Most people don't really care about being free. They'd rather be safe and feel secure even if it's only an illusion.
Its not true in the slightest; everybody want freedom and privacy
The difference is that I can show reams of evidence that people in general are happy with only the illusion of safety and security, while you can't show any evidence at all that people as a whole want freedom and privacy based on their actions.
Yes, money doesn't really matter. I'll take happiness over money any day of the week.
Only poor people say things like this. People with money never do, because they recognize that it's an utterly false dichotomy. (Also, I can't help but notice that the income range you include starts at $60K at the low end. Not exactly a barista salary.)
Here's the reality that no one wants to talk about: Money DOESN'T buy happiness; it buys freedom. Smart people have no problem turning that freedom into happiness.
If muggers formed a giant conglomerate and lobbied Washington relentlessly -- to the point that any presidential cabinet was partially made of muggers, former muggers, and mugger lobbyists -- then mugging would be indistinguishable from the "free" market.
In Arthur C. Clarke's 3001 dragons have been created by just assembling DNA whichever way we choose. I expect that building a dino-like creature by manipulating the DNA of currently existing animals will happen before we're able to resurrect a real dinosaur using ancient DNA.
Don't take away their freedom to do something they enjoy.
I don't know if anybody "enjoys" smoking.
Not all smoking is cigarette smoking, despite what you and the people making these laws want to believe. I *enjoy* cigar smoking. A good cigar is delicious. Just like a good scotch. There is zero similarity between have a good cigar a few times per month (or even per week) and smoking a pack of cigarettes every day. The two activities are totally unrelated, except that they happen to both involve tobacco.
The idea that the U.S. highway system is a cold war relic is ridiculous. Let me count the ways:
1) Much of it was designed pre-cold war.
2) Roads are a terrible way to move equipment during an emergency, because they are instantly clogged (see 9/11). You mention below that we currently move heavy military equipment via roads. That's because it's peacetime, genius. And we still move it via rail and air.
3) It's much easier to open the airways by restricting civilian air traffic than it is to keep Jethro from trying to move his family back to the cabin in wartime.
4) The military has air bases all over the damn place. There's no need for them to use roads, and there hasn't been since before the Cold War.
5) Many U.S. cities have very limited ways of egress. That is, only 2 or 3 highways that can actually take you anywhere worth going. The rest of our system is a mishmash of state roads that lead nowhere directly. Had the highway system been designed for military purpose, it would have at least been easy to get from base to base. It's not. At all. Many major military bases are specifically built AWAY from highways in order to more easily control traffic flow to and from them (that's why they have their own airfields. Since the '40s.)
I seriously can't tell if you're a foreigner who's never been the U.S. and so don't know anything about our military OR our highway system, or just a tin-foil hat-wearing retard.
Yes, and prior to 9/11'ish it was generally reserved for acts that sought a political goal through terror. It's only been very recently that the political motivation was dropped as a requirement.
You need to provide a source for this. "Terroristic threats" have, in cases I'm familiar with, NEVER had a political component. They usually dealt with death threats against spouses or significant others (all of the ones I recall from the '80s involved custody disputes, including the one I was part of as a child).
The reason the death penalty is flat out wrong is quite simple. It isn't just that you are being hypocritical about the morality of killing, it is also that you are murdering innocent people.
As an innocent person, I would much rather be killed outright than live my life -- or even a few years -- in prison. There is no comparison. Death is a release from pain. Being kept in a cage is constant pain.
... Check out some of the $0.99 ebooks by unknown authors with self-publishing "publisher" listed on Amazon. You will find they are - surprise - unreadable drivel.
And then spend 5 seconds on Google and find millionaires who've made their fortune self-publishing. Clearly, Big Publishing is superfluous for a talented writer. (Also, you can go to any B&N and find shelves and shelves of "drivel" -- publishers don't guarantee quality.)
This is a classic anticompetitive tactic - and the reason that Standard Oil was broken up in the 20th century.
Standard Oil would find a mom-and-pop gas station on a corner somewhere, set up shop across the street, and sell gas for below cost. Once they ran mom & pop out of business, they jacked up the prices of gas on that corner to well above cost.
And that, friends, is how the Rockefeller fortune was made.
The obvious problem with your analogy is that Amazon has ALREADY run mom & pop out of business, and is still trying to keep prices low.
It's really a non-problem. If the publishers aren't making enough money, they will cease to publish. Clearly -- given that more books are being published than ever before -- they are not ceasing to publish, and are therefore making more than enough money to stay in business (just less on average than they were before their old business model became obsolete).
Let's face it: In a world of cheap, easy self-publishing, self-promotion, and self-selling, there's an ever-lessening need for huge book publishers (and music companies, and movie companies, and all other content middle-men).
Clearly you've never been to Salt Lake City. Utah IS a theocracy. It's a nice place on the surface, but it's entirely controlled by the Mormon Church. They decide who gets to run for office, who gets elected, and what those people do once in office.
Nobody in their right mind is buying a new $3000 laptop every three years.
$3000? Maybe not. But $2000-2500? Sure they do. Enterprises do. Higher ed (where I work) does.
These are people who are just starting to switch from Windows to Mac, and who just happen to also be MUCH more likely than the average user to upgrade their equipment rather than purchasing new.
I want a big "Monsanto" label on these foods just so I can avoid supporting ridiculous patent lawsuits. If you really want to limit who can grow plants from *your* seeds, grow them in a dome where wind and bees can't get at them. (What? Then they won't pollinate? Too fucking bad.)
Slashdot Mirror
Most people don't really care about being free. They'd rather be safe and feel secure even if it's only an illusion.
Its not true in the slightest; everybody want freedom and privacy
The difference is that I can show reams of evidence that people in general are happy with only the illusion of safety and security, while you can't show any evidence at all that people as a whole want freedom and privacy based on their actions.
(Also, there => their.)
Yes, money doesn't really matter. I'll take happiness over money any day of the week.
Only poor people say things like this. People with money never do, because they recognize that it's an utterly false dichotomy. (Also, I can't help but notice that the income range you include starts at $60K at the low end. Not exactly a barista salary.)
Here's the reality that no one wants to talk about: Money DOESN'T buy happiness; it buys freedom. Smart people have no problem turning that freedom into happiness.
There are weather events all the time on earth, yet weather events are in the news every single day. Do complain about meteorologists as well?
No one said this was a shocking, groundbreaking discovery, only that it adds to what we already know.
(Also, I'm a fan juvenile dicks making useless troll comments, so people like you have made Slashdot a fabulous place for me. Thanks!)
If muggers formed a giant conglomerate and lobbied Washington relentlessly -- to the point that any presidential cabinet was partially made of muggers, former muggers, and mugger lobbyists -- then mugging would be indistinguishable from the "free" market.
In Arthur C. Clarke's 3001 dragons have been created by just assembling DNA whichever way we choose. I expect that building a dino-like creature by manipulating the DNA of currently existing animals will happen before we're able to resurrect a real dinosaur using ancient DNA.
I don't know if anybody "enjoys" smoking.
Not all smoking is cigarette smoking, despite what you and the people making these laws want to believe. I *enjoy* cigar smoking. A good cigar is delicious. Just like a good scotch. There is zero similarity between have a good cigar a few times per month (or even per week) and smoking a pack of cigarettes every day. The two activities are totally unrelated, except that they happen to both involve tobacco.
But I still couldn't get a job at these places.
The idea that the U.S. highway system is a cold war relic is ridiculous. Let me count the ways:
1) Much of it was designed pre-cold war.
2) Roads are a terrible way to move equipment during an emergency, because they are instantly clogged (see 9/11). You mention below that we currently move heavy military equipment via roads. That's because it's peacetime, genius. And we still move it via rail and air.
3) It's much easier to open the airways by restricting civilian air traffic than it is to keep Jethro from trying to move his family back to the cabin in wartime.
4) The military has air bases all over the damn place. There's no need for them to use roads, and there hasn't been since before the Cold War.
5) Many U.S. cities have very limited ways of egress. That is, only 2 or 3 highways that can actually take you anywhere worth going. The rest of our system is a mishmash of state roads that lead nowhere directly. Had the highway system been designed for military purpose, it would have at least been easy to get from base to base. It's not. At all. Many major military bases are specifically built AWAY from highways in order to more easily control traffic flow to and from them (that's why they have their own airfields. Since the '40s.)
I seriously can't tell if you're a foreigner who's never been the U.S. and so don't know anything about our military OR our highway system, or just a tin-foil hat-wearing retard.
It's a threat with intent to terrorize (the legal definition is all over google). It never required a political component.
Yes, and prior to 9/11'ish it was generally reserved for acts that sought a political goal through terror. It's only been very recently that the political motivation was dropped as a requirement.
You need to provide a source for this. "Terroristic threats" have, in cases I'm familiar with, NEVER had a political component. They usually dealt with death threats against spouses or significant others (all of the ones I recall from the '80s involved custody disputes, including the one I was part of as a child).
The reason the death penalty is flat out wrong is quite simple. It isn't just that you are being hypocritical about the morality of killing, it is also that you are murdering innocent people.
As an innocent person, I would much rather be killed outright than live my life -- or even a few years -- in prison. There is no comparison. Death is a release from pain. Being kept in a cage is constant pain.
You can't be arrested for indecent exposure for showing your underwear.
You still wouldn't get into the cockpit in order to turn the plane into a guided missile, which was the whole point of the 9/11 hijackings.
There are infinitely easier ways to kill a paltry 200 people.
If only there was a way to search for stuff I didn't already know...
... Check out some of the $0.99 ebooks by unknown authors with self-publishing "publisher" listed on Amazon. You will find they are - surprise - unreadable drivel.
And then spend 5 seconds on Google and find millionaires who've made their fortune self-publishing. Clearly, Big Publishing is superfluous for a talented writer. (Also, you can go to any B&N and find shelves and shelves of "drivel" -- publishers don't guarantee quality.)
No, the Agency model is a life-support system for Big Publishing, which is an obsolete throwback.
This is a classic anticompetitive tactic - and the reason that Standard Oil was broken up in the 20th century.
Standard Oil would find a mom-and-pop gas station on a corner somewhere, set up shop across the street, and sell gas for below cost. Once they ran mom & pop out of business, they jacked up the prices of gas on that corner to well above cost.
And that, friends, is how the Rockefeller fortune was made.
The obvious problem with your analogy is that Amazon has ALREADY run mom & pop out of business, and is still trying to keep prices low.
It's really a non-problem. If the publishers aren't making enough money, they will cease to publish. Clearly -- given that more books are being published than ever before -- they are not ceasing to publish, and are therefore making more than enough money to stay in business (just less on average than they were before their old business model became obsolete).
Let's face it: In a world of cheap, easy self-publishing, self-promotion, and self-selling, there's an ever-lessening need for huge book publishers (and music companies, and movie companies, and all other content middle-men).
I have one word for those that think this would be a good idea....Geocities? Anybody remember Geocities?
I remember Geocities -- that's the place where I can still view my old pages via the Internet Archive.
If you don't know what an MRE is -- and clearly you don't -- a simple google search will help you.
Kinda doubt that Romney wants a theocracy.
Clearly you've never been to Salt Lake City. Utah IS a theocracy. It's a nice place on the surface, but it's entirely controlled by the Mormon Church. They decide who gets to run for office, who gets elected, and what those people do once in office.
That foreman is a patent holder. Therefore he should have never been allowed on the jury, let alone selected as the foreman.
Samsung's lawyers had their chance to fix this is jury selection, and chose not to.
Who was shouting obscenities, again?
Undoing accidental downvote (because, you know, it would be awful to just allow votes to be changed).
That was satire? Don't quit your day job.
Nobody in their right mind is buying a new $3000 laptop every three years.
$3000? Maybe not. But $2000-2500? Sure they do. Enterprises do. Higher ed (where I work) does.
These are people who are just starting to switch from Windows to Mac, and who just happen to also be MUCH more likely than the average user to upgrade their equipment rather than purchasing new.
I want a big "Monsanto" label on these foods just so I can avoid supporting ridiculous patent lawsuits. If you really want to limit who can grow plants from *your* seeds, grow them in a dome where wind and bees can't get at them. (What? Then they won't pollinate? Too fucking bad.)