Better than having 0,004% of the population decide what is best for you. Or far less than that if you look at how top run some of these political parties are.
The tyranny of the majority is never used as anything but an excuse to implement a tyranny of the minority.
the interesting parts of second life are the virtual economy, the ability to build and script complex objects, the ability to buy 'land'.
The only interesting one of these is the scripting.
The rest is just side effects of using centralized servers. I am not interested in any virtual 3d world that isn't decentralized, meaning that anyone can set up their own server with their own rules, with the ability to easily and seemlessly travel between servers. Something like a 3d version of the www.
That would make 2-3 hollywood movies per month I guess then.
And the rest of your comment shows that you have no idea of who pirates. Sure, the 15-29 group is overrepresented, but that has more to do with the fact that they are more savage with computers and the internet, and not with their age or political agenda. (Ah well, that they are more savage with computers and the internet does have to do with their age statistically)
from dodgy torrent sites
Dodgy torrent sites? I admit that I am careful when download applications via bittorrent. On the other hand, I am equally careful when downloading it from any other site, because the malware industry is huge. Trust is the only thing you have to go on due to crappy operating systems (and this is not limited to windows) that don't automatically install all applications in a sandbox. If I wanted an application to write to any files (including my data files) outside of its own configuration/program directory I would want to give it specific permission to do so. Of course, selecting a file in an operating system open/save file dialog should count as giving permission.
Ok, that got a little off topic, so let's get back to it.
I'm sure some smug slashdotters will equate this to the 640k quote, but tell me exactly how my need for digital data downloaded to my PC is going to go much higher in the next ten years?
It probably won't be. The majority of the old generation always stays with what the already have. Frontrunners in technology is and will always be young people, With a few older here and there.
Since copyright gives an incentive to create, I'd say it does promote the progress of the arts.
Does it? What incentive does a copyright larger than 3-5 years give to create. In actuality it is the opposite, as you can rely on income from past creations instead of creating new ones. 3-5 years is the time I mention, because no investor would plan ahead longer than that except in a few rare exceptions mostly relating to huge constructions.
Incidently the swedish pirate party program currenly aims for a 5 year term for commercial use, although with no restriction on non commercial use. Also, certain "rights" such as the right to be recognized as the creator goes beyond those 5 years.
Is this the best solution. Maybe, maybe not. All we know is that it got to be better than the current system that intends to criminilize a large portion of the population for sharing information.
Or maybe they know that IQ is normally distributed - therefore the median and the mean would be the same:-)
Of course IQ is normally distributed. It is defined that way. Great way to argue isn't it. Define something that "measures" intelligence using a scale that is normally distributed. When you have done that you can point at the results and say that intelligence is normally distributed.:)
Still, IQ is a lousy way to measure intelligence. Although a great way to measure an individuals ability to recognize patterns.
On topic, intelligence has little to do with making good laws. A good sense of moral and ethics goes far further. And in that area politicians are at a huge disadvantage.
Finally, the tyranny of the majority is basically always used as an excuse to implement a tyranny of the minority. And if you have to have one of the two I would go with the majority since it is statistically more likely that I will benefit in any specific issue.
Also, the tyranny of the minority will blow up some majority issues and play them out of proportion so that they can more easily get elected. So the tyranny of the minority does in no way mean that you won't get the bad side of the tyranny of the majority also.
And that is the problem right there. Money and value are two completly different things, unless you are confused by the term "market value" that has nothing to do with real value.
No money changing hands while lots of wealth (you watching and enjoying a movie is the foundation of wealth) is being generated is what makes downloading so great for society as a whol.
Of course, economists don't like it, because it is hard to work with models that deal with hidden wealth that can't easily be represented by money.
One of the most interesting things to know about economics is that it is pretty much impossible to determine the value of any end consumer goods. Goods that are sold between companies are simple, as the value is how much money they make. For end consumers however, there is no such measure. The value is instead how much a person thinks it is worth.
Economists handle this by simply ignoring that part. Yup, the value end users place on their stuff is ignored, and it is probably the most important part of determining real societal wealth. Brilliant isn't it. And that isn't even touching on the part of things you value but don't pay any money for at all like when you build your own computer or paint your own house. Not to mention untangible concepts such as friendship and love.
Economics has its place, especially when it comes to running businesses, but the way it is used to justify what some of the rich want to do with the world is disgusting.
Sorry, but I am not interested in getting a unified world law written by old rich people who only are interested in making themselves and their progeny richer while using the justification that if it is good for the rich it will "trickle down" to the poor eventually, even though that is known to be complete bullshit.
Huge amounts of wealth is being generated daily because people can cheaply view and spread information. Of course, to the capitalistic leaders of the western world, a wealthy society is not a priority. The important thing is how much money is being generated and who ends up with it.
This is the big lie that they are trying to sell. That money and value has a direct relationship. Nothing could be further from the truth. One of the most valuable things that a human can have is air to breathe, and access to that does usually not cost a single dime.
In actuality, society becomes wealthier when we find ways to makes things cheaper. The ability to copy large amounts of information very cheaply is one of the biggest efficency breakthroughs in human history.
It does create some problems because of the fact that it costs money to produce the first copy, but enforcing inefficent monopoly rights on specific works of arts which makes a huge part of the population criminals is a very bad way to handle it.
Yes, quadrillions of dollars are lost, because people no longer need to use money exchange information. Except that they are talking about money that wouldn't be spent on information anyway since entertainment budgets are limited and far down the list. And even if those quadrillions of dollars were actually lost, why would that be bad in the first place. As I said from the beinning money isn't wealth. The "disappearing" money is simply a sign of efficency.
I don't like using the word stupidity, because it has such a wide range of meanings. You can have an IQ of 160 and still be stupid in many context.
For this specific type of stupidty, early education in skepticism, critical thinking and seeing through scams should help alot. Unfortunally, there are no such classes anywhere. Not that strange really considering how a large part of society relies on access to easily fooled people, and parts of that larger part has some nice political clout. Ok, that sounded a little conspiratory, but you have to wonder. Or maybe the real reason is simply that it would be too insulting to adults that don't have those skills if children were taught them. Adults in general seem to be easily embarrassed by children who ask good and valid questions.
Banks make money by borrowing your money (at a low interest rate) and loaning it out to someone else (at a higher interest rate). I
Not quite true. That is the school level illusion that most people live under. The current money system in most countries today is far more insidious than that, allowing banks to lawfully lend out money(debt) created from nothing. Yes, they need some money deposited, but it is far less than what is lent out.
You should really see the documentary "Money as debt" (just search on youtube). While it may be slightly preachy and biased at some moments, a large part of it is a good description of how the money system really works.
Still, your basis assumption and discussion point regarding them wanting your money is correct, because the bank do need it to be able to lend out these even larger amounts of money. Actually, it is even more important for them to get your money as they can lend out a multiple of it.
If you use opera you can press F11 to activate full screen mode which maximizes the application, and removes everything including the titlebar. There is no better way to get maximum screen estate for web browsing.
You'll have to to use keyboard shortcuts and/or mouse gestures to navigate. Also, while in fullscreen mode you can press ctrl+f8 to make the address bar visible and ctrl+f7 for the scroll bars. The keyboard shortcuts can of course be easily remapped.
Gravity compares to Inheritence which are observed facts.
Theory (also misnamed Law) of Gravity compares to Theory of Evolution which both try to explain via best guesses why observed facts are as they are, and by doing these "best guesses" they provide useful predictions that can be used to disprove the theory. The theory of gravity has been disproven and replace by the theory of relativity, but it still remains useful for every day work as it is simpler and accurate enough in many situations.
Natural Selection has no equal in gravity theory as it is a mathematical construct based on the axioms that some facts we have observed are true. You could say that natural selection is an extended fact derived from axiom facts. As such, natural selection has provided useful not only in creating the theory of evolution, but also in creating computer constructs named genetic algorithms.
That is not priority based on content. It is priority based on how much was paid to deliver it. Unless you are claiming that they are opening mail to see what is inside and delivering the "important" mail quicker.
And you cannot survive if somebody takes the opportunity away from you before you can defend yourself.
Neither can a dog or a cow, both of who actually have feeling and thoughts. An embryo has neither, and "what if" scenerios aren't needed as we already have more than enough babies being born.
Funny how you completly ignored the whole one embryo is no different than another and "pro-life" people should just create their own babies if they want them so much. Treasure the life that actually thinks and behaves, not brainless clumps of cells. Oh, I can feel your answer. It will be some mumbo-jumbo about each embryo being unique with its own set of thoughts...just how stupid do you think I am.
You have just equated religion to a fairytale.
Of course. Sorry, but I don't hold back punches against unreasonable people. I have read quite a bunch of the mythologies of several religions and there is really no negotiation to be hold. Fairytales the whole bunch of them.
I actually don't mind if you believe in fairytales, just as long as you don't go and make a religion out of it, trying to get tax breaks and permission to indoctrinate real thinking children with it. I have never understood the reason for tax breaks for religions. Doesn't that go against the US constitution by treating religion differently?
Anyway, there may be a creator of the universe, but only an idiot would think that he is any of the gods in any of the human created religions. And, there is definitly no reason for human souls. Everything we do and think is adequatly explained by the flesh we are.
brutal feminist opinion
lol, first time I have ever been called a feminist. Of course, this shows your true colors. You are just another male with inferiority complex that wants to supress women, and that is coming from another male.
Abortion doctors conveniently leave out the part about what the mother is really carrying inside of her
You mean a lump of cells with human potential if left alone. Fortunally there is not exactly a lack of lumps of cells with human potential. And if you really feel we need some more go fuck someone.
Many women who have had an abortion find themselves living with deep guilt for the rest of their life.
And many women who did have an abortion found themselves able to have a child later in their life that they could raise under much better conditions. And lived happily every after.
Yes we all know that abortion is a tough decision and that that anti-abortionism is all about playing on emotions.
Aren't you just the smart sounding one. Real mature of you to oppress and push around those who do not agree with you.
I wasn't the one who began with the "shut up". It was reasonable payback to the grand parent post, who was...let me check...you? So you start with the shut up, and then come and call me immature?
What is dangerous is people like yourself spew out such offensive and cruel arguments in favor of ending the life of unborn infants. These are little human beings with bones, skin, working brains, and a heart beat.
Aren't you are going to show me one of those images of a late abortion that was done to save the mothers life, where the fetus would have had no chance of surviving anyway?
No, fetuses aren't small human beings. They have the potential to become human beings, but so does my sperm. I have a new pro life slogan here. "Life is precious, rape a female today to create more of it."
Of course, anti-abortists are all hypocrites or there wouldn't be any need for foster homes. In my last post I just cracked down on the females who didn't constantly make new life. This time I crack down on both males and females. You talk all these big words about bringing new life into the world, but then you aren't even prepared to take care of that life, instead trying to
If we are going to talk like that, I'll just say that any female anti-abortist that isn't constantly pregnant or trying to get pregnant throughout her fertile years is a big fucking hypocrite. If they think more human life is so needed and precious, they can just fuck and create the babies themselves.
No need to force anyone who doesn't want to carry a baby to do so. It isn't like it matters which fetus grows into a living baby unless you are an idiot and believe in fairytales like souls.
Abortion doctors are some of the real heroes of today, helping young women while being threatened by dangeorous fanatics and societal stigma.
Now you go and shut up unless you actually have some actual valid argument which isn't likely as I have never seen one from an anti-abortionist. And, no I don't mean a plea on feelings towards an unborn clump of cells. I feel more towards the meat I eat every day that come from actual beings that have lived, felt and thought. Unlike the "what if" scenarios you are playing.
$7/mbit (of course talking about decent volumes here with the cheapest provider and I guess with fiber already in the ground)
However that should give you a clue how much everyone is overcharging everywhere. The expensive part is the digging, but it is good (money earning) business to charge big money for small traffic volumes on lines that in reality could support far higher volumes. Not to mention how inefficent a big part of the industry is.
Atleast that is the only way I can explain how some countries are managing to supply such nice bandwidth to their citizens without getting economically ruined.
Of course it doesn't get better. The problem they are having isn't with expensive bandwidth, because face it bandwidth isn't that expensive compared to what they are charging for it.
What they are having trouble with is clogged up last mile bandwidth because of an aging infrastructure where people share the last mile. As they can only support so much usage on each shared part, and the average usage by ordinary average users is rising, their only option is to either create a real last mile network (yeah right) or create barriers by introducing caps and extreme prices if you want to go over that barrier.
Or in market terms. last mile cable have a very limited supply which is beginning to be really noticable as usage increases. Compare this with dsl/fiber where supply can be more easily increased when demand increases and you can see why the cable companies should be very afraid.
Talk about an out of context quote. If you actually read the rest of the grandparents post it should be pretty obvious what he meant, which is to make money without providing value.
People who actually earn money by providing valuable services aren't the problem. The problem is people who spend time to exploit the rules of the system to gain the maximum amount of money, instead of actually providing better service and products.
Oil prices rising because of supply & demand is fine. Oil prices rising because of deals behind closed doors to keep the price up is not fine.
People presenting their products and what they do is fine. People lying about what their products can do to sell them is not fine.
Selling software to one supplier cheaper only if they agree not to sell software from the competitor is not fine.
1) Tibet China says there is no independent Tibet, and from where I stand it is very obvious that they are right. China has complete control over Tibet, just like the US has complete control over land areas that previously used to belong to other populations.
2) inherent right to free speech Same with many other countries, with restrictions on libel, slander, hate speech, "confidential" information, etcetra. Although I agree that China does take a rather extreme view to the whole "subvert the goverment" stance, and disagree very much with them on this issue.
3) right to decide how many children you have Atleast one country has understood that the earth can support only so many people. As a primary instinct of humans is to procreate it isn't strange that you have to rely on societal organisations to limit that activity.
Of course, christians would rather prefer that the world became overcrowded with poor miserable people than remained decently populated with content people. (Sorry, that was a jab against religious anti-abortists)
4) rights inherent to human beings First of all, inherent is deceptive word as there can't be any inherent rights for human beings just as there can't be any inherent rights for any being.
I think what you are talking about is what we as humans, intelligent group animals with empathy, recognize as rights that humans (and animals in some cases) should have independent on the strain/hardship it puts on the rest of society.
China which is rooted in a deeply in a community first philosophy of course have less such views, although as they are growing richer and communicating more with western countries, they are gradually changing. Of course, it will probably take a long time, but you can actually see small seeds being planted already.
US is probably not the best places to be talking about "inherent" human rights though. The death penalty is completly unneeded and a big violation to many people. Slashdot is another place that is very selective on human rights. Economic liberterianism is very similar to the chinese view, sacrifice individuals for the greater good, although libertarianism and China defines "greater good" quite differently.
School vouchers are good only if schools accepting vouchers can't reject accepting students to their school for just any reason. Otherwise they are just a way for the middle/upper class to funnel tax money from people who don't have children into the eduction of their own children.
No, it isn't a simple of matter of choice, because the private schools can pick the "least costly" students while leaving the expense of dealing with the costly students to the public schools.
This isn't to say that I am completly against vouchers, as they can be used to increase competition between schools which is a good thing. If they used correctly, a voucher system can improve education over the whole system. However, it is important to be aware of the disadvantages.
Slashdot Mirror
The republican party in a nutshell:
"We know what is best for us" (and you don't belong to the club)
Better than having 0,004% of the population decide what is best for you. Or far less than that if you look at how top run some of these political parties are.
The tyranny of the majority is never used as anything but an excuse to implement a tyranny of the minority.
The lefties, on the other hand, are going to try to prevent the law from becoming true this autumn.
And that isn't strange because they have already beeen spied upon once in modern swedish history (see IB Affair).
Sad how politicians never seem to learn from history.
the interesting parts of second life are the virtual economy, the ability to build and script complex objects, the ability to buy 'land'.
The only interesting one of these is the scripting.
The rest is just side effects of using centralized servers. I am not interested in any virtual 3d world that isn't decentralized, meaning that anyone can set up their own server with their own rules, with the ability to easily and seemlessly travel between servers. Something like a 3d version of the www.
My bad. Thanks for the correction. :)
Atleast I have the excuse of not being a native english speaker.
The.X-Files.COMPLETE.MULTiSUBS.PAL.DVDR-MULTiGRP 253.91GB
Sure, downloading that is against the law in most countries, but if the bandwidth was there, the legal services providing similar products would come.
Unless you are some kid who thinks he is 'sticking it to the man' by downloading every single hollywood movie in HD
spider-man.3.wvc1.1080p.bluray.nlsubs.rabomil.wmv 13GB
That would make 2-3 hollywood movies per month I guess then.
And the rest of your comment shows that you have no idea of who pirates. Sure, the 15-29 group is overrepresented, but that has more to do with the fact that they are more savage with computers and the internet, and not with their age or political agenda. (Ah well, that they are more savage with computers and the internet does have to do with their age statistically)
from dodgy torrent sites
Dodgy torrent sites? I admit that I am careful when download applications via bittorrent. On the other hand, I am equally careful when downloading it from any other site, because the malware industry is huge. Trust is the only thing you have to go on due to crappy operating systems (and this is not limited to windows) that don't automatically install all applications in a sandbox. If I wanted an application to write to any files (including my data files) outside of its own configuration/program directory I would want to give it specific permission to do so. Of course, selecting a file in an operating system open/save file dialog should count as giving permission.
Ok, that got a little off topic, so let's get back to it.
I'm sure some smug slashdotters will equate this to the 640k quote, but tell me exactly how my need for digital data downloaded to my PC is going to go much higher in the next ten years?
It probably won't be. The majority of the old generation always stays with what the already have. Frontrunners in technology is and will always be young people, With a few older here and there.
Since copyright gives an incentive to create, I'd say it does promote the progress of the arts.
Does it? What incentive does a copyright larger than 3-5 years give to create. In actuality it is the opposite, as you can rely on income from past creations instead of creating new ones. 3-5 years is the time I mention, because no investor would plan ahead longer than that except in a few rare exceptions mostly relating to huge constructions.
Incidently the swedish pirate party program currenly aims for a 5 year term for commercial use, although with no restriction on non commercial use. Also, certain "rights" such as the right to be recognized as the creator goes beyond those 5 years.
Is this the best solution. Maybe, maybe not. All we know is that it got to be better than the current system that intends to criminilize a large portion of the population for sharing information.
Or maybe they know that IQ is normally distributed - therefore the median and the mean would be the same :-)
Of course IQ is normally distributed. It is defined that way. Great way to argue isn't it. Define something that "measures" intelligence using a scale that is normally distributed. When you have done that you can point at the results and say that intelligence is normally distributed. :)
Still, IQ is a lousy way to measure intelligence. Although a great way to measure an individuals ability to recognize patterns.
On topic, intelligence has little to do with making good laws. A good sense of moral and ethics goes far further. And in that area politicians are at a huge disadvantage.
Finally, the tyranny of the majority is basically always used as an excuse to implement a tyranny of the minority. And if you have to have one of the two I would go with the majority since it is statistically more likely that I will benefit in any specific issue.
Also, the tyranny of the minority will blow up some majority issues and play them out of proportion so that they can more easily get elected. So the tyranny of the minority does in no way mean that you won't get the bad side of the tyranny of the majority also.
And that is the problem right there. Money and value are two completly different things, unless you are confused by the term "market value" that has nothing to do with real value.
No money changing hands while lots of wealth (you watching and enjoying a movie is the foundation of wealth) is being generated is what makes downloading so great for society as a whol.
Of course, economists don't like it, because it is hard to work with models that deal with hidden wealth that can't easily be represented by money.
One of the most interesting things to know about economics is that it is pretty much impossible to determine the value of any end consumer goods. Goods that are sold between companies are simple, as the value is how much money they make. For end consumers however, there is no such measure. The value is instead how much a person thinks it is worth.
Economists handle this by simply ignoring that part. Yup, the value end users place on their stuff is ignored, and it is probably the most important part of determining real societal wealth. Brilliant isn't it. And that isn't even touching on the part of things you value but don't pay any money for at all like when you build your own computer or paint your own house. Not to mention untangible concepts such as friendship and love.
Economics has its place, especially when it comes to running businesses, but the way it is used to justify what some of the rich want to do with the world is disgusting.
Sorry, but I am not interested in getting a unified world law written by old rich people who only are interested in making themselves and their progeny richer while using the justification that if it is good for the rich it will "trickle down" to the poor eventually, even though that is known to be complete bullshit.
After all, quadrillions of dollars are being lost
Huge amounts of wealth is being generated daily because people can cheaply view and spread information. Of course, to the capitalistic leaders of the western world, a wealthy society is not a priority. The important thing is how much money is being generated and who ends up with it.
This is the big lie that they are trying to sell. That money and value has a direct relationship. Nothing could be further from the truth. One of the most valuable things that a human can have is air to breathe, and access to that does usually not cost a single dime.
In actuality, society becomes wealthier when we find ways to makes things cheaper. The ability to copy large amounts of information very cheaply is one of the biggest efficency breakthroughs in human history.
It does create some problems because of the fact that it costs money to produce the first copy, but enforcing inefficent monopoly rights on specific works of arts which makes a huge part of the population criminals is a very bad way to handle it.
Yes, quadrillions of dollars are lost, because people no longer need to use money exchange information. Except that they are talking about money that wouldn't be spent on information anyway since entertainment budgets are limited and far down the list. And even if those quadrillions of dollars were actually lost, why would that be bad in the first place. As I said from the beinning money isn't wealth. The "disappearing" money is simply a sign of efficency.
I don't like using the word stupidity, because it has such a wide range of meanings. You can have an IQ of 160 and still be stupid in many context.
For this specific type of stupidty, early education in skepticism, critical thinking and seeing through scams should help alot. Unfortunally, there are no such classes anywhere. Not that strange really considering how a large part of society relies on access to easily fooled people, and parts of that larger part has some nice political clout. Ok, that sounded a little conspiratory, but you have to wonder. Or maybe the real reason is simply that it would be too insulting to adults that don't have those skills if children were taught them. Adults in general seem to be easily embarrassed by children who ask good and valid questions.
Banks make money by borrowing your money (at a low interest rate) and loaning it out to someone else (at a higher interest rate). I
Not quite true. That is the school level illusion that most people live under. The current money system in most countries today is far more insidious than that, allowing banks to lawfully lend out money(debt) created from nothing. Yes, they need some money deposited, but it is far less than what is lent out.
You should really see the documentary "Money as debt" (just search on youtube). While it may be slightly preachy and biased at some moments, a large part of it is a good description of how the money system really works.
Still, your basis assumption and discussion point regarding them wanting your money is correct, because the bank do need it to be able to lend out these even larger amounts of money. Actually, it is even more important for them to get your money as they can lend out a multiple of it.
If you use opera you can press F11 to activate full screen mode which maximizes the application, and removes everything including the titlebar. There is no better way to get maximum screen estate for web browsing.
You'll have to to use keyboard shortcuts and/or mouse gestures to navigate. Also, while in fullscreen mode you can press ctrl+f8 to make the address bar visible and ctrl+f7 for the scroll bars. The keyboard shortcuts can of course be easily remapped.
No we call it a law, because some idiots (ok, probably far from idiots) didn't have the sense to name it as the theory it was.
And the Theory (or law if you want to call it so) of gravity has actually been proven incorrect, so if it was a law, it wasn't a good one.
Gravity compares to Inheritence which are observed facts.
Theory (also misnamed Law) of Gravity compares to Theory of Evolution which both try to explain via best guesses why observed facts are as they are, and by doing these "best guesses" they provide useful predictions that can be used to disprove the theory. The theory of gravity has been disproven and replace by the theory of relativity, but it still remains useful for every day work as it is simpler and accurate enough in many situations.
Natural Selection has no equal in gravity theory as it is a mathematical construct based on the axioms that some facts we have observed are true. You could say that natural selection is an extended fact derived from axiom facts. As such, natural selection has provided useful not only in creating the theory of evolution, but also in creating computer constructs named genetic algorithms.
That is not priority based on content. It is priority based on how much was paid to deliver it. Unless you are claiming that they are opening mail to see what is inside and delivering the "important" mail quicker.
And you cannot survive if somebody takes the opportunity away from you before you can defend yourself.
Neither can a dog or a cow, both of who actually have feeling and thoughts. An embryo has neither, and "what if" scenerios aren't needed as we already have more than enough babies being born.
Funny how you completly ignored the whole one embryo is no different than another and "pro-life" people should just create their own babies if they want them so much. Treasure the life that actually thinks and behaves, not brainless clumps of cells. Oh, I can feel your answer. It will be some mumbo-jumbo about each embryo being unique with its own set of thoughts...just how stupid do you think I am.
You have just equated religion to a fairytale.
Of course. Sorry, but I don't hold back punches against unreasonable people. I have read quite a bunch of the mythologies of several religions and there is really no negotiation to be hold. Fairytales the whole bunch of them.
I actually don't mind if you believe in fairytales, just as long as you don't go and make a religion out of it, trying to get tax breaks and permission to indoctrinate real thinking children with it. I have never understood the reason for tax breaks for religions. Doesn't that go against the US constitution by treating religion differently?
Anyway, there may be a creator of the universe, but only an idiot would think that he is any of the gods in any of the human created religions. And, there is definitly no reason for human souls. Everything we do and think is adequatly explained by the flesh we are.
brutal feminist opinion
lol, first time I have ever been called a feminist. Of course, this shows your true colors. You are just another male with inferiority complex that wants to supress women, and that is coming from another male.
Abortion doctors conveniently leave out the part about what the mother is really carrying inside of her
You mean a lump of cells with human potential if left alone. Fortunally there is not exactly a lack of lumps of cells with human potential. And if you really feel we need some more go fuck someone.
Many women who have had an abortion find themselves living with deep guilt for the rest of their life.
And many women who did have an abortion found themselves able to have a child later in their life that they could raise under much better conditions. And lived happily every after.
Yes we all know that abortion is a tough decision and that that anti-abortionism is all about playing on emotions.
Aren't you just the smart sounding one. Real mature of you to oppress and push around those who do not agree with you.
I wasn't the one who began with the "shut up". It was reasonable payback to the grand parent post, who was...let me check...you? So you start with the shut up, and then come and call me immature?
What is dangerous is people like yourself spew out such offensive and cruel arguments in favor of ending the life of unborn infants. These are little human beings with bones, skin, working brains, and a heart beat.
Aren't you are going to show me one of those images of a late abortion that was done to save the mothers life, where the fetus would have had no chance of surviving anyway?
No, fetuses aren't small human beings. They have the potential to become human beings, but so does my sperm. I have a new pro life slogan here. "Life is precious, rape a female today to create more of it."
Of course, anti-abortists are all hypocrites or there wouldn't be any need for foster homes. In my last post I just cracked down on the females who didn't constantly make new life. This time I crack down on both males and females. You talk all these big words about bringing new life into the world, but then you aren't even prepared to take care of that life, instead trying to
It works exactly that way.
What if scenarios are what if scenarios however you try to hide them with emotional words about "living" embryos.
You can't die if you never lived.
If we are going to talk like that, I'll just say that any female anti-abortist that isn't constantly pregnant or trying to get pregnant throughout her fertile years is a big fucking hypocrite. If they think more human life is so needed and precious, they can just fuck and create the babies themselves.
No need to force anyone who doesn't want to carry a baby to do so. It isn't like it matters which fetus grows into a living baby unless you are an idiot and believe in fairytales like souls.
Abortion doctors are some of the real heroes of today, helping young women while being threatened by dangeorous fanatics and societal stigma.
Now you go and shut up unless you actually have some actual valid argument which isn't likely as I have never seen one from an anti-abortionist. And, no I don't mean a plea on feelings towards an unborn clump of cells. I feel more towards the meat I eat every day that come from actual beings that have lived, felt and thought. Unlike the "what if" scenarios you are playing.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Cogent-McBandwidth-Gets-Cheaper-95203/
$7/mbit (of course talking about decent volumes here with the cheapest provider and I guess with fiber already in the ground)
However that should give you a clue how much everyone is overcharging everywhere. The expensive part is the digging, but it is good (money earning) business to charge big money for small traffic volumes on lines that in reality could support far higher volumes. Not to mention how inefficent a big part of the industry is.
Atleast that is the only way I can explain how some countries are managing to supply such nice bandwidth to their citizens without getting economically ruined.
Of course it doesn't get better. The problem they are having isn't with expensive bandwidth, because face it bandwidth isn't that expensive compared to what they are charging for it.
What they are having trouble with is clogged up last mile bandwidth because of an aging infrastructure where people share the last mile. As they can only support so much usage on each shared part, and the average usage by ordinary average users is rising, their only option is to either create a real last mile network (yeah right) or create barriers by introducing caps and extreme prices if you want to go over that barrier.
Or in market terms. last mile cable have a very limited supply which is beginning to be really noticable as usage increases. Compare this with dsl/fiber where supply can be more easily increased when demand increases and you can see why the cable companies should be very afraid.
Talk about an out of context quote. If you actually read the rest of the grandparents post it should be pretty obvious what he meant, which is to make money without providing value.
People who actually earn money by providing valuable services aren't the problem. The problem is people who spend time to exploit the rules of the system to gain the maximum amount of money, instead of actually providing better service and products.
Oil prices rising because of supply & demand is fine. Oil prices rising because of deals behind closed doors to keep the price up is not fine.
People presenting their products and what they do is fine. People lying about what their products can do to sell them is not fine.
Selling software to one supplier cheaper only if they agree not to sell software from the competitor is not fine.
Of course, christians would rather prefer that the world became overcrowded with poor miserable people than remained decently populated with content people. (Sorry, that was a jab against religious anti-abortists)
4) rights inherent to human beings First of all, inherent is deceptive word as there can't be any inherent rights for human beings just as there can't be any inherent rights for any being.I think what you are talking about is what we as humans, intelligent group animals with empathy, recognize as rights that humans (and animals in some cases) should have independent on the strain/hardship it puts on the rest of society.
China which is rooted in a deeply in a community first philosophy of course have less such views, although as they are growing richer and communicating more with western countries, they are gradually changing. Of course, it will probably take a long time, but you can actually see small seeds being planted already.
US is probably not the best places to be talking about "inherent" human rights though. The death penalty is completly unneeded and a big violation to many people. Slashdot is another place that is very selective on human rights. Economic liberterianism is very similar to the chinese view, sacrifice individuals for the greater good, although libertarianism and China defines "greater good" quite differently.
School vouchers are good only if schools accepting vouchers can't reject accepting students to their school for just any reason. Otherwise they are just a way for the middle/upper class to funnel tax money from people who don't have children into the eduction of their own children.
No, it isn't a simple of matter of choice, because the private schools can pick the "least costly" students while leaving the expense of dealing with the costly students to the public schools.
This isn't to say that I am completly against vouchers, as they can be used to increase competition between schools which is a good thing. If they used correctly, a voucher system can improve education over the whole system. However, it is important to be aware of the disadvantages.