Republicans are fascists who want a few large corporations to take power, so they can claim people have freedom (even though they don't, because they're being oppressed by the corporations).
The difference is that government power has the force of law, and you cannot escape. With "corporate power", it's entirely voluntary to be under it. And if you don't like it, you can always start your own entity. Example: The Democrats decide to ban "hate" music because it hurts people's feelings. You can go to jail and there is no escape. On the other hand, don't like the policies of the oh-so-corporate RIAA? Listen to independent music. Or create your music.
You have a much better chance of competing against an evil corporation than you do against an evil government.
Interesting, but a rather bogus analogy. Here was my response that I left: "This would be a reasonable analogy if bananas were vital to our health and were irreplaceable in our diet. If bananas were that important, I think you would care a lot more about domestic supplies, especially if much of the supply were in US-hostile nations."
Right now, oil is very difficult to replace. Hopefully technology will give us economical replacements in the future.
...likewise, you can complain to GM about building SUVs instead of electric cars, but we as Americans buy SUVs instead (until quite recently)
Um, where in the definition of "SUV" does it state they have to be gas powered? Give me an electric SUV, and I'll drive it.
Pain and suffering is not the answer to our problems. New technology is the answer to our problems.
Don't like SUVs? How about if I take an audit of your life and see all the energy we could save if we reduce all the luxuries in your life. If you live in a cold climate, how much energy could we save if we lower the thermostat to 50 degrees? Just put on another sweater. Your computer is using quite a bit of energy that is going to "Chavez in Venezuela to support anti-American jingoism." Or really, ANY CAR AT ALL. Do you use public transportation? Hell, let's shut that down, too, and make everyone ride bicycles everywhere.
See the picture? There is almost nothing in life that can't be argued as a luxury that "wastes" fuel.
Argue for energy independence. I'm on board. But destroying our lifestyle is not acceptable, and more importantly, not necessary. The world and solar system is bathed in energy. Technology is the solution.
We're talking about high end freaks strutting their stuff. Why should some lucky freaks get to be the winners just because they were born with some special trait? Doping levels the playing field.
The trouble is that bodies are pushed beyond natural limits, which causes them to break down. In essence, we'd be paying people to destroy their health for our entertainment. Now, some sports are already like that (e.g., boxing). And that's why I have a big problem with boxing.
Now, if we could have PEDs that had no long-term health risks, then I'd say, Great! Give them to everyone else as well, so I can be strong and healthy without all the work. But until that golden day, it's immoral.
Before you dismiss the notion, consider what we're stuck with today -- a system designed to create a level playing field, protect athletes' health and set an example for children, that fails on all counts.
Lack of perfection is not failure.
Could it better? Yes. Will it always be an arms race? Yes. Will athletes always try and get an edge? Yes.
Using this logic to justify unlimited PEDs is like saying that since we can't stop criminals from stealing, therefore, we should just give up and let people steal whatever they want. After all, you can't stop a determined thief, so why not just let them have what they want?
Whether you'd give it up at $10/gallon, $20/gallon, $100/gallon or more just depends upon how stubborn (and rich) you are. A lot of people are going to have to give up their SUVs; whether you're one of them or not is sort of irrelevant.
Or, as electric cars get more practical, the price of gas starts to fall because of lack of demand. And when my electric SUV gets to a reasonable state, I might trade in for that.
Note that I didn't say I didn't want to give up gas-powered cars, I said I like driving civilized cars.
Based on the comments here so far, I have this question: how do you overcome the perception that you're harming literacy by providing speaking machines rather than "forcing" people to learn to read?
The patriot act isn't terrible, it's just putting the whole country on a slippery slope.
The "slippery slope" argument is always wrong. A lot of people believe that, "once you lose a freedom, it never returns." That's provably, historically not true. Review the restrictions during WW/II, the 1950s, the 1970s, etc. The line of freedom has always moved, both ways, depending on what was happening in the culture. This is how it should be. Society can't function with *either* total freedom or complete totalitarianism. The optimal point is somewhere in the middle, and optimal is always changing.
Come on, it's the Age of Hyperbole! Get on board the train!
In an age where fools routinely think the Patriot Act has turned the United States into a police state resembling Nazi Germany, it's just another symptom of our spoiled culture having absolutely no sense of historical perspective.
(And yes, I'm not a fan of many of the provisions of the patriot act, but if you think it affects any significant number of people in any practical way, then you are deluded)
Except when a Canadian wins, and then some America claims to be the worlds fastest man, because he broke a record for the 200m.
Who cares what people claim? The question is who hits the highest speed, and the 100m sprinter (usually) does. You'll note that Michael Johnson didn't bother to try and challenge in the 100m.
Personally, I have always felt that the most stupid event at the Olympics is the 100m sprint. Paradoxically this seems to be the viewers favourite, despite the fact that it is the event most determined by luck and, frankly, rule bending.
Huh? How is luck involved in running against an absolute clock? And how do you bend the rules of "fastest to the finish line wins"? Unless you're talking about drugs, and that's a problem of every performance sport.
The reason the 100m sprint is popular is because the runners hit the highest speeds, and thus earn the title "the fastest man on Earth."
So what sort of "human right" is it that enables you to enslave doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and Joe Taxpayer just to care for your needs, or undo the consequences of your poor choices in life?
The medical professionals are not enslaved, because they are paid for their services, and are free to quit any time they want. The taxpayers are not enslaved, because they are free to leave the country and not live within the rules negotiated by the representatives of The People. The "human right" is the same one that allows the state to take the money of taxpayers to pay for defense, and other services to "promote the general welfare" and "insure domestic tranquility."
But I do understand the Libertarian ethic that you're speaking of. Unfortunately, health care is fundamentally unlike other personal services, including food. To see why, see this essay that I wrote that addresses this exact issue. Be prepared to think outside the Libertarian box.:)
Remember, the goal is an *optimal* society of personal responsibility, not a society of anarchy (think about collective defense of the nation as one example). Too many Libertarians get this difference confused.
Those elected officials want to spend their August kicking up their shoes when unemployment is at an all-time high?
While I agree with your overall point that it would be nice if congress would do something productive at a time when things are fairly fragile, insane rhetoric like this does your point no favors. During the Great Depression, the unemployment rate hit over 25%, just to name one metric.
As an aside, people have absolutely no historical perspective when it comes to understanding how bad things can get.
...we could get some compensation for all of the unlistenable music that has come out in recent years, then perhaps we could move on.
Yeah, because clearly everyone who buys music these days only buys it because a gun is pointed at their head. It couldn't be that people actually *enjoy* it.
In other news, those damn kids are on your lawn and playing their crappy music too loud again.
... in 25 years, your body-art will be as timely as the "Primos Rules" tattoo I have.
Exactly. I mean, I lean on the side of the vast majority of tattoos are lame anyway (though I have seen some I like), but how pathetic a life do you have to lead that you want to be permanently marked with a -- let's be honest -- pretty stupid-looking penguin. If I went insane for whatever reason and wanted to get a Linux penguin icon, I'd at least get some really cool looking penguin (pardon the pun), with some really cool artwork (yet subtle) around it.
does it reek of shameless self adoration? are the characters bland? im more of a p.k. dick, isaac asimov kinda guy
Oh, the irony of criticizing shameless self-adoration and bland characters, and simultaneous praising Isaac Asimov.:D
Asimov wouldn't know a character if the cardboard hit him in the ass. Though, to be fair, he's better than Niven on that score. (Don't get me wrong -- I love the latter two, but they're better at concept writing than characterization).
And Asimov didn't exactly hide how brilliant he thought he was, and (at least for me), that came through crystal clear in his writing.
To be totally fair, however, much of the Sci Fi genre is guilty of caring more for the concept than the characters.
I've not used an iPhone or iPod touch for long, but I got the impression that they were designed to favour short finger motions on the pad for precisely this reason.
I have to say, I've had an iPhone for a year. At first I was skeptical of the glass because of fingerprints, etc, but in practice I never notice any smudges, and I've *never* had any skipping, etc. In fact, it's remarkably precise, considering the blunt nature of a fingertip.
My theory on the way it works is that it finds the centroid of the pressure region. I've used drawing applications with it, and it's actually amazing how well it works drawing thin lines with a fingertip.
I don't know about a multitouch touchpad, that seems kind of lame. What makes multitouch cool is touching directly on the screen.
So you won't mind if I send some mail and list yours as the return address then?
So, let's say you go to a Halloween party and dress as a police officer. You are technically breaking the law -- impersonating a police officer. But I think most people would say that would be an abusing the law through a use for which it wasn't intended.
Impersonation laws were not written and were not intended to cover subtle technical distinctions. They weren't using this traffic control method to defraud people -- they were using it for traffic control.
Unfortunately, this is another case where people are not looking at the bigger picture. They get all happy when a law is abused in a way they approve of. They don't see that this sets dangerous precedents for the government to use laws to abuse you in ways you won't approve of.
If it is arrogant to point out how wrong you are, then anyone with any education must seem arrogant to you. I guess that's the "liberal elite" hate we see from Republicans.
I give up. You're determined to read what you want to read, rather than what I actually say. Probably something to do with your frothing, foaming prejudiced hatred of just having the word "Republican" mentioned.
Do you believe that anything that is allowed must be allowed by law? No, the onus is on you to cite the law that Comcast violated by not embracing network neutrality. And yes, I understand that the way they did was controversial, but as near as I can tell, that's not why the FCC is acting.
And no, I think it's reasonable that I have to file suit to keep federal agencies from going crazy and doing something that is clearly beyond their authority. And it's clearly beyond it because the legislature is actively considering the idea of network neutrality. Given that, the FCC should have backed off.
The FCC is -- and should be -- both an enforcement and legislative arm of the Government.
The FCC is mostly an interpretive arm of government, with *limited* ability to extend and enforce *existing* law. The cannot create new law out of whole cloth.
Now as to whether Net Neutrality is "already law", you would need to define what you mean by "law".
You seemed to have missed all the ongoing debate about network neutrality among the government. Apparently the real legislature does not believe that network neutrality is existing law.
But hey, it's not surprising for me to see a subject line like "The Republicans Are Correct" spouted by someone who appears to know little about the law. (Law student.)
Well, Mr. Student, you appear to have the attorney arrogance down already, if not the understanding of the concept of limited power.
Slashdot Mirror
Republicans are fascists who want a few large corporations to take power, so they can claim people have freedom (even though they don't, because they're being oppressed by the corporations).
The difference is that government power has the force of law, and you cannot escape. With "corporate power", it's entirely voluntary to be under it. And if you don't like it, you can always start your own entity. Example: The Democrats decide to ban "hate" music because it hurts people's feelings. You can go to jail and there is no escape. On the other hand, don't like the policies of the oh-so-corporate RIAA? Listen to independent music. Or create your music.
You have a much better chance of competing against an evil corporation than you do against an evil government.
You might find this interesting.
Interesting, but a rather bogus analogy. Here was my response that I left: "This would be a reasonable analogy if bananas were vital to our health and were irreplaceable in our diet. If bananas were that important, I think you would care a lot more about domestic supplies, especially if much of the supply were in US-hostile nations."
Right now, oil is very difficult to replace. Hopefully technology will give us economical replacements in the future.
Um, where in the definition of "SUV" does it state they have to be gas powered? Give me an electric SUV, and I'll drive it.
Pain and suffering is not the answer to our problems. New technology is the answer to our problems.
Don't like SUVs? How about if I take an audit of your life and see all the energy we could save if we reduce all the luxuries in your life. If you live in a cold climate, how much energy could we save if we lower the thermostat to 50 degrees? Just put on another sweater. Your computer is using quite a bit of energy that is going to "Chavez in Venezuela to support anti-American jingoism." Or really, ANY CAR AT ALL. Do you use public transportation? Hell, let's shut that down, too, and make everyone ride bicycles everywhere.
See the picture? There is almost nothing in life that can't be argued as a luxury that "wastes" fuel.
Argue for energy independence. I'm on board. But destroying our lifestyle is not acceptable, and more importantly, not necessary. The world and solar system is bathed in energy. Technology is the solution.
We're talking about high end freaks strutting their stuff. Why should some lucky freaks get to be the winners just because they were born with some special trait? Doping levels the playing field.
The trouble is that bodies are pushed beyond natural limits, which causes them to break down. In essence, we'd be paying people to destroy their health for our entertainment. Now, some sports are already like that (e.g., boxing). And that's why I have a big problem with boxing.
Now, if we could have PEDs that had no long-term health risks, then I'd say, Great! Give them to everyone else as well, so I can be strong and healthy without all the work. But until that golden day, it's immoral.
Before you dismiss the notion, consider what we're stuck with today -- a system designed to create a level playing field, protect athletes' health and set an example for children, that fails on all counts.
Lack of perfection is not failure.
Could it better? Yes. Will it always be an arms race? Yes. Will athletes always try and get an edge? Yes.
Using this logic to justify unlimited PEDs is like saying that since we can't stop criminals from stealing, therefore, we should just give up and let people steal whatever they want. After all, you can't stop a determined thief, so why not just let them have what they want?
Whether you'd give it up at $10/gallon, $20/gallon, $100/gallon or more just depends upon how stubborn (and rich) you are. A lot of people are going to have to give up their SUVs; whether you're one of them or not is sort of irrelevant.
Or, as electric cars get more practical, the price of gas starts to fall because of lack of demand. And when my electric SUV gets to a reasonable state, I might trade in for that.
Note that I didn't say I didn't want to give up gas-powered cars, I said I like driving civilized cars.
Based on the comments here so far, I have this question: how do you overcome the perception that you're harming literacy by providing speaking machines rather than "forcing" people to learn to read?
Not only you drank the cool-aid, tool, but you bought the whole bourgeois line, hook and sinker.
Oh, one of us has swallowed some Big Lies, but it's not me. Using the word "bourgeois" gives you away. Let me guess: Chomsky is one of your heroes.
I'll gladly watch you squeal when you won't be able to fill-up your SUV any more...
Ah yes, the fundamental, though much too common, misunderstanding of economics and oil production. Hint: we will NEVER run out of oil. EVER.
The patriot act isn't terrible, it's just putting the whole country on a slippery slope.
The "slippery slope" argument is always wrong. A lot of people believe that, "once you lose a freedom, it never returns." That's provably, historically not true. Review the restrictions during WW/II, the 1950s, the 1970s, etc. The line of freedom has always moved, both ways, depending on what was happening in the culture. This is how it should be. Society can't function with *either* total freedom or complete totalitarianism. The optimal point is somewhere in the middle, and optimal is always changing.
Come on, it's the Age of Hyperbole! Get on board the train!
In an age where fools routinely think the Patriot Act has turned the United States into a police state resembling Nazi Germany, it's just another symptom of our spoiled culture having absolutely no sense of historical perspective.
(And yes, I'm not a fan of many of the provisions of the patriot act, but if you think it affects any significant number of people in any practical way, then you are deluded)
Except when a Canadian wins, and then some America claims to be the worlds fastest man, because he broke a record for the 200m.
Who cares what people claim? The question is who hits the highest speed, and the 100m sprinter (usually) does. You'll note that Michael Johnson didn't bother to try and challenge in the 100m.
Why the need to throw in the condescending misogynist comment, Taco?
So, anyone who criticizes a woman's sport automatically hates all women? Huh?
Personally, I have always felt that the most stupid event at the Olympics is the 100m sprint. Paradoxically this seems to be the viewers favourite, despite the fact that it is the event most determined by luck and, frankly, rule bending.
Huh? How is luck involved in running against an absolute clock? And how do you bend the rules of "fastest to the finish line wins"? Unless you're talking about drugs, and that's a problem of every performance sport.
The reason the 100m sprint is popular is because the runners hit the highest speeds, and thus earn the title "the fastest man on Earth."
So what sort of "human right" is it that enables you to enslave doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and Joe Taxpayer just to care for your needs, or undo the consequences of your poor choices in life?
The medical professionals are not enslaved, because they are paid for their services, and are free to quit any time they want. The taxpayers are not enslaved, because they are free to leave the country and not live within the rules negotiated by the representatives of The People. The "human right" is the same one that allows the state to take the money of taxpayers to pay for defense, and other services to "promote the general welfare" and "insure domestic tranquility."
But I do understand the Libertarian ethic that you're speaking of. Unfortunately, health care is fundamentally unlike other personal services, including food. To see why, see this essay that I wrote that addresses this exact issue. Be prepared to think outside the Libertarian box. :)
Remember, the goal is an *optimal* society of personal responsibility, not a society of anarchy (think about collective defense of the nation as one example). Too many Libertarians get this difference confused.
The irony is that This is True is one of the first profitable mailing lists, predating Yahoo! Mail by almost three years.
What's ironic about it?
[rhetorical question to highlight "irony" word abuse]
Those elected officials want to spend their August kicking up their shoes when unemployment is at an all-time high?
While I agree with your overall point that it would be nice if congress would do something productive at a time when things are fairly fragile, insane rhetoric like this does your point no favors. During the Great Depression, the unemployment rate hit over 25%, just to name one metric.
As an aside, people have absolutely no historical perspective when it comes to understanding how bad things can get.
Around here we tend to rely on evidence and not beliefs.
The only evidence we have right now is that intelligent life has never existed in this galaxy prior to us. See: The Fermi Paradox.
It's not ironclad proof, obviously, but it's far more evidence than we have for the existence of other intelligent life, which is absolutely none.
Yeah, because clearly everyone who buys music these days only buys it because a gun is pointed at their head. It couldn't be that people actually *enjoy* it.
In other news, those damn kids are on your lawn and playing their crappy music too loud again.
Exactly. I mean, I lean on the side of the vast majority of tattoos are lame anyway (though I have seen some I like), but how pathetic a life do you have to lead that you want to be permanently marked with a -- let's be honest -- pretty stupid-looking penguin. If I went insane for whatever reason and wanted to get a Linux penguin icon, I'd at least get some really cool looking penguin (pardon the pun), with some really cool artwork (yet subtle) around it.
does it reek of shameless self adoration? are the characters bland? im more of a p.k. dick, isaac asimov kinda guy
Oh, the irony of criticizing shameless self-adoration and bland characters, and simultaneous praising Isaac Asimov. :D
Asimov wouldn't know a character if the cardboard hit him in the ass. Though, to be fair, he's better than Niven on that score. (Don't get me wrong -- I love the latter two, but they're better at concept writing than characterization).
And Asimov didn't exactly hide how brilliant he thought he was, and (at least for me), that came through crystal clear in his writing.
To be totally fair, however, much of the Sci Fi genre is guilty of caring more for the concept than the characters.
I've not used an iPhone or iPod touch for long, but I got the impression that they were designed to favour short finger motions on the pad for precisely this reason.
I have to say, I've had an iPhone for a year. At first I was skeptical of the glass because of fingerprints, etc, but in practice I never notice any smudges, and I've *never* had any skipping, etc. In fact, it's remarkably precise, considering the blunt nature of a fingertip.
My theory on the way it works is that it finds the centroid of the pressure region. I've used drawing applications with it, and it's actually amazing how well it works drawing thin lines with a fingertip.
I don't know about a multitouch touchpad, that seems kind of lame. What makes multitouch cool is touching directly on the screen.
So you won't mind if I send some mail and list yours as the return address then?
So, let's say you go to a Halloween party and dress as a police officer. You are technically breaking the law -- impersonating a police officer. But I think most people would say that would be an abusing the law through a use for which it wasn't intended.
Impersonation laws were not written and were not intended to cover subtle technical distinctions. They weren't using this traffic control method to defraud people -- they were using it for traffic control.
Unfortunately, this is another case where people are not looking at the bigger picture. They get all happy when a law is abused in a way they approve of. They don't see that this sets dangerous precedents for the government to use laws to abuse you in ways you won't approve of.
If it is arrogant to point out how wrong you are, then anyone with any education must seem arrogant to you. I guess that's the "liberal elite" hate we see from Republicans.
I give up. You're determined to read what you want to read, rather than what I actually say. Probably something to do with your frothing, foaming prejudiced hatred of just having the word "Republican" mentioned.
Ok. Cite the law.
Do you believe that anything that is allowed must be allowed by law? No, the onus is on you to cite the law that Comcast violated by not embracing network neutrality. And yes, I understand that the way they did was controversial, but as near as I can tell, that's not why the FCC is acting.
And no, I think it's reasonable that I have to file suit to keep federal agencies from going crazy and doing something that is clearly beyond their authority. And it's clearly beyond it because the legislature is actively considering the idea of network neutrality. Given that, the FCC should have backed off.
The FCC is -- and should be -- both an enforcement and legislative arm of the Government.
The FCC is mostly an interpretive arm of government, with *limited* ability to extend and enforce *existing* law. The cannot create new law out of whole cloth.
Now as to whether Net Neutrality is "already law", you would need to define what you mean by "law".
You seemed to have missed all the ongoing debate about network neutrality among the government. Apparently the real legislature does not believe that network neutrality is existing law.
But hey, it's not surprising for me to see a subject line like "The Republicans Are Correct" spouted by someone who appears to know little about the law. (Law student.)
Well, Mr. Student, you appear to have the attorney arrogance down already, if not the understanding of the concept of limited power.