Irritated Piss is a sign of a Urinary Tract infection, or kidney stones. Please consult a physician immediately. And lay off the Viagra and Penis Enlargements.
Atheism and Socialism/Communism often go hand in hand. It did in Soviet Union, it does in China, it does in North Korea etc. In fact, many would argue that Socialism has the State replacing God for the all powerful entity to exact obedience to. If one has a god, then the state is not 'all powerful' enough, which is why they tend to want to remove god from the culture.
Moving to "fundamental" problems, I'm a "fundamentalist" in the most hard core way. If you don't have a set of "fundamental" core beliefs, then you are not opposed to anything at all. Do you really want to belong to a society where there is NOTHING immoral?
Who is to say then that slavery is bad/evil if "everything goes". What if it is part of my "culture"? Who are you to say it is wrong? The moment you say it is, you've moved over to the "fundamentalist" side of things, willing to imprison me, or kill me to enforce your fundamental viewpoint.
As for some Americans being scared of "crazy christians", those same people you label "crazy" are also very scared of those that belong to the "everything goes". They don't want their kids exposed (pun intended) to Pornography at every corner, "Smiling Bob" commercials on TV, Britney, Paris or Lindsay.
While you may not see anything wrong with these things, some people do.
Personally, I'm one of the rare types of "fundamentalists", that is both libertarian, and by your standards would be even "crazier" than your crazy Christian. But I'm also rare in that I have a brain which is used to ponder these deep and philosophical discussions without knee-jerking.
"So, we can excuse the Christians for the atrocities of the Inquisition, the witch burnings, the Crusades, the Heretic burnings"
No. It is inexcusable under any circumstances. But people tend to remember fanatical religious types of 500 + years ago, while ignoring the recent radical leftists of today. They still exist today. It is easy to cast stones at people you hate or disagree with. It is harder to cast stones at people you kind of, sort of, agree with (Socialists, Nazis, Fascists, and Communists). Which is why people like Rosie and Alec Baldwin are more scared of the "crazy christians" than say the crazy dictators of Iran and North Korea.
Sorry, but Macintosh's were NEVER PCs. They are however a Personal Computer, and always have been. You see, PC is shortened version of IBM PC Compatible. While yes, PC in IBM PC stood for Personal Computer, the term PC never applied to Macintosh (or Amigas, Sun, DEC Alpha or other "personal" computers). So while you think you are being either funny or cleaver, you are in fact showing your ignorance (or arrogance).
"I think the main problem is that if you are a fundamentalist, then that neccesitates that you either try to force those beliefs onto others, or kill all nonbelievers."
Just like the fundamentalist Socialists and Communists, who have killed more people than all the "fundamentalist" religious types. And they were.... atheists.
I saw this stuff on FutureWeapons (Discovery Channel). It is a vest that can take the full force of a Hand Grenade without actually damaging the armor, while protecting the occupant. Very cool stuff. It can take repeated bullets / shells without degradation of any sort.
Windows is a lot like McDonalds or other low end fast food joint. The food is comfortable, easy to get, and can be found anywhere. Most people would be quick to point out that they don't particularly like that style of fast food, but it it better than nothing.
There are much better Hamburger joints around, and we all know where we can find a nice burger, but it usually is out of our way, and probably doesn't offer drive through.
And so it is with McWindows (You've heard it here first!). Linux is much like making a burger yourself. All the parts are easily available and assembly doesn't take rocket science, and it usually tastes better than anything you can find at the fast food places, but may not be convenient nor worth the effort to many people to make yourself a hamburger.
I personally think that LINUX is poised to have a huge impact for the first time in the next year or two. Windows isn't going anywhere anytime soon, however LINUX will be seen in more places. If I were in the Media (Hollywood, TV etc), I'd try to get Linux broader exposure in movies and tv.
In fact, I'd "Remake" one of the worst "computer" movies, TRON, but use LINUX/MICROSOFT as the battle.:-D
Vid conferencing is affordable enough for people who "need" it. Maybe it isn't affordable nor feasible for every household, yet. It will be very soon.
You should realize that we already do "video conferencing" with programs such as Paltalk. This is doable already today. The items that need much greater processing are the things like automatic captioning and translation, which still suck given all the computing power we have today.
It is going to take a revolution in processor design to get that kind of power into video conferencing.
The purpose of a network, in whatever form, is simply communication. Anything more detailed than that is losing sight of the purposes of networks and networking.
The purpose of Computers is data manipulation. Anything more detailed than that is losing sight of the purposes of Computers and Computing.
I'm reminded of the failure of the Railroad companies in the dawn of motor vehicles 120 years ago, and again during the dawn of Aircraft 80 years ago, to realize what business they were in. The long running idea of "we're in the railroad business" was extremely short sighted, because they became focused upon the niche of the greater business; transportation.
When Computers connected to the Network, it created a hybrid business, that of Computing Networks. I believe that INTEL has forgotten what business they are in (Computing) because they've lost sight because of the Hybridization of the Computing Network.
In order to accomplish what they have outlined, which is quite admirable, the computing power driving their visiion has to be greatly increased. The Network side is easily expanded, but the computing side is suffering from the constraints of current technology. Intel (and AMD) ought to pay attention and know what market they are really in; computing.
This is exactly what needs to be done. A million lawsuits by a million Open Source Coders asking judges to declare, one way or another, and more importantly, definitively, that their code does not violate patents or copyrights.
This would bring all of MS code out into the open, or force MS to declare the Open Source free and clear.
Additionally, a million small bites later, the elephant has been eaten, by the ants. MS cannot possibly withstand such an attack.
OMG LOL I (heart) U U 2 U See WHF (what's his/her face) OMG Ugly OMG YNK (you're not kidding)
I can easily seeing a totally meaningless conversation with nothing but acronyms and shortcuts and words no bigger than 5 letters, all in the span of a few minutes. Makes me wonder about our next generation. It really does.
You're dialing (1), cancel or allow? You're dialing (8), cancel or allow? . . . . ten minutes later after you actually are talking to someone.... . . WinPhone has downloaded and installed an important security update, please reboot your phone
I'm under the belief that a monopoly cannot ever sustain itself. Ever. At least not with some ACTIVE help from the government (see ATT). In this case, I saw the collapse of Microsoft coming in the year 2008, some six or seven years ago. I saw what Linux was back in its infancy, in the late 90s, and saw it steadily improve.
I may have been a little later to jump on the Linux bandwagon back then, but I've been onboard since 99 or 00, and by the time 02 or 03 came around, I saw the writing on the wall. This whole thing was magnified by the ME disaster, BOB, and Clippy. These failures are key to understanding WHY Microsoft is doomed to failure.
ME, BOB, and Clippy are all UI designs, not core components. Microsoft has stopped making core improvements to the OS for some time. And by CORE improvements I mean innovations to the underlying OS. By now, Windows should have been FULLY virtualized and abstracted away from the underlying hardware. Microsoft has made the error of tying itself to x86 architecture to much, and that is now limiting its ability to add true functionality (like virtualization), something that is vastly needed, especially in the server market, where each service almost needs its own host.
Along comes Linux, which ISN'T tied to a piece of hardware, and has abstacted various layers so that it doesn't need to be tied to specific hardware, and it is leading into virtualized hosted environment. I suspect the next revolution in OS is going to be complete abstraction of the core OS from the underlying HW via vitualization, which will break the bonds from x86 architecture.
So, by NOT interfering (protecting MS), the US Government is actually helping Microsoft CRUSH itself by trying to maintain a codebase that is incomprehensible because it has never had to change architecture. If the US government tried to break up Microsoft all those years ago, Windows and the core application and server products might have been improved to the point that the monopoly would still exist, only in three parts.
As it looks right now, MS is a beached Whale, and the tide is still moving out. The mighty leviathan is being crushed under its own weight in an environment that is changing faster than it can. Be warned, Microsoft (or whatever happens to it) will still have remains, but it will not be the powerhouse it once was.
"certain basic rights of the person who is breaking into your house."
Okay, what rights does someone have when they don't respect and are actively disrespecting the liberties of others?
Let's adjust this a bit further, say someone is shooting people like just the other week at VT. Does that person have the same "rights" as the burgler? Some people say YES (including me BTW, and you'll see why).
The most basic liberty is the right to life; to live.
Using the logic you've given then nobody has a "right" to take the life of another, ever or under any circumstances.
Which is why you see people pleading with killers and 'negotiating' with them. It is pure insanity.
I can guarantee you that if people who disrespected rights of others knew that they there was a potential to be killed while they were actively disrepecting liberties of others, there would be a much lower rate of that disrespect.
You can see that this basic idea still exists today, in the most primitive ways among the "Gangstas" who shoot and kill for the slightest "disrespect". The problem is, that they aren't taught to respect others at all by anyone. This is how women become "ho's" and men become "gangstas". But I digress.
Proportional response is nothing more than Political Correctness, and doesn't address the real problem. Therefore Burglary and Murder are two different responses, and yet even people actively murdering are handled with kit gloves.
"Maybe it has a lot to do with what works when you have more then a few people per square mile."
Perhaps. I actually think this has more to do with blended boundaries. Houses now need fences to keep neighbors from encroaching on yards, while in Wyoming fences are used to keep livestock in more than anything else.
In cities, I don't want to hear my neighbors music played at top volumes, but in Wyoming nobody can hear it if I do play it loud etc. Again, it comes down to respect for those around you. All the laws in the world cannot teach respect.
"personal liberty directly depends on having the biggest gun"
No, personal liberty requires two things not taught anymore. Respect and responsibility. Both have been replaced. Laws for basic respect, and government for responsibility. And both are failing (IMHO) to do the job. Again, laws cannot teach respect, doesn't demand respect. The Government has taken much of the way of responsibility from individuals. Which is why you have "group rights" now, and people trying to form coalitions to gain "more rights".
"So, there is an optimum for government power where you can maximize the personal liberty of the largest number of people, and it is somewhere in between no government power and a lot of government power."
Government has no ability to rule personal liberty. Only mutual respect can do that. If you look at the Preamble to the US Constitution, you will see the proper role of government defined.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
A few of the words in that one sentence can be removed (being US Centric), but none the less is very powerful even to this day, and can be applied at any level of governance. Liberty has blessings, it is also a curse for those that cannot control themselves.
I'll let you have the last word, then we'll close this chapter.;)
"You have the right to use proportional means to stop a burgler, not 'whatever means you see fit'."
Actually, this is wrong in so many ways. This is the CURRENT legal system for sure, not one based upon mutual respect of personal liberty. The current system doesn't respect personal liberty at all, and it doesn't support individuals from defending their personal liberties.
The basis for personal liberties is mutual respect, not law. No amount of laws can protect liberty, it has to be based upon mutual respect.
"I don't, but that doesn't mean I believe I can use 'whatever means'"
That's because you've been conditioned to look towards the government to protect your liberties, which it cannot do. When liberty is precious, you're able to defend it with extreme prejudice. When it is not precious, one cowers in the corner waiting for the police to help.
"You may want to realize that ideas about this are really really really different between the USA and for example most of continental Europe. For that reason alone your statement above fails to make sense to me."
Actually, I have relatives that are in Europe, and I have relatives scattered across the USA. The trend here in the US, especially in the dense left and right coasts to try and move more towards the Western European model of laws and culture.
Again, no amount of law is going to protect liberty. And in my view of things, the government isn't going to protect liberty, because personal liberty is contrary to government power.
"Hence this is still arbitrary."
My reasoning isn't arbatrary, but consistent. It has everything to do with understanding what personal liberty is, where it extends to, and where it breaks. The moment my "liberty" starts affecting other's personal liberty it is no longer MY liberty that rules. It is clearly definable, and there is no arbitrary understanding.
"I am not, I believe I mentioned that somewhere, but if not, sorry, it is somewhat relevant to the discussion to know indeed."
I kinda figured, but you didn't say one way or another.
"And I could as easily say that most who live in the countryside have no idea what citylife is about."
Agreed. I grew up in Los Angeles Area, and moved to fairly "rural" Northern California during college, and remain here to this day. Needless to say, it was a culture shock of sorts. However, I still live in a "city" of 150k people (or so), so it isn't quite like Wyoming.
"Matter of fact is, a substantial part of the people (the majority even) lives in cities, so your use of 'most' might be correct with regards to space, but not to people."
Actually, about 50/50 split, at least according to recent national elections here, it is the whole basis for "Red State/Blue State" phenomenon we see each election cycle.
Shooting a burgler isn't arbitrary. It is the resultant reaction of a properly maintained set of rights. I have the right to stop anyone violating MY rights by whatever means I see fit. Because I have the "right" to shoot a burgler doesn't necessarily mean I have to, but then again, it is my choice.
There are those that think that any action by a private citizen such as even CONFRONTING a burgler should be illegal, that the POLICE should handle all such matters. However, the fact remains that this society (Western Democracies in general) frown upon a private citizen from taking action to stop a violation of someone's right to privacy, including brandishing (not actually using) a weapon.
You see, under NORMAL circumstances brandishing a weapon is an act against another's right to be secure, but that doesn't play with the burgler situation from above, in which case the violation was on the part of the burgler.
If we continue the burgler line above, if I brandish (not use) a weapon, and the burgler flees empty handed, then my rights have been restored, and I cannot pursuit the aborted thief, just to shoot him later. It isn't arbitrary, it is very consistant.
Lastly, I take it that you are not from the USA, or if so, you are playing to the foreign audience. It is at this point, I would like to state that most city dwellers have no idea what most of America is like. The so-called "fly over states" are mostly empty space, and the population centers are along the east and west coast (for the most part).
Just to give you an idea, the least populated state / area is Wyoming. It has about 100k mi sq (250 km sq), and only 500k people in it. It is largely wild and empty (Chyenne, the biggest city has 55k people).
I make this point because people have no idea what it is like in Rural anymore. In Wyoming, it is common to see people wearing guns in a holster walking down the street of Jackson or other "city". Nobody thinks twice, and people are quite polite.
In other words... Guns aren't the problem. People in Wyoming understand what it means to be free in ways that city folk have no clue about. I see lots of city people making suggestions for how things "ought" to be, which wouldn't work in places like Wyoming. What works in a city doesn't work in the back woods. And is a big reason why gun laws will never be national here in the USA.
"The problem is not the objects but how their owners/users deal with them."
I think I said as much.
"Observe your fellow humans a bit and you will quite see how their 'power' corrupts them and how the resulting behavior afffects you."
Agreed. But the power of the Government has restricted my ability to deal with people inflicting me with their actions. When people are arrested for doing the "right thing" (Shooting a bugler) while those who are doing "the wrong thing" are rewarded (suing a mall because you fell through a skylight) there is something seriously wrong. The fact that EITHER of these happens, even ONCE is a sign that society is screwed.
"That you can counter that with your own power doesn't change this, it at best negates it."
I think I said as much. This is the purpose of the Second Ammendment. However, even having guns (or mulitples of them) doesn't provide protection in all cases. See Randy Weaver, Waco for examples.
"But restricting the power of all people results in arbitrary rules about what power everyone can have,"
No it doesn't. You are thinking too linearly. Power is only Power when exercised. If I have guns, and cars and all sorts of stuff in my house, it doesn't mean I'm corrupt or powerful. It is only when I use those items against others that it matters. Power isn't in the form of inanimate objects. Power is related to the force of will.
There are no Arbitrary rules in my world. Arbitrary rules are nothing more than rules without thought, or unenforceable, or only enforced when convenient. The last kind is the worst kind.
"without some form of coercion you are not going to get everyone to comply and not try to grab as much power as they can get."
If people realize that this was futile, it wouldn't happen. If you TRIED To grab power, and it was rebuffed by many people, then it is useless to try and grab power. Power only incresses when people cede what is rightfully theirs to another. Some are more willing to do that than others. I'm not willing at all.
"And this means what? that we shouldn't look at the causes and effects and just assume things that sound nice or logical at first glance?"
No, but at some level, it is pointless, because it goes back ad-infinitum. Everything is caused or related to something else. At some point, we have to accept what we do going forward more than looking backwards and getting whatever pound of flesh we each think we deserve for some past wrong that someone else did 150, 500, or 2000 years ago.
"I think that you and I agree on this concept, but not on what it means in practise."
Problably do. I honestly think that most reasonable people have the same ultimate goals. The trick is who is going to force who to accept what. My personal philosophy is personal choice over forced compliance for most social "goals". Of course, that means certain things are doomed to failure sooner rather than later (social security, eg). Imagine if drugs were legalized and taxed like tobacco and alcohol are. Imagine income not being taxed, at all. Imagine all the social items that people agree are "bad" taxed. Nobody would be "forced" to pay any taxes, as it would be only for items that society deemed "not good", like tobacco and alcohol. We already proved that banning substances and social faux pas increases crime (prohibition).
"Also, I rather believe the trick is in having measures to limit that government power because it has a natural tendency to grow."
I'd support the idea of "program justification", where each program would be required to set performance measures and goals, and any program that failed to meet said goals would be abandoned. We've spent perhaps BILLIONS or more on the following "wars" : Poverty, crime, drugs. And yet we still have "poor" and crime and drug problems that fill up our welfare rolls and prisons. Something isn't working. Nobody is willing to try something completely different because they are scared. I'm not.
"For the people bu the people.. hmmm, I heard that one before.. I believe it turned into 'by the elite for the elite' wherever they tried to implement it."
The problem isn't the concept, it has been the implementation. The US government (best example IMHO) has breached its own laws repeatedly, most notably during the Civil War. Aside from freeing the slaves, there was nothing good about it, and it allowed the ILLEGAL increase and scope of the federal government. It is high time for the states and people to start exercising their enumerated rights and taking them back from the US Fed Gov't.
"The group does however have every right to demand that you give up certain freedoms in order to be a member of the group."
They don't have the right to force me into their group, either by coercion or by veiled threat. My point is all group memebership should be voluntary. Which is why when people like Al Sharpton speak for "the whole african-american community" I cringe. My darker skinned friends don't agree with that poverty pimp, and wish he wouldn't speak out for them.
"I argued that the power of your own gun corrupts."
The power of my gun, is easily negated by the power of yours. The power of my car is negated by yours. People driving SUVs have a greater responsibility towards those around them in their Prius'. I have NO problem with the "group" removing (by force, if necissary) irresponsible people from their inanimate objects when they abuse the power behind them.
Part of the problem here, is that people think that they have the "right" to do whatever they want, and to hell with everyone else. Screw them! They have the right to do whatever they want, but the moment it affects someone else, that right ends. I have a right to drive big honkin SUV if I want, but I can't drive the Prius off the road because it is in my way.
"I don't know where you got the idea that I ever made that kind of argument, and if you really misread my original statement as making that argument then you really need to do something about your reading skills or your ange
That acronym doesn't spell anything, I don't see the humor in it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Actually, I know what NCLB is, For those missing the "funny" part, it is the same Acronym for No Child Left Behind, the often ridiculed program of the federal gov'mt under the leadership of GWB
Slashdot Mirror
Irritated Piss is a sign of a Urinary Tract infection, or kidney stones. Please consult a physician immediately. And lay off the Viagra and Penis Enlargements.
[hangs head in shame]I'm sorry. I just couldn't help myself. I knew it at the time too.[/hangs head in shame]
Atheism and Socialism/Communism often go hand in hand. It did in Soviet Union, it does in China, it does in North Korea etc. In fact, many would argue that Socialism has the State replacing God for the all powerful entity to exact obedience to. If one has a god, then the state is not 'all powerful' enough, which is why they tend to want to remove god from the culture.
Moving to "fundamental" problems, I'm a "fundamentalist" in the most hard core way. If you don't have a set of "fundamental" core beliefs, then you are not opposed to anything at all. Do you really want to belong to a society where there is NOTHING immoral?
Who is to say then that slavery is bad/evil if "everything goes". What if it is part of my "culture"? Who are you to say it is wrong? The moment you say it is, you've moved over to the "fundamentalist" side of things, willing to imprison me, or kill me to enforce your fundamental viewpoint.
As for some Americans being scared of "crazy christians", those same people you label "crazy" are also very scared of those that belong to the "everything goes". They don't want their kids exposed (pun intended) to Pornography at every corner, "Smiling Bob" commercials on TV, Britney, Paris or Lindsay.
While you may not see anything wrong with these things, some people do.
Personally, I'm one of the rare types of "fundamentalists", that is both libertarian, and by your standards would be even "crazier" than your crazy Christian. But I'm also rare in that I have a brain which is used to ponder these deep and philosophical discussions without knee-jerking.
I hate those types.
"So, we can excuse the Christians for the atrocities of the Inquisition, the witch burnings, the Crusades, the Heretic burnings"
No. It is inexcusable under any circumstances. But people tend to remember fanatical religious types of 500 + years ago, while ignoring the recent radical leftists of today. They still exist today. It is easy to cast stones at people you hate or disagree with. It is harder to cast stones at people you kind of, sort of, agree with (Socialists, Nazis, Fascists, and Communists). Which is why people like Rosie and Alec Baldwin are more scared of the "crazy christians" than say the crazy dictators of Iran and North Korea.
Sorry, but Macintosh's were NEVER PCs. They are however a Personal Computer, and always have been. You see, PC is shortened version of IBM PC Compatible. While yes, PC in IBM PC stood for Personal Computer, the term PC never applied to Macintosh (or Amigas, Sun, DEC Alpha or other "personal" computers). So while you think you are being either funny or cleaver, you are in fact showing your ignorance (or arrogance).
Next time, keep your troll to yourself.
"I think the main problem is that if you are a fundamentalist, then that neccesitates that you either try to force those beliefs onto others, or kill all nonbelievers."
.... atheists.
Just like the fundamentalist Socialists and Communists, who have killed more people than all the "fundamentalist" religious types. And they were
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldie rtech_PArmor,00.html
I saw this stuff on FutureWeapons (Discovery Channel). It is a vest that can take the full force of a Hand Grenade without actually damaging the armor, while protecting the occupant. Very cool stuff. It can take repeated bullets / shells without degradation of any sort.
Very Cool. Oh did I say that already??
Windows is a lot like McDonalds or other low end fast food joint. The food is comfortable, easy to get, and can be found anywhere. Most people would be quick to point out that they don't particularly like that style of fast food, but it it better than nothing.
:-D
There are much better Hamburger joints around, and we all know where we can find a nice burger, but it usually is out of our way, and probably doesn't offer drive through.
And so it is with McWindows (You've heard it here first!). Linux is much like making a burger yourself. All the parts are easily available and assembly doesn't take rocket science, and it usually tastes better than anything you can find at the fast food places, but may not be convenient nor worth the effort to many people to make yourself a hamburger.
I personally think that LINUX is poised to have a huge impact for the first time in the next year or two. Windows isn't going anywhere anytime soon, however LINUX will be seen in more places. If I were in the Media (Hollywood, TV etc), I'd try to get Linux broader exposure in movies and tv.
In fact, I'd "Remake" one of the worst "computer" movies, TRON, but use LINUX/MICROSOFT as the battle.
Vid conferencing is affordable enough for people who "need" it. Maybe it isn't affordable nor feasible for every household, yet. It will be very soon.
You should realize that we already do "video conferencing" with programs such as Paltalk. This is doable already today. The items that need much greater processing are the things like automatic captioning and translation, which still suck given all the computing power we have today.
It is going to take a revolution in processor design to get that kind of power into video conferencing.
The purpose of a network, in whatever form, is simply communication. Anything more detailed than that is losing sight of the purposes of networks and networking.
The purpose of Computers is data manipulation. Anything more detailed than that is losing sight of the purposes of Computers and Computing.
I'm reminded of the failure of the Railroad companies in the dawn of motor vehicles 120 years ago, and again during the dawn of Aircraft 80 years ago, to realize what business they were in. The long running idea of "we're in the railroad business" was extremely short sighted, because they became focused upon the niche of the greater business; transportation.
When Computers connected to the Network, it created a hybrid business, that of Computing Networks. I believe that INTEL has forgotten what business they are in (Computing) because they've lost sight because of the Hybridization of the Computing Network.
In order to accomplish what they have outlined, which is quite admirable, the computing power driving their visiion has to be greatly increased. The Network side is easily expanded, but the computing side is suffering from the constraints of current technology. Intel (and AMD) ought to pay attention and know what market they are really in; computing.
This is exactly what needs to be done. A million lawsuits by a million Open Source Coders asking judges to declare, one way or another, and more importantly, definitively, that their code does not violate patents or copyrights.
This would bring all of MS code out into the open, or force MS to declare the Open Source free and clear.
Additionally, a million small bites later, the elephant has been eaten, by the ants. MS cannot possibly withstand such an attack.
"If you're not willing to arm yourself against the majority and their tyranny, then you might as well throw in the towel."
Not quite right. If you aren't willing to arm yourself against the Wolves, you're already dinner.
OMG
LOL
I (heart) U
U 2
U See WHF (what's his/her face)
OMG
Ugly
OMG YNK (you're not kidding)
I can easily seeing a totally meaningless conversation with nothing but acronyms and shortcuts and words no bigger than 5 letters, all in the span of a few minutes. Makes me wonder about our next generation. It really does.
My God Man! You sound like stark raving LIBERTARIAN.
.
.
.
Welcome!
You're dialing (1), cancel or allow? ....
You're dialing (8), cancel or allow?
.
.
.
.
ten minutes later after you actually are talking to someone
.
.
WinPhone has downloaded and installed an important security update, please reboot your phone
.
.
.
Missing WINPHONE.DLL, Please Restart
Is this some sort of bizarre form of the Soviet Russia Meme???
I'm under the belief that a monopoly cannot ever sustain itself. Ever. At least not with some ACTIVE help from the government (see ATT). In this case, I saw the collapse of Microsoft coming in the year 2008, some six or seven years ago. I saw what Linux was back in its infancy, in the late 90s, and saw it steadily improve.
I may have been a little later to jump on the Linux bandwagon back then, but I've been onboard since 99 or 00, and by the time 02 or 03 came around, I saw the writing on the wall. This whole thing was magnified by the ME disaster, BOB, and Clippy. These failures are key to understanding WHY Microsoft is doomed to failure.
ME, BOB, and Clippy are all UI designs, not core components. Microsoft has stopped making core improvements to the OS for some time. And by CORE improvements I mean innovations to the underlying OS. By now, Windows should have been FULLY virtualized and abstracted away from the underlying hardware. Microsoft has made the error of tying itself to x86 architecture to much, and that is now limiting its ability to add true functionality (like virtualization), something that is vastly needed, especially in the server market, where each service almost needs its own host.
Along comes Linux, which ISN'T tied to a piece of hardware, and has abstacted various layers so that it doesn't need to be tied to specific hardware, and it is leading into virtualized hosted environment. I suspect the next revolution in OS is going to be complete abstraction of the core OS from the underlying HW via vitualization, which will break the bonds from x86 architecture.
So, by NOT interfering (protecting MS), the US Government is actually helping Microsoft CRUSH itself by trying to maintain a codebase that is incomprehensible because it has never had to change architecture. If the US government tried to break up Microsoft all those years ago, Windows and the core application and server products might have been improved to the point that the monopoly would still exist, only in three parts.
As it looks right now, MS is a beached Whale, and the tide is still moving out. The mighty leviathan is being crushed under its own weight in an environment that is changing faster than it can. Be warned, Microsoft (or whatever happens to it) will still have remains, but it will not be the powerhouse it once was.
"certain basic rights of the person who is breaking into your house."
;)
Okay, what rights does someone have when they don't respect and are actively disrespecting the liberties of others?
Let's adjust this a bit further, say someone is shooting people like just the other week at VT. Does that person have the same "rights" as the burgler? Some people say YES (including me BTW, and you'll see why).
The most basic liberty is the right to life; to live.
Using the logic you've given then nobody has a "right" to take the life of another, ever or under any circumstances.
Which is why you see people pleading with killers and 'negotiating' with them. It is pure insanity.
I can guarantee you that if people who disrespected rights of others knew that they there was a potential to be killed while they were actively disrepecting liberties of others, there would be a much lower rate of that disrespect.
You can see that this basic idea still exists today, in the most primitive ways among the "Gangstas" who shoot and kill for the slightest "disrespect". The problem is, that they aren't taught to respect others at all by anyone. This is how women become "ho's" and men become "gangstas". But I digress.
Proportional response is nothing more than Political Correctness, and doesn't address the real problem. Therefore Burglary and Murder are two different responses, and yet even people actively murdering are handled with kit gloves.
"Maybe it has a lot to do with what works when you have more then a few people per square mile."
Perhaps. I actually think this has more to do with blended boundaries. Houses now need fences to keep neighbors from encroaching on yards, while in Wyoming fences are used to keep livestock in more than anything else.
In cities, I don't want to hear my neighbors music played at top volumes, but in Wyoming nobody can hear it if I do play it loud etc. Again, it comes down to respect for those around you. All the laws in the world cannot teach respect.
"personal liberty directly depends on having the biggest gun"
No, personal liberty requires two things not taught anymore. Respect and responsibility. Both have been replaced. Laws for basic respect, and government for responsibility. And both are failing (IMHO) to do the job. Again, laws cannot teach respect, doesn't demand respect. The Government has taken much of the way of responsibility from individuals. Which is why you have "group rights" now, and people trying to form coalitions to gain "more rights".
"So, there is an optimum for government power where you can maximize the personal liberty of the largest number of people, and it is somewhere in between no government power and a lot of government power."
Government has no ability to rule personal liberty. Only mutual respect can do that. If you look at the Preamble to the US Constitution, you will see the proper role of government defined.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
A few of the words in that one sentence can be removed (being US Centric), but none the less is very powerful even to this day, and can be applied at any level of governance. Liberty has blessings, it is also a curse for those that cannot control themselves.
I'll let you have the last word, then we'll close this chapter.
"You have the right to use proportional means to stop a burgler, not 'whatever means you see fit'."
Actually, this is wrong in so many ways. This is the CURRENT legal system for sure, not one based upon mutual respect of personal liberty. The current system doesn't respect personal liberty at all, and it doesn't support individuals from defending their personal liberties.
The basis for personal liberties is mutual respect, not law. No amount of laws can protect liberty, it has to be based upon mutual respect.
"I don't, but that doesn't mean I believe I can use 'whatever means'"
That's because you've been conditioned to look towards the government to protect your liberties, which it cannot do. When liberty is precious, you're able to defend it with extreme prejudice. When it is not precious, one cowers in the corner waiting for the police to help.
"You may want to realize that ideas about this are really really really different between the USA and for example most of continental Europe. For that reason alone your statement above fails to make sense to me."
Actually, I have relatives that are in Europe, and I have relatives scattered across the USA. The trend here in the US, especially in the dense left and right coasts to try and move more towards the Western European model of laws and culture.
Again, no amount of law is going to protect liberty. And in my view of things, the government isn't going to protect liberty, because personal liberty is contrary to government power.
"Hence this is still arbitrary."
My reasoning isn't arbatrary, but consistent. It has everything to do with understanding what personal liberty is, where it extends to, and where it breaks. The moment my "liberty" starts affecting other's personal liberty it is no longer MY liberty that rules. It is clearly definable, and there is no arbitrary understanding.
"I am not, I believe I mentioned that somewhere, but if not, sorry, it is somewhat relevant to the discussion to know indeed."
I kinda figured, but you didn't say one way or another.
"And I could as easily say that most who live in the countryside have no idea what citylife is about."
Agreed. I grew up in Los Angeles Area, and moved to fairly "rural" Northern California during college, and remain here to this day. Needless to say, it was a culture shock of sorts. However, I still live in a "city" of 150k people (or so), so it isn't quite like Wyoming.
"Matter of fact is, a substantial part of the people (the majority even) lives in cities, so your use of 'most' might be correct with regards to space, but not to people."
Actually, about 50/50 split, at least according to recent national elections here, it is the whole basis for "Red State/Blue State" phenomenon we see each election cycle.
Shooting a burgler isn't arbitrary. It is the resultant reaction of a properly maintained set of rights. I have the right to stop anyone violating MY rights by whatever means I see fit. Because I have the "right" to shoot a burgler doesn't necessarily mean I have to, but then again, it is my choice.
... Guns aren't the problem. People in Wyoming understand what it means to be free in ways that city folk have no clue about. I see lots of city people making suggestions for how things "ought" to be, which wouldn't work in places like Wyoming. What works in a city doesn't work in the back woods. And is a big reason why gun laws will never be national here in the USA.
There are those that think that any action by a private citizen such as even CONFRONTING a burgler should be illegal, that the POLICE should handle all such matters. However, the fact remains that this society (Western Democracies in general) frown upon a private citizen from taking action to stop a violation of someone's right to privacy, including brandishing (not actually using) a weapon.
You see, under NORMAL circumstances brandishing a weapon is an act against another's right to be secure, but that doesn't play with the burgler situation from above, in which case the violation was on the part of the burgler.
If we continue the burgler line above, if I brandish (not use) a weapon, and the burgler flees empty handed, then my rights have been restored, and I cannot pursuit the aborted thief, just to shoot him later. It isn't arbitrary, it is very consistant.
Lastly, I take it that you are not from the USA, or if so, you are playing to the foreign audience. It is at this point, I would like to state that most city dwellers have no idea what most of America is like. The so-called "fly over states" are mostly empty space, and the population centers are along the east and west coast (for the most part).
Just to give you an idea, the least populated state / area is Wyoming. It has about 100k mi sq (250 km sq), and only 500k people in it. It is largely wild and empty (Chyenne, the biggest city has 55k people).
I make this point because people have no idea what it is like in Rural anymore. In Wyoming, it is common to see people wearing guns in a holster walking down the street of Jackson or other "city". Nobody thinks twice, and people are quite polite.
In other words
One size fits all is a myth.
"The problem is not the objects but how their owners/users deal with them."
I think I said as much.
"Observe your fellow humans a bit and you will quite see how their 'power' corrupts them and how the resulting behavior afffects you."
Agreed. But the power of the Government has restricted my ability to deal with people inflicting me with their actions. When people are arrested for doing the "right thing" (Shooting a bugler) while those who are doing "the wrong thing" are rewarded (suing a mall because you fell through a skylight) there is something seriously wrong. The fact that EITHER of these happens, even ONCE is a sign that society is screwed.
"That you can counter that with your own power doesn't change this, it at best negates it."
I think I said as much. This is the purpose of the Second Ammendment. However, even having guns (or mulitples of them) doesn't provide protection in all cases. See Randy Weaver, Waco for examples.
"But restricting the power of all people results in arbitrary rules about what power everyone can have,"
No it doesn't. You are thinking too linearly. Power is only Power when exercised. If I have guns, and cars and all sorts of stuff in my house, it doesn't mean I'm corrupt or powerful. It is only when I use those items against others that it matters. Power isn't in the form of inanimate objects. Power is related to the force of will.
There are no Arbitrary rules in my world. Arbitrary rules are nothing more than rules without thought, or unenforceable, or only enforced when convenient. The last kind is the worst kind.
"without some form of coercion you are not going to get everyone to comply and not try to grab as much power as they can get."
If people realize that this was futile, it wouldn't happen. If you TRIED To grab power, and it was rebuffed by many people, then it is useless to try and grab power. Power only incresses when people cede what is rightfully theirs to another. Some are more willing to do that than others. I'm not willing at all.
"And this means what? that we shouldn't look at the causes and effects and just assume things that sound nice or logical at first glance?"
No, but at some level, it is pointless, because it goes back ad-infinitum. Everything is caused or related to something else. At some point, we have to accept what we do going forward more than looking backwards and getting whatever pound of flesh we each think we deserve for some past wrong that someone else did 150, 500, or 2000 years ago.
"I think that you and I agree on this concept, but not on what it means in practise."
Problably do. I honestly think that most reasonable people have the same ultimate goals. The trick is who is going to force who to accept what. My personal philosophy is personal choice over forced compliance for most social "goals". Of course, that means certain things are doomed to failure sooner rather than later (social security, eg). Imagine if drugs were legalized and taxed like tobacco and alcohol are. Imagine income not being taxed, at all. Imagine all the social items that people agree are "bad" taxed. Nobody would be "forced" to pay any taxes, as it would be only for items that society deemed "not good", like tobacco and alcohol. We already proved that banning substances and social faux pas increases crime (prohibition).
"Also, I rather believe the trick is in having measures to limit that government power because it has a natural tendency to grow."
I'd support the idea of "program justification", where each program would be required to set performance measures and goals, and any program that failed to meet said goals would be abandoned. We've spent perhaps BILLIONS or more on the following "wars" : Poverty, crime, drugs. And yet we still have "poor" and crime and drug problems that fill up our welfare rolls and prisons. Something isn't working. Nobody is willing to try something completely different because they are scared. I'm not.
"For the people bu the people.. hmmm, I heard that one before.. I believe it turned into 'by the elite for the elite' wherever they tried to implement it."
The problem isn't the concept, it has been the implementation. The US government (best example IMHO) has breached its own laws repeatedly, most notably during the Civil War. Aside from freeing the slaves, there was nothing good about it, and it allowed the ILLEGAL increase and scope of the federal government. It is high time for the states and people to start exercising their enumerated rights and taking them back from the US Fed Gov't.
"The group does however have every right to demand that you give up certain freedoms in order to be a member of the group."
They don't have the right to force me into their group, either by coercion or by veiled threat. My point is all group memebership should be voluntary. Which is why when people like Al Sharpton speak for "the whole african-american community" I cringe. My darker skinned friends don't agree with that poverty pimp, and wish he wouldn't speak out for them.
"I argued that the power of your own gun corrupts."
The power of my gun, is easily negated by the power of yours. The power of my car is negated by yours. People driving SUVs have a greater responsibility towards those around them in their Prius'. I have NO problem with the "group" removing (by force, if necissary) irresponsible people from their inanimate objects when they abuse the power behind them.
Part of the problem here, is that people think that they have the "right" to do whatever they want, and to hell with everyone else. Screw them! They have the right to do whatever they want, but the moment it affects someone else, that right ends. I have a right to drive big honkin SUV if I want, but I can't drive the Prius off the road because it is in my way.
"I don't know where you got the idea that I ever made that kind of argument, and if you really misread my original statement as making that argument then you really need to do something about your reading skills or your ange
And now, Pam can complete her plastic makeover.
That acronym doesn't spell anything, I don't see the humor in it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Actually, I know what NCLB is, For those missing the "funny" part, it is the same Acronym for No Child Left Behind, the often ridiculed program of the federal gov'mt under the leadership of GWB
What if his sister is also your sister, and your mom is your sister, and your dad is His dad???
Okay, now I'm really confused. NM