There's definitely an educational issue here. We're not completely ready for this. However, forcing disclosure will not solve that problem. As long as demand for transparency is not driven by the users, the problem will remain.
Probably not, Lego factories are entirely robotized. Labor costs are not a big part of the production cost.
That being said, your consuming choices reflect ignorance of economics, stick to selfish choices, you're smart enough to make those.
Re:Why does nobody ask Google anything today?
on
Googling Security
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
why does nobody - no regulatory body that is - demand that Google explain exactly what data they collect and what the heck they do with it?
Regardless of why they're not doing it, I'm glad they are not. Collecting personal information which was willingly disclosed is not a crime and should not be.
Indeed, I don't think in these case big laboratories give a fuck what amateurs do in their basement. But :
All I am doing is refuting the argument that big chemical corporations can't be behind it because they are hurt by the regulations. Generally large existing corporation benefit from regulation.
Of course I am not saying these specific regulations come from a business interest.
Hum no not really. Regulations are always supported by insiders as a way to protect themselves from outsiders. The existing corporations have political power, the unborn competitors don't. Generally speaking, the state is a system by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.
Great post. I'll add that mandatory work, even if it's called community service is simply slavery. No ambiguity there. Of course it's not slavery and it's not fascism because we don't call it that way.
The comments about veganism are stupid. This is not about growing food in a vat. It's hard to know how tasty a beef will be before eating it. Cloning dead beef which tasted very good is a serious area of research.
Nowhere am I claiming the judge is infallible. But a judge trying to match natural law will do a better job that a legislative body with no concern for natural law.
Law is an absolute, when unclear it should be discovered by the judge, not decided by governments. Once you realize that, most of the logical inconsistencies vanish. Some government laws happen to be right, some happen to be wrong. Consider the different laws tentatives to approximate natural law... and look at the intersection preferably:)
racketeering where victims are too afraid for their own safety or that of their loved ones to take people to court, etc.
You can be threatened to testify that you were not a victim. It's a big problem but not exactly specific to the case where victim bring their agressors to trial.
Thanks, that's exactly it. Some people may be the victim's natural recipient of his claim against the aggressor. I was making a digression on penal law anyway, it's not fundamental to the point.
You have to set the bar somewhere, and then stick to it.
Begging the question.
Sure, you can be more lenient on edge cases, but you still need to say "the limit is X", or the whole legal system is a farce made out of "fuzzy rules we're kind of supposed to follow".
Many legal rules are not clear cut, that's why judges are not computers.
First of all, penal law is immoral, only the victims should have a claim against their aggressor. The victim should present the damage in front of a judge, establish the lack of consent, and the verdict set accordingly.
Child molesters cause terrible harm, and should be punished accordingly. It is however less obvious that the average pedophile pervert who consumes the product of these crimes commits a real crime himself. While they deserve contempt it is unclear if they deserve jail.
The US constitution used to support slavery. How can you be so contemptuous of the original constitution, do you support freedom or not, etc etc.
NO. Freedom and human rights are self-evident, they are NOT defined by the constitution or by law. There are things in the constitution that give freedom and some which are a blatant violation of people's freedom. You most definitely SHOULD pick and choose.
It doesn't explicitly mean it should be free. You cannot be denied assistance of counsel, but it doesn't mean you have the right to be given free assistance.
I have my own reasons to oppose DRM - I believe it is not a crime to crack it and distribute the content - but I am very surprise to see that most arguments against DRM on/. boil down to
It's evil *because* it sucks for consumer (understand, it sucks for me), I don't want to rent my songs, etc.
DRM is indeed evil because it is backed by DMCA DRM indeed sucks for technology oriented consumers
But these are two different things and should not be confused. Making a defective product is stupid, not evil.
The US doesn't say anything or doesn't do anything. The US is an abstraction. People do things and say things.
My hands are clean, I am most definitely in a position to say that the laws and political processes of all countries are oppressive and counter to the freedom of people:)
Slashdot Mirror
More. A profit driven company needs to keep its customers from changing their bookmark. A government only has to worry about people expatriating...
The point of the book is educational, it points out the obvious so that people realize the information they're giving away.
There's definitely an educational issue here. We're not completely ready for this. However, forcing disclosure will not solve that problem. As long as demand for transparency is not driven by the users, the problem will remain.
Probably not, Lego factories are entirely robotized. Labor costs are not a big part of the production cost.
That being said, your consuming choices reflect ignorance of economics, stick to selfish choices, you're smart enough to make those.
Regardless of why they're not doing it, I'm glad they are not. Collecting personal information which was willingly disclosed is not a crime and should not be.
Oh splitting the beam, not the color. Disregard that.
Aren't most lasers monochromatic?
Indeed, I don't think in these case big laboratories give a fuck what amateurs do in their basement.
But :
All I am doing is refuting the argument that big chemical corporations can't be behind it because they are hurt by the regulations. Generally large existing corporation benefit from regulation.
Of course I am not saying these specific regulations come from a business interest.
Hum no not really. Regulations are always supported by insiders as a way to protect themselves from outsiders. The existing corporations have political power, the unborn competitors don't. Generally speaking, the state is a system by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.
Flamebait ? This is insightful. Yes Obama is pushing for a mild form of slavery, but no one will say the emperor is naked.
Great post. I'll add that mandatory work, even if it's called community service is simply slavery. No ambiguity there. Of course it's not slavery and it's not fascism because we don't call it that way.
The comments about veganism are stupid. This is not about growing food in a vat. It's hard to know how tasty a beef will be before eating it. Cloning dead beef which tasted very good is a serious area of research.
Nowhere am I claiming the judge is infallible. But a judge trying to match natural law will do a better job that a legislative body with no concern for natural law.
Law is an absolute, when unclear it should be discovered by the judge, not decided by governments. Once you realize that, most of the logical inconsistencies vanish. Some government laws happen to be right, some happen to be wrong. Consider the different laws tentatives to approximate natural law... and look at the intersection preferably :)
Answering your own question :)
Ends do not justify means.
racketeering where victims are too afraid for their own safety or that of their loved ones to take people to court, etc.
You can be threatened to testify that you were not a victim. It's a big problem but not exactly specific to the case where victim bring their agressors to trial.
Thanks, that's exactly it. Some people may be the victim's natural recipient of his claim against the aggressor. I was making a digression on penal law anyway, it's not fundamental to the point.
An author has a very legitimate desire to be paid for his work. The legitimate way to do it by selling its release.
When you steal a book, and keep it permanently without compensation, that makes you no better than the Plantation Masters. IMHO.
You're not preventing the author do to anything. When you steal a physical book you owe a physical book. The content isn't property.
You have to set the bar somewhere, and then stick to it.
Begging the question.
Sure, you can be more lenient on edge cases, but you still need to say "the limit is X", or the whole legal system is a farce made out of "fuzzy rules we're kind of supposed to follow".
Many legal rules are not clear cut, that's why judges are not computers.
First of all, penal law is immoral, only the victims should have a claim against their aggressor. The victim should present the damage in front of a judge, establish the lack of consent, and the verdict set accordingly.
Child molesters cause terrible harm, and should be punished accordingly. It is however less obvious that the average pedophile pervert who consumes the product of these crimes commits a real crime himself. While they deserve contempt it is unclear if they deserve jail.
The US constitution used to support slavery. How can you be so contemptuous of the original constitution, do you support freedom or not, etc etc.
NO. Freedom and human rights are self-evident, they are NOT defined by the constitution or by law. There are things in the constitution that give freedom and some which are a blatant violation of people's freedom. You most definitely SHOULD pick and choose.
It doesn't explicitly mean it should be free. You cannot be denied assistance of counsel, but it doesn't mean you have the right to be given free assistance.
True but sad.
Reminds me of this http://xkcd.com/261/
I have my own reasons to oppose DRM - I believe it is not a crime to crack it and distribute the content - but I am very surprise to see that most arguments against DRM on /. boil down to
It's evil *because* it sucks for consumer (understand, it sucks for me), I don't want to rent my songs, etc.
DRM is indeed evil because it is backed by DMCA
DRM indeed sucks for technology oriented consumers
But these are two different things and should not be confused. Making a defective product is stupid, not evil.
The US doesn't say anything or doesn't do anything. The US is an abstraction. People do things and say things.
My hands are clean, I am most definitely in a position to say that the laws and political processes of all countries are oppressive and counter to the freedom of people :)