Economic force is not 'some people have more than others,' it is 'you have the freedom to starve to death. or, you could do whatever I tell you." Force is used to protect the haves from the have nots. What do the have nots get from the agreement? Why should they respect other people's property?
I am decidedly not seeking a system of equal results. I am seeking a system where the natural human heirarchy is not subverted by power seeking individuals, where some people have more if and only if most people agree they deserve it. where respect is freely given and not taken with force. In order to have more in such a system, people will need to earn it, not take it against the wishes of others.
Beyond a certain amount necessary for life, and a little more to give freedom of action. money represents only power over other people's lives.
You pay others to do the things you don't want to. That is power over others. They probably would rather not do them either. But you have the power, and it does not matter if they could do your job better than you, you set the rules.
Plenty of people in life make good decisions and work their ass off, and get nowhere. Plenty of others get handed everything, due to nothing more than luck. Both sorts of people think they deserve what they have. That is one of the privileges of power: no one dares contradict your self serving beliefs.
If an employer treats employees badly, the employees will simply have to suck it up unless they have other options. When they try to organize, the owners feel justified in using force to protect their property. They don't build their own business because our economic system has denied them the opportunity to amass capital, and even though they may be better leaders than those with capital, they do not get the chance to demonstrate that. Leaders are not better than followers. A leader without followers is nothing. But because we overvalue the leadership role, and undervalue the follower role, people who are not natural leaders seek out such positions, even though they are bad at them.
A free market can not exist absent physical force. A free market is based on property ownership, and ownership is based on force. Without the threat of force, how could anyone enforce ownership over distant resources? If someone is using a resource directly, they own it through use and people naturally respect that more than if they say, "see that fruit tree over there that I'm not using? Yeah, I own that and you can't take the fruit, even though I'm not using it. But I'll let you pick the fruit for me while I sit on my fat ass, and maybe I'll even give you a little of it." Without the threat of force, no one would accept such a ludicrous proposition. Only people who actually use a resource should control it.
Good lord. That thing was a space dildo? I'd hate to see the giant, planet devouring vagina it went in. Wait, we did see it, didn't we? Kirk flew a starship right up it.
Are you checking for my replies every ten minutes? It's flattering, really, but give it a rest, you've lost and your baseless assertions to the contrary demonstrably fool no one. You don't understand my mocking the minority party of 'real Americans.' Libertarians seem to believe exactly what I say they believe, despite the lies they tell themselves so they can sleep at night. Libertarianism in a nutshell: Me! Me! Me! I've got mine, so fuck the rest of you. Every libertarians secretly wants to be the master and ruler of everyone and everything, the only one with all the power. Which is why libertarians can't organize as a party, no one will listen to anyone else because everyone wants to be the emperor.
I'm a terrible liar who convinces multiple moderators here to mod me up. Who came out smelling better in this exchange? Not you, poindexter. Learn how to sling insults and fight dirty if you're going to go that route. You look like a fucking amateur.
No, a free market is not what happens without regulations. We need regulations to keep it free, or the markets will be dominated and controlled by the biggest players. As long as people can and do use force to enforce their deals and ownerships, economic coercion is just as real as any other type of coercion. But you probably see that as a 'freedom.' The freedom to get whatever you can from others, the freedom to amass as much power over others as you can, the freedom to have and dominate the have nots. Those are not real freedoms, but mere licenses.
What you describe as 'freedom' is mere license. It is not freedom at all, it means that the powerful are free to oppress the weak and call it 'helping' them. Freedom is a social construct. Without society, all there is is power. Can you do it, or can't you? That is all. Only through contracts between individuals are freedoms created. Every freedom comes with two costs, something you can't do, and something you must do. You can't infringe another's freedom, and you must defend him when his freedom is infringed. It is only through this agreement to refrain from certain behaviors and defend others that we create freedom. Can you see the difference between freedom and license now? "The freedom to do as you please" is mere license, "The freedom to make of yourself what you will" also license, and the freedom to fail is an anti-freedom, not even license.
Libertarians are the people I am targeting with my signature. Libertarians want license, not freedom. Libertarian's political theory and agenda can be summed up by the phrase we all remember from childhood: "You're not the boss of me!"
Libertarians look at the free market as a God. They start from the dogmatic belief that the free market can do no wrong, and work backward from there to find the 'evidence' needed to reach that conclusion. For any given scenario, the answer is always "the free market will do it," like God, the free market is all powerful and all loving.
Libertarians do not care about freedom in any real sense. The reason they want less government is because governments can be used by the powerless to stymie the will of the powerful, and libertarians do not want to limit their license to do whatever the hell they want without consequences. "Freedom" to a libertarian means the freedom to oppress the less powerful, to offer up a trade of "Do what we say, or starve to death."
In short, libertarians want all of the benefits of living in a cooperative society, without any of the duties that go along with those benefits.
Wow! You know what I actually meant better than I do! Scary. Do you read minds, or is it some kind of clairvoyance? Actually, fuck it. You're a loon, and there's no debating loons. Nothing you say has any relevance to the real world, it's all just your own fucking ego trip. "Blah blah blah, look at me, I see the TRUTH, unlike you deluded fools!" Have fun in your fantasy world, freakshow. You live there alone.
Oh noes! I was called out for pointing out by way of example what conservatives do, telling other Americans they aren't 'real.' Yes, that makes me just like them, to the satire impaired.
I'm not a 'winger' of any stripe. I'm a fucking anarcho-socialist, capice? I voted for Obama as the (far) lesser of two evils. You assholes who try to equate the left and right wings are being totally disingenuous, and it isn't because you are in any way independent. From what I've witnessed, you're all disenchanted Bush Republicans who have gone over to the batshit crazy tea party. You have no defense for what your party has done, so you falsely claim that both major parties are identical. Not true. Democrats are influenced by big money and special interests. Republicans are owned by them, lock, stock and barrel.
Well that depends on whether you really mean freedom, or you just mean the license to do whatever the hell you want to. I don't think you understand what freedom really means.
Funny, the majority of Americans disagree with you about that. How's it feel to be a powerless minority? What you call damage, real Americans call progress. In fact, most of us think he hasn't done enough. He's too centrist, we all wish he was a real socialist, but he's not. Frankly, I don't understand why the right wing hates him, he's practically a clone of Ronald Reagan, who, by the by, is Obama's stated favorite president. Senile Ronald freaking Reagan, our 'socialist' president's favorite. Doesn't that beat all? Bet you never heard that, listening to the delusional right wing echo chamber.
Okay, I lied. I do know why the right wing hates him. To the right wing, it doesn't matter what Obama really is. He's the enemy, and he must fail for them to win. Thus, the constant stream of lies. But real lefties like myself are even more disappointed in the man than you probably are. Repealed DADT yet? No. Stopped torture? No. Prosecuted anyone in the Bush admin for war crimes? Are you fucking joking? Gotten out of Iraq? No. Socialized health care? Hah! Not even close. Reined in Wall Street? Hardly. Face it, Obama is a center right corporatist, about as far as you can get from a socialist, despite what the right claims.
I don't think you needed to jump on that hyperbole, as I doubt anyone with half a brain failed to recognize it as a humorous reversal of the normal 'frames per second,' as when we say that Hummers get 10 gallons to the mile.
I'm asking you, how do you get 3D acceleration from a VM? You don't. If your games run fine without 3D acceleration, they aren't the same games I run. I'm currently playing Fallout 3 Game of the Year edition at 1920 by 1080 resolution, it looks beautiful and the frame rate is high.
I'd be interested to hear the results of your investigation. Having tried games with 3D acceleration under VMs, I can say, they have to use software rendering because a virtual machine can not grant direct access to the 3D hardware, and that drops your frame rates down to 1-2 frames per second for even the simplest games.
Well I'm glad you got that vitriol of your chest before you realized you weren't responding to what I was saying. We aren't talking about WINE, which as we know is Not an Emulator. Mr. Dumbfuck was claiming QEMU would run games virtualized at full speed.
Well I'm the admin for a very large VMware system, 30 IBM Blades running Vsphere. I've taken all the classes and used VMWare for some heavy duty applications, mostly Linux based. I can explain all about virtualization performance to you, if you'd like.
Here's how I know you don't know what you're talking about. You can't virtualize a 3D card. What shows up for the VM client system is a generic card without 3D acceleration. Games are not just applications, in order to get decent performance, they need to access the hardware at a lower level than most applications.
Sure, the 'ten seconds per frame' was hyperbole, but only slight. When most people talk video games these days, we're talking 3D heavy games, not Tetris. If you've gotten any games with 3D graphics working quickly in a VM, I'd love to hear which ones and what frame rates you are getting.
Trying to explain virtualization to me is like trying to teach your grandma to suck eggs. Simple fact, unless you are a programmer working on virtualization systems (and you aren't) then I know far, far more about them than you.
Let's be more specific then: have fun running any game from the last ten years at anything better than 10 seconds per frame. It's not about not liking your comment, get over your fucking persecution complex. It's about you being an idiot who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Yeah, in theory you are right. In practice, well, let's just say the grown-ups here can tell you've never even tried what you espouse. This isn't even a Windows vs. Linux thing. I'm a Linux sysadmin, I was using it when you were still shitting yourself, sport. I use Linux for nearly everything. Everything except games. Some of us like our games a bit more complex than minesweeper and solitaire.
Fucking recent Linux converts piss me off. "Blahblahblah windows sux, linux rox, it can do anything!" yeah, yeah, we know, we were all sixteen and just discovering open source once, too.
Your comment illustrates the problems with top posting, not starting the comment in the subject line. Which in this instance does not notably break the flow because everyone is already familiar with the flow of the commercials. While you could certainly critique starting the comment in the subject line, you'd have to find a different way to do it. But then again, all of us from the Usenet era know this quote, so we can follow your analogy, flawed as it is.
spun: Hi, I'm a spun Anonymous Coward: And I'm an AC. Say, spun, whatcha doing? spun: Making a joke Anonymous Coward: Cool, can I make one? spun: Evidently not.
I believe downloads do not meet the legal definition of 'goods' under AU law and therefore, would be considered a service. The judge felt compelled by the letter of the law to render the decision he did, even saying it would lead to injustice, and calling on parliament to change the law to reflect the changing definition of 'goods.'
It's amazing what one can learn by actually reading the articles. It is not, despite what most Slashdotters seem to think, a complete waste of time that only serves to keep one from achieving a first post.
It's not a good, it's a service. Like a song played over the radio isn't a good, it's a service, while a song bought on a CD is a good. The judge recognized that his ruling could lead to injustice, and called on parliament to change the law to reflect the changes in the definition of 'goods' that the digital revolution has brought about.
I'm not sure how you got 'single, coordinated block' out of what I wrote, but yes, if I had said that it would make what I wrote a kind of conspiracy theory. Actually, I see things pretty much as you say. But in the back of all of their minds, they know that we ants could and would destroy them utterly if the majority of us ever figured out what was really going on. The power that they have comes only from our unwitting agreement to give them that power, when we agree to play by the rules they set out. Although they do not coordinate with each other to keep the peons in their place, their actions are coordinated by the similarity of their underlying fears.
Slashdot Mirror
These pyramids aren't overgrown, they're just big boned, you insensitive clods.
I dunno, a nuke could keep you pretty warm.
Economic force is not 'some people have more than others,' it is 'you have the freedom to starve to death. or, you could do whatever I tell you." Force is used to protect the haves from the have nots. What do the have nots get from the agreement? Why should they respect other people's property?
I am decidedly not seeking a system of equal results. I am seeking a system where the natural human heirarchy is not subverted by power seeking individuals, where some people have more if and only if most people agree they deserve it. where respect is freely given and not taken with force. In order to have more in such a system, people will need to earn it, not take it against the wishes of others.
Beyond a certain amount necessary for life, and a little more to give freedom of action. money represents only power over other people's lives.
You pay others to do the things you don't want to. That is power over others. They probably would rather not do them either. But you have the power, and it does not matter if they could do your job better than you, you set the rules.
Plenty of people in life make good decisions and work their ass off, and get nowhere. Plenty of others get handed everything, due to nothing more than luck. Both sorts of people think they deserve what they have. That is one of the privileges of power: no one dares contradict your self serving beliefs.
If an employer treats employees badly, the employees will simply have to suck it up unless they have other options. When they try to organize, the owners feel justified in using force to protect their property. They don't build their own business because our economic system has denied them the opportunity to amass capital, and even though they may be better leaders than those with capital, they do not get the chance to demonstrate that. Leaders are not better than followers. A leader without followers is nothing. But because we overvalue the leadership role, and undervalue the follower role, people who are not natural leaders seek out such positions, even though they are bad at them.
A free market can not exist absent physical force. A free market is based on property ownership, and ownership is based on force. Without the threat of force, how could anyone enforce ownership over distant resources? If someone is using a resource directly, they own it through use and people naturally respect that more than if they say, "see that fruit tree over there that I'm not using? Yeah, I own that and you can't take the fruit, even though I'm not using it. But I'll let you pick the fruit for me while I sit on my fat ass, and maybe I'll even give you a little of it." Without the threat of force, no one would accept such a ludicrous proposition. Only people who actually use a resource should control it.
Good lord. That thing was a space dildo? I'd hate to see the giant, planet devouring vagina it went in. Wait, we did see it, didn't we? Kirk flew a starship right up it.
Are you checking for my replies every ten minutes? It's flattering, really, but give it a rest, you've lost and your baseless assertions to the contrary demonstrably fool no one. You don't understand my mocking the minority party of 'real Americans.' Libertarians seem to believe exactly what I say they believe, despite the lies they tell themselves so they can sleep at night. Libertarianism in a nutshell: Me! Me! Me! I've got mine, so fuck the rest of you. Every libertarians secretly wants to be the master and ruler of everyone and everything, the only one with all the power. Which is why libertarians can't organize as a party, no one will listen to anyone else because everyone wants to be the emperor.
The mods were thinking I'm right and you're wrong, the same thing most Americans think. You are a minority, get it?
I'm railing at libertarianism as it actually plays out, rather than the self serving fantasy libertarians have in their heads.
I'm a terrible liar who convinces multiple moderators here to mod me up. Who came out smelling better in this exchange? Not you, poindexter. Learn how to sling insults and fight dirty if you're going to go that route. You look like a fucking amateur.
No, a free market is not what happens without regulations. We need regulations to keep it free, or the markets will be dominated and controlled by the biggest players. As long as people can and do use force to enforce their deals and ownerships, economic coercion is just as real as any other type of coercion. But you probably see that as a 'freedom.' The freedom to get whatever you can from others, the freedom to amass as much power over others as you can, the freedom to have and dominate the have nots. Those are not real freedoms, but mere licenses.
What you describe as 'freedom' is mere license. It is not freedom at all, it means that the powerful are free to oppress the weak and call it 'helping' them. Freedom is a social construct. Without society, all there is is power. Can you do it, or can't you? That is all. Only through contracts between individuals are freedoms created. Every freedom comes with two costs, something you can't do, and something you must do. You can't infringe another's freedom, and you must defend him when his freedom is infringed. It is only through this agreement to refrain from certain behaviors and defend others that we create freedom. Can you see the difference between freedom and license now? "The freedom to do as you please" is mere license, "The freedom to make of yourself what you will" also license, and the freedom to fail is an anti-freedom, not even license.
Libertarians are the people I am targeting with my signature. Libertarians want license, not freedom. Libertarian's political theory and agenda can be summed up by the phrase we all remember from childhood: "You're not the boss of me!"
Libertarians look at the free market as a God. They start from the dogmatic belief that the free market can do no wrong, and work backward from there to find the 'evidence' needed to reach that conclusion. For any given scenario, the answer is always "the free market will do it," like God, the free market is all powerful and all loving.
Libertarians do not care about freedom in any real sense. The reason they want less government is because governments can be used by the powerless to stymie the will of the powerful, and libertarians do not want to limit their license to do whatever the hell they want without consequences. "Freedom" to a libertarian means the freedom to oppress the less powerful, to offer up a trade of "Do what we say, or starve to death."
In short, libertarians want all of the benefits of living in a cooperative society, without any of the duties that go along with those benefits.
Wow! You know what I actually meant better than I do! Scary. Do you read minds, or is it some kind of clairvoyance? Actually, fuck it. You're a loon, and there's no debating loons. Nothing you say has any relevance to the real world, it's all just your own fucking ego trip. "Blah blah blah, look at me, I see the TRUTH, unlike you deluded fools!" Have fun in your fantasy world, freakshow. You live there alone.
Oh noes! I was called out for pointing out by way of example what conservatives do, telling other Americans they aren't 'real.' Yes, that makes me just like them, to the satire impaired.
I'm not a 'winger' of any stripe. I'm a fucking anarcho-socialist, capice? I voted for Obama as the (far) lesser of two evils. You assholes who try to equate the left and right wings are being totally disingenuous, and it isn't because you are in any way independent. From what I've witnessed, you're all disenchanted Bush Republicans who have gone over to the batshit crazy tea party. You have no defense for what your party has done, so you falsely claim that both major parties are identical. Not true. Democrats are influenced by big money and special interests. Republicans are owned by them, lock, stock and barrel.
Well that depends on whether you really mean freedom, or you just mean the license to do whatever the hell you want to. I don't think you understand what freedom really means.
Funny, the majority of Americans disagree with you about that. How's it feel to be a powerless minority? What you call damage, real Americans call progress. In fact, most of us think he hasn't done enough. He's too centrist, we all wish he was a real socialist, but he's not. Frankly, I don't understand why the right wing hates him, he's practically a clone of Ronald Reagan, who, by the by, is Obama's stated favorite president. Senile Ronald freaking Reagan, our 'socialist' president's favorite. Doesn't that beat all? Bet you never heard that, listening to the delusional right wing echo chamber.
Okay, I lied. I do know why the right wing hates him. To the right wing, it doesn't matter what Obama really is. He's the enemy, and he must fail for them to win. Thus, the constant stream of lies. But real lefties like myself are even more disappointed in the man than you probably are. Repealed DADT yet? No. Stopped torture? No. Prosecuted anyone in the Bush admin for war crimes? Are you fucking joking? Gotten out of Iraq? No. Socialized health care? Hah! Not even close. Reined in Wall Street? Hardly. Face it, Obama is a center right corporatist, about as far as you can get from a socialist, despite what the right claims.
I don't think you needed to jump on that hyperbole, as I doubt anyone with half a brain failed to recognize it as a humorous reversal of the normal 'frames per second,' as when we say that Hummers get 10 gallons to the mile.
I'm asking you, how do you get 3D acceleration from a VM? You don't. If your games run fine without 3D acceleration, they aren't the same games I run. I'm currently playing Fallout 3 Game of the Year edition at 1920 by 1080 resolution, it looks beautiful and the frame rate is high.
I'd be interested to hear the results of your investigation. Having tried games with 3D acceleration under VMs, I can say, they have to use software rendering because a virtual machine can not grant direct access to the 3D hardware, and that drops your frame rates down to 1-2 frames per second for even the simplest games.
Well I'm glad you got that vitriol of your chest before you realized you weren't responding to what I was saying. We aren't talking about WINE, which as we know is Not an Emulator. Mr. Dumbfuck was claiming QEMU would run games virtualized at full speed.
Well I'm the admin for a very large VMware system, 30 IBM Blades running Vsphere. I've taken all the classes and used VMWare for some heavy duty applications, mostly Linux based. I can explain all about virtualization performance to you, if you'd like.
Here's how I know you don't know what you're talking about. You can't virtualize a 3D card. What shows up for the VM client system is a generic card without 3D acceleration. Games are not just applications, in order to get decent performance, they need to access the hardware at a lower level than most applications.
Sure, the 'ten seconds per frame' was hyperbole, but only slight. When most people talk video games these days, we're talking 3D heavy games, not Tetris. If you've gotten any games with 3D graphics working quickly in a VM, I'd love to hear which ones and what frame rates you are getting.
Trying to explain virtualization to me is like trying to teach your grandma to suck eggs. Simple fact, unless you are a programmer working on virtualization systems (and you aren't) then I know far, far more about them than you.
Let's be more specific then: have fun running any game from the last ten years at anything better than 10 seconds per frame. It's not about not liking your comment, get over your fucking persecution complex. It's about you being an idiot who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Yeah, in theory you are right. In practice, well, let's just say the grown-ups here can tell you've never even tried what you espouse. This isn't even a Windows vs. Linux thing. I'm a Linux sysadmin, I was using it when you were still shitting yourself, sport. I use Linux for nearly everything. Everything except games. Some of us like our games a bit more complex than minesweeper and solitaire.
Fucking recent Linux converts piss me off. "Blahblahblah windows sux, linux rox, it can do anything!" yeah, yeah, we know, we were all sixteen and just discovering open source once, too.
Your comment illustrates the problems with top posting, not starting the comment in the subject line. Which in this instance does not notably break the flow because everyone is already familiar with the flow of the commercials. While you could certainly critique starting the comment in the subject line, you'd have to find a different way to do it. But then again, all of us from the Usenet era know this quote, so we can follow your analogy, flawed as it is.
spun: Hi, I'm a spun
Anonymous Coward: And I'm an AC. Say, spun, whatcha doing?
spun: Making a joke
Anonymous Coward: Cool, can I make one?
spun: Evidently not.
PC: And I'm a PC
Linux: Whatcha doing, PC?
PC: Playing games.
Linux: Cool, which ones?
PC: All of them.
Is a television show a good? No. Is it covered by copyright law? Yes. Do you understand copyright law? Apparently not.
I believe downloads do not meet the legal definition of 'goods' under AU law and therefore, would be considered a service. The judge felt compelled by the letter of the law to render the decision he did, even saying it would lead to injustice, and calling on parliament to change the law to reflect the changing definition of 'goods.'
It's amazing what one can learn by actually reading the articles. It is not, despite what most Slashdotters seem to think, a complete waste of time that only serves to keep one from achieving a first post.
It's not a good, it's a service. Like a song played over the radio isn't a good, it's a service, while a song bought on a CD is a good. The judge recognized that his ruling could lead to injustice, and called on parliament to change the law to reflect the changes in the definition of 'goods' that the digital revolution has brought about.
I'm not sure how you got 'single, coordinated block' out of what I wrote, but yes, if I had said that it would make what I wrote a kind of conspiracy theory. Actually, I see things pretty much as you say. But in the back of all of their minds, they know that we ants could and would destroy them utterly if the majority of us ever figured out what was really going on. The power that they have comes only from our unwitting agreement to give them that power, when we agree to play by the rules they set out. Although they do not coordinate with each other to keep the peons in their place, their actions are coordinated by the similarity of their underlying fears.