"The fact that temperature changes coincide with increasing levels of a known greenhouse forcing gas, is actually fairly pursuasive. Or did you mean 'mere coincidence.';)"
Anybody who deals in logic and facts will tell you that CORRELATION != CAUSATION! I'm surprise you've never heard that before.
Just remember, 30 years ago, some of these same crackpot hippy 'scientists' were predicting an impending ICE AGE! So which is it? Depends on what gets them more government funding, I suppose.
" He's draconian because of the means with which he is seeking redress."
What alternative does he have? Should he just hold out and hope for some sense of moral obligation from the people who are copying his work? Puh-lease!
"I doubt your sincerity as anything but a troll, troll."
Name-calling: the last refuge of the man without an argument.
I think this guy is SPOT ON! So now whenever someone tries to recover payment for their work, their efforts are called "draconian"? Whatever happened to the noble "pay the artists, not the industry" sentiment?
And furthermore, I doubt your sincerity as a "fan", since you obviously don't believe his work of high enough quality to merit financial compensation.
"What I'm trying to say is most people see this, think, "Wow, it's free!", and never think twice. I know I wouldn't if I didn't read/."
The only difference between the ignorant masses and the Slashdot crowd is that the Slashdot crowd's disregard for copyright laws comes from a sense of moral superiority.
\Wel"fare`\, n. [Well + fare to go, to proceed, to happen.] Well-doing or well-being in any respect; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; exemption from any evil or calamity; prosperity; happiness.
Let's also recognize that PROMOTING the general welfare is vastly different from PROVIDING it.
I thought I as pretty clear what I want my government to be; a body that allows me to live my life as I want to, provides an environment that allows me to prosper, and protects me from those who don't want me to exercise my freedoms. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hou're goddamned right I don't like public schools; not how they're run/funded now, anyway.
Public schools have never lacked for funding. The 2001-2002 federal budget called for spending nearly $800 Billion on it, and that figure goes up EVERY year. And that's not even counting local property taxes! If the key to an educated populace is, as liberals proclaim, more and more funding, why are our kids still dumb as rocks?
we have consistently scored lower than most of the developed world, yet education spending keeps going up and up. That tells me (and other free-thinking individuals) that increased educational spending does NOT, in fact, correlate to better student performance.
Here's what public schools need to do to earn my respect:
1. Scrap all their politically correct tripe and start teaching reading, writing, science, math, history, and art again!
2. Stop spending MILLIONS of dollars on sports complexes, swimming pools, and anything else that doesn't contribute to the EDUCATION of the students! It's a SCHOOL! Not a PLAYGROUND!
3. Put the money saved from #2 into computer labs, teacher salaries (goodbye NEA!) and BOOKS!
4. Stop passing kids who peform poorly so that they don't feel bad about themselves. If their grades aren't good enough to move onto the next grade, keep them there until they do.
There's a very good reason why our public education system is failing, and it's not due to a lack of funding; it's because it's doing everything but EDUCATING!
"Oh and maybe we could have used that nice $87 billion bucks to give healthcare to all Americans..."
If only you had a clue...
Two years ago, the federal budget for public education alone was close to $800 Billion. And you suggest that we could set up a fully-functional healthcare system on $87 Billion? Christ, I'd rather live in Canada and wait 8 months for treatment!
Your entire post is written like a true frothing, socialist, left-wing, Bush-hating zealot. At least you people are consistent, if grossly ignorant...
"Your solution is too simplistic and can be destroyed with loopholes."
It may be, depending on what 'problem' you're trying to solve. If you're trying to keep rich people from acquiring more wealth, than yes, that would be too simplistic. But I'm not of a mindset that we should be trying to find new and creative ways to separate people from the money they've earned. That's what our socialist governments are for! All I'm looking at is a way to close the gap between what corporations spend on executive salaries and what they spend on Joe Sixpack's salary. I could care less what investments a CEO has on the side.
BTW - we all got sent home, except for essential officers and personnel, due to the approaching storm. Go figure!
"Defense spending primarily creates a nation where it's safe to do business, allowing businesses to function in stable, regulated markets, providing profits for the owners."
I didn't mention I am also in favor of a corporate (and government too) salary cap. If no one person in a company were allowed to make more than (for example) 40x what their lowest-paid employee made, that would go a long way towards establishing fair wages, and take a lot of power out of the hands of unions. A win-win situation.
"I think this almost happened during the great depression, but then FDR came into office and saved the day by, what, mixing in the socialism."
That's a popular misconception; it was the benefit of a ramped-up war-time economy (read: LOTS of military spending) that brought us out of the Great Depression, not social security.
Not to mention that Social Security was never intended to be permanent (like federal income taxes).
"Now that the wealthy are in power, they're working to consolidate this position, with a tax cut that gives back $0 to 30% of Americans, and $100,000 a year to people like Dick Cheney."
Maybe that's because 30% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes, while people like Dick Cheney pay millions in taxes.
"but it's stupid to keep on cutting taxes while the US is running a whopping deficit and the states and cities are struggling to balance their budgets."
You're correct, but perhaps these states and cities should look into cutting spending on non-essential bullshit pork programs, instead of bullying taxpayers into paying more.
Have you noticed that every time a government entity (especially county/city level) finds itself lacking in funds, it always threatens to cut the most essential services like police, fire and EMS services to scare people into accepting yet another tax increase? That's not responsible governance, that's called extortion.
"Besides, it is not wealth redistribution, it is paying as your ability to do so dictates."
...and who gets to decide what one can afford to pay? A person who makes $500,000 per year can certainly AFFORD to pay at least $400,000 of that (they're not going to starve, go without heat, etc.) to the government, but does that make it right? What right does the government have to (essentially) dictate one's standard of living?
Again, what's wrong with a flat (say, 20%) income tax? Someone who makes $10,000 only pays $2,000, while the rich guy who makes $10 Million pays $2 Million. Explain to me how that isn't a fair system.
As for welfare, I'm against any form of it; both individual and corporate welfare, IMHO, is unconstitutional.
"...you'd better believe the taxes are coming down the pipe. This is just a smokescreen."
We all knew that; at no time did the government suggest that no taxes would be applied to the Internet (such as sales taxes). But would you rather that we were hit with both a sales tax AND a "web site tax"?
"The reps, however, want to get rid of all the taxes, but still have enough to only pay for the stuff they care about, like the military."
You say that like that's a bad thing. Whatever happened to the concept of "limited government"?
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
While this famous quote isn't a comprehensive examination of our government's structure, it is a decent summation of what should be the boundaries of our government's role in our lives.
Nowhere in that quote is mentioned a guarantee of prosperity, nor does it speak of a responsibility of the government (through taxpayers) to provide for those who can't or won't provide for themselves.
Quite simply, the government was never intended to function as a means to redistribute the wealth of its citizens; to divert money from one group of individuals to another.
"I learned in economics class that if x then taxes should go up and if y taxes should go down. I want a government that took economics class."
I'm 100% in agreement with you there. That's one of my beefs with the current administration.
Can you remember the last time that Congress actually prohibited a form of taxation? In a country where we roughly pay an average of 1/3 of our salaries to variuos governmental entities, I welcome anything that potentially keeps money in my pocket.
Of course, socialists and Bush-bashers are going to hate this on principal, but I think most of us can see the positive conotations such a law has.
Not to troll here, but why does every book review here conclude with the reviewer's assertion that the book they reviewed is a good reference?
After reading the mostly-negative review, how am I supposed to believe that it is in fact "a good volume"? The reviewer even says that most people would find it to be a waste of money!
What does it take for a reviewer to come out and declare "THIS BOOK ISN'T WORTH THE PAPER IT IS PRINTED ON"??
"It's hard to understand the hostility some people demonstrate towards Lindows, which is a good package, well-made and well-supported."
If by "well-supported" you mean "we're sorry, the application you are attempting to run/install will not run on this operating system", I would have to agree!
The truth is that Lindows would probably confuse the Linux-curious more so than another distro. running Gnome or KDE. At least they would KNOW they're using something different, as opposed to having an anuerism over trying to install Windows software on an OS/shell that closely imitates Windows.
"a hundred zillion people downloaded their new blockbuster, then it must be a really great movie that everyone wants to see and if you don't have broadband, you should rush to the theater and see it, now!"
"...but if you DO have broadband, don't bother paying to see it in the theatre, because you can download it for free!"
That's not very smart business, especially as more and more people upgrade to broadband.
And what about DVDs that are being shared on P2P networks? Should the movie industry also encourage people to download it for free instead of pay for it, as long as they have the bandwidth?
"If you can claim that 'a hundred zillion pirates have already downloaded copies of your movie off the net', that must mean that it's a movie that everybody wants to see."
I hope you're not suggesting that these movies were popular (and made lots of money in the theatre) because of P2P downloads prior to their release. That would just be absurd.
I'd say the more likely scenario is that the people downloading a popular movie either A. have never seen it but heard it was a great movie, but didn't want to pay to see it, or B. have seen it in the theatre but don't feel like paying for the DVD.
Be honest with yourself. Do you really think the movie industry has anything at all to gain from giving away their movies on P2P? Puh-lease!
Why the hell would they release an entire movie on P2P to generate buzz, when a preview does the same thing without giving people the WHOLE DAMNED THING!
It sounds to me like you're just trying to justify the illegal downloading of movies on P2P networks. You're going to have to do better than that, I'm afraid, because that argument is a load of bunk.
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody who deals in logic and facts will tell you that CORRELATION != CAUSATION! I'm surprise you've never heard that before.
Just remember, 30 years ago, some of these same crackpot hippy 'scientists' were predicting an impending ICE AGE! So which is it? Depends on what gets them more government funding, I suppose.
What alternative does he have? Should he just hold out and hope for some sense of moral obligation from the people who are copying his work? Puh-lease! "I doubt your sincerity as anything but a troll, troll."
Name-calling: the last refuge of the man without an argument.
I think this guy is SPOT ON! So now whenever someone tries to recover payment for their work, their efforts are called "draconian"? Whatever happened to the noble "pay the artists, not the industry" sentiment?
And furthermore, I doubt your sincerity as a "fan", since you obviously don't believe his work of high enough quality to merit financial compensation.
The only difference between the ignorant masses and the Slashdot crowd is that the Slashdot crowd's disregard for copyright laws comes from a sense of moral superiority.
Let's also recognize that PROMOTING the general welfare is vastly different from PROVIDING it.
I thought I as pretty clear what I want my government to be; a body that allows me to live my life as I want to, provides an environment that allows me to prosper, and protects me from those who don't want me to exercise my freedoms. Nothing more, nothing less.
Public schools have never lacked for funding. The 2001-2002 federal budget called for spending nearly $800 Billion on it, and that figure goes up EVERY year. And that's not even counting local property taxes! If the key to an educated populace is, as liberals proclaim, more and more funding, why are our kids still dumb as rocks?
we have consistently scored lower than most of the developed world, yet education spending keeps going up and up. That tells me (and other free-thinking individuals) that increased educational spending does NOT, in fact, correlate to better student performance.
Here's what public schools need to do to earn my respect:
1. Scrap all their politically correct tripe and start teaching reading, writing, science, math, history, and art again!
2. Stop spending MILLIONS of dollars on sports complexes, swimming pools, and anything else that doesn't contribute to the EDUCATION of the students! It's a SCHOOL! Not a PLAYGROUND!
3. Put the money saved from #2 into computer labs, teacher salaries (goodbye NEA!) and BOOKS!
4. Stop passing kids who peform poorly so that they don't feel bad about themselves. If their grades aren't good enough to move onto the next grade, keep them there until they do.
There's a very good reason why our public education system is failing, and it's not due to a lack of funding; it's because it's doing everything but EDUCATING!
...I wouldn't bank much on it being a very good game.
If only you had a clue...
Two years ago, the federal budget for public education alone was close to $800 Billion. And you suggest that we could set up a fully-functional healthcare system on $87 Billion? Christ, I'd rather live in Canada and wait 8 months for treatment!
Your entire post is written like a true frothing, socialist, left-wing, Bush-hating zealot. At least you people are consistent, if grossly ignorant...
It may be, depending on what 'problem' you're trying to solve. If you're trying to keep rich people from acquiring more wealth, than yes, that would be too simplistic. But I'm not of a mindset that we should be trying to find new and creative ways to separate people from the money they've earned. That's what our socialist governments are for! All I'm looking at is a way to close the gap between what corporations spend on executive salaries and what they spend on Joe Sixpack's salary. I could care less what investments a CEO has on the side.
BTW - we all got sent home, except for essential officers and personnel, due to the approaching storm. Go figure!
I didn't mention I am also in favor of a corporate (and government too) salary cap. If no one person in a company were allowed to make more than (for example) 40x what their lowest-paid employee made, that would go a long way towards establishing fair wages, and take a lot of power out of the hands of unions. A win-win situation.
That's a popular misconception; it was the benefit of a ramped-up war-time economy (read: LOTS of military spending) that brought us out of the Great Depression, not social security.
Not to mention that Social Security was never intended to be permanent (like federal income taxes).
"Now that the wealthy are in power, they're working to consolidate this position, with a tax cut that gives back $0 to 30% of Americans, and $100,000 a year to people like Dick Cheney."
Maybe that's because 30% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes, while people like Dick Cheney pay millions in taxes.
You're correct, but perhaps these states and cities should look into cutting spending on non-essential bullshit pork programs, instead of bullying taxpayers into paying more.
Have you noticed that every time a government entity (especially county/city level) finds itself lacking in funds, it always threatens to cut the most essential services like police, fire and EMS services to scare people into accepting yet another tax increase? That's not responsible governance, that's called extortion.
...and who gets to decide what one can afford to pay? A person who makes $500,000 per year can certainly AFFORD to pay at least $400,000 of that (they're not going to starve, go without heat, etc.) to the government, but does that make it right? What right does the government have to (essentially) dictate one's standard of living?
Again, what's wrong with a flat (say, 20%) income tax? Someone who makes $10,000 only pays $2,000, while the rich guy who makes $10 Million pays $2 Million. Explain to me how that isn't a fair system.
As for welfare, I'm against any form of it; both individual and corporate welfare, IMHO, is unconstitutional.
Oh, that's right, it doesn't redistribute the country's wealth.
You say you're not a socialist, but if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck...
We all knew that; at no time did the government suggest that no taxes would be applied to the Internet (such as sales taxes). But would you rather that we were hit with both a sales tax AND a "web site tax"?
I for one am glad that isn't the case.
You say that like that's a bad thing. Whatever happened to the concept of "limited government"?
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
While this famous quote isn't a comprehensive examination of our government's structure, it is a decent summation of what should be the boundaries of our government's role in our lives.
Nowhere in that quote is mentioned a guarantee of prosperity, nor does it speak of a responsibility of the government (through taxpayers) to provide for those who can't or won't provide for themselves.
Quite simply, the government was never intended to function as a means to redistribute the wealth of its citizens; to divert money from one group of individuals to another.
"I learned in economics class that if x then taxes should go up and if y taxes should go down. I want a government that took economics class."
I'm 100% in agreement with you there. That's one of my beefs with the current administration.
Of course, socialists and Bush-bashers are going to hate this on principal, but I think most of us can see the positive conotations such a law has.
After reading the mostly-negative review, how am I supposed to believe that it is in fact "a good volume"? The reviewer even says that most people would find it to be a waste of money!
What does it take for a reviewer to come out and declare "THIS BOOK ISN'T WORTH THE PAPER IT IS PRINTED ON"??
If by "well-supported" you mean "we're sorry, the application you are attempting to run/install will not run on this operating system", I would have to agree!
The truth is that Lindows would probably confuse the Linux-curious more so than another distro. running Gnome or KDE. At least they would KNOW they're using something different, as opposed to having an anuerism over trying to install Windows software on an OS/shell that closely imitates Windows.
"...but if you DO have broadband, don't bother paying to see it in the theatre, because you can download it for free!"
That's not very smart business, especially as more and more people upgrade to broadband.
And what about DVDs that are being shared on P2P networks? Should the movie industry also encourage people to download it for free instead of pay for it, as long as they have the bandwidth?
I hope you're not suggesting that these movies were popular (and made lots of money in the theatre) because of P2P downloads prior to their release. That would just be absurd.
I'd say the more likely scenario is that the people downloading a popular movie either A. have never seen it but heard it was a great movie, but didn't want to pay to see it, or B. have seen it in the theatre but don't feel like paying for the DVD.
Be honest with yourself. Do you really think the movie industry has anything at all to gain from giving away their movies on P2P? Puh-lease!
I don't buy the "I want to stick it to the man!" argument. Some people are just too cheap to drop $15 - $25 on a DVD.
If you think that's too expensive, don't buy it. Affordability (or lack thereof) is not justification for downloading it illegally.
Why the hell would they release an entire movie on P2P to generate buzz, when a preview does the same thing without giving people the WHOLE DAMNED THING!
It sounds to me like you're just trying to justify the illegal downloading of movies on P2P networks. You're going to have to do better than that, I'm afraid, because that argument is a load of bunk.
Fine, but that's not really a valid comparison, since NO hirable admin is going to put a server live on only a base install of OS and web server.
So right from the very beginning, it starts with how much the admin knows about security, not how secure or insecure a base OS/web server install is.