Re:I'd like to see this in a free and open society
on
Chinese Eco-Cities
·
· Score: 1
What about farmers and farm workers?
Re:I'd like to see this in a free and open society
on
Chinese Eco-Cities
·
· Score: 1
Are you really saying that the environment is better in China than in the USA because China limits personal freedom? Do you have any evidence of this?
Re:I'd like to see this in a free and open society
on
Chinese Eco-Cities
·
· Score: 1
Ok, let's say I agree with you that reduced vehicle emissions are a good thing. I'll grant you unrestricted and absolute power needed to tranform society in a way that reduces vehicle emissions. Tell me your plan.
Re:I'd like to see this in a free and open society
on
Chinese Eco-Cities
·
· Score: 1
Maybe you are right. The average civilian is far safer living with an authoritarian government that is afraid of dissent. Um, yeah....
Just think of the utopias of Hitler Germany, Stalinist Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and even the Mao's China. Those 4 states each murdered millions of their own citizens.
I'd like to see this in a free and open society
on
Chinese Eco-Cities
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
This 'achievement' does not mean much to me. The communist government of China has repeatedly demonstrated their lack of respect for individual liberty. How much decision making power is really left to the individuals who must inhabit these cities? Can they leave anytime they want? Are they free to choose to buy a car that burns gasoline?
Ecology driven by the tip of a bayonet is just another form of oppression. I'd like to see the same thing happen in a country that allows freedom of expression and dissent.
Tell me more about your communist democracy. Let's say that I am a snow cone maker. It costs me about 10 cents in syrup, ice, and equipment depreciation. I decide to charge 25 cents for a snow cone. Is that OK in your communist democracy? Is that pricing and production level completely my choice as a free individual?
Dude, if you don't like their piracy counter measures then you already have the freedom to deal with them in a number of ways. You can start by simply not buying or playing the game. Make the value trade off. Either you value your principled stand on piracy counter measures or you place more value on playing to game so you'll compromise and accept the counter measures. Another option for you is to develop and distribute a great computer game and do so without any piracy counter measures. It should be easy for you. Is there anything standing in your way?
On the whole, it's ridiculous for you to assert that the US government's respect for freedom of expression is worse that the communist government of China. I agree with the original post in this thread. This is about control and social engineering from an organization, the UN, that has an absurd moral compass. Remember that the UN lets Libya sit on the UN Human Rights Commission.
An open letter to those who don't like the Disney policy:
The solution you need is at hand today. Please just make the free and voluntary choice to follow the steps I lay out here:
1) Don't buy any Disney products. Nobody is forcing you to put money in their pockets. You make a free and voluntary choice everytime you do.
2) Make your own successful feature film. Hire some big stars and make sure it's good enough that everyone will want to see it. Then, as the producer, you can make the free and voluntary choice to release your film without DRM.
If enough people do this then Disney will change or whither away. We don't need any other means. Everything we need it at hand today.
Today's voice telecom network is relatively easy for governments to listen in on. Fearful governments who can only maintain power by limiting access to information will not be quick to give that up. The two examples that come to mind for me are the Peoples Republic Of China and Iran. Both of these governments are afraid of simple dissent and griping. Even the USA government is afraid of what will happen if they cannot wiretap phone calls between terrorists.
A voip system that uses assymetric encryption seems like an unbeatable protection of individual liberties from government interference. Imagine that my brother and I exchange public keys and keep our private keys private. What can the government do to crack our phone call if doing so requires the private keys that we are smart enough not to share?
I agree completely. You have exposed headLIGHT's argument as ridiculous junk without backbone or moral value. He will not reply. Nay, he will not because he knows he is defeated.
Yes, you are right. The UN is more tolerant of a system of government where it is a capital crime to advocate free and open elections. Try moving to Libya, starting a newspaper, and write daily editorials advocating the replacement of Ghadafi with a freely elected president.
It's bizarre to me that you think tolerance means that we must embrace intolerance.
Remember that the UN is the global organization that allows Libya to be a key voting member of the UN Human Rights Commission. The US is far more tolerant of dissent and free expression of ideas than most of the nations that make up the UN. As an individual who values freedom, I feel safer with the US in control.
You believe that copy protection is anti-consumer. You have the means at your disposal to create an alternative. I'd like you to write a screenplay, raise the production capital, and then create a fantastic movie that everyone wants to see. Then, I want you to release it without copy protection. Go ahead. What's stopping you?
Taxes are not encouragement. Taxes are force. You want to force people to live the way you want them to live. Why don't you try winning their hearts and minds instead of resorting to tyranny?
If it is all so easy then surely you can march your plans into the offices of the venture capitalists in Silicon Valley. They're always looking to fund new ventures. What's holding you back?
Ok, let's say I agree that personal energy consumption can be reduced 50%. Today I am putting you in charge of making that happen in the United States. Tell us some of the steps you would take to make that happen.
You are assuming that our total cumulative energy consumption can be reduced through conservation. I don't see that happening. Even if we achieve a per capita reduction in energy usage, population increase will continue to increase our total energy consumption.
As far as security goes, let's build the new nuke plants out in the Nevada deserts. We'll bring home our oil war troops and deploy them as a security force. A remote nuclear power plant can have it's own armored battalion for security. Then, someone would have to have the resources to start a real war if they want to damage that plant. That all seems extreme but it is cheaper than invading the Middle East everytime we get nervous.
Nuclear power generation is safer and less polluting than burning fossil fuels to generate power. The new pebble bed reactors offer a significant safety improvement over the old fuel rod design that is in older plants lile Three Mile Island. It's time to use the brains we have and provide the safe and cheap power that nuclear fission can offer.
There are some folks out there who just can't stand to see others succeed where they fail. So, they find a reason to sue successful companies. Why work hard and take risks when you can just latch on and leach off those do take risks and work hard?
The funds available for research, even for Google, are not limitless. Google is morally obligated to be responsible with their shareholder's equity and to have some transparent strategic objective to work towards. It looks to me like they just want to cast about until Sergey and the other founder find something that isn't boring.
I guess that you are OK with that. You should invest in Google stock. By your logic, Google should branch into everything from the hydrogen economy to animal husbandry.
I totally agree. Laws restricting political campaign contributions are nothing more than an attempt to limit speech. It's that simple. The goals of compaign finance laws sound intriguing at first glance, but the devil is in the details. Just try to define away all of the types of speech that I am not allowed and you'll start tripping over your own shoelaces. For example, I imagine that everyone thinks we should continue to allow free speech on the editorial pages of newspapers. Right? Ok, fine. I'm going to buy the New York Times and I'll sell the editorial page to the highest bidder each day. Does the McCain Feingold law deal with that case? Please respond and tell me how you'd write a campaign finance law to deal with that edge case.
Slashdot Mirror
What about farmers and farm workers?
Are you really saying that the environment is better in China than in the USA because China limits personal freedom? Do you have any evidence of this?
Ok, let's say I agree with you that reduced vehicle emissions are a good thing. I'll grant you unrestricted and absolute power needed to tranform society in a way that reduces vehicle emissions. Tell me your plan.
Maybe you are right. The average civilian is far safer living with an authoritarian government that is afraid of dissent. Um, yeah....
Just think of the utopias of Hitler Germany, Stalinist Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and even the Mao's China. Those 4 states each murdered millions of their own citizens.
This 'achievement' does not mean much to me. The communist government of China has repeatedly demonstrated their lack of respect for individual liberty. How much decision making power is really left to the individuals who must inhabit these cities? Can they leave anytime they want? Are they free to choose to buy a car that burns gasoline?
Ecology driven by the tip of a bayonet is just another form of oppression. I'd like to see the same thing happen in a country that allows freedom of expression and dissent.
You did not answer my question: Is it OK, in your Democratic Communism, for me to set my own prices for the snowcones I sell?
Tell me more about your communist democracy. Let's say that I am a snow cone maker. It costs me about 10 cents in syrup, ice, and equipment depreciation. I decide to charge 25 cents for a snow cone. Is that OK in your communist democracy? Is that pricing and production level completely my choice as a free individual?
Dude, if you don't like their piracy counter measures then you already have the freedom to deal with them in a number of ways. You can start by simply not buying or playing the game. Make the value trade off. Either you value your principled stand on piracy counter measures or you place more value on playing to game so you'll compromise and accept the counter measures. Another option for you is to develop and distribute a great computer game and do so without any piracy counter measures. It should be easy for you. Is there anything standing in your way?
On the whole, it's ridiculous for you to assert that the US government's respect for freedom of expression is worse that the communist government of China. I agree with the original post in this thread. This is about control and social engineering from an organization, the UN, that has an absurd moral compass. Remember that the UN lets Libya sit on the UN Human Rights Commission.
An open letter to those who don't like the Disney policy:
The solution you need is at hand today. Please just make the free and voluntary choice to follow the steps I lay out here:
1) Don't buy any Disney products. Nobody is forcing you to put money in their pockets. You make a free and voluntary choice everytime you do.
2) Make your own successful feature film. Hire some big stars and make sure it's good enough that everyone will want to see it. Then, as the producer, you can make the free and voluntary choice to release your film without DRM.
If enough people do this then Disney will change or whither away. We don't need any other means. Everything we need it at hand today.
Today's voice telecom network is relatively easy for governments to listen in on. Fearful governments who can only maintain power by limiting access to information will not be quick to give that up. The two examples that come to mind for me are the Peoples Republic Of China and Iran. Both of these governments are afraid of simple dissent and griping. Even the USA government is afraid of what will happen if they cannot wiretap phone calls between terrorists.
A voip system that uses assymetric encryption seems like an unbeatable protection of individual liberties from government interference. Imagine that my brother and I exchange public keys and keep our private keys private. What can the government do to crack our phone call if doing so requires the private keys that we are smart enough not to share?
I don't see a contradiction. Please point it out to me.
I agree completely. You have exposed headLIGHT's argument as ridiculous junk without backbone or moral value. He will not reply. Nay, he will not because he knows he is defeated.
Yes, you are right. The UN is more tolerant of a system of government where it is a capital crime to advocate free and open elections. Try moving to Libya, starting a newspaper, and write daily editorials advocating the replacement of Ghadafi with a freely elected president.
It's bizarre to me that you think tolerance means that we must embrace intolerance.
Remember that the UN is the global organization that allows Libya to be a key voting member of the UN Human Rights Commission. The US is far more tolerant of dissent and free expression of ideas than most of the nations that make up the UN. As an individual who values freedom, I feel safer with the US in control.
You believe that copy protection is anti-consumer. You have the means at your disposal to create an alternative. I'd like you to write a screenplay, raise the production capital, and then create a fantastic movie that everyone wants to see. Then, I want you to release it without copy protection. Go ahead. What's stopping you?
Taxes are not encouragement. Taxes are force. You want to force people to live the way you want them to live. Why don't you try winning their hearts and minds instead of resorting to tyranny?
What if, despite your encouragement, most people made a free and voluntary decision to drive a private vehicle instead of walking, biking, etc.?
If it is all so easy then surely you can march your plans into the offices of the venture capitalists in Silicon Valley. They're always looking to fund new ventures. What's holding you back?
Ok, let's say I agree that personal energy consumption can be reduced 50%. Today I am putting you in charge of making that happen in the United States. Tell us some of the steps you would take to make that happen.
You are assuming that our total cumulative energy consumption can be reduced through conservation. I don't see that happening. Even if we achieve a per capita reduction in energy usage, population increase will continue to increase our total energy consumption.
As far as security goes, let's build the new nuke plants out in the Nevada deserts. We'll bring home our oil war troops and deploy them as a security force. A remote nuclear power plant can have it's own armored battalion for security. Then, someone would have to have the resources to start a real war if they want to damage that plant. That all seems extreme but it is cheaper than invading the Middle East everytime we get nervous.
Nuclear power generation is safer and less polluting than burning fossil fuels to generate power. The new pebble bed reactors offer a significant safety improvement over the old fuel rod design that is in older plants lile Three Mile Island. It's time to use the brains we have and provide the safe and cheap power that nuclear fission can offer.
There are some folks out there who just can't stand to see others succeed where they fail. So, they find a reason to sue successful companies. Why work hard and take risks when you can just latch on and leach off those do take risks and work hard?
The funds available for research, even for Google, are not limitless. Google is morally obligated to be responsible with their shareholder's equity and to have some transparent strategic objective to work towards. It looks to me like they just want to cast about until Sergey and the other founder find something that isn't boring.
I guess that you are OK with that. You should invest in Google stock. By your logic, Google should branch into everything from the hydrogen economy to animal husbandry.
I totally agree. Laws restricting political campaign contributions are nothing more than an attempt to limit speech. It's that simple. The goals of compaign finance laws sound intriguing at first glance, but the devil is in the details. Just try to define away all of the types of speech that I am not allowed and you'll start tripping over your own shoelaces. For example, I imagine that everyone thinks we should continue to allow free speech on the editorial pages of newspapers. Right? Ok, fine. I'm going to buy the New York Times and I'll sell the editorial page to the highest bidder each day. Does the McCain Feingold law deal with that case? Please respond and tell me how you'd write a campaign finance law to deal with that edge case.