Already, Russia and China are trying to edge out India in destroying American jobs.
Already, America is trying to edge out the rest of the countries in destroying their jobs by their innovation, the lack of which is bemoaned by the original post.
"Destroying" is a nice negative word that will stir up emotions, but do they really destroy in this way what is in some way rightfully yours? I am doubtful.
You've got to be kidding. When the authorities come to debate the issue with you, what, exactly, are you going to do? Shoot some cop, soldier, or CTU [fox.com] agent? Some guy with a job to do, and maybe a family, or a dog, or whatever back home waiting for him?
Like a soldier in pretty much anyone's enemy's army (in the entire history) was not just "a guy with a job to do and family waiting for him"? Great argument.
Probably of the Nazi Germany's soldiers weren't vehement Nazis, or at least racists - they also were guys with families waiting at home and a job to do (or conscripted to a job to do - is that better? At least in the former case they volunteer for their jobs)
4)Those of us on Slashdot here ARE aware of what's going on...but there's only about 1/2 to 1 million of us maximum...and most of us don't have the time/resources/willingness to do anything about it...I would, and I
Many of those who don't have time work for a living, and, as geeks, probably are not living at poverty level. So doing stuff about it can involve donating to those who you think will do anything about it. Be it EFF, ACLU, or whatever political party/candidate you think is viable and can fight against this.
My advice is to listen to your daughter's doctors -- if they suggest medication, and if it helps her live a more-typical (I hate the label "normal") childhood, by all means go for
Or, if you can make it happen (you may like it when it does) - make your child's "typical" chidhood experience different, so he/she doesn't need this medication. Maybe that's a solution?
At some point, it becomes a positive feedback issue: children get into environment where other children are already disciplined/medicated into a certain way of life, and your child stands out. Maybe, if you found another community, your child would be considered "normal".
Disclosure: I don't have children; a friend of mine does, and has had people suggest to put her child on R:), but doesn't want to (and, by the way, she has a Master's degree in Biochemistry, so it's for both physiological and social reasons).
But no more an artificial concept than the Ten Commandments or any other morality rule or code. Except, I suppose, pragmatism - I will obey the law, because otherwise I will be shot and I don't like it, self-preservation is a bitch:)
Here's a question: what is Libertarian about having a totally artificial entity such as a corporation, which abstracts away legal responsibilities of its owners? Shouldn't a true libertarian say that gov't has no business creating such laws? Laissez-faire - fine, but a business is operated by individuals or partners, none of that incorporated limited liability BS. Because if the gov't affords a corporation protection, then we've moved away from your ideal libertarianism, and so how can you argue that any corp. has rights which a gov't should not infringe?
wether something is legal or not is defined by that country's laws. China has laws which require filtering. Who is anesty to say whats right.
Amnesty is like you. They can say what they think is right, and so can you. The notion that only a gov't can say what's right - why is that so, exactly?
I'll tell you why. Because all people care about is that the job pays money to buy a good home, retirement, cable TV and enough McD's meals. Not that it's bad, but if someone wants to pursue something beyond that, like express a thought that maybe challenges this and may be deemed unamerican - nobody really gives a shit. How do ya fight that, eh?
Well, US Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate Copyrights. It then is perfectly constitutional if the Congress equates it with theft (provided it's for a "limited time", the only contraint IIRC).
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
I'm sorry if you can equate this with being unable to breathe... Actually, let's debate that... So where should the line be drawn?
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
I thought it was within the powers of even the most libertarian of gov'ts to protect its citizens against "initiation of force". Spewing toxic waste into my drinking water and the air I breathe certainly sounds like an initiation of force to me..
I'm sorry, but you're giving him a piece of plastic with your name on it and expect anonymity? Why shouln't he punch in the info - what if the CC was stolen or something?
I try never to argue with these things when I do CC or check. That's why I try to pay cash mostly.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant "most of the Nazi Germany's soldiers;
of course.
Already, America is trying to edge out
the rest of the countries in destroying
their jobs by their innovation, the lack
of which is bemoaned by the original post.
"Destroying" is a nice negative word that
will stir up emotions, but do they really
destroy in this way what is in some way
rightfully yours? I am doubtful.
Like a soldier in pretty much anyone's enemy's
army (in the entire history) was not just
"a guy with a job to do and family waiting for him"? Great argument.
Probably of the Nazi Germany's soldiers weren't
vehement Nazis, or at least racists - they also
were guys with families waiting at home and a job to do (or conscripted to a job to do - is that better? At least in the former case they volunteer for their jobs)
You think the "TV watches you" joke is
on behalf on happy joyful people who are
(mostly) alive? You're damn wrong.
Many of those who don't have time work for a living, and, as geeks, probably are not living at poverty level. So doing stuff about it can involve donating to those who you think will do anything about it. Be it EFF, ACLU, or whatever political party/candidate you think is viable and can fight against this.
Then the other person must be trusting you
:)
to ship the thing once the money clears.
Either way, one is a potential sucker.
Can't we all just get along?
My advice is to listen to your daughter's doctors -- if they suggest medication, and if it helps her live a more-typical (I hate the label "normal") childhood, by all means go for
Or, if you can make it happen (you may like
it when it does) - make your child's "typical"
chidhood experience different, so he/she doesn't
need this medication. Maybe that's a solution?
At some point, it becomes a positive feedback
issue: children get into environment where
other children are already disciplined/medicated
into a certain way of life, and your child stands
out. Maybe, if you found another community, your
child would be considered "normal".
Disclosure: I don't have children; a friend of
mine does, and has had people suggest to put
her child on R
by the way, she has a Master's degree in
Biochemistry, so it's for both physiological
and social reasons).
At least, they can't vote :).
So for $20 a year you waste so much time
of the police officer. Thus everybody (taxpayers)
pays for this folly. How is this fair?
This is not about technical accomplishment
per se as about conceptual art, I think.
Why is it not OK, though?
But no more an artificial concept than :)
the Ten Commandments or any other morality
rule or code. Except, I suppose, pragmatism -
I will obey the law, because otherwise I
will be shot and I don't like it, self-preservation is a bitch
Just because it's legal, does it mean everyone
should shut up about not liking it?
Here's a question: what is Libertarian
about having a totally artificial entity
such as a corporation, which abstracts away
legal responsibilities of its owners? Shouldn't
a true libertarian say that gov't has no business
creating such laws? Laissez-faire - fine, but
a business is operated by individuals or
partners, none of that incorporated limited
liability BS. Because if the gov't affords a corporation protection, then we've moved away from
your ideal libertarianism, and so how can you
argue that any corp. has rights which a gov't
should not infringe?
Amnesty is like you. They can say what
they think is right, and so can you. The notion
that only a gov't can say what's right - why
is that so, exactly?
Whoever modded this as flamebait is a piece of
crap.
I'll tell you why. Because all people care
about is that the job pays money to buy
a good home, retirement, cable TV and enough
McD's meals. Not that it's bad, but if someone
wants to pursue something beyond that, like
express a thought that maybe challenges this
and may be deemed unamerican - nobody really
gives a shit. How do ya fight that, eh?
Well, US Constitution gives Congress the
right to regulate Copyrights. It then
is perfectly constitutional if the Congress
equates it with theft (provided it's for
a "limited time", the only contraint
IIRC).
I'm sorry if you can equate this with being
unable to breathe... Actually, let's debate
that... So where should the line be drawn?
Fuck you.
Grammar lesson, please?
I thought it was within the powers of even
the most libertarian of gov'ts to protect
its citizens against "initiation of force".
Spewing toxic waste into my drinking water
and the air I breathe certainly sounds like
an initiation of force to me..
So it's not just me - they have gotten
much more clueless with years. Now it's
just another little electronics/cell phone
peddler with little clue.
On average, of course. The most knowledgeable
electronics salesmen I've encountered are
still at Radio Shack
Yes, since Q died, Bond has to shop for
gadgets himself, poor thing. Being seen
walking into Radio Shack may not be good
for his image...
I'm sorry, but you're giving him a piece
of plastic with your name on it and expect
anonymity? Why shouln't he punch in the info
- what if the CC was stolen or something?
I try never to argue with these things when
I do CC or check. That's why I try to pay
cash mostly.
Eric, it's a gazebo!