It's all a matter of semantics, what you call the 'disciplined and the fortunate' some would call, the predatory and sociopaths, and since you seem to label anyone without wealth as 'lazy and undisciplined and inept' one can only assume that you would view yourself as the 'disciplined and the fortunate'.
Unfortunately for you, history seems to be on the side of the 'lazy, undisciplined and inept' when it comes to the cycle of wealth acquisition and redistribution. Sure, you'll have your time in the sun, but starve enough people and your head will end up in a basket, by those same 'lazy, undisciplined and inept' people, historically speaking.
For some reason people seem to forget about the 'all men are created equal' part and skip right to 'pursuit of happiness'. You may, to your hearts content, pursue happiness, but it is in fact part of the government's job to see that it's citizenry stay equal under it. When your 'happiness' is trampling on the 'happiness' of another, then the government has to take action as arbiter, because that's it's function. Otherwise it's just a lawless 'society' of jungle rules.
A lot of people talk about the government protecting the rights of individuals, and not oppress individuals for the greater good, when in fact some might see that as an individual wanting to take on the part of the oppressor for *his* greater good.
I disagree, what you call the government picking winners and losers is called by others a government trying to create a more equal society. I would even go so far as to say that the whole concept of 'winners and losers' is more akin to how individuals behave and subjectively speaking, the government trying to create a more equal society is considered the government picking sides by those who deem themselves 'winners' in society and don't want an society of equality of a society of their superiority.
People obviously value things like car power, size, etc over fuel efficiency. They can already buy more efficient cars, and they choose not to do so. When scarcity drives the price up, people may shift their priorities, but why force them to do artificially through taxes?
Because it's the government's job to strive for the betterment of the country as a whole, not just the individual. Individual actions may indeed serve the person better than actions that benefits the whole, but that's not the governments job. Indeed there are arguments to be made on where the line should be drawn for placing society above the individual or the individual above society, but when all is said and done the government (when functioning properly) should be striving the better the lives of its citizens through the betterment of the country as a whole.
I would say that China is just the Japan of the 80's, but the fact that they have massive resources and are trying to be more than just a financial powerhouse has my gut saying that they're going to be a major player and not just a decade fad like Japan was. China is basically what America was around WW2, an industrial powerhouse coming into it's own.
It would be a lot more realistic to recognize that they have no meaningful commitment to the US and they act on their narrowly perceived economic goals. It would be better for the country if their access to the US political establishment was limited, based on how their economic interests driven by non-US governments.
...and yet corporate interests reign supreme in U.S. politics, because what's good for them is 'good for the people of the U.S.' or so they would have you believe. How many examples like this are needed before people will stop coddling corporations who have absolultely *0* loyalty to the U.S. at all.
Because there's still money to be made, where there's a market, there's a bank. The bonus situation is way out of hand. A CEO can run a company into the ground and put thousands out on the street and still be able to fly to another country for dinner without so much as a bead of sweat on his brow. Management needs to have THEIR fate tied to the company they're running.
My point being, not that what he's doing is wrong, but right now it seems like overkill. at least another person had decent reasoning about data retention precautions.
or c) concerned that you may at some point in the future be in a country where such activities are necessary. Given the way that governments and corporations have been expanding their powers and decriminalizing their actions, there may come a point, not too far in the future, where such paranoid actions are necessary to keep from being made into some organization's indentured servant.
Well then why is he doing it NOW? I already said it was wrong and needed to change. If we at some point live in a society where it's necessary to use a throw away phone, chances are a throw away phone wont even be a feasible option. I'm concerned about this as well, but I'm not using a throw away phone because I have no reason to do so. If the poster feels that strongly about it in the here and now, then there are more effective avenues to take than taking steps to remedy a problem that isn't even there for that person. i.e... he's paranoid, or doing something that makes using a throw away phone a necessity.
It would not surprise me in the least if someone took some form of personal justice on the man. Probably nothing major, but you can't show something like that to the entire internet without stirring someone into action.
Because you're rampantly paranoid?! Look, this practice is obviously wrong and needs to change, but if you're really that concerned about being tracked you are either:
a) involved in nefarious activity
b) batshit tinfoil hat paranoid
I heard hardware running Windows has a higher rate of failure than that of Apple machines. Point being, yeah.. android is a commodity OS, so why tie it to a story about hardware from a range of manufacturers who very likely offer a range of phones all of which run the same OS. In the days of eMachines and the like was Windows the focus of faulty hardware manufacturers?
I didn't hear anything about proving or disproving anything in the parent post. It is in all likelihood a jab at creationists as a shown example of an organism exhibiting traits of evolution for a very specific purpose. Also, for the record, while it is true that the idea of creation doesn't preclude the notion of the ability to adapt. Most creationists are firm deniers of evolution, and the parent post was in all probability a jab at them.
Personally sending men into orbit serves it's purpose right now, which is basically testing and perfecting how to keep human beings sustained in space and performing zero-g experiements and other assorted advances in science that couldn't be achieved on the surface. Robots are ideal for reaching further out into space, they don't need to be fed, they don't get tired, no physiological mental or emotional hurdles to overcome. Granted there's a trade off that machines are very limited in their abilities, or more accurately very specific in their abilities. The more comfortable we feel getting vehicles up and returned from space reliably and cheaply, the further out we'll push with human exploration, it's just a matter of time.
Don't get me wrong I aboslutely agree with you 100%, it's the kickbacks and the corruption that comes with people trying to make a buck for themselves that is the root of the problem, be they in the business sector or the government. My main issue was with the parent poster's use of 'communist' terminology to define the situation, which I feel is 100% opposite of what's going on here. Governments do have coercive authority over the people.. and businesses have a corruptive influence on the government officials and therefore on the government itself. You can't really blame one and not the other imho.
I find your implication of communism a bit ironic considering that I'll bet you more than anything that it was a business man that made a deal with the school district to get his product sold, and not the school district seeking out a finger printing system to buy. People moan about the "nanny state" when I'm personally more concerned with business men using the state as the consumer and pulling strings to get their products shackled onto the public.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all a matter of semantics, what you call the 'disciplined and the fortunate' some would call, the predatory and sociopaths, and since you seem to label anyone without wealth as 'lazy and undisciplined and inept' one can only assume that you would view yourself as the 'disciplined and the fortunate'. Unfortunately for you, history seems to be on the side of the 'lazy, undisciplined and inept' when it comes to the cycle of wealth acquisition and redistribution. Sure, you'll have your time in the sun, but starve enough people and your head will end up in a basket, by those same 'lazy, undisciplined and inept' people, historically speaking.
For some reason people seem to forget about the 'all men are created equal' part and skip right to 'pursuit of happiness'. You may, to your hearts content, pursue happiness, but it is in fact part of the government's job to see that it's citizenry stay equal under it. When your 'happiness' is trampling on the 'happiness' of another, then the government has to take action as arbiter, because that's it's function. Otherwise it's just a lawless 'society' of jungle rules. A lot of people talk about the government protecting the rights of individuals, and not oppress individuals for the greater good, when in fact some might see that as an individual wanting to take on the part of the oppressor for *his* greater good.
I disagree, what you call the government picking winners and losers is called by others a government trying to create a more equal society. I would even go so far as to say that the whole concept of 'winners and losers' is more akin to how individuals behave and subjectively speaking, the government trying to create a more equal society is considered the government picking sides by those who deem themselves 'winners' in society and don't want an society of equality of a society of their superiority.
People obviously value things like car power, size, etc over fuel efficiency. They can already buy more efficient cars, and they choose not to do so. When scarcity drives the price up, people may shift their priorities, but why force them to do artificially through taxes?
Because it's the government's job to strive for the betterment of the country as a whole, not just the individual. Individual actions may indeed serve the person better than actions that benefits the whole, but that's not the governments job. Indeed there are arguments to be made on where the line should be drawn for placing society above the individual or the individual above society, but when all is said and done the government (when functioning properly) should be striving the better the lives of its citizens through the betterment of the country as a whole.
Is it sad that I read the first few words of your post as, "I'm a deus-playing, card carrying member"?
I wonder how long it will be before Jedi's roots are forgotten and people have debates and whether or not Yoda existed at all.
(that was *mostly* tongue in cheek)
I would say that China is just the Japan of the 80's, but the fact that they have massive resources and are trying to be more than just a financial powerhouse has my gut saying that they're going to be a major player and not just a decade fad like Japan was. China is basically what America was around WW2, an industrial powerhouse coming into it's own.
It would be a lot more realistic to recognize that they have no meaningful commitment to the US and they act on their narrowly perceived economic goals. It would be better for the country if their access to the US political establishment was limited, based on how their economic interests driven by non-US governments.
...and yet corporate interests reign supreme in U.S. politics, because what's good for them is 'good for the people of the U.S.' or so they would have you believe. How many examples like this are needed before people will stop coddling corporations who have absolultely *0* loyalty to the U.S. at all.
Well I don't need to say anymore.
Did you actually say anything at all?
This is a first post, and yet it isn't!
Laser printer toner is a great explosive. As is flower.
Gives a whole new meaning to "Consider the Lilies!"
Because there's still money to be made, where there's a market, there's a bank. The bonus situation is way out of hand. A CEO can run a company into the ground and put thousands out on the street and still be able to fly to another country for dinner without so much as a bead of sweat on his brow. Management needs to have THEIR fate tied to the company they're running.
Maybe people are being vaccinated against the internet thus causing double secret autism!!! and video games just make them Rain Man savant killers!
My point being, not that what he's doing is wrong, but right now it seems like overkill. at least another person had decent reasoning about data retention precautions.
Perhaps you need to reread my post specifically about the first part about it being wrong and needing to change.
A hacker group waging war against a man who doesn't even like to have a computer in the house.... I find this rather ironic.
or c) concerned that you may at some point in the future be in a country where such activities are necessary. Given the way that governments and corporations have been expanding their powers and decriminalizing their actions, there may come a point, not too far in the future, where such paranoid actions are necessary to keep from being made into some organization's indentured servant.
Well then why is he doing it NOW? I already said it was wrong and needed to change. If we at some point live in a society where it's necessary to use a throw away phone, chances are a throw away phone wont even be a feasible option. I'm concerned about this as well, but I'm not using a throw away phone because I have no reason to do so. If the poster feels that strongly about it in the here and now, then there are more effective avenues to take than taking steps to remedy a problem that isn't even there for that person. i.e... he's paranoid, or doing something that makes using a throw away phone a necessity.
It would not surprise me in the least if someone took some form of personal justice on the man. Probably nothing major, but you can't show something like that to the entire internet without stirring someone into action.
Because you're rampantly paranoid?! Look, this practice is obviously wrong and needs to change, but if you're really that concerned about being tracked you are either:
a) involved in nefarious activity
b) batshit tinfoil hat paranoid
I heard hardware running Windows has a higher rate of failure than that of Apple machines. Point being, yeah.. android is a commodity OS, so why tie it to a story about hardware from a range of manufacturers who very likely offer a range of phones all of which run the same OS. In the days of eMachines and the like was Windows the focus of faulty hardware manufacturers?
I didn't hear anything about proving or disproving anything in the parent post. It is in all likelihood a jab at creationists as a shown example of an organism exhibiting traits of evolution for a very specific purpose. Also, for the record, while it is true that the idea of creation doesn't preclude the notion of the ability to adapt. Most creationists are firm deniers of evolution, and the parent post was in all probability a jab at them.
Personally sending men into orbit serves it's purpose right now, which is basically testing and perfecting how to keep human beings sustained in space and performing zero-g experiements and other assorted advances in science that couldn't be achieved on the surface. Robots are ideal for reaching further out into space, they don't need to be fed, they don't get tired, no physiological mental or emotional hurdles to overcome. Granted there's a trade off that machines are very limited in their abilities, or more accurately very specific in their abilities. The more comfortable we feel getting vehicles up and returned from space reliably and cheaply, the further out we'll push with human exploration, it's just a matter of time.
Don't get me wrong I aboslutely agree with you 100%, it's the kickbacks and the corruption that comes with people trying to make a buck for themselves that is the root of the problem, be they in the business sector or the government. My main issue was with the parent poster's use of 'communist' terminology to define the situation, which I feel is 100% opposite of what's going on here. Governments do have coercive authority over the people.. and businesses have a corruptive influence on the government officials and therefore on the government itself. You can't really blame one and not the other imho.
I find your implication of communism a bit ironic considering that I'll bet you more than anything that it was a business man that made a deal with the school district to get his product sold, and not the school district seeking out a finger printing system to buy. People moan about the "nanny state" when I'm personally more concerned with business men using the state as the consumer and pulling strings to get their products shackled onto the public.
Thanks for all the heart felt sympathies.
Sent from my iPhone 5