The civil rights movement was mainly fueled by marches, sit-ins, and general protests. It was only after several YEARS of this(which mainly changed the stances of many people) that the government began to listen and change its stances.
The marches, sit-ins, and protests had nothing to do with civil rights gains. Every single civil rights victory was won in court or in Congress, after it became apparent that if Congress didn't do something the courts would.
The activities of the protestors didn't matter for shit, other than providing a target for everyone right of moderate to vent their ire upon.
What happened to the days when a country's movements were so offensive that people would march?
Marching and public protest are extremely ineffective at driving change. They simply don't work, regardless of the 'romantic' public notion about these activities. If you want to change the way things are done you'll have to go for something a bit more productive than walking down a street and shouting slogans while wearing a ThinkGeek t-shirt.
I'm sure RMS would have no problem
RMS might enjoy being the demagogue, but most of us wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole. Just because you like him doesn't mean he's qualified to lead, much less that others will follow him.
nor would Linus
Linus isn't an activist, and I honestly believe he'd find the idea of 'leading' such a group a nauseating one.
a day out of their lives to support such an important cause isn't going to hurt anyone.
And it won't accomplish anything either.
It's far past time we actually *do* something about it.
Then go ahead and do something about it. But marching, sit-ins, etc. aren't going to accomplish much of anything but pissing off all the people you're going to inconvenience.
Guns were created to kill living things but they are marketed with clever wording that includes everything but.
No, only the anti-gun loons think the manufacturers are involved in some nefarious conspiracy to 'trick' the public into thinking that the gun isn't a deadly weapon. It is, and that's the primary reason most people own a gun. It wouldn't be worth much if it *didn't* kill the person you're shooting at.
Sometimes people try to kill one another. It's in your interest to be the best-armed person in any such conflict. Especially if you aren't built like Arnold, or are a woman facing down an enraged man, or elderly, or disabled, etc. etc.
It's better to be alive and reviled by the anti-gun nuts than, well, dead. Alive just can't be beat.
the telcos are allowed to keep their monopoly in the wires and poles market
Worse, the poles and lines don't even belong to them. They were largely built with public funds and are part of the common infrastructure; the funds invested by the telcos were paid back decades ago.
Essentially the government seems intent on giving de facto ownership of the lines and poles to whatever local telco happens to be pulling the strings, regardless of who paid for the infrastructure in the first place. It smacks of the return of the rail baron, only this time the barons don't even have to pay the price of laying the rail!
To maintain that monopoly your company will have to lock out potential competitors with patents, laws, or failing all that good ol' threats and intimidation.
You forgot "or by making a better and cheaper product than anyone else in the market".
Your point, "there's nothing wrong with a monopoly" strikes me as naive.
I don't know why that should bother you, because it happens to be true. The fundamentals of capitalism are very specific on the formation of what are called 'natural' monopolies, and there's nothing inherently wrong with them.
Capitalism, like a game or sport, only has a chance of half-way working when there's a somewhat level playing field.
Ah, another anti-capitalist pseudo-socialist government-loving loon. Shoulda guessed.
they must be regulated as such. Please go crack open a history book
Nearly every monopoly in world history has been made possible by government regulation. Powerful businesses collude with corrupt governments to CREATE monopoly conditions. Speaking of 'cracking open a history text', you may want to educate yourself about some fairly simple and obvious monopolies - e.g., the railroad barons, early steel manufacturers, the entire telecommunications industry, etc. Your friendly government *made these monopolies possible*.
Without government regulation backed by the threat of violence it's very difficult to impose a monopoly on a market; Microsoft is one of the very few successful examples of a monopoly that wasn't government-enabled.
Sometimes the government will allow a monopoly to continue to exist provided the company is willing to allow itself to be regulated by the government.
And this is a truly anti-capitalistic situation. The government grants one company an absolute monopoly in exchange for a seat on the board of directors, using the government threat of violence to lock down any potential competition. Not exactly a shining example of the free market.
This is just slashdot's way of proving that the average poster here is no more savvy or thoughtful than the average poster anywhere else in the world. Instead of worshipping at the altar of Britney (which I can at least understand, being red-blooded, male, and not gay) they go forth and spend their time bowing down before Company X which somehow successfully marketed itself as being "less evil" than Microsoft.
I guess it's more 'cool' if you give unthinking unbridled fanatical support to a fictional business entity than to, say, a hot chick - or at least it is among certain Slashdotters. Makes me wonder about the sanity of those Slashdotters, though, or at least their closet status....
Actually, I think that if you disagree with what some news source writes about you, refusing to have anything to do with them is a pretty mature way of handling the situation.
You mean like when they print true and accurate information about you found by using the primary product of *your own company*? Gee, can the fanboy apologia get any thicker?
No, they're just showing that the guy in question is a petty, spineless, vindictive little pussy. With a whiny fucker like that in charge, I seriously doubt that "do no evil" is anything more than a marketing ploy.
But then anyone with half a brain would've come to that conclusion after seeing how eager Google was to assist the Chinese government in firewalling their own populace from the rest of the world....
Which doesn't address the original point. And regardless of what Circuit City does, nearly every chain that used to sell VCRs still does.
Fact is, VCRs tend to be tough and highly functional pieces of equipment. They last for years. And years. And years. The failure rate of the average cheap VCR is tiny.
Joe and Jane don't see what the fuss is. The DVD just isn't that exciting. The 'extra content' on most DVDs is boring schlock not worth watching in the first place. Games still come on CDs, so there's no motivation to throw out the CD-ROM and replace it.
So what if DVDs store more data? Joe and Jane don't do much in the way of backup, and if they do the CD is just fine for 99% of 'average consumer' jobs. What's the big deal if DVD movies are (marginally) clearer? Improved quality or not, Joe and Jane are perfectly satisfied with the movie that comes on the VCR tape. Why should they replace a perfectly good VCR *and* TV set (you need the HDTV, otherwise the DVD player is mostly a dick-measuring item) when what they have works, works well, and suits them just fine?
Joe and Jane are not bleeding-edge consumers. Joe and Jane don't give a shit about what a bunch of pasty-faced, fat-assed geeks drool over. Joe and Jane aren't going to drop a bundle of hard-earned cash on technology which makes them yawn.
And Joe and Jane hold the purse strings. For any product to thrive they're the folks that have to buy it; the niche bleeding-edgers don't have the purchase power to do the trick themselves.
HD-DVD and HDTV won't be taking off, or exploding, or doing much of anything any time soon. Like the DVD they'll gradually - over the space of years - take over the market as older VCRs/CD-ROMS/DVDs/TVs break down and need to be replaced. And they'll do it this way because the vast majority of consumers are Joes and Janes, and they'll greet the HD-DVD and HDTV with just as much enthusiasm as they did the DVD - which is to say, very little at all.
But unlike DVD, where is the consumer excitement for HD-DVD?
There wasn't any consumer excitement over the DVD, except among the bleeding-edge niche market. In fact, there's NEVER been any excitement over the DVD when it comes to Joe and Jane Consumer; the DVD has consistently made slow gains over the course of years, so slowly that VHS players and tapes are still ubiquitous.
If you need a real-world example of this, just take a look at any video rental store. Every year more and more VHS titles are being replaced with DVD/VHS releases, or DVD-only releases. But the process is slow and very, very few stores rent only DVDs; in most stores theres still a mish-mash of DVDs and videos precisely because Joe and Jane aren't rushing out in huge numbers to replace their perfectly functional VCRs.
Joe and Jane, you see, just don't give a shit. Don't expect them to jones over HD-DVD any more than they've been raving over HDTV. The only people who think that HD-DVD or HDTV are going to 'explode' are the same idiots who thought DVD was 'taking over the market' because they thought it was cool, and their friends did too. It never occurred to the idiots that neither they nor their friends constituted a representative sample of the population.
Verizon. Their customer service blew until the class-action lawsuit, but now it's quite good. As in, prior to the lawsuit they actually tried to defraud my wife and I, but now they're one of the better companies we have to deal with.
I have no complaints, even if it did take legal action to straighten the company out. And one of the best things about their customer service: no goddamned incomprehensible Indian accents!!!
Or the government could eliminate business taxes altogether, since businesses don't pay taxes EVER, their employees, shareholders, and consumers do.
To the head of the class! Although there are two good reasons to use corporations as collection points for taxes:
- it's cheaper and more efficient than collecting them individually from every employee, shareholder, and customer; and
- you also get to tax *foreign* shareholders, employees, and customers, if indirectly.
A perhaps better tax scheme would be to tax only corporations and instead eliminate personal income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. Same result in the end, with the added benefit of smaller government combined with tax revenues from non-citizens.
however, I still hate it, and feel embarassed when, my friends try to use this idiotic argument
Yeah, the idea that an undeveloped fetus is somehow fully human is something that's just too stupid to tolerate. An idiotic argument if there ever was one.
Actually, I think we've hit on the right class to teach Intelligent Design. A marketing class. Look kids, how do you find a way to rebrand an old idea to provide it with added legitimacy in the modern age?
Hey, it worked for the "psychics". Claiming to be a wizard able to cast spells in the 20th century will get you labeled as a loon, but if you rebrand "magic" as "psychic" and "spells" as "psychic powers" (e.g., telepathy, telekinesis) then all of sudden a large chunk of the population will actually take you seriously. In fact, roughly 60% of everyone in all the First World countries, people who're surrounded by the worlds finest technological achievements, will throw away the fundamentals of reason in favor of superstitious nonsense.
Why shouldn't the creationists do the same thing that's worked so well for the "psychics"? Take an old idea, dress it in pseudo-scientific clothing, and viola! A whole new market of ignorant fools to prey on!
Someone who starts getting interested in extreme islamic sites needs watching.
By the same logic anyone who actually reads hard-line Christian sites - the sort that advocate taking "extreme" measures against abortion clinics and pro-choice doctors - should also be watched very, very closely. These lunatic motherfuckers have proven themselves capable of murderous violence time and time again, and apparently have no intention of halting their abominable pogrom against the "unbelievers".
If we're going to be watching the religious whackos, we should be watching ALL of the religious whackos - including the vermin in our own country who claim to be doing "God's work" every time they blow up a clinic or splatter a doctors brains all over the pavement. We should be treating them as "enemy combatants", and either capping their sorry asses or sending them to rot in Gitmo.
A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. No one should get special treatment just because they worship god A instead of god B.
Patriots fight to destroy oppressive governments. Terrorists fight to create them.
In the United States, a patriot is someone who stands up and defends the Constitution against anyone and everyone who would abuse it - including the government, if the government was one of the abusers. In fact, anyone who didn't stand up for the Constitution, or who actively argued against it, would properly be labeled a "traitor".
Opera isn't mine. Even if I paid for a license, it still wouldn't be mine.
Irrelevent. A monoculture is bad, period. It doesn't matter if the monoculture is one dictated by Microsoft via IE or one dominated by Firefox. Both monocultures suck. One might suck less, but it's still going to suck.
Multiple browsers are always going to be a better solution than one dominant browser. In this world - the real one - that's going to include browsers like Firefox, as well as browsers like Opera and IE. It's best for all of us if no one of these browsers ever holds a dominant market position.
There's no reason for me to root for Opera, so that's why I, and quite a few others I suppose, don't really care about Opera.
There's no reason for me to root for Firefox since I don't like it and won't use it, but even so I have the brains to recognize that any competition that ultimately reduces IE market share is a good thing, even if I personally dislike the competition. The more browsers, the better.
We need a new borg icon for the Firefox fanboys. Just like the Billy-G worshippers, any time anyone mentions the virtues of a non-Firefox browser they shit their pants, whip out their willies, and start jacking off at the altar of free software.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: ANY monoculture is a bad monoculture. It doesn't matter what the dominate monoculture is, it's always a bad thing to have a market overwhelmed by a single product. If the fanboys had any brains at all they'd welcome every non-IE browser into the market and encourage the whole passle to compete against one another, rather than blasting everything that might take market share from their precious One True Browswer(TM).
I sincerely hope that Opera and Firefox continue to take IE down a peg. I also sincerely hope that neither Opera nor Firefox ever reaches a dominant market position. It's better for everyone involved if the market for browsers remains in contention among as many products as possible.
Well, better for everyone except the fanatics, of course. But it's about time we stopped listening to their ilk anyway.
I actually have more respect for some selfish bastard who makes no excuse for his selfishness than deluded idiots like this (and yes, I know that this exactly is what Rand was talking about, okay? I like being contrary, so sue me. I can see from your posting history you wouldn't know anything about that, now would you?);-)
Got me there. The hot button beckons, especially when it's stamped on the forehead of someone just begging to be bitch-slapped....
but I like making fun of people who use other people's philosophies as an excuse for their own worst behavior.
It'd be nice if you'd also make fun of the hypocrisy of their position. Sorta like making fun of a conservative Republican who argues for deficit spending. As in, how can anyone be a conservative and approve of deficit spending in the same breath?
Look, I know I wasn't doing objectivism justice.
So instead of using a high-powered hunting rifle you pulled out the bazooka and said "fuck it"? Understandable, but don't be surprised when the bystanders start shooting back.
Of course that doesn't surprise me- most Randists tend to think they're intellectually superior due to their rejection of "dated" concepts such as morality and charity. Its the way they ease their conscience.
You're so full of shit I can smell the stink from here. Rands philosophy doesn't in any way, shape or form reject morality OR charity - in fact, she never addresses what we would call 'true charity' in ANY of her books, including "The Virtue of Selfishness". It's simply of no interest to her, nor is it objectionable.
You'd know that if you'd actually read the material in question, but it appears that like so many others who chant the "Ayn Rand is EVILLLL!" mantra you haven't bothered. You'd think at the very least that "know your enemy" would apply here, at least to someone who claims to be morally and intellectually superior to anyone who dares disagree with him.
If the party doesn't follow libertarian principles then it isn't libertarian, by definition. You can't be a "little bit" libertarian any more than you can be a "little bit" pregnant.
If you want to keep publicly-funded schools, for example, you're more than welcome to start your own party. Just don't call it libertarian, because it isn't. Perhaps the "Mostly Libertarian Party" would be a more accurate description.
Of course altruistic people are selfish, it's the only thing anyone can be, but we aren't stupid.
Same damned argument: "if you don't believe what I believe then you're a moron."
Like I said, I'll defend your right to be purely selfish, but I'm going to call stupidity when I see it.
Because your vastly superior intellect means that whatever you believe is "smart", and anyone who disagrees with you is "stupid". Have you ever thought doing something like, perhaps, GROWING UP?
Arguing about Rand is a circular argument. Who the fuck CARES why people do good; if its for yourself, or for others, the point is you're trying to help.
No, the point is HOW you're trying to "help". If your idea of 'helping' is forcing other people to do what you tell them to do then you're just a regular ol' asshole. Your goals are just so much bullshit when it's your craving for power you're trying to satisfy.
You see, YOU don't get to decide for the rest of us what constitutes 'helping'. We decide that for ourselves. Start from there and no one else will have a problem with you - except, of course, the folks who want to force you to 'help' in whatever manner they deem to be appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
The civil rights movement was mainly fueled by marches, sit-ins, and general protests. It was only after several YEARS of this(which mainly changed the stances of many people) that the government began to listen and change its stances.
The marches, sit-ins, and protests had nothing to do with civil rights gains. Every single civil rights victory was won in court or in Congress, after it became apparent that if Congress didn't do something the courts would.
The activities of the protestors didn't matter for shit, other than providing a target for everyone right of moderate to vent their ire upon.
Max
The solution is to pay the government.
You already do. It's called "taxes". And it's painfully obvious this doesn't guarantee you representation.
What you might try is paying off your elected officials. THAT seems to work just fine.
Max
What happened to the days when a country's movements were so offensive that people would march?
Marching and public protest are extremely ineffective at driving change. They simply don't work, regardless of the 'romantic' public notion about these activities. If you want to change the way things are done you'll have to go for something a bit more productive than walking down a street and shouting slogans while wearing a ThinkGeek t-shirt.
I'm sure RMS would have no problem
RMS might enjoy being the demagogue, but most of us wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole. Just because you like him doesn't mean he's qualified to lead, much less that others will follow him.
nor would Linus
Linus isn't an activist, and I honestly believe he'd find the idea of 'leading' such a group a nauseating one.
a day out of their lives to support such an important cause isn't going to hurt anyone.
And it won't accomplish anything either.
It's far past time we actually *do* something about it.
Then go ahead and do something about it. But marching, sit-ins, etc. aren't going to accomplish much of anything but pissing off all the people you're going to inconvenience.
Max
Guns were created to kill living things but they are marketed with clever wording that includes everything but.
No, only the anti-gun loons think the manufacturers are involved in some nefarious conspiracy to 'trick' the public into thinking that the gun isn't a deadly weapon. It is, and that's the primary reason most people own a gun. It wouldn't be worth much if it *didn't* kill the person you're shooting at.
Sometimes people try to kill one another. It's in your interest to be the best-armed person in any such conflict. Especially if you aren't built like Arnold, or are a woman facing down an enraged man, or elderly, or disabled, etc. etc.
It's better to be alive and reviled by the anti-gun nuts than, well, dead. Alive just can't be beat.
Max
the telcos are allowed to keep their monopoly in the wires and poles market
Worse, the poles and lines don't even belong to them. They were largely built with public funds and are part of the common infrastructure; the funds invested by the telcos were paid back decades ago.
Essentially the government seems intent on giving de facto ownership of the lines and poles to whatever local telco happens to be pulling the strings, regardless of who paid for the infrastructure in the first place. It smacks of the return of the rail baron, only this time the barons don't even have to pay the price of laying the rail!
Max
To maintain that monopoly your company will have to lock out potential competitors with patents, laws, or failing all that good ol' threats and intimidation.
You forgot "or by making a better and cheaper product than anyone else in the market".
Your point, "there's nothing wrong with a monopoly" strikes me as naive.
I don't know why that should bother you, because it happens to be true. The fundamentals of capitalism are very specific on the formation of what are called 'natural' monopolies, and there's nothing inherently wrong with them.
Capitalism, like a game or sport, only has a chance of half-way working when there's a somewhat level playing field.
Ah, another anti-capitalist pseudo-socialist government-loving loon. Shoulda guessed.
they must be regulated as such. Please go crack open a history book
Nearly every monopoly in world history has been made possible by government regulation. Powerful businesses collude with corrupt governments to CREATE monopoly conditions. Speaking of 'cracking open a history text', you may want to educate yourself about some fairly simple and obvious monopolies - e.g., the railroad barons, early steel manufacturers, the entire telecommunications industry, etc. Your friendly government *made these monopolies possible*.
Without government regulation backed by the threat of violence it's very difficult to impose a monopoly on a market; Microsoft is one of the very few successful examples of a monopoly that wasn't government-enabled.
Sometimes the government will allow a monopoly to continue to exist provided the company is willing to allow itself to be regulated by the government.
And this is a truly anti-capitalistic situation. The government grants one company an absolute monopoly in exchange for a seat on the board of directors, using the government threat of violence to lock down any potential competition. Not exactly a shining example of the free market.
Max
This is just slashdot's way of proving that the average poster here is no more savvy or thoughtful than the average poster anywhere else in the world. Instead of worshipping at the altar of Britney (which I can at least understand, being red-blooded, male, and not gay) they go forth and spend their time bowing down before Company X which somehow successfully marketed itself as being "less evil" than Microsoft.
I guess it's more 'cool' if you give unthinking unbridled fanatical support to a fictional business entity than to, say, a hot chick - or at least it is among certain Slashdotters. Makes me wonder about the sanity of those Slashdotters, though, or at least their closet status....
Max
Actually, I think that if you disagree with what some news source writes about you, refusing to have anything to do with them is a pretty mature way of handling the situation.
You mean like when they print true and accurate information about you found by using the primary product of *your own company*? Gee, can the fanboy apologia get any thicker?
Max
They're not doing anything evil
No, they're just showing that the guy in question is a petty, spineless, vindictive little pussy. With a whiny fucker like that in charge, I seriously doubt that "do no evil" is anything more than a marketing ploy.
But then anyone with half a brain would've come to that conclusion after seeing how eager Google was to assist the Chinese government in firewalling their own populace from the rest of the world....
Max
Circuit City doesn't sell VHS players anymore.
Which doesn't address the original point. And regardless of what Circuit City does, nearly every chain that used to sell VCRs still does.
Fact is, VCRs tend to be tough and highly functional pieces of equipment. They last for years. And years. And years. The failure rate of the average cheap VCR is tiny.
Joe and Jane don't see what the fuss is. The DVD just isn't that exciting. The 'extra content' on most DVDs is boring schlock not worth watching in the first place. Games still come on CDs, so there's no motivation to throw out the CD-ROM and replace it.
So what if DVDs store more data? Joe and Jane don't do much in the way of backup, and if they do the CD is just fine for 99% of 'average consumer' jobs. What's the big deal if DVD movies are (marginally) clearer? Improved quality or not, Joe and Jane are perfectly satisfied with the movie that comes on the VCR tape. Why should they replace a perfectly good VCR *and* TV set (you need the HDTV, otherwise the DVD player is mostly a dick-measuring item) when what they have works, works well, and suits them just fine?
Joe and Jane are not bleeding-edge consumers. Joe and Jane don't give a shit about what a bunch of pasty-faced, fat-assed geeks drool over. Joe and Jane aren't going to drop a bundle of hard-earned cash on technology which makes them yawn.
And Joe and Jane hold the purse strings. For any product to thrive they're the folks that have to buy it; the niche bleeding-edgers don't have the purchase power to do the trick themselves.
HD-DVD and HDTV won't be taking off, or exploding, or doing much of anything any time soon. Like the DVD they'll gradually - over the space of years - take over the market as older VCRs/CD-ROMS/DVDs/TVs break down and need to be replaced. And they'll do it this way because the vast majority of consumers are Joes and Janes, and they'll greet the HD-DVD and HDTV with just as much enthusiasm as they did the DVD - which is to say, very little at all.
Max
But unlike DVD, where is the consumer excitement for HD-DVD?
There wasn't any consumer excitement over the DVD, except among the bleeding-edge niche market. In fact, there's NEVER been any excitement over the DVD when it comes to Joe and Jane Consumer; the DVD has consistently made slow gains over the course of years, so slowly that VHS players and tapes are still ubiquitous.
If you need a real-world example of this, just take a look at any video rental store. Every year more and more VHS titles are being replaced with DVD/VHS releases, or DVD-only releases. But the process is slow and very, very few stores rent only DVDs; in most stores theres still a mish-mash of DVDs and videos precisely because Joe and Jane aren't rushing out in huge numbers to replace their perfectly functional VCRs.
Joe and Jane, you see, just don't give a shit. Don't expect them to jones over HD-DVD any more than they've been raving over HDTV. The only people who think that HD-DVD or HDTV are going to 'explode' are the same idiots who thought DVD was 'taking over the market' because they thought it was cool, and their friends did too. It never occurred to the idiots that neither they nor their friends constituted a representative sample of the population.
Max
Verizon. Their customer service blew until the class-action lawsuit, but now it's quite good. As in, prior to the lawsuit they actually tried to defraud my wife and I, but now they're one of the better companies we have to deal with.
I have no complaints, even if it did take legal action to straighten the company out. And one of the best things about their customer service: no goddamned incomprehensible Indian accents!!!
Max
Or the government could eliminate business taxes altogether, since businesses don't pay taxes EVER, their employees, shareholders, and consumers do.
To the head of the class! Although there are two good reasons to use corporations as collection points for taxes:
- it's cheaper and more efficient than collecting them individually from every employee, shareholder, and customer; and
- you also get to tax *foreign* shareholders, employees, and customers, if indirectly.
A perhaps better tax scheme would be to tax only corporations and instead eliminate personal income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. Same result in the end, with the added benefit of smaller government combined with tax revenues from non-citizens.
Max
however, I still hate it, and feel embarassed when, my friends try to use this idiotic argument
Yeah, the idea that an undeveloped fetus is somehow fully human is something that's just too stupid to tolerate. An idiotic argument if there ever was one.
Max
Actually, I think we've hit on the right class to teach Intelligent Design. A marketing class. Look kids, how do you find a way to rebrand an old idea to provide it with added legitimacy in the modern age?
Hey, it worked for the "psychics". Claiming to be a wizard able to cast spells in the 20th century will get you labeled as a loon, but if you rebrand "magic" as "psychic" and "spells" as "psychic powers" (e.g., telepathy, telekinesis) then all of sudden a large chunk of the population will actually take you seriously. In fact, roughly 60% of everyone in all the First World countries, people who're surrounded by the worlds finest technological achievements, will throw away the fundamentals of reason in favor of superstitious nonsense.
Why shouldn't the creationists do the same thing that's worked so well for the "psychics"? Take an old idea, dress it in pseudo-scientific clothing, and viola! A whole new market of ignorant fools to prey on!
Max
Someone who starts getting interested in extreme islamic sites needs watching.
By the same logic anyone who actually reads hard-line Christian sites - the sort that advocate taking "extreme" measures against abortion clinics and pro-choice doctors - should also be watched very, very closely. These lunatic motherfuckers have proven themselves capable of murderous violence time and time again, and apparently have no intention of halting their abominable pogrom against the "unbelievers".
If we're going to be watching the religious whackos, we should be watching ALL of the religious whackos - including the vermin in our own country who claim to be doing "God's work" every time they blow up a clinic or splatter a doctors brains all over the pavement. We should be treating them as "enemy combatants", and either capping their sorry asses or sending them to rot in Gitmo.
A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. No one should get special treatment just because they worship god A instead of god B.
Max
Patriots fight to destroy oppressive governments. Terrorists fight to create them.
In the United States, a patriot is someone who stands up and defends the Constitution against anyone and everyone who would abuse it - including the government, if the government was one of the abusers. In fact, anyone who didn't stand up for the Constitution, or who actively argued against it, would properly be labeled a "traitor".
Max
Opera isn't mine. Even if I paid for a license, it still wouldn't be mine.
Irrelevent. A monoculture is bad, period. It doesn't matter if the monoculture is one dictated by Microsoft via IE or one dominated by Firefox. Both monocultures suck. One might suck less, but it's still going to suck.
Multiple browsers are always going to be a better solution than one dominant browser. In this world - the real one - that's going to include browsers like Firefox, as well as browsers like Opera and IE. It's best for all of us if no one of these browsers ever holds a dominant market position.
There's no reason for me to root for Opera, so that's why I, and quite a few others I suppose, don't really care about Opera.
There's no reason for me to root for Firefox since I don't like it and won't use it, but even so I have the brains to recognize that any competition that ultimately reduces IE market share is a good thing, even if I personally dislike the competition. The more browsers, the better.
Max
We need a new borg icon for the Firefox fanboys. Just like the Billy-G worshippers, any time anyone mentions the virtues of a non-Firefox browser they shit their pants, whip out their willies, and start jacking off at the altar of free software.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: ANY monoculture is a bad monoculture. It doesn't matter what the dominate monoculture is, it's always a bad thing to have a market overwhelmed by a single product. If the fanboys had any brains at all they'd welcome every non-IE browser into the market and encourage the whole passle to compete against one another, rather than blasting everything that might take market share from their precious One True Browswer(TM).
I sincerely hope that Opera and Firefox continue to take IE down a peg. I also sincerely hope that neither Opera nor Firefox ever reaches a dominant market position. It's better for everyone involved if the market for browsers remains in contention among as many products as possible.
Well, better for everyone except the fanatics, of course. But it's about time we stopped listening to their ilk anyway.
Max
I actually have more respect for some selfish bastard who makes no excuse for his selfishness than deluded idiots like this (and yes, I know that this exactly is what Rand was talking about, okay? I like being contrary, so sue me. I can see from your posting history you wouldn't know anything about that, now would you?) ;-)
Got me there. The hot button beckons, especially when it's stamped on the forehead of someone just begging to be bitch-slapped....
Max
but I like making fun of people who use other people's philosophies as an excuse for their own worst behavior.
It'd be nice if you'd also make fun of the hypocrisy of their position. Sorta like making fun of a conservative Republican who argues for deficit spending. As in, how can anyone be a conservative and approve of deficit spending in the same breath?
Look, I know I wasn't doing objectivism justice.
So instead of using a high-powered hunting rifle you pulled out the bazooka and said "fuck it"? Understandable, but don't be surprised when the bystanders start shooting back.
Max
Of course that doesn't surprise me- most Randists tend to think they're intellectually superior due to their rejection of "dated" concepts such as morality and charity. Its the way they ease their conscience.
You're so full of shit I can smell the stink from here. Rands philosophy doesn't in any way, shape or form reject morality OR charity - in fact, she never addresses what we would call 'true charity' in ANY of her books, including "The Virtue of Selfishness". It's simply of no interest to her, nor is it objectionable.
You'd know that if you'd actually read the material in question, but it appears that like so many others who chant the "Ayn Rand is EVILLLL!" mantra you haven't bothered. You'd think at the very least that "know your enemy" would apply here, at least to someone who claims to be morally and intellectually superior to anyone who dares disagree with him.
Max
If the party doesn't follow libertarian principles then it isn't libertarian, by definition. You can't be a "little bit" libertarian any more than you can be a "little bit" pregnant.
If you want to keep publicly-funded schools, for example, you're more than welcome to start your own party. Just don't call it libertarian, because it isn't. Perhaps the "Mostly Libertarian Party" would be a more accurate description.
Max
Of course altruistic people are selfish, it's the only thing anyone can be, but we aren't stupid.
Same damned argument: "if you don't believe what I believe then you're a moron."
Like I said, I'll defend your right to be purely selfish, but I'm going to call stupidity when I see it.
Because your vastly superior intellect means that whatever you believe is "smart", and anyone who disagrees with you is "stupid". Have you ever thought doing something like, perhaps, GROWING UP?
Max
Arguing about Rand is a circular argument. Who the fuck CARES why people do good; if its for yourself, or for others, the point is you're trying to help.
No, the point is HOW you're trying to "help". If your idea of 'helping' is forcing other people to do what you tell them to do then you're just a regular ol' asshole. Your goals are just so much bullshit when it's your craving for power you're trying to satisfy.
You see, YOU don't get to decide for the rest of us what constitutes 'helping'. We decide that for ourselves. Start from there and no one else will have a problem with you - except, of course, the folks who want to force you to 'help' in whatever manner they deem to be appropriate.
Max