I bought the plantronics 640 for my dad about 6 weeks ago. My dad is in a wheelchair, so I've been trying to sell him on a bluetooth headset for the past two years. He was afraid that he'd look like one of those self-important a-holes that rolls around like a handycapped version of Gordon Gekko. I assured him that the 640 was the smallest and most inconspicuous bluetooth headset that I could find and it wouldn't make him look like like a cyborg salesman. He finally agreed to give it a go.
Here are the results: He loves it. The wind noise that alot of other internet reviews spoke of doesn't seem to be a problem for my dad...and he drives with all his windows down (no A/C). The headset itself is so light it practically floats. I couldn't believe that there was a battery inside of the headset...I was looking for a battery case opening for 5 minutes before I realized that the battery was built in...it's that light. You can pair the device up to two things simutaneously if you want (ex: your computer and your cell phone), though my dad has no need for that. His only complaints: you do need to charge it up every night if you talk often. If you talk really often, you should bring the portable pocket charger (which is still quite convenient).
I personally have no need for a bluetooth headset myself, but if I did, I would definately get this thing because it's tiny, it's light, it's inconspicuous (well, as inconspicuous as you can get until Jack Bauer starts endorsing his magical in-ear CTU issued earpieces), and plantronics obviously knows what they're doing. This is definately a headset for mobile users though. If you yap on the phone all day at work or home, you need a headset that has longer lasting batteries.
No, I take all your valid points. I wasn't referring to the guy's intolerance of Linux, but his apparent intolerance of the Gnome GUI. He was insinuating that Gnome was an inferior solution (as some KDE proponents do). Trust me, I use windows all the time (out of necessity), so I definatelty understand its superior attributes. But most of Window's "superiority" is merely a function of its widespread support by hardware manufacterers and major software developers (like Adobe/Macromedia and Intuit). I would be using Ubuntu exclusively if I could get Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, Soundforge, etc on it. I also want better sound card and video card support. I don't really give a shit about gnome vs kde. I just want the software that I use on a daily basis to work. It would be nice if the entire Linux community could get together and provide incentives for the major software developers and hardware manufacturers to devote some of their resources into quality ports of their products. I guess it's really a case of which comes first...the chicken or the egg. If only google came out with their own linux distro...I think might have a good chance at grabbing 10% of the market...a percentage significant enough to justify wider support from 3rd party developers.
With that said, although I differ from you in that enjoy vegetables as well, I love a good slab of prime rib run through a warm room. If I've been brainwashed to like that, well than hip-hip-hooray for brainwashing. And if it kills me sooner than eating nothing that casts a shadow, then at least that's that much less time I have to hear holier-art-than-thou neo-Puritans bitching about what I eat.
I don't care what you eat. Yes, I do personally care about animals the general health of society, but as a libertarian, I would never let my personal opinions interfere or infringe upon the private affairs of others. You can do whatever you want regardless of how unhealthy it is...your body is your property, not mine. The only thing I ask in return is that you don't make me pay for your increased healthcare costs via taxation. If you pay for all your own medical expenses, then as far as I'm concerned, you can shovel dead cows down your throat with a conveyor belt. Can't afford your own private healthcare insurance? Then you can't afford to eat unhealthy foods, smoke cigarettes, or have unprotected sex.
Sorry dude, I don't buy it. Most vegetarian parents I've talked to have told me that their kids like vegetables and fruit for the most part with rare exceptions. When you only offer your kids the choice between vegetable A and vegetable B...they learn to like one of them. When you offer the choice between meat A and veggie B...then due to their evolutionary instincts which gravitate toward the most "energy dense" foods, they will choose the meat because of its short term benefits. Now that we have science to repudiate the errors of evolution, we are able to determine that protein rich non-animal foods are far more healthy than protein rich meats. When one primarily feeds their kids fatty foods, meat, and dairy products...which have been proven to be addictive, it's easy to see why kids (and adults) reject healthy veggies over addictive meats and fatty foods.
I predict that a lot of the nutritional bias against meat will turn out to be completely wrong in the future.
I also think you're making the mistake of believe that evolution has some kind of purpose or that it is intelligent. Evolution is not necessarily smart. It creates far more "bad" mutations than it does "good" ones. It's just that we only see the "good" mutations because they are the ones that survive. You're also placing somewhat too much emphasis on nutrition as the means to survival when there are many other factors to survival...including the bodies ability to store and process food energy, the bodies hunting and gathering faculties, mental capacities, and the species social behaviors. I'd say that human survival has been much more a function of their ability to communicate in depth with each other as it has been with the types of food they eat. We are after all, one of the weakest species out there compared to those with similar weight (without our big brains, we'd be dead). In any case, almost every species has become extinct historically because the species's evolutionary progress was not able to adapt quickly enough to their changing enviornment (or they didn't have the brain capacity to evaluate and alter behavior that was inevitably destructive). I think human survival henceforth will largely depend upon our ability to make better choices in light of our scientific discoveries (ie, by marginalizing dangerous religious dogma, eating healthier plant based foods, and continuing to advance technologies that can make life easier and safer).
You surely can't deny that our culture has become more glutonous and obese BECAUSE of processed foods and meats served at fast food restaurants. And you also can't deny that obesity and high cholestrol levels leads to diabetes, heart disease, cancer, lupis and countless other ailments. This is not optimal anymore than lung cancer caused by smoking is optimal. Evolution, in this context, is wrong (if it is evolution's fault). It doesn't matter if you think meat tastes "soooooooooooo" much better than veggies. Science can prove that a diet based on cold-water fish and plants is far less destructive to your body than one based on fowl and red-meat. The meat eater in general may become bigger and stronger (if he doesn't eat lots of tofu or fish), but in human terms...is that necessary? Isn't the human's claim to fame our mental capacities? By eating red-meat in light of our scientific knowledge that it is not healthy, you are choosing not to benefit from the human's evolutionary strength...our ability to reason.
LOL. I liked your points, even though they are ruthless. Actually, I liked them because they were ruthless. Anyway, I just wanted to answer your sig question: Meat tastes good to you because your parents shoved it down your throat when you were growing up and every advertisement on tv told you it tasted good and all your friends that were influenced by their parents reinforced this idea and the multi-billion dollar meat/dairy industry spends millions of dollars every year making sure that you continue to believe that meat tastes good. I personally hate the taste of meat...and the odors that emanate from fast food restaurants makes me want to vomit.
Evolution? The survival "instinct" of the human being is our ability to reason. Our science and reasoning has helped us discover that meat, despite it's "good taste" causes cancers, heart disease, and so forth. Science has also demonstrated why heroin "feels good" but is still "bad" for you. Our evolutionary bodies are also not in tune with the advent of the agricultural revolution. Despite the fact that most of us can easily pop down to a grocery store and buy as much food as we want when we want it, many of us have the instinct of fattening up for times of famine (even though famine is a thing of the past for most westerners). This fattening up instinct never meets times of famine and therefore we are getting more obese and more prone to diabetes...so I'd say that evolution f'd up big time in this case. Fortunately, our survival instincts (reason) will probably help us out with most of these evolutionary shortcomings via genetic engineering, biotechnologies, and nanotechnology.
I could of course go on and on about how our body's perceptions don't always give us the most accurate or beneficial data, but I think you get the picture. I'll leave you with the best example...many people that smoke cigarettes claim to do so because they enjoy it or because it relaxes them...but evidence neverthless shows that nicotine consumption it is killing them. Science and Reason, not savage animal instincts, will determine the evolutionary fate of man.
You must feel great knowing that the government probably has a more accurate accounting of your personal finances than you do. I just love big brother...he's so attentive.
Libertarians don't want a state so they can "employ coercion," they want a state that can prevent coercion...ONLY when necessary. Libertarians believe individuals should be protected from coercion (including coercion from governments). They believe the state's only job is to protect the individuals liberty, life, and property when it needs to be protected. They believe that is the ONLY job of governments...governments merely being the elected representatives of a group of people.
Your arguement is akin to calling ME a "state" because I have been "elected" to protect my house and any residents and property inside of it. However, the only time I would actually be a "state" in a libertarian sense, is if someone tried to steal from me, enslave me, or kill me...in those cases, I would pull out a gun and blast a cap in their ass. During times of "peace" (no slavery, murder, or theft), the state in theory doesn't innitiate any action or force and therefore doesn't exist.. The Libertarian "state" only exists when it needs to react to violence, slavery and theft, just as my gun only exists (ie, comes out of the drawer) when someone tries to invade my home.
On the contrary, Democrats and Republicans want the "state" to never be at rest. They want the state to be proactive and perpetually invasive. In these cases, the state always exists because the state is always meddling in the lives and affairs and finances of its constituents. If I were a state in this sense, it would be like me taking out my gun and constantly shoving it in the faces of people in my house so they will do my bidding, pay me a large portion of their incomes, obey all my nonsensical rules, and allow me to search through their belongings when I imagine they're up to no good. This state is a stark contrast to the Libertarian "state" which only exists when it needs to exist to prevent coercive force.
Do you support, for example, the dissolution of the FDA?
Yes.
No political philosophy can be accurately described in a two-sentence soundbite, especially not one that describes Libertarians as the only ones who really support "freedom".
Libertarians may not be the ONLY ones that support freedom, but they are the largest party that does. Democrats and Republicans certainly do not.
I urge you to read the Libertarian Platform. You will find that the platform doesn't just use the word "freedom" alot, the entire platform is built upon the philosophy of liberty with no exceptions or asterisks or addendums. Libertarians call themselves the "party of principle" because they are unwilling to let go of a single ounce of freedom or to succumb to the fickle demands of lobbyists, corporations, or special interest groups. I respect Libertarians for their unwavering ideals, and regardless of their ability to win major elections (mostly due to suppressive, anti-free-speech campaign finance laws), I will always vote for them because I'd rather vote for something I believe in and lose the election, than vote for something I didn't believe in, and lose my self-respect.
People cooperating through government to develop software for a once off cost that could then be copied millions of times could easily be hugely economically efficient
I think the operative word here is "could." Politicians could make the world a better place, and claim that if you vote for them, that they will make the world a better place...but do they? I want you to give me just ONE example of how government interferance of freedom has been hugely economically efficient. Just one. The fact is, you'll be searching forever, because the very nature of the government won't allow efficiency. In fact, efficiency is discouraged as it means the program will receive less funding next year.
Whether you hate capitalists or not, the fact remains that people that compete in a free market produce better products and lower prices than monopolies (like the government) that don't have to compete. And the most important fact remains: stealing money from the many to pay for the few is still THEFT regardless of the great intentions of the thieves. Someone that steals bread to feed the family is still a damn thief. A government that steals my money to pay for some open source programmer is a criminal government.
To subsidize something may very well be more ecomonically efficient than to let the free market decide the level of production. A tax break for the production of open-source software results in higher production. If the resulting utility for society is greater than the cost (or equal), it is, per definition ecomonically efficient to produce at that level.
Who gets to decide how valuable the "resulting utility" is? You? The government?
Here's an idea...why not give individuals the CHOICE over what THEY consider is valuable to THEIR lives instead of letting you and your politician buddies decide for them (usually at a much greater expense). Oh yeah, that idea would be too similar to what the founding fathers had in mind, you know with their silly freedom loving antics.
Subsidizing open source software development can also be justified on grounds of economic efficiency.
I haven't heard a statement as absurd as this on slashdot for at least 5 minutes! The very idea of calling a subsidy "ecomonically efficient" is an oxymoron. If something needs to be subsidized, then its very clear that there isn't enough demand for the product or service at said price in the free market. If the demand is not great enough, then the product or service must improve, die, or be absorbed by a more successful seller (or programmer). Not one single dime of my tax money should go to pay for open source software. If I find value in open source software, I'll VOLUNTARILY donate money to it. Once you take away the voluntary payments, and force people with a gun to pay something (ie, tax them), then the software can no longer be considred "open" source. In fact, its even worse than closed source...because at least you have the option of not buying closed source software.
That's because you both probably realize that freedom is the most important principle to defend in a society...because without it, you can't do anything else. Freedom, of course, is a two way street (which both parties clearly lose sight of on purpose because they can extract more money from you by claiming that other big brotherish things HAVE to be done in order to protect the fading remnants of your "freedom"). Anyway, to simplify: "Conservatives" like to have freedom over their economic lives and "librals" like to have freedom over their personal lives. Here's a good compromise: Why not allow each party to have BOTH types of freedom so that everybody is happy? Oh yeah.
I don't get why it matters anymore what browser you run (business wise). Does Microsoft even care? If they really cared, wouldn't they have tried to compete more actively with Firefox when it was in beta almost 3 years ago? I mean, they aren't even giving IE 7 away for free (unless you have a genuine windows licence), which goes to show they are more interested in making money from their OS market than gain or maintain browser market share. It doesn't really make any difference to them at this point which browser you use so long as you are running that browser on their operating system (which they actually make money on).
The "browser wars" are over and they aren't coming back.
I agree my original point was a bit of a stretch. But really, it's about technology allowing the quality content producers the ability to disseminate their material to a much wider audience for alot less money. Almost anyone with 10 grand can easily produce their own album, film (digitally) a movie and edit it, and even make a tv show and distribute it globally (with bitorrent) for next to nothing. While yes, 99% of people won't produce anything (or at least nothing of great value), 1% of 6 billion is still alot of damn people (60 million?). 60 million people producing content and being able to distribute it globally...that's just nuts and its fantastic...but yes, inevitably it does dilute the value of content as it was spoon fed to us in the past by relatively few mediums. Today, almost any blogger can review almost anything. Hell, anyone can do their own "reviews" by using google. You can "browse" online and discover music just by using the "people who bought X also bought Y" feature on Amazon and other sites. In general, the overall masses of information that help you buy new products also dilutes the value of content in general by reviewing so much of it. It's like water. Water is damn valuable in the middle of the desert...but once you get to Seattle...you have so much damn water you get tired of it! Or at least, you don't appreciate your water (however good it tastes) quite as much because it is so plentiful and available compared to the desert. You made a good point about music being background music. I used to memorize the lyrics to every single album I owned when i was younger...now I couldn't even tell you the song titles of most of the tracks I listen to because I have so much music at this point because of its easy availability that I don't spend nearly as much time getting intimate with the tracks. Or, maybe I'm just getting older and less idealistic about music?
Regardless, content creators need to remember that whatever the reason, the consumer is definately being bombarded with massive amounts of content and no one piece of content can become supremely valuable anymore. We don't give it time to become valuable...we move on to something new before it even has a chance. The whole "MTV generation" attention span cliche is really kind of true. We want lots and lots of content, fast, and frequently. It's not that content was more valuable before, it's just that content creators used to have less competition because it was so expensive and/or difficult to distribute content in the past. Today, it's as easy as "Share this folder" or "post this blog" or what have you. The trick is to just keep creating exciting content constantly. The content providers that realize this instead of filing absurd lawsuits that pine for yesterday's paradigms will win.
Unfortunately monopolies are rquired for many different function such as the organization of telephone numbers, assignment of domain names, ip addresses and so on.
Uh, no they're not. What's "required" is that consenting adults create a contract with each other agreeing how to go about accomplishing something that they will all benefit from. When I want to build a house, I don't need a monopoly...I need the architect, the various contractors, and the bank to all agree on the same outcome so that the process and result of building a house is beneficial to us all (the architect gets paid for the plans, the contractors get paid for executing the plan, the bank profits by financing the plan, and I benefit by living in the house). This is simple, but nothing changes when dealing with phone numbers, IP addresses, networks, or anything. Businesses and individuals get together realizing that sharing expenses is more beneficial and economical than competing on every level and thus are perfectly capable of creating contracts with each other without government interference.
Personally, I would have liked to see MANY differnet internet protocals and organizational models compete with each other so that prices, performance, network security, speed and reliablity could have been in competition with each other...but YOU want everyting to be exactly the same so that there is no competition (and thus, no incentive to improve) and no incentive to reduce prices? No thanks. I'll take free market competition over the "neccessary" monopolies any day.
When these monopolies are controlled by profit motivated corporations, or control motivated governments, we all suffer.
Actually, the opposite is true. When a marketplace is saturated by "profit motivated corporations" then we have this thing called "competition." And competition drives down prices and improves quality and or performance. The government on the otherhand, when it issues a monopoly to itself or its pork barrel buddies, has no competition. They can charge whatever the hell they want and they don't even have to be accountable for their inevitable failures. If they fail, they'll just say they didn't tax your enough and needed more money...and they'll say that every year until the end of time because the money will never be enough to satiate their political greed. I'll take profit motivated corporations that have to compete with each other any day of the way, again.
Bottom line: teach yourself some economics, because your current comprehension of how the world actually works is just plain wrong.
I agree. I think anyone should be able to start a TLD server so long as the TLD is unique...and manage all their own dns servers. Why should any one body decide that only X amount of TLD are OK? Sounds fishy to me.
The only way a monopoly can exist is if the government GRANTS and secures a monopoly. Make no mistake...telcos monopolize/duopolize your connections becuase the government has not allowed competitors to lay down their own pipes (with the permission of property owners). Be very clear on these facts. In a real free market, you cannot have monopolies (at least not for very long). If there is money to be made in a market, there will always be competition. If there is competition, prices go down and quality goes up. (Take a look at the computer hardware industry...perhaps the most unregulated industry in the US...and what do you know...prices go down and quality/performance goes up...every freaking year like clockwork).
If government intervenes on the other hand, prices go up and quality goes down (if it ever had any quality to begin with).
Never, ever trust the government to "regulate" an industry. They ALWAYS inevitably make things worse for everyone.
That's the way it should be. I'm tired of people trying to undermine most of the good reasons the web exists because they are worried about losing "control" of their content. Content in the context of 6 billion people (and growing) just isn't worth as much as it once was. Think about it. When you were a kid, getting a new CD (or tape/LP) was a pretty special event because the low-tech cumbersome delivery system limited the supply and frequency of new content. Now it's as easy as clickity click on your web browser (or p2p app) to find millions of different ways to entertain yourself. We have a growing sense that content is meant to be disseminated more freely...because it IS disseminated more freely...and exponentially so. Just the idea of being able to read newspapers from around the world for FREE would be crazy just 10-15 years ago...now it's a given. Same goes with content on people's web sites. Everyone's got a freaking webpage now (hell, I've got dozens...half of which I don't even remember exist)...so unique and special and limited content is being dwarfed by voluminous amounts of content in every possible variety and quality one can imagine.
The bottom line...your damn content isn't that special anymore! Stop suing people! Get over it...we probably already forgot about the content we "stole" or archived long before you remembered to call your lawyer. We moved on to the next thing before you could look up "cache" for FREE on dictionary.com.
Slashdot Mirror
Here are the results: He loves it. The wind noise that alot of other internet reviews spoke of doesn't seem to be a problem for my dad...and he drives with all his windows down (no A/C). The headset itself is so light it practically floats. I couldn't believe that there was a battery inside of the headset...I was looking for a battery case opening for 5 minutes before I realized that the battery was built in...it's that light. You can pair the device up to two things simutaneously if you want (ex: your computer and your cell phone), though my dad has no need for that. His only complaints: you do need to charge it up every night if you talk often. If you talk really often, you should bring the portable pocket charger (which is still quite convenient).
I personally have no need for a bluetooth headset myself, but if I did, I would definately get this thing because it's tiny, it's light, it's inconspicuous (well, as inconspicuous as you can get until Jack Bauer starts endorsing his magical in-ear CTU issued earpieces), and plantronics obviously knows what they're doing. This is definately a headset for mobile users though. If you yap on the phone all day at work or home, you need a headset that has longer lasting batteries.
No, I take all your valid points. I wasn't referring to the guy's intolerance of Linux, but his apparent intolerance of the Gnome GUI. He was insinuating that Gnome was an inferior solution (as some KDE proponents do). Trust me, I use windows all the time (out of necessity), so I definatelty understand its superior attributes. But most of Window's "superiority" is merely a function of its widespread support by hardware manufacterers and major software developers (like Adobe/Macromedia and Intuit). I would be using Ubuntu exclusively if I could get Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, Soundforge, etc on it. I also want better sound card and video card support. I don't really give a shit about gnome vs kde. I just want the software that I use on a daily basis to work. It would be nice if the entire Linux community could get together and provide incentives for the major software developers and hardware manufacturers to devote some of their resources into quality ports of their products. I guess it's really a case of which comes first...the chicken or the egg. If only google came out with their own linux distro...I think might have a good chance at grabbing 10% of the market...a percentage significant enough to justify wider support from 3rd party developers.
You uninformed trolls never give up, do you? You're seriously trying to sound insightful when KUBUNTU exists (ie, Ubuntu with KDE)?
Actually, I like, totally LOVE it! Pink is the new green. Like, welcome to 2006...HELLO!
I don't care what you eat. Yes, I do personally care about animals the general health of society, but as a libertarian, I would never let my personal opinions interfere or infringe upon the private affairs of others. You can do whatever you want regardless of how unhealthy it is...your body is your property, not mine. The only thing I ask in return is that you don't make me pay for your increased healthcare costs via taxation. If you pay for all your own medical expenses, then as far as I'm concerned, you can shovel dead cows down your throat with a conveyor belt. Can't afford your own private healthcare insurance? Then you can't afford to eat unhealthy foods, smoke cigarettes, or have unprotected sex.
Too bad you can't do that with multiple @gmail.com accounts (I have 7).
I just hope their session managment system allows you to have multiple accounts open for those of us with multiple domains.
I predict that a lot of the nutritional bias against meat will turn out to be completely wrong in the future.
I also think you're making the mistake of believe that evolution has some kind of purpose or that it is intelligent. Evolution is not necessarily smart. It creates far more "bad" mutations than it does "good" ones. It's just that we only see the "good" mutations because they are the ones that survive. You're also placing somewhat too much emphasis on nutrition as the means to survival when there are many other factors to survival...including the bodies ability to store and process food energy, the bodies hunting and gathering faculties, mental capacities, and the species social behaviors. I'd say that human survival has been much more a function of their ability to communicate in depth with each other as it has been with the types of food they eat. We are after all, one of the weakest species out there compared to those with similar weight (without our big brains, we'd be dead). In any case, almost every species has become extinct historically because the species's evolutionary progress was not able to adapt quickly enough to their changing enviornment (or they didn't have the brain capacity to evaluate and alter behavior that was inevitably destructive). I think human survival henceforth will largely depend upon our ability to make better choices in light of our scientific discoveries (ie, by marginalizing dangerous religious dogma, eating healthier plant based foods, and continuing to advance technologies that can make life easier and safer).
You surely can't deny that our culture has become more glutonous and obese BECAUSE of processed foods and meats served at fast food restaurants. And you also can't deny that obesity and high cholestrol levels leads to diabetes, heart disease, cancer, lupis and countless other ailments. This is not optimal anymore than lung cancer caused by smoking is optimal. Evolution, in this context, is wrong (if it is evolution's fault). It doesn't matter if you think meat tastes "soooooooooooo" much better than veggies. Science can prove that a diet based on cold-water fish and plants is far less destructive to your body than one based on fowl and red-meat. The meat eater in general may become bigger and stronger (if he doesn't eat lots of tofu or fish), but in human terms...is that necessary? Isn't the human's claim to fame our mental capacities? By eating red-meat in light of our scientific knowledge that it is not healthy, you are choosing not to benefit from the human's evolutionary strength...our ability to reason.
Evolution? The survival "instinct" of the human being is our ability to reason. Our science and reasoning has helped us discover that meat, despite it's "good taste" causes cancers, heart disease, and so forth. Science has also demonstrated why heroin "feels good" but is still "bad" for you. Our evolutionary bodies are also not in tune with the advent of the agricultural revolution. Despite the fact that most of us can easily pop down to a grocery store and buy as much food as we want when we want it, many of us have the instinct of fattening up for times of famine (even though famine is a thing of the past for most westerners). This fattening up instinct never meets times of famine and therefore we are getting more obese and more prone to diabetes...so I'd say that evolution f'd up big time in this case. Fortunately, our survival instincts (reason) will probably help us out with most of these evolutionary shortcomings via genetic engineering, biotechnologies, and nanotechnology.
I could of course go on and on about how our body's perceptions don't always give us the most accurate or beneficial data, but I think you get the picture. I'll leave you with the best example...many people that smoke cigarettes claim to do so because they enjoy it or because it relaxes them...but evidence neverthless shows that nicotine consumption it is killing them. Science and Reason, not savage animal instincts, will determine the evolutionary fate of man.
You must feel great knowing that the government probably has a more accurate accounting of your personal finances than you do. I just love big brother...he's so attentive.
Your arguement is akin to calling ME a "state" because I have been "elected" to protect my house and any residents and property inside of it. However, the only time I would actually be a "state" in a libertarian sense, is if someone tried to steal from me, enslave me, or kill me...in those cases, I would pull out a gun and blast a cap in their ass. During times of "peace" (no slavery, murder, or theft), the state in theory doesn't innitiate any action or force and therefore doesn't exist.. The Libertarian "state" only exists when it needs to react to violence, slavery and theft, just as my gun only exists (ie, comes out of the drawer) when someone tries to invade my home.
On the contrary, Democrats and Republicans want the "state" to never be at rest. They want the state to be proactive and perpetually invasive. In these cases, the state always exists because the state is always meddling in the lives and affairs and finances of its constituents. If I were a state in this sense, it would be like me taking out my gun and constantly shoving it in the faces of people in my house so they will do my bidding, pay me a large portion of their incomes, obey all my nonsensical rules, and allow me to search through their belongings when I imagine they're up to no good. This state is a stark contrast to the Libertarian "state" which only exists when it needs to exist to prevent coercive force.
Yes.
No political philosophy can be accurately described in a two-sentence soundbite, especially not one that describes Libertarians as the only ones who really support "freedom".
Libertarians may not be the ONLY ones that support freedom, but they are the largest party that does. Democrats and Republicans certainly do not.
I urge you to read the Libertarian Platform. You will find that the platform doesn't just use the word "freedom" alot, the entire platform is built upon the philosophy of liberty with no exceptions or asterisks or addendums. Libertarians call themselves the "party of principle" because they are unwilling to let go of a single ounce of freedom or to succumb to the fickle demands of lobbyists, corporations, or special interest groups. I respect Libertarians for their unwavering ideals, and regardless of their ability to win major elections (mostly due to suppressive, anti-free-speech campaign finance laws), I will always vote for them because I'd rather vote for something I believe in and lose the election, than vote for something I didn't believe in, and lose my self-respect.
I think the operative word here is "could." Politicians could make the world a better place, and claim that if you vote for them, that they will make the world a better place...but do they? I want you to give me just ONE example of how government interferance of freedom has been hugely economically efficient. Just one. The fact is, you'll be searching forever, because the very nature of the government won't allow efficiency. In fact, efficiency is discouraged as it means the program will receive less funding next year.
Whether you hate capitalists or not, the fact remains that people that compete in a free market produce better products and lower prices than monopolies (like the government) that don't have to compete. And the most important fact remains: stealing money from the many to pay for the few is still THEFT regardless of the great intentions of the thieves. Someone that steals bread to feed the family is still a damn thief. A government that steals my money to pay for some open source programmer is a criminal government.
Who gets to decide how valuable the "resulting utility" is? You? The government?
Here's an idea...why not give individuals the CHOICE over what THEY consider is valuable to THEIR lives instead of letting you and your politician buddies decide for them (usually at a much greater expense). Oh yeah, that idea would be too similar to what the founding fathers had in mind, you know with their silly freedom loving antics.
I haven't heard a statement as absurd as this on slashdot for at least 5 minutes! The very idea of calling a subsidy "ecomonically efficient" is an oxymoron. If something needs to be subsidized, then its very clear that there isn't enough demand for the product or service at said price in the free market. If the demand is not great enough, then the product or service must improve, die, or be absorbed by a more successful seller (or programmer). Not one single dime of my tax money should go to pay for open source software. If I find value in open source software, I'll VOLUNTARILY donate money to it. Once you take away the voluntary payments, and force people with a gun to pay something (ie, tax them), then the software can no longer be considred "open" source. In fact, its even worse than closed source...because at least you have the option of not buying closed source software.
That's because you both probably realize that freedom is the most important principle to defend in a society...because without it, you can't do anything else. Freedom, of course, is a two way street (which both parties clearly lose sight of on purpose because they can extract more money from you by claiming that other big brotherish things HAVE to be done in order to protect the fading remnants of your "freedom"). Anyway, to simplify: "Conservatives" like to have freedom over their economic lives and "librals" like to have freedom over their personal lives. Here's a good compromise: Why not allow each party to have BOTH types of freedom so that everybody is happy? Oh yeah.
Note to IRS: Just Kidding
The "browser wars" are over and they aren't coming back.
Where do you come up with this BS? I'm sure you have some FACTS or some sources or even some examples to backup this nonsense?
Regardless, content creators need to remember that whatever the reason, the consumer is definately being bombarded with massive amounts of content and no one piece of content can become supremely valuable anymore. We don't give it time to become valuable...we move on to something new before it even has a chance. The whole "MTV generation" attention span cliche is really kind of true. We want lots and lots of content, fast, and frequently. It's not that content was more valuable before, it's just that content creators used to have less competition because it was so expensive and/or difficult to distribute content in the past. Today, it's as easy as "Share this folder" or "post this blog" or what have you. The trick is to just keep creating exciting content constantly. The content providers that realize this instead of filing absurd lawsuits that pine for yesterday's paradigms will win.
Uh, no they're not. What's "required" is that consenting adults create a contract with each other agreeing how to go about accomplishing something that they will all benefit from. When I want to build a house, I don't need a monopoly...I need the architect, the various contractors, and the bank to all agree on the same outcome so that the process and result of building a house is beneficial to us all (the architect gets paid for the plans, the contractors get paid for executing the plan, the bank profits by financing the plan, and I benefit by living in the house). This is simple, but nothing changes when dealing with phone numbers, IP addresses, networks, or anything. Businesses and individuals get together realizing that sharing expenses is more beneficial and economical than competing on every level and thus are perfectly capable of creating contracts with each other without government interference.
Personally, I would have liked to see MANY differnet internet protocals and organizational models compete with each other so that prices, performance, network security, speed and reliablity could have been in competition with each other...but YOU want everyting to be exactly the same so that there is no competition (and thus, no incentive to improve) and no incentive to reduce prices? No thanks. I'll take free market competition over the "neccessary" monopolies any day.
When these monopolies are controlled by profit motivated corporations, or control motivated governments, we all suffer.
Actually, the opposite is true. When a marketplace is saturated by "profit motivated corporations" then we have this thing called "competition." And competition drives down prices and improves quality and or performance. The government on the otherhand, when it issues a monopoly to itself or its pork barrel buddies, has no competition. They can charge whatever the hell they want and they don't even have to be accountable for their inevitable failures. If they fail, they'll just say they didn't tax your enough and needed more money...and they'll say that every year until the end of time because the money will never be enough to satiate their political greed. I'll take profit motivated corporations that have to compete with each other any day of the way, again.
Bottom line: teach yourself some economics, because your current comprehension of how the world actually works is just plain wrong.
I agree. I think anyone should be able to start a TLD server so long as the TLD is unique...and manage all their own dns servers. Why should any one body decide that only X amount of TLD are OK? Sounds fishy to me.
Just wanted to say thanks for clarifying this. Yours was the most informative comment I've read thus far on the matter.
If government intervenes on the other hand, prices go up and quality goes down (if it ever had any quality to begin with).
Never, ever trust the government to "regulate" an industry. They ALWAYS inevitably make things worse for everyone.
The bottom line...your damn content isn't that special anymore! Stop suing people! Get over it...we probably already forgot about the content we "stole" or archived long before you remembered to call your lawyer. We moved on to the next thing before you could look up "cache" for FREE on dictionary.com.