That quote, like everything Ayn Rand, is too damn long
I realize you are being flippant, but you may have hit on a fundamental problem currently lurking in society: most technological and political issues (and especially techno-political issues like copyright) are simply too complex to even describe in less than a page. To say nothing of sound-bites, headlines, and.signature screeds.
The obligatory Ayn Rand quote that I feel is applicable here:
Have you ever wondered about the mentality of those who advocate government financing of intellectual and artistic pursuits, in the name of intellectual independence and creative freedom?
Their goal, they claim, is to liberate men's mind from material concerns or economic pressures. The necessity to earn a living in a free marketplace, they claim, is demeaning and corrupting. In their language, the word "commercial" is a pejorative term, an antonym of "intellectual." Only the security of government support, they claim, can release the full power of the intellect.
The contradictions in this viewpoint are so obvious that it seems impossible for anyone to miss seeing them. Nothing is less secure than a position of dependence on the arbitrary power of politicians dispensing favors. The fate of thinkers, scientists and artists whose livelihood depends on the government - any government in any age, at the courts of absolute monarchs or in modern dictatorships or in mixed economies - is too well known to leave anyone in "idealistic" doubt. So are the fear, the intrigues, the rigid censorship, and the abject bootlicking in which and with which the recipients of governmental favors have to live moment by precarious moment. How can today's intellectuals fail to know it?
...from "To Dream The Non-Commercial Dream", The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. II No. 7, January 1, 1973.
Controlled-Not is not Not. Controlled-Not is "if the control line is 1, then not the input, else preserve the input", i.e. XOR. (But being quantum, it must also output the control line too, so that the operation can be reversed.)
It's not an XOR. CNOT differs from XOR in the following case: input 0, control 1.
Furthermore, if it's methane we're shipping, why not use some of it to power the thrusters to escape Saturn's orbit and head down?
I assume you mean the methane could be burned in a rocket motor. That isn't possible because there are not also chunks of frozen oxygen around to burn the methane with.
Of course the methane could still be used as propellant in an ion engine, but we knew that already...
though it certainly is has plenty of (possibly intentional) loopholes), as well as being both simple and continuous, in that there aren't [brackets].
Removing the brackets does not meaningfully simplify the tax system. The brackets are simple, easy to understand, and everyone can sense their progressive/regressive effect.
What has always been hard about income tax, is defining 'income'. And it is within that definition that all the exceptions and loopholes are inserted. A flat tax would not help in this respect.
In fact, removing the brackets would only make the overall tax system more complicated, because the progressive or regressive effect of the brackets would have to be moved into the already hopelessly overcrowded definition of 'income'.
Complications = market distortion = loss of net social wealth. Probably better to look into real-estate taxes or consumption taxes. They, at least, do not directly disincent the activity (generation of wealth) that we all rely upon.
Basically, this all started to look like a bunch of (otherwise very smart) developers having no direction whatsoever. The blame for this can only be in the management. I mean: these guys CAN deliver, if given a specific set of tasks to produce, and monitored on their progress in case they stumble in the process. But looks like none of them really had any idea what Vista will end up like and they spent their days playing with the technologies and fiddling and redoing the same things for years.
Truly weird.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but that's not far off from Google's own spectacularly successful unprocess. Not to mention the cat-herding controlled chaos of FOSS development.
Didn't we just spend the past ten years criticizing Microsoft for quashing innovation and discouraging creativity? I'm just sayin'...
Science is descriptive, not normative. However convenient it may be to picture whatever biological facts as an "imperative," you still can't derive an ought from an is.
A self-replicating assembly like DNA is an end-in-itself. Its 'ought' is inseparable form its 'is', in that it exists in order to exist.
It grows a human in order to accomplish this end, and that makes things more complicated, but from the point of view of the DNA, the imperative is inherent in its structure.
Meanwhile the human can also strongly marry 'is' to 'ought' by realizing that the choice of life versus non-life is not a choice at all, because non-life isn't. As long as life on a human level is practicable, it is also imperative, because non-life is not a thing that can be compared to it.
You realize that what you've just admitted is that you're [a dork] because you're insecure about how you look.
He does realize. Fully. But he bought it anyway. And he'll buy another.
Humans are well-practiced in the skill of blanking out when mental contents conflict. And so I can only conclude that the optimal- ooooooooooh look pretty car!!
I'm willing to bet that their lives have less of a negative global impact than your life.
Perhaps the total global impact of their lives is zero. And perhaps you will applaud them for that.
Me, I call that a waste. I would be very embarrassed if I arrived at heaven (whatever the hell that is) and the sumtotal of my life was found to be nil. My sense of humanity is to be net positive, which means (among other things) being social, honorable, and technological.
Specifically: I create nice products (namely software) and send it out into the world. And I create garbage and pollution. In total, the world is more safe and comfortable for intelligent life than it would have been without me.
Fuel taxes very fairly penalise cars with poor fuel economy.
[...]
So if you want to pay less in fuel and in fuel tax then get a more economical car - I've driven a yaris that managed about 60 to the gallon. If you can afford to drive a big expensive oversized hulk of metal then you can afford to pay more tax through your fuel
It is perilous to suggest, as you have, that fuel taxes be used for fiscal policy. As a tax on road infrastructure usage, fuel taxes are justified, agreeable, and successful in matching consumption of a public good with an equal penalty. But as a fee for unfashionable behavior, they cause widespread market distortion -- e.g. a large family's optimal decision may be to buy an older, larger car... a decision which apparently offends your prejudices.
And this isn't about greenhouse gas emissions: a per-gallon tax already addresses that (though perhaps it is not high enough). This is about you sacrificing others' efficiency in order to achieve an end that you and a few find aesthetically pleasing.
I don't buy it. Do you assert that no fine, however large, will deter the same number of people from property crime as current prison sentences do?
I noticed when you slipped the disclaimer 'property crime' into what was a discussion of all crime. Even a fool can see that property penalties, such as the fines you advocate, are and always will be effective against property crimes. But still, the far more interesting and (I think) worthy pursuit is the disincenting of violent crime.
As an aside, fines are not nearly so simple as they sound. Collecting years' or decades' worth of payments, from dirtbags, who may not have a legal job at all, who may leave the state or country, who may obscure or abandon their identity, and who may incur additional fines far in excess of their earning power, is problematic. And what is to disincent some loser who is already fined beyond his own lifetime (or more pertinently, beyond his scope of awareness)?
Prison doesn't have these problems; it simply has a fixed cost. And short of death row, a person in prison will forever be incented to obtain his own freedom.
My freedom is more valuable to me than my life. Stripping someone of their freedom should be reserved for the most extreme of offenses. Depriving people of their property isn't one of them.
That's why it works. And you are painting with misleadingly broad strokes: we do not, as you suggest, deprive people of their freedom for a property crime. What we do is temporarily deprive them of their freedom.
Presently you are fearful of these punishments, and so you come here to crusade for a change -- for a punishment that does not fill you with such anxiety. I submit that the present arrangement is actually optimal: we ought to fear the penalty for committing the obvious offenses. (And here I am leaving aside the discussion of objectionable laws like vice, copyright, narcotics, etc.)
This system would create the exact problem we complain about today: corporations can do whatever they please once they've balanced the budget against the anticipated fines for violation. And so they do, whenever and wherever the numbers favor a violation.
Strawman. Corporations don't go to prison.
That is the FREAKING POINT!
You advocate the same system for individuals. And so individuals will begin behaving the same lamentable way. Especially wealthier individuals. In no time at all we'll be back to where we were 300 years ago: an above-class that is more or less exempt from laws against coercion.
Elsewhere on slashdot, and all over the place, we hear calls to implement the exact reverse: expose corporate officers to the threat of prison in order to reign in their present brazen behavior.
Well, I wouldn't say copyright law is "just barely" on the books. I think a few hundred years is sufficient to iron out the wrinkles.
In your original post you mentioned copyright laws in the context of prison-backed laws which are failing to dissuade violators. Since we don't presently have a problem with non-electronic copyright violation, you could only have been referring to electronic copyright issues. And that is why I called those laws "just barely on the books". Now you are switching up again... and setting off my "weasel" alarm.
In matters of damage to property, financial restitution (with interest) would have the benefit of giving compensation to the victims, as well as deterring theft/destruction of property. Furthermore, the guilty party would not have to give up their freedom, nor would they be a burden on the taxpayer.
This system would create the exact problem we complain about today: corporations can do whatever they please once they've balanced the budget against the anticipated fines for violation. And so they do, whenever and wherever the numbers favor a violation.
Prison is a whole 'nother level of disincentive because its disvalue cannot be fully quantified (for probably many reasons)... and even if it could be quantified, its dollar value would self-adjust to the financial station of every would-be violator.
If I knew exactly what my payoff amount would be for going out and beating up a spammer, or whoever I don't like, I would almost certainly do it.
And while this may dissuade some from engaging in like behavior, the criminal (upon release) is likely to engage in criminal activity again.
Ah, but there is a vital ratio at play here. Sure, prison increases the recidividism rate for the one individual, but at the same time its fearsome potential will prevent n law-abiders from going astray. Would you therefore support the idea of imprisonment for n=10? n=100? n=1000?
As for murder, I still don't believe that prison is the solution.
You should tour a state penitentiary some time. The state pens get the worst of the rabble because it is the state laws that prohibit the real offenses to humanity -- rape, arson, murder, and such. Last time I toured one, four years ago, I came out with renewed gratitude for the fact that such people are kept locked away.
I could not avoid reaching the conclusion that a significant percentage of the human population will fail to achieve either honor or empathy. And so I don't want it to be possible for them to buy their way back into our presence.
Wow... that really seems to have worked. See: illegal drug use/distribution, prostitution, illegal gambling, copyright violation, spamming --- all of which have nearly vanished due to fear of being caught and punished.
You've hand-picked a combination of laws which are all either illegitimate (e.g. vice laws) or brand new (spamming, copyright) in order to make your point. I'm not impressed. It's only natural and proper that vice laws get flaunted (but even then, you'll observe that the fear of punishment has driven those activities indoors and underground). And copyright and spam laws are just barely on the books, and the police have no clue how to enforce them (but this will change).
It is far more relevant to consider whether prison is effective in the cases of laws which are generally agreed to be legitimate in all reasonable cultures: murder, arson, robbery, etc. etc. Does the prospect of prison time have a general deterrant effect?
I know that it has an effect on *me*. Were it not for the just punishment, there are some individuals whom I would have done mankind the service of removing from the planet.
That is, of course, assuming that it was only ever AOL users who got spammed by this fine gentleman. And that the only 'cost' in email is the time taken to read it, decide it was spam, and delete it. Which isn't the case.
True enough, but the judge can't consider that fact, because it isn't indicted or proven.
In reality, of course, this moron's net contribution to the world is -862.4 human lifetimes, and for that reason an informed vigilante would be justified in flaying him. However, our legal system is still mostly effective, and so the vigilante should yield to it, even though (unlike the vigilante) it can only punish those acts which are publicly provable.
What is the purpose of punishment? If it serves to keep people from behaving badly, then that is rehabilitation. Otherwise, it serves no purpose other than to indulge in sadistic behavior --- which makes the punisher no better than the punished.
It serves to disincent others who may be weighing the odds of committing similar acts.
But then, you already knew that, perhaps on one of your more honest days.
having temperatures and weather patterns that permit production of food, et cetera.
Moving the temperate zones away from the equator and towards the poles will create more agricultural land, not less. Do you have any idea how much tundra there is, just sitting there uselessly frozen?
Thanks, that might have been the one I was thinking of. And for stocks? What's the different story?
Because any prediction algorithm running on publicly-available news will quickly be duplicated by the millions of other algorithm developers out there, cancelling out whatever legitimate edge it might have enjoyed for a few days or weeks.
No. Seatbelt laws are based on one thing: insurance company profits.
By that you mean insurance company rates. They're gonna make their 10%, no matter what. So, if drivers become more dangerous, or more likely to incur legal actions, then the rates will go up while the profit margin remains constant.
This doesn't necessarily imply that seatbelt laws are justified, though. It would be a simple matter to add a clause to the policy that excludes coverages if a person is injured while not wearing a seatbelt. But still, you are mistaken in your screed against corporate profits.
I don't oppose patents in general, just software patents. Businesses that pour tons of money in R&D to develop totally unique products (like drug companies) deserve the right to have a temporary monopoly, that's what is allowed
The line between 'software' and 'pharmaceutical' is already blurring. Once nanotech arrives, the line will be completely obliterated.
[...] under the constitution.
The Constitution doesn't mention patent law. Indeed, it horribly fails to enumerate the very right to property -- a right which, for a human, is an indivisible part of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Patents go wrong when they're used as weapons and sole revenue producers.
Take care not to paint things black using such broad strokes. Patents, like physical weapons, can be used offensively or defensively. If some company rips you off, your patent is the appropriate weapon to reclaim what's yours.
And even the epithet of "sole revenue producer" is shakey. One can imagine a firm whose purpose is to help individuals and small businesses assert their legitimate patents against encroaching megacorporations. Since we've already heard that legal actions cost million$, such a firm would enable the little guys to approach the big guys on an equal footing.
Now I'm as skeptical as you are of these recent IP holding companies, but the idea is not offensive in principle.
If nothing they did was 'good' or 'bad', how can eating the fruit be bad? They simply reacted, like animals... And ate food that was in front of them.
Yes, exactly. It was a gotcha.
But then, where in the Bible do the gods ever play fair? In one of my favorite passages, Yahweh sends bears in to kill a couple of dozen kids simply because two of them made fun of the prophet's baldness.
Slashdot Mirror
Good answer. :)
I realize you are being flippant, but you may have hit on a fundamental problem currently lurking in society: most technological and political issues (and especially techno-political issues like copyright) are simply too complex to even describe in less than a page. To say nothing of sound-bites, headlines, and .signature screeds.
Germany funding Wikipedia? Oh great.
The obligatory Ayn Rand quote that I feel is applicable here:
...from "To Dream The Non-Commercial Dream", The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. II No. 7, January 1, 1973.
It's not an XOR. CNOT differs from XOR in the following case: input 0, control 1.
I assume you mean the methane could be burned in a rocket motor. That isn't possible because there are not also chunks of frozen oxygen around to burn the methane with.
Of course the methane could still be used as propellant in an ion engine, but we knew that already...
RIPLEY: "How many colonists on LV426?"
VAN LEUWEN: "Sixty, maybe seventy families."
RIPLEY: "Families..."
Removing the brackets does not meaningfully simplify the tax system. The brackets are simple, easy to understand, and everyone can sense their progressive/regressive effect.
What has always been hard about income tax, is defining 'income'. And it is within that definition that all the exceptions and loopholes are inserted. A flat tax would not help in this respect.
In fact, removing the brackets would only make the overall tax system more complicated, because the progressive or regressive effect of the brackets would have to be moved into the already hopelessly overcrowded definition of 'income'.
Complications = market distortion = loss of net social wealth. Probably better to look into real-estate taxes or consumption taxes. They, at least, do not directly disincent the activity (generation of wealth) that we all rely upon.
:golf clap:
Well said. You just added a compelling new idea into my standard repertoire.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but that's not far off from Google's own spectacularly successful unprocess. Not to mention the cat-herding controlled chaos of FOSS development.
Didn't we just spend the past ten years criticizing Microsoft for quashing innovation and discouraging creativity? I'm just sayin'...
A self-replicating assembly like DNA is an end-in-itself. Its 'ought' is inseparable form its 'is', in that it exists in order to exist.
It grows a human in order to accomplish this end, and that makes things more complicated, but from the point of view of the DNA, the imperative is inherent in its structure.
Meanwhile the human can also strongly marry 'is' to 'ought' by realizing that the choice of life versus non-life is not a choice at all, because non-life isn't. As long as life on a human level is practicable, it is also imperative, because non-life is not a thing that can be compared to it.
He does realize. Fully. But he bought it anyway. And he'll buy another.
Humans are well-practiced in the skill of blanking out when mental contents conflict. And so I can only conclude that the optimal- ooooooooooh look pretty car!!
Perhaps the total global impact of their lives is zero. And perhaps you will applaud them for that.
Me, I call that a waste. I would be very embarrassed if I arrived at heaven (whatever the hell that is) and the sumtotal of my life was found to be nil. My sense of humanity is to be net positive, which means (among other things) being social, honorable, and technological.
Specifically: I create nice products (namely software) and send it out into the world. And I create garbage and pollution. In total, the world is more safe and comfortable for intelligent life than it would have been without me.
Be careful what you worship. A zero is nothing.
It is perilous to suggest, as you have, that fuel taxes be used for fiscal policy. As a tax on road infrastructure usage, fuel taxes are justified, agreeable, and successful in matching consumption of a public good with an equal penalty. But as a fee for unfashionable behavior, they cause widespread market distortion -- e.g. a large family's optimal decision may be to buy an older, larger car... a decision which apparently offends your prejudices.
And this isn't about greenhouse gas emissions: a per-gallon tax already addresses that (though perhaps it is not high enough). This is about you sacrificing others' efficiency in order to achieve an end that you and a few find aesthetically pleasing.
I noticed when you slipped the disclaimer 'property crime' into what was a discussion of all crime. Even a fool can see that property penalties, such as the fines you advocate, are and always will be effective against property crimes. But still, the far more interesting and (I think) worthy pursuit is the disincenting of violent crime.
As an aside, fines are not nearly so simple as they sound. Collecting years' or decades' worth of payments, from dirtbags, who may not have a legal job at all, who may leave the state or country, who may obscure or abandon their identity, and who may incur additional fines far in excess of their earning power, is problematic. And what is to disincent some loser who is already fined beyond his own lifetime (or more pertinently, beyond his scope of awareness)?
Prison doesn't have these problems; it simply has a fixed cost. And short of death row, a person in prison will forever be incented to obtain his own freedom.
That's why it works. And you are painting with misleadingly broad strokes: we do not, as you suggest, deprive people of their freedom for a property crime. What we do is temporarily deprive them of their freedom.
Presently you are fearful of these punishments, and so you come here to crusade for a change -- for a punishment that does not fill you with such anxiety. I submit that the present arrangement is actually optimal: we ought to fear the penalty for committing the obvious offenses. (And here I am leaving aside the discussion of objectionable laws like vice, copyright, narcotics, etc.)
That is the FREAKING POINT!
You advocate the same system for individuals. And so individuals will begin behaving the same lamentable way. Especially wealthier individuals. In no time at all we'll be back to where we were 300 years ago: an above-class that is more or less exempt from laws against coercion.
Elsewhere on slashdot, and all over the place, we hear calls to implement the exact reverse: expose corporate officers to the threat of prison in order to reign in their present brazen behavior.
In your original post you mentioned copyright laws in the context of prison-backed laws which are failing to dissuade violators. Since we don't presently have a problem with non-electronic copyright violation, you could only have been referring to electronic copyright issues. And that is why I called those laws "just barely on the books". Now you are switching up again... and setting off my "weasel" alarm.
This system would create the exact problem we complain about today: corporations can do whatever they please once they've balanced the budget against the anticipated fines for violation. And so they do, whenever and wherever the numbers favor a violation.
Prison is a whole 'nother level of disincentive because its disvalue cannot be fully quantified (for probably many reasons)... and even if it could be quantified, its dollar value would self-adjust to the financial station of every would-be violator.
If I knew exactly what my payoff amount would be for going out and beating up a spammer, or whoever I don't like, I would almost certainly do it.
Ah, but there is a vital ratio at play here. Sure, prison increases the recidividism rate for the one individual, but at the same time its fearsome potential will prevent n law-abiders from going astray. Would you therefore support the idea of imprisonment for n=10? n=100? n=1000?
You should tour a state penitentiary some time. The state pens get the worst of the rabble because it is the state laws that prohibit the real offenses to humanity -- rape, arson, murder, and such. Last time I toured one, four years ago, I came out with renewed gratitude for the fact that such people are kept locked away.
I could not avoid reaching the conclusion that a significant percentage of the human population will fail to achieve either honor or empathy. And so I don't want it to be possible for them to buy their way back into our presence.
You've hand-picked a combination of laws which are all either illegitimate (e.g. vice laws) or brand new (spamming, copyright) in order to make your point. I'm not impressed. It's only natural and proper that vice laws get flaunted (but even then, you'll observe that the fear of punishment has driven those activities indoors and underground). And copyright and spam laws are just barely on the books, and the police have no clue how to enforce them (but this will change).
It is far more relevant to consider whether prison is effective in the cases of laws which are generally agreed to be legitimate in all reasonable cultures: murder, arson, robbery, etc. etc. Does the prospect of prison time have a general deterrant effect?
I know that it has an effect on *me*. Were it not for the just punishment, there are some individuals whom I would have done mankind the service of removing from the planet.
True enough, but the judge can't consider that fact, because it isn't indicted or proven.
In reality, of course, this moron's net contribution to the world is -862.4 human lifetimes, and for that reason an informed vigilante would be justified in flaying him. However, our legal system is still mostly effective, and so the vigilante should yield to it, even though (unlike the vigilante) it can only punish those acts which are publicly provable.
It serves to disincent others who may be weighing the odds of committing similar acts.
But then, you already knew that, perhaps on one of your more honest days.
Moving the temperate zones away from the equator and towards the poles will create more agricultural land, not less. Do you have any idea how much tundra there is, just sitting there uselessly frozen?
Because any prediction algorithm running on publicly-available news will quickly be duplicated by the millions of other algorithm developers out there, cancelling out whatever legitimate edge it might have enjoyed for a few days or weeks.
By that you mean insurance company rates. They're gonna make their 10%, no matter what. So, if drivers become more dangerous, or more likely to incur legal actions, then the rates will go up while the profit margin remains constant.
This doesn't necessarily imply that seatbelt laws are justified, though. It would be a simple matter to add a clause to the policy that excludes coverages if a person is injured while not wearing a seatbelt. But still, you are mistaken in your screed against corporate profits.
The line between 'software' and 'pharmaceutical' is already blurring. Once nanotech arrives, the line will be completely obliterated.
The Constitution doesn't mention patent law. Indeed, it horribly fails to enumerate the very right to property -- a right which, for a human, is an indivisible part of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Take care not to paint things black using such broad strokes. Patents, like physical weapons, can be used offensively or defensively. If some company rips you off, your patent is the appropriate weapon to reclaim what's yours.
And even the epithet of "sole revenue producer" is shakey. One can imagine a firm whose purpose is to help individuals and small businesses assert their legitimate patents against encroaching megacorporations. Since we've already heard that legal actions cost million$, such a firm would enable the little guys to approach the big guys on an equal footing.
Now I'm as skeptical as you are of these recent IP holding companies, but the idea is not offensive in principle.
Yes, exactly. It was a gotcha.
But then, where in the Bible do the gods ever play fair? In one of my favorite passages, Yahweh sends bears in to kill a couple of dozen kids simply because two of them made fun of the prophet's baldness.