I think Jacob Nielsen is the Rush Limbaugh of design: A blowhard with no grasp of the facts.
IF he didn't pretend like his opinions were fact, or in some objective sense true, he wouldn't be as annoying.
Hell, I know people who still think images on webpages are overkill... They're free to design their sites with that in mind if they want... but they don't go telling everyone that theirs is the One True Way.
Nielson is not an authority- he's just opinionated.
Assuming that money can be reinvested more profitably than the shareholders could, you're right.
For a growing company, that's a good strategy. For a company that can't use that money to grow faster than the investors could grow the money (compensating for the taxes the investors would pay) its better to distribute the money to investors.
Notice that Microsoft now has a dividend... that tells you something about their future ability to grow using the $40 billion they have. Apple has great prospects for growth, provided it can come up with a strategy to start converting some of those millions of PC users out there.
Microsoft doesn't have much market share it can take from apple-- and like linux-- Apple has the game set up such that the only way to beat Apple is to out compete them in quality, which MS can't do. So MS can only use protectionism to compete... and this has been successful, but there's nowhere left for them to go.
Thats kinda silly-- Apple does control their hardware-- nothing draconian about it.
AS to their software, they are not trying to be the only software provider for their platform-- they spend millions every year building free development tools, and working to get the message out.
They built safari and then released a killer webkit to allow any app builder to easily put a html renderer (or web browser) into thier app. This isn't draconian-- they recognize that there are a lot of apps that could use web or http access conveneintly for unexpected things, and so they provide support for it.
Apple is really kicking ass in developmetn tools-- they aren't top of the line yet, but they have a lot more momentum than even open source ones like eclipse. They want everyone to develop for the mac platform.
The only places where they are competing head to head with third party developers are ones where those developers are working to kill the mac platform.
Premiere on the mac SUCKED and has sucked for years, driving many Mac users to windows. Office is designed to do the same thing.
Thank god apple is finally going after those people who are working to undermine their platform and showing that the best of breed video editing (for instance) is once agian on the mac platform.... and with good reason given the great multimedia platofrm they've built with quicktime and their hardware.
This isn't control-- its support for the platform!
Re:And I suspect most of us feel the same way...
on
LGPL is Viral for Java
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
The intent and purpose of the GPL is to prevent anyone anywhere from selling, or otherwise making money off of any software. That is the goal.
Thus, the LGPL which is sort of a compromise on this goal is going to always be problematic.
I don't work with or deal with any form of GPL software for these reasons-- it creates too much risk... and we have enough people in our lives trying to force us to conform to their ideology.
Its ironic that GPL stuff is called "Free" and non-GPLed stuf is called "open source"-- when GPL lets you see the source, but you are not free to use it, except in a narrow way.
I understand the thinking behind this, but the industry has progressed to the point where everyone sees the value in contributing back to the code base-- and I believe BSD style software will eventually outpace GPL styled software becuase of the more free license with BSD.
The FSF needs to re-work their licenses and make them Free, instead of Open. Too many companies and individuals have shied way from contributing to GPL software because of these concerns.
Seriously. The reason you guys get the shaft so often is the taxing and regulatory environment there makes it very difficult to offer deals like this.
You guys throw of the chains of socialism, and you'll get a lot more of the benefits of capitalism than just more special deals on computer hardware and software.
Alas, though, you're about to have a constitution imposed on you that denies human rights and I suspect things are going to get much worse there in the near term.
But I digress. The reason you don't get these deals is Brussels won't allow them, or makes it too much trouble to be worth doing because Apple would get no benefit from it.
Except that liberals support the war on drugs, oppose gay marraige want ot regulate tattooing and ban not only adult movies, but even rock music!
Or is "Tipper Gore" a republican? When was the last time any democrat voted to against the war on drugs? The Patriot act? introduced a bill to end the ban on gay marriage?
They're just as bad as republicans.
And they're worse in one important way-- they want the wholesale slaughter of americans.
uring the 20th century, over 100 million civilians were killed by their own governments, more than in all 20th century wars combined. In each case, extermination followed gun confiscation. 1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated. 1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, 40-60 million "class enemies," unable to defend themselves, were exterminated. 1935: China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese "class enemies," unable to defend themselves, were exterminated. 1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Catholics, Gypsies and others, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated in Nazi controlled Europe. 1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "class enemies," unable to defend themselves, were exterminated. 1966-1976: China still had gun control. Millions of more "class enemies," still unable to defend themselves, were exterminated in Mao's "Cultural Revolution". 1990s: Rwanda established gun control. In 100 days in 1994, over 800,000 Tutsis, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated by machete-wielding Hutus backed by armed government militias.
%21 of nurses belong to a union? Not according to the nurses I've known.
You guys will believe whatever you want to believe-- its always the same with liberals. You have no limit to your desire for violence, and so you'll grasp on to any straw as an excuse to justify the killing and abuse of those you hate-- generally the wealthy.
The common expression of this, of course, is the gulag... and look we just recently surpassed russia for the highest percentage of our citizens behind bars!
There's no point in arguing with you because you are armed with no facts, refuse to learn, and have no understanding of economics.
I don't know why I waste my time expecting a common criminal wannabe-- someone who doesn't even have the guts to commit the robbery himself-- to recognize the immorality of the violence he advocates.
Its unfortunate that you don't recognize that the nazis were the socialist party of germany at the time. that's what "Nazi" means-- its what the acronym of the National Socialists sounds like.
Teachers salaries are irrelevant. The economics behind my statements are correct.
That you found the flash presentation belittling is something I don't believe-- I think you just have no counter argument and so you attack it. Its logical and explains a set of concepts that so many socialists just can't grasp.
Maybe you need to watch it again--- if you got it, you'd understand that you have no moral authority to be a fascist. And if you combined that with some economics understanding-- read Henry Hazlit's Economics in One Lesson, its a quick read-- you'd recognize that your numbers make no sense at all.
At any rate, you do not have the right to demand that people use guns to steal money for you.
Wrong. Sorry, but you've got false information, and you're not going to listen to me about it. Maybe if you read some history books you'd know... companies did not attack workers for unionizing-- union thugs attacked workers for NOT unionizing. The union was, and still is, an arm of the mafia demanding protection money.
That you want to force everyone to do business with the mafia against their will, is a sad position. I've pointed out the truth-- refusing to believe it is your responsibility.
So you claim, but the voting research I've done says those "regular joes" just want to be left alone to smoke some dope on the weekend, not be taxed so much, not have to deal with so much red tape all the time, and are, totally and fundamentally fed up with the two party system.
They're bright enough to see the sham that you guys are putting forth with your spy vs spy antics.
Those regular joes will start voting, and vote libertarian, as soon as they understand libertarianism.
Libertarianism is a movement that is rising exponentially while the party meanders along with low vote counts... the movement has little to do with the party, but when it reaches critical mass, it will happen quickly.
Maybe. At that point, you have to do the math and see.
On average, though, people put minimum down, buy the largest house they can and get a 30 year mortgage and are out in 7 years.
Since rents are tied to the real estate market, I think in most cases your rents will actually be lower than the effective rent of a house-- because the houses are being priced on the market right then, but rents are not. Rents are less market sensetive and more likely to lag the market.
You are so right! Unfortunately, I suspect our/. friends have swallowed their watered down marxism and mixed it with bigotry and hatred to the point that they cannot see thru their anger to the fact that you are telling it like it is.
Every study done of the situation backs my points-- unions siphon off all the profits, lowering wages and driving companies into bankruptcy.
Wonder why the airlines can't make it? Southwest-- which is unionized (as they are forced to be by the government) is profitable because they have such a good relationship with their employees the union has no power. All the other airlines, where the union does have power, are teetering on bankruptcy.
Except that, as I pointed out, his workers were not making a low wage-- they were making the highest wages in the country!
Bottom line is-- you think that someone making a choice you don't like should be forbidden. (You call it demeaning-- you guys are always calling things bad terms to try and justify your fascism).
Unions are p[art of the reason we have so many poor people-- high taxes are another part of it. But you're mind is made up, and you' won't listend to the facts.
Hell, you'll just ignore them and insist Henry Ford was paying those people bottom of the barrel wages.
Cause the truth doesn't fit your fascist agenda.
But freedom is me and my employer being able to reach agreement on my working conditions-- without your sticking your nose in and demanding that I have to take vacation (When I'd rather give it up and be paid more), or whatever your petty little mind wants to FORCE US to do.
Always it comes down to force with you guys-- you're so violent.
Why do you not only insist on getting your way, but have to bring guns into it? And you don't even have the guts to do it yourself-- you hire thugs from the government to force companies to accept unions-- unions that eventually drive them into bankruptcy as they did Chrysler and the airlines.
There's not effective distinction between an assault weapon-- which is a made up term to begin with-- and a hunting rifle.
"Assault weapons"-- those banned by the law-- are used in far less than %1 of the murders in this country.
You're 1,000 times more likely to be murdered with a knife than with an "assualt weapon".
Shouldn't you guys be banning knives instead?
Yes, I have been to alaska.
You know, in alaska, virtually everyone carries a gun. It seems they are able to restrain themselves from getting into gun fights over car accidents and such.
Actually, in all the times I've been around people with guns, I've never seen them get into a fight... gun owners tend to be a lot mroe level headed than non-gun owners.
You oppose guns because you're afraid YOU'll use it to kill someone irresponsibly-- because you can't trust yourself.
I find it funny that you're claiming that we should ban assault weapons because you can "kill more people" with them-- which is patently false-- you can kill just as many people with a pistol or any firearm. Furthermore, your logic rests on teh assumption that criminals will follow the law!
No, you are trying to force your immorality on everyone else because you are insecure about firearms. But the reality is, private ownership of firearms does not cause the mayhem you fantasize about, and generally, in places where people are allowed to own and carry concealed, crime rates are much LOWER.
More guns, less crime. Its an axiom that has held true in every example I've ever seen-- look at britian. Hell, look at the beltway snipers-- an illegally purchased gun (thus bannign them wouldn't have prevented it) used in an area where guns are totally banned-- insuring that none of the victims could shoot back.
Your position is that those people's only moral choice was to quietly die.
Actually, since 9/10 of the value of everything is lost to taxes and government inefficiency.... if libertarians had their way, anyone with $100,000 would have the purchasing power a millionaire does today!
The Dollar has lost %99 of its value over the last 70 years-- libertarians would not have destroyed the dollar (by stealing from americans thru government printing presses)... and we'd all be much better off.
I don't think you can multiply the two numbers- and say $1,000 would have the purchasing power of a million--- but there would be no poverty in a libertarian world.
All the dangers you see in libertarianism are false bogey men put forth by people who want to control you.
Its unfortunate that you think I should be the one to hire baby sitters and doctors for your kids-- you're the one who decided to have them, after all.
IF you can't provide those things for them, then you are irresponsible.... not those of us who would happily provide thes things to the truly needy if the likes of you would just kindly take your gun out of our face and stop DEMANDING that we OWE it to you!
Liberalism, at its root, is the desire to get something for nothing.
Yes, that's true... but alas the word Liberal has been taken over by the marxists.... and only a libertarian would notice my incorrect use of the word!:-)
Most people think the Democrats and Republicans are two different parties.
Actually, the gay community does not disagree. Unfortuantely, the "gay leadership" has been coopted by the democrats and no longer represents us.
Its interesting that they did this to us as well as the blacks... how short people's memories are, why it was only 40 years ago that the democratically controlled south was refusing to register black people to vote... prompting Condaliza Rice's fatehr to register republican-- only they would let him vote!
And yet, black people think republicans are racist... and you think democrats are pro-gay.
Sad, really. The Defense of Marriage act was passed in 1996, only a few years ago.
No, the system is broken. I'm glad you recognize that many conservatives oppose freedom as well-- but there is a party, and a movement, which does not.
Interestingly, this parties agenda is consistent with economics as well. Thus it will never be enacted-- those in power are in power for a reason, and protecting freedom isn't even on their list.
I'd includ conservatives in my sig, but the char limit is too restrictive. That's the closest I could get to getting my point across.
The problem with your position is your making up numbers and then ignoring economics.
I'd be happy to debate you, if you'd actually debate. But you have refused to respond to my positions, and apparently are not intellegent enough to comprehend the flash presentation (if you even watched it.)
Lif'es too short to waste time with marxists. Goodbye.
Well, that and since we've never had an elecction inthis country totally free of fraud, and people stil lthink "democracy" works... why not go wholesale into the fraud business?
Your link refers to a site which has nothing to do with Libertarianism. I suggest you fix it if you want me to look at it.
What? The link works for me. Your browser supports flash, right?
http://www.lairofluxlucre.com/flash/PhilosophyOf Li berty-english.swf
Is a flash animation about libertarianism.
Anyway, your numbers are mostly made up-- Hell you can send people to top of the line, exclusive private schools for $20,000 a year. IF the governmetn is spending $100k a year to NOT provide a high school education to most students then that just shows you how pathetic a job the government does.
Anyway, if you stopped taxing those people at half their income, and stopped taxing the people who produce the things they buy, their buying power would be equivilent to a ten times boost.
In other words, your position is that someone with $70,000 a year in buying power cannot raise a kid... and that doesn't make sense at all. Course, you're not saying that because you're ignoring that fact that taxes drive up the cost of everything so much.
At any rate, even if they only had $7k of buying power, they would be better off with THAT than the $3.5k they have now after the government takes half of it. (And no, they government does not privide services worth that much in a free market-- where ther'es competition to drive down the prices.)
Hell, in your (possibly made up) figures, a high school provided by the governmetn costs over 5 times what a school that the market provides would cost! And those are top of hte line schools! NEver mind the fact that private schoosl would be much cheaper if the government didn't have a monopoly on education to drive up the costs for them!
Go watch the flash animation.... don't go nosing around at the site and get offended that the guy does other stuff and use that as an excuse. If you want to provide a comperable flash animation, or website that presents your point of view, I'll be happy to watch it as well.
But if you want to support human rights, economics and the nature of objective reality forces you to be a libertarian. That you aren't one can only mean you havent' been exposed to it, are unwilling to consider it, or are ignorant of either economics or the nature of reality (Which are related, but not the same thing.)
For instance, socialists buy into the broken window theory-- and that is something you have indirectly supported. But it doesn't make realistic sense. (The broken window theory is the idea that if you break the window of a baker's shop, you have boosted the economy by making him replace it.)
Except that the Germans weren't using panzers to round up the jews. USually the germans had rifles, but were unloaded!
Australia and the UK have just recently enacted gun control, not so much in australia. The UK is working up to a holocaust as we speak, as their muder rate goes thru the roof.
Yes, its true, you can find lots of ignorant idiots who want to get rid of guns because they are unable to figure out that guns are a tool-- they are not evil.
Gun control is the idea that mathew shepard deserved to get raped and killed by a fence-- rather than have to explain how his attackers got those bullet holes.
You endorse gun control, you endorse rape and murder. You take gunes from people, and they can't defend themsevles.
How many women have been killed by estranged husbands because the waiting period forced them to go without a pistol after their lives were threatened?
Slashdot Mirror
I think Jacob Nielsen is the Rush Limbaugh of design: A blowhard with no grasp of the facts.
IF he didn't pretend like his opinions were fact, or in some objective sense true, he wouldn't be as annoying.
Hell, I know people who still think images on webpages are overkill... They're free to design their sites with that in mind if they want... but they don't go telling everyone that theirs is the One True Way.
Nielson is not an authority- he's just opinionated.
Best thing that could happen to apple. Especially if Apple hasn't already released their office suite.
We need to kill the myth that the Mac needs office to survive right here and now.
Assuming that money can be reinvested more profitably than the shareholders could, you're right.
For a growing company, that's a good strategy. For a company that can't use that money to grow faster than the investors could grow the money (compensating for the taxes the investors would pay) its better to distribute the money to investors.
Notice that Microsoft now has a dividend... that tells you something about their future ability to grow using the $40 billion they have. Apple has great prospects for growth, provided it can come up with a strategy to start converting some of those millions of PC users out there.
Microsoft doesn't have much market share it can take from apple-- and like linux-- Apple has the game set up such that the only way to beat Apple is to out compete them in quality, which MS can't do. So MS can only use protectionism to compete... and this has been successful, but there's nowhere left for them to go.
But I digress.
Thats kinda silly-- Apple does control their hardware-- nothing draconian about it.
AS to their software, they are not trying to be the only software provider for their platform-- they spend millions every year building free development tools, and working to get the message out.
They built safari and then released a killer webkit to allow any app builder to easily put a html renderer (or web browser) into thier app. This isn't draconian-- they recognize that there are a lot of apps that could use web or http access conveneintly for unexpected things, and so they provide support for it.
Apple is really kicking ass in developmetn tools-- they aren't top of the line yet, but they have a lot more momentum than even open source ones like eclipse. They want everyone to develop for the mac platform.
The only places where they are competing head to head with third party developers are ones where those developers are working to kill the mac platform.
Premiere on the mac SUCKED and has sucked for years, driving many Mac users to windows. Office is designed to do the same thing.
Thank god apple is finally going after those people who are working to undermine their platform and showing that the best of breed video editing (for instance) is once agian on the mac platform.... and with good reason given the great multimedia platofrm they've built with quicktime and their hardware.
This isn't control-- its support for the platform!
The intent and purpose of the GPL is to prevent anyone anywhere from selling, or otherwise making money off of any software. That is the goal.
Thus, the LGPL which is sort of a compromise on this goal is going to always be problematic.
I don't work with or deal with any form of GPL software for these reasons-- it creates too much risk... and we have enough people in our lives trying to force us to conform to their ideology.
Its ironic that GPL stuff is called "Free" and non-GPLed stuf is called "open source"-- when GPL lets you see the source, but you are not free to use it, except in a narrow way.
I understand the thinking behind this, but the industry has progressed to the point where everyone sees the value in contributing back to the code base-- and I believe BSD style software will eventually outpace GPL styled software becuase of the more free license with BSD.
The FSF needs to re-work their licenses and make them Free, instead of Open. Too many companies and individuals have shied way from contributing to GPL software because of these concerns.
When Europe stops being part of the second world.
Seriously. The reason you guys get the shaft so often is the taxing and regulatory environment there makes it very difficult to offer deals like this.
You guys throw of the chains of socialism, and you'll get a lot more of the benefits of capitalism than just more special deals on computer hardware and software.
Alas, though, you're about to have a constitution imposed on you that denies human rights and I suspect things are going to get much worse there in the near term.
But I digress. The reason you don't get these deals is Brussels won't allow them, or makes it too much trouble to be worth doing because Apple would get no benefit from it.
Except that liberals support the war on drugs, oppose gay marraige want ot regulate tattooing and ban not only adult movies, but even rock music!
Or is "Tipper Gore" a republican? When was the last time any democrat voted to against the war on drugs? The Patriot act? introduced a bill to end the ban on gay marriage?
They're just as bad as republicans.
And they're worse in one important way-- they want the wholesale slaughter of americans.
uring the 20th century, over 100 million civilians were killed by their own governments, more than in all 20th century wars combined. In each case, extermination followed gun confiscation.
1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, 40-60 million "class enemies," unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
1935: China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese "class enemies," unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Catholics, Gypsies and others, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated in Nazi controlled Europe.
1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "class enemies," unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
1966-1976: China still had gun control. Millions of more "class enemies," still unable to defend themselves, were exterminated in Mao's "Cultural Revolution".
1990s: Rwanda established gun control. In 100 days in 1994, over 800,000 Tutsis, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated by machete-wielding Hutus backed by armed government militias.
Ah, but no link eh?
%21 of nurses belong to a union? Not according to the nurses I've known.
You guys will believe whatever you want to believe-- its always the same with liberals. You have no limit to your desire for violence, and so you'll grasp on to any straw as an excuse to justify the killing and abuse of those you hate-- generally the wealthy.
The common expression of this, of course, is the gulag... and look we just recently surpassed russia for the highest percentage of our citizens behind bars!
There's no point in arguing with you because you are armed with no facts, refuse to learn, and have no understanding of economics.
I don't know why I waste my time expecting a common criminal wannabe-- someone who doesn't even have the guts to commit the robbery himself-- to recognize the immorality of the violence he advocates.
Its unfortunate that you don't recognize that the nazis were the socialist party of germany at the time. that's what "Nazi" means-- its what the acronym of the National Socialists sounds like.
Teachers salaries are irrelevant. The economics behind my statements are correct.
That you found the flash presentation belittling is something I don't believe-- I think you just have no counter argument and so you attack it. Its logical and explains a set of concepts that so many socialists just can't grasp.
Maybe you need to watch it again--- if you got it, you'd understand that you have no moral authority to be a fascist. And if you combined that with some economics understanding-- read Henry Hazlit's Economics in One Lesson, its a quick read-- you'd recognize that your numbers make no sense at all.
At any rate, you do not have the right to demand that people use guns to steal money for you.
Wrong. Sorry, but you've got false information, and you're not going to listen to me about it. Maybe if you read some history books you'd know... companies did not attack workers for unionizing-- union thugs attacked workers for NOT unionizing. The union was, and still is, an arm of the mafia demanding protection money.
That you want to force everyone to do business with the mafia against their will, is a sad position. I've pointed out the truth-- refusing to believe it is your responsibility.
So you claim, but the voting research I've done says those "regular joes" just want to be left alone to smoke some dope on the weekend, not be taxed so much, not have to deal with so much red tape all the time, and are, totally and fundamentally fed up with the two party system.
They're bright enough to see the sham that you guys are putting forth with your spy vs spy antics.
Those regular joes will start voting, and vote libertarian, as soon as they understand libertarianism.
Libertarianism is a movement that is rising exponentially while the party meanders along with low vote counts... the movement has little to do with the party, but when it reaches critical mass, it will happen quickly.
Maybe. At that point, you have to do the math and see.
On average, though, people put minimum down, buy the largest house they can and get a 30 year mortgage and are out in 7 years.
Since rents are tied to the real estate market, I think in most cases your rents will actually be lower than the effective rent of a house-- because the houses are being priced on the market right then, but rents are not. Rents are less market sensetive and more likely to lag the market.
You are so right! Unfortunately, I suspect our
If only they'd read up on some economics!
Nurses-- unionized and barely getting by.
Programmers-- well paid.
Every study done of the situation backs my points-- unions siphon off all the profits, lowering wages and driving companies into bankruptcy.
Wonder why the airlines can't make it? Southwest-- which is unionized (as they are forced to be by the government) is profitable because they have such a good relationship with their employees the union has no power. All the other airlines, where the union does have power, are teetering on bankruptcy.
Coincidence? Hmmmm.....
Except that, as I pointed out, his workers were not making a low wage-- they were making the highest wages in the country!
Bottom line is-- you think that someone making a choice you don't like should be forbidden. (You call it demeaning-- you guys are always calling things bad terms to try and justify your fascism).
Unions are p[art of the reason we have so many poor people-- high taxes are another part of it. But you're mind is made up, and you' won't listend to the facts.
Hell, you'll just ignore them and insist Henry Ford was paying those people bottom of the barrel wages.
Cause the truth doesn't fit your fascist agenda.
But freedom is me and my employer being able to reach agreement on my working conditions-- without your sticking your nose in and demanding that I have to take vacation (When I'd rather give it up and be paid more), or whatever your petty little mind wants to FORCE US to do.
Always it comes down to force with you guys-- you're so violent.
Why do you not only insist on getting your way, but have to bring guns into it? And you don't even have the guts to do it yourself-- you hire thugs from the government to force companies to accept unions-- unions that eventually drive them into bankruptcy as they did Chrysler and the airlines.
Cops are not highly trained.
There's not effective distinction between an assault weapon-- which is a made up term to begin with-- and a hunting rifle.
"Assault weapons"-- those banned by the law-- are used in far less than %1 of the murders in this country.
You're 1,000 times more likely to be murdered with a knife than with an "assualt weapon".
Shouldn't you guys be banning knives instead?
Yes, I have been to alaska.
You know, in alaska, virtually everyone carries a gun. It seems they are able to restrain themselves from getting into gun fights over car accidents and such.
Actually, in all the times I've been around people with guns, I've never seen them get into a fight... gun owners tend to be a lot mroe level headed than non-gun owners.
You oppose guns because you're afraid YOU'll use it to kill someone irresponsibly-- because you can't trust yourself.
I find it funny that you're claiming that we should ban assault weapons because you can "kill more people" with them-- which is patently false-- you can kill just as many people with a pistol or any firearm. Furthermore, your logic rests on teh assumption that criminals will follow the law!
No, you are trying to force your immorality on everyone else because you are insecure about firearms. But the reality is, private ownership of firearms does not cause the mayhem you fantasize about, and generally, in places where people are allowed to own and carry concealed, crime rates are much LOWER.
More guns, less crime. Its an axiom that has held true in every example I've ever seen-- look at britian. Hell, look at the beltway snipers-- an illegally purchased gun (thus bannign them wouldn't have prevented it) used in an area where guns are totally banned-- insuring that none of the victims could shoot back.
Your position is that those people's only moral choice was to quietly die.
I say, they had the right to defend themselves.
Yes. You ARE a Marxist. IF you think that's an absurd statement, you should read some Marx!
Actually, since 9/10 of the value of everything is lost to taxes and government inefficiency.... if libertarians had their way, anyone with $100,000 would have the purchasing power a millionaire does today!
The Dollar has lost %99 of its value over the last 70 years-- libertarians would not have destroyed the dollar (by stealing from americans thru government printing presses)... and we'd all be much better off.
I don't think you can multiply the two numbers- and say $1,000 would have the purchasing power of a million--- but there would be no poverty in a libertarian world.
All the dangers you see in libertarianism are false bogey men put forth by people who want to control you.
Its unfortunate that you think I should be the one to hire baby sitters and doctors for your kids-- you're the one who decided to have them, after all.
IF you can't provide those things for them, then you are irresponsible.... not those of us who would happily provide thes things to the truly needy if the likes of you would just kindly take your gun out of our face and stop DEMANDING that we OWE it to you!
Liberalism, at its root, is the desire to get something for nothing.
Hmm... maybe I should change my sig to that!
Yes, that's true... but alas the word Liberal has been taken over by the marxists.... and only a libertarian would notice my incorrect use of the word!
Most people think the Democrats and Republicans are two different parties.
Actually, the gay community does not disagree. Unfortuantely, the "gay leadership" has been coopted by the democrats and no longer represents us.
Its interesting that they did this to us as well as the blacks... how short people's memories are, why it was only 40 years ago that the democratically controlled south was refusing to register black people to vote... prompting Condaliza Rice's fatehr to register republican-- only they would let him vote!
And yet, black people think republicans are racist... and you think democrats are pro-gay.
Sad, really. The Defense of Marriage act was passed in 1996, only a few years ago.
No, the system is broken. I'm glad you recognize that many conservatives oppose freedom as well-- but there is a party, and a movement, which does not.
Interestingly, this parties agenda is consistent with economics as well. Thus it will never be enacted-- those in power are in power for a reason, and protecting freedom isn't even on their list.
I'd includ conservatives in my sig, but the char limit is too restrictive. That's the closest I could get to getting my point across.
The problem with your position is your making up numbers and then ignoring economics.
I'd be happy to debate you, if you'd actually debate. But you have refused to respond to my positions, and apparently are not intellegent enough to comprehend the flash presentation (if you even watched it.)
Lif'es too short to waste time with marxists. Goodbye.
Well, that and since we've never had an elecction inthis country totally free of fraud, and people stil lthink "democracy" works... why not go wholesale into the fraud business?
Your link refers to a site which has nothing to do with Libertarianism. I suggest you fix it if you want me to look at it.
f Li berty-english.swf
What? The link works for me. Your browser supports flash, right?
http://www.lairofluxlucre.com/flash/PhilosophyO
Is a flash animation about libertarianism.
Anyway, your numbers are mostly made up-- Hell you can send people to top of the line, exclusive private schools for $20,000 a year. IF the governmetn is spending $100k a year to NOT provide a high school education to most students then that just shows you how pathetic a job the government does.
Anyway, if you stopped taxing those people at half their income, and stopped taxing the people who produce the things they buy, their buying power would be equivilent to a ten times boost.
In other words, your position is that someone with $70,000 a year in buying power cannot raise a kid... and that doesn't make sense at all. Course, you're not saying that because you're ignoring that fact that taxes drive up the cost of everything so much.
At any rate, even if they only had $7k of buying power, they would be better off with THAT than the $3.5k they have now after the government takes half of it. (And no, they government does not privide services worth that much in a free market-- where ther'es competition to drive down the prices.)
Hell, in your (possibly made up) figures, a high school provided by the governmetn costs over 5 times what a school that the market provides would cost! And those are top of hte line schools! NEver mind the fact that private schoosl would be much cheaper if the government didn't have a monopoly on education to drive up the costs for them!
Go watch the flash animation.... don't go nosing around at the site and get offended that the guy does other stuff and use that as an excuse. If you want to provide a comperable flash animation, or website that presents your point of view, I'll be happy to watch it as well.
But if you want to support human rights, economics and the nature of objective reality forces you to be a libertarian. That you aren't one can only mean you havent' been exposed to it, are unwilling to consider it, or are ignorant of either economics or the nature of reality (Which are related, but not the same thing.)
For instance, socialists buy into the broken window theory-- and that is something you have indirectly supported. But it doesn't make realistic sense. (The broken window theory is the idea that if you break the window of a baker's shop, you have boosted the economy by making him replace it.)
I hope you'll watch the flash.
Except that the Germans weren't using panzers to round up the jews. USually the germans had rifles, but were unloaded!
Australia and the UK have just recently enacted gun control, not so much in australia. The UK is working up to a holocaust as we speak, as their muder rate goes thru the roof.
Yes, its true, you can find lots of ignorant idiots who want to get rid of guns because they are unable to figure out that guns are a tool-- they are not evil.
Gun control is the idea that mathew shepard deserved to get raped and killed by a fence-- rather than have to explain how his attackers got those bullet holes.
You endorse gun control, you endorse rape and murder. You take gunes from people, and they can't defend themsevles.
How many women have been killed by estranged husbands because the waiting period forced them to go without a pistol after their lives were threatened?