Other than being cool what does it add? What advantage does it provide over the 2D screen? Is it really just more pleasurable to use and that's it? I guess that's as good of a reason as any to want it but I have a hard time believing it's going to be all that impressive.
I only use FB for people I talk to and see frequently. I wouldn't add such a person as you described. If I haven't met you in person, or I don't remember you, you're not getting added. If we used to be friends and we don't talk anymore, you're not getting added; and if you already are I'll remove you after a year or so of no contact.
I would never allow anyone I work for (or with) to be friends with me on Facebook, and if I haven't added you all you can see is my name, picture, and a link to message me and request to be added as a friend.
The USSR fell due to a lack of democracy, not a lack of capitalism. The government's rampant militancy and imperialist tendencies and complete disregard for their own people caused the fall. Socialism was not to blame, tyranny was--and they are not the same.
I was clearly talking about libertarianism as is practiced by the self titled "Libertarians" (not libertarian socialists, or "left" libertarians) in the US, specifically those of the Libertarian Party (lp.org).
What I said stands as true and demonstrable. I'm a socialist myself, economically. Socially I could be described as a libertarian but it's primarily an economic debate.
You fail to understand libertarians and their world view. The world you described WOULD be a utopia to them. Those people WOULD starve to death, or barely survive in grinding poverty. And that's exactly what they think should happen to them.
The only way I will respect a libertarian is if they admit that such a society is not only acceptable to them, but that it's the goal and only possible conclusion of their philosophy in practice. Those people SHOULD be poor, should suffer, should balance on the verge of starvation and malnutrition because that makes society as a whole stronger for the "weak" to die off. If a libertarian told me that (they all at least accept it, it's a requirement of libertarianism that you allow people to fail and suffer if they can't compete) I would respect them for at least being intellectually honest with me and themselves. The ones who won't come out and say it are either lying sociopaths without compassion or are themselves deluded. In no other horrible doctrine is the germ cell of selfishness and dehumanization taken so far as is done in libertarian and objectivist philosophy. It is the great enemy of our time, of all time.
We had our own nukes, and more of them. Even communists want to stay alive at the end of the day and that's why there will never be a symmetrical nuclear war between nation states. Asymmetrical warfare involving nuclear weapons is a credible threat, something like a terrorist group making a crude nuclear device or dirty bomb. Counter-intuitively, thousands of nuclear warhead tipped ICBMs are actually less dangerous as long as they are under the control of a nation state that wants to persist and has a nuclear capable enemy.
In a sense, the U.S. won the Cold War by out-producing the Soviets.
This is a myth perpetuated by some on the right and in the military. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own mismanagement, incompetence, imperialism, and paranoia (sound like another country you know of?). The US did very little to actually hasten the collapse except for exist as a scapegoat they could blame all their problems on without actually addressing any internal issues. Moreover, the USSR was never a credible threat to US national security but it made political sense to pretend like they were.
Which is why I finally jailbroke my iPhone. Tethering for no additional fee, and the fact that I'm on one of the old truly unlimited plans means I now have a pretty good 3G hotspot with me wherever I go for no extra cost. I use 10-15GB a month and have never heard anything from AT&T.
You should have said Russia, maybe Romania, which were the historical sources of oil for the Wehrmacht - although the former never successfully contributed very much; the Germans found the oilfields destroyed when they got to the caucuses, never got to the richest areas, and weren't able to stay long enough to get production back up to speed.
A small part of that 600k Euros was from me, so I am pissed that the money hasn't gotten to where I intended it to go. I don't want my money back, I want it to get to Notch, and I want the development of Minecraft to continue.
The insurance industry running what should be a social service as a for-profit business is responsible for the price of health care. Government run health care, with all the inefficiency and problems will always be cheaper because it doesn't have to show a rising profit to shareholders every quarter; which is currently done by denying people needed care and charging more for the things they do cover.
If you give them your credit card info, you're not actually going to get anything. On the off chance they do send you some drugs, they are going to be fake. It might cause damage if people forgo real medical treatment because they think the placebos are real, but I would be very surprised if there was anything dangerous or even effective in them. All of that assumes someone would even get something from the spammer, which is unlikely at best.
Embarrassing, or downright illegal. People aren't going to go to the authorities and say, "I was trying to buy some morphine off this guy on the internet and my stuff never arrived."
I get mostly narcotic pain killer spam, and if I thought there was any chance I would actually receive the product after paying for it I might give them some business. They're either going to not ship you anything and just take your money, or send you sugar pills made to look like whatever they're selling. I doubt the antibiotics are real, but who knows what they could be. Probably bulk bought tylenol repackaged - if they send you anything at all which I doubt they would.
I rarely reply to my own posts, but In case my first statement requires clarification, I am serious about copyright being worse. Very few people in society will be affected by child pornography, fewer still negatively affected. Those that were victims of abuse have suffered a terrible crime at the hands of their abusers, but nearly EVERYONE in society is impacted in a negative way by copyright law. The difference is in sensationalism. It's a lot easier to get people angry about something to do with children, or sex, or both than it is to get people angry about the every day violation of their right to their own culture and freedom of expression.
Copyright is more harmful to society than child pornography. Yeah, I said it.
Also, I have a feeling the RIAA doesn't give two shits if some kids get molested and photographed, as long as a song they have the copyright to isn't in the background of the video. Lumping together CP with copyright infringement is just a way to get support and alienate anyone who opposes copyright - since if you're against filtering of copyrighted files you must also be for child porn.
But they are still having sex outside of marriage, which is considered adultery. Only sex INSIDE of marriage, to your wife/husband, isn't adultery. Nearly all other forms of sexual activity are adultery even if neither party is married. I'm not a Christian, but I have friends who are and this is the stance of at least two - somewhat moderate I'm told - churches in the area.
I'm pretty sure that the biblical definition of adultery included all sex (or sexual activity) outside of marriage. If not found in the bible, that interpretation was quickly adopted by nearly every Christian denomination and is now the de facto standard by which adultery is measured.
You are the closest I've come to repopulating my foes list since I cleared it a few years ago. I'm actually more concerned that adherents to the suicide pact of libertarianism still shock me when I come here.
Socialism simply means that the means of production is owned by the workers themselves, not a separate class of capitalist that benefits from the labor of others because they own the land and means of production. Economic freedom is only one type of freedom, and not even the most important type. Socialism makes an unusual (from a capitalist point of view) distinction between private property (means of production) and personal property (the things you own like your car, clothes, etc). Only private property is collectivized and given not to the state, but to the workers to administer through a democratic process (the "state"). Liberty is not just a matter of economics. "Economic" freedom is a tool to serve humanity, humanity does not exist to serve economics. There is nothing sacred about the ability to make and sell things under a capitalist system, and if the same amount of greater benefit can be derived from a different system then that's what should be followed. And strictly speaking, even under a socialist system of production it is still possible to make and exchange things, but production is tailored to meet human needs and not what will enrich the capital holding class regardless of the costs to the worker's health, peace, the environment, civil rights, etc.
You mentioned the Soviet Union which makes me think you considered them socialist in more than name. The revolution in Russia certainly began with socialist intentions, and they maintained nominal adherence to a few key socialist ideas but it was never more than a dictatorship in practice.
Sweden or most European countries are definitely more socialist than the US is, and I think they are a good model for a transition period before making more radical changes. Throughout the history of human society we have become more cooperative and collectivized, not less. There have been fits and starts of other forms of government but equilibrium will not be reached until there is a system that fixes the fundamental problems of inequality present in the current capitalist system. 95% of the population should not work for the benefit of the top 5%.
Slashdot Mirror
Other than being cool what does it add? What advantage does it provide over the 2D screen? Is it really just more pleasurable to use and that's it? I guess that's as good of a reason as any to want it but I have a hard time believing it's going to be all that impressive.
I only use FB for people I talk to and see frequently. I wouldn't add such a person as you described. If I haven't met you in person, or I don't remember you, you're not getting added. If we used to be friends and we don't talk anymore, you're not getting added; and if you already are I'll remove you after a year or so of no contact.
I would never allow anyone I work for (or with) to be friends with me on Facebook, and if I haven't added you all you can see is my name, picture, and a link to message me and request to be added as a friend.
And what if they can't find anything because all the info is private?
I stopped eating meat and dairy and this problem went away.
The USSR fell due to a lack of democracy, not a lack of capitalism. The government's rampant militancy and imperialist tendencies and complete disregard for their own people caused the fall. Socialism was not to blame, tyranny was--and they are not the same.
I was clearly talking about libertarianism as is practiced by the self titled "Libertarians" (not libertarian socialists, or "left" libertarians) in the US, specifically those of the Libertarian Party (lp.org).
What I said stands as true and demonstrable. I'm a socialist myself, economically. Socially I could be described as a libertarian but it's primarily an economic debate.
You fail to understand libertarians and their world view. The world you described WOULD be a utopia to them. Those people WOULD starve to death, or barely survive in grinding poverty. And that's exactly what they think should happen to them.
The only way I will respect a libertarian is if they admit that such a society is not only acceptable to them, but that it's the goal and only possible conclusion of their philosophy in practice. Those people SHOULD be poor, should suffer, should balance on the verge of starvation and malnutrition because that makes society as a whole stronger for the "weak" to die off. If a libertarian told me that (they all at least accept it, it's a requirement of libertarianism that you allow people to fail and suffer if they can't compete) I would respect them for at least being intellectually honest with me and themselves. The ones who won't come out and say it are either lying sociopaths without compassion or are themselves deluded. In no other horrible doctrine is the germ cell of selfishness and dehumanization taken so far as is done in libertarian and objectivist philosophy. It is the great enemy of our time, of all time.
We had our own nukes, and more of them. Even communists want to stay alive at the end of the day and that's why there will never be a symmetrical nuclear war between nation states. Asymmetrical warfare involving nuclear weapons is a credible threat, something like a terrorist group making a crude nuclear device or dirty bomb. Counter-intuitively, thousands of nuclear warhead tipped ICBMs are actually less dangerous as long as they are under the control of a nation state that wants to persist and has a nuclear capable enemy.
In a sense, the U.S. won the Cold War by out-producing the Soviets.
This is a myth perpetuated by some on the right and in the military. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own mismanagement, incompetence, imperialism, and paranoia (sound like another country you know of?). The US did very little to actually hasten the collapse except for exist as a scapegoat they could blame all their problems on without actually addressing any internal issues. Moreover, the USSR was never a credible threat to US national security but it made political sense to pretend like they were.
Which is why I finally jailbroke my iPhone. Tethering for no additional fee, and the fact that I'm on one of the old truly unlimited plans means I now have a pretty good 3G hotspot with me wherever I go for no extra cost. I use 10-15GB a month and have never heard anything from AT&T.
You should have said Russia, maybe Romania, which were the historical sources of oil for the Wehrmacht - although the former never successfully contributed very much; the Germans found the oilfields destroyed when they got to the caucuses, never got to the richest areas, and weren't able to stay long enough to get production back up to speed.
A small part of that 600k Euros was from me, so I am pissed that the money hasn't gotten to where I intended it to go. I don't want my money back, I want it to get to Notch, and I want the development of Minecraft to continue.
The insurance industry running what should be a social service as a for-profit business is responsible for the price of health care. Government run health care, with all the inefficiency and problems will always be cheaper because it doesn't have to show a rising profit to shareholders every quarter; which is currently done by denying people needed care and charging more for the things they do cover.
If you give them your credit card info, you're not actually going to get anything. On the off chance they do send you some drugs, they are going to be fake. It might cause damage if people forgo real medical treatment because they think the placebos are real, but I would be very surprised if there was anything dangerous or even effective in them. All of that assumes someone would even get something from the spammer, which is unlikely at best.
Embarrassing, or downright illegal. People aren't going to go to the authorities and say, "I was trying to buy some morphine off this guy on the internet and my stuff never arrived."
I get mostly narcotic pain killer spam, and if I thought there was any chance I would actually receive the product after paying for it I might give them some business. They're either going to not ship you anything and just take your money, or send you sugar pills made to look like whatever they're selling. I doubt the antibiotics are real, but who knows what they could be. Probably bulk bought tylenol repackaged - if they send you anything at all which I doubt they would.
We also receive material from space on a regular basis in the form of meteorites. I don't know if that balances us out or if there's a net gain/loss.
I rarely reply to my own posts, but In case my first statement requires clarification, I am serious about copyright being worse. Very few people in society will be affected by child pornography, fewer still negatively affected. Those that were victims of abuse have suffered a terrible crime at the hands of their abusers, but nearly EVERYONE in society is impacted in a negative way by copyright law. The difference is in sensationalism. It's a lot easier to get people angry about something to do with children, or sex, or both than it is to get people angry about the every day violation of their right to their own culture and freedom of expression.
Copyright is more harmful to society than child pornography. Yeah, I said it.
Also, I have a feeling the RIAA doesn't give two shits if some kids get molested and photographed, as long as a song they have the copyright to isn't in the background of the video. Lumping together CP with copyright infringement is just a way to get support and alienate anyone who opposes copyright - since if you're against filtering of copyrighted files you must also be for child porn.
But they are still having sex outside of marriage, which is considered adultery. Only sex INSIDE of marriage, to your wife/husband, isn't adultery. Nearly all other forms of sexual activity are adultery even if neither party is married. I'm not a Christian, but I have friends who are and this is the stance of at least two - somewhat moderate I'm told - churches in the area.
I think it would be difficult to find a Christian denomination that wouldn't consider oral sex, for example, as counting as adultery.
I'm pretty sure that the biblical definition of adultery included all sex (or sexual activity) outside of marriage. If not found in the bible, that interpretation was quickly adopted by nearly every Christian denomination and is now the de facto standard by which adultery is measured.
You are the closest I've come to repopulating my foes list since I cleared it a few years ago. I'm actually more concerned that adherents to the suicide pact of libertarianism still shock me when I come here.
Socialism simply means that the means of production is owned by the workers themselves, not a separate class of capitalist that benefits from the labor of others because they own the land and means of production. Economic freedom is only one type of freedom, and not even the most important type. Socialism makes an unusual (from a capitalist point of view) distinction between private property (means of production) and personal property (the things you own like your car, clothes, etc). Only private property is collectivized and given not to the state, but to the workers to administer through a democratic process (the "state"). Liberty is not just a matter of economics. "Economic" freedom is a tool to serve humanity, humanity does not exist to serve economics. There is nothing sacred about the ability to make and sell things under a capitalist system, and if the same amount of greater benefit can be derived from a different system then that's what should be followed. And strictly speaking, even under a socialist system of production it is still possible to make and exchange things, but production is tailored to meet human needs and not what will enrich the capital holding class regardless of the costs to the worker's health, peace, the environment, civil rights, etc.
You mentioned the Soviet Union which makes me think you considered them socialist in more than name. The revolution in Russia certainly began with socialist intentions, and they maintained nominal adherence to a few key socialist ideas but it was never more than a dictatorship in practice.
Sweden or most European countries are definitely more socialist than the US is, and I think they are a good model for a transition period before making more radical changes. Throughout the history of human society we have become more cooperative and collectivized, not less. There have been fits and starts of other forms of government but equilibrium will not be reached until there is a system that fixes the fundamental problems of inequality present in the current capitalist system. 95% of the population should not work for the benefit of the top 5%.