It's all well and good to support the ethical choice, until it affects profits and market value.
Then it isn't all well and good to support the ethical choice. Making decisions based solely on profit and market value isn't ethical. When push comes to shove, I think most people wouldn't mind how they make money, so long as they're making it.
People don't mind if 12 year old children are making their clothes so long as they don't have to see them do it. This is the true root of the problems we face; we are so far removed from the factors of production of our goods that we don't have to face the social issues involved.
I'm part of the problem as I have plenty of Chinese-made goods. I attempt to buy at thrift stores, etc., but can't get everything I need there. At the very least, being aware of the problem is being on track to solve the problem.
If, in the process of maximizing profits, the corporation breaks enough laws (legality of methods being subordinate to maximization of profits) the corporation will eventually cease to exist
Not bloody likely.
1) Corporations almost never have their charter revoked even for the most egregious of offenses. 2) Corporations often lobby legislators in order to get current law changed if they want to break it.
Yahoo! is a publicly traded corporation. Publicly traded corporations have one duty -- to make profit. If the Board of Directors thought that they'd make more money by turning in "dissident journalists", then they will do so. Similarly, if they could make more money (that is, after all penalties are levied against them for breaking any local laws/customs) by torturing children, they'd do it. In fact they have a fiduciary responsibility to do so.
Stallman seems to be a hardcore deontologist. In his mind, things are wrong are always wrong, regardless of the consequences of the actions. So when he goes off the proverbial deep end with his rhetoric about MP3s and fake CDs, you must understand how he views them -- as wholly wrong even if they don't really involve much real harm to an end user.
I'm a deontologist as well, but not as hard-core as he is. I rip all my music to FLAC or Vorbis, but I'm not about to take all my mp3s and convert them because they're "evil". I prefer F/OSS software to closed source, but if the closed source counterpart is judged to be better or offers some functionality not otherwise available, I'll still use it.
RMS wants closed source code abolished. I want people to know there is a choice. RMS wants DRMed CDs abolished. I want people to know they exist and the possible consequences of using such CDs.
Actually the megacorps like GM, Ford, etc. are starting to lobby for universal health care since it is one of their largest liabilities (if not the largest) on the ledger. Chrysler opened an assembly plant in Canada, in face of large tax abatements from Alabama (possibly Mississippi) because of "free" health care and the education level of the employees.
The company will set the lawyers on anyone using the BitTorrent name, and trademark, if they are using it to distribute spyware or adware.
That could reasonably be interpreted as anyone using the name "BitTorrent" in association with distributing spyware/adware. I took it to mean that people who distribute such things while using the name to give it a sense of "officialness".
Ex: "Download our new Notepad replacement using BitTorrent!" [assuming the program had spy/adware]
I thought that was a rather stupid and ineffective way to try and protect a trademark, so I commented in such a fashion. If this is not the case, then perhaps El Reg should add a bit more info to that very short FA.
Then people will stop calling it BitTorrent... end of story.
Even then, what makes the folks at BitTorrent (Bram?) think that threat of a lawsuit will stop people from using their name? The people they are targeting regularly disregard copyright laws. Will they simply fly straight when it comes to trademark law?
My nat. gas furnace is so inefficient that it evens out.
The radiator is oil-filled. It plugs in to the wall in order to use electricity to heat the oil. The oil is cycled throughout the radiator and subsequently heats the room.
... electricity (which is currently about the least inefficient way to produce heat that there is... Heating with natural gas or oil is way cheaper than electricity in most countries
Natural gas prices are insane at the moment where I live (Ohio). We bought a plug-in oil-filled radiator to help keep costs down. Is natural gas more efficient (in energy terms) than electric heat. Certainly. Is it cheaper? Not on your life.
Is the press free all around the world? Do undertrials or accused enjoy fair trials everywhere? Does corporate money/advertising implicitly censor what we see in the media? Do citizens in democracies have access to all information that concerns them? Can the poor ever have equal chances to attend universities and schools?
The point of Internet access is that, by nature, access opens the door to so much information. Your local totalitarian government can censor the paper media and just about everything in their country (if the citizens let them get away with it). They can not censor the media in other countries. Of course China is trying to do this, but they still haven't gotten it all covered. Trying to completely censor anything people in a non-free country might want to search is difficult, so most often people will gain the insight that only a diverse media can bring... hence the fixation on Internet access.
Its a similar problem. I don't order ANYTHING from eBay anymore because the quality of the last few items I have bought were extremely poor. The standard is to sell your known-to-be-broken crap on eBay "as-is" and then say you believe it works, but can't guarantee it.
Google mighn't want to piss of eBay, but someone has to provide an alternative to PayPal sooner or later, and it might as well be them. I can recall quite a few times that sellers lost a sale to me because they only accepted PayPal. If there was a viable alternative with a sane TOS, perhaps I'd use it. Until then, I'm stuck ordering from merchants who take credit/debit card orders.
There was a time where I challenged a call, and the play was overturned. Upon returning to the game, it was still 4th down and I had the ball where I was... as if the play was not overturned. There was a time that a flag was thrown on a play, but I was not given the option to accept or decline the penalty... until after the next play was over. Lots of really tick-tack stuff... if you kick the ball high enough on a short field goal or extra point it will suspend in mid air above the netting... you can run off the field and through the stands.
As far as "Madden Karma", we've all come to expect that. Some games the CPU just decides you won't be winning the game. A friend of mine went 16-0 in the regular season and lost his 1st round playoff game. The year previous he nearly lost a game to a 6-10 team who somehow won their division.
The FUD created about BitTorrent and ed2k is just that. Anyone who even knows about Linux and/or alternative operating systems isn't going to shun your distro because its only available via P2P protocols. BitTorrent was designed with the exact situation you have in mind. Use it for its intended purpose.
The funny thing is that the music sucks and the gameplay is horrid as well. My friends and I have found tons of bugs on the X-Box version. I suppose their strategy was that so long as they are the sole licensee of NFL/NFLPA people will buy their games for that reason alone.
While ethics are in the eye of the beholder, I don't think any reasonable person can say that censorship of political speech is ethical. You can't be for freedom of speech unless you are for freedom of speech for all people at all time (save very specific restrictions -- clear and present danger stuff). I'm honestly suprised the people who make these decisions can look themselves in the mirror. Of course they rationalize, but when it gets right down to it Google is helping a totalitarian government, which has no right to govern, control its subjects.
They are enablers, and they are directly responsible. Be better than that. Be above doing anything for profit.
You've missed the point. The point is not about following the laws in a country where the firm does business. The point is that the firm should have the fortitude to say, "You know what? Even though we could make a killing helping the Chinese government with their 'needs', we simply aren't going to do business there until they clean up their act."
Members of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus said four US firms were putting profits before American principles of free speech.
And they will continue to do so unless it is no longer profitable to do so.
"Corporate Ethics" is an oxymoron. The only real way to keep US firms from doing such unethical things is to make it unprofitable for them to do so. This can be done in any number of ways -- by fine or revocation of charter for repeat offenders. Remember that the fine must be >= the profit made from the transaction or else it is not a deterrent, something we often forget.
But seriously, I had serious problems waking up in the morning until I decided to give up caffeine. After a few days of headaches, I found that I didn't have as much problems with my energy. I've read that using caffeine to keep awake ends up hurting in the long-run. For me, it seemed to be true (but who knows due to a large number of variables), so it mightn't hurt fo you to try.
As the grandparent tried to put it, only the copyright holder can change the license on a piece of software.
If I create a program that counts to 100 and then exits, I can release it under any license(s) I want. If I release it GPL v2 and someone says, "Hey, Stine, management wants us to avoid GPL. Can we get it under BSD?", I can decide to release it under BSD if I so choose. You cannot decide to release my code under any other license than I have explicitly said that you can. If you want it under a different license, you have to ask my permission.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all well and good to support the ethical choice, until it affects profits and market value.
Then it isn't all well and good to support the ethical choice. Making decisions based solely on profit and market value isn't ethical. When push comes to shove, I think most people wouldn't mind how they make money, so long as they're making it.
People don't mind if 12 year old children are making their clothes so long as they don't have to see them do it. This is the true root of the problems we face; we are so far removed from the factors of production of our goods that we don't have to face the social issues involved.
I'm part of the problem as I have plenty of Chinese-made goods. I attempt to buy at thrift stores, etc., but can't get everything I need there. At the very least, being aware of the problem is being on track to solve the problem.
If, in the process of maximizing profits, the corporation breaks enough laws (legality of methods being subordinate to maximization of profits) the corporation will eventually cease to exist
Not bloody likely.
1) Corporations almost never have their charter revoked even for the most egregious of offenses.
2) Corporations often lobby legislators in order to get current law changed if they want to break it.
Yahoo MUST comply with local laws if they want to make buisness there, there is no other choice, comply or go
Why isn't "go" an option on the table? To me, its a no-brainer.
How exactly does showing that they bend over to any government's request making the company money???
If they want to do business in China (a very large and developing market), they will do what the Chinese government says. No. Questions. Asked.
Yahoo! is a publicly traded corporation. Publicly traded corporations have one duty -- to make profit. If the Board of Directors thought that they'd make more money by turning in "dissident journalists", then they will do so. Similarly, if they could make more money (that is, after all penalties are levied against them for breaking any local laws/customs) by torturing children, they'd do it. In fact they have a fiduciary responsibility to do so.
Corporate ethics is an oxymoron.
Do the chickens have large talons?
Stallman seems to be a hardcore deontologist. In his mind, things are wrong are always wrong, regardless of the consequences of the actions. So when he goes off the proverbial deep end with his rhetoric about MP3s and fake CDs, you must understand how he views them -- as wholly wrong even if they don't really involve much real harm to an end user.
I'm a deontologist as well, but not as hard-core as he is. I rip all my music to FLAC or Vorbis, but I'm not about to take all my mp3s and convert them because they're "evil". I prefer F/OSS software to closed source, but if the closed source counterpart is judged to be better or offers some functionality not otherwise available, I'll still use it.
RMS wants closed source code abolished. I want people to know there is a choice. RMS wants DRMed CDs abolished. I want people to know they exist and the possible consequences of using such CDs.
Actually the megacorps like GM, Ford, etc. are starting to lobby for universal health care since it is one of their largest liabilities (if not the largest) on the ledger. Chrysler opened an assembly plant in Canada, in face of large tax abatements from Alabama (possibly Mississippi) because of "free" health care and the education level of the employees.
FTA:
The company will set the lawyers on anyone using the BitTorrent name, and trademark, if they are using it to distribute spyware or adware.
That could reasonably be interpreted as anyone using the name "BitTorrent" in association with distributing spyware/adware. I took it to mean that people who distribute such things while using the name to give it a sense of "officialness".
Ex:
"Download our new Notepad replacement using BitTorrent!" [assuming the program had spy/adware]
I thought that was a rather stupid and ineffective way to try and protect a trademark, so I commented in such a fashion. If this is not the case, then perhaps El Reg should add a bit more info to that very short FA.
Then people will stop calling it BitTorrent ... end of story.
Even then, what makes the folks at BitTorrent (Bram?) think that threat of a lawsuit will stop people from using their name? The people they are targeting regularly disregard copyright laws. Will they simply fly straight when it comes to trademark law?
My nat. gas furnace is so inefficient that it evens out.
The radiator is oil-filled. It plugs in to the wall in order to use electricity to heat the oil. The oil is cycled throughout the radiator and subsequently heats the room.
... electricity (which is currently about the least inefficient way to produce heat that there is ... Heating with natural gas or oil is way cheaper than electricity in most countries
Natural gas prices are insane at the moment where I live (Ohio). We bought a plug-in oil-filled radiator to help keep costs down. Is natural gas more efficient (in energy terms) than electric heat. Certainly. Is it cheaper? Not on your life.
Is the press free all around the world? Do undertrials or accused enjoy fair trials everywhere? Does corporate money/advertising implicitly censor what we see in the media? Do citizens in democracies have access to all information that concerns them? Can the poor ever have equal chances to attend universities and schools?
... hence the fixation on Internet access.
The point of Internet access is that, by nature, access opens the door to so much information. Your local totalitarian government can censor the paper media and just about everything in their country (if the citizens let them get away with it). They can not censor the media in other countries. Of course China is trying to do this, but they still haven't gotten it all covered. Trying to completely censor anything people in a non-free country might want to search is difficult, so most often people will gain the insight that only a diverse media can bring
Pardon.
s/mighn't/mightn't
A contraction of might not.
Its a similar problem. I don't order ANYTHING from eBay anymore because the quality of the last few items I have bought were extremely poor. The standard is to sell your known-to-be-broken crap on eBay "as-is" and then say you believe it works, but can't guarantee it.
Google mighn't want to piss of eBay, but someone has to provide an alternative to PayPal sooner or later, and it might as well be them. I can recall quite a few times that sellers lost a sale to me because they only accepted PayPal. If there was a viable alternative with a sane TOS, perhaps I'd use it. Until then, I'm stuck ordering from merchants who take credit/debit card orders.
XBox "Classic".
... as if the play was not overturned. There was a time that a flag was thrown on a play, but I was not given the option to accept or decline the penalty ... until after the next play was over. Lots of really tick-tack stuff ... if you kick the ball high enough on a short field goal or extra point it will suspend in mid air above the netting ... you can run off the field and through the stands.
There was a time where I challenged a call, and the play was overturned. Upon returning to the game, it was still 4th down and I had the ball where I was
As far as "Madden Karma", we've all come to expect that. Some games the CPU just decides you won't be winning the game. A friend of mine went 16-0 in the regular season and lost his 1st round playoff game. The year previous he nearly lost a game to a 6-10 team who somehow won their division.
The FUD created about BitTorrent and ed2k is just that. Anyone who even knows about Linux and/or alternative operating systems isn't going to shun your distro because its only available via P2P protocols. BitTorrent was designed with the exact situation you have in mind. Use it for its intended purpose.
The funny thing is that the music sucks and the gameplay is horrid as well. My friends and I have found tons of bugs on the X-Box version. I suppose their strategy was that so long as they are the sole licensee of NFL/NFLPA people will buy their games for that reason alone.
While ethics are in the eye of the beholder, I don't think any reasonable person can say that censorship of political speech is ethical. You can't be for freedom of speech unless you are for freedom of speech for all people at all time (save very specific restrictions -- clear and present danger stuff). I'm honestly suprised the people who make these decisions can look themselves in the mirror. Of course they rationalize, but when it gets right down to it Google is helping a totalitarian government, which has no right to govern, control its subjects.
They are enablers, and they are directly responsible. Be better than that. Be above doing anything for profit.
You've missed the point. The point is not about following the laws in a country where the firm does business. The point is that the firm should have the fortitude to say, "You know what? Even though we could make a killing helping the Chinese government with their 'needs', we simply aren't going to do business there until they clean up their act."
I agree with the sentiment.
Members of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus said four US firms were putting profits before American principles of free speech.
And they will continue to do so unless it is no longer profitable to do so.
"Corporate Ethics" is an oxymoron. The only real way to keep US firms from doing such unethical things is to make it unprofitable for them to do so. This can be done in any number of ways -- by fine or revocation of charter for repeat offenders. Remember that the fine must be >= the profit made from the transaction or else it is not a deterrent, something we often forget.
I find that plenty of sleep helps keep me up.
But seriously, I had serious problems waking up in the morning until I decided to give up caffeine. After a few days of headaches, I found that I didn't have as much problems with my energy. I've read that using caffeine to keep awake ends up hurting in the long-run. For me, it seemed to be true (but who knows due to a large number of variables), so it mightn't hurt fo you to try.
Your country has a state religion. I would expect a certain amount of christian worship.
As the grandparent tried to put it, only the copyright holder can change the license on a piece of software.
If I create a program that counts to 100 and then exits, I can release it under any license(s) I want. If I release it GPL v2 and someone says, "Hey, Stine, management wants us to avoid GPL. Can we get it under BSD?", I can decide to release it under BSD if I so choose. You cannot decide to release my code under any other license than I have explicitly said that you can. If you want it under a different license, you have to ask my permission.