For one, it's essentially going to be their version of Gym or other required class (I also had to take home ec and woodshop) that people aren't necessarily that interested in but will deal with. Some will love it, some won't like it, and the majority will just float through it. I don't recall a choice in whether or not I wanted to do any of those. It was either do it or you don't graduate (and I didn't care for Gym at all). That is the nature of schooling where they will set certain criteria in education. You can't call that a lack of freedom.
Why not?
Consider. As a kid, your parents pay tax - they have no choice in this. That tax funds schools. You as a child must go to school. You are then told what courses you will take (partially, anyway). What's *not* forced about that?
On top of that, part of teaching chess isn't about the game at all (you can't say there is any alterior motive for home ec/woodshop) it's about mental skills they're trying to boost. It's a bit like algebra (or at least what algebra is supposed to be), and if they are smart they won't fail a kid because he loses the games, but check whether his pattern recognition and strategic skills have developed. I'm also not the best player, but by losing to really good players I got way better than I used to be.
No - this comes under the argument "it's good for you, so it's okay". If you're being forced to do something, it's irrelevant whether or not it's good for you.
I think the individual freedom argument applies fully to schooling. Why -are- we teaching every single 13 year old the history of Henry VII? why -do- they have no choice? it's no different to forcing chess on people.
You can say every subject under the sun has value - it's true - needlework, say, has value - it's a truism; if someone is learning something, it's always a net gain. There IS no argument against teaching - not in terms of 'did you benefit'. But in terms of 'did you benefit as well, or nearly as well, as you could, given the cost and the other things you could have learned instead' - then needlework suddenly seems like a poor choice.
So does teaching every child in the country the same set of courses in the same way. Kids differ, in tastes, intellegence, maturity, you name it.
Regarding the restriction of individual freedom for children, I would say in general their parents are best placed - certainly far better placed than an education board - to decide what their child should be learning. Parents in general love their kids and want the best for them and listen to what their kid says, watch what their kid does.
I would indeed agree primary school is a case of forcing. It's a truism. Anything you -have- against your will is forcing. I also don't think school per se is necessarily a good idea. Indeed, I look at schools as institutions for the destruction of creative thought and intellectual curiosity. There is no more sure-fire way of alienating kids from education than forcing them to learn. Think of how kids in general view school - "oh God, do I have to do?" "thank God, it's the weekend!" "I'm ill, yay! no school!"
And maybe parents know school sucks. But since it's forced, people don't have much choice in how to express the fact that it's not a good idea - their kids -have- to go. In Germany there was a case recently where police raided the house of a couple who wanted to home-teach their kid and forced that kid to go to school.
When you don't have freedom, how can you find out if what you're doing isn't effective? you've blocked change.
1. cost / benefit tradeoff 2. restriction of individal freedom
You spend a certain amount of money and a certain amount of time, teaching everyone chess. Would they have done better, say, learning straightforward maths? Armenia is a desperately poor country. There are higher priorities than chess. I'd also say Armenia is desperately poor for a *reason*, and that reason is having a corrupt, non-elected ruling party who go around making arbitrary decisions and enforcing them on everyone else, which makes things like investment and ownership risky propositions.
Secondly, what if I don't WANT to learn chess? what business has anyone else FORCING me to do so? so what if it's 'for my own good'. I can think of a zillion reasons for forcing other people to do things - it's good for your mind, your body, your future, you name it. But what it comes down to is *me* forcing *you* to do what *I* say you should do. What difference does the reason make? if I agree with the reason, maybe I'd do it for myself anyway. Or maybe I'd spend that time and money on other things, because in my individual case, those other choices make more sense. And if I disagree with the reason, then you, matey, are sticking your bloody oar in where it's not wanted.
You know in China, it used to be (don't know if it still is) compulsory to learn Communism, to get your Uni degree?
In Armenia, it's compulsory to learn chess. Ah, but that's okay, right, *because we approve of chess*.
Freedom means no one else forces you to do things. If anyone else can force you for any reason, you're not free. You are their subject. Chess isn't worth that - nothing is.
> All right, I for one know that you are, in fact, incredibly naive and believe wholeheartedly that what > "Anshe Chung" is doing is ethical.
And I for one know that you are massively condescending and as such have a tiny, tiny dick. You'll also find the reason you can't see much is because your head is stuck right up your ASS.
> You should try to understand that it is easy for many people to "mistake" your viewpoint for trolling > because of several things:
You've got the wrong end of the stick. The OP was marked 100%, -3 Offtopic. That's not people marking it as trolling, that's people suppressing it because they don't like it.
> > What *POSSIBLE* justification is there for publishing material where an individual has done nothing wrong,
> Would it be ok if the individual had done something wrong?
Well, that is what I wrote =-)
> If so, who decides if it's wrong or not?
It's not difficult. All contracts must be voluntary and well-informed, and the only justification for involuntary and/or uninformed behaviour (e.g. intervention in someone elses life without their permission) is self-defence, of yourself or others.
> Clearly, some people think Anshe Chung deserves the embarrassment.
That's because people are generally unpleasent to each other and like to cause other people pain because of hate, which in turn ultimately comes from insecurity. Russell wrote about this - he noted that throughout history, it's always been a case of "doing other people good" by torturing them, depriving them, hurting them. How many cases can you think of where "doing other people good" has meant over-indulgence, luxury, etc? how many concentration camps can you think of where people were fed wonderful food and didn't have to do any work? a silly example, but it highlights the point.
> > Now imagine that a press photographer comes along - well, that's a completely different story. > > Now I know whatever I do could be put on the front cover of a mass circulation publication and > > literally millions of people would see it and read it.
> Then you would be completely within your rights to leave the party. You have no right to prevent > someone who is allowed in by the host from taking pictures and printing them, and if you would be > ashamed to have your presence or your actions in that place publicized perhaps you shouldn't be there.
Wrong. It is not for me to run and hide from where-ever the photographer goes. It is for him to only take photos *with my consent* (unless not taking them would lead to others being harmed, in which case he is right to ignore my wishes).
Your argument - it's like saying if the heavy mob come round and threaten to burn your shop down unless you pay, well, then you have every right to leave and set up shop somewhere else.
It's crazy - the real answer is that the heavy mob shouldn't be coming round and doing that in the first place.
> Ok, so let's supress freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
How does individual privacy violate freedom of speech?
Do you really need - should you actually have! - the right to find out my most intimate secrets, which harm absolutely no one else, and publish them in public? that's what privacy means.
Right now of course, you don't have that right; when I'm in my home, what I do is private.
What's so different about that also being true in public? given the single caveat, that in all cases, this privacy cannot lead to others being harmed - so no cover ups, no censorship of stuff the State doesn't want people to know, etc.
> Whether publication is justifiable or not is irrelevant to its legality.
There is a blogger I've read for a while.
She's very sexually activate and she writes anonymously. Her family have no idea - they're rather straightlaced.
She received an offer to publish her blog as a book. She accepted, on the condition it would be anonymous.
Well, as you can imagine, someone somewhere was bribed and the press got hold of her details - and they had a field day.
The first she knew was when the doorbell rang early one morning. She opened it, and was presented with a bunch of flowers from a flower delivery boy - and a photographer, who was hiding in her front garden, took her photo and ran off.
The newspaper then sent her a letter telling her who she was and what she did, who her parents were, where they lived, and what they did, and told her they were going to publish her identity, and since her photo wasn't very flattering, it would be best for all concerned if she came in for a decent photoshoot.
The papers then published her identity, her family and everyone she knew found out about her and read her blog.
Her life was absolutely and totally devestated.
And for what?
Well, it was done so those papers could sell copies. There was no ethical reason or need for it - and indeed I say there was a bloody good ethical reason asserting that they should NOT publish that material.
So, as I've written in another post already, my point is that the law right now is wrong. People should have an expectation of privacy at all times in all places, UNLESS that privacy would lead to others being harmed.
If it's funny to you, that's fine. You won't feel the need to have that material kept private. But I hope you respect other people enough to understand that for some, it *would* be deeply embarrassing and they *would* want it kept private. It is not for others to live by your reactions.
Your post is as disappointing as the original moderation abuse.
Like seemingly many/.ers, views that are not agreed with are considered trolling.
This is a desperately narrow mindset. There seems to be a fundamental inability to comprehend that other people can genuinely hold views that are not understood by the reader.
My post - which has not been modded up - has now been modded "-3 Overrated".
This is, I think, because if anyone so much as mentions ANYTHING which implies complete and utter freedom of information is wrong, mods go bananas and suppress the post.
> Except that completely ignores the fact she was attending the virtual equivalent of a public event. The > law has recognized for some time now (at least in the U.S) that people don't have a reasonable expectation > to privacy in public.
That's exactly my point. I feel the law here is wrong. Bit of a co-incidence that I was thinking about this last night.
I think that we should have an expectation of privacy at all times, where-ever we are - UNLESS keep that privacy intact would cause harm to other people, by action or by inaction.
I don't see that being in a public place means we have given our consent to our actions being published in a mass circulation publication.
For example, when I used to post to Usenet back in the mid 90s, I knew that although the whole world could read the post, in reality, the readership of the group would read it, and the lurkers, and then after a week or so it would be gone forever.
With that particular privacy limit in mind, I posted as I did.
After a while, DejaNews came along and unilaterially changed the level of privacy available, by storing the posts forever.
I didn't agree to that - I didn't ask for it, or expect it, or want it. I don't like the fact my posts are now archived.
So, to take a real-life example, say I'm in public, at a party. I have a particular privacy limit there - I know the people there, I know they may tell their friends what I do, and that's about it. I'm there, I have that level of privacy.
Now imagine that a press photographer comes along - well, that's a completely different story. Now I know whatever I do could be put on the front cover of a mass circulation publication and literally millions of people would see it and read it.
Well - that I'm NOT okay with. I don't want that and I don't give my consent. So on what ethical basis can he violate my wishes to publish that material, UNLESS it is to prevent me causing harm to others? (e.g. acting in their self-defence).
> This is trolling, correct? "If not showing the event is not harmful, then it is right and proper for it not > to be shown - because it is embarrassing to her." Wow.
I'm *horrified* you think this is trolling - that you think this idea is crazy!
What *POSSIBLE* justification is there for publishing material where an individual has done nothing wrong, but where that material would humiliate them in public?
The British tabloid press do exactly this every day and they are responsible for devestating thousands and thousands of lives, for nothing, except to sell their paper every day.
> What privacy and dignity? Something everyone involved seems to have forgotten - This doesn't really > involve her . Just an avatar in a "game".
I think if my avatar was attacked by flying penis' during a CNN interview, I would be mortified. I expect she feels this way. I think asserting an individual would NOT feel embarrassed and belittled is fanciful.
> And even if it did, the content doesn't actually belong to her, it belongs to (if anyone) Second Life.
It seems to me that since no one is harmed by this material being kept private, and by doing so her dignity is maintained, it is right and proper for Second Life to do so; so I don't see this makes a difference.
If she had done something unethical - stolen, decieved, harmed another - then her actions would be something that would *rightfully* hurt her reputation, and then actions on her part to covert it up would be unethical.
However, what happened was that someone else humiliated her in public. *She did nothing wrong*. As such, what happened has no bearing whatsoever on her reputation; it only affects her dignity. As such, it is wrong and improper for anyone to publish this material. However, the press are usually a bunch of fuckers who are only interested in money, and will happily destroy private lives to obtain material for their publications.
I fully support her actions - I just wish it was possible to obtain such an action without needing the mostrosity of the DCMA to be in existance, to be mis-used for this valid and proper end.
I'm entirely happy with her having that content prohibited; no one is harmed by that material *not* being shown, which means its right and proper for her privacy and dignity to be respected.
It's unforunate this idea isn't part of law, which means she has to resort to the DCMA to get the ethically correct decision made and enforced.
> No, it's saying, "We built this, go get your own or give us some reason to let you in." We are under no > obligation to share with anyone who wants to show up; we own the country, and we allow people to immigrate > when it benefits us.
"We own the country".
The thing is, you don't own the country. You own your house, that's it. And that's the same for most everyone else - people own their house, if they have a business, they might own their place of work. Some rich people own a lot of houses, farms, land, etc.
If a man from another country wants to live in a house in the USA and he has the money to pay for it, how can there be a justification, other than self-defence, for refusing him entry into the country?
What difference does is make that you or your ancestors have done the work necessary to improve the land upon which you live, with houses and businesses? you certainly own the land, and you can, by dint of private property rights, exclude anyone - local or foreign - but how can private property rights give you permission to exlude foreigners (and not locals!) from ANY private property in the country?
Wouldn'tt that actually mean you have taken over other people's wishes, people who might be entirely happy with foreigners coming into the country?
How can "we", the mass of individuals who own our houses, say "because we own our houses and we live here already, we have a right to say you can't rent or buy that house you want".
If that's true, can't each community, each town or village, say to "we own these local houses, we refuse to let you rent or buy a house here"?
Interesting - someone else, higher up in the thread, has conflated private property rights and immigration in the same way.
My house is my private property. People are only permitted here with my permission. This is true for all people - native born or foreign immigrants.
All of the native born (or foreign immigrants) in the country spend their time in places which are either public (on the streets, in parks, etc) or private but where they are welcomed (restaurents, friend's houses, their place of work, etc).
So you see that arguing immigration is wrong because it segregrates is entirely different to arguing people can violate private property rights. All it means is letting people move freely into the country, while respecting private property rights as normal.
> right, why should let's say kids of oh, I don't know, George Clooney be more wealthy than say kids of oh, I > don't know, some poor schmack in Uganda?
What belongs to a man can broadly be said to be the sum of what he was given by his ancestors and that which he has earned for himself.
George Clooney's kids will be richer than other men's kids because Mr.Clooney made successful career choices and so has earned a great deal of money.
This is, in and of itself, right and proper.
Of course, a man in Uganda will most likely be denied the chances and opportunities that a man in the USA will be given. This is wrong and improper, and has a lot to do with bad Government, but also with simple bad luck, where Uganda is by the chance and circumstance of its history not so bountiful a place to live as the USA.
It is clear, however, that the factors driving the wealth of men here are entirely different to the issue of immigration, where the issue is simply one set of men (those in the USA) declaring "we're all free and equal" and then telling another lot "you can't come in".
That's a willful and deliberate segregration - entirely wrong and improper and nothing to do with how hard a man works or the chance and circumstance of his surroundings.
On a national level, letting people means, to put it in a particular way, that "everyone can have their own house".
On a personal level, it certainly is proper to stop other men entering your own house - because of your private property rights. Individual private property rights are not violated by letting people into the country; immigrants live, work and travel in either public places, or privately owned places which welcome them (rented property, restaurents, the company where they work, etc).
In that manner, they are no different to you or I. Just as we would be violating someone elses private property by being there when they did not want us to be there, so would they.
It's been picked up by a mass of people who don't know what net neutrality actually means and so can't know it's actually in their best interest (e.g. readership of/.) and by the people who do know what it means, know it's in their interest, know it will shaft everyone else, but are of course entirely in favour.
This latter group are the people with large amounts of content to shift over the net, and who have to pay according to how much they actually use, rather than being subsidized, as they are now, by everyone else.
Net neutrality *actually* means everyone pays the same for net use, regardless of how much they use the net.
Net non-neutrality means people pay according to how much they use.
The State is increasing its powers to monitor citizens - both where they are, and the conversations they have.
This is also the State which is increasingly introducing extra-judicial handling of terrorists - holding them indefinitely without trial, interrogation methods which are tantamount to torture, no access to lawyers, no publication of their status.
This is also the State which has been gradually extending extra-judicial methods (warrantless monitoring, for example) to citizens.
It is my view a State which fails to understand the importance of civil and human rights, for example in this case in its increasing intrusion in private lives, will, *as you would expect*, fail to apply those rights in other areas - in this case, justice for those accused of crimes and they way they are treated.
Bill I think was right, but it's for a particular reason, which is the nature of television.
Television is, above all things, *brief*.
Adverts are 30 seconds long - 60 seconds is long!
How can you communicate effectively in 30 seconds? what messages can you transmit? certainly, there is no time for reasoning, rational, explanations, or thought. All there is time for is an *impression*, an *emotional experience*.
You can like adverts, or you can dislike them, but you cannot *agree* or *disagree* with them, because there is nothing in them to agree or disagree *with*. There is no propositional content. Consider a MacDonalds advert - happy kids, bright colours, smiley clown.
You might like this, you might dislike it - but can you disagree with it?
Advertisers have to communicate with us in the briefest of moments, using the most profound impressions available to them - and that, of course, means that sex.
Sex is instantly understood, does not require thought or consideration, and is strongly attractive.
Sex sells.
And it sells because television is the prime medium of communication in our society.
Slashdot Mirror
For one, it's essentially going to be their version of Gym or other required class (I also had to take home ec and woodshop) that people aren't necessarily that interested in but will deal with. Some will love it, some won't like it, and the majority will just float through it. I don't recall a choice in whether or not I wanted to do any of those. It was either do it or you don't graduate (and I didn't care for Gym at all). That is the nature of schooling where they will set certain criteria in education. You can't call that a lack of freedom.
Why not?
Consider. As a kid, your parents pay tax - they have no choice in this. That tax funds schools. You as a child must go to school. You are then told what courses you will take (partially, anyway). What's *not* forced about that?
On top of that, part of teaching chess isn't about the game at all (you can't say there is any alterior motive for home ec/woodshop) it's about mental skills they're trying to boost. It's a bit like algebra (or at least what algebra is supposed to be), and if they are smart they won't fail a kid because he loses the games, but check whether his pattern recognition and strategic skills have developed. I'm also not the best player, but by losing to really good players I got way better than I used to be.
No - this comes under the argument "it's good for you, so it's okay". If you're being forced to do something, it's irrelevant whether or not it's good for you.
I think the individual freedom argument applies fully to schooling. Why -are- we teaching every single 13 year old the history of Henry VII? why -do- they have no choice? it's no different to forcing chess on people.
You can say every subject under the sun has value - it's true - needlework, say, has value - it's a truism; if someone is learning something, it's always a net gain. There IS no argument against teaching - not in terms of 'did you benefit'. But in terms of 'did you benefit as well, or nearly as well, as you could, given the cost and the other things you could have learned instead' - then needlework suddenly seems like a poor choice.
So does teaching every child in the country the same set of courses in the same way. Kids differ, in tastes, intellegence, maturity, you name it.
Regarding the restriction of individual freedom for children, I would say in general their parents are best placed - certainly far better placed than an education board - to decide what their child should be learning. Parents in general love their kids and want the best for them and listen to what their kid says, watch what their kid does.
I would indeed agree primary school is a case of forcing. It's a truism. Anything you -have- against your will is forcing. I also don't think school per se is necessarily a good idea. Indeed, I look at schools as institutions for the destruction of creative thought and intellectual curiosity. There is no more sure-fire way of alienating kids from education than forcing them to learn. Think of how kids in general view school - "oh God, do I have to do?" "thank God, it's the weekend!" "I'm ill, yay! no school!"
And maybe parents know school sucks. But since it's forced, people don't have much choice in how to express the fact that it's not a good idea - their kids -have- to go. In Germany there was a case recently where police raided the house of a couple who wanted to home-teach their kid and forced that kid to go to school.
When you don't have freedom, how can you find out if what you're doing isn't effective? you've blocked change.
Two reasons;
1. cost / benefit tradeoff
2. restriction of individal freedom
You spend a certain amount of money and a certain amount of time, teaching everyone chess. Would they have done better, say, learning straightforward maths? Armenia is a desperately poor country. There are higher priorities than chess. I'd also say Armenia is desperately poor for a *reason*, and that reason is having a corrupt, non-elected ruling party who go around making arbitrary decisions and enforcing them on everyone else, which makes things like investment and ownership risky propositions.
Secondly, what if I don't WANT to learn chess? what business has anyone else FORCING me to do so? so what if it's 'for my own good'. I can think of a zillion reasons for forcing other people to do things - it's good for your mind, your body, your future, you name it. But what it comes down to is *me* forcing *you* to do what *I* say you should do. What difference does the reason make? if I agree with the reason, maybe I'd do it for myself anyway. Or maybe I'd spend that time and money on other things, because in my individual case, those other choices make more sense. And if I disagree with the reason, then you, matey, are sticking your bloody oar in where it's not wanted.
You know in China, it used to be (don't know if it still is) compulsory to learn Communism, to get your Uni degree?
In Armenia, it's compulsory to learn chess. Ah, but that's okay, right, *because we approve of chess*.
Freedom means no one else forces you to do things. If anyone else can force you for any reason, you're not free. You are their subject. Chess isn't worth that - nothing is.
> All right, I for one know that you are, in fact, incredibly naive and believe wholeheartedly that what
> "Anshe Chung" is doing is ethical.
And I for one know that you are massively condescending and as such have a tiny, tiny dick. You'll also find the reason you can't see much is because your head is stuck right up your ASS.
> You should try to understand that it is easy for many people to "mistake" your viewpoint for trolling
> because of several things:
You've got the wrong end of the stick. The OP was marked 100%, -3 Offtopic. That's not people marking it as trolling, that's people suppressing it because they don't like it.
> > What *POSSIBLE* justification is there for publishing material where an individual has done nothing wrong,
> Would it be ok if the individual had done something wrong?
Well, that is what I wrote =-)
> If so, who decides if it's wrong or not?
It's not difficult. All contracts must be voluntary and well-informed, and the only justification for involuntary and/or uninformed behaviour (e.g. intervention in someone elses life without their permission) is self-defence, of yourself or others.
> Clearly, some people think Anshe Chung deserves the embarrassment.
That's because people are generally unpleasent to each other and like to cause other people pain because of hate, which in turn ultimately comes from insecurity. Russell wrote about this - he noted that throughout history, it's always been a case of "doing other people good" by torturing them, depriving them, hurting them. How many cases can you think of where "doing other people good" has meant over-indulgence, luxury, etc? how many concentration camps can you think of where people were fed wonderful food and didn't have to do any work? a silly example, but it highlights the point.
> > Now imagine that a press photographer comes along - well, that's a completely different story.
> > Now I know whatever I do could be put on the front cover of a mass circulation publication and
> > literally millions of people would see it and read it.
> Then you would be completely within your rights to leave the party. You have no right to prevent
> someone who is allowed in by the host from taking pictures and printing them, and if you would be
> ashamed to have your presence or your actions in that place publicized perhaps you shouldn't be there.
Wrong. It is not for me to run and hide from where-ever the photographer goes. It is for him to only take photos *with my consent* (unless not taking them would lead to others being harmed, in which case he is right to ignore my wishes).
Your argument - it's like saying if the heavy mob come round and threaten to burn your shop down unless you pay, well, then you have every right to leave and set up shop somewhere else.
It's crazy - the real answer is that the heavy mob shouldn't be coming round and doing that in the first place.
> Ok, so let's supress freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
How does individual privacy violate freedom of speech?
Do you really need - should you actually have! - the right to find out my most intimate secrets, which harm absolutely no one else, and publish them in public? that's what privacy means.
Right now of course, you don't have that right; when I'm in my home, what I do is private.
What's so different about that also being true in public? given the single caveat, that in all cases, this privacy cannot lead to others being harmed - so no cover ups, no censorship of stuff the State doesn't want people to know, etc.
> Whether publication is justifiable or not is irrelevant to its legality.
There is a blogger I've read for a while.
She's very sexually activate and she writes anonymously. Her family have no idea - they're rather straightlaced.
She received an offer to publish her blog as a book. She accepted, on the condition it would be anonymous.
Well, as you can imagine, someone somewhere was bribed and the press got hold of her details - and they had a field day.
The first she knew was when the doorbell rang early one morning. She opened it, and was presented with a bunch of flowers from a flower delivery boy - and a photographer, who was hiding in her front garden, took her photo and ran off.
The newspaper then sent her a letter telling her who she was and what she did, who her parents were, where they lived, and what they did, and told her they were going to publish her identity, and since her photo wasn't very flattering, it would be best for all concerned if she came in for a decent photoshoot.
The papers then published her identity, her family and everyone she knew found out about her and read her blog.
Her life was absolutely and totally devestated.
And for what?
Well, it was done so those papers could sell copies. There was no ethical reason or need for it - and indeed I say there was a bloody good ethical reason asserting that they should NOT publish that material.
So, as I've written in another post already, my point is that the law right now is wrong. People should have an expectation of privacy at all times in all places, UNLESS that privacy would lead to others being harmed.
If it's funny to you, that's fine. You won't feel the need to have that material kept private. But I hope you respect other people enough to understand that for some, it *would* be deeply embarrassing and they *would* want it kept private. It is not for others to live by your reactions.
Your post is as disappointing as the original moderation abuse.
/.ers, views that are not agreed with are considered trolling.
Like seemingly many
This is a desperately narrow mindset. There seems to be a fundamental inability to comprehend that other people can genuinely hold views that are not understood by the reader.
The ./ mods really disappoint me.
My post - which has not been modded up - has now been modded "-3 Overrated".
This is, I think, because if anyone so much as mentions ANYTHING which implies complete and utter freedom of information is wrong, mods go bananas and suppress the post.
FUCKING ironic, isn't it?
> Except that completely ignores the fact she was attending the virtual equivalent of a public event. The
> law has recognized for some time now (at least in the U.S) that people don't have a reasonable expectation
> to privacy in public.
That's exactly my point. I feel the law here is wrong. Bit of a co-incidence that I was thinking about this last night.
I think that we should have an expectation of privacy at all times, where-ever we are - UNLESS keep that privacy intact would cause harm to other people, by action or by inaction.
I don't see that being in a public place means we have given our consent to our actions being published in a mass circulation publication.
For example, when I used to post to Usenet back in the mid 90s, I knew that although the whole world could read the post, in reality, the readership of the group would read it, and the lurkers, and then after a week or so it would be gone forever.
With that particular privacy limit in mind, I posted as I did.
After a while, DejaNews came along and unilaterially changed the level of privacy available, by storing the posts forever.
I didn't agree to that - I didn't ask for it, or expect it, or want it. I don't like the fact my posts are now archived.
So, to take a real-life example, say I'm in public, at a party. I have a particular privacy limit there - I know the people there, I know they may tell their friends what I do, and that's about it. I'm there, I have that level of privacy.
Now imagine that a press photographer comes along - well, that's a completely different story. Now I know whatever I do could be put on the front cover of a mass circulation publication and literally millions of people would see it and read it.
Well - that I'm NOT okay with. I don't want that and I don't give my consent. So on what ethical basis can he violate my wishes to publish that material, UNLESS it is to prevent me causing harm to others? (e.g. acting in their self-defence).
> This is trolling, correct? "If not showing the event is not harmful, then it is right and proper for it not
> to be shown - because it is embarrassing to her." Wow.
I'm *horrified* you think this is trolling - that you think this idea is crazy!
What *POSSIBLE* justification is there for publishing material where an individual has done nothing wrong, but where that material would humiliate them in public?
The British tabloid press do exactly this every day and they are responsible for devestating thousands and thousands of lives, for nothing, except to sell their paper every day.
> What privacy and dignity? Something everyone involved seems to have forgotten - This doesn't really
> involve her . Just an avatar in a "game".
I think if my avatar was attacked by flying penis' during a CNN interview, I would be mortified. I expect she feels this way. I think asserting an individual would NOT feel embarrassed and belittled is fanciful.
> And even if it did, the content doesn't actually belong to her, it belongs to (if anyone) Second Life.
It seems to me that since no one is harmed by this material being kept private, and by doing so her dignity is maintained, it is right and proper for Second Life to do so; so I don't see this makes a difference.
Your argument is invalid.
If she had done something unethical - stolen, decieved, harmed another - then her actions would be something that would *rightfully* hurt her reputation, and then actions on her part to covert it up would be unethical.
However, what happened was that someone else humiliated her in public. *She did nothing wrong*. As such, what happened has no bearing whatsoever on her reputation; it only affects her dignity. As such, it is wrong and improper for anyone to publish this material. However, the press are usually a bunch of fuckers who are only interested in money, and will happily destroy private lives to obtain material for their publications.
I fully support her actions - I just wish it was possible to obtain such an action without needing the mostrosity of the DCMA to be in existance, to be mis-used for this valid and proper end.
I'm entirely happy with her having that content prohibited; no one is harmed by that material *not* being shown, which means its right and proper for her privacy and dignity to be respected.
It's unforunate this idea isn't part of law, which means she has to resort to the DCMA to get the ethically correct decision made and enforced.
> No, it's saying, "We built this, go get your own or give us some reason to let you in." We are under no
> obligation to share with anyone who wants to show up; we own the country, and we allow people to immigrate
> when it benefits us.
"We own the country".
The thing is, you don't own the country. You own your house, that's it. And that's the same for most everyone else - people own their house, if they have a business, they might own their place of work. Some rich people own a lot of houses, farms, land, etc.
If a man from another country wants to live in a house in the USA and he has the money to pay for it, how can there be a justification, other than self-defence, for refusing him entry into the country?
What difference does is make that you or your ancestors have done the work necessary to improve the land upon which you live, with houses and businesses? you certainly own the land, and you can, by dint of private property rights, exclude anyone - local or foreign - but how can private property rights give you permission to exlude foreigners (and not locals!) from ANY private property in the country?
Wouldn'tt that actually mean you have taken over other people's wishes, people who might be entirely happy with foreigners coming into the country?
How can "we", the mass of individuals who own our houses, say "because we own our houses and we live here already, we have a right to say you can't rent or buy that house you want".
If that's true, can't each community, each town or village, say to "we own these local houses, we refuse to let you rent or buy a house here"?
Interesting - someone else, higher up in the thread, has conflated private property rights and immigration in the same way.
My house is my private property. People are only permitted here with my permission. This is true for all people - native born or foreign immigrants.
All of the native born (or foreign immigrants) in the country spend their time in places which are either public (on the streets, in parks, etc) or private but where they are welcomed (restaurents, friend's houses, their place of work, etc).
So you see that arguing immigration is wrong because it segregrates is entirely different to arguing people can violate private property rights. All it means is letting people move freely into the country, while respecting private property rights as normal.
> right, why should let's say kids of oh, I don't know, George Clooney be more wealthy than say kids of oh, I
> don't know, some poor schmack in Uganda?
What belongs to a man can broadly be said to be the sum of what he was given by his ancestors and that which he has earned for himself.
George Clooney's kids will be richer than other men's kids because Mr.Clooney made successful career choices and so has earned a great deal of money.
This is, in and of itself, right and proper.
Of course, a man in Uganda will most likely be denied the chances and opportunities that a man in the USA will be given. This is wrong and improper, and has a lot to do with bad Government, but also with simple bad luck, where Uganda is by the chance and circumstance of its history not so bountiful a place to live as the USA.
It is clear, however, that the factors driving the wealth of men here are entirely different to the issue of immigration, where the issue is simply one set of men (those in the USA) declaring "we're all free and equal" and then telling another lot "you can't come in".
That's a willful and deliberate segregration - entirely wrong and improper and nothing to do with how hard a man works or the chance and circumstance of his surroundings.
Nice point, but it's two different issues.
On a national level, letting people means, to put it in a particular way, that "everyone can have their own house".
On a personal level, it certainly is proper to stop other men entering your own house - because of your private property rights. Individual private property rights are not violated by letting people into the country; immigrants live, work and travel in either public places, or privately owned places which welcome them (rented property, restaurents, the company where they work, etc).
In that manner, they are no different to you or I. Just as we would be violating someone elses private property by being there when they did not want us to be there, so would they.
I believe in freedom and liberty for all men.
And by all men, I don't just mean the men in this country.
I don't see how any man can ethically justify excluding others from the land in which they live.
If a man from India, or Zimbabwae, or Sweden - where-ever - wishes to come here, the only basis upon which we could deny them is self-defence.
How can we say - all men are born free and equal - and then say "ah, but you lot can't come in".
Net-neutrality is a travesty.
/.) and by the people who do know what it means, know it's in their interest, know it will shaft everyone else, but are of course entirely in favour.
It's been picked up by a mass of people who don't know what net neutrality actually means and so can't know it's actually in their best interest (e.g. readership of
This latter group are the people with large amounts of content to shift over the net, and who have to pay according to how much they actually use, rather than being subsidized, as they are now, by everyone else.
Net neutrality *actually* means everyone pays the same for net use, regardless of how much they use the net.
Net non-neutrality means people pay according to how much they use.
The State is increasing its powers to monitor citizens - both where they are, and the conversations they have.
This is also the State which is increasingly introducing extra-judicial handling of terrorists - holding them indefinitely without trial, interrogation methods which are tantamount to torture, no access to lawyers, no publication of their status.
This is also the State which has been gradually extending extra-judicial methods (warrantless monitoring, for example) to citizens.
It is my view a State which fails to understand the importance of civil and human rights, for example in this case in its increasing intrusion in private lives, will, *as you would expect*, fail to apply those rights in other areas - in this case, justice for those accused of crimes and they way they are treated.
Bill I think was right, but it's for a particular reason, which is the nature of television.
Television is, above all things, *brief*.
Adverts are 30 seconds long - 60 seconds is long!
How can you communicate effectively in 30 seconds? what messages can you transmit? certainly, there is no time for reasoning, rational, explanations, or thought. All there is time for is an *impression*, an *emotional experience*.
You can like adverts, or you can dislike them, but you cannot *agree* or *disagree* with them, because there is nothing in them to agree or disagree *with*. There is no propositional content. Consider a MacDonalds advert - happy kids, bright colours, smiley clown.
You might like this, you might dislike it - but can you disagree with it?
Advertisers have to communicate with us in the briefest of moments, using the most profound impressions available to them - and that, of course, means that sex.
Sex is instantly understood, does not require thought or consideration, and is strongly attractive.
Sex sells.
And it sells because television is the prime medium of communication in our society.
There are 40,000 homicides in the US each year.
There is, apparently, so much crime that we need to introduce mass surveillance into our society.
And you're saying the question "why do people do crime" is stupid?
I would say it's one of the most pressing and urgent questions we face.