Terrorism has always been defined as the use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve political goals.
Actually, I prefer this definition of Terrorism:
"Terrorism is people destroying things they couldn't build, with weapons they couldn't create, for reasons they can't understand."
No, Britney will NOT do. Britney is a talentless bimbo. John Lee Hooker will do (he never got airplay either). Led Zeppelin will do. Tchaikovsky will do. Merl Haggard will do. Bob Marley will do. The Pietasters will do. The Dead Kennedys will do.
Britney spears will NOT do. The Backstreet Boys will NOT do.
You would have loved The Archies. Sorry dude but you have no musical taste whatever.
Hey man - you win. Maybe my taste in music sucks. Dunno, I left my insecurities about the eclecticism and size of my music collection behind when I left college. How did you manage to escape with yours?
Personally, I've moved on to insecurities about the size of my penis, and I'm actually just about done with that, and onto insecurities about the size of my bank account.
The only thing propping it up thus far are multi-album recording contracts, and their McDonald's inspired ability to foist very average fair on to the average user.... In the last couple of years with GarageBand etc providing the ability for anyone to make reasonable music at home
Sweet. I can't wait until my car radio has 10,000 stations and I have to wade through them all to try to find something that doesn't suck.
You know, I think that the increase of accessibility of both creators and consumers of music is a Good Thing. That the internet is providing the medium for this free exchange is also a Good Thing. I also think that the efforts of the "dinosaurs" to prevent everyone from figuring out the baseline reality of the music industry in it's current state (i.e., completely free exchange) is Pretty Stupid.
But... Dammit. Let's not get too overzealous in our condemnation of the value the Music Industry provides. They historically provided, out of economic necessity, whatever music was (subjectively) "the best."
In order to do that, they had to try to figure out what artists would appeal to the largest number of people in order to maximize their profits. It wasn't an Evil Conspiracy to prevent your buddy's shitty band from "making it big."
Imagine a world without Evil Corporations providing that service - listening to the radio in your car suddenly becomes like a Google search for not-crap, every time you try to use it. You can say all the mean things about people who actually *enjoy* top-40 radio you want, but that doesn't change the simple fact that more people would rather listen to Britney Spears than ObscureCollegeBand.
Now, while I may or may not prefer Britney Spears to ToePhunkGrooveMaster 3000, I definitely do *not* have the time or inclination to wade through the previous 2,999 iterations of their crap to find something I like. I want someone else to do that for me.
I mean, I compose music, myself. I know what I like. I have an extremely eclectic taste in music, and I appreciate the ability to pursue that taste. But sometimes I just like being able to turn on the radio without having to hope that Zach Braff will swoop down from the heavens and "change my life" by making me listen to The Shins. Sometimes, Britney will do. And so I think there's a place for those Subjective Gatekeepers in the world. (just as soon as they can give up the financial reins, and figure out what value it is they *actually* provide).
OK, so the parent is a troll because he called Democrats hypocrites. But that doesn't invalidate the issue he highlighted:
Personal privacy is an Inviolable Fundamental Right when it protects things, people, and interests that you like. Also, personal privacy is an insignificant, trifling, legally dissoluble inconvenience when it doesn't.
Well, I don't mind if they don't want town-wide wireless internet access. I think the internet will be a better place if these types of people *don't* have access.
It should only be a criminal offense if you "hack" into the wireless network. And by hack, I mean circumvent the owner's attempt to secure their wireless network.
Yeah, no doubt. Just yesterday, in fact, I unplugged my router for a sec to let it reboot and forgotten to plug it back in. I started my laptop (in the other room), started using the internet, and *boom!* there I was, "maliciously stealing" somebody else's wireless bandwidth because my computer automatically connected to their unsecured router!
OK, so I didn't read TFA. So I'm probably completely off base here. I mean, I get the idea behind the law - internet access is like any other consumable utility (gas, water, electric). But to contrast how different this is from that, when's the last time you turned on the shower and accidentally stolen water from your neighbor's water pipes?
If you advertize G-Rated content filter, and they let through X-rated content even by accident, you'll get a lawsuit, and rightly so - after all, you failed to live up to your end of the bargain. [snip/] So that's why no one has done this yet: it is impossible, and the potential gains are nowhere near the cost of effort required to even try.
Argh. You're right about that. To truly offer that as a service of your ISP would require something that's hard, if not impossible, to create, at *least* an expensive bitch to maintain, and, like you said, you couldn't guarantee that it would work 100% of the time.
Also, your point exposes the utter absurdity of the legislation in question quite clearly, in a way I didn't even consider.
The American public is very happy to support war so long as 'war' is sort of an abstract thing happening "over there". They're more than happy to 'support the troops' and make grand speeches about the trials and tribulations and the suffering of "our boys overseas"--so long as they don't -see-... the dirty, bloody, nasty physical reality of war.
And that's why the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen who willingly volunteer to fight the wars that preserve our right to dissent and protest ought to be lauded as heroes. If you're one of those reprehensible citizens who choose to impugn them by calling them stupid, ignorant, or whatever makes you feel better about yourself for simultaneously enjoying something and also stating that the manner in which it's provided is horrible, the nagging feeling that keeps you up at night is the truth that those "stupid" "uneducated" "ignorant" fools possess courage, integrity, and a sense of duty that you lack.
Yeah, but that would be less fun... (well, for *you,* I guess. Personally, I'd appreciate it if you just switched out my keyboard instead of hitting me in the head.)
If their poor choices were living where they do and supporting themselves as they have... I'm speechless
No no, they were just fine until the environment changed and made their current home and method of earning a living not viable. The choice to stay once that happened, however, is a poor choice.
If you move the village, at least you can keep the village - the people - together.
OK, *that* I can understand. The people living there need money to move their community to another location where they can continue doing roughly the same work to earn a living, and also stay together.
I can definitely support *that.* I was just turned off by your insistence that the lawsuit was somehow justified - it isn't. It's a wrong-headed attempt at grabbing unearned money, taking advantage of a political hot-button issue to garner support.
But the true problem is that they need money to do that... OK, so I guess that highlights the real issues at hand:
1) What is involved with moving the village?
2) Where do they want to move it to?
3) How much will it cost?
4) How can they pay for it?
5) What can we (the citizens of the "lower 48") do to help?
I stated that the village would die.
My point was this: Who cares if "the village" (i.e., the buildings and the exact geographical location of the town) "dies" (i.e., the people move somewhere else where they can continue to earn a living and further their culture) as long as the people survive to carry on their culture elsewhere?
What do you think the money will be used for? Perhaps, it will be piled in the middle of town and set on fire, but perhaps (and I know this is a big stretch for you to understand) it will be spent.
Thieves also spend the money they've stolen. So does that mean it's OK to steal money, since it'll be spent? You're missing half of the issue: Trade involves the exchange of value between two willing parties. Generally, that involves at least one of the parties creating value through their labor. Redistributing money through lawsuits, taxes, force, or fraud skips the essential step of voluntary trade for something of value.
Voluntary trade is a Win-Win situation. If the town wins its lawsuit, it will obtain unearned resources, without trading anything of value in return. The only winners will be the townsfolk. Your argument that this is "good for the national economy" is just false.
It may offend you that it is spent in my backyard as opposed to yours,
No, the thing that's truly offensive is that it's being taken from people who earned it, where the market has dictated that those resources ought to go as a result of the free choices of many, many other people.
Once that money is taken via force, it doesn't really matter where it goes, or who spends it and where. The key element is that resource redistribution through means other than the market necessarily deprives people of money they've earned, and puts it in possession of people who haven't. There are (*very*) few reasons where this is acceptable, and an attention-whoring, politically-motivated lawsuit like the one you're defending is *not* one of those reasons.
Sigh.
1 and 2 are the same thing. Note, I said the village, not the villagers, so if they moved and did something different, the village would die.
So, according to your copy of "How to Argue," you clearly believe that a geographical grouping of buildings is more important that human life. Wow. How callous you are, to value the "life" of buildings over the lives of human beings. Shame on you.
I'm interested in hearing how this hurts the national economy.
A lawsuit that redistributes a disproportionately large amount of resources to a ludicrously small group of people hurts the national economy because the other 99.9999% of the consumers of that company (i.e., everyone but the precious, victimized few) now have to shoulder that burden. Every dollar that is paid to the alleged "victims" (of their own poor choices) is a dollar that can't be used to create new jobs, develop new technologies, and pay more workers.
Look - I get your motivation: You love Alaska. Just admit that you support the interests of Alaskans over any other American citizen. That's the beauty of living in a Republic! There's nothing wrong with supporting your state over others!
And anyways, I'm in the middle of watching "30 Days of Night" right now, and I think you guys probably have more pressing problems than the ice caps melting. I mean, at least global warming doesn't rip open your neck, suck out your blood and then decapitate you so you won't become one of them. Geez. While we all may not agree on anthropogenic global warming, we can all certainly agree on vampires. And you all have a serious vampire problem up there.
The town willingly uses fuel and was harmed because of it. So, you can't just say that it is unfounded, because we know how the tobacco suits turned out.
Come on. Just because there's legal precedent for some type of lawsuit doesn't make it right or even reasonable. McDonald's and Hot Coffee ring a bell?
I'm sure the town sees two choices, fight or die.
Well I see their choices a little differently: 1) Move, 2) Do something else to earn a living, 3) Exploit the legal system.
But I'm sure you find the plight of people getting washed out of their homes without enough money to rebuild as something that's perfectly acceptable,
No, I don't. Thanks for being close-minded and assuming what my opinions are because they fit your preconceived notions of what people who argue as I do actually believe.
I think it's terrible that people are losing their livelihoods and homes and potentially their lives to climate change. But suing oil companies isn't going to stop the Globe from Warming, and it's not going to return their local climate to the same it was before. Even if their suit is successful, it's not going to stop the planet from getting warmer. It's going to make them personally richer, and energy more expensive for everyone, including themselves. I refuse to believe that *nobody* in that town has thought of this.
They're choosing to harm the national economy for personal gain, under the guise of stopping something that is impossible to stop, and that they know they'll have no success in stopping. If that doesn't fit your personal definition of reprehensible, then at least maybe it fulfills your criteria for "selfish?"
Thanks for rehashing partisan stereotypes for me - so there are the "Greedy Republicans," and then there are the "Republicans that Hate Gays and Love Jesus," and then there is the powerless minority of "Ignorant Republicans," who actually believe that the market is superior to socialism?
I'm assuming that you also divide the Democrats into the "Democrats who Hate All of Humanity" (environmentalists), "Greedy Democrats" (socialists), "Idiot Democrats" (Obama supporters).
Look, the real problem is that we've all been indoctrinated to believe that those who don't support My Political Party are dumb, evil, or both. That's just not true. We all generally want to maximize freedom and quality of life, and minimize human suffering. We just have different ideas of *how* to do that. It's not that "The Other Side" doesn't *want* to do those things - it's just that they don't want to do them in the way "Our Side" thinks they should be done, so we tell ourselves that they don't want those things
I mean, what kind of insane logic is that? "If you disagree with my proposed method for accomplishing X, I conclude that you *don't* want to accomplish X." WTF!?!?
*Both* sides are guilty of this, and it's a result of the balkanization of American politics: Republicans are greedy and uncaring because they believe that the best way to provide maximal happiness is to allow people, as much as possible, to do what they will, and potentially fail. Democrats are hippie-commie-simpletons because they believe that the best way to provide maximal happiness is to provide a helping hand to those who need it.
Everyone living in a first-world nation has the luxury of experiencing altruism - we all want the same things, and we disagree only on the means by which we ought to provide those things. Yet, somehow each side's talking heads assert that the other doesn't *want* those things... It just doesn't make any sense to me.
even if you make a huge deal about their personal misuse, what of it? Are you telling me that global warming was caused by that one town?
No, but the oil and coal companies they're suing provide energy that they, along with millions of others use. They're obviously not about to *stop* using it. So, what do they want? To stop the earth from getting warmer because it prevents them from providing 0.0000001% of the fish that we eat?
Sure, the Globe is Warming. But we all can't even agree that humans are the ones causing the earth to get warmer. Maybe it's getting warmer on its own. Maybe we're causing it. Maybe it's both. Point is, this little town is suffering from the effects of climate change, and they're using a hot-button, high-visibility issue that has prematurely left the realm of science and entered the political arena for their own personal gain. That's reprehensible.
The whole idea of making laws about porn (outside of preventing abhorrent abuses, like child porn and snuff films, for example) just bothers me.
I'm a conservative, and a Republican, but I just gotta say this is a perfect example of conservative, Republican hypocrisy. (There, I said it.)
I understand that parents want to be able to raise their kids however they see fit - if you want your kid to never see a boobie until he's 18, then fine. If you want your kid to start masturbating to hardcore porn at age 10, also fine. If you want to educate your kids on the frank realities of sex at age 4, *FINE*!
I really don't care what you choose for you own family, as long as you don't force *your* standards onto me. And this is exactly what this bill does! Sure, I can choose to use a non-G-rated ISP, but the cost of this legislation is paid for by my taxes, which means that I am being forced to fund someone else's standards for child-rearing that I may or may not agree with.
What I don't get is that Republicans are generally in support of the free market, and believe that government really doesn't need to intervene in situations where the solution can be provided privately. This is a perfect example. As a matter of fact, I'm seriously considering starting an ISP in Utah that advertises G-Rated content filters now! The demand is obviously there, so why hasn't anyone done this yet?!?!?
The real hypocrisy is that conservative-types (including myself) believe that Government should *not* be our "munificent provider" of stuff via largesse. Yet, the author of this bill, and it's supporters want to legislate into existence, essentially, a Government-subsidized "Internet Nanny."
I wonder what Ray Niro (the Patent Troll) could possibly expect the outcome of that debate to be...
"Let me explain to you how abusing the patent system is a 'Good Thing,' because it prevents me from being poor... And you won't like me when I'm poor... *starts turning green and growing*"
Yeah, I did that for a while, but then I decided to just have FF never remember any of my logins or passwords, and enter them manually every time. That way, unless somebody breaks into my house and clubs me on the back of the head while I'm logged into my bank's website, then they can't really do anything.
While I suspect that the master password utility would defeat the casual criminal, you can download free programs to decrypt the FF master password database. I'd rather just keep my passwords in the only place they're truly safe - my head.
(And by that, I mean I have a secret compartment built into my right temporal bone containing a teeny piece of paper where I wrote them all down.)
it's a little better to have healthcare that may accidentally kill 0.02% of your population, than to have no access to any form of healthcare whatsoever for 12%.
But that 12% *do* have access to health insurance. Anyone can buy whatever health insurance they choose to. That sounds like "access" to me.
The *real* mystery is why 45 million Americans (that's the number of uninsured that the article you linked provided) choose not to just buy their own health insurance. I just don't buy the "can't afford health insurance," argument. Look - In first-world nations, health insurance is a basic need, just like food, clothing, and shelter. So you get your paycheck - First, you buy food, then you ensure the clothing on your back (and the backs of your family) is sufficient. Then you pay rent or mortgage. Then you pay your monthly health insurance premuim. Only once those things are fulfilled do you think about having a car, or a cell phone, or cable TV, or a computer, or internet.
I did some research - just Google "High Deductible Health Plan Quotes." A single male living in Ohio can have an HSA where he saves $1,500 per year in his IRA for right around $35 per month. I understand that the cost will necessarily be greater for a family, but not orders-of-magnitude greater.
I mean, I can understand the need for health-insurance welfare programs for those who truly *can't* afford healthcare. But if you can't pay for healthcare because you have a car and a TV and cable and a DVD player and you like to go out to eat at restaurants, that doesn't mean you "can't afford" it.
That just means you have chosen to prioritize McDonald's, your cell phone, and HBO over the lives of you and your children. Obtaining Health Insurance is not impossible in the US, even if you don't make a lot of money. It's frustrating to me that, because some people choose not to prioritize Health Insurance as highly as others, and they suffer the terrible consequences (like the anecdote in the article), that it's a "national scandal," and that Government ought to do something about it. Providing health insurance for free to people that actually can afford it, but would have to make difficult economic choices that others who are better off don't have to make (i.e., sell the car and take the bus, don't have a cell phone, etc.) merely reinforces their poor choices.
Sort of like a nationally-applied, universally available fund from which to pay for healthcare? Really?
No, actually, not at all. A Health Savings Account is an individually-owned savings account. Anyone who wants to do health insurance this way has to have their own, and provide all the money that goes into it. The catastrophic insurance is provided by private insurance companies, much like car insurance.
Not at all like the NHS, the Canadian system, the French communal insurance system etc..etc.. at all...
Correct. It's not at all like any of those things. In fact, I'm actually very relieved that it's nothing like the NHS. I prefer my healthcare *not* to kill me...
See, it all sounds good until you call it 'socialised medicine'
No, I think an HSA is probably as close as you can get to the polar opposite of Socialized Medicine.
In reality, you know it's better than the status quo, you just can't bring yourselves to admit it. ... Well, I believe that HSAs are a better way to provide health insurance than our current third-party payer system, and a *much* better way than Socialized Medicine. HSAs provide an incentive for healthy living, and for making economic decisions about your health, and about obtaining healthcare. The current way we do things in the US, and the national systems of health insurance in other countries provides exactly the opposite. I mean, don't get me wrong - "Free" healthcare sounds like a fair, nice, wonderful idea. But like anything else that's free, you find that you run out of it rather quickly.
Access in 20 years is not guaranteed. Silverlight is proprietary. Micorosoft have made it accessible to other operating systems but ongoing accessibility is absolutely dependent on the whim of Microsoft maintaining the availability and leaving the format untouched.
I don't buy all this fearmongering. Silverlight is a freaking browser plugin. The books are still on the shelves in the library. Whatever content is being presented on the site (if the web developers are competent) is more or less separate from the presentation engine (Silverlight).
This decision by the Library of Congress does not "lock" anything under any sort of control by MS at all. If MS tries anything shady (which, by the way, they haven't in this case - most everyone has just speculated that they are), the LOC always has the option of dumping Silverlight for something else.
Every time I hear this argument it makes me throw up in my mouth a little. I mean, I get the idea: Nobody stays on top forever. Of course the United States of America as we know it won't be around for all eternity. But this sort of stuff is just nonsense.
America is on top now. The British Empire was on top a while ago. The Roman Empire was on top a bit longer ago. That's about all this argument has going for it in the "accurate comparisons" department. The rest of it is about as well-reasoned and supported by fact as the stuff from those other people who come up with bizarre coincidences between the assassinations of JFK and Lincoln.
There's just way too many substantial differences between all of these top-dog nations and the historical contexts in which they existed for this to be anything but wishful thinking.
I don't want this decline to happen because I am a part of this empire
Oh, good. Then you'll be pleasantly surprised to hear that your argument is rubbish and you have nothing to worry about.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me fix your sig - it doesn't make sense:
There are two types of Democrats: Trust-fund Millionaires, College Students, and Welfare Recipients.
(I mean, *somebody's* got to be spending it faster than the real grown-ups make it.)
(And there are only "two types" because the second is actually just a subset of the third.)
Actually, I prefer this definition of Terrorism:
"Terrorism is people destroying things they couldn't build, with weapons they couldn't create, for reasons they can't understand."
Britney spears will NOT do. The Backstreet Boys will NOT do.
You would have loved The Archies. Sorry dude but you have no musical taste whatever.
Hey man - you win. Maybe my taste in music sucks. Dunno, I left my insecurities about the eclecticism and size of my music collection behind when I left college. How did you manage to escape with yours?
Personally, I've moved on to insecurities about the size of my penis, and I'm actually just about done with that, and onto insecurities about the size of my bank account.
Sweet. I can't wait until my car radio has 10,000 stations and I have to wade through them all to try to find something that doesn't suck.
You know, I think that the increase of accessibility of both creators and consumers of music is a Good Thing. That the internet is providing the medium for this free exchange is also a Good Thing. I also think that the efforts of the "dinosaurs" to prevent everyone from figuring out the baseline reality of the music industry in it's current state (i.e., completely free exchange) is Pretty Stupid.
But... Dammit. Let's not get too overzealous in our condemnation of the value the Music Industry provides. They historically provided, out of economic necessity, whatever music was (subjectively) "the best."
In order to do that, they had to try to figure out what artists would appeal to the largest number of people in order to maximize their profits. It wasn't an Evil Conspiracy to prevent your buddy's shitty band from "making it big."
Imagine a world without Evil Corporations providing that service - listening to the radio in your car suddenly becomes like a Google search for not-crap, every time you try to use it. You can say all the mean things about people who actually *enjoy* top-40 radio you want, but that doesn't change the simple fact that more people would rather listen to Britney Spears than ObscureCollegeBand.
Now, while I may or may not prefer Britney Spears to ToePhunkGrooveMaster 3000, I definitely do *not* have the time or inclination to wade through the previous 2,999 iterations of their crap to find something I like. I want someone else to do that for me.
I mean, I compose music, myself. I know what I like. I have an extremely eclectic taste in music, and I appreciate the ability to pursue that taste. But sometimes I just like being able to turn on the radio without having to hope that Zach Braff will swoop down from the heavens and "change my life" by making me listen to The Shins. Sometimes, Britney will do. And so I think there's a place for those Subjective Gatekeepers in the world. (just as soon as they can give up the financial reins, and figure out what value it is they *actually* provide).
What a wonderful example of our tax dollars at work.
OK, so the parent is a troll because he called Democrats hypocrites. But that doesn't invalidate the issue he highlighted:
Personal privacy is an Inviolable Fundamental Right when it protects things, people, and interests that you like. Also, personal privacy is an insignificant, trifling, legally dissoluble inconvenience when it doesn't.
So, what's the middle ground?
Well, I don't mind if they don't want town-wide wireless internet access. I think the internet will be a better place if these types of people *don't* have access.
Yeah, no doubt. Just yesterday, in fact, I unplugged my router for a sec to let it reboot and forgotten to plug it back in. I started my laptop (in the other room), started using the internet, and *boom!* there I was, "maliciously stealing" somebody else's wireless bandwidth because my computer automatically connected to their unsecured router!
OK, so I didn't read TFA. So I'm probably completely off base here. I mean, I get the idea behind the law - internet access is like any other consumable utility (gas, water, electric). But to contrast how different this is from that, when's the last time you turned on the shower and accidentally stolen water from your neighbor's water pipes?
Argh. You're right about that. To truly offer that as a service of your ISP would require something that's hard, if not impossible, to create, at *least* an expensive bitch to maintain, and, like you said, you couldn't guarantee that it would work 100% of the time.
Also, your point exposes the utter absurdity of the legislation in question quite clearly, in a way I didn't even consider.
And that's why the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen who willingly volunteer to fight the wars that preserve our right to dissent and protest ought to be lauded as heroes. If you're one of those reprehensible citizens who choose to impugn them by calling them stupid, ignorant, or whatever makes you feel better about yourself for simultaneously enjoying something and also stating that the manner in which it's provided is horrible, the nagging feeling that keeps you up at night is the truth that those "stupid" "uneducated" "ignorant" fools possess courage, integrity, and a sense of duty that you lack.
Yeah, but that would be less fun... (well, for *you,* I guess. Personally, I'd appreciate it if you just switched out my keyboard instead of hitting me in the head.)
No no, they were just fine until the environment changed and made their current home and method of earning a living not viable. The choice to stay once that happened, however, is a poor choice.
If you move the village, at least you can keep the village - the people - together.
OK, *that* I can understand. The people living there need money to move their community to another location where they can continue doing roughly the same work to earn a living, and also stay together.
I can definitely support *that.* I was just turned off by your insistence that the lawsuit was somehow justified - it isn't. It's a wrong-headed attempt at grabbing unearned money, taking advantage of a political hot-button issue to garner support.
But the true problem is that they need money to do that... OK, so I guess that highlights the real issues at hand:
1) What is involved with moving the village?
2) Where do they want to move it to?
3) How much will it cost?
4) How can they pay for it?
5) What can we (the citizens of the "lower 48") do to help?
My point was this: Who cares if "the village" (i.e., the buildings and the exact geographical location of the town) "dies" (i.e., the people move somewhere else where they can continue to earn a living and further their culture) as long as the people survive to carry on their culture elsewhere?
What do you think the money will be used for? Perhaps, it will be piled in the middle of town and set on fire, but perhaps (and I know this is a big stretch for you to understand) it will be spent.
Thieves also spend the money they've stolen. So does that mean it's OK to steal money, since it'll be spent? You're missing half of the issue: Trade involves the exchange of value between two willing parties. Generally, that involves at least one of the parties creating value through their labor. Redistributing money through lawsuits, taxes, force, or fraud skips the essential step of voluntary trade for something of value.
Voluntary trade is a Win-Win situation. If the town wins its lawsuit, it will obtain unearned resources, without trading anything of value in return. The only winners will be the townsfolk. Your argument that this is "good for the national economy" is just false. It may offend you that it is spent in my backyard as opposed to yours,
No, the thing that's truly offensive is that it's being taken from people who earned it, where the market has dictated that those resources ought to go as a result of the free choices of many, many other people.
Once that money is taken via force, it doesn't really matter where it goes, or who spends it and where. The key element is that resource redistribution through means other than the market necessarily deprives people of money they've earned, and puts it in possession of people who haven't. There are (*very*) few reasons where this is acceptable, and an attention-whoring, politically-motivated lawsuit like the one you're defending is *not* one of those reasons.
So, according to your copy of "How to Argue," you clearly believe that a geographical grouping of buildings is more important that human life. Wow. How callous you are, to value the "life" of buildings over the lives of human beings. Shame on you.
I'm interested in hearing how this hurts the national economy.
A lawsuit that redistributes a disproportionately large amount of resources to a ludicrously small group of people hurts the national economy because the other 99.9999% of the consumers of that company (i.e., everyone but the precious, victimized few) now have to shoulder that burden. Every dollar that is paid to the alleged "victims" (of their own poor choices) is a dollar that can't be used to create new jobs, develop new technologies, and pay more workers.
Look - I get your motivation: You love Alaska. Just admit that you support the interests of Alaskans over any other American citizen. That's the beauty of living in a Republic! There's nothing wrong with supporting your state over others!
And anyways, I'm in the middle of watching "30 Days of Night" right now, and I think you guys probably have more pressing problems than the ice caps melting. I mean, at least global warming doesn't rip open your neck, suck out your blood and then decapitate you so you won't become one of them. Geez. While we all may not agree on anthropogenic global warming, we can all certainly agree on vampires. And you all have a serious vampire problem up there.
Come on. Just because there's legal precedent for some type of lawsuit doesn't make it right or even reasonable. McDonald's and Hot Coffee ring a bell?
I'm sure the town sees two choices, fight or die.
Well I see their choices a little differently: 1) Move, 2) Do something else to earn a living, 3) Exploit the legal system.
But I'm sure you find the plight of people getting washed out of their homes without enough money to rebuild as something that's perfectly acceptable,
No, I don't. Thanks for being close-minded and assuming what my opinions are because they fit your preconceived notions of what people who argue as I do actually believe.
I think it's terrible that people are losing their livelihoods and homes and potentially their lives to climate change. But suing oil companies isn't going to stop the Globe from Warming, and it's not going to return their local climate to the same it was before. Even if their suit is successful, it's not going to stop the planet from getting warmer. It's going to make them personally richer, and energy more expensive for everyone, including themselves. I refuse to believe that *nobody* in that town has thought of this.
They're choosing to harm the national economy for personal gain, under the guise of stopping something that is impossible to stop, and that they know they'll have no success in stopping. If that doesn't fit your personal definition of reprehensible, then at least maybe it fulfills your criteria for "selfish?"
Thanks for rehashing partisan stereotypes for me - so there are the "Greedy Republicans," and then there are the "Republicans that Hate Gays and Love Jesus," and then there is the powerless minority of "Ignorant Republicans," who actually believe that the market is superior to socialism?
I'm assuming that you also divide the Democrats into the "Democrats who Hate All of Humanity" (environmentalists), "Greedy Democrats" (socialists), "Idiot Democrats" (Obama supporters).
Look, the real problem is that we've all been indoctrinated to believe that those who don't support My Political Party are dumb, evil, or both. That's just not true. We all generally want to maximize freedom and quality of life, and minimize human suffering. We just have different ideas of *how* to do that. It's not that "The Other Side" doesn't *want* to do those things - it's just that they don't want to do them in the way "Our Side" thinks they should be done, so we tell ourselves that they don't want those things
I mean, what kind of insane logic is that? "If you disagree with my proposed method for accomplishing X, I conclude that you *don't* want to accomplish X." WTF!?!?
*Both* sides are guilty of this, and it's a result of the balkanization of American politics: Republicans are greedy and uncaring because they believe that the best way to provide maximal happiness is to allow people, as much as possible, to do what they will, and potentially fail. Democrats are hippie-commie-simpletons because they believe that the best way to provide maximal happiness is to provide a helping hand to those who need it.
Everyone living in a first-world nation has the luxury of experiencing altruism - we all want the same things, and we disagree only on the means by which we ought to provide those things. Yet, somehow each side's talking heads assert that the other doesn't *want* those things... It just doesn't make any sense to me.
No, but the oil and coal companies they're suing provide energy that they, along with millions of others use. They're obviously not about to *stop* using it. So, what do they want? To stop the earth from getting warmer because it prevents them from providing 0.0000001% of the fish that we eat?
Sure, the Globe is Warming. But we all can't even agree that humans are the ones causing the earth to get warmer. Maybe it's getting warmer on its own. Maybe we're causing it. Maybe it's both. Point is, this little town is suffering from the effects of climate change, and they're using a hot-button, high-visibility issue that has prematurely left the realm of science and entered the political arena for their own personal gain. That's reprehensible.
No, I understand. I just vote Republican.
The whole idea of making laws about porn (outside of preventing abhorrent abuses, like child porn and snuff films, for example) just bothers me.
I'm a conservative, and a Republican, but I just gotta say this is a perfect example of conservative, Republican hypocrisy. (There, I said it.)
I understand that parents want to be able to raise their kids however they see fit - if you want your kid to never see a boobie until he's 18, then fine. If you want your kid to start masturbating to hardcore porn at age 10, also fine. If you want to educate your kids on the frank realities of sex at age 4, *FINE*!
I really don't care what you choose for you own family, as long as you don't force *your* standards onto me. And this is exactly what this bill does! Sure, I can choose to use a non-G-rated ISP, but the cost of this legislation is paid for by my taxes, which means that I am being forced to fund someone else's standards for child-rearing that I may or may not agree with.
What I don't get is that Republicans are generally in support of the free market, and believe that government really doesn't need to intervene in situations where the solution can be provided privately. This is a perfect example. As a matter of fact, I'm seriously considering starting an ISP in Utah that advertises G-Rated content filters now! The demand is obviously there, so why hasn't anyone done this yet?!?!?
The real hypocrisy is that conservative-types (including myself) believe that Government should *not* be our "munificent provider" of stuff via largesse. Yet, the author of this bill, and it's supporters want to legislate into existence, essentially, a Government-subsidized "Internet Nanny."
Ugh. I'm disgusted.
I wonder what Ray Niro (the Patent Troll) could possibly expect the outcome of that debate to be...
"Let me explain to you how abusing the patent system is a 'Good Thing,' because it prevents me from being poor... And you won't like me when I'm poor... *starts turning green and growing*"
I dunno. That's all I could come up with.
Yeah, I did that for a while, but then I decided to just have FF never remember any of my logins or passwords, and enter them manually every time. That way, unless somebody breaks into my house and clubs me on the back of the head while I'm logged into my bank's website, then they can't really do anything.
While I suspect that the master password utility would defeat the casual criminal, you can download free programs to decrypt the FF master password database. I'd rather just keep my passwords in the only place they're truly safe - my head.
(And by that, I mean I have a secret compartment built into my right temporal bone containing a teeny piece of paper where I wrote them all down.)
But that 12% *do* have access to health insurance. Anyone can buy whatever health insurance they choose to. That sounds like "access" to me.
The *real* mystery is why 45 million Americans (that's the number of uninsured that the article you linked provided) choose not to just buy their own health insurance. I just don't buy the "can't afford health insurance," argument. Look - In first-world nations, health insurance is a basic need, just like food, clothing, and shelter. So you get your paycheck - First, you buy food, then you ensure the clothing on your back (and the backs of your family) is sufficient. Then you pay rent or mortgage. Then you pay your monthly health insurance premuim. Only once those things are fulfilled do you think about having a car, or a cell phone, or cable TV, or a computer, or internet.
I did some research - just Google "High Deductible Health Plan Quotes." A single male living in Ohio can have an HSA where he saves $1,500 per year in his IRA for right around $35 per month. I understand that the cost will necessarily be greater for a family, but not orders-of-magnitude greater. I mean, I can understand the need for health-insurance welfare programs for those who truly *can't* afford healthcare. But if you can't pay for healthcare because you have a car and a TV and cable and a DVD player and you like to go out to eat at restaurants, that doesn't mean you "can't afford" it.
That just means you have chosen to prioritize McDonald's, your cell phone, and HBO over the lives of you and your children. Obtaining Health Insurance is not impossible in the US, even if you don't make a lot of money. It's frustrating to me that, because some people choose not to prioritize Health Insurance as highly as others, and they suffer the terrible consequences (like the anecdote in the article), that it's a "national scandal," and that Government ought to do something about it. Providing health insurance for free to people that actually can afford it, but would have to make difficult economic choices that others who are better off don't have to make (i.e., sell the car and take the bus, don't have a cell phone, etc.) merely reinforces their poor choices.
No, actually, not at all. A Health Savings Account is an individually-owned savings account. Anyone who wants to do health insurance this way has to have their own, and provide all the money that goes into it. The catastrophic insurance is provided by private insurance companies, much like car insurance.
Not at all like the NHS, the Canadian system, the French communal insurance system etc..etc.. at all...
Correct. It's not at all like any of those things. In fact, I'm actually very relieved that it's nothing like the NHS. I prefer my healthcare *not* to kill me...
See, it all sounds good until you call it 'socialised medicine'
No, I think an HSA is probably as close as you can get to the polar opposite of Socialized Medicine.
In reality, you know it's better than the status quo, you just can't bring yourselves to admit it.
I don't buy all this fearmongering. Silverlight is a freaking browser plugin. The books are still on the shelves in the library. Whatever content is being presented on the site (if the web developers are competent) is more or less separate from the presentation engine (Silverlight).
This decision by the Library of Congress does not "lock" anything under any sort of control by MS at all. If MS tries anything shady (which, by the way, they haven't in this case - most everyone has just speculated that they are), the LOC always has the option of dumping Silverlight for something else.
America is on top now. The British Empire was on top a while ago. The Roman Empire was on top a bit longer ago. That's about all this argument has going for it in the "accurate comparisons" department. The rest of it is about as well-reasoned and supported by fact as the stuff from those other people who come up with bizarre coincidences between the assassinations of JFK and Lincoln.
There's just way too many substantial differences between all of these top-dog nations and the historical contexts in which they existed for this to be anything but wishful thinking.
I don't want this decline to happen because I am a part of this empire
Oh, good. Then you'll be pleasantly surprised to hear that your argument is rubbish and you have nothing to worry about.