This country is explicitly NOT a democracy. It is a Republic. The Founding Fathers were quite explicit about that. Federalist No. 76 in particular talks about the appointing power of the Executive.
Hamilton wrote that vesting the power of appointment in a single person
will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have
fewer personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection.
He further believed that
I proceed to lay it down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment.
In Federalist 37 Madison specifically speaks about the Republican nature of the government and notes that
It is
sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people.
The President himself is not even directly appointed. How is that indirect appointment any different from the head of the FTC's indirect appointment?
You may disagree with Hamilton and Madison's analysis. But you obviously misunderstand the principles upon which this nation was founded. In light of that, your argument is difficult to take seriously.
Who doesn't like Stephenson's writing, his plots, his pacing, his dialogue, his characters, or his books?
It would be nice if/. would review books by different authors. Generally if you give one good review to an author people are going to check out his/her other books. I would much rather see reviews of different authors rather than a review of every book a given author has written.
Okay, so I cruised on over to the SEC's site and looked at form S-1 (is that the one you were talking about?). I am still unconvinced. It said they were dependent on the support of Linus Torvalds and other prominent Linux developers. But they were talking about developments from those people, not goodwill. If Linux puts out a new kernel, it doesn't matter whether he hates Red Hat or not. Red Hat can still bundle it in RH Linux 7.9. Another risk mentioned is that Open Source community may react negatively to their business strategy. They say this may affect their reputation and brand name. I stick by my original claim that Open Source bitching about Microsoft has not hurt their brand name and reputation. Red Hat makes it clear that this would really only affect them if this perception is shared by their customers.
Again, you haven't really given me much to go on here. If Red Hat damages their relationship with the Open Source Community how is their business, operating results, and financial condition damaged? Is the risk only that they might get some bad PR from a disgruntled Open Source Community?
I thought Red Hat's business model was subscription based service?
Red Hat's only concern and obligation is to maximize stock value. If it does not maximize stock value it opens itself up to shareholder suits.
On the other hand, let's say that it pisses off and antagonizes the entire Free Software Community. What can they do about it? How can they prevent Red Hat from using their software without destroying the very Freedom they claim to espouse? It has no obligation to "do right" by the free software community because the free software community has no recourse if Red Hat screws them over. What is the FSF going to do, include a clause in the GPL saying, "Except for Red Hat, they are dirty cheating scum and they can't use our software no matter what"?
The Free Software Community would bitch and moan. How effective has their bitching and moaning been against Microsoft's business? Maybe a few negative stories would get published but then investors would realize that other than possibly bad PR from disgruntled socialists the Red Hat business model is exactly the same as the day they first threw money at them.
I fail to see how Red Hat has an obligation to the free software community. Perhaps you could elaborate?
Given the ability to modify the Constitution this seems a pointless distinction. "I have to do what X says but I can change X to let it allow me to do what I want."
If government and law are separate then who enforces the law if there is no government? Who makes the law if there is no government? Who adjudicates law if there is no government? To enforce law requires so-called "coercive" power. I thought only government had "coercive" power -- everything else being free association? If someone other than "government" says you broke a law and they use coercive power to punish you how are they not government? If they have no power to punish you how is it a law?
I guess I'm just confused and hope you can explain things to me.
whereas cyber terrorism utilizes information technology (IT) devices to inflict mass disruption of an opponent's critical IT infrastructure
Cyber terrorism doesn't (necessarily) utilize IT devices to disrupt critical IT infrastructure. A backhoe to a set of OC-192 circuits works just as well at disrupting critical IT infrastructure. I also wouldn't really categorize social exploits as "utilizing IT devices".
The point isn't whether OSS comes up with better or worse compression techniques. Go reread what I quoted. The original claim was that OSS independently discovers every patented algorithm they use. Which is utter crap. I know why they use LZW. What I am arguing is that OSS did not independently invent LZW. They copied it from the people who did invent it. There was NO independent invention of LZW.
If concepts are not property then how do copyrights not invade basic personal freedom? Why should I not be allowed to photocopy Steven King's newest book and sell it? I'm not stealing his property.
The idea that the guy who is smarter and more on the ball succeeds is a convenient and comforting Calvinist myth that I have failed to see manifest itself in the real world in anything approaching a consistent manner.
In *EVERY* case of OSS patent infringement I've see, the OSS people came up with the solution on their own for free.
I am not aware of a single piece of OSS that used LZW compression for GIFs that came up with that compression independently. Every one I know of copied the algorithm from someplace else (book, journal, specification, other software, etc). That's not "coming up with the solution". That's translating an algorithm published by someone else.
What are labels? Labels describe content. They tell a consumer whether a piece of music contains violent lyrics, whether a movie contains sex. The American Library Association may claim that "labeling...is a censor's tool" but I fail to see the logic in that. Cars are labelled -- whether they are two or four door. Every piece of food we purchase is labelled with its ingredients, so that we can make an informed decision. Clothes are labelled with the kinds and amounts of fabrics from which they are constituted. Most computer games and books have a category label (science fiction, strategy, etc) affixed to them.
How do these labels aid and abet censors? How do they prejudice attitudes? Or do they simply convey information? How is a label on Quake saying "First Person Shooter" censorship?
Proponents of labels call them "voluntary". Salon says they are mandatory. Maybe if Salon and the proponents were talking about the same thing a useful discussion might ensue, but Salon is undoubtedly more interested in fanning the flames. Applying the label is not voluntary. What is voluntary is your choice. In a non-voluntary system I have no choice about purchasing NC-17. In a voluntary system that choice remains, there is simply a label which categorizes them. In a voluntary system no government agency prevents the movie companies from producing NC-17 movies. No government agency prevents movie theaters from filming them. The choice to show or not show an NC-17 film is VOLUNTARY.
Claiming that what movie theaters perform is censorship is as misguided as claiming that when Slashdot refuses to run an article about sports it is censorship.
Would anyone have much sympathy if food producers said (or content labelling): "It's going to happen and the food producers are going to resist it as long as they can, but they'll have to realise that they must label their content or face prosecution." Does anyone here actually relish the idea of living in a world where you have no idea what is in your food, your clothing, that unopened shrinkwrapped box?
I'm sure if you are already against labels everything this article said resonates with you and everything I've said is utter crap. But when I read this article I just don't see a single good argument against labels. Maybe there are, but I don't see them here.
Nothing in the current publishing industry prevents authors from controlling their product from start to finish. I know of several authors who self-published their books precisely because they didn't want to hand over editorial control to someone else.
Oh, wait I see. You mean you want to use someone else's distribution channels and capital so that you can make money without letting them say jack about it. Okay, but that's not really the same thing as being forced to give them editorial control.
Taxes go down all the time but people don't sit around and exclaim joyous phrases for months on end the same way people bitch about tax increases. Here in Massachusetts the governor is trying to lower the income tax from 5.95% to 5%. People rarely, if ever, talk about it. It makes the news maybe once every few months.
If it were a tax increase every person on the sub would be bitching about it. Every issue of the Boston Globe would have an article about it.
People have selective memory.
[BTW, 100% of your income going to one tax or another is not communism. Understand what you are talking about before you sling around words intended merely to incite an emotional reaction.]
Property taxes are just wrong. I mean, on one hand the government encourages property ownership by giving you tax breaks on mortgage interest. On the other hand they have property taxes. Talk about mixed messages and disincentives. Let's all just sit around in homeless shelters....
In an article on Yahoo! the President of American Singles (the group converging on Silicon Valley) says something like, "There are a lot of single men there with a lot of money and no one to spend it on."
I think it is pretty clear what kind of woman they are targetting with language like that.
religion, mathematics, and psychosis
on
Lo-Tech Cinema
·
· Score: 1
Are you kidding? Sometimes it seems like two of those three form the basis of most films. And even the third one (math) appears from time to time. Disclaimer: I don't know what you mean by "tackling" so you probably won't agree with my list of movies that "tackle" these subjects.
Religion: The Last Temptation of Christ, The Crucible, The Apostle, The Exorcist, all of the movies that just came out about the Dalai Lama, The Mission, Sister Act, Oh God, Witness, Yentl, The Ten Commandments.
Math: Contact, Good Will Hunting, Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land, Moebius, N is a Number, Stand and Deliver, Sphere, Sneakers, I.Q.
Psychosis: ummm...just about any movie with a "bad guy" and plenty more that don't.
I haven't seen Pi, so I won't comment on whether it is good or not. But you seem to be implying that it is outre or avant garde or some other French phrase in that it deals with issues Hollywood normally doesn't. Just because a movie was good doesn't mean it has to be unique. This is the kind of unwarranted hyperbole that makes people who haven't even seen the movie dislike it.
I hope my original post didn't come across as too harsh. I wasn't trying to offend. Just trying to offer a different viewpoint.
I find it interesting that everyone automatically assumes that people who are "paranoid" live in a constant state of fear.
Do sysadmins live in a constant state of fear, or are they merely prudent? It seems to me that it is entirely possible to be prudent and cautious without living every waking moment in a state of fear.
Currently, the average American is more than likely to be the victim of at least one violent crime in their life. Taking that information into account when you act is not letting your life be ruled by fear, any more than installing a firewall at work means letting your life be ruled by fear. It is merely prudent.
I was trying to point out that you were not in any actual way truly punished. A woman got scared. Big deal, it happens, especially in today's society. The police checked up on you. Big deal, that's their job. You felt like an idiot and criminal. But those are just your feelings.
I believe that you could have just as easily taken the position of understanding the woman's position and the cops' position and not felt like an idiot or criminal. Rather than feeling offended you can have felt understanding and sympathy. But that is just my opinion, not gospel:-)
I agree that it is a little sad that we can no longer trust complete strangers. I also doubt that the sense of threat was her first impression. Probably at first she thought it strange that the car behind her was flashing its lights. Then when it persisted and escalated she began to get worried. Then when it pulled up beside her she got a little scared. And then there was some note that he held up to the window but she couldn't make out what it said and she got kinda scared at that point. Finally, when the car drove away she breathed a sigh of relief and decided to call the police. She decided that if she read a story in the newspaper about some poor girl getting raped and murdered by someone driving the same car as you, she wouldn't be able to live with herself not having called the police. She figured she was probably overreacting and being foolish, but she decided she would let the professionals figure out what the truth was rather than making that decision on her on.
I don't know if that's what happened, but the point is neither do you. You are jumping the gun and making assumptions just like you are saying she did. Just like you claim she didn't try to understand your point of view, it seems to me that you aren't trying to understand her point of view. You are automatically assume the worst of her at the same time that you decry her assuming the worst of you.
[For the record, there are many cases of female motorists who are kidnapped and raped while there is traffic around, so I don't think that substantially diminishes the validity of her fear.]
When the FBI says in 1993 that crime statistics show that 8 out of 10 Americans will be the victim of a violent crime during their lifetime, it's not paranoia.
It's common sense.
Have you ever read Strong on Defense? It's a thoughtful book. One of his main points is My safety first, your feelings second. His book is full of stories of people who were raped and murdered because they were trying to be considerate and didn't want to offend people.
Really, who gives a fuck if you are insulted or think I'm rude as long as I am still alive and okay?
What's more, I think the girl did the right thing by not pulling over. She should have kept driving until she found the first open business. Sorry that some police did the prudent thing by checking you out. Sorry that you were offended that they did their job. Sorry that some girl was afraid of stopping in a dark road in the middle of the night at the urging of some guy she does not know.
I'm sorry if I'm coming across as harsh here, but really, I think she was prudent to not take the chance by stopping.
I also think that the insecurity the average person feels on a dark street when a group of youths carrying guns approaches them has nothing to do with the government's paranoia of Iraqi terrorists or biological weapons. It has to do with the fact that Americans kill, rape, and rob other Americans.
Finally, how exactly were you punished? Were you crucified? I don't think so. So just chill down and get off your offended high horse.
Or would you prefer that when a scared woman calls the police they just ignore her complaint and don't follow up on it? What's the next step? You call the police because you think there is an intruder in your home, or because you were mugged and they figure you're just overreacting? Please. The police have an obligation and all they did was ask you some questions. Were you charged with anything? Did they incarcerate you?
You weren't punished in any way. So don't try to pretend that you were.
Actually, the very capitalist company that loaned me money for my car required that I carry far more insurance than the state requires me to have.
Do you know of any companies that will give you an auto loan and not require you to have insurance? If not, it sounds like a definite market failure to me.
It is interesting how liberty enthusiasts always miss obvious points like this. Seatbelts not only save lives, they lower medical costs. Lower medical costs mean lower insurance rates. So you're telling me that I have to spend my hard earned money just so some idiot doesn't have to wear his seatbelt?
a brokerage that specializes in open source stocks
How many pure (i.e. writes no software that isn't open source) open source stocks are available for public trade?
You also lost me with the transition from "lots of public companies that produce open source software" to "government control of free software".
Didn't Federal dollars fund Stallman's writing of emacs and gcc? Aren't they already involved in free software? Weren't perl, tcl/tk, expect, and python all written while being employed by the government?
I agree that good stock brokers are rare. I just took issue with your claim that good stock brokers wouldn't bother to help other people.
I still say that some people may validly decide that the lower returns they get by going through a stock broker are worth the extra time in their live to devote to other things. They aren't necessarily obsessed with obtaining higher returns than every other person on the planet. All they care about are obtaining high enough returns to meet their financial goals.
Funny how Gutenberg always gets the credit for inventing movable type when Bi Sheng in China invented it in 1045, a good couple hundred years before ol' Gutenberg.
Maybe for our next trick we should give Charles Lindberg credit for discovering Europe?:-)
Huh? That's like saying that a person who is really good at writing software would be making a fortune himself and wouldn't be giving it away for free.
Believe it or not, some people actually like helping other people.
And rather than spending the time to do "proper research" I can pay someone else to do it and spend the weekend having sex or whatever else I think is more important than researching companies.
Just because someone doesn't make the same tradeoffs you do in life doesn't mean they don't have a reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Hamilton wrote that vesting the power of appointment in a single person He further believed that
In Federalist 37 Madison specifically speaks about the Republican nature of the government and notes that
The President himself is not even directly appointed. How is that indirect appointment any different from the head of the FTC's indirect appointment?
You may disagree with Hamilton and Madison's analysis. But you obviously misunderstand the principles upon which this nation was founded. In light of that, your argument is difficult to take seriously.
Who doesn't like Stephenson's writing, his plots, his pacing, his dialogue, his characters, or his books?
/. would review books by different authors. Generally if you give one good review to an author people are going to check out his/her other books. I would much rather see reviews of different authors rather than a review of every book a given author has written.
It would be nice if
Okay, so I cruised on over to the SEC's site and looked at form S-1 (is that the one you were talking about?). I am still unconvinced. It said they were dependent on the support of Linus Torvalds and other prominent Linux developers. But they were talking about developments from those people, not goodwill. If Linux puts out a new kernel, it doesn't matter whether he hates Red Hat or not. Red Hat can still bundle it in RH Linux 7.9. Another risk mentioned is that Open Source community may react negatively to their business strategy. They say this may affect their reputation and brand name. I stick by my original claim that Open Source bitching about Microsoft has not hurt their brand name and reputation. Red Hat makes it clear that this would really only affect them if this perception is shared by their customers.
Again, you haven't really given me much to go on here. If Red Hat damages their relationship with the Open Source Community how is their business, operating results, and financial condition damaged? Is the risk only that they might get some bad PR from a disgruntled Open Source Community?
I thought Red Hat's business model was subscription based service?
Red Hat's only concern and obligation is to maximize stock value. If it does not maximize stock value it opens itself up to shareholder suits.
On the other hand, let's say that it pisses off and antagonizes the entire Free Software Community. What can they do about it? How can they prevent Red Hat from using their software without destroying the very Freedom they claim to espouse? It has no obligation to "do right" by the free software community because the free software community has no recourse if Red Hat screws them over. What is the FSF going to do, include a clause in the GPL saying, "Except for Red Hat, they are dirty cheating scum and they can't use our software no matter what"?
The Free Software Community would bitch and moan. How effective has their bitching and moaning been against Microsoft's business? Maybe a few negative stories would get published but then investors would realize that other than possibly bad PR from disgruntled socialists the Red Hat business model is exactly the same as the day they first threw money at them.
I fail to see how Red Hat has an obligation to the free software community. Perhaps you could elaborate?
Given the ability to modify the Constitution this seems a pointless distinction. "I have to do what X says but I can change X to let it allow me to do what I want."
If government and law are separate then who enforces the law if there is no government? Who makes the law if there is no government? Who adjudicates law if there is no government? To enforce law requires so-called "coercive" power. I thought only government had "coercive" power -- everything else being free association? If someone other than "government" says you broke a law and they use coercive power to punish you how are they not government? If they have no power to punish you how is it a law?
I guess I'm just confused and hope you can explain things to me.
whereas cyber terrorism utilizes information technology (IT) devices to inflict mass disruption of an opponent's critical IT infrastructure
Cyber terrorism doesn't (necessarily) utilize IT devices to disrupt critical IT infrastructure. A backhoe to a set of OC-192 circuits works just as well at disrupting critical IT infrastructure. I also wouldn't really categorize social exploits as "utilizing IT devices".
I hope everybody who is pro-car gets run over by a car in their lifetime. Cars are far more dangerous than the nuclear industry.
The point isn't whether OSS comes up with better or worse compression techniques. Go reread what I quoted. The original claim was that OSS independently discovers every patented algorithm they use. Which is utter crap. I know why they use LZW. What I am arguing is that OSS did not independently invent LZW. They copied it from the people who did invent it. There was NO independent invention of LZW.
If concepts are not property then how do copyrights not invade basic personal freedom? Why should I not be allowed to photocopy Steven King's newest book and sell it? I'm not stealing his property.
The idea that the guy who is smarter and more on the ball succeeds is a convenient and comforting Calvinist myth that I have failed to see manifest itself in the real world in anything approaching a consistent manner.
In *EVERY* case of OSS patent infringement I've see, the OSS people came up with the solution on their own for free.
I am not aware of a single piece of OSS that used LZW compression for GIFs that came up with that compression independently. Every one I know of copied the algorithm from someplace else (book, journal, specification, other software, etc). That's not "coming up with the solution". That's translating an algorithm published by someone else.
What are labels? Labels describe content. They tell a consumer whether a piece of music contains violent lyrics, whether a movie contains sex. The American Library Association may claim that "labeling...is a censor's tool" but I fail to see the logic in that. Cars are labelled -- whether they are two or four door. Every piece of food we purchase is labelled with its ingredients, so that we can make an informed decision. Clothes are labelled with the kinds and amounts of fabrics from which they are constituted. Most computer games and books have a category label (science fiction, strategy, etc) affixed to them.
How do these labels aid and abet censors? How do they prejudice attitudes? Or do they simply convey information? How is a label on Quake saying "First Person Shooter" censorship?
Proponents of labels call them "voluntary". Salon says they are mandatory. Maybe if Salon and the proponents were talking about the same thing a useful discussion might ensue, but Salon is undoubtedly more interested in fanning the flames. Applying the label is not voluntary. What is voluntary is your choice. In a non-voluntary system I have no choice about purchasing NC-17. In a voluntary system that choice remains, there is simply a label which categorizes them. In a voluntary system no government agency prevents the movie companies from producing NC-17 movies. No government agency prevents movie theaters from filming them. The choice to show or not show an NC-17 film is VOLUNTARY.
Claiming that what movie theaters perform is censorship is as misguided as claiming that when Slashdot refuses to run an article about sports it is censorship.
Would anyone have much sympathy if food producers said (or content labelling): "It's going to happen and the food producers are going to resist it as long as they can, but they'll have to realise that they must label their content or face prosecution." Does anyone here actually relish the idea of living in a world where you have no idea what is in your food, your clothing, that unopened shrinkwrapped box?
I'm sure if you are already against labels everything this article said resonates with you and everything I've said is utter crap. But when I read this article I just don't see a single good argument against labels. Maybe there are, but I don't see them here.
Nothing in the current publishing industry prevents authors from controlling their product from start to finish. I know of several authors who self-published their books precisely because they didn't want to hand over editorial control to someone else.
Oh, wait I see. You mean you want to use someone else's distribution channels and capital so that you can make money without letting them say jack about it. Okay, but that's not really the same thing as being forced to give them editorial control.
Taxes go down all the time but people don't sit around and exclaim joyous phrases for months on end the same way people bitch about tax increases. Here in Massachusetts the governor is trying to lower the income tax from 5.95% to 5%. People rarely, if ever, talk about it. It makes the news maybe once every few months.
If it were a tax increase every person on the sub would be bitching about it. Every issue of the Boston Globe would have an article about it.
People have selective memory.
[BTW, 100% of your income going to one tax or another is not communism. Understand what you are talking about before you sling around words intended merely to incite an emotional reaction.]
Property taxes are just wrong. I mean, on one hand the government encourages property ownership by giving you tax breaks on mortgage interest. On the other hand they have property taxes. Talk about mixed messages and disincentives. Let's all just sit around in homeless shelters....
In an article on Yahoo! the President of American Singles (the group converging on Silicon Valley) says something like, "There are a lot of single men there with a lot of money and no one to spend it on."
I think it is pretty clear what kind of woman they are targetting with language like that.
Are you kidding? Sometimes it seems like two of those three form the basis of most films. And even the third one (math) appears from time to time. Disclaimer: I don't know what you mean by "tackling" so you probably won't agree with my list of movies that "tackle" these subjects.
Religion: The Last Temptation of Christ, The Crucible, The Apostle, The Exorcist, all of the movies that just came out about the Dalai Lama, The Mission, Sister Act, Oh God, Witness, Yentl, The Ten Commandments.
Math: Contact, Good Will Hunting, Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land, Moebius, N is a Number, Stand and Deliver, Sphere, Sneakers, I.Q.
Psychosis: ummm...just about any movie with a "bad guy" and plenty more that don't.
I haven't seen Pi, so I won't comment on whether it is good or not. But you seem to be implying that it is outre or avant garde or some other French phrase in that it deals with issues Hollywood normally doesn't. Just because a movie was good doesn't mean it has to be unique. This is the kind of unwarranted hyperbole that makes people who haven't even seen the movie dislike it.
I hope my original post didn't come across as too harsh. I wasn't trying to offend. Just trying to offer a different viewpoint.
:-)
I find it interesting that everyone automatically assumes that people who are "paranoid" live in a constant state of fear.
Do sysadmins live in a constant state of fear, or are they merely prudent? It seems to me that it is entirely possible to be prudent and cautious without living every waking moment in a state of fear.
Currently, the average American is more than likely to be the victim of at least one violent crime in their life. Taking that information into account when you act is not letting your life be ruled by fear, any more than installing a firewall at work means letting your life be ruled by fear. It is merely prudent.
I was trying to point out that you were not in any actual way truly punished. A woman got scared. Big deal, it happens, especially in today's society. The police checked up on you. Big deal, that's their job. You felt like an idiot and criminal. But those are just your feelings.
I believe that you could have just as easily taken the position of understanding the woman's position and the cops' position and not felt like an idiot or criminal. Rather than feeling offended you can have felt understanding and sympathy. But that is just my opinion, not gospel
I agree that it is a little sad that we can no longer trust complete strangers. I also doubt that the sense of threat was her first impression. Probably at first she thought it strange that the car behind her was flashing its lights. Then when it persisted and escalated she began to get worried. Then when it pulled up beside her she got a little scared. And then there was some note that he held up to the window but she couldn't make out what it said and she got kinda scared at that point. Finally, when the car drove away she breathed a sigh of relief and decided to call the police. She decided that if she read a story in the newspaper about some poor girl getting raped and murdered by someone driving the same car as you, she wouldn't be able to live with herself not having called the police. She figured she was probably overreacting and being foolish, but she decided she would let the professionals figure out what the truth was rather than making that decision on her on.
I don't know if that's what happened, but the point is neither do you. You are jumping the gun and making assumptions just like you are saying she did. Just like you claim she didn't try to understand your point of view, it seems to me that you aren't trying to understand her point of view. You are automatically assume the worst of her at the same time that you decry her assuming the worst of you.
[For the record, there are many cases of female motorists who are kidnapped and raped while there is traffic around, so I don't think that substantially diminishes the validity of her fear.]
When the FBI says in 1993 that crime statistics show that 8 out of 10 Americans will be the victim of a violent crime during their lifetime, it's not paranoia.
It's common sense.
Have you ever read Strong on Defense? It's a thoughtful book. One of his main points is My safety first, your feelings second. His book is full of stories of people who were raped and murdered because they were trying to be considerate and didn't want to offend people.
Really, who gives a fuck if you are insulted or think I'm rude as long as I am still alive and okay?
What's more, I think the girl did the right thing by not pulling over. She should have kept driving until she found the first open business. Sorry that some police did the prudent thing by checking you out. Sorry that you were offended that they did their job. Sorry that some girl was afraid of stopping in a dark road in the middle of the night at the urging of some guy she does not know.
I'm sorry if I'm coming across as harsh here, but really, I think she was prudent to not take the chance by stopping.
I also think that the insecurity the average person feels on a dark street when a group of youths carrying guns approaches them has nothing to do with the government's paranoia of Iraqi terrorists or biological weapons. It has to do with the fact that Americans kill, rape, and rob other Americans.
Finally, how exactly were you punished? Were you crucified? I don't think so. So just chill down and get off your offended high horse.
Or would you prefer that when a scared woman calls the police they just ignore her complaint and don't follow up on it? What's the next step? You call the police because you think there is an intruder in your home, or because you were mugged and they figure you're just overreacting? Please. The police have an obligation and all they did was ask you some questions. Were you charged with anything? Did they incarcerate you?
You weren't punished in any way. So don't try to pretend that you were.
Actually, the very capitalist company that loaned me money for my car required that I carry far more insurance than the state requires me to have.
Do you know of any companies that will give you an auto loan and not require you to have insurance? If not, it sounds like a definite market failure to me.
It is interesting how liberty enthusiasts always miss obvious points like this. Seatbelts not only save lives, they lower medical costs. Lower medical costs mean lower insurance rates. So you're telling me that I have to spend my hard earned money just so some idiot doesn't have to wear his seatbelt?
What happened to my liberties?
a brokerage that specializes in open source stocks
How many pure (i.e. writes no software that isn't open source) open source stocks are available for public trade?
You also lost me with the transition from "lots of public companies that produce open source software" to "government control of free software".
Didn't Federal dollars fund Stallman's writing of emacs and gcc? Aren't they already involved in free software? Weren't perl, tcl/tk, expect, and python all written while being employed by the government?
I agree that good stock brokers are rare. I just took issue with your claim that good stock brokers wouldn't bother to help other people.
I still say that some people may validly decide that the lower returns they get by going through a stock broker are worth the extra time in their live to devote to other things. They aren't necessarily obsessed with obtaining higher returns than every other person on the planet. All they care about are obtaining high enough returns to meet their financial goals.
Funny how Gutenberg always gets the credit for inventing movable type when Bi Sheng in China invented it in 1045, a good couple hundred years before ol' Gutenberg.
:-)
Maybe for our next trick we should give Charles Lindberg credit for discovering Europe?
Huh? That's like saying that a person who is really good at writing software would be making a fortune himself and wouldn't be giving it away for free.
Believe it or not, some people actually like helping other people.
And rather than spending the time to do "proper research" I can pay someone else to do it and spend the weekend having sex or whatever else I think is more important than researching companies.
Just because someone doesn't make the same tradeoffs you do in life doesn't mean they don't have a reason.
So get a stockbroker who isn't affiliated with a company that sells their own funds. That was tough.