I'd really like to discover what makes Federal Laws about Marijuana (medical or otherwise) "Big Brother" while Universal Health Care isn't ever referred to that way?
Quite frankly, IMHO, being in support of Medical Marijuana and opposed to federal laws against it, while being for Universal Health Care, and all the laws that will end up being created to support it, is an hypocritical stand.
Being Libertarian, I'm for legalization of drugs (and taxing the crap out of them), and opposed to Universal ______, that requires assaultive taxation of the people.
All Forced Taxes are assaultive, and ultimately require the use of force (or threats of force) and have guns pointed at the head of everyone. Until people realize that taking money, by force or threat of force, is an assault, people (well intentioned or not) will continue to propose increasingly more Big Brother laws to take from others what they want for themselves, using the force and will of government to do it.
Call me a nut case, but I'd rather have Liberty than Universal Health Care and the slavery to the government and politicians it will necessarily create.
Bankruptcy by itself isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about bankruptcy as a means of stalling the inevitable conclusion of another court process.
The fact that SCO is in a court battle, which it is about to lose, should be enough to send the bankruptcy filing back to SCO. The Bankruptcy judge should have said that filing for re-org or whatever is impossible until the other major litigation is completed, which it is. While there is such a huge uncertainty in the long term viability of SCO, Bankruptcy cannot be finalized.
In other words, the Bankruptcy filing is nothing more than a stalling attempt to keep from conclusion the civil matter. However, the civil matter needs to be concluded before any decisions on Bankruptcy claims can be decided.
I have no doubt that there will be nothing left of SCO once the IBM and Novell civil matters are finalized, to declare bankruptcy with.
You can't force educate people because education requires motivation, which as you stated, can't be forced.
You can make education compulsory, but that doesn't educate anyone. We should teach people how to learn, because learning is life long. Schools aren't doing that any more.
Seriously, what I want to know is exactly what is left of SCO that is worth anything to anyone at this point. Dragging this whole thing out in court is just delaying the inevitable death that we all know is coming.
If there is anything wrong our system right now, its that we allow a company in its death throws to file Bankruptcy to delay the inevitable. Just do a freaking organ transplant already and kill the brain dead child of Darl.
I'm sorry but your facts are 100% right and yet you made a 100% wrong conclusions.
I'll try to be brief. I was arrested, by cops, while being in a private residence for being "drunk in public". Funny thing was, I was neither drunk, nor in public and got my butt kicked by the cops for mentioning that fact when I was being arrested.
I'm white and male.
My lawyer said to me, after my acquittal, that had I been a minority, I could have sued for false arrest, probably would have won, except for one thing. I was a "rich white man".
It happens often, but "rich white men" can't complain about being "oppressed" like women, minorities the poor, and other "special" classes of people can. After all, we're not oppressed. Except that we are!
Some cops are asshats. Most aren't. Asshats are equal opportunity and don't discriminate. My experience anyway.
I know, it is almost geek heresy to suggest that (G) is becoming, or has become, part of the EVIL CORPORATIONS GROUP (tm), along with M$, IBM, APPLE, Sun, EXXON and the Republicrat party.
". Many Americans are concerned that the lowest income quintile keeps getting poorer."
This is because of the fallacy of believing the pie is only so big, and has to be divided equitably. However, the pie is actually variable in size, and all one has to do is increase the size of the pie by working to increase one's proportion of the pie.
There are plenty of unemployed people unwilling to work at any wage under a certain amount, even though they aren't qualified to do any work that provides such a wage as they desire. Meanwhile there are millions of people streaming over the border to work at wages that no American would work, because they make more here working for wages that nobody else will, than they could in their own country.
The people holding signs that say "Will work for food" are liars. They won't work, for anything, they just want a free handout. And many are willing to oblige.
"If you really think that your past behavior has any impact on the courts, you may have a harsh lesson coming. "
Its called character, and it does have an impact on the courts. I've had my character assailed in a court, by police no less, and won.
They better have something other than he said/she said in court, because I'll have way more witnesses on my behalf. I know this is hard for some of us slashdotters to understand, because some of us have no character.
Not trolling. There are plenty of examples I could use, like in the city I live in, a major developer was sued by multiple people because all the houses he build were flawed in some way. While no building collapsed, people had almost worthless houses that they couldn't sell.
If it were truly anecdotal, I'd apologize. I picked a recent and well known example that shows licensing doesn't mean a thing. And the architect didn't have his license revoked either. I'm sure he's still designing something, somewhere.
I'm not sure why this isn't done more often, but a state can revoke a corporate charter, essentially killing the artificially created entity. I honestly think if that happened more often, investors and board of directors would require better of the employees rather than looking at the bottom line only.
If a corporation is so shady, and despicable, why not revoke the charter? Let the state sell off the assets and keep the revenue.
why is this modded flamebait? Truth as flamebait? Slashdot mods amazes me sometimes.
Prove me wrong, don't call it flamebait because it hurts your political views. Perhaps it is the nine year old needing a license to sell lemonade? That too is true.
"Do you really want any Joe Stoner doing surgery on you?"
I don't know about you, but I don't allow just anyone to cut me open. I usually check references and such. The fact that the doctor is licensed means nothing to me.
The public doesn't need protecting, it needs access to information to make informed decisions. Don't punish me for stupid people making stupid choices, like letting "Joe Stoner" operate on them.
"Do you disagree with the basic premise that people need or desire protection from negligent, unskilled, and or unscrupulous businesses, or do you disagree with the methods used? What might work better?"
Actually, I think there are already laws in place to protect people from these things. How does one stop a licensed person from being those things? You don't. Those kinds of people still exist even with licensing. Licensing doesn't check negligence, unscrupulousness. It barely checks for skill.
Take for instance automotive repair business, you need a license, but it doesn't say what you're qualified to repair. ASE on the other hand certifies (non-governmental) what a Tech has trained and tested for. However I just might want to take my car to the old guy down the road who's neither ASE or licensed because he's been doing car repairs longer than most people have been alive, and has a reputation money, licensing and certifications can't buy.
So, what does licensing do again? You don't need licenses for any of the prohibitive / punitive actions mentioned. This is the fallacy of licensing. Should a 9 year old have to get a license to serve lemonade on the street corner, as one recent over zealous health inspector declared?
There is an easy defense for what you're claiming. I don't have any credit cards. I don't have any loans. You have to prove it is me, and not someone else. I can prove it isn't me because I haven't gone into the buying things I cannot afford mode. I've said this in the past, and I'll say it again. I have a lifestyle that isn't rich, but I live beyond the means of most people in my income range, because I don't have $200-$500 in interest payments each month.
Licensing is an artificial barrier to business. It doesn't mean the person being licensed is honest, trustworthy, does good work, or anything. It is a way to eliminate competition and inefficiently tax businesses, nothing more, nothing less.
Here's a basic question, do you know of, or ever heard of, a licensed contractor who didn't know what he was doing? So again, what does a license prove? That they are registered with the state? Who gives a rip about that, when the work they do is crappy? It doesn't help a wit, trust me.
If someone wants to pretend to be me, fine. They can't get away with it for very long. I don't use credit, so any debts incurred wouldn't be my problem. I got nothing anyone would want to have. I have a boring life, with three great kids (most of the time), a great wife, a job I can deal with, and sometimes love/hate. And a cat. I like puttering around the house fixing things.
I don't play WoW, don't own a Wii, nor Xbox, Nintendo DS. My kids have a Game Cube I got dumpster diving. Hey it works. I don't drive new cars every three years, my van I bought new 1996, the car was bought used with 72K on it (two years old), all highway miles.
Boring life. Not worth much, except to me. Its mine. Oh, and I don't have to worry about people getting my name off a stolen backup tape from a credit company.
Not having to worry.... priceless. For everything else... MasterCard.
I learned this lesson on early. Except it was more crude....
"It's not what you know, its who you blow."
Back in the late 90s, I got a nice generic RFP for a website for a local business development group, and spent two solid weeks developing a detailed website development plan, including creating an ad revenue stream and offered it up for free to them. I wanted the contacts from the other businesses and figured that I would get some of those businesses. My bid was the only qualifying bid response to the RFP. So, did I get the bid? NO! Why? Because there was only ONE qualifying bid. They took my bid, respecified the new RFP based on many if not all of the proposals I had in my original bid. Did I get the bid? NO.
And the business development group paid through the nose for a website that sucked and didn't meet any of the expectations. The president of the group asked me to join the group, knowing I was pissed and what for.
His response, "That's business, get over it".
I looked at him and said, "You're not getting my business, ever. That's business, get over it" The look on his face was classic.
So, what are you proposing to tax? Stuff you like? Porn? I'm curious because taxes always lowers consumption. When the bright idiots in Washington wanted to "stick it to the rich" the put a very punitive tax on "luxury items" like Yachts. Didn't hurt the rich too bad, but the poor guys actually building them suddenly didn't have work, when the rich stopped buying them.
I value freedom mainly because I know what men ruling men leads to, every case it is tyranny. Just look at the slow march we're making now. Most people don't realize the very thing they vote for (more entitlements) is leading them to tyranny. How else does government manage things but get involved with every day decisions which out to be left to individuals?
So, I think we mostly agree about freedom, though I doubt you can fathom why I'm pro freedom, nor is as radical a libertarian as I am.
"Indrema was an electronics company infamous for the vaporware Indrema L600 Entertainment System."
Which would explain why I vaguely recall it even now. But yeah, concept is there, even if execution came up short. Give me 50 Million in startup, I'll have a game system developed and in stores in three years time.
1 "Religion is harmful, and the world would be better without it."
2 "I value freedom enough that I would rather allow people to be complete idiots than to try forcing them to stop."
How can a rational person not realize that statement #1 would necessarily lead to (attempted) extermination. Replace "Religion" with "Jews", "Niggers", "Irish" or any other subgroup and realize that the result is the same, and has been from the beginning of history. It doesn't take religion to do it, and by blaming religion for something inherently problematic with people in general shows you're not as rational as you seem to think.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd really like to discover what makes Federal Laws about Marijuana (medical or otherwise) "Big Brother" while Universal Health Care isn't ever referred to that way?
Quite frankly, IMHO, being in support of Medical Marijuana and opposed to federal laws against it, while being for Universal Health Care, and all the laws that will end up being created to support it, is an hypocritical stand.
Being Libertarian, I'm for legalization of drugs (and taxing the crap out of them), and opposed to Universal ______, that requires assaultive taxation of the people.
All Forced Taxes are assaultive, and ultimately require the use of force (or threats of force) and have guns pointed at the head of everyone. Until people realize that taking money, by force or threat of force, is an assault, people (well intentioned or not) will continue to propose increasingly more Big Brother laws to take from others what they want for themselves, using the force and will of government to do it.
Call me a nut case, but I'd rather have Liberty than Universal Health Care and the slavery to the government and politicians it will necessarily create.
Bankruptcy by itself isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about bankruptcy as a means of stalling the inevitable conclusion of another court process.
The fact that SCO is in a court battle, which it is about to lose, should be enough to send the bankruptcy filing back to SCO. The Bankruptcy judge should have said that filing for re-org or whatever is impossible until the other major litigation is completed, which it is. While there is such a huge uncertainty in the long term viability of SCO, Bankruptcy cannot be finalized.
In other words, the Bankruptcy filing is nothing more than a stalling attempt to keep from conclusion the civil matter. However, the civil matter needs to be concluded before any decisions on Bankruptcy claims can be decided.
I have no doubt that there will be nothing left of SCO once the IBM and Novell civil matters are finalized, to declare bankruptcy with.
You can't force educate people because education requires motivation, which as you stated, can't be forced.
You can make education compulsory, but that doesn't educate anyone. We should teach people how to learn, because learning is life long. Schools aren't doing that any more.
Seriously, what I want to know is exactly what is left of SCO that is worth anything to anyone at this point. Dragging this whole thing out in court is just delaying the inevitable death that we all know is coming.
If there is anything wrong our system right now, its that we allow a company in its death throws to file Bankruptcy to delay the inevitable. Just do a freaking organ transplant already and kill the brain dead child of Darl.
I'm sorry but your facts are 100% right and yet you made a 100% wrong conclusions.
I'll try to be brief. I was arrested, by cops, while being in a private residence for being "drunk in public". Funny thing was, I was neither drunk, nor in public and got my butt kicked by the cops for mentioning that fact when I was being arrested.
I'm white and male.
My lawyer said to me, after my acquittal, that had I been a minority, I could have sued for false arrest, probably would have won, except for one thing. I was a "rich white man".
It happens often, but "rich white men" can't complain about being "oppressed" like women, minorities the poor, and other "special" classes of people can. After all, we're not oppressed. Except that we are!
Some cops are asshats. Most aren't. Asshats are equal opportunity and don't discriminate. My experience anyway.
I know, it is almost geek heresy to suggest that (G) is becoming, or has become, part of the EVIL CORPORATIONS GROUP (tm), along with M$, IBM, APPLE, Sun, EXXON and the Republicrat party.
". Many Americans are concerned that the lowest income quintile keeps getting poorer."
This is because of the fallacy of believing the pie is only so big, and has to be divided equitably. However, the pie is actually variable in size, and all one has to do is increase the size of the pie by working to increase one's proportion of the pie.
There are plenty of unemployed people unwilling to work at any wage under a certain amount, even though they aren't qualified to do any work that provides such a wage as they desire. Meanwhile there are millions of people streaming over the border to work at wages that no American would work, because they make more here working for wages that nobody else will, than they could in their own country.
The people holding signs that say "Will work for food" are liars. They won't work, for anything, they just want a free handout. And many are willing to oblige.
I know, because I was once one of them.
You think Karl is scary? How about Hillary as Pres finding out that Bill has a new Monica .... THAT's a Scary Monster.
"If you really think that your past behavior has any impact on the courts, you may have a harsh lesson coming. "
Its called character, and it does have an impact on the courts. I've had my character assailed in a court, by police no less, and won.
They better have something other than he said/she said in court, because I'll have way more witnesses on my behalf. I know this is hard for some of us slashdotters to understand, because some of us have no character.
Not trolling. There are plenty of examples I could use, like in the city I live in, a major developer was sued by multiple people because all the houses he build were flawed in some way. While no building collapsed, people had almost worthless houses that they couldn't sell.
If it were truly anecdotal, I'd apologize. I picked a recent and well known example that shows licensing doesn't mean a thing. And the architect didn't have his license revoked either. I'm sure he's still designing something, somewhere.
Next.
"The creator of G-Archiver has pulled the software, stating that it was debug code and was unintentionally left in [CC] the product."
Right. And I have a bridge I'd like to sell you too.
"Because of these, I've never had a building I've been in fall down on me."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/06/mit_sues_gehry_citing_leaks_in_300m_complex/
I'm not sure why this isn't done more often, but a state can revoke a corporate charter, essentially killing the artificially created entity. I honestly think if that happened more often, investors and board of directors would require better of the employees rather than looking at the bottom line only.
If a corporation is so shady, and despicable, why not revoke the charter? Let the state sell off the assets and keep the revenue.
why is this modded flamebait? Truth as flamebait? Slashdot mods amazes me sometimes.
Prove me wrong, don't call it flamebait because it hurts your political views. Perhaps it is the nine year old needing a license to sell lemonade? That too is true.
http://damienkatz.net/2005/08/child_labor_ope.html
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/08/03/when_life_hands_you_lemons/
My basic premise was that licensing was a barrier to entry into the market. The proof is often absurd as it is outrageous.
Tell me again what licensing does? What qualifications does it take to open a lemonade stand?
"Do you really want any Joe Stoner doing surgery on you?"
I don't know about you, but I don't allow just anyone to cut me open. I usually check references and such. The fact that the doctor is licensed means nothing to me.
The public doesn't need protecting, it needs access to information to make informed decisions. Don't punish me for stupid people making stupid choices, like letting "Joe Stoner" operate on them.
"Do you disagree with the basic premise that people need or desire protection from negligent, unskilled, and or unscrupulous businesses, or do you disagree with the methods used? What might work better?"
Actually, I think there are already laws in place to protect people from these things. How does one stop a licensed person from being those things? You don't. Those kinds of people still exist even with licensing. Licensing doesn't check negligence, unscrupulousness. It barely checks for skill.
Take for instance automotive repair business, you need a license, but it doesn't say what you're qualified to repair. ASE on the other hand certifies (non-governmental) what a Tech has trained and tested for. However I just might want to take my car to the old guy down the road who's neither ASE or licensed because he's been doing car repairs longer than most people have been alive, and has a reputation money, licensing and certifications can't buy.
Tell me, what does license mean?
So, what does licensing do again? You don't need licenses for any of the prohibitive / punitive actions mentioned. This is the fallacy of licensing. Should a 9 year old have to get a license to serve lemonade on the street corner, as one recent over zealous health inspector declared?
Then they move to the next state over. Problem isn't solved.
There is an easy defense for what you're claiming. I don't have any credit cards. I don't have any loans. You have to prove it is me, and not someone else. I can prove it isn't me because I haven't gone into the buying things I cannot afford mode. I've said this in the past, and I'll say it again. I have a lifestyle that isn't rich, but I live beyond the means of most people in my income range, because I don't have $200-$500 in interest payments each month.
Licensing is an artificial barrier to business. It doesn't mean the person being licensed is honest, trustworthy, does good work, or anything. It is a way to eliminate competition and inefficiently tax businesses, nothing more, nothing less.
Here's a basic question, do you know of, or ever heard of, a licensed contractor who didn't know what he was doing? So again, what does a license prove? That they are registered with the state? Who gives a rip about that, when the work they do is crappy? It doesn't help a wit, trust me.
If someone wants to pretend to be me, fine. They can't get away with it for very long. I don't use credit, so any debts incurred wouldn't be my problem. I got nothing anyone would want to have. I have a boring life, with three great kids (most of the time), a great wife, a job I can deal with, and sometimes love/hate. And a cat. I like puttering around the house fixing things.
.... priceless. ... MasterCard.
I don't play WoW, don't own a Wii, nor Xbox, Nintendo DS. My kids have a Game Cube I got dumpster diving. Hey it works. I don't drive new cars every three years, my van I bought new 1996, the car was bought used with 72K on it (two years old), all highway miles.
Boring life. Not worth much, except to me. Its mine. Oh, and I don't have to worry about people getting my name off a stolen backup tape from a credit company.
Not having to worry
For everything else
I learned this lesson on early. Except it was more crude ....
"It's not what you know, its who you blow."
Back in the late 90s, I got a nice generic RFP for a website for a local business development group, and spent two solid weeks developing a detailed website development plan, including creating an ad revenue stream and offered it up for free to them. I wanted the contacts from the other businesses and figured that I would get some of those businesses. My bid was the only qualifying bid response to the RFP. So, did I get the bid? NO! Why? Because there was only ONE qualifying bid. They took my bid, respecified the new RFP based on many if not all of the proposals I had in my original bid. Did I get the bid? NO.
And the business development group paid through the nose for a website that sucked and didn't meet any of the expectations. The president of the group asked me to join the group, knowing I was pissed and what for.
His response, "That's business, get over it".
I looked at him and said, "You're not getting my business, ever. That's business, get over it" The look on his face was classic.
So, what are you proposing to tax? Stuff you like? Porn? I'm curious because taxes always lowers consumption. When the bright idiots in Washington wanted to "stick it to the rich" the put a very punitive tax on "luxury items" like Yachts. Didn't hurt the rich too bad, but the poor guys actually building them suddenly didn't have work, when the rich stopped buying them.
I value freedom mainly because I know what men ruling men leads to, every case it is tyranny. Just look at the slow march we're making now. Most people don't realize the very thing they vote for (more entitlements) is leading them to tyranny. How else does government manage things but get involved with every day decisions which out to be left to individuals?
So, I think we mostly agree about freedom, though I doubt you can fathom why I'm pro freedom, nor is as radical a libertarian as I am.
Looks like a SPAM URL.
According to Wikipedia (grain of salt added)
"Indrema was an electronics company infamous for the vaporware Indrema L600 Entertainment System."
Which would explain why I vaguely recall it even now. But yeah, concept is there, even if execution came up short. Give me 50 Million in startup, I'll have a game system developed and in stores in three years time.
1 "Religion is harmful, and the world would be better without it."
2 "I value freedom enough that I would rather allow people to be complete idiots than to try forcing them to stop."
How can a rational person not realize that statement #1 would necessarily lead to (attempted) extermination. Replace "Religion" with "Jews", "Niggers", "Irish" or any other subgroup and realize that the result is the same, and has been from the beginning of history. It doesn't take religion to do it, and by blaming religion for something inherently problematic with people in general shows you're not as rational as you seem to think.
I just realized something even more profound.
You can't outlaw stupid, because then who would we put into office?!?