there's your answer. the ability to track vehicles for mileage in state can be abused in all sorts of ways that benefit the state- charging people inordinate amounts of cash for ticket violations, tracking movement of citizens 1984 style etc... not stupidity but ignorant self interest created this.
except of course intervention in the case of protection of property rights, prosecution of fraud and antitrust... after all there is no competition when a single entity uses its economic power to destroy potential competitors... right now I can see *fraud [unlimited access where that isn't true] *anticompetitive practices [locking out competitors as in fairpoint] the market isn't free in a complete absence of government intervention, only through minimal intervention to protect rights could the market ever be truly free and right now it's far too encouraging of trusts and competition destroying due to a large part of the fact that these are natural monopolies...
Where does it say that you have the right to my money?
indeed, where does it say that you can take my money and use it to invade other countries not in self defense? I agree that social programs at the federal level are unconstitutional owing to the tenth amendment however, it is equally wrong to use tax money in the manner the military is now using it. the military after all under an interventionalist policy has expanded to the point where it is the single largest section of the federal government. it may be constitutional to create and fund military power for defensive purposes but it is *wrong* to use that force where it is not defensive, it is not the job of the federal government to conquer the world with my money, it is the federal government's job to defend this nation from attack.
I'm a libertarian and I approved this message
indeed however it's easier for people to do fun things like programming when they aren't worrying whether their retirement fund just went down the drain.
a lot of that damage to the stock market happened because of uncertainty about whether the bailout would pass... to the tune of trillions of dollars... that's right.. the uncertainty over the 700 billion dollar bailout bill probably caused far more damage than it could have ever prevented. the feds don't lose a few million over this, *we the people* lose *billions* over this especially considering all the pork and tax cuts that were lodged up the bill's arse when it was passed... had these companies thought that they'd only lose a few million on this debt the govt. is buying up they wouldn't be in danger of failing... the fact that they in all probability will fail shows that this bill is a lot bigger than you're giving it credit...
a thief *is not worth more than those he/she steals from* likewise, *a government is not worth more than its people just because it has acquired more wealth than even the richest in the nation through taxation* this is part of my point... the quantity of money someone possesses says little about how they acquired it much less about their worth as a human being. had this been some bizarro perfect system where only those who work and contribute to society became rich rather than those who do out of fraud, I might be inclined to somewhat agree but it isn't, just like the socialists and communists of the world, a world-view that only values money in the hope that it can be the sole measure of the value of a human life, it is one of ignorant idealism and delusion.
theft and fraud can make you rich too, does that mean that whomever gains their wealth through theft and fraud are worth more as a human being than someone who works 60 hours a week to feed their family? why is someone who inherited their wealth while contributing nothing to society worth more than someone who worked for their wealth? being wealthy does not mean you aren't a "lazy ass" in fact I suspect that great accumulation of wealth enables someone to be lazy.
that's the thing though, I do not believe that the quantity of money omeone possesses should be the sole measure of the contributions of a human being... after all capitalism in its current forms throughout various countries doesn't weigh everything, for example, volunteer work, environmental damage etc.. it's market failure that I'm worried about, all that neat stuff people do that hasn't or even can't be measured in terms of monetary gain. I also believe that *how* you accumulate wealth has infinitely more to do with any link between wealth and the amount of positive contribution to society you've made. after all, no one here would argue [hopefully] that a thief who is very good at what he/she does, getting rich as a result, is worth more than those he/she stole from considering his/her wealth is greater than theirs... the problem is that wealth is morally neutral, there is no distinction made between wealth accumulated through work than wealth accumulated through fraud/theft. it spends the same.
I'm sorry your childhood was a living hell, I really am but the amount of money someone makes is not a good indicator of how good a parent he/she is... Rich parents Who abuse their children are just as evil and undeserving as poor ones who abuse their children.
I would hope against all evidence to the contrary that human beings' lives will eventually be valued by society and most humans in general more than their ability to create money.
I would argue that the rate of mutation may in many cases be *higher* than it was when most of humanity was still a hunter gather species with all the chemicals and UV people are exposed to on a daily basis... though O.T.O.H. natural selection isn't at all likely to go away... that's something a lot of people do not understand, natural selection always works- it doesn't just stop working even if we did halt most of the selective forces working on humanity [or did we...? considering all the third world countries and a vast array of selective forces that still exist as not everyone actually has good medical care, those and a number of other reasons suggest that natural selection still applies] oh and we've got economic systems that vary widely in what they are actually selecting for as well... from capitalism to hard communism... that definately selects for something in people depending on the system and any intervention by the presiding government... then there's war an ever present strong selective force... there's even some evidence suggesting that it played a role in the development of humans in regard to egoism and altruism
and it is broken constantly... arg what did we expect of our government when the vast majority of people leave it up to the government to police its self... the constitution only bites those who violate it if it is upheld by the people for its intended purpose, to defend the rights of the people against actions by the government.
convenience then not humanity decides the right or wrongness of the act. all this about a clump of cells not being human was absolute tripe and in the end, irrelevant. I think the important thing to drag away from this is that it doesn't even matter whether that clump of cells is "alive" or not, the decision is regarded as being "correct" as long as it is made by someone against anything that can not say "no." it's the same with animals, bugs, people, pretty much everything that doesn't have any voice, the decision will always be right as long as the decision of its morality is made by the perpetrator of the act and that... is nonsense.
in both casess that you mention there is normally some form of consent [DNR or will or verbal consent]
there isn't any debate over their humanity in either
case, abortion O.T.O.H there is no possible consent; the decision is made for them as to whether they live or not. but I agree, the argument is too simplistic, that is to say that the argument in favor of choice that rests solely on defining the right to life in terms of the opinion of the one who commits the act is too simplistic.
I hate to break it to you but *you* are a clump of cells, intelligent maybe but still a clump of cells.
the real argument that seems to be the core of any pro-choice view is that some clumps of human cells are alive and worth protecting and others aren't at some magical point in time... usually the cut off is at when those clump of cells are "intelligent" or "can live on their own." there are people who lack intelligence above that of any animal yet they're considered worth protecting as well as people with immune system and other disorders who can't survive outside a protective sterile cocoon yet we consider them alive and worthy of protecting, no- long ago I realized the whole argument was utter hogwash, the idea that humans are only people when you say they are is ridiculous, just another form of rooting for the home team.
well to be fair Obama, Mccain, Bush and Palin were all to some extent in favor of some form of intervention though it could also have to do with the extra "pork" that was tacked on, tax cuts, R&D funding etc.. a little something for both sides...
no I mean that companies being the greedy ----s that they are wish to maximize their profits and that means a few things: filling niches, widening the base that can be educated as much as is profitable and because of competition, the cost should decrease over time, widening the base that can be educated, after all, the more people that can be educated, the more the company can make, simple greed at work being harnessed. as for the remainder, there are several routes in which the number of under/un-educated decreases to very nearly zero that wish to be educated. eg. it is conceivable that a university/whatever could have a business model based on the after graduation income of those who have been educated. tuition isn't until after graduation and would be based on a percentage of the income of the student, the better educated the student, the higher the income and ultimately the more the university makes as well as freeing those in poorer families from having a fixed burden of tuition that is otherwise out of reach for them as no income means no tuition fees... schools that do a piss poor job of educating their students won't be getting as much $ in any case as better ones especially in the case of an after graduation income percentage tuition model. but really a more localized system of education rather than a nationwide one in terms of funding may be a big step in the right direction. better to have the damage contained and localized than have the whole goddamned country screwed because the president/congress are idiots and reduced funding on the whole thing which is exactly what can and did happen. but really, it cmes down to the fact that I don't trust the same idiots who created the patriot act, torture people, invade random countries and knock out arguably useful regulation to have their slimy tentacles on the school system... at least if it is more local people have an easier time moving/going to a different locality for schooling, the way it is now there's canada and mexico...
every single monopoly with nigh unlimited spending power degrades, every sngle one of them, socialized or not. there needs to be serious competition otherwise you get something like microsoft, bloated and ineffective since there's very little competition. the major problem in which you are largely correct is that a completely privatized school system could very well be out of reach of the very poorest in this country. so we inevitably have a choice between a system that covers everyone that slowly degrades in quality over time or one that slow but steadily improves quality but is out of reach of the very poorest. too bad there isn't a happy medium that covers pretty much everyone yet has enough competition to improve the quality of education... sigh
Slashdot Mirror
set the system time back a few mins before the crash occured and see if your server crashes again... otherwise it's idle speculation
there's your answer. the ability to track vehicles for mileage in state can be abused in all sorts of ways that benefit the state- charging people inordinate amounts of cash for ticket violations, tracking movement of citizens 1984 style etc... not stupidity but ignorant self interest created this.
except of course intervention in the case of protection of property rights, prosecution of fraud and antitrust... after all there is no competition when a single entity uses its economic power to destroy potential competitors... right now I can see *fraud [unlimited access where that isn't true] *anticompetitive practices [locking out competitors as in fairpoint] the market isn't free in a complete absence of government intervention, only through minimal intervention to protect rights could the market ever be truly free and right now it's far too encouraging of trusts and competition destroying due to a large part of the fact that these are natural monopolies...
tlds largely are useless, anything other than .gov or .edu is a mess
the device is detecting proteins associated with cancer, not the cancer cells themselves.
indeed, where does it say that you can take my money and use it to invade other countries not in self defense? I agree that social programs at the federal level are unconstitutional owing to the tenth amendment however, it is equally wrong to use tax money in the manner the military is now using it. the military after all under an interventionalist policy has expanded to the point where it is the single largest section of the federal government. it may be constitutional to create and fund military power for defensive purposes but it is *wrong* to use that force where it is not defensive, it is not the job of the federal government to conquer the world with my money, it is the federal government's job to defend this nation from attack. I'm a libertarian and I approved this message
indeed however it's easier for people to do fun things like programming when they aren't worrying whether their retirement fund just went down the drain.
a lot of that damage to the stock market happened because of uncertainty about whether the bailout would pass... to the tune of trillions of dollars... that's right.. the uncertainty over the 700 billion dollar bailout bill probably caused far more damage than it could have ever prevented. the feds don't lose a few million over this, *we the people* lose *billions* over this especially considering all the pork and tax cuts that were lodged up the bill's arse when it was passed... had these companies thought that they'd only lose a few million on this debt the govt. is buying up they wouldn't be in danger of failing... the fact that they in all probability will fail shows that this bill is a lot bigger than you're giving it credit...
a thief *is not worth more than those he/she steals from* likewise, *a government is not worth more than its people just because it has acquired more wealth than even the richest in the nation through taxation* this is part of my point... the quantity of money someone possesses says little about how they acquired it much less about their worth as a human being. had this been some bizarro perfect system where only those who work and contribute to society became rich rather than those who do out of fraud, I might be inclined to somewhat agree but it isn't, just like the socialists and communists of the world, a world-view that only values money in the hope that it can be the sole measure of the value of a human life, it is one of ignorant idealism and delusion.
theft and fraud can make you rich too, does that mean that whomever gains their wealth through theft and fraud are worth more as a human being than someone who works 60 hours a week to feed their family? why is someone who inherited their wealth while contributing nothing to society worth more than someone who worked for their wealth? being wealthy does not mean you aren't a "lazy ass" in fact I suspect that great accumulation of wealth enables someone to be lazy.
that's the thing though, I do not believe that the quantity of money omeone possesses should be the sole measure of the contributions of a human being... after all capitalism in its current forms throughout various countries doesn't weigh everything, for example, volunteer work, environmental damage etc.. it's market failure that I'm worried about, all that neat stuff people do that hasn't or even can't be measured in terms of monetary gain. I also believe that *how* you accumulate wealth has infinitely more to do with any link between wealth and the amount of positive contribution to society you've made. after all, no one here would argue [hopefully] that a thief who is very good at what he/she does, getting rich as a result, is worth more than those he/she stole from considering his/her wealth is greater than theirs... the problem is that wealth is morally neutral, there is no distinction made between wealth accumulated through work than wealth accumulated through fraud/theft. it spends the same.
I'm sorry your childhood was a living hell, I really am but the amount of money someone makes is not a good indicator of how good a parent he/she is... Rich parents Who abuse their children are just as evil and undeserving as poor ones who abuse their children.
I would hope against all evidence to the contrary that human beings' lives will eventually be valued by society and most humans in general more than their ability to create money.
I would argue that the rate of mutation may in many cases be *higher* than it was when most of humanity was still a hunter gather species with all the chemicals and UV people are exposed to on a daily basis... though O.T.O.H. natural selection isn't at all likely to go away... that's something a lot of people do not understand, natural selection always works- it doesn't just stop working even if we did halt most of the selective forces working on humanity [or did we...? considering all the third world countries and a vast array of selective forces that still exist as not everyone actually has good medical care, those and a number of other reasons suggest that natural selection still applies] oh and we've got economic systems that vary widely in what they are actually selecting for as well... from capitalism to hard communism... that definately selects for something in people depending on the system and any intervention by the presiding government... then there's war an ever present strong selective force... there's even some evidence suggesting that it played a role in the development of humans in regard to egoism and altruism
and it is broken constantly... arg what did we expect of our government when the vast majority of people leave it up to the government to police its self... the constitution only bites those who violate it if it is upheld by the people for its intended purpose, to defend the rights of the people against actions by the government.
convenience then not humanity decides the right or wrongness of the act. all this about a clump of cells not being human was absolute tripe and in the end, irrelevant. I think the important thing to drag away from this is that it doesn't even matter whether that clump of cells is "alive" or not, the decision is regarded as being "correct" as long as it is made by someone against anything that can not say "no." it's the same with animals, bugs, people, pretty much everything that doesn't have any voice, the decision will always be right as long as the decision of its morality is made by the perpetrator of the act and that... is nonsense.
in both casess that you mention there is normally some form of consent [DNR or will or verbal consent] there isn't any debate over their humanity in either case, abortion O.T.O.H there is no possible consent; the decision is made for them as to whether they live or not. but I agree, the argument is too simplistic, that is to say that the argument in favor of choice that rests solely on defining the right to life in terms of the opinion of the one who commits the act is too simplistic.
I hate to break it to you but *you* are a clump of cells, intelligent maybe but still a clump of cells. the real argument that seems to be the core of any pro-choice view is that some clumps of human cells are alive and worth protecting and others aren't at some magical point in time... usually the cut off is at when those clump of cells are "intelligent" or "can live on their own." there are people who lack intelligence above that of any animal yet they're considered worth protecting as well as people with immune system and other disorders who can't survive outside a protective sterile cocoon yet we consider them alive and worthy of protecting, no- long ago I realized the whole argument was utter hogwash, the idea that humans are only people when you say they are is ridiculous, just another form of rooting for the home team.
well to be fair Obama, Mccain, Bush and Palin were all to some extent in favor of some form of intervention though it could also have to do with the extra "pork" that was tacked on, tax cuts, R&D funding etc.. a little something for both sides...
indeed but who ignored them?
most of the support for the bill was from democrats, most of the resistance was from republicans...
generally you save the women and children first rather than the idiot with a shotgun that blew a hole in your lifeboat in the first place.
stop confusing pro-theism with pro-life or as you put it "anti-choice." not everyone who is pro-life is religious in any way...
no I mean that companies being the greedy ----s that they are wish to maximize their profits and that means a few things: filling niches, widening the base that can be educated as much as is profitable and because of competition, the cost should decrease over time, widening the base that can be educated, after all, the more people that can be educated, the more the company can make, simple greed at work being harnessed. as for the remainder, there are several routes in which the number of under/un-educated decreases to very nearly zero that wish to be educated. eg. it is conceivable that a university/whatever could have a business model based on the after graduation income of those who have been educated. tuition isn't until after graduation and would be based on a percentage of the income of the student, the better educated the student, the higher the income and ultimately the more the university makes as well as freeing those in poorer families from having a fixed burden of tuition that is otherwise out of reach for them as no income means no tuition fees... schools that do a piss poor job of educating their students won't be getting as much $ in any case as better ones especially in the case of an after graduation income percentage tuition model. but really a more localized system of education rather than a nationwide one in terms of funding may be a big step in the right direction. better to have the damage contained and localized than have the whole goddamned country screwed because the president/congress are idiots and reduced funding on the whole thing which is exactly what can and did happen. but really, it cmes down to the fact that I don't trust the same idiots who created the patriot act, torture people, invade random countries and knock out arguably useful regulation to have their slimy tentacles on the school system... at least if it is more local people have an easier time moving/going to a different locality for schooling, the way it is now there's canada and mexico...
every single monopoly with nigh unlimited spending power degrades, every sngle one of them, socialized or not. there needs to be serious competition otherwise you get something like microsoft, bloated and ineffective since there's very little competition. the major problem in which you are largely correct is that a completely privatized school system could very well be out of reach of the very poorest in this country. so we inevitably have a choice between a system that covers everyone that slowly degrades in quality over time or one that slow but steadily improves quality but is out of reach of the very poorest. too bad there isn't a happy medium that covers pretty much everyone yet has enough competition to improve the quality of education... sigh