I'm not sure you understood my comment (or maybe I misunderstand yours). My point is that being tased in a controlled, consensual situation is a very different experience from being tased in a passionate forced situation. It's not about how it feels or how it effects your body, it's about how it effects your mind. Having someone exercise absolute authority over you as an adult is a traumatic experience. Have you ever been involved in such an event?
I think you touch on an important point here: even if tasers weren't potentially fatal, they are still a tool for abusing power. That is a much more fundamental problem. The ability to instantly incapacitate people is very serious and can be used (and already is being used) to quiet civil unrest even when it should be heard. And in fact the less painful and dangerous it is, the worse, because the populous at large will be less likely to care.
Also, do not underestimate the situational difference. If I tell a friend "punch me in the gut" and I brace for it, and there's no authority or adrenaline involved, and he punches me in the gut -- it's no biggie.
If someone who I don't know punches me in the gut when I'm not ready, in a heated situation, when I'm terrified, and if they have authority over me and I have no real recourse, it is not the same thing even though it was still just a punch in the gut.
"To me, the "Good Game" line has always been a PC way to be an ass."
Actually, it's just another way to be a good sport. In fact, I'd say worrying so much about the details of what is said and how is exactly the problem. What's the big deal? I mean, assuming the opponent played well and you enjoyed the game, win or lose, what's wrong with saying "good game"?
Everyone is so damn touchy one way or the other these days.
Of course here I am posting about a tiny little point of your post. Guess I'm too touchy, too:)
'Come on in and pay whatever you want.' Are you on f---ing crack?"
He's right about that... the "pay what you want" model won't work long term. It works now because it is novel, because the fans want to support the artists in this movement, and because nobody knows what everyone else pays... yet. But it would devolve into people just taking stuff because they'd feel like suckers whenever they found out they paid more than average. "Pay what you want" would end up like every other soft shareware project.
But that's not the point: the point is cheaper a-la-carte music, where more of the money goes to the artist and less to a marketing/distribution corporation. The price can still be set, like at iTunes. But there's finally a little competition in music distribution industry (thanks to illegal downloads) and as with most competition, the consumer wins.
I find this topic and the arguments around it fascinating. My grandfather was imprisoned in Poland under false pretenses for five years. He had to negotiate for toilet paper. He performed many hunger strikes to win things like reading material, one time starving himself for 28 days. Seeing this manual is fairly chilling for me.
Many times over the years when I'd talk with people about his experiences, they would reassure me that such a thing wouldn't happen in a healthy constitutional democracy like the US. The cruelty and Kafkaesque behavior of his captors was relegated to the sickness of communism to be sure.
At some point long ago I realized that wasn't the case, and that we were very much capable of similar evils. Some people wouldn't agree with me, but here we have the plain as day proof.
I'm sure a percentage of the people reading this post think "who cares if they're mistreating suspected terrorists?". To each of you that feel that way, I would say this: if we had this conversation about my grandfather and communism before 9/11, or perhaps if you read his book, you'd have condemned his captors to hell for being so awful.
I love this country dearly but I'm ashamed of much of what we're doing right now.
Also: if the manual reads to you as being "not so bad" remember that it is very different when you're on the other side of it. And remember that it's just a manual: the real day to day life there is bound to be far more questionable.
I agree that they must be judged on their merits, but according to whose values?
I didn't answer that, and I think it's an interesting point. In the simplest sense I would say "the majority's values", but that's a limited answer. In the long term, the value is determined by success... literal survive-and-flourish success, not someone's idea of it. Which is why I like the idea of different states (US states or nation states) trying different things. You can tell what worked by who dominated.
I realize that could become a might-makes-right argument (which, while naturalistically true on some level doesn't quite jive with my gut)... but people are clever and they can figure these things out over time, I think.
Either that or everyone should just listen to me;)
I think you're reading a bit into what I'm saying. I certainly don't think that "government is the solution to problems". I do think that "government can be the solution to problems that don't work out on their own". Identifying these things and coming to an agreement about the best way to handle them is, admittedly a debate.
And I absolutely don't have faith that the government can solve problems better than individuals. I think individuals and small groups are the best problem solvers -- 90% of the time or more. I think that the government should only step into a particular domain when things are pretty well agreed to be broken and when the free market have failed to bring about a reasonable solution. And I'd also say that once things are established, the government should occasionally re-analyze if they need to be involved at all, and try backing off. Because sometimes all that is needed is a jump-start, after which the free market would handle things better.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but the fact that you're reading these things into my comments just makes me feel that you're pushing back too hard. Maybe this is because you've talked to too many hardcore Socialists?
I've spent a little time in communities without much more government than you describe as your ideal, (so did a lot of mankind through a lot of history), and I gotta tell you, much of the stuff we enjoy today just doesn't seem to arise without a central authority. That's not to say I think central authority is inherently good, as bad things always come along with that central authority, too. But nonetheless it is one tool in the tool box of progress.
As to the assertion about what constitutes "stuff you enjoy", I'm willing to stand by it since we both seem to be living in highly developed countries:)
How else could one possibly interpret a bill that promotes one gambling business while criminalizing another?
It's actually kind of scary -- the only tiny little lever we have to keep politicians in check is their desire to not appear too corrupt. (I realize how laughable this has become, but still.)
In this case it's like they're saying they don't even give a damn if we know for sure they're corrupt. Which to me is a sad progression.
Not if you can read the whole post. My last line was intended as support for this assertion.
I am glad we agree about being social individuals.
And there may not be an enormous disagreement beyond that. Much like the duality of being a social individual, "public services" are "government intrusions". That does not make them bad. Or good. They have to be judged on their merits.
My point is that I tire of hearing people shouting down public service/government intrusions in their entirety as though without these things everyone would live in a wonderful world with cheap education, low crime, and smooth highways. Because they wouldn't. It's been tried. It doesn't work. The society we enjoy requires some degree of public service/government intrusion.
Of course, you didn't say "none", you said "very little". And I would tend to agree with that, depending on your idea "very little". In most areas, less than we have now in the US... but in some areas more.
I just want to see the conversation elevate beyond shouts of "communist!" and "anarchist!" or "all public service is good!" and "government intrusion is bad!".
I'm pro individualism, but I also recognize that pure individualism doesn't work. It's all about finding the sweet spot between being and individual and being a member of a group -- because that is what each of us is. If you can't see that then you're victim to the same black-and-white thinking you are calling out.
In other words: show me a country with zero public services and I'll show you a place you don't want to live.
Aside from the whole holocaust thing, the Nazis did a great disservice to society by tying several ideologies to genocide.
Hey: did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian? I guess that means vegetarianism is fascist!
Seriously: you have to tease these things apart. I admit it's up for debate, but I feel that it was not the "Socialism" part of Nazism that resulted in genocide, it was their "Nationalism" part. Plus a great deal of divisive thinking, us vs. them mentality, racism, a bunch of cruel leaders, and a mostly apathetic populous.
I'm not a Socialist, but I understand that some degree of wealth distribution is needed for a healthy country. I'm tired of the debate being "all" or "nothing", as both are failed directions. The question is simply "how much Socialism is good for us". When we can have that debate without talking about Nazis and Neocons, gimme a call.
All well said. I have a question though, about one of your points: on states making laws against teaching evolution and same-sex couples. Without worrying about what is right or wrong there for a moment, is it that bad a thing if states chart their own course and become distinctive? As long as people can move freely from one state to another, maybe it is okay if the laws are substantially different -- assuming they're constitutional.
I haven't totally decided what I think of that, but my sense is starting to go in that direction because it would finally put some of these ideas to the test... as it is, the country makes a decision and then we never see what the alternate result would be, so the argument goes on forever. Perhaps if we just let different states do things "their way", the winners and losers would naturally arise, and eventually the losers could emulate the winners.
Would this make the country more divided? Or would it make us more tolerant if everyone could control their own back yard to a higher degree.
Whining is generally considered to be complaining about insignificant things. I would be shocked if you really believed the issues we're facing as a nation are insignificant. So you calling it whining is a dishonest attempt to dismiss it. Also, I'm not a liberal.
So again, I call out: please stop the weak-minded, partisan thinking.
Really? How so? Is it because I'm not fully steeped in your side (whichever that may be)? If you can elaborate how you're making that judgement about me I'd be curious to hear it.
I've voted Republican, Democrat, and Independent, depending on the candidate and the issues. Don't confuse moderate with dispassionate. I believe in balance, but I believe in balance very strongly. I think the harping on "bias" as a means of dismissing other people's opinions is a logical fallacy.
btw, insightful or not, my post wasn't "boo hoo i don't like this president" it was "isn't it awful that this article got tagged 'liberal whining' when a lot of people on both sides of the fence are very upset with this president". I maintain that such mindlessly partisan crap (from either side) is a bad thing.
It's hard time believing that you are seriously asking for a list of transgressions as though this is the first you've heard of it. It's not like some 70% of the country disapproves of his performance, the burden is somehow on me to demonstrate that the Bush administration has caused problems? Do you think that maybe I have some unique idea about it? Honestly I don't -- my complaints are pretty run of the mill.
A couple that pop into my mind right now would be the misguided decision to go to war without understanding what we were getting into, the crackdown on civil liberties, the insane spending habits, the sanctioning of torture and holding prisoners without a trial -- a sore spot for me since my innocent grandfather was imprisoned and tortured in communist Poland without a trial during the cold war... I'll stop there.
Do I sound like a liberal yet? I'm not. A heck of a lot of conservatives that I know would agree with every criticism I've listed. If you honestly don't agree, fine, but don't dismiss it as "liberal whining".
Not in the least bit ironic, because as I said I'm not a liberal.
And I'm not whining (which would generally be defined as a "feeble or petulant complaint"). On the contrary, I'm expressing deep justifiable disgust about extremely serious issues.
Rather, it's closer to irony that you are, after my comment, still jumping on the "liberal whining" issue without good reason.
I'm saddened by how cavalier you are over something so serious.
This article got tagged as "slashdotliberalwhining"? Are you fucking serious? Conservatives or liberal, you've got to be kidding if you don't think that George Bush and his administration has done more to damage this country than any president in your lifetime. No, seriously: forget about your pet cause, let go of the the party affiliation. Look at where we were five, ten, twenty years ago -- tell me where the improvements have been. By any measure, even conservative social goals, Bush and his administration have accomplished little if any good, and in every other area enormous bad. His approval rating is below what Nixon's was at the point of impeachment. And this article is "slashdotliberalwhining"? Get real.
I'm a moderate. I respect candidates from across the spectrum. George Bush and his administration have been a goddamn nightmare.
I don't care what your religious, political, or social affiliation is. If you don't recognize this administration as crap, you are in deep ignorance or denial.
I love this country. And I could cry over what these people have done to us.
Fair enough, though I would personally give someone who's produced what he does the honorary title of "software engineer" (if indeed that is a compliment).
Of course, I consider myself a software engineer and I'm just some dude who learned to hack Perl and Java on his own time for the web:)
I'm kinda surprised by all the complaining in this thread. Here's a very competent software engineer who created several highly secure and useful applications that we can all use for free, and he's giving us his retrospective thoughts on the engineering choices and...
Everyone is posting "djb sucks" and such? What a bunch of useless pricks we can be.
DJB - thanks for qmail. It's odd but pretty cool and has never fucked up my system. And I found the paper pretty interesting.
It's very creepy to me that the only candidates the media takes seriously are the ones who will give us more of the same. It's creepier still that so many people are okay with that. And there's such a predetermined mindset about the elections they almost seem beside the point.
Is it possible for a popular outsider like Ron Paul to be taken seriously by the media or the country? Is there any room for actual change?
Like I said, I put my money on it, but is there anything else a person can do?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure you understood my comment (or maybe I misunderstand yours). My point is that being tased in a controlled, consensual situation is a very different experience from being tased in a passionate forced situation. It's not about how it feels or how it effects your body, it's about how it effects your mind. Having someone exercise absolute authority over you as an adult is a traumatic experience. Have you ever been involved in such an event?
Cheers.
I think you touch on an important point here: even if tasers weren't potentially fatal, they are still a tool for abusing power. That is a much more fundamental problem. The ability to instantly incapacitate people is very serious and can be used (and already is being used) to quiet civil unrest even when it should be heard. And in fact the less painful and dangerous it is, the worse, because the populous at large will be less likely to care.
Cheers.
Also, do not underestimate the situational difference. If I tell a friend "punch me in the gut" and I brace for it, and there's no authority or adrenaline involved, and he punches me in the gut -- it's no biggie.
If someone who I don't know punches me in the gut when I'm not ready, in a heated situation, when I'm terrified, and if they have authority over me and I have no real recourse, it is not the same thing even though it was still just a punch in the gut.
Cheers.
...the market will work it out
I agree with everything you said up until:
:)
"To me, the "Good Game" line has always been a PC way to be an ass."
Actually, it's just another way to be a good sport. In fact, I'd say worrying so much about the details of what is said and how is exactly the problem. What's the big deal? I mean, assuming the opponent played well and you enjoyed the game, win or lose, what's wrong with saying "good game"?
Everyone is so damn touchy one way or the other these days.
Of course here I am posting about a tiny little point of your post. Guess I'm too touchy, too
Cheers.
'Come on in and pay whatever you want.' Are you on f---ing crack?"
He's right about that... the "pay what you want" model won't work long term. It works now because it is novel, because the fans want to support the artists in this movement, and because nobody knows what everyone else pays... yet. But it would devolve into people just taking stuff because they'd feel like suckers whenever they found out they paid more than average. "Pay what you want" would end up like every other soft shareware project.
But that's not the point: the point is cheaper a-la-carte music, where more of the money goes to the artist and less to a marketing/distribution corporation. The price can still be set, like at iTunes. But there's finally a little competition in music distribution industry (thanks to illegal downloads) and as with most competition, the consumer wins.
Cheers.
I find this topic and the arguments around it fascinating. My grandfather was imprisoned in Poland under false pretenses for five years. He had to negotiate for toilet paper. He performed many hunger strikes to win things like reading material, one time starving himself for 28 days. Seeing this manual is fairly chilling for me.
Many times over the years when I'd talk with people about his experiences, they would reassure me that such a thing wouldn't happen in a healthy constitutional democracy like the US. The cruelty and Kafkaesque behavior of his captors was relegated to the sickness of communism to be sure.
At some point long ago I realized that wasn't the case, and that we were very much capable of similar evils. Some people wouldn't agree with me, but here we have the plain as day proof.
I'm sure a percentage of the people reading this post think "who cares if they're mistreating suspected terrorists?". To each of you that feel that way, I would say this: if we had this conversation about my grandfather and communism before 9/11, or perhaps if you read his book, you'd have condemned his captors to hell for being so awful.
I love this country dearly but I'm ashamed of much of what we're doing right now.
Also: if the manual reads to you as being "not so bad" remember that it is very different when you're on the other side of it. And remember that it's just a manual: the real day to day life there is bound to be far more questionable.
I agree that they must be judged on their merits, but according to whose values?
;)
I didn't answer that, and I think it's an interesting point. In the simplest sense I would say "the majority's values", but that's a limited answer. In the long term, the value is determined by success... literal survive-and-flourish success, not someone's idea of it. Which is why I like the idea of different states (US states or nation states) trying different things. You can tell what worked by who dominated.
I realize that could become a might-makes-right argument (which, while naturalistically true on some level doesn't quite jive with my gut)... but people are clever and they can figure these things out over time, I think.
Either that or everyone should just listen to me
I think you're reading a bit into what I'm saying. I certainly don't think that "government is the solution to problems". I do think that "government can be the solution to problems that don't work out on their own". Identifying these things and coming to an agreement about the best way to handle them is, admittedly a debate.
:)
And I absolutely don't have faith that the government can solve problems better than individuals. I think individuals and small groups are the best problem solvers -- 90% of the time or more. I think that the government should only step into a particular domain when things are pretty well agreed to be broken and when the free market have failed to bring about a reasonable solution. And I'd also say that once things are established, the government should occasionally re-analyze if they need to be involved at all, and try backing off. Because sometimes all that is needed is a jump-start, after which the free market would handle things better.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but the fact that you're reading these things into my comments just makes me feel that you're pushing back too hard. Maybe this is because you've talked to too many hardcore Socialists?
I've spent a little time in communities without much more government than you describe as your ideal, (so did a lot of mankind through a lot of history), and I gotta tell you, much of the stuff we enjoy today just doesn't seem to arise without a central authority. That's not to say I think central authority is inherently good, as bad things always come along with that central authority, too. But nonetheless it is one tool in the tool box of progress.
As to the assertion about what constitutes "stuff you enjoy", I'm willing to stand by it since we both seem to be living in highly developed countries
If I don't hear back, nice talking to you.
How else could one possibly interpret a bill that promotes one gambling business while criminalizing another?
It's actually kind of scary -- the only tiny little lever we have to keep politicians in check is their desire to not appear too corrupt. (I realize how laughable this has become, but still.)
In this case it's like they're saying they don't even give a damn if we know for sure they're corrupt. Which to me is a sad progression.
Cheers.
Amazing what a decade of hardware progress can do :)
Argument by assertion.
Not if you can read the whole post. My last line was intended as support for this assertion.
I am glad we agree about being social individuals.
And there may not be an enormous disagreement beyond that. Much like the duality of being a social individual, "public services" are "government intrusions". That does not make them bad. Or good. They have to be judged on their merits.
My point is that I tire of hearing people shouting down public service/government intrusions in their entirety as though without these things everyone would live in a wonderful world with cheap education, low crime, and smooth highways. Because they wouldn't. It's been tried. It doesn't work. The society we enjoy requires some degree of public service/government intrusion.
Of course, you didn't say "none", you said "very little". And I would tend to agree with that, depending on your idea "very little". In most areas, less than we have now in the US... but in some areas more.
I just want to see the conversation elevate beyond shouts of "communist!" and "anarchist!" or "all public service is good!" and "government intrusion is bad!".
Cheers.
I'm pro individualism, but I also recognize that pure individualism doesn't work. It's all about finding the sweet spot between being and individual and being a member of a group -- because that is what each of us is. If you can't see that then you're victim to the same black-and-white thinking you are calling out.
In other words: show me a country with zero public services and I'll show you a place you don't want to live.
Cheers.
Aside from the whole holocaust thing, the Nazis did a great disservice to society by tying several ideologies to genocide.
Hey: did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian? I guess that means vegetarianism is fascist!
Seriously: you have to tease these things apart. I admit it's up for debate, but I feel that it was not the "Socialism" part of Nazism that resulted in genocide, it was their "Nationalism" part. Plus a great deal of divisive thinking, us vs. them mentality, racism, a bunch of cruel leaders, and a mostly apathetic populous.
I'm not a Socialist, but I understand that some degree of wealth distribution is needed for a healthy country. I'm tired of the debate being "all" or "nothing", as both are failed directions. The question is simply "how much Socialism is good for us". When we can have that debate without talking about Nazis and Neocons, gimme a call.
Cheers.
All well said. I have a question though, about one of your points: on states making laws against teaching evolution and same-sex couples. Without worrying about what is right or wrong there for a moment, is it that bad a thing if states chart their own course and become distinctive? As long as people can move freely from one state to another, maybe it is okay if the laws are substantially different -- assuming they're constitutional.
I haven't totally decided what I think of that, but my sense is starting to go in that direction because it would finally put some of these ideas to the test... as it is, the country makes a decision and then we never see what the alternate result would be, so the argument goes on forever. Perhaps if we just let different states do things "their way", the winners and losers would naturally arise, and eventually the losers could emulate the winners.
Would this make the country more divided? Or would it make us more tolerant if everyone could control their own back yard to a higher degree.
Just a thought.
Whining is generally considered to be complaining about insignificant things. I would be shocked if you really believed the issues we're facing as a nation are insignificant. So you calling it whining is a dishonest attempt to dismiss it. Also, I'm not a liberal.
So again, I call out: please stop the weak-minded, partisan thinking.
Cheers.
Really? How so? Is it because I'm not fully steeped in your side (whichever that may be)? If you can elaborate how you're making that judgement about me I'd be curious to hear it.
I've voted Republican, Democrat, and Independent, depending on the candidate and the issues. Don't confuse moderate with dispassionate. I believe in balance, but I believe in balance very strongly. I think the harping on "bias" as a means of dismissing other people's opinions is a logical fallacy.
Cheers.
"there isn't always much conscious thought going on"
Yeah, I had kind of gathered that from looking around.
Cheers.
btw, insightful or not, my post wasn't "boo hoo i don't like this president" it was "isn't it awful that this article got tagged 'liberal whining' when a lot of people on both sides of the fence are very upset with this president". I maintain that such mindlessly partisan crap (from either side) is a bad thing.
Cheers.
It's hard time believing that you are seriously asking for a list of transgressions as though this is the first you've heard of it. It's not like some 70% of the country disapproves of his performance, the burden is somehow on me to demonstrate that the Bush administration has caused problems? Do you think that maybe I have some unique idea about it? Honestly I don't -- my complaints are pretty run of the mill.
A couple that pop into my mind right now would be the misguided decision to go to war without understanding what we were getting into, the crackdown on civil liberties, the insane spending habits, the sanctioning of torture and holding prisoners without a trial -- a sore spot for me since my innocent grandfather was imprisoned and tortured in communist Poland without a trial during the cold war... I'll stop there.
Do I sound like a liberal yet? I'm not. A heck of a lot of conservatives that I know would agree with every criticism I've listed. If you honestly don't agree, fine, but don't dismiss it as "liberal whining".
Not in the least bit ironic, because as I said I'm not a liberal.
And I'm not whining (which would generally be defined as a "feeble or petulant complaint"). On the contrary, I'm expressing deep justifiable disgust about extremely serious issues.
Rather, it's closer to irony that you are, after my comment, still jumping on the "liberal whining" issue without good reason.
I'm saddened by how cavalier you are over something so serious.
This article got tagged as "slashdotliberalwhining"? Are you fucking serious? Conservatives or liberal, you've got to be kidding if you don't think that George Bush and his administration has done more to damage this country than any president in your lifetime. No, seriously: forget about your pet cause, let go of the the party affiliation. Look at where we were five, ten, twenty years ago -- tell me where the improvements have been. By any measure, even conservative social goals, Bush and his administration have accomplished little if any good, and in every other area enormous bad. His approval rating is below what Nixon's was at the point of impeachment. And this article is "slashdotliberalwhining"? Get real.
I'm a moderate. I respect candidates from across the spectrum. George Bush and his administration have been a goddamn nightmare.
I don't care what your religious, political, or social affiliation is. If you don't recognize this administration as crap, you are in deep ignorance or denial.
I love this country. And I could cry over what these people have done to us.
Fair enough, though I would personally give someone who's produced what he does the honorary title of "software engineer" (if indeed that is a compliment).
:)
Of course, I consider myself a software engineer and I'm just some dude who learned to hack Perl and Java on his own time for the web
Cheers.
I'm kinda surprised by all the complaining in this thread. Here's a very competent software engineer who created several highly secure and useful applications that we can all use for free, and he's giving us his retrospective thoughts on the engineering choices and...
Everyone is posting "djb sucks" and such? What a bunch of useless pricks we can be.
DJB - thanks for qmail. It's odd but pretty cool and has never fucked up my system. And I found the paper pretty interesting.
Cheers.
It's a bit depressing but I don't even know how we're supposed to fight this kind of thing. Protesting seems useless. So I throw money at the only candidate who seems vociferously against this whenever I can
It's very creepy to me that the only candidates the media takes seriously are the ones who will give us more of the same. It's creepier still that so many people are okay with that. And there's such a predetermined mindset about the elections they almost seem beside the point.
Is it possible for a popular outsider like Ron Paul to be taken seriously by the media or the country? Is there any room for actual change?
Like I said, I put my money on it, but is there anything else a person can do?