Sorry I don't buy that the boycott is the fear that keeps corps in line. Its the fear of lawsuits from consumers or government action
Companies shouldn't have to fear government action. Lawsuits are fine, though, and are needed. The courts are designed to protect consumers from fraud. If a corporation commits fraud, then they deserve to be sued and they deserve to compensate those they defrauded. So as you see, in the end, the consumers dictate how the corporations behave - if the corps commit fraud, consumers will sue them. What shouldn't happen is government interaction unless the corporations are physically harming the government's citizens (for example, that Thai company that made the armed robot... if the programmers booted up the robot with the "kill everyone in sight" program, then the government could use force to destroy the robot and take retalitory action on the corporation; otherwise, the government should stay the hell out of business.)
In an ideal world, what you're saying is right. But you're assuming that 99% of the population are aware of the issues, care, or have the common sense to notice what's going on. I never cease to be amazed at some of my co-workers who believe what they read in the tabloid newspapers. If large media corporations can spin their version of events, then Joe and Jane Average are never going to know what's really happening
I agree with you on a certain level. If you couldn't tell by my posts, I've been reading a bit of Rand lately. In any case, Rand speaks against those who hold a view such as you and I, that there are only a few intellects who really understand the issues.
She argues that that sense of intellectual elitism is based upon childhood experiences, where we, the intellectuals, where chastised for our intellect. Hence, we rationalize that we were alone singled out and teased because so few had an intellect like ours. However, Objectivism, Rand's philosophy, frowns on rationalization; rather, it urges man to reason objectively rather than letting his emotions or subconscious get in the way.
So, ask yourself, is it reasonable to assume that there exists an intellectual elite and that this class is aware of the issues while the ignorant mobs are not? I do not know the answer, hence the reason I ask...
Child labor, workplace abuse, etc. is different. In those situations, a person's basic rights were violated: right to life, libery, pursuit of happiness/property. How does the fact that AOL now owns TimeWarner violate anyone's unalienable rights?
There have been several boycotts that have worked perfectly well without government intervention. Do you see the government making a big fuss over the Firestone tires? Nope, Firestone is recalling them on their own. Savvy consumers == business that operate morally/ehtically. When you have ignorant consumers that demand the government to protect them from corporations, everyone looses some of their freedom to the government. While the ignorant consumers may be willing to loose some freedom so that they don't have to be intelligent consumers, so that they don't have to think about what they are spending their money on, savvy consumers loose out.
Please have a look to the earlier post that had a link to all the companies that Time-Warner/AOL control
I had already read that list before posting, it does not change my mind. Perhaps if TimeWarner produced something that was essential, such as food, or electricity, I could see the need for government to intervene. But a boycott on watching movies? A boycott on reading certain magazines, on watching certain TV channels? This will not lead to death or sufferring. I feel quite sorry for those who need the government to step in and regulate a company because they're worried that their selection and prices at the video store will be pushed too high. Good God man, get a hold of yourself and don't rent any videos made by TimeWarner. We, as consumers, should be the ones to decide whether or not TimeWarner/AOL will survive, not the government.
I agree that in the eyes of the law the criminal must be treated like an innocent person, but personally I have the freedom to act however I like toward anyone solongas I don't violate their basic freedoms. I can dislike you, Mr. AC, for no good reason and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, you trying to tell me how I should feel about you (or anyone else, for that matter), is just peachy, since you have that right too... but to expect me to feel or think a certain way? That is criminal.
Here the point is that criminals should be treated like ordinary citizens because they've paid for their crimes
How you treat someone is your perogative, and do as you may, but don't expect to instruct me on what choices I need to make.
So you are telling me that if someone broke into your home, robbed you, was caught and served his or her jail time, that after his or her sentence, you'd embrace this person as a law-abiding, innocent person? One who you wouldn't mind having in your house for tea? Would you hire this person to do yardwork around your house? If you answered yes to both of these, fine, that is your call, but I would have answered no. And for you to tell me that I should and would have to answer yes, that is criminal.
The only thing I do know is that if I do not keep fighting unjust laws (and breaking them, where necessary) then the "land of the free and home of the brave" that I grew up believing in is dead and that is too high a price to pay for my future comfort.
I am curious as to how you are fighting these unjust laws? By breaking them? By buying t-shirts? Hopefully you also have spent some time writing your Senators and Representatives. Hopefully you have taken the time to register to vote. Hopefully you have taken the time to discuss this with other voters, be it in person or on the Net.
Of course I say this all out of hyprocicy. I'm not registered to vote, I've written a Congressman but once (a couple years ago), and I rarely, if ever, discuss politics with others. Of course I am not the one professing my distaste for such laws...
Whatever happened to the idea that once you've done your time, you've also paid your debts to the society
That notion should be on a person-by-person basis. If someone commits a crime and serves his time and you want to forgive them, kudos to you, but why should I have to fogive them as well? What if I never want to forgive them for their crime? Don't I have that right as well?
Companies are like individuals, too. It is solely their decision if they want to hire criminals or not. It's like with GWB... we, the citizens, are his potential employers. It is our judgement call if we wish to elect someone with his... past.
Am I in favour of governments interfering with companies? If they protect the consumer then I do
I don't see why the government would need to "protect the consumer" from a corporation unless this corporation was waging battles in the streets of America (or abroad). In a capitalist economy, we have something more powerful than government: our dollars. If you do not want to see this merger go through, boycott Time-Warner and AOL and encourage your peers to. There's absolutely no need to get the government invovled.
Why do people think they need to government to protect them from companies? The government is there to ensure our basic freedoms: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness/private property. A government's purpose is not to meddle with a free market: rather, let the consumers dictate how the market plays out.
These people would also have a harder time getting a job at McDonalds. If you are concerned about your future employability, do not break the law. A simple enough maxim.
Our moon is 3476 km in diameter and is constantly 0.0026 AU from the Earth
Imagine if it eventually got tired of being 0.0026 AU and decided to come closer. Hrmmm... I wonder if we have any special telescopes continually observing the moon.
they then took the one part of their service that was unique and served an important purpose for the online community (the Usenet archive) and place it offline for the last 3 1/2 months
Granted, this would suck if you really liked the Usenet archives, but I've never used them. What is the need for them? Is it more of a look back, reread past conversations and what-not? Sorry, I just don't understand the need to have it all archived; it's always nice to have the option, I guess, but it's not an option I've needed/used...
OK, I'd like to donate some MindPixels... According to the article, it says this can be done at "the Web site," but doesn't provide a URL... anyone happen to know the URL for this?
According to the article, mindpixels will be provided by people who visit the MindPixel Web site (anyone know the URL?). Hrmmm... so obviously this "thinking neurel net" will have a skewed intelligence, thinking like your average Internet user. d00d, where's the pr0n?
As I said in another post, I have absolutely nothing against them doing that. I was just pointing out that it is kind of funny to say, "The results are democratic," when one can buy a top position...
Perhaps the suspense of seeing where it will take them? I could see a bunch of ad execs sitting around in a meeting pondering this question, and deciding to come up with the next great wave of advertising: transparent ads!
I have nothing against paying for ranking (although it would be nice if they told you, some of the top spots are paid for as opposed to being the "best"). I was just commenting because the guys post who I was responding to said that the results were listed democratically.
Considering that Google has introduced the concept of democracy to ranking the prominence (or relevance) of sites is revolutionary thinking, and they deserve to reap the rewards of their thinking
Uh... kind of... but if you pay Google you can have your search appear at the top. For example, enter the term: "asp" (Or just click here.) Note the links at the top in the blue/green tables... those folks PAID MONEY to get there.
Hehe, I guess it's democratic in nature and those damned special interest groups paid their way in!:-)
I've never understood why people are so eager to make micropayments to not see advertisements. OK, so ads are a little annoying, especially the ones that flash incessantly or have than annoying monkey shooting back and forth... but to be annoyed to them to the point of wanting to pay money not to see them?
Hmmm... perhaps there is a way to profit from this... advertising companies make ads so annoying that people will pay the free content carriers not to display those ads. The advertising agency then takes their cut of the "no ads" payment.
You obviously have a right to want to pay to not see ads, but there would have to be a critical mass large enough for the content provider to be able to take such an option seriously. (For example, if you were the only person interested in such an arrangement, it wouldn't be worth Google's time to setup the whole bookkeeping, credit card processing, ad tracking thingies, etc. needed to these micropayments.) So I wonder how many people would need to commit to this to make it worth while for Google (or any company) to offer that as a viable solution. And even if it were viable, would any company offer such a solution? Wouldn't such an offer piss off the advertising companies? Piss them off and they wouldn't do business anymore with the site, and then you wouldn't have to pay to not see ads... everyone would win (well, except for the content site that would go under...)!
I find google especially helpful if I want to find a very particular phrase in a Web page. If I want to do a subject search, I use another search engine... Yahoo or Infoseek usually... but where Google really kicks butt is finding a specific word or phrase.
I said it was easier to install, not easier to get hardware running with
Yeah, I guess that is what you said... I kind of figured getting the mouse to work was part of the installation (what good is a computer with a GUI IDE if the mouse doesn't work?). Oh well... the good thing is, though, that it is getting easier, and, hopefully within the next couple of years novice users will be willing to give Linux a try...
My point is (or was) that choice != bad, although lack of enough information to make a reasonable choice == bad
Ok, and my point is: not creating defaults for novices == bad (i.e., forcing all users to make a choice rather than providing choice but also providing a default). That being said, I think we are in agreement... hehe, a discussion on/. that ended in agreement, who woulda thunk it?
Slashdot Mirror
Companies shouldn't have to fear government action. Lawsuits are fine, though, and are needed. The courts are designed to protect consumers from fraud. If a corporation commits fraud, then they deserve to be sued and they deserve to compensate those they defrauded. So as you see, in the end, the consumers dictate how the corporations behave - if the corps commit fraud, consumers will sue them. What shouldn't happen is government interaction unless the corporations are physically harming the government's citizens (for example, that Thai company that made the armed robot... if the programmers booted up the robot with the "kill everyone in sight" program, then the government could use force to destroy the robot and take retalitory action on the corporation; otherwise, the government should stay the hell out of business.)
I agree with you on a certain level. If you couldn't tell by my posts, I've been reading a bit of Rand lately. In any case, Rand speaks against those who hold a view such as you and I, that there are only a few intellects who really understand the issues.
She argues that that sense of intellectual elitism is based upon childhood experiences, where we, the intellectuals, where chastised for our intellect. Hence, we rationalize that we were alone singled out and teased because so few had an intellect like ours. However, Objectivism, Rand's philosophy, frowns on rationalization; rather, it urges man to reason objectively rather than letting his emotions or subconscious get in the way.
So, ask yourself, is it reasonable to assume that there exists an intellectual elite and that this class is aware of the issues while the ignorant mobs are not? I do not know the answer, hence the reason I ask...
There have been several boycotts that have worked perfectly well without government intervention. Do you see the government making a big fuss over the Firestone tires? Nope, Firestone is recalling them on their own. Savvy consumers == business that operate morally/ehtically. When you have ignorant consumers that demand the government to protect them from corporations, everyone looses some of their freedom to the government. While the ignorant consumers may be willing to loose some freedom so that they don't have to be intelligent consumers, so that they don't have to think about what they are spending their money on, savvy consumers loose out.
I had already read that list before posting, it does not change my mind. Perhaps if TimeWarner produced something that was essential, such as food, or electricity, I could see the need for government to intervene. But a boycott on watching movies? A boycott on reading certain magazines, on watching certain TV channels? This will not lead to death or sufferring. I feel quite sorry for those who need the government to step in and regulate a company because they're worried that their selection and prices at the video store will be pushed too high. Good God man, get a hold of yourself and don't rent any videos made by TimeWarner. We, as consumers, should be the ones to decide whether or not TimeWarner/AOL will survive, not the government.
Here the point is that criminals should be treated like ordinary citizens because they've paid for their crimes
How you treat someone is your perogative, and do as you may, but don't expect to instruct me on what choices I need to make.
So you are telling me that if someone broke into your home, robbed you, was caught and served his or her jail time, that after his or her sentence, you'd embrace this person as a law-abiding, innocent person? One who you wouldn't mind having in your house for tea? Would you hire this person to do yardwork around your house? If you answered yes to both of these, fine, that is your call, but I would have answered no. And for you to tell me that I should and would have to answer yes, that is criminal.
Given that fact, having the moon decide to move closer would be all the more horriffic
I am curious as to how you are fighting these unjust laws? By breaking them? By buying t-shirts? Hopefully you also have spent some time writing your Senators and Representatives. Hopefully you have taken the time to register to vote. Hopefully you have taken the time to discuss this with other voters, be it in person or on the Net.
Of course I say this all out of hyprocicy. I'm not registered to vote, I've written a Congressman but once (a couple years ago), and I rarely, if ever, discuss politics with others. Of course I am not the one professing my distaste for such laws...
That notion should be on a person-by-person basis. If someone commits a crime and serves his time and you want to forgive them, kudos to you, but why should I have to fogive them as well? What if I never want to forgive them for their crime? Don't I have that right as well?
Companies are like individuals, too. It is solely their decision if they want to hire criminals or not. It's like with GWB... we, the citizens, are his potential employers. It is our judgement call if we wish to elect someone with his... past.
I don't see why the government would need to "protect the consumer" from a corporation unless this corporation was waging battles in the streets of America (or abroad). In a capitalist economy, we have something more powerful than government: our dollars. If you do not want to see this merger go through, boycott Time-Warner and AOL and encourage your peers to. There's absolutely no need to get the government invovled.
Why do people think they need to government to protect them from companies? The government is there to ensure our basic freedoms: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness/private property. A government's purpose is not to meddle with a free market: rather, let the consumers dictate how the market plays out.
These people would also have a harder time getting a job at McDonalds. If you are concerned about your future employability, do not break the law. A simple enough maxim.
Imagine if it eventually got tired of being 0.0026 AU and decided to come closer. Hrmmm... I wonder if we have any special telescopes continually observing the moon.
Granted, this would suck if you really liked the Usenet archives, but I've never used them. What is the need for them? Is it more of a look back, reread past conversations and what-not? Sorry, I just don't understand the need to have it all archived; it's always nice to have the option, I guess, but it's not an option I've needed/used...
What do people have against Deja? I don't see what's so wrong with it... but then again I have low expectations.
Ah! It responded, FALSE. Stupid MindPixels.
It was too tempting not to do it... so I registered and added my mindpixel: "Is registration is the first step towards confiscation?" Tee hee! :-)
OK, I'd like to donate some MindPixels... According to the article, it says this can be done at "the Web site," but doesn't provide a URL... anyone happen to know the URL for this?
According to the article, mindpixels will be provided by people who visit the MindPixel Web site (anyone know the URL?). Hrmmm... so obviously this "thinking neurel net" will have a skewed intelligence, thinking like your average Internet user. d00d, where's the pr0n?
As I said in another post, I have absolutely nothing against them doing that. I was just pointing out that it is kind of funny to say, "The results are democratic," when one can buy a top position...
Perhaps the suspense of seeing where it will take them? I could see a bunch of ad execs sitting around in a meeting pondering this question, and deciding to come up with the next great wave of advertising: transparent ads!
I have nothing against paying for ranking (although it would be nice if they told you, some of the top spots are paid for as opposed to being the "best"). I was just commenting because the guys post who I was responding to said that the results were listed democratically.
Uh... kind of... but if you pay Google you can have your search appear at the top. For example, enter the term: "asp" (Or just click here.) Note the links at the top in the blue/green tables... those folks PAID MONEY to get there.
Hehe, I guess it's democratic in nature and those damned special interest groups paid their way in! :-)
Hmmm... perhaps there is a way to profit from this... advertising companies make ads so annoying that people will pay the free content carriers not to display those ads. The advertising agency then takes their cut of the "no ads" payment.
You obviously have a right to want to pay to not see ads, but there would have to be a critical mass large enough for the content provider to be able to take such an option seriously. (For example, if you were the only person interested in such an arrangement, it wouldn't be worth Google's time to setup the whole bookkeeping, credit card processing, ad tracking thingies, etc. needed to these micropayments.) So I wonder how many people would need to commit to this to make it worth while for Google (or any company) to offer that as a viable solution. And even if it were viable, would any company offer such a solution? Wouldn't such an offer piss off the advertising companies? Piss them off and they wouldn't do business anymore with the site, and then you wouldn't have to pay to not see ads... everyone would win (well, except for the content site that would go under...)!
I find google especially helpful if I want to find a very particular phrase in a Web page. If I want to do a subject search, I use another search engine... Yahoo or Infoseek usually... but where Google really kicks butt is finding a specific word or phrase.
Yeah, I guess that is what you said... I kind of figured getting the mouse to work was part of the installation (what good is a computer with a GUI IDE if the mouse doesn't work?). Oh well... the good thing is, though, that it is getting easier, and, hopefully within the next couple of years novice users will be willing to give Linux a try...
Ok, and my point is: not creating defaults for novices == bad (i.e., forcing all users to make a choice rather than providing choice but also providing a default). That being said, I think we are in agreement... hehe, a discussion on /. that ended in agreement, who woulda thunk it?