Buying a premade robot requires no imagination at all. Making your own, now that's where you need a bit of imagination, and where you can exercise some.
Hey, I made my Power Destructitron X. I could've mounted it on some wheels if I cared to, but I didn't.:P
No. No. No. I can't even say it enough times, no. There's no way that's the 40 thousand dollar robot. Period. Just no. I don't care what instruments it has, I don't care if there's an unreleased 4GHz Alpha with DDR2 in that thing, Just N-O no.
The FTC, which was....Damn. Ok, the 92 year old institution. Curse you, posting right after work.
At any rate, my points remain valid, especially considering a lot of these government institutions came into existence right around the turn of the century to combat actual abuses by companies.
Your thesis is flawed. Saying "Commercial entities ought not to lie" isn't arbitrary, saying "There are good lies and bad lies, and a company should be able to lie good lies while being forced not to endorse bad lies on a case-by-case basis determining what sort of lie it is" is arbitrary.
Companies ought not to lie. Yes, this is a deontological ethic, but the only fair way to have such a law is just like that. The law then, in order to be enforceable(Because your teleological ethic requires a case-by-case examination of all instances to be effective) and just (because such an arbitrary law would be unjust, subject to the whims of rulers), ought to be such a statement. "Companies ought not to lie, and thus it is illegal for a commercial entity to lie while acting in a commercial capacity."
But hey, I know you're just a paid for actor pretending to argue with me, so that's fine. By the way, good on you for intentionally misinterpeting "real person". You're really working hard for the company dime.
At some point, this unreality is going to end, and it's either going to be because the country is finally wrecked by people's irresponsible "wishful thinking is the same as fact" attitudes and ignorance of the business of actually ruling a nation, or because people finally come to their senses and realise that the most important things when ruling a nation aren't sexy, but they keep a country going indefinitely despite whatever troubles they must face.
Do you know what the real problem with American politics is today? Too many ignorant idiots who want to go be a superhero and ignore the matters of actually ruling a nation, often to the detriment of the ruling that has actually previously taken place.
The country is in such bad financial shape that some critics have predicted the bankruptcy of the US within our lifetime. Kids are being sent to brainwashing camps for "playing doctor", and honour students are being expelled from school for forgetting their scout knife in their pocket because of blind and draconian 'zero tolerance' policies. Hysteria about terrorism is threatening trade with both neighbours because of increased restrictions for people and goods. State's rights are being eroded, and what do you want to do? Eliminate a 102 year old institution charged with watching large corporations and other institutions like it so you can focus entirely on short sightedly trying to battle the present-day high profile battles.
At some point, this unreality is going to end, and it's either going to be because the country is finally wrecked by people's irresponsible "wishful thinking is the same as fact" attitudes and ignorance of the business of actually ruling a nation.
Video News Releases and other government-sponsored propaganda are more reprehensible than this, but just because the people in power are bad doesn't mean that these advertisers aren't also bad. Face facts, it's likely the same damn people giving advice to both groups.
The laws already exist. Do you know why article-like advertisements are labelled as advertisements, or why paid actors in TV commercials who are pretending to be legitimate referrals are designated as such? The same reason why these trash who want to destroy public discourse for a few years of easy marketing are now being investigated now.
By the same argument, cigarette companies should still be allowed to market their product as not just safe, but healthy -- or uranium infused water, for that matter. In my opinion, there is a reasonable level which trust should be actively enforced when you're talking about companies, to protect the public from dangerous or manipulative lies.
By the way, how can I know that you're even a real person? Odds are all these free speech parroting UIDs are just actors(or one actor) paid for by marketing firms. Go to hell, astroturfer! Your argument won't get an seconds consideration from me, regardless of merits, lest I fall into your deceptive trap!
How can you be a well-informed consumer when half the groups that claim to be able to give you reasonable information are paid husks of marketing companies? It's like the discussion on global warming. Half the participants on both sides are just paid actors pretending to represent their cause.
As opposed to advertising companies who think that exposing you to their work every second from the moment you wake up in the morning to the moment you go to sleep at night isn't enough, so they've got to lie their way into conversations and websites?
Neither government nor corporations are the ultimate power, neither should be given free reign at the expense of the other. What we need is some fucking sanity, and a good start would be getting rid of this practice. Fake testimonials need to be told about in print and on the radio and on TV, why are they acceptable in real life?
But he's got huge power in the market. "Oh, I love Jew brand soap!" BAM. No more Jew brand soap. I mean, who would buy Jew brand soap that Hitler endorses? And you know what? It's actually made by Jon Stewart in his basement. That's right, Jew brand soap was actually made by Jews, and Hitler managed to fuck it up. That's marketing power.
Far more worrisome is how this type of marketing is poisoning public discourse. For example, how do I know that you're not just a paid stooge? Everything you're writing, everything you claim to be a deeply held belief, could be a lie.
Forget about choice for a minute, and ask yourself if living in a world where you can't even say with any certainty that the people around you aren't just paid actors trying to sell you shit. I think that would be the point where I lose it.
Advertising is necessary, to be sure, but cases like this push the limit, in my view. You know who used fake grassroots movements to promote themselves? The Soviets under Stalin,
What we really need is for advertising to come in moderation. Without it, our economy collapses. With too much of it though, you can't even trust that the guy arguing with you isn't a paid stooge. I don't want to live in a world where I have to guess what products and services might somewhere be available. But infinitely more than that. I don't want to live in a world where everyone is an actor, and I can't even trust that people around me are actually speaking their own opinions. If FCC regulations will eliminate the deceptive practice of pretending to be someone who sincerely likes the product, I'm for it.
If the total sale of goods and services is reduced because of reduced buyer knowledge, it seems to me that everything will become more expensive because of the reduction in economies of scale which allow goods to be mass-produced and sold to many markets.
"We're totally not going to be trying to do this again, so don't be on the lookout or anything. Nope, we're just going to keep trying to make great products. Yep, Nothing to see here, folks."
How do we even know you're a person? Maybe you're just another astro-turfer, an actor paid by these marketing companies to try to present a devils advocate to move the window of acceptable behaviour towards something this terrible!
Thanks a lot, asshole. First marketing ruined radio; then TV; then movies; then video games; then the internet; Now they're trying to ruin REALITY. Thought police indeed.
You're not getting paid to be at the party and talk about how great your product is; you're not an actor, and that's the distinction here, at least for me. Walking down the street hearing conversations, having a beer with your buddies and overhearing some guy having a conversation -- are these people real, or are they just actors trying to get you to hear about their product?
As far as I'm concerned, no company should be allowed to engage in a mindfuck that severe.
Linux: It sucks less in this particular application when a comparison between the worst case scenario for Vista that makes headlines is compared to a single happy ubuntu user.
I believe in general that society punishes anyone who does anything forever and that's unjust. If you bring a scout knife to school at 12, you could be expelled from school, sending you down a more difficult path for the rest of your life. A 11 year old who 'plays doctor' with a 9 year old (or a 13 year old to the 11 year old) will first be sent to a terrible brainwashing camp where they'll be taught to hate themselves as pedophiles using discredited techniques designed in the 1930s to 'cure' homosexuals, then added to the publicly viewable sex offender registry and won't be able to lead a normal life ever again. None of this is just. A just society would rise up against these injustices, where a child does something inconsequential and their future is stolen for the mistake. I agree with you, it's just to lie, because if you've completed your reparations, the idea is you have repaid your debt to society.
That said, however, what I was asking was whether the bar or another equivilant body dictate what ethics you're supposed to hold, because you mentioned "Lawyer ethics".
Slashdot Mirror
Guess what my day [cmu.edu] job [google.com] is [post-gazette.com]?
Making 12 year olds cry on Slashdot?
He didn't. You're illiterate. You should probably kill yourself now to protect the honour of your bloodline from the shame of your existance.
Buying a premade robot requires no imagination at all. Making your own, now that's where you need a bit of imagination, and where you can exercise some.
:P
Hey, I made my Power Destructitron X. I could've mounted it on some wheels if I cared to, but I didn't.
No.
Fucking.
Way.
No. No. No. I can't even say it enough times, no. There's no way that's the 40 thousand dollar robot. Period. Just no. I don't care what instruments it has, I don't care if there's an unreleased 4GHz Alpha with DDR2 in that thing, Just N-O no.
The FTC, which was....Damn. Ok, the 92 year old institution. Curse you, posting right after work.
At any rate, my points remain valid, especially considering a lot of these government institutions came into existence right around the turn of the century to combat actual abuses by companies.
Your thesis is flawed. Saying "Commercial entities ought not to lie" isn't arbitrary, saying "There are good lies and bad lies, and a company should be able to lie good lies while being forced not to endorse bad lies on a case-by-case basis determining what sort of lie it is" is arbitrary.
Companies ought not to lie. Yes, this is a deontological ethic, but the only fair way to have such a law is just like that. The law then, in order to be enforceable(Because your teleological ethic requires a case-by-case examination of all instances to be effective) and just (because such an arbitrary law would be unjust, subject to the whims of rulers), ought to be such a statement. "Companies ought not to lie, and thus it is illegal for a commercial entity to lie while acting in a commercial capacity."
But hey, I know you're just a paid for actor pretending to argue with me, so that's fine. By the way, good on you for intentionally misinterpeting "real person". You're really working hard for the company dime.
Erm...Jumped the gun, ironically.
At some point, this unreality is going to end, and it's either going to be because the country is finally wrecked by people's irresponsible "wishful thinking is the same as fact" attitudes and ignorance of the business of actually ruling a nation, or because people finally come to their senses and realise that the most important things when ruling a nation aren't sexy, but they keep a country going indefinitely despite whatever troubles they must face.
Do you know what the real problem with American politics is today? Too many ignorant idiots who want to go be a superhero and ignore the matters of actually ruling a nation, often to the detriment of the ruling that has actually previously taken place.
The country is in such bad financial shape that some critics have predicted the bankruptcy of the US within our lifetime. Kids are being sent to brainwashing camps for "playing doctor", and honour students are being expelled from school for forgetting their scout knife in their pocket because of blind and draconian 'zero tolerance' policies. Hysteria about terrorism is threatening trade with both neighbours because of increased restrictions for people and goods. State's rights are being eroded, and what do you want to do? Eliminate a 102 year old institution charged with watching large corporations and other institutions like it so you can focus entirely on short sightedly trying to battle the present-day high profile battles.
At some point, this unreality is going to end, and it's either going to be because the country is finally wrecked by people's irresponsible "wishful thinking is the same as fact" attitudes and ignorance of the business of actually ruling a nation.
What they really need is an LC notch filter to isolate their fundamental frequency.
Video News Releases and other government-sponsored propaganda are more reprehensible than this, but just because the people in power are bad doesn't mean that these advertisers aren't also bad. Face facts, it's likely the same damn people giving advice to both groups.
The laws already exist. Do you know why article-like advertisements are labelled as advertisements, or why paid actors in TV commercials who are pretending to be legitimate referrals are designated as such? The same reason why these trash who want to destroy public discourse for a few years of easy marketing are now being investigated now.
By the same argument, cigarette companies should still be allowed to market their product as not just safe, but healthy -- or uranium infused water, for that matter. In my opinion, there is a reasonable level which trust should be actively enforced when you're talking about companies, to protect the public from dangerous or manipulative lies.
By the way, how can I know that you're even a real person? Odds are all these free speech parroting UIDs are just actors(or one actor) paid for by marketing firms. Go to hell, astroturfer! Your argument won't get an seconds consideration from me, regardless of merits, lest I fall into your deceptive trap!
How can you be a well-informed consumer when half the groups that claim to be able to give you reasonable information are paid husks of marketing companies? It's like the discussion on global warming. Half the participants on both sides are just paid actors pretending to represent their cause.
As opposed to advertising companies who think that exposing you to their work every second from the moment you wake up in the morning to the moment you go to sleep at night isn't enough, so they've got to lie their way into conversations and websites?
Neither government nor corporations are the ultimate power, neither should be given free reign at the expense of the other. What we need is some fucking sanity, and a good start would be getting rid of this practice. Fake testimonials need to be told about in print and on the radio and on TV, why are they acceptable in real life?
But he's got huge power in the market. "Oh, I love Jew brand soap!" BAM. No more Jew brand soap. I mean, who would buy Jew brand soap that Hitler endorses? And you know what? It's actually made by Jon Stewart in his basement. That's right, Jew brand soap was actually made by Jews, and Hitler managed to fuck it up. That's marketing power.
Far more worrisome is how this type of marketing is poisoning public discourse. For example, how do I know that you're not just a paid stooge? Everything you're writing, everything you claim to be a deeply held belief, could be a lie.
Forget about choice for a minute, and ask yourself if living in a world where you can't even say with any certainty that the people around you aren't just paid actors trying to sell you shit. I think that would be the point where I lose it.
Advertising is necessary, to be sure, but cases like this push the limit, in my view. You know who used fake grassroots movements to promote themselves? The Soviets under Stalin,
What we really need is for advertising to come in moderation. Without it, our economy collapses. With too much of it though, you can't even trust that the guy arguing with you isn't a paid stooge. I don't want to live in a world where I have to guess what products and services might somewhere be available. But infinitely more than that. I don't want to live in a world where everyone is an actor, and I can't even trust that people around me are actually speaking their own opinions. If FCC regulations will eliminate the deceptive practice of pretending to be someone who sincerely likes the product, I'm for it.
If the total sale of goods and services is reduced because of reduced buyer knowledge, it seems to me that everything will become more expensive because of the reduction in economies of scale which allow goods to be mass-produced and sold to many markets.
"We're totally not going to be trying to do this again, so don't be on the lookout or anything. Nope, we're just going to keep trying to make great products. Yep, Nothing to see here, folks."
How do we even know you're a person? Maybe you're just another astro-turfer, an actor paid by these marketing companies to try to present a devils advocate to move the window of acceptable behaviour towards something this terrible!
Thanks a lot, asshole. First marketing ruined radio; then TV; then movies; then video games; then the internet; Now they're trying to ruin REALITY. Thought police indeed.
You're not getting paid to be at the party and talk about how great your product is; you're not an actor, and that's the distinction here, at least for me. Walking down the street hearing conversations, having a beer with your buddies and overhearing some guy having a conversation -- are these people real, or are they just actors trying to get you to hear about their product?
As far as I'm concerned, no company should be allowed to engage in a mindfuck that severe.
So people shouldn't have the right to know when they're listening to a commercial advertisement?
"All operating systems suck. Not all operating systems truly blow." -William Wallace
Make that:
Linux: It sucks less in this particular application when a comparison between the worst case scenario for Vista that makes headlines is compared to a single happy ubuntu user.
I believe in general that society punishes anyone who does anything forever and that's unjust. If you bring a scout knife to school at 12, you could be expelled from school, sending you down a more difficult path for the rest of your life. A 11 year old who 'plays doctor' with a 9 year old (or a 13 year old to the 11 year old) will first be sent to a terrible brainwashing camp where they'll be taught to hate themselves as pedophiles using discredited techniques designed in the 1930s to 'cure' homosexuals, then added to the publicly viewable sex offender registry and won't be able to lead a normal life ever again. None of this is just. A just society would rise up against these injustices, where a child does something inconsequential and their future is stolen for the mistake. I agree with you, it's just to lie, because if you've completed your reparations, the idea is you have repaid your debt to society.
That said, however, what I was asking was whether the bar or another equivilant body dictate what ethics you're supposed to hold, because you mentioned "Lawyer ethics".