Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Being disconnected might be good... (Score 0) 44

by mi (#49143273) Attached to: Facebook's Colonies

The problem with the banana republic governments that are kept in power by the US military

Off-topic. I was talking about corporations and government of the same country.

using the US military to "promote America's interests" - where "America's interests" are not freedom or democracy but instead the interests of a small number of rich Americans who stand to benefit from having their corporations exploit poor people in other countries

Citations needed. Badly...

Comment: Re:Sure, some access is bad (Score 1) 44

by mi (#49143187) Attached to: Facebook's Colonies

most corporations today are global multinationals operating in all countries, and they love to make use of that by doing in the non-free countries all the evil things that they can't (as easily) do in the free countries.

First of all, America is still reasonably free. Second, the governments of those non-free countries, which may condone (and encourage) those unspecified "evil things", are even less likely to provide citizens with decent Internet access, than is Facebook.

You claim this is the best way for a corporation to get rich, but you offer no evidence to support that claim.

In a free country, there is simply no other way to get rich. That's my proof... The less free the country (down from "free" to "reasonably free"), the worse it is as corruption and crony capitalism open up opportunities for corporations to get rich in other ways.

A big news one recently was when Oracle decided the best way to riches was to take the MONEY for providing a service to the taxpayers of Portland without actually providing the service, and giving just a token piece of junk instead.

That's a rather one-sided way of describing it, but is this your argument for trusting the State government, which hired Oracle in the first place? Or for the Federal government, which made such a contract (creation of "health exchange") necessary in the first place?

But whatever the specifics of this case, I was talking about corporations getting rich by pleasing people — people, spending their own monies, rather than government officials spending those of their constituents.

The more money is spent by the government, the less free the citizens — and the more opportunities arise for unscrupulous corporations to profit unjustly. You can win a billion-dollar contract by giving a million to the official in charge of millions' of people taxes. But you can't do that selling to people directly — for that you have to actually deliver something decent, or fool people. Fortunately, fooling all the people all the time is notoriously difficult...

That they will never end up doing something that makes less money but is more evil simply because made a bad decision

Not at all. I consider neither corporate CEOs nor government bureaucrats to be omniscient. But you seem to think, only the CEOs are fallible...

PG&E was providing electricity [...] toxic waste properly and dumping it in people's drinking water instead.

Once again your example involves a corporation profiting from a special arrangement with the government... Don't you see the trend yet?

Facebook is the perfect example here - their product is private information for targetted advertising, the users aren't the customers

So long as nobody is forced to sign up, you argument is without merit.

It's easy to point the finger solely at government for those but it's also false, if the government didn't exist the companies would do the SAME things

For someone pointing out logical fallacies (real or otherwise) in other people's arguments, you are strangely susceptible to the "excluded middle". How about the government existed, but limited itself to those things enumerated in our Constitution as government's domain:

  • Law (criminal, tort, contractual) enforcement;
  • Defense from any would-be foreign invaders

Nothing else.

Comment: Re:Being disconnected might be good... (Score 0) 44

by mi (#49142961) Attached to: Facebook's Colonies

How about you learn from someone who was a Marine who knows how the system works

I'd be happy to learn from him, how to operate a weapon, but why would an average Marine know "how the system works" any better, than a software engineer, a construction worker, or a janitor?

But if you hold Marines' political savvy in such an esteem, why don't you accept their other opinions today? They are rather Conservative for one thing — do you share that too, or are you only going to quote the few cherry-picked among them?

Comment: Re:Being disconnected might be good... (Score 0) 44

by mi (#49142875) Attached to: Facebook's Colonies

Um, Orwell was a well known socialist

Only as an opposition to Franco's fascism (Orwell fought in Spanish civil war) — and until he realized, that both Fascism and Socialism are merely two sides of the coin of Statism.

Whatever the Wikipedia article may say about the book, an actual quote from it says:

I worked out an anarchistic theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and the people can be trusted to behave decently if you will only let them alone.

That anarchism may be naive, but there is certainly nothing in it about the need to confiscate money from citizens at gun-point (also lovingly referred to as "taxation") in order to build schools and otherwise "help the downtrodden".

Comment: Re:Being disconnected might be good... (Score 0) 44

by mi (#49142801) Attached to: Facebook's Colonies

US Marines were used numerous times to support the agenda of United Fruit.

Abroad. I was talking about the threat of government vs. the threat of corporations of the same country.

In more recent times, only a fool doesn't understand

Wow. This is the second time I am reminded of Hans Christian Andersen on one day...

about corporations not acting in collusion with governments

This was not really what I was talking about. But let me ask you, why is it you prefer the government side of that "collusion" you allege to be taking place? Corporation, at least, is doing it in order to bring some goods (such as bananas) to people, who want them... What's the government's excuse?

Comment: Re:Sure, some access is bad (Score 1) 44

by mi (#49142681) Attached to: Facebook's Colonies

a corporation will bust your kneecaps if you demand higher wages set fire to smaller competitors

Assault and arson are both bona-fide crimes, that a government has a right and duty to prosecute. I wish, the government busied itself with those responsibilities only...

elect ... and make them accountable to you

Unless they ask the IRS to make you accountable to them... Great example.

we just passed net neutrality

A major intrusion into property rights and violation of one's freedom to operate one's business the way one sees fit.

we're legalizing gay marriage

A self-contradicting term akin to "meatless steak".

But I see, what you mean. Unhappy with other people's opinions and actions and unable to convince them, you seek to either simply force them to do things your way (such as pass any and all traffic through their own cables), or redefine certain terms (such as "marriage" — which all human civilizations until 20 years ago understood to mean "union of different sexes").

Yes, you certainly need government's ability to compel people at gunpoint to achieve those things. Without it to back your ridiculous argument, you'd still be the laughing stock you were 10 years ago...

and marijuana

Funny, how you mix introduction of new oppressive laws with abolishing old oppressive laws together — and consider both to be good things.

Comment: Every project will be behind schedule (Score 1) 241

by Opportunist (#49142149) Attached to: The Programmers Who Want To Get Rid of Software Estimates

By definition. When you look at our current corporate culture, you know it has to be. For a simple reason: Companies bidding for jobs. And more often than not, the cheapest offer gets the deal.

Who is the cheapest? Usually the one that cut the most corners and underestimated his cost (i.e. time) to deliver the most.

Comment: Re:Sure, some access is bad (Score -1, Troll) 44

by mi (#49141827) Attached to: Facebook's Colonies

me: i don't trust government. i also don't trust corporations

You are framing the question wrong. I trust both to be self-serving and greedy.

The problem is, a self-serving and greedy government official will use his existing powers to expand his control over your life and money. As Thomas Jefferson observed back in 1788: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."

On the other hand, for a corporation — operating in a reasonably free country — the best way to riches is through providing services and/or making goods, that people are willing to pay for.

This is why I want this country to remain "reasonably free" — where the above-stated means of enrichment remain competitive.

why is there this irrational tribalism at work in the world where expressing an opinion against something automatically means i am for something else

Because certain things are exclusive of certain other things. Liberty vs. expanding government control is one example.

Comment: Erh... Bruce, I usually like your insightful posts (Score 1) 99

by Opportunist (#49141769) Attached to: Schneier: Everyone Wants You To Have Security, But Not From Them

But this one is one of the "gee, really, you don't say?" kind.

OF COURSE everyone wants to be the only one who has access to something. Monopolies are something really awesome, and only cool if they are, well, monopolies.

Data is worthless if everyone has it, only if you have the exclusive ability to use it it becomes valuable. In our world, the value of something is determined by its scarcity. Data is now something that can, by its very nature, be reproduced with near zero cost in infinite amounts. It only becomes a commodity if you control when, how and most of all if that data may be reproduced.

Whom the gods would destroy, they first teach BASIC.

Working...