"Let the criminals shoot each other", hu? Have you forgoten that they are people, too? What if it was your brother that was involved in drugs, or you son, or ever your parent? Because the people you talk about have brothers and mothers and children, and people care about them.
You also forget that these people are redeemable. O Henrey, a renound and classic writer, wrote some of his best stuff in prison. Many have gotten out of a life of crime, and added something great to society.
But in the end, the best arguement is that many of these people were conditioned by there enviornment to be criminals from children. These people weren't even given much of a chance to avoid crime; they were born into it. And it is unfair to condem people to death because of where they were born.
Before you condem them to death, try to understand there plight. You can't know a person untill you walk a mile in thier shoes, as the saying goes.
That is somewhat faulty logic. More people believing something doesn't make it right. At one time almost everyone agreed that the earth was at the center of the universe, and it was considered blasphamy to say otherwise. An idea must be back be logic and facts, not support, to be right.
Yeah, that is pretty funny. I just watched a show on the science channel where the repaired a mouses spinal cord. Thing is, you never hear about human trials. Maybe mice are just really good at re-growing spinal cords.
There is a difference between reporting a crime when you see it and hunting for it. You are making kids agents of the government to protect us. We are supposed to protect children, not the other way around. The big problem is that when you have children looking for crimes, they land in the environment of that crime, and from what I have heard about the sites that have piracy, that is not a safe place for children. So, in that manner, it is a lot like sending children down alleys to look for drug exchanges.
Will you have children looking for online molesters soon? They are the most qualified to do so, even if it does put them in a dangerous situation.
Think about it.
And it never EVER does. Government is a permanent in society. Allow my to show a example. Let's say there is no government. Someone has a big gun (or other weapon), and you do not. You, on the other hand, have found a way to sustain you and your family off the land. The guy with the gun (lets call him Bob) figures out that if he threatens you, he can just steal your stuff. Bob does this to several groups over a period of time. The groups finally have decided that they have had enough, and they band together to stop the threat. They take out Bob, and also decide if anything like this threatens them like this again, they will band together again. They pledge to work together to stop stealing and murder in their groups.
And just like that, there is government. Actually, if you paid attention, two states formed: first a dictatorship by Bob, they a group lead state (democracy-like) for the common good. And it isn't a far step to control other things. Lets say there is a drought. Groups realize that if other groups die, they have less protection, so they feed the group. Or they realize that the same thing could happen to them, and they help the other groups so the other groups will do the same for them one day. Now the government is a function of not just protection, but welfare. This highlights a few facts of government:
1. States are a constant. As long as we remain social creatures, they will always exist.
2. States can just be a community banding together for the common good. It is just a function of organized society.
3. States can be formed for the majority (the groups) or the minority (Bob). Your choice.
There is a great quote from Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for everything we have tried so far." If state is a constant, as I have shown, then it is better to have a government run by the group then an individual. Now, you may argue that America is run by individuals, but they are elected officials. To get office, they must appeal to the people for support, so if they do something stupid, you can't remove responsibility from the people. Who you are really mad at are people that allow oppressive and/or stupid laws/individuals to remain. Don't like it, work to change it: educate people. Support better schools to teach people how the world works... Wait, you don't like paying taxes, do you. Then I guess your right: there is no hope. Sorry for disagreeing
I admit there is a problem, but your solution just makes the problem worse.
What you are proposing stunts national education. First of all, you are taking the people that need the education the most out of the classroom. The people that act out don't just do it because "they are bad people": they do it because the have bad home lives, or bad social interaction, or just suffer from bad parenting. These are the people that need to be taught the wisdom that education can bring the most, not to mention the power it brings to fix the situation, either now or when they reach 18. And why do you think we would be able to teach these kids better in your system? It would be a lot like prison; stick the abusers with each other so they can best learn how to abuse.
Oh, and the last thing we need to do is take kids out of school. We have one of the worst education systems of any modern nation. And education isn't just about teaching our workforce; it is also about teaching our voters. We have some people who believe in creationism just because they haven't been taught the evidence for evolution. There are people deciding the leaders of our nation when they don't understand the mistakes when we have in the past. I do not want idiots to ALWAYS be leading the country.
The problem with education is that it doesn't have the funding to get enough quality teachers to fix the problem. All of your problems would be solved with more teachers. More teachers means that you can give each child more attention, and make smaller classes with more targeted curriculum. Education is a problem that you can just throw money at, because, trust me, teachers WANT to teach you all that you can handle. They just don't have the resources.
Okay, if the Marketplace of Ideas doesn't work, why the hell am I listening to you guys?
Both rely on similar principles to insure good content. One uses mod points, the other uses the talk page and modification, but the principle is the same. You may think that, "Well a lot of brainless things are said on slashdot," and yes your right, but the information gets mod-ed down quickly. Same can be said of Wikipedia.
And at least on Wikipedia you can shut the idiots up, unlike other media areas (*ahem* Fox News) where they can say whatever misinformation they want. And no source gets it completely right: my father once watched the fly-by of Neptune on the satellite feed, and then watched the news on the issue the next morning. None of the programs got more facts right than the name of the planet and probe.
Wikipedia has already taken care of false information problems, in a variety of creative ways.
First, you have to remember that important article are hit thousands of times by various people, and since everyone has ability to edit, problems can often be quickly cleaned up. I feel that slashdot proves that if you though enough geeks at something, truth comes to the surface quickly.
Second, Wikipedia strongly supports citing sources. Try moving around Wikipedia, and you will soon find a header stating that "this article needs sources" and basically a warning that it may contain gibberish. When you are doing things of importance, you should always check sources. Especially when dealing with something like Wikipedia. This is also an advantage Wikipedia: unlike most encyclopedias, where you have to go find the sources, Wikipedia is point and click.
Wikipedia is the the greatest proof that the Market Place of Ideas works. It shows that when you throw enough ideas together, the truth will survive. Though we may have unfortunate events like the one in the article, almost all information is accurate, and problems are quickly solved.
I don't intirely agree with Marx, but like I said, he does have a point. Now, capitalism in the normal terms does not cause the apocaliptic end like Marx suggested, but that doesn't make it right. Then again, it doesn't mean Communism is right either. There really must be a balance of the systems, some things being provided for and distributed and others being competed for. Remember, what everyone wants in the end is a society that works for the betterment of all (Star Trek world), and to do that we must remind people that they have a duty to all their fellow man. That what socialism does is take away from materialism, and that furthers Star-Trek-like world.
And remember, no one practices true capitalism, where the govenment keeps its hands completely off private business. Every government controls private business to some extent, because doing otherwise would just promote corrupt monopoly companies. Both extreem capitalism and extreem socialism are oppressive, and both fall.
Capitalism
An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.
So no, capitalism doesn't directly imply anything about salary, but the ideas it teaches lead to that. It teaches us that we must compete, so we must work for ourselfs. This takes away form the idea that we should help the communtiy as a whole.
The idea behind capitalism is, indead, to have a effecient way to allocate reacorces. The result, though, is that there is constant copetition, and the people that don't have the qualities to compete have a hard time getting enought to live. Also note that "qualities to compete" does not equal "qualities that add to society". If you aren't a competitive person, your contributions go unnoticed.
I would also like to add that the idea behind Communism was for everyone to be equal. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It didn't turn out that way, but only because people are corrupt, and therefore corrupted the system.
Capitalism is based on "profit motive" (capital)
Open source is free.
Therefore, open source produces no capital.
Therefore, open source doesn't work towards "profit motive".
How can learning form capitalism benifit open source? Other than destroy the idea of open source?
Capitalism is a system based on "profit motive". IMHO, open source is not. Open source always seemed about the idea "this is spiffy, I want everyone to have the spiffy", which is leans more toward the ideals of socialism then capitalism. If everything is free, there is no "profit motive", and therefore no capitalism.
It exists in a capitalist system, but is not based upon it, and therefore the Karl Marx still has a point. His logic flaw was he thought that people would always put up with self-interest in a capitalist system.
He is. Capitalism is all about open competition and profit motive, and giving yourself a huge salary is certainly toward "profit motive". And that, right there, is the problem. Capitalism teaches us that we need to worry about improving life for us, not the community as a whole.
Two things:
One, the advangate to technology is that it can do the dirty and demeaning jobs. People are too important to do something so simple.
Two, you shouldn't have to demean yourself to improve your life. The "American Dream" defeats itself, because there is only so much room "at the top". People are so busy trying to improve that they forget to look around and improve where they are. The American Dream also leads to immituraty, because people focus so much on money that they forget that true wealth is people, not how big your car is.
As I see it, there are some distinct advantages and disadvantages to the idea of patents.
The Good: Patents protect the inventor, and therefore encourage invention. The idea that they can get a patent encourages people who don't want to have to go through all the business stuff to invent: "hey, I can just allow the use of the patent for a fee". Also, it (the idea at least) protects the little guy from the big guy. Say you make an invention, and put it on the market. If there are no patents, a bigger guy can copy the product and put it on the market with way more push then someone small could. If you had no patents, only big corporations would be inventing, because they are the only ones who can profit.
The Bad: It takes away from the community, and encourages monopoly like actions. First, it limits access to the public, and if it is an idea that furthers improved living, either though encouraging innovation or otherwise, it therefore limits improved life for all. The problem is worse if the product is useful to the point of near necessity. They are the only ones who can make the product, so they set the price. If it is a "must have" item, they can raise the price and people will buy it anyway.
Notice I said "the idea", because in reality the system is much more corrupt, as previous posters have shown. In a way, we are fighting the big beast of capitalism, a system that allows the big to crush the little. In reality, the little guy can't win very often. It takes money to litigate, and guess who has the money: the big guy. The big guy can also afford lobbyists to make the patent laws swing his way. Then there is this "patent before it is invented" crap. Don't we have lobbyists somewhere on slashdot that can push for a law that makes it so you must have the invention to patent it?
... that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons. -Doughlas Adams
Life never stays the same
no matter how much we wish it would
for time runs as a river does
and though the pattern may repeat
the drop cannot run the coarse again.
So we do remember
times that were good and fair
as we ever on prepare
for the day that now lies ahead.
The past is the past
and there is no point in living there.
The future is before us
more life to live and tales to tell.
Self author-ed
There is something to be said for the world of the 6-year-old, but there is something to be said for this world as well.
This guy doesn't want to be six to avoid responsibility as much as to be able to look at things like a 6-year-old again. He is talking about the part in all of us that wants the simple life again.
And you have to admit, sometimes the 6-year-old has it right. "Why don't people just talk instead of having wars?"
One definition is the idea that mature people "don't like silly things." I personally think these people need a pie in the face. Life is hard, life is stressful, and sometimes you just have to enjoy the silly and simple things.
The other definition (and I feel the more relevant one) is the responsibility factor. I would say "accountability" works better than "responsibility," even though responsibility is how everyone is refuring to it. As for this, I feel it is definately true that people aren't accountable enough. People (in America at least) seem to be told to watch themselves, and people stop looking out for the guy next to them. We all affect each other, and we all need to be accountable for that. NO PERSON IS AN ISLAND.
The trick is to take the best of both worlds. Enjoy a good pie fight, but have the courtecy to help clean up
What you should be mad at is the startlying lack of accoutability, of everyone. Teaching people to be in touch with themselfs does not cause lack of responcibility, refusing to aknolage how you affect the people around you does. We are taught in America that you job is to take care of you, and people neglect the people around them. The reason I am responcible is not the affect it will have on me, but the affect on others. Lack of accountabilty is the reason the tobacco companies are being sued. Lack of accountabilty is the reason people are being sued. And lack of accountabilty is exactly the reason that people get called 5 year olds!
We are not islands. It's time we stopped acting like it.
And it wasn't the paradise you remember. Sure, someone stealing you jump rope was you biggest problem, but at the time you felt like it was the end of the world. You would often throw fits, yell, and generally colapse. Now we look back at that stuff and think how easy we had it, because we have grown up and can handle it.
Instead of "wishing to be six," I want to learn to be a adult that thinks like a six-year-old. I want to be able to deal with problems in a responcible manner, but still understand the fun of silly hats. I want to understand that there are bad things in the world, but still meet the world with smiles and a it-will-work-out deminer. We have the misconception that we must be cyical adults just because we have reached a certain age. I'm going to be a kid forever!
Oh, and remember, if you became 6 again, you would have your teenage years to look forward to *shudder*
Slashdot Mirror
"Let the criminals shoot each other", hu? Have you forgoten that they are people, too? What if it was your brother that was involved in drugs, or you son, or ever your parent? Because the people you talk about have brothers and mothers and children, and people care about them.
You also forget that these people are redeemable. O Henrey, a renound and classic writer, wrote some of his best stuff in prison. Many have gotten out of a life of crime, and added something great to society.
But in the end, the best arguement is that many of these people were conditioned by there enviornment to be criminals from children. These people weren't even given much of a chance to avoid crime; they were born into it. And it is unfair to condem people to death because of where they were born.
Before you condem them to death, try to understand there plight. You can't know a person untill you walk a mile in thier shoes, as the saying goes.
That is somewhat faulty logic. More people believing something doesn't make it right. At one time almost everyone agreed that the earth was at the center of the universe, and it was considered blasphamy to say otherwise. An idea must be back be logic and facts, not support, to be right.
I keep mailing congress about making puns a capital offence, and they keep not listening!!
Yeah, that is pretty funny. I just watched a show on the science channel where the repaired a mouses spinal cord. Thing is, you never hear about human trials. Maybe mice are just really good at re-growing spinal cords.
This just in: Hitler has risen from the grave and is suing China for violation of his intellectual property rights.
There is a difference between reporting a crime when you see it and hunting for it. You are making kids agents of the government to protect us. We are supposed to protect children, not the other way around. The big problem is that when you have children looking for crimes, they land in the environment of that crime, and from what I have heard about the sites that have piracy, that is not a safe place for children. So, in that manner, it is a lot like sending children down alleys to look for drug exchanges.
Will you have children looking for online molesters soon? They are the most qualified to do so, even if it does put them in a dangerous situation.
Think about it.
And it never EVER does. Government is a permanent in society. Allow my to show a example. Let's say there is no government. Someone has a big gun (or other weapon), and you do not. You, on the other hand, have found a way to sustain you and your family off the land. The guy with the gun (lets call him Bob) figures out that if he threatens you, he can just steal your stuff. Bob does this to several groups over a period of time. The groups finally have decided that they have had enough, and they band together to stop the threat. They take out Bob, and also decide if anything like this threatens them like this again, they will band together again. They pledge to work together to stop stealing and murder in their groups.
And just like that, there is government. Actually, if you paid attention, two states formed: first a dictatorship by Bob, they a group lead state (democracy-like) for the common good. And it isn't a far step to control other things. Lets say there is a drought. Groups realize that if other groups die, they have less protection, so they feed the group. Or they realize that the same thing could happen to them, and they help the other groups so the other groups will do the same for them one day. Now the government is a function of not just protection, but welfare. This highlights a few facts of government:
1. States are a constant. As long as we remain social creatures, they will always exist.
2. States can just be a community banding together for the common good. It is just a function of organized society.
3. States can be formed for the majority (the groups) or the minority (Bob). Your choice.
There is a great quote from Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for everything we have tried so far." If state is a constant, as I have shown, then it is better to have a government run by the group then an individual. Now, you may argue that America is run by individuals, but they are elected officials. To get office, they must appeal to the people for support, so if they do something stupid, you can't remove responsibility from the people. Who you are really mad at are people that allow oppressive and/or stupid laws/individuals to remain. Don't like it, work to change it: educate people. Support better schools to teach people how the world works... Wait, you don't like paying taxes, do you. Then I guess your right: there is no hope. Sorry for disagreeing
I admit there is a problem, but your solution just makes the problem worse.
What you are proposing stunts national education. First of all, you are taking the people that need the education the most out of the classroom. The people that act out don't just do it because "they are bad people": they do it because the have bad home lives, or bad social interaction, or just suffer from bad parenting. These are the people that need to be taught the wisdom that education can bring the most, not to mention the power it brings to fix the situation, either now or when they reach 18. And why do you think we would be able to teach these kids better in your system? It would be a lot like prison; stick the abusers with each other so they can best learn how to abuse.
Oh, and the last thing we need to do is take kids out of school. We have one of the worst education systems of any modern nation. And education isn't just about teaching our workforce; it is also about teaching our voters. We have some people who believe in creationism just because they haven't been taught the evidence for evolution. There are people deciding the leaders of our nation when they don't understand the mistakes when we have in the past. I do not want idiots to ALWAYS be leading the country.
The problem with education is that it doesn't have the funding to get enough quality teachers to fix the problem. All of your problems would be solved with more teachers. More teachers means that you can give each child more attention, and make smaller classes with more targeted curriculum. Education is a problem that you can just throw money at, because, trust me, teachers WANT to teach you all that you can handle. They just don't have the resources.
Okay, if the Marketplace of Ideas doesn't work, why the hell am I listening to you guys?
Both rely on similar principles to insure good content. One uses mod points, the other uses the talk page and modification, but the principle is the same. You may think that, "Well a lot of brainless things are said on slashdot," and yes your right, but the information gets mod-ed down quickly. Same can be said of Wikipedia.
And at least on Wikipedia you can shut the idiots up, unlike other media areas (*ahem* Fox News) where they can say whatever misinformation they want. And no source gets it completely right: my father once watched the fly-by of Neptune on the satellite feed, and then watched the news on the issue the next morning. None of the programs got more facts right than the name of the planet and probe.
Wikipedia has already taken care of false information problems, in a variety of creative ways.
First, you have to remember that important article are hit thousands of times by various people, and since everyone has ability to edit, problems can often be quickly cleaned up. I feel that slashdot proves that if you though enough geeks at something, truth comes to the surface quickly.
Second, Wikipedia strongly supports citing sources. Try moving around Wikipedia, and you will soon find a header stating that "this article needs sources" and basically a warning that it may contain gibberish. When you are doing things of importance, you should always check sources. Especially when dealing with something like Wikipedia. This is also an advantage Wikipedia: unlike most encyclopedias, where you have to go find the sources, Wikipedia is point and click.
Wikipedia is the the greatest proof that the Market Place of Ideas works. It shows that when you throw enough ideas together, the truth will survive. Though we may have unfortunate events like the one in the article, almost all information is accurate, and problems are quickly solved.
Can a chicken really do anything "in style"?
I don't intirely agree with Marx, but like I said, he does have a point. Now, capitalism in the normal terms does not cause the apocaliptic end like Marx suggested, but that doesn't make it right. Then again, it doesn't mean Communism is right either. There really must be a balance of the systems, some things being provided for and distributed and others being competed for. Remember, what everyone wants in the end is a society that works for the betterment of all (Star Trek world), and to do that we must remind people that they have a duty to all their fellow man. That what socialism does is take away from materialism, and that furthers Star-Trek-like world.
And remember, no one practices true capitalism, where the govenment keeps its hands completely off private business. Every government controls private business to some extent, because doing otherwise would just promote corrupt monopoly companies. Both extreem capitalism and extreem socialism are oppressive, and both fall.
From dicionary.com
Capitalism
An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.
So no, capitalism doesn't directly imply anything about salary, but the ideas it teaches lead to that. It teaches us that we must compete, so we must work for ourselfs. This takes away form the idea that we should help the communtiy as a whole.
The idea behind capitalism is, indead, to have a effecient way to allocate reacorces. The result, though, is that there is constant copetition, and the people that don't have the qualities to compete have a hard time getting enought to live. Also note that "qualities to compete" does not equal "qualities that add to society". If you aren't a competitive person, your contributions go unnoticed.
I would also like to add that the idea behind Communism was for everyone to be equal. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It didn't turn out that way, but only because people are corrupt, and therefore corrupted the system.
Capitalism is based on "profit motive" (capital)
Open source is free.
Therefore, open source produces no capital.
Therefore, open source doesn't work towards "profit motive".
How can learning form capitalism benifit open source? Other than destroy the idea of open source?
Capitalism is a system based on "profit motive". IMHO, open source is not. Open source always seemed about the idea "this is spiffy, I want everyone to have the spiffy", which is leans more toward the ideals of socialism then capitalism. If everything is free, there is no "profit motive", and therefore no capitalism.
It exists in a capitalist system, but is not based upon it, and therefore the Karl Marx still has a point. His logic flaw was he thought that people would always put up with self-interest in a capitalist system.
He is. Capitalism is all about open competition and profit motive, and giving yourself a huge salary is certainly toward "profit motive". And that, right there, is the problem. Capitalism teaches us that we need to worry about improving life for us, not the community as a whole.
Two things:
One, the advangate to technology is that it can do the dirty and demeaning jobs. People are too important to do something so simple.
Two, you shouldn't have to demean yourself to improve your life. The "American Dream" defeats itself, because there is only so much room "at the top". People are so busy trying to improve that they forget to look around and improve where they are. The American Dream also leads to immituraty, because people focus so much on money that they forget that true wealth is people, not how big your car is.
As I see it, there are some distinct advantages and disadvantages to the idea of patents.
The Good: Patents protect the inventor, and therefore encourage invention. The idea that they can get a patent encourages people who don't want to have to go through all the business stuff to invent: "hey, I can just allow the use of the patent for a fee". Also, it (the idea at least) protects the little guy from the big guy. Say you make an invention, and put it on the market. If there are no patents, a bigger guy can copy the product and put it on the market with way more push then someone small could. If you had no patents, only big corporations would be inventing, because they are the only ones who can profit.
The Bad: It takes away from the community, and encourages monopoly like actions. First, it limits access to the public, and if it is an idea that furthers improved living, either though encouraging innovation or otherwise, it therefore limits improved life for all. The problem is worse if the product is useful to the point of near necessity. They are the only ones who can make the product, so they set the price. If it is a "must have" item, they can raise the price and people will buy it anyway.
Notice I said "the idea", because in reality the system is much more corrupt, as previous posters have shown. In a way, we are fighting the big beast of capitalism, a system that allows the big to crush the little. In reality, the little guy can't win very often. It takes money to litigate, and guess who has the money: the big guy. The big guy can also afford lobbyists to make the patent laws swing his way. Then there is this "patent before it is invented" crap. Don't we have lobbyists somewhere on slashdot that can push for a law that makes it so you must have the invention to patent it?
... that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons. -Doughlas Adams
Smarter or not, dolphins have it right.
Life never stays the same
no matter how much we wish it would
for time runs as a river does
and though the pattern may repeat
the drop cannot run the coarse again.
So we do remember
times that were good and fair
as we ever on prepare
for the day that now lies ahead.
The past is the past
and there is no point in living there.
The future is before us
more life to live and tales to tell.
Self author-ed
There is something to be said for the world of the 6-year-old, but there is something to be said for this world as well.
This guy doesn't want to be six to avoid responsibility as much as to be able to look at things like a 6-year-old again. He is talking about the part in all of us that wants the simple life again.
And you have to admit, sometimes the 6-year-old has it right. "Why don't people just talk instead of having wars?"
One definition is the idea that mature people "don't like silly things." I personally think these people need a pie in the face. Life is hard, life is stressful, and sometimes you just have to enjoy the silly and simple things.
The other definition (and I feel the more relevant one) is the responsibility factor. I would say "accountability" works better than "responsibility," even though responsibility is how everyone is refuring to it. As for this, I feel it is definately true that people aren't accountable enough. People (in America at least) seem to be told to watch themselves, and people stop looking out for the guy next to them. We all affect each other, and we all need to be accountable for that. NO PERSON IS AN ISLAND.
The trick is to take the best of both worlds. Enjoy a good pie fight, but have the courtecy to help clean up
What you should be mad at is the startlying lack of accoutability, of everyone. Teaching people to be in touch with themselfs does not cause lack of responcibility, refusing to aknolage how you affect the people around you does. We are taught in America that you job is to take care of you, and people neglect the people around them. The reason I am responcible is not the affect it will have on me, but the affect on others. Lack of accountabilty is the reason the tobacco companies are being sued. Lack of accountabilty is the reason people are being sued. And lack of accountabilty is exactly the reason that people get called 5 year olds!
We are not islands. It's time we stopped acting like it.
And it wasn't the paradise you remember. Sure, someone stealing you jump rope was you biggest problem, but at the time you felt like it was the end of the world. You would often throw fits, yell, and generally colapse. Now we look back at that stuff and think how easy we had it, because we have grown up and can handle it.
Instead of "wishing to be six," I want to learn to be a adult that thinks like a six-year-old. I want to be able to deal with problems in a responcible manner, but still understand the fun of silly hats. I want to understand that there are bad things in the world, but still meet the world with smiles and a it-will-work-out deminer. We have the misconception that we must be cyical adults just because we have reached a certain age. I'm going to be a kid forever!
Oh, and remember, if you became 6 again, you would have your teenage years to look forward to *shudder*
I totally agree. It has been to long since someone told us "the is nothing to fear but fear itself." And they aren't listening to me either.