You're reminding me of Hilaire Belloc's, The Servile State, a great "third way" (i.e. neither capitalist/individualist nor socialist/collectivist) perspective:
Many would argue that a man so compelled to labour, guaranteed against insecurity and against insufficiency of food, housing and clothing, promised subsistence for his old age, and a similar set of advantages for his posterity, would be a great deal better off than a free man lacking all these things. But the argument does not affect the definition attaching to the word servile. [...]
It must further be grasped that the essential mark of the Servile Institution does not depend upon the ownership of the slave by a particular master. That the institution of slavery tends to that form under the various forces composing human nature and human society is probable enough. That if or when slavery were re-established in England a particular man would in time be found the slave not of Capitalism in general but of, say, the Shell Oil Trust in particular, is a very likely development ; and we know that in societies where the institution was of immemorial antiquity such direct possession of the slave by the free man or corporation of free men had come to be the rule. But my point is that such a mark is not essential to the character of slavery. As an initial phase in the institution of slavery, or even as a permanent phase marking society for an indefinite time, it is perfectly easy to conceive of a whole class rendered servile by positive law, and compelled by such law to labour for the advantage of another non-servile free class, without any direct act of possession permitted to one man over the person of another.
Some people say a man is made outta mud
A code monkey's got Mountain Dew for his blood
Dew in the blood and Cheeto bones
A bad back and carpal tunnel syndrome
You click 16 likes and whaddaya get?
Another ad targeted to your regret
Can't get a new job for what my profile showed
I owe info to the company store
I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
I picked up my laptop and I coded a line
I coded PHP and in Javascript
And off to Menlo Park then I was shipped
You click 16 likes and whaddaya get?
Another ad targeted to your regret
Can't get a new job for what my profile showed
I owe info to the company store
If you see me comin', better step aside
The Dew and Cheetos made me a little too wide
A little too wide and a little too old
But for Facebook's perks my soul I've sold
You click 16 likes and whaddaya get?
Another ad targeted to your regret
Can't get a new job for what my profile showed
I owe info to the company store
I was thinking something similar. Not necessarily that such would happen in a majority of the cases but that the potential for abuse is there.
It is unlikely to be motivated by the quest for profit, however. Criminal proceedings aren't likely to yield profit unless blackmail is involved, and the danger in blackmail will deter some cases.
I see the most likely abusers of this law as the spurned seeking revenge. Granted, few will want to post pictures of themselves online and make an accusation to get revenge. But the potential payoff (i.e. sending your #(*@ing ex to jail, that stupid !@&*!) is high enough to mean that some will try it. Combine this with the fact that males in particular are often treated guilty of sexual crimes until proven innocent and you have a huge potential for abuse.
Indeed you're correct. My purpose, however, was merely to make a smart-ass remark about the irrelevance of bitcoins to this case. The bitcoins are just a tool, just as federal reserve notes are, but they'll nevertheless be part of the cyber-scare case. Even so, let me know if you come up with an excuse to arrest Bernanke.
Agreed on all points. But to add some additional clarity:
6 - Looking at the same article summaries on the new and old version, one quickly discovers that the space used on the superfluous picture was taken from the summary. Now to finish the summary, I have to follow the link. I used to only do this when I wanted to participate in the discussion. This makes me less likely to come to/. for articles at all, if I've got to click an extra link just to read a summary.
7 - When the summary is interesting, I normally go to the commentary. Without the enclosed comment threads, it's visually much harder to follow the bounds of a thread. This is a downgrade and, again, it makes me less interested in/. where the main content is the interesting commentary.
[I]t's just that it's hard for 4" screen to compete with whatever draws their attention in the real world [...]
And here I thought you were arguing that a four-year-old's cognitive abilities were not as advanced as an adult's. Looks like you meant they weren't as degraded.
Ah. No problem. I wasn't kidding when I said it seemed as though you hadn't read what I'd said. But the way message boards on the internet work, we've all had people accuse us of arguing the exact opposite of what we were. Have a nice evening.
Dude, I think you're a bit confused. I would agree that people resort to a drug like this because of the high prices imposed by anti-drug prohibitionism. I also oppose the war on drugs. I said as much repeatedly. And by repeatedly I mean that I literally repeated my objection to the drug war.
As for this being a consequence of "recreational drug use," I never said it was. Once someone resorts to something like this I rather doubt they're involved in much that can be termed recreation.
I'm sure you're objecting to something, since you say, "Everyone that rated this post so it hit +5 IS THE PROBLEM." If you'd like to talk, I'm always happy to do so. But reading what you say here it almost seems as though you didn't read the post to which you so vehemently object.
[...] Lucas had grown to believe his own hype, that he was the 2nd coming of Christ [...]
Let's just be glad he hasn't decided to rewrite other stories based on this belief. I can see it now. From the Gospel of Lucas, 24.1-4:
1. And he was laid in a tomb for three days. 2. When the women arrived to anoint his body, they discovered an angel sitting on the tomb, who spake thus as in a strange tongue: 3. "Fear not, for Isa bringin you great tidings. Hesa havin high midiclorian count, so hisa dyin not stickin." 4. And so the women marveled and rejoiced, saying, "Strong is he in the force, yea, that strong."
Anyone who uses something so destructive to his own body has a sick and twisted soul. But the good response to a twisted soul is not to say they deserve what is done to their body, anymore than the good response to a sick body is to say that it deserves to be separated from its soul. The good response is to seek the healing of both.
I do not believe in the drug war, but neither do I agree with those who would scoff, shrug, and say that it doesn't matter. Some of the comments in this vein are lacking in compassion and in humanity. I cannot see a great distinction in kind, though perhaps their is some difference in degree, between the mind of the inhumane person who would be rid of those who would harm themselves and the mind of the diseased man who would take drugs to rid him of himself. Both are antithetical to life.
I do not believe in the drug war because the fighting metaphor is taken too literally. A drug war ought to be fought as we fight diseases, with treatment and medicine meant to heal, rather than as we fight foreign enemies, with guns and internment.
I do not believe in the drug war because there are people willing to take a drug like this, a drug whose very name indicates its self-destructive potential, and therefore I cannot believe that the nightmare of the prison system or the fear thereof would end such self-abuse. Whether people do such drugs out of desperation or vice, punishment can have little positive effect on those whose recreation looks nightmarish to a person of ordinary psychology. They need help and help directed at the root of the problem. And since this becomes a political question, I would add that I would sooner taxes be spent helping people awaken from old nightmares than wake up to new ones. I do not believe in the drug war, but I do believe that we should do what we can to heal diseases of the mind which accept the destruction of the body.
If the parts are remanufactured or from ACDelco (owned by GM since 1944), you really are just able to replace a broken component, which is much different than being able to substitute an alternative.
Note what I said:
[...] one small, closed, replaceable part on a far more open system.
And again:
In other words, it's replaceable . I didn't say it was replaceable with a Raspberry Pi, only that it was replaceable.
If by "substitute an alternative" you mean anything other than replace, at least as far as my own vehicle is concerned, I never claimed as much except insofar as I claim and maintain that you can replace the engine entirely, including with things other than a gasoline engine.
We are quite literally arguing semantics here. Notice you say here, "[...] nullification is the way to limit federal power-grabs." Notice I say above, "Note, of course, that I'm actually sympathetic to your view and I applaud those states who nullify unconstitutional, impractical, and unjust marijuana laws." And further above, "But [nullification would] be a better means of securing self-government than allowing the Federal government to be the final judge of its own laws." In other words, I agree that nullification is the way to limit federal power-grabs. I just don't think the idea has any life in the public mind or that there's any hope of making matters otherwise.
You seem to think I'm disagreeing with you about something I'm not disagreeing with you about. What I disagreed with was the use of one particular term: "I don't think I'd use the term viable with regards to nullification [...]" Viable, from the Latin vita meaning life or, in this case, metaphorically indicating something alive or capable of having a life of its own. Nullification could be good; it would be an effective check against federal usurpation. I would even go so far as to say we ought to fight for it. But I do not think it viable in the sense that I do not think it's likely to take on any life, i.e. I think an honest evaluation would conclude that we'll not succeed with nullification in any case the federal government cares to contest.
You cite marijuana laws and I'm glad that nullification is being used as a defense for the same. Perhaps that might offer some hope that the idea will be resurrected outside its reprehensible use against African Americans in the South a half-century ago. But I think the hope is scarce. These laws are not succeeding because people believe in the right of states to nullify unconstitutional federal laws. They're succeeding because popular opinion has changed radically on marijuana in just a few years and nullification offers an ad hoc justification for what States want to do and what the Justice Dept. doesn't want to expend the political capital to stop. Those seeking to legalize marijuana will not legitimize nullification in popular opinion thereby, they'll merely accomplish a little earlier in the states what will very soon be recognized by federal statute. If the issue were at all contested by the Feds, and if only one small section of the country demanded drug law reform, we'd see the States reminded again by the courts that the 10th Amendment was really more of a suggestion.
S-10. Most you'll find out there are remanufactured and most of them are from Cardone, but you can find ACDelco and some other brands which, frankly, I've never head of, but you have to look.
I assume you mean that you disagree with my statement about viability. Note, of course, that I'm actually sympathetic to your view and I applaud those states who nullify unconstitutional, impractical, and unjust marijuana laws. But there's a reason they're able to get away with it and that reason is that Justice Dept. has chosen not to contest the issue due to the politics involved. But under current jurisprudence if they chose to contest the issue they would win quicker than you can say federal supremacy.
There's no illusion at all here. The engine control computer in my vehicle has more than one aftermarket manufacturer. In other words, it's replaceable. I didn't say it was replaceable with a Raspberry Pi, only that it was replaceable. As a matter of fact, I can drive out to the nearby bypass and find multiple stores that stock or order by tomorrow options from several different manufacturers. That's more than one can say for most components in most consumer electronics. For some vehicles, including my brother's early mid-life crisis car, one can buy aftermarket computers which can be set to give different performance profiles. Do either of these add up to an open system? No. Notice I said it was both replaceable and closed. Do both give the end-user more options to modify than he have will with most locked-down tablets? Yes. Can one go further and change the engine or large parts thereof entirely? Yes. Can analogous modifications be made practically some consumer electronics today? No. Is OP wrong to prefer relatively open consumer electronics? No. Is OP a hypocrite if he happens to own other goods that are less open? No.
Yes, quite. That's part of the reason I added the bit about being able to change out the engine.
Indeed, I'm not terribly happen that vehicle computers are often locked down. But relative to, say, and iPad, the vehicle computer is one small, closed, replaceable part on a far more open system. In other words I was saying OP was not irrational or inconsistent in wanting an unlocked tablet, even if he/she happened to own a car.
But, then, now that I put it that way I don't know why anyone would object to someone wanting a more open tablet. Likewise I can't see why one ought to be regarded as hypocritical for wanting an open platform if he happens to own some things which are closed. It's a rather odd response to OP's post really.
Slashdot Mirror
Have at it. Just call it a parody and share-alike.
You're reminding me of Hilaire Belloc's, The Servile State , a great "third way" (i.e. neither capitalist/individualist nor socialist/collectivist) perspective:
Some people say a man is made outta mud
A code monkey's got Mountain Dew for his blood
Dew in the blood and Cheeto bones
A bad back and carpal tunnel syndrome
You click 16 likes and whaddaya get?
Another ad targeted to your regret
Can't get a new job for what my profile showed
I owe info to the company store
I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
I picked up my laptop and I coded a line
I coded PHP and in Javascript
And off to Menlo Park then I was shipped
You click 16 likes and whaddaya get?
Another ad targeted to your regret
Can't get a new job for what my profile showed
I owe info to the company store
If you see me comin', better step aside
The Dew and Cheetos made me a little too wide
A little too wide and a little too old
But for Facebook's perks my soul I've sold
You click 16 likes and whaddaya get?
Another ad targeted to your regret
Can't get a new job for what my profile showed
I owe info to the company store
I was thinking something similar. Not necessarily that such would happen in a majority of the cases but that the potential for abuse is there.
It is unlikely to be motivated by the quest for profit, however. Criminal proceedings aren't likely to yield profit unless blackmail is involved, and the danger in blackmail will deter some cases.
I see the most likely abusers of this law as the spurned seeking revenge. Granted, few will want to post pictures of themselves online and make an accusation to get revenge. But the potential payoff (i.e. sending your #(*@ing ex to jail, that stupid !@&*!) is high enough to mean that some will try it. Combine this with the fact that males in particular are often treated guilty of sexual crimes until proven innocent and you have a huge potential for abuse.
Isn't this how the thing ended up in the Delta quadrant in the first place?
Indeed you're correct. My purpose, however, was merely to make a smart-ass remark about the irrelevance of bitcoins to this case. The bitcoins are just a tool, just as federal reserve notes are, but they'll nevertheless be part of the cyber-scare case. Even so, let me know if you come up with an excuse to arrest Bernanke.
Can we arrest Ben Bernanke?
Early HL3 for users.
Agreed on all points. But to add some additional clarity:
6 - Looking at the same article summaries on the new and old version, one quickly discovers that the space used on the superfluous picture was taken from the summary. Now to finish the summary, I have to follow the link. I used to only do this when I wanted to participate in the discussion. This makes me less likely to come to /. for articles at all, if I've got to click an extra link just to read a summary.
7 - When the summary is interesting, I normally go to the commentary. Without the enclosed comment threads, it's visually much harder to follow the bounds of a thread. This is a downgrade and, again, it makes me less interested in /. where the main content is the interesting commentary.
And here I thought you were arguing that a four-year-old's cognitive abilities were not as advanced as an adult's. Looks like you meant they weren't as degraded.
Ah. No problem. I wasn't kidding when I said it seemed as though you hadn't read what I'd said. But the way message boards on the internet work, we've all had people accuse us of arguing the exact opposite of what we were. Have a nice evening.
Dude, I think you're a bit confused. I would agree that people resort to a drug like this because of the high prices imposed by anti-drug prohibitionism. I also oppose the war on drugs. I said as much repeatedly. And by repeatedly I mean that I literally repeated my objection to the drug war.
As for this being a consequence of "recreational drug use," I never said it was. Once someone resorts to something like this I rather doubt they're involved in much that can be termed recreation.
I'm sure you're objecting to something, since you say, "Everyone that rated this post so it hit +5 IS THE PROBLEM." If you'd like to talk, I'm always happy to do so. But reading what you say here it almost seems as though you didn't read the post to which you so vehemently object.
Let's just be glad he hasn't decided to rewrite other stories based on this belief. I can see it now. From the Gospel of Lucas, 24.1-4:
I can, and I'll do it using only three words: "The Lone Ranger"
Which brings me to rule #4. Have characters.
Anyone who uses something so destructive to his own body has a sick and twisted soul. But the good response to a twisted soul is not to say they deserve what is done to their body, anymore than the good response to a sick body is to say that it deserves to be separated from its soul. The good response is to seek the healing of both.
I do not believe in the drug war, but neither do I agree with those who would scoff, shrug, and say that it doesn't matter. Some of the comments in this vein are lacking in compassion and in humanity. I cannot see a great distinction in kind, though perhaps their is some difference in degree, between the mind of the inhumane person who would be rid of those who would harm themselves and the mind of the diseased man who would take drugs to rid him of himself. Both are antithetical to life.
I do not believe in the drug war because the fighting metaphor is taken too literally. A drug war ought to be fought as we fight diseases, with treatment and medicine meant to heal, rather than as we fight foreign enemies, with guns and internment.
I do not believe in the drug war because there are people willing to take a drug like this, a drug whose very name indicates its self-destructive potential, and therefore I cannot believe that the nightmare of the prison system or the fear thereof would end such self-abuse. Whether people do such drugs out of desperation or vice, punishment can have little positive effect on those whose recreation looks nightmarish to a person of ordinary psychology. They need help and help directed at the root of the problem. And since this becomes a political question, I would add that I would sooner taxes be spent helping people awaken from old nightmares than wake up to new ones. I do not believe in the drug war, but I do believe that we should do what we can to heal diseases of the mind which accept the destruction of the body.
Note what I said:
And again:
If by "substitute an alternative" you mean anything other than replace, at least as far as my own vehicle is concerned, I never claimed as much except insofar as I claim and maintain that you can replace the engine entirely, including with things other than a gasoline engine.
We are quite literally arguing semantics here. Notice you say here, "[...] nullification is the way to limit federal power-grabs." Notice I say above, "Note, of course, that I'm actually sympathetic to your view and I applaud those states who nullify unconstitutional, impractical, and unjust marijuana laws." And further above, "But [nullification would] be a better means of securing self-government than allowing the Federal government to be the final judge of its own laws." In other words, I agree that nullification is the way to limit federal power-grabs. I just don't think the idea has any life in the public mind or that there's any hope of making matters otherwise.
You seem to think I'm disagreeing with you about something I'm not disagreeing with you about. What I disagreed with was the use of one particular term: "I don't think I'd use the term viable with regards to nullification [...]" Viable, from the Latin vita meaning life or, in this case, metaphorically indicating something alive or capable of having a life of its own. Nullification could be good; it would be an effective check against federal usurpation. I would even go so far as to say we ought to fight for it. But I do not think it viable in the sense that I do not think it's likely to take on any life, i.e. I think an honest evaluation would conclude that we'll not succeed with nullification in any case the federal government cares to contest.
You cite marijuana laws and I'm glad that nullification is being used as a defense for the same. Perhaps that might offer some hope that the idea will be resurrected outside its reprehensible use against African Americans in the South a half-century ago. But I think the hope is scarce. These laws are not succeeding because people believe in the right of states to nullify unconstitutional federal laws. They're succeeding because popular opinion has changed radically on marijuana in just a few years and nullification offers an ad hoc justification for what States want to do and what the Justice Dept. doesn't want to expend the political capital to stop. Those seeking to legalize marijuana will not legitimize nullification in popular opinion thereby, they'll merely accomplish a little earlier in the states what will very soon be recognized by federal statute. If the issue were at all contested by the Feds, and if only one small section of the country demanded drug law reform, we'd see the States reminded again by the courts that the 10th Amendment was really more of a suggestion.
Fair enough. But my original reply, the intent of which I reiterated for context in my response to you, was to one who seemed to do so.
S-10. Most you'll find out there are remanufactured and most of them are from Cardone, but you can find ACDelco and some other brands which, frankly, I've never head of, but you have to look.
I assume you mean that you disagree with my statement about viability. Note, of course, that I'm actually sympathetic to your view and I applaud those states who nullify unconstitutional, impractical, and unjust marijuana laws. But there's a reason they're able to get away with it and that reason is that Justice Dept. has chosen not to contest the issue due to the politics involved. But under current jurisprudence if they chose to contest the issue they would win quicker than you can say federal supremacy.
There's no illusion at all here. The engine control computer in my vehicle has more than one aftermarket manufacturer. In other words, it's replaceable. I didn't say it was replaceable with a Raspberry Pi, only that it was replaceable. As a matter of fact, I can drive out to the nearby bypass and find multiple stores that stock or order by tomorrow options from several different manufacturers. That's more than one can say for most components in most consumer electronics. For some vehicles, including my brother's early mid-life crisis car, one can buy aftermarket computers which can be set to give different performance profiles. Do either of these add up to an open system? No. Notice I said it was both replaceable and closed. Do both give the end-user more options to modify than he have will with most locked-down tablets? Yes. Can one go further and change the engine or large parts thereof entirely? Yes. Can analogous modifications be made practically some consumer electronics today? No. Is OP wrong to prefer relatively open consumer electronics? No. Is OP a hypocrite if he happens to own other goods that are less open? No.
Yes, quite. That's part of the reason I added the bit about being able to change out the engine.
Indeed, I'm not terribly happen that vehicle computers are often locked down. But relative to, say, and iPad, the vehicle computer is one small, closed, replaceable part on a far more open system. In other words I was saying OP was not irrational or inconsistent in wanting an unlocked tablet, even if he/she happened to own a car.
But, then, now that I put it that way I don't know why anyone would object to someone wanting a more open tablet. Likewise I can't see why one ought to be regarded as hypocritical for wanting an open platform if he happens to own some things which are closed. It's a rather odd response to OP's post really.
Does that mean this could be the Year of the Linux Set-top?
Well, how else am I going to get my holodeck?