A standard libertarian talking point that is provably false. If you don't pay your taxes the government probably won't catch on for a few years. When they do, they'll insist you pay them. If you don't, they'll probably take legal action against you and try to seize your property. "Jail", despite what you libertarians believe, rarely enters the picture.
Al Capone was put in prison. Granted, that was 60-70 years ago, but it still happened. Can you find me someone who didn't pay their taxes and didn't go to jail?
It's not your money. The government prints and regulates it. And if you want to avoid paying taxes? Barter your work for food and shelter.
Technically, nothing I purchase with MY money is mine either. My computer was made by Dell, so that's not mine. My television was made by Panasonic, so that's not mine. Even my bread was made by D' Italiano, so even that's not mine. About the only thing that's mine, according to your definition, is the crap that comes out of my ass... which even then, since it's just a redefinition of the food I eat, should logically belong, by way of shares, to the companies that provided the food I ate. Even my body wouldn't be mind, since it largely consists of things I've ingested over the course of my lifetime. So what is mine? My ideas? I get those ideas because my brain is developed enough. My brain gets developed enough because I eat enough food to keep it going. According to your definition, and your questionable logic, nothing at all is mine, and nothing is yours either.
How about a new definition for "own"? Let's take Websters definition. Own (v): To have or hold as property. Possess. To have power over. Control. That seems pretty cut and dry. I have my money in my possession. I have power over it, and I control what I spend it on. While I'm looking things up, let's look up "earn". Earn (v): To receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered. I've never seen a definition so clear. It even says "especially for work done or services rendered". So, I own my money because I work to earn it.
In Eastern societies, this decision is left to the govt. And normally, they do a good job of deciding.
What if you lived in an Eastern society, and the government decided that since profanity, and "adult content" can be found on Slashdot, then Slashdot was banned? What would you do? Protest without guns, because they had been banned? Revolt against their cannons? Sounds kinda like Tienamen Square to me.
Why can't there be a.kid domain which could act as a playpen for the children of parents who don't want the responsibility of managing/supervising their 'own' children.
I have no problem with a.kid domain... as long as the government doesn't have to form another agency (and raise my taxes to pay for it) to patrol and administer it.
I'd also recommend that if you don't want the responsibility of children, don't have them. Give them to someone who wants them.
The government represents the people. If the government has decreed that "porn is bad, we must block it," then that is the equivalent of society saying that porn is bad.
You, my friend, are a democrat. I don't mean the political party. I mean the type of government. You believe that the majority of the people are right all of the time. I don't. Most of the people in this country think Hillary never knew of Bill's affairs. I'm more intelligent than that. People are stupid, and the government shouldn't represent their whims and desires on an immediate timeline. Gradual changes are fine, but banning 100% of something is too far, too quickly.
Over here, our government says "Marijuana is bad." To use your own analogy, what if you were a non-Christian living in the US and wanted to smoke Marijuana? What an outrage!
Exactly. If you want to smoke marijuana, go ahead. If you prefer to live your life on the dangerous edge, go for it. If you want to smoke and drive while talking on a cell phone, have fun, just don't hit anyone else. If you kill someone else, and you survive, I'll shoot you in the head myself. If you smoke marijuana in the privacy of your own home, while watching porn and jerking off with 100 of your closest personal friends, great. I wish you the best of luck, and I hope you can swim. The only law that's required for what I just said is "If you drive drunk or intoxicated in another fashion, due to mind-altering drugs, and kill someone else, you will be put to death immediately."
you don't like their rules, you leave, or try to work within the system in place to change the rules. It's as simple as that.
As an unpoliced system, the Internet is subject to no laws, and as such, I am free to speak my mind. Obviously, I AM working within the system to try to convince other people to change the rules in whatever country they live in (although I personally couldn't care less about Thailand).
You're precisely proving my point. The simple fact is that Pakistan (or for that matter Thailand, Singapore or India) treats it's citizens as just that - citizens. Their personal beliefs and values are respected within their homes and places of worship - society has a uniform set of values. (Okay - this is abused in a few countries, but generally this is the unwritten belief). To sum up, it least matters what your personal faith is, it's important that you're a Pakistani. And as they say, while in Rome, do as the Romans do.
What? Society doesn't have uniform set of values! That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If society had a uniform set of values, there would be no murder, rape, war, genocide, etc! Every person has a different set of values and morals, and should. That's where the freedom to do what you desire comes into play. I don't WANT to go to Rome and do as they do, because I WANT to do what _I_ want to do. THAT is what "Western" civilization is all about, and it's why the United States is the best damn country in the world.
I didn't know killing was one of the rights of the govt. I'd imagine if they did it on a large scale, someone would stand up for them and put them in order (Iraq, for instance, assuming the horror stories were true).
Try avoiding your taxes sometime. You'll soon find that the government will take everything you own to get their "fair share". They'll probably even throw you in prison for a good long while. Remember Al Capone... "Tax Evasion". I know he wasn't exactly a role model citizen, but the government still put him in prison because they couldn't prove he was breaking any real laws.
OTOH, what has Corporate America done to prevent spam and porn from reaching kids?
It's not their job to police the content YOU let YOUR children see. I can explain to my children what spam and porn are, but obviously I'm in the minority. I guess I'm just plain too intelligent for my own good, because I can explain what sex, drugs, and rock and roll are to my children. Maybe I should just sit back and let the government tell them about condoms when they reach the ripe old age of 9.
Why can't there be a simple legislation requiring all adult content to be registered under a.adult domain? Simple - the firms making money over porn wouldn't stand for it.
There's a fundamental difference here. You believe that the government is the source for all rights within a country. I believe the government is the source of removing those rights. Everyone has a right and freedom to do anything they want. The government prohibits them from doing several things (murder, rape, etc.). All legislation costs money... my money. I pay taxes (much to my dismay), and those taxes are used to pay other people's salaries, and to give handouts to other people. You believe that's fine because "it's for the common good". I believe that's a bunch of crap because I work for my money, and I want to keep it. The difference is that you're a socialist, and I'm a libertarian. Therefore, you believe that the government exists to provide you with freedoms and possessions. I believe the government exists to limit your God-given freedoms and possessions.
I will probably get flamed for this, but I think this is a positive thing.
You're right. This is Flame Number One.
Growing up, I grappled with a gaming addiction. Going to school on three hours of sleep is not good for your education (despite what some articles might have you believe). In a perfect world, parents would be preventing their children from overloading on games. In reality, in these days of dual incomes and extracurricular activities, they aren't always able to, and it's a good thing that the government can step in and lend a hand.
I remember one time, back in the early 90's, I was playing too many video games and not doing my homework. I was still getting pretty good grades, mostly B's, but not the A's I was capable of. I was living only with my father, at the time, so there really wasn't anybody around for several hours a day to watch me (I was 12-13 at the time). My punishment was very limited video game access for 6 months, or until my grades improved. You know how my father accomplished that? He took my Super Nintendo to his workplace, put it in a box, and stuck it under his desk. It could have been in the car, at one of his friends' houses, or any number of a million other places. Was my father "special", or "lucky", or a "more talented" parent, or simply "more intelligent" than your parents? Probably. Maybe the easiest solution is for parents to be parents.
The alternative is medication (which is how I kicked the video game habit before I became the next Columbine), and that will just be more expensive to everyone in the long term.
Great idea. Let's just drug our children. After all, 6% of the children in this country actually have ADD, yet 17% (or more) are on Ritalin. We obviously need more drugs. While I'm on the subject, maybe you don't watch enough TV (because of your work schedule and all), but perhaps you've seen the commercials that try to drug all the adults now too? They're paid for by the company that produces Ritalin.
Curfews are cheap and effective.
What's cheap about it? Paying the government employees their union-decided wages to work minimal hours on doing the least-possible work? What's effective about a curfew? I was out all the time when I was a kid after the 10pm curfew that we had in our town. I walked past the police department at 2am, including officers and patrol cars (and I didn't look over the age of 12), and never once got taken home, or fined, or anything.
Another good approach might be to put a lower age limit on the use of Windows.
I'm not sticking up for Microsoft, but putting an age limit on software is insane. If my 3 year-old is intelligent enough to play Final Fantasy X, then damnit, he/she will play Final Fantasy X. Who's going to regulate and enforce that age? Microsoft? Then they'll be collecting more personal information about you, which I'm sure you'll love. The government? Oh wonderful. Another Total Information Awareness Act. Great idea.
You need to think out your arguments before you post... seriously. If your parents didn't want you playing games, they shouldn't have purchased the console for you. If you only had 3 hours of sleep every night, eventually, you'll fall over and sleep. It seems like it took you quite a few years, but you're mentally asleep now. Mission accomplished.
Do you ever know where such parental censorship has worked? I can name several where govt. censorhip has worked / is working well for all concerned. Pakistan, for instance, is developing a free porn-blocking s/w at the govt. level.
OK, good... now name one that's actually a good idea and has worked. What if I lived in Pakistan and wasn't a Muslim (or Buddist, or whatever) and WANTED to look at porn, but couldn't because the government regulated my internet traffic?
Never trust monopolists and capitalists to work for the good of you or your kids.The only values they understand are dollars and share-prices.
And NEVER trust the government, because they're the only group that can legally kill you and everyone you ever met "for the common good". I'd rather trust people concerned with money than people that could kill me for not trusting them... and get away with it. At least I agree that money is good. I definitely don't agree with killing me.
"Hi there! Sorry I abused a bug, repeatedly killed you, looted your corpse, and generally harrassed you. I know you've logged thousands of hours on this MUD, made many close friends, had memorable experiences, collected objects to remind you of particular events or special people who have left. But hey! It's just a game. So don't get so uptight!"
Would you like a tissue? I suppose if you were allowed to mandate that anyone that kills you, loots your corpse, or harrases you, all enemies in every video game in existence would be banned. Hey, if they hit you, they're infringing on your civil rights, correct? So obviously, the developers are evil, and must be made to pay... so sue them for every cent they made on the game.
The only authority to police online games, or do anything about it, are the developers, and the government... and I definitely don't want the government telling me what I can and can't do in Star Wars: Galaxies. The government is extremely effective in screwing up whatever it touches, so keep away from my game! The last thing I want is a fine from telling some bothersome virtual merchant that his prices are too high, and he can go F*** himself.
Here's a wild idea: Why not have the developers police their online games? You know, a rule that says you're not supposed to do anything stupid or harassing, and if you do, you can be banned from the game! Oh wait, that's already done. Wait, what about if the developers provide in-game assistants that players can report bugs and abuse to? Oh... that's already done too. How about an e-mail address that players can write to, like abuse@starwarsgalaxies.com or abuse@thesimsonline.com? Oh darn, that's done too.
The Gestapo, the Stasi, etc. existed and operated without vehicle tracking technology. To assume that the ability to track vehicles leads to the end to rights is absurd. Vehicles can already be tracked - a set of plainclothes cops can follow your car anywhere and you'd have no idea - the trouble starts when they pull you over for no reason and...
You're so obviously correct. Who would have ever thought that an oppressive government would use whatever technology it could to "persuade" its citizens that they're really just protecting them? It seems so absurd now that I think about it. I really must have been smoking something to have thought that the government might been... dishonest about the possibility of this, or any other, technology in a way that the general public might question. I'm glad there are people like you out there to show me the err of my ways.
What we really need, instead of tech paranoia, are laws governing the use of these systems, just as we already have for wiretaps, search warrants, etc.
I've got a question for you. Who is the only person or group that exists primarily within the borders of this country that can break any law it wants to, at any time it chooses? It's the government. They can lie about it later ("No, I did not have sexual relations with that woman.") and they'll most likely get off the hook. The government is the only person or group that can use deadly force, if necessary, to accomplish its goals. NEVER underestimate their willingness to do so... it could result in your death.
This is what that ever-troublesome clause of you contitution ("the right to bear arms") has given you - the option of forceful rebellion against a repressive government.
And that's EXACTLY why the Democrats and Socialists don't want the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land. They'd rather appoint people they can persuade into the Supreme Court, and rule that the 2nd Amendment was "Unconstitutional".
I've been waiting for this game for months. It looks like a Star Wars version of Neverwinter Nights, which was awesome. The only thing I don't like is how the PC version is going to be another 4 month-long wait.
Has anybody played it on the XBox? Any reviews available?
So you really believe that we are heading towards a holocaust? Or is that just an amateur debate ploy where you throw in the implicit or explicit comparison to Hitler?
I believe that if this country doesn't shape up soon, in a hundred years, people may look at the United States with as much disdain as people look at Germany with now. Whether that implies a holocaust between now and then is anyone's guess, but I'd assume that our liberties will slowly be stripped away, until eventually we have a dictatorship... and this country will fall into a secondary nation, just like Germany.
That is a very idealistic view you have of the founding of the country. I'm sure when asked about Benedict Arnold that Washington didn't say, "Hey! It's a free country. What he does on his own time is his own business."
Benedict Arnold deprived other citizens of this country of their lives, and did so in an act of Treason. That is, and was, punishable by death. I don't think I quite understand the point of your argument...
The Constitution was ordained and established for, among other things, to provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.
Exactly. My point precisely.
The current administration apparently feels they are doing this, though you may disagree with their tactics.
For the most part, I agree with their tactics. I don't agree with most of the PATRIOT Act, but in the Administration's defense, they needed a law drafted in a very short period of time. I think now would be a good time to revisit it and rewrite most of it.
The new republic was established for self-government (for over a hundred years before 1776 people were moving/relocating to the colonies for these freedoms), but I would argue with you that people set up a new government because they were being deprived of violence.
Perhaps my wording was confusing, but I meant the government is to protect its citizens from violence, and from deprivation of property.
I don't necessarily like him or dislike him. I will admit that I'm generally opposed to any Democratic presidential candidate, although if you can convince me that he isn't going to turn this Republic into a Socialist country, then I'll be glad to hear him out.
I assumed his stance on gun control simply because he is a Democrat, and it seems like the Democrats want to take power away from individuals, and give that power to the government, which I adamently oppose. They're also incredibly afraid of the Constitution, and want to overwrite it using the Supreme Court, which is why they oppose any conservative nominee to any court, specific Estrada. In that case, they're arguing that he won't answer their questions, but they haven't asked any... so they're trying to alter the Constitution by making it necessary to have 60 votes to allow his nomination. I have several other reasons I don't like Democrats, but I really don't want to get into all of them right now. But, if you can tell me why he's better than Bush, I'll listen.
I have a question for you that pertains to this discussiong in an indirect way. Does Howard Dean support gun control? For instance, if I, as a law-abiding citizen who's never been convicted of anything more than a single speeding ticket more than 5 years ago, wanted to purchase a 9mm semi-automatic pistol, would Howard Dean let me, without filling out a dozen forms and waiting 6 weeks (or whatever it is now)? Would he support extending those restrictions, or would he support eliminating them?
The reason I ask is that owning weapons is a Liberty guaranteed by the law of the land, the Constitution... so if Howard Dean doesn't want people like me to be able to defend ourslves, then I find it highly ironic that you'd post a quote from Benjamin Franklin about conserving our Liberties when your favorite Presidential candidate opposes one of the most important ones.
Ah yes, the keyboards of old could be thrown from a 747 into the middle of the Pacifac, and when they washed ashore, they would still function... but they didn't have an E-mail button. After all, what good is a keyboard without an E-mail button?
I knew as soon as I read your comment that you'd get lots of responses, and you have, but none that I've read so far have given you the correct answer, IMHO.
I'm sure that in 1937, all the German people thought their government was the greatest thing on the planet. I'm sure that even the Jews didn't really think they had anything to worry about, after all, they weren't breaking any laws. Within a few year, though, Hitler made sure that laws were created that the Jews, just by being Jewish, were breaking. According to Hitler, that made them a threat to his country, and they had to separated. Since some of the resisted, they had to disposed of. It's a harsh truth, but as far as Hitler was concerned, everything he was doing was perfectly acceptable. The Jews, before the late 30's, didn't think anything was wrong... obviously they were mistaken.
Just because you're not breaking any laws now doesn't mean you won't next week, next month, or next year. We have a government that has the power to create laws. The only thing the general population can do is protest, but in the end, the only way the politicians will regret what they do is if they're not re-elected, which in the worst case (Senators) can be 6 years later (I'll also mention that in the original Constitution, Senators weren't supposed to be elected, but rather chosen by the State Legislature). Even if a new law was drafted and passed that would require (insert your ethnic group here) to register in the middle of the desert in Nevada, realistically, there's nothing you could do about it for the next few years, until the sponsors of the bill were up for re-election.
The Bill of Rights was based on certain God-given (not Government-given) rights, such as the freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. One of the rights that isn't specifically mentioned is the Freedom of a certain amount of Privacy. Where I go on vacation is my choice, and I feel it's a matter of privacy. If I decide to go to Mount Rushmore alone, and not tell anybody about it, I don't want anybody else to know. That's my choice, and it's a freedom I expect from living in a country where the national anthem says "Land of the Free". Free to do what? To have the government track my movements, wherever I go? Is that what the Founding Fathers thought when they left England? "Gee, General Washington, I think we should create a government that can monitor and oppress its people whenever it wants with almost no possibility of retribution." I somehow doubt it.
The fact that we're discussing what freedoms and liberties are violated by the government tracking our movements tells me that people have forgotten why this country was founded in the first place. This country was founded so people could make lives for themselves doing whatever they chose, as long as they didn't deprive someone else of their freedoms. The government was created for the sole purpose of protecting people from deprivation of property and violence. The government was the friend of the people 200 years ago, but now is an entity to be looked upon with fear and apprehension. The "values" of "diversity" and "equal" rights are responsible. People that work for a living now have up to 40% of their earnings taken away and given to people that don't work for a living. Credit is given to people based on the color of their skins. "Equal rights" is a joke now, only funny to those that get things handed to them. To everyone else, it's a threat of violence or incarceration.
The people of this country need to seriously look at what their country has become, then we need to fix it.
Try doing that with WinXP. I know for a fact it takes roughly 2 to 3 hours to go from CD to fully patched OS.
You're nuts. I do it for a living, and it's never taken me over 2 hours... in fact, the one time it took an hour and a half to install Service Pack 1, I ended up replacing the motherboard, which fixed it. It's even faster if you install from a CD with Service Pack 1 included, as most new PC's are shipped. I just did it, and to do the following (I didn't have to install Windows, but I did install many other things), it took me LESS than 1 hour:
Plug in the keyboard, mouse, monitor, ethernet, and PC (and I had to run back to my office for a power strip)
Install ALL of the Windows Updates
Install Office XP, everything included
Add PC to the domain, and add appropriate users to Administrator group
Install and set up Corporate Norton 8
Install Acrobat Reader 6
Install Netscape 4.79 (it's a standard procedure... to my dismay)
Install Eudora 5.2 (again, damned procedure)
If you remove Office, Acrobat, Netscape, Norton, and Eudora, I'm sure you could take that time to install Windows itself. You're absolutely insane (or incompetent) if it takes you 3 hours.
Absolutely. Why not? You could use it as a propelant. Shoot in one direction, and you'd go in the other. If anybody on the ship starts acting strange (a la, Michael Beihn in The Abyss) shoot them and dump their body on Mars. If it's still there in 6 months, then you know there aren't any carnivorous animals runnin around.
I forgot about water... it could be tricky. I don't think Hydrogen would be hard to come by, but Oxygen might be. Perhaps we could construct oxygen molecules from carbon? Given that we can produce artificial molecules, can we actually make an oxygen molecule fairly easily? If so, I've got the easiest solution... build the machine to create oxygen molecules on Mars' surface. Turn it on, and let it crank away. If we can make oxygen molecules, it couldn't be too hard to make water molecules... one oxygen, and two hydrogen. Easy as pie.
Good call! I can have one for you by next Thursday!
No, but seriously, I absolutely agree. At first, I thought that the ISS was supposed to be that starting point, but either I misunderstood, or NASA got sidetracked... again. I just want them to do SOMETHING worthwhile. It seems like forever since any good news from them.
What are the main requirements for a manned space flight to Mars? Oxygen, fuel, and (duh) people (if I'm missing any, let me know). Oxygen seems like a no-brainer. Just have a bunch of plants, and there ya go (yes, I know it's SLIGHTLY more complicated than that, but this is a generalization). Fuel doesn't seem like a major concern either. I'd be glad to volunteer for the first manned mission to Mars, so I'm guessing "people" would be easy to come by... just pick up a bunch of homeless people and ship them up. The next step is landing the ship, and setting up a base camp. No problem. We can already do landings, and as far as a base camp, how about a relatively small half-sphere of glass with the necessary supports? Doesn't seem too difficult to me, all in all. I've seen it in lots of movies...
I think it's about time we looked seriously at starting a colony on Mars. It's fairly obvious that space travel in general is still pretty risky business, so why not go for the gold, in a manner of speaking?
As long as the astronauts are risking their lives (and spending MY tax dollars), do something I'll be able to tell my grandchildren about. I don't give a rat's ass about "mapping to outer solar system cometary fields and Kuiper Belt" or looking "for water-ice on the closest planet to the Sun". Whether there's water on Mercury doesn't affect me, or my children, or their children is any discernible way. Building a city on Mars does. Let's get to it.
Not to mention losing 2 out of the 5 shuttles because engineers sorta just "guessed" a problem was okay.
What other option was there? I'm definitely not a NASA astro-physicist, but it seems pretty logical to me that there's no such thing as a rescue mission in space... yet. I do admit that the recent disaster might have been avoided if they would have fixed the broken tiles on the wing, but how would they do that? Do they have spare pieces of everything in the shuttle, just in case something happens? Eventually you have to realize that the chance that a relatively minor mishap could turn into a disaster might outweigh the time and cost of attempting an ad-hoc, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants temporary solution.
Considering that the human eye can only see 90fps, I don't think 260fps is really anything to complain about. Now, maybe if you tried something 10 times more complex, and got only 26fps, I could understand a complaint or two... but try it, and if you get 80fps, I don't think that's so bad.
nVidia, OTOH, actually writes drivers, but keeps the source closed.
I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember that NVidia released their last Linux driver as a large script... IANAP, but I think having a driver as a gigantic (6.26mb) script file would qualify as "source".
I've been a fan of NVidia for a long time... since the Riva TNT2 came out back in the day. One of the major things that contributed to their success (in my opinion) is their driver support. For Windows, there's only 1 download for all of their graphics cards. Granted, it's about 30mb, but it works. With Linux, they've always been forthcoming with drivers, even when the kernel supports the cards (in the most basic way).
With the release of the Radeon 9800 and above, ATI is (arguably) finally catching up to NVidia in terms of quality graphics cards... it almost seemed a matter of time until something broke, and I guess the Linux drivers were the first thing. I just hope they keep their All-in-Wonder cards coming. If I ever save up enough money to buy another video card (holy crap, $400 for a modern one these days?), I'll definitely get one of those (I have a GeForce 4 Ti4600 right now).
I still like NVidia, I just hope their next card is better (and quieter) than the GeForce FX.
Slashdot Mirror
A standard libertarian talking point that is provably false. If you don't pay your taxes the government probably won't catch on for a few years. When they do, they'll insist you pay them. If you don't, they'll probably take legal action against you and try to seize your property. "Jail", despite what you libertarians believe, rarely enters the picture.
Al Capone was put in prison. Granted, that was 60-70 years ago, but it still happened. Can you find me someone who didn't pay their taxes and didn't go to jail?
It's not your money. The government prints and regulates it. And if you want to avoid paying taxes? Barter your work for food and shelter.
Technically, nothing I purchase with MY money is mine either. My computer was made by Dell, so that's not mine. My television was made by Panasonic, so that's not mine. Even my bread was made by D' Italiano, so even that's not mine. About the only thing that's mine, according to your definition, is the crap that comes out of my ass... which even then, since it's just a redefinition of the food I eat, should logically belong, by way of shares, to the companies that provided the food I ate. Even my body wouldn't be mind, since it largely consists of things I've ingested over the course of my lifetime. So what is mine? My ideas? I get those ideas because my brain is developed enough. My brain gets developed enough because I eat enough food to keep it going. According to your definition, and your questionable logic, nothing at all is mine, and nothing is yours either.
How about a new definition for "own"? Let's take Websters definition. Own (v): To have or hold as property. Possess. To have power over. Control. That seems pretty cut and dry. I have my money in my possession. I have power over it, and I control what I spend it on. While I'm looking things up, let's look up "earn". Earn (v): To receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered. I've never seen a definition so clear. It even says "especially for work done or services rendered". So, I own my money because I work to earn it.
In Eastern societies, this decision is left to the govt. And normally, they do a good job of deciding.
What if you lived in an Eastern society, and the government decided that since profanity, and "adult content" can be found on Slashdot, then Slashdot was banned? What would you do? Protest without guns, because they had been banned? Revolt against their cannons? Sounds kinda like Tienamen Square to me.
Why can't there be a .kid domain which could act as a playpen for the children of parents who don't want the responsibility of managing/supervising their 'own' children.
.kid domain... as long as the government doesn't have to form another agency (and raise my taxes to pay for it) to patrol and administer it.
I have no problem with a
I'd also recommend that if you don't want the responsibility of children, don't have them. Give them to someone who wants them.
What about adult gamers?
They're adults. Let them do as they wish.
The government represents the people. If the government has decreed that "porn is bad, we must block it," then that is the equivalent of society saying that porn is bad.
You, my friend, are a democrat. I don't mean the political party. I mean the type of government. You believe that the majority of the people are right all of the time. I don't. Most of the people in this country think Hillary never knew of Bill's affairs. I'm more intelligent than that. People are stupid, and the government shouldn't represent their whims and desires on an immediate timeline. Gradual changes are fine, but banning 100% of something is too far, too quickly.
Over here, our government says "Marijuana is bad." To use your own analogy, what if you were a non-Christian living in the US and wanted to smoke Marijuana? What an outrage!
Exactly. If you want to smoke marijuana, go ahead. If you prefer to live your life on the dangerous edge, go for it. If you want to smoke and drive while talking on a cell phone, have fun, just don't hit anyone else. If you kill someone else, and you survive, I'll shoot you in the head myself. If you smoke marijuana in the privacy of your own home, while watching porn and jerking off with 100 of your closest personal friends, great. I wish you the best of luck, and I hope you can swim. The only law that's required for what I just said is "If you drive drunk or intoxicated in another fashion, due to mind-altering drugs, and kill someone else, you will be put to death immediately."
you don't like their rules, you leave, or try to work within the system in place to change the rules. It's as simple as that.
As an unpoliced system, the Internet is subject to no laws, and as such, I am free to speak my mind. Obviously, I AM working within the system to try to convince other people to change the rules in whatever country they live in (although I personally couldn't care less about Thailand).
You're precisely proving my point. The simple fact is that Pakistan (or for that matter Thailand, Singapore or India) treats it's citizens as just that - citizens. Their personal beliefs and values are respected within their homes and places of worship - society has a uniform set of values. (Okay - this is abused in a few countries, but generally this is the unwritten belief). To sum up, it least matters what your personal faith is, it's important that you're a Pakistani. And as they say, while in Rome, do as the Romans do.
.adult domain? Simple - the firms making money over porn wouldn't stand for it.
What? Society doesn't have uniform set of values! That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If society had a uniform set of values, there would be no murder, rape, war, genocide, etc! Every person has a different set of values and morals, and should. That's where the freedom to do what you desire comes into play. I don't WANT to go to Rome and do as they do, because I WANT to do what _I_ want to do. THAT is what "Western" civilization is all about, and it's why the United States is the best damn country in the world.
I didn't know killing was one of the rights of the govt. I'd imagine if they did it on a large scale, someone would stand up for them and put them in order (Iraq, for instance, assuming the horror stories were true).
Try avoiding your taxes sometime. You'll soon find that the government will take everything you own to get their "fair share". They'll probably even throw you in prison for a good long while. Remember Al Capone... "Tax Evasion". I know he wasn't exactly a role model citizen, but the government still put him in prison because they couldn't prove he was breaking any real laws.
OTOH, what has Corporate America done to prevent spam and porn from reaching kids?
It's not their job to police the content YOU let YOUR children see. I can explain to my children what spam and porn are, but obviously I'm in the minority. I guess I'm just plain too intelligent for my own good, because I can explain what sex, drugs, and rock and roll are to my children. Maybe I should just sit back and let the government tell them about condoms when they reach the ripe old age of 9.
Why can't there be a simple legislation requiring all adult content to be registered under a
There's a fundamental difference here. You believe that the government is the source for all rights within a country. I believe the government is the source of removing those rights. Everyone has a right and freedom to do anything they want. The government prohibits them from doing several things (murder, rape, etc.). All legislation costs money... my money. I pay taxes (much to my dismay), and those taxes are used to pay other people's salaries, and to give handouts to other people. You believe that's fine because "it's for the common good". I believe that's a bunch of crap because I work for my money, and I want to keep it. The difference is that you're a socialist, and I'm a libertarian. Therefore, you believe that the government exists to provide you with freedoms and possessions. I believe the government exists to limit your God-given freedoms and possessions.
I will probably get flamed for this, but I think this is a positive thing.
You're right. This is Flame Number One.
Growing up, I grappled with a gaming addiction. Going to school on three hours of sleep is not good for your education (despite what some articles might have you believe). In a perfect world, parents would be preventing their children from overloading on games. In reality, in these days of dual incomes and extracurricular activities, they aren't always able to, and it's a good thing that the government can step in and lend a hand.
I remember one time, back in the early 90's, I was playing too many video games and not doing my homework. I was still getting pretty good grades, mostly B's, but not the A's I was capable of. I was living only with my father, at the time, so there really wasn't anybody around for several hours a day to watch me (I was 12-13 at the time). My punishment was very limited video game access for 6 months, or until my grades improved. You know how my father accomplished that? He took my Super Nintendo to his workplace, put it in a box, and stuck it under his desk. It could have been in the car, at one of his friends' houses, or any number of a million other places. Was my father "special", or "lucky", or a "more talented" parent, or simply "more intelligent" than your parents? Probably. Maybe the easiest solution is for parents to be parents.
The alternative is medication (which is how I kicked the video game habit before I became the next Columbine), and that will just be more expensive to everyone in the long term.
Great idea. Let's just drug our children. After all, 6% of the children in this country actually have ADD, yet 17% (or more) are on Ritalin. We obviously need more drugs. While I'm on the subject, maybe you don't watch enough TV (because of your work schedule and all), but perhaps you've seen the commercials that try to drug all the adults now too? They're paid for by the company that produces Ritalin.
Curfews are cheap and effective.
What's cheap about it? Paying the government employees their union-decided wages to work minimal hours on doing the least-possible work? What's effective about a curfew? I was out all the time when I was a kid after the 10pm curfew that we had in our town. I walked past the police department at 2am, including officers and patrol cars (and I didn't look over the age of 12), and never once got taken home, or fined, or anything.
Another good approach might be to put a lower age limit on the use of Windows.
I'm not sticking up for Microsoft, but putting an age limit on software is insane. If my 3 year-old is intelligent enough to play Final Fantasy X, then damnit, he/she will play Final Fantasy X. Who's going to regulate and enforce that age? Microsoft? Then they'll be collecting more personal information about you, which I'm sure you'll love. The government? Oh wonderful. Another Total Information Awareness Act. Great idea.
You need to think out your arguments before you post... seriously. If your parents didn't want you playing games, they shouldn't have purchased the console for you. If you only had 3 hours of sleep every night, eventually, you'll fall over and sleep. It seems like it took you quite a few years, but you're mentally asleep now. Mission accomplished.
Do you ever know where such parental censorship has worked? I can name several where govt. censorhip has worked / is working well for all concerned. Pakistan, for instance, is developing a free porn-blocking s/w at the govt. level.
OK, good... now name one that's actually a good idea and has worked. What if I lived in Pakistan and wasn't a Muslim (or Buddist, or whatever) and WANTED to look at porn, but couldn't because the government regulated my internet traffic?
Never trust monopolists and capitalists to work for the good of you or your kids.The only values they understand are dollars and share-prices.
And NEVER trust the government, because they're the only group that can legally kill you and everyone you ever met "for the common good". I'd rather trust people concerned with money than people that could kill me for not trusting them... and get away with it. At least I agree that money is good. I definitely don't agree with killing me.
"Hi there! Sorry I abused a bug, repeatedly killed you, looted your corpse, and generally harrassed you. I know you've logged thousands of hours on this MUD, made many close friends, had memorable experiences, collected objects to remind you of particular events or special people who have left. But hey! It's just a game. So don't get so uptight!"
Would you like a tissue? I suppose if you were allowed to mandate that anyone that kills you, loots your corpse, or harrases you, all enemies in every video game in existence would be banned. Hey, if they hit you, they're infringing on your civil rights, correct? So obviously, the developers are evil, and must be made to pay... so sue them for every cent they made on the game.
The only authority to police online games, or do anything about it, are the developers, and the government... and I definitely don't want the government telling me what I can and can't do in Star Wars: Galaxies. The government is extremely effective in screwing up whatever it touches, so keep away from my game! The last thing I want is a fine from telling some bothersome virtual merchant that his prices are too high, and he can go F*** himself.
Here's a wild idea: Why not have the developers police their online games? You know, a rule that says you're not supposed to do anything stupid or harassing, and if you do, you can be banned from the game! Oh wait, that's already done. Wait, what about if the developers provide in-game assistants that players can report bugs and abuse to? Oh... that's already done too. How about an e-mail address that players can write to, like abuse@starwarsgalaxies.com or abuse@thesimsonline.com? Oh darn, that's done too.
The Gestapo, the Stasi, etc. existed and operated without vehicle tracking technology. To assume that the ability to track vehicles leads to the end to rights is absurd. Vehicles can already be tracked - a set of plainclothes cops can follow your car anywhere and you'd have no idea - the trouble starts when they pull you over for no reason and ...
... dishonest about the possibility of this, or any other, technology in a way that the general public might question. I'm glad there are people like you out there to show me the err of my ways.
You're so obviously correct. Who would have ever thought that an oppressive government would use whatever technology it could to "persuade" its citizens that they're really just protecting them? It seems so absurd now that I think about it. I really must have been smoking something to have thought that the government might been
What we really need, instead of tech paranoia, are laws governing the use of these systems, just as we already have for wiretaps, search warrants, etc.
I've got a question for you. Who is the only person or group that exists primarily within the borders of this country that can break any law it wants to, at any time it chooses? It's the government. They can lie about it later ("No, I did not have sexual relations with that woman.") and they'll most likely get off the hook. The government is the only person or group that can use deadly force, if necessary, to accomplish its goals. NEVER underestimate their willingness to do so... it could result in your death.
This is what that ever-troublesome clause of you contitution ("the right to bear arms") has given you - the option of forceful rebellion against a repressive government.
And that's EXACTLY why the Democrats and Socialists don't want the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land. They'd rather appoint people they can persuade into the Supreme Court, and rule that the 2nd Amendment was "Unconstitutional".
I've been waiting for this game for months. It looks like a Star Wars version of Neverwinter Nights, which was awesome. The only thing I don't like is how the PC version is going to be another 4 month-long wait.
Has anybody played it on the XBox? Any reviews available?
So you really believe that we are heading towards a holocaust? Or is that just an amateur debate ploy where you throw in the implicit or explicit comparison to Hitler?
I believe that if this country doesn't shape up soon, in a hundred years, people may look at the United States with as much disdain as people look at Germany with now. Whether that implies a holocaust between now and then is anyone's guess, but I'd assume that our liberties will slowly be stripped away, until eventually we have a dictatorship... and this country will fall into a secondary nation, just like Germany.
That is a very idealistic view you have of the founding of the country. I'm sure when asked about Benedict Arnold that Washington didn't say, "Hey! It's a free country. What he does on his own time is his own business."
Benedict Arnold deprived other citizens of this country of their lives, and did so in an act of Treason. That is, and was, punishable by death. I don't think I quite understand the point of your argument...
The Constitution was ordained and established for, among other things, to provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.
Exactly. My point precisely.
The current administration apparently feels they are doing this, though you may disagree with their tactics.
For the most part, I agree with their tactics. I don't agree with most of the PATRIOT Act, but in the Administration's defense, they needed a law drafted in a very short period of time. I think now would be a good time to revisit it and rewrite most of it.
The new republic was established for self-government (for over a hundred years before 1776 people were moving/relocating to the colonies for these freedoms), but I would argue with you that people set up a new government because they were being deprived of violence.
Perhaps my wording was confusing, but I meant the government is to protect its citizens from violence, and from deprivation of property.
I don't necessarily like him or dislike him. I will admit that I'm generally opposed to any Democratic presidential candidate, although if you can convince me that he isn't going to turn this Republic into a Socialist country, then I'll be glad to hear him out.
I assumed his stance on gun control simply because he is a Democrat, and it seems like the Democrats want to take power away from individuals, and give that power to the government, which I adamently oppose. They're also incredibly afraid of the Constitution, and want to overwrite it using the Supreme Court, which is why they oppose any conservative nominee to any court, specific Estrada. In that case, they're arguing that he won't answer their questions, but they haven't asked any... so they're trying to alter the Constitution by making it necessary to have 60 votes to allow his nomination. I have several other reasons I don't like Democrats, but I really don't want to get into all of them right now. But, if you can tell me why he's better than Bush, I'll listen.
I have a question for you that pertains to this discussiong in an indirect way. Does Howard Dean support gun control? For instance, if I, as a law-abiding citizen who's never been convicted of anything more than a single speeding ticket more than 5 years ago, wanted to purchase a 9mm semi-automatic pistol, would Howard Dean let me, without filling out a dozen forms and waiting 6 weeks (or whatever it is now)? Would he support extending those restrictions, or would he support eliminating them?
The reason I ask is that owning weapons is a Liberty guaranteed by the law of the land, the Constitution... so if Howard Dean doesn't want people like me to be able to defend ourslves, then I find it highly ironic that you'd post a quote from Benjamin Franklin about conserving our Liberties when your favorite Presidential candidate opposes one of the most important ones.
Ah yes, the keyboards of old could be thrown from a 747 into the middle of the Pacifac, and when they washed ashore, they would still function... but they didn't have an E-mail button. After all, what good is a keyboard without an E-mail button?
I knew as soon as I read your comment that you'd get lots of responses, and you have, but none that I've read so far have given you the correct answer, IMHO.
I'm sure that in 1937, all the German people thought their government was the greatest thing on the planet. I'm sure that even the Jews didn't really think they had anything to worry about, after all, they weren't breaking any laws. Within a few year, though, Hitler made sure that laws were created that the Jews, just by being Jewish, were breaking. According to Hitler, that made them a threat to his country, and they had to separated. Since some of the resisted, they had to disposed of. It's a harsh truth, but as far as Hitler was concerned, everything he was doing was perfectly acceptable. The Jews, before the late 30's, didn't think anything was wrong... obviously they were mistaken.
Just because you're not breaking any laws now doesn't mean you won't next week, next month, or next year. We have a government that has the power to create laws. The only thing the general population can do is protest, but in the end, the only way the politicians will regret what they do is if they're not re-elected, which in the worst case (Senators) can be 6 years later (I'll also mention that in the original Constitution, Senators weren't supposed to be elected, but rather chosen by the State Legislature). Even if a new law was drafted and passed that would require (insert your ethnic group here) to register in the middle of the desert in Nevada, realistically, there's nothing you could do about it for the next few years, until the sponsors of the bill were up for re-election.
The Bill of Rights was based on certain God-given (not Government-given) rights, such as the freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. One of the rights that isn't specifically mentioned is the Freedom of a certain amount of Privacy. Where I go on vacation is my choice, and I feel it's a matter of privacy. If I decide to go to Mount Rushmore alone, and not tell anybody about it, I don't want anybody else to know. That's my choice, and it's a freedom I expect from living in a country where the national anthem says "Land of the Free". Free to do what? To have the government track my movements, wherever I go? Is that what the Founding Fathers thought when they left England? "Gee, General Washington, I think we should create a government that can monitor and oppress its people whenever it wants with almost no possibility of retribution." I somehow doubt it.
The fact that we're discussing what freedoms and liberties are violated by the government tracking our movements tells me that people have forgotten why this country was founded in the first place. This country was founded so people could make lives for themselves doing whatever they chose, as long as they didn't deprive someone else of their freedoms. The government was created for the sole purpose of protecting people from deprivation of property and violence. The government was the friend of the people 200 years ago, but now is an entity to be looked upon with fear and apprehension. The "values" of "diversity" and "equal" rights are responsible. People that work for a living now have up to 40% of their earnings taken away and given to people that don't work for a living. Credit is given to people based on the color of their skins. "Equal rights" is a joke now, only funny to those that get things handed to them. To everyone else, it's a threat of violence or incarceration.
The people of this country need to seriously look at what their country has become, then we need to fix it.
Try doing that with WinXP. I know for a fact it takes roughly 2 to 3 hours to go from CD to fully patched OS.
You're nuts. I do it for a living, and it's never taken me over 2 hours... in fact, the one time it took an hour and a half to install Service Pack 1, I ended up replacing the motherboard, which fixed it. It's even faster if you install from a CD with Service Pack 1 included, as most new PC's are shipped. I just did it, and to do the following (I didn't have to install Windows, but I did install many other things), it took me LESS than 1 hour:
Plug in the keyboard, mouse, monitor, ethernet, and PC (and I had to run back to my office for a power strip)
Install ALL of the Windows Updates
Install Office XP, everything included
Add PC to the domain, and add appropriate users to Administrator group
Install and set up Corporate Norton 8
Install Acrobat Reader 6
Install Netscape 4.79 (it's a standard procedure... to my dismay)
Install Eudora 5.2 (again, damned procedure)
If you remove Office, Acrobat, Netscape, Norton, and Eudora, I'm sure you could take that time to install Windows itself. You're absolutely insane (or incompetent) if it takes you 3 hours.
Absolutely. Why not? You could use it as a propelant. Shoot in one direction, and you'd go in the other. If anybody on the ship starts acting strange (a la, Michael Beihn in The Abyss) shoot them and dump their body on Mars. If it's still there in 6 months, then you know there aren't any carnivorous animals runnin around.
I forgot about water... it could be tricky. I don't think Hydrogen would be hard to come by, but Oxygen might be. Perhaps we could construct oxygen molecules from carbon? Given that we can produce artificial molecules, can we actually make an oxygen molecule fairly easily? If so, I've got the easiest solution... build the machine to create oxygen molecules on Mars' surface. Turn it on, and let it crank away. If we can make oxygen molecules, it couldn't be too hard to make water molecules... one oxygen, and two hydrogen. Easy as pie.
Good call! I can have one for you by next Thursday!
No, but seriously, I absolutely agree. At first, I thought that the ISS was supposed to be that starting point, but either I misunderstood, or NASA got sidetracked... again. I just want them to do SOMETHING worthwhile. It seems like forever since any good news from them.
What are the main requirements for a manned space flight to Mars? Oxygen, fuel, and (duh) people (if I'm missing any, let me know). Oxygen seems like a no-brainer. Just have a bunch of plants, and there ya go (yes, I know it's SLIGHTLY more complicated than that, but this is a generalization). Fuel doesn't seem like a major concern either. I'd be glad to volunteer for the first manned mission to Mars, so I'm guessing "people" would be easy to come by... just pick up a bunch of homeless people and ship them up. The next step is landing the ship, and setting up a base camp. No problem. We can already do landings, and as far as a base camp, how about a relatively small half-sphere of glass with the necessary supports? Doesn't seem too difficult to me, all in all. I've seen it in lots of movies...
I think it's about time we looked seriously at starting a colony on Mars. It's fairly obvious that space travel in general is still pretty risky business, so why not go for the gold, in a manner of speaking?
As long as the astronauts are risking their lives (and spending MY tax dollars), do something I'll be able to tell my grandchildren about. I don't give a rat's ass about "mapping to outer solar system cometary fields and Kuiper Belt" or looking "for water-ice on the closest planet to the Sun". Whether there's water on Mercury doesn't affect me, or my children, or their children is any discernible way. Building a city on Mars does. Let's get to it.
Not to mention losing 2 out of the 5 shuttles because engineers sorta just "guessed" a problem was okay.
What other option was there? I'm definitely not a NASA astro-physicist, but it seems pretty logical to me that there's no such thing as a rescue mission in space... yet. I do admit that the recent disaster might have been avoided if they would have fixed the broken tiles on the wing, but how would they do that? Do they have spare pieces of everything in the shuttle, just in case something happens? Eventually you have to realize that the chance that a relatively minor mishap could turn into a disaster might outweigh the time and cost of attempting an ad-hoc, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants temporary solution.
Considering that the human eye can only see 90fps, I don't think 260fps is really anything to complain about. Now, maybe if you tried something 10 times more complex, and got only 26fps, I could understand a complaint or two... but try it, and if you get 80fps, I don't think that's so bad.
nVidia, OTOH, actually writes drivers, but keeps the source closed.
I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember that NVidia released their last Linux driver as a large script... IANAP, but I think having a driver as a gigantic (6.26mb) script file would qualify as "source".
I've been a fan of NVidia for a long time... since the Riva TNT2 came out back in the day. One of the major things that contributed to their success (in my opinion) is their driver support. For Windows, there's only 1 download for all of their graphics cards. Granted, it's about 30mb, but it works. With Linux, they've always been forthcoming with drivers, even when the kernel supports the cards (in the most basic way).
With the release of the Radeon 9800 and above, ATI is (arguably) finally catching up to NVidia in terms of quality graphics cards... it almost seemed a matter of time until something broke, and I guess the Linux drivers were the first thing. I just hope they keep their All-in-Wonder cards coming. If I ever save up enough money to buy another video card (holy crap, $400 for a modern one these days?), I'll definitely get one of those (I have a GeForce 4 Ti4600 right now).
I still like NVidia, I just hope their next card is better (and quieter) than the GeForce FX.