People want to share personal information with other human beings without sharing it with the rest of the world.
This is hardly a new problem — we've had it for thousands of years.
Your secret becomes less and less secret the more you share it with others. There is no "right to be forgotten" — and there never was. The prospect of it ever becoming mandatory to submit oneself to a memory-erasing procedure — such as to satisfy a court's order in a divorce case — scares me more than anybody watching me having sex...
There are many school options where I live and far from all of them are run by the government.
Whichever school your (and mine) children attend, we both are still paying for the government's one.
That makes it a monopoly — and of the worst kind too. You can avoid lesser monopolies by simply foregoing whatever service they provide. Unfortunately, government's "offerings" are not so easily escaped...
Perhaps it's time to find a new school for your child...or at least a new teacher.
Unfortunately, the government monopoly on education prevents most people — including myself — from doing so.
That said, the school is not bad. And, having grown up in the USSR myself, I know very well, how to prevent the damage, which the state would do to a child's mind, if allowed to... After all, American ideologues are still amateurs compared to the Soviet ones.
I assume the teacher meant something similar though.
Whether or not a particular feeling is merely a "dislike" or an actual "hate", there is no reason to substitute the word with a weaselese expression like "H-word".
There is nothing wrong with children being taught to use language correctly.
Full agreement. I told my child, she has my permission to use the word — in all of our three languages — if she feels it appropriate.
Her daughter hadn't searched for anything explicit, just the word "huge."
My kid told me, their elementary school teacher would not say "Hate". If she needs to refer to the emotion at all, she'll say: "H-word".
Maybe, we ought to find an euphemism for "Huge" too now — but, obviously, it can not be "H-word", since that's already taken.
And then we time, how long it takes porn-producers to linking the euphemism to the same porn-images — thus forcing us to search for yet another replacement.
It would probably be considered an act of piracy in international legal terms.
Pirates were, customarily, hung by the neck until dead. Can't do that in zero-gravity...
Throwing one out of an airlock is rather cruel — and unusual too. Wasting your own crew's sole means of evacuation on transferring the captured pirates to Earth is not only wasteful, but may well condemn the said crew to death.
Keeping the detained pirates up there — and feeding them food at $17,000-20,000 per kilogram? Talk about waste of taxpayers' money!
Letting them "go", as we now do in our vegetarian times with most maritime pirates, is not going to be an option either — where are they going to go and what'll keep them from coming right back to your space-station after you leave?
Quite a dilemma, actually... Unless you handle it the Russian way — "release" the bastards, but make sure, they die before reaching the shore.
There was a concerted effort to prevent municipal WiFi.
Citations, please...
Based on using both state government to preempt municipal WiFI (its illegal in most states)
WiFi is not illegal explicitly. Provision of non-government-specific services by the government is prohibited in some places. Which makes perfect sense — because the prospect of competing with the town hall is the kiss of death for an honest business-plan. But even where it was not prohibited — such as Chicago — it still fell apart. San Francisco — the nation's most "progressive" town — cancelled theirs in 2007. You were saying?
Why not? How else can the workers be protected from exploitation by KKKorporations interested only in profit$?!?! What, other than collective ownership of means of production, can prevent such abuses as well as shipping the manufacturing to other countries?
I challenge you to come up with an argument for government-owned WiFi or schools, that would not apply to a government-owned sneaker factory. Unlike with wired Internet — or water- and gas-pipes — there is not even the usual "last mile" argument with WiFi.
But there are plenty of things (e.g. roads) that work well when run by government.
Citations really are weak point of yours, let me help you. Ooops, government-owned roads obviously do not "work well" either. Would privately-owned ones be better? We never tried... But we can look around... If Tokyo can have privately-owned and competing subway/commuter-rail lines — which actually works well — why can't New York?
For about 100 years now, the Statists have been repeating the myth of "natural monopoly" — convincing the rest of us and themselves that some things are better done by "a public utility". Looked at carefully, the myth falls apart. We've fallen for it, when we gave AT&T their telephone monopoly — and paid dearly for that mistake. Why would anyone seek to repeat it in other markets?
See? This is why we, the unwashed Yankees can not have nice things, while the wise and enlightened Europeans are going to enjoy the Wi-Fi provided by their loving and caring governments.
Whatever. My original point remains — the Social Justice Warriors are responsible for the deterioration of Mozilla software. You made multiple posts trying to deflect this responsibility, only to fail at the end. Maybe, you really should kill yourself, after all? I promise, I will feel guilty if you do...
By making adherence to Social Justice values a requirement for leaders (and everyone else), they are also worsening other aspects of life. Most of them are, of course, hypocrites — very few, if any, would, for example, demand, that a surgeon about to perform a life-saving surgery on them, holds "correct" views.
If electing Trump will cause only 5% of these assholes and bitches to kill themselves — one can wish, right? — that alone makes him a winner.
Perhaps now you can see why people want safe spaces [...] In a world where people have freedom of speech, such privacy is extremely valuable.
The "Safe Space" nonsense is a very recent phenomenon (1989, according to Wikipedia), whereas responsibility for one's speech has been with us ever since early humans learned to speak. More importantly, safe spaces aren't about "privacy", they are meant to limit access to "haters" and their "harmful" speech. This makes any publicly-funded area like that in violation of the First Amendment, BTW.
Like most of your arguments, this one too falls apart, when touched...
20 years ago a good of friend of mine posited, that a good computer should have only two buttons:
Do
Undo
His proposal made sense at the time, but Apple went beyond that with one, and are now, if TFA is to be believed, going for zero... Is not technology wonderful?
they didn't fire him, he left because he realized he couldn't do his job and would ultimately be a disaster for is employer
The clear and present deterioration of Mozilla software is a disaster for Mozilla. Reading this very page, you can see users talking about abandoning Firefox for other browsers, because it increasingly sucks.
Eich remaining, could've caused some users (SJWs) to drop Firefox too, but, as Chick-Fill-A demonstrated, SJWs lack the staying power for any long-term damage.
Are you now arguing that people should have self-censored their criticism for the benefit of Mozilla's products
I'm arguing — now and before — that the SJWs are responsible for the quality of Mozilla software going down. Whether their achievement was a good thing or bad depends on whether you value a program's quality above or below the programmers' adherence to the Social Justice values.
What they should have done is a bogus question to ask. When, for example, a teen-ager is driven to suicide, we don't ask, whether the bullies should've self-sensored their criticism of him. Being driven to resignation is not any different — if you consider the outcome a good thing, you praise those who caused it, if you think it was bad, you criticize them...
But if you insist on your question's validity, how about you answer it first: should Brendan Eich have self-censored his criticism of "gay marriage" concept?
You now need to propose how said bad thing could be avoided without trampling on anyone else's rights
You never explained, whose rights would've been "trampled" by Eich remaining where he was.
This entire conversation was never about rights. Eich had a right to oppose whatever it was he opposed, SJWs had a right to boycott him over it.
The resulting — perfectly legal — boycott led to Eich's dismissal. Quality of Mozilla software went down.
Again, nobody — neither Eich nor the SJWs boycotting him — have done anything illegal. No rights were violated by anyone — and I never accused anybody of violating anybody else's rights.
I do, however, accuse the SJWs of causing the deterioration of Mozilla software. Your only objection to my logic was that the folks calling for Mozilla boycott over Eich "were not SJWs" — but you dropped those attempts at semantics-arguing when I asked for your definition of the term. Since then you started insisting, this was a question of rights — without ever explaining whose rights they were and how has Eich ever violated any.
Compared to the striking lack of citations in your posts, I think, my arguments are much better substantiated.
Please elaborate.
Oh, please. Do you really have no imagination? here...
And what if they BOTH suck?
Duopoly is likely to suck, yes. But not as badly as a monopoly. When I signed for FiOS six years ago, I chose 35Mbps up and down. Today I'm getting 75Mbps up and down for the same monthly fee. Name me a government-provided service, that can boast such an improvement in value...
I'd welcome more experiments in various states and counties to see what works best rather than just argue theory and dogma
Unfortunately for the participants, humanity's recent history already offers three near-perfect experiments. Here:
Soviet Estonia vs. Finland;
Eastern Germany vs. Western
North Korea vs. South
All three pairs had identical cultures, religions and development levels when one element of the pair chose the Socialism you propose and the other — the Capitalism I prefer... Note, that this is not even about Democracy — in the case of Cuba vs. Chile, both countries were run by dictators. But Chile's top man adopted Capitalism and turned his country into Latin America's top economy, while Cuba remains a basket case...
The more the government owns, the more Socialist the society, the more it sucks.
Not in the general case. For example, Tokyo has competing subway/commuter rail lines in the city. Why can't Manhattan?
For another example, there are multiple ways to drive from Boston to NYC — why can't those multiple roads compete with each other? I-95 can emphasize quality facilities, while the Merritt Parkway/I-91 combo could advertise being scenic. In their effort to attract more customers, they may push for higher speed-limit — and eliminate police "speed traps". And so on. It is perfectly possible. We are spending billions of dollars every year on building/maintaining roads — not using the free market to its fullest is a horrendous waste...
It's clear and obvious that the very laws of physics create situations where a single firm can occupy the only feasible way to accomplish a task.
While you may be able to come up with a few contrived examples (why haven't you?), usually that is simply not true. It may seem wasteful to lay multiple cables/run multiple pipes to the same house, but in the obvious and tangible reality, those one-shot things are small potatoes compared to the permanent and ongoing damage a monopoly's complacency is doing us all.
Why must the organization that owns and maintains the physical wires also control the traffic that runs across the wire?
It may not have to. But it will — because that's the nature of government.
For example, AT&T "NSA closet" will seem quaint, once all traffic passes government-owned wires. Censoring content crossing government-owned equipment will also become much easier — seriously, would somebody, please, think of the children?! And, yeah, encryption is legal, but, if you use it on publicly-owned wires, the government must be able to decrypt it. And only government-approved (and registered) equipment can be thus connected too. Hasn't the sorry story of public roads taught you anything? Do you think, Internet-access license and uniquely-identifying IDs for your computer(s) will be far behind?
And, of course, instead of violating Terms of Service, (ab)users will be violating laws — feds are already seeking to "curb trolling", owning the last mile to every house will allow them to act on that urge.
Oligopolies suffer from similar problems as "big gov't": not enough competition to give them incentive and to give consumers real choices.
Full agreement.
The biggest road-block to more competition in my opinion is the "last mile problem". It's not realistic nor efficient for every competitor to run wires to every potential customer.
It's the main reason Google is dropping out in many areas.
Another unsubstantiated claim. Google Fiber was meant to run all of the "last miles" from the get-go — it was not something they realized they have to do later. I explain their lack of wide-spread success by the above-referenced regulation of local governments, but you are welcome to offer citations supporting your assertion(s). Meanwhile, I offer this map as evidence supporting my assertion. They are already offered in the "redneck" parts of the country like Salt Lake City, Charlotte, and Kansas City, while the corrupt locales like Chicago — despite having many more thickly-settled (and thus easy-to-wire) would-be customers — are merely "being explored".
If a gov't utility could set up "last mile" wiring, then [...]
Then instead of the poorly-competing oligopoly, we'll have a bona-fide monopoly — with government policing the Internet traffic. Today I can switch from FiOS to Comcast in a matter of days should I decide to. Bringing about a change to the government-owned service will require months and years of raising awareness and electioneering.
The right conditions have to be in place for capitalism to work right.
Slashdot Mirror
This is hardly a new problem — we've had it for thousands of years.
Your secret becomes less and less secret the more you share it with others. There is no "right to be forgotten" — and there never was. The prospect of it ever becoming mandatory to submit oneself to a memory-erasing procedure — such as to satisfy a court's order in a divorce case — scares me more than anybody watching me having sex...
Having lost two out of two recent arguments with me, you really do have little left but refer to me as "poor"... *Plonk*
Hugs and kisses to you, hater.
Whichever school your (and mine) children attend, we both are still paying for the government's one.
That makes it a monopoly — and of the worst kind too. You can avoid lesser monopolies by simply foregoing whatever service they provide. Unfortunately, government's "offerings" are not so easily escaped...
Unfortunately, the government monopoly on education prevents most people — including myself — from doing so.
That said, the school is not bad. And, having grown up in the USSR myself, I know very well, how to prevent the damage, which the state would do to a child's mind, if allowed to... After all, American ideologues are still amateurs compared to the Soviet ones.
Whether or not a particular feeling is merely a "dislike" or an actual "hate", there is no reason to substitute the word with a weaselese expression like "H-word".
Full agreement. I told my child, she has my permission to use the word — in all of our three languages — if she feels it appropriate.
My kid told me, their elementary school teacher would not say "Hate". If she needs to refer to the emotion at all, she'll say: "H-word".
Maybe, we ought to find an euphemism for "Huge" too now — but, obviously, it can not be "H-word", since that's already taken.
And then we time, how long it takes porn-producers to linking the euphemism to the same porn-images — thus forcing us to search for yet another replacement.
Pirates were, customarily, hung by the neck until dead. Can't do that in zero-gravity...
Throwing one out of an airlock is rather cruel — and unusual too. Wasting your own crew's sole means of evacuation on transferring the captured pirates to Earth is not only wasteful, but may well condemn the said crew to death.
Keeping the detained pirates up there — and feeding them food at $17,000-20,000 per kilogram? Talk about waste of taxpayers' money!
Letting them "go", as we now do in our vegetarian times with most maritime pirates, is not going to be an option either — where are they going to go and what'll keep them from coming right back to your space-station after you leave?
Quite a dilemma, actually... Unless you handle it the Russian way — "release" the bastards, but make sure, they die before reaching the shore.
You tried this bullshit argument earlier. When a teen is driven to suicide by some bullies' (free) speech, the death is the bullies' fault, yes.
The death of Mozilla will be too, should it come to that, and its current sickness already is.
See also the AC's response, exposing you as a hypocrite:
Citations, please...
WiFi is not illegal explicitly. Provision of non-government-specific services by the government is prohibited in some places. Which makes perfect sense — because the prospect of competing with the town hall is the kiss of death for an honest business-plan. But even where it was not prohibited — such as Chicago — it still fell apart. San Francisco — the nation's most "progressive" town — cancelled theirs in 2007. You were saying?
And, had it somehow succeeded, the entirely new sort of worms would've started coming out of the can.
Only among porn-surfers, it would seem. But do list your own citations, please.
Why not? How else can the workers be protected from exploitation by KKKorporations interested only in profit$?!?! What, other than collective ownership of means of production, can prevent such abuses as well as shipping the manufacturing to other countries?
I challenge you to come up with an argument for government-owned WiFi or schools, that would not apply to a government-owned sneaker factory. Unlike with wired Internet — or water- and gas-pipes — there is not even the usual "last mile" argument with WiFi.
Citations really are weak point of yours, let me help you. Ooops, government-owned roads obviously do not "work well" either. Would privately-owned ones be better? We never tried... But we can look around... If Tokyo can have privately-owned and competing subway/commuter-rail lines — which actually works well — why can't New York?
For about 100 years now, the Statists have been repeating the myth of "natural monopoly" — convincing the rest of us and themselves that some things are better done by "a public utility". Looked at carefully, the myth falls apart. We've fallen for it, when we gave AT&T their telephone monopoly — and paid dearly for that mistake. Why would anyone seek to repeat it in other markets?
Spoken like a KKKorporate whore and a Trump-supporter (spit)...
See? This is why we, the unwashed Yankees can not have nice things, while the wise and enlightened Europeans are going to enjoy the Wi-Fi provided by their loving and caring governments.
Actually, the US is way ahead of Europe on this — we tried "municipal WiFi" 15 years ago. Predictably, it failed nation fooking wide.
For this USSR-escapee, it is simply mind-boggling, how many people continue to not see, that Socialism=Fail...
In the immortal words of Sarah Palin: Suck it up, cupcake ...
Whatever. My original point remains — the Social Justice Warriors are responsible for the deterioration of Mozilla software. You made multiple posts trying to deflect this responsibility, only to fail at the end. Maybe, you really should kill yourself, after all? I promise, I will feel guilty if you do...
By making adherence to Social Justice values a requirement for leaders (and everyone else), they are also worsening other aspects of life. Most of them are, of course, hypocrites — very few, if any, would, for example, demand, that a surgeon about to perform a life-saving surgery on them, holds "correct" views.
If electing Trump will cause only 5% of these assholes and bitches to kill themselves — one can wish, right? — that alone makes him a winner.
The "Safe Space" nonsense is a very recent phenomenon (1989, according to Wikipedia), whereas responsibility for one's speech has been with us ever since early humans learned to speak. More importantly, safe spaces aren't about "privacy", they are meant to limit access to "haters" and their "harmful" speech. This makes any publicly-funded area like that in violation of the First Amendment, BTW.
Like most of your arguments, this one too falls apart, when touched...
20 years ago a good of friend of mine posited, that a good computer should have only two buttons:
His proposal made sense at the time, but Apple went beyond that with one, and are now, if TFA is to be believed, going for zero... Is not technology wonderful?
Distinction without difference.
The clear and present deterioration of Mozilla software is a disaster for Mozilla. Reading this very page, you can see users talking about abandoning Firefox for other browsers, because it increasingly sucks.
Eich remaining, could've caused some users (SJWs) to drop Firefox too, but, as Chick-Fill-A demonstrated, SJWs lack the staying power for any long-term damage.
I'm arguing — now and before — that the SJWs are responsible for the quality of Mozilla software going down. Whether their achievement was a good thing or bad depends on whether you value a program's quality above or below the programmers' adherence to the Social Justice values.
What they should have done is a bogus question to ask. When, for example, a teen-ager is driven to suicide, we don't ask, whether the bullies should've self-sensored their criticism of him. Being driven to resignation is not any different — if you consider the outcome a good thing, you praise those who caused it, if you think it was bad, you criticize them...
But if you insist on your question's validity, how about you answer it first: should Brendan Eich have self-censored his criticism of "gay marriage" concept?
You never explained, whose rights would've been "trampled" by Eich remaining where he was.
This entire conversation was never about rights. Eich had a right to oppose whatever it was he opposed, SJWs had a right to boycott him over it.
The resulting — perfectly legal — boycott led to Eich's dismissal. Quality of Mozilla software went down.
Again, nobody — neither Eich nor the SJWs boycotting him — have done anything illegal. No rights were violated by anyone — and I never accused anybody of violating anybody else's rights.
I do, however, accuse the SJWs of causing the deterioration of Mozilla software. Your only objection to my logic was that the folks calling for Mozilla boycott over Eich "were not SJWs" — but you dropped those attempts at semantics-arguing when I asked for your definition of the term. Since then you started insisting, this was a question of rights — without ever explaining whose rights they were and how has Eich ever violated any.
You never explained, what "silencing" you are talking about.
The burden is on those seeking to change the current situation — they have to prove, the change will be an improvement.
I've already cited an article, where the blame for this sorry state of the ISP-market is laid squarely on the local governments.
Compared to the striking lack of citations in your posts, I think, my arguments are much better substantiated.
Oh, please. Do you really have no imagination? here...
Duopoly is likely to suck, yes. But not as badly as a monopoly. When I signed for FiOS six years ago, I chose 35Mbps up and down. Today I'm getting 75Mbps up and down for the same monthly fee. Name me a government-provided service, that can boast such an improvement in value...
Unfortunately for the participants, humanity's recent history already offers three near-perfect experiments. Here:
All three pairs had identical cultures, religions and development levels when one element of the pair chose the Socialism you propose and the other — the Capitalism I prefer... Note, that this is not even about Democracy — in the case of Cuba vs. Chile, both countries were run by dictators. But Chile's top man adopted Capitalism and turned his country into Latin America's top economy, while Cuba remains a basket case...
The more the government owns, the more Socialist the society, the more it sucks.
Not in the general case. For example, Tokyo has competing subway/commuter rail lines in the city. Why can't Manhattan?
For another example, there are multiple ways to drive from Boston to NYC — why can't those multiple roads compete with each other? I-95 can emphasize quality facilities, while the Merritt Parkway/I-91 combo could advertise being scenic. In their effort to attract more customers, they may push for higher speed-limit — and eliminate police "speed traps". And so on. It is perfectly possible. We are spending billions of dollars every year on building/maintaining roads — not using the free market to its fullest is a horrendous waste...
Well, it is a fairly acclaimed work of a reasonably famous economist, which is frequently cited by his fellows in their publications. You are a Slashdot poster...
While you may be able to come up with a few contrived examples (why haven't you?), usually that is simply not true. It may seem wasteful to lay multiple cables/run multiple pipes to the same house, but in the obvious and tangible reality, those one-shot things are small potatoes compared to the permanent and ongoing damage a monopoly's complacency is doing us all.
It may not have to. But it will — because that's the nature of government.
For example, AT&T "NSA closet" will seem quaint, once all traffic passes government-owned wires. Censoring content crossing government-owned equipment will also become much easier — seriously, would somebody, please, think of the children?! And, yeah, encryption is legal, but, if you use it on publicly-owned wires, the government must be able to decrypt it. And only government-approved (and registered) equipment can be thus connected too. Hasn't the sorry story of public roads taught you anything? Do you think, Internet-access license and uniquely-identifying IDs for your computer(s) will be far behind?
And, of course, instead of violating Terms of Service, (ab)users will be violating laws — feds are already seeking to "curb trolling", owning the last mile to every house will allow them to act on that urge.
No, thanks.
Full agreement.
That's not true — "natural monopoly" is a myth. But do find citations supporting your assertion.
Another unsubstantiated claim. Google Fiber was meant to run all of the "last miles" from the get-go — it was not something they realized they have to do later. I explain their lack of wide-spread success by the above-referenced regulation of local governments, but you are welcome to offer citations supporting your assertion(s). Meanwhile, I offer this map as evidence supporting my assertion. They are already offered in the "redneck" parts of the country like Salt Lake City, Charlotte, and Kansas City, while the corrupt locales like Chicago — despite having many more thickly-settled (and thus easy-to-wire) would-be customers — are merely "being explored".
Then instead of the poorly-competing oligopoly, we'll have a bona-fide monopoly — with government policing the Internet traffic. Today I can switch from FiOS to Comcast in a matter of days should I decide to. Bringing about a change to the government-owned service will require months and years of raising awareness and electioneering.
Absence of wrong conditions is sufficient.
{Citation needed}. Fail.