All of us out here are individual trees. We're not interested in being sacrificed for your idea of what makes a utopian forest.
Uber benefits from Uber. Uber riders benefit from Uber -- else they'd stop using Uber. Uber drivers benefit from Uber -- else they'd stop driving for Uber. Add the phone makers and credit card companies and that's literally everyone involved in the transaction. Everyone involved benefits.
Who is "the forest" then? Corrupt politicians? Rich taxi medallion owners? People who imagine scary stories about Uber drivers?
Ok, so if you believe in everyone giving up privacy then go fight for it.
I don't. I believe in everyone keeping all their rights. Even if there are costs associated with keeping those rights.
I'm not sure why you don't get off this 'target' word. That implies that I want to harm gun owners in some way, which is not the case.
But you're ok if they get harmed? Because they're not like you?
If someone needs a gun to protect herself, do you want her imprisoned for carrying one without her government's permission -- despite the fact that self-defense is a fundamental human right? What exactly is your position?
If I found out I was participating in something that was harming society,
You are: privacy. If people like you would just give up all your privacy, then the police could catch a lot more criminals. Thousands of lives would be saved. And your presumption of innocence is next on the list.
and that society would be better off if I stopped it then I would welcome the policing. It's nothing to do with to totalarianism, it's just the kind of understanding that is required for as many people in a society to live happily and healthily as possible. All I ask is for the same rules to apply to everyone.
Using your definition of ' targeting ', any new law technically targets innocent people.
So let's think twice about passing new laws to target innocent people. Maybe we don't need new laws every time anything bad happens? Maybe we shouldn't just target people who aren't like us... because they're innocent and targeting them is wrong? Maybe policing everything everyone does -- or worse, policing only people who aren't like you (you know those people) -- isn't a good idea?
In fact when I first saw "Shooting at gay nightclub" this morning my first assumption was that some anti-gay marriage person had gone off their rocker.
When did you first know you were prejudiced against your neighbors? Do you think it's acceptable to express bigotry against innocent people who aren't like you?
It's wrong to target innocent black folks (because they're not like us) when a black person commits a crime. It's wrong to target innocent Muslims (because they're not like us) when a Muslim guy commits a crime. It's wrong to target innocent immigrants (because they're not like us) when an immigrant commits a crime. And it's wrong to target innocent gun owners when a someone commits a crime with a gun (even if gun owners aren't like you). Targeting innocent people is wrong. It's evil. It's what racists would do. Don't be like them.
That's just it though. We don't need to agree to an arbitrary amount of bullying to have some basic safety and responsibility rules. The government has a responsibility to serve us, not the other way around. And "safety" isn't a magic word that justifies mistreating the public or creating corrupt carve-outs for insiders and government cronies to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense.
If Uber's drivers think Uber is bad for them, why do they continue to drive for Uber? If Uber's customers think Uber is bad for them, why do they continue to use Uber?
Uber must actually be pretty good for both of these groups.
Public maintenance of roads didn't start out as a justification for government bullying road users. We don't need to agree to be bullied to use our own public roads.
Uber/Airbnb/etc exist because arbitrage around the law allows for lower priced products and increased profits.
Yes. Lots of mostly pointless laws raise everyone's costs. Thanks for noticing.
As a side comment: The reflexive anti-government attitudes of many is particularly puzzling...
Really? The government mistreats people sometimes and makes life worse for people sometimes and it's "puzzling" that this leads to anti-government attitudes?
Because not running a serious recycling plan and providing an incentive for customers to just throw away their iWaste is foisting of an externality on the customers. And the price for dealing with that externality eventually comes down on the entire public.
Of course, if you're fine with socialising externalities so that corporations can keep more of their profits, that will be just fine. Us sane people would rather see the corporations actually pay for those externalities.
Apple recycles the phones they get. Anyone else can just take them to free e-waste recyclers or sell them for parts. It's not Apple's responsibility to police e-waste sinners.
It's your religion. Why don't you go out and pay people $100 for phones worth $0?
There's no evidence that e-waste "externalities" are costing "the entire public" anything. Mostly because most e-waste is recycled -- because recycling it is a profitable business. It's a solved problem. We're already saved.
Go ahead and keep believing as much as you want though. Just stop causing trouble for the rest of us.
What if you decided not to believe in the sinful nature of e-waste? Then you wouldn't have to feel guilty buying an item you want. You wouldn't have to worry that others around you were committing e-waste sins. People could go about their lives and be happy, without fearing the e-waste religious enforcers.
Here's the thing: people recycle e-waste. Companies like Apple recycle e-waste. It's a problem that has been solved.
You might want to reconsider some things and stop obsessing and moralizing about it. If you still want to believe in e-waste sins yourself, then feel free -- we still have freedom of religion here in most cases. But please stop being a problem for the rest of us.
What motive would they have for hiding information from Germans? Do you think people who search the web in German are a significant voting bloc in the US?
Excellent! Our plan to cede the story with grammatic mistakes to prevent readers from having a coherent discussion has succeeded beyond our initial projections.
I searched Google for "secret plan to manipulate search results to help Hillary" and got zero hits on documents detailing their secret plans. Hence no evidence. Case closed. Glad I could definitively debunk this paranoid conspiracy so fast.
One of the 2 candidates proudly declared a large fraction of our fellow Americans "enemies". How can we ignore politics when the political leaders who are supposed to represent us and serve the entire population are "proud" to call every third or fourth American an enemy?
I know it's troll bait, but in point of fact Republicans should be held accountable. Republicans are so obsessed by "small government" and cutting budgets that horrible outcomes are inevitable.
Yeah! How can anyone in Chicago be expected to follow water testing protocols when they had a Republican mayor as recently as 1931? That small government obsession lingers over a place for centuries! You can't expect any government employee in Chicago to do a productive day's work until at least the year 3000. After that it'll surely be a golden age.
Surely Republican President Calvin Coolidge is to blame. We never recovered from his mishandling of the Teapot Dome Scandal. Who can be expected to honestly follow water testing protocols in light of that injustice?
Sure, but the real reason we have terrible candidates is because -- think about it for a minute -- who are the respected leaders that Americans can trust? Who do people look up to in the US?
I can't think of anyone. Can you?
If there are zero clearly good choices, why should we expect to see good candidates?
The fact that Palin haters are toxic gibbering assholes doesn't make Palin wise. It's tempting to think that way, but a person's wisdom should be evaluated dispassionately. Palin is ok, but she'd have to be brilliant to live up to the hype and overcome the jaundiced judgement aimed at her. And she's not that brilliant. She's above average for a politician.
And big government. Government makes a hell of a lot more money on cigarettes than tobacco companies do. E-cigs are a competitive threat to that revenue stream, and early death from cigarette smoking is a cost savings to government.
If "follow the money" is predictive, expect e-cigs to be heavily regulated and taxed to try to make sure the nicotine-addicted are still paying more and costing less.
Slashdot Mirror
All of us out here are individual trees. We're not interested in being sacrificed for your idea of what makes a utopian forest.
Uber benefits from Uber. Uber riders benefit from Uber -- else they'd stop using Uber. Uber drivers benefit from Uber -- else they'd stop driving for Uber. Add the phone makers and credit card companies and that's literally everyone involved in the transaction. Everyone involved benefits.
Who is "the forest" then? Corrupt politicians? Rich taxi medallion owners? People who imagine scary stories about Uber drivers?
Ok, so if you believe in everyone giving up privacy then go fight for it.
I don't. I believe in everyone keeping all their rights. Even if there are costs associated with keeping those rights.
I'm not sure why you don't get off this 'target' word. That implies that I want to harm gun owners in some way, which is not the case.
But you're ok if they get harmed? Because they're not like you?
If someone needs a gun to protect herself, do you want her imprisoned for carrying one without her government's permission -- despite the fact that self-defense is a fundamental human right? What exactly is your position?
If I found out I was participating in something that was harming society,
You are: privacy. If people like you would just give up all your privacy, then the police could catch a lot more criminals. Thousands of lives would be saved. And your presumption of innocence is next on the list.
and that society would be better off if I stopped it then I would welcome the policing. It's nothing to do with to totalarianism, it's just the kind of understanding that is required for as many people in a society to live happily and healthily as possible. All I ask is for the same rules to apply to everyone.
No. We don't target innocents.
Using your definition of ' targeting ', any new law technically targets innocent people.
So let's think twice about passing new laws to target innocent people. Maybe we don't need new laws every time anything bad happens? Maybe we shouldn't just target people who aren't like us ... because they're innocent and targeting them is wrong? Maybe policing everything everyone does -- or worse, policing only people who aren't like you (you know those people) -- isn't a good idea?
It's not an analogy. Targeting innocent people is wrong.
In fact when I first saw "Shooting at gay nightclub" this morning my first assumption was that some anti-gay marriage person had gone off their rocker.
When did you first know you were prejudiced against your neighbors? Do you think it's acceptable to express bigotry against innocent people who aren't like you?
What do you want to do about it though?
It's wrong to target innocent black folks (because they're not like us) when a black person commits a crime. It's wrong to target innocent Muslims (because they're not like us) when a Muslim guy commits a crime. It's wrong to target innocent immigrants (because they're not like us) when an immigrant commits a crime. And it's wrong to target innocent gun owners when a someone commits a crime with a gun (even if gun owners aren't like you). Targeting innocent people is wrong. It's evil. It's what racists would do. Don't be like them.
That's just it though. We don't need to agree to an arbitrary amount of bullying to have some basic safety and responsibility rules. The government has a responsibility to serve us, not the other way around. And "safety" isn't a magic word that justifies mistreating the public or creating corrupt carve-outs for insiders and government cronies to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense.
If Uber's drivers think Uber is bad for them, why do they continue to drive for Uber? If Uber's customers think Uber is bad for them, why do they continue to use Uber?
Uber must actually be pretty good for both of these groups.
Public maintenance of roads didn't start out as a justification for government bullying road users. We don't need to agree to be bullied to use our own public roads.
Uber/Airbnb/etc exist because arbitrage around the law allows for lower priced products and increased profits.
Yes. Lots of mostly pointless laws raise everyone's costs. Thanks for noticing.
As a side comment: The reflexive anti-government attitudes of many is particularly puzzling...
Really? The government mistreats people sometimes and makes life worse for people sometimes and it's "puzzling" that this leads to anti-government attitudes?
They need the money. This sort of propaganda doesn't pay for itself.
Because not running a serious recycling plan and providing an incentive for customers to just throw away their iWaste is foisting of an externality on the customers. And the price for dealing with that externality eventually comes down on the entire public.
Of course, if you're fine with socialising externalities so that corporations can keep more of their profits, that will be just fine. Us sane people would rather see the corporations actually pay for those externalities.
Apple recycles the phones they get. Anyone else can just take them to free e-waste recyclers or sell them for parts. It's not Apple's responsibility to police e-waste sinners.
It's your religion. Why don't you go out and pay people $100 for phones worth $0?
There's no evidence that e-waste "externalities" are costing "the entire public" anything. Mostly because most e-waste is recycled -- because recycling it is a profitable business. It's a solved problem. We're already saved.
Go ahead and keep believing as much as you want though. Just stop causing trouble for the rest of us.
IMO, Apple's claims of trying to reduce e-waste are basically a sham. If there's no incentive to return a product for recycling,
So don't. Unless you want to. Then do. What's the problem?
A claim of devotion to a religion is being called a sham... Who would have thought something like that could happen on Slashdot?
What if you decided not to believe in the sinful nature of e-waste? Then you wouldn't have to feel guilty buying an item you want. You wouldn't have to worry that others around you were committing e-waste sins. People could go about their lives and be happy, without fearing the e-waste religious enforcers.
Here's the thing: people recycle e-waste. Companies like Apple recycle e-waste. It's a problem that has been solved.
You might want to reconsider some things and stop obsessing and moralizing about it. If you still want to believe in e-waste sins yourself, then feel free -- we still have freedom of religion here in most cases. But please stop being a problem for the rest of us.
What motive would they have for hiding information from Germans? Do you think people who search the web in German are a significant voting bloc in the US?
You might want to try searching for New Year's Eve sexual assault by migrants though. Try it in English.
Excellent! Our plan to cede the story with grammatic mistakes to prevent readers from having a coherent discussion has succeeded beyond our initial projections.
Read the link you just posted. It's about broadcast TV and radio stations. Is Google a broadcast TV or radio station?
Also, the Fairness Doctrine has been gone for almost 30 years now. Try coming up with a complaint that's less than a quarter century out of date.
I searched Google for "secret plan to manipulate search results to help Hillary" and got zero hits on documents detailing their secret plans. Hence no evidence. Case closed. Glad I could definitively debunk this paranoid conspiracy so fast.
One of the 2 candidates proudly declared a large fraction of our fellow Americans "enemies". How can we ignore politics when the political leaders who are supposed to represent us and serve the entire population are "proud" to call every third or fourth American an enemy?
I know it's troll bait, but in point of fact Republicans should be held accountable. Republicans are so obsessed by "small government" and cutting budgets that horrible outcomes are inevitable.
Yeah! How can anyone in Chicago be expected to follow water testing protocols when they had a Republican mayor as recently as 1931? That small government obsession lingers over a place for centuries! You can't expect any government employee in Chicago to do a productive day's work until at least the year 3000. After that it'll surely be a golden age.
Surely Republican President Calvin Coolidge is to blame. We never recovered from his mishandling of the Teapot Dome Scandal. Who can be expected to honestly follow water testing protocols in light of that injustice?
Sure, but the real reason we have terrible candidates is because -- think about it for a minute -- who are the respected leaders that Americans can trust? Who do people look up to in the US?
I can't think of anyone. Can you?
If there are zero clearly good choices, why should we expect to see good candidates?
The fact that Palin haters are toxic gibbering assholes doesn't make Palin wise. It's tempting to think that way, but a person's wisdom should be evaluated dispassionately. Palin is ok, but she'd have to be brilliant to live up to the hype and overcome the jaundiced judgement aimed at her. And she's not that brilliant. She's above average for a politician.
And big government. Government makes a hell of a lot more money on cigarettes than tobacco companies do. E-cigs are a competitive threat to that revenue stream, and early death from cigarette smoking is a cost savings to government.
If "follow the money" is predictive, expect e-cigs to be heavily regulated and taxed to try to make sure the nicotine-addicted are still paying more and costing less.