But what are the chances any of those kids will ever grow to understand the situation well enough to be a diplomat and do something about it? Probably zero.
The Amish way of understanding the world seems to me to be based on the idea that there's value in useless trivia. Knowledge gained for the purpose of serving one's fellow human and bettering everyone's condition requires much more heart and soul than being able to rattle off recent world events.
I don't think you really know enough about the Amish to know how much they know and whether it was "meaningless trivia" or not.
And where do you get the idea that they don't gain knowledge for the purpose of serving one's fellow human? Just because multiple ways of serving exist doesn't mean one must pursue all of them. They seem to have helped a neighbor build a barn, for example.
Incidentally, where did these Amish kids get their knowledge of current events in India and Pakistan? A newspaper, printed on a printing press? A book, which is another product of modern technology?
If you think the Amish prohibit printing presses and books, then you know zilch about the Amish and should do some reading before running your mouth again. They probably know far more about you than you know about them. Go visit Google.
In fact, electricity as a whole is not prohibited. Basically, batteries are allowed, but electrical wires coming into the home are not, because this is perceived to be a connection to the outside ("English") world. (They call us English because they speak "Pennsylvania Dutch," a German variant, as a first language.)
It's perfectly permissible to them to be in a building wired for electricity as long as it's not theirs, ride in a non-Amish person's automobile, etc. And though some might see it as a contradiction, they do not: this is about their central (church) leaders setting standards for their whole society, rather than decreeing what is right and wrong for everybody else.
As I understand it, all these things were decided years ago by some equivalent of a church council, and it is possible that the particular issues may be up for review again now and then.
Moreover, I submit that it is an unconstitutional ex-post facto law. There is a reason the Constitution prohibited retroactive laws, but we seem to be ignoring that principle today.
The new technology is the only true spam firewall in existence, according to co-developer Matthew Sullivan, the man who invented the term "spam firewall."
And before you say "if it saves one life or catches one criminal" we live in a culture of tradeoffs. We don't have speedlimits of 5 mph, even though that would dramatically cut down on car accident deaths.
Ah; I see I am not the only slashdotter who regularly reads Walter Williams.
Look, being compassionate doesn't have to mean helping people through government programs. I think the defining difference is whether you believe you should run towards government as the first solution to a problem. Conservatives don't generally argue that the poor shouldn't be helped (okay, some wacko conservative commentators aside); they argue that government programs are hurting instead of helping and that private efforts might be more effective. That only makes them uncompassionate if you believe that government is the only way to help them.
Who cares if they learn? Are we being paid to do their market research for them? Let natural selection take its course: while they are wondering why their business is tanking, we can go frequent shops that do better. Maybe someday someone will open a national chain that actually does the right thing, and they will win out, and the others will close. It's the same in the end; I don't care if Best Buy gets better or another store shows up that is better.
he doesn't support scientific research on most stemcells
/me applauds intelligent member of the other side of the political spectrum.
Thank you for recognizing that Bush did not ban all stem cell research. Very few opponents of Bush recognize this.
In fact, all Bush did was prohibit federal funding. And only on new lines... to date, George W. Bush is the only President of the United States who has ever provided federal funding for stem cell research of any kind, though in this case only for those lines existing before the policy announcement. (I'm quoting his wife, here; I heard this on the radio last week. I encourage you to go check up on this to confirm, because I suppose it could just be political spin.) Meanwhile, private research has, AFAICT, no restrictions. And, in fact, according to this article, 17 new embryonic stem cell lines have been harvested and investigated with private funds.
Anyway, thank you for having the courage to listen to the other side. May there be many more Americans like you!
This is why I read slashdot. I am grateful to you for posting this, because I probably would not have heard about it any other way.
I'm voting for one of the two major party candidates (Bush), but I would like to hear a lot more from the new minor parties, and I'd especially like to get rid of statutory idiocies that put them at a disadvantage. It ain't right!
BTW, you might like the website referenced in my current sig.
If everyone who felt like you rose up and voted for Badnarik, we'd all win.
Although I'm voting for Bush, actually, and want him to win out of the four. I'll reevaluate again in four years. Unless the parties fundamentally realign, I can't see myself seriously considering anyone other than Republican or Libertarian.
Re:Now that does not make sense?
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 1
Okay, does anyone have any confirmation as to whether this is real or somebody's own personal reediting job? I wouldn't be surprised either way, but Google and Star Wars news sites don't seem to help much in the way of confirmation.
Re:Absolutely correct; however...
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 1
Similarly, I'd like to note, even if Vader died a Sith, it wouldn't be too late for him. It is possible to be redeemed even after death. For this, I cite the game Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.
The ones arguing against it aren't capitalists, they are power hoarders.
Very insightful, along with the rest of your post. They are only capitalists in the sense that they want all the capital.
They'll be the last ones to open their eyes, but it won't matter, because they will have already lost.
I believe that is very true. I accepted awhile back the inevitability of the crushing of the proprietary model by freedom (at least in software, and ultimately, I hope, in other fields). As long as we defend the fundamental right to do what you want with what is yours, including give it away if you choose, their days are numbered.
I'm a laissez-faire, free market, anarcho-capitalist libertarian. Nothing could be more pro-free market than protecting the right of people to GIVE away their creations for whatever motive they choose. It just so happens that there are economic incentives to do so in many cases.
Anti-free market would be if you decide the government has to step in to "promote competition" (i.e., stamp out activity that seems to weird for the politician's radar and/or threatens established business models). Anti-free market would be if you RESTRICT people's right to give away what is theirs. The fundamental of the free market is the right to do what you want with what is yours.
Anti-free market would also be, IMO, granting any kind of monopolistic or exclusive rights to people or entitites, for example, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." A real free market solution would let the free market promote the progress of science and useful arts instead of doing it by government compulsion. And we are seeing that when there is a vibrant set of public works available through public domain and/or favorable licensing terms, science and useful arts advance dramatically as almost all discoveries and inventions build on prior art. Removing these restrictions would do so far better.
The IT section has an awful color scheme (actually, has it changed, slightly? it looks a little bit easier to read). And why does this article belong in this section, anyway? I thought IT was like a department in a business. I'd expect to see articles there about hiring practices, outsourcing, office software, Microsoft products and open replacements, and maybe general development issues. Do MP3s really fit into that section?
I've got a pretty developed sense of morality. (Some would say overdeveloped... I'm a fundamentalist Christian.) But I do not feel that the law defines for us what is moral. There are many laws which I believe just should not exist.
I will teach my children to respect other people's property. I will also teach them to obey the law... even laws they feel are unjust... unless a law compels them to violate their religion. I will also teach them that even though the law tries to give the impression that ideas are property, that that does not make it so. I do not believe an idea can be property, and I do not believe the "originator" of an idea (if we could even determine who that really is) should be granted an exclusive right to its use.
The Constitution states that the purpose of granting these exclusive rights is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. I believe the progress of science and the useful arts would actually be promoted better by eliminating these exclusive rights.
There's another problem with blurring that distinction. They are trying to make you think there are some things you cannot download, and they are copyrighted, while other things you can, and they are not. They idea they are subtly enforcing is that only the big dogs get the legal protection of copyright, while us little guys do not. It's an attempt to protect an entrenched industry against possible new competition.
The problem is that they teach not only that the law works that way but that the law should be that way. Most people I know are inable to distinguish in a discussion between what the law is and what it should be. (I've had discussions where I argue that a particular law should be repealed and people counter with, "They'd throw you in jail if you did that!" Inability to think critically.)
My wife was homeschooled all the way through, and while I had an excellent public school experience, we agreed last year to plan on doing the same for our children. Every day I hear more and more news like this that make me breathe a sigh of relief that we have made that choice.
There's constantly little bitty things the schools are doing that we wouldn't like, that maybe wouldn't be a clincher individually but collectively form an avalanche. I'm so happy every time I can say, "Thank goodness we won't have to worry about that!"
Slashdot Mirror
You need to get over it. You don't get the right to force people to live the way you think they should.
Grow up. And learn to live like this.
Linux is open source. Why don't you develop such an interface?
But what are the chances any of those kids will ever grow to understand the situation well enough to be a diplomat and do something about it? Probably zero.
The Amish way of understanding the world seems to me to be based on the idea that there's value in useless trivia. Knowledge gained for the purpose of serving one's fellow human and bettering everyone's condition requires much more heart and soul than being able to rattle off recent world events.
I don't think you really know enough about the Amish to know how much they know and whether it was "meaningless trivia" or not. And where do you get the idea that they don't gain knowledge for the purpose of serving one's fellow human? Just because multiple ways of serving exist doesn't mean one must pursue all of them. They seem to have helped a neighbor build a barn, for example.Incidentally, where did these Amish kids get their knowledge of current events in India and Pakistan? A newspaper, printed on a printing press? A book, which is another product of modern technology?
If you think the Amish prohibit printing presses and books, then you know zilch about the Amish and should do some reading before running your mouth again. They probably know far more about you than you know about them. Go visit Google.
In fact, electricity as a whole is not prohibited. Basically, batteries are allowed, but electrical wires coming into the home are not, because this is perceived to be a connection to the outside ("English") world. (They call us English because they speak "Pennsylvania Dutch," a German variant, as a first language.)
It's perfectly permissible to them to be in a building wired for electricity as long as it's not theirs, ride in a non-Amish person's automobile, etc. And though some might see it as a contradiction, they do not: this is about their central (church) leaders setting standards for their whole society, rather than decreeing what is right and wrong for everybody else.
As I understand it, all these things were decided years ago by some equivalent of a church council, and it is possible that the particular issues may be up for review again now and then.
Moreover, I submit that it is an unconstitutional ex-post facto law. There is a reason the Constitution prohibited retroactive laws, but we seem to be ignoring that principle today.
The new technology is the only true spam firewall in existence, according to co-developer Matthew Sullivan, the man who invented the term "spam firewall."
And before you say "if it saves one life or catches one criminal" we live in a culture of tradeoffs. We don't have speedlimits of 5 mph, even though that would dramatically cut down on car accident deaths.
Ah; I see I am not the only slashdotter who regularly reads Walter Williams.
Actually, you've got it backwards. When you tax people to help the poor, you're taking other people's money. Private efforts means doing it yourself.
Look, being compassionate doesn't have to mean helping people through government programs. I think the defining difference is whether you believe you should run towards government as the first solution to a problem. Conservatives don't generally argue that the poor shouldn't be helped (okay, some wacko conservative commentators aside); they argue that government programs are hurting instead of helping and that private efforts might be more effective. That only makes them uncompassionate if you believe that government is the only way to help them.
Who cares if they learn? Are we being paid to do their market research for them? Let natural selection take its course: while they are wondering why their business is tanking, we can go frequent shops that do better. Maybe someday someone will open a national chain that actually does the right thing, and they will win out, and the others will close. It's the same in the end; I don't care if Best Buy gets better or another store shows up that is better.
even our citizens on welfare tend to be wealthier than many in smaller european countries
I read that as "even our citizens on welfare tend to be wealthier than many small european countries." Thanks for the morning chuckle. :)
Yes, I'm quite aware of the practical problems with the existing stem cell lines.
he doesn't support scientific research on most stemcells
/me applauds intelligent member of the other side of the political spectrum.
Thank you for recognizing that Bush did not ban all stem cell research. Very few opponents of Bush recognize this.
In fact, all Bush did was prohibit federal funding. And only on new lines ... to date, George W. Bush is the only President of the United States who has ever provided federal funding for stem cell research of any kind, though in this case only for those lines existing before the policy announcement. (I'm quoting his wife, here; I heard this on the radio last week. I encourage you to go check up on this to confirm, because I suppose it could just be political spin.) Meanwhile, private research has, AFAICT, no restrictions. And, in fact, according to this article, 17 new embryonic stem cell lines have been harvested and investigated with private funds.
Anyway, thank you for having the courage to listen to the other side. May there be many more Americans like you!
This is why I read slashdot. I am grateful to you for posting this, because I probably would not have heard about it any other way.
I'm voting for one of the two major party candidates (Bush), but I would like to hear a lot more from the new minor parties, and I'd especially like to get rid of statutory idiocies that put them at a disadvantage. It ain't right!
BTW, you might like the website referenced in my current sig.
If everyone who felt like you rose up and voted for Badnarik, we'd all win.
Although I'm voting for Bush, actually, and want him to win out of the four. I'll reevaluate again in four years. Unless the parties fundamentally realign, I can't see myself seriously considering anyone other than Republican or Libertarian.
Okay, does anyone have any confirmation as to whether this is real or somebody's own personal reediting job? I wouldn't be surprised either way, but Google and Star Wars news sites don't seem to help much in the way of confirmation.
Similarly, I'd like to note, even if Vader died a Sith, it wouldn't be too late for him. It is possible to be redeemed even after death. For this, I cite the game Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.
You might like this fan fiction story (long, but worth the read), along with its prequel. The author has some other unique works as well.
BTW, did you recognize my quote as being from the U.S. Constitution?
The ones arguing against it aren't capitalists, they are power hoarders.
Very insightful, along with the rest of your post. They are only capitalists in the sense that they want all the capital.
They'll be the last ones to open their eyes, but it won't matter, because they will have already lost.
I believe that is very true. I accepted awhile back the inevitability of the crushing of the proprietary model by freedom (at least in software, and ultimately, I hope, in other fields). As long as we defend the fundamental right to do what you want with what is yours, including give it away if you choose, their days are numbered.
I'm a laissez-faire, free market, anarcho-capitalist libertarian. Nothing could be more pro-free market than protecting the right of people to GIVE away their creations for whatever motive they choose. It just so happens that there are economic incentives to do so in many cases.
Anti-free market would be if you decide the government has to step in to "promote competition" (i.e., stamp out activity that seems to weird for the politician's radar and/or threatens established business models). Anti-free market would be if you RESTRICT people's right to give away what is theirs. The fundamental of the free market is the right to do what you want with what is yours.
Anti-free market would also be, IMO, granting any kind of monopolistic or exclusive rights to people or entitites, for example, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." A real free market solution would let the free market promote the progress of science and useful arts instead of doing it by government compulsion. And we are seeing that when there is a vibrant set of public works available through public domain and/or favorable licensing terms, science and useful arts advance dramatically as almost all discoveries and inventions build on prior art. Removing these restrictions would do so far better.
The IT section has an awful color scheme (actually, has it changed, slightly? it looks a little bit easier to read). And why does this article belong in this section, anyway? I thought IT was like a department in a business. I'd expect to see articles there about hiring practices, outsourcing, office software, Microsoft products and open replacements, and maybe general development issues. Do MP3s really fit into that section?
I've got a pretty developed sense of morality. (Some would say overdeveloped ... I'm a fundamentalist Christian.) But I do not feel that the law defines for us what is moral. There are many laws which I believe just should not exist.
I will teach my children to respect other people's property. I will also teach them to obey the law ... even laws they feel are unjust ... unless a law compels them to violate their religion. I will also teach them that even though the law tries to give the impression that ideas are property, that that does not make it so. I do not believe an idea can be property, and I do not believe the "originator" of an idea (if we could even determine who that really is) should be granted an exclusive right to its use.
The Constitution states that the purpose of granting these exclusive rights is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. I believe the progress of science and the useful arts would actually be promoted better by eliminating these exclusive rights.
There's another problem with blurring that distinction. They are trying to make you think there are some things you cannot download, and they are copyrighted, while other things you can, and they are not. They idea they are subtly enforcing is that only the big dogs get the legal protection of copyright, while us little guys do not. It's an attempt to protect an entrenched industry against possible new competition.
The problem is that they teach not only that the law works that way but that the law should be that way. Most people I know are inable to distinguish in a discussion between what the law is and what it should be. (I've had discussions where I argue that a particular law should be repealed and people counter with, "They'd throw you in jail if you did that!" Inability to think critically.)
My wife was homeschooled all the way through, and while I had an excellent public school experience, we agreed last year to plan on doing the same for our children. Every day I hear more and more news like this that make me breathe a sigh of relief that we have made that choice.
There's constantly little bitty things the schools are doing that we wouldn't like, that maybe wouldn't be a clincher individually but collectively form an avalanche. I'm so happy every time I can say, "Thank goodness we won't have to worry about that!"