Read your post wrong; I thought you asked how many/.ers would have a problem with Gonzales v. Raich. It's a terrible ruling, made more so by the blatant hypocrisy of the Court's conservative justices.
I know I do. Yet I also wonder, how many would disagree with the Fair Housing Act and a plethora of civil rights laws, upheld as constitutional under a broad interpretation of the commerce clause? Some, I'm sure, but hardly a majority.
"Lol...I thought this was a serious attempt to defend libertarian fluff thinking until I read the last line: "
"The slippery slope "rule?" The term "slippery slope" refers to a class of logical fallacy, not a "rule."
Let's see...nope, not once do I reference the poster to whom I was responding. I am derisive regarding libertarian ideas and the seriousness of the post, then I point out the error that inspired me to post. Not once do I criticize the poster for anything, nor do I care to; the poor quality of the post is enough to write about.
You're not kidding; in The Fountainhead, the first sexual encounter between the hero and the primary female character (who go on to have an affair) is a rape.
"I like the story but her narrative style is tiresome and overlong. " I like the story but her narrative style is tiresome and overlong.
Are you saying there's something clumsy in having a character deliver a 75-page long radio address that specifically outlines key points of Objectivism? You don't think that people everywhere would be dying to tune in?
"Education has nothing to do with income -- I barely graduated high school and I do fairly well considering most people in my fields have MBAs or Master's Degrees and I never attended college."
Congratulations on having a personal experience outside the norm, but not everyone is so fortunate...in fact, most are not. Claiming that education has nothing to do with income is like claiming that starvation has nothing to do with poverty...it sounds and feels good, but has nothing to do with actual data examining life earnings correlated with educational attainment.
"Employment "rights" have been slowly destroyed by the law, not made better. Minimum wage laws have made it very hard for the young, the uneducated and the minorities to find entry level work that teaches them responsible work ethics as well as a trade. "
Are you honestly trying to say that workers had more access to a safe work environment and non-discriminatory hiring practices in the era before the government enacted regulation enforcing such things? Where exactly was this happening?
"The Americans with Disability Act has made it much harder for the disabled to get jobs, and it has made it much harder on employers to even interview someone with a disability."
Ah yes, I recall that prior to its passage, employers were falling over themselves to hire former mental health patients, the wheelchair-bound, and deaf folks until the nasty government made them stop. Oh wait; actually, the complete opposite happened.
"Business licensing and regulations have made it difficult for the common man to start a business -- just trying opening a restaurant or a small retail store today. In the past you could open either with very little income compared to what you need to pay today just to get an occupancy permit."
I'm sure that the prevailing economic conditions in the modern market, which require massive amounts of initial capital investment to set up a business that can keep costs low enough to price out smaller competitors, has nothing to do with this.
"Housing prices have been put out of reach of millions by government currency inflation (which is the sole cause of housing and consumer price increases in the past 20-30 years). "
This is either a hilarious interpretation of the data, or an unfounded assumption, seeing as homeownership has continued to rise steadily through the latter half of the 20th century. Perhaps the rise in housing costs is the result of a middle class demanding larger and better-equipped homes, thus insuring that there is less profit incentive to create low-income housing. In fact, this would jibe with the fact that the rising cost of new homes is largely a factor of building styles and rising material costs.
"On top of this, the housing and rental market is made more expensive by ridiculous property tax increases which make it near impossible for the poor, elderly and uneducated to live near opportunities to make good money."
Because if there's one thing keeping the poor, uneducated, and elderly from making money it's property taxes. Lack of access to education has nothing to do with it, so we should slash property taxes in order to defund education, because that'll really help all those poor and uneducated. Oh, and BTW, since when are the elderly supposed to be "making money?" I always thought that went against the concept of "retirement."
"Medicine was available to almost every poor person until the HMO Act of 1974, which created a trap for those without insurance. "
OK, now you're just talking out of your ass.
"Up until the early 70s doctors made housecalls and charged very little"
And provided nowhere near the level of healing ability as a modern doctor, and certainly did not provide this service to everyone.
"once insurance was nearly mandated by government (either as a required benefit or used to circumvent tax laws for employers), the price of medicine skyrocketed.
Right, because the free market is never the cause of violence, censorship, or suppression of others' rights. And if it ever is, why, all the folks with money will voluntarily fix it by "voting with their dollars." After all, it's not like we've ever seen people with money act against the interests of those without.
Of course, I suppose those without money have no right to express their interest in society. If they want to, they can just go get some money, using the free and equal access that all Americans have to education, employment, housing, and medicine. In, you know, the fantasy world where the colluding interests of the moneyed powerful can be countered by the spending habits of the earning class.
I must say, I wonder how effective a lobbying movement of computer gamers will be against the coordinated efforts of family groups who want to ban "improper" video games. The family groups are more prone to vote, contribute, and be active in the political arena in general. I know there are exceptions, but I think Will Wright's just angling for some publicity for the cause...not a bad goal, but I hope nobody's hopes are raised too highly by this.
The hilarity of Dubya talking about Mars landings and moon bases, all while mismanaging the federal budget and slashing science programs, was a welcome distraction at the time. I remember thinking, "This guy believes that humans are biologically separate from the animal kingdom, and that at least two-thirds of his constituents are going to Hell after they die, and now he's on the side of science?"
I just wish this expectation of failure made acceptance of the President's failures easier to deal with. Perhaps soon we can put a government in power that works to make America competitive in the science and information-dominated industries of the 21st century, rather than a government that pays lip service to this concept.
"The Federal government has no ability to perform efficiently, which was why we had the Constitution in the first place. Give the states the ability to provide competitive service with one another, and they'll compete to attract the best citizens."
This bit of regurgitated "libertarian" thought puts me in the mind to paraphrase P. J. O'Rourke: Economic conservatives rail on about how the government doesn't work, then get elected and work hard to prove it.
It's funny, to me at least, how many everyday folks get suckered by a self-serving ideology of wealth-holders. Then again, I've always had a sick sense of humor.
It probably had something to do with the painful truth of this statement:
"Most republicans would vote the party even if Hitler was running (witness the many republicans in Louisanna who voted in the David Duke, a locally well known KKK grand wizard)"
What, exactly, is Amazon going to be banking on by branding a line of music players? Their history for making functional, attractive gadgets? Hmm...no, that's Apple. Is the consumer expected to look at an Amazon-branded MP3 player they've never seen before and think, "Ah, Amazon! They do such a good job shipping gifts on or around Christmas, I'll bet their digital music service rocks?"
This has all the trappings of another expensive mistake.
You're right on one thing in your post: "[You] have no answers."
One thing is obvious from the rambling quality of your posts, your denial of absolute knowledge paired with groundless declarations, and inability to see that today's technology was yesterday's science: you have nothing more than words without meaning, the "blarney chattering's and mind murmurings" to which you refer. I wonder what purpose you see in communication between people.
"Well, nothing suprises me with science. Just as your reply didn't suprise me any either. "
Well, it's not a particularly surprising response. I understand the human capacity for reason as the force preventing us from living like animals and grunting in amazement at fires and moonlight. Responding with distaste for the suggestion that this capacity should perpetuate its past errors in judgment, such as religion and astrology, is pretty predictable.
"Next time, maybe try and reply with some sense of who you really are!"
Next time, maybe try and reply with some attempt to answer the post to which you're replying.
And BTW, I love the idea of anti-science people using computers and the Internet to bash science. But hey, maybe digital communication isn't really a product of inestimable numbers of electrochemical reactions that we cannot perceive directly. Perhaps it's a manifestation of the Universal Human Spirit Communication Vibration, or God, or angels, or infinitesimally small unicorns that travel at near lightspeed with bags of e-mail strapped to their backs. It's fun to think of ideas when you don't have to try to find logical bases for them, isn't it?
"It wasn't that long ago when scientists of old thought the world was flat. And I'm sure they were scientists by their standards at least. People used to hang on to every word they uttered. "
No, they were mostly religious figures. Scientists, or at least those participating in reason-based free inquiry about the natural world and our role in it, were sometimes hung for the words they uttered.
"Things haven't moved on that much with the illusion of intellect from a scientific mind. As with anything scientific, unless you can touch it, it then fails to be recognised. "
What, like germs? Electrons? The existence of stars other than our sun as burning hydrogen gas as opposed to, say, the shimmering diamonds of the gods?
"Science is an illusion for proving the unknown to be fact, by removing all doubt and fear from the mind of civilization. It happened when mankind lost all meaning of being 'one'. "
This is more unsubstantiated gibberish than I've found in any other/. post today, even in the Politics section. It's early, but still...
"It ain't rocket science ya know!"
Huh? But isn't that what folks were discussing? Astrophysics, at least?
"And as for becoming a creationist, well...I think you have just found something in yourself. Even if you did make it sound like a joke."
You're right, it's not funny. The ability to substitute reason and free inquiry for the millenia-old writings of a nomadic tribe of shepherds in the Middle East, with regards to scientific questions, is not a joke. Things that sad are never truly funny.
"God forbid you go outside and take a walk in the park or read something in a nice cafe somewhere for a few hours."
What a delightful bit of snobbishness fuels this troll's post! I think this simpleton imagines every WoW subscriber hunched in front of a computer, waiting for Blizzard's technical staff to permit them to be entertained.
Most folks, the employed-adult majority of WoW players included, have a limited amount of time with which to entertain themselves. When this time presents itself, they form an idea of how they would like to be entertained: "I will chill in the park for an hour," "I will go read in a cafe for an hour," "I will play WoW for an hour." People can generally find a different outlet for entertainment if their plans are foiled, but are rarely amused by frustrated intentions.
When one's outdoor-chilling objectives are foiled by torrential rains, there is no recourse to the weather. When one's cafe-reading objectives are foiled by an unexpectedly closed establishment, there is little recourse other than not spending money in that place, at least at that time.
OTOH, WoW is an on-demand subscription service, similar in essence to HBO - a constant fee is paid to ensure 24-hour accessibility. Let's say that a user has set aside five hours of free time on a weekend to play WoW, but due to a technical issue they are denied service for three hours of this time. Certainly, one hopes that the user in question can entertain themselves during this time. The point remains that they are being denied a service for which payment has already been rendered, which provides one with a valid complaint to the provider of the service. For a company that does business online with as many paying customers as Blizzard, a 3-hour response time to these complaints is absurd.
Of course, Mikey-chan is not interested in discussing issues with online services. The only intention of his post appears to be expressing contempt for other/.-ers' hobbies and contrasting what I assume are his own superior forms of entertainment, although I must wonder what great authors amuse one with such a narrow and supercilious view of others. Tolstoy? Sartre? Ann Coulter?
Hopefully the above post is rated "Troll" with haste.
They dropped the ball when they swerved first in the game of "release-date chicken." This is surprising; didn't they remember their earlier success at trumping an older system by virtue of superior hardware? Whichever company released their next-gen console first was almost certain to have the lesser system.
Slashdot Mirror
Read your post wrong; I thought you asked how many /.ers would have a problem with Gonzales v. Raich. It's a terrible ruling, made more so by the blatant hypocrisy of the Court's conservative justices.
I know I do. Yet I also wonder, how many would disagree with the Fair Housing Act and a plethora of civil rights laws, upheld as constitutional under a broad interpretation of the commerce clause? Some, I'm sure, but hardly a majority.
I am such an ill-tempered jackass; I didn't see the original troll post that you were actually responding to. My apologies.
Really? Let's review what I said:
"Lol...I thought this was a serious attempt to defend libertarian fluff thinking until I read the last line: "
"The slippery slope "rule?" The term "slippery slope" refers to a class of logical fallacy, not a "rule."
Let's see...nope, not once do I reference the poster to whom I was responding. I am derisive regarding libertarian ideas and the seriousness of the post, then I point out the error that inspired me to post. Not once do I criticize the poster for anything, nor do I care to; the poor quality of the post is enough to write about.
So, where exactly is the "ad hominem" attack?
You're not kidding; in The Fountainhead, the first sexual encounter between the hero and the primary female character (who go on to have an affair) is a rape.
"What about the overly broad interpretation of what constitutes commerce among the states and regulation thereof?"
What about the possibility that "overly broad" is a subjective measure?
"I like the story but her narrative style is tiresome and overlong. " I like the story but her narrative style is tiresome and overlong. Are you saying there's something clumsy in having a character deliver a 75-page long radio address that specifically outlines key points of Objectivism? You don't think that people everywhere would be dying to tune in?
"Education has nothing to do with income -- I barely graduated high school and I do fairly well considering most people in my fields have MBAs or Master's Degrees and I never attended college."
Congratulations on having a personal experience outside the norm, but not everyone is so fortunate...in fact, most are not. Claiming that education has nothing to do with income is like claiming that starvation has nothing to do with poverty...it sounds and feels good, but has nothing to do with actual data examining life earnings correlated with educational attainment.
"Employment "rights" have been slowly destroyed by the law, not made better. Minimum wage laws have made it very hard for the young, the uneducated and the minorities to find entry level work that teaches them responsible work ethics as well as a trade. "
Are you honestly trying to say that workers had more access to a safe work environment and non-discriminatory hiring practices in the era before the government enacted regulation enforcing such things? Where exactly was this happening?
"The Americans with Disability Act has made it much harder for the disabled to get jobs, and it has made it much harder on employers to even interview someone with a disability."
Ah yes, I recall that prior to its passage, employers were falling over themselves to hire former mental health patients, the wheelchair-bound, and deaf folks until the nasty government made them stop. Oh wait; actually, the complete opposite happened.
"Business licensing and regulations have made it difficult for the common man to start a business -- just trying opening a restaurant or a small retail store today. In the past you could open either with very little income compared to what you need to pay today just to get an occupancy permit."
I'm sure that the prevailing economic conditions in the modern market, which require massive amounts of initial capital investment to set up a business that can keep costs low enough to price out smaller competitors, has nothing to do with this.
"Housing prices have been put out of reach of millions by government currency inflation (which is the sole cause of housing and consumer price increases in the past 20-30 years). "
This is either a hilarious interpretation of the data, or an unfounded assumption, seeing as homeownership has continued to rise steadily through the latter half of the 20th century. Perhaps the rise in housing costs is the result of a middle class demanding larger and better-equipped homes, thus insuring that there is less profit incentive to create low-income housing. In fact, this would jibe with the fact that the rising cost of new homes is largely a factor of building styles and rising material costs.
"On top of this, the housing and rental market is made more expensive by ridiculous property tax increases which make it near impossible for the poor, elderly and uneducated to live near opportunities to make good money."
Because if there's one thing keeping the poor, uneducated, and elderly from making money it's property taxes. Lack of access to education has nothing to do with it, so we should slash property taxes in order to defund education, because that'll really help all those poor and uneducated. Oh, and BTW, since when are the elderly supposed to be "making money?" I always thought that went against the concept of "retirement."
"Medicine was available to almost every poor person until the HMO Act of 1974, which created a trap for those without insurance. "
OK, now you're just talking out of your ass.
"Up until the early 70s doctors made housecalls and charged very little"
And provided nowhere near the level of healing ability as a modern doctor, and certainly did not provide this service to everyone.
"once insurance was nearly mandated by government (either as a required benefit or used to circumvent tax laws for employers), the price of medicine skyrocketed.
Right, because the free market is never the cause of violence, censorship, or suppression of others' rights. And if it ever is, why, all the folks with money will voluntarily fix it by "voting with their dollars." After all, it's not like we've ever seen people with money act against the interests of those without.
Of course, I suppose those without money have no right to express their interest in society. If they want to, they can just go get some money, using the free and equal access that all Americans have to education, employment, housing, and medicine. In, you know, the fantasy world where the colluding interests of the moneyed powerful can be countered by the spending habits of the earning class.
Lol...I thought this was a serious attempt to defend libertarian fluff thinking until I read the last line:
"In the long run, the slippery slope rule says you'll lose all the rights as those in power taste more and more of that power."
The slippery slope "rule?" The term "slippery slope" refers to a class of logical fallacy, not a "rule."
I must say, I wonder how effective a lobbying movement of computer gamers will be against the coordinated efforts of family groups who want to ban "improper" video games. The family groups are more prone to vote, contribute, and be active in the political arena in general. I know there are exceptions, but I think Will Wright's just angling for some publicity for the cause...not a bad goal, but I hope nobody's hopes are raised too highly by this.
The hilarity of Dubya talking about Mars landings and moon bases, all while mismanaging the federal budget and slashing science programs, was a welcome distraction at the time. I remember thinking, "This guy believes that humans are biologically separate from the animal kingdom, and that at least two-thirds of his constituents are going to Hell after they die, and now he's on the side of science?"
I just wish this expectation of failure made acceptance of the President's failures easier to deal with. Perhaps soon we can put a government in power that works to make America competitive in the science and information-dominated industries of the 21st century, rather than a government that pays lip service to this concept.
"The Federal government has no ability to perform efficiently, which was why we had the Constitution in the first place. Give the states the ability to provide competitive service with one another, and they'll compete to attract the best citizens." This bit of regurgitated "libertarian" thought puts me in the mind to paraphrase P. J. O'Rourke: Economic conservatives rail on about how the government doesn't work, then get elected and work hard to prove it.
It's funny, to me at least, how many everyday folks get suckered by a self-serving ideology of wealth-holders. Then again, I've always had a sick sense of humor.
It probably had something to do with the painful truth of this statement: "Most republicans would vote the party even if Hitler was running (witness the many republicans in Louisanna who voted in the David Duke, a locally well known KKK grand wizard)"
What, exactly, is Amazon going to be banking on by branding a line of music players? Their history for making functional, attractive gadgets? Hmm...no, that's Apple. Is the consumer expected to look at an Amazon-branded MP3 player they've never seen before and think, "Ah, Amazon! They do such a good job shipping gifts on or around Christmas, I'll bet their digital music service rocks?"
This has all the trappings of another expensive mistake.
You're right on one thing in your post: "[You] have no answers."
One thing is obvious from the rambling quality of your posts, your denial of absolute knowledge paired with groundless declarations, and inability to see that today's technology was yesterday's science: you have nothing more than words without meaning, the "blarney chattering's and mind murmurings" to which you refer. I wonder what purpose you see in communication between people.
"Well, nothing suprises me with science. Just as your reply didn't suprise me any either. "
Well, it's not a particularly surprising response. I understand the human capacity for reason as the force preventing us from living like animals and grunting in amazement at fires and moonlight. Responding with distaste for the suggestion that this capacity should perpetuate its past errors in judgment, such as religion and astrology, is pretty predictable.
"Next time, maybe try and reply with some sense of who you really are!"
Next time, maybe try and reply with some attempt to answer the post to which you're replying.
And BTW, I love the idea of anti-science people using computers and the Internet to bash science. But hey, maybe digital communication isn't really a product of inestimable numbers of electrochemical reactions that we cannot perceive directly. Perhaps it's a manifestation of the Universal Human Spirit Communication Vibration, or God, or angels, or infinitesimally small unicorns that travel at near lightspeed with bags of e-mail strapped to their backs. It's fun to think of ideas when you don't have to try to find logical bases for them, isn't it?
"It wasn't that long ago when scientists of old thought the world was flat. And I'm sure they were scientists by their standards at least. People used to hang on to every word they uttered. "
/. post today, even in the Politics section. It's early, but still...
No, they were mostly religious figures. Scientists, or at least those participating in reason-based free inquiry about the natural world and our role in it, were sometimes hung for the words they uttered.
"Things haven't moved on that much with the illusion of intellect from a scientific mind. As with anything scientific, unless you can touch it, it then fails to be recognised. "
What, like germs? Electrons? The existence of stars other than our sun as burning hydrogen gas as opposed to, say, the shimmering diamonds of the gods?
"Science is an illusion for proving the unknown to be fact, by removing all doubt and fear from the mind of civilization. It happened when mankind lost all meaning of being 'one'. "
This is more unsubstantiated gibberish than I've found in any other
"It ain't rocket science ya know!"
Huh? But isn't that what folks were discussing? Astrophysics, at least?
"And as for becoming a creationist, well...I think you have just found something in yourself. Even if you did make it sound like a joke."
You're right, it's not funny. The ability to substitute reason and free inquiry for the millenia-old writings of a nomadic tribe of shepherds in the Middle East, with regards to scientific questions, is not a joke. Things that sad are never truly funny.
"God forbid you go outside and take a walk in the park or read something in a nice cafe somewhere for a few hours."
/.-ers' hobbies and contrasting what I assume are his own superior forms of entertainment, although I must wonder what great authors amuse one with such a narrow and supercilious view of others. Tolstoy? Sartre? Ann Coulter?
What a delightful bit of snobbishness fuels this troll's post! I think this simpleton imagines every WoW subscriber hunched in front of a computer, waiting for Blizzard's technical staff to permit them to be entertained.
Most folks, the employed-adult majority of WoW players included, have a limited amount of time with which to entertain themselves. When this time presents itself, they form an idea of how they would like to be entertained: "I will chill in the park for an hour," "I will go read in a cafe for an hour," "I will play WoW for an hour." People can generally find a different outlet for entertainment if their plans are foiled, but are rarely amused by frustrated intentions.
When one's outdoor-chilling objectives are foiled by torrential rains, there is no recourse to the weather. When one's cafe-reading objectives are foiled by an unexpectedly closed establishment, there is little recourse other than not spending money in that place, at least at that time.
OTOH, WoW is an on-demand subscription service, similar in essence to HBO - a constant fee is paid to ensure 24-hour accessibility. Let's say that a user has set aside five hours of free time on a weekend to play WoW, but due to a technical issue they are denied service for three hours of this time. Certainly, one hopes that the user in question can entertain themselves during this time. The point remains that they are being denied a service for which payment has already been rendered, which provides one with a valid complaint to the provider of the service. For a company that does business online with as many paying customers as Blizzard, a 3-hour response time to these complaints is absurd.
Of course, Mikey-chan is not interested in discussing issues with online services. The only intention of his post appears to be expressing contempt for other
Hopefully the above post is rated "Troll" with haste.
They dropped the ball when they swerved first in the game of "release-date chicken." This is surprising; didn't they remember their earlier success at trumping an older system by virtue of superior hardware? Whichever company released their next-gen console first was almost certain to have the lesser system.