There is no analogy: workplaces are literally dictatorships, with a top-down hierarchy based around obeying your superiors and gaining obedience from your subordinates. Workplaces where the employees get to choose their boss are very, very rare, despite our profound commitment to exactly that process in politics.
tomhudson suggested that such an organization is democratic because, after all, you can leave if you want to. That reflects a pretty profound misunderstanding of what democracy is.
Really? You don't have a vote into whether you have to stay there? Usually, your boss has a vote on it, and you do. You want to leave, your vote overrides his. He wants to fire you, his vote overrides yours.
So a government like Franco's Spain or Mao's China could be considered democratic as long as you had the right to leave your own country or the government could throw you out?
I think you have a different idea about "democracy" than most people.
First of all, there's a huge technical challenge to what you're suggesting. Namely: how do you verify someone's identity? Considering how hard people take it when there's a mistake on their Wikipedia article, can you imagine what an uproar there'd be if a vandal was able to officially impersonate some famous person on Wikipedia?
It'd be a big deal, therefore the verification system would need to be pretty strong. That kind of system is very labor intensive and fairly bureaucratic, and not at all the kind of work you can get volunteers for, meaning it'd be expensive too. Basically, it's completely unfeasible for Wikipedia to do that - they can barely afford to keep running as is.
Secondly, you tout the "right of reply" like it's some enshrined rule of free speech that you get to write your comments on any web page that talks about you. Certainly people deserve the right to present their own subjective perspective on any matter, but there's a place for that - a separate web site.
Third-party websites play exactly the role you describe very easily, and a decent autobiographical site/will/ probably end up being referenced in a comprehensive Wikipedia article. Not as fact, of course, but as the claims of the site. This means there ends up being a citation link to a site where the subject of the article can write whatever they want, with no restrictions on verifiability or relevance. And those looking to Wikipedia for an encyclopedia rather than an autobiography can skip the link. Everybody's happy, right?
Newspapers aren't expected to cite their sources because traditionally, they take responsibility internally for fact-checking everything and backing up whatever they print with their institutional reputation.
The problem is that not having to cite sources and having the authority of a huge, trusted institution behind them has made journalists very lazy. They can write almost anything they want, and it will be taken at face value.
Wikipedia allows newspapers to be used as reliable sources because of the traditional expectation that a newspaper will be accountable for its mistake should it print something wrong. Unfortunately, it seems that this expectation is too optimistic.
First of all, chill. Nobody's stealing from Joss Wheedon on Wikipedia - synopses and frame grabs are so solidly fair use it's not even debatable. Well...maybe by the MPAA...
Secondly, Wikipedia is/very/ against infringing on the copyright of other sources. They're kind of paranoid about it, if you ask me. If you see non-fair use content that's from a copyrighted source and it upsets you (as it clearly does), just leave a note on the talk page pointing out the violation.
Keep in mind, of course, that it's possible permission for the copy has been granted. But if not, Wikipedia editors will remove it.
Consider the exploits available if simply being John Doe made you an authoritative source on the "John Doe" article. You could delete anything negative in the article and back it up with "That didn't happen, and I should know." You can claim whatever false credentials you want, and cite yourself as asserting the claim.
Treating the subject as an authoritative source on themselves may seem intuitively obvious at first glance, but it can lead to a lot of problems.
I don't want to read an article about what John Doe claims about himself (because most of it is probably boring, and some of it is probably distorted), I want an article about what reasonably reliable third parties report about him.
Well, what the spy destroyed wasn't the chain of command. Just as in real life, that's a social construct. All the member of the corporation are still where they are, with the same ships and standing orders, etc. The only difference is that the technical structure of the corporation has been severely disrupted.
It's more like if someone had completely infiltrated the computer systems of a RL corporation and secretly emptied key bank accounts, sold tons of stock, published all IP and cryto keys, and blanked all corporate databases and backups.
The physical buildings would still be there, the employees would still show up for work in the morning and look to their boss for direction, but with no payroll database and no corporate resources, things would fall apart pretty much instantly.
While it might take more than a single click to orchestrate those things, the point is it could probably be done by one infiltrator, in a rapid, automated way, given enough access.
Perhaps, but is growing/good/ pot as easy as throwing seeds out in the backyard? I mean, you can make hooch in the bathtub - you can even make it in prison. But it's not very good. For that matter, you really can grow tomatoes by throwing seeds in your back yard, but how many people do that instead of buying them for $excessive at the supermarket?
Growing good, potent cannabis takes time and effort the same way making good wine does, which means there's easily potential for corporate commoditization. Never underestimate people's willingness to buy things they don't need to.
Maybe that's why UK Indymedia quickly deleted the personal information that was posted - before the police were even aware of it.
The reason the server was seized is because Indymedia refuses to surveil its contributors to the degree the cops would like. And apparently that makes any of their hardware fair game.
Thanks for the source on the flour-throwing thing. I can't say I see flour-throwing as a particularly heinous or fanatical action, but you're right that it was endorsed by PETA.
When you say PETA endorses and funds a concept, what you're really saying is that they express a particular point of view (namely that violence against animals should be resisted by any means necessary). I'm sure you disagree with it strongly, but expressing a viewpoint is a lot different than doing violence, isn't it? Do you really want to make the claim that endorsing a disagreeable philosophy is the same as violence? That reminds me too much of the War on Terror.
There are certainly some people who work for PETA who support using violence as a political tactic. There are also people within the ACLU who support using violence to defend our constitutional rights. Neither has much to do with the organizations themselves. I think you might be cherry-picking the individual opinions of certain people in order to fit a pre-conceived notion of what an organization as a whole stands for.
Regarding your (and your link's) claim that PETA provides aid and support to the ALF and ELF, see my explanation above. To reiterate: the ALF and ELF are not organizations, they're traditions. It's like saying PETA provides aid and support to "goth". It's not possible.
Maybe certain members of PETA gave money to other people who turned out to be connected to someone who was involved in a sabotage which was claimed under the banner of ALF, but now we're getting into the witch-hunt territory that the FBI uses to spy on peace groups and freeze the assets of Muslim charities. Do you really want to be a part of that?
Consider your opinion respected though. I'm not a fan of PETA, but I'm not a fan of anti-PETA zealots either.
Sorry, I missed the part in the article you linked to where PETA claimed responsibility for flour being thrown on that person's fur coat. Just because somebody did something mean in connection with animal rights doesn't mean PETA did it.
Also, ALF is not an organization, it's a banner or concept. Sort of like "open source". It's not possible for PETA or anyone else to fund the ALF, because there's no institution to give the money to.
I hoped you would take the time to learn about those you disagree with before leveling criticisms...the way you're doing it makes you look just as rabid and ideological as PETA.
violent? Really? You're entitled to be as hostile as you like to the idea of animal rights, but PETA is about as violent as the ACLU.
Perhaps you're thinking of the ALF?
I, for one, support a more flexible policy along the lines of:
All photos which matter must have no significant alterations beyond basic cleanup and color/contrast adjustment.
However, photos of some stupid shit nobody would care about can have a bunch of unicorns or whatever pasted in there to make them more exciting.
Well, if we're working to overthrow the government, I don't see any reason why not to accept its benefits. In this context, the government is a clear enemy, and if resources can be drawn from it, that's a weakness that should be exploited. Certainly it would be a bad idea to depend on such resources, but hey, if you can get it, why not take it?
If your government is at war with you, questions of whether it's ethical to accept its "handouts" become pretty trivial.
Right, work to overthrow the government. That's like, one of the most important concepts outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and when a government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
That's something many "lefist/liberals" are talking about these days, because our government is clearly bought and paid for, even with "friends" like Obama in office.
Loyalty, yes. But loyalty to a nation or an institution is for the weak-minded. Instead be loyal to principles and ideals. Because while it may seem to you that nationalism built the world, in fact it was built by those who were loyal to ideals and principles, sometimes in cooperation and sometimes in direct conflict with their nations.
I'm not denying anything, just looking for further information on the claim that a non-insignificant number of vegetarians get hospitalized each year due to lack of protein. So far I have to say I'm not impressed.
Fair enough. In that case I believe totally in mind control. In fact, there seems to be some kind of conspiracy to inject mind control images and sound into my television programming every 5-10 minutes, which try to convince me that I must consume products in order to avoid misery.
So, so far the answer to the question "how many vegetarians get admitted to the hospital each year because they don't take in enough protein and eventually become malnourished?" seems to be: A baby one time, only it was vegan not vegetarian.
Actually, it occurred to me that a good source for these kind of statistics would be vegetarians who went on hunger strike (there have been hunger strike campaigns for human rights and anti-war causes recently). They would certainly technically end up in the hospital because of lack of protein...maybe that could help y'all spin the facts to support your claim?
On one hand I feel the need to explain to you that there is no unified front of communist environmentalist hippy liberals who are all out to screw up whatever you support. On the other other, I realize that holding such mistaken and backwards beliefs is probably one of your biggest weaknesses when it comes to influencing society, so why not let it be?
Slashdot Mirror
There is no analogy: workplaces are literally dictatorships, with a top-down hierarchy based around obeying your superiors and gaining obedience from your subordinates. Workplaces where the employees get to choose their boss are very, very rare, despite our profound commitment to exactly that process in politics.
tomhudson suggested that such an organization is democratic because, after all, you can leave if you want to. That reflects a pretty profound misunderstanding of what democracy is.
Really? You don't have a vote into whether you have to stay there? Usually, your boss has a vote on it, and you do. You want to leave, your vote overrides his. He wants to fire you, his vote overrides yours.
So a government like Franco's Spain or Mao's China could be considered democratic as long as you had the right to leave your own country or the government could throw you out?
I think you have a different idea about "democracy" than most people.
First of all, there's a huge technical challenge to what you're suggesting. Namely: how do you verify someone's identity? Considering how hard people take it when there's a mistake on their Wikipedia article, can you imagine what an uproar there'd be if a vandal was able to officially impersonate some famous person on Wikipedia?
/will/ probably end up being referenced in a comprehensive Wikipedia article. Not as fact, of course, but as the claims of the site. This means there ends up being a citation link to a site where the subject of the article can write whatever they want, with no restrictions on verifiability or relevance. And those looking to Wikipedia for an encyclopedia rather than an autobiography can skip the link. Everybody's happy, right?
It'd be a big deal, therefore the verification system would need to be pretty strong. That kind of system is very labor intensive and fairly bureaucratic, and not at all the kind of work you can get volunteers for, meaning it'd be expensive too. Basically, it's completely unfeasible for Wikipedia to do that - they can barely afford to keep running as is.
Secondly, you tout the "right of reply" like it's some enshrined rule of free speech that you get to write your comments on any web page that talks about you. Certainly people deserve the right to present their own subjective perspective on any matter, but there's a place for that - a separate web site.
Third-party websites play exactly the role you describe very easily, and a decent autobiographical site
Newspapers aren't expected to cite their sources because traditionally, they take responsibility internally for fact-checking everything and backing up whatever they print with their institutional reputation.
The problem is that not having to cite sources and having the authority of a huge, trusted institution behind them has made journalists very lazy. They can write almost anything they want, and it will be taken at face value.
Wikipedia allows newspapers to be used as reliable sources because of the traditional expectation that a newspaper will be accountable for its mistake should it print something wrong. Unfortunately, it seems that this expectation is too optimistic.
First of all, chill. Nobody's stealing from Joss Wheedon on Wikipedia - synopses and frame grabs are so solidly fair use it's not even debatable. Well...maybe by the MPAA...
/very/ against infringing on the copyright of other sources. They're kind of paranoid about it, if you ask me. If you see non-fair use content that's from a copyrighted source and it upsets you (as it clearly does), just leave a note on the talk page pointing out the violation.
Secondly, Wikipedia is
Keep in mind, of course, that it's possible permission for the copy has been granted. But if not, Wikipedia editors will remove it.
Consider the exploits available if simply being John Doe made you an authoritative source on the "John Doe" article. You could delete anything negative in the article and back it up with "That didn't happen, and I should know." You can claim whatever false credentials you want, and cite yourself as asserting the claim.
Treating the subject as an authoritative source on themselves may seem intuitively obvious at first glance, but it can lead to a lot of problems.
I don't want to read an article about what John Doe claims about himself (because most of it is probably boring, and some of it is probably distorted), I want an article about what reasonably reliable third parties report about him.
Well, what the spy destroyed wasn't the chain of command. Just as in real life, that's a social construct. All the member of the corporation are still where they are, with the same ships and standing orders, etc. The only difference is that the technical structure of the corporation has been severely disrupted. It's more like if someone had completely infiltrated the computer systems of a RL corporation and secretly emptied key bank accounts, sold tons of stock, published all IP and cryto keys, and blanked all corporate databases and backups. The physical buildings would still be there, the employees would still show up for work in the morning and look to their boss for direction, but with no payroll database and no corporate resources, things would fall apart pretty much instantly. While it might take more than a single click to orchestrate those things, the point is it could probably be done by one infiltrator, in a rapid, automated way, given enough access.
So far the only risk you've identified is lung damage. Please explain how eating marijuana can cause this.
Perhaps, but is growing /good/ pot as easy as throwing seeds out in the backyard? I mean, you can make hooch in the bathtub - you can even make it in prison. But it's not very good. For that matter, you really can grow tomatoes by throwing seeds in your back yard, but how many people do that instead of buying them for $excessive at the supermarket?
Growing good, potent cannabis takes time and effort the same way making good wine does, which means there's easily potential for corporate commoditization. Never underestimate people's willingness to buy things they don't need to.
Maybe that's why UK Indymedia quickly deleted the personal information that was posted - before the police were even aware of it.
The reason the server was seized is because Indymedia refuses to surveil its contributors to the degree the cops would like. And apparently that makes any of their hardware fair game.
What, no love for id Software?
Yeah, or you could just put poison on your bullets. If your bioweapon requires a bullet as a delivery system, it's not that devastating.
Thanks for the source on the flour-throwing thing. I can't say I see flour-throwing as a particularly heinous or fanatical action, but you're right that it was endorsed by PETA.
When you say PETA endorses and funds a concept, what you're really saying is that they express a particular point of view (namely that violence against animals should be resisted by any means necessary). I'm sure you disagree with it strongly, but expressing a viewpoint is a lot different than doing violence, isn't it? Do you really want to make the claim that endorsing a disagreeable philosophy is the same as violence? That reminds me too much of the War on Terror.
There are certainly some people who work for PETA who support using violence as a political tactic. There are also people within the ACLU who support using violence to defend our constitutional rights. Neither has much to do with the organizations themselves. I think you might be cherry-picking the individual opinions of certain people in order to fit a pre-conceived notion of what an organization as a whole stands for.
Regarding your (and your link's) claim that PETA provides aid and support to the ALF and ELF, see my explanation above. To reiterate: the ALF and ELF are not organizations, they're traditions. It's like saying PETA provides aid and support to "goth". It's not possible.
Maybe certain members of PETA gave money to other people who turned out to be connected to someone who was involved in a sabotage which was claimed under the banner of ALF, but now we're getting into the witch-hunt territory that the FBI uses to spy on peace groups and freeze the assets of Muslim charities. Do you really want to be a part of that?
Consider your opinion respected though. I'm not a fan of PETA, but I'm not a fan of anti-PETA zealots either.
Sorry, I missed the part in the article you linked to where PETA claimed responsibility for flour being thrown on that person's fur coat. Just because somebody did something mean in connection with animal rights doesn't mean PETA did it.
Also, ALF is not an organization, it's a banner or concept. Sort of like "open source". It's not possible for PETA or anyone else to fund the ALF, because there's no institution to give the money to.
I hoped you would take the time to learn about those you disagree with before leveling criticisms...the way you're doing it makes you look just as rabid and ideological as PETA.
violent? Really? You're entitled to be as hostile as you like to the idea of animal rights, but PETA is about as violent as the ACLU. Perhaps you're thinking of the ALF?
jiggawho?
No, it's totally unreasonable.
I, for one, support a more flexible policy along the lines of:
All photos which matter must have no significant alterations beyond basic cleanup and color/contrast adjustment.
However, photos of some stupid shit nobody would care about can have a bunch of unicorns or whatever pasted in there to make them more exciting.
Well, if we're working to overthrow the government, I don't see any reason why not to accept its benefits. In this context, the government is a clear enemy, and if resources can be drawn from it, that's a weakness that should be exploited. Certainly it would be a bad idea to depend on such resources, but hey, if you can get it, why not take it?
If your government is at war with you, questions of whether it's ethical to accept its "handouts" become pretty trivial.
Right, work to overthrow the government. That's like, one of the most important concepts outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and when a government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
That's something many "lefist/liberals" are talking about these days, because our government is clearly bought and paid for, even with "friends" like Obama in office.
Loyalty, yes. But loyalty to a nation or an institution is for the weak-minded. Instead be loyal to principles and ideals. Because while it may seem to you that nationalism built the world, in fact it was built by those who were loyal to ideals and principles, sometimes in cooperation and sometimes in direct conflict with their nations.
I'm not denying anything, just looking for further information on the claim that a non-insignificant number of vegetarians get hospitalized each year due to lack of protein. So far I have to say I'm not impressed.
Fair enough. In that case I believe totally in mind control. In fact, there seems to be some kind of conspiracy to inject mind control images and sound into my television programming every 5-10 minutes, which try to convince me that I must consume products in order to avoid misery.
So, so far the answer to the question "how many vegetarians get admitted to the hospital each year because they don't take in enough protein and eventually become malnourished?" seems to be: A baby one time, only it was vegan not vegetarian.
Actually, it occurred to me that a good source for these kind of statistics would be vegetarians who went on hunger strike (there have been hunger strike campaigns for human rights and anti-war causes recently). They would certainly technically end up in the hospital because of lack of protein...maybe that could help y'all spin the facts to support your claim?
On one hand I feel the need to explain to you that there is no unified front of communist environmentalist hippy liberals who are all out to screw up whatever you support. On the other other, I realize that holding such mistaken and backwards beliefs is probably one of your biggest weaknesses when it comes to influencing society, so why not let it be?
That's not mind control by a longshot, it's just targeted audio. Advanced versions of this off-the-shelf technology: http://www.studiodaily.com/main/work/8636.html