I'm sorry, no, I think that would require that everyone had an equal starting place, and a choice of which direction to go. People who start in poverty have no choice, poor education and little chance to change any of that for them or their children.
That's exactly what liberal politicians want you to think, so they can gain power over you. "You're just a helpless weakling with no control over your future, destined to be a wage slave the rest of your life, so let us help you out". The whole idea is bullshit. The truth is, every rich person started out poor at some point. Somewhere in the family tree of every "rich" family is somebody who started off poor and worked their asses off to get rich.
Look at Barrack Obama. He loves telling people how hard it is to make it in America. How the deck is stacked against the poor. How "mean" everybody is. How he started off on the south side of Chicago, a poor "community organizer". If things were really anywhere near as bad as he says, he never could have become a rich US senator running for president. Yet there he is. Care to explain?
If you'd made it for yourself, from poor beginnings, then you wouldn't be having this conversation.
But my family *has* made it from very poor beginnings. At one point everything my parents owned fit in a small car. And that includes my sisters and I. The very fact that I'm able to have this conversation with you is proof that your "the poor are helpless" argument is bullshit.
The biggest problem for the poor are the people like you breaking their spirits, telling them they're hopeless and destined to have crappy lives. You should be ashamed.
Because humanity is a collective, and greed and selfishness are the opposite of this, they are concerned with the good of the individual, at the expense of society.
If every individual is selfishly working to make themselves better off, everybody as a whole ends up better off. Collectivism and working for "the public good" are the rally cries of the lazy, who selfishly want to be better off, but don't want to work for it.
The idea that people can only be better off at the expense of society is just wrong. Can you give any evidence that my being well off prevents other people from being well off? It's simply not true.
Greed stretches society, pulling money and power into the hands of people who feel they have no responsibility to that society, leaving other members of that society providing with virtually no return.
I don't see the problem. The greedy people get the money and power they want, so they're happy. The non-greedy, non-selfish people don't care aboue having money and power, so they shouldn't mind not having it. Right? Everybody's happy.
This imbalance in a society makes it weak to other more collective societies, and to itself when the balance has reached a certain point.
America's economy has been based on greed and selfishness for over 200 years, and even now we're one of the most powerful, richest nations in the history of the world. Certainly more powerful than the former Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, East Germany, and other socieites based on collectivism. Historically, societies based on freedom have almost always been more powerful better off than societies based on collectivism.
That said, there are areas which have NO BROADBAND. My parents' house, as an example. It's about six miles outside town, and won't get broadband within the lifetime of the universe, if only market forces apply. Hence an equivalent to the Rural Electrification Act.
That's my point. If your parents were willing to pay enough, they could get broadband. They don't think it's worth paying, so why should we pay for them?
Maybe they want it but can't afford it? Well, sucks to be them. Wanting something really bad doesn't give them the right to force other people to buy it for them. I want a Rolls Royce, a beach front mansion and a trophy wife, that doesn't mean the government should buy them for me.
I'm not following. A lot of people don't think faster broadband is worth paying for. So the ISPs don't provide broadband in those areas. But you're saying that everybody else should be forced to pay the cost of installing broadband in those areas? Why?
It's peanuts. My family's share is forty cents. I'll pay it, just for the information, which ought to be available under the Freedom of Information Act.
If you really think it's that important, and you really consider $40 million "peanuts", why don't you fund it yourself? There's nothing stopping you. That way those of us who don't think it's worth even forty cents don't have to pay for it at all.
I hate to troll, but what's with all the hate for the free market on Slashdot? Why not blame the idiotic government that allows this to happen?
Think about it. If we got rid of all (or most) businesses, we'd destroy our quality of life. If we made the government smaller we'd end up with fewer stupid laws like the one that let this shit happen; so we'd have less to complain about and our quality of life would improve.
Get a clue. The whole problem started when the government threatened to legislate if the banks were discriminating against people. The banks got scared that "You're not qualified" would be taken the wrong way, so they started handing out money to anybody. There was huge pressure from the government to hand out crap loans.
If the government had minded its own business in the first place, there'd be no crisis. So STFU with your "Regulation will save us" bullshit.
Honestly, I don't give a shit. I don't know about Australia, but the police here, in America, have done a wonderful job catching bank robbers without needing to know where I am.
Is crime really so bad in Australia that it's just easier to treat everybody like criminals in the first place?
This is like asking when Ford is going to squeeze Chevy out of the automobile market. It probably isn't going to happen, and there's really no reason why it should.
Competition is good. "Monoculture" is bad. Having more than one dominant UNIX-like OS is good. In this case it's great because both products are more or less standards compliant.
The whole point of checks and balances in the government was to make sure very little got done and few things were passed. Our country only exists because the founding fathers thought being ruled from afar by a giant, overly powerful government was asinine. The original premise was that the federal government should be small, with very limited power, and should stay out of people's lives as much as possible.
The founding fathers would spin in their graves if they knew the Federal Register had almost 70000 pages last year.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused. I don't work for an irresponsible bank. Nor do I have a mortgage I can't afford. I'm absolutely 100% sure the current economic situation isn't my fault.
No, the only way I'm involved is that people want to take my money to "fix" the problem. I don't think they should, but for some reason my opinion doesn't seem to fucking matter. You know, I'm just the guy coughing up the tax money. Why should I get an opinion?
As for the world economy, if this is how it's gonna treat me, let it crash for all I care.
If Windows is working well enough for your friend that she switched back to it over something as trivial as the location of the application menu, why would you suggest Linux to her at all? Obviously Windows is working for her.
I like seeing Linux use increase, but I'd like to think it's because computer users are becoming more savvy, not that Linux is becoming more identical to Windows. Linux is supposed to be an alternative to Windows. If everything is dumbed down to cater to ex-Windows users, it's not an really alternative, it's just a free version of Windows.
I didn't say they "should". I said they *can* post in multiple formats if they want to. That is, of course, assuming they want to make the video conveniently available to as many people as possible.
Also, you're wrong, it's not always possible for that 1% to watch the videos.
So my criticism may have been a little premature, but come on, her reaction was excessive.
And what would you recommend?
Not to the extent that she does them. Imagine the millions of spoiled little children being brainwashed by advertising to think that they need these books. These children force their willing-to-please parents into buying it. Equals profit for Rowlings. This amounts to child exploitation in my book, and is no better than having Nike factories in Asia that use minors for cheap labor.
Well, in that case why are you singling out Rowling? You should be complaining about every toy company that's ever existed. Hell, you should really be complaining about the evil baby food manufacturers and the evil diaper companies. The "willing-to-please" parents can grow a pair and tell their little brats they're not getting the book, but they can hardly stop buying them food and diapers. That has to be the lamest argument ever.
You obviously misunderstood the point the author was trying to say with "didn't make enough money" comments. If this were Microsoft and not JK Rowling then you wouldn't think twice about criticizing their comment.
Oh no, I think I got the point loud and clear. And there are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Microsoft. Making money by selling products people want to waste money on, isn't one of them.
They were trying to point out Rowling's greed. She's made billions off of Harry Potter, so what's the point of going after a small little company that would hardly make enough to cover their own costs let alone dent her precious profits?
Rowling may be a greedy bitch, but she's a greedy bitch who earned her money by writing a bunch of highly popular books that lots of people want to give her money for. Why aren't you complaining about the greedy company trying to make a quick buck by leeching off of her hard work?
First, because few people read the article (especially when it's the size of a small novel), so making a hugely biased summary distorts the facts. Second, it's supposed to be a news site. Maybe CNN and Fox don't worry about showing their bias, but that doesn't make it right, and it'd be nice if there were slightly higher standards here.
Also, in this case specifically, the "didn't make enough money" comment is just plain stupid, not to mention irrelevant. Is it legal to commit crimes against the wealthy now? Or maybe there's a new law saying you can only make so much money? What does it even mean to make too much money, and who are you to make the determination?
Not really what I expect from a highly over-paid lawyer.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly what liberal politicians want you to think, so they can gain power over you. "You're just a helpless weakling with no control over your future, destined to be a wage slave the rest of your life, so let us help you out". The whole idea is bullshit. The truth is, every rich person started out poor at some point. Somewhere in the family tree of every "rich" family is somebody who started off poor and worked their asses off to get rich.
Look at Barrack Obama. He loves telling people how hard it is to make it in America. How the deck is stacked against the poor. How "mean" everybody is. How he started off on the south side of Chicago, a poor "community organizer". If things were really anywhere near as bad as he says, he never could have become a rich US senator running for president. Yet there he is. Care to explain?
But my family *has* made it from very poor beginnings. At one point everything my parents owned fit in a small car. And that includes my sisters and I. The very fact that I'm able to have this conversation with you is proof that your "the poor are helpless" argument is bullshit.
The biggest problem for the poor are the people like you breaking their spirits, telling them they're hopeless and destined to have crappy lives. You should be ashamed.
If every individual is selfishly working to make themselves better off, everybody as a whole ends up better off. Collectivism and working for "the public good" are the rally cries of the lazy, who selfishly want to be better off, but don't want to work for it.
The idea that people can only be better off at the expense of society is just wrong. Can you give any evidence that my being well off prevents other people from being well off? It's simply not true.
I don't see the problem. The greedy people get the money and power they want, so they're happy. The non-greedy, non-selfish people don't care aboue having money and power, so they shouldn't mind not having it. Right? Everybody's happy.
America's economy has been based on greed and selfishness for over 200 years, and even now we're one of the most powerful, richest nations in the history of the world. Certainly more powerful than the former Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, East Germany, and other socieites based on collectivism. Historically, societies based on freedom have almost always been more powerful better off than societies based on collectivism.
That's my point. If your parents were willing to pay enough, they could get broadband. They don't think it's worth paying, so why should we pay for them?
Maybe they want it but can't afford it? Well, sucks to be them. Wanting something really bad doesn't give them the right to force other people to buy it for them. I want a Rolls Royce, a beach front mansion and a trophy wife, that doesn't mean the government should buy them for me.
Does Canadaian law not have trademarks? Did they really need a law making it specifically illegal to use Olympic catch phrases?
Do all companies with "large public profiles" get their own laws in Canada?
I'm not following. A lot of people don't think faster broadband is worth paying for. So the ISPs don't provide broadband in those areas. But you're saying that everybody else should be forced to pay the cost of installing broadband in those areas? Why?
If you really think it's that important, and you really consider $40 million "peanuts", why don't you fund it yourself? There's nothing stopping you. That way those of us who don't think it's worth even forty cents don't have to pay for it at all.
Awesome. Is that your way of saying "I don't know, that's just what I've always been told"?
I hate to troll, but what's with all the hate for the free market on Slashdot? Why not blame the idiotic government that allows this to happen?
Think about it. If we got rid of all (or most) businesses, we'd destroy our quality of life. If we made the government smaller we'd end up with fewer stupid laws like the one that let this shit happen; so we'd have less to complain about and our quality of life would improve.
And what, in your opinion, makes greed and selfishness the "worst traits traits of humanity"?
Get a clue. The whole problem started when the government threatened to legislate if the banks were discriminating against people. The banks got scared that "You're not qualified" would be taken the wrong way, so they started handing out money to anybody. There was huge pressure from the government to hand out crap loans.
If the government had minded its own business in the first place, there'd be no crisis. So STFU with your "Regulation will save us" bullshit.
Honestly, I don't give a shit. I don't know about Australia, but the police here, in America, have done a wonderful job catching bank robbers without needing to know where I am.
Is crime really so bad in Australia that it's just easier to treat everybody like criminals in the first place?
This is like asking when Ford is going to squeeze Chevy out of the automobile market. It probably isn't going to happen, and there's really no reason why it should.
Competition is good. "Monoculture" is bad. Having more than one dominant UNIX-like OS is good. In this case it's great because both products are more or less standards compliant.
The whole point of checks and balances in the government was to make sure very little got done and few things were passed. Our country only exists because the founding fathers thought being ruled from afar by a giant, overly powerful government was asinine. The original premise was that the federal government should be small, with very limited power, and should stay out of people's lives as much as possible.
The founding fathers would spin in their graves if they knew the Federal Register had almost 70000 pages last year.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused. I don't work for an irresponsible bank. Nor do I have a mortgage I can't afford. I'm absolutely 100% sure the current economic situation isn't my fault.
No, the only way I'm involved is that people want to take my money to "fix" the problem. I don't think they should, but for some reason my opinion doesn't seem to fucking matter. You know, I'm just the guy coughing up the tax money. Why should I get an opinion?
As for the world economy, if this is how it's gonna treat me, let it crash for all I care.
Why not? They're the ones paying most of the taxes. It certainly seems more fair than redistributing it to the poor.
Not to say that income redistribution is ever a good thing, but if you're going to do it...
Yeah, that guy wanted a smaller, more efficient government. What a schmuck.
Generalization doesn't work that way. Actors may generally be idiots; that doesn't mean any specific actor is an idiot.
If you want to donate your money to bailing people out, feel free. There's nothing stopping you.
But what gives you the right to take my money and force me to help you? I have better things to spend my money on.
Sigh. Learn to fucking read.
The guy's original article essentially boils down to: "If students ask about creationism, science teachers should explain why it's bullshit."
What part of that do you disagree with?
Just out of curiosity...
If Windows is working well enough for your friend that she switched back to it over something as trivial as the location of the application menu, why would you suggest Linux to her at all? Obviously Windows is working for her.
I like seeing Linux use increase, but I'd like to think it's because computer users are becoming more savvy, not that Linux is becoming more identical to Windows. Linux is supposed to be an alternative to Windows. If everything is dumbed down to cater to ex-Windows users, it's not an really alternative, it's just a free version of Windows.
I didn't say they "should". I said they *can* post in multiple formats if they want to. That is, of course, assuming they want to make the video conveniently available to as many people as possible.
Also, you're wrong, it's not always possible for that 1% to watch the videos.
And what would you recommend?
Well, in that case why are you singling out Rowling? You should be complaining about every toy company that's ever existed. Hell, you should really be complaining about the evil baby food manufacturers and the evil diaper companies. The "willing-to-please" parents can grow a pair and tell their little brats they're not getting the book, but they can hardly stop buying them food and diapers. That has to be the lamest argument ever.
Oh no, I think I got the point loud and clear. And there are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Microsoft. Making money by selling products people want to waste money on, isn't one of them.
Rowling may be a greedy bitch, but she's a greedy bitch who earned her money by writing a bunch of highly popular books that lots of people want to give her money for. Why aren't you complaining about the greedy company trying to make a quick buck by leeching off of her hard work?
Children exploit J.K. Rowling also!
First, because few people read the article (especially when it's the size of a small novel), so making a hugely biased summary distorts the facts. Second, it's supposed to be a news site. Maybe CNN and Fox don't worry about showing their bias, but that doesn't make it right, and it'd be nice if there were slightly higher standards here.
Also, in this case specifically, the "didn't make enough money" comment is just plain stupid, not to mention irrelevant. Is it legal to commit crimes against the wealthy now? Or maybe there's a new law saying you can only make so much money? What does it even mean to make too much money, and who are you to make the determination?
Not really what I expect from a highly over-paid lawyer. ;-)
Your argument falls apart completely when you realize that there's no reason they can't host the videos in multiple formats.
Are you a patent lawyer? Putting music boxes and player pianos in the same category as iPods? How overly generalized and vague can you get?
Hell, with categories that vague I doubt anything "new" has been invented in the past 100 years.
None of that supports the claim that the cable companies, trying to "protect their obsolete monopolies", are responsible for the digital TV mess.