I think you're confusing technical standards with moral standards. Yes, if I want to connect to the internet, I must do so via TCP/IP. That is not necessarily the case in social interactions.
For example, suppose that we were working as literacy volunteers. We are both working towards the same goal: teaching people how to read. You might be doing it out of a sense of noblesse oblige. I, however, would be doing it purely for my own pride, so that I could say to myself, "These people know how to read now because I helped them."
You might disagree with my reasons, or even find them repugnant. However, the fact that we have different reasons for helping (altruistic for you, egoistic for me) does not prevent us from working towards the same goal.
Parent, like those willing to pay to have the bloatware removed is obviously willing to pay more in costs as well as time to have some freedom. People voting with their money in either case, computer manufacturers and airlines as well as the government should take note.
You're right in that I'm willing to sacrifice convenience for freedom, but I don't pay to have bloatware removed. I'm a Mac user.:)
Fine. I'll rephrase it for you. If you try to convince me that it is right to use taxpayers' money to provide shelter to the homeless, I am going to reject your argument because I reject your unstated premise that the end (sheltering the homeless) justifies the means (forcing individuals to finance your program via taxation).
You seem to think that liberty for yourself and others is a good thing. What is your idea of liberty? Can it be achieved without law? How can it be guaranteed?
I like to think that my idea of liberty is fairly simple: I own my life. I own my mind and body. I own my thoughts and the products of my labor. It is likewise for you. I am free if others do not violate my self-ownership. You are free if others do not violate your self-ownership. I do not know if it can be achieved without law; I only know that law makes it easier to systematically violate liberty. As for how to guarantee liberty, I know of only two ways: I can reason with others, or I can kill them when and if they attempt to violate my rights.
I won't fly at all unless I'm flying to somewhere that I cannot reach by driving for 10 hours. This isn't because of the airlines; it's because of the federal government's insistence on security theatre. I'm tired of being treated like a potential criminal just because I want to get on an airplane.
Besides, if you're going to appeal to moral duty in an argument, you should know that any argument can fly.
Also, you should make sure that the person you're arguing with accepts the same moral standards you do. You won't get far if you try to convince an egoist to accept altruism.
That is terrible logic. Basically you are saying "I am willing to allow evil to continue because I cannot see good". That is lazy and irresponsible.
Evil will continue with or without my consent. Do you think I would allow the abuses perpetrated by the US government to continue if I had any real power? Guess what: an individual's vote is meaningless, and a lone man with a gun is a criminal, not a defender of freedom. All I can do is hold to my principles and bide my time.
I suspect that if this practice does die out, it'll mean the big guys are on slightly less uneven footing with the little mom & pop PC shops, so I guess that's always a good thing.
I think we've also hit on one of the reasons Apple computers cost more than similar machines from Dell, HP, Lenovo, et al: Apple doesn't load down their Macs with a lot of third-party bloatware.
I think it's a good idea to vote because I believe in that aspect of the American system. If you do not, then I guess you shouldn't vote.
I do not believe in democracy. I do not trust it, and I do not see it as an end in itself. Individual liberty, for myself and others, is my goal. If democracy is conducive to my ideal, I'll use it. If democracy proves inimical to my ideal, then I will work against it.
I can do better than PDF. Here's the tract itself, straight from the horse's ass. I should warn you; it's pretty damned lame. I wish some of the Chick-tract fundies would give me the one about how heavy metal is Satan's music; I'm a metalhead, not a D&D player.
I have no argument with you; you're probably not one of the reasons why I've collected over 65536 copies of Jack Chick's Dark Dungeons tract over the years.
Yep - all of them. Every person in the country who labels themselves Christian is a simplistic idiot that can't understand even the most basic of things.
When Americans who call themselves Christians start paying more attention to what Jesus allegedly said than what Paul wrote or what is written in the Old Testament, then I'll start showing more respect for American Christians.
You could do better by going and casting an empty ballot. Or even putting down your own name for president. Or Crusty the Clown or Mickey Mouse. Or even a damned ficus tree would be a better action than choosing to not vote.
First off, I'm not going to waste gas driving down to the polling place in order to vote for my cat on a write-in ballot. Second, every person who casts a vote is doing nothing but rubber-stamping this tyrannical government of ours. When you vote, you are choosing a proxy who will rob and coerce others in your name. I want no part of that.
I'd run myself, but if I'm asked about my Christian Faith, I'd have to lie. I'm a shitty liar. I'm in the Bible belt here, so it comes up.
American Christians take a very simplistic approach to their religion, which makes it very easy to fake Christianity if one is willing to make the effort. You don't have to be C.S. Lewis to convince the average American fundie that you're a believer. In fact, most fundies would probably find C.S. Lewis' brand of Christianity beyond their intellectual grasp.
Good luck getting anyone to vote in this country. We've had some of the lowest rates of voter turnout of any democracy for many, many election cycles now.
As long as elections in the US are a choice between fascism (Republicans) and socialism (Democrats), I will vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE by abstaining.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are much more easily removed than the crap that comes with a Wintendo machine. OS X doesn't have a Registry, after all. :)
I think you're confusing technical standards with moral standards. Yes, if I want to connect to the internet, I must do so via TCP/IP. That is not necessarily the case in social interactions.
For example, suppose that we were working as literacy volunteers. We are both working towards the same goal: teaching people how to read. You might be doing it out of a sense of noblesse oblige. I, however, would be doing it purely for my own pride, so that I could say to myself, "These people know how to read now because I helped them."
You might disagree with my reasons, or even find them repugnant. However, the fact that we have different reasons for helping (altruistic for you, egoistic for me) does not prevent us from working towards the same goal.
Your lack of imagination is your problem, not mine. :)
You definately voted your $$$$$. :)
Unlike the US government, Apple has given me my money's worth.
Yes, some people would consider iLife to be bloatware. I'm not one of them.
Sorry, the difference between Macs and PCs in price is too great to be just subsidized by this extra software.
I'm sorry, but what part of "one of the reasons" did I leave unclear?
Like I said in another post, an individual's vote is worthless, and a lone man with a gun is a criminal, not a defender of freedom.
Parent, like those willing to pay to have the bloatware removed is obviously willing to pay more in costs as well as time to have some freedom. People voting with their money in either case, computer manufacturers and airlines as well as the government should take note.
You're right in that I'm willing to sacrifice convenience for freedom, but I don't pay to have bloatware removed. I'm a Mac user. :)
Fine. I'll rephrase it for you. If you try to convince me that it is right to use taxpayers' money to provide shelter to the homeless, I am going to reject your argument because I reject your unstated premise that the end (sheltering the homeless) justifies the means (forcing individuals to finance your program via taxation).
You seem to think that liberty for yourself and others is a good thing. What is your idea of liberty? Can it be achieved without law? How can it be guaranteed?
I like to think that my idea of liberty is fairly simple: I own my life. I own my mind and body. I own my thoughts and the products of my labor. It is likewise for you. I am free if others do not violate my self-ownership. You are free if others do not violate your self-ownership. I do not know if it can be achieved without law; I only know that law makes it easier to systematically violate liberty. As for how to guarantee liberty, I know of only two ways: I can reason with others, or I can kill them when and if they attempt to violate my rights.
I won't fly at all unless I'm flying to somewhere that I cannot reach by driving for 10 hours. This isn't because of the airlines; it's because of the federal government's insistence on security theatre. I'm tired of being treated like a potential criminal just because I want to get on an airplane.
Besides, if you're going to appeal to moral duty in an argument, you should know that any argument can fly.
Also, you should make sure that the person you're arguing with accepts the same moral standards you do. You won't get far if you try to convince an egoist to accept altruism.
That is terrible logic. Basically you are saying "I am willing to allow evil to continue because I cannot see good". That is lazy and irresponsible.
Evil will continue with or without my consent. Do you think I would allow the abuses perpetrated by the US government to continue if I had any real power? Guess what: an individual's vote is meaningless, and a lone man with a gun is a criminal, not a defender of freedom. All I can do is hold to my principles and bide my time.
I suspect that if this practice does die out, it'll mean the big guys are on slightly less uneven footing with the little mom & pop PC shops, so I guess that's always a good thing.
I think we've also hit on one of the reasons Apple computers cost more than similar machines from Dell, HP, Lenovo, et al: Apple doesn't load down their Macs with a lot of third-party bloatware.
I think it's a good idea to vote because I believe in that aspect of the American system. If you do not, then I guess you shouldn't vote.
I do not believe in democracy. I do not trust it, and I do not see it as an end in itself. Individual liberty, for myself and others, is my goal. If democracy is conducive to my ideal, I'll use it. If democracy proves inimical to my ideal, then I will work against it.
I can do better than PDF. Here's the tract itself, straight from the horse's ass. I should warn you; it's pretty damned lame. I wish some of the Chick-tract fundies would give me the one about how heavy metal is Satan's music; I'm a metalhead, not a D&D player.
The internet is an inhuman place that makes human monsters. I should know; I'm one of the monsters. :)
I have no argument with you; you're probably not one of the reasons why I've collected over 65536 copies of Jack Chick's Dark Dungeons tract over the years.
Besides, if you think this is a tyrannical government (either Republican or Democratic) you may want to travel the world a bit.
Yes, you're right; American tyranny is rather gentle compared to the tyranny of Red China or Saudi Arabia, but it is still tyranny by my standards.
So, get involved. Ignore what people tell you about "throwing away your vote" or "as good as a vote for the bad guy." Vote for what you think is best.
No. If I vote, then I am turning my back on my belief that no individual has a right to tell another individual how to live.
Yep - all of them. Every person in the country who labels themselves Christian is a simplistic idiot that can't understand even the most basic of things.
When Americans who call themselves Christians start paying more attention to what Jesus allegedly said than what Paul wrote or what is written in the Old Testament, then I'll start showing more respect for American Christians.
You could do better by going and casting an empty ballot. Or even putting down your own name for president. Or Crusty the Clown or Mickey Mouse. Or even a damned ficus tree would be a better action than choosing to not vote.
First off, I'm not going to waste gas driving down to the polling place in order to vote for my cat on a write-in ballot. Second, every person who casts a vote is doing nothing but rubber-stamping this tyrannical government of ours. When you vote, you are choosing a proxy who will rob and coerce others in your name. I want no part of that.
I'd run myself, but if I'm asked about my Christian Faith, I'd have to lie. I'm a shitty liar. I'm in the Bible belt here, so it comes up.
American Christians take a very simplistic approach to their religion, which makes it very easy to fake Christianity if one is willing to make the effort. You don't have to be C.S. Lewis to convince the average American fundie that you're a believer. In fact, most fundies would probably find C.S. Lewis' brand of Christianity beyond their intellectual grasp.
Good luck getting anyone to vote in this country. We've had some of the lowest rates of voter turnout of any democracy for many, many election cycles now.
As long as elections in the US are a choice between fascism (Republicans) and socialism (Democrats), I will vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE by abstaining.
Which reminds me of a quote often attributed to Max Stirner: "The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime."