The point of a Democracy is that EVERYONE gets to vote and to have his vote count. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's wrong. ...and before you even say it: NO! I didn't vote for Bush!
Attention crack-smoking mods! How the hell is this parent "informative?"
No, Jackass. I don't have children. It was a conscious (and conscientious) decision. See, I can't afford them, so I don't have them and I don't expect somebody else to pay for them.
I do understand that the "parasite" is not the child, it's dumbshits like you, who believe that it's OK to rob hardworking people of their money.
Look at you, accusing me of taking advantage of what the founders of our society have done! Like everyone here hasn't done that. The difference between people like you and people like me is that I'm not taking advantage of everyone else in this country right now.
The money that I have left from not raising MY OWN children is being saved for when I am no longer able to work. I'm not planning on sucking off Social Security like you and your ilk.
"Under a properly crude Libertarian regime the only reason not to kill you immediatly and just let you abandon the country is to save the spend of a bullet from public founds."
Apparently you have no understanding of Libertarianism, because people aren't shot for speaking their minds.
"But hey, you always can find an unpopulated island and start yourself a new society..."
See, sock-puppet, that's just the thing. I don't need to start another society and I'm not against children. There are plenty of children in my family, my neighborhood, and all across the country. I don't have a problem with this. Since you're obviously did not RTFA or are to damn stupid to get my point: IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT AND WANT TO DO SO, HAVE CHILDREN UNTIL YOUR SPOUSE'S UTERUS FALLS OUT. IF YOU CANNOT, DON'T FRIGGIN' DO IT WITH THE NOTION THAT EVERYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY SHOULD PAY TO HELP YOU. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE CHILDREN, BUT STILL FEEL THAT YOU NEED TO, THEN DO WHAT MY PARENTS DID AND WORK HARDER TO EARN ENOUGH MONEY SO THAT YOU CAN.
"Dont you get it that these are going to be the people paying whats left of your social security."
The point is that I *do* get it. And I agree that my point of view is backwards... of what is in place right now. Our system(s) is *NOT* working, so we have to keep throwing more and more money at it and developing new programs and systems just to keep it functioning. Personally, I don't intend to use Social Security and I think that the program should be brought to (a metered) end. I cannot afford to raise children, so I do not have them. Instead, I'm taking that money and planning for my retirement when I can no longer work. Rather than thinking (hoping) that "the government" is going to take care of me, I'm being responsible for myself.
I'm not heartless and I don't hate children, especially poor ones. But saying that our current state is what's best for us is a cop-out from from looking like a bastard who has to start telling people who can't afford to raise children to stop having them. Call me what you will, but consider this: I want to own a $75,000 sports car, but I can't afford it. I don't expect everyone else in the country to pony up to pay for it, and I'm responsible enough not to over-extend myself by going out to buy it anyway. There's a responsibility that is not being met by our society and that's not the responsibility to give all children an education. It's the responsibility for our own actions. Fix that and everything else will fall into place.
"We need to make profit less of a motive for doing things and raise intellectual gain to more of a motive for living. Stop encouraging stupid consumers and start encouraging thinkers."
Well thought out response, Anonymous Coward. If you have children, YOU and only you are responsible for them. If you do not want this responsibility, you have several choices:
1. Engage in celibacy
2. Use contraception
3. Do the rest of us a favor and go fuck yourself instead of someone else
"Okay, so we're in a society where both parents basically have to work to survive unless one of them has managed to get educated him/herself and found a decent job. So who's staying home to educate the kids? In the libertarian world, where those without food have no relief to look back on, what do you give up first, feeding your kid, or having the time to educate your kid?"
You act as though there is no choice for parents. Well there damn well is! If you can't afford children, don't have them. It's just as simple as that. Take responsibility for your own damn actions! I didn't get to enjoy having sex with the mother of your child. Why should I have to participate in raising him?
If the government keeps robbing citizens to support the children of parents who can't afford to do so themselves, then this madness will never end.
1. Legitimate employment doesn't require for taxpayers to put children through 12 years of curricula that contains less *actual* learning than anything else. There are plenty of countries that don't have the school system we have, but still have plenty of "productive members of society."
2. "illegitimate employment" as you put it is not a product of not learning in school, it's a product of not learning at home. If you have a child and he grows up to be a criminal, is it the school's fault?
3. The only reason you called my post a troll is because you don't agree with it. Excuse me for speaking the truth.
It's NOT the government's responsibility to ensure that every child is educated. The problems that our society is facing are mostly caused by this "it's somebody else's job" mentality. Parent's SHOULD be responsible for providing for their own children's education. I'll admit that I'm biased on this particular subject because I don't and never will have children, yet I pay for my neighbor's kids' education and don't get the same tax breaks as the whore down the street who can't keep her damn legs closed, but in reality, if a parent can't afford to give his child a good education, it's not my fault and I shouldn't be taxed more because of it. Education is so expensive because the people who run it see as just another teat on the underside of the fat cow known as "the government." Take away the free rides and make parents pay and the educators will quickly see that the new market cannot bear the prices. The labor unions will be forced to stop their racketeering and settle for reasonable, realistic pay and benefits (and don't any of you teachers start bitching about this. I've done the work. I know how easy it is and how ridiculously overcompensated teachers (in my area, anyway) are). This is just another part of our government that is so f@#$'d up that it's going to require the government to be completely removed from it in order to fix it.
Agreed, however, if the TS worker has such a thick accent that you can't understand him, not only are you wasting your time, you're wasting more of it. It's frustrating enough having to deal with a dumbass who knows less about resolving problems than you, but when you can't understand each other, it's like being in the 8th circle of Hell.
Here's something I have yet seen mentioned: What about law enforcement? Unless the cops have these, I don't see how they'll let the general population drive them. It'll be pretty difficult for a cop in a standard cruiser to pull you over if you can just lift off and escape him. Even with radios and helicopters, by the time they can dispatch a chopper, you could be outta there.
Having spent 10 years working in the Medical Device/Biotech domain, I can tell you that the FDA really does govern these things. Unfortunately, their internal understanding of computer systems in general is frighteningly scarce. Essentially, the only body of legislation they have to go by is a small portion of a CFR (Code of Federal Regulations: 21CFR Part11) that was released in 1997, and the enforcement guidance documents that followed it. The Code is extremely ambiguous and realistically lumps "electronic documents" and "electronic signatures" together. The compliance issues resulting from the vague document and its (mis)interpretation and enforcement were enough for me to change industries. My heart goes out to all of the people still battling this.
"Some would argue that DES has been insufficient for some time now."
Insufficient for what? I hate to play semantics, and I'm no cryptographer, but as I understand it, the inadequacies of an encryption algorithm are primarily defined by the implementation and the reason for it [application]. OK, it's a weak cipher, but in certain instances, it may still be useful. Right?
OK, Here's where we technology (and plenty of other salaried) workers screwed ourselves and need to make amends. During the 1990's we put in extra hours because of the incentives that came with those hours. I personally never worked fewer than 12 hours per day and was on call for 24 for 12 years. Ultimately, what did it get me? Unemployment for a year. I started a new job (salaried, management) in January of this year and set the bar from the onset. I work 8.5 hours per day. No cell phone, no pager. On the weekend, I'm on my time. When I take a vacation day, I'm on my time. No calls, no email. Plain and simple. If you are valuable enough to your company for the 40 hours that you are actually paid to be there, then there is no reason for them to replace you because you're not available to work when you're not being paid to do so. "Salaried Employee" does not mean "Indentured Servant." The whole "a bit more is expected" line is bullshit. The "bit more" is the experience and knowledge that I bring to the table, not the sacrifice of my personal life. In the end, it's still just a job and could be gone tomorrow. Why should I let it suck my life dry today?
Let's not confuse law enforcers with law makers. The patrolmen(and women) making the arrests don't wake up in the morning thinking "Today I'm going to go out and bust the balls of some horny guy who just wants to pay for a BJ." They get their orders from a higher source. Every cop I know realizes that arresting a drug user is a waste of time and resources, but they also know that they would be lynched by the media and much of the general public if it was known that they gave him a break and let him go about his (illegal) business. Getting back to the original topic, cameras watching over public places *can* help law "enforcers" to do their job better. If we as a nation decide that we don't like/want cameras in public places (or bicyclists in Baltimore arrested for no reason), it's not the cops we need to complain about/to, it's the people responsible for scripting/passing the laws.
"You are free to give up your freedoms, if you're naive enough to think you can trade liberty for security. You are not free to make that bargain with the devil on my behalf."
The key word here is "freedoms". This may be semantics, but your definition is certainly different from mine. Not having cameras pointed at me while I'm in a public place is not what I consider a freedom.
That said, I certainly do not wish to bargain anything on behalf of you or anyone else. My vote is just that: *my* vote. I respect and encourage you to use yours. *THAT* is what I consider a freedom.
"It wouldn't take many people on "our side" stepping up and being a little more vocal, to change that perception."
Or would it?
I *personally* am willing to give up what you would call "certain freedoms" and "public-privacy" to aid law enforcement if their plans/implementations of technologies are sound. I certainly don't fit into that "joe sixpack" category because I'm not lazy, apathetic or ignorant. I do care, I do call my reps/congressmen, and I do vote. Always.
It seems to me (and I am *SO* inviting the flamethrowers with this comment) that the lazy, apathetic, ignorant, non-caring/non-acting profile fits the people against this sort of thing (you said "our side"), otherwise, we wouldn't be seeing programs like this being implemented across the country. Whining about public/government policy on Slashdot (disclaimer: I'm not calling you a whiner. Read through these threads. You'll know to whom I'm referring.) does not exactly qualify as political activism.
How very true. Not everyone needs to know about or understand economics. But people who spew venom about the government or corporations who engage in intelligent business practices should at least understand the fundamentals of the topic before ranting about it.
2. I agree that morality as well as integrity is a key quality for anyone in the military.
3. I also agree that the days of "specialized, single-purpose troops" are gone, but I personally feel that's not necessarily a good thing or that it is that way for a good reason. Being a generalist makes any person's job more difficult. There's so much more to know and to do and soldiers (I am/was not one, but am very close to many) are forced into situations that they were trained/experienced/able to handle. I personally feel that soldiers are being made to take over other roles because they're not getting the support they need from our government. That's not good.
I am thankful that there are so many men and women serving our country (and others) and are willing to take on duties to contribute to the success of their missions. My best friend (a former Marine) is very proud of the fact that he delivered a baby for a woman in Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm, but he acknowledges the fact that he was forced into that situation because of a lack of support.
That's a great quote, however, it's out of context here. I said "soldier", not "general" or "leader". I'm talking about the people whose job it is to kill, not the people whose job it is to avoid getting to the point where killing is necessary.
"Well, isn't that quote a terrifying window into modern understanding?"
Ok, apparently, my understanding of the term "death fetish" is off. I firmly admit that I should have looked that up before using the Parent's term. However, your response is reading an awful lot into my statement. You're talking about generals and strategists. I'm talking about soldiers. The front-line fighters. The ones who actually have to look their enemies in the face while they're fighting them. Guess what? I *do* want those people to be "resistant to the seductive call of destruction" because they *NEED* to be. It's the responsibility of the commanders to do the thinking and to keep their forces under control. It's the job of the diplomats to keep us out of wars. The soldiers are divorced from these duties for a reason.
And by the way, I don't recall advocating war and destruction in my post.
It's odd how the Government's recent use of American soldiers has modified the public's perspective of soldiers in general. The main purpose of a soldier is to fight. These people are recruited and trained to kill, not to be social workers, prison guards, traffic cops, etc. (IMO, this is the most important reason why American troops should not be in Iraq. The "soldier-ing" is done!) To that end, I would think that the military would *want* people with a "death fetish" and/or people who can handle seeing other peoples' body parts blown off.
Slashdot Mirror
Oooops. I replied to the wrong post. Right answer, Wrong place. Sorry about that.
BTW, I totally agree with you.
Excuse Me!?!
The point of a Democracy is that EVERYONE gets to vote and to have his vote count. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's wrong.
...and before you even say it: NO! I didn't vote for Bush!
Attention crack-smoking mods! How the hell is this parent "informative?"
No, Jackass. I don't have children. It was a conscious (and conscientious) decision. See, I can't afford them, so I don't have them and I don't expect somebody else to pay for them.
I do understand that the "parasite" is not the child, it's dumbshits like you, who believe that it's OK to rob hardworking people of their money.
Look at you, accusing me of taking advantage of what the founders of our society have done! Like everyone here hasn't done that. The difference between people like you and people like me is that I'm not taking advantage of everyone else in this country right now.
The money that I have left from not raising MY OWN children is being saved for when I am no longer able to work. I'm not planning on sucking off Social Security like you and your ilk.
"Under a properly crude Libertarian regime the only reason not to kill you immediatly and just let you abandon the country is to save the spend of a bullet from public founds."
Apparently you have no understanding of Libertarianism, because people aren't shot for speaking their minds.
"But hey, you always can find an unpopulated island and start yourself a new society..."
See, sock-puppet, that's just the thing. I don't need to start another society and I'm not against children. There are plenty of children in my family, my neighborhood, and all across the country. I don't have a problem with this. Since you're obviously did not RTFA or are to damn stupid to get my point: IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT AND WANT TO DO SO, HAVE CHILDREN UNTIL YOUR SPOUSE'S UTERUS FALLS OUT. IF YOU CANNOT, DON'T FRIGGIN' DO IT WITH THE NOTION THAT EVERYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY SHOULD PAY TO HELP YOU. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE CHILDREN, BUT STILL FEEL THAT YOU NEED TO, THEN DO WHAT MY PARENTS DID AND WORK HARDER TO EARN ENOUGH MONEY SO THAT YOU CAN.
Guess what!?! They already do take whatever they want from me... every payday.
"Dont you get it that these are going to be the people paying whats left of your social security."
The point is that I *do* get it. And I agree that my point of view is backwards... of what is in place right now. Our system(s) is *NOT* working, so we have to keep throwing more and more money at it and developing new programs and systems just to keep it functioning. Personally, I don't intend to use Social Security and I think that the program should be brought to (a metered) end. I cannot afford to raise children, so I do not have them. Instead, I'm taking that money and planning for my retirement when I can no longer work. Rather than thinking (hoping) that "the government" is going to take care of me, I'm being responsible for myself.
I'm not heartless and I don't hate children, especially poor ones. But saying that our current state is what's best for us is a cop-out from from looking like a bastard who has to start telling people who can't afford to raise children to stop having them. Call me what you will, but consider this: I want to own a $75,000 sports car, but I can't afford it. I don't expect everyone else in the country to pony up to pay for it, and I'm responsible enough not to over-extend myself by going out to buy it anyway. There's a responsibility that is not being met by our society and that's not the responsibility to give all children an education. It's the responsibility for our own actions. Fix that and everything else will fall into place.
"We need to make profit less of a motive for doing things and raise intellectual gain to more of a motive for living. Stop encouraging stupid consumers and start encouraging thinkers."
I couldn't agree more!
'nuff said
Unfortunately, You don't need to BE a millionaire to SPEND like one.
Well thought out response, Anonymous Coward. If you have children, YOU and only you are responsible for them. If you do not want this responsibility, you have several choices:
1. Engage in celibacy
2. Use contraception
3. Do the rest of us a favor and go fuck yourself instead of someone else
"Okay, so we're in a society where both parents basically have to work to survive unless one of them has managed to get educated him/herself and found a decent job. So who's staying home to educate the kids? In the libertarian world, where those without food have no relief to look back on, what do you give up first, feeding your kid, or having the time to educate your kid?"
You act as though there is no choice for parents. Well there damn well is! If you can't afford children, don't have them. It's just as simple as that. Take responsibility for your own damn actions! I didn't get to enjoy having sex with the mother of your child. Why should I have to participate in raising him?
If the government keeps robbing citizens to support the children of parents who can't afford to do so themselves, then this madness will never end.
1. Legitimate employment doesn't require for taxpayers to put children through 12 years of curricula that contains less *actual* learning than anything else. There are plenty of countries that don't have the school system we have, but still have plenty of "productive members of society."
2. "illegitimate employment" as you put it is not a product of not learning in school, it's a product of not learning at home. If you have a child and he grows up to be a criminal, is it the school's fault?
3. The only reason you called my post a troll is because you don't agree with it. Excuse me for speaking the truth.
It's NOT the government's responsibility to ensure that every child is educated. The problems that our society is facing are mostly caused by this "it's somebody else's job" mentality. Parent's SHOULD be responsible for providing for their own children's education. I'll admit that I'm biased on this particular subject because I don't and never will have children, yet I pay for my neighbor's kids' education and don't get the same tax breaks as the whore down the street who can't keep her damn legs closed, but in reality, if a parent can't afford to give his child a good education, it's not my fault and I shouldn't be taxed more because of it. Education is so expensive because the people who run it see as just another teat on the underside of the fat cow known as "the government." Take away the free rides and make parents pay and the educators will quickly see that the new market cannot bear the prices. The labor unions will be forced to stop their racketeering and settle for reasonable, realistic pay and benefits (and don't any of you teachers start bitching about this. I've done the work. I know how easy it is and how ridiculously overcompensated teachers (in my area, anyway) are). This is just another part of our government that is so f@#$'d up that it's going to require the government to be completely removed from it in order to fix it.
Agreed, however, if the TS worker has such a thick accent that you can't understand him, not only are you wasting your time, you're wasting more of it. It's frustrating enough having to deal with a dumbass who knows less about resolving problems than you, but when you can't understand each other, it's like being in the 8th circle of Hell.
Here's something I have yet seen mentioned: What about law enforcement? Unless the cops have these, I don't see how they'll let the general population drive them. It'll be pretty difficult for a cop in a standard cruiser to pull you over if you can just lift off and escape him. Even with radios and helicopters, by the time they can dispatch a chopper, you could be outta there.
Having spent 10 years working in the Medical Device/Biotech domain, I can tell you that the FDA really does govern these things. Unfortunately, their internal understanding of computer systems in general is frighteningly scarce. Essentially, the only body of legislation they have to go by is a small portion of a CFR (Code of Federal Regulations: 21CFR Part11) that was released in 1997, and the enforcement guidance documents that followed it. The Code is extremely ambiguous and realistically lumps "electronic documents" and "electronic signatures" together. The compliance issues resulting from the vague document and its (mis)interpretation and enforcement were enough for me to change industries. My heart goes out to all of the people still battling this.
"Some would argue that DES has been insufficient for some time now."
Insufficient for what? I hate to play semantics, and I'm no cryptographer, but as I understand it, the inadequacies of an encryption algorithm are primarily defined by the implementation and the reason for it [application]. OK, it's a weak cipher, but in certain instances, it may still be useful. Right?
OK, Here's where we technology (and plenty of other salaried) workers screwed ourselves and need to make amends. During the 1990's we put in extra hours because of the incentives that came with those hours. I personally never worked fewer than 12 hours per day and was on call for 24 for 12 years. Ultimately, what did it get me? Unemployment for a year. I started a new job (salaried, management) in January of this year and set the bar from the onset. I work 8.5 hours per day. No cell phone, no pager. On the weekend, I'm on my time. When I take a vacation day, I'm on my time. No calls, no email. Plain and simple. If you are valuable enough to your company for the 40 hours that you are actually paid to be there, then there is no reason for them to replace you because you're not available to work when you're not being paid to do so. "Salaried Employee" does not mean "Indentured Servant." The whole "a bit more is expected" line is bullshit. The "bit more" is the experience and knowledge that I bring to the table, not the sacrifice of my personal life. In the end, it's still just a job and could be gone tomorrow. Why should I let it suck my life dry today?
Let's not confuse law enforcers with law makers. The patrolmen(and women) making the arrests don't wake up in the morning thinking "Today I'm going to go out and bust the balls of some horny guy who just wants to pay for a BJ." They get their orders from a higher source. Every cop I know realizes that arresting a drug user is a waste of time and resources, but they also know that they would be lynched by the media and much of the general public if it was known that they gave him a break and let him go about his (illegal) business. Getting back to the original topic, cameras watching over public places *can* help law "enforcers" to do their job better. If we as a nation decide that we don't like/want cameras in public places (or bicyclists in Baltimore arrested for no reason), it's not the cops we need to complain about/to, it's the people responsible for scripting/passing the laws.
"but there's no real evidence that it actually improves security"
OK, didn't RTFA, but is there 'real evidence' to the contrary?
You can't fix what you don't know is broken. Is ignorance a better security solution?
"You are free to give up your freedoms, if you're naive enough to think you can trade liberty for security. You are not free to make that bargain with the devil on my behalf."
The key word here is "freedoms". This may be semantics, but your definition is certainly different from mine. Not having cameras pointed at me while I'm in a public place is not what I consider a freedom.
That said, I certainly do not wish to bargain anything on behalf of you or anyone else. My vote is just that: *my* vote. I respect and encourage you to use yours. *THAT* is what I consider a freedom.
"It wouldn't take many people on "our side" stepping up and being a little more vocal, to change that perception."
Or would it?
I *personally* am willing to give up what you would call "certain freedoms" and "public-privacy" to aid law enforcement if their plans/implementations of technologies are sound. I certainly don't fit into that "joe sixpack" category because I'm not lazy, apathetic or ignorant. I do care, I do call my reps/congressmen, and I do vote. Always.
It seems to me (and I am *SO* inviting the flamethrowers with this comment) that the lazy, apathetic, ignorant, non-caring/non-acting profile fits the people against this sort of thing (you said "our side"), otherwise, we wouldn't be seeing programs like this being implemented across the country. Whining about public/government policy on Slashdot (disclaimer: I'm not calling you a whiner. Read through these threads. You'll know to whom I'm referring.) does not exactly qualify as political activism.
How very true. Not everyone needs to know about or understand economics. But people who spew venom about the government or corporations who engage in intelligent business practices should at least understand the fundamentals of the topic before ranting about it.
1. I salute you and thank you for your service.
2. I agree that morality as well as integrity is a key quality for anyone in the military.
3. I also agree that the days of "specialized, single-purpose troops" are gone, but I personally feel that's not necessarily a good thing or that it is that way for a good reason. Being a generalist makes any person's job more difficult. There's so much more to know and to do and soldiers (I am/was not one, but am very close to many) are forced into situations that they were trained/experienced/able to handle. I personally feel that soldiers are being made to take over other roles because they're not getting the support they need from our government. That's not good.
I am thankful that there are so many men and women serving our country (and others) and are willing to take on duties to contribute to the success of their missions. My best friend (a former Marine) is very proud of the fact that he delivered a baby for a woman in Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm, but he acknowledges the fact that he was forced into that situation because of a lack of support.
That's a great quote, however, it's out of context here. I said "soldier", not "general" or "leader". I'm talking about the people whose job it is to kill, not the people whose job it is to avoid getting to the point where killing is necessary.
"Well, isn't that quote a terrifying window into modern understanding?"
Ok, apparently, my understanding of the term "death fetish" is off. I firmly admit that I should have looked that up before using the Parent's term. However, your response is reading an awful lot into my statement. You're talking about generals and strategists. I'm talking about soldiers. The front-line fighters. The ones who actually have to look their enemies in the face while they're fighting them. Guess what? I *do* want those people to be "resistant to the seductive call of destruction" because they *NEED* to be. It's the responsibility of the commanders to do the thinking and to keep their forces under control. It's the job of the diplomats to keep us out of wars. The soldiers are divorced from these duties for a reason.
And by the way, I don't recall advocating war and destruction in my post.
It's odd how the Government's recent use of American soldiers has modified the public's perspective of soldiers in general. The main purpose of a soldier is to fight. These people are recruited and trained to kill, not to be social workers, prison guards, traffic cops, etc. (IMO, this is the most important reason why American troops should not be in Iraq. The "soldier-ing" is done!) To that end, I would think that the military would *want* people with a "death fetish" and/or people who can handle seeing other peoples' body parts blown off.