A friend told me there was interesting discussion here.
So, I came back after an enormous hiatus. What I find is appalling.
He said interesting comments started around #100 in this article. However, when I click to go to page 2, it looks the same as page 1. Page 3, too. I think it changes, finally, at page 4, after having skipped 100 or 150 messages, where the "good stuff" was.
And second: SS was -never- meant to take the place of a person's own ability to pay their way in retirement. It was meant to be an additional source of funds to make those years easier. The current program has lost that ideal, and it's time to force it back.
Actually, I favor abolishment in stages.
Anyone may, at any time, opt out of the system.
In doing so, you lose forever government benefits that may assist you in your retirement, or which may aid your family if you die.
You may choose to take what you've paid in so far as a lump, or to voluntarily forfeit that money to the government (if you are filled with "good will" - and I might just opt to do this...).
Should you choose to stay in the system, you will receive benefits based upon your age.
Those 55 and older (born before the end of WWII) will receive full benefits.
Those 40-55 will receive 60% benefits (this is an arbitrary number).
Those 30-40 will receive 30% benefits (again, arbitrary).
Those younger than 30 receive no benefits - you have to fend for yourself! Better plan ahead!
Those who can demonstrate a real, unadulterated hatred for HTML are eligible for special benefits.
As you get older, you have less time for your planning to pay off, so you may receive benefits. There is no excuse for anyone 40 years old or younger to have to rely upon the government, picking the pockets of the rest of society, for your retirement but, because the government has been stealing from you all your life, the government will pay some benefit to those 30 and older.
With careful planning, someone making $22,000/yr. can retire comfortably (as will likely be evidenced by my mother, who makes about that much after more than 25 years of employment).
Anyone not able to make that kind of money is not sufficiently motivated. McDonald's pays shitty wages for shitty work because it is an entry-level job, not meant to make you rich, but meant to give a pimply-faced teenager a taste of the working world, hopefully to motivate them to bigger and better things. I worked at McDonald's as a teen, and never saw it as a career path, but as a plain old job.
> We have a constitutional right to anonymity? Just curious?
My take on this is, we have a Constitutional protection for Speech. If you feel that, in order to protect yourself from stigma attached to words you feel _must_ be said, you may do so anonymously.
It's the same principle followed by those who wrote "The Federalist Papers". There were several men who did that, and they all used a common pen name. In that way, they were able to put forth ideas into the going public debate without bringing the Redcoats to their homes to burn them down and kill them, their wives, and their children.
> Please review the Second Amendment. It states: > A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the > people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Correct. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".
Now, these are the same people about whom it is said, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...".
These are the same people about whom it is said, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...".
These are the very same people about whom it is said, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
It is that last phrase which turns the trick, you see. It is clearly the intent of the framers of the Constitution to separately address the freedoms of the people versus those of the state versus those of the United States. Looking back over historical documents to determine the intent of the founders as to the application of laws (a practice which has legal merit, and which is not uncommon when dealing with issues of protected rights), it is clear that they wanted the people armed in the same fashion as the armies of the day, so that proper resistance could be brought to bear against a tyrannical regime. They secured, in that document, our right to arm ourselves the same way as our military so that we could fight our military should it be necessary. That is the final check on the government assured by the Constitution - the sovereign right of the people to resist oppression. The Second Amendment was not put in place so that we could defend our home state or nation, exclusively. Remember, the revolutionaries of the day fought their own sovereign government - and won.
Now, I might be able to come up with a hypothetical case wherein a nuclear device would be necessary to further the cause of Liberty, if pressed hard enough.
> Nuclear weapons are arms as well. Do you propose that those should be allowed? Fertilizer bombs?
Certainly. If I so choose, I should be able to manufacture and store a nuclear device in my garage. The real limiting factor here is the practicality of such a device.
I cannot afford the uranium/plutonium for such a device. Nor can I afford the machine tools for crafting such a device. There are safety issues with radiation and such that would seriously lessen my desire to own such a device. Therefore, even though I have the right to own and keep one, I will, in all likelihood, never do so.
Fertilizer bombs? Certainly, again. Granted, the materials are cheap and plentiful, and the technology doesn't require any special preparation, so it's available to anyone. The problem is again one of practicality. If I were to create one of these devices in my garage, chances are, it would blow up my house - that stuff is unstable. But, if it became necessary to use a fertilizer bomb to wipe out a platoon of invading soldiers (foreign or domestic), I would want to be able to have the material on hand to be able to build just such a device. To do so would be to stand up for my ideals and those that founded this nation - that tyranny should not go unchecked, and that the power to govern rests with the people, not with whomever can field a large army.
> The right to bear arms may or may not be noble. This is not the place to argue that point.
You are correct. A right cannot be said to be (or not to be) noble. It just _is_. There is, and can be, no argument to this point. I find myself having problems with those who, without honest and rational debate, want to preclude my rights secured to me by the Constitution. They cannot do so, anyway, and they are free to try, but that they are not simply laughed off their podiums is the most strikingly disgusting point of all. It makes me sick to be an American in this day and age - we've forgotten what we stood for.
> What I am saying is that there is absolutely *no way* to permanently safeguard the right to > bear arms.
Ah, but you're wrong. Given the right to bear arms (which is not _given_, but _secured_ - and there is a _huge_ difference in mindset there, if you choose to examine it logically), that right will protect itself (and, not coincidentally, all the others besides)!
The only way we lose rights is when people don't take the time to rationally think about what they're giving up. People give up their rights in this country - they're not taken away. If people would simply stand up, en masse, and say one word, all this insanity would come to a grinding halt. That word is, "NO".
> But that doesn't matter because there will eventually be no way to censor ideas, and ideas > are far more powerful than guns.
That's a very nice thought, but it doesn't seem to hold a lot of water. When it's YOU under the microscope of censorship, you will certainly wish you had a freer forum in which to say what you want. Without the means to secure that forum, deriving from the right to protect oneself from tyranny inherent in the Second Amendment, your wishes will do you no good. When a people can resist invasion, whether by foreign or domestic power interests, their freedom is more likely to be secured.
Please, please moderate this up to "+5 Insightful".
This is exactly the same thought I had when I read this news before. "Oh, shit. Now there'll be a 64-bit architecture with 4 general purpose registers (eeax?), and an insane ISA."
I've jumped into a project that might be of some interest to some folks here.
I've recently purchased and begun renovating a 114+ year-old house in North St. Louis. The neighborhood is pretty run-down, but it is going to come back to life in the next few years (I'll make sure it does). The house is about 4000 ft^2, and cost me $4,500. It's an all-brick structure, but in need of a complete replumbing, rewiring, and refinishing inside. The windows are boarded up, etc.
The place is gorgeous, though. It has big, nice wide woodwork, a spiral staircase, balcony porches, and a big, big room in the attic that will be my lab (I even have computer-room flooring to put in it now...:).
What I'd be interested in are opinions here, and maybe leads to more information - are there other geeks out there who, like me, love beautiful old houses and unique architecture, who can (and are eager to learn how to) remodel houses, and who would like to participate in a NAN (neighborhood area network - did I coin a new term?) with perhaps a shared fat-pipe to the Internet?
I'd like to be able to get together a partnership with a/some telecomm company who'd like to score a big PR coup, and to accelerate the rejuvenation of this beautiful neighborhood.
Will geeks move buy and move in if such an opportunity arose?
> If not us, then who? I think we can pretty much agree that running protesting students over with > tanks is a bad thing, yes?
Yes (Kent State).
> How about the blatant censoring of material that it displeasing to the Communist Party?
Yes (FBI Files).
> The jailing and oppression of political dissenters and non-standard religions?
Yes (Branch Davidians).
> You're argument is a variation on the ad hominem fallacy. If a person who says, "It is > wrong to murder", is himself a murderer, does it make his statement any less true?
No, but it makes the person a hypocrite.
Note, though, that I support normalization of relations between the U.S. and Cuba, and that I do not support this relationship with China.
Cuba is our neighbor, and China is not. Cuba has no real ability to threaten U.S. interests, and China does (Panama Canal, U.S. nuclear technology, political blood-money). I cannot bring myself, as much as I am in favor of free trade and the benefits that go with it, and the responsibilities that come with those benefits, to support opening trade permanently with a regime like China.
Can someone (preferably a Chinese person) tell me just what is so bad about Falun Gong?
I remember reading the Mach source code a few years ago, and they had a layer called "SCSINet" or something like it. It was a way to do IP over SCSI (which, because of its greater bandwidth, lower latency, and priority levels, etc., could lead to neat hacks like distributed shared memory).
So, yes, it's been done. It's even been done in the open.
It's hacks like this, and the ability to have multiple ethernet interfaces (think: switched private Gb ethernet) that make me wonder just why in the hell people buy proprietary cluster solutions (DEC's memory channel - 40MB/sec.) when open standards are quite possibly better, and certainly less expensive.
"Soap box, Ballot box, Ammunition box; use in that order."
Indeed, the framers intended for the citizenry to be the last, best check against a tyrannical government. Their other writings reflect this fact irrefutably. There have been Supreme Court cases decided on the "original intent" of the framers of our Constitution.
These old, dead, slave-owning white guys knew what they were about. The fact that they were "angry white males" (you're damned right they were angry - they just won their independence from a tyranny), and "slave owners" (the social and economic thought of the day was that these things were necessary to the maintenance of a working farm - whether or not that is or was true is quite irrelevant) is simply a moot point.
The Constitution is not about "political correctness". There is no guarantee therein that you should be able to live your life without being offended by someone else's words. In fact, the First Amendment guarantees you and me and everyone else the RIGHT to speak our minds (but gives us no guarantee that anyone will listen).
It is unfortunate that the Second Amendment, which so clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"", was not worded in such a way that it is clear even to those who would deprive us of that right (first) today. Had I the ability to travel back in time, I would have pushed for clarification of that clause.
It is more unfortunate, however, that people in modern America have chosen, blindly, to give away their rights and liberties to obtain a measure of temporary safety. Mr. Franklin has a wonderful quote to this effect, and my reply to him is in my.sig.
It is a fact that governments around the world have killed 170 million of their own citizens in the twentieth century. This spans from Germany to the USSR to Cambodia. Had the U.S. not been fortunate enough to have a string of major victories while island-hopping in the Pacific Ocean during World War II, how long do you think it would have taken for there to be an overwhelming outcry for our government to "solve the Japanese problem"? Those already interred would have been utterly defenseless, and those not yet confined may have at least had a chance to escape, certainly aided by right-minded Other-Than-Japanese American citizens.
America is not immune from a tyrannical government. Hitler was the duly-elected legal Chancellor of Germany, remember.
My take on these answers is that the guy did answer them in a straightforward, sensible fashion.
Linux is not the end-all-be-all of operating systems technology, nor will it be for a long, long time (if ever).
There are many issues to discuss, including the availability issue. Issues such as hot-plug PCI, journalling filesystems, etc. are not just playtoys; they are real, necessary technologies that will bar entry into the "enterprise". Linux does not currently have these technologies in its repertoir (though they are being worked diligently on).
When Linux has this stuff, then it can compete feature-for-feature with commercial Unices. Until then, it cannot. That's not to say that it has no place beside them - it obviously does - and that's not to say that it won't eventually catch up - it obviously will.
That is the reason SCO is showing interest in Linux, and why Monterey will require Linux binary compatibility. They expect Linux to be a large share of that market, and a growing concern.
But, we should welcome their input with open arms. Though SCO's stuff has lacked in flexibility and performance in the past, they do have some great technology, and my theory is that they will eventually contribute it.
Since reading your books in the eighth grade, I have never forgotten to keep my towel with me at all times. This simple advice has gotten me out of countless jams, including a run-in with a ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
So, thank you.
Now, though, I am older. I want to hand down your words of wisdom to my children and my children's children.
Is there some place I could buy a leather-bound set of your books suitable to become family heirlooms, that your words may rest aside those of Shakespeare and Chaucer in my library?
> Straight off, I get the message that this user is not in the appropriate group to su to root.
That is a *feature*, not a bug. Next time, put your "normal" user in the "wheel" group. Then, you'll be able to su just fine.
> I mean, how difficult would it be for the installer to list the services, (with all of them > off by default) and let you choose which ones to install?
My first take on this is, "not hard". But, then I think a little deeper. If you do this, then a lot of clueless folks will do "enable everything", and you're back to square one. Best if you treat a Unix box like a Unix box, and learn what risks you take *before* opening yourself up to them.
> Or even to ask what normal user accounts should be in the admin group?
At install time, what "normal" user accounts does it know about? IIRC, it doesn't ask you to set up a normal user account - it assumes that you will know to do that (though it's been a good while since I've installed it - though I run it every day - so my memory may be Swiss cheese).
> Although I suppose you could always say education could be better, the fact of the matter > is that all the countries with "better" educational systems are far behind us in > virtually every segment of technology, business, and finance.
Other countries have problems with their best and brightest coming to be educated at our universities, and then staying here because they like living here rather more than at home. While that's no skin off my nose (hey, I like foreigners pretty well... talk with 'em, and listen to their stories, and you'll like 'em, too), that's where a lot of our technology and whatnot comes from. Not a day goes by that IBM or someone doesn't come out with some newfangled revolutionary contraption that has at least two names attached to it that are difficult to pronounce - but they're coming out with innovations, so I don't care what country the researchers hail from.
> I went to public school and don't feel I was robbed of a good education
As did I, but schools were different even a decade ago than they are today. Even in the high school from which I graduated, I've recently heard of stupid games played by teachers and administrators (I cannot remember the nature of said games, at the moment) that disgusted me.
As I look back on it, I see the education that I got from that institution as having been worth less and less. I was never challenged in school, though I was in some of the tougher classes (until my Senior year, that is, when I spent most of my time in shop - a course of study that is paying me off in spades now, as I am rehabbing a house, and I still remember how to use a table saw I just bought). I played football, lifted weights, made good grades, scored 31 on the ACT, and didn't give a shit.
> on the contrary most of the people I've met who went to private school seem to have grown up in a > fairyland vacuum where everyone is rich and white and polite
I've never even met anyone who went to school at a private school, honestly. I've met a couple people who went to magnet schools, and the stories they've told were scary enough (it wasn't unusual for someone to bring a gun to school, for people to sell drugs in the halls, etc. - but, then, it was a weird bunch of people where one girl came to school dressed only in a flag, so that would have made it sort of cool).
I've met people who were home schooled, and I must say that I was impressed with the results of that. When I have kids, I will certainly home school them. To do otherwise would be to deprive them of a proper education.
Problem is, when I do that, I'll be spending all the money I would otherwise spend for them to go to school, and spending the money for curriculum material and whatnot for them at home. I think my tax dollars that are devoted to education should be returned to me when I have children, for so long as I choose to home school them. I think all other parents should have that prerogative, as well. Were that the case, I'd have no problem paying a reasonable amount of taxes for education in general.
I realize that I don't live in a vacuum - hell, I'm rehabbing in a "disadvantaged" neighborhood and starting a community garden to get all the neighbors involved and get everyone working as a community. I do believe, though, that it should be I who makes the decisions about the education of my children, and who makes the decisions about how the money that I pay that should follow the child for his/her education rather than going to a local government monopoly for the indoctrination of my neigbhors' children.
> (Witness George W, running for president, unlike most other "youthful indescretion" drug > users who are in jail).
I have no problem on a personal level with someone who wants to kill themselves with drugs (I don't want to pay for their rehabilitation or medical care, but it should be legal for them to kill themselves slowly with that crap).
That said, it does strike me as inherently skewed that this is the case. This is one reason that I won't vote for W. The other reasons are too numerous to list, but the biggest is that he is intellectually dishonest, and his stance on the issues (today) don't jibe with mine.
> And I don't buy that "competition" makes schools (or more importantly, education) better.
What, then, would you suggest?
The answer isn't dollars-per-student, because kids were getting a better education in the '50s for far less (constant) dollars than they get now.
The answer isn't student/teacher ratio - that ratio is "better" now than it was in the '50s and '60s, and yet the quality of education continues to decline.
Add to that all the crap Jon Katz writes about (which is real, by the way - a friend's mom is a nurse in a school district that is going to implement Mosaic 2000), and public schools get worse and worse.
> Public schools currently compete too much, IMHO. They waste half their time teaching to the > standardized test (because that's what their funding is based on!) rather than educating.
This is a fundamental problem with public schools. I agree with you. The solution? Well, get rid of standardized tests. Colleges will have to work a little harder doing their own tests for screening potential students, but the onus is on them to do so, anyway.
> They compete with each other and other school districts for funding, and more importantly for > the financial impact being the "best district/school in the state" has. A good school > district brings companies (and thus $$$), a bad one makes employees reluctant to transfer there.
Right! Why do people move to "good school districts", then, when they could move to a bad one and, by "contributing" their dollars, help to improve it?
The answer: they want a good quality education for their children, and don't want to waste their time or their kids' time on the useless crap doled out by a bad school district. An education is too fundamental a thing to play "social experimentation" with.
The bad school district should, then, simply find itself without students and go away. To me, this sounds like a good plan. Good school districts will be able to pick up the slack from bad ones that close, since resources would follow the children, and they'll be hell bent to maintain a great quality education, since it is their reputation and the quality of their results that will keep new kids coming into their hallowed halls.
>> it's best if we're able to make those decisions for ourselves > That's the logic I don't understand. Any major decision affects other people, therefore those > other people shouldn't have any input on the decision?
No.
What I do inside my house, inside my yard, inside my car, at my place of business, is my own business.
How I choose to spend my own money, what I choose to buy, how I choose to while away my time, the things I eat and drink, the activities in which I participate, are my own affairs.
How I educate my children, what schools they attend (well, that's actually their decision), the values I transmit to them, are all my business, and I don't want you trying to help me make decisions about these things unless I ask you for help.
If you go sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong, don't be surprised if it gets bloodied. That's the nature of the beast.
If you're my neighbor, and I'm playing my music too loud, you'll have to come over and ask me to turn it down. Like as not, I'll be glad to honor your request - we all live there, and we all want as little friction as possible, because it makes life easier. If you try to force me to buy an electric car rather than an old pickup truck, though, we're going to have a fundamental disagreement - because what I drive is none of your damn business. Get it?
So long as I don't harm you, it shouldn't matter what I do. My right to swing my fists ends at the tip of your nose - as your right to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose.
> Quite frankly, I don't want the chemical plant owner "making the decision for himself" whether > or not to dump his waste into the ground (and thus into the water table and our > drinking/bathing water.
That is why we have "courts". If it is found that the chemical company has damaged your property or your health or your livelihood by dumping waste, or that it has damaged a "communal property", like an aquifer, then he is liable.
Ultimately, the chemical manufacturer will make the decision for himself as to whether or not to dump some chemicals, anyway, and the mere existence of regulations won't stop him. Regulations aren't magical, and neither is government. It is the enforcement of these regulations, and the civil and criminal liability that he is likely to face, that will keep him from dumping carelessly. He will act rationally, and not dump carelessly, or justice will surely find him.
> If you want to make the choice not to fund the public schools that you (and everyone else) > benefit from, then no the choice is only yours insofar as you and the rest of the community (the > electorate) can agree it's a good idea.
So, if the majority of people in my community agree that a voucher program is warranted, then it's a good idea? Hey, we agree!
If the voters in my community believe that vouchers are bad, well, I have a couple of choices. I can educate my children as I see fit anyway, paying taxes that I am coerced to pay, while dourly biting my lip to hold back a torrent of dissatisfaction, or I can move - depriving my community of all the rest of the benefits they derive from my presence.
> And don't kid yourself that this won't have religious repercussions. If 80% of the community > sends their kids/vouchers to a Catholic school, then how the hell are the Jewish or Muslim kids > gonna get the education they deserve without taxpayer-sponsored religious instruction that is > contrary to their beliefs? If it's not profitable to make a non-religious school in an > area, it won't get built.
So the kids are bussed or driven (by their caring parents) to a school slightly farther away. By the way, I know Jewish and Protestant kids who have attended Catholic schools (the education was superior to the rival public schools - imagine that!).
If there is enough demand in an area for a school that caters to a given community, then it will exist - the market will demand it, and someone will provide it, and they will do a good job, or someone else will do it better. Schools, contrary to popular belief, do not have to be the prison-like complexes currently being built to house the next crop of little inmates. Learning can take place in the living room.
> As someone who respects my rights (especially those so sensitive as to be enumerated in the > Constitution) I find it disturbing that we're so eager to hand them all over in an eagerness to > (maybe) save a few dollars.
First off, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of rights in relation to the Constitution. Your rights are not enumerated there - they are "naturally" yours (see Locke). The Bill of Rights lists specific rights that the framers and signers of the Constitution wanted legally protected from the oppressive tendencies of a tyrannical government (see society today).
What rights, specifically, are you losing by people using school vouchers? The Constitution doesn't set out a program for education, but only sets aside one section of land in each township for school use. It doesn't speak any more of education, to my knowledge (which may be a bit sketchy, I'll have to admit).
By making me pay taxes for something I'll never use, you are stealing directly from me, and that's an abrigation of my rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (Locke actually penned this as Life, Liberty, and Property, but the founding fathers had to concede that not everyone could or would be a property owner - they were wise, though I think the Property clause should have remained).
Also, school vouchers are not about saving money. You'll spend the money in any case, whether sending your children to public schools, private schools, or schooling them at home. You should be able to choose what form that education takes, and since the money you pay in education-related taxes should also be for educating your children, you should be able to choose where and how to spend that money in pursuit of that lofty goal.
> Businesses have no responsibility to protect your speech or religion or privacy.
That is true. It is YOUR responsibility to do so. Freedom has attached to it a modicem of responsibility. It is when the ability to be responsible for your speech, religion, or privacy is taken from you, that a problem occurs.
Freedom and Responsibility are like Love and Marriage - you can't have one without the other.
> Private schools will have no issues with prayer at football games -- they can just kick you out > if they don't like your attitude...
Unlikely. It would be economically unwise, and financially irresponsible, for them to do so.
Besides, that's what choice is all about. If you don't like the policies in a given school, send your kids elsewhere or teach them at home. That is your duty as a parent - to be responsible for the proper upbringing of your child, including his education.
If you cannot afford to send your kids to a private school, or to a church school, or to home school them, public school is your alternative. It just so happens that it is a poor alternative. If you could use the money that is being spent for your child to attend that public school anyway, by virtue of your mailing address, to educate your child in the best way you know how, then your child gets a better education and society is all the better for it. THAT is the crux of the voucher issue.
Choice is at stake, and it is choice for which I will fight.
> You're paying for the same rteason that people wihtout kids pay school taxes -- no one lives in > a vacuum. The kids that go to school are the adults, voters, employees, employers, and > neighbors of tomorrow.
That's all well and good, but:
Given that I have children about whom I care, Given that that caring includes a deep interest in the quality of their education, Given that money is by no means in limitless supply, If I'm paying for my child's education in taxes anyway, should I not be able to send my child to a private school that I trust to provide them with a solid education (which I will certainly supplement at home)?
Your argument about those who do not have children also paying taxes is by far the most meritous argument I've seen. But, that only serves to spread misery equally.
Given that you and I and our neighbors and friends and families will all pay taxes for education, Given the fact that public education in this country leaves much to be desired, Given that competition in the marketplace of education will make things better for the consumers (the kids who attend, and the parents who send them), Given that a better-educated populus will make this country a more reasonable place to live, Why not promote competition in schooling by using the tax money that everyone pays to give to children's parents for the education of their children?
The school vouchers advocated by many libertarians is an admission that they do not live in a vacuum, but rather that they will pay taxes like everyone else. What they want to do with the tax dollars otherwise wasted on public schools is to educate their children rather than paying a government monopoly to turn them into sheep.
Make no mistake: public schools are a travesty, and an utter waste of tax money.
School vouchers will see children whose parents give a rat's rectum about the education of their children (and that is, contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of parents) going to better educational institutions than they might otherwise have been able to attend because the parents aren't made of money.
Poorly run public schools that provide poor-quality education will be forced out of the market and will necessarily shut down. Yes, children whose parents don't care about their educations will lose a choice in which school to attend, but it was obviously a terrible choice to begin with, and the kids will end up better educated in a different school because the bad one is gone.
An honest question: what do you have against parents having a choice on where to send their children to school?
A thinly-veiled attempt to couch the issue in a class-warfare emotional quagmire: would you deny poor children a quality education by forcing them to attend substandard public schools, when allowing school vouchers would see them potentially reaching their fullest potential at a quality institution?
> This, ultimately is my greatest disagreement with pure libertarian thought -- that it never > acknowledges the communal reality of existence in modern times...
Really? Seems to me that the school voucher issue doesn't fit with that notion of libertarian ideology. Also, when libertarians are trying to make things better for themselves and their families, the truth of the matter is, they'll make things better for you and for the rest of society in doing so. Making a stink about the degradation of the Fourth Amendment does, in fact, serve to help you, for instance.
It is also a fact that, no matter how large or small the community in which we live, we must each make choices that, for better or worse, affect our lives and the lives of those around us. Libertarian thought simply states that it's best if we're able to make those decisions for ourselves.
Not many people live on mountains in cabins with no electricity, running water, telephones, or contact with the outside world (you can be sure that there are some, but not many). I would never deny those who choose to live that way the freedom to do so - they've made a choice as to how they want to live their lives, and I want them to just knock themselves out doing so. Would you interfere in their lives "for their own good"?
Can you honestly say that more choice is a bad thing?
> Libertarians also support school vouchers because they beleive that school vouchers with > privatize public education. The reality of the situation is that school vouchers will still > require taxes period. ACtually, they will require bigger taxes. It's just plain silly for > the libertaians to support school vouchers since there are real privitisation alternatives > which do not require tax funding.
What libertarians are doing when they propose school vouchers is recognizing that they're going to pay taxes anyway - but they want to redirect the funds that come back from the government for educating their children in the way they want them educated.
If you pay taxes (including school district taxes), but you also have to pay tuition and fees and whatnot for your child to attend a private school, why the Hell are you paying school taxes? If you are paying into the kitty to educate your child, you should be able to choose what form that education takes!
People should either be able to spend their school tax money on educating their children the way they want (including stipends, food, texts, and supplies for homeschooling), or they should be able to opt out of the taxation altogether ("my kid attends West Highbrow Private Academy - why am I also paying for him to attend East Dumbfuck High School?").
> Specifically, require public and private school to design their schedule to allow students to mix > and match classes from public and private schools.
Placing requirements of these kinds on private schools pretty much negates the whole idea of school privatization, wouldn't you agree? Also, there are definite problems with logistics.
> This would allow people who know how to teach one thing very well, like science, literature, > religion, etc., to specilize without being forced to provide for all the students > educational needs.
Then they'd have to provide transportation to and from all these institutions of learning - a logistics nightmare.
Why not privatize, and attract the best teachers for each subject that you can attract, and provide a good quality education to the kids whose parents are paying for their children to attend your school?
Public schools that provide poor quality education should have competition - there is no reason, nor need, for an educational monopoly. In the long run, monopoly in education hurts everyone worse than a Microsoft monopoly in the software world, and in an immeasurably fundamental way.
> It's really amazing that the libertarians are proposing school vouchers over this sort of > reform (which is clearly more in-line with their plhiosophy).
Obviously, you are not terribly acquainted with libertarian philosophies in issues like these. I suppose that, in a strict sense, you've grokked the "free market" ideology of privatizing education, but you've come at it from the wrong direction.
Having a Catholic school teach religion, while a math school teaches mathematics, and a grammar school teaches English (heheh...), leads to far too much time spent in transit between these schools. Educational quality would actually suffer if this approach were taken.
Libertarians are pragmatists, as well. Their philosophical problems with public education as it exists cannot override the facts that, if they do not want to be thrown in jail or lose their property, they must give the money that the government demands at gunpoint for education. What they can do, and what they are doing, is proposing that this money be used in a way that the parents see fit, returning the power to choose (and ultimately part of the power of the free market) to the fore.
> Property is a more sticky issue then most libertarians realize since a lack of fair-use > protections quickly degenerates into a form of slavery.
Any libertarian (with a small "L") worth his salt knows this. None that I know would disagree with the statement, "I bought this DVD movie, so I should be able to see its contents when, where, and how I choose."
> Anywho, I'm just saing that you should not assume that your fellow libertarians understand > the issue as well as you do.
In general, libertarians (again, with the small "L") are the folks who have taken the time to ponder their beliefs - to have really thought them through before taking a stand. What your statements have shown me is that you do not understand the libertarian viewpoint on any of these issues in the slightest.
... is a commercial web and POP-based email service that charges, say, $25.00 for a lifetime email address.
The gist of the business is this:
We can't guarantee absolutely that you won't see any spam here, but we will monitor our mail transport daemons for high-volume traffic from any one address, and investigate that address. We will also investigate spam mail forwarded to us by our users. The point of this investigation would be to pursue legal and monetary damages from a spammer, putting known spammers (or those whose emails are obviously spam - say, sending email to everyone at your domain at the same time)on deny lists, and charging, say, $100 per email processed and bounced. Emails from spammers will be sampled and examples of these emails sent to root@ and abuse@ and postmaster@ of the domains of origin. Make it clear that if the spammer is not dealt with in rapid fashion, or if the domain does not clamp down on its practices, you will start charging THEM for processing emails from that domain.
There has to be a legitimate service business idea floating around in that flotsam somewhere.
The GPL prevents Sun from accepting bug fixes to their product and reusing that code in a commercial version of the same product, or a related product.
Look at it this way:
I am Sun. I release Some Great Thing 1.2 as a GPL software.
You are J. Random Hacker, who thinks Some Great Thing 1.2 is really nifty, but there are a couple of things about it that bug you. You pick up the sources, fix them, and submit patches to my maintainers at Sun.
I pick up these patches, evaluate them, decide that you, J. Random Hacker, are a talented individual, and that your patches are good. I integrate them into the tree, and your patches are included in Some Great Thing 1.3.
But...
I also have a product, Some Greater Thing, that shares parts of its codebase with Some Great Thing, and you've patched it. Now I can't take the code from Some Great Thing that you've patched and integrate it into Some Greater Thing - thereby forcing a fork in my own internal development!
_This_, primarily, is why I won't use the GPL.
If I were to write a piece of software that I'd like reviewed by the open source community (and I am), I will release it under a really free license, then I can take any patches the community submits and integrate them into my "real" tree, and make that code available both for external use (by the open source community that's helping me with it because they find the basic premise and functionality of my code to be worth their time for whatever reason), and for internal use by my own hackers, so that we can use that code to put beans on the table.
Slashdot Mirror
At 100 comments per page, flat, -1, (instead of 50, nested, -1), the results are similar. comments 100.199, and probably others, are gone.
Where are these comments?
50..199, 250..299, 350..399, 550..649.
A friend told me there was interesting discussion here.
So, I came back after an enormous hiatus. What I find is appalling.
He said interesting comments started around #100 in this article. However, when I click to go to page 2, it looks the same as page 1. Page 3, too. I think it changes, finally, at page 4, after having skipped 100 or 150 messages, where the "good stuff" was.
Is Slashdot censoring?
The NERVE of those people.
Toughen up, chump. Life sucks. Get a fuckin' helmet.
Actually, I favor abolishment in stages.
- Anyone may, at any time, opt out of the system.
- In doing so, you lose forever government benefits that may assist you in your retirement, or which may aid your family if you die.
- You may choose to take what you've paid in so far as a lump, or to voluntarily forfeit that money to the government (if you are filled with "good will" - and I might just opt to do this...).
- Should you choose to stay in the system, you will receive benefits based upon your age.
- Those 55 and older (born before the end of WWII) will receive full benefits.
- Those 40-55 will receive 60% benefits (this is an arbitrary number).
- Those 30-40 will receive 30% benefits (again, arbitrary).
- Those younger than 30 receive no benefits - you have to fend for yourself! Better plan ahead!
- Those who can demonstrate a real, unadulterated hatred for HTML are eligible for special benefits.
As you get older, you have less time for your planning to pay off, so you may receive benefits. There is no excuse for anyone 40 years old or younger to have to rely upon the government, picking the pockets of the rest of society, for your retirement but, because the government has been stealing from you all your life, the government will pay some benefit to those 30 and older.With careful planning, someone making $22,000/yr. can retire comfortably (as will likely be evidenced by my mother, who makes about that much after more than 25 years of employment).
Anyone not able to make that kind of money is not sufficiently motivated. McDonald's pays shitty wages for shitty work because it is an entry-level job, not meant to make you rich, but meant to give a pimply-faced teenager a taste of the working world, hopefully to motivate them to bigger and better things. I worked at McDonald's as a teen, and never saw it as a career path, but as a plain old job.
--Corey
> We have a constitutional right to anonymity? Just curious?
My take on this is, we have a Constitutional protection for Speech. If you feel that, in order to protect yourself from stigma attached to words you feel _must_ be said, you may do so anonymously.
It's the same principle followed by those who wrote "The Federalist Papers". There were several men who did that, and they all used a common pen name. In that way, they were able to put forth ideas into the going public debate without bringing the Redcoats to their homes to burn them down and kill them, their wives, and their children.
--Corey
> Please review the Second Amendment. It states:
... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble ...".
...".
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
> people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Correct. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed ".
Now, these are the same people about whom it is said, "Congress shall make no law
These are the same people about whom it is said, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
These are the very same people about whom it is said, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
It is that last phrase which turns the trick, you see. It is clearly the intent of the framers of the Constitution to separately address the freedoms of the people versus those of the state versus those of the United States. Looking back over historical documents to determine the intent of the founders as to the application of laws (a practice which has legal merit, and which is not uncommon when dealing with issues of protected rights), it is clear that they wanted the people armed in the same fashion as the armies of the day, so that proper resistance could be brought to bear against a tyrannical regime. They secured, in that document, our right to arm ourselves the same way as our military so that we could fight our military should it be necessary. That is the final check on the government assured by the Constitution - the sovereign right of the people to resist oppression. The Second Amendment was not put in place so that we could defend our home state or nation, exclusively. Remember, the revolutionaries of the day fought their own sovereign government - and won.
Now, I might be able to come up with a hypothetical case wherein a nuclear device would be necessary to further the cause of Liberty, if pressed hard enough.
--Corey
> Nuclear weapons are arms as well. Do you propose that those should be allowed? Fertilizer bombs?
Certainly. If I so choose, I should be able to manufacture and store a nuclear device in my garage. The real limiting factor here is the practicality of such a device.
I cannot afford the uranium/plutonium for such a device. Nor can I afford the machine tools for crafting such a device. There are safety issues with radiation and such that would seriously lessen my desire to own such a device. Therefore, even though I have the right to own and keep one, I will, in all likelihood, never do so.
Fertilizer bombs? Certainly, again. Granted, the materials are cheap and plentiful, and the technology doesn't require any special preparation, so it's available to anyone. The problem is again one of practicality. If I were to create one of these devices in my garage, chances are, it would blow up my house - that stuff is unstable. But, if it became necessary to use a fertilizer bomb to wipe out a platoon of invading soldiers (foreign or domestic), I would want to be able to have the material on hand to be able to build just such a device. To do so would be to stand up for my ideals and those that founded this nation - that tyranny should not go unchecked, and that the power to govern rests with the people, not with whomever can field a large army.
> The right to bear arms may or may not be noble. This is not the place to argue that point.
You are correct. A right cannot be said to be (or not to be) noble. It just _is_. There is, and can be, no argument to this point. I find myself having problems with those who, without honest and rational debate, want to preclude my rights secured to me by the Constitution. They cannot do so, anyway, and they are free to try, but that they are not simply laughed off their podiums is the most strikingly disgusting point of all. It makes me sick to be an American in this day and age - we've forgotten what we stood for.
> What I am saying is that there is absolutely *no way* to permanently safeguard the right to
> bear arms.
Ah, but you're wrong. Given the right to bear arms (which is not _given_, but _secured_ - and there is a _huge_ difference in mindset there, if you choose to examine it logically), that right will protect itself (and, not coincidentally, all the others besides)!
The only way we lose rights is when people don't take the time to rationally think about what they're giving up. People give up their rights in this country - they're not taken away. If people would simply stand up, en masse, and say one word, all this insanity would come to a grinding halt. That word is, "NO".
> But that doesn't matter because there will eventually be no way to censor ideas, and ideas
> are far more powerful than guns.
That's a very nice thought, but it doesn't seem to hold a lot of water. When it's YOU under the microscope of censorship, you will certainly wish you had a freer forum in which to say what you want. Without the means to secure that forum, deriving from the right to protect oneself from tyranny inherent in the Second Amendment, your wishes will do you no good. When a people can resist invasion, whether by foreign or domestic power interests, their freedom is more likely to be secured.
--Corey
Please, please moderate this up to "+5 Insightful".
This is exactly the same thought I had when I read this news before. "Oh, shit. Now there'll be a 64-bit architecture with 4 general purpose registers (eeax?), and an insane ISA."
For the love of God, please do not do this, AMD!
--Corey
... is Intel's Pentagram 4 logo reminiscent of the MacOS logo?
--Corey
1953-1954: 230 cid 6-cylinder
1955-1956: 265 cid V8 (the first small-block)
1957-1962: 283 cid V8 (the first 1-hp-per-cubic-inch engine)
1963-1967: 327 cid V8
1968-2000: 350 cid V8
1967-1969: 396 cid V8 (the big block)
1967-1969: 427 cid V8
1970-1972: 402 cid V8
1970-1976: 454 cid V8
1990-199?: 350 cid ZR-1 V8 (this wasn't available in any other GM vehicle).
There were, of course, variations on carburetion and heads and cams and whatnot...
--Corey
> You probably have to put a lot of work into it though, eh?
:-)
;-)
Yep.
Don't even think about it unless you're willing to do a great deal of remodeling work.
But, the neighborhood is on the upswing. If you know anything about Soulard, this is the next Soulard. It's raining soup, be there with a bucket.
--Corey
I've jumped into a project that might be of some interest to some folks here.
:).
I've recently purchased and begun renovating a 114+ year-old house in North St. Louis. The neighborhood is pretty run-down, but it is going to come back to life in the next few years (I'll make sure it does). The house is about 4000 ft^2, and cost me $4,500. It's an all-brick structure, but in need of a complete replumbing, rewiring, and refinishing inside. The windows are boarded up, etc.
The place is gorgeous, though. It has big, nice wide woodwork, a spiral staircase, balcony porches, and a big, big room in the attic that will be my lab (I even have computer-room flooring to put in it now...
What I'd be interested in are opinions here, and maybe leads to more information - are there other geeks out there who, like me, love beautiful old houses and unique architecture, who can (and are eager to learn how to) remodel houses, and who would like to participate in a NAN (neighborhood area network - did I coin a new term?) with perhaps a shared fat-pipe to the Internet?
I'd like to be able to get together a partnership with a/some telecomm company who'd like to score a big PR coup, and to accelerate the rejuvenation of this beautiful neighborhood.
Will geeks move buy and move in if such an opportunity arose?
--Corey
> If not us, then who? I think we can pretty much agree that running protesting students over with
> tanks is a bad thing, yes?
Yes (Kent State).
> How about the blatant censoring of material that it displeasing to the Communist Party?
Yes (FBI Files).
> The jailing and oppression of political
dissenters and non-standard religions?
Yes (Branch Davidians).
> You're argument is a variation on the ad hominem fallacy. If a person who says, "It is
> wrong to murder", is himself a murderer, does it make his statement any less true?
No, but it makes the person a hypocrite.
Note, though, that I support normalization of relations between the U.S. and Cuba, and that I do not support this relationship with China.
Cuba is our neighbor, and China is not. Cuba has no real ability to threaten U.S. interests, and China does (Panama Canal, U.S. nuclear technology, political blood-money). I cannot bring myself, as much as I am in favor of free trade and the benefits that go with it, and the responsibilities that come with those benefits, to support opening trade permanently with a regime like China.
Can someone (preferably a Chinese person) tell me just what is so bad about Falun Gong?
--Corey
I remember reading the Mach source code a few years ago, and they had a layer called "SCSINet" or something like it. It was a way to do IP over SCSI (which, because of its greater bandwidth, lower latency, and priority levels, etc., could lead to neat hacks like distributed shared memory).
So, yes, it's been done. It's even been done in the open.
It's hacks like this, and the ability to have multiple ethernet interfaces (think: switched private Gb ethernet) that make me wonder just why in the hell people buy proprietary cluster solutions (DEC's memory channel - 40MB/sec.) when open standards are quite possibly better, and certainly less expensive.
Makes me wanna puke.
--Corey
"Soap box, Ballot box, Ammunition box; use in that order."
.sig.
Indeed, the framers intended for the citizenry to be the last, best check against a tyrannical government. Their other writings reflect this fact irrefutably. There have been Supreme Court cases decided on the "original intent" of the framers of our Constitution.
These old, dead, slave-owning white guys knew what they were about. The fact that they were "angry white males" (you're damned right they were angry - they just won their independence from a tyranny), and "slave owners" (the social and economic thought of the day was that these things were necessary to the maintenance of a working farm - whether or not that is or was true is quite irrelevant) is simply a moot point.
The Constitution is not about "political correctness". There is no guarantee therein that you should be able to live your life without being offended by someone else's words. In fact, the First Amendment guarantees you and me and everyone else the RIGHT to speak our minds (but gives us no guarantee that anyone will listen).
It is unfortunate that the Second Amendment, which so clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"", was not worded in such a way that it is clear even to those who would deprive us of that right (first) today. Had I the ability to travel back in time, I would have pushed for clarification of that clause.
It is more unfortunate, however, that people in modern America have chosen, blindly, to give away their rights and liberties to obtain a measure of temporary safety. Mr. Franklin has a wonderful quote to this effect, and my reply to him is in my
It is a fact that governments around the world have killed 170 million of their own citizens in the twentieth century. This spans from Germany to the USSR to Cambodia. Had the U.S. not been fortunate enough to have a string of major victories while island-hopping in the Pacific Ocean during World War II, how long do you think it would have taken for there to be an overwhelming outcry for our government to "solve the Japanese problem"? Those already interred would have been utterly defenseless, and those not yet confined may have at least had a chance to escape, certainly aided by right-minded Other-Than-Japanese American citizens.
America is not immune from a tyrannical government. Hitler was the duly-elected legal Chancellor of Germany, remember.
--Corey
My take on these answers is that the guy did answer them in a straightforward, sensible fashion.
Linux is not the end-all-be-all of operating systems technology, nor will it be for a long, long time (if ever).
There are many issues to discuss, including the availability issue. Issues such as hot-plug PCI, journalling filesystems, etc. are not just playtoys; they are real, necessary technologies that will bar entry into the "enterprise". Linux does not currently have these technologies in its repertoir (though they are being worked diligently on).
When Linux has this stuff, then it can compete feature-for-feature with commercial Unices. Until then, it cannot. That's not to say that it has no place beside them - it obviously does - and that's not to say that it won't eventually catch up - it obviously will.
That is the reason SCO is showing interest in Linux, and why Monterey will require Linux binary compatibility. They expect Linux to be a large share of that market, and a growing concern.
But, we should welcome their input with open arms. Though SCO's stuff has lacked in flexibility and performance in the past, they do have some great technology, and my theory is that they will eventually contribute it.
The more, the merrier.
--Corey
Hi Mr. Adams,
Since reading your books in the eighth grade, I have never forgotten to keep my towel with me at all times. This simple advice has gotten me out of countless jams, including a run-in with a ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
So, thank you.
Now, though, I am older. I want to hand down your words of wisdom to my children and my children's children.
Is there some place I could buy a leather-bound set of your books suitable to become family heirlooms, that your words may rest aside those of Shakespeare and Chaucer in my library?
Thanks,
--Corey
I might, instead, suggest tequila. There's already a worm in the bottom of the bottle (well, in some bottles), so it would be the most logical choice.
Maybe tequila is the exotic matter to which they refer?
--Corey
> Straight off, I get the message that this user is not in the appropriate group to su to root.
That is a *feature*, not a bug. Next time, put your "normal" user in the "wheel" group. Then, you'll be able to su just fine.
> I mean, how difficult would it be for the installer to list the services, (with all of them
> off by default) and let you choose which ones to install?
My first take on this is, "not hard". But, then I think a little deeper. If you do this, then a lot of clueless folks will do "enable everything", and you're back to square one. Best if you treat a Unix box like a Unix box, and learn what risks you take *before* opening yourself up to them.
> Or even to ask what normal user accounts should be in the admin group?
At install time, what "normal" user accounts does it know about? IIRC, it doesn't ask you to set up a normal user account - it assumes that you will know to do that (though it's been a good while since I've installed it - though I run it every day - so my memory may be Swiss cheese).
--Corey
> Although I suppose you could always say education could be better, the fact of the matter
> is that all the countries with "better" educational systems are far behind us in
> virtually every segment of technology, business, and finance.
Other countries have problems with their best and brightest coming to be educated at our universities, and then staying here because they like living here rather more than at home. While that's no skin off my nose (hey, I like foreigners pretty well... talk with 'em, and listen to their stories, and you'll like 'em, too), that's where a lot of our technology and whatnot comes from. Not a day goes by that IBM or someone doesn't come out with some newfangled revolutionary contraption that has at least two names attached to it that are difficult to pronounce - but they're coming out with innovations, so I don't care what country the researchers hail from.
> I went to public school and don't feel I was robbed of a good education
As did I, but schools were different even a decade ago than they are today. Even in the high school from which I graduated, I've recently heard of stupid games played by teachers and administrators (I cannot remember the nature of said games, at the moment) that disgusted me.
As I look back on it, I see the education that I got from that institution as having been worth less and less. I was never challenged in school, though I was in some of the tougher classes (until my Senior year, that is, when I spent most of my time in shop - a course of study that is paying me off in spades now, as I am rehabbing a house, and I still remember how to use a table saw I just bought). I played football, lifted weights, made good grades, scored 31 on the ACT, and didn't give a shit.
> on the contrary most of the people I've met who went to private school seem to have grown up in a
> fairyland vacuum where everyone is rich and white and polite
I've never even met anyone who went to school at a private school, honestly. I've met a couple people who went to magnet schools, and the stories they've told were scary enough (it wasn't unusual for someone to bring a gun to school, for people to sell drugs in the halls, etc. - but, then, it was a weird bunch of people where one girl came to school dressed only in a flag, so that would have made it sort of cool).
I've met people who were home schooled, and I must say that I was impressed with the results of that. When I have kids, I will certainly home school them. To do otherwise would be to deprive them of a proper education.
Problem is, when I do that, I'll be spending all the money I would otherwise spend for them to go to school, and spending the money for curriculum material and whatnot for them at home. I think my tax dollars that are devoted to education should be returned to me when I have children, for so long as I choose to home school them. I think all other parents should have that prerogative, as well. Were that the case, I'd have no problem paying a reasonable amount of taxes for education in general.
I realize that I don't live in a vacuum - hell, I'm rehabbing in a "disadvantaged" neighborhood and starting a community garden to get all the neighbors involved and get everyone working as a community. I do believe, though, that it should be I who makes the decisions about the education of my children, and who makes the decisions about how the money that I pay that should follow the child for his/her education rather than going to a local government monopoly for the indoctrination of my neigbhors' children.
> (Witness George W, running for president, unlike most other "youthful indescretion" drug
> users who are in jail).
I have no problem on a personal level with someone who wants to kill themselves with drugs (I don't want to pay for their rehabilitation or medical care, but it should be legal for them to kill themselves slowly with that crap).
That said, it does strike me as inherently skewed that this is the case. This is one reason that I won't vote for W. The other reasons are too numerous to list, but the biggest is that he is intellectually dishonest, and his stance on the issues (today) don't jibe with mine.
> And I don't buy that "competition" makes schools (or more importantly, education) better.
What, then, would you suggest?
The answer isn't dollars-per-student, because kids were getting a better education in the '50s for far less (constant) dollars than they get now.
The answer isn't student/teacher ratio - that ratio is "better" now than it was in the '50s and '60s, and yet the quality of education continues to decline.
Add to that all the crap Jon Katz writes about (which is real, by the way - a friend's mom is a nurse in a school district that is going to implement Mosaic 2000), and public schools get worse and worse.
> Public schools currently compete too much, IMHO. They waste half their time teaching to the
> standardized test (because that's what their funding is based on!) rather than educating.
This is a fundamental problem with public schools. I agree with you. The solution? Well, get rid of standardized tests. Colleges will have to work a little harder doing their own tests for screening potential students, but the onus is on them to do so, anyway.
> They compete with each other and other school districts for funding, and more importantly for
> the financial impact being the "best district/school in the state" has. A good school
> district brings companies (and thus $$$), a bad one makes employees reluctant to transfer there.
Right! Why do people move to "good school districts", then, when they could move to a bad one and, by "contributing" their dollars, help to improve it?
The answer: they want a good quality education for their children, and don't want to waste their time or their kids' time on the useless crap doled out by a bad school district. An education is too fundamental a thing to play "social experimentation" with.
The bad school district should, then, simply find itself without students and go away. To me, this sounds like a good plan. Good school districts will be able to pick up the slack from bad ones that close, since resources would follow the children, and they'll be hell bent to maintain a great quality education, since it is their reputation and the quality of their results that will keep new kids coming into their hallowed halls.
>> it's best if we're able to make those decisions for ourselves
> That's the logic I don't understand. Any major decision affects other people, therefore those
> other people shouldn't have any input on the decision?
No.
What I do inside my house, inside my yard, inside my car, at my place of business, is my own business.
How I choose to spend my own money, what I choose to buy, how I choose to while away my time, the things I eat and drink, the activities in which I participate, are my own affairs.
How I educate my children, what schools they attend (well, that's actually their decision), the values I transmit to them, are all my business, and I don't want you trying to help me make decisions about these things unless I ask you for help.
If you go sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong, don't be surprised if it gets bloodied. That's the nature of the beast.
If you're my neighbor, and I'm playing my music too loud, you'll have to come over and ask me to turn it down. Like as not, I'll be glad to honor your request - we all live there, and we all want as little friction as possible, because it makes life easier. If you try to force me to buy an electric car rather than an old pickup truck, though, we're going to have a fundamental disagreement - because what I drive is none of your damn business. Get it?
So long as I don't harm you, it shouldn't matter what I do. My right to swing my fists ends at the tip of your nose - as your right to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose.
> Quite frankly, I don't want the chemical plant owner "making the decision for himself" whether
> or not to dump his waste into the ground (and thus into the water table and our
> drinking/bathing water.
That is why we have "courts". If it is found that the chemical company has damaged your property or your health or your livelihood by dumping waste, or that it has damaged a "communal property", like an aquifer, then he is liable.
Ultimately, the chemical manufacturer will make the decision for himself as to whether or not to dump some chemicals, anyway, and the mere existence of regulations won't stop him. Regulations aren't magical, and neither is government. It is the enforcement of these regulations, and the civil and criminal liability that he is likely to face, that will keep him from dumping carelessly. He will act rationally, and not dump carelessly, or justice will surely find him.
> If you want to make the choice not to fund the public schools that you (and everyone else)
> benefit from, then no the choice is only yours insofar as you and the rest of the community (the
> electorate) can agree it's a good idea.
So, if the majority of people in my community agree that a voucher program is warranted, then it's a good idea? Hey, we agree!
If the voters in my community believe that vouchers are bad, well, I have a couple of choices. I can educate my children as I see fit anyway, paying taxes that I am coerced to pay, while dourly biting my lip to hold back a torrent of dissatisfaction, or I can move - depriving my community of all the rest of the benefits they derive from my presence.
> And don't kid yourself that this won't have religious repercussions. If 80% of the community
> sends their kids/vouchers to a Catholic school, then how the hell are the Jewish or Muslim kids
> gonna get the education they deserve without taxpayer-sponsored religious instruction that is
> contrary to their beliefs? If it's not profitable to make a non-religious school in an
> area, it won't get built.
So the kids are bussed or driven (by their caring parents) to a school slightly farther away. By the way, I know Jewish and Protestant kids who have attended Catholic schools (the education was superior to the rival public schools - imagine that!).
If there is enough demand in an area for a school that caters to a given community, then it will exist - the market will demand it, and someone will provide it, and they will do a good job, or someone else will do it better. Schools, contrary to popular belief, do not have to be the prison-like complexes currently being built to house the next crop of little inmates. Learning can take place in the living room.
> As someone who respects my rights (especially those so sensitive as to be enumerated in the
> Constitution) I find it disturbing that we're so eager to hand them all over in an eagerness to
> (maybe) save a few dollars.
First off, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of rights in relation to the Constitution. Your rights are not enumerated there - they are "naturally" yours (see Locke). The Bill of Rights lists specific rights that the framers and signers of the Constitution wanted legally protected from the oppressive tendencies of a tyrannical government (see society today).
What rights, specifically, are you losing by people using school vouchers? The Constitution doesn't set out a program for education, but only sets aside one section of land in each township for school use. It doesn't speak any more of education, to my knowledge (which may be a bit sketchy, I'll have to admit).
By making me pay taxes for something I'll never use, you are stealing directly from me, and that's an abrigation of my rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (Locke actually penned this as Life, Liberty, and Property, but the founding fathers had to concede that not everyone could or would be a property owner - they were wise, though I think the Property clause should have remained).
Also, school vouchers are not about saving money. You'll spend the money in any case, whether sending your children to public schools, private schools, or schooling them at home. You should be able to choose what form that education takes, and since the money you pay in education-related taxes should also be for educating your children, you should be able to choose where and how to spend that money in pursuit of that lofty goal.
> Businesses have no responsibility to protect your speech or religion or privacy.
That is true. It is YOUR responsibility to do so. Freedom has attached to it a modicem of responsibility. It is when the ability to be responsible for your speech, religion, or privacy is taken from you, that a problem occurs.
Freedom and Responsibility are like Love and Marriage - you can't have one without the other.
> Private schools will have no issues with prayer at football games -- they can just kick you out
> if they don't like your attitude...
Unlikely. It would be economically unwise, and financially irresponsible, for them to do so.
Besides, that's what choice is all about. If you don't like the policies in a given school, send your kids elsewhere or teach them at home. That is your duty as a parent - to be responsible for the proper upbringing of your child, including his education.
If you cannot afford to send your kids to a private school, or to a church school, or to home school them, public school is your alternative. It just so happens that it is a poor alternative. If you could use the money that is being spent for your child to attend that public school anyway, by virtue of your mailing address, to educate your child in the best way you know how, then your child gets a better education and society is all the better for it. THAT is the crux of the voucher issue.
Choice is at stake, and it is choice for which I will fight.
--Corey
> You're paying for the same rteason that people wihtout kids pay school taxes -- no one lives in
> a vacuum. The kids that go to school are the adults, voters, employees, employers, and
> neighbors of tomorrow.
That's all well and good, but:
Given that I have children about whom I care,
Given that that caring includes a deep interest in the quality of their education,
Given that money is by no means in limitless supply,
If I'm paying for my child's education in taxes anyway, should I not be able to send my child to a private school that I trust to provide them with a solid education (which I will certainly supplement at home)?
Your argument about those who do not have children also paying taxes is by far the most meritous argument I've seen. But, that only serves to spread misery equally.
Given that you and I and our neighbors and friends and families will all pay taxes for education,
Given the fact that public education in this country leaves much to be desired,
Given that competition in the marketplace of education will make things better for the consumers (the kids who attend, and the parents who send them),
Given that a better-educated populus will make this country a more reasonable place to live,
Why not promote competition in schooling by using the tax money that everyone pays to give to children's parents for the education of their children?
The school vouchers advocated by many libertarians is an admission that they do not live in a vacuum, but rather that they will pay taxes like everyone else. What they want to do with the tax dollars otherwise wasted on public schools is to educate their children rather than paying a government monopoly to turn them into sheep.
Make no mistake: public schools are a travesty, and an utter waste of tax money.
School vouchers will see children whose parents give a rat's rectum about the education of their children (and that is, contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of parents) going to better educational institutions than they might otherwise have been able to attend because the parents aren't made of money.
Poorly run public schools that provide poor-quality education will be forced out of the market and will necessarily shut down. Yes, children whose parents don't care about their educations will lose a choice in which school to attend, but it was obviously a terrible choice to begin with, and the kids will end up better educated in a different school because the bad one is gone.
An honest question: what do you have against parents having a choice on where to send their children to school?
A thinly-veiled attempt to couch the issue in a class-warfare emotional quagmire: would you deny poor children a quality education by forcing them to attend substandard public schools, when allowing school vouchers would see them potentially reaching their fullest potential at a quality institution?
> This, ultimately is my greatest disagreement with pure libertarian thought -- that it never
> acknowledges the communal reality of existence in modern times...
Really? Seems to me that the school voucher issue doesn't fit with that notion of libertarian ideology. Also, when libertarians are trying to make things better for themselves and their families, the truth of the matter is, they'll make things better for you and for the rest of society in doing so. Making a stink about the degradation of the Fourth Amendment does, in fact, serve to help you, for instance.
It is also a fact that, no matter how large or small the community in which we live, we must each make choices that, for better or worse, affect our lives and the lives of those around us. Libertarian thought simply states that it's best if we're able to make those decisions for ourselves.
Not many people live on mountains in cabins with no electricity, running water, telephones, or contact with the outside world (you can be sure that there are some, but not many). I would never deny those who choose to live that way the freedom to do so - they've made a choice as to how they want to live their lives, and I want them to just knock themselves out doing so. Would you interfere in their lives "for their own good"?
Can you honestly say that more choice is a bad thing?
--Corey
> Libertarians also support school vouchers because they beleive that school vouchers with
> privatize public education. The reality of the situation is that school vouchers will still
> require taxes period. ACtually, they will require bigger taxes. It's just plain silly for
> the libertaians to support school vouchers since there are real privitisation alternatives
> which do not require tax funding.
What libertarians are doing when they propose school vouchers is recognizing that they're going to pay taxes anyway - but they want to redirect the funds that come back from the government for educating their children in the way they want them educated.
If you pay taxes (including school district taxes), but you also have to pay tuition and fees and whatnot for your child to attend a private school, why the Hell are you paying school taxes? If you are paying into the kitty to educate your child, you should be able to choose what form that education takes!
People should either be able to spend their school tax money on educating their children the way they want (including stipends, food, texts, and supplies for homeschooling), or they should be able to opt out of the taxation altogether ("my kid attends West Highbrow Private Academy - why am I also paying for him to attend East Dumbfuck High School?").
> Specifically, require public and private school to design their schedule to allow students to mix
> and match classes from public and private schools.
Placing requirements of these kinds on private schools pretty much negates the whole idea of school privatization, wouldn't you agree? Also, there are definite problems with logistics.
> This would allow people who know how to teach one thing very well, like science, literature,
> religion, etc., to specilize without being forced to provide for all the students
> educational needs.
Then they'd have to provide transportation to and from all these institutions of learning - a logistics nightmare.
Why not privatize, and attract the best teachers for each subject that you can attract, and provide a good quality education to the kids whose parents are paying for their children to attend your school?
Public schools that provide poor quality education should have competition - there is no reason, nor need, for an educational monopoly. In the long run, monopoly in education hurts everyone worse than a Microsoft monopoly in the software world, and in an immeasurably fundamental way.
> It's really amazing that the libertarians are proposing school vouchers over this sort of
> reform (which is clearly more in-line with their plhiosophy).
Obviously, you are not terribly acquainted with libertarian philosophies in issues like these. I suppose that, in a strict sense, you've grokked the "free market" ideology of privatizing education, but you've come at it from the wrong direction.
Having a Catholic school teach religion, while a math school teaches mathematics, and a grammar school teaches English (heheh...), leads to far too much time spent in transit between these schools. Educational quality would actually suffer if this approach were taken.
Libertarians are pragmatists, as well. Their philosophical problems with public education as it exists cannot override the facts that, if they do not want to be thrown in jail or lose their property, they must give the money that the government demands at gunpoint for education. What they can do, and what they are doing, is proposing that this money be used in a way that the parents see fit, returning the power to choose (and ultimately part of the power of the free market) to the fore.
> Property is a more sticky issue then most libertarians realize since a lack of fair-use
> protections quickly degenerates into a form of slavery.
Any libertarian (with a small "L") worth his salt knows this. None that I know would disagree with the statement, "I bought this DVD movie, so I should be able to see its contents when, where, and how I choose."
> Anywho, I'm just saing that you should not assume that your fellow libertarians understand
> the issue as well as you do.
In general, libertarians (again, with the small "L") are the folks who have taken the time to ponder their beliefs - to have really thought them through before taking a stand. What your statements have shown me is that you do not understand the libertarian viewpoint on any of these issues in the slightest.
--Corey
... is a commercial web and POP-based email service that charges, say, $25.00 for a lifetime email address.
The gist of the business is this:
We can't guarantee absolutely that you won't see any spam here, but we will monitor our mail transport daemons for high-volume traffic from any one address, and investigate that address. We will also investigate spam mail forwarded to us by our users. The point of this investigation would be to pursue legal and monetary damages from a spammer, putting known spammers (or those whose emails are obviously spam - say, sending email to everyone at your domain at the same time)on deny lists, and charging, say, $100 per email processed and bounced. Emails from spammers will be sampled and examples of these emails sent to root@ and abuse@ and postmaster@ of the domains of origin. Make it clear that if the spammer is not dealt with in rapid fashion, or if the domain does not clamp down on its practices, you will start charging THEM for processing emails from that domain.
There has to be a legitimate service business idea floating around in that flotsam somewhere.
--Corey
No.
The GPL prevents Sun from accepting bug fixes to their product and reusing that code in a commercial version of the same product, or a related product.
Look at it this way:
I am Sun. I release Some Great Thing 1.2 as a GPL software.
You are J. Random Hacker, who thinks Some Great Thing 1.2 is really nifty, but there are a couple of things about it that bug you. You pick up the sources, fix them, and submit patches to my maintainers at Sun.
I pick up these patches, evaluate them, decide that you, J. Random Hacker, are a talented individual, and that your patches are good. I integrate them into the tree, and your patches are included in Some Great Thing 1.3.
But...
I also have a product, Some Greater Thing, that shares parts of its codebase with Some Great Thing, and you've patched it. Now I can't take the code from Some Great Thing that you've patched and integrate it into Some Greater Thing - thereby forcing a fork in my own internal development!
_This_, primarily, is why I won't use the GPL.
If I were to write a piece of software that I'd like reviewed by the open source community (and I am), I will release it under a really free license, then I can take any patches the community submits and integrate them into my "real" tree, and make that code available both for external use (by the open source community that's helping me with it because they find the basic premise and functionality of my code to be worth their time for whatever reason), and for internal use by my own hackers, so that we can use that code to put beans on the table.
--Corey