The law in France and Germany simply prevents the selling of Nazi memorabilia, it doesn't stop learning about the Nazis or discussing them, in line with "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it".
While this proposal is not going to lead to the introduction of ads on Wikipedia, it is a good point and one I raised on the mailing list. Hopefully it is an avoidable problem.
Here's a (probably apocryphal) story of a program on the BBC, I believe it was a car review program, who gave a bad review to a certain American car model. The CEO of the company found out about it, was furious and ordered the advertising team to pull all adverts to punish the TV station. The advertising team replied "sorry sir, but the BBC don't run adverts".
While direct comparison between Wikipedia and the BBC would obviously be flawed due to Wikipedia's open philosophy, a hypothetical situation could occur where a corporation which provides a significant contribution towards Wikipedia's hosting (in the way of loaning servers or donations) could theoretically demand that the Wikimedia Board change the content in an article to remove a link or sentence from an article which criticises them as a company, and threaten to pull funding if the Board did not. While this would be horribly hard to enforce (and would be a major PR disaster for the corporation if it were leaked to the press) it is a concievable situation and I don't think it is a stretch of the imagination to think of some organisations which would demand this.
I wouldn't describe Jimbo Wales' response to this as particularly eloquent, but I think it gives some comfort to people who hope it will never come to this.
You're right. The press release (as written by both Answers.com and the Wikimedia Board of Trustees) was not exactly what they were trying to say. There's already been a long discussion about exactly what the deal involves one of the mailing lists. I'll try and summarise the facts:
Downloading of the tool is optional, and advertising only appears to people who are using the tool.
The tool will be listed on an existing Wikipedia page, [[Wikipedia:Tools]].
The link can be removed by any Wikipedian if they so choose (but of course this works both ways).
Answers.com did not pay the Wikimedia Foundation to get the tool placed on Wikipedia.
The Foundation will receive a unspecified percentage of all profits Answers.com gain from advertising using the tool.
Unfortunately the situation was not helped by a rather badly worded press release which led the community to a false sense of what the deal actually was. The above is what will occur, according to Jimbo Wales and the other members of the Board.
Regarding the martial arts, that sounds more a case of overly bureaucratic nonsense than any real, intelligent government policy. This is clearly not the intention - (presumably) isolated cases like this show that people are interpreting the letter of the law rather than the spirit.
Distributed costs are beneficial to society as a whole. And "taking care" of yourself is only a small factor regarding diseases and illnesses - some may be genetic. I would argue that forcing people to pay for something they have no control over is unfair (and you could even say not libertarian).
Regarding the trains in the UK, it would probably cost less if it were nationalised and run properly. The company, Railtrack, which owns the railways has little accountability and little incentive to provide a decent service. The privatisation of the rail network in this country is widely recognised as a huge disaster. Other privatisations have been successful, like British Airways, but the rail network (maybe due to the fact that rail tracks are a natural monopoly) was a huge screw up.
Maybe it's not directly relevant, however it's on the same topic - public enterprise is not necessarily bad. The healthcare is an example of a serious issue, the television is a not-so-serious issue but highlights that public services are not as bad as some people make them out to be. I also consider myself a social democratic liberal. Now, back to your post.
It's funny you mention railroads, since the privatisation of the rail network in the UK was one of the worst decisions made in this country. There have been numerous crashes (resulting in many deaths) due to negligence on behalf of the managing company, the running costs are high, resulting in exorbitant ticket costs and huge bailouts by the government. Natural monopolies, such as ownership of train tracks, should be run by an accountable, public service company (similar to the BBC).
The strength of US justice is one reason why people are more well off, compared to Central America, but that is completely at a tangent. Why does this invalidate the reasoning for having a public high-safety-net healthcare system?
The reason why the government had amnesties for collecting guns is because a gun has no other use apart from to injure others. It isn't confiscating personal property, since the guns were illegal to buy in the first place (unless they are really old guns). It's the same reasoning as buying a slave (illegally) and then the government forcing you to set the slave free. It was never yours to be able to buy to begin with.
Yes, transplants might take longer. But you don't have to pay through the nose to get it done! The option to have it done faster and pay for it is also there (through BUPA).
Sure, I can go with that. The appeal to emotion in my post was not intended to be the reasoning for passing the law, but a consideration in making it.
A logical argument:
having (only) private healthcare requires people to pay.
some people will be unable to pay.
these people are likely to be unhappy, have a shorter lifespan and have a generally lower quality-of-life.
as this is undesirable, they may resort to crime to get the money they need for medical treatment.
as there are a lot of people in this situation, one could suppose that the crime rate will increase proportionately to the cost of the healthcare and the number of people in the country.
argument 2:
less well-off people provide labour for "undesirable" but essential jobs.
as they are unable to pay for healthcare, less people will be able to do the jobs mentioned above.
society suffers as core elements of it break down, due to lack of labour.
An action leading to a change in the working population structure has huge effects to the entire society. Extreme care needs to be taken when legislating about this.
How are taxes illegal? Also, if we removed taxes and government funding, how would people stay secure from theft (thinking especially disabled people and the poor)?
Your libertarian ideology, as ever, has little thought for practical matters.
Libertarians argue, for instance, that there should be no public health care and that people should have to pay. Ignoring the fact that it is rather inhumane to demand payment for healing someone, this results in poor people suffering as they cannot afford medical bills. What, exactly, is wrong with a government monopoly over this? By promoting private health care, libertarians are, in effect, causing illness and lowering the life expectency of fellow human beings. I simply say, put yourself in their shoes.
Another example: here in the UK we have the BBC. The BBC's website is probably one of the most linked-to websites from Slashdot, because it is a fantastic public interest resort. It's publically funded. UK citizens, on trips to the US, comment how low quality, and advert-rife, US television is compared to even commercial channels in the UK. This is because the BBC ups the standard and creates a high level for other channels to achieve. Note that the BBC is not the only provider of TV channels!
The government's job is (or should be!) to keep people alive. Sure, this should be done by having a military, police and courts. But everyone loses out if we allow corporations to monopolise fundamental human rights like the most important of all, the right to life.
Libertarianism is too much an ideology, with too little thought for the real world. Please reconsider your views, with more compassion for people who are likely to suffer because of them.
Actually, in British English (which is presumably where the submitter is from, being a European-related article), companies are treated as plural, rather than singular - so "Microsoft don't" is grammatically correct.
Yes, I personally like Gentoo, but I really think this is something you have to test for yourself, like buying a new house or car. You can be recommended, surely, but the best way to choose a new product you want is to test it yourself. Wikipedia's overview/comparison of Linux distros will give you a guide and allow you to make your own choice.
Now onto my advice.:) The most important aspect of a Linux distro, in my opinion, is the package management system. Ideally you want a system which makes it easy to upgrade, doesn't screw up configuration files, is easy to use, and has a great number of packages available.
For the record, I use Gentoo on my home computer, and Debian on my server (as well as a Windows XP box for gaming).
I'm personally looking forward to Reclamation (by the same guys who developed Underlight, one of the first MMORPGs) because of it's rather interesting-sounding ideas - it's based in a dream world so you won't be seeing your conventional goblins and orcs, it'll be scary monsters instead (charmingly called Nightmares).
It also promises a decent PvP system which is notably lacking in both EverQuest II and World of Warcraft. The PvP system is based around various Houses which you can join and fight other houses. It also focuses on roleplaying, and there will be no NPCs (as in vendors/generic people rather than creeps) so everything is player-driven. Has anyone else heard of this game?
You might want to read the United Kingdom government's proposals for identity cards to see how another country is planning to introduce them (for all citizens). Unfortunately, our government hasn't given them enough consideration on details yet.
I am for ID cards in principal, but as people have said, they need to be secure (and the recent UK government's history of choosing firms who can produce secure code is approximately 0%).
A safe's security does not depend on its contents if the contents are hidden (which most safes are, and so will ID cards). A locked box containing the Crown Jewels is no less safe than a box locked with the same type of device, containing 10 euros.
I think you are confusing the consequences of having the safe broken into with the ability to break into the box.
Chris
Re:Russia seems different since the school inciden
on
US to Pay to go to ISS
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Now they want to charge for something that should be bridging for international good will.
It appears to be a case of charge for it, or do not do it at all. The Russian Space Agency is facing financial difficulties and needs all the extra funds it can get.
I don't see the problem with censoring your own TV for your family, but censoring everyone else's just because you don't like what is on it? Is that acceptable?
I'm reading lots of comments saying "but the rest of the world's opinion in this doesn't matter, because they aren't American citizens".
Do you really think that America is in its own little box, and it has NO effect on anything other than America? Like it or not, the United States has a huge effect on every other country on the planet and naturally, people want what is best for them. If people are going to affect you, you're going to want to make sure it's in a positive way - and so voicing your opinion does matter. We're in a global world now. If a country of ~300 million affects the other ~5 billion people on the world, why should the other 94% of the world not have a say in it?
I was referring to the "second" KKK (the one restablished during WW I), so around 90 years. I wasn't really interested in looking it up, but you made me do that now.:)
1. Game produced which has some rather tasteless material. 2. People comment that the material is tasteless. 3. More people agree that this is very tasteless and request laws against this kind of stuff. 4. Laws against tasteless material brought in. Freedom of speech destroyed.
This is your great slipperly slope argument (which hasn't happened FYI). Now let's look at a real life situation of far greater magnitude than a computer game:
1. KKK founded ~100 years ago, starts hate speech against blacks (and others). 2. KKK popular for 20~ years. 3. KKK wanes in popularity. 4. Civil rights movement turns public opinion against KKK. Hate speech from KKK still exists. 5. Now - KKK thought of as racists, still deliver hate speech.
I don't see any slippery slope there. There's hundreds of other groups which deliver hate messages which most people would agree is, at best, tasteless, but I don't see any laws stopping them from delivering their message.
Slashdot Mirror
The law in France and Germany simply prevents the selling of Nazi memorabilia, it doesn't stop learning about the Nazis or discussing them, in line with "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it".
Chris
According to the Wikimedia Foundation's budget, the vast majority of funds (around 60%) received goes towards purchasing new hardware for hosting.
Chris
While this proposal is not going to lead to the introduction of ads on Wikipedia, it is a good point and one I raised on the mailing list. Hopefully it is an avoidable problem.
Here's a (probably apocryphal) story of a program on the BBC, I believe it was a car review program, who gave a bad review to a certain American car model. The CEO of the company found out about it, was furious and ordered the advertising team to pull all adverts to punish the TV station. The advertising team replied "sorry sir, but the BBC don't run adverts".
While direct comparison between Wikipedia and the BBC would obviously be flawed due to Wikipedia's open philosophy, a hypothetical situation could occur where a corporation which provides a significant contribution towards Wikipedia's hosting (in the way of loaning servers or donations) could theoretically demand that the Wikimedia Board change the content in an article to remove a link or sentence from an article which criticises them as a company, and threaten to pull funding if the Board did not. While this would be horribly hard to enforce (and would be a major PR disaster for the corporation if it were leaked to the press) it is a concievable situation and I don't think it is a stretch of the imagination to think of some organisations which would demand this.
I wouldn't describe Jimbo Wales' response to this as particularly eloquent, but I think it gives some comfort to people who hope it will never come to this.
Chris
Unfortunately the situation was not helped by a rather badly worded press release which led the community to a false sense of what the deal actually was. The above is what will occur, according to Jimbo Wales and the other members of the Board.
Chris
Regarding the martial arts, that sounds more a case of overly bureaucratic nonsense than any real, intelligent government policy. This is clearly not the intention - (presumably) isolated cases like this show that people are interpreting the letter of the law rather than the spirit.
Distributed costs are beneficial to society as a whole. And "taking care" of yourself is only a small factor regarding diseases and illnesses - some may be genetic. I would argue that forcing people to pay for something they have no control over is unfair (and you could even say not libertarian).
Regarding the trains in the UK, it would probably cost less if it were nationalised and run properly. The company, Railtrack, which owns the railways has little accountability and little incentive to provide a decent service. The privatisation of the rail network in this country is widely recognised as a huge disaster. Other privatisations have been successful, like British Airways, but the rail network (maybe due to the fact that rail tracks are a natural monopoly) was a huge screw up.
Chris
Question: is it worth running the risk of the ups and downs of the free market, when you are dealing with life-threatening situations?
Maybe it's not directly relevant, however it's on the same topic - public enterprise is not necessarily bad. The healthcare is an example of a serious issue, the television is a not-so-serious issue but highlights that public services are not as bad as some people make them out to be. I also consider myself a social democratic liberal. Now, back to your post.
It's funny you mention railroads, since the privatisation of the rail network in the UK was one of the worst decisions made in this country. There have been numerous crashes (resulting in many deaths) due to negligence on behalf of the managing company, the running costs are high, resulting in exorbitant ticket costs and huge bailouts by the government. Natural monopolies, such as ownership of train tracks, should be run by an accountable, public service company (similar to the BBC).
The strength of US justice is one reason why people are more well off, compared to Central America, but that is completely at a tangent. Why does this invalidate the reasoning for having a public high-safety-net healthcare system?
The reason why the government had amnesties for collecting guns is because a gun has no other use apart from to injure others. It isn't confiscating personal property, since the guns were illegal to buy in the first place (unless they are really old guns). It's the same reasoning as buying a slave (illegally) and then the government forcing you to set the slave free. It was never yours to be able to buy to begin with.
Yes, transplants might take longer. But you don't have to pay through the nose to get it done! The option to have it done faster and pay for it is also there (through BUPA).
Chris
Oh, I do understand it, maybe I just have the misguided belief that they'll give some practical ideas rather than just ideology. :)
Chris
A logical argument:
argument 2:
An action leading to a change in the working population structure has huge effects to the entire society. Extreme care needs to be taken when legislating about this.
How are taxes illegal? Also, if we removed taxes and government funding, how would people stay secure from theft (thinking especially disabled people and the poor)?
Chris
Your libertarian ideology, as ever, has little thought for practical matters.
Libertarians argue, for instance, that there should be no public health care and that people should have to pay. Ignoring the fact that it is rather inhumane to demand payment for healing someone, this results in poor people suffering as they cannot afford medical bills. What, exactly, is wrong with a government monopoly over this? By promoting private health care, libertarians are, in effect, causing illness and lowering the life expectency of fellow human beings. I simply say, put yourself in their shoes.
Another example: here in the UK we have the BBC. The BBC's website is probably one of the most linked-to websites from Slashdot, because it is a fantastic public interest resort. It's publically funded. UK citizens, on trips to the US, comment how low quality, and advert-rife, US television is compared to even commercial channels in the UK. This is because the BBC ups the standard and creates a high level for other channels to achieve. Note that the BBC is not the only provider of TV channels!
The government's job is (or should be!) to keep people alive. Sure, this should be done by having a military, police and courts. But everyone loses out if we allow corporations to monopolise fundamental human rights like the most important of all, the right to life.
Libertarianism is too much an ideology, with too little thought for the real world. Please reconsider your views, with more compassion for people who are likely to suffer because of them.
Chris
Actually, in British English (which is presumably where the submitter is from, being a European-related article), companies are treated as plural, rather than singular - so "Microsoft don't" is grammatically correct.
Chris
Yes, I personally like Gentoo, but I really think this is something you have to test for yourself, like buying a new house or car. You can be recommended, surely, but the best way to choose a new product you want is to test it yourself. Wikipedia's overview/comparison of Linux distros will give you a guide and allow you to make your own choice.
:) The most important aspect of a Linux distro, in my opinion, is the package management system. Ideally you want a system which makes it easy to upgrade, doesn't screw up configuration files, is easy to use, and has a great number of packages available.
Now onto my advice.
For the record, I use Gentoo on my home computer, and Debian on my server (as well as a Windows XP box for gaming).
Chris
It's a town in Switzerland where the World Economic Forum occured this year (and in fact every year).
Chris
And here's the second part of the interview.
Sorry, I couldn't rezizt commenting on thiz. I'm here all week.
I'm personally looking forward to Reclamation (by the same guys who developed Underlight, one of the first MMORPGs) because of it's rather interesting-sounding ideas - it's based in a dream world so you won't be seeing your conventional goblins and orcs, it'll be scary monsters instead (charmingly called Nightmares).
It also promises a decent PvP system which is notably lacking in both EverQuest II and World of Warcraft. The PvP system is based around various Houses which you can join and fight other houses. It also focuses on roleplaying, and there will be no NPCs (as in vendors/generic people rather than creeps) so everything is player-driven. Has anyone else heard of this game?
You might want to read the United Kingdom government's proposals for identity cards to see how another country is planning to introduce them (for all citizens). Unfortunately, our government hasn't given them enough consideration on details yet.
I am for ID cards in principal, but as people have said, they need to be secure (and the recent UK government's history of choosing firms who can produce secure code is approximately 0%).
Chris
A safe's security does not depend on its contents if the contents are hidden (which most safes are, and so will ID cards). A locked box containing the Crown Jewels is no less safe than a box locked with the same type of device, containing 10 euros.
I think you are confusing the consequences of having the safe broken into with the ability to break into the box.
Chris
Now they want to charge for something that should be bridging for international good will.
It appears to be a case of charge for it, or do not do it at all. The Russian Space Agency is facing financial difficulties and needs all the extra funds it can get.
Chris
I don't see the problem with censoring your own TV for your family, but censoring everyone else's just because you don't like what is on it? Is that acceptable?
Chris
He said activation not Activision. :)
I'm reading lots of comments saying "but the rest of the world's opinion in this doesn't matter, because they aren't American citizens".
Do you really think that America is in its own little box, and it has NO effect on anything other than America? Like it or not, the United States has a huge effect on every other country on the planet and naturally, people want what is best for them. If people are going to affect you, you're going to want to make sure it's in a positive way - and so voicing your opinion does matter. We're in a global world now. If a country of ~300 million affects the other ~5 billion people on the world, why should the other 94% of the world not have a say in it?
Chris
I was referring to the "second" KKK (the one restablished during WW I), so around 90 years. I wasn't really interested in looking it up, but you made me do that now. :)
Chris
Yes, they are valid sometimes - in this case, no.
1. Game produced which has some rather tasteless material.
2. People comment that the material is tasteless.
3. More people agree that this is very tasteless and request laws against this kind of stuff.
4. Laws against tasteless material brought in. Freedom of speech destroyed.
This is your great slipperly slope argument (which hasn't happened FYI). Now let's look at a real life situation of far greater magnitude than a computer game:
1. KKK founded ~100 years ago, starts hate speech against blacks (and others).
2. KKK popular for 20~ years.
3. KKK wanes in popularity.
4. Civil rights movement turns public opinion against KKK. Hate speech from KKK still exists.
5. Now - KKK thought of as racists, still deliver hate speech.
I don't see any slippery slope there. There's hundreds of other groups which deliver hate messages which most people would agree is, at best, tasteless, but I don't see any laws stopping them from delivering their message.