Because you will have to live, in your old age, in the society that those children create and mold.
If you're getting at that I will be dependant on society in my old age, I have no plans for that, thank you.
Because you are part of a larger society, and it is in your best interest that everyone else around you has a good education.
The larger society around me disgusts me as it is. I prefer that most kids grow up stupid, so they are most likely hit by a car when they run out into the street without looking. From what I see in my neighborhood, parents are already setting their kids down this path.
If you own a business, they may be your future employees or partners. If you get sick, they may be your doctors or nurses. Get the picture? You aren't an island. Even childless people depend on an orderly and productive society to live in.
So what you're saying is that if I am not forced to pay for someone else's eduction, they won't get one at all? Sorry, I don't buy that. I'm all for parents paying the bill for their kids education. And I'm all for laws forcing parents to put their kids through at least high school. I just don't feel as I should foot the bill.
My kids getting an education is not just in their (or my) best interest - it is in yours as well.
So you're telling me that if I didn't help put your kids through school, you wouldn't send them? You wouldn't pay for their education yourself? Wow, don't you care about them at all?
Well, fine, if you want to force me to help you take care of your kids, then I'm going to start having a say in what they are doing. And I want them doing more homework and spending more time studying. You can't feed your kids fast food anymore since that's proven to hinder a childs learning. And I don't want you taking them to church anymore, its a waste of time which they could be spending studying.
If you want MY money which I earned to help take care of your kids, then I want more say in their education. If you don't like those terms, pay for them yourself.
You're not paying for someone else's kids' education. You're paying us all back for YOUR education, which you received for free some years ago.
Kind of a silly argument, don't you think? I certainly didn't have a choice where I went to school, nor did I actually force you to pay for my education. The state made you pay for it, not me. I'm just saying the state shouldn't force anyone to pay for someone else's kids.
FWIW, I spent 7 years in a private school for which my parents paid. I then spent 5 years in college for which my family and I paid. The remaining years (grade 8 - 12) my parents paid property tax, so really they were paying for my education there as well, and even when I wasn't in public school they were paying to support someone elses kid in public school.
I guess your argument doesn't really hold up, does it?
Because you reap the benefits of having an educated workforce that ensures the economy keeps going.
Lets ignore the fact that public schools are failing miserablly and most people can't do basic math or science anymore. Sorry, I don't buy it.
Of course if you really insist I pay for your childs education, than I want more say in how your child is educated and how much time they spend studying and even what they eat (since your eating habits affect your learning ability). To that end, I say we start having school on Sundays, and lets not have any more children waste time going to church.
If farm subsidies were cut, what would happen is that prices of some products would rice (those where third world farmes can't make up for the shortage) to a level where it would be profitable
Huh, the prices would turn to rice? Oh you mean rise...ok. So, care to tell us how much they'd rise? Probably quite a bit, which would mean some probably wouldn't be able to afford it anymore, or at the very least more of their income goes to food instead of all the shiney stuff that keeps our economy going.
And you're depending on the third world for cheap food? The same third world that can't even feed its own people? Ya, sorry if I don't have much faith in that plan.
You have to remember that farming is a pretty big risk, being at the mercy of nature and all. The profitable prices for farm goods would likely be extraordinary high.
while in other parts local farmers would be out of business because third world farms who don't get subsidies would suddenly be able to fairly compete.
Its not bad enough we depend on foreign states for our oil, you want use to depend on them for food now as well? Thanks, but no thanks. Imagine if we had to go to war in a state like that, opec and now these 3rd world countries stop selling us oil and food. I don't think we'd last very long.
I hate to break it to you, but people do steal from walmart (I think their losses from theft are pretty big). Also, most of the ones doing the theft are employees.
Personally, I think people supporting walmart our evil and trying to justify their own greed. Walmart is helping destroy the country.
That pair of Levis you bought at walmart is of lower quality than the pair you buy anywhere else. Many walmart products have seperate lines with 'extras' trimmed (like rust coating and canvas waterproofing for outdoor furniture). Yet the box looks EXACTLY like the one you'd get at a non-walmart store and there's no mention of how it differs. I think those stealing from walmart are more honest than walmart to begin with. FWIW, I never go there.
no, you cannot decide not to have fire dept. coverage, get out of sending your children to school.
True, you must send your children to school, but for someone like me with no kids, I don't see why I should have to pay to educate someone else's children.
Church and state are separate in the US, but it's completely obvious that religion has an insane overall effect on politicians and hence politics.
Indeed, and I believe its very wrong. One of the main reasons I don't support Bush is that he seems hellbent on pushing his religous views on the nation; see stem cell research for the biggest example, although there are others. Indeed, even the war in Iraq and the war on terror in general feel like he believes he's 'gods warrior.'
People in America say church attendance is going up. I don't see it despite the rise of mega-churches.
If thats true, its probably because these people have an irrational fear (of terrorism) and thus need something, anything to believe in so they feel better. So they choose to believe in something equally irrational.
Don't create a movement to get people to abandon religion. That is just subversive.
Actually its probably one of the best movements we could get going. Lets abandon myth and start looking at the world logically. And it would be one less thing to use to justify killing each other.
Heh.. indeed. Wonder what will happen though if locals happen to side with the filesharer, and not the RIAA? Now instead of suing some college kid without any money across the country, they are suing a local college kid with no money. Will it make them look greedy in the eyes of the community? Do most people feel that stealing from Walmart is wrong, since they are a huge mega-corp?
The submiter (or at least the editor [yeah, right..]) should have mentioned that the contetnt was Flash 8 considering what forum the newsblurb was posted on.
Actually I think/. said that most users are browsing from Windows machines...
1.) There really aren't any rules, per se, just a set of conventions which in practice have proven to be fairly flexible, so there really can't be any rigging. This entails that things aren't fair, and I don't deny that.
No, there are some rules (laws) which are there purely for the advantage of big business. Then there is collusion within major industries to keep out new competitors. You'd have to be naive to think there isn't. (Perhaps 'rules' wasn't the best choice of word though.)
2.) In the general case, there isn't much to fear from people who lose. There's a reason it happens. Sure, every now and again, you get an uprising, or a revolution, or whatever you want to call it, but that usually just produces some different winners, while the losers stay mostly the same, and a lot (not all, not by any means) of the old winners join the losers, or possibly die.
Well, I think Louis XIV would disagree, as would the Russian Czars, even the British. As far as losers staying losers, I wouldn't agree. I don't think the middle class has 'lost' as of yet. Indeed, the creation of a middle class I would argue created a bunch of winners where there were not before (although years after a revolution).
It's called a revolution because it keeps coming back to the same point, just like a wheel.
This is true, probably because the 'now winners' forget over time why they are were they are.. like in America today, people don't realize how important the rights are which are being tramped.
If too many people consistantly end up being losers though they tend to revolt and kill the winners. Especially if the winners are 'rigging' the game to their advantage. That's also human nature.
They are making changes to support DRM, but that article doesn't say that DRM is the driving force behind the changes. I bet they could add the DRM bit without changing the driver architecture. So no, you're link doesn't back up that the sole reason they are changing the drivers is for DRM.
Its not absurd. I don't know what problems you're having where you can't (or won't) keep a job more than a few years, but you are an exception I would think. I'm certain that if I had chose to stay, I would still be at my first employer, and I would be coming up on 5 years with them. I keep in touch with my friends there, and the company is doing better than ever, so if I was still there, I have no doubts I'd be there another 5 years.
I'm not in a major technology hotbed by any stretch of the imagination (Vermont) but there was no shortage of positions available when I was looking prior to my current gig.
In the end its your choice; you choose to work for companies not near any mass transit, and you refuse to move closer to those companies. You're just not willing to make the changes necessary to do so (i.e. buy a smaller house, move to an apartment, etc).
You've changed your argument from "they're not allowed to" to "they shouldn't be allowed to". Well done.
Nope. They aren't allowed to, but are doing so anyway and the courts have chosen to ignore the Constitution, but that doesn't make it any more legal. Nice try though. FWIW, there are a HUGE number of state and federal agencies which are violating the law, and the courts don't seem to care. Our system is hugely broken unfortunately.
No, but laws exist which require people to submit to government drug testing to hold certain government jobs. Also, employer drug testing as part of a uniform policy has stood up thus far to the scrutiny of the courts.
Typically, those jobs are such that it would endanger other people's well being if said employee was high. Your last statement is now including private sector jobs, which we are not discussing here. I don't agree that private sector employers should be able to demand such things either, but I'd like to start with getting the government to respect the Constitution first.
Then don't complain about your commutes or lack of mass transit. In the end you're still the one choosing to live far from work in an area without good mass transit.
This is one of those cases where the courts, time and again, are wrong.
Would a law stand up which requires people submit to government drug testing to hold ANY job? Probably not.
By allowing these kinds of things, you basically are allowing for an end run around the constitution. You are allowing 'technicalities' to remove our rights as people. If the end result is that we lose our rights, what is the point of even having a bill of rights if it can be so easily circumvented?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm also currently contributing to society (by having a job, participating in the consumer economy, voting, etc.).
Obviously that part of my comment was aimed at a time when I couldn't support myself. So much for your public education.
Because you will have to live, in your old age, in the society that those children create and mold.
If you're getting at that I will be dependant on society in my old age, I have no plans for that, thank you.
Because you are part of a larger society, and it is in your best interest that everyone else around you has a good education.
The larger society around me disgusts me as it is. I prefer that most kids grow up stupid, so they are most likely hit by a car when they run out into the street without looking. From what I see in my neighborhood, parents are already setting their kids down this path.
If you own a business, they may be your future employees or partners. If you get sick, they may be your doctors or nurses. Get the picture? You aren't an island. Even childless people depend on an orderly and productive society to live in.
So what you're saying is that if I am not forced to pay for someone else's eduction, they won't get one at all? Sorry, I don't buy that. I'm all for parents paying the bill for their kids education. And I'm all for laws forcing parents to put their kids through at least high school. I just don't feel as I should foot the bill.
My kids getting an education is not just in their (or my) best interest - it is in yours as well.
So you're telling me that if I didn't help put your kids through school, you wouldn't send them? You wouldn't pay for their education yourself? Wow, don't you care about them at all?
Well, fine, if you want to force me to help you take care of your kids, then I'm going to start having a say in what they are doing. And I want them doing more homework and spending more time studying. You can't feed your kids fast food anymore since that's proven to hinder a childs learning. And I don't want you taking them to church anymore, its a waste of time which they could be spending studying.
If you want MY money which I earned to help take care of your kids, then I want more say in their education. If you don't like those terms, pay for them yourself.
You're not paying for someone else's kids' education. You're paying us all back for YOUR education, which you received for free some years ago.
Kind of a silly argument, don't you think? I certainly didn't have a choice where I went to school, nor did I actually force you to pay for my education. The state made you pay for it, not me. I'm just saying the state shouldn't force anyone to pay for someone else's kids.
FWIW, I spent 7 years in a private school for which my parents paid. I then spent 5 years in college for which my family and I paid. The remaining years (grade 8 - 12) my parents paid property tax, so really they were paying for my education there as well, and even when I wasn't in public school they were paying to support someone elses kid in public school.
I guess your argument doesn't really hold up, does it?
Because you reap the benefits of having an educated workforce that ensures the economy keeps going.
Lets ignore the fact that public schools are failing miserablly and most people can't do basic math or science anymore. Sorry, I don't buy it.
Of course if you really insist I pay for your childs education, than I want more say in how your child is educated and how much time they spend studying and even what they eat (since your eating habits affect your learning ability). To that end, I say we start having school on Sundays, and lets not have any more children waste time going to church.
If farm subsidies were cut, what would happen is that prices of some products would rice (those where third world farmes can't make up for the shortage) to a level where it would be profitable
Huh, the prices would turn to rice? Oh you mean rise...ok. So, care to tell us how much they'd rise? Probably quite a bit, which would mean some probably wouldn't be able to afford it anymore, or at the very least more of their income goes to food instead of all the shiney stuff that keeps our economy going.
And you're depending on the third world for cheap food? The same third world that can't even feed its own people? Ya, sorry if I don't have much faith in that plan.
You have to remember that farming is a pretty big risk, being at the mercy of nature and all. The profitable prices for farm goods would likely be extraordinary high.
while in other parts local farmers would be out of business because third world farms who don't get subsidies would suddenly be able to fairly compete.
Its not bad enough we depend on foreign states for our oil, you want use to depend on them for food now as well? Thanks, but no thanks. Imagine if we had to go to war in a state like that, opec and now these 3rd world countries stop selling us oil and food. I don't think we'd last very long.
I hate to break it to you, but people do steal from walmart (I think their losses from theft are pretty big). Also, most of the ones doing the theft are employees.
Personally, I think people supporting walmart our evil and trying to justify their own greed. Walmart is helping destroy the country.
That pair of Levis you bought at walmart is of lower quality than the pair you buy anywhere else. Many walmart products have seperate lines with 'extras' trimmed (like rust coating and canvas waterproofing for outdoor furniture). Yet the box looks EXACTLY like the one you'd get at a non-walmart store and there's no mention of how it differs. I think those stealing from walmart are more honest than walmart to begin with. FWIW, I never go there.
I read somewhere that a growing number of people thought stealing from a company was ok... of course I can't find it at the moment, oh well.
no, you cannot decide not to have fire dept. coverage, get out of sending your children to school.
True, you must send your children to school, but for someone like me with no kids, I don't see why I should have to pay to educate someone else's children.
As an American I would like to opt out of Social Security, farm subsidies, K-12 public schools, and public television.
FWIW, farm subsidies DO server you. They help keep farms from just going out of business and thus causing a food shortage.
The state is a church, and the church is a state.
Interesting statement, considering how a good number of people feel about the state (anger, hate, etc.)
Church and state are separate in the US, but it's completely obvious that religion has an insane overall effect on politicians and hence politics.
Indeed, and I believe its very wrong. One of the main reasons I don't support Bush is that he seems hellbent on pushing his religous views on the nation; see stem cell research for the biggest example, although there are others. Indeed, even the war in Iraq and the war on terror in general feel like he believes he's 'gods warrior.'
People in America say church attendance is going up. I don't see it despite the rise of mega-churches.
If thats true, its probably because these people have an irrational fear (of terrorism) and thus need something, anything to believe in so they feel better. So they choose to believe in something equally irrational.
Don't create a movement to get people to abandon religion. That is just subversive.
Actually its probably one of the best movements we could get going. Lets abandon myth and start looking at the world logically. And it would be one less thing to use to justify killing each other.
And yet the church (any church) talks about how declining membership is a sign of degraded moral and family values.
I see it as people finally waking up and realizing that god is myth, no different than greek legend.
IIRC (it was a while ago), its something like 80% of Slashdot users are using Windows based browsers (so that includes IE and FF).
While there are a few astroturfers, I think that most pro MS posts are legit and / or are reactions to blind "M$ is da evil" retardedness.
If i cared what was on digg, I would be over there, instead of here.
Heh.. indeed. Wonder what will happen though if locals happen to side with the filesharer, and not the RIAA? Now instead of suing some college kid without any money across the country, they are suing a local college kid with no money. Will it make them look greedy in the eyes of the community? Do most people feel that stealing from Walmart is wrong, since they are a huge mega-corp?
Here's hoping this stragegy backfires.
The submiter (or at least the editor [yeah, right..]) should have mentioned that the contetnt was Flash 8 considering what forum the newsblurb was posted on.
/. said that most users are browsing from Windows machines...
Actually I think
1.) There really aren't any rules, per se, just a set of conventions which in practice have proven to be fairly flexible, so there really can't be any rigging. This entails that things aren't fair, and I don't deny that.
No, there are some rules (laws) which are there purely for the advantage of big business. Then there is collusion within major industries to keep out new competitors. You'd have to be naive to think there isn't. (Perhaps 'rules' wasn't the best choice of word though.)
2.) In the general case, there isn't much to fear from people who lose. There's a reason it happens. Sure, every now and again, you get an uprising, or a revolution, or whatever you want to call it, but that usually just produces some different winners, while the losers stay mostly the same, and a lot (not all, not by any means) of the old winners join the losers, or possibly die.
Well, I think Louis XIV would disagree, as would the Russian Czars, even the British. As far as losers staying losers, I wouldn't agree. I don't think the middle class has 'lost' as of yet. Indeed, the creation of a middle class I would argue created a bunch of winners where there were not before (although years after a revolution).
It's called a revolution because it keeps coming back to the same point, just like a wheel.
This is true, probably because the 'now winners' forget over time why they are were they are.. like in America today, people don't realize how important the rights are which are being tramped.
If too many people consistantly end up being losers though they tend to revolt and kill the winners. Especially if the winners are 'rigging' the game to their advantage. That's also human nature.
They are making changes to support DRM, but that article doesn't say that DRM is the driving force behind the changes. I bet they could add the DRM bit without changing the driver architecture. So no, you're link doesn't back up that the sole reason they are changing the drivers is for DRM.
Its not absurd. I don't know what problems you're having where you can't (or won't) keep a job more than a few years, but you are an exception I would think. I'm certain that if I had chose to stay, I would still be at my first employer, and I would be coming up on 5 years with them. I keep in touch with my friends there, and the company is doing better than ever, so if I was still there, I have no doubts I'd be there another 5 years.
I'm not in a major technology hotbed by any stretch of the imagination (Vermont) but there was no shortage of positions available when I was looking prior to my current gig.
In the end its your choice; you choose to work for companies not near any mass transit, and you refuse to move closer to those companies. You're just not willing to make the changes necessary to do so (i.e. buy a smaller house, move to an apartment, etc).
You've changed your argument from "they're not allowed to" to "they shouldn't be allowed to". Well done.
Nope. They aren't allowed to, but are doing so anyway and the courts have chosen to ignore the Constitution, but that doesn't make it any more legal. Nice try though. FWIW, there are a HUGE number of state and federal agencies which are violating the law, and the courts don't seem to care. Our system is hugely broken unfortunately.
No, but laws exist which require people to submit to government drug testing to hold certain government jobs. Also, employer drug testing as part of a uniform policy has stood up thus far to the scrutiny of the courts.
Typically, those jobs are such that it would endanger other people's well being if said employee was high. Your last statement is now including private sector jobs, which we are not discussing here. I don't agree that private sector employers should be able to demand such things either, but I'd like to start with getting the government to respect the Constitution first.
Then don't complain about your commutes or lack of mass transit. In the end you're still the one choosing to live far from work in an area without good mass transit.
This is one of those cases where the courts, time and again, are wrong.
Would a law stand up which requires people submit to government drug testing to hold ANY job? Probably not.
By allowing these kinds of things, you basically are allowing for an end run around the constitution. You are allowing 'technicalities' to remove our rights as people. If the end result is that we lose our rights, what is the point of even having a bill of rights if it can be so easily circumvented?