Which is why it's illegal for me to own a nuclear weapon. Modern guns all use principles that have been around since before the USA had a second amendment. The principles behind modern technologies are only 70 maybe 80 years old?
True, we never would have won the Revolutionary War without the good old M16.
I agree. They've just been trying to take away Facebook users since it went public. A better strategy would be to look at the market and go after those who don't use Facebook, for one reason or another. Build a solid user base of people who wouldn't consider the alternative, then worry about picking off the competitor's customers. I would guess that most of the current users also have Facebook pages, so they'll default to that since it's the de-facto standard. Having a strong user base that will say, "No, get ahold of me on G+ b/c I don't have a Facebook page" is a much better strategy for keeping the network active. But Google didn't really give many good reasons for non-Facebook users to consider their network other than "We're not Facebook" until now, out of desperation.
At least it's a step in the right direction, but I'm sure G+ would have been doing much better had they originally tried to allow some form of anonymity. Just look at how many Slashdotters they could have pulled in from the start. These are heavy internet users and clicks are what counts.
The eloquent wit of your rhetoric compels me to agree with you.
Hey, kid, go back to school. There's a class called "English" you seemed to have missed. Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you say things such as "Sorry fail"? Where you fail is reading comprehension. MachineShedFred never said Apple was his hero. He didn't even really stick up for them. He just criticized the summary, which obviously lacks objectivity, by pointing out a counter-argument.
We nd evidence of signicant association in both data sets, suggesting that the SLC6A4 gene may play a role in explaining subjective well-being. While we do not claim that SLC6A4 determines happiness, nor do we exclude the possibility that several other genes may also play a role, we do think that the results suggest at least one possible causal pathway able to account for the inuence of genes on happiness
Here's a quote from The Economist describing the paper:
Recent work on both these fronts suggests that happiness is highly heritable . . . so, presumably, the tendency to be happy or miserable is, to some extent, passed on through DNA.
"Suggests" is a scientific weasel word that can be improperly read by morons as "concludes." Or intentionally misconstrued by journalists because a study that doesn't conclude anything and merely provides a data set that may be useful in the future isn't that interesting and they want clicks. Doing more studies may show a regression toward the mean. A more nuanced classification of the participants may suggest something else. Call me a skeptic - I'll take it as a compliment. Skepticism is logical. Drawing conclusions from this study is not.
And for all of you drug legalization folks, its the reason why pot is illegal and likely will continue to be. Man people have proven, over many centuries, that as a group, we can't or won't consume the product in a responsible fashion, and therefore annoying laws and regulations have to be implemented and enforced to be the primary annoyance for those who can, and routinely ignored by those who don't.
Yeah, all those crazy potheads who smoke so unreasonably. Just remember, children, a bag of Cheetos dies every time some stupid stoner tokes up.
Show me a person who has smoked an "irresponsible" amount of marijuana and I'll show you someone who's asleep.
Marijuana isn't illegal because anyone was irresponsible under its influence. Marijuana is illegal because it was an extension of the failed alcohol prohibition (the prohibitionists wanted to stop pot before it became as popular as alcohol and thereby impossible to prohibit) and it was also a convenient way to throw Mexicans in jail for no good reason because it was deemed preferable to have Mexicans in jail than as free citizens.
btw, marijuana will be legalized in the first half of this century. Those who oppose it are dying.
If I wanted to see Facebook crap, I would join Facebook.
I've used multiple extensions that claim to block Facebook stuff and they only work half the time. I still haven't found one to stop getting Facebook cookies. I have to delete them all the time even though I've never gone to Facebook's website. I can't go to any commercial website these days (except Google) without getting their crap on my computer.
This crossed my mind, but not in the way you mention. I was thinking that it would be a huge mistake for Microsoft to put these things anywhere near a GameStop because if GameStop feels threatened they'll tell their employees to start plugging Sony and Nintendo, they'll cut down on shelf space dedicated to XBox, and their magazine will have an anti-MS bias.
So they're probably keeping these things as far away from GameStops as possible. You compete with your competitors, not your partners. I don't think it should be too big of an issue b/c they're putting these stores in wealthy districts while GameStop tends to build next to WalMarts.
Watch the opening credits of the HBO show Hung. I believe I've heard their music in movies and commercials as well.
I hate Microsoft and love The Black Keys, so I'm a bit disappointed, but I don't blame them. Being a professional musician and being a sell-out are one in the same. Being independent just means one hasn't been provided the opportunity to sell out. Anyway, it's not like they're some punk band preaching a 'us vs. the system' type mentality.
Just like I said, for you to be explicit, you have to "talk around" the flaw in the language.
No, for one to be explicit they just need to be explicit. It kind of makes sense that being explicit has a lower word efficiency than being ambiguous. Yes, other languages are different, but that doesn't make one flawed. If word efficiency was really all that important then Spanish wouldn't be a language. Spanish speakers just have a clever way of getting around the inefficiency of their language: they talk fast.
". . . Microsoft will open its 14th store. Located in Seattle's . .." Oh, look, I made it explicit using only a period and one extra word.
Writer opens in less than a second on my very ordinary Dell laptop.
Maybe you should look at fixing your computer.
I second that. It opens up faster than Office '08 on my several year old MacBook in OS X and similarly fast in Ubuntu. There are no performance issues while it runs. Of all the OpenOffice variants I have installed - OOo, Symphony, KOffice, LibreOffice, and NeoOffice - Libre runs the best.
Like the parent I would prefer them to focus on the desktop version but that's mainly because I have no interest in a mobile version. Having said that, I can understand why having a mobile version may be important for the community. The big hurdle with LibreOffice is getting businesses to accept it. Having a mobile version is a bullet point that some suits may care about despite the fact they may never use it. So it's probably a worthwhile endeavor.
As far as a word processor, LibreOffice is there. It's good enough. Once the spreadsheet and presentation parts can match the quality of the word processor (i.e. good enough to replace MS Office), MS Office will be on the way out.
Oops, I kind of went off topic there: If your computer can't run LibreOffice smoothly, it's your computer. It's either time to get rid of the malware or upgrade.
I don't like the fact that the rich are provided with a different (better) form of justice than the general public, but I also don't think that's the issue here.
If one of the Coen Brothers got drunk and left a laptop at a bar, and someone took it and started posting their future screenplays online (or maybe just summaries or excerpts), you can bet your ass the cops would be busting in that person's door and hauling them off to jail. Any screenplay credited to the Coen Brothers has an automatic value of several millions of dollars - and then if you consider the potential money the final production could bring in, it could be hundred of millions. Take profit out of the equation and focus on revenue, because revenue is money that would go to all the people they employ in the production of the film and all the other expenses which fuel the economy.
So you're not just taking money out of the Coens' pockets. You're taking it out of the movie studio they work for, the people they employ, the companies who sell them equipment, and even the government itself because of all the tax revenue these transactions create.
Now consider the billions of dollars in revenue that the iPhone generates. Not just for Apple, but for everyone associated with it.
Regardless, if someone finds a starving artist's laptop in a bar and decides to just take it, and the starving artist can prove that the laptop belongs to him and the person in possession of it refuses to return it, the police do have an obligation to ensure that his property is returned. But it's reasonable that this is a much lower priority than something that's actually worth a bunch of money.
At night time, when the only part of a car I can see is the headlights in my rearview mirror, I can tell you what company made the car. I can sometimes tell the model as well, but that depends (lots of GMs, for example, use the same headlights).
I think you need glasses, dude. Hondas and Toyotas have some pretty obvious differences. They have their similarities, but they certainly aren't indistinguishable, hood ornament or no.
We liberals can always count on Californians to make us look bad. Whining about inclusiveness, trying to ban dodgeball, prioritizing animals over people . . . James Carville needs to set these hippies straight - it's the economy, stupid!
At least the New Yorkers are doing something right.
The funny thing is it doesn't matter whether their lectures are online or not. Khan Academy will eventually cover their material. Furthermore, people don't pay to go to college to be educated, they pay for credentialing. Anyone with the drive to learn and a fraction of the resources required to go to college can learn just about anything these days. It just doesn't do any good because no certificate comes from it. So the unions have nothing to whine about - they'd be much better off trying to put an end to diploma mills because those are a real threat to their business. They hand out credentials without requiring half the effort or cost of a traditional university.
It's about smoothness, not quietness. Engine harmonics. For the same reason a straight six is preferable to a V6.
The fuel efficiency isn't bad considering the acceleration. You can redline super high in RX-7/8s as well. If you putz around and match your revs when you shift, the fuel efficiency really isn't bad at all (well, maybe it's considered bad now, but not like 10 yrs ago - shit, I'm getting old).
If you're looking for quietness and fuel efficiency it's not for you. If you're a driving enthusiast and you want to drive something fun every day, it's perfect.
That said, Mazda won't get my money because I'd rather have a used RX-7 than a new RX-8. Cars these days are like people these days: they all need to go on a diet. Lose some damn weight!
Basically, the article says that the auto makers wouldn't pay to license this technology. Even if they planned on using it, if it's already used in airplanes and submarines and the auto industry has probably done research on it before, then what would they really need to license? Surely if it seemed like a good idea to them they would do so without licensing the technology from this little company. They have plenty of engineers.
one that promises to marry the fuel efficiency of diesel technology with the lower cost structure of gasoline-burning engines
I also don't understand this quote. Does it mean make a gas engine that is as fuel efficient as diesel? It seems to imply that diesels are somehow expensive. They aren't. In a lot of ways they're more basic. A hybrid can get as good or better mileage as a diesel, but it does come at a cost (stupid batteries). But then there is also the Smart Car or VW Bug, they're comparable to a diesel (and you can even get a diesel bug).
Also, efficiency doesn't necessary translate into MPG. For instance, a rotary engine, like a RX-8, is more efficient than a standard piston engine, but this gives it better acceleration rather than MPG.
I'm not saying this guy's design is crap or anything, it just doesn't seem practical for Detroit. For all the retooling necessary to actual get these things in mass market cars, it would have to be planned to be implemented so far in the future the guys in Detroit probably plan to be much further along than this incremental improvement. Electricity and hydrogen come to mind - only using oil as a lubricant and perhaps not at all considering all the synthetic oils these days.
1. Quentin Tarantino got his start as a video store clerk. That experience was invaluable to making him the writer/director he would later become.
2. Good musicians rarely make money off of it. Attractive and marketable musicians make money. Good musicians play in bars, often for free.
3. Good writers rarely make make money off of it. Genre writers who appeal to the lowest common denominator do. Dan Brown, George Martin, etc.
4. Most companies only need boring, simple code.
To summarize, if you are truly creative in what is in demand, there will always be someone willing - but not desperate - to pay you not to work to your full potential.
The problem is the new markets don't always fulfill the economic needs of the country as well as the old ones.
One trend with technology is that it allows more to be accomplished with less labor. But the labor force is still there and needs something to sustain it. We no longer need a factory worker to put a door on a car, and another to put the hood on, and another to do the windshield. We just need one to supervise the robot that does all of this. You can't just expect a large portion of the population to commit suicide because there's no longer an economic use for them. Or maybe, as you suggest, they should just 'get the fuck over' the fact that they have no job and no money and are only alive because of food stamps.
If only someone had warned us. Oh, wait, Kurt Vonnegut did when he wrote Player Piano half a century ago. Bill Joy did when he wrote Why The Future Doesn't Need Us a decade ago. Ray Bradbury with Fahrenheit 451. Each of these warnings were brushed aside as implausibly dystopian. Of course, there are no easy solutions and none of them involve 'getting the fuck over it.'
Over 500,000 dead. Had there been no civil war it would have been only a few decades before new farm equipment made slavery economically unviable.
Not to mention that most blacks in the south suffered more under reconstruction than they did as actual slaves. Many moved up north because they assumed the northerners, with their abolitionist sentiments, would treat them justly. Instead they just encountered a different type of racism: become a wage slave and live in a ghetto - be a citizen but a second-class citizen. Most slave owners provided better living conditions for their slaves than that which was provided for the average northern factory worker (regardless of race). Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison is a good examination of this.
You can keep telling yourself the Republicans have a longstanding historical moral high ground, but that's a black-and-white attitude in a world that is anything but. "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."
The fact of the matter is that the arguments the southerns had for secession are almost identical to those Jefferson made in the Declaration of Independence for breaking away from England. With the election of Lincoln the south had absolutely no influence on the federal government. The House of Representatives was 59% Republican and none of those men represented a southern state.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why it's illegal for me to own a nuclear weapon. Modern guns all use principles that have been around since before the USA had a second amendment. The principles behind modern technologies are only 70 maybe 80 years old?
True, we never would have won the Revolutionary War without the good old M16.
Socialism and a rigidly progressive tax system.
The solution isn't hard. Getting the legislation passed is the problem.
I agree. They've just been trying to take away Facebook users since it went public. A better strategy would be to look at the market and go after those who don't use Facebook, for one reason or another. Build a solid user base of people who wouldn't consider the alternative, then worry about picking off the competitor's customers. I would guess that most of the current users also have Facebook pages, so they'll default to that since it's the de-facto standard. Having a strong user base that will say, "No, get ahold of me on G+ b/c I don't have a Facebook page" is a much better strategy for keeping the network active. But Google didn't really give many good reasons for non-Facebook users to consider their network other than "We're not Facebook" until now, out of desperation.
At least it's a step in the right direction, but I'm sure G+ would have been doing much better had they originally tried to allow some form of anonymity. Just look at how many Slashdotters they could have pulled in from the start. These are heavy internet users and clicks are what counts.
without our permission.
That's the scary part.
The eloquent wit of your rhetoric compels me to agree with you.
Hey, kid, go back to school. There's a class called "English" you seemed to have missed. Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you say things such as "Sorry fail"? Where you fail is reading comprehension. MachineShedFred never said Apple was his hero. He didn't even really stick up for them. He just criticized the summary, which obviously lacks objectivity, by pointing out a counter-argument.
I don't know what you're talking about. This has to be the most objective summary I've ever read.
Here's the caveat in the actual paper:
We nd evidence of signicant association in both data sets,
suggesting that the SLC6A4 gene may play a role in explaining subjective
well-being. While we do not claim that SLC6A4 determines happiness, nor
do we exclude the possibility that several other genes may also play a role,
we do think that the results suggest at least one possible causal pathway
able to account for the inuence of genes on happiness
Here's a quote from The Economist describing the paper:
Recent work on both these fronts suggests that happiness is highly heritable . . . so, presumably, the tendency to be happy or miserable is, to some extent, passed on through DNA.
"Suggests" is a scientific weasel word that can be improperly read by morons as "concludes." Or intentionally misconstrued by journalists because a study that doesn't conclude anything and merely provides a data set that may be useful in the future isn't that interesting and they want clicks. Doing more studies may show a regression toward the mean. A more nuanced classification of the participants may suggest something else. Call me a skeptic - I'll take it as a compliment. Skepticism is logical. Drawing conclusions from this study is not.
And for all of you drug legalization folks, its the reason why pot is illegal and likely will continue to be. Man people have proven, over many centuries, that as a group, we can't or won't consume the product in a responsible fashion, and therefore annoying laws and regulations have to be implemented and enforced to be the primary annoyance for those who can, and routinely ignored by those who don't.
Yeah, all those crazy potheads who smoke so unreasonably. Just remember, children, a bag of Cheetos dies every time some stupid stoner tokes up.
Show me a person who has smoked an "irresponsible" amount of marijuana and I'll show you someone who's asleep.
Marijuana isn't illegal because anyone was irresponsible under its influence. Marijuana is illegal because it was an extension of the failed alcohol prohibition (the prohibitionists wanted to stop pot before it became as popular as alcohol and thereby impossible to prohibit) and it was also a convenient way to throw Mexicans in jail for no good reason because it was deemed preferable to have Mexicans in jail than as free citizens.
btw, marijuana will be legalized in the first half of this century. Those who oppose it are dying.
Do you always chime in on subjects you have no interest in to profess the fact that you have no interest in them?
Personally, I think he does it too much.
If I wanted to see Facebook crap, I would join Facebook.
I've used multiple extensions that claim to block Facebook stuff and they only work half the time. I still haven't found one to stop getting Facebook cookies. I have to delete them all the time even though I've never gone to Facebook's website. I can't go to any commercial website these days (except Google) without getting their crap on my computer.
This crossed my mind, but not in the way you mention. I was thinking that it would be a huge mistake for Microsoft to put these things anywhere near a GameStop because if GameStop feels threatened they'll tell their employees to start plugging Sony and Nintendo, they'll cut down on shelf space dedicated to XBox, and their magazine will have an anti-MS bias.
So they're probably keeping these things as far away from GameStops as possible. You compete with your competitors, not your partners. I don't think it should be too big of an issue b/c they're putting these stores in wealthy districts while GameStop tends to build next to WalMarts.
Watch the opening credits of the HBO show Hung. I believe I've heard their music in movies and commercials as well.
I hate Microsoft and love The Black Keys, so I'm a bit disappointed, but I don't blame them. Being a professional musician and being a sell-out are one in the same. Being independent just means one hasn't been provided the opportunity to sell out. Anyway, it's not like they're some punk band preaching a 'us vs. the system' type mentality.
Just like I said, for you to be explicit, you have to "talk around" the flaw in the language.
No, for one to be explicit they just need to be explicit. It kind of makes sense that being explicit has a lower word efficiency than being ambiguous. Yes, other languages are different, but that doesn't make one flawed. If word efficiency was really all that important then Spanish wouldn't be a language. Spanish speakers just have a clever way of getting around the inefficiency of their language: they talk fast.
". . . Microsoft will open its 14th store. Located in Seattle's . . ." Oh, look, I made it explicit using only a period and one extra word.
Writer opens in less than a second on my very ordinary Dell laptop.
Maybe you should look at fixing your computer.
I second that. It opens up faster than Office '08 on my several year old MacBook in OS X and similarly fast in Ubuntu. There are no performance issues while it runs. Of all the OpenOffice variants I have installed - OOo, Symphony, KOffice, LibreOffice, and NeoOffice - Libre runs the best.
Like the parent I would prefer them to focus on the desktop version but that's mainly because I have no interest in a mobile version. Having said that, I can understand why having a mobile version may be important for the community. The big hurdle with LibreOffice is getting businesses to accept it. Having a mobile version is a bullet point that some suits may care about despite the fact they may never use it. So it's probably a worthwhile endeavor.
As far as a word processor, LibreOffice is there. It's good enough. Once the spreadsheet and presentation parts can match the quality of the word processor (i.e. good enough to replace MS Office), MS Office will be on the way out.
Oops, I kind of went off topic there: If your computer can't run LibreOffice smoothly, it's your computer. It's either time to get rid of the malware or upgrade.
I don't like the fact that the rich are provided with a different (better) form of justice than the general public, but I also don't think that's the issue here.
If one of the Coen Brothers got drunk and left a laptop at a bar, and someone took it and started posting their future screenplays online (or maybe just summaries or excerpts), you can bet your ass the cops would be busting in that person's door and hauling them off to jail. Any screenplay credited to the Coen Brothers has an automatic value of several millions of dollars - and then if you consider the potential money the final production could bring in, it could be hundred of millions. Take profit out of the equation and focus on revenue, because revenue is money that would go to all the people they employ in the production of the film and all the other expenses which fuel the economy.
So you're not just taking money out of the Coens' pockets. You're taking it out of the movie studio they work for, the people they employ, the companies who sell them equipment, and even the government itself because of all the tax revenue these transactions create.
Now consider the billions of dollars in revenue that the iPhone generates. Not just for Apple, but for everyone associated with it.
Regardless, if someone finds a starving artist's laptop in a bar and decides to just take it, and the starving artist can prove that the laptop belongs to him and the person in possession of it refuses to return it, the police do have an obligation to ensure that his property is returned. But it's reasonable that this is a much lower priority than something that's actually worth a bunch of money.
At night time, when the only part of a car I can see is the headlights in my rearview mirror, I can tell you what company made the car. I can sometimes tell the model as well, but that depends (lots of GMs, for example, use the same headlights).
I think you need glasses, dude. Hondas and Toyotas have some pretty obvious differences. They have their similarities, but they certainly aren't indistinguishable, hood ornament or no.
We liberals can always count on Californians to make us look bad. Whining about inclusiveness, trying to ban dodgeball, prioritizing animals over people . . . James Carville needs to set these hippies straight - it's the economy, stupid!
At least the New Yorkers are doing something right.
The funny thing is it doesn't matter whether their lectures are online or not. Khan Academy will eventually cover their material. Furthermore, people don't pay to go to college to be educated, they pay for credentialing. Anyone with the drive to learn and a fraction of the resources required to go to college can learn just about anything these days. It just doesn't do any good because no certificate comes from it. So the unions have nothing to whine about - they'd be much better off trying to put an end to diploma mills because those are a real threat to their business. They hand out credentials without requiring half the effort or cost of a traditional university.
It's about smoothness, not quietness. Engine harmonics. For the same reason a straight six is preferable to a V6.
The fuel efficiency isn't bad considering the acceleration. You can redline super high in RX-7/8s as well. If you putz around and match your revs when you shift, the fuel efficiency really isn't bad at all (well, maybe it's considered bad now, but not like 10 yrs ago - shit, I'm getting old).
If you're looking for quietness and fuel efficiency it's not for you. If you're a driving enthusiast and you want to drive something fun every day, it's perfect.
That said, Mazda won't get my money because I'd rather have a used RX-7 than a new RX-8. Cars these days are like people these days: they all need to go on a diet. Lose some damn weight!
Yeah, dammit! I wanna buy a nuclear missile but the damned government is infringing upon my right to bear arms by not allowing it.
Is a nuclear missile not an armament or am I missing something here?
I'm sure I'm just really jaded now but I can't read a slashdot story anymore without looking for the anti-MS rhetoric.
I know, when did this attitude become so prevalent on /.? Microsoft never did anything to warrant this type of negative bias.
Basically, the article says that the auto makers wouldn't pay to license this technology. Even if they planned on using it, if it's already used in airplanes and submarines and the auto industry has probably done research on it before, then what would they really need to license? Surely if it seemed like a good idea to them they would do so without licensing the technology from this little company. They have plenty of engineers.
one that promises to marry the fuel efficiency of diesel technology with the lower cost structure of gasoline-burning engines
I also don't understand this quote. Does it mean make a gas engine that is as fuel efficient as diesel? It seems to imply that diesels are somehow expensive. They aren't. In a lot of ways they're more basic. A hybrid can get as good or better mileage as a diesel, but it does come at a cost (stupid batteries). But then there is also the Smart Car or VW Bug, they're comparable to a diesel (and you can even get a diesel bug).
Also, efficiency doesn't necessary translate into MPG. For instance, a rotary engine, like a RX-8, is more efficient than a standard piston engine, but this gives it better acceleration rather than MPG.
I'm not saying this guy's design is crap or anything, it just doesn't seem practical for Detroit. For all the retooling necessary to actual get these things in mass market cars, it would have to be planned to be implemented so far in the future the guys in Detroit probably plan to be much further along than this incremental improvement. Electricity and hydrogen come to mind - only using oil as a lubricant and perhaps not at all considering all the synthetic oils these days.
1. Quentin Tarantino got his start as a video store clerk. That experience was invaluable to making him the writer/director he would later become.
2. Good musicians rarely make money off of it. Attractive and marketable musicians make money. Good musicians play in bars, often for free.
3. Good writers rarely make make money off of it. Genre writers who appeal to the lowest common denominator do. Dan Brown, George Martin, etc.
4. Most companies only need boring, simple code.
To summarize, if you are truly creative in what is in demand, there will always be someone willing - but not desperate - to pay you not to work to your full potential.
DOC: No wonder this circuit failed, it says 'made in Japan.'
MCFLY: What do you mean, Doc, all the best stuff is made in Japan.
DOC: Unbelievable.
The problem is the new markets don't always fulfill the economic needs of the country as well as the old ones.
One trend with technology is that it allows more to be accomplished with less labor. But the labor force is still there and needs something to sustain it. We no longer need a factory worker to put a door on a car, and another to put the hood on, and another to do the windshield. We just need one to supervise the robot that does all of this. You can't just expect a large portion of the population to commit suicide because there's no longer an economic use for them. Or maybe, as you suggest, they should just 'get the fuck over' the fact that they have no job and no money and are only alive because of food stamps.
If only someone had warned us. Oh, wait, Kurt Vonnegut did when he wrote Player Piano half a century ago. Bill Joy did when he wrote Why The Future Doesn't Need Us a decade ago. Ray Bradbury with Fahrenheit 451. Each of these warnings were brushed aside as implausibly dystopian. Of course, there are no easy solutions and none of them involve 'getting the fuck over it.'
Over 500,000 dead. Had there been no civil war it would have been only a few decades before new farm equipment made slavery economically unviable.
Not to mention that most blacks in the south suffered more under reconstruction than they did as actual slaves. Many moved up north because they assumed the northerners, with their abolitionist sentiments, would treat them justly. Instead they just encountered a different type of racism: become a wage slave and live in a ghetto - be a citizen but a second-class citizen. Most slave owners provided better living conditions for their slaves than that which was provided for the average northern factory worker (regardless of race). Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison is a good examination of this.
You can keep telling yourself the Republicans have a longstanding historical moral high ground, but that's a black-and-white attitude in a world that is anything but. "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."
The fact of the matter is that the arguments the southerns had for secession are almost identical to those Jefferson made in the Declaration of Independence for breaking away from England. With the election of Lincoln the south had absolutely no influence on the federal government. The House of Representatives was 59% Republican and none of those men represented a southern state.