1. It is NOT rude to talk on your cell phone in a public place eg on a train or bus or w/e. just like how it isnt rude to have a conversation with a real person there. It pisses me off that on some busses I take they say "please dont use cellphones, it may disturb others" when it doesnt say "people dont talk, it may disturb others". in fact, on a phone there's less talking to be disturbed bya s thre's only 1/2 the conversation.
TALKING ON A CELL PHONE IS THE SAME AS TALKING VERY LOUDLY WITH SOMEONE RIGHT THERE WITH YOU.
According to studies, talking on a cellphone is far more distracting than talking on a car. There are many theories as to why that is the case. The other person in the car is, well, in the car. They will notice the same dangers you will, and will start to fear for their own safety if you are too distracted. It takes more brainpower to decipher a phone conversation, with its dropouts, limited bandwidth, and lack of nonverbal cues. Those are the theories, but the facts remain: talking on a cell phone is far more distracting than talking with a passenger.
You answered your own question: Obama is more fascist than socialist. You want to see real socialism? Look at most of Europe. The EU is the biggest economy in the world. Get that? The biggest economy in the world runs under democratic socialism. You want to see real socialism here? Look at Dennis Kucinich. Not Obama.
But Ron Paul? He's an unrealistic idealist. His brand of libertarian deregulation amounts to handing the keys to the henhouse to the fox.
If you don't like it, there are still plenty of wild places where no one will bother you, and you can live with all the freedom you can create for yourself, by yourself.
Tell this to the Unabomber.
Would anyone have found him if he weren't, you know, mailing out bombs? I think not.
Yeah, given recent SCOTUS decisions, the government is now available to the highest bidder. Expect to see the power and privileges of multi-national corporations skyrocket, while the little guys get the shaft. I expect that Disney will buy up all our national parks. Everything will be privatized, and the uber-corps will make sure all public services are illegal. Private police forces, fire departments, roads: everything. And if you can't pay, don't expect help. Those who can't pay will be expected to starve to death, like stray dogs in the streets.
The funny thing is that some people on the right still think Obama is a socialist. He's the opposite of that. He's going to make sure health care reform dies a messy and painful death, and he's going to sell off the government to the highest bidders. He showed his real colors when he kowtowed to Wall Street.
No, I'm not confusing anything. Look at negative liberty versus positive liberty. You may not want to define freedom that way, for philosophical reasons, but that does not stop others from already having done so.
Every freedom is created by society, through a contract between individuals. Without society, it is impossible to speak of 'freedoms.' That is when the word 'capabilities' is more appropriate. Without society, you have no freedoms, only power or capability.
Think about freedom of expression. Nearly everyone has the power to express themselves, but that isn't the question, is it? The question is, will someone else try to stop you from expressing yourself? Society is promising a positive freedom, that is, people will do something for you: they will stop someone else from oppressing you.
So you see, by yourself, you do not have the power to express yourself without the threat of someone more powerful stopping you. Your own inability to protect yourself from oppression is the only thing preventing you. Society gives you that freedom, and in trade, you agree to give others that same freedom.
As for getting away, have you tried it? Trust me, it is completely possible, even here in America, to get far enough away from people that you can build yourself a little hut and live all by your lonesome. Think Alaska. It's huge. Yes, theoretically someone may come and ask you what you are doing, but they'd have to find you first.
That's absolutely true. In order to live in society, you trade some freedoms for others. In the end, most people feel that the freedoms that gain are worth more than the freedoms they lose. However, you said before:
Yep, that's what I'm thinking. You're never going to have true freedom unless you have zero government. Even governments that claim to promote freedom are really liars.
And that part is wrong, for the reasons outlined above. Society increases the freedoms of its members, who can do things no individual living alone could possibly do. But in order to live in society, you have to agree to live by society's rules, and this means giving up the freedom to, for instance, punch people in the face. But it is a voluntary trade. If you don't like it, there are still plenty of wild places where no one will bother you, and you can live with all the freedom you can create for yourself, by yourself. As for me, I like the enhanced freedoms I get from living in society.
I never said it would be peaches and cream for them to pick up and go to Finland. I merely pointed out that there is direct conflict arrising between operating in the US and their stated objectives.
I realize it isn't just as simple as moving to Finland.
I think you and I have different definitions of 'simple.' How do you propose they move to Finland? Lay off everyone (like Malda and the other fine folks of Slashdot) and rehire Finns? Or pay to move everyone to a foreign country? That's not a false dilemma, those are the only two options. Neither one of which is anything remotely approaching the common definition of 'simple.'
This is a real problem. As no one really knows what the airflow around his body will be like, he could easily encounter conditions that put him into a spin so fast it knocks him unconscious.
Okay, point taken. I wasn't assuming you were an illiterate idiot, I was assuming you were captain obvious going for the quick first post. But you do have a point.
Except most libertarians do not believe, in their heart of hearts, that the reverse applies to them. As evidence, I present Mr. "Kiddy porn is fine." above me.
Ah, hate to break it to you but the Slashdot audience is getting older, so the joke is no longer, 'We're all single and can't get laid.' The joke is now, 'We're all married and can't get laid.' Please do keep up.
Libertarianism / Objectivism / Anarcho capitalism: What are three philosophies that boil down to 'I've got mine, so screw you,' Alex?
Strawman arguments are lies.
No. They are irrelevant. Strawman arguments work better, in fact, if they are true. They just aren't relevant. And what I'm doing is more rightly termed Poisoning the Well. Learn your logical fallacies, twit.
Can someone point out an example showing me that I'm wrong?
You aren't even wrong. To be wrong, you have to make sense. You see, if you are one guy writing closed source, unless it becomes HUGELY popular, you won't make any money. So, what exactly are you comparing open source to, that is somehow different? You try to imply that it's hard to make money with open source coding, but you fail to provide a convincing case that it is any different with closed source coding.
As we saw in a recent article, most open source coders work for companies that pay them. And the other ones aren't doing it for the money anyway. Think of open source coding as a demonstration of your skill, that will get your foot in the door of almost any company you want to work for. Or, a hobby. Not everything in life is about making money. Some people make money, yet still do things they enjoy without getting paid for those things.
Then you don't know that many people who use Linux in a production environment with management's approval. Here at New Mexico's Child Youth and Family Development Department, we pay for support. We pay Novell for Suse Linux support (we're a Netware legacy shop), we pay Oracle for MySQL support, and we have 'as-needed' support contracts for other important open source software packages like Splunk & OpenNMS.
So, there you are. I pay for support. But I'm married, so I guess I'm not a 'single person who pays for support.'
The summary: Redhat sells support rather than licenses You: With Redhat, you buy support Me: Duh.
So the fact that people who use the software keep buying support for it is not that impressive.
Um, duh? The article is not claiming, 'Ooh! Out of all the people who buy Redhat, look how many people buy support!' It is saying, 'Look how many people buy Redhat in the first place.' Redhat has continued to profit during the economic downturn, which is impressive. Come on, man, any hobbyist will use CentOS, or create their own update server, and/or download the patches and updates from another source. Any corporation or government will buy support. But they won't necessarily buy Redhat, in fact, most of them end up buying Windows, right? But enough buy Redhat to ensure Redhat's profitability. Which is the point of the story...
Slashdot Mirror
1. It is NOT rude to talk on your cell phone in a public place eg on a train or bus or w/e. just like how it isnt rude to have a conversation with a real person there. It pisses me off that on some busses I take they say "please dont use cellphones, it may disturb others" when it doesnt say "people dont talk, it may disturb others". in fact, on a phone there's less talking to be disturbed bya s thre's only 1/2 the conversation.
TALKING ON A CELL PHONE IS THE SAME AS TALKING VERY LOUDLY WITH SOMEONE RIGHT THERE WITH YOU.
According to studies, talking on a cellphone is far more distracting than talking on a car. There are many theories as to why that is the case. The other person in the car is, well, in the car. They will notice the same dangers you will, and will start to fear for their own safety if you are too distracted. It takes more brainpower to decipher a phone conversation, with its dropouts, limited bandwidth, and lack of nonverbal cues. Those are the theories, but the facts remain: talking on a cell phone is far more distracting than talking with a passenger.
No. That's all what I like to call 'encouraging a vigorous discussion,' but others usually refer to as 'trolling.'
Or, to put it another way, 'ha ha only serious.'
You answered your own question: Obama is more fascist than socialist. You want to see real socialism? Look at most of Europe. The EU is the biggest economy in the world. Get that? The biggest economy in the world runs under democratic socialism. You want to see real socialism here? Look at Dennis Kucinich. Not Obama.
But Ron Paul? He's an unrealistic idealist. His brand of libertarian deregulation amounts to handing the keys to the henhouse to the fox.
If you don't like it, there are still plenty of wild places where no one will bother you, and you can live with all the freedom you can create for yourself, by yourself.
Tell this to the Unabomber.
Would anyone have found him if he weren't, you know, mailing out bombs? I think not.
I would love to see the world through you eye just for a day.
No, you probably wouldn't.
Yeah, given recent SCOTUS decisions, the government is now available to the highest bidder. Expect to see the power and privileges of multi-national corporations skyrocket, while the little guys get the shaft. I expect that Disney will buy up all our national parks. Everything will be privatized, and the uber-corps will make sure all public services are illegal. Private police forces, fire departments, roads: everything. And if you can't pay, don't expect help. Those who can't pay will be expected to starve to death, like stray dogs in the streets.
The funny thing is that some people on the right still think Obama is a socialist. He's the opposite of that. He's going to make sure health care reform dies a messy and painful death, and he's going to sell off the government to the highest bidders. He showed his real colors when he kowtowed to Wall Street.
Gah. Link problems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
Sure, my only real point is that moving to Finland, or any other country outside the US, would be very, very complicated.
No, I'm not confusing anything. Look at negative liberty versus positive liberty. You may not want to define freedom that way, for philosophical reasons, but that does not stop others from already having done so.
Every freedom is created by society, through a contract between individuals. Without society, it is impossible to speak of 'freedoms.' That is when the word 'capabilities' is more appropriate. Without society, you have no freedoms, only power or capability.
Think about freedom of expression. Nearly everyone has the power to express themselves, but that isn't the question, is it? The question is, will someone else try to stop you from expressing yourself? Society is promising a positive freedom, that is, people will do something for you: they will stop someone else from oppressing you.
So you see, by yourself, you do not have the power to express yourself without the threat of someone more powerful stopping you. Your own inability to protect yourself from oppression is the only thing preventing you. Society gives you that freedom, and in trade, you agree to give others that same freedom.
As for getting away, have you tried it? Trust me, it is completely possible, even here in America, to get far enough away from people that you can build yourself a little hut and live all by your lonesome. Think Alaska. It's huge. Yes, theoretically someone may come and ask you what you are doing, but they'd have to find you first.
Maybe I should have said, "zero other people".
That's absolutely true. In order to live in society, you trade some freedoms for others. In the end, most people feel that the freedoms that gain are worth more than the freedoms they lose. However, you said before:
Yep, that's what I'm thinking. You're never going to have true freedom unless you have zero government. Even governments that claim to promote freedom are really liars.
And that part is wrong, for the reasons outlined above. Society increases the freedoms of its members, who can do things no individual living alone could possibly do. But in order to live in society, you have to agree to live by society's rules, and this means giving up the freedom to, for instance, punch people in the face. But it is a voluntary trade. If you don't like it, there are still plenty of wild places where no one will bother you, and you can live with all the freedom you can create for yourself, by yourself. As for me, I like the enhanced freedoms I get from living in society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
I never said it would be peaches and cream for them to pick up and go to Finland. I merely pointed out that there is direct conflict arrising between operating in the US and their stated objectives.
I realize it isn't just as simple as moving to Finland.
I think you and I have different definitions of 'simple.' How do you propose they move to Finland? Lay off everyone (like Malda and the other fine folks of Slashdot) and rehire Finns? Or pay to move everyone to a foreign country? That's not a false dilemma, those are the only two options. Neither one of which is anything remotely approaching the common definition of 'simple.'
Only if he spins fast enough
This is a real problem. As no one really knows what the airflow around his body will be like, he could easily encounter conditions that put him into a spin so fast it knocks him unconscious.
Really? Well that sucks. AFAIK, Mara is a very good, small footprint, secure DNS, and Sam writes good software.
You got modded 'informative,' lol.
Okay, point taken. I wasn't assuming you were an illiterate idiot, I was assuming you were captain obvious going for the quick first post. But you do have a point.
I think the breadth of age has grown. When Slashdot was young, there weren't as many older nerds on the Internet.
So with the FLOSS business model, you only make money if it's successful. As opposed to closed source. Sheesh.
I don't dislike libertarians. I only dislike touchy, self righteous libertarians who put philosophy before practicality.
Except most libertarians do not believe, in their heart of hearts, that the reverse applies to them. As evidence, I present Mr. "Kiddy porn is fine." above me.
Ah, hate to break it to you but the Slashdot audience is getting older, so the joke is no longer, 'We're all single and can't get laid.' The joke is now, 'We're all married and can't get laid.' Please do keep up.
Strawman arguments are lies.
No. They are irrelevant. Strawman arguments work better, in fact, if they are true. They just aren't relevant. And what I'm doing is more rightly termed Poisoning the Well. Learn your logical fallacies, twit.
Can someone point out an example showing me that I'm wrong?
You aren't even wrong. To be wrong, you have to make sense. You see, if you are one guy writing closed source, unless it becomes HUGELY popular, you won't make any money. So, what exactly are you comparing open source to, that is somehow different? You try to imply that it's hard to make money with open source coding, but you fail to provide a convincing case that it is any different with closed source coding.
As we saw in a recent article, most open source coders work for companies that pay them. And the other ones aren't doing it for the money anyway. Think of open source coding as a demonstration of your skill, that will get your foot in the door of almost any company you want to work for. Or, a hobby. Not everything in life is about making money. Some people make money, yet still do things they enjoy without getting paid for those things.
Then you don't know that many people who use Linux in a production environment with management's approval. Here at New Mexico's Child Youth and Family Development Department, we pay for support. We pay Novell for Suse Linux support (we're a Netware legacy shop), we pay Oracle for MySQL support, and we have 'as-needed' support contracts for other important open source software packages like Splunk & OpenNMS.
So, there you are. I pay for support. But I'm married, so I guess I'm not a 'single person who pays for support.'
The summary: Redhat sells support rather than licenses
You: With Redhat, you buy support
Me: Duh.
So the fact that people who use the software keep buying support for it is not that impressive.
Um, duh? The article is not claiming, 'Ooh! Out of all the people who buy Redhat, look how many people buy support!' It is saying, 'Look how many people buy Redhat in the first place.' Redhat has continued to profit during the economic downturn, which is impressive. Come on, man, any hobbyist will use CentOS, or create their own update server, and/or download the patches and updates from another source. Any corporation or government will buy support. But they won't necessarily buy Redhat, in fact, most of them end up buying Windows, right? But enough buy Redhat to ensure Redhat's profitability. Which is the point of the story...