It's a fight because it requires resisting the natural flow of society, which is AWAY from liberty. I would call going upstream on a river a fight.
The slothful nature of society as a whole the corruptive nature of power and money means that corrupt people are usually in leadership positions directing a mass of ignorant and lazy people. This does NOT cultivate liberty.
While I get that the term is overused, in context to preserving liberty, it sure as hell is a "fight." I look forward to a day when it isn't, but that's going to require a serious evolutionary leap among our primitive species.
Also perfect for privacy but hey... who needs privacy when you can pass a law that CLAIMS to be about criminals.
Of course, it has little do with crime. All but the dumbest criminals have 20 easy ways around this. (Fake IDs being the #1 method. It's not like the clerk at the cell phone place is going to spot one.)
If we spent a little more time worrying about the criminals in our legislative houses and a little less time worrying about boogie men and their nefarious activities, I do say we'd have much less crime and corruption in our societies.
"I don't. That doesn't make it any less wrong -- for one, why should it be a federal crime? I just don't get why the government is enforcing Apple's rules."
The government is enforcing laws the geniuses in congress passed at the whim of lobbyists. They're not "Apple's rules" per se. Although, using those laws IS typical Apple douchery.
The way you deal with stupid laws is you stop voting for Republicans and Democrats. The way you deal with corporate stupidity is you don't buy their products. Reality is, all the fucktards around you are going to vote for idiots and going to buy these products.
Basically, deal with it.
"I don't care about changing my own oil, no. But if I could only change my oil at a certain dealer, that'd be a problem. It's not that I want to change my own oil, it's that I want oil changes to be relatively cheap and abundant."
Which, again, leaves you with the option of not buying the car. If the rest of the car was so reliable that I could stomach only taking it to an authorized dealer, I'd make sure my insurance covered really far towing and suck it up. Or, I'd decide it wasn't worth it and... not buy the car.
"And you don't have to be much of a car person to want to be able to get a jump start -- or help someone else out by jumping them."
Here we go again. This can be easily avoided by... not buying the car. Try to fine grain the analogy all you want, but at the end of the day it boils down to whether such ridiculous restrictions are worth the perceived benefits. In a perfect world someone makes that car I want only doesn't arbitrarily restrict it. However, I'm not entitled to that car or that piece of electronic equipment existing and no company is obliged to make it for me.
I think Volvo already makes a car basically like this--no hood and it can only be serviced by authorized dealers. People buy them and generally the people who do have so much money that going to an authorized dealer doesn't make a dent in anything. Volvo found a market for their product and sells it. Am I hurt by this in some way. No. I can still take my shitty Mercury Cougar to my local mechanic who is reliable and nice with fair prices and get my car fixed.
"Still not something that it should be a federal crime to tinker with. These devices are capable of so much more than we're being allowed to do with them."
Look, I don't disagree that the way the government has become involved in this goes beyond insane. (Blame all the whining fools around here who want more and more nanny state. They're the reason the Federal Government's ballooned to do crap like that.) However, I basically answered this at the start.
"And while it's not quite one to one, the bigger a market the iPhone (or iPad) becomes, the less of a market there will be for the kinds of applications I want to work on."
Fine by me. The more jackoffs who flood the iPad/iPhone market to code leave more jobs available for guys like me.
At the end of the day, in any government or market where "the people" dictate things (by their vote or their pocket books), we're all slaves in some way to the stupid fucking whims of the uneducated masses. That's life and that's reality. I think what everyone here is afraid of is some monopoly of the iPad and iPhone.
It's not happening. It won't happen. There's plenty of competition out there so I don't get what all the fuss is about. What I see is the general bitching when it comes to Apple's stuff is that geeks DO love it and want it, but they want it their way and they seem to feel that stupid sense of entitlement. It's Apple's product. They dictate it. They're assholes. Get over it.
These aren't even related. Apple is a tight-fisted, litigation happy corporation with a narcissistic control freak at the head. It's annoying, but Steve Jobs isn't Hitler and Apple isn't the Third Reich for crying out loud.
Seriously? This is easily one of the stupidest fucking discussions I have ever seen on this site. Every dumb ass analogy there is has been used. Every unnecessary soap box has been stood on.
Hate the closed nature of the iPad and iPhone? Don't buy them. Do those devices simply not meet you business needs? Don't buy them. Think you know more about marketing a device than Apple? You're fucking deluded.
Is Apple somehow preventing you from buying and using other devices and services? No.
So what the fuck is the big deal?
I own a Mac. I love it. All the best computers I have ever owned have been made by Apple. They meet MY needs and have done so better than any other computer. Will you have the same results? Honestly, I don't give a shit. I have an Android phone. I love it. It has a physical keyboard, I don't need iTunes to use it, the ssh client was free, it's an AT&T exclusive and I can currently run Pandora in the background. See what I did there? Apple's product in that space didn't do what I wanted it to so, instead of freaking out about it and crying about Apple's "stupid" policies, I bought something else. Until that choice no longer exists, the rest of this talk about closed versus open systems and censorship and walled gardens is utterly pointless.
I mean seriously, did I miss something somewhere that there was some countdown from the moment the iPad was introduced that FOSS would no longer exist and that PCs would cease to be?
There's plenty of room in the ecosystem of computers and communication devices for everyone. Microsoft, Apple, FOSS, Google and whoever else wants to come to the party.
"I do have a problem with the fact that it's actually a federal crime to tinker with it, let alone try to sell apps or other accessories for it without Apple's stamp of approval."
So don't buy one. That's what I don't from this entire discussion and all its stupid analogies.
If a car existed that was extremely reliable, looked great, got excellent gas mileage, drove wonderfully and hardly ever broke down but I couldn't even change the oil, you know what? I might buy it. You know why? Even on cars where I can lift the hood, I don't. I don't know shit about cars. I mean, I can change my oil, but I don't. I don't want to deal with it. I take it to my car expert. Now, would a guy who IS a car expert want a car he couldn't mess with? Probably not. However some people, MOST people aren't experts.
Most people don't car about changing their own oil anymore than they give a shit about open source of vendor lock in. They know what they want and they want a device that will do it with as little hassle as possible. My mom doesn't change her own oil and doesn't even know what source code is. Oh and, my mom isn't a "simple" person. People who don't give a shit about the particulars of technology aren't necessarily simple.
WTF is wrong with people around here? If you want a simple device you must be a simple person?
This, like at least half the comments here talking about "freedom" miss the point. (And they miss it big.) Most people, the vast majority of people, don't give two shits about computer freedom in the sense that people here do.
And "freedom" is not as cut and dry as having access to source code or not being locked in to a particular vendor. My parents for instance have been able to do MORE with their computers since I switched them to Macs. While they don't have the same choices they had on a PC, what they do have works better. I have more freedom because I don't have to come fix their computers anymore. Time Machine is an excellent and simple backup solution so they even do that. They set it up ENTIRELY without my help.
So, your question: "Do we want to go this route of sacrificing openness for ease of use?" Depends on who you are. If openness is either philosophically important to you or technically important to you then no, don't. If your computer is like any other tool or electronic device that just needs to solve a problem or do a job then yes, it is.
My parents don't care about open source and they don't care about these other issues. They have no reason to.
Linux isn't going anywhere. FreeBSD isn't going anywhere. Computers as we know them aren't going anywhere. They may become more niche in time, but they'll be here in 5 years and they'll be here in 10 years. Some people will more to locked down devices and said locked down devices because of their ease of use actually offer those people MORE choices than they had with a device they didn't understand.
Who cares? Until I see a reasonable possibility that I'll have no choice but a locked down platform, then I'll care. Until them, let there be tons if people want them. Why is it that choice is a good thing up until someone CHOOSES lock in because it's preferable to them for some reason?
The problem isn't education though. The problem is the cost of education and the classist system it's been creating for a long time.
If you work as, say, a contractor or a fisherman and didn't go to college you're considered "uneducated" and your work is also valued less in many instances.
Our biggest educational problem right now isn't college anyway, it's the fucking internment camps at the lower level we put our children through. Instead of cultivating imagination, encouraging their interests and making the prospect of education and learning exciting, we force feed them institutions they hate that are crippled by the lowest common denominator and where curriculums are designed by bureaucrats. They're also being taught obedience rather than independence.
Someone who loves to learn and is motivated to learn, will. My father never went to college, but he's significantly more educated than most of the sheep being churned out with their 4 year degrees. He was a contractor and why? He loved the work.
What we should be doing is: instilling a LOVE of learning in our children, directing them to do what they LOVE and are INTERESTED in, not expect them to decide what they want to be at 18 and not shove college down their throats. It's okay to try starting your own business or enter trades or whatever if you WANT to. Trouble is, we have a society that views and treats those people like a lower class.
This problem is a symptom of the greater problem in America: totally broken thinking at just about every level. It's not just Americans either. I foresee a major global financial collapse causing the "enlightened industrial" nations to, perhaps, reevaluate how they've been handling things.
One of the differences between then and now is third party integration. My phone integrates into Facebook. My photo storage application integrates into Facebook (tagging and all). The list goes on.
While I'm not going to say that Facebook is invincible, the battle for the social networking space now is far different than it was when Facebook rose to power.
No idea, I had to do it three times today... and Apple's definition of 35 minutes for Snow Leopard is similar to the Microsoft Time Units used to measure Vista install times.
Windows 7 smokes OS X on install time. (Although, is install time THAT big of a deal?)
In fact, as people find convenient uses for it and more and more apps appear it's going to get more popular, not less. (And Apple will certainly add in a few glaring omissions in the next revision.)
What I have found is that, for the most part, geeks don't get the iPad at all. Geeks are too spec oriented and use their computers in a completely different manner than non-technical types. I was really wowed by the iPad when I played with it the other day. The book reader, in particular, was damn neat.
I have some feeling the computer could probably replace my mom's Mac Mini for what she uses a computer for.
I'm gonna wait one generation and I might get one as a travel machine depending on the state of the apps available for it.
(Also, I'm one of those people who view the lack of Flash as a feature.)
"Hey man, we know that no one likes to get kicked in the balls when they're down, but getting kicked in the balls is human. So we kicked you and we're doing it again because really, the media loves seeing and hearing people get kicked in the balls. It drives our advertising. Tomorrow's another day though."
I agree. He shouldn't have left the damn thing at a bar. If he was paying any attention he would have noticed by the time he got to the car. Part of field testing a prototype is NOT LOSING THE PROTOTYPE. If you figure you're gonna hit up some beers with buddies, just don't bring it. This is not hard.
He was a dumbass and is probably going to pay for it.
(This is, of course, presuming this isn't an intentional drop which I'm still not convinced it isn't.)
Not everyone wants to tinker with their devices. The ONLY reason this would be sad is if there was no choice involved and I couldn't get a more open device. Just because someone doesn't give a shit about the specifics of their hardware or software beyond meeting their needs doesn't mean they're stupid or morally inferior.
There's absolutely no difference between a police officer obtaining information through illegal means and a mafia criminal doing the same. None.
At that point they're both criminals. In fact, I'd say the police officer is worse given that the mafia dude probably hasn't taken any sort of constitutional oath.
"If all the Chinese government wanted from Google was info on thieves and rapists and such, then nobody would complain about them handing it over."
I would. We have due process for a reason. There's a big difference between being a rapist or a thief and being an ACCUSED rapist or an ACCUSED thief.
"But the people of the US have the freedom to criticize the government and vote it out of office, so someone who tries to overthrow the US government by violence actually is a terrorist or criminal."
Hilarious. So in a country filled with rigged elections, bought and paid for politicians and the nostalgic illusion of liberty, it's not okay to fight back? The "tyranny" the founding fathers faced in this country by the British is a MICRON compared to the regulatory bullshit we face today. They fought back and we don't view them as terrorists.
Who the hell modded this insightful? Probably some other nationalist asshole.
It can be summarized as, "Look, it's okay to break the rules if you're not as bad as China. China is bad and therefore must be held to a higher standard than other nations. It's okay for police to fudge the law, but not for criminals to do so. Also, accused rapists and accused thieves don't deserve to have their privacy protected."
Which is sort of a position I've had for a long time. I live in a valley. There is no part of me that wouldn't want lower vehicle emissions where I live. In other words, I don't need someone screaming "THE END OF THE WORLD IS AT HAND" for me to recognize one of many obvious environmental problems.
However, if you think all policy being pushed on behalf of global climate change is good, you're wrong. The "green" movement is as lobby infested and self interested as any other entity capable of turning a profit and affecting Congress.
I also have a huge problem with a lot of environmental laws and how they affect personal liberty.
Now, before some asshole wants to jump on my face: I grow my own garden, I carpool, I recycle, I try to buy environmentally friendly products and do business with companies (when I can) that are more ecologically friendly. The list goes on. I care about the environment and I'm personally concerned about how much waste I contribute and do my best to curb it.
Instead of griping that the government needs to do something, I do my best to control my own actions and encourage others to do so. The only entities getting major governmental policies in place are entities that don't give a shit about being green aside from how the "green revolution" will pad their pocket books.
Alternative energy sources are all well and good, but not under the guise of bad science that is also being used for fucking morons like James Lovelock to suggest we need to start suspending fundamental rights.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a fight because it requires resisting the natural flow of society, which is AWAY from liberty. I would call going upstream on a river a fight.
The slothful nature of society as a whole the corruptive nature of power and money means that corrupt people are usually in leadership positions directing a mass of ignorant and lazy people. This does NOT cultivate liberty.
While I get that the term is overused, in context to preserving liberty, it sure as hell is a "fight." I look forward to a day when it isn't, but that's going to require a serious evolutionary leap among our primitive species.
Also perfect for privacy but hey... who needs privacy when you can pass a law that CLAIMS to be about criminals.
Of course, it has little do with crime. All but the dumbest criminals have 20 easy ways around this. (Fake IDs being the #1 method. It's not like the clerk at the cell phone place is going to spot one.)
If we spent a little more time worrying about the criminals in our legislative houses and a little less time worrying about boogie men and their nefarious activities, I do say we'd have much less crime and corruption in our societies.
"I don't. That doesn't make it any less wrong -- for one, why should it be a federal crime? I just don't get why the government is enforcing Apple's rules."
The government is enforcing laws the geniuses in congress passed at the whim of lobbyists. They're not "Apple's rules" per se. Although, using those laws IS typical Apple douchery.
The way you deal with stupid laws is you stop voting for Republicans and Democrats. The way you deal with corporate stupidity is you don't buy their products. Reality is, all the fucktards around you are going to vote for idiots and going to buy these products.
Basically, deal with it.
"I don't care about changing my own oil, no. But if I could only change my oil at a certain dealer, that'd be a problem. It's not that I want to change my own oil, it's that I want oil changes to be relatively cheap and abundant."
Which, again, leaves you with the option of not buying the car. If the rest of the car was so reliable that I could stomach only taking it to an authorized dealer, I'd make sure my insurance covered really far towing and suck it up. Or, I'd decide it wasn't worth it and... not buy the car.
"And you don't have to be much of a car person to want to be able to get a jump start -- or help someone else out by jumping them."
Here we go again. This can be easily avoided by... not buying the car. Try to fine grain the analogy all you want, but at the end of the day it boils down to whether such ridiculous restrictions are worth the perceived benefits. In a perfect world someone makes that car I want only doesn't arbitrarily restrict it. However, I'm not entitled to that car or that piece of electronic equipment existing and no company is obliged to make it for me.
I think Volvo already makes a car basically like this--no hood and it can only be serviced by authorized dealers. People buy them and generally the people who do have so much money that going to an authorized dealer doesn't make a dent in anything. Volvo found a market for their product and sells it. Am I hurt by this in some way. No. I can still take my shitty Mercury Cougar to my local mechanic who is reliable and nice with fair prices and get my car fixed.
"Still not something that it should be a federal crime to tinker with. These devices are capable of so much more than we're being allowed to do with them."
Look, I don't disagree that the way the government has become involved in this goes beyond insane. (Blame all the whining fools around here who want more and more nanny state. They're the reason the Federal Government's ballooned to do crap like that.) However, I basically answered this at the start.
"And while it's not quite one to one, the bigger a market the iPhone (or iPad) becomes, the less of a market there will be for the kinds of applications I want to work on."
Fine by me. The more jackoffs who flood the iPad/iPhone market to code leave more jobs available for guys like me.
At the end of the day, in any government or market where "the people" dictate things (by their vote or their pocket books), we're all slaves in some way to the stupid fucking whims of the uneducated masses. That's life and that's reality. I think what everyone here is afraid of is some monopoly of the iPad and iPhone.
It's not happening. It won't happen. There's plenty of competition out there so I don't get what all the fuss is about. What I see is the general bitching when it comes to Apple's stuff is that geeks DO love it and want it, but they want it their way and they seem to feel that stupid sense of entitlement. It's Apple's product. They dictate it. They're assholes. Get over it.
This is just plain stupid.
These aren't even related. Apple is a tight-fisted, litigation happy corporation with a narcissistic control freak at the head. It's annoying, but Steve Jobs isn't Hitler and Apple isn't the Third Reich for crying out loud.
Seriously? This is easily one of the stupidest fucking discussions I have ever seen on this site. Every dumb ass analogy there is has been used. Every unnecessary soap box has been stood on.
Hate the closed nature of the iPad and iPhone? Don't buy them. Do those devices simply not meet you business needs? Don't buy them. Think you know more about marketing a device than Apple? You're fucking deluded.
Is Apple somehow preventing you from buying and using other devices and services? No.
So what the fuck is the big deal?
I own a Mac. I love it. All the best computers I have ever owned have been made by Apple. They meet MY needs and have done so better than any other computer. Will you have the same results? Honestly, I don't give a shit. I have an Android phone. I love it. It has a physical keyboard, I don't need iTunes to use it, the ssh client was free, it's an AT&T exclusive and I can currently run Pandora in the background. See what I did there? Apple's product in that space didn't do what I wanted it to so, instead of freaking out about it and crying about Apple's "stupid" policies, I bought something else. Until that choice no longer exists, the rest of this talk about closed versus open systems and censorship and walled gardens is utterly pointless.
Why do we even have to stick it to Apple?
I mean seriously, did I miss something somewhere that there was some countdown from the moment the iPad was introduced that FOSS would no longer exist and that PCs would cease to be?
There's plenty of room in the ecosystem of computers and communication devices for everyone. Microsoft, Apple, FOSS, Google and whoever else wants to come to the party.
"I do have a problem with the fact that it's actually a federal crime to tinker with it, let alone try to sell apps or other accessories for it without Apple's stamp of approval."
So don't buy one. That's what I don't from this entire discussion and all its stupid analogies.
If a car existed that was extremely reliable, looked great, got excellent gas mileage, drove wonderfully and hardly ever broke down but I couldn't even change the oil, you know what? I might buy it. You know why? Even on cars where I can lift the hood, I don't. I don't know shit about cars. I mean, I can change my oil, but I don't. I don't want to deal with it. I take it to my car expert. Now, would a guy who IS a car expert want a car he couldn't mess with? Probably not. However some people, MOST people aren't experts.
Most people don't car about changing their own oil anymore than they give a shit about open source of vendor lock in. They know what they want and they want a device that will do it with as little hassle as possible. My mom doesn't change her own oil and doesn't even know what source code is. Oh and, my mom isn't a "simple" person. People who don't give a shit about the particulars of technology aren't necessarily simple.
WTF is wrong with people around here? If you want a simple device you must be a simple person?
This, like at least half the comments here talking about "freedom" miss the point. (And they miss it big.) Most people, the vast majority of people, don't give two shits about computer freedom in the sense that people here do.
And "freedom" is not as cut and dry as having access to source code or not being locked in to a particular vendor. My parents for instance have been able to do MORE with their computers since I switched them to Macs. While they don't have the same choices they had on a PC, what they do have works better. I have more freedom because I don't have to come fix their computers anymore. Time Machine is an excellent and simple backup solution so they even do that. They set it up ENTIRELY without my help.
So, your question: "Do we want to go this route of sacrificing openness for ease of use?" Depends on who you are. If openness is either philosophically important to you or technically important to you then no, don't. If your computer is like any other tool or electronic device that just needs to solve a problem or do a job then yes, it is.
My parents don't care about open source and they don't care about these other issues. They have no reason to.
Linux isn't going anywhere. FreeBSD isn't going anywhere. Computers as we know them aren't going anywhere. They may become more niche in time, but they'll be here in 5 years and they'll be here in 10 years. Some people will more to locked down devices and said locked down devices because of their ease of use actually offer those people MORE choices than they had with a device they didn't understand.
Who cares? Until I see a reasonable possibility that I'll have no choice but a locked down platform, then I'll care. Until them, let there be tons if people want them. Why is it that choice is a good thing up until someone CHOOSES lock in because it's preferable to them for some reason?
The problem isn't education though. The problem is the cost of education and the classist system it's been creating for a long time.
If you work as, say, a contractor or a fisherman and didn't go to college you're considered "uneducated" and your work is also valued less in many instances.
Our biggest educational problem right now isn't college anyway, it's the fucking internment camps at the lower level we put our children through. Instead of cultivating imagination, encouraging their interests and making the prospect of education and learning exciting, we force feed them institutions they hate that are crippled by the lowest common denominator and where curriculums are designed by bureaucrats. They're also being taught obedience rather than independence.
Someone who loves to learn and is motivated to learn, will. My father never went to college, but he's significantly more educated than most of the sheep being churned out with their 4 year degrees. He was a contractor and why? He loved the work.
What we should be doing is: instilling a LOVE of learning in our children, directing them to do what they LOVE and are INTERESTED in, not expect them to decide what they want to be at 18 and not shove college down their throats. It's okay to try starting your own business or enter trades or whatever if you WANT to. Trouble is, we have a society that views and treats those people like a lower class.
This problem is a symptom of the greater problem in America: totally broken thinking at just about every level. It's not just Americans either. I foresee a major global financial collapse causing the "enlightened industrial" nations to, perhaps, reevaluate how they've been handling things.
Weird, I'm not getting issues like that.
The performance is underwhelming on the newest 13" MBP though. It's passable though.
One of the differences between then and now is third party integration. My phone integrates into Facebook. My photo storage application integrates into Facebook (tagging and all). The list goes on.
While I'm not going to say that Facebook is invincible, the battle for the social networking space now is far different than it was when Facebook rose to power.
Hahaha.
Now I need to go watch that movie.
No idea, I had to do it three times today... and Apple's definition of 35 minutes for Snow Leopard is similar to the Microsoft Time Units used to measure Vista install times.
Windows 7 smokes OS X on install time. (Although, is install time THAT big of a deal?)
It will.
In fact, as people find convenient uses for it and more and more apps appear it's going to get more popular, not less. (And Apple will certainly add in a few glaring omissions in the next revision.)
What I have found is that, for the most part, geeks don't get the iPad at all. Geeks are too spec oriented and use their computers in a completely different manner than non-technical types. I was really wowed by the iPad when I played with it the other day. The book reader, in particular, was damn neat.
I have some feeling the computer could probably replace my mom's Mac Mini for what she uses a computer for.
I'm gonna wait one generation and I might get one as a travel machine depending on the state of the apps available for it.
(Also, I'm one of those people who view the lack of Flash as a feature.)
I liked all the new characters, but I thought Urban was the best. Quinto was really good too, but man... I just loved Urban's take on Bones.
Yes. Glad we had this discussion.
"Hey man, we know that no one likes to get kicked in the balls when they're down, but getting kicked in the balls is human. So we kicked you and we're doing it again because really, the media loves seeing and hearing people get kicked in the balls. It drives our advertising. Tomorrow's another day though."
I agree. He shouldn't have left the damn thing at a bar. If he was paying any attention he would have noticed by the time he got to the car. Part of field testing a prototype is NOT LOSING THE PROTOTYPE. If you figure you're gonna hit up some beers with buddies, just don't bring it. This is not hard.
He was a dumbass and is probably going to pay for it.
(This is, of course, presuming this isn't an intentional drop which I'm still not convinced it isn't.)
Why is that "sad"?
Not everyone wants to tinker with their devices. The ONLY reason this would be sad is if there was no choice involved and I couldn't get a more open device. Just because someone doesn't give a shit about the specifics of their hardware or software beyond meeting their needs doesn't mean they're stupid or morally inferior.
Good lord.
And I've seen #2 type shit in action WAY too many times.
Ugh. I'm suddenly reminded how much I loathe police.
There's absolutely no difference between a police officer obtaining information through illegal means and a mafia criminal doing the same. None.
At that point they're both criminals. In fact, I'd say the police officer is worse given that the mafia dude probably hasn't taken any sort of constitutional oath.
"If all the Chinese government wanted from Google was info on thieves and rapists and such, then nobody would complain about them handing it over."
I would. We have due process for a reason. There's a big difference between being a rapist or a thief and being an ACCUSED rapist or an ACCUSED thief.
"But the people of the US have the freedom to criticize the government and vote it out of office, so someone who tries to overthrow the US government by violence actually is a terrorist or criminal."
Hilarious. So in a country filled with rigged elections, bought and paid for politicians and the nostalgic illusion of liberty, it's not okay to fight back? The "tyranny" the founding fathers faced in this country by the British is a MICRON compared to the regulatory bullshit we face today. They fought back and we don't view them as terrorists.
Who the hell modded this insightful? Probably some other nationalist asshole.
It can be summarized as, "Look, it's okay to break the rules if you're not as bad as China. China is bad and therefore must be held to a higher standard than other nations. It's okay for police to fudge the law, but not for criminals to do so. Also, accused rapists and accused thieves don't deserve to have their privacy protected."
Which is sort of a position I've had for a long time. I live in a valley. There is no part of me that wouldn't want lower vehicle emissions where I live. In other words, I don't need someone screaming "THE END OF THE WORLD IS AT HAND" for me to recognize one of many obvious environmental problems.
However, if you think all policy being pushed on behalf of global climate change is good, you're wrong. The "green" movement is as lobby infested and self interested as any other entity capable of turning a profit and affecting Congress.
I also have a huge problem with a lot of environmental laws and how they affect personal liberty.
Now, before some asshole wants to jump on my face: I grow my own garden, I carpool, I recycle, I try to buy environmentally friendly products and do business with companies (when I can) that are more ecologically friendly. The list goes on. I care about the environment and I'm personally concerned about how much waste I contribute and do my best to curb it.
Instead of griping that the government needs to do something, I do my best to control my own actions and encourage others to do so. The only entities getting major governmental policies in place are entities that don't give a shit about being green aside from how the "green revolution" will pad their pocket books.
Alternative energy sources are all well and good, but not under the guise of bad science that is also being used for fucking morons like James Lovelock to suggest we need to start suspending fundamental rights.
Maybe it grew a brain and a lot of us are just as sick of global warming dogma as we are of fundamentalist dogma.
This article is EXACTLY why global climate change is such a hot topic: the end of the world is at hand is an EXCELLENT excuse to push bad policy.
I wouldn't want plain old sugar in EVERYTHING I EAT either.
Those new ads where people say, "HFCS is the same as sugar..." are true. They're both bad for you, particularly in the quantities we're consuming.