Well, the main reason to quibble is because it is complete and utter bullshit. Altair invented and marketed the first personal computer. End of story. Imsai and SWTPC followed close on their heels, there were probably a couple hundred other companies in there within literally just months, and then, way, after the idea was obvious, and after a solid false start, the Apple crew came up with a "me-too" design that was more marketable than the rest (the Apple II) and we saw them make some serious inroads. At that time, others were doing well too, though, and again, Apple wasn't all that notable.
I was there, and that's the way it went down. Fact. Yeah, I'm old.:)
Mind you, I'm a huge Apple fan today; but please, this "I invented the PC" crap is just that, crap. Plus, if Apple (or Woz) wants to go for innovation, I think the crown pretty clearly goes to the Amiga crew. Given the environment they produced the machine in, it was by a *huge* margin more innovative, clever, and just pain *different* than anything else out there. It's old news today, but if you look around today, there are no computers that are really different. The Mac is *nix with a really, really, nice GUI, the PC is the same as it has always been, plus years and years of incremental, but not wild, improvements, linix is *nix, etc. The first Amiga (the a1000), now that demonstrated a whole bunch of out-of-the-box thinking in area after area for the day. Screens. Serious multitasking. Video and audio natural to the system. Co-processors. A windowing system that wasn't even fractionally "me-too" and not only, worked extremely well. A CLI that wasn't a clone of every other shell out there. Speech, built-in. Hot loading devices. High color. Sprites. The thing even had a natural keyboard dock. If a machine showed up today that was as different from the Mac and PC now, as the Amiga was in its day, we'd probably all pee right down our legs.
To this very day my Mac shows me a spinning beachball when I'm doing something as simple as opening a web page or copying files across the network. The Amiga did that MUCH better in 19-frigging-85, 21 bloody YEARS ago!
The problem is, there is a much more limited supply of dollars than one might think. The US debt is at about $25,000.00 per *person* right now, and taxes collected mostly go towards servicing that debt. So by definition, there is no "extra" funding. I see that as indicating that money directed to art and parks is not money well spent. I see your point about reducing the amount available for bad ideas (and which I would be willing to stipulate constitute most of what congress comes up with) but still, at the end of the day, the infrastructure needs funding, as do many other basic governmental responsibilities.
For instance, I'd argue that your clean needles program is "essential" because it is a public health concern.
Well, so would I, but if it was optional, I'd opt in.
Also, picture a sizable minority (say, creationists) setting their school funding to 0% because evolution is taught.
Nah. Education is critical. Imagine an uneducated populace. They'd do things like... I dunno... elect Bush? Uh-oh...
I think we need to reform how those politicians are chosen to more accurately reflect the desires of the constituency. Things like Condorcet elections... we need more diversity in our government - the two-party system is not cutting it for me:) Interestingly, your tax approach is another way of accomplishing essentially the same thing. They are both preference-based, instead of plurality-based, ways of running government.
I have no bone to pick with this. I think the US political system is so corrupt, so twisted, so corporately biased, that there is literally no hope of getting it fixed. Which isn't to say I am unwilling to try, but it feels like I'm beating on a stone wall with a feather. The people are relatively content (I believe because they are relatively wealthy, if they are healthy), and that's no formula for a revolutionary change in the political system.
Weeeell, that's an interesting comment. I've heard the exact opposite. Pros run intolerably hot on the lap, and go to the shop more often. They've got a few more features I covet, and I can afford one, but I'd been leaning away, more towards a fully-fleshed out MacBook... 2 gigs and the big drive.
Hnmph. Well, more research is called for, I suppose. Thanks for commenting.
I don't mind the digression in the least. I enjoy considering alternatives.
My favorite idea (thus far) is tax everyone equally, but let the taxpayer select which non-essential programs their funds go towards.
So you could elect to fund the stadium but not some antithetical-to-Yar program, I'd fund the homeless shelters and the clean-needles program but not religion or the stadium. At the end of the day, instead of the politicians deciding what gets funded out of their bright ideas, we would do the deciding. The not-so-popular ideas wouldn't get funded completely (or at all), and they'd either die on the vine, or at least proceed a lot more slowly.
Since everyone still has to pay full tax, some programs would be extremely well funded, which would accelerate them. Just as the public desires. Do this to all socially optional programs — religions, sports stadiums, monuments and support for the arts — while critical programs — education, science and technology, transport and communications infrastructure creation and maintenance — get 100% base funding plus whatever is left over from any person who doesn't allocate their funds to the optional projects. In this way, no tax dollars go unused, and no tax dollars go anywhere anyone doesn't want them for social options.
That was, of course, a bare-bones outline, but that's the core of the idea, anyway.
I see no problem with local people deciding where their tax dollars go
My position is that just because the community at large prefers one particular thing, it can be entirely over the top to force others to go along. For instance, I do not support religion, quite the contrary; consequently I am extremely unhappy when the locals or the feds force me to carry their weight for them.
I think this is just one case of a generalization that it should not be "OK" for any tax authority to force you to support non-essential (short- or long-term) services. That, I think, is not the job of a government.
The job of the government seem to me to be supporting the physical infrastructure, protecting the citizens from disasters and predators that may arise from both within and without the borders, educating the populace in a comprehensive manner, and encouraging the development of science and technology, as these are the cornerstones upon which our society stands and indulges in such luxuries as art, sport, literature and so forth.
Do you think that art should not be taught in schools as well? Should there be no more literature classes?
No, I think art, and sports, are a perfectly valid part of the educational process. And I'm not against either one, either in-school or as commercial undertakings; What I am against is government funding of pursuit of the arts or the multiplying sports into stadium-level events at taxpayer expense. If you want to fund an artist, or a writer, by all means, do so. That gives them another option (besides the commercial one of selling the work product, I mean) and that's fine with me. Likewise, if you want to fund a sports team, go ahead, and more power to you. Just don't ask me to and expect me to be happy about it.
No, I absolutely do consider such expenditures to be critical. I strongly feel that the government should support basic research, exploration, and highly specific technical endeavors like the space program and the pursuit of fusion power. I just failed to mention this specifically as I wasn't thinking along those lines when I posted, please accept my apology. Along with education, science and technology are the key driving forces that supply society with the wealth it needs to give range to the liberty and freedom people deserve.
Arts, religion, sports and entertainment, however, should only be supported by private donations, I firmly maintain. They are strictly non-critical social aspects, and they do very little to drive society upwards. Often I see them doing the exact opposite, in fact. "My team is better than your team" isn't something I see as helpful on any level, for instance, nor do I view the various doings of religion in a positive light except very, very rarely. I surely don't want to pay for religion, as the government presently forces me to by making me carry their share of the tax burden.
And your right aboout the short time we are here, which, i blame soley oon thhe suits, and the rest of society for destroying Earth and making life on this rock shorter and shorter.
Your opinions aside (which you are certainly welcome to) this is an area you are simply wrong about. Life spans are increasing, especially in the last century or so. Some of the increase in average span comes from the steep drop in infant mortality, but there are real gains in the ages people are living to, and the quality of life they experience at those advanced ages. I think you need to do a little research here before you continue blaming suits and society for an effect that you have not accurately characterized.
Maybe it isn't that he has no soul; maybe he just thinks it is more important to solve little problems like people starving in the streets and not being able to buy their medications before resources are expended on statues of politicians, "Piss Christ", and other random works of publicly supported art. I guess I can't really speak for him, but that is certainly how I feel. Every time I see public art, Christmas decorations, government-participation in parades, I grinch about it. I just can't see the government holding any legitimate position costing even one dollar in any non-critical activity, no matter if it is supposedly for the benefit of the citizens or not, until it has well and truly addressed all of the critical activities that it has been tasked with with regard to its base responsibilities.
I bought my first Mac (a PPC Mini) because a knowledgeable friend took the time to show me that her Mac worked better (a lot better!) than the two OS's I was running at the time: Windows XP and Red Hat linux. I was losing time screwing with things I didn't really have time to screw with just trying to get mundane business tasks accomplished. I'm buying my second Mac (an Intel MacBook) this week to replace my Windows laptop, which finally went nipples north. One reason I'm buying it is because the Mini lived up to the manufacturer's claims both in reliability and in functionality. I am looking forward to the MacBook and I expect to have a similar experience, despite being a pretty cynical person when you get right down to it.
Certainly it has nothing to do with "art." Do I appreciate how pretty the Mac interface is? Sure. But that wasn't a factor in going Mac. I was won over by the smooth integration of multiple languages in applications like OmniOutliner and 100% support for that by the OS; by the complete lack of need to mess with low level Unix issues; by the speed and fluidity and consistency of the interface; by the continual experience of having things "just work" (it may sound hackneyed and fanboyish, but that is the nature of the experience — OSX is as far from running windows as flying a plane on autopilot compares to hand-flying it.) It beats Windows in resistance to malware by orders of magnitude, and it beats Linux by never requiring me to screw with compiling some package or watching Gnome screw up repeatedly, losing my network connections.
There are lots of good reasons to go Mac, I could go on all day about things that I feel have worked out better for me with the Mac, no doubt boring some and annoying the rest. The bottom line hasn't anything to do with art, no matter how long I were to go on. It's simply (or maybe not so simply) a better product, and it won me over based on that. The applications I need are there, and that pretty much closes the case.
And as for your lauding tourism in Philadelphia... If you want to draw tourists, that's a task that it is primarily aimed at benefiting businesses. Therefore, those businesses that will benefit (and not all will) should be paying for it. Not the poor homeowners on the outskirts.
This is very similar to small town sports. The schools (hence, including the kid's parents and the old people in town) spend huge sums of money on everything from custom busses to playing fields. The kids play the same games they could have played in a field of grass, in jeans or shorts. The games begin, the visitors from the next town show up, and the local businesses see an upswing in sales. Those specific businesses ought to be paying for that, not the poor schlep of a homeowner.
These are areas where the government has been co-opted by interests that are not legitimate areas for it to focus, IMHO. Private support is the way to go for both art and sports above the level of casual social interaction or for exercise; and to that you can add parks, monuments, and any state-sponsored museums that might creep in here
And if she is the least bit aware of what's going on, she'll learn your techniques and sell them herself.
No. In all seriousness, eventually, you'll learn that being on the receiving end does not result in an inherent understanding of how, or even exactly where or in what sequence, stimulus is applied. For one thing, one's mind is, shall we say, otherwise occupied, very similarly to when an artist paints or a musician plays; different areas of the brain are engaged as opposed to those dominant when you're engaged in analytical tasks. Some areas of the body won't even supply detailed information on where and how they are being stimulated, for instance, the lower back and the perineum are both this way, and neither can be easily observed on one's self; yet both are highly erogenous zones on both males and females under certain circumstances, and both are common targets for advanced erotic practitioners.
There are plenty of other examples, though. It is very common for a secondary result of information to be transferred, without the information itself. Formulas (trade secrets, typically) for everything from a soft drink to a drug; you get the product, and the end-user benefits, but you don't get the formula. The sophisticated presence of a nuclear submarine carries striking power born of (and borne by) enormous complexity without letting everyone know the exact details — depth attainable, type of warheads on board, etc. Satellites carry unknown capabilities, collect information and bring them to a very limited clientele, without letting those observed even know they're being observed, never mind how. If you cleverly bury a coffee can that contains several kilos of gold, and only you know where, the location — or in other words, the information that represents its location — is at its very highest value when only you know where the can is. Otherwise, the can is a lot more likely to be empty when you go back. Best you keep that entirely to yourself. Sharing would be wholly detrimental. A martial artist uses very technically specific information in delivering certain killing blows; but the recipient of the blow isn't going to be sharing that information any further. And so forth. It should be quite obvious that information does not need to be made public, or even go to an additional client, in order to be of value. I'm not saying that in some cases that isn't the case; just that it isn't always the case, because the original presumption was too broad.
The "information must be distributed" model is just too simplistic. Information quite often has value without being exposed to second (or third) parties. Surely there are things you know that benefit you that I don't know; The reverse is also true. Some of the things I know I have not shared with anyone, yet they benefit me on a regular basis. Some of them are quite technical; one of the reasons I own a very successful software company and several other businesses is because I know a thing or two I don't tend to share. It isn't all about the end product; some of the key issues are tactical, structural and hierarchical, and they are anything but obvious (hence all the barely surviving software enterprises out there.)
It isn't that "information wants to be free"; it is that people lacking it want it to be free, which is not the same thing at all. And for them, all I can say is... start digging.:)
Now, if the line had been "Information must be applied for it to have value", I'd go for that. Though I'd also insist it has potential value prior to any such eventual application, even if it was never applied.
I never said those agencies were perfect. Dont put words in my mouth.
I didn't. I started with "yet...", which indicates acceptance of your point, but brings on contra-indications. I then made some observations and suggestions of mine, in no way saying they were yours. I think you are just a little too tender. Believe me, it was not my intention to misinterpret what you said, only to counter with the downsides against these agencies, which I feel are significant enough to warrant dismembering them. I didn't try to say if you felt that way, or not, or attempt to characterize your portrayal of them as "perfect." So chill, dude.:)
information is only valuable when its transferred, and limiting transferability will kill off the demand for information.
No. Information is quite often more valuable to the holder if it is not transferred. For instance, if I figure out how to attract, and subsequently completely satisfy any woman, every time, to such a degree that she'll think of me first, last and always, I'm better off if I don't explain said technique(s) to you. And by the way, I'm not going to, either.:)
The problem with sweeping generalizations is that they're often trying to sweep where they really ought to be shoveling...
No it's not. It will go infront of the supreme court and fail.
Are you so certain? Ex post facto punishment went before the supreme court and came out banners flying. More than once, in fact. The SC happily allowed the "commerce clause" to be misused to control what a state exclusively grew, prepared, and marketed inside its own borders. The SC allowed property to be taken for any purpose whatsoever by the states. The SC has allowed (on many fronts) laws to be made respecting an establishment of religion by the government, not to mention actual participation in religion by the government. The SC has allowed explosive entry into your home without so much as a knock.
Aside from this, the SC routinely refuses to hear cases with enormous merit and great social import based upon the feeblest and most flimsy excuses.
I do not share your optimism in this matter. I hope they're overturn it, but frankly — I doubt it.
But all government regulation is not bad. I like that the FDA makes sure snake oil salesmen cant swindle at best and kill at worst. Its good that the FCC makes sure that the spectrum is organized and licenced, facilitating communication
Yet...
It is bad when the FCC censors content. It is bad when the FCC denies small players any chance at spectrum through the mechanism of pricing such access out of reach except to corporate and independently wealthy entities. It is bad when the FCC specifies communications standards by brand and model, instead of measured performance. It is bad when the FCC sells communications spectrum to the highest bidder, without any regard whatsoever for public need. It is bad when the FCC makes it illegal to call for help on a radio for which you have not been issued the operator's license.
So maybe the spectrum should be organized under another principle; perhaps even allowed to find its own level. Chaos? Not likely. If you can't be heard, you won't bother. Plus, modern technology (spread spectrum, digital multiplexing) make the airwaves a lot less "scarce" a resource than they used to be, not to mention the migration of services from broadcast to in-wire and in-beam and in-fiber. For example, if I am sending my comms from point A to point B with a laser, you'll not be interfering with them just because your laser crosses my laser. Likewise, if my comms are in fiber, they're invulnerable to interference. The FCC is largely obsolete, and what part of it isn't obsolete is so badly mis-managed they deserve to be demoted to McDonald's food preparers. Though given how bad they were at managing the spectrum, I'd never eat at McDonald's again...
It is bad when the FDA denies access by consenting adults and guardians to drugs in the experimental stage for those who will, for instance, most likely be dying in the short term, when there is no hope that the drug be approved except in the long term. It is bad when the FDA (and any other TLA you care to bring up) tells a free individual that recreational drug use is not a valid option. It is bad when the FDA makes drug development and licensing so expensive that even drugs that were on the market and research done, get pulled because the drug companies can no longer make a profit (certain types of insulin have been pulled for exactly this reason, for instance. We have to get ours from Canada now.) It is bad when the FDA costs us 1.7 billion dollars yearly (its 2004 budget.) It is bad when the FDA drives up the cost of drugs. It is bad when the FDA causes major delays in the availability of drugs used to treat cancer, blood pressure, heart attacks, cholesterol, and strokes and delays in the availability such high-tech items as cardiac pacemakers and in the use of such techniques as balloon angioplasty for blocked coronary arteries. It is bad that the FDA has had the most effect on drug development time, and that said time has doubled since the 1960's. It is bad that the FDA enables a false sense of security -- no drug is always safe, any more than any food is always safe -- and causes downstream litigation under the false assumption that drugs can be qualified as "safe." It is bad that the FDA contributes mightily to the tidal wave of litigation that is destroying our country.
So maybe we need to man up, admit that taking drugs is a risk, and let the free market and modern communications pass along how good - or not - a particular drug is. We can talk to each other. Did it work? Were you cured? Did you get sicker? Drug companies want to sell; in order to sell, they'll need trust. Doctors want to cure you; that's how they survive. They'll have an interest in tracking what works, and what doesn't. They're not going to poison us on purpose. On the other hand, the FDA is screwing with us on purpose and by design, and you know why? Because government agencies (a) don't have to make a profit, (b) don't have to worry about staying in business, (c) don't give a hoot about rep
And what, pray tell, would it matter if we lived in a pure democracy?
For one thing, it closes the channel between the PACs and the decision making body. It becomes impossible to offer life-changing bribes to 300 million (or even 150 million) people. Similarly, no act that uselessly benefits one area at everyone else's expense (AKA "pork") is going to pass, because there are no political favors to hand out. All that can be offered under these circumstances are the presumptive consequences of the law itself. Therefore, issues would have to stand, or fall, on apparent merit; and in that 300 million, you can be sure that there will be some subset of people delving deeply into the issue because it affects them a great deal. So poor reasoning is exposed, and this gives the people a chance to think over both the falsehoods and the reasons for them. States? An obsolete idea. Communications have made us one people, we just haven't figured that out yet. Texas doesn't need different law than New Hampshire, for instance.
Now, in an actual democracy, no one is trying to get elected; so no one is making any promises about voting for this, or voting for that. Instead, people will vote for what they think will benefit them, and this indeed is a risk; and that is why a strong underlying constitution and a judiciary with absolute veto is required. Let the people make law all they want; yet make sure that the laws must squeeze through an authority that will not pass any law unless it meets all constitutional tests, no matter how poplar it is, unless it can meet some massively overriding standard for altering the constitution itself (like being passed 100 years in a row by a 95% majority.) No judicial oversight or delay is involved in knocking out a law.
The constitution should be written in such a way as to ensure that human and civil rights are nailed down without the need for recourse to more law. In this way, the ability to quickly knock out laws will not be able to significantly alter someone's rights. This requires that the constitution be written with possibilities in mind that we can imagine and that may, though it may not be certain, come to pass. Animals may become intelligent. Aliens may land. Machines may become people. People may become machines. Other planets may become habitable and/or accessible. Disasters on scales great and small may occur. Likewise windfalls. And so on. You don't want to be caught short, unable to respond to something critical, because laws take 5 years to make. Luckily, we have a decent starting model, the US constitution. It could be made into a much better, and simpler, document were it to be re-written to enable actual democracy and with the idea in mind that no intelligence whose race is able to communicate in any fashion or otherwise demonstrate that they can reason, or have demonstrated for them that they can reason, without regard for sexuality, lack thereof, or any other electronic, chemical, biological, emotional, or intellectual variation in kind, is lesser than any other such intelligence in terms of rights.
Require new law to go through a similar, but shorter, period of validation; say, 5 years with 75% majority, before it can be made into law. On the other hand, one vote of 51% is enough to knock a law out. The reason for such a disparity is that often, what appears to be a good idea turns out not to be when actually implemented, and such laws need to be overturned ASAP.
Couple that with voter qualification — tests with random questions that ensure that you are actually familiar with the facts of the matter at hand — and you would probably, it seems to me, end up with a vastly superior government than the one we have now.
My being issued a receipt is not a path to my boss -- or anyone else, since I don't have a boss, per se -- telling me who to vote for. Furthermore, should such a thing happen, one video recording and off to jail said "teller" goes. We don't need to compromise the entire election process over a problem that technology solved when cameras got small enough to be concealable. You can't safely coerce a vote in this day and age. The FBI would have your balls for Christmas ornaments.
How can anybody be in favor of a receipt that shows who you voted for?
<SARCASM>Yes, how could one consider sacrificing personal security for accountability? It would be... un-American!</SARCASM>
Secret ballots are not a good thing. As we saw last election. Solidly democrat regions "somehow" voted overwhelmingly for Bush. No receipt? No way to disprove the result. And the result comes from Bush's cronies, Diebold. Suspicious? <SARCASM>Oh, no.</SARCASM>
No. The ninth says those rights go to the people, which means, not to the federal government. That in turn means they can't legitimately make any such laws. States? No. Why? Because the 14th prevents the states from infringing on the bill of rights. Even the supreme court agrees (Adamson v. California (332 U.S. 46 [1947])) with that interpretation. Where does that leave said rights? Squarely in the hands of the people, that's where. Not the government. your problem here is you're taking the 9th out of context; that's not going to work.
So, exactly what part of my statement about Libertarian beliefs was a "mischaracterization"?
These:
they're(sic) ideas are extreme and simplistic -- extreme yes, simplistic, no.
support private ownership of nuclear bombs -- neither do we.
Those are just STUPID ideas -- no, they're not.
Libertarians have a crazy obsession with everything being private -- No, we don't.
Like the Libertarians, except with common sense. -- implying libertarians lack it, which they don't.
The above mischaracterizations make it quite clear that you are not familiar with the libertarian party. They range from outright error to pointless (and inaccurate) ad hominem, They do your argument no good at all, no more than arguing with a fisherman about how he murders cows for a living would do.
If nudity on television affects a large majority of lives in a negative way, who are you to tell then that it shouldn't?
Socially speaking the answer is, a well balanced, healthy individual with no fear of, or revulsion with regard to, nudity whatsoever. Constitutionally speaking, I'm not in the least inclined to tell them how to feel. I'm just inclined to tell them they are wrong when they attempt to circumscribe other people's actions based upon how they feel. That way lies all manner of opinion driven abuses. Like homophobia: "I'm uncomfortable around gays." "Oh, OK, then we can legislate away their freedom to exist and/or pursue happieness." Like other forms of free expression: "uncomfortable" around nude statues" "OK, let's forbid public nudity in art. And hey, let's forbid it in private, too, because that makes people uncomfortable as well."
How you feel is not protected by anything the constitution implies, and as I said earlier, quite the contrary. Freedom trumps your feelings each and every time, starting right with the first amendment.
Now, it is important to say at this point that I recognize perfectly well that this is not what current law reflects; I am simply pointing out why these laws are illegitimate as currently implemented. The only legitimacy the federal government has is embodied wholly in the actions they take, and legislation they formulate, that have solid, uncompromised roots in the constitution. Whenever they step outside those limits, they are operating illegally and no longer have any right to act; only coercive, corrosive, power. And that's the kind of thing that gets governments brought down.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the main reason to quibble is because it is complete and utter bullshit. Altair invented and marketed the first personal computer. End of story. Imsai and SWTPC followed close on their heels, there were probably a couple hundred other companies in there within literally just months, and then, way, after the idea was obvious, and after a solid false start, the Apple crew came up with a "me-too" design that was more marketable than the rest (the Apple II) and we saw them make some serious inroads. At that time, others were doing well too, though, and again, Apple wasn't all that notable.
I was there, and that's the way it went down. Fact. Yeah, I'm old. :)
Mind you, I'm a huge Apple fan today; but please, this "I invented the PC" crap is just that, crap. Plus, if Apple (or Woz) wants to go for innovation, I think the crown pretty clearly goes to the Amiga crew. Given the environment they produced the machine in, it was by a *huge* margin more innovative, clever, and just pain *different* than anything else out there. It's old news today, but if you look around today, there are no computers that are really different. The Mac is *nix with a really, really, nice GUI, the PC is the same as it has always been, plus years and years of incremental, but not wild, improvements, linix is *nix, etc. The first Amiga (the a1000), now that demonstrated a whole bunch of out-of-the-box thinking in area after area for the day. Screens. Serious multitasking. Video and audio natural to the system. Co-processors. A windowing system that wasn't even fractionally "me-too" and not only, worked extremely well. A CLI that wasn't a clone of every other shell out there. Speech, built-in. Hot loading devices. High color. Sprites. The thing even had a natural keyboard dock. If a machine showed up today that was as different from the Mac and PC now, as the Amiga was in its day, we'd probably all pee right down our legs.
To this very day my Mac shows me a spinning beachball when I'm doing something as simple as opening a web page or copying files across the network. The Amiga did that MUCH better in 19-frigging-85, 21 bloody YEARS ago!
The problem is, there is a much more limited supply of dollars than one might think. The US debt is at about $25,000.00 per *person* right now, and taxes collected mostly go towards servicing that debt. So by definition, there is no "extra" funding. I see that as indicating that money directed to art and parks is not money well spent. I see your point about reducing the amount available for bad ideas (and which I would be willing to stipulate constitute most of what congress comes up with) but still, at the end of the day, the infrastructure needs funding, as do many other basic governmental responsibilities.
Well, so would I, but if it was optional, I'd opt in.
Nah. Education is critical. Imagine an uneducated populace. They'd do things like... I dunno... elect Bush? Uh-oh...
I have no bone to pick with this. I think the US political system is so corrupt, so twisted, so corporately biased, that there is literally no hope of getting it fixed. Which isn't to say I am unwilling to try, but it feels like I'm beating on a stone wall with a feather. The people are relatively content (I believe because they are relatively wealthy, if they are healthy), and that's no formula for a revolutionary change in the political system.
Weeeell, that's an interesting comment. I've heard the exact opposite. Pros run intolerably hot on the lap, and go to the shop more often. They've got a few more features I covet, and I can afford one, but I'd been leaning away, more towards a fully-fleshed out MacBook... 2 gigs and the big drive.
Hnmph. Well, more research is called for, I suppose. Thanks for commenting.
I don't mind the digression in the least. I enjoy considering alternatives.
My favorite idea (thus far) is tax everyone equally, but let the taxpayer select which non-essential programs their funds go towards.
So you could elect to fund the stadium but not some antithetical-to-Yar program, I'd fund the homeless shelters and the clean-needles program but not religion or the stadium. At the end of the day, instead of the politicians deciding what gets funded out of their bright ideas, we would do the deciding. The not-so-popular ideas wouldn't get funded completely (or at all), and they'd either die on the vine, or at least proceed a lot more slowly.
Since everyone still has to pay full tax, some programs would be extremely well funded, which would accelerate them. Just as the public desires. Do this to all socially optional programs — religions, sports stadiums, monuments and support for the arts — while critical programs — education, science and technology, transport and communications infrastructure creation and maintenance — get 100% base funding plus whatever is left over from any person who doesn't allocate their funds to the optional projects. In this way, no tax dollars go unused, and no tax dollars go anywhere anyone doesn't want them for social options.
That was, of course, a bare-bones outline, but that's the core of the idea, anyway.
My position is that just because the community at large prefers one particular thing, it can be entirely over the top to force others to go along. For instance, I do not support religion, quite the contrary; consequently I am extremely unhappy when the locals or the feds force me to carry their weight for them.
I think this is just one case of a generalization that it should not be "OK" for any tax authority to force you to support non-essential (short- or long-term) services. That, I think, is not the job of a government.
The job of the government seem to me to be supporting the physical infrastructure, protecting the citizens from disasters and predators that may arise from both within and without the borders, educating the populace in a comprehensive manner, and encouraging the development of science and technology, as these are the cornerstones upon which our society stands and indulges in such luxuries as art, sport, literature and so forth.
It's all just IMHO.
No, I think art, and sports, are a perfectly valid part of the educational process. And I'm not against either one, either in-school or as commercial undertakings; What I am against is government funding of pursuit of the arts or the multiplying sports into stadium-level events at taxpayer expense. If you want to fund an artist, or a writer, by all means, do so. That gives them another option (besides the commercial one of selling the work product, I mean) and that's fine with me. Likewise, if you want to fund a sports team, go ahead, and more power to you. Just don't ask me to and expect me to be happy about it.
No, I absolutely do consider such expenditures to be critical. I strongly feel that the government should support basic research, exploration, and highly specific technical endeavors like the space program and the pursuit of fusion power. I just failed to mention this specifically as I wasn't thinking along those lines when I posted, please accept my apology. Along with education, science and technology are the key driving forces that supply society with the wealth it needs to give range to the liberty and freedom people deserve.
Arts, religion, sports and entertainment, however, should only be supported by private donations, I firmly maintain. They are strictly non-critical social aspects, and they do very little to drive society upwards. Often I see them doing the exact opposite, in fact. "My team is better than your team" isn't something I see as helpful on any level, for instance, nor do I view the various doings of religion in a positive light except very, very rarely. I surely don't want to pay for religion, as the government presently forces me to by making me carry their share of the tax burden.
Eh? [looks at shoe... looks at fishtank...]
Oh. Soul. Never mind.
Your opinions aside (which you are certainly welcome to) this is an area you are simply wrong about. Life spans are increasing, especially in the last century or so. Some of the increase in average span comes from the steep drop in infant mortality, but there are real gains in the ages people are living to, and the quality of life they experience at those advanced ages. I think you need to do a little research here before you continue blaming suits and society for an effect that you have not accurately characterized.
Not a lot of interest in English, either... I think "dont right" means "downright" in that impassioned screed, but I wouldn't swear to it. :/
Maybe it isn't that he has no soul; maybe he just thinks it is more important to solve little problems like people starving in the streets and not being able to buy their medications before resources are expended on statues of politicians, "Piss Christ", and other random works of publicly supported art. I guess I can't really speak for him, but that is certainly how I feel. Every time I see public art, Christmas decorations, government-participation in parades, I grinch about it. I just can't see the government holding any legitimate position costing even one dollar in any non-critical activity, no matter if it is supposedly for the benefit of the citizens or not, until it has well and truly addressed all of the critical activities that it has been tasked with with regard to its base responsibilities.
I bought my first Mac (a PPC Mini) because a knowledgeable friend took the time to show me that her Mac worked better (a lot better!) than the two OS's I was running at the time: Windows XP and Red Hat linux. I was losing time screwing with things I didn't really have time to screw with just trying to get mundane business tasks accomplished. I'm buying my second Mac (an Intel MacBook) this week to replace my Windows laptop, which finally went nipples north. One reason I'm buying it is because the Mini lived up to the manufacturer's claims both in reliability and in functionality. I am looking forward to the MacBook and I expect to have a similar experience, despite being a pretty cynical person when you get right down to it.
Certainly it has nothing to do with "art." Do I appreciate how pretty the Mac interface is? Sure. But that wasn't a factor in going Mac. I was won over by the smooth integration of multiple languages in applications like OmniOutliner and 100% support for that by the OS; by the complete lack of need to mess with low level Unix issues; by the speed and fluidity and consistency of the interface; by the continual experience of having things "just work" (it may sound hackneyed and fanboyish, but that is the nature of the experience — OSX is as far from running windows as flying a plane on autopilot compares to hand-flying it.) It beats Windows in resistance to malware by orders of magnitude, and it beats Linux by never requiring me to screw with compiling some package or watching Gnome screw up repeatedly, losing my network connections.
There are lots of good reasons to go Mac, I could go on all day about things that I feel have worked out better for me with the Mac, no doubt boring some and annoying the rest. The bottom line hasn't anything to do with art, no matter how long I were to go on. It's simply (or maybe not so simply) a better product, and it won me over based on that. The applications I need are there, and that pretty much closes the case.
And as for your lauding tourism in Philadelphia... If you want to draw tourists, that's a task that it is primarily aimed at benefiting businesses. Therefore, those businesses that will benefit (and not all will) should be paying for it. Not the poor homeowners on the outskirts.
This is very similar to small town sports. The schools (hence, including the kid's parents and the old people in town) spend huge sums of money on everything from custom busses to playing fields. The kids play the same games they could have played in a field of grass, in jeans or shorts. The games begin, the visitors from the next town show up, and the local businesses see an upswing in sales. Those specific businesses ought to be paying for that, not the poor schlep of a homeowner.
These are areas where the government has been co-opted by interests that are not legitimate areas for it to focus, IMHO. Private support is the way to go for both art and sports above the level of casual social interaction or for exercise; and to that you can add parks, monuments, and any state-sponsored museums that might creep in here
Plus, on an individual basis, cows are a great deal less annoying than people.
No. In all seriousness, eventually, you'll learn that being on the receiving end does not result in an inherent understanding of how, or even exactly where or in what sequence, stimulus is applied. For one thing, one's mind is, shall we say, otherwise occupied, very similarly to when an artist paints or a musician plays; different areas of the brain are engaged as opposed to those dominant when you're engaged in analytical tasks. Some areas of the body won't even supply detailed information on where and how they are being stimulated, for instance, the lower back and the perineum are both this way, and neither can be easily observed on one's self; yet both are highly erogenous zones on both males and females under certain circumstances, and both are common targets for advanced erotic practitioners.
There are plenty of other examples, though. It is very common for a secondary result of information to be transferred, without the information itself. Formulas (trade secrets, typically) for everything from a soft drink to a drug; you get the product, and the end-user benefits, but you don't get the formula. The sophisticated presence of a nuclear submarine carries striking power born of (and borne by) enormous complexity without letting everyone know the exact details — depth attainable, type of warheads on board, etc. Satellites carry unknown capabilities, collect information and bring them to a very limited clientele, without letting those observed even know they're being observed, never mind how. If you cleverly bury a coffee can that contains several kilos of gold, and only you know where, the location — or in other words, the information that represents its location — is at its very highest value when only you know where the can is. Otherwise, the can is a lot more likely to be empty when you go back. Best you keep that entirely to yourself. Sharing would be wholly detrimental. A martial artist uses very technically specific information in delivering certain killing blows; but the recipient of the blow isn't going to be sharing that information any further. And so forth. It should be quite obvious that information does not need to be made public, or even go to an additional client, in order to be of value. I'm not saying that in some cases that isn't the case; just that it isn't always the case, because the original presumption was too broad.
The "information must be distributed" model is just too simplistic. Information quite often has value without being exposed to second (or third) parties. Surely there are things you know that benefit you that I don't know; The reverse is also true. Some of the things I know I have not shared with anyone, yet they benefit me on a regular basis. Some of them are quite technical; one of the reasons I own a very successful software company and several other businesses is because I know a thing or two I don't tend to share. It isn't all about the end product; some of the key issues are tactical, structural and hierarchical, and they are anything but obvious (hence all the barely surviving software enterprises out there.)
It isn't that "information wants to be free"; it is that people lacking it want it to be free, which is not the same thing at all. And for them, all I can say is... start digging. :)
Now, if the line had been "Information must be applied for it to have value", I'd go for that. Though I'd also insist it has potential value prior to any such eventual application, even if it was never applied.
Slashdot: mods on crack. :)
I didn't. I started with "yet...", which indicates acceptance of your point, but brings on contra-indications. I then made some observations and suggestions of mine, in no way saying they were yours. I think you are just a little too tender. Believe me, it was not my intention to misinterpret what you said, only to counter with the downsides against these agencies, which I feel are significant enough to warrant dismembering them. I didn't try to say if you felt that way, or not, or attempt to characterize your portrayal of them as "perfect." So chill, dude. :)
No. Information is quite often more valuable to the holder if it is not transferred. For instance, if I figure out how to attract, and subsequently completely satisfy any woman, every time, to such a degree that she'll think of me first, last and always, I'm better off if I don't explain said technique(s) to you. And by the way, I'm not going to, either. :)
The problem with sweeping generalizations is that they're often trying to sweep where they really ought to be shoveling...
Are you so certain? Ex post facto punishment went before the supreme court and came out banners flying. More than once, in fact. The SC happily allowed the "commerce clause" to be misused to control what a state exclusively grew, prepared, and marketed inside its own borders. The SC allowed property to be taken for any purpose whatsoever by the states. The SC has allowed (on many fronts) laws to be made respecting an establishment of religion by the government, not to mention actual participation in religion by the government. The SC has allowed explosive entry into your home without so much as a knock.
Aside from this, the SC routinely refuses to hear cases with enormous merit and great social import based upon the feeblest and most flimsy excuses.
I do not share your optimism in this matter. I hope they're overturn it, but frankly — I doubt it.
Yet...
It is bad when the FCC censors content. It is bad when the FCC denies small players any chance at spectrum through the mechanism of pricing such access out of reach except to corporate and independently wealthy entities. It is bad when the FCC specifies communications standards by brand and model, instead of measured performance. It is bad when the FCC sells communications spectrum to the highest bidder, without any regard whatsoever for public need. It is bad when the FCC makes it illegal to call for help on a radio for which you have not been issued the operator's license.
So maybe the spectrum should be organized under another principle; perhaps even allowed to find its own level. Chaos? Not likely. If you can't be heard, you won't bother. Plus, modern technology (spread spectrum, digital multiplexing) make the airwaves a lot less "scarce" a resource than they used to be, not to mention the migration of services from broadcast to in-wire and in-beam and in-fiber. For example, if I am sending my comms from point A to point B with a laser, you'll not be interfering with them just because your laser crosses my laser. Likewise, if my comms are in fiber, they're invulnerable to interference. The FCC is largely obsolete, and what part of it isn't obsolete is so badly mis-managed they deserve to be demoted to McDonald's food preparers. Though given how bad they were at managing the spectrum, I'd never eat at McDonald's again...
It is bad when the FDA denies access by consenting adults and guardians to drugs in the experimental stage for those who will, for instance, most likely be dying in the short term, when there is no hope that the drug be approved except in the long term. It is bad when the FDA (and any other TLA you care to bring up) tells a free individual that recreational drug use is not a valid option. It is bad when the FDA makes drug development and licensing so expensive that even drugs that were on the market and research done, get pulled because the drug companies can no longer make a profit (certain types of insulin have been pulled for exactly this reason, for instance. We have to get ours from Canada now.) It is bad when the FDA costs us 1.7 billion dollars yearly (its 2004 budget.) It is bad when the FDA drives up the cost of drugs. It is bad when the FDA causes major delays in the availability of drugs used to treat cancer, blood pressure, heart attacks, cholesterol, and strokes and delays in the availability such high-tech items as cardiac pacemakers and in the use of such techniques as balloon angioplasty for blocked coronary arteries. It is bad that the FDA has had the most effect on drug development time, and that said time has doubled since the 1960's. It is bad that the FDA enables a false sense of security -- no drug is always safe, any more than any food is always safe -- and causes downstream litigation under the false assumption that drugs can be qualified as "safe." It is bad that the FDA contributes mightily to the tidal wave of litigation that is destroying our country.
So maybe we need to man up, admit that taking drugs is a risk, and let the free market and modern communications pass along how good - or not - a particular drug is. We can talk to each other. Did it work? Were you cured? Did you get sicker? Drug companies want to sell; in order to sell, they'll need trust. Doctors want to cure you; that's how they survive. They'll have an interest in tracking what works, and what doesn't. They're not going to poison us on purpose. On the other hand, the FDA is screwing with us on purpose and by design, and you know why? Because government agencies (a) don't have to make a profit, (b) don't have to worry about staying in business, (c) don't give a hoot about rep
For one thing, it closes the channel between the PACs and the decision making body. It becomes impossible to offer life-changing bribes to 300 million (or even 150 million) people. Similarly, no act that uselessly benefits one area at everyone else's expense (AKA "pork") is going to pass, because there are no political favors to hand out. All that can be offered under these circumstances are the presumptive consequences of the law itself. Therefore, issues would have to stand, or fall, on apparent merit; and in that 300 million, you can be sure that there will be some subset of people delving deeply into the issue because it affects them a great deal. So poor reasoning is exposed, and this gives the people a chance to think over both the falsehoods and the reasons for them. States? An obsolete idea. Communications have made us one people, we just haven't figured that out yet. Texas doesn't need different law than New Hampshire, for instance.
Now, in an actual democracy, no one is trying to get elected; so no one is making any promises about voting for this, or voting for that. Instead, people will vote for what they think will benefit them, and this indeed is a risk; and that is why a strong underlying constitution and a judiciary with absolute veto is required. Let the people make law all they want; yet make sure that the laws must squeeze through an authority that will not pass any law unless it meets all constitutional tests, no matter how poplar it is, unless it can meet some massively overriding standard for altering the constitution itself (like being passed 100 years in a row by a 95% majority.) No judicial oversight or delay is involved in knocking out a law.
The constitution should be written in such a way as to ensure that human and civil rights are nailed down without the need for recourse to more law. In this way, the ability to quickly knock out laws will not be able to significantly alter someone's rights. This requires that the constitution be written with possibilities in mind that we can imagine and that may, though it may not be certain, come to pass. Animals may become intelligent. Aliens may land. Machines may become people. People may become machines. Other planets may become habitable and/or accessible. Disasters on scales great and small may occur. Likewise windfalls. And so on. You don't want to be caught short, unable to respond to something critical, because laws take 5 years to make. Luckily, we have a decent starting model, the US constitution. It could be made into a much better, and simpler, document were it to be re-written to enable actual democracy and with the idea in mind that no intelligence whose race is able to communicate in any fashion or otherwise demonstrate that they can reason, or have demonstrated for them that they can reason, without regard for sexuality, lack thereof, or any other electronic, chemical, biological, emotional, or intellectual variation in kind, is lesser than any other such intelligence in terms of rights.
Require new law to go through a similar, but shorter, period of validation; say, 5 years with 75% majority, before it can be made into law. On the other hand, one vote of 51% is enough to knock a law out. The reason for such a disparity is that often, what appears to be a good idea turns out not to be when actually implemented, and such laws need to be overturned ASAP.
Couple that with voter qualification — tests with random questions that ensure that you are actually familiar with the facts of the matter at hand — and you would probably, it seems to me, end up with a vastly superior government than the one we have now.
My being issued a receipt is not a path to my boss -- or anyone else, since I don't have a boss, per se -- telling me who to vote for. Furthermore, should such a thing happen, one video recording and off to jail said "teller" goes. We don't need to compromise the entire election process over a problem that technology solved when cameras got small enough to be concealable. You can't safely coerce a vote in this day and age. The FBI would have your balls for Christmas ornaments.
Thank you for the discussion. I appreciate you taking the time.
<SARCASM>Yes, how could one consider sacrificing personal security for accountability? It would be... un-American!</SARCASM>
Secret ballots are not a good thing. As we saw last election. Solidly democrat regions "somehow" voted overwhelmingly for Bush. No receipt? No way to disprove the result. And the result comes from Bush's cronies, Diebold. Suspicious? <SARCASM>Oh, no.</SARCASM>
You're completely out of your mind. Funny, too.
No. The ninth says those rights go to the people, which means, not to the federal government. That in turn means they can't legitimately make any such laws. States? No. Why? Because the 14th prevents the states from infringing on the bill of rights. Even the supreme court agrees (Adamson v. California (332 U.S. 46 [1947])) with that interpretation. Where does that leave said rights? Squarely in the hands of the people, that's where. Not the government. your problem here is you're taking the 9th out of context; that's not going to work.
These:
The above mischaracterizations make it quite clear that you are not familiar with the libertarian party. They range from outright error to pointless (and inaccurate) ad hominem, They do your argument no good at all, no more than arguing with a fisherman about how he murders cows for a living would do.
Socially speaking the answer is, a well balanced, healthy individual with no fear of, or revulsion with regard to, nudity whatsoever. Constitutionally speaking, I'm not in the least inclined to tell them how to feel. I'm just inclined to tell them they are wrong when they attempt to circumscribe other people's actions based upon how they feel. That way lies all manner of opinion driven abuses. Like homophobia: "I'm uncomfortable around gays." "Oh, OK, then we can legislate away their freedom to exist and/or pursue happieness." Like other forms of free expression: "uncomfortable" around nude statues" "OK, let's forbid public nudity in art. And hey, let's forbid it in private, too, because that makes people uncomfortable as well."
How you feel is not protected by anything the constitution implies, and as I said earlier, quite the contrary. Freedom trumps your feelings each and every time, starting right with the first amendment.
Now, it is important to say at this point that I recognize perfectly well that this is not what current law reflects; I am simply pointing out why these laws are illegitimate as currently implemented. The only legitimacy the federal government has is embodied wholly in the actions they take, and legislation they formulate, that have solid, uncompromised roots in the constitution. Whenever they step outside those limits, they are operating illegally and no longer have any right to act; only coercive, corrosive, power. And that's the kind of thing that gets governments brought down.