Thanks. I'm an outlier myself, and I'd like my rights protected. Nobody has ever dropped dead because of my kids. They don't strain "our" resources -- they strain MY resources, which are none of your business, thank you. And they don't strain my resources that much; we may never go to Disney World, and we don't have cable TV. But we do have enough to eat and do a lot of fun things together, including travel and educational opportunities most people never take advantage of.
Everybody else needs to mind their own business. When my kids point a gun at you or steal from you, I'll support your use of force against them to defend yourself. Until then, I agree with your sentiment.
I found this interesting outlier the other day: he's an atheist, has five children and thinks kids are great and not an overpopulation problem, and recently signed himself up for cryonic suspension in case it provides the means to live longer: http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/2009/05/11/interview-with-alcor-member-david-croft/ Talk about an interesting and unique guy. I support his right to live the way he wants, and I wish everybody did.
Well, I'll bite. I'm convinced it's the God of the Bible because the most plausible explanation for me for data from the first century is that Jesus truly rose from the dead. I'm also convinced historical data from Egypt backs up the Old Testament assertions about connections between Israel's pre-history (Joseph and Moses) and Egypt, including the powerful miracles Jehovah/YHWH is said to have worked on behalf of Israel during those times.
I could be wrong. In which case perhaps I don't have an eternal future. I haven't seen a lot of evidence for the truth of other religions. Anyway, in the meantime, I'm sure enjoying this life and this world which I believe God created.
Strange how you confuse "This premise that freezing tissue doesn't work" with an assertion that "All of cryonics' wildest claims are true!!!!111!!!$$$"
freezing tissue destroys all the cells and turns everything into mush
Right, that's why if you freeze an embryo, you can't revive it and implant it and expect it to develop into a fetus and later a baby. It's just dead, because it was destroyed in the freezing process.
My solution is that government stop discriminating between married and non-married people and leave the marriage and "union" business altogether, and leave all such agreements completely private between agreeing adults.
I don't care if you want to kill yourself. (Well, I care, but I think it would be wrong to support the use of force to stop you.)
What I do care about is my fear that someone else will violate my religious principles and euthanize me! The case of Terri Schiavo scared me to death, because based on nothing but hearsay evidence, the woman's intent was concluded to be euthanasia. The previous legal default was to presume a person's intent would be to be kept alive, overridden only by a living will. This was not changed by any act of legislation that I know of. Now the presumption seems to be that people would prefer to be euthanized, which is not true in my case.
I'm all for your liberty, and I hope you're all for mine. I simply want the state out of both my and your end of life decisions.
Well, that's the thing. If white people have the right to demand all the seats on a bus, then that is what the police officers are going to have to enforce. We may not like it, but then we should try to change the law instead of calling police that try to get black people to stand up for whites "thugs."
You may not believe, that black people should have to give up their seats to whites - but those are the rules that society has agreed upon. You have two options - get the rules changed or face the music when you don't follow the rules.
That barrier must be overcome for video games to be accepted as a dignified medium worthy of serious topics.
I'm confused. What planet do you come from where other people get to decide if you are allowed to exercise your rights based on how dignified and serious the medium is? It seems that the real obstacle is people like you, who give any dignity to the idea that "free speech" only means some speech.
I'm a fundamentalist Christian, and I fully respect the rights of people to engage in speech and activities which are abhorrent to my religion. Why is it people like me get a bad rap for not respecting people's rights, when the truth seems to be that rights-violators run in every group and are in the majority in all groups in the population?
I'm preserving my site with wget. This set of options seems to be the best I can come up with, although I would like to find a way to make --page-requisites work as well so as to preserve the icons and junk I linked to off of geocities' server:
One reason for the lack of consequences is that the merchant ships are, by law, unarmed. Instead of getting to innovate their own solutions (carrying weapons, hiring private protection), the ships are forced to rely on the U.S. government to protect them.
The writers larger point about how musical notation made music more egalitarian is partly right. However, people would still need to learn to read notation, and at the time, that meant hiring a music teacher (unless you were a monk). So what you have here is the same problem you have today. You can learn music two ways: by ear, or by notation. Now which way do you think is the "elite" way, and which is the egalitarian way? It's the opposite of what the writer argues!
Except the inventor's stated goal was for people to be able to learn the notation from a book, without a teacher. That made it somewhat more egalitarian, except of course it limited it to people who could read, which I'm sure was not many, but was still more than before.
It kind of makes me wonder if there were groups of professional copiers who were pissed off 500 years ago when Gutenberg introduced movable type to Europe.
I don't know about that invention, but the invention of music notation pissed off the existing music-teaching cartel and resulted in retribution against its inventor!
Regardless of how anonymous morons on the Internet acted (and anyone who doesn't realize the Internet is full of anonymous morons probably needs to come into this century), this teacher needs to be disabused of the notion that everything is "illegal" unless specifically allowed somehow by the law. So what if she's not sure something's legal? That's not the question. Unless she's sure it's illegal, she should assume it is legal.
She was way, way out of line in accusing the man of doing something illegal.
I want my kids educated with a belief in liberty, and that is why they will not be educated in today's government schools.
Conceptually, standing for federalism as you are doing here is just the same as saying "The U.S. should not go 'liberate' Iraq without being invited." In the same way, New York should not go "liberate" Texas if its government is tyrannical, and vice versa. Of course, the Constitution does say the federal government will guarantee a Republican form of government to each member state, so it implies this "liberation" mentality from the get-go.
It is expected that both sides will act rationally. Customers will make the most out of their money, and NetFlix will cut features that cost them money. Calling their customers deadbeats is idiotic.
Given all of that, why are you calling Netflix "sleazy"? Is it only idiotic to speak of someone in a derogatory way for acting in their own self interest when they are a customer, but perfectly fine if they are running a business?
I was honestly planning on voting Libertarian, because I can't bring myself to vote for anyone who supports the PATRIOT act and all this other crap...but Obama fits that quite well.
And let me just say that it's pathetic that anyone should be in such a situation. The Libertarian Party was supposed to stand for something. I'm glad my radicalization into libertarianism (the philosophy, not the party) proceeded so rapidly that I never had time to vote for a Libertarian before I became a complete non-voter. Those guys went from "decent" to "so corrupt we'll do anything to win an election" fast. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely,... and the bare whiff of a possibility of getting power someday corrupts desperate Libertarians instantaneously.
For the record, though, the folks at Lew Rockwell and Mises have made it quite clear Obama is just about as bad of a warmonger as the rest of them. He's ready to "get tough with Iran" just like everyone else.
You can't vote against the war at this point, if you want to. You can't vote against the Patriot Act. Worst of all for me, you can't vote against socialism.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. I'm an outlier myself, and I'd like my rights protected. Nobody has ever dropped dead because of my kids. They don't strain "our" resources -- they strain MY resources, which are none of your business, thank you. And they don't strain my resources that much; we may never go to Disney World, and we don't have cable TV. But we do have enough to eat and do a lot of fun things together, including travel and educational opportunities most people never take advantage of.
Everybody else needs to mind their own business. When my kids point a gun at you or steal from you, I'll support your use of force against them to defend yourself. Until then, I agree with your sentiment.
I found this interesting outlier the other day: he's an atheist, has five children and thinks kids are great and not an overpopulation problem, and recently signed himself up for cryonic suspension in case it provides the means to live longer: http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/2009/05/11/interview-with-alcor-member-david-croft/ Talk about an interesting and unique guy. I support his right to live the way he wants, and I wish everybody did.
Well, I'll bite. I'm convinced it's the God of the Bible because the most plausible explanation for me for data from the first century is that Jesus truly rose from the dead. I'm also convinced historical data from Egypt backs up the Old Testament assertions about connections between Israel's pre-history (Joseph and Moses) and Egypt, including the powerful miracles Jehovah/YHWH is said to have worked on behalf of Israel during those times.
I could be wrong. In which case perhaps I don't have an eternal future. I haven't seen a lot of evidence for the truth of other religions. Anyway, in the meantime, I'm sure enjoying this life and this world which I believe God created.
Good thing my children were born at home, in my own bed, delivered by midwives who don't like sweeping government programs any more than I do.
Strange how you confuse "This premise that freezing tissue doesn't work" with an assertion that "All of cryonics' wildest claims are true!!!!111!!!$$$"
freezing tissue destroys all the cells and turns everything into mush
Right, that's why if you freeze an embryo, you can't revive it and implant it and expect it to develop into a fetus and later a baby. It's just dead, because it was destroyed in the freezing process.
What's wrong with being an outcast?
My solution is that government stop discriminating between married and non-married people and leave the marriage and "union" business altogether, and leave all such agreements completely private between agreeing adults.
I don't care if you want to kill yourself. (Well, I care, but I think it would be wrong to support the use of force to stop you.)
What I do care about is my fear that someone else will violate my religious principles and euthanize me! The case of Terri Schiavo scared me to death, because based on nothing but hearsay evidence, the woman's intent was concluded to be euthanasia. The previous legal default was to presume a person's intent would be to be kept alive, overridden only by a living will. This was not changed by any act of legislation that I know of. Now the presumption seems to be that people would prefer to be euthanized, which is not true in my case.
I'm all for your liberty, and I hope you're all for mine. I simply want the state out of both my and your end of life decisions.
Well, that's the thing. If white people have the right to demand all the seats on a bus, then that is what the police officers are going to have to enforce. We may not like it, but then we should try to change the law instead of calling police that try to get black people to stand up for whites "thugs."
You may not believe, that black people should have to give up their seats to whites - but those are the rules that society has agreed upon. You have two options - get the rules changed or face the music when you don't follow the rules.
That barrier must be overcome for video games to be accepted as a dignified medium worthy of serious topics.
I'm confused. What planet do you come from where other people get to decide if you are allowed to exercise your rights based on how dignified and serious the medium is? It seems that the real obstacle is people like you, who give any dignity to the idea that "free speech" only means some speech.
I'm a fundamentalist Christian, and I fully respect the rights of people to engage in speech and activities which are abhorrent to my religion. Why is it people like me get a bad rap for not respecting people's rights, when the truth seems to be that rights-violators run in every group and are in the majority in all groups in the population?
I'm preserving my site with wget. This set of options seems to be the best I can come up with, although I would like to find a way to make --page-requisites work as well so as to preserve the icons and junk I linked to off of geocities' server:
But it's not moral to force the innocent fair-use user to bear the costs involved in protecting you five years down the road.
I hope wikipediaart receives court costs and lawyer's fees.
"Anything but guns?" What sort of bleeding heart came up with that line of feelgood BS?
Probably the government, which requires the ships to be unarmed. Isn't that despicable?
One reason for the lack of consequences is that the merchant ships are, by law, unarmed. Instead of getting to innovate their own solutions (carrying weapons, hiring private protection), the ships are forced to rely on the U.S. government to protect them.
It does make sense to layer solutions.
It does not make sense to insist that one solution must work for everybody and prohibit people from trying their own solutions.
I don't want anyone "representing" me. I'm a grown up, and don't need a ruler, which is what "representative" is really a euphemism for.
I want to be free.
The writers larger point about how musical notation made music more egalitarian is partly right. However, people would still need to learn to read notation, and at the time, that meant hiring a music teacher (unless you were a monk). So what you have here is the same problem you have today. You can learn music two ways: by ear, or by notation. Now which way do you think is the "elite" way, and which is the egalitarian way? It's the opposite of what the writer argues!
Except the inventor's stated goal was for people to be able to learn the notation from a book, without a teacher. That made it somewhat more egalitarian, except of course it limited it to people who could read, which I'm sure was not many, but was still more than before.
It kind of makes me wonder if there were groups of professional copiers who were pissed off 500 years ago when Gutenberg introduced movable type to Europe.
I don't know about that invention, but the invention of music notation pissed off the existing music-teaching cartel and resulted in retribution against its inventor!
There's actually some effort out there to pass that last unpassed amendment, about the size of the House of Representatives:
OK, Let us start with the fact that this wasn't a "Man" in any sense of the word.
The guy from the Helios project isn't a man?
Regardless of how anonymous morons on the Internet acted (and anyone who doesn't realize the Internet is full of anonymous morons probably needs to come into this century), this teacher needs to be disabused of the notion that everything is "illegal" unless specifically allowed somehow by the law. So what if she's not sure something's legal? That's not the question. Unless she's sure it's illegal, she should assume it is legal.
She was way, way out of line in accusing the man of doing something illegal.
I want my kids educated with a belief in liberty, and that is why they will not be educated in today's government schools.
Conceptually, standing for federalism as you are doing here is just the same as saying "The U.S. should not go 'liberate' Iraq without being invited." In the same way, New York should not go "liberate" Texas if its government is tyrannical, and vice versa. Of course, the Constitution does say the federal government will guarantee a Republican form of government to each member state, so it implies this "liberation" mentality from the get-go.
Given all of that, why are you calling Netflix "sleazy"? Is it only idiotic to speak of someone in a derogatory way for acting in their own self interest when they are a customer, but perfectly fine if they are running a business?
No way, man. Next you'll be suggesting I should pitch out my Activision Atari 2600 Bowling cartridge!
And let me just say that it's pathetic that anyone should be in such a situation. The Libertarian Party was supposed to stand for something. I'm glad my radicalization into libertarianism (the philosophy, not the party) proceeded so rapidly that I never had time to vote for a Libertarian before I became a complete non-voter. Those guys went from "decent" to "so corrupt we'll do anything to win an election" fast. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, ... and the bare whiff of a possibility of getting power someday corrupts desperate Libertarians instantaneously.
For the record, though, the folks at Lew Rockwell and Mises have made it quite clear Obama is just about as bad of a warmonger as the rest of them. He's ready to "get tough with Iran" just like everyone else.
You can't vote against the war at this point, if you want to. You can't vote against the Patriot Act. Worst of all for me, you can't vote against socialism.