Actually, I'd encourage you to give the Christian Science Monitor a look. It is a well respected newspaper, certainly in the same league as major daily papers such as the NY Times and Washington Post, and has been around for about as long. Personally I think it beats the hell out of cnn.com and the like. You don't have to be Christian to like it. But judge for yourself.
To do this, he invokes a psychoanalyst and psychoanalytic principles and attempts to connect them to the Internet.
And quantum physics. Don't forget quantum physics, and the deep connection between quantum physics and psychoanalysis. Well the connection is readily apparent if you ingest the same substances that the author does but he is not sharing.
Most people are proud of who they are and have no need to hide.
Not everyone is proud of everything they do (and have ever done). For example I have posted some dumb-ass things on Slashdot that I regret. Those will never come back to bite me in a job interview though because they're not attached to the same name that is on my resume.
I believe that the intended use case of Facebook/Google+, to post a lot of updates and photos under one's real name, is a fundamentally bad idea. The reason it's a bad idea is that if I make the slightest mistake and upload something I regret, I can't redact that later. The Internet never forgives and never forgets. So I only use my real name online in a professional or semi-professional context (tech forums and the like).
I notice you use an alias yourself, unless I'm mistaken and you actually are named 'msobkow' on your birth certificate. So I think even you must admit you saw some value in anonymity, at least when you created your Slashdot account.
Yes, but the point is they shouldn't be. Arrest is no indicator of guilt, just as lack of arrest is no indicator of innocence. Releasing the record of a wrongful arrest is character assassination and indeed could be a powerful weapon in the hands of a corrupt official. What I would suggest is that we lobby our state legislatures to keep arrest records sealed until an indictment (or guilty plea) is recorded. It's quite outrageous to see the presumption of innocence trampled in this way.
No, this is the "American Freedom" that went away after the government realized that the public's fear of terrorism was an excellent pretext for a power grab. We (in America) used to be a lot more free than we are now. It's very sad.
There is more to economic activity than trading. There's production. Production always creates wealth, but consumption does not always destroy wealth, because some goods are durable. Therefore the amount of wealth increases when the rate of production of durable goods exceeds the rate at which durable goods become worn out or obsolete. Ergo, the economy is not a zero-sum game.
Your failure to understand a post in context does not make it stupid. But to answer the question -- the nonsense is the proposition that in order for the producer to benefit (from a piece of legislation) the consumer must be harmed. I seriously doubt Batist actually made that claim though I've never read the man's work; I think the OP was trying to invoke Batist's name as support for his totally daft conclusion. Comparative advantage is a well-known and clear counter-example to refute the statement, so in fact I maintain my post was both relevant and refuted the OP, though it did so implicitly because I did not want to take the time to explain comparative advantage in my own words.
As to the socialism thing, I never claimed not to be socialist, I only wanted to avoid being flamed by supply-siders who couldn't see that I was basically arguing their position. So I ended up getting flamed by a libertarian (I presume), which is fine, because at least you have the sense to know when someone is actually advocating an opposing point of view. By your definition I'm probably a socialist, but by your definition the United States has been a socialist country since at least the Civil War.
He meant "to help the producer" -through legislation-, if you quote with the context it's very obvious...
If and when trade is mutually beneficial, then it does not follow that helping the producer (through legislation) is necessarily harmful to the consumer.
In fact by generating more trade, more income, and more tax revenue, the subsidy might very well pay for itself. And before anyone accuses me of socialism, this is essentially the supply-side argument the U.S. Republican Party has been advocating for the past 40 years, that giving tax breaks to the producers increases economic activity and boosts the net wealth of everyone. Analyzing how effective that has been in practice is left as an exercise for the reader.
It takes a bit more thinking to explain that the only way to help that producer is by hurting all consumers.
Nonsense. Read up on the basic economic principle of comparative advantage and then write us a 500 word essay on how economics are not a zero-sum game.
Or it could go the way of the railroads and the Internet, which were heavily subsidized initially so they could get started, but were self-sustaining once they reached a certain scale.
Government's main role is to protect the people's rights, but the philosophy of liberty says that people cannot delegate authority to another agent that they don't have to begin with. So, if you don't have the right to use violence against others to take away their possessions, neither can you delegate that ability to the government.
So if nine people want to have government and a tenth person doesn't, does the tenth person have the right to deny the other nine people what they want? Because that's what tax evasion is -- on a large enough scale it makes government impossible. I readily agree that the tenth person has the right to opt out, and that's exactly what I mean by "move to Somalia." No one is forcing you to receive the benefits of government, you can leave its jurisdiction any time you want. What the body politic will not tolerate is subversion of its self-protective mechanism, including the revenue system that supports that mechanism.
I can't imagine why I am feeding you, troll, but here it goes: for the sake of argument, let's suppose you are raping and pillaging the countryside. A group of citizens decide to use violence to impose their will that you stop. Who has the moral high ground there? (answer: not you)
The establishment and maintenance of social order is just an extension of that over-simplified example. Some level of governance is necessary to protect your safety and your property. If you don't believe that, move to Somalia.
Since you have not moved to Somalia, I conclude from that you're not really an anarchist, you're just a freeloader who hates the idea of having to pay for the social order from which you so greatly benefit.
When we speak of the military as a lumbering bureaucracy, let's bear in mind there are also smart, mobile, very adaptable teams within that huge organization: the special forces. If the military has any sense at all then cyber-warriors will be organized and commanded more like special forces than like an infantry division.
This mentality of separating "regular" users from "business users" makes a couple of flawed assumptions:
1) The populations are distinct. This is demonstrably false, as I belong to both groups. Probably 95-99% of "enterprise" users are "regular" users in their free time.
2) For those who do belong to both populations, it assumes a willingness to use separate browsers at work and outside of work. I question whether a non-technical user is going to accept the cognitive load of choosing and configuring (and installing plug-ins for and updating) a browser different from the one he or she is required to use at the office.
It's always disturbing to hear a software company say, "here's a population of users, and they don't matter to us."
This is an interesting ruling to me in that it is more about the balance of power between the three branches of government than it is about the subject of the lawsuit, greenhouse gases in this case.
It has become fairly common for activists to seek court orders to impose their pet issues rather than go through the incredibly slow sausage-making process of legislative reform. This ruling is a smackdown from the Supreme Court saying "no, you six states cannot get a judge to rewrite environmental policy for you. If you want a policy change, you have to do it the old-fashioned way, by getting Congress to tell the EPA what to do. That's why you states have representatives in Congress in the first place."
Regardless of how one feels about CO2 emissions regulation, I think it is none the less a Good Thing that SCOTUS has blocked off this back channel to overriding the normal policy-making process. It's not a sweeping ruling but it is a precedent. Also interesting is that here we have a clear case of the judiciary ruling to limit the power of... the judiciary. Kind of. How often do you see something like that?
In the U.S., methanol isn't widely used as a primary fuel so I don't consider it an "alternative" in that sense. Ethanol is used as a fuel additive to oxygenate gasoline, a replacement for MTBE. Congress rejected a law to indemnify petroleum companies from liability for health effects of MBTE contamination so the companies switched to ethanol c. 2005. So, while some may blow smoke about ethanol as a "green" fuel, the real reason it has caught on is that it's considered less dangerous to human health than the previous fuel additive. (You could look at it as the fuel companies covering their asses, or Congress making a good public-health decision for a change, depending on whether you regard the glass as half empty or half full.)
I was under the impression that a contract cannot take away rights guaranteed by the constitution. Am I wrong?
Yes, you're wrong. The Constitution defines and limits the powers of government. It doesn't proclaim some kind of universal rights that private entities (citizens and businesses) have to respect.
On the other hand, no one can enforce a contract that you don't sign.
IANAL.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting how the title exposes the biases of the potential readership, isn't it?
Actually, I'd encourage you to give the Christian Science Monitor a look. It is a well respected newspaper, certainly in the same league as major daily papers such as the NY Times and Washington Post, and has been around for about as long. Personally I think it beats the hell out of cnn.com and the like. You don't have to be Christian to like it. But judge for yourself.
Several things
And quantum physics. Don't forget quantum physics, and the deep connection between quantum physics and psychoanalysis. Well the connection is readily apparent if you ingest the same substances that the author does but he is not sharing.
Not everyone is proud of everything they do (and have ever done). For example I have posted some dumb-ass things on Slashdot that I regret. Those will never come back to bite me in a job interview though because they're not attached to the same name that is on my resume.
I believe that the intended use case of Facebook/Google+, to post a lot of updates and photos under one's real name, is a fundamentally bad idea. The reason it's a bad idea is that if I make the slightest mistake and upload something I regret, I can't redact that later. The Internet never forgives and never forgets. So I only use my real name online in a professional or semi-professional context (tech forums and the like).
I notice you use an alias yourself, unless I'm mistaken and you actually are named 'msobkow' on your birth certificate. So I think even you must admit you saw some value in anonymity, at least when you created your Slashdot account.
Mod parent up. This is an excellent point; my comment was not that well thought out.
Yes, but the point is they shouldn't be. Arrest is no indicator of guilt, just as lack of arrest is no indicator of innocence. Releasing the record of a wrongful arrest is character assassination and indeed could be a powerful weapon in the hands of a corrupt official. What I would suggest is that we lobby our state legislatures to keep arrest records sealed until an indictment (or guilty plea) is recorded. It's quite outrageous to see the presumption of innocence trampled in this way.
No, this is the "American Freedom" that went away after the government realized that the public's fear of terrorism was an excellent pretext for a power grab. We (in America) used to be a lot more free than we are now. It's very sad.
There is more to economic activity than trading. There's production. Production always creates wealth, but consumption does not always destroy wealth, because some goods are durable. Therefore the amount of wealth increases when the rate of production of durable goods exceeds the rate at which durable goods become worn out or obsolete. Ergo, the economy is not a zero-sum game.
Your failure to understand a post in context does not make it stupid. But to answer the question -- the nonsense is the proposition that in order for the producer to benefit (from a piece of legislation) the consumer must be harmed. I seriously doubt Batist actually made that claim though I've never read the man's work; I think the OP was trying to invoke Batist's name as support for his totally daft conclusion. Comparative advantage is a well-known and clear counter-example to refute the statement, so in fact I maintain my post was both relevant and refuted the OP, though it did so implicitly because I did not want to take the time to explain comparative advantage in my own words.
As to the socialism thing, I never claimed not to be socialist, I only wanted to avoid being flamed by supply-siders who couldn't see that I was basically arguing their position. So I ended up getting flamed by a libertarian (I presume), which is fine, because at least you have the sense to know when someone is actually advocating an opposing point of view. By your definition I'm probably a socialist, but by your definition the United States has been a socialist country since at least the Civil War.
I certainly agree with you there. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If and when trade is mutually beneficial, then it does not follow that helping the producer (through legislation) is necessarily harmful to the consumer.
In fact by generating more trade, more income, and more tax revenue, the subsidy might very well pay for itself. And before anyone accuses me of socialism, this is essentially the supply-side argument the U.S. Republican Party has been advocating for the past 40 years, that giving tax breaks to the producers increases economic activity and boosts the net wealth of everyone. Analyzing how effective that has been in practice is left as an exercise for the reader.
Nonsense. Read up on the basic economic principle of comparative advantage and then write us a 500 word essay on how economics are not a zero-sum game.
Or it could go the way of the railroads and the Internet, which were heavily subsidized initially so they could get started, but were self-sustaining once they reached a certain scale.
Well the key thing is that they made it not "quick."
So if nine people want to have government and a tenth person doesn't, does the tenth person have the right to deny the other nine people what they want? Because that's what tax evasion is -- on a large enough scale it makes government impossible. I readily agree that the tenth person has the right to opt out, and that's exactly what I mean by "move to Somalia." No one is forcing you to receive the benefits of government, you can leave its jurisdiction any time you want. What the body politic will not tolerate is subversion of its self-protective mechanism, including the revenue system that supports that mechanism.
I can't imagine why I am feeding you, troll, but here it goes: for the sake of argument, let's suppose you are raping and pillaging the countryside. A group of citizens decide to use violence to impose their will that you stop. Who has the moral high ground there? (answer: not you)
The establishment and maintenance of social order is just an extension of that over-simplified example. Some level of governance is necessary to protect your safety and your property. If you don't believe that, move to Somalia.
Since you have not moved to Somalia, I conclude from that you're not really an anarchist, you're just a freeloader who hates the idea of having to pay for the social order from which you so greatly benefit.
When we speak of the military as a lumbering bureaucracy, let's bear in mind there are also smart, mobile, very adaptable teams within that huge organization: the special forces. If the military has any sense at all then cyber-warriors will be organized and commanded more like special forces than like an infantry division.
Daniel "Dee" Snider would not be referred to as "her."
But Tipper Gore would. I think the key to understanding the sentence is knowing what "eviscerate" means.
This mentality of separating "regular" users from "business users" makes a couple of flawed assumptions:
It's always disturbing to hear a software company say, "here's a population of users, and they don't matter to us."
So my question is, since the original material is in the public domain (copyright expired), is Google's digitized copy in the public domain as well?
This is an interesting ruling to me in that it is more about the balance of power between the three branches of government than it is about the subject of the lawsuit, greenhouse gases in this case.
It has become fairly common for activists to seek court orders to impose their pet issues rather than go through the incredibly slow sausage-making process of legislative reform. This ruling is a smackdown from the Supreme Court saying "no, you six states cannot get a judge to rewrite environmental policy for you. If you want a policy change, you have to do it the old-fashioned way, by getting Congress to tell the EPA what to do. That's why you states have representatives in Congress in the first place."
Regardless of how one feels about CO2 emissions regulation, I think it is none the less a Good Thing that SCOTUS has blocked off this back channel to overriding the normal policy-making process. It's not a sweeping ruling but it is a precedent. Also interesting is that here we have a clear case of the judiciary ruling to limit the power of ... the judiciary. Kind of. How often do you see something like that?
In the U.S., methanol isn't widely used as a primary fuel so I don't consider it an "alternative" in that sense. Ethanol is used as a fuel additive to oxygenate gasoline, a replacement for MTBE. Congress rejected a law to indemnify petroleum companies from liability for health effects of MBTE contamination so the companies switched to ethanol c. 2005. So, while some may blow smoke about ethanol as a "green" fuel, the real reason it has caught on is that it's considered less dangerous to human health than the previous fuel additive. (You could look at it as the fuel companies covering their asses, or Congress making a good public-health decision for a change, depending on whether you regard the glass as half empty or half full.)
Slashdot has to run a politically charged story every day or two to feed the trolls and flamers. Helps keep up the ad revenue, or something.
Yes, you're wrong. The Constitution defines and limits the powers of government. It doesn't proclaim some kind of universal rights that private entities (citizens and businesses) have to respect. On the other hand, no one can enforce a contract that you don't sign. IANAL.