Yes, and since that's the case (that they are all their to make money), we can make decisions about which ones to support on the important issues--how they treat their customers and employees (which aren't that much different!), and what they give back to the community (and world in general). Those that give back are to be lauded, since they certainly don't have to.
Think about it like this: if you want to know what someone is like, look at what they do when they don't have to do anything. The same holds true for corporations, since they are run by people. Just remember that when the company changes leadership, it is quite likely that they will change too. (This also applies to governments).
Let me tell you this: there are certain Christian religions (or sects if you prefer, though some are different enough to be considered a different religion, while still preferring to be called Christian) whose theology not includes extra-terrestial life, it actively teaches that this is the case.
Although I had never considered it, I am not entirely certain that my religion actually teaches that ET's would look like us. There is certainly nothing that indicates either way (from what I remember).
All said, though, I don't really care--as far as religion is concerned, the question is not that important--religion is a matter of faith. If your faith cannot handle the realities of physics and science, then you are going to be in a world of hurt. (For those who are naysayers, note that I didn't say withstand, but handle. The difference is that to handle these realities, the faith needs to incorporate them to some degree or another, not reject everything from science wholesale, which some seem to do).
While I am against regulating software such as P2P applications, I am not certain that is quite the same as marijuana.
The thing about marijuana is that the medicinal uses can be obtained without smoking it (no, really!), and thus the smoking of it could still be illegal, with the useful ingredients becoming available in pill form.
The problem, as I see it, is not p2p apps don't have a legitimate use (they do), but that the primary usage for them as seen by the unwashed masses is that of illegal (well, at least questionable) file-sharing.
Personally, I have a great deal of respect for those who are willing to release their music via filesharing applications, but I can understand that many are not on the same boat.
The real problem, as I see it, is that the whole copyright/patent/ip issue is much more sticky than originally proposed. The idea that a person can sell their ideas is odd, at best.
Here is my proposal: copyright should be eliminated except in the case of individuals--corporations should not be allowed to hold a copyright. That means that a Jerry Bruckheimer or George Lucas film would be copyrighted to them, not Lucasfilm Ltd or Disney or whatever. This would also apply to book publishers (the author holds the copyright, not the publisher, as is often the case).
Instead, the publisher/distributor would then be allowed to take a lein (with a specified termination date) against the copyright so that the author/producer/singer could not double publish it without permission.
Then, as now, there would be a set expiration date from the time of creation--sufficiently long that the creator would be dead and no longer be damaged by expiration of the copyright. I personally think that a 100 year time limit in the case of written/performed works would be more than sufficient.
Patents, especially for technology related patents, should be limited to a five or ten year holding--but only for corporations. Individuals who hold patents not created on their employers time (as to prevent workarounds of the previous), would be allowed to hold a patent for as much as 50 years, so long as it was being actively utilized.
The entire purpose of copyright law and patent law, as originally conceived, was to foster competition and invention. At this point it no longer serves its original purpose, and has become its own antithesis. As such, it should be modified so that it serves its original purpose once more. IF THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, THEN IT SHOULD BE ABANDONED!
Of course, this is a very different issue than that of gun control (which to me means hitting your target, not government legislation) or drug legalization (which is a tricky issue at best, but I am personally for it, even though I have never touched the stuff). Gun rights are constitutionally guaranteed, and for a good reason.
The founding fathers had some real reasons to keep guns legal--they were meant to keep the populace powerful enough that if the gov't became oppressive at any point in the future that the populace could overthrow the gov't. This is as clear as anything could be.
Historically, the ONLY nations that have feared their populace have been the oppressive ones. Arguments about guns being used for crime are spurious--making them illegal will NOT keep them out of the hands of the criminals (although it MIGHT prevent SOME crimes of passion). I don't believe that most lawmakers are ignorant of this (criminals getting guns despite legislation), and therefore must assume that they have some other reason for wanting them to be illegal. Whether you believe that it is a method of subjugating the populace, or if you believe that it is lobbyist pressure, I don't care, but realize that there is a reason OTHER than "protecting the innocent", because that particular line is worthless.
P2P has legitimate uses (bittorrent has proven that conclusively). No one can argue otherwise without ending up looking like a fool (unless their debate opponent is an idiot). Law
EVERYONE should be required to take a typing course. Furthermore, they should address specific disabilities therein. I personally have only 9 useful fingers for typing, and still type at around 60 wpm.
lymphatic lymphoma is a nasty form of cancer, no matter when its caught. For most patients, it progresses fairly quickly, and it carries a rather poor prognosis.
I should know--I watched my dad battle with it for three years before he died. That was nine years ago, and while cancer treatment has made leaps and bounds, it is still a tricky process at best.
I don't wish cancer on anyone.
As for Jobs, I hope he recovers quickly and completely. I wouldn't wish cancer on my worst enemy.
I disagree--laser tech can pinpoint the distance to within a centimeter or less with ease. I would think it possible for the instruments to be much more accurate than a pilot who can't even see his landing gear as far as the distance from wheel to ground (which is the important figure).
Sorry, but instruments can be much more accurate--but I would still want a window--despite how irrational it is!
To view flash? I don't have any trouble viewing flash with firefox (which is my primary browser).
I recently had a friend tell me something similar, as well as how he had trouble getting firefox/mozilla to use java under linux. I laughed and said I hadn't had any trouble.
If you can't get flash and java to work on your computer, then you are not doing something right. Granted, my gentoo box set everything up for me, but why NOT use firefox?
and gentoo linux and I think Fedora, and I'm certain other distros aren't far behind. The point is--Windows is probably the only one that WON'T be 64 bit before too much longer.
saying that moore is truthful is like saying the sun is cold--it just ain't so.
moore is nothing more than a sorry jerk that has something to prove. he just happens to have a camera and some cash. he may be successful, but that doesn't make him less of a lying sack of manure.
of course, that said, i have to give him props for being convincing.
Sorry, even the most dimwitted should know that iTunes is available on Windows, and I believe there is a Free Alternative available for Linux.
I don't necessarily agree that iTunes is the best way, but I think it is A way--as are other legit services of that nature, to let the *AA know that you don't mind purchasing from them when they play fair.
Re:There is a major dirty open secret here
on
Hatch Pushes INDUCE Act
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's odd--at one point I had some respect for Sen. Hatch.
That has gone away. I wish all politicians would see this: STAY AWAY FROM MY FREEDOMS! This is the reason that I am more and more disgusted with the two-party system: they are both into increasing the power of the federal gov't. I am not. End of story
Once again--other than to get bush out of office, why Kerry.
Let me put this another way: why elect kerry over another democrat? I know this was a question for the primaries, but since I am NOT registered as a dem, the primaries of little importance to me on that side of the fence.
As for "a vote for Nader is a vote for bush", that's crap, and always has been. Its a line that both the dems and the gop pushes to scare people from voting for a third party. The mainstream media uses this line as well, either intentionally as a propaganda machine, or unintentionally as an unwitting pawn. Either way its bunk.
IF everyone were to vote for ONLY those candidates that they felt were worthy of their vote, then we would have a very different political situation in this country (and much more responsive politicians in general).
Now, don't reply unless you plan to answer my question!
It's interesting: I ask a very specific question, and I get a lot of responses. ALL of these responses are either humorous (or attempts to be humorous) or "here's why not bush is a good enough response".
Folks, if ALL you care about is "not bush", then DON'T vote for Kerry. Vote Libertarian, Green or something else. IF EVERYONE who is upset with bush would do this, it would change the way the dems and the gop think drastically. Right now they are both comfortable because they know their opposition. You enter a third party, and they will be scared because they don't know how to finangle that third group into doing what they want them to do.
A simple equation should help:
bush' != Kerry
Think about it like set theory. Where set A includes all politicians running for president and bush' represents all politicans running for president that are not bush. As long as A has more than two members, it is insufficient to vote for Kerry simply because he is not Bush.
Now, I repeat: Someone give me a reason to vote for Kerry other than "he's not Bush". It isn't enough!
I wish more people were aware of this. Kerry does NOT have your best interests at heart any more than any other politician (and much less than some, in all liklihood!).
The more I see of JK, the less I know about him. PLEASE, someone, give me a reason that I should vote for him other than "he's not Bush!"
Re:There are fewer corps! why does this surprise?
on
Dell CEO Tells All
·
· Score: 1
Sure, I am a user of both Medicaid and WIC. I wouldn't mind if they got cut, if there was a commensurate decrease in everyone's taxes (say that fat medicare tax they eat from my check).
I really do mean what I say--but I am realistic enough to note that it should probably be done slowly--not all at once.
Re:There are fewer corps! why does this surprise?
on
Dell CEO Tells All
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Despite my tendency to vote Republican, I agree on this issue--EITHER you tax corporations fairly or not at all. Personally, I would rather see a flat tax on all corps: 10% should do nicely. Walmart would save money by not having to hire so many accountants to try to figure out how to avoid taxes, and the gov't would get more money.
Democracy depends on having a powerful government.
I don't agree with this at all. In fact I believe that the opposite is true--democracy depends on having a gov't weak enough that those elected cannot make themselves perpetual rulers.
If, OTOH, you meant that democracy depends on a powerful constitution, then I agree 100%. This is very different. The constitution actually calls for a fairly weak government--because the founding fathers (odd nomenclature, but hey) were tired of oppressive gov't, and wanted to establish a system that would not be used to oppress the citizenry.
This essentially means that the gov't MUST be weak. It MUST be weak enough that those in power cannot force their way into private lives. The real crimes of GWB are not even remotely related to Iraq, except that it allowed this to happen. Rather, these crimes are the erosion of privacy and freedom.
I dispute, however, that any Democrat (or Republican) is really going to be much better. If the dems had seen the possibilities that war in Iraq offered in terms of control, they would have pushed for it the same way. I am not entirely convinced that GWB has anything nefarious planned, but I accept that I may be incorrect.
I further dispute that the dems are any more interested in reducing the control that they have over our lives. K&E are very much socialistic in their outlook: gov't healthcare, gov't welfare, gov't social security. The idea of the "social safety net" is innocuous enough, but the path leads to everyone leaning on the gov't for support.
I personally feel that when people see that they do not HAVE to work for a living, then they will not work (though there will always be exceptions), and eventually this will cause crime rates to increase. Why? Boredom. Bored people do stupid things. If you aren't actively using your mind, you will eventually become bored. You may seek refuge in the latest marketing hole, but eventually more damning things creep in.
Think about it in high school terms. Who are the kids who ended up in trouble? The ones who didn't have enough to do.
Enough on that line: when I say Big Government, I am only referring to the relative power of the gov't to control private lives. The same is true of corps. A "big business" is not necessarily one that employs hundreds of thousands of people, but one that controls millions (a la MS) through their products. This could, conceivably, be a one or two man show. Look at the size of some law firms, or movie companies. People-wise they are small (compared to GE, for instance), but power-wise, they are big. This is dangerous and should be avoided.
I do agree on one thing, though: Bobby Fisher did the right thing--there is no reason that the US gov't should be able to BAN someone from playing a sport or game in another country, even for money. Trade embargos are one thing, but that is taking it to a very stupid extreme. I suggest that we all write our congressbeing and ask that Bobby be released and pardoned for his "crimes".
Maybe GWB can be convinced to extend a pardon to him as his last act as president. That would be cool.
Slashdot Mirror
whatever it is that he lends, it won't be voice TALENT--even if it is just his voice. I think his voice sucked.
Yes, and since that's the case (that they are all their to make money), we can make decisions about which ones to support on the important issues--how they treat their customers and employees (which aren't that much different!), and what they give back to the community (and world in general). Those that give back are to be lauded, since they certainly don't have to.
Think about it like this: if you want to know what someone is like, look at what they do when they don't have to do anything. The same holds true for corporations, since they are run by people. Just remember that when the company changes leadership, it is quite likely that they will change too. (This also applies to governments).
Let me tell you this: there are certain Christian religions (or sects if you prefer, though some are different enough to be considered a different religion, while still preferring to be called Christian) whose theology not includes extra-terrestial life, it actively teaches that this is the case.
Although I had never considered it, I am not entirely certain that my religion actually teaches that ET's would look like us. There is certainly nothing that indicates either way (from what I remember).
All said, though, I don't really care--as far as religion is concerned, the question is not that important--religion is a matter of faith. If your faith cannot handle the realities of physics and science, then you are going to be in a world of hurt. (For those who are naysayers, note that I didn't say withstand, but handle. The difference is that to handle these realities, the faith needs to incorporate them to some degree or another, not reject everything from science wholesale, which some seem to do).
wow, that's different.
Care to elucidate some more?
While I am against regulating software such as P2P applications, I am not certain that is quite the same as marijuana.
The thing about marijuana is that the medicinal uses can be obtained without smoking it (no, really!), and thus the smoking of it could still be illegal, with the useful ingredients becoming available in pill form.
The problem, as I see it, is not p2p apps don't have a legitimate use (they do), but that the primary usage for them as seen by the unwashed masses is that of illegal (well, at least questionable) file-sharing.
Personally, I have a great deal of respect for those who are willing to release their music via filesharing applications, but I can understand that many are not on the same boat.
The real problem, as I see it, is that the whole copyright/patent/ip issue is much more sticky than originally proposed. The idea that a person can sell their ideas is odd, at best.
Here is my proposal: copyright should be eliminated except in the case of individuals--corporations should not be allowed to hold a copyright. That means that a Jerry Bruckheimer or George Lucas film would be copyrighted to them, not Lucasfilm Ltd or Disney or whatever. This would also apply to book publishers (the author holds the copyright, not the publisher, as is often the case).
Instead, the publisher/distributor would then be allowed to take a lein (with a specified termination date) against the copyright so that the author/producer/singer could not double publish it without permission.
Then, as now, there would be a set expiration date from the time of creation--sufficiently long that the creator would be dead and no longer be damaged by expiration of the copyright. I personally think that a 100 year time limit in the case of written/performed works would be more than sufficient.
Patents, especially for technology related patents, should be limited to a five or ten year holding--but only for corporations. Individuals who hold patents not created on their employers time (as to prevent workarounds of the previous), would be allowed to hold a patent for as much as 50 years, so long as it was being actively utilized.
The entire purpose of copyright law and patent law, as originally conceived, was to foster competition and invention. At this point it no longer serves its original purpose, and has become its own antithesis. As such, it should be modified so that it serves its original purpose once more. IF THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, THEN IT SHOULD BE ABANDONED!
Of course, this is a very different issue than that of gun control (which to me means hitting your target, not government legislation) or drug legalization (which is a tricky issue at best, but I am personally for it, even though I have never touched the stuff). Gun rights are constitutionally guaranteed, and for a good reason.
The founding fathers had some real reasons to keep guns legal--they were meant to keep the populace powerful enough that if the gov't became oppressive at any point in the future that the populace could overthrow the gov't. This is as clear as anything could be.
Historically, the ONLY nations that have feared their populace have been the oppressive ones. Arguments about guns being used for crime are spurious--making them illegal will NOT keep them out of the hands of the criminals (although it MIGHT prevent SOME crimes of passion). I don't believe that most lawmakers are ignorant of this (criminals getting guns despite legislation), and therefore must assume that they have some other reason for wanting them to be illegal. Whether you believe that it is a method of subjugating the populace, or if you believe that it is lobbyist pressure, I don't care, but realize that there is a reason OTHER than "protecting the innocent", because that particular line is worthless.
P2P has legitimate uses (bittorrent has proven that conclusively). No one can argue otherwise without ending up looking like a fool (unless their debate opponent is an idiot). Law
EVERYONE should be required to take a typing course. Furthermore, they should address specific disabilities therein. I personally have only 9 useful fingers for typing, and still type at around 60 wpm.
lymphatic lymphoma is a nasty form of cancer, no matter when its caught. For most patients, it progresses fairly quickly, and it carries a rather poor prognosis.
I should know--I watched my dad battle with it for three years before he died. That was nine years ago, and while cancer treatment has made leaps and bounds, it is still a tricky process at best.
I don't wish cancer on anyone.
As for Jobs, I hope he recovers quickly and completely. I wouldn't wish cancer on my worst enemy.
I disagree--laser tech can pinpoint the distance to within a centimeter or less with ease. I would think it possible for the instruments to be much more accurate than a pilot who can't even see his landing gear as far as the distance from wheel to ground (which is the important figure).
Sorry, but instruments can be much more accurate--but I would still want a window--despite how irrational it is!
Pro-E has a linux version, IIRC. That's a big CAD/engineering app that costs a few bucks more I've made this year.
That said, we don't know what lockheed uses, do we?
that' not a troll...
kljh;ljk;k
To view flash? I don't have any trouble viewing flash with firefox (which is my primary browser).
I recently had a friend tell me something similar, as well as how he had trouble getting firefox/mozilla to use java under linux. I laughed and said I hadn't had any trouble.
If you can't get flash and java to work on your computer, then you are not doing something right. Granted, my gentoo box set everything up for me, but why NOT use firefox?
and gentoo linux and I think Fedora, and I'm certain other distros aren't far behind. The point is--Windows is probably the only one that WON'T be 64 bit before too much longer.
saying that moore is truthful is like saying the sun is cold--it just ain't so.
moore is nothing more than a sorry jerk that has something to prove. he just happens to have a camera and some cash. he may be successful, but that doesn't make him less of a lying sack of manure.
of course, that said, i have to give him props for being convincing.
***FLAMEBAIT***
***TROLL***
Sorry, even the most dimwitted should know that iTunes is available on Windows, and I believe there is a Free Alternative available for Linux.
I don't necessarily agree that iTunes is the best way, but I think it is A way--as are other legit services of that nature, to let the *AA know that you don't mind purchasing from them when they play fair.
It's odd--at one point I had some respect for Sen. Hatch.
That has gone away. I wish all politicians would see this: STAY AWAY FROM MY FREEDOMS! This is the reason that I am more and more disgusted with the two-party system: they are both into increasing the power of the federal gov't. I am not. End of story
Once again--other than to get bush out of office, why Kerry.
Let me put this another way: why elect kerry over another democrat? I know this was a question for the primaries, but since I am NOT registered as a dem, the primaries of little importance to me on that side of the fence.
As for "a vote for Nader is a vote for bush", that's crap, and always has been. Its a line that both the dems and the gop pushes to scare people from voting for a third party. The mainstream media uses this line as well, either intentionally as a propaganda machine, or unintentionally as an unwitting pawn. Either way its bunk.
IF everyone were to vote for ONLY those candidates that they felt were worthy of their vote, then we would have a very different political situation in this country (and much more responsive politicians in general).
Now, don't reply unless you plan to answer my question!
which is, once again, why it was their 2nd biggest mistake to mess with the auto industry.
Of course, their 0th mistake was existing in the first place...
This is actually an interesting suggestion, but my question is this: why not vote 3rd party? (I plan to vote Libertarian).
It's interesting: I ask a very specific question, and I get a lot of responses. ALL of these responses are either humorous (or attempts to be humorous) or "here's why not bush is a good enough response".
Folks, if ALL you care about is "not bush", then DON'T vote for Kerry. Vote Libertarian, Green or something else. IF EVERYONE who is upset with bush would do this, it would change the way the dems and the gop think drastically. Right now they are both comfortable because they know their opposition. You enter a third party, and they will be scared because they don't know how to finangle that third group into doing what they want them to do.
A simple equation should help:
bush' != Kerry
Think about it like set theory. Where set A includes all politicians running for president and bush' represents all politicans running for president that are not bush. As long as A has more than two members, it is insufficient to vote for Kerry simply because he is not Bush.
Now, I repeat: Someone give me a reason to vote for Kerry other than "he's not Bush". It isn't enough!
I wish more people were aware of this. Kerry does NOT have your best interests at heart any more than any other politician (and much less than some, in all liklihood!).
The more I see of JK, the less I know about him. PLEASE, someone, give me a reason that I should vote for him other than "he's not Bush!"
Sure, I am a user of both Medicaid and WIC. I wouldn't mind if they got cut, if there was a commensurate decrease in everyone's taxes (say that fat medicare tax they eat from my check).
I really do mean what I say--but I am realistic enough to note that it should probably be done slowly--not all at once.
Despite my tendency to vote Republican, I agree on this issue--EITHER you tax corporations fairly or not at all. Personally, I would rather see a flat tax on all corps: 10% should do nicely. Walmart would save money by not having to hire so many accountants to try to figure out how to avoid taxes, and the gov't would get more money.
The real way to lower taxes? Less gov't.
I don't agree with this at all. In fact I believe that the opposite is true--democracy depends on having a gov't weak enough that those elected cannot make themselves perpetual rulers.
If, OTOH, you meant that democracy depends on a powerful constitution, then I agree 100%. This is very different. The constitution actually calls for a fairly weak government--because the founding fathers (odd nomenclature, but hey) were tired of oppressive gov't, and wanted to establish a system that would not be used to oppress the citizenry.
This essentially means that the gov't MUST be weak. It MUST be weak enough that those in power cannot force their way into private lives. The real crimes of GWB are not even remotely related to Iraq, except that it allowed this to happen. Rather, these crimes are the erosion of privacy and freedom.
I dispute, however, that any Democrat (or Republican) is really going to be much better. If the dems had seen the possibilities that war in Iraq offered in terms of control, they would have pushed for it the same way. I am not entirely convinced that GWB has anything nefarious planned, but I accept that I may be incorrect.
I further dispute that the dems are any more interested in reducing the control that they have over our lives. K&E are very much socialistic in their outlook: gov't healthcare, gov't welfare, gov't social security. The idea of the "social safety net" is innocuous enough, but the path leads to everyone leaning on the gov't for support.
I personally feel that when people see that they do not HAVE to work for a living, then they will not work (though there will always be exceptions), and eventually this will cause crime rates to increase. Why? Boredom. Bored people do stupid things. If you aren't actively using your mind, you will eventually become bored. You may seek refuge in the latest marketing hole, but eventually more damning things creep in.
Think about it in high school terms. Who are the kids who ended up in trouble? The ones who didn't have enough to do.
Enough on that line: when I say Big Government, I am only referring to the relative power of the gov't to control private lives. The same is true of corps. A "big business" is not necessarily one that employs hundreds of thousands of people, but one that controls millions (a la MS) through their products. This could, conceivably, be a one or two man show. Look at the size of some law firms, or movie companies. People-wise they are small (compared to GE, for instance), but power-wise, they are big. This is dangerous and should be avoided.
I do agree on one thing, though: Bobby Fisher did the right thing--there is no reason that the US gov't should be able to BAN someone from playing a sport or game in another country, even for money. Trade embargos are one thing, but that is taking it to a very stupid extreme. I suggest that we all write our congressbeing and ask that Bobby be released and pardoned for his "crimes".
Maybe GWB can be convinced to extend a pardon to him as his last act as president. That would be cool.
That was my point. She was a hot topic, (and body) for a while, and then she's gone... This is the SOP
Whilst she may actually be around for a while (uck), I don't think she's in it for the long run the way Madonna or Janet Jackson are.
She simply lacks the voice talent, which some of the others do have.