It doesn't seem like that big an emergency, clock applications where having the correct local time set don't have to look up that setting from a database to be able to get it right.
Of course, if someone made some software that only allowed selecting a timezone from the database, that would create a problem.
You misunderstood. The bad actors are much less than 0.1%. The 0.1% are the ones that they kill and maim.
Anyway, it is stupid to try to divide the world into areas that are safe and areas that are not safe (nothing can ever be completely safe, only safe from certain threats), much better to try to figure out who the bad actors are and stop them directly.
How about better curation features (i.e., let a user/group of users create a 'view' of Wikipedia), so that people who think effort battles are an awesome way to manage a project can have effort battles and people who aren't so worried about notability can still have a centralized data store? The effort battle folks would even be able to pilfer articles once they met notability standards.
There would still be a holy war over what the default view should be, but that seems nicer than driving people with only mild interest away.
The text of the UCMJ is pretty broad. So something like sending a birthday card directly to your brother who happens to be an enemy soldier would technically fall under it (if you sent it through proper channels, no problem...).
Nobody particularly cares that Apple is a fascist about their app store, the complaint is that there is no way to say 'I am willing to accept the consequences, let me out of the safe zone'.
I guess there are some arguments that it simplifies support and may make for a more desirable image for the platform, but it isn't for me.
Creditors have every opportunity to refuse credit, that's protection enough for them in my book (and if they are making bad decisions about extending credit, a well functioning market will drive them out, not allow them to charge higher interest...).
I guess it is sort of hard to make a comparison, most successful economies allow incorporation (so we don't really have a way to examine what would happen in a well functioning economy that did not allow it).
My goal isn't to dissolve all corporations, it is to use dissolution as a check on corporations that act badly, based on the presumption that the corporate structure that existed was likely part of the problem.
I do not think it should be the solution to every problem with a corporation, but if it is clear that a corp is not a benefit to the public, there is no reason to continue extending it the benefits that you list.
For the first point, you are right that the standard of proof should apply to people whether they are working inside of a corporation or not, the interesting part of the question is whether corporations ever enable an individual to obfuscate such proof in a way that would not be possible as an individual.
As for the second, the point isn't that corporations are allowed more freedoms than individuals, the point is that incorporation concentrates capability in such a way that corporations can do things that individuals can't (like create deep water drilling rigs).
You are more likely to start a business if you can separate the loan you take out to start the business from your house.
This is perfectly fair for the bank, they know they are giving the loan to a corporation, not the individual behind it.
There are lots of similar situations where a person is more likely to invest money if they are certain that their losses will be limited to the initial investment.
Corporations generally give those people the right to participate in the activities of the corporation without being fully responsible for those activities, and people can work together without forming a corporation, so what's your point?
A simple middle ground would be to dissolve more corporations.
The whole argument for limited liability is that it reduces the cost of capital (or the risk of providing/using it for business, very similar things), which is supposed to be good for the public. If the limited liability is being used in ways that are obviously not good for the public, dissolving the corporation should not be controversial.
And really, if a few people inside of a corporation are breaking the law, I'd much rather see them punished than have the corporation pay some fines.
It only takes a little bit of nuance. Or do you think that malware creators completely ignore market share when deciding what platforms to target?
Of course it isn't a complete explanation of anything, but it muddies up any comparison based on active exploits.
(Windows Vista/7 has done a pretty good job of demonstrating how not great things are on XP, and Windows Vista/7 users have done a great job of demonstrating that users are still a problem)
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't seem like that big an emergency, clock applications where having the correct local time set don't have to look up that setting from a database to be able to get it right.
Of course, if someone made some software that only allowed selecting a timezone from the database, that would create a problem.
You misunderstood. The bad actors are much less than 0.1%. The 0.1% are the ones that they kill and maim.
Anyway, it is stupid to try to divide the world into areas that are safe and areas that are not safe (nothing can ever be completely safe, only safe from certain threats), much better to try to figure out who the bad actors are and stop them directly.
The state of the world where 99.9% of the population has not been directly involved in a terrorist incident?
Do you think that Mitnick was treated justly?
If not (which seems to be a popular opinion), his punishment doesn't really serve as much of a point of reference.
And if he is paying $2 to watch them?
My favorite thing about branding is that you can't not do it.
How many of those pieces were 'malicious' tracking cookies used to inflate the effectiveness of the scanner?
Sure, tracking cookies are irritating, but they aren't really the same thing as a botnet or whatever.
There's a link to yesterday's article right there in the summary, so there may have been some awareness and intention behind this posting.
How about better curation features (i.e., let a user/group of users create a 'view' of Wikipedia), so that people who think effort battles are an awesome way to manage a project can have effort battles and people who aren't so worried about notability can still have a centralized data store? The effort battle folks would even be able to pilfer articles once they met notability standards.
There would still be a holy war over what the default view should be, but that seems nicer than driving people with only mild interest away.
They voted to fund it, that's plenty enough for them to share responsibility.
The text of the UCMJ is pretty broad. So something like sending a birthday card directly to your brother who happens to be an enemy soldier would technically fall under it (if you sent it through proper channels, no problem...).
Sure. But fear of jail only works some of the time, people don't think they will be the ones who get caught.
Dude, dude up above compared iPad 2 to an iPhone, dude.
Nobody particularly cares that Apple is a fascist about their app store, the complaint is that there is no way to say 'I am willing to accept the consequences, let me out of the safe zone'.
I guess there are some arguments that it simplifies support and may make for a more desirable image for the platform, but it isn't for me.
Slashdot chokesonquotes:
Kingmall2010, we20090202, and Myournet
Lookout blog says âoeKingmall2010â, âoewe20090202â, and âoeMyournetâ:
http://blog.mylookout.com/2011/03/security-alert-malware-found-in-official-android-market-droiddream/
They also say that those developers have been pulled from the market.
Creditors have every opportunity to refuse credit, that's protection enough for them in my book (and if they are making bad decisions about extending credit, a well functioning market will drive them out, not allow them to charge higher interest...).
I guess it is sort of hard to make a comparison, most successful economies allow incorporation (so we don't really have a way to examine what would happen in a well functioning economy that did not allow it).
My goal isn't to dissolve all corporations, it is to use dissolution as a check on corporations that act badly, based on the presumption that the corporate structure that existed was likely part of the problem.
I do not think it should be the solution to every problem with a corporation, but if it is clear that a corp is not a benefit to the public, there is no reason to continue extending it the benefits that you list.
For the first point, you are right that the standard of proof should apply to people whether they are working inside of a corporation or not, the interesting part of the question is whether corporations ever enable an individual to obfuscate such proof in a way that would not be possible as an individual.
As for the second, the point isn't that corporations are allowed more freedoms than individuals, the point is that incorporation concentrates capability in such a way that corporations can do things that individuals can't (like create deep water drilling rigs).
He doesn't seem to be suggesting that at all.
I think his point is that since government regulation creates corporations, it should also probably address any corporate bad behavior.
Which creates a situation where an employee gets to decide if committing a crime on behalf of the corporation is better than his salary.
(obviously this could be dealt with, I just can't resist the snark)
You are more likely to start a business if you can separate the loan you take out to start the business from your house.
This is perfectly fair for the bank, they know they are giving the loan to a corporation, not the individual behind it.
There are lots of similar situations where a person is more likely to invest money if they are certain that their losses will be limited to the initial investment.
So the kleptocracy is complete and we should all just give up?
Corporations generally give those people the right to participate in the activities of the corporation without being fully responsible for those activities, and people can work together without forming a corporation, so what's your point?
A simple middle ground would be to dissolve more corporations.
The whole argument for limited liability is that it reduces the cost of capital (or the risk of providing/using it for business, very similar things), which is supposed to be good for the public. If the limited liability is being used in ways that are obviously not good for the public, dissolving the corporation should not be controversial.
And really, if a few people inside of a corporation are breaking the law, I'd much rather see them punished than have the corporation pay some fines.
It only takes a little bit of nuance. Or do you think that malware creators completely ignore market share when deciding what platforms to target?
Of course it isn't a complete explanation of anything, but it muddies up any comparison based on active exploits.
(Windows Vista/7 has done a pretty good job of demonstrating how not great things are on XP, and Windows Vista/7 users have done a great job of demonstrating that users are still a problem)