Wow, that post was filled to the brim with ignorant assumptions. So tell us, oh mentally superior one, what is it that people of higher intellect, more propensity to abide the law and overall less beastly features do to pass their free time?
>What kind of people should be making decisions that govern a society?
I would hardly say that serving in the military, unless the nation is under attack, would mean someone cares about the country.
>Which class would you say posed a greater threat to society?
Neither poses a threat to society. People aren't a threat to society simply because they don't want to work for the government.
>Which would be more likely to advocate sound international policy? Which would be more likely to push for a nation of greater liberty for all, passing up the opportunity for entitlements provided begrudgingly by all at the point of a gun?
I really don't think that governmental service determines how someone is going to think and/or vote. As for greater liberty for all, there isn't much liberty in a portion of the population not having any type of voice. If a group of people isn't able to vote, it paves the way for them to be descriminated against. Regardless of the situation Heinlin presents, people w/o the right to vote will eventually become sub-standard citizens.
I would hardly call taking a stance that the U.S. military should not police the world being apathetic. As for serving in some beuracratic position, I do not believe the government should be so large as to need that many people working for them. Why shouldn't someone be allowed to vote when the laws affect them as well?
I fail to see how this proposed solution offers anything over the current system. Many people don't vote, so they apparently don't care who represents them, or don't agree with any of the people running. But they still have the capacity to vote. The current system weeds out those who don't care better, simply because they don't vote out of sheer free will. I think this idea holds water on the assumption that everyone given the right to vote in such a society will vote, but this is not necessarily true.
Furthermore, I don't believe in serving in the military, and short of any elected office, probably wouldn't serve in any Federally mandated position, yet I will still vote. And I'm sure many people that do serve in such a position, do not vote, but in this proposed society, only they would be allowed to.
The only reason, IMO, that either of them say how they will filter/police/whatever the internet is to appease voters(duh). People want the government to come in and hold their hand and raise their kids, rather than work towards instilling values into their children. And when a politician sees that people are willing to let the government take over an aspect of their lives, they seize the opportunity, make some b.s. claim as to what they will do and hope that will win the most votes. Parents must take responsability for their children and stop wanting to take the easiest way possible.
I agree, the government shouldn't be involved with welfare, but come on think about this statement. Just because someone makes less money than you and may not be as financially sound as you, doesn't mean they're unproductive.
Well that just seems to be the major excuse I get when I tell people about Harry Browne. A lot of people I have talked to think their vote will go to waste if they don't vote for a Republican or Democrat.
Actually, I don't believe the second amendment actually says guns, but rather arms. Therefore, we have the right to own many other things that various state governments have tried to outlaw, such as switchblades.
Re:Conceding your lawsuit is baseless?
on
RIAA CEO Speaks
·
· Score: 1
So why are they trying to get an injunction to shut down Napster? Shouldn't they be going after the individual users that download and share pirated works from Napster?
It always makes me laugh when I hear people talking about having government controlling/regulating businesses. Although for some things, such as protecting the rights of it's citizens, I feel a government should step in. But, with regards to corporations, why is it no one feels they have the power to boycott something? We live in a capitalistic society. We have the power to boycott. And one person will not be that effective, but informing others about the problem and convincing them to join the boycott is. This type of solution allows change to happen easier, since ultimately consumers are the ones that line a corporation's pockets with money. If enough people demand a change they'll eventually give in.
Not to rip you, but it always makes me laugh when I hear people say that artists can't release music via conventional means. Plenty of underground artists release cd's without any help from anyone. Now given, they aren't marketed like a cd released from a Big 5 label would be, but they still sell a lot of copies. A band like the Pumpkins, who have had several albums released in the past, have enough of a fan base that they could release a cd by themeselves and people would eat it up. They would also probably have no trouble touring on it. And I highly doubt that they wouldn't have enough money to front the costs of recording, duplication, etc.
1: I'm not even going to get into how to better use farmland, that'll just be way off topic. But how can you say that people immigrating to this country is going to destroy the environment and cause more polution?
2. Just because someone is on the streets does not mean they are unemployed. And like I said before, how many of those people could get jobs if they really wanted to?
3. It increases the available work force. This does not increase the number of jobs, but there are always those jobs that no one else wants, but must be done anyway. As for your laziness comments,etc, those are all typical stereotypes, not facts.
A company may move it's factories to a foreign country to take advantage of the cheaper labor there, due to a lower standard of living. Now if we have more people in the U.S. willing to work for cheap, the factories could stay here, thus improving our economy.
I'd like to know what percentage of unemployed people in the U.S. do not have jobs because they can't find them. I'm sure that it's a very small percentage, due to the many job opportunities, however undesirable they may be.
As for overpopulation, we have enough land that is unused that could be used if there was a massive population increase.
Here's an idea to solve the problem of deporting people who's lives are now rooted here: allow unrestricted immigration. There's no reason that the government should restrict peoples' ability to make a better life from themselves here. The same opportunity was afforded to the ancestors of almost everyone else in this country.
Actually, it wouldn't be called capitalism, because capitalism believes in a free market, not one that shuns competition by having the government interfere and pass laws restricting the rights of the consumer. And at least in true communism, the people control what is going on, not the government.
If someone operates a public ftp server that allows users to upload files, can they truly be held responsible? Wouldn't this be the same as someone posting a copyrighted text to a messageboard? They can be asked to take it down(i.e. the people hosting it), but their computer equipment will not be seized.
Although pirating copyrighted music is a bad thing, I really hope that one of two things happens. Either they find all of the music on his site to be from cd's he legally owns, or that all of the music is from artists that have supported digital music. That would make the RIAA look like the paranoid organization that they truly are.
Circuit City already tried to do this with the original DIVX, and it failed miserably. I used to see boxes of the things returned, all marked with a $2.99 price tag. That was the price after they decided to discontinue production and support.
Of course it was also ludicrous that Johansen(sp?) got sued/arrested, being that he doesn't even live in the U.S. I wouldn't put suing Deja and everyone else above the MPAA.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that post was filled to the brim with ignorant assumptions. So tell us, oh mentally superior one, what is it that people of higher intellect, more propensity to abide the law and overall less beastly features do to pass their free time?
Lots of grafitti can look good. Gives some color to drab buildings
Well that just goes to show you that he isn't going to say what you want to hear to get your votes. He actually takes a stand on something.
>What kind of people should be making decisions that govern a society?
I would hardly say that serving in the military, unless the nation is under attack, would mean someone cares about the country.
>Which class would you say posed a greater threat to society?
Neither poses a threat to society. People aren't a threat to society simply because they don't want to work for the government.
>Which would be more likely to advocate sound international policy? Which would be more likely to push for a nation of greater liberty for all, passing up the opportunity for entitlements provided begrudgingly by all at the point of a gun?
I really don't think that governmental service determines how someone is going to think and/or vote. As for greater liberty for all, there isn't much liberty in a portion of the population not having any type of voice. If a group of people isn't able to vote, it paves the way for them to be descriminated against. Regardless of the situation Heinlin presents, people w/o the right to vote will eventually become sub-standard citizens.
I would hardly call taking a stance that the U.S. military should not police the world being apathetic. As for serving in some beuracratic position, I do not believe the government should be so large as to need that many people working for them. Why shouldn't someone be allowed to vote when the laws affect them as well?
I fail to see how this proposed solution offers anything over the current system. Many people don't vote, so they apparently don't care who represents them, or don't agree with any of the people running. But they still have the capacity to vote. The current system weeds out those who don't care better, simply because they don't vote out of sheer free will. I think this idea holds water on the assumption that everyone given the right to vote in such a society will vote, but this is not necessarily true. Furthermore, I don't believe in serving in the military, and short of any elected office, probably wouldn't serve in any Federally mandated position, yet I will still vote. And I'm sure many people that do serve in such a position, do not vote, but in this proposed society, only they would be allowed to.
The only reason, IMO, that either of them say how they will filter/police/whatever the internet is to appease voters(duh). People want the government to come in and hold their hand and raise their kids, rather than work towards instilling values into their children. And when a politician sees that people are willing to let the government take over an aspect of their lives, they seize the opportunity, make some b.s. claim as to what they will do and hope that will win the most votes. Parents must take responsability for their children and stop wanting to take the easiest way possible.
Harry Browne in 2000 all the way
I agree, the government shouldn't be involved with welfare, but come on think about this statement. Just because someone makes less money than you and may not be as financially sound as you, doesn't mean they're unproductive.
Well that just seems to be the major excuse I get when I tell people about Harry Browne. A lot of people I have talked to think their vote will go to waste if they don't vote for a Republican or Democrat.
Why do people still think there are only two choices for president? Just because a thrid party my not win, doesn't mean you shouldn't vote for them.
Actually, I don't believe the second amendment actually says guns, but rather arms. Therefore, we have the right to own many other things that various state governments have tried to outlaw, such as switchblades.
So why are they trying to get an injunction to shut down Napster? Shouldn't they be going after the individual users that download and share pirated works from Napster?
Funny that you use the vegan example, seeing as how I am one... :)
haha, good term. Make sure you post that to everything. That's the only way to officially coin a phrase :)
It always makes me laugh when I hear people talking about having government controlling/regulating businesses. Although for some things, such as protecting the rights of it's citizens, I feel a government should step in. But, with regards to corporations, why is it no one feels they have the power to boycott something? We live in a capitalistic society. We have the power to boycott. And one person will not be that effective, but informing others about the problem and convincing them to join the boycott is. This type of solution allows change to happen easier, since ultimately consumers are the ones that line a corporation's pockets with money. If enough people demand a change they'll eventually give in.
True, but I was going on the basis that they were dumped from their record label.
Not to rip you, but it always makes me laugh when I hear people say that artists can't release music via conventional means. Plenty of underground artists release cd's without any help from anyone. Now given, they aren't marketed like a cd released from a Big 5 label would be, but they still sell a lot of copies. A band like the Pumpkins, who have had several albums released in the past, have enough of a fan base that they could release a cd by themeselves and people would eat it up. They would also probably have no trouble touring on it. And I highly doubt that they wouldn't have enough money to front the costs of recording, duplication, etc.
1: I'm not even going to get into how to better use farmland, that'll just be way off topic. But how can you say that people immigrating to this country is going to destroy the environment and cause more polution?
2. Just because someone is on the streets does not mean they are unemployed. And like I said before, how many of those people could get jobs if they really wanted to?
3. It increases the available work force. This does not increase the number of jobs, but there are always those jobs that no one else wants, but must be done anyway. As for your laziness comments,etc, those are all typical stereotypes, not facts.
Just to clarify, you think that the U.S.'s population is going to double because of unrestricted immigration?
A company may move it's factories to a foreign country to take advantage of the cheaper labor there, due to a lower standard of living. Now if we have more people in the U.S. willing to work for cheap, the factories could stay here, thus improving our economy.
I'd like to know what percentage of unemployed people in the U.S. do not have jobs because they can't find them. I'm sure that it's a very small percentage, due to the many job opportunities, however undesirable they may be.
As for overpopulation, we have enough land that is unused that could be used if there was a massive population increase.
Here's an idea to solve the problem of deporting people who's lives are now rooted here: allow unrestricted immigration. There's no reason that the government should restrict peoples' ability to make a better life from themselves here. The same opportunity was afforded to the ancestors of almost everyone else in this country.
Actually, it wouldn't be called capitalism, because capitalism believes in a free market, not one that shuns competition by having the government interfere and pass laws restricting the rights of the consumer. And at least in true communism, the people control what is going on, not the government.
If someone operates a public ftp server that allows users to upload files, can they truly be held responsible? Wouldn't this be the same as someone posting a copyrighted text to a messageboard? They can be asked to take it down(i.e. the people hosting it), but their computer equipment will not be seized.
Although pirating copyrighted music is a bad thing, I really hope that one of two things happens. Either they find all of the music on his site to be from cd's he legally owns, or that all of the music is from artists that have supported digital music. That would make the RIAA look like the paranoid organization that they truly are.
Circuit City already tried to do this with the original DIVX, and it failed miserably. I used to see boxes of the things returned, all marked with a $2.99 price tag. That was the price after they decided to discontinue production and support.
Of course it was also ludicrous that Johansen(sp?) got sued/arrested, being that he doesn't even live in the U.S. I wouldn't put suing Deja and everyone else above the MPAA.