For all extents and purposes a car is free. What do I mean? It's free in the sense that it's possible with time and effort to find out how a car works, take the bare components to a car, and make a duplicate. The total cost is your time + free blueprints (or cheap blueprints) + the cost of parts. The cost to duplicate a book? If digitized, less than a dollar for the time and the media. I know that's not what you were trying to say, but my point is that it's not even that people want cars or books to be free. They just wish the price was much closer to the duplication cost. For virtually all copyrighted works, that's amazingly small.
Microsoft got flak for including a web browser while at the same time threatening OEMs to pull out of lucrative contracts if they continued to install a competing browser, Netscape, that at the time more people wanted. If Microsoft had simply installed IE and let OEMs do as they please, IE might have won on merit alone. We won't know, though, because Microsoft jerked around OEMs and by extension most customers. That's hardly the way to get a lot of sympathy from free marketers or geeks who already question the ethics/lawfulness of Microsoft's past business decisions. It is a great way to get flak, though.
Democrats (democracy) are for personal freedom. Republicans (republic) are for social freedom. I would assume the reason democracy is used more often than "democratic republic" is because neither Democrats nor Republicans want you to believe that the government is the one fucking you over and that it's the majority that's doing it to you. But our country is currently much more a republic. That wouldn't be a bad thing if the government was a lot less powerful.
Seeing that the land was deemed public, a libertarian would say that he could walk on it at any time. The fact that a private group was able to claim temporary control over it to exclude candidates on their arbitration is definitely against the spirit of it. The argument would work better if it was a private debate on private land. It'd also work better if it wasn't public air waves being used. Though at least part of that is paid by commercial interests (advertising).
But where do you get the 35%, 35%, 30% except from the vote itself? You can't very well use the standard on who gains 15%+ in an election as a basis for who gets to speak in the debate before the election. Using such for parties that gain 15%+ on the previous election might be a basis, but even then both Democrats and Republicans are automatically dismissive of there being a strong third party even though half the country doesn't vote which clearly leaves enough people to vote a third party candidate in.
To me, it seems clear that the only way a third party candidate has any reasonable chance of being elected is to stop acting like he has no chance of being elected. That means discussing him in the news and his position as well as allowing him to join in the debate. It might be the case that a large portion of voters vote Democrat or Republican based solely on party labels, that stance is more assumed than proven. If it were true, then including third parties in the debate or in national discussions would have no effect on the outcome of the vote.
The truth is, at least 1% of voters and possible 90% of non-voters who are eligible to vote are discontent with Democrat and Republican effectiveness at carrying out promises. It seems it's more Democrat and Republican fear than anything which is stalling third party candidates because they realize if they win 1% this year, they might win 5-10% next, and so on. Democrats and Republicans want to believe that people are actually choosing their candidate, not making a choice between "the lesser of two evils" (exception this year, as it's more or less the campaign slogan). It seems to me the only way to truly guarantee this is to stop putting up all sorts of barriers under the assumption only Democrats and Republicans will win.
If you didn't know, neither Democrats or Republicans were the founding parties of the US. If various party coups can occur in US history, it's clear one could happen now as well. And maybe with instant runoff voting, there could be more than just two major parties consistently in the future. I know few people who actually fit the Democrat or Republican mold anyways.
How can you claim there is zero chance Cobbs will win given that he's on enough ballots *to* win? The same goes for Badnarik. While I agree that there are currently two strong contenders, that doesn't mean Badnarik or Cobbs can't be made a third if enough people just decide to make him one. I certainly choose that for Badnarik. Why can't you?
If you read what he said, you'd realize that at $50,000 you'd take home $49,500 but at $50,000*1.05 (ie, a 5% raise), you'd take home $50,125. I think it funny, though, that you assume that by gaining a 5% raise you're going to put 5% more effort into things. You're indirectly right, though, that such a huge and abrupt tax will just cause massive deflation as the massive (95%) lack of incentive to increase wealth. The truth is, though, that once you make any remotely large amount of money, there still is little incentive to make more money beyond the joy of owning companies or ego of your economic position compared to others who are rich. Personally, I'd be more against such a system given I think government would be just or more wasteful than the rich and more importantly dangerous. To that end, I just wish government would also stop protecting companies/corps as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
No, English is not my second language. If you want to define it as possibility, then either there's the possibility that one person will win or there's the possibility that anyone who meets the qualifications will win (limiting it to those with enough ballot access is another definition, given that I don't believe all states allow write-in). Claiming only one of two men has a possibility of win seems disingenuous. For quite some time, the President of the US has been elected by a plurality (about 50% of the eligible populace votes). That would seem clear evidence that if there were three strong contenders, one would probably win by slightly over 33% of those who vote (though I've no idea if the percentage of actual voter would increase).
The only thing stopping this would seem to be is a strong refusal that a 3rd party can exist for an extended period of time. The established parties and its members were the main cause of this; in the past, elections used to be won by actual majorities, so any party split would mean a 50%, 50%-n, n% for n > 0% or similar split nearly guaranteeing the party who didn't split would win. With nearly the majority of eligible voters not voting, there is clearly room (ie, possibility) for there to be a 25%, 25%, 25%, 25% split or something similar. Further decline in voting might provide a 5 way or 6 way split. It seems clear to me that the current situation is ripe for a multi-party system. Though in the end, only one person is elected.
Um, the Sherman Antitrust act includes price fixing. Better examples would be all the "free" services the state provides which obviously counter much of any chance of free market competition. There's also government supported monopolies (whoever happens to be the electric company in your area).
Things like price fixing wouldn't last in a free market, btw, as has been shown in various movies, greed causes people to back stab each other. Price fixing is the prisoner's dilemma, aka everyone has to go along with the plan for it to work. And monopolies will crumble eventually because people are fed up with them. The biggest things holding back people from properly using the free market against companies is the government. It's sadly the case that rarely does the government in trying to solve a problem not produce more problems.
that doesn't mean that it's in the best interest of the country to allow them all to share the stage in a debate with the only two men who actually have a chance of winning the election.
I don't know what country you're from, but in the US the Presidential Office is held by exactly one person. So, there's only one person who has a chance of winning the election. The only real question is who that person is. Maybe letting anyone who has the ability and want to win should be allowed to speak in the debate? Nah, that'd be crazy. I mean, it's not like the US is decided by plurality and not majority. Stupid me.
It is that simple. Linus, et al are waiting for SCO to settle their court case since that should take care of SCO pirating Linux. The amount of money Linus, et al (baring IBM, Red Hat, and Novell) have to fight a court case is minute. As for other corps and individuals, I'd assume at least some of the smaller businesses are sending out letters and some of the individuals. I doubt many have the funds to back up their threat (that's more or less what it amounts to, given they still have to sue people to actually have the courts/executive branch do something meaningful; they're just invoking the name of the US for if/when the court case occurs, since it reasonable means they can ask for more damages for such blatant disregard of the law). My point was more that the MPAA/RIAA made a mistake in the name of the US, so they should be suable there and then for signficant damages.
With every step in power you give a person or body, the penalties for invalid use of those powers should be exponentially worse. This is not only to limit the thirst for power (as it becomes infeasible to actually make headway from all the natural human errors) but also to signify the increase responsibility and influence an increase in power has.
It might be the case that the majority of those who recieve a letter are breaking the law. The problem is, the DMCA (which is what this is based off of) invokes some executive/judiciary power against people by anyone who spends the time/effort to write up a letter. That's great if it's laid against the right people, but the second it's laid against the wrong people, it's an abuse of power. If the RIAA or MPAA were to off and sue one of the people (what they'd have to do without the DMCA), you could countersue if the RIAA/MPAA was in error.
It would seem to me that giving the RIAA/MPAA more direct power would entail not only being able to countersue for such a letter but also to get higher damages when they're wrong. Lastly, just because someone is sued doesn't make them guilty. Nor does them settling make them guilty. Sadly, even with the promise of countersuing few lawyers will risk a dragged out litigation against the RIAA/MPAA on commission. There's just unlikely to be substantial pay-off compared to just about any other form of litigation possible, which opportunity cost favors.
It does sicken me a bit, though, that you feel the RIAA/MPAA or any organization should be able to go around threatening innocent people until they're prove they're innocent. At least if someone issues a case against you, you can countersue for it being a frivolous case conceivably so they pay for your lawyer when they lose (depends on the state, obviously).
A cultural taboo without worth is not a taboo worth having. To remove it from one's culture as taboo merely makes it archaic. Such leaves one less offendable, more open minded, and generally better adjustable to other cultures which *do* have equally bizzare taboos. For a melting pot such as the US, such a change improves the culture of all those willing to accept it. All freaking out about such taboos does is breed a baseless hatred and intolerance.
This is all based on the assumption that seeing the human breast, male or female, is merely a cultural taboo without any basis on anything else. There can be other, reasonable, reasons for a person to want for themselves to not do such acts (modesty, pride, or to maintain a speciality of one's physiology to a life-partner). It doesn't seem clear why the acts of others which have no direct affect on you can reasonable be said to be blocked. Nor does it seem reasonable to maintain a thought police on all things that exist instead of trying to rationalize to one's children why people do the things they do.
All in all, taboo only has the power to offend you when you let it. Culture is defined by your actions, not the actions of others. And tolerance of even the most debasing acts that others freely choose to live in shows your understanding that Jesus--assuming you're Christian, and if so, you do do what he suggests, right?--doesn't expect you to play God in the lives of others.
Read the story of Lot again. Read the story of Job again. God harms the wicked. You don't need to do his job for him. God harming someone is not always a sign of that person's wickedness. God is an ass. Beyond that, Jesus never did wrong to do right. He was perfect, and he is someone you should strive for. To murder or harm another in this life to avenge a murder or theft is to doom your soul on a (possibly) doomed soul over a person or thing which is already resolved regardless of your actions. Taking out vengeance in this life is pragmatic only if you believe this is the only existence.
With or without trusted computing, I think Windows users are going to experience more pain in the future. Ironically, the cause is XP SP2. I wrote a nice little journal article about it: MS vs the World. Though I agree, trusted computing (and a flashable BIOS) are just going to make the problems worse.
Um, with that logic every game would have to be rated AO because there's nothing stopping someone from drawing pictures of naked people and gluing it to the game's dvd/gamecube disc sleeve. Look at "Animal Crossing" or any other game where you enter in input (though "Animal Crossing" happens to try to prevent you from using various "naughty" words like bitch). All Tecmo would have to do is not pro-advertise the feature and write how they were upset/offended/concerned with what the other company did. The whole lawsuit is just overblown bullshit. Or it was just a way to make money while publicizing the hack to get more people to buy the game..
I think that the recording industry has virtually shown that you can get a lot of people to basically sign over their soul just to get their music out. Contracts the length of copyright/patent and the ability to sell such contracts can nullify the claim to being unable to "own" copyrights/patents. Only if in such regimes you can't contract out the exclusionary right to your works can there be any real claim that such a system wouldn't exist. The problem is, just like say illegal dumping or compensative dating, it's more worthwhile to skirt or break the law regardless. Businessmen are out to make as much money as possible. If killing people* and being able to get away with it makes them more money, that's what the free market favors.
*Note: This is more a point of fact, not a suggestion that copyrights/patents are a matter of life or death...yet...
I never said that the product of rape should be aborted. My point was, the woman didn't enter into an agreement upon which she knew bore the possible burden of carrying a child to term. It's hard to not call pregnancy a burden. I'm loathe to call it a punishment because it's a biological necessity (at least as of current).
I didn't miss the point about negligence, but it's not negligence to have consental sex. It's negligence to not take the pill regularly. How you talk about them being "equally underserving" does make it sound like you believe pregnancy is a burden too. You're forced to have fingers, too. They're a burden to carry (though not of the same size as a baby). And it's considered lunacy to cut them off. Yet it's your body. You can still do it. But is the baby your body?
That's the core question which arguments seem to always draw down to. If the baby is your body, you'd have the right to "cut it off" just like any other part of your body. If it's a separate life, you wouldn't have that right. And doctors will try to save as many lives as they can because that is the purpose they chose. I wouldn't call it negligence to walk down the "wrong" alley. The alley didn't rape the woman. And it's not negligence to talk to the rapist, pre-rape. It'd be negligence to not show resistance, be it in words or acts.
Finally, the whole point of sexual intercourse is to have children. To act like having sex doesn't have consequences is like acting jabbing a knife into your arm wouldn't have consequences. The knife wound can be treated without harm to another person. Can the same be said for abortion? This isn't a punishment from God; it's a fact of life. The rape "exception" was more a point of trying to argue against abortion without bring up the question of when the baby is considered a separate being. It was also a statement to the fact that rape isn't a consental act and it'd be nice if it could be resolved without killing a baby. I don't think killing the baby is the right answer, but I can at least rationalize that position. And just for the record, I don't believe in God. Though I will often argue various ways in which, if there was a God, there's no reason to follow him.
You're pushing your own amoral views about sex upon me which I find absurd. Yes, that person who cuts their hand or the drunk driving analogy and broke their leg should be treated. Why? Because (a) no life is killed in the process and (b) it helps ensuring the saving of life (wounds, not properly treated, have varying natural degrees of chance of becoming infected and the person dying; yes this breeds new life (microbes and/or other organisms), but we value human life above those in such a circumstance).
Is pregnancy a disease which is likely to kill you? Will giving a woman an abortion save lives? I don't see pregnancy as a disease or illness. It's a new-life producing mechanism. And there are times when abortion is appropriate to save life/lives (killing one baby in the uterus when there are quadruplets to greatly increase the survival chances of the mother and the other three seems heartless, but if the mother, father, and doctor are willing, it seems justifiable).
As for your point #2, how can you compare the consental act of sex without birth control pills and rape? Rape is a violent act. The prostitute that gets raped should be treated like anyone else who is raped. To do otherwise would be in analogy be like letting banks be robbed without punishing the robbers as the banks "should have known" that they were a tempting target.
If a woman becomes pregnant outside of marriage, I hope she does get married, to the father of the child or otherwise. But then I hope most people get married because pair bonding seems good for most people. Ie, I hope she marries someone she loves, not someone she had a kid with. Marriage or some other contract before sex, though, would be a good idea to tie the father to the child economically.
I don't consider raising a child punishment. I do consider it a significant burden. And I believe that people should try their best to not produce children they don't want. I also believe that adoption is an appropriate option when one is not mentally, emotionally, nor economically capable of raising a child. Beyond that, I also believe that infertile couples shouldn't waste so much money to guarantee bloodlines and instead focus on having a happy, healthy child regardless of blood.
So I *do* feel sorry for the married couple or the single woman/man who has a child trying their most preventive steps short of not doing the act itself. But, I can't somehow pretend that the baby isn't being formed and a new life isn't being born.
I guess the best analogy I can think of someone using a pot holder to pick up a hot pot and still burning their hand. I feel sorry for them. I realize they tried their best to carry an action out "safely" (it'd also be safe to not use protection if the pot was luke warm/you wanted a child) and still were hurt. But if I had to kill a forming human to undo the damage, I wouldn't. It's not an acceptable trade to me. Whether it's an acceptable trade to society defines the law. Again, I wish you wouldn't attribute this to me believing sex is a sin. Sex has risks (STDs being a large one), just like any action. Informed people who choose to do it anyways will "suffer" consequences. Until medicine can make an artificial womb to hold a child from conception to birth, there doesn't seem to be a medical solution to remove the burden of child birth without killing human life. Those real world attributes are what matter to me.
I also do not think a fetus is automatically a human being just because of its potential to be born.
Any more than I think a living person is a corpse (just because they have the potential to become a corpse).
The more generic question is, do you think that a fetus is alive? Is it alive when it's just a separate egg and sperm? When there's conception? Implantation? Development enough for a high probability of survivable birth?
It seems like the fetus isn't alive until conception. And it seems like it's more of a crime to implant 3 possibly healthy eggs with 2 healthy looking ones knowing the probability that implanting five will result in all dying. But that borders on the question of rationing food to keep the most people alive. Most people don't consider that killing.
At the same time, a baby is far from "alive" in most classical definitions. That point isn't reached until after puberty. Why should the ability to be born make the baby a separate lifeform?
Does a pinworm begin to be a separate life only when you pull it out of your body? My point is two fold. One, pinworms are killed mostly for self-defense. But at the same time, humans place much less worth on a pinworm than a human child. This is mostly because except in rare exception (rape), human conception is the intentional act of two people with the outcome being a desirable result (this from the biological, not necessarily sociological/logical sense).
To me, it seems that any person who engages in an act knowing of the possible consequences should bare the natural consequences. At the same time, it seems to me that people knowing of those consequences should take precautions (the pill or some other hormonal contraceptive, which is most effective; vasectomy isn't a bad idea) if they wish to engage in the activity while *still* baring the risk because no system involving the action is perfect. If your religion tells you otherwise but says abortions are okay, maybe you should start to question that religion.
The only two real issues then are conception born from rape and child/mother survival issues. The latter seems to be coverable under a (possibly preemptive) self-defense case. I'm sure it will be abused and some guilty will go free, but that's the best way for the system to work.
The last issue, rape, is by far the most troubling. It is certainly unfair on the victim for their genetic material to be stolen and their bodily possibly used for growth (men can be raped, which removes the latter; it's still conceivably a question of granting abortion, given the genetic code was stolen). But, it's not the government that is raping the woman/man, so it's not they who are violating the man/woman's body, so it doesn't seem like the government has the right to impose some choice on the interaction of two individuals. The only reasoning I can gather is the government could force the removal on the grounds of "ill-gotten gains". But, I truly can't morally resolve this disturbing issue. I am only glad that this is the exception rather than the rule.
The point he was making, I believe, is that the technological ability to say not use IE or use Region 1 DVDs in non-Region 1 DVD players is enough of a hurdle that the courts should recognize that allowing a person or company to make such hurdles without punishing them for negative consequences of such as a result of the system itself (patents or copyright) is to ignore how companies can create massive economic hardship.
This leaves only two real solutions: remove patents and copyright or punish people/groups/companies who abuse the system through commingling devices in a fashion that makes it virtually impossible for individuals to do as they please with their legally owned copies of work. In simpler terms, it's easy to rip out pages of a book, scribble over words, or buy an amendment to the book. The first two are near impossible for the majority of people with any technology more advanced than the printing press. So, we're teetering on a brink, where the people able to bypass such things are amassing on one side and companies with their own lock-in mechanisms are amassing on the other. This has been going on very strongly since the first PCs (and a bit before). How this will not lead to the end of copyright and patents as we know it, I do not know.
You seem to be missing the point. A discussion is a type of dialogue. Ie, it requires two way communication. Now, you can claim that the censored questions being answered in public qualifies. But, it's closer to a oral test. Oral tests aren't discussions. An oral test is a one to one transaction (ie, a fixed list of input and an equal or smaller list of responses, with no expansion on those responses). It does not "evolve" beyond that level because there is no framework for it.
It's not stupid to argue semantics when the semantics are the key to what a debate is about. Without people being able to ask questions as they go or censoring what could be a dialogue, you're effectively removing the ability to evaluate each candidate's ability to reason or respond quickly to a set of conditions. Things like wars, damage relief, or all sorts of other things a President is expected to decide upon require near immediate action. Without an ability to test those abilities, the people voting for said candidates have even less of a clue on how such a person will react as President (yes, you can go on history; but, the past can paint a vague picture of the present if viewed too closely; such perceptions are best joined with perceptions of the present).
To put it another way, imagine if instead of me responding to you or you responding to me, this entire forum was exactly one level deep and consisted of responding only to the story. It's hard to call that a discussion in any reasonable terms, and it truly undermines the power of the resolution of ideas through the joined input of multiple parties on a question of dispute.
As my esteemed Anonymous Coward "friend" points out.
discussion
n 1: an extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic
2: an exchange of views on some topic
From the sounds of it, this is not a debate because what is occuring is a lecture, not a discussion. There's no chance of an interactive section, and even lectures sometimes have those (though usually just to clarify wording). Without a secondary party to discuss with, there is no debate.
Debate \De*bate"\, v. i.
1. To engage in strife or combat; to fight.
2. To contend in words; to dispute; hence, to deliberate; to consider; to discuss or examine different arguments in the mind; -- often followed by on or upon.
From the sounds of it, the "debate" between Bush and Kerry will just be a list of questions to be answered publically. If Bush and Kerry don't "fight" each other or the questioners, it's not a debate. It's at best a pre-scripted verbal test. Debates are in a separate class which require a lot more out of a person, which is why they're useful as a means of testing a person. Once the "heat is off", each candidate might make better, more thought-out decisions. But, that's not the point of a debate, as we hope that any remotely good candidate will assign a competent cabinant such that any solution that takes time to think about can be well thought out.
To that end, Badnarik and Cobb's response might be a pseudo-debate, depending on how much they fight each other. Hopefully, also, their debate (?) will include unscripted questions.
To me, that's just good justification on why ex-felons should own handguns, not the other way around. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that felons have a fundamental right to vote. Why is this? Because they are so clearly in a position to judge whether they actually *like* the legislators or executive branch of their locale.
Of course, the fifth amendment says something about "life or limb" as being things takable by punishment, so there's clearly room where the government can do as it pleases once they're convicted by your peers. To that end, my only real complaint is that jurors aren't generally told "punishment is x years in jail, permanent loss of a right to own a handgun, and a permanent loss of the right to vote". If the punishment is too much (permanent loss of a right to vote is pretty big), then jurors could do jury nullification (I'm a big supporter of that too). Maybe then it'd be more on a case-by-case basis as a possible loss. Serial killers who have no chance at parole might have it removed. But that drug dealer? It's harder to say he should have his right to vote removed permanently, since he'll get out of jail eventually and probably still have an opinion on the matter. In fact, I'm not sure of the point to deprive people who get out of jail the right to vote since only people "worthy" (ie, punished enough) should be out of jail anyways..and it's already a given in most places of a loss of the right to vote in jail.
Slashdot Mirror
For all extents and purposes a car is free. What do I mean? It's free in the sense that it's possible with time and effort to find out how a car works, take the bare components to a car, and make a duplicate. The total cost is your time + free blueprints (or cheap blueprints) + the cost of parts. The cost to duplicate a book? If digitized, less than a dollar for the time and the media. I know that's not what you were trying to say, but my point is that it's not even that people want cars or books to be free. They just wish the price was much closer to the duplication cost. For virtually all copyrighted works, that's amazingly small.
Microsoft got flak for including a web browser while at the same time threatening OEMs to pull out of lucrative contracts if they continued to install a competing browser, Netscape, that at the time more people wanted. If Microsoft had simply installed IE and let OEMs do as they please, IE might have won on merit alone. We won't know, though, because Microsoft jerked around OEMs and by extension most customers. That's hardly the way to get a lot of sympathy from free marketers or geeks who already question the ethics/lawfulness of Microsoft's past business decisions. It is a great way to get flak, though.
Democrats (democracy) are for personal freedom. Republicans (republic) are for social freedom. I would assume the reason democracy is used more often than "democratic republic" is because neither Democrats nor Republicans want you to believe that the government is the one fucking you over and that it's the majority that's doing it to you. But our country is currently much more a republic. That wouldn't be a bad thing if the government was a lot less powerful.
Seeing that the land was deemed public, a libertarian would say that he could walk on it at any time. The fact that a private group was able to claim temporary control over it to exclude candidates on their arbitration is definitely against the spirit of it. The argument would work better if it was a private debate on private land. It'd also work better if it wasn't public air waves being used. Though at least part of that is paid by commercial interests (advertising).
But where do you get the 35%, 35%, 30% except from the vote itself? You can't very well use the standard on who gains 15%+ in an election as a basis for who gets to speak in the debate before the election. Using such for parties that gain 15%+ on the previous election might be a basis, but even then both Democrats and Republicans are automatically dismissive of there being a strong third party even though half the country doesn't vote which clearly leaves enough people to vote a third party candidate in.
To me, it seems clear that the only way a third party candidate has any reasonable chance of being elected is to stop acting like he has no chance of being elected. That means discussing him in the news and his position as well as allowing him to join in the debate. It might be the case that a large portion of voters vote Democrat or Republican based solely on party labels, that stance is more assumed than proven. If it were true, then including third parties in the debate or in national discussions would have no effect on the outcome of the vote.
The truth is, at least 1% of voters and possible 90% of non-voters who are eligible to vote are discontent with Democrat and Republican effectiveness at carrying out promises. It seems it's more Democrat and Republican fear than anything which is stalling third party candidates because they realize if they win 1% this year, they might win 5-10% next, and so on. Democrats and Republicans want to believe that people are actually choosing their candidate, not making a choice between "the lesser of two evils" (exception this year, as it's more or less the campaign slogan). It seems to me the only way to truly guarantee this is to stop putting up all sorts of barriers under the assumption only Democrats and Republicans will win.
If you didn't know, neither Democrats or Republicans were the founding parties of the US. If various party coups can occur in US history, it's clear one could happen now as well. And maybe with instant runoff voting, there could be more than just two major parties consistently in the future. I know few people who actually fit the Democrat or Republican mold anyways.
How can you claim there is zero chance Cobbs will win given that he's on enough ballots *to* win? The same goes for Badnarik. While I agree that there are currently two strong contenders, that doesn't mean Badnarik or Cobbs can't be made a third if enough people just decide to make him one. I certainly choose that for Badnarik. Why can't you?
If you read what he said, you'd realize that at $50,000 you'd take home $49,500 but at $50,000*1.05 (ie, a 5% raise), you'd take home $50,125. I think it funny, though, that you assume that by gaining a 5% raise you're going to put 5% more effort into things. You're indirectly right, though, that such a huge and abrupt tax will just cause massive deflation as the massive (95%) lack of incentive to increase wealth. The truth is, though, that once you make any remotely large amount of money, there still is little incentive to make more money beyond the joy of owning companies or ego of your economic position compared to others who are rich. Personally, I'd be more against such a system given I think government would be just or more wasteful than the rich and more importantly dangerous. To that end, I just wish government would also stop protecting companies/corps as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
No, English is not my second language. If you want to define it as possibility, then either there's the possibility that one person will win or there's the possibility that anyone who meets the qualifications will win (limiting it to those with enough ballot access is another definition, given that I don't believe all states allow write-in). Claiming only one of two men has a possibility of win seems disingenuous. For quite some time, the President of the US has been elected by a plurality (about 50% of the eligible populace votes). That would seem clear evidence that if there were three strong contenders, one would probably win by slightly over 33% of those who vote (though I've no idea if the percentage of actual voter would increase).
The only thing stopping this would seem to be is a strong refusal that a 3rd party can exist for an extended period of time. The established parties and its members were the main cause of this; in the past, elections used to be won by actual majorities, so any party split would mean a 50%, 50%-n, n% for n > 0% or similar split nearly guaranteeing the party who didn't split would win. With nearly the majority of eligible voters not voting, there is clearly room (ie, possibility) for there to be a 25%, 25%, 25%, 25% split or something similar. Further decline in voting might provide a 5 way or 6 way split. It seems clear to me that the current situation is ripe for a multi-party system. Though in the end, only one person is elected.
Um, the Sherman Antitrust act includes price fixing. Better examples would be all the "free" services the state provides which obviously counter much of any chance of free market competition. There's also government supported monopolies (whoever happens to be the electric company in your area).
Things like price fixing wouldn't last in a free market, btw, as has been shown in various movies, greed causes people to back stab each other. Price fixing is the prisoner's dilemma, aka everyone has to go along with the plan for it to work. And monopolies will crumble eventually because people are fed up with them. The biggest things holding back people from properly using the free market against companies is the government. It's sadly the case that rarely does the government in trying to solve a problem not produce more problems.
that doesn't mean that it's in the best interest of the country to allow them all to share the stage in a debate with the only two men who actually have a chance of winning the election.
I don't know what country you're from, but in the US the Presidential Office is held by exactly one person. So, there's only one person who has a chance of winning the election. The only real question is who that person is. Maybe letting anyone who has the ability and want to win should be allowed to speak in the debate? Nah, that'd be crazy. I mean, it's not like the US is decided by plurality and not majority. Stupid me.
It is that simple. Linus, et al are waiting for SCO to settle their court case since that should take care of SCO pirating Linux. The amount of money Linus, et al (baring IBM, Red Hat, and Novell) have to fight a court case is minute. As for other corps and individuals, I'd assume at least some of the smaller businesses are sending out letters and some of the individuals. I doubt many have the funds to back up their threat (that's more or less what it amounts to, given they still have to sue people to actually have the courts/executive branch do something meaningful; they're just invoking the name of the US for if/when the court case occurs, since it reasonable means they can ask for more damages for such blatant disregard of the law). My point was more that the MPAA/RIAA made a mistake in the name of the US, so they should be suable there and then for signficant damages.
With every step in power you give a person or body, the penalties for invalid use of those powers should be exponentially worse. This is not only to limit the thirst for power (as it becomes infeasible to actually make headway from all the natural human errors) but also to signify the increase responsibility and influence an increase in power has.
It might be the case that the majority of those who recieve a letter are breaking the law. The problem is, the DMCA (which is what this is based off of) invokes some executive/judiciary power against people by anyone who spends the time/effort to write up a letter. That's great if it's laid against the right people, but the second it's laid against the wrong people, it's an abuse of power. If the RIAA or MPAA were to off and sue one of the people (what they'd have to do without the DMCA), you could countersue if the RIAA/MPAA was in error.
It would seem to me that giving the RIAA/MPAA more direct power would entail not only being able to countersue for such a letter but also to get higher damages when they're wrong. Lastly, just because someone is sued doesn't make them guilty. Nor does them settling make them guilty. Sadly, even with the promise of countersuing few lawyers will risk a dragged out litigation against the RIAA/MPAA on commission. There's just unlikely to be substantial pay-off compared to just about any other form of litigation possible, which opportunity cost favors.
It does sicken me a bit, though, that you feel the RIAA/MPAA or any organization should be able to go around threatening innocent people until they're prove they're innocent. At least if someone issues a case against you, you can countersue for it being a frivolous case conceivably so they pay for your lawyer when they lose (depends on the state, obviously).
A cultural taboo without worth is not a taboo worth having. To remove it from one's culture as taboo merely makes it archaic. Such leaves one less offendable, more open minded, and generally better adjustable to other cultures which *do* have equally bizzare taboos. For a melting pot such as the US, such a change improves the culture of all those willing to accept it. All freaking out about such taboos does is breed a baseless hatred and intolerance.
This is all based on the assumption that seeing the human breast, male or female, is merely a cultural taboo without any basis on anything else. There can be other, reasonable, reasons for a person to want for themselves to not do such acts (modesty, pride, or to maintain a speciality of one's physiology to a life-partner). It doesn't seem clear why the acts of others which have no direct affect on you can reasonable be said to be blocked. Nor does it seem reasonable to maintain a thought police on all things that exist instead of trying to rationalize to one's children why people do the things they do.
All in all, taboo only has the power to offend you when you let it. Culture is defined by your actions, not the actions of others. And tolerance of even the most debasing acts that others freely choose to live in shows your understanding that Jesus--assuming you're Christian, and if so, you do do what he suggests, right?--doesn't expect you to play God in the lives of others.
Read the story of Lot again. Read the story of Job again. God harms the wicked. You don't need to do his job for him. God harming someone is not always a sign of that person's wickedness. God is an ass. Beyond that, Jesus never did wrong to do right. He was perfect, and he is someone you should strive for. To murder or harm another in this life to avenge a murder or theft is to doom your soul on a (possibly) doomed soul over a person or thing which is already resolved regardless of your actions. Taking out vengeance in this life is pragmatic only if you believe this is the only existence.
With or without trusted computing, I think Windows users are going to experience more pain in the future. Ironically, the cause is XP SP2. I wrote a nice little journal article about it: MS vs the World. Though I agree, trusted computing (and a flashable BIOS) are just going to make the problems worse.
Um, with that logic every game would have to be rated AO because there's nothing stopping someone from drawing pictures of naked people and gluing it to the game's dvd/gamecube disc sleeve. Look at "Animal Crossing" or any other game where you enter in input (though "Animal Crossing" happens to try to prevent you from using various "naughty" words like bitch). All Tecmo would have to do is not pro-advertise the feature and write how they were upset/offended/concerned with what the other company did. The whole lawsuit is just overblown bullshit. Or it was just a way to make money while publicizing the hack to get more people to buy the game..
I think that the recording industry has virtually shown that you can get a lot of people to basically sign over their soul just to get their music out. Contracts the length of copyright/patent and the ability to sell such contracts can nullify the claim to being unable to "own" copyrights/patents. Only if in such regimes you can't contract out the exclusionary right to your works can there be any real claim that such a system wouldn't exist. The problem is, just like say illegal dumping or compensative dating, it's more worthwhile to skirt or break the law regardless. Businessmen are out to make as much money as possible. If killing people* and being able to get away with it makes them more money, that's what the free market favors.
*Note: This is more a point of fact, not a suggestion that copyrights/patents are a matter of life or death...yet...
I never said that the product of rape should be aborted. My point was, the woman didn't enter into an agreement upon which she knew bore the possible burden of carrying a child to term. It's hard to not call pregnancy a burden. I'm loathe to call it a punishment because it's a biological necessity (at least as of current).
I didn't miss the point about negligence, but it's not negligence to have consental sex. It's negligence to not take the pill regularly. How you talk about them being "equally underserving" does make it sound like you believe pregnancy is a burden too. You're forced to have fingers, too. They're a burden to carry (though not of the same size as a baby). And it's considered lunacy to cut them off. Yet it's your body. You can still do it. But is the baby your body?
That's the core question which arguments seem to always draw down to. If the baby is your body, you'd have the right to "cut it off" just like any other part of your body. If it's a separate life, you wouldn't have that right. And doctors will try to save as many lives as they can because that is the purpose they chose. I wouldn't call it negligence to walk down the "wrong" alley. The alley didn't rape the woman. And it's not negligence to talk to the rapist, pre-rape. It'd be negligence to not show resistance, be it in words or acts.
Finally, the whole point of sexual intercourse is to have children. To act like having sex doesn't have consequences is like acting jabbing a knife into your arm wouldn't have consequences. The knife wound can be treated without harm to another person. Can the same be said for abortion? This isn't a punishment from God; it's a fact of life. The rape "exception" was more a point of trying to argue against abortion without bring up the question of when the baby is considered a separate being. It was also a statement to the fact that rape isn't a consental act and it'd be nice if it could be resolved without killing a baby. I don't think killing the baby is the right answer, but I can at least rationalize that position. And just for the record, I don't believe in God. Though I will often argue various ways in which, if there was a God, there's no reason to follow him.
You're pushing your own amoral views about sex upon me which I find absurd. Yes, that person who cuts their hand or the drunk driving analogy and broke their leg should be treated. Why? Because (a) no life is killed in the process and (b) it helps ensuring the saving of life (wounds, not properly treated, have varying natural degrees of chance of becoming infected and the person dying; yes this breeds new life (microbes and/or other organisms), but we value human life above those in such a circumstance).
Is pregnancy a disease which is likely to kill you? Will giving a woman an abortion save lives? I don't see pregnancy as a disease or illness. It's a new-life producing mechanism. And there are times when abortion is appropriate to save life/lives (killing one baby in the uterus when there are quadruplets to greatly increase the survival chances of the mother and the other three seems heartless, but if the mother, father, and doctor are willing, it seems justifiable).
As for your point #2, how can you compare the consental act of sex without birth control pills and rape? Rape is a violent act. The prostitute that gets raped should be treated like anyone else who is raped. To do otherwise would be in analogy be like letting banks be robbed without punishing the robbers as the banks "should have known" that they were a tempting target.
If a woman becomes pregnant outside of marriage, I hope she does get married, to the father of the child or otherwise. But then I hope most people get married because pair bonding seems good for most people. Ie, I hope she marries someone she loves, not someone she had a kid with. Marriage or some other contract before sex, though, would be a good idea to tie the father to the child economically.
I don't consider raising a child punishment. I do consider it a significant burden. And I believe that people should try their best to not produce children they don't want. I also believe that adoption is an appropriate option when one is not mentally, emotionally, nor economically capable of raising a child. Beyond that, I also believe that infertile couples shouldn't waste so much money to guarantee bloodlines and instead focus on having a happy, healthy child regardless of blood.
So I *do* feel sorry for the married couple or the single woman/man who has a child trying their most preventive steps short of not doing the act itself. But, I can't somehow pretend that the baby isn't being formed and a new life isn't being born.
I guess the best analogy I can think of someone using a pot holder to pick up a hot pot and still burning their hand. I feel sorry for them. I realize they tried their best to carry an action out "safely" (it'd also be safe to not use protection if the pot was luke warm/you wanted a child) and still were hurt. But if I had to kill a forming human to undo the damage, I wouldn't. It's not an acceptable trade to me. Whether it's an acceptable trade to society defines the law. Again, I wish you wouldn't attribute this to me believing sex is a sin. Sex has risks (STDs being a large one), just like any action. Informed people who choose to do it anyways will "suffer" consequences. Until medicine can make an artificial womb to hold a child from conception to birth, there doesn't seem to be a medical solution to remove the burden of child birth without killing human life. Those real world attributes are what matter to me.
Sounds like we should be giving toddlers the right to vote then. :)
I also do not think a fetus is automatically a human being just because of its potential to be born.
Any more than I think a living person is a corpse (just because they have the potential to become a corpse).
The more generic question is, do you think that a fetus is alive? Is it alive when it's just a separate egg and sperm? When there's conception? Implantation? Development enough for a high probability of survivable birth?
It seems like the fetus isn't alive until conception. And it seems like it's more of a crime to implant 3 possibly healthy eggs with 2 healthy looking ones knowing the probability that implanting five will result in all dying. But that borders on the question of rationing food to keep the most people alive. Most people don't consider that killing.
At the same time, a baby is far from "alive" in most classical definitions. That point isn't reached until after puberty. Why should the ability to be born make the baby a separate lifeform?
Does a pinworm begin to be a separate life only when you pull it out of your body? My point is two fold. One, pinworms are killed mostly for self-defense. But at the same time, humans place much less worth on a pinworm than a human child. This is mostly because except in rare exception (rape), human conception is the intentional act of two people with the outcome being a desirable result (this from the biological, not necessarily sociological/logical sense).
To me, it seems that any person who engages in an act knowing of the possible consequences should bare the natural consequences. At the same time, it seems to me that people knowing of those consequences should take precautions (the pill or some other hormonal contraceptive, which is most effective; vasectomy isn't a bad idea) if they wish to engage in the activity while *still* baring the risk because no system involving the action is perfect. If your religion tells you otherwise but says abortions are okay, maybe you should start to question that religion.
The only two real issues then are conception born from rape and child/mother survival issues. The latter seems to be coverable under a (possibly preemptive) self-defense case. I'm sure it will be abused and some guilty will go free, but that's the best way for the system to work.
The last issue, rape, is by far the most troubling. It is certainly unfair on the victim for their genetic material to be stolen and their bodily possibly used for growth (men can be raped, which removes the latter; it's still conceivably a question of granting abortion, given the genetic code was stolen). But, it's not the government that is raping the woman/man, so it's not they who are violating the man/woman's body, so it doesn't seem like the government has the right to impose some choice on the interaction of two individuals. The only reasoning I can gather is the government could force the removal on the grounds of "ill-gotten gains". But, I truly can't morally resolve this disturbing issue. I am only glad that this is the exception rather than the rule.
The point he was making, I believe, is that the technological ability to say not use IE or use Region 1 DVDs in non-Region 1 DVD players is enough of a hurdle that the courts should recognize that allowing a person or company to make such hurdles without punishing them for negative consequences of such as a result of the system itself (patents or copyright) is to ignore how companies can create massive economic hardship.
This leaves only two real solutions: remove patents and copyright or punish people/groups/companies who abuse the system through commingling devices in a fashion that makes it virtually impossible for individuals to do as they please with their legally owned copies of work. In simpler terms, it's easy to rip out pages of a book, scribble over words, or buy an amendment to the book. The first two are near impossible for the majority of people with any technology more advanced than the printing press. So, we're teetering on a brink, where the people able to bypass such things are amassing on one side and companies with their own lock-in mechanisms are amassing on the other. This has been going on very strongly since the first PCs (and a bit before). How this will not lead to the end of copyright and patents as we know it, I do not know.
You seem to be missing the point. A discussion is a type of dialogue. Ie, it requires two way communication. Now, you can claim that the censored questions being answered in public qualifies. But, it's closer to a oral test. Oral tests aren't discussions. An oral test is a one to one transaction (ie, a fixed list of input and an equal or smaller list of responses, with no expansion on those responses). It does not "evolve" beyond that level because there is no framework for it.
It's not stupid to argue semantics when the semantics are the key to what a debate is about. Without people being able to ask questions as they go or censoring what could be a dialogue, you're effectively removing the ability to evaluate each candidate's ability to reason or respond quickly to a set of conditions. Things like wars, damage relief, or all sorts of other things a President is expected to decide upon require near immediate action. Without an ability to test those abilities, the people voting for said candidates have even less of a clue on how such a person will react as President (yes, you can go on history; but, the past can paint a vague picture of the present if viewed too closely; such perceptions are best joined with perceptions of the present).
To put it another way, imagine if instead of me responding to you or you responding to me, this entire forum was exactly one level deep and consisted of responding only to the story. It's hard to call that a discussion in any reasonable terms, and it truly undermines the power of the resolution of ideas through the joined input of multiple parties on a question of dispute.
From the sounds of it, this is not a debate because what is occuring is a lecture, not a discussion. There's no chance of an interactive section, and even lectures sometimes have those (though usually just to clarify wording). Without a secondary party to discuss with, there is no debate.
From the sounds of it, the "debate" between Bush and Kerry will just be a list of questions to be answered publically. If Bush and Kerry don't "fight" each other or the questioners, it's not a debate. It's at best a pre-scripted verbal test. Debates are in a separate class which require a lot more out of a person, which is why they're useful as a means of testing a person. Once the "heat is off", each candidate might make better, more thought-out decisions. But, that's not the point of a debate, as we hope that any remotely good candidate will assign a competent cabinant such that any solution that takes time to think about can be well thought out.
To that end, Badnarik and Cobb's response might be a pseudo-debate, depending on how much they fight each other. Hopefully, also, their debate (?) will include unscripted questions.
To me, that's just good justification on why ex-felons should own handguns, not the other way around. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that felons have a fundamental right to vote. Why is this? Because they are so clearly in a position to judge whether they actually *like* the legislators or executive branch of their locale.
Of course, the fifth amendment says something about "life or limb" as being things takable by punishment, so there's clearly room where the government can do as it pleases once they're convicted by your peers. To that end, my only real complaint is that jurors aren't generally told "punishment is x years in jail, permanent loss of a right to own a handgun, and a permanent loss of the right to vote". If the punishment is too much (permanent loss of a right to vote is pretty big), then jurors could do jury nullification (I'm a big supporter of that too). Maybe then it'd be more on a case-by-case basis as a possible loss. Serial killers who have no chance at parole might have it removed. But that drug dealer? It's harder to say he should have his right to vote removed permanently, since he'll get out of jail eventually and probably still have an opinion on the matter. In fact, I'm not sure of the point to deprive people who get out of jail the right to vote since only people "worthy" (ie, punished enough) should be out of jail anyways..and it's already a given in most places of a loss of the right to vote in jail.