Why should I care if MS introduces a digital ID? They should be allowed to produce new products just like everyone else. If people like it and want to use it, that's thier choice. And yes, if businesses don't want to do business with me because I don't have one, fine. They should not be required to do business with anyone, even me. Just as I am not required to do business with them. Do you honestly think that there will not be other businesses ready and waiting for me to give them my money for the same products? I doubt it. If there is money to be made, a business will appear to make it. As long as there are no laws preventing it. Which, as a Libertarian, I feel there should not be.
If there were enough people that were unwilling to get a MSID, and wanted an alternate form of digital ID, some other group or company would make one to use. And I suspect many businesses would support it if it were offered free or cheap to them. Why turn away customers?
There are millions of Americans and billions of others on the earth that do not have credit/debit cards. They seem to get along fine. I didn't have one for the longest time. Even then I got it mostly for convience. I could always go to the bank and withdraw the cash. Or I could be really paranoid and not have a bank account, just carry all my cash everywhere. Not the most brilliant thing in the world to do, but it would work. The same would hold with the MSID. Sure, maybe I would be inconvienced, but that's a choice I can make.
The biblical refference is a red herring. Without government force such a thing could not happen. And if they try it I can see a revolution starting. People don't like to be forced to do things like that.
The right of free association includes the right to no association. They don't have to deal with you, and you don't have to deal with them. In a free market, business WILL provide for those of us who don't want an MSID. Hell, I'll start a business myself in that case to serve my fellow/.ers.. Probably won't make me a billionare, but I can live with that. The only way to prevent market forces from correcting is to invoke government force. You can help prevent that by talking and writing to your congresspeople. If they don't vote the way you want them to, vote for someone else next time. If government is abusing you, get politicaly active! Find a group that you believe in and back them. At the very least vote and write to your reps. Yes, money talks, but in the end it's because they want to be re-elected. If that is threatened by us, they will reconsider. After all, corps can't vote. Like the other guy said, go read up on the Libertarian Party. If you still disagree, great, it's a free country, for now. Check out some of the writers that write about common misconceptions about the LP.
One really good place to start is Dr. Mary Ruwart.
http://www.ruwart.com/
And her book, available online for free reading, "Healing our World".
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/register.mgi
It may ask for a name and email, feel free to put bogus info in there if you want.
"Healing" is a great start to answer a lot of questions and concerns people have about the LP. If nothing else, you will be better able to debate Libertarians if you actually understand our beliefs better.
Minimum wage??? Does anyone on/. work for minimum wage? I think not. Hell, to just understand most of the topics discussed here qualifies you for a little higher than that! Minimum wage is for kids just starting out. Anyone with real work experience or schooling can do much better than that. Not to mention the other potential problems laws like that cause. If you're going to make a point, please do so intelegently.;)
While the US does all those things you say it does, Libertarians are fighting to reverse that and again become the shining light of Liberty the USA once was. Now if only more of the Republicans will realize that thier party has sold out and become so much like the democrats few can tell the difference and defect we'll be on our way.;) Or, even better, the Democrats can get back to thier roots and stand for *gasp* democracy.;)
Yes, the charge is there supposedly to pay for rural areas. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it's used for that and that alone. The only reason it was needed in the first place was because of the artificial monopoly that the government granted to Ma Bell! If that were not in place, local phone service would have been provided by a local company if there were enough people that wanted it to make it profitable.
Now, if they wanted to be able to talk to other people outside of the local companies' range they would have to get thier local company to interconnect with other carriers. And if that local company wanted that connection to be run by the other company they SHOULD have to pay FULL PRICE to get it! Without the monopoly that Ma Bell had there would have been competing carriers willing to fight for this business and the price would have been more reasonable than it was under the monopoly provider. This is the free market (libertarian) way.
As for the electricity comment, same thing applies. A real Libertarian would say that it was bad because it granted monopoly powers to companies. In the absense of that, those small towns could have built thier own power plants. This has happened in some places monopoly laws did not exist. If some other company wanted to compete, they could.
The spectrum bidding thing is stupid, I agree. And your conclusions about the ammount of money used are probably true. But if there were competition in the local phone market those companies wouldn't be able to just raise rates like that. Some other company would be willing to offer the service for less. The entire situation would not have come up in the first place as there would not be a monopoly to protect.
This effect can be seen here in Utah. The only phone company most of us can use is Qwest. For years, the service sucked, the line quality was terrible, and they didn't care. They even raised rates when they could get away with it without adding services. AT&T shows up and starts offering local phone service over digital cable. Suddenly the local telco starts adding services and getting good customer service. They raised rates, but at least we got something for it this time. And there is also competition from wireless carriers now. Cricket offers local cell phones for $35/month and unlimited local calls. The situation is looking up because now we can get our service elsewhere. This will have an economic effect on Qwest forcing them to price the service at a level people are willing to pay or they will switch to someone else. Currently I do not have a POTS landline. I use a cellular for voice and wireless internet. I don't miss the landline one bit. And those Cricket phones are getting popular. I know a few others that dropped the landline as well. If enough people do the same, Qwest must adapt or die.
AT&T was a monopoly for long distance calling. After the dust settled from the breakup rates fell and service improved.
Cable TV here sucked hard. After DBS Satelite got popular they came out with digital cable, more channels, better quality, and better prices. Heck, even the customer service improved! Again, better for the consumer.
When you follow the whole trail you often find that government caused the problems they keep comming up with ways to solve, usually at increased taxpayer expense. Those things and others like the examples above are a good part of why Libertarians believe the things they do. Idealogy, real-world benefit, more freedom. Better for everyone. Except big corps that want government enforced monopolies. But we still welcome those corps to compete with the others for our business. Helps keep prices down and service up.
Of course, I'll probably get modded down for posting Libertarian thoughts. Just remember mods, you should be moderating content, not opinion.
Those examples require large investments that may not be available. Buying a computer is a LUXURY. Not only that, but you have choices that cost the same or less that those at the chain stores. You are comparing apples to oranges. What's odd is that you seem to realize it.
"There is a defining point that must be delineated, one that there is more to business, and in life, than the product."
Quite so. So don't buy it. Not buying MS software doesn't cause hardship. It's not even difficult. The local Yellow Pages has listings for lots of computer stores that will sell you whatever you want. It will probably save you money too. A far cry from immigrating.
MS *CAN* be killed. If the government wants to kill it all it has to do is revoke it's corporate charter. Done. MS no longer exists.
So they are introducing new products to take advantge of the net? SO WHAT? Linux has done that, as has any company that wants to stay in business. So now because someone puts out an internet product they should be killed? A bit drastic, don't you think? Not to mention the chilling effect it would have on internet innovation (not specificly the MS deffinition).
If you don't want to support MS, then don't. Nobody is forcing you or anyone else to. Yes, you can't buy a new PC at a chain store without Windows. Boo-hoo. Build your own. Oh, you don't know how? Find someone that does. Patronize a small computer shop. They will be happy to put together a system with anything you want on it. If enough people do this, the big PC makers will take notice. And market forces will force them to offer whatever it is people want, MS be damned. If enough people refuse to buy or use MS software and it lowers thier profits, they can't do anything about it! Imagine that! So, in reality, if you want them to die, DON'T GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY! It's really very simple. Oh, not satisified since many people do give them thier money? Why? What business is it of yours? Make a better product and maybe they won't. Remember, in a free market "better" means "what the customer wants". The CUSTOMER is **ALWAYS** RIGHT. If they aren't, then they aren't your customers. It's really that simple. MS is huge because they make what a LOT of people want. Maybe it's not what you or I want, but that doesn't matter to those people. We have other choices of software.
For a group that spouts off about freedom, you seem to know little about it. Freedom means EVERYONE, even MS, is free. Freedom has limits of course. But all one really needs to do is obey the laws. Did MS break them? Maybe. Did Bill lie in court? Maybe. That is for a court of law to decide. If they are found guilty, they will be punnished. Don't like the punnishment? Too bad, you aren't the judge. Good thing you have ways to hurt them yourself (don't use or buy MS products). There are trade-offs we make to live in a free society. This type of thing is only a small part of that.
IMO, the only way a REAL monopoly can exist is if the government creates it and passes laws to protect it. Otherwise there will be competition of some sort. MS has just about every other software company on the planet as competition. And as if that were not enough, they have Free Software and Open Source to deal with too! Compare that to pre-breakup AT&T (Ma Bell). AT&T had NO competition because BY LAW nobody was allowed to compete with them! Government created thier monopoly and they brought it down. IMO, there is no comparision. MS simply provides what the customers want. Customers wanted a web browser, so they added one. This goes on and on.
Now, since I will probably get accused of astroturfing.. I do NOT like MS or it's software. I simply feel that the law applies to everyone equally. Even the filthy rich and huge corps. If they are not breaking the law, they should be let alone. Just as if I am not breaking the law I expect to be let alone. I don't draw a different line for anyone. Think about it, if we can draw that line, who else can? Do you want someone moving the line on YOU?
Uh, no. The Libertarian deffinition of "initiation of force" is an act that places an individual's person or property in immediate danger without first receiving such force from another party.
Example: If I'm walking down the street minding my own business and someone stops me wielding a knife, that is initiation of force. If I draw a gun and shoot them, it is self defence.
Now, in the context of this discussion, weather you decide that copying the law and distributing it is theft determines if you would consider it force. Personally, I feel and I think most Libertarians would agree, that the LAW I am REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT FORCE TO OBEY is public domain. If you hold copyright on a law that is passed you grant implicit permission for the text of that law to be copied and distributed. Otherwise the citizenry cannot know the law. The method of distribution is irrevelant. If you say that the law is available because anyone can go to a local government office or public library and read it, then I have done nothing that has not allready been done by publishing it online. It does not change the fact that anyone who wishes to can read it. It only changes the method of reading, time, and location. Thus, it is no different then what they did by allowing the text to become law.
No good. I have very little chemistry or machining knowledge but I could MAKE ammo in my basement. The materials are available in nature if you decide you want to ban the sale of the chemicals. The fact is, the guns and ammo are a minor part of the problem.
Oh, and we can't make gun ownership contingent on millitary training. Not without ammending the Constitution.
Hear hear! You want to help? Then DO SOMETHING. And yes, there are things that can be done. Mentoring is a great way to help. Have siblings that age? Talk to them, work with them. Not? Contact one of the many charitable organizations that deal in this sort of thing. Big Brothers, Big Sisters is one place to start. They have a few different programs available to mentor kids. It's a fair bit of work, but it's fun too.
As for this case. Do people really think that refusing to sell games to kids is going to do ANYTHING? How stupid are these people?!?! Do they really think these kids go spend $50 for each game? Nope, they COPY them. That activity is ALLREADY illegal. And it doesn't stop them. Those kids aren't allowed to have guns to do the shooting with, yet they seem to manage to get them. Again, it is allready illegal, but it doesn't stop them. And now these people think that a court action is going to keep these "dangerous" games out of the hands of thier kids? WTF?!?! Sure, it may prevent the software places from selling to kids. But that's not going to keep the games away from the kids. If they want them, they will get them. And the harder you make it to get them, the more they will want them. If for no other reason then to do what they aren't supposed to. Look at ciggarettes. Kids get them and smoke them, it's illegal to sell or give them to kids. But they get them. I had friends that got them simply for the thrill of breaking the law! They didn't even smoke! These people need to get medical help for their rectal-cranial insertion and look at themselves and thier kids. You don't want your kids having something? TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE! It's called PARENTING. Ask your local librarian if you need a deffinition or other refference material for that word.
BTW: They don't market to the kids. As the article says, corporations exist to make money. They will market to the poeple that HAVE MONEY. Kids don't. And this isn't the kind of product you can get kids to pester thier parents into buying for them. Not to mention the new trend of requiring big computers to play the new games. Kids don't often have access to enough computing power to enjoy those games unless mommy and daddy buy it. So why aren't mommy and daddy watching what gets installed on thier computer? hmmmm?
Hmm... so it's a shame that we have an opinion based on the facts available to us. Interesting.. And not only that, they won't tell us thier side of the story. So what, we aren't supposed to have any opinion on the matter at all?
Oh, and it's not just "those facts that have been presented". It's also experience with the public "school" system. If they had a reasonable record many of us would not be likely to believe this story. The fact that so many here do so without question says more about the schools than the article and the questions it raises.
Cars DO have an expert mode. It is accessed by opening the hood and using tools. My toaster has a simmiliar "expert" mode.;) Cars are not idiot proof, an idiot would not change the oil or the other vital fluids and thier car would die. A slightly clued user would have someone else change the fluids, while an expert would do it themselves, or know how and chose not to.;) Just like an OS. The idiots have it die and they don't know why "oh, COMMAND.COM was REQUIRED??".. Clued users can handle system maintence tasks, run defrag and whatnot. Experts can compile kernels and do other low level upgrades.
if shown an example of a speedy, stable, large Java application that actually exists and is not vapor, I could change my mind
At work I write in Borland's JBuilder 4. It's a pure Java app with a Java installer. It is everything you asked for. Fast, stable, large, and pure Java. You can buy it all over the place or download an eval from Borland's web site. And yes, it works in Windows and Linux. I believe the install routine is different between OS's since the Windows version uses an EXE file that calls the JRE for you and under UNIX you have to call it yourself or call a script. The JRE runs the same code on either OS though. Sounds like that other app you mentioned was badly coded/designed.
Bad analogy. We aren't asking for a physical object to be provided to us by the RIAA. We are asking for the right to "Space-Shift" the music on the disc. This is well established in copyright law. A more correct analogy is that you can record TV shows. This is also legal. It's called "fair use". You get to make copies as long as you don't distribute them to anyone. Just like VCRs, TiVO, and my Dishplayer can record legally, I can also record a CD to Tape, another CD, MP3, MD, whatever I want. So long as I don't give those copies to anyone else. This is fair and right. I paid for the right to listen to my tunes. Under current Copyright law that includes the right to space shift.
Now, if I copy someone else's tunes I'm in violation of the law. That's fair.
You sir, are a troll. You can think whatever you want, but the Supreme Court disagrees. And I think thier opinion means more than yours. See the Betamax case for the reality of the sitation.
Copyright law is supposed to be tempered by a concept called "Fair Use". The short version means that you are allowed to make copies for personal use provided you do not distribute said copies. This is why VCRs and TiVos are LEGAL. Just because the signal is now digital, the reality does not change. You are still allowed to make copies for personal use without distributing them. Why else would CD-R be legal? Hmmmmm??? Same thing with my DishPlayer actually, I get a digital signal from the satelite that gets recorded to the internal HD without any conversion. Yes, that's right, basicly the little brother to an HDTV version. The only difference is the bitrate. This is also quite legal. Note, I can record PPV, Premium, and normal chanels with it. With full 5.1 suround sound if it's there. I do this ALL THE TIME. This is because I frequently miss my favorite shows and this lets me record them for later viewing. Just like my VCR used to. This does not violate anyone's rights.
Now, if I were to make a copy and put it on the net for people to download, then I would be in violation of Copyright law. At that point, I am open to prosecution as is anyone who downloaded it I believe. Although that is touchy since they may have a legit copy. For example, if I download "Angel" by Aerosmith from Napster I'm legal. Why? Because I own 2 CDs with that track. Downloading just saved me the time to rip/encode it myself. This is called space-shifting. I can put the content on other media as long as I do not give it to others. The guy I downloaded from may be in violation, but I'm ok.
Yes, the pirates will be out in force distributing the content. However, look at software for a good example of how this works. Microsoft software is probably the most pirated in the world. Yet they make TONS of money and Bill Gates is the richest man in the world last I saw. Yes, stealing is wrong. On that we agree. But it's not that big a deal on the bottom line of the multinationals. They complained and threw a fit over the VCR when it came out. How it was going to be the end of movies and TV. Now they make more money from VHS than they do on Theatres! People can copy those tapes and yet they still buy them instead. I can go download MPG4 movies, yet I go buy the DVD.
Copy protection doesn't work. That has been proven time and time again. It gets cracked and the only people who suffer are the legal purchasers of the product. The pirates will get around it, it doesn't even slow them down. DMCA is worthless as well since it won't matter to them. If they are willing to steal it, they are willing to violate DMCA. Again, it targets the people who aren't likley to distribute anyway. Does this mean we throw out Copyright? No, of course not. It just means we should keep it sane. We need to keep the balance of power even. It's tipping too far in favor of the corps for my taste.
"DeCSS is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house."
This part is ammusing. And correct, much as it pains me to admit it. The ammusing part is that it is a tool to break *MY* lock. That lock is MINE, and I can break it if I want to. Just like a hammer can break the lock on MY house, and it's perfectly legal to do so, DeCSS can break the lock on MY DVD.
Now, if I break the lock on my neighbor's house, I will rightfully be prossecuted. This is as it should be. Just as if I break the lock on my neighbor's DVD. *THAT* is wrong. Unless I do so with my neighbor's permission of course.;)
Now, whose is the DVD, that is the question. Going by what I understand of copyright law, specificly First Sale, the DVD belongs to me once I buy it. The restriction is that I may not make a copy to give or sell to another person. The content is protected by copyright law, the PHYSICAL OBJECT is mine to do with as I please. This includes renting, loaning, selling, or destroying this object. And I am allowed to make copies for my own PERSONAL, NON-COMMERICAL use. The FBI warning even says that, IIRC.. Or at the least it's not included in the stuff I can't do.;)
So yes, I do indeed have the right to distribute the tool to break a lock. In my analogy the tool is a hammer. I can buy this at a hardware store. Or I can sell or give away my hammer. If I know that the person intends to use my hammer to break a lock that isn't thiers without permission I suppose I could be an accessory to the crime. However, there are a number of perfectly legit uses for that hammer and as long as the person did not tell me specificly that they intended to do something illegal with it I would not know. Nor should I be held responsible for it.
This applies to DeCSS just as well as my hammer. If I put DeCSS on a website for download, I don't know the people downloading it. I don't know what they intend to do with it. For all I know they are making a backup copy for thier kids to use so that the original doesn't get scratched up. This is legal, so I'm fine. Or they are planning to quote it for fair use, this is also fine. Or they could just want to watch it on a Linux box. Yes, they could intend to pirate it and sell it to thier friends. Just like the guy that bought the hammer could intend to break into houses or kill people with it.
Point is, if the hammer is not illegal, why is the code for DeCSS? The hammer can be used to KILL. The code can only facilitate piracy, and even that is not the only use it has. So the worst case senario for both shows that the hammer is a FAR greater danger to society.
This is INTOLERABLE. We must start a campaign to ban hammers at ONCE! They MIGHT be used to kill someone, the safety of our CHILDREN is at stake!!! Join me fellow Americans, help me lobby Congress!! We must stop the danger that hammers bring to our families!! If corporate profits are reason enough to ban something that can, at worst, be used to steal content, than the protection of our CHILDREN MUST be a good enough reason to ban something that can KILL! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!?!
;)
Government is at least partly responsible here...
on
Information Poisoning
·
· Score: 2
Look at the public schools. They are set up to turn children into obedient little consumers. And now we complain that kids cannot assimilate information into knowledge. Does anyone want to know why? Here it is.
To accomplish this requires an ability that 12+ years of public school drives out of most people. Critical thinking. The ability to think for yourself. Yes, the audience here on/. is more likely to have made it through with this ability intact. And as a result we often had to endure being made fun of and otherwise abused. Yes, it's a tired refrain, but it is the typical situation.
The thing is, critical thinking is not good for educators. It makes it harder to control thier charges. Kids are born thinking for themselves. At least all the kids I have worked with. And teaching someone that constantly questions you is difficult at best. Not to mention a whole classroom full of them. But it can be done. And it's eaiser without all the government restrictions educators must put up with now.
This situation was not the case in the past. It is a relitively new attitude. Talking with people from previous generations will tell you that. Yes, old people have usefull stuff to teach us. Much as it pains me to admit it.;)
Now this guy says we should limit the big bad corporations with strict government control of the net and IT in general. If we taught our kids properly, they would see right through all this corporate BS and call them on it. Just like typical/.ers do. Government isn't the answer. It is the problem. As usual, EDUCATION is the answer. Problem is, it's much harder to educate than to legislate. And people are lazy and pick what appears to be the easy way. Problem is, it actually turns out to be worse in the long run. But of course, by then the people that wrote the law are gone and the new guys have to deal with the fallout from it. Interesting, that.
One more thing. The net, like real life, can be a dangerous place. There is a lot of content that is not for children. It's life. Deal with it. Watch your kids' use of the net just like you do when they are outside, in real life. If they can steal a credit card and fill in the forms correctly to make it work, then they can steal a "license" and password. Just like how they can get drugs, alcohol, and tobacco without too much hassle. You educate them on those issues, why is this different? Again, the soultion is education and responsibility. Two things serriously lacking in American society.
Huh? If automatic watches are "dead" I better hide my wrist.;) I have one on right now that works just fine. Seiko branded. Now if I could just find a better watchband for it..
My first Presidential election. I've voted in local and Senate races before, but I was protesting 4 years ago. After doing some learning, I decided that not voting was not helping. It seems to me, that not voting just tells the government we want more of the same since we aren't even willing to get off our butts and go check a box or whatever method your area uses.
Thing is, I can't vote Republican or Democrat because I can't tell the difference. And both of them will just make government bigger, while I want to see it shrink. Thus the debates were worthless to me. I almost fell asleap durring the highlights on the news!
So who to vote for? For me, Libertarian. They are closest to my views. Wasted vote? I think not. If I were not voting LP I wouldn't be voting at all. Now THAT'S a wasted vote. Personally, I see voting for BushGore as a wasted vote. I don't believe in them, and the vast majority of people I talk to don't believe in them. Voting for someone you don't believe in is a waste.
A LOT of people I know are not voting this year but have simmiliar views to me. They just don't see the point of the "lesser of two evils" anymore. I say fine, so don't vote for them. If you aren't going to vote anyway, why not vote for the 3rd party that is closest to your views? In the grand scheme of things it can't be any worse than not voting at all. If all the non voters out there that agree with me would go vote Libertarian, we would win. By a landslide.
The supreme court. So what. Justices have been known to surprise presidents. We can deal with the court later. For now we need to fix the Legislative and Executive branches. They make the laws, the Judicial just enforces them. How's this for a soultion to Geek problems: Elect Libertarians. They are against crypto controls, crap like the DMCA, and many other things that effect us. Get the law repealed in Congress and the court no longer matters!
As for the Electoral College. Yes, they can vote against the popular vote in many cases. However, if the popular vote elects a Libertarian and they vote for someone else, there would be hell to pay. I smell a lawsuit. Or impeachment. Or just plain voting the bastards out. I would personally donate time and money to getting any of the above done. I would even run against them in the next election myself. Something I'm considering anyway.;) The point is, yes, we as American citizens CAN change things in the government. But it's HARD WORK. Something not many Americans are willing to do anymore. If it's harder than pissing and moaning on/. it doesn't get done.
If you want change, GET OFF YOUR ASS AND DO SOMETHING!!!! Go vote, if you like Bush or Gore, fine vote for them. If you don't, find a 3rd party to vote for. There are plenty to chose from. I don't care WHO you vote for, but go vote. Get active, get the word out, fight for change. If you don't, then stop your bitching and get out of the way so the rest of us can.
While it may be a moral obligation to care for our elderly, it should not be FORCED on us at gunpoint. And make no mistake, it is. Government power derives from the legal monopoly on the initiation of force. They are the only ones legally allowed to shoot first, so to speak.
Even to accept that we should care for OUR elderly, I don't have any at present. Therfore, you are forcing me to pay for YOUR elderly. I call that theft. If I were to rob a bank and give the money to charity, say one that benefits the elderly, I would still be stealing. And I would still go to jail for it. How is this different that what Social Security does to us? I don't see a difference. Government should be held to the same laws we citizens are. If I am not allowed to steal, then they aren't. The reason for the theft is irrelevant.
I agree with your assessment of SS, it is an intergenerational transfer of wealth. And once the number of people in the receiving generation reaches a certain point the burden on the sending generation will go up to unsustainable levels without huge taxation on the senders. This is simple addition.
Yes, I agree we should care for our parents as they age. However, it is the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHILD to do so. That's right, something we have forgotten in this country for far too long. PERSONAL responsibility. The child can solicit help from society as needed, however, it should not be guaranteed. As things stand, with my high tax burden I am having a difficult time managing to save for my OWN retirement, let alone to be able to support my parents in 20 years or so when they need it.
If you want to continue to steal from me to finance people's retirement I ask that you do so honestly. Hold the gun yourself and demand my money. What? Not willing to hold me up yourself? Then don't ask Government to do it for you.
BTW: If you do, you'd better hope your first shot doesn't miss, mine won't.
He says corps don't pollute? That a new one for me. I do recall him saying that they will avoid it if there are tough penalties available. But the Libertarian way is to have it dealt with in the courts rather than a government buracracy. Laws would have to be changed before this worked, and he has stated that. The fact is, most pollution occurs on government land. Yes, much of it is by corps. A detailed page on this from the Harry Browne website is at:
http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/stands/enviro.htm
Microsoft. A touchy issue on/.... I think the problem here lies in how you look at things. Perhaps it's just a phillosophical difference. Libertarians believe that a "Monopoly" cannot exist without government help. The market will not allow an abusive monopoly because if large profits are available competition will come in. The company that is acting like a monopoly will have to compete with challengers and will be forced to provide a good product at a fair price. Does M$ do this? Arguably not. However, Linux is gaining ground. BeOS is here, Apple is gaining ground. Even Novell is attempting to get into the game again. Competition is heating up for M$ and it shows. Win2K is actually a reasonably good product for M$. It's pricey, IMO, but compared to the commercial offerings from Novell and Apple it's not out of line by much.
What was M$ sued over? Offering a browser with thier OS. That appears to be the extent of the charges. That is insane. Linux comes with a browser. BeOS and MacOS come with browsers. Why should M$ be held to a different standard? Because they are the market leader? Because they refuse to include competitors products with thier own? Is Coca-Cola a monopoly because they are the market leader and they refuse to include a can of Pepsi with every 6 pack of Coke? Do they deserve to be sued? I used to like the idea of the M$ trial too. Then I researched anti-trust law and what, exactly, M$ was being sued over. I was appalled.
Perhaps you don't like that you can't buy a computer without Windows. Fine, don't buy it at the local electronics store. Go buy parts and put one together yourself. True, not everyone is able to do this. But that is the nature of the beast. Small computer shops will build custom boxes and not include Windows if you look arround. It's a little harder, but not impossible. And it's not M$'s fault. Computer makers do it, some are under contract, but they signed so it's thier problem.
Do I like M$ or it's tactics? Nope. But I don't think anyone has a right to go after a company becuase they are hurting thier bottom line. And that's about the extent of the M$ trial. Antitrust laws exist for the sole purpose of sticking it to the successfull companies.
Nader is hardly a good choice. The man is a socialist. Universal health care, "excess profits" on gas, loads of envoirnmental regulations, the list goes on and on. He also would increase the size of government to unheard of levels if he got his way. Got to enforce all this stuff somehow... I like the enviornment as much as the next guy, but the Greens are up in the night.
Extremist? Okay, deffine that. Is freedom from government opression extreme? Then yes, I suppose Libertarians may qualify. Personally, I find Nader, Bush, and Gore extremeists. But it is probably a personal oppinion. Libertarians base all thier planks on a principle. That is that people should be free to do as they please as long as they are not causing harm to another person. This includes moral, ecconomic, and personal freedoms. You can find details on www.lp.org. Weather you agree or not, I would urge you to investigate the Libertarian Party and find out for yourself why we feel the way we do about things. You may find yourself learning a few things. If nothing else, you will be able to debate Libertarians better.;) Know your enemy and all that. I've read up on Bush, Gore, Nader, Buchanan, and Browne. Along with some info on the Constitution, Natural Law, and a few other parties in lesser detail. Be informed, please. Ignorant voters are the biggest problem in the US today, IMO. And don't just take anyone's oppinion for granted, do the homework for yourself. This includes me.;)
It could possibly work if the whole concept is valid (still no proof) and the space elevator idea is valid and built. Lots of ifs.;)
The solar wind drive you mention wouldn't work for this. It creates it's own magnetosphere and uses it as a solar sail. Thus it expends energy, rather than generating it.
Do you realize that oppressive government interference is why health care is so expensive?
Government is getting after the health care industry for problems government CAUSED!!!
Define "social justice" and I'll respond on that.
Better yet, read "Why Government Doesn't Work" By Harry Browne. Then, after your 60 page education we can talk again. Hell, I'll even buy you a copy if you'll promise to read it. You can also read "Healing our World" By Dr. Mary Ruwart for free at http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/. Both cover your objections to the enviornment as well as most other objections to freedom.
So what's wrong with Browne and/or the Libertarian Party? Both seem to meet your criteria. Browne isn't exactly a geek, but the Libertarian principles he supports cover most of what we geeks want. Much more throughly than anyone else I've seen. You mention that he supports things that make you "cringe". What, exactly? Maybe start with two or three of the big ones in your view. I'm simply currious what you see as a problem here.
You won't be. At least not more than you are now. Go read up on the inverse square law then come back.
Besides, Tesla's wireless power isn't that usefull to us today anyway. Tesla Coils are fun to build though. See my other post about Tesla and his work for more detail.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should I care if MS introduces a digital ID? They should be allowed to produce new products just like everyone else. If people like it and want to use it, that's thier choice. And yes, if businesses don't want to do business with me because I don't have one, fine. They should not be required to do business with anyone, even me. Just as I am not required to do business with them. Do you honestly think that there will not be other businesses ready and waiting for me to give them my money for the same products? I doubt it. If there is money to be made, a business will appear to make it. As long as there are no laws preventing it. Which, as a Libertarian, I feel there should not be.
/.ers.. Probably won't make me a billionare, but I can live with that. The only way to prevent market forces from correcting is to invoke government force. You can help prevent that by talking and writing to your congresspeople. If they don't vote the way you want them to, vote for someone else next time. If government is abusing you, get politicaly active! Find a group that you believe in and back them. At the very least vote and write to your reps. Yes, money talks, but in the end it's because they want to be re-elected. If that is threatened by us, they will reconsider. After all, corps can't vote. Like the other guy said, go read up on the Libertarian Party. If you still disagree, great, it's a free country, for now. Check out some of the writers that write about common misconceptions about the LP.
If there were enough people that were unwilling to get a MSID, and wanted an alternate form of digital ID, some other group or company would make one to use. And I suspect many businesses would support it if it were offered free or cheap to them. Why turn away customers?
There are millions of Americans and billions of others on the earth that do not have credit/debit cards. They seem to get along fine. I didn't have one for the longest time. Even then I got it mostly for convience. I could always go to the bank and withdraw the cash. Or I could be really paranoid and not have a bank account, just carry all my cash everywhere. Not the most brilliant thing in the world to do, but it would work. The same would hold with the MSID. Sure, maybe I would be inconvienced, but that's a choice I can make.
The biblical refference is a red herring. Without government force such a thing could not happen. And if they try it I can see a revolution starting. People don't like to be forced to do things like that.
The right of free association includes the right to no association. They don't have to deal with you, and you don't have to deal with them. In a free market, business WILL provide for those of us who don't want an MSID. Hell, I'll start a business myself in that case to serve my fellow
One really good place to start is Dr. Mary Ruwart.
http://www.ruwart.com/
And her book, available online for free reading, "Healing our World".
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/register.mgi
It may ask for a name and email, feel free to put bogus info in there if you want.
"Healing" is a great start to answer a lot of questions and concerns people have about the LP. If nothing else, you will be better able to debate Libertarians if you actually understand our beliefs better.
Minimum wage??? Does anyone on /. work for minimum wage? I think not. Hell, to just understand most of the topics discussed here qualifies you for a little higher than that! Minimum wage is for kids just starting out. Anyone with real work experience or schooling can do much better than that. Not to mention the other potential problems laws like that cause. If you're going to make a point, please do so intelegently. ;)
One thing you fail to notice.
;) Or, even better, the Democrats can get back to thier roots and stand for *gasp* democracy. ;)
While the US does all those things you say it does, Libertarians are fighting to reverse that and again become the shining light of Liberty the USA once was. Now if only more of the Republicans will realize that thier party has sold out and become so much like the democrats few can tell the difference and defect we'll be on our way.
Yes, the charge is there supposedly to pay for rural areas. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it's used for that and that alone. The only reason it was needed in the first place was because of the artificial monopoly that the government granted to Ma Bell! If that were not in place, local phone service would have been provided by a local company if there were enough people that wanted it to make it profitable.
Now, if they wanted to be able to talk to other people outside of the local companies' range they would have to get thier local company to interconnect with other carriers. And if that local company wanted that connection to be run by the other company they SHOULD have to pay FULL PRICE to get it! Without the monopoly that Ma Bell had there would have been competing carriers willing to fight for this business and the price would have been more reasonable than it was under the monopoly provider. This is the free market (libertarian) way.
As for the electricity comment, same thing applies. A real Libertarian would say that it was bad because it granted monopoly powers to companies. In the absense of that, those small towns could have built thier own power plants. This has happened in some places monopoly laws did not exist. If some other company wanted to compete, they could.
The spectrum bidding thing is stupid, I agree. And your conclusions about the ammount of money used are probably true. But if there were competition in the local phone market those companies wouldn't be able to just raise rates like that. Some other company would be willing to offer the service for less. The entire situation would not have come up in the first place as there would not be a monopoly to protect.
This effect can be seen here in Utah. The only phone company most of us can use is Qwest. For years, the service sucked, the line quality was terrible, and they didn't care. They even raised rates when they could get away with it without adding services. AT&T shows up and starts offering local phone service over digital cable. Suddenly the local telco starts adding services and getting good customer service. They raised rates, but at least we got something for it this time. And there is also competition from wireless carriers now. Cricket offers local cell phones for $35/month and unlimited local calls. The situation is looking up because now we can get our service elsewhere. This will have an economic effect on Qwest forcing them to price the service at a level people are willing to pay or they will switch to someone else. Currently I do not have a POTS landline. I use a cellular for voice and wireless internet. I don't miss the landline one bit. And those Cricket phones are getting popular. I know a few others that dropped the landline as well. If enough people do the same, Qwest must adapt or die.
AT&T was a monopoly for long distance calling. After the dust settled from the breakup rates fell and service improved.
Cable TV here sucked hard. After DBS Satelite got popular they came out with digital cable, more channels, better quality, and better prices. Heck, even the customer service improved! Again, better for the consumer.
When you follow the whole trail you often find that government caused the problems they keep comming up with ways to solve, usually at increased taxpayer expense. Those things and others like the examples above are a good part of why Libertarians believe the things they do. Idealogy, real-world benefit, more freedom. Better for everyone. Except big corps that want government enforced monopolies. But we still welcome those corps to compete with the others for our business. Helps keep prices down and service up.
Of course, I'll probably get modded down for posting Libertarian thoughts. Just remember mods, you should be moderating content, not opinion.
Why not argue the point with reality?
Those examples require large investments that may not be available. Buying a computer is a LUXURY. Not only that, but you have choices that cost the same or less that those at the chain stores. You are comparing apples to oranges. What's odd is that you seem to realize it.
"There is a defining point that must be delineated, one that there is more to business, and in life, than the product."
Quite so. So don't buy it. Not buying MS software doesn't cause hardship. It's not even difficult. The local Yellow Pages has listings for lots of computer stores that will sell you whatever you want. It will probably save you money too. A far cry from immigrating.
GET A GRIP.
MS *CAN* be killed. If the government wants to kill it all it has to do is revoke it's corporate charter. Done. MS no longer exists.
So they are introducing new products to take advantge of the net? SO WHAT? Linux has done that, as has any company that wants to stay in business. So now because someone puts out an internet product they should be killed? A bit drastic, don't you think? Not to mention the chilling effect it would have on internet innovation (not specificly the MS deffinition).
If you don't want to support MS, then don't. Nobody is forcing you or anyone else to. Yes, you can't buy a new PC at a chain store without Windows. Boo-hoo. Build your own. Oh, you don't know how? Find someone that does. Patronize a small computer shop. They will be happy to put together a system with anything you want on it. If enough people do this, the big PC makers will take notice. And market forces will force them to offer whatever it is people want, MS be damned. If enough people refuse to buy or use MS software and it lowers thier profits, they can't do anything about it! Imagine that! So, in reality, if you want them to die, DON'T GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY! It's really very simple. Oh, not satisified since many people do give them thier money? Why? What business is it of yours? Make a better product and maybe they won't. Remember, in a free market "better" means "what the customer wants". The CUSTOMER is **ALWAYS** RIGHT. If they aren't, then they aren't your customers. It's really that simple. MS is huge because they make what a LOT of people want. Maybe it's not what you or I want, but that doesn't matter to those people. We have other choices of software.
For a group that spouts off about freedom, you seem to know little about it. Freedom means EVERYONE, even MS, is free. Freedom has limits of course. But all one really needs to do is obey the laws. Did MS break them? Maybe. Did Bill lie in court? Maybe. That is for a court of law to decide. If they are found guilty, they will be punnished. Don't like the punnishment? Too bad, you aren't the judge. Good thing you have ways to hurt them yourself (don't use or buy MS products). There are trade-offs we make to live in a free society. This type of thing is only a small part of that.
IMO, the only way a REAL monopoly can exist is if the government creates it and passes laws to protect it. Otherwise there will be competition of some sort. MS has just about every other software company on the planet as competition. And as if that were not enough, they have Free Software and Open Source to deal with too! Compare that to pre-breakup AT&T (Ma Bell). AT&T had NO competition because BY LAW nobody was allowed to compete with them! Government created thier monopoly and they brought it down. IMO, there is no comparision. MS simply provides what the customers want. Customers wanted a web browser, so they added one. This goes on and on.
Now, since I will probably get accused of astroturfing.. I do NOT like MS or it's software. I simply feel that the law applies to everyone equally. Even the filthy rich and huge corps. If they are not breaking the law, they should be let alone. Just as if I am not breaking the law I expect to be let alone. I don't draw a different line for anyone. Think about it, if we can draw that line, who else can? Do you want someone moving the line on YOU?
Uh, no. The Libertarian deffinition of "initiation of force" is an act that places an individual's person or property in immediate danger without first receiving such force from another party.
Example: If I'm walking down the street minding my own business and someone stops me wielding a knife, that is initiation of force. If I draw a gun and shoot them, it is self defence.
Now, in the context of this discussion, weather you decide that copying the law and distributing it is theft determines if you would consider it force. Personally, I feel and I think most Libertarians would agree, that the LAW I am REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT FORCE TO OBEY is public domain. If you hold copyright on a law that is passed you grant implicit permission for the text of that law to be copied and distributed. Otherwise the citizenry cannot know the law. The method of distribution is irrevelant. If you say that the law is available because anyone can go to a local government office or public library and read it, then I have done nothing that has not allready been done by publishing it online. It does not change the fact that anyone who wishes to can read it. It only changes the method of reading, time, and location. Thus, it is no different then what they did by allowing the text to become law.
No good. I have very little chemistry or machining knowledge but I could MAKE ammo in my basement. The materials are available in nature if you decide you want to ban the sale of the chemicals. The fact is, the guns and ammo are a minor part of the problem.
Oh, and we can't make gun ownership contingent on millitary training. Not without ammending the Constitution.
Hear hear! You want to help? Then DO SOMETHING. And yes, there are things that can be done. Mentoring is a great way to help. Have siblings that age? Talk to them, work with them. Not? Contact one of the many charitable organizations that deal in this sort of thing. Big Brothers, Big Sisters is one place to start. They have a few different programs available to mentor kids. It's a fair bit of work, but it's fun too.
As for this case. Do people really think that refusing to sell games to kids is going to do ANYTHING? How stupid are these people?!?! Do they really think these kids go spend $50 for each game? Nope, they COPY them. That activity is ALLREADY illegal. And it doesn't stop them. Those kids aren't allowed to have guns to do the shooting with, yet they seem to manage to get them. Again, it is allready illegal, but it doesn't stop them. And now these people think that a court action is going to keep these "dangerous" games out of the hands of thier kids? WTF?!?! Sure, it may prevent the software places from selling to kids. But that's not going to keep the games away from the kids. If they want them, they will get them. And the harder you make it to get them, the more they will want them. If for no other reason then to do what they aren't supposed to. Look at ciggarettes. Kids get them and smoke them, it's illegal to sell or give them to kids. But they get them. I had friends that got them simply for the thrill of breaking the law! They didn't even smoke! These people need to get medical help for their rectal-cranial insertion and look at themselves and thier kids. You don't want your kids having something? TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE! It's called PARENTING. Ask your local librarian if you need a deffinition or other refference material for that word.
BTW: They don't market to the kids. As the article says, corporations exist to make money. They will market to the poeple that HAVE MONEY. Kids don't. And this isn't the kind of product you can get kids to pester thier parents into buying for them. Not to mention the new trend of requiring big computers to play the new games. Kids don't often have access to enough computing power to enjoy those games unless mommy and daddy buy it. So why aren't mommy and daddy watching what gets installed on thier computer? hmmmm?
Hmm... so it's a shame that we have an opinion based on the facts available to us. Interesting.. And not only that, they won't tell us thier side of the story. So what, we aren't supposed to have any opinion on the matter at all?
Oh, and it's not just "those facts that have been presented". It's also experience with the public "school" system. If they had a reasonable record many of us would not be likely to believe this story. The fact that so many here do so without question says more about the schools than the article and the questions it raises.
Cars DO have an expert mode. It is accessed by opening the hood and using tools. My toaster has a simmiliar "expert" mode. ;) Cars are not idiot proof, an idiot would not change the oil or the other vital fluids and thier car would die. A slightly clued user would have someone else change the fluids, while an expert would do it themselves, or know how and chose not to. ;) Just like an OS. The idiots have it die and they don't know why "oh, COMMAND.COM was REQUIRED??".. Clued users can handle system maintence tasks, run defrag and whatnot. Experts can compile kernels and do other low level upgrades.
;)
That's enough for my bad anaolgy..
At work I write in Borland's JBuilder 4. It's a pure Java app with a Java installer. It is everything you asked for. Fast, stable, large, and pure Java. You can buy it all over the place or download an eval from Borland's web site. And yes, it works in Windows and Linux. I believe the install routine is different between OS's since the Windows version uses an EXE file that calls the JRE for you and under UNIX you have to call it yourself or call a script. The JRE runs the same code on either OS though. Sounds like that other app you mentioned was badly coded/designed.
Bad analogy. We aren't asking for a physical object to be provided to us by the RIAA. We are asking for the right to "Space-Shift" the music on the disc. This is well established in copyright law. A more correct analogy is that you can record TV shows. This is also legal. It's called "fair use". You get to make copies as long as you don't distribute them to anyone. Just like VCRs, TiVO, and my Dishplayer can record legally, I can also record a CD to Tape, another CD, MP3, MD, whatever I want. So long as I don't give those copies to anyone else. This is fair and right. I paid for the right to listen to my tunes. Under current Copyright law that includes the right to space shift.
Now, if I copy someone else's tunes I'm in violation of the law. That's fair.
You sir, are a troll. You can think whatever you want, but the Supreme Court disagrees. And I think thier opinion means more than yours. See the Betamax case for the reality of the sitation.
Copyright law is supposed to be tempered by a concept called "Fair Use". The short version means that you are allowed to make copies for personal use provided you do not distribute said copies. This is why VCRs and TiVos are LEGAL. Just because the signal is now digital, the reality does not change. You are still allowed to make copies for personal use without distributing them. Why else would CD-R be legal? Hmmmmm??? Same thing with my DishPlayer actually, I get a digital signal from the satelite that gets recorded to the internal HD without any conversion. Yes, that's right, basicly the little brother to an HDTV version. The only difference is the bitrate. This is also quite legal. Note, I can record PPV, Premium, and normal chanels with it. With full 5.1 suround sound if it's there. I do this ALL THE TIME. This is because I frequently miss my favorite shows and this lets me record them for later viewing. Just like my VCR used to. This does not violate anyone's rights.
Now, if I were to make a copy and put it on the net for people to download, then I would be in violation of Copyright law. At that point, I am open to prosecution as is anyone who downloaded it I believe. Although that is touchy since they may have a legit copy. For example, if I download "Angel" by Aerosmith from Napster I'm legal. Why? Because I own 2 CDs with that track. Downloading just saved me the time to rip/encode it myself. This is called space-shifting. I can put the content on other media as long as I do not give it to others. The guy I downloaded from may be in violation, but I'm ok.
Yes, the pirates will be out in force distributing the content. However, look at software for a good example of how this works. Microsoft software is probably the most pirated in the world. Yet they make TONS of money and Bill Gates is the richest man in the world last I saw. Yes, stealing is wrong. On that we agree. But it's not that big a deal on the bottom line of the multinationals. They complained and threw a fit over the VCR when it came out. How it was going to be the end of movies and TV. Now they make more money from VHS than they do on Theatres! People can copy those tapes and yet they still buy them instead. I can go download MPG4 movies, yet I go buy the DVD.
Copy protection doesn't work. That has been proven time and time again. It gets cracked and the only people who suffer are the legal purchasers of the product. The pirates will get around it, it doesn't even slow them down. DMCA is worthless as well since it won't matter to them. If they are willing to steal it, they are willing to violate DMCA. Again, it targets the people who aren't likley to distribute anyway. Does this mean we throw out Copyright? No, of course not. It just means we should keep it sane. We need to keep the balance of power even. It's tipping too far in favor of the corps for my taste.
"DeCSS is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house."
;)
;)
This part is ammusing. And correct, much as it pains me to admit it. The ammusing part is that it is a tool to break *MY* lock. That lock is MINE, and I can break it if I want to. Just like a hammer can break the lock on MY house, and it's perfectly legal to do so, DeCSS can break the lock on MY DVD.
Now, if I break the lock on my neighbor's house, I will rightfully be prossecuted. This is as it should be. Just as if I break the lock on my neighbor's DVD. *THAT* is wrong. Unless I do so with my neighbor's permission of course.
Now, whose is the DVD, that is the question. Going by what I understand of copyright law, specificly First Sale, the DVD belongs to me once I buy it. The restriction is that I may not make a copy to give or sell to another person. The content is protected by copyright law, the PHYSICAL OBJECT is mine to do with as I please. This includes renting, loaning, selling, or destroying this object. And I am allowed to make copies for my own PERSONAL, NON-COMMERICAL use. The FBI warning even says that, IIRC.. Or at the least it's not included in the stuff I can't do.
So yes, I do indeed have the right to distribute the tool to break a lock. In my analogy the tool is a hammer. I can buy this at a hardware store. Or I can sell or give away my hammer. If I know that the person intends to use my hammer to break a lock that isn't thiers without permission I suppose I could be an accessory to the crime. However, there are a number of perfectly legit uses for that hammer and as long as the person did not tell me specificly that they intended to do something illegal with it I would not know. Nor should I be held responsible for it.
This applies to DeCSS just as well as my hammer. If I put DeCSS on a website for download, I don't know the people downloading it. I don't know what they intend to do with it. For all I know they are making a backup copy for thier kids to use so that the original doesn't get scratched up. This is legal, so I'm fine. Or they are planning to quote it for fair use, this is also fine. Or they could just want to watch it on a Linux box. Yes, they could intend to pirate it and sell it to thier friends. Just like the guy that bought the hammer could intend to break into houses or kill people with it.
Point is, if the hammer is not illegal, why is the code for DeCSS? The hammer can be used to KILL. The code can only facilitate piracy, and even that is not the only use it has. So the worst case senario for both shows that the hammer is a FAR greater danger to society.
This is INTOLERABLE. We must start a campaign to ban hammers at ONCE! They MIGHT be used to kill someone, the safety of our CHILDREN is at stake!!! Join me fellow Americans, help me lobby Congress!! We must stop the danger that hammers bring to our families!! If corporate profits are reason enough to ban something that can, at worst, be used to steal content, than the protection of our CHILDREN MUST be a good enough reason to ban something that can KILL! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!?!
;)
Look at the public schools. They are set up to turn children into obedient little consumers. And now we complain that kids cannot assimilate information into knowledge. Does anyone want to know why? Here it is.
/. is more likely to have made it through with this ability intact. And as a result we often had to endure being made fun of and otherwise abused. Yes, it's a tired refrain, but it is the typical situation.
;)
/.ers do. Government isn't the answer. It is the problem. As usual, EDUCATION is the answer. Problem is, it's much harder to educate than to legislate. And people are lazy and pick what appears to be the easy way. Problem is, it actually turns out to be worse in the long run. But of course, by then the people that wrote the law are gone and the new guys have to deal with the fallout from it. Interesting, that.
To accomplish this requires an ability that 12+ years of public school drives out of most people. Critical thinking. The ability to think for yourself. Yes, the audience here on
The thing is, critical thinking is not good for educators. It makes it harder to control thier charges. Kids are born thinking for themselves. At least all the kids I have worked with. And teaching someone that constantly questions you is difficult at best. Not to mention a whole classroom full of them. But it can be done. And it's eaiser without all the government restrictions educators must put up with now.
This situation was not the case in the past. It is a relitively new attitude. Talking with people from previous generations will tell you that. Yes, old people have usefull stuff to teach us. Much as it pains me to admit it.
Now this guy says we should limit the big bad corporations with strict government control of the net and IT in general. If we taught our kids properly, they would see right through all this corporate BS and call them on it. Just like typical
One more thing. The net, like real life, can be a dangerous place. There is a lot of content that is not for children. It's life. Deal with it. Watch your kids' use of the net just like you do when they are outside, in real life. If they can steal a credit card and fill in the forms correctly to make it work, then they can steal a "license" and password. Just like how they can get drugs, alcohol, and tobacco without too much hassle. You educate them on those issues, why is this different? Again, the soultion is education and responsibility. Two things serriously lacking in American society.
Huh? If automatic watches are "dead" I better hide my wrist. ;) I have one on right now that works just fine. Seiko branded. Now if I could just find a better watchband for it..
My first Presidential election. I've voted in local and Senate races before, but I was protesting 4 years ago. After doing some learning, I decided that not voting was not helping. It seems to me, that not voting just tells the government we want more of the same since we aren't even willing to get off our butts and go check a box or whatever method your area uses.
;) The point is, yes, we as American citizens CAN change things in the government. But it's HARD WORK. Something not many Americans are willing to do anymore. If it's harder than pissing and moaning on /. it doesn't get done.
Thing is, I can't vote Republican or Democrat because I can't tell the difference. And both of them will just make government bigger, while I want to see it shrink. Thus the debates were worthless to me. I almost fell asleap durring the highlights on the news!
So who to vote for? For me, Libertarian. They are closest to my views. Wasted vote? I think not. If I were not voting LP I wouldn't be voting at all. Now THAT'S a wasted vote. Personally, I see voting for BushGore as a wasted vote. I don't believe in them, and the vast majority of people I talk to don't believe in them. Voting for someone you don't believe in is a waste.
A LOT of people I know are not voting this year but have simmiliar views to me. They just don't see the point of the "lesser of two evils" anymore. I say fine, so don't vote for them. If you aren't going to vote anyway, why not vote for the 3rd party that is closest to your views? In the grand scheme of things it can't be any worse than not voting at all. If all the non voters out there that agree with me would go vote Libertarian, we would win. By a landslide.
The supreme court. So what. Justices have been known to surprise presidents. We can deal with the court later. For now we need to fix the Legislative and Executive branches. They make the laws, the Judicial just enforces them. How's this for a soultion to Geek problems: Elect Libertarians. They are against crypto controls, crap like the DMCA, and many other things that effect us. Get the law repealed in Congress and the court no longer matters!
As for the Electoral College. Yes, they can vote against the popular vote in many cases. However, if the popular vote elects a Libertarian and they vote for someone else, there would be hell to pay. I smell a lawsuit. Or impeachment. Or just plain voting the bastards out. I would personally donate time and money to getting any of the above done. I would even run against them in the next election myself. Something I'm considering anyway.
If you want change, GET OFF YOUR ASS AND DO SOMETHING!!!! Go vote, if you like Bush or Gore, fine vote for them. If you don't, find a 3rd party to vote for. There are plenty to chose from. I don't care WHO you vote for, but go vote. Get active, get the word out, fight for change. If you don't, then stop your bitching and get out of the way so the rest of us can.
While it may be a moral obligation to care for our elderly, it should not be FORCED on us at gunpoint. And make no mistake, it is. Government power derives from the legal monopoly on the initiation of force. They are the only ones legally allowed to shoot first, so to speak.
Even to accept that we should care for OUR elderly, I don't have any at present. Therfore, you are forcing me to pay for YOUR elderly. I call that theft. If I were to rob a bank and give the money to charity, say one that benefits the elderly, I would still be stealing. And I would still go to jail for it. How is this different that what Social Security does to us? I don't see a difference. Government should be held to the same laws we citizens are. If I am not allowed to steal, then they aren't. The reason for the theft is irrelevant.
I agree with your assessment of SS, it is an intergenerational transfer of wealth. And once the number of people in the receiving generation reaches a certain point the burden on the sending generation will go up to unsustainable levels without huge taxation on the senders. This is simple addition.
Yes, I agree we should care for our parents as they age. However, it is the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHILD to do so. That's right, something we have forgotten in this country for far too long. PERSONAL responsibility. The child can solicit help from society as needed, however, it should not be guaranteed. As things stand, with my high tax burden I am having a difficult time managing to save for my OWN retirement, let alone to be able to support my parents in 20 years or so when they need it.
If you want to continue to steal from me to finance people's retirement I ask that you do so honestly. Hold the gun yourself and demand my money. What? Not willing to hold me up yourself? Then don't ask Government to do it for you.
BTW: If you do, you'd better hope your first shot doesn't miss, mine won't.
He says corps don't pollute? That a new one for me. I do recall him saying that they will avoid it if there are tough penalties available. But the Libertarian way is to have it dealt with in the courts rather than a government buracracy. Laws would have to be changed before this worked, and he has stated that. The fact is, most pollution occurs on government land. Yes, much of it is by corps. A detailed page on this from the Harry Browne website is at:
m
/. ... I think the problem here lies in how you look at things. Perhaps it's just a phillosophical difference. Libertarians believe that a "Monopoly" cannot exist without government help. The market will not allow an abusive monopoly because if large profits are available competition will come in. The company that is acting like a monopoly will have to compete with challengers and will be forced to provide a good product at a fair price. Does M$ do this? Arguably not. However, Linux is gaining ground. BeOS is here, Apple is gaining ground. Even Novell is attempting to get into the game again. Competition is heating up for M$ and it shows. Win2K is actually a reasonably good product for M$. It's pricey, IMO, but compared to the commercial offerings from Novell and Apple it's not out of line by much.
;) Know your enemy and all that. I've read up on Bush, Gore, Nader, Buchanan, and Browne. Along with some info on the Constitution, Natural Law, and a few other parties in lesser detail. Be informed, please. Ignorant voters are the biggest problem in the US today, IMO. And don't just take anyone's oppinion for granted, do the homework for yourself. This includes me. ;)
http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/stands/enviro.ht
Microsoft. A touchy issue on
What was M$ sued over? Offering a browser with thier OS. That appears to be the extent of the charges. That is insane. Linux comes with a browser. BeOS and MacOS come with browsers. Why should M$ be held to a different standard? Because they are the market leader? Because they refuse to include competitors products with thier own? Is Coca-Cola a monopoly because they are the market leader and they refuse to include a can of Pepsi with every 6 pack of Coke? Do they deserve to be sued? I used to like the idea of the M$ trial too. Then I researched anti-trust law and what, exactly, M$ was being sued over. I was appalled.
Perhaps you don't like that you can't buy a computer without Windows. Fine, don't buy it at the local electronics store. Go buy parts and put one together yourself. True, not everyone is able to do this. But that is the nature of the beast. Small computer shops will build custom boxes and not include Windows if you look arround. It's a little harder, but not impossible. And it's not M$'s fault. Computer makers do it, some are under contract, but they signed so it's thier problem.
Do I like M$ or it's tactics? Nope. But I don't think anyone has a right to go after a company becuase they are hurting thier bottom line. And that's about the extent of the M$ trial. Antitrust laws exist for the sole purpose of sticking it to the successfull companies.
Nader is hardly a good choice. The man is a socialist. Universal health care, "excess profits" on gas, loads of envoirnmental regulations, the list goes on and on. He also would increase the size of government to unheard of levels if he got his way. Got to enforce all this stuff somehow... I like the enviornment as much as the next guy, but the Greens are up in the night.
Extremist? Okay, deffine that. Is freedom from government opression extreme? Then yes, I suppose Libertarians may qualify. Personally, I find Nader, Bush, and Gore extremeists. But it is probably a personal oppinion. Libertarians base all thier planks on a principle. That is that people should be free to do as they please as long as they are not causing harm to another person. This includes moral, ecconomic, and personal freedoms. You can find details on www.lp.org. Weather you agree or not, I would urge you to investigate the Libertarian Party and find out for yourself why we feel the way we do about things. You may find yourself learning a few things. If nothing else, you will be able to debate Libertarians better.
Fun sci-fi type idea.
;)
It could possibly work if the whole concept is valid (still no proof) and the space elevator idea is valid and built. Lots of ifs.
The solar wind drive you mention wouldn't work for this. It creates it's own magnetosphere and uses it as a solar sail. Thus it expends energy, rather than generating it.
Do you realize that oppressive government interference is why health care is so expensive?
Government is getting after the health care industry for problems government CAUSED!!!
Define "social justice" and I'll respond on that.
Better yet, read "Why Government Doesn't Work" By Harry Browne. Then, after your 60 page education we can talk again. Hell, I'll even buy you a copy if you'll promise to read it. You can also read "Healing our World" By Dr. Mary Ruwart for free at http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/. Both cover your objections to the enviornment as well as most other objections to freedom.
And a vote for you would be different from a vote for a Democrat or Republican, how exactly???? ;)
So what's wrong with Browne and/or the Libertarian Party? Both seem to meet your criteria. Browne isn't exactly a geek, but the Libertarian principles he supports cover most of what we geeks want. Much more throughly than anyone else I've seen. You mention that he supports things that make you "cringe". What, exactly? Maybe start with two or three of the big ones in your view. I'm simply currious what you see as a problem here.
You won't be. At least not more than you are now. Go read up on the inverse square law then come back.
Besides, Tesla's wireless power isn't that usefull to us today anyway. Tesla Coils are fun to build though. See my other post about Tesla and his work for more detail.