Collective property has been tried before and it didn't work... people got lazy because there was no motivation.
I think those that work on FOSS programs disprove your theory. I know that I'd be more movtivated to help write the Linux kernel or OOo than I would be to write IE8. In fact, I'd love to work for free on any FOSS program. The only problem is that I need to be paid enough for food, clothing, and shelter. If those were taken care of, I'd work for free.
Come on, now! Its not price fixing when 3 gas stations right next to each other have the exact same price.
In all honesty, there is one area nearby that has daily price wars. Prices will often fluctuate up and down every 2 or 3 hours. Most other places just collude and get on with their day.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Are you classifying discrimination against gays as victimless, and thus shouldn't be a crime?
No. I'm saying that homosexuality and homosexual activity should be unrestricted because those things do not hurt anyone else. They may offend certain people, but to be offended is a distant second to personal freedom.
Deadbeat parents, on the other hand, can and should be discriminated against due to the fact that they are not paying child support. Non-payment of child support deprives others (the children) of food, clothing, etc. This is a place where the crime of "deadbeatery" has a victim, which is the child(ren) of the deadbeat parents.
you cross a line when you engage in that activity, and then require me to acknowledge that behavior as normal and correct
I don't require you to acknowlege that that behavior is normal and correct. I require you to tolerate it.
I am vehemently 100% anti-drug. I don't even take tylenol or drink caffeine. I do understand that others do not share my views, therefore I do not want to have all drugs banned. I do not like, but tolerate those people who wish to use pain-killers, caffeine, alcohol, cocaine, etc.
In the strictest sense everything is a moral issue and, logically, everything is a moral judgement.
Of course, you knew that I meant to let people live as they choose, without any undue restrictions by the state. Of course, theft and murder are due restrictions because the crimes have victims. No people are being injured because John and James want to have sex. In short, victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes.
Part of this discussion hinges on the word "marriage". Most people equivocate when using it (they use state marriage and the religious ceremony to mean the same thing when they are obviously not).
I believe Michael Badnarik's approach to the situation was dead on.
1) There is no such thing as state sanctioned marriage. There are only civil unions. 2) Any two people may get a civil union (excluding minors) 3) If you care to go through a ceremony at a church due to religious beliefs, then so be it. But that, in itself, is not enough "joined", you need to have a state sanctioned civil union as well.
This allows individual churches to decide who they will allow to marry, and allows the GLBTs to have equal rights.
If I'm not mistaken, all of these state constitutions can be reworked with a 50%+1 share of the vote. That kind of mob mentality scares me. I don't have a problem with local issues being decided by majority vote, but when it comes to the state constituion, there should be more protection from mob rule.
Its like the fact that we could have the 1st amendment repealed with 66% of the vote and 75% of the states in agreement. Things like that should be set in stone.
why don't real christians band together and have fuckers like him excommunicated and arrested?
My mom is a liberal Catholic, and I asked her this same question. She thinks it is the "it doesn't bother me therefore it isn't a problem" syndrome.
The "pro-family" right is every organized and energetic. I think it has to do with the fact that their men are running the show. Those for equal rights for GLBTs know that no amount of protesting will change the minds of Bush & Co. (do you recall the protests for the Iraqi war?), so the ones who actually do care are content to sit on their asses because they know its a lost cause until at least the midterm elections and probably until 2008.
As far as being "Christian" is concerned, I wouldn't use such broad language. Read about the dogmatic differences between southern Baptists and Unitarians and you'll see what I mean.
Just because a group of people are given the shaft because of race/religion/creed/etc., doesn't mean they won't try to do the same thing to someone else.
Case in point, Israel. They were nearly wiped of the face of the planet, but they're doing a great job of discriminating against the Palestinians. Disclaimer: I think both Israel and the PLO share equal responsibility in the current matter. Both are dead wrong.
It seems to me that making other people follow your moral code is a relatively new way to make yourself feel powerful. When they outlawed slavery, Jim Crow was there to make sure that African Americans would still know who was boss. This seems to be a logical extension of those types of ideas. Since sodomy laws around the country have been struck down, the gay-bashers need to try to restrict the freedoms of the GLBT crowd as much as possible. Often times they'll use public health or some other non-issue as a reason to restrict homosexual behavior, but I can see right though that (just as segregationists used states' rights to keep segregation legal).
Of course, I've never understood this obsession to make others live in accordance with another's morals. Perhaps someone could help me out with that one.
Ken's followers could no longer 'boycott' the use of Microsoft's products than they could 'boycott' the use of oxygen.
I believe that in a heartbeat. Unless this preacher is able to get his followers to switch to Macs or spend a few months learning to run GNU/Linux, then he has no real clout on this issue.
There could hardly be a greater condemnation of the inability of the supporters of patents to see beyond the ends of their noses.
You're forgetting that these people think they should be able to live off royalties for patenting the for loop. As far as they are concerned, the future ends when they die. And as we all well know, you can't take your money with you...
What you fail to understand is that Choicepoint may be sued into oblivion by people whose data has been compromised.
I was speaking to so-called traditional market forces. That is, there is no way to get them to stop unless, as you said, they were sued into oblivion by people whose data has been compromised.
As far your point concerned, I can only guess that they didn't take that into account as the average Joe probably can't afford a legal battle. That or he doesn't know/care that they have his information. IIRC, the only reason we knew about Choicepoint was because California made it manditory to notify people if their data had been compromised. That is, you cannot sue if you didn't know.
I'd bet that nearly every customer of Choicepoint is wondering if their data is safe.
It went way over your head.
Choicepoint is little more than a data aggregator. Choicepoint's customers are people who buy the information they collect on people like you. You are not a customer of Choicepoint even though your information is what they are selling. They have no incentive to keep your data safe because you aren't their customer.
Every time a comment like the parent is posted, somehow it gets modded up as insightful and gathers a bunch of flames before smarter people mod it down properly.
Its a good thing/. has "smarter" (that is, people who agree with you) people to mod comments down that you don't like. Perhaps we should give you and your friends full-time mod status so you can enlighten us with you all-encompassing knowledge of everything.
If you're pissed about moderation, there is something called meta-moderation. Perhaps you might do that sometime.
A comment on one of those stories considered that a lot of this data theft/loss has to do with the fact that many companies (Choicepoint) are collecting data on people who are not their customers. There is no incentive for those businesses to keep the data safe.
As far as customer data loss, it could be any number of factors. I think a lot of it has to do with lax security policy at some of these businesses. Perhaps after this round of scares, others will step up their security.
A computer is a physical item that can be used for many different "good" purposes. Learning, for example, is one of them. Today, I learned that Darth_brooks is an ethical relativist and spelling troll.
The OMGWTFBBQSword is nothing more than an interpretation of electric signals which can only be used for one thing, entertainment. The grandparent made the point that an imaginary item in an imaginary world is seemingly more important than keeping someone alive. This concept, I would hope, most people would find disguisting. Then again, there are some on/. that are of the "my minimal gains in comfort are more important than someone's life" school of thought.
Well, Braga isn't too bad. But I think it was his direction that made the Enterprise set so poorly lit... something about it being "dark and spooky". Shit, when they go into "tactical alert", you can hardly see anyone's face.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple solution:
1) Buy cut-rate tunes off allofmp3.com
2) Give money saved directly to artist(s) you feel deserve more money.
(2) can be done by simply writing a check to the band or directly to each individual member.
Collective property has been tried before and it didn't work... people got lazy because there was no motivation.
I think those that work on FOSS programs disprove your theory. I know that I'd be more movtivated to help write the Linux kernel or OOo than I would be to write IE8. In fact, I'd love to work for free on any FOSS program. The only problem is that I need to be paid enough for food, clothing, and shelter. If those were taken care of, I'd work for free.
(Is a sarcasm tag really necessary?)
Well it was if you had just stopped at that first sentence.
Come on, now! Its not price fixing when 3 gas stations right next to each other have the exact same price.
In all honesty, there is one area nearby that has daily price wars. Prices will often fluctuate up and down every 2 or 3 hours. Most other places just collude and get on with their day.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
-- Adam Smith
I think it is relevant to this topic.
Sony is now backpedaling on a recent CEO's slip of the tongue about a recently reported iTunes-like movie-download service.
... why would Sony want to be the first big player in a market that has massive demand?
Really
You'd better give that the proper attribution it deserves!
Are you classifying discrimination against gays as victimless, and thus shouldn't be a crime?
No. I'm saying that homosexuality and homosexual activity should be unrestricted because those things do not hurt anyone else. They may offend certain people, but to be offended is a distant second to personal freedom.
Deadbeat parents, on the other hand, can and should be discriminated against due to the fact that they are not paying child support. Non-payment of child support deprives others (the children) of food, clothing, etc. This is a place where the crime of "deadbeatery" has a victim, which is the child(ren) of the deadbeat parents.
you cross a line when you engage in that activity, and then require me to acknowledge that behavior as normal and correct
I don't require you to acknowlege that that behavior is normal and correct. I require you to tolerate it.
I am vehemently 100% anti-drug. I don't even take tylenol or drink caffeine. I do understand that others do not share my views, therefore I do not want to have all drugs banned. I do not like, but tolerate those people who wish to use pain-killers, caffeine, alcohol, cocaine, etc.
Hence democracy scares me. Yes ... I know.
In the strictest sense everything is a moral issue and, logically, everything is a moral judgement.
Of course, you knew that I meant to let people live as they choose, without any undue restrictions by the state. Of course, theft and murder are due restrictions because the crimes have victims. No people are being injured because John and James want to have sex. In short, victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes.
Part of this discussion hinges on the word "marriage". Most people equivocate when using it (they use state marriage and the religious ceremony to mean the same thing when they are obviously not).
I believe Michael Badnarik's approach to the situation was dead on.
1) There is no such thing as state sanctioned marriage. There are only civil unions.
2) Any two people may get a civil union (excluding minors)
3) If you care to go through a ceremony at a church due to religious beliefs, then so be it. But that, in itself, is not enough "joined", you need to have a state sanctioned civil union as well.
This allows individual churches to decide who they will allow to marry, and allows the GLBTs to have equal rights.
If I'm not mistaken, all of these state constitutions can be reworked with a 50%+1 share of the vote. That kind of mob mentality scares me. I don't have a problem with local issues being decided by majority vote, but when it comes to the state constituion, there should be more protection from mob rule.
Its like the fact that we could have the 1st amendment repealed with 66% of the vote and 75% of the states in agreement. Things like that should be set in stone.
why don't real christians band together and have fuckers like him excommunicated and arrested?
My mom is a liberal Catholic, and I asked her this same question. She thinks it is the "it doesn't bother me therefore it isn't a problem" syndrome.
The "pro-family" right is every organized and energetic. I think it has to do with the fact that their men are running the show. Those for equal rights for GLBTs know that no amount of protesting will change the minds of Bush & Co. (do you recall the protests for the Iraqi war?), so the ones who actually do care are content to sit on their asses because they know its a lost cause until at least the midterm elections and probably until 2008.
As far as being "Christian" is concerned, I wouldn't use such broad language. Read about the dogmatic differences between southern Baptists and Unitarians and you'll see what I mean.
Just because a group of people are given the shaft because of race/religion/creed/etc., doesn't mean they won't try to do the same thing to someone else.
Case in point, Israel. They were nearly wiped of the face of the planet, but they're doing a great job of discriminating against the Palestinians. Disclaimer: I think both Israel and the PLO share equal responsibility in the current matter. Both are dead wrong.
It seems to me that making other people follow your moral code is a relatively new way to make yourself feel powerful. When they outlawed slavery, Jim Crow was there to make sure that African Americans would still know who was boss. This seems to be a logical extension of those types of ideas. Since sodomy laws around the country have been struck down, the gay-bashers need to try to restrict the freedoms of the GLBT crowd as much as possible. Often times they'll use public health or some other non-issue as a reason to restrict homosexual behavior, but I can see right though that (just as segregationists used states' rights to keep segregation legal).
Of course, I've never understood this obsession to make others live in accordance with another's morals. Perhaps someone could help me out with that one.
Keep going:
Ken's followers could no longer 'boycott' the use of Microsoft's products than they could 'boycott' the use of oxygen.
I believe that in a heartbeat. Unless this preacher is able to get his followers to switch to Macs or spend a few months learning to run GNU/Linux, then he has no real clout on this issue.
There could hardly be a greater condemnation of the inability of the supporters of patents to see beyond the ends of their noses.
...
You're forgetting that these people think they should be able to live off royalties for patenting the for loop. As far as they are concerned, the future ends when they die. And as we all well know, you can't take your money with you
What you fail to understand is that Choicepoint may be sued into oblivion by people whose data has been compromised.
I was speaking to so-called traditional market forces. That is, there is no way to get them to stop unless, as you said, they were sued into oblivion by people whose data has been compromised.
As far your point concerned, I can only guess that they didn't take that into account as the average Joe probably can't afford a legal battle. That or he doesn't know/care that they have his information. IIRC, the only reason we knew about Choicepoint was because California made it manditory to notify people if their data had been compromised. That is, you cannot sue if you didn't know.
Its just that kind of thinking that keeps independents and minor parties from winning.
I'd bet that nearly every customer of Choicepoint is wondering if their data is safe.
It went way over your head.
Choicepoint is little more than a data aggregator. Choicepoint's customers are people who buy the information they collect on people like you. You are not a customer of Choicepoint even though your information is what they are selling. They have no incentive to keep your data safe because you aren't their customer.
Every time a comment like the parent is posted, somehow it gets modded up as insightful and gathers a bunch of flames before smarter people mod it down properly.
/. has "smarter" (that is, people who agree with you) people to mod comments down that you don't like. Perhaps we should give you and your friends full-time mod status so you can enlighten us with you all-encompassing knowledge of everything.
Its a good thing
If you're pissed about moderation, there is something called meta-moderation. Perhaps you might do that sometime.
A comment on one of those stories considered that a lot of this data theft/loss has to do with the fact that many companies (Choicepoint) are collecting data on people who are not their customers. There is no incentive for those businesses to keep the data safe.
As far as customer data loss, it could be any number of factors. I think a lot of it has to do with lax security policy at some of these businesses. Perhaps after this round of scares, others will step up their security.
You've missed the point.
/. that are of the "my minimal gains in comfort are more important than someone's life" school of thought.
A computer is a physical item that can be used for many different "good" purposes. Learning, for example, is one of them. Today, I learned that Darth_brooks is an ethical relativist and spelling troll.
The OMGWTFBBQSword is nothing more than an interpretation of electric signals which can only be used for one thing, entertainment. The grandparent made the point that an imaginary item in an imaginary world is seemingly more important than keeping someone alive. This concept, I would hope, most people would find disguisting. Then again, there are some on
I think that has to be the most insightful comment I've ever read on /.
You sir, are now a friend.
I wouldn't have a problem with that ;-)
... something about it being "dark and spooky". Shit, when they go into "tactical alert", you can hardly see anyone's face.
Well, Braga isn't too bad. But I think it was his direction that made the Enterprise set so poorly lit