You posted strongly something you believed in sincerely and I do not think you were trolling (posting something inflammatory that you probably do not believe with the intent of irritating people while you laugh at their responses while you don't care either way to begin with).
I still think you have bought into the republican backed smear campaign on Ron Paul and are mistaken. But that's no excuse for downmodding you just because you express your honest opinion.
Poor people move all the time. You can move across the country in the US for under two hundred dollars. I have friends who are poor single moms who have moved out of state and back in state in just the last three years.
You always have freedom to leave. You can *walk* across the country in 150 days. You can hop a bus for under $150 to cut most of that time off.
However, if the laws are the same everywhere, then freedom to move doesn't make much of a difference.
You do not have the freedom to formally sell yourself into slavery for the rest of your life.
However, the governments and corporations have figured out ways to make you a "defacto" slave unless you have pretty terrific self control.
I mean, what fool would work 50 hours a week for someone else to barely get enough money to live for their entire life before they are unemployable and have no means of support? And yet that describes the vast majority of "free" americans.
Why do we *still* have to work 40 hours a week when productivity has gone up so many times? When I was a contractor I put in 35 hour weeks and it was wonderful. It put me way ahead to the point in two more years I will not have to be a wage slave any more except for the way they have structured medical insurance. If you don't work, you can't get reasonably priced medical insurance. So ultimately, I'll have to decide between a few years of freedom but an earlier death. The best I can do for now is steer towards jobs with greater freedom.
As long as 50% of the voters think it is murder, then there is a basic disagreement about what is the basic civil right (right to live or right to choose).
The basic organization of the US is to recognize that people disagree- and yet we can work together. When you force every single damn issue to the national level, then you leave people no chance to move away from areas they disagree with and they start getting pretty pissy and intolerant.
he would not continue to expand the government. he would not continue to take our civil rights and privacy he would not continue to raise the cost of government he would do what he says he would and has a long voting record showing he does do what he says.
Right now- all other republican and democratic are lying so badly that we are literally voting for mystery men owned by the corporations.
RvW can go down for ten or twenty years so we do not lose the entire country. Indeed, a lot of benefit would come from it going down. Right now all the young females don't seem to get how much is at stake. And the older people have forgotten about their daughters bleeding to death in back alleys.
Ron Paul may not win, but he has a chance to shift the republicans back to being a small government party. Right now they are like a bunch of pro business, fascist, drunken sailors.
Yes and this is the same court which previously supported eminent domain only for strictly public projects. These guys are *not* strict constitutionalists. They are really pro-corporatists with some milder conservative social leanings.
We will be reaping the results of Bush's presidency for the next twenty years.
You have members of different parties right there with the ballots. They police each other. Likewise at the counting station. They don't just had the ballots to a room full of republicans or democrats except in some fairly corrupt locations.
e-machines on the other hand can be silently corrupted. There is no human counterbalance. There is no way to prove that a particular vote was indeed the vote the machine records.
Then what is the impact on the world economy for any additional copies of goods I receive?
The fact is that entertainment is overpriced. In reality, entertainment is at the highest supply level it has ever been. It is now impossible to ever catch up with all the entertainment that exists. Why are prices going up then?
Normally when something is in oversupply, the prices go down.
People make an arbitrary decision. And then they just stick with it.
It's very hard to overcome their position with facts because it is not a logical decision. It is usually better to argue with the emotionally. If you can shift their emotions, they are more likely to shift their position.
With facts they 1) Request more facts 2) Request impossible to gather amount of facts 3) Keep forgetting or misunderstanding facts they do not "like" 4) Discount facts (you have a total sales they dislike, they question the entire methodology for calculating the total).
I tipped $16 on a $42 bill last week at Steak and Ale. The waiter figured out how to use salad bar spinach for my side since they had had a busy day and run out of all their cooking vegetables.
I also tipped heavily at Olive Garden when the waiter spent a few minutes extra getting me vegetables for my dinner.
So if I'm willing to drop an extra $5 to $8 for a few minutes of a waiters time and consideration, I'm definitely willing to pay good money for downloaded music from an artist I like ESPECIALLY when I know they are getting the money instead of the weasels.
I've bought music off of Magnatune (downloaded-- and that was AFTER they let me download the MP3's for FREE to sample them!-- so I actually got the songs, decided i liked them, and then paid so I could get the higher quality version to burn to CD). Likewise, I buy concert T-Shirts from the various bands personal web sites.
Somehow, you can produce a record for $50k privately but it costs a million for the studio to do it. Some how you can make and distribute posters for $10k but it costs the studio's $500k to do it.
The fact is that there is too much bloat in the radio industry. There is no real competition.
You have people paying the studios 2 cents per download for vinyl record breakage.
You have 10 people work two months to edit and produce a record from the finished music and it costs a million dollars for some reason.
Music editing equipment USED to be expensive. Now, you can mix music on a PC that costs well under $10k.
There is no reason that Radiohead now cannot get smaller bands to pay them to be their warmup band. Hold an audition, take $10k up front for being allowed to have a warmup tour. And you don't have to sell your copyrights and your musical soul. Businesses ruthlessly cut costs related to employees. It's time for musicians to ruthlessly cut costs related to the music industry.
1. Government should ban smoking by people under 18, because of the harmful health effects. This is a false statement. You are omitting several additional conditions. The reason that smoking is banned is because of an accumulation of factors. a) smoking is harmful b) young people are ill informed of the risks c) even when informed of the risks, young people under 13 do not have fully formed logic centers in their brain so they are generally incapable of reasoning at an adult age yet. d) even when the logic center is formed, young people undergo a massive surge of hormones between 13 and their early 20's which renders them basically insane at times. e) for reasons unknown to me at this time, public education ends when most people are 18. f) for economic reasons over the last 50 years, many 18 year olds now can afford to move out on their own. g) for social reasons, most parents do not prefer that their children live with them past 18. h) smoking- unlike goth makeup- is physically addictive. Even if you do not enjoy smoking, you are punished when you try to quit if you smoke enough cigs to develop an addiction.:. Based on b,c,d we used to say that humans under the age of 21 were not accountable as adults and did not have the privileges of adults. We didn't allow them to have sex, get married, vote, etc.
i) Due to the baby boom, there were so many 18 to 21 year olds at the same time that their political force was able to cause society to change the rules and treat 18 year olds as adults (from e,f,g). j) As the baby boom has gotten older, they took those rights back from 18 year olds (who can now die in a war and may smoke cigarettes but who may no longer drink).:. Based on the prior conclusion and a,e,i,j,h we do not allow humans under 18 to smoke cigarettes.
My summary is that your argument starts off with a proposition of the form "Have you stopped beating your wife?" I.e. you have built in some bias's to your question that are not explicitly laid out.
Given that the rest of your argument was based on a shaky foundation, I won't address it. However.. I would argue that since we would not allow a child to smoke and we do argue adults to smoke then at some age chosen to represent the break between child and adult we would allow people to choose to smoke and suffer the consequences.
2. If that's true for the entire group of underage smokers, then it's also true for each individual smoker under 18. In other words, even if only one person under 18 smoked in the entire country, it would still be justified for the government to ban them from smoking.
3. Whatever bad health effects are caused by the average person under 18 smoking 1 cigarette, there is some number N cigarettes that would cause the same bad health effects in the average adult who smoked them.
4. If banning 1 person under 18 from smoking 1 cigarette is justified (even if they were the last smoker on Earth), and the health effects would be the same for an average adult who smoked N cigarettes, then banning 1 adult from smoking those N cigarettes would also be justified (again, even if they were the last smoker on Earth).
5. If banning 1 person over 18 from smoking would be justified, then the same logic would apply to every person over 18, which would imply banning smoking for all people over 18.
6. Hence, if you believe that smoking should be banned for people under 18, then the same logic would lead to a ban on smoking for people over 18 as well.
I'd say "close enough" for slashdot (but definately not good enough for a formal slashdot)
From the wiki
"Thoe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchae a little Temporary Safety, deerve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
I suppose you could have said, "To Paraphrase Ben Franklin...Any blah blah blah". I myself view slashdot more like a good conversation over wine where the emotional truths are more important than the data details. Unless of course you are just making it all up as you go along.
Ditto here. And since I got burned copies of some of their disks, I've bought logo'd merchandise directly from their web site and gone to (tonight--) three of their concerts.
I lie all the time to surveys when they are unavoidable.
I skew them in the direction where the survey takers will believe what I want them to so they will behave a certain way.
Credit card statements and receipts are facts.
I hate Riaa. I just don't trust people. I don't trust Riaa. I don't trust most human beings either. They are nice enough-- but they lie... a lot. And they are illogical... a lot.
The ones that do not lie are generally unpleasant to deal with. And they *still* lie by warping their perception of reality (and self-serving illogic and misremembering) but believe they are not lying and being straight arrows. Give me a rogue, and I know I can deal with them and not be upset when my "trust" is broken.
You'd be very weird then because in my 25 years in business there have been hundreds of occurrences where we put the needs of a larger customer ahead of a tiny customer or group of customers.
You'd probably be fired after you failed to support a huge customer because you wanted to support 100% of customers.
Your statement doesn't match the way it works in the real world when frequently there is no "right" answer. You have to pick between only bad options.
---
So let's imagine the result of your claim however.
Yes boss, I'm holding up rolling this out for 99% of our customers because I want to get 100% coverage. Well, yes, we do have to hire three new people for our QA department who have Linux experience and have the IT department set us up a bunch of new machines with the various major distributions of linux (Red Hat, Ubuntu, Mandrake (in europe), etc.) while we only need one environment for our windows base.
Yes all the testing for the windows media player 10 has already been done by Microsoft and is certified to work. However, we will probably need to write our own DRM'd linux player so we need to hire a couple hotshots. We have to be very careful of licensing-- we can't just use the media player code out there because a lot of it has restrictions on being used for profit.
I'm glad I have your 100% support for this plan boss. Because even if it takes us an extra year, we'll satisfy 100% of the customers, instead of 99% of them today.
---
I don't know who your boss is likely to be but he's a darn site different than any boss I have ever had.
We tend to genetically modify ourselves by our selection of spouses.
A group could decide that they were going to self breed in a certain way. However as the children reached the ability to decide on their own (I'm talking about legal age), they would not be bound to the group decision.
If the people you are going to do the deadly experiments on do not consent, it's unethical (actually I'd say evil).
If you lie to them about the risks... also unethical (and a lot of medical testing downplays the risks and doesn't help the testees when something terrible happens) and only slightly less evil.
If you fully inform them off all the risks you are aware of and they give informed consent, then it is not evil.
So you think with this precedent set, the same group of lawyers isn't going after the other hard drive makers yet? Using 1GB that way is common to other manufacturers as well. It has been for years. This is just some lawyer taking home a few hundred grand to a couple million while we get a coupon for free backup software or a couple bucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for the crappy modding.
You posted strongly something you believed in sincerely and I do not think you were trolling (posting something inflammatory that you probably do not believe with the intent of irritating people while you laugh at their responses while you don't care either way to begin with).
I still think you have bought into the republican backed smear campaign on Ron Paul and are mistaken. But that's no excuse for downmodding you just because you express your honest opinion.
Poor people move all the time. You can move across the country in the US for under two hundred dollars. I have friends who are poor single moms who have moved out of state and back in state in just the last three years.
You always have freedom to leave. You can *walk* across the country in 150 days. You can hop a bus for under $150 to cut most of that time off.
However, if the laws are the same everywhere, then freedom to move doesn't make much of a difference.
You do not have the freedom to formally sell yourself into slavery for the rest of your life.
However, the governments and corporations have figured out ways to make you a "defacto" slave unless you have pretty terrific self control.
I mean, what fool would work 50 hours a week for someone else to barely get enough money to live for their entire life before they are unemployable and have no means of support? And yet that describes the vast majority of "free" americans.
Why do we *still* have to work 40 hours a week when productivity has gone up so many times? When I was a contractor I put in 35 hour weeks and it was wonderful. It put me way ahead to the point in two more years I will not have to be a wage slave any more except for the way they have structured medical insurance. If you don't work, you can't get reasonably priced medical insurance. So ultimately, I'll have to decide between a few years of freedom but an earlier death. The best I can do for now is steer towards jobs with greater freedom.
As long as 50% of the voters think it is murder, then there is a basic disagreement about what is the basic civil right (right to live or right to choose).
The basic organization of the US is to recognize that people disagree- and yet we can work together. When you force every single damn issue to the national level, then you leave people no chance to move away from areas they disagree with and they start getting pretty pissy and intolerant.
While I agree with you that he would repeal RvW,
he would not continue to expand the government.
he would not continue to take our civil rights and privacy
he would not continue to raise the cost of government
he would do what he says he would and has a long voting record showing he does do what he says.
Right now- all other republican and democratic are lying so badly that we are literally voting for mystery men owned by the corporations.
RvW can go down for ten or twenty years so we do not lose the entire country. Indeed, a lot of benefit would come from it going down. Right now all the young females don't seem to get how much is at stake. And the older people have forgotten about their daughters bleeding to death in back alleys.
Ron Paul may not win, but he has a chance to shift the republicans back to being a small government party. Right now they are like a bunch of pro business, fascist, drunken sailors.
Fair enough. I lumped them together and assumed this landmark decision came from the new guys.
I sit corrected and I'm pretty shocked it was the older hands that did this.
Yes and this is the same court which previously supported eminent domain only for strictly public projects. These guys are *not* strict constitutionalists. They are really pro-corporatists with some milder conservative social leanings.
We will be reaping the results of Bush's presidency for the next twenty years.
I have a friend who is an election judge.
It works like this.
You have members of different parties right there with the ballots. They police each other.
Likewise at the counting station. They don't just had the ballots to a room full of republicans or democrats except in some fairly corrupt locations.
e-machines on the other hand can be silently corrupted. There is no human counterbalance. There is no way to prove that a particular vote was indeed the vote the machine records.
If I have $20 to spend.
And I spend all of it.
Then what is the impact on the world economy for any additional copies of goods I receive?
The fact is that entertainment is overpriced. In reality, entertainment is at the highest supply level it has ever been. It is now impossible to ever catch up with all the entertainment that exists. Why are prices going up then?
Normally when something is in oversupply, the prices go down.
I agree. So you won't have a problem saving the green ones for me, right?
I see this all the time in the world.
People make an arbitrary decision. And then they just stick with it.
It's very hard to overcome their position with facts because it is not a logical decision. It is usually better to argue with the emotionally. If you can shift their emotions, they are more likely to shift their position.
With facts they
1) Request more facts
2) Request impossible to gather amount of facts
3) Keep forgetting or misunderstanding facts they do not "like"
4) Discount facts (you have a total sales they dislike, they question the entire methodology for calculating the total).
I tipped $16 on a $42 bill last week at Steak and Ale.
The waiter figured out how to use salad bar spinach for my side since they had had a busy day and run out of all their cooking vegetables.
I also tipped heavily at Olive Garden when the waiter spent a few minutes extra getting me vegetables for my dinner.
So if I'm willing to drop an extra $5 to $8 for a few minutes of a waiters time and consideration, I'm definitely willing to pay good money for downloaded music from an artist I like ESPECIALLY when I know they are getting the money instead of the weasels.
I've bought music off of Magnatune (downloaded-- and that was AFTER they let me download the MP3's for FREE to sample them!-- so I actually got the songs, decided i liked them, and then paid so I could get the higher quality version to burn to CD). Likewise, I buy concert T-Shirts from the various bands personal web sites.
I'm sorry but that's not true any more.
Somehow, you can produce a record for $50k privately but it costs a million for the studio to do it.
Some how you can make and distribute posters for $10k but it costs the studio's $500k to do it.
The fact is that there is too much bloat in the radio industry. There is no real competition.
You have people paying the studios 2 cents per download for vinyl record breakage.
You have 10 people work two months to edit and produce a record from the finished music and it costs a million dollars for some reason.
Music editing equipment USED to be expensive. Now, you can mix music on a PC that costs well under $10k.
There is no reason that Radiohead now cannot get smaller bands to pay them to be their warmup band. Hold an audition, take $10k up front for being allowed to have a warmup tour. And you don't have to sell your copyrights and your musical soul. Businesses ruthlessly cut costs related to employees. It's time for musicians to ruthlessly cut costs related to the music industry.
It's copied text from the wiki. But I wouldn't focus on spelling over point.
Heck, I even have loost interest in arguing losely with the looooosey folks.
T'isn't!
1. Government should ban smoking by people under 18, because of the harmful health effects. :. Based on b,c,d we used to say that humans under the age of 21 were not accountable as adults and did not have the privileges of adults. We didn't allow them to have sex, get married, vote, etc.
:. Based on the prior conclusion and a,e,i,j,h we do not allow humans under 18 to smoke cigarettes.
This is a false statement. You are omitting several additional conditions. The reason that smoking is banned is because of an accumulation of factors.
a) smoking is harmful
b) young people are ill informed of the risks
c) even when informed of the risks, young people under 13 do not have fully formed logic centers in their brain so they are generally incapable of reasoning at an adult age yet.
d) even when the logic center is formed, young people undergo a massive surge of hormones between 13 and their early 20's which renders them basically insane at times.
e) for reasons unknown to me at this time, public education ends when most people are 18.
f) for economic reasons over the last 50 years, many 18 year olds now can afford to move out on their own.
g) for social reasons, most parents do not prefer that their children live with them past 18.
h) smoking- unlike goth makeup- is physically addictive. Even if you do not enjoy smoking, you are punished when
you try to quit if you smoke enough cigs to develop an addiction.
i) Due to the baby boom, there were so many 18 to 21 year olds at the same time that their political force was able to cause society to change the rules and treat 18 year olds as adults (from e,f,g).
j) As the baby boom has gotten older, they took those rights back from 18 year olds (who can now die in a war and may smoke cigarettes but who may no longer drink).
My summary is that your argument starts off with a proposition of the form "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
I.e. you have built in some bias's to your question that are not explicitly laid out.
Given that the rest of your argument was based on a shaky foundation, I won't address it.
However.. I would argue that since we would not allow a child to smoke and we do argue adults to smoke then at some age chosen to represent the break between child and adult we would allow people to choose to smoke and suffer the consequences.
2. If that's true for the entire group of underage smokers, then it's also true for each individual smoker under 18. In other words, even if only one person under 18 smoked in the entire country, it would still be justified for the government to ban them from smoking.
3. Whatever bad health effects are caused by the average person under 18 smoking 1 cigarette, there is some number N cigarettes that would cause the same bad health effects in the average adult who smoked them.
4. If banning 1 person under 18 from smoking 1 cigarette is justified (even if they were the last smoker on Earth), and the health effects would be the same for an average adult who smoked N cigarettes, then banning 1 adult from smoking those N cigarettes would also be justified (again, even if they were the last smoker on Earth).
5. If banning 1 person over 18 from smoking would be justified, then the same logic would apply to every person over 18, which would imply banning smoking for all people over 18.
6. Hence, if you believe that smoking should be banned for people under 18, then the same logic would lead to a ban on smoking for people over 18 as well.
As an AC, you may not get this but...
I'd say "close enough" for slashdot (but definately not good enough for a formal slashdot)
From the wiki
"Thoe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchae a little Temporary Safety, deerve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
I suppose you could have said, "To Paraphrase Ben Franklin...Any blah blah blah".
I myself view slashdot more like a good conversation over wine where the emotional truths are more important than the data details. Unless of course you are just making it all up as you go along.
So is *whoosh* the new slashdot meme?
I seem to see it a lot more lately. I like the non-direct way it says the joke went over their head.
Hmm.. let me get this right...
I for one, welcome our new whooshy overlords.
Ditto here. And since I got burned copies of some of their disks, I've bought logo'd merchandise directly from their web site and gone to (tonight--) three of their concerts.
I lie all the time to surveys when they are unavoidable.
I skew them in the direction where the survey takers will believe what I want them to so they will behave a certain way.
Credit card statements and receipts are facts.
I hate Riaa. I just don't trust people. I don't trust Riaa. I don't trust most human beings either. They are nice enough-- but they lie... a lot. And they are illogical... a lot.
The ones that do not lie are generally unpleasant to deal with. And they *still* lie by warping their perception of reality (and self-serving illogic and misremembering) but believe they are not lying and being straight arrows. Give me a rogue, and I know I can deal with them and not be upset when my "trust" is broken.
Yes.. but the parent specified a "tiny" mining plant.
You'd be very weird then because in my 25 years in business there have been hundreds of occurrences where we put the needs of a larger customer ahead of a tiny customer or group of customers.
You'd probably be fired after you failed to support a huge customer because you wanted to support 100% of customers.
Your statement doesn't match the way it works in the real world when frequently there is no "right" answer. You have to pick between only bad options.
---
So let's imagine the result of your claim however.
Yes boss, I'm holding up rolling this out for 99% of our customers because I want to get 100% coverage.
Well, yes, we do have to hire three new people for our QA department who have Linux experience and have the IT department set us up a bunch of new machines with the various major distributions of linux (Red Hat, Ubuntu, Mandrake (in europe), etc.) while we only need one environment for our windows base.
Yes all the testing for the windows media player 10 has already been done by Microsoft and is certified to work. However, we will probably need to write our own DRM'd linux player so we need to hire a couple hotshots. We have to be very careful of licensing-- we can't just use the media player code out there because a lot of it has restrictions on being used for profit.
I'm glad I have your 100% support for this plan boss. Because even if it takes us an extra year, we'll satisfy 100% of the customers, instead of 99% of them today.
---
I don't know who your boss is likely to be but he's a darn site different than any boss I have ever had.
Yea... and it is a very gray area.
We tend to genetically modify ourselves by our selection of spouses.
A group could decide that they were going to self breed in a certain way. However as the children reached the ability to decide on their own (I'm talking about legal age), they would not be bound to the group decision.
It turns on the area of consent.
If the people you are going to do the deadly experiments on do not consent, it's unethical (actually I'd say evil).
If you lie to them about the risks... also unethical (and a lot of medical testing downplays the risks and doesn't help the testees when something terrible happens) and only slightly less evil.
If you fully inform them off all the risks you are aware of and they give informed consent, then it is not evil.
So you think with this precedent set, the same group of lawyers isn't going after the other hard drive makers yet?
Using 1GB that way is common to other manufacturers as well. It has been for years. This is just some lawyer taking home a few hundred grand to a couple million while we get a coupon for free backup software or a couple bucks.