If you'll reread what I wrote (fat chance, I know...) you'll see that I was making 2 distinct points. The first had to do with financial aid directly, and I did mention that it was a loan, although not at rats as beneficial to the loaner as you imply.
The second point was that even though good can come of a bad deed, that doesn't change the fact that it was a bad deed. You know, I even separated the points with italics from the parent post, but I'll reiterate - there were two points made.
OK, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. These aren't meant to be complete rebuttals or anything, but points to consider.
What about people who work sixty hours a week at minimum wage and can't afford to feed their famililes? Lazy bastards.
Obviously, I don't think anyone working sixty hours a week is too lazy, but who told them they were entitled to not working any more when they decided to obtain more dependants? Did they neglect to count of the fact that 1) prices (recently) go up and 2) more people means more expenses? Does everyone have a [diety]-given right to have children (or a stay-at-home spouse) and not have to work a lick harder to support them?
It's sad that the term "Big Government" carries such negative connotations.
It's sad to me that "Governemnt" carries such negative connotations. Oh, no, wait - it isn't. Usually they're just a group of bureaucrats that voted themselves the ability to take my money and use it to pay themselves for the time they spend meddling in my business.
You can see it happening right now. Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, etc.
Oh, those neglected poor. What is the poverty line again? In 2003 it was just over $12k for two people. According to many sources, many poor actually own a home (46%), are not overcrowded (more than 2/3 have more than 2 rooms/person), own a car (>70%), and own a color tv (97%). Those are pretty rich poor, considering I don't yet own my home or my car. And as for starving - "According to the Agriculture Department, in 1995, there were 887,000 hungry children. By 2002, the number had fallen to 567,000." (The source also cites references to US Dept. of Ag. in its footnotes.)
The solution [is] to put a system in place that redistributes wealth at about the same rate that the wealthy can hoard it.
I hope to become wealthy someday, actually, although I've got quite a ways to go. So tell me, if you are "redistributing" wealth at the same rate the wealthy are "hoarding" it, what incentive is there to become wealthy? At the same rate, they will gain nothing for their effort. So why make an effort? Surely someone else will make an effort, which will then be taken and given to me. We can argue about the actual affect of trickle-down economics, but it seems obvious to me that if nobody sees making an effort as worthwhile, then the economy is going to become pretty bad very quickly.
Unfortunately, people will always take advantage of the system.
The libertarians want to make one part of the system - the government, which happens to have a basic monopoly on force - small, so that when people go looking to take advantage of the system, they don't see any worthwhile advantage to using force. Seems reasonable to me.
One last note: If you have to vote for lower taxes, you should vote for Badnarik over Bush
Now this I agree with, although I believe there might be one or two other candidates who would actually reduce taxes. Likewise, if you really think more expansion of the government is the way to go, choose your candidate based on that view. But my biggest message would be to choose the candidate that represents you, or who knows what you will get.
As Badnarik asks, "Why would you let the government tell you what to do?" This is not a reasonable argument against other parties: Libertarians still tell you what to do.
I would rather say, they still tell you what not to do, but I think I understand your point.
It seems anarchists outdue the libertarians with regards to personal liberty:
I agree that it seems this way as well, but I'll try to offer a few of my ideas on this (please note that I'm new to studying Libertarians as a party, but the ideas are similiar to ones I've been developing for a while).
As for anarchists and personal liberty, it might be true at its most base level. However, most libertarians (and others, I believe) think that the eventual result of anarchy on a scale larger than a very small community would eventually lead to the rise of a de-facto government. One way is as follows: I don't want to be killed, so I contract with a private security group to protect me and/or handle retribution in case I am killed. Now, either there will be a lot of these private security firms around, which could easily result in turf wars a lot like gang disputes today, or there will be a relative few that come up with a way of working together. In the first case, one group will either win, or everyone will be so decimated as to allow a group from another area to move in, leading to one group controlling an area. In the second case, the groups will come up with a set of rules that becomes the de-facto law. In either case, you have a group or set of groups that now has a more-or-less monopoly on using force, and thus becomes a de-facto government. In this case, there is basically nothing individuals in an anarchy can do to go against it, without risking that force. If the force-wielders decide to make everyone else do X, most everyone will do so. So in the end, it is quite likely to have a much-reduced personal liberty than it started with.
A more libertarian point of view would be to take the fact that some government is going to exist (de-facto or "real"), and try to restrain that government as much as possible so as to maintain the personal liberty as much as possible well into the future. It is still possible that, with the government basically having a monopoly on force, that things can go bad. But having established a method of checks-and-balances from the beginning, they think, would stand a better chance.
They're saying: "everyone must have these rights simply because it's natural/divine."
I don't think the libertarian point of view would necessarily point at a source of the rights, but you are correct in saying they believe everyone has a set of rights. You might say they are psychologically ingrained, even, as a source. It might even be true - most people seem to want to live, generally speaking, as well as move about or not based upon their own desires. Even a lot of communal items tend to become treated as being "owned" by people.
But apart from the derivation of these rights, libertarians seem to try to find the minimum set of restraints that can be placed on people while still having a functional society. They generally boil these restraints down to 1) You can't hurt other people, 2) you can't take what isn't yours, and 3) if you have a contract, you should honor it or be in trouble. The three are somewhat inter-related, of course. But many people (a reasonably large number, I think) agree that these are about the minimum number of restraints you could put on people and still have a functional society. So that is where the rights come from, IMHO, in a practical sense.
Beyond that, they claim that one person doesn't know what is best for another person as well as that person does. So, they don't think anyone should be forced to do more than observe the three restraints above, and leave everyone basically free to do whatever they want otherwise.
Read the interview, he calls college grants for low-income student "goverment-sponsored theft".
Well, you know what? It may not fit the definition of theft that's codified into laws, but it comes kinda close to the idea most people have. (I'll overlook the removal of the quote from the context, because I don't think it matters too much in this instance.)
I'm not sure how I feel about federally funded student aid, but I know I have seen many, many students that probably wouldn't have been able to go to college without it. And you know what? Those students shouldn't have been in college, because they were wasting everyone else's time, going to drop/fail out anyway, and still getting a portion of the money the government takes from what I earn. I would imagine many others on/. can relate...
The only possible bright side to this that I can think of is that those... people who managed to get federal financial aid will at least likely have gotten loans for the large portion of it, which will need to be paid back with interest, even if that interest is currently less than the rate of inflation.
Without this "goverment-sponsored theft", I wouldn't be making $70K right now and contributing $20K per year to Uncle Sam... I might even be on welfare...
I hate to point this out to you, but if someone robs a bank, uses that money to start a business that eventually ends up employing hundreds of people, and by the end of their life donates 3 times what they stole to charity, well... they still robbed a bank. Can't change the facts just because it happened to be a "good" result this time.
This is from his wikipedia entry which was the first thing to come up in google with a search of Badnarik and atrophy.
You'll also notice on the page that 1) The very next paragraph says that Badnarik claims that the comments were hyperbole, which (in case you didn't know, which I doubt, but covering my bases here) means that he exaggerated them to absurdity in order to make a point. And 2) Wikipedia has marked the page as being disputed about neutrality, and suggests that the reader look on the talk page for more information. Skimming through the talk page, it appears that the paragraph you quoted is one of the sources of contention.
A couple of points to note here - only one thing completely mistaken.
use a browser instead of the top class itunes store. This is probably a major benifit for a lot of folks. Think of those windows users who don't have XP or 2K yet... they can't even run iTunes.
WMP version 9 (well, a family of things really, I think) can run on a couple more versions of Windows, but not many more. But MS does offer it for download to 98SE and ME users, as well as 2000 and XP.
i can't buy music if i use a mac. Why not? You won't be able to play it in iTunes, but the last time I checked, you can use the Mac version of the WMA player. Did I miss something?
When Walmart previewed this last December, I tried downloading a free sample and using WMP on my Mac. Didn't work. So, unless there have been some changes I'm unaware of since then (I admit I don't follow either Walmart's music store or WMP development too closely), you might have missed something, yes. The reason I heard at the time was that MS didn't have their DRM portion in WMP 9 for Mac, but I can't say whether or not that is true, b/c I haven't looked that closely to see.
When I was recently looking for a new phone, the first thing I did (after narrowing the list to phones with features I wanted) was to find friends/coworkers with the models I was checking out and ask them about it. After that, I messed around on their phones a little bit, looking through the menus and whatnot.
If this isn't an option (one of the phones I was looking at wasn't owned by anyone I knew), you might try RadioShack. You wouldn't have to buy there, but last I checked them out, they had working models, attached firmly to the counter by about 1.5 feet of cord. I don't know if they were configured to allow calls or not. Unfortunately, they didn't have the model phone that I still needed to check out, so I didn't mess around in the store too much, and that phone was eliminated from my list.
Another option would be to go to the service provider's stores, or booths in retail places. A couple of years ago, I remember they had deals going where you could make a 5 minute phone call to get a feel for the reception and clarity they provide, etc., etc. But if the phones were live enough to make calls, they would certainly be live enough for you to operate for a few minutes. The biggest drawback there would probably also be the selection of phones they provide - they likely choose the best phone for transmission/reception, and only have those available to try.
When you fill in your voting form you get a receipt with a record of your voting and a unique number (generated on the spot). At any time you could visit a validation web site, where you would type in the number you were given and check whether the entry matches what you have. [...] If at any time there is an inconsistency, you have proof in your hands.
The biggest problem here isn't the ability to see what some random number voted - as you mentioned, there isn't any personal info tied to the number in the system.
However, there is a whole lot of personal info tied to me, and anything that allows me to verify my vote could be used to force people's votes under threats of various ways.
For instance, if I were an employer right now - let's pretend for a company called LiveCowardly. I could tell all of my employees to vote for the big-endians, because they are the best option for my business. However, there is no way to verify that they did so.
Now, pretend that they get a number. I can tell them to vote for the big-endians, and then demand to see their verification number. If they don't give me their number, they are fired (or worse, if I have some nice thugs, b/c I am a coward). If I type in the number and find they voted for the little-endians, they are also fired, or visited by thugs. Thus, I could then have undue influence on the outcome of the election.
No, the best option - if people are going to insist on electronic voting - is close to what you said, but not quite. As the next-to-last step in the process, a paper ballot is printed, and the user can visually check his or her selections. The user then a) deposits the paper ballot through an accept slot, which causes the electronic ballot to be accepted as well, or b) deposits the paper ballot through a reject-shredder, which causes the electronic ballot to wait for the necessary corrections.
Even this isn't fool-proof, but at least it's a lot more tamper-resistant from either end than a pure electronic system, or a verification-number scheme.
Their interpretation of the Constitution allows attempt to circumvent the separation of church and state by giving your tax dollars to faith-based programs.
While I personally favor "faith-blind" legislation (organizations are neither given nor denied funding because they are faith-based, but only on what qualifications they have in the area being funded), I would have to say that not being allowed to fund faith-based programs is also merely an interpretation of the Constitution.
The first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, a close reading of that text might reveal that the words "separation of church and state" aren't in there. Some degree of separation is certainly implied, but what degree?
The whole question seems to hinge on the words "respecting" and "establishment". In this situation, mostly on establishment. Does funding a faith-based program "establish" that program? I don't personally think so, as long as the faith wasn't the reason the funding was received.
Courts have, of course, set a precedent on these things, but remember that court opinion is also an interpretation of what was written. "Separation of church and state" is one of those interpretations, although a commonly-held and accepted one.
The text of the first amendment, and links to information about it. A summary of the history of the religion portion of the first amendment, and how the current interpretation has come about.
They scare me.
A lot of US politics these days scares me. But then again, some human descendants might make it far enough into the future to learn better. Maybe.
Re:Everything you ever wanted to know about C++...
on
Practical C++
·
· Score: 1
"The C++ Programming Language" by Stroustrup
"Effective C++: 50 Specific Ways to Improve Your Programs and Design" by Meyers
"More Effective C++: 35 New Ways to Improve Your Programs and Designs" by Meyers
"C++ Templates: The Complete Guide" by David Vandevoorde
Don't forget
"Effective STL: 50 Specific Ways to Improve Your Use of the Standard Template Library" by Meyers.
Also, and this may just be me, I've found books by Deital & Deital to be very good references for many languages. They are layed out so they can be read from front to back, but I usually prefer skimming the points about what I'm trying to learn.
I think you're confusing the point that the authors are trying to make.
Their point seems to be that the Internet, so far as it exists, is a shared idea of how to transport things from point A to point B. And it has a Protocol that you may have heard of somewhere. Remember this - they're talking about things on a IP level.
Now then:
Opinion: 1.
The Internet isn't complicated That's an opinion. Considering more and more people are logging on, and I just read an article about older people turning to the Internet, consider the following... Just because to the author, the Internet, and using it is easy, does not mean it is not complicated for a new user.
The idea behind the internet isn't complicated, which is what they are trying to say. See, the idea is that you hook end points together. Gee, doesn't sound too complicated to me. I thought they wrote about this well, if a bit simplisticly from a technical perspective.
Opinion 3.
The Internet is stupid. No people are stupid. Personally (this is my opinion) I believe the next generation is going to be hellishly smarter than the one I grew up (growing up) with (in). Where else can you learn so many things from without leaving your home. Encyclopedia? They're limited
The seem to mean that the internet (IP) is stupid because it doesn't know about what is going on above it. That's just the point that leads to the others. It doesn't know what it is transporting. It just moves it from point A to point B. So while the internet is enabling many smart people (this generation and next), it in itself doesn't know more than "this thingy goes from here to there".
Opinion: 4.
Adding value to the Internet lowers its value. There is no true 'value' per se as one cannot grasp anything physical. But where else can you find mega bargains, mega information...
Here's where things get kind of complicated, I'll admit. The values talked about are two different kinds of values. I won't go through this, but advise people to RTFA. In summary, this point says that anything that makes the IP less stupid (so that it knows more about what it is transferring) results in some sort of restriction or impairment to transporting other things, which lowers the overall value.
So, The Real Nutshell: The internet (protocol) doesn't know what it is transporting, but just transports it. This is a good thing, but many people fail to grasp that this is the reality of the situation, which leads to many headaches. Especially for those of us who do grasp the idea, and happen to like it.
All I see is Libertarian, Republican and Democrat. Where are the other parties? Green? Socialist Workers? Communist?
Well, I did see one Independant, but if you check their FAQ, they answer this:
How does Amazon select candidates for listing?
Candidates eligible for listing are those that have lawfully established and maintained a campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission (candidates can receive contributions only through such committees) and who, according to the FEC's monthly report, have raised/spent in excess of $5,000.
...which allows you to change resolution on the fly (another pointless Windows concept).
I realize this may be somewhat pointless in the normal Windows environment, but think about multi-user computers for a bit. I'd love to be able to log into any random computer at work, and have it a) remember what my resolution was the last time I logged onto the computer, and b) Set the resolution to that if the last user didn't use that resolution. Now, in many cases, the last user's resolution is acceptable, but oftentimes merely "acceptable" is really annoying over the course of 4 hours.
Now extend that concept just a little bit further to fast-user switching (in both Windows and Mac), and resolution-switching on the fly seems even more useful, doesn't it?
My school really encouraged students to get an internship or two under their belt while obtaining their degree, and it was immensely useful. It made me appreciate a lot more of what I was learning, and think of ways to apply it as well.
In addition, it made me a lot more hireable, I believe, than somebody with just the straight education that I got would have been.
On the other hand, my school was lousy at recognizing the experience students would get in internships. For instance, they had two semesters of required classes that were designed specifically to simulate stuff "like it is in the real world". These classes were A) required for those of us who actually had been in the "real world", B) Not like the "real world", and C) Not changed with the suggestions of those of us who had been in the "real world".
Oh, and team projects suck, but find some way to make sure they know how to communicate and know the importance of coding legibly. Everyone should have at least one class where they have to take someone else's code and make it work for a new application. It would teach volumes.
This does not mathematically make any sense. 2GB or 4GB for 100? Whereas 3 to 5 times the price gets you 10x the space?
Well, of course it doesn't make any sense, if you think the only thing in the iPod is a hard drive. But let's take a quick look at one, without going too far into it:
Hard drive - this will probably go down in price as capacity is reduced, but probably not as a linear function
LCD screen - This probably won't go down much in price, other than due to volume discounts.
Buttons/Wheel - probably won't be any cheaper
Battery - if Apple does like everyone is whining about and makes one removable, this may increase the cost (more parts to manufacture/assemble)
Assorted other circuitry - As with the LCD screen.
Yes, there is a lot more in an iPod, at a glance, than just a HD. So why would a iPod that is 1/10th the capacity be 1/10th the price again?
(FWIW, a couple of months ago I bought a new 40 GB HD for cheap. The price of the 80 GB model was a little less than double, yes, but wouldn't you know it - I could't find a 20 GB model for anything less than about $10 below the price for the 40 GB. That's half-capacity for about 3/4 the price.)
While a $99 fee for replacing the battery does seem like quite a bit (knock on wood for mine), this isn't quite a fair comparison:
A replacement battery for my cell phone cost $10; one for my cordless phone cost $10;
Both your cell phone battery and your cordless phone battery are, presumably, removable. Now, maybe Apple made a mistake in not making their battery removable (but it sure makes the unit smaller), but regardless, there is a lot more effort involved in replacing the battery for the iPods.
In addition to this, I'd like to know where michael gets his cell-phone batteries; my last replacement would have run me $40 if I hadn't purchased "insurance" when I got the phone that covered dead batteries as well.
But you could do it the "old fashioned" way, which is what I'm planning on doing. If somebody needs to send me a fax, they can call me first and tell me. Then, I'll let the computer answer it.
Unfortunately, Panther (with this feature) came out just _after_ I had finished the process of buying a home. (For anyone who's never gone through the process, there was a large amount of faxing to be done, between about 4 different parties.) It would have made some things much simpler, instead of my wife using the one at her job, and needing to hop down to the office 2 floors below her to receive an incoming fax.
BitTorrent trackers keep logs of all downloads, just like Web servers do.
Yes, but this way they can block all _other_ P2P applications, and offer their own in its place. Which just happens to log all transfers. I can't remember now if it was specified or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if those logs are kept somewhere more, well, central than most P2P applications.
Is it just me, or wouldn't BitTorrent work to ease the load on the servers when professors distribute material? I realize that there are times when BitTorrent isn't the ideal solution, but I don't see why it couldn't be used here.
The only reason I can think of is that what they are really trying to do is institute the transaction logging, and the file distribution is the official reason given.
It's not for a particular game, but I love the playstation commercial with the policemen talking about different weapons, and the bodies that just disappear.
> >when someone mentions Stallman or Raymond, do > >youimmediately think of code they've written, or an > >image of them jumping up and down on a soapbox?
> Maybe it's me, but emacs comes to mind with Stallman.
...and emacs brings to mind various times I've jumped up and down, but not on a soapbox, and definitely not in joy...
At work, we use latex all the time for its ability to typeset the mathematical formulas, as well as its ability to keep track of the references for us. An added bonus is the ability to set up your own formatting commands, and have it make an index for you.
I also personally use it at home, for the ability to define commands and environments, and the ease of rearranging content. (I keep everything in relatively small files, and include those to build up the document I want. Very convenient to rearrange by just changing where the include command is.)
One thing I have to say makes it a lot more worth it at home (I use OS X there) is the application TeXShop, which makes typesetting and viewing the output much easier. I'd recommend using this (or an equivelant program on other platforms) to make the paper creation process go much easier.
I haven't followed this very much, but from what I can tell, the new MarioKart DoubleDash title (for the gamecube, obviously) would allow two people to play together against the other computers. One of them would drive the cart, and the other would control the "extras" while riding on back.
From past experience, even the competitive parts of the MarioKart games have been really fun - especially if you get into a hard race, and the players racing (if against other computers, mind) have to only hit the other computers in order to be able to advance to the next race.
Slashdot Mirror
If you'll reread what I wrote (fat chance, I know...) you'll see that I was making 2 distinct points. The first had to do with financial aid directly, and I did mention that it was a loan, although not at rats as beneficial to the loaner as you imply.
The second point was that even though good can come of a bad deed, that doesn't change the fact that it was a bad deed. You know, I even separated the points with italics from the parent post, but I'll reiterate - there were two points made.
OK, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. These aren't meant to be complete rebuttals or anything, but points to consider.
What about people who work sixty hours a week at minimum wage and can't afford to feed their famililes? Lazy bastards.
Obviously, I don't think anyone working sixty hours a week is too lazy, but who told them they were entitled to not working any more when they decided to obtain more dependants? Did they neglect to count of the fact that 1) prices (recently) go up and 2) more people means more expenses? Does everyone have a [diety]-given right to have children (or a stay-at-home spouse) and not have to work a lick harder to support them?
It's sad that the term "Big Government" carries such negative connotations.
It's sad to me that "Governemnt" carries such negative connotations. Oh, no, wait - it isn't. Usually they're just a group of bureaucrats that voted themselves the ability to take my money and use it to pay themselves for the time they spend meddling in my business.
You can see it happening right now. Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, etc.
Oh, those neglected poor. What is the poverty line again? In 2003 it was just over $12k for two people. According to many sources, many poor actually own a home (46%), are not overcrowded (more than 2/3 have more than 2 rooms/person), own a car (>70%), and own a color tv (97%). Those are pretty rich poor, considering I don't yet own my home or my car. And as for starving - "According to the Agriculture Department, in 1995, there were 887,000 hungry children. By 2002, the number had fallen to 567,000." (The source also cites references to US Dept. of Ag. in its footnotes.)
The solution [is] to put a system in place that redistributes wealth at about the same rate that the wealthy can hoard it.
I hope to become wealthy someday, actually, although I've got quite a ways to go. So tell me, if you are "redistributing" wealth at the same rate the wealthy are "hoarding" it, what incentive is there to become wealthy? At the same rate, they will gain nothing for their effort. So why make an effort? Surely someone else will make an effort, which will then be taken and given to me. We can argue about the actual affect of trickle-down economics, but it seems obvious to me that if nobody sees making an effort as worthwhile, then the economy is going to become pretty bad very quickly.
Unfortunately, people will always take advantage of the system.
The libertarians want to make one part of the system - the government, which happens to have a basic monopoly on force - small, so that when people go looking to take advantage of the system, they don't see any worthwhile advantage to using force. Seems reasonable to me.
One last note: If you have to vote for lower taxes, you should vote for Badnarik over Bush
Now this I agree with, although I believe there might be one or two other candidates who would actually reduce taxes. Likewise, if you really think more expansion of the government is the way to go, choose your candidate based on that view. But my biggest message would be to choose the candidate that represents you, or who knows what you will get.
As Badnarik asks, "Why would you let the government tell you what to do?" This is not a reasonable argument against other parties: Libertarians still tell you what to do.
I would rather say, they still tell you what not to do, but I think I understand your point.
It seems anarchists outdue the libertarians with regards to personal liberty:
I agree that it seems this way as well, but I'll try to offer a few of my ideas on this (please note that I'm new to studying Libertarians as a party, but the ideas are similiar to ones I've been developing for a while).
As for anarchists and personal liberty, it might be true at its most base level. However, most libertarians (and others, I believe) think that the eventual result of anarchy on a scale larger than a very small community would eventually lead to the rise of a de-facto government. One way is as follows: I don't want to be killed, so I contract with a private security group to protect me and/or handle retribution in case I am killed. Now, either there will be a lot of these private security firms around, which could easily result in turf wars a lot like gang disputes today, or there will be a relative few that come up with a way of working together. In the first case, one group will either win, or everyone will be so decimated as to allow a group from another area to move in, leading to one group controlling an area. In the second case, the groups will come up with a set of rules that becomes the de-facto law. In either case, you have a group or set of groups that now has a more-or-less monopoly on using force, and thus becomes a de-facto government. In this case, there is basically nothing individuals in an anarchy can do to go against it, without risking that force. If the force-wielders decide to make everyone else do X, most everyone will do so. So in the end, it is quite likely to have a much-reduced personal liberty than it started with.
A more libertarian point of view would be to take the fact that some government is going to exist (de-facto or "real"), and try to restrain that government as much as possible so as to maintain the personal liberty as much as possible well into the future. It is still possible that, with the government basically having a monopoly on force, that things can go bad. But having established a method of checks-and-balances from the beginning, they think, would stand a better chance.
They're saying: "everyone must have these rights simply because it's natural/divine."
I don't think the libertarian point of view would necessarily point at a source of the rights, but you are correct in saying they believe everyone has a set of rights. You might say they are psychologically ingrained, even, as a source. It might even be true - most people seem to want to live, generally speaking, as well as move about or not based upon their own desires. Even a lot of communal items tend to become treated as being "owned" by people.
But apart from the derivation of these rights, libertarians seem to try to find the minimum set of restraints that can be placed on people while still having a functional society. They generally boil these restraints down to 1) You can't hurt other people, 2) you can't take what isn't yours, and 3) if you have a contract, you should honor it or be in trouble. The three are somewhat inter-related, of course. But many people (a reasonably large number, I think) agree that these are about the minimum number of restraints you could put on people and still have a functional society. So that is where the rights come from, IMHO, in a practical sense.
Beyond that, they claim that one person doesn't know what is best for another person as well as that person does. So, they don't think anyone should be forced to do more than observe the three restraints above, and leave everyone basically free to do whatever they want otherwise.
Read the interview, he calls college grants for low-income student "goverment-sponsored theft".
/. can relate...
Well, you know what? It may not fit the definition of theft that's codified into laws, but it comes kinda close to the idea most people have. (I'll overlook the removal of the quote from the context, because I don't think it matters too much in this instance.)
I'm not sure how I feel about federally funded student aid, but I know I have seen many, many students that probably wouldn't have been able to go to college without it. And you know what? Those students shouldn't have been in college, because they were wasting everyone else's time, going to drop/fail out anyway, and still getting a portion of the money the government takes from what I earn. I would imagine many others on
The only possible bright side to this that I can think of is that those... people who managed to get federal financial aid will at least likely have gotten loans for the large portion of it, which will need to be paid back with interest, even if that interest is currently less than the rate of inflation.
Without this "goverment-sponsored theft", I wouldn't be making $70K right now and contributing $20K per year to Uncle Sam... I might even be on welfare...
I hate to point this out to you, but if someone robs a bank, uses that money to start a business that eventually ends up employing hundreds of people, and by the end of their life donates 3 times what they stole to charity, well... they still robbed a bank. Can't change the facts just because it happened to be a "good" result this time.
This is from his wikipedia entry which was the first thing to come up in google with a search of Badnarik and atrophy.
You'll also notice on the page that 1) The very next paragraph says that Badnarik claims that the comments were hyperbole, which (in case you didn't know, which I doubt, but covering my bases here) means that he exaggerated them to absurdity in order to make a point. And 2) Wikipedia has marked the page as being disputed about neutrality, and suggests that the reader look on the talk page for more information. Skimming through the talk page, it appears that the paragraph you quoted is one of the sources of contention.
Is really close! Can you feel it?
Dude, where's the Freaky moderation?
WMP version 9 (well, a family of things really, I think) can run on a couple more versions of Windows, but not many more. But MS does offer it for download to 98SE and ME users, as well as 2000 and XP.
When Walmart previewed this last December, I tried downloading a free sample and using WMP on my Mac. Didn't work. So, unless there have been some changes I'm unaware of since then (I admit I don't follow either Walmart's music store or WMP development too closely), you might have missed something, yes. The reason I heard at the time was that MS didn't have their DRM portion in WMP 9 for Mac, but I can't say whether or not that is true, b/c I haven't looked that closely to see.
When I was recently looking for a new phone, the first thing I did (after narrowing the list to phones with features I wanted) was to find friends/coworkers with the models I was checking out and ask them about it. After that, I messed around on their phones a little bit, looking through the menus and whatnot.
If this isn't an option (one of the phones I was looking at wasn't owned by anyone I knew), you might try RadioShack. You wouldn't have to buy there, but last I checked them out, they had working models, attached firmly to the counter by about 1.5 feet of cord. I don't know if they were configured to allow calls or not. Unfortunately, they didn't have the model phone that I still needed to check out, so I didn't mess around in the store too much, and that phone was eliminated from my list.
Another option would be to go to the service provider's stores, or booths in retail places. A couple of years ago, I remember they had deals going where you could make a 5 minute phone call to get a feel for the reception and clarity they provide, etc., etc. But if the phones were live enough to make calls, they would certainly be live enough for you to operate for a few minutes. The biggest drawback there would probably also be the selection of phones they provide - they likely choose the best phone for transmission/reception, and only have those available to try.
When you fill in your voting form you get a receipt with a record of your voting and a unique number (generated on the spot). At any time you could visit a validation web site, where you would type in the number you were given and check whether the entry matches what you have. [...] If at any time there is an inconsistency, you have proof in your hands.
The biggest problem here isn't the ability to see what some random number voted - as you mentioned, there isn't any personal info tied to the number in the system.
However, there is a whole lot of personal info tied to me, and anything that allows me to verify my vote could be used to force people's votes under threats of various ways.
For instance, if I were an employer right now - let's pretend for a company called LiveCowardly. I could tell all of my employees to vote for the big-endians, because they are the best option for my business. However, there is no way to verify that they did so.
Now, pretend that they get a number. I can tell them to vote for the big-endians, and then demand to see their verification number. If they don't give me their number, they are fired (or worse, if I have some nice thugs, b/c I am a coward). If I type in the number and find they voted for the little-endians, they are also fired, or visited by thugs. Thus, I could then have undue influence on the outcome of the election.
No, the best option - if people are going to insist on electronic voting - is close to what you said, but not quite. As the next-to-last step in the process, a paper ballot is printed, and the user can visually check his or her selections. The user then a) deposits the paper ballot through an accept slot, which causes the electronic ballot to be accepted as well, or b) deposits the paper ballot through a reject-shredder, which causes the electronic ballot to wait for the necessary corrections.
Even this isn't fool-proof, but at least it's a lot more tamper-resistant from either end than a pure electronic system, or a verification-number scheme.
While I personally favor "faith-blind" legislation (organizations are neither given nor denied funding because they are faith-based, but only on what qualifications they have in the area being funded), I would have to say that not being allowed to fund faith-based programs is also merely an interpretation of the Constitution.
The first amendment says:
Now, a close reading of that text might reveal that the words "separation of church and state" aren't in there. Some degree of separation is certainly implied, but what degree?
The whole question seems to hinge on the words "respecting" and "establishment". In this situation, mostly on establishment. Does funding a faith-based program "establish" that program? I don't personally think so, as long as the faith wasn't the reason the funding was received.
Courts have, of course, set a precedent on these things, but remember that court opinion is also an interpretation of what was written. "Separation of church and state" is one of those interpretations, although a commonly-held and accepted one.
The text of the first amendment, and links to information about it.
A summary of the history of the religion portion of the first amendment, and how the current interpretation has come about.
They scare me.
A lot of US politics these days scares me. But then again, some human descendants might make it far enough into the future to learn better. Maybe.
Don't forget
Also, and this may just be me, I've found books by Deital & Deital to be very good references for many languages. They are layed out so they can be read from front to back, but I usually prefer skimming the points about what I'm trying to learn.
Their point seems to be that the Internet, so far as it exists, is a shared idea of how to transport things from point A to point B. And it has a Protocol that you may have heard of somewhere. Remember this - they're talking about things on a IP level.
Now then:
The idea behind the internet isn't complicated, which is what they are trying to say. See, the idea is that you hook end points together. Gee, doesn't sound too complicated to me. I thought they wrote about this well, if a bit simplisticly from a technical perspective.
The seem to mean that the internet (IP) is stupid because it doesn't know about what is going on above it. That's just the point that leads to the others. It doesn't know what it is transporting. It just moves it from point A to point B. So while the internet is enabling many smart people (this generation and next), it in itself doesn't know more than "this thingy goes from here to there".
Here's where things get kind of complicated, I'll admit. The values talked about are two different kinds of values. I won't go through this, but advise people to RTFA. In summary, this point says that anything that makes the IP less stupid (so that it knows more about what it is transferring) results in some sort of restriction or impairment to transporting other things, which lowers the overall value.
So, The Real Nutshell: The internet (protocol) doesn't know what it is transporting, but just transports it. This is a good thing, but many people fail to grasp that this is the reality of the situation, which leads to many headaches. Especially for those of us who do grasp the idea, and happen to like it.
Well, I did see one Independant, but if you check their FAQ, they answer this:
...which allows you to change resolution on the fly (another pointless Windows concept).
I realize this may be somewhat pointless in the normal Windows environment, but think about multi-user computers for a bit. I'd love to be able to log into any random computer at work, and have it a) remember what my resolution was the last time I logged onto the computer, and b) Set the resolution to that if the last user didn't use that resolution. Now, in many cases, the last user's resolution is acceptable, but oftentimes merely "acceptable" is really annoying over the course of 4 hours.
Now extend that concept just a little bit further to fast-user switching (in both Windows and Mac), and resolution-switching on the fly seems even more useful, doesn't it?
My school really encouraged students to get an internship or two under their belt while obtaining their degree, and it was immensely useful. It made me appreciate a lot more of what I was learning, and think of ways to apply it as well.
In addition, it made me a lot more hireable, I believe, than somebody with just the straight education that I got would have been.
On the other hand, my school was lousy at recognizing the experience students would get in internships. For instance, they had two semesters of required classes that were designed specifically to simulate stuff "like it is in the real world". These classes were A) required for those of us who actually had been in the "real world", B) Not like the "real world", and C) Not changed with the suggestions of those of us who had been in the "real world".
Oh, and team projects suck, but find some way to make sure they know how to communicate and know the importance of coding legibly. Everyone should have at least one class where they have to take someone else's code and make it work for a new application. It would teach volumes.
Well, of course it doesn't make any sense, if you think the only thing in the iPod is a hard drive. But let's take a quick look at one, without going too far into it:
- Hard drive - this will probably go down in price as capacity is reduced, but probably not as a linear function
- LCD screen - This probably won't go down much in price, other than due to volume discounts.
- Buttons/Wheel - probably won't be any cheaper
- Battery - if Apple does like everyone is whining about and makes one removable, this may increase the cost (more parts to manufacture/assemble)
- Assorted other circuitry - As with the LCD screen.
Yes, there is a lot more in an iPod, at a glance, than just a HD. So why would a iPod that is 1/10th the capacity be 1/10th the price again?(FWIW, a couple of months ago I bought a new 40 GB HD for cheap. The price of the 80 GB model was a little less than double, yes, but wouldn't you know it - I could't find a 20 GB model for anything less than about $10 below the price for the 40 GB. That's half-capacity for about 3/4 the price.)
A replacement battery for my cell phone cost $10; one for my cordless phone cost $10;
Both your cell phone battery and your cordless phone battery are, presumably, removable. Now, maybe Apple made a mistake in not making their battery removable (but it sure makes the unit smaller), but regardless, there is a lot more effort involved in replacing the battery for the iPods.
In addition to this, I'd like to know where michael gets his cell-phone batteries; my last replacement would have run me $40 if I hadn't purchased "insurance" when I got the phone that covered dead batteries as well.
But you could do it the "old fashioned" way, which is what I'm planning on doing. If somebody needs to send me a fax, they can call me first and tell me. Then, I'll let the computer answer it.
Unfortunately, Panther (with this feature) came out just _after_ I had finished the process of buying a home. (For anyone who's never gone through the process, there was a large amount of faxing to be done, between about 4 different parties.) It would have made some things much simpler, instead of my wife using the one at her job, and needing to hop down to the office 2 floors below her to receive an incoming fax.
BitTorrent trackers keep logs of all downloads, just like Web servers do.
Yes, but this way they can block all _other_ P2P applications, and offer their own in its place. Which just happens to log all transfers. I can't remember now if it was specified or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if those logs are kept somewhere more, well, central than most P2P applications.
Is it just me, or wouldn't BitTorrent work to ease the load on the servers when professors distribute material? I realize that there are times when BitTorrent isn't the ideal solution, but I don't see why it couldn't be used here.
The only reason I can think of is that what they are really trying to do is institute the transaction logging, and the file distribution is the official reason given.
It's not for a particular game, but I love the playstation commercial with the policemen talking about different weapons, and the bodies that just disappear.
> >youimmediately think of code they've written, or an
> >image of them jumping up and down on a soapbox?
> Maybe it's me, but emacs comes to mind with Stallman.
At work, we use latex all the time for its ability to typeset the mathematical formulas, as well as its ability to keep track of the references for us. An added bonus is the ability to set up your own formatting commands, and have it make an index for you.
I also personally use it at home, for the ability to define commands and environments, and the ease of rearranging content. (I keep everything in relatively small files, and include those to build up the document I want. Very convenient to rearrange by just changing where the include command is.)
One thing I have to say makes it a lot more worth it at home (I use OS X there) is the application TeXShop, which makes typesetting and viewing the output much easier. I'd recommend using this (or an equivelant program on other platforms) to make the paper creation process go much easier.
I haven't followed this very much, but from what I can tell, the new MarioKart DoubleDash title (for the gamecube, obviously) would allow two people to play together against the other computers. One of them would drive the cart, and the other would control the "extras" while riding on back.
From past experience, even the competitive parts of the MarioKart games have been really fun - especially if you get into a hard race, and the players racing (if against other computers, mind) have to only hit the other computers in order to be able to advance to the next race.
If women don't find you handsome, they can at least find you handy.