You're implying that most companies don't waste huge amounts of energy too, that all corporations conserve lots of energy. How many companies leave all of their monitors on, all night, regardless of the fact that no one is using them. I'm one of the only ones at my company of 200+ people who shuts off his monitor at night. How many companies leave their computers on all the time just because it takes too long to boot them up in the morning (a couple minutes)? Many companies waste tonnes of energy, and all year 'round, too, not just at Christmas.
Today, very few people work 12 hour days. The vast majority of people work only 40-50 hours per week at jobs that require minimal or no hard physical labor. In the western world, job safety is better than it ever has been. For the most part today, people have the opportunity to pick and choose jobs that interest them, and there is more class mobility than ever. The fact is that the industrial revolution DID fulfill the promise of making work shorter, safer, and easier for almost everybody. Along with that, it brought an incredible increase in everyone's standard of living. The fact is that for almost everybody in almost every part of the world, life is a lot better now than it was 200 years ago. Sure it isn't perfect, but from a worker's perspective the industrial revolution has produced a lot more harm than good.
More than 30% of the working force in the U.S. makes under $10/hour. Raising children on that kind of income, even with two parents making that (although many low-wage earners are single mothers), is very difficult. And the security with these jobs is also very low, whereas a few hundred years ago, family businesses like looming or such could last for generations. Life might be more comfortable in some respects, but for many people it isn't a whole lot better now and is probably more stressful.
However, most people are optimistic about new technology because the historical record shows that the positives almost always outweigh the negatives. History also indicates that society is eventually able find solutions for any problems caused by the introduction of technology.
Maybe eventually, but many, many people can suffer in the interim. Pollution might some day be a thing of the past, but that isn't too comforting for the people developing cancer and emphysema now as a result of breathing contaminated air and drinking toxic water.
I'm not a Luddite by any means, but I think that it is possible to do some analysis of what technology will do if released, but people are too concerned with profit to really analyze it. I also don't think that life was necessarily better back then, but I don't think it's a whole lot better for many people now. Looking back and saying "look, it's better now" is just a way to justify the suffering of people now because perhaps their suffering might be a little lower.
This is indicative of a general trend of governments bowing to corporations--good ol' neo-liberalism. Corporations have more and more control over governments these days, so it's only natural that the government would be afraid of punishing such a large company.
There are a whole whack of books online at Project Gutenberg. They translate books whose copyrights have expired into electronic form. Quite a good project.
I totally agree. I've found that the people I know who didn't like the movie had heard a lot of hype about it and probably expected a regular Hollywood movie (what kind of non-Hollywood movie would have that much hype, after all?).
I believe we have the same sort of situation going on here in Canada as well. No one around here really cares what's happening. I myself am a university student, and I love reading about how students in other countries (often very repressed ones, such as in South America, China, Burma, etc.) organize to fight any laws that restrict freedom. Their effects range from minimal to great, but at least they try. Here, most people look at me strangely when I mention that we should be more aware of what the government (our government!) is doing. I believe "why bother? It's boring" or a paraphrase of that is one of the most common answers I get.
And I agree--I don't believe that "will the government use the information about what cereal I ate?" is the proper question. It should be, "why does the government need to know?"
Slashdot Mirror
You're implying that most companies don't waste huge amounts of energy too, that all corporations conserve lots of energy. How many companies leave all of their monitors on, all night, regardless of the fact that no one is using them. I'm one of the only ones at my company of 200+ people who shuts off his monitor at night. How many companies leave their computers on all the time just because it takes too long to boot them up in the morning (a couple minutes)? Many companies waste tonnes of energy, and all year 'round, too, not just at Christmas.
More than 30% of the working force in the U.S. makes under $10/hour. Raising children on that kind of income, even with two parents making that (although many low-wage earners are single mothers), is very difficult. And the security with these jobs is also very low, whereas a few hundred years ago, family businesses like looming or such could last for generations. Life might be more comfortable in some respects, but for many people it isn't a whole lot better now and is probably more stressful.
Maybe eventually, but many, many people can suffer in the interim. Pollution might some day be a thing of the past, but that isn't too comforting for the people developing cancer and emphysema now as a result of breathing contaminated air and drinking toxic water.
I'm not a Luddite by any means, but I think that it is possible to do some analysis of what technology will do if released, but people are too concerned with profit to really analyze it. I also don't think that life was necessarily better back then, but I don't think it's a whole lot better for many people now. Looking back and saying "look, it's better now" is just a way to justify the suffering of people now because perhaps their suffering might be a little lower.
At least the government is supposed to represent the people, as opposed to corporations, which imply no accountability.
But don't get me wrong--I don't like either.
Anyway, guess this is getting nicely off-topic.
This is indicative of a general trend of governments bowing to corporations--good ol' neo-liberalism. Corporations have more and more control over governments these days, so it's only natural that the government would be afraid of punishing such a large company.
There are a whole whack of books online at Project Gutenberg. They translate books whose copyrights have expired into electronic form. Quite a good project.
I totally agree. I've found that the people I know who didn't like the movie had heard a lot of hype about it and probably expected a regular Hollywood movie (what kind of non-Hollywood movie would have that much hype, after all?).
Ah, from one extreme to the other...
Pardon the horrid off-topicness.
Autumn is a British word. It's derived from the Middle English autumpne, from the Latin autumnus.
So says Merriam-Webster, at least.
I believe we have the same sort of situation going on here in Canada as well. No one around here really cares what's happening. I myself am a university student, and I love reading about how students in other countries (often very repressed ones, such as in South America, China, Burma, etc.) organize to fight any laws that restrict freedom. Their effects range from minimal to great, but at least they try. Here, most people look at me strangely when I mention that we should be more aware of what the government (our government!) is doing. I believe "why bother? It's boring" or a paraphrase of that is one of the most common answers I get.
And I agree--I don't believe that "will the government use the information about what cereal I ate?" is the proper question. It should be, "why does the government need to know?"