the original post said "correlation" not "causal relation". it is interesting to note that if you make a graph of ice cream sales and drowning deaths over the course of a year the curves are almost identical. from this do we conclude that ice cream causes drowing? hm.
Of course not. That would be absolutely ridiculous. It's obvious from the data, however, that drowning causes ice cream.
I don't think I'd ever sell a book I've read, with the possible exception of if I for some reason had more than one copy of the book, and maybe a book I really, really didn't like, or one I only bought and read (partially or wholly) for school...
The core issue has nothing to do with patents -- and your attempted argument fails once that is understood. If I create a file format, I am under no obligation to patent it. If I keep it as a trade secret and refuse to license it, then it is mine. It was created by my effort, it is mine to do with as I please.
True. But then your trade secret wouldn't be protected by patent law. I would then have the right to reverse engineer your product once I've bought it or you've given to me, in order to see how it works and/or retrieve data from it into another format.
If you want the details of it, your only ethical option is to negotiate with me for it.
Or to figure them out for myself by reverse engineering the product, which is my property once you've sold it to me.
From another post:
The equation of the "use of law" == "force" is exactly the problem of you libertarians.
If you don't realize that law equates to force, then you aren't thinking at all. Government uses force to enforce its laws. Simple fact.
From another post:
I think you are right, but ONLY when we are at the initial stage of deciding if we should use the proprietry program. The fact is that saome of these poor decisions have been made by people. It was not the best of all decisions. Now these people with not so much foresight are stuck with these propritry format. Consider for example a photographer who has put his life work into a proprietry image format. What is this guy to do?
If you were to tell this guy "hard luck", then this is just as unjust as the guy who is profiting from this fellow's poor judgement.
No, if an individual makes a decision based on poor judgment, he's chosen the consequences. The company making the format should not be forced to produce a way to convert his files, or release the specs of the format. However, the photographer does have the right to reverse engineer the products/files (i.e. his photographs), which are his property, or to convert them in some other way to another format. They're his.
Let me get this straight... we're supposed to vote for people who don't have our best interests in mind?
No, that's not what he said. Are you dense? You're "supposed" to vote for people who are committed to preserving the rights and freedoms of *all* the people, rather than voting for programs which steal tax and inflation money from everyone to benefit some. This is what is meant by "less government".
Conversely, politicians should not take into account the needs and wants of their constituents?
He didn't say that either. They should; but above all they should take into account the Constitution and right vs. wrong, instead of taking away everyone's freedom because his blindfolded constituents think they need the government to provide for them. They should ensure that government does not encroach upon that which it has no right to.
An example which pertains to the topic at hand is that the government has no right to infringe upon my (or your) property rights by making it illegal to own a lockpick. What they can make illegal, however, is the using of such a tool to violate someone else's property -- i.e. breaking into their house or car, stealing, etc. Compare the well-known quote (paraphrasing) "My right to swing my fist ends at the other man's nose."; i.e. I have the right to *own* a lockpick but not the right to use it to violate someone's property by stealing it.
Actually the Inquisition was more concerned with bloodlust than anything else. Denounced? You're dead!
Bloodlust for those who disagreed with Catholicism, sure. They used the word "heresy" to accomplish this, though, calling anyone who disagreed with them a heretic.
Remember, the church back then was MUCH more intwined with European politics (Pope gives the crown to Charlemagne, etc. etc.),
Charlemagne was 8th-9th century A.D. The Inquisition was from around 1232-1820 A.D. You're a bit off with that example.
so preaching against Catholicism on these grounds is kind of like protesting against the Italian government because of stuff the Roman Empire pulled!.
Not really. The Roman empire ended in 496 A.D. (or so), and the modern Italian government is entirely separated from it. The Catholic Church has been around since around 321 A.D. That's a terrible analogy. Many of the doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church were established during the time of the Inquisition by the same popes who ordered the slaughters of millions, for the purpose of increasing the political power of the RCC.
Perhaps you have read the Nicene Creed [everything2.com]? Parts of it were written specifically to preach against things like Gnosticism, Arianism, etc. etc.
Yes, but uniting the churches under a single political power (the "church catholic", or "universal church") was a much higher priority.
Christianity already has a word for "Not Christian" - heretic. Pagan is not simply another word for heretic, even if that was the definition of the word over a thousand years ago, as one poster said earlier in the discussion.
You're wrong there. "Heretic" is/was a word used by Roman Catholics, not Christians. "Pagan" is a more accurate word for "not Christian" although "not Christian or Jewish" would probably be more accurate. It's usually used of polytheistic religions though.
heretic
n 1: a person who holds religious beliefs in conflict with the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church [syn: {misbeliever}, {religious outcast}]
The Roman Catholic Church killed many true Christians during the Inquisition for refusing to accept Roman Catholic doctrine/dogma. Don't confuse Christianity with Catholicism.
(forgive me for posting this twice - the first time I accidentally posted it as AC when I mistyped my password)
To hyperstation, who said "reread [the second] amendment", I say this: Reread the second amendment and the other amendments of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, along with some history of the times (ie. writings of Thomas Jefferson, Washington, the other founding fathers), in the context of each other. The tenth amendment clearly shows the distinction between "states" and "the people". Reread it.
You and others claim that the militia refers to the state, as the national guard of each state is sometimes called a "militia" in modern day speech.
Now, toupsie rebuts the militia argument quite well when he correctly observes that the law does not attach the condition "if they are in the militia [by the state national guard definition]" to the right of firearm ownership.
But he leaves out another quite good point against you (and others who favor "gun control"). The definition of the word "militia" is important. The definition which would apply to the second amendment would be the definition which was commonly used and understood in the day in which it was written. When the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drafted, a part-time, paid military force was called a "select militia". As opposed to just a "militia", which was used to refer to all citizens capable of bearing arms. This is the same sense of the word militia which was used in The Federalist Papers and other debates of the time. This can be confirmed, if you wish, by consulting a dictionary published during that period.
One example of statutory law which recognizes individual arms ownership was passed in 1866 (much closer in time and to 1791 than today, BTW). The Freedman's Bureau Act, which acknowledged the "full... benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and [property], including the constitutional rights to bear arms.
So therefore, we can conclude two things:
1) "the people", as used in the Second Amendment, meant each individual person, not the state as a "collective".
2) "militia", as used in the Second Amendment, means the whole body of the people able to be armed with personal firearms. Not the state National Guards or any other government military force.
There is no such thing as "relative moral factors". Moral factors are absolute and apply to all people, everywhere, all times.
Any factor which you consider relative, you cannot call "moral", only perhaps a "societal norm".
Murdering someone is already a crime, why do we need laws to ban assault rifles?
We don't. "Assault rifle" is simply a term used to stir up emotional support in favor of suppressing the right of the people to bear arms. Any firearm, or a variety of other items (for example a log, miniature statue, glass bottle) could be used to "assault" someone, and therefore could be labeled an "assault weapon". Even if you believe you have "legitimate" reason for advocating the governmental control of individual ownership of firearms (the Constitution says you don't), don't use this type of emotionalistic and terroristic (tending to incite fear and using this fear of harm as a "political weapon" eg. to influence public opinion, pass laws, etc.) drivel in attempting to support your arguments.
The Great Depression was caused by the booms and busts of the economy, and by inflation, which themselves are caused by the Federal Reserve System. One of the direct causes of the Great Depression was deliberated created inflation in the 1920's in order to lower the value of the U.S. dollar relative to the English pound. This was done because the English economy was falling and the U.S. dollar was the de facto international currency. The result was a massive outflow of gold from the United States, speculation in the stock market, and unemployment, factors which led to the crash of 1929 and the depression.
Enhancing particular traits by selective inbreeding is (a) common practice on farms worldwide and (b) (used to be?) common practice among european noble families.
As for European nobles, AFAIK, this wasn't actually done to enhance particular genetic traits, just to keep the powers in European to a limited number of families, and increase the power of particular families. Some of the traits it enhanced were actually not beneficial at all, for example hemophilia and other genetic disorders/diseases.
As for "imbreeding is bad, mmmkay," the reasons imbreeding is "bad" are not limited to simply the fact that they enhance negative genetic traits sometimes. There's also a moral factor which you didn't discuss.
In reply to all the left/right talk in this thread. (Yes, I admit that this post is a bit off-topic from the original article, but it's relevant to all the posts from people talking about the "left" and "right", so I'll post it.)
From another post:
um please explain that. what i see is a country led by an extreme right wing leader
(athiests arent citizens, the only way to settle problems is thru war, big business
rocks, capitalism rocks, etc). maybe i just missed all the humanitarian things bush is
doing, so if you could please enlighten me i would be greatful.
No, Bush truly is not "extreme right wing", he's actually closer to down the middle.
Aside from that, your definition of "right wing", "conservative" is full of
misconceptions. You and many other "left wingers" might be dedicated to humanitarian
ideals, but government involvement in everything is not the way to go about that.
The United States was founded on the ideas now called "conservative". Read the
Constitution if you doubt that. There's nothing there which gives the government the
right to do "humanitarian" things. These are left to churches and other private
organizations, where they belong, and where they actually get done. Government
involvement only does the opposite, allowing those in power to get rich while the rest of the world suffers from excessive taxes and inflation.
From another post in this thread:
Liking capitalism is an "extreme right"
idea? We live in a capitalist
society.
Sadly, no. We live in a progressively socialist society. We (at least the US) started out capitalist,
but with things like the IMF and World Bank, we have been progressing down the road of
Fabian Socialism for many years.
"Fabian" is the term chosen by the Fabian Society, led by such
English socialists as Sidney and Beatrice Webb and George Bernard Shaw.
Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrocosus was the Roman general who won the Second Punic War
against Hannibal:
{Fabian policy}, a policy like that of Fabius Maximus, who,
by carefully avoiding decisive contests, foiled Hannibal,
harassing his army by marches, countermarches, and
ambuscades; a policy of delays and cautions. (dict.org)
Thus, the Fabian goal is the same as that of the Communist Bolsheviks, but their means.
are through propaganda and legislation rather than violent overthrow.
The stained glass window at the
Beatrice Webb House in Surrey, England, shows Shaw and Webb reshaping the world on an
anvil, with the crest of a wolf in sheep's clothing in the background between them. It
also portrays the masses below them, kneeling to worship books advocating the theories of
socialism.
Through such institutions and policies as the Federal Reserve, FSLIC, and FDIC in
America, and the IMF (also see: here) and World Bank internationally, America and the rest of the world
have been submerged in the "ideals" of socialism.
For more information, if you want to be an informed and educated individual rather than another mindless person screaming "right wing extreme!", do some research on the Bolsheviks/Mensheviks, socialism, the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, other policies instituted during Roosevelt's socialist "New Deal", the IMF and World bank established at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 by Fabian socialists at least two members of a Communist espionage ring in Washington, among other things.
For a start, I recommend The Creature from Jekyll
Island to anyone who thinks we truly live in a free-market, capitalist society. The
author, through much research, exposes the mechanisms which are making this society
socialist (which is to say, liberal, aka "left"), and which have been the cause of massive inflation over the years by creating oney out of nothing.
Did you even read the page you referred to? There's nothing "ironic" about it. The simple fact is that Gilmore does not support spam. He supports the freedom of the internet. Given this, it is not surprising that he supports legitimite spam protection that each user can decide and control for himself.
First of all, I share the hatred of spam common among most who post here, and most internet users in general. But I have this to say to those who advocate government or ISP control of content:
What the hell is wrong with you people?
If you have a problem with receiving spam, fucking deal with it yourself. It's YOUR responsibility to read the mail you want and discard the mail you don't, not some ISP or government agency's.
Do any of you even realize that all you are doing is contributing to the limitation of your own freedom, ability to use the internet the way you want, and privacy when using it?
Government regulation is certainly not the answer, nor is it legal (for the US government at least, read the Constitution)
Neither is ISP blacklisting or filtering a suitable solution. It denies the user (ie. the person who has the receiving email account) the ability to decide for himself what he wants to receive on the internet. An ISP should provide access to the internet - nothing more, nothing less. It's the user's responsibility to pay attention to what he wants and ignore or filter what he doesn't.
-
Also read http://www.toad.com/grokmail/antispam.html
We should all be supporting Gilmore for his firm commitment to a free internet, not denouncing him.
What's wrong with gun catalogues? I mean, you can look but you can't buy, right?
Why not? Nothing wrong with either.
And what constitutes a "religious cult"?
Anything with socially unacceptable teaching which screws up your mind? Can you say Christianity? One of the side effects of freedom of religion is a guarantee of access to information like this.
Considering that society is full of ignorant, mindless people, I'd consider "socially unacceptable" a good thing. Truth certainly isn't based on what's "socially acceptable".
While Christianity isn't a "religious cult", (it's not even a religion), there are certainly cults that have spun off from false representations of it (eg. Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses...).
Slashdot Mirror
stay up.
I don't think I'd ever sell a book I've read, with the possible exception of if I for some reason had more than one copy of the book, and maybe a book I really, really didn't like, or one I only bought and read (partially or wholly) for school...
Are you really this stupid or are you just being sarcastic?
True. But then your trade secret wouldn't be protected by patent law. I would then have the right to reverse engineer your product once I've bought it or you've given to me, in order to see how it works and/or retrieve data from it into another format.
Or to figure them out for myself by reverse engineering the product, which is my property once you've sold it to me.
From another post:
If you don't realize that law equates to force, then you aren't thinking at all. Government uses force to enforce its laws. Simple fact.
From another post:
No, if an individual makes a decision based on poor judgment, he's chosen the consequences. The company making the format should not be forced to produce a way to convert his files, or release the specs of the format. However, the photographer does have the right to reverse engineer the products/files (i.e. his photographs), which are his property, or to convert them in some other way to another format. They're his.
...about a government by looking at its capitol.
No, that's not what he said. Are you dense?
You're "supposed" to vote for people who are committed to preserving the rights and freedoms of *all* the people, rather than voting for programs which steal tax and inflation money from everyone to benefit some. This is what is meant by "less government".
He didn't say that either. They should; but above all they should take into account the Constitution and right vs. wrong, instead of taking away everyone's freedom because his blindfolded constituents think they need the government to provide for them. They should ensure that government does not encroach upon that which it has no right to.
An example which pertains to the topic at hand is that the government has no right to infringe upon my (or your) property rights by making it illegal to own a lockpick. What they can make illegal, however, is the using of such a tool to violate someone else's property -- i.e. breaking into their house or car, stealing, etc. Compare the well-known quote (paraphrasing) "My right to swing my fist ends at the other man's nose."; i.e. I have the right to *own* a lockpick but not the right to use it to violate someone's property by stealing it.
You're wrong there. "Heretic" is/was a word used by Roman Catholics, not Christians. "Pagan" is a more accurate word for "not Christian" although "not Christian or Jewish" would probably be more accurate. It's usually used of polytheistic religions though.
The Roman Catholic Church killed many true Christians during the Inquisition for refusing to accept Roman Catholic doctrine/dogma.
Don't confuse Christianity with Catholicism.
(forgive me for posting this twice - the first time I accidentally posted it as AC when I mistyped my password) To hyperstation, who said "reread [the second] amendment", I say this: Reread the second amendment and the other amendments of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, along with some history of the times (ie. writings of Thomas Jefferson, Washington, the other founding fathers), in the context of each other. The tenth amendment clearly shows the distinction between "states" and "the people". Reread it. You and others claim that the militia refers to the state, as the national guard of each state is sometimes called a "militia" in modern day speech. Now, toupsie rebuts the militia argument quite well when he correctly observes that the law does not attach the condition "if they are in the militia [by the state national guard definition]" to the right of firearm ownership. But he leaves out another quite good point against you (and others who favor "gun control"). The definition of the word "militia" is important. The definition which would apply to the second amendment would be the definition which was commonly used and understood in the day in which it was written. When the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drafted, a part-time, paid military force was called a "select militia". As opposed to just a "militia", which was used to refer to all citizens capable of bearing arms. This is the same sense of the word militia which was used in The Federalist Papers and other debates of the time. This can be confirmed, if you wish, by consulting a dictionary published during that period. One example of statutory law which recognizes individual arms ownership was passed in 1866 (much closer in time and to 1791 than today, BTW). The Freedman's Bureau Act, which acknowledged the "full ... benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and [property], including the constitutional rights to bear arms.
So therefore, we can conclude two things:
1) "the people", as used in the Second Amendment, meant each individual person, not the state as a "collective".
2) "militia", as used in the Second Amendment, means the whole body of the people able to be armed with personal firearms. Not the state National Guards or any other government military force.
There is no such thing as "relative moral factors". Moral factors are absolute and apply to all people, everywhere, all times. Any factor which you consider relative, you cannot call "moral", only perhaps a "societal norm".
We don't. "Assault rifle" is simply a term used to stir up emotional support in favor of suppressing the right of the people to bear arms. Any firearm, or a variety of other items (for example a log, miniature statue, glass bottle) could be used to "assault" someone, and therefore could be labeled an "assault weapon". Even if you believe you have "legitimate" reason for advocating the governmental control of individual ownership of firearms (the Constitution says you don't), don't use this type of emotionalistic and terroristic (tending to incite fear and using this fear of harm as a "political weapon" eg. to influence public opinion, pass laws, etc.) drivel in attempting to support your arguments.
The Great Depression was caused by the booms and busts of the economy, and by inflation, which themselves are caused by the Federal Reserve System. One of the direct causes of the Great Depression was deliberated created inflation in the 1920's in order to lower the value of the U.S. dollar relative to the English pound. This was done because the English economy was falling and the U.S. dollar was the de facto international currency. The result was a massive outflow of gold from the United States, speculation in the stock market, and unemployment, factors which led to the crash of 1929 and the depression.
As for European nobles, AFAIK, this wasn't actually done to enhance particular genetic traits, just to keep the powers in European to a limited number of families, and increase the power of particular families. Some of the traits it enhanced were actually not beneficial at all, for example hemophilia and other genetic disorders/diseases.
As for "imbreeding is bad, mmmkay," the reasons imbreeding is "bad" are not limited to simply the fact that they enhance negative genetic traits sometimes. There's also a moral factor which you didn't discuss.
Why was this post modded down as a troll?
It's not one.
It's all true - read his sources and other information.
mod dada21's posts up please
From another post:
No, Bush truly is not "extreme right wing", he's actually closer to down the middle. Aside from that, your definition of "right wing", "conservative" is full of misconceptions. You and many other "left wingers" might be dedicated to humanitarian ideals, but government involvement in everything is not the way to go about that. The United States was founded on the ideas now called "conservative". Read the Constitution if you doubt that. There's nothing there which gives the government the right to do "humanitarian" things. These are left to churches and other private organizations, where they belong, and where they actually get done. Government involvement only does the opposite, allowing those in power to get rich while the rest of the world suffers from excessive taxes and inflation.
From another post in this thread:
Sadly, no. We live in a progressively socialist society. We (at least the US) started out capitalist, but with things like the IMF and World Bank, we have been progressing down the road of Fabian Socialism for many years. "Fabian" is the term chosen by the Fabian Society, led by such English socialists as Sidney and Beatrice Webb and George Bernard Shaw. Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrocosus was the Roman general who won the Second Punic War against Hannibal:
Thus, the Fabian goal is the same as that of the Communist Bolsheviks, but their means. are through propaganda and legislation rather than violent overthrow.
The stained glass window at the Beatrice Webb House in Surrey, England, shows Shaw and Webb reshaping the world on an anvil, with the crest of a wolf in sheep's clothing in the background between them. It also portrays the masses below them, kneeling to worship books advocating the theories of socialism.
Through such institutions and policies as the Federal Reserve, FSLIC, and FDIC in America, and the IMF (also see: here) and World Bank internationally, America and the rest of the world have been submerged in the "ideals" of socialism.
For more information, if you want to be an informed and educated individual rather than another mindless person screaming "right wing extreme!", do some research on the Bolsheviks/Mensheviks, socialism, the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, other policies instituted during Roosevelt's socialist "New Deal", the IMF and World bank established at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 by Fabian socialists at least two members of a Communist espionage ring in Washington, among other things.
For a start, I recommend The Creature from Jekyll Island to anyone who thinks we truly live in a free-market, capitalist society. The author, through much research, exposes the mechanisms which are making this society socialist (which is to say, liberal, aka "left"), and which have been the cause of massive inflation over the years by creating oney out of nothing.
Did you even read the page you referred to? There's nothing "ironic" about it. The simple fact is that Gilmore does not support spam. He supports the freedom of the internet. Given this, it is not surprising that he supports legitimite spam protection that each user can decide and control for himself.
What the hell is wrong with you people? If you have a problem with receiving spam, fucking deal with it yourself. It's YOUR responsibility to read the mail you want and discard the mail you don't, not some ISP or government agency's. Do any of you even realize that all you are doing is contributing to the limitation of your own freedom, ability to use the internet the way you want, and privacy when using it?
Government regulation is certainly not the answer, nor is it legal (for the US government at least, read the Constitution)
Neither is ISP blacklisting or filtering a suitable solution. It denies the user (ie. the person who has the receiving email account) the ability to decide for himself what he wants to receive on the internet. An ISP should provide access to the internet - nothing more, nothing less. It's the user's responsibility to pay attention to what he wants and ignore or filter what he doesn't.
-
Also read http://www.toad.com/grokmail/antispam.html
We should all be supporting Gilmore for his firm commitment to a free internet, not denouncing him.
But it's not free. You pay to go to the school. Part of that cost is internet access.