If you believe that rights are absolute, you must present who defines what they are- that leads into a subjective bias imposed by the person doing the definition.
If you believe that rights are subjective but defined by the entire population group, that theory propagates down to any small population group that is self-lead- like say, a state government.
The definition of 'liberal' has changed drastically since its arguable inception in the early 17th century. The development is fascinating and also, to a great degree, logically sound, but that's another issue entirely.
Suffice it to say that the word 'liberal' is not a clearly defined word. John Locke, for example, did not support democracy. Liberalism in its most original form was essentially a philosophy supporting freedom and equality for the people in all forms. Eventually this morphed into liberal socialism; which supported the state providing for individuals so that they had equality of opportunity as well as freedom of opportunity. Modern liberalism, as a rule, continues along this trend, integrating more elements of socialism into it.
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. He's saying that the people who will complain are not the people who are particularly 'oppressed' by the system, but the small (but extremely vocal) minority that has not succeeded in the system, and hence dislike it.
It's somewhat of a truism that most people who succeed in a system wish to maintain it; what the grandparent seems to be suggesting is that the majority of Japanese 'succeed' in the system and therefore would not object, or in fact, would support, this move.
He's also saying that he thinks the Japanese have succeeded in creating a successful liberal-democratic society along the lines of the Scandinavians, and that by 'successful' it has [mostly] achieved the goals of liberal democracy (if that term even has meaning anymore these days).
As a rule, the court doesn't bother doing that sort of thing. If somebody doesn't show up, they don't get to defend themselves, pretty much. That generally leads them to lose.
I think the crucial note there is 'per the Court's prior order'.
I don't know about the Rules of Civil Procedure for this jurisdiction, but in mine a Court can issue an order allowing you to serve specific individuals in any way the court decides. If, for example, they knew nothing about the individual other than his e-mail address, it's not inconceivable that the lawyer would petition the court to allow service via e-mail, and I see no real reason for the court to deny it.
Moreover, if you DID receive it, deleting it and claiming you didn't would not just be a bad idea, it'd be perjury and possibly subject you to heavy statutory or punitive damages.
You said my comment is wrong, and yet you echo it in your own.
Perhaps that's true. However, in my opinion it's more likely that the expansion of the cheaper appliance market as compared to the high end market will significantly slow investment in high end gear.
Sony is only scared because the commodization of computers means the high-end market will probably stop growing, and possibly shrink...but it's not going away, no matter how loudly Sony whines.
Perhaps that's true. However, in my opinion it's more likely that the expansion of the cheaper appliance market as compared to the high end market will significantly slow investment in high end gear.
See, up until this point and even today, computers are not really a commodity. They are arcane pieces of technicana, unlike a television or microwave. There are so many different varieties, they require specialized engineers to maintain, and so on and so forth. This diversity and performance, not to mention the costs and fallibility, drives the adoption of newer equipment.
When was the last time you bought a microwave, however? Probably the last time your old microwave broke. There's no reason to upgrade your microwave until it stops microwaving- but that's just not true of computer hardware and never has been. If computers stop failing, and stop becoming faster because everyone wants them cheap and cheap means the same in mass quantity, which is basically what commodities are, it will slow the adoption of equipment which by its nature is only undergoing radical, rapid generational change because people keep buying it.
It seems very clear to me why Sony thinks a race to the bottom is bad. They argue that by forcing manufacturers, who already have thin margins to cut their margins even further by creating cheaper and cheaper commodity hardware, it will limit the likelihood of manufacturers investing in high-margin, high-value, cutting edge hardware- and will therefore limit the development of said hardware.
As a result, the focus on commodity PCs, like the eeePC, signals a shift away from the accelerating development of hardware and software toward a more stagnant approach.
I'm not sure I agree. But that's what it seems like Sony is arguing.
Amusingly enough, I know universities where that only applies to student housing- the on-campus wireless is uncapped (B, 11 Mb/s), but try to use the 100 Mb/s drop in your room and you'll soon see the folly of your ways.
Why would they do that? Copyleft licenses only exist because there is value to be protected. If the individuals wanted to make the material free, they could release it into the public domain and pay no taxes on it. Since they do not want it to be Free, then they have to pay taxes on it.
Ah, and where is Linus going to get the tax value of 30 gogolplex kg of gold? As you said, he didn't.
Again, if you want the IP available to anyone, you can release it into the public domain. That's not the problem. The problem is that Linus doesn't want the IP available to everyone to use. He wants specific restrictions placed upon its distribution, and that means it has value.
Hundreds of people do. Everyone who's ever contributed to Linux does. Each one of them owns "intellectual property" in Linux, and in order to "lock down" Linux, Microsoft would need to buy out each and every person.
I mentioned this. However, this is probably not so difficult- each of those people would be paying property tax on their segment of the IP. If they set the value high, they'd bankrupt themselves. If they set it low, Microsoft would be able to snap it up because none of the Linux developers have fifty billion dollars in ready cash. They could, however, release it into the public domain, which would introduce its own set of problems.
except that that wouldn't help. Linux is under the GPL. The GPL is irrevocable. Every person who's downloaded a copy of Linux would still be able to use it, distribute it, and modify it.
I'm not so sure this would be possible. I admit I haven't examined the issue in great detail, but it would seem to violate the terms of the proposed 'system'. More specifically, it allows for the existence of IP that is not itself taxed. However, it might be possible in a static form.
So, imagine Microsoft somehow buys all the property rights to a version of Linux . . . the community merely "forks" it, keeping the same name (which isn't a copyright, note! It's a trademark! Microsoft can't buy it!) and keep developing, with the same version, leaving all the same code in place, without even skipping a beat.
This, however, would not be possible, for a variety of reasons. Primarily, every addition or modification to the source code would constitute another piece of value which lands you back at square one. It is, of course, pointless to release the code under the GPL and then instantly release it into the public domain; holding the copyright leads you back into a shotgun situation.
I am further not convinced that any secondary recipients would not be considered to 'own' quantities of the IP so GPLed sufficient to trigger the said property tax. They after all have the right to distribute it for value or not as they wish; that gives them, one could argue, 'value' upon which they should taxed, in the same way that books are [supposed to be] taxed even after the first sale.
That sounds similar in concept to a shotgun buy/sell (for corporate shares).
It sounds great in theory. In practice, however, it would be untenable. Linus would never be able to afford the property taxes on Linux, and as a result Microsoft with its billions in cash reserves would be able to buy it for a steal (unless of course Linus let it into the public domain, a decision I'm not even sure he could make.)
Linux is obviously an example, and perhaps a bad one. But a shotgun buy/sell system as you are proposing dramatically favors those with larger revenue streams and ready cash reserves.
Maybe one day the truth will be out about second hand smoke, which suffers from the same super inflated and misinterpreted statistics as the subject in TFA.
Not entirely relevant to the subject at hand, but the local paper had in its list of "interesting things we learned this week" that according to the CDC, 44% of cigarettes in the United States are smoked by people who suffer from a diagnosed mental disorder.
I've spent the past fifteen minutes attempting to come up with a reasonable response because I find your tone and attitude to be both disheartening and unsettling...things I could hear myself saying only five years past.
Somehow I find that ironic. What, after all, changed your mind?
My question for you is, what makes you intrinsically better than these people? Is it that you work harder than them? Is it because you've earned what you have and they merely were given it? Is it because they lack hermeneutic thought? Is it because they would rather go get drunk and high than to apply themselves to their academic crafts? Is it because they don't value the opportunities that you've had to work so hard for?
Nothing makes me intrinsically better; better, after all, is a relative term, especially in such a vague sense, and I am quite firmly of the opinion that were they to feel the way I did, they would achieve the same ends with varying degrees of success. No; rather I am disturbed because there is a continuing trend in our society toward a lack of self-examination and development. I have no issue with those who approach self-examination and development in different ways; some may achieve this by home-schooling, some by apprenticeship, some by the classical education system, some by no education system at all- and I don't begrudge them that. In direct answer to your questions: I probably don't work harder than they did, I was the one given it, No*, I feel that to some extent there comes nothing at all productive out of getting ones' self high and drunk and so therefore I place it in the same general category as suicide and self-mutilation, worthy of equal parts scorn and sympathy, although I don't specifically single out academic pursuits as what they should be doing instead; and no, because as I said I'm likely the one who didn't have to work for them.
Rather, I take excessive issue with the fact that from where I sit, people see no focus on self-improvement. It is my opinion that self-improvement is critical for our society to develop; I have a pet theory that evolution is not merely a biological process, but a sociological process. For whatever reason, some cultures become more successful and thrive as they adapt, and in time the successful modifications of society reverberate back through the system. A society that does not stagnate is not necessarily self-destructive, but merely by its lack of adaption is likely to be pushed out of the way by other societies that DO adapt. This is not a thinly disguised slice at religious theology and so-called 'islamofacists' taking over the world; 'societies' is a vague term indeed, and any major nation has dozens of different ones of various sizes and compositions.
So then, you might argue, why would I quarrel with its stagnation and therefore inevitable destruction? Because I think that the qualities that lead to the system we have in place are not necessarily bad. It would be immensely unfortunate for those societies to dry up merely because of those factors. Call it whimsy, I suppose; after all, by the same theory, I am not a part of one of those societies at any rate. But I digress.
To me, from the outside with very very very modest information, you sound bitter and alone. I know what it's like to be bitter and alone, and to be more comfortable directing my anger outside as opposed to dealing with the hooks that made me think and feel the way I did. I don't know you, so I don't want to assume, but ask yourself that question honestly.
And again I ask you again, why? You say you are more comfortable with self-examination; very well. How did your self-examination improve the qualities in your society that you found lacking? For a more prosaic example, say you dislike your local politician's stance on FDA regulation of GM foods. It seems like, rather than attempting to convince your politician his stance is wrong, or vote him out of office
Or he was claiming that Ron Paul's ideas were so wackjobbish that as a result, by default, the only people who would appreciate them would be unable (due to lack of intelligence) to appreciate why they were so bad.
For example: Nazis. (Goodwin's Law, where are you?) One could argue that the only one who supports the Nazis are idiots. Not that only stupid people can become nazis, but that the only group, or the majority of a group who appreciates them would only be a group unable to appreciate why they were so bad.
I think it's time to get off the soapbox my friend; the only thing your superior attitude does it create a divide between you and your peers. It doesn't do you any good even if you're spot on in your analysis of the state of the world because at the end of the day when you leave the hallowed walls of academia you will have to work with these people, day-in and day-out.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that cooperation is necessary in all but the most superficial sense with other people; it is not. I do not respect these people, and I do not think well of them. If something they want benefits me, I will do it. If something they want does not benefit me, I will not. If something I want harms them in some way that is still legal, I will probably do it. What they want only enters the equation in the most superficial sense; and it is again only in the most superficial sense that we are 'working together'.
And I would also suggest not judging an individual's aptitude by his/her performance in high school and college. Twenty years from now, when you look at your graduating high school class there will be some big big surprises with respect to how people turn out. Some who you thought had it together will do nothing with their lives, others who appeared to be lost and headed down the wrong path will end up being CEO's of Fortune 500 companies.
I never judged people by their performance in high school or college. I judged them by the way they went about that performance. Most of the people I knew received excellent marks, but that was due to the way the education system was structured; it did not indicate anything about their intelligence, imagination, flexibility, and so on. In fact, how they received those marks was the best indication of those qualities.
In a similar sense (and I have covered this all before on other comments in Slashdot) 'success' is only tied to 'intelligence' or 'aptitude' in very limited ways. In the most common of cases, success is a very large part merely being in the right place at the right time with the right tools.
Don't know how old you are so sorry if I undershot the grade though I'm guessing no older than university age. Give it some time...
The irony of it is that the older generations believe the younger to be 'idealistic', and that they will grow up and see the world in the same manner as their elders.
Despite the fact that this might be true in the general case, consider; is the way you see the world now the way you want the world to be? No? Then why should you look forward to others seeing it in the same way?
The difficulty i really feel is exemplified by one time last week when the prof raised his hand and asked "How many of you, if you were to pay the same tuition and receive the same degree, would spend your years on a beach in Hawaii instead?"
And everybody save two raised their hands.
I of course, may have refused to raise my hand solely because I dislike beaches. But it showed what I thought was a disturbing endemic in the school population. Students don't come to learn. They don't care about learning. It doesn't interest them and they get little, if anything out of it will stick with them in later life. The number of students who had to learn calculus in senior year and then can't recall it two years later proves that.
Maybe that's not exactly what you mean. But I feel disillusioned that these... people... show no interest in being intelligent. They show no interest in being knowledgeable. Current events and international affairs, if anything, are a taboo subject- even among international relations and political science majors!
What use, then, in the grand scheme of things, is an ability, (the advantage of long amounts of computer use) if they don't use it in a productive way? What use is a BMW if it sits in my garage day after day?
It is perhaps even more frightening that they may have this talent and refuse to use it productively. Ignorance, at least, can be remedied. Stupidity is a much more tricky problem.
I can see numbers one and two, although I believe they are tied together; desire and belief go hand in hand, and I don't think you can change one without really changing the other. After all, an excuse people will give themselves for not WANTING to change is that they can't (or don't need to, which is really item number three and leads me into my next comment issue...)
How do advanced social programs keep poor people poor? They allow those who do not want to advance to do so; and to some extent, they make it easier for people who do not want to work. However, that is not an oppressive force; it does not prevent them from entering another income bracket, it simply makes it more comfortable for them to stay in their current income bracket. The two are very different issues entirely, and the latter is again tied back to the former issue- not wanting things to change. (Perhaps relevantly, I am not an American, and from where I sit, there isn't a material difference between Democrats and Republicans in terms of policy. They both spend more than they take in- the only difference is on whom they spend it.)
Your fourth point, however, I believe has significant merit. The prison system, for a variety of reasons, DOES make it harder for individuals to reintegrate into society. Some of this, I strongly believe, is that society has a stigma (warranted or not) against individuals who have been in prison. Another part of it is that prison doesn't well-prepare individuals for release. A further component of the issue may be that the people who get caught doing illegal acts and then are thrown into prison are simply more likely to commit illegal acts. It doesn't help that while in prison, you group together criminals where their knowledge, tactics, procedures, and contacts only spread, further compounding the problem.
But you're right. We can't force people to change, just like we can't force people to be free.
Slashdot Mirror
So who defines what those rights are? You?
If you believe that rights are absolute, you must present who defines what they are- that leads into a subjective bias imposed by the person doing the definition.
If you believe that rights are subjective but defined by the entire population group, that theory propagates down to any small population group that is self-lead- like say, a state government.
Do you also oppose the ban on people randomly firing automatic weapons around within city limits?
I'm really curious.
The definition of 'liberal' has changed drastically since its arguable inception in the early 17th century. The development is fascinating and also, to a great degree, logically sound, but that's another issue entirely.
Suffice it to say that the word 'liberal' is not a clearly defined word. John Locke, for example, did not support democracy. Liberalism in its most original form was essentially a philosophy supporting freedom and equality for the people in all forms. Eventually this morphed into liberal socialism; which supported the state providing for individuals so that they had equality of opportunity as well as freedom of opportunity. Modern liberalism, as a rule, continues along this trend, integrating more elements of socialism into it.
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. He's saying that the people who will complain are not the people who are particularly 'oppressed' by the system, but the small (but extremely vocal) minority that has not succeeded in the system, and hence dislike it.
It's somewhat of a truism that most people who succeed in a system wish to maintain it; what the grandparent seems to be suggesting is that the majority of Japanese 'succeed' in the system and therefore would not object, or in fact, would support, this move.
He's also saying that he thinks the Japanese have succeeded in creating a successful liberal-democratic society along the lines of the Scandinavians, and that by 'successful' it has [mostly] achieved the goals of liberal democracy (if that term even has meaning anymore these days).
And a judge may order specific rules of service if individuals are in unique circumstances, indeed.
As a rule, the court doesn't bother doing that sort of thing. If somebody doesn't show up, they don't get to defend themselves, pretty much. That generally leads them to lose.
I think the crucial note there is 'per the Court's prior order'.
I don't know about the Rules of Civil Procedure for this jurisdiction, but in mine a Court can issue an order allowing you to serve specific individuals in any way the court decides. If, for example, they knew nothing about the individual other than his e-mail address, it's not inconceivable that the lawyer would petition the court to allow service via e-mail, and I see no real reason for the court to deny it.
Moreover, if you DID receive it, deleting it and claiming you didn't would not just be a bad idea, it'd be perjury and possibly subject you to heavy statutory or punitive damages.
Perhaps that's true. However, in my opinion it's more likely that the expansion of the cheaper appliance market as compared to the high end market will significantly slow investment in high end gear.
See, up until this point and even today, computers are not really a commodity. They are arcane pieces of technicana, unlike a television or microwave. There are so many different varieties, they require specialized engineers to maintain, and so on and so forth. This diversity and performance, not to mention the costs and fallibility, drives the adoption of newer equipment.
When was the last time you bought a microwave, however? Probably the last time your old microwave broke. There's no reason to upgrade your microwave until it stops microwaving- but that's just not true of computer hardware and never has been. If computers stop failing, and stop becoming faster because everyone wants them cheap and cheap means the same in mass quantity, which is basically what commodities are, it will slow the adoption of equipment which by its nature is only undergoing radical, rapid generational change because people keep buying it.
It seems very clear to me why Sony thinks a race to the bottom is bad. They argue that by forcing manufacturers, who already have thin margins to cut their margins even further by creating cheaper and cheaper commodity hardware, it will limit the likelihood of manufacturers investing in high-margin, high-value, cutting edge hardware- and will therefore limit the development of said hardware.
As a result, the focus on commodity PCs, like the eeePC, signals a shift away from the accelerating development of hardware and software toward a more stagnant approach.
I'm not sure I agree. But that's what it seems like Sony is arguing.
Amusingly enough, I know universities where that only applies to student housing- the on-campus wireless is uncapped (B, 11 Mb/s), but try to use the 100 Mb/s drop in your room and you'll soon see the folly of your ways.
No, but Microsoft does. Not only does DreamSpark offer college students free software, Microsoft gives it away like candy at their promotional events.
Try telling that to the IRS.
Why would they do that? Copyleft licenses only exist because there is value to be protected. If the individuals wanted to make the material free, they could release it into the public domain and pay no taxes on it. Since they do not want it to be Free, then they have to pay taxes on it.
Ah, and where is Linus going to get the tax value of 30 gogolplex kg of gold? As you said, he didn't.
Again, if you want the IP available to anyone, you can release it into the public domain. That's not the problem. The problem is that Linus doesn't want the IP available to everyone to use. He wants specific restrictions placed upon its distribution, and that means it has value.
So the material is in the public domain, then?
Well, obviously not. Linus had that right now, and he chose not to exercise it. He obviously wants/wanted to hold some control over its distribution.
I mentioned this. However, this is probably not so difficult- each of those people would be paying property tax on their segment of the IP. If they set the value high, they'd bankrupt themselves. If they set it low, Microsoft would be able to snap it up because none of the Linux developers have fifty billion dollars in ready cash. They could, however, release it into the public domain, which would introduce its own set of problems.
I'm not so sure this would be possible. I admit I haven't examined the issue in great detail, but it would seem to violate the terms of the proposed 'system'. More specifically, it allows for the existence of IP that is not itself taxed. However, it might be possible in a static form.
This, however, would not be possible, for a variety of reasons. Primarily, every addition or modification to the source code would constitute another piece of value which lands you back at square one. It is, of course, pointless to release the code under the GPL and then instantly release it into the public domain; holding the copyright leads you back into a shotgun situation.
I am further not convinced that any secondary recipients would not be considered to 'own' quantities of the IP so GPLed sufficient to trigger the said property tax. They after all have the right to distribute it for value or not as they wish; that gives them, one could argue, 'value' upon which they should taxed, in the same way that books are [supposed to be] taxed even after the first sale.
If you never died, your heirs would never pay an inheritance tax. I'm not sure exactly what your problem is.
That sounds similar in concept to a shotgun buy/sell (for corporate shares).
It sounds great in theory. In practice, however, it would be untenable. Linus would never be able to afford the property taxes on Linux, and as a result Microsoft with its billions in cash reserves would be able to buy it for a steal (unless of course Linus let it into the public domain, a decision I'm not even sure he could make.)
Linux is obviously an example, and perhaps a bad one. But a shotgun buy/sell system as you are proposing dramatically favors those with larger revenue streams and ready cash reserves.
Not entirely relevant to the subject at hand, but the local paper had in its list of "interesting things we learned this week" that according to the CDC, 44% of cigarettes in the United States are smoked by people who suffer from a diagnosed mental disorder.
Somehow I find that ironic. What, after all, changed your mind?
Nothing makes me intrinsically better; better, after all, is a relative term, especially in such a vague sense, and I am quite firmly of the opinion that were they to feel the way I did, they would achieve the same ends with varying degrees of success. No; rather I am disturbed because there is a continuing trend in our society toward a lack of self-examination and development. I have no issue with those who approach self-examination and development in different ways; some may achieve this by home-schooling, some by apprenticeship, some by the classical education system, some by no education system at all- and I don't begrudge them that. In direct answer to your questions: I probably don't work harder than they did, I was the one given it, No*, I feel that to some extent there comes nothing at all productive out of getting ones' self high and drunk and so therefore I place it in the same general category as suicide and self-mutilation, worthy of equal parts scorn and sympathy, although I don't specifically single out academic pursuits as what they should be doing instead; and no, because as I said I'm likely the one who didn't have to work for them.
Rather, I take excessive issue with the fact that from where I sit, people see no focus on self-improvement. It is my opinion that self-improvement is critical for our society to develop; I have a pet theory that evolution is not merely a biological process, but a sociological process. For whatever reason, some cultures become more successful and thrive as they adapt, and in time the successful modifications of society reverberate back through the system. A society that does not stagnate is not necessarily self-destructive, but merely by its lack of adaption is likely to be pushed out of the way by other societies that DO adapt. This is not a thinly disguised slice at religious theology and so-called 'islamofacists' taking over the world; 'societies' is a vague term indeed, and any major nation has dozens of different ones of various sizes and compositions.
So then, you might argue, why would I quarrel with its stagnation and therefore inevitable destruction? Because I think that the qualities that lead to the system we have in place are not necessarily bad. It would be immensely unfortunate for those societies to dry up merely because of those factors. Call it whimsy, I suppose; after all, by the same theory, I am not a part of one of those societies at any rate. But I digress.
And again I ask you again, why? You say you are more comfortable with self-examination; very well. How did your self-examination improve the qualities in your society that you found lacking? For a more prosaic example, say you dislike your local politician's stance on FDA regulation of GM foods. It seems like, rather than attempting to convince your politician his stance is wrong, or vote him out of office
Or he was claiming that Ron Paul's ideas were so wackjobbish that as a result, by default, the only people who would appreciate them would be unable (due to lack of intelligence) to appreciate why they were so bad.
For example: Nazis. (Goodwin's Law, where are you?) One could argue that the only one who supports the Nazis are idiots. Not that only stupid people can become nazis, but that the only group, or the majority of a group who appreciates them would only be a group unable to appreciate why they were so bad.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that cooperation is necessary in all but the most superficial sense with other people; it is not. I do not respect these people, and I do not think well of them. If something they want benefits me, I will do it. If something they want does not benefit me, I will not. If something I want harms them in some way that is still legal, I will probably do it. What they want only enters the equation in the most superficial sense; and it is again only in the most superficial sense that we are 'working together'.
I never judged people by their performance in high school or college. I judged them by the way they went about that performance. Most of the people I knew received excellent marks, but that was due to the way the education system was structured; it did not indicate anything about their intelligence, imagination, flexibility, and so on. In fact, how they received those marks was the best indication of those qualities.
In a similar sense (and I have covered this all before on other comments in Slashdot) 'success' is only tied to 'intelligence' or 'aptitude' in very limited ways. In the most common of cases, success is a very large part merely being in the right place at the right time with the right tools.
The irony of it is that the older generations believe the younger to be 'idealistic', and that they will grow up and see the world in the same manner as their elders.
Despite the fact that this might be true in the general case, consider; is the way you see the world now the way you want the world to be? No? Then why should you look forward to others seeing it in the same way?
The difficulty i really feel is exemplified by one time last week when the prof raised his hand and asked "How many of you, if you were to pay the same tuition and receive the same degree, would spend your years on a beach in Hawaii instead?"
And everybody save two raised their hands.
I of course, may have refused to raise my hand solely because I dislike beaches. But it showed what I thought was a disturbing endemic in the school population. Students don't come to learn. They don't care about learning. It doesn't interest them and they get little, if anything out of it will stick with them in later life. The number of students who had to learn calculus in senior year and then can't recall it two years later proves that.
Maybe that's not exactly what you mean. But I feel disillusioned that these... people... show no interest in being intelligent. They show no interest in being knowledgeable. Current events and international affairs, if anything, are a taboo subject- even among international relations and political science majors!
What use, then, in the grand scheme of things, is an ability, (the advantage of long amounts of computer use) if they don't use it in a productive way? What use is a BMW if it sits in my garage day after day?
It is perhaps even more frightening that they may have this talent and refuse to use it productively. Ignorance, at least, can be remedied. Stupidity is a much more tricky problem.
I can see numbers one and two, although I believe they are tied together; desire and belief go hand in hand, and I don't think you can change one without really changing the other. After all, an excuse people will give themselves for not WANTING to change is that they can't (or don't need to, which is really item number three and leads me into my next comment issue...)
How do advanced social programs keep poor people poor? They allow those who do not want to advance to do so; and to some extent, they make it easier for people who do not want to work. However, that is not an oppressive force; it does not prevent them from entering another income bracket, it simply makes it more comfortable for them to stay in their current income bracket. The two are very different issues entirely, and the latter is again tied back to the former issue- not wanting things to change. (Perhaps relevantly, I am not an American, and from where I sit, there isn't a material difference between Democrats and Republicans in terms of policy. They both spend more than they take in- the only difference is on whom they spend it.)
Your fourth point, however, I believe has significant merit. The prison system, for a variety of reasons, DOES make it harder for individuals to reintegrate into society. Some of this, I strongly believe, is that society has a stigma (warranted or not) against individuals who have been in prison. Another part of it is that prison doesn't well-prepare individuals for release. A further component of the issue may be that the people who get caught doing illegal acts and then are thrown into prison are simply more likely to commit illegal acts. It doesn't help that while in prison, you group together criminals where their knowledge, tactics, procedures, and contacts only spread, further compounding the problem.
But you're right. We can't force people to change, just like we can't force people to be free.