They are indeed worlds apart as far as risk goes. Sacrifice is something else entirely. He who is willing to sacrifice for his fellow man is deserving of respect, plain and simple. Those who risk their lives might be referred to as adrenalin junkies. I'm a veteran, and I still take risks that seldom have anything to do with service or sacrifice - I love the adrenalin rush.
Let us not confuse risk and sacrifice, and let us give due respect and consideration to those who stand as our equals. There are plenty who have never served in any capacity, or sacrificed or risked anything at all for their fellow man.
I am a man who recognizes few superiors. I have, however, met superior persons, whom I could only look up to. A fair number of those persons were military, but certainly not all of them. In fact, some of those persons came from impoverished regions of the world, lacked formal education, and lacked any recognition from anyone other than the local people who knew them. ALL of my superiors serve their fellow man, in some capacity or another.
No, it's still impersonal, in that no individual has targeted you as an individual for his own personal attentions. A corporation very impersonally scoops up all the data they can find on you, crunches numbers, and the computer decides on the proper advertisements. The guy sitting at the computer doesn't give one small damn about me, he isn't saving photos of me to his own personal flash drive, he isn't actually salivating over my choice of underwear, or socks, or anything like that. To him, I'm just some odd numbers within a stream of data.
The moment that he peeks within those number streams, and spots something that turns him on (or off, as the case may be), and he intervenes in some person's life, THEN it becomes stalking.
Correct. Service, and willingness to sacrifice. I extend as much respect to a doctor who volunteers to serve an impoverished community, here or abroad, as I have for those who served in uniform while carrying a weapon. And, Heinlein's views support my own. Willingness to serve your fellow man defines your own value, IMHO. The selfish bastard who only ever thinks of himself is so much worthless trash in my book.
There are just so many clueless monkeys out there. Maybe some of them will read your words, and give them a thought or two. I don't hold out much hope, but maybe.
I will note that the movie made no attempt to delve into the political statements made in the book. Of course, Hollyweird isn't really into libertarian thought, so they would have brushed over that if they did understand it.
I'll echo what ceoyoyo said, and add that companies should be actively protesting any unreasonable laws that require them to save data. Data storage may not be a huge cost, but it is a cost. Government shouldn't require any business to store data without clear, convincing justification. And, I mean clear, convincing justification that a reasonable person can agree with - not justification that only a spook or a lawyer can understand.
I don't know about that - the assassin seemed to be as healthy and happy at the end of the movie as the crew of the Serenity. And, despite being the evil sinister bastard all through the movie, he seemed to adapt to the new reality in which he found himself.
Sorry - you lose out on the FDA. FDA routinely approves of drugs that are later recalled. Restless leg syndrome, anyone? It wouldn't take you any effort to find a couple dozen other examples. Your food is contaminated with food colorings which have been blamed for behavioural problems including ADD. Your food is also contaminated with hormones and antibiotics. Then there are genetically modified foods, which should be labeled. You can make a reasonable argument that GMO's are safe - there isn't any proof yet either way. But, they should be LABELED so that Mom can decide whether to feed GMO's to her kids.
OSHA? That one is very highly debatable. Perhaps you confuse OSHA of 30 years ago with today's OSHA. The vast majority of OSHA's "investigations" today involve state employees investigating complaints, which are just sloughed off. Only in high profile cases does OSHA send in federal agents.
NHTSA? When I was in school, I think that maybe you could brag on NHTSA. Today - I guess they are doing their job fairly well, but you don't get to brag on them. Why haven't they taken the lead on cell phone technology as it pertains to driving? Every single day, "accidents" happen because some idiot can't wait until he is parked to text someone.
Government CAN regulate effectively, sometimes. But, government DOES NOT regulate effectively very often.
Salutes for your dismissal of government regulation of banking. Apparently, you are aware that bankers just buy the regulations they want . . .
That is pretty much true. I'm not a gamer. I like to play a game now and then, but I don't view computers as gaming machines. I won't pay fifty or sixty dollars for a game, and I certainly won't jump through the hoops necessary to make a game work, on Windows, Linux, or any other platform. I won't invest in a gaming platform.
The things I expect a computer to do, however, are pretty easy to do on Linux. Crunch numbers, communicate with the outside world, watch multimedia, solve moderately complex problems, solve more complex problems - you know, COMPUTING. Games are fun and relaxing, not a goal in and of themselves.
Let us suppose that General Motors is incapable of either putting up a website, or of contracting that job out to someone who is competent. Just suppose that General Motors has zero presence on today's internet. None. They are so clueless, that they don't see the need to invest the resources into an online presence. Just pretend that to be true.
Do you really think that such clueless fools could possibly build a safe, reliable automobile? Do you really?
That is what we are seeing with ACA. It's perfectly alright that none of the people in politics understand how to put up a website. What is unforgivable, is that they have no idea how to go about hiring competent people to put up their site.
If they are incapable of attracting and hiring competent people to perform one job, what in the HELL makes anyone think that they can find competent people to perform another job?
"You know, in certain older civilized cultures, when men failed as entirely as you have, they would throw themselves on their swords."
I'm really not much into today's Kumbayah shit. A whole lot of government figures should be throwing themselves on their swords. For those who lack the honor and/or the fortitude, we have Seal Teams. At least those that haven't been murdered in recent years . . . .
Stalking is personal. The data mining is impersonal.
If I were to keep dossiers on the two, or ten, or thirty hottest women I could find, that would be stalking. If, on the other hand, I'm keeping dossiers on everyone in my county, it isn't stalking.
People are refuting the facts you posted. Fact is, I have never created an Apple account before. Never. Following your link, I found that the directions contained in the link are in fact somewhat outdated. But - using that link, I found the information necessary to create a new account, using fictitious information, and NO CREDIT CARD NUMBER had to be submitted. As a result of testing the validity of your post, I now have an account with which I might download "stuff", without ever paying for anything. Hell - I'm gonna go poke around, and see if they have anything that I'm even interested in. Do they have free music? Guess I'll find out . . . .
Exactly. Keep the absolute minimum of logs, and delete those logs routinely when they are no longer needed. Don't ask for personally identifying data, and if your business actually requires any type of such data - delete it as soon as practicable. Sixty or ninety days after payment for a purchase has cleared - you certainly don't need the identifying information any longer. Just delete it. There is no justification for selling that information to marketers. None. There is certainly no justification for keeping it around just in case Uncle Sam should ask for it. Tell Uncle to pay for his own investigations.
I'm impressed at both your knowledge, and your effort to put all that down into print for me - as well as those others who might read it. Salutes.
The Supreme court has made some decisions in recent times that support my point of view, or at least in part. Washington D.C's virtual ban on weapons was overturned. In effect, they ruled that no jurisdiction has the authority to ban handguns, or firearms, or weapons. There must, instead, be REASONABLE laws.
Let us revisit the second amendment, for a moment. Humor me now -
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Of course, there is, and has been, much debate over that language. And, both "sides" of the debate miss a very important idea when the debates rage. Both sides grant that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state - anti-gun people say that the National Guard satisfies that requirement, and that no one else has the right to bear arm. A lot of second amendment supporters properly point out that all able-bodied males between ages 18 and 40 ARE MEMBERS of the militia, and therefore the law applies to all men.
What both sides miss, is the "well regulated" part. And, I'm thinking that MAYBE the Supremes have had that idea in their minds with some of their recent decisions.
"Well regulated" allows for a whole lot of rules, regulations, and laws that pro-gun people might not like very much. A requirement that all weapons be secured in a safe unless under the direct control of a lawfully authorized person would be tedious for many of us - but it would be reasonable. Background checks are another tool available to the states.
Reasonable regulations can be, and should be, put into place. Even some that pro-gunners might not like. But - Chicago, and others, with their virtual bans on weapons, are entirely out of line. No rational, sane law abiding citizen should EVER be denied the right to carry his gun, open carry, anywhere he chooses to carry. Convicts and nutcases, on the other hand - should NEVER get a weapon, period. Especially convicts and nutcases who may have a history of violence.
Any law that is routinely interpreted as a ban on legal possession of weapons by a responsible citizen needs to be overturned, and thrown out, as "unconstitutional". The constitution of the United States guarantees every free man the right to defend himself and his loved ones. It's really that simple, in my mind. Any law that deprives you, or me, or an honest citizen of Chicago, of the right to defend himself, is unconstitutional. One does NOT need the "permission" of a sheriff, a county judge, or a board of jurists to approve of a request to carry. One has that right, by virtue of being a law abiding citizen.
Back to that "well regulated" bit again. I have zero problems with the feds, or the states, or even the cities promulgating reasonable regulations. None. The federal government should draw up some acceptable guidelines, the states should work to come up with their own guidelines which would comply with the fed's more general guidelines. Then - cities such as Chicago can work within those guidelines. That would be an ideal situation.
Instead, we see the sheriff of Cook County making it a matter of policy to knock on doors, and confiscate both permits and weapons on any excuse. An ex-husband or ex-wife gets an injunction against you - here comes the sheriff. No charges, no conviction, no day in court - the sheriff comes to get your weapons because your ex filed for an injunction. Or - your "permit" expires - here comes the sheriff. If you should be charged with something more serious than a traffic violation - here comes the sheriff.
The gun isn't composed of sentient beings who exercise free will. The NSA is composed of such beings. Further, those sentient beings make routine requests for funding, continually growing their strength and their abilities. More, the gun doesn't deceive the wielder, keeping information secret, while offering disinformation in testimony and public press releases.
You analogy simply sucks. The NSA is not an inanimate object, nor are the people who work for the NSA.
Apparently, YOU are unaware that in the United States, CITIZENS have the ultimate power. If/when we get pissed off at the status quo, we can tear down what passes for a government, and shitcan it, then start all over again. It's in the constitution. It is one of our inalienable rights. The power is ours, the power is not Washington's.
Spying on US citizens isn't a disease, it is merely a symptom of the disease. Spying on allied governments is another symptom. Spying on neutral governments is another symptom. Spying on citizens of other nations is yet another symptom.
The actual disease is, the desire to know everything, and hence, to control everything.
When you understand what the NSA's goals are, then you begin to understand how much is wrong. When a doctor learns that a patient has sneezes and sniffles, he doesn't stop there to treat the sneezes and the sniffles. He attempts to learn whether the patient has any more symptoms, then he attempts to make a diagnosis. Prism is just one of many symptoms that go into diagnosing the real problem.
I'm a US citizen. The constitution says that I have a right to be armed. No lesser authority, no lower level of government, has the authority to make a law that deprives me of that right. In fact, I'm advocating LESS government. That "more uniform gun laws" actually translates into "fewer gun laws", and less government involvement in my life, and yours.
You slipped up Esther. You were holding a cat, and the guy doing the interview mentioned that you have a houseful of cats. The secret is out - the cats do it all, and you just take credit for all their work. FAKE!! You're just as fake as my wife!
Good interview, actually. Now I'm curious, I want to poke around, and see what you've submitted in the past. (now you've done it - I've learned something! You can click on a person's profile, click "submissions", and right there, Slashdot tells you everything that person has submitted! Who'da thunk it!) Generally, I don't even bother to read who submitted a story, I just jump in when something appeals to me and/or I think I have something to add.
Perhaps you read the wrong emphasis into my statement. I didn't say to outlaw fully auto weapons - I said "prevents most people from having fully automatic weapons".
Sensible parents don't go out and buy a semiautomatic weapon, and give it to their kids, either. I realize that some parents do exactly that, but they aren't SENSIBLE parents. A first weapon should be a single shot match.22, and the kid's only destination with that weapon for a long time should be a shooting range. Kids should earn the privilege of carrying larger, more powerful, and more sophisticated weapons.
I am also a motorcycle rider. I like the way Europe approaches youth on motorcycles. Kids start out on machines with limited horsepower, then move up through a couple less limited classes before they are permitted to own an unrestricted street machine. Here in the states, a kid's first bike is often a ten thousand dollar machine with 70 or more horsepower, capable of running over 150 mph.
Everyone should have the right to own a weapon, just as everyone should have the right to ride a motorcycle - but not everyone is capable of handling a fully auto weapon, or a Hayabusa.
Slashdot Mirror
They are indeed worlds apart as far as risk goes. Sacrifice is something else entirely. He who is willing to sacrifice for his fellow man is deserving of respect, plain and simple. Those who risk their lives might be referred to as adrenalin junkies. I'm a veteran, and I still take risks that seldom have anything to do with service or sacrifice - I love the adrenalin rush.
Let us not confuse risk and sacrifice, and let us give due respect and consideration to those who stand as our equals. There are plenty who have never served in any capacity, or sacrificed or risked anything at all for their fellow man.
I am a man who recognizes few superiors. I have, however, met superior persons, whom I could only look up to. A fair number of those persons were military, but certainly not all of them. In fact, some of those persons came from impoverished regions of the world, lacked formal education, and lacked any recognition from anyone other than the local people who knew them. ALL of my superiors serve their fellow man, in some capacity or another.
No, it's still impersonal, in that no individual has targeted you as an individual for his own personal attentions. A corporation very impersonally scoops up all the data they can find on you, crunches numbers, and the computer decides on the proper advertisements. The guy sitting at the computer doesn't give one small damn about me, he isn't saving photos of me to his own personal flash drive, he isn't actually salivating over my choice of underwear, or socks, or anything like that. To him, I'm just some odd numbers within a stream of data.
The moment that he peeks within those number streams, and spots something that turns him on (or off, as the case may be), and he intervenes in some person's life, THEN it becomes stalking.
Correct. Service, and willingness to sacrifice. I extend as much respect to a doctor who volunteers to serve an impoverished community, here or abroad, as I have for those who served in uniform while carrying a weapon. And, Heinlein's views support my own. Willingness to serve your fellow man defines your own value, IMHO. The selfish bastard who only ever thinks of himself is so much worthless trash in my book.
+1 insightful
There are just so many clueless monkeys out there. Maybe some of them will read your words, and give them a thought or two. I don't hold out much hope, but maybe.
The satire was Hollyweird's, not Heinlein's. The story portrayed in the movie is NOT the story that Heinlein wrote.
"speaks to the very vapidity the movie skewers"
Hollyweird is the definition of vapidity, IMO.
I will note that the movie made no attempt to delve into the political statements made in the book. Of course, Hollyweird isn't really into libertarian thought, so they would have brushed over that if they did understand it.
I'll echo what ceoyoyo said, and add that companies should be actively protesting any unreasonable laws that require them to save data. Data storage may not be a huge cost, but it is a cost. Government shouldn't require any business to store data without clear, convincing justification. And, I mean clear, convincing justification that a reasonable person can agree with - not justification that only a spook or a lawyer can understand.
I don't know about that - the assassin seemed to be as healthy and happy at the end of the movie as the crew of the Serenity. And, despite being the evil sinister bastard all through the movie, he seemed to adapt to the new reality in which he found himself.
Sorry - you lose out on the FDA. FDA routinely approves of drugs that are later recalled. Restless leg syndrome, anyone? It wouldn't take you any effort to find a couple dozen other examples. Your food is contaminated with food colorings which have been blamed for behavioural problems including ADD. Your food is also contaminated with hormones and antibiotics. Then there are genetically modified foods, which should be labeled. You can make a reasonable argument that GMO's are safe - there isn't any proof yet either way. But, they should be LABELED so that Mom can decide whether to feed GMO's to her kids.
OSHA? That one is very highly debatable. Perhaps you confuse OSHA of 30 years ago with today's OSHA. The vast majority of OSHA's "investigations" today involve state employees investigating complaints, which are just sloughed off. Only in high profile cases does OSHA send in federal agents.
NHTSA? When I was in school, I think that maybe you could brag on NHTSA. Today - I guess they are doing their job fairly well, but you don't get to brag on them. Why haven't they taken the lead on cell phone technology as it pertains to driving? Every single day, "accidents" happen because some idiot can't wait until he is parked to text someone.
Government CAN regulate effectively, sometimes. But, government DOES NOT regulate effectively very often.
Salutes for your dismissal of government regulation of banking. Apparently, you are aware that bankers just buy the regulations they want . . .
That is pretty much true. I'm not a gamer. I like to play a game now and then, but I don't view computers as gaming machines. I won't pay fifty or sixty dollars for a game, and I certainly won't jump through the hoops necessary to make a game work, on Windows, Linux, or any other platform. I won't invest in a gaming platform.
The things I expect a computer to do, however, are pretty easy to do on Linux. Crunch numbers, communicate with the outside world, watch multimedia, solve moderately complex problems, solve more complex problems - you know, COMPUTING. Games are fun and relaxing, not a goal in and of themselves.
Well - let's examine this idea.
Let us suppose that General Motors is incapable of either putting up a website, or of contracting that job out to someone who is competent. Just suppose that General Motors has zero presence on today's internet. None. They are so clueless, that they don't see the need to invest the resources into an online presence. Just pretend that to be true.
Do you really think that such clueless fools could possibly build a safe, reliable automobile? Do you really?
That is what we are seeing with ACA. It's perfectly alright that none of the people in politics understand how to put up a website. What is unforgivable, is that they have no idea how to go about hiring competent people to put up their site.
If they are incapable of attracting and hiring competent people to perform one job, what in the HELL makes anyone think that they can find competent people to perform another job?
Odd - Windows, in it's various incarnations, has cost me much much MUCH more than Linux ever cost me, in terms of time, frustration, and aggravation.
"You know, in certain older civilized cultures, when men failed as entirely as you have, they would throw themselves on their swords."
I'm really not much into today's Kumbayah shit. A whole lot of government figures should be throwing themselves on their swords. For those who lack the honor and/or the fortitude, we have Seal Teams. At least those that haven't been murdered in recent years . . . .
Stalking is personal. The data mining is impersonal.
If I were to keep dossiers on the two, or ten, or thirty hottest women I could find, that would be stalking. If, on the other hand, I'm keeping dossiers on everyone in my county, it isn't stalking.
People are refuting the facts you posted. Fact is, I have never created an Apple account before. Never. Following your link, I found that the directions contained in the link are in fact somewhat outdated. But - using that link, I found the information necessary to create a new account, using fictitious information, and NO CREDIT CARD NUMBER had to be submitted. As a result of testing the validity of your post, I now have an account with which I might download "stuff", without ever paying for anything. Hell - I'm gonna go poke around, and see if they have anything that I'm even interested in. Do they have free music? Guess I'll find out . . . .
Exactly. Keep the absolute minimum of logs, and delete those logs routinely when they are no longer needed. Don't ask for personally identifying data, and if your business actually requires any type of such data - delete it as soon as practicable. Sixty or ninety days after payment for a purchase has cleared - you certainly don't need the identifying information any longer. Just delete it. There is no justification for selling that information to marketers. None. There is certainly no justification for keeping it around just in case Uncle Sam should ask for it. Tell Uncle to pay for his own investigations.
I'm impressed at both your knowledge, and your effort to put all that down into print for me - as well as those others who might read it. Salutes.
The Supreme court has made some decisions in recent times that support my point of view, or at least in part. Washington D.C's virtual ban on weapons was overturned. In effect, they ruled that no jurisdiction has the authority to ban handguns, or firearms, or weapons. There must, instead, be REASONABLE laws.
Let us revisit the second amendment, for a moment. Humor me now -
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Of course, there is, and has been, much debate over that language. And, both "sides" of the debate miss a very important idea when the debates rage. Both sides grant that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state - anti-gun people say that the National Guard satisfies that requirement, and that no one else has the right to bear arm. A lot of second amendment supporters properly point out that all able-bodied males between ages 18 and 40 ARE MEMBERS of the militia, and therefore the law applies to all men.
What both sides miss, is the "well regulated" part. And, I'm thinking that MAYBE the Supremes have had that idea in their minds with some of their recent decisions.
"Well regulated" allows for a whole lot of rules, regulations, and laws that pro-gun people might not like very much. A requirement that all weapons be secured in a safe unless under the direct control of a lawfully authorized person would be tedious for many of us - but it would be reasonable. Background checks are another tool available to the states.
Reasonable regulations can be, and should be, put into place. Even some that pro-gunners might not like. But - Chicago, and others, with their virtual bans on weapons, are entirely out of line. No rational, sane law abiding citizen should EVER be denied the right to carry his gun, open carry, anywhere he chooses to carry. Convicts and nutcases, on the other hand - should NEVER get a weapon, period. Especially convicts and nutcases who may have a history of violence.
Any law that is routinely interpreted as a ban on legal possession of weapons by a responsible citizen needs to be overturned, and thrown out, as "unconstitutional". The constitution of the United States guarantees every free man the right to defend himself and his loved ones. It's really that simple, in my mind. Any law that deprives you, or me, or an honest citizen of Chicago, of the right to defend himself, is unconstitutional. One does NOT need the "permission" of a sheriff, a county judge, or a board of jurists to approve of a request to carry. One has that right, by virtue of being a law abiding citizen.
Back to that "well regulated" bit again. I have zero problems with the feds, or the states, or even the cities promulgating reasonable regulations. None. The federal government should draw up some acceptable guidelines, the states should work to come up with their own guidelines which would comply with the fed's more general guidelines. Then - cities such as Chicago can work within those guidelines. That would be an ideal situation.
Instead, we see the sheriff of Cook County making it a matter of policy to knock on doors, and confiscate both permits and weapons on any excuse. An ex-husband or ex-wife gets an injunction against you - here comes the sheriff. No charges, no conviction, no day in court - the sheriff comes to get your weapons because your ex filed for an injunction. Or - your "permit" expires - here comes the sheriff. If you should be charged with something more serious than a traffic violation - here comes the sheriff.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/illinois-cook-county-begins-gun-confiscation/
I'm opposed to gun registration for that very reason. I don't bel
The gun isn't composed of sentient beings who exercise free will. The NSA is composed of such beings. Further, those sentient beings make routine requests for funding, continually growing their strength and their abilities. More, the gun doesn't deceive the wielder, keeping information secret, while offering disinformation in testimony and public press releases.
You analogy simply sucks. The NSA is not an inanimate object, nor are the people who work for the NSA.
Apparently, YOU are unaware that in the United States, CITIZENS have the ultimate power. If/when we get pissed off at the status quo, we can tear down what passes for a government, and shitcan it, then start all over again. It's in the constitution. It is one of our inalienable rights. The power is ours, the power is not Washington's.
Preposterous.
Spying on US citizens isn't a disease, it is merely a symptom of the disease. Spying on allied governments is another symptom. Spying on neutral governments is another symptom. Spying on citizens of other nations is yet another symptom.
The actual disease is, the desire to know everything, and hence, to control everything.
When you understand what the NSA's goals are, then you begin to understand how much is wrong. When a doctor learns that a patient has sneezes and sniffles, he doesn't stop there to treat the sneezes and the sniffles. He attempts to learn whether the patient has any more symptoms, then he attempts to make a diagnosis. Prism is just one of many symptoms that go into diagnosing the real problem.
I'm saying quite the opposite, actually.
I'm a US citizen. The constitution says that I have a right to be armed. No lesser authority, no lower level of government, has the authority to make a law that deprives me of that right. In fact, I'm advocating LESS government. That "more uniform gun laws" actually translates into "fewer gun laws", and less government involvement in my life, and yours.
You err, but only because you manage to confuse bush league teams with professional league teams.
You slipped up Esther. You were holding a cat, and the guy doing the interview mentioned that you have a houseful of cats. The secret is out - the cats do it all, and you just take credit for all their work. FAKE!! You're just as fake as my wife!
Good interview, actually. Now I'm curious, I want to poke around, and see what you've submitted in the past. (now you've done it - I've learned something! You can click on a person's profile, click "submissions", and right there, Slashdot tells you everything that person has submitted! Who'da thunk it!) Generally, I don't even bother to read who submitted a story, I just jump in when something appeals to me and/or I think I have something to add.
Perhaps you read the wrong emphasis into my statement. I didn't say to outlaw fully auto weapons - I said "prevents most people from having fully automatic weapons".
Sensible parents don't go out and buy a semiautomatic weapon, and give it to their kids, either. I realize that some parents do exactly that, but they aren't SENSIBLE parents. A first weapon should be a single shot match .22, and the kid's only destination with that weapon for a long time should be a shooting range. Kids should earn the privilege of carrying larger, more powerful, and more sophisticated weapons.
I am also a motorcycle rider. I like the way Europe approaches youth on motorcycles. Kids start out on machines with limited horsepower, then move up through a couple less limited classes before they are permitted to own an unrestricted street machine. Here in the states, a kid's first bike is often a ten thousand dollar machine with 70 or more horsepower, capable of running over 150 mph.
Everyone should have the right to own a weapon, just as everyone should have the right to ride a motorcycle - but not everyone is capable of handling a fully auto weapon, or a Hayabusa.