You need an example of the lemming-like behavior of geeks, just take a look at the unthinking devotion when it comes to Gmail. Little gits practically worship the service despite the fact that it's more intrusive than any other webmail offering out there - all because it comes from Google.
They're no different than the drones that worship Billy G. and Microsoft, or Macs, or Linux, or (insert tech church here).
Max
Re:I'd rather my child be an innocent little angel
on
Google Upgrades AdSense
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The point is that pornography is degrading and turns good kids into creeps.
An empirical study published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal backing up this claim would be of interest.
Hint: Readers Digest doesn't quite make the grade.
It's TV, for chrissakes...they're just going to replace each analog channel of pure shit with twenty digital channels of pure shit. I really can't get that worked up about it.
Bearing that in mind, neither do I see any burning need to push the switch from analog to digital. Analog works just fine for the customer, who can always get cable or satellite if they want hundreds more channels of drivel.
Congress might try leaving well enough alone for another decade or so. The only people who're going to be whining about it are broadcast companies. And a few self-centered twits here on Slashdot, of course.
...when all cars are computerized and manual driving is no longer allowed except on special private courses. Then all those arrogant morons who think they're the worlds greatest drivers (even while eating or on their cell phones) will have to sit back and let the computer do the driving for them, fuming all the while over the fact they no longer get to endanger everyone else on the road with their stupidity.
As for me, I'll be sitting back, drinking my coffee, and reading a good book while the car merrily zips to my destination. And laughing every time I think about these little twits having an infarction over the fact that they don't get to impress us with their 'leet' driving skills anymore.
Going with this particular theoretical model the worker is triply taxed. On his wages, directly on his purchases (sales tax, gasoline tax, etc.), and finally indirectly on his purchases via corporations.
This is exactly right.
If the corporation can be an agent of government and collect taxes why can it not also be an agent of the customer representing the customer's interests in a particular field.
Corporations can't be agents of anything. Individuals within the corporations can, but not the corporation itself. So far as taxes are concerned the corporation is a collection point, nothing more.
In any advent your argument fails to demonstrate why corporation should not be allowed to address Congress on matters that affect their owners and customers.
Because corporations aren't people, regardless of what the courts say. A corporation is no more a real person than the Easter Bunny is a real rabbit.
It's frightening that you find the fewer perspective and opinions presented to legislators the better.
No one is stopping people from speaking their minds. Where they are employed when they do so is of absolutely no legal consequence. The assertion that a corporation can speak to anything is the nonsensical idea here.
"Labor of customers"? Sure you didn't mean "labor of workers"
No, I did not. Corporations are the collection point for taxes on the labor of customers. The customer exchanges a portion of his labor for a portion of the labor of workers at the corporation; the government takes its cut, and what's left over is appropriated by the stockholders.
Corporations are fictitious. They can't labor nor can they create wealth. Only workers can do that. And all workers are customers.
The corporation and the individuals that comprise the corporation are *both* taxed. Therefore they *both* get a voice.
That's a crock. Corporations are collecting points for taxing the labor of *customers*. Where the hell do you think the corporation gets its money from? Trees?
I actually agree with MS's stand on this one, strangely enough. But not just for the reasons MS listed.
Fact is, I don't agree with antidiscrimination laws. I think the person or persons who own a business should be capable of discriminating against anyone based on any criteria they want. Skin color, religion, politics, number of piercings, whatever. They own the business, they get to decide who works there no matter how ridiculous the requirements are, so long as they obey the Constitution or any derivative laws. Note that while the Constitution provides a basis for barring discrimination within GOVERNMENT, it does no such thing - doesn't even hint at it - when it comes to the activities of private citizens.
In fact, a case could be made that discrimination is a protected right for citizens of this country. The argument over whether or not it's fair is irrelevent; the Constitution affords no proection against discrimination by private parties.
If you don't like this, you can change the Constitution. Hell, if people can ban alchohol for 14 years it seems that getting an anti-discrimination amendment into the Constitution shouldn't be nearly as difficult.
For this reason I see no legal basis for laws against discrimination when it comes to private enterprises, and I think all such laws are invalid on their face. I would take the opposite point of view were there an actual amendment barring instances of private discrimination.
If they are to have no voice in Congress they should not be taxed. "No taxation without representation" is one of the principles behind the birth of the United States.
What sort of bullshit is this? Corporations aren't people; they're composed of people. The people who comprise the corporation are the ones who get to vote.
There's a difference between assigning individuals rights (afforded in the Constitution) and assigning imaginary entities rights (never granted by the Constitution). Don't confuse the two.
people will continue to see them as bullies who are looking out for nobody but themselves.
Most slashdotters, perhaps. I doubt that most people give a shit one way or another. I certainly don't hear Joe User bitching in the street about that 'evil Microsoft'.
Lately I've been getting the feeling that I take care of my home subnet, on my free time, better than most admins do on the clock.
I think you'd be right. When I was consulting it never ceased to amaze me just how little was done to secure the network at most places. Whether corporate or government it didn't make a difference.
I don't think this is a lackadaisical attitude towards security in particular, but the fact that IT departments tend to attract the least competent people in the computer sciences.
I know my home network is more secure than most of the businesses/government agencies I consulted for even though I could certainly do more to improve it.
They may be bad, but they do not have monopolies. By definition, they can't be with all the freely available, legal non-pirated non-MPAA/RIAA films and music out there.
They're oligopolies, not monopolies. And according to Webster they fit that definition perfectly. Neither an oligopoly or a monopoly has to have absolute control over a market to make the grade.
Reducing the supply of bootlegs doesn't translate into increased sales of legitimiate DVDs. Economics tells us that the higher the price vs the perceived value, the less people who'll buy the product. It could very well be that the price of the bootleg is acceptable to bootleg customers, but that the price of the legal DVD is not.
Which means that you might get *no* increase in legal DVDs by shutting down bootleg operations. You will, however, acquire power that you didn't have before (by definition).
Great. Now back up your opinion with empirical evidence published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal. Show us all just how effective punishment actually is.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA. It's a joke.
It's amazing how many slashdotters failed to notice the "whooshing" sound over their heads after they finished the article.
Max
You need an example of the lemming-like behavior of geeks, just take a look at the unthinking devotion when it comes to Gmail. Little gits practically worship the service despite the fact that it's more intrusive than any other webmail offering out there - all because it comes from Google.
They're no different than the drones that worship Billy G. and Microsoft, or Macs, or Linux, or (insert tech church here).
Max
The point is that pornography is degrading and turns good kids into creeps.
An empirical study published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal backing up this claim would be of interest.
Hint: Readers Digest doesn't quite make the grade.
Max
It's TV, for chrissakes...they're just going to replace each analog channel of pure shit with twenty digital channels of pure shit. I really can't get that worked up about it.
Bearing that in mind, neither do I see any burning need to push the switch from analog to digital. Analog works just fine for the customer, who can always get cable or satellite if they want hundreds more channels of drivel.
Congress might try leaving well enough alone for another decade or so. The only people who're going to be whining about it are broadcast companies. And a few self-centered twits here on Slashdot, of course.
Max
...when all cars are computerized and manual driving is no longer allowed except on special private courses. Then all those arrogant morons who think they're the worlds greatest drivers (even while eating or on their cell phones) will have to sit back and let the computer do the driving for them, fuming all the while over the fact they no longer get to endanger everyone else on the road with their stupidity.
As for me, I'll be sitting back, drinking my coffee, and reading a good book while the car merrily zips to my destination. And laughing every time I think about these little twits having an infarction over the fact that they don't get to impress us with their 'leet' driving skills anymore.
Yes, those will indeed be good times.
Max
Very Monty Python, so the choice of actor makes sense. I rank it up there with the BMW film series.
Max
Going with this particular theoretical model the worker is triply taxed. On his wages, directly on his purchases (sales tax, gasoline tax, etc.), and finally indirectly on his purchases via corporations.
This is exactly right.
If the corporation can be an agent of government and collect taxes why can it not also be an agent of the customer representing the customer's interests in a particular field.
Corporations can't be agents of anything. Individuals within the corporations can, but not the corporation itself. So far as taxes are concerned the corporation is a collection point, nothing more.
In any advent your argument fails to demonstrate why corporation should not be allowed to address Congress on matters that affect their owners and customers.
Because corporations aren't people, regardless of what the courts say. A corporation is no more a real person than the Easter Bunny is a real rabbit.
It's frightening that you find the fewer perspective and opinions presented to legislators the better.
No one is stopping people from speaking their minds. Where they are employed when they do so is of absolutely no legal consequence. The assertion that a corporation can speak to anything is the nonsensical idea here.
Max
"Labor of customers"? Sure you didn't mean "labor of workers"
No, I did not. Corporations are the collection point for taxes on the labor of customers. The customer exchanges a portion of his labor for a portion of the labor of workers at the corporation; the government takes its cut, and what's left over is appropriated by the stockholders.
Corporations are fictitious. They can't labor nor can they create wealth. Only workers can do that. And all workers are customers.
Really, this is basic economics.
Max
The corporation and the individuals that comprise the corporation are *both* taxed. Therefore they *both* get a voice.
That's a crock. Corporations are collecting points for taxing the labor of *customers*. Where the hell do you think the corporation gets its money from? Trees?
You need to (re)take Economics 101, Jack.
Max
Nothing is said about their individual rights if you strip the corporation of personhood. They still retain those rights.
Max
Does that make sense to anyone?
Should read: As compared to the Apple fanboys who think the very same thing about Microsoft?
Max
I actually agree with MS's stand on this one, strangely enough. But not just for the reasons MS listed.
Fact is, I don't agree with antidiscrimination laws. I think the person or persons who own a business should be capable of discriminating against anyone based on any criteria they want. Skin color, religion, politics, number of piercings, whatever. They own the business, they get to decide who works there no matter how ridiculous the requirements are, so long as they obey the Constitution or any derivative laws. Note that while the Constitution provides a basis for barring discrimination within GOVERNMENT, it does no such thing - doesn't even hint at it - when it comes to the activities of private citizens.
In fact, a case could be made that discrimination is a protected right for citizens of this country. The argument over whether or not it's fair is irrelevent; the Constitution affords no proection against discrimination by private parties.
If you don't like this, you can change the Constitution. Hell, if people can ban alchohol for 14 years it seems that getting an anti-discrimination amendment into the Constitution shouldn't be nearly as difficult.
For this reason I see no legal basis for laws against discrimination when it comes to private enterprises, and I think all such laws are invalid on their face. I would take the opposite point of view were there an actual amendment barring instances of private discrimination.
Max
If they are to have no voice in Congress they should not be taxed. "No taxation without representation" is one of the principles behind the birth of the United States.
What sort of bullshit is this? Corporations aren't people; they're composed of people. The people who comprise the corporation are the ones who get to vote.
Max
There's a difference between assigning individuals rights (afforded in the Constitution) and assigning imaginary entities rights (never granted by the Constitution). Don't confuse the two.
Max
It really is too bad that there are so many M$ fanboys out there who need to believe that Apple isn't the big inovator of the OS world.
As compared to the Apple fanboys who think the very same thing?
Max
Um, what's wrong with locate for Linux?
What's wrong is that it's *Linux*. Neither the Mac nor Windows zealots will ever admit that Linux is a serious competitor in their beloved OS market.
Max
So you chose a hedonistic life of short lived pleasure, as opposed to what you perceive to be a dull\doomed life.
Hell yes! Life is short, whether you live to be 40 or 60 or 80. Might as well have some fun during the brief time you're here.
Max
people will continue to see them as bullies who are looking out for nobody but themselves.
Most slashdotters, perhaps. I doubt that most people give a shit one way or another. I certainly don't hear Joe User bitching in the street about that 'evil Microsoft'.
Max
these are public servents not public surfs.
Those damned surfs. Only of use to slacker beach bums. To hell with them all.
Max
Lately I've been getting the feeling that I take care of my home subnet, on my free time, better than most admins do on the clock.
I think you'd be right. When I was consulting it never ceased to amaze me just how little was done to secure the network at most places. Whether corporate or government it didn't make a difference.
I don't think this is a lackadaisical attitude towards security in particular, but the fact that IT departments tend to attract the least competent people in the computer sciences.
I know my home network is more secure than most of the businesses/government agencies I consulted for even though I could certainly do more to improve it.
Max
They may be bad, but they do not have monopolies. By definition, they can't be with all the freely available, legal non-pirated non-MPAA/RIAA films and music out there.
They're oligopolies, not monopolies. And according to Webster they fit that definition perfectly. Neither an oligopoly or a monopoly has to have absolute control over a market to make the grade.
Max
I do however have empathy for law enforcement who take measures to make ends meet.
It's called "committing a crime". Stop trying to justify it and gloss it over. Any copy who accepts a bribe is just a thug wearing a badge.
Max
That should be "no increase in the purchase of legal DVDs".
Max
Is there something there that you disagree with?
Reducing the supply of bootlegs doesn't translate into increased sales of legitimiate DVDs. Economics tells us that the higher the price vs the perceived value, the less people who'll buy the product. It could very well be that the price of the bootleg is acceptable to bootleg customers, but that the price of the legal DVD is not.
Which means that you might get *no* increase in legal DVDs by shutting down bootleg operations. You will, however, acquire power that you didn't have before (by definition).
Max
I call BS
Great. Now back up your opinion with empirical evidence published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal. Show us all just how effective punishment actually is.
Max