While I agree wholeheartedly in holding the keepers of the information liable as well, the kid (allegedly) broke the law. Breaking into someone's servers should still be against the law, and wouldn't change.
Care to point out where I said anything like that? I just pointed out that, if it wasn't for those in the city subsidizing his gas and his roads, he wouldn't be able to live in the country with the level of comfort he currently enjoys. Therefore, bitching about having to subsidize "green" power is hypocritical.
I would say the exact same thing for someone in the country. If it wasn't for the cheap gas and cheap roads, the parent poster would NOT be able to live the way he does, commuting however many miles from the suburb/country to work. Bitching that he's going to have to subsidize a switch to "green" power is completely hypocritical, as I've been subsidizing his lifestyle for years.
No, externalities are those extra costs that don't actually show up in the price you pay. Such as the increased impact on the environment and the increased cost to people's health. Are you trying to say that these costs don't exist and shouldn't be paid by the power utility?
Your ethical system could define certain rights which cannot much be added to and/or taken away from by the wording of a licence.
For example, you may believe that the GPL is "too communist" and as such anyone who attempts to licence their work under that licence should be considered to have released it into the public domain. Perhaps you believe so strongly that the GPL is unethical that you consider it necessary to break the GPL's terms so as to discourage use of the GPL.
Then you don't use the GPL. You boycott it, and use something else which you find ethical.
Think of how civil disobedience works.
The thing everyone forgets when they bring up "civil disobedience" is that it is still disobedience, and you are still held responsible for your actions.
Why is it not ethical to disobey a licence you consider unethical?
Why is it ethical to use it in the first place? Why not find something else?
What if I told you now that by reading beyond this line of this post you're agreeing to send me $10,000? Voluntary; full disclosure; informed consent. Stop reading now if you disagree.
Except there wasn't full disclosure and informed consent.
The problem is, Congressional Republicans are trying to remove any authority for the EPA to do so. Or at the very least, remove any funding for any actions that would (which should be unconstitutional).
Hey, fuck you, by the way. Because of your desire for cheap gas and cheap roads, I, a city dweller, get to pay more. If you don't want green, then pay the real costs of your cheap roads and cheap gas. Otherwise STFU.
Just like smokers that inhale 3 packs a day and live into their 80's and 90's and some die in their 40's it's all pretty much up to the physical ability of the individual's body to resist the poison.
And that makes it ok to spew this crap in the air?
Would they try to impose some sanctions on China (which I suspect would be pointless at that stage as they would probably be self-sufficient)?
Sanctions usually come with huge tariffs placed on imports and exports, which means that China would lose a lot of their customers in the first world. And if it got really bad, they'd have to ship those resources from Africa to China, getting through the navies of the world.
The problem with that thinking is, there are a lot of people in this country who's skill is labor. They don't have the skill or training to work in some of those "more interesting" jobs. There are still a lot of these people around of working age, that still need some way to support their families.
I know a dozen companies that are moving jobs back tot he USA with automated manufacturing(sorry no new jobs there)
Well, there's the additional robotics jobs that are created as a result of increased robotic demand. And even the automated manufacturing lines have to have some people on site.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree wholeheartedly in holding the keepers of the information liable as well, the kid (allegedly) broke the law. Breaking into someone's servers should still be against the law, and wouldn't change.
You mean speculating on the outcome of the case? How dare he opine on what might happen to the kid if he's convicted.
Care to point out where I said anything like that? I just pointed out that, if it wasn't for those in the city subsidizing his gas and his roads, he wouldn't be able to live in the country with the level of comfort he currently enjoys. Therefore, bitching about having to subsidize "green" power is hypocritical.
I would say the exact same thing for someone in the country. If it wasn't for the cheap gas and cheap roads, the parent poster would NOT be able to live the way he does, commuting however many miles from the suburb/country to work. Bitching that he's going to have to subsidize a switch to "green" power is completely hypocritical, as I've been subsidizing his lifestyle for years.
No, externalities are those extra costs that don't actually show up in the price you pay. Such as the increased impact on the environment and the increased cost to people's health. Are you trying to say that these costs don't exist and shouldn't be paid by the power utility?
Your ethical system could define certain rights which cannot much be added to and/or taken away from by the wording of a licence.
For example, you may believe that the GPL is "too communist" and as such anyone who attempts to licence their work under that licence should be considered to have released it into the public domain. Perhaps you believe so strongly that the GPL is unethical that you consider it necessary to break the GPL's terms so as to discourage use of the GPL.
Then you don't use the GPL. You boycott it, and use something else which you find ethical.
Think of how civil disobedience works.
The thing everyone forgets when they bring up "civil disobedience" is that it is still disobedience, and you are still held responsible for your actions.
And what of obeying the wishes of the software's creator? I'm sure completely disregarding them is super ethical.
Why is it not ethical to disobey a licence you consider unethical?
Why is it ethical to use it in the first place? Why not find something else?
What if I told you now that by reading beyond this line of this post you're agreeing to send me $10,000? Voluntary; full disclosure; informed consent. Stop reading now if you disagree.
Except there wasn't full disclosure and informed consent.
What if you consider the GPL unethical?
Then why are you using GPL software in the first place?
What if you consider that might makes right?
Then you are an asshole, plain and simple.
Hasn't Congress pretty much said that they will not give the EPA the funds to do anything regarding climate change?
Not so. There is lots of legal activity which gets involved in lawsuits, because it harms one party.
The problem is, Congressional Republicans are trying to remove any authority for the EPA to do so. Or at the very least, remove any funding for any actions that would (which should be unconstitutional).
Hey, fuck you, by the way. Because of your desire for cheap gas and cheap roads, I, a city dweller, get to pay more. If you don't want green, then pay the real costs of your cheap roads and cheap gas. Otherwise STFU.
Just like smokers that inhale 3 packs a day and live into their 80's and 90's and some die in their 40's it's all pretty much up to the physical ability of the individual's body to resist the poison.
And that makes it ok to spew this crap in the air?
To them, cheap energy (no matter the source) is the problem.
No, energy which isn't priced to include the external factors, like environmental impact is the problem.
Because those "benefits" don't rely on coal as the source of power.
Yes, it does. Especially when your company doesn't have any loyalty towards you.
Would they try to impose some sanctions on China (which I suspect would be pointless at that stage as they would probably be self-sufficient)?
Sanctions usually come with huge tariffs placed on imports and exports, which means that China would lose a lot of their customers in the first world. And if it got really bad, they'd have to ship those resources from Africa to China, getting through the navies of the world.
Unlike the other poor Asian nations such as Thailand or the Philipines, China does not have a incompetent leadership mired in corruption.
I would beg to differ on that point. Especially the "not ... mired in corruption" part. It's well known that the Chinese government is very corrupt.
I'm not disagreeing that they don't have things thought out, as it appears they do.
The problem with that thinking is, there are a lot of people in this country who's skill is labor. They don't have the skill or training to work in some of those "more interesting" jobs. There are still a lot of these people around of working age, that still need some way to support their families.
I know a dozen companies that are moving jobs back tot he USA with automated manufacturing(sorry no new jobs there)
Well, there's the additional robotics jobs that are created as a result of increased robotic demand. And even the automated manufacturing lines have to have some people on site.
This statement is absurd on its face. Why the fuck else should they engineer this, if they weren't getting a reward?
Said the guy who's company is probably wondering why it's employees don't work harder for them or show them any loyalty.
They were still part of the company, taking a risk in doing so. Should they not partake in the rewards?
And if those options weren't vested yet?