Corn is today incapable of reproduction without the direct aid of man. So were it not for man, corn would have went extinct thousands of years ago. Maybe this species was meant to die out. Are we "interfering" by keeping it alive. Shouldn't we immediately institute a mass extermination of all corn in order to "set nature right"?
It's impossible to say what the state of wild corn would be today if humans had not cultivated it. We forced it down an evolutionary path, ultimately. It may very well have died out naturally thousands of years ago, or it may have continued to thrive. At this point, there's no way on earth to know. And, for the record, I'm not against the cultivation of food, and I would like to point out that the reasonable amongst us environmentalists aren't suggesting that we refuse to eat, simply that we be a little more aware of the impact we have on the world around us, and try to act as responsibly as possible, for our own good, if nothing else.
Then, when we find a way to bring extinct animals like the dodo, and the wolly mammoth back by inserting samples of their DNA into the egg of a similar animal for incubation....
...the "man is killing species" camp COMPLAINS that man is still doing wrong? WTF?
The problem, of course, is that these creatures were driven extinct in the first place. This indicates a far deeper ecological problem than you seem to suggest. People uncomfortable with the "resurrection" of extinct creatures worry that they would be incapable of existing in our present world. If we've destroyed their traditional habitats, how are they going to survive?
DNA magic, as it were, is an interesting, and perhaps worthwhile, scientific curiosity, but it doesn't fix the underlying problem, which is the question of whether or not these species should have been driven extinct in the first place. Until we can figure out how to address that, bringing them back doesn't really mean much.
The problem, of course, is that the Constitution is, when all else is stripped away, words. What those words mean is pretty much always up for debate.
Examples abound, the biggest of which is the "well-regulated militia" bit, which can hardly be reasonably said to be important to our modern society. But, since I said I didn't want to get into that, I'll go down a less dangerous path and refer to the various "internet decency" laws promulgated over the past few years, a number of which have essentially done no more than outlaw "inappropriate material." That's what the law is (or was, or might have been, or whatever), but, it should go without saying, what I believe is appropriate is possibly quite different from what the Majority Whip believed was important.
Obviously, we're dealing with laws less set-in-stone than the Constitution, but I'd think the same principles apply. What Supreme Court justices feel the law should be is ultimately the most important process in determining what a law really is. Though the responsibility of judicial review may not be outlined in the Constitution, it has not been significantly challenged since it effectively came into existence 200 years ago, primarily because it is often difficult, if not impossible, to determine the intent of a law from what has been recorded. If nothing else, the Supreme Court needs to bring their own beliefs into play if only to end the conflict, and establish, to some degree, what a law actually entails when debate does arise. If everytime a debate arose over the interpretation of a law or amendment another amendment was proposed, our government would be almost constantly paralyzed with ridiculously slow response times almost down to the local level.
One could argue, quite effectively, that in order to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, it is neccessary for the Supreme Court to bring their own prejudices into play, if not as to what they believe the law oughta be, but what they believe the framers of the law believed the law oughta have been. Ultimately, the difference doesn't amount to much except in the most extreme situations. The reason Scalia is so intelligent is that he's able to step into an opposing viewpoint and judge it as such. It makes him a rare find, and a worthy addition to the SC (even if he is politically evil::grin::), but he's ultimately as guilty as any other judge as employing his feelings as much as fact.
Well put. I, personally, have ideological problems with the idea that the law should stand steadfast. For instance, getting into another thorny topic, gun control, I don't particularly find arguments that the possession of firearms should be legal based on second amendment grounds compelling. Our society was vastly different when the Constitution was written than it is today, and I think its a valid point that changing modes of society and communication make an ideologically "strict" constructionism approach worthwhile. Quite the opposite, I believe it leads to stagnation.
Of course, the other extreme has more than its share of problems, as well. The law needs to be setup in such a way that it can adapt relatively quickly to changes in society, but make the process such that changes aren't too likely to be frivolous, or dangerous. IMO, the Constitution itself recognizes this, and thats where the roots of the checks and balances system come in. The best place to be in is somewhere between a strict constructionist and loose constructionist approach.
Also keep in mind that I'm not commenting on whether or not I believe gun control is a good or bad thing, merely stating that I believe there are better arguments than "the Bill of Rights said so". I have absolutely no interest in engaging in a debate on this subject.
I hate Scalia. A lot. I'm a die-hard, bleeding heart radical socialist, so, naturally, I'm not going to agree with the man more often than not.
However, there's more to it than that. I hate Scalia more than I hate, say, Clarence Thomas, and at the same time respect Scalia more, precisely because I recognize that the man is smart. He's well-versed, and he's knows his stuff better than just about anyone else on the Supreme Court. I certainly wish he wasn't an evil genius, but, ultimately, I'd rather have him on the court than a number of other justices, both Democrat and Republican. Now and again, at least, he is willing to break with his own party line and go with his own principles, even if I quite often disagree with them.
I'm more upset about O'Connor, actually, who I similarly have a great deal of respect for, and I would have hoped wouldn't have decided as she did in this case. Ah well.
Well, honestly, Mozilla seems to be the future of Netscape anyway, so its understandable that Navigator/Communicator has been eclipsed by it. Internet Explorer probably just doesn't have a lot going on currently, for whatever reasons, be they Microsoft's legal hassles, focus on the next version of Windows, or whatever. So, for the time being, Mozilla's moving along at a steady clip while everything else is more or less languishing in their current state. Which is kind of a weird reversal, actually....
KOffice has some problems, but is superior to Star Office. OTOH, my favorite word processor for Linux is OpenOffice, which has taken the best features of SO and removed some of the more questionable ones (using X's font server, better UI, etc.) It's a little bloated, I suppose, but runs beautifully.
Umm.... Charities like that rely on a number of peoplem offering $10 a month. You can't feed an entire village on that little, but, with some luck, multiple increments of $10 will do the trick. $1 a day is still an insufficient amount of money, particularly considering the health and wellbeing risks inherent in working at a sweatshop.
Re:Next time you have to go to the bathroom at wor
on
Nike: Just Don't Do It
·
· Score: 1
Why would the market deal with this? It never has before. Laissez faire economics, contrary to the beliefs of a number of ardent Randian libertarians, have yet to work in such a way.
A century and a half ago, before the advent of child labor laws in most western countries, there was little indication that companies were ever going to think of their workers as less than cheap capital. The workers themselves were more or less prohibited from mounting any kind of opposition because, to do so, they'd neccessarily have to remove themselves from the system which means no wages, and eventual starvation and death. Only when government stepped in and regulated the ability of business to treat their labor like dirt did things even start to improve.
Sweatshops are opportunistic exploitation in the worst sense. Wealthy and successful corporations push their ways into markets and are able to entice labor by virtue of lack of competition. On the other hand, their presence also stifles the rise of any alternatives and, while potentially preventing widescale starvation, has no incentive to do anything beyond that. Indeed, one might argue that keeping a population below the poverty line is beneficial to a sweatshop employer.
It's a perfect example of unchecked capitalism run amok.
You have been put in charge of creating a live streaming audio/video solution for a website. The important thing here that you are in charge . I am making the assumption that someone pays you to deliver a solution, puts this project in your hands and expects the best. Under those condition, you should not reject a product just because the company who makes it has a certain conduct. Just like you shouldn't refuse to hire someone just because he is French, black, jewish or whatever.
One major flaw here: that's not how capitalism is supposed to work. If you have a major problem with a company's business practices, you don't use their products. If the best fashion designer out there got 90% of their labor from overseas sweat shops, I wouldn't purchase their clothes, even if they were the best out there.
Microsoft has made many questionable business decisions, and even when they haven't broken, or at least bent, the law, their practices hardly make them out to be the victim in this transaction.
Furthermore, Microsoft's refusal to port to other operating systems limits the usefulness of their formats, and by caving in and using their stuff regardless, they hardly have any impetus to change their practices.
Frankly, I think I prefer the Voodoo 5 as a gaming card than the GeForce series. I've owned cards from both companies (currently have a Voodoo 5, before it, a TNT2) and while both are good, really, I like the more backwards compatible nature of the V5.
But then, I'm still using my Aureal Vortex 2 sound card, so I suppose obsolescence is in my blood...
It's not all their property. If you benefit from the services the government provides (and, oh yes, it does provide services, from transportation to security on down the line), a portion of what you earn in rightfully the government's, so it can spent on continuing those services.
This rabid greed and you-can't-have-it mentality is a depressing statement of exactly the sort of thing that capitalism breeds. Sigh.
The International Red Cross has been in operation for well over a century. The international Boy Scouting and Girl Scouting movements have been around since 1910 and 1912, respectively. Churches and church organizations of nearly every religion and denomination out there sponsor charities on both local and global scales, and I think most of those religions, both majority and minority ones, are likely to be around for a good long while.
Aye, but what if I don't like what these charities stand for? I have serious issues with the Boy/Girl Scouts politically, and, quite simply, as an atheist, accepting aid from a non-secular source bothers me. I don't have a say in their practices, unlike government or even a firmly market-driven system. And I don't like the idea of putting my life in their hands.
Certainly, I have no problems with charity organizations as a concept, but, in general, I don't see their existance as a argument against government welfare because I still see this hated bueracratic system as more responsive to the will of the people than any private organization. In any case, I think coexistance is probably the best idea all around.
Yes and no. The real goal is to win yourself. In a capitalist system, this does not mean putting the other guy out of business: various different tastes allow for various different groups to succeed in the same market. Hence, there's a place in the world for Linux advocates, Mac advocates, and even Windows advocates. Each does things differently and thus appeal to different individuals.
Doesn't mean it works out like that, and the problem with a system motivated by greed is that greed doesn't, generally speaking, incline people to play by the accepted rules. But that's the theory, at least.
The government needs a certain amount of tax-based income to continue to function, I'm sure we can agree. If the government is in good financial shape, it can afford to make exceptions to the general rule and give certain individuals and groups a tax break. In that sense, a tax break is very much a government service. But its a weird argument brought on by a poor definition of terms I expect is more likely....
The fact that you feel my rights are less important than their wants is a sad reflection of our authoritarian society.
The fact that you feel that your rights are more important than everyone else's rights is a sad reflection of out crass consumerist, greed-motivated society. A homeless man may "want" shelter and a sense of security. But it is also his right, and, frankly, yeah, I do consider that the more important issue here.
If I saw a person living on the street, unable to pay for his or her next meal, I would feel nothing but dirty worrying about my "right" to keep the salary I earned, in part, because the government helped create a maintain a stable, rights-oriented society. Most of the money you earn is earned, in large part, because the government helped create an environment in which you could do so. Paid for the roads you drive to work on, paid for the security from theft you rely on, and paid for all the sundry things people like to ignore but are nonetheless vital to our everyday lives. A good chunk of that money rightfully belongs to the government, and no amount of greedy, indignant, over-the-top capitalist posturing will change that. Libertarians hold a highly contradictory view of the government: on one hand, they aknowledge that the government is not part of a market-driven system, on the other, they accuse the government of wanton greed. The government has a responsibility to everyone , not just you, not just the wealthy or priveledged, or whoever, including the lower and unluckier aspects of society. It is the responsibility of said government to ensure that everyone's rights are fulfilled as best as can be done, and if you submit to the government's protection of your rights, you need also submit to the government's protection of the rights of others. If you don't like the system, then stop using the benefits the government allows for you to have and see how long these ideals remain.
Not to say that there aren't problems, but a responsive democratic system can deal with these. The "tinkering with the formulae" that you disdain is exactly what a representative system of government should do. If something doesn't work, then new solutions should be pursued, and these solutions should be firmly grounded in the will of the people. Some rights should always remain sacrosanct, but some of the things which the Libertarian model portray as fundamental rights do a great disservice to the concept itself.
The benefit the government has to charity organizations is stability: the government will, barring any major revolution, still be here fifty years down the line. A private charity might very easily still be with us then, but there's little assurance of that. The government also has a number of benefits oo a strictly market-driven system as well, which all basically come down to an outdated conception of capitalism and free enterprise that cannot be made to apply fully to the modern world without some massive and incomplete patching.
The government, even a bloated bureacratic government, is more responsive to the people by virtue of a republican method than modern corporations are. If Microsoft never again made money from another version of Windows or Word or whatever, they wouldn't fold for another decade or two. They've built themselves enough of an insurance system from two decades or overwhelming success that ensures that they don't need to adapt their practices to please their public for some time. There's little accountability. And competition doesn't work as it should either: in a world of finite resources, just because I don't like company A, B, or C's model doesn't mean I can start an effective company D to fit how I think business should be done.
What this means in a system where the market drives public services like healthcare or social security, or whatever is the exact "lesser of two evils" nonsense you rightfully disdain in the current political landscape: if I need medical care, but don't like the options of obtaining it for whatever reason, I have little recourse. I could hang on and hope that things improve, but there's no reason to believe they will. And if I don't choose any of the options, then I effectively fall out of the market system in the first place and lose all voice. A Libertarian view of the market and its relation to the government is, at its very core, a "lesser of two evils" system. I don't like the idea of submitting to that kind of thing in politics, and I like it even less in a capitalist marketplace.
What did criminalization of drugs accomplish? The creation of a strong drug culture that plagues the nation to this day. What did Prohibition accomplish? Certainly, it reduced the amount of alcohol available and probably decreased, in the general sense, the amount being imbibed. It also provided an outlet for massive organized crime efforts and one of the darker moments of US political history.
The simple fact of the matter is that outright criminalization of something seldom works as intended because it effectively pushes the problem off of the map. As a control measure, its just not as effective because its too large in its scope. A better solution is to approach the problem more systematically: keep a lid on the more negative aspects that would arise from criminalization but make it clear that the offending behavior is not strictly sanctioned.
It's the same argument employed against the RIAA in relation to the Napster trial: illegal sharing of music is less likely to occur if the music is more easily obtainable in the first place. Or, more basically, if its easier and safer to follow the law than to circumvent it, then you follow the law and avoid the consequences of not doing so. If you make pollution of the environment completely illegal, what's going to be more likely: industrial corporations suddenly either go out of business or otherwise completely overhaul their current method of operation, or simply find ways to avoid following the law? It's a fine line to walk, but the best way of combatting problems such as this is basically through trial and error: the current system doesn't work, so the best solution is to methodically go along and see what will and keep searching for the best solution until it ceases to work as intended, or indeed makes the situation worse. That's why sudden, drastic changes, such as the illegalization of alcohol, tend to create such dramatic problems.
And the fallacy of the Libertarian view of rights is that it creates a false dichotomy. Everything I do, in some way or another, infringes the rights of someone else. In general, this is indeed an academic argument (if I'm exercising my right to stand here, I'm infringing your right to stand here... but who really cares?). But when you increase the proportions, the stakes involved also increase. There is no simple division (or arguably any division at all) between private and public affairs, and creating a system which presupposes its existance fails to answer the problems we face in a considerably more complex world.
No, competitors are not supposed to stifle competition, although the nature of capitalism ultimately makes it hard not to. Ideally, in a Adam Smith-based utopian society, businesses would survive only for having the superior product, and wouldn't compete only on merit of product offered.
Fair point, except that the Shining Force isn't exactly the same genre as Final Fantasy, and never has been. The former is more comparable to games like Tactics Ogre, Vandal Hearts, or Final Fantasy Tactics, all of which, IMO, easily beat Shining Force at its own game. Not that it's a bad series, and it does have precedent, I believe. But Sega's RPG support has always been rather rocky, particularly in the USA, and, as a gamer primarily interested in RPGs, I have little interest in most of Sega's consoles.
Indeed. They can do whatever they want with their software, and as long as they aren't intentionally stifling competition, it's not really a legal issue. It's a stupid move, of course, and AOL's justification is suspect (people were complaining about being able to set a homepage? Huh?), but since you're free to use any outside browser, it can hardly be called an anti-competitive practice.
You just described agnosticism, not atheism. Atheists deny the existance of god. They believe, without proof, that something does not exist. This is just as dogmatic as believing that something does exist, without any proof.
That's where it gets tricky though, isn't it? I could very well posit the theory that the universe is in fact a gigantic interstellar, transdimensional meatball sitting on top of cold spaghetti. Sure, I can't prove this, but you can't disprove it, either. And, nonetheless, it would be fairly roundly rejected as a sound scientific (or even religious) principle.
Agnosticism works along slightly different lines than atheism. It implies, though it is not always used in this way anymore, that ultimate reality is not only unknown but most likely unknowable. In its base form, agnosticism is the religious equivalent of hedging your bets, so to speak (not that this is a bad thing). Atheism merely denies the existence of "God" or any supreme theistic deity. It is theoretically possible for an atheist to be devoutly religious, provided the particular faith s/he follows does not imply the existence of a deity (I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but its a plausible situation nonetheless). One does not neccessarily follow from the other. On the other hand, one might reasonably argue that agnosticism is merely academic, in any case: humans have routinely shown an inability to sit by the sidelines without taking sides or preferences, except in cases obvious ignorance or profound indifference in the first case.
Personally, I'm neither agnostic nor atheist, but I'm not religious, either. I refuse to accept the universe as unknowable; I see such a stance as defeatist. Perhaps ultimate truth (or whatever) really is beyond our limited understanding, but since we can't know for sure, its only reasonable to make the assumption that the universe is in fact knowable until we can be proven wrong. On the other hand, I don't really like to take things on faith, either. I'm really to hear anything out, but my individual beliefs are both eminently alterable and only tied to whatever seems most reasonable at that moment.
Which, of course, isn't to say that faith doesn't enter into it. I just try to minimize the neccessity of blind faith, and stick, as much as is reasonable, to the scientific method. As for the scientific method, well, I guess I just have to take that one on faith;-).
Re:So you would rather...
on
Deja For Sale
·
· Score: 1
Because they're making money off of something they have no moral right to. I have never bothered appending "x-no-archive" to my Usenet posts: I don't mind what I write being archived so that others may find it useful/interesting/not particularly harmful. However, if some company decides to make money off of my words without my explicit consent, I feel completely justified, and I will, scream bloody murder.
Um, extinctions tend not to happen quite so often. There was a good 100+ million years between the Permian extinction (the most destructive in the history of the planet) and the end of the Cretaceous (which, all things considered, wasn't too bad).
I believe the Japanese Famicom (8-bit) actually did make use of the expansion port. Apparently, the controllers for the machine were hardwired, and the expansion port allowed for third-party controllers, or whatever. I guess the port was included on the US/European NES merely for maximum compatability.
Which isn't to say that it couldn't have also been used to hook a sewing machine up to, just like the parallel port on earlier model PSXes had multiple uses, but food for thought, I suppose.
"Climate" in this context implies temperature. Canada can support more than algae and lichen because, unlike Mars, it has a reasonably oxygen-rich atmosphere and fertile soil. Mars, on the other hand, has negligible amounts of atmospheric oxygen, and a soil consisting primarily of iron. Hence, even if we were to get Mars to achieve the comparatively balmy temperatures of British Columbia, we would not be dealing with Pacific Northwest-style forests for another 10,000 years or so, as the story stated.
Slashdot Mirror
DNA magic, as it were, is an interesting, and perhaps worthwhile, scientific curiosity, but it doesn't fix the underlying problem, which is the question of whether or not these species should have been driven extinct in the first place. Until we can figure out how to address that, bringing them back doesn't really mean much.
Examples abound, the biggest of which is the "well-regulated militia" bit, which can hardly be reasonably said to be important to our modern society. But, since I said I didn't want to get into that, I'll go down a less dangerous path and refer to the various "internet decency" laws promulgated over the past few years, a number of which have essentially done no more than outlaw "inappropriate material." That's what the law is (or was, or might have been, or whatever), but, it should go without saying, what I believe is appropriate is possibly quite different from what the Majority Whip believed was important.
Obviously, we're dealing with laws less set-in-stone than the Constitution, but I'd think the same principles apply. What Supreme Court justices feel the law should be is ultimately the most important process in determining what a law really is. Though the responsibility of judicial review may not be outlined in the Constitution, it has not been significantly challenged since it effectively came into existence 200 years ago, primarily because it is often difficult, if not impossible, to determine the intent of a law from what has been recorded. If nothing else, the Supreme Court needs to bring their own beliefs into play if only to end the conflict, and establish, to some degree, what a law actually entails when debate does arise. If everytime a debate arose over the interpretation of a law or amendment another amendment was proposed, our government would be almost constantly paralyzed with ridiculously slow response times almost down to the local level.
One could argue, quite effectively, that in order to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, it is neccessary for the Supreme Court to bring their own prejudices into play, if not as to what they believe the law oughta be, but what they believe the framers of the law believed the law oughta have been. Ultimately, the difference doesn't amount to much except in the most extreme situations. The reason Scalia is so intelligent is that he's able to step into an opposing viewpoint and judge it as such. It makes him a rare find, and a worthy addition to the SC (even if he is politically evil ::grin::), but he's ultimately as guilty as any other judge as employing his feelings as much as fact.
Of course, the other extreme has more than its share of problems, as well. The law needs to be setup in such a way that it can adapt relatively quickly to changes in society, but make the process such that changes aren't too likely to be frivolous, or dangerous. IMO, the Constitution itself recognizes this, and thats where the roots of the checks and balances system come in. The best place to be in is somewhere between a strict constructionist and loose constructionist approach.
Also keep in mind that I'm not commenting on whether or not I believe gun control is a good or bad thing, merely stating that I believe there are better arguments than "the Bill of Rights said so". I have absolutely no interest in engaging in a debate on this subject.
However, there's more to it than that. I hate Scalia more than I hate, say, Clarence Thomas, and at the same time respect Scalia more, precisely because I recognize that the man is smart. He's well-versed, and he's knows his stuff better than just about anyone else on the Supreme Court. I certainly wish he wasn't an evil genius, but, ultimately, I'd rather have him on the court than a number of other justices, both Democrat and Republican. Now and again, at least, he is willing to break with his own party line and go with his own principles, even if I quite often disagree with them.
I'm more upset about O'Connor, actually, who I similarly have a great deal of respect for, and I would have hoped wouldn't have decided as she did in this case. Ah well.
Well, honestly, Mozilla seems to be the future of Netscape anyway, so its understandable that Navigator/Communicator has been eclipsed by it. Internet Explorer probably just doesn't have a lot going on currently, for whatever reasons, be they Microsoft's legal hassles, focus on the next version of Windows, or whatever. So, for the time being, Mozilla's moving along at a steady clip while everything else is more or less languishing in their current state. Which is kind of a weird reversal, actually....
KOffice has some problems, but is superior to Star Office. OTOH, my favorite word processor for Linux is OpenOffice, which has taken the best features of SO and removed some of the more questionable ones (using X's font server, better UI, etc.) It's a little bloated, I suppose, but runs beautifully.
Umm.... Charities like that rely on a number of peoplem offering $10 a month. You can't feed an entire village on that little, but, with some luck, multiple increments of $10 will do the trick. $1 a day is still an insufficient amount of money, particularly considering the health and wellbeing risks inherent in working at a sweatshop.
A century and a half ago, before the advent of child labor laws in most western countries, there was little indication that companies were ever going to think of their workers as less than cheap capital. The workers themselves were more or less prohibited from mounting any kind of opposition because, to do so, they'd neccessarily have to remove themselves from the system which means no wages, and eventual starvation and death. Only when government stepped in and regulated the ability of business to treat their labor like dirt did things even start to improve.
Sweatshops are opportunistic exploitation in the worst sense. Wealthy and successful corporations push their ways into markets and are able to entice labor by virtue of lack of competition. On the other hand, their presence also stifles the rise of any alternatives and, while potentially preventing widescale starvation, has no incentive to do anything beyond that. Indeed, one might argue that keeping a population below the poverty line is beneficial to a sweatshop employer.
It's a perfect example of unchecked capitalism run amok.
Microsoft has made many questionable business decisions, and even when they haven't broken, or at least bent, the law, their practices hardly make them out to be the victim in this transaction.
Furthermore, Microsoft's refusal to port to other operating systems limits the usefulness of their formats, and by caving in and using their stuff regardless, they hardly have any impetus to change their practices.
But then, I'm still using my Aureal Vortex 2 sound card, so I suppose obsolescence is in my blood...
This rabid greed and you-can't-have-it mentality is a depressing statement of exactly the sort of thing that capitalism breeds. Sigh.
Certainly, I have no problems with charity organizations as a concept, but, in general, I don't see their existance as a argument against government welfare because I still see this hated bueracratic system as more responsive to the will of the people than any private organization. In any case, I think coexistance is probably the best idea all around.
Doesn't mean it works out like that, and the problem with a system motivated by greed is that greed doesn't, generally speaking, incline people to play by the accepted rules. But that's the theory, at least.
The government needs a certain amount of tax-based income to continue to function, I'm sure we can agree. If the government is in good financial shape, it can afford to make exceptions to the general rule and give certain individuals and groups a tax break. In that sense, a tax break is very much a government service. But its a weird argument brought on by a poor definition of terms I expect is more likely....
If I saw a person living on the street, unable to pay for his or her next meal, I would feel nothing but dirty worrying about my "right" to keep the salary I earned, in part, because the government helped create a maintain a stable, rights-oriented society. Most of the money you earn is earned, in large part, because the government helped create an environment in which you could do so. Paid for the roads you drive to work on, paid for the security from theft you rely on, and paid for all the sundry things people like to ignore but are nonetheless vital to our everyday lives. A good chunk of that money rightfully belongs to the government, and no amount of greedy, indignant, over-the-top capitalist posturing will change that. Libertarians hold a highly contradictory view of the government: on one hand, they aknowledge that the government is not part of a market-driven system, on the other, they accuse the government of wanton greed. The government has a responsibility to everyone , not just you, not just the wealthy or priveledged, or whoever, including the lower and unluckier aspects of society. It is the responsibility of said government to ensure that everyone's rights are fulfilled as best as can be done, and if you submit to the government's protection of your rights, you need also submit to the government's protection of the rights of others. If you don't like the system, then stop using the benefits the government allows for you to have and see how long these ideals remain.
Not to say that there aren't problems, but a responsive democratic system can deal with these. The "tinkering with the formulae" that you disdain is exactly what a representative system of government should do. If something doesn't work, then new solutions should be pursued, and these solutions should be firmly grounded in the will of the people. Some rights should always remain sacrosanct, but some of the things which the Libertarian model portray as fundamental rights do a great disservice to the concept itself.
The government, even a bloated bureacratic government, is more responsive to the people by virtue of a republican method than modern corporations are. If Microsoft never again made money from another version of Windows or Word or whatever, they wouldn't fold for another decade or two. They've built themselves enough of an insurance system from two decades or overwhelming success that ensures that they don't need to adapt their practices to please their public for some time. There's little accountability. And competition doesn't work as it should either: in a world of finite resources, just because I don't like company A, B, or C's model doesn't mean I can start an effective company D to fit how I think business should be done.
What this means in a system where the market drives public services like healthcare or social security, or whatever is the exact "lesser of two evils" nonsense you rightfully disdain in the current political landscape: if I need medical care, but don't like the options of obtaining it for whatever reason, I have little recourse. I could hang on and hope that things improve, but there's no reason to believe they will. And if I don't choose any of the options, then I effectively fall out of the market system in the first place and lose all voice. A Libertarian view of the market and its relation to the government is, at its very core, a "lesser of two evils" system. I don't like the idea of submitting to that kind of thing in politics, and I like it even less in a capitalist marketplace.
The simple fact of the matter is that outright criminalization of something seldom works as intended because it effectively pushes the problem off of the map. As a control measure, its just not as effective because its too large in its scope. A better solution is to approach the problem more systematically: keep a lid on the more negative aspects that would arise from criminalization but make it clear that the offending behavior is not strictly sanctioned.
It's the same argument employed against the RIAA in relation to the Napster trial: illegal sharing of music is less likely to occur if the music is more easily obtainable in the first place. Or, more basically, if its easier and safer to follow the law than to circumvent it, then you follow the law and avoid the consequences of not doing so. If you make pollution of the environment completely illegal, what's going to be more likely: industrial corporations suddenly either go out of business or otherwise completely overhaul their current method of operation, or simply find ways to avoid following the law? It's a fine line to walk, but the best way of combatting problems such as this is basically through trial and error: the current system doesn't work, so the best solution is to methodically go along and see what will and keep searching for the best solution until it ceases to work as intended, or indeed makes the situation worse. That's why sudden, drastic changes, such as the illegalization of alcohol, tend to create such dramatic problems.
And the fallacy of the Libertarian view of rights is that it creates a false dichotomy. Everything I do, in some way or another, infringes the rights of someone else. In general, this is indeed an academic argument (if I'm exercising my right to stand here, I'm infringing your right to stand here... but who really cares?). But when you increase the proportions, the stakes involved also increase. There is no simple division (or arguably any division at all) between private and public affairs, and creating a system which presupposes its existance fails to answer the problems we face in a considerably more complex world.
No, competitors are not supposed to stifle competition, although the nature of capitalism ultimately makes it hard not to. Ideally, in a Adam Smith-based utopian society, businesses would survive only for having the superior product, and wouldn't compete only on merit of product offered.
Fair point, except that the Shining Force isn't exactly the same genre as Final Fantasy, and never has been. The former is more comparable to games like Tactics Ogre, Vandal Hearts, or Final Fantasy Tactics, all of which, IMO, easily beat Shining Force at its own game. Not that it's a bad series, and it does have precedent, I believe. But Sega's RPG support has always been rather rocky, particularly in the USA, and, as a gamer primarily interested in RPGs, I have little interest in most of Sega's consoles.
Indeed. They can do whatever they want with their software, and as long as they aren't intentionally stifling competition, it's not really a legal issue. It's a stupid move, of course, and AOL's justification is suspect (people were complaining about being able to set a homepage? Huh?), but since you're free to use any outside browser, it can hardly be called an anti-competitive practice.
Agnosticism works along slightly different lines than atheism. It implies, though it is not always used in this way anymore, that ultimate reality is not only unknown but most likely unknowable. In its base form, agnosticism is the religious equivalent of hedging your bets, so to speak (not that this is a bad thing). Atheism merely denies the existence of "God" or any supreme theistic deity. It is theoretically possible for an atheist to be devoutly religious, provided the particular faith s/he follows does not imply the existence of a deity (I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but its a plausible situation nonetheless). One does not neccessarily follow from the other. On the other hand, one might reasonably argue that agnosticism is merely academic, in any case: humans have routinely shown an inability to sit by the sidelines without taking sides or preferences, except in cases obvious ignorance or profound indifference in the first case.
Personally, I'm neither agnostic nor atheist, but I'm not religious, either. I refuse to accept the universe as unknowable; I see such a stance as defeatist. Perhaps ultimate truth (or whatever) really is beyond our limited understanding, but since we can't know for sure, its only reasonable to make the assumption that the universe is in fact knowable until we can be proven wrong. On the other hand, I don't really like to take things on faith, either. I'm really to hear anything out, but my individual beliefs are both eminently alterable and only tied to whatever seems most reasonable at that moment.
Which, of course, isn't to say that faith doesn't enter into it. I just try to minimize the neccessity of blind faith, and stick, as much as is reasonable, to the scientific method. As for the scientific method, well, I guess I just have to take that one on faith ;-).
Um, extinctions tend not to happen quite so often. There was a good 100+ million years between the Permian extinction (the most destructive in the history of the planet) and the end of the Cretaceous (which, all things considered, wasn't too bad).
Which isn't to say that it couldn't have also been used to hook a sewing machine up to, just like the parallel port on earlier model PSXes had multiple uses, but food for thought, I suppose.