I said nothing about how successful I thought a boycott would be. I merely brought it up to spark discussion amongst the exceedingly large number of libertarians around here.
To get any meaningful change through free market means would require that you first educate the buying public of the wrongdoing and then get them to care. That is certainly a tall order, and as you suggest, impossible under most circumstances.
The next alternative to customer action would be to try and initiate government regulatory action for misbehavior of corporations. I believe you will find that to be about as likely and effective as getting the public involved.
Lawsuits? First, in order to even participate in a lawsuit, you have to demonstrate that you have been personally injured by the act, so you would be barred from acting on any wrongdoing you know about which does not directly impact you. Then, you would have to have pockets deep enough to fight the lawyers Sony could throw back at you.
So, what is left?
Sadly, the legal avenues have been exhausted at this point. The next most likely way to impact Sony (or any corporate entity) is a meaningful way in the common era is exactly what occurred - cyber warfare.
That doesn't make it right. It also says nothing about the true motivations about the recent attacks on Sony. It's just as likely as not that the group or groups responsible for both attacks did it merely to be pests rather than trying to change the company or extract any kind of retribution for some actual act of wrongdoing.
Re:I wonder if the hackers would stop..
on
Sony Compromised, Again
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Strictly speaking in a free market sense, paying for Sony products does make you partially responsible. Why, you ask? Because the invisible hand that supposedly corrects poor behavior in corporations is supposed to be the swath of customers who will willfully boycott products in response. Continuing to purchase the corporation's products serves only to reinforce any behavior the it may be involved in.
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."
— John Carmack
Has any new measure been added to stop 9/11 from happening again?
Only thing I can think of is reinforced cockpit doors.
That's it right there. We could have stopped at locked and reinforced cockpit doors and still be able to happily guarantee that 9/11 could never happen again.
I hate to feed the obvious troll, but just in case anyone fails to see how much is wrong with your statement, it is worth pointing out that virtually all new knowledge builds on older knowledge. That said, education is one of, if not the most important reason that free use exists.
And McCain wanted to postpone presidential debates so it could be passed quicker. If you think that anyone in Washington put up any serious fight against TARP, you are mistaken.
If changing variable names is all it takes to dodge a patent, that makes software patents pretty worthless. The names of variables are completely irrelevant to the actual execution of the program, so there's nothing stopping anyone from scrubbing their code with a refactoring tool to change those names. Having different names doesn't magically make your program do something else.
You have a constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but try telling that to anyone living within 50 miles of a US border. Or someone entering an airport. Or someone driving home on a night when the police decide to put up sobriety checkpoints. Or someone making an international call.
Also remember that more people vote for American Idol candidates than vote in our political elections. Heavy words like "mandate" should be avoided when less than half of registered voters even participate.
Sure, they don't care now. The point of Creepy is to maybe put a dent in the apathy. If a proper news source were to pick this up under the banner of "A stalker could be after your kids using this app!", people might start to care.
As an appropriate parallel - what about the case where the auto makers only manufactures a limited set of cars and you are left without the ability to purchase one? Keep in mind that public transportation has been made illegal.
So make the tax breaks limited to cases where a family has at least one minor dependent. That takes care of traditional married couples with kids as well as gay couples who successfully adopt.
That may be true, but it is irrelevant to the context of the quote. For example, replacing "officer" with "soldier" would not change the meaning of the statement as far as a casual reader is concerned.
Food for thought: they cannot stop criminal behavior within the walls of our prisons, where tracking and surveillance are not only OK but required. Why would large-scale tracking and surveillance of people be any more successful?
I think I'll take the relatively small risk of being victimized by a criminal to avoid the almost guaranteed reprisal by the public at large if I happen to visit the wrong place. In today's climate, I can only imagine what would happen to me if I were to make the mistake of walking inside a mosque and someone were to take notice, regardless whether I am actually Muslim. What kind of backlash would I face in this fully transparent society were I to walk into or out of an abortion clinic with a significant other on camera? What would happen if I were a teacher, but I was seen walking into or out of a topless bar?
I don't know about you, but my local power plants don't run on oil. On the other hand, my primary mode of transportation (bicycle) is also remarkably light on its consumption of oil.
All too often in the corporate environment do little arguments turn into bullet items on your next review. Except it is a bullet item 6+ months later without any context to justify your actions. Now you are just the guy who doesn't work well with others.
It may feel like you are being a dick by copying in a manager in a reply email to a co-worker, but sometimes it is necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Not in all states, it isn't. In fact, in several states, it's a felony to record police (or anyone) without prior consent.
I said nothing about how successful I thought a boycott would be. I merely brought it up to spark discussion amongst the exceedingly large number of libertarians around here.
To get any meaningful change through free market means would require that you first educate the buying public of the wrongdoing and then get them to care. That is certainly a tall order, and as you suggest, impossible under most circumstances.
The next alternative to customer action would be to try and initiate government regulatory action for misbehavior of corporations. I believe you will find that to be about as likely and effective as getting the public involved.
Lawsuits? First, in order to even participate in a lawsuit, you have to demonstrate that you have been personally injured by the act, so you would be barred from acting on any wrongdoing you know about which does not directly impact you. Then, you would have to have pockets deep enough to fight the lawyers Sony could throw back at you.
So, what is left?
Sadly, the legal avenues have been exhausted at this point. The next most likely way to impact Sony (or any corporate entity) is a meaningful way in the common era is exactly what occurred - cyber warfare.
That doesn't make it right. It also says nothing about the true motivations about the recent attacks on Sony. It's just as likely as not that the group or groups responsible for both attacks did it merely to be pests rather than trying to change the company or extract any kind of retribution for some actual act of wrongdoing.
Strictly speaking in a free market sense, paying for Sony products does make you partially responsible. Why, you ask? Because the invisible hand that supposedly corrects poor behavior in corporations is supposed to be the swath of customers who will willfully boycott products in response. Continuing to purchase the corporation's products serves only to reinforce any behavior the it may be involved in.
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." — John Carmack
Of course not. However, this "Made in China" engraving makes me seriously question that the Autopen is a natural born citizen.
Has any new measure been added to stop 9/11 from happening again? Only thing I can think of is reinforced cockpit doors.
That's it right there. We could have stopped at locked and reinforced cockpit doors and still be able to happily guarantee that 9/11 could never happen again.
Privacy laws are about preventing the dissemination of information to people you don't want to have it.
Intellectual Property laws are about controlling what someone can do with the information once you have (willingly) given it to them.
80 kcal - (21 kcal/h * 1h) = 163 kcal? Where is the extra 104 kcal coming from?
I hate to feed the obvious troll, but just in case anyone fails to see how much is wrong with your statement, it is worth pointing out that virtually all new knowledge builds on older knowledge. That said, education is one of, if not the most important reason that free use exists.
And McCain wanted to postpone presidential debates so it could be passed quicker. If you think that anyone in Washington put up any serious fight against TARP, you are mistaken.
If changing variable names is all it takes to dodge a patent, that makes software patents pretty worthless. The names of variables are completely irrelevant to the actual execution of the program, so there's nothing stopping anyone from scrubbing their code with a refactoring tool to change those names. Having different names doesn't magically make your program do something else.
You cannot possibly be correct in your assertion.
that kind of work can't come out of a culture where it's more important to pad quarterly earnings and impress the Party bosses
Clarification - which country are you talking about here?
You have a constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but try telling that to anyone living within 50 miles of a US border. Or someone entering an airport. Or someone driving home on a night when the police decide to put up sobriety checkpoints. Or someone making an international call.
Also remember that more people vote for American Idol candidates than vote in our political elections. Heavy words like "mandate" should be avoided when less than half of registered voters even participate.
Do not ignore those who are killed by no fault of their own. How many are killed in accidents caused by someone else?
Unfortunately, this is precisely the point. People are illogical. 600k die every year to heart disease and no one flinches, but it a one-time, ~3000 death event caused a massive response. 24k deaths each year can be attributed to coal power plants, but clearly it's nuclear power that's the major threat. After all, you never know when your local nuclear reactor might be hit by a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami.
For reference, the federal budget can be found here.
Newscorp is also missing from the list but Rupert Murdoch's money arguably influences politics as well.
For those figures, you just have to look up the operating budget for Fox News :)
Sure, they don't care now. The point of Creepy is to maybe put a dent in the apathy. If a proper news source were to pick this up under the banner of "A stalker could be after your kids using this app!", people might start to care.
If we eliminate our freedoms, the terrorists will have no more reason to attack us. The security circus is making us safer after all!
As an appropriate parallel - what about the case where the auto makers only manufactures a limited set of cars and you are left without the ability to purchase one? Keep in mind that public transportation has been made illegal.
So make the tax breaks limited to cases where a family has at least one minor dependent. That takes care of traditional married couples with kids as well as gay couples who successfully adopt.
That may be true, but it is irrelevant to the context of the quote. For example, replacing "officer" with "soldier" would not change the meaning of the statement as far as a casual reader is concerned.
Food for thought: they cannot stop criminal behavior within the walls of our prisons, where tracking and surveillance are not only OK but required. Why would large-scale tracking and surveillance of people be any more successful?
I think I'll take the relatively small risk of being victimized by a criminal to avoid the almost guaranteed reprisal by the public at large if I happen to visit the wrong place. In today's climate, I can only imagine what would happen to me if I were to make the mistake of walking inside a mosque and someone were to take notice, regardless whether I am actually Muslim. What kind of backlash would I face in this fully transparent society were I to walk into or out of an abortion clinic with a significant other on camera? What would happen if I were a teacher, but I was seen walking into or out of a topless bar?
I don't know about you, but my local power plants don't run on oil. On the other hand, my primary mode of transportation (bicycle) is also remarkably light on its consumption of oil.
All too often in the corporate environment do little arguments turn into bullet items on your next review. Except it is a bullet item 6+ months later without any context to justify your actions. Now you are just the guy who doesn't work well with others.
It may feel like you are being a dick by copying in a manager in a reply email to a co-worker, but sometimes it is necessary.