How would that mitigate the problem? What about the people who legitimately own that file and are using the service for backup or transport? You would be removing their legitimately owned property by removing their valid and legal links to that particular file.
Um... What? Every single one of the things you say China does not have? China has.
They manipulate currency values and engage in activities to destroy industries in competing countries. They engage in frequent industrial and military espionage.
They do sponsor terrorism in Tibet and North Korea.
They do threaten traffic in the south china sea.
Their entire nation is so completely tied to Han racial supremacy that it is nearly inseparable from the Chinese communist party and nation of china.
Taiwan is the neighbor they do not see having a right to exist.
I am very much pro copyright. Though I am a purist who believes in fair use and and that limited duration should never have been extended past 14 years.
This is one of the many use cases for draconian copyright persecution. It allows the big name corps to lay exclusive claim to all media, even those who they do not represent.
Increasing H1B? They should be decreasing H1B workers for more local long term employment.
Software patent reform/elimination: good++11
Dont defund DARPA: good
Release wireless spectrum: how does that affect software?
Supporting the software industry does not mean we don't need manufacturing. Not everyone can or wants to work in a creative field. Manufacturing is as important to national and economic security as software.
Are you saying Ron Paul isn't a loonie? But Gary Johnson (the actual libertarian candidate) is?
Do I need to remind you that Ron Paul is a liar, racist and theocrat who does not believe in the 1st, 14th and 24th amendment? That he was implicated in a plot by white supremacists to overthrow the Dominican Republic? That he published a racist newsletter for decades? That he regularly had lunch and consulted with Grand Dragons of the KKK and the founders of Stormfront and the American NAZI party? That his "we the people" act would allow states to violate freedom of religion?
That doesn't qualify as least bad to me. Not by a long shot.
You are the one who soured the response first. You already said I was stupid and unrealistic right here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2639369&cid=38830539 I merely responded in kind, the difference is that I am correct, and you are wrong.
Conservatism is and has always been about resisting or repealing progress. The beginning point is not the American Revolution! It is the age of the divine monarchy that encompassed the first several thousand years of human civilization. Conservatism resisted the American revolution and it resisted the progress of liberties since then. And taken to an extreme, it attempts to repeal all of them.
Imagine it this way. There is a triangle with liberty at one point, authority at the second point and anarchy at the third. Progressivism moves towards liberty. conservatism moves towards authority. And libertarianism moves towards anarchy.
No. liberals completely oppose the patriot act because it removes citizens liberties directly and also fails to preserve the remaining liberties from external threats. The law against murder removes only the license to infringe on others liberties, not for example the right to own a weapon capable of killing.
As for the rest of your post, it is fucking retarded. Liberalism is one of the most realistic points of view. And yes, its entire purpose is to support liberty. The entire purpose of conservatism is to oppose progress towards liberty. I am not a partisan, many democrats are conservative and I do not hold their line.
Most of the free market fanaticism damage is nationwide and even global. For instance our recent recession caused by deregulation in the housing and banking industries and our current extremely meager recovery. Though I can certainly point to regional issues like the abandonment of Detroit and New Orleans.
There is also, of course, the problem if your state slides more and more free market in the economy, destroys the environment, impoverishes millions of people, runs huge deficits from tax cuts, leaves people so uneducated they wouldn't recognize liberty or so unhealthy that they can't take advantage of liberty in the few cases someone doesn't manipulate the market to remove that liberty for profit.
It cuts both ways. Socialism done wrong is no worse than free market fanaticism done wrong.
I do understand free markets and buying power. You do not.
The idea of the free market makes several assumptions that are not true in the real world and cause it to rapidly break down.
0: All trades are fair, and increase value for both participants. This is clearly not true.
1: There are no external costs. The cost of untreated pollution may be billions of dollars, the cost to clean it up may be hundreds of millions of dollars and the cost to not pollute in the first place may be 10s of millions of dollars. The problem is that taking the last option, the cheapest one internalizes the cost and puts the supplier at a disadvantage to those who ignore pollution completely. Then the second option can be avoided by arguing that someone else did it or that your contribution to it was miniscule. There are external and unaccounted for costs and regulation can minimize their impact and dramatically reduce risk.
2: All suppliers are completely honest. People are not honest, particularly when money is on the line. And corporations by definition are psychopathic.
3: All consumers are well informed. People often ignorant, poorly educated or believe in magical thinking.
4: Suppliers always compete, and do so fairly. Collusion exists, as does practices intended to destroy competitors.
5: There are no monopolies. Again, without regulation, monopolies tend to form due to a number of factors and monopolies are capable of making it impossible to purchase a necessity in a way that benefits you.
Somewhat, but communism as practiced in Soviet Russia wasn't actually communism. Stalins "communism" was a lie he told his own people, he was pure authoritarian and very anti-liberal.
The communist ideal has some liberal elements, in that a society that provides everyone's needs removes certain existential threats to the expression of liberty.
However, in practice it is as ineffective as libertarianism. Libertarianism does not provide sufficient incentive to not infringing on others rights, communism does not provide sufficient incentive to the individual to contribute to the public good.
Exterminating jews, gypsies and homosexuals is not progressive. Waging a war of conquest is not progressive. The economic aspects of his rule promoted monopolies and collusion, that is not progressive. The dissolution of his senate was not progressive. Assuming absolute control of the government was not progressive.
This is what socialists believe in: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" -- the God Damned Constitution.
The economic engine underlying that is a means to that end. And capitalism (restrained by appropriate regulation) is the best economic engine that promotes growth and works towards those goals that has been tested to date.
How can you be against liberalism but want liberty? The two are fundamentally and irrevocably intertwined by definition.
You have no idea what liberal and progressive mean, at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with the size of government, only its quality. Right now we have a large, corrupt, and malignant government. We can improve it by excising the fascist and conservative aspects and have a smaller more liberal government. Or we can try to add to it laws that protect and empower the citizens and have a larger more liberal government.
A liberal values liberty, that is it. A progressive seeks progress, the advancement of liberty, a more perfect nation that protects and empowers its citizens liberty.
Law is not the loss of liberty. Murder being illegal removes your license to kill indiscriminately, but it also grants you the freedom to know that you it is very unlikely that someone will kill you.
Libertarians and liberals are very similar. The difference is that libertarians do not believe that freedom and liberty can be increased by regulation and would prefer to live lawlessly where they would be free to exercise personal liberty at the expense of others. They would rather have license to pour poison into the drinking water and kill thousands of people than be encumbered by a little environmental, health or safety regulation.
Slashdot Mirror
How would that mitigate the problem? What about the people who legitimately own that file and are using the service for backup or transport? You would be removing their legitimately owned property by removing their valid and legal links to that particular file.
Yes, it is called data deduplication, and it can be invaluable for preserving space in a sufficiently large data store.
Um... What? Every single one of the things you say China does not have? China has.
They manipulate currency values and engage in activities to destroy industries in competing countries. They engage in frequent industrial and military espionage.
They do sponsor terrorism in Tibet and North Korea.
They do threaten traffic in the south china sea.
Their entire nation is so completely tied to Han racial supremacy that it is nearly inseparable from the Chinese communist party and nation of china.
Taiwan is the neighbor they do not see having a right to exist.
Its also a book that expands on the essay.
HTML was created at CERN in Switzerland. Damn foreigners can't even get their history right. ;)
I am very much pro copyright. Though I am a purist who believes in fair use and and that limited duration should never have been extended past 14 years.
This is one of the many use cases for draconian copyright persecution. It allows the big name corps to lay exclusive claim to all media, even those who they do not represent.
decaf is the devils urine.
Aside from the abysmal battery life, I am quite enjoying my Epic 4g on sprint.
Sprint won't mind.
Some good, some bad.
Increasing H1B? They should be decreasing H1B workers for more local long term employment.
Software patent reform/elimination: good++11
Dont defund DARPA: good
Release wireless spectrum: how does that affect software?
Supporting the software industry does not mean we don't need manufacturing. Not everyone can or wants to work in a creative field. Manufacturing is as important to national and economic security as software.
Are you saying Ron Paul isn't a loonie? But Gary Johnson (the actual libertarian candidate) is?
Do I need to remind you that Ron Paul is a liar, racist and theocrat who does not believe in the 1st, 14th and 24th amendment? That he was implicated in a plot by white supremacists to overthrow the Dominican Republic? That he published a racist newsletter for decades? That he regularly had lunch and consulted with Grand Dragons of the KKK and the founders of Stormfront and the American NAZI party? That his "we the people" act would allow states to violate freedom of religion?
That doesn't qualify as least bad to me. Not by a long shot.
You are the one who soured the response first. You already said I was stupid and unrealistic right here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2639369&cid=38830539 I merely responded in kind, the difference is that I am correct, and you are wrong.
Conservatism is and has always been about resisting or repealing progress. The beginning point is not the American Revolution! It is the age of the divine monarchy that encompassed the first several thousand years of human civilization. Conservatism resisted the American revolution and it resisted the progress of liberties since then. And taken to an extreme, it attempts to repeal all of them.
Imagine it this way. There is a triangle with liberty at one point, authority at the second point and anarchy at the third. Progressivism moves towards liberty. conservatism moves towards authority. And libertarianism moves towards anarchy.
No. liberals completely oppose the patriot act because it removes citizens liberties directly and also fails to preserve the remaining liberties from external threats. The law against murder removes only the license to infringe on others liberties, not for example the right to own a weapon capable of killing.
As for the rest of your post, it is fucking retarded. Liberalism is one of the most realistic points of view. And yes, its entire purpose is to support liberty. The entire purpose of conservatism is to oppose progress towards liberty. I am not a partisan, many democrats are conservative and I do not hold their line.
Most of the free market fanaticism damage is nationwide and even global. For instance our recent recession caused by deregulation in the housing and banking industries and our current extremely meager recovery. Though I can certainly point to regional issues like the abandonment of Detroit and New Orleans.
There is also, of course, the problem if your state slides more and more free market in the economy, destroys the environment, impoverishes millions of people, runs huge deficits from tax cuts, leaves people so uneducated they wouldn't recognize liberty or so unhealthy that they can't take advantage of liberty in the few cases someone doesn't manipulate the market to remove that liberty for profit.
It cuts both ways. Socialism done wrong is no worse than free market fanaticism done wrong.
I do understand free markets and buying power. You do not.
The idea of the free market makes several assumptions that are not true in the real world and cause it to rapidly break down.
0: All trades are fair, and increase value for both participants. This is clearly not true.
1: There are no external costs. The cost of untreated pollution may be billions of dollars, the cost to clean it up may be hundreds of millions of dollars and the cost to not pollute in the first place may be 10s of millions of dollars. The problem is that taking the last option, the cheapest one internalizes the cost and puts the supplier at a disadvantage to those who ignore pollution completely. Then the second option can be avoided by arguing that someone else did it or that your contribution to it was miniscule. There are external and unaccounted for costs and regulation can minimize their impact and dramatically reduce risk.
2: All suppliers are completely honest. People are not honest, particularly when money is on the line. And corporations by definition are psychopathic.
3: All consumers are well informed. People often ignorant, poorly educated or believe in magical thinking.
4: Suppliers always compete, and do so fairly. Collusion exists, as does practices intended to destroy competitors.
5: There are no monopolies. Again, without regulation, monopolies tend to form due to a number of factors and monopolies are capable of making it impossible to purchase a necessity in a way that benefits you.
Somewhat, but communism as practiced in Soviet Russia wasn't actually communism. Stalins "communism" was a lie he told his own people, he was pure authoritarian and very anti-liberal.
The communist ideal has some liberal elements, in that a society that provides everyone's needs removes certain existential threats to the expression of liberty.
However, in practice it is as ineffective as libertarianism. Libertarianism does not provide sufficient incentive to not infringing on others rights, communism does not provide sufficient incentive to the individual to contribute to the public good.
How exactly was Hitler progressive?
Exterminating jews, gypsies and homosexuals is not progressive.
Waging a war of conquest is not progressive.
The economic aspects of his rule promoted monopolies and collusion, that is not progressive.
The dissolution of his senate was not progressive.
Assuming absolute control of the government was not progressive.
Socialists do not oppose capitalism.
This is what socialists believe in: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" -- the God Damned Constitution.
The economic engine underlying that is a means to that end. And capitalism (restrained by appropriate regulation) is the best economic engine that promotes growth and works towards those goals that has been tested to date.
Fascism is a subset of the conservative ideology, fascism is very opposed to progress toward liberty.
Conservatives seek license for those in power, not liberty for all.
How can you be against liberalism but want liberty? The two are fundamentally and irrevocably intertwined by definition.
You have no idea what liberal and progressive mean, at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with the size of government, only its quality. Right now we have a large, corrupt, and malignant government. We can improve it by excising the fascist and conservative aspects and have a smaller more liberal government. Or we can try to add to it laws that protect and empower the citizens and have a larger more liberal government.
A liberal values liberty, that is it.
A progressive seeks progress, the advancement of liberty, a more perfect nation that protects and empowers its citizens liberty.
Law is not the loss of liberty. Murder being illegal removes your license to kill indiscriminately, but it also grants you the freedom to know that you it is very unlikely that someone will kill you.
Libertarians and liberals are very similar. The difference is that libertarians do not believe that freedom and liberty can be increased by regulation and would prefer to live lawlessly where they would be free to exercise personal liberty at the expense of others. They would rather have license to pour poison into the drinking water and kill thousands of people than be encumbered by a little environmental, health or safety regulation.
There are no liberal democrats, only democrats slightly less conservative than the average republican.
I didn't. I dont think anyone I ever voted for has actually made it into office.