Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #7016 > unrolled thread
| Started by | dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-01-15 10:07 -0800 |
| Last post | 2013-01-25 01:44 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 137 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-15 10:07 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-15 18:30 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-15 18:37 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 00:59 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-16 10:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-16 12:00 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 04:45 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-16 12:51 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-16 13:11 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 06:28 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-16 14:37 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-16 14:58 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-16 15:37 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 08:24 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-20 19:39 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-16 17:35 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-20 19:42 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-15 22:30 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-16 02:41 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-16 19:06 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-16 20:27 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-20 19:46 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid> - 2013-01-20 22:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-21 05:31 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-21 00:17 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-21 17:33 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-21 21:15 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-21 21:56 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2013-01-22 10:11 +1100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-21 23:42 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-22 00:09 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 00:33 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-22 02:53 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 19:05 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2013-01-22 21:16 +0200
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-22 23:53 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-23 10:28 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-23 03:28 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-23 17:26 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-23 13:02 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-23 22:12 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 05:12 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-24 17:09 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-01-31 23:28 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-01 00:33 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-23 09:56 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-23 17:25 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-23 21:51 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 05:20 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 11:49 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 12:08 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-21 16:49 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 00:00 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-21 23:32 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 19:02 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 12:15 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? s_dubrovich@yahoo.com - 2013-01-22 09:08 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 19:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-22 19:38 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? s_dubrovich@yahoo.com - 2013-01-22 19:52 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 12:02 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-21 16:46 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 11:56 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-27 14:27 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 18:21 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-30 04:17 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-30 12:43 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-30 23:46 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-31 09:03 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 03:40 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-31 09:19 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 03:44 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-31 12:01 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-01 01:49 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 23:19 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-01 10:23 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-01 11:23 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 12:22 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 13:49 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2013-02-02 10:13 -0500
[OT] Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 16:30 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-02-02 17:48 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 18:16 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-02 20:11 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 14:51 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-02 21:27 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 22:30 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-02 22:49 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-03 00:45 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-03 00:52 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-03 11:01 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-03 13:15 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-03 13:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-03 15:08 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-05 10:22 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-05 15:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-05 17:22 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-05 17:59 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-05 19:40 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-05 14:17 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-06 01:22 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-06 02:11 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-06 03:21 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-05 21:19 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-06 00:21 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-02-03 15:21 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 16:24 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-02 22:46 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 17:57 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 13:07 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 16:24 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-01 11:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 12:19 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 13:48 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 16:17 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 15:47 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-02-02 16:26 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-02-04 03:19 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-04 17:03 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-04 19:51 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-06 01:14 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-02-06 09:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-06 13:58 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-07 01:09 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-07 00:58 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-09 13:46 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-09 15:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-02-09 17:06 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-09 17:19 +0000
ifconfig(8) vs. iproute Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2013-02-09 17:18 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2013-02-10 04:44 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-10 14:14 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-11 00:19 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-06 01:09 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-04 21:46 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 17:30 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-25 01:44 +0100
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 16:30 +0100 |
| Subject | [OT] Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? |
| Message-ID | <kejbdv$10np$2@saria.nerim.net> |
| In reply to | #7160 |
Jean-David Beyer a écrit : > > People have shown they are incapable of slef-government, so we should > give more evolved species a chance. Or perhaps dolphins. Actually all the species currently living on Earth are equally evolved. They just evolved in different directions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 17:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnkgqkbk.2hq.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7160 |
On 2013-02-02, Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote: > On 02/02/2013 08:49 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> Ineptocracy >> >> (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to >> lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the >> members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are >> rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of >> a diminishing number of producers. >> > I suggest hippocracy as a superior system of government, as contrasted > to the tried and found wanting form of Ineptocracy. > > Hippocracy is a system of government whereby it is run by a team of > hippopotami instead of people. Horses, surely? Rule by hippopotami would be "hippopotocracy". Swift's Gulliver's encounter with the Houyhnhnms suggests that hippocracy may be too good for us Yahoos. > People have shown they are incapable of slef-government, so we should > give more evolved species a chance. Or perhaps dolphins. Humans don't always respond well to any form of government; but they respond very badly indeed to absence of government. -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 18:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kejl62$afr$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7169 |
On 02/02/13 17:48, Whiskers wrote: > On 2013-02-02, Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote: >> On 02/02/2013 08:49 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> Ineptocracy >>> >>> (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to >>> lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the >>> members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are >>> rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of >>> a diminishing number of producers. >>> >> I suggest hippocracy as a superior system of government, as contrasted >> to the tried and found wanting form of Ineptocracy. >> >> Hippocracy is a system of government whereby it is run by a team of >> hippopotami instead of people. > > Horses, surely? Rule by hippopotami would be "hippopotocracy". Swift's > Gulliver's encounter with the Houyhnhnms suggests that hippocracy may be > too good for us Yahoos. > >> People have shown they are incapable of slef-government, so we should >> give more evolved species a chance. Or perhaps dolphins. > > Humans don't always respond well to any form of government; but they > respond very badly indeed to absence of government. > Yeah, Fred flintstone would have been lost without socialism and high taxes .. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 20:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <EpePs.130346$kp4.40476@newsfe09.iad> |
| In reply to | #7170 |
On 2013-02-02, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 02/02/13 17:48, Whiskers wrote: >> On 2013-02-02, Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote: >>> On 02/02/2013 08:49 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> Ineptocracy >>>> >>>> (in-ep-toc???-ra-cy) ??? a system of government where the least capable to >>>> lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the >>>> members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are >>>> rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of >>>> a diminishing number of producers. >>>> >>> I suggest hippocracy as a superior system of government, as contrasted >>> to the tried and found wanting form of Ineptocracy. >>> >>> Hippocracy is a system of government whereby it is run by a team of >>> hippopotami instead of people. >> >> Horses, surely? Rule by hippopotami would be "hippopotocracy". Swift's >> Gulliver's encounter with the Houyhnhnms suggests that hippocracy may be >> too good for us Yahoos. >> >>> People have shown they are incapable of slef-government, so we should >>> give more evolved species a chance. Or perhaps dolphins. >> >> Humans don't always respond well to any form of government; but they >> respond very badly indeed to absence of government. >> > Yeah, Fred flintstone would have been lost without socialism and high > taxes .. And dead at age 25 (or 5). Interesting reading the latest National Geographic about the Kyrzic peoples in NE Afghanistan. One couple had 11 children. All died by age 5. They have essentially no government, taxes or socialism. Or roads, cars or hospitals. Paradise. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 14:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87txpu5tj7.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #7172 |
unruh writes: > Interesting reading the latest National Geographic about the Kyrzic > peoples in NE Afghanistan. One couple had 11 children. All died by age > 5. They have essentially no government... Wrong. "Tribal" people most definitely have government. They also have equivalents of taxes and socialism. What they don't have is modern technology. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kek0bn$om7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7173 |
On Saturday, February 2nd, 2013, at 14:51:08h -0600, John Hasler explained:
> "Tribal" people most definitely have government.
Are there any groups of people living together who do not have
some form of government?
Even anarcho-hippie communes have some type of government, eg
<http://en.wikipedia.ORG/wiki/Freetown_Christiania>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 22:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kek41l$aas$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7174 |
On 02/02/13 21:27, J G Miller wrote: > On Saturday, February 2nd, 2013, at 14:51:08h -0600, John Hasler explained: > >> "Tribal" people most definitely have government. > > Are there any groups of people living together who do not have > some form of government? > Yes. > Even anarcho-hippie communes have some type of government, eg > > <http://en.wikipedia.ORG/wiki/Freetown_Christiania> > I t depends what you mean by 'government' Consider one hunter gatherer family. Is that a government? civilisation and government as we know it is a system to organise large groups of people in specialised roles. That's only necessary to achieve a population density beyond that which a hunter gatherer society can. Whether it is an advance is a debatable and moot point. Of course once you are herding and growing stuff and consider it property, theft becomes an issue, and then you need police..and so it goes on. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 22:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kek54u$r99$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7175 |
On Saturday, February 2nd, 2013, at 22:30:15h +0000, The Natural Philosopher claimed: > On 02/02/13 21:27, J G Miller wrote: >> On Saturday, February 2nd, 2013, at 14:51:08h -0600, John Hasler explained: >> >>> "Tribal" people most definitely have government. >> >> Are there any groups of people living together who do not have >> some form of government? >> > Yes. Details please? > Consider one hunter gatherer family. Is that a government? No, but once the size grows to an extended family and then a clan and a tribe, clearly the head of the family, clan, tribe is the leader of the government.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-03 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kekbv7$p8s$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7178 |
On 02/02/13 22:49, J G Miller wrote: > On Saturday, February 2nd, 2013, at 22:30:15h +0000, > The Natural Philosopher claimed: > >> On 02/02/13 21:27, J G Miller wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 2nd, 2013, at 14:51:08h -0600, John Hasler explained: >>> >>>> "Tribal" people most definitely have government. >>> >>> Are there any groups of people living together who do not have >>> some form of government? >>> >> Yes. > > Details please? > >> Consider one hunter gatherer family. Is that a government? > > No, but once the size grows to an extended family and then > a clan and a tribe, clearly the head of the family, clan, > tribe is the leader of the government. > Only if you say so., I've not seen much evidence of it in e.g. the Kalahari bushmen or the RWandan pygmies. OK they nominally 'belong' to some one elses 'country' but there is not much evidence of it on the ground., -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-03 00:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6ah1tb.lml.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #7180 |
On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 00:45:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher Inscribed upon
the Golden Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> On 02/02/13 22:49, J G Miller wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 2nd, 2013, at 22:30:15h +0000,
>> The Natural Philosopher claimed:
>>
>>> On 02/02/13 21:27, J G Miller wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, February 2nd, 2013, at 14:51:08h -0600, John Hasler
>>>> explained:
>>>>
>>>>> "Tribal" people most definitely have government.
>>>>
>>>> Are there any groups of people living together who do not have some
>>>> form of government?
>>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Details please?
>>
>>> Consider one hunter gatherer family. Is that a government?
>>
>> No, but once the size grows to an extended family and then a clan and a
>> tribe, clearly the head of the family, clan, tribe is the leader of the
>> government.
>>
> Only if you say so.,
>
> I've not seen much evidence of it in e.g. the Kalahari bushmen or the
> RWandan pygmies.
>
> OK they nominally 'belong' to some one elses 'country' but there is not
> much evidence of it on the ground.,
But on a local level, there is organization, there is a leader. There
are rules even amongst bushmen and penalties for disregarding them. that
is government, the act of governing human beings. Hopefully by mutual
consent but that is rare in today's world and getting rarer...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)\ ( ) /( Cipher/Proud Member, Netscum Alumni Association
)-(0^^0)-( Bungmunch U./AHM Memorial Institute of F@x0r1n6/Dean
)/ \\// \( Colonel/1st Virginia Volunteers/CeSium Brigade
(oo) Registered Linux User #556617
/ ~~ \ Empire of APDD/#6-5p07/VLNOC Cohort #1407
o@o o@o Keeper of the alt.CeSium FAQ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-03 11:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kelg2i$q1c$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7181 |
On 03/02/13 00:52, cipher wrote: > On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 00:45:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher Inscribed upon > the Golden Tablets of Usenet thusly: > >> On 02/02/13 22:49, J G Miller wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 2nd, 2013, at 22:30:15h +0000, >>> The Natural Philosopher claimed: >>> >>>> On 02/02/13 21:27, J G Miller wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, February 2nd, 2013, at 14:51:08h -0600, John Hasler >>>>> explained: >>>>> >>>>>> "Tribal" people most definitely have government. >>>>> >>>>> Are there any groups of people living together who do not have some >>>>> form of government? >>>>> >>>> Yes. >>> >>> Details please? >>> >>>> Consider one hunter gatherer family. Is that a government? >>> >>> No, but once the size grows to an extended family and then a clan and a >>> tribe, clearly the head of the family, clan, tribe is the leader of the >>> government. >>> >> Only if you say so., >> >> I've not seen much evidence of it in e.g. the Kalahari bushmen or the >> RWandan pygmies. >> >> OK they nominally 'belong' to some one elses 'country' but there is not >> much evidence of it on the ground., > > But on a local level, there is organization, there is a leader. There > are rules even amongst bushmen and penalties for disregarding them. that > is government, the act of governing human beings. Hopefully by mutual > consent but that is rare in today's world and getting rarer... > I think you should give examples of that. Rather than blandly asserting it. > > -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-03 13:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kelnu1$9u1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7182 |
On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 11:01:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Rather than blandly asserting it.
According to <http://www.wisegeek.COM/who-are-the-bushmen.htm>
QUOTE
Among a Bushmen tribe, there is no main leader or chief —
*the group is governed by consensus*.
Generally, there is gender equality, and children are valued and
treated well. Childbearing typically begins after 18, and women
only have as many children as they are able to carry and feed at one time.
As with many other indigenous people, the Bushmen have suffered at
the hands of outsiders.
When the British arrived in Africa, they wanted to bring “civilization”
to the indigenous people, and encouraged them to lead a more agricultural
life.
In many areas, their “wildness” prompted exterminations, often at the
bidding of the government. Bushmen of the Cape (of Good Hope) were killed
to extinction by the 1870s, and a count in 2001 in Botswana put their
numbers at fewer than 2,000. Continent-wide, there are fewer than
100,000 Bushmen left.
As late as 1936, the government of Namibia was still issuing licenses to
hunt and kill them.
UNQUOTE
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-03 13:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kelo6d$dq7$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7186 |
On 03/02/13 13:15, J G Miller wrote: > On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 11:01:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> Rather than blandly asserting it. > > According to <http://www.wisegeek.COM/who-are-the-bushmen.htm> > > QUOTE > > Among a Bushmen tribe, there is no main leader or chief — > *the group is governed by consensus*. which is NOT government. > -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-03 15:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kelui2$ov4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7187 |
On Sunday, February 3rd, 2013, at 13:20:14h +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 03/02/13 13:15, J G Miller wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 11:01:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> Rather than blandly asserting it. >> >> According to <http://www.wisegeek.COM/who-are-the-bushmen.htm> >> >> QUOTE >> >> Among a Bushmen tribe, there is no main leader or chief — >> *the group is governed by consensus*. > > which is NOT government. Whether you consider it to be government or not, it is by definition a form of government.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-05 10:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6anc26.qeg.19.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #7189 |
On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:08:50 +0000, J G Miller Inscribed upon the Golden
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> On Sunday, February 3rd, 2013, at 13:20:14h +0000,
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 03/02/13 13:15, J G Miller wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 11:01:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rather than blandly asserting it.
>>>
>>> According to <http://www.wisegeek.COM/who-are-the-bushmen.htm>
>>>
>>> QUOTE
>>>
>>> Among a Bushmen tribe, there is no main leader or chief —
>>> *the group is governed by consensus*.
>>
>> which is NOT government.
>
> Whether you consider it to be government or not, it is by definition a
> form of government.
Amen! "government" is not so narrowly defined as to mean some formal
organized body. It certainly doesn't require elections. Or the will of
the people. If a single man makes the law, arbitrary or not, he *is* the
governor, and hence the government.
2. the system or form by which a community, etc, is ruled: tyrannical
government.
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)\ ( ) /( Cipher/Proud Member, Netscum Alumni Association
)-(0^^0)-( Bungmunch U./AHM Memorial Institute of F@x0r1n6/Dean
)/ \\// \( Colonel/1st Virginia Volunteers/CeSium Brigade
(oo) Registered Linux User #556617
/ ~~ \ Empire of APDD/#6-5p07/VLNOC Cohort #1407
o@o o@o Keeper of the alt.CeSium FAQ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-05 15:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ker7ut$r6o$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7201 |
On Tuesday, February 5th, 2013, at 10:22:28h +0000, Cipher explained: > If a single man makes the law, arbitrary or not, he *is* the > governor, and hence the government. That would be Napoleon. ;) He even wrote the law -- the Napoleonic code, which much of western Europe still follows in varying degrees today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-05 17:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jdbQs.54499$O02.33751@newsfe18.iad> |
| In reply to | #7201 |
On 2013-02-05, cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:08:50 +0000, J G Miller Inscribed upon the Golden > Tablets of Usenet thusly: > >> On Sunday, February 3rd, 2013, at 13:20:14h +0000, >> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> On 03/02/13 13:15, J G Miller wrote: >>>> On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 11:01:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> >>>>> Rather than blandly asserting it. >>>> >>>> According to <http://www.wisegeek.COM/who-are-the-bushmen.htm> >>>> >>>> QUOTE >>>> >>>> Among a Bushmen tribe, there is no main leader or chief ??? >>>> *the group is governed by consensus*. >>> >>> which is NOT government. >> >> Whether you consider it to be government or not, it is by definition a >> form of government. > > Amen! "government" is not so narrowly defined as to mean some formal > organized body. It certainly doesn't require elections. Or the will of > the people. If a single man makes the law, arbitrary or not, he *is* the > governor, and hence the government. So lets broaden the definition so far that it is impossible not to fall under it. Then you can say all men/women live under governement, and you statements become true but utterly meaningless. > > 2. the system or form by which a community, etc, is ruled: tyrannical > government. > > Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition > 2009 ?? William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 ?? HarperCollins > Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-05 17:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kerh9r$9r6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7205 |
On Tuesday, February 5th, 2013, at 17:22:23h +0000, UnRuh wrote:
> So lets broaden the definition so far that it is impossible not to fall
> under it. Then you can say all men/women live under governement, and you
> statements become true but utterly meaningless.
Not unless they are living as hermits.
Even within families there is a type of government; why else
the term "head of the family/household"?
And no matter where the aliens land, they always command
"Take me to your leader!"
--
"An accelerating observer will observe black-body radiation
where an inertial observer would observe none."
-- The Unruh Effect
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-05 19:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kedQs.68785$j95.44109@newsfe31.iad> |
| In reply to | #7206 |
On 2013-02-05, J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 5th, 2013, at 17:22:23h +0000, UnRuh wrote: > >> So lets broaden the definition so far that it is impossible not to fall >> under it. Then you can say all men/women live under governement, and you >> statements become true but utterly meaningless. > > Not unless they are living as hermits. > > Even within families there is a type of government; why else > the term "head of the family/household"? As I said, the definition of government is broadedned so far as to become meaningless. Why not say even individuals have government since the brain sends out signals to the rest of the body which they then usually obey. Or even bacterial cells (the DNA) or even rocks (gravity). That way we can make sure that when one talks about government one is not saying anything. > > And no matter where the aliens land, they always command > > "Take me to your leader!" Yes, movies I guess are our definition of the world these days. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-05 14:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87txpq1po5.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #7207 |
unruh writes: > As I said, the definition of government is broadedned so far as to > become meaningless. How do you define it? -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web