Hands down the best combat system I have ever played (surround and support bonuses made it a tactical delight), but the AI was flakey, and the game could have been the basis for so much more.
How about customizable tanks, or a larger context for the battles (a la Civ)? Multi-player and naval battles. Nukes and resources. Whatever. Just give one more try at an impossible map, or random maps. Something where placement matters just as much as production.
I don't think that is a fair assessment. I could be a bit more tolerant of some types of monitoring if there was more transparency to those doing the monitoring. As it is, those in power demand secrecy for every minutia of their dealings under the guise of important business while demanding outrageous amounts of personal information from the public, and not even being held accountable for when they abuse or are careless with that information.
I don't think it is too much to ask to do a cost/benefit analysis before imposing on someone's privacy. And even then, the bigger question of why this is needed goes unanswered, and justifications are thrown out after-the-fact when they may not even be useful at all.
Or you past up the last upgrade cycle, and are doing renders that take about a week to complete on your current machine (I've only got about 300 of them to do).
The last upgrade cycle was all AMD, but there wasn't enough flexibility with their MBs at a good cost.
This time it is fairly even with Intel and AMD, better selection of MBs, and a possible price war to boot.
In short: the market is more diverse than you can imagine.
And I'll get to finally play Civ4: Apocalypse Edition;)
The biggest problem with manufacturing is that costs get externalized way beyond the original purchaser and manufacturer until they become abstract ideas like Bhopal.
If companies can't design products with a minimal impact or at least deal with recycling costs, then they really can't afford to be in business. They are currently coercing everyone to subsidies their profits through neglect.
The problems can't be insurmountable, or we might as well give up right now. It is a question of political will. No new technologies are going to save us unless we put ourselves in the best position to allow them to work. Simply burying it and hoping for the best isn't cutting it.
Here, try it again, say "limited liability" and "equal rights" at the same time.
Specifically, a corporation (by legal definition) does not bear the same responsibility as a person, yet you are going to grant it personhood (with the same rights). See the contradiction there? Or are you advocating for a double standard?
Von Ribbentrop isn't even pertinent since I'm certain the Nazi Party did not hold corporate status in the US. Gotti, as far as I know, was never brought to trial for a murder he actually committed. So why should he bear the brunt of another person's actions for simply saying "I want this person dead." Where is his right to free speech?
Even then, neither of the above are corporations (which is specific to my argument), so let's go with Microsoft.
Does Microsoft have the right to bear arms (not the individual members of Microsoft, but Microsoft as a corporate person)? It seems that is what you are saying. So now citizen Microsoft owns a gun.
That gun is later used to murder Mr. Tovalds. Mr. Gates is brought before the grand jury and is asked do you own this gun? He say's no, the gun is Microsoft's.
If my gun is used in a murder, I can be found guilty as an accessory to murder (I have to be responsible for my own property). When the gun is citizen Microsoft's, the mail clerk guy at Microsoft isn't held as an accessory, even though everyone and no one owns the gun. It's guess it's Schrodinger's gun.
In all of your examples, the individual members of the group seem to be innocent of accessory to murder. Why is that? Certainly if the Democratic party advocated the assassination of Bush, by maintaining membership in the Democratic party; you are also advocating for Bush's assassination? If some member of your group decides to do it (like say the Manson family), How is that different than Mr. Gotti? Why shouldn't you also be held responsible (supposing you are a member of the Democratic Party)?
And hell, knock yourself out, but don't try and abrogate your personal responsibility to the group as it suits you.
If you hold individuals responsible for their actions, you also hold them responsible for their rights. Yet somehow when you are claiming a collective right when there isn't a collective responsibility amongst all members.
And in a philosophical sense, when you become a member of a group, you lose a portion of your individuality (and hense your individual rights). A corporation is not people; it is a legal entity that has people in it. Please note the difference.
The problem is how do you enforce laws against a corporation when they do something illegal (lets say attempted murder)? And when you enforce punishments, is that taken against the whole group or individuals?
Unless you have every member of a group punished equally (unlike punishing the CEO like we normally do), I say you can't have the idea corporate rights since it cannot bear the responsibility of those rights.
You are essentially advocating group rights when it is convenient to you (free speech), and individual rights when it is not (such as punishments).
I would add that in allowing the state to execute minors, you are executing a class of people who, previous to their crimes, have had absolutely no say as to whether the death penalty should be enforced (i.e.- the right to vote). Might as well call open season on the lives of all minors. It's not like they can do anything about it.
As OP pulled out the corporation personhood thingy, I find it curious people even mention the idea of corporate right to free speech without any responsibilities. I have the right to free speech, but I am answerable for my crimes, including being put to death for them.
Shall we put every member of a corporation in jail for the illegal action of the corporation? No. Of course not. That is absurd. The corporation has the rights of a citizen without having to bear the same costs as a citizen. It's another instance when the court wants to have it both ways.
I am dumbstruck by the people who manage the contortions of thought to justify these incongruities. The logic twists back on itself into a Gordian knot.
I won't even touch when the state mistakenly executes one of its citizens compared to when the citizenry mistakenly kills.
You state advantages of the without really listing what they are. Ultimately, it does not matter if the public school system is open to the scrutiny of the entire community if that community is unable realize their criticisms. Bureaucracy serves as a pretty effective flywheel of isolating the constituents concerns from powers that be. Private schools by far have to be responsive to community concerns since it is not a locked-in game.
From the metal detectors, drug sniffing dogs, cameras installed in the bathrooms, and censored books to censored speech; I think the public schools do a pretty damn effective job of disseminating their propaganda. The underlying message: you have no rights. You can't even choose to leave without attracting the attention of some truant officer. Sounds like a damn fine environment to promote understanding of the constitution.
On average, the public school system spends more per student than a private school. And that is with a lack of choice, little to no say in the curriculum, and students being treated like a government owned property. The benefits are where? The accountability is where?
Let me guess, you were taught at a public school. And if you had the funds to send your child to private school as opposed to a public school, where would you send them?
Get real. In the end, the poor performance public school system is just another manifestation of the corruption in government.
Perhaps when students do understand the first amendment, and, more importantly, have the opportunity to exercise that right, you might see change. But only a fool would expect that to be disseminated through their masters.
It's hard to see any student understanding the first amendment especially when they can't even use it.
"There is no difference. You are free, because you are allowed to do everything you want. All major.."
I would disagree. You omitted the last part of the statement : "except not live in a prison state". In essence, you seem to be saying that if your cage is comfy enough, that is "free". Think of it a different way: mandelbrot set. There is infinite variation possible within the equation. You can do what ever you want.
Except escape the terms of the equation itself. The set may be infinite, but it is still a set. It has boundaries.
And as SliverSpurG alluded to: what if you are the person in charge of the prison state (a state made perfectly in your own image)? Your statement about the major political ideologies has no bearing then, and ultimately does not matter. Not desiring to kill every child on xyz date is different than being allowed to. A Christian Fundamentalist Totalitarian State might seem more free if you happen to be of that mindset, however, a plane jane republic may actually afford you more freedoms (i.e.- you can be something other than A Christian Fundamentalist State).
"I believe most people in Iraq wanted something better than Saddam."
I believe they do too, but ultimately I do not know. But I do know that they did not want enough to rise up and revolt. Yet when the Americans show up promising a better way, the Iraqis found it within themselves to take up arms. See the irony here? If it proves Kuyper's point, it also disproves you duality of freedom. A totalitarian state is "freer" than a democracy as long as you are the a part of the ruling elite. Except now you have to maintain that power (read: be eternaly vigilent) and the master/slave relationship begins.
As others have pointed out, some aspects of Kuyper work in some limited circumstances, but it is far from perfect.
If Kuyper were right, no oppressive empires would have ever been made. You underestimate the power of bread and circuses backed by the threat of force.
And ultimately, isn't that what all political ideologies amount to in practice?
When you speak of this idea called freedom, people tend to couch it in practical terms: the freedom to do something, or freedom from something (the freedom and coercion duality you pointed out). I would argue that type of freedom is meaningless: it is always self-referential, and always defined in terms of those things which oppose it.
Suppose you lived in a prison state. Every aspect of your existence was enforced, however, that enforcement was in perfect accord with your own wishes. Are you still free? You are able to do anything you wish...
except not live in a prison state.
In essence, your duality isn't much different than a prison state. The often quoted: "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" sounds more like a sentence of eternal damnation: you are a slave to freedom. All of your actions are compelled to serve this idea just as effectively as if someone were holding a gun to your head. Refer to de Sade's analysis of the duality of a master and slave relationship to get a better idea of what I mean. For all practical purposes, the master becomes the slave. How can this be "free"?
Take the duality even further: what is freedom from freedom? The obvious answer, slavery, is contradictory within itself. I would argue that freedom in and of itself isn't so much a meaningless concept in as much as it is a concept that cannot be defined. The "god in a box" problem: the definition itself is limiting. I would argue that a bumblebee is freer by virtue of the fact it has no awareness of its limitation. Freedom from freedom then becomes being free from the concept of freedom completely, and dissolves the duality completely.
As far as Iraq is concerned, in as much as the people didn't break the bonds of Saddam's rule by themselves, but had democracy foisted upon them; I would agree with you. It is just another form of slavery.
What happens if the people vote to have Saddam installed back in power? What then?
It was moreso a question of mobility and consistency within the law.
Suppose pottery is legal in California, but illegal in Oregon. I am a resident of California visiting Oregon, and I happen to have some pottery with me when I travel.
In a previous time (say pre-industrial era), there would be little means for me to travel broadly, and even less means to be acquainted with the laws of Oregon. In a very real sense, I am a citizen of California first, a citizen of the United States second. The idea of having strong state's rights makes sense in this context: there is little intra-operability needed between states.
But now, I can probably cross 6 or 7 state lines within a day. I may actually live in one state, and work in another. The idea of having a strong federal government makes sense in this case. If for no other reason than to facilitate interaction between states.
Unfortunately, in practice, a strong federal government operates little better than a fiefdom. Instead of being the grease that holds a more perfect union together, it is increasingly a gun to the head, demanding subservience.
When I make my cry of "State's Rights", I am acknowledging that I live in California because it has the good wisdom to keep pottery legal, but I also would like some consideration when traveling through Oregon for being nothing more than a stranger in a strange land.
Care to elucidate that point? That Iraqis are somehow different than you? That they don't have families? That the particulars of this war seem to go back thousands of years even if the faces have changed? That this war is somehow different than they thousands of wars which preceeded it? That you are expecting them to respect rules of combat that they never agreed to? That the act of suicide bombing isn't a completely desperate act?
I've heard this before, and I find nothing in "Congress shall make no law" that is exclusive to government. As I understand it, the Bill of Rights not only guarantees my protections against government, but from other citizens as well.
To simply state a job as a contractual agreement between to private entities is erroneous. There are a hundred and one regulations which oversee said agreement, and that agreement itself is bound by law.
If I choose to work, the conditions set by my employer must be legal, and a portion of that is the protection of my rights beyond what an employer may demand.
For instance, I may be prescribed marijuana. Inasmuch as I can truthfully answer "No this drug does not impede my ability to perform the duties described" (well, at least not anymore than Xanax), it is none of there business. My employer does not have a right to my medical information, and it is illegal for them to ask (Why? It violates my right to privacy.).
The contractual agreement between me and my employer is for monies paid for services rendered. Period. Anything beyond that may very well be unconstitutional, and certainly isn't supported by anything more than hearsay.
The question isn't so much taking responsibility for what you say (and the consequences thereof), it's someone else adding more consequences to the equation to fit their agenda.
It's almost like saying you have the right to free speech, but every time you speak, a tax of $1000 will be levied against you. You can still say whatever you want; you just have to deal with the consequences. Is that really free speech?
Take the uber stupid example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. How is that much different than the president saying "Iraq has WMD"? The person in the theatre gets to deal with consequences way beyond having a dog named shithead. Funny those rules don't apply to the people enforcing the rules.
I could write a blog about stealing office supplies as a means of detailing how to stop office theft, or my "boss teh suck' as a humorous send off of my boss. No statement implies context. I wonder if I wrote a blog detailing my difficulties in coming to terms with manic-depression if you would still support my boss's decision fire me out of embarrassment? What if my latest depressive episode was caused by my job? Should everyone at EA be fired because of what some anonymous wife wrote?
And suppose my boss writes a blog about how lazy his employees are? The degree of being held responsible for what you wrote is a bit unequal. Why should this be?
If you really want to go the route of work at will, fine, but how about some readdress for every indignity from pissing in a cup to a credit history check.
Inasmuch as my life at home doesn't interfere with my work (and I admit there is a lot of grey), it is none of your business. Even if I blog something unflattering, it is up to you to prove how this is negatively affects work. My right to free speech and privacy precedes.
Kinda like free speech. You could use it for self-defense, but it is so deadly and used so much for bad things that I can't support general citizens having it.
It is this mode of thought that has gotten us into most of the problems we have today.
Why yes, if I have the inclination that you are not going to respect the terms of the GPL, perhaps I shouldn't I sell to you. Who knows what nefarious things you will do with the code or the license (witness SCO).
As far as closing the source and selling it, I, as the original seller, am free to pursue the matter in court. You would be welcome to bring up a countersuit as to which terms of the GPL are enforceable in your particular case, or even if the GPL was valid at all. Having a lisence is superfluous if there isn't any trust.
It's kinda like keeping a secret. Once you let the cat out of the bag, you really have no control as to how that secret will be used. You can cajole, you can threaten, but ultimately it's not a secret anymore.
Forever time with this "If you don't like it, don't buy it" argument.
No. If they don't like it, they don't have to sell it. I am tired of being an unpaid enforcer of their policies. Fact of the mater is they are introducing a product with an immature technology for protecting their interests. So they impose upon mine. Licensing be damned: I don't tell them how to spend the money used to purchase their product, so quit telling me how to use the product. If you don't like what I am going to do with a product, perhaps you shouldn't have sold it to me. Why should the onus be strictly upon me?
I have to imagine basic piracy is also factored into the equation of their product offering (as well as buying off members of congress to pass legislation favorable to them). And for all the rampart piracy, they still continue to bring products to the market (albeit in crippled form). The terms of the licensing is just a means for them to keep collecting revenue while crying foul all-the-while. If I stopped payment on a check until they agreed to all of my terms of use, I doubt you'd be as sympathetic.
EULAs, Steam, RIAAA; perhaps they should have researched to whom they are selling to instead of taking the money and bitching about it afterwards.
The problem was never that the **AA sued people. It was how they went about it. You wanna do the scattergun approach; fine, just make damn sure you can deal with the fallout.
Lobbying congress with your pet peeves doesn't help either. I sit around wondering why DeCSS isn't covered under freedom of speech. How much more of my rights must I sacrifice to protect theirs? Where is the department for enforcing fair use rights?
Oh.
You know it is a bad sign when you can hire out the gov. as your own personal police force.
There are just as many concerns on the other side, but it doesn't matter. 2 million today, several hundred million years from now, and in the end I won't even be able to afford my own thoughts.
I note that the most adaptive/innovative industry to online content suffers the most copyright violations, still makes money hand over fist, and does not seem to indulge in mass-market litigation: the porn industry.
Given that the porn industry probably suffers more copyright violations than the RIAA and the MPAA combined (at least online), where are the great crusaders like Orin Hatch to protect their rights?
Why no speeches of how downloaders are taking the very food out of porn star's mouths?
Yeah, it's great that everyone can get on their high horse about protecting IP until there is a blowjob involve (hi stinky dead princess).
And I note the porn industry is adapting to it's new digs quite well, and wonder if the RIAA/MPAA feels abashed that they might have to follow the porn industry's lead in offering content.
Until the bullshit level on both sides of the P2P debate lessens, know that the litigation and downloading will continue to increase, and the escalation may ruin it for all.
Meanwhile, wouldn't it be funny if porn ends up taking a bite of the MPAA's market share by going legit?
Not specifically related, but you tend to see the same problems in medicine.
You have several specialized departments working with each other, each with distinct and massive protocols that don't mesh well.
Within certain regards, it almost seems the system is designed to fail by not designing for failure. Each department wants to give the appearance of toeing the company line even as internal systems fail. This reduces error reporting and functional problem solving because "it isn't SOP". Everyone is more concerned with placing blame than solving the problem.
And when the problems become so massive you can't ignore them, a new policy is issued, adding to the multi-volume sets of policies; which are internally conflicting, and effectively enforces mediocrity from all departments.
Add to this a shortage of people, people working under stressed conditions when lives are at stake, and you understand how a multitude of problems go undiagnosed simply because they are unknown. How do you know you are spreading nosicomial infections unless you check for them? And from what department are you going to pull the people to check, and how can you isolate the problem when each department is invested in covering their ass?
I haven't read "The Underground Text of Systems Lore", but I imagine a lot of the same observations would apply (I actually looked at it as applying chaos theory to system management in the ER, but the same ideas are expressed in "The Cluetrain Manifesto", and other publications).
Highly organized systems ultimately catabolism themselves unless they can restructure easily and effectively. NASA has not, medicine has not, and most political systems have not.
Something to think about when you in the OR at 2AM.
One of the greatest marvels of the 20th century and a segment of the population wants to deny access?
I wonder if these same people would have destroyed the Gutenberg press seeing as the same technology that gave me a $20 leather-bound copy of the complete works of Shakespeare also gives me MAD magazine.
Find it deliriously funny that the quote un quote technologically savvy would be so ignorant of how any new tech disrupts the social fabric. I mean didn't the Gutenberg press pretty much herald the end of the Dark Ages?
It's nice to know some people would have us return.
True, but the concerns expressed by my customers isn't absolute performance. It is building something good enough with a clear path for future upgrades, and at several different price points/uses.
PCIe is just future-proofing (not specific to graphics). Several customers have expressed a preferance for AMD, but there are no boards which fit their requests. That leaves Intel.
Yeah, but that's my point.
No pcie AND pcix. No options as far as single or SMP (Opteron only. I can get pcie and pcix on a P4. Nothing for an athlon).
And thats not including DDR2, SSE2/3.
Considering the implimentation of Iwill's last Opteron board, I'm not really looking forward to it (check out the thread on 2cpu). There are cheaper boards that can do the same thing on an Intel platform.
3GHz Xeon- $325
Opteron 250- $749
~$200 average along all speeds
The DK8ES hasn't been released yet. I repeat, nada.
Slashdot Mirror
Hands down the best combat system I have ever played (surround and support bonuses made it a tactical delight), but the AI was flakey, and the game could have been the basis for so much more.
How about customizable tanks, or a larger context for the battles (a la Civ)? Multi-player and naval battles. Nukes and resources. Whatever. Just give one more try at an impossible map, or random maps. Something where placement matters just as much as production.
I don't think that is a fair assessment. I could be a bit more tolerant of some types of monitoring if there was more transparency to those doing the monitoring. As it is, those in power demand secrecy for every minutia of their dealings under the guise of important business while demanding outrageous amounts of personal information from the public, and not even being held accountable for when they abuse or are careless with that information.
I don't think it is too much to ask to do a cost/benefit analysis before imposing on someone's privacy. And even then, the bigger question of why this is needed goes unanswered, and justifications are thrown out after-the-fact when they may not even be useful at all.
Or you past up the last upgrade cycle, and are doing renders that take about a week to complete on your current machine (I've only got about 300 of them to do).
;)
The last upgrade cycle was all AMD, but there wasn't enough flexibility with their MBs at a good cost.
This time it is fairly even with Intel and AMD, better selection of MBs, and a possible price war to boot.
In short: the market is more diverse than you can imagine.
And I'll get to finally play Civ4: Apocalypse Edition
The biggest problem with manufacturing is that costs get externalized way beyond the original purchaser and manufacturer until they become abstract ideas like Bhopal.
If companies can't design products with a minimal impact or at least deal with recycling costs, then they really can't afford to be in business. They are currently coercing everyone to subsidies their profits through neglect.
The problems can't be insurmountable, or we might as well give up right now. It is a question of political will. No new technologies are going to save us unless we put ourselves in the best position to allow them to work. Simply burying it and hoping for the best isn't cutting it.
Here, try it again, say "limited liability" and "equal rights" at the same time.
Specifically, a corporation (by legal definition) does not bear the same responsibility as a person, yet you are going to grant it personhood (with the same rights). See the contradiction there? Or are you advocating for a double standard?
Von Ribbentrop isn't even pertinent since I'm certain the Nazi Party did not hold corporate status in the US. Gotti, as far as I know, was never brought to trial for a murder he actually committed. So why should he bear the brunt of another person's actions for simply saying "I want this person dead." Where is his right to free speech?
Even then, neither of the above are corporations (which is specific to my argument), so let's go with Microsoft.
Does Microsoft have the right to bear arms (not the individual members of Microsoft, but Microsoft as a corporate person)? It seems that is what you are saying. So now citizen Microsoft owns a gun.
That gun is later used to murder Mr. Tovalds. Mr. Gates is brought before the grand jury and is asked do you own this gun? He say's no, the gun is Microsoft's.
If my gun is used in a murder, I can be found guilty as an accessory to murder (I have to be responsible for my own property). When the gun is citizen Microsoft's, the mail clerk guy at Microsoft isn't held as an accessory, even though everyone and no one owns the gun. It's guess it's Schrodinger's gun.
In all of your examples, the individual members of the group seem to be innocent of accessory to murder. Why is that? Certainly if the Democratic party advocated the assassination of Bush, by maintaining membership in the Democratic party; you are also advocating for Bush's assassination? If some member of your group decides to do it (like say the Manson family), How is that different than Mr. Gotti? Why shouldn't you also be held responsible (supposing you are a member of the Democratic Party)?
And hell, knock yourself out, but don't try and abrogate your personal responsibility to the group as it suits you.
If you hold individuals responsible for their actions, you also hold them responsible for their rights. Yet somehow when you are claiming a collective right when there isn't a collective responsibility amongst all members.
And in a philosophical sense, when you become a member of a group, you lose a portion of your individuality (and hense your individual rights). A corporation is not people; it is a legal entity that has people in it. Please note the difference.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
The problem is how do you enforce laws against a corporation when they do something illegal (lets say attempted murder)? And when you enforce punishments, is that taken against the whole group or individuals?
Unless you have every member of a group punished equally (unlike punishing the CEO like we normally do), I say you can't have the idea corporate rights since it cannot bear the responsibility of those rights.
You are essentially advocating group rights when it is convenient to you (free speech), and individual rights when it is not (such as punishments).
Even some of the dimmest shine.
I would add that in allowing the state to execute minors, you are executing a class of people who, previous to their crimes, have had absolutely no say as to whether the death penalty should be enforced (i.e.- the right to vote). Might as well call open season on the lives of all minors. It's not like they can do anything about it.
As OP pulled out the corporation personhood thingy, I find it curious people even mention the idea of corporate right to free speech without any responsibilities. I have the right to free speech, but I am answerable for my crimes, including being put to death for them.
Shall we put every member of a corporation in jail for the illegal action of the corporation? No. Of course not. That is absurd. The corporation has the rights of a citizen without having to bear the same costs as a citizen. It's another instance when the court wants to have it both ways.
I am dumbstruck by the people who manage the contortions of thought to justify these incongruities. The logic twists back on itself into a Gordian knot.
I won't even touch when the state mistakenly executes one of its citizens compared to when the citizenry mistakenly kills.
And shall we do the same for you?
You state advantages of the without really listing what they are. Ultimately, it does not matter if the public school system is open to the scrutiny of the entire community if that community is unable realize their criticisms. Bureaucracy serves as a pretty effective flywheel of isolating the constituents concerns from powers that be. Private schools by far have to be responsive to community concerns since it is not a locked-in game.
From the metal detectors, drug sniffing dogs, cameras installed in the bathrooms, and censored books to censored speech; I think the public schools do a pretty damn effective job of disseminating their propaganda. The underlying message: you have no rights. You can't even choose to leave without attracting the attention of some truant officer. Sounds like a damn fine environment to promote understanding of the constitution.
On average, the public school system spends more per student than a private school. And that is with a lack of choice, little to no say in the curriculum, and students being treated like a government owned property. The benefits are where? The accountability is where?
Let me guess, you were taught at a public school. And if you had the funds to send your child to private school as opposed to a public school, where would you send them?
Get real. In the end, the poor performance public school system is just another manifestation of the corruption in government.
Perhaps when students do understand the first amendment, and, more importantly, have the opportunity to exercise that right, you might see change. But only a fool would expect that to be disseminated through their masters.
It's hard to see any student understanding the first amendment especially when they can't even use it.
"There is no difference. You are free, because you are allowed to do everything you want. All major.."
I would disagree. You omitted the last part of the statement : "except not live in a prison state". In essence, you seem to be saying that if your cage is comfy enough, that is "free". Think of it a different way: mandelbrot set. There is infinite variation possible within the equation. You can do what ever you want.
Except escape the terms of the equation itself. The set may be infinite, but it is still a set. It has boundaries.
And as SliverSpurG alluded to: what if you are the person in charge of the prison state (a state made perfectly in your own image)? Your statement about the major political ideologies has no bearing then, and ultimately does not matter. Not desiring to kill every child on xyz date is different than being allowed to. A Christian Fundamentalist Totalitarian State might seem more free if you happen to be of that mindset, however, a plane jane republic may actually afford you more freedoms (i.e.- you can be something other than A Christian Fundamentalist State).
"I believe most people in Iraq wanted something better than Saddam."
I believe they do too, but ultimately I do not know. But I do know that they did not want enough to rise up and revolt. Yet when the Americans show up promising a better way, the Iraqis found it within themselves to take up arms. See the irony here? If it proves Kuyper's point, it also disproves you duality of freedom. A totalitarian state is "freer" than a democracy as long as you are the a part of the ruling elite. Except now you have to maintain that power (read: be eternaly vigilent) and the master/slave relationship begins.
As others have pointed out, some aspects of Kuyper work in some limited circumstances, but it is far from perfect.
If Kuyper were right, no oppressive empires would have ever been made. You underestimate the power of bread and circuses backed by the threat of force.
And ultimately, isn't that what all political ideologies amount to in practice?
*insert Orwellian comment here*
"I have no newsletter, so don't ask."
Damit Fred! I am continually impressed by the different viewpoints (and humor) you offer.
I swear you would be a most interesting person to meet.
This wasn't asking.
Since you decided to pull out the philosophers :)
When you speak of this idea called freedom, people tend to couch it in practical terms: the freedom to do something, or freedom from something (the freedom and coercion duality you pointed out). I would argue that type of freedom is meaningless: it is always self-referential, and always defined in terms of those things which oppose it.
Suppose you lived in a prison state. Every aspect of your existence was enforced, however, that enforcement was in perfect accord with your own wishes. Are you still free? You are able to do anything you wish...
except not live in a prison state.
In essence, your duality isn't much different than a prison state. The often quoted: "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" sounds more like a sentence of eternal damnation: you are a slave to freedom. All of your actions are compelled to serve this idea just as effectively as if someone were holding a gun to your head. Refer to de Sade's analysis of the duality of a master and slave relationship to get a better idea of what I mean. For all practical purposes, the master becomes the slave. How can this be "free"?
Take the duality even further: what is freedom from freedom? The obvious answer, slavery, is contradictory within itself. I would argue that freedom in and of itself isn't so much a meaningless concept in as much as it is a concept that cannot be defined. The "god in a box" problem: the definition itself is limiting. I would argue that a bumblebee is freer by virtue of the fact it has no awareness of its limitation. Freedom from freedom then becomes being free from the concept of freedom completely, and dissolves the duality completely.
As far as Iraq is concerned, in as much as the people didn't break the bonds of Saddam's rule by themselves, but had democracy foisted upon them; I would agree with you. It is just another form of slavery.
What happens if the people vote to have Saddam installed back in power? What then?
Actually, no.
It was moreso a question of mobility and consistency within the law.
Suppose pottery is legal in California, but illegal in Oregon. I am a resident of California visiting Oregon, and I happen to have some pottery with me when I travel.
In a previous time (say pre-industrial era), there would be little means for me to travel broadly, and even less means to be acquainted with the laws of Oregon. In a very real sense, I am a citizen of California first, a citizen of the United States second. The idea of having strong state's rights makes sense in this context: there is little intra-operability needed between states.
But now, I can probably cross 6 or 7 state lines within a day. I may actually live in one state, and work in another. The idea of having a strong federal government makes sense in this case. If for no other reason than to facilitate interaction between states.
Unfortunately, in practice, a strong federal government operates little better than a fiefdom. Instead of being the grease that holds a more perfect union together, it is increasingly a gun to the head, demanding subservience.
When I make my cry of "State's Rights", I am acknowledging that I live in California because it has the good wisdom to keep pottery legal, but I also would like some consideration when traveling through Oregon for being nothing more than a stranger in a strange land.
Or that I couldn't be bothered with signing in.
Care to elucidate that point? That Iraqis are somehow different than you? That they don't have families? That the particulars of this war seem to go back thousands of years even if the faces have changed? That this war is somehow different than they thousands of wars which preceeded it? That you are expecting them to respect rules of combat that they never agreed to? That the act of suicide bombing isn't a completely desperate act?
You have my attention. Make your point.
I see you missed the part about readdress.
I've heard this before, and I find nothing in "Congress shall make no law" that is exclusive to government. As I understand it, the Bill of Rights not only guarantees my protections against government, but from other citizens as well.
To simply state a job as a contractual agreement between to private entities is erroneous. There are a hundred and one regulations which oversee said agreement, and that agreement itself is bound by law.
If I choose to work, the conditions set by my employer must be legal, and a portion of that is the protection of my rights beyond what an employer may demand.
For instance, I may be prescribed marijuana. Inasmuch as I can truthfully answer "No this drug does not impede my ability to perform the duties described" (well, at least not anymore than Xanax), it is none of there business. My employer does not have a right to my medical information, and it is illegal for them to ask (Why? It violates my right to privacy.).
The contractual agreement between me and my employer is for monies paid for services rendered. Period. Anything beyond that may very well be unconstitutional, and certainly isn't supported by anything more than hearsay.
The question isn't so much taking responsibility for what you say (and the consequences thereof), it's someone else adding more consequences to the equation to fit their agenda.
It's almost like saying you have the right to free speech, but every time you speak, a tax of $1000 will be levied against you. You can still say whatever you want; you just have to deal with the consequences. Is that really free speech?
Take the uber stupid example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. How is that much different than the president saying "Iraq has WMD"? The person in the theatre gets to deal with consequences way beyond having a dog named shithead. Funny those rules don't apply to the people enforcing the rules.
I could write a blog about stealing office supplies as a means of detailing how to stop office theft, or my "boss teh suck' as a humorous send off of my boss. No statement implies context. I wonder if I wrote a blog detailing my difficulties in coming to terms with manic-depression if you would still support my boss's decision fire me out of embarrassment? What if my latest depressive episode was caused by my job? Should everyone at EA be fired because of what some anonymous wife wrote?
And suppose my boss writes a blog about how lazy his employees are? The degree of being held responsible for what you wrote is a bit unequal. Why should this be?
If you really want to go the route of work at will, fine, but how about some readdress for every indignity from pissing in a cup to a credit history check.
Inasmuch as my life at home doesn't interfere with my work (and I admit there is a lot of grey), it is none of your business. Even if I blog something unflattering, it is up to you to prove how this is negatively affects work. My right to free speech and privacy precedes.
Okay, I'm a sporting person and highly gullible to boot; so what are these secrets and how did you get around the training of not believing them?
And even if I don't believe you, what difference does it make?
Kinda like free speech. You could use it for self-defense, but it is so deadly and used so much for bad things that I can't support general citizens having it.
It is this mode of thought that has gotten us into most of the problems we have today.
Why yes, if I have the inclination that you are not going to respect the terms of the GPL, perhaps I shouldn't I sell to you. Who knows what nefarious things you will do with the code or the license (witness SCO).
As far as closing the source and selling it, I, as the original seller, am free to pursue the matter in court. You would be welcome to bring up a countersuit as to which terms of the GPL are enforceable in your particular case, or even if the GPL was valid at all. Having a lisence is superfluous if there isn't any trust.
It's kinda like keeping a secret. Once you let the cat out of the bag, you really have no control as to how that secret will be used. You can cajole, you can threaten, but ultimately it's not a secret anymore.
Forever time with this "If you don't like it, don't buy it" argument.
No. If they don't like it, they don't have to sell it. I am tired of being an unpaid enforcer of their policies. Fact of the mater is they are introducing a product with an immature technology for protecting their interests. So they impose upon mine. Licensing be damned: I don't tell them how to spend the money used to purchase their product, so quit telling me how to use the product. If you don't like what I am going to do with a product, perhaps you shouldn't have sold it to me. Why should the onus be strictly upon me?
I have to imagine basic piracy is also factored into the equation of their product offering (as well as buying off members of congress to pass legislation favorable to them). And for all the rampart piracy, they still continue to bring products to the market (albeit in crippled form). The terms of the licensing is just a means for them to keep collecting revenue while crying foul all-the-while. If I stopped payment on a check until they agreed to all of my terms of use, I doubt you'd be as sympathetic.
EULAs, Steam, RIAAA; perhaps they should have researched to whom they are selling to instead of taking the money and bitching about it afterwards.
Err, no.
The problem was never that the **AA sued people. It was how they went about it. You wanna do the scattergun approach; fine, just make damn sure you can deal with the fallout.
Lobbying congress with your pet peeves doesn't help either. I sit around wondering why DeCSS isn't covered under freedom of speech. How much more of my rights must I sacrifice to protect theirs? Where is the department for enforcing fair use rights?
Oh.
You know it is a bad sign when you can hire out the gov. as your own personal police force.
There are just as many concerns on the other side, but it doesn't matter. 2 million today, several hundred million years from now, and in the end I won't even be able to afford my own thoughts.
I note that the most adaptive/innovative industry to online content suffers the most copyright violations, still makes money hand over fist, and does not seem to indulge in mass-market litigation: the porn industry.
Given that the porn industry probably suffers more copyright violations than the RIAA and the MPAA combined (at least online), where are the great crusaders like Orin Hatch to protect their rights?
Why no speeches of how downloaders are taking the very food out of porn star's mouths?
Yeah, it's great that everyone can get on their high horse about protecting IP until there is a blowjob involve (hi stinky dead princess).
And I note the porn industry is adapting to it's new digs quite well, and wonder if the RIAA/MPAA feels abashed that they might have to follow the porn industry's lead in offering content.
Until the bullshit level on both sides of the P2P debate lessens, know that the litigation and downloading will continue to increase, and the escalation may ruin it for all.
Meanwhile, wouldn't it be funny if porn ends up taking a bite of the MPAA's market share by going legit?
Not specifically related, but you tend to see the same problems in medicine.
You have several specialized departments working with each other, each with distinct and massive protocols that don't mesh well.
Within certain regards, it almost seems the system is designed to fail by not designing for failure. Each department wants to give the appearance of toeing the company line even as internal systems fail. This reduces error reporting and functional problem solving because "it isn't SOP". Everyone is more concerned with placing blame than solving the problem.
And when the problems become so massive you can't ignore them, a new policy is issued, adding to the multi-volume sets of policies; which are internally conflicting, and effectively enforces mediocrity from all departments.
Add to this a shortage of people, people working under stressed conditions when lives are at stake, and you understand how a multitude of problems go undiagnosed simply because they are unknown. How do you know you are spreading nosicomial infections unless you check for them? And from what department are you going to pull the people to check, and how can you isolate the problem when each department is invested in covering their ass?
I haven't read "The Underground Text of Systems Lore", but I imagine a lot of the same observations would apply (I actually looked at it as applying chaos theory to system management in the ER, but the same ideas are expressed in "The Cluetrain Manifesto", and other publications).
Highly organized systems ultimately catabolism themselves unless they can restructure easily and effectively. NASA has not, medicine has not, and most political systems have not.
Something to think about when you in the OR at 2AM.
One of the greatest marvels of the 20th century and a segment of the population wants to deny access?
I wonder if these same people would have destroyed the Gutenberg press seeing as the same technology that gave me a $20 leather-bound copy of the complete works of Shakespeare also gives me MAD magazine.
Find it deliriously funny that the quote un quote technologically savvy would be so ignorant of how any new tech disrupts the social fabric. I mean didn't the Gutenberg press pretty much herald the end of the Dark Ages?
It's nice to know some people would have us return.
True, but the concerns expressed by my customers isn't absolute performance. It is building something good enough with a clear path for future upgrades, and at several different price points/uses.
PCIe is just future-proofing (not specific to graphics). Several customers have expressed a preferance for AMD, but there are no boards which fit their requests. That leaves Intel.
Yeah, but that's my point. No pcie AND pcix. No options as far as single or SMP (Opteron only. I can get pcie and pcix on a P4. Nothing for an athlon). And thats not including DDR2, SSE2/3. Considering the implimentation of Iwill's last Opteron board, I'm not really looking forward to it (check out the thread on 2cpu). There are cheaper boards that can do the same thing on an Intel platform. 3GHz Xeon- $325 Opteron 250- $749 ~$200 average along all speeds The DK8ES hasn't been released yet. I repeat, nada.