers to make all other futures impossible. If god could see the future, but be unable to change it then god could only be described as powerless.
Of course garbage men should be paid. What people object to is having to pay your garbage man to haul away trash deposited on your lawn by your neighbors garbage man, since it's against the law to haul it away yourself if you don't know the secret handshake.
The government does quite a few things to protect the environment (at least where I live). Such as emission standards for vehicles and industry, prohibition of overpowered insecticides, prohibition against using too many much fertilizer/sprays in areas where ground water is used clean water source, natural parks where almost everything that affects the environment is prohibited, toxic waste disposal rules,.........
As for the BP spill. Do you think that,in your world where all environmental protection is done by landowners, anyone would have even tried to keep the oil off the beaches? Would the owners have cooperated and invested all of the money necessary to rent ships, nets etc? (I know that way too much oil still got through, but it could have been worse) And what would have happened when they sued BP? If it looked like the price of the clean up was going to be too high, the main corporation would have syphoned off it's US subsidiaries assets, then declared it bankrupt. And without a big hammer to use against it, all of the victims would be even more screwed then they are today.
But nearly everything you do in your garden will affect your neighbors.
Plant flowers? Pollen causes allergies. Plant trees? Cut off sunlight and stop wind. Chop down trees? Speed up soil erosion.
All of these can be counted as 'damage'. So if you only have private parties and the legal system to mitigate 'damage', then no1 will ever be able to do ANYTHING.
And what about greenhouse gasses? Just about everything produces them. Who do you sue when your land turns into a desert? The damage caused individually by each person can be close to zero, but combined it can destroy the value of your property.
And what about indirect damage? If I spray my fields with a toxin that wipes out all of the bees living on neighbors land, but he doesn't care about it. You on the other hand were relying on them to pollinate your flower farm. Who do you sue? You don't directly have standing to so either your neighbor, who did nothing, or me since I didn't directly harm you in any way.
The world is too connected to be kept safe by each person just taking care of his own land and suing people that damage it.
You need a government to give overall rules of protecting the environment. It might not be very effective, but it's still better then what we'd have if people were left to decide for themselves what they consider to be 'good' for their property.
But what do you do if someone takes a dump in your neighbors yard. Then another billion people do the same.
Just because it's not in your house doesn't mean that your house isn't affected by the actions of other people on their own land.
Take drilling for example. Let's say that person A owns the bay where oil is found. He decides that he can live without the tourism and fishing income that he used to get from his bay, so he starts drilling for oil. Since it's his property and he's just concerned about his profit, he takes a few shortcuts, so his oil rig leaks oil like crazy, but it's cheap so he's still making more money then if he did it carefully and cleanly. To make sure he's not held liable for polluting his neighbors bays he sets up some nets to stop most of the oil from leaking out of his bay.
Meanwhile, person B owns the next bay along the beach. He has a thriving swimming resort, and his bay is the only place in the world where platinum-fish can be caught, which causes him to be very careful that his water isn't polluted.
Unfortunately, while the oil from bay one is stopped from leaking out by the nets, tons of dead oil-eating bacteria aren't. Their corpses decompose in the surrounding bays, using up all of the available oxygen in the process.
Suddenly, his care for the environment can't help person B, since his bay is not isolated from the rest of the world.
When you speak of the owner protecting natural resources, you forget about simple human greed. A person will protect HIS property in exactly the way that gives him the most profit. If that happens to mess up the property of the guy next door, then screw him.
If the law allows them to sue for a 3 word 'infringement' then perhaps the law should be changed? And who is i na better position to change the law then a politician?
There is a difference between patent and copyright trolls.
With patent trolls and the current state of the patent system, there doesn't have to be any actual link between the patent and the product for the 'infringing party' to be held liable, as long as the patent holder has enough lawyers.
With copyright at least you can clearly see that someone copied your work.
So why not give people the ability to buy 'suing rights'?
But in a way these trolls do encourage the creation of new works.
Think about it. If you write a good enough article that someone with cash copies without your permission, then these guys come along and buy the rights to your article. It's almost exactly like record companies, except you don't have to deal with them until you have your creative work completed and published, so you can gauge the public response to it, and it's subsequent value. With a record company you have to sign over all rights (for a fraction of their probable worth), and they'll keep 99% of the money if your work is a success, or stick you with the bill if it's a flop.
Slashdot Mirror
Or the people who review the information just rubber stamp the classification. The documents then sit in a filing cabinet somewhere, until they are 'lost', just before they were supposed to become public.
Well the US army knows what information was released, so they can go and protect the people whose names were revealed (and their families). Or is spending some money only justified when it results in a high bodycount of 'terrorists'.
There is a difference between the actions of a government official, trying to embarrass an individual, and a private citizen trying to embarrass a major government, even if they both do it by divulging state secrets.
Now imagine you're not a cop but an intelligence agent, and your goal is to gather information that will cause the death of as many of your enemies as possible. You also know that your superiors don't have any qualms about 'collateral' damage, such as the families of the targets you identify. Why should the world protect you and your family from retribution? (your side should protect your of course, but don't try to make it a moral imperative for other parties)
Who was the last person to be adequately punished for classifying something inappropriately?
Well in some ways those civilians could be though of as collaborators with the invading army.
Knowing the outcome BEFORE the supposedly free subject makes a decision on the other hand,.....
But what happens if Q tells the person P that P is going to have B for breakfast (which Q foresaw) , and P decides that Q is annoying and has A?
But what if you calculate where the ball will hit the ground, then drop it in another spot, or something hits it in the air, or there is an earthquake and the ground breaks open?
Calculations are always based upon certain guesses about what is going/not going to happen. Knowing the future would eliminate the need to guess about it.
So if god knows what is going to happen, and god can't be wrong, then you don't have the free will to do anything else.
What if your son slips and is knocked out, before he has time to even consider 'wanting to stay up'?
Your 'knowing' is just an educated guess, which could be very likely, but is not absolutely true.
If there is an omniscient god, then it can see all possible futures.
If this god is also omnipotent, then he can cause any possible future to take place, simply by using it's powers to make all other futures impossible.
If god could see the future, but be unable to change it then god could only be described as powerless.
But does god know what you're going to decide before you do it?
Of course garbage men should be paid. What people object to is having to pay your garbage man to haul away trash deposited on your lawn by your neighbors garbage man, since it's against the law to haul it away yourself if you don't know the secret handshake.
Would Absolute power corrupt? When you have everything, what is there to gain by becoming corrupt?
What do you mean? Ozymandias saves the world from nuclear annihilation. Dr Manhattan leaves.
Wasn't there a draft at the time of the Vietnam war?
Are there many countries where DoS is legal?
Well you could just check if the place exists once the user complains about the suspension?
The government does quite a few things to protect the environment (at least where I live). Such as emission standards for vehicles and industry, prohibition of overpowered insecticides, prohibition against using too many much fertilizer/sprays in areas where ground water is used clean water source, natural parks where almost everything that affects the environment is prohibited, toxic waste disposal rules,.........
As for the BP spill. Do you think that,in your world where all environmental protection is done by landowners, anyone would have even tried to keep the oil off the beaches? Would the owners have cooperated and invested all of the money necessary to rent ships, nets etc? (I know that way too much oil still got through, but it could have been worse)
And what would have happened when they sued BP? If it looked like the price of the clean up was going to be too high, the main corporation would have syphoned off it's US subsidiaries assets, then declared it bankrupt. And without a big hammer to use against it, all of the victims would be even more screwed then they are today.
But nearly everything you do in your garden will affect your neighbors.
Plant flowers? Pollen causes allergies.
Plant trees? Cut off sunlight and stop wind.
Chop down trees? Speed up soil erosion.
All of these can be counted as 'damage'. So if you only have private parties and the legal system to mitigate 'damage', then no1 will ever be able to do ANYTHING.
And what about greenhouse gasses? Just about everything produces them. Who do you sue when your land turns into a desert? The damage caused individually by each person can be close to zero, but combined it can destroy the value of your property.
And what about indirect damage? If I spray my fields with a toxin that wipes out all of the bees living on neighbors land, but he doesn't care about it. You on the other hand were relying on them to pollinate your flower farm. Who do you sue? You don't directly have standing to so either your neighbor, who did nothing, or me since I didn't directly harm you in any way.
The world is too connected to be kept safe by each person just taking care of his own land and suing people that damage it.
You need a government to give overall rules of protecting the environment. It might not be very effective, but it's still better then what we'd have if people were left to decide for themselves what they consider to be 'good' for their property.
But what do you do if someone takes a dump in your neighbors yard. Then another billion people do the same.
Just because it's not in your house doesn't mean that your house isn't affected by the actions of other people on their own land.
Take drilling for example. Let's say that person A owns the bay where oil is found. He decides that he can live without the tourism and fishing income that he used to get from his bay, so he starts drilling for oil. Since it's his property and he's just concerned about his profit, he takes a few shortcuts, so his oil rig leaks oil like crazy, but it's cheap so he's still making more money then if he did it carefully and cleanly. To make sure he's not held liable for polluting his neighbors bays he sets up some nets to stop most of the oil from leaking out of his bay.
Meanwhile, person B owns the next bay along the beach. He has a thriving swimming resort, and his bay is the only place in the world where platinum-fish can be caught, which causes him to be very careful that his water isn't polluted.
Unfortunately, while the oil from bay one is stopped from leaking out by the nets, tons of dead oil-eating bacteria aren't. Their corpses decompose in the surrounding bays, using up all of the available oxygen in the process.
Suddenly, his care for the environment can't help person B, since his bay is not isolated from the rest of the world.
When you speak of the owner protecting natural resources, you forget about simple human greed. A person will protect HIS property in exactly the way that gives him the most profit. If that happens to mess up the property of the guy next door, then screw him.
If the law allows them to sue for a 3 word 'infringement' then perhaps the law should be changed? And who is i na better position to change the law then a politician?
There is a difference between patent and copyright trolls.
With patent trolls and the current state of the patent system, there doesn't have to be any actual link between the patent and the product for the 'infringing party' to be held liable, as long as the patent holder has enough lawyers.
With copyright at least you can clearly see that someone copied your work.
So why not give people the ability to buy 'suing rights'?
But in a way these trolls do encourage the creation of new works.
Think about it. If you write a good enough article that someone with cash copies without your permission, then these guys come along and buy the rights to your article. It's almost exactly like record companies, except you don't have to deal with them until you have your creative work completed and published, so you can gauge the public response to it, and it's subsequent value. With a record company you have to sign over all rights (for a fraction of their probable worth), and they'll keep 99% of the money if your work is a success, or stick you with the bill if it's a flop.
Is it more moral to let the woman starve? If they have no choice except prostitution, then if they can't prostitute themselves they can just die?