By denying a store owner the right to discriminate based on race, we grant the consumer the right to eat where he or she wants regardless of race.
There is no such right. There is no right to marry anyone you want to either — both parties' participation must be voluntary.
Just as nobody is legally obligated to befriend people of any particular race, nobody ought to be forced to sell stuff or provide service to them.
There's no such thing as this "free market" that many libertarians seem to worship.
I'm arguing for the abolition of the non-discrimination coercion based not on some vague economic benefit nor even some vague "social justice", but based on a simple human right — the right to not associate/deal with anyone you don't want to.
This is a fairly important distinction between the Libertarian and other persuasions' views of the market and Capitalism. Whereas many (most notably, apparently, today's Chinese government) view them as means — as the most efficient known way of organizing economy, to me it — running a business the way I want to — is "ends", a human right derived simply from that famous (and inalienable) "pursuit of happiness".
E.g., repealing the law that prevents people from discriminating on the basis of race would make the market more free, so it must be a wonderful idea, right?
Yes, it would be a wonderful idea. Not even because it would make market freer, but simply because it would restore a very basic freedom of not dealing with someone you don't like — even if your dislike is based on some foolish superstition or bigotry.
I'm willing to accept these limitations on freedom because a) they don't affect neither me personally nor anyone I care for; and b) because they help our society avoid (or reduce) issues like those affecting France right about now. But I still recognize them as what they are — limitations on freedom.
A free market is exactly one where boycotts are allowed.
I guess, I did not emphasize the "and worse" part enough for you to notice. Yes, boycotts are fine. Smashing the store's windows and lynching the proprietor is not — and that was what kept people from selling to "undesirables".
Unless, of course, the proprietors were bigots themselves. Unfortunately, the law would not address this idiocy anyway...
My knowledge of history tells me, people, who would deal with people, whom their neighbors considered "undesirable" were punished by boycotts and worse. The market was not free of such forces...
Bombing a wedding or shooting down an airliner are still awfully bad things, even if we do it with super-cool weaponry.
The bombed weddings were targeted (by mistake) — the "super cool" weapon worked perfectly fine. You'll need a better example to substantiate Finallyjoined's one-liner.
And if McDonald's don't want to serve a black person they don't have to, and you can take your business elsewhere.
Discrimination on the basis of race (and some other traits) is illegal in the US. All other, unprotected, kinds of discriminations are legal, although the list of the protected ones is growing.
Weed at 18, harder drugs at 21, no PCP or Oxy without prescription. Fair? Tax the lot of it and let transparent companies take control of the market and you eliminate virtually all of the violence associated with the drug trade.
And then you sue all those companies for umpteen billions. Indeed, why should Big Cocaine be different from Big Tobacco?
I know you don't, but the law protects the creators' rights (or tries to).
if he doesn't want me to listen any way I want, he doesn't have to put his stuff on the market.
Of course, they don't have to — nobody has to put anything on the market. But if they do put anything there and you happen to not like it — don't touch it...
Legally stores don't sell music — they sell a license to listen to it in certain ways (otherwise you'd be able to not only share it with friends, but to also organize concerts, for example). If you find this too restrictive or otherwise disagreeable, then don't buy it. Buying and then violating the license, as thousands of people are doing, is illegal.
"Legally" has nothing to do with the argument.
This entire thread is discussing the law, which *AA had tried to enforce and appear to have ended up watering down instead. Legalities are all we are discussing here, even though you are trying to change the subject to the political hand-waving of whether or not the violations of the license hurt sales.
They claim that sales are down because of piracy, I say they're full of shit.
They may be full of shit, but that's irrelevant. Stay focused.
Do you ever wonder why the Iranians hate us? us? It might have to do with us helping the Brits in overthrowing their democratically elected government and installing a dictator (the Shah)
They should be kissing our hands for preventing their country from becoming USSR's 16th "republic". That's what it would've been, if it weren't for our interference. Shah may not have been very nice, but joining the Soviet block would've been far worse for them — and that's the only other option they had at the time.
Even their current Islamic theocracy is much better than the Communist dictatorship they were heading for.
So Google and Microsoft Live want more email users. So I say let them have it. Just modify the domain name to allow college.edu emails to go to the gmail account and things are all hunky dory.
It would've been hunky dory, if it were possible to not have to deal with the advertisements and other crap, that supports these "free" services...
I work for a small business and I have been slowly outsourcing our email to GMAIL its free and it is easier and less work and expense on our end.
Well, if you don't care, that an outside corporation is reading/parsing all of your e-mails — without even a signed non-disclosure agreement customary in a typical outsourcing situation, then yes, it makes sense...
The problem is, people are listening to music contrary to the creators' wishes. I'm sure, you knew this...
Either sales are down, or they aren't. You can't have it both ways.
Whether sales are up or down is legally irrelevant (although it may be politically important). As long as a single person is listening to something, that somebody was supposed to pay for, but nobody did, there is a problem.
That many people continue to pay was brought up as evidence, that there remains music, which people want — another point of no legal significance...
What really can not be had "both ways" is: "your product sucks, but we want to download and share it anyway."
Wouldn't it be ironic if the lawsuits brought by the RIAA in an attempt to preserve/enhance strong copyright ended up severely diminishing U.S. copyright law instead?
They were in a lose-lose situation before they started. Ignore the problem, and the copyright law is useless. Try to enforce your rights, and the legal protections degrade, as you observed.
Fighting the mob is very difficult — but they are trying. At least, a watered-down law may still be a law they may be able to enforce...
They sound appealing and cool, but there are other methods that are much better.
Much better for what? If, in 30 years, this technology allows full mapping of the entire human brain, I'll be quite happy... It will mean, that my conscience may live after the mortal flesh dies.
It may take another hundred years or more for full reconstruction of a new brain (and the rest of the body) to become possible, but in the mean time I'll be preserved just as I was, when I died and my brain was scanned.
Even better, an electronic "simulator" may allow me to continue to exist even if without the body. Many of the physical experiences will be beyond my reach, but I will be able to enjoy my profession — without interruptions for sleep, food and related discharges — communicate with friends, and even post to Slashdot.
Come to think of it, there are very few activities, that I enjoy, which require a traditional body — and even fewer of them are good for it. There is a bigger part of life, which requires interfacing with computers — and that's where most humans are currently rather handicapped...
Today a large part of population of developed countries is employed in taking care of the elderly. As we develop further, the younger generation will be busy with taking care of the computers and with reproduction — simply copying digital images of the same people will, likely, be frowned upon, or even illegal.
Jobs as diverse as stock-trading to traffic control will be performed by "virtual" minds...
Nobody's freaked out by police helicopters, whether they are used to find traffic offenders, in police chases, or as observation posts for police raids.
"Nobody"? You must not have seen KDawson's earlier posts, or else you would not be making such sweeping generalizations.
You and I (and him, of course) can use anything we want, but if the police look into using anything other than horses to chase suspects, or magnifying glass to investigate crimes, well, that's an alarming new development with grave privacy implications.
KDawson has loyal audience — just wait, and the mentions of "1984" and "Big Brother" will pop up on this page in earnest.
The biggest problem with your attempt at humor is the fact that people used to talk about tinfoil hats when people SUGGESTED something like this could happen, now people are delegated to the tinfoil hat crowd for COMPLAINING about this stuff happening.
And the biggest problem with your attempt at a scare is the failure to articulate, what "this stuff", actually, consists of.
The Executive government requires the Judicial branch's approval for getting the data from cell-phone companies. Sometimes it gets it and sometimes it does not. The decisions are taken by judges, who make them based on the merits of presented evidence and on their convictions and interpretations of the law.
None of this is particularly different from the practices of the past decades and centuries.
Do note, that the "expectation of privacy" is not even there — or should not be. The judge described in the article, who said "cell phones should not be tracked, while the suspect is at home, where there is expectation of privacy" is simply an idiot — on the level of the moron, who did not know, what spam is. First, there is no point in tracking, while the suspect is at home — because you already know, where he is. Second, a tracking (and an eavesdropping even) device is quite trivial to put together — expecting nobody to be using one is quite unreasonable.
The police could build such devices themselves and blanket the country (at great expense) — it would be legal, even if politically suicidal. So they choose instead to ask cell-phone carriers to provide the information, which they collect anyway.
Note the FBI director was one of the first people Bush appointed to office and he also appointed the head of the DoJ, so I think some blame rightly belongs with the Bush administration and their habit of politically expedient coverups, instead of justice.
Somehow you fail to credit the Administration with stopping the use of the bogus test and with publicizing this information to law enforcement and criminal lawyers in the first place.
Yes, they did not go far enough (or so one would think after reading the article), and that seems like a fault. But if you blame Bush for the FBI's failure to go far enough, you should also credit him for their ending of the decades-long procedure — however embarassing (and thus resistance-inducing) the admission is to the FBI.
these asswipe judges... one would expect a judge to be at the higher end of the "smart" spectrum, yes?
Why? There are much better jobs for good lawyers. And if one is after prestige (rather than money), than presiding over small claims ain't it. No, unfortunately, these low-level judges aren't anything special. I might add, that this is a problem with low unemployment in general. Having dealt with a small-claims court just this last spring, I can certainly add two names to the list of "asswipes" (one of them fined my father $100 for speaking poor English!)
But even smart people get annoyed, when someone visibly them slow. It takes a lot of wisdom and self-confidence to not get the annoyance imperil your judgement — this is also true in all walks of life.
In all fairness, the US does the same [emphasys mine -mi] both formally (no non-us controlling ownership of any US airline) and informally, as when the US congress stopped the buyout of port operator company.
US limits ownership in a small and well-defined class of large businesses — unless the government finds reasons to block the deal, it goes through. China limits ownership in all businesses, unless, maybe, the government finds reasons to allow it.
He should not have to, but he needs to. Judging from this as well as his prior posts, the man is smart, knows he is smart, and has little patience for other people being less bright, than he expects them to.
He needs to hide this quality of his — but he can not. Hence the suggestion, he partners with someone, who can...
Otherwise, he'll continue to suffer from the enormous power given to judges in a modern society. Too many of them (along with too many of "our peers" in general, BTW) really do think, that "smarty pants" or "having an answer to everything" or being a "wise guy" are bad things...
Slashdot Mirror
There is no such right. There is no right to marry anyone you want to either — both parties' participation must be voluntary.
Just as nobody is legally obligated to befriend people of any particular race, nobody ought to be forced to sell stuff or provide service to them.
I'm arguing for the abolition of the non-discrimination coercion based not on some vague economic benefit nor even some vague "social justice", but based on a simple human right — the right to not associate/deal with anyone you don't want to.
This is a fairly important distinction between the Libertarian and other persuasions' views of the market and Capitalism. Whereas many (most notably, apparently, today's Chinese government) view them as means — as the most efficient known way of organizing economy, to me it — running a business the way I want to — is "ends", a human right derived simply from that famous (and inalienable) "pursuit of happiness".
Yes, it would be a wonderful idea. Not even because it would make market freer, but simply because it would restore a very basic freedom of not dealing with someone you don't like — even if your dislike is based on some foolish superstition or bigotry.
I'm willing to accept these limitations on freedom because a) they don't affect neither me personally nor anyone I care for; and b) because they help our society avoid (or reduce) issues like those affecting France right about now. But I still recognize them as what they are — limitations on freedom.
I guess, I did not emphasize the "and worse" part enough for you to notice. Yes, boycotts are fine. Smashing the store's windows and lynching the proprietor is not — and that was what kept people from selling to "undesirables".
Unless, of course, the proprietors were bigots themselves. Unfortunately, the law would not address this idiocy anyway...
Nobody is making an "autonomous" vehicle, really. They will be operated remotely. Likely by more than one person too (the gunner, the driver, etc.)
As such they will only be harder to destroy than the current tanks are, and when they are hit, the "crew" will just switch to another one.
I wish, Israel had these last year — instead they were getting bogged down having to evacuate the crews from the disabled tanks.
My knowledge of history tells me, people, who would deal with people, whom their neighbors considered "undesirable" were punished by boycotts and worse. The market was not free of such forces...
The freer the market the better.
The bombed weddings were targeted (by mistake) — the "super cool" weapon worked perfectly fine. You'll need a better example to substantiate Finallyjoined's one-liner.
Discrimination on the basis of race (and some other traits) is illegal in the US. All other, unprotected, kinds of discriminations are legal, although the list of the protected ones is growing.
Indeed, it is.
And then you sue all those companies for umpteen billions. Indeed, why should Big Cocaine be different from Big Tobacco?
I know you don't, but the law protects the creators' rights (or tries to).
Of course, they don't have to — nobody has to put anything on the market. But if they do put anything there and you happen to not like it — don't touch it...
Legally stores don't sell music — they sell a license to listen to it in certain ways (otherwise you'd be able to not only share it with friends, but to also organize concerts, for example). If you find this too restrictive or otherwise disagreeable, then don't buy it. Buying and then violating the license, as thousands of people are doing, is illegal.
This entire thread is discussing the law, which *AA had tried to enforce and appear to have ended up watering down instead. Legalities are all we are discussing here, even though you are trying to change the subject to the political hand-waving of whether or not the violations of the license hurt sales.
They may be full of shit, but that's irrelevant. Stay focused.
They should be kissing our hands for preventing their country from becoming USSR's 16th "republic". That's what it would've been, if it weren't for our interference. Shah may not have been very nice, but joining the Soviet block would've been far worse for them — and that's the only other option they had at the time.
Even their current Islamic theocracy is much better than the Communist dictatorship they were heading for.
It would've been hunky dory, if it were possible to not have to deal with the advertisements and other crap, that supports these "free" services...
Well, if you don't care, that an outside corporation is reading/parsing all of your e-mails — without even a signed non-disclosure agreement customary in a typical outsourcing situation, then yes, it makes sense...
And the CIA is evil because?..
The problem is, people are listening to music contrary to the creators' wishes. I'm sure, you knew this...
Whether sales are up or down is legally irrelevant (although it may be politically important). As long as a single person is listening to something, that somebody was supposed to pay for, but nobody did, there is a problem.
That many people continue to pay was brought up as evidence, that there remains music, which people want — another point of no legal significance...
What really can not be had "both ways" is: "your product sucks, but we want to download and share it anyway."
They were in a lose-lose situation before they started. Ignore the problem, and the copyright law is useless. Try to enforce your rights, and the legal protections degrade, as you observed.
Fighting the mob is very difficult — but they are trying. At least, a watered-down law may still be a law they may be able to enforce...
What about them, other than you did not post any?
Much better for what? If, in 30 years, this technology allows full mapping of the entire human brain, I'll be quite happy... It will mean, that my conscience may live after the mortal flesh dies.
It may take another hundred years or more for full reconstruction of a new brain (and the rest of the body) to become possible, but in the mean time I'll be preserved just as I was, when I died and my brain was scanned.
Even better, an electronic "simulator" may allow me to continue to exist even if without the body. Many of the physical experiences will be beyond my reach, but I will be able to enjoy my profession — without interruptions for sleep, food and related discharges — communicate with friends, and even post to Slashdot.
Come to think of it, there are very few activities, that I enjoy, which require a traditional body — and even fewer of them are good for it. There is a bigger part of life, which requires interfacing with computers — and that's where most humans are currently rather handicapped...
Today a large part of population of developed countries is employed in taking care of the elderly. As we develop further, the younger generation will be busy with taking care of the computers and with reproduction — simply copying digital images of the same people will, likely, be frowned upon, or even illegal.
Jobs as diverse as stock-trading to traffic control will be performed by "virtual" minds...
"Nobody"? You must not have seen KDawson's earlier posts, or else you would not be making such sweeping generalizations.
You and I (and him, of course) can use anything we want, but if the police look into using anything other than horses to chase suspects, or magnifying glass to investigate crimes, well, that's an alarming new development with grave privacy implications.
KDawson has loyal audience — just wait, and the mentions of "1984" and "Big Brother" will pop up on this page in earnest.
Wow, a million may buy from 1 to 33 of these birds... Very specific.
And the biggest problem with your attempt at a scare is the failure to articulate, what "this stuff", actually, consists of.
The Executive government requires the Judicial branch's approval for getting the data from cell-phone companies. Sometimes it gets it and sometimes it does not. The decisions are taken by judges, who make them based on the merits of presented evidence and on their convictions and interpretations of the law.
None of this is particularly different from the practices of the past decades and centuries.
Do note, that the "expectation of privacy" is not even there — or should not be. The judge described in the article, who said "cell phones should not be tracked, while the suspect is at home, where there is expectation of privacy" is simply an idiot — on the level of the moron, who did not know, what spam is. First, there is no point in tracking, while the suspect is at home — because you already know, where he is. Second, a tracking (and an eavesdropping even) device is quite trivial to put together — expecting nobody to be using one is quite unreasonable.
The police could build such devices themselves and blanket the country (at great expense) — it would be legal, even if politically suicidal. So they choose instead to ask cell-phone carriers to provide the information, which they collect anyway.
Which some call nanobacteria...
Somehow you fail to credit the Administration with stopping the use of the bogus test and with publicizing this information to law enforcement and criminal lawyers in the first place.
Yes, they did not go far enough (or so one would think after reading the article), and that seems like a fault. But if you blame Bush for the FBI's failure to go far enough, you should also credit him for their ending of the decades-long procedure — however embarassing (and thus resistance-inducing) the admission is to the FBI.
Three quarters-full vs. one quarter-empty?..
Why? There are much better jobs for good lawyers. And if one is after prestige (rather than money), than presiding over small claims ain't it. No, unfortunately, these low-level judges aren't anything special. I might add, that this is a problem with low unemployment in general. Having dealt with a small-claims court just this last spring, I can certainly add two names to the list of "asswipes" (one of them fined my father $100 for speaking poor English!)
But even smart people get annoyed, when someone visibly them slow. It takes a lot of wisdom and self-confidence to not get the annoyance imperil your judgement — this is also true in all walks of life.
... a troll will tie this issue to the "Bush administration", or even to "BushCo".
US limits ownership in a small and well-defined class of large businesses — unless the government finds reasons to block the deal, it goes through. China limits ownership in all businesses, unless, maybe, the government finds reasons to allow it.
You call it "the same"?
He should not have to, but he needs to. Judging from this as well as his prior posts, the man is smart, knows he is smart, and has little patience for other people being less bright, than he expects them to.
He needs to hide this quality of his — but he can not. Hence the suggestion, he partners with someone, who can...
Otherwise, he'll continue to suffer from the enormous power given to judges in a modern society. Too many of them (along with too many of "our peers" in general, BTW) really do think, that "smarty pants" or "having an answer to everything" or being a "wise guy" are bad things...