Which means the scholarly political spectrum leaves most political positions off of the spectrum completely. A spectrum with communism on one end and fascism on the other end is like having a rainbow with violet on one end and blue on the other.
Actually, the term "Paddy Wagon" comes from when it was used to pick up drunk and disorderlies, who at the time were mostly of Irish descent (or at least perceived to be mostly of Irish descent), not because the police were stereotypically of Irish descent (this was before the Irish became the majority of the police in many urban areas, although I do not believe that the police in any major urban area are of Irish descent any longer).
I really don't have much to say about most of your comment. While I disagree with much of what you say, it is a perfectly valid way to look at the issues. However, one comment gets to the root of the problem "rationalizing McCarthyism as justified by some of the results". McCarthyism was a minor blip in American history that gets much more attention than the consequences of what went on had on anybody. McCarthy was a nutjob whose excesses had a greater impact on him and his career than any of his actions had on anyone else. As a matter of fact, it was the excesses of McCarthy that led to the end of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. More attention is given to McCarthy than to the resegregation of the Federal government by Woodrow Wilson, which had a much greater negative impact on a much greater number of innocent people than the various activities lumped under McCarthyism (some of which were conducted by private entities with no government involvement at all).
Calling fascism "extremmist right", is ridiculous. The Nazis were socialists. The difference between fascism and other left-wing ideologies is that fascism is generally nationalistic (with a racial and/or ethnocentrice focus) whereas other left-wing ideologies are often agnostic about racial and ethnic differences (although in practice most left-wing ideologues promote hostility between those with racial and ethnic differences). Fascism, along with all other left-wing ideologies, promotes the power of the group over the freedom of the individual.
You mean kind of like what they have in Greece?
You talk about a "massive reinvestment in education from the bottom up", are you aware that Washington DC public schools students come from families that are among the lowest per capita income in the U.S. and the schools spend among the highest per student amount in the U.S.?
As for "housing, food and a meaningful job" being a right, who would be responsible for providing these things to people?
I read your post and it sounds like you favor more campaign finance regulation. Each time the laws on campaign finance have been tightened it has resulted in making it harder for challengers to defeat incumbents, which results in greater corporate influence on government. It seems to me that campaign finance regulation is a concept that has been proven to be counterproductive.
One of their main policies is the "repatriation" of non-whites from the UK. How much more evidence do you need? One of their candidates called Asians and Africans "black pigs." Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, was on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme shortly before the General Election both confirming and condoning what tat particular candidate had said.
That sounds a lot like white supremacy to me. I find it disgusting.
I was not arguing whether or not the BNP was white-supremacist, I was arguing whether the link provided was in any way proof of that allegation. If you have a citation for these claims you just made, that would constitute, at the least, sufficient evidence to support making the allegation (although there may exist evidence that would allow another person to reach alternate conclusions).
I don't live in the UK and am not familiar with the BNP, however, I am familiar with attacks that smear a group by claiming that nutjobs who associate themselves with that group are representative of the group, even when the group does not support the nutjobs.
You keep attacking the BNP, who I am not defending. An Anonymous Coward, requested a citation of proof for you original comment. Xaxa provided a smear link, that I challenged as proof because it is merely a list of people associated with BNP who have been convicted of various crimes (only a few of which are related to your allegation). I don't care one way or the other about your allegation of the BNP being white-supremacist, I care about people using faulty arguments (Xaxa's link).
I don't know and I bet neither do you. That link doesn't give us any idea. Which is my point, the link lists a bunch of people associated with the BNP who have committed various criminal acts, but it gives us no context by providing a similar list of people associated with other parties.
In order to conclusively make the case that the BNP is an "openly white-supremacist political party", it would be necessary to link to speeches and other official party documents that support white-supremacy. Without that the best you can do is say that they are a party that is a "poorly veiled white-supremacist party". The link provided only proves that the BNP is a party that attracts white-supremacists and criminals, it doesn't even prove that it attracts them to a greater degree than other parties.
Sorry, I can't find any information on the "McCarthy trials", care to tell me what you are talking about?
Were you perhaps referring to the McCarthy Hearings? Which ended up having far more negative consequences for Joseph McCarthy than for those on the receiving side.
How about we make a list of all of the Labour Party members who have been convicted of various things? I would bet its a much longer list. The list you connected to is just a bunch of people who have been convicted of various crimes and have some connection to the BNP. In most of the cases(not all, just most) there is nothing to suggest a connection between their BNP membership and their crime.
Does this mean I think the BNP is a good Party? No. I have no idea whether the BNP is good for the UK or not. What I do know is that your link is an example of making a case against someone (or some group) on the basis of out of context negative information. In order for that link to be at all useful, we would need to have a similar list for the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. Just as a note about some of the vague racism convictions on that list, I read a story the other day about a pensioner who was arrested for racism because he put up a sign saying "GET THE LOT OUT". Why was he arrested? because the sign was white and the lettering was red and blue (the sign was the colors of the Union Jack)
Yah, everyone has a different experience certainly. I came from a small town and went to a medium-sized university in a large city. I actually made the comment of someone on our hallway:
"He's Jewish? I thought he was French!"
So that got cleared up for me (cuz, you know, I thought Jewish...I thought Israel, I thought droopy eyes, big nose, etc...so I was a complete idiot because I was thinking "Jewish" was more country and racial, rather than religious.)
That isn't "more open-minded", that is just exposure to the world. You would have gotten as much or more exposure just from working in a large city.
How many different ideas did you come across at that university? Did you have any professors who voted for Reagan, or against Clinton, or for Bush 43, or against Obama (depending on when you went to school)? There are other issues that could be used. My point is that the overwhelming majority of universities are ideologically monolithic.
This isn't really related to the argument -- knowing how to program probably doesn't help you vote, most of the time.
College isn't a trade school, you're supposed to get a well-rounded education.
I thought the voting argument was the justification for the K-12 education.
The problem is that college does not provide a well-rounded education, it provides an indoctrination into the thought patterns of "respected" society. For example in the 1960's and early 1970s which group supported U.S. involvement in Vietnam to a greater extent, those with a college degree or those who never went to college?
The answer is those with a college degree supported U.S. involvement in Vietnam to a vastly greater extent than those with no college education.
As others have noted this is not the case. What killed Linux on netbooks was two factors people not being sure what Linux was and MS strong arming manufacturers (and retailers) to push netbooks with an MS OS on them.
There are a significant number of OBD codes that are undefined in the standard. Auto manufacturers use these codes for things that are not covered under the standard and only release the meaning of those codes to mechanics working for one oftheir dealers. If an auto manufacturer were to add security, you can be sure they would only release the access information to their own dealers (unless the government intervened to prevent them from doing so).
If there is a free market for the products the slaves are used to produce, slavery will go away. In the long run slavery is not an economically efficient method of production. If you look at pre-Civil War U.S., you can see this. The moderate anti-slavery people wanted to prevent slavery from being extended into new territories because they believed that if it was not allowed to expand, it would die out. Those who were avid supporters of the institution of slavery aggressivley tried to promote its expansion into new territories because they believed that if it did not expand into new territories it would die out. There is significant evidence to suggest that they were right.
I hate to say it but I'm starting to agree with this. Why would any pharmaceutical company EVER want to actually cure something when they could hook people on treatments for life.
Especially if they can't patent it, or it's inexpensive.
The answer to the first part is, so that one of their competitors don't get there first and make all the money. However, if the treatment is inexpensive and the drug company can't patent it, there is no reason to spend the incredible sums of money to test if it is a cure.
Of course, theoretically, that is why organizations such as the American Cancer Society exist. Unfortunately, it is not in the interest of the ACS to actually find a cure for cancer, what would their excuse for fund raising be then?
Pharmacuetical companies have a reason to find a cure if they can patent it. If they do not pursue the research, one of their competitors might and then all of their treatments will cease to have value.
Actually, this brings up another thought, if this drug is already approved to be administered to people, it is not necessary to put it through as intensive testing in order for it to be used. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of drugs which are used to treat conditions other than the ones they were approved to treat (not always effectively).
No, they haven't as has been stated by the people who wrote the GPL. You actually quoted the relevant section
GPLv3sect0para6 To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
The user in your scenario who is using the software on a University computer has not received a copy of the software. The copy of the software is on the University computer.
but only if intent can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
How can intent ever be proven "beyond reasonable doubt"? Unless you catch someone in the act of doing something with the object in question, I do not see how you could know beyond reasonable doubt what the intent of the person is.
When you say that "carrying a tool that can be used to do serious harm when there is no reason to do so should be illegal," what constitutes a reason to do so? Would the fact that I put it in my pocket when I finished using it and now, three hours later it's still there count as sufficient reason?
You know... if stupidity was illegal just about everyone would be prosecuted.
I always thought that intent was important when being charged with a crime.
Once upon a time that was true. I just read a column that talked about how over the last few years (5-20, I don't remember the time frame more closely than that) more and more laws don't take any notice of intent. I wish I could remember where I saw it.
Yes, people can rise above their biases to some degree. I reached the conclusion about all journalists being biased long before there was a Fox News. I reached it based on my experience with news stories that were of events that I had witnessed first hand. In one case, I knew that the reporter was aware of the facts, because I was standing right next to him. But if those facts were included, the story didn't support the reporter's agenda. After that I started reading news stories paying attention to loaded words. Do that sometime, don't pay attention to the story, pay attention to the word choices. You will soon see that most reporters use words that carry connotations rather than more neutral words. Further, if you do this for awhile, you will discover that the connotations always imply the same things about certain groups of people and certain ideas, even when the actual event does not support the connotation.
There's a third issue: salaries. Programming talent is used to silicon valley pay grades, not military pay grades. How many employees would be willing to leave their current position and take a 50% pay cut to work for the government? Would you be willing to trust the code of someone working for $40K/year?
Currently in the U.S., government workers outside of the military are better paid than their private sector counterparts. I'm not sure why you think this office would be paid according to military pay grades.
Slashdot Mirror
Which means the scholarly political spectrum leaves most political positions off of the spectrum completely. A spectrum with communism on one end and fascism on the other end is like having a rainbow with violet on one end and blue on the other.
Actually, the term "Paddy Wagon" comes from when it was used to pick up drunk and disorderlies, who at the time were mostly of Irish descent (or at least perceived to be mostly of Irish descent), not because the police were stereotypically of Irish descent (this was before the Irish became the majority of the police in many urban areas, although I do not believe that the police in any major urban area are of Irish descent any longer).
I really don't have much to say about most of your comment. While I disagree with much of what you say, it is a perfectly valid way to look at the issues. However, one comment gets to the root of the problem "rationalizing McCarthyism as justified by some of the results". McCarthyism was a minor blip in American history that gets much more attention than the consequences of what went on had on anybody. McCarthy was a nutjob whose excesses had a greater impact on him and his career than any of his actions had on anyone else. As a matter of fact, it was the excesses of McCarthy that led to the end of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. More attention is given to McCarthy than to the resegregation of the Federal government by Woodrow Wilson, which had a much greater negative impact on a much greater number of innocent people than the various activities lumped under McCarthyism (some of which were conducted by private entities with no government involvement at all).
Calling fascism "extremmist right", is ridiculous. The Nazis were socialists. The difference between fascism and other left-wing ideologies is that fascism is generally nationalistic (with a racial and/or ethnocentrice focus) whereas other left-wing ideologies are often agnostic about racial and ethnic differences (although in practice most left-wing ideologues promote hostility between those with racial and ethnic differences). Fascism, along with all other left-wing ideologies, promotes the power of the group over the freedom of the individual.
You mean kind of like what they have in Greece?
You talk about a "massive reinvestment in education from the bottom up", are you aware that Washington DC public schools students come from families that are among the lowest per capita income in the U.S. and the schools spend among the highest per student amount in the U.S.?
As for "housing, food and a meaningful job" being a right, who would be responsible for providing these things to people?
I read your post and it sounds like you favor more campaign finance regulation. Each time the laws on campaign finance have been tightened it has resulted in making it harder for challengers to defeat incumbents, which results in greater corporate influence on government. It seems to me that campaign finance regulation is a concept that has been proven to be counterproductive.
That's nice, the link that was in the comment I replied to(which you did not post) is still meaningless as support for your original post.
One of their main policies is the "repatriation" of non-whites from the UK. How much more evidence do you need? One of their candidates called Asians and Africans "black pigs." Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, was on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme shortly before the General Election both confirming and condoning what tat particular candidate had said.
That sounds a lot like white supremacy to me. I find it disgusting.
I was not arguing whether or not the BNP was white-supremacist, I was arguing whether the link provided was in any way proof of that allegation. If you have a citation for these claims you just made, that would constitute, at the least, sufficient evidence to support making the allegation (although there may exist evidence that would allow another person to reach alternate conclusions).
I don't live in the UK and am not familiar with the BNP, however, I am familiar with attacks that smear a group by claiming that nutjobs who associate themselves with that group are representative of the group, even when the group does not support the nutjobs.
You keep attacking the BNP, who I am not defending. An Anonymous Coward, requested a citation of proof for you original comment. Xaxa provided a smear link, that I challenged as proof because it is merely a list of people associated with BNP who have been convicted of various crimes (only a few of which are related to your allegation). I don't care one way or the other about your allegation of the BNP being white-supremacist, I care about people using faulty arguments (Xaxa's link).
I don't know and I bet neither do you. That link doesn't give us any idea. Which is my point, the link lists a bunch of people associated with the BNP who have committed various criminal acts, but it gives us no context by providing a similar list of people associated with other parties.
In order to conclusively make the case that the BNP is an "openly white-supremacist political party", it would be necessary to link to speeches and other official party documents that support white-supremacy. Without that the best you can do is say that they are a party that is a "poorly veiled white-supremacist party". The link provided only proves that the BNP is a party that attracts white-supremacists and criminals, it doesn't even prove that it attracts them to a greater degree than other parties.
Check the McCarthy trials.
Sorry, I can't find any information on the "McCarthy trials", care to tell me what you are talking about?
Were you perhaps referring to the McCarthy Hearings? Which ended up having far more negative consequences for Joseph McCarthy than for those on the receiving side.
How about we make a list of all of the Labour Party members who have been convicted of various things? I would bet its a much longer list. The list you connected to is just a bunch of people who have been convicted of various crimes and have some connection to the BNP. In most of the cases(not all, just most) there is nothing to suggest a connection between their BNP membership and their crime.
Does this mean I think the BNP is a good Party? No. I have no idea whether the BNP is good for the UK or not. What I do know is that your link is an example of making a case against someone (or some group) on the basis of out of context negative information. In order for that link to be at all useful, we would need to have a similar list for the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. Just as a note about some of the vague racism convictions on that list, I read a story the other day about a pensioner who was arrested for racism because he put up a sign saying "GET THE LOT OUT". Why was he arrested? because the sign was white and the lettering was red and blue (the sign was the colors of the Union Jack)
Yah, everyone has a different experience certainly. I came from a small town and went to a medium-sized university in a large city. I actually made the comment of someone on our hallway:
"He's Jewish? I thought he was French!"
So that got cleared up for me (cuz, you know, I thought Jewish...I thought Israel, I thought droopy eyes, big nose, etc...so I was a complete idiot because I was thinking "Jewish" was more country and racial, rather than religious.)
That isn't "more open-minded", that is just exposure to the world. You would have gotten as much or more exposure just from working in a large city.
How many different ideas did you come across at that university? Did you have any professors who voted for Reagan, or against Clinton, or for Bush 43, or against Obama (depending on when you went to school)? There are other issues that could be used. My point is that the overwhelming majority of universities are ideologically monolithic.
When you leave college you should be more open-minded, more theoretically-minded, than when you entered.
The problem is that the reverse is generally true.
This isn't really related to the argument -- knowing how to program probably doesn't help you vote, most of the time.
College isn't a trade school, you're supposed to get a well-rounded education.
I thought the voting argument was the justification for the K-12 education.
The problem is that college does not provide a well-rounded education, it provides an indoctrination into the thought patterns of "respected" society. For example in the 1960's and early 1970s which group supported U.S. involvement in Vietnam to a greater extent, those with a college degree or those who never went to college?
The answer is those with a college degree supported U.S. involvement in Vietnam to a vastly greater extent than those with no college education.
As others have noted this is not the case. What killed Linux on netbooks was two factors people not being sure what Linux was and MS strong arming manufacturers (and retailers) to push netbooks with an MS OS on them.
There are a significant number of OBD codes that are undefined in the standard. Auto manufacturers use these codes for things that are not covered under the standard and only release the meaning of those codes to mechanics working for one oftheir dealers. If an auto manufacturer were to add security, you can be sure they would only release the access information to their own dealers (unless the government intervened to prevent them from doing so).
If there is a free market for the products the slaves are used to produce, slavery will go away. In the long run slavery is not an economically efficient method of production. If you look at pre-Civil War U.S., you can see this. The moderate anti-slavery people wanted to prevent slavery from being extended into new territories because they believed that if it was not allowed to expand, it would die out. Those who were avid supporters of the institution of slavery aggressivley tried to promote its expansion into new territories because they believed that if it did not expand into new territories it would die out. There is significant evidence to suggest that they were right.
I hate to say it but I'm starting to agree with this. Why would any pharmaceutical company EVER want to actually cure something when they could hook people on treatments for life.
Especially if they can't patent it, or it's inexpensive.
The answer to the first part is, so that one of their competitors don't get there first and make all the money. However, if the treatment is inexpensive and the drug company can't patent it, there is no reason to spend the incredible sums of money to test if it is a cure.
Of course, theoretically, that is why organizations such as the American Cancer Society exist. Unfortunately, it is not in the interest of the ACS to actually find a cure for cancer, what would their excuse for fund raising be then?
Pharmacuetical companies have a reason to find a cure if they can patent it. If they do not pursue the research, one of their competitors might and then all of their treatments will cease to have value.
Actually, this brings up another thought, if this drug is already approved to be administered to people, it is not necessary to put it through as intensive testing in order for it to be used. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of drugs which are used to treat conditions other than the ones they were approved to treat (not always effectively).
You are absolutely correct to conclude your post with "QED. IANAL", because your reasoning clearly demonstrates that to be the case.
You actually quoted the relevant section
GPLv3sect0para6 To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
The user in your scenario who is using the software on a University computer has not received a copy of the software. The copy of the software is on the University computer.
but only if intent can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
How can intent ever be proven "beyond reasonable doubt"? Unless you catch someone in the act of doing something with the object in question, I do not see how you could know beyond reasonable doubt what the intent of the person is.
When you say that "carrying a tool that can be used to do serious harm when there is no reason to do so should be illegal," what constitutes a reason to do so? Would the fact that I put it in my pocket when I finished using it and now, three hours later it's still there count as sufficient reason?
You know... if stupidity was illegal just about everyone would be prosecuted.
I always thought that intent was important when being charged with a crime.
Once upon a time that was true. I just read a column that talked about how over the last few years (5-20, I don't remember the time frame more closely than that) more and more laws don't take any notice of intent. I wish I could remember where I saw it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm Here is a cite for you. There are many more, but I will leave that research to you.
Yes, people can rise above their biases to some degree. I reached the conclusion about all journalists being biased long before there was a Fox News. I reached it based on my experience with news stories that were of events that I had witnessed first hand. In one case, I knew that the reporter was aware of the facts, because I was standing right next to him. But if those facts were included, the story didn't support the reporter's agenda. After that I started reading news stories paying attention to loaded words. Do that sometime, don't pay attention to the story, pay attention to the word choices. You will soon see that most reporters use words that carry connotations rather than more neutral words. Further, if you do this for awhile, you will discover that the connotations always imply the same things about certain groups of people and certain ideas, even when the actual event does not support the connotation.
There's a third issue: salaries. Programming talent is used to silicon valley pay grades, not military pay grades. How many employees would be willing to leave their current position and take a 50% pay cut to work for the government? Would you be willing to trust the code of someone working for $40K/year?
Currently in the U.S., government workers outside of the military are better paid than their private sector counterparts. I'm not sure why you think this office would be paid according to military pay grades.