If you do harm to others, even without intent, you should pick up the tab for the damages. Anything less is a handout to *you* from everyone you've harmed, or from those on whom the costs fall. (Usually taxpayers.)
I'm not yet certain of the amount of harm done, nor of how the costs should be apportioned. I do, however, see a great many people trying to avoid responsibility for their own actions, and hoping that if the axe does fall, it will fall on someone else.
I've been driving gasoline and diesel burning vehicles for >25 years, and consuming products and services that require the emission of pollution to produce for longer than that, and having few options will continue to do so for now. When the axe falls, I will pay my share, because I have contributed to this mess. I would like to see more choices available to me to reduce the damage I will cause, and thereby the damages I should pay.
I would also like to see accurate measurements of the damages, with reliable data and unbiased analysis. I do not think I will get that from anyone with ties to corporations, which are motivated solely by profit, and will benefit by shifting the costs to someone else. Nor do I think I will get that from anyone trying to sell popular bestselling books or films, with a different sort of profit motive.
I do think that over time, the science will improve and become more reliable. In the meantime I do what I can to reduce my liabilities, not by blame-shifting, but by riding a bicycle to work when I can, choosing local products when I can (to reduce transportation pollution), using more efficient appliances, recycling and reusing things, and generally doing the best I can and accepting that I will have to pay for the rest.
I think it would take a panel of judges and a legion of lawyers to fight out how many angels would fit on the head of this particular pin, and afterward people would still disagree.
Better to err on the side of doing it right (admitting fault and correcting the issue) than to open up a gray area precedent that might be exploited by someone else.
There are several in my team. Not a majority, nor even 50%, but enough to keep it from being completely testosterone insane (like my last job was).
However, we've been interviewing lately, and have had exactly zero female applicants, which is disappointing.
I hope I wouldn't give an unfair preference based on gender, but I've found that a mix of genders, cultures, interests and ages makes a much more pleasant working environment, and often a more productive one.
The less you earn, the more you benefit from the programs paid for by those taxes, in theory.
The math doesn't really work out for taxing the low income segments more, but it does work out for taxing the higher incomes more, provided you use the increased revenue to benefit those at the low end, as opposed to using it to line the pockets of wealthy government contractors.
Of course, those at the high end don't reap direct benefits, and therefore tend to oppose such things.
It can be really tricky to work out the optimal ratio of taxation and assistance expenditure to maximize the benefit for the majority of people, either directly or indirectly. At one end you have the dysfunction of centrally controlled economies (USSR, for example), and at the other end you have the dysfunction of anarchy (Somalia, Yemen).
Most functional governments try to strike a good balance, but there are always people who think they could personally benefit if their country's system was skewed one way or the other, so it's a tug of war between selfish extremists, with the fate of the majority in the balance.
Also, people tend not to take into account the indirect benefits they reap (such as contracts that can be enforced, stable economic climate, law and order, availability of well trained and healthy labor force, peace) when they count up the value they receive for their tax money. Even rich people can be short-sighted.
Lastly, in "functioning democracies", the people tend to elect the jackasses that tell them what they want to hear.
Isn't a social network non-private by definition? There are plenty of ways to meet and communicate with people that are somewhat private and anonymous, but a social network (on the internet or in meatspace) is not one of them.
It really depends on what you mean by "private".
I would like a tool to have social interactions with people using the name by which they know me, even if that name is not the one on my birth certificate, and even if I don't want that birth certificate name available to them, or to the entity providing the tool.
Is that "private"? I think so - it preserves my personal safety and control of my own data.
Is it "anonymous"? Well - I'd be using a name that refers to me, and that is known to the group of people with whom I wish to interact, so in a sense, no - it's not anonymous. It's just not using the same name that a completely different group of people uses to refer to me. Still the same me, just in a different context.
OK, then, Mr. or Ms. vlm. (That's a strange name - is it real?)
What's your real name and current residence? I'd like to come to your house/apartment/hotel/mud hut and sell you something. Or at least sell that information to someone who will find it useful.
While anonymity does allow the sorts of tripe to which you refer, it also permits a level of honesty and safety unavailable otherwise.
Personally I find it fascinating, even disturbing, that people are stupid enough to broadcast so much valuable and dangerous information on these social data mining tools.
Oddly enough, being social has nothing to do with people knowing your so-called 'real name'.
Google is on to something with their 'circles', recognizing that people don't want to share the same stuff with everyone.
They have not, so far, realized (or at least agreed) that names are one of those 'stuff'.
Case in point - people who participate in online communities of various sorts often are well known among those communities, or subsets thereof, using a name that is entirely different from the one they use at work, or at home, etc. On slashdot I am known as 'iceaxe', and have been for rather more than a decade. I have a long history of posts and though I'm hardly famous, 'iceaxe' IS my identity here. But because of policy I can't go use G+ to supplement that identity with a profile and the richer forms of interaction available in their tool without revealing personally identifying information beyond what is available already.
Now, why would I be worried about revealing my non-slashdot identity? Maybe because I have lived through having a stalker in real life. Maybe because I have family members who are more well known than I am whose safety and privacy might be compromised. And maybe I'm making this stuff up - you'll never know.
Because I care about the safety that comes from pseudonymous interaction with random strangers, while still benefiting from sociability. I'll have both, or I'll have neither. G+ can stuff it. (Along with FB, etc.)
I'm going to assume that you, like me, are in the US, as nobody else in the world thinks of health care in quite the way we USians do, or so it seems to me.
People who use loaded terms like "socialized medicine" (not to mention "fascist") usually also say that they are in favor of things that "make good business sense". Now, I won't put words in your mouth, so I'll just express this from my own point of view. I definitely think that basing decisions on a continual process of evaluation and adjustment (which is what successful businesses do) and the adoption of established "best practices" (also what successful businesses do) is a good way to proceed.
So, let's start by looking at the healthcare systems that produce the best overall outcomes, and see how we can apply those practices to our situation. Then adjust as the results become known, because there is no one perfect solution - there will always be room for improvement.
Now, having said that, I will posit that the "best overall outcomes for healthcare" may not be the same as "most profit for healthcare related businesses". In fact, looking at the results from the countries with the best health, I'm pretty sure they are not.
Then we have a moral decision to make. Which is more important, the health of our people, or the profits of the healthcare industries? So far, we have come down on the side of profits, thanks in no small part to the fact that those profits fuel the campaigns of those who make the decisions. And I include the recent "reforms" in that category, as they are largely a handout of money to the entrenched industry, with a thin veneer of useful provisions overlaid to make it seem like something helpful.
To return to the topic at hand (population growth) it seems readily apparent to me that we will either bring it to some sort of balance, or it will correct itself in less pleasant ways. The decisions we will make will determine which, and how miserable will be the fate of those at the 'balance point'. I genuinely hope that humanity will be smart enough to find an equilibrium that allows for a good quality of life, but humanity doesn't have a good track record on being smart.
While I sympathize with your point of view, and wish I could still believe the same, I think you give both parties too much credit.
Neither party gives a flying ____ about what happens to the people they claim to represent. While the noises that come out of their mouths may seem to be in support of or opposition to one idea or another, the truth is that every squeak, and every vote, is calculated for political value and nothing else at all.
One party is telling lies that appeal to one segment of the population, and the other is telling lies that appeal to a different segment. Both are acting for the sole purpose of gaining power for themselves, either in the form of a voting bloc of those they've fooled, or as a kickback percentage of the money gained by those who benefit from the actions of the politicians.
Both major parties, and the byzantine system of extra-constitutional legislative rules they've created to maintain the status quo, are irredeemably corrupt. I will welcome the day when both of these monstrosities collapse under the accumulated weight of their treasonous perfidy.
I think the problem is there in your last sentence: "every study that has come out"
Where "come out" means reported on by various popular media, with varying degrees of selectivity and 'spin'.
There's actually quite a lot of good research going on in the world. You just don't have it thrust in front of you unless it can be twisted or abused to support someone's political or financial agenda.
The problem happens when all of the places to dig that hole that you can reach within a reasonable walking distance have been used 37 times already this month.
A good sanitary hole in the ground is perfectly fine for nomads in wide open places, but in crowded conditions - or even long-term residence without crowding - you run out of options.
Pit toilets and trench latrines work well for more moderate use levels, like temporary habitations or sparser population. For crowded places, you need to move the poo somewhere else, or do something to sterilize it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you do harm to others, even without intent, you should pick up the tab for the damages. Anything less is a handout to *you* from everyone you've harmed, or from those on whom the costs fall. (Usually taxpayers.)
I'm not yet certain of the amount of harm done, nor of how the costs should be apportioned. I do, however, see a great many people trying to avoid responsibility for their own actions, and hoping that if the axe does fall, it will fall on someone else.
I've been driving gasoline and diesel burning vehicles for >25 years, and consuming products and services that require the emission of pollution to produce for longer than that, and having few options will continue to do so for now. When the axe falls, I will pay my share, because I have contributed to this mess. I would like to see more choices available to me to reduce the damage I will cause, and thereby the damages I should pay.
I would also like to see accurate measurements of the damages, with reliable data and unbiased analysis. I do not think I will get that from anyone with ties to corporations, which are motivated solely by profit, and will benefit by shifting the costs to someone else. Nor do I think I will get that from anyone trying to sell popular bestselling books or films, with a different sort of profit motive.
I do think that over time, the science will improve and become more reliable. In the meantime I do what I can to reduce my liabilities, not by blame-shifting, but by riding a bicycle to work when I can, choosing local products when I can (to reduce transportation pollution), using more efficient appliances, recycling and reusing things, and generally doing the best I can and accepting that I will have to pay for the rest.
I don't think you are qualified to determine the qualifications of others to determine the terms of the GPL. :P
(is this infinitely recursive?)
I think it would take a panel of judges and a legion of lawyers to fight out how many angels would fit on the head of this particular pin, and afterward people would still disagree.
Better to err on the side of doing it right (admitting fault and correcting the issue) than to open up a gray area precedent that might be exploited by someone else.
Does that mean they are made of wood?
Oh crap, I am no one and didn't even know it? No wonder I'm underpaid...
There are several in my team. Not a majority, nor even 50%, but enough to keep it from being completely testosterone insane (like my last job was).
However, we've been interviewing lately, and have had exactly zero female applicants, which is disappointing.
I hope I wouldn't give an unfair preference based on gender, but I've found that a mix of genders, cultures, interests and ages makes a much more pleasant working environment, and often a more productive one.
What a lame troll. Try harder.
The less you earn, the more you benefit from the programs paid for by those taxes, in theory.
The math doesn't really work out for taxing the low income segments more, but it does work out for taxing the higher incomes more, provided you use the increased revenue to benefit those at the low end, as opposed to using it to line the pockets of wealthy government contractors.
Of course, those at the high end don't reap direct benefits, and therefore tend to oppose such things.
It can be really tricky to work out the optimal ratio of taxation and assistance expenditure to maximize the benefit for the majority of people, either directly or indirectly. At one end you have the dysfunction of centrally controlled economies (USSR, for example), and at the other end you have the dysfunction of anarchy (Somalia, Yemen).
Most functional governments try to strike a good balance, but there are always people who think they could personally benefit if their country's system was skewed one way or the other, so it's a tug of war between selfish extremists, with the fate of the majority in the balance.
Also, people tend not to take into account the indirect benefits they reap (such as contracts that can be enforced, stable economic climate, law and order, availability of well trained and healthy labor force, peace) when they count up the value they receive for their tax money. Even rich people can be short-sighted.
Lastly, in "functioning democracies", the people tend to elect the jackasses that tell them what they want to hear.
So, it's a mess.
Isn't a social network non-private by definition? There are plenty of ways to meet and communicate with people that are somewhat private and anonymous, but a social network (on the internet or in meatspace) is not one of them.
It really depends on what you mean by "private".
I would like a tool to have social interactions with people using the name by which they know me, even if that name is not the one on my birth certificate, and even if I don't want that birth certificate name available to them, or to the entity providing the tool.
Is that "private"? I think so - it preserves my personal safety and control of my own data.
Is it "anonymous"? Well - I'd be using a name that refers to me, and that is known to the group of people with whom I wish to interact, so in a sense, no - it's not anonymous. It's just not using the same name that a completely different group of people uses to refer to me. Still the same me, just in a different context.
OK, then, Mr. or Ms. vlm. (That's a strange name - is it real?)
What's your real name and current residence? I'd like to come to your house/apartment/hotel/mud hut and sell you something. Or at least sell that information to someone who will find it useful.
While anonymity does allow the sorts of tripe to which you refer, it also permits a level of honesty and safety unavailable otherwise.
Personally I find it fascinating, even disturbing, that people are stupid enough to broadcast so much valuable and dangerous information on these social data mining tools.
Join the Diaspora
Here's a good place to get started.
Open source, distributed social networking. Evil not included.
Oddly enough, being social has nothing to do with people knowing your so-called 'real name'.
Google is on to something with their 'circles', recognizing that people don't want to share the same stuff with everyone.
They have not, so far, realized (or at least agreed) that names are one of those 'stuff'.
Case in point - people who participate in online communities of various sorts often are well known among those communities, or subsets thereof, using a name that is entirely different from the one they use at work, or at home, etc. On slashdot I am known as 'iceaxe', and have been for rather more than a decade. I have a long history of posts and though I'm hardly famous, 'iceaxe' IS my identity here. But because of policy I can't go use G+ to supplement that identity with a profile and the richer forms of interaction available in their tool without revealing personally identifying information beyond what is available already.
Now, why would I be worried about revealing my non-slashdot identity? Maybe because I have lived through having a stalker in real life. Maybe because I have family members who are more well known than I am whose safety and privacy might be compromised. And maybe I'm making this stuff up - you'll never know.
Because I care about the safety that comes from pseudonymous interaction with random strangers, while still benefiting from sociability. I'll have both, or I'll have neither. G+ can stuff it. (Along with FB, etc.)
Hey, it's my turn with The Opinion!
I'm going to assume that you, like me, are in the US, as nobody else in the world thinks of health care in quite the way we USians do, or so it seems to me.
People who use loaded terms like "socialized medicine" (not to mention "fascist") usually also say that they are in favor of things that "make good business sense". Now, I won't put words in your mouth, so I'll just express this from my own point of view. I definitely think that basing decisions on a continual process of evaluation and adjustment (which is what successful businesses do) and the adoption of established "best practices" (also what successful businesses do) is a good way to proceed.
So, let's start by looking at the healthcare systems that produce the best overall outcomes, and see how we can apply those practices to our situation. Then adjust as the results become known, because there is no one perfect solution - there will always be room for improvement.
Now, having said that, I will posit that the "best overall outcomes for healthcare" may not be the same as "most profit for healthcare related businesses". In fact, looking at the results from the countries with the best health, I'm pretty sure they are not.
Then we have a moral decision to make. Which is more important, the health of our people, or the profits of the healthcare industries? So far, we have come down on the side of profits, thanks in no small part to the fact that those profits fuel the campaigns of those who make the decisions. And I include the recent "reforms" in that category, as they are largely a handout of money to the entrenched industry, with a thin veneer of useful provisions overlaid to make it seem like something helpful.
To return to the topic at hand (population growth) it seems readily apparent to me that we will either bring it to some sort of balance, or it will correct itself in less pleasant ways. The decisions we will make will determine which, and how miserable will be the fate of those at the 'balance point'. I genuinely hope that humanity will be smart enough to find an equilibrium that allows for a good quality of life, but humanity doesn't have a good track record on being smart.
That sounds pretty good to me. Can you provide some sources, so I can judge whether you're just making it up?
(Seriously, I want this to be true.)
Anyone else have any requests for shit for me to do while I'm in 2000?
Take this $10000 and loan it to Larry and Sergey. Tell 'em I'll take stock instead of money as repayment, once they get around to that IPO thing.
Not trying to troll here, but why would one use GNU Hurd?
Because I want to, and I can. That's reason enough for me. Maybe I'm a nerd.
While I sympathize with your point of view, and wish I could still believe the same, I think you give both parties too much credit.
Neither party gives a flying ____ about what happens to the people they claim to represent. While the noises that come out of their mouths may seem to be in support of or opposition to one idea or another, the truth is that every squeak, and every vote, is calculated for political value and nothing else at all.
One party is telling lies that appeal to one segment of the population, and the other is telling lies that appeal to a different segment. Both are acting for the sole purpose of gaining power for themselves, either in the form of a voting bloc of those they've fooled, or as a kickback percentage of the money gained by those who benefit from the actions of the politicians.
Both major parties, and the byzantine system of extra-constitutional legislative rules they've created to maintain the status quo, are irredeemably corrupt. I will welcome the day when both of these monstrosities collapse under the accumulated weight of their treasonous perfidy.
The post has the two gentlemen's positions reversed.
Did I really just call them "gentlemen"?
I think the problem is there in your last sentence: "every study that has come out"
Where "come out" means reported on by various popular media, with varying degrees of selectivity and 'spin'.
There's actually quite a lot of good research going on in the world. You just don't have it thrust in front of you unless it can be twisted or abused to support someone's political or financial agenda.
ACs are not entitled to use "Now get off my lawn!"
Now, get off my lawn.
Solved in the sense that there are numerous ways to do it.
Not solved in the sense that more than a billion people in the world aren't using any of those solutions.
The effort here is to put part A together with part B, and improve the lot of those billion plus people.
With all due respect to Mr. Dyson's quite notable contributions, I think we need something low tech and cheap to fit this bill.
The problem happens when all of the places to dig that hole that you can reach within a reasonable walking distance have been used 37 times already this month.
A good sanitary hole in the ground is perfectly fine for nomads in wide open places, but in crowded conditions - or even long-term residence without crowding - you run out of options.
Pit toilets and trench latrines work well for more moderate use levels, like temporary habitations or sparser population. For crowded places, you need to move the poo somewhere else, or do something to sterilize it.
because we all know it's those poor people with cholera that cause all the problems in the world...