I know I'll get moded down for this but I don't care (besides he started it).
Did you read a thing I wrote in my post? Listen kid. You sound like you are maybe twelve. When you develop the ability to think critically, let me know. Until then, continue hiding as an anonymous coward.
"Any defense of market based solutions as opposed to government solutions has to contend with one fact--the insurance companies are not currently acting as Bill Joy suggests."
Using your logic, if I had come to you in the 80s and suggested we start a company that developed operating systems for computers, you would have dismissed it saying "if there were a market for that, companies would already be producing them". Had I come to you at the turn of the century and suggested we sell these vehicles that could move without horses, you would have laughed in my face saying "if anyone wanted to buy those, someone would already be selling them". If I had come to you in... well I think you get the idea. Just because a particular product or service is not currently in the marketplace does not mean there is no potential market for it.
Although in this case we do have very similar services to a 'technological disaster service' (if anyone has a better idea of what to call it I'm all ears). Car insurance, life insurance, home insurance, health insurance (though nowadays that is less and less of an actual insurance, but thats another story), malpractice insurance (probably the closest to what we are talking about)... It has already been established that the business of providing insurance over various risks can be a profitable business.
"I'm sure by no means the only solution he has suggested, doesn't make sense from an insurance companies point of view--if it did, the invisible hand would already have forced the insurance companies to act."
Yeah... I'm not so sure you have a full understanding of the concept of the invisible hand. Its not an actual hand that comes down from the sky that goes around forcing everyone to do the right thing. It is a principle Adam Smith wrote about concerning how when individuals act in their own best interest, they end up acting in the best interest of society as a whole. Just because a good idea exists does not mean the invisible hand will automatically push someone there, someone still has to think it up and implement it.
"but the invisible hand only works in the long-term-when-we're-all-dead sort of way"
Read the previous post. Insurance companies want to avoid as many large expenses as possible so they implement policies that encourage the minimization of risks.
"but the insurance company is acting pragmatically wisely in not implementing it, because the government will likely not hold the biotech firm responsible for every single death and disease resulting from an accident, if they even manage to track it down to the firm in question."
Are you aware of the differences between criminal court and civil court?
" I think that Joy was essentially thinking out loud about some possible approaches."
I know, I'm expanding on one of them. Thats how solutions to problems are often found.
"For one thing, how are these enforced?"
The principle of a market based solution (such as having insurance for technological disasters) is that they are enforced by the market. This ends up being much more effective than any form of regulation.
Seriously, which do you think a corporation would prefer: Being at risk for being liable for huge damages, having to pay high insurance costs, or implementing some safeguards and getting much cheaper insurance?
Insurance companies are by their very nature preventative. They need to minimize the amount of large payments they are liable for. Thus they attempt to encourage practices that minimize the risks that bring about these large payments (safe driving to use auto insurance as an example). If a guy gets pulled over for speeding, which is he worried the most about, having to pay the $100 ticket or his insurance jumping through the roof?
The more I think about it, the more I like the proposed idea of having insurance policies for disasters involving dangerous technologies. The insurance companies will of course be subject to market forces and will thus be far more effective 'regulators' than bureaucrats in Washington who may have read a book on the technology they are regulating.
"There is no way around it - this is not like the right to bear arms - you simply have to ban the technology and pretty much wipe out everyone who seeks to acquire it"
There is an argument among 2nd amendment supporters that says "If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns". That applies here, only it is more powerful. Possibly the only way to counter a nano-plague is with your own nanotechnology. It is inevitable that someone will develop the technology if it is feasible and there is a desire to do so. Absolute control over the human race is impossible.
We didn't develop nuclear weapons because we wanted to incinerate thousands of people in a heartbeat, we did so because we knew the Germans and later the Soviets were trying to do the same. Had we said "we will refuse on principle to develop these things", what would have happened when Stalin developed his own nuclear weapons and became the sole nuclear power on the planet?
I think you are missing the point. Its not that we should condemn entire technologies, but rather recognize their potential dangers and act accordingly. There is a difference between being a Luddite and being responsible with scientific research.
"Ever hear of the Salem witch trials in America? This is similar to how that got started: People in power, imposing their twisted views of right and wrong on others."
Even if your analysis of how the witch trials began were correct (for the record it is not), that would not show that any time someone is given the power to 'impose their twisted views of right and wrong on others' (question, are you claiming that it is 'twisted' to claim the child porn is wrong?) they will abuse it in the same way those kids in Salem did.
I think most of the people you are talking about are more likely to change their theme than they are to change their browser.
Instead of talking about converting those who know little or nothing about computers (my mom still thinks she is double clicking on "the Internet" when she opens IE and once got confused when the default home page was changed from msn (she complained there was no way for her to access her hotmail account)), maybe we should take it one step at a time. Convert the intermediate to advanced level users first. Firefox is not going to replace IE as the browser used by 95% of the world overnight.
Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs
on
A New Look For Firefox
·
· Score: 1
Strange, that doesn't stop them from using skins for applications like winamp. I almost never see anyone using the old ugly default skin; almsot everyone has found some new ugly skin to use instead.
I think you really are underestimating the computer skills of the average computer user.
I find Print Screen useful when I need to make a copy of the current screen. The windows key and menu key are nice if I don't feel like using (or can't use) the mouse. I never use the right Ctrl or Alt keys, but other people may be used to them. A plague on you and your family for suggesting that the End key is useless. It and the Home keys are two of my favorites.
And finally, as far as Scroll Lock is concerned, bookmark this in your list of pointless sites that should never have been created.
I have no problem with having and presenting opinions, assuming they are based on fact and they are presented in the proper forum for opinions. I have no problem with news stories presenting the opinions of the opposing sides of the debate. This allows for a proper debate on the issue ("PATRIOT Act bad, Ashcroft is evil" is not a proper debate). Proper debates on the controversial issues are important as in most cases both sides have at least some valid point which needs to be addressed, even if in the end only one side is actually right (in this case IMNSHO, my side).
A reply to a slashdot story is a great place for opinions as these discussions are great forums for debates. Anyone can post their opinion, and moderation provides a somewhat effective way to filter our the flames from the legitimate arguments. Add to that you can challenge someone's post and have your challenge shown with the post you are challenging.
A summary for a submitted story is on the other hand a poor place for opinions. There is a high level of control over who gets a story in and who doesn't, and generally speaking only one submission per story is accepted (meaning both positions cannot be presented as submissions). Add to that challenges to opinions presented in the summary cannot be displayed with the summary on the slashdot home page. Thus if opinions are presented
Objectivity can thus be achieved by either leaving opinions out of summaries altogether or by presenting both sides. That allows a legitimate debate and not just flaming about how evil John Ashcroft is which has no end other than to boost the egos of those involved.
And false statements about the case (like with this summary) are just unacceptable.
Considering what his 'art' advocated, it wouldn't be hard to convince a judge that his little lab could be intended to be used as a weapon. Thus the PATRIOT Act's amendment doesn't really matter.
And without question, he would have been at least investigated (which is all that has happened so far) under the old act.
"All that has changed is that it's now easier to deliver bio-weapons."
And thats a pretty big ass change.
"What freedoms are you willing to give up for safety..."
As I said, its a balancing act. We give up some freedoms (such as the right to build a biotechnology lab in your basement) in exchange for safety. Your slippery slope argument is completely invalid, as is your apparent assertion that we can either have a police state or anarchy but nothing in between.
Long ago we gave up many freedoms that would exist in anarchy in exchange for the safety provided by the state. We gave up the freedom to kill, rape, and steal from whomever we feel like. We gave up the freedom to secede from the union and form our own sovereign state here on American soil. We gave up the freedom to earn a living and keep all income to ourselves. Did the loss of any of those freedoms bring about the creation of a police state where we have no freedom? If not, what is so different about the freedom to build an unregulated biotechnology lab in your basement that will cause us to fall down the slope now but not then?
Actually yes they have, no matter how much you want to deny it. We now live in a world where a few pissed off people can, using something like a biological weapon, kill hundreds, maybe even thousands or millions of people. That was not possible just a hundred years ago. Technology has drastically changed our world. So as it relates to this particular article, yes, it makes perfect sense to keep people from developing illegal biotechnology programs.
Look, I believe the best government is a limited government. I believe that government action should be confined to a few limited purposes. I also believe that one of the most important of those purposes is to protect the lives of the people who live under it. That is in effect what government is. You give up a few freedoms to gain some safety. Its a constant balancing act. Allowing some psycho "artist" to play around with potentially dangerous technologies would tip that balance way over to the side of life being "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
But hey, if you disagree, go find yourself some cabin out in Montana.
Being an activist does not give you a free pass to do whatever the hell you want. Anyone who has worked in genetics knows there are many regulations that you have to follow, for good reason. You can't just start up a biotech lab in your basement just because you have insane radical views.
"What will be next - will I br imprisoned for life without trial in solitary for burning a flag?"
First of all, he is not being "imprisoned for life without trial in solitary", he is being forced to stay in a hotel while his house is tested to make sure nothing dangerous is involved in his little science project. Minor difference between the two. This just proves to me that your post is a knee jerk reaction to something you have no clue about.
Second, yes you will be jailed for burning a flag... if you do so with an illegal biotech lab in your basement!
Well they are reading Linux Today, I'm assuming they will be reading some very pro-Linux articles. Do we really need to censor ads which we may disagree with?
I was at the site today and saw an ad for AOL. I don't like AOL, should I boycott the site for that?
On slashdot today I saw an ad for Register.com. I don't know anything about them, but if I didn't like them should I boycott slashdot?
And what about political ads? What if Bush or Kerry wanted to advertise on a site. Either one is bound to offend half the population. Should the media refuse to allow these advertisements?
Once you start blaiming the media for the advertisements they carry, you start down a slippery slope to a very bad place.
I have numerous complaints about IE version 6 dating back several years. Those still haven't been addressed.
Firefox, on the other hand, has not only fixed problems I had with IE, but they gave me features I didn't even dream about while I was using IE (such as mouse gestures).
I know other products are upgraded quicker (I could solve some of my problems with Windows 2k if I bought XP) but that would be a huge investment (and not just in buying the OS, I might need to upgrade my system for it to run decently) that I am not currently willing to make, especially when I know I will just find more problems with it which won't be addressed until Longhorn (if then).
Microsoft could solve this problem by offering a service (with something like an annual fee) that included free upgrades for each of its products (and then of course actually putting out upgrades in a decent amount of time). They could still sell their software as proprietary software while keeping it at least somewhat up to date.
First of all, the point of a web site is for it to be accessible to people all over the web. Thats not generally true with video games.
Second, most video games have decent reasons to require fast hardware. Sites that use Flash for navigation could just as easily use traditional methods without sacrificing a thing.
I don't think companies that just do business with the government are required to adhere by the same guidelines as the government.
Also, I'm not sure if going with the ADA is the best route either. It could set a dangerous precedent as some technologies may be inherently unaccessible. Also, it may be interpreted that the site should not only use standards which can be used by accessibility tools, but they should implement accessibility requirements themselves (its not like judges haven't made stupider decisions).
For the most part, I would think when presented with the fact that their website fails to meet basic accessibility guidelines, most owners would want their site to be more available. They don't want to deny a portion of the public nor do they want to appear insensitive. I really don't think most owners want their sites to be only accessible using specific tools, they just are not aware that the technology their site is using has these limitations.
Thats one potential reason you may want to word your email nicer than my "incompetent moron"; the owner of the website (who you are emailing) may be the one who made the decision to implement Flash...
Though I wouldn't go with removing all blame from the web developer. If they are responsible (as you apparently are), they can still implement alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you using OOo on Windows or Linux? I find it insanely slow on Windows (which isn't really OOo's fault) but just fine on Linux.
Did you read a thing I wrote in my post? Listen kid. You sound like you are maybe twelve. When you develop the ability to think critically, let me know. Until then, continue hiding as an anonymous coward.
Using your logic, if I had come to you in the 80s and suggested we start a company that developed operating systems for computers, you would have dismissed it saying "if there were a market for that, companies would already be producing them". Had I come to you at the turn of the century and suggested we sell these vehicles that could move without horses, you would have laughed in my face saying "if anyone wanted to buy those, someone would already be selling them". If I had come to you in... well I think you get the idea. Just because a particular product or service is not currently in the marketplace does not mean there is no potential market for it.
Although in this case we do have very similar services to a 'technological disaster service' (if anyone has a better idea of what to call it I'm all ears). Car insurance, life insurance, home insurance, health insurance (though nowadays that is less and less of an actual insurance, but thats another story), malpractice insurance (probably the closest to what we are talking about)... It has already been established that the business of providing insurance over various risks can be a profitable business.
"I'm sure by no means the only solution he has suggested, doesn't make sense from an insurance companies point of view--if it did, the invisible hand would already have forced the insurance companies to act."
Yeah... I'm not so sure you have a full understanding of the concept of the invisible hand. Its not an actual hand that comes down from the sky that goes around forcing everyone to do the right thing. It is a principle Adam Smith wrote about concerning how when individuals act in their own best interest, they end up acting in the best interest of society as a whole. Just because a good idea exists does not mean the invisible hand will automatically push someone there, someone still has to think it up and implement it.
"but the invisible hand only works in the long-term-when-we're-all-dead sort of way"
Read the previous post. Insurance companies want to avoid as many large expenses as possible so they implement policies that encourage the minimization of risks.
"but the insurance company is acting pragmatically wisely in not implementing it, because the government will likely not hold the biotech firm responsible for every single death and disease resulting from an accident, if they even manage to track it down to the firm in question."
Are you aware of the differences between criminal court and civil court?
I know, I'm expanding on one of them. Thats how solutions to problems are often found.
"For one thing, how are these enforced?"
The principle of a market based solution (such as having insurance for technological disasters) is that they are enforced by the market. This ends up being much more effective than any form of regulation.
Seriously, which do you think a corporation would prefer: Being at risk for being liable for huge damages, having to pay high insurance costs, or implementing some safeguards and getting much cheaper insurance?
Insurance companies are by their very nature preventative. They need to minimize the amount of large payments they are liable for. Thus they attempt to encourage practices that minimize the risks that bring about these large payments (safe driving to use auto insurance as an example). If a guy gets pulled over for speeding, which is he worried the most about, having to pay the $100 ticket or his insurance jumping through the roof?
The more I think about it, the more I like the proposed idea of having insurance policies for disasters involving dangerous technologies. The insurance companies will of course be subject to market forces and will thus be far more effective 'regulators' than bureaucrats in Washington who may have read a book on the technology they are regulating.
There is an argument among 2nd amendment supporters that says "If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns". That applies here, only it is more powerful. Possibly the only way to counter a nano-plague is with your own nanotechnology. It is inevitable that someone will develop the technology if it is feasible and there is a desire to do so. Absolute control over the human race is impossible.
We didn't develop nuclear weapons because we wanted to incinerate thousands of people in a heartbeat, we did so because we knew the Germans and later the Soviets were trying to do the same. Had we said "we will refuse on principle to develop these things", what would have happened when Stalin developed his own nuclear weapons and became the sole nuclear power on the planet?
I think you are missing the point. Its not that we should condemn entire technologies, but rather recognize their potential dangers and act accordingly. There is a difference between being a Luddite and being responsible with scientific research.
Even if your analysis of how the witch trials began were correct (for the record it is not), that would not show that any time someone is given the power to 'impose their twisted views of right and wrong on others' (question, are you claiming that it is 'twisted' to claim the child porn is wrong?) they will abuse it in the same way those kids in Salem did.
Instead of talking about converting those who know little or nothing about computers (my mom still thinks she is double clicking on "the Internet" when she opens IE and once got confused when the default home page was changed from msn (she complained there was no way for her to access her hotmail account)), maybe we should take it one step at a time. Convert the intermediate to advanced level users first. Firefox is not going to replace IE as the browser used by 95% of the world overnight.
I think you really are underestimating the computer skills of the average computer user.
And finally, as far as Scroll Lock is concerned, bookmark this in your list of pointless sites that should never have been created.
A reply to a slashdot story is a great place for opinions as these discussions are great forums for debates. Anyone can post their opinion, and moderation provides a somewhat effective way to filter our the flames from the legitimate arguments. Add to that you can challenge someone's post and have your challenge shown with the post you are challenging.
A summary for a submitted story is on the other hand a poor place for opinions. There is a high level of control over who gets a story in and who doesn't, and generally speaking only one submission per story is accepted (meaning both positions cannot be presented as submissions). Add to that challenges to opinions presented in the summary cannot be displayed with the summary on the slashdot home page. Thus if opinions are presented
Objectivity can thus be achieved by either leaving opinions out of summaries altogether or by presenting both sides. That allows a legitimate debate and not just flaming about how evil John Ashcroft is which has no end other than to boost the egos of those involved.
And false statements about the case (like with this summary) are just unacceptable.
Objectivity is not always a bad thing you know.
And without question, he would have been at least investigated (which is all that has happened so far) under the old act.
Thats nothing compared to what is possible today.
"All that has changed is that it's now easier to deliver bio-weapons."
And thats a pretty big ass change.
"What freedoms are you willing to give up for safety..."
As I said, its a balancing act. We give up some freedoms (such as the right to build a biotechnology lab in your basement) in exchange for safety. Your slippery slope argument is completely invalid, as is your apparent assertion that we can either have a police state or anarchy but nothing in between.
Long ago we gave up many freedoms that would exist in anarchy in exchange for the safety provided by the state. We gave up the freedom to kill, rape, and steal from whomever we feel like. We gave up the freedom to secede from the union and form our own sovereign state here on American soil. We gave up the freedom to earn a living and keep all income to ourselves. Did the loss of any of those freedoms bring about the creation of a police state where we have no freedom? If not, what is so different about the freedom to build an unregulated biotechnology lab in your basement that will cause us to fall down the slope now but not then?
How dare those evil scientists! Trying to feed starving kids in third world countries... When will man ever learn?
Actually yes they have, no matter how much you want to deny it. We now live in a world where a few pissed off people can, using something like a biological weapon, kill hundreds, maybe even thousands or millions of people. That was not possible just a hundred years ago. Technology has drastically changed our world. So as it relates to this particular article, yes, it makes perfect sense to keep people from developing illegal biotechnology programs.
Look, I believe the best government is a limited government. I believe that government action should be confined to a few limited purposes. I also believe that one of the most important of those purposes is to protect the lives of the people who live under it. That is in effect what government is. You give up a few freedoms to gain some safety. Its a constant balancing act. Allowing some psycho "artist" to play around with potentially dangerous technologies would tip that balance way over to the side of life being "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
But hey, if you disagree, go find yourself some cabin out in Montana.
Being an activist does not give you a free pass to do whatever the hell you want. Anyone who has worked in genetics knows there are many regulations that you have to follow, for good reason. You can't just start up a biotech lab in your basement just because you have insane radical views.
"What will be next - will I br imprisoned for life without trial in solitary for burning a flag?"
First of all, he is not being "imprisoned for life without trial in solitary", he is being forced to stay in a hotel while his house is tested to make sure nothing dangerous is involved in his little science project. Minor difference between the two. This just proves to me that your post is a knee jerk reaction to something you have no clue about.
Second, yes you will be jailed for burning a flag... if you do so with an illegal biotech lab in your basement!
I was at the site today and saw an ad for AOL. I don't like AOL, should I boycott the site for that?
On slashdot today I saw an ad for Register.com. I don't know anything about them, but if I didn't like them should I boycott slashdot?
And what about political ads? What if Bush or Kerry wanted to advertise on a site. Either one is bound to offend half the population. Should the media refuse to allow these advertisements?
Once you start blaiming the media for the advertisements they carry, you start down a slippery slope to a very bad place.
The audience will also be entirely artificial.
Firefox, on the other hand, has not only fixed problems I had with IE, but they gave me features I didn't even dream about while I was using IE (such as mouse gestures).
I know other products are upgraded quicker (I could solve some of my problems with Windows 2k if I bought XP) but that would be a huge investment (and not just in buying the OS, I might need to upgrade my system for it to run decently) that I am not currently willing to make, especially when I know I will just find more problems with it which won't be addressed until Longhorn (if then).
Microsoft could solve this problem by offering a service (with something like an annual fee) that included free upgrades for each of its products (and then of course actually putting out upgrades in a decent amount of time). They could still sell their software as proprietary software while keeping it at least somewhat up to date.
First of all, the point of a web site is for it to be accessible to people all over the web. Thats not generally true with video games.
Second, most video games have decent reasons to require fast hardware. Sites that use Flash for navigation could just as easily use traditional methods without sacrificing a thing.
Also, I'm not sure if going with the ADA is the best route either. It could set a dangerous precedent as some technologies may be inherently unaccessible. Also, it may be interpreted that the site should not only use standards which can be used by accessibility tools, but they should implement accessibility requirements themselves (its not like judges haven't made stupider decisions).
For the most part, I would think when presented with the fact that their website fails to meet basic accessibility guidelines, most owners would want their site to be more available. They don't want to deny a portion of the public nor do they want to appear insensitive. I really don't think most owners want their sites to be only accessible using specific tools, they just are not aware that the technology their site is using has these limitations.
Though I wouldn't go with removing all blame from the web developer. If they are responsible (as you apparently are), they can still implement alternatives.
Because you signed a little form saying it was public information.
"I happen to think that what I buy is no one's damn business but mine. "
By definition it is the business of companies who are giving you credit. If you want them to lend you money, they have to know you will pay them back.
"Privacy doesn't disappear in one big event..."
The privacy you are talking about never existed in the first place. Anyone who thought otherwise is a fool.