Port scanning is not like walking by someone's house and looking at the windows. Port scanning is not like testing all the doors on someone's house for an unlocked one. Port scanning is not like wandering through someone's house poking at their stuff. Port scanning is like... sending a request to commonly used ports of a computer to see what software is replying.
Simply choosing whatever real-world analogy best supports the position of port scanning is good/bad is a faulty argument. Why not discuss the topic in terms of the actual result of the actual action we are talking about? Port scanning does no real harm right off the bat. On the other hand, it is impolite to do, because now the admins of the box you scanned have to worry about what your intentions are. So going around portscanning strangers just for fun is kind of a bad thing, but not so bad that no one should ever use such a piece of software, especially since it is so educational.
And that's my take. Sure, if I put on my security admin hat, I don't want anyone ever doing any port scanning, because it makes my job a lot easier: anyone scanning my box is an enemy. On the other hand, if I put on my student hat, how am I ever going to learn things if the most educational tools are seen as dangerous and disallowed?
--
"Just the superficial sort of [analogy] someone grounded too far in 'reality' would think up. TURN UP THE FEED, YOU WIGGLY MEAT THINGS! THIS IS THE NET! NOTHING'S REAL!" --Rache Bartmoss
Not to start up another language war, but what
do you mean by this? I'm a senior in college studying computer science, and I'm at the point where I feel I know the very basics of different languages and I'm curious as to what people who have been programming for a very long time in different languages think of them.
What about C makes you think it's bad for any project? What kind of things do you write, and what languages do you write them in? What do other people think about C?
give me a good left-jump-left-bubble-left-1up any day...
Sigh. Leave it to Katz to take the best thing in the world, (games) and turn it into his usual bland, unresearched, over-generalized paste.
Oh, and I just have to correct the most egregious mis-statement of the post:
Videogames are no longer bounded by gender, either: players are evenly divided between men and women.
Depending on how you look at it, videogames have either always been bounded by gender, or never bounded by gender. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pac-man, a game which has been around forever, has
always had an even gender split in its players. This may be stating the obvious, but games that simulate things that boys like to do (play sports, fight, shoot people) are more heavily favored by boys, and games that simulate things girls like to do (play house, design cities, run around a little maze gathering power pellets) are more heavily favored by girls.
It seems to me that there is no real debate among the upper levels of US government anymore.
The Dem and Reps agree on so much there's not much need for debate. The only things they could debate on would be non-issues like abortion, debates which would give no illumination. Avoiding frank discussions of positions allows the government to maintain some of its more ludicrous stances.
Where has this come from?
Technology has broken down the barriers between states, thus amplifying the role of the federal government. Interest groups now find it quite worthwhile to pay large sums of money to make sure elected federal officials cease to consider the good of the public or any other principle when making the law.
Was it always this mindless name-calling?
Yes.
Does this irrationality hurt the country, or does it benefit it?
Hurt.
Does powerlessness at the top allows the country to function without impediments?
Not really. Power has an advantage: it can be used to do good things. Power has a disadvantage: it can be used to do bad things.
If someone puts down a piece of (fictional) literature and turns on the Discovery channel, this is a good thing?? No way. "Educational" programming is rarely very educational, compared with the average class at the local community college. The examples of "real life" channels that you mention are hardly encouraging. The History channel doesn't have half the breadth or depth of a good book on the subject, and the right-wing hacks on Fox News wouldn't know reality if they sat in it.
The popularity of 'reality' shows indicates that television is so poorly written, and so uniform that anything vaguely novel is seen as the next big thing. Then everyone else tries to copy the new idea, and people get bored of it until the next novelty comes along.
I would feel optimistic if people showed less interest in "Cops" and more in good fiction.
--
For a minute I thought JK was reviewing himself...
on
The New Geography
·
· Score: 5
Jon Katz's new book(The new Media: How the Digital Revolution is Reshaping the American Landscape) is so bad it will make you pine for all those volumes on trolls and hackers.... Written in cyber-jabberwocky, it argues that the digital revolution is creating a techno-battleground where rich technies (?) and large corporations fight for control over the human race. Oh yeah, and something should be done about it. Duh.
Bullshit. If I had the computing resources he had, I would write a software that could defeat any enemy, human, alien, or machine, that had less computer power at hand, claw, or interface.
Using what? Brute-force search? Neural networks? A heretofore undiscovered AI technique? The computing power isn't the problem, it's knowing what to do with it.
So let's say I have a chess computer that can do a depth n search. Now double its speed. Congratulations, now it can search n+1 levels deep. Wait a whole thirty years, and it'll be able to search n+20 levels. Enough to beat Gary Kasparov, sure, but can it play go? Plan a battle strategy? Play a game whose rules change?
I'm not going to defend the consistency of technological advance in Card's stories*, but it seems a reasonable premise that no one made any great advances in AI in the handful of decades that the book is supposed to take place after. Perhaps all the computer scientists were busy building a computer network that would allow a couple of kids to take over the world. Or maybe they figured it was faster to try and make people smarter until they could raise a super-general than it was to try to make machines smarter.
*(Card's books are fantasy, not hard sci-fi. His computers are basically Apple IIs with magic powers.)
--
Re:Punchcards == Computers
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 4
1. Photo-confirmation of the Presidential-pick is a great idea.
Yes, but what of the unintended consequences? Picture a thoughtful, middle-aged voter in the voter booth.
VOTER: "Hmm... I've heard some good things about that Nader feller. Maybe I should vote for him."
[Presses the Nader button, Ralph's mug gets flashed on the screen]
VOTER: "AIGH! Get it off... get it off!"
[Blindly stabs at the buttons. Nader's face is
replaced by Bush's.]
VOTER: "Ahhh... much better. This feller looks like a good choice."
--
Computerized elections in the future
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 2
I can just picture elections in the year 2040, George W. H. Bush and Al Gore III are
standing around an elderly clerk at a computer terminal.
CLERK: "Well let's see here. It says Bush wins by three thousand, two hundred and sixty-five
votes."
BUSH [pumping his fist]: "Yes!"
AL: "What?! I demand a recount!"
CLERK: "Okie doke." [taps a few keys, then clicks with the mouse] "Oh sorry, my mistake.
Three thousand, two hundred and sixty-*four*.
--
Re:voting from the comfort of your own home -bad
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 2
Being able to vote from anywhere creates situations where people with a vested
interest in how you vote (your boss, on an anti corporate measure) demand that you
vote in thier presence, where they can watch your vote.
Oh foo. How likely
is that? Your boss calls you into her office, demands that you fill out your ballot,
sign and seal it, all in her presence? First of all, you can just refuse, and if you
get fired, then you didn't want to work for that person anyway. Second, if your boss or
anyone does this with more than one person, I bet it wouldn't be too hard to take them
to task on it. Depending on what the law is in your state, you could even live the
American dream and prosecute your boss on a felony charge.
I voted at my kitcen table, alone. No fuss, no muss. A friend of mine voted sitting in
the computer lab, with a handful of us all standing around making suggestions. For
president he flipped a coin to decide between Nader and Gore. The system works.
imagine all of the Nader supporters going back to the polls... but THIS time, they know just how incredibly important their vote is for getting a liberal into the White House.
Getting a *what*? in the White House? This is precisely the reason I voted for Nader. So are you just not familiar with the beliefs of Vice President Gore, or do you honestly believe he is a liberal?
Or maybe you were referring to "Holy Joe" Lieberman. I'd be laughing, but for some reason it doesn't seem as funny given the election results.
oes to show that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush all along, Nader appears to have cost Gore Oregano, Ohio, and Florida. Sure hope
he sleeps well
Polls for Nader before the election put him at about five or six percent. The percent of people who actually voted for Nader is two or three percent. That means that a substantial number of people were swayed by the Democratic party's extortion towards voting for Gore.
The people who voted Nader this election are the people who are not going to vote for Gore. Don't let anyone tell you Gore didn't lose this election all by himself. He even lost his home state, fer chrissake.
I voted for Nader in Oregon, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
Nope. People of all political leanings gather here. Usually the common ground is an interest in technology or 'geeky' things, but Slashdot is big enough that it's a haven for people who like to spout off on anything.
You may have gotten that impression because liberals tend to go on about the importance of a free mind, and conservatives will go on about the importance of a free wallet, so if you got a lot of those posts, it might look like it was slanted libertarian, while it's not.
You can spot the real libertarians because they have this aggreived tone in which they emote an air of disbelief that anyone could possibly disagree with them. It makes for a good rant, but the over-simplifying usually is a turn-off for most people.
I suspect that all those who complain about
the two party system are actually closet demogogues who have Machiavellian fantasies of getting things done the RIGHT way --- their way.
I have fantasies about major media news sources acknowledging that there are reasons why people have political beliefs not endorsed by the two parties. I have fantasies in which the two parties have to defend their stances on certain issues, even if the other party agrees with them. I have fantasies about non-moderates being able to participate in the political process, without being told "you have to vote for one of these two people you disagree with, or you might as well just stay home."
Just like everything else in life, you have to be strong to survive. Simpering in the corner and moaning about how big companies are hurting you is
weak and feeble behavior. If you had any real conviction, you'd quit voting for losers and start influencing the hearts and minds of those with a
legitimate chance to win.
Thank you Ms. Rand. I guess if you can only conceive of two possible positions on any given issue, than two parties is enough for you.
Is it too much to hope for that I've been trolled?
Your argument is inane and your sig is just plain wrong. They are also contradictory. Think about it for an hour; if you don't understand why by then you should probably stop embarassing yourself by posting things. If you do then you don't need me to tell you to change it
Ah, what the hell, I'm bored enough to respond to anonymous cowards.
I looked at the sig a while ago, and decided that 'democracy' is not quite the right word, but that it sounded better than 'society in which the press is owned by the government.' Whatever, I don't make it a point to be particularly insightful in.signatures.
Sorry if my argument confused you. I guess I'll spell it out literally.
If you take the Harry Browne quote from the interview, and you replace the word "Government" with the word "Corporations," then what you're left with is a rather banal piece of political tripe. Why is this? Well, it's because the original statement was just as boring and non-novel as the edited version. It seems to me that statements of this sort are popular nowadays, yet fulfill no real use in political discourse. Standing up and saying that everything is the fault of (Government|Corporations|Communism|Capitalism|secu lar humanism) is a sign that you are willing to over-simplify everything in order to be able to broadcast a 'political message.'
I'll try to stay away from implying my arguments in the future.
Otherwise we'll just be opening the door for all kinds of deviant and unethical practices in the name of "religion".
Christianity is about as deviant and unethical as I can imagine; if Christians are to be taken seriously, then I see no reason why not to take Wiccans seriously.
(If it offends you that I might say such a thing about Christianity, then just substitute Islam or some other religion you don't like for it.)
"...(Government) doesn't aid progress, it hinders it. Government is politics, not progress. Government is bureaucracy, inefficiency, and brute force. It is the least desirable, least effective and least likely to succeed means of getting anything accomplished."
"Corporations don't aid progress, they hinder it. Corporations are profits, not progress. Large corporations are bureaucracy, inefficiency, and market forces. They are the least desirable, least beneficial, and least likely to succeed means of getting anything meaningful accomplished."
Yawn. When discourse comes down to an exercise in political posturing, every argument turns into '[insert favorite bogey-man here].'
Why would anyone be surprised by / paranoid about this? Information, even census information, wants to be free. --
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 2
: How free am when I can't make a copy of
: some music some dead guy made?
Oh please. How would less government cause this to happen?
Not less government, but the kind of government that serves only business' interests and not the public's interests, which I felt the previous poster was in favor of.
How could it happen? It's already happened in the United States. Large corporations lobby the government to extend the period of time an artist's work is copyrighted. (A power of the government explicitly stated in the constitution.)
As a result, despite there being no benefit to the person who actually created the work, I have to pay for the right to have a copy of a song written by someone who has been dead for years.
: How free am I if someone else owns everything,
: from the water I drink, to the air I breathe?
You imply that public ownership is preferrable to private ownership. Communism?
Some things are better if they are privately owned. Some things are better if they are publicly owned. Some can go either way. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out which are which.
By 'Commmunism?' I assume you mean the following argument, which I find false for reason which should be evident.
Communism is the public ownership of all property. Communism is bad. Therefore, the private ownership of all property must be as good as Communism is bad.
--
strange obsessions over voting.
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 2
I'm unclear as to why people agonize over who to vote for. Let's break it down for a minute. Each person gets one vote, which makes one vote for you, and roughly a gazillion votes for the rest of the country. So why pretend like you have to be the one to decide who gets elected? Just vote for whoever you think is a good candidate, and hopefully someone with a few ounces of common sense gets elected.
"Oh, but wait. They told me [Evil Politician X] could win this election, and that only I could stop him. I have to figure out who is going to come in second and give him one more vote, so that he will win instead of X."
Really? Well, how do you determine which of the candidates is going to come in second?
"The man on the TV says so. They have it all figured out. See, there's only two candidates, and if you don't vote for either of them, they just add a vote to whichever candidate you like least."
I see. And do you always do what the man on the TV tells you to? No, don't tell me, I can guess. Well, enjoy the new fall lineup, I hear they have some great shows for you this year!
--
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 2
If I am in the business of doing scientific research, it is hard for me to compete with someone who gets money from the federal government to do their research.
If you are in the *business* of doing scientific research, then the things you are researching are only things in which there will be a clear, efficient monetary reward for doing that research.
The whole point of getting the public to fund research is to broaden public knowledge and to research things that may or may not have an immediate payoff but might be good things to know anyway.
But hey, that's fine. There can't really be much worth knowing outside of how to make more money. And once the Libertarians are in power, everyone will get to make as much money as possible. Everyone will be free, provided they have money. And if they don't have money, it can only be because they're lazy.
So tell me, Mr. Capitalism=freedom, how free am I when the businessmen are in control? How free am when I can't make a copy of some music some dead guy made? How free am I if someone else owns everything, from the water I drink, to the air I breathe?
Your Libertarian vote, while well-intended, will effectively go to Gore.
Gee, that's odd. Everyone tells *me* my third-party vote is going to go to Bush. Fuck it. And fuck all of you who think the best thing going for your candidate is fear of the other candidate. That's no reason to vote for someone.
[yet another false analogy of taxation to robbery snipped]
The definition of "voluntary" is "something done freely, without duress".
That's the same definition I'm using. The point of the post is this: no one is forced to consume the services of the government. It is not illegal to leave the country, nor is it illegal to reduce the amount of services provided. It is even legal to reduce one's income in order to reduce the amount of taxes paid for the services. If you choose to receive the services of the government, then they will force you to provide payment for these services, just like any other business.
A real analogy would be if you stopped paying your electric bill. The electric company would then "request" that you pay them for the service that they have provided, and their request would be backed by the law, both physically and morally.
Unfortunately, it's not a complete analogy. The electric company would simply shut off your power and be done with you, but it is physically impossible for the government to cut off services. They cannot provide national defense for some people and not others.
So, in a free society such as ours, the level of taxes and services is up to the public to decide. One can vote for taxes going up, doing down, or staying the same, and there is plenty of room to debate. But to say that taxes are 'confiscated' or that the government is robbing its citizens is wrong and adds nothing to the discourse.
If you live in a country, every day you receive services from its government, whether it's roads or police departments or schools. At the end of every year, the governments requests that you reimburse it for the cost of these services. If you refuse, the force of the government will be against you, same as if you refused to pay any other business for services of its that you had consumed.
This is just another purely voluntary exchange in our capitalist society. It puzzles me that people object so strongly to it. Sure, it would be nice if I could pick and choose which services I wanted to receive, and it'd also be nice if I had some anti-gravity boots.
If you want to end this voluntary exchange between yourself and your government, there are two simple ways to do so: 1) Emigrate. 2) Vote for people who will eliminate services.
Option 3, whining about how it is 'immoral' for the government to charge for services seems inefficient, if popular.
By contrast, Ronald Reagan had no such intellectual ability (nor intellectual arrogance). But, he did have principles, and he used them as
touchstones for the people who did his planning. His legacy changed the world.
And how much did the national debt grow from eighty to eighty-eight? One trillion? Two? If principles mean a legacy of economic irresponsibility, then count me out.
Slashdot Mirror
Simply choosing whatever real-world analogy best supports the position of port scanning is good/bad is a faulty argument. Why not discuss the topic in terms of the actual result of the actual action we are talking about? Port scanning does no real harm right off the bat. On the other hand, it is impolite to do, because now the admins of the box you scanned have to worry about what your intentions are. So going around portscanning strangers just for fun is kind of a bad thing, but not so bad that no one should ever use such a piece of software, especially since it is so educational.
And that's my take. Sure, if I put on my security admin hat, I don't want anyone ever doing any port scanning, because it makes my job a lot easier: anyone scanning my box is an enemy. On the other hand, if I put on my student hat, how am I ever going to learn things if the most educational tools are seen as dangerous and disallowed?
-- "Just the superficial sort of [analogy] someone grounded too far in 'reality' would think up. TURN UP THE FEED, YOU WIGGLY MEAT THINGS! THIS IS THE NET! NOTHING'S REAL!" --Rache Bartmoss
--
Not to start up another language war, but what do you mean by this? I'm a senior in college studying computer science, and I'm at the point where I feel I know the very basics of different languages and I'm curious as to what people who have been programming for a very long time in different languages think of them.
What about C makes you think it's bad for any project? What kind of things do you write, and what languages do you write them in? What do other people think about C?
--
Sigh. Leave it to Katz to take the best thing in the world, (games) and turn it into his usual bland, unresearched, over-generalized paste.
Oh, and I just have to correct the most egregious mis-statement of the post:
Videogames are no longer bounded by gender, either: players are evenly divided between men and women.
Depending on how you look at it, videogames have either always been bounded by gender, or never bounded by gender. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pac-man, a game which has been around forever, has always had an even gender split in its players. This may be stating the obvious, but games that simulate things that boys like to do (play sports, fight, shoot people) are more heavily favored by boys, and games that simulate things girls like to do (play house, design cities, run around a little maze gathering power pellets) are more heavily favored by girls.
--
The Dem and Reps agree on so much there's not much need for debate. The only things they could debate on would be non-issues like abortion, debates which would give no illumination. Avoiding frank discussions of positions allows the government to maintain some of its more ludicrous stances.
Where has this come from?
Technology has broken down the barriers between states, thus amplifying the role of the federal government. Interest groups now find it quite worthwhile to pay large sums of money to make sure elected federal officials cease to consider the good of the public or any other principle when making the law.
Was it always this mindless name-calling?
Yes.
Does this irrationality hurt the country, or does it benefit it?
Hurt.
Does powerlessness at the top allows the country to function without impediments?
Not really. Power has an advantage: it can be used to do good things. Power has a disadvantage: it can be used to do bad things.
--
The popularity of 'reality' shows indicates that television is so poorly written, and so uniform that anything vaguely novel is seen as the next big thing. Then everyone else tries to copy the new idea, and people get bored of it until the next novelty comes along.
I would feel optimistic if people showed less interest in "Cops" and more in good fiction.
--
Jon Katz's new book(The new Media: How the Digital Revolution is Reshaping the American Landscape) is so bad it will make you pine for all those volumes on trolls and hackers.
--
Using what? Brute-force search? Neural networks? A heretofore undiscovered AI technique? The computing power isn't the problem, it's knowing what to do with it.
So let's say I have a chess computer that can do a depth n search. Now double its speed. Congratulations, now it can search n+1 levels deep. Wait a whole thirty years, and it'll be able to search n+20 levels. Enough to beat Gary Kasparov, sure, but can it play go? Plan a battle strategy? Play a game whose rules change?
I'm not going to defend the consistency of technological advance in Card's stories*, but it seems a reasonable premise that no one made any great advances in AI in the handful of decades that the book is supposed to take place after. Perhaps all the computer scientists were busy building a computer network that would allow a couple of kids to take over the world. Or maybe they figured it was faster to try and make people smarter until they could raise a super-general than it was to try to make machines smarter.
*(Card's books are fantasy, not hard sci-fi. His computers are basically Apple IIs with magic powers.)
--
Yes, but what of the unintended consequences? Picture a thoughtful, middle-aged voter in the voter booth.
VOTER: "Hmm... I've heard some good things about that Nader feller. Maybe I should vote for him."
[Presses the Nader button, Ralph's mug gets flashed on the screen]
VOTER: "AIGH! Get it off... get it off!"
[Blindly stabs at the buttons. Nader's face is replaced by Bush's.]
VOTER: "Ahhh... much better. This feller looks like a good choice."
--
I can just picture elections in the year 2040, George W. H. Bush and Al Gore III are standing around an elderly clerk at a computer terminal.
CLERK: "Well let's see here. It says Bush wins by three thousand, two hundred and sixty-five votes."
BUSH [pumping his fist]: "Yes!"
AL: "What?! I demand a recount!"
CLERK: "Okie doke." [taps a few keys, then clicks with the mouse] "Oh sorry, my mistake. Three thousand, two hundred and sixty-*four*.
--
Oh foo. How likely is that? Your boss calls you into her office, demands that you fill out your ballot, sign and seal it, all in her presence? First of all, you can just refuse, and if you get fired, then you didn't want to work for that person anyway. Second, if your boss or anyone does this with more than one person, I bet it wouldn't be too hard to take them to task on it. Depending on what the law is in your state, you could even live the American dream and prosecute your boss on a felony charge.
I voted at my kitcen table, alone. No fuss, no muss. A friend of mine voted sitting in the computer lab, with a handful of us all standing around making suggestions. For president he flipped a coin to decide between Nader and Gore. The system works.
--
Getting a *what*? in the White House? This is precisely the reason I voted for Nader. So are you just not familiar with the beliefs of Vice President Gore, or do you honestly believe he is a liberal?
Or maybe you were referring to "Holy Joe" Lieberman. I'd be laughing, but for some reason it doesn't seem as funny given the election results.
--
Polls for Nader before the election put him at about five or six percent. The percent of people who actually voted for Nader is two or three percent. That means that a substantial number of people were swayed by the Democratic party's extortion towards voting for Gore.
The people who voted Nader this election are the people who are not going to vote for Gore. Don't let anyone tell you Gore didn't lose this election all by himself. He even lost his home state, fer chrissake.
I voted for Nader in Oregon, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
--
Nope. People of all political leanings gather here. Usually the common ground is an interest in technology or 'geeky' things, but Slashdot is big enough that it's a haven for people who like to spout off on anything.
You may have gotten that impression because liberals tend to go on about the importance of a free mind, and conservatives will go on about the importance of a free wallet, so if you got a lot of those posts, it might look like it was slanted libertarian, while it's not.
You can spot the real libertarians because they have this aggreived tone in which they emote an air of disbelief that anyone could possibly disagree with them. It makes for a good rant, but the over-simplifying usually is a turn-off for most people.
--
I have fantasies about major media news sources acknowledging that there are reasons why people have political beliefs not endorsed by the two parties. I have fantasies in which the two parties have to defend their stances on certain issues, even if the other party agrees with them. I have fantasies about non-moderates being able to participate in the political process, without being told "you have to vote for one of these two people you disagree with, or you might as well just stay home."
Just like everything else in life, you have to be strong to survive. Simpering in the corner and moaning about how big companies are hurting you is weak and feeble behavior. If you had any real conviction, you'd quit voting for losers and start influencing the hearts and minds of those with a legitimate chance to win.
Thank you Ms. Rand. I guess if you can only conceive of two possible positions on any given issue, than two parties is enough for you.
Is it too much to hope for that I've been trolled?
--
Ah, what the hell, I'm bored enough to respond to anonymous cowards.
I looked at the sig a while ago, and decided that 'democracy' is not quite the right word, but that it sounded better than 'society in which the press is owned by the government.' Whatever, I don't make it a point to be particularly insightful in .signatures.
Sorry if my argument confused you. I guess I'll spell it out literally.
If you take the Harry Browne quote from the interview, and you replace the word "Government" with the word "Corporations," then what you're left with is a rather banal piece of political tripe. Why is this? Well, it's because the original statement was just as boring and non-novel as the edited version. It seems to me that statements of this sort are popular nowadays, yet fulfill no real use in political discourse. Standing up and saying that everything is the fault of (Government|Corporations|Communism|Capitalism|secu lar humanism) is a sign that you are willing to over-simplify everything in order to be able to broadcast a 'political message.'
I'll try to stay away from implying my arguments in the future.
--
Christianity is about as deviant and unethical as I can imagine; if Christians are to be taken seriously, then I see no reason why not to take Wiccans seriously.
(If it offends you that I might say such a thing about Christianity, then just substitute Islam or some other religion you don't like for it.)
--
"Corporations don't aid progress, they hinder it. Corporations are profits, not progress. Large corporations are bureaucracy, inefficiency, and market forces. They are the least desirable, least beneficial, and least likely to succeed means of getting anything meaningful accomplished."
Yawn. When discourse comes down to an exercise in political posturing, every argument turns into '[insert favorite bogey-man here].'
--
Why would anyone be surprised by / paranoid about this? Information, even census information, wants to be free.
--
: some music some dead guy made?
Oh please. How would less government cause this to happen?
Not less government, but the kind of government that serves only business' interests and not the public's interests, which I felt the previous poster was in favor of.
How could it happen? It's already happened in the United States. Large corporations lobby the government to extend the period of time an artist's work is copyrighted. (A power of the government explicitly stated in the constitution.) As a result, despite there being no benefit to the person who actually created the work, I have to pay for the right to have a copy of a song written by someone who has been dead for years.
: How free am I if someone else owns everything,
: from the water I drink, to the air I breathe?
You imply that public ownership is preferrable to private ownership. Communism?
Some things are better if they are privately owned. Some things are better if they are publicly owned. Some can go either way. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out which are which.
By 'Commmunism?' I assume you mean the following argument, which I find false for reason which should be evident.
Communism is the public ownership of all property. Communism is bad. Therefore, the private ownership of all property must be as good as Communism is bad.
--
"Oh, but wait. They told me [Evil Politician X] could win this election, and that only I could stop him. I have to figure out who is going to come in second and give him one more vote, so that he will win instead of X."
Really? Well, how do you determine which of the candidates is going to come in second?
"The man on the TV says so. They have it all figured out. See, there's only two candidates, and if you don't vote for either of them, they just add a vote to whichever candidate you like least."
I see. And do you always do what the man on the TV tells you to? No, don't tell me, I can guess. Well, enjoy the new fall lineup, I hear they have some great shows for you this year!
--
If you are in the *business* of doing scientific research, then the things you are researching are only things in which there will be a clear, efficient monetary reward for doing that research. The whole point of getting the public to fund research is to broaden public knowledge and to research things that may or may not have an immediate payoff but might be good things to know anyway.
But hey, that's fine. There can't really be much worth knowing outside of how to make more money. And once the Libertarians are in power, everyone will get to make as much money as possible. Everyone will be free, provided they have money. And if they don't have money, it can only be because they're lazy.
So tell me, Mr. Capitalism=freedom, how free am I when the businessmen are in control? How free am when I can't make a copy of some music some dead guy made? How free am I if someone else owns everything, from the water I drink, to the air I breathe?
--
Gee, that's odd. Everyone tells *me* my third-party vote is going to go to Bush. Fuck it. And fuck all of you who think the best thing going for your candidate is fear of the other candidate. That's no reason to vote for someone.
--
The definition of "voluntary" is "something done freely, without duress".
That's the same definition I'm using. The point of the post is this: no one is forced to consume the services of the government. It is not illegal to leave the country, nor is it illegal to reduce the amount of services provided. It is even legal to reduce one's income in order to reduce the amount of taxes paid for the services. If you choose to receive the services of the government, then they will force you to provide payment for these services, just like any other business.
A real analogy would be if you stopped paying your electric bill. The electric company would then "request" that you pay them for the service that they have provided, and their request would be backed by the law, both physically and morally.
Unfortunately, it's not a complete analogy. The electric company would simply shut off your power and be done with you, but it is physically impossible for the government to cut off services. They cannot provide national defense for some people and not others.
So, in a free society such as ours, the level of taxes and services is up to the public to decide. One can vote for taxes going up, doing down, or staying the same, and there is plenty of room to debate. But to say that taxes are 'confiscated' or that the government is robbing its citizens is wrong and adds nothing to the discourse.
--
This is just another purely voluntary exchange in our capitalist society. It puzzles me that people object so strongly to it. Sure, it would be nice if I could pick and choose which services I wanted to receive, and it'd also be nice if I had some anti-gravity boots.
If you want to end this voluntary exchange between yourself and your government, there are two simple ways to do so: 1) Emigrate. 2) Vote for people who will eliminate services.
Option 3, whining about how it is 'immoral' for the government to charge for services seems inefficient, if popular.
--
And how much did the national debt grow from eighty to eighty-eight? One trillion? Two? If principles mean a legacy of economic irresponsibility, then count me out.
--