I'm pretty sure there are people out there who could establish prior art....oh yeah, the fact that there are people out there kind of establishes prior art.
No structure works too -- for tasks where there is a body of people who understand every part of that task. Think a Shaker barn raising. When you have a body of people who've mastered every aspect of a task and everyone can see what task needs more hands, then no structure is the way to go.
I am not sure about Shaker barn raising, but I am pretty sure you actually meant Amish barn raising. I know something about Amish barn raising (I have relatives among the Amish).
Amish barn raising is not "no structure". There is no formal structure, but there is a fairly strict informal structure. As a general rule everybody at an Amish barn raising has known everybody else there as long as they can remember and almost all of them are related to one degree or another.
The structure used for Amish barn raising is the best structure for any task involving a group of people that is small enough that everyone knows and trusts everyone else.
No, I do not have a "right" to have someone else provide me with defense.
However, providing for the common defense is the primary reason for government to exist at all.
If your friend thinks that providing health care is in the same category as providing for a military, then he is either not really a libertarian, or a libertarian who doesn't think the government should have a military.
Ultimately, if the government is responsible for providing health care for everyone, there is no limit to the powers of government.
So, do you think that you have the right to have someone else provide you with health care?
The poster I was responding to seemed to be saying that receiving health care was a right. I was trying to figure out what he meant in context with the rest of his post.
'This would bolster the advocates of national health care and create another (unwritten) constitutional right.'
Every right is a natural right. As someone else already pointed out, government doesn't grant rights, it takes rights away. You are freest without any government at all. What is the purpose of society if it isn't to keep the people who form it safe, healthy, and secure? Sounds to me like you are a moderately successful individual who just doesn't want to pay his fair share of taxes and thinks his success entitles him to priority when hes sick.
You seem to be saying that there should be/is a right to health care. Why do you think that someone has the right to force someone else to provide them with health care?
Unless you are saying that if person A is willing to provide me with health care (for whatever reason), then it violates my right for person B (the government, or whoever) to prevent them (prevent does not mean refusing to pay for it).
I only addressed two because I have only used two. I have not used Gnu Cash, so I can't make a comparison. However, if the other two are examples of software that doesn't "compare favorably" to the commercial software, then I consider your case lost. I have used Photoshop. I have used GIMP. GIMP is no more difficult to use and it does everything I need.
I have used various versions of MS Office and I have used OO.o (I was aware of StarOffice, but have never paid for it). For my needs, OO.o is sufficient and easier to navigate then MS Office 2007. The only reason I use MS Office 2007 is because there are people who will pay me to help them with it. The fact that OO.o is based on closed-source software is irrelevant to your argument.
No, overall, neither of your two software examples that I have used is as good as the proprietary software they are compared to, but not many people need the additional functionality so it really doesn't matter. One of the big arguments often used is "learning curve", I haven't found the free software any more difficult to learn than the proprietary.
You claim that free software is crap compared to proprietary, then give examples of free software that is a good substitute for proprietary software for most people.
Up until now, I have been staying out of this, but your comparisons.
I use Photoshop at work and GIMP at home (both sporadically), so far for my usage in either location, I haven't found any reason that justifies paying for Photoshop. I am not a graphic artist or photographer, I am merely an IT guy who from time to time needs to modify images for various purposes.
I use MS Office and OO.o. Again for my purposes OO.o is more than adequate. What I do at work justifies the price of MS Office, but only because we have been using the same version for 8 years. MS Office 2007 has some nice new features that would be really cool, but in order to make use of them we would need to buy licenses for everyone and those features just aren't worth that much.
Basically, your examples don't support your initial argument. You said that free software was crap. The two examples of "crap" free software you use that I have experience with are very good, especially when you consider the cost difference.
I was going to make an argument here, but you make no sense.
Fact: average global temperatures have fallen since 1999(98?)
YET you state: an eruption in 1997/98 temporarily lowered temperatures and when it is taken out of the equation there is a warming trend.
Since 1999 was warmer than 2009, how does a temporary cooling effect in 1999 explain this?
If you are saying that we are still within the "temporarily lowered" temperatures, how do you know it is temporary? I'm supposed to believe the predictions of people who failed to predict the cooling trend until it had gone on long enough that they could no longer deny it?
how come all the climatologists predicting global warming based on man's CO2 emission failed to predict that temperatures would remain steady and fall slightly after 1998
Perhaps because they hadn't included that El Nina of 1997/8 raised temperatures before declining slightly? Eleven of the warmest years recorded were in the past 13 years.
So until a year ago, they hadn't factored in something that occurred in 1997/8. What else haven't they figured in? You list the "warmest years recorded. How long do we have recorded temperatures? That are global enough to actually tell us what the temperature was around the world?
You want me to accept the word of people who tell me that polar bears are dying off at a time that there are more polar bears than ever before recorded?
The problem with the geologic record is that CO2 is a lagging indicator of increased temperature. That is according to the geologic record, temperatures go up first, then CO2 rises.
So, once again, I ask how come all the computer models used to project future temperature rise based on CO2, fail to accurately predict temperature changes over the 20th Century?
And for extra points, how come all the climatologists predicting global warming based on man's CO2 emission failed to predict that temperatures would remain steady and fall slightly after 1998 until present (those that predicted this outcome last year don't count--that's not really prediction)? Oh yeah, what is the relationship between the temperature rise on other planets circling our sun and that of Earth?
And how does this CO2 concentration interact with H2o concentration in the atmosphere? At what point does increasing CO2 concentration change the way it functions as a greenhouse gas? What impact does changes in solar activity have on temperatures and CO2 concentrations?
You list the "atmospheric carbon load" as if we know what impact that has on the environment. I have yet to see a study using the Global Warming computer models that accurately predicts the temperatures of the last 100 years, why should I believe that they have any relevance to the temperatures for the next 100 years?
So, my summary of why he was drummed out of the party was oversimplified. Even going with your list of reasons, he was still drummed out of the party for being insufficiently orthodox according to Democrat Party dogma. Olympia Snow is still a Republican even though she is further from standard Republican positions then Lieberman is from Democrat.
Really, how come the only place I hear about the problems with his policies is on slashdot and conservative news and opinion sites?
As for "'small tent' purity jihad" of the GOP, do you remember Joe Lieberman? got drummed out of the party because he had the temerity of thinking that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good idea? The closest you can come to that is Arlen Specter who left because he thought that the Republican voters would vote for the guy running against him in the primary. He didn't have the party apparatus working against him, just the actual voters.
Just what would a group of 'countries' actually do differently? This sounds to me like a veiled attempt at power-grabbing
That's easy, censor the things on the Internet that they don't like. As several posters further up pointed out, the woman making this assertion is a supporter of censoring the Internet to "protect the children".
Having read the wikipedia article on Bruno, I have to conclude that saying that heliocentrism was a contributing factor in his execution is more of a stretch than saying that Ron Paul lost in last year's Republican primaries because of his support of the return to the gold standard.
I wasn't saying that I don't think that muslims are either murderous thugs or apostate. I was saying that that had nothing to do with this particular post.
"with intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person."
Exactly who determines what constitutes the above? If I state that I intend to force a politician to take some action as relates to their office, can I be prosecuted under this law? If not, what in the law grants me that exception? If so, how does that not contravene the purpose of the First Amendment?
Because the current laws do not give the government enough power. It is just like the response of many elected officials after Columbine. The guys who committed the murders at Columbine had broken somewhere over 10 existing laws to obtain the weapons they used, yet the response of the government wasn't to ramp up enforcement. It was to pass new laws further restricting the citizen's right to bear arms. This was not an isolated incident. Historically, administrations (federal, state and local) who most stridently want to extend gun restrictions have been the most lax in enforcing existing laws restricting guns.
Exactly, he wasn't burned at the stake. Actually, Galileo's "problem" was more political. His scientific rivals were more politically connected than he was and he inserted commentary insulting to politically powerful people into his writings. Basically, Galileo got into trouble because he was insulting to anyone who disagreed with him and alienated many people who might otherwise have supported him.
This is just a clarification of "harassment" as it already exists. It's not an attempt to shut down blogs. If someone is obviously and intentionally harassing someone else, I have no problem with them having legal recourse.
See, the problem is that you have already surrendered your right to free speech. "Harassment" under current law is about what the "injured" party perceives, not what the accused intended.
Please tell me who was burned at the stake for disagreeing about the earth being the center of the universe?
People today believe that they are smarter than people of yesteryear despite the fact that all the evidence suggests the opposite if any real difference.
Europeans believed that the Earth was round BEFORE there were any muslims.
My sentiment on this has nothing to do with muslims. The idea that educated Europeans thought the Earth was flat is a myth made up by certain 19th Century writers and popularized by people who were trying to show that Christianity is anti-science.
See in the UK we have a better approach with protecting the public from the effects of cyber attacks.
We just allow our public sector to be so fucking useless no one misses them when their systems go offline anyway.
And there are a lot of people who want us to emulate your health care system.
The first thing I thought of was, what happens when the new national medical records system goes online with a similar level of security.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure there are people out there who could establish prior art....oh yeah, the fact that there are people out there kind of establishes prior art.
No structure works too -- for tasks where there is a body of people who understand every part of that task. Think a Shaker barn raising. When you have a body of people who've mastered every aspect of a task and everyone can see what task needs more hands, then no structure is the way to go.
I am not sure about Shaker barn raising, but I am pretty sure you actually meant Amish barn raising. I know something about Amish barn raising (I have relatives among the Amish).
Amish barn raising is not "no structure". There is no formal structure, but there is a fairly strict informal structure. As a general rule everybody at an Amish barn raising has known everybody else there as long as they can remember and almost all of them are related to one degree or another.
The structure used for Amish barn raising is the best structure for any task involving a group of people that is small enough that everyone knows and trusts everyone else.
No, I do not have a "right" to have someone else provide me with defense.
However, providing for the common defense is the primary reason for government to exist at all.
If your friend thinks that providing health care is in the same category as providing for a military, then he is either not really a libertarian, or a libertarian who doesn't think the government should have a military.
Ultimately, if the government is responsible for providing health care for everyone, there is no limit to the powers of government.
So, do you think that you have the right to have someone else provide you with health care?
The poster I was responding to seemed to be saying that receiving health care was a right. I was trying to figure out what he meant in context with the rest of his post.
'This would bolster the advocates of national health care and create another (unwritten) constitutional right.'
Every right is a natural right. As someone else already pointed out, government doesn't grant rights, it takes rights away. You are freest without any government at all. What is the purpose of society if it isn't to keep the people who form it safe, healthy, and secure? Sounds to me like you are a moderately successful individual who just doesn't want to pay his fair share of taxes and thinks his success entitles him to priority when hes sick.
You seem to be saying that there should be/is a right to health care. Why do you think that someone has the right to force someone else to provide them with health care?
Unless you are saying that if person A is willing to provide me with health care (for whatever reason), then it violates my right for person B (the government, or whoever) to prevent them (prevent does not mean refusing to pay for it).
I only addressed two because I have only used two. I have not used Gnu Cash, so I can't make a comparison. However, if the other two are examples of software that doesn't "compare favorably" to the commercial software, then I consider your case lost. I have used Photoshop. I have used GIMP. GIMP is no more difficult to use and it does everything I need.
I have used various versions of MS Office and I have used OO.o (I was aware of StarOffice, but have never paid for it). For my needs, OO.o is sufficient and easier to navigate then MS Office 2007. The only reason I use MS Office 2007 is because there are people who will pay me to help them with it. The fact that OO.o is based on closed-source software is irrelevant to your argument.
No, overall, neither of your two software examples that I have used is as good as the proprietary software they are compared to, but not many people need the additional functionality so it really doesn't matter. One of the big arguments often used is "learning curve", I haven't found the free software any more difficult to learn than the proprietary.
You claim that free software is crap compared to proprietary, then give examples of free software that is a good substitute for proprietary software for most people.
Up until now, I have been staying out of this, but your comparisons.
I use Photoshop at work and GIMP at home (both sporadically), so far for my usage in either location, I haven't found any reason that justifies paying for Photoshop. I am not a graphic artist or photographer, I am merely an IT guy who from time to time needs to modify images for various purposes.
I use MS Office and OO.o. Again for my purposes OO.o is more than adequate. What I do at work justifies the price of MS Office, but only because we have been using the same version for 8 years. MS Office 2007 has some nice new features that would be really cool, but in order to make use of them we would need to buy licenses for everyone and those features just aren't worth that much.
Basically, your examples don't support your initial argument. You said that free software was crap. The two examples of "crap" free software you use that I have experience with are very good, especially when you consider the cost difference.
I was going to make an argument here, but you make no sense.
Fact: average global temperatures have fallen since 1999(98?) YET you state: an eruption in 1997/98 temporarily lowered temperatures and when it is taken out of the equation there is a warming trend. Since 1999 was warmer than 2009, how does a temporary cooling effect in 1999 explain this?
If you are saying that we are still within the "temporarily lowered" temperatures, how do you know it is temporary? I'm supposed to believe the predictions of people who failed to predict the cooling trend until it had gone on long enough that they could no longer deny it?
how come all the climatologists predicting global warming based on man's CO2 emission failed to predict that temperatures would remain steady and fall slightly after 1998
Perhaps because they hadn't included that El Nina of 1997/8 raised temperatures before declining slightly? Eleven of the warmest years recorded were in the past 13 years.
So until a year ago, they hadn't factored in something that occurred in 1997/8. What else haven't they figured in? You list the "warmest years recorded. How long do we have recorded temperatures? That are global enough to actually tell us what the temperature was around the world?
You want me to accept the word of people who tell me that polar bears are dying off at a time that there are more polar bears than ever before recorded?
The problem with the geologic record is that CO2 is a lagging indicator of increased temperature. That is according to the geologic record, temperatures go up first, then CO2 rises.
So, once again, I ask how come all the computer models used to project future temperature rise based on CO2, fail to accurately predict temperature changes over the 20th Century?
And for extra points, how come all the climatologists predicting global warming based on man's CO2 emission failed to predict that temperatures would remain steady and fall slightly after 1998 until present (those that predicted this outcome last year don't count--that's not really prediction)? Oh yeah, what is the relationship between the temperature rise on other planets circling our sun and that of Earth?
And how does this CO2 concentration interact with H2o concentration in the atmosphere? At what point does increasing CO2 concentration change the way it functions as a greenhouse gas? What impact does changes in solar activity have on temperatures and CO2 concentrations?
You list the "atmospheric carbon load" as if we know what impact that has on the environment. I have yet to see a study using the Global Warming computer models that accurately predicts the temperatures of the last 100 years, why should I believe that they have any relevance to the temperatures for the next 100 years?
TFA also has a blurb about "sustainable" bricks... made out of cow dung.
That's just bullshit
No, no, very similar, but not quite the same. Although I haven't heard of any tests that can tell the difference :-)
So, my summary of why he was drummed out of the party was oversimplified. Even going with your list of reasons, he was still drummed out of the party for being insufficiently orthodox according to Democrat Party dogma. Olympia Snow is still a Republican even though she is further from standard Republican positions then Lieberman is from Democrat.
Really, how come the only place I hear about the problems with his policies is on slashdot and conservative news and opinion sites?
As for "'small tent' purity jihad" of the GOP, do you remember Joe Lieberman? got drummed out of the party because he had the temerity of thinking that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good idea? The closest you can come to that is Arlen Specter who left because he thought that the Republican voters would vote for the guy running against him in the primary. He didn't have the party apparatus working against him, just the actual voters.
Just what would a group of 'countries' actually do differently? This sounds to me like a veiled attempt at power-grabbing
That's easy, censor the things on the Internet that they don't like. As several posters further up pointed out, the woman making this assertion is a supporter of censoring the Internet to "protect the children".
Having read the wikipedia article on Bruno, I have to conclude that saying that heliocentrism was a contributing factor in his execution is more of a stretch than saying that Ron Paul lost in last year's Republican primaries because of his support of the return to the gold standard.
I wasn't saying that I don't think that muslims are either murderous thugs or apostate. I was saying that that had nothing to do with this particular post.
"with intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person."
Exactly who determines what constitutes the above? If I state that I intend to force a politician to take some action as relates to their office, can I be prosecuted under this law? If not, what in the law grants me that exception? If so, how does that not contravene the purpose of the First Amendment?
Because the current laws do not give the government enough power. It is just like the response of many elected officials after Columbine. The guys who committed the murders at Columbine had broken somewhere over 10 existing laws to obtain the weapons they used, yet the response of the government wasn't to ramp up enforcement. It was to pass new laws further restricting the citizen's right to bear arms. This was not an isolated incident. Historically, administrations (federal, state and local) who most stridently want to extend gun restrictions have been the most lax in enforcing existing laws restricting guns.
Exactly, he wasn't burned at the stake. Actually, Galileo's "problem" was more political. His scientific rivals were more politically connected than he was and he inserted commentary insulting to politically powerful people into his writings. Basically, Galileo got into trouble because he was insulting to anyone who disagreed with him and alienated many people who might otherwise have supported him.
This is just a clarification of "harassment" as it already exists. It's not an attempt to shut down blogs. If someone is obviously and intentionally harassing someone else, I have no problem with them having legal recourse.
See, the problem is that you have already surrendered your right to free speech. "Harassment" under current law is about what the "injured" party perceives, not what the accused intended.
Please tell me who was burned at the stake for disagreeing about the earth being the center of the universe?
People today believe that they are smarter than people of yesteryear despite the fact that all the evidence suggests the opposite if any real difference.
Europeans believed that the Earth was round BEFORE there were any muslims.
My sentiment on this has nothing to do with muslims. The idea that educated Europeans thought the Earth was flat is a myth made up by certain 19th Century writers and popularized by people who were trying to show that Christianity is anti-science.
See in the UK we have a better approach with protecting the public from the effects of cyber attacks.
We just allow our public sector to be so fucking useless no one misses them when their systems go offline anyway.
And there are a lot of people who want us to emulate your health care system.
The first thing I thought of was, what happens when the new national medical records system goes online with a similar level of security.
So, from the above comments, I take it that the Daily Mail is like the New York Times, except in the opposite direction?