Oh hey everyone look over here! Another monument to ignorance!
I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond. I guess I have too much time.
The "fact" that it's rare for an employee to not be a mindless drone working at the same task is true. What you miss is the fact that those drones are the people we refer to as blue-collar workers. I don't care if your brother is a geneticist for the CDC doing research on HIV transmission rates for people who have sex with infected monkeys. If someone has a job in which they do the same mindless task over and over again and can be easily replaced they are blue collar. It might be a nylon collar instead of a cotton one. Or maybe even polyester or rayon. But dammit it's a freaking blue collar. And no, it isn't cyan.
Unions, on the other hand, are gigolos. Their job is to pimp their members to special interests under the guise of "fairness" and "equality." They just want to keep their positions of power. Take away their whores and suddenly they aren't as big on the street as they used to be.
I'm not even going to talk about the amoral artificial persons comment.
The hallmark of corporate america is a bunch of whiney-ass lazy drones complaining because their jobs are being outsourced while refusing to work for Wal-Mart on the same day countless entrepreneuers work thier asses off to make a buck fixing your car, putting a roof on your house, and supplying your local pizza shop with bread.
If you aren't willing to either work your ass off at your mindless job or do something to improve your skills then STFU and stop sucking your union boss's dick.
Has anyone seen the point? Oh there it is, way over your head.
If you want to start a damn union go do it. He said unionizing would hurt him, so he isn't going to join the club. Big farking deal.
And if you think he won't be able to join later then you've completely missed the facts about unions and especially union heads who will bob the knob of anyone nearby who might give them money (i.e. dues) and keep them in power.
Collective barganing is great if the members have the power. But too often in unions that's not the case. The lust for power doesn't end just because you find a big sign with the word "Union" to stand under.
Sounds like a fantasic place to shop. With those kinds of benefits to the consumer they should be able to compete well with home depot, pay the rent, and keep the shop open.
Manufacturing has been in decline in the wealthiest nations for the last century. Mostly because it isn't a skilled trade anymore as we've been able to streamline production processes into simple steps to be accomplished by unskilled workers or automation. And all that "outsourcing" of manufacturing has created cheaper goods for, get this, everyone on the planet.
The US economy is service-driven. We have the brightest and most productive employees in the world. We write software, research and develop new technologies, create new medicines, and streamline processes that the entire world will use.
Globalization is the streamlining of all processes. When goods are cheaper, everyone benefits. Joe has more money to buy other goods/services and becomes more wealthy. Jane can finally afford to live a higher quality of life because even in her poor neighborhood they now have cheaper food or cheaper clothing, etc.
I think Cartman has some good insight when he said, "Hippies, hippies... they want to save the world but all they do is smoke pot, play frisbee [and complain about paying for stuff]!"
Technology has managed to make my life easier. To get the same amount of output requires less effort on my part than it did 2, 4, 6, etc. years ago. However, in those years the expectations of my output have gone up. Stressful doesn't necessarily mean the process is harder. Rather, in my life stress is usually caused by the expecation that more will be done in less time, to such an extent as to push me as far as possible in my capabilities. That's when life becomes stressful: when you live at the edge of your capability.
Thus, the process is getting easier, while life is staying just as difficult, and just as stressful. The insatiability of humankind seems to indicate that this process will continue ad infinium. Technology helps us get more done in less time, but never are we expected to be satisfied with previous levels of output. Were that the case, we could all just work 1 hour a week or so on a massive super-farm to put in our fair share for food and call it a day. Of course then there would be none of the other things that occupy us (because we quit, remember?).
In summary, life is just a difficult as ever, but for each unit of output the process is requiring less work thanks to technology.
Regulation inherently leads to less competition in the long run. Forcing ISPs to share infrastructure leads to localized government monoplies because companies can't afford to offer their lines up to everyone and still keep them up and compete with service. This might have short-term benefits, but long term this will be destructive. You will see local government sponsored monopolies on ISPs.
But, for argument's sake, let's assume you really are a perfectly selfless, righteous individual looking out for your fellow man. The problem is there are still self-absorbed pricks like me in the world, and as long as there are no socialistic system can ever work.
Furthermore, everything you've just spoken of (food, home, leisure time) is a scare resource. That is, there is not enough to go around (demonstrated by the fact that not everyone has as much as they want). As long as a resource is scarce, some will have it, and some will not. In the whole history of civilization there has been one resource that hasn't been scarce: air (neglecting the obvious special circumstances of course).
"But food isn't scarce!" you cry. "Just look at those damn Americans. They have plenty of food!" Indeed we do. And we work for it. And we grow it, and we ship it to the highest bidder. And why do we ship it to the highest bidder? Because we're greedy, self-absorbed pricks who like to be able to provide the most food, shelter and leisure time for our families.
"So send some food to Africa" they say. So we send food. And what do the Africans do? They eat it. Do they grow more? Not usually. Do they try to use the 1st world soil-preservation methods to grow the best food? Not usually. So then what? They starve mostly, until more food comes their way.
So what's the motivation for the guy shipping his food to the hungry? Well in some cases it's the start those people need to get going, and they start farming and growing and bam! an economy emerges (hooray!). But too often the food is just eaten (and any other resource is just used up in the same manner), and the philanthropist is left with requests for more food, with a little less currency to acquire that food with the next time.
Basically in these cases it's coming down to the old "if you teach a man to fish...".
Which all comes back to motivation. Why give to someone else? Because it's the Right thing to do. Okay, I would usually agree with you. But how much should I give? Do I give to the detriment of my own family? If not, then who decides when "enough" is "enough." Who will decide what amount of food, home, and leisure is "fair"? You? Over my self-absorbed dead body.
I think I know what the real problem is. But before we get to that let's talk about what the problem is not.
The problem is not captialism, not Western Culture, not HMOs, not PPOs, not
private health care, not the military, not global warming, and not Microsoft.
The problem is that slashdot readers in general watch too much Star Trek
Do you remember the episode where the people from the past (20th century) show up on the Enterprise? (I think they
were dethawed or something, but I don't remember exactly. It doesn't matter for this discussion anyway). Remember the
cowboy-ish guy, who wants to know where his land is, where his money is, who works for him, etc. And Picard gives him
the lecture about how "we're past all that now" and "it's about bettering yourself, etc.", essentially saying, "Stop
being a greedy bastard."
The problem is that people really believe that can happen. You'd think after 10,000 years of recorded history people
would figure it out, but then you would underestimate hope (that attribute the Architect aptly described as simultaneously
the source of greatest strength and greatest weakness, but I digress).
Systems such as socialism/liberalism/etc. are all predicated on the belief that people will generally lookout for the
good of the common man. And the proponents of these systems constantly tell everyone else that the reason they're poo-pooing
these systems is
because everyone is a bunch a greedy bastards. Well, I have news for you, YOUR ALL GREEDY BASTARDS YOURSELVES.
Face it, humans seek after their own interests first. You do it every day. Sure you go into work and bitch and moan about
how Bush is screwing over the world and the captialist bastards are ruining your life and you're being held down by
The Man, etc, etc. Then you drive home and you cut off the person you're pissed at on the Freeway. You gossip about your
co-worker who's doing a better job than you, you keep the $20 bill you found in the bathroom at the movies, you steal towels
from the hotel, you eat a dozen grapes at the grocery store you never pay for. Tomorrow you'll lie to your boss about why
the report isn't done. You'll spend an hour surfing instead of writing code. And then you'll go home and bitch about how
braces cost $3000 and how you can't afford it, all while sitting on your couch watching Monday Night Football on your
big screen TV. I know you're selfish. And I am too.
Socialism puts all the power into the hands of a few good liars who are able to convince the masses that they will
look out for their good. Simply bull. They'll be the same selfish, greedy, bastards you will be, but now they have permission
to screw over more people.
Free-market captialism is the only system that can handle the selfishness of humanity in a way that gives the most people the most
opportunity. Sure, capitalism will make a few people very rich this year. But you know what? Those people may be the very
poor next year. And the very poor this year might be the very rich next year. Every day is a new opportunity. You're held
back only by your own ambition (or lack thereof).
Do some people need an extra hand in life? Sure. And that's what charities are all about. Groups who get together
specifically because they care about the interests of others. So give to charities. Or start one. But face it, at the
end of the day, we're all selfish greedy bastards looking out for ourselves. No one owes you anything. Now get out of
your holodeck and readjust your worldview.
This is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. Do you really think that a stupid course is going to do anything towards limiting the amount of times users screw up? Half the time people screw up (or more) is because people are lazy. It won't matter if you make someone take a stupid course. They still have to actually do something to prevent problems.
Furthermore, the idea that a license will solve a problem is just plain idiotic. To suggest that "licensing" people prevent problems is a complete lie. While the author says "motorists must obtain licenses to drive", it is noteworthy that nearly 100% of all accidents occur by licensed drivers. Licensing would just be a new way for someone to tax me and a new excuse for people's own laziness.
If you want to solve these kinds of problems, build better software and prosecute dumb-ass virus writers and script kiddies like the little punk-ass bastards they are.
If you enter my house uninvited and threaten me I can shoot your ass dead. Why shouldn't it be the same way when someone breaks into my computer. Prosecute script kiddies.
Great idea until the second month when your local viagra spammer's SEO guy moves all his pages to the top of the search for "Futurama" or "Ninja Turtles."
The Government of the United States of America would like to announce that it has established a Department of Software (DoS). The DoS will work to develop software for the people. What will this mean for you, the American people? Here are some highlights:
Software Developers provided with unlimited supply of non-fat snacks and low-sodium Soda Pop at no cost to Developers
All software to be developed on new Government Operating system: GLOSS (Government Licensed Open Software System). Because GLOSS is still in development, no software can be developed at this time. Estimated time of development is 10 years. Cost: only $100M per development month! What a bargain!
All development will take place at new DoS headquarters in DC. Headquarters building is now beneath the washington monument, which has been wired with 802.11g antenna to provide free internet access for all of DC.
All development will take place using the new Free United Development (FUD) language. This language combines all languages into one. A true celebration of language diversity. It's procedural, modal, object-oriented, iterative, and recursive all at the same time!
To protect the environment the DoS developers will use new state-of-the-art environmentally friendly computers. The keyboards are a bamboo-syrup composite, and the processors are made entirely of nitrogen, cooled to a solid. To further protect the environment no upgrades will be allowed until environmental impact studies can take place
New development at DoS will use the new ISO standard Government Unlimited Model (GUM). The GUM incorporates the opinions and psychological evaluations of each developer to create a project that everyone will enjoy working on, but will not be offended by. Because of their controversial nature, the following areas will be considered "off limits" to DoS programmers: any development for the military, any development for organizations who sell, lease, rent, or offer for free any object that might possibly contain a religious quote or a quote by any founding father of America, anything that can "play mp3s".
Also, the DoS will be instituing a strict policy of comment appropriateness. All developer comments will be checked for offensive words or slogans. The following are strictly off-limits:
Rush Limbaugh
Pro life
Christian
Fox News
Matt Drudge
Republican
Free Enterprise
Corporation
Opportunity
Liberty
Justice
Conservative
Finally, the DoS will adhere to strict OSHA standards: only 500 words may be typed before a mandatory 5 minute break must be taken. Any more typing that this may require a pay raise and/or paid leave.
The Government is exicted to be your new provider of public software! If you have a piece of software you want written, contact a local lobbiest or special interest group. Others need not submit applications.
MMORPGS are about roleplaying. The idea of roleplaying is that your character can be anything, including anything you are not. Allowing people to buy/sell ingame items will inevitably result in the real-world wealthy (or heck, not even wealthy but just those with different monetary priorities) to acquire the best characters/items and thus the power.
Now before I venture any further into the realm of dirty-hippie-liberal, let me say that I am completely behind the idea of economic discrimination (that is, allowing economics to determine the outcome of social order, etc.). But I relish the opportunity to have a "Fresh Start" in a game, not being hindered or helped by my real-world life.
If the gamers want this, then I say let them have it (I'm sure the game COs can levy a nice 5% tax on sales and make a killing). But I would plead with the COs to create servers that disallow such activities so those of us who relish the escapism and real-world separation of the MMORPG can continue to carve out our own paths in game, regardless of any social positions we might have gotten ourselves into.
This is clearly just another attempt to strong-arm everyone into submission. By charging $600 they make it seem like "stealing" linux is a really serious offense.
Now someone just needs to add return of the money to everyone who purchases a copy to the end of a lawsuit.
Re:Why care about being hated?
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I have to disagree on a few points.
Firstly, the media in general in America is not particularly fond of Bush. Granted there are news outlets that are decidedly pro-bush, but more than half of our media takes an anti-bush, anti-republican stance on issues. This war has proven no exception. I will say, however, that the media in that regard is rather sick, as they are eating up war coverage like a cheap chinese buffet. But then, that's the media.
Now, removing all economic issues for a moment, let's say America sat on the side and waited for something to happen, perhaps it was an attack on Tel-Aviv, or Jerusalem, or even a terrorist attack on the American mainland, or even an attack elsewhere, like London or Berlin or Paris or Toronto. The attitude then would be, "We should have seen this coming. We should have done something to stop it."
Well for once we are doing something to keep things from happening before they happen.
I can not argue in any way that a conflict is backed by pure motives. I am certain that because of the nature of people, this one is not either. However, I do not think that just because a part is spoiled you throw out the entire idea. You can't sacrifice saftey because you don't like who might happen benefit economically from it.
And FWIW I concur that international sentiement does not seem to be anti-Americans, but rather anti-American-policy.
Re:Why care about being hated?
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
I respectfully disagree.
The scripture reads, "Thou shalt not murder." as opposed to "Thou shalt not kill." Scripture gives many examples of the responsibilities of governments to defend the innocent and protect the people. It is not at all outside the scripture to engage in war for this purpose. That is not to discount the seriousness of war, nor glorify the death of innocent people in the course of seeking a solution to a great problem.
If America will not liberate the Iraqi people, who are killed by the thousands by their leader and the rewards for their work taken to build bigger palaces and bigger weapons, who will? Certainly not the French, nor the Germans.
Why care about being hated?
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
If someone could explain to me in a rational, reasoned argument why it matters that other people hate America, I might have respect for these people's arguments.
Why is anyone concerned with what the rest of the world thinks of us? Do we have reason to believe that they're opinions are based on some large dataset of information from which they can draw an objective opinion? Or perhaps (say it isn't so!) these people are victims of propoganda and lies (oh the horror!)?
It seems to me that the more that people are able to hear why America is doing the things it is doing then perhaps people will not harbor the same hatred.
This does not take into account simple religious hatred, which you cannot combat by complacency or capitulation. Religious hatred is a deep-seeded cultural ideology that you will not remove from a people without significant internal reform.
I for one am thankful that we are finally being led by a man with PRINCIPLES. A man with principles that haven't changed and continue to be the basis for his actions. I find it far more attractive to be led by someone who believes something and lives for and towards it than someone who believes what everyone tells him to believe on that day.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond. I guess I have too much time.
The "fact" that it's rare for an employee to not be a mindless drone working at the same task is true. What you miss is the fact that those drones are the people we refer to as blue-collar workers. I don't care if your brother is a geneticist for the CDC doing research on HIV transmission rates for people who have sex with infected monkeys. If someone has a job in which they do the same mindless task over and over again and can be easily replaced they are blue collar. It might be a nylon collar instead of a cotton one. Or maybe even polyester or rayon. But dammit it's a freaking blue collar. And no, it isn't cyan.
Unions, on the other hand, are gigolos. Their job is to pimp their members to special interests under the guise of "fairness" and "equality." They just want to keep their positions of power. Take away their whores and suddenly they aren't as big on the street as they used to be.
I'm not even going to talk about the amoral artificial persons comment.
The hallmark of corporate america is a bunch of whiney-ass lazy drones complaining because their jobs are being outsourced while refusing to work for Wal-Mart on the same day countless entrepreneuers work thier asses off to make a buck fixing your car, putting a roof on your house, and supplying your local pizza shop with bread.
If you aren't willing to either work your ass off at your mindless job or do something to improve your skills then STFU and stop sucking your union boss's dick.
Has anyone seen the point? Oh there it is, way over your head.
If you want to start a damn union go do it. He said unionizing would hurt him, so he isn't going to join the club. Big farking deal.
And if you think he won't be able to join later then you've completely missed the facts about unions and especially union heads who will bob the knob of anyone nearby who might give them money (i.e. dues) and keep them in power.
Collective barganing is great if the members have the power. But too often in unions that's not the case. The lust for power doesn't end just because you find a big sign with the word "Union" to stand under.
And then you get modded up +1 insighful. More like +5 slashdot-whore-who-hates-everyone-and-can't-argue- to-save-his-life.
Hehe, kinda like this post.
Exactly! Hear's to cheaper goods and services!
Sounds like a fantasic place to shop. With those kinds of benefits to the consumer they should be able to compete well with home depot, pay the rent, and keep the shop open.
Sounds like a great store. And if all you've said is true they should be able to stay in business no problem.
The US economy is service-driven. We have the brightest and most productive employees in the world. We write software, research and develop new technologies, create new medicines, and streamline processes that the entire world will use.
Globalization is the streamlining of all processes. When goods are cheaper, everyone benefits. Joe has more money to buy other goods/services and becomes more wealthy. Jane can finally afford to live a higher quality of life because even in her poor neighborhood they now have cheaper food or cheaper clothing, etc.
Do you actually think that if the closest retail outlet is 1.5 hours away no one will open up a store closer to take the market? Bullshit.
I also heard that "Drone UAVs will be used to provide live video if necessary of any and all actions of said individuals."
I also heard these people are first in line for new jobs with the TSA
Damn. Need to remember to turn off that script.
Hurry! Buy CHEAP viagra NOW!!! Supplies are limited and this is our special INTERNET ONLY pricing!!!!!
asd;$@%;lasfj43164a;kja;ldsjf
To be removed from this list please send an email to this address with the string "LKJA245JL" in the subject line
I think Cartman has some good insight when he said, "Hippies, hippies... they want to save the world but all they do is smoke pot, play frisbee [and complain about paying for stuff]!"
Technology has managed to make my life easier. To get the same amount of output requires less effort on my part than it did 2, 4, 6, etc. years ago. However, in those years the expectations of my output have gone up. Stressful doesn't necessarily mean the process is harder. Rather, in my life stress is usually caused by the expecation that more will be done in less time, to such an extent as to push me as far as possible in my capabilities. That's when life becomes stressful: when you live at the edge of your capability.
Thus, the process is getting easier, while life is staying just as difficult, and just as stressful. The insatiability of humankind seems to indicate that this process will continue ad infinium. Technology helps us get more done in less time, but never are we expected to be satisfied with previous levels of output. Were that the case, we could all just work 1 hour a week or so on a massive super-farm to put in our fair share for food and call it a day. Of course then there would be none of the other things that occupy us (because we quit, remember?).
In summary, life is just a difficult as ever, but for each unit of output the process is requiring less work thanks to technology.
Regulation != Choice
-------
Just leaving some blood in the water.
Well I don't believe you.
But, for argument's sake, let's assume you really are a perfectly selfless, righteous individual looking out for your fellow man. The problem is there are still self-absorbed pricks like me in the world, and as long as there are no socialistic system can ever work.
Furthermore, everything you've just spoken of (food, home, leisure time) is a scare resource. That is, there is not enough to go around (demonstrated by the fact that not everyone has as much as they want). As long as a resource is scarce, some will have it, and some will not. In the whole history of civilization there has been one resource that hasn't been scarce: air (neglecting the obvious special circumstances of course).
"But food isn't scarce!" you cry. "Just look at those damn Americans. They have plenty of food!" Indeed we do. And we work for it. And we grow it, and we ship it to the highest bidder. And why do we ship it to the highest bidder? Because we're greedy, self-absorbed pricks who like to be able to provide the most food, shelter and leisure time for our families.
"So send some food to Africa" they say. So we send food. And what do the Africans do? They eat it. Do they grow more? Not usually. Do they try to use the 1st world soil-preservation methods to grow the best food? Not usually. So then what? They starve mostly, until more food comes their way.
So what's the motivation for the guy shipping his food to the hungry? Well in some cases it's the start those people need to get going, and they start farming and growing and bam! an economy emerges (hooray!). But too often the food is just eaten (and any other resource is just used up in the same manner), and the philanthropist is left with requests for more food, with a little less currency to acquire that food with the next time.
Basically in these cases it's coming down to the old "if you teach a man to fish...".
Which all comes back to motivation. Why give to someone else? Because it's the Right thing to do. Okay, I would usually agree with you. But how much should I give? Do I give to the detriment of my own family? If not, then who decides when "enough" is "enough." Who will decide what amount of food, home, and leisure is "fair"? You? Over my self-absorbed dead body.
Okay I'm stupid.
What I meant to say was, YOU'RE ALL GREEDY BASTARDS YOURSELVES.
The rest of this post is just extra text to get around the lameness filter encountered because of the all caps text. Please ignore.
I think I know what the real problem is. But before we get to that let's talk about what the problem is not.
The problem is not captialism, not Western Culture, not HMOs, not PPOs, not private health care, not the military, not global warming, and not Microsoft.
The problem is that slashdot readers in general watch too much Star Trek
Do you remember the episode where the people from the past (20th century) show up on the Enterprise? (I think they were dethawed or something, but I don't remember exactly. It doesn't matter for this discussion anyway). Remember the cowboy-ish guy, who wants to know where his land is, where his money is, who works for him, etc. And Picard gives him the lecture about how "we're past all that now" and "it's about bettering yourself, etc.", essentially saying, "Stop being a greedy bastard."
The problem is that people really believe that can happen. You'd think after 10,000 years of recorded history people would figure it out, but then you would underestimate hope (that attribute the Architect aptly described as simultaneously the source of greatest strength and greatest weakness, but I digress).
Systems such as socialism/liberalism/etc. are all predicated on the belief that people will generally lookout for the good of the common man. And the proponents of these systems constantly tell everyone else that the reason they're poo-pooing these systems is because everyone is a bunch a greedy bastards. Well, I have news for you, YOUR ALL GREEDY BASTARDS YOURSELVES.
Face it, humans seek after their own interests first. You do it every day. Sure you go into work and bitch and moan about how Bush is screwing over the world and the captialist bastards are ruining your life and you're being held down by The Man, etc, etc. Then you drive home and you cut off the person you're pissed at on the Freeway. You gossip about your co-worker who's doing a better job than you, you keep the $20 bill you found in the bathroom at the movies, you steal towels from the hotel, you eat a dozen grapes at the grocery store you never pay for. Tomorrow you'll lie to your boss about why the report isn't done. You'll spend an hour surfing instead of writing code. And then you'll go home and bitch about how braces cost $3000 and how you can't afford it, all while sitting on your couch watching Monday Night Football on your big screen TV. I know you're selfish. And I am too.
Socialism puts all the power into the hands of a few good liars who are able to convince the masses that they will look out for their good. Simply bull. They'll be the same selfish, greedy, bastards you will be, but now they have permission to screw over more people.
Free-market captialism is the only system that can handle the selfishness of humanity in a way that gives the most people the most opportunity. Sure, capitalism will make a few people very rich this year. But you know what? Those people may be the very poor next year. And the very poor this year might be the very rich next year. Every day is a new opportunity. You're held back only by your own ambition (or lack thereof).
Do some people need an extra hand in life? Sure. And that's what charities are all about. Groups who get together specifically because they care about the interests of others. So give to charities. Or start one. But face it, at the end of the day, we're all selfish greedy bastards looking out for ourselves. No one owes you anything. Now get out of your holodeck and readjust your worldview.
Furthermore, the idea that a license will solve a problem is just plain idiotic. To suggest that "licensing" people prevent problems is a complete lie. While the author says "motorists must obtain licenses to drive", it is noteworthy that nearly 100% of all accidents occur by licensed drivers. Licensing would just be a new way for someone to tax me and a new excuse for people's own laziness.
If you want to solve these kinds of problems, build better software and prosecute dumb-ass virus writers and script kiddies like the little punk-ass bastards they are.
If you enter my house uninvited and threaten me I can shoot your ass dead. Why shouldn't it be the same way when someone breaks into my computer. Prosecute script kiddies.
Great idea until the second month when your local viagra spammer's SEO guy moves all his pages to the top of the search for "Futurama" or "Ninja Turtles."
The Government of the United States of America would like to announce that it has established a Department of Software (DoS). The DoS will work to develop software for the people. What will this mean for you, the American people? Here are some highlights:
The Government is exicted to be your new provider of public software! If you have a piece of software you want written, contact a local lobbiest or special interest group. Others need not submit applications.
Now before I venture any further into the realm of dirty-hippie-liberal, let me say that I am completely behind the idea of economic discrimination (that is, allowing economics to determine the outcome of social order, etc.). But I relish the opportunity to have a "Fresh Start" in a game, not being hindered or helped by my real-world life.
If the gamers want this, then I say let them have it (I'm sure the game COs can levy a nice 5% tax on sales and make a killing). But I would plead with the COs to create servers that disallow such activities so those of us who relish the escapism and real-world separation of the MMORPG can continue to carve out our own paths in game, regardless of any social positions we might have gotten ourselves into.
This is clearly just another attempt to strong-arm everyone into submission. By charging $600 they make it seem like "stealing" linux is a really serious offense.
Now someone just needs to add return of the money to everyone who purchases a copy to the end of a lawsuit.
I have to disagree on a few points.
Firstly, the media in general in America is not particularly fond of Bush. Granted there are news outlets that are decidedly pro-bush, but more than half of our media takes an anti-bush, anti-republican stance on issues. This war has proven no exception. I will say, however, that the media in that regard is rather sick, as they are eating up war coverage like a cheap chinese buffet. But then, that's the media.
Now, removing all economic issues for a moment, let's say America sat on the side and waited for something to happen, perhaps it was an attack on Tel-Aviv, or Jerusalem, or even a terrorist attack on the American mainland, or even an attack elsewhere, like London or Berlin or Paris or Toronto. The attitude then would be, "We should have seen this coming. We should have done something to stop it."
Well for once we are doing something to keep things from happening before they happen.
I can not argue in any way that a conflict is backed by pure motives. I am certain that because of the nature of people, this one is not either. However, I do not think that just because a part is spoiled you throw out the entire idea. You can't sacrifice saftey because you don't like who might happen benefit economically from it.
And FWIW I concur that international sentiement does not seem to be anti-Americans, but rather anti-American-policy.
I respectfully disagree.
The scripture reads, "Thou shalt not murder." as opposed to "Thou shalt not kill." Scripture gives many examples of the responsibilities of governments to defend the innocent and protect the people. It is not at all outside the scripture to engage in war for this purpose. That is not to discount the seriousness of war, nor glorify the death of innocent people in the course of seeking a solution to a great problem.
If America will not liberate the Iraqi people, who are killed by the thousands by their leader and the rewards for their work taken to build bigger palaces and bigger weapons, who will? Certainly not the French, nor the Germans.
If someone could explain to me in a rational, reasoned argument why it matters that other people hate America, I might have respect for these people's arguments.
Why is anyone concerned with what the rest of the world thinks of us? Do we have reason to believe that they're opinions are based on some large dataset of information from which they can draw an objective opinion? Or perhaps (say it isn't so!) these people are victims of propoganda and lies (oh the horror!)?
It seems to me that the more that people are able to hear why America is doing the things it is doing then perhaps people will not harbor the same hatred.
This does not take into account simple religious hatred, which you cannot combat by complacency or capitulation. Religious hatred is a deep-seeded cultural ideology that you will not remove from a people without significant internal reform.
I for one am thankful that we are finally being led by a man with PRINCIPLES. A man with principles that haven't changed and continue to be the basis for his actions. I find it far more attractive to be led by someone who believes something and lives for and towards it than someone who believes what everyone tells him to believe on that day.
I am VERY proud to be an American.