When I was in high school civics class (in the 1960s), one of the first things we learned was caveat emptor, let the buyer beware.
And like so many other bad ideas from the 60s, the sooner it dies, the better. Caveat emptor is a barbaric principle. When I say this I'm not speaking in the colloquial sense, as an insult to something I don't like, but in the literal sense: the principle advocates barbarism, the opposite and antithesis of civilization.
The basic, unspoken idea underlying caveat emptor is that, for a buyer to be properly wary, he needs to be able to competently evaluate his prospective purpose. This, of course, requires expert knowledge in the subject. But how many people do you know who are experts on food, clothing, housing, automobiles, consumer electronics, medicine, and all the other myriad things people buy over the course of a perfectly ordinary modern life?
No one, of course, for one simple reason: it's literally impossible to become an expert in everything! We don't have the time or the brainpower to do so. So we came up with a better way: civilization, which is based on the fundamental principle of specialization. Everyone becomes an expert in their own specific field, freeing everyone else up to specialize in other things without needing to know all the details about them.
The problem is, the civilized model is trust-based by necessity, and when that trust is violated by evil and cynical people throwing around barbaric rhetoric like caveat emptor in an attempt to justify themselves, it begins to fall apart. So let's purge that term, and the ideas it represents, from our vocabularies, please?
Calling the government "a criminal enterprise" makes you look like the worst of the worst Libertarian nutcases who troll the comments here. I expected a bit more professionalism from the authors...
In particular intervention at EU level is expected, because of its scale, to strengthen publishers bargaining powers in a more effective way
...and there's the problem right there. The goal of copyright is (or originally was, at least) explicitly to keep publishers in check and suppress their abusive behavior. Any copyright law designed to aid and strengthen publishers (see also: the DMCA) should be looked upon with horror and revulsion by anyone aware of the historical context.
Bitcoin has seen some concentration of decision power in the hands of the Chinese where the biggest coin farms reside so this could be a problem. Or not since there is nothing to farm.
Nothing to farm? If anything, the incentive is exponentially greater here.
Bitcoin is a fraud-plagued mess of a fringe currency experiment that's losing more and more prestige with each passing day. But put something of real value on the line, like the security of the fundamental infrastructure of the Internet, and you paint a massive target all over the entire system!
Re: Re: The Trolley Problem Would Never Happen on a Real Railroad.
As I said above, there's a reason it's a thought experiment (as you acknowledge) and not a case study: because it's a ridiculously contrived problem that does not occur in real life, due to being ridiculously contrived.
Example, DON'T TAILGATE A PICKUP WITH POORLY TIED DOWN FURNITURE.
Better example: Don't tailgate anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances.
Around here, the single most effective thing the police could do to make roads safer is to start treating tailgaters exactly the same way as drunk drivers. It's really that bad.
Re: Re: The Trolley Problem Would Never Happen on a Real Railroad.
Agreed. The one time I've actually been in a rear-end collision while in the vehicle that did the rear-ending, my friend (who was driving) was unaware that his brake pads had rotted away, and he was distracted by the music on the radio and hit the brakes too late. Had either factor been different, we wouldn't have hit them.
Re: The Trolley Problem Would Never Happen on a Real Railroad.
The over-riding fact is that the safest thing to do with a land vehicle, safest for all parties, is almost always to stop it.
Almost. Assuming the threat is directly ahead of you.
A few months ago, I was speeding up an on-ramp, which of course is the whole point of having an on-ramp, when some stupid teenage kid with a bicycle comes out of nowhere and makes like he's about to cross right in front of me. (This was at least 100 feet beyond the point where there are supposed to be no pedestrians, so I wasn't really paying attention to the side of the road when I had more important concerns to focus on in front of me and in the other lane.)
In this scenario, if I had braked, and he'd stepped out, I'd have ran him down and probably killed him, because there wasn't space to decelerate very far. If I had sped up, on the other hand, and he'd stepped out, he'd have hit my car from the side, which would have injured him a whole lot less.
Instead, I hit the horn and swerved to make a collision less likely, and he checked himself right at the last second and didn't step out into traffic after all. But this is one case where braking would have been the worst possible result.
It doesn't help that the Olympics have lost tons of legitimacy in the last couple decades. Ever since they managed to hold the Games--which are supposed to celebrate the dignity of mankind--in the infamous human rights cesspool that is China, a lot of people just stopped caring.
Stupid stunts by the IOC and broadcasters in subsequent years are just nails in the coffin.
1) Chatham's right. There's a reason the Trolley Problem is a thought experiment, not a case study. 2) In a world of imperfect computer security, there's only one possible right answer: always protect the people inside the car, period. If you build functionality into the car to kill the people inside the car, that becomes an attack vector that hackers will end up using to kill far more people (even if that number is never more than 1) than a legitimate Trolley Problem dilemma ever will. (See point #1.)
Just for the record, I don't live in DC (or even particularly close to it); I just know that horrendous traffic there is one of life's great constants.
On the post: School District Routinely Abused Access To Law Enforcement Database; Suspended Whistleblower Who Exposed It
Re: Re: School....
On the post: Louis Vuitton's Inability To Take A Joke Opens Up A Chance To Fix Our Broken Trademark Laws
Re: Re: consumer protection
And like so many other bad ideas from the 60s, the sooner it dies, the better. Caveat emptor is a barbaric principle. When I say this I'm not speaking in the colloquial sense, as an insult to something I don't like, but in the literal sense: the principle advocates barbarism, the opposite and antithesis of civilization.
The basic, unspoken idea underlying caveat emptor is that, for a buyer to be properly wary, he needs to be able to competently evaluate his prospective purpose. This, of course, requires expert knowledge in the subject. But how many people do you know who are experts on food, clothing, housing, automobiles, consumer electronics, medicine, and all the other myriad things people buy over the course of a perfectly ordinary modern life?
No one, of course, for one simple reason: it's literally impossible to become an expert in everything! We don't have the time or the brainpower to do so. So we came up with a better way: civilization, which is based on the fundamental principle of specialization. Everyone becomes an expert in their own specific field, freeing everyone else up to specialize in other things without needing to know all the details about them.
The problem is, the civilized model is trust-based by necessity, and when that trust is violated by evil and cynical people throwing around barbaric rhetoric like caveat emptor in an attempt to justify themselves, it begins to fall apart. So let's purge that term, and the ideas it represents, from our vocabularies, please?
On the post: School District Routinely Abused Access To Law Enforcement Database; Suspended Whistleblower Who Exposed It
Seriously, Tim?
On the post: Twitter Suspends YouTube Phenom PewDiePie For Making A Stupid ISIS Joke
It's right there in the name
On the post: AT&T Dodges FTC Throttling Lawsuit Using Title II Classification It Vehemently Opposed
Anyone else figure it's about time to break up AT&T again?
On the post: Moosehead Lager Makers At It Again: Suing Moose Whiz Root Beer For Trademark Infringement
Re: Moose & Monster, two words no longer allowed to be used
On the post: Leaked EU Copyright Proposal A Complete Mess: Want To Tax Google To Prop Up Failing Publishers
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Leaked EU Copyright Proposal A Complete Mess: Want To Tax Google To Prop Up Failing Publishers
...and there's the problem right there. The goal of copyright is (or originally was, at least) explicitly to keep publishers in check and suppress their abusive behavior. Any copyright law designed to aid and strengthen publishers (see also: the DMCA) should be looked upon with horror and revulsion by anyone aware of the historical context.
On the post: Certificate Authority Gave Out Certs For GitHub To Someone Who Just Had A GitHub Account
Re:
Nothing to farm? If anything, the incentive is exponentially greater here.
Bitcoin is a fraud-plagued mess of a fringe currency experiment that's losing more and more prestige with each passing day. But put something of real value on the line, like the security of the fundamental infrastructure of the Internet, and you paint a massive target all over the entire system!
On the post: Certificate Authority Gave Out Certs For GitHub To Someone Who Just Had A GitHub Account
On the post: Engineers Say If Automated Cars Experience 'The Trolley Problem,' They've Already Screwed Up
Re: Re: The Trolley Problem Would Never Happen on a Real Railroad.
On the post: Engineers Say If Automated Cars Experience 'The Trolley Problem,' They've Already Screwed Up
Re: Re: Re: Re: all mood
Better example: Don't tailgate anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances.
Around here, the single most effective thing the police could do to make roads safer is to start treating tailgaters exactly the same way as drunk drivers. It's really that bad.
On the post: Engineers Say If Automated Cars Experience 'The Trolley Problem,' They've Already Screwed Up
Re: Re: The Trolley Problem Would Never Happen on a Real Railroad.
On the post: Engineers Say If Automated Cars Experience 'The Trolley Problem,' They've Already Screwed Up
Re: The Trolley Problem Would Never Happen on a Real Railroad.
Almost. Assuming the threat is directly ahead of you.
A few months ago, I was speeding up an on-ramp, which of course is the whole point of having an on-ramp, when some stupid teenage kid with a bicycle comes out of nowhere and makes like he's about to cross right in front of me. (This was at least 100 feet beyond the point where there are supposed to be no pedestrians, so I wasn't really paying attention to the side of the road when I had more important concerns to focus on in front of me and in the other lane.)
In this scenario, if I had braked, and he'd stepped out, I'd have ran him down and probably killed him, because there wasn't space to decelerate very far. If I had sped up, on the other hand, and he'd stepped out, he'd have hit my car from the side, which would have injured him a whole lot less.
Instead, I hit the horn and swerved to make a collision less likely, and he checked himself right at the last second and didn't step out into traffic after all. But this is one case where braking would have been the worst possible result.
On the post: Comcast/NBC Tone Deafness, Not 'Millennials' To Blame For Olympics Ratings Drop
Stupid stunts by the IOC and broadcasters in subsequent years are just nails in the coffin.
On the post: Engineers Say If Automated Cars Experience 'The Trolley Problem,' They've Already Screwed Up
No, it's really not, for two reasons.
1) Chatham's right. There's a reason the Trolley Problem is a thought experiment, not a case study.
2) In a world of imperfect computer security, there's only one possible right answer: always protect the people inside the car, period. If you build functionality into the car to kill the people inside the car, that becomes an attack vector that hackers will end up using to kill far more people (even if that number is never more than 1) than a legitimate Trolley Problem dilemma ever will. (See point #1.)
On the post: Think Tank Argues That Giving Up Privacy Is Good For The Poor
It's not a discount if prices don't actually go down.
On the post: Enigma Software Countersued For Waging A 'Smear Campaign' Against Site It Claimed Defamed It
It's an enigma wrapped in a mystery wrapped in a big bleeping mess.
On the post: Who Should Get The Benefits When You Donate Your DNA For Research?
Yes.
Should they be able to claim some right to profit exclusively from it?
No way no how.
On the post: Why Apple Removing The Audio Jack From The iPhone Would Be A Very, Very, Very, Bad Move
Re: Re:
Just for the record, I don't live in DC (or even particularly close to it); I just know that horrendous traffic there is one of life's great constants.
Next >>