78 replies to this topic

[Redezra]

How do you know I wouldn't just turn into an asshole though? A different kind than the one I already am, that is... and you didn't answer my question of how you'd keep me from getting out of it.

 

Stranding you on a planet, duh

 

Because, as the HHGTTG so aptly put it, the best people for power are the people who least want to be there.

I don't think Shokkou even owns a cat.

 

This arranged can be.

[Shokkou]

How do you know I wouldn't just turn into an asshole though? A different kind than the one I already am, that is... and you didn't answer my question of how you'd keep me from getting out of it.

 

Stranding you on a planet, duh

 

> 

Because, as the HHGTTG so aptly put it, the best people for power are the people who least want to be there.

I don't think Shokkou even owns a cat.

 

This arranged can be.

 

There are just so many problems with this, I almost don't even know where to begin. Do you think so little of my intellect that you think I wouldn't be able to come up with a way to escape? How could I possibly be expected to govern the lives of people I've never met (which is another part of my problem with big government)? You still didn't answer the question of what makes you think I wouldn't just turn into an asshole with all that power, although to be honest now that I think about it having peace and quiet being off by myself with a cat would leave me very little reason to be an asshole... but that still doesn't solve the other problems!

 

As I was typing this though, I had a thought for what I think could be a good system of government to allow for the cooperation that facilitates big scientific discoveries. Imagine something like the house of representatives, only it's the sole "branch" of the federal level of government. There is no federal law, only agreements facilitating commerce and travel among member-regions. Instead of having an all-or-nothing system of government programs like we have now, we have an opt-in/opt-out system whereby proposals are made and discussed and members can choose whether they want to pay into the program and thus entitle their region to the benefits of the system or they can opt-out. Since all government programs should ostensibly help the people in some way but will have costs, this would enable individual regions to decide for themselves whether they want a higher tax burden in exchange for more programs or to save money and not receive the benefits.

 

The issue of cat ownership might not be a problem much longer. :3

[KiWi]

So a confederation?

Because of long term costs/issues (negative health benefits of coal mining/lead paint, or environmental pollution i.e. global warming affects us all. Or just things like "national defense" which defend the whole country no matter if they "pay in" or not. Or civil rights. Opt in-out for allowing gay marriage.)

[Shokkou]

So a confederation?

Because of long term costs/issues (negative health benefits of coal mining/lead paint, or environmental pollution i.e. global warming affects us all. Or just things like "national defense" which defend the whole country no matter if they "pay in" or not. Or civil rights. Opt in-out for allowing gay marriage.)

As far as defense goes, each region could have its own military and/or militia which trains with other regions as agreed upon by the members. As for the other things, I think you missed the part where I said no federal level laws. It wouldn't be an opt-in/opt-out thing there. There would be nothing to opt in our out of because the body of regional representatives wouldn't have authority to create laws at that level. Each region would have its own laws for health, environment, civil rights, etc. Localized governance FTW.

Edited by Shokkou, 21 November 2015 - 02:07 PM.

[KiWi]

I did read it. And then presented an argument against such a system.

So again, a confederation, which we already tried, and whose failings lead to our current form of government.

I agree the more local the government the better generally, but you can't think Wyoming is going to have their own military or not, and then if they're attacked other stats not help (or it would affect their own safety). More likely they would have zero military, while Florida or other states on the border would have a larger military/border patrol.

[Redezra]

See, there we go, my solution works perfectly.

[KiWi]

See, there we go, my solution works perfectly.

You're guided by the belief humans are flawed (correct me if I'm misinterpreting you at all).

Nothing will work perfectly.

[Shokkou]

I did read it. And then presented an argument against such a system.

So again, a confederation, which we already tried, and whose failings lead to our current form of government.

I agree the more local the government the better generally, but you can't think Wyoming is going to have their own military or not, and then if they're attacked other stats not help (or it would affect their own safety). More likely they would have zero military, while Florida or other states on the border would have a larger military/border patrol.

Your argument is flawed, for the reasons I pointed out, and no we have not already tried a confederation. The closest thing we got was the CSA to whom the North treasonously decided to deny the right of secession.

 

In the situation you're mentioning, I don't care. If a state further inland decides it doesn't want to maintain a military, fine. If it gets attacked, the states with a military can decide whether or not to intervene and on what conditions. Maybe the state being defended has to shell out some of the money they've been saving by not having a military in order to compensate the intervening states.

[Justavictim82]

I did read it. And then presented an argument against such a system.

So again, a confederation, which we already tried, and whose failings lead to our current form of government.

I agree the more local the government the better generally, but you can't think Wyoming is going to have their own military or not, and then if they're attacked other stats not help (or it would affect their own safety). More likely they would have zero military, while Florida or other states on the border would have a larger military/border patrol.

Your argument is flawed, for the reasons I pointed out, and no we have not already tried a confederation. The closest thing we got was the CSA to whom the North treasonously decided to deny the right of secession.

 

In the situation you're mentioning, I don't care. If a state further inland decides it doesn't want to maintain a military, fine. If it gets attacked, the states with a military can decide whether or not to intervene and on what conditions. Maybe the state being defended has to shell out some of the money they've been saving by not having a military in order to compensate the intervening states.

 

Oh? 

 

http://www.ourdocume...lash=true&doc=3

[Shokkou]

 

I did read it. And then presented an argument against such a system.

So again, a confederation, which we already tried, and whose failings lead to our current form of government.

I agree the more local the government the better generally, but you can't think Wyoming is going to have their own military or not, and then if they're attacked other stats not help (or it would affect their own safety). More likely they would have zero military, while Florida or other states on the border would have a larger military/border patrol.

Your argument is flawed, for the reasons I pointed out, and no we have not already tried a confederation. The closest thing we got was the CSA to whom the North treasonously decided to deny the right of secession.

 

In the situation you're mentioning, I don't care. If a state further inland decides it doesn't want to maintain a military, fine. If it gets attacked, the states with a military can decide whether or not to intervene and on what conditions. Maybe the state being defended has to shell out some of the money they've been saving by not having a military in order to compensate the intervening states.

 

Oh? 

 

http://www.ourdocume...lash=true&doc=3

Well I'll be damned. I always (mistakenly, it seems) was under the impression the reason we adopted the Constitution was because people couldn't agree on ratifying the Articles. Not sure if public schooling is to blame for that or if it's just a notion I got myself. In any case, eight years is hardly what I would call a viable sample size.

[Justavictim82]

It was 8 years where the country literally almost fell apart due to many reasons up to including a lack of a singular currency to pay off war debt. Even staunch critics of Federalism like Patrick Henry and James Madison realized at the time it was a necessity. It is why the original Constitution was drafted with some Federal rights. Has the Federal government gained more power since the origination? Absolutely. Have State powers waned? Yes. IS the Constitution still imperfect? Yes.

 

As far as knowing about the Articles of Confederation.... it was a very short footnote in US History class as well as Government for me so I can see why you missed it. Had I not been more studious about that time in our history, I would have likely not know much about the document either.  

[Shokkou]

That sounds like extreme circumstances then, which leaves me to question how it would go over if we somehow could break the US down into a confederation now especially if we were to maintain a singular currency.

[Alyster]

People who think Windows 10 has privacy issues need to get a reality check. Privacy has been dead for a decade. Embrace the global web and targeted marketing. Marketing and adds - that's really the thriving force behind it. They're interested in your money, NSA doesn't want to read your harry potter fan-fiction. You're not that important, don't flatter yourself. 
 
That being said I have great hope for Windows 10. I love it on tablet and I think it's flexibility of using it from smartphone to gaming desktop is the key for the future.
 
Windows 8 / 8.1 - abomination. 
 
Windows 7 - on it's way out. MS has stopped working on it and it's in extended support now. 
 
OSX is overpriced piece thing which has under-performing hardware. Neither iMac nor MacBook / MacBook Air are able to utilize their CPUs to full extent because their cooling sucks. Thus you're paying too much for something you can't even use. Not to mention you can't change even the simple things there like storage devices quite often. Not to mention GPU. So yeah fuck OSX with the hardware it comes with. 
 
Linux is bit too complicated for ordinary user.
 
Steam-OS is also under performing.

Edited by Alyster, 26 November 2015 - 04:07 AM.

[Shokkou]

People who think Windows 10 has privacy issues need to get a reality check. Privacy has been dead for a decade. Embrace the global web and targeted marketing. Marketing and adds - that's really the thriving force behind it. They're interested in your money, NSA doesn't want to read your harry potter fan-fiction. You're not that important, don't flatter yourself. 

There has been a noticeable trend away from privacy, but not only is it not dead but the trend itself is not a valid argument in favor of moving away from privacy. That's circular logic. Their intentions are irrelevant. Privacy is a right and it should be respected, end of story.

 

It's amazing how the same fallacies get dragged out when privacy comes up. "Oh, you're not that important." As if the only reason someone could be against invasions of their privacy is because they think the government would be poring through their every word looking for an excuse to put them in the gulag. Please, Alystein. If you're going to shill your fascist rhetoric at least make an effort to disguise it.

[Haflinger]

People may not care all that much about the NSA spying on them, but privacy also helps keeps criminals out of your bank accounts.

[Alyster]

People who think Windows 10 has privacy issues need to get a reality check. Privacy has been dead for a decade. Embrace the global web and targeted marketing. Marketing and adds - that's really the thriving force behind it. They're interested in your money, NSA doesn't want to read your harry potter fan-fiction. You're not that important, don't flatter yourself. 

 

It's amazing how the same fallacies get dragged out when privacy comes up. "Oh, you're not that important." As if the only reason someone could be against invasions of their privacy is because they think the government would be poring through their every word looking for an excuse to put them in the gulag. Please, Alystein. If you're going to shill your fascist rhetoric at least make an effort to disguise it.

 

"Not agreeing with me? Such a facist!"

 

I have nothing against idealism. But if you have any illusions that with one OS over another or with one or another firewall you can have online privacy then you're just building castles in the air. Do you have Facebook? Email? Google account? Guess what, Facebook knows a ton about you and their making money off from that. It would be naive to build Facebooks hasn't sold marketing related data about you. 

[Shokkou]

"Not wanting people snooping on everything you do with no viable justification? Don't be such an idealist!"

 

What is it with people who hate privacy and strawmen? Are your convictions so weak that you can't even defend your position without them? Any time you're willing to address my actual statements, feel free to come back.

[Alyster]

Privacy 
Demagogy
*BOO* Reality

I don't care what you want or like. I'm just talking about reality. Reality is Google knows more about what you want today than your mother or wife. Even if you don't use Google, Gmail, Google+ or anything from Google Corporation. Just by visiting CN you're logged into Google's database. (CN HTML contains Google Analytics - the most used website analytics tool). And I'm not even talking about OS, cookies or malware here.

So if you want to keep raging about ideals and using demagogy, go ahead. The fact still remains most ads you see today in your browser are customized for you. People using websites are a commodity website owners sell to advertisers. You're a product. Congrats.

Edited by Alyster, 26 November 2015 - 04:09 AM.

[Haflinger]

Alyster is correct: the primary threat to security is (as it always has been) applications, not operating systems. However, operating systems bundle so many applications these days that people confuse the two.

 

Facebook has now started to sell information about where its users walk for use by marketing people. They are probably the single biggest threat. Uninstalling the Facebook app on your iOS/Android can stop that crap at least.

[Shokkou]

Privacy 
Demagogy
*BOO* Reality

I don't care what you want or like. I'm just talking about reality. Reality is Google knows more about what you want today than your mother or wife. Even if you don't use Google, Gmail, Google+ or anything from Google Corporation. Just by visiting CN you're logged into Google's database. (CN HTML contains Google Analytics - the most used website analytics tool). And I'm not even talking about OS, cookies or malware here.

So if you want to keep raging about ideals and using demagogy, go ahead. The fact still remains most ads you see today in your browser are customized for you. People using websites are a commodity website owners sell to advertisers. You're a product. Congrats.

The fact remains that you aren't arguing me, but rather some imagined construct you've created to make things easier for yourself. You can throw in as much snark and what I hesitate to call "wit" to try obfuscating that and your myriad other fallacies, but I'm not going to suddenly become stupid and fail to catch what you're doing.

 

It's amusing how you've tried desperately to drag the discussion away from PRISM, the NSA, and government surveillance and onto corporations. Almost as if you've realized you have no ground to stand on are are flailing for anything to divert attention from valid concerns. You have repeatedly cherry-picked, straw manned, and appealed to ridicule but have failed to make anything resembling a legitimate case.

 

Alyster is correct: the primary threat to security is (as it always has been) applications, not operating systems. However, operating systems bundle so many applications these days that people confuse the two.

 

Facebook has now started to sell information about where its users walk for use by marketing people. They are probably the single biggest threat. Uninstalling the Facebook app on your iOS/Android can stop that crap at least.

Has been, yes, which is why which applications we use and how we use them has been an important part of maintaining control of our privacy. Now however we have an OS being at least as intrusive and nosy, if not moreso. Does this make it impossible to protect your privacy? No. It just means you now have to lump in operating systems with the list of things to remain cognizant of.

Edited by Shokkou, 26 November 2015 - 02:12 PM.