Indeed, it is my point that property ownership only exists in a practical sense. We all have to agree to it through society, otherwise it doesn't work. This is pretty much the opposite of a natural right. Freedom of speech for example is pretty much the opposite. You can speak all you want, and your speech doesn't restrict my right to speak. I can speak also, at the same time. We can both run around speaking to our hearts content.
On the other hand, if I decide to take an orange from you, only one of us has it. If I claim I owned it all along, well, we come to the core problem of property rights: we need to keep track as a group of who owns what in order to decide disputes.
Thus freedom of speech can exist without enforcement, and in fact thrives best when no force is involved. Ownership of property doesn't exist without the threat of enforcement. This is the opposite of a natural right, though it is perhaps the most basic of the socially constructed rights.
That was the point of my post. You have to conclude that property rights are not a natural right because property rights must be granted. Otherwise, you have to accept my ownership of the earth, and start paying me rent. Rent is $100 dollars this month, if you agree it is a natural right, send me email and I'll let you know where to send the check.
No, I'm among the people who believe that if the primary use for something you design or build is wrong, that you bear a portion of the responsibility for making that wrong possible.
Guns are entirely different. They are designed and built (mostly) to enable positive uses (hunting, sport, self defense). When a gun is designed for use by drug lords to kill innocents, then yes, the gun manufacturers will need to bear some responsibility for that (in my view).
A biological weapon, as an example, is difficult to imagine a right use for. Anyone designing a biological weapon would be reasonable to assume that if used, it would be used wrongfully. Thus you become a willing participant in the wrong use, and you bear some responsibility.
I always read my replies, so the delay doesn't matter.
The difference is easy to explain though: either you've had an experience so mind shattering that you can not allow the possiblity that it was not God, or you haven't had such an experience. If you've had such an experience, you have no choice but to accept that it was God. Whether it was God, a stroke, an alien force, or the government, you're still left with no choice but to accept that it was God that did it, because your brain has been fundamentally and permanently rewired to believe that way. To put it another way, such an experience takes away your free will to believe it was anything other than God.
So if this is not the sort of experience people are describing to you, then it probably wasn't God.
If you don't allow guns to those in a mental institute, you're just asking for the state to declare that everywhere is a mental institute (or alternatively, that everyone has at least one mental problem) and thus no one should be allowed guns. Same argument for prisons. You're just asking for the state to convict everyone in order to take your rights away. Absolute property rights suck too: you're just asking for one rich guy to buy up everything and make you rent as his vassal for the rest of your life. This is one of the reasons that taxes are necessary: to prevent a nightmare consolidation of ownership.
If sony has absolute property rights over their cds, why shouldn't they be allowed to put whatever they want on them? I mean, it's your own fault if you don't check what that cd contains before exposing your computer to it. You're practically begging to have your computer rootkitted if you don't, and who is Sony not to oblige you?
For example, I own the world. So I can go anywhere I please, including into 'your' home which is really mine.
You might suggest that the state decides who owns what, and the state says you own your home. But if so, then they also have the power to decide what the limits on that ownership are, including the powers of copyright.
If you rely on the force of the state to create property rights, then you pretty much have to go along with the whole legal system in determining who has what assorted rights. The state has decided that copyright and property rights are both to exist, and that it will offer to use its force in defending those rights in certain ways. You can live with the legal system, or you can work with others to change it, or you can resist it (though your odds of doing that effectively seem quite low).
I think you misread my post. Of course we want more power. Certainly the 5 hours with your laptop is not enough. The question is, when you are getting 20 hours on one charged battery on your laptop, will you still be begging for more, or will that be roughly enough?
I think this will solve all but one of your conditions:
16 hours airborne: 20 hours battery time. Solved. Plus more and more airplanes have outlets now. power strips / hotel: most decent hotels are offering more outlets these days, if you don't have the money for a decent hotel (say $50 per night) then it isn't likely you have too many of these devices with you to worry about. Solved. car road trips: i've driven cross country 3 times in the last 5 years. I bought a $20 plug for my car. If you spend more time than that in your car you'd be well advised to make that investment. Solved. Foreign country. You're screwed. Buy an adapter at the nearest airport though. Sharing a room / 200 cockroaches. Indicates you're not spending enough on your hotel compared to your devices. Same as above.
I don't think that's true. Consider that most people sleep at night, for at least 5 hours on average. Most of us sleep in a place with an electrical outlet. If your device carries a 20 hour charge and can be recharged in 4 hours or less, and a standard ac-plug is folded into the device, will consumers really care that much that they still have to remember to plug in their device before they go to sleep? And with all the attention that processor and device manufacturers are putting on power consumption now, I expect power consumption to drop in next generation devices rather than rise, in spite of better features.
Theory: there might be an intelligent designer in the universe. To disprove: check the universe. if no ID found, theory disproved. To strengthen: the more IDs you find, the stronger the theory.
What I love about this: there aren't any observable non-natural occurences in the universe. Either something occurs in the universe (is natural) or it doesn't. If it doesn't, odds are we won't have observed it.
I do have freedom of speech, in every organization. Freedom of speech is among the universal human rights, and the constitution isn't what gives me that right, it's what is supposed to guarantee me a protection of that right by our government from intrusion by our government. Now they don't guarantee they'll protect me from some corporation, but that's not the same thing as not having a right.
In fairness to the student: the likelyhood he would learn that his speech has no consequences is fairly low, since it wasn't his speech that got him in trouble in the first place. It was someone elses speech, and I hope he rightly learns that he shouldn't worry too much that someone else's speech will get him into trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, it is my point that property ownership only exists in a practical sense. We all have to agree to it through society, otherwise it doesn't work. This is pretty much the opposite of a natural right. Freedom of speech for example is pretty much the opposite. You can speak all you want, and your speech doesn't restrict my right to speak. I can speak also, at the same time. We can both run around speaking to our hearts content.
On the other hand, if I decide to take an orange from you, only one of us has it. If I claim I owned it all along, well, we come to the core problem of property rights: we need to keep track as a group of who owns what in order to decide disputes.
Thus freedom of speech can exist without enforcement, and in fact thrives best when no force is involved. Ownership of property doesn't exist without the threat of enforcement. This is the opposite of a natural right, though it is perhaps the most basic of the socially constructed rights.
Great job on the redundant mod, since my post was earliest. Also nice to see moderation 5 points under the replies! Way to go mods!
You can still NAT your IPV6 network internally, and there will remain the same good reasons for doing so.
That was the point of my post. You have to conclude that property rights are not a natural right because property rights must be granted. Otherwise, you have to accept my ownership of the earth, and start paying me rent. Rent is $100 dollars this month, if you agree it is a natural right, send me email and I'll let you know where to send the check.
No, I'm among the people who believe that if the primary use for something you design or build is wrong, that you bear a portion of the responsibility for making that wrong possible.
Guns are entirely different. They are designed and built (mostly) to enable positive uses (hunting, sport, self defense). When a gun is designed for use by drug lords to kill innocents, then yes, the gun manufacturers will need to bear some responsibility for that (in my view).
A biological weapon, as an example, is difficult to imagine a right use for. Anyone designing a biological weapon would be reasonable to assume that if used, it would be used wrongfully. Thus you become a willing participant in the wrong use, and you bear some responsibility.
I always read my replies, so the delay doesn't matter.
The difference is easy to explain though: either you've had an experience so mind shattering that you can not allow the possiblity that it was not God, or you haven't had such an experience. If you've had such an experience, you have no choice but to accept that it was God. Whether it was God, a stroke, an alien force, or the government, you're still left with no choice but to accept that it was God that did it, because your brain has been fundamentally and permanently rewired to believe that way. To put it another way, such an experience takes away your free will to believe it was anything other than God.
So if this is not the sort of experience people are describing to you, then it probably wasn't God.
If you don't allow guns to those in a mental institute, you're just asking for the state to declare that everywhere is a mental institute (or alternatively, that everyone has at least one mental problem) and thus no one should be allowed guns. Same argument for prisons. You're just asking for the state to convict everyone in order to take your rights away. Absolute property rights suck too: you're just asking for one rich guy to buy up everything and make you rent as his vassal for the rest of your life. This is one of the reasons that taxes are necessary: to prevent a nightmare consolidation of ownership.
If sony has absolute property rights over their cds, why shouldn't they be allowed to put whatever they want on them? I mean, it's your own fault if you don't check what that cd contains before exposing your computer to it. You're practically begging to have your computer rootkitted if you don't, and who is Sony not to oblige you?
That's like trying to claim the scientists who design weapons aren't responsible when the people they work for decide to use them.
Who grants the natural right to property?
For example, I own the world. So I can go anywhere I please, including into 'your' home which is really mine.
You might suggest that the state decides who owns what, and the state says you own your home. But if so, then they also have the power to decide what the limits on that ownership are, including the powers of copyright.
If you rely on the force of the state to create property rights, then you pretty much have to go along with the whole legal system in determining who has what assorted rights. The state has decided that copyright and property rights are both to exist, and that it will offer to use its force in defending those rights in certain ways. You can live with the legal system, or you can work with others to change it, or you can resist it (though your odds of doing that effectively seem quite low).
Because they are offering audio, video, networking on the same chip as the general purpose processing.
Actually, with the virtualization programs available on all of those platforms, people should be able to run your os without difficulty.
Actually, virtual property does have to be scarce because it is modeled on real finite hardware. It just doesn't have to be nearly as scarce as it is.
I think you misread my post. Of course we want more power. Certainly the 5 hours with your laptop is not enough. The question is, when you are getting 20 hours on one charged battery on your laptop, will you still be begging for more, or will that be roughly enough?
I think this will solve all but one of your conditions:
16 hours airborne: 20 hours battery time. Solved. Plus more and more airplanes have outlets now.
power strips / hotel: most decent hotels are offering more outlets these days, if you don't have the money for a decent hotel (say $50 per night) then it isn't likely you have too many of these devices with you to worry about. Solved.
car road trips: i've driven cross country 3 times in the last 5 years. I bought a $20 plug for my car. If you spend more time than that in your car you'd be well advised to make that investment. Solved.
Foreign country. You're screwed. Buy an adapter at the nearest airport though.
Sharing a room / 200 cockroaches. Indicates you're not spending enough on your hotel compared to your devices. Same as above.
You're calculating something wrong, because your result came out in units of acceleration, and waaaay too big.
bah, should have previewed, html ate my:
-- wanders off grumbling about stupid verizon service --
If by handled well you mean 'hang up on you' then I agree, cell phones do this well already.
Ah, so we'll all be carrying around an ant farm for refueling our devices, cool!
I don't think that's true. Consider that most people sleep at night, for at least 5 hours on average. Most of us sleep in a place with an electrical outlet. If your device carries a 20 hour charge and can be recharged in 4 hours or less, and a standard ac-plug is folded into the device, will consumers really care that much that they still have to remember to plug in their device before they go to sleep? And with all the attention that processor and device manufacturers are putting on power consumption now, I expect power consumption to drop in next generation devices rather than rise, in spite of better features.
Theory: there might be an intelligent designer in the universe.
To disprove: check the universe. if no ID found, theory disproved.
To strengthen: the more IDs you find, the stronger the theory.
What I love about this: there aren't any observable non-natural occurences in the universe. Either something occurs in the universe (is natural) or it doesn't. If it doesn't, odds are we won't have observed it.
Are you sure it's not how a jury interprets? Because otherwise I'm sending you to jail right now for threatening my life in your post.
I do have freedom of speech, in every organization. Freedom of speech is among the universal human rights, and the constitution isn't what gives me that right, it's what is supposed to guarantee me a protection of that right by our government from intrusion by our government. Now they don't guarantee they'll protect me from some corporation, but that's not the same thing as not having a right.
I meant it as it was, in the meaning of bringing the lawsuit as a form of abuse.
Hopefully what the students will learn is that when you stand up to abusive authorities you stand to win big $$$.
In fairness to the student: the likelyhood he would learn that his speech has no consequences is fairly low, since it wasn't his speech that got him in trouble in the first place. It was someone elses speech, and I hope he rightly learns that he shouldn't worry too much that someone else's speech will get him into trouble.