The notion that "people NOT being forced to care for other people" == "everyone left to fend for themselves" is false.
uh? What planet are you from?
The one I live on is populated by 6 billion greedy bastards who'd just as soon watch another person starve than do anything to help them, and frequently hurt other people because it advances their goals.
Just drill a hole in the case; pour in some caustic drain cleaner or CLR (bathroom cleaner); plug the hole; shake vigorously then let sit for a couple days before throwing it out.
But that's not nearly as fun as taking it out back and liberally applying a 12lb splitting maul. I still have all my platters (after running them through the aforementioned "treatment") hanging on my wall, I call it "modern art".
I'll take a cabbage over and idiot psychopath any day, the cabbage is far less dangerous and far less likely to nuke anybody. It's also leafy and tasty when properly cooked.
Any and all that you haven't chosen to forgo as part of the social contract.As an example "God" has given you the right to kill at your leisure, I just hope that that's on the list of rights you've chosen to forgo.
Re:Waiting for apps isn't annoying, focus stealing
on
GNOME 2.12 Released
·
· Score: 1
Slightly OT but, another one that get's me is that when applications start after first loading they don't stay on the desktop I put them on. I'll be doing something on one desktop. scroll over to another fire up an app, scroll back to where I was and go back to what I was doing, then the window pops up on the current desktop, not the one I opened it on. This is under Xfce, so like I said slightly OT, but how much work would it really be to have an app spawn on the desktop it was invoked from.
Your assessment is spot on, under the utility principle the yahoo share holders certainly do trump this one poor dude, but there are over a billion people in China, and 6 billion on the whole Earth (I'll even subtract the Yahoo share holders out of that group if you want) and they certainly hold trump over the Yahoo share holders. What the share holders want (profit) is inconsequential compared to the welfare of humanity (freedom, etc). So yeah you're right, but just didn't take if far enough.
There's 3 reasons for that:
1)"Leaking State Secretes" is a blanket charge used to shut up whoever the goverment feels like silencing.
2)It falls under Freedom of Opinion (speech), see article 19
3)You're: an idiot, an asshole, a troll, an immoral reprehensible stain on humanity, or some combination of the above
Yahoo is not causing the suffering
BS, if there is an option that reduces suffering failing to take that course of action is causing suffering. Allowing harm that you can reasonably prevent is the same as causing harm.
But your values are not my values
Pardon my stupidity here, but what's so objectionable about the idea that people have a right to freedom, a decent standard of living, and a duty to uphold the same for all other?
What if suffering is good for a person?
By the very definition of suffering that's not possible.
What if by causing one person to suffer, you can prevent thousands of others from suffering? What if Yahoo allowing this, then allowing it to be publicized, will prevent more suffering in the long run? Both good points, but I don't have enough faith in corporations to assume that that is what's going on with out it being bloody obvious.
As I posted in another comment, Laws are tools who's purpose is the promotion of welfare. Any tool that is flawed and does not accomplish its purpose should be discarded. I'm baffled as to why people think laws are important, they're just tools. Are hammers something to be revered too? I don't refrain from murdering people because it's illegal, I don't kill people because it's unethical; the fact the two happen to over lap is purely coincidental.
LAWS MEAN NOTHING! nada, zip, zilch, absolutely meaningless. Laws are a tool to promote the welfare of people; nothing more, nothing less. Any law that does not promote the welfare of the people, such as China's laws on "State Secrets", is fundamentally flaw and should be discarded. The only thing of any value is the standard of living of the people.
I don't understand this odd fascination with laws, the legality of something has NOTHING to do with it's morality. What Yahoo did was unjust and immoral, period. They should have done the ethical thing and withheld the information. Sure it would have been illegal, but that doesn't make it less right. Laws be damned, is it so much to ask the people act in a manner that promotes the greatest freedom, happiness, and benefit to there fellow man?
Just because it's in line with what the powers that be in China demanded doesn't absolve Yahoo of it's ethical duties. "We were just doing what we were told to do" is not a viable excuse. And this whole relative ethics thing is a crock of shit, give me one good reason it is ethical under any circumstances to profit from causing others to suffer. That's the whole point of ethics and morality to prevent suffering and promote the welfare of the species.
Your cynicism-fu is much greater than mine, I had never considered that altruism could fail if people put reasonable effort in to it, I had only ever considered greed and spite as possible points of failure. It's reassuring to know there are people with sane ideologies in the world. Someday I might even have enough faith in humanity to believe that charity can work with out putting a gun to somebody's head.
I've got more questions about libertarian ideals as they pertain to preventing harm, if you're willing to put up with 50 questions on slashdot.
Altruism isn't immoral. It just doesn't always work.
That's really weird for me to hear from a libertarian. That's always been my opposition to libertarianism is that it allows people to act without compassion.
My question to you is what mechanism would you suggest to ensure that altruism never fails?
I don't mean to troll, flame, offend, etc. I'm just a bit shocked to meet a libertarian that admits their ideals could allow harm to come to another person.
SELL FOOD AND WATER!?
Any decent human being with any sense of morals would give food and water away for free. Yeah civilization is breaking down, bureaucracy is screwing up the relief effort, but that hardly justifies predatory behavior. How can you honestly feel that human life is worth so little that you can put personal profit above the life of another person?
Are you implying that:
A guy with an knife is going to fair well in armed combat against a guy with an m16?
OR
That you can prevent tyrany being imposed by force with means other than force?
I consider my self very liberal, but I stand behind the gun nuts 100%. Do you have any idea what a bitch it would be to try and stage a revolution where the other guy has thousands of military grade arms and you can't produce a single hand gun? Not going to end well for the good guys. Free flow of arms is essential to preventing tyrany.
Isn't there a noswap boot option for knoppix? and even if there isn't just physically unplug the drive before booting the machine, go a head just TRY and do forensic analysis on RAM sticks.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen brother, now if you'll excuse me I'm off to therapy.
The notion that "people NOT being forced to care for other people" == "everyone left to fend for themselves" is false.
uh? What planet are you from?
The one I live on is populated by 6 billion greedy bastards who'd just as soon watch another person starve than do anything to help them, and frequently hurt other people because it advances their goals.
You sir are awesome, can I start a cult in your name?
Well I didn't vote for him.
And don't forget about OSL, they haven't been slashdotted recently.
Just drill a hole in the case; pour in some caustic drain cleaner or CLR (bathroom cleaner); plug the hole; shake vigorously then let sit for a couple days before throwing it out.
But that's not nearly as fun as taking it out back and liberally applying a 12lb splitting maul. I still have all my platters (after running them through the aforementioned "treatment") hanging on my wall, I call it "modern art".
Does it matter? I'll pray to lawn gnomes that the FSM and his midget army descend and cleanse the earth of religous asshats if that's what it takes.
I'll take a cabbage over and idiot psychopath any day, the cabbage is far less dangerous and far less likely to nuke anybody. It's also leafy and tasty when properly cooked.
Any and all that you haven't chosen to forgo as part of the social contract.As an example "God" has given you the right to kill at your leisure, I just hope that that's on the list of rights you've chosen to forgo.
Slightly OT but, another one that get's me is that when applications start after first loading they don't stay on the desktop I put them on. I'll be doing something on one desktop. scroll over to another fire up an app, scroll back to where I was and go back to what I was doing, then the window pops up on the current desktop, not the one I opened it on. This is under Xfce, so like I said slightly OT, but how much work would it really be to have an app spawn on the desktop it was invoked from.
Your assessment is spot on, under the utility principle the yahoo share holders certainly do trump this one poor dude, but there are over a billion people in China, and 6 billion on the whole Earth (I'll even subtract the Yahoo share holders out of that group if you want) and they certainly hold trump over the Yahoo share holders. What the share holders want (profit) is inconsequential compared to the welfare of humanity (freedom, etc). So yeah you're right, but just didn't take if far enough.
There's 3 reasons for that:
1)"Leaking State Secretes" is a blanket charge used to shut up whoever the goverment feels like silencing.
2)It falls under Freedom of Opinion (speech), see article 19
3)You're: an idiot, an asshole, a troll, an immoral reprehensible stain on humanity, or some combination of the above
Yahoo is not causing the suffering
BS, if there is an option that reduces suffering failing to take that course of action is causing suffering. Allowing harm that you can reasonably prevent is the same as causing harm.
But your values are not my values
Pardon my stupidity here, but what's so objectionable about the idea that people have a right to freedom, a decent standard of living, and a duty to uphold the same for all other?
What if suffering is good for a person?
By the very definition of suffering that's not possible.
What if by causing one person to suffer, you can prevent thousands of others from suffering? What if Yahoo allowing this, then allowing it to be publicized, will prevent more suffering in the long run?
Both good points, but I don't have enough faith in corporations to assume that that is what's going on with out it being bloody obvious.
As I posted in another comment, Laws are tools who's purpose is the promotion of welfare. Any tool that is flawed and does not accomplish its purpose should be discarded. I'm baffled as to why people think laws are important, they're just tools. Are hammers something to be revered too? I don't refrain from murdering people because it's illegal, I don't kill people because it's unethical; the fact the two happen to over lap is purely coincidental.
LAWS MEAN NOTHING! nada, zip, zilch, absolutely meaningless. Laws are a tool to promote the welfare of people; nothing more, nothing less. Any law that does not promote the welfare of the people, such as China's laws on "State Secrets", is fundamentally flaw and should be discarded. The only thing of any value is the standard of living of the people.
I don't understand this odd fascination with laws, the legality of something has NOTHING to do with it's morality. What Yahoo did was unjust and immoral, period. They should have done the ethical thing and withheld the information. Sure it would have been illegal, but that doesn't make it less right. Laws be damned, is it so much to ask the people act in a manner that promotes the greatest freedom, happiness, and benefit to there fellow man?
Repeat after me class:
This is an ill of totalitarianism,
it has nothing to do with communism.
Communism is a economic model that seeks equality.
Totalitarianism is a form of government which really sucks.
Totalitarianism is Communism in the same sense that roll cages are vehicles.
Just because it's in line with what the powers that be in China demanded doesn't absolve Yahoo of it's ethical duties. "We were just doing what we were told to do" is not a viable excuse. And this whole relative ethics thing is a crock of shit, give me one good reason it is ethical under any circumstances to profit from causing others to suffer. That's the whole point of ethics and morality to prevent suffering and promote the welfare of the species.
Thank you.
Your cynicism-fu is much greater than mine, I had never considered that altruism could fail if people put reasonable effort in to it, I had only ever considered greed and spite as possible points of failure. It's reassuring to know there are people with sane ideologies in the world. Someday I might even have enough faith in humanity to believe that charity can work with out putting a gun to somebody's head.
I've got more questions about libertarian ideals as they pertain to preventing harm, if you're willing to put up with 50 questions on slashdot.
Altruism isn't immoral. It just doesn't always work.
That's really weird for me to hear from a libertarian. That's always been my opposition to libertarianism is that it allows people to act without compassion.
My question to you is what mechanism would you suggest to ensure that altruism never fails?
I don't mean to troll, flame, offend, etc. I'm just a bit shocked to meet a libertarian that admits their ideals could allow harm to come to another person.
SELL FOOD AND WATER!?
Any decent human being with any sense of morals would give food and water away for free. Yeah civilization is breaking down, bureaucracy is screwing up the relief effort, but that hardly justifies predatory behavior. How can you honestly feel that human life is worth so little that you can put personal profit above the life of another person?
Are you implying that:
A guy with an knife is going to fair well in armed combat against a guy with an m16?
OR
That you can prevent tyrany being imposed by force with means other than force?
RAmen!
I consider my self very liberal, but I stand behind the gun nuts 100%. Do you have any idea what a bitch it would be to try and stage a revolution where the other guy has thousands of military grade arms and you can't produce a single hand gun? Not going to end well for the good guys. Free flow of arms is essential to preventing tyrany.
Isn't there a noswap boot option for knoppix? and even if there isn't just physically unplug the drive before booting the machine, go a head just TRY and do forensic analysis on RAM sticks.