While you're technically correct in the modern American sense of the word "slave" (someone who is physically forced into manual labor and beaten as encouragement), keep in mind that in ancient times slavery need not have been the way that Americans exploited it.
Slavery is basically enforced servitude. There's nothing in it that requires physical abuses. It was not uncommon at all in ancient times for the citizenry of conquered lands to become slaves to the new rulers, and Egypt did a lot of conquering. Egyptians weren't (as a society) stupid. The conquered people could be marked (branded, tatooed) as a member of a slave caste who are then bought or sold for service. If the slave caste believes that it is their lot in life to serve, then they will serve (provided that they don't have a greater impetus to revolt).
If you believe all that biblical clap-trap about Joseph, he was sold to the Egyptians as a slave but he rose to a position of great power even though he was still a slave. Only a moron would give a leadership role to a person who they had abused (especially if they are made leader over others who you have abused).
To my knowledge there aren't any hieroglyphs depicting sex either, but I'm fairly certain that they used it to reproduce. Once again, absence of proof != proof of absence.
He claimed he used the same techniques used to build the pyramids,
So you're assuming that he somehow knows how the Egyptians built the pyramids while everybody in the academic community who has researched it doesn't? I find that doubtful.
Prediction: Imminent death of USENET predicted within 24 hours of the release of "Star Wars". Film at... er, part of film at October, with reposts of other parts of film through November, December, and probably most of 2002.
Nah...I had Episode I within a couple months of its release to theaters. Remember, some theaters showed it in digital format. Granted, the encoding wasn't nearly as good as Divx, but it was passable and USENET didn't die then.
They can't really look at it as a bandwidth issue because they can't justify opening themselves up to legal liability just to save on bandwidth costs. What is more likely to happen is that if/when peering bandwidth utilization starts going up they will start tracking users use habits and start booting users who they categorize as "abusing" the system by making excessive use of bandwidth.
Yeah. I remember you. The guy who's depending on other people to find his holes for him. And since you haven't built your own compiler, there may not be any visible holes; they could be built into your compiler.
So I'm not hardcore enough to be allowed to use Linux because I couldn't have written it myself and I don't have the time to learn how? Would you prefer that we all go back to the stoneage? The point of technology is that we can use it to stand on the shoulders of giants and reach farther than we could before. The point of open source is that it is available to everybody. It isn't to prove that "I'm more hardcore than you and therefore better."
You don't like a company, you say it wth your wallet.
Absolutely. And I do. I haven't personally bought a Microsoft product in the last decade. When I get the chance to recommend non-MS products at work, I do so. But when I'm at work I'm still stuck with what they give me, and there's little that I can do about it other than "jawing about how bad" MS is. Education must come before action.
You've got the source code; have you personally audited it from top to bottom, and verified that there are no back doors? Even if you have, have you also made your own compiler to rebuild everything?
No, I haven't. I have neither the time nor the inclination. Remember me? The guy who's still stuck using the shitty and insecure MS products at work?
But the point is that I could if I wanted to. And there are people out there that do comb the code looking for bugs and backdoors. They can do this because all of the Linux code is out in the open where we can get at it if we want to. If every person who used a computer had to audit the source code for their OS and apps before using it, we'd still all be using typewriters. But this isn't about paranoia, it's about control. Linux isn't better because I can see if there are backdoors (though it is an added bonus). Linux is better because we all own it and can do (almost) whatever we want with it so long as we keep it in the community.
If you've ever heard the phrase "security by obscurity", don't pretend that openness is a magic bullet;
Closed source products are by very definition "security through obscurity." All that means is that the bugs and backdoors are there, clever people can still find them without the source code, but you aren't allowed to fix them yourself if you so choose. Now how is that security at all?
Of course openness isn't a magic bullet, but it is the first step. Vigilance is more likely the magic bullet. Just like having an open government (like we have in the US via FOIA and public elections) isn't protection against abuses of power. We must still make use of that openness. We must be on the lookout for abuses, and we need to point them out and correct them when we can. The GPL allows this with its code. MS does not. With Microsoft you have a closed government, meeting in smoky back-rooms and making deals behind closed doors. With MS you have a government that is not open to public scrutinization by the populace from which it derives its power. That is the true difference between closed and open source (of any kind).
For what it's worth, MS releases code to large clients; if there were glaring holes in there, well. I'd say they'd be released to the public,
Yes it does, for what it's worth (not much). If you are a big enough company and you can convince MS that you have a legitimate need for the source code for parts of the OS you can license it from them, for a fee, under NDA and without the right to make any changes. Now how is that open? Only the largest companies ever get to see the code, and they can't use it for anything except to optimize their own programs. Even if there were backdoors or seriously critical bugs in the code they can't talk about them.
It's been said before, many times, many ways: Microsoft's "code sharing" with major OEMs/vendors has absolutely none of the benefits of open source. It is pure marketing.
So, about 15 more years then? Remember Microsoft was the cool, quirky, little company in a niche market (Home OSs) that stood up to the big imperialist (making Windows on their own, not for IBM).
Maybe 15 more years. Maybe never. It's really hard to tell. I will dispute what you've said above though. MS wasn't about making a "Home OS" and standing up to the big imperialist. Microsoft was abut money from the beginning, pure and simple. The originial MS boys were very shrewd players of the game. They intentionally hitched their wagon to the biggest, strongest horse they could find (IBM) so that when it took off it would take them with it. They weren't fighting IBM. They were working with them. It wasn't until around 1990 that they actually started "fighting," and by then it was too late.
The big difference between MS and RedHat, however, is that RedHat's product is GPL'd and open source. They can't hide devious little "big brother" bits of code in their OS because we get the code with the OS. If RedHat gets too big and MS-like for the open source community, then we can take the RedHat source and modify it in ways that provide new functionality without breaking compatibility with "the chosen standard." If RedHat becomes that big (which I doubt), it will be by selling services, not products. The products will probably always be freely available to us.
Other than that minor quibble, I really liked your post. I hereby volunteer to sacrifice a couple of my mod points from it to you.
(And yes, I do use primarily MS Office at work, but only because that's what I'm given and that's what everybody else at my site uses. I wish it weren't true, but that's one decision that I don't get to make for the company.)
Of course, but by the same token there is nothing wrong with extending helpful hand to people who chose to have children.
You almost had it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to extend a helpful hand to people who choose to have children. But there is everything wrong with forcing someone to do so. Charity is a wonderful thing, so long as it is optional. Otherwise it isn't charity, it's a tax.
As to my being a selfish bastard, that's merely incorrect speculation. I donate to the United Way. I participate in food and clothing drives when my company holds them around the holidays. I have a friend who has been unemployed for several months, but I still take him out for dinner or "to the bar" probably once a week. When we have excess stock at work (my company produces food products) I always bring home more than I can use so that I have some to give to friends or family. I always tip 20-30% or more when I go out. I frequently repair/upgrade computers for friends and family for free (not even charging for parts). All this hardly makes me mother Theresa, but only someone who didn't know me would make the mistake of calling me selfish.
But the kicker is that I choose to do these things. Nobody forces me to. If it were a requirement I'd be arguing against them as well.
...but as long as we're pooh-poohing M$ (how clever!) and rooting for GPL and Linux and whatever... what do Microsoft's financials look like this quarter? Not that facts should mean anything around here.
Don't be ridiculous. You're actually suggesting that that we compare numbers from a smallish, niche-market company that has been in business for 5 years with those of a vicious, multinational, multi-billion dollar, anticompetitive monopolist that has been in business for 20 years? I've never heard such lunacy.
If you think that this is about money then you are very sadly mistaken. It is about ideology. It is about the fact that you don't have to be an extortionist or a monopolist or a tyrant in order to be a successful company. It is a testament to the power of open source that such a small (dare I say nearly insignificant) company can actually survive to operational profitability while competing against a company the size of Microsoft.
Do you remember what has happened to the rest of Microsoft's competitors over the past 20 years? They've been either acquired by The Beast, run out of business by The Beast, or beaten so badly into submission by The Beast that they've had to seek government protection. The only real exceptions to this are companies who were already multinational multibillion dollar companies before they began competing with Microsoft. RedHat (and open source in general) hasn't had any of those things happen to them. This is a great day for open source. Free speech for everyone!
Because it is their children that will be paying taxes to pay for your social security / pension in your retirement - why should they do that?
Sure they will. I don't know about where you live, but in the US there will be no social security benefits by the time I retire (if I choose to live that long). What I will live off of will be what I have saved for that purpose.
"There's absolutely nothing sad about it. It's merely a choice, like choosing to abstain from alchohol or to drink. "
What a bullshit.
What do you think would happen if everyone decided to stop drinking or smoking?
Would it be pretty much the same as everyone deciding to stop procreating?
No it wouldn't. But I'm not advocating that people stop procreating or smoking or drinking. I am merely pointing out that every person on this planet has the right to choose whether or not they will have children, or smoke, or drink, or get a pet, or a tatoo. Nobody should be forced to do any of those things. There is no moral or ethical obligation to reproduce. It is not a "sad thing" when somebody exercises their right not to have children.
I can't believe I'm actually trying to reason with a miserable fucking troll...
By your standards, I shouldn't be held accountable if I lend my car to someone who isn't licensed and has never actually driven a car. Indeedy, you figure I shouldn't be held accountable even if I lend the car to someone who has had their license impounded for repeated drunk driving offenses!
Not quite. (IANAL) There are already such things as negligence and contributory negligence which are grounds for civil suits. Those categories cover your examples quite nicely.
If you own a swimming pool, but don't put up a fence, you're liable should some nosepicker jump in and drown.
This is a good example of negligence resulting in civil liability, but I doubt that it would result in criminal charges (depending on the laws in your area). Ohio has recently made this a criminal offense, calling them something like enticing nuisances or attactive nuisances. It's mainly there to protect kids (I thought that parents were supposed to protect kids?).
If you own a gun, lend it out to a friend to kill his wife, you're going to be held partially at fault. If you help a friend smuggle dope across the border, you're going to be in trouble, even though you weren't driving the car.
Rather than being "at fault," you're more likely to be charged as an accessory to a crime. But generally that involves some degree of intent or knowledge of another person's intent.
If you lend the car out to someone who speeds, and photo radar nabs him, then the ticket is assigned to the owner of the car. Who pays -- you or your friend -- is something you're gonna have to figure out for between yourselves.
Again, depending on where you live there may be a loophole in the law if the driver is unclear. Many times you don't have to go to court to challenge the ticket. If you go to your municipal "ticket-paying place" (my city has one at the impound lot) you have a good chance of talking the girl behind the counter into voiding it. I've done it before.
But you're right. If I can't get out of it, my friend is paying the fine and won't be driving my car again any time soon.
People who choose to raise children need as much support as possible from society.
That's highly debatable. As a member of society, why should I have to support someone else's family? I get no say as to whether said family is allowed to exist. I get no say into how the family is run. Why should my material and intangible resources be hijacked to subsidize somebody else's kids?
If one chooses to miss out on having children, that's very sad
There's absolutely nothing sad about it. It's merely a choice, like choosing to abstain from alchohol or to drink. Like choosing to get a tatoo, or choosing to have a pet. It's all the same. It's just a choice and the belief that it is somehow sad that someone would choose not to have children is absolutely wrong. What's sad is if someone who doesn't want kids ends up stuck raising them and the kids grow up neglected. Recognizing that I have neither the time nor inclination to raise children and then choosing not to have children just demonstrates common sense/good judgement, which is far more than I can say about many of the people in this world who dare to call themselves parents.
(Note that we're already partially there: if you lend it out and it gets wrecked, the insurance company is going to raise *your* rates.)
Well, once again we have an instance of a corporation that you choose to do business with being able to do whatever they want to bend you over. On the other hand, we have the government who's power is actually bounded by laws that they can't willfully ignore without reprisal.
Only because the law doesn't have the balls to make the owner of the car (the insurer of the car) liable for the car when he willingly lends it out.
My opinion is that if you're enough of a jackass to lend your car to someone that drives drunk, speeds, is untrained, has no license, whatever -- well, then, you deserve to be held as an accomplice when that vehicle is used to break the law.
The law shouldn't allow you to be cited for someone else's infractions while using your vehicle. That's just another way of people shirking responsibility for their own actions. If I borrow your car and kill someone with it, why should you be held liable if you didn't know that I planned to drive drunk? Would a rental agency be held liable when their customers speed?
What about someone who stole a car? If I stole your car and killed someone with it, you'd be liable under what you propose. Sure, you can claim that I stole the car, but how could you prove it? It's my word against yours. If I killed someone with it before you realized it was stolen (say during the middle of the night), I could get off free and you'd be doing time for it. Sounds good to me!
And now for a slightly more common look at it: how do you know if your friends/family are good drivers? I've had a perfect driving record for 13 years now, but I speed all over the place. I am rated all around as an excellent driver, but by your definition I'm dangerous. But if your best friend's car was in the shop and you knew that he had a spotless record, would you lend him your car?
It's just ridiculous. Every individual must be responsible for their own actions. Period. If I'm too tired (or too drunk) to drive home one night and I have an awake (sober) friend drive me home in my car, should I be liable for their speeding? Even though I obviously made the safest choice I could by recognizing that I was not in a condition to drive? What if I were passed out or ill and not in a condition to be able to give anyone permission to drive my car but they drove me home anyway?
You really should think before you post. Your millitant authoritarianism shows through otherwise.
For all of you screaming about how it's a simple case of contract law and it's his own fault for signing it, you should keep in mind the following very important fact:
Just because something has been stipulated in a contract does not make it legal, or even legally binding.
Either way, I think it's a great idea, and a leap forward to the day when we can detect aggressive driving on the fly and deactivate the vehicle remotely. Someday we'll be able to just switch off those retarded SUV drivers on the freeway with the push of a button!
Yes, that's exactly what we need. Someone who doesn't know how to drive a car driving a 2 ton SUV who suddenly finds themselves in a position where their SUV stops running in the middle of a crowded highway. That sounds safe to me!
I honestly think that people haven't the slightest clue how to operate a motor vehicle. Especially the slow-pokes doing 55 in a 55 when everybody else is doing 75.
Dammit...now I have to visit New Haven just so I can play with these jokers' cars. Of course, once I've perfected I could set up shop across the street selling a GPS blocking service to protect you from Big Brother Rent-a-Car and make a tidy profit...
Anybody out there have some VC that I could borrow?
The police do something similiar to this in New York. At random street corners throughout parts of the city, there's a hidden camera in a lamppost and a pressure trigger on the ground. When the light is red and your car goes over the trigger on the ground, the camera snaps a picture of your license plate.
I got a ticket in the mail with a nice picture showing my car, license plate prominent, going through a red light in Brooklyn.
It probably depends upon the laws in your state, but I've heard of people in Arizona getting out of these tickets if you can't tell if the driver at the time is the registered owner. For example, if the driver's face was obscured they could not prove that the owner was actually driving and therefore couldn't legally cite him for it. So it does have some weaknesses.
Dude, children are future of this country.
What's wrong with recognizing this fact ?
Absolutely nothing. I'm certainly not advocating that children should be ignored, abused, or otherwise disadvantaged. What I am saying is that single adults who do not have children are discriminated against in the workplace because we do not have families. There are two simple solutions to this problem:
1. If you have children and want time off to play with them, then get a part-time job instead of a fulltime job or don't work. Stay home with your children. Raising kids is an awful lot of work. Don't cheat them at it by pretending that you can raise kids and work full-time with the same level of dedication as a single non-parent.
2. More time off for non-familied workers so that we don't have to always pick up the slack of parents. I could give a shit if someone has 500 kids. My problem is when they are given extra privileges in the workplace because of their children.
But, I'm sure that *you* will appreciate this state of affairs when you have your own family
But that is the flawed assumption that is the root of the problem. I do not intend to have a family. While I may get married I will not have children, nor would I want to (personal choice). But businesses assume that having a family is the norm and so people who do have families get additional benefits over those of us who do not. I can't leave work early to get new license plates for my car, but my cube-mate can leave early to see his son's baseball game. This is blatant discrimination against single, non-familied adults. And it is absolutely the norm in the business world today (at least in the US).
Did you know that according to the 2000 US census only 23.5% of American households are families with children? Even though I'm in the majority I'm getting screwed by the breeders out there...
I presume that you mean you have worked in a unionised workplace. I have never worked for a union myself, but have mostly worked in unionised work places.
I have been a union member in a unionized workplace. So I guess that it's both.
I gather that you're in the UK, and as has been noted elsewhere in this thread it seems that what we call unions in the US and what are called unions in most European nations aren't quite the same thing, though they do fill similar roles. I won't deny that unions can do good things for workers and sometimes do exceptionally wonderful things for workers (someone early posted a story about the Teamsters union paying for a $250,000 transplant operation), I don't believe that the benefit outweighs the detriment.
Unions can better bad policy Do you like anti-drug flyers they make you sign saying that you wont do things the company doesn't like outside of its walls (13th amendment violation anyone?)? Do you like illegal non-competition clauses in your contract?
So basically what you are saying here is that only the unions can protect us from illegal employment practices? Isn't that what laws and the courts are for?
Unions don't support mediocrity It is true that unions work to benefit the majority of their workers. This might leave some of the very very best a little in the cold and bring the very very worst up a little bit more than they deserve, but for the majority of us (since we can't all be the very very best) it's much better
Let's see here. You claim that unions don't support mediocrity, but they do disadvantage the "best of the best" and they they do give additional benefit to the "worst of the worst." Can you explain to me how that isn't encouraging mediocrity?
As a person with former union experience (UFCW Local #1059 uh-oh, there's that experience thing coming back again!), I know for a fact that the unions are there to benefit the "average" worker. You admit it yourself when you call them "the majority," but it's really the same thing (as you point out, we can't all be the very best). On our bell-curve of job performance, the "majority of workers" or "average employee" is squarely in the middle of the chart. The majority of employees are mediocre workers. They are neither exceptionally good or bad workers. And the union is for them because unions encourage mediocrity, even if they don't admit it to themselves.
Do you really want to get a raise based on how long you're there rather than based on how well you do your job? Unions support those who don't do thier job and shrug responsibility. They'll fight for those dead sticks to the bitter end.
Of course they do. Unions usually pay some unemployment benefits. They also charge union dues on a regular basis. If they actually let employers get away with firing somebody who is incompetent, not only are they losing income (union dues) but they are also losing cash reserves by supporting them. It is in the union's best interests to ALWAYS oppose the firing of any union member, whatever the reason. On the other hand, a union suffers no penalty for supporting an incompetent worker. After all, they're "just trying to protect the little guy" from the "big, bad suits." They get some "positive" press for it, and they preserve their income.
The protection racket is an old, old scheme. And it still works!
That's funny. I work in a non-unionized IT shop. I'm single and have no children. And most days I find that I'm stuck staying late to finish up for some "family man" or "family woman" who had to go home early so that they could see their kid's school play.
I don't know how things are in the Great White North, but down here in the States employees who have families get to run rough-shod over employees that don't have families all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
While you're technically correct in the modern American sense of the word "slave" (someone who is physically forced into manual labor and beaten as encouragement), keep in mind that in ancient times slavery need not have been the way that Americans exploited it.
Slavery is basically enforced servitude. There's nothing in it that requires physical abuses. It was not uncommon at all in ancient times for the citizenry of conquered lands to become slaves to the new rulers, and Egypt did a lot of conquering. Egyptians weren't (as a society) stupid. The conquered people could be marked (branded, tatooed) as a member of a slave caste who are then bought or sold for service. If the slave caste believes that it is their lot in life to serve, then they will serve (provided that they don't have a greater impetus to revolt).
If you believe all that biblical clap-trap about Joseph, he was sold to the Egyptians as a slave but he rose to a position of great power even though he was still a slave. Only a moron would give a leadership role to a person who they had abused (especially if they are made leader over others who you have abused).
There are no hierglyphs depicting kites
To my knowledge there aren't any hieroglyphs depicting sex either, but I'm fairly certain that they used it to reproduce. Once again, absence of proof != proof of absence.
Yes, this was a fantastic idea. I saw the same program. Oly one problem with this: if the "spool" gets loose on the ramp...look out! :-)
Wait a minnit...did hte Egyptians also invent the first wheel chocks?
He claimed he used the same techniques used to build the pyramids,
So you're assuming that he somehow knows how the Egyptians built the pyramids while everybody in the academic community who has researched it doesn't? I find that doubtful.
Prediction: Imminent death of USENET predicted within 24 hours of the release of "Star Wars". Film at... er, part of film at October, with reposts of other parts of film through November, December, and probably most of 2002.
Nah...I had Episode I within a couple months of its release to theaters. Remember, some theaters showed it in digital format. Granted, the encoding wasn't nearly as good as Divx, but it was passable and USENET didn't die then.
They can't really look at it as a bandwidth issue because they can't justify opening themselves up to legal liability just to save on bandwidth costs. What is more likely to happen is that if/when peering bandwidth utilization starts going up they will start tracking users use habits and start booting users who they categorize as "abusing" the system by making excessive use of bandwidth.
Yeah. I remember you. The guy who's depending on other people to find his holes for him. And since you haven't built your own compiler, there may not be any visible holes; they could be built into your compiler.
So I'm not hardcore enough to be allowed to use Linux because I couldn't have written it myself and I don't have the time to learn how? Would you prefer that we all go back to the stoneage? The point of technology is that we can use it to stand on the shoulders of giants and reach farther than we could before. The point of open source is that it is available to everybody. It isn't to prove that "I'm more hardcore than you and therefore better."
You don't like a company, you say it wth your wallet.
Absolutely. And I do. I haven't personally bought a Microsoft product in the last decade. When I get the chance to recommend non-MS products at work, I do so. But when I'm at work I'm still stuck with what they give me, and there's little that I can do about it other than "jawing about how bad" MS is. Education must come before action.
You've got the source code; have you personally audited it from top to bottom, and verified that there are no back doors? Even if you have, have you also made your own compiler to rebuild everything?
No, I haven't. I have neither the time nor the inclination. Remember me? The guy who's still stuck using the shitty and insecure MS products at work?
But the point is that I could if I wanted to. And there are people out there that do comb the code looking for bugs and backdoors. They can do this because all of the Linux code is out in the open where we can get at it if we want to. If every person who used a computer had to audit the source code for their OS and apps before using it, we'd still all be using typewriters. But this isn't about paranoia, it's about control. Linux isn't better because I can see if there are backdoors (though it is an added bonus). Linux is better because we all own it and can do (almost) whatever we want with it so long as we keep it in the community.
If you've ever heard the phrase "security by obscurity", don't pretend that openness is a magic bullet;
Closed source products are by very definition "security through obscurity." All that means is that the bugs and backdoors are there, clever people can still find them without the source code, but you aren't allowed to fix them yourself if you so choose. Now how is that security at all?
Of course openness isn't a magic bullet, but it is the first step. Vigilance is more likely the magic bullet. Just like having an open government (like we have in the US via FOIA and public elections) isn't protection against abuses of power. We must still make use of that openness. We must be on the lookout for abuses, and we need to point them out and correct them when we can. The GPL allows this with its code. MS does not. With Microsoft you have a closed government, meeting in smoky back-rooms and making deals behind closed doors. With MS you have a government that is not open to public scrutinization by the populace from which it derives its power. That is the true difference between closed and open source (of any kind).
For what it's worth, MS releases code to large clients; if there were glaring holes in there, well. I'd say they'd be released to the public,
Yes it does, for what it's worth (not much). If you are a big enough company and you can convince MS that you have a legitimate need for the source code for parts of the OS you can license it from them, for a fee, under NDA and without the right to make any changes. Now how is that open? Only the largest companies ever get to see the code, and they can't use it for anything except to optimize their own programs. Even if there were backdoors or seriously critical bugs in the code they can't talk about them.
It's been said before, many times, many ways: Microsoft's "code sharing" with major OEMs/vendors has absolutely none of the benefits of open source. It is pure marketing.
So, about 15 more years then? Remember Microsoft was the cool, quirky, little company in a niche market (Home OSs) that stood up to the big imperialist (making Windows on their own, not for IBM).
Maybe 15 more years. Maybe never. It's really hard to tell. I will dispute what you've said above though. MS wasn't about making a "Home OS" and standing up to the big imperialist. Microsoft was abut money from the beginning, pure and simple. The originial MS boys were very shrewd players of the game. They intentionally hitched their wagon to the biggest, strongest horse they could find (IBM) so that when it took off it would take them with it. They weren't fighting IBM. They were working with them. It wasn't until around 1990 that they actually started "fighting," and by then it was too late.
The big difference between MS and RedHat, however, is that RedHat's product is GPL'd and open source. They can't hide devious little "big brother" bits of code in their OS because we get the code with the OS. If RedHat gets too big and MS-like for the open source community, then we can take the RedHat source and modify it in ways that provide new functionality without breaking compatibility with "the chosen standard." If RedHat becomes that big (which I doubt), it will be by selling services, not products. The products will probably always be freely available to us.
Other than that minor quibble, I really liked your post. I hereby volunteer to sacrifice a couple of my mod points from it to you.
(And yes, I do use primarily MS Office at work, but only because that's what I'm given and that's what everybody else at my site uses. I wish it weren't true, but that's one decision that I don't get to make for the company.)
Troll-ing, troll-ing...la de da dee da dum...
Of course, but by the same token there is nothing wrong with extending helpful hand to people who chose to have children.
You almost had it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to extend a helpful hand to people who choose to have children. But there is everything wrong with forcing someone to do so. Charity is a wonderful thing, so long as it is optional. Otherwise it isn't charity, it's a tax.
As to my being a selfish bastard, that's merely incorrect speculation. I donate to the United Way. I participate in food and clothing drives when my company holds them around the holidays. I have a friend who has been unemployed for several months, but I still take him out for dinner or "to the bar" probably once a week. When we have excess stock at work (my company produces food products) I always bring home more than I can use so that I have some to give to friends or family. I always tip 20-30% or more when I go out. I frequently repair/upgrade computers for friends and family for free (not even charging for parts). All this hardly makes me mother Theresa, but only someone who didn't know me would make the mistake of calling me selfish.
But the kicker is that I choose to do these things. Nobody forces me to. If it were a requirement I'd be arguing against them as well.
...but as long as we're pooh-poohing M$ (how clever!) and rooting for GPL and Linux and whatever... what do Microsoft's financials look like this quarter? Not that facts should mean anything around here.
Don't be ridiculous. You're actually suggesting that that we compare numbers from a smallish, niche-market company that has been in business for 5 years with those of a vicious, multinational, multi-billion dollar, anticompetitive monopolist that has been in business for 20 years? I've never heard such lunacy.
If you think that this is about money then you are very sadly mistaken. It is about ideology. It is about the fact that you don't have to be an extortionist or a monopolist or a tyrant in order to be a successful company. It is a testament to the power of open source that such a small (dare I say nearly insignificant) company can actually survive to operational profitability while competing against a company the size of Microsoft.
Do you remember what has happened to the rest of Microsoft's competitors over the past 20 years? They've been either acquired by The Beast, run out of business by The Beast, or beaten so badly into submission by The Beast that they've had to seek government protection. The only real exceptions to this are companies who were already multinational multibillion dollar companies before they began competing with Microsoft. RedHat (and open source in general) hasn't had any of those things happen to them. This is a great day for open source. Free speech for everyone!
Because it is their children that will be paying taxes to pay for your social security / pension in your retirement - why should they do that?
Sure they will. I don't know about where you live, but in the US there will be no social security benefits by the time I retire (if I choose to live that long). What I will live off of will be what I have saved for that purpose.
"There's absolutely nothing sad about it. It's merely a choice, like choosing to abstain from alchohol or to drink. "
What a bullshit.
What do you think would happen if everyone decided to stop drinking or smoking?
Would it be pretty much the same as everyone deciding to stop procreating?
No it wouldn't. But I'm not advocating that people stop procreating or smoking or drinking. I am merely pointing out that every person on this planet has the right to choose whether or not they will have children, or smoke, or drink, or get a pet, or a tatoo. Nobody should be forced to do any of those things. There is no moral or ethical obligation to reproduce. It is not a "sad thing" when somebody exercises their right not to have children.
I can't believe I'm actually trying to reason with a miserable fucking troll...
By your standards, I shouldn't be held accountable if I lend my car to someone who isn't licensed and has never actually driven a car. Indeedy, you figure I shouldn't be held accountable even if I lend the car to someone who has had their license impounded for repeated drunk driving offenses!
Not quite. (IANAL) There are already such things as negligence and contributory negligence which are grounds for civil suits. Those categories cover your examples quite nicely.
If you own a swimming pool, but don't put up a fence, you're liable should some nosepicker jump in and drown.
This is a good example of negligence resulting in civil liability, but I doubt that it would result in criminal charges (depending on the laws in your area). Ohio has recently made this a criminal offense, calling them something like enticing nuisances or attactive nuisances. It's mainly there to protect kids (I thought that parents were supposed to protect kids?).
If you own a gun, lend it out to a friend to kill his wife, you're going to be held partially at fault. If you help a friend smuggle dope across the border, you're going to be in trouble, even though you weren't driving the car.
Rather than being "at fault," you're more likely to be charged as an accessory to a crime. But generally that involves some degree of intent or knowledge of another person's intent.
If you lend the car out to someone who speeds, and photo radar nabs him, then the ticket is assigned to the owner of the car. Who pays -- you or your friend -- is something you're gonna have to figure out for between yourselves.
Again, depending on where you live there may be a loophole in the law if the driver is unclear. Many times you don't have to go to court to challenge the ticket. If you go to your municipal "ticket-paying place" (my city has one at the impound lot) you have a good chance of talking the girl behind the counter into voiding it. I've done it before.
But you're right. If I can't get out of it, my friend is paying the fine and won't be driving my car again any time soon.
People who choose to raise children need as much support as possible from society.
That's highly debatable. As a member of society, why should I have to support someone else's family? I get no say as to whether said family is allowed to exist. I get no say into how the family is run. Why should my material and intangible resources be hijacked to subsidize somebody else's kids?
If one chooses to miss out on having children, that's very sad
There's absolutely nothing sad about it. It's merely a choice, like choosing to abstain from alchohol or to drink. Like choosing to get a tatoo, or choosing to have a pet. It's all the same. It's just a choice and the belief that it is somehow sad that someone would choose not to have children is absolutely wrong. What's sad is if someone who doesn't want kids ends up stuck raising them and the kids grow up neglected. Recognizing that I have neither the time nor inclination to raise children and then choosing not to have children just demonstrates common sense/good judgement, which is far more than I can say about many of the people in this world who dare to call themselves parents.
(Note that we're already partially there: if you lend it out and it gets wrecked, the insurance company is going to raise *your* rates.)
Well, once again we have an instance of a corporation that you choose to do business with being able to do whatever they want to bend you over. On the other hand, we have the government who's power is actually bounded by laws that they can't willfully ignore without reprisal.
Only because the law doesn't have the balls to make the owner of the car (the insurer of the car) liable for the car when he willingly lends it out.
My opinion is that if you're enough of a jackass to lend your car to someone that drives drunk, speeds, is untrained, has no license, whatever -- well, then, you deserve to be held as an accomplice when that vehicle is used to break the law.
The law shouldn't allow you to be cited for someone else's infractions while using your vehicle. That's just another way of people shirking responsibility for their own actions. If I borrow your car and kill someone with it, why should you be held liable if you didn't know that I planned to drive drunk? Would a rental agency be held liable when their customers speed?
What about someone who stole a car? If I stole your car and killed someone with it, you'd be liable under what you propose. Sure, you can claim that I stole the car, but how could you prove it? It's my word against yours. If I killed someone with it before you realized it was stolen (say during the middle of the night), I could get off free and you'd be doing time for it. Sounds good to me!
And now for a slightly more common look at it: how do you know if your friends/family are good drivers? I've had a perfect driving record for 13 years now, but I speed all over the place. I am rated all around as an excellent driver, but by your definition I'm dangerous. But if your best friend's car was in the shop and you knew that he had a spotless record, would you lend him your car?
It's just ridiculous. Every individual must be responsible for their own actions. Period. If I'm too tired (or too drunk) to drive home one night and I have an awake (sober) friend drive me home in my car, should I be liable for their speeding? Even though I obviously made the safest choice I could by recognizing that I was not in a condition to drive? What if I were passed out or ill and not in a condition to be able to give anyone permission to drive my car but they drove me home anyway?
You really should think before you post. Your millitant authoritarianism shows through otherwise.
For all of you screaming about how it's a simple case of contract law and it's his own fault for signing it, you should keep in mind the following very important fact: Just because something has been stipulated in a contract does not make it legal, or even legally binding.
Either way, I think it's a great idea, and a leap forward to the day when we can detect aggressive driving on the fly and deactivate the vehicle remotely. Someday we'll be able to just switch off those retarded SUV drivers on the freeway with the push of a button!
Yes, that's exactly what we need. Someone who doesn't know how to drive a car driving a 2 ton SUV who suddenly finds themselves in a position where their SUV stops running in the middle of a crowded highway. That sounds safe to me!
I honestly think that people haven't the slightest clue how to operate a motor vehicle. Especially the slow-pokes doing 55 in a 55 when everybody else is doing 75.
Dammit...now I have to visit New Haven just so I can play with these jokers' cars. Of course, once I've perfected I could set up shop across the street selling a GPS blocking service to protect you from Big Brother Rent-a-Car and make a tidy profit...
Anybody out there have some VC that I could borrow?
The police do something similiar to this in New York. At random street corners throughout parts of the city, there's a hidden camera in a lamppost and a pressure trigger on the ground. When the light is red and your car goes over the trigger on the ground, the camera snaps a picture of your license plate. I got a ticket in the mail with a nice picture showing my car, license plate prominent, going through a red light in Brooklyn.
It probably depends upon the laws in your state, but I've heard of people in Arizona getting out of these tickets if you can't tell if the driver at the time is the registered owner. For example, if the driver's face was obscured they could not prove that the owner was actually driving and therefore couldn't legally cite him for it. So it does have some weaknesses.
Dude, children are future of this country. What's wrong with recognizing this fact ?
Absolutely nothing. I'm certainly not advocating that children should be ignored, abused, or otherwise disadvantaged. What I am saying is that single adults who do not have children are discriminated against in the workplace because we do not have families. There are two simple solutions to this problem:
1. If you have children and want time off to play with them, then get a part-time job instead of a fulltime job or don't work. Stay home with your children. Raising kids is an awful lot of work. Don't cheat them at it by pretending that you can raise kids and work full-time with the same level of dedication as a single non-parent.
2. More time off for non-familied workers so that we don't have to always pick up the slack of parents. I could give a shit if someone has 500 kids. My problem is when they are given extra privileges in the workplace because of their children.
But, I'm sure that *you* will appreciate this state of affairs when you have your own family
But that is the flawed assumption that is the root of the problem. I do not intend to have a family. While I may get married I will not have children, nor would I want to (personal choice). But businesses assume that having a family is the norm and so people who do have families get additional benefits over those of us who do not. I can't leave work early to get new license plates for my car, but my cube-mate can leave early to see his son's baseball game. This is blatant discrimination against single, non-familied adults. And it is absolutely the norm in the business world today (at least in the US).
Did you know that according to the 2000 US census only 23.5% of American households are families with children? Even though I'm in the majority I'm getting screwed by the breeders out there...
I presume that you mean you have worked in a unionised workplace. I have never worked for a union myself, but have mostly worked in unionised work places.
I have been a union member in a unionized workplace. So I guess that it's both.
I gather that you're in the UK, and as has been noted elsewhere in this thread it seems that what we call unions in the US and what are called unions in most European nations aren't quite the same thing, though they do fill similar roles. I won't deny that unions can do good things for workers and sometimes do exceptionally wonderful things for workers (someone early posted a story about the Teamsters union paying for a $250,000 transplant operation), I don't believe that the benefit outweighs the detriment.
Unions can better bad policy Do you like anti-drug flyers they make you sign saying that you wont do things the company doesn't like outside of its walls (13th amendment violation anyone?)? Do you like illegal non-competition clauses in your contract?
So basically what you are saying here is that only the unions can protect us from illegal employment practices? Isn't that what laws and the courts are for?
Unions don't support mediocrity It is true that unions work to benefit the majority of their workers. This might leave some of the very very best a little in the cold and bring the very very worst up a little bit more than they deserve, but for the majority of us (since we can't all be the very very best) it's much better
Let's see here. You claim that unions don't support mediocrity, but they do disadvantage the "best of the best" and they they do give additional benefit to the "worst of the worst." Can you explain to me how that isn't encouraging mediocrity?
As a person with former union experience (UFCW Local #1059 uh-oh, there's that experience thing coming back again!), I know for a fact that the unions are there to benefit the "average" worker. You admit it yourself when you call them "the majority," but it's really the same thing (as you point out, we can't all be the very best). On our bell-curve of job performance, the "majority of workers" or "average employee" is squarely in the middle of the chart. The majority of employees are mediocre workers. They are neither exceptionally good or bad workers. And the union is for them because unions encourage mediocrity, even if they don't admit it to themselves.
Do you really want to get a raise based on how long you're there rather than based on how well you do your job? Unions support those who don't do thier job and shrug responsibility. They'll fight for those dead sticks to the bitter end.
Of course they do. Unions usually pay some unemployment benefits. They also charge union dues on a regular basis. If they actually let employers get away with firing somebody who is incompetent, not only are they losing income (union dues) but they are also losing cash reserves by supporting them. It is in the union's best interests to ALWAYS oppose the firing of any union member, whatever the reason. On the other hand, a union suffers no penalty for supporting an incompetent worker. After all, they're "just trying to protect the little guy" from the "big, bad suits." They get some "positive" press for it, and they preserve their income.
The protection racket is an old, old scheme. And it still works!
That's funny. I work in a non-unionized IT shop. I'm single and have no children. And most days I find that I'm stuck staying late to finish up for some "family man" or "family woman" who had to go home early so that they could see their kid's school play.
I don't know how things are in the Great White North, but down here in the States employees who have families get to run rough-shod over employees that don't have families all the time.