How exactly are any of those examples comparable to being searched for over an hour, or having your home searched, possessions taken, and spending 48 hours in jail?
Everyone has a real e-mail account available to them if they just pay enough attention to know who's offering it (real ISP, college, job) and learn how to set up a real e-mail client. Five minutes.
But paid-for doesn't always mean better. I'm on NTL, and in the last year the email service has become unuseable (emails sometimes take months to arrive, or sometimes disappear altogether; sometimes connecting to POP or SMTP is very difficult). Paid-for doesn't mean you have more of a position to complain, when your complaints are completely ignored. Whilst gmail blocking seems to be restricted to free email accounts, it is not inconceivable that paid for ISPs may try dirty tactics.
Switching to a free email account (that I still use a "real email client" for) took five minutes, but switching entirely to a new cable ISP would take far longer.
That some people may be employed by cleaning up the damage caused by spyware is offset by the fact that your customers could be spending their money elsewhere - and likely on areas that are either more beneficial or productive to society than fixing up damage.
If you disagree, I guess you won't mind someone popping round to your business and breaking your windows?;)
Socialism=government control over the means of production; Communism=government ownership of the means of production. How exactly is "control" different from "ownership"?
Socialism can mean various things, including communism, but *in the context being discussed here* (ie, that practiced in many European countries), it tends to mean things like government control restricted to only some areas (often education, health, transport, defence), welfare benefits for the poor or those unable to work, and better rights for workers. Even the US has some of those things, but just not as much.
You really are deluded if you think that France and Germany are communist countries..
And, FYI, Corpratism is NOT Capitalism: Corpratism can only exist with the help of government regulation.
Which the US has. That was exactly what the original poster said, that corporatism was not exactly the same as capitalism.
Well if you are going to be a truly logical person you cannot discredit the theory that God exists because there is not logical proof that God doesn't exist as well. They are plenty of mathematical problems that cannot be proven but they seem to be true, because no one has found a way to disprove it. By saying I don't believe in God because there is no 100% proof that God exists. Is like saying I believe there has to be God 100% because of these small reasons.
Yes, but all that applies to unicorns too - but I don't see people arguing for existance of unicorns. In fact, it applies to an infinite number of things, anything that we could conceive, but can't disprove.
The poster didn't say he believed God didn't exist, but rather implied that he simply didn't believe in God.
Not believing on the basis of a lack of evidence is perfectly reasonable, unless you're willing to believe in absolutely anything and everything that hasn't been disproved.
But because I believe that I am in a real universe so must I assume it is real because I cannot disprove that I am not.
But you can't disprove that you're a brain in a jar, so why don't you believe that too?
If "Zergrush_7" is someone I know, there's a good chance I'll have reason to trust him more than some random journalist I don't know. IMO, the power of things like LiveJournal comes from taking advantage of friendship circles - rarely do I read the journal of some complete stranger.
And friend or stranger, there is greater opportunity for others to respond on LiveJournal, and to do so immediately, if there is innaccuracy or bias in what someone has posted.
Actually, you agree with my post, not the parent post
Well, whatever. Yes, sometimes the majority can impose their will on the minority - I don't think this is always a good thing.
As for the judges, whatever they did, you have yet to explain how they *imposed* their will upon heterosexual people. It might go against what the many think or want (that's assuming that the many are against gay marriage, though I don't think we can say that for certain), but I don't think that's the same thing as being imposed against.
Actually our democracy is designed so that the many can impose their will, even on the few. That is what democracy is about: the majority makes the rules, or imposes their will, as it were, within limits. If we want to remain a democracy the few should not be able to impose their will on the many, except in some very limited circumstances. This isn't one of them.
It's a good thing that no one's suggesting a situation where the few should impose their will on the many. However, it can be a downpoint of democracy if the many are able to impose their will on the few. The poster you replied to is correct - there are at least some mechanisms in the design of our democracies to prevent this from happening, for example, being a representative democracy, having constitutions, having a 2nd non-elected house.
If anatomy doesn't matter, why should the number of people matter?
I'd support this too - I know many people who have multiple relationships, although it seems to be a practice that receives very little coverage in the mainstream media (and most people seem to incorrectly think it's only people of obscure races or religions that practice this). For many of the rights given by marriage, there is no good reason for them to be all restricted to one and the same partner.
And even if that money doesn't stretch to a whole new PC, you can certainly get a replacement motherboard with P4/Athlon for that price. And the good fact is that it would still be a PC.
No, I'm on Windows 2000 - this is entirely through choice (I am used to it, and I don't see any advantage to upgrade). I don't think it affects my point, since (a) my machine is capable of running XP, and (b) if anything, the fact that I am happy running an older version of the operating system works in favour of the argument that older PCs are still useable.
Yes, the 9500 has been upgraded. G4 700, 1.5 gigs of ram, Firewire/USB/IDE card.
Yes, I'm still using my 1999 "450MHz K6-2 PC" by that logic.. I upgraded it with a new motherboard, AthlonXP 1700 and more RAM, and I imagine it was no more expensive than your G4/RAM/Firewire/USB/IDE upgrade, and certainly cheaper than a new computer.
Talking of the Amiga, I believe that there is a patent on the menu system it uses, where you can keep the menu open by holding down the right mouse button, and make multiple selections with the left mouse button, so you don't have to reopen the menu several times (and yes, I'd say this is another example of a stupid patent, although it's at least slightly more novel than doubleclicking).
It is much harder, physically, for a drunk guy to have sex than a drunk girl. Truth is, with most guys, if he's drunk enough to not be able to consent legally, he's probably too drunk to get it up.
If the level of drunkness is set at where a guy cannot get it up, and a girl can't do anything but lie there motionless than fine. But "drunk" can easily be interpreted to be at a level where a girl can still be urging the guy on for sex, or where the guy can still get it up.
A guy can wake up the next morning and think, "My god, what was I thinking?" and maybe fret for a while about diseases or if she will stop calling him. A girl can wake up from that and, aside from having a much higher risk of contracting an STD (simple biology... male to female transmission rates are higher for most things than female to male), she can end up pregnant.
So because a girl has more chance of an STD or getting pregnant, the guy deserves to spend many years in prison because he got drunk and had sex with a girl who was also drunk?
If the girl is so worried about losing her mind and getting an STD or pregnant, perhaps she shouldn't be getting drunk in the first place.
Women are more likely to be victims of statutory rape than men, and generally have more compelling consequences to deal with. Yes, there are women who cry "rape!" when they should say "oops... won't do that again." But there are a lot fewer of those than women who actually *are* raped, whether date, statutory, or old-fashioned stranger-in-a-dark-alley style, and never report it.
If you want my wallet, I have to reach around to my back pants pocket to pull it out. If I have a gun tucked into the back of my pants, I can pull that out instead and shoot you.
I don't know about you, but I value my life more than my wallet. Even if I'm so skilled that they'd only be a 10% chance of the mugger shooting first, that's a huge risk as far as my life is concerned.
Oh, and you assumed the mugger has a gun, which they may not.
Yes, in a world where random people walk around concealing guns, I'm sure that those people going out to mug people will be totally unarmed.
In a state or city with concealed carry, this definatly wouldn't have happened and when i yelled "what the hell are you doing" they knew someone would interject and they all left. Without concealed carry or people willing to do somethign about it, this is what happens.
No, it's what happens when you have a group of strangers looking on - it becomes "someone else's problem". I've never heard the idea that this phenomenon only occurs in places with gun control - do you have any evidence for this assertion?
The point you're missing is that the male has to be a very willing participant in order for the act to happen.
Yes, but the whole argument is that if someone is drunk, then they are supposedly unable to consent. That a guy might be willing should be no more meaningful than the girl being willing, if the law (or school rules) is saying that someone who is drunk is not in a fit state of mind to consent.
I believe in capitalism but only support music business models which involve giving away the fruits of ones labor for free.
Hardly inconsistent - copyright laws are not an essential part of capitalism (and indeed, I would argue that the excessive government enforced copyright laws that the US now has go very much against the spirit of a laissez-faire capitalist society).
I guess he should be angry at his local store, then. Mine charges $11.99 at most.
Wow, I wish. Here in the UK, music stores usually charge between 15UKP and 25UKP, even for 30 year old albums. Sometimes you can find obscure stuff in some stores or online for as low as 10UKP. Now, multiply by about 1.7-1.8 for USD.
But none of this matters--iTunes presents songs at.99 per song. There is absolutely no excuse anymore when it comes to the high price argument.
Genuine question here - how does this compare to actually owning the song if you bought it on a CD? Aside from the DRM restrictions which may be acceptable, I have the worry that your right to listen to the song is up to Apple's will, and can be terminated at anytime (possible without refund) if you break the EULA. Of course, I would prefer the point of view that EULAs mean nothing, and if you pay for it you have a right to use it - but judging by the number of arguments here, a lot of people don't seem to agree..
Let's face it, open source software doesn't seem to employ very many people.
You seem to be working under the misconception that employing people for the sake of it is good for the economy.
By that logic, we might as well employ people doing any old jobs, whether it's writing an OS when a free one is already available, or breaking windows and then repairing them - after all, it's good for the economy, right?
It's certainly good for those employees or that company if their product is bought, but that doesn't mean it is better for the rest of the economy that is having to pay for it.
That open source gives results without having to employ many people is at least as much a good point than a bad point - it means costs are lower, and production is more efficient!
Well, I'm glad I don't live in whichever countries that is;) They abolished slavery along time ago here; under no circumstances do I have to do what someone tells me, unless possibly if a contract is signed up front.
If I show my ID card to the police, they still don't know what I'm borowing at the library or what I buy in supermarkets. Because I never show my ID there. Probably the only people showing their ID in supermarkets are teenagers who have to prove that they are old enough to buy that alcohol. But even then the person at the cashier looks at the birth data and whether the guy in front of him/here looks like the guy on the picture and that's it. And I honestly don't remember when I had to show my ID card to anybody in Germany. So I don't know where you get the idea that you have to show it 'all over the place'.
Interesting - mostly I hear people claiming that supposedly there are already lots of places we need ID, so therefore an ID card would be a good thing for convenience. Now here's the argument the other way round. I agree that there's few places we need to show ID - in which case, what's the use of an ID card?
Even if your government does not insist on you showing your ID card everywhere, you cannot be sure that future governments will always be so friendly.
The UK Government is planning that these ID cards would be needed where ID is currently not needed, and I feel it is certain that they will push for even more occasions where it has to be shown, once it has been introduced.
That of course depends on whether any such information is contained in the ID card. My ID card does not tell you which ethnic group I belong to, it does not tell you to which God(s) I pray (if any). Even the Nazis (as you mentioned them earlier) had to put a stamp into the ID document (I think it was the passport and not the ID card...) of people which were considered Jewish, since otherwise you just could not tell from the document.
Well that's just it - currently in the UK there isn't an "ID card" to "stamp". Once there is, it'll be a lot easier (and "stamping" could be done electronically, making it easier still). That's assuming that the information isn't on there to begin with - the UK Government doesn't seem to be very open in telling the public anything about what details will be on these cards (or indeed, much about the ID cards at all).
I mean, issuing another ID document with the label 'Jewish' or the label 'German' (or 'Arian' or whatever) would have been no major problem.
Issuing this ID card is costing billions, and taking several years - hardly "no major problem" for the would be dictator. But if Labour have already done that for them, things get a whole lot easier.
I don't know what nation you are in, but I'm in the UK, and I rarely need any ID when I go out. I don't drive; debit cards only have my name and not a load of biometrics, and I don't always need or want to take these with me, and I'm under no obligation to show them to anyone; I don't need any other identifying details or numbers unless I'm doing something like opening a bank account or applying for a job.
I think having a single Passport/Drivers license/ID card is a good idea
This sounds like an argument for a voluntary ID card.
The UK Government is talking about compulsory ID cards, and that's what we're discussing here.
Plus, I get asked for ID cards rarely here in the UK. I'm not sure that people barely over 18 needing ID to buy booze counts as a large number of times.
And why the hell is an Anonymous Coward arguing for ID cards, and talking about "nothing to hide"??
Slashdot Mirror
How exactly are any of those examples comparable to being searched for over an hour, or having your home searched, possessions taken, and spending 48 hours in jail?
Everyone has a real e-mail account available to them if they just pay enough attention to know who's offering it (real ISP, college, job) and learn how to set up a real e-mail client. Five minutes.
But paid-for doesn't always mean better. I'm on NTL, and in the last year the email service has become unuseable (emails sometimes take months to arrive, or sometimes disappear altogether; sometimes connecting to POP or SMTP is very difficult). Paid-for doesn't mean you have more of a position to complain, when your complaints are completely ignored. Whilst gmail blocking seems to be restricted to free email accounts, it is not inconceivable that paid for ISPs may try dirty tactics.
Switching to a free email account (that I still use a "real email client" for) took five minutes, but switching entirely to a new cable ISP would take far longer.
Without it, I'd have to put two people out of work. So there is an economic upside.
;)
Hello Broken Window Fallacy.
That some people may be employed by cleaning up the damage caused by spyware is offset by the fact that your customers could be spending their money elsewhere - and likely on areas that are either more beneficial or productive to society than fixing up damage.
If you disagree, I guess you won't mind someone popping round to your business and breaking your windows?
Socialism=government control over the means of production; Communism=government ownership of the means of production. How exactly is "control" different from "ownership"?
Socialism can mean various things, including communism, but *in the context being discussed here* (ie, that practiced in many European countries), it tends to mean things like government control restricted to only some areas (often education, health, transport, defence), welfare benefits for the poor or those unable to work, and better rights for workers. Even the US has some of those things, but just not as much.
You really are deluded if you think that France and Germany are communist countries..
And, FYI, Corpratism is NOT Capitalism: Corpratism can only exist with the help of government regulation.
Which the US has. That was exactly what the original poster said, that corporatism was not exactly the same as capitalism.
Well if you are going to be a truly logical person you cannot discredit the theory that God exists because there is not logical proof that God doesn't exist as well. They are plenty of mathematical problems that cannot be proven but they seem to be true, because no one has found a way to disprove it. By saying I don't believe in God because there is no 100% proof that God exists. Is like saying I believe there has to be God 100% because of these small reasons.
Yes, but all that applies to unicorns too - but I don't see people arguing for existance of unicorns. In fact, it applies to an infinite number of things, anything that we could conceive, but can't disprove.
The poster didn't say he believed God didn't exist, but rather implied that he simply didn't believe in God.
Not believing on the basis of a lack of evidence is perfectly reasonable, unless you're willing to believe in absolutely anything and everything that hasn't been disproved.
But because I believe that I am in a real universe so must I assume it is real because I cannot disprove that I am not.
But you can't disprove that you're a brain in a jar, so why don't you believe that too?
If "Zergrush_7" is someone I know, there's a good chance I'll have reason to trust him more than some random journalist I don't know. IMO, the power of things like LiveJournal comes from taking advantage of friendship circles - rarely do I read the journal of some complete stranger.
And friend or stranger, there is greater opportunity for others to respond on LiveJournal, and to do so immediately, if there is innaccuracy or bias in what someone has posted.
But how does a law about giving extra rights to gay people adversely affect other people?
Actually, you agree with my post, not the parent post
Well, whatever. Yes, sometimes the majority can impose their will on the minority - I don't think this is always a good thing.
As for the judges, whatever they did, you have yet to explain how they *imposed* their will upon heterosexual people. It might go against what the many think or want (that's assuming that the many are against gay marriage, though I don't think we can say that for certain), but I don't think that's the same thing as being imposed against.
Actually our democracy is designed so that the many can impose their will, even on the few. That is what democracy is about: the majority makes the rules, or imposes their will, as it were, within limits. If we want to remain a democracy the few should not be able to impose their will on the many, except in some very limited circumstances. This isn't one of them.
It's a good thing that no one's suggesting a situation where the few should impose their will on the many. However, it can be a downpoint of democracy if the many are able to impose their will on the few. The poster you replied to is correct - there are at least some mechanisms in the design of our democracies to prevent this from happening, for example, being a representative democracy, having constitutions, having a 2nd non-elected house.
If anatomy doesn't matter, why should the number of people matter?
I'd support this too - I know many people who have multiple relationships, although it seems to be a practice that receives very little coverage in the mainstream media (and most people seem to incorrectly think it's only people of obscure races or religions that practice this). For many of the rights given by marriage, there is no good reason for them to be all restricted to one and the same partner.
And even if that money doesn't stretch to a whole new PC, you can certainly get a replacement motherboard with P4/Athlon for that price. And the good fact is that it would still be a PC.
No, I'm on Windows 2000 - this is entirely through choice (I am used to it, and I don't see any advantage to upgrade). I don't think it affects my point, since (a) my machine is capable of running XP, and (b) if anything, the fact that I am happy running an older version of the operating system works in favour of the argument that older PCs are still useable.
Yes, the 9500 has been upgraded. G4 700, 1.5 gigs of ram, Firewire/USB/IDE card.
Yes, I'm still using my 1999 "450MHz K6-2 PC" by that logic.. I upgraded it with a new motherboard, AthlonXP 1700 and more RAM, and I imagine it was no more expensive than your G4/RAM/Firewire/USB/IDE upgrade, and certainly cheaper than a new computer.
werent Amiga menus push and hold?
Yes, as were those in MacOS too IIRC.
Talking of the Amiga, I believe that there is a patent on the menu system it uses, where you can keep the menu open by holding down the right mouse button, and make multiple selections with the left mouse button, so you don't have to reopen the menu several times (and yes, I'd say this is another example of a stupid patent, although it's at least slightly more novel than doubleclicking).
It is much harder, physically, for a drunk guy to have sex than a drunk girl. Truth is, with most guys, if he's drunk enough to not be able to consent legally, he's probably too drunk to get it up.
If the level of drunkness is set at where a guy cannot get it up, and a girl can't do anything but lie there motionless than fine. But "drunk" can easily be interpreted to be at a level where a girl can still be urging the guy on for sex, or where the guy can still get it up.
A guy can wake up the next morning and think, "My god, what was I thinking?" and maybe fret for a while about diseases or if she will stop calling him. A girl can wake up from that and, aside from having a much higher risk of contracting an STD (simple biology... male to female transmission rates are higher for most things than female to male), she can end up pregnant.
So because a girl has more chance of an STD or getting pregnant, the guy deserves to spend many years in prison because he got drunk and had sex with a girl who was also drunk?
If the girl is so worried about losing her mind and getting an STD or pregnant, perhaps she shouldn't be getting drunk in the first place.
Women are more likely to be victims of statutory rape than men, and generally have more compelling consequences to deal with. Yes, there are women who cry "rape!" when they should say "oops... won't do that again." But there are a lot fewer of those than women who actually *are* raped, whether date, statutory, or old-fashioned stranger-in-a-dark-alley style, and never report it.
All of that applies to men also.
If you want my wallet, I have to reach around to my back pants pocket to pull it out. If I have a gun tucked into the back of my pants, I can pull that out instead and shoot you.
I don't know about you, but I value my life more than my wallet. Even if I'm so skilled that they'd only be a 10% chance of the mugger shooting first, that's a huge risk as far as my life is concerned.
Oh, and you assumed the mugger has a gun, which they may not.
Yes, in a world where random people walk around concealing guns, I'm sure that those people going out to mug people will be totally unarmed.
In a state or city with concealed carry, this definatly wouldn't have happened and when i yelled "what the hell are you doing" they knew someone would interject and they all left. Without concealed carry or people willing to do somethign about it, this is what happens.
No, it's what happens when you have a group of strangers looking on - it becomes "someone else's problem". I've never heard the idea that this phenomenon only occurs in places with gun control - do you have any evidence for this assertion?
The point you're missing is that the male has to be a very willing participant in order for the act to happen.
Yes, but the whole argument is that if someone is drunk, then they are supposedly unable to consent. That a guy might be willing should be no more meaningful than the girl being willing, if the law (or school rules) is saying that someone who is drunk is not in a fit state of mind to consent.
I believe in capitalism but only support music business models which involve giving away the fruits of ones labor for free.
.99 per song. There is absolutely no excuse anymore when it comes to the high price argument.
Hardly inconsistent - copyright laws are not an essential part of capitalism (and indeed, I would argue that the excessive government enforced copyright laws that the US now has go very much against the spirit of a laissez-faire capitalist society).
I guess he should be angry at his local store, then. Mine charges $11.99 at most.
Wow, I wish. Here in the UK, music stores usually charge between 15UKP and 25UKP, even for 30 year old albums. Sometimes you can find obscure stuff in some stores or online for as low as 10UKP. Now, multiply by about 1.7-1.8 for USD.
But none of this matters--iTunes presents songs at
Genuine question here - how does this compare to actually owning the song if you bought it on a CD? Aside from the DRM restrictions which may be acceptable, I have the worry that your right to listen to the song is up to Apple's will, and can be terminated at anytime (possible without refund) if you break the EULA. Of course, I would prefer the point of view that EULAs mean nothing, and if you pay for it you have a right to use it - but judging by the number of arguments here, a lot of people don't seem to agree..
Let's face it, open source software doesn't seem to employ very many people.
You seem to be working under the misconception that employing people for the sake of it is good for the economy.
By that logic, we might as well employ people doing any old jobs, whether it's writing an OS when a free one is already available, or breaking windows and then repairing them - after all, it's good for the economy, right?
It's certainly good for those employees or that company if their product is bought, but that doesn't mean it is better for the rest of the economy that is having to pay for it.
That open source gives results without having to employ many people is at least as much a good point than a bad point - it means costs are lower, and production is more efficient!
Well, I'm glad I don't live in whichever countries that is ;) They abolished slavery along time ago here; under no circumstances do I have to do what someone tells me, unless possibly if a contract is signed up front.
Who cares what Apple write? Apple don't make the law, thankfully.
If I show my ID card to the police, they still don't know what I'm borowing at the library or what I buy in supermarkets. Because I never show my ID there. Probably the only people showing their ID in supermarkets are teenagers who have to prove that they are old enough to buy that alcohol. But even then the person at the cashier looks at the birth data and whether the guy in front of him/here looks like the guy on the picture and that's it. And I honestly don't remember when I had to show my ID card to anybody in Germany. So I don't know where you get the idea that you have to show it 'all over the place'.
Interesting - mostly I hear people claiming that supposedly there are already lots of places we need ID, so therefore an ID card would be a good thing for convenience. Now here's the argument the other way round. I agree that there's few places we need to show ID - in which case, what's the use of an ID card?
Even if your government does not insist on you showing your ID card everywhere, you cannot be sure that future governments will always be so friendly.
The UK Government is planning that these ID cards would be needed where ID is currently not needed, and I feel it is certain that they will push for even more occasions where it has to be shown, once it has been introduced.
That of course depends on whether any such information is contained in the ID card. My ID card does not tell you which ethnic group I belong to, it does not tell you to which God(s) I pray (if any). Even the Nazis (as you mentioned them earlier) had to put a stamp into the ID document (I think it was the passport and not the ID card...) of people which were considered Jewish, since otherwise you just could not tell from the document.
Well that's just it - currently in the UK there isn't an "ID card" to "stamp". Once there is, it'll be a lot easier (and "stamping" could be done electronically, making it easier still). That's assuming that the information isn't on there to begin with - the UK Government doesn't seem to be very open in telling the public anything about what details will be on these cards (or indeed, much about the ID cards at all).
I mean, issuing another ID document with the label 'Jewish' or the label 'German' (or 'Arian' or whatever) would have been no major problem.
Issuing this ID card is costing billions, and taking several years - hardly "no major problem" for the would be dictator. But if Labour have already done that for them, things get a whole lot easier.
Where's your ID, Anonymous Coward?
Please pay your 2,500UKP fine for not taking the time to register your details with Slashdot.
I don't know what nation you are in, but I'm in the UK, and I rarely need any ID when I go out. I don't drive; debit cards only have my name and not a load of biometrics, and I don't always need or want to take these with me, and I'm under no obligation to show them to anyone; I don't need any other identifying details or numbers unless I'm doing something like opening a bank account or applying for a job.
I think having a single Passport/Drivers license/ID card is a good idea
This sounds like an argument for a voluntary ID card.
The UK Government is talking about compulsory ID cards, and that's what we're discussing here.
Plus, I get asked for ID cards rarely here in the UK. I'm not sure that people barely over 18 needing ID to buy booze counts as a large number of times.
And why the hell is an Anonymous Coward arguing for ID cards, and talking about "nothing to hide"??