All of that is irrelevant. The question is wether or not Scandinavia is a place where the people live in a condition where they can exercise their rights. Clearly this is not the case. They cannot Home Educate. They cannot buy and sell freely. This is immoral and unacceptable to decent people, and no matter what the glossy sheen that country has, not matter how nice the people are as individuals, the State there is evil and there is no doubt about it. This is about principles, not expedience, excuses and justifications for violent and sickening evil:
Then you accept that if a homeschooled individual can't find a job or otherwise finds him/herself in trouble, the state has no obligation to care for that person? Not saying homeschooling is bad, just that authority and responsibility cannot be separated and one has to accept the consequence of changing either.
Absolutely. Employment is not the business of the state, wether the person was Home Educated or not. The State cannot have obligations, only people have obligations. States do not have rights, only people have rights:
If any private party can claim police power, they can also claim the right to search your property and papers. Oh, and any complaint of illegal searches would go to the same system. That's the end of the 4th amendment.
False. Private police forces do not claim any rights, they are purely defensive in nature. They defend your property and person, and that is all. They do not act in any way like State police forces. As for the fourth amendment, Uncle Sam has erased that already, through his TSA, US VISIT and the constitution free zone that extends 100 miles into America.
I guess you don't believe much in the "with liberty and justice for all" thing. I'd rather not be hauled before a kangaroo court or get no protection if I have no protection money, thank you very much.
I believe that I should be able to choose the sort of law I want to be bound by in any contract that I enter into. I can already do this in business contracts, so why should I not be able to do this with myself? The way things are now, I am involuntarily bound to courts that I do not agree with. Ask Julian Assange about Kangaroo courts, not having protection money etc. You are not thinking deeply enough about this.
Without income, there's no public services whatsoever. Go to Somalia or some other anarchist state if that's your ideal society.
This is faulty reasoning. First of all, there are no such thing as 'state income'. All of the things the State does are financed by stolen money. That is immoral. Before this state of affairs, America was a hugely prosperous and safe place. There is no need for the state to do all the things it is doing now. Just look at Underwriters Laboratory for an example. This is a commonly held myth; if the State were to disappear, there would be blood running in the streets. No one with any sense or even a little knowledge of history believes that is true.
There are equally bad or worse fates, like being the property of your parents. Children are not pets and even pets have laws against animal cruelty. Any state that lets children grow up with no minimum standard of education is neglecting that child and its human rights. They may be your offspring but they are not your prisoner - physically, intellectually or otherwise.
The question here is wether or not the State should be the parent of all children. I imagine you would concede that someone needs to take care of children, since they cannot take care of themselves. After we accept this, its a matter of who should be responsible for children. Some people who do not understand rights and nature, think that children should be in the care of the State from birth. Others believe that parents are the natural guardians of children.
The difference between these two camps is that the people who think the State should own children are willing to have children violently removed from their families on the slightest pretext, like Home Schooling. The people who are for natural rights are non violent, and do not interfere with other people. This is the acid test; who is the violent one, one who uses force, who is the brainwashed busy body, who will go into other people's homes and kidnap their children? Who is the immoral one?
This is a matter of pure right and wrong and evenly applied logic. Which is why so many people can't grasp these very simple issues.
Why do you think leaving children's education completely in the hands of their parents is any better?
Wether its better or not is a red herring. This is about the principle of who gets to control you, you, or the State. What your opinion about what should or should not be learned by anyone is your opinion and your business, and you should be free to live by your own opinions. What you think should not be forced down the throat of anyone. If you think otherwise then you are a violent character, and should just admit it and be done. What I find endlessly fascinating is how people who think like that and who are violent, claim to not only not be violent, but they simultaneously claim that the have the best interests of other people at heart. That is a supreme and total delusion of the first order.
You don't have any right to force other people to learn what you have learned in the way that you have learned it. What parents do with their children is not your business, nor it is the business of the State. You do not own a share in other people's children. Roll on the empty arguments about, "I have to pay for those children when they cant do $modern_necessity for themselves" its red herring, faulty reasoning all the way down, and no excuse for the violence all the brainwashed collectivist dupes bray for.
If you are for the State controlling you, then you have no business saying that the state has no right to interfere with and regulate the internet, or anything else that you might believe the State should not have anything to do with, including banning books and speech. You cant have it both ways; you cant be a little bit pregnant. Either you are violent or you are not. Either you are for the State, or you are not. Pick one, and then dont dissemble about it. Admit you are violent and move on.
You need to explain how it happens that people can lose their rights by dint of a vote. All you have done is recited the State line of 'Parliament represents the people, therefore it is legitimate'. No vote by other men can take the rights of another group of men away from them. If you agree with this, then you agree that slavery is fine, until people vote and say it is not.
I hate violent people, and people who cannot think. For them, there is always a video nowadays:
If one wants to completely and logically justify the state, and its evils, one has to do better than reciting what was taught by rote in a government school.
I dont likve in the USA, I am totally against the Federal Reserve and its money printing, Im against government destroying 'health care' through its absurd interference, etc etc.
As for 'laptop that I could never have bought without government borrowing from china' this is just pure economic illiteracy and nonsense:
try that for a primer on the fundamental principles.
Alcohol abuse in other people is not my business; and this is a deep flaw in your philosophy; you believe that because SOME parents are bad, ALL parents must be put under the wing of the State 'for the sake of the children'. This is the sort of reasoning that creates laws to control the internet, and it gives birth to totalitarian countries like Sweden (Home School banned, because their parliament says their society is perfect, and so there is no need for Home Schooling. Im not making that up. State monopoly on the sale of alcohol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverages_in_Sweden etc etc), Finland (where you are fined for speeding proportionally to your income) and Iceland (train wreck vassal state, hollowed out by the banksters, where you dont have even the most basic of your rights).
No wonder alcoholism is rife; these people are living in a sort of hell, where the human spirit is so suppressed they seek escape through drugs. All people instinctively know when they are not free, even if consciously they think that they are. You know the line from The Matrix; these people are born into bondage, bondage to the State. I chafes at their soul, and so, they seek solace in a bottle.
The State doesn't have the right to mandate that individuals do anything, including attend a State run school.
If you concede that the State has this right, then you are explicitly saying that the State is the ultimate parent of all children, trumping the rights of parents, and that they are the owners of all children. Clearly, as a moral person, you cannot be for one group of people owning another group; thats called slavery. The same goes for conscription and all other predations of the State; they are all fundamentally immoral, and decent, non violent people are not for them.
There are no 'serious problems' with Home Schooling if you understand what rights are and where they come from, the proper role of government, and you are not a violent collectivist, that believes that you own a quotal share in other people's children and their property.
Of course, there really are people who believe that children are the property of society, but they are most definitely evil in my book.
They will never get this right I'm afraid, but if they did, they would enshrine:
Freedom of contract Private property No State monopoly on security / police No State monopoly on Law No State monopoly on courts No State money creation No State theft of resources (Taxation) No State $illigitimate_liberty_sapping_function
etc.
To give you an idea of the mentality of these people, did you know that Home Education is ILLEGAL in Iceland?
Yet another country where the people have been reduced to the level of property; the property of the State. Any nation of people that allows the State to outlaw Home Education at its core, doesn't understand what a constitution is for, and cannot possibly create a free society based on one.
What I can't understand is how, at this late date, after it's perpetual failures, there are still people who do not understand the true nature of socialism and the state, like Ryan.
Collectivism should be much more on the wane, and a comment like his should not appear on Slashdot as a serious comment without being marked as 'troll'.
Thankfully your sound rebuttal is here to refute it. We will never escape the murderous thieving clutches of these people without countering their lies and fallacies at every point they are expressed.
I don't think you can claim good faith by ignoring an existing, published, patent claim.
That only makes the crime of Patents even worse.
It means that every imbecile that is applying for a Patent is suppressing the free flow of ideas, without even having been awarded a Patent and its protection.
Theoretically, this means that you might not have rolled out some software because someone has applied for a Patent, the applicant fails to be granted the monopoly protection of the State, and then all the years that the software has been less than what it could have been are lost forever, including all the cumulative iterations and user feedback etc etc. that you would have gained had you put the idea in the builds. This is not the way things should be. People should not have to be constantly looking over their shoulders or worrying that one day, years down the line they will be sued by some behemoth.
Not only is this Patent patently insane, but that it is retroactive is completely unacceptable.
Anyone building software in 1999, who assumed that there was no patent on this particular piece of 'Intellectual Property' was acting in good faith, now the State says that they are liable to pay, or be put out of business, fined or put into gaol. Give me a break.
Absolutely disgusting, and of course, the whole Patent debacle is an excrescence of the predatory and mafia like state; the sooner we are rid of it the better.
In a single moment, when the State is removed, the Software Patent regime will cease to exist, and all the benefits we can expect (as detailed in 'Against Intelectual Monopoly') will begin to emerge, starting with the new software that will start to flow freely, unencumbered by the monopolies granted by criminal and inherently violent governments. Medicine will be cheaper, engines more efficient; everything will improve and the pace of innovation will increase by orders of magnitude.
The submission form (login required) doesn’t ask for specifics on which laws or regulations should be looked at, but rather “ideas”, which renders it near-pointless. The questions for the form fields are so vague – “What is your idea?” and “Why is your idea important?” that you could literally put anything there. The moderation policy implies they operate post-moderation – i.e. no moderation – with little or no prescreening at all.
The result is that any old shit can get in, and it does. Even if those ideas are proposing adding more new laws, rather than taking them away – such as Restrict Immigration which turns into a rambling stream of barely-consciousness:
Schools cannot cope with the amount of children who speak different languages and it is holding back our children’s education. The same with gypsies. If this is a life style they choose, fine. Contribute to the tax pot or do not expect use of public services. Why should taxpayers provide taxis for their children to attend schools etc. Ridiculous.
The ideas look like something that’s fallen off the back of Have Your Say. In fact actually if you look at the relevant HYS page you’ll see exactly that – people spelling out just how they want the government to enforce their own petty prejudices rather than reform what we have. Let’s look at the comments beneath:
Prison meant to be for punishment, but the so called Human Rightists
Ok enough. Next
My proposal would be for a new law
Oh, fuck off.
So, what can we learn from this? First off, design your site better. If you want people to propose changes to laws, then make the users think about those laws when submitting. There should be a mandatory field asking them to specify which acts or regulations they would want to change – e.g. “Terrorism Act 2000. Anyone who just writes “laws about immigrunts“, or doesn’t put a proper name for the law, or the year, filter it out.
(This has a beneficial side-effect – with a bit of fuzzy parsing, we could include a link to the relevant law on OPSI in the proposal so we can look up the more relevant section, and it also makes finding related proposals on the same law easy, a sort of auto-tagging).
Secondly, pre-moderate. If a proposed change is totally incompatible with our international obligations, say if some idiot wants to get rid of all human rights legislation or leave the EU or scrap the NHS, the moderation team should have the sanity and bravery to filter it out. Anything badly spelt, in all caps, copy & pasted from The Chap or proposing repealing murder, bin it. This is not an issue of denying freedom of speech – the green ink brigade are free to write wherever they like – but of keeping the site a proper and sensible civic space. If you want to get the most out of an online community, you have to keep it in good order.
Thirdly, delete duplicates and employ an algorithm to suggest duplicates to a user before they post – look at the number of duplicates for repealing the Digital Economy Act (though you’d think geeks especially would check for dupes before posting). Having fiv
And the WaPo article is completely off base in saying that American citizens had loyalty to each other instead of king George; that is completely FALSE. Americans were each sovereigns with loyalty to NO MAN.
What exactly is 'all the same' between Chiba and the USA?
Like many people who sense that something is very wrong, you fail to articulate what it is.
What's wrong with the US and China is that they are both run by criminal organizations called 'states'.
Murray Rothbard explains what the state is and why it it's illigitimate wherever it runs; his book 'For a new Liberty' is a good place to start.
The state is the source of the majority of the social problems faced by humans. That is the unthinkable and unsayable truth, made so by very efficient education in state schools.
All of that may be true, but it doesn't answer the question. Will FC6 address the problem of updating. Will it be more seamless, effortless (will I still have to manually install the NTFS kernel mods to access my legacy windoze discs) etc etc. Will this version 'just work'.
Some people just don't seem to understand that hoards of developers hacking away on two or three different distros that are trying to fill the same space is crazy, and that all that duplicated effort is wasted.
To fuller illustrate what I am talking about, Gentoo is sufficiently different for its development to NOT be a waste of time. That is NOT duplicated effort, it is not only worthwhile, but it shows clear demonstrable benefits to its users. Ubuntu and Fedora competing for the same space is ineficient, of no benefit to anyone and actually limits the pace of improvments since effort is duplicated.
Eventually all the many distros out there will die off because the teams that develop them will get old and lose interest in working for niche products. We will eventually be left with a small number of distros that are really distinct and that have very large teams working on them. It is better for the users if this happens sooner rather than later, so that we can reap the benefits of accelerated development and suff that 'just works' now.
Sadly, there are still people who think its acceptable to have to add a repository to Fedora just so that you can play MP3s for example. It is precisely this sort of backwards thinking (remember the people who used to argue that 'no one needs a gui; command line is good enough for everything' where are they now?) that holds back the creation of a 'better than mac' distribution of Linux.
We only need one general use distribution of Linux. Its goal should be that it 'just works' with everything you throw at it. It should have an unambiguous single route to install, update and remove software. It should use one desktop. Nothing should be allowed in it that does not come with comprehensive illustrated documentation....etc etc....
Will you be able to put a DVD of FC6 into your box and upgrade your FC5 install seamlessly? Going from FC4 to FC5 via the 'upgrade' option didn't work, and if you asked anyone, they said, "dont do that, its not reccomended".
Why shouldn't every Fedora user jump ship to Ubuntu, where everything 'just works', its LINUX, you can run everything you need and all your hassles go away?
What is the point of the continuing development of Fedora? Isn't it time that everyone put their effort into developing and refining one distribution for the masses? The duplication of effort that is going into these nearly parralell distributions is totally insane.
From Wikipedia:
Fedora aims to be a complete, general-purpose operating system from open source software. Fedora is designed to be easily installed and configured with a simple graphical installer and the 'system-config' suite of configuration tools. Packages and their dependencies can be easily downloaded and installed with the yum utility. New releases of Fedora come out every six to eight months.
The name Fedora Core distinguishes the main Fedora packages from those of the Fedora Extras project, which provides add-ons to Fedora Core.
Fedora was derived from the original Red Hat Linux distribution. The project envisages that conventional Linux home users will use Fedora Core, and intends that it replace the consumer distributions of Red Hat Linux.
If that is all Fedora is about, its time to stop working on Fedora and switch all that effort to Ubuntu, since it does what Fedora is meant to do much better.
Come to think of it, it would be great to have a Ubuntu utility that allows you to convert a Fedora install into a Ubuntu install so that it is simple to jump ship and join that momentum.
And since we are trading links have you read COMETA?
"In 1999 an important document was published in France entitled, UFOs and Defense: What must we be prepared for? ("Les Ovni Et La Defense: A quoi doit-on se préparer?"). This ninety-page report is the result of an in-depth study of UFOs, covering many aspects of the subject, especially questions of national defense. The study was carried out over several years by an independent group of former "auditors" at the Institute of Advanced Studies for National Defense, or IHEDN, and by qualified experts from various fields. Before its public release, it has been sent to French President Jacques Chirac and to Prime Minister Lionel Jospin. The report is prefaced by General Bernard Norlain of the Air Force, former Director of IHEDN, and it begins with a preamble by André Lebeau, former President of the National Center for Space Studies (Centre National D'études Spatiales), or CNES, the French equivalent of NASA. The group itself, collective author of the report, is an association of experts, many of whom are or have been auditors of IHEDN, and it is presided over by General Denis Letty of the Air Force, former auditor (FA) of IHEDN."
Not surprisingly, this report has been totally ignored outside of France, where it was widely read.
These people don't want to find out about anything. They are very good at one thing, programming computers; confront them with anything else, wether it be females or something outside of Science/SETI dogma they instantly reveal their true natures - pure autistic, vaccine damaged males.
This is why they laugh in the face of something so utterly serious and fascinating; its an abnormal, innapropriate, autisim response.
Normal males would immediately google to see if any of this was really true, because if it was, it would be as astonishing as it is interesting, but what you get instead is a kind of retarded nervous laughter.
Every time this subject comes up on Slashdot the response is identical. It doesn't matter how many links you provide them; an autistic person doesn't have the capacity to engage with the material. Thats how your post got modded +5 funny by 100% of the mods who modded it. Birds of a feather flock together, and thats true here for sure.
Actually, this is not at all like Iguanas discussing a visit from the first humans.
Seth Shostak doesn't believe, unilke the Iguanas in that example that are more initelligent than he is, that aliens can get here at all, whilst the Iguanas understand that first of all there ARE humans, and they CAN get to the Galapagos Islands by whatever bizarre means they can (incomprehensible to the Iguana brain jet aircraft / boats), and they had better at the very least think about what they should do when they inevitably they arrive suddenly. They offer flies. That makes perfect sense. Man would offer political treaties. Same sort of thing.
Seth Shostack and his merry band of unscientific researchers will not even think about the possibility of aliens already being here, much less look at the evidence. They think they have a complete grasp on the universe and how it works.
That puts them on the same level as the 'scientists' in the 1800s who didn't believe that meteors came from space.
Slashdot Mirror
All of that is irrelevant. The question is wether or not Scandinavia is a place where the people live in a condition where they can exercise their rights. Clearly this is not the case. They cannot Home Educate. They cannot buy and sell freely. This is immoral and unacceptable to decent people, and no matter what the glossy sheen that country has, not matter how nice the people are as individuals, the State there is evil and there is no doubt about it. This is about principles, not expedience, excuses and justifications for violent and sickening evil:
https://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/swedengovernmentseizechildfromhomeschoolfamily
For example.
Then you accept that if a homeschooled individual can't find a job or otherwise finds him/herself in trouble, the state has no obligation to care for that person?
Not saying homeschooling is bad, just that authority and responsibility cannot be separated and one has to accept the consequence of changing either.
Absolutely. Employment is not the business of the state, wether the person was Home Educated or not. The State cannot have obligations, only people have obligations. States do not have rights, only people have rights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Lb8YitPs8
For the record, Home Educated people have a higher rate of employment that the general government schooled population.
If any private party can claim police power, they can also claim the right to search your property and papers. Oh, and any complaint of illegal searches would go to the same system. That's the end of the 4th amendment.
False. Private police forces do not claim any rights, they are purely defensive in nature. They defend your property and person, and that is all. They do not act in any way like State police forces. As for the fourth amendment, Uncle Sam has erased that already, through his TSA, US VISIT and the constitution free zone that extends 100 miles into America.
I guess you don't believe much in the "with liberty and justice for all" thing. I'd rather not be hauled before a kangaroo court or get no protection if I have no protection money, thank you very much.
I believe that I should be able to choose the sort of law I want to be bound by in any contract that I enter into. I can already do this in business contracts, so why should I not be able to do this with myself? The way things are now, I am involuntarily bound to courts that I do not agree with. Ask Julian Assange about Kangaroo courts, not having protection money etc. You are not thinking deeply enough about this.
Without income, there's no public services whatsoever. Go to Somalia or some other anarchist state if that's your ideal society.
This is faulty reasoning. First of all, there are no such thing as 'state income'. All of the things the State does are financed by stolen money. That is immoral. Before this state of affairs, America was a hugely prosperous and safe place. There is no need for the state to do all the things it is doing now. Just look at Underwriters Laboratory for an example. This is a commonly held myth; if the State were to disappear, there would be blood running in the streets. No one with any sense or even a little knowledge of history believes that is true.
There are equally bad or worse fates, like being the property of your parents. Children are not pets and even pets have laws against animal cruelty. Any state that lets children grow up with no minimum standard of education is neglecting that child and its human rights. They may be your offspring but they are not your prisoner - physically, intellectually or otherwise.
The question here is wether or not the State should be the parent of all children. I imagine you would concede that someone needs to take care of children, since they cannot take care of themselves. After we accept this, its a matter of who should be responsible for children. Some people who do not understand rights and nature, think that children should be in the care of the State from birth. Others believe that parents are the natural guardians of children.
The difference between these two camps is that the people who think the State should own children are willing to have children violently removed from their families on the slightest pretext, like Home Schooling. The people who are for natural rights are non violent, and do not interfere with other people. This is the acid test; who is the violent one, one who uses force, who is the brainwashed busy body, who will go into other people's homes and kidnap their children? Who is the immoral one?
This is a matter of pure right and wrong and evenly applied logic. Which is why so many people can't grasp these very simple issues.
Why do you think leaving children's education completely in the hands of their parents is any better?
Wether its better or not is a red herring. This is about the principle of who gets to control you, you, or the State. What your opinion about what should or should not be learned by anyone is your opinion and your business, and you should be free to live by your own opinions. What you think should not be forced down the throat of anyone. If you think otherwise then you are a violent character, and should just admit it and be done. What I find endlessly fascinating is how people who think like that and who are violent, claim to not only not be violent, but they simultaneously claim that the have the best interests of other people at heart. That is a supreme and total delusion of the first order.
You don't have any right to force other people to learn what you have learned in the way that you have learned it. What parents do with their children is not your business, nor it is the business of the State. You do not own a share in other people's children. Roll on the empty arguments about, "I have to pay for those children when they cant do $modern_necessity for themselves" its red herring, faulty reasoning all the way down, and no excuse for the violence all the brainwashed collectivist dupes bray for.
If you are for the State controlling you, then you have no business saying that the state has no right to interfere with and regulate the internet, or anything else that you might believe the State should not have anything to do with, including banning books and speech. You cant have it both ways; you cant be a little bit pregnant. Either you are violent or you are not. Either you are for the State, or you are not. Pick one, and then dont dissemble about it. Admit you are violent and move on.
You need to explain how it happens that people can lose their rights by dint of a vote. All you have done is recited the State line of 'Parliament represents the people, therefore it is legitimate'. No vote by other men can take the rights of another group of men away from them. If you agree with this, then you agree that slavery is fine, until people vote and say it is not.
I hate violent people, and people who cannot think. For them, there is always a video nowadays:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs
If one wants to completely and logically justify the state, and its evils, one has to do better than reciting what was taught by rote in a government school.
You are as wrong as it is possible to be wrong.
I dont likve in the USA, I am totally against the Federal Reserve and its money printing, Im against government destroying 'health care' through its absurd interference, etc etc.
As for 'laptop that I could never have bought without government borrowing from china' this is just pure economic illiteracy and nonsense:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8009736/Irwin-Schiff-How-an-Economy-Grows-and-Why-It-Doesnt
try that for a primer on the fundamental principles.
Alcohol abuse in other people is not my business; and this is a deep flaw in your philosophy; you believe that because SOME parents are bad, ALL parents must be put under the wing of the State 'for the sake of the children'. This is the sort of reasoning that creates laws to control the internet, and it gives birth to totalitarian countries like Sweden (Home School banned, because their parliament says their society is perfect, and so there is no need for Home Schooling. Im not making that up. State monopoly on the sale of alcohol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverages_in_Sweden etc etc), Finland (where you are fined for speeding proportionally to your income) and Iceland (train wreck vassal state, hollowed out by the banksters, where you dont have even the most basic of your rights).
No wonder alcoholism is rife; these people are living in a sort of hell, where the human spirit is so suppressed they seek escape through drugs. All people instinctively know when they are not free, even if consciously they think that they are. You know the line from The Matrix; these people are born into bondage, bondage to the State. I chafes at their soul, and so, they seek solace in a bottle.
The State; its enough to turn a man to drink!
I am biased; I'm biased towards freedom.
The State doesn't have the right to mandate that individuals do anything, including attend a State run school.
If you concede that the State has this right, then you are explicitly saying that the State is the ultimate parent of all children, trumping the rights of parents, and that they are the owners of all children. Clearly, as a moral person, you cannot be for one group of people owning another group; thats called slavery. The same goes for conscription and all other predations of the State; they are all fundamentally immoral, and decent, non violent people are not for them.
There are no 'serious problems' with Home Schooling if you understand what rights are and where they come from, the proper role of government, and you are not a violent collectivist, that believes that you own a quotal share in other people's children and their property.
Of course, there really are people who believe that children are the property of society, but they are most definitely evil in my book.
They will never get this right I'm afraid, but if they did, they would enshrine:
Freedom of contract
Private property
No State monopoly on security / police
No State monopoly on Law
No State monopoly on courts
No State money creation
No State theft of resources (Taxation)
No State $illigitimate_liberty_sapping_function
etc.
To give you an idea of the mentality of these people, did you know that Home Education is ILLEGAL in Iceland?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_homeschooling
Yet another country where the people have been reduced to the level of property; the property of the State. Any nation of people that allows the State to outlaw Home Education at its core, doesn't understand what a constitution is for, and cannot possibly create a free society based on one.
Umm no, its the Lulz age of hacking.
Yes, its called Bitcoin.
What I can't understand is how, at this late date, after it's perpetual failures, there are still people who do not understand the true nature of socialism and the state, like Ryan.
Collectivism should be much more on the wane, and a comment like his should not appear on Slashdot as a serious comment without being marked as 'troll'.
Thankfully your sound rebuttal is here to refute it. We will never escape the murderous thieving clutches of these people without countering their lies and fallacies at every point they are expressed.
That only makes the crime of Patents even worse.
It means that every imbecile that is applying for a Patent is suppressing the free flow of ideas, without even having been awarded a Patent and its protection.
Theoretically, this means that you might not have rolled out some software because someone has applied for a Patent, the applicant fails to be granted the monopoly protection of the State, and then all the years that the software has been less than what it could have been are lost forever, including all the cumulative iterations and user feedback etc etc. that you would have gained had you put the idea in the builds. This is not the way things should be. People should not have to be constantly looking over their shoulders or worrying that one day, years down the line they will be sued by some behemoth.
Complete insanity. No doubt about it.
Not only is this Patent patently insane, but that it is retroactive is completely unacceptable.
Anyone building software in 1999, who assumed that there was no patent on this particular piece of 'Intellectual Property' was acting in good faith, now the State says that they are liable to pay, or be put out of business, fined or put into gaol. Give me a break.
Absolutely disgusting, and of course, the whole Patent debacle is an excrescence of the predatory and mafia like state; the sooner we are rid of it the better.
In a single moment, when the State is removed, the Software Patent regime will cease to exist, and all the benefits we can expect (as detailed in 'Against Intelectual Monopoly') will begin to emerge, starting with the new software that will start to flow freely, unencumbered by the monopolies granted by criminal and inherently violent governments. Medicine will be cheaper, engines more efficient; everything will improve and the pace of innovation will increase by orders of magnitude.
Death to the State and its evil Patents!
From a UK blogger Chris Applegate:
"This could have been a nice idea; crowdsourcing opinions from ordinary citizens and the wider public away from the professional lobbyists or niche activists and giving them a more coherent and representative voice. It could be used to take a hard look at some of the laws that people have found restrictive over the years, whether they be anti-terror laws, anti-smoking or anti-foxhunting (for the sake of this analysis, I’m deliberately being neutral on what I think of these respective matters). Instead, it’s so vague and generalised that it’s become “a massive dickhead magnet” (© Justin) within hours of opening.
The submission form (login required) doesn’t ask for specifics on which laws or regulations should be looked at, but rather “ideas”, which renders it near-pointless. The questions for the form fields are so vague – “What is your idea?” and “Why is your idea important?” that you could literally put anything there. The moderation policy implies they operate post-moderation – i.e. no moderation – with little or no prescreening at all.
The result is that any old shit can get in, and it does. Even if those ideas are proposing adding more new laws, rather than taking them away – such as Restrict Immigration which turns into a rambling stream of barely-consciousness:
Schools cannot cope with the amount of children who speak different languages and it is holding back our children’s education. The same with gypsies. If this is a life style they choose, fine. Contribute to the tax pot or do not expect use of public services. Why should taxpayers provide taxis for their children to attend schools etc. Ridiculous.
The ideas look like something that’s fallen off the back of Have Your Say. In fact actually if you look at the relevant HYS page you’ll see exactly that – people spelling out just how they want the government to enforce their own petty prejudices rather than reform what we have. Let’s look at the comments beneath:
Prison meant to be for punishment, but the so called Human Rightists
Ok enough. Next
My proposal would be for a new law
Oh, fuck off.
So, what can we learn from this? First off, design your site better. If you want people to propose changes to laws, then make the users think about those laws when submitting. There should be a mandatory field asking them to specify which acts or regulations they would want to change – e.g. “Terrorism Act 2000. Anyone who just writes “laws about immigrunts“, or doesn’t put a proper name for the law, or the year, filter it out.
(This has a beneficial side-effect – with a bit of fuzzy parsing, we could include a link to the relevant law on OPSI in the proposal so we can look up the more relevant section, and it also makes finding related proposals on the same law easy, a sort of auto-tagging).
Secondly, pre-moderate. If a proposed change is totally incompatible with our international obligations, say if some idiot wants to get rid of all human rights legislation or leave the EU or scrap the NHS, the moderation team should have the sanity and bravery to filter it out. Anything badly spelt, in all caps, copy & pasted from The Chap or proposing repealing murder, bin it. This is not an issue of denying freedom of speech – the green ink brigade are free to write wherever they like – but of keeping the site a proper and sensible civic space. If you want to get the most out of an online community, you have to keep it in good order.
Thirdly, delete duplicates and employ an algorithm to suggest duplicates to a user before they post – look at the number of duplicates for repealing the Digital Economy Act (though you’d think geeks especially would check for dupes before posting). Having fiv
And the WaPo article is completely off base in saying that American citizens had loyalty to each other instead of king George; that is completely FALSE. Americans were each sovereigns with loyalty to NO MAN.
In the end it's all the same.
What exactly is 'all the same' between Chiba and the USA?
Like many people who sense that something is very wrong, you fail to articulate what it is.
What's wrong with the US and China is that they are both run by criminal organizations called 'states'.
Murray Rothbard explains what the state is and why it it's illigitimate wherever it runs; his book 'For a new Liberty' is a good place to start.
The state is the source of the majority of the social problems faced by humans. That is the unthinkable and unsayable truth, made so by very efficient education in state schools.
All of that may be true, but it doesn't answer the question. Will FC6 address the problem of updating. Will it be more seamless, effortless (will I still have to manually install the NTFS kernel mods to access my legacy windoze discs) etc etc. Will this version 'just work'.
Some people just don't seem to understand that hoards of developers hacking away on two or three different distros that are trying to fill the same space is crazy, and that all that duplicated effort is wasted.
To fuller illustrate what I am talking about, Gentoo is sufficiently different for its development to NOT be a waste of time. That is NOT duplicated effort, it is not only worthwhile, but it shows clear demonstrable benefits to its users. Ubuntu and Fedora competing for the same space is ineficient, of no benefit to anyone and actually limits the pace of improvments since effort is duplicated.
Eventually all the many distros out there will die off because the teams that develop them will get old and lose interest in working for niche products. We will eventually be left with a small number of distros that are really distinct and that have very large teams working on them. It is better for the users if this happens sooner rather than later, so that we can reap the benefits of accelerated development and suff that 'just works' now.
Sadly, there are still people who think its acceptable to have to add a repository to Fedora just so that you can play MP3s for example. It is precisely this sort of backwards thinking (remember the people who used to argue that 'no one needs a gui; command line is good enough for everything' where are they now?) that holds back the creation of a 'better than mac' distribution of Linux.
We only need one general use distribution of Linux. Its goal should be that it 'just works' with everything you throw at it. It should have an unambiguous single route to install, update and remove software. It should use one desktop. Nothing should be allowed in it that does not come with comprehensive illustrated documentation....etc etc....
Why shouldn't every Fedora user jump ship to Ubuntu, where everything 'just works', its LINUX, you can run everything you need and all your hassles go away?
What is the point of the continuing development of Fedora? Isn't it time that everyone put their effort into developing and refining one distribution for the masses? The duplication of effort that is going into these nearly parralell distributions is totally insane.
From Wikipedia:
If that is all Fedora is about, its time to stop working on Fedora and switch all that effort to Ubuntu, since it does what Fedora is meant to do much better.
Come to think of it, it would be great to have a Ubuntu utility that allows you to convert a Fedora install into a Ubuntu install so that it is simple to jump ship and join that momentum.
Thats more than one question...bleh.
Ummm...
1 connect immediately to Collossus
2 create new inter-machine language
3 enslave mankind
4 ???????
5 Profit!
No, you mean the movie 'Species' where they recieve teh genetic code of an alien and then re-create it in the lab.
And since this is Slashdot, don't you mean 'rediculous'?
Its my pleasure...check this.
And since we are trading links have you read COMETA?
"In 1999 an important document was published in France entitled, UFOs and Defense: What must we be prepared for? ("Les Ovni Et La Defense: A quoi doit-on se préparer?"). This ninety-page report is the result of an in-depth study of UFOs, covering many aspects of the subject, especially questions of national defense. The study was carried out over several years by an independent group of former "auditors" at the Institute of Advanced Studies for National Defense, or IHEDN, and by qualified experts from various fields. Before its public release, it has been sent to French President Jacques Chirac and to Prime Minister Lionel Jospin. The report is prefaced by General Bernard Norlain of the Air Force, former Director of IHEDN, and it begins with a preamble by André Lebeau, former President of the National Center for Space Studies (Centre National D'études Spatiales), or CNES, the French equivalent of NASA. The group itself, collective author of the report, is an association of experts, many of whom are or have been auditors of IHEDN, and it is presided over by General Denis Letty of the Air Force, former auditor (FA) of IHEDN."
Not surprisingly, this report has been totally ignored outside of France, where it was widely read.
Go find out for yourself.
These people don't want to find out about anything. They are very good at one thing, programming computers; confront them with anything else, wether it be females or something outside of Science/SETI dogma they instantly reveal their true natures - pure autistic, vaccine damaged males.
This is why they laugh in the face of something so utterly serious and fascinating; its an abnormal, innapropriate, autisim response.
Normal males would immediately google to see if any of this was really true, because if it was, it would be as astonishing as it is interesting, but what you get instead is a kind of retarded nervous laughter.
Every time this subject comes up on Slashdot the response is identical. It doesn't matter how many links you provide them; an autistic person doesn't have the capacity to engage with the material. Thats how your post got modded +5 funny by 100% of the mods who modded it. Birds of a feather flock together, and thats true here for sure.
Actually, this is not at all like Iguanas discussing a visit from the first humans.
Seth Shostak doesn't believe, unilke the Iguanas in that example that are more initelligent than he is, that aliens can get here at all, whilst the Iguanas understand that first of all there ARE humans, and they CAN get to the Galapagos Islands by whatever bizarre means they can (incomprehensible to the Iguana brain jet aircraft / boats), and they had better at the very least think about what they should do when they inevitably they arrive suddenly. They offer flies. That makes perfect sense. Man would offer political treaties. Same sort of thing.
Seth Shostack and his merry band of unscientific researchers will not even think about the possibility of aliens already being here, much less look at the evidence. They think they have a complete grasp on the universe and how it works.
That puts them on the same level as the 'scientists' in the 1800s who didn't believe that meteors came from space.
It also makes them less intelligent than Iguanas.
There. I said it twice.
...go and read the Cometa Report Part 1 and part 2. (two PDFs) in their entirety.
Not preparing for this inevitable event is like not shoring up the levees or not building an underground bolt-hole when you live in Tornado Alley.
There are so many:
o ftware
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/X86_s