This is where that analogy fails, because a house is still property. My apartment is, however, my property and what's in it is rightfully mine. Just because something is on your property does not make it *yours*. If I am on your property, you cannot take my clothes and claim they are yours. If I drop my wallet you cannot take it. If I sing a song, you cannot record and sell it. You cannot take my picture and market your products with it.
Airwaves do have a property status, and though I do not go into great detail here, your argument that simply because something *exists* on your property means that it is yours to use freely as you wish is just wrong.
* Peace and Freedom Party (1967) - active primarily in California
* Prohibition Party (1867)
* Reform Party of the United States of America (1995) - currently divided into two factions both using the name of the "Reform Party"
* Socialist Equality Party (1953)
* Socialist Party USA (1973)
* Socialist Workers Party (1938)
* Workers World Party (1959)
* Working Families Party (1998)
* American Party (1969)
* American Centrist Party (2004)
* American Patriot Party (2003)
* American Heritage Party (2000)
* American Reform Party (1997)
* Christian Falangist Party of America (1985)
* Communist Party USA (1919)
* Democratic Socialists of America
* Freedom Road Socialist Organization (1985)
* Independent American Party (1998)
* Labor Party (1995)
* Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (1997)
* National Socialist Movement (1974)
* New American Independent Party (2004)
* New Black Panther Party (1989)
* New Union Party (1974)
* Personal Choice Party (1997)
* Populist Party of America (2002)
* Progressive Labor Party
* Ray O. Light Group (1961)
* Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
* Social Democratic Party of America (2007)
* Socialist Action (1983)
* Socialist Alternative (1986)
* Socialist Labor Party (1876)
* Unity08 (2006)
* Workers Party, USA
* World Socialist Party of the United States
(1916)
What we really need is for the government to divest itself of control over the electoral process by which it controls monies and media to squelch out all but the two parties in power.
Since we all have the capability of murder, we have to gear our prosecution on the motivations. Self defense, perfectly understandable. Actually, killing self-defense is not murder. Murder is both intentional and premeditated. Therefore your argument does not apply
A person's state of mind should be irrelevant in the application of the law. What a person thinks should never be a legal issue, only their actions. (Whether a person has the capacity to think is a separate issue)
There is opposition to evolution, but evolution itself has no major power movement associated with it.
Just because you are not in tune with the power brokers in the environmental movement does not mean that what I am saying is not true. Like I said, average joe is completely different from Washington power broker
Let me give a few statements in their own words. (You can go on for days like this...)
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. -David Foreman, Earth First
Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets... Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. - David Graber, biologist, National Park Service
If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. - Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religionâ"guilt-free at last! - Stewart Brand, Whole Earth catalog If you have not seriously studied what the intellectual leaders of the environmentalist movement are saying, you should take care not to look like a close-minded creationist yourself.
I don't think you can compare global warming with evolution. There is no major global political power struggle happening around evolution, and therefore there is far less propaganda and misinformation being spread by those seeking power and influence.
However, with Environmentalism (global warming in particular) there are many philosophical, ethical, and political ramnifications associated with the struggle of ideas, beyond the mere assertion that the earth is warming.
I believe that the core issue is whether man is the master of nature, his life as the highest importance, or whether man is subservient to nature, needing to suffer and/or die to preserve the natural status quo.
I think the rank and file, average concerned citizen just wants to be conscientious, have a nice lawn, not look at garbage, etc. But those people are irrelevant. The real movers/shakers grabbing political power and driving the direction of law are fundamentally anti-business, anti-consumerism, and therefore, anti-man's-life It doesn't matter if we are happy, it doesn't matter if we live longer, more enjoyable lives.
I guarantee you that it doesn't matter: even if you were sitting in the dark, in a cold,muddy cave, cooking free-range chicken over a candle, the environmentalists would still claim that your sheer existence is causing negative environmental impact.
They regard humans as unnatural, intruders into Eden. Despoilers of perfection.
So you tell me who sounds more like the "Creationist".
This comparison doesn't take into account both Verizon and Sprint's EV-DO revA networks, which are faster than the rev0 networks he was using. He may not live in a revA market, though.
$100 for 4 phones for 1000 minutes to T-Mobile phones is not so great. For my (less than) $100 for 1 phone, I get unlimited minutes to ANY other phone, plus unlimited text messaging, plus unlimited data transfer, and voice GPS services.
I'm not saying my plan is better, but it is better for me.
People *do* do business in the US, and there is a lot of free press here. And courts don't "learn", that is not the function of a court.
Boggling how such a ridiculously slanted and non-intellectual post gets modded up so high.
That's ok - as long as rich people with lots of money are the ones who decide what is handed out and what isn't. When the hoi polloi start making those kind of decisions, we have a problem. NO NO NO!
People receiving handouts are lucky to receive them, no matter where they come from.
Giving things away is easy, as is accepting handouts. Working and creating value is hard.
Bandwith [sic] is worthless if it can't be used the way you want. That is ridiculous. Are guns worthless if you can't shoot whatever you want? Is your voice useless if you can't say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want?
There is no "interest of society". Society as such does not have interests. Only individual people have interests. If you try to claim that it is in the interest of every single person in society that IPv4 be upgraded to IPv6, then, frankly, you watch too much Looney-Tunes.
Violence is a corollary to religion for the same reason that force is a corollary to faith. If "faith" is people's means of attaining truth, then if your faith and my faith are different, force (violence) is the only way to settle the dispute.
On the other hand, if reason is people's means of attaining truth, then force is unnecessary, since we share an objective method for getting to truth.
One thing I don't understand about the american mobile phone pricing scheme is the idea of charging someone to receive calls or messages...from a revenue maximization point of view it just doesn't make sense at all
You know, you're probably on to something there. Your insights just might revolutionize corporate telecom. Now, instead of dressing in monkey suits and flinging poo at a wheel-of-possibilities, executives will consider what you call "making sense".
You should have saved this secret information up, and submitted your CV to the board of directors of AT&T. This little "nuke" of common sense could have blow all the competition out of the water.
Like I said, I'm not against anonymous voting per se. I agree it adds a veil of secrecy for our choices. However, if there is value voting in the clear, in terms of verifiable election results, and the like - then I would consider that a much greater benefit. The law already protects you. I, and surely others, would be glad to stand openly against the abuses of individuals who use threats to sway elections.
I'm not against anonymous voting, but I don't think your arguments hold up. A company that forced its employees to vote a certain way would be blasted into the bologosphere. They stand to lose customers, employees, reputation...
Besides that - who would want to work for the kind of company that would do such a thing anyway? I sure as hell wouldn't.
If the government can "quash" people, then that is a problem with the government that needs to be fixed - not a problem with voting in the open.
Yes - other people could threaten you... strangers, family... who knows. But they can do that already. Those threats should be illegal (if they aren't already). We should be able to live without those kind of threats, anonymous voting or not.
I don't believe anyone has a "right" to use BitTorrent on a network. If you have a contract that guarantees BitTorrent access, then you can sue them. If you don't have such a contract, don't pay for the service if you don't like it.
Network access providers offer a service. If you don't like the service, don't pay for it. If enough consumers really want BitTorrent, the access providers will scramble to make money off of that desire.
If you really believe BitTorrent is that important to that many people, capitalize on that untapped market - create a business that caters to the starved masses. Of course, if you are wrong - that is, if there really are only a few, noisy, people who want this while everyone else is happy with what they have - then you will end up in the poor house.
And so it goes - when some people want things, they think they should simply be given it. Like a thumbsucking baby that only knows how to say "I want". What about the FCC? The FCC is only too happy to be the rattle that Baby bangs on businesses' heads.
I prefer that bandwidth hogging file-sharing be kept away from my shared pipe. My preference is to use an access provider that throttles out the "always on" bandwidth hogs, so I can get my Warcraft on without a lot of lag. However, if every Joe Shmoe BitTorrented my bandwidth down to zero, I wouldn't complain to the FCC, I would look for another alternative, and if none existed, I would make one.
This is exactly why anti-trust law should be struck down as is. Because it is often impossible to know in advance whether you are breaking it or not. Any law that you don't know whether or not you are breaking should be struck down and rewritten.
Well, I have to appreciate the number of words you devoted to your reply.
However, methinks thou dost protest too much.
I've met a lot of people who complain a lot about a lot of things. Most of the time it is complaining about things not in their control - as if things would be different if they had control. Kinda like a petty dictator syndrome. They provide a superficial analysis of the situation, tag on some frustration, cultural-economic slurs, then wrap up - as if they have washed the muck out of their soul.
Too bad though. The muck is still there.
you can accept the fact that IE is crap... and will remain crap It must be difficult for you to live in a world where so many people accept and enjoy, nay - even love, crap. If only people would glom on the true light of your wisdom! Instead you are surrounded by crap-lovers. Filthy, stupid, crap-lovers. They make you sick. Poor you.
South Africa's policies were most certainly not Capitalism. The government, backed by the force of police and military, forcibly prevented any other business from offering services that competed with Telekom. This is a form of Statism, in which individuals are not free to trade with one another due to the coercive policies of the state's rulers.
The fact is that there is no way to tell the difference between a public free hotspot and a misconfigured private access point I really can't stand this attitude. It reminds me when I was 13 and I saw a local kid-thug with my skateboard under his arm as he skated away from my house. Since I was lucky enough to see him, I pursued him on bicycle until I caught up, at which point he stated "how was *I* supposed to know whether the skateboard in your driveway was intended as trash or not?"
Obviously, if I'm in the burbs and I see a network called "The Johnsons", then I can safely assume that is *not* a public network, and for anyone to try to pass off the "how am I supposed to know" argument deserves to be smacked in the head for dishonesty.
Slashdot Mirror
Airwaves do have a property status, and though I do not go into great detail here, your argument that simply because something *exists* on your property means that it is yours to use freely as you wish is just wrong.
* Republican Party (1854)
* Democratic Party (1828 modern, 1792 historic)
* Libertarian Party (1971)
* Constitution Party (1992)
* Green Party (1996)
* America First Party (2002)
* Centrist Party (United States) (2006)
* Independence Party of America (2007)
* Jefferson Republican Party
* Moderate Party (United States) (2006)
* Marijuana Party (2002)
* Party for Socialism and Liberation (2004)
* Peace and Freedom Party (1967) - active primarily in California
* Prohibition Party (1867)
* Reform Party of the United States of America (1995) - currently divided into two factions both using the name of the "Reform Party"
* Socialist Equality Party (1953)
* Socialist Party USA (1973)
* Socialist Workers Party (1938)
* Workers World Party (1959)
* Working Families Party (1998)
* American Party (1969)
* American Centrist Party (2004)
* American Patriot Party (2003)
* American Heritage Party (2000)
* American Reform Party (1997)
* Christian Falangist Party of America (1985)
* Communist Party USA (1919)
* Democratic Socialists of America
* Freedom Road Socialist Organization (1985)
* Independent American Party (1998)
* Labor Party (1995)
* Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (1997)
* National Socialist Movement (1974)
* New American Independent Party (2004)
* New Black Panther Party (1989)
* New Union Party (1974)
* Personal Choice Party (1997)
* Populist Party of America (2002)
* Progressive Labor Party
* Ray O. Light Group (1961)
* Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
* Social Democratic Party of America (2007)
* Socialist Action (1983)
* Socialist Alternative (1986)
* Socialist Labor Party (1876)
* Unity08 (2006)
* Workers Party, USA
* World Socialist Party of the United States
(1916)
What we really need is for the government to divest itself of control over the electoral process by which it controls monies and media to squelch out all but the two parties in power.
A person's state of mind should be irrelevant in the application of the law. What a person thinks should never be a legal issue, only their actions. (Whether a person has the capacity to think is a separate issue)
Just because you are not in tune with the power brokers in the environmental movement does not mean that what I am saying is not true. Like I said, average joe is completely different from Washington power broker
Let me give a few statements in their own words. (You can go on for days like this...)
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. -David Foreman, Earth First Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets... Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. - David Graber, biologist, National Park Service If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. - Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religionâ"guilt-free at last! - Stewart Brand, Whole Earth catalog If you have not seriously studied what the intellectual leaders of the environmentalist movement are saying, you should take care not to look like a close-minded creationist yourself.However, with Environmentalism (global warming in particular) there are many philosophical, ethical, and political ramnifications associated with the struggle of ideas, beyond the mere assertion that the earth is warming.
I believe that the core issue is whether man is the master of nature, his life as the highest importance, or whether man is subservient to nature, needing to suffer and/or die to preserve the natural status quo.
I think the rank and file, average concerned citizen just wants to be conscientious, have a nice lawn, not look at garbage, etc. But those people are irrelevant. The real movers/shakers grabbing political power and driving the direction of law are fundamentally anti-business, anti-consumerism, and therefore, anti-man's-life It doesn't matter if we are happy, it doesn't matter if we live longer, more enjoyable lives.
I guarantee you that it doesn't matter: even if you were sitting in the dark, in a cold,muddy cave, cooking free-range chicken over a candle, the environmentalists would still claim that your sheer existence is causing negative environmental impact.
They regard humans as unnatural, intruders into Eden. Despoilers of perfection.
So you tell me who sounds more like the "Creationist".
This comparison doesn't take into account both Verizon and Sprint's EV-DO revA networks, which are faster than the rev0 networks he was using. He may not live in a revA market, though.
Sprint's high end is $99 for unlimited data (to a point), plus unlimited voice, text, and GPS navigation.
$100 for 4 phones for 1000 minutes to T-Mobile phones is not so great. For my (less than) $100 for 1 phone, I get unlimited minutes to ANY other phone, plus unlimited text messaging, plus unlimited data transfer, and voice GPS services. I'm not saying my plan is better, but it is better for me.
Sprint, for one, offers unlimited text, voice, data, etc. for less than $100 a month - so I don't see the "squeeze" you are referring to.
People *do* do business in the US, and there is a lot of free press here. And courts don't "learn", that is not the function of a court. Boggling how such a ridiculously slanted and non-intellectual post gets modded up so high.
People receiving handouts are lucky to receive them, no matter where they come from.
Giving things away is easy, as is accepting handouts. Working and creating value is hard.
That's right ... No.
There is no "interest of society". Society as such does not have interests. Only individual people have interests. If you try to claim that it is in the interest of every single person in society that IPv4 be upgraded to IPv6, then, frankly, you watch too much Looney-Tunes.
On the other hand, if reason is people's means of attaining truth, then force is unnecessary, since we share an objective method for getting to truth.
You know, you're probably on to something there. Your insights just might revolutionize corporate telecom. Now, instead of dressing in monkey suits and flinging poo at a wheel-of-possibilities, executives will consider what you call "making sense".
You should have saved this secret information up, and submitted your CV to the board of directors of AT&T. This little "nuke" of common sense could have blow all the competition out of the water.
The Pirate Party is a TOP 10 party in Sweden? So in U.S. terms, that would make them as popular as, maybe, the Marijuana Party?
And they might actually do that, now that all the IP Looneys started swarming around the hive.
Like I said, I'm not against anonymous voting per se. I agree it adds a veil of secrecy for our choices. However, if there is value voting in the clear, in terms of verifiable election results, and the like - then I would consider that a much greater benefit. The law already protects you. I, and surely others, would be glad to stand openly against the abuses of individuals who use threats to sway elections.
I'm not against anonymous voting, but I don't think your arguments hold up. A company that forced its employees to vote a certain way would be blasted into the bologosphere. They stand to lose customers, employees, reputation... Besides that - who would want to work for the kind of company that would do such a thing anyway? I sure as hell wouldn't. If the government can "quash" people, then that is a problem with the government that needs to be fixed - not a problem with voting in the open. Yes - other people could threaten you ... strangers, family ... who knows. But they can do that already. Those threats should be illegal (if they aren't already). We should be able to live without those kind of threats, anonymous voting or not.
Network access providers offer a service. If you don't like the service, don't pay for it. If enough consumers really want BitTorrent, the access providers will scramble to make money off of that desire.
If you really believe BitTorrent is that important to that many people, capitalize on that untapped market - create a business that caters to the starved masses. Of course, if you are wrong - that is, if there really are only a few, noisy, people who want this while everyone else is happy with what they have - then you will end up in the poor house.
And so it goes - when some people want things, they think they should simply be given it. Like a thumbsucking baby that only knows how to say "I want". What about the FCC? The FCC is only too happy to be the rattle that Baby bangs on businesses' heads.
I prefer that bandwidth hogging file-sharing be kept away from my shared pipe. My preference is to use an access provider that throttles out the "always on" bandwidth hogs, so I can get my Warcraft on without a lot of lag. However, if every Joe Shmoe BitTorrented my bandwidth down to zero, I wouldn't complain to the FCC, I would look for another alternative, and if none existed, I would make one.
This is exactly why anti-trust law should be struck down as is. Because it is often impossible to know in advance whether you are breaking it or not. Any law that you don't know whether or not you are breaking should be struck down and rewritten.
Well, I have to appreciate the number of words you devoted to your reply. However, methinks thou dost protest too much. I've met a lot of people who complain a lot about a lot of things. Most of the time it is complaining about things not in their control - as if things would be different if they had control. Kinda like a petty dictator syndrome. They provide a superficial analysis of the situation, tag on some frustration, cultural-economic slurs, then wrap up - as if they have washed the muck out of their soul. Too bad though. The muck is still there.
South Africa's policies were most certainly not Capitalism. The government, backed by the force of police and military, forcibly prevented any other business from offering services that competed with Telekom. This is a form of Statism, in which individuals are not free to trade with one another due to the coercive policies of the state's rulers.
Obviously, if I'm in the burbs and I see a network called "The Johnsons", then I can safely assume that is *not* a public network, and for anyone to try to pass off the "how am I supposed to know" argument deserves to be smacked in the head for dishonesty.