The logical conclusion of not funding libraries is that the government shouldn't fund anything? I fail to see that. My argument is that the government should fund somethings but not others. I put libraries in the non-funding category. Armies I put into the fund category.
Since I would have a problem having my money spent on some books, and you consider it an imposition to have me decide what books should be bought, why not just end the problem at its source. Why should the government be buying books anyhow? Public really is a misnomer, these purchases are by the government. You buy the books you want, and I'll buy the books I want. Please don't force me to buy your books for you.
Of course there are less significant figures...
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 1
If you determine a persons scientific significance by seeing how often they are cited of course we are declining since the 1500's.
First off there are more scientists publishing now to cite from. If before there were 3 guys publishing and now there are 1000 you are going to have to do a lot more to get noticed out of that 1000 versus the 3.
Second, science has become much more specialized. Da Vinci did a lot of things across many fields. Now you may spend an entire career in one field maybe working on just one project. Nobody will cite you then.
Third, about 500 years ago lots of new fields and new trains of thought popped up. Newton is going to be cited by lots and lots of people some of whom maybe smarter, more inventive and better educated but decide to pursue a career in a field not founded by them so they will not be cited as much.
The idea of an inheritance tax is supremely unfair. Were not taxes already taken out of the money when it was first earned? Now when a person dies and they want to give their kids the money, its none of our business how much money! The money is then taxed again? How is that fair? So long as a person makes their money legally then it is none of our business how much he makes. Just because he makes a lot of money does that mean he uses the roads more often the I do?
Another thing, the letter seems to imply that because Gore is pro-choice that women must therefore be on his side. This is simply not the case. According to a poll conducted by NOW (The National Organization for Women) 52% of women describe themselves as pro-life. This is an issue that is always assumed to be drawn along gender lines, but its not! The evidence shows that its not.
If I was to do a poll based upon the buttons that I see then I would think that Nader has overwhelming support by women. I've seen several women on my campus wearing Nader/LaDuke buttons.
I do not support Nader because I disagree with him on a lot of issues. But if I did agree with him more than I do with Gore I would vote him. In many ways are sacrificing your voice if you vote against your beliefs for the sake of winning immediately. Look, if Nader gets more than 5% he has serious potential to grow. If Gore or Bush are elected very similar paths will be taken with regards to the very weighty issues like Foreign Policy and increasing the welfare states' money handed out. Whereas Buchannon and Nader have pledge to pull all of our troops out of Germany, Italy, South Korea, Japan, etc. Plus B & N have radical new ideas for recreating our economy. Personally I don't like their ideas but if you do and you want your opinion paid attention to then for heavens sake, vote for who you agree with most! Anything else may help you win immediately but you will lose in the long run.
My greatest concern is not whether or not children could become misinformed about sex, but it is the potential for adverse psychological effects. I have not seen any studies on this so I am speaking in theory only of course. But certainly there could be some trauma for an 8 year old seeing a woman having sex with a horse or witnessing some orgy. According to the the psych class I just took children up to the age of 10 have difficulty fully distinguishing fantasy from reality. Similarly if children weep at Bambi's mother dying in some cartoon then what effect would pictures of real life people in erotic acts have? I am not sure but I would be willing to bet it would not have a positive effect.
I agree with your revised point then about the broad hand of censorware, however perhaps it would be better to have adult and children sections of the computer labs the same way they divide up the books. There is already a lot of censorship going on in libraries with what books are allowed to be bought and on what shelves they should go on, yet a reasonable division of who can access what would appear to leave most library patrons quite satisfied. In the library that I use, magazines that have more mature content are put on the top shelf so that there is at least a user restriction by height. The problem is that this issue is one to be decided by a very large group and I think that most parents would prefer to err on the side of too much censorship rather than too little. I am sure that there are many kids that could be trusted to browse the internet 'appropriately,' however because there would probably be a significant number of users that would spend there time looking at porn, it is reasonable to expect such restrictions. The same way that it would be nice that all libraries stayed open 24 hours a day and you could check yourself out, the potential for abuse is fairly great and must be moderated.
Yes but trust and respect goes with age and wisdom. Would you trust a twelve year old to drive a car? Or with a loaded gun? Even if you thought that child was a good kid he/she still has the judgement of a twelve year old. With the typical twelve year old having little wisdom to temper there choices they are bound to make decisions that could have an adverse effect in the long run that only adults who have gone through being twelve would be easy to spot. With your logic any time a child wants something you would have to say yes because they would just ask you if you didn't trust them, and you would cave.
I dislike Microsoft as much as the next user but do we really need rulings like this? Aren't Linux and the other open OS's rising on their own merits? I suspect that regardless of Microsoft's practices a year from now just about anywhere you go when you buy a computer you will be asked what OS('s) would you like with it.
If we were to start killing those children that were born different wouldn't that hinder evolution? And how 'imperfect' need a child be? Would the so-called shadow forms of autism that supposedly many nerds suffer from be okay? If you are born female in China that is considered imperfect. Think of the time I waste trying to convince others that my ethical ideas are correct, what a waste of my precious time. It would save me a lot of time if I just killed those who disagreed with me. -Matt
Suggestions and ideas can be quite dangerous. Suppose you were walking down the street and a woman ran out screaming that you raped her 9 year old daughter. Would a crowd not rise up and attack you, at the very least 'rough you up?' What about the suggestion or idea that whatever group you belong to, Atheist, Christian, Muslim, etc, should be exterminated. After all its your previous groups beliefs that are holding back society.
Slashdot Mirror
The logical conclusion of not funding libraries is that the government shouldn't fund anything? I fail to see that. My argument is that the government should fund somethings but not others. I put libraries in the non-funding category. Armies I put into the fund category.
Since I would have a problem having my money spent on some books, and you consider it an imposition to have me decide what books should be bought, why not just end the problem at its source. Why should the government be buying books anyhow? Public really is a misnomer, these purchases are by the government. You buy the books you want, and I'll buy the books I want. Please don't force me to buy your books for you.
If you determine a persons scientific significance by seeing how often they are cited of course we are declining since the 1500's.
First off there are more scientists publishing now to cite from. If before there were 3 guys publishing and now there are 1000 you are going to have to do a lot more to get noticed out of that 1000 versus the 3.
Second, science has become much more specialized. Da Vinci did a lot of things across many fields. Now you may spend an entire career in one field maybe working on just one project. Nobody will cite you then.
Third, about 500 years ago lots of new fields and new trains of thought popped up. Newton is going to be cited by lots and lots of people some of whom maybe smarter, more inventive and better educated but decide to pursue a career in a field not founded by them so they will not be cited as much.
www.stratfor.com
The idea of an inheritance tax is supremely unfair. Were not taxes already taken out of the money when it was first earned? Now when a person dies and they want to give their kids the money, its none of our business how much money! The money is then taxed again? How is that fair? So long as a person makes their money legally then it is none of our business how much he makes. Just because he makes a lot of money does that mean he uses the roads more often the I do?
Another thing, the letter seems to imply that because Gore is pro-choice that women must therefore be on his side. This is simply not the case. According to a poll conducted by NOW (The National Organization for Women) 52% of women describe themselves as pro-life. This is an issue that is always assumed to be drawn along gender lines, but its not! The evidence shows that its not.
If I was to do a poll based upon the buttons that I see then I would think that Nader has overwhelming support by women. I've seen several women on my campus wearing Nader/LaDuke buttons.
I do not support Nader because I disagree with him on a lot of issues. But if I did agree with him more than I do with Gore I would vote him. In many ways are sacrificing your voice if you vote against your beliefs for the sake of winning immediately. Look, if Nader gets more than 5% he has serious potential to grow. If Gore or Bush are elected very similar paths will be taken with regards to the very weighty issues like Foreign Policy and increasing the welfare states' money handed out. Whereas Buchannon and Nader have pledge to pull all of our troops out of Germany, Italy, South Korea, Japan, etc. Plus B & N have radical new ideas for recreating our economy. Personally I don't like their ideas but if you do and you want your opinion paid attention to then for heavens sake, vote for who you agree with most! Anything else may help you win immediately but you will lose in the long run.
My greatest concern is not whether or not children could become misinformed about sex, but it is the potential for adverse psychological effects. I have not seen any studies on this so I am speaking in theory only of course. But certainly there could be some trauma for an 8 year old seeing a woman having sex with a horse or witnessing some orgy. According to the the psych class I just took children up to the age of 10 have difficulty fully distinguishing fantasy from reality. Similarly if children weep at Bambi's mother dying in some cartoon then what effect would pictures of real life people in erotic acts have? I am not sure but I would be willing to bet it would not have a positive effect.
I agree with your revised point then about the broad hand of censorware, however perhaps it would be better to have adult and children sections of the computer labs the same way they divide up the books. There is already a lot of censorship going on in libraries with what books are allowed to be bought and on what shelves they should go on, yet a reasonable division of who can access what would appear to leave most library patrons quite satisfied. In the library that I use, magazines that have more mature content are put on the top shelf so that there is at least a user restriction by height. The problem is that this issue is one to be decided by a very large group and I think that most parents would prefer to err on the side of too much censorship rather than too little. I am sure that there are many kids that could be trusted to browse the internet 'appropriately,' however because there would probably be a significant number of users that would spend there time looking at porn, it is reasonable to expect such restrictions. The same way that it would be nice that all libraries stayed open 24 hours a day and you could check yourself out, the potential for abuse is fairly great and must be moderated.
Yes but trust and respect goes with age and wisdom. Would you trust a twelve year old to drive a car? Or with a loaded gun? Even if you thought that child was a good kid he/she still has the judgement of a twelve year old. With the typical twelve year old having little wisdom to temper there choices they are bound to make decisions that could have an adverse effect in the long run that only adults who have gone through being twelve would be easy to spot. With your logic any time a child wants something you would have to say yes because they would just ask you if you didn't trust them, and you would cave.
I dislike Microsoft as much as the next user but do we really need rulings like this? Aren't Linux and the other open OS's rising on their own merits? I suspect that regardless of Microsoft's practices a year from now just about anywhere you go when you buy a computer you will be asked what OS('s) would you like with it.
If we were to start killing those children that were born different wouldn't that hinder evolution? And how 'imperfect' need a child be? Would the so-called shadow forms of autism that supposedly many nerds suffer from be okay? If you are born female in China that is considered imperfect. Think of the time I waste trying to convince others that my ethical ideas are correct, what a waste of my precious time. It would save me a lot of time if I just killed those who disagreed with me.
-Matt
Suggestions and ideas can be quite dangerous. Suppose you were walking down the street and a woman ran out screaming that you raped her 9 year old daughter. Would a crowd not rise up and attack you, at the very least 'rough you up?' What about the suggestion or idea that whatever group you belong to, Atheist, Christian, Muslim, etc, should be exterminated. After all its your previous groups beliefs that are holding back society.
All evil actions began as evil ideas.
Any idea if USB CD-RW's will be able to work under 2.4?