Your assumption is that ALL linux people are like yourself. I can assure you that they are not. Some are so bigoted against commercial software of any type that they won't run closed source binaries on their machines.
And I'm not sure it is possible to please those types with any commercially viable alternative. There will always be an outspoken elite Open Source Purists that won't comply. And they are more numerous than you might believe.
What I'd like to see is a console built on Linux to start. THEN we'd see some real competition.
Any ideology is is harmful, in the wrong hands. Bigotry doesn't require religion. There are plenty of psuedo-scientists that are plenty bigoted. All one needs to do is look at the "science" done in the name of the Nazis in Germany.
"but religion is one of the biggest encouragers of it."
How do you explain your bigotry? If the world didn't have a religion, it would fight over something else, skin color, IQ, "rational thinking". I don't, for a second, think that you wouldn't excuse rounding up religious types because they "threaten" your utopia, and shove them into a gas oven. How else would you expunge us all from your world?
Hatred and Bigotry is still hatred and bigotry, even when it is clothed in "rational thinking". The fact that you cannot see this is proof you are irrational.
"Religion is harmful, and the world would be better without it."
I wonder what you are capable of in the name of ridding this world of the people you so hate?
"In the US we have been more than willing to repeatedly try bad ideas as long as the intentions fit some vague Judeo-Christian moral standard (or if there's money to be made)."
As a "Judeo-Christian" ethical person, I take exception to this vile screed designed to illicit the same kind of "fear" that he rails against later on... "Fear for our children. Fear of each other. Fear of freedom, of responsibility."
One of the biggest reasons I'm what I am today is founded upon the notion that MAN cannot rule himself, let alone other men, without eventually being corrupted. I happen to be very LIBERTARIAN in my views because I realize this very thought. And when the state can convict, and execute someone completely innocent (if you buy the story), then they can do it to anyone, which is why I'm against the death penalty.
And I happen to agree with your point of view on legalization of drugs and alcohol, it is none of the state's business. That, and if we taxed the crap out of sin (keeping it legal, and controlled) we'd have all the money needed to fund all the stupid programs you want.
Also one cannot have a war against chairs, what makes one think we can have one against another inanimate object (drugs, terror, poverty etc).
While IT may not be a "non-revenue generating department", it certainly can be a "cost savings department". The problem is nobody ever sees the cost savings, as it tends to get swallowed up in areas of other needs.
Take for instance our payroll run. Used to take one guy six or seven hours to run all the payroll checks through the form fed line printer, signature machine and burst them (tear edges). Never mind that if the printer foobared he'd have to start over again.
Changing printers (cost 2x2000) and programming charges (???), cut that down from the 6 hours to less than 2. Each payroll. This doesn't include the cost savings on payroll forms which don't have to be continuous fed paper or any of the other related costs.
We'll never see those 4 missing hours on a budget sheet however, as those are now occupied by other tasks that were either not getting done, or done on overtime. You'll never see the cost savings of this type of IT event.
Because in general people continue to do nasty things to women, Homosexuals and non-believers... We're talking about the Military right? Or was it Nazis? Or was it something else.
What you describe is human nature, and cannot be applied universally to any subgroup. Don't think for a moment that whatever you believe cannot possibly lead to the same.
So ya Thought ya Might like to go to the show To feel the warm thrill of confusion That space cadet glow I've got some bad news for you sunshine Pink isn't well he stayed back at the hotel And they sent us along as a surrogate band And we're going to find out where you fans Really stand Are there any queers in the theatre tonight Get 'em up against the wall That one looks Jewish And that one's a coon Who let all this riff raff into the room There's one smoking a joint and Another with spots If I had my way I'd have all of you shot
Point is, we, as humans, tend to do this to people who are "different"
Actually, the asshattery of logic is yours. Freedom doesn't require anything from anyone. If I imprison you, I've deprived you of your right to freedom. If I don't, your freedom requires nothing from me. I don't even need to know you exist.
Education isn't a right, the opportunity to learn is a right. Education (forced government schools) isn't education, it is schooling. My kids don't attend public high school, are more educated than could be provided by public high school. My both my 15 and 17 year old are attending college, because I chose NOT to avail them to the poor quality of "education" (if you can call it that) at government run schools. You see, my kids are learning apart from government mandated schools. This is the problem with government mandated education, is that it doesn't educate people who don't want to learn. Learning (opportunity) is the right, not education. Subtle difference if you can fathom it.
Every right doesn't require any obligation from anyone else. Every right has a responsibility, the most basic of all premises... "do unto others"; namely don't violate other's rights. This isn't require anything from anyone else. It requires something from within yourself.
Let say that you're out in the woods all by yourself and a tree falls and breaks your leg. Have I violated your right to health care by not being there? No. I don't even know who you are. Therefore "health care" isn't a right, unless you do it for yourself. You see, I can't stop you from treating yourself, nor can you require that I be there to set your broken leg, put it in a cast, give you crutches, drugs or even a hug. Where is your rights, and how have I violated them in this case?
You see, health care cannot be a right, it requires things you cannot give yourself, on a deserted island. However, you can have your freedom, your right to speak (cussing at the tree on your leg), etc. These things don't require anything from anyone.
Freedom of speech means you can talk, not that I have to listen. Your exercising your right to freedom of speech requires nothing from me, whatsoever.
Freedom of life requires nothing from me. If someone shoots you, you don't have a right to expect anything from me. Again, it requires nothing from me.
Going without is always an alternative, even if you don't think it is "much" of one. You want internet or is your right to privacy worth more to you? The problem with your line of thinking is that you've ceded all that power your rights grant you to a fictional and fickle man made construct. And you've already proven your rights aren't worth much to you.
You want your ISP to require you to be notified of whom it gives info to? Great, negotiate it up front. Or would you rather cede your rights to someone else to garner that contract for you? The balance of power lies with you my friend, not with the government negotiating on your behalf.
Do you have a right to live, even when there is no government? Government is law. No government = no law. If there is no right apart from government, then it is government that grants rights. Do you want to believe that rights come from and are defined by laws of governments?
If governments can grant rights, they can also nullify them.
"or hell, see any evidence for their existence at all"
Interesting. If you cant see them, then they don't exist right? How shallow are you?
"As far as I can see, people are people, and they have to decide how to deal with each other."
Really, so if society thinks that people with blue eyes are better than people with brown eyes, you're okay with that? How about skin color? How about even defining what a person is or isn't?
"By that understanding, rights are what we make of them."
How you feel about slavery? Can I make you my personal slave? Because my "we" is bigger and stronger than your "we", and we made/changed the laws?
"To so confidently assert that you magically know what people's rights are closes down the democratic process,"
Right, because there can be no universal truths. We should vote on slavery then. I'd like to have you as my personal slavery and as long as I get more people to vote with me, its okay, by your own standards.
"because you're not the only one out there who thinks he knows what his "natural" rights are, and those others aren't necessarily going to agree with you."
Actually Natural rights are quite easy to define, if you have the intelligence and education. It is clear that you posses neither. Your poorly constructed reasoning is so full of holes (as shown above) that it amazes me. Your version of Majority rule democracy is scary. If 50.0001% of the people believe in slavery you'd have to accept it by your own standards.
"But to assert so confidently that you know the nature of things merely blinds people - he's trying to take away my RIGHTS! Burn him! - and makes them unable to rationally assess the situation. "
You err. My confidence comes from understanding, education and reasoning. It isn't subject to the whims of democratic change. The founding fathers of the US had the same level of understanding.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
You see where rights are among the truths that are self evident? By your own standards you're saying majority rules, establishing that they have MORE rights. Incredible.
"However, I'd hoped for a little more complex of a dialog here, or at least some reasons why I should believe what you say."
How can we have a more complex dialog when you're incapable of understanding what your own views truly mean. Your suppositions are without merit on the face of them, because even YOU probably don't even agree with the results they must (and will) bring.
It is at this point you'll start to add additional conditions to statements you said, trying to qualify them. Don't bother, it is all still arbitrary in nature and will end up being continually revised and extended to cover all sorts of questions, and will end up looking exactly like "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness". Please not, happiness isn't a guarantee, only the right to pursue it.
This is the cornerstone of natural rights philosophy that eventually it becomes self evident, with understanding and education. Ever wonder why education was always valued in the States, this is the reason. To bring people to an understanding of their natural rights.
The problems for universal health care is a non-starter for me. It requires (demands under penalty of law) that I participate, and in the process get lower quality care than I can provide for myself now, or makes me pay MORE for the coverage I already am paying for. No thanks.
True rights don't require or aren't about anything technological. Rights exist apart from technology, so that if you're stranded on an deserted island, your rights still exist.
This is one of those things that people on the left have no concept of. They think rights are things you're entitled to by government decree, which is completely contrary to the founding document of the USofA. Government ought to be extremely limited, not an all powerful monolithic demigod that it has become. And rights don't require forcing others into situations they don't want to be in (eg Universal Health Care).
While it is NICE to want Universal Health Care, it isn't a "right" because it requires something from others. It requires technology and the work of others. The biggest problem we have today is that people don't have a clear concept of what a "right" is, because they lack a foundation for describing what rights are.
From the article "state governments should adopt a bill of rights regarding internet privacy, use of technology and speech on the internet. "
Why? It is the responisibility of each of the users to protect themselves, and government shouldn't get involved except in cases for prosecution of whatever contractual breaches occurred. When you willingly give your info to others without a contract in place, and it escapes in the wild, that is the risk you take doing so.
"For example: make it illegal to allow ISPs to release personal information to anyone who wants it."
Wrong approach. Either accept that personal info is going to be released or find an ISP that offers a guaranteed level of privacy you desire. Can't find one? Tough, go without. Or find an open access point, internet cafe or whatever, that doesn't require personal info.
"If you were asked by your state government to come up with a bill of rights for internet privacy, technology use, and free speech regarding the internet and emerging technologies, what would you include?"
I don't want a Nanny state, babysitting people. I want a state that protects the LIBERTY of all men, and not pass stupid laws because someone said "there ought to be a law". How about this instead. Be Responsible for yourself, protect yourself at all times. If you took care of yourself, then you don't need the laws you're proposing. Personally, I don't want to give up Liberty for Security, because you end up with neither.
"people with enough money can disregard this."
That is the result of government power abuses. That is a result of a government that cannot even rule itself. That is a result of power grab by the government because someone said... "there ought to be a law" and ceded Liberty for Security.
"Perhaps the states might find it a good idea to enshrine rights into law."
Perhaps you don't know that rights exist apart from law. Laws are only there to secure rights and Liberties of men. Government doesn't grant rights, and your basic premise clearly shows that you don't understand what a right or liberty really is, or the government's purpose is.
I'm not saying that there aren't problems. Take a look at obstetricians in the US, and why many are fleeing that field. I blame people like John Edwards who made a fortune off the misery and sadness of genetic defects, suing doctors for problems that had nothing to do with the doctor.
You want to fix part of the high cost of Medical Care in the US, get the lawyers out of the mix, and the stupid juries who award billions in the latest get rich quick scheme. And illegal Aliens seem to get free medical care here, so I'm not sure why people are leaving to go to Canada.
That, and doctors think that they are entitled to seven or eight figure incomes. And why can't we license more nurse practitioners to take the more "normal" cases, like colds, flus, sprains and abrasions. Why does it take a full MD to treat relatively minor problems?
There are ways to fix many of the problems in the system today. The problem is, that people suggesting these things are often called radical and dangerous. Yeah, I am radical and dangerous, as I can think for myself and can see the problems in the system that nobody wants to touch.
The problems in the system aren't huge, its just that nobody wants to touch them because the AMA and the Lawyers have huge lobby's in Washington, creating artifically restricted markets, increasing cost every step of the way.
And I haven't even begun to talk about the problem from the Insurance side, which is another huge part of the problem.
Contrary to popular opinion, the 2nd amendment isn't about self defense of the home. It is about self defense from government. If it is a violation of human rights, then nothing short of imprisonment should be required. Further, if these trampling of rights is so wide spread, then society's norms aren't where they ought to be, and we ought to use government propaganda to enumerate and define proper behavior.
However, I doubt many Right and Left Wingers would be in support of government propaganda programs.
And evidenced by people coming from Canada to the US to get the best Health Care Money can buy, but isn't available there. All the socialized health care in the world has this backup plan, called the US of A.
Part of the problem is most of the newer and innovative treatments are created, right here in the US of A, and all of that R&D comes with a price, the skyrocketing insurance premiums people like me pay (yes, I pay for my insurance). But we pay them with the expectation that when the need arises, we'll get the latest and greatest treatment, often without much cost to ourselves.
Yeah, it sucks for those that can't afford the most expensive treatments, but on the other hand, I don't see people getting turned away at the emergency rooms because they can't pay either. Not that I'd ever want to go into a normal ER, because it is clogged with people who don't go to regular doctors for the sniffles.
But I don't want second class medical care because you think I don't deserve it, because it isn't fair to those that can't afford it. That is the whole point of Socialized Medical Care, isn't it? You don't think I deserve the best, right? You want to take from me, what isn't yours to take, and give it to someone else because of some weird sense of "fairness".
Life isn't fair, get over it. I have to spend extra money on clothes and food because I'm 6'5" and can't buy off the rack and require more nutrition. I don't see anyone crying for "universal food care" because someone is starving. Or Universal Housing because someone is homeless.
No thanks, I don't want Univerally bad Health Care.
"Given the rapid rate of technological change, is there a more practical way to interface emergent technology with our legal system while retaining civil rights over corporate rights?"
Corporations have no rights over civilians rights. In fact, corporations have no rights except as defined by their corporate charter in the city, state, nation that holds their articles of incorporation. In fact, I'd even suggest that corporations are ONLY legal entities, artificially constructed, that serve the members of that corporation. And as public legal constructs normal rights usually assigned to individuals (aka PEOPLE) do not apply.
Technology has no bearing upon rights, they exist apart from technology.
As for this case (and the whole general Barbara Streisand effect), once the cat is out of the bag, there's no putting it back in. The proper recourse is to prosecute criminal charges (when applicable) and civil claims (when possible) against those that are publishing the info. Sometimes this isn't possible, and you're out of luck. Oh well, get over it.
I agree with you to a point. It might even be that they use all of the above. That being said, I think my recommendation remains. Either switch to something more manageable or bite the bullet and realize the high cost ( replacement, salary etc) of your web developer.
Given the parameters of the original post, it seems he was thinking the cost of the web developer was too high, especially in relation to the platform(s) being used, which is why I made the recommendation I did.
"your fevered ranting tells me you consider anybody who favours universal 'socialised' healthcare to be an unthinking zombie,"
No, more like a tyrant who wants to take something belonging to someone else, by force or coercion if necessary. This is nothing short theft or robbery. What makes you think that it is okay to take what is not yours to take? Because you're giving it to someone else?
I'm personally against forcing anyone into any system which requires forced regular payments. Just because YOU think its okay to take my money doesn't mean it is. This idea of universal health care is nothing more than tyranny of the greatest threat. I can make my own damn health care decisions, I don't need you or anyone else's opinion.
I also don't want to pay for someone elses poor decisions either. You want to eat McDonalds Burgers and Fries twice a day, I don't want to have to pay ANY portion of your Coronary By-Pass. You want to jump off buildings with parachutes and you end up breaking twenty bones doing so, I don't want to pay for a nickel of your million dollar hospital bill.
And I certainly don't want to pay for the illegal alien's Cancer Treatment, just because s/he ended up on the door step of some hospital.
"By the way, I'd love to hear your opinions on the fluoridation of water, you paranoid right-wing nutjob:)"
The EPA scientists recently concluded, after reviewing all the evidence, that the public water supply should not be used "as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless... substance." They called for "an immediate halt to the use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry." The management of the EPA sides not with their own scientists, but with industry on this issue. (See 1-6: "Why EPA's Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation", Chapter 280 Vice-President, J. William Hirzy, May 1, 1999).
Which side of the argument you fall on? I suspect that will make sense of a bunch of things.;)
See http://www.fluoridedebate.com/ for more of the debate, including plenty of study materials. I don't blindly accept fluoridation of our water supply is a good thing, do you? Perhaps the good out weighs the bad, perhaps not. I suppose not blindly accepting what the government tells me is cause for me being a nut job.
"during which the US made a point of launching vicious attacks on every progressive left-wing government"
Well, lets start with THIS statement above, shall we. Every one of the "progressive left-wing government" you speak of was communist thuggery dictatorships. We're still dealing with such these even today.
"organising strikes, spreading propaganda, sponsoring coups and terrorists, and occasionally direct military force."
Same could be said of France's support with respect to the US Revolution against Britain. History has a way of sorting these things out, and remembering only the things it wants. While it would be nice to live in a peaceful world, I'm not ignorant enough to think that we live in such a place or that the world could become such a place anytime soon. But as long as some people want what others have, and use force to take what they want, then this world will be screwed up. Oh and this applies to all socialist, communist and "progressive left wing governments" .
"accuse people who disagree with you of having 'herd' mentality"
I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I said Tyranny of the Majority is still tyranny. In fact I even stated that you MIGHT NOT be (perhaps you're not one of "those" people), but since you replied, I can now show that you are in fact, "one of those people". In fact, I purposely couched my sentences and gave escape clauses in case I miss read your intent (eg "which you seem to embrace").
So, you see, my reading and comprehension skills are quite evident, while yours seem to be lacking.
"but thanks to the actions of America there is literally no way their social programmes could've been implemented if they were not prepared to run the country as a dictatorship."
This statement here, completely suggests you support forced government "programmes" even under a dictatorship, suggesting you indeed believe that the ends do justify the means. Phrases such as "literally no way" suggest that dictatorships are acceptable for instituting ill conceived, unsupportable "programmes" that force people into a system which is based upon herd (group, majority) wishes, under penalty of government retribution for non-compliance.
"What's making him think of switching platforms? "
He gave the answer to this question in the summary.
"It took us an extremely long time to find someone with the necessary skill set."
This can be unacceptable in just about any organization. Depending upon the definition of "extremely long time", which can vary from organization to organization, this is unacceptable. Most places want easily pluggable modules for positions, so that retirement, death, transfer or quitting doesn't break the organization.
This is the equivelent of "vendor lock in" that/. decries so much with Microsoft, except the vendor happens to be their Web Developer.
There is an unacceptability in being held hostage to a singular developer. At this point, I usually recommend switching to one of the various CMS setups available. It is much easier to find people able to tweak and update using one of the available CMSes, than some proprietary hack that has less features and no other developers.
While this advice is not universal, it most likely would fit the kind of shop that has a single Web Developer on staff (or contract).
This is based upon the general problem presented, the general details, and my understaning of what is available in the market.
Okay, perhaps you're not one of "those" people (Michael Moore, you are!). However, from your apology for the regime in Cuba, and the socialist policies (programs) you seem to embrace, I'll make that assumption.
What you don't realize is that the greatest force of all, which you seem to embrace, is the force of the herd mentality (Tyranny of the Majority). The moment you force someone into your viewpoint, you've become a tyrant.
which will forever be known by the moniker "Rucs' Corollary" in honor of the man credited with both discovering it, and proving it; simultaneously no less.
I think that most of the computer type business function patents aren't patentable because it take multiple devices to accomplish them. There is no device with "one click" buying, it requires a computer, browser, internet, another computer (or two), several layers of software (SQL, HTTP Server, etc). Since Amazon doesn't hold all the pieces to the "one click" necessary to make use of that concept, they cannot hold a patent.
In otherwords, Amazon isn't selling anything, nor could sell anything that contains that patent. They aren't losing a dime because someone else builds something similar to use for themselves.
If that were the case, then the speed limit would be 45mph or so, not 55, which is even more efficient than 55 is (most vehicles, YMMV). Fact is, it is probably more of a combination of the two (safety and mileage).
Slashdot Mirror
Your assumption is that ALL linux people are like yourself. I can assure you that they are not. Some are so bigoted against commercial software of any type that they won't run closed source binaries on their machines.
And I'm not sure it is possible to please those types with any commercially viable alternative. There will always be an outspoken elite Open Source Purists that won't comply. And they are more numerous than you might believe.
What I'd like to see is a console built on Linux to start. THEN we'd see some real competition.
Any ideology is is harmful, in the wrong hands. Bigotry doesn't require religion. There are plenty of psuedo-scientists that are plenty bigoted. All one needs to do is look at the "science" done in the name of the Nazis in Germany.
"but religion is one of the biggest encouragers of it."
How do you explain your bigotry? If the world didn't have a religion, it would fight over something else, skin color, IQ, "rational thinking". I don't, for a second, think that you wouldn't excuse rounding up religious types because they "threaten" your utopia, and shove them into a gas oven. How else would you expunge us all from your world?
Hatred and Bigotry is still hatred and bigotry, even when it is clothed in "rational thinking". The fact that you cannot see this is proof you are irrational.
"Religion is harmful, and the world would be better without it."
I wonder what you are capable of in the name of ridding this world of the people you so hate?
But apparently you can elect them to high office. :-D
"In the US we have been more than willing to repeatedly try bad ideas as long as the intentions fit some vague Judeo-Christian moral standard (or if there's money to be made)."
... "Fear for our children. Fear of each other. Fear of freedom, of responsibility."
As a "Judeo-Christian" ethical person, I take exception to this vile screed designed to illicit the same kind of "fear" that he rails against later on
One of the biggest reasons I'm what I am today is founded upon the notion that MAN cannot rule himself, let alone other men, without eventually being corrupted. I happen to be very LIBERTARIAN in my views because I realize this very thought. And when the state can convict, and execute someone completely innocent (if you buy the story), then they can do it to anyone, which is why I'm against the death penalty.
And I happen to agree with your point of view on legalization of drugs and alcohol, it is none of the state's business. That, and if we taxed the crap out of sin (keeping it legal, and controlled) we'd have all the money needed to fund all the stupid programs you want.
Also one cannot have a war against chairs, what makes one think we can have one against another inanimate object (drugs, terror, poverty etc).
While IT may not be a "non-revenue generating department", it certainly can be a "cost savings department". The problem is nobody ever sees the cost savings, as it tends to get swallowed up in areas of other needs.
Take for instance our payroll run. Used to take one guy six or seven hours to run all the payroll checks through the form fed line printer, signature machine and burst them (tear edges). Never mind that if the printer foobared he'd have to start over again.
Changing printers (cost 2x2000) and programming charges (???), cut that down from the 6 hours to less than 2. Each payroll. This doesn't include the cost savings on payroll forms which don't have to be continuous fed paper or any of the other related costs.
We'll never see those 4 missing hours on a budget sheet however, as those are now occupied by other tasks that were either not getting done, or done on overtime. You'll never see the cost savings of this type of IT event.
Because in general people continue to do nasty things to women, Homosexuals and non-believers ... We're talking about the Military right? Or was it Nazis? Or was it something else.
What you describe is human nature, and cannot be applied universally to any subgroup. Don't think for a moment that whatever you believe cannot possibly lead to the same.
So ya
Thought ya
Might like to
go to the show
To feel the warm thrill of confusion
That space cadet glow
I've got some bad news for you sunshine
Pink isn't well he stayed back at the hotel
And they sent us along as a surrogate band
And we're going to find out where you fans
Really stand
Are there any queers in the theatre tonight
Get 'em up against the wall
That one looks Jewish
And that one's a coon
Who let all this riff raff into the room
There's one smoking a joint and
Another with spots
If I had my way I'd have all of you shot
Point is, we, as humans, tend to do this to people who are "different"
Actually, the asshattery of logic is yours. Freedom doesn't require anything from anyone. If I imprison you, I've deprived you of your right to freedom. If I don't, your freedom requires nothing from me. I don't even need to know you exist.
... "do unto others"; namely don't violate other's rights. This isn't require anything from anyone else. It requires something from within yourself.
Education isn't a right, the opportunity to learn is a right. Education (forced government schools) isn't education, it is schooling. My kids don't attend public high school, are more educated than could be provided by public high school. My both my 15 and 17 year old are attending college, because I chose NOT to avail them to the poor quality of "education" (if you can call it that) at government run schools. You see, my kids are learning apart from government mandated schools. This is the problem with government mandated education, is that it doesn't educate people who don't want to learn. Learning (opportunity) is the right, not education. Subtle difference if you can fathom it.
Every right doesn't require any obligation from anyone else. Every right has a responsibility, the most basic of all premises
Let say that you're out in the woods all by yourself and a tree falls and breaks your leg. Have I violated your right to health care by not being there? No. I don't even know who you are. Therefore "health care" isn't a right, unless you do it for yourself. You see, I can't stop you from treating yourself, nor can you require that I be there to set your broken leg, put it in a cast, give you crutches, drugs or even a hug. Where is your rights, and how have I violated them in this case?
You see, health care cannot be a right, it requires things you cannot give yourself, on a deserted island. However, you can have your freedom, your right to speak (cussing at the tree on your leg), etc. These things don't require anything from anyone.
Freedom of speech means you can talk, not that I have to listen. Your exercising your right to freedom of speech requires nothing from me, whatsoever.
Freedom of life requires nothing from me. If someone shoots you, you don't have a right to expect anything from me. Again, it requires nothing from me.
Going without is always an alternative, even if you don't think it is "much" of one. You want internet or is your right to privacy worth more to you? The problem with your line of thinking is that you've ceded all that power your rights grant you to a fictional and fickle man made construct. And you've already proven your rights aren't worth much to you.
You want your ISP to require you to be notified of whom it gives info to? Great, negotiate it up front. Or would you rather cede your rights to someone else to garner that contract for you? The balance of power lies with you my friend, not with the government negotiating on your behalf.
Do you have a right to live, even when there is no government? Government is law. No government = no law. If there is no right apart from government, then it is government that grants rights. Do you want to believe that rights come from and are defined by laws of governments?
...
If governments can grant rights, they can also nullify them.
"or hell, see any evidence for their existence at all"
Interesting. If you cant see them, then they don't exist right? How shallow are you?
"As far as I can see, people are people, and they have to decide how to deal with each other."
Really, so if society thinks that people with blue eyes are better than people with brown eyes, you're okay with that? How about skin color? How about even defining what a person is or isn't?
"By that understanding, rights are what we make of them."
How you feel about slavery? Can I make you my personal slave? Because my "we" is bigger and stronger than your "we", and we made/changed the laws?
"To so confidently assert that you magically know what people's rights are closes down the democratic process,"
Right, because there can be no universal truths. We should vote on slavery then. I'd like to have you as my personal slavery and as long as I get more people to vote with me, its okay, by your own standards.
"because you're not the only one out there who thinks he knows what his "natural" rights are, and those others aren't necessarily going to agree with you."
Actually Natural rights are quite easy to define, if you have the intelligence and education. It is clear that you posses neither. Your poorly constructed reasoning is so full of holes (as shown above) that it amazes me. Your version of Majority rule democracy is scary. If 50.0001% of the people believe in slavery you'd have to accept it by your own standards.
"But to assert so confidently that you know the nature of things merely blinds people - he's trying to take away my RIGHTS! Burn him! - and makes them unable to rationally assess the situation. "
You err. My confidence comes from understanding, education and reasoning. It isn't subject to the whims of democratic change. The founding fathers of the US had the same level of understanding.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
You see where rights are among the truths that are self evident? By your own standards you're saying majority rules, establishing that they have MORE rights. Incredible.
"However, I'd hoped for a little more complex of a dialog here, or at least some reasons why I should believe what you say."
How can we have a more complex dialog when you're incapable of understanding what your own views truly mean. Your suppositions are without merit on the face of them, because even YOU probably don't even agree with the results they must (and will) bring.
It is at this point you'll start to add additional conditions to statements you said, trying to qualify them. Don't bother, it is all still arbitrary in nature and will end up being continually revised and extended to cover all sorts of questions, and will end up looking exactly like "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness". Please not, happiness isn't a guarantee, only the right to pursue it.
This is the cornerstone of natural rights philosophy that eventually it becomes self evident, with understanding and education. Ever wonder why education was always valued in the States, this is the reason. To bring people to an understanding of their natural rights.
The problems for universal health care is a non-starter for me. It requires (demands under penalty of law) that I participate, and in the process get lower quality care than I can provide for myself now, or makes me pay MORE for the coverage I already am paying for. No thanks.
I think you're onto something!
At least its better than blood to cover up a blowjob!
True rights don't require or aren't about anything technological. Rights exist apart from technology, so that if you're stranded on an deserted island, your rights still exist.
... "there ought to be a law" and ceded Liberty for Security.
This is one of those things that people on the left have no concept of. They think rights are things you're entitled to by government decree, which is completely contrary to the founding document of the USofA. Government ought to be extremely limited, not an all powerful monolithic demigod that it has become. And rights don't require forcing others into situations they don't want to be in (eg Universal Health Care).
While it is NICE to want Universal Health Care, it isn't a "right" because it requires something from others. It requires technology and the work of others. The biggest problem we have today is that people don't have a clear concept of what a "right" is, because they lack a foundation for describing what rights are.
From the article "state governments should adopt a bill of rights regarding internet privacy, use of technology and speech on the internet. "
Why? It is the responisibility of each of the users to protect themselves, and government shouldn't get involved except in cases for prosecution of whatever contractual breaches occurred. When you willingly give your info to others without a contract in place, and it escapes in the wild, that is the risk you take doing so.
"For example: make it illegal to allow ISPs to release personal information to anyone who wants it."
Wrong approach. Either accept that personal info is going to be released or find an ISP that offers a guaranteed level of privacy you desire. Can't find one? Tough, go without. Or find an open access point, internet cafe or whatever, that doesn't require personal info.
"If you were asked by your state government to come up with a bill of rights for internet privacy, technology use, and free speech regarding the internet and emerging technologies, what would you include?"
I don't want a Nanny state, babysitting people. I want a state that protects the LIBERTY of all men, and not pass stupid laws because someone said "there ought to be a law". How about this instead. Be Responsible for yourself, protect yourself at all times. If you took care of yourself, then you don't need the laws you're proposing. Personally, I don't want to give up Liberty for Security, because you end up with neither.
"people with enough money can disregard this."
That is the result of government power abuses. That is a result of a government that cannot even rule itself. That is a result of power grab by the government because someone said
"Perhaps the states might find it a good idea to enshrine rights into law."
Perhaps you don't know that rights exist apart from law. Laws are only there to secure rights and Liberties of men. Government doesn't grant rights, and your basic premise clearly shows that you don't understand what a right or liberty really is, or the government's purpose is.
I hear Iran might have a nice supply shortly.
(Its a freakin JOKE!)
I'm not saying that there aren't problems. Take a look at obstetricians in the US, and why many are fleeing that field. I blame people like John Edwards who made a fortune off the misery and sadness of genetic defects, suing doctors for problems that had nothing to do with the doctor.
You want to fix part of the high cost of Medical Care in the US, get the lawyers out of the mix, and the stupid juries who award billions in the latest get rich quick scheme. And illegal Aliens seem to get free medical care here, so I'm not sure why people are leaving to go to Canada.
That, and doctors think that they are entitled to seven or eight figure incomes. And why can't we license more nurse practitioners to take the more "normal" cases, like colds, flus, sprains and abrasions. Why does it take a full MD to treat relatively minor problems?
There are ways to fix many of the problems in the system today. The problem is, that people suggesting these things are often called radical and dangerous. Yeah, I am radical and dangerous, as I can think for myself and can see the problems in the system that nobody wants to touch.
The problems in the system aren't huge, its just that nobody wants to touch them because the AMA and the Lawyers have huge lobby's in Washington, creating artifically restricted markets, increasing cost every step of the way.
And I haven't even begun to talk about the problem from the Insurance side, which is another huge part of the problem.
Contrary to popular opinion, the 2nd amendment isn't about self defense of the home. It is about self defense from government. If it is a violation of human rights, then nothing short of imprisonment should be required. Further, if these trampling of rights is so wide spread, then society's norms aren't where they ought to be, and we ought to use government propaganda to enumerate and define proper behavior.
However, I doubt many Right and Left Wingers would be in support of government propaganda programs.
And evidenced by people coming from Canada to the US to get the best Health Care Money can buy, but isn't available there. All the socialized health care in the world has this backup plan, called the US of A.
Part of the problem is most of the newer and innovative treatments are created, right here in the US of A, and all of that R&D comes with a price, the skyrocketing insurance premiums people like me pay (yes, I pay for my insurance). But we pay them with the expectation that when the need arises, we'll get the latest and greatest treatment, often without much cost to ourselves.
Yeah, it sucks for those that can't afford the most expensive treatments, but on the other hand, I don't see people getting turned away at the emergency rooms because they can't pay either. Not that I'd ever want to go into a normal ER, because it is clogged with people who don't go to regular doctors for the sniffles.
But I don't want second class medical care because you think I don't deserve it, because it isn't fair to those that can't afford it. That is the whole point of Socialized Medical Care, isn't it? You don't think I deserve the best, right? You want to take from me, what isn't yours to take, and give it to someone else because of some weird sense of "fairness".
Life isn't fair, get over it. I have to spend extra money on clothes and food because I'm 6'5" and can't buy off the rack and require more nutrition. I don't see anyone crying for "universal food care" because someone is starving. Or Universal Housing because someone is homeless.
No thanks, I don't want Univerally bad Health Care.
"Given the rapid rate of technological change, is there a more practical way to interface emergent technology with our legal system while retaining civil rights over corporate rights?"
Corporations have no rights over civilians rights. In fact, corporations have no rights except as defined by their corporate charter in the city, state, nation that holds their articles of incorporation. In fact, I'd even suggest that corporations are ONLY legal entities, artificially constructed, that serve the members of that corporation. And as public legal constructs normal rights usually assigned to individuals (aka PEOPLE) do not apply.
Technology has no bearing upon rights, they exist apart from technology.
As for this case (and the whole general Barbara Streisand effect), once the cat is out of the bag, there's no putting it back in. The proper recourse is to prosecute criminal charges (when applicable) and civil claims (when possible) against those that are publishing the info. Sometimes this isn't possible, and you're out of luck. Oh well, get over it.
I agree with you to a point. It might even be that they use all of the above. That being said, I think my recommendation remains. Either switch to something more manageable or bite the bullet and realize the high cost ( replacement, salary etc) of your web developer.
Given the parameters of the original post, it seems he was thinking the cost of the web developer was too high, especially in relation to the platform(s) being used, which is why I made the recommendation I did.
"your fevered ranting tells me you consider anybody who favours universal 'socialised' healthcare to be an unthinking zombie,"
:)"
... Studies have also indicated exposure to fluoride can lower IQ ... http://www.fluoride-journal.com/00-33-2/332-74.pdf
... substance." They called for "an immediate halt to the use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry." The management of the EPA sides not with their own scientists, but with industry on this issue. (See 1-6: "Why EPA's Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation", Chapter 280 Vice-President, J. William Hirzy, May 1, 1999).
;)
No, more like a tyrant who wants to take something belonging to someone else, by force or coercion if necessary. This is nothing short theft or robbery. What makes you think that it is okay to take what is not yours to take? Because you're giving it to someone else?
I'm personally against forcing anyone into any system which requires forced regular payments. Just because YOU think its okay to take my money doesn't mean it is. This idea of universal health care is nothing more than tyranny of the greatest threat. I can make my own damn health care decisions, I don't need you or anyone else's opinion.
I also don't want to pay for someone elses poor decisions either. You want to eat McDonalds Burgers and Fries twice a day, I don't want to have to pay ANY portion of your Coronary By-Pass. You want to jump off buildings with parachutes and you end up breaking twenty bones doing so, I don't want to pay for a nickel of your million dollar hospital bill.
And I certainly don't want to pay for the illegal alien's Cancer Treatment, just because s/he ended up on the door step of some hospital.
"By the way, I'd love to hear your opinions on the fluoridation of water, you paranoid right-wing nutjob
From Wikipedia
Also
The EPA scientists recently concluded, after reviewing all the evidence, that the public water supply should not be used "as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless
Which side of the argument you fall on? I suspect that will make sense of a bunch of things.
See http://www.fluoridedebate.com/ for more of the debate, including plenty of study materials. I don't blindly accept fluoridation of our water supply is a good thing, do you? Perhaps the good out weighs the bad, perhaps not. I suppose not blindly accepting what the government tells me is cause for me being a nut job.
"during which the US made a point of launching vicious attacks on every progressive left-wing government"
Well, lets start with THIS statement above, shall we. Every one of the "progressive left-wing government" you speak of was communist thuggery dictatorships. We're still dealing with such these even today.
"organising strikes, spreading propaganda, sponsoring coups and terrorists, and occasionally direct military force."
Same could be said of France's support with respect to the US Revolution against Britain. History has a way of sorting these things out, and remembering only the things it wants. While it would be nice to live in a peaceful world, I'm not ignorant enough to think that we live in such a place or that the world could become such a place anytime soon. But as long as some people want what others have, and use force to take what they want, then this world will be screwed up. Oh and this applies to all socialist, communist and "progressive left wing governments" .
"accuse people who disagree with you of having 'herd' mentality"
I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I said Tyranny of the Majority is still tyranny. In fact I even stated that you MIGHT NOT be (perhaps you're not one of "those" people), but since you replied, I can now show that you are in fact, "one of those people". In fact, I purposely couched my sentences and gave escape clauses in case I miss read your intent (eg "which you seem to embrace").
So, you see, my reading and comprehension skills are quite evident, while yours seem to be lacking.
"but thanks to the actions of America there is literally no way their social programmes could've been implemented if they were not prepared to run the country as a dictatorship."
This statement here, completely suggests you support forced government "programmes" even under a dictatorship, suggesting you indeed believe that the ends do justify the means. Phrases such as "literally no way" suggest that dictatorships are acceptable for instituting ill conceived, unsupportable "programmes" that force people into a system which is based upon herd (group, majority) wishes, under penalty of government retribution for non-compliance.
My original post stands as posted.
"What's making him think of switching platforms? "
/. decries so much with Microsoft, except the vendor happens to be their Web Developer.
He gave the answer to this question in the summary.
"It took us an extremely long time to find someone with the necessary skill set."
This can be unacceptable in just about any organization. Depending upon the definition of "extremely long time", which can vary from organization to organization, this is unacceptable. Most places want easily pluggable modules for positions, so that retirement, death, transfer or quitting doesn't break the organization.
This is the equivelent of "vendor lock in" that
There is an unacceptability in being held hostage to a singular developer. At this point, I usually recommend switching to one of the various CMS setups available. It is much easier to find people able to tweak and update using one of the available CMSes, than some proprietary hack that has less features and no other developers.
While this advice is not universal, it most likely would fit the kind of shop that has a single Web Developer on staff (or contract).
This is based upon the general problem presented, the general details, and my understaning of what is available in the market.
Because the ends justifies the means.
People like you are the scariest of all.
Okay, perhaps you're not one of "those" people (Michael Moore, you are!). However, from your apology for the regime in Cuba, and the socialist policies (programs) you seem to embrace, I'll make that assumption.
What you don't realize is that the greatest force of all, which you seem to embrace, is the force of the herd mentality (Tyranny of the Majority). The moment you force someone into your viewpoint, you've become a tyrant.
which will forever be known by the moniker "Rucs' Corollary" in honor of the man credited with both discovering it, and proving it; simultaneously no less.
I think that most of the computer type business function patents aren't patentable because it take multiple devices to accomplish them. There is no device with "one click" buying, it requires a computer, browser, internet, another computer (or two), several layers of software (SQL, HTTP Server, etc). Since Amazon doesn't hold all the pieces to the "one click" necessary to make use of that concept, they cannot hold a patent.
In otherwords, Amazon isn't selling anything, nor could sell anything that contains that patent. They aren't losing a dime because someone else builds something similar to use for themselves.
If that were the case, then the speed limit would be 45mph or so, not 55, which is even more efficient than 55 is (most vehicles, YMMV). Fact is, it is probably more of a combination of the two (safety and mileage).