I haven't given a lot of thought to this topic, but I love the way this relatively well spoken, apparently well thought out message goes on for several paragraphs and then ends with the phrase "butt rape us".
Hmm. You make a good point. I'm still not *entirely* convinced, but your logic is sound enough given the amount of effort I feel like putting into evaluating it right now, i.e., not much;)
Tibet vs. China. India vs. The United Kingdom. Kuwait vs. Iraq (1990). Iraq vs. The United States of America (1990).
In fact...
A new University of Georgia study has found that despite overwhelming military superiority, the world's most powerful nations failed to achieve their objectives in 39 percent of their military operations since World War II.
That somebody will explain how our superiority in the highly competitive black-ops space-plane carrying mystery cargo arena will eventually be converted into a solution for the fact that we can't seem to fight a ground war against a 14th century tribal rabble armed with 1950's eastern bloc shit without getting our stuff blown up all the time...
You might find this surprising, but most military powers find it difficult to fight wars without getting their stuff blown up all the time. I think it has something to do with the presence of a "foe".
I guess it's just a matter of priorities. So a few people get the benefit of starting math at an early age despite thinking it's not what they'll want when they're older, how many more people will need to suffer through it needlessly? What's a worthwhile ratio? One to four? One to eight? One to one thousand? Hopefully someday there will be a better way that allows everyone to come out ahead...
The problem is that we don't *know* in 7th or 8th grade who is likely to need more math 5 or 6 years down the line. Most kids, if you tell them in 7th grade that they can stop taking math, they're going to. Then they hit junior or senior year of high school, realize they want to be an engineer, and they have none of the needed mathematical background. Basically we teach 4-5 years of advanced math to every student in the country, so that the 10-15% if them who will actually need it, have it. It's wasteful as Hell, but I can't think of a better way to do it without forcing life altering career choices on 13-14 year olds.
Maybe if you're not interested in math as a 13 or 14 year old, you shouldn't go on to be an engineer, or a scientist, or whatever. I don't say that to be a troll, what if it's true though? Maybe the population as a whole would have a considerably higher job satisfaction rate if they listened a little more carefully to their interests at that age. Maybe that guy who is drudging through his life as an electrical engineer was really "supposed" to be a graphic designer for a high tech consumer product manufacturer. He knew he was into high tech gadgets, and he had all that math, so he got pushed into being an EE, but he really was more into designing how people used them then in designing how they functioned. Just a thought.
My opinion is that if you post personally identifiable information to a public website, and expect that information to be kept from all the world's eyeballs, you're being incredibly foolish.
I understand the general idea of what you (and many other bewildered Slashdotters) are saying, but you just don't get it. Yes, the website is publicly accessible, I mean, duh, *all* Internet websites are publicly accessible. Would you recommend not entering personally identifiable information into your banking website? Or your Federal Income Tax Return website? Just because the website is publicly accessible, does not mean that the information you enter into it should be publicly accessible. Now I can forgive a bad programmer for *accidentally* sharing my information without my consent, but that is a far cry from *intentionally* doing so.
The idea of using Facebook without entering personally identifiable information is like recommending that we have sex without touching anyone else. The whole point (as I, and I suspect many others, see it) is to share personally identifiable information with YOUR FRIENDS. What on Earth else would you do with a Facebook account?
I can't think of any reason why world leaders would walk away from this process if the secrecy were removed, unless they knew that what they were doing would be frowned upon by the people they claim to be representing.
While I question your grounds for claiming a "moral right" to anything created before 1989, and your assertion that anything at all has been *stolen* from you, I do find your observation about the fact that you will never see any content created in your life time enter the public domain (if they are true, I know almost nothing about current copyright law, so I assume you are correct) to be a very interesting way of assessing the impact of the current copyright system. Personally, I haven't spent enough time considering the topic to be certain whether I am even in favor of a copyright system at all, but if you take it for granted that the essential concept is a good one, I think this is a very perceptive observation.
I got a BS in Physics, and am considered to be more intelligent then most, and I assure you that I am not even *remotely* qualified to study global weather patterns.
#1: Good point, but good luck exercising any of those constitutionally recognized rights.
#2: "I just want to be left alone" is absolutely going to get many Americans on your side... until they want something from you.
#3: Man I hope you're right about this one! But so far, it's not looking too good. Obama is putting the same crooks, criminals and downright villains in office as his predecessor (as far as I can tell, I admit I haven't been keeping up here).
I think it goes without saying that the poster is either willing to learn a new language, or has simply overlooked that necessity (and it *is* a necessity). I don't think your post really adds any useful content to the discussion. Come to think of it, aside from venting my frustration at the uselessness of your response, I suppose mine doesn't add much either!
So here's some content:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and make an educated guess that you will find an inverse correlation between the level of "stability and provision of pubic services" and the level of "freedom, privacy and various other civil liberties" in a given country/economy. It's frustrating, but I suspect true. I *do not* suspect that it is necessary though...
Am I the only one that finds it peculiar that all that wildly different data was found on one hard drive? Security policies, social security numbers, facility blueprints,...etc.? I mean, of course it's *possible*, but it seems a bit odd to me that such disparate kinds of data would all be on one server, let alone one hard drive.
A parents job is not to shadow their children around 24x7 for the first 18 years of their life, that is just absurd, and part of the general "paranoia" that our culture seems to be cultivating right now.
A parents job is to establish a safe environment in which their children can grow up in, and learn how to be an adult in.
The only problem with your rational is that if all the competition was from commercial entities, and not from people willing to work without compensation, then the bottom line would not be zero. Yes, competition would force the price lower, but the limit would be considerably nonzero. In theory all the competitors but one would eventually be weeded out as the company with the most efficient infrastructure (assuming the product quality was equal amongst all competitors) managed to sell the product for the lowest possible price while still maintaining the ability to pay for its business costs.
But there's no going back to the so-called 'good old days' when you had '100% personal liability' because that wasn't really working terribly well either.
I actually do agree with you, to a *certain* extent, but just to play Devil's advocate here...
Were you actually around in these 'good old days' of which you speak? It seems to me those 'good old days' have been long gone since well before we were born. Of course, it's impossible to pick one moment in time when it ceased to be the 'good old days', since it has been a gradual transition away from them since day 0, heheh. I have to ask myself though, have all these rules and regulations *actually* made the world a better place? Are fewer people dying today because these rules and regulations are preventing stupid people from doing stupid things? Or is it possible that the people who would've done those stupid things then, are still doing them now? Or that they are finding new and stupider things to do that don't *yet* violate any of our many rules and regulations?
Now I said above that I do agree with you to a certain extent... There are some pretty obvious (to most sane people) rules that have a place in modern society. But using your argument is a very slippery slope which can easily be used to implement a lot of crap that we probably don't really need...
Not in the least. The amendments which you are referring to state that the government should protect your right to freedom of expression, and your right to bear arms. Neither amendment stipulates that the government must fund either of these endeavors.
When people refer to a "universal health care system" they are referring to a (typically government sponsored) program which ensures that everyone has the *means* to *acquire* health care.
I'm hardly being picky. When people say "everyone has a right to health care", it is accepted that they mean exactly what they are saying. Everyone should be cured of all life threatening illness/injury, regardless of their income or lack thereof. If you want to disagree with them, just go ahead and do it! Be bold, make a statement! "I DO NOT believe that everyone has a right to health care!"
If I had not read the quoted portion of your post, where would I have gotten the idea that you expect people to pay for their own health care? Anyway... You have made two *very* different statements...
There is a huge difference between saying "you have a right to buy a Lexus", and saying "you have a right to a Lexus".
If you want to say that everyone has the right to buy health care, then go ahead and say that. But as long as you state that everyone has a right to health care, it is not valid to then go on and state that they must pay for it.
I'm not going to say that health care is or is not a right, but I believe that your argument is flawed.
A right is not something that you pay for. It is something that is inherently yours and which can not be taken away from you without your consent.
When you say "Everybody has a right to health care" you imply that the health care provided does not need to be paid for. If it has to be paid for, it is not a right, it is a privilege.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't given a lot of thought to this topic, but I love the way this relatively well spoken, apparently well thought out message goes on for several paragraphs and then ends with the phrase "butt rape us".
Hmm. You make a good point. I'm still not *entirely* convinced, but your logic is sound enough given the amount of effort I feel like putting into evaluating it right now, i.e., not much ;)
The interstate commerce clause is frequently misused - but telecom and the Internet seems to clearly be interstate commerce.
Telecommunications does not equal commerce. Nor does the Internet (a subset of telecommunications) equal commerce.
In fact...
A new University of Georgia study has found that despite overwhelming military superiority, the world's most powerful nations failed to achieve their objectives in 39 percent of their military operations since World War II.
39% hardly equates to *most*.
That somebody will explain how our superiority in the highly competitive black-ops space-plane carrying mystery cargo arena will eventually be converted into a solution for the fact that we can't seem to fight a ground war against a 14th century tribal rabble armed with 1950's eastern bloc shit without getting our stuff blown up all the time...
You might find this surprising, but most military powers find it difficult to fight wars without getting their stuff blown up all the time. I think it has something to do with the presence of a "foe".
Tell that to the Conquistadors.
I guess it's just a matter of priorities. So a few people get the benefit of starting math at an early age despite thinking it's not what they'll want when they're older, how many more people will need to suffer through it needlessly? What's a worthwhile ratio? One to four? One to eight? One to one thousand? Hopefully someday there will be a better way that allows everyone to come out ahead...
The problem is that we don't *know* in 7th or 8th grade who is likely to need more math 5 or 6 years down the line. Most kids, if you tell them in 7th grade that they can stop taking math, they're going to. Then they hit junior or senior year of high school, realize they want to be an engineer, and they have none of the needed mathematical background. Basically we teach 4-5 years of advanced math to every student in the country, so that the 10-15% if them who will actually need it, have it. It's wasteful as Hell, but I can't think of a better way to do it without forcing life altering career choices on 13-14 year olds.
Maybe if you're not interested in math as a 13 or 14 year old, you shouldn't go on to be an engineer, or a scientist, or whatever. I don't say that to be a troll, what if it's true though? Maybe the population as a whole would have a considerably higher job satisfaction rate if they listened a little more carefully to their interests at that age. Maybe that guy who is drudging through his life as an electrical engineer was really "supposed" to be a graphic designer for a high tech consumer product manufacturer. He knew he was into high tech gadgets, and he had all that math, so he got pushed into being an EE, but he really was more into designing how people used them then in designing how they functioned. Just a thought.
My opinion is that if you post personally identifiable information to a public website, and expect that information to be kept from all the world's eyeballs, you're being incredibly foolish.
I understand the general idea of what you (and many other bewildered Slashdotters) are saying, but you just don't get it. Yes, the website is publicly accessible, I mean, duh, *all* Internet websites are publicly accessible. Would you recommend not entering personally identifiable information into your banking website? Or your Federal Income Tax Return website? Just because the website is publicly accessible, does not mean that the information you enter into it should be publicly accessible. Now I can forgive a bad programmer for *accidentally* sharing my information without my consent, but that is a far cry from *intentionally* doing so.
The idea of using Facebook without entering personally identifiable information is like recommending that we have sex without touching anyone else. The whole point (as I, and I suspect many others, see it) is to share personally identifiable information with YOUR FRIENDS. What on Earth else would you do with a Facebook account?
I third the motion. How many do we need for it to pass? I thought the articles were moderated on this website?
I can't think of any reason why world leaders would walk away from this process if the secrecy were removed, unless they knew that what they were doing would be frowned upon by the people they claim to be representing.
Now there's a sentiment I cannot even pretend to disagree with for the purposes of devil's advocacy.
While I question your grounds for claiming a "moral right" to anything created before 1989, and your assertion that anything at all has been *stolen* from you, I do find your observation about the fact that you will never see any content created in your life time enter the public domain (if they are true, I know almost nothing about current copyright law, so I assume you are correct) to be a very interesting way of assessing the impact of the current copyright system. Personally, I haven't spent enough time considering the topic to be certain whether I am even in favor of a copyright system at all, but if you take it for granted that the essential concept is a good one, I think this is a very perceptive observation.
You are absolutely correct. Subaru will not buy back your original shifter. The dealer, however, may very well do so in order to keep your business.
I got a BS in Physics, and am considered to be more intelligent then most, and I assure you that I am not even *remotely* qualified to study global weather patterns.
#1: Good point, but good luck exercising any of those constitutionally recognized rights.
#2: "I just want to be left alone" is absolutely going to get many Americans on your side... until they want something from you.
#3: Man I hope you're right about this one! But so far, it's not looking too good. Obama is putting the same crooks, criminals and downright villains in office as his predecessor (as far as I can tell, I admit I haven't been keeping up here).
#4: Uhh, woot?
#5: Here here!
I think it goes without saying that the poster is either willing to learn a new language, or has simply overlooked that necessity (and it *is* a necessity). I don't think your post really adds any useful content to the discussion. Come to think of it, aside from venting my frustration at the uselessness of your response, I suppose mine doesn't add much either!
So here's some content:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and make an educated guess that you will find an inverse correlation between the level of "stability and provision of pubic services" and the level of "freedom, privacy and various other civil liberties" in a given country/economy. It's frustrating, but I suspect true. I *do not* suspect that it is necessary though...
Am I the only one that finds it peculiar that all that wildly different data was found on one hard drive? Security policies, social security numbers, facility blueprints, ...etc.? I mean, of course it's *possible*, but it seems a bit odd to me that such disparate kinds of data would all be on one server, let alone one hard drive.
Mod parent up!
A parents job is not to shadow their children around 24x7 for the first 18 years of their life, that is just absurd, and part of the general "paranoia" that our culture seems to be cultivating right now.
A parents job is to establish a safe environment in which their children can grow up in, and learn how to be an adult in.
What's wrong with documenting your procedures using...... a *document*? Okay, get fancy and make it an *HTML* document.
If you want to use a wiki, I've been happy with dokuwiki.
The only problem with your rational is that if all the competition was from commercial entities, and not from people willing to work without compensation, then the bottom line would not be zero. Yes, competition would force the price lower, but the limit would be considerably nonzero. In theory all the competitors but one would eventually be weeded out as the company with the most efficient infrastructure (assuming the product quality was equal amongst all competitors) managed to sell the product for the lowest possible price while still maintaining the ability to pay for its business costs.
But there's no going back to the so-called 'good old days' when you had '100% personal liability' because that wasn't really working terribly well either.
I actually do agree with you, to a *certain* extent, but just to play Devil's advocate here...
Were you actually around in these 'good old days' of which you speak? It seems to me those 'good old days' have been long gone since well before we were born. Of course, it's impossible to pick one moment in time when it ceased to be the 'good old days', since it has been a gradual transition away from them since day 0, heheh. I have to ask myself though, have all these rules and regulations *actually* made the world a better place? Are fewer people dying today because these rules and regulations are preventing stupid people from doing stupid things? Or is it possible that the people who would've done those stupid things then, are still doing them now? Or that they are finding new and stupider things to do that don't *yet* violate any of our many rules and regulations?
Now I said above that I do agree with you to a certain extent... There are some pretty obvious (to most sane people) rules that have a place in modern society. But using your argument is a very slippery slope which can easily be used to implement a lot of crap that we probably don't really need...
Not in the least. The amendments which you are referring to state that the government should protect your right to freedom of expression, and your right to bear arms. Neither amendment stipulates that the government must fund either of these endeavors.
When people refer to a "universal health care system" they are referring to a (typically government sponsored) program which ensures that everyone has the *means* to *acquire* health care.
I'm hardly being picky. When people say "everyone has a right to health care", it is accepted that they mean exactly what they are saying. Everyone should be cured of all life threatening illness/injury, regardless of their income or lack thereof. If you want to disagree with them, just go ahead and do it! Be bold, make a statement! "I DO NOT believe that everyone has a right to health care!"
If I had not read the quoted portion of your post, where would I have gotten the idea that you expect people to pay for their own health care? Anyway... You have made two *very* different statements...
There is a huge difference between saying "you have a right to buy a Lexus", and saying "you have a right to a Lexus".
If you want to say that everyone has the right to buy health care, then go ahead and say that. But as long as you state that everyone has a right to health care, it is not valid to then go on and state that they must pay for it.
I'm not going to say that health care is or is not a right, but I believe that your argument is flawed.
A right is not something that you pay for. It is something that is inherently yours and which can not be taken away from you without your consent.
When you say "Everybody has a right to health care" you imply that the health care provided does not need to be paid for. If it has to be paid for, it is not a right, it is a privilege.