This is just yet another case of corporations trying to get in the way of civic progress to protect their bottom line, where they usually believe they have some kind divine right to big profits, despite any harm to society. More proof that some corporations are the organizational equivalent of a sociopath.
I myself cannot reverse what we Americans been calling ourselves for centuries. Just accept that and STFU. Besides, Canadians and other people living in the Americas can call themselves what they want to call themselves as well, and I'm sure they do.
If these people are so dangerous that their every move needs to be tracked, why aren't they in prison?
That's close to my position. I don't get why we are doing this to people who have completed serving their time (whether in jail or on parole). Sure, some of them cannot be cured, but then, why can't these incurable ones be identified and placed into facilities, and let the other ones who have paid their debt become free again? What happened to our so-called free society?
I also liken this to taking away voting rights from felons who have completed paying their debt to society. It's just plain wrong.
Everyone who isn't incarcerated should enjoy full freedom, unless there is a clear demonstration of an incurable mental disease that makes the individual a danger to the public after their incarceration.
If a movie would be made about the current state of the U.S. economy, where we're becoming consumers instead of producers, running up huge debts, and shipping high-end white-collar and tech jobs overseas, it would be called Something's Gotta Give.
In the Wikipedia, I see my username next to my work. It's a pride thing. It's an ownership thing. It's something I can show to others to say "I did this!". Microsoft seems to be lost on this factor. They instead want me to give them my work in total w/o getting anything back, not even the satisfaction of anyone reading it due to the Wikipedia taking over.:)
What happens when some idiots make dual submissions of the same copy to both Wikipedia and Encarta? What kinds of tricks might Microsoft pull against Wikipedia related to this?
"pretending we can bail out the Titanic with a teaspoon"... and not giving teaspoons to the billions of people in China and India. That's Kyoto. A sham.
Nothing like that. It's the opposite, actually. Unless the whole world participates, there's no point in proceeding. Leaving out the world's largest nations is INANE.
Causation has everything to do with it. If humankind caused a majority of the effect, then reducing CO2 emissions will help ease it. If humankind had little to do with it, then reducing our emission really won't do a damned bit of good. We'll still see the seas rising and will just have to accommodate Mother Nature's tantrum.
CO2 toxic? huh? Last time I checked, I could breathe it in w/o any ill effects.
I don't accept this idea that China and India aren't "developed." They're taking our programming jobs, so certainly they can handle the development and implementation of these low-polluting technologies as well. Goose, gander.
The historically recent warming is observable. Humankind's contribution to that is merely a correlation and further, we don't know how much we contributed (as opposed to nature's contribution). Causation is not proved yet.
It's not "acting like a spoiled primadonna", but rather insisting on fairness, and that means the entire world participating. Otherwise, it's a sham that unfairly targets the U.S. This may be the only issue where I somewhat agree with the Bush administration. Either the whole world is in it, or it's a no-go.
Mantis is planning support for MS-SQL and PostgreSQL in the upcoming 1.0 release. It already works well with MySQL, but if you're going to be choosy, Mantis is a very strong contender for the future and will definitely be competitive with Bugzilla.
I still have the right to defend myself, and likewise to defend my property...I can also hire someone else to defend my self/property for me.
Good for you, but since this isn't broadly applicable to the masses, the right loses its effectiveness. A right is only a right if everyone effectively possesses it. Otherwise, it's a privilege of the fittest or richest. If you want a society where only the fit or rich can protect their property, then you're not sincere about real property rights.
all research done with government funds is paid for by funds involuntarily extracted from people/private entities. Those funds could be put to a better use by the people who produced them -- simply because no one knows better what to do with their money than that person. Also, government cannot possible make the best choice of where to put that research.
This is so inane I don't even know where to begin with a response. It's impossible to explain the rationale of government to some people--they don't get the simple concept of doing good works for the whole of society that industries, corporations and individuals wouldn't have been able to do on their own. And they also forget that said government is democratically elected by the same people who are "being robbed." Geez.
I think we're talking "effective rights" here. Yes, one has an obvious natural right to private property where government doesn't play a role. But effectively, the right doesn't have much meaning if someone can come along and steal it, without government intervening to restore the property to you. And this can apply to IP rights as well. If there's not a legal system (a part of governance obviously), then IP rights simply could not exist; in fact, IP rights are impossible without government. In essence, rights cannot exist without some kind of large force to continuously protect it, and just because one is not at an early age cognizant of the role of that force, doesn't mean that this force isn't require to make their "natural" right a living reality.
Further, "the state produces nothing" is nice-sounding libertarian bumper-sticker idea, but it's also extreme and not actually true. E.g., government-sponsored research in many science/technical areas (by the way, which corporations/industries often cannot afford) produces great value for societies, no doubt. There's also little doubt why almost no Libertarian party candidates get anywhere electorally: their positions just don't reflect the real world where large economic powers prey upon the smaller ones in the absence of government involvement.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just yet another case of corporations trying to get in the way of civic progress to protect their bottom line, where they usually believe they have some kind divine right to big profits, despite any harm to society. More proof that some corporations are the organizational equivalent of a sociopath.
I'm rejecting my stupid government's rejection. And boy, do I mean stupid!
I myself cannot reverse what we Americans been calling ourselves for centuries. Just accept that and STFU. Besides, Canadians and other people living in the Americas can call themselves what they want to call themselves as well, and I'm sure they do.
If these people are so dangerous that their every move needs to be tracked, why aren't they in prison?
That's close to my position. I don't get why we are doing this to people who have completed serving their time (whether in jail or on parole). Sure, some of them cannot be cured, but then, why can't these incurable ones be identified and placed into facilities, and let the other ones who have paid their debt become free again? What happened to our so-called free society?
I also liken this to taking away voting rights from felons who have completed paying their debt to society. It's just plain wrong.
Everyone who isn't incarcerated should enjoy full freedom, unless there is a clear demonstration of an incurable mental disease that makes the individual a danger to the public after their incarceration.
Noting that real Americans call themselves Americans. :)
As an American, I support your rejection of our rejection of your rejection.
your 'democracy' is a fucking laughable shambles.
I'm an American, and I'm afraid you're right.
If a movie would be made about the current state of the U.S. economy, where we're becoming consumers instead of producers, running up huge debts, and shipping high-end white-collar and tech jobs overseas, it would be called Something's Gotta Give.
Stuff that I might not stumble upon on my own.
A good service for stumbling upon peer-selected/reviewed web sites within categories is StumbleUpon. :)
A Firefox extension is even available.
Tribe.net... that's all ya need.
Cases in point that refute your concern is the Wikipedia content covering both arguments for and against global warming, and for and against the war on drugs.
...Just as the Wikipedia is supplanting about.com as the reference starting point of choice.
"pretending we can bail out the Titanic with a teaspoon"... and not giving teaspoons to the billions of people in China and India. That's Kyoto. A sham.
Nothing like that. It's the opposite, actually. Unless the whole world participates, there's no point in proceeding. Leaving out the world's largest nations is INANE.
It's not naive to insist upon fairness, even if the US is the greatest of the polluters (at this time, please note).
China and India are in, or it's a no-go. Period.
Causation has everything to do with it. If humankind caused a majority of the effect, then reducing CO2 emissions will help ease it. If humankind had little to do with it, then reducing our emission really won't do a damned bit of good. We'll still see the seas rising and will just have to accommodate Mother Nature's tantrum.
CO2 toxic? huh? Last time I checked, I could breathe it in w/o any ill effects.
I don't accept this idea that China and India aren't "developed." They're taking our programming jobs, so certainly they can handle the development and implementation of these low-polluting technologies as well. Goose, gander.
The historically recent warming is observable. Humankind's contribution to that is merely a correlation and further, we don't know how much we contributed (as opposed to nature's contribution). Causation is not proved yet.
It's not "acting like a spoiled primadonna", but rather insisting on fairness, and that means the entire world participating. Otherwise, it's a sham that unfairly targets the U.S. This may be the only issue where I somewhat agree with the Bush administration. Either the whole world is in it, or it's a no-go.
Switch to Tribe.net.
Mantis is planning support for MS-SQL and PostgreSQL in the upcoming 1.0 release. It already works well with MySQL, but if you're going to be choosy, Mantis is a very strong contender for the future and will definitely be competitive with Bugzilla.
I still have the right to defend myself, and likewise to defend my property...I can also hire someone else to defend my self/property for me.
Good for you, but since this isn't broadly applicable to the masses, the right loses its effectiveness. A right is only a right if everyone effectively possesses it. Otherwise, it's a privilege of the fittest or richest. If you want a society where only the fit or rich can protect their property, then you're not sincere about real property rights.
all research done with government funds is paid for by funds involuntarily extracted from people/private entities. Those funds could be put to a better use by the people who produced them -- simply because no one knows better what to do with their money than that person. Also, government cannot possible make the best choice of where to put that research.
This is so inane I don't even know where to begin with a response. It's impossible to explain the rationale of government to some people--they don't get the simple concept of doing good works for the whole of society that industries, corporations and individuals wouldn't have been able to do on their own. And they also forget that said government is democratically elected by the same people who are "being robbed." Geez.
I think we're talking "effective rights" here. Yes, one has an obvious natural right to private property where government doesn't play a role. But effectively, the right doesn't have much meaning if someone can come along and steal it, without government intervening to restore the property to you. And this can apply to IP rights as well. If there's not a legal system (a part of governance obviously), then IP rights simply could not exist; in fact, IP rights are impossible without government. In essence, rights cannot exist without some kind of large force to continuously protect it, and just because one is not at an early age cognizant of the role of that force, doesn't mean that this force isn't require to make their "natural" right a living reality.
Further, "the state produces nothing" is nice-sounding libertarian bumper-sticker idea, but it's also extreme and not actually true. E.g., government-sponsored research in many science/technical areas (by the way, which corporations/industries often cannot afford) produces great value for societies, no doubt. There's also little doubt why almost no Libertarian party candidates get anywhere electorally: their positions just don't reflect the real world where large economic powers prey upon the smaller ones in the absence of government involvement.
This makes a good companion pair to my dropping my viewing of that channel after the slaughter, I mean merger.