Maybe I should have phrased that better. In a Just society, and in your ideal (assuming your ideal is just), does a person have ownership of themselves?
Everytime I get into a discussion with someone who has an ideal that is closer to anarcho-syndicalism/left-anarchism, it seems to come back to them wanting to know what ownership means.
It means just that -- that no one(nor everyone together) has a higher claim to you and your life than you do.
I'm certainly not suggesting that we have self-ownership in today's world.
Does this mean that, I, by extension, belong to the government?
I suggest that you watch this flash movie. It takes a simple concept and expands from it.
If I don't own myself, your idea that the money I earn belongs to the government is okay. In that same vein, it means that the government can tell me what I can and can't do to myself, since they own me.
There's a word for people who work for and earn money and goods, but don't actually own them when they get done.
On the other hand, if I do own myself, than the government has no right to forcibly extract wealth from me to give to someone else. Unless I give them that right.
Do you really believe that government can do anything better than private industry? Do you really believe that not working for the government makes us slaves? What does that say about the first 4 or 5 months of the year that we work to pay taxes?
I don't mean to have this seem like a flame. I'll admit I'm pretty set in my ways against government all around, but really, it just doesn't compute for me. Government run programs mean waste, fraud(hell, look at out most recently nationalized industry -- TSA), etc.
(I'd dispute that the Democrats decreased the size of the Federal Government, Clinton wanted to increase it with HillaryCare, and I'd say it was the Republican congress that actually kept the Federal government down a bit during that time.)
My point is that I have found a candidate that is pretty close to my views. I've found the one candidate that happens to be interested in decreasing the size and scope of the government. He's a third-party candidate.
A vote for Bush or Kerry is a vote for bigger government, which means more of the government telling you it knows what's best for you better than you do.
I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with there being two big ones. I'm saying there is something wrong with the great-grandparent of this comment saying that everyone should be satisfied with the choice between the two big candidates. Especially because they are both in favor of bigger government.
I'm not even saying every guy with a petition to be on the ballot should be in the debates -- but you'd think two presidential candidates getting arrested would make news.
People need to stop insisting that there's no variety within the major parties and that the only way to get "alternative voices" is through someone who's officially designated as part of a third party. That's just not true at all. People should stop complaining about the system and understand that most viewpoints can be expressed well from within it.
Okay, which of the two parties is for decreasing the size and scope of the federal government?
I mean, the Republicans used to be, or said they were... but, really, neither of them even say they want smaller government now.
I guess that puts me too far out of the mainstream... guess I'll have to vote... wait for it... third party
Once commercial flights start, will the FAA offer the service of prescanning your flight path?
Who will pay? How much will it cost? What if a launcher 'declines' to pay and get such a search? (Insurance?)
If the FAA does offer such a service, and then gives someone a go-ahead on a flight path, and it causes a crash (after all, nobodys perfect), can you sue the FAA for said mistake/disaster?
If you can, they're socializing a cost and risk -- spread it out to all the taxpayers. If you can't, then it seems they have little incentive to ensure that the flightpath is safe, other than moral and legal incentives and such... no monetary incentive.
I suspect that there may be basic safety standards, too. For instance, if you deliberately made a vehicle that would explode in the upper atmosphere, and made that information public, couldn't someone commit assisted suicide in such a device?
Doesn't seem like that would be too profitable to me... what's the motivation to make something like that? If nothing like that is made, and there is no reason to make it, why should government regulate it?
Granted, I'll still probably go fill in the blank, knowing that it won't matter, and my vote won't make either party change it's plans -- they'll still go just a socialist no matter who I vote for, but hey, it's nice to read some opposing viewpoints.
I still plan to vote in this, and almost certainly third party -- but I've really enjoyed reading LewRockwell.com's articles on not voting and the reasons why.
I too wish to see the day when there is a turn out of, say, 10 or 15% of eligible voters. Let the politicians claim they have a mandate then:)
When I was growing up, my dad and I went camping, and left the car at a boat launch while we went to an island. We came back around 45 minutes later, and the car had been broken into -- they took:
about 15 cds
prescription sunglasses
the owner's manual for the car
They missed:
at least $5 in change
the 35mm SLR camera, which they moved to get to the CDs
a couple of other things that were worth quite a bit more than prescription sunglasses
A few years ago, my house got broken into, and the morons took the VCR next to the DVD player and stereo that were worth a lot more than it. Also, they took a bass, but missed the much more valuable guitar next to it. We figured out, though, that they must have gotten quite scared when they got to the room with all the swords, knives, etc.
Stupid thieves.
In winter your pipes need heat more than you do. Invest in a few sweaters. When you have guests raise the temperature to 68. When you are sick set the thermostat above 68 if it makes you more comfortable. Set it to 62 when you are sleeping, invest in some blankets if this seems cold. I keep my thermostat at 60 in winter, no matter what, and I'd go colder but the thermostat is upstairs, and I don't want to chance my pipes freezing.
In my house, we made it until November 8th this past year before we turned the heat on at all(in southwest Michigan.) The pipes won't freeze until it gets quite a lot cooler, and especially not if you are running water occasionally. The thermostat got *just* under 50, and I could see my breath pretty often.
It's just a matter of Gumption:)
(Although, now, the heater stays set at around 62 most of the time.)
Gauges, bah! - back in my day sonny we just listened to the hum of the engine and we knew approximately how fast we were going
I did this. Sort of.
I had a '72 Honda 500, broke the speedometer cable one morning, and for the couple of weeks that it took me to get a new one, I took small pieces of masking tape, marked them with a speed and a gear, and put them on the tachometer. I went through and calculated that at some number of rpms, the final drive from the engine would be at this number of rpms, and so the chain would go through this at the back sprocket, etc. Came out fairly accurate, and I knew that in third gear at (say) 3500, I'd be doing about 35, in 5th gear at 4000, it was around 65 - 70.
Uhm.... i386+ chips all have two priority bits, for a total of four priority levels. I don't know of a single OS that uses more than ring0 and ring3, though. Even NT/2K/XP, which is supposed to be a microkernel, runs at either ring0 or ring3.
I stand corrected. I didn't think any hardware around today actually had that. (mostly have only messed with sparcs at that low of a level.) Now it makes me think I should try Hurd again sometime soon:)
Also, a microkernel has the potential to be much faster than it is today, if hardware were setup for it a bit better. Most(all?) modern CPUs have 1 priority bit, that basically determines if the system is running in a system or user context(note that this has nothing to do with root/user permissions.)
If a CPU had more than one priority bit, the various system daemons/programs that microkernels use could be each given one priority bit(or a combination of them, etc., but that's minor.) As it is today with a system like HURD, the microkernel emulates those multiple priority bits.
Note that with a microkernel(more for the grandparent poster) that this means that the kernel itself can be quite tiny, and drivers can be regular old programs(almost, not quite regular, but close.) Which means, if one of your drivers-- say your network card driver-- gives out, it can just be restarted by itself.
All the kernel has to do is pass messages back and forth, and coordinate the other programs. (IIRC, even the scheduler can be out of the kernel proper)
Just to clear up a little thing about Debian, yea, stable is some pretty old packages/versions, but it is very well tested, and rock solid.
Debian unstable, however, is fairly close to bleeding edge... I mean, Mozilla 1.5 hit a day or two after it was released, Gnome 2.4 took oh, probably a few weeks... And really, the packages are quite stable, sometimes the upgrading/installing of them isn't, however. (but that's what happens when you're using bleeding edge stuff)
And, if you don't want to deal with uninstallable packages occasionally(haven't seen that in months) or your compiler being upgraded at weird times, testing is right between the two.
well, I was speaking generally, forgetting about other state IDs and such, and actually, I'm in Michigan, US, myself... but I had a bar around here start using the swipe readers... didn't go back until they stopped using them... it was a dive, too, Holiday Inn bowling alley.... what a great dive.
Slashdot Mirror
While we're in the sKerry-bashing thread, (I already added a backup for the draft one, as I see you did as well) -- I figured I'd add a little more:
Granted, it is from the Weekly Standard, a bit on the rightist side... but it's Kerry's own words that hit him so hard.
"The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein?"
In his own words.
How about straight from the horse's mouth?
(via archive.org)
Maybe I should have phrased that better. In a Just society, and in your ideal (assuming your ideal is just), does a person have ownership of themselves?
Everytime I get into a discussion with someone who has an ideal that is closer to anarcho-syndicalism/left-anarchism, it seems to come back to them wanting to know what ownership means.
It means just that -- that no one(nor everyone together) has a higher claim to you and your life than you do.
I'm certainly not suggesting that we have self-ownership in today's world.
Does this mean that, I, by extension, belong to the government?
I suggest that you watch this flash movie. It takes a simple concept and expands from it.
If I don't own myself, your idea that the money I earn belongs to the government is okay. In that same vein, it means that the government can tell me what I can and can't do to myself, since they own me.
There's a word for people who work for and earn money and goods, but don't actually own them when they get done.
On the other hand, if I do own myself, than the government has no right to forcibly extract wealth from me to give to someone else. Unless I give them that right.
Do you really believe that government can do anything better than private industry? Do you really believe that not working for the government makes us slaves? What does that say about the first 4 or 5 months of the year that we work to pay taxes?
I don't mean to have this seem like a flame. I'll admit I'm pretty set in my ways against government all around, but really, it just doesn't compute for me. Government run programs mean waste, fraud(hell, look at out most recently nationalized industry -- TSA), etc.
I think you missed my point.
(I'd dispute that the Democrats decreased the size of the Federal Government, Clinton wanted to increase it with HillaryCare, and I'd say it was the Republican congress that actually kept the Federal government down a bit during that time.)
My point is that I have found a candidate that is pretty close to my views. I've found the one candidate that happens to be interested in decreasing the size and scope of the government. He's a third-party candidate.
A vote for Bush or Kerry is a vote for bigger government, which means more of the government telling you it knows what's best for you better than you do.
I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with there being two big ones. I'm saying there is something wrong with the great-grandparent of this comment saying that everyone should be satisfied with the choice between the two big candidates. Especially because they are both in favor of bigger government.
I'm not even saying every guy with a petition to be on the ballot should be in the debates -- but you'd think two presidential candidates getting arrested would make news.
Seriously, this is a great essay, The Revolution Was.
Anyone that hasn't yet really ought to read it. It's long, and some of it is a bit hard, but you'll be amazed. You think 1984 is scary?
Read it.
Okay, which of the two parties is for decreasing the size and scope of the federal government?
I mean, the Republicans used to be, or said they were... but, really, neither of them even say they want smaller government now.
I guess that puts me too far out of the mainstream... guess I'll have to vote... wait for it... third party
If the FAA does offer such a service, and then gives someone a go-ahead on a flight path, and it causes a crash (after all, nobodys perfect), can you sue the FAA for said mistake/disaster?
If you can, they're socializing a cost and risk -- spread it out to all the taxpayers. If you can't, then it seems they have little incentive to ensure that the flightpath is safe, other than moral and legal incentives and such... no monetary incentive.
Doesn't seem like that would be too profitable to me... what's the motivation to make something like that? If nothing like that is made, and there is no reason to make it, why should government regulate it?
I mentioned this in another thread, as well, and the more I read up on it, the more I feel that voting is just giving sanction to a corrupt system.
This is a nice archive of articles on non-voting, and I'd say this one is a good place to start.
Granted, I'll still probably go fill in the blank, knowing that it won't matter, and my vote won't make either party change it's plans -- they'll still go just a socialist no matter who I vote for, but hey, it's nice to read some opposing viewpoints.
(-1, OffTopic)
No?
I still plan to vote in this, and almost certainly third party -- but I've really enjoyed reading LewRockwell.com's articles on not voting and the reasons why.
I too wish to see the day when there is a turn out of, say, 10 or 15% of eligible voters. Let the politicians claim they have a mandate then:)
I believe it wasn't just in the middle east -- as I recall, that's where the word 'salary' comes from.
- about 15 cds
- prescription sunglasses
- the owner's manual for the car
They missed:- at least $5 in change
- the 35mm SLR camera, which they moved to get to the CDs
- a couple of other things that were worth quite a bit more than prescription sunglasses
A few years ago, my house got broken into, and the morons took the VCR next to the DVD player and stereo that were worth a lot more than it. Also, they took a bass, but missed the much more valuable guitar next to it. We figured out, though, that they must have gotten quite scared when they got to the room with all the swords, knives, etc. Stupid thieves.In my house, we made it until November 8th this past year before we turned the heat on at all(in southwest Michigan.) The pipes won't freeze until it gets quite a lot cooler, and especially not if you are running water occasionally. The thermostat got *just* under 50, and I could see my breath pretty often.
It's just a matter of Gumption:)
(Although, now, the heater stays set at around 62 most of the time.)
Unless you're the guy that bought the account on E-Bay :)
(or rather, one of the accounts on ebay. It seems that a lot have made it.)
I did this. Sort of.
I had a '72 Honda 500, broke the speedometer cable one morning, and for the couple of weeks that it took me to get a new one, I took small pieces of masking tape, marked them with a speed and a gear, and put them on the tachometer. I went through and calculated that at some number of rpms, the final drive from the engine would be at this number of rpms, and so the chain would go through this at the back sprocket, etc. Came out fairly accurate, and I knew that in third gear at (say) 3500, I'd be doing about 35, in 5th gear at 4000, it was around 65 - 70.
Are you sure?
Yes, they can :)
http://www.davesgoldwing.com/unknown.html
I stand corrected. I didn't think any hardware around today actually had that. (mostly have only messed with sparcs at that low of a level.) Now it makes me think I should try Hurd again sometime soon:)
Thanks for the info.
Also, a microkernel has the potential to be much faster than it is today, if hardware were setup for it a bit better. Most(all?) modern CPUs have 1 priority bit, that basically determines if the system is running in a system or user context(note that this has nothing to do with root/user permissions.)
If a CPU had more than one priority bit, the various system daemons/programs that microkernels use could be each given one priority bit(or a combination of them, etc., but that's minor.) As it is today with a system like HURD, the microkernel emulates those multiple priority bits.
Note that with a microkernel(more for the grandparent poster) that this means that the kernel itself can be quite tiny, and drivers can be regular old programs(almost, not quite regular, but close.) Which means, if one of your drivers-- say your network card driver-- gives out, it can just be restarted by itself.
All the kernel has to do is pass messages back and forth, and coordinate the other programs. (IIRC, even the scheduler can be out of the kernel proper)
Just to clear up a little thing about Debian, yea, stable is some pretty old packages/versions, but it is very well tested, and rock solid.
Debian unstable, however, is fairly close to bleeding edge... I mean, Mozilla 1.5 hit a day or two after it was released, Gnome 2.4 took oh, probably a few weeks... And really, the packages are quite stable, sometimes the upgrading/installing of them isn't, however. (but that's what happens when you're using bleeding edge stuff)
And, if you don't want to deal with uninstallable packages occasionally(haven't seen that in months) or your compiler being upgraded at weird times, testing is right between the two.
touche, but I usually try to pay cash for that kind of thing
Ever been to New Orleans? The bars there don't close...
That said, the restrictions are asinine, and just a leftover of the puritanical blue laws/etc...
I think this one: said it best
well, I was speaking generally, forgetting about other state IDs and such, and actually, I'm in Michigan, US, myself... but I had a bar around here start using the swipe readers... didn't go back until they stopped using them... it was a dive, too, Holiday Inn bowling alley.... what a great dive.