I agree that the Republicrats are spending too much. Why not have a government commission on how to cut spending. I see so much waste everywhere that it is sickening.
Oh, every time the oil companies post profits, the neo-coms(Communists) complain about Excess profits and such. Yet I have not seen them complain, ever, about excess tax revenue. If Big Oil is evil for huge profits, then what does it make Big Government?
Just trying to draw a comparison. Not everyone is opposed to profits, and not everyone supports higher taxes.
The difference between profits and taxes, is one is purely a choice, the other is coersion by threat of force. Nobody force anyone to by a tank of gas. So, which is more evil? I'll let you decide.
You do realize that more people have died in California Car Accidents than US soldiers in Iraq War, during the same time frame, right?
And while you're on the subject, how much money is not being a Muslim or dead worth to you? Or perhaps we should be like Chamberlain and bring back a piece of paper stating Hitler will not invade.
While I have my problems with Bush, I don't see the democrats offering anything worth considering except "we're not Bush". They could be worse than Bush, it is possible, you know.
"Far more fuel use reduction could be obtained by simply letting developers turn the vast suburban sprawl of places like Silicon Valley into an urban environment, but apparently this offends their sense of aesthetics."
Except that I don't want to live in HIGH DENSITY URBAN area. I want a yard where my kids can play, unmolested by child preditors, gangs, drug addicts. You know, that thing called "outside"? Take your high density living and force it upon yourself.
Why is it that every dogood liberal thinks my choices are bad for society?
So, you think it is ethical to tax people (take money by force) to hand it over to private entities, for political purposes, while not actually having to provide anything useful, while knowing that the results of the research will not be free (as in beer)?
Or is it just that you think Oil Companies are evil and anyone opposing them is good? Last time I checked, the Government made more on Oil Taxes than the Oil Companies made in profits.
Actually, the shared resources of airwaves and water are excellent examples of where government is needed. However, the government of today is not libertarian in basis, nor resembles the founding fathers (USA) view of liberty. My view of Libertarianism is still quite libertine; I believe that rights (true rights) cannot be taken away by either action or inaction.
In the examples you have given, airwaves and polluted water are indeed "shared" by all, and thus should be administred as such. In the case of water polution, the libertarian would say that the polluter would be finacially responsible for the loss in value in such a case. People unable to pay would be imprisoned, and in less than optimal conditions (think Sheriff Arpeo in Arizona).
I don't have a problem with regulating "shared" resources, but not by political hacks, but rather by the community. To the degree that people are affected, the proportional representatation should be given. Local governance is always better than regional, state or even federal. The further away from the issue, the less in-touch the politicians truely are.
How many believe that their Senator actually represents anything but special interests? I know mine don't even come close to representing me. Even more so for the President, and to a lesser degree my US House Rep. However, I personally know the mayor of my town, even though I am not involved in politics whatsoever. In fact, I am fairly confident that our city council represents my community fairly well, but their power is limited due to being so close to the source of their electorate.
Can you see the problem now? More power is centered far away from the source of the electorate cannot be good, yet that power tends to grow until we have a dictatorship of one form or another.
Go ahead and try to "petition" the government, see how far you get, by yourself. The government is nothing but an illusion. The only government I truly "own" is myself.
FWIW, I am not an "anarchist" in the sense of chaos and bedlam, but rather libertarian, as in be responsible for yourself and leave me the heck alone, and I'll do likewise.
"There is a reason why anarchy isn't our choice of government"
Speak for yourself, buddy! Imagine a government that cannot be bought because you truly own it, unlike our current version which only the special interest groups and corporations can buy access, while the average citizen has no ability to petition his government.
Yes, I would. I might be foolish, or I might be genius. I know, conventional wisdom cannot tell the difference until genius is manifested into conventional wisdom.
I'll say it again. I have no idea why any commercial software company writes "general use" software for M$ platform computering. I can list a whole bunch of software that has been killed by M$ versions.
If I were president of ANY general purpose software company, I would not tie my income flow to anything that requires M$ anything. I would fire any employee suggesting that the company should.
In Fact, if I had enough capitol, I would design a whole new breed of computers, from the CPU up. One that wasn't tied to bios, chipsets, dos, irq, dma.... inherited from the days of "640k should be enough for anyone". Clean Slate Computers(r)(tm).
Starting over from scratch would have to have advantages, no baggage, free to do things "right", including planning for future "enhancements".
How about the minority of one? Given your example, only ONE is a TRUE expert on Barack Obama, that is Obama himself. Everyone else is less.... informed. However, Mr Obama may wish to hide certain "facts" or dispute them, for political reasons. Should HE be the only one adding such information and controlling it? Tyranny of the minority. On the other hand, Republicans may wish to post "facts" or dispute them, again, for political reasons. Because they are in the majority (illustrative purposes only)should they get every edit they want? Tyranny of Majority.
There is no way of accomodating either side 100%, and neither should we try.
Using your John Kerry example it should be noted that he did earn three purple hearts, though the circumstances of one or more of them are disputed by people who were there. Should the details of the disputed events be excluded because Kerry wants them to be? Tyranny of the minority. Or should they be included because the swift boaters say so? Tyranny of Majority (or whatever you want to call it).
My point is that tyranny is the natural state of man.
I do agree with you about "the Majority, in the case of Wikipedia aren't experts on many topics". I would probably go farther and say the Majority are mostly ignorant about most things in life. However, the minority experts on one topic, may not be experts on anything else, making them like the majority on most topics.
But isn't that the description of Wikipedia in a nutshell?
How does one keep the nuts, fruitcakes and wackos, some of whom may have a valid point (US staged 911, who "really" shot JFK) from wacking the system?
I know for a fact that some of my views on some topics are considered quite "wacky" by some if not most people. But on the other hand, I can be quite reasonable, somewhat knowledgable and mainstream on other topics. Do you want me editing only the topics you deem that I am on the more "normal" side? How about my "wackier" side? Who gets to decide?
Should the "majority" hold the power, it becomes Tyranny of the majority.
When a "minority" can muck it up for the rest of us, it is Tyranny of the minority.
The US' founding fathers understood this, and created a system that in theory should have prevented both (but hasn't been realized because we no longer use that system in its original form).
Once you realize the problem, only then can one begin to work towards a solution. Since there is no real "solution" to tyranny, the only solution is to stop seeking a solution and make everyone responsible, equally, for themselves, and ONLY themselves.
I am not opposed to dealing with those that muck up the system, be they majority or minority stakeholders, it just needs to be done. A system that recognizes and emphasizes differences of opinion and the inate value of facts could solve the problem.
Think of Red, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, Purple lables for those pieces of disputed information / opinion. This way we could have ALL the information, and it wouldn't be subject to political bias (since all sides would be represented).
Most of the flame wars on Wiki are not over facts, but the value of, and which facts ought to be included. One man's "LIE" is another man's "fact".
First, stop refering to men as "boys" and women as "girls". I, as a man, don't hang around "girls" or "boys", as I prefer people in my own social age group.
Why not have subsection/articles related to the NPOV parts that are difinitively bias POV, for perspective sake. Let's look at how this relates to your stalking example.
Give generally accepted and nominal usage of what cyberstalking is, give related pages to "cyberstalking - cases" which gives backgrounds and such on cases, examples of, etc. and then have a "cyberstalking - false accusation" which gives examples such as you have pointed out.
Better usage would be for highly charged political topics like GWB, the main article can give generally accepted facts (date of birth, schools, service records etc) and two pages, GWB - pro (I heart bush), and GWB - con (evil dictator) facts can be presented.
Quite frankly, the truth lies (no pun or oxymoron intended) probably somewhere in between, and some of us grownups realize that bush isn't 100% good or 100% evil as the political poles would like to paint.
Party Animal? Hardly. Fake Republican? Hardly. I attack EVERYONE, Republican, Democrat, independants,....
I have a core philosophy of Live, and let live. I am against Corporate involvement in politics, and that includes all of the PACS and Unions and Corporations and...... If you are not a "person" (live human being) you don't have a rights.
I believe that corporate charters ought to be revoked for corporate criminal activity, leaving the shareholders ultimately responsible for the corporations they own. Imagine people being responsible for themselves once again, rather than the typical "blame game" we have now (which you rightly point out).
McDonalds is not responsible for stupidity of the people buying its food. There are stupid WARNING lables on everything, because some slick lawyer figured out that the curling iron company is responsible for someone burning thier eyes trying to curl eyelashes.
The biggest problem today is the blame game, rather than people stepping up and taking responisbility for their own problems.
"let me shoot someone with impunity"
No no no no. To many laws make everyone criminals. We don't need more laws, we need more responsibility by our citizens. Ever wonder why we have so many prisons, and so many prisioners? Get rid of the stupid laws that serve only to lock people up, and our society can then put the real criminals in jail a lot longer. And why do people in jail think they have a right to things I have to pay for anything more than... food (Baloney Sandwiches), lodging (tents work for me) and clothing (pink underwear for men). We shouldn't try to make it comfortable, we should make it.... survivable.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the Republicrats are spending too much. Why not have a government commission on how to cut spending. I see so much waste everywhere that it is sickening.
Oh, every time the oil companies post profits, the neo-coms(Communists) complain about Excess profits and such. Yet I have not seen them complain, ever, about excess tax revenue. If Big Oil is evil for huge profits, then what does it make Big Government?
Just trying to draw a comparison. Not everyone is opposed to profits, and not everyone supports higher taxes.
The difference between profits and taxes, is one is purely a choice, the other is coersion by threat of force. Nobody force anyone to by a tank of gas. So, which is more evil? I'll let you decide.
You do realize that more people have died in California Car Accidents than US soldiers in Iraq War, during the same time frame, right?
And while you're on the subject, how much money is not being a Muslim or dead worth to you? Or perhaps we should be like Chamberlain and bring back a piece of paper stating Hitler will not invade.
While I have my problems with Bush, I don't see the democrats offering anything worth considering except "we're not Bush". They could be worse than Bush, it is possible, you know.
"Far more fuel use reduction could be obtained by simply letting developers turn the vast suburban sprawl of places like Silicon Valley into an urban environment, but apparently this offends their sense of aesthetics."
Except that I don't want to live in HIGH DENSITY URBAN area. I want a yard where my kids can play, unmolested by child preditors, gangs, drug addicts. You know, that thing called "outside"? Take your high density living and force it upon yourself.
Why is it that every dogood liberal thinks my choices are bad for society?
Oh, I agree. Cut Taxes and spend less. This is bad why?
So, you think it is ethical to tax people (take money by force) to hand it over to private entities, for political purposes, while not actually having to provide anything useful, while knowing that the results of the research will not be free (as in beer)?
Or is it just that you think Oil Companies are evil and anyone opposing them is good? Last time I checked, the Government made more on Oil Taxes than the Oil Companies made in profits.
"They will be forbidden by the law to pass the cost on to consumers, so this will NOT raise gas prices."
So, you believe that will happen? Hows the turnip farm doing these days?
Tax and spend! Nutjobs. I know, I live here.
Actually, the shared resources of airwaves and water are excellent examples of where government is needed. However, the government of today is not libertarian in basis, nor resembles the founding fathers (USA) view of liberty. My view of Libertarianism is still quite libertine; I believe that rights (true rights) cannot be taken away by either action or inaction.
In the examples you have given, airwaves and polluted water are indeed "shared" by all, and thus should be administred as such. In the case of water polution, the libertarian would say that the polluter would be finacially responsible for the loss in value in such a case. People unable to pay would be imprisoned, and in less than optimal conditions (think Sheriff Arpeo in Arizona).
I don't have a problem with regulating "shared" resources, but not by political hacks, but rather by the community. To the degree that people are affected, the proportional representatation should be given. Local governance is always better than regional, state or even federal. The further away from the issue, the less in-touch the politicians truely are.
How many believe that their Senator actually represents anything but special interests? I know mine don't even come close to representing me. Even more so for the President, and to a lesser degree my US House Rep. However, I personally know the mayor of my town, even though I am not involved in politics whatsoever. In fact, I am fairly confident that our city council represents my community fairly well, but their power is limited due to being so close to the source of their electorate.
Can you see the problem now? More power is centered far away from the source of the electorate cannot be good, yet that power tends to grow until we have a dictatorship of one form or another.
Go ahead and try to "petition" the government, see how far you get, by yourself. The government is nothing but an illusion. The only government I truly "own" is myself.
FWIW, I am not an "anarchist" in the sense of chaos and bedlam, but rather libertarian, as in be responsible for yourself and leave me the heck alone, and I'll do likewise.
"There is a reason why anarchy isn't our choice of government"
Speak for yourself, buddy! Imagine a government that cannot be bought because you truly own it, unlike our current version which only the special interest groups and corporations can buy access, while the average citizen has no ability to petition his government.
Yes, I would. I might be foolish, or I might be genius. I know, conventional wisdom cannot tell the difference until genius is manifested into conventional wisdom.
I'll say it again. I have no idea why any commercial software company writes "general use" software for M$ platform computering. I can list a whole bunch of software that has been killed by M$ versions.
.... inherited from the days of "640k should be enough for anyone". Clean Slate Computers(r)(tm).
If I were president of ANY general purpose software company, I would not tie my income flow to anything that requires M$ anything. I would fire any employee suggesting that the company should.
In Fact, if I had enough capitol, I would design a whole new breed of computers, from the CPU up. One that wasn't tied to bios, chipsets, dos, irq, dma
Starting over from scratch would have to have advantages, no baggage, free to do things "right", including planning for future "enhancements".
Michael
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3609953966 5548298
I read your post as
Billy: Come over here.
Me: No! You'll hit me!
Billy: No I won't.
Me: Yes you will.
Billy: No I won't, I promise.
Me: Uh, okay.
Billy: (PUNCH!) Sucker!
You obviously missed my point then.
.... informed. However, Mr Obama may wish to hide certain "facts" or dispute them, for political reasons. Should HE be the only one adding such information and controlling it? Tyranny of the minority. On the other hand, Republicans may wish to post "facts" or dispute them, again, for political reasons. Because they are in the majority (illustrative purposes only)should they get every edit they want? Tyranny of Majority.
How about the minority of one? Given your example, only ONE is a TRUE expert on Barack Obama, that is Obama himself. Everyone else is less
There is no way of accomodating either side 100%, and neither should we try.
Using your John Kerry example it should be noted that he did earn three purple hearts, though the circumstances of one or more of them are disputed by people who were there. Should the details of the disputed events be excluded because Kerry wants them to be? Tyranny of the minority. Or should they be included because the swift boaters say so? Tyranny of Majority (or whatever you want to call it).
My point is that tyranny is the natural state of man.
I do agree with you about "the Majority, in the case of Wikipedia aren't experts on many topics". I would probably go farther and say the Majority are mostly ignorant about most things in life. However, the minority experts on one topic, may not be experts on anything else, making them like the majority on most topics.
But isn't that the description of Wikipedia in a nutshell?
How does one keep the nuts, fruitcakes and wackos, some of whom may have a valid point (US staged 911, who "really" shot JFK) from wacking the system?
I know for a fact that some of my views on some topics are considered quite "wacky" by some if not most people. But on the other hand, I can be quite reasonable, somewhat knowledgable and mainstream on other topics. Do you want me editing only the topics you deem that I am on the more "normal" side? How about my "wackier" side? Who gets to decide?
We are dealing with man's nature towards tyranny.
Should the "majority" hold the power, it becomes Tyranny of the majority.
When a "minority" can muck it up for the rest of us, it is Tyranny of the minority.
The US' founding fathers understood this, and created a system that in theory should have prevented both (but hasn't been realized because we no longer use that system in its original form).
Once you realize the problem, only then can one begin to work towards a solution. Since there is no real "solution" to tyranny, the only solution is to stop seeking a solution and make everyone responsible, equally, for themselves, and ONLY themselves.
I am not opposed to dealing with those that muck up the system, be they majority or minority stakeholders, it just needs to be done. A system that recognizes and emphasizes differences of opinion and the inate value of facts could solve the problem.
Think of Red, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, Purple lables for those pieces of disputed information / opinion. This way we could have ALL the information, and it wouldn't be subject to political bias (since all sides would be represented).
Most of the flame wars on Wiki are not over facts, but the value of, and which facts ought to be included. One man's "LIE" is another man's "fact".
Only if you think in Russian
First, stop refering to men as "boys" and women as "girls". I, as a man, don't hang around "girls" or "boys", as I prefer people in my own social age group.
Why not have subsection/articles related to the NPOV parts that are difinitively bias POV, for perspective sake. Let's look at how this relates to your stalking example.
Give generally accepted and nominal usage of what cyberstalking is, give related pages to "cyberstalking - cases" which gives backgrounds and such on cases, examples of, etc. and then have a "cyberstalking - false accusation" which gives examples such as you have pointed out.
Better usage would be for highly charged political topics like GWB, the main article can give generally accepted facts (date of birth, schools, service records etc) and two pages, GWB - pro (I heart bush), and GWB - con (evil dictator) facts can be presented.
Quite frankly, the truth lies (no pun or oxymoron intended) probably somewhere in between, and some of us grownups realize that bush isn't 100% good or 100% evil as the political poles would like to paint.
"Its a quid pro quo type of "good old boy" agreement among those in the majority parties."
There, I fixed your spelling mistake.
Party Animal? Hardly. Fake Republican? Hardly. I attack EVERYONE, Republican, Democrat, independants, ....
...... If you are not a "person" (live human being) you don't have a rights.
... food (Baloney Sandwiches), lodging (tents work for me) and clothing (pink underwear for men). We shouldn't try to make it comfortable, we should make it .... survivable.
I have a core philosophy of Live, and let live. I am against Corporate involvement in politics, and that includes all of the PACS and Unions and Corporations and
I believe that corporate charters ought to be revoked for corporate criminal activity, leaving the shareholders ultimately responsible for the corporations they own. Imagine people being responsible for themselves once again, rather than the typical "blame game" we have now (which you rightly point out).
McDonalds is not responsible for stupidity of the people buying its food. There are stupid WARNING lables on everything, because some slick lawyer figured out that the curling iron company is responsible for someone burning thier eyes trying to curl eyelashes.
The biggest problem today is the blame game, rather than people stepping up and taking responisbility for their own problems.
"let me shoot someone with impunity"
No no no no. To many laws make everyone criminals. We don't need more laws, we need more responsibility by our citizens. Ever wonder why we have so many prisons, and so many prisioners? Get rid of the stupid laws that serve only to lock people up, and our society can then put the real criminals in jail a lot longer. And why do people in jail think they have a right to things I have to pay for anything more than
"Way too long. Anyone have a summary?"
Bush bad. Martin Lockheed bad. Coast Guard bad. Congress Bad. Engineer good.
Who said I was a Republican?
...." is the lamest Republican denial ....." is pretty lame, and hypocritical.
... binary logic, astoundingly and overly simplistic.
Your ""But Democrates
BTW, I am registered LIBERTARIAN. Don't you feel a bit silly now?
Almost all Republicrats and Demicans are idiots. I find the whole (D) good, (R) bad
SCAM
I think you're onto something!