It is only the retailers in europe which are directly affected and retailers have to be where their customers are. But the EU is a big enough market to influence manufacturers on the whole earth. When the EU finally banned various hazardous substances in electronics after a long transition period practically every electronics components or device manufacturer was forced to offer rohs compliant products. For many components or devices due to economics of scale and logistics it is cheaper to only offer a rohs compliant product worldwide than a compliant one for europe and a slightly cheaper traditional variant for the rest of the world.
That doesn't justify what the EU does. If the EU imposes a law (hypothetical law) that says all companies must hire 100 women to every man hired, that doesn't make it right even when companies around the world start having to do that same practice to do business in the EU. Just because something appears to be moral and then enacted through a law doesn't make it so. There are still plenty of people who disagree on the morality of any given subject, and to force them to do something they don't want to do on all but the most basic of things (the tenets of a society, do not kill, do not steal, etc), that removal of choice is the thing that is, in fact, immoral.
I have to reply to #7. The idea that getting enough people together to get a certain "majority" of a vote to enact something doesn't make it moral or just. It doesn't make it wise, nor does it make it good. It just means, some people want something, and they're too lazy to enact change through their personal spheres of influence (i.e. their daily relationships). No corporations are not people, but they are made up of people, just like governments are. However, here's the key differences. Assuming that a company has no special monopoly from a government, if they mess up, they cease to exist. If a government messes up, they will not cease to exist until a revolution happens. Let's review what a revolution is: it's a way, with people being killed, women and children being raped and pillaged, and other horrible things. So given that juxtaposition, doing things through the private realm versus doing it through government is morally preferable. You may see this as a giant leap, but there's not enough time or space to explain the entire libertarian philosophy of live and let live. Since you quoted Wikipedia, I suggest you spend some more time there learning about this concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Also, the next time you assume that rights can be taken away from groups or individuals just because you prefer something, I'll propose taking away one of your beloved rights and see how you like it. Mind your own business and live your own life without trying to change the lives of others.
The fact that this is even news and not just someone's uninformed personal decision is because of the nature of public education. If this was a private school making this decision, some parents who send their kids there might be upset, but the impact is much more isolated. Parents at such a private school could then choose (yes, choice...what a wonderful thing!) to take their money and their kids and go elsewhere, where they teach the scientific theory of evolution. This is one of many reasons why I am against public education out of principle and support a much more rigorous switch to private education of varying levels (cheap schools all the way to very expensive schools, online education to old-fashioned education).
"Wouldn't this make the long-term profit on more durable items larger?"
No, this is a tax and thus is a net drain on society. Morality can't be legislated, even if recycling is a good thing. This is nannying the general populous in a very large way and will result in more special treatment for special interests. When these companies can no longer compete with the rest of the world, they'll either move out of Europe or seek special favors from the EU politicians to help keep them afloat. This happens again, and again and is nothing new.
Is this really a surprise at all? If these scientists had to raise their own funding via private means, this wouldn't be news at all. This is just wasted time, energy and smart minds rent seeking the government. Move along.
The best government is the least government (I didn't say none).
This is where we fundementally differ, size has nothing to do with good governance.
Ok, that's fair that we differ. Then in your opinion, what is it that defines good governance? How does good governance go bad? How is it that a country goes from bad governance to good governance?
My solution is simple: reduce the size and scope of the government and these companies will no longer feel like they have anything to gain from lobbying the government.
...or have anything to lose by ignoring their laws.
So by your "logic," a government should have as many laws as possible, because this is ultimately what makes people and corporations moral. What you're lamenting, in reality, is that people don't behave the way that you desire them to. People (and companies and other organizations) are diverse. The best government is the least government (I didn't say none). Set a very consistent set of basic rules, provide an efficient and fair judicial system, and then live people to live their lives as they see fit. If you disagree with that, then I say how many laws is enough before companies and individuals are all moral and utopia is obtained?
I agree, and another way to pay the bill is to never incur a bill in the first place. Let productive, private citizens make decisions of what to build, not inefficient governments. That's not to say that I'm against the government doing anything. I just believe it's far too large and too out of control at the moment. Given that governments all around the world are in grave debt, this seems to make my case.
This shows a really sad state of affairs for the U.S. government. The fact that these companies feel it is worth their time and money to lobby the U.S. government to get what they need shows:
1. That they no longer believe that they can control their own corporate destiny sufficiently without the government mandating new laws to their liking 2. That it's more efficient for them to lobby the government to get what they want than to risk doing things without the government 3. That the U.S. government has far too much authority and perceived "value" that these companies want a piece of
My solution is simple: reduce the size and scope of the government and these companies will no longer feel like they have anything to gain from lobbying the government.
I'll take your word on that. However, regardless, spending is clearly out of control today given that local municipalities, states and even the federal government are toying with bankruptcy. Big infrastructure is dead for now, lets maintain what we already have while cutting a lot of spending.
I completely agree, although there are many people who are lazy, have no passion, and have pretty much given up on life. Though I like to take that as an opportunity to try and encourage those people and bring passion back into their lives.
"The popular sentiment these days is that everyone should just fend for themselves, compete with each other as vigorously as possible, and those who are unable to compete do not deserve to live in our society. The entire outlook can be summarized in just three words: greed is good."
That's complete crap. It's about freedom of choice here and not being told what to buy by the benevolent dictators in Congress. Why is it that if people don't agree with supporting people through redistribution and taxation that they automatically get labeled as greedy? The private donations of individuals and organizations that are not the U.S. government far out give the government. Politicians are the ultimate in greedy, taking other people's money to do as they please.
no but the government isn't some other body. it is based on a simple idea that we all need certain things that we can't or shouldn't pay for individually. (say fire department). we each pitch in and that makes everybody's life better.
if you want to live in town, we ask you not to shit all over everything and to keep your dog from biting the small children. if you can't deal w/ that move into the woods.
If you aren't moving into the woods (stop using roads, police protection, medical, etc.) realize that you are either chipping in or you are a mooch (who should be kicked out of town)
I wouldn't argue against that, however, the expansion needs to stop somewhere. Also, it is very hard to undo something once the government takes it over. Therefore, I suggest you be highly skeptical of providing for "all" and making "everybody's life better." There are no perfect solutions, only tradeoffs. It's almost always better to push choice to the individual versus the collective to avoid tyranny.
"[I]f highly detailed images become available, criminals could create more complete schematic maps of the power and water grids in the United States. With the vast amount of infrastructure across the country, it would be impossible to secure every location."
Right...because today, every square inch of the undocumented US infrastructure is completely secure./sarcasm
Having just finished working there for 4 years, they are indeed very unprofitable. Yes, certain ventures like movie editing make some money, but the overall company (Thomson/Technicolor) has been unprofitable for the last 11 years. They have over 1 billion euro of debt. The transition to digital movie making is one of the only things they did right. Everything else has been a disaster, and they are being brought down by over-zealous French unions and bloated middle management. It's a company that needs to go away in its current form, and be broken up and sold for assets.
I'm not conflicted at all. Forcing kids to experience pat-downs just might anger the public enough to force our government to eliminate the bulls**t.
I couldn't agree more. The TSA costs way too much money, violates far too many freedoms, and produces nothing more than FUD. I would seriously like to see the TSA removed and each airport and airline worry about their own security.
Who cares what Apple charges? Nobody in Australia has to buy Apple products if they don't like the prices; Apple does not force anybody to buy their products. Why is this even a story?
Absolutely, if I was able to mod your points up right now I would. These schools are doing a service. Why must every school be the "highest" standard and serve the same population that more traditional colleges do? Also, if they continue to mislead students like the article states, nobody will go to these schools and they'll go out of business - problem solved! Lastly, these people attending these colleges have a right to choose to attend or to not attend and there is a risk that their education won't provide them any additional job after graduation. This is true of traditional colleges as well that cost a lot more than these tech. colleges. As an example, I could go to MIT and study history or religious studies and still be as unemployed as someone who didn't go to college at all.
Will you be saying that when you create a website that Verizon customers cannot access unless they pay Verizon a premium? You would really applaud Verizon for acting as the toll booth of the internet keeping potential customers away from you? I don't think you understand the concept.
I hear this argument all the time. First, when has this happened. Second, even if it has, how often does this happen? Third, if Verizon created a website with such an amazing feature that people wanted to go there but they can't unless they're Verizon customers, who cares!? Create your own site in competition to Verizon and let everyone else on it. It's exactly what Microsoft did to Netscape. Netscape made a profit selling web browsers, Microsoft said we'll give it away for free. The effect was that web adoption increased many many times and everyone was better off. I don't think that you understand the concept. What are you going to do when the government starts outlawing certain websites which should fall under the freedom of speech but they say too bad? What then? Where are you going to get a politician who will stand up against that? You won't and the downward spiral of control and power grabbing will continue. At least with a company owning something you get an alternative. With the government, you get one thing, even if it's horrible.
Why not? The internet was initially created by our military, of which the tax payers of this country fund. The Internet is the tax payers medium, and our reps should be the ones listening to us. If businesses want to play on our property, they need to follow our rules. It's pretty simple. If they don't want an open internet, they can go ahead and spend money developing their own private network, get ISPs to start allowing people onto it.
If you truly feel like the government represents "us" you are pretty naive. Why do so many people romanticize the government? It's a selfish, money-sucking, cold-hearted beast. The only thing that represents you is yourself and those that you immediately know and trust around you. How many times have you sat down one-on-one with the presiden? How about your senators, representatives? Do I hear a zero? How can you trust them!? They've only proven that they want to get re-elected and obtain more power. They want to take more of your hard earned money and spend it in ways that you don't agree with. Here's a novel idea, let's keep our money and save or spend it in the way we want to, not in the way politicians want to.
I support this. The government should not be in the business of Internet anything. I don't understand why people think that once the government starts to foster control over who can do something with the parts of the Internet that they may own (the private owners), that they won't also increasingly start to sway the Internet towards whatever they want it to be. I predict the government, if it gets more and more involved, will increase the cost of accessing the Internet, will reduce the tremendous freedoms that we have on the Internet right now without the government being involved, and will also reduce the pace of innovation on the Internet as well as the technologies that make up the Internet itself.
Slashdot Mirror
It is only the retailers in europe which are directly affected and retailers have to be where their customers are. But the EU is a big enough market to influence manufacturers on the whole earth. When the EU finally banned various hazardous substances in electronics after a long transition period practically every electronics components or device manufacturer was forced to offer rohs compliant products. For many components or devices due to economics of scale and logistics it is cheaper to only offer a rohs compliant product worldwide than a compliant one for europe and a slightly cheaper traditional variant for the rest of the world.
That doesn't justify what the EU does. If the EU imposes a law (hypothetical law) that says all companies must hire 100 women to every man hired, that doesn't make it right even when companies around the world start having to do that same practice to do business in the EU. Just because something appears to be moral and then enacted through a law doesn't make it so. There are still plenty of people who disagree on the morality of any given subject, and to force them to do something they don't want to do on all but the most basic of things (the tenets of a society, do not kill, do not steal, etc), that removal of choice is the thing that is, in fact, immoral.
I have to reply to #7. The idea that getting enough people together to get a certain "majority" of a vote to enact something doesn't make it moral or just. It doesn't make it wise, nor does it make it good. It just means, some people want something, and they're too lazy to enact change through their personal spheres of influence (i.e. their daily relationships). No corporations are not people, but they are made up of people, just like governments are. However, here's the key differences. Assuming that a company has no special monopoly from a government, if they mess up, they cease to exist. If a government messes up, they will not cease to exist until a revolution happens. Let's review what a revolution is: it's a way, with people being killed, women and children being raped and pillaged, and other horrible things. So given that juxtaposition, doing things through the private realm versus doing it through government is morally preferable. You may see this as a giant leap, but there's not enough time or space to explain the entire libertarian philosophy of live and let live. Since you quoted Wikipedia, I suggest you spend some more time there learning about this concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Also, the next time you assume that rights can be taken away from groups or individuals just because you prefer something, I'll propose taking away one of your beloved rights and see how you like it. Mind your own business and live your own life without trying to change the lives of others.
The fact that this is even news and not just someone's uninformed personal decision is because of the nature of public education. If this was a private school making this decision, some parents who send their kids there might be upset, but the impact is much more isolated. Parents at such a private school could then choose (yes, choice...what a wonderful thing!) to take their money and their kids and go elsewhere, where they teach the scientific theory of evolution. This is one of many reasons why I am against public education out of principle and support a much more rigorous switch to private education of varying levels (cheap schools all the way to very expensive schools, online education to old-fashioned education).
"Wouldn't this make the long-term profit on more durable items larger?"
No, this is a tax and thus is a net drain on society. Morality can't be legislated, even if recycling is a good thing. This is nannying the general populous in a very large way and will result in more special treatment for special interests. When these companies can no longer compete with the rest of the world, they'll either move out of Europe or seek special favors from the EU politicians to help keep them afloat. This happens again, and again and is nothing new.
Is this really a surprise at all? If these scientists had to raise their own funding via private means, this wouldn't be news at all. This is just wasted time, energy and smart minds rent seeking the government. Move along.
The best government is the least government (I didn't say none).
This is where we fundementally differ, size has nothing to do with good governance.
Ok, that's fair that we differ. Then in your opinion, what is it that defines good governance? How does good governance go bad? How is it that a country goes from bad governance to good governance?
My solution is simple: reduce the size and scope of the government and these companies will no longer feel like they have anything to gain from lobbying the government.
...or have anything to lose by ignoring their laws.
So by your "logic," a government should have as many laws as possible, because this is ultimately what makes people and corporations moral. What you're lamenting, in reality, is that people don't behave the way that you desire them to. People (and companies and other organizations) are diverse. The best government is the least government (I didn't say none). Set a very consistent set of basic rules, provide an efficient and fair judicial system, and then live people to live their lives as they see fit. If you disagree with that, then I say how many laws is enough before companies and individuals are all moral and utopia is obtained?
I agree, and another way to pay the bill is to never incur a bill in the first place. Let productive, private citizens make decisions of what to build, not inefficient governments. That's not to say that I'm against the government doing anything. I just believe it's far too large and too out of control at the moment. Given that governments all around the world are in grave debt, this seems to make my case.
This shows a really sad state of affairs for the U.S. government. The fact that these companies feel it is worth their time and money to lobby the U.S. government to get what they need shows:
1. That they no longer believe that they can control their own corporate destiny sufficiently without the government mandating new laws to their liking
2. That it's more efficient for them to lobby the government to get what they want than to risk doing things without the government
3. That the U.S. government has far too much authority and perceived "value" that these companies want a piece of
My solution is simple: reduce the size and scope of the government and these companies will no longer feel like they have anything to gain from lobbying the government.
I'll take your word on that. However, regardless, spending is clearly out of control today given that local municipalities, states and even the federal government are toying with bankruptcy. Big infrastructure is dead for now, lets maintain what we already have while cutting a lot of spending.
Here here!
I completely agree, although there are many people who are lazy, have no passion, and have pretty much given up on life. Though I like to take that as an opportunity to try and encourage those people and bring passion back into their lives.
"The popular sentiment these days is that everyone should just fend for themselves, compete with each other as vigorously as possible, and those who are unable to compete do not deserve to live in our society. The entire outlook can be summarized in just three words: greed is good."
That's complete crap. It's about freedom of choice here and not being told what to buy by the benevolent dictators in Congress. Why is it that if people don't agree with supporting people through redistribution and taxation that they automatically get labeled as greedy? The private donations of individuals and organizations that are not the U.S. government far out give the government. Politicians are the ultimate in greedy, taking other people's money to do as they please.
no but the government isn't some other body. it is based on a simple idea that we all need certain things that we can't or shouldn't pay for individually. (say fire department). we each pitch in and that makes everybody's life better.
if you want to live in town, we ask you not to shit all over everything and to keep your dog from biting the small children. if you can't deal w/ that move into the woods.
If you aren't moving into the woods (stop using roads, police protection, medical, etc.) realize that you are either chipping in or you are a mooch (who should be kicked out of town)
I wouldn't argue against that, however, the expansion needs to stop somewhere. Also, it is very hard to undo something once the government takes it over. Therefore, I suggest you be highly skeptical of providing for "all" and making "everybody's life better." There are no perfect solutions, only tradeoffs. It's almost always better to push choice to the individual versus the collective to avoid tyranny.
"[I]f highly detailed images become available, criminals could create more complete schematic maps of the power and water grids in the United States. With the vast amount of infrastructure across the country, it would be impossible to secure every location."
Right...because today, every square inch of the undocumented US infrastructure is completely secure. /sarcasm
Having just finished working there for 4 years, they are indeed very unprofitable. Yes, certain ventures like movie editing make some money, but the overall company (Thomson/Technicolor) has been unprofitable for the last 11 years. They have over 1 billion euro of debt. The transition to digital movie making is one of the only things they did right. Everything else has been a disaster, and they are being brought down by over-zealous French unions and bloated middle management. It's a company that needs to go away in its current form, and be broken up and sold for assets.
I'm not conflicted at all. Forcing kids to experience pat-downs just might anger the public enough to force our government to eliminate the bulls**t.
I couldn't agree more. The TSA costs way too much money, violates far too many freedoms, and produces nothing more than FUD. I would seriously like to see the TSA removed and each airport and airline worry about their own security.
1) Install Ubuntu 12.04 (beta, for now)
2) Open terminal
3) sudo apt-get install gnome-panel
4) Log out and back in, selecting GNOME Classic as Desktop Environment
5) ???
6) Profit!!!
Actually, there is no step 5. :)
Or rather than step 3, you can get GNOME 3 by doing "sudo apt-get install gnome-shell"
Who cares what Apple charges? Nobody in Australia has to buy Apple products if they don't like the prices; Apple does not force anybody to buy their products. Why is this even a story?
I agree and think your comment is well said.
I believe this is a classic case of the economic term called rent seeking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking
Absolutely, if I was able to mod your points up right now I would. These schools are doing a service. Why must every school be the "highest" standard and serve the same population that more traditional colleges do? Also, if they continue to mislead students like the article states, nobody will go to these schools and they'll go out of business - problem solved! Lastly, these people attending these colleges have a right to choose to attend or to not attend and there is a risk that their education won't provide them any additional job after graduation. This is true of traditional colleges as well that cost a lot more than these tech. colleges. As an example, I could go to MIT and study history or religious studies and still be as unemployed as someone who didn't go to college at all.
Will you be saying that when you create a website that Verizon customers cannot access unless they pay Verizon a premium? You would really applaud Verizon for acting as the toll booth of the internet keeping potential customers away from you? I don't think you understand the concept.
I hear this argument all the time. First, when has this happened. Second, even if it has, how often does this happen? Third, if Verizon created a website with such an amazing feature that people wanted to go there but they can't unless they're Verizon customers, who cares!? Create your own site in competition to Verizon and let everyone else on it. It's exactly what Microsoft did to Netscape. Netscape made a profit selling web browsers, Microsoft said we'll give it away for free. The effect was that web adoption increased many many times and everyone was better off. I don't think that you understand the concept. What are you going to do when the government starts outlawing certain websites which should fall under the freedom of speech but they say too bad? What then? Where are you going to get a politician who will stand up against that? You won't and the downward spiral of control and power grabbing will continue. At least with a company owning something you get an alternative. With the government, you get one thing, even if it's horrible.
Why not? The internet was initially created by our military, of which the tax payers of this country fund. The Internet is the tax payers medium, and our reps should be the ones listening to us. If businesses want to play on our property, they need to follow our rules. It's pretty simple. If they don't want an open internet, they can go ahead and spend money developing their own private network, get ISPs to start allowing people onto it.
If you truly feel like the government represents "us" you are pretty naive. Why do so many people romanticize the government? It's a selfish, money-sucking, cold-hearted beast. The only thing that represents you is yourself and those that you immediately know and trust around you. How many times have you sat down one-on-one with the presiden? How about your senators, representatives? Do I hear a zero? How can you trust them!? They've only proven that they want to get re-elected and obtain more power. They want to take more of your hard earned money and spend it in ways that you don't agree with. Here's a novel idea, let's keep our money and save or spend it in the way we want to, not in the way politicians want to.
I support this. The government should not be in the business of Internet anything. I don't understand why people think that once the government starts to foster control over who can do something with the parts of the Internet that they may own (the private owners), that they won't also increasingly start to sway the Internet towards whatever they want it to be. I predict the government, if it gets more and more involved, will increase the cost of accessing the Internet, will reduce the tremendous freedoms that we have on the Internet right now without the government being involved, and will also reduce the pace of innovation on the Internet as well as the technologies that make up the Internet itself.