Actually, you have not taken this analysis far enough. Next you must remove all computers owned by cats, as cats are fastidious animals, and as natural hunters quite concerned with security. My research says 10% of all windows computers are owned by cats.
Next, you can't count windows computers that have been smashed with sledgehammers. If you can't figure out why, I pity you. My research says that 17.54979% of all windows computers have been smashed with sledgehammers.
Also, it would be ridiculous to count computers that have been taken over by Skynet. Technically, they ARE part of a botnet, but this is really a seperate, and very real, very important issue. Here, my research indicates over 1/4 of all windows computers are now part of skynet, so we have to count those out.
As everyone knows, there are a significant number of aliens present on the planet, and a significant number of them are silicon based life forms posing as high end windows computers while they persue research for their doctoral dissertations on the common homo-sapien couch potato. This amounts to about 22% of windows computers.
We can therefore conclude that, if I've done my math right, 2 out of every 1 windows computer is part of a botnet!
I don't know... if you can correctly identify persons that are rapists in a park, would it be unethical to kill them (erase their brain, castrate them, whatever to make it not happen?).
There, fixed that for you. This isn't about computers that might become zombies in a botnet, it's about those that already are. I'm still unsure of the ethics, but let's compare apples to apples rather than getting all hysterical, bringing emotionally charged situations into the conversation and making false anlogies.
What really pisses me off is that those smaller states and towns then have the gall to turn around and complain about "those durn liberals in them big cities with their entitlement mentality."
If those friends have $100,000 to invest in the US, they will get in, no problem, no waiting. With free trade agreements, the process for goods crossing borders is much simplified. Nationalism is a form of selfishness. More immigrants means a bigger market and more jobs. Your analysis of the impact of immigration ignores market realities and posits an unrealistic worst-case scenario.
That's nothin' man, I live in Albuquerque, NM. $2 in funding for every $1 spent, woohoo! Wait, no, that sucks. Unfair is unfair, whether you are on the giving or the receiving end of the unfairness.
I hear Hawaii just outlawed smashing kittens with sledgehamemrs. Bora Bora made it illegal to shave your balls with a weed whacker in public. In St. Croix, you are no longer allowed to call yourself a chikcen just because you've stuck feathers up your ass. It's now against the law to shit in a water fountain in Bermuda. You can't shoot nuns for sport any longer in Curacao.
"Nice little road system you got there that we paid for -- be a shame if you did something to piss us off and we stopped giving you money."
There, fixed that for you. FYI, Maine is one of the largest moocher states, taking in $1.40 in Federal benefits for every dollar paid in Federal Taxes. See here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.htm l
Because there is no compelling reason to get it? Because people are sick of MS underhanded strong-arm tactics (and I mean regular people I talk to, not nerds)? Because of crippling DRM? Because of incompatability with legacy software? The list goes on and on.
Well, I live in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I'm 35, my wife is 31. No kids, and every single person I've met here that's my age has kids. People ask me all the time why I don't have kids.
Nationalism invariably leads to evil. Borders are flat out wrong-headed. They only apply to the poor: the rich, money, and goods all act like they don't exist. Borders are a means to providing cheap labor to the rich, nothing more. Your defense of breeding for nationalistic purposes makes me physically ill.
Hey, I'm only a part time troll. I really, really try to control my outbursts, honest! But sometimes you just have to throw caution to the wind and let fly with a good rant. And sometimes, I've responded to what I thought was a troll only to be surprised to find that person quite intelligent and well spoken, if a bit opinionated...
The thing about libertarian justice is, by eschewing regulation, it is entirely reactive. By being entirely market driven, it only provides justice to those who can afford it.
I think everything everyone does potentially impacts others, and therefore we have an obligation to society to minimize or at least consider the impacts that we have that take away other's choices. Certainly, society has no right to regulate what does not concern it, but who decides? The impacts of your actions will still be reverberating through the human social world long after you are gone.
The way I see it, no one can be truly free unless they have a strong society that is commited to freedom backing them up. Conversely, only free individuals can create a strong society. There is a complex system of feedback operating between individuals that are created by society and the societies that individuals create.
The main problem I was alluding to was the problem of libertarians' strict ideas about property rights. I made my objection perfectly clear: no one has a right to take natural resources away from others. Before you labor on something, it is not yours. In order to labor on land, you must claim it as yours. Therefore, the libertarian theory of property is based on a logical contradiction.
Finally, most talk of rights boils down to an appeal to authority. You say society has no right to regulate what doesn't concern it, but what you need to do is construct an argument that appeals to the individual, showing them why they should not support a system that regulates what does not concern it. You must further go on to convince said individual that your ideas about what does not concern society are ideas that he should adopt, for pragmatic reasons. Otherwise your appeal to rights carries no more weight than a crazy person's statement that God told them to murder you.
Hey, I apologized! And it wasn't a threadjack. If people are going to espouse libertarian ideals, even if not mentioned by name, then I feel obliged to say something about how absolutely illogical, evil, and selfish that philosophy is. I don't want that kind of cancer spreading. Libertarianism, if implemented, would set civilization back by thousands of years
Hey, if you do not like the social contract you were born into, you are free to leave and find a country where you can be your own selfish self. Similar to how, in a libertarian/anarcho capitalist world, people who aren't of the owning class are free to leave and support themselves somewhere else. Of course in this world, as it exists only in the fantasies of libertarians and anarcho capitalists, due to some magical unexplained process, everyone is and always will be a member of the owning class, and no one will ever have to sell themselves into slavery just to have a place to sleep.
Libertarianism is based on a falsehood. The inalienable property rights espoused by libertarians are just as authoritarian and represent just as much of an initiation of force as anything done by a government. Before you mingle your labor with a thing, there is no justification for you to call that thing your own. Yet in order to mingle your labor with a natural resource, you must first claim it as your own. yet you do so without justification. As that natural resource was freely shareable by all, you have stolen from all by your taking. That is initiation of force, and libertarianism is founded on it.
It is based on another falsehood: that every individual is an island unto themselves, and that barring some kind of court challenge, nothing anyone does can be said to impact anyone else. The fact is, everything you do impacts everything else. Therefore, any decision or action you take is the concern of every other human being on the planet. You have a responsibility to the rest of humanity, because we all need to live together and cooperate to make society work.
Libertarianism seems to be designed as a system for keeping the have-nots from challenging the supremacy of the haves. It is a philosophy (and I use that term loosely) that places selfishness as the ultimate good, and denies that the individual has any responsibility to society.
It bases it's ideas of Rights on the fallacy of appeal to authority, rather than acknowledging that rights come not from Nature or your invisible friend in the sky, but from people's agreement to uphold those rights in others. Rights derive from society. Without society, there would be no need to even speak of rights.
It appeals to intellectual snobs who see themselves as better than the common person. These people feel their brilliance is not properly rewarded, and they are being imposed upon by all the lesser men around them. Libertarianism tells them they are correct, and that they are valient individualists fighting Authority by pursuing their selfish fantasies.
In short, libertarianism is an evil and destructive philosophy of selfishness that appeals to snobs with an over-inflated sense of their own importance. It's practitioners posses a level of intellectual dishonesty and hypocricy that I've only ever seen before in Scientologists. It has taken the noble roots of anarchism and twisted them into something unfathomably horrid, yet banal at the same time.
Most major advances in science have come from government funding, either basic research which private companies never do because no one can say whether basic research will ever turn a profit, let alone when it might or how much; or through military research. But you are free to have your opinion, attempt to convince others, and even attempt to get the laws changed.
Until that point, thankfully, freeloaders are forced to help pay for all the benefits they accrue (Such as the use of the Internet) through government funding of science. I love the fact that we have a system in which the selfish can not wriggle out of their share of the responsibility that comes with being a member of an interdependent civilized society. I hesitate to even speculate what kind of shithole we'd be living in if the selfish and ego oriented weren't such a minority compared to the cooperative types of the world.
What a silly comparison. In the original, one thing (open access) is compared to its opposite (government censorship), while in your phrasing two similar things ("opposition to government funding of science" and "opposition to science") are compared.
As the only context in which this minor distinction makes sense is that of stem-cell reseaerch, I'd say it is obvious you are trying to troll people who support stem cell research. There's nothing wrong with a good troll, but your post isn't that good.
Okay, I see the problem. We've got different definitions of 'fuck over.' To me, it means to do something illegal. I mean, if you're playing by the rules, you aren't fucking anyone over even if you take their money. Sorry I got so irate, it seemed to me that, in the context of a story on pump n' dump scams, 'fuck over' obviously implied something at least as shady as the scam. What's your definition of 'fuck over?'
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you have not taken this analysis far enough. Next you must remove all computers owned by cats, as cats are fastidious animals, and as natural hunters quite concerned with security. My research says 10% of all windows computers are owned by cats.
Next, you can't count windows computers that have been smashed with sledgehammers. If you can't figure out why, I pity you. My research says that 17.54979% of all windows computers have been smashed with sledgehammers.
Also, it would be ridiculous to count computers that have been taken over by Skynet. Technically, they ARE part of a botnet, but this is really a seperate, and very real, very important issue. Here, my research indicates over 1/4 of all windows computers are now part of skynet, so we have to count those out.
As everyone knows, there are a significant number of aliens present on the planet, and a significant number of them are silicon based life forms posing as high end windows computers while they persue research for their doctoral dissertations on the common homo-sapien couch potato. This amounts to about 22% of windows computers.
We can therefore conclude that, if I've done my math right, 2 out of every 1 windows computer is part of a botnet!
I don't know... if you can correctly identify persons that are rapists in a park, would it be unethical to kill them (erase their brain, castrate them, whatever to make it not happen?).
There, fixed that for you. This isn't about computers that might become zombies in a botnet, it's about those that already are. I'm still unsure of the ethics, but let's compare apples to apples rather than getting all hysterical, bringing emotionally charged situations into the conversation and making false anlogies.
What really pisses me off is that those smaller states and towns then have the gall to turn around and complain about "those durn liberals in them big cities with their entitlement mentality."
8. For everything else, there's mastercard?
If those friends have $100,000 to invest in the US, they will get in, no problem, no waiting. With free trade agreements, the process for goods crossing borders is much simplified. Nationalism is a form of selfishness. More immigrants means a bigger market and more jobs. Your analysis of the impact of immigration ignores market realities and posits an unrealistic worst-case scenario.
That's nothin' man, I live in Albuquerque, NM. $2 in funding for every $1 spent, woohoo! Wait, no, that sucks. Unfair is unfair, whether you are on the giving or the receiving end of the unfairness.
I hear Hawaii just outlawed smashing kittens with sledgehamemrs. Bora Bora made it illegal to shave your balls with a weed whacker in public. In St. Croix, you are no longer allowed to call yourself a chikcen just because you've stuck feathers up your ass. It's now against the law to shit in a water fountain in Bermuda. You can't shoot nuns for sport any longer in Curacao.
There, take your pick.
"Nice little road system you got there that we paid for -- be a shame if you did something to piss us off and we stopped giving you money."
m l
There, fixed that for you. FYI, Maine is one of the largest moocher states, taking in $1.40 in Federal benefits for every dollar paid in Federal Taxes. See here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.ht
"The firmer grip you use, the faster the the stuff squirts between your fingers".
Eeeeewww. TMI!
I don't know, what was the last third world country you were in, and which bureaucrat did you see walking the streets?
"But Your Honor, hearsay and conjecture are kinds of evidence."
--Lionel Hutz
Because there is no compelling reason to get it? Because people are sick of MS underhanded strong-arm tactics (and I mean regular people I talk to, not nerds)? Because of crippling DRM? Because of incompatability with legacy software? The list goes on and on.
Well, I live in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I'm 35, my wife is 31. No kids, and every single person I've met here that's my age has kids. People ask me all the time why I don't have kids.
Nationalism invariably leads to evil. Borders are flat out wrong-headed. They only apply to the poor: the rich, money, and goods all act like they don't exist. Borders are a means to providing cheap labor to the rich, nothing more. Your defense of breeding for nationalistic purposes makes me physically ill.
Hey, I'm only a part time troll. I really, really try to control my outbursts, honest! But sometimes you just have to throw caution to the wind and let fly with a good rant. And sometimes, I've responded to what I thought was a troll only to be surprised to find that person quite intelligent and well spoken, if a bit opinionated...
The thing about libertarian justice is, by eschewing regulation, it is entirely reactive. By being entirely market driven, it only provides justice to those who can afford it.
I think everything everyone does potentially impacts others, and therefore we have an obligation to society to minimize or at least consider the impacts that we have that take away other's choices. Certainly, society has no right to regulate what does not concern it, but who decides? The impacts of your actions will still be reverberating through the human social world long after you are gone.
The way I see it, no one can be truly free unless they have a strong society that is commited to freedom backing them up. Conversely, only free individuals can create a strong society. There is a complex system of feedback operating between individuals that are created by society and the societies that individuals create.
The main problem I was alluding to was the problem of libertarians' strict ideas about property rights. I made my objection perfectly clear: no one has a right to take natural resources away from others. Before you labor on something, it is not yours. In order to labor on land, you must claim it as yours. Therefore, the libertarian theory of property is based on a logical contradiction.
Finally, most talk of rights boils down to an appeal to authority. You say society has no right to regulate what doesn't concern it, but what you need to do is construct an argument that appeals to the individual, showing them why they should not support a system that regulates what does not concern it. You must further go on to convince said individual that your ideas about what does not concern society are ideas that he should adopt, for pragmatic reasons. Otherwise your appeal to rights carries no more weight than a crazy person's statement that God told them to murder you.
Hey, I apologized! And it wasn't a threadjack. If people are going to espouse libertarian ideals, even if not mentioned by name, then I feel obliged to say something about how absolutely illogical, evil, and selfish that philosophy is. I don't want that kind of cancer spreading. Libertarianism, if implemented, would set civilization back by thousands of years
Um, can't I do both? *Sigh* Oh, all right. You have validated your position, and I apologize for calling you a troll.
Hey, if you do not like the social contract you were born into, you are free to leave and find a country where you can be your own selfish self. Similar to how, in a libertarian/anarcho capitalist world, people who aren't of the owning class are free to leave and support themselves somewhere else. Of course in this world, as it exists only in the fantasies of libertarians and anarcho capitalists, due to some magical unexplained process, everyone is and always will be a member of the owning class, and no one will ever have to sell themselves into slavery just to have a place to sleep.
Libertarianism is based on a falsehood. The inalienable property rights espoused by libertarians are just as authoritarian and represent just as much of an initiation of force as anything done by a government. Before you mingle your labor with a thing, there is no justification for you to call that thing your own. Yet in order to mingle your labor with a natural resource, you must first claim it as your own. yet you do so without justification. As that natural resource was freely shareable by all, you have stolen from all by your taking. That is initiation of force, and libertarianism is founded on it.
It is based on another falsehood: that every individual is an island unto themselves, and that barring some kind of court challenge, nothing anyone does can be said to impact anyone else. The fact is, everything you do impacts everything else. Therefore, any decision or action you take is the concern of every other human being on the planet. You have a responsibility to the rest of humanity, because we all need to live together and cooperate to make society work.
Libertarianism seems to be designed as a system for keeping the have-nots from challenging the supremacy of the haves. It is a philosophy (and I use that term loosely) that places selfishness as the ultimate good, and denies that the individual has any responsibility to society.
It bases it's ideas of Rights on the fallacy of appeal to authority, rather than acknowledging that rights come not from Nature or your invisible friend in the sky, but from people's agreement to uphold those rights in others. Rights derive from society. Without society, there would be no need to even speak of rights.
It appeals to intellectual snobs who see themselves as better than the common person. These people feel their brilliance is not properly rewarded, and they are being imposed upon by all the lesser men around them. Libertarianism tells them they are correct, and that they are valient individualists fighting Authority by pursuing their selfish fantasies.
In short, libertarianism is an evil and destructive philosophy of selfishness that appeals to snobs with an over-inflated sense of their own importance. It's practitioners posses a level of intellectual dishonesty and hypocricy that I've only ever seen before in Scientologists. It has taken the noble roots of anarchism and twisted them into something unfathomably horrid, yet banal at the same time.
Most major advances in science have come from government funding, either basic research which private companies never do because no one can say whether basic research will ever turn a profit, let alone when it might or how much; or through military research. But you are free to have your opinion, attempt to convince others, and even attempt to get the laws changed.
Until that point, thankfully, freeloaders are forced to help pay for all the benefits they accrue (Such as the use of the Internet) through government funding of science. I love the fact that we have a system in which the selfish can not wriggle out of their share of the responsibility that comes with being a member of an interdependent civilized society. I hesitate to even speculate what kind of shithole we'd be living in if the selfish and ego oriented weren't such a minority compared to the cooperative types of the world.
Oh. When you put it that way it almost makes sense. :P
What a silly comparison. In the original, one thing (open access) is compared to its opposite (government censorship), while in your phrasing two similar things ("opposition to government funding of science" and "opposition to science") are compared.
As the only context in which this minor distinction makes sense is that of stem-cell reseaerch, I'd say it is obvious you are trying to troll people who support stem cell research. There's nothing wrong with a good troll, but your post isn't that good.
He's dead. There's a lesson to be learned here: don't marry a drugged-up alchoholic nutbag. Or if you do, don't buy her a fricken' revolver, fer chrissake!
Why does everyone think people will rush out to buy players when there are only a handful of HD *movies* out on the market?
Because they think we are all sheep who will do whatever we are told to do by our corporate masters?
It's like someone went somewhere to do something with less than precise units of language.
I've got an even better idea: anyone who convinces the stupid to remove themselves from the gene pool gets to breed with a super model. Who's with me?
Okay, I see the problem. We've got different definitions of 'fuck over.' To me, it means to do something illegal. I mean, if you're playing by the rules, you aren't fucking anyone over even if you take their money. Sorry I got so irate, it seemed to me that, in the context of a story on pump n' dump scams, 'fuck over' obviously implied something at least as shady as the scam. What's your definition of 'fuck over?'
Hehe. I first read the word as "politicians" not "pollution," and I thought every good idea has it's downside, doesn't it?