Is this an 'innocent until proven guilty' world or a 'guilty until proven innocent' world?
I don't see that as related, because that is a standard for law, not a standard for personal and business relationships.
A girl dating a guy she does not know should absolutely not treat him as "innocent until proven guilty." And a person buying a portion of a business should absolutely not assume that the people running it are trustworthy unless they know them.
Completely distrusting everyone is no worse than complete trusting everyone.
Since I didn't advocate distrusting everyone, I think you misunderstand what I was saying.
I say you don't trust someone until they have proved themselves trustworthy. That means I do trust some people.
relationships depend upon trusting that the person you are with will be true to you, in whatever way that means to you.
Yep. Which is why you shouldn't enter a relationship with someone until you know they can be trusted in that way. You don't just "take a leap of faith" and hope they won't betray you. You find someone you've spent enough time with and know well enough to know that they will not.
My confusion is all your fault, you know. You made me read that Rothbard book, and now when I read "money," I think gold, and when you say "save," I think "save money," which means "save gold."
I got to thinking about this last night and thought I'd come back and challenge you and say, "All right, how's the web going to work without IANA?" But then I remembered your background, and I realized that you probably already know the answer to that.:)
How much would that gold be bought if you had bought it and held it until now?
I actually regard gold as not changing substantially in value; I see long-term increases in gold's "value" in terms of dollars as simply indicating the devaluation of the dollar due to the government expanding the money supply. So from my point of view, you don't buy gold to make money as the price rises: you buy gold to escape from the inflationary problem of fiat money. Whether or not that's better than investing your money elsewhere if you actually want the value to RISE rather than staying the same, I don't know.
(This is a simplification, and if dada21 sees this, he'll probably correct my by mentioning that in a free market if everyone is on hard money instead of fiat money you actually see a slow deflation (increase in money value) in the long term because new technologies and discovered business practices result in greater efficiency and cheaper prices. This is a good thing and means that gold does more than hold its value long term. But I'm simplifying to just get at the fact that I don't intend to purchase gold in order to make stock market returns; I simply intend to purchase it because I view its value as stable relative to dollars which I could be saving instead.)
Send me a bill for my share of the roads and defense (not offense) and I'll happily pay them until I can find a way to replace them with private providers.
Instead of requiring companies to do anything, how about telling people that they really shouldn't put their money anywhere but where they trust?
Our culture has accepted a lie about trust. We believe that it is the obligation of people to extend trust, and that it is a moral failing when they do not. In reality, the exact opposite is true. Nobody should be trusted until they have proved themselves trustworthy. If person A fails to trust person B, that is solely and completely person B's responsibility. It is not person A's fault. A has to earn B's trust.
This was clear to me during my dating days in an online singles community when I'd hear women who had just been jilted say, "How can I ever trust anyone again?" Well, the problem is that they were extending trust to people who had not yet earned it, and those people performed as could be expected. Then these women were viewing it as somehow their own moral obligation to trust people after that. In reality they were receiving an education that was pointing them to the obvious conclusion that it was not their responsibility to trust people who have not earned it.
Extending that to business is left as an exercise for the reader; I've had more success in dating than I have in business.;)
You miss the grandparents point - if the Wiki Way worked - that sentence should never have been bad by the time he read the article in the first place.
If you understood the Wikipedia Way, you would understand why that assertion is a strawman.
Rush Limbaugh has had a for-pay podcast for some time now. I have the impression it requires some kind of proprietary software, though, so it may not be a true podcast.
I fully support efforts of lawmakers to shield kids from garbage, because it's a good failsafe mechanism.
I'm a fundamentalist Christian and I intend to homeschool my children when they get to that age, but I do not agree with that. I don't see the government as being effective or trustworthy enough to accomplish this task, and I can easily imagine collateral damage as material that I might want permitted could get censored. (The Bible does condemn homosexuality, after all, and in some jurisdictions that is illegal "hate speech." Besides, it's intolerant.) Moreover, I doubt any democratically-created policy could capture all the nuances of what I think should be allowed and what I think shouldn't.
Bush came along too early in it's toddler years of wide acceptance. There are too many precedents to be set that a Republican government has no qualms about shifting in their favor. To anyone who'd try to defend Bush or the Republican congress, answer this, what has Bush done to PROTECT privacy as president?
If you think the blame for this lies solely on Republican shoulders, you're dreaming as much as the people who think that the fact that their emails are difficult to intercept means that nefarious personages will actually refrain from doing so.
Let me call the phone company right quick and ask that my DSL contract be amended to express that they will not allow someone to tap the lines. I'm sure they'll get right on that.
Yep. Real privacy is expensive. Somebody has to bear the cost.
Real protected media would be expensive, too. Instead of bearing the cost, the MPAA/RIAA just get laws passed so that no-good protection is legally "good enough."
Of course, if you want privacy you could instead use encryption.
In my opinion, if you're not already assuming that the contents of your unencrypted email are public to the world, you're fooling yourself. If you want it to be unreadable, encrypt it.
I think the only permission anybody ought to need in order to eavesdrop on a communication is the owner of the wire. If you're contracting with the owner of the wire for services, and privacy is important to you, make that part of the contract. Or save yourself some effort and money and simply encrypt your communications. It's nearly effortless. It won't cost you anything (money wise) for the software.
Also, I take exception with the summary that "some surveillance of your email has been permitted." The article says, "the Justice Department asked a federal magistrate judge to approve monitoring of an unnamed person's e-mail correspondents." I sincerely doubt that I am that person or one of his correspondents, unless he is a spammer. I recognize this could affect me in the future because a precedent has been set... but again, that's easily handled with encryption now, isn't it?
Complaining about this is tantamount to making love to your wife in your open front doorway and then demanding a law be passed to protect your privacy from your neighbor or the police car driving by. For crying out loud! Isn't some burden on you to secure your own privacy? This is not so far from the DMCA requiring legal protection against breaking "protection mechanisms" that are not effective in the slightest. Why in the world would you trust the government enough to expect them to take responsibility for securing your privacy?
People seem to be looking for an expensive legislative solution to a technological problem that already has an inexpensive technical solution.
Two great options are to repeal patent laws, which I've been advocating for awhile now, or to (mis)use the power of eminent domain to "steal" this "intellectual property" for the "public good." I don't support eminent domain existing at all, but as long as we've got the big stick it seems like we might as well continue to thrash with it whenever we think we've got a shot at doing something good, and curing AIDS seems like a pretty good thing.
This is already occasionally done within Wikipedia. Also, everyone possesses the right to fork the entire project, or any individual article, under the terms of the GNU FDL.
It's not the solution you're looking for, but have you considered pointing students to a specific revision of an article? For example, I want to point my students to George W. Bush, but I know that this article frequently has the picture of its subject replaced with pictures of Jar-Jar Binks and Chacellor Palpatine. So I go to George W. Bush, click history, and then click on the top date listed. This last link gives me the current revision of the article, which I can send to my students in the relative security that it will continue to be valid.
I blew up and started obliterating every add I could when Drudge Report went around Firefox's built-in popup blocking. Prior to that, I'd been blocking images from ad servers that served women in swimsuits (or less), since I won't look at a woman dressed like that unless I'm married to her. That meant I was missing most of Slashdot's ads.
I've never had any qualms about blocking the ads, and have been saying for a long time that we'll just she a shift in the "ecology" of website funding. Some will continue to be funded by ads, more will become funded by donations or subscriptions. Some will continue to be funded by private individuals or companies.
I keep hearing two-bit webmasters on slashdot prophesy Armageddon on the web because of people like me. Yet life has continued to go on, and it's nice to see someone putting out content on the Internet who does not think that ad blocking is going to cause the sky to fall.
I run only a handful of websites; one is supported by user donations, and the others are not yet big enough to need anything other than about $10/year from me.
I'm a much happier man since I started skipping all ads on the Internet. We also quit watching television other than recorded shows where we could skip the ads, or purchased movies with no ads (other than at the beginning, sigh...). Much, much happier, all around.
This is ridiculous. How can you compare data duplication to theft? It may make the original copy less valuable, but so does opening a new shoestore next to a shoestore you run. Devaluation is not theft, nor is duplication.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this an 'innocent until proven guilty' world or a 'guilty until proven innocent' world?
I don't see that as related, because that is a standard for law, not a standard for personal and business relationships.
A girl dating a guy she does not know should absolutely not treat him as "innocent until proven guilty." And a person buying a portion of a business should absolutely not assume that the people running it are trustworthy unless they know them.
Completely distrusting everyone is no worse than complete trusting everyone.
Since I didn't advocate distrusting everyone, I think you misunderstand what I was saying.
I say you don't trust someone until they have proved themselves trustworthy. That means I do trust some people.
relationships depend upon trusting that the person you are with will be true to you, in whatever way that means to you.
Yep. Which is why you shouldn't enter a relationship with someone until you know they can be trusted in that way. You don't just "take a leap of faith" and hope they won't betray you. You find someone you've spent enough time with and know well enough to know that they will not.
My confusion is all your fault, you know. You made me read that Rothbard book, and now when I read "money," I think gold, and when you say "save," I think "save money," which means "save gold."
Primarily the web, honestly.
I got to thinking about this last night and thought I'd come back and challenge you and say, "All right, how's the web going to work without IANA?" But then I remembered your background, and I realized that you probably already know the answer to that. :)
How much would that gold be bought if you had bought it and held it until now?
I actually regard gold as not changing substantially in value; I see long-term increases in gold's "value" in terms of dollars as simply indicating the devaluation of the dollar due to the government expanding the money supply. So from my point of view, you don't buy gold to make money as the price rises: you buy gold to escape from the inflationary problem of fiat money. Whether or not that's better than investing your money elsewhere if you actually want the value to RISE rather than staying the same, I don't know.
(This is a simplification, and if dada21 sees this, he'll probably correct my by mentioning that in a free market if everyone is on hard money instead of fiat money you actually see a slow deflation (increase in money value) in the long term because new technologies and discovered business practices result in greater efficiency and cheaper prices. This is a good thing and means that gold does more than hold its value long term. But I'm simplifying to just get at the fact that I don't intend to purchase gold in order to make stock market returns; I simply intend to purchase it because I view its value as stable relative to dollars which I could be saving instead.)
Ah, okay; just checking. :)
BTW, adding some information about purchasing land to the information you're already providing about gold would be great. :)
It has destroyed any reason to save (the best way to create a strong economy is through savings, not public credit)
All right, let me play devil's advocate here for a minute:
If government has destroyed any reason to save (and I tend to agree with this, mind you), then why do you save so much?
Send me a bill for my share of the roads and defense (not offense) and I'll happily pay them until I can find a way to replace them with private providers.
You should make that your sig.
Instead of requiring companies to do anything, how about telling people that they really shouldn't put their money anywhere but where they trust?
Our culture has accepted a lie about trust. We believe that it is the obligation of people to extend trust, and that it is a moral failing when they do not. In reality, the exact opposite is true. Nobody should be trusted until they have proved themselves trustworthy. If person A fails to trust person B, that is solely and completely person B's responsibility. It is not person A's fault. A has to earn B's trust.
This was clear to me during my dating days in an online singles community when I'd hear women who had just been jilted say, "How can I ever trust anyone again?" Well, the problem is that they were extending trust to people who had not yet earned it, and those people performed as could be expected. Then these women were viewing it as somehow their own moral obligation to trust people after that. In reality they were receiving an education that was pointing them to the obvious conclusion that it was not their responsibility to trust people who have not earned it.
Extending that to business is left as an exercise for the reader; I've had more success in dating than I have in business. ;)
I'm the sole anti-copyright activist in most threads
Not since I started reading every post you make...
It's a basic assertion, repeated again and again, that errors [in the 'pedia] don't survive any length of time.
Maybe some people repeat that, but that (erroneous) assumption is not central to why Wikipedia works.
You miss the grandparents point - if the Wiki Way worked - that sentence should never have been bad by the time he read the article in the first place.
If you understood the Wikipedia Way, you would understand why that assertion is a strawman.
Rush Limbaugh has had a for-pay podcast for some time now. I have the impression it requires some kind of proprietary software, though, so it may not be a true podcast.
I fully support efforts of lawmakers to shield kids from garbage, because it's a good failsafe mechanism.
I'm a fundamentalist Christian and I intend to homeschool my children when they get to that age, but I do not agree with that. I don't see the government as being effective or trustworthy enough to accomplish this task, and I can easily imagine collateral damage as material that I might want permitted could get censored. (The Bible does condemn homosexuality, after all, and in some jurisdictions that is illegal "hate speech." Besides, it's intolerant.) Moreover, I doubt any democratically-created policy could capture all the nuances of what I think should be allowed and what I think shouldn't.
lol!
BTW, in case it wasn't clear, when I said, "I hate to tell you this," I literally meant that I was disappointed to find it out.
A Supreme Court ruling to that effect was issued in the 1834 Wharton V Peters case.
I hate to tell you this, but that was apparently nullified, according to Wikipedia.
Copyright is a loan from the public domain created by Congress, not property.
Excellent summation! I need to make that my sig some day.
Bush came along too early in it's toddler years of wide acceptance. There are too many precedents to be set that a Republican government has no qualms about shifting in their favor. To anyone who'd try to defend Bush or the Republican congress, answer this, what has Bush done to PROTECT privacy as president?
If you think the blame for this lies solely on Republican shoulders, you're dreaming as much as the people who think that the fact that their emails are difficult to intercept means that nefarious personages will actually refrain from doing so.
Let me call the phone company right quick and ask that my DSL contract be amended to express that they will not allow someone to tap the lines. I'm sure they'll get right on that.
Yep. Real privacy is expensive. Somebody has to bear the cost.
Real protected media would be expensive, too. Instead of bearing the cost, the MPAA/RIAA just get laws passed so that no-good protection is legally "good enough."
Of course, if you want privacy you could instead use encryption.
In my opinion, if you're not already assuming that the contents of your unencrypted email are public to the world, you're fooling yourself. If you want it to be unreadable, encrypt it.
I think the only permission anybody ought to need in order to eavesdrop on a communication is the owner of the wire. If you're contracting with the owner of the wire for services, and privacy is important to you, make that part of the contract. Or save yourself some effort and money and simply encrypt your communications. It's nearly effortless. It won't cost you anything (money wise) for the software.
Also, I take exception with the summary that "some surveillance of your email has been permitted." The article says, "the Justice Department asked a federal magistrate judge to approve monitoring of an unnamed person's e-mail correspondents." I sincerely doubt that I am that person or one of his correspondents, unless he is a spammer. I recognize this could affect me in the future because a precedent has been set ... but again, that's easily handled with encryption now, isn't it?
Complaining about this is tantamount to making love to your wife in your open front doorway and then demanding a law be passed to protect your privacy from your neighbor or the police car driving by. For crying out loud! Isn't some burden on you to secure your own privacy? This is not so far from the DMCA requiring legal protection against breaking "protection mechanisms" that are not effective in the slightest. Why in the world would you trust the government enough to expect them to take responsibility for securing your privacy?
People seem to be looking for an expensive legislative solution to a technological problem that already has an inexpensive technical solution.
Thanks!
Two great options are to repeal patent laws, which I've been advocating for awhile now, or to (mis)use the power of eminent domain to "steal" this "intellectual property" for the "public good." I don't support eminent domain existing at all, but as long as we've got the big stick it seems like we might as well continue to thrash with it whenever we think we've got a shot at doing something good, and curing AIDS seems like a pretty good thing.
This is already occasionally done within Wikipedia. Also, everyone possesses the right to fork the entire project, or any individual article, under the terms of the GNU FDL.
It's not the solution you're looking for, but have you considered pointing students to a specific revision of an article? For example, I want to point my students to George W. Bush, but I know that this article frequently has the picture of its subject replaced with pictures of Jar-Jar Binks and Chacellor Palpatine. So I go to George W. Bush, click history, and then click on the top date listed. This last link gives me the current revision of the article, which I can send to my students in the relative security that it will continue to be valid.
I blew up and started obliterating every add I could when Drudge Report went around Firefox's built-in popup blocking. Prior to that, I'd been blocking images from ad servers that served women in swimsuits (or less), since I won't look at a woman dressed like that unless I'm married to her. That meant I was missing most of Slashdot's ads.
I've never had any qualms about blocking the ads, and have been saying for a long time that we'll just she a shift in the "ecology" of website funding. Some will continue to be funded by ads, more will become funded by donations or subscriptions. Some will continue to be funded by private individuals or companies.
I keep hearing two-bit webmasters on slashdot prophesy Armageddon on the web because of people like me. Yet life has continued to go on, and it's nice to see someone putting out content on the Internet who does not think that ad blocking is going to cause the sky to fall.
I run only a handful of websites; one is supported by user donations, and the others are not yet big enough to need anything other than about $10/year from me.
I'm a much happier man since I started skipping all ads on the Internet. We also quit watching television other than recorded shows where we could skip the ads, or purchased movies with no ads (other than at the beginning, sigh...). Much, much happier, all around.
This is ridiculous. How can you compare data duplication to theft? It may make the original copy less valuable, but so does opening a new shoestore next to a shoestore you run. Devaluation is not theft, nor is duplication.