Oh right, there is no objective truth, just a "will to power". Words have no stable meaning; it all depends on what is your political agenda.
Uh wait... isn't that self-refuting?
The alternative: TERRORism - as many have pointed out here - involves intentionally targetting non-combatants in order to frighten them into sucumbing to your political goals.
If you can't distinguish that from what King, Ghandi, Israel, the U.S. in Afghanistan, and Samuel Adams (who attacked SOLDIERS) did, then, you're right, there is no point in having this discussion.
It is interesting to see Slashdot playing slow big media dinosaur to the fast light weblog mammals. This article already has an ESR response...
And what's more, Reynolds (the instapundit), points to the ESR response on his own blog.
If, indeed, Code Red cost $8.75billion (and I'd like to see the analysis that arrived at that figure), that cost was incurred in the process of using Outlook. Presumably, the consumer derived some benefit from using Outlook, at least in their judgement they did.
In any product liability lawsuit that does not result in human death or injury, one would have to account for all aspects of the economic equation.
> Those licenses exert more than just trivial > rights over _my_ property if I accept them.
And are they forcing you to accept them? Committing fraud in order to trick you into accepting them? Do you have a fundamental right to use your computer _with_ _their_ _software_ as you wish? How did their software come to exist? Did it emerge spontaneously from random bits?
And what is more, the tone of several of the posts here suggests that some slashdotters are genuinely troubled by the prospect of losing access to Windows.
Even if this is a rhetorical gambit by MS, it is an effective one, in that it reveals the crux of the issue: Windows (and almost MS software) is private property. In any just society, the owner of property has the right to do with it as they see fit (with the obvious "consistency" constraint that it may not - by force or fraud - prevent others from excercising the same right with _their_ property).
I would submit that this is a profoundly moral position, in that it defends a fundamental human right.
So that I would be forced to pay for the promotion of ideas which I abhor. This is no different in principle from you coming to my house with a gun and making me email "I love Ted Kennedy" to my address book.
Jefferson called this 'tyrannical and evil' and he was right.
I trust you are equally disturbed by polls that advocate eliminating jobs (or industries) in favor of spotted owls (you get the idea).
Or does your politics determine your reaction to the polling methodology?
What we must do
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The most important responsibility of government is to protect the lives,
liberty, and property of its citizens. Our government has failed in this
regard.
We have failed by appeasing Islamic fanatics for 50 years, beginning
with the acceptance of the expropriation of oil wells which were made possible
by American science, technology, and engineering. We have continued this
appeasement by responding to previous acts of terror with "surgical strikes"
and "diplomatic pressure". We have acted as an "honest broker" between a
mostly-free and democratic nation - Israel - and the blood-thirsty thugs who
seek its destruction.
If there were any honor in their hearts, those that perpetrated this
appeasement would resign their offices and issue formal apologies to the
loved ones of the victims of this latest attack.
What America must do now, simply, is to stop the appeasement. We must not be
distracted by efforts to make it "more difficult" for terrorists to accomplish
their objectives. Human intelligence, improved airport security, and strategic
defence should all be pursued in time, when the current emergency is over.
In 1944, would there have been any point in making it "more difficult" for Hitler
to invade Britain?
What we must do now is to destroy the leaders of the organizations which seek to
destroy us, and to render incapicitated the governmental and military
institutions of the states which bring them aid and comfort. We can begin with
Afghanistan, then proceed with Iran, Sudan, and Yemen, assuming those regimes are
not toppled by their own people when they witness the destruction we inflict upon
the Taliban. Iraq, Syria, and Libya would be next.
Innocent civilians will be killed in this effort, as will American
servicemen. That is the nature of war. But, we did not start this war. We
just let it go on too long.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh right, there is no objective truth, just a "will to power". Words have no stable meaning; it all depends on what is your political agenda.
... isn't that self-refuting?
Uh wait
The alternative: TERRORism - as many have pointed out here - involves intentionally targetting non-combatants in order to frighten them into sucumbing to your political goals.
If you can't distinguish that from what King, Ghandi, Israel, the U.S. in Afghanistan, and Samuel Adams (who attacked SOLDIERS) did, then, you're right, there is no point in having this discussion.
It is interesting to see Slashdot playing slow big media dinosaur to the fast light weblog mammals. This article already has an ESR response ...
And what's more, Reynolds (the instapundit), points to the ESR response on his own blog.
Insightful, huh?
How about some basic economics:
Value = Benefit - Cost.
If, indeed, Code Red cost $8.75billion (and I'd like to see the analysis that arrived at that figure), that cost was incurred in the process of using Outlook. Presumably, the consumer derived some benefit from using Outlook, at least in their judgement they did.
In any product liability lawsuit that does not result in human death or injury, one would have to account for all aspects of the economic equation.
> Those licenses exert more than just trivial
> rights over _my_ property if I accept them.
And are they forcing you to accept them? Committing fraud in order to trick you into accepting them? Do you have a fundamental right to use your computer _with_ _their_ _software_ as you wish? How did their software come to exist? Did it emerge spontaneously from random bits?
And what is more, the tone of several of the posts here suggests that some slashdotters are genuinely troubled by the prospect of losing access to Windows.
Even if this is a rhetorical gambit by MS, it is an effective one, in that it reveals the crux of the issue: Windows (and almost MS software) is private property. In any just society, the owner of property has the right to do with it as they see fit (with the obvious "consistency" constraint that it may not - by force or fraud - prevent others from excercising the same right with _their_ property).
I would submit that this is a profoundly moral position, in that it defends a fundamental human right.
"make all elections 100% publicly funded ..."
So that I would be forced to pay for the promotion of ideas which I abhor. This is no different in principle from you coming to my house with a gun and making me email "I love Ted Kennedy" to my address book.
Jefferson called this 'tyrannical and evil' and he was right.
Very disturbing.
I trust you are equally disturbed by polls that advocate eliminating jobs (or industries) in favor of spotted owls (you get the idea).
Or does your politics determine your reaction to the polling methodology?
The most important responsibility of government is to protect the lives,
liberty, and property of its citizens. Our government has failed in this
regard.
We have failed by appeasing Islamic fanatics for 50 years, beginning
with the acceptance of the expropriation of oil wells which were made possible
by American science, technology, and engineering. We have continued this
appeasement by responding to previous acts of terror with "surgical strikes"
and "diplomatic pressure". We have acted as an "honest broker" between a
mostly-free and democratic nation - Israel - and the blood-thirsty thugs who
seek its destruction.
If there were any honor in their hearts, those that perpetrated this
appeasement would resign their offices and issue formal apologies to the
loved ones of the victims of this latest attack.
What America must do now, simply, is to stop the appeasement. We must not be
distracted by efforts to make it "more difficult" for terrorists to accomplish
their objectives. Human intelligence, improved airport security, and strategic
defence should all be pursued in time, when the current emergency is over.
In 1944, would there have been any point in making it "more difficult" for Hitler
to invade Britain?
What we must do now is to destroy the leaders of the organizations which seek to
destroy us, and to render incapicitated the governmental and military
institutions of the states which bring them aid and comfort. We can begin with
Afghanistan, then proceed with Iran, Sudan, and Yemen, assuming those regimes are
not toppled by their own people when they witness the destruction we inflict upon
the Taliban. Iraq, Syria, and Libya would be next.
Innocent civilians will be killed in this effort, as will American
servicemen. That is the nature of war. But, we did not start this war. We
just let it go on too long.