Therein lies the rub. The argument goes like this: a man's life (man here meaning men, women, and children) is his own, and cannot be owned by anyone else (anything else is tantamount to slavery, which I do not feel the need to point of the evils thereof); a man is free, in so far as life without freedom is death (a slave has no right to his own property, as it is supposed to be ultimately his master's property); finally, a man's thing are his own, in so far as he is free to pursue his happiness as he likes, provided it does not violate the former two items (life and liberty) of others. To steal a man's thing is to deny him the happiness that comes with pursing such things, as well as the liberty associated with it (by stealing his things, you are effectively profiting from him, ergo you have made him your slave, if only in this manner). As the life of a slave is one of death, you have sent the man into a state that is considered quasi-death. As such, a man, having gotten his wealth through no ill-means, is free to kill another man in defense of that wealth, as he would his life or someone who wished to rule him.
That's the 5-minute argument, of which I am very hastily making. Do not consider it the authority on such thinking, as anyone can find holes or points I have oversimplified; however, it does provide some understanding into the ideas behind defense of property. If you wish to understand more about this concept, I'd point you to the history of every major civilization, with a note that as property laws degraded, those civilizations fell. Finally, the irony of these words is not lost on me, as despite their inclusion in a very important document (as an American), they were summarily discarded when others felt a desire to be rulers of what where considered less-civilized men. Men != property, under any interpretation of the law. And yet, I get the feeling that civilization is about to test that law once again, to see if it still holds; I do not think this country will survive such a test.
Indeed. That clause, and its "interpretation," is like the f*cking philosopher stone of laws; instead of making unlimited gold, it allows brainless prats to pass whatever rules they want, no matter how destructive, into existence.
Good. That should cut down on the workload of the doctors somewhat, enabling the patients, who really need the doctor's attention, to have it.
Now if we can just swing the pharmacy back to the rules / regulations prior to 1930, I can get my migraine meds (although the article lists migraines as something they are considering for the prescription-less environment, my meds are unlikely to be in the category that is easily made prescription free) without having to bother the doctor every month.
Green is fine (a few things, here and there, as a libertarian, I'd have to differ over, but many of their ideas are sound). New Green is insane (they're going places which make many of the older Greens say 'WTF').
Indeed. You, hitherto known as 'the serf,' are a piece of property, to be used and eventually sold with the estate. They, hitherto known as 'the authority,' are your lords and masters, and their job is to tell you how to live, and when you may die. In the course of their duties, they may lie to you, beat you, steal from you, use your family members as hostages, and in general do whatever they life; in return, you might live to see another day. Remember, it's join with the oppressors, or be oppressed!
Their authority stems from seizing the power from you, or your parents, or their parents, when your ancestors were experiencing a moment of weakness.
You could point out that various legal documents bearing certain signatures signed by their predecessors say that you cannot be treated as such, as they would say that you have neither the learning, nor the authority (which they reserve for themselves, or people who agree with them) to interpret said documents. Slavery is slavery.
Now, bow your heads, and acknowledge the truth of what I've said.
Seriously, how difficult is it to switch trigger mechanisms? Trivial or super-trivial?
Besides, after that one spam message prematurely set off a bomb in that Middle-Eastern country, I don't think any bomb maker is interested in using a cell-phone again (as a triggering device).
Oh, we can think of a few scenarios, but all of them would have you laughed out of office:
1.) Giant mutant space radishes take over the world, and use the cell-phone networks to communicate. 2.) Poltergeists use the cell-phone networks to possess the minds of young athletic women. 3.) Cell-phone signals cause cancer. 4.) A 31337 h@x0r is using the network to play cell-phone ping pong with another 31337 h@x0r overseas. 5.) The government wants the ability to tell its citizens what it can say, and when.
See? It's #5 on the list of things that would have you laughed out of office. (This message brought to you by Sprint; May your airways always be open).
Fair enough, fair enough. If getting back the old ones are so difficult, let's get some new ones, that are just like the old ones, but worded slightly different.
Well, that's the funny thing. If you optimize too much, the code will only run on that one machine. With increasing levels of abstraction, we run into increasing costs.
You have the engineer's dilemma -> write one program that eats several cores & 40 GBs of RAM, but runs on every machine, or you write one program that uses 5 processor cycles & 1 KB of RAM, but runs only on one machine.
Seriously. I don't mind the OS caching itself in the RAM so long as I don't need that RAM at the moment. This was a more serious issue several years ago when the OS was twice the size of the RAM installed on most machines; the amount of memory available today is large enough to store Windows itself, with all the whistles, completely, with enough left over for Visual Studio & friends. And the fact that the OS is taking a throw-away approach (not swapping, but throw-away) to caching itself in the RAM is fairly agreeable.
First the Soviets, now the Chinese. Give the witch-hunt a rest.
The Chinese-Americans, might I add and before we begin tromping out the POW camps, are more than happy to be out from under their homeland government, and will remain so up and until you or people like you, decide to start treating Americans as something lesser than citizens. Lastly, and for the record, no one gets to choose where they are born, but given enough freedom, they can choose where they live.
If the US government wants the Chinese Americans to dislike it, to make them hunger for their old homeland's government, all it has to do is treat them as it treated the Japanese Americans during WWII.
If and when it would be necessary to dispatch them, ostensibly because they had somehow initiated some powerful conflict, our ICBMs can have the entire country taken out faster than a delivered pizza. They don't have long range missiles, last I checked, and they certainly do not have a ballistic missile shield.
What more, the US is kind of responsible for the current regime, and frankly, it sounds like they are scared that that chicken will come home to roost.
Hmm. I think the strategy is "Exchange our dollars for their goods, then rob them for their dollars." It's the ultimate having your cake and eating it kind of lifestyle.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't tell. Are we living under a military dictatorship?
Therein lies the rub. The argument goes like this: a man's life (man here meaning men, women, and children) is his own, and cannot be owned by anyone else (anything else is tantamount to slavery, which I do not feel the need to point of the evils thereof); a man is free, in so far as life without freedom is death (a slave has no right to his own property, as it is supposed to be ultimately his master's property); finally, a man's thing are his own, in so far as he is free to pursue his happiness as he likes, provided it does not violate the former two items (life and liberty) of others. To steal a man's thing is to deny him the happiness that comes with pursing such things, as well as the liberty associated with it (by stealing his things, you are effectively profiting from him, ergo you have made him your slave, if only in this manner). As the life of a slave is one of death, you have sent the man into a state that is considered quasi-death. As such, a man, having gotten his wealth through no ill-means, is free to kill another man in defense of that wealth, as he would his life or someone who wished to rule him.
That's the 5-minute argument, of which I am very hastily making. Do not consider it the authority on such thinking, as anyone can find holes or points I have oversimplified; however, it does provide some understanding into the ideas behind defense of property. If you wish to understand more about this concept, I'd point you to the history of every major civilization, with a note that as property laws degraded, those civilizations fell. Finally, the irony of these words is not lost on me, as despite their inclusion in a very important document (as an American), they were summarily discarded when others felt a desire to be rulers of what where considered less-civilized men. Men != property, under any interpretation of the law. And yet, I get the feeling that civilization is about to test that law once again, to see if it still holds; I do not think this country will survive such a test.
Fair enough, fair enough. Then can we bring an old-school solution? A memory expansion slot, that lets you chain together memory boards?
Indeed. That clause, and its "interpretation," is like the f*cking philosopher stone of laws; instead of making unlimited gold, it allows brainless prats to pass whatever rules they want, no matter how destructive, into existence.
Good. That should cut down on the workload of the doctors somewhat, enabling the patients, who really need the doctor's attention, to have it.
Now if we can just swing the pharmacy back to the rules / regulations prior to 1930, I can get my migraine meds (although the article lists migraines as something they are considering for the prescription-less environment, my meds are unlikely to be in the category that is easily made prescription free) without having to bother the doctor every month.
*I can't believe I'm doing this*
Green is fine (a few things, here and there, as a libertarian, I'd have to differ over, but many of their ideas are sound).
New Green is insane (they're going places which make many of the older Greens say 'WTF').
Might makes right.
Indeed. You, hitherto known as 'the serf,' are a piece of property, to be used and eventually sold with the estate. They, hitherto known as 'the authority,' are your lords and masters, and their job is to tell you how to live, and when you may die. In the course of their duties, they may lie to you, beat you, steal from you, use your family members as hostages, and in general do whatever they life; in return, you might live to see another day. Remember, it's join with the oppressors, or be oppressed!
Their authority stems from seizing the power from you, or your parents, or their parents, when your ancestors were experiencing a moment of weakness.
You could point out that various legal documents bearing certain signatures signed by their predecessors say that you cannot be treated as such, as they would say that you have neither the learning, nor the authority (which they reserve for themselves, or people who agree with them) to interpret said documents. Slavery is slavery.
Now, bow your heads, and acknowledge the truth of what I've said.
But when you point that out, DHS goes "See Congress? There are 'terrowists' (said the same way Elmer Fudd says 'Rabbits') right here @home!"
Your paranoid 'rulers' are paranoid. And their advisers are bad, and they should feel bad.
But that's...LOGIC!
Seriously, how difficult is it to switch trigger mechanisms? Trivial or super-trivial?
Besides, after that one spam message prematurely set off a bomb in that Middle-Eastern country, I don't think any bomb maker is interested in using a cell-phone again (as a triggering device).
I'd take the bomb threat over the J. Edgars any day.
Yes, but only one of those can realistically be achieved.
Oh, we can think of a few scenarios, but all of them would have you laughed out of office:
1.) Giant mutant space radishes take over the world, and use the cell-phone networks to communicate.
2.) Poltergeists use the cell-phone networks to possess the minds of young athletic women.
3.) Cell-phone signals cause cancer.
4.) A 31337 h@x0r is using the network to play cell-phone ping pong with another 31337 h@x0r overseas.
5.) The government wants the ability to tell its citizens what it can say, and when.
See? It's #5 on the list of things that would have you laughed out of office. (This message brought to you by Sprint; May your airways always be open).
Agreed.
Fair enough, fair enough. If getting back the old ones are so difficult, let's get some new ones, that are just like the old ones, but worded slightly different.
She was smuggling cocaine inside her insulin.
What do you think it would take to convince motherboard manufacturers to put a few more DIMM slots on those boards?
I want 256GB on my main machine, but I don't want to use a server motherboard (not enough expansion slots).
Well, that's the funny thing. If you optimize too much, the code will only run on that one machine. With increasing levels of abstraction, we run into increasing costs.
You have the engineer's dilemma -> write one program that eats several cores & 40 GBs of RAM, but runs on every machine, or you write one program that uses 5 processor cycles & 1 KB of RAM, but runs only on one machine.
Which gives me an idea. Hats, on Steam, from MS, when you send them the scores from the Windows Experience program.
Seriously. I don't mind the OS caching itself in the RAM so long as I don't need that RAM at the moment. This was a more serious issue several years ago when the OS was twice the size of the RAM installed on most machines; the amount of memory available today is large enough to store Windows itself, with all the whistles, completely, with enough left over for Visual Studio & friends. And the fact that the OS is taking a throw-away approach (not swapping, but throw-away) to caching itself in the RAM is fairly agreeable.
First the Soviets, now the Chinese. Give the witch-hunt a rest.
The Chinese-Americans, might I add and before we begin tromping out the POW camps, are more than happy to be out from under their homeland government, and will remain so up and until you or people like you, decide to start treating Americans as something lesser than citizens. Lastly, and for the record, no one gets to choose where they are born, but given enough freedom, they can choose where they live.
If the US government wants the Chinese Americans to dislike it, to make them hunger for their old homeland's government, all it has to do is treat them as it treated the Japanese Americans during WWII.
If and when it would be necessary to dispatch them, ostensibly because they had somehow initiated some powerful conflict, our ICBMs can have the entire country taken out faster than a delivered pizza. They don't have long range missiles, last I checked, and they certainly do not have a ballistic missile shield.
What more, the US is kind of responsible for the current regime, and frankly, it sounds like they are scared that that chicken will come home to roost.
Hmm. I think the strategy is "Exchange our dollars for their goods, then rob them for their dollars." It's the ultimate having your cake and eating it kind of lifestyle.
The problem lies not in them handing over their freedoms (f*ck 'em), it's that their masters believe they are getting our freedoms as well.
Seconded. Then breed me a Pegasus.