Re:Bananas and Steel - Never Trust A Yank
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 1
Just because you agree with the sentiment isn't necessarily a good reason to mod a post up. His facts are off, and the facts given are selective.
The tariff's aren't 40%...actually the absolute maximum is 30%. (It's not a flat rate...that is as high as it can be.) That's a rather profound difference...and for that matter, if foreign steel was 50% cheaper, they'd still be the better deal. The cheapest foreign steel I know of comes from China...it has a reputation for being garbage. Alot of the castings from that part of the world are made by poorly paid people or prison labor...ask any mechanical engineer in the right field about the quality of castings from that part of the world.
The other matter, is that alot of foreign steel is subsidized by their governments in the past and/or present (asia), or was bailed out and modernized with money from their governments (europe) in the past. The steel producers in the U.S. never had any of these advantages given to them...believe it or not, this is really little more than a mild effort towards making a level playing field.
and for that matter, what makes you think that the energy companies wouldn't love to sell this to you. I doubt it would last forever, and you'd need alot of it. There'd likely be a continous demand really...and to top it off, they don't have to even transport energy to you anymore. (Any idea how much they lose to line resistance over distances?! That is money down the tubes to them.)
Oh...yeah...sorry. Didn't want to interrupt a cheapshot on the Administration.
You can view stuff from anywhere...works great. or there's my solution. Don't watch TV. (Well..aside from occasionally catching some startrek or junkyard wars at friends and relatives houses.)
I love how many people are here bitching about the American media...when they aren't even bound to watch it.
1.) You said right wing fundamentalist - see dictionary.com.
Fundamentalist: adj : (theology) of or relating to or tending toward fundamentalism
Fundamentalism:
1.) A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
Note the words religeous, which is what most people think of when they hear "fundamentalist".
Here's the alt definition: a.) Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b.) Adherence to the theology of this movement.
Again...note the religeous connotation, a rather negative one no less.
How clear can this be? You responded reasonably enough so I don't want to be rude or condescending, but I am not sure you were thinking the same thing you were writing.
As for what I meant when I said: "You do realize that a right wing fundamentalist would actually rather dislike most of the music coming out these days?"...well...how blantant can it be? Most people you would call conservatives aren't down with P-Diddy and Rob Zombie...and especially not Marilyn Manson. Really...I wouldn't say the majority of mainstream music is terribly appealing to them. Why the heck should they like that industry?
Umm...I can see how you could argue that republicans tend to be pro-business (I don't think it's often to quite the extreme as some people here think...but anyways....), but what in the sam-holy-fuck does their religeous preferences have to do with their opinion on the MPAA? I don't think that one is in the ten commandments....and them siding with music? You do realize that a right wing fundamentalist would actually rather dislike most of the music coming out these days? (I can't say I disagree with them on this one...most of the stuff has sucked in recent years especially IMHO
Typical senseless liberal response...take your blinders off, and as a side note: Quit trying to blame religeon for things it has NOTHING to do with.
So in other words, I can put the full use of my internet pipe to a distributed and proxied "load test" of slashdot, or whatever site annoys me today. For the non-techy monkeys out there that's a denial of service attack...convieniently anonymized and distributed for me. Slashdot has some moderately big pipes, but a handful of people doing this, and your gonna see some problems. Especially if they intentionally keep hitting lots of database intensive, non-static html screens.
FREEEEEDOM! Thanks cDc! And thank YOU slashdot, for telling me about it!
Actually, a great deal of technology usable in other areas can come from military programs...kinda like how technology developed by NASA for the space program trickles into other areas of our lives. (Which alot of people anxiously point to, because NASA == good)
Sure...some things on the military side of things will spend some time under wraps and be kept secret, but the technologies come out eventually...often much more quickly than I think alot of people realize. Hell...if I am not mistaken you can buy radar absorbing materials right now from private industry. The technology in our planes is made by private industry...actually by the same companies who make commercial jetliners amoungst other things. Do you honestly think that none of the wisdom and tech they gain from military programs makes it elsewhere? Could it be that the military also == good? IMHO it sure as hell is.
Those are just a few blatantly obvious examples...but just because the tech doesn't come from a source your terribly fond of doesn't mean it's not furthering technology in general and that we aren't benefitting from it.
I think alot of people are just looking for another reason to knock on the president here...that's certainly nothing new on slashdot. The groupthink here is incredible at times.
I glanced over the links...but I don't find those things terribly compelling.
Actually, the FAIR one was rather funny. If you can't see the bias in those sites, then I really don't even know how to begin arguing the point with you.
1.) They link to indymedia as a good alternative news site...(Yeah...no bias there!)
2.) They link to Salon as a good "mainstream" news site...again...most liberal people I know will even acknowledge some pretty serious bias there.
3.) The items you gave were almost all "activist" sites, which generally are going to have a bias, regardless of their claim to have none. If they are trying to further their cause, they aren't going to post anything that questions any of their own points or views. It's actually rather sad that alot of times, the more "mainstream" news sources seem more willing to question their own points of view than these "fair" or "alternative" ones...but that part is just IMHO.
And for the record, we all know Slashdot has no bias at all, right?:)
1.) Nuke...yes...bad example as stated. But owning anything illegal at all is victimless. Hell...pot's "designed purpose" isn't for being burned and dragged through your lungs. That's just your purpose for it.
2.) Imagine if all the wife-beating achoholic shitheads who go on drinking binges and do stupid violent things were smoking pot instead. Alcoholics are alcoholics, whether they smoke ANYTHING or not. That's not a good argument either.
3.) However, I do think that increased pot smoking would be of great benefit to the country. Really!
Yes...in flawed situations as described above I suppose it would. Aside from that, your just stinking up your current location and not being the best to your lungs, and quite possibly annoying anyone around you who isn't all that fond of smoke in general. The country would be a better place if people addressed the reasons why they feel the need to cope, rather than trying to find the best way to cope. If your best interest really was what is best for the country, that would be a little higher on the priority list, so that argument stands are pretty lame. For most users, thier interest is their percieved need, and little else...
4.) Would you stop advocating to me already? This thread has been dragging on and on...and because I wrote ONE paragraph that disagreed with a point you tried to make on pot. You've completely ignored everything else I said originally there to attack this one thing. Seriously...as much as I like a good thought provoking conversation, it's overzealous as hell. I DID say other things about other subjects you know....
Ooook. Time is short, so here's the brief and orderly response:
1.) I never said I agreed with every argument made by any poster there. Also, BOTH examples are very bad. Homosexuality which may or may not have a genetic component might be genetic where as drug use is a choice. If your damned by reputation based on your actions, it's very different from being damned by your genetics.
2.) I wish more "users" would be more respectful of the other side too. The problem is, is that the majority of them aren't so good there either.
3.) Hey...any argument I make isn't going to be good because none of them are relavent. If I kept a nuclear bomb in my basement, there are no victims really. Ownership of anything illegal is victimless...well...except for slaves and the such anyways.
4.) How does being stoned help our country? And for that matter how would it's legality help me. A small tax savings is about the only thing I can think of...and that's a drop in the bucket at best...and as I explained before, I haven't exactly got alot of pity for them.
Yes...and "DJBongHit" has a rather colorful analysis as well, with comparing stoners to homosexuals. Sure...both arguments have some bad points.
Well...listen to this: Most of the people I know really dislike the whole pot thing. They are on average, very successful and college educated people with decent careers and families. Hey...we are pretty happy people too. It's amazing. Some HAVE even tried it...for the most part they didn't think very highly of it. (pun intended)
Also...we are dealing with a finite number of losers here. You can't both honestly expect to make that argument.
But the "War on Drugs" and resulting jailtime for pot-smokers has probably ruined far more lives and broken up far more families than all the hard drugs combined ever could.
The potheads knew the penalties of getting caught. They did it anyways. They have THEMSELVES to blame - no less than the government and laws - for their childs lack of a father. They did not have to do what they did. They very knowingly broke a law that they knew could result in that...it's a pretty difficult law break just by accident...no one held a gun to their heads. And would you please accept the fact that I am not saying the government/laws are even right? I am stating it the way it is. Again...they are the victims of themselves...and I feel NO moral obligation to pity them.
Have you considered that almost everyone who is strongly anti-pot has never tried it? How do these people have the right to restrict others from doing something when they have no experince with it?
Have you considered that almost everyone who is strongly anti-[insert most currently illegal activities] has never tried it? How do these people have the right to restrict others from doing something when they have no experince with it?
It works the same for any argument...and it's as weak of an argument as it sounds when I say it back. And again...why are you telling me this? Are you implying that you know things about ME again? You have no idea about me whatsoever aside from what I have told you here...anything else is you trying to lump me into a stereotype that you might find I won't readily fit.
No, you didn't say it was a good law. But you critsized people for breaking that law, and sugested they stop. This could either mean you (a) agree with the law, or (b) think people should be docile and do what they are told even if the law sucks.
No...I critisized people who break the law and cried "victim". If you break the law...your broke the law. You DO have the freedom to work to change laws you disagree with however, which is a pretty far cry from "docile".
You say you can but you don't. The only solid argument you can make on the pot issue is "its the law". You mock people who are prosecuted under this law (" I broke the law...I was prosecuted...I am a victim....right.") but you can't give a good reason the law exists in the first place! Make your argument. I want to hear it!
Ooooooh boy. Do you realize how long of an argument we'd be getting into if we started debating that here? Look...I am going to give you some links to some arguments I agree with a great deal. We are starting to get completely off topic here due to this debate...however you are trying to manuever me into a position here where my total silence would practically equal my being wrong.
On K5, someone made a VERY good argument/thread that probably makes just about every point I care to. Read the posts made under the name "kitten". His argument is pretty close to mine (and probably better stated actually)...and frankly, I don't have the time to type 20 pages here to illustrate the point that I have a slightly more complex argument than "it's against the law". If you want to debate it further with me personally, then so be it...I am not going to run from the issue...however I am at work at the moment and not going to get from here. Things still have to get done here today as I'd like to stay employed.
I am not even going to bother responding to the rest of your post...but I would like to say that I think alot of people need to broaden their horizons as to forms of happiness they can persue. Too many people are hung up on a few things they are told they can't do, rather than the millions of things they can.
Why shouldn't people "get toasted"? Hows it hurting anyone else? It's a bad law!
I never said it was a GOOD law...please...quote where I said that? Don't get overdefensive there...go have a "bongrip" and calm down. I am not going to defend things I didn't say.
Pot is less harmfull to your health than liquor, and doesn't lead to domestic violence.
Actually...MODERATE liquor consumption lengthens the lifespan on average. There have been quite a few studies done on wine drinkers. Alcohol ABUSE however, is a much different beast.
As for your continued rant:
Sadly, many people are stupid docile animals. You, for example, sugest that people who enjoy pot should "wait until a legalization effort reaches a conclusion". People accross america with that same mindset will happily bend over when GWB asks them to "sacrifice a little freedom". And you'll probably respond to this post and tell me marijuna is bad because "its the law". Are you sure people aren't stupid docile animals?
I am kinda puzzled as to why you are still on the pot issue, as my second and third statements had exactly nothing to do with it. For that matter, I am not going to tell you that marijuana is bad because its the law. Stop generalizing me to make this easier on yourself. It's rather ignorant. My own views on it are definitely not what you would find favorable, but I can debate that subject with more arguments than just saying that it's against the law. I'd have the same feelings about it, legal or not. That is a much larger debate however, and going WAY out of the scope of the original arguments. I am also pretty far from being docile myself...again...do you somehow think you know me? I don't have the fucking time to defend views I don't have here....
Well...my take on it, is that there is a RIGHT way to approach a problem, and a wrong way. The wrong way to approaching the drug debate is by just doing them all over the place anyway, and then crying "victim" when you get caught. Actually..."sitting around grinning" seems to be a pretty docile approach...
That is an excellent example of a victimless "crime" that numerous goodhearted American people are rotting in jail for right now.
I am not even going to go there as your definition of goodhearted and mine will vary. It's a good example of people who broke a law because they wanted to get toasted...very little else. (The occasional "medical" case...) So many pro drug people make them sound like victim saints, and they occasionally need a reality check. I broke the law...I was prosecuted...I am a victim....right. It's not a hard law not to break folks...it's not like jaywalking or something. If you need it so bad that you can't wait until a legalization effort reaches a conclusion, and risk so much, then you've already made their point that you have a problem.
Ashcroft's new proposals, though, go far beyond making computer-crime 'crime'. It already is. What he's doing is making it terrorism. People could be jailed for life for the electronic equivilent of graffitti.
Well...as a maximum sentence they could get life from what I read. If the sentence doesn't fit the crime, it's generally appealed.....
The long-term damage from the terror attacks will come from our leaders as they exploit public rage to slip new crap like this into federal law.
Have a little faith here. If the government hurts the people, their rage will shift to the government. They aren't stupid docile animals...I think they are proving that judging by how much they want to go after the terrorists.
If you think MS has invented and innovated nothing useful, then your showing little more than how little you know. I don't think they've given us nearly as much as alot of other companies, but to say that it's nothing is rather misinformed. Yes...they are a bastardly company...they look out for their own interests...what a concept. There aren't any rules that state that we have to play nice here.
X86 as the best platform? (Greeeaaat....haven't had an X86 debate since the mac zealots quieted down.) From a technology standpoint, of course not. When exactly did I even SAY anything about that? I am not kidding...I want a quote there kiddo... X86 however, is a very mature platform, and a very common platform...with alot of very good tools written for it.
The argument that you become successful because you are good is bunkum - MS apps are very poorly designed and written. Do you really think that X86 architecture is the BEST - PLEASE !!!
Sure...then explain Google. I never said it was THE ONLY way to be successful...I would say it's a pretty good way. It certainly gives you some of the best odds. Does it always work? No...what DOES? I also realize that MOST MS apps are badly designed and written. If you think they are all terrible...again...your smoking something that I need some of.
There are hundreds of cases in the 20th century alone where the best technology didn't win. Have a look at history before making statements about bigger must be better...
Again...when did I say "bigger must be better". I think you have me confused with someone else here. And yeah...the best tech doesn't always win. It only would in an ideal world, and the sooner you realize that we aren't living in one of those, the better.
I'm not surprised you also don't understand a little light sarcasm - my vi comment - you really need to get out more, see a movie or two that don't need explaining... oops more sarcasm
Sarcasm? Your talking out your ass on half of this stuff. Show me where I said those things, and back up your claims with proof! Seriously...I don't have time to defend things I didn't say.
Competition is alive and well. Linux on the server is a very solid platform. The company I work for is testing our product on it now. (It's an enterprise web based app.) ALOT of companies use it. FreeBSD is also actually fairly common...and with MacOS X having BSD's guts beneath the eye candy...it's even somewhat mainstream. Solaris is pretty common on servers too. It's not like you have no valid options.
Letting people know whats going on is a VERY good thing...however, let your bias at the door. You say how can you compete with a marketing juggernaut? Well...there's a story a few up from this one on the front page right now about google rising to the top with no marketing. The answer is simple. Be the best. Spend less time bitching and more time coding....woopsie...most slashdotters are more content to bitch all day about a problem, than to fix the problem. You can't bitch it to death here guys...it just doesn't work well. (pardon the generalization on that one - it's not pointed at you - it's a general observation of alot of the people who frequent these forums...far too many of them IMHO.)
What I don't think you understand, is that we are actually on the same side here. My idea of a solution is just quite a bit different from yours. Rather than cry to the government, I'd rather get off my ass and fix something, or at least support people who can and will. I really wish more people would at least TRY to master their own fate instead of trying to elect people to do it for them.
With that being said: Whats up with the Ad Hominem remark there? Surprised I know how to spell vi? I am stupid? Please....You can't very well make a good arguement by attacking the character of someone who states an opposing arguement. It's really obvious...and it makes you look bad. If you want to put me down, do it with real substance...if you have any - and so far, you don't have much. And with that in mind...I am not going to stoop to your level. I am done for now...have a good night.
EULA's only take away rights from people who didn't read the EULA in the first place to know what they were getting. If you knew what you can do with the product and still bought it, then your the one kicking yourself.
The GPL also places RESTRICTIONS on how something can be used/distributed, and make requirements on them as well. Not just more permissions. They aren't all that valid as analogies go either. Creating a webpage using frontpage to flame frontpage, is VERY VERY different from never being able to SAY that you think frontpage is a piece of donkey-shit, or even using another web editing tool to make the site anyways. Do NOT confuse those two conditions...as they are VERY different...hence: The Strawman.
To me, the gripes are still somewhat justified actually...it would be a pretty shitty thing to do...however, I don't think that we should run crying to the government just anything. If you agree to the EULA, then your the one who agreed to it, not me. My rights are in pretty good shape over here.
I don't buy a product if I don't agree with the license. If I don't agree with the license, I buy another product. Choice is a wonderful thing we have in this part of the world.
Damn people...read the friggin' fine print.
Vested interest? Do you think I am a paid Microsoft advocate? Seriously...that's almost funny...
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you agree with the sentiment isn't necessarily a good reason to mod a post up. His facts are off, and the facts given are selective.
The tariff's aren't 40%...actually the absolute maximum is 30%. (It's not a flat rate...that is as high as it can be.) That's a rather profound difference...and for that matter, if foreign steel was 50% cheaper, they'd still be the better deal. The cheapest foreign steel I know of comes from China...it has a reputation for being garbage. Alot of the castings from that part of the world are made by poorly paid people or prison labor...ask any mechanical engineer in the right field about the quality of castings from that part of the world.
The other matter, is that alot of foreign steel is subsidized by their governments in the past and/or present (asia), or was bailed out and modernized with money from their governments (europe) in the past. The steel producers in the U.S. never had any of these advantages given to them...believe it or not, this is really little more than a mild effort towards making a level playing field.
and for that matter, what makes you think that the energy companies wouldn't love to sell this to you. I doubt it would last forever, and you'd need alot of it. There'd likely be a continous demand really...and to top it off, they don't have to even transport energy to you anymore. (Any idea how much they lose to line resistance over distances?! That is money down the tubes to them.)
Oh...yeah...sorry. Didn't want to interrupt a cheapshot on the Administration.
Umm...the U.S. didn't ban stem cell research.....
(Some sperms mixed with an egg on a tray is not life.)
Give the result of that experiment a DNA test and see what it tells you it is.
You can view stuff from anywhere...works great. or there's my solution. Don't watch TV. (Well..aside from occasionally catching some startrek or junkyard wars at friends and relatives houses.)
I love how many people are here bitching about the American media...when they aren't even bound to watch it.
Trust me...your not the only one to have noticed this. I'd mod you up out of spite, if I could.
Sorry about the original post...I read it quickly and thought it was a response from the original AC that posted it. My bad on that one.
Well...you kinda implied it.
1.) You said right wing fundamentalist - see dictionary.com.
Fundamentalist: adj : (theology) of or relating to or tending toward fundamentalism
Fundamentalism:
1.) A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
Note the words religeous, which is what most people think of when they hear "fundamentalist".
Here's the alt definition:
a.) Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b.) Adherence to the theology of this movement.
Again...note the religeous connotation, a rather negative one no less.
How clear can this be? You responded reasonably enough so I don't want to be rude or condescending, but I am not sure you were thinking the same thing you were writing.
As for what I meant when I said: "You do realize that a right wing fundamentalist would actually rather dislike most of the music coming out these days?"...well...how blantant can it be? Most people you would call conservatives aren't down with P-Diddy and Rob Zombie...and especially not Marilyn Manson. Really...I wouldn't say the majority of mainstream music is terribly appealing to them. Why the heck should they like that industry?
Umm...I can see how you could argue that republicans tend to be pro-business (I don't think it's often to quite the extreme as some people here think...but anyways....), but what in the sam-holy-fuck does their religeous preferences have to do with their opinion on the MPAA? I don't think that one is in the ten commandments....and them siding with music? You do realize that a right wing fundamentalist would actually rather dislike most of the music coming out these days? (I can't say I disagree with them on this one...most of the stuff has sucked in recent years especially IMHO
Typical senseless liberal response...take your blinders off, and as a side note: Quit trying to blame religeon for things it has NOTHING to do with.
So in other words, I can put the full use of my internet pipe to a distributed and proxied "load test" of slashdot, or whatever site annoys me today. For the non-techy monkeys out there that's a denial of service attack...convieniently anonymized and distributed for me. Slashdot has some moderately big pipes, but a handful of people doing this, and your gonna see some problems. Especially if they intentionally keep hitting lots of database intensive, non-static html screens.
FREEEEEDOM! Thanks cDc! And thank YOU slashdot, for telling me about it!
Actually, a great deal of technology usable in other areas can come from military programs...kinda like how technology developed by NASA for the space program trickles into other areas of our lives. (Which alot of people anxiously point to, because NASA == good)
Sure...some things on the military side of things will spend some time under wraps and be kept secret, but the technologies come out eventually...often much more quickly than I think alot of people realize. Hell...if I am not mistaken you can buy radar absorbing materials right now from private industry. The technology in our planes is made by private industry...actually by the same companies who make commercial jetliners amoungst other things. Do you honestly think that none of the wisdom and tech they gain from military programs makes it elsewhere? Could it be that the military also == good? IMHO it sure as hell is.
Those are just a few blatantly obvious examples...but just because the tech doesn't come from a source your terribly fond of doesn't mean it's not furthering technology in general and that we aren't benefitting from it.
I think alot of people are just looking for another reason to knock on the president here...that's certainly nothing new on slashdot. The groupthink here is incredible at times.
I glanced over the links...but I don't find those things terribly compelling.
:)
Actually, the FAIR one was rather funny. If you can't see the bias in those sites, then I really don't even know how to begin arguing the point with you.
1.) They link to indymedia as a good alternative news site...(Yeah...no bias there!)
2.) They link to Salon as a good "mainstream" news site...again...most liberal people I know will even acknowledge some pretty serious bias there.
3.) The items you gave were almost all "activist" sites, which generally are going to have a bias, regardless of their claim to have none. If they are trying to further their cause, they aren't going to post anything that questions any of their own points or views. It's actually rather sad that alot of times, the more "mainstream" news sources seem more willing to question their own points of view than these "fair" or "alternative" ones...but that part is just IMHO.
And for the record, we all know Slashdot has no bias at all, right?
Oh, yeah, they are SOOOOO even-handed over there at Fox. Not a whiff of bias there at all.
:)
Actually...you've almost hit the nail on the head. It's kinda amusing.
Since alot of the media does seem to have a liberal bias, anything that doesn't have that bias will look more "conservative" when you compare the two.
I am glad Slashdot is free of bias as well. It lends so much to it's credibility.
If you are going to offer such profound criticism about something, at least have the decency to back it up.
They are not talking about hyperlinks there skippy....go read the article.
1.) Nuke...yes...bad example as stated. But owning anything illegal at all is victimless. Hell...pot's "designed purpose" isn't for being burned and dragged through your lungs. That's just your purpose for it.
2.) Imagine if all the wife-beating achoholic shitheads who go on drinking binges and do stupid violent things were smoking pot instead.
Alcoholics are alcoholics, whether they smoke ANYTHING or not. That's not a good argument either.
3.) However, I do think that increased pot smoking would be of great benefit to the country. Really!
Yes...in flawed situations as described above I suppose it would. Aside from that, your just stinking up your current location and not being the best to your lungs, and quite possibly annoying anyone around you who isn't all that fond of smoke in general. The country would be a better place if people addressed the reasons why they feel the need to cope, rather than trying to find the best way to cope. If your best interest really was what is best for the country, that would be a little higher on the priority list, so that argument stands are pretty lame. For most users, thier interest is their percieved need, and little else...
4.) Would you stop advocating to me already? This thread has been dragging on and on...and because I wrote ONE paragraph that disagreed with a point you tried to make on pot. You've completely ignored everything else I said originally there to attack this one thing. Seriously...as much as I like a good thought provoking conversation, it's overzealous as hell. I DID say other things about other subjects you know....
Ooook. Time is short, so here's the brief and orderly response:
1.) I never said I agreed with every argument made by any poster there. Also, BOTH examples are very bad. Homosexuality which may or may not have a genetic component might be genetic where as drug use is a choice. If your damned by reputation based on your actions, it's very different from being damned by your genetics.
2.) I wish more "users" would be more respectful of the other side too. The problem is, is that the majority of them aren't so good there either.
3.) Hey...any argument I make isn't going to be good because none of them are relavent. If I kept a nuclear bomb in my basement, there are no victims really. Ownership of anything illegal is victimless...well...except for slaves and the such anyways.
4.) How does being stoned help our country? And for that matter how would it's legality help me. A small tax savings is about the only thing I can think of...and that's a drop in the bucket at best...and as I explained before, I haven't exactly got alot of pity for them.
Yes...and "DJBongHit" has a rather colorful analysis as well, with comparing stoners to homosexuals. Sure...both arguments have some bad points.
Well...listen to this: Most of the people I know really dislike the whole pot thing. They are on average, very successful and college educated people with decent careers and families. Hey...we are pretty happy people too. It's amazing. Some HAVE even tried it...for the most part they didn't think very highly of it. (pun intended)
Also...we are dealing with a finite number of losers here. You can't both honestly expect to make that argument.
But the "War on Drugs" and resulting jailtime for pot-smokers has probably ruined far more lives and broken up far more families than all the hard drugs combined ever could.
The potheads knew the penalties of getting caught. They did it anyways. They have THEMSELVES to blame - no less than the government and laws - for their childs lack of a father. They did not have to do what they did. They very knowingly broke a law that they knew could result in that...it's a pretty difficult law break just by accident...no one held a gun to their heads. And would you please accept the fact that I am not saying the government/laws are even right? I am stating it the way it is. Again...they are the victims of themselves...and I feel NO moral obligation to pity them.
Have you considered that almost everyone who is strongly anti-pot has never tried it? How do these people have the right to restrict others from doing something when they have no experince with it?
Have you considered that almost everyone who is strongly anti-[insert most currently illegal activities] has never tried it? How do these people have the right to restrict others from doing something when they have no experince with it?
It works the same for any argument...and it's as weak of an argument as it sounds when I say it back. And again...why are you telling me this? Are you implying that you know things about ME again? You have no idea about me whatsoever aside from what I have told you here...anything else is you trying to lump me into a stereotype that you might find I won't readily fit.
No, you didn't say it was a good law. But you critsized people for breaking that law, and sugested they stop. This could either mean you (a) agree with the law, or (b) think people should be docile and do what they are told even if the law sucks.
No...I critisized people who break the law and cried "victim". If you break the law...your broke the law. You DO have the freedom to work to change laws you disagree with however, which is a pretty far cry from "docile".
You say you can but you don't. The only solid argument you can make on the pot issue is "its the law". You mock people who are prosecuted under this law (" I broke the law...I was prosecuted...I am a victim....right.") but you can't give a good reason the law exists in the first place! Make your argument. I want to hear it!
Ooooooh boy. Do you realize how long of an argument we'd be getting into if we started debating that here? Look...I am going to give you some links to some arguments I agree with a great deal. We are starting to get completely off topic here due to this debate...however you are trying to manuever me into a position here where my total silence would practically equal my being wrong.
On K5, someone made a VERY good argument/thread that probably makes just about every point I care to. Read the posts made under the name "kitten". His argument is pretty close to mine (and probably better stated actually)...and frankly, I don't have the time to type 20 pages here to illustrate the point that I have a slightly more complex argument than "it's against the law". If you want to debate it further with me personally, then so be it...I am not going to run from the issue...however I am at work at the moment and not going to get from here. Things still have to get done here today as I'd like to stay employed.
I am not even going to bother responding to the rest of your post...but I would like to say that I think alot of people need to broaden their horizons as to forms of happiness they can persue. Too many people are hung up on a few things they are told they can't do, rather than the millions of things they can.
Why shouldn't people "get toasted"? Hows it hurting anyone else? It's a bad law!
I never said it was a GOOD law...please...quote where I said that? Don't get overdefensive there...go have a "bongrip" and calm down. I am not going to defend things I didn't say.
Pot is less harmfull to your health than liquor, and doesn't lead to domestic violence.
Actually...MODERATE liquor consumption lengthens the lifespan on average. There have been quite a few studies done on wine drinkers. Alcohol ABUSE however, is a much different beast.
As for your continued rant:
Sadly, many people are stupid docile animals. You, for example, sugest that people who enjoy pot should "wait until a legalization effort reaches a conclusion". People accross america with that same mindset will happily bend over when GWB asks them to "sacrifice a little freedom". And you'll probably respond to this post and tell me marijuna is bad because "its the law". Are you sure people aren't stupid docile animals?
I am kinda puzzled as to why you are still on the pot issue, as my second and third statements had exactly nothing to do with it. For that matter, I am not going to tell you that marijuana is bad because its the law. Stop generalizing me to make this easier on yourself. It's rather ignorant. My own views on it are definitely not what you would find favorable, but I can debate that subject with more arguments than just saying that it's against the law. I'd have the same feelings about it, legal or not. That is a much larger debate however, and going WAY out of the scope of the original arguments. I am also pretty far from being docile myself...again...do you somehow think you know me? I don't have the fucking time to defend views I don't have here....
Well...my take on it, is that there is a RIGHT way to approach a problem, and a wrong way. The wrong way to approaching the drug debate is by just doing them all over the place anyway, and then crying "victim" when you get caught. Actually..."sitting around grinning" seems to be a pretty docile approach...
That is an excellent example of a victimless "crime" that numerous goodhearted American people are rotting in jail for right now.
I am not even going to go there as your definition of goodhearted and mine will vary. It's a good example of people who broke a law because they wanted to get toasted...very little else. (The occasional "medical" case...) So many pro drug people make them sound like victim saints, and they occasionally need a reality check. I broke the law...I was prosecuted...I am a victim....right. It's not a hard law not to break folks...it's not like jaywalking or something. If you need it so bad that you can't wait until a legalization effort reaches a conclusion, and risk so much, then you've already made their point that you have a problem.
Ashcroft's new proposals, though, go far beyond making computer-crime 'crime'. It already is. What he's doing is making it terrorism. People could be jailed for life for the electronic equivilent of graffitti.
Well...as a maximum sentence they could get life from what I read. If the sentence doesn't fit the crime, it's generally appealed.....
The long-term damage from the terror attacks will come from our leaders as they exploit public rage to slip new crap like this into federal law.
Have a little faith here. If the government hurts the people, their rage will shift to the government. They aren't stupid docile animals...I think they are proving that judging by how much they want to go after the terrorists.
If you think MS has invented and innovated nothing useful, then your showing little more than how little you know. I don't think they've given us nearly as much as alot of other companies, but to say that it's nothing is rather misinformed. Yes...they are a bastardly company...they look out for their own interests...what a concept. There aren't any rules that state that we have to play nice here.
X86 as the best platform? (Greeeaaat....haven't had an X86 debate since the mac zealots quieted down.) From a technology standpoint, of course not. When exactly did I even SAY anything about that? I am not kidding...I want a quote there kiddo... X86 however, is a very mature platform, and a very common platform...with alot of very good tools written for it.
The argument that you become successful because you are good is bunkum - MS apps are very poorly designed and written. Do you really think that X86 architecture is the BEST - PLEASE !!!
Sure...then explain Google. I never said it was THE ONLY way to be successful...I would say it's a pretty good way. It certainly gives you some of the best odds. Does it always work? No...what DOES? I also realize that MOST MS apps are badly designed and written. If you think they are all terrible...again...your smoking something that I need some of.
There are hundreds of cases in the 20th century alone where the best technology didn't win. Have a look at history before making statements about bigger must be better...
Again...when did I say "bigger must be better". I think you have me confused with someone else here. And yeah...the best tech doesn't always win. It only would in an ideal world, and the sooner you realize that we aren't living in one of those, the better.
I'm not surprised you also don't understand a little light sarcasm - my vi comment - you really need to get out more, see a movie or two that don't need explaining... oops more sarcasm
Sarcasm? Your talking out your ass on half of this stuff. Show me where I said those things, and back up your claims with proof! Seriously...I don't have time to defend things I didn't say.
Competition is alive and well. Linux on the server is a very solid platform. The company I work for is testing our product on it now. (It's an enterprise web based app.) ALOT of companies use it. FreeBSD is also actually fairly common...and with MacOS X having BSD's guts beneath the eye candy...it's even somewhat mainstream. Solaris is pretty common on servers too. It's not like you have no valid options.
Letting people know whats going on is a VERY good thing...however, let your bias at the door. You say how can you compete with a marketing juggernaut? Well...there's a story a few up from this one on the front page right now about google rising to the top with no marketing. The answer is simple. Be the best. Spend less time bitching and more time coding....woopsie...most slashdotters are more content to bitch all day about a problem, than to fix the problem. You can't bitch it to death here guys...it just doesn't work well. (pardon the generalization on that one - it's not pointed at you - it's a general observation of alot of the people who frequent these forums...far too many of them IMHO.)
What I don't think you understand, is that we are actually on the same side here. My idea of a solution is just quite a bit different from yours. Rather than cry to the government, I'd rather get off my ass and fix something, or at least support people who can and will. I really wish more people would at least TRY to master their own fate instead of trying to elect people to do it for them.
With that being said: Whats up with the Ad Hominem remark there? Surprised I know how to spell vi? I am stupid? Please....You can't very well make a good arguement by attacking the character of someone who states an opposing arguement. It's really obvious...and it makes you look bad. If you want to put me down, do it with real substance...if you have any - and so far, you don't have much. And with that in mind...I am not going to stoop to your level. I am done for now...have a good night.
EULA's only take away rights from people who didn't read the EULA in the first place to know what they were getting. If you knew what you can do with the product and still bought it, then your the one kicking yourself.
The GPL also places RESTRICTIONS on how something can be used/distributed, and make requirements on them as well. Not just more permissions. They aren't all that valid as analogies go either. Creating a webpage using frontpage to flame frontpage, is VERY VERY different from never being able to SAY that you think frontpage is a piece of donkey-shit, or even using another web editing tool to make the site anyways. Do NOT confuse those two conditions...as they are VERY different...hence: The Strawman.
To me, the gripes are still somewhat justified actually...it would be a pretty shitty thing to do...however, I don't think that we should run crying to the government just anything. If you agree to the EULA, then your the one who agreed to it, not me. My rights are in pretty good shape over here.
I don't buy a product if I don't agree with the license. If I don't agree with the license, I buy another product. Choice is a wonderful thing we have in this part of the world.
Damn people...read the friggin' fine print.
Vested interest? Do you think I am a paid Microsoft advocate? Seriously...that's almost funny...