After WWII, taxes were very high for decades to pay it off. So I guess we didn't get free again 'til, what, the 80's?
We were less free, than when the taxes lowered.
My taxes and my friends taxes went up [...] Millionaires did well, and that's what counts.
The source of the revenue (you and your friends or the millionaires) is not germane to my argument. What counts — in my measure of freedom — is the share of the GDP, that's spent by the government.
Go look at wikipedia's list of countries by tax rate, and find all the countries where you have significant freedoms, and then look at their tax rates.
Chech Republic seems fine. Cyprus, probably, Ok too — never been there. Hong Kong may be Ok — one acquittance from there complained of Chinese government doing stupid things there (but not oppressive). I don't see a trend in that list...
But... The main (if not the only) freedom that counts, is the freedom to spend the fruits of one's labor the way one pleases — the freedoms to smoke marijuana, to have sex outside of marriage (or via the unusual orifices) are all secondary.
Imagine 100% taxation — with everything (entertainment, healthcare, education, shelter, food) provided free of charge by the government. And then compare such a dis/utopia with the deal, that the slaves on plantations had...
With 50% of the GDP being spent by the government already, we are half-way there...
Oh, the insightful — and so moderated too — arguments of the Illiberals. So convincing, I'll be sure to bookmark and come back to reread regularly. Thank you!
Was that clear?
Yes, dear, it is clear, that the entire topic of discussion was me — my ignorance, various flaws of my character, and, finally, my idiocy.
Don't bother, darling. As long as you maintain this sort of contempt to your audience, you'll never convince anybody of anything — other than of your own arrogance.
Yes I understand 2005, 2012 is not a real average, but it is the 'evidence to the contrary' that OP chose to include
My evidence to the contrary was in comparing 19th-century averages with those of the 20th. Pointing to a particular year is not any more useful, than pointing to a particularly warm or cold day.
The great thing about science is that it corrects itself when it's wrong
Unless there are government grants to be had for not correcting oneself. Hence the infamous "hide the decline".
In any case, the sole measure of science quality is the reliability of its predictions, and in the case of Global Warming, err., pardon me, Climate Change the passionately-made predictions stubbornly fail to materialize: icebergs fail to melt, waters fail to rise, etc.
hence why the global cooling theories were overturned and replaced with the more accurate global warming
This one sentence (or part of it) is so hilarious, it made my day!
The labels may vary, but the proposed action is the same - citizens are urged to change to cleaner energy sources.
Urged? That would've been fine. How about coerced — and outright forced? No, you silly, you can't have a toilet, that flushes in one go — it uses too much water. You must buy one with a smaller tank — and be forced to flush twice. Sure, sure, unlike those evil KKKonservatives, we are going to keep the government out of bedrooms — as long as you are using an approved light-bulb in the room. And never you mind the mercury in it — if your child needs special education after exposure to the toxin, we'll take care of him.
The ones that get hurt are the poor little guy strip-mining a mountain or running a factory.
Neither of these two activities has anything to do with global warming directly. I think, you messed up your "climate change" talking points with the more general anti-Capitalism ones...
Then the big government has to come in and tell them that it's not OK to be killing everything
Yep, exactly, what I'm talking about — coercion and forcing. Meanwhile, that same government is causing exactly that — "killing everything" — to happen, while still pretending, it "knows better". Oh, those silly Libertarians!
Yeah, that is why everyone in Somalia is so free and happy.
Somalia has no government at all. The simple rules — that the freedom of one's fist ends, where the other's nose begins, need to be enforced — and the modicum of taxes required to pay for this enforcement are Ok. Unfortunately, Somalia does not have anything like that.
We do — but we've overdone it in the last 100 years — grossly so — the portion of the GDP spent by the various governments in the US (Federal, State, municipal, etc.) is about 50%...
That sort of braindead ideology deserves to be mocked.
Citation needed. Actually, don't bother — I'll offer evidence to the contrary. In 2005 US was hit with 14 hurricanes, 10 in 2012. The average for period between 1944 and 2005 is 6. Is there a rise? Hardly — between 1885 and 1889 there were 26...
Though attempts are made regularly to tie a particular weather-event to the evil human-caused climate change, they are routinely debunked and never repeated — until the next such event.
None of the dire predictions made 40, 30, 20, or 10 years ago came to life. Over the years, we moved from the threat of "Global Cooling" (temperatures, supposedly, falling), to "Global Warming" (temperatures, supposedly, rising) to "Climate Change" (direction-neutral term finally, so brochures don't need to reprinted as often) to, indeed, "Extreme Weather".
The label may be different, but the proposed "action" is always the same — citizens are urged to surrender more and more control over their lives to their governments, while the governments in turn are asked to surrender to the United Nations — because those omniscient and benevolent bureaucrats just know better than the poor little people, bless their little hearts.
Oh, because the politicians are "the state"? We shouldn't question our elites? Nice servitude attitude you got going on there.
The simple formula applies everywhere: the higher the taxes, the less freedom. Each dollar taxed away from you, robs you of the freedom to spend it they way you'd want — handing that deciding power over to the politicians.
The museum is government-funded — you pay for it, but the government decides, what it does, and your only recourse is to elect a different government next time.
San Quentin State Prison is teaching carefully selected inmates the ins and outs of designing and launching technology firms
No, I'm neither giving such firms any seed financing, nor buying their IPOs, when (and if) they ever go public. The probability of being swindled is just too high.
They are guaranteed paid internships if they can finish the rigorous training program
Maybe, the "careful selection" filters out only those, who got a few months in the lock-up for a bar-fight, or a marijuana smoke, or some other minor offense. But even though, people, who avoided the fight and the smoking altogether, seem more deserving.
You must be new here. GPL only works because of copyright.
Except GPL calls itself "copyleft" and talks rather disparagingly about any other kind:
The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works. [...] To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights.
It works, because the rest of society respects copyrights — even of those people, who do not themselves respect them. But the photographer described in TFA is exactly the evil greedy kind of character, who'd gladly deny you certain rights (like right-click->Save Image), if he could.
But Mike Masnick says that you're welcome to copy and redistribute all of his painstaking work on Techdirt without compensating
That's his decision — and he is entitled to it.
Besides, as he explains the "marginal cost of an infinite good is zero", so therefore the price should be zero.
I fail to see the logic here. Why does the price have to be zero? Marginal cost may be getting ever closer to zero — sure, with every item sold (err, downloaded), the hyperbola gets lower and lower. But meanwhile the maker needs to eat and a raise family. And he still needs to recoup the original — not marginal — costs sunk into production.
That's if you are past the ethical problems of counting other people's monies — as Mr. Masnick, evidently, is...
BTW Mike holds a college degree in economics!
So did Karl Marx... If not a formal degree, then surely an equivalent.
I generally have to put up with some amount of "fair use", especially for events, and usually don't make an issue of it, especially if I get a photo credit. But sell one of my photos without my permission and the law will get involved.
Wow, a highly-moderated account of an evil holder of the dreaded copyright — a profiteer on the information, that Wants To Be Free[TM]! On Slashdot!
What's the world coming to? Next we'll start using terms like "theft" and "stealing" when talking about digital photographs, even though you still have your file on your computer, when I do right-click->Save Image on mine.
Well, maybe, it is Ok for you to be doing this by yourself. But the second you decide to delegate the pursuit of thieves to someone else (like PhAA, perhaps?) , then we'll denounce both you and that delegate (MafiAA!!) as "greedy" producers of "trash", which nobody would be buying anyway.
Collecting private and/or secret information on people without their knowledge and against their will. Seems to describe what they're doing and is simultaneously a suitable definition of "spying".
Not at all. If we were to take this view, we'd call all detectives unethical, for example. And all intelligence workers — including, for example, Alan Turing.
Sure, the above examples cover work against (suspected) criminals or outright national enemies — but it is still spying by any definition — including yours.
Can this sort of thing be done to ordinary consumers? Sure — that's what "market-research" has been doing for decades. That information was not as fine-grained as to make the collected data personally identifiable, but that was due to limitations of technology — not laws or ethics.
Today's computers and software just make it simpler and far more complete. I agree, that it is scary — and raises questions. But I maintain, that it is neither necessarily nor automatically unethical — except, maybe, for that part, were they allow you to "opt-out", but continue reporting anyway. Well, maybe, it should be an "opt-in" only to begin with, I agree.
As for what's being tapped, it's the communications between yourself, and other devices such as storage devices, that's being tapped.
Oh, no, it is not... The communication is between your storage device and the LG's TV itself — there is no "third party" — and one of the two parties is reporting to its maker. Anyway, I don't think, you have a case there — but I'd be curious to watch (and listen to) the arguments unfold in court.
Spying is a loaded yet vague term. You'd do better talking about, what they actually are doing, instead of trying to attach such a label to it...
The collected information certainly can be abused — and potentially grossly so. But the same can be said about the very Internet-connectivity the TV boasts — and certainly about its use of the advanced Operating System (Linux) inside. All of those can be used unethically — easily — but are they? Until we know, how the data is used, we can not claim unethical behavior — though we'd be damn right to suspect it.
It almost certainly violates the letter of various wiretapping laws.
Which wire are you claiming is being tapped here? You purchased an "Internet-ready" TV-set and connected it to the Internet yourself... The device does not tap your (nor anyone else's) communications — it originates its own...
There are laws mandating special care of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) — but they don't ban collecting it. And what LG collects may not even be considered personally identifiable — neither your name nor address are even known to the TV, much less reported by it, even if a dedicated investigator may be able to link the TV's serial number to you eventually.
Yes, that doesn't sound like the collapse of the Soviet Union at all.
Indeed, it sounds like an exact opposite of the Soviet Union — where the government was deciding on everything and the private enterprise was not merely discouraged, it was (highly!) illegal. I should know, I grew up there...
This was a good opportunity for you to provide more examples — but you did not take it... I wonder, why... Do name other things, that the government is explicitly charged with by the Constitution — the nebulous "general welfare" does not count, whatever it implies. I'm asking for explicitly enumerated responsibilities... Take your time...
You may wish to re-read my post. I did not accuse the government of collecting taxes illegally — not after that fateful SCOTUS decision you are citing. I said, spending thus collected monies on anything not explicitly made the government's responsibility by the Constitution is a travesty. Not illegal — "only" a travesty.
The only way to be sure is class-action lawsuit and huge fine paid by LG.
And just what would the suit be alleging? I don't see anything bona fide illegal here. Can't even say it is unethical — not until we know, what they do with the data.
I'd absolutely hate this done to me, but I don't understand, what a lawsuit could possible allege...
Government funding agencies generally ignore SETI so most funding comes from wealthy patrons
And that's how things ought to stand for everything — except the handful of things the government is explicitly charged with under the Constitution: defense and law-enforcement.
If it is a good idea, you'll have no problems finding "wealthy patrons". On the other hand, a bad idea is likely to find sponsors among law-makers, or the government bureaucrats in those "funding agencies", to whom the said law-makers have delegated their funding decisions. Not spending their own money, they'll find an excuse. Heck, some of them are under pressure to fund something — or risk being suspected of loafing...
Taxes are collected at the gun-point (implicit in all tax-collection). Spending them on anything not explicitly provided for by the Constitution — be it SETI or school-lunches or corn-subsidies — is a travesty.
DLNA and Chromecast are the way of the future, not built-in TV set top pox.
Whatever your DLNA-client — whether it is the TV itself (LG have this capability), or some 3rd-party box — it can do the same sort of "calling home" reporting what you are watching.
Worse! Whereas the documented spying reports only the currently-watched file and is limited to the listing of the currently-inserted USB-stick, with DLNA your entire collection can be POSTed facilitating not only research into your watching habits, but also aiding investigations of copyright-violations, for example.
The only way to be sure is to disable Internet-access — or only allow it to the sites you trust (for whatever reason). (Like YouTube or Netflix — it is unlikely (though entirely possible) for them to do the same kind of snooping into your media-collection.) Unfortunately, doing that will also disable firmware updates...
Morality is subjective and my morals are different from yours.
We may have some differences in morals, but I'm quite confident, not paying the creators — contrary to their wishes — for your use of their creations is against yours as well as mine. You just don't bother to look at things this way — because the allure of free stuff is too much.
Whatever the problem is, adding more money will not help solve it — that's the point... At best, things will stay the same (just at higher costs). At worst, the pie will become juicy enough to attract outright criminals...
Slashdot Mirror
This alone seems to invalidate your analogy...
We were less free, than when the taxes lowered.
The source of the revenue (you and your friends or the millionaires) is not germane to my argument. What counts — in my measure of freedom — is the share of the GDP, that's spent by the government.
Chech Republic seems fine. Cyprus, probably, Ok too — never been there. Hong Kong may be Ok — one acquittance from there complained of Chinese government doing stupid things there (but not oppressive). I don't see a trend in that list...
But... The main (if not the only) freedom that counts, is the freedom to spend the fruits of one's labor the way one pleases — the freedoms to smoke marijuana, to have sex outside of marriage (or via the unusual orifices) are all secondary.
Imagine 100% taxation — with everything (entertainment, healthcare, education, shelter, food) provided free of charge by the government. And then compare such a dis/utopia with the deal, that the slaves on plantations had...
With 50% of the GDP being spent by the government already, we are half-way there...
Oh, the insightful — and so moderated too — arguments of the Illiberals. So convincing, I'll be sure to bookmark and come back to reread regularly. Thank you!
Yes, dear, it is clear, that the entire topic of discussion was me — my ignorance, various flaws of my character, and, finally, my idiocy.
Don't bother, darling. As long as you maintain this sort of contempt to your audience, you'll never convince anybody of anything — other than of your own arrogance.
26/4 = 6.25, not 5.2.
My evidence to the contrary was in comparing 19th-century averages with those of the 20th. Pointing to a particular year is not any more useful, than pointing to a particularly warm or cold day.
Unless there are government grants to be had for not correcting oneself. Hence the infamous "hide the decline".
In any case, the sole measure of science quality is the reliability of its predictions, and in the case of Global Warming, err., pardon me, Climate Change the passionately-made predictions stubbornly fail to materialize: icebergs fail to melt, waters fail to rise, etc.
This one sentence (or part of it) is so hilarious, it made my day!
Urged? That would've been fine. How about coerced — and outright forced? No, you silly, you can't have a toilet, that flushes in one go — it uses too much water. You must buy one with a smaller tank — and be forced to flush twice. Sure, sure, unlike those evil KKKonservatives, we are going to keep the government out of bedrooms — as long as you are using an approved light-bulb in the room. And never you mind the mercury in it — if your child needs special education after exposure to the toxin, we'll take care of him.
Neither of these two activities has anything to do with global warming directly. I think, you messed up your "climate change" talking points with the more general anti-Capitalism ones...
Yep, exactly, what I'm talking about — coercion and forcing. Meanwhile, that same government is causing exactly that — "killing everything" — to happen, while still pretending, it "knows better". Oh, those silly Libertarians!
Somalia has no government at all. The simple rules — that the freedom of one's fist ends, where the other's nose begins, need to be enforced — and the modicum of taxes required to pay for this enforcement are Ok. Unfortunately, Somalia does not have anything like that.
We do — but we've overdone it in the last 100 years — grossly so — the portion of the GDP spent by the various governments in the US (Federal, State, municipal, etc.) is about 50%...
Name-calling strawmen are not mocking...
Citation needed. Actually, don't bother — I'll offer evidence to the contrary. In 2005 US was hit with 14 hurricanes, 10 in 2012. The average for period between 1944 and 2005 is 6. Is there a rise? Hardly — between 1885 and 1889 there were 26...
Though attempts are made regularly to tie a particular weather-event to the evil human-caused climate change, they are routinely debunked and never repeated — until the next such event.
None of the dire predictions made 40, 30, 20, or 10 years ago came to life. Over the years, we moved from the threat of "Global Cooling" (temperatures, supposedly, falling), to "Global Warming" (temperatures, supposedly, rising) to "Climate Change" (direction-neutral term finally, so brochures don't need to reprinted as often) to, indeed, "Extreme Weather".
The label may be different, but the proposed "action" is always the same — citizens are urged to surrender more and more control over their lives to their governments, while the governments in turn are asked to surrender to the United Nations — because those omniscient and benevolent bureaucrats just know better than the poor little people, bless their little hearts.
I'll be happy to admit, that Republicans are denying the sciences like "Womyn Studies" and, indeed, "Climate Change".
This alone means, they are paying more attention to the real sciences. If your "reality" is different, I wonder, what color the grass is in it...
The simple formula applies everywhere: the higher the taxes, the less freedom. Each dollar taxed away from you, robs you of the freedom to spend it they way you'd want — handing that deciding power over to the politicians.
The museum is government-funded — you pay for it, but the government decides, what it does, and your only recourse is to elect a different government next time.
No, I'm neither giving such firms any seed financing, nor buying their IPOs, when (and if) they ever go public. The probability of being swindled is just too high.
Maybe, the "careful selection" filters out only those, who got a few months in the lock-up for a bar-fight, or a marijuana smoke, or some other minor offense. But even though, people, who avoided the fight and the smoking altogether, seem more deserving.
Except GPL calls itself "copyleft" and talks rather disparagingly about any other kind:
It works, because the rest of society respects copyrights — even of those people, who do not themselves respect them. But the photographer described in TFA is exactly the evil greedy kind of character, who'd gladly deny you certain rights (like right-click->Save Image), if he could.
That's his decision — and he is entitled to it.
I fail to see the logic here. Why does the price have to be zero? Marginal cost may be getting ever closer to zero — sure, with every item sold (err, downloaded), the hyperbola gets lower and lower. But meanwhile the maker needs to eat and a raise family. And he still needs to recoup the original — not marginal — costs sunk into production.
That's if you are past the ethical problems of counting other people's monies — as Mr. Masnick, evidently, is...
So did Karl Marx... If not a formal degree, then surely an equivalent.
Wow, a highly-moderated account of an evil holder of the dreaded copyright — a profiteer on the information, that Wants To Be Free[TM]! On Slashdot!
What's the world coming to? Next we'll start using terms like "theft" and "stealing" when talking about digital photographs, even though you still have your file on your computer, when I do right-click->Save Image on mine.
Well, maybe, it is Ok for you to be doing this by yourself. But the second you decide to delegate the pursuit of thieves to someone else (like PhAA, perhaps?) , then we'll denounce both you and that delegate (MafiAA!!) as "greedy" producers of "trash", which nobody would be buying anyway.
Here are the several definitions — and none of them is worded the way you do.
Not at all. If we were to take this view, we'd call all detectives unethical, for example. And all intelligence workers — including, for example, Alan Turing.
Sure, the above examples cover work against (suspected) criminals or outright national enemies — but it is still spying by any definition — including yours.
Can this sort of thing be done to ordinary consumers? Sure — that's what "market-research" has been doing for decades. That information was not as fine-grained as to make the collected data personally identifiable, but that was due to limitations of technology — not laws or ethics.
Today's computers and software just make it simpler and far more complete. I agree, that it is scary — and raises questions. But I maintain, that it is neither necessarily nor automatically unethical — except, maybe, for that part, were they allow you to "opt-out", but continue reporting anyway. Well, maybe, it should be an "opt-in" only to begin with, I agree.
Oh, no, it is not... The communication is between your storage device and the LG's TV itself — there is no "third party" — and one of the two parties is reporting to its maker. Anyway, I don't think, you have a case there — but I'd be curious to watch (and listen to) the arguments unfold in court.
Spying is a loaded yet vague term. You'd do better talking about, what they actually are doing, instead of trying to attach such a label to it...
The collected information certainly can be abused — and potentially grossly so. But the same can be said about the very Internet-connectivity the TV boasts — and certainly about its use of the advanced Operating System (Linux) inside. All of those can be used unethically — easily — but are they? Until we know, how the data is used, we can not claim unethical behavior — though we'd be damn right to suspect it.
Which wire are you claiming is being tapped here? You purchased an "Internet-ready" TV-set and connected it to the Internet yourself... The device does not tap your (nor anyone else's) communications — it originates its own...
There are laws mandating special care of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) — but they don't ban collecting it. And what LG collects may not even be considered personally identifiable — neither your name nor address are even known to the TV, much less reported by it, even if a dedicated investigator may be able to link the TV's serial number to you eventually.
Indeed, it sounds like an exact opposite of the Soviet Union — where the government was deciding on everything and the private enterprise was not merely discouraged, it was (highly!) illegal. I should know, I grew up there...
This was a good opportunity for you to provide more examples — but you did not take it... I wonder, why... Do name other things, that the government is explicitly charged with by the Constitution — the nebulous "general welfare" does not count, whatever it implies. I'm asking for explicitly enumerated responsibilities... Take your time...
You may wish to re-read my post. I did not accuse the government of collecting taxes illegally — not after that fateful SCOTUS decision you are citing. I said, spending thus collected monies on anything not explicitly made the government's responsibility by the Constitution is a travesty. Not illegal — "only" a travesty.
And just what would the suit be alleging? I don't see anything bona fide illegal here. Can't even say it is unethical — not until we know, what they do with the data.
I'd absolutely hate this done to me, but I don't understand, what a lawsuit could possible allege...
And that's how things ought to stand for everything — except the handful of things the government is explicitly charged with under the Constitution: defense and law-enforcement.
If it is a good idea, you'll have no problems finding "wealthy patrons". On the other hand, a bad idea is likely to find sponsors among law-makers, or the government bureaucrats in those "funding agencies", to whom the said law-makers have delegated their funding decisions. Not spending their own money, they'll find an excuse. Heck, some of them are under pressure to fund something — or risk being suspected of loafing...
Taxes are collected at the gun-point (implicit in all tax-collection). Spending them on anything not explicitly provided for by the Constitution — be it SETI or school-lunches or corn-subsidies — is a travesty.
Whatever your DLNA-client — whether it is the TV itself (LG have this capability), or some 3rd-party box — it can do the same sort of "calling home" reporting what you are watching.
Worse! Whereas the documented spying reports only the currently-watched file and is limited to the listing of the currently-inserted USB-stick, with DLNA your entire collection can be POSTed facilitating not only research into your watching habits, but also aiding investigations of copyright-violations, for example.
The only way to be sure is to disable Internet-access — or only allow it to the sites you trust (for whatever reason). (Like YouTube or Netflix — it is unlikely (though entirely possible) for them to do the same kind of snooping into your media-collection.) Unfortunately, doing that will also disable firmware updates...
We may have some differences in morals, but I'm quite confident, not paying the creators — contrary to their wishes — for your use of their creations is against yours as well as mine. You just don't bother to look at things this way — because the allure of free stuff is too much.
Whatever the problem is, adding more money will not help solve it — that's the point... At best, things will stay the same (just at higher costs). At worst, the pie will become juicy enough to attract outright criminals...