Great, logic genious, maybe you didn't affect ANYONE AT ALL in a negative manner with your drug use. That's great for you. Congratulations, I'll give you a fucking humanitarian of the year award. You sure their weren't ANY exceptions to your case. Any girlfriends you broke up with while you were using? Any friends you lost? How's your family relationship? Any problems at work or school? Any blackouts? Any memory loss? Any bad trips that caused your fellow users a scare? And what were the exact reasons you quit? You wake up and realize you were wasting your life on unproductive pursuits?
More to the point; are you going to outlaw anything that is "affecting the lives of those that care for them and love them, in a negative way"??
Hmm, let's see... Did I say anything about outlawing drug use? Huh? You see that anywhere, logic man? All I was saying is that it is not the "norm" for drug use to not have harmful affects on the people who use it and the people around the people who use it.
Listen, if keeping drugs legal helps more people realize this, then let's do it. I don't think locking up every drug user is the answer. That doesn't solve anything. Treating people does, though.
It seems that people have to experience something bad in order to realize it is such, and that's unfortunate. Let's go ahead and make all drugs legal and let everyone get their turn at hindering their ability to lead a productive and meaningful life. ----
Well, I'm sure there are a lot of people's lives affected by my decision to become a software engineer. Other people's lives may be affected because I'm shy, or what not. Rob Hall's and Scott Fischer's families were deeply hurt by their choice to climb Mt. Everest (read Into Thin Air). Your point precisely is?
What the hell does this have to do with my statement? We're not talking about your software engineering career. We're talking about drug use and the fact that it has a negative impact on people's lives. That's my point.
Everyone's choice of living ultimately affects everyone else, indirectly or otherwise. It isn't mandated that everyone has to live their lives in ways that are most beneficial to everyone else.
Of course everyone's lives affect everyone elses. What is this, kindergarten? Living your life in a manner that benefits, rather than hinders your fellow neighbors certainly is not mandated, and I didn't say it should be (although, I think the Constitution of the U.S. pretty much covers the bases already). All I said is that people who think they don't affect people in a negative manner by their drug use are kidding themselves.
Is that really a matter for the legal system, or would that best be handled by the people in question? What precisely is your point here?
I never said anything about the legal system. Obviously, you've read a whole bunch of stuff in my statements that aren't there. No wonder you don't know what my point is.
----
I didn't say anything about enforced conformity? Why did you think I was talking about that?
What I was saying is that drug use affects people's lives in a negative way - nothing more, nothing less.
If you want to live an unhappy, unproductive life, that's fucking fine with me. But don't tell me that doesn't affect the people around you in a negative way. ----
No, I am not confusing anything. When I say drug "use" I mean drug "use."
Abuse of drugs is a different matter, and usually has more of an impact. But that doesn't mean that drug "use" is all good and nifty neat.
Believe me, I know that the drug problem is a medical problem and not a criminal one. All I'm saying is that drug use usually has a negative impact on people's lives in one way or another. I've never seen anything good come of any drug use. ----
No matter what you say, it is possible for someone to use mind or mood altering chemicals without bothering anybody else.
Have to disagree here. I've seen way too many people who's lives have been adversely affected by drug use. What they don't realize is that just because they aren't out shooting and killing people, that doesn't mean that people's lives are not being affected by their choice of living. There may be a few exceptions, yes, but the large majority of drug users don't do any good by their drug use.
Because no matter how much pain you are causing the people you love most, you are doing what you consider "the Right Thing".
This is exactly the tenet of most drug users, especially the casual users. They believe what they're doing is OK, even though they are affecting the lives of those that care for them and love them, in a negative way.
The morale of the story is, businesses don't use linux because they assume because it is free and because it isn't Microsoft, it isn't worth their time.
Actually, I believe the MAIN reason most businesses don't install Linux is because they aren't running servers. They're running client software for their marketing folks, their sales force, their customer care department, their upper management, etc. And these people are mainly dealing with word processing, spreadsheet and financial software that, frankly, are much better and easier to deal with on a Windows or Macintosh environment. Plus, most of these folks might sometimes take their work home with them to their personal machines, which most likely are also Windows and Mac systems. Linux just isn't ready for this group of users yet.
Setting up Linux system for a business USUALLY only makes sense if the business is in need of a low-cost alternative for some sort of server-based solution (except for e-mail servers, since most business are running Outlook as their e-mail client and might as well run an Exchange server to ease the integration). But then again, many businesses would rather run a Sun or HP Unix server for support and scalability reasons.
Now, I like Linux and think it's a great, viable alternative for SOME purposes, but most businesses don't need or want alternatives, because what they're using works great for what they require. ----
Lyell Haynes
This article really doesn't answer "why" we are here. It really talks more about the "how" part. Yes, we can and probably should leave the "why" to philosophy and religion. But the really interesting part is not that the "laws of nature have to just so to make us the way we are" (sic), but that there are specifically 6 of them.
You combine this with the religious notion that God worked for 6 days (and rested on the 7th) and you kind of have to sit and wonder a little bit. Things that make you go hmmm...
But really, mathematics IS a fundamental part of our universe. It's not something inside our own minds. If it were in our minds, we would have had to "make it up" i.e. create it. But we don't create mathematics. We discover mathematics. We didn't decide that 1+2=3. This is a fundamental "law" that exists whether we are here or not. ----
Lyell Haynes
And am I the only one who notices that everything Bush says amounts to nothing at all. No facts, no figures, no promises. Just a lot of wishy-washy, feel-good talk that won't get us anywhere.
If that's what people like in a leader, then go ahead and vote for him, but I'm telling you, in 4 years, people will look back on this as the worst mistake this country ever made. ----
Lyell Haynes
"On student testing: Bush wants to allow the states to set mandatory student testing and raise state standards for graduation. Gore believes that schools that do not meet state guidelines on student failure rates should see a reduction in federal aid"
Hmmm, two different questions, which put a POSITIVE twist on Bush. (Notice the words "raise" and "standards" associated with Bush and the words "failure" and "reduction" associated with Gore.)
"On sale of technology to China: Bush believes we should not sell military high technology to China. Gore believes we should establish trade relations with China, including selling military technology."
So what is Bush's stance on general trade realations with China? The poll left that out, so how am I to make a direct comparison?
"On funding for education: Bush-Cheney say we need more accountability and standards for teachers, students, and administration. Gore-Lieberman say we need smaller classes, more money, and bigger and better-equipped schools."
Again, two DIFFERENT questions. The poll forgets to mention that Gore is ALSO for student and teacher testing and accountability. Where is the direct comparison on their stances?
Basically, these polls are being worded so as to shift the answers in a certain direction. They leave out critical pieces of information and end up comparing apples to oranges in the two "opposing" viewpoints.
It really doesn't matter what the people of this country think about the issues. It only matter what the media SAYS they think. ----
Lyell Haynes
I'm sorry, you still didn't clarify Bush's plans...
And maybe "elimination" wasn't part of the streamlining plan. Maybe they were trying to redraw boundaries and restructure the relationships between departments and groups in the government and how they work together. Nobody said it was a done deal. It looks to me like a work in progress and this change you illustrated could be just one step in a larger process. Cause you know what, it aint over till the blah blah blah... ----
Lyell Haynes
This election being about the United States, I'm going to assume that is what we are talking about.
Yes, it is. But also, we should be aware that this could also mean the other people in the world, because what goes on in the U.S., especially economically, has a large impact on the rest of the people on this planet, but I digress.
My point is that it is much more financially responsible and in the better interests of our entire country and the rest of the world to focus on paying down our national debt, than to go out and give that money back to people, especially when a LARGE percentage of that tax refund is going to people who don't need it, i.e. the "rich".
Now, I'm assuming you're probably a fan of Ayn Rand, from the way you describe yourself. I agree with some of your statements. I myself believe in a good kind of selfishness. But we don't live in a world by ourselves. We live in a community. You say that you don't give a rat's ass for those who weren't able to make it? You did it all yourself, so why should others do the same? This is a naive notion of how things work.
You should be lucky you don't have to grow your own crops, you don't have to design and build your own house, you don't have to engineer the cars you drive around in, you don't have to do a whole lot of things that others do for you that maybe you take for granted. But they do it, why can't you?
You see, it's all great to be proud of yourself for your accomplishments, but to forsake others because they don't do what you do is ignorant and yes, heartless.
No one is asking you to give all you money away and live on the street. What I AM asking you to do is to not accept back money that can be used to better the entire nation and to help bring more people up to a level of equality.
Good for you that you were able to rise out of adversity to accomplish what you wanted to. Let's help everyone do the same. And thanks for debating with me. ----
Lyell Haynes
If you want a healthy economy with a healthy amount of liquid capital flowing through it, providing jobs for you and your children, vote for Bush.
I'm sorry, I don't see this anywhere in Bush's plans... Would you like to clarify?
On the other hand, I do know that Gore is fighting to streamline that "inefficient bureaucracy" and make it work better and has a history of working on this problem. Does Bush have a plan for streamlining the government? Because it's not like it's going to automatically be nice and efficient when he gets there... ----
Lyell Haynes
Under Bush's plan I would get to keep $600 more dollers a year that I make, that the government would ordinarly take and spend on thing's I may or may not agree with.
If this were the "United States of Finkployd", I might agree with you. But it's not. It's a whole lot of people all trying to make it in this world, and I'm sorry to say, giving people $50 a month more over the course of a year will not solve our country's economic problems. This is a bandaid, feel-good solution and does not take into consideration the long-term needs of our country. You have to think of the bigger issues and not just the individual.
Like was stated in the debate, most of our tax-burden is paying the interest on the national debt. I don't care how much of a percentage the rich take on with Bush's plan, if the national debt doesn't get paid down, WE ALL will have to pay more. But if that debt IS paid down, WE ALL pay less. ----
Lyell Haynes
Okay, first of all, politics is definitely of interest to nerds, so keep it coming/.!
Secondly, this is blatant trickle-down economics. Give more money to the rich and figure it will eventually get down to the poor. Bullshit. Doesn't work. It is WAY better to spend money paying down the national debt. THIS is where all the problems are.
Bush will be having fun handing out cash and making people feel better in the short term. But Gore, on the other hand, will be spending money where it matters, in places that need it, like in paying down the debt - or helping our public schools develop - or increasing the length of solvency for the Social Security program.
This is about targeted spending, that helps where it's needed the most, and not across-the-board spending that doesn't help anyone out in the long run.
So, if you want your tax refund to be $100-$200 more this year (about 4-5 dinners + movies"), then vote for Bush and feel better in the short term. But if you want interest rates to go down and for your money to work harder for less, then vote for Gore.
...which is that they have bad parenting skills and don't teach their children the morals that they (children) need to learn.
Umm, am I missing something or did you just go and do the same thing by picking another easy target - the parents? *DING* You win 5 hypocrite points...
It's not so easy as that. Life is not black and white. There are a LOT of factors involved in what makes people able to kill others more easily -> envrionmental factors such as bad parenting, abusive relationships, military training, video games and media, etc. as well as genetic and mental disorders that are just part of who people are.
Noone can blame this stuff on any one thing. It all ties together in a complicated web of cause and effect. But unfortunately, we live in a society that likes quick and easy solutions. And politicians will latch onto that fact like crazy and give people what they want to hear.
We can whine and moan about it all we want here on Slashdot, but it's our representatives in government that need to hear our voices. They need to know that we understand that it's a complicated problem with no easy solution and we're not going to take their easy one-liners anymore. So go home and write your congress[wo]man today! Make your voice heard. ----
Lyell E. Haynes
Jesus! You people sure like to argue yourselves in big old circles, don't you? No wonder I get so frustrated reading comments to Slashdot stories...
Listen, the guy's an academic, which means he probably has a lot more logical sense and level-headed analytical thinking skills than most of us here. He also knows what the government is like and knows what types of games they play, 'cause he used to work there. And it's not like he's working for the government right now... (No, he's not!) He's a third-party dude coming in to give a report on something that people (YOU!) want to know more about. Let the group do the report... Then go from there. Let's take it one step at a time.
It's amazing to me how so many people here spout so much rhetoric about respecting the rights of the individual and then turn around and slap labels on INDIVIDUALS because of the ORGANIZATIONS their work requires them to be involved with. These people are not evil. They're trying to do good in their own way and they're not out to get you. If they miss something along the way, and don't see a problem from every angle, don't damn them to Hell. Give 'em a break. They're human. ----
Lyell E. Haynes
If I'm responsible enough to deal with the situations that occur in my life, why should I have others tell me what to do?
Because experience shows that even a little bit of drug and alcohol use impairs your ability to act responsibly, so other people have to take that responsibility for you. ----
Lyell E. Haynes
Okay, let's get one thing straight. You all need to remember that Napster does not record anything! Napster is a distribution medium used to aid in the transfer of copyright material without the control of the owners of the musical works in question.
For all the supposed cleverness you geeks think you have, you still don't have a very good grasp of logic. Damn it, you all suck.
You sit here in your white towers preaching about the rights of the people - yeah right! The rights of your people and noone else. God, what hypocrites. Anyone who is not considered geeky is the enemy of the world and anyone who attempts to make any sort of living, putting food on the table for themselves or their children, is considered evil!
No, you idiot. Because in the process of burning your mp3s to CD, you will be using your "personal computer" which as you just showed, does not constitute "a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium."
----
Lyell E. Haynes
Slashdot Mirror
More to the point; are you going to outlaw anything that is "affecting the lives of those that care for them and love them, in a negative way"??
Hmm, let's see... Did I say anything about outlawing drug use? Huh? You see that anywhere, logic man? All I was saying is that it is not the "norm" for drug use to not have harmful affects on the people who use it and the people around the people who use it.
Listen, if keeping drugs legal helps more people realize this, then let's do it. I don't think locking up every drug user is the answer. That doesn't solve anything. Treating people does, though.
It seems that people have to experience something bad in order to realize it is such, and that's unfortunate. Let's go ahead and make all drugs legal and let everyone get their turn at hindering their ability to lead a productive and meaningful life.
----
What the hell does this have to do with my statement? We're not talking about your software engineering career. We're talking about drug use and the fact that it has a negative impact on people's lives. That's my point.
Everyone's choice of living ultimately affects everyone else, indirectly or otherwise. It isn't mandated that everyone has to live their lives in ways that are most beneficial to everyone else.
Of course everyone's lives affect everyone elses. What is this, kindergarten? Living your life in a manner that benefits, rather than hinders your fellow neighbors certainly is not mandated, and I didn't say it should be (although, I think the Constitution of the U.S. pretty much covers the bases already). All I said is that people who think they don't affect people in a negative manner by their drug use are kidding themselves.
Is that really a matter for the legal system, or would that best be handled by the people in question? What precisely is your point here?
I never said anything about the legal system. Obviously, you've read a whole bunch of stuff in my statements that aren't there. No wonder you don't know what my point is.
----
What I was saying is that drug use affects people's lives in a negative way - nothing more, nothing less.
If you want to live an unhappy, unproductive life, that's fucking fine with me. But don't tell me that doesn't affect the people around you in a negative way.
----
Abuse of drugs is a different matter, and usually has more of an impact. But that doesn't mean that drug "use" is all good and nifty neat.
Believe me, I know that the drug problem is a medical problem and not a criminal one. All I'm saying is that drug use usually has a negative impact on people's lives in one way or another. I've never seen anything good come of any drug use.
----
Have to disagree here. I've seen way too many people who's lives have been adversely affected by drug use. What they don't realize is that just because they aren't out shooting and killing people, that doesn't mean that people's lives are not being affected by their choice of living. There may be a few exceptions, yes, but the large majority of drug users don't do any good by their drug use.
Because no matter how much pain you are causing the people you love most, you are doing what you consider "the Right Thing".
This is exactly the tenet of most drug users, especially the casual users. They believe what they're doing is OK, even though they are affecting the lives of those that care for them and love them, in a negative way.
----
You mean it doesn't have anything to do with a communist dictatorship maintaining control over it's economy, businesses and individual lives?
----
Actually, I believe the MAIN reason most businesses don't install Linux is because they aren't running servers. They're running client software for their marketing folks, their sales force, their customer care department, their upper management, etc. And these people are mainly dealing with word processing, spreadsheet and financial software that, frankly, are much better and easier to deal with on a Windows or Macintosh environment. Plus, most of these folks might sometimes take their work home with them to their personal machines, which most likely are also Windows and Mac systems. Linux just isn't ready for this group of users yet.
Setting up Linux system for a business USUALLY only makes sense if the business is in need of a low-cost alternative for some sort of server-based solution (except for e-mail servers, since most business are running Outlook as their e-mail client and might as well run an Exchange server to ease the integration). But then again, many businesses would rather run a Sun or HP Unix server for support and scalability reasons.
Now, I like Linux and think it's a great, viable alternative for SOME purposes, but most businesses don't need or want alternatives, because what they're using works great for what they require.
----
Lyell Haynes
You combine this with the religious notion that God worked for 6 days (and rested on the 7th) and you kind of have to sit and wonder a little bit. Things that make you go hmmm...
----
Lyell Haynes
But really, mathematics IS a fundamental part of our universe. It's not something inside our own minds. If it were in our minds, we would have had to "make it up" i.e. create it. But we don't create mathematics. We discover mathematics. We didn't decide that 1+2=3. This is a fundamental "law" that exists whether we are here or not.
----
Lyell Haynes
Just like the British to be so bloody arrogant. Who the hell goes around saying that "almost every galaxy ought to have one [black hole]".
----
Lyell Haynes
I'd say that pretty much clinches it - James Bond is the friggin' coolest person in the Universe.
----
Lyell Haynes
If that's what people like in a leader, then go ahead and vote for him, but I'm telling you, in 4 years, people will look back on this as the worst mistake this country ever made.
----
Lyell Haynes
"On student testing: Bush wants to allow the states to set mandatory student testing and raise state standards for graduation. Gore believes that schools that do not meet state guidelines on student failure rates should see a reduction in federal aid"
Hmmm, two different questions, which put a POSITIVE twist on Bush. (Notice the words "raise" and "standards" associated with Bush and the words "failure" and "reduction" associated with Gore.)
"On sale of technology to China: Bush believes we should not sell military high technology to China. Gore believes we should establish trade relations with China, including selling military technology."
So what is Bush's stance on general trade realations with China? The poll left that out, so how am I to make a direct comparison?
"On funding for education: Bush-Cheney say we need more accountability and standards for teachers, students, and administration. Gore-Lieberman say we need smaller classes, more money, and bigger and better-equipped schools."
Again, two DIFFERENT questions. The poll forgets to mention that Gore is ALSO for student and teacher testing and accountability. Where is the direct comparison on their stances?
Basically, these polls are being worded so as to shift the answers in a certain direction. They leave out critical pieces of information and end up comparing apples to oranges in the two "opposing" viewpoints.
It really doesn't matter what the people of this country think about the issues. It only matter what the media SAYS they think.
----
Lyell Haynes
And maybe "elimination" wasn't part of the streamlining plan. Maybe they were trying to redraw boundaries and restructure the relationships between departments and groups in the government and how they work together. Nobody said it was a done deal. It looks to me like a work in progress and this change you illustrated could be just one step in a larger process. Cause you know what, it aint over till the blah blah blah...
----
Lyell Haynes
Yes, it is. But also, we should be aware that this could also mean the other people in the world, because what goes on in the U.S., especially economically, has a large impact on the rest of the people on this planet, but I digress.
My point is that it is much more financially responsible and in the better interests of our entire country and the rest of the world to focus on paying down our national debt, than to go out and give that money back to people, especially when a LARGE percentage of that tax refund is going to people who don't need it, i.e. the "rich".
Now, I'm assuming you're probably a fan of Ayn Rand, from the way you describe yourself. I agree with some of your statements. I myself believe in a good kind of selfishness. But we don't live in a world by ourselves. We live in a community. You say that you don't give a rat's ass for those who weren't able to make it? You did it all yourself, so why should others do the same? This is a naive notion of how things work.
You should be lucky you don't have to grow your own crops, you don't have to design and build your own house, you don't have to engineer the cars you drive around in, you don't have to do a whole lot of things that others do for you that maybe you take for granted. But they do it, why can't you?
You see, it's all great to be proud of yourself for your accomplishments, but to forsake others because they don't do what you do is ignorant and yes, heartless.
No one is asking you to give all you money away and live on the street. What I AM asking you to do is to not accept back money that can be used to better the entire nation and to help bring more people up to a level of equality.
Good for you that you were able to rise out of adversity to accomplish what you wanted to. Let's help everyone do the same. And thanks for debating with me.
----
Lyell Haynes
I'm sorry, I don't see this anywhere in Bush's plans... Would you like to clarify?
On the other hand, I do know that Gore is fighting to streamline that "inefficient bureaucracy" and make it work better and has a history of working on this problem. Does Bush have a plan for streamlining the government? Because it's not like it's going to automatically be nice and efficient when he gets there...
----
Lyell Haynes
If this were the "United States of Finkployd", I might agree with you. But it's not. It's a whole lot of people all trying to make it in this world, and I'm sorry to say, giving people $50 a month more over the course of a year will not solve our country's economic problems. This is a bandaid, feel-good solution and does not take into consideration the long-term needs of our country. You have to think of the bigger issues and not just the individual.
Like was stated in the debate, most of our tax-burden is paying the interest on the national debt. I don't care how much of a percentage the rich take on with Bush's plan, if the national debt doesn't get paid down, WE ALL will have to pay more. But if that debt IS paid down, WE ALL pay less.
----
Lyell Haynes
Secondly, this is blatant trickle-down economics. Give more money to the rich and figure it will eventually get down to the poor. Bullshit. Doesn't work. It is WAY better to spend money paying down the national debt. THIS is where all the problems are.
Bush will be having fun handing out cash and making people feel better in the short term. But Gore, on the other hand, will be spending money where it matters, in places that need it, like in paying down the debt - or helping our public schools develop - or increasing the length of solvency for the Social Security program.
This is about targeted spending, that helps where it's needed the most, and not across-the-board spending that doesn't help anyone out in the long run.
So, if you want your tax refund to be $100-$200 more this year (about 4-5 dinners + movies"), then vote for Bush and feel better in the short term. But if you want interest rates to go down and for your money to work harder for less, then vote for Gore.
Brin is right on
----
Lyell Haynes
Umm, am I missing something or did you just go and do the same thing by picking another easy target - the parents? *DING* You win 5 hypocrite points...
It's not so easy as that. Life is not black and white. There are a LOT of factors involved in what makes people able to kill others more easily -> envrionmental factors such as bad parenting, abusive relationships, military training, video games and media, etc. as well as genetic and mental disorders that are just part of who people are.
Noone can blame this stuff on any one thing. It all ties together in a complicated web of cause and effect. But unfortunately, we live in a society that likes quick and easy solutions. And politicians will latch onto that fact like crazy and give people what they want to hear.
We can whine and moan about it all we want here on Slashdot, but it's our representatives in government that need to hear our voices. They need to know that we understand that it's a complicated problem with no easy solution and we're not going to take their easy one-liners anymore. So go home and write your congress[wo]man today! Make your voice heard.
----
Lyell E. Haynes
But my point is that if you ARE taking on responsibility, the use of drugs or alcohol impairs that ability.
----
Lyell E. Haynes
Listen, the guy's an academic, which means he probably has a lot more logical sense and level-headed analytical thinking skills than most of us here. He also knows what the government is like and knows what types of games they play, 'cause he used to work there. And it's not like he's working for the government right now... (No, he's not!) He's a third-party dude coming in to give a report on something that people (YOU!) want to know more about. Let the group do the report... Then go from there. Let's take it one step at a time.
It's amazing to me how so many people here spout so much rhetoric about respecting the rights of the individual and then turn around and slap labels on INDIVIDUALS because of the ORGANIZATIONS their work requires them to be involved with. These people are not evil. They're trying to do good in their own way and they're not out to get you. If they miss something along the way, and don't see a problem from every angle, don't damn them to Hell. Give 'em a break. They're human.
----
Lyell E. Haynes
Because experience shows that even a little bit of drug and alcohol use impairs your ability to act responsibly, so other people have to take that responsibility for you.
----
Lyell E. Haynes
For all the supposed cleverness you geeks think you have, you still don't have a very good grasp of logic. Damn it, you all suck.
You sit here in your white towers preaching about the rights of the people - yeah right! The rights of your people and noone else. God, what hypocrites. Anyone who is not considered geeky is the enemy of the world and anyone who attempts to make any sort of living, putting food on the table for themselves or their children, is considered evil!
God, I'm just sick of it!
----
Lyell E. Haynes
No, you idiot. Because in the process of burning your mp3s to CD, you will be using your "personal computer" which as you just showed, does not constitute "a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium."
----
Lyell E. Haynes
You guys are idiots. 5 years was for the whole product - business plan, funding, hardware development, code. Get a clue.
----
Lyell E. Haynes