I want the independence and the reliability of home made power.
Yes, solar is really a different product to the grid, not just a different source of the same product. It's like comparing a job to an investment, they both pay you money but they are fundamentally different. Imagine a job that pays $X/year and an investment the also pays $X/year, and some bright spark claims the job is better because you don't have to outlay all that money!
Buying an investment is more expensive than going to work. Buying solar may be more expensive than connecting the grid. That's missing the point.
even than the price wouldn't compete with the grid - for all the other costs.
That depends. I'm considering buying a rural block of land. Some of them are very expensive to connect to the grid, tens of thousands of dollars, not like a suburban block with a transformer right outside the gate. With that kind of start up cost, I'm by no means sure that grid power would catch up in value/dollar for many years, if ever. I'm still checking out alternative power options and haven't chosen a block though, so unfortunately I can't give a price comparison.
I don't think the government is going to fabricate evidence in all instances. Moreover, I think most of the attempts to debunk the harms of drugs are fallacious.
It is not necessarily a case of outright fabrication of evidence. People see what they want to see, conduct studies that produce results they want to find and interpret evidence in ways that support their views. My personal experience/observation leads me to believe that drug use is usually harmful to the individual but that drug bans seem generally harmful to society and that the motivation to not use drugs needs to be internal (don't want to mess up) rather than external (fear of the law).
I'd go as far as to agree that much drug use is immoral, but I think that time has proven that attempting to produce the results of individual morality by the application of government force is a failed strategy that leads to a repressive, backward society. Only when the immoral action has direct affects on others (assault, murder, theft etc) is the use of government force warranted. I remain unconvinced that drug use is in this category.
Somehow drug users need to show that while DO drugs have harms associated with them, they still should be legal for recreation. But that's a hard sell with crack or heroin, because they shouldn't be legal, and they were once legal, and speed, and people abused them. We've been down that path before.
Crack was introduced well after most of the drug legislation was in place, but in any case, if someone wants to abuse drugs, why is it my responsibility to stop them (my tax dollars are being used to do attempt to do it). If people ride trail bikes without a helmet I don't stop them. If they go skydiving without checking their parachute I don't stop them. If they take a boat out during a storm I don't stop them. Why the thing with drugs? Sure, I'd advise anyone not to take drugs, but arresting them and locking them up? What's the deal with that?
A drug ban would only work if every single psychoactive substance was banned.
I still don't think it would work, although I suppose that depends on what you mean by "drug ban works". (What do you mean by "is")
In my view the principle issue is liberty, not health. I remain to be convinced that banning every psychoactive substance would produce liberty for the members of a society, since if you want to be free from drugs, you can achieve that without a ban, if you want to be free to take drugs, the ban removes that freedom. I have no desire to force good health on others, nor to pay for their bad health caused by personal choices they make.
How about the other argument against drug bans: that banning the drug creates more harm than it removes.
Good point. Had I been thinking of it at the time, I would have rephrased (1) to include that, keeping my division of arguments into (1) evidence based and (2) philosophy based. If we allow the state to remove our freedom if only they produce evidence of "harm" related to the thing they want to ban/regulate then rest assured they will do anything necessary to produce that "evidence". With an evidence based argument you convince people until the next piece of propaganda/evidence comes along. If you can convince someone of the issue based on a philosophy of liberty, you will likely win them over for life.
As far as I know, heroin is addictive but not toxic. If you overdose, you essentially relax so much that you don't breath and/or your heart stops beating, but if you are kept alive there will be no tissue damage etc. That's why some people would regard it as less harmful. The whole issue of "how harmful" is often pretty subjective.
Personally I consider the compulsory state education system to be doing far greater damage to society than drugs would if legalized. I'm not putting that topic up for debate, just illustrating the subjectivity of opinions on "harmful", as obviously my opinion would meet with widespread objection.
That's not in dispute, but if the current drug laws are caused by Christian theocracy, then why does China, never having had a Christian theocracy, have similar drug laws. People who look to religion as the source of oppressive laws are not entirely misguided, but to think that they are the only source of such laws is incorrect. Removing Christian (or any religios) theocracy does not automatically result in a free society or just laws. It seems to me that the problem of some people desiring to control the behaviour of others exists independently of any religious affiliation, although it is certainly expressed through religion where possible.
Let people make their own informed decisions, and feel their own consequences.
Let people make their own decisions, informed or not. The fact is some people will choose to make uninformed decisions. The wilful ignorance of some is still no reason to restrict the rights of others.
Well, I'm not the poster you are replying to, but: The argument in favor of drug bans is that drugs are harmful. There are two main arguments against drug bans (1) drugs are not harmful (either a particular drug or usage pattern) or no more harmful than legal drugs like alcohol. (2) people have the right to make decisions, even bad decisions. Regardless of the harmfulness of drugs we should not prevent people from doing something to themselves.
Argument (1) is an evidence based approach (2) is a philosophy based approach. So in making a point, I might use the worst case scenario: they will ruin their lives/die. It doesn't make any difference to argument (2) which seems to me, then, to be a stronger point for a free society. When you have the leaders of your country, presidents and legislators, who have taken drugs and still reached (depending on your POV) the top of society it is also time to acknowledge point (1).
"Don't take that stuff son, it'll ruin your life. Why, I know a guy who started smoking that, and he became president of the US! Just say no."
Using the GPL doesn't link you to them, especially if you don't use the "or any later version" clause. Stupid actions doesn't mean they didn't write a good licence and there are plenty of people using the GPL for their software that don't agree with Stallman/FSF on any number of issues.
I thing that part of the problem of this argument is that people are defining "selfish" differently. If I give some money to charity, I understand my personal motives and perceived benefits I get, I define this action as selfish as opposed to altruistic. Someone such as yourself may define that same action as cooperation as opposed to selfish. From my perspective, let me say that cooperation for mutual benefit is not altruism as I understand it. From your example, the bird who acts as lookout doesn't do that all the time, they exchange some feeding time for protection from predators. That behaviour is no more detrimental to the individual bird than saving money is detrimental to a human. I give up the use of this money now so I can benefit later. Buying insurance is probably a better example.
In any case, as long as we define "selfish" differently it probably won't be possible for us to agree on whether it is acceptable or desirable. I agree with you about cooperative-survival systems but they fall within my definition of self-interest. The real difference we are talking about is not one of motivation but of understanding and the ability to put long term benefit ahead of immediate gratification. The person who won't cooperate with people may get immediate benefit but will likely lose out in the long term as people who do cooperate will through experience become unwilling to include the other in the cooperative system. There may be exceptions to this, but it does stand as a general principle.
My own personal experience is that a bit over ten years ago, I decided I needed to undertake a major overhaul on how I lived, much of the needed change being in the area of cooperation, working with people, relationships, etc. I have found that it is pretty pointless for me to try to be "good". It just doesn't seem to produce results for me in terms of changing my behaviour, especially long term. Much of the behaviour we term "good" is because it enables a society to operate well, which has a definite benefit to the individual. Politeness, the rule of law, making sure others benefit in their transactions with you, there are all sorts of actions which may have no immediate benefit but produce a better life. The more I understand this, the more I act in that way. The more I act in that way and the longer I do it, the greater my benefit. I have better relationships, more wealth, many benefits. From an observers perspective, maybe I've become "good" or less "selfish". Certainly more pleasant to be around, but honestly, I don't detect this "unselfishness" or "goodness" in myself, but better understanding, hopefully some wisdom. Others have benefited by having a more pleasant me, but I did it for myself.
I had a friend in AA and went to a meeting as an observer, one point they made strongly: you won't give up the drink for others, you will only do it for yourself. I found it interesting that they had come to the same conclusion as I had.
The one-size-fits-all public education system is the worst possible thing you can do to an asd kid.
Or a kid without asd. You are wrong about it being natural selection though. Have a read of The Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Madison Terman written in 1916 on the introduction of intelligence testing in schools. There is nothing natural about the selection process you are observing.
One sample paragraph: "It is safe to predict that in the near future intelligence tests will
bring tens of thousands of these high-grade defectives under the
surveillance and protection of society. This will ultimately result in
curtailing the reproduction of feeble-mindedness and in the elimination
of an enormous amount of crime, pauperism, and industrial inefficiency.
It is hardly necessary to emphasize that the high-grade cases, of the
type now so frequently overlooked, are precisely the ones whose
guardianship it is most important for the State to assume."
Yes, but the mindset of many copyright advocates is broken too. Copyright laws create a business model for the creation of intellectual works. The "social contract" of copyright isn't "We deliver you a business model, you deliver us products to buy" it is "We deliver you a business model, you deliver works to the public domain".
Copyright is artificial, but that isn't an argument against it. Clothes, houses, medicine etc are all artificial and we like having those. It seems to me that the problem is that copyright advocates are arguing copyright as a natural right rather than a social contract and many people (1) don't believe that (2) don't care much about other peoples rights anyway. But to argue effectively for copyright as a social contract (which it is) will require that people see a benefit to themselves of that contract. "If you provide copyright protection, I will produce a movie which will pass into the public domain in time for your great great great grandchildren" doesn't cut it. "If you provide copyright protection, I will produce a movie which will pass into the public domain for you in 14 years" is much more likely to get people to cooperate.
I'm definitely in favour of copyright protection, but there needs to be reform so that people can see a practical benefit to themselves of supporting the system.
Possibly significant in terms of sample size.
If person A has a DNA profile that matches one other person in the country, it is still very strong evidence.
If upon checking the other states there was found to be an average of one matching person per state, 50 matches, still strong evidence, but not nearly so conclusive. Would now require stronger supporting evidence to be "beyond reasonable doubt".
If (prison population being approx 1%) there are found to be 100 matches per state, 5000 matches, then DNA becomes more useful as evidence for aquittal than for conviction, ie: non-matching still proves it wasn't you but matching doesn't prove it was you.
He never *enabled* access for 'everyone else' in the first place. Spin it all you want, the problem is with management for letting the current system persist for many years and then shooting themselves in the foot by taking unilateral action.
Once instructed to enable access he was required to do so. The fact that they hadn't previously made him do that is irrelevant. The equipment belongs to his employer and the config was performed as a work for hire, they have the right to full access to both, which he is withholding.
The only leverage he's got is the fact that the system is still working 100%. If he loses that, for whatever reason, he's going to be the #1 scapegoat.
He only needs leverage because he didn't hand over the password when he should have.
Are you posting AC to prevent potential future employers identifying you linked to these comments? Good move if so, nobody in their right mind would give you any position of responsibility while you think like this. Surely, though, you need to consider that if an opinion makes you completely unemployable for positions of responsibility it may be an opinion that isn't worth holding, much less expressing.
Punishment is not about retribution or its not supposed to be any way. Its to rehabilitate or to incapacitate the offender.
I've seen this idea posted a lot, but is their any constitutional or other legal argument supporting this? Is "punishment is not about retribution" a legal principle or a particular moral ideology? I also see comments about people who have "paid their debt to society" which seems to imply the opposite.
Am I supposed to sit around for the rest of my life feeling sorry?
No, but until the sentencing is over would be a good idea.
Whose business is it but my own how I handle things emotionally?
If the things you are handling are criminal charges brought against you, judges apparently think that it is their business how you handle it. Your emotional handling of breaking up with your girlfriend, not so much.
Assuming the revenge carried out is proportionate, the main difference between the concepts of justice and revenge is that revenge only covers punishment. The reasons for having the state carry out "justice" rather than individuals carry out revenge are:
1 - They have enough resources to do it more effectively than most individuals.
2 - They will hopefully be rational about the level of punishment.
3 - It prevents the revenge from sparking a new round of revenge.
To say that justice does not include the concept of revenge is quite incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
I want the independence and the reliability of home made power.
Yes, solar is really a different product to the grid, not just a different source of the same product. It's like comparing a job to an investment, they both pay you money but they are fundamentally different. Imagine a job that pays $X/year and an investment the also pays $X/year, and some bright spark claims the job is better because you don't have to outlay all that money!
Buying an investment is more expensive than going to work. Buying solar may be more expensive than connecting the grid. That's missing the point.
even than the price wouldn't compete with the grid - for all the other costs.
That depends. I'm considering buying a rural block of land. Some of them are very expensive to connect to the grid, tens of thousands of dollars, not like a suburban block with a transformer right outside the gate. With that kind of start up cost, I'm by no means sure that grid power would catch up in value/dollar for many years, if ever. I'm still checking out alternative power options and haven't chosen a block though, so unfortunately I can't give a price comparison.
I'll leave you to your pot, you leave me to my Gin an evil black rifles.
I don't want pot, I just don't want to pay to stop other people having it. Gin and black rifles though? Where do I sign up?
Hey, I am an insensitive clod, you escaped Soviet Russian character welcoming overlord!
I don't think the government is going to fabricate evidence in all instances. Moreover, I think most of the attempts to debunk the harms of drugs are fallacious.
It is not necessarily a case of outright fabrication of evidence. People see what they want to see, conduct studies that produce results they want to find and interpret evidence in ways that support their views. My personal experience/observation leads me to believe that drug use is usually harmful to the individual but that drug bans seem generally harmful to society and that the motivation to not use drugs needs to be internal (don't want to mess up) rather than external (fear of the law).
I'd go as far as to agree that much drug use is immoral, but I think that time has proven that attempting to produce the results of individual morality by the application of government force is a failed strategy that leads to a repressive, backward society. Only when the immoral action has direct affects on others (assault, murder, theft etc) is the use of government force warranted. I remain unconvinced that drug use is in this category.
Somehow drug users need to show that while DO drugs have harms associated with them, they still should be legal for recreation. But that's a hard sell with crack or heroin, because they shouldn't be legal, and they were once legal, and speed, and people abused them. We've been down that path before.
Crack was introduced well after most of the drug legislation was in place, but in any case, if someone wants to abuse drugs, why is it my responsibility to stop them (my tax dollars are being used to do attempt to do it). If people ride trail bikes without a helmet I don't stop them. If they go skydiving without checking their parachute I don't stop them. If they take a boat out during a storm I don't stop them. Why the thing with drugs? Sure, I'd advise anyone not to take drugs, but arresting them and locking them up? What's the deal with that?
Not sure if you're being funny or just forgot to escape the characters,
< = <
> = >
http://www.theukwebdesigncompany.com/articles/entity-escape-characters.php for a list of escape characters. Apologies if I ruined a joke.
A drug ban would only work if every single psychoactive substance was banned.
I still don't think it would work, although I suppose that depends on what you mean by "drug ban works". (What do you mean by "is")
In my view the principle issue is liberty, not health. I remain to be convinced that banning every psychoactive substance would produce liberty for the members of a society, since if you want to be free from drugs, you can achieve that without a ban, if you want to be free to take drugs, the ban removes that freedom. I have no desire to force good health on others, nor to pay for their bad health caused by personal choices they make.
How about the other argument against drug bans: that banning the drug creates more harm than it removes.
Good point. Had I been thinking of it at the time, I would have rephrased (1) to include that, keeping my division of arguments into (1) evidence based and (2) philosophy based. If we allow the state to remove our freedom if only they produce evidence of "harm" related to the thing they want to ban/regulate then rest assured they will do anything necessary to produce that "evidence". With an evidence based argument you convince people until the next piece of propaganda/evidence comes along. If you can convince someone of the issue based on a philosophy of liberty, you will likely win them over for life.
As far as I know, heroin is addictive but not toxic. If you overdose, you essentially relax so much that you don't breath and/or your heart stops beating, but if you are kept alive there will be no tissue damage etc. That's why some people would regard it as less harmful. The whole issue of "how harmful" is often pretty subjective.
Personally I consider the compulsory state education system to be doing far greater damage to society than drugs would if legalized. I'm not putting that topic up for debate, just illustrating the subjectivity of opinions on "harmful", as obviously my opinion would meet with widespread objection.
That's not in dispute, but if the current drug laws are caused by Christian theocracy, then why does China, never having had a Christian theocracy, have similar drug laws. People who look to religion as the source of oppressive laws are not entirely misguided, but to think that they are the only source of such laws is incorrect. Removing Christian (or any religios) theocracy does not automatically result in a free society or just laws. It seems to me that the problem of some people desiring to control the behaviour of others exists independently of any religious affiliation, although it is certainly expressed through religion where possible.
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/countries/law_china.shtml
China has never had a Christian theocracy and still has drug laws.
Let people make their own informed decisions, and feel their own consequences.
Let people make their own decisions, informed or not. The fact is some people will choose to make uninformed decisions. The wilful ignorance of some is still no reason to restrict the rights of others.
Well, I'm not the poster you are replying to, but: The argument in favor of drug bans is that drugs are harmful. There are two main arguments against drug bans (1) drugs are not harmful (either a particular drug or usage pattern) or no more harmful than legal drugs like alcohol. (2) people have the right to make decisions, even bad decisions. Regardless of the harmfulness of drugs we should not prevent people from doing something to themselves.
Argument (1) is an evidence based approach (2) is a philosophy based approach. So in making a point, I might use the worst case scenario: they will ruin their lives/die. It doesn't make any difference to argument (2) which seems to me, then, to be a stronger point for a free society. When you have the leaders of your country, presidents and legislators, who have taken drugs and still reached (depending on your POV) the top of society it is also time to acknowledge point (1).
"Don't take that stuff son, it'll ruin your life. Why, I know a guy who started smoking that, and he became president of the US! Just say no."
Using the GPL doesn't link you to them, especially if you don't use the "or any later version" clause. Stupid actions doesn't mean they didn't write a good licence and there are plenty of people using the GPL for their software that don't agree with Stallman/FSF on any number of issues.
Also, how are suicide bombers a murder agency? I don't see how it benefits anyone financially.
Depends. What's the current purchase price of 70 virgins?
Seriously though, if there is profit in it, it is to the people who run the operations, not the suicide bombers themselves.
Click here for cheap m3rc3nary S3rv1ces!
I thing that part of the problem of this argument is that people are defining "selfish" differently. If I give some money to charity, I understand my personal motives and perceived benefits I get, I define this action as selfish as opposed to altruistic. Someone such as yourself may define that same action as cooperation as opposed to selfish. From my perspective, let me say that cooperation for mutual benefit is not altruism as I understand it. From your example, the bird who acts as lookout doesn't do that all the time, they exchange some feeding time for protection from predators. That behaviour is no more detrimental to the individual bird than saving money is detrimental to a human. I give up the use of this money now so I can benefit later. Buying insurance is probably a better example.
In any case, as long as we define "selfish" differently it probably won't be possible for us to agree on whether it is acceptable or desirable. I agree with you about cooperative-survival systems but they fall within my definition of self-interest. The real difference we are talking about is not one of motivation but of understanding and the ability to put long term benefit ahead of immediate gratification. The person who won't cooperate with people may get immediate benefit but will likely lose out in the long term as people who do cooperate will through experience become unwilling to include the other in the cooperative system. There may be exceptions to this, but it does stand as a general principle.
My own personal experience is that a bit over ten years ago, I decided I needed to undertake a major overhaul on how I lived, much of the needed change being in the area of cooperation, working with people, relationships, etc. I have found that it is pretty pointless for me to try to be "good". It just doesn't seem to produce results for me in terms of changing my behaviour, especially long term. Much of the behaviour we term "good" is because it enables a society to operate well, which has a definite benefit to the individual. Politeness, the rule of law, making sure others benefit in their transactions with you, there are all sorts of actions which may have no immediate benefit but produce a better life. The more I understand this, the more I act in that way. The more I act in that way and the longer I do it, the greater my benefit. I have better relationships, more wealth, many benefits. From an observers perspective, maybe I've become "good" or less "selfish". Certainly more pleasant to be around, but honestly, I don't detect this "unselfishness" or "goodness" in myself, but better understanding, hopefully some wisdom. Others have benefited by having a more pleasant me, but I did it for myself.
I had a friend in AA and went to a meeting as an observer, one point they made strongly: you won't give up the drink for others, you will only do it for yourself. I found it interesting that they had come to the same conclusion as I had.
The one-size-fits-all public education system is the worst possible thing you can do to an asd kid.
Or a kid without asd. You are wrong about it being natural selection though. Have a read of The Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Madison Terman written in 1916 on the introduction of intelligence testing in schools. There is nothing natural about the selection process you are observing.
One sample paragraph: "It is safe to predict that in the near future intelligence tests will bring tens of thousands of these high-grade defectives under the surveillance and protection of society. This will ultimately result in curtailing the reproduction of feeble-mindedness and in the elimination of an enormous amount of crime, pauperism, and industrial inefficiency. It is hardly necessary to emphasize that the high-grade cases, of the type now so frequently overlooked, are precisely the ones whose guardianship it is most important for the State to assume."
Yes, but the mindset of many copyright advocates is broken too. Copyright laws create a business model for the creation of intellectual works. The "social contract" of copyright isn't "We deliver you a business model, you deliver us products to buy" it is "We deliver you a business model, you deliver works to the public domain".
Copyright is artificial, but that isn't an argument against it. Clothes, houses, medicine etc are all artificial and we like having those. It seems to me that the problem is that copyright advocates are arguing copyright as a natural right rather than a social contract and many people (1) don't believe that (2) don't care much about other peoples rights anyway. But to argue effectively for copyright as a social contract (which it is) will require that people see a benefit to themselves of that contract. "If you provide copyright protection, I will produce a movie which will pass into the public domain in time for your great great great grandchildren" doesn't cut it. "If you provide copyright protection, I will produce a movie which will pass into the public domain for you in 14 years" is much more likely to get people to cooperate.
I'm definitely in favour of copyright protection, but there needs to be reform so that people can see a practical benefit to themselves of supporting the system.
Possibly significant in terms of sample size.
If person A has a DNA profile that matches one other person in the country, it is still very strong evidence.
If upon checking the other states there was found to be an average of one matching person per state, 50 matches, still strong evidence, but not nearly so conclusive. Would now require stronger supporting evidence to be "beyond reasonable doubt".
If (prison population being approx 1%) there are found to be 100 matches per state, 5000 matches, then DNA becomes more useful as evidence for aquittal than for conviction, ie: non-matching still proves it wasn't you but matching doesn't prove it was you.
He never *enabled* access for 'everyone else' in the first place. Spin it all you want, the problem is with management for letting the current system persist for many years and then shooting themselves in the foot by taking unilateral action.
Once instructed to enable access he was required to do so. The fact that they hadn't previously made him do that is irrelevant. The equipment belongs to his employer and the config was performed as a work for hire, they have the right to full access to both, which he is withholding.
The only leverage he's got is the fact that the system is still working 100%. If he loses that, for whatever reason, he's going to be the #1 scapegoat.
He only needs leverage because he didn't hand over the password when he should have.
Are you posting AC to prevent potential future employers identifying you linked to these comments? Good move if so, nobody in their right mind would give you any position of responsibility while you think like this. Surely, though, you need to consider that if an opinion makes you completely unemployable for positions of responsibility it may be an opinion that isn't worth holding, much less expressing.
Punishment is not about retribution or its not supposed to be any way. Its to rehabilitate or to incapacitate the offender.
I've seen this idea posted a lot, but is their any constitutional or other legal argument supporting this? Is "punishment is not about retribution" a legal principle or a particular moral ideology? I also see comments about people who have "paid their debt to society" which seems to imply the opposite.
Am I supposed to sit around for the rest of my life feeling sorry?
No, but until the sentencing is over would be a good idea.
Whose business is it but my own how I handle things emotionally?
If the things you are handling are criminal charges brought against you, judges apparently think that it is their business how you handle it. Your emotional handling of breaking up with your girlfriend, not so much.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=justice 5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
Assuming the revenge carried out is proportionate, the main difference between the concepts of justice and revenge is that revenge only covers punishment. The reasons for having the state carry out "justice" rather than individuals carry out revenge are:
1 - They have enough resources to do it more effectively than most individuals.
2 - They will hopefully be rational about the level of punishment.
3 - It prevents the revenge from sparking a new round of revenge.
To say that justice does not include the concept of revenge is quite incorrect.
Seems to me that once you are off the payroll, your obligations cease.
Not if you are the one that disabled access for everyone else and you became "off the payroll" by refusing to enable access.