Add roughly $100- for the Windows XP operating systems and $350- for Microsoft office, and you have a significant initial financial outlay. If one would use an open source operating system and set of office applications, the cost savings would be enormous.
Ah, but you see, then you have Windows...with an office suite. This still isn't factoring in desktop publishing, graphics software, video editing software, audio editing software, home/small business financial software, and tons of other things which you generally add to a Windows machine...but generally comes on your average Linux install (when talking about desktop systems, and not servers obviously...).
And what the hell is up with suggesting the Mac as a big cost savings platform? Sure it comes with more than Windows does, but you sure pay for it.
Are you proposing we just say "Fuck it" and let everything pass as journalism?
I'm saying that journalism, whatever anyone judges it to be, has nothing to do with the basic right to freedom of the press.
Singapore is such an evil place, they've managed to have a thriving free market, become one of the richest countries in the world, have one of the least corrupt governments in the world, and have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. How evil.
Free market yes, and that's absolutely wonderful....but they need a free society to go with it. And they do not have that. Instead, it's one of the most restrictive societies in the world. As for the "one of the least corrupt governments"...how would we know, with the Press censored? Same with the crime rate...how do we know for sure, the Press is censored? At the height of the power of the Soviet Union everything that came out of their said they had no crime, no poverty, no homelessness...of course what the truth was happened to be that the official policy was that there was no crime, no poverty, no homelessness...it still existed, the government merely said it did and due to a censored press nobody was allowed to say any different.
It's not illegal to express yourself in Singapore, but it is illegal for the media to say whatever it wants. The two things aren't the same.
Freedom of the Press is an individual right, it's a right I possess...it's not just a right journalists possess. It means "freedom to publish" not "freedom to be a reporter." It is a basic, fundamental right. In that country, that right is being trampled on. Trampling on people's rights is evil.
Just because some country is a little different than wherever you live doesn't make it "evil"
No, of course not. It's when a country violates it's citizen's basic civil liberties that it crosses the line into evil. Just because Singapore is an orderly society, does not make it a good society. It most certainly doesn't make it a free society.
No, the first amendment just means you have every right to unpatriotic speech. It doesn't mean that any political speech you choose to express is patriotic. Nazi's aren't patriotic...yet they have full first amendment rights too.
But you're not taken them to court over that. You aren't sueing them for ripping off people. Instead, they are accusing you, in court, of spreading lies about them in an attempt to cause them harm. That makes them the accuser. Anbd as I said before...the accuser must prove their case.
I suppose gun ownership is a right, but is shooting every other person part of that same right? How about when a child steals your gun, goes to school and shoots a bunch of students/teachers? Do they have the right to do that?
Of course not.
Having rights of ownership is one thing, but all the wrong people own guns for all the wrong reasons. What's the point in ever owning a handgun? A lot of my family owns rifles, for hunting, but none own handguns...it's pointless.
The vast majority of gun owners in the United States have never fired a gun in anger, nor will they. A rather huge number are hunters. Those with handguns...most of them own them for self/home defense purposes. Now what I find pointless, is that you sound like you want to heavily restrict people's rights to just hunting purposes...when the right was not protected for people to be able to hunt (although that's an important use, many people need to hunt to feed their families), but for the security of the nation...as an armed populace can more easily throw off tyranny, either foreign or domestic. Armed citizens are the last line of defense for the USA, idiotic restrictions on what types of firearms they can use in the field against an enemy would be pointless.
So you're saying that if I print something that says that you run around nake every night raping nuns and butchering kittens then you have no way of disproving it?
We do? Since when? This is America, we breed with everyone! Seriously, look how xenophobic a lot of the countries of the world are. The USA isn't. We fuck everybody. Take my family history for example. My anscestry is mostly German with a large chunk of English, a fair amount of Jewish, a bit of Black here and there, a few Native Americans scattered around here and there. I'm considered "white" because it's a nice label to lump anyone who's remotely light skinned and had anscestors who came from Europe at some time. Mostly, my biological heritage is German. My name isn't, it's Scottish-Irish through adoption. The rest of my family, currently has Latinos, Greeks, Irish, Scottish, and I wouldn't doubt a Pole or two...being Illinois. Split down "white" into ethnic groupings and you find that percentage wise....there isn't much difference in absolute numbers between any ethnic group in America...the idea of "ethnic minorities" is either a myth, or we all are "ethnic minorities" which sounds kind of stupid. And all of us...well, originally our anscestors came from somewhere else. Even the Native Americans.
America is the fucking melting pot...literally, on the fucking part. Our culture is built on the blend of other cultures. Why the hell would we go to great lengths to keep people out? We aren't over crowded, only a handful of idiots are racist, and we're eager for some fresh booty! You aren't making any sense....keep people out.... Nonsense!
Fascists, either Christian or racial, will definitely feel more at home in the USA. It's your kind of place.
Oh please, as much as people joke about George W Bush...he's nowhere near being Hitler, and the USA is nowhere near Nazi Germany. I mean gee, for a fascist country we sure have a lot of freedom of speech and freedom of press. Especially compared to many other so-called "democratic" western nations. And even freedom of religion as well. I'm not a Christian, and I'm an American. A proud one at that.
Cannibus lovers, ('Stoners' to everyone else) will be more comfortable in British Columbia than anywhere in the USA, except possibly Maui. Not even the Humboldt Thunderbolt beats the BC bud.
Please, it's the #1 cash crop in the United States. And there are a lot of places where local law enforcement doesn't give a shit if you're smoking it, they aren't going to go out of their way to hunt down people smoking a couple of joints. If they catch you with it while doing something stupid though...or selling it... I don't smoke it myself, but I do agree that it's stupid that it's illegal, it's no worse of a drug than alcohol afterall...and prohibition didn't exactly help there.
The US has more guns than people, Canada doesn't.
Good. Last I heard gun ownership was a right. Same as me being able to tell you what an idiot you are.
The United States' slander/ libel laws are the only one's in the World where the victim must prove the statements made were in fact FALSE in order to receive judgement.
Everywhere else in the World, the accused must be able to prove his/ her statements were TRUE in order to avoid judgement.
We tend to feel the concept of innocent until proven guilty is a good one. The burden of proof that a wrongdoing has occured (even in a civil case) should fall to the accuser.
It doesn't matter who he is, only that he published something which the government of his country is punishing him for publishing. That's wrong. It doesn't matter if he's not a "journalist" and is just a "blogger." It doesn't matter that he published opinion rather than facts (please, the idea of the objective news agency that reports nothing but the facts and does not sensationalise or editorialise is long, long dead....hell, I'm not sure that ever actually existed except as an ideal). What matters is that merely expressing your views in Singapore is dangerous, as it is in many countries in the world. I'm glad I don't live in such an evil place.
Sorry, but I can't see a society that has laws making it a crime to express your opinion to be good in any way, shape, or form. Order at the expense of Liberty is Oppression.
I'm just saying that if these people want water, let them live where it is, instead of in a city that's in a location that's meant to be desert. What I keep hearing is how California's water problem is a national problem and so we all must conserve water (even the places that have excesses of fresh water), and even half assed schemes to build "national water grids" for one purpose and one purpose only....feed California with water at the expense of everyone else. Let them solve their own water problem without stealing my water, and my money. If they can't...and they don't have enough water for their population, then the people don't have much choice but move to where there is water. Saying "fuck over the rest of the country so I can have water" isn't a nice solution.
California has used its economic power to get what it wants, and other states have been effected by it. And most importantly, it's not sustainable, and when things do come to a head, Cali will probably need help from the rest of the country.
entitled to it. They tend to think of California as the USA, and everyplace else as just some minor, insignificant resource for them to use. Always have. Californians even want everyone else to feed them water, the whole country if they can get away with it! Personally I say if they lack enough water for the people, perhaps the people should start moving to where there is water but maybe that's just me.
But even if you have excess water and are behaving responsibly (and I can't think of any state that does), we should let companies build aquifers so that they can move your water to high demand areas and the prices and availability equalize across the nation. That's what interstate commerce is all about.
Let, sure. Use the government to create them, even pay for them (and hence, the People pay for them) when they aren't really needed, while enforcing water conservation measures on everyone in America regardless of their local supply? Hell no.
I am a proponent of HUGE tax increases on gasoline. Push it up to the $6 level. People won't stop driving until it really hurts to do it.
Ah I see, another moron who doesn't understand what the cost of gasoline has to with the price of goods. I'll give you a hint, it's called "transportation and labor." Both of those expenses go way up when the gas prices go up. During the last big gas spike a lot of businesses had a hard time of it because of this. You want a solution, find a cheap way to move people and goods around without gasoline. Oh, and don't be saying "public transportation" because, while it helps....it doesn't help all that much in a big, spread out country like the USA.
Look at the electronics industry- look at our computers, and how much energy they suck up. Blindly imagining that this problem won't affect us, is like putting our heads in the sand.
I have an energy efficient monitor (and monitors are the single biggest power hog on computers), and my computer is an "energy star appliance." Mine certainly doesn't suck up all that much power...and it's not that unusual of a computer. I didn't go shopping specifically for some eco-friendly model, it was just stock, cheap stuff. So they are already pretty energy efficent....unless you are suggesting we just do away with them. In which case, what are you doing on Slashdot? Shouldn't you be tossing your wasteful, sinful computer in the trash?
This is a very very complex problem, and we Americans are the biggest consumers, and therefore the biggest offenders.
But we're also the best at cleaning up our own pollution too though. We've been getting better and better at what we've been putting into the air (and water too). There are plenty of countries in the world that only give lip service to the environment though, signing treaties and making speeches about how the world must clean up....all the while spewing unfiltered garbage into the air and water in mass quantities. Why is it that we take the blame for them?
Once again, I say tax the crap out of things.
Since when are taxes supposed to be there as the Belt of Morality, come to spank the naughty children of America? Taxes aren't supposed to be punishments for misdeeds. Taxes are there to pay for vital government services. Personally, I think there are better ways of doing that than through involuntary taxation...but putting that aside... Why is it that every time that someone gets on a moral high horse about something they scream "tax it" from the rooftops? Last I checked, government isn't in the morality business, if it were than it would really need to clean house first!
Heh, great thought experiment. Actually (IMO) it rather proves my point. Where I live I have the right to vote in various elections. Were I on the desert island, although the 'inalienable' part of that right still exists (in that the laws in my country haven't changed, or we don't have a military dictatorship etc) - *if* I was back in my country. On the island, I have no right to vote in any meaningful sense. (Of course I could enact an election myself, which I'd win by a landslide.)
Ah, but what must look at what voting is in a society. It is the expression of your individual sovereignty...amongst a society of other sovereigns. Because the people are all equally sovereign, they all have an equal say in the government of that society. In a society of one....such as the imaginary island mentioned before, the expression of sovereignty comes down to the simple will of a single individual. It's the same right, expressed differently under different circumstances. All men are Kings, all women are Queens, in a peaceful society of kings and queens...they vote.
I'm definitely an idiot, but I don't think the police exist purely to enforce my rights, or to enable me to exercise them, although they do help me to do so.
I've never met a police officer willing to enforce my right to speak freely without government censor or punishment...that's my job to do. I've never known the police to enforce the right to publish what I wish without government censor or punishment. I've known the police to specifically refuse to protect a person from another who has threatened bodily harm, even their lives...they said basically to call them when someone's dead. And I've heard of them refusing to even enforce the law in certain communities...saying they were too dangerous to do so. Doesn't sound like enforcing the right to live to me. The police certainly don't enforce my right to property...I can call them after something's been stolen, but they won't protect it in the first place nor ensure it's return or that they'll even investigate seriously. They may even simply shug their shoulders and go away, particularly if I'm not someone important in any way. Police have been known to beat people, plant evidence of crimes, conduct searches without warrant, and do other nasty things...none of which have anything to do with protecting people's rights. Police are there to keep order, sometimes they almost do a halfway decent job.
I protect my rights to my property, by force. I protect my right to life, by force. I protect my right to speak freely, by force. I protect my right to publish freely, by force. I protect all my rights, by force. Just as I expect other truely free people to do.
For starters, we don't even know for certain if the Pilgrims served turkey, although it's a strong possibility.
Yes, an extremely strong possibility...given that the turkey was (heck, still is in certain parts of this fine country) an extremely abundant animal, and very commonly hunted by the natives (and later the colonists) for meat. It's almost a certainty that they did. And even if they did not, the turkey itself became such a common source of food for colonial Americans that it often helped keep families fed through the entire colonial period and quickly became an important traditional American food....so what would it matter even if in the unlikely event that it wasn't served at the first Thanksgiving feast?
The "information superhighway" internet that Al Gore pushed for ARPANET to be turned into would have connected schools and libraries only, and contained only educational materials. It would still have been controlled, and tightly regulated, by the government. The true, private sector internet that we have today simply wouldn't have existed. That's a very different world. We have a much better internet than Al Gore wanted. Personally, I'm glad that today we have a vast, global information network that can be connected to be virtually anyone, with a fairly free exchange of information and ideas...although some countries try to fuck that over.
So if you lived all alone on an island, no other human being at all on that island, which nobody new about and nobody was coming to...then you would have no rights? No, of course not. You have rights as defined and enforced by yourself, just as you do anywhere else. Only difference is, in the company of other people, you generally find ways to restrict your rights by agreement, or others violate them by force.
And if you think that the police exist to enforce your rights, you are an idiot. The only one who can enforce your rights is you. If anyone else comes in on your side it's out of protection and enforcement of their own rights, not out of concern for yours.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but you see, then you have Windows...with an office suite. This still isn't factoring in desktop publishing, graphics software, video editing software, audio editing software, home/small business financial software, and tons of other things which you generally add to a Windows machine...but generally comes on your average Linux install (when talking about desktop systems, and not servers obviously...).
And what the hell is up with suggesting the Mac as a big cost savings platform? Sure it comes with more than Windows does, but you sure pay for it.
No, the first amendment just means you have every right to unpatriotic speech. It doesn't mean that any political speech you choose to express is patriotic. Nazi's aren't patriotic...yet they have full first amendment rights too.
But you're not taken them to court over that. You aren't sueing them for ripping off people. Instead, they are accusing you, in court, of spreading lies about them in an attempt to cause them harm. That makes them the accuser. Anbd as I said before...the accuser must prove their case.
So you're saying that if I print something that says that you run around nake every night raping nuns and butchering kittens then you have no way of disproving it?
We do? Since when? This is America, we breed with everyone! Seriously, look how xenophobic a lot of the countries of the world are. The USA isn't. We fuck everybody. Take my family history for example. My anscestry is mostly German with a large chunk of English, a fair amount of Jewish, a bit of Black here and there, a few Native Americans scattered around here and there. I'm considered "white" because it's a nice label to lump anyone who's remotely light skinned and had anscestors who came from Europe at some time. Mostly, my biological heritage is German. My name isn't, it's Scottish-Irish through adoption. The rest of my family, currently has Latinos, Greeks, Irish, Scottish, and I wouldn't doubt a Pole or two...being Illinois. Split down "white" into ethnic groupings and you find that percentage wise....there isn't much difference in absolute numbers between any ethnic group in America...the idea of "ethnic minorities" is either a myth, or we all are "ethnic minorities" which sounds kind of stupid. And all of us...well, originally our anscestors came from somewhere else. Even the Native Americans.
America is the fucking melting pot...literally, on the fucking part. Our culture is built on the blend of other cultures. Why the hell would we go to great lengths to keep people out? We aren't over crowded, only a handful of idiots are racist, and we're eager for some fresh booty! You aren't making any sense....keep people out.... Nonsense!
You forgot that you also have to go around saying "eh" and "aboot" alot.
It doesn't matter who he is, only that he published something which the government of his country is punishing him for publishing. That's wrong. It doesn't matter if he's not a "journalist" and is just a "blogger." It doesn't matter that he published opinion rather than facts (please, the idea of the objective news agency that reports nothing but the facts and does not sensationalise or editorialise is long, long dead....hell, I'm not sure that ever actually existed except as an ideal). What matters is that merely expressing your views in Singapore is dangerous, as it is in many countries in the world. I'm glad I don't live in such an evil place.
"Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin
Sorry, but I can't see a society that has laws making it a crime to express your opinion to be good in any way, shape, or form. Order at the expense of Liberty is Oppression.
I'd say that suggesting a violation of the Constitution, as a joke or not, is rather unpatriotic.
I'm just saying that if these people want water, let them live where it is, instead of in a city that's in a location that's meant to be desert. What I keep hearing is how California's water problem is a national problem and so we all must conserve water (even the places that have excesses of fresh water), and even half assed schemes to build "national water grids" for one purpose and one purpose only....feed California with water at the expense of everyone else. Let them solve their own water problem without stealing my water, and my money. If they can't...and they don't have enough water for their population, then the people don't have much choice but move to where there is water. Saying "fuck over the rest of the country so I can have water" isn't a nice solution.
Man, I really fucked that one up.... That first part should read that Californians believe that are entited to it.
Wasn't the web invented in the first place by scientists so they could more easily share information?
I've never met a police officer willing to enforce my right to speak freely without government censor or punishment...that's my job to do. I've never known the police to enforce the right to publish what I wish without government censor or punishment. I've known the police to specifically refuse to protect a person from another who has threatened bodily harm, even their lives...they said basically to call them when someone's dead. And I've heard of them refusing to even enforce the law in certain communities...saying they were too dangerous to do so. Doesn't sound like enforcing the right to live to me. The police certainly don't enforce my right to property...I can call them after something's been stolen, but they won't protect it in the first place nor ensure it's return or that they'll even investigate seriously. They may even simply shug their shoulders and go away, particularly if I'm not someone important in any way. Police have been known to beat people, plant evidence of crimes, conduct searches without warrant, and do other nasty things...none of which have anything to do with protecting people's rights. Police are there to keep order, sometimes they almost do a halfway decent job.
I protect my rights to my property, by force. I protect my right to life, by force. I protect my right to speak freely, by force. I protect my right to publish freely, by force. I protect all my rights, by force. Just as I expect other truely free people to do.
I know that was meant to be funny, but...
The "information superhighway" internet that Al Gore pushed for ARPANET to be turned into would have connected schools and libraries only, and contained only educational materials. It would still have been controlled, and tightly regulated, by the government. The true, private sector internet that we have today simply wouldn't have existed. That's a very different world. We have a much better internet than Al Gore wanted. Personally, I'm glad that today we have a vast, global information network that can be connected to be virtually anyone, with a fairly free exchange of information and ideas...although some countries try to fuck that over.
So if you lived all alone on an island, no other human being at all on that island, which nobody new about and nobody was coming to...then you would have no rights? No, of course not. You have rights as defined and enforced by yourself, just as you do anywhere else. Only difference is, in the company of other people, you generally find ways to restrict your rights by agreement, or others violate them by force.
And if you think that the police exist to enforce your rights, you are an idiot. The only one who can enforce your rights is you. If anyone else comes in on your side it's out of protection and enforcement of their own rights, not out of concern for yours.
I use Linux.