I don't understand the legal or ethical rationale that these scooters are different from any other items discarded on the sidewalk.
This is different from leaving your personal scooter for a few minutes while you shop, or from someone accidentally dropping their wallet or phone. If you intentionally strew things around in public and leave them there, why shouldn't anyone do with them as they like? How is this not littering for profit?
The reasoning of, "I left this thing on the sidewalk...I have no plans to come back for it any time soon...I hope someone comes along and wires me money to use it for a bit then drops it somewhere else...but don't you dare touch it unless you pay me!" seems specious.
That is not part of the social contract. No one has a reasonable expectation to use the sidewalk as an unattended warehouse or storefront for as long as they like. At best, this is gaming the question of what is or isn't abandoned property.
Huh? In a high-trust society, you absolutely can leave personal or business property in a shared public area, with the vague expectation it will be moved/reclaimed "soonish" (such as "before nightfall" or "within a day").
In some cases, there are posted limits: 2-hour parking; 72-hour maximum; etc.
You can also often leave temporary signs/markings (like sidewalk chalk or "garage sale"/"lost pet" posters). You can hand out flyers/coupons or solicit signatures on the sidewalks. You can monopolize a public field/court for a temporary period simply by starting to play/picnic there with friends. You can leave boxes/deliveries/garbage on sidewalks and in parking-spaces for later pick-up.
How can there be confusion that a branded scooter, which squawks when moved without authorization (just like other laptop/vehicle/shopping-cart/shoplifting security devices), is "abandoned property"?
Further, both the proprietor's needs (to recharge/inventory) and typical usage patterns mean these scooters seldom stay in one spot for more than a few hours – the same commons impact as if they were widely-owned personal scooters.
So dockless scooters look to me like an innovative use of the commons, fairly analogous to other precedents. Sure, if specific negatives are detected, and outweigh the positive until ameliorated, new rules could then be required.
But in a free, high-trust country, the default should be permissiveness until harm can be shown. It's obtuse to shoehorn something new into the category of "litter", when that's clearly not the intent of those responsible nor the practical impact.
Almost a literal example of the tragedy of the commons, only with scooters instead of cows. Or privatize the profits, socialize the costs. I dunno, pick whatever metaphor fits you best, but it stills boils down to, "find a loophole in the social contract and exploit it."
> The hero in the story is an Israeli soldier who decided to risk his life over a few dollars in his pocket. To do what, prove he was macho?
I've seen that blog posted here before. I'm pretty sure that in the original, the follow up post mentioned offhandedly, "Sadly, Ofer was killed by a robber..." without any reflection on his self defense philosophy.
> I think a lot of boys do aspire the adrenaline rush professions. But if they don't end up being one, do they now resign from their whole lives and just go saying the social persuasions to be such, destroyed their whole lives?
(This is very tangential to the overall discussion, but) I'd say that practicing a team sport a lot around ages 8-15 is an excellent thing for a kid to do. It's good for fitness, for thinking on your feet, for working towards a team goal, and (if you really grok the game) for learning how to outsmart an opponent in a zero-sum situation.
So, when little Billy gets cut from the school team and his NBA dreams are shattered, it still will have been worthwhile. I'd vastly prefer that my kids aspire to be pro athletes than models.
The comment you reference was made in July 2010. The bug report that triggered the banning was made a week ago, and just sounded petulant. It didn't make any personal statements about anyone.
Nursing a grudge against someone for a year, banning him for a grumpy bug report, then spamming discussion threads with hand-wringing about what a toxic abusive bully he was really seems like a waste of time to me. I guess you can "coordinate" your community however you like, though.
It was not simply two bug reports a year apart. There were many more reports and multiple warnings given. I highlighted some of the most egregious but it's not an exhaustive list.
> The goal is not to determine what is objective fact. There is no such thing, not even in natural sciences such as physics. Dont forget that.
I'm not sure where you're going with that; follow that line of thought too far and you end up with solipsism.
Practically speaking, sure there are objective facts. The properties of mechanics and electromagnetism are facts, or close enough for everyday purposes. What happens when you throw a ball or turn on a light is not a cultural construct.
re: history, sure, no person has the Pure Truth, and any history reflects the viewpoint of its author(s). It's still useful to distinguish between things that happened and things that didn't happen.
For instance, World War II did not begin when Queen Mab, having been cast out of the Garden of Eden by Shiva, built a clone army in her underground fort in Antarctica then invaded Loompaland. That simply didn't happen.
It seems to me that there are objective facts; we just can't know them perfectly. Still, it's very useful to try to get an approximation.
Sure, technology is great and all, but the historical analysis is simplistic.
> A patrician in ancient Rome might be able to make a name for himself around his neighborhood over the course of his lifetime.
Caesar, Spartacus, Cicero, and Cato are known over 2000 years after they lived. They are among the most famous people ever to have lived.
Our modern day "kings and emperors" retain vastly greater power and influence than we commoners, and they have the best command & control and surveillance systems in history. It is not at all clear whether information technology advances of the last century have contributed more to democratization or consolidation of power, Twitter notwithstanding.
Yup, that sentence made me wince. For what it's worth, Caesar and Cato were patricians. Spartacus was a slave (not even a Roman citizen), and Cicero was an eques.
All four of them did pretty well. Julius Caesar in particular would have had his name known from Britain to Parthia - one end of the known world to the other. He did it the old fashioned way: he went out into the world and killed people. (He was a hell of a writer too, but most of the people who knew his name couldn't read.)
You may be thinking of Cleitus. The Diogenes and Alexander story usually ends with Alexander telling his entourage, "If I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes."
Every band that's ever gotten popular, every community (online or off) that's ever gotten big. Lamenting that the scene was cooler back in the day seems to be a deep-seated human behavior.
That's correct - or at least it's correct for a certain type of personality and I believe the number of people with that make-up is relatively small.
Ironically it's those very people that love finding what is new, different and very often great - the early adopters - that dislike when their discoveries hit the tipping point.
Without the early adopters the masses might never discover the greatness the world has to offer. Perhaps the reason they can't stand the critical mass is so they can discover something new. Begin the process again.
I'm not sure what sexism you mean specifically, but my skepticism has nothing to do with the specifics of the persona. Of course there are 16-year-old girl hackers. My wife once was one.
I doubt that the character is really a 16-year-old girl because she's telling Forbes she's a 16-year-old girl.
If 'k said he were a 16-year-old boy, I'd doubt he were a 16-year-old boy.
If 'k said she were a 33-year-old quant on Wall St., I'd doubt she were a 33-year-old quant. Etc.
I just seriously doubt that this character is giving any real identifiable information to Forbes.
This is different from leaving your personal scooter for a few minutes while you shop, or from someone accidentally dropping their wallet or phone. If you intentionally strew things around in public and leave them there, why shouldn't anyone do with them as they like? How is this not littering for profit?
The reasoning of, "I left this thing on the sidewalk...I have no plans to come back for it any time soon...I hope someone comes along and wires me money to use it for a bit then drops it somewhere else...but don't you dare touch it unless you pay me!" seems specious.
That is not part of the social contract. No one has a reasonable expectation to use the sidewalk as an unattended warehouse or storefront for as long as they like. At best, this is gaming the question of what is or isn't abandoned property.