In what way is it a good thing? Because guns are effective defense against mugging & stranger rape? Because target shooting is a fun, safe, family activity?
Absolutely - it is Googles right to refuse whatever advertising they choose. The only appropriate response from those who disagree is to raise awareness, stop supporting them, and possibly organise a boycott.
I'm a Libertarian - hence I'm *not* advocating Google be forced to accept advertising they don't want, even if I'd rather they did.
Interesting argument - yes, guns are less effective nowadays against Government violations because of the size, funding levels, & armaments of the Government agencies.
However, all the evidence suggests that guns are excellent tools of self-defense against private criminals - see Gun Facts for the proof.
Heh - no, just new to having my posts modded into oblivion because I'm right;-)
Seriously, this is the same kind of thing that pissed me off about the K5 submission queue - people who couldn't be bothered to debate an issue, but instead voted '-1' to any stories with which they disagreed:-(
I'm probably being trolled here, but I'll bite: given that human rights are meaningless without the means to defend oneself against human rights violators (from muggers to Government employees) - how can you support free speech, freedom of religion etc. without supporting RKBA (Right to Keep & Bear Arms)?
And in case you're wondering, I'm not American, I'm a New Zealander. Not all RKBA supporters are American.
I know it's their right as a private company to accept any advertising they choose, but I would have thought Googles anti-gun policies would have precluded them from such an award.
I guess the Iraqis killing US servicepeople are doing so with water pistols?:-P
Also, firearms are still useful for self-defense, in fact, they're better than anything else, *especially* if you're a woman defending herself against stranger rape.
If you don't like the terms of use, don't buy it. Simple enough - that applies to all consumer goods, not "all consumer goods except those favoured by the/. crowd".
Tell me again why this is an issue? If the major artists & labels use DRM, you have three options:
1. buy their music & put up with the DRM 2. don't, & spend your money on independant artists and labels instead. 3. buy no music
But no, many of your are clamouring that your preferences should override the property rights of the content owners, & any contract you enter with them.
Those calling for restrictions on contractual terms of use are pirates in the worst sense - you're not violating copyright (which in itself isn't theft, mind you), you're violating human rights.
> Now, if the government is increasing the supply of > dollars by 12%/year -- a claim I don't believe -- > then that's bad, but it's not a flaw with fiat > currency, it's a flaw with the government policy.
Yes, but that can only happen with fiat currency - commodity backed currency requires more of the commodity for more currency to be printed.
You're also assuming that inflation & deflation are to be controlled & avoided (to at least some extent). This is an incorrect view - what *should* happen is for the market to determine the value of money.
Anything else will lead to the creation of an artificial 'business cycle', where boom follows bust follows boom ad infinitum.
> Inflation is a byproduct that the supply of work > has increased, driving down demand for that work
Not at all - the reality is that inflation is driven deliberately by Government fiscal policy, resulting in the legalised theft of trillions of dollars of citizens wealth.
*** Every new dollar they print has value solely because money you own looses value. ***
> All in all, a small amount of inflation is > healthier for an economy than deflation.
I disagree - healthiest is a commodity back currency left to inflate or deflate according to its market value. Anything else dampens market signals & harms the economy.
Go ask Soviet Russia:-)
The *real* stealth theft ...
on
Stealth Inflation
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What makes it possible for a government to increase its funds by inflation is the ignorance of the public. The people must ignore the fact that the government has chosen inflation as a fiscal system and plans to go on with inflation endlessly. It must ascribe the general rise in prices to other causes than to the policy of the government and must assume that prices will drop again in a not-too-distant future. If this opinion fades away, inflation comes to a catastrophic breakdown.
Really? I'd be much happier if people left people alone to interact voluntarily. The initiation of force is immoral, regardless of the intentions of the thug.
I'm a techie myself - a software developer, with a strong background in C & C++ on *NIX, currently branching out into Java on Linux & C# on Windows.
I'm writing, however, to ask you about your position on firearms. I am a (classical) liberal myself; I strongly support shall-issue CCW, and the lifting of firearms regulations in general, especially those as restrictive as currently in place in California.
If you support the current restrictions (or a tightening of same), what is your justification? Statistics that I've seen show an *inverse* corelation between firearm control and violent crime; the question "If gun control makes cities safe, why is it that Washington DC is the gun murder capitol of the U.S.?" springs to mind. I'd be interested to see the information you have that has lead you to the opposite conclusion.
Another area of concern is that many celebrities and politicians seeking the tightening or maintenance of existing firearms restrictions either carry weapons themselves, or employ armed bodyguards. Again, if you fall into this category, what is your justification?
Thanks for taking the time to read this email. It's good to see a fellow techie running for Governor - but only if you're planning to increase the freedom of citizens in your State, not the inverse.
Yours, Duncan Bayne
-- One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure - and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.
Yes it's just like any other tax - compulsory taxation is theft, and therefore immoral. If I set myself up a gang who wanders around extorting money from people as they try to walk down the road, is that immoral, or just the cost of living in my neighbourhood?
Remember, one can't delegate rights one doesn't have. If I can't mug people, I can't delegate mugging to a Government.
BTW, 'stomped on' is an appropriate description of this situation - initiation of force by Government.
Slashdot Mirror
In what way is it a good thing? Because guns are effective defense against mugging & stranger rape? Because target shooting is a fun, safe, family activity?
Absolutely - it is Googles right to refuse whatever advertising they choose. The only appropriate response from those who disagree is to raise awareness, stop supporting them, and possibly organise a boycott.
I'm a Libertarian - hence I'm *not* advocating Google be forced to accept advertising they don't want, even if I'd rather they did.
WTF? That's insane! How do the editors expect any reasoned debate in that case? :-(
Interesting argument - yes, guns are less effective nowadays against Government violations because of the size, funding levels, & armaments of the Government agencies.
However, all the evidence suggests that guns are excellent tools of self-defense against private criminals - see Gun Facts for the proof.
Heh - no, just new to having my posts modded into oblivion because I'm right ;-)
:-(
Seriously, this is the same kind of thing that pissed me off about the K5 submission queue - people who couldn't be bothered to debate an issue, but instead voted '-1' to any stories with which they disagreed
I'm probably being trolled here, but I'll bite: given that human rights are meaningless without the means to defend oneself against human rights violators (from muggers to Government employees) - how can you support free speech, freedom of religion etc. without supporting RKBA (Right to Keep & Bear Arms)?
And in case you're wondering, I'm not American, I'm a New Zealander. Not all RKBA supporters are American.
Especially when the entire Slashdot crowd seems hell-bent on moderating any pro-gun or anti-Google post into obliteration. :-(
/. submission about anti-RKBA bias amongst geek media outlets, but there's no way the cabal would run it :-)
I'd write a
And here we go again - I post the reason why I *don't* think Google should have won an award, & it's a troll.
Is it just me, or do people on this site mod down posts with which they disagree, rather than debating?
I know it's their right as a private company to accept any advertising they choose, but I would have thought Googles anti-gun policies would have precluded them from such an award.
Good one. You disagree, so you mod down. That's not the point of moderation, you know.
Cretins.
I mean that guns are less effective against rape by people known to the victims, as there's less opportunity to use them.
E.g. most wives don't keep their husbands at gunpoint while in bed together, but that doesn't mean they don't get raped while in bed with the rapist.
I guess the Iraqis killing US servicepeople are doing so with water pistols? :-P
Also, firearms are still useful for self-defense, in fact, they're better than anything else, *especially* if you're a woman defending herself against stranger rape.
No, there isn't the RKBA in NZ. Yet. We members of the Libertarianz party are trying to rectify that :-)
:-)
And yes, of course, Google have the right to run whatever ads they choose. I said boycott, not legislate
Nice slogan, but what happens if someone is making war on you? Go ask the Jews whether they liked being disarmed.
They are evil, on the surface. See above for details of how Google! oppose the RKBA (although as a private company, that is their right).
Google is anti-gun - if you support the right to keep & bear arms, don't support Google:
If you don't like the terms of use, don't buy it. Simple enough - that applies to all consumer goods, not "all consumer goods except those favoured by the /. crowd".
Tell me again why this is an issue? If the major artists & labels use DRM, you have three options:
1. buy their music & put up with the DRM
2. don't, & spend your money on independant artists and labels instead.
3. buy no music
But no, many of your are clamouring that your preferences should override the property rights of the content owners, & any contract you enter with them.
Those calling for restrictions on contractual terms of use are pirates in the worst sense - you're not violating copyright (which in itself isn't theft, mind you), you're violating human rights.
> Now, if the government is increasing the supply of
> dollars by 12%/year -- a claim I don't believe --
> then that's bad, but it's not a flaw with fiat
> currency, it's a flaw with the government policy.
Yes, but that can only happen with fiat currency - commodity backed currency requires more of the commodity for more currency to be printed.
You're also assuming that inflation & deflation are to be controlled & avoided (to at least some extent). This is an incorrect view - what *should* happen is for the market to determine the value of money.
Anything else will lead to the creation of an artificial 'business cycle', where boom follows bust follows boom ad infinitum.
> Inflation is a byproduct that the supply of work
> has increased, driving down demand for that work
Not at all - the reality is that inflation is driven deliberately by Government fiscal policy, resulting in the legalised theft of trillions of dollars of citizens wealth.
*** Every new dollar they print has value solely because money you own looses value. ***
Visit http://www.mises.org/ for details.
> All in all, a small amount of inflation is
:-)
> healthier for an economy than deflation.
I disagree - healthiest is a commodity back currency left to inflate or deflate according to its market value. Anything else dampens market signals & harms the economy.
Go ask Soviet Russia
Really? I'd be much happier if people left people alone to interact voluntarily. The initiation of force is immoral, regardless of the intentions of the thug.
-1 Overrated? "-1 Doesn't agree with my preconceptions about firearms" more like. If you don't agree, post, don't moderate down. Dumbass.
Dear Ms. Russell,
I'm a techie myself - a software developer, with a strong background in C & C++ on *NIX, currently branching out into Java on Linux & C# on Windows.
I'm writing, however, to ask you about your position on firearms. I am a (classical) liberal myself; I strongly support shall-issue CCW, and the lifting of firearms regulations in general, especially those as restrictive as currently in place in California.
If you support the current restrictions (or a tightening of same), what is your justification? Statistics that I've seen show an *inverse* corelation between firearm control and violent crime; the question "If gun control makes cities safe, why is it that Washington DC is the gun murder capitol of the U.S.?" springs to mind. I'd be interested to see the information you have that has lead you to the opposite conclusion.
Another area of concern is that many celebrities and politicians seeking the tightening or maintenance of existing firearms restrictions either carry weapons themselves, or employ armed bodyguards. Again, if you fall into this category, what is your justification?
Thanks for taking the time to read this email. It's good to see a fellow techie running for Governor - but only if you're planning to increase the freedom of citizens in your State, not the inverse.
Yours,
Duncan Bayne
--
One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure - and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.
- Jeff Cooper
Yes it's just like any other tax - compulsory taxation is theft, and therefore immoral. If I set myself up a gang who wanders around extorting money from people as they try to walk down the road, is that immoral, or just the cost of living in my neighbourhood?
Remember, one can't delegate rights one doesn't have. If I can't mug people, I can't delegate mugging to a Government.
BTW, 'stomped on' is an appropriate description of this situation - initiation of force by Government.