If you are lucky, improved medicine will let you stand in line in the year 2077 to see a cool little movie about a guy in a galaxy far, far away. Except, you'll smell the wookie.
Thank goodness! After all the "digitally enchanced" remakes, I thought that all Lucas wanted was for us to Smell the Glove.
The Diamondbank link was peppered with falsehoods about NAFTA.
Prove one thing that they said was false. Only one of us so far has actually provided some supporting evidence for their claims instead of just making blind assertions.
The Reuters account was as you would expect neutral. However, it lacked a description of how it started.
How the police action started is well documented on other sites. According to the Reuters account, there were roughly 250 arrests and the use of tear gas and rubber bullets on crowds when only about a few dozen of 15,000 protesters actually acted violently.
The UPI account, however, does imply intrusions by the protesters.
The UPI account is horridly one-sided and takes most of its content from police PR, but it was included for contrast. However it does at the end (in its small space reserved for an opposing opinion) explicitly state that numerous constitutional rights were violated. This is, as the original poster stated, an example of police oppression.
The Maroon account clearly describes the violence as being initiated by the protesters.
The Maroon account also shows that police took no effort to try to distinguish the violent protesters from the peaceful ones and that excessive force was used against numerous peaceful protesters.
The Cornell link clearly describes the protesters trying to trespass into the actual place where the negotiotors were to harass them. So much for free speech: it is OK for the protesters to speak, but it is not OK for the negotiators to assemble and speak in peace.
The protest was attempting to take place immediately outside of the negotiations. Protest means nothing if the leaders responsible for making decisions are kept completely shielded from it. It has no impact and becomes impotent. This is exactly the motivation behind the Bush administration's so-called "free speech zones." The protesters weren't trying to break into the meeting, just get their voices actually heard outside.
Also, the article mentions several examples of police brutality, which you conveniently ignore.
Thanks for these accounts. They show that the problem was initiated by violent thugs trying to harass the negotiators. (except for the accounts that do not bother to explain how it started). If the protesters had limited their protest to free speech (instead of violence), there would have been no problem, and no police reaction of any kind.
Must be nice viewing the world through such filters. All of these accounts clearly show that violent protesters were a tiny minority while police actions violently suppressed a large number of innocent people attempting to exercise their first amendment rights. Of course, some of these incidents wouldn't have been a problem in the first place if protesters were actually allowed to make their voices heard somewhere near the actual site of deliberation in the first place. However, this was a scripted event in which the negotiators weren't allowed to hear dissenting voices from the people.
I do know however that they are ignorant and evil-minded. They have a right to speak based on their hatred, but they don't have a right to harass and assault based on it.
The ones who did by far the most harrassment and assault are the police. What's ignorant and evil-minded are the neo-fascists in America who like to see the police crack the skulls of people who think differently from them. We are watching America slowly turn into a police state, and you're cheering from the sidelines. How about your hatred? Should you be allowed to continue voicing it here on this forum?
No, my world view does not matter in this. It only matters if they actually are lying about the matter in question.
Sure. After all, that's why you read the above reports and concluded
The last 4 are university newspapers who had people there. "Oh, no! That must mean they're biased since they're filthy protesters!"
Face it. People like you have blinders on. If someone says something that disagrees with your worldview, you'll loudly trump about how they're a liar and biased. In that way, you're exactly like the Iraqi Information Minister, going on and on about how there are no infidels in Baghdad's airport and how they're being killed in streets even as coallition forces roll over the countryside. Think, research, and stop making kneejerk, assinine posts accusing someone else of lying when you can't be bothered to verify the information yourself.
One's a sad commentary on the President's sex life and our nation's attention to it. The other's a sad commentary on the state of democracy in this nation and our nation's attention to it. Guess which one of these two made headlines for months on end.
Poster 1: Here's an article describing police suppression of political protesting and of media which isn't gleefully acting as puppets of the administration. Poster 2 (IIM): There are no examples of suppression of dissent. There are none in the U.S. Try again. He is biased!
A cuckoo is a small bird that makes a distinct, repetitive call that sounds like its name. When used to refer to a person or idea, it means that the target is insane. The tie between calling something/someone insane "cuckoo" goes back for centuries, and the reason for the slang is lost to time.
Surely then, the anti position should be considered the least plausible, since the status quo is to recgonize the basic human right to keep and bear arms.
Why is the ownership of a gun somehow special as a basic human right?
Is owning a dog a basic human right? Is owning a house a basic human right? Is owning a car a basic human right? Is owning a tank a basic human right? Is owning a cruise missle a basic human right? Is owning a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon a basic human right?
Are any of these basic human rights distinct from the basic human right to own property? How?
Is maintaining the status quo always the least insane policy?
You missed the "from-the-mechanical-bull-department" tagline, which I have a small beef with. I'll chip in with the observation that sales of Gateway computers have inexplicably climbed.
So, do I get the shirt? Could I get it as a jersey instead?
I reread the article. It's more about breaking monopoly strangeholds on research than on widely opening up all databases and research libraries. It'll have a trickle-down effect that makes it easier for poorer researchers (including terrorists) to do their work, but I can't really oppose that.
This... bothers me. I'm not sure that I like taking a stance against openness in science, but the comparison to the open source movement made me realize something about why this isn't a good idea. The open source movement is founded on the idea that thousands of eyes on source code allow it to be improved and constantly updated. Bugs are fixed, servers are patched, and viruses are defeated.
This doesn't work for biology.
When a malicious researcher discovers (for lack of a better word) an exploit for the human body, we can't just patch and reboot our systems to compensate. I think that until we can better develop rapid-response countermeasures to new engineered diseases, we might want to hold off on such a proposition. There are too many dangerous things that we can do with today's knowledge that we can't counter to be widely opening it all up.
It should be pointed out that most violent criminals have their limits. Few muggers are actually openly hoping to have to hurt someone as part of their crime. It's all a game of intimidation and light battery for profit. While it's true that the really monstrous criminals will go to further lengths to hurt people for money, it will would -- in general -- cause far less people to get attacked even as it causes those few remaining attacks to become more horrific.
Plus, even if you do carve it out of someone -- how do you use it without arousing suspicion when your own tag goes off at a transaction? There has to be a practical range limit to avoid accidentally charging the wrong person, so you'd have to hold your grisly prize close to where you'd keep your own. The lack of usefulness of the prize would also discourage attackers.
I doubt it. Slavery and unequal treatment of women are both given tacit support in the New Testament. The Apostile Paul tells slaves to be obedient to their masters in Eph. 6:5-9. instead of telling them to free them and tells us that women are to be subordinate to men in 1 Cor. 11:13 & Eph. 5:22-23. Also, if you go futher back, Exodus 21:20-21 allows a slave owner to beat their slave, but not to death, unless the slave takes more than a day to die from the injuries. Anti-abolitionists often used the Bible to justify slave ownership.
However, modern society has abandoned both slavery and the idea that women are inferior to men without the Bible having told us to do so. I see no reason to believe that rape would not have suffered a similar fate, even if the Bible openly encouraged it. The women's rights movement might not be where it is today when working against that kind of oppression, but I doubt rape would be accepted considering how few other religions around the world accept it.
Traditionally, states rights and small government have been conservative issues, whereas Abolition and civil rights have been liberal issues. People often forget that in the days of Lincoln, the proto-Republicans were the liberals and the proto-Democrats were the conservatives. This is a good part of why "Southern Democrat" always used to mean a conservative, and why the Democrats used to hold a lot of power in the South before the Nixon administration in spite of being an extremely conservative constituency. States rights are mostly a forgotten issue now, but many conservative thinkers still think in those terms.
Also, I would note that Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, also abolished slavery towards the end of the war in a hope to end it. Even though it would've meant losing on the issue of slavery, he thought that staying separated from the Union was more important in the long run and that that decision might end the fighting. He was wrong, of course, but it does show which point was more important in his mind and that of many others in the South.
By the way, denying the civilian population of an enemy power water and other essential supplies for survival is in and of itself a war crime. Attacking a dam is a criminal attack on the civilian populace as no dam is 100% used for military purposes. Temporarily knocking out power like we did in Kosovo with the graphite powder bombs is one thing, but deliberately devistating basic infrastructure is another.
No, it would be the proper definition of ironic as a marine biologist team who exists to provide a warm, friendly, tree-hugging smokescreen for the whaling industry announces the glorious news of a new kind of whale only to find out that the industry which they were protecting destroyed them all decades ago.
See definition #3. Also, if this were a disingenuous ploy to expose that the whaling industry had killed them off, then it could be construed as definition #1.
Once we manage to build cheap, ultra-high-impulse engines (nuclear or antimatter perhaps), we'll go where ever we like. And the property laws will probably change very quickly too.
Property values will probably change very quickly too if people start using nuclear or antimatter engines within the atmosphere.
A) Intellectual inequality is pure snobbishness. Like athletic inequality or beauty inequality, it is no measure for the worth of a human being nor a measure of how much happiness and prosperity he or she deserves.
B) Even in today's society, the smartest are not the wealthiest. Read "The Millionaire Next Door." Few of today's millionaires got there by being smarter or better educated than others. Most of them got there by working hard and maintaining a tight-fisted budget. This is merely determination and wisdom, not intellectual superiority.
Private ownership of property and freedom go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other.
Why not? Do you argue that the Native Americans were not free before the Europeans came because they did not claim ownership of the land around them and its natural resources?
Property is only relevant when people attach emotional investment to it and when others want to take it away from you because they think that they can own it instead. In other words, property rights depend on greed and selfishness to exist. They are dependent on those emotions and, to some extent, vice versa. In a sense the concept reinforces those feelings by stoking in humanity its natural urges to compete and dominate over its other urges to cooperate and share. Today the Native Americans would be free if the colonists had not asserted property rights by force over what the tribes were once freely living with.
Do you not realize that in order to "eliminate" property rights, you must do so by force?
Not in the case of space. You just have to not recognize them in the first place. If someone wants to mine Eros, that's fine. However, property rights are founded upon the idea that you should exclusively be in control of who can use your property. Enforcement of of property rights demands the use of force just as much as the taking away existing property rights requires it. If the owner of Eros wants exclusive use of the asteroid, he must use force to defend it. However, if it's mined on a first-come, first-served basis, there are no property rights to it, and force it not used. Force is only required when people refuse to cooperate.
Incidentally, if you actually understood Ayn Rand, you would realize that slavery is absolutely unacceptable in the purely capitalist society, because slavery requires an initiation of force.
Old, Confederacy-style slavery requires force, but Ayn Rand's philosophy has absolutely no problem with men of power assigning any price they want to essential goods needed for day-to-day life such as electricity. Such a captain of industry could easily attach unfair demands on use of a utility needed for survival and economics success and achieve a sort virtual slavery over others. It would require use of force on behalf of the masses to gain control of his property to do otherwise than comply with his request. Ayn Rand's philosophy requires a different approach to the problem of owning people, but does not outright forbid it since the poor always have the choice of paying a heavy cost for their own freedom.
In other words, Ayn Rand's philosophy allows for the independence of the masses to be made into a miserable and horrid experience for the increased benefit of the elite. In an extreme extrapolation of her philosophy, it would be perfectly fine for one man to own all the world's power generation and refuse it to everyone who will not perform degrading favors for him. What would be important is that the man with the power is free to make use of his property as he sees fit, and everyone else if free to choose between two miserable lives -- one of bountiful servitude or one of primative independence. Freedom at a heavy cost is not freedom at all.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are lucky, improved medicine will let you stand in line in the year 2077 to see a cool little movie about a guy in a galaxy far, far away. Except, you'll smell the wookie.
Thank goodness! After all the "digitally enchanced" remakes, I thought that all Lucas wanted was for us to Smell the Glove.
The Diamondbank link was peppered with falsehoods about NAFTA.
Prove one thing that they said was false. Only one of us so far has actually provided some supporting evidence for their claims instead of just making blind assertions.
The Reuters account was as you would expect neutral. However, it lacked a description of how it started.
How the police action started is well documented on other sites. According to the Reuters account, there were roughly 250 arrests and the use of tear gas and rubber bullets on crowds when only about a few dozen of 15,000 protesters actually acted violently.
The UPI account, however, does imply intrusions by the protesters.
The UPI account is horridly one-sided and takes most of its content from police PR, but it was included for contrast. However it does at the end (in its small space reserved for an opposing opinion) explicitly state that numerous constitutional rights were violated. This is, as the original poster stated, an example of police oppression.
The Maroon account clearly describes the violence as being initiated by the protesters.
The Maroon account also shows that police took no effort to try to distinguish the violent protesters from the peaceful ones and that excessive force was used against numerous peaceful protesters.
The Cornell link clearly describes the protesters trying to trespass into the actual place where the negotiotors were to harass them. So much for free speech: it is OK for the protesters to speak, but it is not OK for the negotiators to assemble and speak in peace.
The protest was attempting to take place immediately outside of the negotiations. Protest means nothing if the leaders responsible for making decisions are kept completely shielded from it. It has no impact and becomes impotent. This is exactly the motivation behind the Bush administration's so-called "free speech zones." The protesters weren't trying to break into the meeting, just get their voices actually heard outside.
Also, the article mentions several examples of police brutality, which you conveniently ignore.
Thanks for these accounts. They show that the problem was initiated by violent thugs trying to harass the negotiators. (except for the accounts that do not bother to explain how it started). If the protesters had limited their protest to free speech (instead of violence), there would have been no problem, and no police reaction of any kind.
Must be nice viewing the world through such filters. All of these accounts clearly show that violent protesters were a tiny minority while police actions violently suppressed a large number of innocent people attempting to exercise their first amendment rights. Of course, some of these incidents wouldn't have been a problem in the first place if protesters were actually allowed to make their voices heard somewhere near the actual site of deliberation in the first place. However, this was a scripted event in which the negotiators weren't allowed to hear dissenting voices from the people.
I do know however that they are ignorant and evil-minded. They have a right to speak based on their hatred, but they don't have a right to harass and assault based on it.
The ones who did by far the most harrassment and assault are the police. What's ignorant and evil-minded are the neo-fascists in America who like to see the police crack the skulls of people who think differently from them. We are watching America slowly turn into a police state, and you're cheering from the sidelines. How about your hatred? Should you be allowed to continue voicing it here on this forum?
No, my world view does not matter in this. It only matters if they actually are lying about the matter in question.
Sure. After all, that's why you read the above reports and concluded
Fine. I'll spend all of 5 mintues with Google News since you're incapable of doing so yourself:
Reuters AlertNet
United Press International
The Chicago Maroon.
The Cornell Daily Sun
The Diamondback
The Massachusettes Daily Collegian
The last 4 are university newspapers who had people there.
"Oh, no! That must mean they're biased since they're filthy protesters!"
Face it. People like you have blinders on. If someone says something that disagrees with your worldview, you'll loudly trump about how they're a liar and biased. In that way, you're exactly like the Iraqi Information Minister, going on and on about how there are no infidels in Baghdad's airport and how they're being killed in streets even as coallition forces roll over the countryside. Think, research, and stop making kneejerk, assinine posts accusing someone else of lying when you can't be bothered to verify the information yourself.
Yeah but sore right-wingers attacked Clinton's lifestyle and the allegation that he lied about sleeping around with his intern and instructed her to lie. Sore left-wingers make the allegation that many traditionally Democratic Party-voting constituents were deliberately denied their right to vote via a deliberately unverified list of supposed felons.
One's a sad commentary on the President's sex life and our nation's attention to it. The other's a sad commentary on the state of democracy in this nation and our nation's attention to it. Guess which one of these two made headlines for months on end.
What are you, the Iraqi Information Minister?
Poster 1: Here's an article describing police suppression of political protesting and of media which isn't gleefully acting as puppets of the administration.
Poster 2 (IIM): There are no examples of suppression of dissent. There are none in the U.S. Try again. He is biased!
Negative.
A cuckoo is a small bird that makes a distinct, repetitive call that sounds like its name. When used to refer to a person or idea, it means that the target is insane. The tie between calling something/someone insane "cuckoo" goes back for centuries, and the reason for the slang is lost to time.
Surely then, the anti position should be considered the least plausible, since the status quo is to recgonize the basic human right to keep and bear arms.
Why is the ownership of a gun somehow special as a basic human right?
Is owning a dog a basic human right?
Is owning a house a basic human right?
Is owning a car a basic human right?
Is owning a tank a basic human right?
Is owning a cruise missle a basic human right?
Is owning a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon a basic human right?
Are any of these basic human rights distinct from the basic human right to own property? How?
Is maintaining the status quo always the least insane policy?
You missed the "from-the-mechanical-bull-department" tagline, which I have a small beef with. I'll chip in with the observation that sales of Gateway computers have inexplicably climbed.
So, do I get the shirt?
Could I get it as a jersey instead?
I reread the article. It's more about breaking monopoly strangeholds on research than on widely opening up all databases and research libraries. It'll have a trickle-down effect that makes it easier for poorer researchers (including terrorists) to do their work, but I can't really oppose that.
This... bothers me. I'm not sure that I like taking a stance against openness in science, but the comparison to the open source movement made me realize something about why this isn't a good idea. The open source movement is founded on the idea that thousands of eyes on source code allow it to be improved and constantly updated. Bugs are fixed, servers are patched, and viruses are defeated.
This doesn't work for biology.
When a malicious researcher discovers (for lack of a better word) an exploit for the human body, we can't just patch and reboot our systems to compensate. I think that until we can better develop rapid-response countermeasures to new engineered diseases, we might want to hold off on such a proposition. There are too many dangerous things that we can do with today's knowledge that we can't counter to be widely opening it all up.
It should be pointed out that most violent criminals have their limits. Few muggers are actually openly hoping to have to hurt someone as part of their crime. It's all a game of intimidation and light battery for profit. While it's true that the really monstrous criminals will go to further lengths to hurt people for money, it will would -- in general -- cause far less people to get attacked even as it causes those few remaining attacks to become more horrific.
Plus, even if you do carve it out of someone -- how do you use it without arousing suspicion when your own tag goes off at a transaction? There has to be a practical range limit to avoid accidentally charging the wrong person, so you'd have to hold your grisly prize close to where you'd keep your own. The lack of usefulness of the prize would also discourage attackers.
I doubt it. Slavery and unequal treatment of women are both given tacit support in the New Testament. The Apostile Paul tells slaves to be obedient to their masters in Eph. 6:5-9. instead of telling them to free them and tells us that women are to be subordinate to men in 1 Cor. 11:13 & Eph. 5:22-23. Also, if you go futher back, Exodus 21:20-21 allows a slave owner to beat their slave, but not to death, unless the slave takes more than a day to die from the injuries. Anti-abolitionists often used the Bible to justify slave ownership.
However, modern society has abandoned both slavery and the idea that women are inferior to men without the Bible having told us to do so. I see no reason to believe that rape would not have suffered a similar fate, even if the Bible openly encouraged it. The women's rights movement might not be where it is today when working against that kind of oppression, but I doubt rape would be accepted considering how few other religions around the world accept it.
"...600 kilometres below the Earth." Isn't that in space somewhere?
I guess it's a small world after all!
Traditionally, states rights and small government have been conservative issues, whereas Abolition and civil rights have been liberal issues. People often forget that in the days of Lincoln, the proto-Republicans were the liberals and the proto-Democrats were the conservatives. This is a good part of why "Southern Democrat" always used to mean a conservative, and why the Democrats used to hold a lot of power in the South before the Nixon administration in spite of being an extremely conservative constituency. States rights are mostly a forgotten issue now, but many conservative thinkers still think in those terms.
Also, I would note that Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, also abolished slavery towards the end of the war in a hope to end it. Even though it would've meant losing on the issue of slavery, he thought that staying separated from the Union was more important in the long run and that that decision might end the fighting. He was wrong, of course, but it does show which point was more important in his mind and that of many others in the South.
Am I the only one cracked in the head enough to mentally cry out "Never!" every time I hit a "Submit" button?
I believe that quote originates from John Cleese of Monty Python fame.
By the way, denying the civilian population of an enemy power water and other essential supplies for survival is in and of itself a war crime. Attacking a dam is a criminal attack on the civilian populace as no dam is 100% used for military purposes. Temporarily knocking out power like we did in Kosovo with the graphite powder bombs is one thing, but deliberately devistating basic infrastructure is another.
No, it would be the proper definition of ironic as a marine biologist team who exists to provide a warm, friendly, tree-hugging smokescreen for the whaling industry announces the glorious news of a new kind of whale only to find out that the industry which they were protecting destroyed them all decades ago.
See definition #3. Also, if this were a disingenuous ploy to expose that the whaling industry had killed them off, then it could be construed as definition #1.
Once we manage to build cheap, ultra-high-impulse engines (nuclear or antimatter perhaps), we'll go where ever we like. And the property laws will probably change very quickly too.
Property values will probably change very quickly too if people start using nuclear or antimatter engines within the atmosphere.
Oh, and as soon as Freenet gets N.G Routing working nicely, BitTorrent will be obsolete [/flamebait] ;-)
Will it run on GNU/Hurd when it comes out?
Speaking of music, am I the only one who thought that SuSE was supposed to be pronounced like the famous march composer John Philip Sousa?
This, of course, is based on ideal horses.
You may not like virii, but if enough people use it, it is a word.
Fo' shizzle! Ain't dat tru!
A) Intellectual inequality is pure snobbishness. Like athletic inequality or beauty inequality, it is no measure for the worth of a human being nor a measure of how much happiness and prosperity he or she deserves.
B) Even in today's society, the smartest are not the wealthiest. Read "The Millionaire Next Door." Few of today's millionaires got there by being smarter or better educated than others. Most of them got there by working hard and maintaining a tight-fisted budget. This is merely determination and wisdom, not intellectual superiority.
Private ownership of property and freedom go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other.
Why not? Do you argue that the Native Americans were not free before the Europeans came because they did not claim ownership of the land around them and its natural resources?
Property is only relevant when people attach emotional investment to it and when others want to take it away from you because they think that they can own it instead. In other words, property rights depend on greed and selfishness to exist. They are dependent on those emotions and, to some extent, vice versa. In a sense the concept reinforces those feelings by stoking in humanity its natural urges to compete and dominate over its other urges to cooperate and share. Today the Native Americans would be free if the colonists had not asserted property rights by force over what the tribes were once freely living with.
Do you not realize that in order to "eliminate" property rights, you must do so by force?
Not in the case of space. You just have to not recognize them in the first place. If someone wants to mine Eros, that's fine. However, property rights are founded upon the idea that you should exclusively be in control of who can use your property. Enforcement of of property rights demands the use of force just as much as the taking away existing property rights requires it. If the owner of Eros wants exclusive use of the asteroid, he must use force to defend it. However, if it's mined on a first-come, first-served basis, there are no property rights to it, and force it not used. Force is only required when people refuse to cooperate.
Incidentally, if you actually understood Ayn Rand, you would realize that slavery is absolutely unacceptable in the purely capitalist society, because slavery requires an initiation of force.
Old, Confederacy-style slavery requires force, but Ayn Rand's philosophy has absolutely no problem with men of power assigning any price they want to essential goods needed for day-to-day life such as electricity. Such a captain of industry could easily attach unfair demands on use of a utility needed for survival and economics success and achieve a sort virtual slavery over others. It would require use of force on behalf of the masses to gain control of his property to do otherwise than comply with his request. Ayn Rand's philosophy requires a different approach to the problem of owning people, but does not outright forbid it since the poor always have the choice of paying a heavy cost for their own freedom.
In other words, Ayn Rand's philosophy allows for the independence of the masses to be made into a miserable and horrid experience for the increased benefit of the elite. In an extreme extrapolation of her philosophy, it would be perfectly fine for one man to own all the world's power generation and refuse it to everyone who will not perform degrading favors for him. What would be important is that the man with the power is free to make use of his property as he sees fit, and everyone else if free to choose between two miserable lives -- one of bountiful servitude or one of primative independence. Freedom at a heavy cost is not freedom at all.