Your post was inspirational, i'm going to open a restaurant and sell things over various media outlets.
I hope so! The restaurant industry is valuable simply because the demand for food, unlike some other products, is never going to go away. Running a restaurant is hard, though. Like all business, the hardest part is finding qualified employees. There is no shortage of deadbeats and losers who would love for you to pay them money for their doing nothing (and then they'd steal from you).
Aw crap! When is/. gonna implement Bayesian based spam filters for spam posts?
Your comment has something in common with the ever-so-common refrains of "get a life" and "you don't know what you're talking about": They, like your comment, take absolutely no intelligence or critical thinking skills to produce.
Would you like to turn on your brain and try again?
"You're never going to get rich working to make someone else rich."
This was told to me while I was working as a software engineer commanding a decent salary. But I wasn't making the real money. That job belonged to my boss, who saw it fit to pay me a skim from his profit for a job I performed.
What was I to do? Whine? Talk about how "greedy" he was? Criticize him for his lack of technical skills (compared to mine)?
All of that is excrement. Instead, I chose to become an entrepreneur. I found partners, made deals, and now am in the process of opening my second restaurant as well as selling things over television and Internet. I think about business all the time, and work suddenly has become very, very fun. Life itself feels like a massively multiplayer game.
Oh, and here's another piece of advice that I learned that I wish someone had told me earlier: Anyone will loan you any some of money as long as they are convinced that it's in their best interest to do so.
Stop working for someone else. Find partners. Find investors. Find a way that you can make a business work. It's exhilirating and fascinating. And you won't go back once you are free.
We must act as free and peaceful people, never choosing to improve our lot in life among other free and peaceful people by using force or fraud.
However, if another individual chooses to draw first blood against me or my loved ones, then woe to that predator! Those who choose to live like animals deserve to die like animals.
So you are the crusader that defends the corporations and attacks the unions?
I don't defend corporations because I believe that corporations are inherently good. There is certainly immoral behavior done by corporations. It doesn't match the immoral behavior done by unions.
I guess you are the opposite of Robin Hood;)
If you are stating that I wish to steal from the poor and give it to the rich, then you are incorrect. Then again, you probably define capitalism as "stealing from the poor and giving to the rich", and that is why we must talk philosophy.
Look on the bright side: you are one of a kind.;)
False. Certainly there is no shortage of people who would rather take rich people's money by force than earn it by merit.
For instance, a capitalist would argue against unions because they are a collective (as opposed to being individualistic). There is very little for me to gain by going over such ideological arguments.
I agree: you only have stuff to lose by arguing ideologies, and I think that's why you avoid it. I won't let you get away with it, though. Your ideology is fair game and I will pull no punches (though I will be polite). I invite you fully to debate the merits of my philosophy. It is called Objectivism.
You clearly have a very minority view.
And you'll quickly learn that I do not care what the majority believes. Simply becuase the majority believes something does not make it true.
What reason do you have not to believe the scientific consensus?
Their arguments are not convincing. It's not that I need a reason not to believe, but rather that I need a reason to believe. The AIDS==HIV High Priests have not given me sufficient reason to believe in their point of view. Rather, their answers only lead to more questions.
Is there some conspiracy?
I have no time for conspiracy theories.
Are there mistakes being made?
Oh, god yes! Where would you like to start? One of the things I've learned about science is that it is run by humans with human failings. Do you think that science is free of ego and monied interests?
The condition is very real, regardless of whta you think causes it.
We first have to agree as to what "the condition" is. If you're talking about immune deficiency, then, yes, it is real, and it existed long before AIDS or HIV came into play. If you are talking about AIDS, then you are assuming a point in dispute.
I mean, there are millions dying from something (where they didn't die before). What would explain this high rate of deaths?
You have to be specific about where these "millions" are. If you're talking about North American AIDS, then your claim is false. Millions are NOT dying from it, and, furthermore, it is staying largely confined to its original risk groups in direct contradiction to CDC and NIH claims that "everyone is at risk". If you're talking about African AIDS, then you first must admit that AIDS cases in Africa were estimated.
There is no leftist religion... but just for this discussion, I'll let you call it a "religion" if you wish:)
Leftism is a philosophy, but I prefer to call it a religion because its god is the State. I consider Christianity and Leftism to be two sides of the same coin. Christians worship Jehovah (or whatever they call it), Leftists worship the State. The god, in either case, must be obeyed or one will face persecution. And the sin in both religions is selfishness, which causes disobedience to the god.
I would be against both: reward based on output, or reward based on ability. Both of these are elitist and hence I don't support them (leftists are egalitarian).
How about reward based on merit? That's the way I see capitalism, not output or ability. Would you still be against that? Would you
Did you put that link in your signature as a joke?
I'm serious as a heart attack.
They list "Inventing the AIDS virus" as evidence!
It's clear that you think this is outrageous, yet you can't seem to engage your brain enough to tell me why. Your outrage will consistently fail to convince me or make me shut up.
It's by that crackpot Peter Duesberg
Ad hominem.
who claims the real cause of the syndrome is the "risky" lifestyle of homosexuals...
As a gay man, I will unashamedly and bluntly state that the life of a circut party queen is high-risk. The amount of drugs consumed by those fuck-ups can not be good for the body. Did you actually read Duesberg's claims, or did you incorrectly assume that he argued that all homosexuals inherently led a high-risk lifestyle?
Furthermore, John Gallo, in an initial response to Duesberg's claims, claimed that there are no cofactors to AIDS, and that HIV alone was sufficient. Later, he reversed his position, claiming that there were cofactors. He claimed that there was no way that the cofactors alone could not cause AIDS, but provided no evidence to support that claim.
Now, would you care to turn on your brain and have a discussion on this issue? Your other tactic is NOT going to be effective with me.
Union corruption exists--don't get me wrong. But why is it right wingers that are always complaining about it?
To answer your question, becuase it is both so rampant and goes relatively unpunished. Unions are portrayed by the media as "good" and "fighting for the little guy" while their involvement with the Mafia and their outright extortion tactics go ignored by the media.
By contrast, corporate corruption is front-page news whenever it happens. This is becuase corporations are portrayed by the media as "evil" and "exploiting the little guy".
Please do not lump me in with right-wingers. I hate their stupid philosophy only slightly less than I hate Leftist philosophy.
The website you linked is very right wing and I, as well as other union supporters, wouldn't find it credible...
Whether or not the site is right-wing or not has nothing to do with whether or not the data on the web page is accurate. I think you'll find that any page which dares say anything negative about a union is "right-wing" simply because one can not survive as a Leftist and not unflinchingly kiss union ass. How then are you to find anything critical of unions if anything that does you're going to dismiss as "right-wing" and therefore not credible?
On a different note, so you think AIDS is not caused by HIV? Or that AIDS doesn't occur?
The definition of AIDS, as decreed by the High Priests of AIDS, includes HIV. Since I do not believe that HIV causes immune deficiency, you can safely infer that I do not believe in AIDS, either. Immune deficiency has existed long before someone decided to label it "AIDS".
By the way, I visited your "I, Leftist" web page. I would *love* to debate the merits of your philosophy with you (we can start with, "Do you believe in 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'?"). I have a lot of experience tearing apart the Christian religion, and I need to sharpen my sword against the Leftist religion as well. Please reply!:)
while Northerners view Southerners as ignorant, slow, and too informal.
Popular media loves to trash Southerners and Southern culture. Just watch a few episodes of "Family Guy" to see evidence of it. Seeing Southern characters on shows such as "CSI: Miami" that are not a.) inbred, b.) stupid, c.) uneducated, d.) racist, e.) emotionally unstable is a new and welcome change.
Basically, it's completely politically correct to portray Southerners as people who meet any of the negative stereotypes above. Not only is it politically correct, but it is self-perpetuating. So many Americans (not just yankees) are so sold on the Southern=Stupid media image that they like seeing it even more.
If you're like most Americans, the people on Jerry Springer with Southern accents are the ones you remember. It's not that every stupid piece of human filth that deigns embarrass their family's honor by appearing on that sorry excuse for entertainment is Southern. It's rather that your brain probably registers them more clearly becuase it already fits in with the well-crafted and oft-repeated media image.
I would love, for once, to see "Family Guy" or "The Simpsons" address the issue of union corruption. That's something we don't get down here in the South -- namely because we don't have all that many Unions.
I'd say they're as objective as you get, unless of course you believe in some kind of "science-conspiracy"..
You forget that "science" is controlled by fallible humans, not infallible angels. While scientists claim to be about research and the scientific method, almost every science is plagued by some degree with ego and monied interests. Case in point: my sig. Another one: the "nutritionists" cave-in on the Atkins diet. Here's another: global warming (or, as it's called now, "global climate change"). I suppose if these "scientists" were really living up to their creed (facts and reasoning) then we wouldn't see such divisions at all, would we?
A valid viewpoint, but one that I disagree with, because the consequences are frequently (at least partially) shared.
You can't disagree wholesale with "people should be free to suffer the consequences of their poor choices". You have to consider the specifics of each case. In the case of not wearing seatbelts, the "consequences are shared" because the "victim" decides to make others pay for it through his insurance company.
Incompatible with free universal healthcare
It's not "free". Someone is paying. Someone whose vote is not required to those implementing the "free" universal health care. Answer me this: how can you have universal health care without having a right to someone else's property?
Why is it different?
Because it is much more complicated that the other two issues you mentioned. The first issue was about whether or not mandantory seatbelt laws were nannying. That's one question: seatbelt or not. The second issue was about whether or not mandantory motorcycle helmet laws were nannying. Again, one question: motorcycle helmets or not.
Airplane safety, comparatively, contains many, many different aspects. How often should each aspect of the airplane be serviced by whom with what qualifications? It's not an issue of "is government regulation of airline safety nannying?" but, rather, "how much government regulation of airline safety is nannying?"
You can have all the middle ground you want, but it's a cut-throat business...and surely that engine's good for another 1000 miles....
You neglect the fact that it's in an airline's best interest to make sure their planes don't crash. I think the government is much better at meddling and killing than it is at saving lives.
Directly or indirectly? Someone has to mop up the blood.
Please elaborate.
People causing themselves harm frequently incur a cost to society doing so.
Sweeping statements like these are a waste of breath (or, in this case, typing). Furthermore, the concepts of "bad for society" and "immoral" are completely functionally equivalent. So don't bore me with "bad for society". Say what you mean: immoral!
If I'd said "no convincing reason not to make it mandatory", would you still agree? Or still see it as a non-sequitur?
The conjuction was "and", not "or". I agreed with your statement, and I thought it didn't have anything to do with any part of the prior discussion.
I notice that you didn't dispute that the (nanny) state is the One True God of the Left. I believe that Leftism is a religion, and its god is the State. The sin under Leftism is the same as the sin under Christianity: individualism, which both religions call "selfishness".
Take the Wikipedia asking for donations last week, half the posts here at slashdot were, "Why don't they go salvage a few old PIII 600's and cluster them together. Should only cost about two grand".
Sweeping statements like these do not help. You and I both know that you didn't measure and come up with "half".
Bottom line...the negativity needs to go out of OSS.
Why limit that to OSS? I think that "negativity" needs to go out of humanity.
Linux cannot have the banner, "Microsoft Sucks! and use us because...Microsoft Sucks!"
I think it's more true that this is what BSDers think Linux's banner is than it is true that this is what Linux's banner is.
OSS and Linux needs a banner of, "Hey our system works, has fewer viruses, easy to use, and it will do any thing Windows will do, except play games."
The many companies that use Linux have found their own reasons for using Linux. They don't need what you think Linux's banner should be.
And to the "any thing you can do, I can do for free" dot communist crowd:
And why do you call this "communist"? Explanations as to why Linux and GNU are not communist have occurred many, many times. Did you judge them invalid?
In order to make Linux viable, its going to need programs written for it like games, quickbooks, quicken, adobe products, that people are willing to spend money on and need before it will truely be accepted main stream.
And how will you determine that Linux will "truly be accepted main stream"? What does that even mean? If it happens to be equivalent to "having programins writen for it like games, quickbooks, qucken, and adobe products" then it has no additional meaning. Many companies and individuals are already using it despite it not being "truly accepted main stream".
If Microsoft takes a copy of your BSD licensed code, compiles it, presses it onto a CD, drops it into a shiny box (so shiny!) and sells it for $100[,] then good for them
And bad for me.
The reason behind the fact that the closed and proprietary DirectX API is used instead of the open OpenGL API is because of Microsoft's lies about OpenGL "only being used for high-end applications". It's in Microsoft's vested interest to make sure that protocols are owned by them, but there is no compelling technical reason for that to happen.
The reason that IIS was sold in many cases was due to Microsoft's lies about there being a difference between Windows NT Workstation and Windows NT Server. A strong Microsoft will do more of this immoral behavior, not less, and I don't want any software that I write to help them in any way.
Microsoft deliberately withholds specs for NTFS and many other apsects of their system for the sole purpose of punishing those who deign run an operating system other than their own. I can think of no other company that treats its customers in this punitive manner. Helping them is helping them punish people.
Did I mention proprietary file formats? Just like protocols, this behooves Microsoft, but there is no techincal reason for this to happen. These proprietary file formats ensure more vendor lock-in, not less. It's a self-perpetuating evil, and helping Microsoft helps this evil even more.
It is for these reasons that I think helping Microsoft is immoral. Hence, I reject the BSD license as immoral since it has been and will be easily used to benefit Microsoft.
Don't want speeding tickets? Heres a simple solution: Drive under the speed limit, you insensitive clod.
Don't want to suffer? Here's a simple solution: obey the arbitrary will of your government busybodies.
Jesus, I'm fed up with people pretending that speeding fines are a stealth tax. They're not.
Oh, they're not a stealth tax. They are a tax. Here in Georgia, people violate the speed limit contstantly. I was taught growing up that one can go 10 over the speed limit with impunity. The police here abide by this. When they need to make their quotas (remember, traffic fines are a line item in government "budgets"), they start enforcing the speed limit.
They're a penalty for breaking the law and they're really easy to avoid.
If I'm in the government and I want to raise some more money to buy some more votes, then I can decide to make some arbitrary activity "illegal" and then impose a fine for breaking that law. Thank God I'll have people who will excuse this immoral behavior with the "that's the rules!" defense you've just exhibited.
Ah, the "nanny state", that favourite bogeyman of the right.
Not to mention the One True God of the Left.
Do you think mandatory seatbelts constitute "nannying"?
Yes. People should be free to not wear seatbelts, and should be free to suffer the consequences of that poor choice. If someone is injured because they were not wearing a seatbelt, then all insurance claims or any other attempts to get someone to pay for that injury should be denied.
Do you thing motorcyclists have a "right" to drive around without crash helmets?
Yes. People should be free to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and they should also be free to suffer the consequences of that poor choice. If someone is injured because they were riding a motorcycle without wearing a helmet, then all insurance claims or any other attempts to get someone to pay for that injury should be denied.
Or do you think airline safety requirements are "nannying", and airlines should be able to skimp on maintainance checks and "pass the savings on to customers" (call it "self-regulation")?
This is a much more complicated issue that the previous two. You'll have to be more specific. Barring that, you are making an excluded middle argument.
There's a wide gulf between anarchy and a police state, and people will naturally disagree on where the ideal middle ground lies.
How about this: the state will not punish any individual's action which does not deprive any other individual of life, liberty, or property. Can we agree on that?
But if a traffic control system could be devised by which cars are automatically driven to the specified destination, and which drastically reduces the likelihood of accidents, I find it hard to come up with a convincing reason not to implement it.
Well how about I register the copyright and then wait for God for to challenge it ?
You can wait all you want for a mythical being to intervene, but it's the conservative judges you'll have to watch out for. They think they have a bee-line to the almighty and have no hesitation in using the deadly police power of the state to enforce what they think God is telling them.
Now, despite all those "amateurs" that are putting Apache on the Internet, Apache still has fewer worms, exploits, etc than IIS.
Which tells you that all those "amateurs" are: #1. Better qualified than those non-amateurs running IIS. #2. Running a better product. or #3. Just plain lucky, over and over and over again.
You're making an excluded-middle argument. If I were Microsoft, this is what I would argue:
"The reason why IIS is targeted more than Apache is becuase the evil terrorist hackers out there hate Microsoft and specifically target Microsoft over the communist Apache."
When the hacker community responds, "That's not true. We target your crap because it's easy." then I (Microsoft) would dismiss it as, "You can't trust what they say. They're evil terrorist hackers."
This will be taken as flamebait, but I don't care.
Not flamebait, just the same leftist, irrational claptrap which is so popular among young people in general and college students in particular. It should not be shunned as flamebait, but engaged so that its irrational and superstitious aspects can be exposed for all to see and judge.
Freedom right now in the USA is only limited to what can make them more money, not other countries that might limit/threaten their freedom.
Glittering generalities like this may make you feel good, but your emotions teach you nothing.
By this I DO NOT mean in a direct assault on freedom itself, but by affecting the standards of living in the USA.
The USA is one of the few countries in the world where an individual's standard of living is most affected by his/her own choices.
The recent exposed plan in the 70/80's to invade oil rich countries to protect their oil needs is only one example.
While this may seem like yet another "let's enrich the greedy fat cats" thing to you, you have to keep in mind that oil was and is the lifeblood of the American economy. Sure, some fat cats suffered. What are the long-reaching effects on American economy if the oil flow is interrupted? From the politicians' viewpoint, the idea to invade oil-rich companies was more about protecting American interests than it was about enriching someone you hate.
Need I mention DMCA and other laws to protect the corporate companies rather then the consumer.
The DMCA stems from the problems with copyright law and "intellectual property" laws. If you don't fix those problems, then we can only expect to see even more garbage a la DMCA.
Also note this is not a reflection of the mass population in USA, but the direction the goverment and corporate pressures on them are steering USA into.
There are lots of big-money pressures steering the government (which is a nice face put on deadly force). Trial lawyers and unions are both huge donators to the "anti-corporate" branches of our gross government.
Pretty soon the USA will turn into a class based system where only the rich and influential can effect the government and freedom of it's population goes out the window.
The USA is already a class-based system. If you want to be in the lower class, then get some tattoos, get multiple piercings in your face, and practice riding your skateboard on someone else's property. If you want to be in the upper class, get some education in a desired skill in the marketplace, make contacts, stop feeling bad about yourself, and work hard. It's not like we live in the degenerate UK, where the class you're born into is the class where you stay, and people know what class you're in as soon as you open your mouth. Your point sounds a lot like "The sky is falling" and "We have to do something!" More emotional reasoning.
The scary part is most of it's citizens and for that matter the world will think the USA is still in a democracy, but it will be ruled by the rich and influential
Yes, that is a scary idea. Making decisions based of fear is a poor choice. We need more people making decisions based on reason and evidence rather than our petty, childish emotions.
Majority vote is only effective if the votes are informed and heard,
Majority vote (I take it you mean "majority rule") is bad in and of itself. It's becuase of this Tyranny of the Majority that blacks, gays, and women have had such a rough go at life.
The major flaw that I see with Leftist ideology is that even the biggest scumbag loser gets a vote. Why should the lazy and stupid have the right to vote away the money that I've earned? What, you mean there are no lazy and stupid people?
(This is the point where some Leftist will respond and claim that they are, by definition, more intelligent than me. They'll probably make some snide joke in response to my rhetorical question about the lack of existence of the lazy and stupid.)
But right now, their job is to enforce the law as it is.
There are simply too many laws for law enforcement to enforce them all. In every community, law enforcement is a selective effort. It's not that the police had to prosecute, they chose to.
So the original comment stands: law enforcement, when given the choice (and they are), should choose to go after those who would seek to deprive other individuals of life, liberty, and property. In other words, predators.
That's why we have a democracy. We elect leaders we trust and they appoint persons to serve the public interest.
How do you know that those doing the regulation will be moral people? You didn't answer this question. You just have faith that those in government will do what is good and right. As it turns out, government at all levels is rife with corruption. You've replaced one evil with a greater one.
You don't get to choose the actions of others. Enron, Martha Stewart, and Halliburton are all companies working withing a capitalist system.
Likewise, some people in labor unions are totally corrupt. Should I assume that the entire "union system" is evil becuase some of the people within it are immoral?
Furthermore, since you define capitalism as evil, you are using these facts of corporate immorality like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not for illumination.
So what is "fraud"?
This is a non-trivial question. It's why we have courts to help answer it. The courts are run by humans, so they are imperfect. It's the best we can do right now.
Does that mean that a police officer should not be able to impound the car of a drunk driver?
A drunk driver represents a threat to others' lives and deserves to be removed by force. This is a legitimate function of the state: protecting the lives of the citizenry from predators and the irresponsible.
Is depriving a child molester of liberty through forceful imprisonment immoral?
No. The abuse of the child is immoral. Someone who chooses to deprive a child of life in this way is a predator, and it is a legitimate function of the state to remove this predator from the citizenry.
Is it immoral to shoot someone who's holding a knife at your wife's throat, thus depriving them of life through force?
No. My relationship with my wife is my property (though it cannot be stolen like physical property, I would certainly feel loss and grieve if it were to be removed). If some predator tries to use force to deprive me of it, then it is moral for me to use force to protect it. It was the predator, not I, who chose the path of the animal. And those who choose to live like animals deserve to die like animals. They have no place in a civil society, and we cannot rely on the state to protect us from predators.
You do a good job of parroting patriotism in your words, but they are rather amorphous.
You have to ask specifics to understand how my philosphy works in practice. It seems like you have done a good job doing that here, though I don't think you expected me to have answers to your questions. You are, after all, a Lefist and thus defined as more "intelligent" than everyone else who doesn't accept your irrational, elitist philosophy.
My philosophy is logic-based and I could humiliate you in a public debate.
Then why not humiliate me here? We don't have to wait for a public debate. I invite you to challenge my philosophy at all of its levels, and I reserve the right to challenge yours at all its levels. If we are both rational people (and you claim to be one, though I don't believe you yet), then hopefully our dialoge will lead one of us to a greater understanding of what is ethical.
I notice that you have not denied that you define captialism as evil. I also notice that you didn't deny that the concept of "harming others" is vague. Should I assume that you agree with these statments since you made no effort to correct me?
what's sick is this scumbag thinks it's acceptable for someone to be beaten, tortured, raped, stabbed, have his teeth beaten out with a pipe and mouth-fucked for hours on end, as long as the person can reasonably be expected to know that that's a possibility.
While all of this may be true, you're not doing your position any favors by calling him a scumbag or an idiot. Such invective only makes your opponent resistant to your ideas.
I find it more effective to ask direct questions so my opponent is compelled to reveal the reasoning behind his positions. You notice that he has yet to answer my question. We'll get to the bottom of his evil belief once he dares to do so.
How do you know that those doing the regulation will be moral people?
You may choose to reject the idea of fraud,
Where did you get this idea about me? I think fraud is immoral and should be illegal.
And the definition contains nothing about "honesty and exchange of value for value." You imposed that on the definition.
You are repeating what I told you. We each make our own understandings of what capitalism implies. I have chosen to make it moral while you have chosen to make it immoral.
The difference is that we are surrounded by huge corporations who don't share your professed values.
I thought your point is that all captialism, by definition, is evil. What does it matter if some people choose to make money through force or fraud?
They are very good. And what needs to be done is insure that someone else's desire for property doesn't end up harming others.
I agree, though you'll have to explain what "harming others" means exactly (good luck!). I think it is immoral and it should be illegal to deprive another individual of life, liberty, or property through force or fraud. "Harming others" is much more vague and subject to the whims of our petty emotions. It fits in well with your emotion-based philosophy.
Some people would argue that having those regulations in place infringes on the freedom of a person to buy all the TV stations they want.
And they would be right. Person A wants to buy something. Person B wants to sell this something to person A. Then the government steps in and says, "A, you do not have the right to buy this, and, B, you do not have the right to sell it."
Others argue that allowing all of the media outlets to fall into the hands of a very small group infringes on the freedom of the the majority of people to have the public airways used to broadcast a wide variety of perspectives.
I believe people have the rights to life, liberty, or property. Here, you add "the right to the the majority of the media not falling into a arbitrarily-small group of people". It just smacks of emotionalism.
If you really think about it, the first argument (the pro-capitalist argument) is kind of like saying that the bill of rights infringes on the freedom of the King of England to have his every whim obeyed.
Freedom can not imply that you are free to remove someone else's freedom (or life, or property).
Slashdot Mirror
Your post was inspirational, i'm going to open a restaurant and sell things over various media outlets.
I hope so! The restaurant industry is valuable simply because the demand for food, unlike some other products, is never going to go away. Running a restaurant is hard, though. Like all business, the hardest part is finding qualified employees. There is no shortage of deadbeats and losers who would love for you to pay them money for their doing nothing (and then they'd steal from you).
WOW.. Someone has played way to much Everquest or Sims:Livin Large.
Actually, I prefer PlanetSide. Any game that has "waiting around for something to happen" as a necessary part of gameplay is a poorly-designed game.
Aw crap! When is /. gonna implement Bayesian based spam filters for spam posts?
Your comment has something in common with the ever-so-common refrains of "get a life" and "you don't know what you're talking about": They, like your comment, take absolutely no intelligence or critical thinking skills to produce.
Would you like to turn on your brain and try again?
"You're never going to get rich working to make someone else rich."
This was told to me while I was working as a software engineer commanding a decent salary. But I wasn't making the real money. That job belonged to my boss, who saw it fit to pay me a skim from his profit for a job I performed.
What was I to do? Whine? Talk about how "greedy" he was? Criticize him for his lack of technical skills (compared to mine)?
All of that is excrement. Instead, I chose to become an entrepreneur. I found partners, made deals, and now am in the process of opening my second restaurant as well as selling things over television and Internet. I think about business all the time, and work suddenly has become very, very fun. Life itself feels like a massively multiplayer game.
Oh, and here's another piece of advice that I learned that I wish someone had told me earlier: Anyone will loan you any some of money as long as they are convinced that it's in their best interest to do so.
Stop working for someone else. Find partners. Find investors. Find a way that you can make a business work. It's exhilirating and fascinating. And you won't go back once you are free.
I am not in favor of violence
We must act as free and peaceful people, never choosing to improve our lot in life among other free and peaceful people by using force or fraud.
However, if another individual chooses to draw first blood against me or my loved ones, then woe to that predator! Those who choose to live like animals deserve to die like animals.
So you are the crusader that defends the corporations and attacks the unions?
;)
;)
:)
I don't defend corporations because I believe that corporations are inherently good. There is certainly immoral behavior done by corporations. It doesn't match the immoral behavior done by unions.
I guess you are the opposite of Robin Hood
If you are stating that I wish to steal from the poor and give it to the rich, then you are incorrect. Then again, you probably define capitalism as "stealing from the poor and giving to the rich", and that is why we must talk philosophy.
Look on the bright side: you are one of a kind.
False. Certainly there is no shortage of people who would rather take rich people's money by force than earn it by merit.
For instance, a capitalist would argue against unions because they are a collective (as opposed to being individualistic). There is very little for me to gain by going over such ideological arguments.
I agree: you only have stuff to lose by arguing ideologies, and I think that's why you avoid it. I won't let you get away with it, though. Your ideology is fair game and I will pull no punches (though I will be polite). I invite you fully to debate the merits of my philosophy. It is called Objectivism.
You clearly have a very minority view.
And you'll quickly learn that I do not care what the majority believes. Simply becuase the majority believes something does not make it true.
What reason do you have not to believe the scientific consensus?
Their arguments are not convincing. It's not that I need a reason not to believe, but rather that I need a reason to believe. The AIDS==HIV High Priests have not given me sufficient reason to believe in their point of view. Rather, their answers only lead to more questions.
Is there some conspiracy?
I have no time for conspiracy theories.
Are there mistakes being made?
Oh, god yes! Where would you like to start? One of the things I've learned about science is that it is run by humans with human failings. Do you think that science is free of ego and monied interests?
The condition is very real, regardless of whta you think causes it.
We first have to agree as to what "the condition" is. If you're talking about immune deficiency, then, yes, it is real, and it existed long before AIDS or HIV came into play. If you are talking about AIDS, then you are assuming a point in dispute.
I mean, there are millions dying from something (where they didn't die before). What would explain this high rate of deaths?
You have to be specific about where these "millions" are. If you're talking about North American AIDS, then your claim is false. Millions are NOT dying from it, and, furthermore, it is staying largely confined to its original risk groups in direct contradiction to CDC and NIH claims that "everyone is at risk". If you're talking about African AIDS, then you first must admit that AIDS cases in Africa were estimated.
There is no leftist religion... but just for this discussion, I'll let you call it a "religion" if you wish
Leftism is a philosophy, but I prefer to call it a religion because its god is the State. I consider Christianity and Leftism to be two sides of the same coin. Christians worship Jehovah (or whatever they call it), Leftists worship the State. The god, in either case, must be obeyed or one will face persecution. And the sin in both religions is selfishness, which causes disobedience to the god.
I would be against both: reward based on output, or reward based on ability. Both of these are elitist and hence I don't support them (leftists are egalitarian).
How about reward based on merit? That's the way I see capitalism, not output or ability. Would you still be against that? Would you
Did you put that link in your signature as a joke?
I'm serious as a heart attack.
They list "Inventing the AIDS virus" as evidence!
It's clear that you think this is outrageous, yet you can't seem to engage your brain enough to tell me why. Your outrage will consistently fail to convince me or make me shut up.
It's by that crackpot Peter Duesberg
Ad hominem.
who claims the real cause of the syndrome is the "risky" lifestyle of homosexuals...
As a gay man, I will unashamedly and bluntly state that the life of a circut party queen is high-risk. The amount of drugs consumed by those fuck-ups can not be good for the body. Did you actually read Duesberg's claims, or did you incorrectly assume that he argued that all homosexuals inherently led a high-risk lifestyle?
Furthermore, John Gallo, in an initial response to Duesberg's claims, claimed that there are no cofactors to AIDS, and that HIV alone was sufficient. Later, he reversed his position, claiming that there were cofactors. He claimed that there was no way that the cofactors alone could not cause AIDS, but provided no evidence to support that claim.
Now, would you care to turn on your brain and have a discussion on this issue? Your other tactic is NOT going to be effective with me.
Union corruption exists--don't get me wrong. But why is it right wingers that are always complaining about it?
:)
To answer your question, becuase it is both so rampant and goes relatively unpunished. Unions are portrayed by the media as "good" and "fighting for the little guy" while their involvement with the Mafia and their outright extortion tactics go ignored by the media.
By contrast, corporate corruption is front-page news whenever it happens. This is becuase corporations are portrayed by the media as "evil" and "exploiting the little guy".
Please do not lump me in with right-wingers. I hate their stupid philosophy only slightly less than I hate Leftist philosophy.
The website you linked is very right wing and I, as well as other union supporters, wouldn't find it credible...
Whether or not the site is right-wing or not has nothing to do with whether or not the data on the web page is accurate. I think you'll find that any page which dares say anything negative about a union is "right-wing" simply because one can not survive as a Leftist and not unflinchingly kiss union ass. How then are you to find anything critical of unions if anything that does you're going to dismiss as "right-wing" and therefore not credible?
On a different note, so you think AIDS is not caused by HIV? Or that AIDS doesn't occur?
The definition of AIDS, as decreed by the High Priests of AIDS, includes HIV. Since I do not believe that HIV causes immune deficiency, you can safely infer that I do not believe in AIDS, either. Immune deficiency has existed long before someone decided to label it "AIDS".
By the way, I visited your "I, Leftist" web page. I would *love* to debate the merits of your philosophy with you (we can start with, "Do you believe in 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'?"). I have a lot of experience tearing apart the Christian religion, and I need to sharpen my sword against the Leftist religion as well. Please reply!
while Northerners view Southerners as ignorant, slow, and too informal.
Popular media loves to trash Southerners and Southern culture. Just watch a few episodes of "Family Guy" to see evidence of it. Seeing Southern characters on shows such as "CSI: Miami" that are not a.) inbred, b.) stupid, c.) uneducated, d.) racist, e.) emotionally unstable is a new and welcome change.
Basically, it's completely politically correct to portray Southerners as people who meet any of the negative stereotypes above. Not only is it politically correct, but it is self-perpetuating. So many Americans (not just yankees) are so sold on the Southern=Stupid media image that they like seeing it even more.
If you're like most Americans, the people on Jerry Springer with Southern accents are the ones you remember. It's not that every stupid piece of human filth that deigns embarrass their family's honor by appearing on that sorry excuse for entertainment is Southern. It's rather that your brain probably registers them more clearly becuase it already fits in with the well-crafted and oft-repeated media image.
I would love, for once, to see "Family Guy" or "The Simpsons" address the issue of union corruption. That's something we don't get down here in the South -- namely because we don't have all that many Unions.
I'd say they're as objective as you get, unless of course you believe in some kind of "science-conspiracy"..
You forget that "science" is controlled by fallible humans, not infallible angels. While scientists claim to be about research and the scientific method, almost every science is plagued by some degree with ego and monied interests. Case in point: my sig. Another one: the "nutritionists" cave-in on the Atkins diet. Here's another: global warming (or, as it's called now, "global climate change"). I suppose if these "scientists" were really living up to their creed (facts and reasoning) then we wouldn't see such divisions at all, would we?
A valid viewpoint, but one that I disagree with, because the consequences are frequently (at least partially) shared.
You can't disagree wholesale with "people should be free to suffer the consequences of their poor choices". You have to consider the specifics of each case. In the case of not wearing seatbelts, the "consequences are shared" because the "victim" decides to make others pay for it through his insurance company.
Incompatible with free universal healthcare
It's not "free". Someone is paying. Someone whose vote is not required to those implementing the "free" universal health care. Answer me this: how can you have universal health care without having a right to someone else's property?
Why is it different?
Because it is much more complicated that the other two issues you mentioned. The first issue was about whether or not mandantory seatbelt laws were nannying. That's one question: seatbelt or not. The second issue was about whether or not mandantory motorcycle helmet laws were nannying. Again, one question: motorcycle helmets or not.
Airplane safety, comparatively, contains many, many different aspects. How often should each aspect of the airplane be serviced by whom with what qualifications? It's not an issue of "is government regulation of airline safety nannying?" but, rather, "how much government regulation of airline safety is nannying?"
You can have all the middle ground you want, but it's a cut-throat business...and surely that engine's good for another 1000 miles....
You neglect the fact that it's in an airline's best interest to make sure their planes don't crash. I think the government is much better at meddling and killing than it is at saving lives.
Directly or indirectly? Someone has to mop up the blood.
Please elaborate.
People causing themselves harm frequently incur a cost to society doing so.
Sweeping statements like these are a waste of breath (or, in this case, typing). Furthermore, the concepts of "bad for society" and "immoral" are completely functionally equivalent. So don't bore me with "bad for society". Say what you mean: immoral!
If I'd said "no convincing reason not to make it mandatory", would you still agree? Or still see it as a non-sequitur?
The conjuction was "and", not "or". I agreed with your statement, and I thought it didn't have anything to do with any part of the prior discussion.
I notice that you didn't dispute that the (nanny) state is the One True God of the Left. I believe that Leftism is a religion, and its god is the State. The sin under Leftism is the same as the sin under Christianity: individualism, which both religions call "selfishness".
Take the Wikipedia asking for donations last week, half the posts here at slashdot were, "Why don't they go salvage a few old PIII 600's and cluster them together. Should only cost about two grand".
Sweeping statements like these do not help. You and I both know that you didn't measure and come up with "half".
Bottom line...the negativity needs to go out of OSS.
Why limit that to OSS? I think that "negativity" needs to go out of humanity.
Linux cannot have the banner, "Microsoft Sucks! and use us because...Microsoft Sucks!"
I think it's more true that this is what BSDers think Linux's banner is than it is true that this is what Linux's banner is.
OSS and Linux needs a banner of, "Hey our system works, has fewer viruses, easy to use, and it will do any thing Windows will do, except play games."
The many companies that use Linux have found their own reasons for using Linux. They don't need what you think Linux's banner should be.
And to the "any thing you can do, I can do for free" dot communist crowd:
And why do you call this "communist"? Explanations as to why Linux and GNU are not communist have occurred many, many times. Did you judge them invalid?
In order to make Linux viable, its going to need programs written for it like games, quickbooks, quicken, adobe products, that people are willing to spend money on and need before it will truely be accepted main stream.
And how will you determine that Linux will "truly be accepted main stream"? What does that even mean? If it happens to be equivalent to "having programins writen for it like games, quickbooks, qucken, and adobe products" then it has no additional meaning. Many companies and individuals are already using it despite it not being "truly accepted main stream".
And bad for me.
It is for these reasons that I think helping Microsoft is immoral. Hence, I reject the BSD license as immoral since it has been and will be easily used to benefit Microsoft.
Don't want speeding tickets? Heres a simple solution: Drive under the speed limit, you insensitive clod.
Don't want to suffer? Here's a simple solution: obey the arbitrary will of your government busybodies.
Jesus, I'm fed up with people pretending that speeding fines are a stealth tax. They're not.
Oh, they're not a stealth tax. They are a tax. Here in Georgia, people violate the speed limit contstantly. I was taught growing up that one can go 10 over the speed limit with impunity. The police here abide by this. When they need to make their quotas (remember, traffic fines are a line item in government "budgets"), they start enforcing the speed limit.
They're a penalty for breaking the law and they're really easy to avoid.
If I'm in the government and I want to raise some more money to buy some more votes, then I can decide to make some arbitrary activity "illegal" and then impose a fine for breaking that law. Thank God I'll have people who will excuse this immoral behavior with the "that's the rules!" defense you've just exhibited.
Ah, the "nanny state", that favourite bogeyman of the right.
Not to mention the One True God of the Left.
Do you think mandatory seatbelts constitute "nannying"?
Yes. People should be free to not wear seatbelts, and should be free to suffer the consequences of that poor choice. If someone is injured because they were not wearing a seatbelt, then all insurance claims or any other attempts to get someone to pay for that injury should be denied.
Do you thing motorcyclists have a "right" to drive around without crash helmets?
Yes. People should be free to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and they should also be free to suffer the consequences of that poor choice. If someone is injured because they were riding a motorcycle without wearing a helmet, then all insurance claims or any other attempts to get someone to pay for that injury should be denied.
Or do you think airline safety requirements are "nannying", and airlines should be able to skimp on maintainance checks and "pass the savings on to customers" (call it "self-regulation")?
This is a much more complicated issue that the previous two. You'll have to be more specific. Barring that, you are making an excluded middle argument.
There's a wide gulf between anarchy and a police state, and people will naturally disagree on where the ideal middle ground lies.
How about this: the state will not punish any individual's action which does not deprive any other individual of life, liberty, or property. Can we agree on that?
But if a traffic control system could be devised by which cars are automatically driven to the specified destination, and which drastically reduces the likelihood of accidents, I find it hard to come up with a convincing reason not to implement it.
I agree, but I see this as a non-sequitur.
Well how about I register the copyright and then wait for God for to challenge it ?
You can wait all you want for a mythical being to intervene, but it's the conservative judges you'll have to watch out for. They think they have a bee-line to the almighty and have no hesitation in using the deadly police power of the state to enforce what they think God is telling them.
If I were to copyright the unique prints on my hands
"The copyright does not belong to you. The copyright belongs to God."
That may sound odd to those living in the People's Republic of California, but here in the Bible Belt it isn't too strange.
Now, despite all those "amateurs" that are putting Apache on the Internet, Apache still has fewer worms, exploits, etc than IIS.
Which tells you that all those "amateurs" are:
#1. Better qualified than those non-amateurs running IIS.
#2. Running a better product.
or
#3. Just plain lucky, over and over and over again.
You're making an excluded-middle argument. If I were Microsoft, this is what I would argue:
"The reason why IIS is targeted more than Apache is becuase the evil terrorist hackers out there hate Microsoft and specifically target Microsoft over the communist Apache."
When the hacker community responds, "That's not true. We target your crap because it's easy." then I (Microsoft) would dismiss it as, "You can't trust what they say. They're evil terrorist hackers."
A higher one than you're in.
This will be taken as flamebait, but I don't care.
Not flamebait, just the same leftist, irrational claptrap which is so popular among young people in general and college students in particular. It should not be shunned as flamebait, but engaged so that its irrational and superstitious aspects can be exposed for all to see and judge.
Freedom right now in the USA is only limited to what can make them more money, not other countries that might limit/threaten their freedom.
Glittering generalities like this may make you feel good, but your emotions teach you nothing.
By this I DO NOT mean in a direct assault on freedom itself, but by affecting the standards of living in the USA.
The USA is one of the few countries in the world where an individual's standard of living is most affected by his/her own choices.
The recent exposed plan in the 70/80's to invade oil rich countries to protect their oil needs is only one example.
While this may seem like yet another "let's enrich the greedy fat cats" thing to you, you have to keep in mind that oil was and is the lifeblood of the American economy. Sure, some fat cats suffered. What are the long-reaching effects on American economy if the oil flow is interrupted? From the politicians' viewpoint, the idea to invade oil-rich companies was more about protecting American interests than it was about enriching someone you hate.
Need I mention DMCA and other laws to protect the corporate companies rather then the consumer.
The DMCA stems from the problems with copyright law and "intellectual property" laws. If you don't fix those problems, then we can only expect to see even more garbage a la DMCA.
Also note this is not a reflection of the mass population in USA, but the direction the goverment and corporate pressures on them are steering USA into.
There are lots of big-money pressures steering the government (which is a nice face put on deadly force). Trial lawyers and unions are both huge donators to the "anti-corporate" branches of our gross government.
Pretty soon the USA will turn into a class based system where only the rich and influential can effect the government and freedom of it's population goes out the window.
The USA is already a class-based system. If you want to be in the lower class, then get some tattoos, get multiple piercings in your face, and practice riding your skateboard on someone else's property. If you want to be in the upper class, get some education in a desired skill in the marketplace, make contacts, stop feeling bad about yourself, and work hard. It's not like we live in the degenerate UK, where the class you're born into is the class where you stay, and people know what class you're in as soon as you open your mouth. Your point sounds a lot like "The sky is falling" and "We have to do something!" More emotional reasoning.
The scary part is most of it's citizens and for that matter the world will think the USA is still in a democracy, but it will be ruled by the rich and influential
Yes, that is a scary idea. Making decisions based of fear is a poor choice. We need more people making decisions based on reason and evidence rather than our petty, childish emotions.
Majority vote is only effective if the votes are informed and heard,
Majority vote (I take it you mean "majority rule") is bad in and of itself. It's becuase of this Tyranny of the Majority that blacks, gays, and women have had such a rough go at life.
The major flaw that I see with Leftist ideology is that even the biggest scumbag loser gets a vote. Why should the lazy and stupid have the right to vote away the money that I've earned? What, you mean there are no lazy and stupid people?
(This is the point where some Leftist will respond and claim that they are, by definition, more intelligent than me. They'll probably make some snide joke in response to my rhetorical question about the lack of existence of the lazy and stupid.)
But right now, their job is to enforce the law as it is.
There are simply too many laws for law enforcement to enforce them all. In every community, law enforcement is a selective effort. It's not that the police had to prosecute, they chose to.
So the original comment stands: law enforcement, when given the choice (and they are), should choose to go after those who would seek to deprive other individuals of life, liberty, and property. In other words, predators.
That's why we have a democracy. We elect leaders we trust and they appoint persons to serve the public interest.
How do you know that those doing the regulation will be moral people? You didn't answer this question. You just have faith that those in government will do what is good and right. As it turns out, government at all levels is rife with corruption. You've replaced one evil with a greater one.
You don't get to choose the actions of others. Enron, Martha Stewart, and Halliburton are all companies working withing a capitalist system.
Likewise, some people in labor unions are totally corrupt. Should I assume that the entire "union system" is evil becuase some of the people within it are immoral?
Furthermore, since you define capitalism as evil, you are using these facts of corporate immorality like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not for illumination.
So what is "fraud"?
This is a non-trivial question. It's why we have courts to help answer it. The courts are run by humans, so they are imperfect. It's the best we can do right now.
Does that mean that a police officer should not be able to impound the car of a drunk driver?
A drunk driver represents a threat to others' lives and deserves to be removed by force. This is a legitimate function of the state: protecting the lives of the citizenry from predators and the irresponsible.
Is depriving a child molester of liberty through forceful imprisonment immoral?
No. The abuse of the child is immoral. Someone who chooses to deprive a child of life in this way is a predator, and it is a legitimate function of the state to remove this predator from the citizenry.
Is it immoral to shoot someone who's holding a knife at your wife's throat, thus depriving them of life through force?
No. My relationship with my wife is my property (though it cannot be stolen like physical property, I would certainly feel loss and grieve if it were to be removed). If some predator tries to use force to deprive me of it, then it is moral for me to use force to protect it. It was the predator, not I, who chose the path of the animal. And those who choose to live like animals deserve to die like animals. They have no place in a civil society, and we cannot rely on the state to protect us from predators.
You do a good job of parroting patriotism in your words, but they are rather amorphous.
You have to ask specifics to understand how my philosphy works in practice. It seems like you have done a good job doing that here, though I don't think you expected me to have answers to your questions. You are, after all, a Lefist and thus defined as more "intelligent" than everyone else who doesn't accept your irrational, elitist philosophy.
My philosophy is logic-based and I could humiliate you in a public debate.
Then why not humiliate me here? We don't have to wait for a public debate. I invite you to challenge my philosophy at all of its levels, and I reserve the right to challenge yours at all its levels. If we are both rational people (and you claim to be one, though I don't believe you yet), then hopefully our dialoge will lead one of us to a greater understanding of what is ethical.
I notice that you have not denied that you define captialism as evil. I also notice that you didn't deny that the concept of "harming others" is vague. Should I assume that you agree with these statments since you made no effort to correct me?
what's sick is this scumbag thinks it's acceptable for someone to be beaten, tortured, raped, stabbed, have his teeth beaten out with a pipe and mouth-fucked for hours on end, as long as the person can reasonably be expected to know that that's a possibility.
While all of this may be true, you're not doing your position any favors by calling him a scumbag or an idiot. Such invective only makes your opponent resistant to your ideas.
I find it more effective to ask direct questions so my opponent is compelled to reveal the reasoning behind his positions. You notice that he has yet to answer my question. We'll get to the bottom of his evil belief once he dares to do so.
And that's why we need regulation.
How do you know that those doing the regulation will be moral people?
You may choose to reject the idea of fraud,
Where did you get this idea about me? I think fraud is immoral and should be illegal.
And the definition contains nothing about "honesty and exchange of value for value." You imposed that on the definition.
You are repeating what I told you. We each make our own understandings of what capitalism implies. I have chosen to make it moral while you have chosen to make it immoral.
The difference is that we are surrounded by huge corporations who don't share your professed values.
I thought your point is that all captialism, by definition, is evil. What does it matter if some people choose to make money through force or fraud?
They are very good. And what needs to be done is insure that someone else's desire for property doesn't end up harming others.
I agree, though you'll have to explain what "harming others" means exactly (good luck!). I think it is immoral and it should be illegal to deprive another individual of life, liberty, or property through force or fraud. "Harming others" is much more vague and subject to the whims of our petty emotions. It fits in well with your emotion-based philosophy.
Some people would argue that having those regulations in place infringes on the freedom of a person to buy all the TV stations they want.
And they would be right. Person A wants to buy something. Person B wants to sell this something to person A. Then the government steps in and says, "A, you do not have the right to buy this, and, B, you do not have the right to sell it."
Others argue that allowing all of the media outlets to fall into the hands of a very small group infringes on the freedom of the the majority of people to have the public airways used to broadcast a wide variety of perspectives.
I believe people have the rights to life, liberty, or property. Here, you add "the right to the the majority of the media not falling into a arbitrarily-small group of people". It just smacks of emotionalism.
If you really think about it, the first argument (the pro-capitalist argument) is kind of like saying that the bill of rights infringes on the freedom of the King of England to have his every whim obeyed.
Freedom can not imply that you are free to remove someone else's freedom (or life, or property).