" A class on "here's how you use an IDE" will never accomplish anything of value beyond an asinine resume pad."
Aha. Agreed. I think we agree actually... you just think I want "IDE/Debuggers/Source control spun out as a separate course from 'programming' because you think they are already TEACHING programming.
That's what's missing. There is no "programming course"... that's the course I didn't get in univeristy. The one that teaches requirements analysis, design, version control, profiles, debuggers... we both think that course should exist.
analyzing requirements, designing solutions, and implementing them as part of a team with version control, profiles, and debuggers, and get them trained to deal with real life. A class on "here's how you use an IDE" will never accomplish anything of value beyond an asinine resume pad. Work the tools into the programming classes where they belong.
That's very college sounding.
A "programming course" in university is "Programming 1 -- procedural programming and elementary data structures" -- and you spend the first week learning about flow control logic, looping, and then you jump right into implementing linked lists, stacks, queues, double linked links, etc. Its not a 'how to write programs' class -- that doesn't exist. Its a theoretical course on 'elementary data structures'. The programming is something you pick up on the side to demonstrate your mastery of the data structures.
Its not a programming course at all. That's what is missing. And these were already very dense courses.
So I am suggesting there is a need for: a separate "programming course", where they just do exactly what you said it should be: analyzing requirements, designing solutions, and implementing them as part of a team with version control, profiles, and debuggers.
That's exactly what I'm saying is missing.
I'm not suggesting we have a Visual Studio 2012 course. And a Git course. And a debugging course. But a programming course, separate from the current first level programming courses (which are really data structures courses with programming on the side)
"Work the tools into the programming classes where they belong"
Maybe in college. But in university, their are no "programming classes". You take data structures, algorithms, AI, graphics, networking, concurrent programming... and they are all very dense, and they all require lots of programming... but none of them are actually courses on programming itself.
Their code will be running on a web server or in a web browser.
Which will in turn be running on an operating system. Which in turn will be running on hardware.
Should they need to know how to install linux? Or build a server from parts? Well.. yes... they should.:) but they don't really need to.
Particularly when their code might depend upon a specific module being loaded on the web server.
Just as they need someone to provision the server hardware and OS, they'll need someone to set up the webserver the way they need it to be used as well. In my experience, this is almost never the web developers.
I agree the more exposure they have to that end of things the better, but there is usually someone else actually responsible for managing the actual web server, while they are personally responsible for the web application code itself.
I'd rather they learn how to be better web app developers and spend their time learning about databases, and web application security issues then how to set up a web server.
No, they're not, unless you're intentionally trying to cram classes in there that any idiot can get a good grade in,
The point is that spending some time working through some non-trivial use cases of git or svn or spending some structured time actually being taught to debug, what to actually do with a dump file, or to use git/svn/etc to fork and merge in a structured teaching environment is useful.
The goal is not to teach them to use the tool feature by feature but what the tools are capable of and that's valuable. Then in the real world, they know what source control can do, and even if its not the tool they were taught with, they can look up the features on their own and pick things up as they go... because they know the functionality exists at all.
Make it 1 credit. Like you said they don't need to spend a LOT of time on it, but spending SOME time on it, in a structured teaching environment is invaluable.
If it takes more than 15-20 minutes to get someone up to speed on using the tools,
Nobody can learn to use a debugger or source control system effectively from never having seen one before to competent in 15-20 minutes.
They might learn enough to get a programming assignment done, but they won't touch the surface of what it can do.
. Fill it with knowledgeable people who know how to make custom electronics,
who are willing to work evenings and weekends at the mall for retail wages? To sell parts that can be purchased online for pennies? To a market that barely exists?
Yeah that's right there alongside comic books stores, model train stores, and used book stores, and so on.
It can work, if they can find rent low enough and the proprieter is doing it because they love it instead of for the money, and mans the shop himself most of the time.
But its just not going to be a huge money maker I don't think.
The ridiculously high margin cables, consumer electronics (phones, alarm clocks, junk) is where they make any money... but no self-respecting 'hacker' is interested in that, and they are facing increased online competition for that now too, and they along with bigbox electronics (bestbuy etc) are all suffering for it.
I would encourage a new composer on a budget to start with an iPad, and challenge them to fill it up with software using the $5,000-$50,000 they just saved. Go nuts--you'll never exhaust the budget!! I've created sounds that have suited my clients needs very well, using the following iPad apps...
One of the most insightful and interesting ask slashdots I've read.
Or right, he said -composer-, not -producer-. So your both right... ipads aren't adequate for production... but apparently quite good for composition.
In a Windows context, pre-iPod MP3 players mounted as a drive letter and simply allowed you to drag over a file structure and related files, which were mirrored on the player.
My early Samsung yepp loaded via an abysmal proprietary app, my sisters Sony "bean" or whatever had a similiarly abysmal proprietary sony app. I gave my kids a Sansa shaker when they were around 3 or 4, and those at least just used an SD card.
In those days I ran winamp mostly.
iTunes was a PITA in that
a) it wanted to take over from winamp, and you pretty much had to let it for things to work.
b) running ipod along with a different device was a ROYAL PITA because itunes didn't play with anything but ipods, and it took over your desktop.
However... if you just ran itunes let it take over, and just run ipods it actually did work much better.
If you fought against itunes taking over, or had the audacity to also use non-ipod devices then itunes was a clusterF**K.
You have 5 courses that I would consider "electives". English I and English II being examples of such.
Far too many comp sci grads think basic language skills is an elective. It's not.
Also dump the "programming tools" class. They can pick that up in their programming classes.
Meaning they will learn the bare minimums to get their programming assignments done. No, these are worthy of their own classes.
Add a class on basic web server administration. Install Apache and add modules and read logs. Install IIS and so forth.
Meh, that's really something else; and tends to be highly version specific. I think a basic databases course / intro to sql / data normalization / data modelling / CRUD / serialization / persistence would be a better fit.
It takes time for someone to actually read the article.
The first responses are usually based on the headline (if we're lucky), the next few made it through at least part of the summary. Some if may be insightful, some not...
But its not until someone's actually read the article that any thing salient to the content of the article can get posted.
And that's because smart people know that the classic CS sorting methods have the optimal complexity among all comparison based sorting algorithms.
And even smarter people know that the classic CS sorting methods ONLY have the optimal complexity among all comparison based sorting algorithms when certain assumptions hold.
Are you are in fact limited to comparison sorts? In practice, you aren't.
I may realize that I don't actually need something chronologically, that I only need it down to a month so I can bucket sort a years worth of receipts, without comparing any receipt to any other receipts.
As this is not a comparison sort. This is O(n)
Secondly there is overhead in manually conducting a quicksort; so even if it has optimal asymtotic complexity it may not necessarily pan out in practice if you don't have enough things to sort. When doing my taxes for example, I can take a pile of 120 different receipts, bucket sort them into different 10 categories (phone bill, visa statements, internet... ) and then I've only got 12 things in each pile, and odds are they are likely already semisorted with 10+ of the 12 months already in the right order, or perhaps just in reverse order.
By the time you've selected a pivot and divided it into two piles and are selecting new pivots I'll have finished and moved onto the next little pile.
Just admit that you're a censorship lover and be done with it.
Not happening because i don't love censorship. I see it as a necessary evil in some cases, where the harm of it not doing it exceeds the harm of doing it.
That we disagree on the how to measure the relative harms is evident, but that doesn't make me a 'censorship lover'.
It is this sort of mentality that allows government thugs to, for instance, censor 'swear words' on television, or ban public nudity; it's just nonsense, and it is tyranny.
Same 'mentality' I suppose, but a vastly different degree. And it doesn't take a lot of empathy to see the difference.
Separate hurt feelings from the *objective fact* of whether or not someone gave consent.
There is no way for a 3rd party like 'society' to determine the 'fact' objectively. Hell, even the rapist and victim may well honestly disagree on whether consent was given.
No, you don't. You only care about speech you don't vehemently disagree with.
Nope. I do. I just don't let it be the single consideration.
What is the business is based on teaching French to English speaking people? Then he would not be accessable to his target clientel because they would be unable to understand what he was trying to sell. Just sayin...
The language laws do not prohibit the presence of an english version, only that signage be 'primarily in french'.
I didn't defend the law. I defended the consistency with which the law is being applied. There is a difference.
So . . . if I create a website which I intend to be read in Berlin, or Pamplona, or Rome . . . it still has to be in French?
If you are located in quebec and dealing with the quebec public via the website, then there would need to be a french version of the page in addition to the others..
If you are located in quebec and ONLY doing online sales to customers in berlin in germany in german, then i suppose technically the law might require you to have a french version of the page... but who would ever complain if you didn't?
True, but its the damage that matters here. Even the rape itself is often far more damaging at an emotional level than a physical one. If you drug and then rape someone the physical impact of the rape may well be all but gone after a couple showers. Its the emotional damage that stays with you.
Allowing the government to ban things based on that is tyranny.
ban based on what? things that are subjective? that's ridiculous. The difference between rape and consensual sex is a subjective judgment too. So I guess we can't ban rape... because there's no real way to establish whether there was consent or not except some sort of subjective decision by a jury?
I don't.
Others do.
Well, again, I care about free speech and am 100% opposed to censorship, so I don't think people's emotional nonsense should determine what needs to be banned.
Yeah, I care about free speech too. But I don't think people's emotional state is 'nonsense'.
But the censorship crowd has already lost.
Are we using the same internet? I think the internet is getting steadily more constricted.
Hopefully, in the future, new technology will arise that makes it even more impossible.
Hopefully the future will bring about a society with loftier dreams than that.
You can do "solitary confinement" without it being 4 concrete walls, a steel door, and a chamber pot. You can give them a window so they can watch the world outside. You can give them a TV, You can give them some means to make a phone call.
With a bit of technology (not much more than kinect, you can let them play video games, browse the internet, play words with freinds, etc etc all with the computer and anything else they might turn into a shiv sitting safely on the other side of some bullet proof glass.
Clearly we can do better than a concrete box. So why is that the only solution you were even willing to consider?
Now.. what were you saying about a long track record of people being locked in, unable to escape the one-party system, the gulags, and the purges?
That's got nothing to do with anything actually. Those issues are not even related to 'communism'. There is nothing inherent in communism that requires a one-party system nor even suggests its a good idea.
Not that I think communism is a workable solution, I don't. I am not a marxist at all. I do however support the concept (if not the manifesation of unions) but my distaste for modern unions mirrors my distaste for modern corporations.
But in any case pointing at corrupt one-party-system and calling it a failure of communism is like pointing at Saudi Arabia and saying 'that's what you get with capitalism'.
I don't want government thugs taking down any website. I thought that was clear from my comments.
"Censorship is intolderable" doesn't make "child porn websites tolerable".
They are BOTH intolerable as far as I'm concerned, so when the two principles overlap in opposition I'm prone to take a more nuanced approach to looking at the right thing to do.
I do not see any benefit to society in having an illegal child porn video of a pre-teen, taken without her knowledge or consent, and against her wishes, online;
Alright... how about a business that discriminates against blacks? Or the disabled?
if the trash is completely on the stores property
Will the extra rats the trash attracts also stay on the stores property?
the market will likely take care of it.
How so? A restaurant can maintain a presentable dining room whilst maintaining a disgustingly unsanitary kitchen and food storage areas. The market might take care of it eventually, but how many people need to get sick (even die) before the 'market' catches on.
again, if the chemicals get off the property then we have a problem. if the chemicals stay on the property, not your / our / my problem.
Even if they are harmful to the employees?
the deal worked out between the person selling labor and the person buying labor is between those parties, and not your / our / my business.
So locking them in at night so they can't escape a fire is ok, or working with hazardous chemicals without adequate safety equipment is fine too (as above) as long they were desperate enough for food to feed their family to agree to those terms?
The market has long track record of ensuring the wealthy capitalist who owns the property and the means of production doesn't take advantage or abuse the fact that he tends to have a massive advantage* when negotiating wages and working conditions right?
That advantage being that he can generally easily afford not to hire someone today; and his business will continue to run and earn him money. Whilst a potential employee needs to eat and provide himself shelter each day, whether he works or not. Its only when employees band together into some sort of 'united front' that they can negotiate on the same level... but these united fronts for negotiation, or 'unions' are the root of all evil I'm sure.
Slashdot Mirror
" A class on "here's how you use an IDE" will never accomplish anything of value beyond an asinine resume pad."
Aha. Agreed. I think we agree actually... you just think I want "IDE/Debuggers/Source control spun out as a separate course from 'programming' because you think they are already TEACHING programming.
That's what's missing. There is no "programming course"... that's the course I didn't get in univeristy. The one that teaches requirements analysis, design, version control, profiles, debuggers... we both think that course should exist.
analyzing requirements, designing solutions, and implementing them as part of a team with version control, profiles, and debuggers, and get them trained to deal with real life. A class on "here's how you use an IDE" will never accomplish anything of value beyond an asinine resume pad. Work the tools into the programming classes where they belong.
That's very college sounding.
A "programming course" in university is "Programming 1 -- procedural programming and elementary data structures" -- and you spend the first week learning about flow control logic, looping, and then you jump right into implementing linked lists, stacks, queues, double linked links, etc. Its not a 'how to write programs' class -- that doesn't exist. Its a theoretical course on 'elementary data structures'. The programming is something you pick up on the side to demonstrate your mastery of the data structures.
Its not a programming course at all. That's what is missing. And these were already very dense courses.
So I am suggesting there is a need for: a separate "programming course", where they just do exactly what you said it should be: analyzing requirements, designing solutions, and implementing them as part of a team with version control, profiles, and debuggers.
That's exactly what I'm saying is missing.
I'm not suggesting we have a Visual Studio 2012 course. And a Git course. And a debugging course. But a programming course, separate from the current first level programming courses (which are really data structures courses with programming on the side)
"Work the tools into the programming classes where they belong"
Maybe in college. But in university, their are no "programming classes". You take data structures, algorithms, AI, graphics, networking, concurrent programming... and they are all very dense, and they all require lots of programming... but none of them are actually courses on programming itself.
Their code will be running on a web server or in a web browser.
Which will in turn be running on an operating system.
Which in turn will be running on hardware.
Should they need to know how to install linux? Or build a server from parts? Well.. yes... they should. :) but they don't really need to.
Particularly when their code might depend upon a specific module being loaded on the web server.
Just as they need someone to provision the server hardware and OS, they'll need someone to set up the webserver the way they need it to be used as well. In my experience, this is almost never the web developers.
I agree the more exposure they have to that end of things the better, but there is usually someone else actually responsible for managing the actual web server, while they are personally responsible for the web application code itself.
I'd rather they learn how to be better web app developers and spend their time learning about databases, and web application security issues then how to set up a web server.
No, they're not, unless you're intentionally trying to cram classes in there that any idiot can get a good grade in,
The point is that spending some time working through some non-trivial use cases of git or svn or spending some structured time actually being taught to debug, what to actually do with a dump file, or to use git/svn/etc to fork and merge in a structured teaching environment is useful.
The goal is not to teach them to use the tool feature by feature but what the tools are capable of and that's valuable. Then in the real world, they know what source control can do, and even if its not the tool they were taught with, they can look up the features on their own and pick things up as they go... because they know the functionality exists at all.
Make it 1 credit. Like you said they don't need to spend a LOT of time on it, but spending SOME time on it, in a structured teaching environment is invaluable.
If it takes more than 15-20 minutes to get someone up to speed on using the tools,
Nobody can learn to use a debugger or source control system effectively from never having seen one before to competent in 15-20 minutes.
They might learn enough to get a programming assignment done, but they won't touch the surface of what it can do.
. Fill it with knowledgeable people who know how to make custom electronics,
who are willing to work evenings and weekends at the mall for retail wages? To sell parts that can be purchased online for pennies? To a market that barely exists?
Yeah that's right there alongside comic books stores, model train stores, and used book stores, and so on.
It can work, if they can find rent low enough and the proprieter is doing it because they love it instead of for the money, and mans the shop himself most of the time.
But its just not going to be a huge money maker I don't think.
The ridiculously high margin cables, consumer electronics (phones, alarm clocks, junk) is where they make any money... but no self-respecting 'hacker' is interested in that, and they are facing increased online competition for that now too, and they along with bigbox electronics (bestbuy etc) are all suffering for it.
Well, from way back this morning there is this guy:
http://features.slashdot.org/s...
-----IPADS. So many possibilities, sooooo cheap.
I would encourage a new composer on a budget to start with an iPad, and challenge them to fill it up with software using the $5,000-$50,000 they just saved. Go nuts--you'll never exhaust the budget!! I've created sounds that have suited my clients needs very well, using the following iPad apps...
One of the most insightful and interesting ask slashdots I've read.
Or right, he said -composer-, not -producer-. So your both right... ipads aren't adequate for production... but apparently quite good for composition.
In a Windows context, pre-iPod MP3 players mounted as a drive letter and simply allowed you to drag over a file structure and related files, which were mirrored on the player.
My early Samsung yepp loaded via an abysmal proprietary app, my sisters Sony "bean" or whatever had a similiarly abysmal proprietary sony app. I gave my kids a Sansa shaker when they were around 3 or 4, and those at least just used an SD card.
In those days I ran winamp mostly.
iTunes was a PITA in that
a) it wanted to take over from winamp, and you pretty much had to let it for things to work.
b) running ipod along with a different device was a ROYAL PITA because itunes didn't play with anything but ipods, and it took over your desktop.
However... if you just ran itunes let it take over, and just run ipods it actually did work much better.
If you fought against itunes taking over, or had the audacity to also use non-ipod devices then itunes was a clusterF**K.
And to add to that... a course on security implementation / threat mitigation / etc.
review XSS, cookie attacks, login systems, etc...
You have 5 courses that I would consider "electives". English I and English II being examples of such.
Far too many comp sci grads think basic language skills is an elective. It's not.
Also dump the "programming tools" class. They can pick that up in their programming classes.
Meaning they will learn the bare minimums to get their programming assignments done. No, these are worthy of their own classes.
Add a class on basic web server administration. Install Apache and add modules and read logs. Install IIS and so forth.
Meh, that's really something else; and tends to be highly version specific. I think a basic databases course / intro to sql / data normalization / data modelling / CRUD / serialization / persistence would be a better fit.
It takes time for someone to actually read the article.
The first responses are usually based on the headline (if we're lucky), the next few made it through at least part of the summary. Some if may be insightful, some not...
But its not until someone's actually read the article that any thing salient to the content of the article can get posted.
And that's because smart people know that the classic CS sorting methods have the optimal complexity among all comparison based sorting algorithms.
And even smarter people know that the classic CS sorting methods ONLY have the optimal complexity among all comparison based sorting algorithms when certain assumptions hold.
Are you are in fact limited to comparison sorts? In practice, you aren't.
I may realize that I don't actually need something chronologically, that I only need it down to a month so I can bucket sort a years worth of receipts, without comparing any receipt to any other receipts.
As this is not a comparison sort. This is O(n)
Secondly there is overhead in manually conducting a quicksort; so even if it has optimal asymtotic complexity it may not necessarily pan out in practice if you don't have enough things to sort. When doing my taxes for example, I can take a pile of 120 different receipts, bucket sort them into different 10 categories (phone bill, visa statements, internet... ) and then I've only got 12 things in each pile, and odds are they are likely already semisorted with 10+ of the 12 months already in the right order, or perhaps just in reverse order.
By the time you've selected a pivot and divided it into two piles and are selecting new pivots I'll have finished and moved onto the next little pile.
Just admit that you're a censorship lover and be done with it.
Not happening because i don't love censorship. I see it as a necessary evil in some cases, where the harm of it not doing it exceeds the harm of doing it.
That we disagree on the how to measure the relative harms is evident, but that doesn't make me a 'censorship lover'.
Go get molested by the TSA.
The only harm caused by that is to "human dignity", which you don't think is at all important anyway.
"human dignity" (an ambiguous piece of shit) means little to me in the face of important things like freedom of speech.
Yeah, god forbid we try to have the best of both.
But you don't see me asking for censorship and abandoning my principles.
I see you perpetuating evil by mindlessly following the strictest interpretation of your principles regardless of the consequences in the real world.
Either you care about free speech and oppose censorship, or you don't. There is no in-between.
Either you care about human dignity or you don't. Evidently you don't.
but censorship is always evil.
So is forcing someone to live in a world where another member of their society can run a website hosting videos of them being raped.
Most of society thinks that's evil too. Maybe you don't and that's fine. But you are in the distinct minority, most of us do.
It should be the single most important consideration, if you care about free speech.
One can care about free speech without it being the only consideration in all situations at all times.
It is this sort of mentality that allows government thugs to, for instance, censor 'swear words' on television, or ban public nudity; it's just nonsense, and it is tyranny.
Same 'mentality' I suppose, but a vastly different degree. And it doesn't take a lot of empathy to see the difference.
Separate hurt feelings from the *objective fact* of whether or not someone gave consent.
There is no way for a 3rd party like 'society' to determine the 'fact' objectively. Hell, even the rapist and victim may well honestly disagree on whether consent was given.
No, you don't. You only care about speech you don't vehemently disagree with.
Nope. I do. I just don't let it be the single consideration.
What is the business is based on teaching French to English speaking people? Then he would not be accessable to his target clientel because they would be unable to understand what he was trying to sell. Just sayin...
The language laws do not prohibit the presence of an english version, only that signage be 'primarily in french'.
The data and "storefront" resides on US soil.
The STORE resides in quebec and sells to local residents. So its laws apply there. For better or for worse.
...and then you defend it
I didn't defend the law. I defended the consistency with which the law is being applied. There is a difference.
So . . . if I create a website which I intend to be read in Berlin, or Pamplona, or Rome . . . it still has to be in French?
If you are located in quebec and dealing with the quebec public via the website, then there would need to be a french version of the page in addition to the others..
If you are located in quebec and ONLY doing online sales to customers in berlin in germany in german, then i suppose technically the law might require you to have a french version of the page ... but who would ever complain if you didn't?
Never mind the argument . . . I give up.
Yes. Its a stupid law and should be repealed.
Emotional 'damage' is subjective
True, but its the damage that matters here. Even the rape itself is often far more damaging at an emotional level than a physical one. If you drug and then rape someone the physical impact of the rape may well be all but gone after a couple showers. Its the emotional damage that stays with you.
Allowing the government to ban things based on that is tyranny.
ban based on what? things that are subjective? that's ridiculous. The difference between rape and consensual sex is a subjective judgment too. So I guess we can't ban rape... because there's no real way to establish whether there was consent or not except some sort of subjective decision by a jury?
I don't.
Others do.
Well, again, I care about free speech and am 100% opposed to censorship, so I don't think people's emotional nonsense should determine what needs to be banned.
Yeah, I care about free speech too. But I don't think people's emotional state is 'nonsense'.
But the censorship crowd has already lost.
Are we using the same internet? I think the internet is getting steadily more constricted.
Hopefully, in the future, new technology will arise that makes it even more impossible.
Hopefully the future will bring about a society with loftier dreams than that.
If the practical choice is between..
Except its not. Not even a little bit.
You can do "solitary confinement" without it being 4 concrete walls, a steel door, and a chamber pot. You can give them a window so they can watch the world outside. You can give them a TV, You can give them some means to make a phone call.
With a bit of technology (not much more than kinect, you can let them play video games, browse the internet, play words with freinds, etc etc all with the computer and anything else they might turn into a shiv sitting safely on the other side of some bullet proof glass.
Clearly we can do better than a concrete box. So why is that the only solution you were even willing to consider?
The rape is what's harmful, if they were raped. I do not believe mere speech can be harmful.
I see harm to the victims and their families in the ongoing shame and humiliation simply by being out there, readily available to the public.
In the general case I see harm in speech such as menacing death threats, and even bullying.
Anyone? Some people find great pleasure in child porn. Not just pedophiles, either.
Fair enough. And I suppose I don't have any objection per se to child porn that is not an otherwise illegally made recording.
I think the ongoing shame and humiliation of the victims is a price society should not deem worth 'indulging their great pleasure' in the material.
Looks like we have a marxist!
Hardly. but...
Now.. what were you saying about a long track record of people being locked in, unable to escape the one-party system, the gulags, and the purges?
That's got nothing to do with anything actually. Those issues are not even related to 'communism'. There is nothing inherent in communism that requires a one-party system nor even suggests its a good idea.
Not that I think communism is a workable solution, I don't. I am not a marxist at all. I do however support the concept (if not the manifesation of unions) but my distaste for modern unions mirrors my distaste for modern corporations.
But in any case pointing at corrupt one-party-system and calling it a failure of communism is like pointing at Saudi Arabia and saying 'that's what you get with capitalism'.
I would derive no benefit from it, just like I derive no benefit from your comment.
I didn't ask what benefit you derived personally, but what benefit you imagine imagine society derives from such a video remaining online.
The harm to the affected people is evident, so what is the benefit? Not to you, but to anyone.
I don't want government thugs taking down any website. I thought that was clear from my comments.
"Censorship is intolderable" doesn't make "child porn websites tolerable".
They are BOTH intolerable as far as I'm concerned, so when the two principles overlap in opposition I'm prone to take a more nuanced approach to looking at the right thing to do.
I do not see any benefit to society in having an illegal child porn video of a pre-teen, taken without her knowledge or consent, and against her wishes, online;
What possible benefit do you imagine?
Alright... how about a business that discriminates against blacks? Or the disabled?
if the trash is completely on the stores property
Will the extra rats the trash attracts also stay on the stores property?
the market will likely take care of it.
How so? A restaurant can maintain a presentable dining room whilst maintaining a disgustingly unsanitary kitchen and food storage areas. The market might take care of it eventually, but how many people need to get sick (even die) before the 'market' catches on.
again, if the chemicals get off the property then we have a problem. if the chemicals stay on the property, not your / our / my problem.
Even if they are harmful to the employees?
the deal worked out between the person selling labor and the person buying labor is between those parties, and not your / our / my business.
So locking them in at night so they can't escape a fire is ok, or working with hazardous chemicals without adequate safety equipment is fine too (as above) as long they were desperate enough for food to feed their family to agree to those terms?
The market has long track record of ensuring the wealthy capitalist who owns the property and the means of production doesn't take advantage or abuse the fact that he tends to have a massive advantage* when negotiating wages and working conditions right?
That advantage being that he can generally easily afford not to hire someone today; and his business will continue to run and earn him money. Whilst a potential employee needs to eat and provide himself shelter each day, whether he works or not. Its only when employees band together into some sort of 'united front' that they can negotiate on the same level... but these united fronts for negotiation, or 'unions' are the root of all evil I'm sure.