Not really. The difference between libertarianism and pure democracy is that anything which 50% + epslion or the population disapproves of is likely to be illegal in a democracy, whereas libertarianism usually means some sort of strict limitation on what can be illegal, regardless of popularity.
In addition, it has to be done with server-client hypertext protocols (or their successors), so something like text-based posts on USENET wouldn't be covered, AFAICT. I don't know why it's like that, but *shrug* it's there.
Does this mean you can, in theory, be legally prosecuted for using HTML mail and newsposts?
Parents/communities can then block out.sex access.
If we could guarantee that the.sex segregation would only be used to keep minor children away from pornography, it would probably work. The problem will be when an employer, university, or isp decides to monitor or block.sex addresses--people will (reasonably) create gateways, etc. to get around these restrictions, and kids will be able to use them, too.
It's a nice idea, but really not workable; as long as people try to limit adults' access to content innappropriate for children, it will be impossible to effectively limit children's access.
Steven M. Bellovin (one of the people responsible for USENET, dontcha know) has a cool page about nuclear weapon security systems. He makes it pretty clear that it's nontrivial to set off a modern nuclear weapon accidentally or even maliciously if you don't have the codes to fire them. Even in 1961, setting off a the explosives didn't necessarily mean a nuclear yield:
In at least one incident, a nuclear weapon did come very close to accidental detonation. In 1961, a B-52 with two large warheads crashed near Goldsboro, North Carolina; the impact set off the conventional explosives in one of the bombs, and triggered all but one of the safety mechanisms in the other.
That only works if all their kinetic energy is realeased at the point of impact. It appears that they punch through the planet and leave with most of their velocity, so they only release a a fraction of that, spread over the path they take through the planet.
When the Netherlands declares extraterritorial jurisdiction over Americans and brings them to trial there, I'd damn well expect the US to do what was necessary to get them back.
Gated communities are nothing but economic discrimination at its worst.
Economic discrimination? That's a new one--"BigCorp. refused to sell me their product just because I didn't have any money to pay them! I'm being discriminated against!"
And this type of discrimination usually takes into account all other types of discrimination including racism, sexism, elitism, etc.
Sexism? There probably is an all-male gated community somewhere, but I'm not sure sexism is the motivation...
I don't mind people being rich. I mind when they think they are special or better because of it.
So it's okay for people to be rich, as long as they don't buy things that other people can't afford.
I know, I know, digital signatures are posed as the magic-wand solution to every problem...
But if a software ethics organization were to act as a CA, and issue certificates to programmers with which to sign their code (source or binary), along with some descriptive fields declaring what this code does or does not do (uninstall totally, expire after some interval, transmit information without your express consent, install hooks into other applications to gather information, display paid advertisements, use your spare cycles/bandwith, whatever), end-users could see in plain language what the program will do if they use it.
If a program's behavior was inconsistent with its signature, a complaint could be brought by end-users to the overseeing organization, and whoever signed the code would have to answer the complaints or face sanctions (including revoking their code-signing certificate for existing and future use).
If the system became popular enough, users would think twice about using software without a valid signature.
This would put pressure on programmers to think beyond their next paycheck and consider how what they are doing will affect their professional reputation; It's easier to say "I'm not going to do this because it will get my licence suspended" than "I'm not going to do this because I think it's wrong" (no matter how valid the latter may be)
By being linked to individual programmers instead of software companies, it would also create an effective "credits" system for the programming profession, you could point out your past work on a CV, and prove it with the embedded signature.
So I'd probably agree that your employer could fire you, but I might be uncomfortable enforcing the confidentiality agreement, at least insofar as it might seek to prevent you from talking to appropriate law-enforcement agencies.
iirc, NDAs can't be used to stop you from reporting possibly illegal actions to law enforcement.
Seriously. How would your boss like it if he found out that you wouldn't add a feature like banner ads on an ICQ window because you took some kind of oath? I realize that the question asked in the submission, probably doesn't include things like this, but still.
This is why we need some sort of association (I don't think the term "union" is really applicable) to point out breaches of the ethics code, and if nothing else publicly shame companies which fire employees for refusing to violate it.
Writing up a standard employment-contract term that obligated companies to not allow/coerce their employees to break the code, and urging programmers to demand it, would help a lot, too.
I'll get fuel efficient when someone provides me a fuel efficient vehicle that can do decent battle in a collision
I would be really surprised if SUVs are actually safer than a regular car on the whole. I don't think i'd ever seen a rollover on city streeets until SUVs became popular--vehicles on their side or top used to be a sight only seen in severe highway accidents, but apparently it's practical to tip or flip a SUV at 35-45 mph judging from a recent accident or two.
And when they hit get hit hard, they get twisted up just like a family car.
Ugh, they use PDF for it, too. This is too new for google--somebody got a HTML mirror? I'm not going to install Acrobat to read about how Adobe is abusing US laws to punish people who find holes in their lousy 'secure' formats
-- Benjamin Coates
p.s. to lawyers: this post is opinion and not fact.
This case is about commercial speech, not corporations. If there were no such legal concept as a corporation, and the case was Kasky v. Phil Knight, et al. instead of Kasky v. Nike Inc, this issue would not go away. If this were a case about a small business owned by its only employee, this issue would not go away.
The only way to resolve this issue by looking at corporations is by saying that when a business becomes a corporation, it and all its employees lose all their rights; even this would not solve the issue since if that were the case, individuals would most likely not form formal corporations in the interest of protecting their rights, and just use byzantine, enron-style secrecy and accounting weirdness as a method of protecting their shareholders.
The real issue here is commercial (!= corporate) speech law vs. free speech rights. Assuming what Nike said is provably false (no case to decide otherwise), the basic question is:
Do free speech rights extend so far as to allow a businessman to lie about their product to the public in order to sell more?
This reminds me of the case where McDonald's claimed its fries were cooked with "100% vegetable oil" and neglected to mention that they were "flavored" with beef as well. Does anyone know what became of that lawsuit?
Sounds like the problem here is the lame-ass governments of these countries that are letting themselves be bought by corporations instead of representing the people.
Gives more credence to the idea of one time use credit card numbers
Sounds like a great idea, one-transaction cards, with a unique number on each of them, all tied to one account.
But plastic swipe cards are too expensive to use once and throw away--make them out of paper, better for the environment.
While you're at it, you could eliminate the need for the seperate credit card reciept by putting the amount and signature on the (paper) card, and handing it to the retailer... you could even that funny non-carbon carbon paper if you wanted a reciept for yourself.
Print them up in a handy-little tear off pack, maybe throw in a balance sheet so you can keep track of your expenses (if you're so inclined).
If you let little old ladies get ones with puppies or kittens on them, this radical idea of yours might just be a success!
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. The difference between libertarianism and pure democracy is that anything which 50% + epslion or the population disapproves of is likely to be illegal in a democracy, whereas libertarianism usually means some sort of strict limitation on what can be illegal, regardless of popularity.
--
Benjamin Coates
In addition, it has to be done with server-client hypertext protocols (or their successors), so something like text-based posts on USENET wouldn't be covered, AFAICT. I don't know why it's like that, but *shrug* it's there.
Does this mean you can, in theory, be legally prosecuted for using HTML mail and newsposts?
sweet!
--
Benjamin Coates
Since when are 'reproductive rights' a first amendment issue?
Parents/communities can then block out .sex access.
.sex segregation would only be used to keep minor children away from pornography, it would probably work. The problem will be when an employer, university, or isp decides to monitor or block .sex addresses--people will (reasonably) create gateways, etc. to get around these restrictions, and kids will be able to use them, too.
If we could guarantee that the
It's a nice idea, but really not workable; as long as people try to limit adults' access to content innappropriate for children, it will be impossible to effectively limit children's access.
--
Benjamin Coates
--
Benjamin Coates
That only works if all their kinetic energy is realeased at the point of impact. It appears that they punch through the planet and leave with most of their velocity, so they only release a a fraction of that, spread over the path they take through the planet.
--
Benjamin Coates
I don't think nuclear weapons go off just by being hit, even if you hit them really hard.
The US Government recently legitimized plans to invade the Netherlands
When the Netherlands declares extraterritorial jurisdiction over Americans and brings them to trial there, I'd damn well expect the US to do what was necessary to get them back.
--
Benjamin Coates
The trick is using the cell phone with a stickshift.
--
Benjamin Coates
Gated communities are nothing but economic discrimination at its worst.
Economic discrimination? That's a new one--"BigCorp. refused to sell me their product just because I didn't have any money to pay them! I'm being discriminated against!"
And this type of discrimination usually takes into account all other types of discrimination including racism, sexism, elitism, etc.
Sexism? There probably is an all-male gated community somewhere, but I'm not sure sexism is the motivation...
I don't mind people being rich. I mind when they think they are special or better because of it.
So it's okay for people to be rich, as long as they don't buy things that other people can't afford.
--
Benjamin Coates
To give this teeth, certificates for code-signing would be issued only through registered professional engineers.
:)
Damn, you beat my by 1 minute!
(see next comment)
--
Benjamin Coates
I know, I know, digital signatures are posed as the magic-wand solution to every problem...
But if a software ethics organization were to act as a CA, and issue certificates to programmers with which to sign their code (source or binary), along with some descriptive fields declaring what this code does or does not do (uninstall totally, expire after some interval, transmit information without your express consent, install hooks into other applications to gather information, display paid advertisements, use your spare cycles/bandwith, whatever), end-users could see in plain language what the program will do if they use it.
If a program's behavior was inconsistent with its signature, a complaint could be brought by end-users to the overseeing organization, and whoever signed the code would have to answer the complaints or face sanctions (including revoking their code-signing certificate for existing and future use).
If the system became popular enough, users would think twice about using software without a valid signature.
This would put pressure on programmers to think beyond their next paycheck and consider how what they are doing will affect their professional reputation; It's easier to say "I'm not going to do this because it will get my licence suspended" than "I'm not going to do this because I think it's wrong" (no matter how valid the latter may be)
By being linked to individual programmers instead of software companies, it would also create an effective "credits" system for the programming profession, you could point out your past work on a CV, and prove it with the embedded signature.
--
Benjamin Coates
Since when do you need a doctor to commit suicide?
Are you really claiming that lawyers act ethically?
For the most part, I would say yes. I usually find lawyer behavior more annoying than unethical.
--
Benjamin Coates
Have fun with the whoring, whore.
So I'd probably agree that your employer could fire you, but I might be uncomfortable enforcing the confidentiality agreement, at least insofar as it might seek to prevent you from talking to appropriate law-enforcement agencies.
iirc, NDAs can't be used to stop you from reporting possibly illegal actions to law enforcement.
--
Benjamin Coates
Seriously. How would your boss like it if he found out that you wouldn't add a feature like banner ads on an ICQ window because you took some kind of oath? I realize that the question asked in the submission, probably doesn't include things like this, but still.
This is why we need some sort of association (I don't think the term "union" is really applicable) to point out breaches of the ethics code, and if nothing else publicly shame companies which fire employees for refusing to violate it.
Writing up a standard employment-contract term that obligated companies to not allow/coerce their employees to break the code, and urging programmers to demand it, would help a lot, too.
--
Benjamin Coates
all it would do is artifically inflate the wages of people that ARE willing to do the "unethical" work
That's a good thing, it makes it more expensive to produce evil code and therefore less profitable.
--
Benjamin Coates
I'll get fuel efficient when someone provides me a fuel efficient vehicle that can do decent battle in a collision
I would be really surprised if SUVs are actually safer than a regular car on the whole. I don't think i'd ever seen a rollover on city streeets until SUVs became popular--vehicles on their side or top used to be a sight only seen in severe highway accidents, but apparently it's practical to tip or flip a SUV at 35-45 mph judging from a recent accident or two.
And when they hit get hit hard, they get twisted up just like a family car.
--
Benjamin Coates
Ugh, they use PDF for it, too. This is too new for google--somebody got a HTML mirror? I'm not going to install Acrobat to read about how Adobe is abusing US laws to punish people who find holes in their lousy 'secure' formats
--
Benjamin Coates
p.s. to lawyers: this post is opinion and not fact.
It works by "converting waste heat into visible light?" This is going to ruin all of those Easy Bake Ovens.
It's going to ruin your lava lamp, too, it'd have to be blindingly bright to get the lava going properly.
--
Benjamin Coates
This case is about commercial speech, not corporations. If there were no such legal concept as a corporation, and the case was Kasky v. Phil Knight, et al. instead of Kasky v. Nike Inc, this issue would not go away. If this were a case about a small business owned by its only employee, this issue would not go away.
The only way to resolve this issue by looking at corporations is by saying that when a business becomes a corporation, it and all its employees lose all their rights; even this would not solve the issue since if that were the case, individuals would most likely not form formal corporations in the interest of protecting their rights, and just use byzantine, enron-style secrecy and accounting weirdness as a method of protecting their shareholders.
The real issue here is commercial (!= corporate) speech law vs. free speech rights. Assuming what Nike said is provably false (no case to decide otherwise), the basic question is:
Do free speech rights extend so far as to allow a businessman to lie about their product to the public in order to sell more?
This reminds me of the case where McDonald's claimed its fries were cooked with "100% vegetable oil" and neglected to mention that they were "flavored" with beef as well. Does anyone know what became of that lawsuit?
--
Benjamin Coates
Trying to seperate a group from its component elements is absurd. That way lies madness.
Sounds like the problem here is the lame-ass governments of these countries that are letting themselves be bought by corporations instead of representing the people.
--
Benjamin Coates
Gives more credence to the idea of one time use credit card numbers
Sounds like a great idea, one-transaction cards, with a unique number on each of them, all tied to one account.
But plastic swipe cards are too expensive to use once and throw away--make them out of paper, better for the environment.
While you're at it, you could eliminate the need for the seperate credit card reciept by putting the amount and signature on the (paper) card, and handing it to the retailer... you could even that funny non-carbon carbon paper if you wanted a reciept for yourself.
Print them up in a handy-little tear off pack, maybe throw in a balance sheet so you can keep track of your expenses (if you're so inclined).
If you let little old ladies get ones with puppies or kittens on them, this radical idea of yours might just be a success!
--
Benjamin Coates