I'm over 25, and I vote against EVERY vice law, since I find the very idea absurd. I'm not a libertarian (I'm a nutbag socialist, or moderate), and even I find that the government regulating my leisure activities absurd. If no one gets hurt, then it isn't their business.
While the poster is probably wearing his tin-foil hat, I agree with the general premise, America is becoming more and more neo-Puritanical as time goes on. We've decided to all announce what we think would be good for others, and collectively vote for it, ignoring the fact that the simple answer is just not doing it ourselves (free will, and all that archaic baggage). And these self-righteous idiots don't even play a fair game, they resort to dirty tactics since "they know better" than the rest of us, it has become a game of the ends justifying the means, which is NEVER a good position.
Looking at my home state, Arizona, which just banned all public smoking; some people put a sensable law on the ballots, banning it all non bar or bowling alley establishments (which still stretches things), and to fight this, another group (who I call niconazis) made another bill to ban it everywhere, period. This was not happenstance, it was a genuine political effort at confusion. A bar by my house found a loophole, and ran with it (with a couple million in lawyer fees), so the state decided to throw all their guns at it to make them comply, not just the legal ones. The received daily visits from the health department, and the liquor board, none of this was contained as a consequence of non-compliance with the law, it was just the state "out to get them" for not playing with the popular cause.
As a note: I don't understand how the state can tell businesses how to run themselves. Let places decide if they want smoking (or drinking, even), or not, and let the market decide.
This goes beyond the state level, the WHO frequently bans studies that find the link between second hand smoke and cancer negative or non conclusive, as do most modern Western health institutions. Its like an unpopular mirror of global warming. I, personally, think there is a link, but that still doesn't justify censorship of scientific studies that don't find things your way, and thus aren't allowed to be counted towards policy. (I also believe in global warming, and condemn all censorship that finds the opposite)
As for drinking, we're approaching the same level of insanity. My friend almost got arrested once for WALKING to her car while intoxicated (0.08). She wasn't going to drive, she was getting a camera. The police didn't want to believe her. This was a bar that offered free cab rides home, and to the bar the next morning, so there wasn't even a reason she would have driven, not to mention she didn't even have her purse. The law also ignores that alcohol affects people differently. I can drink all night, have a high blood alcohol percentage, and not be affected, while others can be well under the legal limit and be severely impaired. Biological differences FTW.
And then we bring on our war on boobs. We're an absurdly prudish and puritanical country. My mind boggles at the fact we find overt violence healthy for youth, but not natural biology. I almost got kicked out of college for mentioning the "nipples" on a nude bronze on campus, as it might offend someone. Everyone has them, how can it be offensive? I also almost became a registered sex offender in high school for saying something lewd to girl friend of mine (inside joke) and someone overheard it. If the target of the comment isn't offended, then how can a bystander who doesn't understand the context be?
Its very odd, as we become more politically liberal, we become more culturally conservative. Look at the idiotic gay marriage debate for example... It makes no sense outside of a narrowly bigoted religious context (which most of my religious friends don't agree with, anecdotally), but still we are willing to regulate peoples bedroom life, and their rights based on who they want to practice these rights on. As long as no one is harmed, it isn't societies business.
In my experience,/. is probably the best system for forum moderation. User moderation is VERY nice, even if it has its abuses. One idiot modding down all Pro-Windows posts is generally countered by another idiot modding it up, or at least there are better odds for this than on a forum with a small group of moderators (generally with group think).
I'm still out on the friend/foe system, but I generally like it, since it allows another level of self-selection.
My only complaint is that trolls generally win, and somewhat rain on the pleasure of my wasted time. I don't think AC should be handled so lightly. If I was running a slashcode forum, I'd ban AC posting, or have a temporary log of their IPs, or only allow it from registered users, and have a temporary log (delete it once a week, or so). Even with the AC troll escalation (go back to 4chan, please) user moderators generally buries them rather quick, but doesn't end in the common "post delete" censorship, thus keeping it from voiding good ideas against the group think.
The big problem with web forums though, is their small size (balkanization 2.0?), which leads to complete groupthink. I've been hunting for a good, international, philosophy forum for years, that isn't populated only by 18 year olds who smoke too much pot, or 80 year old men obsessed with Whitehead/Russel, sadly they don't exist since all of them only have a userbase of maybe 10 active posters screaming their favorite idea over and over.
Reread the parents post. He said he was polite with property owners.
I don't hunt, I prospect (dredging), and often have to cross fences, most of them are delineating public grazing lands where the rancher has no property rights to, nor may claim trespassing. A couple of the fences I must cross ARE for private property, granted, but the owner has no right to restrict my mineral rights. In these cases I do talk to the rancher, secure permission for access, and road use, though legally they can't bar me. It still is good policy to be on good terms with the people whose area your in, most people in the backwoods have lots of guns, and live out there because they don't like people in their business.
Haven't had too many problems, people in the boonies are generally more friendly and permissive than people in cities, as long as you treat them with respect and common courtesy. The only problems I've ever had was going to a claim with a different vehicle (the rancher did think I was trespassing, until he stopped and verified), and when I was selling a claim on another ranchers land, and thus a couple strangers barged in to sample (even if I told them to stop by the visible ranch house).
The biggest problem isn't property holders, its idiots wandering about the backwoods armed to the teeth, and sporting major mental imbalances. Nothing you can do about them, but stay armed yourself.
While they are under the same name, and both under the Vivendi, they remain autonomous entities. The Activision in Activision Blizzard has nothing to do with the Blizzard in Activision Blizzard.
Hows that for a cumbersome sentence?
Vivendi is too smart to mess with Blizzard, they make FAR too much money to fiddle with their business model (they haven't either).
Except the Arabs, of course. The Enlightenment was mainly a function of ancient Greek (and Roman) texts flowing back to Europe (via Italy) from the Arabs, who kept science and philosophy alive while we were running about trying to sac Jerusalem over and over and burning anyone who looked at Jesus funny.
I think there is room for different markets here. I'm typing this on what I consider a "desktop replacement" laptop. Its big, its heavy, and it hardly ever leaves the desk, but it is more portable than a PC, and I take it to my girlfriends on weekends, and occasionally to the coffee shop. I basically use it for everything I used to use my (defunct) desktop for, but its less bulky, and more portable.
I still want to get a nice EEPC though, for a completely different reason.
I can tell that you are likely to discard my argument, but I will provide it anyway for the benefit of others.
Don't be so hasty, I asked out of genuine curiosity, meaning I must be at LEAST somewhat hoping for an answer. And to be fair, many of the replies I got had very good arguments.
I don't think such a system would necissarily lead to communism in the long run, though. As someone argued to me, every right has a corresponding responsibility, and this can be seen in this as well. If you are capable of taking care of your self (mentally and physically fit), then you should be expected to. The only time assistance is necessary is in the short term (and it should be limited). This can be seen in the same light as college aid, your investing in the future taxes they will pay.
The only place where perpetual assistance comes into play is for those who have fallen into really deep cracks, or those with debilitating physical or mental problems. I talk more about them, than just people who won't work, or have fallen on hard times.
I think one can even make a natural argument for helping those who fall on hard times. Most of us can be in the boat with a slight change of circumstances, and I think that we would welcome someone helping us get back up. If we don't put into position such a system, we won't benefit from it in our own time of need. Nothing is as stable as we wish it.
Sadly, we are not immune to the laws of nature just because we are civilized. There is a finite amount of resources in existence, so people will have to die in large numbers due to starvation, disease, or warfare in order to keep the population in check. This is never going to change.
This smells like fatalism. Even if we can't have a perfect system, we should fight for it.
That said, when you look at things, modern, developed societies do a decent job of this. There are food programs for families (I certainly think it is more important to provide for children), food banks, and other charities. Things are far from perfect, but a lot of the time, they are pretty good.
Agreed, for the most part. Though walking around in your local downtown proves that there still is some work to be done, and I have a feeling that things are going to get worse with the aging boomers (I read statistics that most of them have less than 70k saved for retirement, which isn't much).
The problem I shot for in the post, though, was more of a reality check for the "property is the be all end all" people. It just seems like an odd priority, in the face of it, and an odd place to place the "supreme right" marker.
As for how to go about enforcing it, if it ever was claimed as a right... I have no clue. I'm guessing the answer isn't going to be a conservative, or a liberal one, but someplace in the middle.
I do think that people who CAN work (as in physically or mentally competent) should provide for themselves, though there should be some form of emergency assistance, though it should be limited. I think providing for the general welfare in this way should be seen like college aid, as an investment in future tax dollars.
Though basically I think there should be a bottom set of "rights" to life for those who cannot work, and those who have fallen into a REALLY deep hole. I suppose the money would have to come from everyone else. I would prefer a check box on my taxes giving me an option to support people, OR wars, and I could pick whichever one my morals guided me to. That, though, is a pipe dream.
I agree with the responsibility bit though, we seem to forget about that word in modern society. That's why any right to food, water, shelter would be tempered with the idea that one would have to attempt to provide for themselves. The only place where "genuine" altruism would hit the state level is the ill.
To be honest, I have no bloody idea what a right actually is, in the most objective sense. I lean towards its whatever you can convince others is a right, is a right.
And before you whine about how you don't have any choice about internet provider, remember that socialist morons like you usually vote to give cable companies local monopolies, claiming the internet and cable TV is *so* important you don't want to trust it to the evil free market system.
Ad Hominem much? Did the poster ever claim his political affiliation?
How the hell did "socialist" become the ad hominem of choice these days? Did I miss the resurrection of Joe McCarthy or Ronald Raygun? Do you really think that just yelling "Your a Socialist!" is enough to prove your point?
Also, last I checked, the Republicans overwhelmingly lead to the current lack of competition in the telecoms. I don't think that they are "socialists", I just think that they like money, at the expense of the normal person, and generally when someone screams "socialist!" as a random, out of place, insult, I think the same thing. What the hell have the republicans done for the free-market lately? Less than anyone with a socialist bent, I'd say, since they are in favor of regulating business. Regulation doesn't mean monopoly, as Standard Oil, and AT&T prove. Republicans have been in favor of telecom (and even more sadly media) conglomeration, which leads to monopolies.
Can we quit the partisan crap now? There is no right answer, but a plethora of wrong ones, and I'm guess that both your answer, and mine, fall into the latter category.
No, its not, and I find this rather shameful. I'm about to veer dangerously into flamebait, so feel free to ignore me, or mod me down.
On/. we scream about how property is a right, this always strikes me as very odd, since it usually is levied against providing more important services towards others, like denying health care and welfare to those less fortunate, since taxation is denying our "right" to property. To me this is bizarre, why should property be a right, if health and survival aren't? The latter two preclude the former, and thus I would see it as far more important than an overly broad right to property.
This is not to say I believe in communism, or classically construed socialism, to bar impending straw men. Nor is this to say that the poor should be living in state sponsored mansions and seeing plastic surgeons to have perfect breasts. But the rudiments of survival and life should be considered a basic right, and as such each person should have the right to water, health care, and rations of enough calories to survive.
I would like to see an argument against this, that doesn't resort to the neo-Darwinian fallacy.
It just seems odd to scream "my money is mine!" while people starve in the streets, it seems almost sociopathic.
That said, I don't think that broadband should be a basic right (and it is available for free to all, see your local library), but I do think some regulation is necessary for the reasons that some have brought up here, there is no free market for it. And as one poster astutly said (sorry, too lazy to find the post), corporations shouldn't have the right to choose who gets to participate in modern discourse, though again, the library system can be seen as filling this gap.
New rights cannot be added, and new restrictions can be added.
Hmm.. History doesn't agree, please read the amendments, it seems that new rights were added frequently. IANAL, but the 9th Amendment seems to sum this up:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Meaning, if it isn't in there, it doesn't mean you don't have it.
And, like your Tivo, it'll be more or less impossible to change the software on. Or, if you do, you'll create as many problems as you solve because online banking, shopping and even Internet access can and quite possibly will demand that your 'computer' prove it's fully "Trusted" before they have anything to do with it."
I doubt that it will work quite that way... Two reasons; A) There is no money in it, and B) Its only local so there is no money in widespread enforcement.
The first point hinges on the fact that only one segment of the economy can leverage our corrupt (or ignorant but well intentioned) congresscritters towards this, the *AAs, where it would cost many other segments of our economy LOTS of money, and TONS of lost profits. If such a law was passed tomorrow, our ISPs would suddenly lose ALL of their business, since there are no Trusted computers. Even if there was, how many of their customers are still connecting on old boxes or alternative OSs? If it was mandated for online shopping, how much business would these shops lose, we face the same problem. Hardware upgrade cycles (and acceptance shading into ubiquity) are way to slow for this to be good for anyone. I mean anyone in the corporate sense, and not the personal sense, of course. If this was every seriously put before our law makers, you'd have a clash of the Lobby titans.
The second reason is that this would only apply to the US, which is significant, but decreasingly less so in internet presence. Why would Ebay or Amazon want to lose their international markets just to make the MPAA/RIAA happy?
Banks I can see falling for this, since they mostly have a local, or at most national, base, but many online companies are international now, and thus this would hurt them.
It might still happen (never underestimate how hard our government fights against us), but your reasons are somewhat flawed.
Though states have been notoriously bad when it comes to civil rights, and are often prone to aristocratic and dynastic tendancies, both of which are against the word and spirit of the Constitution and Declaration. I do, though, think they need more legal sovereignty.
I agree, it isn't a purely a good thing, nor is it, though, a purely evil thing. Generally the amendments where states-rights got eaten away were generally for the good (ending slavery, equal voting rights for all, no poll taxes, etc...), but I agree that there are bounds that are often crossed where things get murky.
I generally hate the libertarian-esque political statements, but I agree that states rights are generally good, as long as their constrained by the federal government guaranteeing our basic rights (and more) (equal voting, freedom from bias, etc...). Now what these rights are, and where this line is... that is a completely different, and much more contentious debate.
Actually states rights have been continually marginalized(especially since the Civil War), which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the Civil War and several civil rights movements have proven. Federal (congressional) law also trumps state laws, not visa versa, this is implicit in the Consitution (both original, and amended), bringing this to just an issue of "May Congress do thus".
Looking at Article 1, section 8, I could perceive outlawing gold to be along with "providing for the common defense and general welfare.", or along the lines of "regulating commerce... between states". Reading Article 1 I don't find any implicit statement saying "congress may do nothing but the things listed here", or "congress has the right to make federal laws, but not involving gold". So far I don't see the lack of constitutionality.
I'll give you Article 6, though. You are correct.
As for the 10th Amendment... Yes, this would give some ground, but... this can be seen as, as stated, providing for the general welfare, or regulating commerce, and this a power invested in the US Gov't, making the 10th moot.
The Bill of Rights, and later amendments that restrict Congressional power, do tend to confuse people, because they take power away from Congress rather than granting it. Remember that those restrictions apply in addition to the restriction that Congress stay within its Constitutionally delegated powers. That's made explicit by the Ninth Amendment, so maybe you should go read that one again too.
Looking at my copy of the Constitution, I notice phrases along the lines of "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" (Amend.XIII Sec.2) more than "congress shall not pass laws along x lines". The above quote, notice, explicitly limited states rights (slavery) in favor of federal bans. Roughly half of the amendments go along the same stripe, limiting states right (mostly to enfranchisement).
I don't agree with the law criminalizing gold ownership, but not on the grounds of it being unconstitutional, since I don't see how it was. It was a stupid law for other reasons.
Its amazing how much the constitution is like literary criticism, there are various readings, and various historical contexts that we can take head of, depending on what point we want to present.
Again, IANAL, or constitutional scholar, I just so happen to have bought a copy for my reference library the other day for such cases.
How so? There isn't anything in the Constitution saying "Congress is here to pass laws, but NOT laws that will piss off gold-standard people". I'm genuinely curious about this, where in the Constitution does it bar this?
Not that that's stopped the federal government from doing whatever the hell they wanted since the Lincoln administration.
There is no clause saying that congress MUST pass constitutional laws, the Executive branch's veto power exists to make sure Congress stays within constitutional bounds, and if that fails SCoTUS. As a secondary feature, the voters have the power to raise a huff and remove these people.
First, I almost completely disagree with you. I find that Firefox 3 is roughly equal with Opera memory wise, but has a little more purely subjective "zip". IE, as far as I can tell, is just painful to use, is rather inflexible, underpowered, and is about as safe as a fishnet condom. I do tell everyone to use Firefox (or Opera or Safari, depending).
You know, seeing as I have made it this far into the post... I'm tired of seeing people say "this is the best" or "that is the best" when the reality is the only best out there is what works best for the person using the software
Here, though, you are completely correct. The browser/OS/Editor wars are getting REALLY old, since things have progressed to about the point where all the alternatives are roughly equal. Yes, IE, and Windows even, are just as safe and zippy as OS X or Linux, depending on the users training and smarts. Same for speed, yes, Vista and IE use a TON of memory, but not enough to really hurt anyone using a computer made in the last five years (OS X isn't a lightweight either).
I do, though, think that Linux and Firefox are the only real options on a moral high road, though, but that really is an insignificant consideration after use and user style.
The problem happens when Joe Sixpack sits down on their Windows/IE box, with no knowledge of safety, then recommending is perfectly fine, and even commendable. From the sounds of it, and the environment, you probably know how to keep your boxes from becoming zombies, and hogging bandwidth and my mailbox, but most people don't. Yes, we could teach them how to be nice, but that takes a LOT of time and effort, where just making them use Firefox and a non-Windows OS is damn easy.
What was wrong with A Scanner Darkly? It was MUCH better than I expected. But then again my expectations of anything adapted from PKD is REALLY low, lower than my expectations of anything Lucas and Spielberg do. In the end though, it was a pretty good adaptation, and the animation didn't give me a migraine like Waking Life did. The casting was good too, since... The actors manage to have the same foibles as the characters they portray (except maybe Reaves, but you must take some bad with the good)
What is your major complaint? I can see being miffed over Matrix II-III, and Phantom Menace, since those were steaming piles of... Marketing.
We leave them verbatum (and in this case, the normal use of "sic" just would not even come close to adequate) when people don't know enough to feel ashamed of what they've said.
Then why quote them? If their misuse of language precludes them from making an insightful statement, then quoting them hardly seems worthwhile.
I'm inclined to agree with the parent, we often misuse quotes to reinforce our prejudices of class and race. Most people today have pretty terrible grammar (myself obviously included), even those we generally consider elite.
The "-in'" ending does make me rather mad though, especially when its added to quotes. Generally the "-in'" counts more towards regional dialects than general education. Generally using dialect language in quotes is bad form, since it reinforces stereotypes (all people from the south are yokels, etc...)
We also forget the fact that their is a vast difference between casual speech, and formal speech, even if this is a rapidly decaying line (listen to our politicians speeches, and compare to politicians even a generation ago).
We're never going to agree... But it still is a fun discussion.
Actually, it does...but not everyone's willing to even look into it, much less turn themselves over to it.
I think many people in our culture are aware of it, and probably have tried religion, if they weren't raised into it. I, myself, was raised Catholic, but left around the age of reason (15-16), it didn't fit what I saw in the world. At the time I saw all this evil, that you speak of, and couldn't rectify a loving God with it, especially when paired with the idiotic Cold War rhetoric of "God is on our side". How can God be on anyones side when the goal is to nuke innocents if you have a chance? Read the same for any war, if God picked a side, He isn't worthy of worship.
It didn't hold the answers, and hopes that you, yourself, found. It left me with the proverbial "hole", since I knew there were answers to the questions that religion didn't answer for me. (there are full philosophy texts on these questions)
Are ya really gonna try to keep it under your hat, even if it doesn't fill your life with joy?
I'm truly conflicted here, and this almost made me not reply. I LIKE people being happy, for whatever (nondestructive) reason, and thus I don't want to tarnish that. And I do understand the religious drive to preaching by converts, it is a wholly humanitarian, and benign act. If I found a useful truth I would do the same. I'm conflicted, since I don't want to hear it anymore, though. I'm constantly preached at, I am aware of God, Jesus, etc... I won't convert, though, unless, as you probably know, there is some internal reason that makes this version of truth self-evident and useful. So far there isn't, and even points to the contrary.
Yes, Sartre wasn't the glorious optimist I painted him as, but nor was he as bleak as you have. He realized that there is no meaning, and we just have to accept it, which, on close reading, is empowering. I don't accept him as my truth bringer, to me that would be more Socrates, but I think his point is applicable.
Just because something makes you happy doesn't make it true, and just because something makes you feel bad, doesn't make it bad. That, I suppose is my point. And the more bad you look for, the more you will find, the same goes for happiness.
Yes, there is shit in the world, but far less than any time in history. Yes, the media tells me all kinds of nasty stuff, but we must remember that the good stuff doesn't pay as well. Who cares if a housewife saved a litter of puppies from a flood? Who cares if millions of people give to charity (of their own free will), and donate their time and money to helping those less fortunate. None of these things breeds the outrage that gets viewers to view ads repeatedly.
Violent crime has been declining for a decade, not that you'd ever notice from the media. It is the worst place to actually get your worldview from, since it is wholly slanted.
As for cosmology, thats a different debate altogether, I really don't want this to turn into the usual atheist/theist "your wrong!" type of debate. Those are droll, and rather crass. You may be right, I don't know. There always will be as much proof against as for, the question will never be resolved. It becomes a manner of preference, upbringing, and worldview.
I LIKE this world, I'd rather focus on it, and the happiness of those in it, than worry about going to Heaven. People right here, and right now, are much more important than if I end up someplace where the walls are made of chocolate, and all computers are connected to free T3s.
Also, I forget to mention, I don't think religion is something you can try on. I can't just start going to church tomorrow and be a good Christian (or Muslim, Jew, or Hindi), there would be lacking the vital leap, faith. That isn't something you practice. You have it or you don't, it comes to you or it doesn't.
You just stumbled over my point: man has *both* good and bad in him. This is
If you can fill your "hole" with Jesus, good for you. If it makes you happy, even better. But that is YOUR answer. Just because something fills a need, doesn't make it real. Just because something works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone else.
I'm always suspicious of people who need to broadcast their happiness and good fortune. If it can't exist in private, is it really happiness? Or you just inadvertently abusing the sociological mirror, you want US to see YOU as happy, so you can fool yourself into it? Its like these "green" morons, telling all of us how "eco-freindly" they are, if they really were fulfilled by this, would they need to preach it, and make us KNOW how good they are?
Often this preaching sounds like desperation.
Sorry for sounding like an ass, as I stated, if it makes you happy, fine.
I doubt the reality of this "hole", I think its an illusion that society tells us. We "ought" to have a hole, that we need to fill. When all we really need is a touch of self-awareness. As Delphi said "Know Thyself", and as Socrates (via Plato) said "An unexamined life is not worth living". Trying my hardest be be self-knowledgeable, I realize that there is no "hole", only self. This whole largely results from society not fitting us and our human needs (and not as commonly thought, visa versa). We fail to be ourselves, and thus there is a hole. The lack of authenticity is the hole.
Yeah, the world's pretty horrible. It stinks, it argues and it even kills. But this ain't heaven: this is neutral ground, and this is what we make it. Murder someone? Have an affair? Cheat a friend? That's what's making it so horrible: sin. The deviation from our intended role.
The world isn't horrible, we just see it that way. For every Hitler and Pinochet there is a Picasso and a Albert Schweitzer. For every meaningless war, there is a child who stares at a sunset, blinded by awe. Part of the problem is that we expect MEANING, when there is no reason that there should be. Accepting that things are as they are completely destroys any illusionary "hole". Accepting that there is no reason for meaning (in the religious sense) makes us (to paraphrase Sartre) the creators of our own meaning, and thus fulfillment is in our own hands.
I happen to like the world, so I might be some sort of freak. I take the good with the bad, and relish that good when I encounter it. Going to a natural history museum is more powerful to me than a church, mosque, synagogue, of Kalimat. A good painting, sunset, or book has more meaning to me than any religious text, as does reading of the good works of my fellow man. Seeing the world as hell, makes is thus, seeing the world as it is leaves one reeling, but allows us to see that it ISN'T hell, or hellish, or vile. There is great good in mankind, as well as evil, humanity, and the world we create for ourselves, is value neutral, and completely meaningless. This isn't a bad thing, nor a good thing, but just another thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm over 25, and I vote against EVERY vice law, since I find the very idea absurd. I'm not a libertarian (I'm a nutbag socialist, or moderate), and even I find that the government regulating my leisure activities absurd. If no one gets hurt, then it isn't their business.
While the poster is probably wearing his tin-foil hat, I agree with the general premise, America is becoming more and more neo-Puritanical as time goes on. We've decided to all announce what we think would be good for others, and collectively vote for it, ignoring the fact that the simple answer is just not doing it ourselves (free will, and all that archaic baggage). And these self-righteous idiots don't even play a fair game, they resort to dirty tactics since "they know better" than the rest of us, it has become a game of the ends justifying the means, which is NEVER a good position.
Looking at my home state, Arizona, which just banned all public smoking; some people put a sensable law on the ballots, banning it all non bar or bowling alley establishments (which still stretches things), and to fight this, another group (who I call niconazis) made another bill to ban it everywhere, period. This was not happenstance, it was a genuine political effort at confusion. A bar by my house found a loophole, and ran with it (with a couple million in lawyer fees), so the state decided to throw all their guns at it to make them comply, not just the legal ones. The received daily visits from the health department, and the liquor board, none of this was contained as a consequence of non-compliance with the law, it was just the state "out to get them" for not playing with the popular cause.
As a note: I don't understand how the state can tell businesses how to run themselves. Let places decide if they want smoking (or drinking, even), or not, and let the market decide.
This goes beyond the state level, the WHO frequently bans studies that find the link between second hand smoke and cancer negative or non conclusive, as do most modern Western health institutions. Its like an unpopular mirror of global warming. I, personally, think there is a link, but that still doesn't justify censorship of scientific studies that don't find things your way, and thus aren't allowed to be counted towards policy. (I also believe in global warming, and condemn all censorship that finds the opposite)
As for drinking, we're approaching the same level of insanity. My friend almost got arrested once for WALKING to her car while intoxicated (0.08). She wasn't going to drive, she was getting a camera. The police didn't want to believe her. This was a bar that offered free cab rides home, and to the bar the next morning, so there wasn't even a reason she would have driven, not to mention she didn't even have her purse. The law also ignores that alcohol affects people differently. I can drink all night, have a high blood alcohol percentage, and not be affected, while others can be well under the legal limit and be severely impaired. Biological differences FTW.
And then we bring on our war on boobs. We're an absurdly prudish and puritanical country. My mind boggles at the fact we find overt violence healthy for youth, but not natural biology. I almost got kicked out of college for mentioning the "nipples" on a nude bronze on campus, as it might offend someone. Everyone has them, how can it be offensive? I also almost became a registered sex offender in high school for saying something lewd to girl friend of mine (inside joke) and someone overheard it. If the target of the comment isn't offended, then how can a bystander who doesn't understand the context be?
Its very odd, as we become more politically liberal, we become more culturally conservative. Look at the idiotic gay marriage debate for example... It makes no sense outside of a narrowly bigoted religious context (which most of my religious friends don't agree with, anecdotally), but still we are willing to regulate peoples bedroom life, and their rights based on who they want to practice these rights on. As long as no one is harmed, it isn't societies business.
Sorry for the rant. Getting sick of idiocy today.
In my experience, /. is probably the best system for forum moderation. User moderation is VERY nice, even if it has its abuses. One idiot modding down all Pro-Windows posts is generally countered by another idiot modding it up, or at least there are better odds for this than on a forum with a small group of moderators (generally with group think).
I'm still out on the friend/foe system, but I generally like it, since it allows another level of self-selection.
My only complaint is that trolls generally win, and somewhat rain on the pleasure of my wasted time. I don't think AC should be handled so lightly. If I was running a slashcode forum, I'd ban AC posting, or have a temporary log of their IPs, or only allow it from registered users, and have a temporary log (delete it once a week, or so). Even with the AC troll escalation (go back to 4chan, please) user moderators generally buries them rather quick, but doesn't end in the common "post delete" censorship, thus keeping it from voiding good ideas against the group think.
The big problem with web forums though, is their small size (balkanization 2.0?), which leads to complete groupthink. I've been hunting for a good, international, philosophy forum for years, that isn't populated only by 18 year olds who smoke too much pot, or 80 year old men obsessed with Whitehead/Russel, sadly they don't exist since all of them only have a userbase of maybe 10 active posters screaming their favorite idea over and over.
Come to think of it...
Reread the parents post. He said he was polite with property owners.
I don't hunt, I prospect (dredging), and often have to cross fences, most of them are delineating public grazing lands where the rancher has no property rights to, nor may claim trespassing. A couple of the fences I must cross ARE for private property, granted, but the owner has no right to restrict my mineral rights. In these cases I do talk to the rancher, secure permission for access, and road use, though legally they can't bar me. It still is good policy to be on good terms with the people whose area your in, most people in the backwoods have lots of guns, and live out there because they don't like people in their business.
Haven't had too many problems, people in the boonies are generally more friendly and permissive than people in cities, as long as you treat them with respect and common courtesy. The only problems I've ever had was going to a claim with a different vehicle (the rancher did think I was trespassing, until he stopped and verified), and when I was selling a claim on another ranchers land, and thus a couple strangers barged in to sample (even if I told them to stop by the visible ranch house).
The biggest problem isn't property holders, its idiots wandering about the backwoods armed to the teeth, and sporting major mental imbalances. Nothing you can do about them, but stay armed yourself.
While they are under the same name, and both under the Vivendi, they remain autonomous entities. The Activision in Activision Blizzard has nothing to do with the Blizzard in Activision Blizzard.
Hows that for a cumbersome sentence?
Vivendi is too smart to mess with Blizzard, they make FAR too much money to fiddle with their business model (they haven't either).
Except the Arabs, of course. The Enlightenment was mainly a function of ancient Greek (and Roman) texts flowing back to Europe (via Italy) from the Arabs, who kept science and philosophy alive while we were running about trying to sac Jerusalem over and over and burning anyone who looked at Jesus funny.
I think there is room for different markets here. I'm typing this on what I consider a "desktop replacement" laptop. Its big, its heavy, and it hardly ever leaves the desk, but it is more portable than a PC, and I take it to my girlfriends on weekends, and occasionally to the coffee shop. I basically use it for everything I used to use my (defunct) desktop for, but its less bulky, and more portable.
I still want to get a nice EEPC though, for a completely different reason.
Two different beasts.
I can tell that you are likely to discard my argument, but I will provide it anyway for the benefit of others.
Don't be so hasty, I asked out of genuine curiosity, meaning I must be at LEAST somewhat hoping for an answer. And to be fair, many of the replies I got had very good arguments.
I don't think such a system would necissarily lead to communism in the long run, though. As someone argued to me, every right has a corresponding responsibility, and this can be seen in this as well. If you are capable of taking care of your self (mentally and physically fit), then you should be expected to. The only time assistance is necessary is in the short term (and it should be limited). This can be seen in the same light as college aid, your investing in the future taxes they will pay.
The only place where perpetual assistance comes into play is for those who have fallen into really deep cracks, or those with debilitating physical or mental problems. I talk more about them, than just people who won't work, or have fallen on hard times.
I think one can even make a natural argument for helping those who fall on hard times. Most of us can be in the boat with a slight change of circumstances, and I think that we would welcome someone helping us get back up. If we don't put into position such a system, we won't benefit from it in our own time of need. Nothing is as stable as we wish it.
Sadly, we are not immune to the laws of nature just because we are civilized. There is a finite amount of resources in existence, so people will have to die in large numbers due to starvation, disease, or warfare in order to keep the population in check. This is never going to change.
This smells like fatalism. Even if we can't have a perfect system, we should fight for it.
That said, when you look at things, modern, developed societies do a decent job of this. There are food programs for families (I certainly think it is more important to provide for children), food banks, and other charities. Things are far from perfect, but a lot of the time, they are pretty good.
Agreed, for the most part. Though walking around in your local downtown proves that there still is some work to be done, and I have a feeling that things are going to get worse with the aging boomers (I read statistics that most of them have less than 70k saved for retirement, which isn't much).
The problem I shot for in the post, though, was more of a reality check for the "property is the be all end all" people. It just seems like an odd priority, in the face of it, and an odd place to place the "supreme right" marker.
As for how to go about enforcing it, if it ever was claimed as a right... I have no clue. I'm guessing the answer isn't going to be a conservative, or a liberal one, but someplace in the middle.
Good questions, it was a thorny question.
I do think that people who CAN work (as in physically or mentally competent) should provide for themselves, though there should be some form of emergency assistance, though it should be limited. I think providing for the general welfare in this way should be seen like college aid, as an investment in future tax dollars.
Though basically I think there should be a bottom set of "rights" to life for those who cannot work, and those who have fallen into a REALLY deep hole. I suppose the money would have to come from everyone else. I would prefer a check box on my taxes giving me an option to support people, OR wars, and I could pick whichever one my morals guided me to. That, though, is a pipe dream.
I agree with the responsibility bit though, we seem to forget about that word in modern society. That's why any right to food, water, shelter would be tempered with the idea that one would have to attempt to provide for themselves. The only place where "genuine" altruism would hit the state level is the ill.
I doubt I cleared up this quagmire.
Point taken.
To be honest, I have no bloody idea what a right actually is, in the most objective sense. I lean towards its whatever you can convince others is a right, is a right.
And before you whine about how you don't have any choice about internet provider, remember that socialist morons like you usually vote to give cable companies local monopolies, claiming the internet and cable TV is *so* important you don't want to trust it to the evil free market system.
Ad Hominem much? Did the poster ever claim his political affiliation?
How the hell did "socialist" become the ad hominem of choice these days? Did I miss the resurrection of Joe McCarthy or Ronald Raygun? Do you really think that just yelling "Your a Socialist!" is enough to prove your point?
Also, last I checked, the Republicans overwhelmingly lead to the current lack of competition in the telecoms. I don't think that they are "socialists", I just think that they like money, at the expense of the normal person, and generally when someone screams "socialist!" as a random, out of place, insult, I think the same thing. What the hell have the republicans done for the free-market lately? Less than anyone with a socialist bent, I'd say, since they are in favor of regulating business. Regulation doesn't mean monopoly, as Standard Oil, and AT&T prove. Republicans have been in favor of telecom (and even more sadly media) conglomeration, which leads to monopolies.
Can we quit the partisan crap now? There is no right answer, but a plethora of wrong ones, and I'm guess that both your answer, and mine, fall into the latter category.
No, its not, and I find this rather shameful. I'm about to veer dangerously into flamebait, so feel free to ignore me, or mod me down.
On /. we scream about how property is a right, this always strikes me as very odd, since it usually is levied against providing more important services towards others, like denying health care and welfare to those less fortunate, since taxation is denying our "right" to property. To me this is bizarre, why should property be a right, if health and survival aren't? The latter two preclude the former, and thus I would see it as far more important than an overly broad right to property.
This is not to say I believe in communism, or classically construed socialism, to bar impending straw men. Nor is this to say that the poor should be living in state sponsored mansions and seeing plastic surgeons to have perfect breasts. But the rudiments of survival and life should be considered a basic right, and as such each person should have the right to water, health care, and rations of enough calories to survive.
I would like to see an argument against this, that doesn't resort to the neo-Darwinian fallacy.
It just seems odd to scream "my money is mine!" while people starve in the streets, it seems almost sociopathic.
That said, I don't think that broadband should be a basic right (and it is available for free to all, see your local library), but I do think some regulation is necessary for the reasons that some have brought up here, there is no free market for it. And as one poster astutly said (sorry, too lazy to find the post), corporations shouldn't have the right to choose who gets to participate in modern discourse, though again, the library system can be seen as filling this gap.
New rights cannot be added, and new restrictions can be added.
Hmm.. History doesn't agree, please read the amendments, it seems that new rights were added frequently. IANAL, but the 9th Amendment seems to sum this up:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Meaning, if it isn't in there, it doesn't mean you don't have it.
And, like your Tivo, it'll be more or less impossible to change the software on. Or, if you do, you'll create as many problems as you solve because online banking, shopping and even Internet access can and quite possibly will demand that your 'computer' prove it's fully "Trusted" before they have anything to do with it."
I doubt that it will work quite that way... Two reasons; A) There is no money in it, and B) Its only local so there is no money in widespread enforcement.
The first point hinges on the fact that only one segment of the economy can leverage our corrupt (or ignorant but well intentioned) congresscritters towards this, the *AAs, where it would cost many other segments of our economy LOTS of money, and TONS of lost profits. If such a law was passed tomorrow, our ISPs would suddenly lose ALL of their business, since there are no Trusted computers. Even if there was, how many of their customers are still connecting on old boxes or alternative OSs? If it was mandated for online shopping, how much business would these shops lose, we face the same problem. Hardware upgrade cycles (and acceptance shading into ubiquity) are way to slow for this to be good for anyone. I mean anyone in the corporate sense, and not the personal sense, of course. If this was every seriously put before our law makers, you'd have a clash of the Lobby titans.
The second reason is that this would only apply to the US, which is significant, but decreasingly less so in internet presence. Why would Ebay or Amazon want to lose their international markets just to make the MPAA/RIAA happy?
Banks I can see falling for this, since they mostly have a local, or at most national, base, but many online companies are international now, and thus this would hurt them.
It might still happen (never underestimate how hard our government fights against us), but your reasons are somewhat flawed.
- the guy is right and they are already here and among us (maybe they are criminals hiding on a primitive planet)
Oh god, we're Interstellar Australia...
Point taken, and I agree completely.
Though states have been notoriously bad when it comes to civil rights, and are often prone to aristocratic and dynastic tendancies, both of which are against the word and spirit of the Constitution and Declaration. I do, though, think they need more legal sovereignty.
I don't know why I foe'd you.
I agree, it isn't a purely a good thing, nor is it, though, a purely evil thing. Generally the amendments where states-rights got eaten away were generally for the good (ending slavery, equal voting rights for all, no poll taxes, etc...), but I agree that there are bounds that are often crossed where things get murky.
I generally hate the libertarian-esque political statements, but I agree that states rights are generally good, as long as their constrained by the federal government guaranteeing our basic rights (and more) (equal voting, freedom from bias, etc...). Now what these rights are, and where this line is... that is a completely different, and much more contentious debate.
IANAL, that out of the way:
Actually states rights have been continually marginalized(especially since the Civil War), which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the Civil War and several civil rights movements have proven. Federal (congressional) law also trumps state laws, not visa versa, this is implicit in the Consitution (both original, and amended), bringing this to just an issue of "May Congress do thus".
Looking at Article 1, section 8, I could perceive outlawing gold to be along with "providing for the common defense and general welfare.", or along the lines of "regulating commerce... between states". Reading Article 1 I don't find any implicit statement saying "congress may do nothing but the things listed here", or "congress has the right to make federal laws, but not involving gold". So far I don't see the lack of constitutionality.
I'll give you Article 6, though. You are correct.
As for the 10th Amendment... Yes, this would give some ground, but... this can be seen as, as stated, providing for the general welfare, or regulating commerce, and this a power invested in the US Gov't, making the 10th moot.
The Bill of Rights, and later amendments that restrict Congressional power, do tend to confuse people, because they take power away from Congress rather than granting it. Remember that those restrictions apply in addition to the restriction that Congress stay within its Constitutionally delegated powers. That's made explicit by the Ninth Amendment, so maybe you should go read that one again too.
Looking at my copy of the Constitution, I notice phrases along the lines of "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" (Amend.XIII Sec.2) more than "congress shall not pass laws along x lines". The above quote, notice, explicitly limited states rights (slavery) in favor of federal bans. Roughly half of the amendments go along the same stripe, limiting states right (mostly to enfranchisement).
I don't agree with the law criminalizing gold ownership, but not on the grounds of it being unconstitutional, since I don't see how it was. It was a stupid law for other reasons.
Its amazing how much the constitution is like literary criticism, there are various readings, and various historical contexts that we can take head of, depending on what point we want to present.
Again, IANAL, or constitutional scholar, I just so happen to have bought a copy for my reference library the other day for such cases.
That ban was unconstitutional
How so? There isn't anything in the Constitution saying "Congress is here to pass laws, but NOT laws that will piss off gold-standard people". I'm genuinely curious about this, where in the Constitution does it bar this?
Not that that's stopped the federal government from doing whatever the hell they wanted since the Lincoln administration.
There is no clause saying that congress MUST pass constitutional laws, the Executive branch's veto power exists to make sure Congress stays within constitutional bounds, and if that fails SCoTUS. As a secondary feature, the voters have the power to raise a huff and remove these people.
First, I almost completely disagree with you. I find that Firefox 3 is roughly equal with Opera memory wise, but has a little more purely subjective "zip". IE, as far as I can tell, is just painful to use, is rather inflexible, underpowered, and is about as safe as a fishnet condom. I do tell everyone to use Firefox (or Opera or Safari, depending).
You know, seeing as I have made it this far into the post... I'm tired of seeing people say "this is the best" or "that is the best" when the reality is the only best out there is what works best for the person using the software
Here, though, you are completely correct. The browser/OS/Editor wars are getting REALLY old, since things have progressed to about the point where all the alternatives are roughly equal. Yes, IE, and Windows even, are just as safe and zippy as OS X or Linux, depending on the users training and smarts. Same for speed, yes, Vista and IE use a TON of memory, but not enough to really hurt anyone using a computer made in the last five years (OS X isn't a lightweight either).
I do, though, think that Linux and Firefox are the only real options on a moral high road, though, but that really is an insignificant consideration after use and user style.
The problem happens when Joe Sixpack sits down on their Windows/IE box, with no knowledge of safety, then recommending is perfectly fine, and even commendable. From the sounds of it, and the environment, you probably know how to keep your boxes from becoming zombies, and hogging bandwidth and my mailbox, but most people don't. Yes, we could teach them how to be nice, but that takes a LOT of time and effort, where just making them use Firefox and a non-Windows OS is damn easy.
What was wrong with A Scanner Darkly? It was MUCH better than I expected. But then again my expectations of anything adapted from PKD is REALLY low, lower than my expectations of anything Lucas and Spielberg do. In the end though, it was a pretty good adaptation, and the animation didn't give me a migraine like Waking Life did. The casting was good too, since... The actors manage to have the same foibles as the characters they portray (except maybe Reaves, but you must take some bad with the good)
What is your major complaint? I can see being miffed over Matrix II-III, and Phantom Menace, since those were steaming piles of... Marketing.
We leave them verbatum (and in this case, the normal use of "sic" just would not even come close to adequate) when people don't know enough to feel ashamed of what they've said.
Then why quote them? If their misuse of language precludes them from making an insightful statement, then quoting them hardly seems worthwhile.
I'm inclined to agree with the parent, we often misuse quotes to reinforce our prejudices of class and race. Most people today have pretty terrible grammar (myself obviously included), even those we generally consider elite.
The "-in'" ending does make me rather mad though, especially when its added to quotes. Generally the "-in'" counts more towards regional dialects than general education. Generally using dialect language in quotes is bad form, since it reinforces stereotypes (all people from the south are yokels, etc...)
We also forget the fact that their is a vast difference between casual speech, and formal speech, even if this is a rapidly decaying line (listen to our politicians speeches, and compare to politicians even a generation ago).
We're never going to agree... But it still is a fun discussion.
Actually, it does...but not everyone's willing to even look into it, much less turn themselves over to it.
I think many people in our culture are aware of it, and probably have tried religion, if they weren't raised into it. I, myself, was raised Catholic, but left around the age of reason (15-16), it didn't fit what I saw in the world. At the time I saw all this evil, that you speak of, and couldn't rectify a loving God with it, especially when paired with the idiotic Cold War rhetoric of "God is on our side". How can God be on anyones side when the goal is to nuke innocents if you have a chance? Read the same for any war, if God picked a side, He isn't worthy of worship.
It didn't hold the answers, and hopes that you, yourself, found. It left me with the proverbial "hole", since I knew there were answers to the questions that religion didn't answer for me. (there are full philosophy texts on these questions)
Are ya really gonna try to keep it under your hat, even if it doesn't fill your life with joy?
I'm truly conflicted here, and this almost made me not reply. I LIKE people being happy, for whatever (nondestructive) reason, and thus I don't want to tarnish that. And I do understand the religious drive to preaching by converts, it is a wholly humanitarian, and benign act. If I found a useful truth I would do the same. I'm conflicted, since I don't want to hear it anymore, though. I'm constantly preached at, I am aware of God, Jesus, etc... I won't convert, though, unless, as you probably know, there is some internal reason that makes this version of truth self-evident and useful. So far there isn't, and even points to the contrary.
Yes, Sartre wasn't the glorious optimist I painted him as, but nor was he as bleak as you have. He realized that there is no meaning, and we just have to accept it, which, on close reading, is empowering. I don't accept him as my truth bringer, to me that would be more Socrates, but I think his point is applicable.
Just because something makes you happy doesn't make it true, and just because something makes you feel bad, doesn't make it bad. That, I suppose is my point. And the more bad you look for, the more you will find, the same goes for happiness.
Yes, there is shit in the world, but far less than any time in history. Yes, the media tells me all kinds of nasty stuff, but we must remember that the good stuff doesn't pay as well. Who cares if a housewife saved a litter of puppies from a flood? Who cares if millions of people give to charity (of their own free will), and donate their time and money to helping those less fortunate. None of these things breeds the outrage that gets viewers to view ads repeatedly.
Violent crime has been declining for a decade, not that you'd ever notice from the media. It is the worst place to actually get your worldview from, since it is wholly slanted.
As for cosmology, thats a different debate altogether, I really don't want this to turn into the usual atheist/theist "your wrong!" type of debate. Those are droll, and rather crass. You may be right, I don't know. There always will be as much proof against as for, the question will never be resolved. It becomes a manner of preference, upbringing, and worldview.
I LIKE this world, I'd rather focus on it, and the happiness of those in it, than worry about going to Heaven. People right here, and right now, are much more important than if I end up someplace where the walls are made of chocolate, and all computers are connected to free T3s.
Also, I forget to mention, I don't think religion is something you can try on. I can't just start going to church tomorrow and be a good Christian (or Muslim, Jew, or Hindi), there would be lacking the vital leap, faith. That isn't something you practice. You have it or you don't, it comes to you or it doesn't.
You just stumbled over my point: man has *both* good and bad in him. This is
In short: We need to resurrect Carl Sagan, and Stephen J. Gould? Perhaps some Zombie Asimov?
If thats what your getting at, I agree.
If you can fill your "hole" with Jesus, good for you. If it makes you happy, even better. But that is YOUR answer. Just because something fills a need, doesn't make it real. Just because something works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone else.
I'm always suspicious of people who need to broadcast their happiness and good fortune. If it can't exist in private, is it really happiness? Or you just inadvertently abusing the sociological mirror, you want US to see YOU as happy, so you can fool yourself into it? Its like these "green" morons, telling all of us how "eco-freindly" they are, if they really were fulfilled by this, would they need to preach it, and make us KNOW how good they are?
Often this preaching sounds like desperation.
Sorry for sounding like an ass, as I stated, if it makes you happy, fine.
I doubt the reality of this "hole", I think its an illusion that society tells us. We "ought" to have a hole, that we need to fill. When all we really need is a touch of self-awareness. As Delphi said "Know Thyself", and as Socrates (via Plato) said "An unexamined life is not worth living". Trying my hardest be be self-knowledgeable, I realize that there is no "hole", only self. This whole largely results from society not fitting us and our human needs (and not as commonly thought, visa versa). We fail to be ourselves, and thus there is a hole. The lack of authenticity is the hole.
Yeah, the world's pretty horrible. It stinks, it argues and it even kills. But this ain't heaven: this is neutral ground, and this is what we make it. Murder someone? Have an affair? Cheat a friend? That's what's making it so horrible: sin. The deviation from our intended role.
The world isn't horrible, we just see it that way. For every Hitler and Pinochet there is a Picasso and a Albert Schweitzer. For every meaningless war, there is a child who stares at a sunset, blinded by awe. Part of the problem is that we expect MEANING, when there is no reason that there should be. Accepting that things are as they are completely destroys any illusionary "hole". Accepting that there is no reason for meaning (in the religious sense) makes us (to paraphrase Sartre) the creators of our own meaning, and thus fulfillment is in our own hands.
I happen to like the world, so I might be some sort of freak. I take the good with the bad, and relish that good when I encounter it. Going to a natural history museum is more powerful to me than a church, mosque, synagogue, of Kalimat. A good painting, sunset, or book has more meaning to me than any religious text, as does reading of the good works of my fellow man. Seeing the world as hell, makes is thus, seeing the world as it is leaves one reeling, but allows us to see that it ISN'T hell, or hellish, or vile. There is great good in mankind, as well as evil, humanity, and the world we create for ourselves, is value neutral, and completely meaningless. This isn't a bad thing, nor a good thing, but just another thing.