Thanks... It was a friendly jab at a smart fellow.
Since he hasn't responded to it, and many of you have, I have to believe that he interpreted it in the spirit in which it was intended, and you louts did not.
Then I propose we take Ptolemy's view... I declare Earth to be the center of the Universe.
Seriously, even if no central point can be defined from a distance perspective (which I am perfectly willing to accept), there must still be a gravitational center - a location where the amount of matter, and the average of that matter's distance works out to be roughly equal in all directions.
Again, even if this cannot be condensed to a single point in space/time, the effect of this central area would be the same as it relates to bodies retreating from it.
Of course, this is speculative, and as much as I'd like to see a unified theory of everything someday, I don't know that we'll ever get there. The thing I like about the cyclic Big Bang/Big Crunch idea is that it puts us on a timer! We don't have forever to solve all of the riddles of the universe... It's more like (Forever - 1).
The only reason it it safe to make this assumption is that the consequences of having guessed wrong will not be felt for quite some time, and in all likelyhood, humankind will not bear witness to any collapsing universe.
That said, your assumption seems silly to me. You act as though there were no force in the universe which could counter the inertia which governs the universe's current expansion.
I'm no astrophysicist, but I can name two off the top of my head: Friction, and Gravity.
Space is not empty, dispite the rumors you may have heard... Every body in motion meets resistance, because there is no pure vacuum. Those particles do constitute a force, no matter how miniscule, and given enough time, they will win out, just as a rock eventually gives way to the trickle of a tiny stream.
Also, every object currently moving outward from the center of the universe is being slowed but the sum total of all of the gravition of the objects behind it (Objects between a body and the Universal center, and objects moving in other directions from the center). Even though gravity has a rapidly diminsihing effect as distance increases, it never reaches zero. Regardless of how fast, or how far a body is, there will always be more matter (light or dark) generating gravity to slow it.
At some point, I believe the big crunch will come again, just as I believe it came before. I think it's an endless cycle.
If I am utilizing a NAT device (Cable/DSL Router Appliance, Linux Box, etc.) then I still only have one device on their network.
The remaining devices are on my network, whether wired, or wireless...
I am purchasing nothing more than bandwidth from these clowns. I don't use their mail hosts, nor their DNS servers, nor their "Free" 10 Megabytes of Web Hosting space. They are, to me, simply a utility.
The bandwidth is like the water that runs through my faucets, or the electricity that flows from my wall sockets.
I get Xkbps, which is capped by their equipment anyway, and I give them my money monthly.
The infrastructure is there... They paid to install it. Every empty bit-space on the wire erodes their return on investment. What is in short suppy, arguably, is the IP address I utilize from their address space, so if I want an additional IP address, I don't have a problem paying for that (My Cable ISP offers additional IP addresses for $6.95/month).
If we extend your assertion to the Power company, then you should be charged per wall socket used... Or to the water utility: Charged per faucet...
In each of those cases, you are indirectly charged per electrical device, or per running faucet. Power and Water are metered. The Cable companies and DSL providers could (and some day, I believe will) do the same.
What is preferable: Flat-rate medium bandwidth (640kbps down / 320kbps up), or Metered high bandwidth (1.5Mbps+ up and down)?
I dare say, the vast majority of people running Solaris will not be using it behind a dial-up connection.
As for whether or not it's inclusion is a big deal, it absolutely is. Having Sun adopt your product is a very serious endorsement, and will lead to industry wide acceptance. (Another poster already mentioned that HP was looking to include it in the next HP-UX release.)
What is interesting to me is the fact that Solaris will not be including KDE by default, even though most would concede that it is a more mature, and more polished product. I have to conclude that this "snub" is related to the Trolltech Qt licencing...
Early in the KDE v Gnome debate, the Gnome folks stated that the Qt licencing issues would be KDE's undoing. While KDE continues to improve, it may never find it's way onto the installation CDs of the commercial *nixes.
I have often wondered if it wouldn't be wiser to include the text of press releases, stories, and other items of interest within the Slashdot feature (with the subject's permission, of course).
Naturally, a link to the source could be included, but most people wouldn't need to go there.
The reason is because there is some component overlap between 802.11b and Digital Cellular industry, so far as the radios go, so manufacturers could take advantage of economies of scale, and didn't have to develop any new technology. This allowed for more rapid deployment, and attractive pricing.
Military, or military-like, technology developed with public funding ought to be made available more quickly.
Even if they have to "dumb it down" a bit, so that foreign powers can't use it against us, Drone aircraft have a number of applications, public and private.
I'm glad to see this, and I'll welcome more of it.
That system has initiated an HTTP request to your system, and you are merely fulfilling that request.
It's just like when you choose to browse a web page, and it includes some Java, or Javascript. When you initiate the connection, you get what you get.
Can you sue some website just because they toss a few pop-up windows at your screen?
Besides, the owners of infected systems are negligent, as the patch to this vulnerability was released by Microsoft almost 2 full months ago (June 18th). Their negigence is contrinuting to this modern day "Tragedy of the Commons."
I'm getting tired of the luxury class and the "better than others" attitude they seem to carry.
Well, we're getting tired of the "have-nots" dictating to the rest of us what is and isn't fair, and using a government that we finance as an mechanism for preventing us from living the lives we choose.
I can confirm this. I've been a network consultant for almost a decade, primarily as a Cisco router/switch jock. I've dealt with the TAC (Technical Assistance Center) too many times to count.
Hold times can vary, depending on time of day, but are never as bad as the stories from other companies. In most cases, you are on the phone with a real, live engineer within 5 minutes.
90% of the time, the engineer you are transferred to will be able to get your problem corrected. On the few occassions where they have not been able to help me, Cisco has moved mountains to get the right people invloved. I had an issue with Serial SNA - DLSW+ encapulation last year that was escalated to the point where the guy that wrote that portion of the code for IOS was on the phone, and was prepared to come to my client's site (True, they had purchased about $8M dollars in hardware...).
You do, typically, have to have a Smartnet contract, but as other posters have pointed out, if the problem is not hardware related, they will generally help you straighten out your configurations even without the contract.
Alot of people like to make comparisons between Cisco and Microsoft. Anyone who has dealt with the two will be quick to dispell any similarities. Cisco is a first-rate organization, with first-rate support, and I've made a career out of working with their products.
I couldn't agree more. The herd mentality is a terrible thing, but to think that it's going to disappear would be silly.
I say take the pragmatic approach. Rather than allow the herd to be used as a means of curtailing our liberties, let's instead try to harness it's energy to defend them.
Exactly how slow is your LAN? And how fast is your WAN, that it could saturate your LAN's bandwidth?
b) use up my cable connection bandwidth and
It's called traffic shaping... As the person setting this up, there are plenty of ways for you to limit the amount of bandwidth available to anyone utilizing your resources.
c) most importantly, gain access to my LAN?
Here's another area for which a technical solution already exists... The Firewall.
It's pretty clear to me, from the kind of inane questions that you are asking, that you wouldn't be interested in providing public access to the internet utilizing the resources at your disposal. That doesn't make you a bad person. You are paying for it... It's yours to do with as you will.
My question for you is: Why are you posting at all?
Slashdot used to be a better place... When someone reads a story that they didn't care about, or didn't agree with, they simply hit the 'back' button, and went on to the next.
Now, it seems like every loser with a keyboard and a couple of minutes feels some sense of moral obligation to respond to every story that comes down the pike, whether they have a vested interest or not.
Thanks for fucking up what used to be a really useful source of entertainment and information.
To get back on topic, I think this database is a good idea, and will serve a useful purpose. As soon as my broadband connection goes in (within the next couple months, if I believe the lies told me by my local providors), I'll be adding my location to the database.
I will limit the amount of bandwidth available to transients... I will be certain that my LAN remains safely hidden from those transient connections... And I'll be sure to notify the Sheriff's office of anybody who parks in my driveway for weeks on end.
You know, those of us which have an understanding of simple economics, and which advocate the free market, are really enjoying the show out in California. They chose to deregulate only half the market... Unrestricted prices on the wholesale purchase of power, but a price-cap on the charges levied against the consumers...
Gee, I wonder why it doesn't work?
Of course, the California energy "shortages" are really a seperate issue from the larger power problems we are to face nationally. The United States has turned it's back on Nuclear power, which in reality, is the only source yet derived which can sustain our growing requirements.
It's true that Nuclear has some drawbacks, like what to do with the waste. That's a problem that needs an answer. The answer is not to bury our collective heads in the sand, and pretend that our energy needs are better met by oil and coal, which are dirtier, less efficient means of producing power. The Eco-nazis need to stop pretending that Nuclear is less ecologically friendly than these filthy alternatives.
(Besides, I need that oil for gasoline, so I can continue to drive my V-8 SUV (Which I use to commute daily, no carpoolers though), and not have it cost me an arm and a leg.)
Let's find a safe, cost effective means of dealing with nuclear waste, and build REAL power plants all over the place. See then if talk of an energy shortage, or skyrocketing price, persists.
How can we lessen the cost of heavy lift so that launching waste at the Sun becomes cost effective?
Weren't a bunch of techno-libertarian anarchists going to create a state from steel and concrete off the coast of florida and implement a true modern free state? Whatever the hell happened to that? I'm sick to death of Australia.
Actually, the parent company for that project is based out of Florida, but the artificial island is to be located in the vicinity of Panama (Something about there having been no recorded Hurricanes in that area...). The project is called Oceania.
The drafted Constitution they've written is fantastic. With renewed funding, and luck, one day we'll be neighbors.;)
You can argue that people like the one I descibed are the exception, not the rule, but you would be wrong. I admit it is an extreme example, but people do similar thing every day to a lesser extent.
Well sorry guy, you got screwed by a hypocrite. I would argue that the person you describe is the exception but there wouldn't be much point. It wouldn't change your mind, nor would you be able to change mine.
On many issues, it is possible for good people to disagree. It appears that this is one of them.
It is easier for Nike to expand their wealth if they run sweatshops in Third-World countries than to find an honorable (read: more expensive) alternative.
Finally! Someone has brought up ~evil~ Nike.
Yes, Nike operates a number of manufacturing facilities in the third world, like Malaysia, etc. Labor is inexpensive, and the workmanship is relatively good.
By first world standards, I agree, the conditions seem awful. But what about by third world standards?
Manufacturing is the bootstrap by which the third world pulls itself to prosperity. Those manufacturing jobs Nike provides... Ever wonder why they can still keep people employed? Do you know what the alternative to working in the "sweat-shop" is? It's backbreaking agricultural work in the fields as a means of producing enough food to sustain a family, much less having a surplus to sell at the marketplace. It's starvation. It's utter squalor. In short, it's all of the things those people had to put up with prior to Nike creating those new jobs, new jobs that you would never undertake yourself, but jobs that represent progress in that part of the world. If you think working at the Nike plant is bad, try driving a Yakk around a soggy rice paddy with a plow tied behind it. I've never done it myself, but it sure doesn't look like alot of fun.
As for More Expensive = Honorable, that's simply ridiculous. Economics does not exist to provide us with jobs, and good wages. Economics is a means of balancing limited resources with unlimited wants and desires. Cost plays a factor, and a big one. When there is a product that you want to buy, say a new graphics card as an example... Do you look for the vendor with the highest price instead of the lowest cause after all, it's the right thing to do? Of course not. That's just plain dumb.
It's in all of our Best Interests for Nike to keep it's cost of production as low as possible. With the markup that Nike already applys to it's products, can you image what a pair of shoes would cost you, the consumer (the focalpoint and purpose of the economy) if they were paying American workers to build those shoes?
Here's what it will take for those poor workers in the third world to get a markedly better quality of life: Competition.
When additional manufacturers open plants in the neighborhood, and the labor pool begins to tighten, just see what happens. Wages will improve. Work hours per day will decline. Benefits will catch up.
Do you doubt it? Haven't been working in Technology long, have you?
Ask a techie how long it would take them to get a new job, with better pay, or increased benefits in today's marketplace?
[ Anecdotal tale: I'm starting a new job next Monday. I had two competing offers before I even submitted my resignation to my current employer. I wasn't even looking for work. ]
If you apply a first world point of view to a third world nation, it will always appear dire. Try to keep a little perspective. What you see as inhumane, or unethical, may represent a great leap forward in some parts of the world.
What world do you live in? People are motivated by irrational paranoia. "How is the boss/wife/husband/friend/social group/government going to react if I do this? Can I get away with it?"
Well, that's an interesting outlook. I probably wouldn't answer the question that way If I were at a job interview. It may be a little too revealing a look at your character.
This proposed solution offers much over our current system, but more than trying to solve the problem of low turnout (which isn't much of a problem, from my perspective), it solves a greater problem...
What kind of people should be making decisions that govern a society?
Should government representatives be chosen by people which have demonstrated no particular concern for the nation? Should representativesbe selected by people who see government as a means of providing for their own sustainance, at the expense of the productive?
or...
Should government representatives be selected by people who have already demonstrated a concern for the nation? Should representatives be chosen by people that have shown a willingness to overlook their own well being for a time, and put the nation's/society's interests ahead of their own?
Which class would you say posed a greater threat to society? Which would be more likely to advocate sound international policy? Which would be more likely to push for a nation of greater liberty for all, passing up the opportunity for entitlements provided begrudgingly by all at the point of a gun?
Nobody is going to take away your ability to vote. This is a hypothetical discussion. Indulge in the theoretical.
However, like all "rugged individualists" of the American variety, your words betray the fundamental contradiction of this philosophy: if we're all out for ourselves, and dishonesty and sociopathy are the coin of the realm, then why should we, as social creatures of the same cloth, believe anything you say regarding the basic rights you're proclaiming as fundamental?
Who ever said that dishonesty and sociopathy were the coin of the realm? You certainly didn't get that from me, nor from any other libertarian. Your premise seems to be that left to themselves, people will do the wrong thing, most of the time.
I don't believe that for a minute, and I certainly don't go about lying and cheating as a means of conducting my affairs. Further, I don't expect that most of the people I interact with in the course of everyday life are out to cheat me.
People that advocate government intervention in personal affairs, or tremendous bureaucratic social safety nets tend to have a very dim view of humanity.
Whether you like it or not, you chose to be born into a world of social interaction. You may choose to deny the responsibilities inherent in that choice, but I do not, nor does anyone who professes any honest moral position.
Well for starters, I didn't have much choice so far as being born is concerned. Maybe you did.
I certainly don't begrudge the life I was born into. Like most people in the United States, I have it pretty good. I recognize that. But exactly what responsibilities come along with that? In a free society, no person may be forced to accept a debt against his will. All I ask of my neighbors is that they don't interfere with my ability to live my life. They can expect the same from me. I won't ask them to support me in any other way.
I am not such a 'rugged individualist' (interesting that you hurl that like an insult) that I think I can live off the land, or that I see no benefit to cooperation. I recognize and champion the division of labor. I know that people make certain goods better than I could, and I will purchase those goods from them. I also know that I can provide some services better than they could, and they buy from me.
Each of those interactions is for *mutual* benefit. They sell their labor at what they determine is a fair price, and I do the same.
This outlook hardly qualifies me as a hermit or reckloose.
My obligation to society is fulfilled when I act with it's other members in a fair and honest manner. Their obligation to me is the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Since he hasn't responded to it, and many of you have, I have to believe that he interpreted it in the spirit in which it was intended, and you louts did not.
Subtlety is becoming a lost art...
Hey, I didn't get such a low user number for nothing. ;)
You seem a smart fellow; why do you continue to spell "center" incorrectly. ;)
Seriously, even if no central point can be defined from a distance perspective (which I am perfectly willing to accept), there must still be a gravitational center - a location where the amount of matter, and the average of that matter's distance works out to be roughly equal in all directions.
Again, even if this cannot be condensed to a single point in space/time, the effect of this central area would be the same as it relates to bodies retreating from it.
Of course, this is speculative, and as much as I'd like to see a unified theory of everything someday, I don't know that we'll ever get there. The thing I like about the cyclic Big Bang/Big Crunch idea is that it puts us on a timer! We don't have forever to solve all of the riddles of the universe... It's more like (Forever - 1).
That said, your assumption seems silly to me. You act as though there were no force in the universe which could counter the inertia which governs the universe's current expansion.
I'm no astrophysicist, but I can name two off the top of my head: Friction, and Gravity.
Space is not empty, dispite the rumors you may have heard... Every body in motion meets resistance, because there is no pure vacuum. Those particles do constitute a force, no matter how miniscule, and given enough time, they will win out, just as a rock eventually gives way to the trickle of a tiny stream.
Also, every object currently moving outward from the center of the universe is being slowed but the sum total of all of the gravition of the objects behind it (Objects between a body and the Universal center, and objects moving in other directions from the center). Even though gravity has a rapidly diminsihing effect as distance increases, it never reaches zero. Regardless of how fast, or how far a body is, there will always be more matter (light or dark) generating gravity to slow it.
At some point, I believe the big crunch will come again, just as I believe it came before. I think it's an endless cycle.
If I am utilizing a NAT device (Cable/DSL Router Appliance, Linux Box, etc.) then I still only have one device on their network.
The remaining devices are on my network, whether wired, or wireless...
I am purchasing nothing more than bandwidth from these clowns. I don't use their mail hosts, nor their DNS servers, nor their "Free" 10 Megabytes of Web Hosting space. They are, to me, simply a utility.
The bandwidth is like the water that runs through my faucets, or the electricity that flows from my wall sockets.
I get Xkbps, which is capped by their equipment anyway, and I give them my money monthly.
The infrastructure is there... They paid to install it. Every empty bit-space on the wire erodes their return on investment. What is in short suppy, arguably, is the IP address I utilize from their address space, so if I want an additional IP address, I don't have a problem paying for that (My Cable ISP offers additional IP addresses for $6.95/month).
If we extend your assertion to the Power company, then you should be charged per wall socket used... Or to the water utility: Charged per faucet...
In each of those cases, you are indirectly charged per electrical device, or per running faucet. Power and Water are metered. The Cable companies and DSL providers could (and some day, I believe will) do the same.
What is preferable: Flat-rate medium bandwidth (640kbps down / 320kbps up), or Metered high bandwidth (1.5Mbps+ up and down)?
802.11b, and 802.11a, use unlicensed frequency ranges. These ranges fall in the 900Mhz, 2.4Ghz, and 5Ghz bands.
Together, the 3 bands are referred to as the ISM bands, standing for Industrial, Scientific, and Medical.
As for whether or not it's inclusion is a big deal, it absolutely is. Having Sun adopt your product is a very serious endorsement, and will lead to industry wide acceptance. (Another poster already mentioned that HP was looking to include it in the next HP-UX release.)
What is interesting to me is the fact that Solaris will not be including KDE by default, even though most would concede that it is a more mature, and more polished product. I have to conclude that this "snub" is related to the Trolltech Qt licencing...
Early in the KDE v Gnome debate, the Gnome folks stated that the Qt licencing issues would be KDE's undoing. While KDE continues to improve, it may never find it's way onto the installation CDs of the commercial *nixes.
Anyone read that differently?
I have often wondered if it wouldn't be wiser to include the text of press releases, stories, and other items of interest within the Slashdot feature (with the subject's permission, of course).
Naturally, a link to the source could be included, but most people wouldn't need to go there.
It appears that they're at least one scientist shy.
You are in luck...
The reason is because there is some component overlap between 802.11b and Digital Cellular industry, so far as the radios go, so manufacturers could take advantage of economies of scale, and didn't have to develop any new technology. This allowed for more rapid deployment, and attractive pricing.
Even if they have to "dumb it down" a bit, so that foreign powers can't use it against us, Drone aircraft have a number of applications, public and private.
I'm glad to see this, and I'll welcome more of it.
You are not penetrating the remote system...
That system has initiated an HTTP request to your system, and you are merely fulfilling that request.
It's just like when you choose to browse a web page, and it includes some Java, or Javascript. When you initiate the connection, you get what you get.
Can you sue some website just because they toss a few pop-up windows at your screen?
Besides, the owners of infected systems are negligent, as the patch to this vulnerability was released by Microsoft almost 2 full months ago (June 18th). Their negigence is contrinuting to this modern day "Tragedy of the Commons."
F*** 'em.
Well, we're getting tired of the "have-nots" dictating to the rest of us what is and isn't fair, and using a government that we finance as an mechanism for preventing us from living the lives we choose.
I can confirm this. I've been a network consultant for almost a decade, primarily as a Cisco router/switch jock. I've dealt with the TAC (Technical Assistance Center) too many times to count.
Hold times can vary, depending on time of day, but are never as bad as the stories from other companies. In most cases, you are on the phone with a real, live engineer within 5 minutes.
90% of the time, the engineer you are transferred to will be able to get your problem corrected. On the few occassions where they have not been able to help me, Cisco has moved mountains to get the right people invloved. I had an issue with Serial SNA - DLSW+ encapulation last year that was escalated to the point where the guy that wrote that portion of the code for IOS was on the phone, and was prepared to come to my client's site (True, they had purchased about $8M dollars in hardware...).
You do, typically, have to have a Smartnet contract, but as other posters have pointed out, if the problem is not hardware related, they will generally help you straighten out your configurations even without the contract.
Alot of people like to make comparisons between Cisco and Microsoft. Anyone who has dealt with the two will be quick to dispell any similarities. Cisco is a first-rate organization, with first-rate support, and I've made a career out of working with their products.
I say take the pragmatic approach. Rather than allow the herd to be used as a means of curtailing our liberties, let's instead try to harness it's energy to defend them.
Did you read the tripe you wrote before hitting the submit button, or is submission just kind of an automatic thing for you?
(Read into that whatever you like...)
a) use up my LAN bandwidth,
Exactly how slow is your LAN? And how fast is your WAN, that it could saturate your LAN's bandwidth?
b) use up my cable connection bandwidth and
It's called traffic shaping... As the person setting this up, there are plenty of ways for you to limit the amount of bandwidth available to anyone utilizing your resources.
c) most importantly, gain access to my LAN?
Here's another area for which a technical solution already exists... The Firewall.
It's pretty clear to me, from the kind of inane questions that you are asking, that you wouldn't be interested in providing public access to the internet utilizing the resources at your disposal. That doesn't make you a bad person. You are paying for it... It's yours to do with as you will.
My question for you is: Why are you posting at all?
Slashdot used to be a better place... When someone reads a story that they didn't care about, or didn't agree with, they simply hit the 'back' button, and went on to the next.
Now, it seems like every loser with a keyboard and a couple of minutes feels some sense of moral obligation to respond to every story that comes down the pike, whether they have a vested interest or not.
Thanks for fucking up what used to be a really useful source of entertainment and information.
To get back on topic, I think this database is a good idea, and will serve a useful purpose. As soon as my broadband connection goes in (within the next couple months, if I believe the lies told me by my local providors), I'll be adding my location to the database.
I will limit the amount of bandwidth available to transients... I will be certain that my LAN remains safely hidden from those transient connections... And I'll be sure to notify the Sheriff's office of anybody who parks in my driveway for weeks on end.
It's a shame this was posted anonymously.
I'd like to buy this guy a beer.
Gee, I wonder why it doesn't work?
Of course, the California energy "shortages" are really a seperate issue from the larger power problems we are to face nationally. The United States has turned it's back on Nuclear power, which in reality, is the only source yet derived which can sustain our growing requirements.
It's true that Nuclear has some drawbacks, like what to do with the waste. That's a problem that needs an answer. The answer is not to bury our collective heads in the sand, and pretend that our energy needs are better met by oil and coal, which are dirtier, less efficient means of producing power. The Eco-nazis need to stop pretending that Nuclear is less ecologically friendly than these filthy alternatives.
(Besides, I need that oil for gasoline, so I can continue to drive my V-8 SUV (Which I use to commute daily, no carpoolers though), and not have it cost me an arm and a leg.)
Let's find a safe, cost effective means of dealing with nuclear waste, and build REAL power plants all over the place. See then if talk of an energy shortage, or skyrocketing price, persists.
How can we lessen the cost of heavy lift so that launching waste at the Sun becomes cost effective?
Actually, the parent company for that project is based out of Florida, but the artificial island is to be located in the vicinity of Panama (Something about there having been no recorded Hurricanes in that area...). The project is called Oceania.
The drafted Constitution they've written is fantastic. With renewed funding, and luck, one day we'll be neighbors. ;)
Well sorry guy, you got screwed by a hypocrite. I would argue that the person you describe is the exception but there wouldn't be much point. It wouldn't change your mind, nor would you be able to change mine.
On many issues, it is possible for good people to disagree. It appears that this is one of them.
Finally! Someone has brought up ~evil~ Nike.
Yes, Nike operates a number of manufacturing facilities in the third world, like Malaysia, etc. Labor is inexpensive, and the workmanship is relatively good.
By first world standards, I agree, the conditions seem awful. But what about by third world standards?
Manufacturing is the bootstrap by which the third world pulls itself to prosperity. Those manufacturing jobs Nike provides... Ever wonder why they can still keep people employed? Do you know what the alternative to working in the "sweat-shop" is? It's backbreaking agricultural work in the fields as a means of producing enough food to sustain a family, much less having a surplus to sell at the marketplace. It's starvation. It's utter squalor. In short, it's all of the things those people had to put up with prior to Nike creating those new jobs, new jobs that you would never undertake yourself, but jobs that represent progress in that part of the world. If you think working at the Nike plant is bad, try driving a Yakk around a soggy rice paddy with a plow tied behind it. I've never done it myself, but it sure doesn't look like alot of fun.
As for More Expensive = Honorable, that's simply ridiculous. Economics does not exist to provide us with jobs, and good wages. Economics is a means of balancing limited resources with unlimited wants and desires. Cost plays a factor, and a big one. When there is a product that you want to buy, say a new graphics card as an example... Do you look for the vendor with the highest price instead of the lowest cause after all, it's the right thing to do? Of course not. That's just plain dumb.
It's in all of our Best Interests for Nike to keep it's cost of production as low as possible. With the markup that Nike already applys to it's products, can you image what a pair of shoes would cost you, the consumer (the focalpoint and purpose of the economy) if they were paying American workers to build those shoes?
Here's what it will take for those poor workers in the third world to get a markedly better quality of life: Competition.
When additional manufacturers open plants in the neighborhood, and the labor pool begins to tighten, just see what happens. Wages will improve. Work hours per day will decline. Benefits will catch up.
Do you doubt it? Haven't been working in Technology long, have you?
Ask a techie how long it would take them to get a new job, with better pay, or increased benefits in today's marketplace?
[ Anecdotal tale: I'm starting a new job next Monday. I had two competing offers before I even submitted my resignation to my current employer. I wasn't even looking for work. ]
If you apply a first world point of view to a third world nation, it will always appear dire. Try to keep a little perspective. What you see as inhumane, or unethical, may represent a great leap forward in some parts of the world.
What world do you live in? People are motivated by irrational paranoia. "How is the boss/wife/husband/friend/social group/government going to react if I do this? Can I get away with it?"
Well, that's an interesting outlook. I probably wouldn't answer the question that way If I were at a job interview. It may be a little too revealing a look at your character.
This proposed solution offers much over our current system, but more than trying to solve the problem of low turnout (which isn't much of a problem, from my perspective), it solves a greater problem...
What kind of people should be making decisions that govern a society?
Should government representatives be chosen by people which have demonstrated no particular concern for the nation? Should representativesbe selected by people who see government as a means of providing for their own sustainance, at the expense of the productive?
or...
Should government representatives be selected by people who have already demonstrated a concern for the nation? Should representatives be chosen by people that have shown a willingness to overlook their own well being for a time, and put the nation's/society's interests ahead of their own?
Which class would you say posed a greater threat to society? Which would be more likely to advocate sound international policy? Which would be more likely to push for a nation of greater liberty for all, passing up the opportunity for entitlements provided begrudgingly by all at the point of a gun?
Nobody is going to take away your ability to vote. This is a hypothetical discussion. Indulge in the theoretical.
Who ever said that dishonesty and sociopathy were the coin of the realm? You certainly didn't get that from me, nor from any other libertarian. Your premise seems to be that left to themselves, people will do the wrong thing, most of the time.
I don't believe that for a minute, and I certainly don't go about lying and cheating as a means of conducting my affairs. Further, I don't expect that most of the people I interact with in the course of everyday life are out to cheat me.
People that advocate government intervention in personal affairs, or tremendous bureaucratic social safety nets tend to have a very dim view of humanity.
Whether you like it or not, you chose to be born into a world of social interaction. You may choose to deny the responsibilities inherent in that choice, but I do not, nor does anyone who professes any honest moral position.
Well for starters, I didn't have much choice so far as being born is concerned. Maybe you did.
I certainly don't begrudge the life I was born into. Like most people in the United States, I have it pretty good. I recognize that. But exactly what responsibilities come along with that? In a free society, no person may be forced to accept a debt against his will. All I ask of my neighbors is that they don't interfere with my ability to live my life. They can expect the same from me. I won't ask them to support me in any other way.
I am not such a 'rugged individualist' (interesting that you hurl that like an insult) that I think I can live off the land, or that I see no benefit to cooperation. I recognize and champion the division of labor. I know that people make certain goods better than I could, and I will purchase those goods from them. I also know that I can provide some services better than they could, and they buy from me.
Each of those interactions is for *mutual* benefit. They sell their labor at what they determine is a fair price, and I do the same.
This outlook hardly qualifies me as a hermit or reckloose.
My obligation to society is fulfilled when I act with it's other members in a fair and honest manner. Their obligation to me is the same.