I loved the books, especially "Excession" and "Consider Phlebas" and I was saddened to hear this news about Mr. Banks.
That being said, don't you think that there was an implied but mostly unexplored "dark side" lurking under the surface of "The Culture" and their paradise? The technology made everything possible, but they were also sort of "boxed in" by it. It's fun to imagine, but what would life be and where would a species go without some sort of struggle, scarcity or hardship? That's why some of the characters were driven to join the "special forces". They also struck me as being an extremely pretentious bunch with an overwhelming superiority complex. I found some elements of their interactions with "inferior" cultures to be disturbing.
I was really hoping that there would be a final "culture" novel where those arrogant bastards were annihilated or at least taught a lesson in humility by a superior power.
I think the individual should be responsible for deciding what is to their own "benefit" or "detriment". They should also be responsible for the consequences of those decisions.
Hiring a bunch of thugs (government) to throw people in cages because "society" thinks the people are making stupid and irrational choices is morally repugnant.
Feel free to 'stigmatize' drug users, just don't use force to coerce them into following arbitrary orders based on a subjective world view. If a person wants to drink, smoke, snort or inject themselves to death, what moral right do you have to forcefully interfere? If they prefer chemical happiness to real happiness, isn't that their choice to make?
What do I think would happen if drugs were de-criminalized? On the plus side, I think gun violence would drop precipitously. I think we would spend a lot less on cops and prisons. I think new businesses would emerge that catered to drug users. On the downside, I think there would be an increase in drug abuse, but I also think the increase would quickly plateau because most people don't do drugs for reasons other than the fact they're illegal.
The reason this guy got screwed so hard is for refusing to become a rat for the feds. If there is anything that they hate, it's when one of us uppity serfs chooses the path of non-compliance.
Same thing happened to Randy Weaver and his family. Feds entrapped him into illegally altering some shotguns and offered to let him off if he would agree to spy on anti-government groups. He refused and they went after him. They did not send a small army to assault his home in order to arrest him for the weapons crime. They went in to teach him a lesson about not bowing before the almighty government.
Not saying Weaver or Ananya was innocent, but the disproportionate penalties applied to them are clearly punishment for non-cooperation.
He's no more "guilty" than the people who legally sell elaborate water pipes and vaporizers(alongside tie-dyed T-shirts and Grateful Dead gear) to their tobacco-smoking customers.
Not to mention the fact that the "Hostess" option isn't really available with government unions. In the private sector, if the unions get to be too much of a pain, the owners can always shut down the business and move on. Although it would be awesome if we had the same option with government unions, we don't. That's why government unions should be prohibited.
"Big Pharma is a gigantic example of market failure."
As usual, government creates a total mess and "free markets" take the blame. There is no "free market" for pharmaceuticals. There is a hybridized government/corporate cluster****.
The USA federal government imposes artificial re-importation restrictions on prescription drugs and medical devices. That's why a drug that costs $10 across the border costs 20X as much in the USA. The federal government also forces price controls on drugs being purchased through welfare programs. Therefore, the privately insured (and even worse, the uninsured) get stuck with ridiculously higher prices for the same drugs.
That is NOT a free market by any stretch of the imagination. In a genuine free market, there would be no artificial trade barriers. Pharmacies would immediately sprout up to profit from any cross-border price disparity. It would also be nearly impossible to create a discriminatory price structure for the same product.
Government is the failure and asking for more government to "fix" things is insanity.
I think there were some good old days. At least there was a time in this country where we had more than one or two elected officials who actually cared about the rule of law.
" 2. The lender should be expected to accept risk. It's funny how capitalists get shield from market risks..."
You're talking about the case when the government and Federal Reserve come along and "shield" certain wealthy elites from the consequences of their actions. That's not capitalism. It's called "central planning" and it's the antithesis of capitalism and free markets.
In a genuine system of capitalism, the lender and borrower would both assume the risks. If both parties endure a loss when a loan goes bad, it sets up a strong disincentive for making "bad" loans in the first place.
There are different types of VC firms, but overall, I think they are for investors who have a generally high risk tolerance.
I recently attended a conference and saw a presentation by a guy who was part of a small VC firm that funded startups. They understand and expect that many of the "ventures" will be losers. They even expect that they will invest in more losers than winners overall. They're betting on finding a small number of ventures that really take off and provide big returns that will compensate for other losses.
Contrary to the/. wisdom, the creationists have come up with scientifically based counter-arguments to a lot of the evidence that might tend to disprove Genesis. They don't rely exclusively on the "magic" explanation.
I think radiocarbon dating is fairly compelling evidence against the biblical narrative of creation occurring ~6k years ago, but they have an explanation for that too:
Do you want to prevent anyone from accessing the information without your approval or are you merely concerned about the device being physically confiscated? If it's the latter, how about just streaming the audio/video to remote storage?
People who see through the BS of one manufactured crisis after another being used as an excuse to expand the size and power of the government.
Communists, terrorists, WMDs, financial armageddon, climate change. SSDD. Always stirring up fear as a justification for more and more concentration of power. I'm not "anti-environment" I'm "anti-central planning". Grant the people who passed the 2012 NDAA additional power to micro-manage my energy use? Not a chance.
There are enough laws on the books so that basically anyone and everyone is a criminal. Given the fact that they can also track and record everything you do, they can easily accumulate evidence of your criminality. Then comes selective prosecution. Friends of Big Brother get away with blatant and obvious criminal activity with no legal consequences. Peaceful political dissidents who dare question the status quo incur the full wrath of the government. Hell, even if you are 100% innocent, the government claims the power to kidnap and/or kill you, so they don't even need to bother with evidence gathering.
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."?
That's pretty much the ONLY part of the Bill of Rights that the government hasn't blatantly violated and isn't actively trying to undermine.
They can't be worrying about 3D printing of firearms. They're too busy smuggling weapons to the drug cartels and fantasizing about the next group of women and children they can tear-gas and burn alive.
The NRA has over four million dues-paying members and has been doing an excellent job in representing those members. This is clearly evidenced by their persistent and growing numbers. Also, as a 501c(4), their corporate fundraising is strictly limited. There is no conflict. The gun manufacturers have an industry lobby group (NSSF) just like every other industry. I can scarcely imagine 3D printing technology becoming such a threat that the NSSF would seek to ban it.
P.S. Your illustrious mayor not only wants to disarm you, He also announced his unequivocal support for universal surveillance. NYPD and the big banks are going to be sharing video spying as part of the "Ring of Steel" initiative around lower Manhattan, and said that the serfs better get used to the idea that privacy is dead. Gun grabbers want to destroy ALL of your liberties.
People are often held accountable for supplying weapons used in crimes. After the Columbine shooting a man was prosecuted for selling the killers a handgun (illegal to sell to someone 21).
What does "secure the weapon" mean? My firearms are at my home with doors and windows locked. Am I being "careless"? If some criminal batters the door down with a sledgehammer and steals my firearms, you think I'm responsible for "allowing" them to be stolen? Nonsense.
There's no generally accepted link between firearms and suicide. The only agreed upon conclusion is that people who "attempt" suicide by firearm are more successful than those who "attempt" suicide by other means. Which raises the question about whether failed "attempts" were even genuine.
If you think government should confiscate firearms based on your subjective assessment of our "needs", why can't the same argument be made about video games? Obviously you don't "need" them, so ban them.
Correction. The NRA lobbied specifically against funding of research into gun violence by the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
Such funding is ridiculous because the fundamental implication is that firearms should be treated like a "disease". Gee. If that's the case, I wonder what their research would recommend as a possible "cure"?
Slashdot Mirror
I loved the books, especially "Excession" and "Consider Phlebas" and I was saddened to hear this news about Mr. Banks.
That being said, don't you think that there was an implied but mostly unexplored "dark side" lurking under the surface of "The Culture" and their paradise? The technology made everything possible, but they were also sort of "boxed in" by it. It's fun to imagine, but what would life be and where would a species go without some sort of struggle, scarcity or hardship? That's why some of the characters were driven to join the "special forces". They also struck me as being an extremely pretentious bunch with an overwhelming superiority complex. I found some elements of their interactions with "inferior" cultures to be disturbing.
I was really hoping that there would be a final "culture" novel where those arrogant bastards were annihilated or at least taught a lesson in humility by a superior power.
I think the individual should be responsible for deciding what is to their own "benefit" or "detriment". They should also be responsible for the consequences of those decisions.
Hiring a bunch of thugs (government) to throw people in cages because "society" thinks the people are making stupid and irrational choices is morally repugnant.
Feel free to 'stigmatize' drug users, just don't use force to coerce them into following arbitrary orders based on a subjective world view. If a person wants to drink, smoke, snort or inject themselves to death, what moral right do you have to forcefully interfere? If they prefer chemical happiness to real happiness, isn't that their choice to make?
What do I think would happen if drugs were de-criminalized?
On the plus side, I think gun violence would drop precipitously. I think we would spend a lot less on cops and prisons. I think new businesses would emerge that catered to drug users. On the downside, I think there would be an increase in drug abuse, but I also think the increase would quickly plateau because most people don't do drugs for reasons other than the fact they're illegal.
Did you make a plea deal with the feds which requires you to post authoritarian pro-government propaganda on internet discussion forums?
The reason this guy got screwed so hard is for refusing to become a rat for the feds. If there is anything that they hate, it's when one of us uppity serfs chooses the path of non-compliance.
Same thing happened to Randy Weaver and his family. Feds entrapped him into illegally altering some shotguns and offered to let him off if he would agree to spy on anti-government groups. He refused and they went after him. They did not send a small army to assault his home in order to arrest him for the weapons crime. They went in to teach him a lesson about not bowing before the almighty government.
Not saying Weaver or Ananya was innocent, but the disproportionate penalties applied to them are clearly punishment for non-cooperation.
What the FUCK business is it of mine if MY business is selling briefcases, duffel bags, strong boxes or hidden vehicle compartments?
He's no more "guilty" than the people who legally sell elaborate water pipes and vaporizers(alongside tie-dyed T-shirts and Grateful Dead gear) to their tobacco-smoking customers.
Not to mention the fact that the "Hostess" option isn't really available with government unions. In the private sector, if the unions get to be too much of a pain, the owners can always shut down the business and move on. Although it would be awesome if we had the same option with government unions, we don't. That's why government unions should be prohibited.
No, of course not. For YOUR safety, the USA federal government MUST make it illegal to re-import prescription drugs and medical devices!
How anyone can believe that people in Washington DC have a desire to make healthcare "affordable" is beyond me.
"Big Pharma is a gigantic example of market failure."
As usual, government creates a total mess and "free markets" take the blame. There is no "free market" for pharmaceuticals. There is a hybridized government/corporate cluster****.
The USA federal government imposes artificial re-importation restrictions on prescription drugs and medical devices. That's why a drug that costs $10 across the border costs 20X as much in the USA. The federal government also forces price controls on drugs being purchased through welfare programs. Therefore, the privately insured (and even worse, the uninsured) get stuck with ridiculously higher prices for the same drugs.
That is NOT a free market by any stretch of the imagination. In a genuine free market, there would be no artificial trade barriers. Pharmacies would immediately sprout up to profit from any cross-border price disparity. It would also be nearly impossible to create a discriminatory price structure for the same product.
Government is the failure and asking for more government to "fix" things is insanity.
For all the people whining about the ROT13 initiative. Jeesh!
It wasn't ROTFL type funny, but it was definitely amusing.
Spend 2 minutes writing a comment complaining about having to waste 15 seconds figuring out how to un-encode the articles?
Federal spending has doubled since 2001 and has increased 50% since 2005. Straight from whitehouse.gov
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Year | Federal Outlays ... ...
=======================
2001 1,862,846
2005 2,471,957
2008 2,982,544
2009 3,517,677
2010 3,456,213
2011 3,603,061
I think there were some good old days. At least there was a time in this country where we had more than one or two elected officials who actually cared about the rule of law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
" 2. The lender should be expected to accept risk. It's funny how capitalists get shield from market risks..."
You're talking about the case when the government and Federal Reserve come along and "shield" certain wealthy elites from the consequences of their actions. That's not capitalism. It's called "central planning" and it's the antithesis of capitalism and free markets.
In a genuine system of capitalism, the lender and borrower would both assume the risks. If both parties endure a loss when a loan goes bad, it sets up a strong disincentive for making "bad" loans in the first place.
There are different types of VC firms, but overall, I think they are for investors who have a generally high risk tolerance.
I recently attended a conference and saw a presentation by a guy who was part of a small VC firm that funded startups. They understand and expect that many of the "ventures" will be losers. They even expect that they will invest in more losers than winners overall. They're betting on finding a small number of ventures that really take off and provide big returns that will compensate for other losses.
Contrary to the /. wisdom, the creationists have come up with scientifically based counter-arguments to a lot of the evidence that might tend to disprove Genesis. They don't rely exclusively on the "magic" explanation.
I think radiocarbon dating is fairly compelling evidence against the biblical narrative of creation occurring ~6k years ago, but they have an explanation for that too:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
Do you want to prevent anyone from accessing the information without your approval or are you merely concerned about the device being physically confiscated? If it's the latter, how about just streaming the audio/video to remote storage?
People who see through the BS of one manufactured crisis after another being used as an excuse to expand the size and power of the government.
Communists, terrorists, WMDs, financial armageddon, climate change. SSDD. Always stirring up fear as a justification for more and more concentration of power. I'm not "anti-environment" I'm "anti-central planning". Grant the people who passed the 2012 NDAA additional power to micro-manage my energy use? Not a chance.
There are enough laws on the books so that basically anyone and everyone is a criminal. Given the fact that they can also track and record everything you do, they can easily accumulate evidence of your criminality.
Then comes selective prosecution. Friends of Big Brother get away with blatant and obvious criminal activity with no legal consequences. Peaceful political dissidents who dare question the status quo incur the full wrath of the government.
Hell, even if you are 100% innocent, the government claims the power to kidnap and/or kill you, so they don't even need to bother with evidence gathering.
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."?
That's pretty much the ONLY part of the Bill of Rights that the government hasn't blatantly violated and isn't actively trying to undermine.
They can't be worrying about 3D printing of firearms. They're too busy smuggling weapons to the drug cartels and fantasizing about the next group of women and children they can tear-gas and burn alive.
"Downfall"? LOL.
The NRA has over four million dues-paying members and has been doing an excellent job in representing those members. This is clearly evidenced by their persistent and growing numbers. Also, as a 501c(4), their corporate fundraising is strictly limited. There is no conflict.
The gun manufacturers have an industry lobby group (NSSF) just like every other industry. I can scarcely imagine 3D printing technology becoming such a threat that the NSSF would seek to ban it.
P.S.
Your illustrious mayor not only wants to disarm you, He also announced his unequivocal support for universal surveillance. NYPD and the big banks are going to be sharing video spying as part of the "Ring of Steel" initiative around lower Manhattan, and said that the serfs better get used to the idea that privacy is dead. Gun grabbers want to destroy ALL of your liberties.
People are often held accountable for supplying weapons used in crimes. After the Columbine shooting a man was prosecuted for selling the killers a handgun (illegal to sell to someone 21).
What does "secure the weapon" mean? My firearms are at my home with doors and windows locked. Am I being "careless"? If some criminal batters the door down with a sledgehammer and steals my firearms, you think I'm responsible for "allowing" them to be stolen? Nonsense.
There's no generally accepted link between firearms and suicide. The only agreed upon conclusion is that people who "attempt" suicide by firearm are more successful than those who "attempt" suicide by other means. Which raises the question about whether failed "attempts" were even genuine.
If you think government should confiscate firearms based on your subjective assessment of our "needs", why can't the same argument be made about video games? Obviously you don't "need" them, so ban them.
Correction. The NRA lobbied specifically against funding of research into gun violence by the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
Such funding is ridiculous because the fundamental implication is that firearms should be treated like a "disease". Gee. If that's the case, I wonder what their research would recommend as a possible "cure"?
Leave the "video" part out, and I think the guy is right. This murdering freak was clearly "keeping score" and treating this like it was a game.