Did that. You said the deforestation was real. I said sure, at least some of it is probably real, but not enough to definitely conclude there's a problem.
I don't believe there is a problem from any reasonable perspective. So the conclusion is that the deforestation concern is not a concern after all. Better?
Sorry about the format. Orthodoxy must be challenged delicately in order to be effective in persuasion.
Loss of rainforest land is real. The effects of DDT and organophosphates is real. Of course, we're safe from those effect (for a time) since it's only poor foreigners who have to deal with them.
Hey, I know it's part of the orthodoxy to believe this stuff. But there are 2 sides to the story.
I know the loss of rainforest land is real. But is it a real problem? From whose perspective?
What if I don't believe in the orthodox-green notion of a fragile world teetering on the edge of destruction? Then what's the problem?
What if I don't believe in the estimates that the rain forest will all be gone in 6 months (or 2 years, or 5 years, or 18 years, or whatever the newest scare is supposed to be)? Those estimates are wrong, and fundamentally silly because the future is dynamic.
What if I don't believe in the supposed silver-bullet cure-for-all diseases drug that's about to be trampled by a nasty bulldozer (driven by an evil man who wants to feed his family)?
What if the real situation is that some (a lot, but not too much) forested land is being cut to produce food for people? What's the problem then? Isn't this at least a little more likely than the eco-doomsday scenarios we've all heard about?
Anyway, there are too many unanswered questions for a dispassionate observer to conclude McDonalds is evil. Now if I already hated them, or if I thought I'd get into the Elite Compassion Club, or if there was money in it for me, those questions might matter a little less.
Where are the alternatives?... Of course you can find smaller, non-viral-corporate-homogeneous restaurants, but not at the same level of convenience...
If they opened the perfect restaurant -- not too big, but not too small either -- quirky enough, but not too quirky -- and the food was all cheap, but expensive enough so you know you're getting good food -- and if they were convient everywhere I travel, but not _everywhere_ -- and if everything else was just right, I'd eat there.
But, see, this is a fantasy. No restaurant will ever meet the standard. McDonalds is the _compromise_ we ended up with. It is a reality, with all the normal daily disappointment. Sad, but not tragic. And not evil.
The short-term "benefits" of these megacorps often hide long-term effects that we will pay for long after this crop of shareholders cashes in on their stock dividends. An example is the loss of rainforest land and subsequent reduction in biodiversity due to slash and burn cattle ranching.
Here's the problem with this: The short term benefits are real. The long-term effects you mention are largely imaginary and based on a fear-mongering campaign by the eco-profiteers.
And BTW, I don't really like McDonalds or big corporations. But they're being falsely used as bogeymen by people who want you to sign away your freedom in exchange for "protection".
Free markets are good for economies, and in many cases, for the people who work in them. They can promote creativity, innovation, prosperity, choice and individualism, more than other political and economic systems. But there has to be a balance between the prosperity of the market and the morality of the market -- a balance already tilting off center in almost the entire range of tech industries, and on the Net and Web
The morality of the market? I assume that's Morality According to Katz. Because, of course, WE are only the masses. Who are WE to freely decide on anything? Katz knows best, just ask him.
This is EXACTLY the same as when the evil supervillian Jesse Helms says something is immoral and needs to be stopped. You're either free or you're a subject. Only the tyrant changes.
(Of course, the supervilliany of Jesse Helms is largely an invention of the press, but that's beside the point.)
Taking shots at McDonalds and "evil corporations". How original.
No one is forced to eat there, do business there, or work there, but they're somehow super oppressive and evil.
And we envy their money and we want to get the government or lawyers to steal it and give it to us.
And we envy their "power" and we want them to be hurt so they have less power.
And we want the government to be super-powerful to protect us from the corporate evil, but it'll never occur to us that the government's power might be used against us. Maybe if we give it more power, that will stop.
One side is that all the content on the net should be censored so nothing is available that your 5 year old shouldn't see.
It's time we defined the other side. Let's define the other side as no one under 18 allowed on the internet, period. Unlike the content restrictions, this one is constitutional.
Then we can agree on a happy medium right in the middle: Adults do what they want, children are allowed on the net, content screening is the responsibility of the parent.
This is a good compromise. Plus, no one has to do anything new except the bad parents that are letting the internet raise their kids. Hooray!
Ahh. But "I FEEL endangered, therefore you're a criminal for making me FEEL that way" isn't a real great legal concept either. Anyone can choose to feel any way they want.
Free speech is certainly more important that feelings.
This phrase is the one of the most regrettable things ever uttered in the history of American law.
The day that all freedoms are abolished and all independant voices are silenced in this country, it will be justified with "... after all, you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater."
The next argument will be: "you need a license to drive, why shouldn't you need a license to " (watch TV, write an essay, have children, cut hair, own a pet, carry a gun, walk, eat, breathe, etc.).
It follows simple rules of logic. It doesn't use weird analogies. This is NOT an example of algebra:
A is like B, and I think B=3, so A must equal something like 3, and you said it was 7, so that's libel and you must be in the 10th grade to think that.
Oh well.
And as for the site in question, the court was really pretty clear. It's OK to (Y) "help someone else find a doctor", because that's free speech. It's not OK to be (Z) "killing the doctor", because that isn't free speech, and it's bad for the doctor.
Algebra again : "help someone else find a doctor" (Y) != "killing the doctor" (Z)
I read the post. It agreed (as you seem to agree) that free speech should be limited for the sake of abortions.
Well, free speech shouldn't be limited because you want abortions. Not even if you really, really want abortions.
Free speech shouldn't be limited if you want bubble-gum, or world peace, or your MTV either (or "to feel good about yourself", or "a pleasant trip to school", or "because you hate right wingers").
Because my free speech is mine. And laws and the constitution are there to prevent you or the government from taking away what's mine. And what's more, this protection is provided to everyone equally. (Hooray.)
(I could swear I just said this in my prior post.)
BTW: I can read all your arguments and analogies in favor of taking away this particular free speech that you don't like. They simply don't matter. (Do arguments in favor of slavery matter? If I came up with 6 good reasons we should all come to your house and steal your car, would the reasons matter?)
This is actually a great post. It completely illustrates the reason for a constitutionally constructed society.
The attitude is clear:
I want X. I'm going to get X. I'm ENTITLED to X. If your Y needs get in the way, you'd better watch out. If you stand in my way with your Y, I'll take away your Z and anything else I have to, including your W. I'm going to get X.
In this case, X="an abortion", Y="Free Speech", Z="money", and W="freedom".
Try X="guns" or X="money" or X="a pizza" or X=anything. Fill in the other variables with things you'd like not to be taken away.
The reason for laws and a constitution is to prevent this type of attitude from prevailing.
So if information takes more than 10 minutes to find, the publishing of that information is not Free Speech?
> 2. People generally don't picket at the houses of the corperate officers - they picket at the offices. There is no need for these people to be circulating private addresses.
So, because you can't think of an immediate justification for publishing something, and you don't like it, it's not Free Speech?
(Example justification: If the doctors forget where they lived, they could look it up on the web site. -- But I'd guess that this isn't a good enough justification given the fact that you really, really don't like the message.)
> 3. People generally don't go killing CEOs because they are upset about corperate policy. People DO kill doctors who provide abortion services.
So, all anyone has to do to get all anti-corporate websites shut down is kill a single CEO? Someone might just take you up on that. (Of course, then you'll be sued for $109 million. That is, unless your post was Free Speech.)
Free speech is real simple. Either you have it or you don't.
If it's free, then yes, let's hedge our bets all the way. If it costs money (or jobs, quality-of-life, freedom, or anything else of value), then a serious risk-analysis is in order. Then a cost-benefit analysis should be done for the proposed solutions.
Unfortunately, the people pushing this are the true believers. Their beliefs and plans have a fanatical religious quality. Fanaticism doesn't tend to lead to good decision making.
Doomsday predictions are a favorite tool of would-be leaders. If you don't accept them from David Koresh, why are you so anxious to accept them from Paul Erlich?
Junkscience.com isn't a mouthpiece for anyone. It's a cheaply put together website that tries to add a note of realism to the many, many press-hyped pseudo-scientific proclamations.
Remember when you heard caffiene was bad for you? It's not. Remember when you heard breast implants cause illness? They don't.
Junkscience.com tells you whether the scientists and the press have done all their job. Most of the time, the answer is no.
I wonder if this makes me a mouthpiece for the caffiene and breast implant industries?
Our friends at JunkScience.com have this covered. Here's a quote from the report:
"In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-liner chaotic system, and therefore that the
prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible."
-- Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
We're being asked to believe an assertion by some people. They are trying to prove something that can't be observed, because it hasn't happened yet, can't be reliably seen to be happening, and has been repeatedly exploited, exaggerated, lied about, and then coined into gold by political extremists.
We're being asked to believe an assertion by some people. They are trying to prove something that can't be observed, because it hasn't happened yet, can't be reliably seen to be happening, and has been repeatedly exploited, exaggerated, lied about, and then coined into gold by political extremists. In determining whether to believe them and their assertions, their credentials matter.
The poster above was trying to prove exactly nothing. One need not have credentials to doubt, nor is a degree needed to believe one's own eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe there is a problem from any reasonable perspective. So the conclusion is that the deforestation concern is not a concern after all. Better?
Sorry about the format. Orthodoxy must be challenged delicately in order to be effective in persuasion.
Hope you get modded up.
Hey, I know it's part of the orthodoxy to believe this stuff. But there are 2 sides to the story.
I know the loss of rainforest land is real. But is it a real problem? From whose perspective?
What if I don't believe in the orthodox-green notion of a fragile world teetering on the edge of destruction? Then what's the problem?
What if I don't believe in the estimates that the rain forest will all be gone in 6 months (or 2 years, or 5 years, or 18 years, or whatever the newest scare is supposed to be)? Those estimates are wrong, and fundamentally silly because the future is dynamic.
What if I don't believe in the supposed silver-bullet cure-for-all diseases drug that's about to be trampled by a nasty bulldozer (driven by an evil man who wants to feed his family)?
What if the real situation is that some (a lot, but not too much) forested land is being cut to produce food for people? What's the problem then? Isn't this at least a little more likely than the eco-doomsday scenarios we've all heard about?
Anyway, there are too many unanswered questions for a dispassionate observer to conclude McDonalds is evil. Now if I already hated them, or if I thought I'd get into the Elite Compassion Club, or if there was money in it for me, those questions might matter a little less.
If they opened the perfect restaurant -- not too big, but not too small either -- quirky enough, but not too quirky -- and the food was all cheap, but expensive enough so you know you're getting good food -- and if they were convient everywhere I travel, but not _everywhere_ -- and if everything else was just right, I'd eat there.
But, see, this is a fantasy. No restaurant will ever meet the standard. McDonalds is the _compromise_ we ended up with. It is a reality, with all the normal daily disappointment. Sad, but not tragic. And not evil.
I can't believe this got modded up to a five.
Neither can I :)
Here's the problem with this: The short term benefits are real. The long-term effects you mention are largely imaginary and based on a fear-mongering campaign by the eco-profiteers.
And BTW, I don't really like McDonalds or big corporations. But they're being falsely used as bogeymen by people who want you to sign away your freedom in exchange for "protection".
The morality of the market? I assume that's Morality According to Katz. Because, of course, WE are only the masses. Who are WE to freely decide on anything? Katz knows best, just ask him.
This is EXACTLY the same as when the evil supervillian Jesse Helms says something is immoral and needs to be stopped. You're either free or you're a subject. Only the tyrant changes.
(Of course, the supervilliany of Jesse Helms is largely an invention of the press, but that's beside the point.)
I wonder if Jon Katz ever gets tired of himself?
No one is forced to eat there, do business there, or work there, but they're somehow super oppressive and evil.
And we envy their money and we want to get the government or lawyers to steal it and give it to us.
And we envy their "power" and we want them to be hurt so they have less power.
And we want the government to be super-powerful to protect us from the corporate evil, but it'll never occur to us that the government's power might be used against us. Maybe if we give it more power, that will stop.
Gee, what a smart, happy bunch we are.
One side is that all the content on the net should be censored so nothing is available that your 5 year old shouldn't see.
It's time we defined the other side. Let's define the other side as no one under 18 allowed on the internet, period. Unlike the content restrictions, this one is constitutional.
Then we can agree on a happy medium right in the middle: Adults do what they want, children are allowed on the net, content screening is the responsibility of the parent.
This is a good compromise. Plus, no one has to do anything new except the bad parents that are letting the internet raise their kids. Hooray!
Geez, talk about an easy solution.
Yep.
Ahh. But "I FEEL endangered, therefore you're a criminal for making me FEEL that way" isn't a real great legal concept either. Anyone can choose to feel any way they want.
Free speech is certainly more important that feelings.
The day that all freedoms are abolished and all independant voices are silenced in this country, it will be justified with "... after all, you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater."
The next argument will be: "you need a license to drive, why shouldn't you need a license to " (watch TV, write an essay, have children, cut hair, own a pet, carry a gun, walk, eat, breathe, etc.).
A is like B, and I think B=3, so A must equal something like 3, and you said it was 7, so that's libel and you must be in the 10th grade to think that.
Oh well.
And as for the site in question, the court was really pretty clear. It's OK to (Y) "help someone else find a doctor", because that's free speech. It's not OK to be (Z) "killing the doctor", because that isn't free speech, and it's bad for the doctor.
Algebra again : "help someone else find a doctor" (Y) != "killing the doctor" (Z)
I read the post. It agreed (as you seem to agree) that free speech should be limited for the sake of abortions.
Well, free speech shouldn't be limited because you want abortions. Not even if you really, really want abortions.
Free speech shouldn't be limited if you want bubble-gum, or world peace, or your MTV either (or "to feel good about yourself", or "a pleasant trip to school", or "because you hate right wingers").
Because my free speech is mine. And laws and the constitution are there to prevent you or the government from taking away what's mine. And what's more, this protection is provided to everyone equally. (Hooray.)
(I could swear I just said this in my prior post.)
BTW: I can read all your arguments and analogies in favor of taking away this particular free speech that you don't like. They simply don't matter. (Do arguments in favor of slavery matter? If I came up with 6 good reasons we should all come to your house and steal your car, would the reasons matter?)
I didn't really get the point of the rest of your arguments, but common sense is really a BS concept.
You can argue that anything, no matter how off the wall, is just common sense.
Try it... bigger is better -- it's just common sense. Smaller is better -- it's just common sense. See?
This is actually a great post. It completely illustrates the reason for a constitutionally constructed society.
The attitude is clear:
I want X. I'm going to get X. I'm ENTITLED to X. If your Y needs get in the way, you'd better watch out. If you stand in my way with your Y, I'll take away your Z and anything else I have to, including your W. I'm going to get X.
In this case, X="an abortion", Y="Free Speech", Z="money", and W="freedom".
Try X="guns" or X="money" or X="a pizza" or X=anything. Fill in the other variables with things you'd like not to be taken away.
The reason for laws and a constitution is to prevent this type of attitude from prevailing.
> 1. Many of these people were actually unlisted.
So if information takes more than 10 minutes to find, the publishing of that information is not Free Speech?
> 2. People generally don't picket at the houses of the corperate officers - they picket at the offices. There is no need for these people to be circulating private addresses.
So, because you can't think of an immediate justification for publishing something, and you don't like it, it's not Free Speech?
(Example justification: If the doctors forget where they lived, they could look it up on the web site. -- But I'd guess that this isn't a good enough justification given the fact that you really, really don't like the message.)
> 3. People generally don't go killing CEOs because they are upset about corperate policy. People DO kill doctors who provide abortion services.
So, all anyone has to do to get all anti-corporate websites shut down is kill a single CEO? Someone might just take you up on that. (Of course, then you'll be sued for $109 million. That is, unless your post was Free Speech.)
Free speech is real simple. Either you have it or you don't.
You have now incited the posting of doctor's credit cards. Me and the doctors will be suing you for $109 million dollars.
Next, I'll be suing Slashdot for inciting your incitement. I'll be rich!
I wish Slashdot would post more stories like this. (Oh no! Now I'll have to sue myself!)
And so forth...
Just ask Jacob Neilsen, one of the world's foremost usability experts.
It says on the site he's working on a book instead of the site for a while.
Yeah, but Millroy hasn't been editing the site for a while now. Find something to trash the guy who is.
If it's free, then yes, let's hedge our bets all the way. If it costs money (or jobs, quality-of-life, freedom, or anything else of value), then a serious risk-analysis is in order. Then a cost-benefit analysis should be done for the proposed solutions.
Unfortunately, the people pushing this are the true believers. Their beliefs and plans have a fanatical religious quality. Fanaticism doesn't tend to lead to good decision making.
Doomsday predictions are a favorite tool of would-be leaders. If you don't accept them from David Koresh, why are you so anxious to accept them from Paul Erlich?
Junkscience.com isn't a mouthpiece for anyone. It's a cheaply put together website that tries to add a note of realism to the many, many press-hyped pseudo-scientific proclamations.
Remember when you heard caffiene was bad for you? It's not. Remember when you heard breast implants cause illness? They don't.
Junkscience.com tells you whether the scientists and the press have done all their job. Most of the time, the answer is no.
I wonder if this makes me a mouthpiece for the caffiene and breast implant industries?
(I added the bold.)
Have a look at JunkScience.com for more on this.
My take is this:
We're being asked to believe an assertion by some people. They are trying to prove something that can't be observed, because it hasn't happened yet, can't be reliably seen to be happening, and has been repeatedly exploited, exaggerated, lied about, and then coined into gold by political extremists.
Perhaps some skepticism is in order.
We're being asked to believe an assertion by some people. They are trying to prove something that can't be observed, because it hasn't happened yet, can't be reliably seen to be happening, and has been repeatedly exploited, exaggerated, lied about, and then coined into gold by political extremists. In determining whether to believe them and their assertions, their credentials matter.
The poster above was trying to prove exactly nothing. One need not have credentials to doubt, nor is a degree needed to believe one's own eyes.