The every man for him/herself attitude died quite a while ago in public policy mostly because of the mass abuses of the powerful at the expense of the weak.
Spoken like the true advocate of class warfare that I now know you are.
The "powerful/rich" do not necessarily profit at the expense of the "weak/poor," dispite what John Keynes might have thought.
This line of thinking stems from the idea that economics is a zero-sum game, which any Econ 101 student can tell you is clearly false. There need be no loser for there to be a winner. The sum total of wealth in the world is not a static value.
Wealth and prosperity can indeed be created. To believe otherwise is to suggest that the sum total of wealth in the world today is the same as it was in the middle ages, or in pre-historic times; a viewpoint that can hardly be supported.
Perhaps you've never heard the expression "A rising tide lifts all boats..." There is no question that "the poor" in the United States today are far better off today than they were 30/40/50 years ago. Today's poor, for the most part, have a place to live, are rarely starving, have access to television, and telephones, and transportation. Most are employed.
The rich/poor conflict is a Red Herring. The wealthy invest their wealth, as a means of preserving or expanding it. This creates new businesses opportunities, new technologies, and new jobs.
Who do you think takes those new jobs? Certainly not the rich. The working class fills those new jobs, leaving vacancies that must be filled by others.
This kind of prosperity cannot be obtained through government. The government does not create jobs. The government need only stay out of the way, and allow the conditions which permit this kind of expansion to exist. The rest takes care of itself.
People are motivated by a rational self-interest. "What is best for me, and for those I care about?" The answer to that question, "what is best," is rarely government. The War on Poverty has been a dismal failure. With every dollar spent on social programs, why has the membership at or below "the poverty level" not diminished? Because every wealth redistribution plan concieved takes money out of the hands of they can and do make a beneficial contribution to society in the form of economic opportunity, and places it into the hands of those that can't.
Government exists to uphold and defend the rights of the citizenry. Every other task which is undertaken by government is doomed to failure, and would be better served by others.
Suppose I don't want to sit and there and "serve my country" do I become a nobody in society?
As opposed to now?
People that opted out of Federal service weren't persecuted in any way. They owned businesses, held jobs, and were otherwise free to pursue their own endeavors, just like everybody else.
You don't actually think that your vote, in today's political system, is relevant, do you?
Ok admit it how likely do you really think that this would be to actually happen in the US?
Obviously, this is not a change that could be enacted via the legislative process. You'd be hard pressed to find a politician who would make such a proposal, which would need to be a Constitutional amedment by it's nature; further, very few members of the voting masses would support a measure which ensured that it would be the last vote they ever cast.
That's not the point of the discussion.
There are basic liberties that should come without cost. The preservation of one's life, the ability to live without threat, the ability to have some modicum of food, water, shelter, etc. Also since politics are so important voting is in there as well.
There are basic liberties that should come without cost, but the ones you mention have little to do with them.
Liberty was described by John Stuart Mill as "the soul's right to breathe." Jefferson advocated "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," which is a more elegant way of saying Life, Liberty, and Property.
You, as a human being, should be entitled to manage your affairs as you see fit, to seek the betterment of your own condition, and that of your family. It ends there.
You are not entitled to Food, Water, or Shelter. You speak as though the procurement of these things comes without cost. Someone has to harvest that food... Someone has to purify, and bottle that water... And someone has to buy the materials, and provide the labor used in building that shelter. There are few things in life that come without cost, regardless of what the socialist utopians may have told you.
You have no right to demand the means of preservation from the rest of us, just as we have no right to demand sustainance from you.
Herein lies the problem of the unrestricted voting franchise; a problem the Romans found out about. No society can survive for long once the public learns that it can vote itself entitlements from the public coffers.
Look at the state of the nation, and tell me where the Entitlement seekers are leading the rest of us.
I would like to begin by echoing the sentiments of some of the other replies, in that finding means to exclude people from the process (historically along racial, or gender lines) is nothing new.
On the other hand, it is disgusting that a person's opinion could be so easily swayed as by a Kiss on television.
As time passes, I am forced to consider what could be done to change things. The politics of "Starship Troopers" have always intrigued me, particularly the viewpoint on the voting franchise.
For those not familiar with the book (which can't be many, considering how often it's come up on/.), in Heinlein's story, the voting franchise was reserved for people that had participated in Federal Service (Military, or some other form of Service). The idea was that only people which had put their own interests aside, for a time, to ensure the well being of the society, should have a voice in determining the course of that society.
Anyone could serve in some capacity. Even those with physical disability were offered the opportunity to serve in whatever capacity they were able. People which elected not to undertake such service were treated the same as everyone else... They lacked only the ability to vote.
Without turning this reply into a book review, this idea has merit as far as I'm concerned. Part of the problem with the voting franchise is that it comes without cost. If that franchise had to be earned, it would be more meaningful to those entitled to participate. Further, decisions would be made by people with a vested interest in the prosperity of the nation, which have also demonstrated a willingness to make a sacrifice to ensure that society's progress and survival.
Whether or not you support the ability of a community to set, and enforce standards (And I don't... Censorship of any kind is a job for parents, not community), I think the real issue here is that the Film Commission usurped the authority to act in this matter.
If a government agency, of any type, oversteps it's charter, and exceeds it's authority, then it must be challenged. If that challenge never comes, then the people have lost a little more control over their own lives and handed it over to political appointees that must continually justify their own existence. Appointees that don't answer at the ballot box...
This is one of those tired standard rebuttals to libertarian or self-defense advocates' ideas.
If your point had any merit whatsoever, you would not need to frame it in such ridiculous terms. Further, if my point had no merit, you wouldn't have to go to such lengths to discredit it.
Come up with something original, and plausible, rather than stealing from nntp://talk.politics.libertarian.bash.bash.bash.
Libertarians (which I consider myself to be) support gun rights so ardently for a number of reasons.
For starters, it is decidedly un-libertarian to initiate force against others, but the concept of resisting force, especially in regard to upholding rights, is a very libertarian idea. From our perspective, an armed person poses no threat to anyone, provided they harbor no hostile intention.
The ability to assert your rights, either against a tyrannical government, or the petty thief, is what is important, and there is simply no better tool for the job than a firearm.
Libertarians do not see a firearm as a menace to society, or to safety. They recognize that any tool, if used for the wrong purpose, can produce harmful results. By the same token, a tool, properly used, has a positive benfit.
A popular example would be to ask if a gun was good or bad in the hands of a rapist? What about if it were in the hands of the intended rape victim? This does a pretty good job of illustrating that the gun itself, an inanimate object, is neither good nor bad. It is only the manner in which it is employed that can be judged in such simple terms.
If libertarians were to use your "potential for harm" as a criteria for policy, how long do you think automobiles would remain legal? Far more people are injured and killed in automobile accidents each year than by firearms. For that matter, more people drown than are killed by firearms.
To determine whether your run-of-the-mill libertarian will be for, or against, something, you need only ask yourself a couple of simple questions. Can it be used to uphold and defend rights? Does it increase, or decrease, personal freedom? This are the basic litmus tests that I use to determine my feelings on any issue. They are easily adapted to most any situation.
You can get a PC Card socket for PCI bus as well. You're not limited to an ISA only solution.
Brumley and Associates sells both the ISA and the PCI adapter for Desktop/Tower computers. If I remember correctly, they go for $66.00 each.
But there's nothing special about the adapter... It's just a pcmcia controller, and socket. There's nothing about it that's specific to the WaveLAN card. I could easily go plug my modem into it.
...and (supposedly, I haven't tried) interoperates with other WaveLAN-compatible products.
Well, I have tried, it it works flawlessly (At least for the Lucent/Apple products). 802.11b compatible products (provided you mind the DSSS/FHSS issue) will all work together, just as Ethernet cards from different vendors work today. I've taken my laptop w/WaveLAN card to a friend's place, and operated through his AirPort.
I've also had him come over to my place with his iBook, and he has no problem connecting to my Linux "Base Station."
WaveLAN (as has been mentioned, Apple's product is the OEM version of WaveLAN Silver) is a fantastic product, and has been for quite a while.
It should also be noted that while Lucent hasn't completely opened up their drivers, they have actually gone to the trouble of releasing the Linux drivers themselves. I suspect that the reason the drivers aren't completely open has to do with the encryption stuff, as the same driver runs the Bronze (No encryption), Silver (40-bit WEP), and Gold (128-bit Proprietary) versions of their product.
You will pay a little extra for Lucent, no doubt about it, but they can be had online at astonishingly low prices compared to what WaveLAN used to cost. (I got started with the WaveLAN 900Mhz stuff... No MAC layer... Interstation tranmitting has to go through the WavePoint Bridge... No Ad Hoc... 1.5Mb/s on the best day...) A single adapter back then used to cost ~$450.00. The AccessPoint was in the Thousands (around $1800-$2400 if I'm not mistaken). I bought 3 Bronze cards a few weeks ago for $138.00 each. The Silver version is about $175.00.
These are the Turbo version, 802.11b HR (upto 11Mb/s).
You can order them at Brumley and Associates. This is the only online dealer listed at Lucent's WaveLAN site.
In practically every news story we've seen on this, prior to this one, I've seen comments to the effect that Norway's legal climate made him 'untouchable.'
What changed? I guess the better question would be: "What legal provisions does Norway offer to protect reverse engineering, and why is he now in trouble?"
Excellent point. How many of you, like myself, thought DeCSS was interesting when you first heard about, but had no need of it and continued about your life?
Later though, when MPAA started beating their chests, and filing lawsuits, I saw fit to download DeCSS for myself, just for safekeeping. I don't have a DVD-Rom in my machine currently, but I'm certain that I will at some point in the future.
I'm not going to be prevented from watching movies I purchased (70+ and counting) on the opertaing system of my choice.
That's probably the funniest part of this whole ordeal... Had they only provided us with the means for playing our movies under Linux, DeCSS might not even exist today. That's what they get for ignoring us.
It's perfectly natural for someone who doesn't understand "America" (the idea, rather than the nation) to lob pot-shots across the Atlantic about issues they aren't equipped to understand.
Why would someone unfamiliar with freedom have any qualms about seeing it extinguished for others?
Why would someone who's never enjoyed individual liberty anguish at seeing someone else's oppressed?
Your rant rings hollow; it's lack of perspective painfully evident. Please, focus your attention on determining your own future. We won't be needing your assistance in determining ours.
Folks, this is simply Lucent's WaveLAN product, which has been working with Linux for quite a while. I've been using it at home for 3 years. (Used to work at ATT... Old demo equipment headed for the scrap heap... No way would I have picked it up at List Price.) As for getting the ISA card to work, if you look at the WaveLAN pages, you'll notice that they have gone to a PCMCIA ISA card, with a PCMCIA WaveLAN adapter plugged into it. Card Services should handle this like any other PCMCIA device. To be certain, just add a genuine PC Card controller to your PC, and just buy the PC Card version of the product.
if they ever can triumph over microsoft, every GPL freak, 3l337 h4xx0r, and libertarian psycho will ditch them because theyve "sold out".
I have to laugh here... Why would a libertarian shun a company engaged in a lawful, non-coercive capalistic activity? Especially when it came to Linux, where there are no less than 4 mature distributions, countless minor ones, and the option of completely rolling your own.
Other than that quip, I essentially agree with what you've stated.
RedHat will never be in a position to restrict your choices when it comes to Linux. Ask any Debian, Slackware, or SuSE user. They can't co-opt the kernel, nor any of the other GNU software upon which they depend. Even if they developed the next "killer app," and decided not to release it's source, as a means of distinguishing themselves from the other distributions, what's the harm in that?
There is nothing inherently evil about making money. There is nothing inherently evil about selling something that's free, providing you can find a willing buyer.
There's certainly value in what RedHat does, bundling together an entire Linux distribution, producing useful documentation for it, and distributing it in a convienient format. It's admirable that they have been willing to pay developers to write code that will benefit not only themselves, but the Linux community at large.
Slashdot Mirror
Spoken like the true advocate of class warfare that I now know you are.
The "powerful/rich" do not necessarily profit at the expense of the "weak/poor," dispite what John Keynes might have thought.
This line of thinking stems from the idea that economics is a zero-sum game, which any Econ 101 student can tell you is clearly false. There need be no loser for there to be a winner. The sum total of wealth in the world is not a static value.
Wealth and prosperity can indeed be created. To believe otherwise is to suggest that the sum total of wealth in the world today is the same as it was in the middle ages, or in pre-historic times; a viewpoint that can hardly be supported.
Perhaps you've never heard the expression "A rising tide lifts all boats..." There is no question that "the poor" in the United States today are far better off today than they were 30/40/50 years ago. Today's poor, for the most part, have a place to live, are rarely starving, have access to television, and telephones, and transportation. Most are employed.
The rich/poor conflict is a Red Herring. The wealthy invest their wealth, as a means of preserving or expanding it. This creates new businesses opportunities, new technologies, and new jobs.
Who do you think takes those new jobs? Certainly not the rich. The working class fills those new jobs, leaving vacancies that must be filled by others.
This kind of prosperity cannot be obtained through government. The government does not create jobs. The government need only stay out of the way, and allow the conditions which permit this kind of expansion to exist. The rest takes care of itself.
People are motivated by a rational self-interest. "What is best for me, and for those I care about?" The answer to that question, "what is best," is rarely government. The War on Poverty has been a dismal failure. With every dollar spent on social programs, why has the membership at or below "the poverty level" not diminished? Because every wealth redistribution plan concieved takes money out of the hands of they can and do make a beneficial contribution to society in the form of economic opportunity, and places it into the hands of those that can't.
Government exists to uphold and defend the rights of the citizenry. Every other task which is undertaken by government is doomed to failure, and would be better served by others.
As opposed to now?
People that opted out of Federal service weren't persecuted in any way. They owned businesses, held jobs, and were otherwise free to pursue their own endeavors, just like everybody else.
You don't actually think that your vote, in today's political system, is relevant, do you?
Ok admit it how likely do you really think that this would be to actually happen in the US?
Obviously, this is not a change that could be enacted via the legislative process. You'd be hard pressed to find a politician who would make such a proposal, which would need to be a Constitutional amedment by it's nature; further, very few members of the voting masses would support a measure which ensured that it would be the last vote they ever cast.
That's not the point of the discussion.
There are basic liberties that should come without cost. The preservation of one's life, the ability to live without threat, the ability to have some modicum of food, water, shelter, etc. Also since politics are so important voting is in there as well.
There are basic liberties that should come without cost, but the ones you mention have little to do with them.
Liberty was described by John Stuart Mill as "the soul's right to breathe." Jefferson advocated "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," which is a more elegant way of saying Life, Liberty, and Property.
You, as a human being, should be entitled to manage your affairs as you see fit, to seek the betterment of your own condition, and that of your family. It ends there.
You are not entitled to Food, Water, or Shelter. You speak as though the procurement of these things comes without cost. Someone has to harvest that food... Someone has to purify, and bottle that water... And someone has to buy the materials, and provide the labor used in building that shelter. There are few things in life that come without cost, regardless of what the socialist utopians may have told you.
You have no right to demand the means of preservation from the rest of us, just as we have no right to demand sustainance from you.
Herein lies the problem of the unrestricted voting franchise; a problem the Romans found out about. No society can survive for long once the public learns that it can vote itself entitlements from the public coffers.
Look at the state of the nation, and tell me where the Entitlement seekers are leading the rest of us.
On the other hand, it is disgusting that a person's opinion could be so easily swayed as by a Kiss on television.
As time passes, I am forced to consider what could be done to change things. The politics of "Starship Troopers" have always intrigued me, particularly the viewpoint on the voting franchise.
For those not familiar with the book (which can't be many, considering how often it's come up on /.), in Heinlein's story, the voting franchise was reserved for people that had participated in Federal Service (Military, or some other form of Service). The idea was that only people which had put their own interests aside, for a time, to ensure the well being of the society, should have a voice in determining the course of that society.
Anyone could serve in some capacity. Even those with physical disability were offered the opportunity to serve in whatever capacity they were able. People which elected not to undertake such service were treated the same as everyone else... They lacked only the ability to vote.
Without turning this reply into a book review, this idea has merit as far as I'm concerned. Part of the problem with the voting franchise is that it comes without cost. If that franchise had to be earned, it would be more meaningful to those entitled to participate. Further, decisions would be made by people with a vested interest in the prosperity of the nation, which have also demonstrated a willingness to make a sacrifice to ensure that society's progress and survival.
If a government agency, of any type, oversteps it's charter, and exceeds it's authority, then it must be challenged. If that challenge never comes, then the people have lost a little more control over their own lives and handed it over to political appointees that must continually justify their own existence. Appointees that don't answer at the ballot box...
This is one of those tired standard rebuttals to libertarian or self-defense advocates' ideas.
If your point had any merit whatsoever, you would not need to frame it in such ridiculous terms. Further, if my point had no merit, you wouldn't have to go to such lengths to discredit it.
Come up with something original, and plausible, rather than stealing from nntp://talk.politics.libertarian.bash.bash.bash.
For starters, it is decidedly un-libertarian to initiate force against others, but the concept of resisting force, especially in regard to upholding rights, is a very libertarian idea. From our perspective, an armed person poses no threat to anyone, provided they harbor no hostile intention.
The ability to assert your rights, either against a tyrannical government, or the petty thief, is what is important, and there is simply no better tool for the job than a firearm.
Libertarians do not see a firearm as a menace to society, or to safety. They recognize that any tool, if used for the wrong purpose, can produce harmful results. By the same token, a tool, properly used, has a positive benfit.
A popular example would be to ask if a gun was good or bad in the hands of a rapist? What about if it were in the hands of the intended rape victim? This does a pretty good job of illustrating that the gun itself, an inanimate object, is neither good nor bad. It is only the manner in which it is employed that can be judged in such simple terms.
If libertarians were to use your "potential for harm" as a criteria for policy, how long do you think automobiles would remain legal? Far more people are injured and killed in automobile accidents each year than by firearms. For that matter, more people drown than are killed by firearms.
To determine whether your run-of-the-mill libertarian will be for, or against, something, you need only ask yourself a couple of simple questions. Can it be used to uphold and defend rights? Does it increase, or decrease, personal freedom? This are the basic litmus tests that I use to determine my feelings on any issue. They are easily adapted to most any situation.
You can get a PC Card socket for PCI bus as well. You're not limited to an ISA only solution.
Brumley and Associates sells both the ISA and the PCI adapter for Desktop/Tower computers. If I remember correctly, they go for $66.00 each.
But there's nothing special about the adapter... It's just a pcmcia controller, and socket. There's nothing about it that's specific to the WaveLAN card. I could easily go plug my modem into it.
Well, I have tried, it it works flawlessly (At least for the Lucent/Apple products). 802.11b compatible products (provided you mind the DSSS/FHSS issue) will all work together, just as Ethernet cards from different vendors work today. I've taken my laptop w/WaveLAN card to a friend's place, and operated through his AirPort.
I've also had him come over to my place with his iBook, and he has no problem connecting to my Linux "Base Station."
WaveLAN (as has been mentioned, Apple's product is the OEM version of WaveLAN Silver) is a fantastic product, and has been for quite a while.
It should also be noted that while Lucent hasn't completely opened up their drivers, they have actually gone to the trouble of releasing the Linux drivers themselves. I suspect that the reason the drivers aren't completely open has to do with the encryption stuff, as the same driver runs the Bronze (No encryption), Silver (40-bit WEP), and Gold (128-bit Proprietary) versions of their product.
You will pay a little extra for Lucent, no doubt about it, but they can be had online at astonishingly low prices compared to what WaveLAN used to cost. (I got started with the WaveLAN 900Mhz stuff... No MAC layer... Interstation tranmitting has to go through the WavePoint Bridge... No Ad Hoc... 1.5Mb/s on the best day...) A single adapter back then used to cost ~$450.00. The AccessPoint was in the Thousands (around $1800-$2400 if I'm not mistaken). I bought 3 Bronze cards a few weeks ago for $138.00 each. The Silver version is about $175.00.
These are the Turbo version, 802.11b HR (upto 11Mb/s).
You can order them at Brumley and Associates. This is the only online dealer listed at Lucent's WaveLAN site.
One is distributed and maintained by Lucent; Open Source wrapper for Binary only libraries.
The other is maintained as a fully open source implementation. The maintainer is Andrew Neuhaus.
Each work well, but the open source version isn't as fully featured yet. That should change soon. Lucent has been extremely cooperative.
In practically every news story we've seen on this, prior to this one, I've seen comments to the effect that Norway's legal climate made him 'untouchable.'
What changed? I guess the better question would be: "What legal provisions does Norway offer to protect reverse engineering, and why is he now in trouble?"
Excellent point. How many of you, like myself, thought DeCSS was interesting when you first heard about, but had no need of it and continued about your life?
Later though, when MPAA started beating their chests, and filing lawsuits, I saw fit to download DeCSS for myself, just for safekeeping. I don't have a DVD-Rom in my machine currently, but I'm certain that I will at some point in the future.
I'm not going to be prevented from watching movies I purchased (70+ and counting) on the opertaing system of my choice.
That's probably the funniest part of this whole ordeal... Had they only provided us with the means for playing our movies under Linux, DeCSS might not even exist today. That's what they get for ignoring us.
Why would someone unfamiliar with freedom have any qualms about seeing it extinguished for others?
Why would someone who's never enjoyed individual liberty anguish at seeing someone else's oppressed?
Your rant rings hollow; it's lack of perspective painfully evident. Please, focus your attention on determining your own future. We won't be needing your assistance in determining ours.
Folks, this is simply Lucent's WaveLAN product, which has been working with Linux for quite a while. I've been using it at home for 3 years. (Used to work at ATT... Old demo equipment headed for the scrap heap... No way would I have picked it up at List Price.) As for getting the ISA card to work, if you look at the WaveLAN pages, you'll notice that they have gone to a PCMCIA ISA card, with a PCMCIA WaveLAN adapter plugged into it. Card Services should handle this like any other PCMCIA device. To be certain, just add a genuine PC Card controller to your PC, and just buy the PC Card version of the product.
I have to laugh here... Why would a libertarian shun a company engaged in a lawful, non-coercive capalistic activity? Especially when it came to Linux, where there are no less than 4 mature distributions, countless minor ones, and the option of completely rolling your own.
Other than that quip, I essentially agree with what you've stated.
RedHat will never be in a position to restrict your choices when it comes to Linux. Ask any Debian, Slackware, or SuSE user. They can't co-opt the kernel, nor any of the other GNU software upon which they depend. Even if they developed the next "killer app," and decided not to release it's source, as a means of distinguishing themselves from the other distributions, what's the harm in that?
There is nothing inherently evil about making money. There is nothing inherently evil about selling something that's free, providing you can find a willing buyer.
There's certainly value in what RedHat does, bundling together an entire Linux distribution, producing useful documentation for it, and distributing it in a convienient format. It's admirable that they have been willing to pay developers to write code that will benefit not only themselves, but the Linux community at large.
No harm, no foul.