Cultural content for the entire world should not be produced in one country with the blandness we've seen from Hollywood. In TV and film many of us have seen perfectly good foreign works ("Let the Right One In", "Red Dwarf", "The Dinner Game") with terrible American remakes. We don't even know what we're missing compared to if games were less of a styrofoam-culture creation. I think the tragic fatalism valued in British culture, for example, might make for better stories than the juvenile "everything must work out in the end for our hero" thing wee have here.
So long as the tax breaks don't become embargos or similar and don't become strong enough to actually prevent games from crossing borders, this could be very good for gamers.
It's not entirely about what they reveal once they've been established as good practice - there is also the fact that knowing that they will be done leads people to treat their code more carefully to begin with. In the deepest sense you'll never be able to compare what your code would be like if you did not have them - this is definitely not equivalent to what they turn up.
I admittedly don't know as much about Opus Dei as I might (although I had heard of them before the link), but as creepy as they seem they still look to be less harmful to their members than either Christian Science or Scientology.
It'd be the rare christian sect that tolerates or promotes practices as harmful as scientology. Scientology's harm to society, unlike any Christian sect that I can think of apart from "Christian Science", merits strong societal sanction.
The definitions and frameworks we draw in science should not be based on utility in political struggles outside the scope of science. It is fine to struggle against those who are ignorant of and activist against science, but we should consider that a separate activity from the practice of science.
We don't want the process of science to be even slightly defined as an opposition to some movement - allowing ourselves that would be to weaken what science-as-an-institution is trying to do.
Not everyone shares your philosophy. Personally, I trust the federal government much more than I would trust state or more local levels of government. There are risks of misgovernance at *any* level, and tearing down the centre just makes civilisation run more bumpily.
My beliefs on morals and ethics are independent of the law, as yours are. I do believe that there is no truth about morals and ethics - they are "held", not "known". I am willing to argue for and enforce (to an extent) mine regardless (to an extent) of what the legal norms are. I would not claim them to be painted onto the nature of things.
That freedom of the press wasn't intended as a timeless and eternal statement about the rest of time - it had specific meaning embedded in the institutions of their society. What we *can* get out of it in the very different society we have now is the values that suggested that particular construct.
Part of the background for colonial free press was a rich, high-volume ecosystem of political journals/newsletters as people discussed and informed each other directly - part of this was encouraged by mail policy set by the founding fathers, whereby post for a newsletter or journal was determined by the amount of advertisement in it - the FF believed that the informational/discussion function of these was so important to a functioning democracy that they wanted that content to be fully subsidised.
A combination of economies of scale, media consolidation, and consumerist mindsets have stifled that tradition in the United States - the once-common widespread access to one of many presses and an abundance of journals/newsletters/forums has been greatly diminished.
(note that I'm mainly commenting on your argument, not your conclusion)
Seriously? Is what the word means so empty that we can call bad technology policy decisions tyranny? Put another way, are we so cynical about political discussion that we need to use crazily charged words like tyranny to label those who are not as libertene as we like? If so, why are we bothering to have the discussion at all?
Getting sensible policies is important, both in creating a society we'd like to live in and in keeping society as a whole working smoothly, but using words like tyranny so lightly closes discussions and alienates people (plus it makes the user look foolish in front of people who actually know what words mean).
But they are yet another chip on the bargaining table. If they were inherent in nature,
1) How do we derive them from nature without the feeling in the back of our head that we're making them up as a reformulation of current philosophical norms? 2) Why don't they keep emerging in the same form as we study the history of nations?
Calling these rights inherent in humanity was good propoganda for the times, but eventually we outgrow the need for such undefensible ideas.
It's only a world of dubious charity and harsh outsiders if you insist on making it so and seeing it as such. In reality, society can and does care for its members - rights and law are part of the language of how that care works, but they're not the only part. People who produce more may have more privileges, but these privileges never were and cannot be inviolate when they amount to luxury when others have basic needs that are not met.
We could talk about their right to health care and a reasonable living, or your right to property, or we could talk in terms of balancing needs/interests. It's just another way to structure the dialogue.
If you insist that rights are absolute and can be considered in a vacuum, independent of both considerations of great suffering and interactions other rights, then sure, you have no rights - no values can be held so important that under some circumstances other values might override it. That doesn't make the style of dialogue useless though - I suggest you consider instead that rights are "defaults that society agrees are important and thus they are reluctant to infringe upon".
Property rights are not everything. They are not even the most important thing. When it comes to your yacht competing with someone else's surgery and poverty, you should not win that one.
Corporations are a legal structure that was created (initially in England, I believe) to allow for large-scale non-state enterprises that would exist to serve society.
People who truly wish to put nothing into society throughout their life are indeed parasites. Nobles, those who inherit wealth and do not labour, as well as those who would live off of the system without contributing are all problems.
For those willing to work, we make sure they have a reasonable life, even if a pure market would not value their labour enough to do so. Societies have both obligations and benefits.
When Microsoft operates within our boundaries, they, like everyone else, have a responsibility to the public good. These states produce a high standard of living. That's worthwhile.
Usually when the government lowers taxes they see an increase in tax revenue because of increased spending since taxes are lower.
This is completely wrong. There's a simple dynamic at work (one just as simple as the supply-demand curve in markets), and tax income can be understood to be based on that dynamic.
Slashdot Mirror
There are some of us who vote socialist because we really do want a socialist government.
Political allegiance might take a back seat to good legal arguments.
A bit of this might be good.
Cultural content for the entire world should not be produced in one country with the blandness we've seen from Hollywood. In TV and film many of us have seen perfectly good foreign works ("Let the Right One In", "Red Dwarf", "The Dinner Game") with terrible American remakes. We don't even know what we're missing compared to if games were less of a styrofoam-culture creation. I think the tragic fatalism valued in British culture, for example, might make for better stories than the juvenile "everything must work out in the end for our hero" thing wee have here.
So long as the tax breaks don't become embargos or similar and don't become strong enough to actually prevent games from crossing borders, this could be very good for gamers.
It's not entirely about what they reveal once they've been established as good practice - there is also the fact that knowing that they will be done leads people to treat their code more carefully to begin with. In the deepest sense you'll never be able to compare what your code would be like if you did not have them - this is definitely not equivalent to what they turn up.
Not if they're reaching the OpenDNS guide page on typos.
People bring their Sybians with them in public? Can they only recieve phone calls when sitting down?
We will still, of course, strip out the adverts, because adverts suck.
I admittedly don't know as much about Opus Dei as I might (although I had heard of them before the link), but as creepy as they seem they still look to be less harmful to their members than either Christian Science or Scientology.
It'd be the rare christian sect that tolerates or promotes practices as harmful as scientology. Scientology's harm to society, unlike any Christian sect that I can think of apart from "Christian Science", merits strong societal sanction.
The definitions and frameworks we draw in science should not be based on utility in political struggles outside the scope of science. It is fine to struggle against those who are ignorant of and activist against science, but we should consider that a separate activity from the practice of science.
We don't want the process of science to be even slightly defined as an opposition to some movement - allowing ourselves that would be to weaken what science-as-an-institution is trying to do.
Not everyone shares your philosophy. Personally, I trust the federal government much more than I would trust state or more local levels of government. There are risks of misgovernance at *any* level, and tearing down the centre just makes civilisation run more bumpily.
My beliefs on morals and ethics are independent of the law, as yours are. I do believe that there is no truth about morals and ethics - they are "held", not "known". I am willing to argue for and enforce (to an extent) mine regardless (to an extent) of what the legal norms are. I would not claim them to be painted onto the nature of things.
That freedom of the press wasn't intended as a timeless and eternal statement about the rest of time - it had specific meaning embedded in the institutions of their society. What we *can* get out of it in the very different society we have now is the values that suggested that particular construct.
Part of the background for colonial free press was a rich, high-volume ecosystem of political journals/newsletters as people discussed and informed each other directly - part of this was encouraged by mail policy set by the founding fathers, whereby post for a newsletter or journal was determined by the amount of advertisement in it - the FF believed that the informational/discussion function of these was so important to a functioning democracy that they wanted that content to be fully subsidised.
A combination of economies of scale, media consolidation, and consumerist mindsets have stifled that tradition in the United States - the once-common widespread access to one of many presses and an abundance of journals/newsletters/forums has been greatly diminished.
(note that I'm mainly commenting on your argument, not your conclusion)
Seriously? Is what the word means so empty that we can call bad technology policy decisions tyranny? Put another way, are we so cynical about political discussion that we need to use crazily charged words like tyranny to label those who are not as libertene as we like? If so, why are we bothering to have the discussion at all?
Getting sensible policies is important, both in creating a society we'd like to live in and in keeping society as a whole working smoothly, but using words like tyranny so lightly closes discussions and alienates people (plus it makes the user look foolish in front of people who actually know what words mean).
But they are yet another chip on the bargaining table. If they were inherent in nature,
1) How do we derive them from nature without the feeling in the back of our head that we're making them up as a reformulation of current philosophical norms?
2) Why don't they keep emerging in the same form as we study the history of nations?
Calling these rights inherent in humanity was good propoganda for the times, but eventually we outgrow the need for such undefensible ideas.
I'd mod this up if I had the points. Flames behind a fork would look really stylish... although now you've got me thinking of Fondue...
It's only a world of dubious charity and harsh outsiders if you insist on making it so and seeing it as such. In reality, society can and does care for its members - rights and law are part of the language of how that care works, but they're not the only part. People who produce more may have more privileges, but these privileges never were and cannot be inviolate when they amount to luxury when others have basic needs that are not met.
We could talk about their right to health care and a reasonable living, or your right to property, or we could talk in terms of balancing needs/interests. It's just another way to structure the dialogue.
If you insist that rights are absolute and can be considered in a vacuum, independent of both considerations of great suffering and interactions other rights, then sure, you have no rights - no values can be held so important that under some circumstances other values might override it. That doesn't make the style of dialogue useless though - I suggest you consider instead that rights are "defaults that society agrees are important and thus they are reluctant to infringe upon".
Property rights are not everything. They are not even the most important thing. When it comes to your yacht competing with someone else's surgery and poverty, you should not win that one.
Corporations are a legal structure that was created (initially in England, I believe) to allow for large-scale non-state enterprises that would exist to serve society.
To the extent this is true, the laws and our culture need to change to remind them why they were created.
People who truly wish to put nothing into society throughout their life are indeed parasites. Nobles, those who inherit wealth and do not labour, as well as those who would live off of the system without contributing are all problems.
For those willing to work, we make sure they have a reasonable life, even if a pure market would not value their labour enough to do so. Societies have both obligations and benefits.
Corporations are an artificial construct. They exist to serve society.
I doubt the EU is going to do much about Delaware :P
When Microsoft operates within our boundaries, they, like everyone else, have a responsibility to the public good. These states produce a high standard of living. That's worthwhile.
Usually when the government lowers taxes they see an increase in tax revenue because of increased spending since taxes are lower.
This is completely wrong. There's a simple dynamic at work (one just as simple as the supply-demand curve in markets), and tax income can be understood to be based on that dynamic.