I suspect in a lot of cases we are not talking about America's children, but children of other countries. I'm sure you have heard about the disgusting reasons some pedophiles travel to SE Asia. Anyway, I have a feeling a lot of child porn does not originate in America, but this is pure speculation.
I do care about freedom more than the children, most of whom will not be victims of this sort of crap and will grow up just fine. I can not justify sacrificing the liberty of 200 million+ people and their unborn children and grandchildren and so on to save some unknown and statistically insignificant number of children now. Is this heartless, probably to some, but I find it more offensive to deprive future generations of their liberty.
That said, I would however support physically castrating pedophiles, most especially repeat offenders. It's not cruel and unusual. It's a punishment fitting the crime. Perhaps punishments like that would deter those bastards.
The tactic totally works because we don't put freedom first. Instead we continually compromise a little bit of our freedom here and there for our pet concerns. We don't consider the worst way in which a new government power may be used and use that as the criterion for whether it should be granted. We assume the government will always use its powers for good when governments haven proven time and again that they don't. American exceptionalism not withstanding. The people are dupes for a bunch of demagogues.
Frankly, and I know this is cynical as all hell, I really think the child porn thing is just an excuse to aggrandize their power. I mean, the child porn people are smart. They'll just encrypt their traffic. Thus the power will never be used for its intent, but they certainly will not *ever* relinquish it. Once the government has its hands around something it holds it like a crack head holds his pipe.
When you drop their arrogant and self-righteous attitude and realize that it is not a right to work for somebody else or that it is not a right to enter into somebody else's establishment, and when you learn the difference between the words "public" and "private," then maybe we can talk.
So, does it feel nice to be a racist? Does it feel good to insult people? Please see this post.
Oh, ok. Looks like we are speaking slightly different versions of English. By your definition, requiring anyone to do anything is not "peaceful". Not to mention, please explain why your right to be a racist should outweigh others' right to not be discriminated against. A person's right to be a racist has to do with their freedom of conscience. Discrimination, that is simply choosing not to associate with someone for any reason, while morally reprehensible in many cases, should not be legally reprehensible. Freedom of conscience, which is protected by the First Amendment, is much more important than not discriminating against others.
Well, see, that's the problem with most libertarians. They are blissfully ignorant of a thing called history, and do not understand _why_ we have EOE laws, OSHA, public schooling, public roads, and so on. Please don't assume that just because I believe one thing about one issue means I am "ignorant of history" or believe something about a whole host of other issues. The insults and assumptions do not help us understand each other better. They just get in the way.
Racism is a cancer on society Agreed, but covering it up doesn't make it go away. It just makes it fester. It's better to have racism out in the open so it can be recognized for what it is and justly condemed by society, not government. Do you think EOE laws changed anyone's hearts? That's what really matters. Covering up a problem with rules and regulations doesn't fix it.
The government is incapable of fixing this problem. Laws do not change peoples hearts even if they change their outward behavior. Only by interacting and trying to understand one other can we fix this problem. Moreover, there are no quick fixes for it. It will take time and the longer it is covered up the longer it will take.
Part of the proper role of governments is safeguarding the reasonable rights of minorities from a "tyranny of the majority". Agreed, but that doesn't justify stripping others of their right to freely associate. There is no natural right that implies others have to like you, tolerate you or hire you. They can not lynch you or beat you, however they may completely turn their backs on you for any reason. That is freedom. Their freedom.
You are correct on this point. It is also coercive when a police officer tells a robber to drop his weapons and put his hands up at gunpoint. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Correct. The robber was actively depriving someone of property. By choosing not to associate with someone you have not actively done anything to them. You have not deprived them of their property or liberty in any way. Sure you have disrespected them and it's morally unjustified, but not legally unjustified.
Here's a hint: Beatings, lynchings, and firebombings are "coercive measures" too. Yes, absolutely reprehesible things, but a far cry from simply not hiring someone. EOE didn't come about until the 70s I believe. A generation after what you are citing. We're not talking about beatings and lynchings though. We're talking about EOE. Very very different things. The one is an active deprivation of another's life and liberty. The other is no act at all. It's simply an unwillingness to associate. How can one by having not done anything be charged with a crime?
You keep telling me to study history. I have. I know about the guilded age. The government has regulated the hell out of business because of that and has in some respects gone too far. I know about beatings and lynchings in the south. I don't know about business ownership amongst blacks in the 1950s. Some PhD somewhere might. I have a suggestion to you. Read our founding documents. Especially read the Federalist Papers.
Let me tell you a story. In the town where I grew up I was a racial minority. In fact where I live now whites are less than 50% of the state population. There is in fact no racial majority in this state. Anyway I grew up in this place where there were more brown people than white people and at least some of the brown people were hostile to the white people. I've almost been beaten up on several occasions just for being white. It's completely unjustified. I know about racism. It doesn't make you feel good, but at the end of the day you feel bad for the people perpetrating it because they are the ignorant ones. Forcing yourself upon them does not make them like you, however. I want people to associate with me voluntarily not because some regulation forces them to do so. When they shu you, you find other people to associate with instead. Unfortunately we can not all get along.
You're sig is interesting... Where in the Consitution do you find justification for EOE?
Comment: "I don't like this company" Response: "You should try and find a better job, but remember don't quit your current one until you do. Bad work is better than no work."
C: "Ok, I don't work there anymore" R: "You already lined up that new job right?"
C: "Ok, I got a great job, it is with Microsoft!" R: "Cool. I'm sure there's lots of interesting problems to solve at Microsoft. Are you on the XBox team? That would be super cool! They wouldn't be my first choice, but neither would any huge company."
C: "Ok, I worked for free and lost my apartment and now I need help" R: "Don't forget about the real world. You have to be able to support yourself and your family. Working for free with no means to support yourself is irresponsible."
C: "Ok, the only place in town with a wage I can live off of is being sleezy in their hiring methods" R: "Take the job if practicality suggests you must, but don't stop looking for a beter job. It may take time, but eventually you'll find something better."
You made manager after 2 weeks. The obviously want quality employees they just don't seem to attract them very well. Thus their outward appearance suggests they do not want quality employees.
So we should just let the problem persist? Yes. Yes we should.
Second, in what way are the EOE laws non-peaceful, i.e. militant? You mentioned million dollar lawsuits... Non-peaceful means coercive. If you compel me to do something against my will by threatening me with jail time or fines that is non-peaceful. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington
Oh, really? You sure had a lot of blacks starting their own businesses in the 50s. I don't really know if there were or not. I'm no 1950s expert. I believe many were probably doing agricultural work at that time, but I don't really know. It's not really important though. Perhaps it's more imporant to ask "Why didn't they?".
It's the party line. If you bothered to think about this "principle" for 5 minutes, you would realize the inherent problems. What are the "inherent" problems with the freedom to associate? What is your objection to people forging private alliances without government interference?
How is it worse? On a personal level, if you are the business owner that does not what his propety infringed upon you might feel resentment. It creates a government bueauracracy that requires funding, thus more taxes. That's bad because it's money out of everyone's pocket.
What if I said you that were required to compare Sony, JVC and Sanyo stereos before buying one? It's totally the smart thing to do, but do I have any right to make you do so?
Discrimination is not a good thing. However, just because something is bad doesn't mean it requires government intervention. Society should have peacefully sorted out this problem. Government coercion, which is not a peacful solution, was employed instead.
Remember, a person who is discriminated against is always free to start their own business.
I'm not toeing the party line here either. I am standing on an principle, which is the freedom to associate or not associate, as the case may be.
The EOE laws are impossible to enforce anyway. You know this right? Still we poured over $200 million into that agency this year.
So yes, discrimination is not a good thing, but denying someone their freedom to associate is yet a worse evil.
Equal opprotunity employment is a violation of our freedom to associate. An employer should be able to hire or fire anyone for any reason. It is a private contract between the employee and employer and the government should not be involved. In the case of direct government jobs, the government may make up its own rules. However, I am fully opposed to the government bribing its contractors to follow any employment practice. Furthermore, any company that discriminates based upon some quality of a person that is not directly related to the job is doing themselves a disservice and will ultimately reap the consequences of that.
To the poster: Stop whining and go look for a job elsewhere. Kroger is obviously not interested in quality employees.
Not dominated, guided, but that totally depends upon the parents. They have a responsibility to society for rearing well-adjusted children. Yes, this is an ideal that is not necessarily carried out. Witness all the bastard children, and adults for that matter, who don't know shit about their country and have no notion that they should be responsibile for the consequences of their actions. Witness the welfare-warfare state at work.
The point is, in the eyes of the law you are not held reponsibile for your freedom at that age, your parents are. Therefore, even if you exercise free-will you are not truly free. Contrary to many popular notions, freedom does not exist without responsibility. That is called anarchy and is not a regime you want to live under.
Moreover, you can not legally work at that age therefore you can't support yourself. Thus if you parents were not responsible for you, you'd just be a burden on society.
Barring some exceptions you are the ward of your parents until you are 18. That's the law. Like it or not.
Personally I find 15 or 16 a much more palatable age than 18.
The brain doesn't even mature until like age 25. To believe that a 12 year-old has all of the information he needs to make real life decisions borders on the absurd. I'm sure at 12 you probably didn't know how to budget, balance a check book, drive, cook, open a bank account, have any skills that would give you a better than minimum wage job, deal with knaves, or many many other things that you learned in the next 6 years. That is assuming you are at least 18.
Not sure how or why you got modded up. Seems like a troll to me, but I'll bite.
Kids are not free human beings! Parents are the custodians of their kids until the children have been properly trained to become full-fleged members of society with all of the rights and responsibilities that implies. To put it another way, until you are under the law, liable for all of the consequences of your actions you are not truely free because freedom implies a certain amount of responsibility. You are infact subject to your parents' whims to a certain extent. The way they raise you is their responsibility/problem, but make no mistake you are not free. John Locke really does a much better job than me explaining this. You might look at his Second Treatise.
You have to know it's a lesser of two evils thing.
Here's why I voted *against* Kerry. Unfortunately that meant voting *for* Bush.
1. Don't want national healthcare. 2. Want to keep my guns with no gun registry. 3. Not interested in Kerry appointing anyone to the Supreme Court. I want constructionists. Roberts was very good. I'm not sure about Alito, but he's certainly better than a Ruth Bader-Ginsburg.
The basic problem is is that our Federal government has aggragated too much power and really ought to be cut to the tune of about 70%. The states could then fill the void if they so choose. I can protest a government in a capital that is 100 miles away from me every week or even several times a week if I had to. I can not protest a government in a capital that is several thousand miles away. Anyway this is a pipe dream because Americans themselves have been corrupted. We used to be a largely self-reliant people. We looked to ourselves and our community, as defined by those who voluntarily wanted to be part of it, not our government to solve our problems. Sadly this is no longer the case.
Here here. We're supposed to abhor a monopoly. Copyright and Patents grant a monopoly for a given time. We tolerate that because it is useful, but copyrights and patents are not an end in and of themselves.
It suprises the hell out of me that something like Star Wars or the Beatles, things that have become part and parcel of the culture, are owned at all at this point. After something becomes that wildly successful it no longer needs monopoly protection.
Re:Fuzzing and Obfuscation
on
Mitnick on OSS
·
· Score: 1
Yes yes I got you. But my point is that if you have "./" on your path you likely *want* what's in the current directory to take precedence over all other commands. That "./" in the path anywhere is a detriment, we both agree.
Re:Fuzzing and Obfuscation
on
Mitnick on OSS
·
· Score: 1
Agreed./ in your path is bad. I bet many of us have ~/bin in our paths though. I wonder how many put that before/sbin and/usr/sbin? I can't say any of my root accounts have this, but my user accounts put ~/bin before anything because I explicitly want to override somet things that live in/bin/usr/bin. This is especially true on machines that I do not have admin privleges on.
Assuming you had./ on your path you would want it to be first.
Funny thing about that electing thing. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are both against and for civil liberties, just different ones. That basically sucks, and at the end of the day the best thing you can hope for is deadlock. Democrats will take your guns, which in the end represent your last line of defense against tyranny. The Republicans will grant law enforcement too much leway in the fight against terrorism. Both grant too much leway in the "drug war". Talk about major Fourth Amendment infringements... Both undermine our money by refusing to match spending with revenues, either through cutting services or raising taxes. Both favor a welfare/warfare state that undermines self-responsibility. Perpetual warfare, and this is what we have had for over 60 years now, is damaging to freedom. Democrats do not respect private property, and in general economic freedom. Republicans do not respect social freedoms enough. Neither party cares about self-responsibility, but that's mostly because their constituents don't either. Everybody just wants their handout and the price for that is their freedom. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Won't accept the later? You don't get the former.
So who you gonna elect? You're fucked either way buddy. Third parties have no chance in our system, baring a major disruption to the status quo.
By the way I don't care, I'll still vote third party. I'll vote my conscience. I know I won't win.
Slashdot Mirror
This is porn or child porn?
Yes, I agree with all of your points. I had overlooked some technical details...
I suspect in a lot of cases we are not talking about America's children, but children of other countries. I'm sure you have heard about the disgusting reasons some pedophiles travel to SE Asia. Anyway, I have a feeling a lot of child porn does not originate in America, but this is pure speculation.
I do care about freedom more than the children, most of whom will not be victims of this sort of crap and will grow up just fine. I can not justify sacrificing the liberty of 200 million+ people and their unborn children and grandchildren and so on to save some unknown and statistically insignificant number of children now. Is this heartless, probably to some, but I find it more offensive to deprive future generations of their liberty.
That said, I would however support physically castrating pedophiles, most especially repeat offenders. It's not cruel and unusual. It's a punishment fitting the crime. Perhaps punishments like that would deter those bastards.
The tactic totally works because we don't put freedom first. Instead we continually compromise a little bit of our freedom here and there for our pet concerns. We don't consider the worst way in which a new government power may be used and use that as the criterion for whether it should be granted. We assume the government will always use its powers for good when governments haven proven time and again that they don't. American exceptionalism not withstanding. The people are dupes for a bunch of demagogues.
Frankly, and I know this is cynical as all hell, I really think the child porn thing is just an excuse to aggrandize their power. I mean, the child porn people are smart. They'll just encrypt their traffic. Thus the power will never be used for its intent, but they certainly will not *ever* relinquish it. Once the government has its hands around something it holds it like a crack head holds his pipe.
When you drop their arrogant and self-righteous attitude and realize that it is not a right to work for somebody else or that it is not a right to enter into somebody else's establishment, and when you learn the difference between the words "public" and "private," then maybe we can talk.
So, does it feel nice to be a racist?
Does it feel good to insult people? Please see this post.
Oh, ok. Looks like we are speaking slightly different versions of English. By your definition, requiring anyone to do anything is not "peaceful". Not to mention, please explain why your right to be a racist should outweigh others' right to not be discriminated against.
A person's right to be a racist has to do with their freedom of conscience. Discrimination, that is simply choosing not to associate with someone for any reason, while morally reprehensible in many cases, should not be legally reprehensible. Freedom of conscience, which is protected by the First Amendment, is much more important than not discriminating against others.
Well, see, that's the problem with most libertarians. They are blissfully ignorant of a thing called history, and do not understand _why_ we have EOE laws, OSHA, public schooling, public roads, and so on.
Please don't assume that just because I believe one thing about one issue means I am "ignorant of history" or believe something about a whole host of other issues. The insults and assumptions do not help us understand each other better. They just get in the way.
Racism is a cancer on society
Agreed, but covering it up doesn't make it go away. It just makes it fester. It's better to have racism out in the open so it can be recognized for what it is and justly condemed by society, not government. Do you think EOE laws changed anyone's hearts? That's what really matters. Covering up a problem with rules and regulations doesn't fix it.
The government is incapable of fixing this problem. Laws do not change peoples hearts even if they change their outward behavior. Only by interacting and trying to understand one other can we fix this problem. Moreover, there are no quick fixes for it. It will take time and the longer it is covered up the longer it will take.
Part of the proper role of governments is safeguarding the reasonable rights of minorities from a "tyranny of the majority".
Agreed, but that doesn't justify stripping others of their right to freely associate. There is no natural right that implies others have to like you, tolerate you or hire you. They can not lynch you or beat you, however they may completely turn their backs on you for any reason. That is freedom. Their freedom.
You are correct on this point. It is also coercive when a police officer tells a robber to drop his weapons and put his hands up at gunpoint. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
Correct. The robber was actively depriving someone of property. By choosing not to associate with someone you have not actively done anything to them. You have not deprived them of their property or liberty in any way. Sure you have disrespected them and it's morally unjustified, but not legally unjustified.
Here's a hint: Beatings, lynchings, and firebombings are "coercive measures" too.
Yes, absolutely reprehesible things, but a far cry from simply not hiring someone. EOE didn't come about until the 70s I believe. A generation after what you are citing. We're not talking about beatings and lynchings though. We're talking about EOE. Very very different things. The one is an active deprivation of another's life and liberty. The other is no act at all. It's simply an unwillingness to associate. How can one by having not done anything be charged with a crime?
You keep telling me to study history. I have. I know about the guilded age. The government has regulated the hell out of business because of that and has in some respects gone too far. I know about beatings and lynchings in the south. I don't know about business ownership amongst blacks in the 1950s. Some PhD somewhere might. I have a suggestion to you. Read our founding documents. Especially read the Federalist Papers.
Let me tell you a story. In the town where I grew up I was a racial minority. In fact where I live now whites are less than 50% of the state population. There is in fact no racial majority in this state. Anyway I grew up in this place where there were more brown people than white people and at least some of the brown people were hostile to the white people. I've almost been beaten up on several occasions just for being white. It's completely unjustified. I know about racism. It doesn't make you feel good, but at the end of the day you feel bad for the people perpetrating it because they are the ignorant ones. Forcing yourself upon them does not make them like you, however. I want people to associate with me voluntarily not because some regulation forces them to do so. When they shu you, you find other people to associate with instead. Unfortunately we can not all get along.
You're sig is interesting... Where in the Consitution do you find justification for EOE?
Comment: "I don't like this company"
Response: "You should try and find a better job, but remember don't quit your current one until you do. Bad work is better than no work."
C: "Ok, I don't work there anymore"
R: "You already lined up that new job right?"
C: "Ok, I got a great job, it is with Microsoft!"
R: "Cool. I'm sure there's lots of interesting problems to solve at Microsoft. Are you on the XBox team? That would be super cool! They wouldn't be my first choice, but neither would any huge company."
C: "Ok, I worked for free and lost my apartment and now I need help"
R: "Don't forget about the real world. You have to be able to support yourself and your family. Working for free with no means to support yourself is irresponsible."
C: "Ok, the only place in town with a wage I can live off of is being sleezy in their hiring methods"
R: "Take the job if practicality suggests you must, but don't stop looking for a beter job. It may take time, but eventually you'll find something better."
You made manager after 2 weeks. The obviously want quality employees they just don't seem to attract them very well. Thus their outward appearance suggests they do not want quality employees.
So we should just let the problem persist?
Yes. Yes we should.
Second, in what way are the EOE laws non-peaceful, i.e. militant?
You mentioned million dollar lawsuits... Non-peaceful means coercive. If you compel me to do something against my will by threatening me with jail time or fines that is non-peaceful. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington
Oh, really? You sure had a lot of blacks starting their own businesses in the 50s.
I don't really know if there were or not. I'm no 1950s expert. I believe many were probably doing agricultural work at that time, but I don't really know. It's not really important though. Perhaps it's more imporant to ask "Why didn't they?".
It's the party line. If you bothered to think about this "principle" for 5 minutes, you would realize the inherent problems.
What are the "inherent" problems with the freedom to associate? What is your objection to people forging private alliances without government interference?
How is it worse?
On a personal level, if you are the business owner that does not what his propety infringed upon you might feel resentment. It creates a government bueauracracy that requires funding, thus more taxes. That's bad because it's money out of everyone's pocket.
What if I said you that were required to compare Sony, JVC and Sanyo stereos before buying one? It's totally the smart thing to do, but do I have any right to make you do so?
Discrimination is not a good thing. However, just because something is bad doesn't mean it requires government intervention. Society should have peacefully sorted out this problem. Government coercion, which is not a peacful solution, was employed instead.
Remember, a person who is discriminated against is always free to start their own business.
I'm not toeing the party line here either. I am standing on an principle, which is the freedom to associate or not associate, as the case may be.
The EOE laws are impossible to enforce anyway. You know this right? Still we poured over $200 million into that agency this year.
So yes, discrimination is not a good thing, but denying someone their freedom to associate is yet a worse evil.
I have a solution. Don't work there!
Equal opprotunity employment is a violation of our freedom to associate. An employer should be able to hire or fire anyone for any reason. It is a private contract between the employee and employer and the government should not be involved. In the case of direct government jobs, the government may make up its own rules. However, I am fully opposed to the government bribing its contractors to follow any employment practice. Furthermore, any company that discriminates based upon some quality of a person that is not directly related to the job is doing themselves a disservice and will ultimately reap the consequences of that.
To the poster: Stop whining and go look for a job elsewhere. Kroger is obviously not interested in quality employees.
Demagoguery gets votes. Sadly there is WAY too much of it.
I think we agree.
Karl Marx couldn't have said it any better.
Great you are/were an above average kid. I do not believe you are a typical case, however.
My point about the law and freedom vs. responsibility holds regardless.
Not dominated, guided, but that totally depends upon the parents. They have a responsibility to society for rearing well-adjusted children. Yes, this is an ideal that is not necessarily carried out. Witness all the bastard children, and adults for that matter, who don't know shit about their country and have no notion that they should be responsibile for the consequences of their actions. Witness the welfare-warfare state at work.
The point is, in the eyes of the law you are not held reponsibile for your freedom at that age, your parents are. Therefore, even if you exercise free-will you are not truly free. Contrary to many popular notions, freedom does not exist without responsibility. That is called anarchy and is not a regime you want to live under.
Moreover, you can not legally work at that age therefore you can't support yourself. Thus if you parents were not responsible for you, you'd just be a burden on society.
Barring some exceptions you are the ward of your parents until you are 18. That's the law. Like it or not.
Personally I find 15 or 16 a much more palatable age than 18.
The brain doesn't even mature until like age 25. To believe that a 12 year-old has all of the information he needs to make real life decisions borders on the absurd. I'm sure at 12 you probably didn't know how to budget, balance a check book, drive, cook, open a bank account, have any skills that would give you a better than minimum wage job, deal with knaves, or many many other things that you learned in the next 6 years. That is assuming you are at least 18.
Not sure how or why you got modded up. Seems like a troll to me, but I'll bite.
Kids are not free human beings! Parents are the custodians of their kids until the children have been properly trained to become full-fleged members of society with all of the rights and responsibilities that implies. To put it another way, until you are under the law, liable for all of the consequences of your actions you are not truely free because freedom implies a certain amount of responsibility. You are infact subject to your parents' whims to a certain extent. The way they raise you is their responsibility/problem, but make no mistake you are not free. John Locke really does a much better job than me explaining this. You might look at his Second Treatise.
You have to know it's a lesser of two evils thing.
Here's why I voted *against* Kerry. Unfortunately that meant voting *for* Bush.
1. Don't want national healthcare.
2. Want to keep my guns with no gun registry.
3. Not interested in Kerry appointing anyone to the Supreme Court. I want constructionists. Roberts was very good. I'm not sure about Alito, but he's certainly better than a Ruth Bader-Ginsburg.
The basic problem is is that our Federal government has aggragated too much power and really ought to be cut to the tune of about 70%. The states could then fill the void if they so choose. I can protest a government in a capital that is 100 miles away from me every week or even several times a week if I had to. I can not protest a government in a capital that is several thousand miles away. Anyway this is a pipe dream because Americans themselves have been corrupted. We used to be a largely self-reliant people. We looked to ourselves and our community, as defined by those who voluntarily wanted to be part of it, not our government to solve our problems. Sadly this is no longer the case.
Here here. We're supposed to abhor a monopoly. Copyright and Patents grant a monopoly for a given time. We tolerate that because it is useful, but copyrights and patents are not an end in and of themselves.
It suprises the hell out of me that something like Star Wars or the Beatles, things that have become part and parcel of the culture, are owned at all at this point. After something becomes that wildly successful it no longer needs monopoly protection.
Yes yes I got you. But my point is that if you have "./" on your path you likely *want* what's in the current directory to take precedence over all other commands. That "./" in the path anywhere is a detriment, we both agree.
Agreed ./ in your path is bad. I bet many of us have ~/bin in our paths though. I wonder how many put that before /sbin and /usr/sbin? I can't say any of my root accounts have this, but my user accounts put ~/bin before anything because I explicitly want to override somet things that live in /bin /usr/bin. This is especially true on machines that I do not have admin privleges on.
./ on your path you would want it to be first.
Assuming you had
Word.
Funny thing about that electing thing. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are both against and for civil liberties, just different ones. That basically sucks, and at the end of the day the best thing you can hope for is deadlock. Democrats will take your guns, which in the end represent your last line of defense against tyranny. The Republicans will grant law enforcement too much leway in the fight against terrorism. Both grant too much leway in the "drug war". Talk about major Fourth Amendment infringements... Both undermine our money by refusing to match spending with revenues, either through cutting services or raising taxes. Both favor a welfare/warfare state that undermines self-responsibility. Perpetual warfare, and this is what we have had for over 60 years now, is damaging to freedom. Democrats do not respect private property, and in general economic freedom. Republicans do not respect social freedoms enough. Neither party cares about self-responsibility, but that's mostly because their constituents don't either. Everybody just wants their handout and the price for that is their freedom. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Won't accept the later? You don't get the former.
So who you gonna elect? You're fucked either way buddy. Third parties have no chance in our system, baring a major disruption to the status quo.
By the way I don't care, I'll still vote third party. I'll vote my conscience. I know I won't win.
Thank you.