So because it's been unstable for centuries, that justifies any acts that the US takes that could aid in its instability?
It is doubtful that Amazon will shoot their prices up as soon as they reach a certain amount of market dominance. It may be that they stop lowering prices as aggressively. If they do raise prices, don't expect anything drastic unless other economic factors change as well.
Doubtful. That's generally not what happens and it's typically a very bad business move.
Yeah. Actually I think that was some of the wisdom to creating "united states." The smaller the group, the more likely for that group to consist of like-minded people (especially if one can rather easily change groups.) Too bad that didn't last... Frankly, I think it was doomed to fail, though.
I didn't write the original message. I actually misread; I thought the author was talking about the constitution.
It's been a bit since I've read the constitution, but I don't believe that it ever defined what made someone a person or "property". The subsequent amendments which addressed blacks and women were necessary because at the time, it was the only way that the federal government could decree such a thing over the rights of the state. In other words, it wasn't that the constitution declared slavery legal or anything like that; such issues were up to the states to decide.
Whoops! I totally misread your post! Sorry.
And how exactly can you extend responsibility to voters, who have no way of knowing or controlling the specifics of what goes on in government? I mean, don't get me wrong, it is partially their fault for being so ignorant, but legal responsibility?
Why? I certainly don't. People don't actually care about important things.
And why should it, pray tell?
Google does not arbitrarily filter search results. They filter search results in ways that makes them the most money. It's bad for business for them to simply remove search results because "they don't like you." Such a policy be bad for their own business, as it would hurt their search results, giving an excellent opportunity for competitors to claim a portion of their vast market share. Obviously there are complications to this, as Google does filter results in a way to promote their own business activities. But again, this is hardly arbitrary: they do so because they think it will make them more money.
So then the girls who have made the unfortunate decision of allowing compromising pictures to be taken of them should scour the internet for themselves so that they can make complaints? That hardly seems right. The children argument is a red herring; this has nothing to do with making the world safe for children; this is a matter of who holds the rights to the photo and what sorts of reasonable actions can be taken to protect the property owners. Also, how does this punish "everybody"? If anything, it seems like it only punishes people who are posting naked pictures of others. Well, I suppose it might make certain naked pictures harder to find. I guess if that's your concern, make your own site/app for doing just that. (Remember, Reddit is a for-profit company; they can and should do what they think is in the best interest of their customers.)
Right. And certainly if a guy takes a picture of his naked girlfriend, that girlfriend has the expectation that the picture is for his private use only.
Reddits policy change seems much different than Google's. As a free market, private property type, wouldn't you agree that reddits policy change is moral in that it is an attempt to return property to its rightful owner?
I don't think he meant that a comp sci grad knows nothing of the inner workings of the equipment he works on, only that he doesn't know every detail. Perhaps I assume too much, but you probably don't know every technical detail about the telescope you're using, yeah? I imagine the average astronomer knows at least enough to do his or her job and not a lot beyond that. The point is, that's how much the average comp sci guys know about EE. Enough.