The case for copyright itself may not be as strong as you think. You mention stealing, but stealing implies property rights. Property rights are rights we have in regards to objects, not information.
Let's say you buy a software from Microsoft and agree to a licence that prevents you from distributing copies. You do it anyway and distribute copies. They sue and they win - they should. But what about the persons you gave the copies to? They did not agree to anything with Microsoft, why should they be bound not to use and distribute their copy?
I agree with you, software patents and copyrights are widely different beasts and it is absolutely certain the first ought to be shot, but the ground for copyright is slippery.
The law is redundant and useless since any theater would implicitly rule that yelling "fire" is not allowed. If a weird theater wished to allow it it'd need to state it explicitly and few people would patronize it.
This is money the state bullied out of Microsoft pocket, it most definitely stinks. Sure this money was bullied out of the consumer pocket in the first place through copyright law, but what the state of California has done is a whole other league of stinkiness. The best thing would be to install Linux and give back the money to Microsoft.
By requesting that Google surrenders his money to whom the government deems best you are advocating theft and extorsion. The fact that the people doing it wear a nice hat with written "government" on it does not change that fact, the fact they wrote a cute constitution does not change it either.
Google doesn't have to pay the price of old people becoming "socially restless", nor do you, nor do I.
Imagine a girl that is pursued by a lover which she does not love back. The lover insists, insists and insist again. Eventually he kills 10 people to get her attention. The girl's refusal to cede to this man has certainly caused "social unrest", according to you she is responsible for it and should be forced to have sex with him in order to avoid the problem.
Discrimination has existed for thousands of years, it still exists to a wide extant (although it creates legal risk cost on employers who get caught) and does not produce social unrest. You seem to argue from a conservative point of view for the ultimate progressive policy, you are not drawing the proper lessons of history which teach us that civilization and social order are grounded in strict freedom and property rights.
Why exactly should YOUR problem be GOOGLE's concern ? If you're getting older and have trouble finding a good job in IT I honestly sympathize but
- there's no such thing as a "we the people" decided
- by using law what you are doing is threatening Google to take their money away if they don't pay you to do
something. In my book that is extortion sir, and if you plan to play that game you have completely lost my sympathy.
It may also be that the industry has good reasons to avoid older workers. It takes time and energy to interview someone and decide if he'll be able to do the job, a mistake can be very costly and take a long time to be corrected. If older people are less likely to know about knew technologies, it make sense to screen for age as a cost saving procedure, this will drive down the wage of older worker to the point where the cost of deciding if someone is fit for the job is shared between the employer and the employee.
It may also be that people find more solace in thinking "the entire industry is widely irrational" than "maybe I am not as good as I think I am"
You're trying to confuse the issue. Is a black woman qualified to play a convincing white german? Maybe not as much as an actual white german. As for the stripper, WTF? Just because she strips at a "gentlemens" club doesn't mean she strips in public. A stripper who wants to be an actor, would be perfect to play Eva Braun
You are trying to confuse the issue. I am merely making the point that it is legal to base your decision on skin color if it is relevant to the job (with a huge burden of proof). You can legally put an ad for "Studio looking for a white man in his forties to play Adolf" you cannot but the same wording for a restaurant.
As for the stripper it was an example of sex discrimination. You can legally specify you are looking for a female-stripper and refuse male applicants.
Yes it does. How can we say we live in a free society, if we chose to exclude participants based on sex, race, age, etc. ?
Because we are free to discriminate. How can you say you live in a free society if free association is not permitted?
That sentence makes sense if you are a prostitute. Are you a prostitute? Now if prostitution was legal, you might not be so free to choose who you have intercourse with.
The scary thing with leftist is that when you perform a reduction ad absurdum they are eager to accept the absurd conclusion.
Then again this has nothing to do with working. Please explain how, from the point of view of freedom and right, a sex relationship is different from a work relationship.
Mussolini did advocate private ownership of the companies, I believe he was however against the idea of competition which he saw as wasteful, competition between companies or between workers.
In corporativismo, companies are privately owned but are subject to heavy government control (which really means most of the property rights actually belong to the state), companies are not free to enter the market, and the corporations are organized as big vertical concentrations of syndicates. The whole idea was to spin the "class struggle" into a united "national struggle".
Back to your question, Google would probably have been partially privately owned. The state sponsored and controlled syndicate corporation of programmers would have provided a pool of workers at set wages. In this economy there is no competition or free entry, hence price formation is extremely difficult, thus price end up being decided by the state in a socialist way.
This is my understanding of italian fascism, I am by no mean a historian nor a specialist, merely a curious layman. I may be wrong, use with caution. (And fascism socialism or communism represent quite the opposite of my political philosophy, thus my presentation of the facts may not be bias-proof)
I've always heard it as "You can't be discriminated against based on race, age, sex, etc." this is the same as "You can't be eliminated from being chosen based on...."
Obviously you can... a black woman cannot sue a studio for not giving her the part of Adolf Hitler in a movie. Same for strippers.
The lawmakers simply gave these categories as categories that they think ought not be relevant to be able to do the job. If you can prove it is (the burden of proof is on you and it's hard and very expensive)
That all men are created equal has nothing to do with anti-discrimination law ! Quite the opposite in fact as the spirit of the founding fathers is Lockean. My refusing to hire straight white people has nothing to do with their rights, they don't have a "right to be hired", the right that matter in this case is mine, the right to freely associate with whom I want. If anti-discrimination law followed from "equal rights" then why doesn't it apply to sex as well ? Doesn't everyone have a "right to get laid" as much as a "right to hired" ? By not being bisexual you'd be discriminating based on sex.
If I am free to choose who I fuck with, I should be free to choose who I work with. Of course, a 83 year old guy is free to work for google as much as I am free to fuck with Nicole Kidman if she desires. It may just not happen but that has nothing to do with freedom.
Fascism has a meaning, it does not just mean "uncool". It's a political doctrine with a precise ideology. And ideology that the original poster embraces in this context.
Flamebait? Cm'on! Strong laws that give the government full audit power over corporations hiring practices? That's almost the definition of fascism and especially Mussolini's corporativismo. Open a fucking history book before you moderate.
Discriminating is the act of choosing among different possibilities. Google is discriminating against athletes by by hiring mostly good programmers instead of professional skateboarders. That what discriminating means: choosing.
Politicians have turned the meaning towards : discriminating on criterions we don't judge relevant to do the job. There are two problems with that.
- Mind your own business. If I hire someone to do a job, it's my money I am free to choose whatever absurd criterion I like. By hiring someone I am buying a service. Who are you to tell me to whom I can or can't buy that service.
- Firms generally know more about the relevant criterions than the lawmakers. Maybe Google employees are more productive if the age dispersion is small: they can relate more to each other and enjoy working there more. A firm that picks irrational criterion reduces its pool of potential applicant and end up having to pay higher wages, it might think twice before doing so. Another example that might have a lot of sympathy is that of a firm that would only hire handicapped people. It would be able to pay slightly lower wages since there is less competition to hire these workers and would save on the fixed costs of providing wheelchair access. If that company is not free to discriminate, the handicapped will have lower wages. If the government tries to ensure that handicapped cannot be discriminated against, all companies will have to pay the fixed costs which mean everyone's wage will eventually be lower and the price higher.
"As a fascist, I like to in favor of strong employment laws that give the government full audit power over every corporation's decision to fire any one whatsoever."
There ya go and for once, 'fascist' will be used accurately)
My confidence in the free market is real indeed, but it has nothing to do with my statement. I don't care if I lose net neutrality, regulating ISP is *morally wrong*.
I don't think that the free market can solve everything, but I do believe the government can't solve anything.
That's why I will take and ISP that provides me with the most neutral access to Internet.
As for the *proposed legislation* that would ban ISP from not being net neutral, that's net-statism, a quite different beast which must be beaten to death and then shot to make sure.
Putting satellites in orbit, building huge pyramids... sure its great but it was all done with slave labor. Walking on the moon was done in a much more humane way, with tax slaves.
Wouldn't these achievements be much greater if they were the product of voluntary human cooperation?
If you plan to be sending encrypted data to someone, you can exchange a one time pad the size of the data through the quantum channel. When you need to communicate, just use the one time pad at a speed not limited by quantum cryptography.
You can continuously refill this one time pad thus the real limitation is
- your average rate of encrypted data over the year
- disk space (but that's very cheap)
peak speed of encrypted data transmission is not constrained
You can play that game randomly. If you do that, then you cannot be beaten but on average you won't beat your opponent either. If you don't, then if your strategy is known you can be beaten, if its not you may have an edge. It seems they went with the first strategy. I think overall it is wise but theoretically they could have a superior secret deterministic strategy.
a) an upstream problem: US public schools suck - badly, that's a bad thing b) American having a freer, more efficient job market than in most places realize they don't *need* to go to graduate school, that's a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a bit agnostic to the whole global warming issue, but it'd be fun if this phenomenom shuts up the most vocal doomsday clowns.
The case for copyright itself may not be as strong as you think. You mention stealing, but stealing implies property rights. Property rights are rights we have in regards to objects, not information.
Let's say you buy a software from Microsoft and agree to a licence that prevents you from distributing copies. You do it anyway and distribute copies. They sue and they win - they should. But what about the persons you gave the copies to? They did not agree to anything with Microsoft, why should they be bound not to use and distribute their copy?
I agree with you, software patents and copyrights are widely different beasts and it is absolutely certain the first ought to be shot, but the ground for copyright is slippery.
The law is redundant and useless since any theater would implicitly rule that yelling "fire" is not allowed. If a weird theater wished to allow it it'd need to state it explicitly and few people would patronize it.
*Talking* in a theater is not allowed as well, and it has nothing to do with free speech. The "fire" paradigm is retarded.
Slander and libel laws do infringe on free speech though
This is money the state bullied out of Microsoft pocket, it most definitely stinks. Sure this money was bullied out of the consumer pocket in the first place through copyright law, but what the state of California has done is a whole other league of stinkiness. The best thing would be to install Linux and give back the money to Microsoft.
Jeebus will return ! Clean your browsing history and cache.
By requesting that Google surrenders his money to whom the government deems best you are advocating theft and extorsion. The fact that the people doing it wear a nice hat with written "government" on it does not change that fact, the fact they wrote a cute constitution does not change it either.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.
Google doesn't have to pay the price of old people becoming "socially restless", nor do you, nor do I.
Imagine a girl that is pursued by a lover which she does not love back. The lover insists, insists and insist again. Eventually he kills 10 people to get her attention. The girl's refusal to cede to this man has certainly caused "social unrest", according to you she is responsible for it and should be forced to have sex with him in order to avoid the problem.
Discrimination has existed for thousands of years, it still exists to a wide extant (although it creates legal risk cost on employers who get caught) and does not produce social unrest. You seem to argue from a conservative point of view for the ultimate progressive policy, you are not drawing the proper lessons of history which teach us that civilization and social order are grounded in strict freedom and property rights.
Why exactly should YOUR problem be GOOGLE's concern ? If you're getting older and have trouble finding a good job in IT I honestly sympathize but
- there's no such thing as a "we the people" decided
- by using law what you are doing is threatening Google to take their money away if they don't pay you to do
something. In my book that is extortion sir, and if you plan to play that game you have completely lost my sympathy.
It may also be that the industry has good reasons to avoid older workers. It takes time and energy to interview someone and decide if he'll be able to do the job, a mistake can be very costly and take a long time to be corrected. If older people are less likely to know about knew technologies, it make sense to screen for age as a cost saving procedure, this will drive down the wage of older worker to the point where the cost of deciding if someone is fit for the job is shared between the employer and the employee.
It may also be that people find more solace in thinking "the entire industry is widely irrational" than "maybe I am not as good as I think I am"
You're trying to confuse the issue. Is a black woman qualified to play a convincing white german? Maybe not as much as an actual white german. As for the stripper, WTF? Just because she strips at a "gentlemens" club doesn't mean she strips in public. A stripper who wants to be an actor, would be perfect to play Eva Braun
You are trying to confuse the issue. I am merely making the point that it is legal to base your decision on skin color if it is relevant to the job (with a huge burden of proof). You can legally put an ad for "Studio looking for a white man in his forties to play Adolf" you cannot but the same wording for a restaurant.
As for the stripper it was an example of sex discrimination. You can legally specify you are looking for a female-stripper and refuse male applicants.
Yes it does. How can we say we live in a free society, if we chose to exclude participants based on sex, race, age, etc. ?
Because we are free to discriminate. How can you say you live in a free society if free association is not permitted?
That sentence makes sense if you are a prostitute. Are you a prostitute? Now if prostitution was legal, you might not be so free to choose who you have intercourse with.
The scary thing with leftist is that when you perform a reduction ad absurdum they are eager to accept the absurd conclusion.
Then again this has nothing to do with working. Please explain how, from the point of view of freedom and right, a sex relationship is different from a work relationship.
Mussolini did advocate private ownership of the companies, I believe he was however against the idea of competition which he saw as wasteful, competition between companies or between workers.
In corporativismo, companies are privately owned but are subject to heavy government control (which really means most of the property rights actually belong to the state), companies are not free to enter the market, and the corporations are organized as big vertical concentrations of syndicates. The whole idea was to spin the "class struggle" into a united "national struggle".
Back to your question, Google would probably have been partially privately owned. The state sponsored and controlled syndicate corporation of programmers would have provided a pool of workers at set wages. In this economy there is no competition or free entry, hence price formation is extremely difficult, thus price end up being decided by the state in a socialist way.
This is my understanding of italian fascism, I am by no mean a historian nor a specialist, merely a curious layman. I may be wrong, use with caution. (And fascism socialism or communism represent quite the opposite of my political philosophy, thus my presentation of the facts may not be bias-proof)
I've always heard it as "You can't be discriminated against based on race, age, sex, etc." this is the same as "You can't be eliminated from being chosen based on ...."
Obviously you can... a black woman cannot sue a studio for not giving her the part of Adolf Hitler in a movie. Same for strippers.
The lawmakers simply gave these categories as categories that they think ought not be relevant to be able to do the job. If you can prove it is (the burden of proof is on you and it's hard and very expensive)
That all men are created equal has nothing to do with anti-discrimination law ! Quite the opposite in fact as the spirit of the founding fathers is Lockean. My refusing to hire straight white people has nothing to do with their rights, they don't have a "right to be hired", the right that matter in this case is mine, the right to freely associate with whom I want. If anti-discrimination law followed from "equal rights" then why doesn't it apply to sex as well ? Doesn't everyone have a "right to get laid" as much as a "right to hired" ? By not being bisexual you'd be discriminating based on sex.
If I am free to choose who I fuck with, I should be free to choose who I work with. Of course, a 83 year old guy is free to work for google as much as I am free to fuck with Nicole Kidman if she desires. It may just not happen but that has nothing to do with freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Fascism#Quotations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Italian_fascist_corporativism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manifesto_of_the_Fascist_Struggle
Fascism has a meaning, it does not just mean "uncool". It's a political doctrine with a precise ideology. And ideology that the original poster embraces in this context.
Flamebait? Cm'on! Strong laws that give the government full audit power over corporations hiring practices? That's almost the definition of fascism and especially Mussolini's corporativismo. Open a fucking history book before you moderate.
Discriminating is the act of choosing among different possibilities. Google is discriminating against athletes by by hiring mostly good programmers instead of professional skateboarders. That what discriminating means: choosing.
Politicians have turned the meaning towards : discriminating on criterions we don't judge relevant to do the job. There are two problems with that.
- Mind your own business. If I hire someone to do a job, it's my money I am free to choose whatever absurd criterion I like. By hiring someone I am buying a service. Who are you to tell me to whom I can or can't buy that service.
- Firms generally know more about the relevant criterions than the lawmakers. Maybe Google employees are more productive if the age dispersion is small: they can relate more to each other and enjoy working there more. A firm that picks irrational criterion reduces its pool of potential applicant and end up having to pay higher wages, it might think twice before doing so. Another example that might have a lot of sympathy is that of a firm that would only hire handicapped people. It would be able to pay slightly lower wages since there is less competition to hire these workers and would save on the fixed costs of providing wheelchair access. If that company is not free to discriminate, the handicapped will have lower wages. If the government tries to ensure that handicapped cannot be discriminated against, all companies will have to pay the fixed costs which mean everyone's wage will eventually be lower and the price higher.
There's a typo in your message, I think you meant
"As a fascist, I like to in favor of strong employment laws that give the government full audit power over every corporation's decision to fire any one whatsoever."
There ya go and for once, 'fascist' will be used accurately)
My confidence in the free market is real indeed, but it has nothing to do with my statement. I don't care if I lose net neutrality, regulating ISP is *morally wrong*.
I don't think that the free market can solve everything, but I do believe the government can't solve anything.
That's why I will take and ISP that provides me with the most neutral access to Internet.
As for the *proposed legislation* that would ban ISP from not being net neutral, that's net-statism, a quite different beast which must be beaten to death and then shot to make sure.
Putting satellites in orbit, building huge pyramids ... sure its great but it was all done with slave labor. Walking on the moon was done in a much more humane way, with tax slaves.
Wouldn't these achievements be much greater if they were the product of voluntary human cooperation?
Unless the sites happen to have google ads...
Hum, google can and does detect if you click a link, link in the google result page are redirections, look closer.
If you plan to be sending encrypted data to someone, you can exchange a one time pad the size of the data through the quantum channel. When you need to communicate, just use the one time pad at a speed not limited by quantum cryptography.
You can continuously refill this one time pad thus the real limitation is
- your average rate of encrypted data over the year
- disk space (but that's very cheap)
peak speed of encrypted data transmission is not constrained
You can play that game randomly. If you do that, then you cannot be beaten but on average you won't beat your opponent either. If you don't, then if your strategy is known you can be beaten, if its not you may have an edge. It seems they went with the first strategy. I think overall it is wise but theoretically they could have a superior secret deterministic strategy.
a) an upstream problem: US public schools suck - badly, that's a bad thing
b) American having a freer, more efficient job market than in most places realize they don't *need* to go to graduate school, that's a good thing.
Yeah taxes sucks, and it sucks that some guy buying a new skidoo on ebay.ca had to pay for your education, your health care etc.