When Katherine Harris cut legally registered voters from minority and strongly democratic neighborhoods from the vote lists, she undermined the democractic process.
It was a crime. Quite simply. It was also well documented.
In fact, Katherine Harris even admitted there were "errors", and that they had not been corrected even by the time of the MIDTERM elections.
Republicans constantly harping on about the electoral college are completely missing the point, and in a way are complicite in the crime against democracy that was the 2000 election.
Re:Truly P2P if SOBIG.G contains the spam message
on
P2P Spam?
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
SoBig doesn't use a hole in Outlook. It uses the hole peoples brains where the information that says "don't open attachments you don't know the origin of" is supposed to be.
I have never once heard of someone "fixing" a motherboard by doing anything other than replacing it...something really makes me doubt that you have either.
People bitch about the text based installer...but it has always worked fine for me. Now they bitch about the graphical installer because it's clumsy. Who the fuck cares? It gets the job done. And you'll only see it once in a long while unless you repeatedly hose your system.
Debian works great. The text based install works great. The progeny installer also works great. If you like pretty graphics, get a mac with OSX.
The more I read your various posts, the more I think you are a moron.
"Hit me like a hammer this morning" is a simile. A form of comparison. "The supply of oil is infinite" is simply not true, and not used in a comparative fasion.
See? The first is a comparison, and the second is a false declaration. It clearly declares that you are a moron.
You're going to wake up someday and realize that there is no way that those people can ever guarantee your safety - that they are taking from you solely in the name of power and power alone. They have no desire to help you anymore than in those ways which increase their power.
I realize this. But I, unlike you still consider government to be MINE. At least in theory.
If the government isn't going to guarantee my safety, who is?
The government belongs to people, and should be the will the of people expressed. If it isn't, there is something wrong that we need to fix. Demonizing it only suits corporate interests who will simply have an even easier time doing what they want. And we have already both agreed that our corporate influence in Central America ended up with us considerably trashing any hopes at freedom that those people had.
Let me explain this to you. And I realize it is going to be hard, because you are a "student" and so you seem to believe you must really have the world by the balls right now./. But think for a moment...
1) I fully admit that our current government is not living up to our expectations.
2) Our government, unlike multi-national corporations, is there "by the people, and for the people." At least in theory.
3) If you don't like the government, rather than rejecting it and claiming it does nothing right, consider that it is your duty to make it do right. You don't claim you want it to be gone entirely. Instead you say you want it to enforce contracts, and laws. Which, I would argue, is exactly what it does now. They are simply the wrong laws.
4) Corporations on the other hand, are by nature, totalitarian. The public relations money they spend helps to convince many people, like yourself, that they are helping you. And that "market forces" are all you need to stay safe. However, history has shown this is not the case. Regulations were not initially put in place simply for kicks. The addressed serious flaws in our capitalist system that would have let our country crash into ruin well before now, had they not been fixed.
However, you have only minute influence in corporate daily operations. They make no pretenses to be "by the people, for the people." And no one expects them too. However, you seem to believe that market forces, are somehow more pure than government. (Or more precisely, how government should be.)
Government is currently corrupt. It is because of, among other things, corporate influence. We both basically agreed on that. What the hell would make you want to just give up and allow those corporate influences to have the free run of things?
You obviously need to pay more attention in your politics class, and less in your business classes.
I realize this and I am a free man because of it. Are you?
You are a very very pure CONSUMER because of this. You are happy passing your hard earned dollar up the tree, without even considering it as anything more then "doing the right thing."
You have failed to understand the very real concept that just because the masses after being bombarded with advertisement will buy something, does not mean they NEED it. Nor that they even really WANTED it to begin with...
I realize that I can change government, because it is there for US the people to change. You seem to think that because it is flawed, we should allow purely corporate interests to save us.
You call your side freedom, and I call my side freedom. The only difference is that my side has has a hope of changing the organization they look to for salvation. Rather than waiting for a situation to get so completely destroyed that you can't make a dollar out of it before it should change.
You see. Democracy is a form of government. Capitalism is not. Government is there to protect the people, and to conduct the peoples wishes. Capitalism is not. Corporate interests are greed. To think that allowing the minority of corporate shareholders to run the gain, and make the maximum profit is insanity. If capitalist interests allowed people to gain from the developements of technology, everyone in the last 40 years would have to work half as much, and make twice as much. But oddly enough, corporations making a ton of money doesn't mean that *PEOPLE* make a ton of money. Why haven't any of these trade deals made the price of your shoes go down?
I admit the government is fucked up. I just don't think handing it over to the people who fucked it up is going to help us any.
Hopefully when you step out into the "real world", which I sincerely hope you choose to do someday, you realize this and help to change it. Rather than being another corporate parrot.
Look. Appearantly we at least agree as far as the understanding that our industries and government are intertwined in a lot of nefarious ways. And that the combination does not always do the best thing in a given situation.
However, we begin to disagree at the point where you see to start advocating a laissez faire attitude. While I don't agree with the corporate welfare and bail-outs, I hardly think that justifies droping all regulation besides the contractual, and allowing business to run its course.
But I just happen to dislike clear-cutting, stip-mining, sweat shop labor, and toxic waste dumping...etc.. If you don't mind, then I guess you have a point. We've seen what happens in the past, and industry does even worse for the public when not regulated at all. I mean, what about the F.A.A? I for one feel a little safer flying knowing that not just any hack pilot with a beater plane can start an airline company and kill a few hundred people before "market forces" drive him out of busines.
The countries in Central America did not suffer because we advocate capitalism
I didn't say they did. They suffered because of US. Whatever it was that we were advocating. (Terrorism is the word for it I think.) But again, I agree, it was done to suit our corporate interests. And backed by the government due to the nefarious intertwining mentioned above.
That statement is irrational - what is good for our capitalist interests are those things which increase our wealth over time. If society sees environmental concerns as being more important than other things in their lives, then they will support them.
I certainly hope so. But I don't happen to belive that the ever going hunt to increase wealth is always the best way to solve a given problem. Environmental problems that we have were caused by that quest, one way or another. And I don't think that the same quest is going to turn around and fix them...at least without some nudging.
The changeover period to those alternatives is always going to be too expensive, until damn near every last drop of oil is gone, damn near every last tree is cut down (perhaps not in the U.S. in particular, but elsewhere), and the probablems with the environment (which are very very real) are so obvious that it is too late to really do anything to change them besides wait about 300 years or so...maybe longer...
I just don't have this perfect faith in capitalism. I mean, regulations were put in place for a reason to begin with right? And they have considerably helped the general population. Think about that tomorrow when you have the day off. And think about it every time you get a reasonable pay check for a reasonable amount of work. Unchecked capitalism would probably not let you have tomorrow off, or pay you fairly for your work.
But hey, you say that idealy, the government would enforce laws and contracts. So maybe we agree 100%. As long as the laws are the right laws.
We're Amerika! We had God on our side! This makes no rational sense whatsoever.
Sarcasm.
Capitalism has nothing to do with our government's immoral and illegal policies in Central America. In fact, what has occured there can be seen as anti-capitalist.
Yes. It can. The joy of our particularly happy form of capitalism is that it happens to repress freedom, and capitalism a lot of the time. Whatever does best for our American dollar is the way we go.
Excluding the fact that you've obviously never read a history book in your entire life - to actaully say that the only possible forms of government are those run by coporations and those run by someone like Stalin is one of the stupidest fucking comments I've ever seen.
Except for not fucking reading the whole thread before you open you fucking retarded mouth.
I was SARCASTICALLY stating that him bringing up Stalinism as a response to me saying that Capitalism doesnt always do the best things for the environment is fucked up. Because I never mentioned Stalin, and he immediately began comparing my comments to that, as the alternative to our capitalism.
Sorry. I realize now that sarcasm doesn't work so well here.
Instead of responding to individual lines of the post, why don't you try reading the whole thing before drawing the conclusions, dildo.
You have totally disregarded the economics behind the failure of electric cars and energy sources in general.
Alternatives to Oil != Electric Cars. Electric Cars are one of the many possible directions, but not the only one. I haven't disregarded however the economics behind "energy sources in general" as you put it. I simply mean that looking for alternatives is more expensive than maintaining the status quo. I am sure you agree with at least that much.
Your buddy the government was ultimately responsible for killing that one off. Pure capitalism had no say in that. Sorry.
Again. I never claimed it was done away with due to pure capitalism. I stated that it did have a conspiracy to keep it away from the masses. And it does. GO READ. Books are good for you. Try to find a reason why hemp is illegal, while we used to be forced to grow it during war times.
What you will find is that several industries had their hands in it. It's fact. It's out there if you want to go read about it. But it's much easier to just say "hemp is bad" and leave it at that. Rather than trying to think that maybe the cotton industry, the paper industry, and the oil industry aren't out there trying to do the best thing for you and your planet. They are doing the whatever it takes to make the most money. Which, oddly enough, does not always line up with the best thing for the planet.
You're separating capitalism from firm rule of law. And, in fact, firm rule of law is the first requirement of a purely capitalist society.
If you realized this, then you would start to notice that the countries who came closest to this goal (i.e. the United States) obtained a higher overall standard of living than those that went the farthest away from it (i.e. the Soviet Union).
First of all, we are not a "purely capitalist" society, THANK GOD.
Second, I never even mentioned the Soviet Union. So the reasoning behind constantly comparing what I say to the Soviet Union shows through as a bias on your part. All I am saying is that our "American Capitalism" complete with our rule of law, has done extremely well for us. However, the historic record shows that many other countries, in particular Central American countries, has suffered greatly *DIRECTLY* by our interference, due to capitalist influence. Basically, they tried to make a real democracy, it didn't suit our business needs, so we waged a terrorist war against them. (Look to Nicaragua in particular, if you need an example.)
The whole point I was trying to get at, which is obviously WAY over your heads, is that just because something is good for our capitalist interests, does not mean it is good for the environment. And THE ENVIRONMENT is important. Just because we have a jackass president saying not to worry, the environment is just fine, does not mean that it is. Science directly contradicts his hillbilly assumtions. And thousands of brainwashed little tools will not convince me otherwise. Burning all the oil until oil is too expensive to use is not the prudent answer. In fact, it's a horrible answer. But appearantly the country has been overtaken but retarded assholes who have no f*cking clue. So sign right up buddy.
A bigger "cop out" is to argue a position that is clearly wrong and irrational long after it has been beaten into the ground.
I am well aware that "doing good things for the environment" has been beaten to the ground by pigs who want to drive big powerful S.U.V's, but my morals don't allow me to just give up and say "oh, thats just gotta be the best way...we make/save the most money from it."
Nope, same definition as always. One who doesn't do any of his own thinking, but just follows the herd. Your herd just happens to be smaller than a lot of other herds. Of course, people like you think that the farther out of the fringe you go, you must be getting closer to the truth
You seem to be drawing a lot of conclusions. I don't see how, but keep it up. Your heard is appearantly quite large, and full or morons. But hey, what the hell...the environment is no big deal..why come up with alternatives to oil. That would cost money, and money is that thing that's really important.
What you want is magic technology. And if the magic doesn't exist, then it must be a conspiracy of someone to keep the magic away from the masses.
Magic is something people don't understand. Electricity was like magic at one point in time. So yeah...I guess so. It's abudantly clear to anyone not part of the huge-moron-herd that we are in need of something besides oil to drive our civilization into the future...but hey..why bother..you'll be dead before shit gets really bad, right?
Hemp is one such source, that actually does have a conspiracy to keep it away from the masses, so I guess in some ways that might be right. But still, that wasn't the point I was making.
OK, if the failure of electric cars is just a big capitalist conspiracy, then why aren't your non-capitalistic paradises producing them?
Take a deep breath...then go back and read the little discussion we've been having here, and you will see that I didn't say anything about a big capitalist conspiracy to stop electric cars. I was barely even talking about electric cars. First I said that capitalism doesn't do such great things for the planet. It's true that it doesn't beause generally, the most money to be made is in the status quo rather than developing new more environmentally friendly alternatives.
THen you said that it does do good things for the planet, because it helps people have a higher standard of living...
Then I said it helps US have a higher standard of living. Not everyone. Again, this is true, and the historical record shows it.
Then you basically said I was a communist. Which is a nice little cop out on your part. Since anything outside of what we are currently living under, must be shitty like Stalinist Russia. Making the whole argument nice and dualistic, when really there are many shades in between corporate controlled psuedo-democracy, and stalinist communism. But I wouldn't expect you to understand much about that....like I said. Your heard is big, and full of morons.
Sorry about having to replay the whole little thread here, but appearantly I used too many words the first time and you needed me to simplify it for you.
Here's a tip. Next time you want to talk about alternative energy sources, avoid mentioning hemp.
Because using it as an alternative energy would put too many oil companies out of business? Not to mention logging companies?
Here's a simple little fact for you. Hemp doesn't get you high.
God forbid we should pull our collective heads out of our asses and use whatever the best souce of energy is. Hemp is one such source, that is both very effecient to produce, refine, and use. Hemp based bio-diesel will run in unmodified diesel engines.
BUT OH MY GOD! If you can get high from it, it must be terrible.
I'm starting to think the hard core supporters of petroleum only support it in order to continue getting high from huffing it. I mean, it certainly looks like they have the mental incompentance that goes along with such a practice...
Name the last "pristin nature environment" that was destroyed through normal excavation of oil, other than accidents (and even the accidents aren't that bad).
Well, I was more looking at how as our friends in the middle east run down, we'll have to cave in and drill alaska, and other places, like our leader says. And I hardly think "aren't that bad" is a good discription of oil spills. But I guess they probably aren't that bad for humans...which is what counts, after all.
There is nothing intrinsically immoral about buying oil.
Using the governments line of reasoning about Drugs supporting terror, one can also assume buying oil supports terror. And no, we wouldn't have wars over it if people would give it to us they way we want it, at the price we want it...so I guess you're right. It's not our fault. We don't even contribute. We're Amerika! We had God on our side!
Well, yes, we have. Considering that Capitalism has been the greatest force for raising people's standard of living than any other force.
In America. The list of coutries who have suffered from our capitalism grows by the day. Look at Central America. Many capitalist nations...all not doing so great. You strike me as the kind of person that think we instilled "democracy & freedom" in places like Nicaragua. But keep that blindfold on buddy. It feels much safer for sure.
We should all live in the paradises like the old Soviet Union.
WHY? Because Stalinism is obviously the only alternative to Multi-National Corporate Run capitalist government.
We can only hope that people like you overcome your herd mentality.
Hehehee...yeah. Herd mentality...right. I would hardly classify those supporting alternative energies as "the herd." But maybe herd has been re-defined.
Very simple. Because as the reserves get lower, it simply gets more expensive to pull out of the ground. Eventually, the price is higher than alternatives, and we start using alternatives. WE WILL NEVER RUN OUT OF OIL. EVER.
WOW! You are quite a genius.
You completely converted me with your wisdom.
It's not like we shouldn't stop using it now because it is terribly dirty. It just makes sense that we should definately destroy any pristine nature environments where oil is just to get down to last drops in pursuit of keeping prices down....While are at it, lets have a few more wars over it....generally have a great time running down every last bit until pure capitalism makes it impossible. Then come up with alternatives...WHAT A GREAT, FORWARD THINKING PLAN! We've definately seen that capitalism does great things for the planet...I don't see why I used to think it didn't...The almighty dollar will save us!
THANK YOU SIR! I feel blessed to have my whole mind on the issue changed by Slashdot!
By the way. You are an idiot.
Re:Sacrificing Security for Freedom Breeds Tyranny
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
The United States is a fundamentally different kind of nation, because security and national identity are rooted in its diverse citizenry's allegiance to the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution,
Not if Ashcroft has his way.
And it looks like he may get it, after reading the story this thread pertains to.
One of the most common of these "obvious" examples is how many western corporations "exploit" the citizens of poorer countries by building factories.
Yeah. I was sorta pointing to that issue. But then I was also going to point out the way that we manipulate their politics in ways to keep their demand for a decent wage down. Look at Nicaragua. They ELECTED a leader, and we did everything we could, including forming our own covert army, in order to prevent them from progressing. THe whole time stating we were doing it for them, in our efforts to give them "freedom." Similar examples are abundant. Guatemala, El Salvador...well..most of central america. And by no means does it stop there.
I don't have such a problem with capitalism is theory, I have a problem with "Americanism" in practice.
Corporations are by nature totalitarian institutions. And by this point in the game, they have more rights than individuals, and they also benefit from virtual immortality. They own the propaghanda channels, and hence are close to the governement out of a matter of "national security". They also have their hands in the governement in other numerous ways, all of them undemocratic. It's a totalitarian world we live in these days, unfortunately enough people are snowed into believing it's doing good for them, that they don't both thinking anymore.
If one suggests we do everyone a favor by spreading democracy to the rest of the world, I suggest we spread it here first.
The great thing about capitalism is that this statement is not true. One person's gain does not mean another's loss because the only way a person can gain wealth is to create/earn it.
"Wealth" exists in the minds of other people. Supply and Demand remember? I'm simply talking about FOOD, and SHELTER. There are a lot of people in the world who don't have those things. I suppose you say that is because they just choose not to "create" it, right?
How are these third world countries ever supposed to become industrialized when the supplies of energy and natural resources are decreasing, and controlled by the US, among others.
By simple logic, one persons gain, when so grossly out of perportion, is anothers loss. Look, the world has limited resources. These resources are used to "create wealth". When these resources are horded by people, there aren't as many for other people to use...hence it becomes increasingly more difficult for them to "create wealth."
Now, the fact that the US uses over 40% of the world natural resources, definately leaves the rest of the world worse off. Combine that with our inability to actually have a democracy, much less spread one around the globe, and you end up with a very tyranical, corporate greed run game. Which is, I belive, where we stand today.
Even the poorest people in America are immeasurable more prosperous than the rest of the world.
And immeasurably more poor than they used to be. Our average wage right now is less than it was in the 1970's. Obviously, somebody isn't out there "creating wealth" for themselves huh? Or at least not enough.
This idea that a market based on finite resources will just grow forever is one of the most amusing failings of otherwise intellegent people. I mean, it feels really good to think that way, because you get a lot less guilt. But it is just logically untrue.
Competition for resources, a consequense of the protection of people's freedom (specifically, the freedom to the products of their own mind, or property rights), is the reason humanity is so much more prosperous then 500 years ago.
Your head is so far up your ass it's not even funny. First of all, I hardly think "humanity" as a whole, worldwide, benefits from the capitalist ventures here in the US. There are actually many obvious examples to the contrary. But I'll leave those up to you to investigate if you ever decide to wake up.
Competition for resources is the result of the protection of SOME peoples property...and the exploitation of other people. You see, the WHOLE world belongs to the people that live on it. When certain large organizations or countries decide to consume 40% or more of the natural resources of the planet, than that is not quite fair. Some people realize that and grow to resent that fact. The idea of a permanently growing market is a pipe dream used to allow ignorant people in the US to not feel bad that they are holding back the rest of the world. We've done everything we can to prevent Democracy from taking over around the world. Look at central america for instance. (Really look - Don't just buy what you were told on TV. I mean research it. You know?)
For America to be as prosperous as it is, other people are going to have to be extrememly poor. And what's really funny, is that while "America" is extremely prosperous, only the top 20% really see that. The rest do OK, but are constantly getting beaten down by the top 20%. How else to you explain that our average real wage right now is less than in was in the 1970's? Even after the advances in automation, why do we all work more hours, for less pay?
These all seem to be problems that capitalists, being so warm and cushy in their new SUV, don't care to think about. But if you want a glimpse into what causes the rest of the world to have so much contempt for us...it's a good place to start.
p.
BTW - Socialist, and others who want to redistribute wealth, worldwide even, get a monopoly on "enlightened" because compared to the other alternatives offered, they are. Remember in elementary school how they said to share, and not beat up your neighbor? Why does that work in school, but not geopolitics?
I totally fail to see your point. You are right. We killed a lot of innocent people in Germany too. Feel better now? We entered WW2 because Japan attacked us. Not because we wanted to end the holocaust. It had been going on for some time without us giving a shit. Actually we had many companies in america making a pretty good profit off of it.
The only world we are trying to save right now, as we know it...is that of the military industrial complex bent on exploitation. To do that, out in the open, you need a simple way to pull the wool over the peoples eyes. The war on "Terrah" is one of those ways. It doesn't even BEGIN to come close to actually solving any of the causes of terrorism...in fact it does the opposite. And takes a way a whole lot of personal freedom at the same time.
Of course..it is a lot easier to sit and watch Larry King, and feel warm and fuzzy knowing that we are doing the RIGHT thing out there...but its just not the truth. The road to fighting "evil" starts here at home. Even if you use our own definition of evil, and hold our nations actions up and compare. I think you will see who biggest terrorist state is.
Oh, right... Because the janitor on the thrid floor was really a counter-terrorism specialist who had just come back from a super-secret mission inside afghanistan where she had singlehandedly killed 80 Al-Quaeda cadre.
No. But the thousand of innocent civilians who died in Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Palestein, Iraq and a whole host of other nations we have exploited for all of recorded American history weren't a part of the "WAR" either.
This country would do so much better if people actually read shit instead of watching the fucking television hoping to become educated members of society.
It is appearantly fasionable and politically correct to just DENY about 75% of our history and interaction in the world.
If you fail to see why people outside this country have a much more valid reason to hate us than we do of them, YOU are the idiot my friend(s).
It's all written down. It's called history. It doesn't look favorably upon us. Other than the section referring to most exploitative, most repressive, most warmongering....etc...
Wake the FUCK up people. This gov't that is supposedly protecting you is doing the opposite. It's so fucking sad...and no one even notices...
Logged in this time...sorry about that...
I may not have faith in a god, but I do have faith that people will be able to take care of themselves in the long run.
Just for clarification purposes. Do you mean take care of "themselves" as individual units? Or rather, work together for "their" common good?
I'm all for restricting gas-guzzlers and condemning worker exploitation as long as it's not done by laws punishable by imprisonment.
Well I agree, and I disagree. I think if anything deserves a prison sentence, it is worker exploitation, in all of it's many, many forms...
But I do agree. Prison sentences, much like death sentences, are not something to be handed down by the state. Unfortunately, most people seem to be far too unenlightened to be able to envision an alternative. And I fear they are FAR, FAR to unenlightened to even consider a society where people actually cared for one another, and helped one another...eliminating competition for resources, and hence the root of almost all crime. But, I could be way too much of an idealist. Or just plain wrong.
I'm a Libertarian because I'd pretty much be happiest with an anarchy which is protected from a hostile outside world. Otherwise I have faith that unhindered education can take care of the rest.
"Hostile World Outside" being what? The "outside" world, outside the U.S. that doesn't like our exploitation? Or by outside, do you mean some other world? As far as I know, worlds within several light years have been found to be uninhabited so far. And as far as I know, we all appear to be humans, "sharing" the same world. Although, "sharing" doesn't quite seem to be the right term...considering the lack of balance in the way world resources are consumed.
Perhaps the mental division made so often between "us" and "them" when referring to the world, fosters some of these hostile feelings you need protection from. I am fairly staunch in my belief that the record shows our interventions in the "world outside" has pretty much strictly lead us to the "hostile" world we deal with today. But hang me for treason already...(not you personally, just general public sentiment these days..)
Anarchy would be a pretty sweet idea, except that it CANNOT ever possibly exist on this planet. The social power structures already exist. Removing regulation only increases their power. If we somehow instituted anarchy it would simply allow he with the biggest guns to dominate...(not that he doesn't already. But at least there are laws on the book that benifit someone else slightly...) I believe it is fairly obvious where we would end up.
I just fail to see how the libertarian stance would do anything except turn us into a third world nation with marginalized, atomized workers, and an extremely concentrated groupings of wealth in the upper classes. (Hey...kinda like the conservatives (conservative in the traditional sense) have already done for us.) So who knows...maybe making it just outright BLATENT would motive people to actually give a shit...maybe you libertarians are on to something...
I believe anarchy "in theory" could work. But it would take a serious overhaul of almost everyones values. And no one is committed to change when you can watch AWESOME shows like Anna Nicole on T.V. To do it without just completely handing over the reins to the group with the biggest "DEFENSE" budget, basically *ALL* modern weapons would have to be destroyed...along with all conventional money systems. Either that, or the money in those systems would have to face a cold boot and be reset to a base state where everyone is actually equal. But, I highly doubt anyone is really open to that option. Even those who would benefit from it the most.
"And let's not forget that Gnutella allows all kinds of information to be spread across the Internet" Why is it that this anonymous coward makes it sound like the spread of information is a bad thing? If people want to spread MP3's illegally...let them....pornography....racist maniefestos....andything they want...its information. If they feel the need to spread it, they have the right. If you don't want it, don't take it. Ultimately I've come to the conclusion over the last couple of months that the internet is ultimately doomed to the same fate as television...it will soon be a passive media. You will be monitored, and then spoon fed things you are likely to like...all from large corporate media conglomerates. Why is this? Because dumb asses like this anonymous coward don't realize the inherent freedom of speech present in the internet, in fact they actually CRY OUT to have it removed.... The internet is doomed....I read a post the other day that advocated building a guerrilla network of donated servers....I'm all about it...
Slashdot Mirror
When you run an unstable/development branch, you should expect development to happen and things to change...it's just the nature of the beast.
It was a crime. Quite simply. It was also well documented.
In fact, Katherine Harris even admitted there were "errors", and that they had not been corrected even by the time of the MIDTERM elections.
Republicans constantly harping on about the electoral college are completely missing the point, and in a way are complicite in the crime against democracy that was the 2000 election.
SoBig doesn't use a hole in Outlook. It uses the hole peoples brains where the information that says "don't open attachments you don't know the origin of" is supposed to be.
You can only believe that if you listen exclusively to Rush, and he told you so.
If you actually listened to NPR, you would realize that they are the only organization besides the BBC that is anywhere near "fair and balanced."
Correct! Now why don't you add two and two together, and explain why we have elections every so often?
That's right! To get a new manager.
I have never once heard of someone "fixing" a motherboard by doing anything other than replacing it...something really makes me doubt that you have either.
People bitch about the text based installer...but it has always worked fine for me. Now they bitch about the graphical installer because it's clumsy. Who the fuck cares? It gets the job done. And you'll only see it once in a long while unless you repeatedly hose your system.
Debian works great. The text based install works great. The progeny installer also works great. If you like pretty graphics, get a mac with OSX.
In other words. Quit your bitchin'.
I can't wait to see it happen.
"Hit me like a hammer this morning" is a simile. A form of comparison. "The supply of oil is infinite" is simply not true, and not used in a comparative fasion.
See? The first is a comparison, and the second is a false declaration. It clearly declares that you are a moron.
I realize this. But I, unlike you still consider government to be MINE. At least in theory.
If the government isn't going to guarantee my safety, who is?
The government belongs to people, and should be the will the of people expressed. If it isn't, there is something wrong that we need to fix. Demonizing it only suits corporate interests who will simply have an even easier time doing what they want. And we have already both agreed that our corporate influence in Central America ended up with us considerably trashing any hopes at freedom that those people had.
Let me explain this to you. And I realize it is going to be hard, because you are a "student" and so you seem to believe you must really have the world by the balls right now./. But think for a moment...
1) I fully admit that our current government is not living up to our expectations.
2) Our government, unlike multi-national corporations, is there "by the people, and for the people." At least in theory.
3) If you don't like the government, rather than rejecting it and claiming it does nothing right, consider that it is your duty to make it do right. You don't claim you want it to be gone entirely. Instead you say you want it to enforce contracts, and laws. Which, I would argue, is exactly what it does now. They are simply the wrong laws.
4) Corporations on the other hand, are by nature, totalitarian. The public relations money they spend helps to convince many people, like yourself, that they are helping you. And that "market forces" are all you need to stay safe. However, history has shown this is not the case. Regulations were not initially put in place simply for kicks. The addressed serious flaws in our capitalist system that would have let our country crash into ruin well before now, had they not been fixed.
However, you have only minute influence in corporate daily operations. They make no pretenses to be "by the people, for the people." And no one expects them too. However, you seem to believe that market forces, are somehow more pure than government. (Or more precisely, how government should be.)
Government is currently corrupt. It is because of, among other things, corporate influence. We both basically agreed on that. What the hell would make you want to just give up and allow those corporate influences to have the free run of things?
You obviously need to pay more attention in your politics class, and less in your business classes.
I realize this and I am a free man because of it. Are you?
You are a very very pure CONSUMER because of this. You are happy passing your hard earned dollar up the tree, without even considering it as anything more then "doing the right thing."
You have failed to understand the very real concept that just because the masses after being bombarded with advertisement will buy something, does not mean they NEED it. Nor that they even really WANTED it to begin with...
I realize that I can change government, because it is there for US the people to change. You seem to think that because it is flawed, we should allow purely corporate interests to save us.
You call your side freedom, and I call my side freedom. The only difference is that my side has has a hope of changing the organization they look to for salvation. Rather than waiting for a situation to get so completely destroyed that you can't make a dollar out of it before it should change.
You see. Democracy is a form of government. Capitalism is not. Government is there to protect the people, and to conduct the peoples wishes. Capitalism is not. Corporate interests are greed. To think that allowing the minority of corporate shareholders to run the gain, and make the maximum profit is insanity. If capitalist interests allowed people to gain from the developements of technology, everyone in the last 40 years would have to work half as much, and make twice as much. But oddly enough, corporations making a ton of money doesn't mean that *PEOPLE* make a ton of money. Why haven't any of these trade deals made the price of your shoes go down?
I admit the government is fucked up. I just don't think handing it over to the people who fucked it up is going to help us any.
Hopefully when you step out into the "real world", which I sincerely hope you choose to do someday, you realize this and help to change it. Rather than being another corporate parrot.
However, we begin to disagree at the point where you see to start advocating a laissez faire attitude. While I don't agree with the corporate welfare and bail-outs, I hardly think that justifies droping all regulation besides the contractual, and allowing business to run its course.
But I just happen to dislike clear-cutting, stip-mining, sweat shop labor, and toxic waste dumping...etc.. If you don't mind, then I guess you have a point. We've seen what happens in the past, and industry does even worse for the public when not regulated at all. I mean, what about the F.A.A? I for one feel a little safer flying knowing that not just any hack pilot with a beater plane can start an airline company and kill a few hundred people before "market forces" drive him out of busines.
The countries in Central America did not suffer because we advocate capitalism
I didn't say they did. They suffered because of US. Whatever it was that we were advocating. (Terrorism is the word for it I think.) But again, I agree, it was done to suit our corporate interests. And backed by the government due to the nefarious intertwining mentioned above.
That statement is irrational - what is good for our capitalist interests are those things which increase our wealth over time. If society sees environmental concerns as being more important than other things in their lives, then they will support them.
I certainly hope so. But I don't happen to belive that the ever going hunt to increase wealth is always the best way to solve a given problem. Environmental problems that we have were caused by that quest, one way or another. And I don't think that the same quest is going to turn around and fix them...at least without some nudging.
The changeover period to those alternatives is always going to be too expensive, until damn near every last drop of oil is gone, damn near every last tree is cut down (perhaps not in the U.S. in particular, but elsewhere), and the probablems with the environment (which are very very real) are so obvious that it is too late to really do anything to change them besides wait about 300 years or so...maybe longer...
I just don't have this perfect faith in capitalism. I mean, regulations were put in place for a reason to begin with right? And they have considerably helped the general population. Think about that tomorrow when you have the day off. And think about it every time you get a reasonable pay check for a reasonable amount of work. Unchecked capitalism would probably not let you have tomorrow off, or pay you fairly for your work.
But hey, you say that idealy, the government would enforce laws and contracts. So maybe we agree 100%. As long as the laws are the right laws.
Sarcasm.
Capitalism has nothing to do with our government's immoral and illegal policies in Central America. In fact, what has occured there can be seen as anti-capitalist.
Yes. It can. The joy of our particularly happy form of capitalism is that it happens to repress freedom, and capitalism a lot of the time. Whatever does best for our American dollar is the way we go.
Excluding the fact that you've obviously never read a history book in your entire life - to actaully say that the only possible forms of government are those run by coporations and those run by someone like Stalin is one of the stupidest fucking comments I've ever seen.
Except for not fucking reading the whole thread before you open you fucking retarded mouth.
I was SARCASTICALLY stating that him bringing up Stalinism as a response to me saying that Capitalism doesnt always do the best things for the environment is fucked up. Because I never mentioned Stalin, and he immediately began comparing my comments to that, as the alternative to our capitalism.
Sorry. I realize now that sarcasm doesn't work so well here.
Instead of responding to individual lines of the post, why don't you try reading the whole thing before drawing the conclusions, dildo.
Alternatives to Oil != Electric Cars. Electric Cars are one of the many possible directions, but not the only one. I haven't disregarded however the economics behind "energy sources in general" as you put it. I simply mean that looking for alternatives is more expensive than maintaining the status quo. I am sure you agree with at least that much.
Your buddy the government was ultimately responsible for killing that one off. Pure capitalism had no say in that. Sorry.
Again. I never claimed it was done away with due to pure capitalism. I stated that it did have a conspiracy to keep it away from the masses. And it does. GO READ. Books are good for you. Try to find a reason why hemp is illegal, while we used to be forced to grow it during war times.
What you will find is that several industries had their hands in it. It's fact. It's out there if you want to go read about it. But it's much easier to just say "hemp is bad" and leave it at that. Rather than trying to think that maybe the cotton industry, the paper industry, and the oil industry aren't out there trying to do the best thing for you and your planet. They are doing the whatever it takes to make the most money. Which, oddly enough, does not always line up with the best thing for the planet.
You're separating capitalism from firm rule of law. And, in fact, firm rule of law is the first requirement of a purely capitalist society. If you realized this, then you would start to notice that the countries who came closest to this goal (i.e. the United States) obtained a higher overall standard of living than those that went the farthest away from it (i.e. the Soviet Union).
First of all, we are not a "purely capitalist" society, THANK GOD.
Second, I never even mentioned the Soviet Union. So the reasoning behind constantly comparing what I say to the Soviet Union shows through as a bias on your part. All I am saying is that our "American Capitalism" complete with our rule of law, has done extremely well for us. However, the historic record shows that many other countries, in particular Central American countries, has suffered greatly *DIRECTLY* by our interference, due to capitalist influence. Basically, they tried to make a real democracy, it didn't suit our business needs, so we waged a terrorist war against them. (Look to Nicaragua in particular, if you need an example.)
The whole point I was trying to get at, which is obviously WAY over your heads, is that just because something is good for our capitalist interests, does not mean it is good for the environment. And THE ENVIRONMENT is important. Just because we have a jackass president saying not to worry, the environment is just fine, does not mean that it is. Science directly contradicts his hillbilly assumtions. And thousands of brainwashed little tools will not convince me otherwise. Burning all the oil until oil is too expensive to use is not the prudent answer. In fact, it's a horrible answer. But appearantly the country has been overtaken but retarded assholes who have no f*cking clue. So sign right up buddy.
A bigger "cop out" is to argue a position that is clearly wrong and irrational long after it has been beaten into the ground.
I am well aware that "doing good things for the environment" has been beaten to the ground by pigs who want to drive big powerful S.U.V's, but my morals don't allow me to just give up and say "oh, thats just gotta be the best way...we make/save the most money from it."
You seem to be drawing a lot of conclusions. I don't see how, but keep it up. Your heard is appearantly quite large, and full or morons. But hey, what the hell...the environment is no big deal..why come up with alternatives to oil. That would cost money, and money is that thing that's really important.
What you want is magic technology. And if the magic doesn't exist, then it must be a conspiracy of someone to keep the magic away from the masses.
Magic is something people don't understand. Electricity was like magic at one point in time. So yeah...I guess so. It's abudantly clear to anyone not part of the huge-moron-herd that we are in need of something besides oil to drive our civilization into the future...but hey..why bother..you'll be dead before shit gets really bad, right?
Hemp is one such source, that actually does have a conspiracy to keep it away from the masses, so I guess in some ways that might be right. But still, that wasn't the point I was making.
OK, if the failure of electric cars is just a big capitalist conspiracy, then why aren't your non-capitalistic paradises producing them?
Take a deep breath...then go back and read the little discussion we've been having here, and you will see that I didn't say anything about a big capitalist conspiracy to stop electric cars. I was barely even talking about electric cars. First I said that capitalism doesn't do such great things for the planet. It's true that it doesn't beause generally, the most money to be made is in the status quo rather than developing new more environmentally friendly alternatives.
THen you said that it does do good things for the planet, because it helps people have a higher standard of living...
Then I said it helps US have a higher standard of living. Not everyone. Again, this is true, and the historical record shows it.
Then you basically said I was a communist. Which is a nice little cop out on your part. Since anything outside of what we are currently living under, must be shitty like Stalinist Russia. Making the whole argument nice and dualistic, when really there are many shades in between corporate controlled psuedo-democracy, and stalinist communism. But I wouldn't expect you to understand much about that....like I said. Your heard is big, and full of morons.
Sorry about having to replay the whole little thread here, but appearantly I used too many words the first time and you needed me to simplify it for you.
Because using it as an alternative energy would put too many oil companies out of business? Not to mention logging companies?
Here's a simple little fact for you. Hemp doesn't get you high.
God forbid we should pull our collective heads out of our asses and use whatever the best souce of energy is. Hemp is one such source, that is both very effecient to produce, refine, and use. Hemp based bio-diesel will run in unmodified diesel engines.
BUT OH MY GOD! If you can get high from it, it must be terrible.
I'm starting to think the hard core supporters of petroleum only support it in order to continue getting high from huffing it. I mean, it certainly looks like they have the mental incompentance that goes along with such a practice...
Well, I was more looking at how as our friends in the middle east run down, we'll have to cave in and drill alaska, and other places, like our leader says. And I hardly think "aren't that bad" is a good discription of oil spills. But I guess they probably aren't that bad for humans...which is what counts, after all.
There is nothing intrinsically immoral about buying oil.
Using the governments line of reasoning about Drugs supporting terror, one can also assume buying oil supports terror. And no, we wouldn't have wars over it if people would give it to us they way we want it, at the price we want it...so I guess you're right. It's not our fault. We don't even contribute. We're Amerika! We had God on our side!
Well, yes, we have. Considering that Capitalism has been the greatest force for raising people's standard of living than any other force.
In America. The list of coutries who have suffered from our capitalism grows by the day. Look at Central America. Many capitalist nations...all not doing so great. You strike me as the kind of person that think we instilled "democracy & freedom" in places like Nicaragua. But keep that blindfold on buddy. It feels much safer for sure.
We should all live in the paradises like the old Soviet Union.
WHY? Because Stalinism is obviously the only alternative to Multi-National Corporate Run capitalist government.
We can only hope that people like you overcome your herd mentality.
Hehehee...yeah. Herd mentality...right. I would hardly classify those supporting alternative energies as "the herd." But maybe herd has been re-defined.
WOW! You are quite a genius.
You completely converted me with your wisdom. It's not like we shouldn't stop using it now because it is terribly dirty. It just makes sense that we should definately destroy any pristine nature environments where oil is just to get down to last drops in pursuit of keeping prices down....While are at it, lets have a few more wars over it....generally have a great time running down every last bit until pure capitalism makes it impossible. Then come up with alternatives...WHAT A GREAT, FORWARD THINKING PLAN! We've definately seen that capitalism does great things for the planet...I don't see why I used to think it didn't...The almighty dollar will save us!
THANK YOU SIR! I feel blessed to have my whole mind on the issue changed by Slashdot!
By the way. You are an idiot.
Not if Ashcroft has his way.
And it looks like he may get it, after reading the story this thread pertains to.
Yeah. I was sorta pointing to that issue. But then I was also going to point out the way that we manipulate their politics in ways to keep their demand for a decent wage down. Look at Nicaragua. They ELECTED a leader, and we did everything we could, including forming our own covert army, in order to prevent them from progressing. THe whole time stating we were doing it for them, in our efforts to give them "freedom." Similar examples are abundant. Guatemala, El Salvador...well..most of central america. And by no means does it stop there.
I don't have such a problem with capitalism is theory, I have a problem with "Americanism" in practice.
Corporations are by nature totalitarian institutions. And by this point in the game, they have more rights than individuals, and they also benefit from virtual immortality. They own the propaghanda channels, and hence are close to the governement out of a matter of "national security". They also have their hands in the governement in other numerous ways, all of them undemocratic. It's a totalitarian world we live in these days, unfortunately enough people are snowed into believing it's doing good for them, that they don't both thinking anymore.
If one suggests we do everyone a favor by spreading democracy to the rest of the world, I suggest we spread it here first.
The great thing about capitalism is that this statement is not true. One person's gain does not mean another's loss because the only way a person can gain wealth is to create/earn it.
"Wealth" exists in the minds of other people. Supply and Demand remember? I'm simply talking about FOOD, and SHELTER. There are a lot of people in the world who don't have those things. I suppose you say that is because they just choose not to "create" it, right?
How are these third world countries ever supposed to become industrialized when the supplies of energy and natural resources are decreasing, and controlled by the US, among others.
By simple logic, one persons gain, when so grossly out of perportion, is anothers loss. Look, the world has limited resources. These resources are used to "create wealth". When these resources are horded by people, there aren't as many for other people to use...hence it becomes increasingly more difficult for them to "create wealth."
Now, the fact that the US uses over 40% of the world natural resources, definately leaves the rest of the world worse off. Combine that with our inability to actually have a democracy, much less spread one around the globe, and you end up with a very tyranical, corporate greed run game. Which is, I belive, where we stand today.
Even the poorest people in America are immeasurable more prosperous than the rest of the world.
And immeasurably more poor than they used to be. Our average wage right now is less than it was in the 1970's. Obviously, somebody isn't out there "creating wealth" for themselves huh? Or at least not enough.
This idea that a market based on finite resources will just grow forever is one of the most amusing failings of otherwise intellegent people. I mean, it feels really good to think that way, because you get a lot less guilt. But it is just logically untrue.
From the very beginning, our founding fathers knew what they were doing
Yeah. They were committing genocide.
Your head is so far up your ass it's not even funny. First of all, I hardly think "humanity" as a whole, worldwide, benefits from the capitalist ventures here in the US. There are actually many obvious examples to the contrary. But I'll leave those up to you to investigate if you ever decide to wake up.
Competition for resources is the result of the protection of SOME peoples property...and the exploitation of other people. You see, the WHOLE world belongs to the people that live on it. When certain large organizations or countries decide to consume 40% or more of the natural resources of the planet, than that is not quite fair. Some people realize that and grow to resent that fact. The idea of a permanently growing market is a pipe dream used to allow ignorant people in the US to not feel bad that they are holding back the rest of the world. We've done everything we can to prevent Democracy from taking over around the world. Look at central america for instance. (Really look - Don't just buy what you were told on TV. I mean research it. You know?)
For America to be as prosperous as it is, other people are going to have to be extrememly poor. And what's really funny, is that while "America" is extremely prosperous, only the top 20% really see that. The rest do OK, but are constantly getting beaten down by the top 20%. How else to you explain that our average real wage right now is less than in was in the 1970's? Even after the advances in automation, why do we all work more hours, for less pay?
These all seem to be problems that capitalists, being so warm and cushy in their new SUV, don't care to think about. But if you want a glimpse into what causes the rest of the world to have so much contempt for us...it's a good place to start. p. BTW - Socialist, and others who want to redistribute wealth, worldwide even, get a monopoly on "enlightened" because compared to the other alternatives offered, they are. Remember in elementary school how they said to share, and not beat up your neighbor? Why does that work in school, but not geopolitics?
The only world we are trying to save right now, as we know it...is that of the military industrial complex bent on exploitation. To do that, out in the open, you need a simple way to pull the wool over the peoples eyes. The war on "Terrah" is one of those ways. It doesn't even BEGIN to come close to actually solving any of the causes of terrorism...in fact it does the opposite. And takes a way a whole lot of personal freedom at the same time.
Of course..it is a lot easier to sit and watch Larry King, and feel warm and fuzzy knowing that we are doing the RIGHT thing out there...but its just not the truth. The road to fighting "evil" starts here at home. Even if you use our own definition of evil, and hold our nations actions up and compare. I think you will see who biggest terrorist state is.
No. But the thousand of innocent civilians who died in Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Palestein, Iraq and a whole host of other nations we have exploited for all of recorded American history weren't a part of the "WAR" either.
This country would do so much better if people actually read shit instead of watching the fucking television hoping to become educated members of society.
It is appearantly fasionable and politically correct to just DENY about 75% of our history and interaction in the world.
If you fail to see why people outside this country have a much more valid reason to hate us than we do of them, YOU are the idiot my friend(s).
It's all written down. It's called history. It doesn't look favorably upon us. Other than the section referring to most exploitative, most repressive, most warmongering....etc...
Wake the FUCK up people. This gov't that is supposedly protecting you is doing the opposite. It's so fucking sad...and no one even notices...
Just for clarification purposes. Do you mean take care of "themselves" as individual units? Or rather, work together for "their" common good?
I'm all for restricting gas-guzzlers and condemning worker exploitation as long as it's not done by laws punishable by imprisonment.
Well I agree, and I disagree. I think if anything deserves a prison sentence, it is worker exploitation, in all of it's many, many forms...
But I do agree. Prison sentences, much like death sentences, are not something to be handed down by the state. Unfortunately, most people seem to be far too unenlightened to be able to envision an alternative. And I fear they are FAR, FAR to unenlightened to even consider a society where people actually cared for one another, and helped one another...eliminating competition for resources, and hence the root of almost all crime. But, I could be way too much of an idealist. Or just plain wrong.
I'm a Libertarian because I'd pretty much be happiest with an anarchy which is protected from a hostile outside world. Otherwise I have faith that unhindered education can take care of the rest.
"Hostile World Outside" being what? The "outside" world, outside the U.S. that doesn't like our exploitation? Or by outside, do you mean some other world? As far as I know, worlds within several light years have been found to be uninhabited so far. And as far as I know, we all appear to be humans, "sharing" the same world. Although, "sharing" doesn't quite seem to be the right term...considering the lack of balance in the way world resources are consumed.
Perhaps the mental division made so often between "us" and "them" when referring to the world, fosters some of these hostile feelings you need protection from. I am fairly staunch in my belief that the record shows our interventions in the "world outside" has pretty much strictly lead us to the "hostile" world we deal with today. But hang me for treason already...(not you personally, just general public sentiment these days..)
Anarchy would be a pretty sweet idea, except that it CANNOT ever possibly exist on this planet. The social power structures already exist. Removing regulation only increases their power. If we somehow instituted anarchy it would simply allow he with the biggest guns to dominate...(not that he doesn't already. But at least there are laws on the book that benifit someone else slightly...) I believe it is fairly obvious where we would end up.
I just fail to see how the libertarian stance would do anything except turn us into a third world nation with marginalized, atomized workers, and an extremely concentrated groupings of wealth in the upper classes. (Hey...kinda like the conservatives (conservative in the traditional sense) have already done for us.) So who knows...maybe making it just outright BLATENT would motive people to actually give a shit...maybe you libertarians are on to something...
I believe anarchy "in theory" could work. But it would take a serious overhaul of almost everyones values. And no one is committed to change when you can watch AWESOME shows like Anna Nicole on T.V. To do it without just completely handing over the reins to the group with the biggest "DEFENSE" budget, basically *ALL* modern weapons would have to be destroyed...along with all conventional money systems. Either that, or the money in those systems would have to face a cold boot and be reset to a base state where everyone is actually equal. But, I highly doubt anyone is really open to that option. Even those who would benefit from it the most.
"And let's not forget that Gnutella allows all kinds of information to be spread across the Internet" Why is it that this anonymous coward makes it sound like the spread of information is a bad thing? If people want to spread MP3's illegally...let them....pornography....racist maniefestos....andything they want...its information. If they feel the need to spread it, they have the right. If you don't want it, don't take it. Ultimately I've come to the conclusion over the last couple of months that the internet is ultimately doomed to the same fate as television...it will soon be a passive media. You will be monitored, and then spoon fed things you are likely to like...all from large corporate media conglomerates. Why is this? Because dumb asses like this anonymous coward don't realize the inherent freedom of speech present in the internet, in fact they actually CRY OUT to have it removed.... The internet is doomed....I read a post the other day that advocated building a guerrilla network of donated servers....I'm all about it...