Libertarians are very concerned by governments and laws. I think this focus prevents them from seeing clearly; that other hierachial structures, for example large corporations, are a much more serious obstacle to the happiness of individuals.
A perfect example of the New Katzism, based on ignoring the difference between the one government and the choice of large corporations. If you don't like a company, you can either go to their competitor, or you become their competitor yourself. If you don't like a government, they either kill you or put you in jail. It's not the same at all.
It also ignores the fact that corporations exist to and because they make individual stockholders happy, which they do by making customers happy. When they stop making customers happy they go out of business. When they stop making stockholders happy, they get taken over by somebody who can do better. Thus, corporations tend to create a net increase in happiness.
Governments exist to make sure that the rulers are happy, which they do by making their supporters happy and everyone else miserable. Governments tend to create a net decrease in happiness.
Sorry, but your point is invalid. Censorship is universally evil. There is no such thing as "reasonable censorship."
> doesn't shutting down spammers amount to censorship?
No, not exactly. They are still able to publish their message, as only one method of distribution is being controlled. And this is because they are imposing costs on the receipients without their permission, not because of the content of the message. They could still send their message by snail mail, for example, where the entire cost of the delivery is charged to the sender.
> If you were a boss and one of your employees spent all day downloading porn or fundamentalist theological treateses, would you fire him or her?
If that were all they were doing, and I was paying them for something else, yes. But this is not censorship. I would not be firing them because they were downloading porn or worse, but because they are not doing their job. They are still able to go home, get on their own home computer, and download whatever they want.
Censorship is when someone makes something completely unavailable to those who want it. Making it difficult to obtain, but still obtainable, is not censorship. For instance, limiting the sale of adult books to adult bookstores is not censorship. But limiting the sale of adult books to adult bookstores, and then shutting down all the adult bookstores is censorship.
A parent turning off the TV to keep his child from watching a certain show is not a censor, because the control is at the receiving end. A parent blowing up the TV station to keep his child from watching the show is a censor, among other things.
Didn't anybody even read Intel's press release?
on
Is firewire dying?
·
· Score: 1
Obviously the guy who wrote the InfoWorld article didn't even read the article he cited. See for yourself. Go read the original press release from Intel at: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/initiatives/usb.h tm
Let me call you attention to the last paragraph: 1394
Intel has been strongly committed for several years to the 1394 high-speed serial bus as the recommended connection between a PC and new digital AV consumer electronics (CE) equipment being developed in Japan and elsewhere. Intel sees 1394 as a "digital convergence pipe" connecting the PC to the world of digital CE, including digital camcorders, digital VHS, set-top boxes, and digital TV. 1394 allows the PC to participate and add value to consumer electronics equipment, and it brings rich audio/video data types to the PC. Intel sees convergence connectivity growing significantly in importance to the PC over time as the wealth of available 1394 devices increases. -
Read that last sentence carefully. Somehow, I don't read this as a declaration that firewire is dead, or even sick. The problem lies with biased reporting and provocative headlines, not with the technology or even the marketing.
Slashdot Mirror
A perfect example of the New Katzism, based on ignoring the difference between the one government and the choice of large corporations. If you don't like a company, you can either go to their competitor, or you become their competitor yourself. If you don't like a government, they either kill you or put you in jail. It's not the same at all.
It also ignores the fact that corporations exist to and because they make individual stockholders happy, which they do by making customers happy. When they stop making customers happy they go out of business. When they stop making stockholders happy, they get taken over by somebody who can do better. Thus, corporations tend to create a net increase in happiness.
Governments exist to make sure that the rulers are happy, which they do by making their supporters happy and everyone else miserable. Governments tend to create a net decrease in happiness.
Sorry, but your point is invalid. Censorship is universally evil. There is no such thing as "reasonable censorship."
> doesn't shutting down spammers amount to censorship?
No, not exactly. They are still able to publish their message, as only one method of distribution is being controlled. And this is because they are imposing costs on the receipients without their permission, not because of the content of the message. They could still send their message by snail mail, for example, where the entire cost of the delivery is charged to the sender.
> If you were a boss and one of your employees spent all day downloading porn or fundamentalist theological treateses, would you fire him or her?
If that were all they were doing, and I was paying them for something else, yes.
But this is not censorship. I would not be firing them because they were downloading porn or worse, but because they are not doing their job. They are still able to go home, get on their own home computer, and download whatever they want.
Censorship is when someone makes something completely unavailable to those who want it. Making it difficult to obtain, but still obtainable, is not censorship. For instance, limiting the sale of adult books to adult bookstores is not censorship. But limiting the sale of adult books to adult bookstores, and then shutting down all the adult bookstores is censorship.
A parent turning off the TV to keep his child from watching a certain show is not a censor, because the control is at the receiving end. A parent blowing up the TV station to keep his child from watching the show is a censor, among other things.
Obviously the guy who wrote the InfoWorld article didn't even read the article he cited. See for yourself.h tm
Go read the original press release from Intel at:
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/initiatives/usb.
Let me call you attention to the last paragraph:
1394
Intel has been strongly committed for several years to the 1394 high-speed serial bus as the recommended connection between a PC and new digital AV consumer electronics (CE) equipment being developed in Japan and elsewhere. Intel sees 1394 as a "digital convergence pipe" connecting the PC to the world of digital CE, including digital camcorders, digital VHS, set-top boxes, and digital TV. 1394 allows the PC to participate and add value to consumer electronics equipment, and it brings rich audio/video data types to the PC. Intel sees convergence connectivity growing significantly in importance to the PC over time as the wealth of available 1394 devices increases.
-
Read that last sentence carefully. Somehow, I don't read this as a declaration that firewire is dead, or even sick. The problem lies with biased reporting and provocative headlines, not with the technology or even the marketing.