We'd just rather spend all of that child-rearing money on ourselves and keep our options open (go out/take trips whenever)
I think you meant to say that you'd just rather eat, drink, be merry, then push the responsibility off onto taxpayers to bankroll things when you get old, decrepit, and you have no family to help bear the financial burden of caring for you. If everyone lived like you civilization would fall apart in short order. A society that refuses to reproduce is a society committing suicide.
, while not having to put up with the hassles of tending to kids.
When I reach retirement age, with a sizeable family to help me out financially, and when you're rotting in some government nursing installation, all alone in the world, and the tax man comes to ask for funds to pay some stranger to feed you/change your bedpan, please remind me to respond: "I don't want the hassles of tending to that shortsighted old man".
Cause clearly a filing clerk working at a completely unrelated division of Sony should be punished for this.
Why not? If you're going to work for a corrupt company, you're a cog in the wheel that is contributing to the problem. It would certainly make people think twice about working for "the Man." I would agree that those directly responsible should be the hardest hit. This is only fair. Maybe only stockholding employees should be held accountable. The hours of community service/jail time required would be directly proportional to the number of shares they own. That would certainly give a significant incentive for stockholders to speak up and take measures to ensure nothing like this happens in the first place. It might even make them more careful who they appoint to executive positions (only people that won't get us all in trouble down the road). If a large corporation were to appoint someone to be an exec that had a history of questionable ethics (even though they "get results") people would sell off their stock like a hot potato, and the corp would lose $$$ -- better not appoint him.
In Canada or the US, the constitution grants us rights.
Wrong. You are perpetuating a very common and unfortunate misunderstanding of the philosophy behind the concept of rights. I can't speak for Canada, but in the U.S. Constitution, no claim is *ever* made that the Constitution itself grants *any* rights. It is made very clear that the rights are only enumerated as preexisting things that are already inherent to humankind by "the Creator" (I'll leave it for you decide who or what "the Creator" is). On the surface this may seem insignificant, but it is an *extremely* important distinction. Without it any claim of inalienability is meaningless -- what the government giveth the government taketh away.
The government is using surveilance to weed out discenters instead of turning on TV or cracking open the NYT's editorial page.
I'm sure they look at the TV and the NYT as well -- all necessary suspects go onto their little lists. I would agree that any real crackdown has yet to come, however. What we see happening probably just amounts to getting things in place so that one *can* occur.
Our current lack of freedoms makes our lives not worth living anyway. Somehow though, under presidents like FDR and Lincoln who used far more executive power, the US citizens managed to keep from commiting suicide.
I don't think anyone was advocating suicide as any kind of solution. As I recall, you were the one that brought out the term "suicide pact" in reference to the U.S. Constitution. Fixating on the significance of the word "suicide" amounts to splitting hairs over semantics, or perhaps an attempted straw man. Nice debate skills. Where's the beef?
Far from throwing up our hands and killing ourselves, I think what was meant was that we should be willing to stand up to the oppressors and demand a return to the Liberty that the Creator originally bestowed. As far as mentioning FDR and Lincoln... Didn't your mother teach you that 2 wrongs (or 3) don't make a right?
The government should not have classified information, including information on how it is spying on our enemies. It should all be out in the public.
This looks like another logical fallacy. This time a red herring (since "spying on our enemies" is not even what is being discussed [unless you define you, I, and all of "We the People" as "our enemies"]). You must have been on your high-school debate team. Bravo. Which is more important to you? Winning a debate or getting to the facts of a matter?
The governement has no business spying on its' own citizens. If they think someone has committed a crime, let them charge them *publicly* and present the available evidence before a jury of the peers of the accused. If the evidence is *real* and solid, I'm sure they won't have any problem convincing a jury to that effect. This is what the Constitution prescribes.
Whether the "bird flu" is hype or not, Tamiflu® is not the solution. What it is, however, is a great opportunity for some people to make a buck on what could be (or not) a serious issue.
It's too bad that our 'biggest hope' is not up to the task...
This is because the purpose of all this "bird flu" fear-mongering, and particularly in relation to Tamiflu®, has nothing to do with protecting the public. It appears to be really just another example of government corruption -- an excuse to funnel large quantities of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of chronies like Donald Rumsfeld and crew. Turns out all these huge orders placed by the federal government for an ineffective treatment are making certain "private" citizens very wealthy. Wake up, America, your wallet was just raped, again.
Don't you WANT the government to know how you feel on the issues?
In the aggregate? Yes. Do I want them to keep large databases containing the point-by-point political views of every individual citizen? No. Why would they need such a thing? I can think of no benefit and much possible detriment.
The fact that using a printed balot as a paper trail is such an obvious solution
I agree with your main points, but just wanted to point something out... The paper receipt shouldn't be allowed outside of the polling place... As soon as it prints out, you look at it, confirm that it says what you intended, then you immediately put the receipt into a locked box that can only be opened for recounts.The paper should have no information on it that can trace it back to you.
The rationale is that any sufficiently motivated nefarious group (mafia, street gang, terrorist, or [heaven forbid] a *corrupt* politician) could bully/threaten/bribe voters and demand that, after voting, they present their receipt to confirm they voted for "their guy", at which point the voter will be rewarded (bribe), or the threat will be removed.
However, "paper receipts" handled in this way basically amount to good old-fashioned paper ballots... Why not just stick with that? I mean, anyone that's too ignorant to know how to properly check a box next to a name should probably have their vote thrown out, anyway. The current "it has to be digital, cuz that's h1gh t3ch and that meanz c00l" craze is wholly unwarranted, in many cases. This is probably one of them.
Were Yahoo to balk the Chinese, they could be told to pack up shop and leave,
This is exactly what Yahoo should do -- refuse to do business in a place that will obligate them to behave immorally.
which would do nothing to promote free speech for the Chinese people.
...as opposed to actively working in concert with the Chinese government to supress free speech? -- all in the spirit of "promoting free speech", of course.
Yahoo is a publicly traded corporation -- which thing is an artificial construct of government -- which by definition has no place in a truly free market.
And this kids, is a perfect example of the danger of letting your inflated ego get in the way of science. Sorry. Donning the mantle of scientist does not magically eliminate your personal biases. The *scientific method* may be free of bias, but *you* are not. Nice try.
Don't tell me you can't use Linux for DRM software if you can use Linux in a child porn video lab.
This is not a straw man. GNU has in the past rejected all moral embargos on the use of free software. See their condemnation of the Hacktivismo license, which prevents the software being used by authoritarian governments and spyware makers:
You're not the only one with this misunderstanding, and I felt the way you do at one point. Here's my clarification what GPL3 is really about.
As I have said in other forums, dealing with DRM is beyond the scope of a software license such as the GPL. To my mind, it would be the same as saying "No program may be written under the GPL that operates a nuclear power plant".
This is what I thought at first, as well. Upon actually reading and rereading the draft of GPL3 however, It has become more apparent that the kind of DRM actually targeted is only that which would interfere with the distribution of the software I wrote and licensed with the intention that it continue to be freely distributed. This *is* clearly withing the scope of what a software license should be concerned with -- what will happen to the code *I wrote* and am releasing to the public. The license does not address what the code can be used for -- which thing you are correct in asserting would be outside the scope of a software license, and from what I can tell, one of the primary reasons that RMS has decided he can't give blanket support to the folks over at the Creative Commons.
For example, according to my current understanding, you could still use GPL3 software to create music that you then attach DRM to, if that is your inclination (good luck getting many people to buy that music, but that's another issue...). GPL3 does not restrict what you can use the software for -- it only specifies strict guidelines to ensure that DRM is not used to prevent the continued distribution of the code in a form that can be useful to the end user.
We cannot ignore that the word "theory" is widely misunderstood outside the scientific community, where it means something closer to "wild guess" or "stab in the dark" than a rigourous, well-tested hypothesis that is almost certainly correct, or close to correct.
It's not that it's widely misunderstood. It's that both are, in fact, valid definitions of the word "theory" (check out definitions 1 and 6). Same word, different contexts, different meanings -- welcome to the English language. Please see the "free as in beer"/"free as in freedom" issue. I think what is widely misunderstood is that any group, context, or profession can have a monopoly on the meaning of a single word. Language is a very transient, imprecise thing. Unless we understand which definition we mean, we'll all just keep talking past each other.
I'm glad you pointed this out. Not all scientists are also linguists. I see many get fixated on the scientific use of the word theory to the exclusion of all other valid definitions and contexts. Unfortunately, the English language has many instances of words that have been assigned multiple meanings (pay special attention to meanings 1 and 6). This is similar to the "free as in beer" or "free as in freedom" business. Maybe whenever "theory" is used, we should clarify: Theory as in science, or theory as in common parlance?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you meant to say that you'd just rather eat, drink, be merry, then push the responsibility off onto taxpayers to bankroll things when you get old, decrepit, and you have no family to help bear the financial burden of caring for you. If everyone lived like you civilization would fall apart in short order. A society that refuses to reproduce is a society committing suicide.
When I reach retirement age, with a sizeable family to help me out financially, and when you're rotting in some government nursing installation, all alone in the world, and the tax man comes to ask for funds to pay some stranger to feed you/change your bedpan, please remind me to respond: "I don't want the hassles of tending to that shortsighted old man".
No problem. Next question?
Why not? If you're going to work for a corrupt company, you're a cog in the wheel that is contributing to the problem. It would certainly make people think twice about working for "the Man." I would agree that those directly responsible should be the hardest hit. This is only fair. Maybe only stockholding employees should be held accountable. The hours of community service/jail time required would be directly proportional to the number of shares they own. That would certainly give a significant incentive for stockholders to speak up and take measures to ensure nothing like this happens in the first place. It might even make them more careful who they appoint to executive positions (only people that won't get us all in trouble down the road). If a large corporation were to appoint someone to be an exec that had a history of questionable ethics (even though they "get results") people would sell off their stock like a hot potato, and the corp would lose $$$ -- better not appoint him.
Wrong. You are perpetuating a very common and unfortunate misunderstanding of the philosophy behind the concept of rights. I can't speak for Canada, but in the U.S. Constitution, no claim is *ever* made that the Constitution itself grants *any* rights. It is made very clear that the rights are only enumerated as preexisting things that are already inherent to humankind by "the Creator" (I'll leave it for you decide who or what "the Creator" is). On the surface this may seem insignificant, but it is an *extremely* important distinction. Without it any claim of inalienability is meaningless -- what the government giveth the government taketh away.
Do you mean to suggest they should start out using C or C++?
I'm sure they look at the TV and the NYT as well -- all necessary suspects go onto their little lists. I would agree that any real crackdown has yet to come, however. What we see happening probably just amounts to getting things in place so that one *can* occur.
I don't think anyone was advocating suicide as any kind of solution. As I recall, you were the one that brought out the term "suicide pact" in reference to the U.S. Constitution. Fixating on the significance of the word "suicide" amounts to splitting hairs over semantics, or perhaps an attempted straw man. Nice debate skills. Where's the beef?
Far from throwing up our hands and killing ourselves, I think what was meant was that we should be willing to stand up to the oppressors and demand a return to the Liberty that the Creator originally bestowed. As far as mentioning FDR and Lincoln... Didn't your mother teach you that 2 wrongs (or 3) don't make a right?
This looks like another logical fallacy. This time a red herring (since "spying on our enemies" is not even what is being discussed [unless you define you, I, and all of "We the People" as "our enemies"]). You must have been on your high-school debate team. Bravo. Which is more important to you? Winning a debate or getting to the facts of a matter?
The governement has no business spying on its' own citizens. If they think someone has committed a crime, let them charge them *publicly* and present the available evidence before a jury of the peers of the accused. If the evidence is *real* and solid, I'm sure they won't have any problem convincing a jury to that effect. This is what the Constitution prescribes.
"It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes" --Josef Stalin
...but it's also been shown to be extremely profitable.
Whether the "bird flu" is hype or not, Tamiflu® is not the solution. What it is, however, is a great opportunity for some people to make a buck on what could be (or not) a serious issue.
That's because there's big money in blowing certain things out of propotion.
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. -- FDR
This is because the purpose of all this "bird flu" fear-mongering, and particularly in relation to Tamiflu®, has nothing to do with protecting the public. It appears to be really just another example of government corruption -- an excuse to funnel large quantities of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of chronies like Donald Rumsfeld and crew. Turns out all these huge orders placed by the federal government for an ineffective treatment are making certain "private" citizens very wealthy. Wake up, America, your wallet was just raped, again.
In the aggregate? Yes. Do I want them to keep large databases containing the point-by-point political views of every individual citizen? No. Why would they need such a thing? I can think of no benefit and much possible detriment.
I agree with your main points, but just wanted to point something out... The paper receipt shouldn't be allowed outside of the polling place... As soon as it prints out, you look at it, confirm that it says what you intended, then you immediately put the receipt into a locked box that can only be opened for recounts .The paper should have no information on it that can trace it back to you.
The rationale is that any sufficiently motivated nefarious group (mafia, street gang, terrorist, or [heaven forbid] a *corrupt* politician) could bully/threaten/bribe voters and demand that, after voting, they present their receipt to confirm they voted for "their guy", at which point the voter will be rewarded (bribe), or the threat will be removed.
However, "paper receipts" handled in this way basically amount to good old-fashioned paper ballots... Why not just stick with that? I mean, anyone that's too ignorant to know how to properly check a box next to a name should probably have their vote thrown out, anyway. The current "it has to be digital, cuz that's h1gh t3ch and that meanz c00l" craze is wholly unwarranted, in many cases. This is probably one of them.
They say a picture's worth a thousand words.
Google == Ministry of Truth, anyone?
Interesting. You seem to know something, or at least give that impression. Can you provide any additional documentation?
I was pretty much sick of the situation, myself... until I found the solution to bloat.
Does the phrase: "No publicity is bad publicity" ...mean anything to you?
zx8DAFSyh$(
%, 9u#$ x89
z 7Z(& $ S Gfs
<NO CARRIER>
This is exactly what Yahoo should do -- refuse to do business in a place that will obligate them to behave immorally.
...as opposed to actively working in concert with the Chinese government to supress free speech? -- all in the spirit of "promoting free speech", of course.
Yahoo is a publicly traded corporation -- which thing is an artificial construct of government -- which by definition has no place in a truly free market.
And this kids, is a perfect example of the danger of letting your inflated ego get in the way of science. Sorry. Donning the mantle of scientist does not magically eliminate your personal biases. The *scientific method* may be free of bias, but *you* are not. Nice try.
You're not the only one with this misunderstanding, and I felt the way you do at one point. Here's my clarification what GPL3 is really about.
This is what I thought at first, as well. Upon actually reading and rereading the draft of GPL3 however, It has become more apparent that the kind of DRM actually targeted is only that which would interfere with the distribution of the software I wrote and licensed with the intention that it continue to be freely distributed. This *is* clearly withing the scope of what a software license should be concerned with -- what will happen to the code *I wrote* and am releasing to the public. The license does not address what the code can be used for -- which thing you are correct in asserting would be outside the scope of a software license, and from what I can tell, one of the primary reasons that RMS has decided he can't give blanket support to the folks over at the Creative Commons.
For example, according to my current understanding, you could still use GPL3 software to create music that you then attach DRM to, if that is your inclination (good luck getting many people to buy that music, but that's another issue...). GPL3 does not restrict what you can use the software for -- it only specifies strict guidelines to ensure that DRM is not used to prevent the continued distribution of the code in a form that can be useful to the end user.
It's not that it's widely misunderstood. It's that both are, in fact, valid definitions of the word "theory" (check out definitions 1 and 6). Same word, different contexts, different meanings -- welcome to the English language. Please see the "free as in beer"/"free as in freedom" issue. I think what is widely misunderstood is that any group, context, or profession can have a monopoly on the meaning of a single word. Language is a very transient, imprecise thing. Unless we understand which definition we mean, we'll all just keep talking past each other.
I'm glad you pointed this out. Not all scientists are also linguists. I see many get fixated on the scientific use of the word theory to the exclusion of all other valid definitions and contexts. Unfortunately, the English language has many instances of words that have been assigned multiple meanings (pay special attention to meanings 1 and 6). This is similar to the "free as in beer" or "free as in freedom" business. Maybe whenever "theory" is used, we should clarify: Theory as in science, or theory as in common parlance?