Talk:XML/DTD

And a real-live-person DTD is critical to ensure that anyone who participates in an extremely offensive production process can be excluded across all of a buyer's purchasing decisions, regardless of what shell companies or front groups are in use for them to hide behind. A small number of individuals tend to be involved in decisions that lead to Indonesian rainforest devastation, or similar problems in Brazil and Congo. These people must be identified and very reliably targetted so that their participation becomes poisonous to any commercial effort anywhere in the world, and others get the message that they will economically suffer if their name is linked in any way to ecologically devastating activity.

Whoa. Hold your horses.

• If your going to start pinpointing people out you have to be totally sure the information is correct otherwise you're going to end up spending more time in courtrooms then sleeping.
  • Yup. But this is all the more reason to make sure that you truly have a reliable way to attach all information about a person, to one object, so that mistaken identity does not occur. Liability is less of an issue than you think, there are many who will volunteer to go bankrupt to destroy someone else's reputation, typically students who are about to go bankrupt anyway to avoid student loans. This is financial equivalent of suicide bombing and it is becoming more popular. There are even (quiet) seminars in how to do it! - X
  • When NGOs name someone, probably, they have done this research already. Since they are targetted often for lawsuits, they are more careful about it than us.-X
• If you want to create the mother of all boycotts, you should figure out how to boycott capital, not people. It's utopia but we're trying to figure out if it's possible. see Research.
  • Naive. I think it's not possible: Capital doesn't think. Capital doesn't feel. Capital can simply ooze around to do something else with itself. A body of capital is just too amorphous and fungible to attack. It's the people that must be targetted - certainly the sociopathic ones - because they have bodies they cannot so easily escape consequences. Which is most of the point. - X

Let me explain:

1. Company X is doing some evil
2. Find out who are the owners of X and what companies X is doing business with
3. Find out the owners' other holdings
4. Aggregate the boycott to those other companies too (wishful thinking: and let the owners know why their stock is plunging)
5. Iterate steps 3. and 4. untill you're picking berries, mushrooms, roots and hunting game with wooden spears ;)

--Juxo 13:08 Apr 14, 2003 (EEST)

• • LOL! Very good algorithm, there should be a page just on that! But usually it is managers, not owners, who control companies, owners rarely know or use the tools they have in different countries to find out. w:John Kenneth Galbraith is now writing a book on how managers take the power from owners. w:Peter Drucker said it decades ago. w:Ralph Nader talks about it a lot. Financial privacy laws in bank havens make 'find the owners' and 'find other holdings' nearly impossible. Then communicating 'why stock is plunging' is difficult and subject to spin. Very likely this will produce far too many effects that disadvantage owners, and activists, and government, and not enough that disadvantage brokers, or managers, who are the real scum to be targetted, who make the actual decisions. If we want to talk about primitive justice, then, for every dead chimp roasted over a fire in Africa because of someone managing from a desk in Europe, why not roast their dog on their front lawn? Then sharpen the knife as you look at their kid. There must be some iterative feedback that strikes direct to the body, creates fear, or else - nothing. - X

Evil is not a rational decision. It is usually just a banal avoidance of the truth that adds up. To make people feel truth requires more than just 'why' - X

---

X is saying that to expose "Evil" acts by companies we need markup specialised to describe "Evil" acts:

this requires EvilML

No it doesn't. It requires well known commentators, and campaigners that stick more-or-less with m:TIPAESA principles

Yes but... (also realize that "Issue" can be expanded into say Ecoregion/HarmBeingDone/ActivityDoingThatHarm" and then Position taken on how to end it - so "I" can expand)... and more important how we use the information:

1. ) Start a boycott on the company doing the harmful things and it's associates (Importer, Advertisement agency... whatever you can think of)
2. ) Send them feedback telling you'll pull out of the boycott the second they stop doing what is annoying you
3. ) Start an endorsment on it's companies providing replacement products for the evil company's products

and the infrastructure to transport their information to consumers. Then it's up to the consumers to communicate their feelings to producers with words or wallets or both.

Still requires my personal morality, idea of "evil", to be expressed in XML so that things I consider evil can turn on "green light" or "red light" on the shelf. The fact that I considered but did not buy from that seller can be communicated directly, or later with details, or never. Up to me. But I am not reading or writing an essay for every single purchase. I want to pre-load preferences and never see things that don't satisfy requirements online, and on the shelf, I want just the "OK/not" (i.e. "buyable/EVIL") signal.

Well. Either you have to choose some authority you trust (let me take a wild guess: Greenpeace) and let them decide on this matter or you can browse all available information and make decisions yourself. Once you've been through all the information and made some evaluation of the product in case you'd propably like markup that allows you to become the authority for other people that choose to trust you instead of using their time to go through all the information.