While I was in the army many, many moons ago, I pulled funeral detail several times. It was an honor to either bear the pall, or shoot the salute. Although most of the men and woman we buried were in the standard army-issue felt caskets, there was a major we buried in a massive polished oak behemoth, with polished brass hardware and memorial plate.
Strange thing is, that was the one funeral at which I was truly embarrassed. The widow was crying loudly the entire time, things like, "Why, oh why?" and carrying on in all kinds of movie cliches, with literal hand-wringing and whatnot. It felt... well, cliched, somehow staged almost.
I decided then that my death should be a cause for celebration-- not that I'm gone (although for some I'm sure that's cause enough), but that I ever lived in the first place. My wife and I have a pact: if either of us go before the other, we'll have a helluva blow-out party, with friends we love and music we have enjoyed blasting at full volume, and good drink (no cheap beer, damnit), and no tears.
This whole video thing seems like the desperately-crying widow-- artificial and demeaning. Tacky, but not in a good way.
But, the US is kinda tacky, and not in a good way. I guess it's not that out-of-line for a country that loves its reality TV shows.
Python is for weenies who want to be told how their source code should be laid out.
Perl is for weenies who want to feel superior because their language can be write-only.
I prefer Perl, myself. The few times I've used Python, I've hated the enforced layout. It seems like it wants to be a verbose LISP without all the parenthesis, but instead turned into a straightjacket.
When I've used Perl, I've felt that I'm in a maze of twisting passages, each of them the same (or *mostly* the same). But it's a better feeling for me, having the Swiss Army knife with six screwdrivers, a garment steamer, compass, knife, knife sharpener, nuclear power cell, and fly swatter. Yeah, it's a mess, but it's a *beautiful* mess.
But, like any cult, it depends on which one you want to join. Me, I joined the one that serves ice-cream on Fridays, because they allow dogs. The decision on which language to go with is almost as arbitrary, and certainly as absurd. Just pick one and code. Or pick both, and code.
Is the self the center of the universe (pre-copernicus geocentric interpretation) or is God (post-copernicus equivalent)?
Neither, as self is ignorant (and therefor not a valid observer), and God does not exist, making Her unable to observe as well.
The universe is itself the observer, and we are all One with the universe. We are merely a manifestation of the universe experiencing itself subjectively. Death is but an illusion, and love is the ultimate expression of self. The sooner we learn the truth, the sooner we can learn to be the universe, and get the fuck off this planet into our rightful home, the stars and the vast space between the stars.
At least, that is what St. Hicks tells me, and I believe him.
------
Really, I don't believe that, but it makes as much sense as the parent post.
Just to clarify, that's free as in "speech," not free as in "beer."
The IOC trademarking these words is a matter of contract, and their requirement the government enforce them, under trademark law, is completely consistent with libertarianism.
As a liberal with libertarian tendencies, I disagree. Ideally, controlling the use of words is not a state right, and so the state cannot enter into a contract vis-a-vis these words. The state cannot speak for me when negotiating these "word-contracts," either.
We the people seem to have agreed to allow trademarks for the use in distinguishing products and services. However, the original agreement did not cover such common words as "games," or "gold," etc; it is supposed to cover unique phrases or singular words (such as made-up words like "Kodak"). Trademark laws have been twisted to this new use by greed.
I understand that, for society to flourish, we must all agree on some common groundrules. But, for society to pleasantly flourish, we must also respect the soul of those groundrules, and not try to pervert them to our own purposes (which is what I believe is happening here).
Of course, I also understand that a true libertarian society will never work for long, just as true communism will never work-- and for the same reasons. A certain portion of the citizenship will attempt to use the system against others in the system, for personal gain.
Creationism is the concept that some divine being initiated and guided life. Intelligent design is the concept that some intelligent being (not divine though, oh no, not divine) created and guided life.
ID *is* creationism, soft-peddled to appear scientific; but just like a child dressed up in her daddy's clothes, it's just ludicrous and somewhat funny, and most anyone can recognize it for what it is. "Ah, look at it acting all grown up and scientific. Isn't that pwecious?"
It's not that particular, young-earth, fire-and-brimstone born-again Christian creationism, but it *is* creationism. Playing symantic games will not change ID's reliance on a divine being to initiate and guide the development of life.
Dressing up creationism in its Sunday best and taking it to the scientific ball and announcing it as "Intelligent Design" is not going to change its basic unscientific nature, nor is it going to make it more correct. It is intellectually dishonest to try to distance ID from religion when it relies on religion for its very name: you can't have an intelligent design without some sort of intelligence.
Looking for the fingerprints of God in the fundaments of life is one thing. Trying to pass off ignorance as knowledge (irreducible complexity) or presupposition as theory (the whole ID mess) is not only unscientific, but a betrayal of our heritage and our future.
ID *is* creationism, whether it wears a tuxedo or overalls. It might fool the ignorant at the ball, but the way it dances gives it away every time.
I agree. I'm just saying that evolution doesn't have the all the answers, as some seem to believe. And if evolution does not have all the answers, then presentation and analyzation of other theories, even ones saying the author of the universe is the creator of life, is beneficial.
I must disagree -- not with your assertion that evolution doesn't explain everything, but that there is a scientific theory that holds there is an "author of the universe" who might be "the creator of life."
Teaching of valid scientific questions and answers is one thing. Teaching myth as science is quite another.
First of all, ID is not the same thing as Creationism.
Yes it is. There is no substantive difference between the two.
Ok, how do I know ID has won the day? Many times I have read an article in MSNBC, Time, etc. talking about the possibility for multiple universes. And why do many scientists speculate there are multiple universes? Because this one is so fine-tuned to allow for life, if we assume this is the only one, there must have been a Designer...and we can't have that.
I'm sure that's exactly what MSNBC and Time, both excellent peer-reviewed scientific journals, have said.
What you describe is the anthropic principle, which is a simple tautology. It has been logically debunked often enough.
We can speculate on and on about how perfectly-balanced the laws of physics are, but the truth is, we really don't know what would happen if the speed of light were, say, twice what it is now, or Planck's constant were 6.323 x 10^-34 Js instead of 6.626x10^-34 Js. A different set of physical laws might provide a universe of a different nature, but that does not preclude life.
They are actually quite open about it, which is refreshing on one level.
Who are these mysterious and refreshingly-honest "they?"
So let's not pretend that there are all these "neutral atheists" out there who are dispassionate about evidence. Atheism tends to be a psychological crutch so people can live a life without being accountable. All that nagging guilt gets to them.
That's funny. I say the same thing about religion.
You do not have to be an atheist to be dispassionate (or, more accurately, "objective"). There are many objective scientists with strong religious beliefs. Nor does atheism (or religous belief, for that matter) keep one from being passionate and subjective.
As far as atheists and moral integrity, I believe many atheists are *more* moral than many with strong religious beliefs.
Why?
Because, as an atheist, I believe it is up to each of us to choose our own reason for existence. Since my time on earth is not dictated by some mystical Grandpa in the Sky, I have no eternal destiny, I only have my immediate legacy.
I wish my legacy to be good. Every interaction in which I am involved is dictated by two simple guidelines-- am I doing more good than harm? and, am I being truthful to myself and those with whom I am interacting?
The first should be self-obvious. The second is important because I believe truth and honesty are lynchpins to science and understanding and compassion. I have tried (sometimes unsuccessfully) to live my life according to those two simple dictums.
Because of this, I believe very strongly in the sanctity of life, something most US Christians seem to have lost.
Why do I, and atheist, believe in the sanctity of life? Because... well, the best I can describe it is this: we are all in this together. Straight, gay, atheist, Christian, Hare Krishna, Wiccan, good guy, bastard. It's up to us to determine our own collective destiny.
Atheism itself does not require a lack of morality, any more than Christianity *requires* morality. I've met both amoral and moral atheists; and I've met amoral and moral Christians.
Finally, I believe the only significant contribution to our species comes in the form of continuing the existence of our species. Not in having children-- lots of folks are having more than enough children. No, I mean it should be our goal to move out into space, settle in among the stars, grow, and evolve. (Not that evolution will lead us anywhere we want to go. It will simply change us.)
I hope very strongly that we make it there one day. I'd like to be there when it happens; but if I'm not, I'll die happy just knowing I've helped us move toward that goal, even if just a little bit.
ID is not a religion in and of itself. It is an artifact of a religious agenda-- the teaching of creationism as science.
Intelligent Design has a religious base, rather than a scientific base. Its religious nature is evident in the name itself: the presupposition of an intelligence to explain the nature of the universe. This is almost the *definition* of religion. (Not *a* religion, but religion.)
So, you are right: ID is not a religion. It is merely based on religious beliefs, and therefore has no place in scientific study.
Unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo do not constitute valid logical argument.
It worked for going to war with Iraq, didn't it?
I don't know if you keep up with the news or anything like reality, but Novak wrote an email 3 days before publishing the article, in which he stated that Rove told him Plame was a CIA operative.
Are they somehow above being asked that and we should just take their word on it?
See, this is the key fact of science-- research is not certified until it has been confirmed by outside sources. Publication and transparency are the norm, not the exception.
The do not ask us to take their word on it. They present the research methods and results, and are peer-reviewed. Sometimes, they are proven incorrect. Sometimes, it takes a while to disprove an hypothesis.
In stark contrast, the results of politicians are based on rhetoric, not reason. Even peer review is based on influence, funding, and more rhetoric. There is no transparency.
In this situation, I'm on the side of the scientists. If they are wrong, it will be proven out. If they are right, we should be listening.
If the politician succeeds in silencing the discussion, we all lose, whether he is right or not.
No, it's much easier and more correct to note the financial failure that is an open source developer, especially when relying on the generosity of others to pay your bills.
Yeah, because there are no out-of-work proprietary developers, are there? And most open-source developers are starving, aren't they? Oh, when will they ever learn?
Then don't roll your own system. Use a trusted distribution such as Debian (which is *extremely* well tested, to the point where people complain about the length of the release cycle), Fedora / Red Hat, Mandrake, or Suse. These are all better-tested than new Microsoft releases, as most components are tested in the real world by hearty souls who dare tread where most sysadmins do not.
As others have pointed out, indemnification and accountability are strawmen, as there is no way Microsoft or Oracle or any other major company is going to provide anything other than expensive phone support, or (in the case of Oracle and the like) even more expensive on-site support. They will absolutely *not* provide accountability.
And, with F/OSS you are able to purchase support through any number of vendors. You are not stuck with the original vendor, at the mercy of their support prices.
Running a web server for your PHP site is vastly different than running an application that is relied upon by many tens of thousands of employees.
Not if that PHP webserver provides applications that are relied upon by many tens of thousands of employees.
I definitely agree with most of your assessment, but this strikes me as strange:
Um, no. It goes more like this: A municipality (like a city) may force people to sell private property at market rates for both public use (like a highway which has been a law for years) and now also private development (like to build a shopping center or stadium) if it will benefit the public at large by means such as improving the tax base. What this does is allows a city to take a low income urban area filled with rent houses and redevelop it into a new football stadium that will add millions in taxes over the years, without having to pay $250,000 an acer to a slum lord who'se been renting 1 br. appartments for $300 a week.
How is this different from what the grandparent post stated, except in degree? The government taking *any* property that disproportionately benifits a single other entity is outrageous. It doesn't make any difference whether the seized property came from a slum lord, or an elderly woman
"A city in Washington state removed a woman in her 80s from her home of 55 years supposedly to expand a sewer plant, then sold the land to an auto dealership."
"A city in Kansas took a used-car lot and turned it over to the new-car dealer next door, who had failed in his efforts to buy the site from the previous owner."
There is already abuse of eminent domain. This is truly a dire ruling, and the grandparent post did not overstate this one issue.
Still, a plot of dirt is a plot of dirt. If you're getting paid its price, who cares?
Me.
If I live in a house I love, such as a house my father built, and in which I grew up, that house is worth a *lot* more to me than it is to "fair market value." The price of a thing is the price you, the owner, sets. If people don't want to buy, that's their problem.
If I want to sell, I might have to lower my price. But that is *my* decision. Or, it *was* my decision up until a few days ago.
I believe that's called a capitalist marketplace. It's the way a free market economy is *supposed* to work (but it doesn't).
. . . he also forgets that there are thousands of people working in the (IT) security industry, making a living.
I completely and absoltely agree with the rest of your post; but this is just absurd. Consider your own budget. If you had to pay someone to guard your house, would you be better off economically? How about if you paid him the same amount to do odd jobs around the house? Which would give you more value for your money?
The efficiency of an economy is based on how much real work gets done, how much real value is created. (Handyman work around the house is real value, whereas guarding a house because someone *might* break in does not.) Those security experts would find gainful employment in a more efficient economy, and would not suffer.
But, the truth is, we *do* have to pay guards (not most individuals, but many businesses who could otherwise spend more money on geeks *ahem*). There is a reason for these wasteful exenditures-- risk mitigation. And as you point out, we live in a world were break-ins occur, where people drive like dicks and put others at risk, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Find out what it means to me.
While I was in the army many, many moons ago, I pulled funeral detail several times. It was an honor to either bear the pall, or shoot the salute. Although most of the men and woman we buried were in the standard army-issue felt caskets, there was a major we buried in a massive polished oak behemoth, with polished brass hardware and memorial plate.
Strange thing is, that was the one funeral at which I was truly embarrassed. The widow was crying loudly the entire time, things like, "Why, oh why?" and carrying on in all kinds of movie cliches, with literal hand-wringing and whatnot. It felt... well, cliched, somehow staged almost.
I decided then that my death should be a cause for celebration-- not that I'm gone (although for some I'm sure that's cause enough), but that I ever lived in the first place. My wife and I have a pact: if either of us go before the other, we'll have a helluva blow-out party, with friends we love and music we have enjoyed blasting at full volume, and good drink (no cheap beer, damnit), and no tears.
This whole video thing seems like the desperately-crying widow-- artificial and demeaning. Tacky, but not in a good way.
But, the US is kinda tacky, and not in a good way. I guess it's not that out-of-line for a country that loves its reality TV shows.
Python is for weenies who want to be told how their source code should be laid out.
Perl is for weenies who want to feel superior because their language can be write-only.
I prefer Perl, myself. The few times I've used Python, I've hated the enforced layout. It seems like it wants to be a verbose LISP without all the parenthesis, but instead turned into a straightjacket.
When I've used Perl, I've felt that I'm in a maze of twisting passages, each of them the same (or *mostly* the same). But it's a better feeling for me, having the Swiss Army knife with six screwdrivers, a garment steamer, compass, knife, knife sharpener, nuclear power cell, and fly swatter. Yeah, it's a mess, but it's a *beautiful* mess.
But, like any cult, it depends on which one you want to join. Me, I joined the one that serves ice-cream on Fridays, because they allow dogs. The decision on which language to go with is almost as arbitrary, and certainly as absurd. Just pick one and code. Or pick both, and code.
Is the self the center of the universe (pre-copernicus geocentric interpretation) or is God (post-copernicus equivalent)?
Neither, as self is ignorant (and therefor not a valid observer), and God does not exist, making Her unable to observe as well.
The universe is itself the observer, and we are all One with the universe. We are merely a manifestation of the universe experiencing itself subjectively. Death is but an illusion, and love is the ultimate expression of self. The sooner we learn the truth, the sooner we can learn to be the universe, and get the fuck off this planet into our rightful home, the stars and the vast space between the stars.
At least, that is what St. Hicks tells me, and I believe him.
------
Really, I don't believe that, but it makes as much sense as the parent post.
"Liberal" means "free"
Just to clarify, that's free as in "speech," not free as in "beer."
The IOC trademarking these words is a matter of contract, and their requirement the government enforce them, under trademark law, is completely consistent with libertarianism.
As a liberal with libertarian tendencies, I disagree. Ideally, controlling the use of words is not a state right, and so the state cannot enter into a contract vis-a-vis these words. The state cannot speak for me when negotiating these "word-contracts," either.
We the people seem to have agreed to allow trademarks for the use in distinguishing products and services. However, the original agreement did not cover such common words as "games," or "gold," etc; it is supposed to cover unique phrases or singular words (such as made-up words like "Kodak"). Trademark laws have been twisted to this new use by greed.
I understand that, for society to flourish, we must all agree on some common groundrules. But, for society to pleasantly flourish, we must also respect the soul of those groundrules, and not try to pervert them to our own purposes (which is what I believe is happening here).
Of course, I also understand that a true libertarian society will never work for long, just as true communism will never work-- and for the same reasons. A certain portion of the citizenship will attempt to use the system against others in the system, for personal gain.
now, i'm no fan of microsoft, but tell me this: . . . how much do you pay in taxes?
A lot more than Microsoft, it appears.
And as for the PS2 release games? 90% crap.
But then again, 90% of everything is crap.
Creationism is the concept that some divine being initiated and guided life. Intelligent design is the concept that some intelligent being (not divine though, oh no, not divine) created and guided life.
ID *is* creationism, soft-peddled to appear scientific; but just like a child dressed up in her daddy's clothes, it's just ludicrous and somewhat funny, and most anyone can recognize it for what it is. "Ah, look at it acting all grown up and scientific. Isn't that pwecious?"
[ID is] NOT creationism.
It's not that particular, young-earth, fire-and-brimstone born-again Christian creationism, but it *is* creationism. Playing symantic games will not change ID's reliance on a divine being to initiate and guide the development of life.
Dressing up creationism in its Sunday best and taking it to the scientific ball and announcing it as "Intelligent Design" is not going to change its basic unscientific nature, nor is it going to make it more correct. It is intellectually dishonest to try to distance ID from religion when it relies on religion for its very name: you can't have an intelligent design without some sort of intelligence.
Looking for the fingerprints of God in the fundaments of life is one thing. Trying to pass off ignorance as knowledge (irreducible complexity) or presupposition as theory (the whole ID mess) is not only unscientific, but a betrayal of our heritage and our future.
ID *is* creationism, whether it wears a tuxedo or overalls. It might fool the ignorant at the ball, but the way it dances gives it away every time.
I agree. I'm just saying that evolution doesn't have the all the answers, as some seem to believe. And if evolution does not have all the answers, then presentation and analyzation of other theories, even ones saying the author of the universe is the creator of life, is beneficial.
I must disagree -- not with your assertion that evolution doesn't explain everything, but that there is a scientific theory that holds there is an "author of the universe" who might be "the creator of life."
Teaching of valid scientific questions and answers is one thing. Teaching myth as science is quite another.
First of all, ID is not the same thing as Creationism.
Yes it is. There is no substantive difference between the two.
Ok, how do I know ID has won the day? Many times I have read an article in MSNBC, Time, etc. talking about the possibility for multiple universes. And why do many scientists speculate there are multiple universes? Because this one is so fine-tuned to allow for life, if we assume this is the only one, there must have been a Designer...and we can't have that.
I'm sure that's exactly what MSNBC and Time, both excellent peer-reviewed scientific journals, have said.
What you describe is the anthropic principle, which is a simple tautology. It has been logically debunked often enough.
We can speculate on and on about how perfectly-balanced the laws of physics are, but the truth is, we really don't know what would happen if the speed of light were, say, twice what it is now, or Planck's constant were 6.323 x 10^-34 Js instead of 6.626x10^-34 Js. A different set of physical laws might provide a universe of a different nature, but that does not preclude life.
They are actually quite open about it, which is refreshing on one level.
Who are these mysterious and refreshingly-honest "they?"
So let's not pretend that there are all these "neutral atheists" out there who are dispassionate about evidence. Atheism tends to be a psychological crutch so people can live a life without being accountable. All that nagging guilt gets to them.
That's funny. I say the same thing about religion.
You do not have to be an atheist to be dispassionate (or, more accurately, "objective"). There are many objective scientists with strong religious beliefs. Nor does atheism (or religous belief, for that matter) keep one from being passionate and subjective.
As far as atheists and moral integrity, I believe many atheists are *more* moral than many with strong religious beliefs.
Why?
Because, as an atheist, I believe it is up to each of us to choose our own reason for existence. Since my time on earth is not dictated by some mystical Grandpa in the Sky, I have no eternal destiny, I only have my immediate legacy.
I wish my legacy to be good. Every interaction in which I am involved is dictated by two simple guidelines-- am I doing more good than harm? and, am I being truthful to myself and those with whom I am interacting?
The first should be self-obvious. The second is important because I believe truth and honesty are lynchpins to science and understanding and compassion. I have tried (sometimes unsuccessfully) to live my life according to those two simple dictums.
Because of this, I believe very strongly in the sanctity of life, something most US Christians seem to have lost.
Why do I, and atheist, believe in the sanctity of life? Because... well, the best I can describe it is this: we are all in this together. Straight, gay, atheist, Christian, Hare Krishna, Wiccan, good guy, bastard. It's up to us to determine our own collective destiny.
Atheism itself does not require a lack of morality, any more than Christianity *requires* morality. I've met both amoral and moral atheists; and I've met amoral and moral Christians.
Finally, I believe the only significant contribution to our species comes in the form of continuing the existence of our species. Not in having children-- lots of folks are having more than enough children. No, I mean it should be our goal to move out into space, settle in among the stars, grow, and evolve. (Not that evolution will lead us anywhere we want to go. It will simply change us.)
I hope very strongly that we make it there one day. I'd like to be there when it happens; but if I'm not, I'll die happy just knowing I've helped us move toward that goal, even if just a little bit.
ID is not a religion in and of itself. It is an artifact of a religious agenda-- the teaching of creationism as science.
Intelligent Design has a religious base, rather than a scientific base. Its religious nature is evident in the name itself: the presupposition of an intelligence to explain the nature of the universe. This is almost the *definition* of religion. (Not *a* religion, but religion.)
So, you are right: ID is not a religion. It is merely based on religious beliefs, and therefore has no place in scientific study.
Unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo do not constitute valid logical argument.
It worked for going to war with Iraq, didn't it?
I don't know if you keep up with the news or anything like reality, but Novak wrote an email 3 days before publishing the article, in which he stated that Rove told him Plame was a CIA operative.
If corporations don't impose conditions of operation for equipment they develop, at which point are warranties invalidated?
Very true.
There's a large difference, however, between voiding Lynn's warranty, and suing him.
looking at this and all the other similar articles i wonder if US can still be refferred to as the "land of the free"....
Not with a straight face.
Are they somehow above being asked that and we should just take their word on it?
See, this is the key fact of science-- research is not certified until it has been confirmed by outside sources. Publication and transparency are the norm, not the exception.
The do not ask us to take their word on it. They present the research methods and results, and are peer-reviewed. Sometimes, they are proven incorrect. Sometimes, it takes a while to disprove an hypothesis.
In stark contrast, the results of politicians are based on rhetoric, not reason. Even peer review is based on influence, funding, and more rhetoric. There is no transparency.
In this situation, I'm on the side of the scientists. If they are wrong, it will be proven out. If they are right, we should be listening.
If the politician succeeds in silencing the discussion, we all lose, whether he is right or not.
There are no local variables.
Of course there are local variables-- that's what the N directive is all about. It's local within the scope of the in which it was declared.
It's not junk. It's very complete.
. . . it doesn't matter to him one bit what vocal fringe lunatics think.
Yeah, it does. They're the reason he's in office.
[rimshot]
No, it's much easier and more correct to note the financial failure that is an open source developer, especially when relying on the generosity of others to pay your bills.
Yeah, because there are no out-of-work proprietary developers, are there? And most open-source developers are starving, aren't they? Oh, when will they ever learn?
I want that testing from the vendor.
Then don't roll your own system. Use a trusted distribution such as Debian (which is *extremely* well tested, to the point where people complain about the length of the release cycle), Fedora / Red Hat, Mandrake, or Suse. These are all better-tested than new Microsoft releases, as most components are tested in the real world by hearty souls who dare tread where most sysadmins do not.
As others have pointed out, indemnification and accountability are strawmen, as there is no way Microsoft or Oracle or any other major company is going to provide anything other than expensive phone support, or (in the case of Oracle and the like) even more expensive on-site support. They will absolutely *not* provide accountability.
And, with F/OSS you are able to purchase support through any number of vendors. You are not stuck with the original vendor, at the mercy of their support prices.
Running a web server for your PHP site is vastly different than running an application that is relied upon by many tens of thousands of employees.
Not if that PHP webserver provides applications that are relied upon by many tens of thousands of employees.
Even if a game were unbiased, the author (or almost anyone else) would see bias, based on their own biases.
"Bias" is a word often used in place of, "thinks differently than me."
"Yeah, and the Big Mac is the best selling meal in America."
My favorite: "Budweiser is the best-selling beer in America, by a long shot."
Harry Potter is more like Guinness. Not necessarily the best, but damned good.
I definitely agree with most of your assessment, but this strikes me as strange:
Um, no. It goes more like this: A municipality (like a city) may force people to sell private property at market rates for both public use (like a highway which has been a law for years) and now also private development (like to build a shopping center or stadium) if it will benefit the public at large by means such as improving the tax base. What this does is allows a city to take a low income urban area filled with rent houses and redevelop it into a new football stadium that will add millions in taxes over the years, without having to pay $250,000 an acer to a slum lord who'se been renting 1 br. appartments for $300 a week.
How is this different from what the grandparent post stated, except in degree? The government taking *any* property that disproportionately benifits a single other entity is outrageous. It doesn't make any difference whether the seized property came from a slum lord, or an elderly woman
"A city in Washington state removed a woman in her 80s from her home of 55 years supposedly to expand a sewer plant, then sold the land to an auto dealership."
"A city in Kansas took a used-car lot and turned it over to the new-car dealer next door, who had failed in his efforts to buy the site from the previous owner."
There is already abuse of eminent domain. This is truly a dire ruling, and the grandparent post did not overstate this one issue.
Still, a plot of dirt is a plot of dirt. If you're getting paid its price, who cares?
Me.
If I live in a house I love, such as a house my father built, and in which I grew up, that house is worth a *lot* more to me than it is to "fair market value." The price of a thing is the price you, the owner, sets. If people don't want to buy, that's their problem.
If I want to sell, I might have to lower my price. But that is *my* decision. Or, it *was* my decision up until a few days ago.
I believe that's called a capitalist marketplace. It's the way a free market economy is *supposed* to work (but it doesn't).
. . . he also forgets that there are thousands of people working in the (IT) security industry, making a living.
I completely and absoltely agree with the rest of your post; but this is just absurd. Consider your own budget. If you had to pay someone to guard your house, would you be better off economically? How about if you paid him the same amount to do odd jobs around the house? Which would give you more value for your money?
The efficiency of an economy is based on how much real work gets done, how much real value is created. (Handyman work around the house is real value, whereas guarding a house because someone *might* break in does not.) Those security experts would find gainful employment in a more efficient economy, and would not suffer.
But, the truth is, we *do* have to pay guards (not most individuals, but many businesses who could otherwise spend more money on geeks *ahem*). There is a reason for these wasteful exenditures-- risk mitigation. And as you point out, we live in a world were break-ins occur, where people drive like dicks and put others at risk, etc.