Surely with all the tax money they collect (and yes the license fee is a tax), they could have come up with a more original name for thier online digital video player.
Yes, some things truly are better left to the private sector. The government should have set up a contract bid for companies to come up with original names for this player.
Or maybe they secretly did, and Apple got the contract?
(Sorry for the posting delay, assuming you're still checking this thread)
But that proves the point. If corporations only existed for the public good, then revoking a charter would be no more drastic than revoking a driver's license - significant, but hardly comparable to the death penalty.
In a society where continued incorporation was permitted only if it served the public interest, the burden of prooving that would be on the corporation, or it's charter would not be renewed.
With each person in our society, there's a really good chance that those people are going to contribute positively to society. We like to keep people alive. Also, by safeguarding their existence and building a sense of security, we've found that people work better, and are more inclined to raise a family with kids who will eventually become working members of society too. Society exists to serve these people, but also these people exist to serve society. Everything society gives them is an investment with intention of being repaid.
Corporations also exist to serve society. They may not be humans, they may not have a moral obligation attached to them (yet), but all those reasons why we don't kill humans hold true with corporations. We want more corporations (because there's a really good chance they'll contribute positively to society), so we safeguard their existence. We only kill them as a last resort. With people, sometimes we refuse to kill them at all, no matter what their sins. When you kill a corporation, or a person, you take away a part of that security. Plus you lose another member of society that could still reform, or could raise kids who would be functioning members of society. The difference between a person and a corporation is that a corporation can curb behaviour much easier than a person, who ends up building habits that are hard for him to break.
Part of the problem is that ruling classes always seek to make the people not care. From the Roman circuses to reality TV, keeping the masses distracted has always been a key to maintaining power.
That's complete, unadulterated bull. The only reason why we have reality TV and Roman circuses is because they are profitable! As soon as people stop liking reality TV, it'll be off the airwaves before you can blink. People allow themselves not to care because they either don't want to care (which is their right), or they can't find anything to care about. The fact is that most western countries are run relatively competently (G.W. Bush gives me cause for concern though), and many people just aren't that fussy. It's not that the government controls the media, or that the media is sending subliminal messages to people telling them not to care, it's that people are happy and secure, and when people are happy and secure, the government is doing its job.
That said, that's no reason for you not to publicly express your opinion and push for change.
Re:Ahh crap-DISMANTLE ONE SERVER AT A TIME
on
RIAA Sues Usenet.com
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The truth is that the RIAA truly believes that they are more important than absolutely everybody else in the world!
The truth is that the RIAA truly believes that everybody else in the world owes them a debt, thanks to all the piracy that's interspersed throughout the world.
I'm probably a bit younger than you; I was a visual basic kid. I remember for a month or two, I had no idea you could declare variables. I just did what I assumed every professional software developer did: I drew an invisible label in the background to store my value. Who says VB teaches bad coding practices?
Originally corporations were permitted to exist only while they served the public interest, but that is no longer the case - which is why corporate charters are almost never revoked. Now corporations exist soley for their own interests.
Comparing revoked charters is no measure of purpose. Revoking a charter is a drastic action. It's the death penalty for corporations. Not only do you have to prove that they (i.e. the corporation itself, not its employees) had a hand in crimes enough to warrant killing it. Also, a heavily fined corporation still generates money for the country. A revoked company doesn't. Revoking a charter is often against the people's interest.
Modern large corporations profit by controlling markets, by externalizing costs, and by exploiting labor with a rush to the bottom, not by providing quality goods and services or by serving the people.
All of those are ways to maximise potential profit coming in from selling goods and services. Most companies can't make money from doing nothing.
Risking one's money isn't, in and of itself, admirable to such a degree that public policy should reward it. Gambling on stocks is no more heroic than gambling on the ponies.
Risk has value, especially when corporations do it. They risk their money by investing into society, which feeds wealth into the community. It's not the risk per se, it's the fact that that company is the one risking its profits to subsidise the community. It really helps society, and should be encouraged.
The point is that by controlling the process, corporate interests are able to keep such legislation out of the spotlight.
Ahh, but how exactly do you tell apart corporate control and a government who is hell-bent ideologically on supporting business?
Did "the people" want to give almost three billion dollars to the coal industry? Or lend five billion dollars to Westinghouse (a British Nuclear Fuels company, at the time) to build nuclear power plants in China, strengthening the infrastructure of our chief economic rival? (And giving technology to a Chinese company that had previously given nuclear tech to Iran and Pakistan!)
Well, excluding the people who don't care (and we need to, otherwise "the people" wouldn't "want" anything, ever), that leaves those with anti-corporate agendas (a growing number - somehow I think there's going to be some changes this or next election), and those in the business sector, who support bolstering the business community (and those who agree with them). Also, by bolstering the business community, you please all the materialist consumers out there. It would seem quite possible to me that "the people" do want these corporate-friendly political policies.
As for the Westinghouse loan, don't forget that loans make money, and constitute an investment by the US government, and could help reduce the government deficit. I don't know the context, but perhaps the move was also to reduce coal consumption in China?
But did "the people" have any idea this was going on? No.
But that's the beauty of a free-speech democracy! You can work to inform and persuade the masses of what's going on! The only problem for you is that most of them may not care, a fact that the media has already worked out.
OK, let me clear this up. I don't think that it should be a crime to sell a violent game to a minor. The issue is that the original poster was all but convinced, he found the senator's arguments logical, it's just that he pulled out because he let his preconceptions trump the new influences. Kinda like what you're doing here, where you treat your opinion like a fact, rather than something dynamic and open to influence.
No. The sole desire of large publicly-traded corporations is to grow, not to "serve the people".
No, I was right. They exist to serve the people. It's the only reason why they're allowed in a democracy or democratic republic. The growth purpose is a means to the end. We discovered that the best way to make a corporation serve the people effectively was to try to make them as profitable as possible, since customer satisfaction more or less corresponded with profit.
And the wealth they accumulate goes to a minority owning class, doing little for most of the country.
Most of the money naturally goes to the people responsible for the businesses (because they're the ones who've done the work or risked their capital). They encourage money into the country, they spend their money invigorating smaller and smaller businesses down the line. The added affluence ends up creating more jobs, potentially helping even the poorest people get out of the gutter. The stream of wealth also trickles to the government, where they are in the position to help the lowest class. Everyone up the chain experiences increase in infrastructure, pay, quality of living, etc. It's all extremely slow, and can be hampered by inefficiencies that can slow down the flow of wealth, but it happens eventually. In the world of globalisation, investment in business is a prudent decision. Of course, certain administrations may take it a little bit too far...
The corporations rule the government.
I'll level with you. Your article is long and I'm bloody tired today. From what I can pick up from a skim is that congress is a political mess, and the Bush administration passed a few pieces of legislation that are pro-business to a fault. I'm still looking for an example of a piece of legislation that the people are truly unhappy with as a whole that is requested by a corporation. Perhaps there is such an example in your article, but I'm certainly not going to look for it.
And it's clearly willing to screw political dissidents who might change the power structure
Societies have traditionally been less free during wartime. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm not even saying it's nothing to be worried about, it's just that I wouldn't despair about the future just yet. Anyway, my primary point is about the vilification of corporatism, and the connection with the government, not the vilification of a wartime government.
I got the impression that this policy was a labour of love. This is one of the policies he happens to be passionate about, one that he's thought about, and may possibly be one of his goals in becoming a politician. He's a child psychologist, so I wouldn't be surprised if he developed a private interest in the effects of games on children in the course of his practice.
This guy is no ordinary "think of the children" type. He actually does think of the children, and truly believes he is helping them. Refreshing indeed.
There's nothing more dangerous than someone who can think [somewhat] logically and still pushes for harmful policy.
One thing that I consider more dangerous is someone who still believes themselves correct and refuses to modify their opinions even in the face of something unmistakably reasonable.
You stress the government connection too much. They don't sponsor them to police/monitor the net. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest a conspiracy without benefit. The government doesn't gain anything if they secretly finance the ISPs to monitor traffic. There may be political benefit if it were done publicly, because ISPs are in the prime position to conduct effective monitoring/policing.
you're about half a step from a police state.
Yeah. One moment your eyes are open, people vote to throw out government and (indirectly) legislation if they don't like them, people are relatively anonymous, very little public surveillance, etc, and ISPs are just introducing policies to police the internet, you blink, and suddenly there's mandatory GPS implants, surveillance cameras/microphones on every pole, and a large, expensive, unpopular infrastructure that collates all the movements of hundreds of millions of people. It's a baby step really.
Yes. If that guy had a large amount of power, it would probably be prudent to replace him, but since he's just one senator, he's fine.
in practical reality, we live in a corporate plutocracy.
In practical reality, our society relies on corporate input to serve the people as well as accumulate wealth in the country. Therefore, the government feels the need to protect local business interests, in order to keep the economy healthy, and to keep the country wealthy. The corporations do not rule the people. The government is not out to get you. The former (and probably latter) of those statements is correct vice-versa. You have the choice, you're just being outnumbered at the moment.
What's wrong with them? They're easy to ignore, and they offset the problem with the moderation system, where expressing certain opinions can guarantee you negative karma.
Besides, Slashdotters have never bought the "why are you running if you have nothing to hide" argument.
I mean, it's not like a country would ever use technology such as this to control its own populace... right?
That'd be just... silly, right?
Certainly if you're in a democracy. People in power simply aren't in power for long enough. Anyone can usurp the throne, if the public think there's a problem. No, it's the democratic governments that are controlled by the people, so therefore, any controlling done by the government is controlling by the people (by proxy).
By the way, I applaud you for questioning the situation and thinking for yourself, rather than falling for the usual liberal paranoia.
Otherwise, we all might as well get chipped with GPS locators and audio/video recorders and route everything to your nearest friendly community overlord.
And that follows on from your original statement... how? Merging monitoring/enforcement into ISPs doesn't plunge you directly into a surveillance state.
Fuck you. Perhaps you should stop and think before you start condescending to me. I happen to be acquainted with the guy, certainly more so than you, and I can tell you he's very well read, and he wouldn't be so stupidly arrogant as to assume he knew a person from the phrase "health-conscious".
He lived next door to the place with the asbestos. The walls filter nothing. The same place has gotten fumigated twice, and it apparently reeked over there, as if the fumigation was happening over at his house. He would have gotten the air-born particles floating around in his house from the demolition, which are harmful. Plus the guy was wheeling it out, piled high, on a windy day, so it would have been air-born outside too. There are protocols for this thing, and this builder wasn't breaking them to champion a world without health and safety restrictions, he was being an uncaring tight-arse. Tell me what the fuck is wrong with complaining about a guy like that?
Fucking mod only gave you mod points because health-consciousness is seen as irrational on slashdot for some reason, which of course makes it heresy, and in being heresy, you can be an enormous arrogant, ignorant prick in your comment, so long as you laugh at the strawman stereotype.
I'm not saying that seatbelts or airbags are bad things, don't get me wrong; but ideally, a government wouldn't need to tell manufacturers how to build their cars -- people would buy cars with those features because they want a car that's safe.
A friend of mine was living next to a house that was being renovated, and the builder was wheelbarrowing out uncovered loads of what looked like asbestos onto the street. Being health-conscious, he confronted the man about the loads, and he confirmed it was asbestos, and that when confronted about the health risk to others (such as himself), the guy simply replied "you've gotta go some time". Translation: "I don't want to spend the money on doing this safely".
Moral of the story: leaving certain things up to consumer choice is a bad idea, because people don't always account for the safety of others. I think we have the ideal situation already.
He gets to watch the video. What's not cut-y about that? Not only that, he gets to choose which videos he wishes to watch, and can therefore choose not to watch any ads at all. So yes, everyone sees a cut in this plan. It's just that before now, Google was missing out somewhat.
I really enjoyed the entire game. I know it's cool to criticise, but it has to be my favourite multiplayer game. I've played many thousands of vs matches, unlocked/finished everything, can beat level 9s easily, and yet I'm still finding new little tricks and combos to keep my game tight.
I've got *high* expectations Nintendo! Don't let me down!
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe they secretly did, and Apple got the contract?
Corporations also exist to serve society. They may not be humans, they may not have a moral obligation attached to them (yet), but all those reasons why we don't kill humans hold true with corporations. We want more corporations (because there's a really good chance they'll contribute positively to society), so we safeguard their existence. We only kill them as a last resort. With people, sometimes we refuse to kill them at all, no matter what their sins. When you kill a corporation, or a person, you take away a part of that security. Plus you lose another member of society that could still reform, or could raise kids who would be functioning members of society. The difference between a person and a corporation is that a corporation can curb behaviour much easier than a person, who ends up building habits that are hard for him to break.That's complete, unadulterated bull. The only reason why we have reality TV and Roman circuses is because they are profitable! As soon as people stop liking reality TV, it'll be off the airwaves before you can blink. People allow themselves not to care because they either don't want to care (which is their right), or they can't find anything to care about. The fact is that most western countries are run relatively competently (G.W. Bush gives me cause for concern though), and many people just aren't that fussy. It's not that the government controls the media, or that the media is sending subliminal messages to people telling them not to care, it's that people are happy and secure, and when people are happy and secure, the government is doing its job.
That said, that's no reason for you not to publicly express your opinion and push for change.
How was that a troll?
... look at the first four words of the title and think the editors strung four random words together?
I'm probably a bit younger than you; I was a visual basic kid. I remember for a month or two, I had no idea you could declare variables. I just did what I assumed every professional software developer did: I drew an invisible label in the background to store my value. Who says VB teaches bad coding practices?
Fair enough. Pay no mind to me, I was only trolling anyway. Still, it got some people thinking, so it wasn't all bad.
As for the Westinghouse loan, don't forget that loans make money, and constitute an investment by the US government, and could help reduce the government deficit. I don't know the context, but perhaps the move was also to reduce coal consumption in China?But that's the beauty of a free-speech democracy! You can work to inform and persuade the masses of what's going on! The only problem for you is that most of them may not care, a fact that the media has already worked out.
OK, let me clear this up. I don't think that it should be a crime to sell a violent game to a minor. The issue is that the original poster was all but convinced, he found the senator's arguments logical, it's just that he pulled out because he let his preconceptions trump the new influences. Kinda like what you're doing here, where you treat your opinion like a fact, rather than something dynamic and open to influence.
I got the impression that this policy was a labour of love. This is one of the policies he happens to be passionate about, one that he's thought about, and may possibly be one of his goals in becoming a politician. He's a child psychologist, so I wouldn't be surprised if he developed a private interest in the effects of games on children in the course of his practice.
This guy is no ordinary "think of the children" type. He actually does think of the children, and truly believes he is helping them. Refreshing indeed.
And to think people laughed at me when I bought a shiny new 1GB video card!
Besides, Slashdotters have never bought the "why are you running if you have nothing to hide" argument.
By the way, I applaud you for questioning the situation and thinking for yourself, rather than falling for the usual liberal paranoia.
Fuck you. Perhaps you should stop and think before you start condescending to me. I happen to be acquainted with the guy, certainly more so than you, and I can tell you he's very well read, and he wouldn't be so stupidly arrogant as to assume he knew a person from the phrase "health-conscious".
He lived next door to the place with the asbestos. The walls filter nothing. The same place has gotten fumigated twice, and it apparently reeked over there, as if the fumigation was happening over at his house. He would have gotten the air-born particles floating around in his house from the demolition, which are harmful. Plus the guy was wheeling it out, piled high, on a windy day, so it would have been air-born outside too. There are protocols for this thing, and this builder wasn't breaking them to champion a world without health and safety restrictions, he was being an uncaring tight-arse. Tell me what the fuck is wrong with complaining about a guy like that?
Fucking mod only gave you mod points because health-consciousness is seen as irrational on slashdot for some reason, which of course makes it heresy, and in being heresy, you can be an enormous arrogant, ignorant prick in your comment, so long as you laugh at the strawman stereotype.
Moral of the story: leaving certain things up to consumer choice is a bad idea, because people don't always account for the safety of others. I think we have the ideal situation already.
He gets to watch the video. What's not cut-y about that? Not only that, he gets to choose which videos he wishes to watch, and can therefore choose not to watch any ads at all. So yes, everyone sees a cut in this plan. It's just that before now, Google was missing out somewhat.
Just after this little dust up. Then all the copyright issues will have been straightened out, and we can live in non-infringing golden age!
I really enjoyed the entire game. I know it's cool to criticise, but it has to be my favourite multiplayer game. I've played many thousands of vs matches, unlocked/finished everything, can beat level 9s easily, and yet I'm still finding new little tricks and combos to keep my game tight.
I've got *high* expectations Nintendo! Don't let me down!