I would definitely shut down my gaming box much more often if it took less time to power up. As it is, 2+ minutes, is just annoying. I generally want a quick fix.
What rules? Name one rule without which there cannot be a society.
And I don't mean without which you would not like the society, I mean there cannot be a society.
As a resident of a state that has it's own very overbearing government, I don't think that Federal power is the problem, I think that overbearing government in general is the problem. Federal or state, there is too much power in the hand of unaccountable people right now.
That said, I also think there are many services that are and must be run at a federal level, and the federal government does many good things (and many bad ones) handling everything from consumer safety to national infrastructure. Some of those things could, maybe, be privatized, but that doesn't always mean that they should either.
Federal or State, though, gun control is bullshit.
How do you determine the rights individuals have? Why do you have a right to your property? Why don't I have a right to your property?
Because, and only because, people have agreed to that. Changing those rights is nothing more than a matter of changing those agreements. After all, changing the nature of property rights was at the core of most of the Communist revolutions.
In the end I think we are saying the same thing two different ways. Natural Law essentially is the same as figuring out what rights we have that are by our societal needs.
Maybe. I still have a problem with the phrase "Natural Law" though. As I see it, there is no law in nature. Rights, laws, property, these are things which we create, which having no meaning or existence but that we imagine them, create them, and go to great lengths to protect and enforce them upon those who would disagree.
ATF agents deserve to be shot in the head. The RKBA is sacrosanct, which is why it has a whole Amendment devoted to it. As long as a group of people isn't committing some actual crimes (the Davidians weren't, that I know of), then the Federal government needs to leave them alone.
Similarly, I see nothing wrong with Black Panthers keeping weapons, and advising people to shoot federal agents in the head, as long as those members aren't felons or committing actual crimes. Free association, free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms are all part of the Bill of Rights in this country, and they apply to all Citizens, as long as they aren't felons or in prison.
The only problem I have with this paragraph is the word "Federal." It needs to be removed.
This is where the buy and return for refund/boycott and send letters methodology helps. Seriously, it's not that hard to send a message to companies telling them when they make something you want, but manage to prevent you from doing business with them nonetheless.
It's funny, but I've been making that same point the other way: Why pay for a game you're going to have to pirate anyway? Either boycott it properly, (meaning don't buy, and send them a memo saying why not), or if you can manage it, buy and then return for a refund complaining about the DRM. Making a company *return* money is the best way to make the point that this is a lost sale. Buyer beware though, make sure you know your return policies or be prepared to sue if need be.
That said, there are still things that make me want to pirate games (such as to test for performance and compatability), I just have to fight the desire. I managed to wait until offline mode was added to Steam before buying Half-Life 2.
Cheap & Portable or Cheap & Powerful should be available without too much trouble, assuming cheap = less than, say, 500 USD.
I quite the EEE 1000H, but a better CPU in the Mini-Note would have sold me as well. Ideally, Linux is the better OS option, but I all I really want is web browsing, with background music, meaning a light CPU, around 1G RAM, as many pixels as can be crammed into the frame, and plenty of headphone and USB ports.
Or call it a utility, and require the utility to provide, at their cost, a physical bandwidth meter on the wall of your house. Then you can be charged per MB, and you can see exactly what your usage is.
...you should have other reasons for making things illegal, other than " its in the Bible ",but just because some things are considered Sins in the Bible doesn't mean they can't be legislated.
, I question the nature of "Natural Law". I don't believe that there can be a "Natural Law", as it shares a problem with everything else that's called natural: the meaning of natural is non-specific, and has no relation to the meaning of law. I submit that there is no "natural law", and that the core purpose of society is to impose law on the natural state.
From this I would conclude that the core principals of law should relate to defining the rights individuals have, and determining to what extent they apply when in conflict. For example, my right to property means you cannot steal, and Bob's right to life means I cannot kill him.
Which is, in and of itself, the point. Miami-Dade elected our president. All those other votes didn't really matter much.
This gives a good indication of how important your vote is. As a resident of MA, my vote means very close to nothing.
Why not approval voting? Much simpler, and the defensive vote is less relevant. IRV only works the way you want it to if the third party doesn't have a chance. IRV ignores secondary preferences in each round.
Ahh, but a very wealthy person will die eventually. Corporations face no such restriction. The wealth of a corporation is certainly an advantage, but, as you point out, it is not unique to corporations. The lack of a physical vessel is a unique advantage of corporations.
The harder missions were basically the same, but you had to fulfill more objectives, or not kill any innocent people, or accomplish the mission on a time limit. That was one of the most satisfying experiences I can recall in any FPS ever.
If you own a chair, it is an exclusive monopoly on the use of that chair.
If you own a car, it is an exclusive monopoly on the use of that car.
If you own a [x], it is an exclusive monopoly on the use of that [x].
Now if you let [x] equal "piece of information" you have arrived at the argument used by the 'you don't buy a copy, you buy a license' people.
I don't entirely agree, but I haven't yet developed a compromise that I'm entirely comfortable with either. I think the idea of, say, a seven year term, infinitely renewable, at exponentially increasing costs is probably most ideal.
Corporations were not treated as individuals until relatively recently (last hundred or so years). They were granted that status by a court reporter, who added in as a footnote when recording a SCOTUS decision. (Not that he inherently intended to set a precedent for that, but that footnote has been cited frequently since, as though it was an established precedent).
For centuries previously, corporations were recognized as dramatically different from individuals. In the early years of the corporation, most corporations were formed for a fixed project, and had to be dissolved when that project (or voyage, or venture) was completed or abandoned. The fact that corporations are not in any way restricted to being in one place at one time, doing one thing at a time, or existing for a limited amount of time has given them an enormous advantage in our legal system, which was never intended by our constitutional framers.
As concerns property rights, if you want to argue for essentially unlimited rights to the use of one's property, I ask you this question: Should I be allowed to set off nuclear weapons in my backyard, if (a)I legitimately obtained the materials to build them and (b)I honestly believe that my back yard is sufficient to contain the blast?
If not, why not?
If the answer is that it damages or destroys the property of others, and there has to be a limit, than I think we're on the same page. We may be arguing about where to draw the limits, and what reasonable entails, but we both acknowledge the need for a limit.
If you think it should be allowed, than I ask instead where you would draw the limit? Should I be allowed to, for example, kill anyone who trespasses on my property? Should I be allowed to detonate something on my property that I know will flatten my entire town?
Property rights are inherent, but they are not unlimited. No right can be unlimited where it can impinge on the same right held by others.
I favor erring on the side of individual rights, and individual property, and I tend to err towards maintaining the pre-existing status when they come into conflict, but I have to accept that where conflict is common, one of two things happen: in a asymmetric conflicts, one side dictates terms to the other, in symmetric relationships, compromise is the norm.
As a liberal, I am massively in favor of people's right to own arms (even just 'cause they're cool and shiny), against allowing companies (or individuals) to undertake large projects without assessing the long term impact on public resources (such as the environment) and many other ideas. I have a fair amount of real world experience with some of them, with others, I have to trust my sources. When information is presented which contradicts those sources, I adapt my opinions. But I digress, the point is, Democrats certainly foist a set of values on people, as do Republicans. Even Libertarians, by not enforcing certain values, implicitly enforce counterbalancing values. For example, refusing to break up monopolies is to implicitly encourage them, inasmuch as they are a natural tendency of some markets.
I believe that the individuals right to property is very important, but I don't extend that to artificially protected entities such as corporations, and I don't believe that the right to that property inherently includes uses of it that impact others.
For example, I believe that you have the right to own a Hummer, but that doesn't give you the right to drive it on the public road. For that, you have to demonstrate that you are capable of driving a vehicle that is more likely to kill other people in an accident, and presents a hazard to navigation for other drivers, safely. Something akin to, but not as difficult to obtain as, a CDL.
Wow, that was a long rant. Anyway, Liberal != Libertarian. Live and let live is a philosophy, and there are people who would force it on you just like any other. At the end of the day, the use of the word Liberal you speak of comes from people who, in the main, were trying to distance themselves from those ideas. The people so labeled simply wound up up keeping the label.
True, but in my experience the range of ideas already present in academia was exponentially greater than the range already present elsewhere, and the opportunities for everything from idle discussion to extended research and publication are similarly greater.
No, businessmen only make money when the economy makes their product viable (or when they can steal from shareholders and employees and get away with it). A bad economy is very good for the sort of business that sells, say, a crappy product at rock bottom prices, because a bad economy makes the price difference seem more important to consumers.
I can't believe it didn't occur to me to mention that the Republican party has been playing up the anti-intellectualism in appealing to their base these days.
Slashdot Mirror
But I bet they buy games off of Amazon...
I would definitely shut down my gaming box much more often if it took less time to power up. As it is, 2+ minutes, is just annoying. I generally want a quick fix.
Sinfest and XKCD are gaming comics now?
What rules? Name one rule without which there cannot be a society.
And I don't mean without which you would not like the society, I mean there cannot be a society.
As a resident of a state that has it's own very overbearing government, I don't think that Federal power is the problem, I think that overbearing government in general is the problem. Federal or state, there is too much power in the hand of unaccountable people right now.
That said, I also think there are many services that are and must be run at a federal level, and the federal government does many good things (and many bad ones) handling everything from consumer safety to national infrastructure. Some of those things could, maybe, be privatized, but that doesn't always mean that they should either.
Federal or State, though, gun control is bullshit.
How do you determine the rights individuals have? Why do you have a right to your property? Why don't I have a right to your property?
Because, and only because, people have agreed to that. Changing those rights is nothing more than a matter of changing those agreements. After all, changing the nature of property rights was at the core of most of the Communist revolutions.
In the end I think we are saying the same thing two different ways. Natural Law essentially is the same as figuring out what rights we have that are by our societal needs.
Maybe. I still have a problem with the phrase "Natural Law" though. As I see it, there is no law in nature. Rights, laws, property, these are things which we create, which having no meaning or existence but that we imagine them, create them, and go to great lengths to protect and enforce them upon those who would disagree.
ATF agents deserve to be shot in the head. The RKBA is sacrosanct, which is why it has a whole Amendment devoted to it. As long as a group of people isn't committing some actual crimes (the Davidians weren't, that I know of), then the Federal government needs to leave them alone.
Similarly, I see nothing wrong with Black Panthers keeping weapons, and advising people to shoot federal agents in the head, as long as those members aren't felons or committing actual crimes. Free association, free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms are all part of the Bill of Rights in this country, and they apply to all Citizens, as long as they aren't felons or in prison.
The only problem I have with this paragraph is the word "Federal." It needs to be removed.
This is where the buy and return for refund/boycott and send letters methodology helps. Seriously, it's not that hard to send a message to companies telling them when they make something you want, but manage to prevent you from doing business with them nonetheless.
It's funny, but I've been making that same point the other way: Why pay for a game you're going to have to pirate anyway? Either boycott it properly, (meaning don't buy, and send them a memo saying why not), or if you can manage it, buy and then return for a refund complaining about the DRM. Making a company *return* money is the best way to make the point that this is a lost sale. Buyer beware though, make sure you know your return policies or be prepared to sue if need be.
That said, there are still things that make me want to pirate games (such as to test for performance and compatability), I just have to fight the desire. I managed to wait until offline mode was added to Steam before buying Half-Life 2.
Cheap & Portable or Cheap & Powerful should be available without too much trouble, assuming cheap = less than, say, 500 USD.
I quite the EEE 1000H, but a better CPU in the Mini-Note would have sold me as well. Ideally, Linux is the better OS option, but I all I really want is web browsing, with background music, meaning a light CPU, around 1G RAM, as many pixels as can be crammed into the frame, and plenty of headphone and USB ports.
Or call it a utility, and require the utility to provide, at their cost, a physical bandwidth meter on the wall of your house. Then you can be charged per MB, and you can see exactly what your usage is.
...you should have other reasons for making things illegal, other than " its in the Bible ",but just because some things are considered Sins in the Bible doesn't mean they can't be legislated.
, I question the nature of "Natural Law". I don't believe that there can be a "Natural Law", as it shares a problem with everything else that's called natural: the meaning of natural is non-specific, and has no relation to the meaning of law. I submit that there is no "natural law", and that the core purpose of society is to impose law on the natural state.
From this I would conclude that the core principals of law should relate to defining the rights individuals have, and determining to what extent they apply when in conflict. For example, my right to property means you cannot steal, and Bob's right to life means I cannot kill him.
Which is, in and of itself, the point. Miami-Dade elected our president. All those other votes didn't really matter much. This gives a good indication of how important your vote is. As a resident of MA, my vote means very close to nothing.
Why not approval voting? Much simpler, and the defensive vote is less relevant. IRV only works the way you want it to if the third party doesn't have a chance. IRV ignores secondary preferences in each round.
That's illegal though. DMCA and all that. If you're going to have to break the law, why pay 50$ for the chance to do it?
Ahh, but a very wealthy person will die eventually. Corporations face no such restriction. The wealth of a corporation is certainly an advantage, but, as you point out, it is not unique to corporations. The lack of a physical vessel is a unique advantage of corporations.
The harder missions were basically the same, but you had to fulfill more objectives, or not kill any innocent people, or accomplish the mission on a time limit. That was one of the most satisfying experiences I can recall in any FPS ever.
Could be 'less war' too, after all, war is not inherently quantized. Wars are simply instances of War.
1: Open tab. 2: Set tab to auto-reload every 5 seconds. 3: ??? 4: Profit.
If you own a chair, it is an exclusive monopoly on the use of that chair.
If you own a car, it is an exclusive monopoly on the use of that car.
If you own a [x], it is an exclusive monopoly on the use of that [x].
Now if you let [x] equal "piece of information" you have arrived at the argument used by the 'you don't buy a copy, you buy a license' people.
I don't entirely agree, but I haven't yet developed a compromise that I'm entirely comfortable with either. I think the idea of, say, a seven year term, infinitely renewable, at exponentially increasing costs is probably most ideal.
Corporations were not treated as individuals until relatively recently (last hundred or so years). They were granted that status by a court reporter, who added in as a footnote when recording a SCOTUS decision. (Not that he inherently intended to set a precedent for that, but that footnote has been cited frequently since, as though it was an established precedent).
For centuries previously, corporations were recognized as dramatically different from individuals. In the early years of the corporation, most corporations were formed for a fixed project, and had to be dissolved when that project (or voyage, or venture) was completed or abandoned. The fact that corporations are not in any way restricted to being in one place at one time, doing one thing at a time, or existing for a limited amount of time has given them an enormous advantage in our legal system, which was never intended by our constitutional framers.
As concerns property rights, if you want to argue for essentially unlimited rights to the use of one's property, I ask you this question: Should I be allowed to set off nuclear weapons in my backyard, if (a)I legitimately obtained the materials to build them and (b)I honestly believe that my back yard is sufficient to contain the blast?
If not, why not?
If the answer is that it damages or destroys the property of others, and there has to be a limit, than I think we're on the same page. We may be arguing about where to draw the limits, and what reasonable entails, but we both acknowledge the need for a limit.
If you think it should be allowed, than I ask instead where you would draw the limit? Should I be allowed to, for example, kill anyone who trespasses on my property? Should I be allowed to detonate something on my property that I know will flatten my entire town?
Property rights are inherent, but they are not unlimited. No right can be unlimited where it can impinge on the same right held by others.
I favor erring on the side of individual rights, and individual property, and I tend to err towards maintaining the pre-existing status when they come into conflict, but I have to accept that where conflict is common, one of two things happen: in a asymmetric conflicts, one side dictates terms to the other, in symmetric relationships, compromise is the norm.
As a liberal, I am massively in favor of people's right to own arms (even just 'cause they're cool and shiny), against allowing companies (or individuals) to undertake large projects without assessing the long term impact on public resources (such as the environment) and many other ideas. I have a fair amount of real world experience with some of them, with others, I have to trust my sources. When information is presented which contradicts those sources, I adapt my opinions. But I digress, the point is, Democrats certainly foist a set of values on people, as do Republicans. Even Libertarians, by not enforcing certain values, implicitly enforce counterbalancing values. For example, refusing to break up monopolies is to implicitly encourage them, inasmuch as they are a natural tendency of some markets.
I believe that the individuals right to property is very important, but I don't extend that to artificially protected entities such as corporations, and I don't believe that the right to that property inherently includes uses of it that impact others.
For example, I believe that you have the right to own a Hummer, but that doesn't give you the right to drive it on the public road. For that, you have to demonstrate that you are capable of driving a vehicle that is more likely to kill other people in an accident, and presents a hazard to navigation for other drivers, safely. Something akin to, but not as difficult to obtain as, a CDL.
Wow, that was a long rant. Anyway, Liberal != Libertarian. Live and let live is a philosophy, and there are people who would force it on you just like any other. At the end of the day, the use of the word Liberal you speak of comes from people who, in the main, were trying to distance themselves from those ideas. The people so labeled simply wound up up keeping the label.
True, but in my experience the range of ideas already present in academia was exponentially greater than the range already present elsewhere, and the opportunities for everything from idle discussion to extended research and publication are similarly greater.
No, businessmen only make money when the economy makes their product viable (or when they can steal from shareholders and employees and get away with it). A bad economy is very good for the sort of business that sells, say, a crappy product at rock bottom prices, because a bad economy makes the price difference seem more important to consumers.
I can't believe it didn't occur to me to mention that the Republican party has been playing up the anti-intellectualism in appealing to their base these days.