People in America, I have noticed, seem to think that privacy is some sort of fundamental right
And of course, no one in Europe or anywhere else for that matter desire privacy.
Information is power. Information can be used for good. It can also be used for malicious purposes. The question is who do you trust with that power. I do not trust the corporations. Nor do I trust the government.
Since the advent of society, the communication allowed people to disagree. With that came judgment and persecution. While I do not believe that the things that I do are immoral, someone else may. I should not have to suffer under their persecution. Just as you should not have to suffer for being (whatever you are), I should not have to suffer for being a left wing non-religious type. Yet, that is not the way of the world, as people wage their wars of prejudice and try to make other people bend to their will. If my boss found out that I am not a Christian, he might fire me (his being a right wing conservative Christian type who believes that those that think differently than him should be destroyed).
This is not right according to my morals. According to my moral code, a person should be judged on how they do their job... not what creed, nationality, sex, or race they belong to... acording to my moral code, it is none of his business what my religion is.
Perhaps if there were better ways of preserving a persons right to, say, worship whatever god they wanted to... and if everyone agreed to a single moral code, it might be possible to say that privacy is not needed... But I have yet to meet even two people that agree 100% on morality.
The ills that Christians (and yes, it was a religious as well as political party) did to Jewish People during the 2nd world war could have been prevented if the government did not know who the Jewish People were. The lack of this 'silly idea' has cost lives.
I agree that back in the stone age there was no privacy. I also agree that privacy is a social construct. But, so is religion, as religion is an organization. So are words. So are numbers. Everything used to communicate can be categorized as a social construct (and therefor unnatural). If you want to go and live without running water, toilet paper, computers, books (including your bible), and the ability to communicate around the globe... you go right ahead. As for anyone that lives in this social structure, there are real issues to address. Such as privacy.
Well, the structure of words (and in fact of characters) is significantly different than the 'western'. Unless you speak Korean, you are not an expert (and since I do not speak it, I am not). Some people type it tae-kwon-do, some use tae kwon do, and honestly, I have not seen it typed taekwondo. They are separate words, combined to create one phrase/word. I do not believe that the Korean language differentiates between combined words and phrases. And, like many oriental languages, the translation into western characters, in and of itself, looses sounds (since oriental languages and western languages incorporate different sound 'sets' that overlap, but are each missing some sounds that are present in the other). Anyway, I digress... in many languages the ability to create a new word by combining words is present. In the western alphabet, sometimes they use spaces (and it is called a phrase), sometimes they use hyphens, and sometimes they put the two words together. But, as Korean does not use the western alphabet, (and I was always under the impression that Korean uses separate noun charachters, although I could be mistaken on this point) it is not set in stone.
I am 27 years old, and I attended a school in my youth through early teens, and a self defense class twice a week in college, and am currently involved in a local do-jo. I have to warm up a half of an hour to an hour before class so that I do not pull anything. I have a bad back, knees, and ankles. I am very aware of my bodys limits, and when I excercise regulary (with proper warm ups) it strengthens these areas, and I am not bothered by them anymore.
As for martial arts, there are:
1)better/worse martial arts and beter/worse schools
Tae kwon do is a very high impact art/sport, and is often treated less as an art (where they are more careful of your well being) and more as a sport by some schools. I have also taken karate, and a little bit of judo and tae-chi in self defense classes, which tend to have better care of the body (and it varies by school and by do-jo as well).
and
2)better do-jo's and instructors
I have been to do-jo's where there is adequate warm ups and adequate care and attention given to avoiding injury. And I have observed some that do not. And I have also seen some do-jo's where the instructor seems to be an x boxer that decided that owning a do-jo would be cool. (If he is typical of boxers, I know why there is a large quantity of training injuries in boxing)
I took a few months of looking around before i chose the do-jo that I belong to now, and even that is not as good as I like. All of these things were taken into consideration in addition to the quality and breadth of the teaching (physical and mental). I would advise that anyone looking into a martial art look around at several do-jo's if they plan to stick with it, so that they get the one best suited to them.
If the class has a healthy style and format, I would say that you should be aware of your limits, if you need to warm up an hour before class in order to avoid injury, then that is your limit. If you need to take a break in the middle of class, and stretch out, so be it. Not all challenges are physical, you may need to find courage to tell your teacher that you need to alternate exercises to help your back, or to not push yourself so hard that you hurt yourself.
-CrackElf
Hence, they should be able to ask for a donation.
If you get something (a download) for free, the giving entity should be able to ask for a donation.
When I was poor, I did not make donations for the free software that I used. I make money now, and so I can afford to pay for the things that I use. So I purchased a copy a linux. That was my way of donating. But I do not think that it is immoral to ask for a donation. To demand it would be.
Just because a musician gets some paying gigs does not mean that (s)he should not ask for donations at a gig where there is no cover.
I have a good chair at work which i have tweaked every which way until it suits me. At home I do not notice the pain. I do not know if that is because I have the whole thing suited to me, or if it is because I am too engrossed in what I am doing to care. As for pain when I am not in front of the computer, I have noticed that when I am physically active, my back pain is significantly reduced. I take tae-kwon-do several times a week, and, as it is interesting to me, I stick with it. My recommendation is to find a physical activity that you like and go to it, do your thing, get in shape.
-CrackElf
When I was in school 1989-1993 It was around when I was in high school in 88-92 too. Your school had a shell account? Where did you go to school? I had to borrow an account from one of the non-geeks at Cornell who did not have any use for her account (with her permission, of course)...Until a cool guy set up an isp that provided shell accounts.
The reasons that I stated for defending the movements remains true. I remain convinced that if microsoft had it's way there would be no sourceforge, no freshmeat, no linux, and no apache.
And I appreciate the fact that the movement was a cool little counter main stream 'back in the day'. If I remember correctly, I thought that they were a little preachy back then. That was before MS stomped out (or bought up) a whole bunch of free/ shareware. I still see them as a little preachy, but I also see MS as preachy... and far more insidious. I do not agree with half the things that the OSS movement states, but I believe that someone has to stand up and counter MS's claims.
I personally do not see why the two types of software could not co-exist, except that ms has attacked, and made it it's personal vendetta, to kill any model not it's own, and force all of the other companies with the same model out of the market (not necessarily in that order).
And there are multiple alternative schemes to making money with software. Sun has done it. Red hat has done it. Apache is very popular, and those that 'make money' off of it, make money off of their skill as administrators. As an aside, most software companies make their money off of support and training anyway... not off of the initial sale of the product.
If it works for MS to sell software, and the OSS is incompatible with making money, then fine, let the best software win. and I think that MS shouted fire first in this round, right after they defended their claim that they were not a monopoly by pointing to RedHat (and after they lumped all of the alternative software licensing/ os's/ movements into one). I agree that all things have a motive. They did not intend to give other companies validity. What is your motive? The last time I argued with a person on a similar vein it turned out that they owned MS stock, and were going to put their kid through college with it. They (despite being technically challenged) decided that MS was the best, and that all else should be destroyed, and, in fact preached that on an almost daily basis. They refused to listen to any argument that I had because they already had their mind made up.
I will tell you my motivation, I use linux. I use a lot of free software. I think that it performs better than windows on non-gaming tasks. I would like to see further development in this area. I do not want businesses and individuals to turn away from software because "A technical representative (never mind that they are a microsoft rep) said that it is BAD". I want software to be judged on it's own merits. I want to be able to recommend to my boss that we use a particular piece of software without him remebering only MS's argument that this is BAD software. aside:It is not a central tenant of mine. When did I state anything about my central tenet's?
Beware the man who quotes philosophers without offering a proper analysis.
I do not believe that he can possibly be as full of tripe as the Microsoft representative. Someone has to challenge ms's bold statements that creatively interpret reality. Making assertive statements that are false will not turn those statements into truth, but it will make those who are impressionable believe the statements to be true. It needs to be balanced by another prospective.
I would say that 'beware anyone who plays in the political field' would be more apt. And that is where this is being played. Not by the FSF or the open source community, but by the biggest sotware company. Microsoft. I believe that the consequences of not replying are far more dangerous than ignoring it. If it is not responded to, the masses will see it as an acquiescence to the MS dogma, an acceptance of their words as the gospel. And, I believe that that would be the most dangerous path to follow, if you are interested in the future of OSS(or free softaware), or interested in the future of the industry (software/os). To address the later, Do you want there to be only one voice in the debate over software? I think that given the MS politicians tendency to creatively interpret reality, that would be a very bad thing. As for the future of the open source model (and free software), MS is trying to kill everything that is not MS. They are afraid of the legitimacy that the movements have acquired, and it is their desire that they be shunned by the public. If it is shunned, there will be less resources available for it. Resources that help to maintain things like, say, slashdot, sourceforge, freshmeat, linux.org, and any of a number of other valuable resources for the open source and free software communities.
What group does not have it's extremists? All groups have their extremists and the visible people. Many of them end up spouting the same rhetoric and dogma until it is possible to predict exactly what they will say. This is not new, nor does it invalidate the movement that they represent. Those who defend what they believe exist in the realm of politics. The art of politics includes speaking to the dirty unwashed masses, and trying to convince them of your argument. As these people are unlikely to respond to a dry technical debate, or to unemotionally charged rundown of the pro's and con's, dogma and rhetoric have become the tool of politicians. And microsoft is most definitely politically aware (not to mention marketing aware and the saboteurs,... er I mean embrace and extend technicians... but that is a different rant). Since the debates are being played out in the political arena, the challenges must be answered in the political arena. And if the OSS movement is not represented by someone who is passionate, then Microsoft will have won before the debate begins.
And, in more general terms, I take it from your very negative charged (and way oversimplified) statement about dragging on into lunacy that you believe that the extremists do not serve a purpose. I would theorize that they do, and that this purpose is to keep in check the extremists of the other side. By providing extreme arguments on both sides of an argument, an observer is given the opportunity to evaluate what is valid from both sides (rather than only hearing one side of the argument).
The point remains valid, but the us separated not because of religion, but because of representation / taxes. hence the phrase 'No taxation without representation' and the whole Boston tea party thing. I would agree that it is similar, but in that we are not represented in the decisions of the design of what we use, rather, we are handed the end product. And it was not for the common man, it was for the business elite, just how many of the founding fathers did you think were not of the upper middle class (or higher) of Americans?
-CrackElf
According the dictionary intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. It does not mention the knowledge itself, and does not address wether a skill (knowledge) that augments the natural abilities is included in the term intelligence, but the absence of a statement to that effect suggests that that is not the definition. If it is your definition, then we are arguing semantics, not the subject of intelligence.
Until a genetic component for 'intelligence' is found the nature argument remains speculation, however, the effect of education upon ability is well proven.
In my high school biology class there were at the time (i believe) five or six genes thought to influence intelligence. Not being into genetics, I lack more current data.
There is no way to prove that what we believe to be intelligence is (or is not) learnt pattern recognition, as there are too many variables to count. But, by the definition that I understand, if these factors influence what is commonly tested as 'intelligence' it is not, in fact, intelligence, as intelligence involves the application of knowledge, and not the knowledge itself.
And in the view of the, admittedly few, scientists studying genetics that I have talked to, intelligence is thought to have a genetic base.
I have one argument that is distasteful, since it is a topic that is insensitive to bring up. But, as it has a direct impact on the argument at hand, I will elaborate. Mental retardation causes a diminished capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. That proves a link between intelligence and genetics. How much pattern recognition is attributed to intelligence is debatable, but at least a portion of it is genetic.
And, again, to bring it back to my main point. A book or a computer will not make you more intelligent. It is only a tool. A person can use it to expand their knowledge. But, as i said in another post, it will not magically grant (as VR combined with drugs granted to the lawnmower man in the movie) intelligence. That is science fiction.
-CrackElf
I should have elaborated . I think that what some people are calling intelligence, I am calling skill. I agree that a child will learn patterns and develop algorithms and shortcuts to help them to derive solutions to problems. But I consider these to be skills and not intelligence. I feel that a person who has a high intelligence (raw ability to comprehend and draw conclusions from information) has the potential to use and develop these skills more easily and to a greater degree.
A computer is a resource, one I liken it unto a library, where many similar things are available - such as porn, tabloids, religious ranting, books that can be used to make bombs, romance novels, science fiction novels, textbooks, cultural books, and a lot more. The difference with a computer is that the interface is interactive, faster, more comprehensive, and that there is an easier ability to manipulate the interface. But it is still a tool, and will not do to a child what was done to the lawnmower man (in the movie). That is science fiction.
-CrackElf
Intelligence is the ability to understand what is presented. A child with a high intelligence will be able to deduce (for example) the answer to a complex riddle or puzzle from observation. A child with a lesser intellect may have to have it explained to him/her multiple times before they are able to deduce the answer.
A child may be shown patterns that will assist with deducing answers. A child can develop problem solving skills and algorithms. A child can also be given positive reenforcement to prevent mental blocks due to low self esteem. A child can be given the opportunity to learn (by environment and by having better teachers). These have value. As much or more in many cases than basic intelligence. A child with a high intelligence has the potential to make more use of these, and without it intelligence is not as usefull. But they are not basic intelligence. They are education (be it by parents , schools, or environment).
A child with a high intelligence will be able to ascertain the parameters and achieve a solution to a problem that is dissimilar to other problems that they have previously encountered more quickly and easily than a child that is not as gifted.
Put two children (not twins, as some intelligence factors are thought to be genetic) in the same household. (say two adopted children at ~ the same age). They will receive the same education, and be raised in the same environment. But they may, and often do, have very different abilities to learn. Not because one of them is 'learning disabled' but because they have different aptitudes for learning. Note, that their sat scores will typically be closer in range to each other than the average for a child of a different social strata. But that has more to do with opportunity and encouragement to learn than with ability to learn.
And to bring it all back to main point. A computer is a tool. It provides an opportunity. nothing more. How it is used is entirely up to the person using it. Just as a bookstore is. You can buy porn in a bookstore. You can buy travel guides. You buy romance novels in it. You can buy college level text books in it. It all depends on how you use it. And an intelligent child will get more out it than one not as gifted. And the books in it will not make the child more intelligent. Only better educated.
Basic intelligence is not effected by education, or the tools used to acquire information. A computer will allow someone to take advantage of a superior intellect, but it will not increase the intellect. A quick intellect will allow a child to grasp the nuances of the computer easier, and use it to a greater advantage. A computer is a tool, not a magical box.
One thing that really bothered me in this was the assumption that a child would become a hacker (by which I assume cracker was meant) which is compleat technophobia. Just because a child reads a book does not mean that he or she is going to run off and become a librarian! I have known several ppl with a very strong background in proging who chose to pursue diff. careers in college.
I must have been remembering the original figure if what you say is true. Or perhaps I am remembering another case. There have been many of them that caused me to become disillusioned with the legal system, and I tend to focus more on those that deny ppl personal rights, like freedom of speech and the right to privacy from corps and government.
The fact that I am focusing on is that these things have fostered the idea that one can receive a lot of money out of a lawsuit. I can not quote you (and I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever wanted to be one so I am not going to dig up the cases) but I do remember that there was more than one case where ridiculous amounts of money was awarded to plaintiff(s).
As for the two days of coffee sales, wether the company can afford it is irrelevant to encouraging ppl to sue... if they have it in their minds that they can make 2700k for suing, they are more likely to sue over something that did not really matter to them than if they just received their tangible losses back. Thus the likelihood of putting time and effort into pursuing 'justice' is not dependent upon the plaintiff's belief in the 'justice', but in the plaintiff's greed.
Trust me when I say that on an emotional level, I am all for 'sticking it to the man (or the big corp)'(read my bio) But, if one chooses to work within the social structure, one has to think of what is good for society as a whole, and not just focus on vengeance against an evil corporation (not that there is any other kind of corporation). Is the law a means of recovering what is rightfully the plaintiff's, or a means for plaintiffs to enact revenge (at a healthy profit) against a corp. I am more in favor of mandating that all $ won in a lawsuit above and beyond tangible loss was given to a charitable organization to prevent a reoccurrence of the offence (such as lung cancer research in the class action vs the tobacco industry)? Or funding and independent safety regulatory comity for firestone (the ones with the faulty tires).
I do not believe that public resources should be used to enact personal vengeance or to satisfy personal greed. How many tax dollars a year are spent on litigation? (judges, courtrooms, investigations, etc). And how much money is spent in defining and refining laws (politicians, buildings, paper, investigations, etc.) And, more in my vein of thinking, what finite societal resources (manpower, money, space, energy, computers, paper, etc.) that could be used elsewhere are being taken up by this litigation?
-CrackElf
(BTW: I was a teen in the eighties, and some of the ppl on this board are quite young, some even born in the late eighties, and were not capable of having observed the world at 7 or 8 years of age in the early nineties or younger in the eighties. I was heading off that argument before it started.)
I do not discriminate. Although I agree that common sense does not apply any more, I do not blame the Democrats. On most issues I either agree with the democrat or libertarian platforms, rarely the republican. I believe that most politicians, by their nature, are rather untrustworthy. (btw, did you know that many politicians are... x-lawyers!) ok, enough about the lawyers and politicians. The truth is that everyone that is involved is to blame. From the plaintiff, right up to the politicians that make the laws to support this crap. Some have legitimately good intentions, some have self-serving intentions...
The only thing that I can honestly say for certain is that I believe that there is abuse of the system. And that it should be stopped. Or at least kept in check.
-CrackElf
Yes. But, if I recall correctly, she made millions off of that lawsuit. She can retire. She never has to work again. She can take cruises in the Caribbean every year. She can buy a small mansion. Disability does not pay that much. If I am in an accident at work, and I get paralyzed from the neck down, I do not get that much money. While I would agree that she had a case for medical expenses, I do not feel that the US courts should serve the same purpose as the lottery. I do not feel that they were negligent in not telling people that boiling water is hot .
What, should we sue god for making fire hot? or perhaps we should sue wood stove makers for not holding seminars on how to use one without burning oneself?
(btw: I was around back when she sued, and almost everyone that I knew at the time was completely surprised. Not that she won. But that she made a killing off of it.)
To paraphrase somebody else, "Lawyers don't sue people, plaintiffs sue people." Frivolous lawsuits exist because ordinary people bring idiotic things to court.
I take it that your position is that lawyers never encourage their clients to exaggerate the damage done to them by telling them that they can make a lot of money? While I do believe in the client taking personal responsibility for their action (taking it to court) the fact is that the lawyers often advise ppl that would otherwise not bring it to court to do so. And as for the judges, the judge that found McDonalds liable for not warning some (fully grown and presumably employed) idiot that coffee is hot set a precedent (both in peoples minds and in a very legal sense) that ridiculous lawsuits could be won, even if there was no lasting damage. Or what about the chipped glass beverage (that the person saw, and decided to drink out of anyway) container cutting someone's lip. If a glass beverage container is chipped... do not drink out of it .
Plaintiffs are allowed to pres idiotic charges because any attempt to weed out "idiotic" lawsuits would be instantly and vehemently attacked by many people (in all likelihood, yourself included) as an attempt to strip ordinary people of their rights (which it would be.)
I do not advocate silencing anyone, or ignoring due process of law (despite my personal belief that the law does not work). Is it not the mark of a troll to make an attack on the and call someone a hypocrite after making false conclusions from the post and then declaring the poster to be in favor of the false conclusions? I do not believe that idiotic lawsuits should be "weeded out". I believe that when the idiotic lawsuit comes to a court of law, that court should not reward someone (esp. not to that degree) for being an idiot.
Anyway, you completely missed the main point. To put it in less humorous terms: Lawyers have a vested interest in keeping the cycle going, since their livelihood depends on it. I take it as a given that most people feel a dedication an loyalty to a process that supports them their entire life. Thus, I feel that most judges will have an interest in keeping the cycle going as well.
-CrackElf
Without all of the frivolous lawsuits abounding, disclaimers would not be necessary. Frivolous lawsuits exist because judges (x-lawyers) allow lawyers to bring idiotic things to court and win. The only way to be sure that you are not open to litigation from a lawyer is to hire another lawyer to look over your correspondence (and write disclaimers). No matter what, a lawyer gets money. It is a pretty good self perpetuating scam. Maybe I should have been a lawyer.
-CrackElf
First off, my comments were relating to the plusses/minuses of how the US space program is run v/s the old Soviet system, not a comment on the supposed perfection of the US. That being said, I do prefer living in the US v/s a communist/totalitarian system. And, I believe the US system suffers when it eliminates personal freedoms, becoming more like the systems it claims as an enemy. But to specifically answer your screed?
Communism != totalitarianism
From this I take it that you have never lived poor in the Grand Old US of A.
No, you are wrong. I just don't have a chip on my shoulder about it.
Really? when is the last time you passed out from hunger? are your toes pointed inward from wearing shoes that were too small? How many times have you slept on a a bench, or in a cardboard box? Having felt the direct 'benefits' of the 'capitalist' system, I do have a chip on my shoulder when someone equates 'communism' with 'bad', and 'capitalism' with 'good', having suffered under the care of this good 'democratic and capitalist' country (which we are not, we are a socialist republic, strictly speaking).
Poor ppl exist here. Shitty jobs exist here. Exploitation exists here. Worse than the pre - collapse USSR (which incorporates more than the Russian republic)
Now, that's some uninformed rubbish.
Actually I held correspondence with several soviets pre and post ( although they ceased to call themselves soviets at that point) fall of the USSR, and was exposed to many different viewpoints (and saw too many statistics arguing both sides), growing up in the cold war in the USA with a communist father. (I happen to be capitalist, and a fairly successful one at that, for the record... I just do not kid myself that it is any better than a communist country)(Note: again do not read 'communist' as 'totalitarian' they are not equivalent.)
Again, you assume too much, and make your point on those assumptions, rather than my original post. ...
Communism. People could be forced to do any unpleasant or hazardous jobs.
The point of my listing examples of unpleasant or hazardous jobs that occur in the US was to demonstrate that they occur in the US just as much (or more) than in some socialist countries (as there has not yet been a true 'communist' country). As such it did relate directly back to your original post. And I do agree with you about the military.
In general, I'd like to keep the US a place where more people can be "lucky" like you. Being rich or poor doesn't give you exclusive license to screw up your life with "major drugs", or have things to forget. Or be dead for that matter. "I was also obstinate and stubborn, and refused to give up. So I got out." is as much an American story as anything. So is being appalled at people being poor in your country, as am I.
Again, no offence, but you have never been poor (and i dont mean middle class, i am in college poor, I mean homeless / unwanted / starving / living behind wallmart in a cardboard box poor). Being poor is not an excuse. It is the reason. Perhaps if I were stating 'being poor' as a reason for my own situation, it would be an excuse. That is not what I am doing. I dont excuse ppl who give up. (I generally pity them) I can not even talk to most of them anymore, as they will see that I am successful and try to take advantage of me. (which i do not blame them for, i would have done the same thing) And how is starving to death because you are poor using being poor as an excuse? Really now. And, the "I got out" is not the norm; I am the exception, not the rule. Thus my point remains valid.
I dare you to walk into a ghetto anywhere in the world and proclaim anything! Ghettos are a dangerous place, that's why they are what they are. I've had friends there, been there, and tried to help a few folks out of them by developing their "natural computer aptitude". You see every problem in the world as insolvable at a personal level, and completely controlled by outside "oppressor" or "power" factions. At the individual level, I don't believe that to be true. If I am "painfully ignorant" in this area, I only wish more people were.
No, they are what they are because the rest of us do not want to see what our greed has caused, so we lock all of the poor ppl off in their own neighborhood. (and I say this based on the fact that i have seen poor neighborhoods destroyed because some rich yuppie scum did not like to drive by it and see the ppl there.) No, I acknowledge that this system is just as flawed as any other, and do not pretend that we are the best just because we happen to be the major world power now. Once monarchies and the feudal system dominated. And it was possible for lower class citizen to leave bondage (with the permission of a master), work hard, and eventually enter into the middle class as a merchant or artist if he was extremely lucky. Does this mean that it was the best system? No, it does not.
And historically the Germans and the USSR'ians have been very innovative. A lot of it has to do with the innovation of a few brilliant individuals who could care less about what their government is doing, who they are at war with, and who is a stinkin commie bastard, and who is a great and wonderful, kind and compassionate hero of the great 'capitalism'. Intelligence and innovation exists without creed, political bent, geographic coordinates, sex, sexual preference, color, country of origin, or any of the other prejudices that you may hold.
I have a picture of Werner Von Braun (with my dad!) hanging on my wall. They are both personal heroes of mine. Although, I never forget that Von Braun used to further his rocket knowledge at the behest of the Nazi's (even if under duress). Hence my (modest) distaste with the militiarization of space. I am fortunate to occasionally meet with my Russian counterparts (software developers), and respect them greatly. I try to hold as few prejudices as possible, but I'm sure I have as many as the next guy. I do try to keep a "bent" toward rational thinking, and a "prejudice" towards personal freedom.
Well, I happen to hate nazi's on a personal note (and, living in nc (not where I am from originally) I see my share of jew hating, black hating, gay hating neo-natzi assholes, and a freightening number of them hold office and make laws down here), since my sig other is jewish. However I do not hate Germans for it. In fact, I work for a German company. I am glad that you try to keep rational, and like personal freedom. So do I. But I believe that you idealize what America really is. Dont get me wrong, I am not moving out of the country. I like living in a first world country. I like being wealthy. But I do so without the illusion that no-one gets hurt, or has to do dirty jobs, or that people do not get trapped by the (informal) class structure in the US just as much as people were forced into unpleasant work in the socialist structure in the USSR.
How great the Russian space program is/was. No argument here, they've accomplished much. But consider what it took to get them there. Communism. People could be forced to do any unpleasant or hazardous jobs. The "exorbitant" salaries of space workers (insert knowing laugh here) were not a consideration under this system. The opinion of the public (gasp! even/.ers) was not a consideration. The safety of the workers and surrounding populace was not a consideration. The validity of the experiments performed was not a consideration. The "budget" was not a consideration. Hell, given a few more years, the Germans could have achieved "cheap" access to space, since they were using slave labor for many tasks (a financial bargain I'm sure).
From this I take it that you have never lived poor in the Grand Old US of A. Poor ppl exist here. Shitty jobs exist here. Exploitation exists here. Worse than the pre - collapse USSR (which incorporates more than the Russian republic)
Do you want an example of experimentation that the us did to further our technological knowledge? what about the nuclear tests that they conducted on US soldiers to determine the exact effects of radiation?
You want one example of a job with horrible working conditions? cole miners. want another? sweat shops. Want another? under the table construction (you know, without the safety equipment). Want another? migrant worker. Just because you have a cool middle or upper class techi job does not mean that everyone in this country is doing fine.
I was born a us citizen. I grew up very poor. Most of my pre-teen peers are either dead or on major drugs to try to forget what they do for a living. I was lucky and have a natural aptitude with computers. I was also obstinate and stubborn, and refused to give up. So I got out.
One basic premise exists in all economic systems. Balance exists. If one person makes an insane amount of money, other ppl go without. Those on top necessitate those on the bottom. It is an ugly fact of life. I dare you to drive into a ghetto in any major city in the US, then go to the ppl you see and try to explain how great our system is. You are painfully ignorant.
And historically the Germans and the USSR'ians have been very innovative. A lot of it has to do with the innovation of a few brilliant individuals who could care less about what their government is doing, who they are at war with, and who is a stinkin commie bastard, and who is a great and wonderful, kind and compassionate hero of the great 'capitalism'. Intelligence and innovation exists without creed, political bent, geographic coordinates, sex, sexual preference, color, country of origin, or any of the other prejudices that you may hold.
sorry for my tirade. but i can only tolorate so much ignorance.
-CrackElf
Ok. I presume that you are a programer from your comment. I have done both in my time, and the stress factor of being in internal support is much greater than creating a product. And, I was not saying that I like the software that I use to be dictated to me. (i would much rather run linux at work than win2k, trust me on that one). I was saying that it is not unique to aol.
-CrackElf
The Business is like a sort of capitalistic fantasy come to life, the Illuminati made real.
Wether you believe that the bovarian illuminati actually controlled anything, the fact is that a real group did (and may still) exist under that name.
-CrackElf
First off, I am not a scatian.
Second off, I have not seen, nor have any plans to see this particular movie.
Ok, got that out of the way. Well, yes, american audiances will buy almost anything. But, despite my willingness to ignore huge inaccuracies, I cannot reconcile the image of a lower (or even middle class) person breaking into the noble's jousting. (not to mention the whole no armor thing) The guy would be dead on sight. I can only suspend my disbelief so far. Perhaps if it had marketed itself as fantasy (ie not placed itself in a historical context) it would be different. But by placing itself withing the context, [I feel that] it is obligated to obey certin basic rules. If you just want to see another formulaic holywood 'underdog gets the girl' romance, sure, go see it. I am kind of boored with that theme myself.
-CrackElf
Slashdot Mirror
People in America, I have noticed, seem to think that privacy is some sort of fundamental right
... not what creed, nationality, sex, or race they belong to... acording to my moral code, it is none of his business what my religion is.
... and if everyone agreed to a single moral code, it might be possible to say that privacy is not needed... But I have yet to meet even two people that agree 100% on morality.
... you go right ahead. As for anyone that lives in this social structure, there are real issues to address. Such as privacy.
And of course, no one in Europe or anywhere else for that matter desire privacy.
Information is power. Information can be used for good. It can also be used for malicious purposes. The question is who do you trust with that power. I do not trust the corporations. Nor do I trust the government.
Since the advent of society, the communication allowed people to disagree. With that came judgment and persecution. While I do not believe that the things that I do are immoral, someone else may. I should not have to suffer under their persecution. Just as you should not have to suffer for being (whatever you are), I should not have to suffer for being a left wing non-religious type. Yet, that is not the way of the world, as people wage their wars of prejudice and try to make other people bend to their will. If my boss found out that I am not a Christian, he might fire me (his being a right wing conservative Christian type who believes that those that think differently than him should be destroyed).
This is not right according to my morals. According to my moral code, a person should be judged on how they do their job
Perhaps if there were better ways of preserving a persons right to, say, worship whatever god they wanted to
The ills that Christians (and yes, it was a religious as well as political party) did to Jewish People during the 2nd world war could have been prevented if the government did not know who the Jewish People were. The lack of this 'silly idea' has cost lives.
I agree that back in the stone age there was no privacy. I also agree that privacy is a social construct. But, so is religion, as religion is an organization. So are words. So are numbers. Everything used to communicate can be categorized as a social construct (and therefor unnatural). If you want to go and live without running water, toilet paper, computers, books (including your bible), and the ability to communicate around the globe
-CrackElf
Well, the structure of words (and in fact of characters) is significantly different than the 'western'. Unless you speak Korean, you are not an expert (and since I do not speak it, I am not). Some people type it tae-kwon-do, some use tae kwon do, and honestly, I have not seen it typed taekwondo. They are separate words, combined to create one phrase/word. I do not believe that the Korean language differentiates between combined words and phrases. And, like many oriental languages, the translation into western characters, in and of itself, looses sounds (since oriental languages and western languages incorporate different sound 'sets' that overlap, but are each missing some sounds that are present in the other). Anyway, I digress ... in many languages the ability to create a new word by combining words is present. In the western alphabet, sometimes they use spaces (and it is called a phrase), sometimes they use hyphens, and sometimes they put the two words together. But, as Korean does not use the western alphabet, (and I was always under the impression that Korean uses separate noun charachters, although I could be mistaken on this point) it is not set in stone.
I am 27 years old, and I attended a school in my youth through early teens, and a self defense class twice a week in college, and am currently involved in a local do-jo. I have to warm up a half of an hour to an hour before class so that I do not pull anything. I have a bad back, knees, and ankles. I am very aware of my bodys limits, and when I excercise regulary (with proper warm ups) it strengthens these areas, and I am not bothered by them anymore.
As for martial arts, there are:
1)better/worse martial arts and beter/worse schools
Tae kwon do is a very high impact art/sport, and is often treated less as an art (where they are more careful of your well being) and more as a sport by some schools. I have also taken karate, and a little bit of judo and tae-chi in self defense classes, which tend to have better care of the body (and it varies by school and by do-jo as well).
and
2)better do-jo's and instructors
I have been to do-jo's where there is adequate warm ups and adequate care and attention given to avoiding injury. And I have observed some that do not. And I have also seen some do-jo's where the instructor seems to be an x boxer that decided that owning a do-jo would be cool. (If he is typical of boxers, I know why there is a large quantity of training injuries in boxing)
I took a few months of looking around before i chose the do-jo that I belong to now, and even that is not as good as I like. All of these things were taken into consideration in addition to the quality and breadth of the teaching (physical and mental). I would advise that anyone looking into a martial art look around at several do-jo's if they plan to stick with it, so that they get the one best suited to them.
If the class has a healthy style and format, I would say that you should be aware of your limits, if you need to warm up an hour before class in order to avoid injury, then that is your limit. If you need to take a break in the middle of class, and stretch out, so be it. Not all challenges are physical, you may need to find courage to tell your teacher that you need to alternate exercises to help your back, or to not push yourself so hard that you hurt yourself.
-CrackElf
Hence, they should be able to ask for a donation.
If you get something (a download) for free, the giving entity should be able to ask for a donation.
When I was poor, I did not make donations for the free software that I used. I make money now, and so I can afford to pay for the things that I use. So I purchased a copy a linux. That was my way of donating. But I do not think that it is immoral to ask for a donation. To demand it would be.
Just because a musician gets some paying gigs does not mean that (s)he should not ask for donations at a gig where there is no cover.
-CrackElf
I have a good chair at work which i have tweaked every which way until it suits me. At home I do not notice the pain. I do not know if that is because I have the whole thing suited to me, or if it is because I am too engrossed in what I am doing to care. As for pain when I am not in front of the computer, I have noticed that when I am physically active, my back pain is significantly reduced. I take tae-kwon-do several times a week, and, as it is interesting to me, I stick with it. My recommendation is to find a physical activity that you like and go to it, do your thing, get in shape.
-CrackElf
When I was in school 1989-1993
... and far more insidious. I do not agree with half the things that the OSS movement states, but I believe that someone has to stand up and counter MS's claims.
... not off of the initial sale of the product.
It was around when I was in high school in 88-92 too. Your school had a shell account? Where did you go to school? I had to borrow an account from one of the non-geeks at Cornell who did not have any use for her account (with her permission, of course)...Until a cool guy set up an isp that provided shell accounts.
The reasons that I stated for defending the movements remains true. I remain convinced that if microsoft had it's way there would be no sourceforge, no freshmeat, no linux, and no apache.
And I appreciate the fact that the movement was a cool little counter main stream 'back in the day'. If I remember correctly, I thought that they were a little preachy back then. That was before MS stomped out (or bought up) a whole bunch of free/ shareware. I still see them as a little preachy, but I also see MS as preachy
I personally do not see why the two types of software could not co-exist, except that ms has attacked, and made it it's personal vendetta, to kill any model not it's own, and force all of the other companies with the same model out of the market (not necessarily in that order).
And there are multiple alternative schemes to making money with software. Sun has done it. Red hat has done it. Apache is very popular, and those that 'make money' off of it, make money off of their skill as administrators. As an aside, most software companies make their money off of support and training anyway
If it works for MS to sell software, and the OSS is incompatible with making money, then fine, let the best software win. and I think that MS shouted fire first in this round, right after they defended their claim that they were not a monopoly by pointing to RedHat (and after they lumped all of the alternative software licensing/ os's/ movements into one). I agree that all things have a motive. They did not intend to give other companies validity. What is your motive? The last time I argued with a person on a similar vein it turned out that they owned MS stock, and were going to put their kid through college with it. They (despite being technically challenged) decided that MS was the best, and that all else should be destroyed, and, in fact preached that on an almost daily basis. They refused to listen to any argument that I had because they already had their mind made up.
I will tell you my motivation, I use linux. I use a lot of free software. I think that it performs better than windows on non-gaming tasks. I would like to see further development in this area. I do not want businesses and individuals to turn away from software because "A technical representative (never mind that they are a microsoft rep) said that it is BAD ". I want software to be judged on it's own merits. I want to be able to recommend to my boss that we use a particular piece of software without him remebering only MS's argument that this is BAD software. aside:It is not a central tenant of mine. When did I state anything about my central tenet's?
-CrackElf
Beware the man who quotes philosophers without offering a proper analysis.
... er I mean embrace and extend technicians ... but that is a different rant). Since the debates are being played out in the political arena, the challenges must be answered in the political arena. And if the OSS movement is not represented by someone who is passionate, then Microsoft will have won before the debate begins.
I do not believe that he can possibly be as full of tripe as the Microsoft representative. Someone has to challenge ms's bold statements that creatively interpret reality. Making assertive statements that are false will not turn those statements into truth, but it will make those who are impressionable believe the statements to be true. It needs to be balanced by another prospective.
I would say that 'beware anyone who plays in the political field' would be more apt. And that is where this is being played. Not by the FSF or the open source community, but by the biggest sotware company. Microsoft. I believe that the consequences of not replying are far more dangerous than ignoring it. If it is not responded to, the masses will see it as an acquiescence to the MS dogma, an acceptance of their words as the gospel. And, I believe that that would be the most dangerous path to follow, if you are interested in the future of OSS(or free softaware), or interested in the future of the industry (software/os). To address the later, Do you want there to be only one voice in the debate over software? I think that given the MS politicians tendency to creatively interpret reality, that would be a very bad thing. As for the future of the open source model (and free software), MS is trying to kill everything that is not MS. They are afraid of the legitimacy that the movements have acquired, and it is their desire that they be shunned by the public. If it is shunned, there will be less resources available for it. Resources that help to maintain things like, say, slashdot, sourceforge, freshmeat, linux.org, and any of a number of other valuable resources for the open source and free software communities.
What group does not have it's extremists? All groups have their extremists and the visible people. Many of them end up spouting the same rhetoric and dogma until it is possible to predict exactly what they will say. This is not new, nor does it invalidate the movement that they represent. Those who defend what they believe exist in the realm of politics. The art of politics includes speaking to the dirty unwashed masses, and trying to convince them of your argument. As these people are unlikely to respond to a dry technical debate, or to unemotionally charged rundown of the pro's and con's, dogma and rhetoric have become the tool of politicians. And microsoft is most definitely politically aware (not to mention marketing aware and the saboteurs,
And, in more general terms, I take it from your very negative charged (and way oversimplified) statement about dragging on into lunacy that you believe that the extremists do not serve a purpose. I would theorize that they do, and that this purpose is to keep in check the extremists of the other side. By providing extreme arguments on both sides of an argument, an observer is given the opportunity to evaluate what is valid from both sides (rather than only hearing one side of the argument).
-CrackElf
The point remains valid, but the us separated not because of religion, but because of representation / taxes. hence the phrase 'No taxation without representation' and the whole Boston tea party thing. I would agree that it is similar, but in that we are not represented in the decisions of the design of what we use, rather, we are handed the end product. And it was not for the common man, it was for the business elite, just how many of the founding fathers did you think were not of the upper middle class (or higher) of Americans?
-CrackElf
According the dictionary intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. It does not mention the knowledge itself, and does not address wether a skill (knowledge) that augments the natural abilities is included in the term intelligence, but the absence of a statement to that effect suggests that that is not the definition. If it is your definition, then we are arguing semantics, not the subject of intelligence.
Until a genetic component for 'intelligence' is found the nature argument remains speculation, however, the effect of education upon ability is well proven.
In my high school biology class there were at the time (i believe) five or six genes thought to influence intelligence. Not being into genetics, I lack more current data.
There is no way to prove that what we believe to be intelligence is (or is not) learnt pattern recognition, as there are too many variables to count. But, by the definition that I understand, if these factors influence what is commonly tested as 'intelligence' it is not, in fact, intelligence, as intelligence involves the application of knowledge, and not the knowledge itself.
And in the view of the, admittedly few, scientists studying genetics that I have talked to, intelligence is thought to have a genetic base.
I have one argument that is distasteful, since it is a topic that is insensitive to bring up. But, as it has a direct impact on the argument at hand, I will elaborate. Mental retardation causes a diminished capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. That proves a link between intelligence and genetics. How much pattern recognition is attributed to intelligence is debatable, but at least a portion of it is genetic.
And, again, to bring it back to my main point. A book or a computer will not make you more intelligent. It is only a tool. A person can use it to expand their knowledge. But, as i said in another post, it will not magically grant (as VR combined with drugs granted to the lawnmower man in the movie) intelligence. That is science fiction.
-CrackElf
I should have elaborated . I think that what some people are calling intelligence, I am calling skill. I agree that a child will learn patterns and develop algorithms and shortcuts to help them to derive solutions to problems. But I consider these to be skills and not intelligence. I feel that a person who has a high intelligence (raw ability to comprehend and draw conclusions from information) has the potential to use and develop these skills more easily and to a greater degree.
A computer is a resource, one I liken it unto a library, where many similar things are available - such as porn, tabloids, religious ranting, books that can be used to make bombs, romance novels, science fiction novels, textbooks, cultural books, and a lot more. The difference with a computer is that the interface is interactive, faster, more comprehensive, and that there is an easier ability to manipulate the interface. But it is still a tool, and will not do to a child what was done to the lawnmower man (in the movie). That is science fiction.
-CrackElf
Intelligence is the ability to understand what is presented. A child with a high intelligence will be able to deduce (for example) the answer to a complex riddle or puzzle from observation. A child with a lesser intellect may have to have it explained to him/her multiple times before they are able to deduce the answer.
A child may be shown patterns that will assist with deducing answers. A child can develop problem solving skills and algorithms. A child can also be given positive reenforcement to prevent mental blocks due to low self esteem. A child can be given the opportunity to learn (by environment and by having better teachers). These have value. As much or more in many cases than basic intelligence. A child with a high intelligence has the potential to make more use of these, and without it intelligence is not as usefull. But they are not basic intelligence. They are education (be it by parents , schools, or environment).
A child with a high intelligence will be able to ascertain the parameters and achieve a solution to a problem that is dissimilar to other problems that they have previously encountered more quickly and easily than a child that is not as gifted.
Put two children (not twins, as some intelligence factors are thought to be genetic) in the same household. (say two adopted children at ~ the same age). They will receive the same education, and be raised in the same environment. But they may, and often do, have very different abilities to learn. Not because one of them is 'learning disabled' but because they have different aptitudes for learning. Note, that their sat scores will typically be closer in range to each other than the average for a child of a different social strata. But that has more to do with opportunity and encouragement to learn than with ability to learn.
And to bring it all back to main point. A computer is a tool. It provides an opportunity. nothing more. How it is used is entirely up to the person using it. Just as a bookstore is. You can buy porn in a bookstore. You can buy travel guides. You buy romance novels in it. You can buy college level text books in it. It all depends on how you use it. And an intelligent child will get more out it than one not as gifted. And the books in it will not make the child more intelligent. Only better educated.
-CrackElf
Basic intelligence is not effected by education, or the tools used to acquire information. A computer will allow someone to take advantage of a superior intellect, but it will not increase the intellect. A quick intellect will allow a child to grasp the nuances of the computer easier, and use it to a greater advantage. A computer is a tool, not a magical box.
One thing that really bothered me in this was the assumption that a child would become a hacker (by which I assume cracker was meant) which is compleat technophobia. Just because a child reads a book does not mean that he or she is going to run off and become a librarian! I have known several ppl with a very strong background in proging who chose to pursue diff. careers in college.
-CrackElf
I must have been remembering the original figure if what you say is true. Or perhaps I am remembering another case. There have been many of them that caused me to become disillusioned with the legal system, and I tend to focus more on those that deny ppl personal rights, like freedom of speech and the right to privacy from corps and government.
... if they have it in their minds that they can make 2700k for suing, they are more likely to sue over something that did not really matter to them than if they just received their tangible losses back. Thus the likelihood of putting time and effort into pursuing 'justice' is not dependent upon the plaintiff's belief in the 'justice', but in the plaintiff's greed.
The fact that I am focusing on is that these things have fostered the idea that one can receive a lot of money out of a lawsuit. I can not quote you (and I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever wanted to be one so I am not going to dig up the cases) but I do remember that there was more than one case where ridiculous amounts of money was awarded to plaintiff(s).
As for the two days of coffee sales, wether the company can afford it is irrelevant to encouraging ppl to sue
Trust me when I say that on an emotional level, I am all for 'sticking it to the man (or the big corp)'(read my bio) But, if one chooses to work within the social structure, one has to think of what is good for society as a whole, and not just focus on vengeance against an evil corporation (not that there is any other kind of corporation). Is the law a means of recovering what is rightfully the plaintiff's, or a means for plaintiffs to enact revenge (at a healthy profit) against a corp. I am more in favor of mandating that all $ won in a lawsuit above and beyond tangible loss was given to a charitable organization to prevent a reoccurrence of the offence (such as lung cancer research in the class action vs the tobacco industry)? Or funding and independent safety regulatory comity for firestone (the ones with the faulty tires).
I do not believe that public resources should be used to enact personal vengeance or to satisfy personal greed. How many tax dollars a year are spent on litigation? (judges, courtrooms, investigations, etc). And how much money is spent in defining and refining laws (politicians, buildings, paper, investigations, etc.) And, more in my vein of thinking, what finite societal resources (manpower, money, space, energy, computers, paper, etc.) that could be used elsewhere are being taken up by this litigation?
-CrackElf
(BTW: I was a teen in the eighties, and some of the ppl on this board are quite young, some even born in the late eighties, and were not capable of having observed the world at 7 or 8 years of age in the early nineties or younger in the eighties. I was heading off that argument before it started.)
I do not discriminate. Although I agree that common sense does not apply any more, I do not blame the Democrats. On most issues I either agree with the democrat or libertarian platforms, rarely the republican. I believe that most politicians, by their nature, are rather untrustworthy. (btw, did you know that many politicians are ... x-lawyers!) ok, enough about the lawyers and politicians. The truth is that everyone that is involved is to blame. From the plaintiff, right up to the politicians that make the laws to support this crap. Some have legitimately good intentions, some have self-serving intentions ...
The only thing that I can honestly say for certain is that I believe that there is abuse of the system. And that it should be stopped. Or at least kept in check.
-CrackElf
Yes. But, if I recall correctly, she made millions off of that lawsuit. She can retire. She never has to work again. She can take cruises in the Caribbean every year. She can buy a small mansion. Disability does not pay that much. If I am in an accident at work, and I get paralyzed from the neck down, I do not get that much money. While I would agree that she had a case for medical expenses, I do not feel that the US courts should serve the same purpose as the lottery. I do not feel that they were negligent in not telling people that boiling water is hot .
What, should we sue god for making fire hot? or perhaps we should sue wood stove makers for not holding seminars on how to use one without burning oneself?
(btw: I was around back when she sued, and almost everyone that I knew at the time was completely surprised. Not that she won. But that she made a killing off of it.)
-CrackElf
To paraphrase somebody else, "Lawyers don't sue people, plaintiffs sue people." Frivolous lawsuits exist because ordinary people bring idiotic things to court.
... do not drink out of it .
I take it that your position is that lawyers never encourage their clients to exaggerate the damage done to them by telling them that they can make a lot of money? While I do believe in the client taking personal responsibility for their action (taking it to court) the fact is that the lawyers often advise ppl that would otherwise not bring it to court to do so. And as for the judges, the judge that found McDonalds liable for not warning some (fully grown and presumably employed) idiot that coffee is hot set a precedent (both in peoples minds and in a very legal sense) that ridiculous lawsuits could be won, even if there was no lasting damage. Or what about the chipped glass beverage (that the person saw, and decided to drink out of anyway) container cutting someone's lip. If a glass beverage container is chipped
Plaintiffs are allowed to pres idiotic charges because any attempt to weed out "idiotic" lawsuits would be instantly and vehemently attacked by many people (in all likelihood, yourself included) as an attempt to strip ordinary people of their rights (which it would be.)
I do not advocate silencing anyone, or ignoring due process of law (despite my personal belief that the law does not work). Is it not the mark of a troll to make an attack on the and call someone a hypocrite after making false conclusions from the post and then declaring the poster to be in favor of the false conclusions? I do not believe that idiotic lawsuits should be "weeded out". I believe that when the idiotic lawsuit comes to a court of law, that court should not reward someone (esp. not to that degree) for being an idiot.
Anyway, you completely missed the main point. To put it in less humorous terms: Lawyers have a vested interest in keeping the cycle going, since their livelihood depends on it. I take it as a given that most people feel a dedication an loyalty to a process that supports them their entire life. Thus, I feel that most judges will have an interest in keeping the cycle going as well.
-CrackElf
Without all of the frivolous lawsuits abounding, disclaimers would not be necessary. Frivolous lawsuits exist because judges (x-lawyers) allow lawyers to bring idiotic things to court and win. The only way to be sure that you are not open to litigation from a lawyer is to hire another lawyer to look over your correspondence (and write disclaimers). No matter what, a lawyer gets money. It is a pretty good self perpetuating scam. Maybe I should have been a lawyer.
-CrackElf
First off, my comments were relating to the plusses/minuses of how the US space program is run v/s the old Soviet system, not a comment on the supposed perfection of the US. That being said, I do prefer living in the US v/s a communist/totalitarian system. And, I believe the US system suffers when it eliminates personal freedoms, becoming more like the systems it claims as an enemy. But to specifically answer your screed?
... I just do not kid myself that it is any better than a communist country)(Note: again do not read 'communist' as 'totalitarian' they are not equivalent.)
...
Communism != totalitarianism
From this I take it that you have never lived poor in the Grand Old US of A.
No, you are wrong. I just don't have a chip on my shoulder about it.
Really? when is the last time you passed out from hunger? are your toes pointed inward from wearing shoes that were too small? How many times have you slept on a a bench, or in a cardboard box? Having felt the direct 'benefits' of the 'capitalist' system, I do have a chip on my shoulder when someone equates 'communism' with 'bad', and 'capitalism' with 'good', having suffered under the care of this good 'democratic and capitalist' country (which we are not, we are a socialist republic, strictly speaking).
Poor ppl exist here. Shitty jobs exist here. Exploitation exists here. Worse than the pre - collapse USSR (which incorporates more than the Russian republic)
Now, that's some uninformed rubbish.
Actually I held correspondence with several soviets pre and post ( although they ceased to call themselves soviets at that point) fall of the USSR, and was exposed to many different viewpoints (and saw too many statistics arguing both sides), growing up in the cold war in the USA with a communist father. (I happen to be capitalist, and a fairly successful one at that, for the record
Again, you assume too much, and make your point on those assumptions, rather than my original post.
Communism. People could be forced to do any unpleasant or hazardous jobs.
The point of my listing examples of unpleasant or hazardous jobs that occur in the US was to demonstrate that they occur in the US just as much (or more) than in some socialist countries (as there has not yet been a true 'communist' country). As such it did relate directly back to your original post. And I do agree with you about the military.
In general, I'd like to keep the US a place where more people can be "lucky" like you. Being rich or poor doesn't give you exclusive license to screw up your life with "major drugs", or have things to forget. Or be dead for that matter. "I was also obstinate and stubborn, and refused to give up. So I got out." is as much an American story as anything. So is being appalled at people being poor in your country, as am I.
Again, no offence, but you have never been poor (and i dont mean middle class, i am in college poor, I mean homeless / unwanted / starving / living behind wallmart in a cardboard box poor). Being poor is not an excuse. It is the reason. Perhaps if I were stating 'being poor' as a reason for my own situation, it would be an excuse. That is not what I am doing. I dont excuse ppl who give up. (I generally pity them) I can not even talk to most of them anymore, as they will see that I am successful and try to take advantage of me. (which i do not blame them for, i would have done the same thing) And how is starving to death because you are poor using being poor as an excuse? Really now. And, the "I got out" is not the norm; I am the exception, not the rule. Thus my point remains valid.
I dare you to walk into a ghetto anywhere in the world and proclaim anything! Ghettos are a dangerous place, that's why they are what they are. I've had friends there, been there, and tried to help a few folks out of them by developing their "natural computer aptitude". You see every problem in the world as insolvable at a personal level, and completely controlled by outside "oppressor" or "power" factions. At the individual level, I don't believe that to be true. If I am "painfully ignorant" in this area, I only wish more people were.
No, they are what they are because the rest of us do not want to see what our greed has caused, so we lock all of the poor ppl off in their own neighborhood. (and I say this based on the fact that i have seen poor neighborhoods destroyed because some rich yuppie scum did not like to drive by it and see the ppl there.) No, I acknowledge that this system is just as flawed as any other, and do not pretend that we are the best just because we happen to be the major world power now. Once monarchies and the feudal system dominated. And it was possible for lower class citizen to leave bondage (with the permission of a master), work hard, and eventually enter into the middle class as a merchant or artist if he was extremely lucky. Does this mean that it was the best system? No, it does not.
And historically the Germans and the USSR'ians have been very innovative. A lot of it has to do with the innovation of a few brilliant individuals who could care less about what their government is doing, who they are at war with, and who is a stinkin commie bastard, and who is a great and wonderful, kind and compassionate hero of the great 'capitalism'. Intelligence and innovation exists without creed, political bent, geographic coordinates, sex, sexual preference, color, country of origin, or any of the other prejudices that you may hold.
I have a picture of Werner Von Braun (with my dad!) hanging on my wall. They are both personal heroes of mine. Although, I never forget that Von Braun used to further his rocket knowledge at the behest of the Nazi's (even if under duress). Hence my (modest) distaste with the militiarization of space. I am fortunate to occasionally meet with my Russian counterparts (software developers), and respect them greatly. I try to hold as few prejudices as possible, but I'm sure I have as many as the next guy. I do try to keep a "bent" toward rational thinking, and a "prejudice" towards personal freedom.
Well, I happen to hate nazi's on a personal note (and, living in nc (not where I am from originally) I see my share of jew hating, black hating, gay hating neo-natzi assholes, and a freightening number of them hold office and make laws down here), since my sig other is jewish. However I do not hate Germans for it. In fact, I work for a German company. I am glad that you try to keep rational, and like personal freedom. So do I. But I believe that you idealize what America really is. Dont get me wrong, I am not moving out of the country. I like living in a first world country. I like being wealthy. But I do so without the illusion that no-one gets hurt, or has to do dirty jobs, or that people do not get trapped by the (informal) class structure in the US just as much as people were forced into unpleasant work in the socialist structure in the USSR.
-CrackElf
How great the Russian space program is/was. No argument here, they've accomplished much. But consider what it took to get them there. Communism. People could be forced to do any unpleasant or hazardous jobs. The "exorbitant" salaries of space workers (insert knowing laugh here) were not a consideration under this system. The opinion of the public (gasp! even /.ers) was not a consideration. The safety of the workers and surrounding populace was not a consideration. The validity of the experiments performed was not a consideration. The "budget" was not a consideration. Hell, given a few more years, the Germans could have achieved "cheap" access to space, since they were using slave labor for many tasks (a financial bargain I'm sure).
From this I take it that you have never lived poor in the Grand Old US of A. Poor ppl exist here. Shitty jobs exist here. Exploitation exists here. Worse than the pre - collapse USSR (which incorporates more than the Russian republic)
Do you want an example of experimentation that the us did to further our technological knowledge? what about the nuclear tests that they conducted on US soldiers to determine the exact effects of radiation?
You want one example of a job with horrible working conditions? cole miners. want another? sweat shops. Want another? under the table construction (you know, without the safety equipment). Want another? migrant worker. Just because you have a cool middle or upper class techi job does not mean that everyone in this country is doing fine.
I was born a us citizen. I grew up very poor. Most of my pre-teen peers are either dead or on major drugs to try to forget what they do for a living. I was lucky and have a natural aptitude with computers. I was also obstinate and stubborn, and refused to give up. So I got out.
One basic premise exists in all economic systems. Balance exists. If one person makes an insane amount of money, other ppl go without. Those on top necessitate those on the bottom. It is an ugly fact of life. I dare you to drive into a ghetto in any major city in the US, then go to the ppl you see and try to explain how great our system is. You are painfully ignorant.
And historically the Germans and the USSR'ians have been very innovative. A lot of it has to do with the innovation of a few brilliant individuals who could care less about what their government is doing, who they are at war with, and who is a stinkin commie bastard, and who is a great and wonderful, kind and compassionate hero of the great 'capitalism'. Intelligence and innovation exists without creed, political bent, geographic coordinates, sex, sexual preference, color, country of origin, or any of the other prejudices that you may hold.
sorry for my tirade. but i can only tolorate so much ignorance.
-CrackElf
Ok. I presume that you are a programer from your comment. I have done both in my time, and the stress factor of being in internal support is much greater than creating a product. And, I was not saying that I like the software that I use to be dictated to me. (i would much rather run linux at work than win2k, trust me on that one). I was saying that it is not unique to aol.
-CrackElf
Email progies and whatnot are dictated from the it department. So, I have to say eh? What is the big deal?
-CrackElf
-o +a
spelling flames are most immature.
-CrackElf
The Business is like a sort of capitalistic fantasy come to life, the Illuminati made real.
Wether you believe that the bovarian illuminati actually controlled anything, the fact is that a real group did (and may still) exist under that name.
-CrackElf
First off, I am not a scatian.
Second off, I have not seen, nor have any plans to see this particular movie.
Ok, got that out of the way. Well, yes, american audiances will buy almost anything. But, despite my willingness to ignore huge inaccuracies, I cannot reconcile the image of a lower (or even middle class) person breaking into the noble's jousting. (not to mention the whole no armor thing) The guy would be dead on sight. I can only suspend my disbelief so far. Perhaps if it had marketed itself as fantasy (ie not placed itself in a historical context) it would be different. But by placing itself withing the context, [I feel that] it is obligated to obey certin basic rules. If you just want to see another formulaic holywood 'underdog gets the girl' romance, sure, go see it. I am kind of boored with that theme myself.
-CrackElf
It is a hidden message (obviously majestic 13, section f-8:)
-CrackElf
you never saw what can happen to appleII disk drives did you?
-CrackElf