I've never heard about such a thing as a tyranny of the majority. Could you explain?
You should read John Stuart Mill to get the full explanation. Basically, it boils down to the fact that the will of the majority can be just as oppressive as any tyrant. If you have a group of 50 black people and 51 white people, is it ok for all 51 whites to "vote" to enslave the blacks? That's an (overly simplified) example of the tyranny of the majority. John Stuart Mill was actually primarily concerned about this as it applied to everyday social interactions - the effect that society has on an individuals behaviour - however it would be just as applicable to any "truly democratic" political system.
I don't understand (I told you I don't read much history!). Did they invade or did they convert? If the former, then that doesn't say much. If the latter, then... WTF?!?
They took over from within. First they got the emperor at the time to declare Christianity the official state religion. Then eventually they said "well, if Christianity is our official religion, what are we doing protecting all these other religions?". It was at that point that Alexandria fell, and it was the starting point for the European Dark Ages. Presist of other religions were executed, often by crucifiction (ironic, eh?). Parishoners of other religions, and anyone who did not claim a god, were converted with the threat of execution. So to answer your question, nobody invaded, they took over from within. You see the same attempts going on today, both from Fundamentalist Christianity and Militant Islam. It's a never-ending battle.
Don't they? I thought voting based on your (simple) personal interests mostly works OK. You don't have to bother (much) with what other people tell you they think you want.
Our form of government hinges on the idea that people are at least capable of deciding who they want to represent them. However, stretching that to allow everyone to vote on every single issue, no matter how complex? You'd be giving the average person way too much credit. Once again, the example of public surveys, or polls, best illustrates this. It's been demonstrated often enough that people will answer the exact same question in two completely different way, based solely on how it's phrased. That's why public polls are usually meaningless.
So, are you saying that people make stupid mistakes?
Ofcourse. Isn't that self-evident?
Now, are you saying that people can't even learn from stupid mistakes?
Ofcourse! Isn't that just as obvious?? A good example of this is the "true believers" in any kind of superstitious nonsense. For instance, faith healing. You can show people conclusively that their faith healer is a fraud and a charlatan, and that there is no possibly way his claims could have ever worked. Will they learn from it? Not really. A handful will learn that faith healing really doesn't work, but the vast majority will simply switch to a different faith healer. The vast majority of people make stupid decisions on a daily basis, and don't learn a thing even when you point out all these mistakes to them.
Well, if people are that dumb, then maybe they actually deserve the shaky republic they are living in. But let's not jump into conclusions.
Unpopular (but `positive') legislation. Yes I know... I consider that a price to pay for real democracy. It comes with the package! If you want a government `by the people and for the people' you will have to accept the will of the majority.
Right, which is how you end up with tyranny of the majority. That's why the US is not a "real democracy", and neither are most other nations. Maybe you want a "real democracy", but I certainly don't.
Religious fanaticism. I don't read much history, but wasn't that one of the things that happened to ancient Athens?
Actually the best example is Alexandria. They were a VERY progressive society, allowing freedom of thought and religion. They had developed all sorts of advanced technologies, including advanced medicine, and figuring out not only that the earth is round, but it's probable size down to 99% accuracy. In the end, they were brought down by religious fanaticism when the Christian church consolidated it's differing factions under one authoritarian regime. The parallels to our own society are frankly quite scary. Check out the book "Remembering Hypatia" if you're interested in that sort of thing. Hypatia was a very influential woman who was a big proponent of scientific thought, and pluralist society, but was ultimately barbarically and quite publicly murdered by a Christian bishop and his followers shortly before they seized power in Alexandria.
The answer is always somewhere in-between. What I am describing is one level above capitalism or communism.
The answer is somewhere in between, so you're advocating something above?:) Good way to defeat your own argument.
Your argument assumes that:
1) People actually KNOW what they want.
2) People can make logical, intelligent choices, and can abstain from voicing their opinions when they do not have the relevant facts.
3) People understand the importance of casting a vote.
Unfortunately, everything we know about ourselves suggests that all three of those assumptions are wrong.
Like I said, you're overly idealistic:) People simply don't operate that way. Any reasonable analysis will show you that people only get involved in low-level politics when they have a personal stake in the issue which they feel strongly about. I can guarantee you that one of the first things to happen under your system would be for evolution to be voted out of the school system. I can also guarantee that abortion would quickly become illegal, because there are more people who are strongly opposed to it than who are strongly in favour of it. If you consider these to be positive measures, well, there's not much I can say to you. I don't think that you do, though - I think you just have a very warped view of how a government should be run. There's a reason that the US is NOT a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. The kind of democracy you describe simply would not work. It sounds nice in theory, sure....but so does communism.
You're very idealistic. In my experience, people aren't nearly so reasonable. A more likely scenario is that the majority of people simply wouldn't bother voting in anything, whilst the rest would only vote for the things they cared about.
Also, more importantly, I don't think you realize just how much voting would have to be done in order to make this system feasible. Without elected representatives, there would be literally hundreds of decisions to be made each day by the voting populace. It's the equivalent of saying "well, since Microsoft has such good communication technology, they should just fire all management, and let Steve Balmer make every single decision for the whole company". There's no way in hell it would work - the guy would last mabe a month before he had a nervous breakdown, and the company would fall apart in the meantime.
We didn't just elect representatives because of bad communications, we also elected them so that they could focus on certain aspects of policy without having to bother us. It's the FULL-TIME JOB of municipal politicians to focus on municipal matters. State politicians to focus on state matters. Federal politicians to focus on federal matters. Now you want to do away with that, and have John Q Public manage ALL of these different decisions during his free time at home. It's ludicrous. Not only could he not find the time to get properly educated before voting on all the issues, but he probably couldn't even find the time to make RANDOM selections on every single issue! In the end, you'd end up with all choices being controlled by special interest groups, because those groups would be able to hire full-time representatives to both cast their own votes on issues, and influence the votes of other citizens. You'd basically end up with a new class of totally unelected politicians/lobbyists, operating at the whim of special interest groups and corporations, with a wee bit of mob rule and anarchy thrown into the mix. It'd be the worst form of government in history.
There's a hell of a lot of utterly clueless responses to your post, and only one somewhat insightful one. I'm surprised that so few people seem to understand the real problem with your idea. And the real problem? People only care about issues which affect them directly, and even then, they only bother doing something about them when they become a problem.
A good example of this is the creationism vs evolution debate as concerning the US school system. I can't remember which state it was, but they, a while back, had a school board election which decided that evolution would not be taught in schools. Well, this upset enough of the more rational people that they came out in force next time, and had evolution inserted into the curriculum again. Ofcourse, as soon as they had achieved their goal, these people forgot about the whole thing and went back to their normal lives. At which point the creationists came out in force, and evolution was once again voted out of the curriculum.
If you have a "direct democracy", you're going to have the exact same problem, but on a country-wide scale, and for EVERY controversial topic. More importantly, it opens the door for special interest groups to introduce and enact legislation which would otherwise never see the light of day. Do you have ANY idea how easy people are to influence? We see this all the time in public opinion polls, where a simple change in how you phrase the question totally changes the result of the poll. Here's an example:
"Do you support free publicly-funded services for illegal immigrants who do not pay taxes?"
vs
"Do you think undocumented residents should be given access to the medical and school system?"
In both cases you're asking essentially the same question, yet I can guarantee that the first question will get "no" as the majority response, whereas the second question will get "yes" from the VAST majority of responders. If public opinion polls are unscientific and easily biased, who in their right mind would want to base a political system on them?
Awesome logic. Instead of choosing the lesser of two evils, you're content to let others choose for you. Don't ever let anyone accuse you of being a great thinker.
When you're paying about $20,000 to lift that hammer into orbit, I sure as hell hope that they'll splurge, instead of going for the $5 Walmart model. Ditto for their food. When each meal costs that much to lift to orbit, they may as well eat caviar, lobster, and Dom Perignon. The added cost is insignificant.
1) Windows wasn't originaly designed with net access in mind. Because they kept building on the original framework instead of just starting fresh, it took them years to get it right. Thats not at all surprising.
2) This is the third time I'mr repeating this, so listen carefully: it doesn't matter HOW secure you make an OS, if the end-user is stupid, it's going to get compromised. Period. It doesn't matter whether you're running Unix, Vax, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Uberunto, or MacOS. Now, with that said, obviously the OS should meet a minimum level of security in order to protect it from automated attacks which don't even require user involvement. Windows XP meets that standard, as did Win2k. Vista doubtless will as well. But spending any time trying to secure the OS further is a waste.
and
3) The Kubuntu community has been largely useless to me. Their "spirit" is largely summed up with "helpful suggestions" like "compile from source" or "well, it works for me".
It's interesting how your argument progresses from perfectly accurate to totally wrong:
And just to go all Godwin on your ass - eugenics is no different to natural breeding and cross breeding. It just has a science behind it.
so far, you're 100% correct!
How come it's ok to use eugenics on food, but not on people ?
And the answer to that is that there's nothing wrong with it. If you could genetically modify your child's foetus so that he/she would not be born blind, deaf, or retarded, wouldn't you do it? There's absolutely nothing wrong with modifying any species, including humans, as long as we go about it the right way.
(In fact by altering the makeup of our food, primarily for profit, we are altering ourselves in ways we have no way of understanding).
The idea that we are "altering ourselves" through modified food crops is as silly as the idea that Microwave ovens somehow "poison" our food. Lots of people buy into both myths, but there's zero evidence to support either one of them.
gah. just shut up and listen for a minute. every system is only as secure as the weakest link in that system. in the average users system, what is the weakest link? the OS? hardly. the weakest link for 99% of computers is the user. hackers have been making use of this fact for years. that's why social engineering is such a huge part of hacking. so what's the point of having an ultra-scure OS, when the god-damn user user is just going to click the button that says "yes, please rape me up the ass with 1,000 trojans and viruses" anyway?
You can bitch about activex and DRM all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of infections occur not due to OS problems, but simply because people are fucking stupid.
You know, it's funny you say that because I had lunch today the someone and we discussed this very subject. Of couse She is a Scientist doing the very thing.
So...wrong.
Wow. The famous "oh yeah??" retort. Good job! MY turn: Oh yeah?? Well, every scientist I'VE talked to says otherwise!
You might want to provide an actual example. For all I know, you could be right, but you're certainly not going to prove it by talking about your dates with a real-life golly-gee Scientician.
And what about the protien shape?
Well, see, now if you'd actually provided an EXAMPLE of animal protein being used in GM foods (ok, GM fruits/vegetables), you might have a point. As it stands, you're just pissing in the wind.
No I am not, and frankly...fuck you.
Right back atcha, big boy.
All I am saying the the number of unknowns is high enough to warrant testing.
And that's why we do testing. You certainly won't find me opposed to continued testing of even crops we've accepted as safe. What I DO object to is stupid, baseless fear-mongering, such as the "OMFGZORZ a TomatoFish!" canard.
Breeding grapes until there is a variety that is seedless isone thing, taking DNA from a fish and splicing it into is another.
Bunk. No GM foods contain any animal protein. If you're talking about just transplanting a minor gene, then so what? The same gene that's present in that fish is probably present in 20,000 other animal species, and at least a few dozen plant species. You're just trying to use word-play to induce frightening images of frankenplants in peoples minds. In reality, DNA modification is no different than selective breeding and cross breeding, it just works a hell of a lot faster.
You think Greenpeace is pushing for "more controlled testing" of GM foods? HAH! These idiots won't be happy until we stop using any and all GM foods. They only care about testing safety as a side issue, their main thrust is to get rid of it entirely.
The security thing is a red herring. 99.9% of the time, system security breaches are due to user stupidity rather than system design. Everyone knows this. Keep in mind that the original "hackers" were breaking into Unix and VMS systems, not DOS and Windows. As soon as you introduce the human element, you've got a potential security breach. Even if you could switch every single user to Linux TODAY, tomorrow you'd have the exact same problems.
Yes, Linux is more secure if configured right, however, it's certainly not immune, and the current generation of Windows OS's has narrowed the gap nicely. Your argument might have made some sense back in '98, but today it's really a non-issue.
Congratulations, you've just won both the "Really stupid comment" and "Fear-mongerer Extraordinare" awards with a post that clocks in at under 500 characters. You are a truly talented individual.
You'd have to be totally ignorant of how capitalism works in order to make such a silly comment. It's almost as bad as all the dumbasses who claim that drug companies have developed the cure for cancer, but won't sell it because of the amount of money they're making by selling the current crop of cancer-fighting drugs. It's just plain silly. Capitalism doesn't work that way, and science DEFINITELY doesn't work that.
Also, I think you fail to realize just how many oil companies Europe has, and how unsuccessful they are. Either that or you're just another one of the "Europe roxors j00 Amerikkkans" idiots.
Take a look at a big fscking Roadrunner station with twenty plus 'pumps' recharging batteries in five minutes and run those numbers. Put the sucker out in the boonies between cities and ask yourself where they are going to get the power from?
While the rest of your points are pretty good, this part at least has an easy solution. Large stations within cities would more than likely run their own dedicated power lines, which would hook into a private generating plant. This would be the perfect way for modern oil companies to go - just build yourself a power-plant, run cables to your existing stations, and you're good to go. As for ones in the boonies, you have an even better solution. Being in the boonies means lots of open land. Why not build a bigass windmill or some solar panels for each station? It's a steep initial investment, but you can sell the electricity at a premium, and over time you'll make a nice profit. This wouldn't even necessarily involve todays oil companies - you can bet that farmers would want a piece of the action. If we had viable electric vehicles, every farm would have at least one windmill, and many would have charging stations available for travellers. The key would be in raising the cost of electricity while providing tax-breaks to help cover the initial costs of solar/wind setups for private individuals and small businesses.
You make some decent points, but fail to realize that history proves your overall argument wrong. During times of war, foreigners in the US have always been treated differently than citizens. Furthermore, POW's and spies have NEVER been entitled to protection by the constitution. Since the new laws are primarily geared toward those who are actively working for or supporting the enemy, while being restricted to non-citizens, they are entirely consistent with past precedent. If anything, they are a huge improvement over past acts, such as the incarceration of all Japanese citizens during WW2. So like I said, while you make some very nice and well thoughts out arguments, you are ultimately wrong about the intent of the constitution, and the way it has been used since it's inception.
I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that 99.99% of Cuban software is pirated anyway. This switch is more of a big "fuck you" to capitalism and the US than it is about saving money.
Eh, no, you just don't bother actually reading your legislation, and instead let other fear-mongers tell you their interpretation of it. For the 10-billionth-time, the laws you're referring to apply only to non-citizens.
Here's a key example from the 14th Ammendment showing the difference: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." You see that? There are privileges that only citizens have, but Equal Protection is for everyone.
Actually, your example only shows that they use the words "citizen" and "person" interchangeably. As I pointed out to another person on here already, the people who wrote these documents had no problem owning slaves, and treating women as second hand citizens. Obviously they did not interpret their own writing the way that you are interpreting it today. So please stop with this "living, breathing document" nonsense. The constitution is mean to safeguard the rights of citizens. This is such a basic concept that the writers of the constitution felt no need to emphasis it, although their writing does give that impression at a few points. You just need to stop looking at it through the veil of modern political correctness.
Give you an example: we accept today that "person" means a human being, but there are animal rights groups who insist that "animals are people too" and deserve protection by the law. Now imagine that 100 years from now, some clown sitting at home on his computer, trying to argue that OBVIOUSLY the constitution was meant to protect the rights of cats too, since it says "people" and EVERYONE know that cats are people too. Sounds absurd? Well, you're doing basically the same thing, I'm just making an extreme example so that you'll understand how absurd your words would seem to the original writers of the constitution. If you disagree, I'd LOVE to see you explain just what leads you to the conclusion that people who condoned slavery and kept women from voting also intended to protect the rights of non-citizens.
You're right, "we", as in all liberal democracies, should support the spread of democracy and human rights throughout the world. But that doesn't mean allowing unchecked immigration, or granting the same rights to non-citizens and citizens alike. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it's not. As the Declaration of Independence states - the purpose of Government is to safeguard these rights for it's people. Safeguarding these rights for your people also means protecting them from those who pose a threat to our way of life. That's why we need to push for the spread of democracy - so that OTHER people can have governments which will safeguard these rights for them, and so that they will not be a threat to us in the future. It is NOT, however, our responsibility to provide these rights to them, and we couldn't do it even if we wanted to. Something given is rarely truly appreciated - whereas something earned always is.
Unfortiunately for you, it's the constitution that laws are based on, and no the Declaration.
Oh, and there's also this:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
Now why do you suppose they may have included that in their Declaration? Could it possibly be because they understood that a government is necessary to secure these rights for it's people? And that it is not the role of government to secure those rights in other nations?
Not to mention that the same men who wrote the words you quoted didn't seem to have much of a problem with slavery, and the inequality of women which persisted for centuries after they wrote this document. But yes, I'm sure that despite the fact that they didn't let women vote, and treated blacks like dirt, they MUST have intended to treat all foreigners the same way they treated white, male citizens. Sure. And I'm a japanese jet pilot.
It makes sense to research this technology, since it could definitely have useful applications. For instance, a good argument could be made for chipping all felons for the duration of their probationary period. It would let you cut down on parole officers, would discourage re-offending, and would make re-incarcerating violates much easier.
Other uses: chipping soldiers involved in combat (dogtag replacement), young children for safety, animals for tracking, etc. There are plenty of legitimate uses for this technology.
Slashdot Mirror
They took over from within. First they got the emperor at the time to declare Christianity the official state religion. Then eventually they said "well, if Christianity is our official religion, what are we doing protecting all these other religions?". It was at that point that Alexandria fell, and it was the starting point for the European Dark Ages. Presist of other religions were executed, often by crucifiction (ironic, eh?). Parishoners of other religions, and anyone who did not claim a god, were converted with the threat of execution. So to answer your question, nobody invaded, they took over from within. You see the same attempts going on today, both from Fundamentalist Christianity and Militant Islam. It's a never-ending battle.
Our form of government hinges on the idea that people are at least capable of deciding who they want to represent them. However, stretching that to allow everyone to vote on every single issue, no matter how complex? You'd be giving the average person way too much credit. Once again, the example of public surveys, or polls, best illustrates this. It's been demonstrated often enough that people will answer the exact same question in two completely different way, based solely on how it's phrased. That's why public polls are usually meaningless.
Ofcourse. Isn't that self-evident?
Ofcourse! Isn't that just as obvious?? A good example of this is the "true believers" in any kind of superstitious nonsense. For instance, faith healing. You can show people conclusively that their faith healer is a fraud and a charlatan, and that there is no possibly way his claims could have ever worked. Will they learn from it? Not really. A handful will learn that faith healing really doesn't work, but the vast majority will simply switch to a different faith healer. The vast majority of people make stupid decisions on a daily basis, and don't learn a thing even when you point out all these mistakes to them.
Like I keep saying, you are WAY too idealistic
Actually the best example is Alexandria. They were a VERY progressive society, allowing freedom of thought and religion. They had developed all sorts of advanced technologies, including advanced medicine, and figuring out not only that the earth is round, but it's probable size down to 99% accuracy. In the end, they were brought down by religious fanaticism when the Christian church consolidated it's differing factions under one authoritarian regime. The parallels to our own society are frankly quite scary. Check out the book "Remembering Hypatia" if you're interested in that sort of thing. Hypatia was a very influential woman who was a big proponent of scientific thought, and pluralist society, but was ultimately barbarically and quite publicly murdered by a Christian bishop and his followers shortly before they seized power in Alexandria.
The answer is somewhere in between, so you're advocating something above?
Your argument assumes that:
1) People actually KNOW what they want. 2) People can make logical, intelligent choices, and can abstain from voicing their opinions when they do not have the relevant facts. 3) People understand the importance of casting a vote.
Unfortunately, everything we know about ourselves suggests that all three of those assumptions are wrong.
You just need to find yourself a female opponent.
Like I said, you're overly idealistic :) People simply don't operate that way. Any reasonable analysis will show you that people only get involved in low-level politics when they have a personal stake in the issue which they feel strongly about. I can guarantee you that one of the first things to happen under your system would be for evolution to be voted out of the school system. I can also guarantee that abortion would quickly become illegal, because there are more people who are strongly opposed to it than who are strongly in favour of it. If you consider these to be positive measures, well, there's not much I can say to you. I don't think that you do, though - I think you just have a very warped view of how a government should be run. There's a reason that the US is NOT a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. The kind of democracy you describe simply would not work. It sounds nice in theory, sure....but so does communism.
You're very idealistic. In my experience, people aren't nearly so reasonable. A more likely scenario is that the majority of people simply wouldn't bother voting in anything, whilst the rest would only vote for the things they cared about.
Also, more importantly, I don't think you realize just how much voting would have to be done in order to make this system feasible. Without elected representatives, there would be literally hundreds of decisions to be made each day by the voting populace. It's the equivalent of saying "well, since Microsoft has such good communication technology, they should just fire all management, and let Steve Balmer make every single decision for the whole company". There's no way in hell it would work - the guy would last mabe a month before he had a nervous breakdown, and the company would fall apart in the meantime.
We didn't just elect representatives because of bad communications, we also elected them so that they could focus on certain aspects of policy without having to bother us. It's the FULL-TIME JOB of municipal politicians to focus on municipal matters. State politicians to focus on state matters. Federal politicians to focus on federal matters. Now you want to do away with that, and have John Q Public manage ALL of these different decisions during his free time at home. It's ludicrous. Not only could he not find the time to get properly educated before voting on all the issues, but he probably couldn't even find the time to make RANDOM selections on every single issue! In the end, you'd end up with all choices being controlled by special interest groups, because those groups would be able to hire full-time representatives to both cast their own votes on issues, and influence the votes of other citizens. You'd basically end up with a new class of totally unelected politicians/lobbyists, operating at the whim of special interest groups and corporations, with a wee bit of mob rule and anarchy thrown into the mix. It'd be the worst form of government in history.
There's a hell of a lot of utterly clueless responses to your post, and only one somewhat insightful one. I'm surprised that so few people seem to understand the real problem with your idea. And the real problem? People only care about issues which affect them directly, and even then, they only bother doing something about them when they become a problem.
A good example of this is the creationism vs evolution debate as concerning the US school system. I can't remember which state it was, but they, a while back, had a school board election which decided that evolution would not be taught in schools. Well, this upset enough of the more rational people that they came out in force next time, and had evolution inserted into the curriculum again. Ofcourse, as soon as they had achieved their goal, these people forgot about the whole thing and went back to their normal lives. At which point the creationists came out in force, and evolution was once again voted out of the curriculum.
If you have a "direct democracy", you're going to have the exact same problem, but on a country-wide scale, and for EVERY controversial topic. More importantly, it opens the door for special interest groups to introduce and enact legislation which would otherwise never see the light of day. Do you have ANY idea how easy people are to influence? We see this all the time in public opinion polls, where a simple change in how you phrase the question totally changes the result of the poll. Here's an example:
"Do you support free publicly-funded services for illegal immigrants who do not pay taxes?"
vs
"Do you think undocumented residents should be given access to the medical and school system?"
In both cases you're asking essentially the same question, yet I can guarantee that the first question will get "no" as the majority response, whereas the second question will get "yes" from the VAST majority of responders. If public opinion polls are unscientific and easily biased, who in their right mind would want to base a political system on them?
Awesome logic. Instead of choosing the lesser of two evils, you're content to let others choose for you. Don't ever let anyone accuse you of being a great thinker.
When you're paying about $20,000 to lift that hammer into orbit, I sure as hell hope that they'll splurge, instead of going for the $5 Walmart model. Ditto for their food. When each meal costs that much to lift to orbit, they may as well eat caviar, lobster, and Dom Perignon. The added cost is insignificant.
1) Windows wasn't originaly designed with net access in mind. Because they kept building on the original framework instead of just starting fresh, it took them years to get it right. Thats not at all surprising.
2) This is the third time I'mr repeating this, so listen carefully: it doesn't matter HOW secure you make an OS, if the end-user is stupid, it's going to get compromised. Period. It doesn't matter whether you're running Unix, Vax, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Uberunto, or MacOS. Now, with that said, obviously the OS should meet a minimum level of security in order to protect it from automated attacks which don't even require user involvement. Windows XP meets that standard, as did Win2k. Vista doubtless will as well. But spending any time trying to secure the OS further is a waste.
and
3) The Kubuntu community has been largely useless to me. Their "spirit" is largely summed up with "helpful suggestions" like "compile from source" or "well, it works for me".
And the answer to that is that there's nothing wrong with it. If you could genetically modify your child's foetus so that he/she would not be born blind, deaf, or retarded, wouldn't you do it? There's absolutely nothing wrong with modifying any species, including humans, as long as we go about it the right way.
Straight...straight...straight....LEFT TURN! TREE! *CRASH*
The idea that we are "altering ourselves" through modified food crops is as silly as the idea that Microwave ovens somehow "poison" our food. Lots of people buy into both myths, but there's zero evidence to support either one of them.
gah. just shut up and listen for a minute. every system is only as secure as the weakest link in that system. in the average users system, what is the weakest link? the OS? hardly. the weakest link for 99% of computers is the user. hackers have been making use of this fact for years. that's why social engineering is such a huge part of hacking. so what's the point of having an ultra-scure OS, when the god-damn user user is just going to click the button that says "yes, please rape me up the ass with 1,000 trojans and viruses" anyway? You can bitch about activex and DRM all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of infections occur not due to OS problems, but simply because people are fucking stupid.
You might want to provide an actual example. For all I know, you could be right, but you're certainly not going to prove it by talking about your dates with a real-life golly-gee Scientician.
Well, see, now if you'd actually provided an EXAMPLE of animal protein being used in GM foods (ok, GM fruits/vegetables), you might have a point. As it stands, you're just pissing in the wind.
Right back atcha, big boy.
And that's why we do testing. You certainly won't find me opposed to continued testing of even crops we've accepted as safe. What I DO object to is stupid, baseless fear-mongering, such as the "OMFGZORZ a TomatoFish!" canard.
You think Greenpeace is pushing for "more controlled testing" of GM foods? HAH! These idiots won't be happy until we stop using any and all GM foods. They only care about testing safety as a side issue, their main thrust is to get rid of it entirely.
The security thing is a red herring. 99.9% of the time, system security breaches are due to user stupidity rather than system design. Everyone knows this. Keep in mind that the original "hackers" were breaking into Unix and VMS systems, not DOS and Windows. As soon as you introduce the human element, you've got a potential security breach. Even if you could switch every single user to Linux TODAY, tomorrow you'd have the exact same problems.
Yes, Linux is more secure if configured right, however, it's certainly not immune, and the current generation of Windows OS's has narrowed the gap nicely. Your argument might have made some sense back in '98, but today it's really a non-issue.
*sigh*
Congratulations, you've just won both the "Really stupid comment" and "Fear-mongerer Extraordinare" awards with a post that clocks in at under 500 characters. You are a truly talented individual.
You'd have to be totally ignorant of how capitalism works in order to make such a silly comment. It's almost as bad as all the dumbasses who claim that drug companies have developed the cure for cancer, but won't sell it because of the amount of money they're making by selling the current crop of cancer-fighting drugs. It's just plain silly. Capitalism doesn't work that way, and science DEFINITELY doesn't work that.
Also, I think you fail to realize just how many oil companies Europe has, and how unsuccessful they are. Either that or you're just another one of the "Europe roxors j00 Amerikkkans" idiots.
You make some decent points, but fail to realize that history proves your overall argument wrong. During times of war, foreigners in the US have always been treated differently than citizens. Furthermore, POW's and spies have NEVER been entitled to protection by the constitution. Since the new laws are primarily geared toward those who are actively working for or supporting the enemy, while being restricted to non-citizens, they are entirely consistent with past precedent. If anything, they are a huge improvement over past acts, such as the incarceration of all Japanese citizens during WW2. So like I said, while you make some very nice and well thoughts out arguments, you are ultimately wrong about the intent of the constitution, and the way it has been used since it's inception.
I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that 99.99% of Cuban software is pirated anyway. This switch is more of a big "fuck you" to capitalism and the US than it is about saving money.
Eh, no, you just don't bother actually reading your legislation, and instead let other fear-mongers tell you their interpretation of it. For the 10-billionth-time, the laws you're referring to apply only to non-citizens.
Give you an example: we accept today that "person" means a human being, but there are animal rights groups who insist that "animals are people too" and deserve protection by the law. Now imagine that 100 years from now, some clown sitting at home on his computer, trying to argue that OBVIOUSLY the constitution was meant to protect the rights of cats too, since it says "people" and EVERYONE know that cats are people too. Sounds absurd? Well, you're doing basically the same thing, I'm just making an extreme example so that you'll understand how absurd your words would seem to the original writers of the constitution. If you disagree, I'd LOVE to see you explain just what leads you to the conclusion that people who condoned slavery and kept women from voting also intended to protect the rights of non-citizens.
You're right, "we", as in all liberal democracies, should support the spread of democracy and human rights throughout the world. But that doesn't mean allowing unchecked immigration, or granting the same rights to non-citizens and citizens alike. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it's not. As the Declaration of Independence states - the purpose of Government is to safeguard these rights for it's people. Safeguarding these rights for your people also means protecting them from those who pose a threat to our way of life. That's why we need to push for the spread of democracy - so that OTHER people can have governments which will safeguard these rights for them, and so that they will not be a threat to us in the future. It is NOT, however, our responsibility to provide these rights to them, and we couldn't do it even if we wanted to. Something given is rarely truly appreciated - whereas something earned always is.
Oh, and there's also this:
Now why do you suppose they may have included that in their Declaration? Could it possibly be because they understood that a government is necessary to secure these rights for it's people? And that it is not the role of government to secure those rights in other nations?
Not to mention that the same men who wrote the words you quoted didn't seem to have much of a problem with slavery, and the inequality of women which persisted for centuries after they wrote this document. But yes, I'm sure that despite the fact that they didn't let women vote, and treated blacks like dirt, they MUST have intended to treat all foreigners the same way they treated white, male citizens. Sure. And I'm a japanese jet pilot.
It makes sense to research this technology, since it could definitely have useful applications. For instance, a good argument could be made for chipping all felons for the duration of their probationary period. It would let you cut down on parole officers, would discourage re-offending, and would make re-incarcerating violates much easier.
Other uses: chipping soldiers involved in combat (dogtag replacement), young children for safety, animals for tracking, etc. There are plenty of legitimate uses for this technology.