On my Mac, I can simply command-click on a URL anywhere and it'll be opened. In fact, if I had a mouse with a second programmable button I could program it as a command-click, and still be able to access DeCSS with just one click.
This may not be the Outer Limits, but a company like Sony or TimeWarner that has horizontal and vertical integration might be able to get pretty close to doing what they are saying.
I mean, I'm on RoadRunner cable modem: TimeWarner is my cable company and my ISP, and in some areas they could be my phone company too. Sony has its own line of PCs. This may not be as incredible as it first seems.
you think the unwashed masses would rebel against an internet where the only thing you could read or see or listen to or watch would be what had been approved by a large multinational corporation?
ever heard of AOL?
if it really does come down to this: corporations vs. consumers, we better all get down on our knees and pray for salvation from a hell worse than Orwell's 1984
Re:Libertarians are for freedom of everything.
on
BSD And Politics
·
· Score: 1
The key word here is "could." That's not the same as "will."
Here's an idea: you libertarians all think that private investment could help poor people better than the government currently does. OK, you guys all go out and provide all the support the government does now, and then come back everyone will agree to get rid of government welfare. Until you can prove that people actually would be helped under your system, I'm not buying it.
I think there is a question though, about sites like The Onion or Old Man Murray. Both have probably used words like "cunt", and I know OMM has posted at least a few nude pictures. Neither one is a porn site though, and I think there's a fine line of whether that kind of thing should be blocked. In one way, they're both profane, obscene(in a non-legal sense) and crude, and in another they're both contain very intelligent humor.
objection: but they're all in the same room, so if an adult looks at porn the kids are going to see it.
I know some people have suggested that libraries set up a separate "adult" room containing an unfiltered connection, but the computers in the main library would be filtered
But you still have to shoot the fuel up there in the first place. This is another reason Mars is so good: you can make your own fuel when you get there(or before you get there, actually).
Ahh, the old "I don't want to answer this so I'll pretend it's irrelevant" argument.
You set out a logical way to determine a libertarian's stance on an issue. I used it and showed how idiotic it was, so now you pretend that it wasn't what you meant.
The fact is, not everything is so black and white as you believe it to be. Can guns in the hands of victims be good? Yes. Can they also be dangerous in the hands of the foolish or criminal? Yup.
Where do you draw the line? Should people be able to buy assault rifles? Bazookas? Tanks? If we are talking about protecting ourselves from the government, those kinds of weapons are a must.
You find a position you agree with, and then try to find a logical argument for it. I am telling you that logic is crap, and can be used to defend almost any insanely dangerous behavior, as long as the behavior doesn't result in the death of innocent people *every single time*
But no realistic society would put the bar to prohibition so high, because doing so would result in chaos.
Doesn't sound all that bad(of course it might have been worse if you hadn't got the camera lenses there fast). In any case, if they really thought you were breaking the law, it's not a problem(note: I am against the drug war).
What I see as a bigger problem was the way Philly was enacting all these rules as to when and where people could protest, with the purpose being to keep them away from the convention. We have a first amendment right to assemble, and that doesn't mean assemble only where other people can't see you.
Also, the national medias lack of coverage of the protests, and the issues the protesters were trying to bring attention to, was shameful. There was hardly anything interesting happening at the convention: no debates, no arguments, just a big GWB love-fest. I'd like to have seen CNN pull one of the more articulate protest leaders off the street and let him argue with some Republicans.
My brain has thankfully blocked my memory of much of Atlas, but I remember two parts that in my mind, by themselves, just destroy Objectivism as any kind of realistic way to live your life.
The first was when they were in Galt's Gulch, and one of the guys(I don't remember which, maybe Galt) payed another one like $.25 to borrow his car for a drive. I mean, you've got two people who are filthy rich, and they're friends. It was like in Objectivism even something you do for a friend must have some economic return, or it's not worth doing.
The second was how Hank kept giving Dagney these digustingly expensive gifts, when people all around them were starving and dying. To me that epitimized the heartlessness of Objectivism: a small amount of personal pleasure is worth more than all the other lives on Earth. How completely sickening.
Not necessarily. Not all libertarians are economic libertarians - some care more about other liberties more than economic ones.
Yeah, personally I don't give half a shit for economic liberty. If free-market capitalism leads to people having a generally better quality of life than other systems, I'm for it. If it doesn't, I'm against it. I don't think it's right or wrong, it's just the means to an end.
OTOH, as you might guess from seeing my.sig, I am very big on freedom with regards to social issues. The term some use is "civil-libertarian". I think the drug war should end, I am against censorship of just about any kind of media(put V-chips in TVs and then show whatever you want, if parents don't want kids watching it, the kids won't be able to), I think laws against prostitution, homosexuality, gambling, etc. should be thrown out. Burning the American flag should be completely legal too.
The one case in which I differ from some other civil-libertarians is campaign finance reform. I'm all for it. Corporations and wealthy individuals have no "right", first amendment or otherwise, to buy our government.
Anyway, I can't in good conscience support the Libertarians, and I don't call myself one. I think they go off the deep-end in terms of economic liberty. I have no problem taxing the fuck out of someone like Bill Gates. He can afford it.
To determine whether your run-of-the-mill libertarian will be for, or against, something, you need only ask yourself a couple of simple questions. Can it be used to uphold and defend rights? Does it increase, or decrease, personal freedom? This are the basic litmus tests that I use to determine my feelings on any issue. They are easily adapted to most any situation.
OK, let me try one:
Should citizens be allowed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons?
Well, these weapons could be used as a threat against a tyrannical government, or to kill or hurt a criminal trying to harm you(e.g. put on a gas mask and mustard gas a robber in your house).
Also, clearly this increases personal freedom, because without the ability to develop these weapons, people would have less liberty.
I doubt that Libertarians are in favor of outlawing drunk driving, in any case. Many Libertarians favor a restitution-based legal system...
That's absurd. Many innocent people are *killed* when hit by a drunk driver. When someone is endangering the lives of others, why should we wait until someone actually gets hurt to stop him?
it's such a minor thing, I think if there's a legitimate saftey concern to other, innocent people, there's no problem telling people to wear it.
again, motorcycle helmets is a different situation. however, I would say that even if you allow people to ride without helmets, you better make it clear that if they get brain-damaged in an accident, the gov't isn't going to be paying to rehabilitate them(e.g. special ed)
Yes, there is a very big effort on many fronts. Whenever I'm watching a political show and the host asks a Republican or Democrat whether Nader should be allowed in....they say yes!
There hardly seems to be anyone who seriously believes Nader should be kept out of the debates, other than those bastards at the CPD.
Anyway, turn on CNN tonight at 7:30(EST), Nader will be on Crossfire, and I bet he'll talk about the debates.
By getting the hell out the way, and in so doing not stealing so bloody much from your paycheck, the Libertarian government allows you to take care of yourself, invest for your retirement, contribute to private charity for people's welfare, and basically do all those things people get uptight about, without anyone telling them how they HAVE to do it.
The point though, is that they won't. Most people are too stupid and short-sighted to plan for their retirement, and too selfish to contribute to a charity.
So Libertarians say: let them be poor and homeless at 70, it's their fault. Well OK, but lets get that out in the open, because that is going to happen. If all government support is removed, people who aren't as smart or lucky as the rest of us are going to suffer and die. Some people can accept that, some can't. But it's dishonest to pretend that free-market capitalism and people's own generous hearts will protect all the unfortunate people in the country.
I think most libertarians are either selfish or deluded.
The selfish ones are libertarians because they don't care about other people and don't want to pay taxes.
The deluded ones actually believe that we don't need the government, that people are corporations will, out of their own self interest, protect the environment and the needy, and prevent monopolies and other corporate abuses from occuring.
Slashdot Mirror
On my Mac, I can simply command-click on a URL anywhere and it'll be opened. In fact, if I had a mouse with a second programmable button I could program it as a command-click, and still be able to access DeCSS with just one click.
http://www.2600.org/news/1999/1227-help.html (scroll down)
This may not be the Outer Limits, but a company like Sony or TimeWarner that has horizontal and vertical integration might be able to get pretty close to doing what they are saying.
I mean, I'm on RoadRunner cable modem: TimeWarner is my cable company and my ISP, and in some areas they could be my phone company too. Sony has its own line of PCs. This may not be as incredible as it first seems.
you think the unwashed masses would rebel against an internet where the only thing you could read or see or listen to or watch would be what had been approved by a large multinational corporation?
ever heard of AOL?
if it really does come down to this: corporations vs. consumers, we better all get down on our knees and pray for salvation from a hell worse than Orwell's 1984
You Have Been Trolled
:)
You Have Lost
Have A Nice Day
BTW: you probably don't want to click the other poster's link
Yeah, but at least Gore isn't a retard and a murderer.
it was written by Terry Bisson
The key word here is "could." That's not the same as "will."
Here's an idea: you libertarians all think that private investment could help poor people better than the government currently does. OK, you guys all go out and provide all the support the government does now, and then come back everyone will agree to get rid of government welfare. Until you can prove that people actually would be helped under your system, I'm not buying it.
I thought that was pretty damn funny. Maybe not, but it certainly doesn't deserve a -1
Actually it's more like 3 million, and he only spends about 25k/year. Get your facts straight.
"Mmmmm, alchohol-chilled computer."
I think there is a question though, about sites like The Onion or Old Man Murray. Both have probably used words like "cunt", and I know OMM has posted at least a few nude pictures. Neither one is a porn site though, and I think there's a fine line of whether that kind of thing should be blocked. In one way, they're both profane, obscene(in a non-legal sense) and crude, and in another they're both contain very intelligent humor.
how about:
objection: but they're all in the same room, so if an adult looks at porn the kids are going to see it.
I know some people have suggested that libraries set up a separate "adult" room containing an unfiltered connection, but the computers in the main library would be filtered
But you still have to shoot the fuel up there in the first place. This is another reason Mars is so good: you can make your own fuel when you get there(or before you get there, actually).
Yeah, they got rid of the other two. But you can use this new one(and try to keep this a little more low-key, huh guys?):
i ztech/articles/07pate.html
http://channel.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/08/b
Ahh, the old "I don't want to answer this so I'll pretend it's irrelevant" argument.
You set out a logical way to determine a libertarian's stance on an issue. I used it and showed how idiotic it was, so now you pretend that it wasn't what you meant.
The fact is, not everything is so black and white as you believe it to be. Can guns in the hands of victims be good? Yes. Can they also be dangerous in the hands of the foolish or criminal? Yup.
Where do you draw the line? Should people be able to buy assault rifles? Bazookas? Tanks? If we are talking about protecting ourselves from the government, those kinds of weapons are a must.
You find a position you agree with, and then try to find a logical argument for it. I am telling you that logic is crap, and can be used to defend almost any insanely dangerous behavior, as long as the behavior doesn't result in the death of innocent people *every single time*
But no realistic society would put the bar to prohibition so high, because doing so would result in chaos.
Doesn't sound all that bad(of course it might have been worse if you hadn't got the camera lenses there fast). In any case, if they really thought you were breaking the law, it's not a problem(note: I am against the drug war).
What I see as a bigger problem was the way Philly was enacting all these rules as to when and where people could protest, with the purpose being to keep them away from the convention. We have a first amendment right to assemble, and that doesn't mean assemble only where other people can't see you.
Also, the national medias lack of coverage of the protests, and the issues the protesters were trying to bring attention to, was shameful. There was hardly anything interesting happening at the convention: no debates, no arguments, just a big GWB love-fest. I'd like to have seen CNN pull one of the more articulate protest leaders off the street and let him argue with some Republicans.
My brain has thankfully blocked my memory of much of Atlas, but I remember two parts that in my mind, by themselves, just destroy Objectivism as any kind of realistic way to live your life.
The first was when they were in Galt's Gulch, and one of the guys(I don't remember which, maybe Galt) payed another one like $.25 to borrow his car for a drive. I mean, you've got two people who are filthy rich, and they're friends. It was like in Objectivism even something you do for a friend must have some economic return, or it's not worth doing.
The second was how Hank kept giving Dagney these digustingly expensive gifts, when people all around them were starving and dying. To me that epitimized the heartlessness of Objectivism: a small amount of personal pleasure is worth more than all the other lives on Earth. How completely sickening.
Not necessarily. Not all libertarians are economic libertarians - some care more about other liberties more than economic ones.
.sig, I am very big on freedom with regards to social issues. The term some use is "civil-libertarian". I think the drug war should end, I am against censorship of just about any kind of media(put V-chips in TVs and then show whatever you want, if parents don't want kids watching it, the kids won't be able to), I think laws against prostitution, homosexuality, gambling, etc. should be thrown out. Burning the American flag should be completely legal too.
Yeah, personally I don't give half a shit for economic liberty. If free-market capitalism leads to people having a generally better quality of life than other systems, I'm for it. If it doesn't, I'm against it. I don't think it's right or wrong, it's just the means to an end.
OTOH, as you might guess from seeing my
The one case in which I differ from some other civil-libertarians is campaign finance reform. I'm all for it. Corporations and wealthy individuals have no "right", first amendment or otherwise, to buy our government.
Anyway, I can't in good conscience support the Libertarians, and I don't call myself one. I think they go off the deep-end in terms of economic liberty. I have no problem taxing the fuck out of someone like Bill Gates. He can afford it.
To determine whether your run-of-the-mill libertarian will be for, or against, something, you need only ask yourself a couple of simple questions. Can it be used to uphold and defend rights? Does it increase, or decrease, personal freedom? This are the basic litmus tests that I use to determine my feelings on any issue. They are easily adapted to most any situation.
OK, let me try one:
Should citizens be allowed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons?
Well, these weapons could be used as a threat against a tyrannical government, or to kill or hurt a criminal trying to harm you(e.g. put on a gas mask and mustard gas a robber in your house).
Also, clearly this increases personal freedom, because without the ability to develop these weapons, people would have less liberty.
I love this logic.
I doubt that Libertarians are in favor of outlawing drunk driving, in any case. Many Libertarians favor a restitution-based legal system...
That's absurd. Many innocent people are *killed* when hit by a drunk driver. When someone is endangering the lives of others, why should we wait until someone actually gets hurt to stop him?
it's such a minor thing, I think if there's a legitimate saftey concern to other, innocent people, there's no problem telling people to wear it.
again, motorcycle helmets is a different situation. however, I would say that even if you allow people to ride without helmets, you better make it clear that if they get brain-damaged in an accident, the gov't isn't going to be paying to rehabilitate them(e.g. special ed)
Yes, there is a very big effort on many fronts. Whenever I'm watching a political show and the host asks a Republican or Democrat whether Nader should be allowed in....they say yes!
There hardly seems to be anyone who seriously believes Nader should be kept out of the debates, other than those bastards at the CPD.
Anyway, turn on CNN tonight at 7:30(EST), Nader will be on Crossfire, and I bet he'll talk about the debates.
Also, if you haven't already done so, sign this petition:
http://green.votenader.org/cgi -bin/petition-sigs.cgi
By getting the hell out the way, and in so doing not stealing so bloody much from your paycheck, the Libertarian government allows you to take care of yourself, invest for your retirement, contribute to private charity for people's welfare, and basically do all those things people get uptight about, without anyone telling them how they HAVE to do it.
The point though, is that they won't. Most people are too stupid and short-sighted to plan for their retirement, and too selfish to contribute to a charity.
So Libertarians say: let them be poor and homeless at 70, it's their fault. Well OK, but lets get that out in the open, because that is going to happen. If all government support is removed, people who aren't as smart or lucky as the rest of us are going to suffer and die. Some people can accept that, some can't. But it's dishonest to pretend that free-market capitalism and people's own generous hearts will protect all the unfortunate people in the country.
I think most libertarians are either selfish or deluded.
The selfish ones are libertarians because they don't care about other people and don't want to pay taxes.
The deluded ones actually believe that we don't need the government, that people are corporations will, out of their own self interest, protect the environment and the needy, and prevent monopolies and other corporate abuses from occuring.