Last time I checked, many open source people were pretty capitalistic. I guess the rumor keeps floating around that everybody's a commie or something, but it simply isn't true. I'm a laissez-faire capitalist, and therefore I love open source.
Phipps called for "volunteerism" to be replaced with "directed self-interest"
When you really get down to it, there's no difference. People "volunteer" because they get something out of it, whether it be financial, utility, entertainment, or the satisfaction of simply "making the world a better place."
Re:I wish security were more accessible to the mas
on
PGP & GPG
·
· Score: 1
I went there and saw where it tells you the password on the page, but had no clue when and where I was supposed to provide the password, nor what it was for. I clicked the link, and saw the list.
Then I read this post, and realized there's supposed to be a Javascript password check. But of course I don't see it, because I have Javascript turned off!:)
We have a law that allows patents to be challenged on obviousness, but unfortunately a law means nothing and we need a court decision.
It doesn't matter that the meaning of the law is obvious to anyone reading it, either.
Re:I wish security were more accessible to the mas
on
PGP & GPG
·
· Score: 1
Love it, but I'm tied to my state of birth, probably for the rest of my life.
And I'm so far beyond minarchism into anarcho-capitalism now that I think I'd gripe no matter what reforms they implemented.:) But of course I'd be a lot happier.
I wish security were more accessible to the masses
on
PGP & GPG
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Just the other day I saw the following on the website of an author selling her own book directly:
Emailing Credit Card Numbers To email your credit card number, we suggest sending two emails. The first email should contain half of the credit card number and expiration date: 1234 5678 XXXX XXXX exp date: 07/XX The second email should contain the other half of the credit card number and expiration date. XXXX XXXX 3141 5926 exp date: XX/05
It would be helpful if more people agreed with me that a) such government-granted monopolies do not promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and b) the government's job is to secure rights, not to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Or at least c) in today's environment, the cases where such government-granted monopoly actually does promote the progress of science and the useful arts are few and far between.
I think that may be the way it works in Europe, but in the United States, the Constitution states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
So if I read this properly, treaties made are placed on the same level as the Constitution. Bit of a loophole.
But there really isn't this strong movement to make your faith or my faith illegal.
What I've seen isn't so much a desire to make faith illegal, but a desire to forbid you from teaching it to your child, or require non-faith or other faith viewpoints to have "equal time" in the teaching of your child, or occasionally out and out forbid religious parents from being "licensed" to be parents because they are not "tolerant" (pot... kettle), or the idea that only adults can make a religious choice so parents must let them alone on this matter until they are 18.
I'm not kidding that I really have seen this. But you are right that it is by no means a majority.
On a more practical matter, how about those who want to outlaw spanking as a method of discipline? It's worked for centuries. And some people believe it is a part of their faith. Just more interference. "For the children" works as a horrible justification for government interference both for looney religious right wingers and looney left wingers.
For a more rational and less paranoid view of the ways some people are interfering or want to interfere with parenting (particularly in ways that make passing on religious values difficult), read pudge's journal. He's not paranoid in any way that I can see. But he does talk about these things in a pretty sane way.
about 90% of the ones that make their way onto Fox, CNN, etc.
I don't watch Fox or CNN, so I wouldn't know.:)
However, I have never my life met a single individual who has advocated anything in the ballpark of what you describe in the second paragraph. So either you know a minority of those "out to get" Christians or maybe you're paranoid too.
I'm not talking about anything I've heard from Christians. I'm talking about things I've heard from non-Christians. In particular, when I discuss my decision to homeschool (which is not primarily religious-based, but that's the assumption people usually make), it becomes apparent that many people think they have some inviolable right to make my children attend school so that they have the chance to try to prevent them from adopting their parents faith. By no means does a majority believe this. But there are definitely people who think that the purpose of school is to protect children from parents who are backward in some way, and they regard religion as being backward in some way. Thankfully, most people agree with me that we should just let each other alone.
I certainly hope you're not characterizing me with that comment. I most certainly do not advocate for a theocracy, as my posting history will reveal.
But the fact is that there are many, many people who talk about how important it is to make sure that Christians not be permitted to raise children in their own (legal to believe and practice) faith. We certainly don't have a majority who feel that way, but there are people who want to take away the ability of parents to pass on religion to their children, either through requiring parenting "licensing" or otherwise.
Such jokes scare me. I know many people who would like to take away my right to have children because I am a Christian. I also know many people who would like to take away my right to have a large family.
Excellent points but you are missing a bit of the government side of the equation. For one thing, people wouldn't have so many financial troubles if they weren't taxed so heavily (money stolen) to support programs which are unlawful (unconstitutional in the United States), not desired by the victims^Htaxpayers, economically inefficient because if they were efficient people would pay for them voluntarily, and immoral because the "services" are provided for stolen money rather than offered for voluntary purchase. When 50% of income goes to government (totalled across several levels), is it any wonder that kids with a parent at home are becoming a thing of the past?
Meanwhile, on the credit side of the equation, the government is busy inflating the money supply like crazy, which again amounts to theft. (Recipients of the newly created dollars possess a little bit of wealth generated at the expense of owners of the previously existing dollars.) All this money flows straight into the banking and credit system, which has lowered and lowered and lowered its standards for offering loans and credit, because the money is cheap. If the money supply were not subject to such constant inflation, credit would not be so easy to come by, and people would find it more advantageous to save their money for awhile rather than trying to spend it before it becomes worth less. Or worthless. Check out this free e-book on money for some really interesting facts about how government manages the money supply.
I mostly agree. I'm just concerned about the idea that the manufacturers would be forced to give some official heads up about the content. What might bother you might not bother me, and vice-versa. In the age of Google, I feel like these warnings are pretty redundant. If I truly care about my children, I'll take it upon myself to bear the cost of knowing about the game before allowing my children to play it. I don't think that a manufacturer of a game intended for an adult audience should have to bear the costs of idiots who don't want to personally bear the cost of seeing if this adult game is suited for their children. It's great if the industry wants to have some voluntary standards body about this -- but it's not great if they had to do it because the alternative was unconstitutional government control and violation of their right to free speech.:(
Monopolies are fine when they occur on the free market (if and when they do). It is when they are granted by government privilege that they become a problem.
Adam Dada offers solutions every day to the problem both you and he are decrying. I think an occasional outburst against just how bad the problem is can be forgiven for failing to include the solution.
I thought Radio Shack was marketing some kind of "all in one charging solution" for this. I'm pretty sure I saw it advertized in airports two years ago. But I think it may have required purchasing a separate attachment for each unique cord, so maybe you've already looked at it and concluded it didn't meet your needs.
Now, e-mail users, marketers and mailing list operators are more worried that spam filters are blocking out too many wanted messages.
Marketers? Marketers don't have a say in it. They are spammers. If I want their information, I'll assume responsibility for making sure I can receive it. Thank you for your "concern" that I might be missing many valuable opportunities.
In the first 4 months I had it, it paid for itself (sold news-worthy photos to local papers).
Aha! You don't believe in copyright, but you sold the copyright to your pictures to newspapers, and they now (presumably) assume monopolistic control over the rights to those pictures. Do you believe this is right?
(I don't believe it's necessarily wrong; I'm just checking to see if you've thought of it that way.:) )
Slashdot Mirror
If it weren't for government intervention, we would still be overpaying for land-line service.
As opposed to what? Aren't we overpaying for land-line service now?
That would be an awesome and cool argument if the fat cats were financing the social safety net instead of you and me.
Last time I checked, many open source people were pretty capitalistic. I guess the rumor keeps floating around that everybody's a commie or something, but it simply isn't true. I'm a laissez-faire capitalist, and therefore I love open source.
Phipps called for "volunteerism" to be replaced with "directed self-interest"
When you really get down to it, there's no difference. People "volunteer" because they get something out of it, whether it be financial, utility, entertainment, or the satisfaction of simply "making the world a better place."
I went there and saw where it tells you the password on the page, but had no clue when and where I was supposed to provide the password, nor what it was for. I clicked the link, and saw the list.
Then I read this post, and realized there's supposed to be a Javascript password check. But of course I don't see it, because I have Javascript turned off! :)
We have a law that allows patents to be challenged on obviousness, but unfortunately a law means nothing and we need a court decision.
It doesn't matter that the meaning of the law is obvious to anyone reading it, either.
Love it, but I'm tied to my state of birth, probably for the rest of my life.
And I'm so far beyond minarchism into anarcho-capitalism now that I think I'd gripe no matter what reforms they implemented. :) But of course I'd be a lot happier.
Just the other day I saw the following on the website of an author selling her own book directly:
Sigh...
That would require me launching a GUI and a word processor, when I'd rather redirect the output of ps2ascii to a file and hack at it in vi. :)
This works with Xpdf and KPDF, too
Yes, but if I'm that fortunate, I'll be scripting the whole thing with a call to ps2ascii.
The way you described it, it sounds like we have almost complete agreement. :)
It would be helpful if more people agreed with me that a) such government-granted monopolies do not promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and b) the government's job is to secure rights, not to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Or at least c) in today's environment, the cases where such government-granted monopoly actually does promote the progress of science and the useful arts are few and far between.
I think that may be the way it works in Europe, but in the United States, the Constitution states:
So if I read this properly, treaties made are placed on the same level as the Constitution. Bit of a loophole.
But there really isn't this strong movement to make your faith or my faith illegal.
What I've seen isn't so much a desire to make faith illegal, but a desire to forbid you from teaching it to your child, or require non-faith or other faith viewpoints to have "equal time" in the teaching of your child, or occasionally out and out forbid religious parents from being "licensed" to be parents because they are not "tolerant" (pot ... kettle), or the idea that only adults can make a religious choice so parents must let them alone on this matter until they are 18.
I'm not kidding that I really have seen this. But you are right that it is by no means a majority.
On a more practical matter, how about those who want to outlaw spanking as a method of discipline? It's worked for centuries. And some people believe it is a part of their faith. Just more interference. "For the children" works as a horrible justification for government interference both for looney religious right wingers and looney left wingers.
For a more rational and less paranoid view of the ways some people are interfering or want to interfere with parenting (particularly in ways that make passing on religious values difficult), read pudge's journal. He's not paranoid in any way that I can see. But he does talk about these things in a pretty sane way.
about 90% of the ones that make their way onto Fox, CNN, etc.
I don't watch Fox or CNN, so I wouldn't know. :)
However, I have never my life met a single individual who has advocated anything in the ballpark of what you describe in the second paragraph. So either you know a minority of those "out to get" Christians or maybe you're paranoid too.
I'm not talking about anything I've heard from Christians. I'm talking about things I've heard from non-Christians. In particular, when I discuss my decision to homeschool (which is not primarily religious-based, but that's the assumption people usually make), it becomes apparent that many people think they have some inviolable right to make my children attend school so that they have the chance to try to prevent them from adopting their parents faith. By no means does a majority believe this. But there are definitely people who think that the purpose of school is to protect children from parents who are backward in some way, and they regard religion as being backward in some way. Thankfully, most people agree with me that we should just let each other alone.
I certainly hope you're not characterizing me with that comment. I most certainly do not advocate for a theocracy, as my posting history will reveal.
But the fact is that there are many, many people who talk about how important it is to make sure that Christians not be permitted to raise children in their own (legal to believe and practice) faith. We certainly don't have a majority who feel that way, but there are people who want to take away the ability of parents to pass on religion to their children, either through requiring parenting "licensing" or otherwise.
Such jokes scare me. I know many people who would like to take away my right to have children because I am a Christian. I also know many people who would like to take away my right to have a large family.
Excellent points but you are missing a bit of the government side of the equation. For one thing, people wouldn't have so many financial troubles if they weren't taxed so heavily (money stolen) to support programs which are unlawful (unconstitutional in the United States), not desired by the victims^Htaxpayers, economically inefficient because if they were efficient people would pay for them voluntarily, and immoral because the "services" are provided for stolen money rather than offered for voluntary purchase. When 50% of income goes to government (totalled across several levels), is it any wonder that kids with a parent at home are becoming a thing of the past?
Meanwhile, on the credit side of the equation, the government is busy inflating the money supply like crazy, which again amounts to theft. (Recipients of the newly created dollars possess a little bit of wealth generated at the expense of owners of the previously existing dollars.) All this money flows straight into the banking and credit system, which has lowered and lowered and lowered its standards for offering loans and credit, because the money is cheap. If the money supply were not subject to such constant inflation, credit would not be so easy to come by, and people would find it more advantageous to save their money for awhile rather than trying to spend it before it becomes worth less. Or worthless. Check out this free e-book on money for some really interesting facts about how government manages the money supply.
I mostly agree. I'm just concerned about the idea that the manufacturers would be forced to give some official heads up about the content. What might bother you might not bother me, and vice-versa. In the age of Google, I feel like these warnings are pretty redundant. If I truly care about my children, I'll take it upon myself to bear the cost of knowing about the game before allowing my children to play it. I don't think that a manufacturer of a game intended for an adult audience should have to bear the costs of idiots who don't want to personally bear the cost of seeing if this adult game is suited for their children. It's great if the industry wants to have some voluntary standards body about this -- but it's not great if they had to do it because the alternative was unconstitutional government control and violation of their right to free speech. :(
Monopolies are fine when they occur on the free market (if and when they do). It is when they are granted by government privilege that they become a problem.
Adam Dada offers solutions every day to the problem both you and he are decrying. I think an occasional outburst against just how bad the problem is can be forgiven for failing to include the solution.
Ah, okay! Cool!
I thought Radio Shack was marketing some kind of "all in one charging solution" for this. I'm pretty sure I saw it advertized in airports two years ago. But I think it may have required purchasing a separate attachment for each unique cord, so maybe you've already looked at it and concluded it didn't meet your needs.
Now, e-mail users, marketers and mailing list operators are more worried that spam filters are blocking out too many wanted messages.
Marketers? Marketers don't have a say in it. They are spammers. If I want their information, I'll assume responsibility for making sure I can receive it. Thank you for your "concern" that I might be missing many valuable opportunities.
In the first 4 months I had it, it paid for itself (sold news-worthy photos to local papers).
Aha! You don't believe in copyright, but you sold the copyright to your pictures to newspapers, and they now (presumably) assume monopolistic control over the rights to those pictures. Do you believe this is right?
(I don't believe it's necessarily wrong; I'm just checking to see if you've thought of it that way. :) )