This picture is in WikiPedia. You may want to ask that guy in front of the tank if it represents political propaganda or simple fact. Either way, the Chinese government will block it.
There are many reasons why today's existing cell phones are safe for now. They have more reliable coverage than WiFi, there are more cool phones available, some people ignore the rates, etc. However, voip is beginning to eat away from the bottom. It's true that for most, voip is still more trouble than it is worth but for a small and growing set of users, voip is perfect. If you make a lot of calls from a fixed point with an existing reliable ip network then voip already works well. I'm sure MSFT and Google can afford to tinker on the details for the next 20 years. A time during which the traditional cell phone market will begin to decelerate and then contract.
This is a classic example of The Innovator's Dilemma and traditional cell coverage cannot avoid it.
I'll admit that while there are lots of copyrighted signs around you, you don't have to pay for any of them. Nobody is holding a gun in your back whilst you buy CD's or DVD's. You can leave those on the shelf in a free and open society.
I don't really see why folks are so bent out of shape about copyright when we already live in a world where all of the decisions regarding producing and consuming copyrighted material are voluntary.
As a content producer, I am free to waive copyright on anything I produce. As a content consumer, I am free to avoid copyrighted material. Nobody is being compelled to do anything they do not want to do.
Please consider that often times a lay off is the most ethical thing a CEO can do. If you have 10 workers but you can only afford to pay 8, then it is the ethical choice to lay off the 2 before the finances of the business become so unsound that you have to lay off all 10.
Besides, there's a collective hiring binge in the Bay Area right now. Most of the layed off folks will probably end up at Google with more pay real soon.
What if the laws of said country ordered you to murder defenseless babies? Isn't there a line that you'll draw somewhere and respect, regardless of local laws?
You did not answer my specific question: Is the act, by the Chinese government, of imprisoning someone who joins a political party morally just in this case?
Your rant about the USA and Mexican hotels was interesting but it was a dodge of the specific question I asked.
Tell us. Do you believe that universal moral standards exist? If so, where would you put both child porn and political dissent on that spectrum of standards.
xtrtracto, You highlight the word *believe* when reflecting other peoples conviction that criminal sanctions for joining a political party is wrong. It is as if you are belittling the word *believe*. That belief, for me, is based on my own moral conviction that deeply respects personal political freedom and freedom of speech, including overt dissent.
What's your personal belief in this regard, xtracto? Is the action of the Chinese government morally just in this instance? What do you personally believe? Please tell us all.
I agree that limiting CO2 production seems like a better way to go after the root cause. I'd like to begin building enough nuclear fusion power plants in the USA to eliminate our reliance on burning fossil fuels, including coal, for the generation of electricity. Nuclear fusion does not emit CO2.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Didn't you learn that before the age of ten?
This happens in every discussion about China on Slashdot. China defenders, like you, attack the US on the human rights mistakes it makes in order to excuse or paper over worse abuses in China. I'm not sure why you are so bent on giving China a free pass to suppress dissent.
I'm perfectly comfortable taking a moral stance for abolute human rights, regardless of whichever government is trying to abuse them. Suppressing speech about controversial topics like Taiwan by the Chinese government and eavesdropping by the US government are both wrong.
You can sneer at his wealth all you want but he has already founded the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, the world's largest charitable foundation. That's a good thing.
So you do admit that there are absolute moral lines that companies should not cross. For you, they are somewhere between the current Chinese government and the government of Nazi Germany. Where would you put that line? What sort of things would the Chinese government have to do in order for you to say 'enough' and stop doing business there?
So, in your world, companies are not expected to make any decisions based on any universal sense of morality. In your world, an American company that received a contract to build concentration camps in Nazi Germany would be bound to do so. Could you really do that if you ran that company? Would you be there, happily whistling while you worked, swinging the hammer that put together the ovens?
I'd rather see Google grand stand about not bowing to China's governmental pressure to assist in forceful suppression of ideas. Yes, that may get Google banned in China. However, Google is so big and powerful everywhere else in the world that news of its existence and popularity would become known to some curious folks in China who would begin to resent their government for banning it. In that resentment you'll find the seeds for a transforming change. That's a more self aware path to change than embracing the half truth of letting the Chinese people think: "Google? Oh yes. We have that too."
To me this just reflects a deep distrust of Richard Stallman and his social agenda. Stallman has become an impatient utopianist an, like most utopianists, he's resorting to tyranny where his past attempts to win hearts and minds have failed. Linus may be paranoid in this example but that paranoia is grounded in a loathing of Stallman's fundamentalist thinking.
That all sounds nice, just so long as the counter measures are voluntary. There are a variety of good reasons why standby may be right for me despite the added energy usage and I should not need committee approval to make that decision.
Conservation will be most effective if you win people's hearts and minds and they become self regulating. If Big Brother rams this down our throat then the effort will backfire.
That's simplistic hogwash. No successful business limits their perspective to the current quarter. That's especially true of public companies who are required to operate transparently. Shareholders can detect that level of bad management and punish the stock price accordingly.
You are introducing a new topic and I'm not sure why. Are you saying that if a musician is unhappy with the record label they've released on then it's okay to take their music without paying for it? What's the moral basis for that line of thinking?
In the world you are looking for there will be no Bluray or Paperback edition. Why should the content owner produce those if you won't let them recover their expense?
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I had moderator points because this is one of the most thoughtful posts I have read on SlashDot.
Thank you.
This picture is in WikiPedia. You may want to ask that guy in front of the tank if it represents political propaganda or simple fact. Either way, the Chinese government will block it.
There are many reasons why today's existing cell phones are safe for now. They have more reliable coverage than WiFi, there are more cool phones available, some people ignore the rates, etc. However, voip is beginning to eat away from the bottom. It's true that for most, voip is still more trouble than it is worth but for a small and growing set of users, voip is perfect. If you make a lot of calls from a fixed point with an existing reliable ip network then voip already works well. I'm sure MSFT and Google can afford to tinker on the details for the next 20 years. A time during which the traditional cell phone market will begin to decelerate and then contract.
This is a classic example of The Innovator's Dilemma and traditional cell coverage cannot avoid it.
P-Shaw!!
I'll admit that while there are lots of copyrighted signs around you, you don't have to pay for any of them. Nobody is holding a gun in your back whilst you buy CD's or DVD's. You can leave those on the shelf in a free and open society.
I don't really see why folks are so bent out of shape about copyright when we already live in a world where all of the decisions regarding producing and consuming copyrighted material are voluntary.
As a content producer, I am free to waive copyright on anything I produce. As a content consumer, I am free to avoid copyrighted material. Nobody is being compelled to do anything they do not want to do.
So, Cryofan, shall we all assume that you're in favor of a pure, majority rules, democracy?
Please consider that often times a lay off is the most ethical thing a CEO can do. If you have 10 workers but you can only afford to pay 8, then it is the ethical choice to lay off the 2 before the finances of the business become so unsound that you have to lay off all 10.
Besides, there's a collective hiring binge in the Bay Area right now. Most of the layed off folks will probably end up at Google with more pay real soon.
What if the laws of said country ordered you to murder defenseless babies? Isn't there a line that you'll draw somewhere and respect, regardless of local laws?
Ok, so if you were CEO of Yahoo you have taken the opposite approach. You would not have turned over the data to the Chinese government. Right?
You did not answer my specific question: Is the act, by the Chinese government, of imprisoning someone who joins a political party morally just in this case?
Your rant about the USA and Mexican hotels was interesting but it was a dodge of the specific question I asked.
Jerry,
Tell us. Do you believe that universal moral standards exist? If so, where would you put both child porn and political dissent on that spectrum of standards.
xtrtracto,
You highlight the word *believe* when reflecting other peoples conviction that criminal sanctions for joining a political party is wrong. It is as if you are belittling the word *believe*. That belief, for me, is based on my own moral conviction that deeply respects personal political freedom and freedom of speech, including overt dissent.
What's your personal belief in this regard, xtracto? Is the action of the Chinese government morally just in this instance? What do you personally believe? Please tell us all.
I agree that limiting CO2 production seems like a better way to go after the root cause. I'd like to begin building enough nuclear fusion power plants in the USA to eliminate our reliance on burning fossil fuels, including coal, for the generation of electricity. Nuclear fusion does not emit CO2.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Didn't you learn that before the age of ten?
This happens in every discussion about China on Slashdot. China defenders, like you, attack the US on the human rights mistakes it makes in order to excuse or paper over worse abuses in China. I'm not sure why you are so bent on giving China a free pass to suppress dissent.
I'm perfectly comfortable taking a moral stance for abolute human rights, regardless of whichever government is trying to abuse them. Suppressing speech about controversial topics like Taiwan by the Chinese government and eavesdropping by the US government are both wrong.
You can sneer at his wealth all you want but he has already founded the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, the world's largest charitable foundation. That's a good thing.
So you do admit that there are absolute moral lines that companies should not cross. For you, they are somewhere between the current Chinese government and the government of Nazi Germany. Where would you put that line? What sort of things would the Chinese government have to do in order for you to say 'enough' and stop doing business there?
So, in your world, companies are not expected to make any decisions based on any universal sense of morality. In your world, an American company that received a contract to build concentration camps in Nazi Germany would be bound to do so. Could you really do that if you ran that company? Would you be there, happily whistling while you worked, swinging the hammer that put together the ovens?
I'd rather see Google grand stand about not bowing to China's governmental pressure to assist in forceful suppression of ideas. Yes, that may get Google banned in China. However, Google is so big and powerful everywhere else in the world that news of its existence and popularity would become known to some curious folks in China who would begin to resent their government for banning it. In that resentment you'll find the seeds for a transforming change. That's a more self aware path to change than embracing the half truth of letting the Chinese people think: "Google? Oh yes. We have that too."
To me this just reflects a deep distrust of Richard Stallman and his social agenda. Stallman has become an impatient utopianist an, like most utopianists, he's resorting to tyranny where his past attempts to win hearts and minds have failed. Linus may be paranoid in this example but that paranoia is grounded in a loathing of Stallman's fundamentalist thinking.
How is working hard to build a product that people enjoy and want pulling 'money out of your ass'?
That all sounds nice, just so long as the counter measures are voluntary. There are a variety of good reasons why standby may be right for me despite the added energy usage and I should not need committee approval to make that decision.
Conservation will be most effective if you win people's hearts and minds and they become self regulating. If Big Brother rams this down our throat then the effort will backfire.
> Have you ever worked at a major corporation?
Yes. That experience formed the basis of my posting. I'm sorry that you chose to work at corporations that practice such short sighted behavior.
That's simplistic hogwash. No successful business limits their perspective to the current quarter. That's especially true of public companies who are required to operate transparently. Shareholders can detect that level of bad management and punish the stock price accordingly.
You are introducing a new topic and I'm not sure why. Are you saying that if a musician is unhappy with the record label they've released on then it's okay to take their music without paying for it? What's the moral basis for that line of thinking?
In the world you are looking for there will be no Bluray or Paperback edition. Why should the content owner produce those if you won't let them recover their expense?