I disagree with Bastiat on many fronts. For example, he writes:
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
That is but one aspect of the law. When a law limits the speed at which I may drive my car, it is not enforcing anyone's right to lawful defense. Another purpose of the law is to protect society, and not just the individual. One person should not be able to completely halt the building of an interstate highway simply because he owns land across which it must be built.
And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.
Without restrictions, pollution would be unchecked, the forests denuded, and children exploited.
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources.
My labor does not involve the ceaseless application of my faculties to natural resources. Niether does the labor of poet, musician, accountant, or lawyer. Given enough money, I could easily live and satisfy my wants. Give me $5million and I'll prove it to you.
Please clarify for me, do you disagree only with Bastiat's opinion on the divine source of those rights, or with the existence of equal rights entirely?
I disagree with the premise that we are granted an inalienable right to limitlessly exploit the natural resources of the Earth, just to name one example of how I do not see eye-to-eye with Bastiat.
Ever since the Comcast buyout, it's obvious that they have been dumbing down The Screen Savers (TSS) to appeal to a younger, more gaming-focused audience. The first sign was when Leo LaPorte was dropped. Leo, was, by far the most experienced and knowledgeable person on the team, with Patrick coming up a close second. Of course, Patrick decided not to make the move to the LA area. So rather than replace Leo and Patrick with people of similar caliber and experience, they handed the reins over to Kevin Rose and Alex Albrecht, two twenty-somethings who think that the IBM PC was the world's first personal computer.
I tried a few episodes of TSS after the changes, but it just wasn't the same. When Leo and Patrick talked to the architects of the personal computer revolution, you could sense the admiration and respect. When Kevin Rose or Alex Albrecht did, you always got the feeling that everything they knew about the person was read from a 3"x5" card two minutes before the show started. Kevin's computer "insight" was basically whatever he happened across when using Google.
Yoshi's mods had been interesting when he focused on useful stuff, but he had been moving way too much into the form-over-function crap that permeates so many "case modder" sites. Face it: Your life is pretty pathetic when you have a window and cold cathode lighting to show off some $100 consumer-grade motherboard with a Celeron plugged into it.
It's been quite a few weeks since I canceled my TiVo "Season Pass" for The Screen Savers. It recorded one episode since then, which I tried to watch, but found so depressing that I just deleted it after giving TSS a "thumbs down."
Well, I could tell you about how steel workers have been seriously injured and killed because OSHA forces them to wear steel-toed boots, which are dangerous working on high steel. Apparently, it makes feeling the beams with your toes very difficult...
While I don't doubt that OSHA has made some mistakes, overall, their effect on the workplace has been very positive.
I submit that safety in the workplace is provided by the market itself, rather than through a governmental mandate.
Far from it. Before there were governmental regulations, mine safety was abysmal and most mining companies viewed the impoverished labor as expendable. The same was true in many other industries. Look at long-haul truckers. The government stepped in to limit the number of hours they drove in the interest of public safety -- and it worked. Drivers aren't pressured by their companies to drive for 20 hours straight anymore.
EA is requiring their employees work horrible hours because the poor job market makes it possible. If the employees could just jump ship and go to work for some other game company, EA would not be able to run their shop that way. It's in a tight labor market that capitalism fails the workers when it comes to safety, health, working conditions, etc.
The government is very good at claiming credit for good things and avoiding blame for the bad.
The government doesn't regulate against things that no one has ever done or considered doing. In North Carolina, it is against the law to use elephants to plow cotton fields. There's got to be a reason that someone decided that law was necessary.
I regret to hear that you brushed off Bastiat simply for his mentioning of God a few times. Are his observations made any more credible in absence of that word?
God wasn't mentioned "a few times." God was mentioned about a dozen times and, more importantly, was cited as the foundation of many of the assertions. For example:
"Life Is a Gift from God"
"The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it."
"Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it."
I won't get into discussions of religious beliefs in this thread, but suffice it to say that I do not accept unproven assertions about the intent of all-powerful beings (regardless of whether you call the being God, Cthulu, Thor, Allah, or something else) as being germane to an intellectual debate.
Thanks for the links, but I was hoping for something a bit more concrete -- perhaps something to address: "Please show me how people were better off before OSHA made regulations affecting safety in the workplace, for example."
Also, I tried to read "The Law", but decided that "God" was mentioned way too many times (a dozen or more) for me to take it seriously as an intellectual treatise.
Legally controlled 40 hour work weeks and other similar laws are just the result of power politics and mass stupidity.
Such laws are the result of intelligent, decent, liberal thinking that values people more than profits.
The idea that one person in government can direct the lives of hundreds of individuals better than those indiviuals can is a falacy that has been debunked many times by free market economists.
Please show me proof of that. Please show me how people were better off before OSHA made regulations affecting safety in the workplace, for example.
Hinkley's status is a matter of justice and law, not beaurocratic fiat.
No, it's not a matter of justice. Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity. That he is in a mental institution is not some form of punishment being doled out in the name of justice.
But the point was that someone who believes that they should be working 80 hour weeks might be better served by having the government prevent him from working that long.
I see...so those 50 unemployed people are entitled to a job?
It is in society's best interest that they have jobs. In the cosmic sense, no one is entitled to anything.
No, if an employer wants an adult to work 80 hours and that adult agrees, then its no one else's business.
You are incorrect. It's society's business as such trends affect wages, quality of life, etc.
We also allow banks to engage in more credit expansion then the free market would allow, creating a boom-bust cycle.
So if we did not "allow" the banks to do that, then the market would be more "free"? I'm having trouble with that concept.
The boom is a period of malinvestment by entrepreneurs, thus there is much less investment capital during the bust. This decimates the job market and that is when everyone starts advocating all the new laws to protect employees. That's why it's almost pointless to discuss these kind of things without talking about the boom-bust cycle.
So are you suggesting that the government make attempts to manipulate investment capital?
Others shouldn't support you unless they want to. If you want to risk working 80 hours, then you must deal with the consequences.
Then if you choose to work 80 hours per week, please drop your health insurance and long term disability insurance, because I don't want my premiums going up to support you.
But what if the job market is so tight that the employer has all the power?
Then the government should step in to protect the employees -- because people are more important than profits.
Why should the government tell me how many hours I can work?
1. So that 100 people can get 40 hour per week jobs rather than having 50 people work 80 hours per week. 2. So that other people don't end up supporting you on long term disability after your 80 hour work weeks lead to you having a stroke. 3. So that employers can't abuse people every time the job market is tight. 4. To make it more difficult for employers to engage in fraudulent practices of hiring salaried employees with the intention of working them far more hours than would reasonably be expected.
If you don't want to work those hours, then work for someone else!
When jobs are plentiful and working for "someone else" is an option, companies don't tend to behave that way.
I don't need some pointy-haired beuracrat telling me how to live my life.
How do you know that you don't? John Hinckley doesn't think that he belongs in a mental hospital, but that he believes that doesn't make it true.
When you can serve longer for spamming...Than you can for rape, or causing death by dangerous driving, etc, then there's something wrong with the justice system.
He didn't get nine years for sending one spam. He got nine years for sending billions of pieces of spam advertising fraudulent products. How many rapists or murderers had billions of victims?
Let's say that the average person wastes three seconds receiving, recognizing, and deleting the spam. If he sent a total of one billion spams (very realistic given his infamous status in the spam community), that's over 95 years stolen from the lives of the recipients. And we haven't even touched on the fraud aspect, the costs to ISPs and users for bandwidth, storage, and personnel (e.g., the guys who answer abuse@{insert ISP domain here}, or the third parties who discover that their e-mail address has been forged by the sender as the "from:" address of the spam.
Rape is usually about 5-20 years, isn't it? I agree that 9 years is a little extreme for spamming.
I disagree. Someone who gets 5-20 years for rape has one victim -- albeit one who probably was traumatized by the crime. Spammers, on the other hand, have countless millions of victims. Those victims include the recipients of the spam whose bandwidth and time was wasted,ISPs whose costs are driven up by the spam and their users and stockholders who ended up bearing the brunt of those costs, businesses who lost productivity as employees dealt with the spam, and innocent ISPs and individuals who have to deal with complaints from people who fell for the forged from: address in the spam. The list goes on and on.
If it takes the average person three seconds to download, recognize, and delete spam, then the spammer should get, at least, three seconds times the number of spams delivered. That way, the same amount of his life is wasted as he stole from his victims.
Good point, but late-breaking stories do become fully accessible stories
Agreed, but then the linked-to sites are Slashdotted and news is less valuable as it becomes less "new."
I think it is the idea that you have to hand over personal information
Well, you really don't since you could sign up as "John Doe" in "Anytown" who lives on "Maple Street" -- ignoring the ethics questions that may arise.
in order to read the news that people find objectionable.
You have another option: You could subscribe to The Washington Post and get "push content" delivered to your doorstep.;-) Let's not forget that The Washington Post is a for-profit newspaper that has been around since 1877, not just some banner-ad-supported website that copies news from other sources. They employ a huge editorial staff that researches and writes the stories that appear in print and on their web page.
I am betting that demographic information allows the Post to charge more for ads and that means fewer ads and better targetting. That lets them continue to deliver their top-notch content at no charge to the users without only a modest number of ads. That seems fair to me, though I also understand those who wish to protect their privacy. In summary, you can't satisfy everyone. Some would prefer more ads an no registration. Others would prefer no ads and a paid subscription. But the Post has to decide on how they want to distribute their content and free registration is what they chose.
Don't be a ass. (I'm guessing that you're going to have trouble with that one.)
For the record, the Washington Post does have intrusive registration. Every time I go to look at a story and I haven't preloaded their cookie, their blocker comes into play and gives me the smarmy message "it's free and it's required".
"Preloaded their cookie"? You act like there is some kind of process involving a complex command line and removable media to get the cookie into place. Are you too stupid to turn on cookies for their site? On my computer, the cookie for the Washington Post is persistent. It's not their fault if you auto-delete cookies so that people can't tell that you visited hoof fetishist web sites. Nor is it their fault if you browse their site from the public library's computer. Most of us have our own computers, register once, log-in once, and everything just works.
In your high-and-mighty tirade, did you stop to notice that Michael actually followed your recommendation exactly? He explained that he wasn't using their site, then went further and explained why and what about their policies he found objectionable.
If you were half as good at reading as you are at whining, you would know that I did not recommend that people withold or delete links to the Washington Post's web site. Nor did I recommend that they replace said links with complaints about the registration process. I recommended that they, personally, not visit the site if they are uncomfortable with the registration. I have a registration to the Post's web site and a link would have taken me straight to the story, so why in the hell do you believe that I was recommending that people not post links to the Washington Post's web site?
You fail, however, when the alert reader notes that Slashdot does not require that you subscribe, or even exist in its database at all in order to view its content.
No, I did not "fail" -- you did. Slashdot requires a registration to see complete comment histories for users (rather than the most recent 24 comments) and it requires registration to see many just-released news stories. If you reply, please admit that you were wrong in your claim that non-subscribers have access to all Slashdot content.
although this story was written by the Washington Post and I have the URL to the original story available, I declined to link to washingtonpost.com because of their intrusive registration.
The Washington Post's registration isn't "intrusive." It's a totally voluntary process in which you trade information for access to their content. Don't want to give them the information? That's fine -- you just won't get to see all of the content. Just like what happens on Slashdot when you choose not to give them money for a subscription.
You are stalking me with your words, they ring in my brain after I read them I get no sleep and I'm in a psychotic ferver over this!
You're seeking out my postings in threads in which you are not even involved. If my postings bother you that much, then just stop reading them. It's that simple. I'm not the President. I'm not the Attorney General. I'm not a Justice on the Supreme Court. I'm not a Congressman. I'm just a private citizen who happens to hold beliefs which differ from yours. That we disagree should have very little bearing on your life.
The government being in the business of marriage is the problem.
It's the right-wing that wants the government nosing into everyone's business, telling them who they can marry and who they can't. It the right-wing that wants the government to codify their evangelical Christian beliefs into law. It's the right-wing that wants to define who you are allowed to have sex with, what positions are legal, and that you can't exchange money for sex. They want government nosing into everyone's private lives.
Why does the government define a religious construct.
Because stupid, inbred, right-wing, evangelical Christians like Bush demand Constitutional amendments codifying their religious beliefs into the law of the land.
YOu pushed "regular Joes" too hard. You want big government
Since Bush has taken office, government has grown larger, more intrusive, and more expensive. Here's a Fox News story entitled "Federal Budget Grows Massively Under Bush." You want right-wing sources and you have one right there.
and you want a big government defining marriage.
It wasn't Democrats calling for Constitutional amendments defining marriage. It was the Republicans, because they got their panties in a twist when gay people started getting married. They wanted big government to define marriage.
But you had to try force the term marriage on scoiety for gays. Stupid.
The term "marriage" has existed for years and much of our legal system revolves around it. Most states don't accept the term "civil union" and, thus, it carries no legal weight. Everything from inheritance to taxes to health-insurance is affected by marital status.
The correct answer is: A government has no business definine marriage
President George W. Bush: "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife."
More lies for the anti-nuclear zealot who tries to retract.
You keep making unfounded assertions. The only link you've provided in recent history is to an opinion piece by a CS professor -- hardly definitive. How about something from respected, non-partisan political analysts? How about quotes from Kerry's speeches relating to nuclear energy?
Its clear you are a left-totalitarian that wants to control people from cradle to grave.
No, I just want to see that you get the psychiatric care you so desperately need.
Live free or die, communists and socialists! We will not be bent to your knees, the people have spoken.
What people? The ones who went to the poll to deny gay people the freedom to marry?
As you could tell, he's more than a bit mentally unbalanced. He's taken to stalking me all over Slashdot. At first I thought that he was trolling, but this has been going on for about two weeks and now I'm convinced that he's really nuts. He makes untrue statements and, when confronted with his error, goes into maniacal, paranoid, psychotic ranting. This is a good example. He said that drugs in Canada were subsidized. I said that the price was negotiated without subsidies. I provided quotes and links to back up my assertion. And he went nuts.
And the really absurd thing about this is that I own two rifles, two handguns, and a shotgun and he's accusing me of being anti-gun.
Lies. You are fuckin lying. Canada's health care is in shambles and the taxes (all of them) add up to being outrageous.
I am not lying. Drug prices for patented medicine in Canada are negotiated and regulated by the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board of the Canadian government. From their web site
The PMPRB is responsible for regulating the prices that patentees charge, the "factory-gate" price, for prescription and non-prescription patented drugs sold in Canada, to wholesalers, hospitals or pharmacies, for human and veterinary use to ensure that they are not excessive.
They do not give money to drug companies to buy, or subsidize the cost of, drugs sold in Canada.
You want to fucking implement socialist constructs in the USA and you think it has NO COST?
Everything has cost, but Canada has proven that negotiating prices for patented drugs results in a savings to consumers -- regardless of whether any other portion of the Canadian health care system is adopted.
FUCK YOU.
I'm flattered, but I'm straight. Sorry.
You are the idiot here. You are also the loser. Your candidate is anti nuclear power and was anti-NRA and was a certified gun grabber / confiscator / banner.
Do you have a copy of the certificate? If so, who issued it? What guns has he "grabbed" or confiscated?
What the hell is wrong with you?
Nothing. I'm not the one stalking you all over Slashdot.
Start a socialist party so at least the name fits. Democrat no longer makes sense.
Many Democrats are in favor of purchasing drugs through Canada.
Kerry is anti nuclear. You support anti nuclear candidates. Anti nuclear waste is anti nuclear since its a fact, although less so with GEN III/III+.
He is not "anti nuclear waste." He is against the Yucca Mountain storage facility. Here's an excerpt on why from his web site:
GAO Urged Bush Administration to Indefinitely Postpone Decision on Yucca. In a December 2001, the General Accounting Office urged the Bush administration to indefinitely postpone its decision to store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. The GAO also said that plans officials showed lawmakers and Nevada residents "may not describe the facilities that DOE would actually develop." In June 2001, the administration released the final health and safety standards for Yucca, but the GAO report said the Energy Department was still gathering and analyzing technical information on nearly 300 separate issues dealing with the Yucca site. [Washington Post, 11/30/01; GAO "Nuclear Waste: Technical, Schedule, and Cost Uncertainties of the Yucca Mountain Repository Project"]
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Criticized Energy Department Analysis of Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an 11-member board created by Congress comprised from the scientific and engineering fields, said no matter where nuclear waste was put it would be impossible to avoid unexpected problems over the more than 10,000 years the material would be highly radioactive. The board said they had "limited confidence" in the Energy Department's analysis of Yucca Mountain and urged the department to find ways to make their projections "more realistic." [Associated Press, 1/25/02; 5/23/00]
Nuclear Waste Would Pass Through 43 States, One Mile from 50 Million Americans. In order to store the nation's nuclear waste in one site, Yucca Mountain, the "deadly waste" would have to be transported through 43 states and come within one mile of 50 million Americans. "If this goes through, some communities along major corridors, including St. Louis and Omaha, might see shipments every hour on the hour for the next 38 years," said Robert R. Loux, executive director of Nevada Governor Guinn's nuclear projects agency, which receives federal funding to provide scientific oversight of the project. [Washington Post, 1/11/02; State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/maps2002]
Local Officials of Both Parties Were Against Yucca Plan
Bush Ignored Warnings From Nevada Leaders From Both Parties. A number of prominent Nevada officials, including Republicans Governor Kenny Guinn, Senator John Ensign, and Rep. Jim Gibbons opposed the plan to bring nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. [Associated Press, 1/10/02]
I agree. And there are probably many other things to be added to our lists.
But it's scary how illogical and uninformed the average U.S. voter is. I was arguing with one poster who insisted that Canada's drug prices were subsidized rather than negotiated. He honestly believed that the Canadian government was using Canadian tax dollars to subsidize drug purchases and then letting U.S. citizens come across the border to buy the drugs. I provided links to the Canadian government's own web sites, and he still didn't get it.
I am pro-nuclear energy. I want more reactors brought online to retire fossil fuel powerplants. You can quote me on that.
The fact that Kerry opposes a particular site for nuclear waste storage does not mean that he is anti-nuclear. That's like saying that someone who opposes construction of a sewage treatment plant in Central Park is anti-toilet.
I find it humorous that you cite a Comp-Sci professor's personal-opinion web page as a reputable source on nuclear energy. What's next? Citing a geology professor's writings as the last word on Constitutional law?
"Education" is the word for what you think must be done. And I'll agree, there seems to be an awful lack of it.
When someone graduates from high school in the U.S., they should know:
1. What the national debt is 2. What the deficit is 3. How the national debt is financed 4. Basics of economics (supply, demand, transaction costs, etc.) 5. What the Constitution and Bill of Rights say 6. How the Supreme Court has interpreted our rights 7. Why it is dangerous to erode rights -- even for good causes 8. The legislative processes and the checks and balances
If that were the case, the outcome of elections in this country would be profoundly different.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree with Bastiat on many fronts. For example, he writes:
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
That is but one aspect of the law. When a law limits the speed at which I may drive my car, it is not enforcing anyone's right to lawful defense. Another purpose of the law is to protect society, and not just the individual. One person should not be able to completely halt the building of an interstate highway simply because he owns land across which it must be built.
And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.
Without restrictions, pollution would be unchecked, the forests denuded, and children exploited.
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources.
My labor does not involve the ceaseless application of my faculties to natural resources. Niether does the labor of poet, musician, accountant, or lawyer. Given enough money, I could easily live and satisfy my wants. Give me $5million and I'll prove it to you.
Please clarify for me, do you disagree only with Bastiat's opinion on the divine source of those rights, or with the existence of equal rights entirely?
I disagree with the premise that we are granted an inalienable right to limitlessly exploit the natural resources of the Earth, just to name one example of how I do not see eye-to-eye with Bastiat.
Ever since the Comcast buyout, it's obvious that they have been dumbing down The Screen Savers (TSS) to appeal to a younger, more gaming-focused audience. The first sign was when Leo LaPorte was dropped. Leo, was, by far the most experienced and knowledgeable person on the team, with Patrick coming up a close second. Of course, Patrick decided not to make the move to the LA area. So rather than replace Leo and Patrick with people of similar caliber and experience, they handed the reins over to Kevin Rose and Alex Albrecht, two twenty-somethings who think that the IBM PC was the world's first personal computer.
I tried a few episodes of TSS after the changes, but it just wasn't the same. When Leo and Patrick talked to the architects of the personal computer revolution, you could sense the admiration and respect. When Kevin Rose or Alex Albrecht did, you always got the feeling that everything they knew about the person was read from a 3"x5" card two minutes before the show started. Kevin's computer "insight" was basically whatever he happened across when using Google.
Yoshi's mods had been interesting when he focused on useful stuff, but he had been moving way too much into the form-over-function crap that permeates so many "case modder" sites. Face it: Your life is pretty pathetic when you have a window and cold cathode lighting to show off some $100 consumer-grade motherboard with a Celeron plugged into it.
It's been quite a few weeks since I canceled my TiVo "Season Pass" for The Screen Savers. It recorded one episode since then, which I tried to watch, but found so depressing that I just deleted it after giving TSS a "thumbs down."
Well, I could tell you about how steel workers have been seriously injured and killed because OSHA forces them to wear steel-toed boots, which are dangerous working on high steel. Apparently, it makes feeling the beams with your toes very difficult...
While I don't doubt that OSHA has made some mistakes, overall, their effect on the workplace has been very positive.
I submit that safety in the workplace is provided by the market itself, rather than through a governmental mandate.
Far from it. Before there were governmental regulations, mine safety was abysmal and most mining companies viewed the impoverished labor as expendable. The same was true in many other industries. Look at long-haul truckers. The government stepped in to limit the number of hours they drove in the interest of public safety -- and it worked. Drivers aren't pressured by their companies to drive for 20 hours straight anymore.
EA is requiring their employees work horrible hours because the poor job market makes it possible. If the employees could just jump ship and go to work for some other game company, EA would not be able to run their shop that way. It's in a tight labor market that capitalism fails the workers when it comes to safety, health, working conditions, etc.
The government is very good at claiming credit for good things and avoiding blame for the bad.
The government doesn't regulate against things that no one has ever done or considered doing. In North Carolina, it is against the law to use elephants to plow cotton fields. There's got to be a reason that someone decided that law was necessary.
I regret to hear that you brushed off Bastiat simply for his mentioning of God a few times. Are his observations made any more credible in absence of that word?
God wasn't mentioned "a few times." God was mentioned about a dozen times and, more importantly, was cited as the foundation of many of the assertions. For example:
"Life Is a Gift from God"
"The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it."
"Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it."
I won't get into discussions of religious beliefs in this thread, but suffice it to say that I do not accept unproven assertions about the intent of all-powerful beings (regardless of whether you call the being God, Cthulu, Thor, Allah, or something else) as being germane to an intellectual debate.
Thanks for the links, but I was hoping for something a bit more concrete -- perhaps something to address: "Please show me how people were better off before OSHA made regulations affecting safety in the workplace, for example."
Also, I tried to read "The Law", but decided that "God" was mentioned way too many times (a dozen or more) for me to take it seriously as an intellectual treatise.
Legally controlled 40 hour work weeks and other similar laws are just the result of power politics and mass stupidity.
Such laws are the result of intelligent, decent, liberal thinking that values people more than profits.
The idea that one person in government can direct the lives of hundreds of individuals better than those indiviuals can is a falacy that has been debunked many times by free market economists.
Please show me proof of that. Please show me how people were better off before OSHA made regulations affecting safety in the workplace, for example.
Hinkley's status is a matter of justice and law, not beaurocratic fiat.
No, it's not a matter of justice. Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity. That he is in a mental institution is not some form of punishment being doled out in the name of justice.
But the point was that someone who believes that they should be working 80 hour weeks might be better served by having the government prevent him from working that long.
I see...so those 50 unemployed people are entitled to a job?
It is in society's best interest that they have jobs. In the cosmic sense, no one is entitled to anything.
No, if an employer wants an adult to work 80 hours and that adult agrees, then its no one else's business.
You are incorrect. It's society's business as such trends affect wages, quality of life, etc.
We also allow banks to engage in more credit expansion then the free market would allow, creating a boom-bust cycle.
So if we did not "allow" the banks to do that, then the market would be more "free"? I'm having trouble with that concept.
The boom is a period of malinvestment by entrepreneurs, thus there is much less investment capital during the bust. This decimates the job market and that is when everyone starts advocating all the new laws to protect employees. That's why it's almost pointless to discuss these kind of things without talking about the boom-bust cycle.
So are you suggesting that the government make attempts to manipulate investment capital?
Others shouldn't support you unless they want to. If you want to risk working 80 hours, then you must deal with the consequences.
Then if you choose to work 80 hours per week, please drop your health insurance and long term disability insurance, because I don't want my premiums going up to support you.
But what if the job market is so tight that the employer has all the power?
Then the government should step in to protect the employees -- because people are more important than profits.
Why should the government tell me how many hours I can work?
1. So that 100 people can get 40 hour per week jobs rather than having 50 people work 80 hours per week.
2. So that other people don't end up supporting you on long term disability after your 80 hour work weeks lead to you having a stroke.
3. So that employers can't abuse people every time the job market is tight.
4. To make it more difficult for employers to engage in fraudulent practices of hiring salaried employees with the intention of working them far more hours than would reasonably be expected.
If you don't want to work those hours, then work for someone else!
When jobs are plentiful and working for "someone else" is an option, companies don't tend to behave that way.
I don't need some pointy-haired beuracrat telling me how to live my life.
How do you know that you don't? John Hinckley doesn't think that he belongs in a mental hospital, but that he believes that doesn't make it true.
When you can serve longer for spamming ...Than you can for rape, or causing death by dangerous driving, etc, then there's something wrong with the justice system.
He didn't get nine years for sending one spam. He got nine years for sending billions of pieces of spam advertising fraudulent products. How many rapists or murderers had billions of victims?
Let's say that the average person wastes three seconds receiving, recognizing, and deleting the spam. If he sent a total of one billion spams (very realistic given his infamous status in the spam community), that's over 95 years stolen from the lives of the recipients. And we haven't even touched on the fraud aspect, the costs to ISPs and users for bandwidth, storage, and personnel (e.g., the guys who answer abuse@{insert ISP domain here}, or the third parties who discover that their e-mail address has been forged by the sender as the "from:" address of the spam.
Rape is usually about 5-20 years, isn't it? I agree that 9 years is a little extreme for spamming.
I disagree. Someone who gets 5-20 years for rape has one victim -- albeit one who probably was traumatized by the crime. Spammers, on the other hand, have countless millions of victims. Those victims include the recipients of the spam whose bandwidth and time was wasted,ISPs whose costs are driven up by the spam and their users and stockholders who ended up bearing the brunt of those costs, businesses who lost productivity as employees dealt with the spam, and innocent ISPs and individuals who have to deal with complaints from people who fell for the forged from: address in the spam. The list goes on and on.
If it takes the average person three seconds to download, recognize, and delete spam, then the spammer should get, at least, three seconds times the number of spams delivered. That way, the same amount of his life is wasted as he stole from his victims.
Nine years seems way too light.
Good point, but late-breaking stories do become fully accessible stories
;-) Let's not forget that The Washington Post is a for-profit newspaper that has been around since 1877, not just some banner-ad-supported website that copies news from other sources. They employ a huge editorial staff that researches and writes the stories that appear in print and on their web page.
Agreed, but then the linked-to sites are Slashdotted and news is less valuable as it becomes less "new."
I think it is the idea that you have to hand over personal information
Well, you really don't since you could sign up as "John Doe" in "Anytown" who lives on "Maple Street" -- ignoring the ethics questions that may arise.
in order to read the news that people find objectionable.
You have another option: You could subscribe to The Washington Post and get "push content" delivered to your doorstep.
I am betting that demographic information allows the Post to charge more for ads and that means fewer ads and better targetting. That lets them continue to deliver their top-notch content at no charge to the users without only a modest number of ads. That seems fair to me, though I also understand those who wish to protect their privacy. In summary, you can't satisfy everyone. Some would prefer more ads an no registration. Others would prefer no ads and a paid subscription. But the Post has to decide on how they want to distribute their content and free registration is what they chose.
Don't be fatuous.
Don't be a ass. (I'm guessing that you're going to have trouble with that one.)
For the record, the Washington Post does have intrusive registration. Every time I go to look at a story and I haven't preloaded their cookie, their blocker comes into play and gives me the smarmy message "it's free and it's required".
"Preloaded their cookie"? You act like there is some kind of process involving a complex command line and removable media to get the cookie into place. Are you too stupid to turn on cookies for their site? On my computer, the cookie for the Washington Post is persistent. It's not their fault if you auto-delete cookies so that people can't tell that you visited hoof fetishist web sites. Nor is it their fault if you browse their site from the public library's computer. Most of us have our own computers, register once, log-in once, and everything just works.
In your high-and-mighty tirade, did you stop to notice that Michael actually followed your recommendation exactly? He explained that he wasn't using their site, then went further and explained why and what about their policies he found objectionable.
If you were half as good at reading as you are at whining, you would know that I did not recommend that people withold or delete links to the Washington Post's web site. Nor did I recommend that they replace said links with complaints about the registration process. I recommended that they, personally, not visit the site if they are uncomfortable with the registration. I have a registration to the Post's web site and a link would have taken me straight to the story, so why in the hell do you believe that I was recommending that people not post links to the Washington Post's web site?
You fail, however, when the alert reader notes that Slashdot does not require that you subscribe, or even exist in its database at all in order to view its content.
No, I did not "fail" -- you did. Slashdot requires a registration to see complete comment histories for users (rather than the most recent 24 comments) and it requires registration to see many just-released news stories. If you reply, please admit that you were wrong in your claim that non-subscribers have access to all Slashdot content.
What content on Slashdot is available only to readers who subscribe or register?
Full user comment history, for one thing. Late-breaking stories, for another.
Michael wrote:
although this story was written by the Washington Post and I have the URL to the original story available, I declined to link to washingtonpost.com because of their intrusive registration.
The Washington Post's registration isn't "intrusive." It's a totally voluntary process in which you trade information for access to their content. Don't want to give them the information? That's fine -- you just won't get to see all of the content. Just like what happens on Slashdot when you choose not to give them money for a subscription.
No. But that would be awesome. If only i could get Bush to follow me around like those little robots in DOOM 3.
God help you if that happens. We've seen him kill thousands over imaginary weapons. What do you think he would do to you if you picked up the BFG9000?
really if i want political commentary I will go to foxnews.com
Not if you want even-handed, unbiased political commentary.
Wow this seems less like a /. story and more like your normal leftist bush bashing....
So you believe that Bush is a shotgun-wielding robot?
You are stalking me with your words, they ring in my brain after I read them I get no sleep and I'm in a psychotic ferver over this!
You're seeking out my postings in threads in which you are not even involved. If my postings bother you that much, then just stop reading them. It's that simple. I'm not the President. I'm not the Attorney General. I'm not a Justice on the Supreme Court. I'm not a Congressman. I'm just a private citizen who happens to hold beliefs which differ from yours. That we disagree should have very little bearing on your life.
The government being in the business of marriage is the problem.
;-)
It's the right-wing that wants the government nosing into everyone's business, telling them who they can marry and who they can't. It the right-wing that wants the government to codify their evangelical Christian beliefs into law. It's the right-wing that wants to define who you are allowed to have sex with, what positions are legal, and that you can't exchange money for sex. They want government nosing into everyone's private lives.
Why does the government define a religious construct.
Because stupid, inbred, right-wing, evangelical Christians like Bush demand Constitutional amendments codifying their religious beliefs into the law of the land.
YOu pushed "regular Joes" too hard. You want big government
Since Bush has taken office, government has grown larger, more intrusive, and more expensive. Here's a Fox News story entitled "Federal Budget Grows Massively Under Bush." You want right-wing sources and you have one right there.
and you want a big government defining marriage.
It wasn't Democrats calling for Constitutional amendments defining marriage. It was the Republicans, because they got their panties in a twist when gay people started getting married. They wanted big government to define marriage.
But you had to try force the term marriage on scoiety for gays. Stupid.
The term "marriage" has existed for years and much of our legal system revolves around it. Most states don't accept the term "civil union" and, thus, it carries no legal weight. Everything from inheritance to taxes to health-insurance is affected by marital status.
The correct answer is: A government has no business definine marriage
President George W. Bush: "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife."
That's your boy. That's who you voted for.
You are:
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
And:
AMERICA HATES LEFTIST TOTALITARIANSAMERICA HATES LEFTIST TOTALITARIANSAMERICA HATES LEFTIST TOTALITARIANSAMERICA HATES LEFTIST TOTALITARIANSAMERICA HATES LEFTIST TOTALITARIANS
That was, indeed, a compelling argument.
More lies for the anti-nuclear zealot who tries to retract.
You keep making unfounded assertions. The only link you've provided in recent history is to an opinion piece by a CS professor -- hardly definitive. How about something from respected, non-partisan political analysts? How about quotes from Kerry's speeches relating to nuclear energy?
Its clear you are a left-totalitarian that wants to control people from cradle to grave.
No, I just want to see that you get the psychiatric care you so desperately need.
Live free or die, communists and socialists! We will not be bent to your knees, the people have spoken.
What people? The ones who went to the poll to deny gay people the freedom to marry?
As you could tell, he's more than a bit mentally unbalanced. He's taken to stalking me all over Slashdot. At first I thought that he was trolling, but this has been going on for about two weeks and now I'm convinced that he's really nuts. He makes untrue statements and, when confronted with his error, goes into maniacal, paranoid, psychotic ranting. This is a good example. He said that drugs in Canada were subsidized. I said that the price was negotiated without subsidies. I provided quotes and links to back up my assertion. And he went nuts.
And the really absurd thing about this is that I own two rifles, two handguns, and a shotgun and he's accusing me of being anti-gun.
I see that you continue your cyber-stalking.
Lies. You are fuckin lying. Canada's health care is in shambles and the taxes (all of them) add up to being outrageous.
I am not lying. Drug prices for patented medicine in Canada are negotiated and regulated by the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board of the Canadian government. From their web siteThey do not give money to drug companies to buy, or subsidize the cost of, drugs sold in Canada.
You want to fucking implement socialist constructs in the USA and you think it has NO COST?
Everything has cost, but Canada has proven that negotiating prices for patented drugs results in a savings to consumers -- regardless of whether any other portion of the Canadian health care system is adopted.
FUCK YOU.
I'm flattered, but I'm straight. Sorry.
You are the idiot here. You are also the loser. Your candidate is anti nuclear power and was anti-NRA and was a certified gun grabber / confiscator / banner.
Do you have a copy of the certificate? If so, who issued it? What guns has he "grabbed" or confiscated?
What the hell is wrong with you?
Nothing. I'm not the one stalking you all over Slashdot.
Start a socialist party so at least the name fits. Democrat no longer makes sense.
Many Democrats are in favor of purchasing drugs through Canada.
He is not "anti nuclear waste." He is against the Yucca Mountain storage facility. Here's an excerpt on why from his web site:As to the rest of your troll, I won't respond.
I agree. And there are probably many other things to be added to our lists.
But it's scary how illogical and uninformed the average U.S. voter is. I was arguing with one poster who insisted that Canada's drug prices were subsidized rather than negotiated. He honestly believed that the Canadian government was using Canadian tax dollars to subsidize drug purchases and then letting U.S. citizens come across the border to buy the drugs. I provided links to the Canadian government's own web sites, and he still didn't get it.
Suck on that you anti-Nuclear slob.
I am pro-nuclear energy. I want more reactors brought online to retire fossil fuel powerplants. You can quote me on that.
The fact that Kerry opposes a particular site for nuclear waste storage does not mean that he is anti-nuclear. That's like saying that someone who opposes construction of a sewage treatment plant in Central Park is anti-toilet.
I find it humorous that you cite a Comp-Sci professor's personal-opinion web page as a reputable source on nuclear energy. What's next? Citing a geology professor's writings as the last word on Constitutional law?
"Education" is the word for what you think must be done. And I'll agree, there seems to be an awful lack of it.
When someone graduates from high school in the U.S., they should know:
1. What the national debt is
2. What the deficit is
3. How the national debt is financed
4. Basics of economics (supply, demand, transaction costs, etc.)
5. What the Constitution and Bill of Rights say
6. How the Supreme Court has interpreted our rights
7. Why it is dangerous to erode rights -- even for good causes
8. The legislative processes and the checks and balances
If that were the case, the outcome of elections in this country would be profoundly different.
I'm tired of your cyber-stalking. Go away.