>"Switzerland hasn't been infected with the viruses of monetization and "big pig data," pushed by Wall Street filth."
I think you need to turn your ire just as much to the huge, expensive, ever-more-corrupt, out-of-control Federal government, which is at least as interested in tracking everything we do in the name of "safety" (control). AND has the power to do things far more dangerous with that data than just selling it to push the latest ads on you.
You can't really have freedom when everything you buy, everything you say, everything you write, everywhere you go, is being "tracked" and logged. Freedom and privacy go hand-in-hand. In a world where data collection, storage, aggregation, transmission, and analysis is super easy, super fast, and super cheap, we are ever more sitting on a ticking time-bomb.
>"If you're still using Facebook, despite all the information and bad news that has already been released about them, then they deserve to be spied on."
Those people who DO use Facebook are ALSO spying on us who have never used it, who also don't deserve to be spied on. Members upload damn photos that include non-participants and FB figures that out and add all those third-parties in photos to their system.... creating "shadow" profiles on non-participants. FB sucks contact information from members about third-parties. They collect information from third-parties through web tracking. They scour text of their member postings for third-parties. It is like a relentless beast.
>"Even if true, that doesn't free you from the responsibility to lead by example. PS: China has banned plastic bags.Most of Africa has banned plastic bags (four years prison in Kenya!). Has your country."
Our country (USA) is responsible for almost none of the plastic in the ocean. We do lead by example by generally not littering, by reusing bags, by recycling them, and by disposing of them properly. Banning plastic bags (and straws) here would change very, very little in waste except make it more inconvenient for most people. If you don't want to use them, nobody is forcing you to... bring/use your own reusable bags and straws.
>"Doesn't matter for me, the address that FB has for me is my give away address. it is a real address and I do check it every month or so."
Yeah, but if your REAL address were in anyone else's contacts that that were handed over, then you were compromised without even knowing. It is just like jerk-wads who send out an Email "TO" everyone they know, instead of using BCC. Now all those people you don't know have your Email address. And when their lame-ass accounts or OS are compromised, start welcoming yet more spam (after dealing with the dozens of irritating REPLY ALL messages that follow).
I am glad I have never had a FaceBook account, and never will, and proud of it.
>"Except, they programmed it to do precisely that, so.. intentionally. Just unintentionally raised the ire of folks in doing so."
+1
This is just super slimy. And the problem with this type of practice it that it doesn't just violate the privacy of that user, but every single person that user knows.
>"The very backbone of socialism is voluntaryism."
When the government owns things and tells you what you can and can't do, what you can and can't sell, etc, that is not voluntary.
>"Nobody volunteers to purchase their children back from slavers, but in an ideal libertarian society, bartering your children back would be an everyday occurence."
I have no idea what you are talking about. Slavery violates every principle of Libertarianism, which values individual freedom (and responsibility) more than anything else.
>"They are talking about an open protocol. Implementation is up to you/us."
In the past, DARPA has produced good stuff, so as long as the science behind it is sound, an open implementation of it could be a good thing. I just have a feeling they are going to get slapped down hard for even thinking such thoughts, much less spending money/resources on developing such a protocol. Or some law will go through in the name of "safety" and "crime" that makes using such protocols illegal. Federal spy/security/law enforcement agencies really do seem to believe they ultimately have a right to access anything they want and an unbreakable "lock" will create a doom's-day scenario.
I am not sure I could ever trust a government-endorsed and/or supplied communication system as being actually "private" for the public. To me, private means that NOBODY can ever intercept, decrypt, or obtain the information contained in the messages except for those intended by the end users.
Perhaps if the entire design was open, all the code was open source and openly reviewed, and all the management of it were distributed and open. Otherwise, there is far, far, far too much incentive for the government's "three letter" agencies to plant in back doors, weaknesses, logging, tap points, malware, whatever. And if they can't get what they want, I believe it will be stopped, prevented, or corrupted; so I wouldn't hold my breath.
> I see, refusing a vaccination causes no harm to others.
It causes no DIRECT harm to others.
>"Would you agree that being an uninsured driver also causes no direct harm to others?"
I do agree. It causes no direct harm to other drivers. Both have the potential to indirectly cause harm, given the right circumstances.
>"It's a victimless crime, right?"
Not having car insurance? Correct. IF there were an accident and IF it were their fault and IF they had no insurance and IF they had no resources to pay for the damages, then there would be an "unwhole" party.
>"Are Silicon Valley Workers Abandoning Libertarianism For Socialism? Silicon Valley tech workers are "defying their overlords," arguing that recent unionization attempts by Kickstarter employees..."
Voluntary unionization is neither Socialism nor "abandoning Libertarianism." It would only be a move towards Socialism if they were calling for compulsory unionization and/or government control.
The Libertarian philosophy supports voluntary unions and right to work.
The Libertarians Party support unions even more strongly:
> "If we regulate vaccines, we'll lose all our freedoms and become just like North Korea."
This is not regulation of vaccines. If we compel people, at gunpoint (which ultimately what laws are), do to things they don't want, that don't directly harm other people (but might harm other people who choose not to do things they don't want to do), we have certainly lost a freedom and entered a mindset that the government can compel anything because "scary".
Up next- somehow speech is violence. You can say things that upset people and they might do stupid things that harm themselves or others. So get the government to compel people what to say or ban what they can't say.
We have to decide to follow the word and spirit of the Constitution and generally leave people alone and constrain government. That is the primary value this country was founded on, it is what made us strong and successful and it is eroding away into a giant, expensive, safety-focused, oppressive, nanny-based "safe zone."
>"and ultimately costs our health system through resource utilization and direct/indirect costs that could be spent in far better ways.."
I will preface by saying I think it is crazy to not get vaccinations. And I certainly support developing them, making them available, and strongly encouraging their use through education. But your logic can easily lead to government control (banning or compulsory action) over just about anything- motorcycle driving, eating sugar, drinking alcohol, walking alone at night, having children, construction work, swimming, bicycling, having unprotected sex, using a mobile phone when not seated, most competitive sports, obsessively playing video games, using power tools, etc.
Everything we do has some amount of risk- and taking some risks is what makes live worth living. We can't have a free society if the argument that anything people do affects "other people" due to healthcare "direct and indirect costs" prevails. It is a very dangerous path- it can put too much power in the hands of not only government, but also private insurance companies.
>"sadly, there are reasons why some couples cannot have children: i know of a couple that had infertility treatment, and the result was that their child was born severely handicapped."
Bingo. It is primitive and sad that people will go to such ridiculous lengths to have a baby that simply must have their own or even SOME of their own genetics when adoption and surrogacy are available. Even more bizarre when tons of unwanted babies are born (or aborted) every day. It is even irresponsible when the parent(s) have known and dangerous genetic issues.
The drive to have children is perfectly normal, and being a parent is a wonderful thing. But contributing one's own genetics into the equation is about 0.00000001% of being a parent. It is far more important to society to have good parents than it is to ensure every person can pass on their own DNA.
>"what percentage of those sales are to Netflix and RedBox video rentals."
Apparently not enough because I have a dozen titles in my Netflix bluray queue that Netflix refuses to replace or the industry refuses to sell to Netflex. I watched 2 of a 3 disc series and the 3rd disc was damaged in shipping and I have now been waiting 2 *YEARS* for Netflix to get at least a SINGLE disc for the entire COUNTRY. And this was a major blockbuster, not something obscure.
>"Though I will admit a few documentaries or movies in UHD are fricken gorgeous compared to standard def."
If by "standard def" you mean (480I/P), sure. I totally agree. But almost nobody at normal 10' viewing distance from a 70" 4K TV upscaling from *quality* 1080P can tell any difference between that and actual 4K (UHD) source material. And by almost nobody, I mean way less than 1%.... and even then, it is probably only due to HDR, not resolution.
4K Bluray is mostly a marketing scheme without utility... already being rejected by the market mostly because the discs are not backwards compatible and cost more. Also rejected was 3D, although that actually adds something useful and interesting, especially when shot well. And THOSE discs ARE backwards compatible (can be played on any Bluray player through any TV in 2D). Plus, it is still the ONLY way to get quality 3D content.
>"How are you going to sell as much physical media when physical retail stores keep closing, and Amazon keeps trying to push customers to do streaming?"
And when discs are barely offered. And when prices are still too high. And in my case, when I want at least 3D for those movies which were and are still not offered. Jacking up prices by offering 4K discs, which nobody really needs or wants, didn't help either. And make sure to frustrate customers who BUY YOUR STUFF with irritating "previews" and unskippable crap. And offer more expensive "bundles" of DVD/Bluray which gives the customer one potentially useless disc, but at, you guessed it, higher prices (as if it adds value).
Streaming can be nice- if you never want 'net-less access, and have good and unlimited bandwidth, and don't mind paying forever for content parts that disappear without notice, and don't mind the picture falling apart or suddenly going to 100P for a while, or studdering occasionally. Oh, and don't mind "subscribing" to more and more "services" to get what you used to get from one place.
>"It isn't that hard. We're already in the 85%+ range as it is because most of our state's power is hydro-electric."
Which illustrates why doing such things (like most things) at the State level makes sense. Each State is different- has different resources, issues, problems. It spurs competition, encourages experimentation, allows faster reaction, focuses on issues that matter to those in that area, and allows more freedom. I have to remind people about the concept of the United States all the time (and the 10th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights).
>"that even if you're OK with torture as a means to force compliance with the law"
I am certainly not in favor of torture (nor implied any such thing).
>"you should very much not be. In such a time and place it's only a matter of time before a law's passed you can't or don't want to follow, and you and your family will be on the receiving end of that torture. It's not a question of if, it's when. "
And you make my case for a smaller government, and that which remains being more local, fewer laws in general and most especially in regards to intervention in peoples' personal lives, and more checks and balances.:) But it seems that somehow quite a few people get led down the path of larger government, especially Federal, more laws, more government power, more "programs", more agencies, more regulation, more spending, and more taxing. Then these same people seem surprised by the inevitable result of large government: corruption, crony capitalism, frivolous laws, reduction of freedom, unresponsiveness to the voters, generations of "entitlement" philosophy, lack of work ethic, depressed economies, a government obsessed with spying on its citizens and unmanageable debt. "But if we just had one more BETTER program or law or regulation, we could fix it"... and the problem grows. Many times less is actually more.
>Yes, for the same reason we feed them and give them healthcare, they get to vote"
? The first two are like shelter- survival. Voting is not necessary for survival. It is a right that is very much like freedom; something that is forefitted by committing a crime in such a significant way as to find yourself incarcerated.
>"And that's ignoring the fact that we know that Nixon started the drug war specifically to attack and disenfranchise voters he disagreed. This isn't up for debate"
You are kinda straw-manning there, I never disagreed. If fact, I pretty heavily hinted that I am anti-drug-war.
>"Finally, the concept of "paying debt to society" is nonsensical. You're either a continued danger or you're not. Prison must exist either for rehabilitation or containment."
You left off a third, very important reason- deterrence. So, it can serve all three at the same time- punishment as a deterrent, containment to protect the public, and rehabilitation in the hopes that they can and will be set free and do better. Our system has mostly (but not entirely) given up on rehab. I don't see voting while in prison something that will advance any of those three.
>"What definition of slavery requires is to be profitable?"
I never said it was profitable, but that it produced something. Presumably, there is no point of "enslaving" someone if they don't do (produce) something for you.
>"Meaning even prisoners get to vote. I like that."
Quite a topic change, but... seriously? We lock people up, they lose their rights to freedom, but they should be able to continue to vote? To me, that sounds utterly ridiculous and not at all about swinging a vote. Those who can't play by the rules, should not participate in making the rules while they are in "time out".
Now, I do think once you have "paid your debt to society", all your rights should be restored. But that is quite a different matter. I also think there are plenty of nonsensical, non-victim "crimes" that should be abolished... and that is also quite a different matter.
Except it really isn't, since most aren't producing anything, they are just pure expense. If they could at least be self-sufficient using prison labor, then maybe. In any case, I am not so sure even that would be "wrong". Out in society, one is SUPPOSED to work to survive. That model should be encouraged in prison/jail, too. But, we have long ago given up on actually trying to improve inmates.
Slashdot Mirror
>"Switzerland hasn't been infected with the viruses of monetization and "big pig data," pushed by Wall Street filth."
I think you need to turn your ire just as much to the huge, expensive, ever-more-corrupt, out-of-control Federal government, which is at least as interested in tracking everything we do in the name of "safety" (control). AND has the power to do things far more dangerous with that data than just selling it to push the latest ads on you.
You can't really have freedom when everything you buy, everything you say, everything you write, everywhere you go, is being "tracked" and logged. Freedom and privacy go hand-in-hand. In a world where data collection, storage, aggregation, transmission, and analysis is super easy, super fast, and super cheap, we are ever more sitting on a ticking time-bomb.
>"If you're still using Facebook, despite all the information and bad news that has already been released about them, then they deserve to be spied on."
Those people who DO use Facebook are ALSO spying on us who have never used it, who also don't deserve to be spied on. Members upload damn photos that include non-participants and FB figures that out and add all those third-parties in photos to their system.... creating "shadow" profiles on non-participants. FB sucks contact information from members about third-parties. They collect information from third-parties through web tracking. They scour text of their member postings for third-parties. It is like a relentless beast.
>"Even if true, that doesn't free you from the responsibility to lead by example. PS: China has banned plastic bags.Most of Africa has banned plastic bags (four years prison in Kenya!). Has your country."
Our country (USA) is responsible for almost none of the plastic in the ocean. We do lead by example by generally not littering, by reusing bags, by recycling them, and by disposing of them properly. Banning plastic bags (and straws) here would change very, very little in waste except make it more inconvenient for most people. If you don't want to use them, nobody is forcing you to... bring/use your own reusable bags and straws.
I imagine styrofoam is more of a problem, anyway.
>"Doesn't matter for me, the address that FB has for me is my give away address. it is a real address and I do check it every month or so."
Yeah, but if your REAL address were in anyone else's contacts that that were handed over, then you were compromised without even knowing. It is just like jerk-wads who send out an Email "TO" everyone they know, instead of using BCC. Now all those people you don't know have your Email address. And when their lame-ass accounts or OS are compromised, start welcoming yet more spam (after dealing with the dozens of irritating REPLY ALL messages that follow).
I am glad I have never had a FaceBook account, and never will, and proud of it.
>"Except, they programmed it to do precisely that, so.. intentionally. Just unintentionally raised the ire of folks in doing so."
+1
This is just super slimy. And the problem with this type of practice it that it doesn't just violate the privacy of that user, but every single person that user knows.
>"The very backbone of socialism is voluntaryism."
When the government owns things and tells you what you can and can't do, what you can and can't sell, etc, that is not voluntary.
>"Nobody volunteers to purchase their children back from slavers, but in an ideal libertarian society, bartering your children back would be an everyday occurence."
I have no idea what you are talking about. Slavery violates every principle of Libertarianism, which values individual freedom (and responsibility) more than anything else.
>"You mean like DES or perhaps AES?"
I should have added "developed now" or "recently". Those two were developed a long time ago, before things got really heated.
>"Thank you for not using GPS."
GPS is not two-way communications...
>"They are talking about an open protocol. Implementation is up to you/us."
In the past, DARPA has produced good stuff, so as long as the science behind it is sound, an open implementation of it could be a good thing. I just have a feeling they are going to get slapped down hard for even thinking such thoughts, much less spending money/resources on developing such a protocol. Or some law will go through in the name of "safety" and "crime" that makes using such protocols illegal. Federal spy/security/law enforcement agencies really do seem to believe they ultimately have a right to access anything they want and an unbreakable "lock" will create a doom's-day scenario.
I am not sure I could ever trust a government-endorsed and/or supplied communication system as being actually "private" for the public. To me, private means that NOBODY can ever intercept, decrypt, or obtain the information contained in the messages except for those intended by the end users.
Perhaps if the entire design was open, all the code was open source and openly reviewed, and all the management of it were distributed and open. Otherwise, there is far, far, far too much incentive for the government's "three letter" agencies to plant in back doors, weaknesses, logging, tap points, malware, whatever. And if they can't get what they want, I believe it will be stopped, prevented, or corrupted; so I wouldn't hold my breath.
>"You should read up on the slippery-slope logical fallacy."
The "slippery slope" is a very real phenomenon, it is not always a fallacy.
>> that don't directly harm other people
> I see, refusing a vaccination causes no harm to others.
It causes no DIRECT harm to others.
>"Would you agree that being an uninsured driver also causes no direct harm to others?"
I do agree. It causes no direct harm to other drivers. Both have the potential to indirectly cause harm, given the right circumstances.
>"It's a victimless crime, right?"
Not having car insurance? Correct. IF there were an accident and IF it were their fault and IF they had no insurance and IF they had no resources to pay for the damages, then there would be an "unwhole" party.
>"Are Silicon Valley Workers Abandoning Libertarianism For Socialism? Silicon Valley tech workers are "defying their overlords," arguing that recent unionization attempts by Kickstarter employees..."
Voluntary unionization is neither Socialism nor "abandoning Libertarianism." It would only be a move towards Socialism if they were calling for compulsory unionization and/or government control.
The Libertarian philosophy supports voluntary unions and right to work.
The Libertarians Party support unions even more strongly:
http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/l...
> "If we regulate vaccines, we'll lose all our freedoms and become just like North Korea."
This is not regulation of vaccines. If we compel people, at gunpoint (which ultimately what laws are), do to things they don't want, that don't directly harm other people (but might harm other people who choose not to do things they don't want to do), we have certainly lost a freedom and entered a mindset that the government can compel anything because "scary".
Up next- somehow speech is violence. You can say things that upset people and they might do stupid things that harm themselves or others. So get the government to compel people what to say or ban what they can't say.
We have to decide to follow the word and spirit of the Constitution and generally leave people alone and constrain government. That is the primary value this country was founded on, it is what made us strong and successful and it is eroding away into a giant, expensive, safety-focused, oppressive, nanny-based "safe zone."
>"and ultimately costs our health system through resource utilization and direct/indirect costs that could be spent in far better ways.."
I will preface by saying I think it is crazy to not get vaccinations. And I certainly support developing them, making them available, and strongly encouraging their use through education. But your logic can easily lead to government control (banning or compulsory action) over just about anything- motorcycle driving, eating sugar, drinking alcohol, walking alone at night, having children, construction work, swimming, bicycling, having unprotected sex, using a mobile phone when not seated, most competitive sports, obsessively playing video games, using power tools, etc.
Everything we do has some amount of risk- and taking some risks is what makes live worth living. We can't have a free society if the argument that anything people do affects "other people" due to healthcare "direct and indirect costs" prevails. It is a very dangerous path- it can put too much power in the hands of not only government, but also private insurance companies.
>"sadly, there are reasons why some couples cannot have children: i know of a couple that had infertility treatment, and the result was that their child was born severely handicapped."
Bingo. It is primitive and sad that people will go to such ridiculous lengths to have a baby that simply must have their own or even SOME of their own genetics when adoption and surrogacy are available. Even more bizarre when tons of unwanted babies are born (or aborted) every day. It is even irresponsible when the parent(s) have known and dangerous genetic issues.
The drive to have children is perfectly normal, and being a parent is a wonderful thing. But contributing one's own genetics into the equation is about 0.00000001% of being a parent. It is far more important to society to have good parents than it is to ensure every person can pass on their own DNA.
>"what percentage of those sales are to Netflix and RedBox video rentals."
Apparently not enough because I have a dozen titles in my Netflix bluray queue that Netflix refuses to replace or the industry refuses to sell to Netflex. I watched 2 of a 3 disc series and the 3rd disc was damaged in shipping and I have now been waiting 2 *YEARS* for Netflix to get at least a SINGLE disc for the entire COUNTRY. And this was a major blockbuster, not something obscure.
>"Though I will admit a few documentaries or movies in UHD are fricken gorgeous compared to standard def."
If by "standard def" you mean (480I/P), sure. I totally agree. But almost nobody at normal 10' viewing distance from a 70" 4K TV upscaling from *quality* 1080P can tell any difference between that and actual 4K (UHD) source material. And by almost nobody, I mean way less than 1%.... and even then, it is probably only due to HDR, not resolution.
4K Bluray is mostly a marketing scheme without utility... already being rejected by the market mostly because the discs are not backwards compatible and cost more. Also rejected was 3D, although that actually adds something useful and interesting, especially when shot well. And THOSE discs ARE backwards compatible (can be played on any Bluray player through any TV in 2D). Plus, it is still the ONLY way to get quality 3D content.
>"How are you going to sell as much physical media when physical retail stores keep closing, and Amazon keeps trying to push customers to do streaming?"
And when discs are barely offered. And when prices are still too high. And in my case, when I want at least 3D for those movies which were and are still not offered. Jacking up prices by offering 4K discs, which nobody really needs or wants, didn't help either. And make sure to frustrate customers who BUY YOUR STUFF with irritating "previews" and unskippable crap. And offer more expensive "bundles" of DVD/Bluray which gives the customer one potentially useless disc, but at, you guessed it, higher prices (as if it adds value).
Streaming can be nice- if you never want 'net-less access, and have good and unlimited bandwidth, and don't mind paying forever for content parts that disappear without notice, and don't mind the picture falling apart or suddenly going to 100P for a while, or studdering occasionally. Oh, and don't mind "subscribing" to more and more "services" to get what you used to get from one place.
>"It isn't that hard. We're already in the 85%+ range as it is because most of our state's power is hydro-electric."
Which illustrates why doing such things (like most things) at the State level makes sense. Each State is different- has different resources, issues, problems. It spurs competition, encourages experimentation, allows faster reaction, focuses on issues that matter to those in that area, and allows more freedom. I have to remind people about the concept of the United States all the time (and the 10th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights).
>"that even if you're OK with torture as a means to force compliance with the law"
I am certainly not in favor of torture (nor implied any such thing).
>"you should very much not be. In such a time and place it's only a matter of time before a law's passed you can't or don't want to follow, and you and your family will be on the receiving end of that torture. It's not a question of if, it's when. "
And you make my case for a smaller government, and that which remains being more local, fewer laws in general and most especially in regards to intervention in peoples' personal lives, and more checks and balances. :) But it seems that somehow quite a few people get led down the path of larger government, especially Federal, more laws, more government power, more "programs", more agencies, more regulation, more spending, and more taxing. Then these same people seem surprised by the inevitable result of large government: corruption, crony capitalism, frivolous laws, reduction of freedom, unresponsiveness to the voters, generations of "entitlement" philosophy, lack of work ethic, depressed economies, a government obsessed with spying on its citizens and unmanageable debt. "But if we just had one more BETTER program or law or regulation, we could fix it"... and the problem grows. Many times less is actually more.
>Yes, for the same reason we feed them and give them healthcare, they get to vote"
? The first two are like shelter- survival. Voting is not necessary for survival. It is a right that is very much like freedom; something that is forefitted by committing a crime in such a significant way as to find yourself incarcerated.
>"And that's ignoring the fact that we know that Nixon started the drug war specifically to attack and disenfranchise voters he disagreed. This isn't up for debate"
You are kinda straw-manning there, I never disagreed. If fact, I pretty heavily hinted that I am anti-drug-war.
>"Finally, the concept of "paying debt to society" is nonsensical. You're either a continued danger or you're not. Prison must exist either for rehabilitation or containment."
You left off a third, very important reason- deterrence. So, it can serve all three at the same time- punishment as a deterrent, containment to protect the public, and rehabilitation in the hopes that they can and will be set free and do better. Our system has mostly (but not entirely) given up on rehab. I don't see voting while in prison something that will advance any of those three.
>"What definition of slavery requires is to be profitable?"
I never said it was profitable, but that it produced something. Presumably, there is no point of "enslaving" someone if they don't do (produce) something for you.
>"Meaning even prisoners get to vote. I like that."
Quite a topic change, but... seriously? We lock people up, they lose their rights to freedom, but they should be able to continue to vote? To me, that sounds utterly ridiculous and not at all about swinging a vote. Those who can't play by the rules, should not participate in making the rules while they are in "time out".
Now, I do think once you have "paid your debt to society", all your rights should be restored. But that is quite a different matter. I also think there are plenty of nonsensical, non-victim "crimes" that should be abolished... and that is also quite a different matter.
>"Use the right word: slavery."
Except it really isn't, since most aren't producing anything, they are just pure expense. If they could at least be self-sufficient using prison labor, then maybe. In any case, I am not so sure even that would be "wrong". Out in society, one is SUPPOSED to work to survive. That model should be encouraged in prison/jail, too. But, we have long ago given up on actually trying to improve inmates.