If you've known
Then there's the annoying inline popup (so it's not caught by popup blockers) that tells you that "Firehose is paused due to inactivity". Whatever that means, it doesn't seem nearly important enough to interrupt my reading.
Quite frankly, from a user interface design standpoint, the "new" slashdot sucks. Badly. Maybe I'll try disabling all javascript for slashdot.org and check if that improves the experience.
So, what is your position on property ownership?
1.) Personal Property
I think, you work for it, it's yours. I help defend what you worked for from those who would take it unfairly, you do the same for me.
2.) Real Property
Natural resources should not be owned. If you are working an area, I'll ask if I can help and what the terms are before I help myself. If you claim an area you aren't working, I won't respect that unless you and I have made a personal deal to that regard. If someone tries to drive you from their land, I'll try to help you stop them, if you are willing to do the same for me.
3.) Intellectual Property
I'll always say where I got my ideas from. I'd like it if I could get some recognition for my good ideas.
Cooperation versus competition?
I think cooperation is almost always in an individual's self interest. Competition, of the form where some people have to 'lose' in order for others to win, is usually not in an individual's self interest, if it can be avoided.
Taking care of others?
I think desperate, frightened, hurt, or angry humans are the most dangerous thing on the planet. Making sure no one feels that way unnecessarily is in everyone's best interest. I resent people getting a free ride on the work some of us try to do making sure people aren't a danger due to desperation.
The free market?
A really good idea, in theory. However, a hybrid system where competition is balanced with cooperation is better for everyone. The benefits of such cooperation should be limited to other cooperators, and not extended to the ruthless and selfish.
That's a start.
I just love trolling libertarians. They are so easy to work up into a frothing rage. Like flat-earthers and creationists, they have to shut off all logical parts of their minds in order to go on believing their patently untrue and counter-factual ideology. This makes them easy pickings for trolls. Now, unlike most trolls, I actually believe what I'm writing. But that's beside the point. The point is, watching stupid people get angry is fun.
From this comment by gringofrijolero, I got the idea to do a whole 'wiki-dickory-sock' song, I figure 8-10 verses would do. So, first verse, taking gringofrijolero's verse and making it more Wikipedia specific:
Wiki-Dickery-Sock
Rules lawyers ran out the clock
We all got bored
"Yeah, you're the lord."
Wiki-Dickery-Sock
Then the verse I came up with:
Wiki-Dickery-Sock
Deletionists erased 'River_Ock'
The river's not notable,
Its water's not potable,"
Wiki-Dickery-Sock
Now to expand on the examples I came up with in the thread:
Wiki-Dickery-Sock
The vandals defaced 'Iraq.'
They said it was good
When Saddam got wood
Wiki-Dickery-Sock
Hmm, the original rhyme does end with the same nonsense line it begins with, but Andrew Dice Clay uses the last line for the punchline to good comedic effect, perhaps I should here.
Wiki-Dickery-Sock
The vandals defaced 'Iraq.'
They said it was good
When Saddam got wood
So we banned their whole IP block.
But then there is the difficulty in coming up with twice as many relevant and funny '-ock' rhymes. Cock and block only go so far.
Wiki-Dickery-Sock
Deletionists erased 'River_Ock'
The river's not notable,
Its water's not potable,
Put it on the chopping block!
Wiki-Dickery-Sock
Rules lawyers ran out the clock
We all got bored
"Yeah, you're the lord."
(of making us sleepy, you cock)
Thought for latter 'Trekkies aren't quite as logical as Spock.' Work it in somehow. 'Puppet masters brought out every sock' will make a good last line somewhere.
The government is offering up to $8,000 for first-time home-buyers to buy a house. The intent is to stimulate the economy. This is great for those who would be better off owning but are trapped renting because they can't afford to buy, but who could afford a house if only it were $8,000 cheaper.
If you were going to buy a house anyways and can afford it without the aid, is it moral to take the money?
If you had no intention of buying a house because renting makes more sense to you, is it moral to buy a house just so you can have the extra $8,000?
With deficit spending, every "extra" dollar spent by the government is a dollar that comes out of our children's and grandchildren's pockets, with interest.
The same moral question applies to financially healthy companies who take advantage of tax breaks they don't need or who choose to operate less efficiently so they can qualify for government funds or tax breaks.
Comments welcome.
What do you think of idle.slashdot.com?
* The first thing I read every day
* It makes me laugh
* It's okay
* Not worth my time
* Take it out and shoot it
* Spare time? What's that?
* Sorry, too busy reading 4chan
* Give me CowboyNeal's journal any day
Registered users can use the Slashdot Classic Discussion style. But what if you aren't logged in? You can still get the classic view by disabling JavaScript. Thanks to tools like NoScript you can browse Slashdot with scripting disabled then temporarily enable and disable it as needed.
If you found this information helpful, please reply.
Best knock knock joke ever:
KNOCK KNOCK
Who's there?
9/11
9/11 who?
YOU SAID YOU'D NEVER FORGET!!
The primary function of society is the sharing or mediation of risk and reward. Thoughts?
Poll: I think life on Mars...
* never existed.
* was microscopic but is now extinct.
* was intelligent but is now extinct.
* is microscopic and it's still there.
* is intelligent, hidden from our prying eyes, and want to stay that way.
* is intelligent and invaded Earth 10,000 years ago.
* is Intelligent, planning to invade, and has already taken over CowboyNeal's body.
Warning! Do not eat these. They are not candy. Although I suppose if you've been hankering for some gummi fish that taste like actual fish you may be in for a treat. My boss gave me some just now. "Want some gummi fish?" he asked, and me being a sucker for sweet-sour gummi things in general, I popped one in my mouth as he continued, "They're full of vitamins and Omega-3..." Right. Fish oil. These things taste like sugar and citrus coated rancid fish. Just nasty. I'm still trying to get the flavor out of my mouth.
Consider the simplified case of three property owners, A, B, and C. Here's what their property looks like:
AAA
ABC
CCC
Now, A and C make an agreement not to buy any of Bs goods or sell anything to B. B doesn't own enough land to support him and all his family living there. He doesn't have enough land for an airport, or a helicopter. A and C won't let him on their property, and they won't let anyone else deliver anything to him over their property either. B and his family starve to death, then A and C split his land between themselves.
Please, explain how this scenario or more complex variants of it would not be commonplace in a true libertarian system. "Force" is more complex than libertarian philosophy likes to admit.
From this post, just wanted to save it because I think it distills much of the objection I have towards libertarianism into a succinct argument, and if anyone can refute the premise, it would go a long way towards convincing me that libertarianism isn't morally bankrupt.
Also this, from the same thread:
The real ideological difference lies in what qualifies as "hitting first," and also what qualifies as "freedom." For instance, should people be free to own more real estate than they themselves can work, and charge rent for said real estate? If people have that freedom, is it "hitting first" for them to withhold food from workers who have no other means of support than working for them at whatever wage they offer?
In a system with total individual freedom and strong property rights, what is to keep the most ruthless from leveraging the power that accumulated wealth has to influence markets, and using that power to keep other people dependent on them? Is economic coercion "hitting first?"
If people do have the right to own more land than they themselves can work, then isn't it also a freedom for a group of people to, say, call themselves "The United States of America" and make up some rules regarding what others can do with "The United States of America's" land? After all, isn't that really nothing more than land owned by a group of individuals?
There is a lot of difference in ideology even amongst people who subscribe to the ideals of freedom and not hitting first. So much so that different camps within that group all seriously question the other sides' commitment to those ideals. You know, the whole rift between individualist anarchism and social anarchism.
Oh, and happy Troll Tuesday everybody!
Roses are red, too.
Two times six is twelve.
There are twelve inches in a ruler.
Queen Mary was a ruler.
Queen Mary was a ship.
Ships sail in the sea.
Fish swim in the sea.
Fish have fins.
The Finns fought the Russians.
Russians are Reds.
Fire engines are always rushin'
therefore, fire engines are red.
I suppose it's time. I seem to get them once a year. But I got ten this time, is that new?
One of the chief duties of the mathematician in acting as an advisor... is to discourage... from expecting too much from mathematics. -- N. Wiener
