How much you would be willing to pay AT&T to ensure they did not give your information to the NSA?
For the analogy-impaired: Google and Facebook might be happy to sell you "privacy", but they're still not going to say "no" when the feds come knocking.
Yes exactly. I could (almost) care less about which other private entities a company like Google or AT&T sell access to my data only because what they do with that data is limited. What I do fear though is these companies bending so easily to when governments come knocking, demanding data. Governments have the power (they have the big guns) to put you in prison or to completely ruin your life and these types of things have gotten this out of control thanks to the U.S. government scaring people about terrorism. It's been a perfect storm really, we'll hand over all of our liberties in order to get "security." Well we've gotten neither now as we've given up our liberties and we really aren't any safer, plus we have the annoying and expensive Department of Homeland Security and an overreaching TSA. Bush started it, Obama continues to expand it.
Then most of the world is communism... The government builds roads and all manner of other infrastructure for the benefit of all the people. Many things are simply not economically viable to do in a capitalist system, so they would never get done at all without government intervention.
Two things, your last statement about things never getting done without government is easy to say, very difficult to prove.
Second, our crumbling and dangerous and non-innovative roads in the US seem to bend more rims on potholes and keep car repair shops in business than they do to help anybody.:)
Cool, another internet homespun philosopher who's been educated in the University Of Life and don't need no fancy economics professor to tell him what o'clock it is when the cows need milking.
Yeah, because you know me so well! What would I do without someone like you to put me in my box?
That's what they wanted you to think, but really, can you prove that? That's a huge conjecture. And even if it was true, I don't like the current state of the economy nor all of the power the government has usurped from productive citizens. All the government did was to make the hangover temporarily go away by drinking more alcohol. You don't cure a hangover that way. You endure the pain, and you don't get wasted in the future.
Bingo! It's a plain and simple solution, and it works! What I want to know is, what rules can we put in place to automatically shrink the size of government when it gets too big to fail?
I live up in Canada. My car insurance, electrical power, natural gas, water, and waste treatment are all provided as government-owned (that is to say, owned by *me*) utilies. Our rates are lower than the private rates in nearby provinces.
I'm currently charged exorbitant amounts of money for internet access by a private ISP (the local cable company). I would *love* for the city to take over last-mile Internet connectivity, and then a bunch of independent ISPs could offer different packages for upstream connectivity. As it stands you have two choices for Internet access, the phone company or the cable company.
The "low" rate is what you might be billed by "your" utilities, but what are the true prices of such service? Could such utilities survive without the local government subsidizing them with tax money? So if you took away the tax money, you'd better believe the price would be higher directly to you. Second, if government-owned things are such a silver bullet, why not nationalize everything. Then you would completely control everything! If you think that's absurd, then how would you propose what should be nationalized (or owned by local governments) and what should be private? How can you truly know how efficient and effective your government agencies are? There's really no such thing.
I agree. Not only is it a luxury item that is important, but it's too important for the government to control. Can you imagine the security implications and headaches a network like this would have? There are so many technical, economic and legal unintended consequences to this, it's not even funny. If the government might do anything (and even here I'm skeptical), they should help make sure that the current private means of getting on the 'net remain competitive and sooner than later, cheap Internet in many different forms will be ubiquitous without the unintended consequences that only a government can create.
I predict this will also be a new avenue for the US federal government to regulate the Internet into oblivion. This is a setup for a massive new power grab.
Yes of course road quality varies, and who knows exactly why some jurisdictions have much better roads than others. It's definitely not as simple as "the voters to want it." In an ideal world, that would be true. But like I replied to another comment, there are all kinds of things standing in the way of true representation like that such as corruption, lobbying, lust for power, the legislators personally disagreeing, etc.
"I would say a government has more incentive than any private entity in maintaining roads. What incentive would a private contractor have in maintining it right? If it gets paid a fixed rate for "operation" then the more skimping on quality means more profit."
I wasn't necessarily comparing to private road operators, but you clearly don't understand the concept of competition. Of course a company who would have zero other competition would be horrible at road maintenance (just like the government operator). But that scenario does not and would not exist. If private road operators were able to properly pay for and acquire the right of way to build new parallel roads, people could choose the best route to get somewhere. So of course it's a bit more complex than that, but you get my point. Also, different modes of transportation provide incentives to maintain the roads well by private entities. This is not true of a government. If people prefer the local trains because the roads have too many potholes and feel dangerous, it won't just go fix the roads. There are so many political wills to take into account, plus lobbying, labor unions, regulations, and the personal feelings of the legislators. It's much simpler and more straightforward for a private company compared to a government.
I'm not trying to insert a discussion of the pros and cons of the government making and maintaining roads, but simply trying to state that governments have very little, if any, incentive to improve roads, improve the safety of roads or use new innovative techniques. It usually takes a crisis before new things get implemented. Under normal circumstances they have very little incentive to continually raise the bar and wow the user (all of us) of the roads.
For those who are generally ok with the government knowing best for them, how can you justify your position with something like this? It clearly is something so egregious, so ridiculous, so out-of-bounds! Honestly, how is this about protecting people at all and not about special interests, money and more power? I find people who trust their government officials to do the "right thing" for the "greater good" to be really naive. The best kind of government is the one that does the minimal. Protects justice by providing a judicial system to resolve conflicts after the fact, a defense force that protects the borders and does not get involved in offensive wars or peace missions (unless invited by allies), and highly federal (meaning localized, not nationalized) police forces. This is the only way to keep things like this ridiculous new power grab from happening. But even then, I'm pessimistic that such a government wouldn't still grow into the tyrannical behemoths that we have today in the "free" world. How can anyone defend such power grabs?
You make it sound so simple. If you think you can do that better, do it. And get those ten thousand bucks yourself.
Google is doing something that _no one else in the world is able to do half as well as them_. I think they deserve their money for that. The "simple summary work" that you point out is way more complex than you make it sound.
So no, you are not entitled to a piece of that simply because you wrote an article.
Completely agree. Well said. It's easy to say something is easy and straightforward after the fact, but what Google has done and continues to do is nothing short of amazing.
Darn! You beat me to linking to that article. Even after reading that article, I still feel really good about voting for Gary Johnson even though I know it won't make much of a difference. But I can't in good conscience support the two major bafoons.
Absolutely well said. I really wish someone could go on all of the national TV stations during prime time and announce this. It boggles my mind how passionate people get about voting for their guy, because the other guy is purely evil! Really...why do we seemingly always end up with evil then? Why don't we stop voting for evil, and kick evil out. There's no room for evil anymore. Time to get a few people with a clue who aren't completely bought out to all of the lobbyist interests.
Sure, let's throw more money at the problem. Money solves all issues! We don't need brains, or make wise decisions. Just throw more money at it! How's that education working out for the Microsoft people lobbying Congress to do this? Not so well I see.
"As for your second paragraph; that's a political thing, as to whether or not the state (or in the EU's case, the Union) should interfere, and to what degree. However, let's say you did think Google was abusing its position, unfairly, causing you (perhaps as a website operator who needed those search hits to function/generate revenue, but were being punished for not being a Google product, or Google-friendly), what are you alone going to be able to do about it? Nothing remotely effective."
Who cares? In your fictitious scenario with Google (which would never happen the way you describe), even if it could be true, Google earned that right to be that dominant. People chose to use Google en masse. Are you (the all-knowing government) going to punish all of the people who chose to use Google and give it the dominant position? What if such an action caused Google such irrevocable harm that it eventually led to it going out of business? Was "justice" served? Or did the most dominant gang (i.e. the prevailing government), exercise its unjust force over a lesser gang (i.e. Google), crushing it? I would say in such a scenario, the government owes a lot of damages to a lot of people.
What's to stop the EU from systematically only targeting U.S. companies since they seem to be the ones with a lot of money? At what point does it not become completely corrupt and a scheme to steal money from the productive sector into the unproductive sector? I say it is always corrupt.
Absolutely disagree. The only monopolies that exist are governments. Governments are the only ones that can hand out true monopolies to companies. Microsoft in the late 90s early 2000's was a classic example of what was mislabeled a monopoly. Many claimed that IE was too dominant and nobody could shake that. Now look at it (and no, it didn't have anything to do with the US antitrust suit against Microsoft. It had everything to do with Firefox being a formidable competitor and Microsoft getting soft).
The most telling line of your statement is "Be thankful that this is happening. It's good for you in the end." Well in that case, why don't you give me all of your money because I know (trust me) that I will better manage your money, and even grow your total assets for you! Oh, and you don't have a choice, because after all, it's going to be good for you.
I'd have to say I don't think it's such a bad thing, nor does it set a new precedent by any means. This type of things happens in languages (human) all of the time. In English, we still use words and phrases such as "he is in the lime light." How many people actually know that that refers to what they used to light stages with back in the early 20th century? Should we replace this phrase because it refers to something most of us have never physically observed? Of course not. Yet, some things in language evolve, morph and turn into something completely new. I don't mind the evolutionary/hybrid approach to language, and I don't mind it for UIs either.
Absolutely well said. Also I might add, 100% health insurance coverage does not mean better (or 100%) healthcare goods and services. Also, one last point to add...the U.S. still has, by far, the best and most innovative healthcare system (and coverage) in the world. I suggest anyone interested to listen to this podcast, look at the links, and do some reading here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/07/scott_atlas_on.html
The WHO report ranking the world's healthcare systems has been proven time and again to be a ridiculous, and very unbiased set of conclusions from their "scientific studies."
Oh, you want **TAX DOLLARS** to go to the church schools! Fuck that. If my tax dollars are going to be used educating children then I want them to learn actual facts that will be applicable in the real world. If you want your kids to learn that the gods commanded that non-virgin brides should be stoned to death use your own fucking money.
I never said to give private schools tax dollars. Where did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth. I merely said some of the major negatives of public education funded by tax dollars. Tragedy of the commons.
Slashdot Mirror
Right on! :) Yay for cronies!
How much you would be willing to pay AT&T to ensure they did not give your information to the NSA?
For the analogy-impaired: Google and Facebook might be happy to sell you "privacy", but they're still not going to say "no" when the feds come knocking.
Yes exactly. I could (almost) care less about which other private entities a company like Google or AT&T sell access to my data only because what they do with that data is limited. What I do fear though is these companies bending so easily to when governments come knocking, demanding data. Governments have the power (they have the big guns) to put you in prison or to completely ruin your life and these types of things have gotten this out of control thanks to the U.S. government scaring people about terrorism. It's been a perfect storm really, we'll hand over all of our liberties in order to get "security." Well we've gotten neither now as we've given up our liberties and we really aren't any safer, plus we have the annoying and expensive Department of Homeland Security and an overreaching TSA. Bush started it, Obama continues to expand it.
Wait what!? Stop that! You're making too much sense!
Then most of the world is communism...
The government builds roads and all manner of other infrastructure for the benefit of all the people.
Many things are simply not economically viable to do in a capitalist system, so they would never get done at all without government intervention.
Two things, your last statement about things never getting done without government is easy to say, very difficult to prove.
Second, our crumbling and dangerous and non-innovative roads in the US seem to bend more rims on potholes and keep car repair shops in business than they do to help anybody. :)
Cool, another internet homespun philosopher who's been educated in the University Of Life and don't need no fancy economics professor to tell him what o'clock it is when the cows need milking.
Yeah, because you know me so well! What would I do without someone like you to put me in my box?
That's what they wanted you to think, but really, can you prove that? That's a huge conjecture. And even if it was true, I don't like the current state of the economy nor all of the power the government has usurped from productive citizens. All the government did was to make the hangover temporarily go away by drinking more alcohol. You don't cure a hangover that way. You endure the pain, and you don't get wasted in the future.
Bingo! It's a plain and simple solution, and it works! What I want to know is, what rules can we put in place to automatically shrink the size of government when it gets too big to fail?
I live up in Canada. My car insurance, electrical power, natural gas, water, and waste treatment are all provided as government-owned (that is to say, owned by *me*) utilies. Our rates are lower than the private rates in nearby provinces.
I'm currently charged exorbitant amounts of money for internet access by a private ISP (the local cable company). I would *love* for the city to take over last-mile Internet connectivity, and then a bunch of independent ISPs could offer different packages for upstream connectivity. As it stands you have two choices for Internet access, the phone company or the cable company.
The "low" rate is what you might be billed by "your" utilities, but what are the true prices of such service? Could such utilities survive without the local government subsidizing them with tax money? So if you took away the tax money, you'd better believe the price would be higher directly to you. Second, if government-owned things are such a silver bullet, why not nationalize everything. Then you would completely control everything! If you think that's absurd, then how would you propose what should be nationalized (or owned by local governments) and what should be private? How can you truly know how efficient and effective your government agencies are? There's really no such thing.
Good citations, you really convinced me that "competition" has failed. So then lets insert the government to do it, because they never fail! /sarcasm
the Sausage Master is right.
Wow, someone actually agrees with me on /. That's like a first. :)
I agree. Not only is it a luxury item that is important, but it's too important for the government to control. Can you imagine the security implications and headaches a network like this would have? There are so many technical, economic and legal unintended consequences to this, it's not even funny. If the government might do anything (and even here I'm skeptical), they should help make sure that the current private means of getting on the 'net remain competitive and sooner than later, cheap Internet in many different forms will be ubiquitous without the unintended consequences that only a government can create.
I predict this will also be a new avenue for the US federal government to regulate the Internet into oblivion. This is a setup for a massive new power grab.
Yes of course road quality varies, and who knows exactly why some jurisdictions have much better roads than others. It's definitely not as simple as "the voters to want it." In an ideal world, that would be true. But like I replied to another comment, there are all kinds of things standing in the way of true representation like that such as corruption, lobbying, lust for power, the legislators personally disagreeing, etc.
Take a look at this from economist Walter Block, it's pretty good: The privatization of roads
"I would say a government has more incentive than any private entity in maintaining roads. What incentive would a private contractor have in maintining it right? If it gets paid a fixed rate for "operation" then the more skimping on quality means more profit."
I wasn't necessarily comparing to private road operators, but you clearly don't understand the concept of competition. Of course a company who would have zero other competition would be horrible at road maintenance (just like the government operator). But that scenario does not and would not exist. If private road operators were able to properly pay for and acquire the right of way to build new parallel roads, people could choose the best route to get somewhere. So of course it's a bit more complex than that, but you get my point. Also, different modes of transportation provide incentives to maintain the roads well by private entities. This is not true of a government. If people prefer the local trains because the roads have too many potholes and feel dangerous, it won't just go fix the roads. There are so many political wills to take into account, plus lobbying, labor unions, regulations, and the personal feelings of the legislators. It's much simpler and more straightforward for a private company compared to a government.
I'm not trying to insert a discussion of the pros and cons of the government making and maintaining roads, but simply trying to state that governments have very little, if any, incentive to improve roads, improve the safety of roads or use new innovative techniques. It usually takes a crisis before new things get implemented. Under normal circumstances they have very little incentive to continually raise the bar and wow the user (all of us) of the roads.
For those who are generally ok with the government knowing best for them, how can you justify your position with something like this? It clearly is something so egregious, so ridiculous, so out-of-bounds! Honestly, how is this about protecting people at all and not about special interests, money and more power? I find people who trust their government officials to do the "right thing" for the "greater good" to be really naive. The best kind of government is the one that does the minimal. Protects justice by providing a judicial system to resolve conflicts after the fact, a defense force that protects the borders and does not get involved in offensive wars or peace missions (unless invited by allies), and highly federal (meaning localized, not nationalized) police forces. This is the only way to keep things like this ridiculous new power grab from happening. But even then, I'm pessimistic that such a government wouldn't still grow into the tyrannical behemoths that we have today in the "free" world. How can anyone defend such power grabs?
> I just summarized it and provided a link.
You make it sound so simple. If you think you can do that better, do it. And get those ten thousand bucks yourself.
Google is doing something that _no one else in the world is able to do half as well as them_. I think they deserve their money for that. The "simple summary work" that you point out is way more complex than you make it sound.
So no, you are not entitled to a piece of that simply because you wrote an article.
Completely agree. Well said. It's easy to say something is easy and straightforward after the fact, but what Google has done and continues to do is nothing short of amazing.
Your vote doesn't count regardless of who you vote for. Might as well vote for someone you like.
Darn! You beat me to linking to that article. Even after reading that article, I still feel really good about voting for Gary Johnson even though I know it won't make much of a difference. But I can't in good conscience support the two major bafoons.
Absolutely well said. I really wish someone could go on all of the national TV stations during prime time and announce this. It boggles my mind how passionate people get about voting for their guy, because the other guy is purely evil! Really...why do we seemingly always end up with evil then? Why don't we stop voting for evil, and kick evil out. There's no room for evil anymore. Time to get a few people with a clue who aren't completely bought out to all of the lobbyist interests.
Sure, let's throw more money at the problem. Money solves all issues! We don't need brains, or make wise decisions. Just throw more money at it! How's that education working out for the Microsoft people lobbying Congress to do this? Not so well I see.
"As for your second paragraph; that's a political thing, as to whether or not the state (or in the EU's case, the Union) should interfere, and to what degree. However, let's say you did think Google was abusing its position, unfairly, causing you (perhaps as a website operator who needed those search hits to function/generate revenue, but were being punished for not being a Google product, or Google-friendly), what are you alone going to be able to do about it? Nothing remotely effective."
Who cares? In your fictitious scenario with Google (which would never happen the way you describe), even if it could be true, Google earned that right to be that dominant. People chose to use Google en masse. Are you (the all-knowing government) going to punish all of the people who chose to use Google and give it the dominant position? What if such an action caused Google such irrevocable harm that it eventually led to it going out of business? Was "justice" served? Or did the most dominant gang (i.e. the prevailing government), exercise its unjust force over a lesser gang (i.e. Google), crushing it? I would say in such a scenario, the government owes a lot of damages to a lot of people.
What's to stop the EU from systematically only targeting U.S. companies since they seem to be the ones with a lot of money? At what point does it not become completely corrupt and a scheme to steal money from the productive sector into the unproductive sector? I say it is always corrupt.
"For that to happen people have to be free to choose the best search engine"
Uh...they did...80% of them in Canada did. Are you saying people don't know how to choose?
Absolutely disagree. The only monopolies that exist are governments. Governments are the only ones that can hand out true monopolies to companies. Microsoft in the late 90s early 2000's was a classic example of what was mislabeled a monopoly. Many claimed that IE was too dominant and nobody could shake that. Now look at it (and no, it didn't have anything to do with the US antitrust suit against Microsoft. It had everything to do with Firefox being a formidable competitor and Microsoft getting soft).
The most telling line of your statement is "Be thankful that this is happening. It's good for you in the end." Well in that case, why don't you give me all of your money because I know (trust me) that I will better manage your money, and even grow your total assets for you! Oh, and you don't have a choice, because after all, it's going to be good for you.
I'd have to say I don't think it's such a bad thing, nor does it set a new precedent by any means. This type of things happens in languages (human) all of the time. In English, we still use words and phrases such as "he is in the lime light." How many people actually know that that refers to what they used to light stages with back in the early 20th century? Should we replace this phrase because it refers to something most of us have never physically observed? Of course not. Yet, some things in language evolve, morph and turn into something completely new. I don't mind the evolutionary/hybrid approach to language, and I don't mind it for UIs either.
Absolutely well said. Also I might add, 100% health insurance coverage does not mean better (or 100%) healthcare goods and services. Also, one last point to add...the U.S. still has, by far, the best and most innovative healthcare system (and coverage) in the world. I suggest anyone interested to listen to this podcast, look at the links, and do some reading here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/07/scott_atlas_on.html
The WHO report ranking the world's healthcare systems has been proven time and again to be a ridiculous, and very unbiased set of conclusions from their "scientific studies."
Oh, you want **TAX DOLLARS** to go to the church schools! Fuck that. If my tax dollars are going to be used educating children then I want them to learn actual facts that will be applicable in the real world. If you want your kids to learn that the gods commanded that non-virgin brides should be stoned to death use your own fucking money.
I never said to give private schools tax dollars. Where did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth. I merely said some of the major negatives of public education funded by tax dollars. Tragedy of the commons.