Well said. The shite the corps are getting away with has really been "pushing the bar" for a long time. It was all OK as long as everyone had their day time TV. But now that TV content sucks (no good Star Trek shows), people are starting to notice how screwed up the situation is.:)
If the difference was only 10 times, it would be no big deal. In reality the difference is thousands and higher times greater.
The age old excuse is "whoever takes 'more risk' should get more reward". What what exactly is 'more risk'? There is no way to clearly define it, and why is it that the rich and powerful are the ones who get to define it, anyway? How is sharing a small apparentment with 9 day laborers, working for 10 bucks an hour, while trying to evade authorities, less risky than a cushy job of an exec? How is it more risky to dump 4 billion into investments when you have 10 billion? There is of course an odd ball who went into debt getting their idea ahead, but compared to all the slam dunks, it's just a blip. And finally, once the poor idea-man gets rich and, let's say stays rich and makes millions for five years in a row and can now retire, is each new year still considered "risk"? If not, why should the reward not only continue to be so disproportionate, but even to GROW away and away from the common worker? As the business establishes itself, it becomes less risky to run, and yet the rewards increase and increase in their disproportionality to the "safe" common workers?
Let's go back to the original insight -- it's all about consequences. Google does something. As a consequence C|NET does something. Plain and simple. It's not that complicated.
When you step away from pure action-reaction cause-effect consequence-based view of morality, then you get into things like "levels of guilt", but all of these are based on arguable human (read: flawed and uncertain) principles.
Wonderful analysis of morality "in the real world"! Wouldn't it be nice if Google's CEO and Google itself took your advice too? In other words, what you're saying is just as damming when aimed against Google as it is when aimed against C|NET.
Google makes some private information easily available and refuses to set a privacy policy or to answer questions about it. They have benefited from this and discounted the cost, just as you say. As a consequence, CNET published the article in question.
Your reasoning works wonderfully in both directions, and so, it offers no intrinsic moral defense to Google at all.
I do admire your insight into the issue of morality.
I don't think that really works. You can't make someone know less by just telling them something, unless by doing so you somehow alter their brain chemistry to store less information or remove information already stored.
In reality we are governed far more by economical considerations than by political considerations. It stands to reason that to the extent that economy governs our lives, it should be democratized.
Considering that the government is slowly moving into irrelevance and that the coprs are fast becoming like local kings and dukes, the actions they make become less and less like those of private individuals and more and more like those of governments (and I am including monarchy and fascism as types of government).
So, it's not a big stretch to call "censorship" what some corps do with the information. This is particularly true of news media.
This is where I disagree with you. Naturally everything based on that faulty assumption is hogwash.
Your view offers poverty, dispair, mistrust and an uncomfortable lifestyle. Sounds pretty crappy. Think I will stay in mine.
I don't know about poverty, but mistrust is a result of having something to protect. When a person has something they want to protect, that need to exercise caution. Caution on the social plane translates into some degree of apprehensiveness in relationships, which in the extreme case degenerates into mistrust and ultimately into paranoya.
Despair is the sensation of not having one's wishes fulfilled. If one's wishes are aligned with reality, then one cannot experience great despair (but can still be annoyed to the extent that wishes diverge from the current situation).
What I am typing to you here is not a personal view, but it is a personal observation. It still is subjective, but it is a notch above a view that is uninformed by a thorough observation (and contemplation).
My way perhaps does not lead to a lot of material wealth, but it does lead to sanity, peace, good sleep and instant peeing. I am speaking from experience. The best things in life are free. For example, I didn't have to pay anything to be able to sense objects in my visual field. Ability to be aware is priceless. Therefore, when awareness is dulled by a sustained narrowing of its focus, such as what happens when a person is selfish (focused excessively on self), or idealistic (focused excessively on a mental object, idea), the loss that comes from such dulling is immeasurably great and is felt by all people together.
If there is one idiot, the whole community suffers. I doubt it can ever be PERFECT, but we can try to remain aware and to understand that money and toys, while NICE, is not why we're alive.:)
Maybe business should be willing to make less money if by doing so it can foster a friendlier environment for everyone?
Wow. Look, I am sure you are a nice guy, and mean well, but I owned my own business for many years. If my employee did this, _I_ would fire him. On the spot. No questions asked.
Guilty conscience is the birthplace of defensiveness.
Second. Employment is a state of mind. What kind of state? It is when a person volunterily surrenders some of their freedom, dignity and sanity in order to procure various objects of their desires by means of (sub)serving other people. In essence, one fulfills one's own desires by becoming a filfiller of the desires of others. And in this way a person becomes a slave who fears for their life and who cannot sleep well at night and who takes 5 minutes to pee in the bathroom.
Usually the employer feels "I am independent", and that's why they feel they can hire and fire. And the employee usually feels "I depend on my employer for sustenance" and, at once, loves and fears their employer (and such a conflicting emotion is the source of grievous stress). It's kind of a mental game that only works when both parties consent to it. But as soon as a man wakes to freedom, this game comes to an end (and not a moment too soon).
All of these feelings and conceptions, which are the basis of employer-employee relationship, are baseless, and demonstrably unreliable, untrue, and absurd. They crumble under the light of contemplation.
Ever since I have reached a certain point, I have ceased to be an employee, once and forever. The question that I ask myself is, "What means of livelihood shall I employ today?" I can afford to do this because I see that my own body and mind are basically backstabbing thieves who rob my life of joy and freedom (by making me constantly bow down to fear and other lower motivators).
You can only understand what I am saying here if you have lived and died, loved and lost, tasted bitter and sweet fruits of life for many aeons and now seek something more perfect than chasing base pleasures like a rabbit. You have to understand why there is such a thing as a self-sacrifice, why people do it, etc.
You know, I used to think exactly like you. But lately I am starting to question this "untouchable" dogma. Maybe the boss should appreciate it! Maybe the good that such action causes is worth the sacrifice. Maybe business should be willing to make less money if by doing so it can foster a friendlier environment for everyone? Maybe if your boss doesn't see the deep spiritual truth in this, maybe you and I should be brave enough to tell them to FSCK themselves? Boss may get angry and seek to vent that anger (such as by firing), but if enough of us are willing to stand firm, guess what? What will happen is that what "the boss" thinks will lose its all-important kingly arrogance.
"Preferred" just means +1 to the site that does it. IGN for me is like -50 +1 = -49 total score (where negative is bad and positive is good).
I read IGN with a very cynical eye as I don't like the vibe it has (like all the crazy ads that block the page), hidden content, lame staff that I can't trust at all, etc.
In order for me to trust a staffer's review I have to like him/her as a person.
Sure, IGN finally broke down and added user reviews after every other site had them. That's not enough of a positive for me to start liking IGN.
That's just me though. Just one person. No biggie.
What if there were no jobs to be had, and you were starving, and some kind individual offered you a job in return for having the pleasure of whipping and raping you 3 times a day? Sure, sure, you don't like the whipping and the raping, but it beats starving to death, doesn't it? Or does it?
Friend...sorry to break it to you in such a rough way, but it's like that! It's exactly like that.
Spartacus supposedly said that it was better to die on your feet than to live on your knees, or something like that. You may want to consider the meaning of that. It's not just some hypothetical thing that applies only to Spartacus long time ago. It's something that's a reality right now and it applies to every sentient being on this planet (and elsewhere as well).
Well said! What kind of lives are we going to have if we accept as dogma "You have to compete to survive?" Are we going to have the lives of wild wolves and other animals? Even dogs live better than that.
As soon as they start taking money for game ads, then all bets about their integrity are off. I prefer the sites that have user reviews on them. The thing with that is, I have to have trust that the reviews are uncensored and unedited/uncut.
Well said. IGN is a joke. I think it reflects the heavy corporatization of gaming and the overwhelming amount of boring and half-baked knock-offs and promotional games (all the games with the same title as the "popular" movie of the month).
One can only hope someone remembers what gaming was all about originally.
It's easy to find 1 or 2 good games on almost any console. Nintendo does not have many games that I want to play. Granted it has maybe 3 or so. But I am not going to buy a console to play 3 games.
Why? It's there because the market decided it should be there, not because Nintendo has a gun put to everybody's head. Frankly, if Sony isn't getting things right, like YOU said, then why on Earth would you want THEM to be in a monopoly?
The poster is simply asking the market to change its decision. From where I sit, the poster is free to ask, even 1000000 times, if the poster feels like it. Your kind of reply is not any more valid, or legitimate, or desirable, or anything like that.
Just because someone expresses a desire for change doesn't mean they express a sense of entitlement, tyrany, communism, or anything like that. It doesn't mean the person is speaking out against the "free market". The market is made of people, and the poster is free to try to get these people to change their minds, by any means deemed appropriate (and we're free to respond in kind).
Consider who is more generous? Someone whose mind is bent on acquisitiveness 99% of the time and on giving only 1% of the time, or someone whose mind is bent on giving 99% of the time and on acquisitiveness 1% of the time?
Someone whose mind is bent on giving most of the time, is such one going to accumulate much wealth?
Consider, who is cleaner? Someone who makes a big mess in his room throughout the year, and does a huge cleaning job on each New Year's Day, or someone who doesn't make any mess to begin with and thus has nothing to clean?
Generosity should not be measured in dollars. Generosity should be measured in mind share and mind time.
Responsibility is shared. It is true that the government is responsible, but so are those who comply with their government's laws. For example, what if it was mandated by law to throw your first born out of the window? Would you comply just because it's "the law"? It's up to you. If you decide to comply, you take responsibility just as much as when you decide not to.
It's really silly and simplistic to lump all responsibility on some singular entity. That's called making a "scapegoat". Let each person answer for their own actions. Regardless of what Chinese govt is or is not doing, what Google is doing is screwed up. That's all.
The problem is that people are pissed at both left and right. They're just more pissed at the right, currently. They see that our election system is broken, creating a de-facto two party lock-in. So people are disenfranchised and see the situation as hopeless. Hopeless people can do desperate things.
Don't be naive. It's so easy to blame this or that, but if you do that, you fail to see the real issue. The real issue is that both reps and dems are bought and paid for, and yet due to the way our election system works, we can't freely elect another candidate without risking to elect the worst "Evil" into office.
Please visit Approval Voting Home Page and learn about an election system that would actually work. Of course, which party do you think would be for it? Reps or dems? Or neither? Ya think??
Ah, if only RAMBUS did not decide to backstab the JEDEC members, perhaps we would all be happily using RDRAM now. But RAMBUS had to squeeze every last cent, legally or illegally, ethically or unethically, and now it's reaping what it sowed. Can you say Karma?
I wish companies would realize that ethical conduct is not an optional part of doing business.
Look, I know this problem first hand too because I was a student in exUSSR and in USA. A lot of it can be solved by making what is studied relevant to real life and relevant to the kid. Because our current educational system does not act as a responce to a natural demand or need, and because it is preemptive, a lot more effort needs to go into establishing that there IS A NEED to do word problems.
Word problems are boring. They suck. Adults would not do word problems, would they? Well, if an adult wanted to learn a foreign language on their own they would do them. But all this is foisted on the kids.
I think the solution is to 1) let learning and playing become the same thing and 2) let the child learn what they want. If they want to learn only Biology, then let them. They will realize soon enough that they also need to learn English and Mathematics and so on. Learning can progress naturally. All school needs to do is to enable it and encourage it and have some faith in the kids.
And finally face the facts: not all kids want to learn. Some just do not want to learn anything. And forcing them to learn just creates negative tension for everyone and accomplshes nothing. Take those kids away from the classroom. Other kids suffer because of a few bad apples who don't really want to learn and screw things for everyone else.
My wife, who is an educator (with 2 Master's degrees), chimes in, "There are 4 problems that keep Science back in schools.
1. There are not enough qualified teachers. Most those good in science and math pursue more lucrative careers.
2. Access the science labs is limited. And labs are what makes science interesting.
3. The science is taught in a way that is too abstract. There is almost no interaction with the larger scientific community. The kids should participate in exchanges with the scientific community. If you study environmental science, why aren't you out there gathering pool water? There is not enough real life hands on application of science.
4. The mind set of teachers and administrators on what can what cannot be learned, what should be encouraged and what should not. For the most part nobody knows how to nurture scientific curiousity if it doesn't fit within their game plan.
For example the child learns about amoebas and says 'Wow, so there are other one celled organisms? Let's go search for some! The teacher says, 'No we study amoebas this week and next week we will study something else.'"
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, greed?
:)
Most life forms are motivated by greed, but not all. You still left the other one percent open (in your view/statement).
Well said. The shite the corps are getting away with has really been "pushing the bar" for a long time. It was all OK as long as everyone had their day time TV. But now that TV content sucks (no good Star Trek shows), people are starting to notice how screwed up the situation is. :)
Either give us good TV, dammit, or else.
If the difference was only 10 times, it would be no big deal. In reality the difference is thousands and higher times greater.
The age old excuse is "whoever takes 'more risk' should get more reward". What what exactly is 'more risk'? There is no way to clearly define it, and why is it that the rich and powerful are the ones who get to define it, anyway? How is sharing a small apparentment with 9 day laborers, working for 10 bucks an hour, while trying to evade authorities, less risky than a cushy job of an exec? How is it more risky to dump 4 billion into investments when you have 10 billion? There is of course an odd ball who went into debt getting their idea ahead, but compared to all the slam dunks, it's just a blip. And finally, once the poor idea-man gets rich and, let's say stays rich and makes millions for five years in a row and can now retire, is each new year still considered "risk"? If not, why should the reward not only continue to be so disproportionate, but even to GROW away and away from the common worker? As the business establishes itself, it becomes less risky to run, and yet the rewards increase and increase in their disproportionality to the "safe" common workers?
Pardon me, but it makes no sense to me.
Wrong.
Let's go back to the original insight -- it's all about consequences. Google does something. As a consequence C|NET does something. Plain and simple. It's not that complicated.
When you step away from pure action-reaction cause-effect consequence-based view of morality, then you get into things like "levels of guilt", but all of these are based on arguable human (read: flawed and uncertain) principles.
Wonderful analysis of morality "in the real world"! Wouldn't it be nice if Google's CEO and Google itself took your advice too? In other words, what you're saying is just as damming when aimed against Google as it is when aimed against C|NET.
Google makes some private information easily available and refuses to set a privacy policy or to answer questions about it. They have benefited from this and discounted the cost, just as you say. As a consequence, CNET published the article in question.
Your reasoning works wonderfully in both directions, and so, it offers no intrinsic moral defense to Google at all.
I do admire your insight into the issue of morality.
You can tell lies/misinformation.
In reality we are governed far more by economical considerations than by political considerations. It stands to reason that to the extent that economy governs our lives, it should be democratized.
Considering that the government is slowly moving into irrelevance and that the coprs are fast becoming like local kings and dukes, the actions they make become less and less like those of private individuals and more and more like those of governments (and I am including monarchy and fascism as types of government).
So, it's not a big stretch to call "censorship" what some corps do with the information. This is particularly true of news media.
I take the biggest risk...
:)
Dear Pharmboy,
This is where I disagree with you. Naturally everything based on that faulty assumption is hogwash.
Your view offers poverty, dispair, mistrust and an uncomfortable lifestyle. Sounds pretty crappy. Think I will stay in mine.
I don't know about poverty, but mistrust is a result of having something to protect. When a person has something they want to protect, that need to exercise caution. Caution on the social plane translates into some degree of apprehensiveness in relationships, which in the extreme case degenerates into mistrust and ultimately into paranoya.
Despair is the sensation of not having one's wishes fulfilled. If one's wishes are aligned with reality, then one cannot experience great despair (but can still be annoyed to the extent that wishes diverge from the current situation).
What I am typing to you here is not a personal view, but it is a personal observation. It still is subjective, but it is a notch above a view that is uninformed by a thorough observation (and contemplation).
My way perhaps does not lead to a lot of material wealth, but it does lead to sanity, peace, good sleep and instant peeing. I am speaking from experience. The best things in life are free. For example, I didn't have to pay anything to be able to sense objects in my visual field. Ability to be aware is priceless. Therefore, when awareness is dulled by a sustained narrowing of its focus, such as what happens when a person is selfish (focused excessively on self), or idealistic (focused excessively on a mental object, idea), the loss that comes from such dulling is immeasurably great and is felt by all people together.
If there is one idiot, the whole community suffers. I doubt it can ever be PERFECT, but we can try to remain aware and to understand that money and toys, while NICE, is not why we're alive.
Guilty conscience is the birthplace of defensiveness.
Second. Employment is a state of mind. What kind of state? It is when a person volunterily surrenders some of their freedom, dignity and sanity in order to procure various objects of their desires by means of (sub)serving other people. In essence, one fulfills one's own desires by becoming a filfiller of the desires of others. And in this way a person becomes a slave who fears for their life and who cannot sleep well at night and who takes 5 minutes to pee in the bathroom.
Usually the employer feels "I am independent", and that's why they feel they can hire and fire. And the employee usually feels "I depend on my employer for sustenance" and, at once, loves and fears their employer (and such a conflicting emotion is the source of grievous stress). It's kind of a mental game that only works when both parties consent to it. But as soon as a man wakes to freedom, this game comes to an end (and not a moment too soon).
All of these feelings and conceptions, which are the basis of employer-employee relationship, are baseless, and demonstrably unreliable, untrue, and absurd. They crumble under the light of contemplation.
Ever since I have reached a certain point, I have ceased to be an employee, once and forever. The question that I ask myself is, "What means of livelihood shall I employ today?" I can afford to do this because I see that my own body and mind are basically backstabbing thieves who rob my life of joy and freedom (by making me constantly bow down to fear and other lower motivators).
You can only understand what I am saying here if you have lived and died, loved and lost, tasted bitter and sweet fruits of life for many aeons and now seek something more perfect than chasing base pleasures like a rabbit. You have to understand why there is such a thing as a self-sacrifice, why people do it, etc.
You know, I used to think exactly like you. But lately I am starting to question this "untouchable" dogma. Maybe the boss should appreciate it! Maybe the good that such action causes is worth the sacrifice. Maybe business should be willing to make less money if by doing so it can foster a friendlier environment for everyone? Maybe if your boss doesn't see the deep spiritual truth in this, maybe you and I should be brave enough to tell them to FSCK themselves? Boss may get angry and seek to vent that anger (such as by firing), but if enough of us are willing to stand firm, guess what? What will happen is that what "the boss" thinks will lose its all-important kingly arrogance.
"Preferred" just means +1 to the site that does it. IGN for me is like -50 +1 = -49 total score (where negative is bad and positive is good).
I read IGN with a very cynical eye as I don't like the vibe it has (like all the crazy ads that block the page), hidden content, lame staff that I can't trust at all, etc.
In order for me to trust a staffer's review I have to like him/her as a person.
Sure, IGN finally broke down and added user reviews after every other site had them. That's not enough of a positive for me to start liking IGN.
That's just me though. Just one person. No biggie.
What if there were no jobs to be had, and you were starving, and some kind individual offered you a job in return for having the pleasure of whipping and raping you 3 times a day? Sure, sure, you don't like the whipping and the raping, but it beats starving to death, doesn't it? Or does it?
Friend...sorry to break it to you in such a rough way, but it's like that! It's exactly like that.
Spartacus supposedly said that it was better to die on your feet than to live on your knees, or something like that. You may want to consider the meaning of that. It's not just some hypothetical thing that applies only to Spartacus long time ago. It's something that's a reality right now and it applies to every sentient being on this planet (and elsewhere as well).
Well said! What kind of lives are we going to have if we accept as dogma "You have to compete to survive?" Are we going to have the lives of wild wolves and other animals? Even dogs live better than that.
As soon as they start taking money for game ads, then all bets about their integrity are off. I prefer the sites that have user reviews on them. The thing with that is, I have to have trust that the reviews are uncensored and unedited/uncut.
So yea, I am affraid I agree with you?
Well said. IGN is a joke. I think it reflects the heavy corporatization of gaming and the overwhelming amount of boring and half-baked knock-offs and promotional games (all the games with the same title as the "popular" movie of the month).
One can only hope someone remembers what gaming was all about originally.
It's easy to find 1 or 2 good games on almost any console. Nintendo does not have many games that I want to play. Granted it has maybe 3 or so. But I am not going to buy a console to play 3 games.
The poster is simply asking the market to change its decision. From where I sit, the poster is free to ask, even 1000000 times, if the poster feels like it. Your kind of reply is not any more valid, or legitimate, or desirable, or anything like that.
Just because someone expresses a desire for change doesn't mean they express a sense of entitlement, tyrany, communism, or anything like that. It doesn't mean the person is speaking out against the "free market". The market is made of people, and the poster is free to try to get these people to change their minds, by any means deemed appropriate (and we're free to respond in kind).
If you are starving and I have some bread, why should I share?
Consider who is more generous? Someone whose mind is bent on acquisitiveness 99% of the time and on giving only 1% of the time, or someone whose mind is bent on giving 99% of the time and on acquisitiveness 1% of the time?
Someone whose mind is bent on giving most of the time, is such one going to accumulate much wealth?
Consider, who is cleaner? Someone who makes a big mess in his room throughout the year, and does a huge cleaning job on each New Year's Day, or someone who doesn't make any mess to begin with and thus has nothing to clean?
Generosity should not be measured in dollars. Generosity should be measured in mind share and mind time.
Responsibility is shared. It is true that the government is responsible, but so are those who comply with their government's laws. For example, what if it was mandated by law to throw your first born out of the window? Would you comply just because it's "the law"? It's up to you. If you decide to comply, you take responsibility just as much as when you decide not to.
It's really silly and simplistic to lump all responsibility on some singular entity. That's called making a "scapegoat". Let each person answer for their own actions. Regardless of what Chinese govt is or is not doing, what Google is doing is screwed up. That's all.
So, why would I want a notebook on a stand? Why wouldn't I want a regular notebook?
Sure, this thing may be a bit larger, like a desknote, but come on. What's the point?
You don't get it.
The problem is that people are pissed at both left and right. They're just more pissed at the right, currently. They see that our election system is broken, creating a de-facto two party lock-in. So people are disenfranchised and see the situation as hopeless. Hopeless people can do desperate things.
Don't be naive. It's so easy to blame this or that, but if you do that, you fail to see the real issue. The real issue is that both reps and dems are bought and paid for, and yet due to the way our election system works, we can't freely elect another candidate without risking to elect the worst "Evil" into office.
Please visit Approval Voting Home Page and learn about an election system that would actually work. Of course, which party do you think would be for it? Reps or dems? Or neither? Ya think??
Ah, if only RAMBUS did not decide to backstab the JEDEC members, perhaps we would all be happily using RDRAM now. But RAMBUS had to squeeze every last cent, legally or illegally, ethically or unethically, and now it's reaping what it sowed. Can you say Karma?
I wish companies would realize that ethical conduct is not an optional part of doing business.
Look, I know this problem first hand too because I was a student in exUSSR and in USA. A lot of it can be solved by making what is studied relevant to real life and relevant to the kid. Because our current educational system does not act as a responce to a natural demand or need, and because it is preemptive, a lot more effort needs to go into establishing that there IS A NEED to do word problems.
Word problems are boring. They suck. Adults would not do word problems, would they? Well, if an adult wanted to learn a foreign language on their own they would do them. But all this is foisted on the kids.
I think the solution is to 1) let learning and playing become the same thing and 2) let the child learn what they want. If they want to learn only Biology, then let them. They will realize soon enough that they also need to learn English and Mathematics and so on. Learning can progress naturally. All school needs to do is to enable it and encourage it and have some faith in the kids.
And finally face the facts: not all kids want to learn. Some just do not want to learn anything. And forcing them to learn just creates negative tension for everyone and accomplshes nothing. Take those kids away from the classroom. Other kids suffer because of a few bad apples who don't really want to learn and screw things for everyone else.
My wife, who is an educator (with 2 Master's degrees), chimes in, "There are 4 problems that keep Science back in schools.
1. There are not enough qualified teachers. Most those good in science and math pursue more lucrative careers.
2. Access the science labs is limited. And labs are what makes science interesting.
3. The science is taught in a way that is too abstract. There is almost no interaction with the larger scientific community. The kids should participate in exchanges with the scientific community. If you study environmental science, why aren't you out there gathering pool water? There is not enough real life hands on application of science.
4. The mind set of teachers and administrators on what can what cannot be learned, what should be encouraged and what should not. For the most part nobody knows how to nurture scientific curiousity if it doesn't fit within their game plan.
For example the child learns about amoebas and says 'Wow, so there are other one celled organisms? Let's go search for some! The teacher says, 'No we study amoebas this week and next week we will study something else.'"