281–290 of 366 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely false, and an attempt at character defamation while sidestepping the facts. A primary human right is you own the fruits of your labor. Period.
Equating people's income with "the fruits of their labor" is ridiculous. (Might as well claim that the government's income collected through taxes is the fruits of the government's labor.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wouldn't taking 5 poor kids to a pizza hut be an act of sympathy and not empathy?
I think the approach is clumsy and overly constrained, but I would hope the idea was that by being forced to actually interact with neighbors and their families it would increase social cohesion and empathy. I don't think that's particularly incorrect, isolation from neighbors and the invisibility of the poor makes it a heck of a lot easier to ignore their problems. I'm not sure in this case it's sympathy or empathy,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only perhaps possible in the most desperately impoverished portions of Indian cities. If you think even moderately poor and above Indians are going to be OK with a random person picking up their children for a meal, that's pretty unlikely.
I encountered children begging for food and/or money in Delhi
But you don't have to go very far up the socioeconomic ladder even in India to get to a strata of the population who would not send their kids to beg in the streets. People there wish to protect and provide for their kids as much as anywhere else in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Equating people's income with "the fruits of their labor" is ridiculous. (Might as well claim that the government's income collected through taxes is the fruits of the government's labor.)
My income is the fruit of my labor... That not really disputable... I'm not working for free.
I can see a younger version of myself making something like this and intentionally letting it slip to the media for attention. I th8nk this line is telling: "Since there are no known victims/ targets for the ransomware group, their Tactics, Techniques and Procedures remain unknown." I don't think there's a risk if any great outbreak here. A bunch of scriptkiddies took some open source project and modified it with som…
Don't be dismissive of script kiddies, they can cause a lot of chaos, and often do it because they feel like no amount of self education or self improvement will improve their chances of stable full time employment. (Hence many of them operating out of the former USSR.)
(This is part of my broader idea that "cybersecurity" will remain nearly entirely impotent until we figure out a way to inject real liability. When something breaks, someone needs to pay or be punished. It's that simple. Perhaps start with Microsoft.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its definitely a cultural thing. The task would be extremely easy in any Indian city, but they probably don’t realize it would be near impossible in the West. Same with task 3, it would bankrupt Americans to pay for somebody else’s medical bills.
It's only perhaps possible in the most desperately impoverished portions of Indian cities. If you think even moderately poor and above Indians are going to be OK with a random person picking up their children for a meal, that's pretty unlikely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I want to build a table, so I chomp a tree. You want to build a chair, and you chomp another tree. I want to build another table, so I must walk a longer distance to find a tree. If everyone cut trees, it will get harder to find one. No coercion here. There is no force or threats of violence involved in these scenarios. Imposing a negative externality on someone is not necessarily coercion. > Another person want to…
The claim that the act of creation gives you exclusive rights can be coercion in a value system that doesn't care about the act of creation (or just cares less about it than things like mutual agreement about what to do with the commons).
I can see a younger version of myself making something like this and intentionally letting it slip to the media for attention. I th8nk this line is telling: "Since there are no known victims/ targets for the ransomware group, their Tactics, Techniques and Procedures remain unknown." I don't think there's a risk if any great outbreak here. A bunch of scriptkiddies took some open source project and modified it with som…
You have a hell of a typo: >laltrr the6 infrct *later they infect
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are natural resources that nobody created. Using them to create something is not coercion and results in property that can be traded for other property or services. Property can be coercion (e.g. untouched land claimed by or with the support of the state), but it doesn't have to be.
Enacting property rights over those natural resources is the initial act of coercion that makes trade possible. Merely using resources isn't coercion but it doesn't "result in property" unless you also apply coercion to exclude others from them. (Seems like a pointless word game you're trying to play here.)