What work are they supposed to do on these laptops if you don't invest in their software development businesses? Laptops are useless when people don't have jobs. Also, the cheap laptops are useless if people have no work to do on them. So please tell me again why it is a good idea to just throw money at a problem?
The solution is for Google to create an operating system based on Linux, hire programmers in Africa, give away free laptops and kits, and open up an office where programmers can connect to the net through wifi and actually upload their code. This way when Google wants to update their software, or donate new code as they claim to be doing, they can actually do so cheaply. You could hire 1000 African programmers for the price of 100 American programmers. Google could literally pay African programmers to write open source code. Google could also pay African programmers to write and create PC games for Linux, we all have a shortage of PC games, mainly because it takes a lot of programmer labor to create them, but if Japan can create a video game industry I don't think it would be too difficult to start one in Africa. Second, it is a myth that everyone in Africa is living in a village, or that people in Africa all want to be farmers. It's mainly a situation of chicken and egg, no one wants to invest any money in African software businesses, even Google wont invest.
Laptops are a good idea, AFTER people recieve training and investment, otherwise these people in Africa can use donated computers. Ultimately the hardware isnt the problem, and the labor isnt the problem, its the fact that no one wants to trade.
What is the point of Google even bothering with "micro"finance when they have billions and billions of dollars to just start the first venture capital company to do it properly? Not to mention they can give huge grants. Sure microfinance is good, but do we need a giant company like Google doing what you and I could be doing? Google would be doing more if they invested in businesses in the united states, we have plenty of people living in poverty here, not to mention we have plenty of people living in poverty in south america. The last thing we need is to see them waste money on projects which ultimately will accomplish what? more useless garbage that no one wants to buy and that there is no market for? commodities? There must be something more profitable than this. And I don't think it is wise to give the food industry to Africa where labor standards arent even established, or to South America. To me this just seems pointless, because the most profitable jobs are actually the intellectual programming jobs, or the high tech jobs, and Google is a high tech company, so why play games? Why not just bring Google? Or pay people to write open source software?
As much as I like the goal, I think the means of changing the world as I see currently on their website, is just a complete waste of time. What good is giving food and water if you don't bring high paying jobs? What good are farmers when no one in America wants to buy African food? If Google wants to change the world, Google would bring a Google office to Africa. Google would start a venture capital company, and invest in small software development firms from the third world, and then buy them out when they become profitable. Google could EASILY help.
The problem is, charity dedicated to food and water will not help much. Africa and South America has better and more food than we do, the climate is better there, they have less pollution there. I don't think food is the problem. The problem is no one wants to actually trade with people in these countries, maybe due to bias, maybe due to the fact that it is a chicken and egg situation where if there are no businesses there which make millions of dollars there can be no consumers there.
Google, if you actually care, start up an investment company. Invest in businesses which actually have a chance at being million or billion dollar companies, and for christ sake invest in something other than food and water. If you are just going to invest in a welfare system then you will not have my support, because this is no different from slavery.
If Google wants to make an impact they need to give people jobs, and in order to give jobs you have to give money to people who want to create them. Africa has more labor than jobs, and more ideas than money. The solution should be simply, give money to businesses, give grants, give loans, or just train people to run Google style businesses and give connections. The one thing you should not give is just the basics. This would be like going to the poorest communities in America and building prisons, or giving out free food to the homeless, its good on the surface but its just welfare, and it won't solve anything long term.
5 million dollars in Africa would go a LONG LONG way considering the economy there, this amount of money would be enough to start a software development company of thousands of workers, hundreds of programmers, etc which can then make millions back. They should just expand their business into the third world, offer Google, and Google jobs, train people through this process, and then through the same process that works in America, let the people with the best ideas start businesses from within Google or from outside of Google through investment. Otherwise this is no different than the Gates foundation, it looks nice, but its not going to solve poverty.
All they have to do is start a venture capital company, then go to a poor continent like Africa, or even South America, and simply invest.
I don't think charity will change anything because ultimately charity is a waste of money. If Google wants to change the world, they need to start a venture capital company, one for Africa, one for South America, and then simply invest. It is not difficult to solve these problems. There are countries in Africa and South America with stable governments. Giving food and water to the sick countries is not going to help because all the smart people will simply come to up to North America or to the richer parts of Africa. Ultimately the solution is investment.
This is like telling someone "Don't give them a pencil and paper until they can multiply in their heads!" I'm sure this is what our math teachers tried to tell us, and now that we grew up cheating with pen and paper, we want to tell our kids not to use calculators of their day?
I think if the calculator can get them to actually do the math, and the slide rule makes them hate math, go with the calculator. If they actually like calculating stuff in their head, then go with the slide rule or better yet, teach them to be a math savant who can figure out pi in their head and multiple 34340034*2343454 in their head without pen and paper.
Once you get them a nice high powered calculator, buy them the best math book you can find. Then tell them to practice every problem in the math book, when they complete the job, pay them an allowance or in video games, and repeat. Continue this process until they get to calculus, and then buy them a computer with open office so they can learn to write.
What you do NOT want to do, is try to teach using the old fashioned tools of the past. USE the technology as an advantage and not a crutch, its all in how you view it. Do not buy them a cellphone until they learn the calculus and can write a thesis on why they need a cellphone and the impact it will have on their life strategy. When you do get them a cellphone, hopefully they'll know to use it for business and pleasure, and not just use it to chat about stupid stuff.
Set the tone, show them the right way to use the technology, show them how technology = profits. Show them how technology = better grades. Show them technology = success.
Why is it that people only care about morality on the Google China issue? We have this policy of corporations only acting out of profits, ok fine, EXCEPT in China?
Why is China the exception to the rule? Morality does not matter unless it's China? Human rights do not matter unless its China? It's as if we spend more time worrying about the human rights of the Chinese than our own. Please explain to me why the human rights issue in China is so important to us?
Are you talking about capitalism 2.0?
Sure, it might be the job of corporations to protect human rights, the constitutions, and to defend the world from global warming, but seriously do we expect every corporation to follow this agenda? Most corporations right now just want to make a buck. So while I agree that corporations SHOULD be responsible, it does not mean they are required to.
By simply hiring Chinese workers. Google can help Africa by hiring African workers. Just creating jobs helps people, and if Google pays workers high paying salaries, that alone is good. This takes time however, Google cannot be expected to change the world overnight.
Sure, censorship could be considered evil, but lets be sane here. Google is being evil because they do business in China? Lots of businesses do the same thing, name one search engine in China that is not doing this. I'm not saying its right, but I'm not saying Google is declared evil overnight over this.
I think this is a political issue, I think this is about politics. Google is not a political organization, they are a corporation. Google of course is going to put profits before politics, what company doesnt do this? Napster? Kazaa? Do you actually think Google is powerful enough to go up against the Chinese government? I think it's a bit insane to expect that.
I think this political debate is also way too early, in 10, or 15 years when Google actually is powerful enough to take on the Chinese government, thats when you should have this debate. When we are using wifi Google internet access for free, and Google is literally everywhere, that is when Google can take on the Chinese government, and even then they'd do so with limited success.
Ultimately, if the Chinese people, or in specific the Chinese government, does not want Google to do certain things, and makes it illegal, there is nothing Google can do about it, just like Google cannot decide to let people share copyrighted mp3s, or put up their digital library in America. There are a lot of censorship issues, and Google is making plenty of enemies here in America, so if Google decides not to make enemies in China, I think the shareholders can understand.
If you were CEO of Google, and you already have just about every publisher, media exec, Bill Gates, and all these people in America pissed off at you, would you seriously go and piss off China so your competition can take advantage? As I see it, as a business decision, Google is doing what is in Googles best interest. I don't think we can debate that it was a wise business move, politics aside.
Do you really think that a letter to foreign companies, or an occassional rally, is going to change the policies of the Chinese government? I don't think ANYTHING will change the policies of the Chinese governments. There is no democracy at all in China, it is not a Republic like America where at least we have a constitution, China as far as I know has no constitution. There is nothing at all that a Chinese worker can do in China to influence policy except work hard, get rich, move to America, and pressure China from within Google. If these people want to influence Googles policies, or free China, they'd be better off working with Google from within Googles offices than trying to send a letter to Google. They would be better off building the next freenet, or doing something useful and constructive with their time than sending a letter to business owners.
Seriously, this is silly. If someone wants to fight Global warming do you think the best way to do it would be to send a letter to the tabacco and oil companies? Do you really think that Phillip Morris or any of these company execs will even read such a letter? Do you actually think Google will even care about this? This actually gives Google ammo, because now Google can use this letter to frame the debate, and use their high powered lawyers and scientists to pick it apart.
Because anyone with common sense can see that Google is being scapegoated here. Sure if you don't like Google, you can boycott Google, but why pick Google out, from all of the American companies in China who work with the Chinese government, including Yahoo, Microsoft, and others? This looks so much like politics that if Google were to actually go on CNN or worse, go to the liberal media, this situation could be blown up into something which in my opinion is not in anyones best interest.
If censorship is a problem, the solution is for Google to develop anti censorship technology, and make all searches completely annonymous for everyone. Otherwise, I don't see the point. Even with better technology there is nothing Google can do to fight censorship. The fact that Google is offering access to all the current information they offer access to is actually fighting censorship in a way, but if the government says to Google that they must either censor something or go to jail there is not much they can do in any country.
Why blame Google for China's censorship? That is the most rediculously tactic I've seen. Google is an American company, and these students think it's Googles job to protest the Chinese government? Why don't these same students protest the Chinese government themselves?
I understand that censorship is bad, but this tactic actually makes Google look like the good guy when its being made into politics. If they don't like Googles censorship, they can use Yahoo, or Microsofts search engine, or even better they can use the Chinese governments search engine.
Seriously, there is not a country on earth without some form of censorship. If we were discussing intellectual property and Google allowing file sharing would you then be for censorship?
Google is doing what is profitable, just as Google respects intellectual property as censorship in America, they respect China's censorship. If they decide not to respect either government they'd quickly end up like Napster.
Currently, Universities run the libraries, not the government. You can either go to a book store like Barnes and Noble, or you can go to a University library. There are public libraries but there are not run by the federal government, they are run by the state and local government.
Just because the US goverment is the most corrupt in the world, doesn't mean that it doesn't work fine in other countries.
Just to correct this statement. That is not how the world actually works. It's actually a bit more simple, America IS the world, and controls every government in the world, because all governments are connected. If you think that your government, most likely somewhere in Europe, is not sitting down and shaking hands with people from our government, you are wrong. Unless you are in North Korea, Russia, China, then you most likely are an American and don't know it yet.
I think small government is a good thing. I think regulation usually ends up reducing freedom. If we look at the internet, the more regulation you have the less free it is. I accept that we DO need government, because anarchy simply does not exist and if there were no government people would form clans and tribes. Ultimately there always will be a form of government.
The debate is, should the FEDERAL government own the internet. This is the debate, should the United States Federal Government own and control the internet and all the information on it. If we use the roads metaphor, we libertarian minded folks are worried about over regulation of the public roads. If there is going to be a private internet, that is fine, I think corporations should have the ability to create private internets and charge extra. I'm concerned about the public internet.
The way we should be framing this debate, is, how can we maximize freedom, profitability, and integrity of technology. I think most of us all agree that a free internet is a profitable internet, and having technology of high integrity maintains this. I agree, the internet is a road, but how do we debate this to groups of people who see the internet as something else?
To regulate the internet is to regulate the library. Sure we can have a private internet, but to regulate the public internet is no different than regulating public libraries. The internet is all about information, nothing more nothing less. The internet is most profitable when it is filled with diverse information. How are we supposed to tell China to be a free and open society if we close and restrict the internet?
If the internet werent so free, and filled with information, people would not spend so much time on it. In the real world, no library or public place has this much information. In the real world there are thousands of laws. In the real world it is much more difficult to organize hundreds of people into one place and get them to socialize.
This is the correct way to deal with it. You are right, there are ways to intellectually fight bullies. Bullies can only bully you when they have the advantage, either politically, economically, physically, etc. The only way to deal with a bully is to use your advantages against theirs. If the bully is not smarter than you, then all their advantages will be worthless.
If you work with a bully and they arent your boss, then you are equals. It's you against them. It does make perfect sense to take on the bully first because its your job to control the environment in which you work, and if you don't want to work with an asshole you shouldnt quit your job.
Ultimately, bullying is about power, if you don't want to be bullied, then you need access to power. This does not need to be physical power, you may have legal power, you may have intelligence power, any kind of power is all you need to counter a bully.
Absolutely nothing is wrong with being self reliant. In reality you can only rely on yourself anyway.
You should have the ability to cooperate with others, but you should not rely on others. This is a good thing because without this, people would not be motivated to start businesses. Most people start businesses because they don't want to rely on their boss to give them a paycheck. Maybe they don't want a boss at all. I don't think everyone has to be either a bully or a coward, I think a lot of people bypass that entire system and start a business. You look at Bill Gates, and he looks like he'd have been bullied in school, now he is the richest man in the world. You look at most of the CEO's in the tech industry and none of them look like they were tough in school, and now they have billions of dollars.
Bullying can help or harm a person depending on how they adapt to the experience. You have adapted by becoming jaded, and I admit I can understand why you see the world in that way, but you have to understand that there are nice people, that good people can and do exist even if they are rare.
Certain traits are just rare, honesty is rare, loyalty is rare, then you have traits which arent so rare, like intelligence and good looks. Most people hire on intelligence and good looks, and end up with manipulative jerks who all want money. Try hiring on a different set of personality traits if you run a business. If you don't run a business, then contribute your labor to a business which has people who are good people in them. There are plenty of businesses filled with good people, or with people who want to do good work. Money is not going to attract people to certain businesses, but the job might be better because you might not be surrounded by greedy manipulative people. It's your choice.
People respond to bullying in different ways. One way is to run and tell the teacher, the other way is to fight back and get beat up. I think there are Democrats and Republicans who like big government and use the government as a teacher, and you have people who may fight back in either party, or who are independents.
So that is a difficult question. Civil Liberties, you'd think that if the government is big and powerful enough that everyone, bullies included would lose civil liberties, but I suppose they'd also be the first to fight to keep them.
Not only what you do, but where you live, how much money you are born with, and who you know. Everything influences when you die, even being born in the wrong place and knowing the wrong people. It's not as simple as just not smoking. Plenty of people die and never smoked. Plenty of people die because they don't have access to healthy food, so its not how much you eat, its what you eat. Plenty of people die because they simply have the wrong friends. The point is, as long as we continue to make the world more dangerous by creating new ways for people to die, then eventually it will apply to every human on earth. Do you honestly think that anyone is immune to death and that there are perfect people on this earth who make no mistakes? Even if you are born rich, with all the luck in the world, you might still drink bad water, breathe bad air, and eat bad food, and you'll get diseases just like everyone else.
Everyone has something to hide. If you have any patent you are working on, and its on your computer, you can be sure that someone or some company will hack your computer and steal your patent.
Intellectual property is more difficult to protect now than ever.
Slashdot Mirror
What work are they supposed to do on these laptops if you don't invest in their software development businesses? Laptops are useless when people don't have jobs. Also, the cheap laptops are useless if people have no work to do on them. So please tell me again why it is a good idea to just throw money at a problem?
The solution is for Google to create an operating system based on Linux, hire programmers in Africa, give away free laptops and kits, and open up an office where programmers can connect to the net through wifi and actually upload their code. This way when Google wants to update their software, or donate new code as they claim to be doing, they can actually do so cheaply. You could hire 1000 African programmers for the price of 100 American programmers. Google could literally pay African programmers to write open source code. Google could also pay African programmers to write and create PC games for Linux, we all have a shortage of PC games, mainly because it takes a lot of programmer labor to create them, but if Japan can create a video game industry I don't think it would be too difficult to start one in Africa. Second, it is a myth that everyone in Africa is living in a village, or that people in Africa all want to be farmers. It's mainly a situation of chicken and egg, no one wants to invest any money in African software businesses, even Google wont invest.
Laptops are a good idea, AFTER people recieve training and investment, otherwise these people in Africa can use donated computers. Ultimately the hardware isnt the problem, and the labor isnt the problem, its the fact that no one wants to trade.
What is the point of Google even bothering with "micro"finance when they have billions and billions of dollars to just start the first venture capital company to do it properly? Not to mention they can give huge grants. Sure microfinance is good, but do we need a giant company like Google doing what you and I could be doing? Google would be doing more if they invested in businesses in the united states, we have plenty of people living in poverty here, not to mention we have plenty of people living in poverty in south america. The last thing we need is to see them waste money on projects which ultimately will accomplish what? more useless garbage that no one wants to buy and that there is no market for? commodities? There must be something more profitable than this. And I don't think it is wise to give the food industry to Africa where labor standards arent even established, or to South America. To me this just seems pointless, because the most profitable jobs are actually the intellectual programming jobs, or the high tech jobs, and Google is a high tech company, so why play games? Why not just bring Google? Or pay people to write open source software?
As much as I like the goal, I think the means of changing the world as I see currently on their website, is just a complete waste of time. What good is giving food and water if you don't bring high paying jobs? What good are farmers when no one in America wants to buy African food? If Google wants to change the world, Google would bring a Google office to Africa. Google would start a venture capital company, and invest in small software development firms from the third world, and then buy them out when they become profitable. Google could EASILY help.
The problem is, charity dedicated to food and water will not help much. Africa and South America has better and more food than we do, the climate is better there, they have less pollution there. I don't think food is the problem. The problem is no one wants to actually trade with people in these countries, maybe due to bias, maybe due to the fact that it is a chicken and egg situation where if there are no businesses there which make millions of dollars there can be no consumers there.
Google, if you actually care, start up an investment company. Invest in businesses which actually have a chance at being million or billion dollar companies, and for christ sake invest in something other than food and water. If you are just going to invest in a welfare system then you will not have my support, because this is no different from slavery.
If Google wants to make an impact they need to give people jobs, and in order to give jobs you have to give money to people who want to create them. Africa has more labor than jobs, and more ideas than money. The solution should be simply, give money to businesses, give grants, give loans, or just train people to run Google style businesses and give connections. The one thing you should not give is just the basics. This would be like going to the poorest communities in America and building prisons, or giving out free food to the homeless, its good on the surface but its just welfare, and it won't solve anything long term.
5 million dollars in Africa would go a LONG LONG way considering the economy there, this amount of money would be enough to start a software development company of thousands of workers, hundreds of programmers, etc which can then make millions back. They should just expand their business into the third world, offer Google, and Google jobs, train people through this process, and then through the same process that works in America, let the people with the best ideas start businesses from within Google or from outside of Google through investment. Otherwise this is no different than the Gates foundation, it looks nice, but its not going to solve poverty.
All they have to do is start a venture capital company, then go to a poor continent like Africa, or even South America, and simply invest.
I don't think charity will change anything because ultimately charity is a waste of money. If Google wants to change the world, they need to start a venture capital company, one for Africa, one for South America, and then simply invest. It is not difficult to solve these problems. There are countries in Africa and South America with stable governments. Giving food and water to the sick countries is not going to help because all the smart people will simply come to up to North America or to the richer parts of Africa. Ultimately the solution is investment.
This is like telling someone "Don't give them a pencil and paper until they can multiply in their heads!" I'm sure this is what our math teachers tried to tell us, and now that we grew up cheating with pen and paper, we want to tell our kids not to use calculators of their day?
I think if the calculator can get them to actually do the math, and the slide rule makes them hate math, go with the calculator. If they actually like calculating stuff in their head, then go with the slide rule or better yet, teach them to be a math savant who can figure out pi in their head and multiple 34340034*2343454 in their head without pen and paper.
Once you get them a nice high powered calculator, buy them the best math book you can find. Then tell them to practice every problem in the math book, when they complete the job, pay them an allowance or in video games, and repeat. Continue this process until they get to calculus, and then buy them a computer with open office so they can learn to write.
What you do NOT want to do, is try to teach using the old fashioned tools of the past. USE the technology as an advantage and not a crutch, its all in how you view it. Do not buy them a cellphone until they learn the calculus and can write a thesis on why they need a cellphone and the impact it will have on their life strategy. When you do get them a cellphone, hopefully they'll know to use it for business and pleasure, and not just use it to chat about stupid stuff.
Set the tone, show them the right way to use the technology, show them how technology = profits. Show them how technology = better grades. Show them technology = success.
Why is it that people only care about morality on the Google China issue? We have this policy of corporations only acting out of profits, ok fine, EXCEPT in China?
Why is China the exception to the rule? Morality does not matter unless it's China? Human rights do not matter unless its China? It's as if we spend more time worrying about the human rights of the Chinese than our own. Please explain to me why the human rights issue in China is so important to us?
Are you talking about capitalism 2.0? Sure, it might be the job of corporations to protect human rights, the constitutions, and to defend the world from global warming, but seriously do we expect every corporation to follow this agenda? Most corporations right now just want to make a buck. So while I agree that corporations SHOULD be responsible, it does not mean they are required to.
By simply hiring Chinese workers. Google can help Africa by hiring African workers. Just creating jobs helps people, and if Google pays workers high paying salaries, that alone is good. This takes time however, Google cannot be expected to change the world overnight.
Sure, censorship could be considered evil, but lets be sane here.
Google is being evil because they do business in China? Lots of businesses do the same thing, name one search engine in China that is not doing this. I'm not saying its right, but I'm not saying Google is declared evil overnight over this.
I think this is a political issue, I think this is about politics. Google is not a political organization, they are a corporation. Google of course is going to put profits before politics, what company doesnt do this? Napster? Kazaa? Do you actually think Google is powerful enough to go up against the Chinese government? I think it's a bit insane to expect that.
I think this political debate is also way too early, in 10, or 15 years when Google actually is powerful enough to take on the Chinese government, thats when you should have this debate. When we are using wifi Google internet access for free, and Google is literally everywhere, that is when Google can take on the Chinese government, and even then they'd do so with limited success.
Ultimately, if the Chinese people, or in specific the Chinese government, does not want Google to do certain things, and makes it illegal, there is nothing Google can do about it, just like Google cannot decide to let people share copyrighted mp3s, or put up their digital library in America. There are a lot of censorship issues, and Google is making plenty of enemies here in America, so if Google decides not to make enemies in China, I think the shareholders can understand.
If you were CEO of Google, and you already have just about every publisher, media exec, Bill Gates, and all these people in America pissed off at you, would you seriously go and piss off China so your competition can take advantage? As I see it, as a business decision, Google is doing what is in Googles best interest. I don't think we can debate that it was a wise business move, politics aside.
Do you really think that a letter to foreign companies, or an occassional rally, is going to change the policies of the Chinese government? I don't think ANYTHING will change the policies of the Chinese governments. There is no democracy at all in China, it is not a Republic like America where at least we have a constitution, China as far as I know has no constitution. There is nothing at all that a Chinese worker can do in China to influence policy except work hard, get rich, move to America, and pressure China from within Google. If these people want to influence Googles policies, or free China, they'd be better off working with Google from within Googles offices than trying to send a letter to Google. They would be better off building the next freenet, or doing something useful and constructive with their time than sending a letter to business owners.
Seriously, this is silly. If someone wants to fight Global warming do you think the best way to do it would be to send a letter to the tabacco and oil companies? Do you really think that Phillip Morris or any of these company execs will even read such a letter? Do you actually think Google will even care about this? This actually gives Google ammo, because now Google can use this letter to frame the debate, and use their high powered lawyers and scientists to pick it apart.
Because anyone with common sense can see that Google is being scapegoated here. Sure if you don't like Google, you can boycott Google, but why pick Google out, from all of the American companies in China who work with the Chinese government, including Yahoo, Microsoft, and others? This looks so much like politics that if Google were to actually go on CNN or worse, go to the liberal media, this situation could be blown up into something which in my opinion is not in anyones best interest.
If censorship is a problem, the solution is for Google to develop anti censorship technology, and make all searches completely annonymous for everyone. Otherwise, I don't see the point. Even with better technology there is nothing Google can do to fight censorship. The fact that Google is offering access to all the current information they offer access to is actually fighting censorship in a way, but if the government says to Google that they must either censor something or go to jail there is not much they can do in any country.
Why blame Google for China's censorship? That is the most rediculously tactic I've seen. Google is an American company, and these students think it's Googles job to protest the Chinese government? Why don't these same students protest the Chinese government themselves?
I understand that censorship is bad, but this tactic actually makes Google look like the good guy when its being made into politics. If they don't like Googles censorship, they can use Yahoo, or Microsofts search engine, or even better they can use the Chinese governments search engine.
PS3 is looking more and more like the Sega Saturn.
Seriously, there is not a country on earth without some form of censorship. If we were discussing intellectual property and Google allowing file sharing would you then be for censorship?
Google is doing what is profitable, just as Google respects intellectual property as censorship in America, they respect China's censorship. If they decide not to respect either government they'd quickly end up like Napster.
Currently, Universities run the libraries, not the government. You can either go to a book store like Barnes and Noble, or you can go to a University library. There are public libraries but there are not run by the federal government, they are run by the state and local government.
Just because the US goverment is the most corrupt in the world, doesn't mean that it doesn't work fine in other countries.
Just to correct this statement. That is not how the world actually works. It's actually a bit more simple, America IS the world, and controls every government in the world, because all governments are connected. If you think that your government, most likely somewhere in Europe, is not sitting down and shaking hands with people from our government, you are wrong. Unless you are in North Korea, Russia, China, then you most likely are an American and don't know it yet.
I think small government is a good thing. I think regulation usually ends up reducing freedom. If we look at the internet, the more regulation you have the less free it is. I accept that we DO need government, because anarchy simply does not exist and if there were no government people would form clans and tribes. Ultimately there always will be a form of government.
The debate is, should the FEDERAL government own the internet. This is the debate, should the United States Federal Government own and control the internet and all the information on it. If we use the roads metaphor, we libertarian minded folks are worried about over regulation of the public roads. If there is going to be a private internet, that is fine, I think corporations should have the ability to create private internets and charge extra. I'm concerned about the public internet.
The way we should be framing this debate, is, how can we maximize freedom, profitability, and integrity of technology. I think most of us all agree that a free internet is a profitable internet, and having technology of high integrity maintains this. I agree, the internet is a road, but how do we debate this to groups of people who see the internet as something else?
To regulate the internet is to regulate the library. Sure we can have a private internet, but to regulate the public internet is no different than regulating public libraries. The internet is all about information, nothing more nothing less. The internet is most profitable when it is filled with diverse information. How are we supposed to tell China to be a free and open society if we close and restrict the internet?
If the internet werent so free, and filled with information, people would not spend so much time on it. In the real world, no library or public place has this much information. In the real world there are thousands of laws. In the real world it is much more difficult to organize hundreds of people into one place and get them to socialize.
Ethics only matter when we are dealing with internet companies. Any other company or industry and we arent having this debate.
Ethics may be important, but if you want ethical capitalism you have to make ethics profitable.
This is the correct way to deal with it. You are right, there are ways to intellectually fight bullies. Bullies can only bully you when they have the advantage, either politically, economically, physically, etc. The only way to deal with a bully is to use your advantages against theirs. If the bully is not smarter than you, then all their advantages will be worthless.
If you work with a bully and they arent your boss, then you are equals. It's you against them. It does make perfect sense to take on the bully first because its your job to control the environment in which you work, and if you don't want to work with an asshole you shouldnt quit your job.
Ultimately, bullying is about power, if you don't want to be bullied, then you need access to power. This does not need to be physical power, you may have legal power, you may have intelligence power, any kind of power is all you need to counter a bully.
Absolutely nothing is wrong with being self reliant. In reality you can only rely on yourself anyway.
You should have the ability to cooperate with others, but you should not rely on others. This is a good thing because without this, people would not be motivated to start businesses. Most people start businesses because they don't want to rely on their boss to give them a paycheck. Maybe they don't want a boss at all. I don't think everyone has to be either a bully or a coward, I think a lot of people bypass that entire system and start a business. You look at Bill Gates, and he looks like he'd have been bullied in school, now he is the richest man in the world. You look at most of the CEO's in the tech industry and none of them look like they were tough in school, and now they have billions of dollars.
Bullying can help or harm a person depending on how they adapt to the experience. You have adapted by becoming jaded, and I admit I can understand why you see the world in that way, but you have to understand that there are nice people, that good people can and do exist even if they are rare.
Certain traits are just rare, honesty is rare, loyalty is rare, then you have traits which arent so rare, like intelligence and good looks. Most people hire on intelligence and good looks, and end up with manipulative jerks who all want money. Try hiring on a different set of personality traits if you run a business. If you don't run a business, then contribute your labor to a business which has people who are good people in them. There are plenty of businesses filled with good people, or with people who want to do good work. Money is not going to attract people to certain businesses, but the job might be better because you might not be surrounded by greedy manipulative people. It's your choice.
People respond to bullying in different ways. One way is to run and tell the teacher, the other way is to fight back and get beat up. I think there are Democrats and Republicans who like big government and use the government as a teacher, and you have people who may fight back in either party, or who are independents.
So that is a difficult question. Civil Liberties, you'd think that if the government is big and powerful enough that everyone, bullies included would lose civil liberties, but I suppose they'd also be the first to fight to keep them.
Not only what you do, but where you live, how much money you are born with, and who you know.
Everything influences when you die, even being born in the wrong place and knowing the wrong people. It's not as simple as just not smoking. Plenty of people die and never smoked. Plenty of people die because they don't have access to healthy food, so its not how much you eat, its what you eat. Plenty of people die because they simply have the wrong friends. The point is, as long as we continue to make the world more dangerous by creating new ways for people to die, then eventually it will apply to every human on earth. Do you honestly think that anyone is immune to death and that there are perfect people on this earth who make no mistakes? Even if you are born rich, with all the luck in the world, you might still drink bad water, breathe bad air, and eat bad food, and you'll get diseases just like everyone else.
Everyone has something to hide. If you have any patent you are working on, and its on your computer, you can be sure that someone or some company will hack your computer and steal your patent.
Intellectual property is more difficult to protect now than ever.