It's a matter of where you draw the line. At what point does a society consider the actions of one person to be infringing on the rights of another. I'm somewhat open to debate on the seatbelt one (though, in that case, it is absolutely a direct and measurable cost that is preventable with minimal intrusion on anyone's rights.)
Oh, and speaking of fallacies, you are engaged in two; specifically, Appeal to Ridicule, and the good old strawman. You might as well use as another example that people shouldn't be allowed to paint their houses red, because that brings down property values of neighboring houses (though, basically, in some areas, that is indeed a law...)
Finally, maybe if we'd had the foresight to limit population growth, pollution and resource consumption, we wouldn't be in agreement that the Petri dish is now full and the bacteria within are poisoning and consuming each other as they are...
The interesting thing, though, is that every society has one. They may differ in particulars, but everyone from tribes to Greek style nation states to Empires to 21st century nations and peoples have them.
As far as electricity, were there a shortage, then yes, it probably would be rationed. California and other states have rationed water during droughts. During time of war, food, gasoline and pretty much everything gets rationed.
As far as the walking into my house and taking my stuff example, it is different from telling you how to dispose of your garbage because how you dispose of your garbage has a direct impact on me. With that said, if I'm in my house burning plastic in the fireplace, and the fumes are poisoning you and your kids, most certainly you would have a right to put a stop to it.
Yes, don't steal liberty should be on the list. After all, we do frown on kidnapping as a society. Just as innocence is there - we also frown on rape.
Additionally, if you drive without a seatbelt, yes, it does inpact others. Because we pay for your emergency room visits. And because we're human, we don't turn bleeding, critically injured people away who are too poor to have proper insurance.
And here's where it gets worse: unless we check population density and growth, the list of things that impact others is just going to keep growing. Especially if we continue to chew through resources faster than they replenish, and as our impact gets greater and greater on the environment in which we live.
Actually, yes, your garbage does wind up in my yard, air and water. Maybe not in terms of you throwing big bags over the fence, but there is absolutely an impact.
When organics decay in a landfill, you get a lot more methane than if treated properly. Which impacts my environment, and my air.
When you throw away motor oil, battery acid, cleaning agents, etc, it seeps into my ground water. Which comes out of my tap.
When you don't recycle, you are draining more resources, making mine cost more, and adding more pollution to my environment. Which impacts everything, including what grows in my yard, and me, no matter where I go.
Absolutely they do have that right for any action that has a negative impact on others. Primarily physical impact (you aren't allowed to punch me in the nose, nor poison me, nor walk into my house and take my stuff, nor forcefully have your way with my daughter, nor have my dog for supper, nor dump your garbage in my front yard), but to some extent, mental (you aren't allowed to threaten to burn my house down).
The nice thing, though, is that people aren't allowed to do this to you either. And I don't care how big you are, there's someone bigger out there who would do these things.
Civilization is a set of laws, most of which boil down to, "Don't steal". Don't steal life, wealth, innocence, health, well being. And when industry and individuals pollute and despoil, you're stealing my health and physical well being.
Insurance companies make more money if you die. And if you die, you won't be part of the invisible hand as you switch companies; you'll be dead.
Energy producers and manufacturers make more money if they don't clean up their waste, even if it means your kid has three arms, half a brain and needs a respirator to breath.
Private fire departments have been tried. Cities burned.
The redundancy costs of multiple electric companies are insane.
The list goes on. The bottom line is that some things are best handled as a monopoly. And the government is the agent of the people that is supposed to keep such entities in check.
If your problem is with corrupt government, then look at what is corrupting it, and where the money that corrupts comes from. Simply saying that "gov'ment is bad, mmmkay?" and handing power to the private sector doesn't solve the problem; in the end, all it does is prevent any sort of recourse for grievances.
Your rights end when you start crapping in my yard.
So, yes.
Industry dumping deadly chemicals, your Hummer, the crap that leads to the algee blooms in the ocean, all of it has a direct impact on me. And thus, yes, I and the rest of the world get to tell you to stop shitting in the nest.
Maybe. On the other hand, at some point, the rush to make one's connections instant may peak, and reverse.
Email is a bit less urgent in nature - one tends to think a bit more than a tweet, FB post or IM. And, for me, at least, I don't feel like I'm blowing someone off if I don't respond immediately to an email; far less so with the other types of electronic communications.
I'd propose that they do hold the dictators and governments back by having their representatives sit around and talk and talk and talk and do nothing else.
Sure, that means that the UN itself isn't taking action, but if that's the price we pay to not have a nuclear war, I'm absolutely good with paying it.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't just a troll trying to divert attention from this particular incident of malfeasance by News Corp (itself a rather vile organization), and note that there is rather strenuous objection to government hacking, spying on its own citizens and the whole big brother thing on a regular basis. In fact, such objections can be found in just about every single thread over 100 comments, regardless of the actual topic of the thread.
It's action that's the problem. Action leads to escalation, which eventually, leads to nukes if left unchecked.
Inaction - having a governor on things - may not always produce the world you want, but it keeps this one from death by atomic fire and nuclear winter.
"It is not the job of a company to "spread the wealth". It is the job of a company to create value, things that are valued much more than the value consumed to produce them."
Indeed. Meaning that corporations cannot be themselves trusted to be the sole entities responsible for our economy. By their very nature, they cannot perform that role.
Let's see. A difference of an order of magnitude in number of signing statements. The difference between putting the war costs in the budget - and insisting that they all be by special appropriation or would veto. The difference between starting multiple wars of occupation without a declaration and not. The difference between following the law as created by congress and accepting what congress passed (or didn't as law).
Bush was effective towards his goals. Because Obama doesn't play Bush's games, but the Republicans no longer play be the rules, Obama is not effective. That's part of my point.
No, I'm by no means happy with what Obama has (and hasn't) accomplished. But I'm sick to death of the Republicans and their Rovian games and of the charred earth policy of passing nothing that will help the country (see also abuse of cloture) and blaming Obama. The Republicans declared in 2008 that they had exactly one goal: to make sure that Obama failed. And everything that they've done during these years of crisis has been aligned with that goal, while America rots.
Finally, if you've something to say, say it for yourself as opposed to trying to spin what I'm saying into the opposite. You aren't very good at it.
which itself says nothing about Web 2.0 itself. Nor about moving to the cloud. The requirements laid out there are business level, and basically translate to the following: "You have 120 days to come up with system level requirements to move our data from hard copy to soft copy."
With this said, the section from the order that you're quoting is 2-b-i. It refers to the need to have a unified solution for archiving all existing electronic communication. Would you prefer that every department and agency have its own? And here I thought you might be in favor of cutting costs and efficiency.
Finally, your link shows that Obama has issued 17 signing statements in 3 years. That's about 6 per year. Bush issued 161 over 8 years. That's 20 per year. The number of executive orders is similar. And honestly, the Democrats in congress didn't play the cloture games that the Republicans play now. They made a huge stink about the ONE appointment that the Democrats tried to block (remember the chants of "up ur down! up ur down!"). Now, the Republicans won't let a damn thing to the floor of the Senate for a vote that doesn't explicitly further their causes. In other words, false equivalance fail.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah - so where we differ is in the premises.
You believe that we should leave people to bleed out and die on the road. I do not.
It's a matter of where you draw the line. At what point does a society consider the actions of one person to be infringing on the rights of another. I'm somewhat open to debate on the seatbelt one (though, in that case, it is absolutely a direct and measurable cost that is preventable with minimal intrusion on anyone's rights.)
Oh, and speaking of fallacies, you are engaged in two; specifically, Appeal to Ridicule, and the good old strawman. You might as well use as another example that people shouldn't be allowed to paint their houses red, because that brings down property values of neighboring houses (though, basically, in some areas, that is indeed a law...)
Finally, maybe if we'd had the foresight to limit population growth, pollution and resource consumption, we wouldn't be in agreement that the Petri dish is now full and the bacteria within are poisoning and consuming each other as they are...
How's that? You mean we do turn people who've been run over by a truck away from the emergency room, regardless of insurance status?
And myself (and, presumably, you) pay for those folks care.
So - their wearing a seatbelt or not absolutely impacts my financial well being.
The interesting thing, though, is that every society has one. They may differ in particulars, but everyone from tribes to Greek style nation states to Empires to 21st century nations and peoples have them.
No man is an island, and all that...
As far as electricity, were there a shortage, then yes, it probably would be rationed. California and other states have rationed water during droughts. During time of war, food, gasoline and pretty much everything gets rationed.
As far as the walking into my house and taking my stuff example, it is different from telling you how to dispose of your garbage because how you dispose of your garbage has a direct impact on me. With that said, if I'm in my house burning plastic in the fireplace, and the fumes are poisoning you and your kids, most certainly you would have a right to put a stop to it.
Yes, don't steal liberty should be on the list. After all, we do frown on kidnapping as a society. Just as innocence is there - we also frown on rape.
Additionally, if you drive without a seatbelt, yes, it does inpact others. Because we pay for your emergency room visits. And because we're human, we don't turn bleeding, critically injured people away who are too poor to have proper insurance.
And here's where it gets worse: unless we check population density and growth, the list of things that impact others is just going to keep growing. Especially if we continue to chew through resources faster than they replenish, and as our impact gets greater and greater on the environment in which we live.
I suspect probably pretty well, actually.
The filters on your camera are global, and thus, you don't get the sort of boundaries that you do in photoshopped images.
I facebooked and twittered my google of the use of a xerox of my photoshop as a kleenex.
Actually, yes, your garbage does wind up in my yard, air and water. Maybe not in terms of you throwing big bags over the fence, but there is absolutely an impact.
When organics decay in a landfill, you get a lot more methane than if treated properly. Which impacts my environment, and my air.
When you throw away motor oil, battery acid, cleaning agents, etc, it seeps into my ground water. Which comes out of my tap.
When you don't recycle, you are draining more resources, making mine cost more, and adding more pollution to my environment. Which impacts everything, including what grows in my yard, and me, no matter where I go.
Absolutely they do have that right for any action that has a negative impact on others. Primarily physical impact (you aren't allowed to punch me in the nose, nor poison me, nor walk into my house and take my stuff, nor forcefully have your way with my daughter, nor have my dog for supper, nor dump your garbage in my front yard), but to some extent, mental (you aren't allowed to threaten to burn my house down).
The nice thing, though, is that people aren't allowed to do this to you either. And I don't care how big you are, there's someone bigger out there who would do these things.
Civilization is a set of laws, most of which boil down to, "Don't steal". Don't steal life, wealth, innocence, health, well being. And when industry and individuals pollute and despoil, you're stealing my health and physical well being.
Not everything is best driven by a profit margin.
For example:
Insurance companies make more money if you die. And if you die, you won't be part of the invisible hand as you switch companies; you'll be dead.
Energy producers and manufacturers make more money if they don't clean up their waste, even if it means your kid has three arms, half a brain and needs a respirator to breath.
Private fire departments have been tried. Cities burned.
The redundancy costs of multiple electric companies are insane.
The list goes on. The bottom line is that some things are best handled as a monopoly. And the government is the agent of the people that is supposed to keep such entities in check.
If your problem is with corrupt government, then look at what is corrupting it, and where the money that corrupts comes from. Simply saying that "gov'ment is bad, mmmkay?" and handing power to the private sector doesn't solve the problem; in the end, all it does is prevent any sort of recourse for grievances.
Nope.
First, permafrost is basically frozen swamp. Things sink, and quickly, when it melts.
Second, there is an incredible amount of methane trapped in the permafrost. Thaw it out, it all gets released.
Your solution is to dig a 30 foot canyon in a swamp? What could go wrong?
Your rights end when you start crapping in my yard.
So, yes.
Industry dumping deadly chemicals, your Hummer, the crap that leads to the algee blooms in the ocean, all of it has a direct impact on me. And thus, yes, I and the rest of the world get to tell you to stop shitting in the nest.
Maybe. On the other hand, at some point, the rush to make one's connections instant may peak, and reverse.
Email is a bit less urgent in nature - one tends to think a bit more than a tweet, FB post or IM. And, for me, at least, I don't feel like I'm blowing someone off if I don't respond immediately to an email; far less so with the other types of electronic communications.
Old farts like me.
Now get off my lawn.
Sounds like a great idea! And - you can be my friend for just 2,000,000 silver coins, or 10 gold ones...
Statistics is pretty good at determining relationships between variables - and lack thereof.
I'd propose that they do hold the dictators and governments back by having their representatives sit around and talk and talk and talk and do nothing else.
Sure, that means that the UN itself isn't taking action, but if that's the price we pay to not have a nuclear war, I'm absolutely good with paying it.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't just a troll trying to divert attention from this particular incident of malfeasance by News Corp (itself a rather vile organization), and note that there is rather strenuous objection to government hacking, spying on its own citizens and the whole big brother thing on a regular basis. In fact, such objections can be found in just about every single thread over 100 comments, regardless of the actual topic of the thread.
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Well, you see, Count Duqu was trying to trap Anakin Skywalker and Senator Padmé Amidala....
Isn't inaction the whole point?
It's action that's the problem. Action leads to escalation, which eventually, leads to nukes if left unchecked.
Inaction - having a governor on things - may not always produce the world you want, but it keeps this one from death by atomic fire and nuclear winter.
"It is not the job of a company to "spread the wealth". It is the job of a company to create value, things that are valued much more than the value consumed to produce them."
Indeed. Meaning that corporations cannot be themselves trusted to be the sole entities responsible for our economy. By their very nature, they cannot perform that role.
Let's see. A difference of an order of magnitude in number of signing statements. The difference between putting the war costs in the budget - and insisting that they all be by special appropriation or would veto. The difference between starting multiple wars of occupation without a declaration and not. The difference between following the law as created by congress and accepting what congress passed (or didn't as law).
Bush was effective towards his goals. Because Obama doesn't play Bush's games, but the Republicans no longer play be the rules, Obama is not effective. That's part of my point.
No, I'm by no means happy with what Obama has (and hasn't) accomplished. But I'm sick to death of the Republicans and their Rovian games and of the charred earth policy of passing nothing that will help the country (see also abuse of cloture) and blaming Obama. The Republicans declared in 2008 that they had exactly one goal: to make sure that Obama failed. And everything that they've done during these years of crisis has been aligned with that goal, while America rots.
Finally, if you've something to say, say it for yourself as opposed to trying to spin what I'm saying into the opposite. You aren't very good at it.
Actually, I went and read the executive order here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74042394/Managing-Government-Records-November-28-2011
which itself says nothing about Web 2.0 itself. Nor about moving to the cloud. The requirements laid out there are business level, and basically translate to the following: "You have 120 days to come up with system level requirements to move our data from hard copy to soft copy."
With this said, the section from the order that you're quoting is 2-b-i. It refers to the need to have a unified solution for archiving all existing electronic communication. Would you prefer that every department and agency have its own? And here I thought you might be in favor of cutting costs and efficiency.
Finally, your link shows that Obama has issued 17 signing statements in 3 years. That's about 6 per year. Bush issued 161 over 8 years. That's 20 per year. The number of executive orders is similar. And honestly, the Democrats in congress didn't play the cloture games that the Republicans play now. They made a huge stink about the ONE appointment that the Democrats tried to block (remember the chants of "up ur down! up ur down!"). Now, the Republicans won't let a damn thing to the floor of the Senate for a vote that doesn't explicitly further their causes. In other words, false equivalance fail.