I won't bother addressing the other points, since it's just simpler to agree to disagree:), BUT I must take issue with this:
There is certainly a connection. During the 20th century, almost all of the worst big-scale genocidal governments were socialist. Also, the most socialist countries have also been the most oppressive.
Okay, let's do a little stats. How many pure or close to pure laissez-faire (US-style) socio-political systems have existed? Well... the US. That's basically it, really. Now, how many socialist states? I won't bother to count, but a LOT. Okay, so given this, could it be that the reason more dictatorships devolve from socialist regimes is because, well, there's just way more of them? And perhaps the US is just an example of a non-socialist state which hasn't devolved to a dictatorship (yet)?
Correlation != causation, people. It's not hard to understand...
At most, education should be decided on a state-by-state level.
Oh, I absolutely agree. In fact, in some ways, provinces in Canada are freer from federal intervention than states in the US. I simply stated that education run purely in the private domain results in the poor being excluded. That's all.
What happens when the government consolodates so much that, one day, they decide to take it all away?
That's so silly it's not worth discussing. The government is beholden to it's voters. If they don't like the way the government is running, they change the government. It's not THAT hard to imagine, is it?
Ever hear of Hitler? Mussolini? Pol Pot? Lenin? Stalin? Or does the phrase "we're from the government, we're here to help you" get you all warm and fuzzy inside. Thankfully, the guys who wrote the Constitution were wiser than you: limiting the abuse s of government power was first on their mind.
Pfft, the UK, France, and many other European nations have had even more "socialist" systems than Canada for a long time, and they certainly haven't endured similar dicatorships. Repeat after me: Dictatorships are not a product of "socialist" (as compared to the US wanna-be-laissez-faire philosophy) governments. The world is not so simple as you might like to think.
Great example. The kids in Detroit are offered inferior education....and it is in public schools. Well-entrenched moneyed interests such as the NEA have blocked reforms which would help these poor kids go to better schools.
And going to a private system where these people can't gain access to education at ALL is a better solution? Really? You don't think *fixing* the institution isn't a better idea?
Incidentally, the NEA is a *private* entity, isn't it? So it's not really government involvement that's the problem at all. It's private, moneyed interested that are the issue. Interesting.
No, it is much less free in Canada than in the U.S, from things ranging to media to health care (where you are forced to pay into a single inferior system and you have to leave the country to escape it) to what you can do with your own property.
Okay, let's tackle the obviously wrong one first: The media. The US media is MORE biased and LESS free than almost any media institution in the world, where the strings are pulled by a few powerful individuals whose only agendas are to make money and promote their own political views. The CBC, OTOH, is probably one of the most reliable, unbiased news agencies in the world, aside from maybe the BBC. While being run by the government, it is given the freedom to report stories as it sees fit, including criticizing the government (which, in the US, would be viewed as "unpatriotic"). To even suggest that the US media is *freer* than Canada is laughable at best, and almost makes me think you're a troll.
Health care is a different issue, and is far more complex than the previous. Yes, allowing private healthcare, will provide an option to those who can afford it (something which, if it just had this effect, I would support). However, it may also impoverish the private system, since the high quality staff may move to the private system where they can get better pay, at the expense of high fees (and potentially poorer service... the US healthcare system has an incredibly poor reputation, in case you hadn't noticed). Thus, it may be that a public and private system simply *can't* co-exist... and if this is the case, then, again, the poor may pay the price of a change.
OTOH, an entirely private system is, IMHO, a terrible idea. Corruption and blind adherence to the profit motive have cost many lives in the US system, and it is certainly something I'd never want to see happen here. At least I can be sure I'm getting the best care possible, here, as opposed to what my HMO thinks is the cheapest.
Which brings up another interesting point: in the US, people, in fact, have much less freedom than they might think, since the HMO dictates: which doctors you go to, what drug treatments will be covered, what medical procedures are covered, etc, etc. And all these decisions are driven by the profit motive, rather than what's best for the customer. This is hardly a more "free" system, in my mind.
No, just the lamentation of anyone who is civically and socially aware and knows of the problems if you let the rulers take over too much of the people's personal affairs.
No offense, but that's some nice paranoia you have there.:)
Honestly, you can say all that because you can afford private school, private healthcare, and so on, being from the relatively affluent middle class (I assume, anyway. A safe assumption, I think given that this IS Slashdot). But someone from the projects in Detroit might disagree with you (and before you say it, it's a little tough to get out of poverty if you can't gain access to decent education).
Now, I hail from Canada. Compared to the US, we're practically a communist country. Yet we enjoy an arguably MORE free society than our southern neighbours, and I certainly don't feel our government is somehow "[taking] over" my personal affairs (whatever those might be).
Well, I wouldn't say that. The Canadian public isn't ready for legal weed just yet. Decriminalization? Yeah, that's happening, and it's a great first step. But there's no way weed will be legalized in the next 10 years.
After all, look at the fight over gay marriage. This is quite obviously a civil rights issue, with an incredibly obvious outcome in the courts (after all, the charter is pretty unambigous on issues like this), and yet there's *still* a huge outcry from the religious right. Can you imagine what would happen if pot got legalized? Hell, I can hear the Alberta separatists now (*sigh*, I live there)...:)
You can get a lawyer and present absolute incontravertable proof that you did not steal the material alleged in the complaint. What?!? Can't proove it? Then by definition you must be guilty.
Wait a sec... isn't that how the legal system works? You present evidence that proves I did what you claim. I try to poke holes in your evidence and present my own which proves I'm innocent. If your evidence outweighs mine beyond a shadow of a doubt (or, in the case of civil law, based on preponderance of evidence), then I will likely be convicted. 'course, that doesn't define *guilt*, which may have been your point, but it does define how the legal system hands down a guilty verdict.
As for my statement regarding the RIAAs motives, that was only a personal statement and had little to do with the way the case should, in fact, be tried. I was simply pointing out that, in my mind, there's no reason to assume that the RIAA is manufacturing their claims or going after people for whom they don't have fairly solid proof of extensive copyright infringement. Whether this proves to be true or not depends on how these trials (if there are any) pan out. But to assume the "big bad RIAA" is going after "the little guy" for no particular reason is naive and more than a little biased.
So, I guess, no, I don't get your point. If the RIAA has evidence that these individuals willingly distributed copyrighted works, and these individuals cannot disprove that evidence, or otherwise present a sound legal defense, they will be found guilty in a court of law. As it should be.
Bah, my post is not insightful, it is stupid, because I misread the parent.
Although, the parent is not entirely correct, either. The interaction between P2P and Canadian copyright law, vis-a-vis the "private copy" exemption is not entirely clear. However, it is far more muddy than in the US where such an act is entirely illegal.
And not legal to *distribute those copies*. How difficult is it to understand this concept? If you're using P2P software and making your 3000 MP3 collection freely available to the masses, you are BREAKING THE LAW.
Hey, if you don't like the law, push to change it. Until then, assuming they are guilty, they will be charged as is appropriate under current law. This is how it should be... again, if you don't like it, *change it*!
"If they can't prove their innocence, they must be, by definition, guilty."
Actually, forget that... it's totally wrong, and I'm aware of that.:) BUT, I would claim that the RIAA probably isn't going after these folks without a pretty water-tight case, so if they can't disprove the RIAA's evidence, I'd claim they are most probably guilty.
Boo hoo. If they can't prove their innocence, they must be, by definition, guilty. And, if that's the case (which it undoubtedly is for many of these people), they must accept the punishment that they (knowingly) brought down upon themselves. After all, it's not like they didn't know what they were doing was illegal, or that they'd be fined massive sums of money if they were caught.
On another note, I don't feel there's any reason to distrust the RIAA, regarding who they are going after. There is every reason for them to do their best to go after real pirates... after all, it sets an example for other would-be pirates. As a result, I'm willing to believe the people who are being sued are, in fact, quite guilty of copyright infringement, and as such, such be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Exactly! If you don't like copyright law, or the powers it gives copyright holders (ie, to sue for ridiculous sums), fine, change the law. But the fact is, until then, these people are pirates and thieves, and as such, there's nothing to defend. They knowingly broke the law, and now they have to take responsibility for those acts.
Actually, if anything, it's a PR move. It's basically a way for the RIAA to look benevolent without looking like they're bending over and letting the pirates win. The only other options are to sue the pants off everyone and risk looking like bullies, or to stop pursuing P2P traders, which, of course, is impossible.
Heh, I originally had the figured in kilos, but I figured the 'mericans would have an easier time of I converted. In kilos, we have:
~1.5 x 10^1 kg of Plutonium versus a Jovian mass of 1.8987 x 10^27 kg.
Re:$1.5 billion well spent
on
Goodbye, Galileo
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Holy crap. That is the dumbest thing I've ever read. First, Jupiter is HUGE. I mean *really* huge. Bigger than you can conceive! To be more specific, Jupiter is around 4.18591697 x 10^27 pounds (thank you Google Calculator). Yes, that's 4185916970000000000000000000 pounds for you folks that don't understand scientific notation.
Now, Nasa is planning on plunging 34 pounds of Plutonium into the planet. That's 3.4 * 10^1 pounds. Hmm... 10^1 versus 10^27. Do I need to say more? I mean... honestly, this is friggin' ridiculous!
Slashdot Mirror
Erm, pardon? Is this a troll? Or are you really so ignorant as to believe that Canada is part of the EU?
Plus your new $20 looks pretty damned ugly!
:)
Meh, as does a lot of our new money.
I won't bother addressing the other points, since it's just simpler to agree to disagree :), BUT I must take issue with this:
There is certainly a connection. During the 20th century, almost all of the worst big-scale genocidal governments were socialist. Also, the most socialist countries have also been the most oppressive.
Okay, let's do a little stats. How many pure or close to pure laissez-faire (US-style) socio-political systems have existed? Well... the US. That's basically it, really. Now, how many socialist states? I won't bother to count, but a LOT. Okay, so given this, could it be that the reason more dictatorships devolve from socialist regimes is because, well, there's just way more of them? And perhaps the US is just an example of a non-socialist state which hasn't devolved to a dictatorship (yet)?
Correlation != causation, people. It's not hard to understand...
At most, education should be decided on a state-by-state level.
Oh, I absolutely agree. In fact, in some ways, provinces in Canada are freer from federal intervention than states in the US. I simply stated that education run purely in the private domain results in the poor being excluded. That's all.
What happens when the government consolodates so much that, one day, they decide to take it all away?
That's so silly it's not worth discussing. The government is beholden to it's voters. If they don't like the way the government is running, they change the government. It's not THAT hard to imagine, is it?
Ever hear of Hitler? Mussolini? Pol Pot? Lenin? Stalin? Or does the phrase "we're from the government, we're here to help you" get you all warm and fuzzy inside. Thankfully, the guys who wrote the Constitution were wiser than you: limiting the abuse s of government power was first on their mind.
Pfft, the UK, France, and many other European nations have had even more "socialist" systems than Canada for a long time, and they certainly haven't endured similar dicatorships. Repeat after me: Dictatorships are not a product of "socialist" (as compared to the US wanna-be-laissez-faire philosophy) governments. The world is not so simple as you might like to think.
Great example. The kids in Detroit are offered inferior education....and it is in public schools. Well-entrenched moneyed interests such as the NEA have blocked reforms which would help these poor kids go to better schools.
And going to a private system where these people can't gain access to education at ALL is a better solution? Really? You don't think *fixing* the institution isn't a better idea?
Incidentally, the NEA is a *private* entity, isn't it? So it's not really government involvement that's the problem at all. It's private, moneyed interested that are the issue. Interesting.
No, it is much less free in Canada than in the U.S, from things ranging to media to health care (where you are forced to pay into a single inferior system and you have to leave the country to escape it) to what you can do with your own property.
Okay, let's tackle the obviously wrong one first: The media. The US media is MORE biased and LESS free than almost any media institution in the world, where the strings are pulled by a few powerful individuals whose only agendas are to make money and promote their own political views. The CBC, OTOH, is probably one of the most reliable, unbiased news agencies in the world, aside from maybe the BBC. While being run by the government, it is given the freedom to report stories as it sees fit, including criticizing the government (which, in the US, would be viewed as "unpatriotic"). To even suggest that the US media is *freer* than Canada is laughable at best, and almost makes me think you're a troll.
Health care is a different issue, and is far more complex than the previous. Yes, allowing private healthcare, will provide an option to those who can afford it (something which, if it just had this effect, I would support). However, it may also impoverish the private system, since the high quality staff may move to the private system where they can get better pay, at the expense of high fees (and potentially poorer service... the US healthcare system has an incredibly poor reputation, in case you hadn't noticed). Thus, it may be that a public and private system simply *can't* co-exist... and if this is the case, then, again, the poor may pay the price of a change.
OTOH, an entirely private system is, IMHO, a terrible idea. Corruption and blind adherence to the profit motive have cost many lives in the US system, and it is certainly something I'd never want to see happen here. At least I can be sure I'm getting the best care possible, here, as opposed to what my HMO thinks is the cheapest.
Which brings up another interesting point: in the US, people, in fact, have much less freedom than they might think, since the HMO dictates: which doctors you go to, what drug treatments will be covered, what medical procedures are covered, etc, etc. And all these decisions are driven by the profit motive, rather than what's best for the customer. This is hardly a more "free" system, in my mind.
No, just the lamentation of anyone who is civically and socially aware and knows of the problems if you let the rulers take over too much of the people's personal affairs.
:)
No offense, but that's some nice paranoia you have there.
Honestly, you can say all that because you can afford private school, private healthcare, and so on, being from the relatively affluent middle class (I assume, anyway. A safe assumption, I think given that this IS Slashdot). But someone from the projects in Detroit might disagree with you (and before you say it, it's a little tough to get out of poverty if you can't gain access to decent education).
Now, I hail from Canada. Compared to the US, we're practically a communist country. Yet we enjoy an arguably MORE free society than our southern neighbours, and I certainly don't feel our government is somehow "[taking] over" my personal affairs (whatever those might be).
Now if we could only convince them to stay out of matters of public schools, health care, taxation....
Ahh, the typical lamentation of the (relatively) rich American...
That would be GWB, of course.
Well, I wouldn't say that. The Canadian public isn't ready for legal weed just yet. Decriminalization? Yeah, that's happening, and it's a great first step. But there's no way weed will be legalized in the next 10 years.
:)
After all, look at the fight over gay marriage. This is quite obviously a civil rights issue, with an incredibly obvious outcome in the courts (after all, the charter is pretty unambigous on issues like this), and yet there's *still* a huge outcry from the religious right. Can you imagine what would happen if pot got legalized? Hell, I can hear the Alberta separatists now (*sigh*, I live there)...
Therefore, it's reasonable that I shoot him without warning to preclude the possability of him using a weapon against me.
Funny, that accurately describes the foreign policy of the United States since JWB entered office.
Hey, wait... is that you, Junior?
You can get a lawyer and present absolute incontravertable proof that you did not steal the material alleged in the complaint. What?!? Can't proove it? Then by definition you must be guilty.
Wait a sec... isn't that how the legal system works? You present evidence that proves I did what you claim. I try to poke holes in your evidence and present my own which proves I'm innocent. If your evidence outweighs mine beyond a shadow of a doubt (or, in the case of civil law, based on preponderance of evidence), then I will likely be convicted. 'course, that doesn't define *guilt*, which may have been your point, but it does define how the legal system hands down a guilty verdict.
As for my statement regarding the RIAAs motives, that was only a personal statement and had little to do with the way the case should, in fact, be tried. I was simply pointing out that, in my mind, there's no reason to assume that the RIAA is manufacturing their claims or going after people for whom they don't have fairly solid proof of extensive copyright infringement. Whether this proves to be true or not depends on how these trials (if there are any) pan out. But to assume the "big bad RIAA" is going after "the little guy" for no particular reason is naive and more than a little biased.
So, I guess, no, I don't get your point. If the RIAA has evidence that these individuals willingly distributed copyrighted works, and these individuals cannot disprove that evidence, or otherwise present a sound legal defense, they will be found guilty in a court of law. As it should be.
Yeah, I know, I live in Canada, and am apparently an illiterate Canadian, as I misread the parent (see my other post in the thread). :)
Bah, my post is not insightful, it is stupid, because I misread the parent.
Although, the parent is not entirely correct, either. The interaction between P2P and Canadian copyright law, vis-a-vis the "private copy" exemption is not entirely clear. However, it is far more muddy than in the US where such an act is entirely illegal.
Flamebait my ass... WTF? You don't like my opinion so it must be a flame?
And not legal to *distribute those copies*. How difficult is it to understand this concept? If you're using P2P software and making your 3000 MP3 collection freely available to the masses, you are BREAKING THE LAW.
Hey, if you don't like the law, push to change it. Until then, assuming they are guilty, they will be charged as is appropriate under current law. This is how it should be... again, if you don't like it, *change it*!
"If they can't prove their innocence, they must be, by definition, guilty."
:) BUT, I would claim that the RIAA probably isn't going after these folks without a pretty water-tight case, so if they can't disprove the RIAA's evidence, I'd claim they are most probably guilty.
Actually, forget that... it's totally wrong, and I'm aware of that.
Boo hoo. If they can't prove their innocence, they must be, by definition, guilty. And, if that's the case (which it undoubtedly is for many of these people), they must accept the punishment that they (knowingly) brought down upon themselves. After all, it's not like they didn't know what they were doing was illegal, or that they'd be fined massive sums of money if they were caught.
On another note, I don't feel there's any reason to distrust the RIAA, regarding who they are going after. There is every reason for them to do their best to go after real pirates... after all, it sets an example for other would-be pirates. As a result, I'm willing to believe the people who are being sued are, in fact, quite guilty of copyright infringement, and as such, such be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Exactly! If you don't like copyright law, or the powers it gives copyright holders (ie, to sue for ridiculous sums), fine, change the law. But the fact is, until then, these people are pirates and thieves, and as such, there's nothing to defend. They knowingly broke the law, and now they have to take responsibility for those acts.
Actually, if anything, it's a PR move. It's basically a way for the RIAA to look benevolent without looking like they're bending over and letting the pirates win. The only other options are to sue the pants off everyone and risk looking like bullies, or to stop pursuing P2P traders, which, of course, is impossible.
Actually, Nomad wasn't trying to find it's creator in that episode... it wa trying to sterilize "error", or something like that.
Of course there is... wait, there are people who *don't* understand this reference? Damn... I am getting old. :)
Heh, I originally had the figured in kilos, but I figured the 'mericans would have an easier time of I converted. In kilos, we have:
~1.5 x 10^1 kg of Plutonium versus a Jovian mass of 1.8987 x 10^27 kg.
Holy crap. That is the dumbest thing I've ever read. First, Jupiter is HUGE. I mean *really* huge. Bigger than you can conceive! To be more specific, Jupiter is around 4.18591697 x 10^27 pounds (thank you Google Calculator). Yes, that's 4185916970000000000000000000 pounds for you folks that don't understand scientific notation.
Now, Nasa is planning on plunging 34 pounds of Plutonium into the planet. That's 3.4 * 10^1 pounds. Hmm... 10^1 versus 10^27. Do I need to say more? I mean... honestly, this is friggin' ridiculous!
LOL! Insightful my ass... although it is quite a nice BSD troll.