Insightful? This is a blatantly untrue, ad hominen attack on the Patriot Act. I find it very likely that the poster has not read and does not know the functions of the Patriot Act, similarly to 90% of the others who oppose it. I don't necessarily support all of it, but if one wants to raise a concern about it should be specified and real.
There is significant evidence for global warming, but less showing that it is caused by people. It seems to me that scientists are politically pressured to support global warming, just like evolution (Which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I doubt many scientific organizations would give support to a scientist with another theory, even if it wasn't in any way similar to intelligent design.).
The original poster said nothing about the war in Iraq.
Even if it did not succeed in doing this, the war in Iraq was supposed to preserve the safety of the American people, which is the government's duty. Cream cheese research is not even supposedly necessary to preserve our rights.
I'm not the original poster, but I am not fine with this. If people wanted to freely donate to this research they could. Instead, they are forced to do so, and it is not necessary to preserve their rights.
Our willingness? You mean the willingness of politicians to spend other people's money, that was forcefully taken from them, on research? How generous...
If one wants to contribute to better cream cheese, or any other improvement in the food supply, then one can donate to a research facility. Being forced to donate to such research through taxation is not necessary to preserve the rights of the citizens of the United States, and as such is an inappropriate use of taxes. Spending $500 Million to restore a submarine is also a waste of tax dollars.
Coming to America is not an intrinsic right. No rights are being taken away, laws are being enforced. And these people are not being monitored unless they are committing a crime.
No one is forcing them to monitor the borders. They are just making it possible without having to drive out to the borders and wait there.
They should report everyone crossing the border illegally. If a terrorist tries, and someone is watching, he will be caught. They don't have to tell them apart, because anyone sneaking across the border is committing a crime. Even if you let everyone cross, they should pass through a screening area, where border patrol agents determine if they are terrorists or criminals, and if they are transporting weapons or drugs.
It is not the same as offering money to report illegal immigrant residents. It is more like offering money to alert police to burglaries.
Do you have any examples of the bombing and exploitation?
They aren't monitoring citizens, they are only monitoring people trying to illegally enter the country.
It is promoting not xenophobia. A nation has the right and responsibility to secure its borders, and that is all that is happening. A sovereign nation has the right to decree who may or may not enter it.
Even if you let every immigrant in, you have to control immigration, unless you have complete confidence in the other nation's security. Otherwise, how do you stop terrorists and criminals from coming across, possibly with weapons?
This isn't a step towards fascism.
I do agree that the government needs to be monitored more carefully, but we aren't in a crisis. We haven't been sold out to corporations. This is evident in the increasing regulation of them, and their portrayal by politicians as Bad (e.g. The recent trend about punishing oil companies for making profits").
Judging by the fact that there are volunteers willing to help secure the border, I would think that some of those same people would be willing to help build a wall.
There is a difference between firing people from a job for what they say (that is the employers right) and suppressing speech. Of course a teacher should be fired for writing such a book, but they should not be arrested.
So, if the company is Microsoft/Adobe/etc., how do they make money? Solutions? Like software? They would make no money with it being legally pirated.
>Yes, this kills off 1000's of jobs for programmers, most of whom shouldn't be programming anyway, they just went into the field because they >heard there was lots of jobs and good money. Anyway programmers don't make any money off the software they write, uper-management and >the investors make all the money.
They shouldn't be programming, because they want money in exchange? How should a programmer earn money, if he is supposed to work for free and produce a free product? People do work for money.
Programmers get paid, do they not? So they are making money, along with investors and upper management.
>I'll pay $20 to go see a band play live, but I won't pay $20 for a CD just to hear the same songs over and over again.
Then you have no right to that CD or the songs on it.
"Pretending that all IP is public domain" is a lengthy way to say "stealing".
Pirating software is stealing. It doesn't make a difference if one would have bought something anyway. Without copyright, there wouldn't be any incentive to make the software.
Slashdot Mirror
I was not referring to political pressure from from the government, but from academic and scientific organizations.
Insightful? This is a blatantly untrue, ad hominen attack on the Patriot Act. I find it very likely that the poster has not read and does not know the functions of the Patriot Act, similarly to 90% of the others who oppose it. I don't necessarily support all of it, but if one wants to raise a concern about it should be specified and real.
There is significant evidence for global warming, but less showing that it is caused by people. It seems to me that scientists are politically pressured to support global warming, just like evolution (Which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I doubt many scientific organizations would give support to a scientist with another theory, even if it wasn't in any way similar to intelligent design.).
If people wanted to donate the money, that's fine. But forcing them to donate, when it is not necessary to preserve their rights, is not.
The original poster said nothing about the war in Iraq.
Even if it did not succeed in doing this, the war in Iraq was supposed to preserve the safety of the American people, which is the government's duty. Cream cheese research is not even supposedly necessary to preserve our rights.
I'm not the original poster, but I am not fine with this. If people wanted to freely donate to this research they could. Instead, they are forced to do so, and it is not necessary to preserve their rights.
Our willingness? You mean the willingness of politicians to spend other people's money, that was forcefully taken from them, on research? How generous...
If one wants to contribute to better cream cheese, or any other improvement in the food supply, then one can donate to a research facility. Being forced to donate to such research through taxation is not necessary to preserve the rights of the citizens of the United States, and as such is an inappropriate use of taxes. Spending $500 Million to restore a submarine is also a waste of tax dollars.
Coming to America is not an intrinsic right. No rights are being taken away, laws are being enforced. And these people are not being monitored unless they are committing a crime.
And they have very limited routes, which is probably what makes them able to provide such good service. Every flight goes to or from New York.
What about all the other Americans that aren't products, livestock, pets, immigrants, or felons? That must be over 50%.
Somehow, I doubt not getting your dog chipped gets you on a list of terrorists.
No one is forcing them to monitor the borders. They are just making it possible without having to drive out to the borders and wait there.
They should report everyone crossing the border illegally. If a terrorist tries, and someone is watching, he will be caught. They don't have to tell them apart, because anyone sneaking across the border is committing a crime. Even if you let everyone cross, they should pass through a screening area, where border patrol agents determine if they are terrorists or criminals, and if they are transporting weapons or drugs.
It is not the same as offering money to report illegal immigrant residents. It is more like offering money to alert police to burglaries.
Do you have any examples of the bombing and exploitation?
Monitoring the border doesn't bring them very much closer to monitoring cities. It is entirely separate.
They aren't monitoring citizens, they are only monitoring people trying to illegally enter the country. It is promoting not xenophobia. A nation has the right and responsibility to secure its borders, and that is all that is happening. A sovereign nation has the right to decree who may or may not enter it. Even if you let every immigrant in, you have to control immigration, unless you have complete confidence in the other nation's security. Otherwise, how do you stop terrorists and criminals from coming across, possibly with weapons? This isn't a step towards fascism. I do agree that the government needs to be monitored more carefully, but we aren't in a crisis. We haven't been sold out to corporations. This is evident in the increasing regulation of them, and their portrayal by politicians as Bad (e.g. The recent trend about punishing oil companies for making profits").
Judging by the fact that there are volunteers willing to help secure the border, I would think that some of those same people would be willing to help build a wall.
Why shouldn't the people voluntarily help protect the borders? There are people willing to do so, and it will only help keep the borders secure.
These are monitoring the border between the U.S. and Mexico, not a city, so there isn't really any concern about Big Brother.
I got 6116/351 kbps on the speakeasy test. My plan is for 6000/384 kbps. It is from comcast.
Version .03? Is the developer still only on the first line of code?
My backup strategy consists of hoping that my hard drive doesn't fail before I get a new computer/hard drive. It's worked so far, even with a laptop.
There is a difference between firing people from a job for what they say (that is the employers right) and suppressing speech. Of course a teacher should be fired for writing such a book, but they should not be arrested.
So, if the company is Microsoft/Adobe/etc., how do they make money? Solutions? Like software? They would make no money with it being legally pirated. >Yes, this kills off 1000's of jobs for programmers, most of whom shouldn't be programming anyway, they just went into the field because they >heard there was lots of jobs and good money. Anyway programmers don't make any money off the software they write, uper-management and >the investors make all the money. They shouldn't be programming, because they want money in exchange? How should a programmer earn money, if he is supposed to work for free and produce a free product? People do work for money. Programmers get paid, do they not? So they are making money, along with investors and upper management. >I'll pay $20 to go see a band play live, but I won't pay $20 for a CD just to hear the same songs over and over again. Then you have no right to that CD or the songs on it. "Pretending that all IP is public domain" is a lengthy way to say "stealing".
I was referring to commercial software, which cannot be fully replaced by OSS.
Pirating software is stealing. It doesn't make a difference if one would have bought something anyway. Without copyright, there wouldn't be any incentive to make the software.