We try to remember that medicine is for the patient. We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered it, the larger they have been. -- George W. Merck, founder of the Merck & Co. pharmaceutical company
I will state upfront that there's actually plenty in this book that I end up disagreeing with, in that Perelman seems to reflexively dislike corporations and assume that corporations and the public are almost always at odds
What's wrong with that? Given that past experience shows that corporations--particularly of the multi-billion-dollar megacorp variety--almost always are at odds with the interest of the public, it's a very reasonable baseline assumption to start from.
Look at this case. 19 out of 19 times, the response was preparedness to use force, and when thinking determined that it was not necessary, not a single cop in any of the 19 SWAT teams involved actually killed anyone.
Furthermore, I'm uncomfortable with an argument that is basically the same argument as "if we tell you not to access this open web server, then it's like trespassing." Because it's not like that at all. An open web server is designed to accept traffic. Someone merely telling you that you can't access their website -- even though it's easy to do so technologically -- doesn't seem like it should then be seen as "unauthorized access" in a manner that makes you liable to computer hacking laws. That's a recipe for dangerous results.
Wait, why is this problematic?
An open web server is designed to accept traffic from the general public. An open store is designed to accept walk-in business from the general public.
My first job out of high school was at a Wendy's. There was this one young lady who kept coming in and being disruptive, and after a couple months she did something--I don't remember what, exactly--that really crossed a line. The store manager was in that day, and he came out and personally told her to leave, and that if she ever came back he would call the police and have her arrested for trespassing.
Did he or did he not have the right to do this, even though it's a business that's open to the general public?
If not, why not? And if so, why is the Facebook situation any different? Isn't it a basic tenet on Techdirt that you don't get something fundamentally different (and certainly not in a way that should be regarded differently by the law) by taking something common and well-understood from the real world and slapping "on the Internet" on the end of it?
It's important to keep in mind that this is the presidency that never met a copyright abuse it didn't like. The Obama administration--and the VP in particular--have been major cheerleaders for bad laws and bad policies for the last 7.5 years now.
Google is big and successful. Some legacy entertainment companies have been struggling. For whatever reason, many of those companies have decided that Google's success must be the reason for their downfall, and they've been blaming Google ever since.
"For whatever reason"? How about "because Google has been out-competing them and thereby actively contributing to their downfall," AKA exactly how capitalism is supposed to work? When you suck at competing or adapting to the times, or simply stop trying, someone else is going to come along and eat your lunch. The MAFIAA understands exactly what's going on; they just don't want to put forth the effort required to fix it.
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention so far in this context is invasive species. Most governments (including the US federal government) exercise some control over seeds to prevent well-understood and tragic problems such as those posed by rabbits in Australia and kudzu in the American South.
Sure there's a choice: sue the insurance company and insist on a jury trial. Even the worst of lawyers should have no trouble convincing 12 Americans that something incredibly sleazy is going on there!
Re: "the utilitarian model is not the most moral [among models of morality]"
I wasn't talking about "models of morality" in general, but of models for this specific issue.
The most moral thing for an autonomous vehicle manufacturer to do in this situation is to design the car to always make protecting the inhabitants of the car its highest priority. Creating a way for the car to do otherwise is creating a way for a malicious actor to activate that code and kill people with it, and as numerous IoT security issues have shown us, that's a hacking and computer security is a very real concern.
The "trolley problem", by contrast... well, there's a reason it's known as a thought experiment, rather than a case study.
I just tried to read this article and got auto-redirected to a page that tried to automatically download a "important Firefox update". I'm not sure which advertisement did it, but something's getting in that shouldn't be.
Do you know what you get when certain very vocal idiots spend years screaming "RACISM!!!!!!" over every little thing that manages to negatively impact some minority in some way, and then nearly every time, when you actually look closely at it, you see that racism had nothing to do with it in the first place?
Anyone familiar with the old tale of The Boy Who Cried Wolf could have predicted this one easily enough: The answer looks a whole lot like the story of the current presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
The Brexit story is one that the entire world ought to be paying very serious attention to, because the vote was not only historic, but its consequences, whatever they are, ought to be instructive to other nations that want to use nationlism to propel this sort of agenda.
"Whatever they are" being the operative word here. We still don't know, in any meaningful way, what the consequences are, because not enough time has passed for any but the most trivial and short-term of consequences to have actually come about.
Many times, something that looks good at first turns out to be bad in the long run, and vice versa.