Quite frankly: Do seperate private and work. It only brings you pain if you don't, and you deserve whatever you get.
Same goes for the other direction: If you store any personal data on your work PC (or other equipment), make sure that you have remote wipe capabilities, or it is encrypted.
The only interesting thing to know would be "is this site using the same certificate as the last time I connected to it". And the shitty browsers don't tell you that.
Well, the thing is that the US is an excellent target. We don't have many other countries who are at the same time acting like the lowest scum and talking like the paragon of morality and ethics.
Stop either of that, and you should get out of the crosshairs. Asking to be let go is just asking for more.
Merely receiving a majority of the votes does not make a government legitimate by our rules; it also has to respect basic human rights.
The part I question is "our rules". Who are you to make the rules as to which foreign government is legitmate and which one isn't?
and my initial reply
That's the thing. You can not at the same time claim that the majority is always right and that it has to follow rules. Who sanctioned those rules? It means you put an entity above the souvereignity of the people.
This is the dilemma you still haven't solved. If the majority vote is not what determines right or wrong, then what is ?
Tell you what, I will stop downloading stuff when two things have happened:
a) Buying a game isn't an odds-against-you risk of buying a buggy piece of crap anymore - showing that we have a working business-customer relationship again instead of the exploit and abuse going on right now
b) Big business crime and corruption is handled with the same zeal and punished with the same relative fines as illegal copying - showing that we have a working justice system that actually has a claim to define right and wrong
Right now, the world I live in means buying a game - any game - involves a huge leap of faith. Chances are higher that it will suck, that it contains show-stopping bugs, that it won't run next year due to some DRM crap, that it is half-finished and you're planning to sell the real product to me via DLC, or any number of other nonsense that I am not willing to pay for. So the other side is force and threat, issue via a corrupt legal system that wouldn't know the meaning of "just" if it bit it in the arse. You can destroy an entire nations economy and nobody will touch you, but if you dare to make an unauthorized copy of a handful of music songs, you pay a years wages in fines. Oh, and it's not just big business that gets off free. Pretty much any crime against the public is free, because we are governed by people who have particular interests in mind, not the common good.
Now none of that is the fault of the people who make The Witcher 2. They, like me, simply live in this environment. And we both try to get by as good as possible. They've done a good step by making it DRM-free. Maybe that's enough for me to take the leap of faith, provided that their license allows for re-selling should it suck. You have to start somewhere, but when the environment has failed, you have to build the trust relationship from the start.
No, that doesn't hold "for the main decisions"; "the main decisions" in democracies tend to be made by elected representatives.
Who are elected according to majority rules and are themselves voting by majority rules.
And that's my point: contrary to your claims, the West doesn't have to respect any majority decision.
Which is not contrary to my claim at all. You are continuously evading my question to point out your higher authority. Because, frankly, there is none. You yourself (plural "you") declares itself as a higher authority whenever you think something can't be right. It's like the christians who pick and choose from their bible, quoting one nice and wise sentence as divine inspiration and ignoring another sentence on the same page that talks about murdering homosexuals or whatever. Here's how it works: Germany 192x votes on laws A, B and C and the american press is all happy. Then it votes on laws D, E and F with the same rules, and the american press calls it evil, unconstitutional, undemocratic, whatever. Not to single out the US, the same works the other way around, too. Most of Europe thinks your war on Iraq is in breach of international law, american law and pretty much everything else, while we applaud Obamas election.
The point is that humans have this tendency to judge. And extreme psychological difficulties accepting someone elses decisions as equally valid. If you need evidence, one word: Gossip. You know, that process where the same people who trust the CEO to lead the company discuss and usually diss his every decision in the pantry? I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. But we humans have a tendency to feel superior, to think the world revolves around us. We live in an first-person-perspective world, and it shows. But let's call it for what it is, instead of this tiresome appeal to invented higher authorities. Be it gods or moral standards, that's all stuff we make up to justify our judging of others.
I'm not dissing that. I do it myself all the time. But I find it dishonest to claim that there is anything else at work here than personal judgement.
Well, you're changing your tune. A few messages back, you were saying:
For the main decisions, that holds true. In fact, we can easily trace cases where a minority gets the majority say, due to the ways the voting systems work.
Furthermore, constitutions often also recognize natural, inalienable, and/or self-evident rights that cannot ever be taken away by a vote. The judicial and executive branch would basically simply not enforce any laws that contradict such inalienable rights.
In theory. In real life, it is possible to do away with those barriers. Do you think the Weimar Republic did not have seperation of powers or a constitution? And yet it could be turned into the 3rd Reich. There was no coup or overthrow of the government.
And again, if the people in those branches are elected, then what is stopping a majority from electing people who will let it happen, constitutional or not? And then passing a law retroactively declaring their actions as legal? Not as if that had ever happened...
As I understood him, the re-take would be less than a week later.
Also, since the first test results were never handed out, you wouldn't know what your legitimate grade on the first was. So you would not be certain if your B on the re-take was an improvement or a loss.
Personally, I would be pissed of having to go through the stress and discomfort of a test situation twice.
I don't know what schools you've been going to, but that's not how it works.
I went to a university outside the US, and that's how it worked there. Maybe the problem is with your particular implementation of education, not education itself?
So, you agree then a majority of the people cannot decide to kill a minority of the people in some democracies because the constitution won't let them, and you also realize that this restriction on the majority derives from the people themselves and not any external force.
That's my point: in a democracy, a majority does not always get to decide.
The two statements are not exclusive.
A 2/3rd majority may decide to institute minority protection, plus the need of a 2/3rd majority to change it. A later 2/3rd majority may decide to do away with the minority restriction, completely democratic and following the constitution that (in this case) says it needs a 2/3rd majority to change it.
The point is that if you studied the subject, instead of the subset of questions you knew ahead of time would be asked, then your work is not thrown out, because the new questions will be about the same subject.
Still, of course, you could have had an especially good day.
Changing who can vote is not a decision within the democracy, it is a constitutional decision.
The difference being what, aside from words? This is the Nomic part - if you have a need for the rules to change, then you have to have rules that define how rules can be changed - including the rules on rulechanges. There is no magic barrier there between democractic and constitutional. Some rules can have a higher protection level, say requiring a 2/3 majority to change (and, of course, your rule to change rules needs to be in that set). But that is still a part of the system, not outside of it.
It is quite a gradual system, with few sudden changes.
Example: We have representative democracies. Imagine we extended the length of office. From 4 to 5 years. Then to 6. 10. 15. 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80. and then, just to be practical, life. Then we add inheritance. At which precise point are we leaving the democracy, or violating the constitution, or whatever you want to call it?
No, it isn't. Humans in general and managers in particular are famously bad at correctly estimating the factors of low-probability/high-impact risks. Not always in the same direction - we vastly overestimate the risk of some stuff, and vastly underestimate others. But we're almost always off, and by several orders of magnitude.
And don't forget the human factor - the risk for the manager is not millions of dollars of company assets, that is an abstract figure at best. The risk to him is the loss of his job, which is lower in both value and likelihood than the event itself. However, spending money on security is a 100% loss of profit which will impact the bottom line, profit, quarterly report, etc. with a very high probability of negative impact on his bonus or raise.
Unfortunately, almost everything you learn about management or governance acts as if "the company" would make decisions, and not humans. And ignores that humans have a more personal context that also influences their decisions, and routinely overrides even those cases where the optimal decision can be clearly demonstrated.
Fair enough, I was looking at health effects based on activities inside the bar (smoking, drinking, etc), not their wider ramifications. When you start saying "x affects y affects z, z is bad, so let's BAN x" then you are basically living in a nanny state.
The problem is that nobody intends to drive drunk. By the time they make that decision, they are already impaired. You may call it a nanny state. I say that a nanny is quite the appropriate thing for people who aren't able to handle themselves. I'm all for treating adults like adults, but someone heavily intoxicated is much closer to a young kid in mental capacity. The problem is that he still has the body and the car keys of an adult. How do you propose to solve that dilemma?
And here's the thing. Indirect regulation is just as harmful as direct regulation. It's like if you don't make possession of alcohol illegal, but the transportation, production, consumption, and distribution of alcohol are illegal, then say "but we didn't actually ban alcohol!!" It's the same thing. If it turns out that smoking is an activity that is so prevalent in the business of running a pub that banning smoking results in most pubs losing money and shutting down, then banning smoking in pubs is the same thing as outright banning pubs.
The two examples seem similiar, but aren't. In the first, the ban of alcohol is the goal, and indirect means are chosen. In the second, the ban of pubs is an unintended consequence. And that is where my argument comes in. A closer example would be that I say I don't feel sorry for your undertaker business going bancrupt because recent policy changes have reduced the murder rate and now there's not enough death anymore. And I'm saying you complaining that the government drove you out of business is a misrepresentation of facts and intents.
For the pubs, I don't follow the argument at all. If you were talking about smoking clubs, that would be a different matter. If smoking is so vital to pubs that they can't survive without it - well, maybe they need to do what we here on/. ask of the music and movie industry all the time - adapt their business model to changing circumstances.
but if I did support them and I was under the impression that a huge part of society is avoiding going out because of second hand smoke, then suddenly these restaurants and bars start going out of business, I would reconsider.
We all know that's not true. I used to go out once or twice every week despite the air being full of smoke. For one, it has only been recently that all this has been brought into focus. But the more important reason is that you used to have no choice. It was putting up with the smoke or not going out. So the part of society that opted for not going out was pretty small, because especially at the age targeted by clubs and pubs, not going out is not a socially acceptable option.
The terrorists goal is not and never has been to kill people. That's just the means. Blowing up a waiting line would make people question the point of the whole security theatre. You don't want that if you are a terrorist. You want them to run more security theatre, to get ever stricter laws and in general to make their lives hell.
You don't understand how this kind of things work. It's always the same, no matter what. Security, taxes, changes to the social system. Here's the recipe:
1.) Someone in the mid-ranks of politics voices a totally over-the-top idea to judge public reactions (especially from the media) 2.) Depending on the amount of negativity, a slightly-less or a somewhat-less but still excessive idea is brought forward by someone higher-up 3.) Said idea is lauded as much more moderated, implemented and assisted by some publicity (terror warning, or digging up old examples of tax or welfare abuse, etc.) 4.) Idea is implemented much more strictly than advertised 5.) Public outcry 6.) Idea is slightly reduced. Outcry ends, a policy that wouldn't have been possible before is now in effect 7.) Everyone gets used to that being the norm, after a few years the cycle starts again, to reach the next level
My guess is we're at 5. You can quote me when we reach 6, and remember me during 7.
The limits of liberty are usually when you personally are injuring other people. Having a bar does not hurt other people.
There are lots more limits, but for this particular discussion - agreed.
Only people who drink too much or too regularly are hurt, and they are doing it to themselves.
Most alcohol-related deaths are not the people who are drinking, but the people who they are crashing into when driving drunk. Alcohol is one of those drugs where the damage to society is in general higher than the damage to the user.
Your argument is so widespread that it would allow the government to regulate every aspect of your life,
Not really. We've come some distance from the original argument. I personally am a proponent of drug-decriminalisation. I'm pretty much of the opinion that whatever you want to do to your body and mind is your business - as long as you and not I bear the consequences. As soon as you expect me to pay or share the consequences, e.g. by footing your medical bills through our common insurance, I want a say in the matter, because it's my money you're spending.
And regarding the pubs, I don't mind people drinking. I don't even mind them smoking, as long as they do it away from me. But if your business can not survive unless it is a requirement that people damage both their own and others health in the process of you exercising it, then I don't think you have a "right" to run that business. That is not the same as saying your business should be illegal and should be regulated, please don't mistake that. It is not illegal to have a girlfriend, but you don't have a right to a girlfriend, either.
So, I don't mind at all if outlawing smoking means pubs go out of business. You don't have a right to run a pub. You have the right to try, but you don't have a right that it works, and you don't have a right that society builds its laws around your business.
There is a natural right to run a pub. It's called liberty. WTF!?
Liberty isn't a natural right, it's a state of being. That state has limits. You don't have the liberty to kill people, obviously. You don't have the liberty to hurt people. So a business that requires health damage to other people is not covered by the liberty you are provided within a society.
You are talking about a screen reader that would be able to process a nightmarish mess of AJAX the same way that a human being does
Actually, no. I am talking about a screen reader that would be able to process a nightmarish mess of AJAX the same way that one of the many existing browsers are quite capable of doing. Figuring out how to present that best to a blind person isn't my job, it's the job of someone familiar with that problem, who can certainly do it better than I can.
What you said would be a little more feasible if there were some kind of standard for web page layouts. The way tabbed websites exchange content between tabs is something that varies from website to website, and the meaning of those sorts of exchanges vary.
Which is exactly why the web allows for so much variety. What you're thinking of is making the whole web a MySpace clone, where you can pick some of the modules and that's it. Now I don't know about you, but to me, MySpace is not exactly the kind of crap that I want the Internet at large to become.
When you get right down to it, blind people do not really benefit much from fancy website layouts.
True. Now get this down: I'm not writing my website for blind people. To put it bluntly: I'm happy if my website is useful to them, too. If someone tells me how and it's not much extra effort, I may do a bit of additional markup or such to make that easier. But I'm not going to change the layout or basic functionality for a minority - any minority, really.
Why is providing a version of the page that has no Javascript, and just includes text, links, and possibly form elements something that people seem to think is unreasonable?
Because for some of the stuff I do, your request would mean to major rewrite, basically a second website. I don't have time nor inclination for that.
Why is it so hard to accept that if you have a disability, some things in life are impossible? A blind person can never get the same satisfaction from a painting or a movie as a seing one does, just like someone without legs won't make a career in mountain climbing.
I'm all for not making it intentionally difficult, but I'm strongly opposed to putting the burden of disabled people on the non-disabled population. I certainly feel sorry for everyone who is disable. But I'm not the one who has to work extra because you are blind.
Aren't you the one who is claiming that if certain things happen, something "automatically" becomes something else?
In politics, as in mathematics, you need logic to vet your definitions; definitions that are inconsistent with existing usage or are simply logically inconsistent need to be rejected. The definition you imagine for "democracy" is both.
That isn't logic, it is semantic. So we agree, except on terms. Logic does not rest on common understanding. The logic behind the excluded third, or mathematical results is not subject to context and interpretation. "1+1 = 2" is not a matter of culture. But our understanding of Democracy is. You can not define "Democracy" mathematically, with a precise formula. Its meaning changes over time and with context. For example, the Athenian Democracy only had voting rights for a small part of the population. We wouldn't even consider it a democracy today. And remind me, when did blacks get to vote in the USA? Was it non-democratic before that date, or was it merely that the meaning of democracy had changed over time, and the political system was a little behind?
You don't need a "higher authority" to place limits on what people can vote on, there are intrinsic limits if you want a consistent and complete definition.
Where do you take those "intrinsic limits" from, if not from a higher authority? Please tell.
You need to think that through, not me. You're not responding to what I said.
I think I aim. You claim that if we restrict who can vote, we are not living in a democracy. I am pointing out that we are restricting who can vote. Now make up your mind, because one of your two assumptions has to go: Either some restrictions are ok, or we are not currently living in a democracy. It's one or the other.
So? You sound as if there were a natural right to run a pub. Me, I tend to think that if your business rests on people ruining their own and/or other peoples health, then you are running an unethical business. And if such a business goes down then good riddance.
How hard is it to use HTML and CSS the way they were meant to be used, and to provide alternative content? Sorry, not buying this one at all.
Kid, I started doing this HTML stuff when there was no such thing as CSS, and HTML pages were built in a text editor and optimized for 14k modem connections.
Yes, in those times it was easy, since the content was largely linear.
Today, I have tabbed websites which exchange the content of their tabs on-demand through AJAX calls. I have no friggin idea what a screenreader will do with that, and if they all behave the same way. Yes, I could find out. No, I don't see it as my responsibility to do so. How about making it, you know, your screen readers job to translate whatever I throw at him nicely, as long as it is standard-compliant HTML?
First, if "the people" vote to deprive some subset of "the people" of their ability to participate in the democracy, then, after the vote, "the people" aren't voting anymore and the democracy automatically ceases to be a democracy.
Think that through. It means that there has never been a democracy on this planet. There is not one nation where really everyone can vote. True, the subset increases over time, but it is always a subset. Right now, for example, we exclude people under a certain age (18 mostly) with pretty much the same sense of that being perfectly ok than our ancestors had for not allowing, say, women to vote.
Second, democracies need ground rules by which they operate. They are agreed on ahead of time in a constitution, and need to be obeyed afterwards. If people vote to violate those ground rules, the form of government automatically becomes an anarchy and hence ceases to be a democracy.
A constitution is not an eternal document set in stone. It can and should adapt to changing circumstances. The rules themselves are subject to change, including the rules on how to change the rules. Personally, I think nobody should be allowed into politics who hasn't played some Nomic.
And again, you are putting yourself above the people if you judge what their government is or "automatically becomes". That last part is especially nonsensical. "Democracy" and "Anarchy" are simply words. That's what we call it, but that's not what it is. The beauty is that different people can call the same thing by different things. So what you call Anarchy is someone else's Democracy. Who is to judge who of you two is right?
Third, as a practical matter, democracies are subject to external forces.
Absolutely. But we weren't discussing the vote to make pi equal 3.0 or any such nonsense. We agree entirely that reality and the laws of physics are not democractic.
So, "the people" can vote whatever they like, but certain votes are either logically inconsistent with democracy (i.e., after the vote, democracy ceases to exist), or they terminate your democracy due to external forces. "Right" or "wrong" has nothing to do with it, it's a question of logic.
Actually, much of politics is a question of semantics, not logic. "Democracy" is a label. You can change the label, if you like, but it doesn't change the thing. And vice versa. So the question is one of applicability. Since there is no singular, universal definition of "Democracy", you have a grey area where some would say the label still applies, while others say it doesn't. Which means that in real life, it is highly unlikely that a single vote would turn a democracy into something else. Heck, we even have historic examples. The Weimar Republic did not turn into the 3rd Reich over night. It was a quick change, but it still took several years and there is no singular point where everything changed, because all the steps are interconnected.
As for the matter at hand, Palestinian blasphemy laws are inconsistent with democracy since they deprive non-Muslim citizens of their political rights.
Where can I read a list of those "rights"? That's the point I'm making here. Either, the people are autonomous, in which case they define that list for themselves, or they are not, in which case you need a higher authority to point to. It seems to me:
In addition, they are also inconsistent with international law and human rights.
That your higher authority is this. Which is ok with me as long as you are clear that it means no people are really autonomous, because they are all subject to this higher authority (or explain why some are, and some aren't).
Slashdot Mirror
Quite frankly: Do seperate private and work. It only brings you pain if you don't, and you deserve whatever you get.
Same goes for the other direction: If you store any personal data on your work PC (or other equipment), make sure that you have remote wipe capabilities, or it is encrypted.
The only interesting thing to know would be "is this site using the same certificate as the last time I connected to it". And the shitty browsers don't tell you that.
Perspectives does that, and then some.
Well, the thing is that the US is an excellent target. We don't have many other countries who are at the same time acting like the lowest scum and talking like the paragon of morality and ethics.
Stop either of that, and you should get out of the crosshairs. Asking to be let go is just asking for more.
How about we go back to the original point:
Merely receiving a majority of the votes does not make a government legitimate by our rules; it also has to respect basic human rights.
The part I question is "our rules". Who are you to make the rules as to which foreign government is legitmate and which one isn't?
and my initial reply
That's the thing. You can not at the same time claim that the majority is always right and that it has to follow rules. Who sanctioned those rules? It means you put an entity above the souvereignity of the people.
This is the dilemma you still haven't solved. If the majority vote is not what determines right or wrong, then what is ?
Tell you what, I will stop downloading stuff when two things have happened:
a) Buying a game isn't an odds-against-you risk of buying a buggy piece of crap anymore - showing that we have a working business-customer relationship again instead of the exploit and abuse going on right now
b) Big business crime and corruption is handled with the same zeal and punished with the same relative fines as illegal copying - showing that we have a working justice system that actually has a claim to define right and wrong
Right now, the world I live in means buying a game - any game - involves a huge leap of faith. Chances are higher that it will suck, that it contains show-stopping bugs, that it won't run next year due to some DRM crap, that it is half-finished and you're planning to sell the real product to me via DLC, or any number of other nonsense that I am not willing to pay for.
So the other side is force and threat, issue via a corrupt legal system that wouldn't know the meaning of "just" if it bit it in the arse. You can destroy an entire nations economy and nobody will touch you, but if you dare to make an unauthorized copy of a handful of music songs, you pay a years wages in fines. Oh, and it's not just big business that gets off free. Pretty much any crime against the public is free, because we are governed by people who have particular interests in mind, not the common good.
Now none of that is the fault of the people who make The Witcher 2. They, like me, simply live in this environment. And we both try to get by as good as possible. They've done a good step by making it DRM-free. Maybe that's enough for me to take the leap of faith, provided that their license allows for re-selling should it suck. You have to start somewhere, but when the environment has failed, you have to build the trust relationship from the start.
No, that doesn't hold "for the main decisions"; "the main decisions" in democracies tend to be made by elected representatives.
Who are elected according to majority rules and are themselves voting by majority rules.
And that's my point: contrary to your claims, the West doesn't have to respect any majority decision.
Which is not contrary to my claim at all. You are continuously evading my question to point out your higher authority. Because, frankly, there is none. You yourself (plural "you") declares itself as a higher authority whenever you think something can't be right. It's like the christians who pick and choose from their bible, quoting one nice and wise sentence as divine inspiration and ignoring another sentence on the same page that talks about murdering homosexuals or whatever.
Here's how it works: Germany 192x votes on laws A, B and C and the american press is all happy. Then it votes on laws D, E and F with the same rules, and the american press calls it evil, unconstitutional, undemocratic, whatever. Not to single out the US, the same works the other way around, too. Most of Europe thinks your war on Iraq is in breach of international law, american law and pretty much everything else, while we applaud Obamas election.
The point is that humans have this tendency to judge. And extreme psychological difficulties accepting someone elses decisions as equally valid. If you need evidence, one word: Gossip. You know, that process where the same people who trust the CEO to lead the company discuss and usually diss his every decision in the pantry?
I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. But we humans have a tendency to feel superior, to think the world revolves around us. We live in an first-person-perspective world, and it shows. But let's call it for what it is, instead of this tiresome appeal to invented higher authorities. Be it gods or moral standards, that's all stuff we make up to justify our judging of others.
I'm not dissing that. I do it myself all the time. But I find it dishonest to claim that there is anything else at work here than personal judgement.
Well, you're changing your tune. A few messages back, you were saying:
For the main decisions, that holds true. In fact, we can easily trace cases where a minority gets the majority say, due to the ways the voting systems work.
Furthermore, constitutions often also recognize natural, inalienable, and/or self-evident rights that cannot ever be taken away by a vote. The judicial and executive branch would basically simply not enforce any laws that contradict such inalienable rights.
In theory. In real life, it is possible to do away with those barriers. Do you think the Weimar Republic did not have seperation of powers or a constitution? And yet it could be turned into the 3rd Reich. There was no coup or overthrow of the government.
And again, if the people in those branches are elected, then what is stopping a majority from electing people who will let it happen, constitutional or not? And then passing a law retroactively declaring their actions as legal? Not as if that had ever happened...
As I understood him, the re-take would be less than a week later.
Also, since the first test results were never handed out, you wouldn't know what your legitimate grade on the first was. So you would not be certain if your B on the re-take was an improvement or a loss.
Personally, I would be pissed of having to go through the stress and discomfort of a test situation twice.
I don't know what schools you've been going to, but that's not how it works.
I went to a university outside the US, and that's how it worked there. Maybe the problem is with your particular implementation of education, not education itself?
So, you agree then a majority of the people cannot decide to kill a minority of the people in some democracies because the constitution won't let them, and you also realize that this restriction on the majority derives from the people themselves and not any external force.
That's my point: in a democracy, a majority does not always get to decide.
The two statements are not exclusive.
A 2/3rd majority may decide to institute minority protection, plus the need of a 2/3rd majority to change it. A later 2/3rd majority may decide to do away with the minority restriction, completely democratic and following the constitution that (in this case) says it needs a 2/3rd majority to change it.
The point is that if you studied the subject, instead of the subset of questions you knew ahead of time would be asked, then your work is not thrown out, because the new questions will be about the same subject.
Still, of course, you could have had an especially good day.
Changing who can vote is not a decision within the democracy, it is a constitutional decision.
The difference being what, aside from words? This is the Nomic part - if you have a need for the rules to change, then you have to have rules that define how rules can be changed - including the rules on rulechanges. There is no magic barrier there between democractic and constitutional. Some rules can have a higher protection level, say requiring a 2/3 majority to change (and, of course, your rule to change rules needs to be in that set). But that is still a part of the system, not outside of it.
It is quite a gradual system, with few sudden changes.
Example: We have representative democracies. Imagine we extended the length of office. From 4 to 5 years. Then to 6. 10. 15. 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80. and then, just to be practical, life. Then we add inheritance. At which precise point are we leaving the democracy, or violating the constitution, or whatever you want to call it?
No, it isn't. Humans in general and managers in particular are famously bad at correctly estimating the factors of low-probability/high-impact risks. Not always in the same direction - we vastly overestimate the risk of some stuff, and vastly underestimate others. But we're almost always off, and by several orders of magnitude.
And don't forget the human factor - the risk for the manager is not millions of dollars of company assets, that is an abstract figure at best. The risk to him is the loss of his job, which is lower in both value and likelihood than the event itself. However, spending money on security is a 100% loss of profit which will impact the bottom line, profit, quarterly report, etc. with a very high probability of negative impact on his bonus or raise.
Unfortunately, almost everything you learn about management or governance acts as if "the company" would make decisions, and not humans. And ignores that humans have a more personal context that also influences their decisions, and routinely overrides even those cases where the optimal decision can be clearly demonstrated.
Fair enough, I was looking at health effects based on activities inside the bar (smoking, drinking, etc), not their wider ramifications. When you start saying "x affects y affects z, z is bad, so let's BAN x" then you are basically living in a nanny state.
The problem is that nobody intends to drive drunk. By the time they make that decision, they are already impaired. You may call it a nanny state. I say that a nanny is quite the appropriate thing for people who aren't able to handle themselves. I'm all for treating adults like adults, but someone heavily intoxicated is much closer to a young kid in mental capacity. The problem is that he still has the body and the car keys of an adult. How do you propose to solve that dilemma?
And here's the thing. Indirect regulation is just as harmful as direct regulation. It's like if you don't make possession of alcohol illegal, but the transportation, production, consumption, and distribution of alcohol are illegal, then say "but we didn't actually ban alcohol!!" It's the same thing. If it turns out that smoking is an activity that is so prevalent in the business of running a pub that banning smoking results in most pubs losing money and shutting down, then banning smoking in pubs is the same thing as outright banning pubs.
The two examples seem similiar, but aren't. In the first, the ban of alcohol is the goal, and indirect means are chosen. In the second, the ban of pubs is an unintended consequence. And that is where my argument comes in. A closer example would be that I say I don't feel sorry for your undertaker business going bancrupt because recent policy changes have reduced the murder rate and now there's not enough death anymore. And I'm saying you complaining that the government drove you out of business is a misrepresentation of facts and intents.
For the pubs, I don't follow the argument at all. If you were talking about smoking clubs, that would be a different matter. If smoking is so vital to pubs that they can't survive without it - well, maybe they need to do what we here on /. ask of the music and movie industry all the time - adapt their business model to changing circumstances.
but if I did support them and I was under the impression that a huge part of society is avoiding going out because of second hand smoke, then suddenly these restaurants and bars start going out of business, I would reconsider.
We all know that's not true. I used to go out once or twice every week despite the air being full of smoke. For one, it has only been recently that all this has been brought into focus. But the more important reason is that you used to have no choice. It was putting up with the smoke or not going out. So the part of society that opted for not going out was pretty small, because especially at the age targeted by clubs and pubs, not going out is not a socially acceptable option.
In fact, yes.
The terrorists goal is not and never has been to kill people. That's just the means. Blowing up a waiting line would make people question the point of the whole security theatre. You don't want that if you are a terrorist. You want them to run more security theatre, to get ever stricter laws and in general to make their lives hell.
You don't understand how this kind of things work. It's always the same, no matter what. Security, taxes, changes to the social system. Here's the recipe:
1.) Someone in the mid-ranks of politics voices a totally over-the-top idea to judge public reactions (especially from the media)
2.) Depending on the amount of negativity, a slightly-less or a somewhat-less but still excessive idea is brought forward by someone higher-up
3.) Said idea is lauded as much more moderated, implemented and assisted by some publicity (terror warning, or digging up old examples of tax or welfare abuse, etc.)
4.) Idea is implemented much more strictly than advertised
5.) Public outcry
6.) Idea is slightly reduced. Outcry ends, a policy that wouldn't have been possible before is now in effect
7.) Everyone gets used to that being the norm, after a few years the cycle starts again, to reach the next level
My guess is we're at 5. You can quote me when we reach 6, and remember me during 7.
"if we kill one terrorist it is worth 100 or 1000 American lives"
Uh, but it is. More american lives were lost in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the towers.
The limits of liberty are usually when you personally are injuring other people. Having a bar does not hurt other people.
There are lots more limits, but for this particular discussion - agreed.
Only people who drink too much or too regularly are hurt, and they are doing it to themselves.
Most alcohol-related deaths are not the people who are drinking, but the people who they are crashing into when driving drunk. Alcohol is one of those drugs where the damage to society is in general higher than the damage to the user.
Your argument is so widespread that it would allow the government to regulate every aspect of your life,
Not really. We've come some distance from the original argument. I personally am a proponent of drug-decriminalisation. I'm pretty much of the opinion that whatever you want to do to your body and mind is your business - as long as you and not I bear the consequences. As soon as you expect me to pay or share the consequences, e.g. by footing your medical bills through our common insurance, I want a say in the matter, because it's my money you're spending.
And regarding the pubs, I don't mind people drinking. I don't even mind them smoking, as long as they do it away from me. But if your business can not survive unless it is a requirement that people damage both their own and others health in the process of you exercising it, then I don't think you have a "right" to run that business. That is not the same as saying your business should be illegal and should be regulated, please don't mistake that. It is not illegal to have a girlfriend, but you don't have a right to a girlfriend, either.
So, I don't mind at all if outlawing smoking means pubs go out of business. You don't have a right to run a pub. You have the right to try, but you don't have a right that it works, and you don't have a right that society builds its laws around your business.
There is a natural right to run a pub. It's called liberty. WTF!?
Liberty isn't a natural right, it's a state of being. That state has limits. You don't have the liberty to kill people, obviously. You don't have the liberty to hurt people. So a business that requires health damage to other people is not covered by the liberty you are provided within a society.
You are talking about a screen reader that would be able to process a nightmarish mess of AJAX the same way that a human being does
Actually, no. I am talking about a screen reader that would be able to process a nightmarish mess of AJAX the same way that one of the many existing browsers are quite capable of doing. Figuring out how to present that best to a blind person isn't my job, it's the job of someone familiar with that problem, who can certainly do it better than I can.
What you said would be a little more feasible if there were some kind of standard for web page layouts. The way tabbed websites exchange content between tabs is something that varies from website to website, and the meaning of those sorts of exchanges vary.
Which is exactly why the web allows for so much variety. What you're thinking of is making the whole web a MySpace clone, where you can pick some of the modules and that's it. Now I don't know about you, but to me, MySpace is not exactly the kind of crap that I want the Internet at large to become.
When you get right down to it, blind people do not really benefit much from fancy website layouts.
True. Now get this down: I'm not writing my website for blind people. To put it bluntly: I'm happy if my website is useful to them, too. If someone tells me how and it's not much extra effort, I may do a bit of additional markup or such to make that easier. But I'm not going to change the layout or basic functionality for a minority - any minority, really.
Why is providing a version of the page that has no Javascript, and just includes text, links, and possibly form elements something that people seem to think is unreasonable?
Because for some of the stuff I do, your request would mean to major rewrite, basically a second website. I don't have time nor inclination for that.
Why is it so hard to accept that if you have a disability, some things in life are impossible? A blind person can never get the same satisfaction from a painting or a movie as a seing one does, just like someone without legs won't make a career in mountain climbing.
I'm all for not making it intentionally difficult, but I'm strongly opposed to putting the burden of disabled people on the non-disabled population. I certainly feel sorry for everyone who is disable. But I'm not the one who has to work extra because you are blind.
It's you who is changing the label.
*surprised look*
Aren't you the one who is claiming that if certain things happen, something "automatically" becomes something else?
In politics, as in mathematics, you need logic to vet your definitions; definitions that are inconsistent with existing usage or are simply logically inconsistent need to be rejected. The definition you imagine for "democracy" is both.
That isn't logic, it is semantic. So we agree, except on terms. Logic does not rest on common understanding. The logic behind the excluded third, or mathematical results is not subject to context and interpretation. "1+1 = 2" is not a matter of culture. But our understanding of Democracy is. You can not define "Democracy" mathematically, with a precise formula. Its meaning changes over time and with context. For example, the Athenian Democracy only had voting rights for a small part of the population. We wouldn't even consider it a democracy today. And remind me, when did blacks get to vote in the USA? Was it non-democratic before that date, or was it merely that the meaning of democracy had changed over time, and the political system was a little behind?
You don't need a "higher authority" to place limits on what people can vote on, there are intrinsic limits if you want a consistent and complete definition.
Where do you take those "intrinsic limits" from, if not from a higher authority? Please tell.
You need to think that through, not me. You're not responding to what I said.
I think I aim. You claim that if we restrict who can vote, we are not living in a democracy. I am pointing out that we are restricting who can vote. Now make up your mind, because one of your two assumptions has to go: Either some restrictions are ok, or we are not currently living in a democracy. It's one or the other.
So? You sound as if there were a natural right to run a pub. Me, I tend to think that if your business rests on people ruining their own and/or other peoples health, then you are running an unethical business. And if such a business goes down then good riddance.
How hard is it to use HTML and CSS the way they were meant to be used, and to provide alternative content? Sorry, not buying this one at all.
Kid, I started doing this HTML stuff when there was no such thing as CSS, and HTML pages were built in a text editor and optimized for 14k modem connections.
Yes, in those times it was easy, since the content was largely linear.
Today, I have tabbed websites which exchange the content of their tabs on-demand through AJAX calls. I have no friggin idea what a screenreader will do with that, and if they all behave the same way. Yes, I could find out. No, I don't see it as my responsibility to do so. How about making it, you know, your screen readers job to translate whatever I throw at him nicely, as long as it is standard-compliant HTML?
First, if "the people" vote to deprive some subset of "the people" of their ability to participate in the democracy, then, after the vote, "the people" aren't voting anymore and the democracy automatically ceases to be a democracy.
Think that through. It means that there has never been a democracy on this planet. There is not one nation where really everyone can vote. True, the subset increases over time, but it is always a subset. Right now, for example, we exclude people under a certain age (18 mostly) with pretty much the same sense of that being perfectly ok than our ancestors had for not allowing, say, women to vote.
Second, democracies need ground rules by which they operate. They are agreed on ahead of time in a constitution, and need to be obeyed afterwards. If people vote to violate those ground rules, the form of government automatically becomes an anarchy and hence ceases to be a democracy.
A constitution is not an eternal document set in stone. It can and should adapt to changing circumstances. The rules themselves are subject to change, including the rules on how to change the rules. Personally, I think nobody should be allowed into politics who hasn't played some Nomic.
And again, you are putting yourself above the people if you judge what their government is or "automatically becomes". That last part is especially nonsensical. "Democracy" and "Anarchy" are simply words. That's what we call it, but that's not what it is. The beauty is that different people can call the same thing by different things. So what you call Anarchy is someone else's Democracy. Who is to judge who of you two is right?
Third, as a practical matter, democracies are subject to external forces.
Absolutely. But we weren't discussing the vote to make pi equal 3.0 or any such nonsense. We agree entirely that reality and the laws of physics are not democractic.
So, "the people" can vote whatever they like, but certain votes are either logically inconsistent with democracy (i.e., after the vote, democracy ceases to exist), or they terminate your democracy due to external forces. "Right" or "wrong" has nothing to do with it, it's a question of logic.
Actually, much of politics is a question of semantics, not logic. "Democracy" is a label. You can change the label, if you like, but it doesn't change the thing. And vice versa. So the question is one of applicability. Since there is no singular, universal definition of "Democracy", you have a grey area where some would say the label still applies, while others say it doesn't. Which means that in real life, it is highly unlikely that a single vote would turn a democracy into something else. Heck, we even have historic examples. The Weimar Republic did not turn into the 3rd Reich over night. It was a quick change, but it still took several years and there is no singular point where everything changed, because all the steps are interconnected.
As for the matter at hand, Palestinian blasphemy laws are inconsistent with democracy since they deprive non-Muslim citizens of their political rights.
Where can I read a list of those "rights"? That's the point I'm making here. Either, the people are autonomous, in which case they define that list for themselves, or they are not, in which case you need a higher authority to point to. It seems to me:
In addition, they are also inconsistent with international law and human rights.
That your higher authority is this. Which is ok with me as long as you are clear that it means no people are really autonomous, because they are all subject to this higher authority (or explain why some are, and some aren't).
Frankly, I've got a LOT of politicians in mind that I'd happily vote off the planet!!
Bullets are cheaper than rockets, and achieve the same goal. It's not as if any of the politicians would be good for anything once they'd arrived.