China and India pollute substantially less per person than any EU country or the US. It would be absurd to bind them to a treaty when other countries are polluting 10x if not greater than those nations per capita.
Does "The Earth" care? I thought the idea was to "save the Earth". The world's about to end and you're talking about what's fair?
Unless... Unless this isn't really about saving the Earth at all.
Re:In other words, taxes exist to harm rich people
on
Internet Tax Imminent?
·
· Score: 1
If you feel punished, that is of course your prerogative. I'm sorry that you do, and i feel it is a rather shallow way of approaching public life...
Feelings aside, I am harmed. (Personally, I'm not the point though. Huge numbers of innocent people are harmed.) And I understand the motives are greed and (sometimes) hate and envy. And I'd like people to come up with better motives and try to avoid harming their fellow man by taking as much as they can from him against his will.
I can understand how it might be to someone's advantage to consider that shallow. When I no longer see appeals to hate and envy to justify taxes, that will be a good time to consider paying them in a different light. But those appeals are increasing.
Re:In other words, taxes exist to harm rich people
on
Internet Tax Imminent?
·
· Score: 1
Once again: you are saying that taxes exist in order to make people pay them -- with the goal of harming those people.
Whether to label this "socialism" or not isn't really the point. The morality of setting out with the objective of harming people is the point.
This is a common socialist analysis. According to you, the purpose of taxes is to get some people to pay more and some people to pay less. In other words, taxes exist in order to harm the "more affluent".
There's absolutely nothing in your message about helping anyone. Presumably you want to harm the poor by taxing them too, but just not as much.
Lots of us want end the harm and actually succeed in helping people -- by giving them the freedom and the aspiration and the opportunity to succeed and produce more than they need.
Freedom of speech is right up there with the freedom not to be raped. Posting photos is free speech.
The situation is best resolved by a very minor accommodation by Google. Something as simple as emailing them if they post your photo and they'll agree to blur it out so you can't be recognized. Or blacking out your windows in your house if you ask. That would solve everyone's problem and wouldn't overly burden Google.
Passing a law to force them to do something very burdensome that's against their will or taking away their free speech would be unjust and destructive to a civil society.
Clearly my example isn't a real case. It illustrates a principle: freedom is more important than the ability of the majority to impose their will.
Also, I think privacy has very low value, but freedom has very high value.
In a democracy, if enough people are disturbed by something, they can vote for people who will curtail or ban it.
If a democracy has 3 men and 2 women, what happens when they vote on whether to rape the 2 women?
The "democracies can vote for anything they want" argument is dangerous. I'd rather live in a free society where rights and freedoms are protected than a democracy where 51% can do whatever they want to the other 49%, depending on their feelings at the time.
Ok. My comments are in response to the "printing money" comment being wrong, not about the imperfection of the "core" inflation number as a reflection of people's perceptions on prices.
The "printing money" comment is wrong. There's no data in any inflation rate to support the "printing money" comment -- in fact, they all contradict it.
BTW: gas prices went down this week from last week. They go up every spring as the refineries switch from home heating oil and winter fuel to summer fuel blends. Without some sort of disaster, they'll go down again next week and for the next few weeks after that.
Ah. The real stats will come in a few months. Not today, when this is currently being discussed. No, in the future, when everyone will have forgotten.
Give us an exact date then. On what day should we expect to see this "printing money" reflected in the data? How much higher will inflation be on that day? Will it be at 3 percent? 8 percent?
So if we believe you, then we never have to come up with any facts or data to back up our arguments? Because all the data is faked anyway, but your position is true-True-TRUE-TRUE!!! Because you say so. Anonymously.
You make a good case. I think I'll stick with the real world though, at least until Monday.
When the actual numbers don't support your argument, there's always some secret number that's the real number.
Pay no attention to those numbers that everyone else uses. We have the real numbers and they tell the story that supports our position. We just can't come up with them right now. But we know they're the real numbers. We can feel it.
You have absolutely no basis for your comment above. I offer a factual refutation that's actually from today's news. And your response is that my facts don't cover enough time? Care to cite a fact yourself?
Inflation has been very low for decades now -- since the mid-80s. Your "printing money" comment is laughably incorrect. I can Google it and post the link if there's any doubt.
Let me repeat what I said before: What the hell are you talking about?
Maybe it *is* unreasonable, but is it so unreasonable to find this growing trend disturbing?
Feelings don't need to be reasonable. They don't need to be catered to by everyone either. Feel disturbed, or don't, as you wish.
Demanding someone else solve your "disturbing" feeling and make you feel comfortable again is unreasonable. Asking might not be. I suggest that the disturbed folks try asking nicely. If that doesn't work, then try to get over it. People are trying to get stuff done and don't need to stop for every passing whim someone might have.
So you assert that more automobiles would be stolen if they were all out of sight (say in garages) than if they were plainly visible?
They tend to get stolen at night, from places that aren't crowded. Visible cameras dissuade thieves too. Of course, for cars, an OnStar-like tracking service that shows where the car is at all times is the best thing to prevent a successful theft. But there are "privacy concerns" with visible cameras and radio GPS tracking.
I disagree with your post because it basically says the government can do anything to anyone and justify it by saying the words "for the public good". But specifically:
If a product or service does more harm...
What harm? That was the question in my post above. What harm?
Should we freak out that they're potentially taking pictures of us watching TV?
This is America. You should always freak out about everything. (If you don't, then you don't care about the children or you're corrupt or "privileged" or you are otherwise damaged or bad in some way.)
After a while, a press consensus will develop, and then you should only freak out about what you're told to freak out about. Some people get a free pass.
Also, it sounds like a reason to build a lot of prisons and imprison thieves and kidnappers. To keep them away from their victims.
I'm not that scared about the privacy aspect of that though. Kidnappers and thieves need privacy to succeed more than I need it to keep them away. Less privacy would make people safer from kidnappers and thieves.
You can't be expected to be living out of a dungeon...
So not having your blinds wide open is "living out of a dungeon" then? Blinds have a variety of settings, and most of them allow privacy. Even some of the settings that let light in the windows protect privacy.
But the real question is: what is the hysteria about? I understand the preference for privacy, but I don't understand the desperate, hysterical need for it. What's the tragedy when a little privacy is lost? (Normally, in matters where privacy is more valued, people tend to be discrete.)
It's not like Google is trying to force anyone to do anything. They aren't trying to steal anything from anyone. No extortion. No blackmail. No motives at all really, except to sell ads by helping people avoid getting lost.
So what should I be scared of? There's some great danger lurking out there that you folks seem to know about, but I don't. I'm ignorant of the horrible peril I'm supposedly in. Please tell me.
Slashdot Mirror
China and India pollute substantially less per person than any EU country or the US. It would be absurd to bind them to a treaty when other countries are polluting 10x if not greater than those nations per capita.
Does "The Earth" care? I thought the idea was to "save the Earth". The world's about to end and you're talking about what's fair?
Unless... Unless this isn't really about saving the Earth at all.
If you feel punished, that is of course your prerogative. I'm sorry that you do, and i feel it is a rather shallow way of approaching public life...
Feelings aside, I am harmed. (Personally, I'm not the point though. Huge numbers of innocent people are harmed.) And I understand the motives are greed and (sometimes) hate and envy. And I'd like people to come up with better motives and try to avoid harming their fellow man by taking as much as they can from him against his will.
I can understand how it might be to someone's advantage to consider that shallow. When I no longer see appeals to hate and envy to justify taxes, that will be a good time to consider paying them in a different light. But those appeals are increasing.
Once again: you are saying that taxes exist in order to make people pay them -- with the goal of harming those people.
Whether to label this "socialism" or not isn't really the point. The morality of setting out with the objective of harming people is the point.
This is a common socialist analysis. According to you, the purpose of taxes is to get some people to pay more and some people to pay less. In other words, taxes exist in order to harm the "more affluent".
There's absolutely nothing in your message about helping anyone. Presumably you want to harm the poor by taxing them too, but just not as much.
Lots of us want end the harm and actually succeed in helping people -- by giving them the freedom and the aspiration and the opportunity to succeed and produce more than they need.
Freedom of speech is right up there with the freedom not to be raped. Posting photos is free speech.
The situation is best resolved by a very minor accommodation by Google. Something as simple as emailing them if they post your photo and they'll agree to blur it out so you can't be recognized. Or blacking out your windows in your house if you ask. That would solve everyone's problem and wouldn't overly burden Google.
Passing a law to force them to do something very burdensome that's against their will or taking away their free speech would be unjust and destructive to a civil society.
Clearly my example isn't a real case. It illustrates a principle: freedom is more important than the ability of the majority to impose their will.
Also, I think privacy has very low value, but freedom has very high value.
In a democracy, if enough people are disturbed by something, they can vote for people who will curtail or ban it.
If a democracy has 3 men and 2 women, what happens when they vote on whether to rape the 2 women?
The "democracies can vote for anything they want" argument is dangerous. I'd rather live in a free society where rights and freedoms are protected than a democracy where 51% can do whatever they want to the other 49%, depending on their feelings at the time.
Ok. My comments are in response to the "printing money" comment being wrong, not about the imperfection of the "core" inflation number as a reflection of people's perceptions on prices.
The "printing money" comment is wrong. There's no data in any inflation rate to support the "printing money" comment -- in fact, they all contradict it.
BTW: gas prices went down this week from last week. They go up every spring as the refineries switch from home heating oil and winter fuel to summer fuel blends. Without some sort of disaster, they'll go down again next week and for the next few weeks after that.
Ah. The real stats will come in a few months. Not today, when this is currently being discussed. No, in the future, when everyone will have forgotten.
Give us an exact date then. On what day should we expect to see this "printing money" reflected in the data? How much higher will inflation be on that day? Will it be at 3 percent? 8 percent?
So you are saying that "printing money" caused gas prices and property taxes to go up?
Are they "printing money" that can only be spent on gasoline? What do the gasoline suppliers do with this money?
So if we believe you, then we never have to come up with any facts or data to back up our arguments? Because all the data is faked anyway, but your position is true-True-TRUE-TRUE!!! Because you say so. Anonymously.
You make a good case. I think I'll stick with the real world though, at least until Monday.
This is fairly common in modern debate.
When the actual numbers don't support your argument, there's always some secret number that's the real number.
Pay no attention to those numbers that everyone else uses. We have the real numbers and they tell the story that supports our position. We just can't come up with them right now. But we know they're the real numbers. We can feel it.
You have absolutely no basis for your comment above. I offer a factual refutation that's actually from today's news. And your response is that my facts don't cover enough time? Care to cite a fact yourself?
Inflation has been very low for decades now -- since the mid-80s. Your "printing money" comment is laughably incorrect. I can Google it and post the link if there's any doubt.
Let me repeat what I said before: What the hell are you talking about?
My question focuses on how "loss of privacy" equates to harm. So far, no answer.
I'm not arguing good news vs. bad news.
Inflation is down. So the "printing press" comment is pure nonsense (at best). That's all.
Yeah, except inflation is down.
So a person might wonder what the hell you're talking about.
Except that they're making money off of me without my consent from which I reap no benefits.
If there's no cost or harm to you, how is it your business at all?
I'm not sure how they're making money "off" you. Are you some sort of tourist attraction or something? Perhaps you flatter yourself.
Maybe it *is* unreasonable, but is it so unreasonable to find this growing trend disturbing?
Feelings don't need to be reasonable. They don't need to be catered to by everyone either. Feel disturbed, or don't, as you wish.
Demanding someone else solve your "disturbing" feeling and make you feel comfortable again is unreasonable. Asking might not be. I suggest that the disturbed folks try asking nicely. If that doesn't work, then try to get over it. People are trying to get stuff done and don't need to stop for every passing whim someone might have.
But I guess people are unreasonable when it comes to demanding privacy...
It seems unreasonable to demand it when in public.
So you assert that more automobiles would be stolen if they were all out of sight (say in garages) than if they were plainly visible?
They tend to get stolen at night, from places that aren't crowded. Visible cameras dissuade thieves too. Of course, for cars, an OnStar-like tracking service that shows where the car is at all times is the best thing to prevent a successful theft. But there are "privacy concerns" with visible cameras and radio GPS tracking.
You should go research that. The subject of the discussion here is one snapshot.
His point is extremely silly. A "license" to have children really gets the government out of parenting, doesn't it?
I think a "loose" finger explains the all-caps though.
I disagree with your post because it basically says the government can do anything to anyone and justify it by saying the words "for the public good". But specifically:
...
If a product or service does more harm
What harm? That was the question in my post above. What harm?
Should we freak out that they're potentially taking pictures of us watching TV?
This is America. You should always freak out about everything. (If you don't, then you don't care about the children or you're corrupt or "privileged" or you are otherwise damaged or bad in some way.)
After a while, a press consensus will develop, and then you should only freak out about what you're told to freak out about. Some people get a free pass.
Sounds like a reason to try to be discrete.
Also, it sounds like a reason to build a lot of prisons and imprison thieves and kidnappers. To keep them away from their victims.
I'm not that scared about the privacy aspect of that though. Kidnappers and thieves need privacy to succeed more than I need it to keep them away. Less privacy would make people safer from kidnappers and thieves.
You can't be expected to be living out of a dungeon...
So not having your blinds wide open is "living out of a dungeon" then? Blinds have a variety of settings, and most of them allow privacy. Even some of the settings that let light in the windows protect privacy.
But the real question is: what is the hysteria about? I understand the preference for privacy, but I don't understand the desperate, hysterical need for it. What's the tragedy when a little privacy is lost? (Normally, in matters where privacy is more valued, people tend to be discrete.)
It's not like Google is trying to force anyone to do anything. They aren't trying to steal anything from anyone. No extortion. No blackmail. No motives at all really, except to sell ads by helping people avoid getting lost.
So what should I be scared of? There's some great danger lurking out there that you folks seem to know about, but I don't. I'm ignorant of the horrible peril I'm supposedly in. Please tell me.