What is wrong with companies these days? All they do is patent everything under the sun and reap the royalties. *cough*SCO*cough*
Although I guess we should expect this from the demonic MS corporation. I think they should next patent viruses to get a piece of the action there. Then after that they could buy a virus protection company and be made for life. (can you say infinite income stream?)
Am I the only one who finds this reasoning foolish and naive? And I do not mean the poster is foolish (you actually seem upset that it is not different).
There should never be a situation where foolish laws are passed because "only the criminals will be punished." Well, think about this: one day what is considered a criminal may change. Look at the hackers who find bugs in systems and report them to companies only to find themselves in trouble with the law. Notice how I used hackers, remember when that had a different connotation?
And aside from the potential martial law crack downs wherein everyone breaks the law at anytime, what about the rights of criminals? Are they not people? If we have to catch someone who committed a more devious crime by almost baiting them with laws, who can honestly say that that is just?
The poster mentioned that there was a potential for abuse, but "as long as it works" no one wants to deal with it. I'm sorry, but it doesn't "work". It is just people don't care because it doesn't affect them which is not the same thing as working. People don't care that minor drug users are thrown in jail where they are raped and psychologically tortured because they're obviously the scum of the Earth. "They should have thought more before breaking the law." Yeah, well since when do we turn a blind eye to rape?
Sorry, I've gotten a bit off topic, but this bothers me. People should not be lackadaisical about the justice system and the legislation that criminalizes people. We should be making sure that justice is served, not that only people who break laws are thrown in deplorable jails.
... telephone companies are huge employers in just about every state. They'll lobby congress and state legislatures and have VoIP taxed out of business.
Why? Verizon, SBC, etc are addicted to that $20-50/mo they make on residental service.
Maybe it won't just be the companies who demand fat profits. As you said, they are huge employers and guess what: most are unionized. Verizon workers in the US Northeast went on strike because their jobs were planning to be moved to the South to save money. How do you think they will react to the evaporation of their jobs?
People often criticize companies for trying to hold onto their profits (I think rightly so to a point) but then immediately side with unions against the companies so the workers can keep their profits. Granted, the two are not the same (company != person) but the general idea there is the same.
I think we are mostly in agreement then. Although I think extreme environmentalists can have just as strong a motive as the 'interested parties' you speak of because they would seem to not value money in the same sense so monetary comparisons would seem inappropriate. But I don't think this is really a key issue anyway.
We do need to be thinking proactively to try to limit the extent of our affect on the environment. You and I would probably differ on the best way to do this.
I would just like to say (this isn't necessarily directed at the parent; just a general statement) that if we cared about environmental effects at the beginning of the industrial revolution, we probably would never have started. Would we have been better off? It all depends on what you value more, I suppose (heh, that's where the bias comes into play). We should remember that the Western world was built on bad environmental practices; it was almost a necessity in order to get the factories installed into the economy. Now, however, the cleanest countries are generally the more industrial nations (compared to developing nations).
Again, this does not give us carte blanche to just say, "The environment be damned!" and then dump mercury in the ocean. But we need to realize that human beings should be given a better life and that there are costs to such things. We just somehow need to find a way to accurately value such costs.
The Earth is our only home, let's all try to keep it clean.
"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we many have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance between being effective and being honest." (emphasis added)
Dr. Stephen Schneider
Professor of Biological Sciences
Stanford University
Author of Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Cenutry
To say that there are not biased environmentalists ignores the fact that they are human and guess what, humans are biased! I'm biased right now by responding to your post in this way and you were biased in trying to paint environmentalists as only caring about saving the human race from the brink of destruction.
I agree we need to be cautious, but to what extent? There are a number (not in the majority obviously) of extreme environmentalists (whom you conveniently ignored) that would like to see a return to agricultural societies so that we stop 'pillaging the Earth'.
There are people who feel that the western way of life is inappropriate (on some accounts I'd even agree with them) or perhaps think capitalism is destroying everyone and everything. How many people who are extreme environmentalists are also on the extreme left in politics? How many of those would like to see capitalism fall flat on its face?
All I'm saying is that there is no such thing as an unbiased human. We can be far removed from a situation such that we are just about unbiased, but bias is just part of being human.
First, I'd like to apologize for misinterpreting anything you said.
I too believe that people should feel a duty to serve society through a number of means including jury duty. You are correct that we have to give up freedoms to live in a society. Even in an anarchist world people would have to give up freedoms (of varying degrees) in order to interact.
I'd also like a box on the ballot that denotes 'I do not vote for this candidate'. That way if there is no one on the ballot whom I agree with, my vote is not voided because I didn't vote for someone. Too as someone on/. said a while ago in another article, it would prevent candidates saying they have the support of 'the people'. Maybe this would get people off their couches to vote, but then again maybe not. It all depends on whether the main cause is disenfranchisement or just voter apathy in general (sadly enough I'd rather the former--it's horrible we're at the point in society where I actually said I'd rather disenfranchisement).
I must say I agree with you about what would happen to the SI system if they tried to enter (Diebold would say infiltrate or subvert) the market (and only DIebold is allowed to subvert the market;).
However, I take issue with your last remark about importing forced voting. I am sorry, but I disagree with you quite strongly. How can a society be called free when you are forced to vote? What if you only vote for someone because it was the law and not because you agree with his or her political stance? This cannot be a viable option until voting ballots had a box labeled 'Abstain from this race'.
Even then, I would not want such a system. Forced voting in a free society (if you ignore most of what Congress does that is;) just does not make sense.
I disagree with you about the draft too. To think that one could force someone to go die in a foreign land because someone calls it a threat to national security is insane! Look at what is going on in the world now. The lines that identify threats to national security are obfuscated both purposefully and unintentionally. If I were drafted (I am a potential draftee) I would not show up and would go to jail. However, I seriously thought about joining the military because I felt I had a duty to do so, but my parents were too worried for me to do it, so this is not just someone averse to military service (I may still join for limited service).
Slashdot Mirror
What is wrong with companies these days? All they do is patent everything under the sun and reap the royalties. *cough*SCO*cough*
Although I guess we should expect this from the demonic MS corporation. I think they should next patent viruses to get a piece of the action there. Then after that they could buy a virus protection company and be made for life. (can you say infinite income stream?)
Am I the only one who finds this reasoning foolish and naive? And I do not mean the poster is foolish (you actually seem upset that it is not different).
There should never be a situation where foolish laws are passed because "only the criminals will be punished." Well, think about this: one day what is considered a criminal may change. Look at the hackers who find bugs in systems and report them to companies only to find themselves in trouble with the law. Notice how I used hackers, remember when that had a different connotation?
And aside from the potential martial law crack downs wherein everyone breaks the law at anytime, what about the rights of criminals? Are they not people? If we have to catch someone who committed a more devious crime by almost baiting them with laws, who can honestly say that that is just?
The poster mentioned that there was a potential for abuse, but "as long as it works" no one wants to deal with it. I'm sorry, but it doesn't "work". It is just people don't care because it doesn't affect them which is not the same thing as working. People don't care that minor drug users are thrown in jail where they are raped and psychologically tortured because they're obviously the scum of the Earth. "They should have thought more before breaking the law." Yeah, well since when do we turn a blind eye to rape?
Sorry, I've gotten a bit off topic, but this bothers me. People should not be lackadaisical about the justice system and the legislation that criminalizes people. We should be making sure that justice is served, not that only people who break laws are thrown in deplorable jails.
TSage
... telephone companies are huge employers in just about every state. They'll lobby congress and state legislatures and have VoIP taxed out of business.
Why? Verizon, SBC, etc are addicted to that $20-50/mo they make on residental service.
Maybe it won't just be the companies who demand fat profits. As you said, they are huge employers and guess what: most are unionized. Verizon workers in the US Northeast went on strike because their jobs were planning to be moved to the South to save money. How do you think they will react to the evaporation of their jobs?
People often criticize companies for trying to hold onto their profits (I think rightly so to a point) but then immediately side with unions against the companies so the workers can keep their profits. Granted, the two are not the same (company != person) but the general idea there is the same.
Something to think about.
TSage
I think we are mostly in agreement then. Although I think extreme environmentalists can have just as strong a motive as the 'interested parties' you speak of because they would seem to not value money in the same sense so monetary comparisons would seem inappropriate. But I don't think this is really a key issue anyway.
We do need to be thinking proactively to try to limit the extent of our affect on the environment. You and I would probably differ on the best way to do this.
I would just like to say (this isn't necessarily directed at the parent; just a general statement) that if we cared about environmental effects at the beginning of the industrial revolution, we probably would never have started. Would we have been better off? It all depends on what you value more, I suppose (heh, that's where the bias comes into play). We should remember that the Western world was built on bad environmental practices; it was almost a necessity in order to get the factories installed into the economy. Now, however, the cleanest countries are generally the more industrial nations (compared to developing nations).
Again, this does not give us carte blanche to just say, "The environment be damned!" and then dump mercury in the ocean. But we need to realize that human beings should be given a better life and that there are costs to such things. We just somehow need to find a way to accurately value such costs.
The Earth is our only home, let's all try to keep it clean.
TSage
"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we many have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance between being effective and being honest." (emphasis added)
Dr. Stephen Schneider
Professor of Biological Sciences
Stanford University
Author of Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Cenutry
To say that there are not biased environmentalists ignores the fact that they are human and guess what, humans are biased! I'm biased right now by responding to your post in this way and you were biased in trying to paint environmentalists as only caring about saving the human race from the brink of destruction.
I agree we need to be cautious, but to what extent? There are a number (not in the majority obviously) of extreme environmentalists (whom you conveniently ignored) that would like to see a return to agricultural societies so that we stop 'pillaging the Earth'.
There are people who feel that the western way of life is inappropriate (on some accounts I'd even agree with them) or perhaps think capitalism is destroying everyone and everything. How many people who are extreme environmentalists are also on the extreme left in politics? How many of those would like to see capitalism fall flat on its face?
All I'm saying is that there is no such thing as an unbiased human. We can be far removed from a situation such that we are just about unbiased, but bias is just part of being human.
TSage
First, I'd like to apologize for misinterpreting anything you said.
/. said a while ago in another article, it would prevent candidates saying they have the support of 'the people'. Maybe this would get people off their couches to vote, but then again maybe not. It all depends on whether the main cause is disenfranchisement or just voter apathy in general (sadly enough I'd rather the former--it's horrible we're at the point in society where I actually said I'd rather disenfranchisement).
I too believe that people should feel a duty to serve society through a number of means including jury duty. You are correct that we have to give up freedoms to live in a society. Even in an anarchist world people would have to give up freedoms (of varying degrees) in order to interact.
I'd also like a box on the ballot that denotes 'I do not vote for this candidate'. That way if there is no one on the ballot whom I agree with, my vote is not voided because I didn't vote for someone. Too as someone on
TSage
I must say I agree with you about what would happen to the SI system if they tried to enter (Diebold would say infiltrate or subvert) the market (and only DIebold is allowed to subvert the market ;).
;) just does not make sense.
However, I take issue with your last remark about importing forced voting. I am sorry, but I disagree with you quite strongly. How can a society be called free when you are forced to vote? What if you only vote for someone because it was the law and not because you agree with his or her political stance? This cannot be a viable option until voting ballots had a box labeled 'Abstain from this race'.
Even then, I would not want such a system. Forced voting in a free society (if you ignore most of what Congress does that is
I disagree with you about the draft too. To think that one could force someone to go die in a foreign land because someone calls it a threat to national security is insane! Look at what is going on in the world now. The lines that identify threats to national security are obfuscated both purposefully and unintentionally. If I were drafted (I am a potential draftee) I would not show up and would go to jail. However, I seriously thought about joining the military because I felt I had a duty to do so, but my parents were too worried for me to do it, so this is not just someone averse to military service (I may still join for limited service).
Just my thoughts.
TSage