Your freedom to ignore ends where it clashes with other's freedom to live.
"Right to life" means "right not to be murdered." I have no obligation to help people beyond the simple restriction on infringing their basic rights, as defined by The People and enforced by the government. I may assist them more if I wish; this is called charity.
Even more basic is that rights must be backed up by force. You believe that certain rights (should) exist that currently are not supported by our government. Fine: go change public opinion, and then The Laws will follow in due time. (I would suggest, however, that attacking others who are clearly more respected by the rest of your audience is not the way to go about doing this.)
The key here is that the rest of the world at this time has no power over the sovereign United States. If the US loses some of its sovereignty to a larger power (say, the UN), the larger society formed by this union would then agree to certain additional rights for its People, possibly including the ones you want.
You have a right to liberty. You do not have a right to luxury. Fuck your luxury. You don't deserve it.
Your reasoning is self-contradictory. If the government restricts your luxury, then you really don't have liberty. You can't pursue happiness if what makes you happy is considered by others to be decadent.
And what do you mean by, "I don't deserve it?" I deserve anything I am able to get, as long as it doesn't involve breaking the social contract (as defined by The People and codified into The Laws). If my company is willing to pay me $X, my fair market value is AT LEAST $X; perhaps it is higher, and I just don't have the right job.
Aside: I wish people would stop judging their happiness in comparison to others. Yes, there will always be rich people. That isn't going to go away, unless government sometime imposes an income cap, and I assure you that will never happen.
The key to happiness is not to judge yourself in comparison to your neighbor. If you do that, then you'll always be unhappy unless you happen to be successful, which normally does not happen to people driven by envy.
You are nothing but an amoral totalitarian[*} creep.
Ad hominem. Stop the raving and come back with a real argument. In the meantime, go on eating your granola bars and living in a cardboard box, if that makes you feel better about the suffering elsewhere in the world. As an engineer in the technology field, my work is having a tangible, positive effect on the world economy.
And...Don't even compare yourself with Ayn Rand. Your philosophy is inconsistent, and I hope you realize this one day. I, on the other hand, came up with all of this on my own and only recently discovered that some other very smart person came up with it 60 years ago.
They are also free not to, which means that the starving could well starve, despite having the right to live.
Absolutely right. This is a fundamental of liberty: the freedom to help, AND the freedom to ignore. I would suggest, however, that money talks, and if people are willing to pay, farmers will produce.
Did you know, for instance, that most malnourished people live in countries with a food surplus?
This suggests that those countries should stop trying to play "Keep up with the Joneses" of the rest of the world, and feed their own people first. It does NOT follow that we in the US have an obligation to feed them at the expense of our liberty and luxury.
BTW the UN Declaration of Human Rights is binding on nations that are members of the UN. UN members nations have to uphold it.
And who enforces this? Last I knew, the US still owed a lot of money to the UN, and wasn't in a rush to pay up. There can be no authority without force to back it up.
Society needs some enforcement mechanism. Yes, certain segments of society have ascribed to animals a certain set of rights, but those people are powerless since they do not have the majority-controlled government on their side. So, society as a whole (whose force is represented by the government) has not given them those rights.
People eating meat does not, at this point, preclude others from eating something else.
Furthermore, I have yet to see the law forcing American farmers to produce food to give away for free. Last I knew, we were still in something approximating a free market which has a high demand and correspondingly high supply of meat.
Those who are interested in upholding this (presumably non-binding) "Charter of Human Rights" are free to accept charity and use that to purchase food for the rest of the world. If they demand enough grain, the supply chain will shift toward producing more grain. Wonderful thing the market is.
Society may, at some point, decide to change the rules such that eating meat either (a) becomes very expensive or (b) becomes persecuted. The cause of such a change is irrelevant to the discussion.
What is relevant is that society will have then made a conscious decision to grant extra rights to someone (e.g., to animals if eating them is considered "wrong", or to humans if we decide that eating is a "fundamental human right"). Rights do not exist in a vacuum; society decides on sets of rights for sets of people/animals/inanimates, and imposes a form of government to enforce those rights.
It's a perfectly consistent argument: we, as humans, are the most powerful and most influential creatures on the planet, giving us dominion over the Earth (whether you are religious or not; I am atheist).
Since we can reason, we as a society have decided that some animals are worthy of some types of rights, and so we grant them those rights. Since innate rights do not exist (as they are defined strictly by society, tradition, and convention), animals have no rights we do not grant to them.
Logically, then, we must grant animals any rights we wish them to have. I am not against giving animals rights if society decides to do so; what I am arguing against is the notion that _anyone_ --- animal or human --- possesses innate rights divorced from rational society.
You are missing my point. YES, I can get those nutrients elsewhere. However, I wouldn't eat meat if it didn't fulfill all three criteria. Tasting good and ability to eat them are NOT sufficient; add nutritional value, however, and it is sufficient for me to eat it.
Blacks have the same ability to reason that the rest of humanity does. A cow doesn't. We, as the top of the food chain and as the species holding all the power, have decided that those animals with a similar ability to reason are ascribed at least two basic rights (life and liberty).
If cows suddenly became sentient as a species, I would stop eating them. Happy?
I don't eat just to subsist. I could eat rice, other grains, and a variety of tasteless vegetables in order to live. I eat animals because (1) they taste good, (2) they provide me with nutrients, and (3) I have the power to do so.
I am omnivorous. I choose to be that way because meat is good for me (in limited quantities) and I like the taste. That's all there is to it.
I'm not an inherently cruel person. I don't torture animals for fun. However, I would like to make it very clear that animals have no inherent rights. A "right" is a human construct: in the wild, "rights" simply do not exist. Therefore to talk about "Animal Rights" is to ascribe rights to animals that society has not yet given them.
I do not torture kittens because society has decided to give those particular animals the right of humane treatment. If we, as a society, come to believe at some point that killing animals for food is wrong, then we will have given them the right to life. Until then, they are ours to do with as we please, simply because we are the most powerful creature on the food chain.
It seems to me that the reason why there are no women in technical fields is that they are conditioned from an early age not only not to find geeky stuff interesting, but to look down on people who do. Face it: the kick-ass programmer with $20 million in stock options and the brand new Aston-Martin convertible was the pimple-faced, scrawny geek throughout grade school. This is not an image most women aspire to.
The problem is that the very attitude required to excel in a technical field has to be acquired at an early age. At 24, I've been training for my current job for 19 years, though for most of that time it was just a hobby. At 5 years old, most girls are playing with Barbie dolls and their heat-lamp ovens, and aren't terribly interested in putzing around with a television or programming a computer. At 16 years old, while I was busily improving the BBS software I wrote at 14, most teenage girls were shopping, doing their hair, trying on push-up bras, and generally trying to impress oversexed teenage boys.
Notice: by that age, I already had 11 years of experience programming and generally tinkering with engineering. Considering how intuitive youngsters are compared to adults, this is an insurmountable chasm to cross.
So, now when we ask, "Why aren't there are more female programmers?", one conclusion at which we must invariably arrive is, "Because they don't have the experience to compete with the males." Sure, there are other reasons, but I believe this one dominates above all others.
The only remedy I can see is to change society so young girls are given Legos instead of Barbies, TV kits instead of heat-lamp ovens, and computers instead of wardrobes. Encourage young girls to pursue substance over style, intelligence over beauty, and individuality over conformity, and the problem will just go away naturally.
Until this occurs, all other perceived culprits are merely straw men.
I think it's time we started experimenting with uplift a la David Brin: giving intelligent animal species (e.g., dolphins, chimps, gorillas, etc.) sentience. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
I think all forms of income/capital gains tax should be removed. Instead, heavily tax all "non-essential" goods: everything except food, clothing, and housing below a certain value. This way, the poor pay _no_ taxes whatsoever because ostensibly they can't afford anything anyway; but, investors don't get hit with tax on the sale of securities until they actually try to buy something expensive (Jaguar XKR convertible, $40 million house, Faberge eggs) with the proceeds. Right now, the capital gains tax system really screws people who want to sell stock and reinvest, but can't because they would lose 20%-39% of their capital.
Metallica's response doesn't surprise me in the least. They sold out a _long_ time ago. Honestly, just about everything they've done in the past 8 years sickens me to no end, especially considering they were once the poster boys of the underground, anti-establishment movement.
Fuck it all and fucking no regrets. Long live Napster and Gnutella.
Seeing as there's no legal reason for those OS's to lack USB support, the proper answer here is to finish USB support for Linux and add it to those other OS's. Honestly, do you expect the entire hardware industry to wait for every OS to get in line? That's not the kind of computer industry I want. (Though, OTOH, I don't want the kind that patents everything, either...) -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
I think this is more useful as a poignant commentary on the uselessness of standardized tests on accurate college admissions. I tend to think it goes the other way, though: few genuinely intelligent people score relatively low (say below 1200) on the SAT, but lots of really stupid, ignorant, unengaged, and work-a-holic students score very high on the SAT even though they would not fare well at schools like MIT or the Ivies.
Once we get away from testing knowledge in the name of "aptitude," and actually try to find a way to gauge students' interest in, fervor for, and raw talent to handle college-level work, we'll be better able to admit to the elite schools those students who will be successful in an economy that now thrives on individuality, resourcefulness, and cleverness instead of on suits and connections.
Perhaps this is the final step toward the true meritocracy. I can't wait. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
While I think the movie sucked ass overall, I will purcahse it for the Jedi fight scenes alone...eventually. The implication is that Lucas will get none of my money until the movie is out on DVD. 'Nuff said. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
...if she reads nothing else, get her to read Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein. This sci-fi book is also great literature, and doesn't assume the reader is too stupid to pick up on themes, as Ray Bradbury often does.
I would also recommend the following: 2001, Arthur C. Clarke The Forge of God, Greg Bear Great Sky River, Gregory Benford Sundiver/Startide Rising/The Uplift War, David Brin Mars trilogy, Kim Stanley Robinson Chung Kuo, David Wingrove
Basically, look at the Hugo award list and choose some books. They're all going to be both science fiction-y but will teach her something at the same time. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Does anyone know if the CD's listed are the only ones on which this play-protection was used? I have recently bought a Die Krupps "Odyssey of the Mind" CD distributed by BMG which refuses to play properly in 2 of my 3 CD players. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Do not buy the VHS version. I have not bought a VHS tape since I got my DVD player 1-1/2 years ago, and I will not, no matter how good (or hyped, in the case of TPM) it is. Lucas is just delaying his profit in my case. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
...that Verisign now has a monopoly on commerical browser certificates. Thawte and Verisign are the only two companies to issue commercial browser certificates for both NS and IE. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Slashdot Mirror
Your freedom to ignore ends where it clashes with other's freedom to live.
"Right to life" means "right not to be murdered." I have no obligation to help people beyond the simple restriction on infringing their basic rights, as defined by The People and enforced by the government. I may assist them more if I wish; this is called charity.
Even more basic is that rights must be backed up by force. You believe that certain rights (should) exist that currently are not supported by our government. Fine: go change public opinion, and then The Laws will follow in due time. (I would suggest, however, that attacking others who are clearly more respected by the rest of your audience is not the way to go about doing this.)
The key here is that the rest of the world at this time has no power over the sovereign United States. If the US loses some of its sovereignty to a larger power (say, the UN), the larger society formed by this union would then agree to certain additional rights for its People, possibly including the ones you want.
You have a right to liberty. You do not have a right to luxury. Fuck your luxury. You don't deserve it.
Your reasoning is self-contradictory. If the government restricts your luxury, then you really don't have liberty. You can't pursue happiness if what makes you happy is considered by others to be decadent.
And what do you mean by, "I don't deserve it?" I deserve anything I am able to get, as long as it doesn't involve breaking the social contract (as defined by The People and codified into The Laws). If my company is willing to pay me $X, my fair market value is AT LEAST $X; perhaps it is higher, and I just don't have the right job.
Aside: I wish people would stop judging their happiness in comparison to others. Yes, there will always be rich people. That isn't going to go away, unless government sometime imposes an income cap, and I assure you that will never happen.
The key to happiness is not to judge yourself in comparison to your neighbor. If you do that, then you'll always be unhappy unless you happen to be successful, which normally does not happen to people driven by envy.
You are nothing but an amoral totalitarian[*} creep.
Ad hominem. Stop the raving and come back with a real argument. In the meantime, go on eating your granola bars and living in a cardboard box, if that makes you feel better about the suffering elsewhere in the world. As an engineer in the technology field, my work is having a tangible, positive effect on the world economy.
And...Don't even compare yourself with Ayn Rand. Your philosophy is inconsistent, and I hope you realize this one day. I, on the other hand, came up with all of this on my own and only recently discovered that some other very smart person came up with it 60 years ago.
I will speak no more on this topic.
Proudly objectivist and libertarian,
Kyle
I guess our definitions of "sentient" differ.
They are also free not to, which means that the starving could well starve, despite having the right to live.
Absolutely right. This is a fundamental of liberty: the freedom to help, AND the freedom to ignore. I would suggest, however, that money talks, and if people are willing to pay, farmers will produce.
Did you know, for instance, that most malnourished people live in countries with a food surplus?
This suggests that those countries should stop trying to play "Keep up with the Joneses" of the rest of the world, and feed their own people first. It does NOT follow that we in the US have an obligation to feed them at the expense of our liberty and luxury.
BTW the UN Declaration of Human Rights is binding on nations that are members of the UN. UN members nations have to uphold it.
And who enforces this? Last I knew, the US still owed a lot of money to the UN, and wasn't in a rush to pay up. There can be no authority without force to back it up.
Society needs some enforcement mechanism. Yes, certain segments of society have ascribed to animals a certain set of rights, but those people are powerless since they do not have the majority-controlled government on their side. So, society as a whole (whose force is represented by the government) has not given them those rights.
People eating meat does not, at this point, preclude others from eating something else.
Furthermore, I have yet to see the law forcing American farmers to produce food to give away for free. Last I knew, we were still in something approximating a free market which has a high demand and correspondingly high supply of meat.
Those who are interested in upholding this (presumably non-binding) "Charter of Human Rights" are free to accept charity and use that to purchase food for the rest of the world. If they demand enough grain, the supply chain will shift toward producing more grain. Wonderful thing the market is.
Society may, at some point, decide to change the rules such that eating meat either (a) becomes very expensive or (b) becomes persecuted. The cause of such a change is irrelevant to the discussion.
What is relevant is that society will have then made a conscious decision to grant extra rights to someone (e.g., to animals if eating them is considered "wrong", or to humans if we decide that eating is a "fundamental human right"). Rights do not exist in a vacuum; society decides on sets of rights for sets of people/animals/inanimates, and imposes a form of government to enforce those rights.
It's a perfectly consistent argument: we, as humans, are the most powerful and most influential creatures on the planet, giving us dominion over the Earth (whether you are religious or not; I am atheist).
Since we can reason, we as a society have decided that some animals are worthy of some types of rights, and so we grant them those rights. Since innate rights do not exist (as they are defined strictly by society, tradition, and convention), animals have no rights we do not grant to them.
Logically, then, we must grant animals any rights we wish them to have. I am not against giving animals rights if society decides to do so; what I am arguing against is the notion that _anyone_ --- animal or human --- possesses innate rights divorced from rational society.
Questions?
You are missing my point. YES, I can get those nutrients elsewhere. However, I wouldn't eat meat if it didn't fulfill all three criteria. Tasting good and ability to eat them are NOT sufficient; add nutritional value, however, and it is sufficient for me to eat it.
Blacks have the same ability to reason that the rest of humanity does. A cow doesn't. We, as the top of the food chain and as the species holding all the power, have decided that those animals with a similar ability to reason are ascribed at least two basic rights (life and liberty).
If cows suddenly became sentient as a species, I would stop eating them. Happy?
I don't eat just to subsist. I could eat rice, other grains, and a variety of tasteless vegetables in order to live. I eat animals because (1) they taste good, (2) they provide me with nutrients, and (3) I have the power to do so.
I am omnivorous. I choose to be that way because meat is good for me (in limited quantities) and I like the taste. That's all there is to it.
I'm not an inherently cruel person. I don't torture animals for fun. However, I would like to make it very clear that animals have no inherent rights. A "right" is a human construct: in the wild, "rights" simply do not exist. Therefore to talk about "Animal Rights" is to ascribe rights to animals that society has not yet given them.
I do not torture kittens because society has decided to give those particular animals the right of humane treatment. If we, as a society, come to believe at some point that killing animals for food is wrong, then we will have given them the right to life. Until then, they are ours to do with as we please, simply because we are the most powerful creature on the food chain.
It seems to me that the reason why there are no women in technical fields is that they are conditioned from an early age not only not to find geeky stuff interesting, but to look down on people who do. Face it: the kick-ass programmer with $20 million in stock options and the brand new Aston-Martin convertible was the pimple-faced, scrawny geek throughout grade school. This is not an image most women aspire to.
The problem is that the very attitude required to excel in a technical field has to be acquired at an early age. At 24, I've been training for my current job for 19 years, though for most of that time it was just a hobby. At 5 years old, most girls are playing with Barbie dolls and their heat-lamp ovens, and aren't terribly interested in putzing around with a television or programming a computer. At 16 years old, while I was busily improving the BBS software I wrote at 14, most teenage girls were shopping, doing their hair, trying on push-up bras, and generally trying to impress oversexed teenage boys.
Notice: by that age, I already had 11 years of experience programming and generally tinkering with engineering. Considering how intuitive youngsters are compared to adults, this is an insurmountable chasm to cross.
So, now when we ask, "Why aren't there are more female programmers?", one conclusion at which we must invariably arrive is, "Because they don't have the experience to compete with the males." Sure, there are other reasons, but I believe this one dominates above all others.
The only remedy I can see is to change society so young girls are given Legos instead of Barbies, TV kits instead of heat-lamp ovens, and computers instead of wardrobes. Encourage young girls to pursue substance over style, intelligence over beauty, and individuality over conformity, and the problem will just go away naturally.
Until this occurs, all other perceived culprits are merely straw men.
I think it's time we started experimenting with uplift a la David Brin: giving intelligent animal species (e.g., dolphins, chimps, gorillas, etc.) sentience.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
I think all forms of income/capital gains tax should be removed. Instead, heavily tax all "non-essential" goods: everything except food, clothing, and housing below a certain value. This way, the poor pay _no_ taxes whatsoever because ostensibly they can't afford anything anyway; but, investors don't get hit with tax on the sale of securities until they actually try to buy something expensive (Jaguar XKR convertible, $40 million house, Faberge eggs) with the proceeds. Right now, the capital gains tax system really screws people who want to sell stock and reinvest, but can't because they would lose 20%-39% of their capital.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Is there a way to insert Java support into Linux Mozilla? Doesn't have to be perfect; just has to work...
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Metallica's response doesn't surprise me in the least. They sold out a _long_ time ago. Honestly, just about everything they've done in the past 8 years sickens me to no end, especially considering they were once the poster boys of the underground, anti-establishment movement.
Fuck it all and fucking no regrets. Long live Napster and Gnutella.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Seeing as there's no legal reason for those OS's to lack USB support, the proper answer here is to finish USB support for Linux and add it to those other OS's. Honestly, do you expect the entire hardware industry to wait for every OS to get in line? That's not the kind of computer industry I want. (Though, OTOH, I don't want the kind that patents everything, either...)
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
I think I'll take a pass on any player that reduces my convenience.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
I think this is more useful as a poignant commentary on the uselessness of standardized tests on accurate college admissions. I tend to think it goes the other way, though: few genuinely intelligent people score relatively low (say below 1200) on the SAT, but lots of really stupid, ignorant, unengaged, and work-a-holic students score very high on the SAT even though they would not fare well at schools like MIT or the Ivies.
Once we get away from testing knowledge in the name of "aptitude," and actually try to find a way to gauge students' interest in, fervor for, and raw talent to handle college-level work, we'll be better able to admit to the elite schools those students who will be successful in an economy that now thrives on individuality, resourcefulness, and cleverness instead of on suits and connections.
Perhaps this is the final step toward the true meritocracy. I can't wait.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
While I think the movie sucked ass overall, I will purcahse it for the Jedi fight scenes alone...eventually. The implication is that Lucas will get none of my money until the movie is out on DVD. 'Nuff said.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
...if she reads nothing else, get her to read Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein. This sci-fi book is also great literature, and doesn't assume the reader is too stupid to pick up on themes, as Ray Bradbury often does.
I would also recommend the following:
2001, Arthur C. Clarke
The Forge of God, Greg Bear
Great Sky River, Gregory Benford
Sundiver/Startide Rising/The Uplift War, David Brin
Mars trilogy, Kim Stanley Robinson
Chung Kuo, David Wingrove
Basically, look at the Hugo award list and choose some books. They're all going to be both science fiction-y but will teach her something at the same time.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Does anyone know if the CD's listed are the only ones on which this play-protection was used? I have recently bought a Die Krupps "Odyssey of the Mind" CD distributed by BMG which refuses to play properly in 2 of my 3 CD players.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Can someone post a new mirror of the source code, preferably in a completely different country?
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Do not buy the VHS version. I have not bought a VHS tape since I got my DVD player 1-1/2 years ago, and I will not, no matter how good (or hyped, in the case of TPM) it is. Lucas is just delaying his profit in my case.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
...that Verisign now has a monopoly on commerical browser certificates. Thawte and Verisign are the only two companies to issue commercial browser certificates for both NS and IE.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS