why would I care which browser is the most popular?
Because so long as IE's market share is sufficiently commanding, the fact that people like me use AdBlock on Firefox won't break the revenue model for ad-supported web sites. Yay IE!
If you think that the incarcerated have more rights than people on the outside, why don't you commit some victimless crime so you can join them? (See, I can ask stupid questions too.) Besides, since we're talking about what the U.S.'s founders would have wanted, I expect they'd be horrified a lot more by the prison-industrial complex than just about anything else.
As for emigrating if I don't agree with the new healthcare system, thanks, I'll be sure to give that suggestion all the consideration it's due. So, do you agree with everything the feds do? If not, when do you leave?
If i understand the US-founders correctly they had a country in mind where everybody is equal and even the poorest have right to a respectable life in America.
Then I think you partially misunderstand them. They had in mind a country where everyone is free, not equal. There's a difference. The idea is that freedom allows people to reach their own potential and to pursue happiness in their own way, not that it guarantees three hots and a cot, and free healthcare, and the "right" to broadband, and so forth and so on.
So no, universal health care is not what they had in mind. They were rightfully skeptical of government in a way that we, to our detriment, have forgotten.
How About Killing Subsidies for Fattening Foods?
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Similarly, the overall level of health might be improved if the feds stopped subsidizing meat, dairy, and corn (as in high fructose corn syrup). But not only is that not something being done outside of a healthcare reform bill, that's not even in this bill. You would think if the problem is how much it costs to make fat people not die, the first step would be to stop spending money that helps make them so fat in the first place.
Well, if you're going to put princesses and swords, you might as well throw in religion. In what universe is a meter long "light-sabre" preferable to a handheld particle weapon?
So, then what you're saying is that hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side?
Who said anything about Canada? Better to go where there is more freedom, like parts of Central America or the West Indies, than to somewhere that has no more freedom, like Canada.
Wait, did you think I'm a leftist? That's hilarious!
I didn't say it didn't matter, I just said my choice is difference from yours. You say I don't care about anything because I don't agree with your approach to encroaching tyranny. But my choice is motivated by what I care about most: my own quality of life. I'm hardly special in this, millions of people have been happy to cross those invisible lines on a map to improve their own well being.
And sorry, but I don't "forfeit the right to talk about a subject matter" just because I'm saying something you don't want to hear. My approach is optimized for my own happiness and quality of life, yours is optimized for what you perceive as good for the society in which you live. I really do wish you the best of luck, but that self-sacrificing collectivist approach is simply not for me.
With the obvious exceptions of Native Americans and those whose ancestors were brought here against their will, the U.S. was built largely by those who came here seeking a better life. If it was okay for them to come here for that reason, it's okay for me to go somewhere else for the same reason.
I'm one of three hundred million people in the U.S. My odds that my fighting for freedom here will make a positive difference in my life are worse than my odds of winning the lottery. Meanwhile, the odds that emigrating will make a positive difference in my life improve all the time. So no thanks, you can keep your macho bullshit. In this case it's better to be happy than right.
Great, now I have the Bee Gees and Elton John vying to see who can get stuck in my head.
Islands in the stream that is what we are No one in between how can we be wrong Sail away with me to another world And we rely on each other, ah ha...versus...
Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids In fact it's cold as hell And there's no one there to raise them if you did
I wish there was more money for space, but for heaven's sake - if it really was a choice between socialised healthcare for people, or socialised manned space travel, I'd still put the former first.
In that case I'd definitely pick the latter, since we can better withstand mediocre manned space travel than mediocre healthcare.
The Democrat-controlled Senate just reapproved key provisions of the Patriot Act that would otherwise have expired. If you wanted any indicator that they're worse than useless, that was it.
Very well, so I read that. So now my question is how one can empirically draw the line between personal possessions and private property. One needs cash to buy groceries, I assume, so how much cash is too much? How big does a boat have to get before it switches from one category to the other? Things like that. And at least as importantly, who decides?
(BTW, I'll admit my initial response was obnoxious, but now I'm really just asking.)
You're inadvertently correct, in that with real capitalism one couldn't have copyright and patent, since they're entitlements of monopoly granted by the state. No state, no copyright. So there'd be no FOSS because all code would already be free.
Capitalism is simply the absence of state control over the economy. That's it. I can argue that with such a system most people would be better off than they are now, and you could argue that most people would be worse off -- since there's no place on Earth with such a system we're all speaking hypothetically anyway. But that doesn't mean you get to use your own straw man pseudo-sociological definition without someone calling bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
why would I care which browser is the most popular?
Because so long as IE's market share is sufficiently commanding, the fact that people like me use AdBlock on Firefox won't break the revenue model for ad-supported web sites. Yay IE!
wtf is an Internet key and how do I get one? Alt+F4?!
Why would you want one? Look what happened to this guy! ;-)
If you think that the incarcerated have more rights than people on the outside, why don't you commit some victimless crime so you can join them? (See, I can ask stupid questions too.) Besides, since we're talking about what the U.S.'s founders would have wanted, I expect they'd be horrified a lot more by the prison-industrial complex than just about anything else.
As for emigrating if I don't agree with the new healthcare system, thanks, I'll be sure to give that suggestion all the consideration it's due. So, do you agree with everything the feds do? If not, when do you leave?
If i understand the US-founders correctly they had a country in mind where everybody is equal and even the poorest have right to a respectable life in America.
Then I think you partially misunderstand them. They had in mind a country where everyone is free, not equal. There's a difference. The idea is that freedom allows people to reach their own potential and to pursue happiness in their own way, not that it guarantees three hots and a cot, and free healthcare, and the "right" to broadband, and so forth and so on.
So no, universal health care is not what they had in mind. They were rightfully skeptical of government in a way that we, to our detriment, have forgotten.
Similarly, the overall level of health might be improved if the feds stopped subsidizing meat, dairy, and corn (as in high fructose corn syrup). But not only is that not something being done outside of a healthcare reform bill, that's not even in this bill. You would think if the problem is how much it costs to make fat people not die, the first step would be to stop spending money that helps make them so fat in the first place.
If we fly to other planets, our probes may need to be able to accommodate any size orifice.
That's right -- it's payback time for what they've done to so many of our people!
And the "communist" thing is just crap.
No it's not. Ever notice that Chavez always wears a red shirt? That's not just a fashion faux pas, that's a political statement.
Latin was first to the patent office with it. ;-)
Amas enough virgins in one place, and one of them is likely to get laid................
I think you mean "amass".
Hmm, except "amas" means "you love" in Latin.
Never mind. Carry on.
Whatever for? Those people don't make campaign contributions.
Well, if you're going to put princesses and swords, you might as well throw in religion. In what universe is a meter long "light-sabre" preferable to a handheld particle weapon?
So, then what you're saying is that hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side?
Oh no, if all I cared about was money, I'd probably never leave. The story of the Mexican fisherman is instructive in that regard.
And nope, I'm not a rightist either. Keep guessing, you'll get it eventually!
Who said anything about Canada? Better to go where there is more freedom, like parts of Central America or the West Indies, than to somewhere that has no more freedom, like Canada.
Wait, did you think I'm a leftist? That's hilarious!
I didn't say it didn't matter, I just said my choice is difference from yours. You say I don't care about anything because I don't agree with your approach to encroaching tyranny. But my choice is motivated by what I care about most: my own quality of life. I'm hardly special in this, millions of people have been happy to cross those invisible lines on a map to improve their own well being.
And sorry, but I don't "forfeit the right to talk about a subject matter" just because I'm saying something you don't want to hear. My approach is optimized for my own happiness and quality of life, yours is optimized for what you perceive as good for the society in which you live. I really do wish you the best of luck, but that self-sacrificing collectivist approach is simply not for me.
With the obvious exceptions of Native Americans and those whose ancestors were brought here against their will, the U.S. was built largely by those who came here seeking a better life. If it was okay for them to come here for that reason, it's okay for me to go somewhere else for the same reason.
I'm one of three hundred million people in the U.S. My odds that my fighting for freedom here will make a positive difference in my life are worse than my odds of winning the lottery. Meanwhile, the odds that emigrating will make a positive difference in my life improve all the time. So no thanks, you can keep your macho bullshit. In this case it's better to be happy than right.
Maybe Atlas Shrugged should be revised to include zombies. After all, there's precedent.
Great, now I have the Bee Gees and Elton John vying to see who can get stuck in my head.
Islands in the stream that is what we are ...versus...
No one in between how can we be wrong
Sail away with me to another world
And we rely on each other, ah ha
Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids
In fact it's cold as hell
And there's no one there to raise them if you did
Thanks a bunch!
Or, it could just be innocent rampant stupidity.
With politicians, never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice.
I wish there was more money for space, but for heaven's sake - if it really was a choice between socialised healthcare for people, or socialised manned space travel, I'd still put the former first.
In that case I'd definitely pick the latter, since we can better withstand mediocre manned space travel than mediocre healthcare.
And considering your name, I guess we ought to listen to you!
I still haven't figured out why they can't just make a -1 Wrong mod.
You used it. It's called the "Reply" button.
Well, you can't have Creative Commons without Creative Lords, now can you?
The Democrat-controlled Senate just reapproved key provisions of the Patriot Act that would otherwise have expired. If you wanted any indicator that they're worse than useless, that was it.
Very well, so I read that. So now my question is how one can empirically draw the line between personal possessions and private property. One needs cash to buy groceries, I assume, so how much cash is too much? How big does a boat have to get before it switches from one category to the other? Things like that. And at least as importantly, who decides?
(BTW, I'll admit my initial response was obnoxious, but now I'm really just asking.)
FOSS is not compatible with Capitalism.
You're inadvertently correct, in that with real capitalism one couldn't have copyright and patent, since they're entitlements of monopoly granted by the state. No state, no copyright. So there'd be no FOSS because all code would already be free.
Capitalism is simply the absence of state control over the economy. That's it. I can argue that with such a system most people would be better off than they are now, and you could argue that most people would be worse off -- since there's no place on Earth with such a system we're all speaking hypothetically anyway. But that doesn't mean you get to use your own straw man pseudo-sociological definition without someone calling bullshit.