Corporations are not to blame for the their influence on politics, we are. Corporations are a lot like people, they seek to protect their own interests. However, unlike most people, corporations get off their asses, get organized, and take action.
smallpaul: Regardless of whether I disagree with you or not, you have been making some of the best constructed arguments that I have seen here tonight.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
If you are so disgusted with the States then why don't you leave the cushy environs of Stanford? I suggest resuming your studies in some country that has not played military or economic power to their advantage. Of course, this means that you would not be resuming your studies, since such a country would have vanished at the hands of other, less foolish, geopolitical players.
You may disagree with my opinion on this, and you are certainly free to do so and post it for the world to see (Yet another benefit of "Globalization").
"This is a common claim, but it demonstrably false."
If it were "demonstrably" false then why isn't accepted as such?
"In fact, one could argue that the second world war in the pacific was largely caused by trade relationships."
"Fact" and "one could argue"? FACT: You CAN argue that gravity does not exist. Facts and arguments are logically very different things.
"What has changed, is the greatly increased importance of multinational corporations."
Great! Let me list some of the ways that multinationals are currently benefiting YOU:
-The electricity that you depend on for your current state of life was generated using turbines made by a multinational company.
-Driven lately? Ride the bus instead? Yep, made by "multinationals."
-The computer you are using? Multinationals.
-Your fine University? It does business with many countries, and is thus "multinational".
- On and on and on...
"Methinks you got it backward, Jack. When someone drives drunk they infringe on our rights. If we allow people to drive drunk then it is us that deserve neither liberty or safety."
Right, the same way that sombody spilling their soda on the floor and getting distracted infringes on my rights. The same way that tuning the radio infringes on my rights. The same way that the fire truck driving down the road with its sirens on infringes on my rights (The cause of an accident in my case.)
Get over it people. A drunk driver is not infringing on any rights until they are actually in an accident. The increased possiblity that someone may infringe on your rights does not mean that they are infringing on your rights.
I read the article and it looks like the proponents have overlooked a major source of liability. I have read though the posts and most people have raised the point of false alarms but what about device failures? These detectors will not see general usage simply because neither the automakers or the police will not want to accept the legal responsibility that comes along with them.
Suppose that a person who is drunk gets in a serious wreck which injures/maims/kills another person. Now also suppose that it is proven that the device failed to detect the drunk driver either due to its design or from device failure. Or, alternatively, imagine that the device is working perfectly and the nearby police officer does not stop the driver for some reason. It seems to me that if either of these instances were to take place, the manufacturer or police would also share some liability, however small, for the accident. The manufacturer would be at fault for making a defective product and the police would be at fault for failing to do their duty. From the plaintiff lawyer's point of view the pool of possible defendents has now grown beyond the driver to the automaker and/or city. Unless automakers and the city are explicitly protected, lawyers will find a way to demonstrate that they are liable. Why? Because automakers and cities have *much* deeper pockets than any drunk driver. Cities and automakers will never get explicit protection on this issue for the same reason.
Carmakers may be getting sued over drunk driving accidents now, but imagine when they cannot say that the function their product has nothing to do with the condition of the operator. This is why ignition interlocks for DD offenders are mandated by the court; no manufacturer would the liabilty. The police/city would face an enormous amount of exposure as well since they could no longer say that they were not aware that a crime was taking place. This is also why court mandated interlocks don't notify the police directly. These detectors will not see the light of day outside of specific circustances simply because their very design opens up an expensive legal "can of worms".
Does anyone here really want to do anything about this? I read most of the posts on this page and I never read any truly valid suggestions about what we can effectively do about garbage like this.
The entertainment industry is promoting copy protection *because it can* and they think will pay to do so. Why do people copy software? Because they can, and it pays to do so.
The fact is current copyright law is simply inadequate under the current circmstances. Any entity, public, private, or commercial is going to take advantage of situations where the law is vague. I know I do! The courts won't (and shouldn't) take it upon themselves to define the law for us, we have to take it to them. The politicians won't do anything about it until they think it will cost them their seat.
It doesn't really matter if the issue is raised through the courts or through the legislature. What we need to do is raise the issue of who is allowed to do what when it comes to copywrites. We need a way to funnel the passion over this issue (300+ posts) away from slashdot and toward Washington. People don't get power just because there are a lot of them, people get power when they are organized.
Let's get something going!
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations are not to blame for the their influence on politics, we are. Corporations are a lot like people, they seek to protect their own interests. However, unlike most people, corporations get off their asses, get organized, and take action.
smallpaul: Regardless of whether I disagree with you or not, you have been making some of the best constructed arguments that I have seen here tonight.
If you are so disgusted with the States then why don't you leave the cushy environs of Stanford? I suggest resuming your studies in some country that has not played military or economic power to their advantage. Of course, this means that you would not be resuming your studies, since such a country would have vanished at the hands of other, less foolish, geopolitical players.
...
You may disagree with my opinion on this, and you are certainly free to do so and post it for the world to see (Yet another benefit of "Globalization").
"This is a common claim, but it demonstrably false."
If it were "demonstrably" false then why isn't accepted as such?
"In fact, one could argue that the second world war in the pacific was largely caused by trade relationships."
"Fact" and "one could argue"? FACT: You CAN argue that gravity does not exist. Facts and arguments are logically very different things.
"What has changed, is the greatly increased importance of multinational corporations."
Great! Let me list some of the ways that multinationals are currently benefiting YOU:
-The electricity that you depend on for your current state of life was generated using turbines made by a multinational company.
-Driven lately? Ride the bus instead? Yep, made by "multinationals."
-The computer you are using? Multinationals.
-Your fine University? It does business with many countries, and is thus "multinational".
- On and on and on
"Methinks you got it backward, Jack. When someone drives drunk they infringe on our rights. If we allow people to drive drunk then it is us that deserve neither liberty or safety."
Right, the same way that sombody spilling their soda on the floor and getting distracted infringes on my rights. The same way that tuning the radio infringes on my rights. The same way that the fire truck driving down the road with its sirens on infringes on my rights (The cause of an accident in my case.)
Get over it people. A drunk driver is not infringing on any rights until they are actually in an accident. The increased possiblity that someone may infringe on your rights does not mean that they are infringing on your rights.
I read the article and it looks like the proponents have overlooked a major source of liability. I have read though the posts and most people have raised the point of false alarms but what about device failures? These detectors will not see general usage simply because neither the automakers or the police will not want to accept the legal responsibility that comes along with them.
Suppose that a person who is drunk gets in a serious wreck which injures/maims/kills another person. Now also suppose that it is proven that the device failed to detect the drunk driver either due to its design or from device failure. Or, alternatively, imagine that the device is working perfectly and the nearby police officer does not stop the driver for some reason. It seems to me that if either of these instances were to take place, the manufacturer or police would also share some liability, however small, for the accident. The manufacturer would be at fault for making a defective product and the police would be at fault for failing to do their duty. From the plaintiff lawyer's point of view the pool of possible defendents has now grown beyond the driver to the automaker and/or city. Unless automakers and the city are explicitly protected, lawyers will find a way to demonstrate that they are liable. Why? Because automakers and cities have *much* deeper pockets than any drunk driver. Cities and automakers will never get explicit protection on this issue for the same reason.
Carmakers may be getting sued over drunk driving accidents now, but imagine when they cannot say that the function their product has nothing to do with the condition of the operator. This is why ignition interlocks for DD offenders are mandated by the court; no manufacturer would the liabilty. The police/city would face an enormous amount of exposure as well since they could no longer say that they were not aware that a crime was taking place. This is also why court mandated interlocks don't notify the police directly. These detectors will not see the light of day outside of specific circustances simply because their very design opens up an expensive legal "can of worms".
Does anyone here really want to do anything about this? I read most of the posts on this page and I never read any truly valid suggestions about what we can effectively do about garbage like this. The entertainment industry is promoting copy protection *because it can* and they think will pay to do so. Why do people copy software? Because they can, and it pays to do so. The fact is current copyright law is simply inadequate under the current circmstances. Any entity, public, private, or commercial is going to take advantage of situations where the law is vague. I know I do! The courts won't (and shouldn't) take it upon themselves to define the law for us, we have to take it to them. The politicians won't do anything about it until they think it will cost them their seat. It doesn't really matter if the issue is raised through the courts or through the legislature. What we need to do is raise the issue of who is allowed to do what when it comes to copywrites. We need a way to funnel the passion over this issue (300+ posts) away from slashdot and toward Washington. People don't get power just because there are a lot of them, people get power when they are organized. Let's get something going!