I've always been told that ignorance is no excuse. I think we can apply that here. The people choose to remain ignorant in the hopes of not being held responsible. It's the ultimate passing of the buck. It's bogus. They are responsible. Like it or not.
You are saying 99% of the people voted for the "major party" which is singular.
Exactly!
There are two major parties.
No,(to steal a post I just saw), "There is one party with two names.
...but if you hate republicans MORE, then you should vote for a democrat so the Republican does not get in...again take the lesser of two evils.
No, they are the same evil. Just look at their records.
I'm aware of the voting options. I'm also aware that most poeple chose not to use those options because they are comfortable. I don't blame anything on the gov't. It is acting according to the wishes of the people, and I'm not complaining about the lack of options. What we have is what the people want.
>> What we and the others are doing is making them suffer.
How so?
That you had to ask that question at all speaks volumes of how unaware you are of your government's actions. You're so wrapped up in tiny, insignificant differences among us, that it appears that you don't see the similarities at all. The old "can't see the forest for the trees" thing. The roots of Zimbabwe's problems go back way beyond the guy in charge now. If the man sells us cheap resources, we aren't going to give a tinker's damn if anybody theere is suffering or not. Like all of our wars, we get involved for economic reasons. There is no morality behind it. You speak volumes about the Chinese suffering under a repressive gov't, yet you support that gov't because you don't want to waste your money. Where do you really stand on the matter? Are you really concerned about the legitimacy of other people's governments, or do you support anybody that will save you a few pennies?
99% of the people that voted voted for a major party. Both exactly the same as the other. I would like to think that the non-voters disapprove, but they didn't rise up and vote for the opposition. If they all did, we would be rid of the republicans AND democrats. So, I guess they approved also. That said, I do believe their are valid reasons for not voting. We try to use our government like a corporation, as a way to pass off individual responsibility to the corp. We can do what we want without suffering any consequances(to a limit, as we will find out sooner or later).
Please, don't take this wrongly...but, free from/of/to do what? I know the is a silly question, but just how free is a person allowed to be? My personal answer is anything that doesn't cause harm to another. For me it's a nice absolute to work with. I suppose if this right was respected universally, everything would fall into place. I like the idea of rights, but we need a way to make them as inviolable as the laws of physics themselves to make it really mean anything. That would make me a lot more comfortable than a bunch of fancy, expensive philosophy.
...back in the olden days (90's) we had to take an exam w/o calculators...
back in the olden days (60's) we had to take an exam w/o calculators...because they didn't exist. Well, they did, but they weren't the pocket variety. I wonder if they would have let me use an abacus.
When property is disconnected from rights over it, it disappears...
So public domain is a black hole from which nothing escapes? What happens to public property? like parks and beaches? Are they all a mess where you live?
...see rent control housing and how well it is upkept.
In my opinion rent control(where it's needed) doesn't go far enough. Proper upkeep of rental units should be part of that law. If the landlords don't like it, they should find another line of work.
...If I could not liscence and sell this sympthony I just wrote, I would not have written it.
And nobody else would know or care about it. The loss would be yours alone. A symphony will still be written. Just not yours. If you refused to write a symphony simply due to lack of profit, I would have doubts that your heart was in it anyway, and the quality of your work would be suspect.
Another thing that makes a thing fundamental is universal recognition. It is universally recognized that the sky is blue the grass is green(if it's not dead). A rock will fall if you drop it. These things are as fundamental as it gets. There is no law that can change that. Our nukes aren't that powerful. Rights are subject to human opinion and whimsy. The fact that there is so much disagreement over what rights we have shows that they're not fundamental in any way. On the other hand we do have the fundamental right to do what ever we want, simply beacuse we might be capable of it. So, in that case, which rights do we give up to live comfortably in society? Who decides which rights we must give up? Personally, I give up some rights out of respect for the other person. I don't get upset until somebody tries to arbitrarily prohibit my actions. Proving the existance of rights is a little like trying to prove the existance of god. Also, can you give me an example of what rights we have despite what the law says? Are they absolute? If not, who decides what limits there are? If you accept some limits, and somebody else wants stronger limits, when are you going to decide that your rights are being violated?
Don't you mean the 1% who voted for loons and poseurs?
Ok...so if you're neither democrat or republican you're a loon, eh? Interesting thought. That would imply that you did vote for one of the major parties and are therefore simply voting to maintain the status quo. That makes you part of the problem...
To be continued...tomorrow I hope...time to hit the bar...I'm being pushed out the door.
The laws of physics are fundamental because it's impossible to violate them. That doesn't work with rights. Fundamental things are just that. They are imppossible to remove. The rights that we speak of are a human invention. A better word for us to use is liberty. Liberty can be taken away. A right implies inviolability(?), but they're violated all the time...by the same people who invented the concept!
If, as is usually the case, those people either cannot or will not remove the government that harms them, what would you suggest the rest of us do? Let them suffer?
No. What we and the others are doing is making them suffer. Simply leaving them alone might suffice. We live in a world where the strong rule the weak...on a micro and macro scale. All I'm pointing to you is that we are ALL the same. When we are comfortable, we treat people reasonably well(within our borders). When the discomfort level reaches a certain level we ALL react the same. If a group of outsiders try to take away your home and is successful you will react the same way as anybody. Until you experience it, don't try to convince me you won't. Your failure to see the similarities is disturbing. You seem to think that we are better than others. You seem to be of the mind that "An American would never do that." Well, we would and we do. But like too many, you seem to think it's ok if we only do it to one or two precent of the people. It's all for the "greater good", right? Whose greater good?
First, you attacked my voting record...
A suggestion to re-evaluate if a certain set of circumstances exist is hardly an attack, but call it what you want.
And, what "1%" are you talking about?
The 1% that voted for neither of the majors, republican OR democrat. Voting for either of these is merely voting to keep things the way they are. Even the non-voters carry more credibility than one who votes for the regulars.
Put differently, how would support the people who innovate?
Simple...The same way we support everybody else. If this developer were to withhold his innovation for profit and let people die, then we'll just have to assume he did nothing and wait for another developer who wants to cure people. In a pure capitalist world where corporations don't have special protections and privileges, it wouldn't cost billions to develope the cure. Most of that money being spent now is pure featherbedding. Also the developer would be aware of this replicator and work his business accordingly. He will find upfront funding. I hope you're not advocating the prohibition of molecular replicators. But since capitalism needs scarcity and poverty and illness and war to function, prohibition is probably exactly what would happen. If everybody can make what they need for themselves what is going to fuel capitalism? If nobody is poor, who will do the work? If everybody is healthy, who's going to buy your treatments(because we know a cure is not profitable)? If we're at peace, who's going to buy your weapons?
Basically, I'm curious as to what you think a capitalist system should contain to prevent this problem?
The cops didn't catch him because they were too busy sitting outside of the local bar waiting for some poor bastard who was a hair over 0.08...
This reminds me of a little story: A cop is waiting outside a bar near closing time when a guy comes stumbling out barely making it to his car to prop himdelf up before falling over. He tries his key five or six times bfore getting the door open. He starts his car up woth a ferocious "VROOOOM" and off he goes. Well, the cop sees all this and starts off to pull him over. He catches up to him a couple of miles down the road and pulls him over, and asks him just what he thinks he was doing driving like that. The guy replies, "I'm the designated distraction."
Slashdot Mirror
Holly shit!
Let's hope she made it the bathroom. And wouldn't "Ay caramba!" be more appropriate?
Cool. Even I will put off the boycott until after I see this one...at home...on DVD.
How do you feel about Palestine(Israel)? Aren't we doing exactly what you describe here? Should this be any different? If so, why?
I've always been told that ignorance is no excuse. I think we can apply that here. The people choose to remain ignorant in the hopes of not being held responsible. It's the ultimate passing of the buck. It's bogus. They are responsible. Like it or not.
You are saying 99% of the people voted for the "major party" which is singular.
...but if you hate republicans MORE, then you should vote for a democrat so the Republican does not get in...again take the lesser of two evils.
Exactly!
There are two major parties.
No,(to steal a post I just saw), "There is one party with two names.
No, they are the same evil. Just look at their records.
I'm aware of the voting options. I'm also aware that most poeple chose not to use those options because they are comfortable. I don't blame anything on the gov't. It is acting according to the wishes of the people, and I'm not complaining about the lack of options. What we have is what the people want.
IMHO, there is never a reason to not vote.
Well, maybe one (note: this guy was a sore loser)
The government stopped working for the people a long time ago.
I would say it happened right about here.
continued...
>> What we and the others are doing is making them suffer.
How so?
That you had to ask that question at all speaks volumes of how unaware you are of your government's actions. You're so wrapped up in tiny, insignificant differences among us, that it appears that you don't see the similarities at all. The old "can't see the forest for the trees" thing. The roots of Zimbabwe's problems go back way beyond the guy in charge now. If the man sells us cheap resources, we aren't going to give a tinker's damn if anybody theere is suffering or not. Like all of our wars, we get involved for economic reasons. There is no morality behind it. You speak volumes about the Chinese suffering under a repressive gov't, yet you support that gov't because you don't want to waste your money. Where do you really stand on the matter? Are you really concerned about the legitimacy of other people's governments, or do you support anybody that will save you a few pennies?
99% of the people that voted voted for a major party. Both exactly the same as the other. I would like to think that the non-voters disapprove, but they didn't rise up and vote for the opposition. If they all did, we would be rid of the republicans AND democrats. So, I guess they approved also. That said, I do believe their are valid reasons for not voting. We try to use our government like a corporation, as a way to pass off individual responsibility to the corp. We can do what we want without suffering any consequances(to a limit, as we will find out sooner or later).
And most of the people who "slipped it in" were re-elected. The people ARE responsible.
Microsoft wants patent reform. They don't want some Guatamalan pip-squeak sneaking up on them and taking what's "rightfully" theirs.
Under the present circumstances, you forgot a critical step
Become filthy rich. Things seem to go smoother that way.
Get into politics, modify the laws yourself
Ooooh, if we were only half as united as the entertainment industry...
We have been divided and conquered, and we seem to like it. 99% said "we approve" in the last election.
Slaves everywhere have a right to be free...
Please, don't take this wrongly...but, free from/of/to do what? I know the is a silly question, but just how free is a person allowed to be? My personal answer is anything that doesn't cause harm to another. For me it's a nice absolute to work with. I suppose if this right was respected universally, everything would fall into place. I like the idea of rights, but we need a way to make them as inviolable as the laws of physics themselves to make it really mean anything. That would make me a lot more comfortable than a bunch of fancy, expensive philosophy.
...back in the olden days (90's) we had to take an exam w/o calculators...
back in the olden days (60's) we had to take an exam w/o calculators...because they didn't exist. Well, they did, but they weren't the pocket variety. I wonder if they would have let me use an abacus.
Ever tried decontaminating a calculator when you spilled some biological crap on it?
:-)
No. It goas straight to the hazmat bin. So should the slide rule. Who knows what kind of "Andromeda Strain" you would be unleashing upon us
allow calculators in school when a slide rule is good enough? It's even graphical...kinda.
When property is disconnected from rights over it, it disappears...
...see rent control housing and how well it is upkept.
So public domain is a black hole from which nothing escapes? What happens to public property? like parks and beaches? Are they all a mess where you live?
In my opinion rent control(where it's needed) doesn't go far enough. Proper upkeep of rental units should be part of that law. If the landlords don't like it, they should find another line of work.
...If I could not liscence and sell this sympthony I just wrote, I would not have written it.
And nobody else would know or care about it. The loss would be yours alone. A symphony will still be written. Just not yours. If you refused to write a symphony simply due to lack of profit, I would have doubts that your heart was in it anyway, and the quality of your work would be suspect.
Another thing that makes a thing fundamental is universal recognition. It is universally recognized that the sky is blue the grass is green(if it's not dead). A rock will fall if you drop it. These things are as fundamental as it gets. There is no law that can change that. Our nukes aren't that powerful. Rights are subject to human opinion and whimsy. The fact that there is so much disagreement over what rights we have shows that they're not fundamental in any way. On the other hand we do have the fundamental right to do what ever we want, simply beacuse we might be capable of it. So, in that case, which rights do we give up to live comfortably in society? Who decides which rights we must give up? Personally, I give up some rights out of respect for the other person. I don't get upset until somebody tries to arbitrarily prohibit my actions. Proving the existance of rights is a little like trying to prove the existance of god. Also, can you give me an example of what rights we have despite what the law says? Are they absolute? If not, who decides what limits there are? If you accept some limits, and somebody else wants stronger limits, when are you going to decide that your rights are being violated?
Don't you mean the 1% who voted for loons and poseurs?
Ok...so if you're neither democrat or republican you're a loon, eh? Interesting thought. That would imply that you did vote for one of the major parties and are therefore simply voting to maintain the status quo. That makes you part of the problem...
To be continued...tomorrow I hope...time to hit the bar...I'm being pushed out the door.
The laws of physics are fundamental because it's impossible to violate them. That doesn't work with rights. Fundamental things are just that. They are imppossible to remove. The rights that we speak of are a human invention. A better word for us to use is liberty. Liberty can be taken away. A right implies inviolability(?), but they're violated all the time...by the same people who invented the concept!
If, as is usually the case, those people either cannot or will not remove the government that harms them, what would you suggest the rest of us do? Let them suffer?
No. What we and the others are doing is making them suffer. Simply leaving them alone might suffice. We live in a world where the strong rule the weak...on a micro and macro scale. All I'm pointing to you is that we are ALL the same. When we are comfortable, we treat people reasonably well(within our borders). When the discomfort level reaches a certain level we ALL react the same. If a group of outsiders try to take away your home and is successful you will react the same way as anybody. Until you experience it, don't try to convince me you won't. Your failure to see the similarities is disturbing. You seem to think that we are better than others. You seem to be of the mind that "An American would never do that." Well, we would and we do. But like too many, you seem to think it's ok if we only do it to one or two precent of the people. It's all for the "greater good", right? Whose greater good?
First, you attacked my voting record...
A suggestion to re-evaluate if a certain set of circumstances exist is hardly an attack, but call it what you want.
And, what "1%" are you talking about?
The 1% that voted for neither of the majors, republican OR democrat. Voting for either of these is merely voting to keep things the way they are. Even the non-voters carry more credibility than one who votes for the regulars.
I can finally sleep with the fishies. And wake up the next morning.
Put differently, how would support the people who innovate?
Simple...The same way we support everybody else. If this developer were to withhold his innovation for profit and let people die, then we'll just have to assume he did nothing and wait for another developer who wants to cure people. In a pure capitalist world where corporations don't have special protections and privileges, it wouldn't cost billions to develope the cure. Most of that money being spent now is pure featherbedding. Also the developer would be aware of this replicator and work his business accordingly. He will find upfront funding. I hope you're not advocating the prohibition of molecular replicators. But since capitalism needs scarcity and poverty and illness and war to function, prohibition is probably exactly what would happen. If everybody can make what they need for themselves what is going to fuel capitalism? If nobody is poor, who will do the work? If everybody is healthy, who's going to buy your treatments(because we know a cure is not profitable)? If we're at peace, who's going to buy your weapons?
Basically, I'm curious as to what you think a capitalist system should contain to prevent this problem?
"This" isn't the problem. Capitalism is.
still available, can anonymous developement continue? Stop putting your name on this stuff and let them find somebody to sue.
The cops didn't catch him because they were too busy sitting outside of the local bar waiting for some poor bastard who was a hair over 0.08...
This reminds me of a little story:
A cop is waiting outside a bar near closing time when a guy comes stumbling out barely making it to his car to prop himdelf up before falling over. He tries his key five or six times bfore getting the door open. He starts his car up woth a ferocious "VROOOOM" and off he goes. Well, the cop sees all this and starts off to pull him over. He catches up to him a couple of miles down the road and pulls him over, and asks him just what he thinks he was doing driving like that. The guy replies, "I'm the designated distraction."