* I don't believe we're about to create robots anywhere near as intelligent as people and if we did, angry jobless humans will smash them to bits.
You know... That's probably one of the most correct comments in this thread. I'm really not sure why Slashdot devolved into a bunch of raving lunatics in this thread but they did. If you dare to, reload this page and load all the comments. Yes, yes... I'm sober. This thread is *less* rational, on average, than the thread about the dead judge. That's kind of strange.
I've got only this to add - and it's not that specific, sorry. I've seen a number of documentaries that have claimed that the Middle Ages actually had it easier than we might think. One of them is hosted by Gilliam but there are others. They said that, with religion, everyone automatically had at least every Sunday off from work and then there were something like 120 (I think - I'm not sure) other days that were considered holy days and so they'd only work for half the day or not at all.
It's a neat series. Unfortunately, the name is beyond me at the moment but I'm pretty sure you can dig it up at IMDb if you're curious. YouTube has a copy of 'em all - I watched them. He does a few documentaries along those lines. I'm pretty sure that the number was 120 + Sundays and that not all of those 120 days were completely labor free but some where half-days where they'd work until noon. They were also rather mandatory and this doesn't count the other work that they had to do in order to remain alive. I've heard mention of subsistence farmers not even having to work that much or that hard.
I believe the gist of most of the messages was that we might work more hours toiling for another these days but that they probably worked harder back then but might have actually worked fewer hours than most of us. Alas, it's an entertainment pursuit and not an educational exercise so I've pretty much only got that to add.
Hells yeah! I'm gonna buy me some shares in that there company!
Err... No, no... I must be honest. I'd buy shares in that company, in all likelihood. I'm assuming the dividends would be fantastic. I might even buy shares in that company if they marketed lead paint to babies or made land mines! 'Cause, you know, if you've managed to accumulate a dollar or two then you have to have earned it by hook or by crook, be immoral, and probably kick puppies.
If they're debatable, they're not facts. You can debate their value, their relevance, or things of that nature but you can not debate the facts. They're either facts or they're not. "Generally accepted truths" are not, for example, facts.
Now, is there a greater truth? Yes. Yes there is. It is that people come in wide varieties. People have different motives, methods, and beliefs. Not everyone is the same. Not everyone has the same views. Not everyone believes the same things. Those, those are facts.
Oh, they're fairly well outfitted.;-) I sold my business and retired - I know live just up above Rangeley, Maine - about 24 miles out of the village. I attended a boarding school in Maine and used to come up this way to hunt every fall. Rangeley was able to afford a good sized down payment on a brand new firetruck and a refurbished pumper from a municipality down below. They are well taken care of but not in the habit of saying what they need.
They'll *probably* get their radios. There's almost certainly bound to be a quiet call to the chief on Thursday night (after their meeting) and an anonymous donor will donate the radios. Strangely enough, things like that have a way of happening in Rangeley. I can't speak for that anonymous person but I can say that I got damned lucky in life and sold my business for a decent sum of money about 8 years ago. I've been in Rangeley for the last six. The anonymous person also likes to help out the local elementary school and library a lot. If there's some reason that stops them from getting the radios then it will, almost certainly, not be because the anonymous donor is worried about the costs.
Popham, eh? Watch out for the undertow. Maine's beaches are beautiful but they can be dangerous. My guess is that he was on the north side and not over on the beach side - at the State Park? If you time it right, you can walk out to a raised island type of deal (over on that side) that disappears when the tide comes back in. We end up with a few people getting into trouble there and some of the time they're not able to be saved. I guess he also could have been out near the tip, furthest out into the ocean, but the current is strong there and getting a small kid back from that might be a problem - depends on the weather. It's super impressive when we get a hurricane or even just the remnants of one. It's things like that, the stark contrast, that make me love the area so much and is why I retired there. The southern side, the part where it's got the sandy beach, has less current and is usually where you'd want to go into the water. They might even have signs suggesting that you not go into the water in the other areas - but I've not been there in a couple of years.
At any rate - much thanks for the information. These are inland Mainers and they don't do hat-in-hand thing unless they are well and truly destitute. So, it's unlikely that they'd tell me about how much the radios had the potential to help. That's a bit unfortunate but it's understandable. "We wouldn't want to put nobody out of pocket." (Double negative intentional and colloquially correct.) So, a phone call will be made, an order number given in a week or two, and they'll have 'em within six or so more weeks I imagine. Some anonymous person will take care of that.
If you get up that way again, well... You can let me know, of course, or you can make your way to Pemaquid, Pemaquid Point. There's a co-op where you can get whatever came in on the boats at dirt cheap prices. (Native secret, still not boat prices but not bad - it's a real co-op.) If you're really in the mood for luxury then when you're at the co-op, look behind it for a trail. Follow the trail. At the end of the trail is a restaurant. They're one of the few truly rated 5 star restaurants up this way. You don't always get what you want because they get a lot of what they serve from that co-op. Meaning, it came off the boat and they sent a prep-cook down over that trail to pick up your fish. You can actually, if you want, ask for Mike (he's ALWAYS there for lunch) and get permission and then just go down and pick up your own fish and tell them how you want it prepared.
The funny thing is, the prices are *very* reasonable. Not many tourists even know it or know about it. There's a museum at the old lighthouse and a "down east" art museum just above it - in the same parking area as the lighthouse - down at the Point itself.
Top line, where it says "in the US" it should say, "in my area of the US."
It has some variation and depends. Hell, there was a blue law on the books that prohibited locking of the doors if the residence was remote enough. You had to leave a "bundle of wood," some amount of preserved food, and the door had to be unlocked if the place was going to be empty for more than 72 hours. (I think.)
I'm not sure if that's entirely accurate but it's close enough. The law is no longer on the books but I believe some towns still have it on their books - but nobody has actually enforced it in years and years and years. I seem to recall that Alaska had similar regulation. It only applies/applied to residences that were remote by a certain amount. People still get lost, freeze, and die up where I retired. It happens every year, almost without fail.
It will be "warm" tonight. Probably only -30 or so - with the wind chill. That means you're good for ten minutes before frostbite kicks in. You might have an hour before hypothermia sets in. The temperature and effects start to scale *very* quickly at about that point. I'd not begrudge someone who broke into my house to keep warm while I was away. Not even a little.
Speaking of disinformation... *sighs* It's okay - you probably don't know better and you make enough solid posts to know that it was in good faith. In the US, it's trespassing only if it's posted OR if you've been told to leave and returned or not done so. Some activities make it trespassing by default - even if not being told. (See "criminal trespass" for an example.)
An example: I own an absurd, obscene even, number of acres. The land is posted with the opposite sign. It invites people to hunt, fish, camp, etc - including small, controlled, fires with a lawful burn permit if it's that season. The land is used by lots of people and I have some wood harvested from the land that ensures the taxes are all paid. The only thing that I ask is that they call a number, attached to a machine, that says where they went in and when they expect to return. I do that for safety reasons.
If I wanted to disallow use, I'd have to specifically post it or personally request the individual(s) leave. In one section, I have complete boundary control of a body of water. I am prohibited, by law, from disallowing access to that - it is an inland fishery and waterway. I literally can not, under any circumstances, disallow reasonable access and that includes allowing non-motorized boat access. (I do not have to provision it. I just can not allow it.) I can put in a trail and say to keep on the trail. It must be "reasonable" and reasonable is an actual legal concept.
I don't ask for much - I ask that they clean up what they bring in. In fact, I've had a group of kids come borrow a tractor and truck. They cleaned up an old area where people used to dump on the land, televisions and whatnot. There's a spot where there was (is?) a sand pit, they go in there and shoot things up but they keep it reasonably clean now. There are campers, skiers, hunters, fishermen, berry pickers, apple pickers, pear pickers, and mushroom collectors. They go out looking for birds to spot (or to eat).
Can I, technically, prohibit access? Sure. It's mine. I'd have to post it to do so, otherwise it's assumed open for "reasonable" use. Many have things like "hunting by permission only." I've a neat phone system that lets them listen to my requests in more detail or just skip it and leave a message. I don't ask much. Take out what you brought in, burn stuff that's already on the ground, keep vehicles to the marked trails where possible (some leeway there, I'm a bit of an off-road fan myself), let me know *where* you went in and what time you plan on coming back out. I don't listen to the messages. The phone doesn't even make a noise - it has never made a noise when someone calls. The only reason that I want that information is for safety.
Safety? Well... Yes, with wind chill it was somewhere around -50f last night and the night before. There are bears, small cliffs, frozen water, and lots of ways to get hurt. Knowing where, when, who, and expected return time can save a life. I don't listen to the messages unless there's a reason to do so. As near as I can tell, everyone's okay with it.
Importantly, if I'd not marked the land then a reasonable conclusion might be that it was open for access as it has traditionally been open for access. When I bought it, it was paper company land. They'd always allowed access. The land has never been private. The law's a little odd but not extremely so - it's what would a reasonable person conclude more than anything else. Then the lake is specifically public access and there's nothing I can do to stop it. I can not disallow access to the lake. There's a small area around my house that's marked as private, no trespassing. The rest is all available for use. There's a snowmobile/ATV trail that's part of the official ITS system - even though I own it, I can not disallow access to that either.
The US is many different States and they have varied laws between them. My area the presumption is open unless posted if such would be a reasonable conclusion. Obviously, you can't just go hunt on someone's back yard without permission. Reasonable person is an actual legal concept. More information is available if you're curious.
They'd only do that if they were stupid. There's no reason for the rich to kill the poor. There's no financial benefit to it. It's cheaper to feed you than it is to lock you up. It's cheaper to keep you amused than it is to kill you. There are still resources to be mined and put into little piles. So long as there's still work for you to do, you're safe.
I'm not sure what that means but I've actually crunched (and posted) some numbers on this very topic. I guess, that probably means you should make yourself look useful, do your work very slowly, or try to make it into the 1%. Of course, seeing as you're here on Slashdot, it's a reasonable assumption to place you squarely in the 1%.
Of course, every time I show the math for that, they change it to the 0.1%. Once they realize they're in the 1% they tend to try to find a new way to adjust the numbers.
I'm seriously not sure what the hell went on in this thread. It's like the whole lot of you flipped a cookie, went off on a rampage, and shat on the living room floor. What the hell makes you think they're gonna hire goons to keep you from stealing their stuff? They'll give you bread, circuses, and a mindless task to keep you occupied so that you can keep stacking up piles of resources for them. It literally makes no sense for them to kill you. Even if they had robots - there's no reason to eliminate humans.
They might let you die but probably not. Then you'd start to notice and start to seek solutions. No, they can keep you squabbling over the chicken-feed scraps, arguing about whose country is better, fighting about politics, and being zealous in your belief systems - while you keep piling the resources up for them. You won't be replaced by robots. You'll be assisted by robots. They don't need robots, they've already got you, self-replicating and easily duped, to pile their resources up for them. They don't even have to take care of you - you largely do it on your own with the chicken-feed.
Leisure classes have always had fewer babies than working classes.
Are you sure about that? As I work back throughout history in my memory, I'm pretty sure you're being dishonest or are mistaken. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're just unaware of history. (Harems, Pharaohs, Monarchs, chieftain, etc.)
This is not directed towards you but, as I scroll down through this thread, I'm seeing a lot of misinformation being posted, accepted as fact, and moderated positively. Opinions are free to have, facts are not debatable. Potential solutions are debatable, reality is not. This thread has this sort of thing at a much higher rate than normal. It's unfortunate, really. It's full of weasel words, lies, misinformation, half-truths, assumptions, and logical fallacies.
I'm going to assume that you're just not aware of history or are repeating what other people said. Always? Really? It's like this subject makes people become irrational. I've seen enough of your posts to know that you're usually rational - and intelligent. That's why I'm willing to believe that your statement is just because you don't know any better.
Lest you think that doesn't exist today, look at the Saud's family members and the number of children (they are the ruling, elite, and leisure classes in the country named after them) as compared to the birthrates in the nation as a whole. This whole thread's right full of things like this, often little but they add up and give a picture that's not even close to reality.
Don't read into that things I did not say. There are, indeed, problems.
That's cute. You think people actually pay the inheritance tax? Heh... No... No, that's just not happening - nobody pays that in any meaningful amount. Judge it as you will but that's the reality. You put those assets into some sort of holdings structure (a corporation works fine, there are many types of corporations) and you don't give Uncle Sam the money to make a down-payment on a new bomber.
Uncle Sam doesn't have an income problem, he's got a spending problem. You give 'em $10 and they use that to borrow $20. They buy a bomber, bomb brown people, and continue to do fuck-all to raise their citizens up. Giving them more money isn't going to change that. And nobody, I mean nobody, pays the inheritance tax on much of anything and that's not going to change.
The chart above shows the dramatic increase in household vehicle ownership since 1960, according to Census data compiled by the Department of Energy (Table 8.5). Here are some highlights of the data in the chart:
1. In 1960, nearly 79% of American households owned fewer than two vehicles: Nearly 57% of households owned only one vehicle and more than one-out-of-five households didn’t own a vehicle at all. Only one in forty households (2.5%) owned three or more vehicles.
2. Since 2000, fewer than 10% of US households had no vehicles, and almost the same share of households in 2010 owned three vehicles or more (19.5%) as owned no vehicles in 1960 (21.5%).
3. The share of US households owning three or more vehicles reached an all-time high of 19.5% in 2010 before falling slightly to 19.1% in 2011, and the share of US households owning no vehicle fell to an all-time low of 9.1% in 2010, before rising slightly to 9.3% in 2011.
4. Prior to 1990, the largest share of US households owned only one vehicle, and in every decade since then the largest share of households own two vehicles.
I can find absolutely no numbers to support any of the claims you've made in this thread - and you have made many. Why yes, yes I am bored. There's a nice pretty graphic at the site. I can find no newer numbers that indicate anything close to what you said. In fact, you've made a bunch of claims and when I go look, Google's directing me to content that indicates your numbers are either really far off or the complete opposite of what those with the data are claiming.
There is some merit to that. A lot of people don't seem to realize it but it's (mostly) true. I sold and retired. I donated or gifted a ton of money. I now have more money than I made from selling - and I still donate and gift. I'm not exactly frugal. Well, that's not entirely accurate. Hmm... I don't spend much money on myself - I don't really need anything. The vast majority of what I spend is not on myself. That makes more sense and is more accurate.
Anyhow, I've now accumulated more than I started with and I was actually down below half that starting value at one point. It has only been eight years and I've already accumulated that much again - and I've not been stingy while doing so. It's actually kind of surprising to see the numbers and the growth rates. I'm sure there's a plateau and the Law of Diminishing Returns is in there somewhere but I've not yet bumped into that threshold. I also didn't sell for billions of dollars. I was lucky but not that lucky.
There is already enough wealth to eliminate poverty and inequality.
I don't suppose you've got some numbers to back that up. I am, by good fortune, fairly well off. If you took every last bit of my money and spread it out, just through my country, that would make every man, woman, and child less than a dollar wealthier than they were before that. Or, you can continue to let me invest it and help thousands of people remain gainfully employed, start businesses, and keep the economy flowing.
I'm thinking that you might not actually be right. And counting non-liquid assets is kind of silly. I'm not going to help out a guy in India by shipping him a tree.
I'm thinking power over DC - probably straight from photovoltaic. It'd be trivial (I think) to power them with batteries that are charged from solar power - they could even retain their internal batteries.
Only one, probably a hub, would connect to the net at a time - they'd communicate with each other on their own network. They'd not all be connected to the 'net at one time - they'd all communicate with each other and then, I'd guess through a wired or wireless hub/access point, communicate with the 'net as a whole. They're all in close proximity, perhaps bluetooth can be used to shunt data between them and then simply have a "master" phone which does the connecting to the hub after assembling the data.
And yes, that's what I was thinking. It's actually quite a lot of compute power that's just being chucked into the landfills. This might even convince more people to responsibly discard their old equipment. They'd then be centralized and would make recycling more efficient. They're low-power devices. I really think there's something to this but I lack the expertise to go it alone. I guess I could muddle my way through it and get it started? I'm not really that adept and my programming skills aren't the greatest but it doesn't seem like it'd be all that difficult. It seems like a good use for things - it doesn't even need to be for sequencing genomes. There's all sorts of things that can be done with them.
I've used an old phone to play around with before. I've even run some NAS off of a phone, used one as a wireless hub that was more an access point, and have even had an HTTP server loaded on one at one time. I never got around to getting a database and PHP up and running on it but I suspect that would have worked.
The local farmers would be selling the flour regardless of who makes the cookies. Hell, the cookies would consume more flour and enable the wheat farmers to make more money. These are not flour-less cookies. They were people with nothing. They were going to buy nothing. They can not pay for anything. Someone is trying to give them that for free. And you, trying to insinuate something, come in with a comment about flour.
Well, they're making *more* cookies (and giving them away for free) which means that the free cookies result in more flour being used and more wheat farming needed, having the exact opposite impact of the one you're trying to claim would happen.
Perhaps you'd like to try again? Or you can just admit that you're concerned about the class system and you don't want those poor people getting free stuff because that puts them on more equal footing and you're worried about your own success?
No! No cookies for you poors! You go without! My cookies!
I like the stats idea. There are some stats available but nothing detailed like that. I don't know what this shows for an AC but: http://slashdot.org/slash-stat...
StartsWithABang is Ethan somebody. He had a site of his own (he may still) but now appears to write for Forbes. I'm not positive but I think they might be TheBadAstronomer, or something like that, at Fark or as a nom de plume.
There's not a whole lot at either of them but they're interesting enough. I note that it's got me listed as the most chatty person of the lot. Yes, yes I am a bit prolific in my comments. Most of them are even fairly long and not just simple "I agree" types of replies. Being retired does give me a bit of an advantage there.
If I may opine, I'm inclined to agree. Add to that the fact that they get plenty of conversation. If nothing else, it keeps us amused or busy for a while.
That said, I am inclined to agree but I'd worry about posting these types of articles too frequently. So far, since the change of ownership, I've no complaints. Things are chugging along and we're as (dys)functional as always. Assuming they're not too frequent then I doubt it will drive away users.
In other words, you're doing fine. My journal has a bunch of us in there keeping tabs on the site. We seem to be in agreement, you're doing okay. I'd not expect a bunch of changes to be enacted quickly. These sorts of things take time. They also need consideration, careful consideration, and a triage approach. It's quite understandable and commendable.
And, a reminder, the folks with excellent karma should probably be allowed to post more than 50 times per day. They're literally at the point where their karma can go no higher but they're (we're) limited in the number of posts. That they've got good karma indicates the community appreciates the content. I offer no opinion on the other karma levels or guest posting except to say that those make more sense to me than it does to have such a low limit for those at the apex.
Ah well... Just a note of thanks and an observation. I am grateful for your work and think you're doing an excellent job. You can trust me on this, I'd absolutely tell you if I felt any other way. I am not alone in my appreciation for your hard work. I'm aware that you're probably busy, there's no need to reply unless you've a compelling reason to do so.
It's not unknown. If one takes a minute to go to Wikipedia, they'll learn that the Democrats* were the ones who instituted the Free Speech Zones (and it angers many of their fans when you point that out and tell them where to get proof). They're often about controlling the narrative, "starting a discussion," or making things they claim should be irrelevant the actual concern. It's not about merit, it's about forcing equal outcome. It's about lowering the standards.
No, that doesn't mean the Republicans are necessarily better. The Left, the Democrats in this case, have somehow managed to twist what was once a noble goal (social justice) into this creature that does more to stymie growth than anything else. Equal opportunity is a noble goal, forcing an equal outcome is not. Lowering ourselves to make the lowest common denominator a success is probably not going to result in good things. They're not concerned with merit. They're concerned with innate traits. That's disturbing. We should be ignoring those traits and allowing people to succeed based on their ability. Those who have the capacity can have the microphone and stage. Inserting idiocy is not a viable solution.
* 1988 DNC was the first use of Free Speech Zones, I forget where it was held, exactly. Wikipedia has an article on it. And yes, yes I've heard a number of Dems claim that it was a Republican thing and that it was absolutely terrible that they'd restrict the right to speak from people. Most of them just stop responding when I point it out. Others will then try to say that it was okay when they did it.
Politics is not meant to be a team sport. It's disgusting that what was once a noble cause is now diluted to the point where it's just used as an excuse to control, get retribution, to limit people, or to put others on a pedestal that they've no right to claim. If you're good then you're good, if you're not then get out of the way and let someone else do it.
Seeing as we're now off on a tangent, I've actually pondered how to make use of all the old cell phones. It seems like it might be fairly trivial to use them as distributed compute devices. I'm thinking a project (I was interested because of my son's project) that would use the devices to sequence genomes on endangered flora and fauna from the South American rain forest.
Given that they're already DC, it seems like it might even be reasonable to power it with solar. They're "disposable" (or at least treated like that) so they'd all be donated. They could scale out reasonably well. One could even make some sort of rack that had its own solar power on it, was weather resistant, and had batteries (even just deep cell marine batteries), and provision them and people could put them on their property and then feed the data back into the system. They could be housed in a fairly small footprint. They don't really generate a lot of heat - but that'd have to be looked into. When one breaks, we're throwing so many away (as a society) that it could just be sent out to recycling.
Hell, done well - there's the chance to make a small profit recovering the materials from within the phone itself. If the organization was set up as a non-profit then people could write their donations off. It'd be easy to just assign a few arbitrary values, they could include a SASE and the receipt could be mailed back to them. If it works and has X amount of resources it's worth $5. For Y it's worth $10. For X it's worth $20. Something along those lines.
I figure I might as well mention that again - I'd mentioned it in the past, probably a year and a half ago, and actually had a couple of people email me about the idea. it seems like it should be fairly trivial. It's actually quite a bit of compute power and it won't be fast but it'd be cheap. I was told that such could even be quite specifically targeted and optimized as the architecture is fairly similar across a bunch of them. I'd have to dig through my email archives to find out the various suggestions.
Hmm... I'm not really seeing any major downsides. The whole thing could be run as a non-profit and I'd not be surprised to find some university interest. I've still got some friends in academia. Maybe it's time to write something a bit more formal and approach them. I'm not exactly being all that productive, I don't need money, and it might turn into something of value?
Good luck with that. They can obey the laws within their country. They're not going to win a lawsuit trying to recoup the money from me. They may not remain as customers but that's okay - I've already got their money. They should have followed the law within their country. This is going to be a bit long. I'm trying to reason with you. If you scroll to the bottom and kind of work your way up, it should make a bit more sense as to my motive for doing so. You're not that dumb. I know you're not.
I don't put it past France to sue their own citizens for buying ads in a different country. So, they may actually do something like that. However, it's really not something I'd be concerned with. If France wants to make their own citizens lose business and profits that's something they can do. I'll still provide services and goods, once paid for, to anyone who pays for them. I'm not going to learn the various laws of the various countries. That's just insane and nobody has time or inclination to do so - except, maybe, Facebook, Google, and the other large businesses.
It's going to be really funny when they all start pulling out of France and France's economy is weakened even further. However, I believe a sovereign nation should be able to set their own rules and regulations. What I don't believe (and is not the case) is that those rules have any impact on anyone outside the border. And yes, yes I hate it when my own country stomps across the planet thinking that it's okay to force others to adhere to US regulations. If the situation were reversed, I'd be saying the US can pack it in their ass.
If France, China, Saudi Arabia, or whoever it is decides they want to impose restrictions then they can do so at their border. That's the limit. Of course, Facebook is beholden to them but that's not what the OP was asserting. They were asserting that all businesses were beholden.
Let me, if you don't mind, ask you a question... I'm trying to actually understand where it is you're coming from and why you seem to think that it should matter. (I'm assuming you're French and have some ego associated with the topic, that's okay. It just makes it hard to be objective.) I'm going to paint a hypothetical for you. It will be reasoned, reasonable, and topical...
Let's say you have a server in France with a domain resolvable on the internet and you host a site. On your site you have several different languages - we'll say it's a forum. Your forum not only shows ads but also will allow people to buy ad space. You process your payments with a company located within the borders of France, you are in France, and your hardware is in France. You may, or may not, sell ads to businesses in China. Even if you don't sell ads, you get paid for impressions and that means that the traffic from China is resulting in you getting paid. You can even assume that you sell ad space to Chinese customers if they want to buy them.
Now, along comes Joe The Ignorant American and he posts about Tibet and about the oppressive behavior of the Chinese government. He posts (topical, of course - and welcome) about the massacres, the Cultural Revolution, and maybe even starts suggesting ways that the Chinese people can get around the Great Firewall of China. For the sake of argument, you're open minded and caring and welcome the content and the content is topical. It's desired, welcome, and invites both conversation and traffic to your site - including traffic from China. But, you process no payments in, do not live in, nor do you have a physical presence in China.
So, do you feel like you should be obligated to remove that content if China's government sends you a letter telling you to take it down? Do you think you should have to listen to them? Do you think you should be subjected to their punishments?
If you want, change the hypothetical to be forced to host content, content that you don't want, say content that that you find personally deplorable. Maybe you can use North Korea as your guide for this one. Do you feel that they sho
Amazingly enough, I have. No, they're not all evil either. Some are. I don't think they're any more evil than someone with less money, they're just more able to act on that evil and that evil has a greater impact. But, no... They're not all evil. If you think so then that's kind of disappointing. It says more about you than it says about them.
Slashdot Mirror
* I don't believe we're about to create robots anywhere near as intelligent as people and if we did, angry jobless humans will smash them to bits.
You know... That's probably one of the most correct comments in this thread. I'm really not sure why Slashdot devolved into a bunch of raving lunatics in this thread but they did. If you dare to, reload this page and load all the comments. Yes, yes... I'm sober. This thread is *less* rational, on average, than the thread about the dead judge. That's kind of strange.
I've got only this to add - and it's not that specific, sorry. I've seen a number of documentaries that have claimed that the Middle Ages actually had it easier than we might think. One of them is hosted by Gilliam but there are others. They said that, with religion, everyone automatically had at least every Sunday off from work and then there were something like 120 (I think - I'm not sure) other days that were considered holy days and so they'd only work for half the day or not at all.
It's a neat series. Unfortunately, the name is beyond me at the moment but I'm pretty sure you can dig it up at IMDb if you're curious. YouTube has a copy of 'em all - I watched them. He does a few documentaries along those lines. I'm pretty sure that the number was 120 + Sundays and that not all of those 120 days were completely labor free but some where half-days where they'd work until noon. They were also rather mandatory and this doesn't count the other work that they had to do in order to remain alive. I've heard mention of subsistence farmers not even having to work that much or that hard.
I believe the gist of most of the messages was that we might work more hours toiling for another these days but that they probably worked harder back then but might have actually worked fewer hours than most of us. Alas, it's an entertainment pursuit and not an educational exercise so I've pretty much only got that to add.
Hells yeah! I'm gonna buy me some shares in that there company!
Err... No, no... I must be honest. I'd buy shares in that company, in all likelihood. I'm assuming the dividends would be fantastic. I might even buy shares in that company if they marketed lead paint to babies or made land mines! 'Cause, you know, if you've managed to accumulate a dollar or two then you have to have earned it by hook or by crook, be immoral, and probably kick puppies.
If they're debatable, they're not facts. You can debate their value, their relevance, or things of that nature but you can not debate the facts. They're either facts or they're not. "Generally accepted truths" are not, for example, facts.
Now, is there a greater truth? Yes. Yes there is. It is that people come in wide varieties. People have different motives, methods, and beliefs. Not everyone is the same. Not everyone has the same views. Not everyone believes the same things. Those, those are facts.
Oh, they're fairly well outfitted. ;-) I sold my business and retired - I know live just up above Rangeley, Maine - about 24 miles out of the village. I attended a boarding school in Maine and used to come up this way to hunt every fall. Rangeley was able to afford a good sized down payment on a brand new firetruck and a refurbished pumper from a municipality down below. They are well taken care of but not in the habit of saying what they need.
They'll *probably* get their radios. There's almost certainly bound to be a quiet call to the chief on Thursday night (after their meeting) and an anonymous donor will donate the radios. Strangely enough, things like that have a way of happening in Rangeley. I can't speak for that anonymous person but I can say that I got damned lucky in life and sold my business for a decent sum of money about 8 years ago. I've been in Rangeley for the last six. The anonymous person also likes to help out the local elementary school and library a lot. If there's some reason that stops them from getting the radios then it will, almost certainly, not be because the anonymous donor is worried about the costs.
Popham, eh? Watch out for the undertow. Maine's beaches are beautiful but they can be dangerous. My guess is that he was on the north side and not over on the beach side - at the State Park? If you time it right, you can walk out to a raised island type of deal (over on that side) that disappears when the tide comes back in. We end up with a few people getting into trouble there and some of the time they're not able to be saved. I guess he also could have been out near the tip, furthest out into the ocean, but the current is strong there and getting a small kid back from that might be a problem - depends on the weather. It's super impressive when we get a hurricane or even just the remnants of one. It's things like that, the stark contrast, that make me love the area so much and is why I retired there. The southern side, the part where it's got the sandy beach, has less current and is usually where you'd want to go into the water. They might even have signs suggesting that you not go into the water in the other areas - but I've not been there in a couple of years.
At any rate - much thanks for the information. These are inland Mainers and they don't do hat-in-hand thing unless they are well and truly destitute. So, it's unlikely that they'd tell me about how much the radios had the potential to help. That's a bit unfortunate but it's understandable. "We wouldn't want to put nobody out of pocket." (Double negative intentional and colloquially correct.) So, a phone call will be made, an order number given in a week or two, and they'll have 'em within six or so more weeks I imagine. Some anonymous person will take care of that.
If you get up that way again, well... You can let me know, of course, or you can make your way to Pemaquid, Pemaquid Point. There's a co-op where you can get whatever came in on the boats at dirt cheap prices. (Native secret, still not boat prices but not bad - it's a real co-op.) If you're really in the mood for luxury then when you're at the co-op, look behind it for a trail. Follow the trail. At the end of the trail is a restaurant. They're one of the few truly rated 5 star restaurants up this way. You don't always get what you want because they get a lot of what they serve from that co-op. Meaning, it came off the boat and they sent a prep-cook down over that trail to pick up your fish. You can actually, if you want, ask for Mike (he's ALWAYS there for lunch) and get permission and then just go down and pick up your own fish and tell them how you want it prepared.
The funny thing is, the prices are *very* reasonable. Not many tourists even know it or know about it. There's a museum at the old lighthouse and a "down east" art museum just above it - in the same parking area as the lighthouse - down at the Point itself.
Top line, where it says "in the US" it should say, "in my area of the US."
It has some variation and depends. Hell, there was a blue law on the books that prohibited locking of the doors if the residence was remote enough. You had to leave a "bundle of wood," some amount of preserved food, and the door had to be unlocked if the place was going to be empty for more than 72 hours. (I think.)
I'm not sure if that's entirely accurate but it's close enough. The law is no longer on the books but I believe some towns still have it on their books - but nobody has actually enforced it in years and years and years. I seem to recall that Alaska had similar regulation. It only applies/applied to residences that were remote by a certain amount. People still get lost, freeze, and die up where I retired. It happens every year, almost without fail.
It will be "warm" tonight. Probably only -30 or so - with the wind chill. That means you're good for ten minutes before frostbite kicks in. You might have an hour before hypothermia sets in. The temperature and effects start to scale *very* quickly at about that point. I'd not begrudge someone who broke into my house to keep warm while I was away. Not even a little.
Speaking of disinformation... *sighs* It's okay - you probably don't know better and you make enough solid posts to know that it was in good faith. In the US, it's trespassing only if it's posted OR if you've been told to leave and returned or not done so. Some activities make it trespassing by default - even if not being told. (See "criminal trespass" for an example.)
An example: I own an absurd, obscene even, number of acres. The land is posted with the opposite sign. It invites people to hunt, fish, camp, etc - including small, controlled, fires with a lawful burn permit if it's that season. The land is used by lots of people and I have some wood harvested from the land that ensures the taxes are all paid. The only thing that I ask is that they call a number, attached to a machine, that says where they went in and when they expect to return. I do that for safety reasons.
If I wanted to disallow use, I'd have to specifically post it or personally request the individual(s) leave. In one section, I have complete boundary control of a body of water. I am prohibited, by law, from disallowing access to that - it is an inland fishery and waterway. I literally can not, under any circumstances, disallow reasonable access and that includes allowing non-motorized boat access. (I do not have to provision it. I just can not allow it.) I can put in a trail and say to keep on the trail. It must be "reasonable" and reasonable is an actual legal concept.
I don't ask for much - I ask that they clean up what they bring in. In fact, I've had a group of kids come borrow a tractor and truck. They cleaned up an old area where people used to dump on the land, televisions and whatnot. There's a spot where there was (is?) a sand pit, they go in there and shoot things up but they keep it reasonably clean now. There are campers, skiers, hunters, fishermen, berry pickers, apple pickers, pear pickers, and mushroom collectors. They go out looking for birds to spot (or to eat).
Can I, technically, prohibit access? Sure. It's mine. I'd have to post it to do so, otherwise it's assumed open for "reasonable" use. Many have things like "hunting by permission only." I've a neat phone system that lets them listen to my requests in more detail or just skip it and leave a message. I don't ask much. Take out what you brought in, burn stuff that's already on the ground, keep vehicles to the marked trails where possible (some leeway there, I'm a bit of an off-road fan myself), let me know *where* you went in and what time you plan on coming back out. I don't listen to the messages. The phone doesn't even make a noise - it has never made a noise when someone calls. The only reason that I want that information is for safety.
Safety? Well... Yes, with wind chill it was somewhere around -50f last night and the night before. There are bears, small cliffs, frozen water, and lots of ways to get hurt. Knowing where, when, who, and expected return time can save a life. I don't listen to the messages unless there's a reason to do so. As near as I can tell, everyone's okay with it.
Importantly, if I'd not marked the land then a reasonable conclusion might be that it was open for access as it has traditionally been open for access. When I bought it, it was paper company land. They'd always allowed access. The land has never been private. The law's a little odd but not extremely so - it's what would a reasonable person conclude more than anything else. Then the lake is specifically public access and there's nothing I can do to stop it. I can not disallow access to the lake. There's a small area around my house that's marked as private, no trespassing. The rest is all available for use. There's a snowmobile/ATV trail that's part of the official ITS system - even though I own it, I can not disallow access to that either.
The US is many different States and they have varied laws between them. My area the presumption is open unless posted if such would be a reasonable conclusion. Obviously, you can't just go hunt on someone's back yard without permission. Reasonable person is an actual legal concept. More information is available if you're curious.
They'd only do that if they were stupid. There's no reason for the rich to kill the poor. There's no financial benefit to it. It's cheaper to feed you than it is to lock you up. It's cheaper to keep you amused than it is to kill you. There are still resources to be mined and put into little piles. So long as there's still work for you to do, you're safe.
I'm not sure what that means but I've actually crunched (and posted) some numbers on this very topic. I guess, that probably means you should make yourself look useful, do your work very slowly, or try to make it into the 1%. Of course, seeing as you're here on Slashdot, it's a reasonable assumption to place you squarely in the 1%.
Of course, every time I show the math for that, they change it to the 0.1%. Once they realize they're in the 1% they tend to try to find a new way to adjust the numbers.
I'm seriously not sure what the hell went on in this thread. It's like the whole lot of you flipped a cookie, went off on a rampage, and shat on the living room floor. What the hell makes you think they're gonna hire goons to keep you from stealing their stuff? They'll give you bread, circuses, and a mindless task to keep you occupied so that you can keep stacking up piles of resources for them. It literally makes no sense for them to kill you. Even if they had robots - there's no reason to eliminate humans.
They might let you die but probably not. Then you'd start to notice and start to seek solutions. No, they can keep you squabbling over the chicken-feed scraps, arguing about whose country is better, fighting about politics, and being zealous in your belief systems - while you keep piling the resources up for them. You won't be replaced by robots. You'll be assisted by robots. They don't need robots, they've already got you, self-replicating and easily duped, to pile their resources up for them. They don't even have to take care of you - you largely do it on your own with the chicken-feed.
Leisure classes have always had fewer babies than working classes.
Are you sure about that? As I work back throughout history in my memory, I'm pretty sure you're being dishonest or are mistaken. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're just unaware of history. (Harems, Pharaohs, Monarchs, chieftain, etc.)
This is not directed towards you but, as I scroll down through this thread, I'm seeing a lot of misinformation being posted, accepted as fact, and moderated positively. Opinions are free to have, facts are not debatable. Potential solutions are debatable, reality is not. This thread has this sort of thing at a much higher rate than normal. It's unfortunate, really. It's full of weasel words, lies, misinformation, half-truths, assumptions, and logical fallacies.
I'm going to assume that you're just not aware of history or are repeating what other people said. Always? Really? It's like this subject makes people become irrational. I've seen enough of your posts to know that you're usually rational - and intelligent. That's why I'm willing to believe that your statement is just because you don't know any better.
Lest you think that doesn't exist today, look at the Saud's family members and the number of children (they are the ruling, elite, and leisure classes in the country named after them) as compared to the birthrates in the nation as a whole. This whole thread's right full of things like this, often little but they add up and give a picture that's not even close to reality.
Don't read into that things I did not say. There are, indeed, problems.
Well, to be fair, if the CEO can do that and still maintain the same level of productivity then he's absolutely worth that much.
How the hell did you even manage to type with your safety mittens on?
Can you prove that's the likely outcome?
That's cute. You think people actually pay the inheritance tax? Heh... No... No, that's just not happening - nobody pays that in any meaningful amount. Judge it as you will but that's the reality. You put those assets into some sort of holdings structure (a corporation works fine, there are many types of corporations) and you don't give Uncle Sam the money to make a down-payment on a new bomber.
Uncle Sam doesn't have an income problem, he's got a spending problem. You give 'em $10 and they use that to borrow $20. They buy a bomber, bomb brown people, and continue to do fuck-all to raise their citizens up. Giving them more money isn't going to change that. And nobody, I mean nobody, pays the inheritance tax on much of anything and that's not going to change.
https://www.aei.org/publicatio...
The chart above shows the dramatic increase in household vehicle ownership since 1960, according to Census data compiled by the Department of Energy (Table 8.5). Here are some highlights of the data in the chart:
1. In 1960, nearly 79% of American households owned fewer than two vehicles: Nearly 57% of households owned only one vehicle and more than one-out-of-five households didn’t own a vehicle at all. Only one in forty households (2.5%) owned three or more vehicles.
2. Since 2000, fewer than 10% of US households had no vehicles, and almost the same share of households in 2010 owned three vehicles or more (19.5%) as owned no vehicles in 1960 (21.5%).
3. The share of US households owning three or more vehicles reached an all-time high of 19.5% in 2010 before falling slightly to 19.1% in 2011, and the share of US households owning no vehicle fell to an all-time low of 9.1% in 2010, before rising slightly to 9.3% in 2011.
4. Prior to 1990, the largest share of US households owned only one vehicle, and in every decade since then the largest share of households own two vehicles.
I can find absolutely no numbers to support any of the claims you've made in this thread - and you have made many. Why yes, yes I am bored. There's a nice pretty graphic at the site. I can find no newer numbers that indicate anything close to what you said. In fact, you've made a bunch of claims and when I go look, Google's directing me to content that indicates your numbers are either really far off or the complete opposite of what those with the data are claiming.
How about some citations?
Hmm... Out of curiosity, your comment about executive pay being justified. Justified by whom? Under what obligations?
There is some merit to that. A lot of people don't seem to realize it but it's (mostly) true. I sold and retired. I donated or gifted a ton of money. I now have more money than I made from selling - and I still donate and gift. I'm not exactly frugal. Well, that's not entirely accurate. Hmm... I don't spend much money on myself - I don't really need anything. The vast majority of what I spend is not on myself. That makes more sense and is more accurate.
Anyhow, I've now accumulated more than I started with and I was actually down below half that starting value at one point. It has only been eight years and I've already accumulated that much again - and I've not been stingy while doing so. It's actually kind of surprising to see the numbers and the growth rates. I'm sure there's a plateau and the Law of Diminishing Returns is in there somewhere but I've not yet bumped into that threshold. I also didn't sell for billions of dollars. I was lucky but not that lucky.
There is already enough wealth to eliminate poverty and inequality.
I don't suppose you've got some numbers to back that up. I am, by good fortune, fairly well off. If you took every last bit of my money and spread it out, just through my country, that would make every man, woman, and child less than a dollar wealthier than they were before that. Or, you can continue to let me invest it and help thousands of people remain gainfully employed, start businesses, and keep the economy flowing.
I'm thinking that you might not actually be right. And counting non-liquid assets is kind of silly. I'm not going to help out a guy in India by shipping him a tree.
I'm thinking power over DC - probably straight from photovoltaic. It'd be trivial (I think) to power them with batteries that are charged from solar power - they could even retain their internal batteries.
Only one, probably a hub, would connect to the net at a time - they'd communicate with each other on their own network. They'd not all be connected to the 'net at one time - they'd all communicate with each other and then, I'd guess through a wired or wireless hub/access point, communicate with the 'net as a whole. They're all in close proximity, perhaps bluetooth can be used to shunt data between them and then simply have a "master" phone which does the connecting to the hub after assembling the data.
And yes, that's what I was thinking. It's actually quite a lot of compute power that's just being chucked into the landfills. This might even convince more people to responsibly discard their old equipment. They'd then be centralized and would make recycling more efficient. They're low-power devices. I really think there's something to this but I lack the expertise to go it alone. I guess I could muddle my way through it and get it started? I'm not really that adept and my programming skills aren't the greatest but it doesn't seem like it'd be all that difficult. It seems like a good use for things - it doesn't even need to be for sequencing genomes. There's all sorts of things that can be done with them.
I've used an old phone to play around with before. I've even run some NAS off of a phone, used one as a wireless hub that was more an access point, and have even had an HTTP server loaded on one at one time. I never got around to getting a database and PHP up and running on it but I suspect that would have worked.
The local farmers would be selling the flour regardless of who makes the cookies. Hell, the cookies would consume more flour and enable the wheat farmers to make more money. These are not flour-less cookies. They were people with nothing. They were going to buy nothing. They can not pay for anything. Someone is trying to give them that for free. And you, trying to insinuate something, come in with a comment about flour.
Well, they're making *more* cookies (and giving them away for free) which means that the free cookies result in more flour being used and more wheat farming needed, having the exact opposite impact of the one you're trying to claim would happen.
Perhaps you'd like to try again? Or you can just admit that you're concerned about the class system and you don't want those poor people getting free stuff because that puts them on more equal footing and you're worried about your own success?
No! No cookies for you poors! You go without! My cookies!
I like the stats idea. There are some stats available but nothing detailed like that. I don't know what this shows for an AC but:
http://slashdot.org/slash-stat...
StartsWithABang is Ethan somebody. He had a site of his own (he may still) but now appears to write for Forbes. I'm not positive but I think they might be TheBadAstronomer, or something like that, at Fark or as a nom de plume.
If you want some other stats then here's a link for them:
http://slashdot.org/hof.shtml
There's not a whole lot at either of them but they're interesting enough. I note that it's got me listed as the most chatty person of the lot. Yes, yes I am a bit prolific in my comments. Most of them are even fairly long and not just simple "I agree" types of replies. Being retired does give me a bit of an advantage there.
If I may opine, I'm inclined to agree. Add to that the fact that they get plenty of conversation. If nothing else, it keeps us amused or busy for a while.
That said, I am inclined to agree but I'd worry about posting these types of articles too frequently. So far, since the change of ownership, I've no complaints. Things are chugging along and we're as (dys)functional as always. Assuming they're not too frequent then I doubt it will drive away users.
In other words, you're doing fine. My journal has a bunch of us in there keeping tabs on the site. We seem to be in agreement, you're doing okay. I'd not expect a bunch of changes to be enacted quickly. These sorts of things take time. They also need consideration, careful consideration, and a triage approach. It's quite understandable and commendable.
And, a reminder, the folks with excellent karma should probably be allowed to post more than 50 times per day. They're literally at the point where their karma can go no higher but they're (we're) limited in the number of posts. That they've got good karma indicates the community appreciates the content. I offer no opinion on the other karma levels or guest posting except to say that those make more sense to me than it does to have such a low limit for those at the apex.
Ah well... Just a note of thanks and an observation. I am grateful for your work and think you're doing an excellent job. You can trust me on this, I'd absolutely tell you if I felt any other way. I am not alone in my appreciation for your hard work. I'm aware that you're probably busy, there's no need to reply unless you've a compelling reason to do so.
It's not unknown. If one takes a minute to go to Wikipedia, they'll learn that the Democrats* were the ones who instituted the Free Speech Zones (and it angers many of their fans when you point that out and tell them where to get proof). They're often about controlling the narrative, "starting a discussion," or making things they claim should be irrelevant the actual concern. It's not about merit, it's about forcing equal outcome. It's about lowering the standards.
No, that doesn't mean the Republicans are necessarily better. The Left, the Democrats in this case, have somehow managed to twist what was once a noble goal (social justice) into this creature that does more to stymie growth than anything else. Equal opportunity is a noble goal, forcing an equal outcome is not. Lowering ourselves to make the lowest common denominator a success is probably not going to result in good things. They're not concerned with merit. They're concerned with innate traits. That's disturbing. We should be ignoring those traits and allowing people to succeed based on their ability. Those who have the capacity can have the microphone and stage. Inserting idiocy is not a viable solution.
* 1988 DNC was the first use of Free Speech Zones, I forget where it was held, exactly. Wikipedia has an article on it. And yes, yes I've heard a number of Dems claim that it was a Republican thing and that it was absolutely terrible that they'd restrict the right to speak from people. Most of them just stop responding when I point it out. Others will then try to say that it was okay when they did it.
Politics is not meant to be a team sport. It's disgusting that what was once a noble cause is now diluted to the point where it's just used as an excuse to control, get retribution, to limit people, or to put others on a pedestal that they've no right to claim. If you're good then you're good, if you're not then get out of the way and let someone else do it.
Seeing as we're now off on a tangent, I've actually pondered how to make use of all the old cell phones. It seems like it might be fairly trivial to use them as distributed compute devices. I'm thinking a project (I was interested because of my son's project) that would use the devices to sequence genomes on endangered flora and fauna from the South American rain forest.
Given that they're already DC, it seems like it might even be reasonable to power it with solar. They're "disposable" (or at least treated like that) so they'd all be donated. They could scale out reasonably well. One could even make some sort of rack that had its own solar power on it, was weather resistant, and had batteries (even just deep cell marine batteries), and provision them and people could put them on their property and then feed the data back into the system. They could be housed in a fairly small footprint. They don't really generate a lot of heat - but that'd have to be looked into. When one breaks, we're throwing so many away (as a society) that it could just be sent out to recycling.
Hell, done well - there's the chance to make a small profit recovering the materials from within the phone itself. If the organization was set up as a non-profit then people could write their donations off. It'd be easy to just assign a few arbitrary values, they could include a SASE and the receipt could be mailed back to them. If it works and has X amount of resources it's worth $5. For Y it's worth $10. For X it's worth $20. Something along those lines.
I figure I might as well mention that again - I'd mentioned it in the past, probably a year and a half ago, and actually had a couple of people email me about the idea. it seems like it should be fairly trivial. It's actually quite a bit of compute power and it won't be fast but it'd be cheap. I was told that such could even be quite specifically targeted and optimized as the architecture is fairly similar across a bunch of them. I'd have to dig through my email archives to find out the various suggestions.
Hmm... I'm not really seeing any major downsides. The whole thing could be run as a non-profit and I'd not be surprised to find some university interest. I've still got some friends in academia. Maybe it's time to write something a bit more formal and approach them. I'm not exactly being all that productive, I don't need money, and it might turn into something of value?
Good luck with that. They can obey the laws within their country. They're not going to win a lawsuit trying to recoup the money from me. They may not remain as customers but that's okay - I've already got their money. They should have followed the law within their country. This is going to be a bit long. I'm trying to reason with you. If you scroll to the bottom and kind of work your way up, it should make a bit more sense as to my motive for doing so. You're not that dumb. I know you're not.
I don't put it past France to sue their own citizens for buying ads in a different country. So, they may actually do something like that. However, it's really not something I'd be concerned with. If France wants to make their own citizens lose business and profits that's something they can do. I'll still provide services and goods, once paid for, to anyone who pays for them. I'm not going to learn the various laws of the various countries. That's just insane and nobody has time or inclination to do so - except, maybe, Facebook, Google, and the other large businesses.
It's going to be really funny when they all start pulling out of France and France's economy is weakened even further. However, I believe a sovereign nation should be able to set their own rules and regulations. What I don't believe (and is not the case) is that those rules have any impact on anyone outside the border. And yes, yes I hate it when my own country stomps across the planet thinking that it's okay to force others to adhere to US regulations. If the situation were reversed, I'd be saying the US can pack it in their ass.
If France, China, Saudi Arabia, or whoever it is decides they want to impose restrictions then they can do so at their border. That's the limit. Of course, Facebook is beholden to them but that's not what the OP was asserting. They were asserting that all businesses were beholden.
Let me, if you don't mind, ask you a question... I'm trying to actually understand where it is you're coming from and why you seem to think that it should matter. (I'm assuming you're French and have some ego associated with the topic, that's okay. It just makes it hard to be objective.) I'm going to paint a hypothetical for you. It will be reasoned, reasonable, and topical...
Let's say you have a server in France with a domain resolvable on the internet and you host a site. On your site you have several different languages - we'll say it's a forum. Your forum not only shows ads but also will allow people to buy ad space. You process your payments with a company located within the borders of France, you are in France, and your hardware is in France. You may, or may not, sell ads to businesses in China. Even if you don't sell ads, you get paid for impressions and that means that the traffic from China is resulting in you getting paid. You can even assume that you sell ad space to Chinese customers if they want to buy them.
Now, along comes Joe The Ignorant American and he posts about Tibet and about the oppressive behavior of the Chinese government. He posts (topical, of course - and welcome) about the massacres, the Cultural Revolution, and maybe even starts suggesting ways that the Chinese people can get around the Great Firewall of China. For the sake of argument, you're open minded and caring and welcome the content and the content is topical. It's desired, welcome, and invites both conversation and traffic to your site - including traffic from China. But, you process no payments in, do not live in, nor do you have a physical presence in China.
So, do you feel like you should be obligated to remove that content if China's government sends you a letter telling you to take it down? Do you think you should have to listen to them? Do you think you should be subjected to their punishments?
If you want, change the hypothetical to be forced to host content, content that you don't want, say content that that you find personally deplorable. Maybe you can use North Korea as your guide for this one. Do you feel that they sho
Amazingly enough, I have. No, they're not all evil either. Some are. I don't think they're any more evil than someone with less money, they're just more able to act on that evil and that evil has a greater impact. But, no... They're not all evil. If you think so then that's kind of disappointing. It says more about you than it says about them.