I keep seeing people posting this concept... I have a hard time understanding it to be honest. Let's take a (very simplistic) look at Windows vs. OS X (and yes, I am aware you can make Windows nearly as secure as other operating systems, but I'm looking at base install here):
Windows:
User Data: not protected
System Data: not protected
OS X:
User Data: not protected
System Data: protected
Ok, sure, OS X is not perfectly safe. Clearly it is the better choice though in terms of protecting system data. I really only made this reply because some of these posts (not necessarily the one I'm replying to) seem to be implying the OS X is somehow less safe. At worst it's no more secure than Windows; at best it is significantly more so.
Protecting system data may not be the most important thing in computing, but it's a bit ridiculous to claim it's less important than user data. You're probably right: the affected Joe User probably cares a lot more about his photos that he's procrastinated on backing up for the last 3 years than whether or not his OS is functional. However, I'm pretty sure that the other users on that PC are very glad that they weren't affected by Joe's actions. And let's be realistic here: how often does a piece of malware destroy files wholesale? Save the occasional virus writer that hates the world, most malware creators are much more interested in profit (i.e. getting users to buy something, typically through inserting advertisements).
Actually, we do have a right to silence in the UK. This is broader than the US 5th amendment.
Maybe. I'm curious about something: the rights you are read upon arrest in the UK (note: I am not from the UK, nor have I been arrested there so I have no first-hand knowledge of this, only what I have heard in the past and been able to find through a cursory internet search). They are something like:
You do not have to say anything but if you are later charged with a crime and you have not mentioned something that you later rely on in court, then this may be taken into account when deciding if you are guilty.
I read this as saying the judge can use the fact that you withheld any information (incriminating or not) to decide that you are guilty. For example, I'm arrested for murder and I refuse to say anything to the police. They charge me with the crime and take me to court where I display unequivocal proof that I am innocent. The judge can still say I'm guilty because I did not share my proof of innocence with the police? (I am aware this is a ridiculous example because anyone in their right mind would share it with the police to clear their name).
Maybe it's just me, but this reminds me of the "King's Court." Sure you have these "rights," but if the King (i.e. the Government) decides you're guilty, well then to Hell with your rights.
Do you seriously not get it, or are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? Of course the people who get elected got more votes, gerrymandering doesn't change the basic electoral system. What it does do is allow politicians to run virtually uncontested in a gerrymandered district. Since you completely ignored the rather obvious example of how this works provided by jsprat (in pictorial form, even!), I'll attempt to explain it again. In the original image, the two parties, green and magenta, are equally distributed in terms of voters (the dots). This would let to some very close elections, ranging from 4 green representatives to 4 magenta and everything in between (we'll say it evens out to 2 and 2). Now look at the gerrymandered example. There are now 3 representatives elected from the magenta party with no contest. See the problem?
If for some reason an elegantly simple example, such as the one in the Wikipedia article, is not sufficient, how about some real world examples? Some of these districts are downright ludicrous. Are you seriously trying to tell me these district lines were drawn in an effort to create fair and unbiased voting districts?
Since it seems it was missed the first time you read my comment: "I describe myself as libertarian simply because it is a commonly (mis)understood term that comes closest to my beliefs." I am not a libertarian; that description simply comes closest to my beliefs. So while I think you're a bit confused as to what a "childish [libertarian] utopian fantasy" is, that is not what I'm after, either.
Your ideal world sounds horrendously complicated and bureaucratic.
More complicated? Maybe. Certainly quite a bit different from how things are run now, which (should my brand of reason ever strike humanity) would require numerous changes and plenty of people do find change "complex." Bureaucratic though? Hardly. Libertarians, and I as well, want less bureaucracy, particularly in the government. After all, it's the Objectivists and hardcore libertarians that boil everything down into a Capitalistic mindset. In such a world, people are self-serving individuals, not just another cog on the bureaucratic wheel. In such a world if your organization is too inefficient to handle my business due to an unnecessarily large bureaucratic structure, I'll simply take my business to someone who can provide the level of service I demand.
If a road is to be private property, then each distinct road owner is going to have a different toll structure, different rules of conduct, and different licensing requirements. As if planning a trip across town wasn't already complicated enough. Oh, and each driver has to keep track of the reputation of each road, because widespread boycotts are the only mechanism within libertarian "philosophy" for dealing with bad actors.
There are already many toll roads in this country and others; some are publicly owned and some are privately owned. The owner of the road seems to make no difference and I've never had a problem planning a trip anywhere. The only way my trip including a toll road makes my life more complicated is checking that I have some change before I leave (and even this is mostly unnecessary nowadays with electronic payment options). If toll roads cause so much stress in your life, I can only advise to get used to it because they are only going to become more common. The increasing trend around the world is to use a form of financing called Build-Operate-Transfer. Basically, a private company builds the road and gets a limited time (not unlike a patent) to collect tolls to recoup their expenses and (hopefully) make a profit. Then the government buys (or simply takes, as the case may be) the road into its possession after the allotted time.
The same complexity enters into services we take for granted today. Buying a house is complicated enough without having to decide which water provider serves a given area, and does provides water that is sufficiently non-carcinogenic? You'd end up trying to sort through all sorts of misleading health claims printed in glossy brochures.
You sound like the poster child for government mandated monopolies here (or maybe that actually is your intention, I don't know). To spin your words around a bit with a different service provider that I'm sure many other Slashdot readers (probably yourself included, if you're honest), ISPs:
The same complexity enters into services we take for granted today. Buying a house is complicated enough without having to decide which Internet service provider serves a given area, and does it provide service that is sufficiently non-invasive to privacy? You'd end up trying to sort through all sorts of misleading bandwidth claims printed in glossy brochures.
Wouldn't it just be terrible if we actually had choices and might have to actually think for ourselves? We might end up choosing the provider that says they provide this level of service but actually only does in certain areas and is subject to multiple restrictions. Oh
Not that I'm saying this, but even if all libertarians were Rand enthusiasts, that does not mean all Rand enthusiasts are libertarians. I have to wonder if these "hardcore Ayn Rand enthusiasts" you say you've talked to really are or if they actually "bristle" at the thought of being called a libertarian. It seems more likely to me that they would feel a bit confused as to why a label was necessary to be applied to them at all or perhaps a bit of pity for the ignorance of others, assuming they felt anything at all about the situation.
Go ahead and fulfill yourself. Have fun.
I'm curious: do you ever actually make an argument or simply stick to mocking others and saying nothing at all but stating it as fact?
I don't entirely disagree with you, but on technicality it's more complicated. Unless I'm mistaken, a Linux system starts the GUI "from the command-line" through a script that is run when the OS is ready to start such an application. As such, the GUI is running on top of the command-line (i.e. it's just like any other program being run by the OS, just a lot more complicated). Without the command-line it's the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" situation with the OS: if the command-line is non-functional, can the operating system really be said to be working? On the other hand, if the GUI fails but the operating system can still be used from the command-line, it is difficult to say that the machine is now non-functional. In the former situation, no one can operate the system but in the latter, there are at least some people who can.
The ability of any particular person to operate the machine is irrelevant. If an interface existed for airplanes that I could click a few widgets on a screen and have the vehicle take me to my destination, I could fly a plane. However, without such an interface, I cannot fly an airplane but does that give anyone sufficient reason to say the machine is not working? Certainly not because there are trained pilots around who can operate the vehicle in its current state. If I wanted, I could be trained to fly an airplane. If other people wanted, they could be trained to use the command-line.
Perception is reality. Are we pretending or simply refusing to swallow what someone else espouses as reality?
You've gotta do more than withdraw into a little minority schism and rant there. Most likely, the 'two party system' has to be changed from within. If you're serious about changing it, figure out creative ways to do so. Don't just step outside 'the system' and tilt at windmills.
In other words, we should all be forced to play the game and side with either the Democrats or the Republicans. You do realize that is exactly what they want, right? As long as we are "in the system" we have to play by the system's rules and, as with any bureaucracy, it is incredibly hard (if not impossible) to change from the inside. The parties make it extremely easy for the unthinking masses to accept any horror by championing a few controversial issues (which, most of the time, they themselves created the controversy over). All they have to do is distract an already overworked mind and they can make it believe or feel anything that suits them.
Even if libertarians are "immune" to this sort of brainwashing and keep their ideals after joining a political party, what do you really think they can do on the inside? Once there, I think you are partially right: they would likely have an easier time getting people to listen. I think what you're forgetting is that any ideas off-topic (i.e. not about abortion, welfare, gun-control, or the hot-button of the month) will be ignored or set aside "because there are more important things to discuss" in the short-term. Anyone deviating from the party-line over the long-term will be categorized as the enemy which, in the US political system, means you are evil and any idea or opinion you have is automatically wrong or a cover to hide your insidious plot.
Alternatively, we can choose to remain on the outside. There we will still be dismissed, and likely categorized as crack-pots, psychotic, slightly insane, etc (I have heard all these and more to describe libertarians and any non-Democrat non-Republican in general). Despite that, we can remain separate and "untainted" by the political process. You see this as retreating from reality and entirely impractical. Personally, I see it is an opportunity to show people that there is an alternative, an opportunity to cast even the slightest bit of doubt on the system. I've talked with many people "in the system" and many are disgruntled with the process and their party but think they have no choice. Whether they will listen remains to be seen, but it can't hurt to try and can be no less effective than trying to break a jail once you are already inside as a prisoner.
It's very self-fulfilling to go off on adventures, it must be acknowledged. Just not practical in face of reality.
I know you intended that as a slight against idealists to elevate yourself, but it should be noted that any hardcore libertarian, who likely has an appreciation for Rand, would take that as a compliment. Rand would say that fulfilling the self is the only thing of concern for a true human (not a "second-hand" one).
It is important to note that the original intent of the phrase was to protect the Church from the State, not the other way around. People get miffed when there is even a hint of religious involvement in government proceedings and cry "Separation of Church and State!" at every opportunity not even realizing its meaning. The reason we even have such a concept is that it is quite easy for a government to persecute a religion and had no control already built-in to the system, so we created the anti-establishment clause. We already have a control on religious influence on the government: voters. If the people want atheists, they should demand this and vote for them. If the people want religious fanatics, they should demand this and vote for them.
A consistent libertarian says "Don't make me wear a helmet. If I crash, it's my responsibility, and it's OK for you to leave me dying in the street." The problem is that we as a body politic are simply unprepared to leave people dying in the street, for several reasons. 1) it's ugly and stinky, not to mention unsanitary; 2) our humanity just doesn't allow us to see that level of suffering and ignore it; 3) it scares people and causes them not to ride, depressing economic output. The result is that if the motorcycle rider is uninsured we treat him at public expense -- and, if he rides without a helmet and is honest about it, he won't be able to get insurance. Therefore his riding affects all of us by costing us money.
Are you describing how a libertarian would want things or what we have now? We have laws that require emergency rooms to treat patients whether they have insurance or not (i.e. they can't ask about it until the patient is stable). I describe myself as libertarian simply because it is a commonly (mis)understood term that comes closest to my beliefs, so maybe I can help address some of your issues:
1) The owner of the road would likely pay a removal crew to clean the scene up. Having wreckage and dead bodies all over the road would send the wrong message to people paying the toll to use your road.
2) Your "humanity" is your own problem--deal with it. You can't choose to help a suffering person and then complain you were forced to feel that way and demand compensation for your assistance. That reveals a contradiction in your (declared) motives anyway: if you are truly being altruistic, why are you then concerned for your compensation for your altruism?
3) I don't know about you, but I've been told ever since I was a kid (and seen the consequences enough times) that motorcycle riding is dangerous. In a high speed collision on a motorcycle, a helmet is simply not going to be enough to save you. In such collisions, people are lucky to survive even when surrounded by a steel cage, secured by their seat belt, and cushioned by air bags. The point is, most people who ride motorcycles are quite aware of the dangers (even those who ignore them due to the "it'll never happen to me" factor) and ride despite them. Last I checked, motorcycles made up 2% to 3% of the total number of registered vehicles in the US--not enough to cause severe depression in the automobile market should motorcycle riders suddenly become spooked. Coincidentally, there's another libertarian viewpoint for you: market forces change; be prepared to change with them or accept that the market has obsoleted you.
There is simply no incentive for any one individual not to pollute -- one person's pollution, no matter how bad, is usually not going to affect the rights of others. But in a country of 300 million individuals, of course widespread pollution will affect everyone's rights! There is no solution to this problem that does not involve society as a whole somehow coercing the individual -- in other words, regulation.
Sure, no incentive beyond personal responsibility and respect for others and the environment that sustains you. No problem though, the government is always there to be our nanny when we don't want to take responsibility for ourselves.
All you get from regulation is some bizarre system where a small handful of people (not society as a whole) take bribes (whether over the table or under) and decide who gets to pollute how much and where. Education seems a better solution. Your parents taught you that you eliminate your body's waste in the toilet and you place your household waste in its proper place(s). Chances are you were not taught that you should be as careful with waste out of doors as you are in your home. Perhaps that additional education along with parents teaching their children to have some personal responsibility is enough to keep people from polluting in the "average person" sense (e.g. littering, dumping con
Re:Grammar flames are legit for published articles
on
Network Warrior
·
· Score: 1
At the risk of defending a "grammar nazi," you don't complain when your C++ compiler yells at you for syntax errors (e.g. forgetting a semicolon, leaving out a comma in a parameter list, misspelling a keyword, etc) so why do you complain when an English "compiler" does?:)
You are correct, as are the other 2 posters who said the same thing. However, neither you nor the other posters apparently read what he said. I'll reiterate, with added emphasis:
If they start searching, then stay home.
Sure, they can make demands as a condition for entering their private property but you are not required to oblige them. That is, you have the other option which is to leave and make it known to those in charge why you are leaving. You should really consider if it is worth sacrificing your dignity to anyone who demands it, especially if the only thing you stand to gain is the 'privilege' of seeing another Hollywood gem in the theater. Chances are, it would be better for you and society to just wait for the DVD.
So on one hand, we can deprecate one use to provide yet another synonym for a phrase that is already infrequently used (maybe it's just me, but I say/write "that raises the question" maybe once a week). On the other hand we can maintain a perfectly good expression that has been used in terms of logical argument for a long time and requires almost no additional effort to learn the correct usage of, other than to set aside one's pride for a moment to listen when someone corrects you.
It's probably a bit much to ask, I know. The problem with language runs much deeper than a few quibbles over meanings of phrases and words. It seems to me that a significant number of people are just so absolutely convinced that their usage is correct, even when it is quite clearly not, that they refuse to be corrected. We all make mistakes in our writing, so why the hostility towards a friendly correction? Just as an example, I can remember a time back in high school when we were proofreading our peers' papers. My conversation with my partner was this: (me) "Except for the few commas you needed, this is a really good paper. Oh, and that sentence right there should be 'you and me' not 'you and I'." "What? No, it's always 'you and I' don't you know that? I learned that years ago." (I proceed to respectfully explain the rules of pronouns in that context) "No you're wrong!" This was not an isolated incident.
Of course, no one likes to be proven wrong about anything. For whatever reason though, people are highly resistant to being corrected about their language use. It is significantly easier to get someone to accept their misunderstanding of a topic in physics, for example. That's what I want to understand: why do people refuse to learn from other users of the language? My only guess is that since people use it everyday, they feel that they are an expert on it.
Anyway, I realize that one person's ranting on an Internet site is not going to stop the destruction of a phrase when that change is backed by the inertia of millions of speakers. I've just never been one to understand or accept willful ignorance.
Incorrect. In fact, it (linking again since you obviously did not read it the first time) does involve grammar (i.e. "The set of rules governing a particular language is the grammar of that language").
To quote the article to which a link was provided for you (emphasis added),
Many speakers use the phrase as a synonym for "suggesting a question" or "raising a question", a usage that is incorrect, as it removes the specific distinction: "raising a question" is neutral, while "begging the question" is fallacious.
In other words, it violates the accepted grammar of the language in question (English).
That does not "beg the question" at all.
Yes, it does. As both the literal and most popular interpretation of the phrase, you can't really argue that it's wrong (at least, not without looking like an idiot).
I find it somewhat ironic that your statement here could be said to be "begging the question" in that your argument "fails to prove anything because it takes for granted what it is supposed to prove." That is, you are arguing that your interpretation of the term is correct by taking for granted that it is so. Certainly the literal definition of the term runs counter to your claim, as the phrase describes a logical fallacy. With respect to the popular interpretation of the phrase, there is no doubt that it is commonly misused. However, that itself is not sufficient reason to ignore the mistake. Unless you have a scientific study that confirms that a vast majority of English speakers believe "begging the question" has the same meaning as "raising a question," I see no reason to claim that incorrect usage is not "wrong."
If you don't like it, make your own language so you can ensure that nobody ever corrupts your precious idioms.
Another fallacy, if only by implication. The strong implication in your statement is that we can either accept your incorrect usage or define our own language. This is an example of a correlative-based fallacy, the false dilemma, because it ignores possibility of additional options (e.g. that we can also not accept your incorrect usage and argue about it as we are clearly now doing).
I think most of us understand and accept that language is a "living" entity and is going to change over time. While I might find things like the increasing trend of using the informal spelling 'thru' for the word 'through' to be loathsome in that it illustrates to me a lack of effort to learn and properly use the language, such are relative trivialities that I can accept without much debate. I have a significantly greater problem with simplification of language when it removes expressiveness and, as a result, makes it more difficult to carry on an intelligent conversation or debate. It simply dilutes an otherwise succinct argument when the orator or writer needs to clarify his use of language by having to explain his reference to the fallacy rather than the neutral case, for example.
Probably the easiest way to test for bias (other than studying some communication theory), is to simply watch a bunch of South Parks in a row, (or better yet a single movie like "Team America"), and write down the nasty comments they make about this person or that group etc. You will quickly see that while they do in fact make jokes about both left and right-wing types, by far the most, as well as the nastiest comments is directed at the left wing types like Jane Fonda, (or pretty much any intellectuals, actors, environmentalists, scientists, or anyone supporting any politically "left" or environmental causes). The indicators of someone's belief system is in their words and their actions. These guys betray themselves at every turn and in every show.
An interesting challenge and one that I think I might undertake (at worst I can laugh for a few hours:). My guess is that you may even be right about the "nastiest" comments being directed at left wing figures. My general response would be that what is "nasty" is subjective and if the comment is directed at your own belief, you're more likely to find it offensive. Secondly, if for the sake of argument we take Parker's and Stone's opinion(s) as the "correct" one (as they are certainly likely to believe) and there are more cracks against liberals, might it also follow that the liberals are more full of shit, at least from their eyes?
I have a different theory, however. My guess is that while yes, one is a card-carrying Republican, both describe themselves as "libertarian" because of their belief in the rights of the individual. It's a belief I share as well, so I can understand and enjoy jokes attacking both Republicans and Democrats. If you look at the ways conservatives handle suppression of rights as compared to the techniques of liberals, you might see how someone in mine or Parker's and Stone's position might find the liberal method more offensive. Conservatives typically come at it by attacking the action, calling it immoral or whatever (e.g. pre-marital sex). Liberals typically take a "high-minded" approach, trying to suppress the behavior to prevent us from hurting ourselves (e.g. gun laws). The first is foolish and difficult to argue against because they can lean on an arbitrary column of support in the form of religion or tradition. The latter is foolish and difficult to argue against because any rational human being must admit that yes, there is a possible danger in the action. That is to say, they are difficult to argue against in the sense of bringing your opponent around to your side; they're not likely to listen in either case. So while I personally oppose any unnecessary infringement on my rights, I can tell you which I find more offensive: the liberal's case. Both sides tell me the suppression of my rights is necessary and for my own good, but the liberal tells me it's because I am not capable to handle the right. I'm not trying to make a case for rights here, but hopefully you can see how a strong individualist might find the liberal attitude more offensive? If I am correct in my estimation of Parker's and Stone's beliefs, this theory might account for the perceived ferocity of attacks against liberal thought.
The caveat to all this is that I am not an American, so you can safely discount everything I have said if that is your bent. You have to understand that to many of us not blessed with American blood however, almost everyone in the states is "right-wing." For example, the United States' most extreme "left-wing, practically a commie, never win in a million years Presidential candidate" (Kucinich) is pretty much a "middle of the road" candidate to a Canadian or a European, at most he is "centre-left." Even a guy like Barack Obama is a probably a bit too far to the right for many non-Americans being as he is pro-life, in favour of the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security system, he is against same sex marriage, he is in favour of fencing out those pe
If you think that only a laser can blind someone, might I suggest you stare at the sun for a while? Obviously it's not a laser and therefore cannot harm you and I've heard you see the most gorgeous light-show of spots.
Seriously, wake up. No one is saying that this device is going to be designed to blind people or purposefully abused as a matter of policy from the start. It is simply inevitable that it will though. We're talking about something that will emit light intense enough to blind someone temporarily. It is only a matter of time before the device is set on a too powerful setting (accidentally or intentionally), malfunctions, or simply is used on someone who cannot tolerate the same amount of light as an average person. We have a right to discuss these things and present them as serious problems. More importantly, it's incredibly foolish to simply swallow whatever those in power regurgitate. This device is being marketed as being able to disable an entire crowd of people. We should ask ourselves though, do we really need such a device? The police already have methods of dealing with crowds and rioters so why should we give them an additional weapon that has the potential to cripple people for life?
As far as the abuse of this power goes, you are incredibly naive if you think the government never abuses it's power. Just recently we had a story come out about FBI agents that had been abusing the USAPATRIOT act. I seem to recall that when the act was first came into being there were many people, myself included, that warned it would be abused, that it was not just a hypothetical situation but only a matter of time. We had similar dismissals then.
And what about Tasers? There's another non-lethal weapon being pushed quite heavily by police forces around the country. When those first went into circulation people said "Oh no, they won't be abused and look: when they are used, they're non-lethal so it's ok!" Of course now it seems we can't go a week without another story about someone being killed or brutalized by a taser, that simple device that the police will maintain the same self-restriction on use as their firearms. Whether it's shocking an already hand-cuffed teenager in the back of a patrol car, brutalizing a student for refusing to show his ID, or tasering and killing a man in what can only be likened to an execution, the police have not shown that they can effectively use restraint or treat civilians with respect. If you think that this new device will be used even less than tasers when it can disable one or many suspects from a long range, consequences be damned, then you're a fool.
I was going to just ignore this but I must admit I'm intensely curious about your statements. Specifically, would you care to elaborate on what you mean by "right-wing South Park" jokes? Initially I thought you were someone offended by a joke that hit too close to home, but now I'm wondering if you are sincere in your belief that South Park is a propaganda tool for the political right. I must admit that I find such a belief difficult to believe, but I'm always willing to listen--you never know what you might learn.
I feel you should know that you've got your work cut out for you if you choose to attempt to convince me or others in this belief of yours. For example, the show as been nominated for and won several awards. I'm not one to judge anything by the number of awards and medals tacked to it, but I think it is telling that quite a number of people enjoy the show, particularly those responsible for bestowing those awards (i.e. the ones involved in an industry often described as "liberal"). Also standing in your way is the creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, themselves as they are self-described as holding largely libertarian views and wanting to go after both conservatives and liberals because they're all stupid. See the wiki article on the term, South Park Republican--it's not as ironic as you might be thinking;)
Simple solution: Release a censored version for the consoles and release the original version for the PC.
If the numbers show that the prudes are correct and these AO games are an evil that no moral person would subject themselves to, then no harm done and you've still made a profit on your game while still satisfying those hardcore gamers that want the AO version and are willing to pay for an expensive computer to run it.
If, as I suspect, there is a significant market for AO games, you've again made a profit and can also rub it in the face of everyone who opposed the game's release. More important than that superfluous victory though, is that if this course is repeated a few times by your own company and others in the business of making adult games, the console companies are bound to take notice and will then have to decide which is more important: maintaining their farce of supporting "morality" and "kid-friendliness," or money. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which they'll choose. Even if only one console company were to change their policy, the rest would follow suit, almost by necessity (with the possible exception of Nintendo).
Of course all this would require someone or one company to actually hold an ideal and stand up for it. So don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.
The fact that it has been posted several times in this topic and all have received positive moderation (usually redundant posts get moderated into oblivion--really, look sometime at some other topics and you'll see one post at +5 funny and others at -1 redundant for posting the same or similar joke) should point something out to you: you lack a sense of humor.
Are we going to be assailed with right-wing propaganda and poo-poo jokes a la South Park on a daily basis now?
Right-wing propaganda? Seriously? Do you or have you ever watched the show? I hear a lot of people also say the show is full of left-wing propaganda. Hmm... could it be that you're all so full of yourselves that you can't see a joke when it hits you in the face? Hell, I think Comedy Central has even advertised the show as making fun of everyone and everything and that they're sorry if they haven't made it to your group yet.
Maybe you could grow up a bit yourself and realize that not everyone has your "highbrow" tastes in humor and some (a lot even?) people actually enjoy a wide range of comedy.
I'm not going to get myself involved in a debate over a conspiracy theory here, but I just wanted to try to clarify what the AC was saying with respect to the pharmaceutical companies' profit margins.
Since you're taking the extreme point of view that the companies will do everything in their power to maximize their profits, I will also show the boundary cases.
There are approximately 36 million people living with AIDS. The treatment for AIDS comes out to about $20,000USD per year, per patient. Assuming that figure was pure profit, the drug company stands to make 720 billion dollars per year.
There are approximately 6.5 billion people in the world. Assuming every person were to be vaccinated, the drug company would only have to make a profit of $110 per vaccine to come out even with the treatment option.
I don't know about you, but if there was a vaccine that could guarantee (as far as any vaccine can) that I would never develop an HIV infection, I would pay a hell of a lot more than $110 out of my own pocket. A drug company would charge much more I'm sure, and people would still buy it because of the benefit to them and the fact that it would be subsidized by governments and health care plans.
Of course I realize that not every person on the planet would receive the vaccine. I hope you too realize that not every person with HIV/AIDS receives treatment as well, and that only a small percentage of those that do pay the full price. It seems pretty obvious that drug companies would stand to make quite a bit of money by curing the disease rather than just treating it. It's more involved than just a direct comparison of the profits made over one disease anyway. After all, if the AIDS patients are cured, they may live for another 50-70 years (depending on their current age); that's 50-70 years of them purchasing existing medications and the ones that haven't been invented yet.
So, the swear words refer to stuff you would never deal with in everyday life.
I don't know about you, but I think a lot of people do deal with these things everyday. I may not deal a whole lot with deities, but I sure do with sex/genitals and bodily functions. Of course, I also find it hard to find anything offensive in these tasks anyway, including those 'dirty' bodily functions, but I realize I may be fairly unique in that regard. I've never understood why in our culture basic bodily functions and desires are so taboo. We speak in circuitous ways about these things like "I payed a visit to the bathroom" or "I spent some time with my girlfriend last night." We can be fairly sure you weren't just admiring the decorations in the restroom and weren't with your girlfriend for the conversation (I kid, I kid!).
I'd definitely agree with other posters with the sentiment being more important than the actual words used. I don't know why we're stuck on the student-teacher dynamic, but it works there too. I can definitely say that I've never used a 'vulgar' word as an insult to a teacher (or any elder), but I'd be lying if I said I've never had my mouth washed out with soup for mouthing off to one. Just take sarcasm for instance: if someone does something stupid and you call him a genius for it, the insult is clear and yet no foul words were used--quite the opposite in fact.
Behavior really is the most important thing to correct. If you have a respectful child, he's going to know when it is not appropriate to use certain words, even if he has no objection to any of them. I have no studies or evidence to back it up, but I'd definitely put money on the argument that the children you see crying, carrying on, and generally just being disrespectful to their parents and elders are also the ones that are going to use vulgar language. Even more so if they know that it will get them more attention because it is offensive.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I'm sure the FBI did some questionable stuff during WWI looking for Kaisers as well, but we should move beyond that.
Umm, how can I put this simply? *-*-*NO*-*-*
The entire point of studying history is to learn from the past. There are countless examples throughout recorded human history that show that the more power you give to a government, the more likely it is to become corrupt. We're just supposed to note this, say "huh, that's interesting," and just "move beyond" and take nothing of substance from the lesson? It has been said that a definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. You give a knife to a murderer and after he stabs a member of your family to death, you say "that wasn't nice, don't do it again" and return the knife to him? I should hope not, so why do you let the government do the same? It's just insane and it's arrogance of the worst kind to think that you and your contemporary society are beyond the mistakes of the past.
When I saw this story, I thought I would post a reply something along the lines of:
As abhorrent as this is, I really can't say I'm surprised. All I can do is to ask those who said this would never happen, that extra government powers would never be abused, have to say?
I guess I have my answer. "We should move beyond it."
Slashdot Mirror
- User Data: not protected
- System Data: not protected
OS X:- User Data: not protected
- System Data: protected
Ok, sure, OS X is not perfectly safe. Clearly it is the better choice though in terms of protecting system data. I really only made this reply because some of these posts (not necessarily the one I'm replying to) seem to be implying the OS X is somehow less safe. At worst it's no more secure than Windows; at best it is significantly more so.Protecting system data may not be the most important thing in computing, but it's a bit ridiculous to claim it's less important than user data. You're probably right: the affected Joe User probably cares a lot more about his photos that he's procrastinated on backing up for the last 3 years than whether or not his OS is functional. However, I'm pretty sure that the other users on that PC are very glad that they weren't affected by Joe's actions. And let's be realistic here: how often does a piece of malware destroy files wholesale? Save the occasional virus writer that hates the world, most malware creators are much more interested in profit (i.e. getting users to buy something, typically through inserting advertisements).
Maybe it's just me, but this reminds me of the "King's Court." Sure you have these "rights," but if the King (i.e. the Government) decides you're guilty, well then to Hell with your rights.
Do you seriously not get it, or are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? Of course the people who get elected got more votes, gerrymandering doesn't change the basic electoral system. What it does do is allow politicians to run virtually uncontested in a gerrymandered district. Since you completely ignored the rather obvious example of how this works provided by jsprat (in pictorial form, even!), I'll attempt to explain it again. In the original image, the two parties, green and magenta, are equally distributed in terms of voters (the dots). This would let to some very close elections, ranging from 4 green representatives to 4 magenta and everything in between (we'll say it evens out to 2 and 2). Now look at the gerrymandered example. There are now 3 representatives elected from the magenta party with no contest. See the problem?
If for some reason an elegantly simple example, such as the one in the Wikipedia article, is not sufficient, how about some real world examples? Some of these districts are downright ludicrous. Are you seriously trying to tell me these district lines were drawn in an effort to create fair and unbiased voting districts?
More complicated? Maybe. Certainly quite a bit different from how things are run now, which (should my brand of reason ever strike humanity) would require numerous changes and plenty of people do find change "complex." Bureaucratic though? Hardly. Libertarians, and I as well, want less bureaucracy, particularly in the government. After all, it's the Objectivists and hardcore libertarians that boil everything down into a Capitalistic mindset. In such a world, people are self-serving individuals, not just another cog on the bureaucratic wheel. In such a world if your organization is too inefficient to handle my business due to an unnecessarily large bureaucratic structure, I'll simply take my business to someone who can provide the level of service I demand.
There are already many toll roads in this country and others; some are publicly owned and some are privately owned. The owner of the road seems to make no difference and I've never had a problem planning a trip anywhere. The only way my trip including a toll road makes my life more complicated is checking that I have some change before I leave (and even this is mostly unnecessary nowadays with electronic payment options). If toll roads cause so much stress in your life, I can only advise to get used to it because they are only going to become more common. The increasing trend around the world is to use a form of financing called Build-Operate-Transfer. Basically, a private company builds the road and gets a limited time (not unlike a patent) to collect tolls to recoup their expenses and (hopefully) make a profit. Then the government buys (or simply takes, as the case may be) the road into its possession after the allotted time.
You sound like the poster child for government mandated monopolies here (or maybe that actually is your intention, I don't know). To spin your words around a bit with a different service provider that I'm sure many other Slashdot readers (probably yourself included, if you're honest), ISPs:
The same complexity enters into services we take for granted today. Buying a house is complicated enough without having to decide which Internet service provider serves a given area, and does it provide service that is sufficiently non-invasive to privacy? You'd end up trying to sort through all sorts of misleading bandwidth claims printed in glossy brochures.
Wouldn't it just be terrible if we actually had choices and might have to actually think for ourselves? We might end up choosing the provider that says they provide this level of service but actually only does in certain areas and is subject to multiple restrictions. Oh
I don't entirely disagree with you, but on technicality it's more complicated. Unless I'm mistaken, a Linux system starts the GUI "from the command-line" through a script that is run when the OS is ready to start such an application. As such, the GUI is running on top of the command-line (i.e. it's just like any other program being run by the OS, just a lot more complicated). Without the command-line it's the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" situation with the OS: if the command-line is non-functional, can the operating system really be said to be working? On the other hand, if the GUI fails but the operating system can still be used from the command-line, it is difficult to say that the machine is now non-functional. In the former situation, no one can operate the system but in the latter, there are at least some people who can.
The ability of any particular person to operate the machine is irrelevant. If an interface existed for airplanes that I could click a few widgets on a screen and have the vehicle take me to my destination, I could fly a plane. However, without such an interface, I cannot fly an airplane but does that give anyone sufficient reason to say the machine is not working? Certainly not because there are trained pilots around who can operate the vehicle in its current state. If I wanted, I could be trained to fly an airplane. If other people wanted, they could be trained to use the command-line.
Even if libertarians are "immune" to this sort of brainwashing and keep their ideals after joining a political party, what do you really think they can do on the inside? Once there, I think you are partially right: they would likely have an easier time getting people to listen. I think what you're forgetting is that any ideas off-topic (i.e. not about abortion, welfare, gun-control, or the hot-button of the month) will be ignored or set aside "because there are more important things to discuss" in the short-term. Anyone deviating from the party-line over the long-term will be categorized as the enemy which, in the US political system, means you are evil and any idea or opinion you have is automatically wrong or a cover to hide your insidious plot.
Alternatively, we can choose to remain on the outside. There we will still be dismissed, and likely categorized as crack-pots, psychotic, slightly insane, etc (I have heard all these and more to describe libertarians and any non-Democrat non-Republican in general). Despite that, we can remain separate and "untainted" by the political process. You see this as retreating from reality and entirely impractical. Personally, I see it is an opportunity to show people that there is an alternative, an opportunity to cast even the slightest bit of doubt on the system. I've talked with many people "in the system" and many are disgruntled with the process and their party but think they have no choice. Whether they will listen remains to be seen, but it can't hurt to try and can be no less effective than trying to break a jail once you are already inside as a prisoner. I know you intended that as a slight against idealists to elevate yourself, but it should be noted that any hardcore libertarian, who likely has an appreciation for Rand, would take that as a compliment. Rand would say that fulfilling the self is the only thing of concern for a true human (not a "second-hand" one).
It is important to note that the original intent of the phrase was to protect the Church from the State, not the other way around. People get miffed when there is even a hint of religious involvement in government proceedings and cry "Separation of Church and State!" at every opportunity not even realizing its meaning. The reason we even have such a concept is that it is quite easy for a government to persecute a religion and had no control already built-in to the system, so we created the anti-establishment clause. We already have a control on religious influence on the government: voters. If the people want atheists, they should demand this and vote for them. If the people want religious fanatics, they should demand this and vote for them.
Are you describing how a libertarian would want things or what we have now? We have laws that require emergency rooms to treat patients whether they have insurance or not (i.e. they can't ask about it until the patient is stable). I describe myself as libertarian simply because it is a commonly (mis)understood term that comes closest to my beliefs, so maybe I can help address some of your issues:
1) The owner of the road would likely pay a removal crew to clean the scene up. Having wreckage and dead bodies all over the road would send the wrong message to people paying the toll to use your road.
2) Your "humanity" is your own problem--deal with it. You can't choose to help a suffering person and then complain you were forced to feel that way and demand compensation for your assistance. That reveals a contradiction in your (declared) motives anyway: if you are truly being altruistic, why are you then concerned for your compensation for your altruism?
3) I don't know about you, but I've been told ever since I was a kid (and seen the consequences enough times) that motorcycle riding is dangerous. In a high speed collision on a motorcycle, a helmet is simply not going to be enough to save you. In such collisions, people are lucky to survive even when surrounded by a steel cage, secured by their seat belt, and cushioned by air bags. The point is, most people who ride motorcycles are quite aware of the dangers (even those who ignore them due to the "it'll never happen to me" factor) and ride despite them. Last I checked, motorcycles made up 2% to 3% of the total number of registered vehicles in the US--not enough to cause severe depression in the automobile market should motorcycle riders suddenly become spooked. Coincidentally, there's another libertarian viewpoint for you: market forces change; be prepared to change with them or accept that the market has obsoleted you.
Sure, no incentive beyond personal responsibility and respect for others and the environment that sustains you. No problem though, the government is always there to be our nanny when we don't want to take responsibility for ourselves.
All you get from regulation is some bizarre system where a small handful of people (not society as a whole) take bribes (whether over the table or under) and decide who gets to pollute how much and where. Education seems a better solution. Your parents taught you that you eliminate your body's waste in the toilet and you place your household waste in its proper place(s). Chances are you were not taught that you should be as careful with waste out of doors as you are in your home. Perhaps that additional education along with parents teaching their children to have some personal responsibility is enough to keep people from polluting in the "average person" sense (e.g. littering, dumping con
Maybe you should meta-moderate more often?
At the risk of defending a "grammar nazi," you don't complain when your C++ compiler yells at you for syntax errors (e.g. forgetting a semicolon, leaving out a comma in a parameter list, misspelling a keyword, etc) so why do you complain when an English "compiler" does? :)
As any pubescent male teenager will tell you, that's more aptly described as a Law of Nature.
I love that little story, but at least give props to the author, Terry Bisson.
So on one hand, we can deprecate one use to provide yet another synonym for a phrase that is already infrequently used (maybe it's just me, but I say/write "that raises the question" maybe once a week). On the other hand we can maintain a perfectly good expression that has been used in terms of logical argument for a long time and requires almost no additional effort to learn the correct usage of, other than to set aside one's pride for a moment to listen when someone corrects you.
It's probably a bit much to ask, I know. The problem with language runs much deeper than a few quibbles over meanings of phrases and words. It seems to me that a significant number of people are just so absolutely convinced that their usage is correct, even when it is quite clearly not, that they refuse to be corrected. We all make mistakes in our writing, so why the hostility towards a friendly correction? Just as an example, I can remember a time back in high school when we were proofreading our peers' papers. My conversation with my partner was this: (me) "Except for the few commas you needed, this is a really good paper. Oh, and that sentence right there should be 'you and me' not 'you and I'." "What? No, it's always 'you and I' don't you know that? I learned that years ago." (I proceed to respectfully explain the rules of pronouns in that context) "No you're wrong!" This was not an isolated incident.
Of course, no one likes to be proven wrong about anything. For whatever reason though, people are highly resistant to being corrected about their language use. It is significantly easier to get someone to accept their misunderstanding of a topic in physics, for example. That's what I want to understand: why do people refuse to learn from other users of the language? My only guess is that since people use it everyday, they feel that they are an expert on it.
Anyway, I realize that one person's ranting on an Internet site is not going to stop the destruction of a phrase when that change is backed by the inertia of millions of speakers. I've just never been one to understand or accept willful ignorance.
I think most of us understand and accept that language is a "living" entity and is going to change over time. While I might find things like the increasing trend of using the informal spelling 'thru' for the word 'through' to be loathsome in that it illustrates to me a lack of effort to learn and properly use the language, such are relative trivialities that I can accept without much debate. I have a significantly greater problem with simplification of language when it removes expressiveness and, as a result, makes it more difficult to carry on an intelligent conversation or debate. It simply dilutes an otherwise succinct argument when the orator or writer needs to clarify his use of language by having to explain his reference to the fallacy rather than the neutral case, for example.
An interesting challenge and one that I think I might undertake (at worst I can laugh for a few hours :). My guess is that you may even be right about the "nastiest" comments being directed at left wing figures. My general response would be that what is "nasty" is subjective and if the comment is directed at your own belief, you're more likely to find it offensive. Secondly, if for the sake of argument we take Parker's and Stone's opinion(s) as the "correct" one (as they are certainly likely to believe) and there are more cracks against liberals, might it also follow that the liberals are more full of shit, at least from their eyes?
I have a different theory, however. My guess is that while yes, one is a card-carrying Republican, both describe themselves as "libertarian" because of their belief in the rights of the individual. It's a belief I share as well, so I can understand and enjoy jokes attacking both Republicans and Democrats. If you look at the ways conservatives handle suppression of rights as compared to the techniques of liberals, you might see how someone in mine or Parker's and Stone's position might find the liberal method more offensive. Conservatives typically come at it by attacking the action, calling it immoral or whatever (e.g. pre-marital sex). Liberals typically take a "high-minded" approach, trying to suppress the behavior to prevent us from hurting ourselves (e.g. gun laws). The first is foolish and difficult to argue against because they can lean on an arbitrary column of support in the form of religion or tradition. The latter is foolish and difficult to argue against because any rational human being must admit that yes, there is a possible danger in the action. That is to say, they are difficult to argue against in the sense of bringing your opponent around to your side; they're not likely to listen in either case. So while I personally oppose any unnecessary infringement on my rights, I can tell you which I find more offensive: the liberal's case. Both sides tell me the suppression of my rights is necessary and for my own good, but the liberal tells me it's because I am not capable to handle the right. I'm not trying to make a case for rights here, but hopefully you can see how a strong individualist might find the liberal attitude more offensive? If I am correct in my estimation of Parker's and Stone's beliefs, this theory might account for the perceived ferocity of attacks against liberal thought.
If you think that only a laser can blind someone, might I suggest you stare at the sun for a while? Obviously it's not a laser and therefore cannot harm you and I've heard you see the most gorgeous light-show of spots.
Seriously, wake up. No one is saying that this device is going to be designed to blind people or purposefully abused as a matter of policy from the start. It is simply inevitable that it will though. We're talking about something that will emit light intense enough to blind someone temporarily. It is only a matter of time before the device is set on a too powerful setting (accidentally or intentionally), malfunctions, or simply is used on someone who cannot tolerate the same amount of light as an average person. We have a right to discuss these things and present them as serious problems. More importantly, it's incredibly foolish to simply swallow whatever those in power regurgitate. This device is being marketed as being able to disable an entire crowd of people. We should ask ourselves though, do we really need such a device? The police already have methods of dealing with crowds and rioters so why should we give them an additional weapon that has the potential to cripple people for life?
As far as the abuse of this power goes, you are incredibly naive if you think the government never abuses it's power. Just recently we had a story come out about FBI agents that had been abusing the USAPATRIOT act. I seem to recall that when the act was first came into being there were many people, myself included, that warned it would be abused, that it was not just a hypothetical situation but only a matter of time. We had similar dismissals then.
And what about Tasers? There's another non-lethal weapon being pushed quite heavily by police forces around the country. When those first went into circulation people said "Oh no, they won't be abused and look: when they are used, they're non-lethal so it's ok!" Of course now it seems we can't go a week without another story about someone being killed or brutalized by a taser, that simple device that the police will maintain the same self-restriction on use as their firearms. Whether it's shocking an already hand-cuffed teenager in the back of a patrol car, brutalizing a student for refusing to show his ID, or tasering and killing a man in what can only be likened to an execution, the police have not shown that they can effectively use restraint or treat civilians with respect. If you think that this new device will be used even less than tasers when it can disable one or many suspects from a long range, consequences be damned, then you're a fool.
I was going to just ignore this but I must admit I'm intensely curious about your statements. Specifically, would you care to elaborate on what you mean by "right-wing South Park" jokes? Initially I thought you were someone offended by a joke that hit too close to home, but now I'm wondering if you are sincere in your belief that South Park is a propaganda tool for the political right. I must admit that I find such a belief difficult to believe, but I'm always willing to listen--you never know what you might learn.
;)
I feel you should know that you've got your work cut out for you if you choose to attempt to convince me or others in this belief of yours. For example, the show as been nominated for and won several awards. I'm not one to judge anything by the number of awards and medals tacked to it, but I think it is telling that quite a number of people enjoy the show, particularly those responsible for bestowing those awards (i.e. the ones involved in an industry often described as "liberal"). Also standing in your way is the creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, themselves as they are self-described as holding largely libertarian views and wanting to go after both conservatives and liberals because they're all stupid. See the wiki article on the term, South Park Republican--it's not as ironic as you might be thinking
Simple solution: Release a censored version for the consoles and release the original version for the PC.
If the numbers show that the prudes are correct and these AO games are an evil that no moral person would subject themselves to, then no harm done and you've still made a profit on your game while still satisfying those hardcore gamers that want the AO version and are willing to pay for an expensive computer to run it.
If, as I suspect, there is a significant market for AO games, you've again made a profit and can also rub it in the face of everyone who opposed the game's release. More important than that superfluous victory though, is that if this course is repeated a few times by your own company and others in the business of making adult games, the console companies are bound to take notice and will then have to decide which is more important: maintaining their farce of supporting "morality" and "kid-friendliness," or money. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which they'll choose. Even if only one console company were to change their policy, the rest would follow suit, almost by necessity (with the possible exception of Nintendo).
Of course all this would require someone or one company to actually hold an ideal and stand up for it. So don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.
Maybe you could grow up a bit yourself and realize that not everyone has your "highbrow" tastes in humor and some (a lot even?) people actually enjoy a wide range of comedy.
I'm not going to get myself involved in a debate over a conspiracy theory here, but I just wanted to try to clarify what the AC was saying with respect to the pharmaceutical companies' profit margins.
Since you're taking the extreme point of view that the companies will do everything in their power to maximize their profits, I will also show the boundary cases.
There are approximately 36 million people living with AIDS. The treatment for AIDS comes out to about $20,000USD per year, per patient. Assuming that figure was pure profit, the drug company stands to make 720 billion dollars per year.
There are approximately 6.5 billion people in the world. Assuming every person were to be vaccinated, the drug company would only have to make a profit of $110 per vaccine to come out even with the treatment option.
I don't know about you, but if there was a vaccine that could guarantee (as far as any vaccine can) that I would never develop an HIV infection, I would pay a hell of a lot more than $110 out of my own pocket. A drug company would charge much more I'm sure, and people would still buy it because of the benefit to them and the fact that it would be subsidized by governments and health care plans.
Of course I realize that not every person on the planet would receive the vaccine. I hope you too realize that not every person with HIV/AIDS receives treatment as well, and that only a small percentage of those that do pay the full price. It seems pretty obvious that drug companies would stand to make quite a bit of money by curing the disease rather than just treating it. It's more involved than just a direct comparison of the profits made over one disease anyway. After all, if the AIDS patients are cured, they may live for another 50-70 years (depending on their current age); that's 50-70 years of them purchasing existing medications and the ones that haven't been invented yet.
I'd definitely agree with other posters with the sentiment being more important than the actual words used. I don't know why we're stuck on the student-teacher dynamic, but it works there too. I can definitely say that I've never used a 'vulgar' word as an insult to a teacher (or any elder), but I'd be lying if I said I've never had my mouth washed out with soup for mouthing off to one. Just take sarcasm for instance: if someone does something stupid and you call him a genius for it, the insult is clear and yet no foul words were used--quite the opposite in fact.
Behavior really is the most important thing to correct. If you have a respectful child, he's going to know when it is not appropriate to use certain words, even if he has no objection to any of them. I have no studies or evidence to back it up, but I'd definitely put money on the argument that the children you see crying, carrying on, and generally just being disrespectful to their parents and elders are also the ones that are going to use vulgar language. Even more so if they know that it will get them more attention because it is offensive.
The entire point of studying history is to learn from the past. There are countless examples throughout recorded human history that show that the more power you give to a government, the more likely it is to become corrupt. We're just supposed to note this, say "huh, that's interesting," and just "move beyond" and take nothing of substance from the lesson? It has been said that a definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. You give a knife to a murderer and after he stabs a member of your family to death, you say "that wasn't nice, don't do it again" and return the knife to him? I should hope not, so why do you let the government do the same? It's just insane and it's arrogance of the worst kind to think that you and your contemporary society are beyond the mistakes of the past.
When I saw this story, I thought I would post a reply something along the lines of: I guess I have my answer. "We should move beyond it."