Talk:XML/DTD: Difference between revisions
um, you keep re-explaining because you have not got it right yet? If I want to explain 2+2=5 it will take many tries!
(Why do I feel I'm explaining the same thing over and over again?) |
(um, you keep re-explaining because you have not got it right yet? If I want to explain 2+2=5 it will take many tries!) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
#) Start a [[boycott]] on the [[company]] doing the harmful things and it's associates ([[Importer]], [[Advertisement agency]]... whatever you can think of) | #) Start a [[boycott]] on the [[company]] doing the harmful things and it's associates ([[Importer]], [[Advertisement agency]]... whatever you can think of) | ||
:How many *seconds* can I do it in? If it takes *minutes* then that's not good enough, since a new company can be started in minutes. | |||
#) Send them [[feedback]] telling you'll pull out of the [[boycott]] the second they stop doing what is annoying you | #) Send them [[feedback]] telling you'll pull out of the [[boycott]] the second they stop doing what is annoying you | ||
:Irrelevant. They are too stupid to understand the issue or they would not be doing it to begin with. One does not try to change company behavior. One has to wipe companies out of existence with no chance to recover, so fast that any competitor realizes they must behave perfectly, or also be wiped out. No mercy, no negotiating. The purpose of a boycott is to destroy a company or a regime. | |||
You cannot take bad people and make them good people by negotiation or force. Once a company exists its DNA is set, it can only be replaced not "fixed". Like any other lower animal... | |||
#) Start an [[endorsment]] on it's companies providing replacement products for the evil company's products | #) Start an [[endorsment]] on it's companies providing replacement products for the evil company's products | ||
:Here there is room for negotiation. And more complex transaction than just "don't buy", it could be a number (of cents more you pay for a tolerable product), or it could actually direct you to anothe product that is a best price/morality tradeoff. Then you are talking about more than a binary destroy/not outcome. | |||
:: and the [[Hardware Requirements|infrastructure]] to transport their information to [[consumer]]s. Then it's up to the [[consumer]]s to [[feedback|communicate]] their feelings to producers with [[words or wallets]] or both. | :: and the [[Hardware Requirements|infrastructure]] to transport their information to [[consumer]]s. Then it's up to the [[consumer]]s to [[feedback|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. | :::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. | ::::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. | ||
:::::No, no one can possibly "browse all available information" except for a few very major purchases, and even if the do that the information comes from some source. No reason why Greenpeace or some other organization committed to total transparency (see their "[[Open Campaigning]]" model, state of the art) cannot make it easy to simply see how their recommedations are made, and adjust some parameters to arrive at your own. | |||
::::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. | |||
:::::Yes, sure, for instance, I would focus on the Great Ape issue out of all Greenpeace campaigns, and be so good at that that this would make me the only one worth negotiating with when time came for companies doing nasty things to apes were brought to their knees. That would make me "ambassador for the apes". Someone else would do it for dolphins, for Hawaii, for fresh water used by poor mothers in Africa, etc., whatever scope they could handle. It is all about this capacity to trust and be trusted, that is [[w:social capital|"social capital"]]. And yes it creates hierarchies, but only by the effort of becoming nearly perfect on that one question of how best to protect that otyhpe of life. | |||
:::::Really, we all do this anyway when we trust our mother, or our grocer, or any local supplier. See [[w:Slow Food]] for best examples. | |||