And that's why all the potentially risky or legally dubious activity is always performed by employees as part of their normal duties for the company. And that includes company directors, who are employees as well, even though they do the bidding of silent shareholders.
Your caveats mean very little in practice, they only apply when the corporate shield is being used by amateurs.
On the robot overlords commeth comment: Just about any halfway intelligent
person can see that we're entering the phase of robot factories that produce
products and that can repair themselves. Even factories producing robots....
These factories will take orders of magnitude fewer labor hours, and this
movement will spread to other typically high labor industries, such as
agriculture. Once those are converted, what then?
The robots compete
economically with humans, so that means we are going to see humans
adapt to more robotic conditions of employment as a result.
You can see it with
telephone support and marketing shops today. People are being given strictly
scripted
tasks to perform, and their time is micromanaged like if they were
robots (ie X minutes for toilet breaks every Y minutes, timed lunch
breaks etc)
You might want to read the first few chapters of Manna for a
glimpse of what the robot future will probably look like (ignore the ending, which is unrealistic).
We will never have a world where human labor is completely replaced by robot labor. There will always be a mix because humans are versatile, and cheap (practically, they cost less than $2 per day, that's $700 per year, comparable to any robot in any factory today).
Economics teaches us that this sort of mixed equilibrium requires human wages to drop to a level comparable with robotic wages (ie maintenance costs etc). So most of the human population, more than now, will be poor, and many will live in work houses where they can be exploited in such a way that their overall maintenance costs are comparable with robots. They will not make enough money to ever better themselves, and they will be encouraged to limit their offspring to reduce the overall population size over time. Basically, imagine a high tech version of India all over the globe.
How many people reading this intentionally pay no tax when they are
strictly required to?
FTFY. The answer is vanishingly small for people, high for Google, Apple, Microsoft et al.
Tax games come in two flavours: small adjustments that amount to a couple of thousand dollars per instance, and large avoidance schemes that amount to billions per instance.
I'm all for allowing Google to adjust its tax rates so they pay, let's say, $5k less in any given year than expected. That's reasonable. If however they pay close to zero tax when their profits are billions, that's criminal behaviour.
And no, you don't need to be a tax rocket scientist to see the difference. It's so obvious anyone can see it.
Wrong. Injecting HTML code into an HTTP stream breaks the end-to-end principle.
With HTML5 being as complex as it already is and web apps doing all sorts of Weird JavaScript Shit(TM), there is no way anyone can guarantee that adding HTML snippets _anywhere_ won't break a user's session. This isn't fixable on the user end, this is buggy behaviour in the network.
It's a lot worse than that. A corporation acts as a shield for *personal liability*. Basically, even if you sue an individual and win, their liability for what they did is still limited.
It's like if you make up a character in an online game, and make the character commit crimes. What's the worst that can happen to you? A bit of inconvenience. If the character dies, you can just make a new one.
The underlying problem is that some methods scale better than others.
If you have a centralized platform for serving data with tight control, this is expensive, and the operating costs will be proportional to the number of users. Thus when the number of users doubles, the total costs will more or less double.
As a consequence, the service cannot be offered for free, some rate of income must balance the rate of expenses. This necessarily leads to subscription and/or exploitation of some sort or other.
If you have a decentralized platform for serving data with weak or no control, then expenses are shared locally by all those who wish to act as publishers. The users can now be distributed among all the publishers. For example, if the number of users doubles, it suffices to double the number of publishers and the costs per publisher will still remain the same. This is scalable, but no single publisher can control the content, and that's usually unattractive to businesses.
The mathematics is unavoidable. If we want free education for the masses without strings attached, we have to organize many tiny local education providers who can each afford to teach a small number of students, for free. We must give them free materials that they can broadcast, rearrange, and distribute themselves. The optimal class size is an interesting problem. Once any one class size becomes too big, the provider can no longer afford to do this entirely pro-bono, and _then_ has to find _some_ way to recoup costs, using all the means available.
... Apple finds a loophole and sues this developer into oblivion?
You leave Apple alone! They worked hard to design a rectangular LCD display for the Mac, and totally deserve their patents. If your laptop has a rectangular LCD and you're running Linux, you're just a cheapskate who's stopping progress and giving Steve Jobs an ulcer. He died because of you, you know!
Trouble is, there is no god, only human flawed ideas about a hypothetical construct referred as a god. So you might as well not be fanatical about religion at all. HTH. HAND.
Those Who Would Sacrifice Privacy For MOOCs Deserve Neither.
Your tradeoff is misplaced. The mere fact that you think such a tradeoff is even acceptable shows how far off the path of liberty you already are.
I'm all for MOOCs done right. That is, free education for the masses. We have the technology and knowledge to do this, gratis. The same way we do open source, gratis. Everybody chips in a little here, a little there, and copies get widely distributed for free, with no strings attached except encouragement to share and improve *even more*. That's how this thing can and will work.
The wrong way to do it is building a centralized platform for mass video lectures when it's not affordable, and turning around wondering where the money will come from afterwards. That's half assed, and isn't worth supporting.
No, no! It's an ALLEGORY! God created BREAD that lasts 60 days, then he went to work making the WORLD and MAN. On the 70th day, he squeezed the bread absent-mindedly, saw that IT WAS GOOD, and went to his bookshelf, to take down the book marked "To Serve Man".
So, you're saying if I'm ever thrown out of a spaceship airlock I'll be attacked by flesh eating bacteria long before I can get picked up by an impossibility drive? Bummer! Would it help if I was turned into a penguin?
Email is the wrong example to promote privacy practices. It gets used widely by people in companies, who aren't expected to use their mail accounts for private conversations in the first place.
A much better example is movie and music piracy. If you want to teach people the value of encryption, point out how they'll get sued (or their parents will) by the media companies if they aren't careful. If you give a generation of kids strong tools to share music without getting caught, when they grow up they'll have the software, and the skills and understanding, to keep free speech alive in a totalitatian world.
That is why I never tell people piracy is evil. It's a great training ground for the real fights that are ahead, and a great confidence booster in the power of the masses.
Would it be more ethical
and moral if they were private?
Of course it would be. I don't see why you even ask the question.
A public kill list is an endorsement. It's a clear expression that killing people without due process is a normal, morally acceptable part of the nation's conduct. A private kill list is at best evidence of corruption.
In the latter case, there is a legal process which can put the murderers in jail. In the former, they only get medals.
Google is like a classifieds newspaper for the internet. If a classified newspaper was told that an ad they're publishing is libellous and they decided to keep publishing the ad, they would likely be held responsible.
Sorry, but those blogposts aren't very convincing. Do you have *actual* arguments comparing Bayesian to these hypothetical alternatives, or should we just take the claims on trust?
Meh, you're comparing apples with oranges. Different subjects have different inherent levels of difficulty^H^H^Hsubtlety, and the presented ideas have been around for different amounts of time, resulting in more available materials (books, lecture notes, papers - even full fledged courses) for some than others.
It only makes sense to compare two teachers who teach the exact same course. And that only works well for courses which are 101 type courses, because more advanced courses tend to be more specialized, and thus rarer with more prerequisites etc.
Concretely, you're comparing a first year introductory course on computing with a third year advanced statistics course. Your conclusions must be adjusted for this.
I don't care what it's about. It's solicitation, and advertisers should be penalized for wasting my bandwidth, if they can't or won't follow my adblocking wishes. Anyway, they're third parties to a private transaction between me and the web site I frequent, and their presence is neither requested nor tolerated.
TLDR. Sorry, "free search engines" is not a crazy idea at all. The fact is that the information that search engines collect they get "for free" from us: everyone who publishes something on a web page. The search engines don't pay for that. So why should we pay *them* to see that stuff displayed back to us?
Companies can't have their cake and eat it, too. If the search engines want to start charging *us*, then we need to start charging *them* for collecting the trillions of web pages that they collect. It will just escalate and nobody will be better off. Or, you know, they can keep their service free, just like the service we offer them.
Nothing to it! He's just alpha blended the praise into the damnation background. Any/. client can do this these days. Now, if he could also make his sentences Wo0obBblyY, that would totally rock!
Slashdot Mirror
Your caveats mean very little in practice, they only apply when the corporate shield is being used by amateurs.
The robots compete economically with humans, so that means we are going to see humans adapt to more robotic conditions of employment as a result.
You can see it with telephone support and marketing shops today. People are being given strictly scripted tasks to perform, and their time is micromanaged like if they were robots (ie X minutes for toilet breaks every Y minutes, timed lunch breaks etc)
You might want to read the first few chapters of Manna for a glimpse of what the robot future will probably look like (ignore the ending, which is unrealistic).
We will never have a world where human labor is completely replaced by robot labor. There will always be a mix because humans are versatile, and cheap (practically, they cost less than $2 per day, that's $700 per year, comparable to any robot in any factory today).
Economics teaches us that this sort of mixed equilibrium requires human wages to drop to a level comparable with robotic wages (ie maintenance costs etc). So most of the human population, more than now, will be poor, and many will live in work houses where they can be exploited in such a way that their overall maintenance costs are comparable with robots. They will not make enough money to ever better themselves, and they will be encouraged to limit their offspring to reduce the overall population size over time. Basically, imagine a high tech version of India all over the globe.
FTFY. The answer is vanishingly small for people, high for Google, Apple, Microsoft et al.
Tax games come in two flavours: small adjustments that amount to a couple of thousand dollars per instance, and large avoidance schemes that amount to billions per instance.
I'm all for allowing Google to adjust its tax rates so they pay, let's say, $5k less in any given year than expected. That's reasonable. If however they pay close to zero tax when their profits are billions, that's criminal behaviour.
And no, you don't need to be a tax rocket scientist to see the difference. It's so obvious anyone can see it.
$X billion profit, $0 tax => criminal.
Wrong. Injecting HTML code into an HTTP stream breaks the end-to-end principle. With HTML5 being as complex as it already is and web apps doing all sorts of Weird JavaScript Shit(TM), there is no way anyone can guarantee that adding HTML snippets _anywhere_ won't break a user's session. This isn't fixable on the user end, this is buggy behaviour in the network.
There's no chance of that. Right now, they're on the other side of the state chasing a family who stole their HitlerMobile.
It's like if you make up a character in an online game, and make the character commit crimes. What's the worst that can happen to you? A bit of inconvenience. If the character dies, you can just make a new one.
You're welcome to your opinion >:->
If you have a centralized platform for serving data with tight control, this is expensive, and the operating costs will be proportional to the number of users. Thus when the number of users doubles, the total costs will more or less double. As a consequence, the service cannot be offered for free, some rate of income must balance the rate of expenses. This necessarily leads to subscription and/or exploitation of some sort or other.
If you have a decentralized platform for serving data with weak or no control, then expenses are shared locally by all those who wish to act as publishers. The users can now be distributed among all the publishers. For example, if the number of users doubles, it suffices to double the number of publishers and the costs per publisher will still remain the same. This is scalable, but no single publisher can control the content, and that's usually unattractive to businesses.
The mathematics is unavoidable. If we want free education for the masses without strings attached, we have to organize many tiny local education providers who can each afford to teach a small number of students, for free. We must give them free materials that they can broadcast, rearrange, and distribute themselves. The optimal class size is an interesting problem. Once any one class size becomes too big, the provider can no longer afford to do this entirely pro-bono, and _then_ has to find _some_ way to recoup costs, using all the means available.
Incorrect. All widely accepted conceptions of gods are self contradictory, ergo the objects that are referred to don't exist.
You leave Apple alone! They worked hard to design a rectangular LCD display for the Mac, and totally deserve their patents. If your laptop has a rectangular LCD and you're running Linux, you're just a cheapskate who's stopping progress and giving Steve Jobs an ulcer. He died because of you, you know!
The moderators are resting
Trouble is, there is no god, only human flawed ideas about a hypothetical construct referred as a god. So you might as well not be fanatical about religion at all. HTH. HAND.
Your tradeoff is misplaced. The mere fact that you think such a tradeoff is even acceptable shows how far off the path of liberty you already are.
I'm all for MOOCs done right. That is, free education for the masses. We have the technology and knowledge to do this, gratis. The same way we do open source, gratis. Everybody chips in a little here, a little there, and copies get widely distributed for free, with no strings attached except encouragement to share and improve *even more*. That's how this thing can and will work.
The wrong way to do it is building a centralized platform for mass video lectures when it's not affordable, and turning around wondering where the money will come from afterwards. That's half assed, and isn't worth supporting.
No, no! It's an ALLEGORY! God created BREAD that lasts 60 days, then he went to work making the WORLD and MAN. On the 70th day, he squeezed the bread absent-mindedly, saw that IT WAS GOOD, and went to his bookshelf, to take down the book marked "To Serve Man".
So, you're saying if I'm ever thrown out of a spaceship airlock I'll be attacked by flesh eating bacteria long before I can get picked up by an impossibility drive? Bummer! Would it help if I was turned into a penguin?
A much better example is movie and music piracy. If you want to teach people the value of encryption, point out how they'll get sued (or their parents will) by the media companies if they aren't careful. If you give a generation of kids strong tools to share music without getting caught, when they grow up they'll have the software, and the skills and understanding, to keep free speech alive in a totalitatian world.
That is why I never tell people piracy is evil. It's a great training ground for the real fights that are ahead, and a great confidence booster in the power of the masses.
Of course it would be. I don't see why you even ask the question.
A public kill list is an endorsement. It's a clear expression that killing people without due process is a normal, morally acceptable part of the nation's conduct. A private kill list is at best evidence of corruption.
In the latter case, there is a legal process which can put the murderers in jail. In the former, they only get medals.
Google is like a classifieds newspaper for the internet. If a classified newspaper was told that an ad they're publishing is libellous and they decided to keep publishing the ad, they would likely be held responsible.
You go girl! I love me a good fandroid vs fruitloop fight. Let me go get the popcorn!
Sorry, but those blogposts aren't very convincing. Do you have *actual* arguments comparing Bayesian to these hypothetical alternatives, or should we just take the claims on trust?
It only makes sense to compare two teachers who teach the exact same course. And that only works well for courses which are 101 type courses, because more advanced courses tend to be more specialized, and thus rarer with more prerequisites etc.
Concretely, you're comparing a first year introductory course on computing with a third year advanced statistics course. Your conclusions must be adjusted for this.
No.
Next question.
I don't care what it's about. It's solicitation, and advertisers should be penalized for wasting my bandwidth, if they can't or won't follow my adblocking wishes. Anyway, they're third parties to a private transaction between me and the web site I frequent, and their presence is neither requested nor tolerated.
Companies can't have their cake and eat it, too. If the search engines want to start charging *us*, then we need to start charging *them* for collecting the trillions of web pages that they collect. It will just escalate and nobody will be better off. Or, you know, they can keep their service free, just like the service we offer them.
Nothing to it! He's just alpha blended the praise into the damnation background. Any /. client can do this these days. Now, if he could also make his sentences Wo0obBblyY, that would totally rock!