Maybe the problem isn't that Linux users are being arrogant, but that non-Linux users are being jealous. I think this might account for a lot of the smugness which eminates from the *BSD camp. They have a perfectly good OS, and one that is, in many ways, superior to Linux. Yet Linux gets all the press and all the hype.
You are absolutely correct. Let's take it a step further.
Government taxes cigarettes to discourage smoking. In other words, if you don't live the government-approved lifestyle, then you have to pay extra money. This is similar to Muslims taking over countries and telling its citizenry, "If you don't convert to Islam, then you must pay a tax."
Some big-government types have reccommended that we enact a tax on twinkies and other "high-fat" foods.
Remember, government knows best (and sends its Japanese citizens to concentration camps).
If you aren't doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.
Lots of people seem to feel this way. These seem people also seem to be the same people who think that government should be the arbiters of morality and that laws exist to make sure that people are doing the right thing.
"I'm not downloading kiddie porn, so everything is okay. The government can set up a vidscreen in my living room and I don't mind at all. Since I'm not doing anything wrong, what do I have to fear?"
The problem with this is that the lawmakers are no more or less moral than any in the citizenry. Furthermore, it fails to take into account the psychological fact that every person finds his or her own morality. What gives the government the right to dictate morality on the citizenry? Do you really want people like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy dictating morality to you? And what makes their morality any better than anyone else's?
This is why I think the only things which should be illegal are things which deprives other people of life, liberty, or property. For this reason kiddie porn is illegal, but drugs are not. Key words in my belief are "other people" -- every person should be completely free to destroy his or her self if they so desire as long as it's only his or her self that is destroyed by their actions.
This is why we need privacy. The government is simply not equipped to decide what we should or should not be doing. Nor can they adequately "monitor" anyone to ensure that they are living the "government-approved lifestyle." And it cannot be shown that the "government-approved lifestyle" is any better than any other lifestyle. The best that government can do is to make laws forbidding the deprivation of another's life, liberty, or property and then enforce those laws. If we allow government to do otherwise, then we are at the whims other other people who are neither more moral nor better equipped to govern than we are -- and they have the right to use deadly force to enact their goals.
A democracy, even a representative democracy, is a system where the populace directly (direct democracy) or indirectly (representative democracy) by a majority vote controls the decisions made in the government (this isn't a proper defenition,/. love to nitpick).
Almost correct. The part you left out was that the majority rules, the minority loses.
A "constitutional republic" is a system whereby this vote of the public is put to work. It refers to how the country and control of the country is _organized_, as opposed to how it is ultimately controlled. You can have a democratic "constitutional republic" or a non-democratic one.
This is totally wrong. A constitutional republic is a government by which the public elects officials to enact laws. The laws govern the people, the legislators make the laws, and the public elects the legislators. Our republic is definately not "democratic." Read the constitution and see how many types of changes require a two-thirds vote. Simple majority does not always win.
Your personal opinion about what is right and wrong doesn't completly control what you can do.
Yes it does, provided that I do not infringe on someone elses right to life, liberty, or property.
I believe it's a good idea for me to go on a three week murder spree. The majority in this country doesn't. I believe I should be able to spend all my dough promoting and handing out a heavy duty drug to children. For some reason the society tries to FORCE me to spend it elsewhere. It's my money, no?
This is really stupid. For some reason you believe that it's the majority which regulates your actions. This is wrong; we have laws which make the three-week murder spree illegal. Let me say this again: we are governed by laws, not by the majority. Majority rule is mob rule. And in response to "...society tries to FORCE me to spend it elsewhere" -- "society" isn't forcing me to do crap. It's the GOVERNMENT who is using force! Tell me, if I choose to deduct money from my taxes that I pay to the Federal Government becuase I don't like the space program, then what happens? Will "society" come and arrest me? Hell no! The GOVERNMENT will! And if I resist they will KILL ME. Your "society" argument is completely stupid.
This is what it all boils down to. The society as a whole, through the vote of democracy, does.
Wrong again! We are not a democracy, and it's not society making the choices. Most Americans don't even vote, so how could they? It's government legislators who make those choices, and the reason they take money from high income earners is to buy votes by giving said plundered money to the low income earners.
If you don't like what the majority decides, move. Doing that is YOUR democratic right.
Thank goodness I don't like in a democracy and don't have to worry about the tyranny of mob rule which you describe here. Tell me, what happens to the black minority when the white majority decides that the blacks are inferior and should be enslaved? Doesn't paint a very rosy picture of democracy, does it?
It's prefectly possible to move somewhere where you don't need to pay for no space shuttle and where most laws that impede your personal
freedoms are easily ignored.
All laws that impede my freedoms should be repealed. That is, unless they infringe on someone else's life, liberty, or property.
Ofcourse, you will probably have to live with some poverfy around you, a non existant or corrupt police force, bad roads, and some other inconviniences
We already live with those. In fact, big government is responsible for many of those things.
But why not start a business that fixes those problems? I mean, you don't trust some government to fix them do you?
I sure don't. The government corrupts everything it touches. Tell me this: can you name a government program which has succeeded on its goals? (I'll give you some examples of government programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Drug War, the Department of Education's programs).
I dissent:-) Sex makes babies. Not all of the time, but enough to be a major social issue.
Mostly true. I am gay, so I don't have to worry about unwanted pregnancy. (It's the *wanted* pregnancy which is a problem.)
Violence, on the other hand, makes black eyes, which go away.
You make it sound as if black eyes are the only outcome of violence, and we both know that this is not the case. Violence causes some damage that can be as trivial as what you claim, but can also bring about much more chronic and damaging things. Take death, for instance. Or disability. Or psychological damage (what happens to the innocent children who see their parents engage in violence).
In terms of safety, more people get herpes than get shot,
And more people engage in domestic violence than get herpes. I think domestic violence is a much larger problem than herpes will ever be. Herpes is non-fatal. We can't say the same thing for domestic violence, which can have long-reaching and long-lasting destructive effects.
and more people die from sex (HIV), then die from wars.
This is simply not true. 20 million Russians died in World War II. It's going to be a while before AIDS can claim that many. Besides, people die from AIDS because due to a virus, not due to sex. Yes, I know that the virus is transmitted sexually, but you also have to admit that other viruses are transmitted by much more innocuous human contact (e.g. tuberculosis). By your argument, all human contact causes death.
We need to learn how to stop disease, not human contact.
If we could all learn to make war, not love, the world would be a much safer place.
Unless you are the one who happens to get raped, pillaged, or killed in said war, right? I can't see how you have come to this conclusion.
Policing school and library computers is something we do need. It's fine if someone wants to look at porn at home in private, and it's not my call as to what you allow your kids to see at home, but when kids go to school it's like giving them up to a government baby-sitter for the day.
You go on to admit that government schools are a bad idea, from which I infer that government schools are doing a poor job of doing anything right for children. How then can you conclude that we need to give government more responsibility? Shouldn't your response be something more like, "We need to get government out of the business of education."?
I've seen some posts here say that maybe it's perfectly natural for kids to be sexually active as early as 13. Maybe.
There's no "maybe" about it. It's absolutely positive. I chose 13 as a nice trade-off between youth and sexual energy, but people are also sexual at 11, at 9, at 7, at 5... hell, even as infants they play with their genitals. Like all other creatures, people are very sexual beings.
But many of us in this society are Christians who believe sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong.
And a few of us in this society are athiests and ex-christians and know how to identify mythology for what it is. There is nothing wrong with sex. The breaking of a committment is wrong. And you don't get to decide what "marraige" means for someone else. Marraige has existed in every culture of humans on this planet, and its role has always been to regulate sexual functions.
I guess it was easier when we were all farmers and craftsmen who could educate kids until 12 or so and marry them off at 13....I'd like to see things change a bit in society. I think one of our problems is that it's so economically and socially unfeasible to marry before the early to mid 20s.
There are lots of reasons why people are getting married later. People are living longer. People have more money and more independence. There is less shame for being divorced or having "illegitimate" children (notice how the term punishes the child intead of the act which it intends to punish).
I think your implication that children should be married at 13 to keep them from having sex outside of marraige is the stupidest thing I've read all day. First, there is nothing wrong with sex. Second, how can you expect a 13-year-old to be able to have a successful marraige in today's society?
Huh? Bush proposes to do filtering in places funded by public money--libraries, etc. This seems completely within the boundaries of the government's responsibilities!
Please cite where I might find that in the Constitution.
He said -nothing- about filtering in someone's home and taking over the job of the parent.
Neither did I.
If you read Gore's statement, he wants protection 95% of the time a page comes up... who's infringing on parental responsibility now?
I'm sorry, but I get violently ill every time I read what Gore has said, so I try to limit my intake of that kind of reading material. Did you assume that my attack on Bush was an endorsement of Gore?
Someone mod that inaccurate post down!
Your accusation that my post is inaccurate looks really stupid in light of the fact that you believe that robbing high income earners to pay for libraries and Internet filtering software is a valid function of the U.S. Government.
I wouldn't want my kids going down to the library to research something on the Internet and, knowing how searches bring up nonsense 98% of the time, pulling up some elephant sex porn site or something equally as disturbing.
First, perhaps you should accompany your kids to the library, or only allow them to go to a library where they won't be exposed to something that you don't want them to see. That would be taking responsibility for your childrens' welfare rather than trying to make someone else do it. Second, I think that children are much more damaged by seeing violence than they are seeing sex. We Americans are *very* hung up on sex as if it were something dirty. South Americans and Europeans are much more open about sexuality and (rightfully) think that Americans are weirdos. For bizarre reasons Americans still see "gangsta rap" as more palatable than pornography.
Then they'll come home and ask you about it, then what are you going to say?
I'd probably say, "Some people like having sex with elephants." I know several people who grew up having their parents be very frank with them about sex, even when their kids were two and three. They live perfectly healthy lives and in no way ever felt bad by what their parents told them.
It wasn't able to block everything, but it got most of the more raunchy images.
God forbid that kids see people engaged in sex. Violent sex is another matter (becuase the violence is bad!), but healthy and positive sex is a good thing.
I find it odd that people think children are sexless creatures. Do they realize how many kids are sexually active at 13 and suffer no psychological damage from it? I'm not talking about pedophilia (which is vile and deserves harsh punishment). I'm talking about kids looking at pornography, masturbating, and having sex with their peers. I'm sure there are quite of few of us here who have had many such experiences.
You mean taxpayer money. Bush favors the government taking money from high income earners and using that money to police other people's kids.
The most disgusting aspect of this is that the Republicans claim to be for smaller government then propose a big-government "solution" to a problem that does not exist.
It still comes down to a matter of parents deciding to be responsible for their own children. The government has no place here. When asked the question about Internet content filtering, Gore and Bush should have both replied, "It's not the job of the government to decide what people's children should see and should not see. It is the job of the parents."
Which is what the candidate who is getting my vote believes.
One of the biggest benefits of open source software is that its cost is infinitely scalable. How much does it cost to install debian on a compuer? Nothing. Copy the disk from a friend and install it for free and completely legally. How much does it cost to install debian on 1,000 computers? Nothing. Still free. Use the same disk if you want to. Now run the same test for a Microsoft solution. The Linux solution is infinitely less expensive.
For corporations who have to deal with competition this is an important factor. But for government, cost is hardly a factor at all. Government is not competing with anyone. If government does not have enough money, then it just takes more money from the taxpayers. Anyone here who has worked in a government job can attest to the enormous amounts of waste becuase of this and other aspects of government work.
So in relation to the post to which I'm responding: sure the NT solution is infinitely more expensive, but this is a government job. It's not like the government is going out of business due to any competition. Taking that pesky little "cost" aspect out of the software decision makes the decision much easier: Go for the convenient solution and make the taxpayers sholder the cost.
I read the article that you linked to, and I appreciate your sharing it with us. It finally shows the second half of the Gore-defenders' statement "Al Gore never claimed to invent the Internet." Al Gore's quote is this: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Sure, he did not literally say, "I created the internet," but, frankly, there is no other way to interpret what he said. Gore supporters have relied on the fact that people have paraphrased Gore's statement to its real meaning to try and diminish the criticism. The argument is that Gore didn't say that he "created" the internet, so therefore the criticism is invalid.
Well, that begs the question: If what Gore said does not mean that he created the internet, then what does it really mean? The stupid Salon article attempts to explain it.
Let's look at the opening of the Salon article:
That Al Gore once claimed to have "invented the Internet" is now part of electoral folklore -- one item in a litany of Gore "exaggerations" or "lies" that his opponents trot out to discredit him.
Notice how salon chooses to put the words "exaggerations" and "lies" in double-quotes. In other words, Salon is telling the world that Gore's statements are neither exaggerations nor lies. It doesn't take a genius to realize on which side of the political fence Salon is standing.
So how does Salon answer my question? They do it on the second page of the report in the first paragraph:
Several of the people who could claim to have "invented" the Internet, or key pieces of its protocols -- in particular, Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn -- are out there on the Net today defending Gore, asserting that he was the politician in Washington who took the "initiative" to support the Net in its early days.
Salon has done something devious here. First, they have changed Gore's word "creating" to "support" (or, to be parallel, "supporting"). In other words, according to Salon, what Gore meant to say was that he "took the initiative in supporting the Internet." Second, Salon shifts the focus of their argument from the word "creating" to the word "initiative." Salon then aims to show evidence for Gore's "initiative" (in "supporting" the Internet).
It isn't hard to show evidence that Gore supported the Internet. Unfortunately for Salon, that's not what Gore said. Gore said that he took the initiative in creating the Internet, not in "supporting" the Internet.
The article also goes to some length in trying to embarrass the Libertarians by showing a government project that "worked." (If you can't attack your opponent's argument, then attack your opponent. The basis of argumentum ad hominem.) What Salon fails to acknowledge is that the Internet was originally a military project, and the Libertarians position on the military is that it is a valid function of government. Furthermore, the author probably knows that the Libertarians have many more examples of failed government vote-buying programs than the big-government-lovers have examples of successful government programs.
In conclusion, the Salon article is crap. Furthermore, the argument "but Gore didn't say that!" which Gore defenders are constantly saying is also crap. Gore said that he took the initiative in creating the Internet, and the only thing that that statement means is that Gore is taking credit for creating the Internet.
I'd also like to point out that lots of Gore supporters are trying to diminish the comment, but Gore has been mostly silent about his Internet claim (except in saying that he stands by his words).
I did not call you a moron, I (indirectly) called your statements moronic. But it does seem that you are calling me a moron.
and who's comparing apples and oranges? The US is a representative democracy (and nobody needs to point out the technicalities surrounding this statement) and a constitutional republic. It's perfectly possible to be both as these systems are not mutually exclusive or comparable.
I don't see how I was comparing apples and oranges, I believe I was correctly identifying the United States government for what it is. Could you explain to me the differences between constitutional republic and represenative democracy and why the two are not mutually exclusive? (This is a curious question, not a challenging one.)
But then again, I'd like to think that exploring space is a a good thing for mankind, that pushing our boundaries, exploring and going further is one of our goals as a civilization. I'd hate to see us stop that journey of exploration because there are no short term monetary profits to be made.
So anything that you would "like to think" is a "good thing for mankind" is something that the government has the right to FORCE me to pay for? What if I don't agree with it and don't want to pay for it?
Nope, you are wrong, that wasn't the implication. That specifically is something you invented yourself to be able to present your favourite argument.
You are correct. I apologize.
Read what I wrote once more. But some would argue that taking care of each other is nice and that people dying, losing eyesight, bodyparts, or
whatever, from treatable or curable diseases is a bad for the society as a whole on a pure economical level (not to mention on a level of human suffering, but that apparently doesn't concern you).
Apparently my argument struck a nerve in you even though it was misplaced. First, you again have tried to divert the discussion from the issue of public health care to some personal attack against me. Second, I can totally agree that if the people in a society are healthier, then the society is better off. I infer that you think that government must therefore take control of health care, and I don't understand how anyone can use facts and reason to come upon that conclusion.
But who am I trying to take your money for the greater good of the society? I mean, it's yours, you earned it, every cent, and you don't owe no steenkin society anything do you?
Exactly. It is mine, I earned it, and I don't owe anyone anything outside of my family and the promises I've made. You seem to be trying to make me feel guilty with your sarcastic comment. In other words, this is yet another ad hominem.
Tell me, who gets to decide what the "greater good" is? And what's the limit on how much I owe?
I couldn't. Is that good?
Maybe you're a step closer to realizing that it is stupid and will always be stupid for government to tax corporations. Corporations do not pay taxes. They collect taxes.
The page was new to me. From the looks of the comments, it was new to a bunch of others as well.
I can say for myself that I spend very little time on any of Microsoft's web pages. Perhaps you spend hours on Microsoft's pages every day, but I can say that there are plenty of us who don't, and interesting tidbits like these are the only things which would bring people like me to any Microsoft page.
And on the way down to the IRS office you'll probably drive on one of those horrible no fee roads that were payed for by...
You start off on the right foot, almost. Could there not have been a private solution to building roads?
And maybe you'll go vote against more taxes, courtesy of a democracy that is payed for by...
Do some research. Our government is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. When was the last time citizens were able to vote on the passage of a law?
And then there's the saturday afternoon entertainment, heading down to the Cape and getting a good look at yet another exploding space shuttle, payed for by...
And the wasteful space program which I do not like is something I'm supposed to be thanking the government for?
And when you get horribly ill and your treatment runs far more than you or your family can afford, and it all end with a previously healthy middle class all american family broke and you dead since you couldn't afford to treat your illness, then you can at least be happy Microsoft didn't have to pay no taxes. But ofcourse, that could never happen to you, now could it? All scare tactics aren't they?
The implication here is that we need to suck on the government teat in order to get health care, as if health care was a "right." Tell me, how can anyone have a right to health care without having a right to someone else's property? Also, tell me where health care is listed as a right in the constution.
Beyond that, tell me of *any* corporation that pays taxes instead of collecting them on behalf of the government.
Some people feel sorry for no one except maybe themselves, possibly because they're just plain mean sons of guns.
I didn't write that I didn't feel sorry for those people. I did write that I have no compassion for them. And I don't feel bad about not having any compassion for them. I have compassion for my family, my friends, and myself, and for strangers which, in particular times, need my compassion. I reserve the right to judge which strangers are worthy of my compassion. Guess what? Everyone does this. I'm no different from anyone else. My guess is that you want to condemn me for not having compassion for the people that you want me to have compassion for.
I feel sorry for everyone, because we're all going to die pretty soon.
What's so bad about dying in and of itself? Death is a blessing to some people. And "pretty soon" is relative, of course. Some insects have a lifespan of one day.
Whatever.
You feel the need to spout your opinion on slashdot and insert the implication that I am "mean." Then you end your diatribe with "whatever." Why on earth would you do that? Do you mean what you write? Do you care if anyone reads it? I wonder if you post statements on/. just because you have nothing better to do.
I say they are invading my privacy because they are invading my private, personal time to which I gave them no right. I regard it as a personal affront, not a legal one.
Oh? Really? So everybody has infinite skills in infinite fields, and can get whatever job they want at any time? I wasn't aware of that...
First, could you lay off the sarcasm please? Second, your argument is a strawman. I was not arguing that people are good enough to get any job they want, but instead that the job market is good enough that almost everyone has a choice of what kind of job they can get. Hence, everyone who is a telemarketer has an option of one of several jobs.
When people have to fight for their next meal, they do not have morals. They don't give a shit about you, or your fucking dinnertime, because they don't GET a dinnertime.
So the "not giving a shit about the other" feeling is mutual. I could not possibly care less. But the strange thing is that you think this gives some people the right to invade my personal time with unsolicited harassment.
It's people like you that keep minimum wage down, social security low, and the unemployment rate high!
Since you seem to be such a scholor of economics, why don't you inform me as to what I, personally, have done to effect any of those things. Also, I thought we were discussing telemarketers. Why do you feel the need to insert these ad hominems?
If you idiots would pull your heads out of your fucking gilt assholes, and actually vote for some of these affirmitive action/social security/minimum wage increase bills, you wouldn't have to pay so many fucking taxes, because the lower class would be able to support themselves, and not have to take shitty jobs as telemarketers!
"Evil rich, exalted poor." It's getting pretty old. Do you accept that a large reason that the poor stay poor is that they make bad choices (e.g. not get an education, not seek marketable skills, have multiple children that they can't afford to raise, spend money on beer, cigarettes, and cable TV, etc.)? Furthermore, you should know as well as I that the upper class is never going to see a tax cut because the lower classes will never have the government teat removed from their mouths. It simply buys too many votes that keep the big government cronies in power. You might also wish to share with me where in the Constitution the federal government has the right to dictate what employers should pay their employees.
Some of us don't get SHIT from our parents. Some of us get DEBT from our parents. That's what I got.
And what did you assume that my parents gave to me? Honestly I can't see how it matters in this discussion. We all lead hard lives.
Telemarketing jobs pay pretty damn well, up to $15 an hour, so when people get to choose between making $5.20 at jack in the box, coming home smelling like grease every night, and making $15 at a telemarketing firm, what the fuck do you think they're going to do? Say "oh, no, I'd have to interrupt people's dinner; I can't do that..."? If you think that, then get your head out of your ass, because people do NOT think that way.
Obviously I couldn't think that because it's pretty clear that I do, in fact, receive those repugnant telemarketing calls. Let me reiterate: I do not care about the lives of telemarketers or their issues. Nor do I have to care. Nor do I have to feel guilty if I don't. I'm responsible for me and my family and that's it. What I do care about is the fact that I am having my privacy invaded by some unethical person doing an unethical thing, and I react harshly to that.
Yes, telemarketers call you at dinnertime. Sure, they may be annoying fucks, but that's their job, and I personally try not to hate anybody for their job, even the cops.
Everyone has a choice of what kind of job they want to have. In our current job market (of the US, that is) we have more opportunities than ever before. It's not like people are being forced into telemarketing.
In other words, people who are telemarketers had a choice of what jobs to get, and they chose the evil job of telemarketing. For this reason, I am abrasive and insulting as the law will allow me to be when they call me. Why? Becuase they are part of the problem.
My hope is that in my lifetime I've inspired just a few more telemarketers to quit and vow never again to return to the business.
Don't yell at them, don't piss whine and moan because they called you at dinnertime, because that's the only time that they work (4-8 or so), because it's just a part time job that they pay the bills with.
I have absolutely no compassion for those people. I don't care about their hard lives or their bills. If they don't like what I dish out then perhaps they should consider getting one of a few million jobs out there that don't involve invading my privacy and trying to sell me garbage that I don't need, never asked for, and never showed interest in.
You may have been here first but remember the american indians?
Am I to read this as, "The American Indians sucked, and you're like them, so you suck, too."? That's certainly how it sounds.
You may have smarts but us MS people definetly have numbers.
Thanks for the compliment and the tacet admission that MS people don't have "smarts" and must rely on their numbers for any kind of credibility. Oh, BTW, you are exhibiting argumentum ad numeram.
And you might also try responding to my original points. But, at this point, I'm doubtful that you can.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the problem isn't that Linux users are being arrogant, but that non-Linux users are being jealous. I think this might account for a lot of the smugness which eminates from the *BSD camp. They have a perfectly good OS, and one that is, in many ways, superior to Linux. Yet Linux gets all the press and all the hype.
Psychologically, it makes sense.
How does downloading any type of porn deprive people of life, liberty, etc...?
People who view child porn are those who create the market and the incentive for those who produce it.
You are absolutely correct. Let's take it a step further.
Government taxes cigarettes to discourage smoking. In other words, if you don't live the government-approved lifestyle, then you have to pay extra money. This is similar to Muslims taking over countries and telling its citizenry, "If you don't convert to Islam, then you must pay a tax."
Some big-government types have reccommended that we enact a tax on twinkies and other "high-fat" foods.
Remember, government knows best (and sends its Japanese citizens to concentration camps).
For this reason kiddie porn is illegal, but drugs are not.
I meant to write, "Under this concept, kiddie porn would still be illegal, but drugs would not be."
If you aren't doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.
Lots of people seem to feel this way. These seem people also seem to be the same people who think that government should be the arbiters of morality and that laws exist to make sure that people are doing the right thing.
"I'm not downloading kiddie porn, so everything is okay. The government can set up a vidscreen in my living room and I don't mind at all. Since I'm not doing anything wrong, what do I have to fear?"
The problem with this is that the lawmakers are no more or less moral than any in the citizenry. Furthermore, it fails to take into account the psychological fact that every person finds his or her own morality. What gives the government the right to dictate morality on the citizenry? Do you really want people like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy dictating morality to you? And what makes their morality any better than anyone else's?
This is why I think the only things which should be illegal are things which deprives other people of life, liberty, or property. For this reason kiddie porn is illegal, but drugs are not. Key words in my belief are "other people" -- every person should be completely free to destroy his or her self if they so desire as long as it's only his or her self that is destroyed by their actions.
This is why we need privacy. The government is simply not equipped to decide what we should or should not be doing. Nor can they adequately "monitor" anyone to ensure that they are living the "government-approved lifestyle." And it cannot be shown that the "government-approved lifestyle" is any better than any other lifestyle. The best that government can do is to make laws forbidding the deprivation of another's life, liberty, or property and then enforce those laws. If we allow government to do otherwise, then we are at the whims other other people who are neither more moral nor better equipped to govern than we are -- and they have the right to use deadly force to enact their goals.
There is a solution.
Better? In what way? You'll probably say, "Lisp is elegant, beautiful, and advanced."
But you won't say, "Lisp is useful."
A democracy, even a representative democracy, is a system where the populace directly (direct democracy) or indirectly (representative democracy) by a majority vote controls the decisions made in the government (this isn't a proper defenition, /. love to nitpick).
Almost correct. The part you left out was that the majority rules, the minority loses.
A "constitutional republic" is a system whereby this vote of the public is put to work. It refers to how the country and control of the country is _organized_, as opposed to how it is ultimately controlled. You can have a democratic "constitutional republic" or a non-democratic one.
This is totally wrong. A constitutional republic is a government by which the public elects officials to enact laws. The laws govern the people, the legislators make the laws, and the public elects the legislators. Our republic is definately not "democratic." Read the constitution and see how many types of changes require a two-thirds vote. Simple majority does not always win.
Your personal opinion about what is right and wrong doesn't completly control what you can do.
Yes it does, provided that I do not infringe on someone elses right to life, liberty, or property.
I believe it's a good idea for me to go on a three week murder spree. The majority in this country doesn't. I believe I should be able to spend all my dough promoting and handing out a heavy duty drug to children. For some reason the society tries to FORCE me to spend it elsewhere. It's my money, no?
This is really stupid. For some reason you believe that it's the majority which regulates your actions. This is wrong; we have laws which make the three-week murder spree illegal. Let me say this again: we are governed by laws, not by the majority. Majority rule is mob rule. And in response to "...society tries to FORCE me to spend it elsewhere" -- "society" isn't forcing me to do crap. It's the GOVERNMENT who is using force! Tell me, if I choose to deduct money from my taxes that I pay to the Federal Government becuase I don't like the space program, then what happens? Will "society" come and arrest me? Hell no! The GOVERNMENT will! And if I resist they will KILL ME. Your "society" argument is completely stupid.
This is what it all boils down to. The society as a whole, through the vote of democracy, does.
Wrong again! We are not a democracy, and it's not society making the choices. Most Americans don't even vote, so how could they? It's government legislators who make those choices, and the reason they take money from high income earners is to buy votes by giving said plundered money to the low income earners.
If you don't like what the majority decides, move. Doing that is YOUR democratic right.
Thank goodness I don't like in a democracy and don't have to worry about the tyranny of mob rule which you describe here. Tell me, what happens to the black minority when the white majority decides that the blacks are inferior and should be enslaved? Doesn't paint a very rosy picture of democracy, does it?
It's prefectly possible to move somewhere where you don't need to pay for no space shuttle and where most laws that impede your personal
freedoms are easily ignored.
All laws that impede my freedoms should be repealed. That is, unless they infringe on someone else's life, liberty, or property.
Ofcourse, you will probably have to live with some poverfy around you, a non existant or corrupt police force, bad roads, and some other inconviniences
We already live with those. In fact, big government is responsible for many of those things.
But why not start a business that fixes those problems? I mean, you don't trust some government to fix them do you?
I sure don't. The government corrupts everything it touches. Tell me this: can you name a government program which has succeeded on its goals? (I'll give you some examples of government programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Drug War, the Department of Education's programs).
I think your argument needs some work.
I dissent :-) Sex makes babies. Not all of the time, but enough to be a major social issue.
Mostly true. I am gay, so I don't have to worry about unwanted pregnancy. (It's the *wanted* pregnancy which is a problem.)
Violence, on the other hand, makes black eyes, which go away.
You make it sound as if black eyes are the only outcome of violence, and we both know that this is not the case. Violence causes some damage that can be as trivial as what you claim, but can also bring about much more chronic and damaging things. Take death, for instance. Or disability. Or psychological damage (what happens to the innocent children who see their parents engage in violence).
In terms of safety, more people get herpes than get shot,
And more people engage in domestic violence than get herpes. I think domestic violence is a much larger problem than herpes will ever be. Herpes is non-fatal. We can't say the same thing for domestic violence, which can have long-reaching and long-lasting destructive effects.
and more people die from sex (HIV), then die from wars.
This is simply not true. 20 million Russians died in World War II. It's going to be a while before AIDS can claim that many. Besides, people die from AIDS because due to a virus, not due to sex. Yes, I know that the virus is transmitted sexually, but you also have to admit that other viruses are transmitted by much more innocuous human contact (e.g. tuberculosis). By your argument, all human contact causes death.
We need to learn how to stop disease, not human contact.
If we could all learn to make war, not love, the world would be a much safer place.
Unless you are the one who happens to get raped, pillaged, or killed in said war, right? I can't see how you have come to this conclusion.
Policing school and library computers is something we do need. It's fine if someone wants to look at porn at home in private, and it's not my call as to what you allow your kids to see at home, but when kids go to school it's like giving them up to a government baby-sitter for the day.
You go on to admit that government schools are a bad idea, from which I infer that government schools are doing a poor job of doing anything right for children. How then can you conclude that we need to give government more responsibility? Shouldn't your response be something more like, "We need to get government out of the business of education."?
I've seen some posts here say that maybe it's perfectly natural for kids to be sexually active as early as 13. Maybe.
There's no "maybe" about it. It's absolutely positive. I chose 13 as a nice trade-off between youth and sexual energy, but people are also sexual at 11, at 9, at 7, at 5... hell, even as infants they play with their genitals. Like all other creatures, people are very sexual beings.
But many of us in this society are Christians who believe sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong.
And a few of us in this society are athiests and ex-christians and know how to identify mythology for what it is. There is nothing wrong with sex. The breaking of a committment is wrong. And you don't get to decide what "marraige" means for someone else. Marraige has existed in every culture of humans on this planet, and its role has always been to regulate sexual functions.
I guess it was easier when we were all farmers and craftsmen who could educate kids until 12 or so and marry them off at 13....I'd like to see things change a bit in society. I think one of our problems is that it's so economically and socially unfeasible to marry before the early to mid 20s.
There are lots of reasons why people are getting married later. People are living longer. People have more money and more independence. There is less shame for being divorced or having "illegitimate" children (notice how the term punishes the child intead of the act which it intends to punish).
I think your implication that children should be married at 13 to keep them from having sex outside of marraige is the stupidest thing I've read all day. First, there is nothing wrong with sex. Second, how can you expect a 13-year-old to be able to have a successful marraige in today's society?
Thanks... :)
Huh? Bush proposes to do filtering in places funded by public money--libraries, etc. This seems completely within the boundaries of the government's responsibilities!
Please cite where I might find that in the Constitution.
He said -nothing- about filtering in someone's home and taking over the job of the parent.
Neither did I.
If you read Gore's statement, he wants protection 95% of the time a page comes up... who's infringing on parental responsibility now?
I'm sorry, but I get violently ill every time I read what Gore has said, so I try to limit my intake of that kind of reading material. Did you assume that my attack on Bush was an endorsement of Gore?
Someone mod that inaccurate post down!
Your accusation that my post is inaccurate looks really stupid in light of the fact that you believe that robbing high income earners to pay for libraries and Internet filtering software is a valid function of the U.S. Government.
I wouldn't want my kids going down to the library to research something on the Internet and, knowing how searches bring up nonsense 98% of the time, pulling up some elephant sex porn site or something equally as disturbing.
First, perhaps you should accompany your kids to the library, or only allow them to go to a library where they won't be exposed to something that you don't want them to see. That would be taking responsibility for your childrens' welfare rather than trying to make someone else do it. Second, I think that children are much more damaged by seeing violence than they are seeing sex. We Americans are *very* hung up on sex as if it were something dirty. South Americans and Europeans are much more open about sexuality and (rightfully) think that Americans are weirdos. For bizarre reasons Americans still see "gangsta rap" as more palatable than pornography.
Then they'll come home and ask you about it, then what are you going to say?
I'd probably say, "Some people like having sex with elephants." I know several people who grew up having their parents be very frank with them about sex, even when their kids were two and three. They live perfectly healthy lives and in no way ever felt bad by what their parents told them.
It wasn't able to block everything, but it got most of the more raunchy images.
God forbid that kids see people engaged in sex. Violent sex is another matter (becuase the violence is bad!), but healthy and positive sex is a good thing.
I find it odd that people think children are sexless creatures. Do they realize how many kids are sexually active at 13 and suffer no psychological damage from it? I'm not talking about pedophilia (which is vile and deserves harsh punishment). I'm talking about kids looking at pornography, masturbating, and having sex with their peers. I'm sure there are quite of few of us here who have had many such experiences.
You mean taxpayer money. Bush favors the government taking money from high income earners and using that money to police other people's kids.
The most disgusting aspect of this is that the Republicans claim to be for smaller government then propose a big-government "solution" to a problem that does not exist.
It still comes down to a matter of parents deciding to be responsible for their own children. The government has no place here. When asked the question about Internet content filtering, Gore and Bush should have both replied, "It's not the job of the government to decide what people's children should see and should not see. It is the job of the parents."
Which is what the candidate who is getting my vote believes.
Please try to contain yourself. This is a public forum on a web page. I'm sure you can find something much more significant to get excited about.
One of the biggest benefits of open source software is that its cost is infinitely scalable. How much does it cost to install debian on a compuer? Nothing. Copy the disk from a friend and install it for free and completely legally. How much does it cost to install debian on 1,000 computers? Nothing. Still free. Use the same disk if you want to. Now run the same test for a Microsoft solution. The Linux solution is infinitely less expensive.
For corporations who have to deal with competition this is an important factor. But for government, cost is hardly a factor at all. Government is not competing with anyone. If government does not have enough money, then it just takes more money from the taxpayers. Anyone here who has worked in a government job can attest to the enormous amounts of waste becuase of this and other aspects of government work.
So in relation to the post to which I'm responding: sure the NT solution is infinitely more expensive, but this is a government job. It's not like the government is going out of business due to any competition. Taking that pesky little "cost" aspect out of the software decision makes the decision much easier: Go for the convenient solution and make the taxpayers sholder the cost.
Vote Libertarian!
Well, that begs the question: If what Gore said does not mean that he created the internet, then what does it really mean? The stupid Salon article attempts to explain it.
Let's look at the opening of the Salon article:
Notice how salon chooses to put the words "exaggerations" and "lies" in double-quotes. In other words, Salon is telling the world that Gore's statements are neither exaggerations nor lies. It doesn't take a genius to realize on which side of the political fence Salon is standing.
So how does Salon answer my question? They do it on the second page of the report in the first paragraph:
Salon has done something devious here. First, they have changed Gore's word "creating" to "support" (or, to be parallel, "supporting"). In other words, according to Salon, what Gore meant to say was that he "took the initiative in supporting the Internet." Second, Salon shifts the focus of their argument from the word "creating" to the word "initiative." Salon then aims to show evidence for Gore's "initiative" (in "supporting" the Internet).
It isn't hard to show evidence that Gore supported the Internet. Unfortunately for Salon, that's not what Gore said. Gore said that he took the initiative in creating the Internet, not in "supporting" the Internet.
The article also goes to some length in trying to embarrass the Libertarians by showing a government project that "worked." (If you can't attack your opponent's argument, then attack your opponent. The basis of argumentum ad hominem.) What Salon fails to acknowledge is that the Internet was originally a military project, and the Libertarians position on the military is that it is a valid function of government. Furthermore, the author probably knows that the Libertarians have many more examples of failed government vote-buying programs than the big-government-lovers have examples of successful government programs.
In conclusion, the Salon article is crap. Furthermore, the argument "but Gore didn't say that!" which Gore defenders are constantly saying is also crap. Gore said that he took the initiative in creating the Internet, and the only thing that that statement means is that Gore is taking credit for creating the Internet.
I'd also like to point out that lots of Gore supporters are trying to diminish the comment, but Gore has been mostly silent about his Internet claim (except in saying that he stands by his words).
Who's the moron
I did not call you a moron, I (indirectly) called your statements moronic. But it does seem that you are calling me a moron.
and who's comparing apples and oranges? The US is a representative democracy (and nobody needs to point out the technicalities surrounding this statement) and a constitutional republic. It's perfectly possible to be both as these systems are not mutually exclusive or comparable.
I don't see how I was comparing apples and oranges, I believe I was correctly identifying the United States government for what it is. Could you explain to me the differences between constitutional republic and represenative democracy and why the two are not mutually exclusive? (This is a curious question, not a challenging one.)
But then again, I'd like to think that exploring space is a a good thing for mankind, that pushing our boundaries, exploring and going further is one of our goals as a civilization. I'd hate to see us stop that journey of exploration because there are no short term monetary profits to be made.
So anything that you would "like to think" is a "good thing for mankind" is something that the government has the right to FORCE me to pay for? What if I don't agree with it and don't want to pay for it?
Nope, you are wrong, that wasn't the implication. That specifically is something you invented yourself to be able to present your favourite argument.
You are correct. I apologize.
Read what I wrote once more. But some would argue that taking care of each other is nice and that people dying, losing eyesight, bodyparts, or
whatever, from treatable or curable diseases is a bad for the society as a whole on a pure economical level (not to mention on a level of human suffering, but that apparently doesn't concern you).
Apparently my argument struck a nerve in you even though it was misplaced. First, you again have tried to divert the discussion from the issue of public health care to some personal attack against me. Second, I can totally agree that if the people in a society are healthier, then the society is better off. I infer that you think that government must therefore take control of health care, and I don't understand how anyone can use facts and reason to come upon that conclusion.
But who am I trying to take your money for the greater good of the society? I mean, it's yours, you earned it, every cent, and you don't owe no steenkin society anything do you?
Exactly. It is mine, I earned it, and I don't owe anyone anything outside of my family and the promises I've made. You seem to be trying to make me feel guilty with your sarcastic comment. In other words, this is yet another ad hominem.
Tell me, who gets to decide what the "greater good" is? And what's the limit on how much I owe?
I couldn't. Is that good?
Maybe you're a step closer to realizing that it is stupid and will always be stupid for government to tax corporations. Corporations do not pay taxes. They collect taxes.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Who would have guessed that one day Mac OS would be more stable than linux :-)
Anyone who read that they were going to base it on BSD.
Disclaimer: I run Linux and BSD. They both have their merits.
The page was new to me. From the looks of the comments, it was new to a bunch of others as well.
I can say for myself that I spend very little time on any of Microsoft's web pages. Perhaps you spend hours on Microsoft's pages every day, but I can say that there are plenty of us who don't, and interesting tidbits like these are the only things which would bring people like me to any Microsoft page.
In a much less verbose form, "It's news to me."
And on the way down to the IRS office you'll probably drive on one of those horrible no fee roads that were payed for by...
You start off on the right foot, almost. Could there not have been a private solution to building roads?
And maybe you'll go vote against more taxes, courtesy of a democracy that is payed for by...
Do some research. Our government is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. When was the last time citizens were able to vote on the passage of a law?
And then there's the saturday afternoon entertainment, heading down to the Cape and getting a good look at yet another exploding space shuttle, payed for by...
And the wasteful space program which I do not like is something I'm supposed to be thanking the government for?
And when you get horribly ill and your treatment runs far more than you or your family can afford, and it all end with a previously healthy middle class all american family broke and you dead since you couldn't afford to treat your illness, then you can at least be happy Microsoft didn't have to pay no taxes. But ofcourse, that could never happen to you, now could it? All scare tactics aren't they?
The implication here is that we need to suck on the government teat in order to get health care, as if health care was a "right." Tell me, how can anyone have a right to health care without having a right to someone else's property? Also, tell me where health care is listed as a right in the constution.
Beyond that, tell me of *any* corporation that pays taxes instead of collecting them on behalf of the government.
Some people feel sorry for no one except maybe themselves, possibly because they're just plain mean sons of guns.
I didn't write that I didn't feel sorry for those people. I did write that I have no compassion for them. And I don't feel bad about not having any compassion for them. I have compassion for my family, my friends, and myself, and for strangers which, in particular times, need my compassion. I reserve the right to judge which strangers are worthy of my compassion. Guess what? Everyone does this. I'm no different from anyone else. My guess is that you want to condemn me for not having compassion for the people that you want me to have compassion for.
I feel sorry for everyone, because we're all going to die pretty soon.
What's so bad about dying in and of itself? Death is a blessing to some people. And "pretty soon" is relative, of course. Some insects have a lifespan of one day.
Whatever.
You feel the need to spout your opinion on slashdot and insert the implication that I am "mean." Then you end your diatribe with "whatever." Why on earth would you do that? Do you mean what you write? Do you care if anyone reads it? I wonder if you post statements on /. just because you have nothing better to do.
They're not invading your privacy.
I say they are invading my privacy because they are invading my private, personal time to which I gave them no right. I regard it as a personal affront, not a legal one.
Oh? Really? So everybody has infinite skills in infinite fields, and can get whatever job they want at any time? I wasn't aware of that...
First, could you lay off the sarcasm please? Second, your argument is a strawman. I was not arguing that people are good enough to get any job they want, but instead that the job market is good enough that almost everyone has a choice of what kind of job they can get. Hence, everyone who is a telemarketer has an option of one of several jobs.
When people have to fight for their next meal, they do not have morals. They don't give a shit about you, or your fucking dinnertime, because they don't GET a dinnertime.
So the "not giving a shit about the other" feeling is mutual. I could not possibly care less. But the strange thing is that you think this gives some people the right to invade my personal time with unsolicited harassment.
It's people like you that keep minimum wage down, social security low, and the unemployment rate high!
Since you seem to be such a scholor of economics, why don't you inform me as to what I, personally, have done to effect any of those things. Also, I thought we were discussing telemarketers. Why do you feel the need to insert these ad hominems?
If you idiots would pull your heads out of your fucking gilt assholes, and actually vote for some of these affirmitive action/social security/minimum wage increase bills, you wouldn't have to pay so many fucking taxes, because the lower class would be able to support themselves, and not have to take shitty jobs as telemarketers!
"Evil rich, exalted poor." It's getting pretty old. Do you accept that a large reason that the poor stay poor is that they make bad choices (e.g. not get an education, not seek marketable skills, have multiple children that they can't afford to raise, spend money on beer, cigarettes, and cable TV, etc.)? Furthermore, you should know as well as I that the upper class is never going to see a tax cut because the lower classes will never have the government teat removed from their mouths. It simply buys too many votes that keep the big government cronies in power. You might also wish to share with me where in the Constitution the federal government has the right to dictate what employers should pay their employees.
Some of us don't get SHIT from our parents. Some of us get DEBT from our parents. That's what I got.
And what did you assume that my parents gave to me? Honestly I can't see how it matters in this discussion. We all lead hard lives.
Telemarketing jobs pay pretty damn well, up to $15 an hour, so when people get to choose between making $5.20 at jack in the box, coming home smelling like grease every night, and making $15 at a telemarketing firm, what the fuck do you think they're going to do? Say "oh, no, I'd have to interrupt people's dinner; I can't do that..."? If you think that, then get your head out of your ass, because people do NOT think that way.
Obviously I couldn't think that because it's pretty clear that I do, in fact, receive those repugnant telemarketing calls. Let me reiterate: I do not care about the lives of telemarketers or their issues. Nor do I have to care. Nor do I have to feel guilty if I don't. I'm responsible for me and my family and that's it. What I do care about is the fact that I am having my privacy invaded by some unethical person doing an unethical thing, and I react harshly to that.
Yes, telemarketers call you at dinnertime. Sure, they may be annoying fucks, but that's their job, and I personally try not to hate anybody for their job, even the cops.
Everyone has a choice of what kind of job they want to have. In our current job market (of the US, that is) we have more opportunities than ever before. It's not like people are being forced into telemarketing.
In other words, people who are telemarketers had a choice of what jobs to get, and they chose the evil job of telemarketing. For this reason, I am abrasive and insulting as the law will allow me to be when they call me. Why? Becuase they are part of the problem.
My hope is that in my lifetime I've inspired just a few more telemarketers to quit and vow never again to return to the business.
Don't yell at them, don't piss whine and moan because they called you at dinnertime, because that's the only time that they work (4-8 or so), because it's just a part time job that they pay the bills with.
I have absolutely no compassion for those people. I don't care about their hard lives or their bills. If they don't like what I dish out then perhaps they should consider getting one of a few million jobs out there that don't involve invading my privacy and trying to sell me garbage that I don't need, never asked for, and never showed interest in.
Bah move over you old timer slashdotter.
This is about as convincing as "you all suck!"
You may have been here first but remember the american indians?
Am I to read this as, "The American Indians sucked, and you're like them, so you suck, too."? That's certainly how it sounds.
You may have smarts but us MS people definetly have numbers.
Thanks for the compliment and the tacet admission that MS people don't have "smarts" and must rely on their numbers for any kind of credibility. Oh, BTW, you are exhibiting argumentum ad numeram.
And you might also try responding to my original points. But, at this point, I'm doubtful that you can.