The bigger problem to my eyes is they're planning on tucking it hell and gone inside a mountain so no one will steal or vandalize it. For a monument that is intended as a statement of hope for the future, that strikes me as counter productive. "Umm, we built this thing for you kids whom we've never met but we figure you're not trustworthy enough to let you know where it is."
According to the article, they will be assigning a caretaker to ensure those things--they're tucking it hell and gone inside a mountain because if they put it on display in a populated center like New York, London, Tokyo, or where ever that defeats the purpose of their mission. They want people to start thinking into the future, to get away from this "ADD" riddled short-attention spanned world. There's no better way to clear the mind than a day's walk, especially if you only know a generic location. However judging by the article, they'll probably offer more than a generic location. But the point remains: putting the clock in a human population center will defeat its purpose by cheapening its goals due to what's around it. Plus, cities get bombed, moved, etc--where he plans on putting it, there's much less of a chance it will be destroyed in those manners. Always a chance for "someone with an axe to grind against time itself", as another poster put it, to go and blow the thing up--but nothing like if it were in LA or Sydney or something.
Maybe I understand it wrong (and it seems that you have a better understanding than me), but doesn't the alternator already provide 14.4v at idle? It's also already providing enough current to charge my battery, run the engine, and power my lights. So, at any higher speed than idle, it's creating more power than it needs already, no?
Voltage and Current are two different things. When the wool socks warming your tootsies cause you to scream expletives because opening a door made a spark between your hand and the knob, that's many thousands of volts. However, you couldn't power a toaster, a razor, an alarm clock, or really anything with it. Voltage is difference in charge, and current is the actual amount of electrons passing a given point over time. While definately related and interconnected, there's quite a difference.
That's it, it's pointless--your non-stop pejorative comments coupled with a complete lack of scope/understanding on your part have shown me once a troll, always a troll. Whatever, have fun.
I was trying to take you semi-seriously until this came up. Your tax cuts resulted in $25 per one of those families, which admittedly could amount to a cheap dinner in McDonnalds for 4. They also resulted in a whole flurry of investment and job creation activity by the wealthiest citizens... in China. On the other end you've gutted FEMA, the result of which on these same most vulnerable families is somewhat more pronounced, to put it mildly. The Libertarians are in fact partially complicit in these people's deaths and misery. That is a practical effect of Libertarianism, and you can theorize all you want, I will go by the facts on the ground, thank you.
First of all, that 2.2 billion is cumulative--there were many different tax cuts, and that was total. Each tax cut was different, and even if one of them only got 100 more people enough money to pay for gas/food/electric/whatever, that's a step in the right direction.
Second of all, China? You think it's the companies' fault they're outsourcing? Why don't most Americans try to innovate and do something better instead of whining and doing nothing? Oh, that's right--because the way the US is right now, people build dependencies on the state and are incapable of doing anything on their own (including thinking). Start your own business and don't outsource anybody if you don't agree with it. And who do you expect to create jobs? People who have no money?
Am I about to defend FEMA? No, because I don't know enough about it, nor the situation in New Orleans. As several other posters pointed out who're better informed about the whole Katrina thing than I am, police are taking over tourists' busses at gunpoint, not allowing anyone to leave, not allowing supplies in--that really sounds like a manifested Libertarian society to me. Because--as you've so dilligently pointed out--there is no accountability in a Libertarian society. None. Nope, because along with welfare we'd all like to see courts gone as well. Every last one of us (especially those in the LP). So your "facts on the ground" statement is clearly true, because of how much New Orleans authentically reflects how most Libertarians think things should be. Especially the rape. It is here I'd like to point out that the only thing necessary to join the LP in a few months will be signing a statement that says the signee will never initiate the use of force against anyone, and that signing that statement has been a staple of the LP for years.
Furthermore, aside from us all obviously being low brow, how are we complicit in the death of these people? Because they're being beaten and shot by looters? Because due to the lawless turn the city has taken, people are having a hard time getting others water? You're acting like Libertarians would disallow the Red Cross and other charities, and no one would be there helping. You're being shortsighted, and are failing to grasp anything other than a single facet of Libertarianism one at a time--without regard for how they interact, or the entire picture. With less restrictions, more people could start charities, and anything people spent on helping those in New Orleans would be tax deductable, dollar for dollar.
See above. Your contrived attempt at an insult notwithstanding, I would rather be on the side of those with "blinders" then on the side of callous murderers in the name of greed, as you are.
My "attempt" was "contrived", yet you're calling me a callous murderer? Oh please, this isn't national TV, and no matter what your subconscious would have you believe, you're not being secretly filmed with people hanging at your every word. Stop being so dramatic.
Let me see, a party in power, which would significantly reduce or eliminate the last remaining restraints on multi-national corporations and allow rampant consolidation of ultra-wealthy companies. Then to remove all protective regulations, allow media to become completely consolidated and owned by the sellers, thus removing any independent information flow to consumers/citizens. Followed by removal of nearly all forms of government assistance to elderly and the sick etc etc.
What country are you in? If the party in power in your country can automatically mandate everything it wants, I'm sorry...maybe you should considering moving? I'll sponsor you at your local US consulate for your visa application--no, really.
Like I said, any system that's only one party (or the party in power has absolute power, without checks and balances) is doomed from the get go. Even though you quote it in the parent, you missed it. I know I forgot an e in homogeneous, but is that any reason to not look the word up?
Sure it is "relative". Some systems can fail within weeks (Marxism, Libertarianism) and some take centuries to falter (Socially-Responsible Democratic Capitalism of various stripes).
Your misunderstanding of my usage of relative utopia was amusing. To bring your ego back, though, I meant utopia for one person isn't utopia for another. I, for instance (and contrary to your later assertation) am very much against the traditional utopia--my personal utopia is that of a world in constant flux, changing and challenging, one where my own views don't rule over. Would I like to see a Libertarian president someday? Absolutely. Would I like to see a congress whose membership is half-or-more Libertarian? Hell no. Personal view, so take it for what it's worth (and I just know you will!)
No, my argument hinges on the true players, the already ultra-wealthy, laissez faire hyenas, who would immensly benefit from the naive goofuses calling themselves Libertarians, making way for them to take over in the short order via controlling the nations economy. That is what you seem to be missing in the whole scenario. Your silly utopia is in fact a battering ram with which these would-be robber barrons and feudal lords would smash the last remaining barriers holding them in place.
You're right--because if Libertarians had their way, no one would be accountable for anything. There'd be no due process, there'd be no environmental laws at all, and every player in business would conspire. That's why the media gives Libertarianism so much play, and why the LP gets so many "donations" from businesses who want so much power.
You are very long on bold proclamations and very short on actual logic.
I apologize if my responses seem odd--afterall, I am debating things you wrote.
Err, no. Rand believed that selfishness was a virtue and altruism a vice to be avoided. Or at least that is the interpretation here.
Err, yes. And she considered altruism a vice because it was unreachable.
It seems you assume every Libertarian has to suckle from Rand's teat completely. Why? Aristotle is still influential and had quite a few good ideas...he also posited women had a different amount of teeth than men. Without checking. I believe selflessness to be superfluous, but so is my guitar playing, reading, and most everything recreational. If I started a thread about how every Republican is a backwoods Christian, I'm sure every backwoods Christian on/. would tell me where to stuff it. If someone calls every Libertarian on/. a selfish Randian, they get modded up.
Actually, no. Please note that the most adamant defender of Libertarianism on this thread appears to be barely literate and only partially coherent. Add to this the fact that the other defenders are contradicting each other as to what do their own ideals mean, and are unable to answer simple questions. Sprinkle it all with an apparent confusion as to Rand's function in the Libertarian line of thought as well as even the basic meaning of her ideas -- which you just exhibited.
Oh please--"Macs r better cuz all u wintel M$ l4m3rs dont no wut ur doin--seriously, i work at tech support hotline n u guys call up n dnt no anything LOL" Most people hear about Libertarianism and laissez faire politics and just go for it--it's not their fault a good idea attracts morons. But--in fact--there is a cohesive group of Libertarians at http://lp.org/ Only about 22,000 strong, but dedicated. You don't base your opinion of Linux by reading a bunch of posts by n00bs more concerned with trolling than intelligent conversation, do you?
Furthermore I'd like to point out that the views of even the major parties can differ drastically from state to state--a Republican running for office in Texas != a Republican running for office in California.
That is why people have hard times with Libertarians, because it seems that Libertarianism is merely an incoherent amalgamate of half-baked ideas with a central motive of extreme selfishness and greed.
We cut 2.2 billion dollars of taxes last year. There are now more lower-class working families that can put bread on the table. Even if every Libertarian did it only for themselves, without a hint of respect for what their constituents want/need, do you care? Politics is politics. It's a small party, and I can guarentee you more Libertarian canidates listen to those they represent than canidates of the major parties. If they don't, they don't get elected.
Which, I would agree, does divide them from most decent people.
You're right--one day, though (God help me), I'll be decent like you. I can't wait! I'll go buy some blinders. Wouldn't want anything spooking me as my jockey parades me!
What is whacko about Libertarianism, beside very enterntaining, raving madmen like that BitGeek fellow, is that it is, like Marxism, a utopian social system. That is it would "work" only if a set of make-believe conditions were met, and if those conditions are not met, it degenerates into feudalism of one sort or another. Very much like Marxism degenerates into Stalinism when its make-believe utopian conditions do not materialize.
Any homogenous political system will fail--period. In its purest form, every party as we know them is utopian because they're all trying to build a world on a set of ideals. It's just the "ideals for whom" that sets tyranical dictators apart from democratic parties. Thusly, the usage of the word utopia here is relative.
While I can understand your gripe, it doesn't hold water--Libertarianism isn't headed by a despotic leader who wants to genocide all in disagreeance with his political views; it's just another party who wants to put more power back where they think it belongs: in the hands of the people.
Thinking that Libertarianism is about making a complete Libertarian state is ludicrous and as undesirable as the two party system we find ourselves in today. Seriously--your argument rests on the government being overthrown by a laissez faire group in one fell swoop, and disallowing the democratic principles that Libertarians champion. This is one of the most oft-repeated arguments, and one of the most pourus as well. If someone wants to argue real-world situations, an argument such as this is about the poorest way to do so.
Might I add your flamboyant ignorance differentiates you little from that BitGeek fellow.
Rand contends an altruistic state is unreachable--and it is. There is no such thing as completely selfless. Helping others makes most people feel good, and it's something most people enjoy doing. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it unless forced. People need to understand this, because there's a huge distinction.
The level of ignorance this thread is showing is ridiculous--this is some of the worst I've seen, and I've been/.ing for many years now. The highschool level English and abstract thinking skills required to understand Libertarianism, I'm finally learning, seem to be the real barrier that divides Libertarians from other people.
It is so hard to keep track of the far out wacko social theories.
Please, please--tell the class what's far out and whacko about Libertarianism. You're posting just to get a rise out of us, and it's ridiculous--instead of actually discussing something you obviously know dick about, you're acting like you're in 2nd grade (as is basically everyone in this thread) Seriously, what's your beef?
IANAEOMMCACALC (I am not an expert on mass media coerscions and conspiracies against large corporations), but it seems there may be some truth to this. Anybody?
If in a few months I want to search for this story then looking for titles containing the word 'QWERTY' is going to fail.
When you're done searching, try qwerying.
Re:Glad I'm not a Californian anymore
on
Tinfoil Hat House
·
· Score: 1
It must be nice to live in a state where there are apparently no kind of building codes. Tell me, does the state require that the schools children go to be built to any kind of specification, or is it okay if they're also made out of materials unsuitable for construction (eg. metal foils)? Is it okay for someone to sell you a house that's not suitable to live in?
Would you like to be coherent for a second and explain how attaching sheetmetal to the outside of a house creates a lack of structural integrity? Would you outlaw siding if you had the chance? The only thing that would possibly be applicable safety-wise is if the metal isn't secure enough, a high wind may crack it loose and send it flying, though that could happen with anything.
Holy shit, I just got 0wn3d. I stand corrected--at least my current one uses SDRAM for internal memory, on accounta I just checked. Good call, way to hand me my ass.
A PDA with a HARD DRIVE. Enough of this 'when your battery runs down, you lose everything' crap.
What the hell're you talking about? I've owned 3 PDAs (a casio and two iPaqs), and I've never once lost everything, least of times when the battery ran down. You know why? Because flash memory is non-volatile, i.e., it doesn't need power to retain information that's already been written to it--just like a harddrive. Except unlike a harddrive, it takes a fraction of the power and dropping it usually ain't nothin' but a thang. If you're talking about losing the clock, then you need to replace the seperate battery that keeps your quartz ticking--a harddrive would not cure that.
That statement, coupled with: 3. How are cell phone manufacturers going to reconcile the fact that cell phone electronics are typically monaural and of relatively poor sound quality? 4. What sort of custom headset will you need to be able to listen to music in stereo and still have phone conversations? Am I going to have to carry around one headset for talking on the phone and a separate pair of earphones for when I listen to music?
makes me think you're at least a class-d moron. How does your stereo deal with mono, low quality AM channels against higher quality stereo FM channels? Oh ya, that's right--if it gets a mono signal, it just sends the same signal through L and R. That was complicated--I know--so let me explain how thoughtless the rest of your assumptions were. "Reconciling" with the fact that most cell phones have not-exactly-great audio hardware is simple: put a good quality stereo DAC (or two mono DACS, which is a better idea as you could shut one off in cell phone mode/listening to npr) in there. I'm sure your response to that would be "omfg but then you won't be able to hear the other person when they call you because high quality and low quality aren't the same!" Even if the higher quality DAC couldn't handle multiple sample rates, bit depths, or sample rates, it wouldn't be hard to put a specialty IC between the DAC to convert the stream to whatever sample rat/bit depth necessary, or to bridge LR for a mono signal.
Now, I came off pretty harsh--but that's only because you seemed to be at least intelligent until you got there and made an ass out of yourself. When I get disappointed, well...I don't like to be dissapointed.
Seems really interesting, thanks for the info. I'm gonna be googling, but if you know any good resources off the top of your head, I'd love to know them.
[...] remember that when velocity is doubled, aerodynamic drag is quadrupled. At steady highway speeds, other sources of drag are almost negligible.
No shit, that's quite interesting. Is that only for certain designs, or is that a constant ratio like the Inverse Square Law? If so, what's its name? I'd love to do some research.
And of course there's benefit in getting to a stop light asap! I mean, because when you do, ya know, see? Can no one follow such simple logic and reasoning?!
I know I get much worse mileage driving at 80-90 than I do at 60-70.
That's because most transmissions in production cars have their highest geared tuned so that the engine's in its RPM sweet-spot around 60-70mph; after that, the amount of gas per RPM starts to increase considerably more.
I'm curious as to just how high the grandparent kept his RPMs when he got similiar gas mileage driving timidly and agressively. Also, where has anyone heard stopping slowly increases mileage? Maybe in a car with regenerative breaking, but certainly not in a good ol' ICE powered car. If your foot's not on the gas, only idle gas is going to the engine (unless the computer is doing something, but it shouldn't affect that much). Unless I'm missing something, I can't see how slowing down gradually will increase anything beside the frustration of the driver behind you because you're not getting to a stop light quicker:-P
What of them? What does that have to do with the discussion at hand? Does the fact that the problem of crap drivers is an order of magnitude or more larger than the problem of crap hunters somehow magically make crap hunters ok?
Yes, ban crap drivers. Ban crap hunters too. Let's ban crap arguers while we're at it.
It's a matter of scope--why're people taking up arms against (no pun intended) something like hunting (which is voluntary) when there are other causes that fit the same criteria and do much much more damage? Furthermore, I was pointing out the inanity (and, on a larger scale as with that of hunting and driving, the inconceivability) of banning activities just because morons get involved--nice thought, but you don't compromise everyone's enjoyment and necessity because people have accidents. Angry mothers who get pissed off and call up toy companies when kids burn themselves making creepy crawlers, for instance: what the hell? Schlemphfer I doubt has ever been in danger of being in a hunting accident, and yet this is one of his battles. Cars, on the other hand, probably have a fairly good chance of at least coming close to maiming him at least a few times during his life. That was my point, perhaps I should've clarified earlier.
So in conclusion, you're right--I'm a "crap" arguer. While we're using words like crap, grow some pubes, dipshit, and then maybe you'll be old enough to read the other whopping three posts between Schlemphfer and me (it seems like a lot of work--I know--so I'm sorry to ask it of you, for whom I wholeheartedly believe time to be precious beyond all comparison). Actually, wait--you might not want to do that; you may find out we're both competent. Blow me.
So, am I to take from this detailed explanation of photons, treelines, etc. that it's OK to just blast your rifle -- pardon me, shotgun -- in the dark in the direction of something that *might* be the kind of animal you're seeking? WTF?
You could always yell out to ask what kind of animal it is--the tried and true method of walking up to the animal, shaking its hand and then shooting it is also applicable.
Sarcasm aside, it can be an honest mistake. White had decoys out; one of those decoys could've been in line with white whence Kalin was shooting. Like the article said: the sun wasn't even up yet. I'm not trying to say unloading a round in dark conditions is a great idea, however if somebody is in the woods at that time, they run that risk--hunters are aware of that. It's not your place, my place, or anyone's place, really, to tell them they shouldn't take that risk, whose manifestations, compared to safe hunting journeys, are incredibly small.
But I brought up the rifle/shotgun comparison because of distance--rifles shoot much farther much faster. Furthermore, yes, this is a turkey, so we're talking game shot (and depending on preference, probably at a pretty narrow spread). The potential badness of missing with a shotgun is less than the potential badness of missing with a rifle.
But the story of that particular hunter getting shot smacks of incompetence and recklessness, [...]
You have no idea--you weren't there, nor (dare I step out onto a limb) have you ever been in a similiar situation.
[...] and it's weird to see you trying to defend what happened.
I clarified the situation, at first, to find out why you had even brought it up--it very much seems like you were just FUDding, hoping the reader would automatically connect hunting with bad from what was probably a very honest mistake. I'm now defending because I really don't think you know what you're talking about when it comes to hunting.
The truth is that many hunters have no business setting foot in the woods with a firearm of any kind.
And what of the order-of-magnitude higher amount of drivers who have no business behind a steering wheel and cause hundred-fold more damage on a regular basis?
Slashdot Mirror
That's the kinda post that fits in with my world
The bigger problem to my eyes is they're planning on tucking it hell and gone inside a mountain so no one will steal or vandalize it. For a monument that is intended as a statement of hope for the future, that strikes me as counter productive. "Umm, we built this thing for you kids whom we've never met but we figure you're not trustworthy enough to let you know where it is."
According to the article, they will be assigning a caretaker to ensure those things--they're tucking it hell and gone inside a mountain because if they put it on display in a populated center like New York, London, Tokyo, or where ever that defeats the purpose of their mission. They want people to start thinking into the future, to get away from this "ADD" riddled short-attention spanned world. There's no better way to clear the mind than a day's walk, especially if you only know a generic location. However judging by the article, they'll probably offer more than a generic location. But the point remains: putting the clock in a human population center will defeat its purpose by cheapening its goals due to what's around it. Plus, cities get bombed, moved, etc--where he plans on putting it, there's much less of a chance it will be destroyed in those manners. Always a chance for "someone with an axe to grind against time itself", as another poster put it, to go and blow the thing up--but nothing like if it were in LA or Sydney or something.
Maybe I understand it wrong (and it seems that you have a better understanding than me), but doesn't the alternator already provide 14.4v at idle? It's also already providing enough current to charge my battery, run the engine, and power my lights. So, at any higher speed than idle, it's creating more power than it needs already, no?
Voltage and Current are two different things. When the wool socks warming your tootsies cause you to scream expletives because opening a door made a spark between your hand and the knob, that's many thousands of volts. However, you couldn't power a toaster, a razor, an alarm clock, or really anything with it. Voltage is difference in charge, and current is the actual amount of electrons passing a given point over time. While definately related and interconnected, there's quite a difference.
And also, how the hell does a coat "store" a charge, like in TFA? What a bunch of crap.
The electrons rest on top of the fabric, just like the friction-released electrons on a comb after you run it through your hair on an arid day.
That's it, it's pointless--your non-stop pejorative comments coupled with a complete lack of scope/understanding on your part have shown me once a troll, always a troll. Whatever, have fun.
high school = 2 words
You Failed It (level of ignorance argument)
I made a typo, and you didn't use punctuation. Doesn't anyone have anything better to do than be a moronic dick?
I was trying to take you semi-seriously until this came up. Your tax cuts resulted in $25 per one of those families, which admittedly could amount to a cheap dinner in McDonnalds for 4. They also resulted in a whole flurry of investment and job creation activity by the wealthiest citizens ... in China. On the other end you've gutted FEMA, the result of which on these same most vulnerable families is somewhat more pronounced, to put it mildly. The Libertarians are in fact partially complicit in these people's deaths and misery. That is a practical effect of Libertarianism, and you can theorize all you want, I will go by the facts on the ground, thank you.
First of all, that 2.2 billion is cumulative--there were many different tax cuts, and that was total. Each tax cut was different, and even if one of them only got 100 more people enough money to pay for gas/food/electric/whatever, that's a step in the right direction.
Second of all, China? You think it's the companies' fault they're outsourcing? Why don't most Americans try to innovate and do something better instead of whining and doing nothing? Oh, that's right--because the way the US is right now, people build dependencies on the state and are incapable of doing anything on their own (including thinking). Start your own business and don't outsource anybody if you don't agree with it. And who do you expect to create jobs? People who have no money?
Am I about to defend FEMA? No, because I don't know enough about it, nor the situation in New Orleans. As several other posters pointed out who're better informed about the whole Katrina thing than I am, police are taking over tourists' busses at gunpoint, not allowing anyone to leave, not allowing supplies in--that really sounds like a manifested Libertarian society to me. Because--as you've so dilligently pointed out--there is no accountability in a Libertarian society. None. Nope, because along with welfare we'd all like to see courts gone as well. Every last one of us (especially those in the LP). So your "facts on the ground" statement is clearly true, because of how much New Orleans authentically reflects how most Libertarians think things should be. Especially the rape. It is here I'd like to point out that the only thing necessary to join the LP in a few months will be signing a statement that says the signee will never initiate the use of force against anyone, and that signing that statement has been a staple of the LP for years.
Furthermore, aside from us all obviously being low brow, how are we complicit in the death of these people? Because they're being beaten and shot by looters? Because due to the lawless turn the city has taken, people are having a hard time getting others water? You're acting like Libertarians would disallow the Red Cross and other charities, and no one would be there helping. You're being shortsighted, and are failing to grasp anything other than a single facet of Libertarianism one at a time--without regard for how they interact, or the entire picture. With less restrictions, more people could start charities, and anything people spent on helping those in New Orleans would be tax deductable, dollar for dollar.
See above. Your contrived attempt at an insult notwithstanding, I would rather be on the side of those with "blinders" then on the side of callous murderers in the name of greed, as you are.
My "attempt" was "contrived", yet you're calling me a callous murderer? Oh please, this isn't national TV, and no matter what your subconscious would have you believe, you're not being secretly filmed with people hanging at your every word. Stop being so dramatic.
Let me see, a party in power, which would significantly reduce or eliminate the last remaining restraints on multi-national corporations and allow rampant consolidation of ultra-wealthy companies. Then to remove all protective regulations, allow media to become completely consolidated and owned by the sellers, thus removing any independent information flow to consumers/citizens. Followed by removal of nearly all forms of government assistance to elderly and the sick etc etc.
What country are you in? If the party in power in your country can automatically mandate everything it wants, I'm sorry...maybe you should considering moving? I'll sponsor you at your local US consulate for your visa application--no, really.
Like I said, any system that's only one party (or the party in power has absolute power, without checks and balances) is doomed from the get go. Even though you quote it in the parent, you missed it. I know I forgot an e in homogeneous, but is that any reason to not look the word up?
Sure it is "relative". Some systems can fail within weeks (Marxism, Libertarianism) and some take centuries to falter (Socially-Responsible Democratic Capitalism of various stripes).
Your misunderstanding of my usage of relative utopia was amusing. To bring your ego back, though, I meant utopia for one person isn't utopia for another. I, for instance (and contrary to your later assertation) am very much against the traditional utopia--my personal utopia is that of a world in constant flux, changing and challenging, one where my own views don't rule over. Would I like to see a Libertarian president someday? Absolutely. Would I like to see a congress whose membership is half-or-more Libertarian? Hell no. Personal view, so take it for what it's worth (and I just know you will!)
No, my argument hinges on the true players, the already ultra-wealthy, laissez faire hyenas, who would immensly benefit from the naive goofuses calling themselves Libertarians, making way for them to take over in the short order via controlling the nations economy. That is what you seem to be missing in the whole scenario. Your silly utopia is in fact a battering ram with which these would-be robber barrons and feudal lords would smash the last remaining barriers holding them in place.
You're right--because if Libertarians had their way, no one would be accountable for anything. There'd be no due process, there'd be no environmental laws at all, and every player in business would conspire. That's why the media gives Libertarianism so much play, and why the LP gets so many "donations" from businesses who want so much power.
You are very long on bold proclamations and very short on actual logic.
I apologize if my responses seem odd--afterall, I am debating things you wrote.
Err, no. Rand believed that selfishness was a virtue and altruism a vice to be avoided. Or at least that is the interpretation here.
/. would tell me where to stuff it. If someone calls every Libertarian on /. a selfish Randian, they get modded up.
Err, yes. And she considered altruism a vice because it was unreachable.
It seems you assume every Libertarian has to suckle from Rand's teat completely. Why? Aristotle is still influential and had quite a few good ideas...he also posited women had a different amount of teeth than men. Without checking. I believe selflessness to be superfluous, but so is my guitar playing, reading, and most everything recreational. If I started a thread about how every Republican is a backwoods Christian, I'm sure every backwoods Christian on
Actually, no. Please note that the most adamant defender of Libertarianism on this thread appears to be barely literate and only partially coherent. Add to this the fact that the other defenders are contradicting each other as to what do their own ideals mean, and are unable to answer simple questions. Sprinkle it all with an apparent confusion as to Rand's function in the Libertarian line of thought as well as even the basic meaning of her ideas -- which you just exhibited.
Oh please--"Macs r better cuz all u wintel M$ l4m3rs dont no wut ur doin--seriously, i work at tech support hotline n u guys call up n dnt no anything LOL" Most people hear about Libertarianism and laissez faire politics and just go for it--it's not their fault a good idea attracts morons. But--in fact--there is a cohesive group of Libertarians at http://lp.org/ Only about 22,000 strong, but dedicated. You don't base your opinion of Linux by reading a bunch of posts by n00bs more concerned with trolling than intelligent conversation, do you?
Furthermore I'd like to point out that the views of even the major parties can differ drastically from state to state--a Republican running for office in Texas != a Republican running for office in California.
That is why people have hard times with Libertarians, because it seems that Libertarianism is merely an incoherent amalgamate of half-baked ideas with a central motive of extreme selfishness and greed.
We cut 2.2 billion dollars of taxes last year. There are now more lower-class working families that can put bread on the table. Even if every Libertarian did it only for themselves, without a hint of respect for what their constituents want/need, do you care? Politics is politics. It's a small party, and I can guarentee you more Libertarian canidates listen to those they represent than canidates of the major parties. If they don't, they don't get elected.
Which, I would agree, does divide them from most decent people.
You're right--one day, though (God help me), I'll be decent like you. I can't wait! I'll go buy some blinders. Wouldn't want anything spooking me as my jockey parades me!
What is whacko about Libertarianism, beside very enterntaining, raving madmen like that BitGeek fellow, is that it is, like Marxism, a utopian social system. That is it would "work" only if a set of make-believe conditions were met, and if those conditions are not met, it degenerates into feudalism of one sort or another. Very much like Marxism degenerates into Stalinism when its make-believe utopian conditions do not materialize.
Any homogenous political system will fail--period. In its purest form, every party as we know them is utopian because they're all trying to build a world on a set of ideals. It's just the "ideals for whom" that sets tyranical dictators apart from democratic parties. Thusly, the usage of the word utopia here is relative.
While I can understand your gripe, it doesn't hold water--Libertarianism isn't headed by a despotic leader who wants to genocide all in disagreeance with his political views; it's just another party who wants to put more power back where they think it belongs: in the hands of the people.
Thinking that Libertarianism is about making a complete Libertarian state is ludicrous and as undesirable as the two party system we find ourselves in today. Seriously--your argument rests on the government being overthrown by a laissez faire group in one fell swoop, and disallowing the democratic principles that Libertarians champion. This is one of the most oft-repeated arguments, and one of the most pourus as well. If someone wants to argue real-world situations, an argument such as this is about the poorest way to do so.
Might I add your flamboyant ignorance differentiates you little from that BitGeek fellow.
Rand contends an altruistic state is unreachable--and it is. There is no such thing as completely selfless. Helping others makes most people feel good, and it's something most people enjoy doing. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it unless forced. People need to understand this, because there's a huge distinction.
/.ing for many years now. The highschool level English and abstract thinking skills required to understand Libertarianism, I'm finally learning, seem to be the real barrier that divides Libertarians from other people.
The level of ignorance this thread is showing is ridiculous--this is some of the worst I've seen, and I've been
It is so hard to keep track of the far out wacko social theories.
Please, please--tell the class what's far out and whacko about Libertarianism. You're posting just to get a rise out of us, and it's ridiculous--instead of actually discussing something you obviously know dick about, you're acting like you're in 2nd grade (as is basically everyone in this thread) Seriously, what's your beef?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/20024 51977_webmeasles25.html
s &btnG=Search+News
and more broadly
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=measle
IANAEOMMCACALC (I am not an expert on mass media coerscions and conspiracies against large corporations), but it seems there may be some truth to this. Anybody?
pabst blue ribbon
propz to allah, alvin, simon and theodore
omfg motha i culdnya done this withoutcha
greatest moment
"it's easy to neighsay first posters when you've never gotten a fp" - john mc first post
iu4y!!!
- cornjchob
If in a few months I want to search for this story then looking for titles containing the word 'QWERTY' is going to fail.
When you're done searching, try qwerying.
It must be nice to live in a state where there are apparently no kind of building codes. Tell me, does the state require that the schools children go to be built to any kind of specification, or is it okay if they're also made out of materials unsuitable for construction (eg. metal foils)? Is it okay for someone to sell you a house that's not suitable to live in?
Would you like to be coherent for a second and explain how attaching sheetmetal to the outside of a house creates a lack of structural integrity? Would you outlaw siding if you had the chance? The only thing that would possibly be applicable safety-wise is if the metal isn't secure enough, a high wind may crack it loose and send it flying, though that could happen with anything.
Holy shit! How'd that swampgas get to Mars?!
Holy shit, I just got 0wn3d. I stand corrected--at least my current one uses SDRAM for internal memory, on accounta I just checked. Good call, way to hand me my ass.
A PDA with a HARD DRIVE. Enough of this 'when your battery runs down, you lose everything' crap.
What the hell're you talking about? I've owned 3 PDAs (a casio and two iPaqs), and I've never once lost everything, least of times when the battery ran down. You know why? Because flash memory is non-volatile, i.e., it doesn't need power to retain information that's already been written to it--just like a harddrive. Except unlike a harddrive, it takes a fraction of the power and dropping it usually ain't nothin' but a thang. If you're talking about losing the clock, then you need to replace the seperate battery that keeps your quartz ticking--a harddrive would not cure that.
That statement, coupled with:
3. How are cell phone manufacturers going to reconcile the fact that cell phone electronics are typically monaural and of relatively poor sound quality?
4. What sort of custom headset will you need to be able to listen to music in stereo and still have phone conversations? Am I going to have to carry around one headset for talking on the phone and a separate pair of earphones for when I listen to music?
makes me think you're at least a class-d moron. How does your stereo deal with mono, low quality AM channels against higher quality stereo FM channels? Oh ya, that's right--if it gets a mono signal, it just sends the same signal through L and R. That was complicated--I know--so let me explain how thoughtless the rest of your assumptions were. "Reconciling" with the fact that most cell phones have not-exactly-great audio hardware is simple: put a good quality stereo DAC (or two mono DACS, which is a better idea as you could shut one off in cell phone mode/listening to npr) in there. I'm sure your response to that would be "omfg but then you won't be able to hear the other person when they call you because high quality and low quality aren't the same!" Even if the higher quality DAC couldn't handle multiple sample rates, bit depths, or sample rates, it wouldn't be hard to put a specialty IC between the DAC to convert the stream to whatever sample rat/bit depth necessary, or to bridge LR for a mono signal.
Now, I came off pretty harsh--but that's only because you seemed to be at least intelligent until you got there and made an ass out of yourself. When I get disappointed, well...I don't like to be dissapointed.
Seems really interesting, thanks for the info. I'm gonna be googling, but if you know any good resources off the top of your head, I'd love to know them.
[...] remember that when velocity is doubled, aerodynamic drag is quadrupled. At steady highway speeds, other sources of drag are almost negligible.
No shit, that's quite interesting. Is that only for certain designs, or is that a constant ratio like the Inverse Square Law? If so, what's its name? I'd love to do some research.
[Smacks Forehead]
Point well taken. Thanks for pointing it out.
And of course there's benefit in getting to a stop light asap! I mean, because when you do, ya know, see? Can no one follow such simple logic and reasoning?!
I know I get much worse mileage driving at 80-90 than I do at 60-70.
:-P
That's because most transmissions in production cars have their highest geared tuned so that the engine's in its RPM sweet-spot around 60-70mph; after that, the amount of gas per RPM starts to increase considerably more.
I'm curious as to just how high the grandparent kept his RPMs when he got similiar gas mileage driving timidly and agressively. Also, where has anyone heard stopping slowly increases mileage? Maybe in a car with regenerative breaking, but certainly not in a good ol' ICE powered car. If your foot's not on the gas, only idle gas is going to the engine (unless the computer is doing something, but it shouldn't affect that much). Unless I'm missing something, I can't see how slowing down gradually will increase anything beside the frustration of the driver behind you because you're not getting to a stop light quicker
What of them? What does that have to do with the discussion at hand? Does the fact that the problem of crap drivers is an order of magnitude or more larger than the problem of crap hunters somehow magically make crap hunters ok?
Yes, ban crap drivers. Ban crap hunters too. Let's ban crap arguers while we're at it.
It's a matter of scope--why're people taking up arms against (no pun intended) something like hunting (which is voluntary) when there are other causes that fit the same criteria and do much much more damage? Furthermore, I was pointing out the inanity (and, on a larger scale as with that of hunting and driving, the inconceivability) of banning activities just because morons get involved--nice thought, but you don't compromise everyone's enjoyment and necessity because people have accidents. Angry mothers who get pissed off and call up toy companies when kids burn themselves making creepy crawlers, for instance: what the hell? Schlemphfer I doubt has ever been in danger of being in a hunting accident, and yet this is one of his battles. Cars, on the other hand, probably have a fairly good chance of at least coming close to maiming him at least a few times during his life. That was my point, perhaps I should've clarified earlier.
So in conclusion, you're right--I'm a "crap" arguer. While we're using words like crap, grow some pubes, dipshit, and then maybe you'll be old enough to read the other whopping three posts between Schlemphfer and me (it seems like a lot of work--I know--so I'm sorry to ask it of you, for whom I wholeheartedly believe time to be precious beyond all comparison). Actually, wait--you might not want to do that; you may find out we're both competent. Blow me.
So, am I to take from this detailed explanation of photons, treelines, etc. that it's OK to just blast your rifle -- pardon me, shotgun -- in the dark in the direction of something that *might* be the kind of animal you're seeking? WTF?
You could always yell out to ask what kind of animal it is--the tried and true method of walking up to the animal, shaking its hand and then shooting it is also applicable.
Sarcasm aside, it can be an honest mistake. White had decoys out; one of those decoys could've been in line with white whence Kalin was shooting. Like the article said: the sun wasn't even up yet. I'm not trying to say unloading a round in dark conditions is a great idea, however if somebody is in the woods at that time, they run that risk--hunters are aware of that. It's not your place, my place, or anyone's place, really, to tell them they shouldn't take that risk, whose manifestations, compared to safe hunting journeys, are incredibly small.
But I brought up the rifle/shotgun comparison because of distance--rifles shoot much farther much faster. Furthermore, yes, this is a turkey, so we're talking game shot (and depending on preference, probably at a pretty narrow spread). The potential badness of missing with a shotgun is less than the potential badness of missing with a rifle.
But the story of that particular hunter getting shot smacks of incompetence and recklessness, [...]
You have no idea--you weren't there, nor (dare I step out onto a limb) have you ever been in a similiar situation.
[...] and it's weird to see you trying to defend what happened.
I clarified the situation, at first, to find out why you had even brought it up--it very much seems like you were just FUDding, hoping the reader would automatically connect hunting with bad from what was probably a very honest mistake.
I'm now defending because I really don't think you know what you're talking about when it comes to hunting.
The truth is that many hunters have no business setting foot in the woods with a firearm of any kind.
And what of the order-of-magnitude higher amount of drivers who have no business behind a steering wheel and cause hundred-fold more damage on a regular basis?