Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like his new job is giving up his rights
Voters give them the power.
If the authorities break the rules, as given to them by duly elected officials, by all means prosecute them personally.
If they're acting within the rules prescribed by the elected officials, then it's the voters who are ultimately to blame.
You can't have authority without responsibility. If you want democracy, and the voters to ultimately control things, then those voters must accept responsibility for the results of their votes.
Lots of people are idiots. We let idiots vote. We get idiotic policies. This is the fault of the idiots who vote.
Re: Re: Response to: is it ajitt? on Jul 3rd, 2018 @ 9:57pm
If your reaction to losing a political battle is to threaten violence (against innocent family members, yet), then you are not part of civilized society.
We have elections and courts to settle these things peacefully. In every political battle there are losers.
If the losers refuse to accept the outcome peacefully, they become outlaws and criminals.
Go lobby. Get the laws changed. Find ways to solve your problems within existing law.
If you resort to violence, or the threat of violence, you are an enemy of civilization, and far worse than Pai.
Large organizations are the puppets of their lawyers
Like Mike, I'd never heard of the guy until the Cathy Newman interview. I read his book to see what all the fuss was about, and still don't really get why he's a big deal.
Based on the book, I classify him as "mostly harmless" - lots of fairly obvious (but worthy) moralizing, with a few nutty (but harmless) ideas thrown in.
So I don't get it.
But - my experience is that large organizations, esp. those dependent on government funding or regulation, live in a constant terror of bad publicity and (God forbid) lawsuits, and as a result are spineless puppets of the most fearful and conservative of their attorneys.
I think this, rather than ideology, is what ultimately drives most of the campus political correctness idiocy. (Sure, ideology is the seed, but lawyers are the rich soil that allows the parasite to grow and prosper).
From this viewpoint, maybe some counter-suits in the opposite direction can help re-calibrate the fears of the lawyers, and restore some balance on campuses.
Re: I'd be very surprised if we find out he read it.
I expect Musk to read it.
I'm a huge fan of his, and of SpaceX and Tesla (even have a Model 3 due to show up here in a few weeks).
But I agree with Mike - I think he's making a mistake here.
"Truth" and "facts" are terribly difficult to puzzle out except at first-hand. Even for those with the noblest motives. Crowdsourcing seems unlikely to help.
Backwards-looking methods never seem to work, except sometimes on historical timescales (and there's lots of bias even then).
The only reliable method we've found for truth-finding, science, uses forward-looking methods. You make a prediction, and then see if it's right.
Re: "They're government agents, of course they're always right."
IJ doesn't take cases they think they can't win.
They're a non-profit advocacy group - they want to set precedents. They're not a for-profit lawyer that will take losing cases so long as they get paid.
Life today sucks so bad, what with indoor plumbing, electricity, airline travel, the Internet, antibiotics, antiseptic surgery, air conditioning, restaurants, recorded music, cinema, etc.
We were much better off in the Middle Ages, when we could enjoy watching 2/3 of our children die before they were 10 years old.
When we say something benefits society, that doesn't mean it benefits everyone, or everyone equally. Some may be harmed, while others gain.
It's just saying that the gain is bigger than the harm.
And fairness requires that a few shouldn't suffer for the benefit of the many. The losers have to be compensated (out of the winnings). One way is to do it directly, for every harm. Another is to to let people win some and lose some, as long as on average they win more than they lose.
Monopolies are almost never sustainable without government intervention, Wendy.
There's always a tradeoff between the efficiency of consolidation and the laziness and lack of care about customers caused by too little competition. These reach an equilibrium somewhere between one monopolistic seller and every firm having one person in it.
But "job-killing" in and of itself, all other things being equal (which they never are), is good. Not bad.
If the merger really eliminates jobs while still providing the same services that Sprint + T-Mobile did before, that's pretty much the definition of progress.
Delivering more with less. Productivity increase.
If you can deliver the same service with less people, that frees up some people to produce other goods or services.
That's how economies grow.
(Of course it's tough if it's *your* job that's redundant, but that's your problem, not the economy's problem.)
FWIW, I'm skeptical. Mergers usually end up losing money and decreasing productivity. (Except top managers win by expanding their empires.)
On the post: Guy Gets Tossed In Jail For Contempt Charges Because Cops Say They Need To Unlock His Phones To Get Evidence Of Drug Possession
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like his new job is giving up his rights
If the authorities break the rules, as given to them by duly elected officials, by all means prosecute them personally.
If they're acting within the rules prescribed by the elected officials, then it's the voters who are ultimately to blame.
You can't have authority without responsibility. If you want democracy, and the voters to ultimately control things, then those voters must accept responsibility for the results of their votes.
Lots of people are idiots. We let idiots vote. We get idiotic policies. This is the fault of the idiots who vote.
On the post: Guy Gets Tossed In Jail For Contempt Charges Because Cops Say They Need To Unlock His Phones To Get Evidence Of Drug Possession
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like his new job is giving up his rights
The majority decides the rules that everyone lives under, including those who lost the election.
Is this news to you?
If you're uncomfortable with it, perhaps you'll see the merit in limited government, and rights that majorities can't take away.
On the post: Guy Gets Tossed In Jail For Contempt Charges Because Cops Say They Need To Unlock His Phones To Get Evidence Of Drug Possession
Re: I thought I remembered there being something like a right to
On the post: Guy Gets Tossed In Jail For Contempt Charges Because Cops Say They Need To Unlock His Phones To Get Evidence Of Drug Possession
Re: Re: Sounds like his new job is giving up his rights
The taxpayers elected and empowered the asshats in question.
Therefore they deserve to pay.
Don't want to pay for asshats? Don't elect people who'll pass asshat laws and hire asshat officials.
On the post: This Shouldn't Need Saying: Threatening To Kill Anyone Over Net Neutrality Is Idiotic
Re: Re: Response to: is it ajitt? on Jul 3rd, 2018 @ 9:57pm
We have elections and courts to settle these things peacefully. In every political battle there are losers.
If the losers refuse to accept the outcome peacefully, they become outlaws and criminals.
Go lobby. Get the laws changed. Find ways to solve your problems within existing law.
If you resort to violence, or the threat of violence, you are an enemy of civilization, and far worse than Pai.
On the post: Awesome Stuff: The Fidget Capsule
It's....a spring?
On the post: EU Copyright Proposal That Would Destroy Internet Memes Being Protested With Internet Memes
Not about helping creators - about hurting free-riders
Article 13 reflects a certain mentality about intellectual property that we see a lot of in Hollywood.
It's envy, not greed. Greed, we could live with.
If it was about helping creators get paid, use that doesn't harm, or actually increases the market for the original - would be exempt.
It's about hurting anyone who hopes to benefit - even in the form of a few laughs from friends - without paying.
Envy, not greed.
It's a lot like those in politics who are more interested in hurting the rich than in helping the poor.
Despicable human beings.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Large organizations are the puppets of their lawyers
Based on the book, I classify him as "mostly harmless" - lots of fairly obvious (but worthy) moralizing, with a few nutty (but harmless) ideas thrown in.
So I don't get it.
But - my experience is that large organizations, esp. those dependent on government funding or regulation, live in a constant terror of bad publicity and (God forbid) lawsuits, and as a result are spineless puppets of the most fearful and conservative of their attorneys.
I think this, rather than ideology, is what ultimately drives most of the campus political correctness idiocy. (Sure, ideology is the seed, but lawyers are the rich soil that allows the parasite to grow and prosper).
From this viewpoint, maybe some counter-suits in the opposite direction can help re-calibrate the fears of the lawyers, and restore some balance on campuses.
(Maybe. Or, could make things worse.)
On the post: School Can't Take A Joke; Turns Student Over To Cops For Listing The School For Sale On Craigslist
Re: Implied/Inferred
Prabobly not, but with that grammer (and not kowing how to spell "dinning") it's had to be intirely sure.
The kid is functionally illitirate. I wouldn't give him a diplomer.
</sarc>
On the post: Hey Elon Musk, Let's Talk About The Media
Re: I'd be very surprised if we find out he read it.
I'm a huge fan of his, and of SpaceX and Tesla (even have a Model 3 due to show up here in a few weeks).
But I agree with Mike - I think he's making a mistake here.
"Truth" and "facts" are terribly difficult to puzzle out except at first-hand. Even for those with the noblest motives. Crowdsourcing seems unlikely to help.
Backwards-looking methods never seem to work, except sometimes on historical timescales (and there's lots of bias even then).
The only reliable method we've found for truth-finding, science, uses forward-looking methods. You make a prediction, and then see if it's right.
On the post: CBP Sued For Seizing $41,000 From Airline Passenger, Then Refusing To Give It Back Unless She Promised Not To Sue
Re: Re: stopped for Traveling While Black? maybe not.
On the post: CBP Sued For Seizing $41,000 From Airline Passenger, Then Refusing To Give It Back Unless She Promised Not To Sue
Re: "They're government agents, of course they're always right."
They're a non-profit advocacy group - they want to set precedents. They're not a for-profit lawyer that will take losing cases so long as they get paid.
I expect IJ to win.
On the post: T-Mobile CEO Hallucinates Competitors In Bid To Sell Competition-Killing Sprint Merger
Re: Capital is giving you cancer..
Life today sucks so bad, what with indoor plumbing, electricity, airline travel, the Internet, antibiotics, antiseptic surgery, air conditioning, restaurants, recorded music, cinema, etc.
We were much better off in the Middle Ages, when we could enjoy watching 2/3 of our children die before they were 10 years old.
On the post: Sprint, T-Mobile Try To Sell The Public On A Job-Killing, Competition Eroding Megamerger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Job-killing = Progress
If you can deliver the same service with less people, that frees up some people to produce other goods or services.
That's how economies grow.
On the post: Sprint, T-Mobile Try To Sell The Public On A Job-Killing, Competition Eroding Megamerger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Job-killing = Progress
When we say something benefits society, that doesn't mean it benefits everyone, or everyone equally. Some may be harmed, while others gain.
It's just saying that the gain is bigger than the harm.
And fairness requires that a few shouldn't suffer for the benefit of the many. The losers have to be compensated (out of the winnings). One way is to do it directly, for every harm. Another is to to let people win some and lose some, as long as on average they win more than they lose.
On the post: Sprint, T-Mobile Try To Sell The Public On A Job-Killing, Competition Eroding Megamerger
Re: Re: Job-killing = Progress
On the post: Sprint, T-Mobile Try To Sell The Public On A Job-Killing, Competition Eroding Megamerger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Job-killing = Progress
There's always a tradeoff between the efficiency of consolidation and the laziness and lack of care about customers caused by too little competition. These reach an equilibrium somewhere between one monopolistic seller and every firm having one person in it.
But "job-killing" in and of itself, all other things being equal (which they never are), is good. Not bad.
On the post: Sprint, T-Mobile Try To Sell The Public On A Job-Killing, Competition Eroding Megamerger
Job-killing = Progress
Delivering more with less. Productivity increase.
If you can deliver the same service with less people, that frees up some people to produce other goods or services.
That's how economies grow.
(Of course it's tough if it's *your* job that's redundant, but that's your problem, not the economy's problem.)
FWIW, I'm skeptical. Mergers usually end up losing money and decreasing productivity. (Except top managers win by expanding their empires.)
On the post: State Trooper Facing Murder Charges After Tasing A Teen Riding An ATV
Re: AS A DRIVER...
Just for their own actions.
Arguably the driver should have hit the brakes when he saw his idiot partner about to tase somebody at 35 MPH. He's liable for that failure.
But only for that.
On the post: Trump's Lawyers Apparently Unfamiliar With Streisand Effect Or 1st Amendment's Limits On Prior Restraint
Re: Re: HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH is considering violating the co
Next >>