What can you give me to replace capitalism besides Marxism or Orwellian liberalism?
I am serious. I see the danger of the corporations but I'll be damned if I will support the current options. The whole country is in a bitter struggle of little Marxists (Hate Crimes, Thought Crimes, Anti-Christian, Diversity, Multiculturalists, etc.) vs. the Corporations. Where is the middle path that I can support? Bah, in the face of the options I'll stick with supporting Capitalism even if it means it enables corporations, at least I'll be able to feed my family.
Re:Melinda Gates on Board of Directors
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Good try at a paranoid swipe dipshit but this is the Times not the Post.
Go back and try again...maybe you could say something like: "I am not surprised at this coming from the conservative Washington Times"... except the authors are Pat Schroeder and Bob Barr - left and right.
Your reflexive defense of./'s favorite search engine company would be pathetic if we weren't all aware of the Slashbot effect.
I understand exactly what the Onion is. Saying that it is not a commercial venture because it does not charge the "end user" anything is incorrect though.
The point is *you* can't say too bad. They own the addresses and you don't have much of a say about it.
I would give some of it to my neighbor to drink/wash/water a garden.
Baloney. If there was a drought and you had no idea when more water would come you would hoard your resources like every other human being, it is in our nature to do what we need to do as individuals to survive. Doing the right thing for society does not enter into our thinking. Wishing it were otherwise does not erase thousands of years of history that says that humans primary instinct is to survive. Besides, it is healthier for the species for this to be the way it is.
It should not be spoiled by capitalist greed.
So it's all the fault of those greedy capitalist pigs eh? As you type this on your computer made by capitalists, on a network with filthy capitalist products, with electricity made by.... you get the idea?
Please explain how it is a benefit to be over allocated IP addresses by a huge margin?
Anything that is limited is valuable. Supply and demand. Think real estate. They aren't going to make more ip addresses, at least not in IPv4. That makes the ip addresses valuable and that's why MIT et al are not going to willingly give them up.
reserving address space for certain entities
When they were handing out addresses they had no idea that this thing would be wildly popular. Why ration (reserve) when you have no inkling that you would need to. Do you reserve water today from your grocery? Why would you, after all there is plenty of water. However, fifty years from now someone is going to wonder why we didn't. See how the idea of plenty works?
Who said anything about evil corporations?
Not you apparently. I got you confused with the parent. Now relax, this is just a discussion forum. No need to get mad at early risk takers just because they won't give up something willingly that they earned by taking an early risk.
Does a reward have to be something physical? I am merely pointing out that organizations like MIT and Dupont take risks to be no the cutting edge of technology. It doesn't make any sense for someone to whine about how unfair it is that the early adopters have some residual benefits while those that sat on the sidelines don't.
Would you feel the same way if Vint Cerf had some spare ip addresses by dint of his early work or is the ire only activated by some evil corporation? Careful about your choice, hypocrisy waits around the corner.
Does E.I duPont REALLY need 0.39% of the internet address space?
Consider it their reward to taking the risk and jumping in early, which BTW pulled a lot of others onto IP and directly led to you being able to login to/. and comment about the unfairness of it all.
By forcing people to migrate...into areas already populated by people who don't want to leave. In case you haven't noticed, in the past these sort of disagreements have been settled by one set of people hurling various objects at another.
A boat docked in a tiny Mexican village. An American tourist complimented the Mexican fisherman on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took him to catch them. "Not very long," answered the Mexican. "But then, why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" asked the American.
The Mexican fisherman explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family. The American asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?" "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and take a siesta with my wife. In the evenings, I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs... I have a full life."
The American interrupted, "I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you! You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat. With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers. Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can negotiate directly With the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City or Los Angeles! From there you can direct your huge enterprise."
"How long would that take?" asked the Mexican. "Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied the American. "And after that?" "Afterwards? That's when it gets really interesting," answered the American, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start selling stocks and make millions!" "Millions? Really? And after that?"
"After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife, and spend your evenings while having a few drinks, play your guitar and enjoying your friends."
Your post was a defense of China. I pointed out the evil of that government. One does not brush that aside by showing other incidences of bad. Blaming the US, while currently popular with the empty-minded, is not the way out of every argument.
You tried to make China sound like a nice place to vacation. Stand and defend your comments like you've got a brain instead of falling back on the shopworn "Oh, yeah. Well the US has done some bad things too you know." Such an argument is pathetic and weak and tends to indicate that you have not thought your position thru and instead get your talking points from some leftist website.
During the cultural revolution China's communist government killed an estimated 11 MILLION people in three years.
For God's sake man, cut the moral equivalency crap and realize that there is bad and good and these are absolutes. They are not values that are relative to something else and they certainly cannot be excused by saying in essence "heck, everybody does it."
11 million people killed for their ideology....that's evil, pure and simple. That's the evil of a man, drunk with his own power, that feels that the end justifies any means.
11 million individual...with lives, with families, with hopes and dreams. Killed. Because they did not praise "Dear Leader" vociferously enough to please the vicous communist government.
That has to be one of the most bizarre comparisons I've ever seen, even for Slashdot.
My post was to point out the moral relativity of deciding whether something is good or not on the basis of what "most" people are doing.
I realize that it may be a stretch for you to think about something in a general sense but I suppose that it what happens when your thoughts are clouded by dogma.
Most countries don't recognise Taiwan as a country. So isn't Google being more accurate this way? Its certainly contested, so whatever they put will be "wrong" to someone.
In 1815 most countries didn't recognise that slavery was wrong. So if an 1815 Google engaged in the slave trade were they doing the right thing since "most" people didn't recognize slavery as evil?
Dude,
Are you able to judge things based on right or wrong or does your logic capability only extend to blind defense of those people and organizations you support?
In response to something that, had MS done it, you would have shrieked like a banshee, all you can come up with in argument is "a video game did it", and "Microsoft probably does it", and then some lame-ass strawman argument about Hawaii that insinuates that the US is a big bully.
Your logic fails to impress...
Slashdot Mirror
Bravo! You nailed every single point that I think should concern us about China.
What can you give me to replace capitalism besides Marxism or Orwellian liberalism?
I am serious. I see the danger of the corporations but I'll be damned if I will support the current options. The whole country is in a bitter struggle of little Marxists (Hate Crimes, Thought Crimes, Anti-Christian, Diversity, Multiculturalists, etc.) vs. the Corporations. Where is the middle path that I can support? Bah, in the face of the options I'll stick with supporting Capitalism even if it means it enables corporations, at least I'll be able to feed my family.
Sure. Here ya' go:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1981
Go back and try again...maybe you could say something like: "I am not surprised at this coming from the conservative Washington Times" ... except the authors are Pat Schroeder and Bob Barr - left and right.
Your reflexive defense of ./'s favorite search engine company would be pathetic if we weren't all aware of the Slashbot effect.
Me too!
Heck, don't take his word for it. Read for yourself http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/0406 07/7john.htm
http://www.ruralsource.com/
I understand exactly what the Onion is. Saying that it is not a commercial venture because it does not charge the "end user" anything is incorrect though.
You really seem to be stretching credulity here by saying that The Onion is a non-commercial entity because their website is free.
Nah...you got me. I really am mostly into basket weaving but hang out on /. so little punks like you have someone to feel superior to.
That was an inside joke between me and the guy I was responding to. You didn't get it.
The point is *you* can't say too bad. They own the addresses and you don't have much of a say about it. I would give some of it to my neighbor to drink/wash/water a garden.
Baloney. If there was a drought and you had no idea when more water would come you would hoard your resources like every other human being, it is in our nature to do what we need to do as individuals to survive. Doing the right thing for society does not enter into our thinking. Wishing it were otherwise does not erase thousands of years of history that says that humans primary instinct is to survive. Besides, it is healthier for the species for this to be the way it is.
It should not be spoiled by capitalist greed.
So it's all the fault of those greedy capitalist pigs eh? As you type this on your computer made by capitalists, on a network with filthy capitalist products, with electricity made by .... you get the idea?
Anything that is limited is valuable. Supply and demand. Think real estate. They aren't going to make more ip addresses, at least not in IPv4. That makes the ip addresses valuable and that's why MIT et al are not going to willingly give them up.
reserving address space for certain entities
When they were handing out addresses they had no idea that this thing would be wildly popular. Why ration (reserve) when you have no inkling that you would need to. Do you reserve water today from your grocery? Why would you, after all there is plenty of water. However, fifty years from now someone is going to wonder why we didn't. See how the idea of plenty works?
Who said anything about evil corporations?
Not you apparently. I got you confused with the parent. Now relax, this is just a discussion forum. No need to get mad at early risk takers just because they won't give up something willingly that they earned by taking an early risk.
Would you feel the same way if Vint Cerf had some spare ip addresses by dint of his early work or is the ire only activated by some evil corporation? Careful about your choice, hypocrisy waits around the corner.
Argument to antiquity is bullshit.
Consider it their reward to taking the risk and jumping in early, which BTW pulled a lot of others onto IP and directly led to you being able to login to /. and comment about the unfairness of it all.
By forcing people to migrate...into areas already populated by people who don't want to leave. In case you haven't noticed, in the past these sort of disagreements have been settled by one set of people hurling various objects at another.
A few influential people may disagree with your assertion.
"The Federalist Papers were a series of articles written under the pen name of Publius by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. "
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/
A boat docked in a tiny Mexican village. An American tourist complimented the Mexican fisherman on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took him to catch them.
"Not very long," answered the Mexican.
"But then, why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" asked the American.
The Mexican fisherman explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family.
The American asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"
"I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and take a siesta with my wife. In the evenings, I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs... I have a full life."
The American interrupted, "I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you! You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat. With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers.
Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can negotiate directly With the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City or Los Angeles! From there you can direct your huge enterprise."
"How long would that take?" asked the Mexican.
"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied the American.
"And after that?"
"Afterwards? That's when it gets really interesting," answered the American, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start selling stocks and make millions!"
"Millions? Really? And after that?"
"After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife, and spend your evenings while having a few drinks, play your guitar and enjoying your friends."
You tried to make China sound like a nice place to vacation. Stand and defend your comments like you've got a brain instead of falling back on the shopworn "Oh, yeah. Well the US has done some bad things too you know." Such an argument is pathetic and weak and tends to indicate that you have not thought your position thru and instead get your talking points from some leftist website.
Again, stand and defend your position like a man.
For God's sake man, cut the moral equivalency crap and realize that there is bad and good and these are absolutes. They are not values that are relative to something else and they certainly cannot be excused by saying in essence "heck, everybody does it."
11 million people killed for their ideology....that's evil, pure and simple. That's the evil of a man, drunk with his own power, that feels that the end justifies any means.
11 million individual...with lives, with families, with hopes and dreams. Killed. Because they did not praise "Dear Leader" vociferously enough to please the vicous communist government.
Wow, for such a "prime example" of a supposed "strawman attack" it certainly doesn't meet the standards of such an argument as defined here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man .html
Please go back and restudy your logic, your cluelessness is showing...
My post was to point out the moral relativity of deciding whether something is good or not on the basis of what "most" people are doing.
I realize that it may be a stretch for you to think about something in a general sense but I suppose that it what happens when your thoughts are clouded by dogma.
In 1815 most countries didn't recognise that slavery was wrong. So if an 1815 Google engaged in the slave trade were they doing the right thing since "most" people didn't recognize slavery as evil?
In response to something that, had MS done it, you would have shrieked like a banshee, all you can come up with in argument is "a video game did it", and "Microsoft probably does it", and then some lame-ass strawman argument about Hawaii that insinuates that the US is a big bully. Your logic fails to impress...
Google makes Taiwan a privince of China