That's too much. Give me $25,000 and we'll call it fair. What, I don't get to tell you when YOU have too much, but you can tell me when I do?
Do you get the point?
Anything beyond that $75,000 is not needed.
No, anything beyond $40k/year is not needed. I can get by on that, so can you. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
If people were reasonable, they'd be able to identify what they don't need. (Yachts, cruises, SUVs, mansions, etc... are not needs)
Huh? My SUV gets me to work and back, and carries me and my gear to the search and rescue missions I volunteer my time for. Who are you to tell me that I don't need my SUV?
What you are arguing for is a plotocracy: a society in which power and virtue should be given and attributed to the rich simply because they are rich.
Incorrect. I am arguing for no such thing. I am making the observation that being rich is not necessarily being a "selfish bastard", and that keeping what one has worked to earn is an incentive to further production. And, of course, the basic argument was that "you have more than you need" was a fair way of dealing with other people -- and I'm on the side of "of course it isn't."
The fastest growing economy in the world today is run by the Chinese communist government.
I don't know the numbers, so all I can say is "perhaps" it is the fastest. I do know that while it is being run by a government called "communist", that doesn't mean it is being run under communist ideals. In fact, China's economy took off only after a fair bit of capitalism snuck in. Let people keep the fruits of their labor, they labor more. Take away what they produce to give it to someone else, they do the minimum. It's not a difficult concept.
But, supporting the right to be a "selfish bastard" is just like supporting the right to be a murder or rapist.
I'm glad that hyperbole is not a lost art.
You are wrong. The difference is so patently obvious that I cannot imagine that you were serious.
Supporting the right of one to keep what one has worked to earn is nothing like supporting the "right" for someone to murder or rape. The former supports property rights, the latter destroys them.
There is nothing good about selfishness when it doesn't serve the needs of society as a whole.
You have yet to support an argument that this "selfishness" (keeping what one has worked to earn even if it is more than what eno2001 thinks is necessary) is harmful to society. In fact, the counter argument has already been produced: keeping what one has worked to earn is incentive to produce more wealth. The implication of class enviests is that this wealth stays only with the rich; the facts show that a lot of the wealth gets put back into the system for others to share.
Oh my God, a "rich person" might buy filet mignon instead of hamburger. Who does he buy it from? How many people does that grocer employ? Who sells it to the grocer in the first place? Does the farmer hire people to help with the cows? Will the grocer perhaps hire someone to deliver filet mignon to the rich person? Will the rich person maybe employ someone to cook the filet mignon for him? Oh my God, the rich person buys a Rolls instead of a Yugo. He may also hire someone to drive it for him. The Rolls dealer hires people to sell cars, and to repair them for the rich person, because it is a certainty that the rich person ain't gonna be doing his own oil changes. It sure looks like that "rich person" is spreading money around to a lot of people at just the first level.
Here's a simple question: if Sam Walton stopped at owning one store ("enough"), who would be paying the pilots for the corporate aircraft, or who would be buying the jet fuel which supports the FBOs and line personnel, or who pays the mid-level managers who don't have jobs because one store doesn't need mid-level managers? What about the jet he didn't buy, which provided paychecks to the aircraft company workers, and to the part manufacturers who built the parts that go into the plane? How about this: imagine the communications infrastructure necessary to manage all the Walmarts around the world, and then imagine all the people not being employed because Sam's single store doesn't need any of it. Then answer this: with just one store, Sam gets nowhere near the volume discounts he gets with a thousand, so prices are higher than they would otherwise be. Who pays the higher prices? Everyone who shops at Walmart today benefits from the scale of operations that would not exist if Sam Walton was stuck with "what is necessary for Sam Walton according to eno2001."
Given all the money that "rich people" already pump back into the system, the implication that letting them keep what they earn is making them a "selfish bastard" is just ridiculous, and the comparison of keeping what one earns to being a rapist or a murderer is pathetic.
Of course sharing is voluntary. When sharing is not voluntary, it is called something else. If you try to share something of mine when I don't want you to, it's called "theft". When the government tries to share my stuff, it's called "eminent domain" or some other high-sounding euphemism for "theft".
...it's a moral obligation.... What's the point in my keeping more of a resource than I need?
Here is where your argument fails. You can talk about sharing your toys because you have more than you need, but once you start talking about sharing someone else's toys because you decide for them that they have more than they need, it is no longer "voluntary" and thus no longer "sharing", no matter what high sounding moral terms you put it in. Your 'moral obligations' are not binding on anyone else. They're yours to deal with, not mine.
If some people can't be bothered to help others who are less fotunate out, then they are typically the root cause of the problem.
This illustrates the second fallacy of your argument. Reworded slightly, you are saying: "the rich are filthy bastards because they have money they won't give to other people. They have 'more than they need'. ". Well, yes, they have money, but they've also done something to earn that money that includes making things better for others. (Let's ignore Carly and her platinum parachute for now, since there are always outliers in the data. Most "rich" aren't like her.)
Even Sam Walton has done some good for a lot of people -- they have jobs selling cheap stuff to the rest of us, or driving trucks delivering cheap stuff to the stores where we can buy it. Even the Chinese, who get paid a pittance (in US dollars) are probably better off than they would be otherwise, since they have jobs, too. (And yes, they could be paid more.) So, there are a lot of people that Sam "helps out", just like every other entrepreneur who hires folks to help him make money. Yes, he keeps what you think is "more than he needs", but if you take it away from him to meet YOUR definition of need, why should he bother working to make anything more than what you'll so graciously let him keep?
Why would anyone want to work any harder than the minimum necessary, if all they get to keep is what you decide they need? And then, when they figure out that they could just as easily be one of the folks on the receiving end of things instead of the producing end, there goes the incentive to even get up in the morning. And that's the point behind the failure of communism and every other welfare system.
Security of my papers includes the right to not have to show ID to an agent of the state.
Most state ids are and remain the property of the state. Technically, your DL or passport are not YOUR papers, they belong to the state.
Anonymity and privacy are not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights; that doesn't mean we don't have 'em.
Yep. That's the clincher.
There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants the federal government the power to infringe on anonymity.
Unless such anonymity iterferes with any of the powers the government does have. For example, anonymity and paying taxes aren't compatible. I'd be surprised if regulation of interstate commerce could work very well if too many participants were anonymous. And I'd sure as hell not want anonymous search warrants.
He may be a horrible man, but he is innocent of the WMD charges until proven guilty.
So, all those Kurds who died were what, victims of mass hysteria? The scuds he lobbed at Israel were filled with what, popcorn? The chemical rockets found AFTER troops went in were intended to deliver what, coca-cola to his thirsty admirers?
He had them. Fact. The fact we cannot find more of them now doesn't mean they didn't exist (since we already KNOW they existed), just that he managed to get them out of the country or buried. There were a lot of trucks leaving town before we got there; it's not too far a leap to speculate what they contained.
But truth be told, Al Gore did more to bolster the internet then any other politician. Without his work, it's doubtful that many people outside the scientific, academic & military community would be using the Internet today.
No, I have no doubt that the internet would have taken off without Gore's help. There were just too many people who saw the rainbow just out of reach for the commercialism not to have happened. There were commercial "networks" popping up prior to the opening of the Internet. Many people used those, and then eventually got a link into the internet. It wasn't like the commercial providers were ignorant about their customer's wants. I remember the hoople when Compuserve said you could send email to the internet!
You might argue that the "internet" would have remained closed and that the commercial side would have been a replacement for (instead of an absorption of) the existing internet, but that's not a significant difference, and probably still wouldn't happen. I mean, if the academic side saw all the fun going on over on the commercial side, they'd have links into it by now, too. In fact, it would be cheaper, most likely, for the academics to join a fresh commercial internet than for them to continue their own network. (E.g., BITNET.)
Al Gore brought attention to the need to expand it, give it more money and make it more widely available. Look at the article. It quotes Vint Cerf as acknowledging that Al Gore deserves kudos.
Does he deserve kudos for promoting the funding of an open internet? I've already said I will not debate whether his funding was important, because it was. Does he deserve kudos for pointing to an existing network and saying that it ought to be open to the public? I've not said otherwise.
The issue being discussed is his claim to have "taken the initiative in creating the Internet". Since he did not do that, he deserves no kudos for that. He was patting himself on the back for something he simply did not do, and could not have done, since the item he "created" already existed. Gore's not a dummy. He knew what he was saying and to whom, and he knew how most people would understand his claim.
Microsoft tries the same trick and they get roundly denounced in this forum. Al Gore does it and a gaggle of apologists leap to his defence every time his statement comes up, trying to shout down those who think it was a silly thing to say by insulting them -- "liars and morons" is the current shout. Sorry, folks, but some of us remember him saying it, and know better than to think he didn't.
1) You have admitted that you are wrong about the exact quote.
I did no such thing, since I did not quote him. He said he took the initiative in creating the internet, and that's what I said he said. You are putting words in my mouth.
2) The man took credit for something he did.
That is a lie. He claimed credit for creating the internet. He did not do that. As I already said, he may have improved funding for it, but "funding" and "creating" are two different words.
3) He is a politician. ALL POLITICIANS EXAGGERATE.
And this one got called on it. If they all do it, why are you so touchy about this one getting caught?
4) The republicans in particular...
Are actually irrelevant to this discussion, other than to point out that democrats love to point fingers at every slip of the tongue that republicans make while bending over backwards to rewrite history when democrats do it.
Yes, Gore gave a statement that some might consider an exaggeration of his work.
Actually, a lie. He didn't create what already existed when he got to the Senate. He could neither create nor take the initiative in creating what already existed.
It is far less a crime then you are accusing him,
I am accusing him of no crime. You apparently don't know the difference between what I have said and what you are making up for me.
By any reasonable definition, you count as a either a Liar
By pointing out Gore's lie, I am the liar. That's typical.
or a moron, for not understanding what he did and what you did.
I didn't claim credit for creating the internet. He did. I know the difference between funding and creating. He does not. You decide who the moron is.
Now, for your extraneous flibbering regarding WMD. You can try to rewrite history there, too, but some of us remember that Saddam did, indeed, have WMD, which he freely used against his own people (e.g., the Kurds in northern Iraq), and against neighbors (e.g., scud missles with chemical warheads lobbed into Isreal). Further, WMD were found by the troops after they entered Iraq, namely a large cache of chemical rockets. So, pretending that he did NOT have WMD is simply ridiculous, and just another example of attempts to rewrite history.
Here's the exact text of what he said, word for word:
... I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
He NEVER said he invented the internet.
No, just that he "took the initiative" in creating it. After it was already created. The truth is, of course, that the Internet had been created before he got to the Senate, and one cannot "create" what someone else has already created.
Now, what he probably MEANT to say is that he took the initiative for further funding of the Internet and taking it out of the hands of the researchers and opening it to the vast unwashed hordes, but sadly, that is not what he actually said, as you have pointed out. "Creating" and "funding" are not the same thing. I will not debate whether or not he took initiatives in funding expansion of what others created.
Since Democrats take great pleasure in quoting every slip of the tongue every Republican ever made, I think it quite fair for Gore to be gored by the same ox. He made a patently absurd claim in a bid to gain the techno-geek vote, and it backfired on him.
Whether it was deliberate or a true slip, we'll never know, but he's supposed to be intelligent enough to know the difference between "create" and "fund", so the inferrence is the former. However, politicians are a little weak on differentiating between the two, and maybe he's one of them, so maybe it was a slip.
He is just as responsible for creating the internet as Lee, DARPA, or anyone else.
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Providing further funding for something that has already been created is not creating, not claiming "just as responsible" is just ludicrous.
You're either a moron or a liar.
Those who claim he did not say what he certainly did say are the liars. Those who cannot differentiate between "fund" and "create" are the morons. I'm not the one trying to rewrite history.
Since he wasn't yet a Senator when the ARPAnet was created, no, I didn't see him on the floor of the Senate proposing funding for it. And neither did you.
And whoever modded my first comment a troll is wrong.
He's not taking credit for creating the internet, although people are trying to falsely pin it on him.
It's very hard to deny something that he said in this modern age, what with it appearing on TV and being recorded for posterity and all. Too many people saw his mouth moving and heard the words that came out for this attempt at rewriting history to be effective.
I'm one of the people who saw his lips moving and heard the words, and if he was lip-syncing someone else's words, damn if he wasn't doing a perfect job of it.
Actually, many people believe that the government is not our parents and is not here to give us everything we want. The government is not here to feed us, clothe us, or to wipe our bottoms after we poop. It has a specific set of responsibilities, and "wireless internet" is not one of them.
Unfortunately, those who think the government IS our parents and should give us our every want and desire are getting their way right now, because they whine about how awful it is that some people don't fend for themselves and how it is inhumane to make them. It is time for that pendulum to start swinging the other way.
Visual waste as in excessive light poluttion might be valid.
And visual waste as in "ugly and causes property values to go down because nobody wants to see them nextdoor" is just as valid.
Why should your resale value limit my right to do what I want on my own property?
Because your "rights" are harming others. Your rights end and the property line.
Annoying you doesn't mean I'm exceeding my rights.
Yes, actually, it does. You are infringing on MY rights at that point, and you don't have that right.
IMO a cell tower falls into the category of annoying but not greatly annoying.
"Causing a considerable loss of value to someone else's property" is not just annoying.
Until then we just have to try to treat each other like we'd like to be treated.
Yep, and since I wouldn't want my neighbors hosting cell towers in their backyards, I'll not host them in mine. But that's a two-edged sword. I'd appreciate it if you would treat me with the same respect, instead of dismissing my property loss as "not annoying enough".
Random thought.. why is it that we think cell towers are ugly and trees aren't?
Because trees are part of the landscape that was here when we got here, and cell towers are not.
Personally I think of both as similar and ignore both.
What a drab existance you must lead.
Why should a cell tower effect your property value other than people are retards that think nature is beautiful and manmade stuff is ugly?
Ahh, yes, the actual crux of your argument appears: people are just too stupid to agree with you that cell towers are beautiful works of art. Not only just stupid, they are actually retarded. You are a pleasant human being who needs, perhaps, to stop and look at nature a bit more and appreciate what we had.
Does that include Peggy and Ray Buckey (McMartin Preschool), and Robin Byrum, Darlene Harris, Elizabeth "Betsy" Kelly, Robert "Bob" Kelly, Scott Willard Privott, Shelly Stone (Little Rascals Preschool), who were all accused of ridiculous numbers and kinds of "child abuse", some of whom were convicted, and some plead "no contest" just to get away from the insanity?
If you think that all they deserve is "a swift execution", then let's just hand a gun to every local prosecutor, since both cases above are generally accepted instances of prosecutors who got a bug up their ass about someone and got incompetent child "psychologists" to help kids dream up fantastic claims about impossible abuses.
Look them up. Kids who were taken on space ships into outer space to be abused. Lions used to scare children. One accuser didn't even go to the daycare center while the person he accused worked there. Kids who claimed nothing had happened were labelled "abused" and told they were suffering from repressed memories. But let's just shoot the perps and be done with it, ok?
Were those in question human, your point would have merit.
Is it too obvious to everyone to have to point out that this could easily have been a quote from Herr Goering or Dr. Mengele?
The correct answer is to actually sentence a criminal to a life sentence if you feel his crime merits life-long punishment. Don't sentence him to 6 years if you intend on making him pay forever.
If you are going to "label" and track sex criminals, then I demand that you label and track burglars, too, since I have no kids but I do own stuff that can be stolen. If recidivism is an excuse for perpetual punishment, look no further than the recidivism of theives.
These people wouldn't receive the weather emergencies if they weren't at their computer anyway, so it's not something that should be relied upon for immediate communication.
I have some email addresses that get forwarded to my phone. I have an email address FOR my phone. My phone is always on, and I am almost always near it. I don't have to be "at my computer" to get my email. How old-fashioned, thinking one would have to be "at a computer" to get email.
I hope AOL gets its pants sued off for blocking SOLICITED email notices of life-threatening conditions, and I hope it doesn't take a death for it to happen.
Company approaches ham - "You apply for tower. We fund it. We build it. You own it. We lease it. You can put your stuff on it."
Won't ever happen. There is too much likelyhood of intermod from the closely located transmitters, and intermod would cost the cellphone company money and make the subscribers unhappy. If the cellphone company cannot say "turn off the transmitter" to the ham, they won't let it on the tower, and if they CAN say 'turn it off', that will be the first thing they say at the first hint of a problem of any kind.
Does ANYONE know of ANY amateur repeaters colocated on a cellphone tower? I don't. That would be one public-service benefit the cellco's could tout, but they don't.
Why do people accept regular phone poles but make such a fuss over cel towers?
Why do people make the specious argument that one bad thing existing is a reason to have more bad things?
"People" don't all accept regular towers. In some communities, power is delivered underground, and everyone I know thinks this a much more visually appealing method. And many of them would like it if theirs were underground, too. It costs more, and there is no pressing reason to convert if the poles are already there, but for new developments, it's a good thing.
And those who aren't lucky enough to have underground utilities are adult enough to accept that the poles carry something necessary -- electricity -- while cell phone towers don't. And cell towers don't need to be located near houses, since the "wires" they don't carry don't need to go to any houses. I know, that's a poorly worded way of saying that electric poles have to be near houses because the wires they carry GO to those houses, and cell phone towers are just radio towers that don't need to be near the destination visisbly.
Pumping more watts, i.e., more of those photons per second, doesn't change that. There is no such thing as needing 100 photons to cause a transition. Either _one_ causes it, or any amount doesn't.
Ummm, as someone who spent several years dealing with atomic spectroscopy in college, I can tell you that you are wrong. There are two photon transitions, and even three, four, etc ones. My PhD work was based on two-photon ionization of sodium (and a few other atoms). Smack sodium with "orange photons" (D lines), and then with a UV photon, and bingo, they're ionized.
The 'cross-section' for multi-photon events is smaller than for single ones, typically, because both photons need to be there almost simultaneously, so yes, there is a difference between having a small number of photons and a large number -- the latter being more likely to cause a transition. And even with single photon events, the more photons you have the more likely at least one is going to cause a transition, especially for some of the smaller cross-section events.
And, of course, the more photons, the more atoms that are likely to absorb something, even if all it does take is one to have some effect. You could easily survive one single photon event somewhere in your body; you wouldn't survive a billion of them quite so easily.
So, summary: it's not one or none, and more is worse.
Farming, I think, does have more reasons for some controls. There should be some control as to the waste output of farms.
When it is something you like, you question the right of anyone to tell someone else how to use their property, but when it is something you don't like, it's "reasons for some controls".
You quite rightly identified the justification for controls, however. When what someone does on their property effects those around them, it does become their business. You notice the problem when the issue is "waste leaking into the water", but don't quite understand the concept of "visual waste". And apparently "property value" doesn't ring a bell at all.
I think this has to do with unfortunate choice of words we electrical engineers use to describe antenna performance: Radiation. It scares the art students.
No, I think it has to do with the monstrous eyesores that are being constructed every place you look, called "cell phone antennas". People see how ugly and intrusive these things are, and then you come along and say YOU want to put an antenna up, too. You're getting painted with the cellphone antenna paintbrush.
And yes, they are ugly, and no, I do not want them making the already cluttered community landscape any uglier, and no, they certainly don't belong on every hilltop you can see. And yes, I'm a ham, and I deal with emergency services and the local sheriff's office.
The initial question is: "Is there such a thing as legitimate download of copyrighted material?" The answer to that one is, of course, YES, of course there is. If you are reading this response, you've just downloaded the copyrighted material I just wrote.
The example, however, is a different issue. The answer to that one is "NO, not in the USA." This issue has been in the courts, if I remember correctly, and that is why the service that used to allow people to store and download copies of music CD's they already own no longer exists. MP3.COM, I think it was. You could download ripped tracks after you proved you owned a copy of the CD.
See, I wonder if that wasn't just a misunderstanding on their--or your--end.
Nope. When I asked them, as I did multiple times to two different people, "does this include static IP's" and they answer, as they did every time, "yes", then it isn't a "misunderstanding", it's a lie. We also talked about why they provided only 5 static IP's, and how the 3-bit netblock they assigned had one static allocated to each end of the line and one broadcast, leaving 5 out of the 8 addresses for the user. The fact that we talked about Qwest NOT providing DNS service for those static IP addresses only backs up their understanding that we were talking about static IP addresses.
But it also seems to me that anyone who needs a static IP would also have a fixed top-level domain name they can point to an IP (and thus wouldn't need a free solution)...
I have a "fixed" top-level domain name. The reason I was buying DSL was to GET an IP address to associate with that. People who have domain names gotta get the IP from somewhere, don't they?
... or don't have any use for a domain name at all, since the IP never changes.
You really don't understand the purpose of domain names, do you? Domain names are useful even for static IP addresses so that people don't have to remember IP addresses, they can remember names. "example.com" is a lot easier to remember than "192.168.0.1", and even if the underlying IP address changes (due to servive provider changes), the domain name won't. Just try telling someone that your email address is "joe@[192.168.0.1]" and watch their eyes glaze over; compare that to "joe@example.com".
Slashdot Mirror
That's too much. Give me $25,000 and we'll call it fair. What, I don't get to tell you when YOU have too much, but you can tell me when I do?
Do you get the point?
Anything beyond that $75,000 is not needed.
No, anything beyond $40k/year is not needed. I can get by on that, so can you. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
If people were reasonable, they'd be able to identify what they don't need. (Yachts, cruises, SUVs, mansions, etc... are not needs)
Huh? My SUV gets me to work and back, and carries me and my gear to the search and rescue missions I volunteer my time for. Who are you to tell me that I don't need my SUV?
Incorrect. I am arguing for no such thing. I am making the observation that being rich is not necessarily being a "selfish bastard", and that keeping what one has worked to earn is an incentive to further production. And, of course, the basic argument was that "you have more than you need" was a fair way of dealing with other people -- and I'm on the side of "of course it isn't."
The fastest growing economy in the world today is run by the Chinese communist government.
I don't know the numbers, so all I can say is "perhaps" it is the fastest. I do know that while it is being run by a government called "communist", that doesn't mean it is being run under communist ideals. In fact, China's economy took off only after a fair bit of capitalism snuck in. Let people keep the fruits of their labor, they labor more. Take away what they produce to give it to someone else, they do the minimum. It's not a difficult concept.
I'm glad that hyperbole is not a lost art.
You are wrong. The difference is so patently obvious that I cannot imagine that you were serious. Supporting the right of one to keep what one has worked to earn is nothing like supporting the "right" for someone to murder or rape. The former supports property rights, the latter destroys them.
There is nothing good about selfishness when it doesn't serve the needs of society as a whole.
You have yet to support an argument that this "selfishness" (keeping what one has worked to earn even if it is more than what eno2001 thinks is necessary) is harmful to society. In fact, the counter argument has already been produced: keeping what one has worked to earn is incentive to produce more wealth. The implication of class enviests is that this wealth stays only with the rich; the facts show that a lot of the wealth gets put back into the system for others to share.
Oh my God, a "rich person" might buy filet mignon instead of hamburger. Who does he buy it from? How many people does that grocer employ? Who sells it to the grocer in the first place? Does the farmer hire people to help with the cows? Will the grocer perhaps hire someone to deliver filet mignon to the rich person? Will the rich person maybe employ someone to cook the filet mignon for him? Oh my God, the rich person buys a Rolls instead of a Yugo. He may also hire someone to drive it for him. The Rolls dealer hires people to sell cars, and to repair them for the rich person, because it is a certainty that the rich person ain't gonna be doing his own oil changes. It sure looks like that "rich person" is spreading money around to a lot of people at just the first level.
Here's a simple question: if Sam Walton stopped at owning one store ("enough"), who would be paying the pilots for the corporate aircraft, or who would be buying the jet fuel which supports the FBOs and line personnel, or who pays the mid-level managers who don't have jobs because one store doesn't need mid-level managers? What about the jet he didn't buy, which provided paychecks to the aircraft company workers, and to the part manufacturers who built the parts that go into the plane? How about this: imagine the communications infrastructure necessary to manage all the Walmarts around the world, and then imagine all the people not being employed because Sam's single store doesn't need any of it. Then answer this: with just one store, Sam gets nowhere near the volume discounts he gets with a thousand, so prices are higher than they would otherwise be. Who pays the higher prices? Everyone who shops at Walmart today benefits from the scale of operations that would not exist if Sam Walton was stuck with "what is necessary for Sam Walton according to eno2001."
Given all the money that "rich people" already pump back into the system, the implication that letting them keep what they earn is making them a "selfish bastard" is just ridiculous, and the comparison of keeping what one earns to being a rapist or a murderer is pathetic.
Some of us are old enough that we have SS cards that say explicitely that they are NOT to be used as ID.
Of course sharing is voluntary. When sharing is not voluntary, it is called something else. If you try to share something of mine when I don't want you to, it's called "theft". When the government tries to share my stuff, it's called "eminent domain" or some other high-sounding euphemism for "theft".
Here is where your argument fails. You can talk about sharing your toys because you have more than you need, but once you start talking about sharing someone else's toys because you decide for them that they have more than they need, it is no longer "voluntary" and thus no longer "sharing", no matter what high sounding moral terms you put it in. Your 'moral obligations' are not binding on anyone else. They're yours to deal with, not mine.
If some people can't be bothered to help others who are less fotunate out, then they are typically the root cause of the problem.
This illustrates the second fallacy of your argument. Reworded slightly, you are saying: "the rich are filthy bastards because they have money they won't give to other people. They have 'more than they need'. ". Well, yes, they have money, but they've also done something to earn that money that includes making things better for others. (Let's ignore Carly and her platinum parachute for now, since there are always outliers in the data. Most "rich" aren't like her.)
Even Sam Walton has done some good for a lot of people -- they have jobs selling cheap stuff to the rest of us, or driving trucks delivering cheap stuff to the stores where we can buy it. Even the Chinese, who get paid a pittance (in US dollars) are probably better off than they would be otherwise, since they have jobs, too. (And yes, they could be paid more.) So, there are a lot of people that Sam "helps out", just like every other entrepreneur who hires folks to help him make money. Yes, he keeps what you think is "more than he needs", but if you take it away from him to meet YOUR definition of need, why should he bother working to make anything more than what you'll so graciously let him keep?
Why would anyone want to work any harder than the minimum necessary, if all they get to keep is what you decide they need? And then, when they figure out that they could just as easily be one of the folks on the receiving end of things instead of the producing end, there goes the incentive to even get up in the morning. And that's the point behind the failure of communism and every other welfare system.
Security of my papers includes the right to not have to show ID to an agent of the state.
Most state ids are and remain the property of the state. Technically, your DL or passport are not YOUR papers, they belong to the state.
Anonymity and privacy are not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights; that doesn't mean we don't have 'em.
Yep. That's the clincher.
There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants the federal government the power to infringe on anonymity.
Unless such anonymity iterferes with any of the powers the government does have. For example, anonymity and paying taxes aren't compatible. I'd be surprised if regulation of interstate commerce could work very well if too many participants were anonymous. And I'd sure as hell not want anonymous search warrants.
So, all those Kurds who died were what, victims of mass hysteria? The scuds he lobbed at Israel were filled with what, popcorn? The chemical rockets found AFTER troops went in were intended to deliver what, coca-cola to his thirsty admirers?
He had them. Fact. The fact we cannot find more of them now doesn't mean they didn't exist (since we already KNOW they existed), just that he managed to get them out of the country or buried. There were a lot of trucks leaving town before we got there; it's not too far a leap to speculate what they contained.
No, I have no doubt that the internet would have taken off without Gore's help. There were just too many people who saw the rainbow just out of reach for the commercialism not to have happened. There were commercial "networks" popping up prior to the opening of the Internet. Many people used those, and then eventually got a link into the internet. It wasn't like the commercial providers were ignorant about their customer's wants. I remember the hoople when Compuserve said you could send email to the internet!
You might argue that the "internet" would have remained closed and that the commercial side would have been a replacement for (instead of an absorption of) the existing internet, but that's not a significant difference, and probably still wouldn't happen. I mean, if the academic side saw all the fun going on over on the commercial side, they'd have links into it by now, too. In fact, it would be cheaper, most likely, for the academics to join a fresh commercial internet than for them to continue their own network. (E.g., BITNET.)
Does he deserve kudos for promoting the funding of an open internet? I've already said I will not debate whether his funding was important, because it was. Does he deserve kudos for pointing to an existing network and saying that it ought to be open to the public? I've not said otherwise.
The issue being discussed is his claim to have "taken the initiative in creating the Internet". Since he did not do that, he deserves no kudos for that. He was patting himself on the back for something he simply did not do, and could not have done, since the item he "created" already existed. Gore's not a dummy. He knew what he was saying and to whom, and he knew how most people would understand his claim.
Microsoft tries the same trick and they get roundly denounced in this forum. Al Gore does it and a gaggle of apologists leap to his defence every time his statement comes up, trying to shout down those who think it was a silly thing to say by insulting them -- "liars and morons" is the current shout. Sorry, folks, but some of us remember him saying it, and know better than to think he didn't.
I did no such thing, since I did not quote him. He said he took the initiative in creating the internet, and that's what I said he said. You are putting words in my mouth.
2) The man took credit for something he did.
That is a lie. He claimed credit for creating the internet. He did not do that. As I already said, he may have improved funding for it, but "funding" and "creating" are two different words.
3) He is a politician. ALL POLITICIANS EXAGGERATE.
And this one got called on it. If they all do it, why are you so touchy about this one getting caught?
4) The republicans in particular ...
Are actually irrelevant to this discussion, other than to point out that democrats love to point fingers at every slip of the tongue that republicans make while bending over backwards to rewrite history when democrats do it.
Yes, Gore gave a statement that some might consider an exaggeration of his work.
Actually, a lie. He didn't create what already existed when he got to the Senate. He could neither create nor take the initiative in creating what already existed.
It is far less a crime then you are accusing him,
I am accusing him of no crime. You apparently don't know the difference between what I have said and what you are making up for me.
By any reasonable definition, you count as a either a Liar
By pointing out Gore's lie, I am the liar. That's typical.
or a moron, for not understanding what he did and what you did.
I didn't claim credit for creating the internet. He did. I know the difference between funding and creating. He does not. You decide who the moron is.
Now, for your extraneous flibbering regarding WMD. You can try to rewrite history there, too, but some of us remember that Saddam did, indeed, have WMD, which he freely used against his own people (e.g., the Kurds in northern Iraq), and against neighbors (e.g., scud missles with chemical warheads lobbed into Isreal). Further, WMD were found by the troops after they entered Iraq, namely a large cache of chemical rockets. So, pretending that he did NOT have WMD is simply ridiculous, and just another example of attempts to rewrite history.
He NEVER said he invented the internet.
No, just that he "took the initiative" in creating it. After it was already created. The truth is, of course, that the Internet had been created before he got to the Senate, and one cannot "create" what someone else has already created.
Now, what he probably MEANT to say is that he took the initiative for further funding of the Internet and taking it out of the hands of the researchers and opening it to the vast unwashed hordes, but sadly, that is not what he actually said, as you have pointed out. "Creating" and "funding" are not the same thing. I will not debate whether or not he took initiatives in funding expansion of what others created.
Since Democrats take great pleasure in quoting every slip of the tongue every Republican ever made, I think it quite fair for Gore to be gored by the same ox. He made a patently absurd claim in a bid to gain the techno-geek vote, and it backfired on him. Whether it was deliberate or a true slip, we'll never know, but he's supposed to be intelligent enough to know the difference between "create" and "fund", so the inferrence is the former. However, politicians are a little weak on differentiating between the two, and maybe he's one of them, so maybe it was a slip.
He is just as responsible for creating the internet as Lee, DARPA, or anyone else.
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Providing further funding for something that has already been created is not creating, not claiming "just as responsible" is just ludicrous.
You're either a moron or a liar.
Those who claim he did not say what he certainly did say are the liars. Those who cannot differentiate between "fund" and "create" are the morons. I'm not the one trying to rewrite history.
And whoever modded my first comment a troll is wrong.
It's very hard to deny something that he said in this modern age, what with it appearing on TV and being recorded for posterity and all. Too many people saw his mouth moving and heard the words that came out for this attempt at rewriting history to be effective.
I'm one of the people who saw his lips moving and heard the words, and if he was lip-syncing someone else's words, damn if he wasn't doing a perfect job of it.
Actually, many people believe that the government is not our parents and is not here to give us everything we want. The government is not here to feed us, clothe us, or to wipe our bottoms after we poop. It has a specific set of responsibilities, and "wireless internet" is not one of them.
Unfortunately, those who think the government IS our parents and should give us our every want and desire are getting their way right now, because they whine about how awful it is that some people don't fend for themselves and how it is inhumane to make them. It is time for that pendulum to start swinging the other way.
And visual waste as in "ugly and causes property values to go down because nobody wants to see them nextdoor" is just as valid.
Why should your resale value limit my right to do what I want on my own property?
Because your "rights" are harming others. Your rights end and the property line.
Annoying you doesn't mean I'm exceeding my rights.
Yes, actually, it does. You are infringing on MY rights at that point, and you don't have that right.
IMO a cell tower falls into the category of annoying but not greatly annoying.
"Causing a considerable loss of value to someone else's property" is not just annoying.
Until then we just have to try to treat each other like we'd like to be treated.
Yep, and since I wouldn't want my neighbors hosting cell towers in their backyards, I'll not host them in mine. But that's a two-edged sword. I'd appreciate it if you would treat me with the same respect, instead of dismissing my property loss as "not annoying enough".
Random thought.. why is it that we think cell towers are ugly and trees aren't?
Because trees are part of the landscape that was here when we got here, and cell towers are not.
Personally I think of both as similar and ignore both.
What a drab existance you must lead.
Why should a cell tower effect your property value other than people are retards that think nature is beautiful and manmade stuff is ugly?
Ahh, yes, the actual crux of your argument appears: people are just too stupid to agree with you that cell towers are beautiful works of art. Not only just stupid, they are actually retarded. You are a pleasant human being who needs, perhaps, to stop and look at nature a bit more and appreciate what we had.
If you think that all they deserve is "a swift execution", then let's just hand a gun to every local prosecutor, since both cases above are generally accepted instances of prosecutors who got a bug up their ass about someone and got incompetent child "psychologists" to help kids dream up fantastic claims about impossible abuses.
Look them up. Kids who were taken on space ships into outer space to be abused. Lions used to scare children. One accuser didn't even go to the daycare center while the person he accused worked there. Kids who claimed nothing had happened were labelled "abused" and told they were suffering from repressed memories. But let's just shoot the perps and be done with it, ok?
Is it too obvious to everyone to have to point out that this could easily have been a quote from Herr Goering or Dr. Mengele?
The correct answer is to actually sentence a criminal to a life sentence if you feel his crime merits life-long punishment. Don't sentence him to 6 years if you intend on making him pay forever.
If you are going to "label" and track sex criminals, then I demand that you label and track burglars, too, since I have no kids but I do own stuff that can be stolen. If recidivism is an excuse for perpetual punishment, look no further than the recidivism of theives.
I have some email addresses that get forwarded to my phone. I have an email address FOR my phone. My phone is always on, and I am almost always near it. I don't have to be "at my computer" to get my email. How old-fashioned, thinking one would have to be "at a computer" to get email.
I hope AOL gets its pants sued off for blocking SOLICITED email notices of life-threatening conditions, and I hope it doesn't take a death for it to happen.
Won't ever happen. There is too much likelyhood of intermod from the closely located transmitters, and intermod would cost the cellphone company money and make the subscribers unhappy. If the cellphone company cannot say "turn off the transmitter" to the ham, they won't let it on the tower, and if they CAN say 'turn it off', that will be the first thing they say at the first hint of a problem of any kind.
Does ANYONE know of ANY amateur repeaters colocated on a cellphone tower? I don't. That would be one public-service benefit the cellco's could tout, but they don't.
Why do people make the specious argument that one bad thing existing is a reason to have more bad things?
"People" don't all accept regular towers. In some communities, power is delivered underground, and everyone I know thinks this a much more visually appealing method. And many of them would like it if theirs were underground, too. It costs more, and there is no pressing reason to convert if the poles are already there, but for new developments, it's a good thing.
And those who aren't lucky enough to have underground utilities are adult enough to accept that the poles carry something necessary -- electricity -- while cell phone towers don't. And cell towers don't need to be located near houses, since the "wires" they don't carry don't need to go to any houses. I know, that's a poorly worded way of saying that electric poles have to be near houses because the wires they carry GO to those houses, and cell phone towers are just radio towers that don't need to be near the destination visisbly.
Ummm, as someone who spent several years dealing with atomic spectroscopy in college, I can tell you that you are wrong. There are two photon transitions, and even three, four, etc ones. My PhD work was based on two-photon ionization of sodium (and a few other atoms). Smack sodium with "orange photons" (D lines), and then with a UV photon, and bingo, they're ionized.
The 'cross-section' for multi-photon events is smaller than for single ones, typically, because both photons need to be there almost simultaneously, so yes, there is a difference between having a small number of photons and a large number -- the latter being more likely to cause a transition. And even with single photon events, the more photons you have the more likely at least one is going to cause a transition, especially for some of the smaller cross-section events.
And, of course, the more photons, the more atoms that are likely to absorb something, even if all it does take is one to have some effect. You could easily survive one single photon event somewhere in your body; you wouldn't survive a billion of them quite so easily.
So, summary: it's not one or none, and more is worse.
When it is something you like, you question the right of anyone to tell someone else how to use their property, but when it is something you don't like, it's "reasons for some controls".
You quite rightly identified the justification for controls, however. When what someone does on their property effects those around them, it does become their business. You notice the problem when the issue is "waste leaking into the water", but don't quite understand the concept of "visual waste". And apparently "property value" doesn't ring a bell at all.
No, I think it has to do with the monstrous eyesores that are being constructed every place you look, called "cell phone antennas". People see how ugly and intrusive these things are, and then you come along and say YOU want to put an antenna up, too. You're getting painted with the cellphone antenna paintbrush.
And yes, they are ugly, and no, I do not want them making the already cluttered community landscape any uglier, and no, they certainly don't belong on every hilltop you can see. And yes, I'm a ham, and I deal with emergency services and the local sheriff's office.
The example, however, is a different issue. The answer to that one is "NO, not in the USA." This issue has been in the courts, if I remember correctly, and that is why the service that used to allow people to store and download copies of music CD's they already own no longer exists. MP3.COM, I think it was. You could download ripped tracks after you proved you owned a copy of the CD .
Nope. When I asked them, as I did multiple times to two different people, "does this include static IP's" and they answer, as they did every time, "yes", then it isn't a "misunderstanding", it's a lie. We also talked about why they provided only 5 static IP's, and how the 3-bit netblock they assigned had one static allocated to each end of the line and one broadcast, leaving 5 out of the 8 addresses for the user. The fact that we talked about Qwest NOT providing DNS service for those static IP addresses only backs up their understanding that we were talking about static IP addresses.
But it also seems to me that anyone who needs a static IP would also have a fixed top-level domain name they can point to an IP (and thus wouldn't need a free solution)...
I have a "fixed" top-level domain name. The reason I was buying DSL was to GET an IP address to associate with that. People who have domain names gotta get the IP from somewhere, don't they?
You really don't understand the purpose of domain names, do you? Domain names are useful even for static IP addresses so that people don't have to remember IP addresses, they can remember names. "example.com" is a lot easier to remember than "192.168.0.1", and even if the underlying IP address changes (due to servive provider changes), the domain name won't. Just try telling someone that your email address is "joe@[192.168.0.1]" and watch their eyes glaze over; compare that to "joe@example.com".