Just wait until a bank goes under. With the current level of corporate debt exposure and matching defaults / bankruptcies, it can't be far off.
I'm guessing the government will bail the banks out faster than I can type this. We prolly won't even get to hear about it because of what the idea of banks going belly up would do to the economy.
I think the whole point is that these companies don't care about laws. Making new laws is not going to change this, its just more rules to evade, fudge, or just plain ignore.
How many times do companies do things that are truly reprehensible, that hurt people or damage society etc and then say 'its not personal, its just business'.
The upshot is - business doesn't care about people. It also doesn't care about the economy further than how the economy impacts its operation. Business will do anything they want to do when it comes to selling product and ensuring those sales. Lock down your market, patent generic ideas, indoctrinate your buyers, stamp on the competition.
Why do those protective laws only apply to US citizens? If the laws are right and just, why don't they apply to any people falling under the jurisdiction of US law ?
US law itself shows that when Americans are doing the judging, its one rule for Americans, and another rule for everyone else.
----------------[snip]-----------------------
Regarding rights: there is still judicial approval of evidence gathered against a U.S. citizen. The rules of evidence required to convict a U.S. citizen still exist. You confuse the rules used to stop an act of terrorism with the rules to convict, they are different.
I'm a nut too, so I have nothing against nuts pers se. I mailed him back to tell him he's a jerk, and give him some stick. My comments were meant to get gut reaction from the author and give me a laugh, not to inflame the general US public, so read past the language and listen to the ideas if you please.
Mail text follows:
Borders came about on planet earth because of human evolutions inescapable divergence around continental boundaries and ensuing racial divisions. With the advent of technology that leads us to space those boundaries become completely artificial, so why cling to the old forms and norms that might lead us to make the same geo-political mistakes again ?
The international space communities have done a good job of keeping the politically messy situation they have inherited as open and cooperative as possible under the circumstances. They deserve overwhelming financial support, this is the only part of your editorial that makes any sense.
So you urge the US to rush out and proclaim it 'owns' parts of new worlds? You are a dinosaur my friend, and a frightened, paranoid and greedy one at that.
The corporate citizens of the USA and their political prostitutes have cast acquisitive eyes on their less developed neighbouring nations for years as its own internal mismanagement, resource shortages and depletion escalate. I have to ask, do you really belong in Hawaii, Alaska or any of the other non-adjoining areas you occupy? All I get from your words is that the expansion-focused factions of your society are feeling frustrated with a world that these days frowns on forcible aquisition (and would be prepared to deny those that attempt it just as forcibly).
Rather than whipping up sentiment to race out and find another patch of resources to own (read - exploit), why don't you try motivating americans to clean up the lovely bit of the world they are responsible for and restructure their manufacturing and economic processes into something that may be actually sustainable with the resources you have? If you weren't so hopelessly mismangaged and feeling the pressures of same I wonder if you'd still hold to the same attitudes.
Also - why would you think that the US constitution is anything to be wished for? Perhaps I miss something, but the precious rights it proclaims so grandiously are things that other developed nations take for granted. Legislation provides the same result without an archaic and restrictive template that is almost impossible to change. From the outside, the US is one of the most hidebound and restrictive developed nations on earth. Why propagate the template that led you there in any space-faring society ? Perhaps you might consider asking the people who go to live on mars what they would like. Novel concept for you I expect.
And the 'New Frontier' Star Trek tag you borrowed - space in that vision of the future was owned by no geography or political faction. The idea would be abhorrent to those that drew a vision of a future where those of russian, chinese, uk and us (think of the original Enterprise crew) descent worked side by side and owed allegiance to no single nation. Perhaps you should do your homework before borrowing lines from ideologies so diametrically opposed to your own.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah I'd just love to see them try to enforce DMCA on an Australian. LOL. Idiot :)
Just wait until a bank goes under. With the current level of corporate debt exposure and matching defaults / bankruptcies, it can't be far off.
I'm guessing the government will bail the banks out faster than I can type this. We prolly won't even get to hear about it because of what the idea of banks going belly up would do to the economy.
What do you think they'd do ?
I think the whole point is that these companies don't care about laws. Making new laws is not going to change this, its just more rules to evade, fudge, or just plain ignore.
How many times do companies do things that are truly reprehensible, that hurt people or damage society etc and then say 'its not personal, its just business'.
The upshot is - business doesn't care about people. It also doesn't care about the economy further than how the economy impacts its operation. Business will do anything they want to do when it comes to selling product and ensuring those sales. Lock down your market, patent generic ideas, indoctrinate your buyers, stamp on the competition.
Its just business
Yay for living in the 00's.
D.
HumbleOpinion:
Why do those protective laws only apply to US citizens? If the laws are right and just, why don't they apply to any people falling under the jurisdiction of US law ?
US law itself shows that when Americans are doing the judging, its one rule for Americans, and another rule for everyone else.
----------------[snip]-----------------------
Regarding rights: there is still judicial approval of evidence gathered against a U.S. citizen. The rules of evidence required to convict a U.S. citizen still exist. You confuse the rules used to stop an act of terrorism with the rules to convict, they are different.
I'm a nut too, so I have nothing against nuts pers se. I mailed him back to tell him he's a jerk, and give him some stick. My comments were meant to get gut reaction from the author and give me a laugh, not to inflame the general US public, so read past the language and listen to the ideas if you please.
Mail text follows:
Borders came about on planet earth because of human evolutions inescapable divergence around continental boundaries and ensuing racial divisions. With the advent of technology that leads us to space those boundaries become completely artificial, so why cling to the old forms and norms that might lead us to make the same geo-political mistakes again ?
The international space communities have done a good job of keeping the politically messy situation they have inherited as open and cooperative as possible under the circumstances. They deserve overwhelming financial support, this is the only part of your editorial that makes any sense.
So you urge the US to rush out and proclaim it 'owns' parts of new worlds? You are a dinosaur my friend, and a frightened, paranoid and greedy one at that.
The corporate citizens of the USA and their political prostitutes have cast acquisitive eyes on their less developed neighbouring nations for years as its own internal mismanagement, resource shortages and depletion escalate. I have to ask, do you really belong in Hawaii, Alaska or any of the other non-adjoining areas you occupy? All I get from your words is that the expansion-focused factions of your society are feeling frustrated with a world that these days frowns on forcible aquisition (and would be prepared to deny those that attempt it just as forcibly).
Rather than whipping up sentiment to race out and find another patch of resources to own (read - exploit), why don't you try motivating americans to clean up the lovely bit of the world they are responsible for and restructure their manufacturing and economic processes into something that may be actually sustainable with the resources you have? If you weren't so hopelessly mismangaged and feeling the pressures of same I wonder if you'd still hold to the same attitudes.
Also - why would you think that the US constitution is anything to be wished for? Perhaps I miss something, but the precious rights it proclaims so grandiously are things that other developed nations take for granted. Legislation provides the same result without an archaic and restrictive template that is almost impossible to change. From the outside, the US is one of the most hidebound and restrictive developed nations on earth. Why propagate the template that led you there in any space-faring society ? Perhaps you might consider asking the people who go to live on mars what they would like. Novel concept for you I expect.
And the 'New Frontier' Star Trek tag you borrowed - space in that vision of the future was owned by no geography or political faction. The idea would be abhorrent to those that drew a vision of a future where those of russian, chinese, uk and us (think of the original Enterprise crew) descent worked side by side and owed allegiance to no single nation. Perhaps you should do your homework before borrowing lines from ideologies so diametrically opposed to your own.
ps evolve or fall by the wayside.