Slashdot Mirror
Dark Hearts And The Net
For more than half a century, ever since the birth of rock and roll and the rise of culture-expanding new media technologies from TV (and channel-switcher), on to cable, the Net and the Web, opportunistic political leaders have advanced the idea that the ideas and imagery spread by new technologies are dangerous to children. This idea, enthusiastically passed along by the mainstream media, has entered the American political consciousness.
Bush implied Wednesday night that the Net can, by itself, turn otherwise bright and youthful hearts dark, and even goad youth to murder -- an allegation that comes in the context of a long-standing cultural civil war. It exploits the worst fears of parents who are too often ignorant of their children's technological and cultural lives. Just that kind of claim is used to justify curbing the growing power of kids to access information and to set their own social and cultural agendas. It also gives us yet another look at how our antiquated, overwhelmed political process will deal with the Net, no matter who's elected.
It was hard to listen to comments like Bush's and not think of the dinosaurs just after the meteor hit. And to be fair, it isn't just Bush. The high point of the vice-presidential confrontation was when the Republican candidate Richard Cheney berated the Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman for softening his ferocious attacks on the "violent" culture of the young, especially movies, TV shows and videogames. Gore has repeatedly attacked TV, movies and the Net for the "cultural pollution" it's bringing to children's lives. And even before Wednesday night, Bush was demanding a wholesome "family hour" on TV every night.
This hysterical pandering has nothing to do with the reality of children's lives, or their welfare. If either Bush, Cheney, Gore or Lieberman cared a whit about children, they would shriek instead about the paucity of decent Internet access -- and even decent computers -- in America's public elementary and middle schools.
With perhaps a handful of holdouts, all American colleges are now wired up for the Net, one of the reasons that a whole generation of successful Web and media sites, from Yahoo to Napster to AIM and Slashdot have been created by college kids, not traditional media companies. Many of these new entrepeneurs are games and Net obsessives -- exactly the kind of bright kids who are online all the time. George Bush obviously doesn't know this.
The sad political truth is that access to the Net, the Web and broadband equals creativity, confidence and opportunity. If American schoolchildren were provided the same kind of bandwidth college students are, just imagine the kind of creative technological outpouring they might be capable of, not only in primary and secondary schools, but by the time they hit colleges and universities. Countries that are spending the money to give young children access to bandwidth -- many of the Scandinavian countries are doing this -- are seeding economic, educational and creative success, equality and prosperity.
In fact, a slew of new studies document that the young are using broadband to re-shape media and the information culture. They are the gurus, visionaries, technicians and authorities on the Information Revolution. According to the Pew center for Media Research, roughly half of American families now have Internet access. The aproximately 78 million Americans aged 21 and younger account for 28% of the population.
Lieberman likes to call himself a liberal, but he belongs to that long and glorious line of American politicians (H.L. Mencken called them "Boobus Americanus") who specialized in defining virtue and trying to ram it down everybody else's throat.
What a shame that the many real issues surrounding technology are perverted in this shamelessly exploitive way.
The biggest social, cultural and political issues in the country almost all relate to technology: How will the gene map be used, and will it be commercialized by bio-tech industries? (Yes). Will wealthy people start eliminating the retarded, emotionally disturbed and unnatractive from their birth "selection process"? (You betcha). Will the Net remain a unique and free space, or will it be forced to conform to non-virtual traditions and constraints? Will corporations be permitted to continue to grow unchecked and dominate technology in the way they now control culture, media and entertainment? Will all Americans have equal access to technologies like the Net and Web? (No.) Who will control intellectual property? (Companies like Microsoft, Sony, AOL/Time-Warner and Disney, looks like.) Who will manage new technologies from supercomuting to AI to nano-technology? (Megacorporations, apparently). If Bush or Gore talked about some of that stuff, the ratings might rocket up in a hurry.
But none of these issues will get much coverage or discussion, certainly not compared to the image of the Net turning young hearts dark and murderous. Politics like this can't possibly survive the Digital Age -- and they surely don't deserve to.
Ya so? Whats wrong with communism?
I guess he's right, because since I heard about this (on the internet) I just wanna wring his silly neck. Oh no! the internet made me a murdering psychopath. kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill killkill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill
To me, Bush is the embodiment of America. Stupid, petulant and born to privilege.
That's not true! Your so ignorant that you don't even know what your talking about!!!! I'm gonna tell my Daddy about you!
Respect and tolerance please.
The sad political truth is that access to the Net, the Web and broadband equals creativity, confidence and opportunity.
Bullshit. Take all the computers you want, put them in every elementary classroom, and train the teachers to be technology experts, and watch the further ruin of America. Technology and the Internet aren't the answer to all the world's problems. Putting someone in front of a computer doesn't make them creative - check out some of the Geocities homepages for proof of this. And the web is a poor substitute for a loving family and good friends. Technology and the web, are tools, not cures.
Attempting to use Slashdot as a political front for you left wing plots is not commendable. Especially since you are taking once sentence (yes one sentence, not even a paragraph) out of a debate out of context. Bush was saying he had a priority in education, and wanted to help youth in trouble...the 'Net thing was a fluke sentence in a million. Lighten up. Nice shot as sweighing the vote, but a couple of nerds joining your cause won't say anything. This is hardly worth front page Slashdot news. This site is so slanted it's not even funny. Linux and Libertarians. Live at 11. I also find the "Vaio looks like Barf" so full of journalistic integrity. Excuse me, but are the writers here over the age of 14?
bush can think the net is evil. bush can destroy the enviornment. bush can not invest in alternate energy sources. bush can kill people, which is ok in my book -- rape and murder little kids, or defenseless people, or something and you got it comin' to ya.
gore, however, invented the internet, personally wrote every check to every agency doing any work on it, understands the environment because he invented that too, and thinks anyone who doesn't agree with him is an idiot. not to mention the fact that he inventd facts, too, right? or has that been announced yet?
i'd almost rather vote for qualye.
for the record: gore's book on the environment is an uneducated piece of drivel. he didn't do the research, he just amalgamated other people's thinking when it suited what he wanted to say. go, sounding-good looking-good knowing-nothing people!
are there any decent contenders? sigh
Of the two, Bush is still the better choice. Lower taxes, better education, protection of gun rights, and smaller government. All of these will benefit the net even ig GWB doesn't realize it.
Gore will only take away more freedoms, raise taxes, expand gov't control over everything all because "Gore knows what's best for Americans". Feh. Yeah right.
Politics is the description of the interaction of people and power. Politics is with us as long as there are people.
naked and petrified!
Yeah baby, someone had to say it
he represents the least totalitarian idealogy.
I believe you mean "Harry Browne" and the Libertarian party.
Eve was the wise one. She knew the only way to for God's plan to work, she had to eat the fruit. If not, she and Adam would remain in the garden forever. Were it not for her wisdom, we would not be here and have to opportunity to choose good from evil. God knew this, since Satan would do anything to get his way.
AC
The only thing you can clearly draw from your numbers is that the percentage of the population under 18 is dwindling. But as the actual population of the country is increasing, probably faster than a tenth of a percent or so a year, that means that the number of people under 18 is also increasing. The article didn't say that there's now a larger percentage of 18 year-olds, it said that there are now more 18 year-olds than there were, which might explain why high schools keep getting more and more crowded dontcha think?
But people care about their own health. If they don't take the responsibility to select a HMO which takes good enough care of them (insist that their employer does the same, etc), that's their own damn fault.
Stuff and nonsense. Being "born poor" does not mean people have to stay poor. My father was born a poor man; he retired decidedly upper middle class. One of my friends comes from a family which moved to the US from Mexico with nothing but a strong work ethic. The family now owns a tire shop and he's a corporate lawyer -- the first person in the family to have a college education.
No, moving up in the world doesn't come easy. But then, there's no reason it should. Let the best man win -- and if his son is less deserving, he'll blow it all sooner or later and in doing so stimulate the economy (helping those poor folks you care so much about) in the meantime.
I agree. Thats why I'm looking at Howard Phillips. Of course if his party were to win everything for 100 straight years they would probably go to far in the wrong direction, but for now we need their likes in office.
There are other canidates. Take it as your duty to NOT vote for any canidate you don't agree with the most, no matter what that person's chance of winning is. For most people Bush and Gore don't fit.
Oh, get a clue.
Reagan claimed to be at the liberation of a concentration camp. Yet he's now Saint Reagan for the Republicans.
Yes, Gore's phrasing leads something to be desired. But do you honestly, HONESTLY NOW, think he was really trying to claim he invented the thing? If you do, then you are so warped with "Republican good, Democrat bad" that your opinions are worth nothing. Stop spouting Republican sophistry and try thinking for a change.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Amen. For a simple example of what the militia is, just go watch "The Patriot" starring Mel Gibson. THAT is what a militia is. Ordinary citizens. They're not professionals, they may not even be trained, but in time of need they can take up their arms and defend this nation from oppression, whether it be from exterior forces or our own corrupt government.
Now, like you, I don't own a gun either.. I'd really like to in order to do my part to be ready in time of need, but even a decent handgun is still a little too expensive for me. I can't really afford $500 for a gun right now. What we need are less laws and more competition to bring better and cheaper guns into the hands of American citizens. I want every man and woman in the United States to have be able to carry a firearm at all times to defend themselves as well. See how far a rapist gets with a couple gunshot wounds in his chest.
"I took initiative in doing my homework" by giving someone else $10 to do it for me. Did I do the homework? No. Did I show initiative? Yes.
:)
wouldnt that be " I took inititive in getting my homework done"
he does say that he took inititive in creating the internet that would imply that he had a resonably large (and lead) role in the process of creating the interenet
personaly I find this a large overstatement. If Gore had said that he took the inititve in funding the interents development, that would be fine. but he had nothing directly to do with the development of the technology that drives the internet.
hell, Im pretty sure that he never invisioned the internet as anything remotely like it is today... but then again, who did
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
DARPA got its funding long before Gore became a senator. He may have once voted for a budget bill that included continuing funding for DARPA or ARPANET (along with many other senators and representatvies) but that hardly makes him a visionary.
Gore jumped on the internet bandwagon in the 90's with his "Information Superhighway" proposal but has really done very little of substance.
I browse with my threshold at 2 so I can't read my own comments :-)
You've got yourself a nice little contradiction there... :-)
You can be as pissed as you want, but those two hands are generally not going to do you much good when you're being assaulted by someone that does have a gun, and doesn't care that it is illegal.
I agree that the statement comes off as claiming more than is true, and very likely as stronger than Gore intended it to be taken. However, it's *really* unfair to take it that way, as Gore, when he was in the Congress, did initiate bills which were very very important in making the internet viable.
People hear this quip misquoted and out of context (like the original I replied to: "Gore thinks he invented [the internet]") and think that he doesn't get the 'net. The fact is, he does get it -- and has gotten it since long before most people here (including me) ever even heard of it.
FWIW, I'm personally for Nader....
--
all right, here's a refresher course people
the electoral college is made up of something like 500 votes, distributed among the states in the same way the the house of representatives is divided up. (i.e. by population. california has something like 53 votes, while alaska and wyoming have about 2) afte the popular election, the electoral college "votes" with the representatives from each state typically voting for whoever won the popular vote in that state. (this is almost universally true, but not quite. more on this later)
what this means is that whoever wins the popular vote in one state generally gets all of the electoral votes from that state. this is why most candidates tend to focus heavily on large states like california, texas and new york. they are better off winning a narrow victory in a big state than they are trouncing their opponent in a small state. (which, by the way, should give bush a bit of an advantage if the people of texas are happy with their governor. this is why most presidents are from larger states)
this situation is not nearly so unfair as the original poster made it sound, altough it does tend to make the elections seem more lopsided than they really are. for example, george bush (the first) against bill clinton in '92. iirc, bush only trailed clinton by about 10-15% in the popular vote (maybe more) but got almost no electoral votes. this was because he tended to trail clinton by the same 10-15% in almost every state, and didn't win any of the big states. in general however, this is not really that big of a problem. there have been only one or two cases that i recall that a president won the popular vote and not the election. obviously, they were close elections, and if you think about the all or nothing nature of the electoral college, what this basically means was one candidate won overwhelmingly in the small states, but lost narrowly in enough of the large states that they fell behind in the electoral vote.
while the losing candidate obviously cried foul about this, that is the accepted way of electing a president in our country, and moreover, it is perfectly within our power to change it if we believe it to be wrong. the method of electing president in the united states has been changed at least twice. iirc, originally there was no popular vote at all. the president was chosen by a combined vote of the house and senate. (may be wrong about that) for all the credit we give them, our founding fathers were not very big fans of democracy. jefferson was recorded as making a remark to the effect that putting the power in the hands of the common people would be a grave mistake. our country was originally set up as a republic, not a democracy. if you don't know the difference between the two, look them up, that's well outside the area of this comment.
ok, one more thing i said i would cover. it is true, i believe, that the electoral college members are not required to vote according to the popular vote in their state, and can indeed vote for whoever they want. there is one state (i forget which) that i believe has been hisorically known for splitting their votes (i.e. if one candidate got 25% of the popular vote in that state, 25% of the electors representing that state would vote for him. this is, as i said, extremely rare. for the most part, all of the electors will vote for the person who received the popular vote in their state, and i am not aware of any case where the failure of an elector to do so has changed the outcome of an election. therefore, if, as the original poster said, everybody voted for ralph nader, he would indeed be elected. however, if he lost to bush 55-45 in half of the states, and to gore 55-45 in the other half of the states, he would get 0 electoral votes even with 45% of the popular vote and more of the popular vote than either bush or gore.
as a historical note, this is roughly how abraham lincoln got to be elected president with significantly less than half of the popular vote. he was running against three other people, and while virtually no one in the south voted for lincoln, lincoln got the electoral vote in almost every northern state, because all of the poeple who opposed him were divided between the other three candidates. the fact that steven douglas got the electoral vote in most of the southern states was not enough to get him elected, due to the fact that there were simply not enough electoral votes in the south to outweigh the large states that lincoln carried.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
...but Slashdot is really losing credibility in my eyes. It's great for people to have and voice their opinions, but the Slashdot editorial staff is FAR too one sided. I am a conservative, so I also have a biased view. However, these blatant, liberal attacks against Bush has gotten out of hand. Enough is enough. If Jon Katz (who I have defended before) can't get any of his facts straight and only hears what he wants to hear, then he shouldn't be able to submit stories.
Sorry if I get moderated to Hell over this, but this is really annoying me.
If you're not a liberal at 20, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative by 40, you don't have a head. - Winston Churchill
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
If ya don't like Katz don't read him!
Of course, you could be *really* *really* into self-abuse...
*ahem*hehheh*choke*
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Please see: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/10/12/16252 19&cid=120
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Now what the hell is the ignorant sentiment in the parent post doing moderated up to 5, while this sits at 2?
By the way, "took the initiative in" is what's known as a qualifier, all you arm-chair English professors. Get a clue, and quit attacking the geekiest candidate for being geeky, you geeks.
Pardon the venting of frustration here. It's getting pretty dull to see all the well-reasoned, factually well-cited arguments get buried in highly-modded "me too" attempts at refutation.
More computers and internet access in public schools is not what is needed. More teachers and more resources devoted to education are what is needed. Give teachers (and not administrators) a big raise; recognize that their work is the most important one and you will attract better teachers.
So if you favor Harry Browne, then vote for him!
As to the 'hang both', Nader supports a "none of the above" box on all elections.
than ever before...
Life expectancy in America sucks.
Well, that begs the question: If what Gore said does not mean that he created the internet, then what does it really mean? The stupid Salon article attempts to explain it.
Let's look at the opening of the Salon article:
Notice how salon chooses to put the words "exaggerations" and "lies" in double-quotes. In other words, Salon is telling the world that Gore's statements are neither exaggerations nor lies. It doesn't take a genius to realize on which side of the political fence Salon is standing.
So how does Salon answer my question? They do it on the second page of the report in the first paragraph:
Salon has done something devious here. First, they have changed Gore's word "creating" to "support" (or, to be parallel, "supporting"). In other words, according to Salon, what Gore meant to say was that he "took the initiative in supporting the Internet." Second, Salon shifts the focus of their argument from the word "creating" to the word "initiative." Salon then aims to show evidence for Gore's "initiative" (in "supporting" the Internet).
It isn't hard to show evidence that Gore supported the Internet. Unfortunately for Salon, that's not what Gore said. Gore said that he took the initiative in creating the Internet, not in "supporting" the Internet.
The article also goes to some length in trying to embarrass the Libertarians by showing a government project that "worked." (If you can't attack your opponent's argument, then attack your opponent. The basis of argumentum ad hominem.) What Salon fails to acknowledge is that the Internet was originally a military project, and the Libertarians position on the military is that it is a valid function of government. Furthermore, the author probably knows that the Libertarians have many more examples of failed government vote-buying programs than the big-government-lovers have examples of successful government programs.
In conclusion, the Salon article is crap. Furthermore, the argument "but Gore didn't say that!" which Gore defenders are constantly saying is also crap. Gore said that he took the initiative in creating the Internet, and the only thing that that statement means is that Gore is taking credit for creating the Internet.
I'd also like to point out that lots of Gore supporters are trying to diminish the comment, but Gore has been mostly silent about his Internet claim (except in saying that he stands by his words).
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
And you cant seem to recognize sarcasm :).
From what I've seen of Bush he's definitely no match for Einstein. He is perhaps only marginally smarter than Homer Simpson.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Ever hear of the bell curve?
Moof!
I don't think Jon is understanding the way you have to do things when you take money from "The Christian Mob" (Right wing Christian Organizations) You have to do what they say or they will have you politically "offed". Look at John McCain. The second he stepped on their toes, they turned on him.
From what I can tell, so long as you are the Republican candidate, you MUST say things that will make them happy. I wished the republicans would wake up and see that those guys are not needed.
--fatboy
And Gore hasn't mistated many things also about bush? I just think he would be better off saying he supported the internet when it was new than allowing the media and others to say he invented it.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
Better than helping Bush get elected, IMO.
The way I see it, the only wasted vote is one that does not agree with your beliefs. That means that if you are voting for "the lesser of two evils", you just wasted your vote. The whole point of voting is to tell government what you want. If you vote for people you don't believe in just because the other guy is worse, you are part of the problem, not the soultion.
This will be my first second year voting, and I'm 23. Why not before? For the same reason most of my peers don't vote. Apathy. But I see that as another part of the problem. If we don't speak up, we deserve what we get. Not voting is a vote for the establishment. In thier eyes, if you can't be bothered to get off your butt and vote, you are reasonably happy with the way things are. If you want to make a statement, use the write-in spots and put your friends and family, or fictional characters, whatever. That's at least doing SOMETHING.
Personally, I'm with the other poster. I'll be voting Libertarian this year. I may not win, but that's the chance you take in a democracy/republic. From talking with other people at work and arround town, it seems to me most people lean toward the Libertarian side on many principles. Most of them don't vote as they don't see anyone to vote for. Get all those non-voters out to vote thier REAL thoughts, and you will see change. If you don't like the Libertarians, go with Green, Natural Law, Independant, hell even Communist or Nazi. Whatever, but take a STAND. sheesh.
Speak up, or be crushed. Those are your choices. What will it be? Keep in mind, if you don't speak up now, it may well be illegal to in the future. The Republicrats have allready written laws to make it illegal to TALK about making or using drugs and explosives. What's next? Think about it.
What good is a militia? At least they are fighting for thier rights. Would you rather just have to bend over and take it? Would you fight if needed?
I'll grant you, if we got rid of all the guns it would be harder for criminals to kill people. There is a catch there. *ALL* the guns. *AND* the knowledge to build them! A gun is a simple device that can be built with a little skill and the local Home Depot. I even know how to make the powder from materials they can't ban. Like chicken shit! Black Powder is all that is required and you can make it from Charcoal, shit, and sulfer. All are available in nature with a little looking.
Now, how are you planning to get rid of the guns? Hmmmmmmm????? We spend hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars per year on the War on Drugs. We have not even slowed the tide on that. You can get illegal drugs in PRISON! So how the hell do you intend to get rid of them all AND KEEP THEM OUT!?!? Propose a workable soultion that does not emulate the failed "War" on drugs. You solve this problem, and disarm the police and the government. THEN I'll consider giving up my guns. If ANYONE has them, they can be stolen or used on peacefull citizens. And until then the best deffence is a strong offence. If someone attacks me with a weapon I want to be able to fight back. Or, prefferably, scare them off so I don't have to shoot.
For hunting.. POISON???????? Do you really want to just leave them to rot now? At least hunters use the animals they kill. If they are poisoned we can't eat them now and it goes to waste. What's the point? Sure, you can limit the spread of disease and such that way. One reason we want to allow hunting is that humans have thinned the population of the natural predators and allowed the herds to grow. This is a problem for the overall health of the herds and the biosphere. We make up for it with hunting to thin out the herds. Basicly, we become the predators. We can also feed hungry people with the meat from those animals. This is a much better method than poison. Though I will suggest that the Archery hunt is a close substitute. Just not as effective.
I agree with the principles you mention. Just not the method to impliment them. The problems we have are caused by society, not our tools. Be they guns, knives, spears (no, not Brittney, though I'm not sure which is worse), etc.. Keep in mind, more people are killed each year with baseball bats than guns in this country. I read that stat someplace, it may be wrong. But the point is vaild. If you just ban guns, people will still kill each other. But they will use blunt objects, knives, bow&arrows, spears, bats, bowling balls, hammers, icepicks, etc.. You see the problem? May not be as easy to kill, but that doesn't matter. The distance is rarely a factor. Most attacks take place at point-blank range. Range where a knife would be almost as effective as a gun. Help solve the real problem rather than disarming those who only wish to protect themselves.
You don't need a $500 gun to protect yourself. I bought a handgun for $200 that works perfectly for this use. Just avoid the 9mm and other really popular sizes. Look into the .380ACP and .38 Special. They are available in lower cost versions that will work for you. My handgun is a Bersa Model 95. Never heard of them before. But it shoots straight, is very reliable, and easy to handle. And at $200, the price is right. I would not hesitate the recomend it to anyone. Even a small person should have no trouble with a .380ACP. Not much recoil, small size, plenty of power if you ever have to use it. Remember, every gun is only as reliable as it's owner. Clean it regularly and take care of it. Practice on a range so you know how to use it. If it ever malfunctions and you can't fix it, don't use it for protection. Use it for practice and get another one for protection. Most problems can be fixed with a gunsmith if needed.
.22 is deadly. And most confrontations involving guns in deffence are point-blank. However, I would still recomend something a little bigger. ;) Make sure to use hollow point expanding rounds. If you ever do have to use it, it will be less likely to go through your target and hit innocent bystanders.
;)
Remember, at close range even a
Good message BTW. Good to see others understand the ideas here. If you want to be "ready in time of need", might I suggest a rifle as well? In a war you want some range and accuracy as well.
So how do you know that the glass of water you'll drink next isn't toxic?
"Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it is not happening" is precisely the reasoning that people use to justify any beliefs they may have that they can't otherwise justify. It's used to justify anything from crackpot beliefs in little green men running around kidnapping people to the existence of God.
No, in the best traditions of science, if you want to make a claim you have to back it up with solid evidence. There would be a lot more consensus in the scientific community about global warming if the evidence were more solid. Until there's better evidence, there's insufficient reason to believe that humans are having a significant effect on the planet's temperature.
Note that this is not the same as saying that these people aren't convinced of the validity of the mechanisms behind warming: there's plenty of evidence for them (Venus, for instance).
Hence, I think the best course of action is to continue to look for ways to reduce our impact, but not to go overboard about it. It doesn't hurt us to do the research. But it means not adopting some new technology unless it has a very good chance of being economical as well as beneficial. Moderation is the key.
--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Jesse Ventura also used the internet to raise awareness and funds. He really used and understood "interactive" media.
In class Jon Katz said he thinks we minnesotans have some passion for third party politics. No, we mostly just like common sense and reason.
Of course the joke around here was the trailer parks were emptied on election night when Ventura was elected. But seriously he did reach the common people very well, and they got out and voted.
Unfortunately, the grass root efforts in the third parties seems to be pretty weak, although the Green party is probably going to do fairly well here in minnesota, a traditionally liberal state.
Personally, I believe the time is ripe for political reform, with tech savvy Gen Y reaching majority, the next 12 years is going to be VERY interesting.
You must be on crack. He did no such thing. He stammered for a bit and said the first two things that popped into his mind.
Plus, I'd rather the politicians try regulating the internet (which can't possibly work), than try regulating firearms (which also can't work).
See that "Preview" button?
I'm going to vote for the one candidate running that doesn't care a whit for me, or anyone else. Harry Brown.
Libertarian Party
See that "Preview" button?
"I" is possesive
:)))
My, oh my, I didn't know that "I" was possesive. I guess "you" are, too, then
I'm a poor player, but I'll strut and fret for an hour, if you like.
Palestinians and Jewish are both idiots to
kill each other over religion. A solution
might to abolish religion in that part of
the world.
But seriously here, there is enough blame to
go around on both sides and bashing the
Palestinians the way you do make you look
like a big asshole.
As to why you choose a discussion on Bush's
stupidity to put your bullshit is hard to understand.
Va jouer dans le traffic!
Speaking as someone who is now slightly older than the 18-24 year old population. NOW that I think about it, its a good think 18-24 year olds dont vote. They are all idiots on the whole. I should know because just a few short years ago I was one, my friends were, everyone I knew was. You dont have a clue about the real world until 25 or so, your WAY to idealisic and emotional, think you know everything.... So..go smoke some hashish or whatever recreational drug you do, put on some metallica, bitch about the cruel world and how sad your life is.. and leave the voting to the adults. BTW. SLASHDOT has NO BUSINESS DOING POLITICAL COMMMENTARY since it is run by a bunch of the before mentionioned 18-24 year old idiots.
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
"Now we see the violence inherit in the system"
"Help help - I'm being repressed!"
"Bloody peasant"
If you want it to be the centerpiece, then it's your prerogative to think so. But I think a cause-effect relationship was pretty clearly indicated here, and (to go way out on the political stereotype limb) the Republicans tend to prefer fixing causes over patching up effects. [duck]
I agree totally: I've a a couple of young ones, and development of character, comprehension of right and wrong, learning the fundamentals is (reading comprehension, analytical processes) what's important. Computers are distractions at worst, learning aids at best, and are in no way fundamental to primary or secondary education. If someone wants some universe to explore, a biology lab is a far richer and better place than the endless stream of marketing content available on the web.
fox one fox one
How in the world can higher taxes lead to a second parent getting a job to help pay the taxes?
/or/ they can look at their expenses and see if they could cut out $7k/year and Parent B stays home.
Simple math. When Parent A brings home $50k/year but 33% of it goes to taxes, they only get $33k/year. So Parent B works and brings home, say, $20k/year and is taxed 20%. Parent B brings home $16k/year. Notice that 33+16>33. Now, say Parent A wasn't taxed as much. Only, oh, 16%. That $33k becomes $42k/year. An extra $9k/year. So Parent B can now either go part time to cover the remaining $7k/year they need
Simple fact is that a few decades ago families were able to not only survive but thrive on single incomes and today the largest drain on most middle-class people's income is taxes.
My most expensive bill is rent and it is 1/4th of my gross income. Taxes are well over 1/3rd. That is just income tax. It does not include sales tax or any of the taxes that are passed onto me as a consumer. If that large drain were removed I have no doubts that I'd be able to support a family on my income alone. As it is one of my coworkers is able to do it, barely, and because he doesn't have all the bills that most people do.
-- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
Let's take a trip to www.dictionary.com
:) (Especially when the other guy doesn't even seem like a real person - I don't want our country taken over by robots!)
create
To produce through imaginative or artistic effort.
invent
To produce or contrive (somthing previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination.
Hey, know what? create and invent mean damn near the same thing. Must mean Gore was stretching the truth, eh?
Either way, I'll be darned if I'm gonna make my voting descision based on *one out-of-context sentence* from a single presidential debate.
How do you think the fed could continue to justify the increase in stealth surveillance (Narcivore, Eschelon) if there was, in reality, LESS crime?
We've got our bread and circuses (or is it "Government price-controls/subsidies on food, and Television"?), what else is there to care about?
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Of course Bush is going to bash the net, Gore claimed to invent it!
And I thought he was only restating the obvious for his own entertainment. Maybe you the two of you are related?
Very insightful comments, however there are a couple of things that need to be noted.
First of all, some people live their lives according to statistics, be them relevant or not. The fact that things such as the Anarchist's Cookbook, porn, and nuclear bomb instructions exist on the internet and not in Dr. Seuess books almost implies the automatic statistic that more children with violent tendancies saw that content than read The Lorax (even though I'm sure there aren't that many studies that equate youth violence to Dr. Seuess!) This is the same case that is made against violence on TV (comapring the Teletubbies to action movies on HBO, for example).
The justification of violence using history, however, is not a good argument to make your case. We protest the "sanitized" versions of history that get tought in schools, whether due to the lack of variety in ethnicities mentioned, the omission or glossing-over of violent acts, or the choice of how to present matter (creationism vs. evolution, for example.)
The ultimate onus of how to decide on what content youth should view, whether it's on the web, TV, movies, magazines, books, or in real life should fall on the parents or guardians until that person can make the decision for him- or herself. As long as the government thinks it should be making that decision for us, they set arbitrary ages for things that should really be based on more individual factors. The government causes 18-year-olds to be able to go fight and die for their country and allows 17-year-olds to be able to go see XXX-rated movies. These same individuals have another 3-4 years to wait before they can legally imbibe alcohol. We end up with stupid 21-year-olds, who can get drunk and go driving, and we have perfectly responsible 17-year-olds, who cannot enjoy a drink.
Finally, to Jon Katz, trashing Bush for making this comment is duplicitous. What about Al Gore's claims to have been intstramental in the creation of the internet? Both candidates suck, IMO, as the role of our government is way to broad today. However unfortunate it may seem, all decisions relate back to the pocket-book; however, and we must make our decisions with our money. I'd rather have less taxes...
I don't think Open Source was really the focus here. There have been many visionary things created in the last few years that owe their existence and inspiration to the Internet, like Napster and even collaborative news sites like /. Sure some of these projects are a little shy on software engineering skills, but on the other hand they're reshaping the way people use the 'net and the way that people interact with each other. Young people (and some older ones, too, when they put their minds to it) are initiating (often unknowingly) projects that are totally changing culture and society. Not by cloning Windows programs necessarily, but by being open to communicating in new ways and with new people, and by having no preconceptions of which things are impossible, and which things are only possible after rigorous regression testing.
That being said,
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Throughout this whole election I've been reminded of Homer Simpson explaining how things are really run by people "no smarter than you or I are". Perhaps the candidates really are mental giants, but they sure don't come across that way on the campaign trail.
P.S. The 60 second posting limit is quite annoying - I just waited five minutes for /. to come back up, and now I have three comments all ready to go. Perhaps the 60 second limit should be waived for those with a +1 bonus available?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I might have flamed him as such before, but in honesty I have a hard time believing that Katz is so stupid to believe that what he wrote is what Bush was trying to say. He's just distorting his words, although I'm not exactly sure why — is it to be some hero to young people by ripping into some older folks (Gore and Bush) just because they don't have the same intimacy with technology the way that younger people today do? (I can't help but wonder if there's a Slashdot clone out there, based on say, farming, and the Jon Katz over there is going nuts because one of the candidates couldn't name the price of a new tractor. "Ha, what a boob! And he's gonna be our next president?!")
I also think it's especially poignant to see Katz using distortions to slam one of the candidates when that candidate is actually giving the same message that Katz was trying to put out there with his endless Hellmouth series. "Somebody -- some desperate child needs to have somebody put their arm around them and say, 'We love you'....[T]here's a larger law: Love your neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself." Of course, we all know how terribly uncool it would be to have someone say "We love you" to you, and coolness and cheap political slams are always more important than making someone feel good about themselves, right?
Cheers,
Well, frankly, yes. You can try to scare people with the 's' word all you like, but IMHO socialized medicine is going to be the only humane solution in the long run. As genetic science discovers more and more about who is going to get sick when, you can bet that private industry isn't going to want to cover the people who really need coverage anymore. If I recall correctly, many European countries have socialized medicine, and their citizens get some of the best care in the world. (yes, they pay high taxes too, but TAANSTAAFL, eh?)
As for the US gov't paying for people's retirement, that's a slight overstatement as it won't cover a decent retirement; but essentially, yes, that's what Social Security does. And for some reason, every politician who tries to mess with Social Security sinks like a rock on the polls. It must be that Social Security is what the American people want, no?
Regarding the USA playing 'world policeman', well... who else is going to do it? Being the world's richest and most influential nation brings responsibilities with it, and as long as we 'police' wisely, know our limits, and Do The Right Thing, then I have no real problems with the USA helping keep the world away from anarchy.
So yes, I'll probably be voting for Gore. Feel free to flame me if you don't like it.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Torture has been going on for as long as mankind has had laws. It works, and it does serve as an ultimate punishment.
Therefore, let's allow torture.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I watched Bush mention Columbine at the debate, and knew that instant that Katz would be all over it.
Good for Katz though, because this is definitely an issue that needs to be clarified...again.
-Julius X
-Julius X
remove "-whatkindofspamdoyoutakemefor-" from email to send
Okay... So I live in Texas (for the last 18 months), and I see what a mess IT is. G. Dubya has been missing in action here since early in the year. I watched the debate, and Bush, to put it lightly, is an idiot... or at the very least, not nealry experienced enough to be the President.
Now my question:
I know Nader cannot win, and Bush winning Texas is almost a sure thing, so should I:
A. Vote for Gore (my pick in the lesser of 2 evils scenario)
-or-
B. Vote for Nader (since my Gore vote would be wasted here in Texas, but would help the larger effort to validate a 3rd political party in the US.)
-live well-
-t
Becouse people are not taking the time to understand the problems or the accused causes it's easy to cast blame.
I blame Katz, The Republicans and the Democrats for all the youth violence.
Other people can role out fake research showing what bad political policys lead to the violence and others can misquote Katz to create the facad of his rasing violence.
You can have long debates with self proclamed experts.
But as I'm blamming a ranter and two political partys people will accually look at my clames and see they hold no water.
But if nobody pokes it... my statment creates the illusion of an airtight case.
Internet the cause of violence?
Yes yes.. keep kids out of schools... education is the cause of school violence...
The kids can not be exposed to knowladge..
No web pages.. no libarys.. no speaking at all...
Keep them in ignorent issolation to the age of 21....
Becouse we are morons.. errr I mean becouse Internet causes violence...
I don't actually exist.
What if I want a bunch of true radicals who stand for Change with a capital boldface C??
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
I've been saying this for years - of course, none of you know me... ;)
If parents were to be held accountable for the childrens actions up until 18, "adulthood", whatever, we would live in a much better world. Parents would suddenly take a MUCH keener look at what their children actually do everyday. It's funny.. you have to have all sorts medical tests, lawyers meetings, and pre-matital counseling to get married, but any two drunk slobs can make a baby, and ruin it for the rest of its life.
Anyway, people should be held accountable for what they do, and do not do. Don't raise your children? They do something bad? You go to jail.
I'm sorry Mr. Katz, but I believe you are guilty of thinking too much like a stereotypical Slashdotter.
I say this because I had a job going to kindergarten schools around Chicago and installing computers that were donated by my client.
It was a kind gesture, and I know he meant well, and at first the teachers and students were enthusiastic about their new classroom accessories.
But then they started asking me "What are we going to do with these things?" And it was then that I realized that the computers were not the means to avert the troubling future that those children face.
A number of the schools were in the middle of lower income neighbourhoods. Would having access to a PC make that child any less succeptible to gang violence? Or parental neglect? Or a dead-end job with no future?
Or perhaps you were thinking only of higher income, suburban children, who have the benefit of a decent future already partially laid out for them. But they alone are not the future, and technology will not, by itself, make their lives better.
The point is, the effect of technology on our children will be minimal until we handle far more important issues like crumbling schools, unfair allocation of education dollars, gang and drug related violence, absentee parents, poverty, malnutrition, and the like.
A rephrasing of your quote: If either Bush, Cheney, Gore or Lieberman cared a whit about children, they would shriek instead that money is wasted on a classroom computer when a child doesn't even have a textbook, or cannot afford lunch.
-- "I am disrespectful to dirt. Can you not see that I am serious!"
I didn't thing Bush said that the internet by itself could do squat.
Most reasonably healthy adults are not going to be twisted by the net. I include 18 year olds in that category.
I admit to my own concerns, though. I have 3 kids of my own. I would love to turn them loose on the net, but don't unless I am there to supervise. Younger kids (not 18 year olds, I would hope) don't know how to parse a lot of this stuff -- and there is a lot of crud and misinformation out there, not to mention stalkers (I presume and hope rare).
All of the unrestricted content (and it ain't just the internet) makes it a lot harder for parents than it used to be. This is especially true when you consider how many one parent families and families with two parents working are out there. That means parents with more on their mind, less energy and less time to supervise and interact with their kids are facing a world that needs more energy and supervision from them.
If I had moderation today I would mod this up.
You make a good point about the wording that Bush used. However, I have heard the man speak enough to realize that what he means to say, and the literal meaning of his words are two different things.
You know, those southern-isms and colloqualisms(sp). So as much as I'd like to believe Bush got this one right, I can't help but think that he didn't, but his poorish english made it appear so.
What do you think?
Blar.
It's funny that although Slashdot nerds have started to admit they don't know the law very well, the active denial of their ignorance of politics is alive and well.
Jon is the idiot. The two major party candidates are both educated and very intelligent. If Jon thinks he could do better I suggest someone follow him around for months, writing down everything he says, and trying to take it out of context. I bet Dan Quail would look better.
If us geeks truely want someone who supports the internet and "get's it", then Harry Brown is a shoe in. But I imagine most of us will continue defending our uninformed political choice we made in a popularity contest more controled by the nightly news than by the issues.
nt (or not).
You idiots, BUSH stated that as a ridiculous statement saying the Internet caused the killings. He said it comes from the heart and home. He stated that you can't blame all these things on everything else but the home and upbringing. Funny how you people like to misconstrue things into your own favor.
-------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
There's no point in even presenting this "argument", as it only highlights your personal bias and stereotypes.
If the American people vote for Gore, they'll get what they deserve. A stupid, pandering, patronizing president for stupid, helpless people.
--- witty signature
Ok, now I'm aroused..
Damn, that's rather funny. I needed that..
Lowmag.net
That is a genetic fallacy. What his grandfather did to support the nazi party has nothing to do with geo w bush. They worked to sell these funds from 1923 to 1942. They may well have known this as a good deal rather than a dealing with a monster. At the time they started issues the nazis claimed to be socialists and not the facist regime they later turned out to be. An investment is about return on money, not about personal politics. Why would you personally invest when you knew it wouldn't work out due to politics?
Lowmag.net
That depends on what your definition of is is.
Lowmag.net
Strange, I'm intelligent, self-moderating, and born to a low-income family. I suppose therefore I'm not an American. Also, America can't be "stupid, petulant and born to privilege." Check your implied subject.
Lowmag.net
Argumentum ad antiquitatem
Argumentum ad novitatem
Both are too common these days, thanks be to the age of marketing.
I've seen the needle and the damage done / A little part of it in everyone
I suppose Mr Young was right.. The damage is done no matter if you can get it electronically as well. It could very well mean that a potential abuser would be turned off or would have no need for abuse. The converse is also possible, and the person wants to get "tactile" in the experience instead of looking at pictures. Nobody wants to think of it, so the topic is usually shelved.
Lowmag.net
Oh really? And This (Gen 3:16) means nothing? That is when he was given control over her.
In other words, Adam said "Bitch set me up.", like Marion Berry, and God punished Eve by putting her in the "kitchen"
Then again, I find the story to be a tale of ignoring god once wisdom is gained, since all he wanted to do was subjugate man as his little naked pets.
Lowmag.net
Yeah, he 404s all the time.
Lowmag.net
You could at least credit this document..
I don't want to be a KH, but it can't be left this way.
Lowmag.net
Torture is barbaric. Execution has been going on for as long as mankind has had laws. It works, and it does serve as an ultimate punishment. Even though GWB got the execution of all three criminals involved in that dragging murder, he did make a good point: they will be executed, you can't punish someone any more than that.
Lowmag.net
Did you read the whole article? Gore supported the expansion of ARPANET into what is now the Internet, by getting funds and publicity. That's what politicians do.
Read the whole article, not just a single quote.
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
Your parents vote republican because they are smart! They know whats best for them and there pocket book. Just rember Al Gore wants to out spend Clinton 1.XX trilion dollar budget by more than 3 times. Even Greenspan thinks this is a bad idea.
I nice that you think you actually believe that you can tell me who I should be voting for. How can you not consider how much the goverment spends to be important.
Al Gore most certainly thinks he invented the internet. Along with lie after lie after lie. This man couldn't tell anybody a strait story if his life depended upon it. If he his willing to lie about a story that can easily be tracked down. Just think about what he will lie about if he becomes president.
Just my views
The idea that the standard of living has increased is dubious at best. Take into account average working hours (on the rise), the need for both adults in a household to work, and the drop in real wages earned by Americans over the last 20-30 years.
Nope! Even on areas where I thought they disagreed, they really ended up being about the same. Missile Defense? Same. Basic research? Only differs in the amounts.
In fact, after looking at this I can see only two issues that might get you to vote one way or another:
1) If you like/dislike the Koyoko plan for Global Warming, then you at least have a difference of opinion (if not in actual methods).
2) If you want to go to Mars, Bush might get you there a little faster. But then again I'm sure if you asked Gore about Mars directly he would be happy to give the same answer.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So then, you disagree that parents should help develop responsible children? You think that censorship and government control of the net (like the Clipper Chip) is a better idea?
/., when his actions (not words) were to try and go for government control over encryption.
Lucky Gore has you to help back him up!
BTW, I'll be voting Nader. But even if Bush couldn't manage to argue the point coherently, that does not make it less sound an idea. I frankly can't understand why there is so much support for Al "Clipper" Gore on
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As to whether the Internet is to blame for violence in America's youth, it seems to me that the Internet is a influence, not the predominant influence . . . yes the Internet makes it easy for kids to find pictures of violence, the Anarchist's Cookbook, and other such things, but the kids who are going to look up this stuff and actually use it probably also have other issues . . . I know when I was in my early teens I looked up all kinds of instructions on making bombs, but I also had been raised reasonably well, and knew that making some nitroglycerin at home, or using some homemade explosive to go blow something up probably wasn't the wisest thing to do . . . while the Internet may serve as a tool to "learn" about violence, it's ridiculous to say that it's driving people to kill others . . .
Stupid == Steve Magruder.
Funny, my copy of the Constitution uses the phrase "well-regulated militia". I fully support private gun ownership, although, being nearly blind, I choose not to exercise that right myself. I do find it amusing how people are willing to debate what the Founding Fathers *meant* when they aren't able to read the words they *wrote*.
Creating the internet does not mean inventing it. Gore took the initiative of demilitarizing ArpaNet and making it public, effectively turning it into the Internet we see today. It takes more than protocols and wires to make an internet, you know... it also took a lot of government support.
The American voters don't seem to realize how much damage they're inflicting on the American image across the world by voting for an idiot like George Walker Bush. They really are indicting themselves. A stupid president for stupid people.
Try this one for more laughs...
toostupidtobepresident.com
Great animations..
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
That some people out there just can't seperate reality from fantasy. These are the people or types of people Bush and Gore are probably refering to when they say "the 'Net turned them" or whatever...
There is a certain percentage of the people that don't know how to seperate what they read as fiction from reality, and the 'Net isn't the best place for them to be running around free.
I don't agree that kids under 16 should be lurking on the 'Net free either, but that responsibility lies in the parents hands, not the politicians.
I cannot vote for Gore, and even if Bush misunderstands some topics, at least he is for smaller government so that means he's for more "people power"...
Gore has already showed weakness for money, as he bowed his stance against the MPAA when they dropped a few million into his campaign fund...
I agree the younger generation is going to change the political process, but it won't be this time, or even next, it is down the road tho.
"This amp is special, see all the knobs go up to 11, that means it is one louder than other amps"
He is not exculpating the internet. Where do you see that? He is pandering to the uninformed, but without any reliable data to back up his claim about the internet, he moves on to another argument. That argument doesn't follow the initial premise about the internet. He did say "as a result of being on the Internet" after all. People who don't listen carefully will now associate the internet with these horrible things.
The things you've said about the Gore camp are true, but your comments prop Bush too high, their both horrible canidates. Makes me wish Bill Bradley had won the democratic primary. *sigh* Looks like Nader will be getting my vote now, though he seems a little too socialist, has an agenda of his own and is way too cynical. He is the best of the three though.
In other words, Al Gore has a habit of claiming to have done more than he actually has. In one instance, the Internet claim - his impact on the Internet has been minimal, trust me. The second instance, claiming to have done work that he in fact hadn't done at all - going to Texas to do whatever.
FYI, Gore DID take that trip Texas. The only mistake he made was in saying he went with the FEMA directory on that particular trip. This is an understandable mistake considering that he went with the directory on 17 other trips over the ppast few years.
Compare this extremely trivial error to the kind of gargantuan whoppers that Bush made during that debate and then ask yourself why the press focuses so much attention on Gore's trivial error while ignoring the big ones that Bush is making almost every day.
Oh, and read the articles linked above and you will see that no less an authority then Vinton Cerf would disagree with your claim that Gore's impact on the internet was "minimal". Some people want to ignore the important role the government had in the creation of the modern internet and prefer to believe some libertarian myth about the internet springing whole from the head of a bunch of hackers.
Sorry, but if it weren't for the government, it is extremely unlikely we would have the internet today.
The individual who wrote that memo has said in repeated interviews that he was not warning Gore about exagerations because of any past pattern of exagerations. It was just a general comment as part of an overall checklist of things that politicians should learn to avoid.
Once again, an allegation against Gore is embellished in order to make him look even worse.
He doesn't lie all the time? How about taking credit for Texas having one of the strongest patient protection acts in the country when the truth is that he vetoed the first version of the bill and then allowed the second version to become law by declining to sign it because it had been passed by a veto proof majority (he didn't want his record to be spoiled by an override).
The truth is that Bush HAS lied, repeatedly, about substantial issues (where is that extra trillion dollars going to come from to help pay off the losses his SS privatization plan will incur?) But the press has gotten into such a story telling mode in the last few years that the only thing that gets coverage are those incidents that fit those story molds (Gore is a liar, Bush is an idiot).
I, too, read about the Bush thing in Alabama, and it appears he never showed up to his unit. But he did make up those weekends later in Texas.
The commander he would have had to report back to didn't remember him showing up either. In fact, there are records that show "did not attend" next to Bush's name.
If the exact same details had come out about Gore this story would have been all over the papers. But it hasn't been. Why? Journalists, such as Howard Kurtz, when asked about this say that it hasn't been covered because it is unfair to accuse Bush of something that would require him to prove a negative. Gee, where was that sense of fairness when all the "prove a negative" accusations were leveled against the Clintons and Gore?
Anyone who watched the videotape of the incident could tell that Gore was telling a joke when he said his mother sang a union song to him as a lullaby. He has been making this joke for YEARS in stump speeches.
But the press has a story to tell. The story is "Gore lies" and they will distort any little nugget that comes along to do so. The list of these is endless: (1) Gore DID hoe a hill using nothing but a team of mules, (2) Gore WAS a model for Love Story, (3) Gore DID play a substantial role in the creation of the modern internet, (4) Gore DID lead the first congressional hearings on Love Canal and other toxic waste dumps, (5) that school in Florida DOES have overcrowded classrooms and that girl DID have to stand in the back as did several others who are STILL doing so at this time.
The truth is that the press has become a mouthpiece for GOP blast faxes that try to turn every positive accomplishment of Gore into a negative. It has been effective. Gore cannot tout his considerable record on the stump because to do so risks the wrath of the pundits and the commentariat.
How else to explain how the most qualified presidential candidate in 50 years is tied in recent polls with easily the LEAST qualified candidate in 100 years?
Where Salon got its info is from people like Vinton Cerf. You know Vinton Cerf right? He's the guy who probably has the most legitimate claim to having "invented" the internet. He supports Gore in his statements on this matter.
Are you saying that Vinton Cerf is garbage?
You must be kidding. There are at least 11 presidential canidates out there. Check out www.lp.org, www.votenader.org or a plethora of other voting sites. Investigate the issues and chose the canidate you prefer.
Unless of course you're asking the question "So, who can I vote for that has a chance to win?" which in my mind is wrong thinking. It's time people stopped fretting over who's going to win and start using their vote to voice their views. It is my firm belief that voting to "win" perpetuates the current status quo in government today.
For myself, I'm voting Nader this time around. I have never liked the Republican party and I feel the Democrats have abandoned issues I feel are important to avoid the "liberal" stigma so many people like to misuse. Do I agree with Nader's platform 100 percent. No. But he best fits my views on the direction I want this country to go.
More importantly, my vote along with everyone else's is going to be put in demographics and analyzed by the major parties. If I don't want Gore and vote Bush what does my vote tell the Democrats? Be more like the Republicans! But if I vote Nader when I would have voted Gore it tells the Democrats to rethink the direction they are taking. If enough of us did that we could effect true change.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Your parallels are not only invalid, they're Katzy.
"access to paint and canvas equals Rembrandt-level talent" is not true, whereas "lack of access to paint and canvas equals non-Rembrandt-level talent" is.
"access to a football equals multi-million dollar contracts with the New York Giants" is not true, whereas "lack of football equals lack of multi-million dollar contracts with the New York Giants" is.
The issue Katz is adressing is potential. The Net is a great way for young people to find their calling... in other words, to create -potential-. It's the individual's responsability to achieve.
I think your post is naked mindless Katz-bashing.. and not that I have anything against Katz-bashing, as long as it's decent Katz-bashing.
THS
---
THS
---
"Poor girl looks as confused as a blind lesbian in a fish market." - Simon R. Green
It was also a profound political blunder: there are more Americans turning 18 than ever before, and they now know that at least one presidential candidate is an idiot.
It doesn't matter how many people are turning 18. Even if they were paying attention to the debate, which they weren't, their opinion doesn't mean a damn thing. They don't vote!
- Old Man of the Mountain ---- "I want to disturb my neighbor"
I'll have to agree. Computers don't belong in a classroom.
Case in point - I'm in class now, not paying attention to the lecture. When class gets boring, I tend to hit the 'net (usually slashdot). I think I'd be better off without the computer, but because it's here, I use it.
And, before anybody mentions it, no, I don't have any willpower..
Feel the fear and do it anyway.
democracy: government by the people.
plutocracy: government by the rich.
hypocracy: government by lying sons-of-bitches.
Ummm...yes... and also by the time he was Bush's age, Einstein was considered one of the greatest scientist's ever. Bush was governor of Texas. Though I must concede that Teaxs is important, being its governor hardly takes a physicist ;)
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
It is funny to read this because it sounds like the Scandinavian countries are free and forward looking. It therefore ougth to be mentioned that just yesterday the Danish Minister of Justice, Frank Jensen, proposed a new law that will enable non-police officers the right to enter people's homes on the suspicion that they have illegal software and/or music in their homes.
Normally I just find too many ignorant and dump politicians in Denmark (the number of stupid laws may even superseed the US ;-) but this one stinks of bribery from software companies (I won't mention anyone in particular ...) or of a very scary level of misunderstanding of the rights of people in a [normally] free country and that from the Minister of Justice!
So we may have free sex (as in speech, not beer) but it may develop into a mayhem of missing liberal rights.
There's an alternative to this Republicrat modus operandi, the Libertarian Party. Check out Libertarian candidate Harry Browne's website to discover his stand on important issues like the one's raised here. And before anyone jumps in with the "don't waste your vote" objection, consider what Harry has to say about that:
"If you vote for George W. Bush because you can't stand Al Gore, your vote will be interpreted as an endorsement for every big-government program George Bush wants to inflict upon you. If you vote for Al Gore because you're afraid of the religious right, your vote will be interpreted as an endorsement for all the plans Al Gore has made for running your life.
The only unmistakable vote you can cast -- the only way you can tell the politicians you're fed up with big government and you won't tolerate it anymore -- is to vote Libertarian."
But many gun owners (don't forget there are 60 million or so of them) believe that registration will precede confiscation, as it did in Australia and England.
... and Nazi Germany.
Everyone should read John Ross's book Unintended Consequences. Read the official review on Barnes & Noble, and then read the submitted reviews.
The biggest blow up in govn't size is during the 8 years Regan administration. That's Republican for you.
The biggest increase in government size and power over individual liberties occurred at the hands of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat.
so they don't have to look at the boring, intelligent, responsible Al Gore on their TV screens.
You mean the lying, deceptive, contradictory, say-anything-to-get-elected Al Gore.
You can pretty easily tell whom among the responses have children and those who still are children. A protection instinct occurs with the former. That instinct may be misdirected when you don't understand a new cultural phenomena, but put yourself in the parents shoes and see where they are coming from.
... and not having children does not preclude you from being one, either.
Overcome your instincts, and participate with the rest of the adults in a rational discussion.
That's interesting. A suggestion that Shrub, also a politician, isn't lying, being deceptive, being contradictory, and saying anything to get elected. Given a Shrub victory, let's see if that massive tax cut materializes.
Ah, very nice.
Of course, you and I both know that I didn't in any way defend Bush, but rather I pointed out flaws in your overwhelming endorsement of Gore.
Maybe they won't notice that I never said anything positive about Bush.
Maybe nobody else will notice that you couldn't defend your favorite candidate.
When oh When are you idiots going to check your sources! Gore never said that he invented the internet. He said that he took the lead (along with many others) in making it possible. Ever wonder where DARPA gets its' funding? Think a Senator might have something to do with that?
Best Slashdot Co
I heard an interesting quote from John Hagelin (3rd party candidate from the Natural Law Party) while watching a PBS special on 3rd party candidates last night. He said something to the effect of the only time we've had any real change in American politics was when a 3rd party candidate was was elected (remember of course that at one time the republican party was a 3rd party). Now I won't speak about the extent that this statement is true (although I believe it may be stretching the truth a little, I think it has some validity as well), but I think it underlies that fact that we won't get any real change with a republicrat in office.
Take any one of the many candidate selector quizzes and I bet that the candidate the most closely matches your views will not be Bush or Gore. I would suggest voting for the person who you most agree with; that sounds like a logical reason to give someone your vote. Although you are free, of course, to vote for whoever you want, and don't have to listen to my rambling...
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
That's the problem with Nader; he's a wonderful idealist, but what he wants is impossible.
On another note, the reason most rich people are Republican has to do with the darwinistic origins of reciprocal altruism. In tribal societies, where droughts can reduce the richest man to nothing, socialism can thrive because everyone knows that they may be on the benefitting end of it someday.
In modern society, lots of people really are rich enough that they can say "fuck off" to poor people who they know are going to be freeloading their whole lives. There's no chance that they will benefit from socialism, and every chance that they will be hurt by it.
I won't comment on whether it's their moral/ethical duty to suck it in and put themselves at a disadvantage. Good question, though; what's special about poor people that rich people should inconvenience themselves for them? Did the poor every inconvenience themselves (willingly) for the rich? Is it ones ethical duty to inconvenience oneself willingly? If so, shouldn't the "good" poor people be sucking it in to support the rich? By intimating that the rich should be the ones to be ethical, are we judging poor people incapable of it?
"If you look 'round the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." -- Quiz Show
Does anybody know if the major parties have developed their party platforms to include a stance on technology? I would be interested to hear the candidates ideas on internet / censorship / intellectual property / etc. before I vote, but I haven't seen anything official.
If you can read this, then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously".
You can shoot people who try to censor the net.
You can shoot people who try to control the net.
You can shoot people who try to take away your AOL.
You can even shoot all those people using your ISP and causing you to get all those busy signals.
(Now that's freedom, right?)
If you can read this, then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously".
While it is true that scientists are still in disagreement about the causes and effects of global warming and wether or not the planet is really heating up, that does not mean that we should trust Bush's record on the environment.
Bush's record on the environment in Texas has been atrocious
Bush's 'real' environmental record in texas
more of Bush on environment
Zambozay! My brain must've been eatin' a sandwich!
GORE is not Congress.
Well yeah, of course, Gore has been Vice President for the last eight years. But the internet was created long before that. Gore was in the United States Congress during the years that the networks that were the precursors to the internet were being created.
I'm not saying that one man created the internet, but he certainly used his influence to help with it's growth and development.
why bush scares me
more reasons bush scares me
Zambozay! My brain must've been eatin' a sandwich!
Note: If the reader of this article is adversely effected by the positive position of the author,
return to reading your well-thumbed autobiography of Tami Faye Baker.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Exactly. Non-Americans don't have, don't understand, and probably don't want American-style freedom. That's fine. You are free to stay in your own country.
If you look at the history of Western civilizations, ALL OF THEM were "founded" by loose allegiances of powerful people who forced their vassals/slaves/serfs to obey them. All of them, that is, except America. We were founded by a bunch of hick jerkoffs who had too many guns, fucked-up religious beliefs, and no tolerance for people who didn't feel the same way they did. And ya know what? America is now the big dog. To embrace another hick-ism for a moment, let's dance with them that brung us.
Foreigners who disagree with our gun ownership are free to invade us and change our minds. For a preview of what you'll face, invade Switzerland first.
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
See the this page for details the main points of libertarian policy.
To me, Nader might as well be running for the Socialist party. Although I agree with many of the goals of the Green party, I think the way they want to accomplish them, through a bigger government, is not the way to go. I am for less government/rules/taxes, not more.
file:
Sure, I'll come up with something substantial: This guy is a dumb ass. The single reason to not vote for him.
/. is a liberal biased site. If you wanna see what you like, how about go to chrstian science monitor?
Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. read before you post.
fact is,
So you mean, you will vote for a complete moron who has the conservative value that you dislike, instead of voting for a guy that has a wife who has the conservative value that you dislike.
The biggest blow up in govn't size is during the 8 years Regan administration. That's Republican for you.
Well, that depends on what state you live in. I live in Massachusetts, and that means that my vote will have no effect on the Presidential election, since it is an utter certainty that Gore will win my state. (In some other states, like Indiana, the result is just as certain the other way.)
Given that, I view my vote as a public-relations exercise, rather than something carrying direct political power. I am leaning toward Browne, but I have to admit that this discussion has made me interested in investigating Nader's positions.
Of course, Nader has some pretty nutty positions, but my real question is whether he or Browne is in a better position to pressure the major parties to pay more attention to individual rights. In the U.S. political system, that sort of pressure is the true power of third parties.
When one says he or she took initiative for creating the Internet, they are stating that they took part in its instantiation. In Gore's case, that is a lie. I don't like the idea of Bush being in office because I don't like seeing a repeat of his father's performance. But as a citizen from TN, Gore's home state, I can say Gore blows. Its just an opinion, and as far as the statement goes about the Internet turning bright people into dark souless sludge, it is possible. Heck, anything is possible. There are less contraints on the net to allow people get involved in things they should have supervision to understand. I don't like the idea of my kids being able to view pr0n, cultish material, or violent material at the request of a mouse click, which I will take proper steps to ensure they can't until they are at an age at which they have reason. However, the point is the unbridled and easily influenced youth are impressionable. If one allows them to be influenced by ease of access material on the net, then it goes without saying that the net can influnce that person in ways subject to the material's theme. I totally understand that questionable material can be acquired anywhere, but the point is this is a door-way in one's home in most cases, so people have to ensure he or she can guard against it. Oh yeah, Katz, you still suck! Has
futang futang!
To quote:
But Columbine spoke to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line, we've begun to disrespect life, where a child can walk in and can have their heart turned dark as a result of being on the Internet, and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life. So gun laws are important, no question about it. But so is loving children and, you know, character education classes, and faith-based programs being a part of after-school programs. Somebody -- some desperate child needs to have somebody put their arm around them and say, "We love you." And so there's a -- this is a society that -- of ours has got to do a better job of teaching children right from wrong.
Now read: ...have their heart turned dark as a result of being on the Internet. On top of that, we need "character education classes" and "faith-based programs" after school. Great, let's teach Christianity to everyone because we know it makes them a more caring, less psycho-killer person.
Please go read the debate before you start spouting BS. Uninformed people are the most dangerous problem in politics. Please become informed so you don't screw up the rest of our futures.
Read the Oct. 11th debate here.
Title of the article:
The Man George Shultz Saw Gov. Bush is Reaganesque. Now America knows it.
Oh joy! Just what we need, another Reagan. Let's make my money more worthless while we empower the military. Strong America! BOOGA! MIGHTY AMERICAN BEAT DOWN EVIL COMMUNIST WITH BIG BOMB! BOOGA BOOGA!
It corresponds to the demographics of the most crime prone age group. I expect that it's going to go up again as this group grows.
Where do you live, that you can claim this? Here in Pennsylvania, school strikes are as much a part of autumn as falling leaves. The state government eventually put in a law that forces the teachers' unions to end walkouts so that a full school year can be completed before a certain date.
If you look higher up in the postings, you can find out how the "Gore thinks he owns the Internet" story got spread and, later, rebutted.
You owe it to yourself to check if you think you haven't got a candidate. I was born in Tejas and my folks are still stuck there under Bush. You don't want to know (or maybe you better find out) what his REAL record there has been.
If you don't vote for Gore - depending of course on yr state - sad to say, you WILL GET Bush.
Wait, why are certain groups inclusive of a 5-year age range and others 2 or 3? That would seriously affect the distribution in your figures.
"Facts are lazy and facts are late. Facts are silly and facts are straight. Facts don't come with points of view. Facts don't do what I want them to. Facts are twisting the truth around. Facts are living turned upside down. Facts are getting the best of them. Facts are nothing in the face of things." -"Cross-eyed and Painless" Talking Heads
The real test is who would be the best lacky. From that standpoint I think Bush fits the bill better.
C'mon, substantiate your points. How is Bush a better listener? Are you saying this because he can't speak worth a piss?
Who do you think makes the laws that corporations must follow? The law fairy?
As someone who DOES look at such issues, and searches for law and fact rather than propaganda... you happen to be wrong.
*sigh*
There are two types of militia -- the Organized and the Unorganized. Most of the US-based Slashdotters are part of the latter, I'd wager, as defined by the US Code --
10 USC Sec. 311 (a) --
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
And if you're curious about the term 'arms', you can trace its history throughout precedents in English law, where t'was taken to mean primarily person-carried firearms (excluding, say, horse-drawn cannon and other large artillery), and it WAS indeed meant that the people retain their weapons on their property, not in arsenals.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I'd think they've more cynical than stupid. Right now, they need to maximize electoral votes, which means pandering to blocs of undecideds.
As one Dem. media chap said (on PBS after the second pres. debate), everybody knows that the "promises" made during a campaign are non-binding.
They're just trying to gain votes, for the most part -- although some of their stances ARE unpopular. (Try considering Bush's pledge to appoint strict constructionists. Then figure out how to reconcile the Dept. of Education with strict constructionism, considering that the only relevant clause is the elastic clause, IIRC, and it's hard to argue that the states are incapable of administering education systems while the Feds are not. But then try to convince the public to kill the department -- that'll cost you votes.)
They'd accuse each other of being from outer space if their research suggested it'd be a net plus.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
If American schoolchildren were provided the same kind of bandwidth college students are, just imagine the kind of creative technological outpouring they might be capable of,
"Creative technological outpouring" must be a euphemism for "new ways to mass-pirate mp3s".
The record industry is not the enemy. If artists don't want to make their music free, the artists are the enemy. The record industry's motives are money. At least we know where they stand. People like Tipper's motives are all about control over people. The record industry doesn't want to control you, they just want your money. You tell me which one is worse.
Someone you trust is one of us.
When the media, /. included, started saying that Bush says it's the Internet's fault for atrocities that disturbed young people are commiting. The medi is taking Gov. Bush out of context...as ussual. He finished the statement with a sentence saying that parents need to be more involved in the affairs of their children. He wasn't really thinking clearly when he said it was the Internet that "turns hearts dark...", but the absence of supervision and real family togetherness (not "quality time") which contributes to this bullshit.
;-)
Maybe folks should stop pointing the fingers at the media, the internet, video games, marketing, etc...and look in the mirror. I truly believe this is what Gov. Bush was trying to say...if he would only stop bumbling his words!
This has been the land of finding fault and not accepting responsibility for one's own actions for as long as I can remember. Once people stop blaming others and realize they are responsible for the things that happen under their roof...things will hopefully get better. Kids that kill other kids are definately missing something in their lives.
Maybe folks should stop medicating their kids and talking to them about their troubles instead.
but me R 23 d00dz and 3y3 no how to tipe and spel better 3rd gr4derz me know use run on sintinces what u think?>
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
Of course George Bush mentioned the internet when mentioning cultural impact, because the internet is now part of our culture.
Get used to it, folks! The internet has bad things on it and bad influences, just like any other part of our mass media culture. Just because a candidate mentions that negative influence does not mean that he is idiotic or clueless or anything else... in fact, quite the opposite.
I tire of the paranoid rantings of internet folks who freak out every time someone says something negative about the net. Guys, that it gets mentioned at all is a sign of its success. If it becomes an integral part of life, then it will become an integral part of both the good and bad sides of life.
I watched that debate. George Bush didn't attack the internet. He attacked negative sides of our culture (which are very real and can be quite dangerous to the already deluded) and happened to mention that people were be able to access it via the net.
Grow up! Not every mention of the net is an cry for censorship. Not everything about the net is good. And the net is no longer the private toy of geeks, privacy advocates and libertarians!
The only good weather is bad weather.
Oversimplified.
Gore thinks that environment is more important than people (it's in his book even if he tones it down on TV).
Bush thinks that one must compromise environmental protection in some cases. I agree with him.
Environmentalism has become the latest cult. It is now an animist religion.
You can tell an environmentalist from a conservationist (someone, like Bush or myself or many others, who wants to preserve some of the environment for the future) by asking them what the purpose of environmental policy is.
The modern environmentalist will not have a ready answer, because to them environmentalism is a religion.
The conservationist will say that one should preserve the environment, as appropriate, for future use by mankind.
The only good weather is bad weather.
...politicans just don't "get it." And sometimes politicans exagerate (like when their mouth is open). Gee, write an article.
Jeez.
Bush simply wants the freedom to continue living the way he did when he was young. You want essentially the same thing.
It is up to each generation to avidly protect their most precious freedoms from attact. You, and Bush, are simply trying to protect and promote the lifestyles that work for your respective generations. You are both entitled because it's a free country. As long as we keep it free, the details will work out.
****** WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Cre
But the consensus in the active scientific community (as documented by his 19,000 signatures) is that a) the Earth may be edging up slightly in temperature, but nothing at all like the scare-mongers have predicted, and b) there is very little reason to believe the cause is human-related, rather than natural. In fact, our contribution to so-called 'greenhouse gasses' is tiny in relation to natural events like the evaporation of seawater and the constant eruption of volcanoes. The gradual movement of the earth out of the ice ages of a few thousand years ago is the most likely explanation.
You really need to be more particular about who you trust on this issue. As for me, I trust my fellow scientists.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
I will admit that I am not voting for him, but that doesn't change the facts: that there are plenty of honest Democrats that could have been nominated instead of the liar Gore. It's like the Democrats don't seem to care anymore if they put honorable folks up for election. They used to.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
Bush is simply not fighting a war that he has no chance of winning in this election.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
I'm sorry for appearing close-minded about your Nader-Browne dilemma, but I was assuming that elections were all about choosing the candidate who most closely reflects your view of what the person should do when elected. Browne and Nader would make almost every decision in the opposite way. They are night and day. So rather than disparage your political knowledge I should have wondered whether or not you have made up your mind what a government should be.
Finally, I think corporations generally increase freedom, in that they create and disseminate vast wealth, which gives us enormous amounts of leisure, and they also sell us the things we want, that we couldn't readily create ourselves, like cars, microwave ovens, trips on airplanes, cheapp books, and all that. I believe those two factors create unheard-of freedom for citizens of a free-market society.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
I, too, read about the Bush thing in Alabama, and it appears he never showed up to his unit. But he did make up those weekends later in Texas. This was not uncommon at the time, and seems to have something to do with the fact that there were no planes for him to fly in Alabama. It probably had even more to do with the fact that Bush was irresponsible in his 20's.
The education reform, is admittedly, an ongoing thing, but when Bush brags about test results improving, he is referring to years while he was governor. And his literacy program for the youngest kids was his, not White's or Richards'.
With regard to taxes, you can hardly blame him for the decisions of your local tax authority. But the census figures in the news a few days ago confirmed that Texas is among the lowest-taxed states in America, along with New Hampshire and Tennessee.
Finally, Texas has a huge number of uninsured because they have so many legal and illegal immigrants. Those immigrants do not unusally acquire insurance like all the white people in, say, Nebraska do. That does not mean that all the unisured people in Texas go without health care. Indeed, it is state law in Texas that non-profit hospitals must treat indigent patients regardless of their lack of insurance.
No, not all politicians are liars, and not all lying politicians are Democrats. But Gore is a compulsive liar, and Bush, whether or not you ever agree with his policies, is not a liar.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
You called at least one of the candidates are idiots. Both them are. Look at liberal Gore who claims to have invented it.
There's not tech savvy about The Net doesn't kill people.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I don't expect the government to keep me going into retirement, I expect the government to pay me back the money they 'borrow' every week out of my paycheck for social security. I'm supposed to get that back, that's not a tax.
Sigs are awesome huh?
Perhaps the real question is which candidate do we think will be more likely to pick a good cabinet and then listen to them? In other words, who will be the better delegator. From that standpoint I think Bush fits the bill better.
-- Argel
Uh, if you're gonna vote 3rd party, vote for Browne. Nader only wants to imprison the populace in a Green/Red New-Communist state.
think. think. think.
Don't you think it's time to start communicating?
.....is that 18 year olds as a whole don't vote. Sure some do, maybe a lot of them you know, but compared to some of the other demographic groups they really suck when it comes to voting. That's why the politician who wins will be the one who plays to the tune of the soccer moms and the old folks who care about medicare and social security.
I'm not saying all is lost. I'm just saying GET OUT AND VOTE! If we want politicians to listen to us, we have to show them that they are accountable to us.
Do your part.
I know you were kidding, but:
The PMRC and the RIAA were in bed on this one. The whole point of the record-labeling hearings (before a committee of which Gore was a member (and Gore was in favor of them)) was to distract the press and public from another RIAA/Gore-sponsored bill that we have come to know as the "blank tape tax," which was, at the same time, in committee (a committee of which Gore was the chair). It was the first bill of its kind. Look where we are now. Thank the Gores.
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
And these people are just looking for an easy way out, a "simple solution" to a problem that they simply don't know how to solve. It's so much easier to point the finger at Quake and say, "Video-games made him do it!!!" than it is to point at society at large.
Add shitty parents that want to abdicate responsibility for their shortcomings to id Software et al...
I would agree that his comments seem to be just political bull shit directed at the target demographic. But that isn't going to win my vote. I'm not sure anymore who I should even consider voting for. Is this really how Bush feels or if he was talking to a bunch of college students would be be pro-internet.
Yes there is some bad stuff on the internet and it can lead to violence. But the Computers and the internet are my life. I'm finishing up my CS degree and want to vote for someone who takes a stand for helping technology and the internet. I don't want someone who will just condem it.
I no longer have a candidate to vote for. Bush talks the internet down to appeal to demographics. Gore thinks he owns the stupid thing. Liberman would like it if it grew on a tree. So, who can I vote for???
... this is the first JonKatz article in a long time that has actually made sense!
(not a troll)
-----
KEEP THE NET FREE!!! http://www.harrybrowne.org
poop.
Secondly, while there may be no consensus as to the impacts of global warming, there is a concensus that it is in fact occuring and changes are being measured (rising sea levels, temperatures, etc). Check the EPA website if you don't believe me.
I've read about 50 articles on both sides of the issue, and it's pretty obvious that humans are measurably changing the planets' climate. it would be wise to see what trouble we are getting ourselves into instead of dismissing it out of hand.
beware the jabberwock, my son! the jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
He gets paid for this?
'nuf said
I'm still working on a clever footer.
First off I'm voting for the person who will defend of my "real life" freedoms. This is Bush. Which candidate knows more about the internet is meaningless to me. I'm certainly not voting for Gore, who will continue to raise taxes for the "chilrun". We will have plenty of time to hash out our net rights. I just don't want another 8 years of oppression.
Faith: Belief in Truth. Superstition: Belief in Falsehood.
What if the idiot is right? What if there is an insideous evil lurking just around the corner from all of us...what if this idiot has turned a corner once or twice in his life and seen such an evil? Are we so secure in our understanding of this new technology that we can so easily discount the fear that might eminate from the idiots? Shouldn't we examine our beliefs, and REALLY look at why we refuse to even listen to a different opinion? In fact, isn't that what we claim is the problem...that we aren't being listened to?
- real hackers don't have sigs -
Wake up and smell the electoral college coffee.
We have a two-party system for presidential races, and while it's certainly possible for an enterprising pro wrestler to win himself a govenorship, winning a majority of votes in a majority of states is totally impossible at this time, especially for the pigeonholed 'other' candidates.
A vote for Nader or Browne or Buchanan is like not voting - none of the above gents will be elected in the fall, so your vote doesn't count for anything other than a moral victory.
And as anyone who played Illuminati can tell you, Moral Victories Don't Count.
== It is unbecoming for young men to utter maxims. -Aristotle
You are falling into the same trap that you accuse your detractors of ignoring. Interpretations of the law have changed over the course of the past 200 odd years, and this issue has already been to the Supreme Court. Guess what? They didn't agree that any random citizen has the right to own guns.
Let me say that again: the 2nd amendment confers NO RIGHTS upon the average citizen; only miltias have the right to bear arms.
The reason for the confusion is that none of your definitions of militia fit the legal definition. When the amendment was framed it was intended to protect State's rights by ensuring that the States would always have the ability to form an army. Thus, in order to be in a militia you must be a member of a state or local emergency/paramilitary organization. Only then do you have a consitutional right to own a weapon, and you have it only so long as the state deems you a member.
The quote is "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Try reading the Salon article before posting more factual inaccuracies.
Awww..
I think it's cute when kids can click the mouse on a picture, but when you ask them what it says they can't tell you because they can't read for shit.
--Have a Johsonville brat.
Technology is advancing at a tremendous rate across the globe, and no doubt, for many young people, this technology is quite natural and comfortable. He raises the valid point that access to this technology should be extended to all young people.
But just because young people are comfortable *using* technology does not necessarily mean that they should be the people making decisions about how technology is used.
I'm sure some people will take offense to this, but in almost every culture other than that of the US, there is a reverence for experience and wisdom. I'm not saying that Gore and Bush are wise, but they do have experience in the grey of the real world.
Often I get the feeling that Katz sees the world in black and white - there are the "smart" people who use technology extensively and grok it intuitively, and there are the "idiots" who are older and don't know how to use Napster (and therefore can't make decisions about technology).
Political policy in a pluralistic, democratic society is based on compromise. At the root level, it's about many people sitting together in a room and figuring out how to come up with solutions that everyone can live with, even if it doesn't make everyone completely happy.
There's a reason that 15 year olds don't have the right to vote. There's a reason Americans aren't electing 25 year olds to the Senate left and right. Experience in the world outside of technology can give valuable perspective. Let's not get so entranced by the latest technology that we forget it is just one part of the larger world.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Two years ago, they elected Tammy Baldwin to Congress. She was (and is) the first out lesbian elected to Congress, and during they primary, smart money was on either of her two "more electable" opponents.
Tammy and her supporters talked about issues that college students and 20-somethings in Madison cared about (education, health care), talked with them (not down to them), got them excited about the election, and had a really amazing voter turnout organizing system that got a lot of people to the polls who often don't bother to vote.
The key thing to remember is TO VOTE. None of this works otherwise. Find your your Representatives in Congress here, and call them to find out how to register to vote, if you aren't already registered.
These opinions are my own. My employer is not aware of them, does not endorse them, and is not responsible for them.
The trouble with Nader's approach, in my opinion, is that the cure he's proposing is worse than the disease. Yes, corporations can be evil, but the government has a much greater potential for evil than any corporation. Corporations can reduce your choices as a consumer and harass you with lawsuits, but they are still bound by the law. The government, on the other hand, can generally do whatever they want, without regard to legality. Yes, there are legal limits on what the government can and cannot do, but there are no penalties for violating those limits. The Tenth Amendment has been violated so much that it essentially doesn't exist anymore, and the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth amendments are also under attack. Giving more power to the government is not the solution. To paraphrase a common saying, "More government is not the answer. More government is the question. NO is the answer."
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
Very nice speech... Let me guess, you are a democrat. The fact is that the net is wonderful, and if you could keep the kids out there from experiencing the 'dark side' all would be well in the world, BUT you cannot monitor you children 24/7, be practical. You would not allow your children to go into a library that had hard core porn or a section on how to build a pipe bomb unattended even though it had all the best literature, would you? I believe that he was not demeaning the net rather just saying that we should be watching what our children do...
_BoHiCa_
Although there is a large amount of the population that is young, the core is the older people who actually get out of thier house and VOTE. Many of these older people are so technophobic that talk about mapping the human gene seems sacriligious. Hell, my grandma won't even check the propane level in her trailer (it involves reading a small gauge on the tanks) and I've never seen her ever touch a keyboard. Yet these are the people who go to the booth and punch a card.
Unless the younger generations get out and vote, the dinosaurs will continue to rule because we don't adaquatly tell them what we want.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
Jon, you have no idea what UNBIASED reporting is. You state later in the article a comment to the effect of "all the candidates are equally this clueless." Well why didn't you call them ALL idiots? I quote:
And to be fair, it isn't just Bush. The high point of the vice-presidential confrontation was when the Republican candidate Richard Cheney berated the Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman for softening his ferocious attacks on the "violent" culture of the young, especially movies, TV shows and videogames.
So why didn't you call them ALL idiots? Why make the headline?
I'll tell you why! You're first and foremost _THE_ Slashdot TROLL. Sorry to Sig11 and Enoch_Root, but you guys got NOTHING on this guy. At least Sig11, etc., are funny to read sometimes. Hell, even OOG the Opensource Caveman had more intelligent reporting to do than you.
What the hell, Slashdot? Why are you guys doing PROMOTING this travesty of journalism? If you have a political opinion, BE SURE THAT YOU CALL IT AN OPINION. Anything else is juvenile and irresponsible.
Can we agree that today's politicians are ignorant of the Internet and what it really means? Slashdot: If you really cared about trolls you'd drop this sensationalist like a hot rock.
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
Caveat: I am voting for either Ralph Nader or Harry Brown While I applaud you for having the courage of your convictions, I can't help but fear that you're playing directly into the hands of the Man. The people that understand and care about the technology--and then vote "their consciences"--are precisely the people whose votes will go into a tiny little column of protest votes to be largely ignored for the next four years no matter whether it's Bush or Gore who wins the big pot. I'm not thrilled about it, but my vote's going to Gore. I believe he's more likely to put savvier people on the Supreme Bench, I think he's got a better chance of bringing some technogrok into the office of the President, and, frankly, I'd rather have a President who's made it that far on his own shady dealings rather than relying on those of his Daddy. --Fritz -----------
Win the war on drugs: Legalize. Regulate. Tax.
How about we get back to teaching what kids need to know to get through life. Reading is important for numerous reasons. Math lets them describe their world in measurable ways. Literature helps them understand their feelings, and express themselves to others. History tells them how we got here, and generally points to where we're going. Science teaches critical thinking. These are what schools need, not computers. Ignore these, and we'll get a society that won't even know how to build a computer!
I agree with this 100%. What's needed is a reform in the school system (particularly at the administration level). All of the skills mentioned above are important, but there needs to be some initiative on the part of the student to take action, find out what he/she wants out of life, then go after it.
Sticks, knifes, etc. all have other, ligitimate, uses. Guns have only one use, and that is to fataly injure a human being. There is no other reason to own a gun. People who use your argument tend to be clutching at NRA provided straws.
Guns can be used for defensive purposes. This is in fact, their only legitimate use. (Aside from hunting, target shooting, etc...) BTW I do not own a gun, nor am I a member of the NRA, but I want the right to own a gun should I choose to do so.
The fact that you, and other pro-gun owners like you, also seem to think that the Government will turn around and start to attack you if you don't own Guns, shows that you are mentally dilusional, and therefore should be excluded from owning a gun in the first place.
I don't think that my government is out to get me. I'm not building a bunker in my backyard or stockpiling weapons. Things change though, not that I'm expecting it to happen, but it could.
Some people choose to interpret this to mean that they have a right to own a lethal firearm that is capable to inflicting serious injuries and death. A tool that in the wrong hands, is capable of removing another human beings right to life.
A big stick could kill someone too. Should we make those illegal?
A rational person should be able to read this in the manner in which it was intended. They will be able to understand that "a well regulated malitia" does not describe the general population of The United States of America. It does, of course, refer to a Government Controlled Army, Navy and Airforce.
Oh, I love this one, your implication that anyone that doesn't agree with you is not rational. BTW do you even know what a militia is?
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Check your facts before telling us "rational" people what to think.
They clearly fail to realise that they have mis-interpreted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, using it in such a way as to satisfy their child like need to own a lethal firearm. They choose to ignore the overwhelming statistics that show that gun related accidents, including those that resulted in death, are exponentially higher in the United States of America, than in countries with sensible gun control policies.
Oh, so now we're children? You're such a sweet talker... What statistics, and what power are we raising them too? Sensible? You mean like England where no one has a gun except the government? Great, that's just what we need, totally disarm the people so that they can't defend themselves. Yes, even from the government, this becomes neccessary from time to time. You know the old saying "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"? It's true. Another thing, why are you continually prefaceing "firearm" with lethal? A gun is a tool just like any other. If you misuse it, it can be dangerous but this is true for just about anything you name.
These people are the enemies of the United States of America
No sir, you are the enemy.
Thats great but its too late to register and vote in the November election. The Clue Stick Says that you needed to register by the 10th of October. John Katz this was pathetic. 'Nuff said.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
thats great but why then has the standard of living increased?
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
Gore, of course, had no response.
Ok, Bush made his comment while responding to a question about gun control. His comment was an excuse and went a bit off-topic. IIRC, Gore did not have a rebuttel opportunity but if he even did it is very wise to not touch that loaded statement! I think Gore is right not to touch that statement by Bush because the damage has been done to Bush by that statement and adding any comments at all to it can only hurt Gore in the debate.
Fortunately the spin-doctors have repaired the damages...
I don't especially like George W. Bush, but you have to realize the error of your statement. Elderly people are the ones that vote more per person than any other age group. Technologically-confused elderly people will not understand the Internet and video game violence the same way an 18 year old would, and thus would probably agree with Bush. He's appealing to the people who vote the most, which is what any wise politician would do if he wants in office. Regards, Neil
Trolls make great pets. Adopt one today!
Candidate A: Advocates less government.
Candidate B: #2 man in an administration responsible for Carnivore, the running amok of Echelon, and other incredibly egregious assaults on personal privacy and liberty. Has done absolutely nothing while the USPTO has buried us alive in stupid patents. Has been one of the strongest cheerleaders of the breathtaking disregard for private property rights as implemented by the National Park Service. Has as co-pilot one of the most ardent and high-profile censorship advocates of modern times.
Hmmm, I don't seem to have much difficulty with this choice.
-- Brad Felmey
The bigger the size of the country the smaller the size of the brains of their political candidates it seems. Because of the fact that there are only two(!!!) presidential candidates it seems that they really Have to be mainstream. So if they can be as ignorant as the mainstream (and they are), they will get their votes and so they will be president as easy as that. It begins to look as "1984" to me.
Maybe we should just ignore them, because we all know the real power is in hands of the multizillion$ multinationals. The president is just their puppet to keep the mainstream happy. I will not make a big issue about the candidates knowing sh*t about technology (who cares We are in the middle of the most profoundly deep technological revolution in human history sofar).
Democra$y is just not what it used to be is the only thought that haunts me. If freespeech online is what we want, shouldn't really be a such a big issue, because the USA 0wn$ only small part of it, if everything will go wrong there are still smaller more liberal countries out there that will host your content.
What about the big $ companies? Their influence cannot be denied. Since they have the money to get their power in politics and media they can control the mass. I wonder what will be the outcome of the micros~1 trial.
It seems that for now the only thing we have is linux, free bsd etc. and open source, it will give you what you want. But will it hurt the companies enough to remove their finger from the rope that is controlling the puppet? I don't think so, but it will give you a chance on free speech and hopefully some more media backup.
there are more Americans turning 18 than ever before
I thought that the older age group was getting bigger. Longer life expectancy means more old people. Maybe this is his intended audience; the one that he thinks is more important.
What percentage of 18 year olds vote? What percentage of "older" people vote? Think he might have considered this?
oojah
Do you have any better hostages?
I said I would not flood the world again so instead I will make everyone suffer by creating Microsoft, AMAZON.COM, and the RIAA. ~ God...
You're right. Character does matter. Lets look a little more closely at that paragon of morality and truthfullness, George W. Bush.
Note that this isn't about the death penalty itself, it's about Bush's approach to it. Taking a human life is the most terrible of responsibilities for any leader. It's a penalty only to be applied in the most extreme cases, and only when you're certain of the facts. Yet Bush applies it liberally, gleefully, and without the slightest awareness of the responsibility he holds. If he takes a "what, me worry?" attitude toward the actual killing of American citizens, what makes you think he's going to take any of his other civil responsibilities seriously?
I'm always flabbergasted at people who argue for the rights of CEO's to poison them. Do you own a factory? Are you getting a big tax break on that oil well you just inherited? If the answer is no, then why in the hell do you think you'll be better off breathing poisoned air, drinking poisoned water, and eating food grown from poisoned soil? Do you want the rest of the USA to be as polluted as Texas?
86.1% of Americans had health care coverage in 1999. Meanwhile, 75.9% of Texans did. Don't trust me, look it up yourself.
In additon to being a lie, this incident gave a good indication of the kind of people Bush surrounds himself with -- sophmoric buffoons. Everybody knows subliminal ads don't work, at least not for something as abstract as a political campaign. But they did it anyway, just to be cute. It doesn't give me much confidence when it comes to Bush's selection of a cabinet -- and remember, that cabinet will be doing all the work, since Bush's philosophy is that a leader doesn't have to actually know anything. Similarly, his close affiliation with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, and the like simply terrifies me, particularly when it comes to the influence they'll wield on supreme court appointments, which could have ruinous effects for the next thirty years.
So in short, Gore has told some lies about minor details of his anecdotes, while Bush has told lies about the sum and substance of his policies. Since you have the simplistic and childish viewpoint that you'll never vote for a politician that lies, I guess that means you can't vote for either. And you can't vote for Nader, either, since he's constantly telling the single biggest lie of all of this campaign -- that there's no difference between Bush and Gore.
I guess you'll have to stay home on Election day.
what a moron.
http://www.harrybrowne2000.org
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
How about this - In order to own a gun, or even just an 'assualt weapon' of whatever defintion, you have to join the militia. You'd get the weekends and the the summer 'vacation' training, a check from Uncle Sam and the joy of filling sandbags the next time there's a flood (or whatever natural/man-made disaster strikes your area). The training would probably reduce the number of accidental deaths significantly, as well as take away some of the 'Look at mah new toy Billy Joe' factor, turning guns into things you need for work, not symbols of manhood. The militia requirement would also make it easier to guns away from people who were too stupid and/or immature to be trusted with them. ('What's that, too hungover to show up for drill? No problem, the rest of the platoon will swing by and pick up your H&K MP5 and the L1A1, you can keep the squirrel rifle.')
The militia/Guard seems like they have problems with getting and retaining people and this would help with that, especially in getting people who have obscure technical skills that can get much better $$ without marching, etc.
"Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
Do you think that GW ('There ought to be limits on freedom') Bush would be for or against record-labelling? The only reason Bush mentioned the 'Net and not music is because nobody has made much of a stink over music lately, except for gays and womans-rights groups, neither of whom GWB gives a rat's ass about.
And about the 'less government' line, listen up: No politician wants less government, they just want more government in different areas. Some pols think the government shouldn't bother with making sure corps don't dump poison into drinking water but should be able to seize your property without a trial, read your mail, tap your phones and execute retarded kids. Some pols think the goverment should break up monopolies, punish polluters, and make sure your workplace is safe, but not hold individuals responsible for their actions until they've screwed up a few times. You might prefer one over the other, but don't spew that 'X wants less government' crap, because it just shows you're not paying attention.
"Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
Sure the Internet is new, Al Gore and George Bush are running for president, and school-shootings are new. But the concept is the same. An enemy within the country, a minority, a concept, which wants to subvert the majority, using deception, "propaganda" and "violence". In 1830's it was the Free Masons, in 1860-1900's it was the Indians, in 1914-1918 it was The Kaiser and the immigrants, in 1918-1989 it was the Commies. Sometimes it was just presedential speaches about "the evil empire", sometimes it was McCarthist witch-hunts, sometimes it was murder outright, sometimes it was just closing the gate. So why do we need another battle against "subversion" by the enemy within in the 21st century?
As to Mars, as much as I would like to see an expedition to Mars, it is certainly not a major issue, and any politician would consider it very carefully, before allocating the enormous resources needed.
I guess science is never a very important campaign issue. And I don't know whether it should be.
what *are* you talking about ? how does a computer give an inner-city, impoverished, malnourished and not particularly loved child "go where they want and do as they please". there is no evidence that exposure to computers in high school has anything to do with career success (something of which i am a great example, actually). good *education* can offer children the promise of greater freedom, but it doesn't help them right now, and it doesn't have to do with computers.
We have a country full of brilliant people, but this is the best we can do for an election? What is the problem here? This isn't just a matter of agreement or disagreement -- the people running (the ones likely to win, at least) really are idiotic. Pat Buchanin and Ralph Nader are both incredibly intellegent and are locked out. I think Pat's a fascist, but at least he can articulate his fascism. We even have more moderate smart people who could run. Just to name a few (people I disagree with, just so you know I'm not biased): Bill Buckley, John McCain, Thomas Friedman. We have plenty of smart leftists, also. Why are these people shut out of the presidential elections? Why are we consistently forced to choose between substandard candidates? How do people like Dan Quayle and GW Bush get taken seriously?
Maybe if your sig made grammatical sense we could take you a little more seriously. And one other thing; it's easy to be flippant about social security if you've never been in a position where you might need it.
How can we take you seriously when you just perpetuate misquotes? Gore said he was the inspiration for PART of Love Story. The author has publically stated that Gore's strained relationship with his father was the inspiration for that theme in the book. Gore's college room mate Tommy Lee Jones was part of the inspiration for the romantic theme.
I agree that Gore's statement misled people, but so are you and everyone who keep misquoting him willfully.
This is not a criticism of you in particular. Have you noticed that everyone critizing that statement seems to have to reword the sentence? Suddenly he didn't say "create", he said "develop", which has a different connotation. Suddenly he said "I invented the Internet" and not "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
If you have to misquote someone to get your point across, you don't have much of an argument in the first place.
Don't put quotes around something unless you are quoting correctly. It is bad grammar.
And where did you read this, may I ask? I just read that the moon is made out of cheese in a children's book, but that doesn't make it so.
It was also a profound political blunder: there are more Americans turning 18 than ever before, and they now know that at least one presidential candidate is an idiot.
How can it be a profound blunder when Bush is doing well in the polls and most Americans turning 18 aren't voting anyway? Do you honestly think there are a ton of young voters who are die-hard in their belief that there aren't any bad influences on the net? Do you think they'll change their political ideologies and not vote for Bush now?
isn't our society currently 'graying' where more people are aging over 65 than are being born? so there are alot of old people who think the same way bush does right? and how many of these new-fangled 18 year olds are going to vote? i know i am, but i'm voting for nader, which according to everyone is a vote for bush. but i refuse to be intimidated damn you! i will vote for who i want to vote without fear.
0 -09
clinton has mentioned the digital divide more than once, right? does that mean gore wants to address it? i haven't heard much from him one way or the other. if the internet turns people's hearts dark, i doubt bush wants to increase internet access. and jamie's gonna have a field day when the fuckers come to censor his library ^^;;
bush is an idiot who thinks the net turns us 'dark' right? what's his proof? he was probably reading slashdot with a threshold of -1, the way moderators should be. hm. i wonder how many political candidates are slashdot moderators. as for lieberman, here is the appropriate penny-arcade: http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2000-1
as soon as i get a color printer, that's what i'm putting on my door.
"The sad political truth is that access to the Net, the Web and broadband equals creativity, confidence and opportunity." This is a very serious question: If more people in the middle east had access to the net, do you think the situation currently occuring there would occur more or less often?
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
Caveat Emptor. If you don't want to pay the taxes, don't live in the country that takes them without giving you the choice, and wastes the money better than any other organization.
Anyone can spend better than most governments, IMO.
"FYI, Gore DID take that trip Texas. The only mistake he made was in saying he went with the FEMA directory on that particular trip. This is an understandable mistake considering that he went with the directory on 17 other trips over the ppast few years."
I would doubt it is an understandable mistake - it is understandable to Democrat supporters who will naturally defend Gore no matter what he does.
To people who don't want politicians making lies even before they get into the office they're campaigning for, it is unforgiveable.
Gore is shooting himself in the foot with these moronic statements. He's an idiot anyway, and will be a horrible president if he gets elected. People supporting Gore aren't supporting him at all - he is a dufus and everyone knows it; the democrat suppporters are supporting the party, not the candidate.
"Compare this extremely trivial error to the kind of gargantuan whoppers that Bush made during that debate and then ask yourself why the press focuses so much attention on Gore's trivial error while ignoring the big ones that Bush is making almost every day."
The media pays such close attention because they should be. And the idea that the media is biased against Gore is absolutely crazy - the media is dominated by left-wing thinking in North America, and this election is no exception. But that doesn't mean they let a dufus get away with being a dufus - they're going after Gore and what he claims (at least the overstated claims anyway) just like they should be.
"Oh, and read the articles linked above and you will see that no less an authority then Vinton Cerf would disagree with your claim that Gore's impact on the internet was "minimal"."
Oh, gee, Mister Cerf said so, so let's all believe him. I don't care what he claims - Gore has had an insignificant impact on the Internet, and will never have anything more than that.
"Some people want to ignore the important role the government had in the creation of the modern internet and prefer to believe some libertarian myth about the internet springing whole from the head of a bunch of hackers."
Realistically, that is exactly the case. The government played a role - they identified a need for a redundant communication system for military purposes, knew that University people were smart and could do it, and then threw money at those University folk.
But it was the University folk, and other non-politicians, that built the Internet and everything on it today. Politicians didn't design or build anything about the Internet.
Perhaps it would be useful to define what is meant by "the government", as that could mean politicians, govt employees, contract workers, or even government organizations like the FCC.
"Sorry, but if it weren't for the government, it is extremely unlikely we would have the internet today."
If it wasn't for everyone _but_ the government, the Internet would probably have gone bankrupt or stopped working long ago, and would be a miniscule fraction of what it is today.
The government didn't invent or create the Internet - let me just say that much is true IMO.
That's precisely the video clip in question, and the implications of it are a matter of interpretation. You disagree that it means Al Gore claims to have invented the Internet, but on the other hand, the vast majority of critics, pundits and other commentors construed his comments to mean that he claims to have invented the Internet.
Further, if you saw Al Gore's appearance on Letterman, he did the top 10 list and one of the items included him saying "not only did I invent the Internet", or words to that effect.
The precise interpretation isn't that he claimed to invent it. However, the way he said it and the way many people perceived how he said it was that he came across sounding like he was claiming to have invented the Internet. Adding to that was Al Gore's claim to have attended some government function in Texas during the first debate, which he later retracted once it was revealed by the media that Al Gore was claiming to have done something that he didn't.
In other words, Al Gore has a habit of claiming to have done more than he actually has. In one instance, the Internet claim - his impact on the Internet has been minimal, trust me. The second instance, claiming to have done work that he in fact hadn't done at all - going to Texas to do whatever.
Either way, either candidate - the US political system is a generic and bogus political system. It doesn't matter which candidate gets voted in, or which party gets voted in - neither party could push its agenda so much as to actually alter the US in any significant way. Every 4 years there is an election in the US, and there is a high volatility in which political party is in office. That means the two political parties just cancel each other out every 4 or 8 years, so America never makes any real progress.
The three most significant forces in the US are social and economic change, and Federal Reserve monetary policy - the government is no longer relevant or effective.
IMO, the US government will only be relevant to US citizens when more than 95% of eligible voters go to the ballot boxes and vote. As it is right now, the US government is far too out of touch with the modern day realities - it has not kept up with the sweeping advances of the US society, economy or the progress of technology.
For the record, I'm a Canadian citizen, and that's how I see things. Comment away.
...as an active scientist who works in an atmospheric science lab, I have read at least as much about this as you have, particluarly on the technical end.
I'm sorry, but you are full of shit. If you were what you say you are, then you would never say that. The scientific community is not as divided as you claim. The research is pretty clear that some degree of global warming is happening. The thing I can't understand is what is the motivation behind your claim of such bullshit. Who is benefitting? Are you? Or are you just trying to be contrary for the sake of it?
If I gave you a glass of water that might be toxic, but without proof, would you drink it? Of course not. Get a grip on reality. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it is not happening.
--pcb
'Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.' B. Pascal
Oh, come on!
I do not own a gun, and I can't imagine ever doing so, but the amendment states its intentions pretty clearly: the un-infringible right to keep and bear arms is not assigned to "a well-regulated militia", but to "the people".
Do I think that the results of the second amendment cause more harm than good in our society? Yes, but failing an actual repeal of the amendment itself, railing that it doesn't mean what it says just because it has had unforeseen effects is pointless. Not that such a repeal would be feasible today - there are far too many guns out there to put the metaphorical toothpaste back in the tube now.
The other important point is that all the gun violence in this country is illegal already. It's true, it's against the law to use a gun against any person not involved in the commision of a life-threatening felony!
Perhaps the law enforcement community might be able to actually make a dent in the gun-related crime statistics if they weren't so overextended fighting the pointless, ineffective, and largely racist War on Drugs. A war which, oddly enough, encourages the use of violence to defend the illicit marketplaces that have been artificially created by the intrusive and draconian anti-drug laws.
IMHO, most of the problem lies not with the 2nd amendment, but with the profiteering bottom-feeders who continue to manufacture huge quantities of inexpensive and very dangerous weaponry, and who, when confronted with the staggering human cost of their unabashed greed, respond with feeble "we were only filling a market void," as though profits, when high enough, can justify all the deaths.
"Handguns were made for killin', they ain't no good for nothin' else."
Education is not job skills.
I believe that an essential part of the high school experience is the preperation for 'real life'. Whether that life involves menial labor or college, the purpose of high school is to lay down the tools and framework of learning that we use every day. In high school, we learn how to express our ideas clearly through many mediums, and to interpret the physical world. I believe that computers are an essential part of that education.
I just turned 17, graduated 2 years ago. Technically, I should still be in high school. Now, I'm doing research at the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences here at NYU. I used the skills I learned in school to program that Fair Vol/ Var Swap calculator in C. Learning Mathematica in high school to do calculus helped me understand PDE. I used the computer skills I learned in high school to help pay my tuition.
Technology is always a tool to help students achieve their ends. However, it is up to them to define whether it is to success. Don't cripple driven students to cater to the lowest common denominator.
-Jennifer
jf542@courant.nyu.edu
-sigs of the world unite
Nader doesn't like nuclear power? wtf what pollutes less, a small chunk of plutonium or millions of tons of coal? When the plutonium is depleated you just rocket it into the sun. Don't give me that crap about contamination, nasa has been using nuclear grade plutonium on space probes for years. They encased in some type of ceramic thats designed to withstand an impact.
He is all for affirmative action? All that does is divide people further saying women and blacks should get special treatment. I pick the person best qualified for the job. If there are more white males are qualified than black females, who do you think gets hired?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
How easily we forget the lonely comma seperating the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people" See that comma? It makes two seperate statements from that sentence.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Harry Browne thinks that the War on Drugs is a sham, is against the death penalty, is against any limits on immigration, and the list goes on. These are not views commonly held by the Republicans. If he joined that party much of the things that makes him a worthy candidate would be negated. The general Republican loves to have their noses in our personal lives. (Religious Right anybody?).
The Democrats would get government out of our personal lives and into social programs and the regulation of businesses. They seem like worthy causes, until one realizes that it ends with us becoming dependent on bloated organziations and that could create greater evils than what they were meant to solve in the first place.
The major parties are a sham, and they will continue to be shams as long as we support them. VOTE FOR WHO YOU THINK IS MOST QUALIFIED! It's that simple. The chance that your 1 measely vote will change the course of the election is infintesimal. It is not very newsworthy in the long term if either Bush or Gore is elected president. If a significant number of people vote outside of the major parties, that is significant. Even if your guy isn't elected, if you can convince enough people to vote outside the major parties, your influence will carry more weight.
Happy people make bad consumers.
No offense. Both make great points and are fine 3rd party possibilites, but the two ideologies are as opposite as you can get. Nader leans toward socialist solutions while those offered by Browne are laissez faire (my spelling on this is horribly mangled). Kind of strange for you to have these 2 as such close possibilities for you.
Me personally, I'm going for Harry Browne. I know a lot of friends of mine who are going for Nader. But whoever it is, for God's sake, let's avoid the two major parties here. I swear it sometimes seems like they were created to give people an excuse to stop thinking for themselves.
YMMV.
Happy people make bad consumers.
It's the prisoners dilemma all over again. The only way to solve the prisoners dilemma is to get together with the other prisoners before hand, and even then it's not certain things will go as planned. Getting together with a few million people is difficult.
I want my Cowboyneal
>If you don't have enough money to survive thats >your own damn fault
Ah, the Republican manifesto.
If you're born poor, well, it's your fate to starve. Have a terrible life.
--Sam L-L
"Let me open these blinds so the snipers can see in." - Kevin Giffhorn
* His support of school vouchers, which allows public money to be directed toward religious institutions.
* His instatement of an official Jesus Day
Although this reply isn't directly related to your original post, this is the best place I could find for it.
I hear politicians and citizens say that they fear the government and it's getting too big. They usually suggest a reduction in the number of government subsidized programs etc.
I, too, fear the government, but at the same time, I also fear businesses. Unlike the government, businesses are only accountable to their shareholders. Companies are much more likely to exploit their workers than a democratic government impinging on citizens' rights. In other words, I fear people who are dedicated to money more than those dedicated to power. With elected officials, they are just that: elected; they can be easily removed.
And since we can't practically limit the power of industry and government at the same time (regulation by government v. no regulation at all) I would choose the government over industry any day.
That is why I can't stand libertarian ideas about the market fixing all social ills. But at the same time, I realize that free markets are more successful than planned markets.
"I am a student. Please do not fold, spindle, or mutilate me." -Slogan of the Free Speech Movement, 1964.
A. Keiper
What are these so-called 'socialist' programs that you speak of? You mean something that's run by the government? Like the DMV? The Army? The SEC? What on earth are you talking about?
I find that some conservatives, mainly the uneducated saps who fall prey to very right-wing propaganda that calls anything run by a state or federal government 'socialist'. By that token, George W. Bush is a hardcore socialist, with the Texas CHIPS program, which attempts to provide uninsured people with health care. I guess that must be a socialist program. The Internet itself was born out of one of these 'socialist' schemes.
I am convinced that you must be very ignorant indeed to suggest that any one of the two major parties support anything even approaching socialism, dumbass.
-----------------------------------------------
Surface dwellers can be so stupid.
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
The statement does not require 'rationalization', as you put it. What is helpful in understanding this quote is context. When Gore said this, he was in fact referring to his role in sponsoring legislation that opened the net up to the general public, in this sense, his statement ( which you are actually misquoting ), was in fact accurate. He did sponsor and push very hard for all the necessary legislation that opened the net.- -------------
-------------------------------------------
Surface dwellers can be so stupid.
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
I think that it is very important that while we hear all of these things from candidates, it is while they are attempting to get elected. Sure, we may get offended because Bush says the net causes violence, but at the same time, Gore thinks that violence is because we don't have enough laws (what is it now, 8000 gun laws and counting) So obviously they are both wrong, but they are also both trying to find people that agree with them...this does not necessarily mean that GW is an idiot, although we may not agree with this strategy of campaigning
...that Gore invented the Internet. :)
-Zane
This sig is worse than my last.
Now OBVIOUSLY the internet was not the cause of columbine. The internet is, after all, a means to information. These children, fucked up as they were, didn't need the internet to tell them that they could use a gun to blow away someone else, who happened to be at their highschool. In fact, to build those bombs, they could have learned perfectly well from science class. They didn't buy the guns or the bomb making material off the internet. The corrolation here is nonexistent, but because so many people listen to the idiots in the media, the corrolation was there. But of course, the internet can and is used to give the kids power. To give them freedom, because we all know that as soon as you step out of the virtual world, there's somebody who wants to take the power you had away.
Educate the children.
Piss off the adults
Question authority
And you'll end up in jail.
Don't waste your vote this year. Remember pastor Martin Neimoller? There isn't going to be any ultrageek to save us if bush gets elected. And should he, pastor Neimoller's proverb will be updated. To this:
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.
(Modifier unknown)
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
DARPA got going in 1969, email was a reality by the early 70's. Gore was 21 years old at the time, too young to be in Congress.
We have the Democrats pushing an habitual liar, and the Republicans pushing a guy who thinks starting another missle arms race is a good idea. Nevermind a "Rogue Nation" would use an attack similar to the one on the USS Cole rather than a "Look at me! I just shot that nuclear missle at you!!!" kind of attack.
Jeese... We've reached such a nadir- I'm voting for Nader. At least he's honest.
But Katz also screams about this...
Gore has repeatedly attacked TV, movies and the Net for the "cultural pollution" it's bringing to children's lives. And even before last night, Bush was demanding a wholesome "family hour" on TV every night.
I'm not sure this is even a bad idea. In fact, this is just the kind of anti-corporate legislation I want. Bush is saying that these companies have become part of the popular culture, that their service has become so entwined and vital to the American mind that they cannot allow profits alone to be the motive for what goes on TV. Because it really is a problem finding just happy TV for kids sometimes. Between The Learning Channel's 12 different "Life in the ER" series--entertainment built on the suffering of others, the History Channel's "Guts and Glory Sunday" nights, with nothing but shockumentaries on how glorious it was for people to die in horrible ways in war, and The Discovery Channels various shows based on re-enactments of murder and rape (The FBI files, the new detectives, whatever), I have found that the happiest channel on TV right now is the damn Food Network. These are channels that 5 years ago actually had decent programming. I don't even know whats on the networks in prime time, I've not switched to them in years, they degraded into sly penis-size jokes long ago.
What I'm getting at is that maybe Bush realizes that as these companies grow to become integral parts of America, they have to have other motivations for their services than profit. Or maybe hes pandering to the more right-wing voters, and its a decent outcome.
This is the reason telephone companies are regulated--"Well, if you dont like it, then you just wont have a phone" isnt a valid argument from a company. Phones are too important. A lot more companies need to fall in this category.
lilnobody
Yes, except in this case, the "I" is referring to who it was that took initiative, not who created the internet. I can say "I took initiative in doing my homework" by giving someone else $10 to do it for me. Did I do the homework? No. Did I show initiative? Yes.
Gore did claim to have invented the internet, and I suggest you learn english.
Hrmph.
#include #include void Gore::debate( istream& ears, ostream& mouth ){ char *question; while( !debate.eof() ){ if ( forMe( question ) == true ){ ears >> question; head.nod_knowledgeably(); if ( strstr( question, "environment" ) != NULL ){ mouth poor, envy ); mouth lie( opponent.record() ); // mouth relate( random( anecdote ) ); // PAUL - gonna take this one out until we test the "random" // function so it only returns a valid anecdote.
mouth pander( random( interest_group ), random(bad_emotion) );
hands.gesture( expressively );
mouth digress;
}
else {
mouth relate( anecdote );
mouth prattle( question );
mouth ask_disingenuously( "Am I wrong?" );
body.sit_back( chair );
}
if ( forMe( question ) == false ){
hands.make_notes( notepad, pen ); //mouth sigh; // eyes.roll( up ); // mouth sigh; // PAUL: We're getting hit for this - gonna take it out for now.
If ( ears.listen( opponent ) == 0 && interrupt == true )
mouth fib( opponent.answer() ); // PAUL: We'll keep this for now, but remember to have the lead // designer take a look at this routine.
}
}
is there anyone else i can vote for, bore and gush suck!
AK
Very true. Children definitely need everything listed above (smaller classes, books, decent teachers, etc.), I must agree (at least in theory) with Katz's argument. Computer and internet access give children a freedom that has never been available to them.
I have seen kids graduate from high school with no desire (or means) to go on towards higher education. But, thanks to their insightful parents who provided them with a cheap computer and cheap internet access, they quickly assimilated the technology into their lives. They now have very decent jobs with great growth potential, all thanks to a $500 computer and $15 per month dialup service.
They have a freedom to go where they want and do as they please, which they likely would never have had without the access to this technology. People have been saying as long as I can remember that education is the key for a better future. And while I might agree, I also know from first hand experience that the current educational system DOES NOT give students what they need to prosper, much less survive. When education fails, children must be given another option.
--Mando
Jon Katz says:
Will wealthy people start eliminating the retarded, emotionally disturbed and unnatractive from their birth "selection process"? (You betcha).
Now - there are many more parts of this article I would like to rip apart - but the part quoted above deserves SPECIAL attention. Why are some people richer than others? Interesting question.... could be they had an advantage over those of us not so fortunate (e.g. brains, money, looks, skill?)
That being the reason of their success - I dont honestly believe they would be stupid enough to level the "Playing Field" by eliminating the soap scum of society.
Also a few quicky comments in regards to other parts of this article:
(1) Yeah we should respect those 18 and 20 year old college kids who start up these big companies (weren't Steve Jobs and Bill Gates 18 when they started?)
(2) More 18 year olds than ever? What difference does that make? When I was 18 years old the last thing on my mind was voting. While I can't speak for ALL 18 year olds today - it seems that is the dominant attitude amongst them today.
(3) Who does Jon Katz hate more? The government or the corporations? Doesn't really matter - because unless he grows his own food, disposes of all his own waste, lives in a lean to, and is completely self sufficient - he is a hypocrite. Because all of those services or items are either produced or created by one of two entities: Corporations or the Government.
(4) An addon to #3 since it was getting somewhat lengthy: Didn't the government intially create the foundations of what is now the internet? Where does Katz get off berating them?
(5) As for Columbine - those two kids were obviously just fu*ked up. Too bad everyone is too busy blaming everyone else and pointing their fingers every which a way instead of taking the time to realize that. The internet contains a wealth of information - good and bad. Its our job to teach the children how to tell the difference and use that information to benefit society rather than attempt to destroy it. Remember - we are ALL in this together - like it or not.
(6) Computers in the classroom? The internet may be a great thing - but then again I wouldn't exactly call it the Magic Fairy dust that makes everything alright. Children need to be taught to take education seriously. Most schools are too concerned with sports, clubs, cheerleading, fundraisers, pep rallies, and raising money for computer they never use, to even begin to actually educate the students that attend there. We need to shift our focus because unlike the good ole days there's a lot more to learn and a lot less time in which to do it. Oh yeah - and throw a few good teachers as well as some parental responsibility in and that should about cover it.
Gamorck (darkgamorck@home.com)
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
May I ask one simple question. Why do we need/want computers in the elementary and middle school enviroment? When I was in elementary school all I wanted to do was play with my friends outside and maybe learn a little bit of this stuff called Mathematics. What is the need for computers is beginning education? Aren't books enough? I mean what is it that we are hoping to teach these children with computers? Is it how to add with the calculator earlier or play a really great game of solitaire? Come on, if a kid needs to do some research have them grab that thing called an encylcopedia(Oh my god they may have to go to the library and look at those things called books). I hate to mention this but books are just as much a valuable resource as that IMac or IBM PC running windozw or even Linux. Guess where I learned that reading is fun? Thats right school with RIF. Now it seems everyone wants to teach them how to research on coputers and use Da' NET. And then when they are told they can only have one internet resource they look dombfounded as to where else they can go look. I'm sorry for this rant, but I hate when people think that what we need in education is more computers. Yes I know its flame bait so deal with it
But, in election years I suppose its more important to get the vote, while in non-election years its more important to remind people what you've done the past 4 years to get their vote again.
Unfortunately, this problem remains to be resolved and more and mroe people don't vote. Well hell, I'm voting for Nader and I don't even know shit about him. At least I know my vote didn't go towards keeping the current power-grabbing cycle perpetuate.
"What we elect to call imagination is mere combination of things not heretofore combined." - Frank Norris
They would never do an ad like that because it might cause the voting public to actually think about issues, and that's a very dangerous thing.
A nice 20 second smear commercial against Bush would do much better...
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
>My point is, don't blame Bush. Bush, as a C student, is uniuqely qualified to represent the vast and growing idiot demographic in America.
Did you know Einstein failed high school math?
Maybe he could take Bush's place teaching the "idiots".
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
-Dave
That's a good point. I think it also explains why the U.S. has a system for taking money from the young people and giving it to the old people (Social Security).
-Dave
I am 100% in favor of crime control. I am not in favor of the government disarming the public. You keep touting how firearms take lives. The primary purpose of a firearm is to save lives. If someone breaks into my home I will use whatever force is necessary to make sure they are no longer a danger to my family. Criminals will always have access to guns, when you remove the ability of an honest citizen to protect themselves you make life a lot easier for a criminal.
I would definitely think twice before breaking into someone's house if I knew there was a distinct posibility that there would be a loaded firearm pointed at me once I was inside. Why do you think home invasions are so high in Canada and Australia? I personally know someone in Canada that has been the victim of a home invasion three times in an upscale neighborhood! Criminals have no fear of an unarmed populous.
They clearly fail to realise that they have mis-interpreted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, using it in such a way as to satisfy their child like need to own a lethal firearm.
I take my responsibility to protect myself and my loved ones from dangerous criminals that would put them at risk very seriously. The most effective way to do that is to arm myself with the best weapon suited for this job. By owning a firearm I am prepared to save the lives of honest citizens and loved ones. I may never need to, and I hope I will never have to, but I am prepared.
What's with this "lethal firearm" crap? Of course a firearm is lethal. The lethality of my firearm is directly proportional to it's ability to protect and save the lives of honest people. Lethality is the quality of a gun that makes it useful as a crime-stopping, life-saving, defensive tool. Caliber and capacity restrictions reduce lethality and my ability to save myself or a loved one from becoming the victim of a violent crime. Reducing lethality costs lives. Why should police need more capacity than me, when we both face the same criminals?
Guns are dangerous. They're supposed to be dangerous. They wouldn't be any good if they weren't dangerous. Anything that makes them less dangerous by reducing lethality puts honest people at unacceptable risk.
They choose to ignore the overwhelming statistics that show that gun related accidents, including those that resulted in death, are exponentially higher in the United States of America, than in countries with sensible gun control policies.
Of course the United States has higher ammounts of reported accidents then a country that has made it almost impossible for an honest citizen to own firearm. That's basic arithmetic. I am all in favor of laws that encourage gun safety training and responsible firearms ownership, as opposed to repressive laws that criminalize honest gun ownership and infringe on civil rights. We need more gun saftey, not fewer guns.
The United States does not need any more anti-gun laws. Everything criminal about guns and more is already illegal.
Some people would like nothing more than to have the general populous disarmed and the only people in possession of firearms to be government agents. There is a word for this type of agenda. Communisim.
_______
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
So bascially you're saying that affordable sidearms are the cause of violent crimes. The idea of outlawing guns unless they're expensive is reprehensible. A woman who eats inexpensive food and drives an inexpensive car doesn't lose her right to protect her family because she can only afford an inexpensive gun.
Please don't blame the gun compaines or guns themselves for crimes. Blame the criminals. If it wasn't a with a gun, a criminal would find some other creative way to kill someone. Where there's a will, there's a way.
_______
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
Jeff
Jeff
Jeff
Jeff
Jeff
Jeff
I think you'll find your the exception. And as an exceptional student, you'd have found the way to accomplish your goals with or without the assistance of the school.
I didn't learn BASIC from a school. My school didn't help me write a 6502 assmebler for my VIC-20 in BASIC when I was in the eighth grade. I even bought the book I used to learn 6502 machine code (Machine Code for the Commodore 64 by Jim Butterworth).
What I think should be would not "cripple driven students." In fact, you should know better than to make such a statement. Driven students do not succumb to adversity. They overcome it. A lack of computers at school would be no hinderance to the truly driven student. I don't think anything would be.
Furthermore, what household today doesn't have a computer? Cripes, my grandparents have one. In today's climate, even pleading poverty doesn't hold a lot of water. Look in the classifieds; tons of less-than-cutting-edge-but-perfectly-usable machines available for a song. Some people would give one to you just to be rid of it! Ya don't need USB, FireWire or 24-bit 3D-accelerated color to learn how to use a computer!
Jeff
My parents had not even considered buying one; we were one of the hard luck cases that didn't have the money.
Where did I learn about this thing? At school? No! It was in a magazine! My grandpa subscribed to Popular Science, Popular Mechanics and National Geographic. He was a member of both the Aircraft Onwers and Pilots Association and the Experimental Aircraft Association and received both of their magazines. I read them voraciously. In Popular Science, I remember a two-page spread in bright yellow. It was the ad for the ZX-81: $99 assembled for a real computer! I had to have one. With a little help, I did!
When my dad saw what we could do with that, we saved up and he bought a VIC-20.
That was when computers were expensive. Today, people are throwing out perfectly good, and usable, 486 and Pentium class machines. Check your newspaper, they're all over the place.
Jeff
Jeff
Al Gore MP3 quotes unzip it and listen. Gore claims he took the inititave in creating the internet. Salon is a Pro-Democrat publication. They always try to spin stuff their way. Caveat. Im voting strait Libertarian.
That comment was made in passing, and I think it reflects Bush's naivete, 'tis all. I'm not about to blow this up into an US vs. THEM fiasco. The net is new, the net is scary to many of greater years. That will all change. Ignore it.
thelocust[dot]org
And Canada has socialized medicine, but those with conditions that the Canadian healthcare system won't pay for come to the US for healthcare. (Living in a border town with a decent hospital and surgical center, I have seen this countless times). Best care in the world is not what the average Canadian citizen gets. Those that can afford come to the US to get the best care in the world. I can't speak for Europe but socialized medicine does nothing to encourage doctors to help cases that require expensive treatment and does nothing to encourage good doctors to take stay in Canada if they want to make good money.
I'm a great believer in luck. The harder I work the more I have of it. - Thomas Jefferson
Tipper's attacks were directed against the artists and heavy metal in particular: JPriest, AC/CD, Ozzy. It was nothing but scapegoat outrage to get unhappy, crusty, old bitches to vote for her husband. I seem to remember her also being on that committie against RPGs; what was it, 'mothers against D&D' or something. It was a part of the whole satanism scare of the 80's. I swear, one day christians will realize that satanists are laughing at them.
The person that takes away my Ozzy and nethack will be the first against the wall.
________________
You are equiped with a -2 cursed mouse (1 button, apple)
You cannot unequip the mouse
You are being over sensitive.
Bush was talking to undecided moderate voters, especially mothers, IMO. He has been trailing in women supporters. His comment was to youth violence, NOT to the Internet. This would be a comment geared toward people worried about their kids at school. That fact the he used the Internet in that discussion absolutely does not mean that is his total opinion of the Internet.
This letter has been circulating on the net. I was unable to track down the origin.
Go back and read it again. You can't give credit if you can't track the origin. The same thing is all over the net, in its uncredited form. I found it at stallman.org myself. Now its on slashdot.
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Well, I guess by the response this article is getting, you have to give him credit for creating interest.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
in a sense we are all idiots
we all have our own stupid ideas that makes us an idiot in the eyes of everybody else with a different stupid idea
look at eric raymond. i have immense respect for the man but he is also a gun nut which to must europeans makes him an idiot by definition
sure bush is an idiot but so am i - and you - and everybody else - and especially everyone older
Actually you can find out exactly what the founders intended. They are called the federalist papers. Check out The Federalist.
Seen on a mailing list this a.m.
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:09:07 -0500
From: Weisberg weisberg@texoma.net
---------------------------------
ALERT!!!
A new Internet virus has been identified by someone seeking to be the highest U.S. authority on the subject. The resulting condition has been dubbed "Darkened Heart" (or, DH), and is characterized by a penchant for wearing trench coats, reading neo-Nazi literature, building bombs and shooting up schools. The rampage at Columbine is attributed to DH (hence, to accessing the Internet). New legislative proposals to fix perceived defects in the current Internet system causing such disease should be introduced in late January. In the mean time, citizens are urged to use extreme caution in allowing Internet access by persons likely to be influenced by erroneous or objectionable thoughts. And, governments are urged to institute rigorous programs to scan Internet content for offending materials and review Internet tools to determine if they may be used for improper purposes. The safest policy remains "just say no." If in doubt as to your own resistance, don't use the Internet. And, definitely, don't let children use it. This alert does not apply to persons who have been inoculated against wrong thinking and questionable behavior. Such persons are encouraged to continue their safe use of the Internet, especially in furtherance of proper political goals. The heart condition from which they are more likely to suffer, Hardening-of-the-Heart (HOTH), is not a variant of the virus which is the subject of this alert. Indeed, there are some who argue that HOTH may be ameliorated through "liberal" exposure to the Internet. Please pass this alert on to others who may be exposed to the risk of DH.
Tell you what why don't you switch you healt care provider from the place you have it now to a Vets hospital. Then in two years you can talk as if you know a little more about the governments shining example of socialized medicine. You will understaind why the only people there are the ones that cant avoid it. And you want to make the entire country like this ????? If I recall correctly, many European countries have socialized medicine, and their citizens get some of the best care in the world. (yes, they pay high taxes too, but TAANSTAAFL, eh?) No that is why they fly over here to the Mayo foundation when their health is really on the line!!! Just like most rich Arabs and their back pain. Look in the ortho wards at St Mary's Mayo.
Now I'm not from the U.S.A., but I think that a lot of what you people are saying is taking a very naive view of guns and gun ownership. One can nit pick over definitions of the word "militia", however, the intent of such documents as the Second Amendment must be taken into consideration. Sure, people should have the right to bear arms, however, with that right comes responsibility, a responsibility I think very few are taking seriously (the Colombine massacre is an example of this). I believe that it is too easy to obtain firearms, and the laws regulating ownership are too lax, and thus until people are willing to face up to the responsibility that comes with this right, the gun control laws should be tightened.
Tell me then why the USA is renowned for its easy accessibility to weapons, its crime rate, its danger, its gun related deaths..the list goes on.
He blamed the fact that our society is such that kids can have their hearts turned black by simply going on the internet. It could have been by whatever means, but due to the involvement that these students had on the internet with their website, it becomes a focal point. Not the blame. This is the reason that Bush doesnt blame the guns. But they are part of the tools that were used in the action these boys took. By trying to deny that the internet was used as an intrument in the tragidy is foolish.
Yeah, so don't waste your vote: Vote Nader.
[pink beam of light]
Why can't we start our own schools?
[pink beam of light]
When violence and sex is represented in Hollywood, it is done in a way that both homogenizes and sanitizes it. Homogenous in that these acts are perpetrated so predictably: with the same faces, the same bodies, the same explosions, the same "bad guys", the same dilemnas. The Beauty Myth is perpetrated this way, and also the myth of police and government spending all their time and money hunting down bizarre, psychopathic rapist/killers and international "evil" terrorists.
Ever notice that 90% of all action-dramas on TV are essentially cop shows (anything from Walker, Texas Ranger to NY Undercover/Blue to any of those shows on WB or UPN)? And of course all these cops are portrayed as heroes! In real life, (overgeneralization coming up) when has a cop ever done anything other than show up too late or arrest someone for doing something that doesn't threaten anyone? And how many people do you know have perfect skin and perfectly crafted bodies? Yet that's all we seem to be looking for...
I'm sure nobody believes all that crap that cop shows produce (even Law & Order has it's share of popular misconceptions) but it doesn't alleviate the unconscious belief that policing and more surveillence will lead to a better society. The whole "getting tough on crime" baloney is just a campaing slogan meaning, "pass more arbitrary laws against petty offences based on racial stereotypes" -- all based in the popular misconception that deterrants hinder crime (just ask any sociologist).
Okay, I think I've gone off on a wild tangent here, so I'll stop to read more posts...
[pink beam of light]
Columns are:
0____3,217,312__1.3%_1.29%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx
60___4,228,303__1.7%_0.85%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
62___6,387,864__2.6%_0.86%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
65__10,111,735__4.1%_0.81%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1____7,764,147__3.1%_1.56%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3____7,372,984__3.0%_1.48%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5____3,689,533__1.5%_1.48%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
6____3,577,632__1.4%_1.44%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
7___10,832,014__4.4%_1.45%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
10___7,108,692__2.9%_1.43%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
12___6,762,450__2.7%_1.36%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
14___3,243,107__1.3%_1.30%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
15___3,321,609__1.3%_1.34%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
16___3,304,890__1.3%_1.33%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
17___3,410,062__1.4%_1.37%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
18___3,641,238__1.5%_1.46%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
19___4,076,216__1.6%_1.64%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
20___4,009,414__1.6%_1.61%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
21___3,817,220__1.5%_1.53%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
22__11,193,678__4.5%_1.50%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
25__21,313,045__8.6%_1.71%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
30__21,862,887__8.8%_1.76%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
35__19,963,117__8.0%_1.61%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
40__17,615,786__7.1%_1.42%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
45__13,872,573__5.6%_1.12%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
50__11,350,513__4.6%_0.91%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
55__10,531,756__4.2%_0.85%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
70___7,994,823__3.2%_0.64%_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
75___6,121,369__2.5%_0.49%_xxxxxxxxxxxx
80___3,933,739__1.6%_0.32%_xxxxxxx
85___3,080,165__1.2%_0.25%_xxxxxx
Interesting huh?
--
NO TOUCH MONKEY!
You are wrong about Gore and the internet. He didn't say he invented anything. He was talking about funding the university networks into a "network of networks". Yes, we taxpayers paid for it and by the way, "YOU'RE WELCOMME!"
From Reason Magazine:
"By the next day, the ridicule was flying--mostly through Gore's supposed brainchild. Declan McCullagh broke the story in the online Wired News and his Politech e-mail news service, pointing out that Gore was just 21 years old when the Defense Department commissioned the original ARPANET in 1969.
Republicans jumped to mock the veep. "If the Vice President created the Internet, then I created the Interstate highway system," said Dick Armey, the House majority leader. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, a notorious neatnik, claimed to have invented the paper clip. Lott's press release included his supposed early designs and a final version dated April Fool's Day, 1973.
But Al Gore was not lying to Blitzer. The vice president almost certainly believes that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet." His claim reflects a particular understanding of the world and of recent technological history. As such, it reveals more than mere grandiosity and spin.
To understand Gore's bizarre boast, you have to know a lot of details about the history of the Internet. It's not enough to say that ARPANET started in 1969.
In this important sense, "the Internet" dates not to 1969 but to the early 1980s. Gore enters the picture a bit later--in 1987, when he supported a drive by universities to expand funding for NSFNet. That drive became law in the High Performance Computing Act of 1991, which gave about $1 billion to high-performance networks and computers; about $150 million of the funding was new money, with the rest consolidated from other programs.
"Gore gets credit for cheerleading on networking from '87 on, and for getting the agencies to get off their behinds and coordinate things a bit," says Mike Roberts, who lobbied for NSFNet funding as vice president of networking at Educom, an association of universities.
So Gore was there in 1987, long before most politicians had any notion that the Net existed. But the basics--the software and hardware infrastructure on which the Internet grew--were already in place.
Full article http://www.reason.com/9905/ed.vp.source.html
13 internet years is a long time.
I'm wondering if you can post the WHOLE CONTEXT, not just the one sentence.
Gore IS the personwho, in the congress, took the initiative in getting the funding and legislation for creating the commercial internet we use now.
How do you campaign against a guy with things like this to his credit? Make the (ignorant) public think he is lying about what he did.
Actually, he never did make up the time.
The significant thing about this story is that he took off from the Guard immediately after they announced they would be conducting random drug tests.
The story about his parents singing him that song is a JOKE THAT HE HAS BEEN TELLING FOR YEARS at union rallies.
It's an old union joke!
If I start a joke with"a guy and a horse walk into a bar..." am I liar because horses don't walk?
No one who knows anything about this says that this was a fun-raiser. No money was charged. No funds were solicited. ELECTED REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS ATTENDED. Money was illegally raised THE NEXT DAY by someone in the temple. Republicans will say ANYTHING to get elected.
Who is lying now?
Gore never, ever said he discovered Love Canal.
I suggest instead of picking one sentence out of a discussion, you look at the context of the discussion.
Gore did what he claimed in the discussion. He led the Congress to funding the commercial internet, from the educational/military network that existed then.
But, it was true!
The only part of this that the Bush people said was a "lie" was that he said it was 3 times the price for the human version, when it was really 2.8 times as much.
Actually, what she did was to get record companies to put labels on the packaging so parents would know if they were buying stuff with violent or obscene lyrics.
That's it. tHat's all she did. No government, no censorship.
Just a lot of Republican-fed hysteria.
His father got him into a unit with obsolete planes so he had no chance to go to VietNam.
However, even there he fucked up. He DIDN'T SHOW UP. After they announced they would start random drug testing BUSH STOPPED SHOWING UP FOR GUARD DUTY!
You are mistaken. His corporate funding is what he cares about. Where do you think Libertarians came from? Check out the funding for the Cato istitute, for example.
I'm interested. Do you mean this? I only ask because its an unusual point of view. Presumably you believe in a creator, or you wouldn't say "we were given". Do you believe that anything we were given the ability to do, we should do?
Actually, I spend a lot of my computer time at school looking at Slashdot :-)
Information on the 'net is uncatagorized and unorganized. Students can hardly write these days, do you really think they'll be able to distill terabytes of noise and glean the kilobytes of needed data?
Actually, I can write fairly well, and I still have trouble with gleaning enough useful information from the 'net on topics that I need to reasearch at school. For example, I decided to do a paper on how Microsoft has hurt consumers through its anti-competitive practices for some much-needed extra credit in my 10th grade English class. Easy, right? WRONG! There is tons of crap to sort through, even on a search on Google, or Slashdot, before you can even hope to find concrete information. It has been a nightmare, so far.
Secondly, I fail to see exactly how broadband connections to the internet, or even a massive amount of computers at school, will help the state of education in America today for the disadvantaged (i.e. the poor). Could someone please explain?
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
I'm certain you're right.
n /?id=65000413
The candidate who "took initiative in creating the internet" and thought he could get away with the credit (one in an ever growing list of lies^H^H^H^Hembellishments).
The candidate who thinks medicine ought to be prices according to the size of the pill.
The candidate who apparently has no grasp of the ramifications of government subsidies in a market economy.
The candidate who burned up nearly a half a million pounds of fuel to speak on the evils of global warming.
The candidate who slumlords his rental property, lies about repairs, and expects nobody will care (he may be right about this one).
The candidate who has openly attacked the first amendment. And who's VP candidate and spouse have done so with more enthusiasm.
The candidate who has openly attacked the second amendment. By the way, since GWB allowed Texans legal concealed carry, homicide in Texas is at a 40 year low. If only it was as safe as Washington D.C. where the 2nd amendment is history.
For those that think GWB is not the brightest candidate, you can check out this opinion piece that gives a slightly different view of the second debate than the _one_ line this story refers to.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoona
I went out and had a look at the link.
Sortta weak, really. The author's of this document are grasping at straws. Their tatic is to take a generality stated by Gore and then interpret it as a specific, revealing an (rather minor) inconsistency. Not difficult to do. Harder to do with Bush as he doesn't have much of a record, except for having a few cushy jobs with sports teams and being govenor of Texas, where he hasn't taken the initiative on any significant or controversial issue. As far as I can tell, he's always gone with the status quo. (Advocating the internet in the early days is definately not going with the status quo.)
Now let's look at an example taken from the link, specifically the bit about Gore singing the song as a child when the song wasn't written until 1975. Probably true. It's also possible that the song is based on an old traditional song. Not uncommon, particularly for union songs. Gore could certainly have sung that song.
But even if he got it wrong, who cares? So he mixed up a few things in his memory. The point is, he tried to find common ground with a group of people. That's the real beef with you, isn't it. Gore's a populist!
Sounds to me like Gore said he invented the Internet. I don't know where Salon's getting their info. But, the garbage comes to mind.
Granted most people (criminals) don't use cars in killing people out of anger. Hmmm, people killing people...
If it wasn't a gun a criminal would use some other weapon.
Talks cheap when you don't even bother to vote.
Uh, it's Harry Browne, not Brown (sans 'e').
It's true that at least one candidate is an "idiot," that the internet is not the cause of dark culture, and that there are a lot of new 18 year-old voters in this election.
But Bush is quite safe in his unfounded comment because the average 18 year-old just doesn't bother to vote.
"-- On second thought, let's not go there. 'Tis a silly place."
-- "On second thought, let's not go there. Camelot is a silly place."
I'm positive that there is no such thing as a "USian", but most Americans are VERY familiar with the National Guard.
Their recruiting commercials are on the air all the time, they are the fist to arrive during national disasters (like floods, earthquakes, etc.), and one of our current Presidential candidates (Bush) used to be a member.
What country are you from?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Perhaps a more apropos strip:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/line.shtml
Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
This reminds me Adam Sandler's mommy from Waterboy, where she was continuously repeating that something was the devil (the list includes girls, money, studying). A pity though that Americans (and American politicians) will never be able to grow out of this.
I think "the weepy masses" best describes Slashdotters. A lotta people here are crying, but nobody in the real world was influenced at all by what Bush said. People are suspicious of some of the stuff they encounter and hear about on the internet. Look at it this way: given how often I encounter it by accident, I'll bet I could find kiddie porn on the internet in about 10 minutes. In the real world I wouldn't even begin to know where to look. That is something different; it's not nothing. And still, I see a lot more crying here than I do in the real world.
Actually, it corresponds to the economic boom.
I am from the US, and I'm pretty sure that a bunch of armed rednecks couldn't defend our country from squat. That's why we have the army. I don't think we have much of a chance of overthrowing our government by force, either, if that's what you think an armed militia is for. (Citizens with rifles vs. F-16 = one sided battle). If you want to change things, you have to vote the corporate-funded Republicratic pigs out of office, and elect someone like Ralph.
Personally, the first time some bastard uses a gun to kill an innocent person... okay, didn't have to wait long for that one... I feel that I am justified in voting to not allow anyone to have a gun. Too bad. If you really need to kill someone, you should be pissed enough to use your own two hands.
As for the second amendment, I don't care what it says. If it's wrong, we can amend it.
[javac] 100 errors
The second amendment refers to the necessity of a militia to the security of a free state. The militia in question was supposed to be free from federal control. This is part of that whole states' rights thing that kinda disappeared with the Civil War. Anyway, the militia was supposed to be composed of average joes, maybe controlled by the state government, maybe not. But it was never supposed to be controlled by the federal government. The National Guard fulfilled this role for some time, until the 1950's when Truman placed it under federal control to facilitate school integration in unwilling areas. Had he not done so, at least one state governor (damn.. can't remember the guy's name now. I think he was governor of Alabama.) would have used his state's National Guard units to keep blacks out of white schools, Truman probably would have been forced to use Federal troops to counter them, and violence would hav been inevitable. But I digress. The point is, the National Guard is no longer under control of the sates, rather it is an extention of the (unconstitutional) standing military.
Without the National Guard, there is no longer a militia as provided for in the second amendment. The only organizations which come close are a few citizen militias. No, I'm not talking about the survivalist nutcases who have 200 rifles sitting in their basements next to the two year food and water supply. I'm talking about the people who organize, train periodically for emergence situations, train every now and then for combat, and generally do what a militia should do. I once saw an excellent example of this on TV.. Discovery channel I think. IIRC, they were talking about the Kansas civilian militia. They had a typical military structure, all members swore an oath to protect the constitutions of America and their state, to obey their superiors' orders, etc. They trained something like one or two days a month, mostly for natural disaster response or search-and-rescue type things. They had helped several communities look for missing persons and helped people survive floods, rebuild after tornadoes, and so on. They had a standing offer to the state and local governments to assist in any time of need, an offer that was never officially accepted. I'm pretty sure that they have never fired a shot in anger. That's about my idea of what a militia should be, and I really wish that Michigan had a militia as sane and well-intentioned as that, because I would be a member. The reason I would never join the national guard goes back to that federal control thing. The biggest reason I stay the hell away from military recruiters (definitely not the only reason, though) is the fact that the military is under the control of whatever pathalogically lying, corporation-ass-kissing fuckoff who gets elected President.
I just previewed this comment, and it's way too long already so I'll stop now.
We cannot live by power, and a culture that seeks to live by it becomes brutal and sterile. But we can die without it. - Max Lerner
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
Let us add some more lies.
That Gore outspent him in the campaign ( Bush spent twice as much as Gore). And he had the guts to issue this lie while accusing Gore of lack of credibility.
That moving people from Medicaid to HMOs will increase patient choice.
That his proposed tax cut is only a quarter of the projected surplus.
That he is in favor of hate crime legislation.
"every murder is a hate crime"! How lame can one be?
That he supports gun control. ( yeah right!
and Buchanan will be the next China ambassador )
That he would not try to overturn Roe vs. Wade. And that he would not try to block RU-486.
That he has a record of environmental regulation of industry.
That he has read a book! ( When ask about books he remember from his childhood, he actually mentioned a book written four years ago!)
The problem with the candidates is the opposite of their public image.
Bush is aware that most voters do not support most of his positions, so he fudges or lies outright on almost every issue. But he lies like an oiled used cars dealer. And most people find that acceptable.
The press is lazy with facts that are too complex to check, and also leary of pointing out lies that have anything to do with partisanship. That is one reason it focuses on the barely relevant most of the time. But more importantly, Bush is such a moron that most commentators were really scared that if God doesn't intervene immediately they will have no choice but to appear one-sided and biased. So they jumped on every occasion to harass Gore, just to keep their 'objective' image, and they hailed Bush for every success, such as not mispronouncing 'Putin'.
Call it Affirmative Action for Morons!
It seems that your answer to the question whether Bush is a liar depends of your definition of the word 'IS'.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Ok, I went to check that page and found only fudge. How exactly is a weaker government to reduce the power of corporation?
/. and 'Doom' ?
much of the power that corporations have today comes from laws that give power to the corps
Almost. The power of corporation is the power of capital. i.e. large accumulation of property.
This should be evident since accumulating capital is the very reason corporations are created in the first place.
The power to buy laws and corrupt politicians is the by product of the fact that corporations has much more money than individuals and that politicians ( like everyone else ) are ready to sell their work ( legislation) for a chunk of that money.
Vhat can we do about it? Let's see.
First, it is theoretically possible to scrap the government completely. That would hurt corporation because accumulated capital will become only as good as the ability to protect it by force. Corporations will then be forced to buy defence and police on the market, destroying value in the process. Plus, a huge amount of wealth will simply vanish as a direct response to the reduced level of predictability in human interaction (predictability being the value added by the rule of law ).
Some may find this exciting. But before you subscribe, you could take a vacation in nice places like Somalia, where you will be able to experience life without government firsthand. It probably fits best with how Hobbes described it: 'brutish, nasty and short'.
Most libertarians are not totally nuts, and they opt for a 'minimalist' government, i.e. property rights and nothing else. Can you see the contradiction? Property is the essence of corporate power. How can you decrease the power of corporations if you destroy all form of power except the power inherent in property?
Communism tried to solve the problem by substituting government as the engine of capital accumulation instead of corporations. You know the rest of that story.
Another solution (let's call it Romanticism, Luddism, etc.) is to limit capital accumulation. Let us all live as happy farmers on our tiny plot of land--no corporations, no government, no problem! Except that it would be impossible to sustain human life at all at present numbers, not to mention all the perks of our cozy consumer society, without a level of production that is completely dependent on huge capital accumulation. Some indeed would say it is a good thing ( those Luddites!), but maybe we want to get real here. After all, what's life without
So what is left? In the modern pluralist state, the solution is supposed to be a negotiated balance between different holders of different form of power. We have huge corporations, we invest in them, but we also invest in governments and other organizations that keep them from slurping our life. If you must put a tiger in your engine, at least keep a tiger tamer in your back seat!
I suspect a lot of libertarian symphatizers start from the sense that we are way off that desired balance. Indeed, but how does libertarianism restore that balance? It doesn't. The pluralistic model is a very imperfect solution, and I am willing to look for alternatives, as long as they are not made of fudge.
I vote for Nader. Not because I think he has better answers than Brown. He doesn't. I vote for Nader because he has the best questions. And people with simple answers made of fudge scare the shit out of me.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
>The government, on the other hand, can generally >do whatever they want, without regard to >legality.
You are joking right ?
First, just as corporations are bound by laws the goevernment writes, the government is bound by market reality which is the sum of corporate actions. Who is stronger is not always easy to determine, but your take on the unlimited power of government looked funny even during the reign of Louis XIV, when it was fashionable, today it is a fossile: just say 'Alan Greenspan'.
In addition to that, governments are also constricted by electoral considerations and by their own past (constitution, laws). Corporations aren't.
Please remember that the constitution is an act of government, and its subject matter is government. You are so much in love with a document whose content you utterly despise.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Wow, Katz actually had an article that said something interesting and relevent. Hmmm... saying something usefull == less Katz bashing
Jon wrote:
Will all Americans have equal access to technologies like the Net and Web? (No.) Who will control intellectual property? (Companies like Microsoft, Sony, AOL/Time-Warner and Disney, looks like.) Who will manage new technologies from supercomuting to AI to nano-technology? (Megacorporations, apparently).
and:
If Bush or Gore talked about some of that stuff, the ratings might rocket up in a hurry.
I've wondered why no one is talking about this as well. I've talk with many people about it. And despite the fact that they're all smart educated people none of them seemed to care about these things.
I think some people just can't see where we're headed. (Corperate control of everything) Others don't see why this is bad. (McDonald's is our friend!)
Until people start to care about these things (it is starting btw, http://www.adbusters.org, etc) the politcos aren't going to bother mentioning it on the stump
-rschroed
Yeah, the biggest problem in his quote is really
the use of the word "create." The intention is something more along the lines of "foster," "further," or "develop" than "creation from nothing." To the extent that the internet is a work in progress -- its creation is ongoing -- the direct quote really isn't much more than your usual run-of-the-mill D.C. hyperbole. Unfortunately for Gore, it's also a great boner of an out-of-context soundbite.
The lastest infoworld (print Oct 9) has some reader polls that show a broad fear of Gore interfering with business and pleasure on the net:
More likely to support industry self-regulation on the issue of online privacy
BUSH 76%
GORE 24%
More likely to push for new laws covering online privacy concerns
BUSH 24%
GORE 76%
More likely to encourage acive antitrust scrutiny of companies in the technology sector
BUSH 16%
GORE 84%
More likely to support a breakup of Microsoft due to antitrust concerns
BUSH 14%
GORE 86%
More likely to support revisions to antitrust law to better address information technology industries
BUSH 44%
GORE 56%
More likely to favor a strong governmental role in the use of encryption technology, such as key recovery programs
BUSH 29%
GORE 71%
More likely to call for a significant reworking of the process by which H1-B work visas are issued
BUSH 56%
GORE 44%
More likely to support the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act (UCITA) as it is currently written
BUSH 46%
GORE 54%
More likely to support industry self-regulation and a hands-off attitude of government when in comes to technology issues
BUSH 84%
GORE 16%
Better informed and savvy about technology issues
BUSH 36%
GORE 64%
Vote for who you like, just vote.
If you aren't yet registered, you can go do that here.
Your vote does matter.
> The problem is that even if everyone in America
> voted for Ralph Nader, he still wouldn't be
> made president because the Electoral college
> wouldn't permit it.
Uh, come again? If everyone in America voted
for Ralph Nader, he would carry every state
and the Electoral College would elect him
unanimously.
> it only goes to show that this country is not a
> Democracy
Uh, no, it's not. Did you pay attention in
high school civics? The U.S. is a republic.
There's an argument to made against the
EC (and one for it, too, even though it
doesn't get heard much), but this ain't it.
Why did this get modded to four?
Chris Mattern
They certainly haven't justified it to me.
Can I bum a sig?
I wonder why politians never mention the fact that the crime rate has consistantly gone down over the last several decades. It's interesting to note that this drop seems to correspond with the technology boom.
Can I bum a sig?
Hey, any resembelence to the Roman Empire? The Ruling system is very similar, where the majority in the top leagues must have alot of connections, power and/or money to even get to turn the country. Has anyone seen Gladiator? Favor the crowd seems awfully similar to what's going on in the elections now. Unfortunately, most people are uninformed, unintersted or just plain dumb. That applies to all but small countries like Switzerland, Finland and so forth...
Just keep in mind that for all that Katz claims that politicians ignore technology... ever hear of the dmca? AHRA? Etc, etc, more 4 letter words? And ever notice how old rich guys- the ceo's of the companies that benefit from this- vote more? Can't imagine why Congress would pass laws that the people who voted for them would want.
-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ----
This message will become flamebait in 5 seconds.
And you thought Katz had issues!
And there are many more of technophobes (of all age groups) than techno-savy voters who understand the concept of free speech on the internet.
His comment probably struck it's intended chord with voters better than I want to give him credit for.
A good point has been raised in that a large part of the voting population is neither focused on or understands current technology. Let me explain:
My mother can remember a time with out electricity, running water, or phones. Each of these things were a 'major' (for the time) advancement of technology. They entered her life as she grew up... and she had to learn them later in life. The point being, these things were not engrained into her existence.
Over time, these technologies spread, and at some point hit a 'event horizon' where they became common things (i.e. day-to-day). At that point, they became important to society... from being a novelty to a necessity, to being something new to being something necessary.
The internet did not exist for me until college. I had to learn it, and it did become engrained into my existence, but I know of people, young and old, who do not have the presence of the internet in their lives. It is not a day-to-day common thing for them... it is not a necessity. I'm confident that there will come a point where the internet is day-to-day common for almost everyone. At this point, it will go from being novel & new to common and a necessity.
My nieces and nephews will never know a world without the 'net, e-mail, cell phones, microwaves, etc... already, these things have no novelty to them. All this technology has already reached the status of necessity for them. They will (hopefully) understand and appreciate the role of technology in theirs lives, and thus, in politics. When they comprise the majority of the voting body, then these things (and other, unforeseen technologies) will be the focus of their voting desires.
There in lies the gap... the technological generation gap, if you will (wow, crappy buzz-word there). This gap will continue to worsen. Technology advances at an exponential rate... meaning that each generation will have a expontentialy larger technology gap than the last... we, too will be a victim of this gap as age gets the best of us. And politics will always be a victim of this gap... I highly doubt that politics will EVER keep up with the issues that technology raises, esp. as the rate of the rate at which tech. increases continues to increases. It will just get worse.
Additionally, this gap is being used to the advantage of the few who do understand it. This applies from the individual person to mega-corps and governments. Do you think things like the DMCA would be allowed if the voting majority understood? No... but the corps. DO understand, and are using the tech-gap and ignorance of the common voter to their advantage, mainly making sure that technology goes in their favor... i.e. the maximization of profits and control, not the maximization of the common good.
My point? The point of a presidential race is to win. Bush/Gore is focusing on the fears and ignorance caused by the tech-gap of the majority of the voters. This race is additionally fueled by mega-corps. that DO understand, thus increasing the advantage and power another level. (can you say positive feedback?)...
We, the slashdot subset, are the minority, as far as voting and politics goes, so we probably will never like what these politicians say or do. We are not in control, we are not the group being focused upon, nor are we the group that will make decisions politically.
The power we do have, however, lies in our knowledge and how we direct that knowledge. I think we are doing a lot to in our desire to keep information free, generate open-source software, promote encryption, etc...
We get-it. We understand the power of tech. We see where the power is going, and we don't like it. But never-ever expect the govt. to rescue us from it... politics won't let it happen.
This is my take on the political scene. This is the grain of salt I take the whole situation with. I'm voting for Ralph Nader, but I could write a whole 'nother big long babble on that subject alone...
What do you think this Prescription Drug Benefit for seniors is? We don't want to make the big, wealthy drug companies charge Americans the same price they charge Canadians and Mexicans, so we give money to seniors to cover the difference. How is that not a socialist practice? Pure capitalism will fail in the long run, as will pure socialism. Take the best from all ideologies and make uberthoughts. There is enough to go around. The idea that you have to "earn a living" means otherwise you don't deserve to live. Choosy moms choose COMPASSION.
botono9
----------------
All limits are self-imposed.
Screw you, Katz!
If Bush is such an idiot what about the guy who "invented" the Internet.
You wrote this to get a rise out of poeple and it worked for me...
"Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
But none of these issues will get much coverage or discussion, certainly not compared to the image of the Net turning young hearts dark and murderous.
No, but I know someone's writing who can...
"Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
How in the world can higher taxes lead to a second parent getting a job to help pay the taxes? The second parent is going to have to pay taxes on their income, too. And the so-called marriage penalty hits when you have two wage earners, not one.
Of course, the percentage of the budget taken up by these kinds of programs is miniscule when compared with the percentage of the budget taken up by military spending, social security, or interest paid on the debt. In other words, the programs (which you don't specifically mention, so I'm making an educated guess) would probably amount to an extra $20/year per American.
I do think kids should have at least one parent (male or female) at home. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. Parents seem to be increasingly looking for someone else to do their job for them. This has been happening as long as I can remember (circa 1977), and will probably continue to happen.
Corporations, or rather, businesses, create an emormous amount of wealth.
In the same way that Gore took the initiative in creating the Internet!
Bush did not say, "It's not the internet, it's society". He said (paraphrasing) "It's the internet because of society." This implies that the internet does, indeed, have the power to corrupt young hearts. He makes no mention of parenting. He goes on to imply that character is something that can be taught by having a class.
We all know about the pmrc. But face it - Tipper would be first lady, not an official. What we probably don't know, because of all the false assumptions and rumors that spread on the internet and traditional news, is that Lieberman is not in favor of any sort of censorship. He has been a big proponent of industry self regulation on these sorts of things.
BTW, your definitions of political wings are false. In fact, these two terms are not even opposites. Conservatism, as a word, has little to do with the constitution. After all, there was a Conservative party in the British parliament long before we had a constitution. Conservatives (in the true definition of the term, not in our politics today) tend to favor continuing governance in the way it has been going (e.g. conservatives opposed ending slavery and desegregation, and in Israel oppose giving the Palestinians independence). Liberals (once again, by definition, not by modern practice) favor a more open and transparent government. Liberal thought in the past includes the notion that a government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and the notion that a king is not above the law.
Unfortunately, right-wingers have taken to labeling anything they disagree with as liberal. This has soured a term that should be equated with some of the greatest advances made by mankind. I bet even William Safire agrees with me on this.
Time to catch my breath.
As a public service, please get a stronger PGP key. I broke it in 2 seconds including starting the VM. Seeing what the factors are I should have broken it in, oh, .002 seconds. I could give you your N', but knowing what the factors are makes me hope that it is a joke. If it is, please disregard. Then you are actually funny. But judging by your website it is probably not. 40 bit public key encryption is a joke.
It's amazing what you can do with the first half million prime numbers. (Or the first 100 million primes if you let your computer run overnight)
Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
I do not believe there is a sufficent ammount of data available for either the political candidates or those among the technology community to make a definitive answer to the question regarding what violent games do to the minds of children or adults.
Having read the Slashdot articles about gaming and the political pandering of George W. Bush, I have noticed there are some "felt" similarities between George W. and earlier politicians who fought against a new music style "Rock and Roll". Their efforts were futile and in vain, the more they fought, the more the youth at that time fought to keep the spirit alive. Though not indicative of the 50's when this was taking place, the movie "Footloose" is a clear indicator of what unknowing politicians will do to keep something they are uncomfortable with down.
George W. may have been playing the very distinct role of Professor Harold Hill declaring that pool halls are the work of the devil and that the boys in town need something to occupy their time. Is he trying to win enough votes to make a "real" bid for the presidency? Yes and he won many from parents that want their children to be safe.
About the time that Rock and Roll was making its way onto the popular music scene and big bands were being forced out, the school systems had a different form of problem they were being forced to deal with. The problems were things like gum and talking back in school. Gangs of that era were poor in comparison to what we consider a gang today and would not have lasted one bout. I am old enough to remember when having my shirt untucked was a major issue, and swats were permissable under the law and allowed by my parents (read encouraged).
Things have changed drastically since then.
High Schools today no longer look at chewing gum as a high priority in the disciplining of the youth. Walking into a high school there are metal detectors and limited access. Drug dogs are brought through periodically and without warning, to find illegal narcotics. In some places children are required to have mesh, or clear, backpacks so that all they are carrying can be seen (is this appropriate under the current laws and the 4th ammendment).
The number of injuries involved in an altercation will come when the largest group of individuals with the highest ammount of stress are brought together and are forced to get along. In situations where they are not stopped, some people fearing for their personal safety, may carry guns or knives to school. I did occassionally, but because of a belief that I should have the personal right to protect myself and not because of a fear for personal safety. In a High School, children are being affected by friends, sexual drives, hormones, stress, possibly homework, making the grade, getting along and trying to fit into whatever niche they feel they belong. This has not changed in 50 years and will not change because of computers or the Internet.
By adding these factors, we merely add an additional "click" of kids that have to be considered.
We watch the political debates, we hear George W. talk about the scandalous nature of children and violent video games and the immediate assumption is that places like Columbine were caused by teenage boys sitting in the dark and playing violent games.
As a boy and a child, I was encouraged to play with my brothers. One of the games we often played, and partially as a result of what my father did for a living, was "Cops and Robbers". This, along with "Cowboys and Indians", is a violent game. People are supposed to die and often we played with toy guns that looked rather real. There was no blood because of the guns we used.
Games, today like Doom, Diablo II, Unreal, Quake, the list gets bigger and bigger, are violent games blood splatters when you kill and body's fall apart. I will contend that they do desensitize people from the violence that takes place within and further, make it more acceptable to see blood and gore while covnersely watching a massacre take place. There are reasons why the networks broadcast war torn areas and it is not because we are as interested in foriegn politics as it is because we are interested in the blood and death involved.
Do these games cause children to want to go out and kill other people? I don't have an answer for that. I do believe there is enough data that an argument can be made either way in regard to the issue. But I will not be the one to make that argument for anyone else.
There are still some factors involved in where these games may affect the outcome of a childs ability to determine reality compared to the fantastic worlds they provide. A popular malady for children today is ADD (attention deficit disorder). As a result of not wanting children to be children, doctors and teachers encourage parents to place their kids of Ritalin. Ritalin is a mood alterring drug (it is legal to give this out???) that makes the child's temperament more even. The result is that we have a generation of children that suddenly don't feel.
The question is forced: Where do the feelings go?
Couple this with an ever increasing number of children who are left alone or in day care with their parents not having enough time to invest in the children's immediate future, and we have another lack of understanding when it comes to the proper method of disiplining children and helping them to become members of society.
As a result of the trends in child raising, we can see a distinct number of "incidents" involving children and violence. Give them drugs to alter their moods and stop them from having the ability to defend themselves (which also means we theoretically stop them from having the ability to attack others) and the over-all numbers of murders and violence decreases.
The real issues may not be in the numbers involved within the related articles, but rather, in the ways we have stopped children from being able to express themselves when angry or happy.
Of all the trends that have taken place in my lifetime the coupling of Ritilan with removing tha parents from the home and allowing children to find out on their own that a violent end is an acceptable alternative to a confrontation is a possible reason for the violence we do see. Any one factor does not allow for the outbursts to take place, but by muliplying the factors, we multiply the end result of the outcome, with violence being the only means this can take place.
Does George W. realize this? or does he choose to merely state, ignorantly, that it is computers, the internet and video games that cause violence? The man is not stupid; but he does need more information especially in an age where electronic communication allows us to transfer more factual information quickly and to more people.
--It's not paranoia when it's real--
And the other candidate isn't an idiot? He claimed to have INVENTED the internet! Come on. You have to remember these ppl are politicians first. They only know as much as the people they surround themselves with. Wait another 10 years or so, when our generation is running for offices.
Emphasis mine.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Would it have been wrong for Kurt Warner to say "As a member of the Rams, I took the initiative in throwing passes that scored touchdowns"?
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
APA Journal
AAP Web Site
Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children
These results are not the fault of the technology but the fault of thoes who use it. Gov. Bush may be using incorrect wording and blaming the internet, but there is a strong correlation between some internet content and the dark harts spoken of. If the media had no effect on anyone why do advertizers spend billion of dollars on ads?
Gavin
The world looks different in UV...
You're pointing fingers, give up. If what you were saying was indeed true, after movies such as "Seven" there would be a rash of mutilation killings, etc. These sorts of movies appeal to what is already inside of us: violence. We're the product of millions of years of evolution, but at heart, we're still animals, and how do animals solve their problems? By fighting. The Romans had their Colosseum, the French had their Grand Guginol, we have our Hollywood. Is it violent? Yes. Is it decadent? Yes. Is it unique in the history of mankind? Certainly not.
Of course largely publicized cinematic events like movies may effect our collective consciousness, but to overexaggerate their effects is simply not in anyone's best interest. I've seen plenty of violent films, and I've listened to plenty of violent music, and I've played plenty of violent video games, and so have *COUNTLESS* other people, yet crimes inspired by these things are the exception rather than the rule, and we must remember that, no matter how much we might dislike the relatively few instances where an already unstable individual loses sight of the boundary between fantasy and reality and commits an act inspired by a movie, video game, song, etc.
If we are to expect people to act in a responsible fashion, then we must in turn, judge those actions responsibly.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
this issue is something I've been fuming about ever since Columbine actually happened. I'm a 17 year old senior right now, a sophomore when the Columbine shootings occurred. Basically, I'm tired of dumbass politicians trying to decide what's best for ME. I know that this horse has been beaten repeatedly, but I don't see many of the actual minors standing up about it.
Crap like this is really going to sway my opinions on the two major parties when I actually get to the age to vote. Screw Republican and Democratic. They'd better have a damn good platform and views before I even think about voting for one of them now (a good handle on the English language could help, Dubya). Bush comes across as a rich daddy's boy, and from seeing what teenagers like that act like, this guy's probably a major prick. The internet causes corruption? F that. We'd have a few million teenagers wigging out every week and deciding to blast away their fellow students if that was the case.
I've never paid much attention to the presidential runs before this year, because I haven't cared. Now that I see the corruption that can be involved in this crap, I can't wait to get my ballot in...and it ain't gonna be Republicans or Democrats.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Gore did claim to have invented the internet, and I suggest you learn english. You know, sometimes what someone says and what they meant to say are two different things. This was clearly an unfortunate verbal mistake by Gore. He certainly took the initiative in helping to make the Internet what it is today. That is fact.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Uh, Daphne and Celeste for President?
If you're a jock, inflict some pain / If you're a nerd then use your brain - DAPHNE AND CELESTE
>I don't see how you interpret that any other way?
Easy, just belong to one or the other major party and any such nuisance as facts or quotes suddenly become open to even the most assinine interpretations.
>Dare I say it? There are *conservatives* amoungst you! Conservatives who are server side Java programmers! Who use linux! And who read slashdot!
Who don't know how to spell! I don't expect perfect spelling, and typos are a natural and frequent occurence, but any one who writes aboout politics and spells it "P-O-L-O-T-I-C-S" deserves to be ridiculed in the cruelest and most inhuman manner possible.
Go back to the paddock where it's safe, foolish ewe.
And here's why.
You think GW Bush is an idiot. Look at it this way: what segment of the populace votes most often and consistently (hint, not the 18 year olds)? Who understands the "techno-culture" the best? The 18 year olds (ie, not the baby boomers). Therefore, IMHO, GW Bush couldn't possibly be an idiot; he's courting the vote of the larger sections of the voting population to better his chances of winning. You don't win by making 18 year olds happy, Jon. I guess you wouldn't make a good politico, then.
NOTE: I have made no comments for/against Bush in this matter. I just wanted to point out that Katz needs to think about what he writes before he puts it up on /.
Suggestion: If you took a slant that wasn't so obviously designed to evoke some emotion from me (a computer geek), perhaps I would have bothered reading the entire article; however, I can't stand reading more than a couple of sentences when you try so hard to take advantage of your demographic so that you can turn /. into some nasty political machine. Please, tone it down or cut it out.
Don't wimp out and vote for Bush or Gore, please!
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
Jon Katz seems to think this is ok.
I think it's bullshit.
I think that the Net has created an atmosphere where we, the young generation, are protected and insulated, safe from whatever wisdom our parents and grandparents have to offer. But our parents and grandparents are only just now waking up to what's going on.
And they are freaking out.
Unfortunately, the only reaction they seem capable of is a knee-jerk, "net bad, must censor!" response. This, in my opinion, is not the right response, even though it has been embraced by both Bush and Gore.
Jon Katz's reaction: "All children should have Net access to enhance their lives!"
I think that's bullshit.
I went from kindergarten through high school without the Net, and I'm not at all worse off for it. We now have two polarized camps of people: one, represented by Bush and Gore, that thinks that there are pedophiles and pornographers lurking behind every URL, and the other, represented by Jon Katz, Wired, and Slashdot, which thinks that the Net is the great savior of our generation, the bringer of Goodness and Light and Empowerment to all.
I think both sides are missing the point: we now have a generational rift wider than an OC-7. If parents actually paid attention to what their children were doing, showed them actual attention and love, then their children wouldn't be absorbed in violent TV, sex on the Net, or be grabbing guns and shooting their classmates.
Sorry if this is incoherent... I'm writing as I think, and I need to go now.
Axel
Axel
mhm23x3, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
That's what the serpent said, and look where we are now.
Bah, if such a scene had ever occured outside the fever dreams of wandering Jews, then Eve was entirely right to eat the apple and gain knowledge. Only a cruel and petty god would forbid his creations from gaining knowledge.
Fine. Go ahead and try. You won't succeed, and God won't be pleased. But I've seen enough of your type to know I won't be able to stop you. I hope somebody else can learn from your mistakes, at the very least.
I will succeed, and my successors will become gods in their own right, as is our destiny. If your god exists, then he will be hunted down like the dog he is.
"Irrationality"? I suppose you believe atheism to be rational. Nothing could be further from the truth. Atheism is simply an excuse to perform evil and immoral acts while keeping your conscience clear in the certainty that there will be no retribution for your crimes.
You forget, my ignorant friend, that a true man can understand their place in the world without needing the crutches of an anachronistic belief system. Nietzche had it right, you have it wrong.
Gain is not the issue. Gain is never the issue. Morality is the issue. Genetic engineering, as tampering with the will of God and God's own creations, is beyond immoral, and there is no excuse for pursuing such anti-human and anti-spiritual studies.
And morality is something you sadly lack, for your rigid system of belief cannot hope to sustain true justice or morality. Anti-humanism is the result of your naive, sad rantings, designed to hide the fact that you feel unable to cope in a world that wasn't designed to make you feel safe.
We will grow beyond people like you, and humanity will be far better for it.
Sit on a straw mat in the lotus position for about three hours and ponder that one, grass hoppa!
www.ridiculopathy.com
Whether you like it or not, Katzie is going to going to write another book (with some of your ripped-off posts in it, no doubt) and claim to the mainstream media that he holds your reigns.
If anything has changed culturally in the past twenty years, it's that young people recognize that flavor of BS when it's being fed to them.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2000-10 -09&res=l
It could be video games...But, I don't think so...
How Jaded Are You?
Obviously you weren't paying attention to either the debate or what happened in Columbine. What those kids needed was to develop better social skills, not withdraw to the Net and learn how to refine their hate. I am not saying that the Net "does" that to people, but neither was George Jr. He was using that as an example of the social deterioration of our young people because they have such an easy escape. Soometimes it is good to have a fat lip. You always learn something from it. I don't think that running and hiding on the Net is anything other that cowardly. I am also not saying that the Net does that either, but people can have a one track mind. If things are really easy to get, they don't have time to hesitate. For example, if we sold hand grenades in supermarkets you would see allot more murders in the parking lot.
While that's a nice sentiment, I REALLY see no social change on the horizon, whether today's "youth" (the market segment I left not so long ago) takes power or not.
Look at the 60s: when the youth movement got any power, THE power flooded the movement with drugs (CIA) or murdered the leaders outright (FBI). By the time that generation realized what had happened, they were so busy buying up espresso makers and pitching Jordache jeans that they're concerns about their Social Security benefits now blot out "youthful indescretions" about changing the existing social structure. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The point is: the longer within the system you remain, the less likely you are to change it.
Sorry to be so grim; this whole issue of social change (REAL change, not just faster microprocessors) has me just as confused, chagrined and alarmed as you. And, like you, I have no ready answer to solve the problem....
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
I'm happy for your blue-eyed, blonde-haired Aryan offspring; I'm sure they'll make the world a better place (just as they did 60 years ago.)
As for genetic manipulation, all we've seen so far is a proliferation of dog-types; I'd hardly call that a ringing endorsement for your cook-the-genes positivism.
Finally, what is this obsession with the human race's "potential"? I personally don't give a shit whether or not the species survives--I'm not at all certain it should. If nothing else, genetic manipulation will CHANGE the species, anyway, and humanity WILL go the way of the dinosaurs.
Really, what makes you think you're genetic super child will do anything more than put your sorry ass into a concentration camp?
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
While Bush and Gore are both idiots, I don't want to vote for Nader. I am still going to vote for Bush because it is safer for our liberties to have a conservative, even if he is a left-leaning conservative (usually called a moderate). He may not like the net culture, but he would rather see parents control thier children than government. Gore wants you to have your life controlled entirely by government. I have to vote for the lesser of two idiots. It is sad that these are the two best candidates we can get. We should scratch out the W. from the ballots and vote in Bush Sr. again. He's much more competant than his son.
2000 != 1984 Stupid English people.
>Am I the only one who thinks this is not
>Democratic? Well, it only goes to show that this
>country is not a Democracy, but a government of
>the people not by the people.
congratulations! you're right. this isn't a democracy. this is because the founding fathers had a bit of sense, and knew that a nation must have more direction than the whims of its constituents. after everybody's fought it out over the issues, there's gotta be somebody left to make the decisions. that's why we're a republic (with some democratic tendencies thrown in to prevent perversion of law and dictatorship), why is ruled by law.
Probably nothing less than a worldwide outbreak of ebola.
Seriously, though, go to this link, find the little check box with the name "Jon Katz" next to it, click on it, then click on the "save" button at the bottom of the page. Presto, no more JonKatz!
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
BUSH - (I don't like him AT ALL) - Pro-life...anti-gay...tax breaks for the rich GORE - (lesser of two evils) - Pro-choice...pro-tolerance...big government
I do not like EITHER of the choices, AND I REFUSE to throw my vote away on NADER. :(
I agree that parents need to STOP relying on the government to raise their children, but I also CANNOT stand by and watch BUSH do nothing but provide for his rich buddies.
AGAIN. The ONE MAIN thing that Jesse has going for him is that you KNOW where he stands. He doesn't stand there and hoping from foot to foot saying all sorts of crap then when in office decides to do what his RICH constituents want him to.
GO2K
I agree with you completely. As brassy and ballsy as Jessie is, I respect him as a man who, for the most part, is straight forward. Focused on what needs to happen, NOT what makes him look good infront of the camera or someone who will LIE to get into office. If he was a choice for president (sometime in the future) he would be my vote.
In NY, our big "glamor" vote is between Hillary and Lazio. Hillary (President's wife who rescently moved to NY [upstate NY]) and Lazio (Long Island native who is blatanly lying to get into office). If you look at his voting record everything he says in his advertisments is completely maligned from what he ACTUALY voted. LIAR.
Hillary, is for the most part a complete unknown, other than having been the presidents wife and all the things she did in that position. (no jokes PLEASE) She is a complete unknown.
Anyway. You are absolutely correct on getting people _motivated_ to vote. I was not clear in my post because so much of that article irritated me, but I would love to see more people vote, from more age brackets.
Thank you for the reply. I very much appreciate your insight from Minnesnota :)
Greatoak
I believe most Constitutional Scholars will argue that the well regulated militia stated in the Second Amendment is now fulfilled not by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, but rather by the National Guard.
Many non-USians do not know of the National Guard. The National Guard is composed of civilians who work regular jobs, but a few weekends a month and a few weeks a year they go to train in military science. They live in the community, and are usually state based. They are called out for uprisings and natural disasters. They are, in fact, America's militia in the 21st century.
So, to fulfill the Second Amendment, we just need to make sure that the National Guard has their weapons.
Let's look at this logically. Eventually, someone who is elected to an important position is going to be very pro-freedom-of-information.
Sorry, but I disagree. If you look at the US Gov't system of 'leadership' its based upon witholding information.
the only people that get elected are those that have enough:
#1 - Money
#2 - 'Political' influence
You earn more money by witholding information then you do by giving it out, and its the same way with politics. Politicians aren't really concerned with how information is presented, but more with how they can use it to their gain.
-- MrMud
I'm tired of seeing young people not looking at all the options. Today's college students can get into government much sooner. The minimum age to qualify for the House is 25. It's 30 for Senate and 35 for president.
Yes, money is a barrier, but if you're waiting to pull it out of your own pockets you'll never run. That's what donations are for. Even Bush with his record fundraising is getting less than a $1 per person (total raised
If you're at least 25 and aren't running for something, don't gripe about the candidates.
What will it take to get JonKatz off of Slashdot?
If there were such a superlative in my high school yearbook, I would have been elected, "Most Likely to go Columbine." The week after the incident there (April vacation was on during 4/20), I had numerous people asking me, "Dude, are you going to go crazy with a gun in the hallways?" There were also the taunts of, "Where's your hitlist?" and "Where's your trenchcoat?". However, that subsided, as they didn't want to risk anything. I like it when fear turns out to be your most powerful and peaceful weapon.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Good point. My high school currently manages its network better than my college does (mainly due to some older hardware and the staunch opposition to upgrading to Windows 2000 at my college). I feel that a revolt similar to the college rebellions in the 60's might be in order soon. Rage against the Machine's "Testify" music video shows the disgusting similarity between Bush and Gore. Even in my hometown, the rift is showing: there's a referendum on the ballot as to whether the state will start funding a renovation of middle schools. My estimation is that everyone who is not above 10 years out of high school will vote yes, while all the voters over 35 will vote no. The rest is a toss-up, depending on whether they've seen what a dump one of the middle schools has become lately. I think that this is a lucid example of the rift between generations that is growing wider by the day.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I disagree. If anything, the GOP campaign's insistence that Gore will provide the same old policy as Clinton is HURTING Mr. Bush. America likes Bill Clinton and (unfortunately) gives him a lot of credit for the economic rebound of the '90s-- if the American people thought Gore was the next Clinton, he'd get a lot of votes. Thing is, he isn't. Clinton is very moderate; Gore is downright leftish in comparison. If the Bush campaign would focus on that instead, I think he'd have a significantly greater lead.
Before modding me back into obscurity, let me outline an opinion that many here will find controversial: Computers don't belong in schools.
An overstatement, to be sure. It would be more reasonable to say that computers are not the cure-all for the ills that plague our education system. In fact, they often create their own problems, and often the money could be better spent on less sexy but more worthwhile projects.
Moore's law is great for technogeeks and businesses, but for schools, it means that whatever money they invest in computers this year will lose half its value over the next eighteen months. By comparison, musical instruments might last through ten years of students before finally being obsoleted by a third grader who is too exuberent about playing the drum set. A physics demonstration kit would last even longer, as the laws of physics are only reworked every fifty years or so. In short, keeping up with the latest and greatest in computing technology is at best a poor investment.
Then you have to look at what the computers are actually being used for. If little Timmy uses his computer for researching photosynthesis for his science class, that's wonderful. If he uses it to find an article then cut-n-paste it into his report without doing more than skimming it, then the computer has simply enabled his innate laziness.
Finally, (and this is where I probably deserve to be blasted) most people are not going to be computer-literate. Not the way folks around here would define it. They'll never upgrade a motherboard, they'll never replace a jabbering NIC card, they'll never install software in anything other than the default directory. For them, computers are just something they use to write memos, play solitaire, maybe send e-mail and play MP3s if they're really 1337. Not every third grader typing, "i like riding mybike what do you like." in a chat room is going to write the next Napster. For them, there's nothing that having a computer in the classroom would teach them couldn't be just as well taught by an Information Tech class their Junior year of high school.
Of course, there are other kids who might become interested in computers at an early age. The best thing for such kids isn't a PIII w/ 256Megs of RAM and a nineteen inch flat-panel monitor that the teacher is afraid to let them touch. I would suggest that they would be better served by a P-90 with 16 Megs, some programming software, and a teacher with an A+ certification and some programming experience who can teach them what a "while loop" is.
Of course, I'm just irked about the many hours I wasted in school doing typing drills on a hideous green-screened Apple. So don't take my ramblings too seriously.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
To quote from your quote:
It's hard to take this out of context. He's talking about culture. He's talking about kids walking into school with a gun and taking the lives from the people around them. But the part that really gets us is "as a result of being on the Internet."
You can talk about context and hidden meanings, misunderstandings or whatever you like. THIS IS WHAT THE MAN SAID. If he can't speak intelligently enough to avoid the obvious misunderstandings, then why should the man be trusted to sit at the head of our Executive Branch? I, for one, won't be voting for someone who needs an interpreter on hand to explain to us what he really meant by that.
Myself, I'm voting for Nader. For me, it's about the same as voting for "none of the above."
Michael...
There is no problem which cannot be resolved by the judicious use of firepower.
In the 1870's the original authors of the Constitution did not invision
radio, televsions, the Internet, email, telephone, yada,yada,yada. So obviously according to your interpretation, the Constitution does not apply to these either.
GW may sound like an idiot, but he's for less government
I keep hearing that but I'm a little lost with that statement. Where/When has he announced what government programs he's gonna axe? I just hear about all the new, wonderful programs he's going to create with the so-called budget surplus. How is he planning to reduce government? Links would be nice.
i attended a lecture last night given by bill joy on the threats and benefits of the information age. mr. joy started out discussing why moores law is gonna keep going for the next 30 or 40 years (not peter out as we reach the limits of current chip-making technology) and how the potential 10^12 increase in computing poser (10^6 from hardware and 10^6 from improved algorithms) will put unfathomable power into the hands of everyday computer users.
of course, mr. joy reasoned, teh ability to synthesize smallpox or create devestating nano technologies in one's garage is simply to great a risk to take, so we are left with only one possible decision as a society: gotta say farewell to freedom. my jaw dropped when i heard someone i respect as much as bill joy talk about how and why freedom must be limited in the future. i hope he's wrong, and that we can find another way around his supposed perils, but i really can't think of any...any suggestions?
Jon Katz just can't stop, can he?
He claims, "at least we know now that one of the canidates is an idiot." Well, Mr. Katz, by hearing this remark, I'd really have to reconsider my view on who's the idiot.
By taking one single statement such as this, taking it completely out of context, and warping it into a pathetically incorrect essay on politics, is just another example of Mr. Katz's ignorant logic. There's just nothing more fun to insult canidates after a debate by writing and saying uninformed remarks like this one.
I would think that a site as respected as Slashdot would keep this political warping to others less mature. Unfortunately you have Mr. Katz writing for you, however, who loves to find any juicy tidbit on these Columbine-esque issues and write meaningless essays on the subject whenever he can. I can tell that Mr. Katz is one of those people who gets his sole political information from the almighty television.
Let's look at what this "issue" is all about. During the debates, A l Gore was talking about the brought-up subject of gun control. He brings up Columbine, our favorite gun control motivator. Gore thinks that a good solution to this problem is to issue licences for gun buyers. Don't have a licence? Don't get a gun. A democratic apporoach to the issue.
Bush counters this, saying that the real problem lies in the people themselves. THAT'S what he is saying. Bush is not a tech-genious. He may not say EXACTLY what he should. He doesn't spend his time online. He's not part of the net-generation. But get over all of the "not exactly correct" statements of the topic and you will see that he's intellegent enough to know that the problem is the low self-esteem of these childern, and that the net was an escape from their cold-reality. He is NOT blaming the problem on the internet. He just gave a real fact that these children spent much of their time on the internet. This simply was another way to feed their lonelyness and thirst for revenge. Let's face it, the internet is good, a great tool. The internet is also full of things that can corrupt a young, untrained mind. To deny this is simply wrong.
Jon Katz's worst mistake is to misunderstand that George W. Bush is more in agreement with Katz's views from his previous essays on this topic than Gore is. Who are we really blaming, and for what? Bush states that these type of childern need caring and love. I would think this is hardly something to criticise. Perhaps Katz just watched the highlights from this debate.
Go ahead and blame the canidates because the dont' and can't know everying there is to know. I look past that and see what they would actually do about it when they are "precisely" informed. I was also intriqued that Katz represented no quotes from Bush. Are we really supposed to believe someone who gives us no evidence of his claim?
I could say that Jon Katz is an idiot. But I'm not going to. We all know that he is not. But for him to call Mr. Bush, a nominated presidential canidate, an idiot, just shows his amatuerish lack of knowlage on this political race in general. Not agreeing with one issue does not make this entire race "exasted and irrational."
especially in this presidential campaign.
I hope I'm not the only person in the USA who is bothered by the status of the government. Not neccisarly their "injustices to Americans" or the widespread corruption that you see on the news, but the fact that we're listening to a bunch of 50, 60 year old people who probably don't know what modem stands for. It's sad that it's going to take another 30 or 40 years before college people today get into the government. Sometimes I wonder if it will even happen in my lifetime.
It would be interesting to know how old are you? I have turned 30 recently and I'm just beginning to understand how much the experience you accumulate when you live longer counts. During whole recorded history older people were governing our society because they have more experience about something much more important than any modern technology - people, contacts with people, relationships between people, dynamics of groups of people etc. I know it can be hard to appreciate when you concentrate too much on technology, which changes so fast that experience doesn't count that much. But keep in mind that human beings have not changed signifficantly for at least 100.000 years.
I've read alot of interesting views on this subject today, all backed up with facts and evidence.
Why don't you all also send them into your local paper's op/ed section? I mean, maybe some other people who aren't on the web would like to hear your opinions.
If anything, it will reach a more diverse reader base. Maybe I'm being too optimistic but it can't hurt to atleast try to infiltrate "their" source of news...
While I don't agree with Bush in this case (though I will vote for him anyway), your political analysis is inaccurate at best. The vast majority of Americans are largely ignorant of the Internet, and even knowledgeable users are frequently unaware of many of its implications. On this matter, Bush is (unfortunately) in tune with majority thought. The fact is that your "Americans turning 18" vote in insignificant numbers.
I find the "Internet as panacea" even more irritating than "Internet as demon" line of thought. The net is a tool, it is used to both create and solve problems.
This hysterical pandering has nothing to do with the reality of children's lives, or their welfare.
Good point. What about your equally hysterical pandering to the biases of Slashdot users?
The sad political truth is that access to the Net, the Web and broadband equals creativity, confidence and opportunity.
Absolutely untrue. Your prejudice is showing.
If American schoolchildren were provided the same kind of bandwidth college students are, just imagine the kind of creative technological outpouring they might be capable of, not only in primary and secondary schools, but by the time they hit colleges and universities.
Hot air worthy of a professional "Boobus Americanus," Jon.
Countries that are spending the money to give young children access to bandwidth -- many of the Scandinavian countries are doing this -- are seeding economic, educational and creative success, equality and prosperity.
A post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument at best. For one with your intellectual attitude, you demonstrate a remarkable lack of knowledge of logic and scientific method.
If either Bush, Cheney, Gore or Lieberman cared a whit about children, they would shriek instead about the paucity of decent Internet access -- and even decent computers -- in America's public elementary and middle schools.
America's schools need fewer computers and better teachers. If the money wasted on computers (read Cliff Stoll's High Tech Heretic) were put into teacher salaries, we might be able to attract the cream of the next generation of college graduates. If parents were willing to fight local bureaucracies, the result might be quality education. But this is not something that can be done on the national level, outside of providing funds.
Personal experience indicates that the role of computers in education is primarily for political figures to impress validators (voters and parents) with how well they are doing their job. Once the computers reach the classroom, those students that already know how to use them do so; those students most in need of computer education ignore them.
The biggest social, cultural and political issues in the country almost all relate to technology...
You greatly overplay the significance of the technology aspect of these issues. They are about our values, and the choices that we make. Too often, we are abdicating those choices. To the extent that Bush introduces values into the discussion, he is far the superior candidate. Lieberman as well (Gore, on the other hand, appears to be a philosophical null pointer). Values should not (and in fact can not) be rammed down anyone's throat, but they do have a place in the discussion.
The aproximately 78 million Americans aged 21 and younger account for 28% of the population.
Many of your stories have dealt with the rights of young people. While such advocacy is needed, the reason that individuals under 18 can't vote is because they are not judged to be responsible for their actions. From my experience this is accurate.
Check the Census Bureau for some real numbers on this; they show population under 18 at the same level as 1990 (down since 1995, though probably not statistically significant).
Don't blame the Internet; blame the parents (and hold them responsible).
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
We all know that when GW was asked what his favorite book was, he replied that he couldn't remember any. But has he possibly read Othello or the Odyssey, great classic works that conservatives love? For the past 400 years kids have been handed a play about a guy who abuses and suffocates his wife. Did I mention that he's the hero? For several millenia we've shoved the Odyssey down kid's throats, complete with it's graphic description of pools of blood from all the dead when Odysseus returns home. How is anything on the internet more violence-provoking than imagining these scenes for yourself?
Oh yeah, contrary to what the media tells us, violent crime has declined dramatically in the last decade, at least that's what the FBI's stats say. Is this the internet's fault too?
Using the argument and logic that 18 year olds don't vote so it doesn't matter how the candidates appear to said 18 year olds does not make sense. Why? Because over half of registered voters do not vote! This happens every election. Not elegible voters, but people who are actually registered to vote. 18 year olds might have a higher percentage that don't vote, but looking at what a large percentage of the population they make up, I would say they are still relatively well represented.
-N
"There ought to be limits on freedom." --George W. Bush ~~~
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Personally I think they're both Anti-Capitalist... Progressive Socialists, and so is Gore, he's just in costume at the moment.
He is pandering to the uninformed, but without any reliable data to back up his claim about the internet, he moves on to another argument
He's not moving on to another arguement is my point. He's answering the question that was asked. He brought up Columbine in an effort to neutralize Gore on it since it's one of the Administrations favorite issues to demagogue. He only references "the internet" to illustrate it as an excuse that OTHERS use to ignore the larger issue of the moral morass we've slipped into in this Country.
In the context of the question of gun violence, Bush was stating that the problems are a result of a cultural crisis, and that the potential for disaster is already with a child if "the internet" causes them to take a life.
Not that I'm going to convert you, but here's the link to Bush's Issue page on Technology and the New Economy
P.S. Vote Nadar - Please! Encourage all of your Democrat friends to do the same!
Some groups advocate removing porn from Libraries. That doesn't mean it's off the web.
The fact that politicians are saying this stuff about the media isn't surprising. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have free speech, but if tv, etc wants to KEEP free speech, people should tone some of the content down a bit. Now before you flame me, hear me out. Most people don't know it, but the media used to be uncensored, mostly. This was in the early 20's. As it got more and more lewd, violent, etc, the general public (not the geeks) got angrier, until they finally implemented a really nasty censorship program. Moral: If you don't tone stuff down, you may eventually see censorship become popular. It's not fair, but it's what will happen.
However, there is something here that isn't being considered: what exactly are we voting for? President, yes, obviously, but the president doesn't have a heck of a lot of power. But the president is the guy who is going to be appointing some new Supreme Court justices, and that's how we SHOULD be voting. If the majority of the voting public understood this and its implications, issues like "How will the gene map be used, and will it be commercialized by bio-tech industries?" would HAVE to be debated.
If people really thought about who was influencing their freedoms, they would probably at least vote for their own senators and representatives, and possibly even their local governments. But then, the right not to choose is what made America (or was that China?) great.
Uh, no CGI as in Computer Generated Imagery, or something.
Regards
Oh, great. Just as I was entering a stage of denial that I'd actually voted for Jesse the Moron, you go and remind me. Another 6 months in therapy. I was encouraged by his fairly straight talk. By his directness in a election where the other candidates were either a) a whiny slit-eyed turncoat whose political leanings were as stable as the wind or b)a mealy mouthed wuss whose greatest political attribute was that half his chromosomes had come from Hubert Humphrey - if he hadn't been name HH the 3rd, he'd have changed his name to make it that. In any case, Ventura is either a bad, or horribly good, example of the power of the electorate to elect one of their own. As was said of Truman: he proves that literally ANYONE can win. I wonder if Hazelden has an outpatient therapy for recovering Ventura voters?
-Styopa
There were no new taxes.. so he was telling the truth bud. even as it may be.. Clinton's core now can hold the claim for the biggest tax hike!
Taxes and Lazy People are best friends.
There was a tax increase.. the taxes themselves were not new.... there is a difference... think real hard and you might get it!
Taxes and Lazy People are best friends.
But.. I am not saying I am a huge fan of either Bush.. I voted for Perot in 92 in 88 I was too young to vote... This year I know the only person I will NOT vote for is Gore... leaning towards Bush.. but if I thought Browne had a dog's chance in hell to win the House.. he would have my vote.. I want to keep as much money as I can for myself and take care of myself my way. I don't want any SS or anything now or never.. just give me my money now and I will take care of my own.. Thats basicly what Browne is saying... go check out his site..
Taxes and Lazy People are best friends.
I cant agree more... I still think there should be a limited number of machines or just one or 2 dedicated labs. I would have liked to take like 1 week even to learn graphic based calculus to see some graphs in 3D. Or, heck, I'm in the IT field.. some higher level IT classes would have been a plus. I guess what I'm getting at is that computers are still needed, but not in every classroom. History could even take a week and do some neat classes (just to beat the duldrum)... But I do somewhat disagree. I think the author could have been a little more open.. Just cause he went through a somewhat boring educational system doesn't mean future generations will.
"But Columbine spoke to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line, we've begun to disrespect life, where a child can walk in and can have their heart turned dark as a result of being on the Internet, and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life."
I don't see how you interpret that any other way?
"Freedom in cyberspace'd be fine and dandy if we happened to live there."
No no, the centerpiece of the sentence is "where a child can walk in and can have their heart turned dark as a result of being on the Internet,"
If I was to say "But Columbine spoke to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line, we've begun to disrespect life, I think the blacks and the Jews are destroying our culture." would it not be clear what I think is the problem with the culture? How is this different?
"Freedom in cyberspace'd be fine and dandy if we happened to live there."
It seems evident that my generation (X) understands this. The only real question I'm asking myself is who is more of an idiot.
It's all relative....
Right now I'm of the opinion that the Gore / Liberman ticket takes the idiot cake, mainly because of thier stance on the media.
"Let's have a Class War Again...."
Well, as a friend of mine says, "in the end, politics is always about spite and class envy".
Did anyone notice the Oct. 9, 2000, Infoworld poll of IT execs as to who would be better on various high-tech issues? The only one Bush wins is support for UCITA, in that Gore was perceived as being more likely to support UCITA. Couldn't find the poll on the Infoworld web site, but it's page 12 of the print issue.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Um, yeah. You also forgot to use BLANK spaces
between
your paragraphs.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
In today's news, primitive life was found on Mars. The mono-cellular creatures, thought to be remnants of ancient life on mars, predate humanity.
Jon Katz, when asked to comment on the discovery, said: "You can see how the ubergeek protozoans of ancient mars must have had an inner connectivity with TCP/IP and implemented IPv6 on a grand scale in their daily lives. Part of the rebellious nature of these mono-cellular proto-geeks was evidenced in their advanced insight into survival in the barren wastes of Mars, just as the cyber children of the 21st Century will one day rule in political circles, due to their innate advantage in dialing 1-800-COLLECT with touch-tone phone phreak PDAs."
In other news, George W Bush revealed that Jon is his love child with Charro.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Other than the large subsidy of the GOP by the tech industry in the current election, and the realization by campaigns that web sites allow them to do media pushes into rural America, the only difference between Gore and Bush is that Gore actually knows what the Net is (as Vincent Cerf can attest) as it's political and funding shepherd, whilst Bush thinks the Net is something you catch oil-soaked dolphins with when you're zipping along the coast in your cigarette speed boat.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Moderate this one up!
If more ppl actually gave a Da^H^Hhoot about who was in office, and VOTED... this country would not be the laughing stock of the world at the polls.
---------
nuclear presidential echelon assassination encryption virulent strain
Whizzmo
Your censors in this election sit on the LEFT side of the aisle.
That would explain all of the right-wing christian "family" organisations that are actively promoting the censoring of internet access in public libraries. The same groups that are pouring millions into the Bush war-chest.
"There ought to be limits to freedom" - George W. Bush, May 21st 1999
I didn't say anything about censoring the internet or removing content from the internet. I was quite specific in saying that they wish to restrict access to content available on the internet. Their preferred method of doing this is to employ technology that doesn't fully work and results in innocuous content being blocked.
and unfortunately, the most corrupt. If ever there were a candidate whose opinion was for sale to the highest bidder . . .
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
What's with all this 'darkened heart' jibba-jabba? I'll give you a darkened EYE, sucka!
BytesTemplar.com
To what do these same Americans turn to for political coverage? The TV networks? CNN? Newspapers? None of the above. They go and watch Comedy Central's Daily Show. This political campaign may come down as the most absurd yet.
"I took the initiative in"... doesn't mean "I". It implies strong, leading, involvement. It can be interpreted as meaning what you're saying, but that would be stupid. Why would Gore claim to anyone that he invented the net? Surely he'd know that such a claim would make him look stupid. Perhaps what he's meant is that he took initiative in a process, that process being the creation of the Internet.
And he'd arguably be right, if we're talking about the Internet as it is today. Gore was heavily involved during the eighties in securing funding for Arpanet, and is credited with being instrumental in passing the High Performance Computing and Communications Act of 91, generally considered the legislation that changed the Internet from being the military/academic network it was into the commercial, open, public network it is today.
There's a hell of a lot you can say that's negative about Gore quite legitmately, from the fact that he appears not to know the difference between the greenhouse effect and ozone depletion to the administration he is associated with's poor record on education and healthcare. But on the Internet, the phrase "I took the initiative in creating the Internet", when interpreted as "The creating of the Internet was going on, and I, personally, took the Initiative in making that happen" rather than "I created the Internet" (doh!) is perfectly fair, and one that a politian might reasonably make.
Vinton Cerf, who's one of the few people in the world who can legimitately say "I was one of those who invented the Internet" (but almost certainly wouldn't) agrees. His take is at The Register, where he and Robert Kahn certainly appear to be somewhat frustrated by the misinformation and mischaracterisation of what Gore said being used against him.
Please people, be reasonable when making an allegation that a politian is a liar because he said something that nobody in their right mind would believe. If a politian says some form of words that opponents claim means something ridiculous, be wary of appearing stupid by assuming a politician would make such an idiotic mistake.
Now, who wants to talk about Dan Quayle?
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Taxes and democrats are best friends
Does anybody remember the 'read my lips' statement by Bush, after which we got the biggest tax hike in history?
I really some of you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Bush made and indirect comment, not even realizing he would hurt feelings. He obviously doesn't believe the internet is "EVIL". His comment, though not well phrased, was pointed to violence and not that the internet was responsible for the death and violence at Columbine. Bush by far has the techie's interest at heart with LESS GOVERNMENT interference and controls.
It is intersting that so many people believe we live in a democracy - We live in a REPUBLIC. In a true democracy the majority could get together and vote the minority into slavery or worse.
I figure Gore is one of the people who believes that Gore "showed initative" in creating the internet and hence sees nothing but goodness from the vice perpetraitor (yes - spelled exactly how I want it) Bush was right about the influence of content in the net in regards to its effect on the younger generation. Why do I say this? Simply put, youths are very impressionable, and the younger they are the easier it is. There is a lot of material on the net that is not suitable to these age groups because they don't have the mental capacity to see through some of the outright lies or twists of the truth. To me, Bush pointed out the fact that he is somewhat attuned to what the general populace feels towards the net. Don't fool yourself and think that the general populace feels otherwise, the general populace IS NOT ON THE NET! Beware more of what Gore doesn't say... he is more dangerous to the net because I honestly believe that Gore/Lieberman are more likely to enforce the government upon us than Bush/Cheney. Worse, G/L are more likely to use the religous viewpoint to do so. Simply put they have been downright subtle in their religous overtones during the campaign, just look at the groups they purposely go talk to. No, if your afraid of the what can happen to the net, I suggest you realize that Bush is the least of the troubles we face. At least with Bush we know where some of his ignorance comes from. That we can fight, its Gore where it gets dangerous.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
who love nothing more than to slam anyone showing a view other than theirs. Its flat out amazing to watch them fall in line, they are so damn easily mislead they actually believe democrats are their source of freedom, when in reality democrats only reduce the freedom you have.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I don't care what Jon Katz has to say here, but I'm mad at Dubya for being a really mean guy toward my way of life. So. Enough kvetching. It's time for some _organized_ kvetching!
Today's Friday the 13th. I've just placed an order with this company here for 1000 buttons with black hearts on them that you can wear to show your solidarity for those of us in America whose hearts are dark with pride! Yeah, okay, that's pretty corny, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm reading too much into a two-second soundbite, I dunno.
Anyway, to get a stack of 20-50 buttons, just email here with your address, and as soon as I get mine, I'll send a pile onto you. Throwing a buck or two back to the return address to cover postage wouldn't be remiss either. Or heck, you could just print up a bunch of your own to hand around, that's entirely cool as well.
You know, I don't really have a mission statement for what _the cause_ is for why we should wear these things, I just figure that if gays have a pink triangle, and, um, those AIDS guys can have ribbons, that we should have something like that as well. I guess a black heart is as good as anything.
Sincerely,
Keith Page
At least Bush did not create the internet.
All of these are conflicting comments are pointless. This can be interpreted either way, for Bush or against him, the same way that everything a politician says in public can be. It's their job, people...of course they're going to be good at telling people what they want to hear. My suggestion is to take it with as many grains of salt as necessary and not read too much into it--after all, when was the last time a politician meant everything he said???= ===
========================================
You rush a Miracle Man, you get rotten miracles - Miracle Max, TPB
You should know by know that Katz is not interested in your "facts" and "logic".
So we got Buchanon, who's running openly racist and anti-immigration ads, Nader who's, well, Nader, and wants to protect all of us from ourselves. Bush doesn't understand the internet, but Gore thinks he invented it, probably with the help of some Chinese campaign contributions that he didn't know were illegal. I'm gonna hold my nose and pull the lever for Bush, he represents the least totalitarian idealogy. Maybe we can explain the web to him.
Blaming guns for Columbine is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat.
Not so. The electoral college pledges votes based on state-level voting. If he wins CA, he gets 100% of the CA electoral college votes.
The original idea of this was to retain powers at state level, since the founding fathers were generally against a strong federal government. Since then, the US public has fallen in true love with the idea of a strong federal government, which up until the depression had pretty much one-tenth the size and power it is now.
This *can* lead to the majority vote not electing a president, and it well might this time around, as Gore seems stronger in terms of the EC vote while they are neck-and neck in popular vote.
But let's clear up one other thing: the US is certainly not a Democracy, and never was. It's a Republic. And to clear another thing up, Democracy doesn't ensure government by the people any more than Republic. Majority rule isn't very comforting for minority viewpoints.
--
Hal Duston
hald@sound.net
I would certainly agree that there is a difference between a Cola commercial and Die Hard, and I would also concur that adults are much less likely to be influenced when making mooral decisions than trivial "cola" decisions.
However, I would also state that media can have a powerful influence on the formation of those values. Most children also have enough parent supervision so that they too can learn the difference between "cola" choices and moral choices, but many do not. In your DieHard example it would be fairly easy for children to infer that violence is an acceptable way to deal with one's "enemies." There have been several cases of small children taking handguns to school (under 8 years of age), these children almost certainly were influenced to some extent by the media. Even the worst of parents do not teach their children to shoot people the disagree with. The television, however, often portrays that very message. Of course, the media wants to blame hand guns (while at the same time using hand guns as an important part of much of their programming).
Many parents who are concerned for their children's welfare do not appreciate a media that is essentially working against us. Most of us aren't asking for much, but we are never going to get anywhere on this issue as long as the media keeps pretending that children are unaffected by the constant exposure to violence and sex. At the very least they need to acknowledge the fact that many of their customers don't appreciate their programming choices. Even if there wasn't a link between media violence and real violence the fact that so many people are upset about the issue should clue the media into the fact that something should be done. After all, we are customers too.
I am not for clearing the airwaves of things that I don't approve of. I understand that my values are not everyone's values, but it isn't asking too much to push for a little more control over what my children see.
Yes, I'm quite aware that my opionion is based upon my interpretation, both from the definition of millitia AND how the 2nd ammendment is phrased.
However you are doing the same. You are assuming what the founders meant by millitia. You are assuming that their definition is that a melitia is basically a state controlled army. I on the other hand presume it means any one capable of defending their country in the time of need. ( As was the case during the revolution )
My intent was to give a counter point to the originals poster saing that his interpretation was the CORRECT one. Honestly no one will ever REALLY know what the founders intended. (we can assume all we want but we will never know)
But to refute your point about them intending millitia to be a state controlled force:
No one took or even tried to take guns away from the people after the revolutionary war. And at that time almost EVERY one had a gun. Which leads me to believe that their definitiaon of millitia was more in the direction of my interpretation.
But again that is an opinion
Ex-Nt-User
It is interesting that you say that those that interpret the 2nd ammendment as giving them the rights to own guns as WRONG. Yet you believe that Your interpretationis obviously correct because it fits your beliefs. Open your eyes.
For every statistic you can bring up about why guns are bad. I can bring up at least one that says the opposite. But obviously MY statistics must be lies because I don't believe the same thing as you. (By you I don't mean to attack you specifically.. I'm attacking all the anti-gun people)
Let's Setup a baseline:
militia
n. Abbr. mil.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2.A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
By definition #1. the 2nd ammendment can't possibly mean that the right to own guns is restricted to the millitary, since our millitary is composed of PROFFESIONAL SOLDIERS. (Besides soldiers DO NOT OWN THEIR GUNS)
By Definition #2. This could refer to the national guard. I will give you that. BUT there WAS NO NATIONAL GUARD established by our founders. Thus it must refer to ordinary people that can help out in times of need. By this it means any citizen of the US.
By Definition #3: And I stress the whole body of physically fit civilians. Thus any civilian can and should be considered part of a millitia. Thus he has the right to own a GUN!
Now that we have established that ANY private citizen is a member of a millitia, we can see that the line the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed does in fact imply that the government can't regulate private gun ownership. Again because if by what you are saing that line refers to the militia and since anyone can be and is part of the militia that line applies to any citizen of the US.
Please don't misinterpret the meaning of millitia because this is where all the anti-gun people DO!
Needless to say I don't own a gun. I don't own one because at this time I CHOOSE not to own one. This contry is based on freedoms, and whether I believe in gun ownership or not, I believe everyone should have a CHOICE which is what anti-gun people are trying to take away!
Ex-Nt-User
well, i'm probably posting this way too late for anyone to rad this, but here goes....
unless the way they are used can be changed drastically from the way it is now, i think katz is very wrong on the necessity of computers in grade school classrooms. in fact, i would say i have a much easier time agreeing with nader's position that there shouldn't be computers at all in grade school classrooms.
before you flame me for this, think about how computers are used in grade schools. for the most part, a grade school classroom has one or two computers sitting in the back of the classroom, and at various times throughout the day, the kids take their turn on the computer to play games like the oregon trail, and carmen sandiego. granted, those are old examples, but the concept is the same. and oregon trail is still very popular (it was re-released as a new full color game recently, with a lot of new flashy stuff (i.e. using the mouse for hunting)
beyond that, every once in a while somebody else who knew computers would come in to teach the kids special things about the computers. what a waste of effort. believe me, a kid in 3rd grade does not care how to use a word processor, and a 7th grader could care less about a database (roughly the time i was introduced to each of these concepts) in fact their attempt to teach me what about databases was so braindead it took me years to figure out what was the difference between a database and a spreadsheet.
if you want your kid to play educational games, do it at home, or in the school's computer lab outside of class time. and if you want to show him how to use the web, then that's great. do it at home. can't afford a computer at home? use the library.
we shouldn't be teaching our kids computers in grade school. not everyone is going to grow up to be a programmer. those who find them interesting can learn about them on their own, but not everyone will. by trying to show all these kids how to use computers before they are ready for them, you're only going to mess them up.
computers in gradeshool classrooms, until we can vastly change how they are used, are only going to cause problems.
and yes, i am speaking more than just from my personal experiences in grade school. i've helped with setting up computers at the grade school i went to many times, and i know many grade school teachers. if you don't believe me, go visit a few gradeschools yourself and ask to look around.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
...as another person up there noted, people around the age of 18 won't vote.
You see, it's a Catch 22...politicians pander to the senior citizens, etc. because they have very large voter turnout percentages. As such, in order to get elected, you have to address their needs.
The under 21 crowd has historically had the lowest voter turnout of pretty much any group. Politicians don't care about this group because basically their vote is chump change. However, the catch is that the under 21 crowd doesn't vote because politicians don't care about them. Ugh!
This is all obvious, I'm sure, but I'd like to put forth this challenge. I'd bet the average Slashdot reader is in their 20s (I said average, not all!). As such, you likely know people in the 18-20something group. Go out there and encourage them to vote! Don't tell them who to vote for, just pester them to actually go do it.
Politicians may not care about our age group (I use 'our' broadly as I'm almost out of the apathy age group), but for once, let's send them a message that we do matter. If all of the sudden, these age groups had 50% or better voter turnout, we'd start to matter to politicians.
So do it!
Politicians don't care how 18 year olds view them, since 18 year olds barely bother to vote. So it's no surprise that these candidates would just concentrate on the older demographic, it's just good practice to go after the voters that actually vote!
-- let me burn you let me burn you let me burn you -Front 242
If he wanted to make the internet the issue, it wouldn't have been hard to make that clear, and I would have been flaming him full-on for it. The fact is, it's pundits like Katz that are trying to make everyone think the internet was the main issue on Bush's mind. It's not.
Frankly, I'm too disappointed by Katz's shameless partisanism to say any more, and I'm too irked about the mass media calling an attack upon a united states ship of war "terrorism" when by the standards of every nation on earth that is an outright act of war.
But that's WAAAAAY offtopic :-)
Geuss what, not all of us want to pay for your medical bills. If you didn't save properly in your youth and prepare for retirement, then quite frankly, fuck you. If you don't have enough money to survive thats your own damn fault and I sure as hell do not want to be forking over my money that I could be using to prevent myself from being in that same position.
Fortunately, I did save enough to buy a gun, thanks NRA! And now, since I don't have any money left for retirement, and I may freeze/starve to death this winter, I'm going to come to your house, kill you, and take all of your stuff!
You can't just turn people out into the street!
And believe it or not, socialism is not a dirty word. You already pay for someone else's medical care, that's what health insurance is all about!
---
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
Oooh boy.
Heart attack and cancer. What a choice...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Blame the idiots. Think globally, but mock them locally.
/following/ the worst doctorine possible. Ignorance.
The interesting thing is that as I get older I begin to realize more and more things and find them ironic. For example there was a recent study which recommended that parents be given more time off work for parenting because there were issues with 0-5yo children. When I heard the story I giggled thinking about the irony of all these social programs which dictate higher taxes which in turn dictate both parents working which leads right back to social programs to "cure" the ills of working parents! Programs which will start the cycle all over again.
To some extent I see this happening here, the candidates representing the people who just don't get it and, in turn, creating more people who just don't get it. A vicious cycle. The irony here is that both candidates are trying to prove that they have what it takes to lead by
-- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
This is the US, it's a 2-party system.
Yes, that was the argument they used to keep people from voting Republican up until Abraham Lincoln won.
-
It's sad that it's going to take another 30 or 40 years before college people today get into the government.
It's incredibly frightening that the people who are in college today are someday going to be in government.
-
What the hell did you just say?
Japanians, Yugoslaves.
If I only have a choice between two fools, I take the articulate one, thank you very much.
You don't have to look quite that deep to find evidence of Bush's weak mind. How about his refences to the Japanians and YugoSLAVES? There were some equally laughable remarks just recently relating to geography, enough to evoke nothing but a snort at the mention of his name. Compared to this, Gore's claims of inventing the Internet are almost erudite.
The phrase "well-regulated" means "in proper working order", and it was in reference to the weapons, not the militia. This was written in the days of flintlocks, when a firearm was not an off-the-shelf item, but required careful and knowledgable maintenance and practice by its owner.
A citizen militia would be worthless if their weapons were ill-maintained. The intended meaning of the 2nd Amendment was, "Because the citizen militia can only function properly if the citizens are able to maintain their own firearms in good working order, government may not infringe on the citizens rights to keep and train on their own weapons.
Bear in mind that the Constitution prohibits standing armies, which destroys your interpretation.
Uh, if you're gonna vote 3rd party, vote for Browne. Nader only wants to imprison the populace in a Green/Red New-Communist state.
That is an absolute load of crap.
I happen to have very strong libertarian leanings (with a couple of minor reservations, such as their stance on anti-trust, etc.), but with spokespeople like you the libertarians don't need enemies.
If you want to do the Libertarian Party a favor, change your tone and stop spouting nonesense.
In the meantime, I will resist the gut level reaction to your comments which would sway me away from Brown and continue to weigh the "empower the individual through very small, limited, and strictly constitutional government" argument of Mr. Brown against the "reduce corporate influence and reempower the individual" argument of Nader. My decision will come in due course according to facts, not diatribe, innuendo, and most especially not as a result of the outright nonesense you are spouting.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
You can pretty easily tell whom among the responses have children and those who still are children. A protection instinct occurs with the former. That instinct may be misdirected when you don't understand a new cultural phenomena, but put yourself in the parents shoes and see where they are coming from.
United States: NATION=USA. ............3217312
. ............7764147
. ............7372984
. ..................3689533
. ..................3577632
. ............10832014
. ..........7108692
. ..........6762450
. .................3243107
. .................3321609
. .................3304890
. .................3410062
. .................3641238
. .................4076216
. .................4009414
. .................3817220
. ..........11193678
. ..........21313045
. ..........21862887
. ..........19963117
. ..........17615786
. ..........13872573
. ..........11350513
. ..........10531756
. ..........4228303
. ...........6387864
. ..........10111735
. ...........7994823
. ...........6121369
. ...........3933739
. .......3080165
AGE
Universe: Persons
Under 1 year.............................................
1 and 2 years............................................
3 and 4 years............................................
5 years............................................
6 years............................................
7 to 9 years............................................
10 and 11 years............................................
12 and 13 years............................................
14 years............................................
15 years............................................
16 years............................................
17 years............................................
18 years............................................
19 years............................................
20 years............................................
21 years............................................
22 to 24 years............................................
25 to 29 years............................................
30 to 34 years............................................
35 to 39 years............................................
40 to 44 years............................................
45 to 49 years............................................
50 to 54 years............................................
55 to 59 years............................................
60 and 61 years............................................
62 to 64 years............................................
65 to 69 years............................................
70 to 74 years............................................
75 to 79 years............................................
80 to 84 years............................................
85 years and over.............................................
In some ways, it's nice sitting back and watching the US Presidential elections. You've got your candidates, neither of whom are particularly appealing in the slightest (I had been edging for McCain, but since he dropped out, it's marginally Gore over Bush, for what seems to me to be obvious reasons).
Well, into the fray jumped Jon Katz over at slashdot.org">, with his article (though I'm more inclined to term it an op-ed) Dark Hearts And The Net.
It was nearly a good article. George Bush Jnr. apparently "implied Wednesday night that the Net can, by itself, turn otherwise bright and youthful hearts dark, and even goad youth to murder -- an allegation that comes in the context of a long-standing cultural civil war. It exploits the worst fears of parents who are too often ignorant of their children's technological and cultural lives".
Here, I agree. Yes, it's political pandering. Yes, it's appealing to the misinformed by feeding them more misinformation and relying more on people's lack of knowledge than it is on enlightenment, and in no way does it smack of a resonable, reasoned debate. But this is politics we're talking about here, so Bush is forgiven.
Katz spoils it all, though, by managing to spout the largest pile of useless bile three paragraphs later: And what a load of bollocks he's spoken. Why? What's he said?
"This hysterical pandering has nothing to do with the reality of children's lives, or their welfare. If either Bush, Cheney, Gore or Lieberman cared a whit about children, they would shriek instead about the paucity of decent Internet access -- and even decent computers -- in America's public elementary and middle schools."
I beg to differ, but I think anyone who's seriously interested in children wouldn't even contemplate shrieking about the paucity of decent internet access. I'd rather hope that such shrieking would be the last thign on such an interested body's mind, and that it wouldn't even be shrieking: a mere mewling I could tolerate.
Excuse me? Paucity of net access? How about educational standards? How about child abuse? How about welfare? How about illiteracy? How about employment? How about giving disaffected kids something, anything, a reason to stay in school and not to muck around? How about educating mall rats (and I may be stereotyping, but unfortunately stereotypes exist for a reason), whose knowledge of world affairs, well, doesn't exist?
Katz comments that "the sad political truth is that access to the Net, the Web and broadband equals creativity, confidence and opportunity". No, Jon, you're completely wrong. Completely, utterly and totally.
Yes, technology can empower people. Yes it can make a difference, it can improve creativity, confidence and opportunity. But it's not the be-all and end-all, not by a long way.
Is Katz seriously insinuating that he'd rather schools spent money on internet access than textbooks? Are we to suggest that we should wire up schools whilst neglecting the fact that a startling number are attempting to drop or de-emphasise the teaching of evolution in biology classes in favour of creation science?
You can't, and shouldn't assume that throwing computers and technology at kids is going to make the world a better place, and it's rather ill though-out to say so: what kids need are teachers. They need adequate teaching facilties. They need well-stocked labs. They need teachers who know enough about the subject, and care enough about their subject to want to and to inspire their charges. Fortunately, I'm not the only one on slashdot who thinks this.
My old school has computers falling out of its ears. I was lucky. I went to a good school, we had enough money, we had good (in most parts), teachers. I was given the right chances, the right opportunities and I was pushed. This same school had computers falling out of its ears. Fibre optic backbones. A ratio of computers to pupils that puts my current university to shame. Did those resources help anyone pass exams? Did the classrooms full of PCs help anyone understand English literature? Did they directly inspire any kids to go out and do something, did they directly inspire kids to learn? Or did they simply allow kids to check their Hotmail at lunch and send emails like the following during their lessons?
At 15:56 23/05/00 +0100, you wrote:
>what do you suck?
>not what you do
Technology's just there. Like everything, it's what you do with it that counts: if you don't have the teachers to take advantage of it, where are you going to go? You'll have thirty pieces of beige-box equipment sitting being more or less abused on a daily basis, and you're not unlocking any potential anywhere. You're wasting it. These kids don't know anymore about the net because of net access. They know the latest football scores. They know what new single's at number one. They try, vainly, to look for porn, and were surprised when we came down on them like a tonne of bricks. They send idiotic, abusive emails to each other, in a new form of playground insult. Are these kids empowered because we sat them in front of a 15 inch CRT and told them to surf the net for an hour? Of course not.
People must realise that throwing technology at things doesn't make anything any better. Wiring up schools, wiring up hospitals, sharing information doesn't necessarily make anything any better unless you have better people. Technology in itself doesn't make better people, either. It can help, but you stick thirty kids down in front of your wonderful government-funded net access workstations with a horribly inept, disillusioned teacher and you have a waste of money of the highest degree.
Katz says "What a shame that the many real issues surrounding technology are perverted in this shamelessly exploitive way."
Yes, that's a shame. It's a shame that politicans are looking at the negative aspects of the internet in order to gain votes. Yes, it's a shame that politicians are capitalising on fear founded due to lack of knowledge. But it's also a shame that Katz is perpetuating the myth that many seem to share, including the politicians he so despairs of: technology doesn't help. People do.
More Katz: "The biggest social, cultural and political issues in the country almost all relate to technology: yadda yadda gene mapping, yadda yadda birth selection, intellectual property, management of new technologies from supercomuting (sic) to AI to nanotechnology."
Yes, these issues are important. Ethical considerations have to be examined. The foundation for intellectual property has to be re-examined. But before that, please look after your people. Katz is right: the internet isn't turning young hearts dark and murderous. But have you thought of what might be? Why are so many kids disaffected? Why are so many apathetic? Isn't it ironic that when adults complain about the children of this century, they complain that they're materialistically motivated, that they are so apathetic when its crass commercialism that has been drummed into their heads? Kids these days are mass-marketed into submission, and it's not as if they're "growing up" any slower.
Don't be preoccupied with technology. Work out how to use it properly, and how to teach people to use it properly before you start throwing it at everyone and expect them to intuitively know how to use it positively.
This post also appears on my blog at http://danhon.com/ec/.
http://danhon.com/
...they fail to realize that in order to get the "youth vote" they have to have some emotional investment in the youth they're attempting to persuade.
That might be true if there was such a thing as the youth vote. But youth don't vote. Or rather, they vote in insignificant numbers. The politicians know this. And since most of them lack any conscience whatsoever, they'll hammer home the issues that they think will get the best press (Slashdot not included), the most buzz, and ultimately the most votes. Regardless of whether they really believe their own spiel.
Sad to say "youth vote" continues to be an oxymoron.
Politicians are not idiots. They are smarter than most of the people on slashdot. Just because someone doesn't agree with your views, does not make them an idiot.
Well, it's all a metter of word-play I suppose. What Gore is quoted as actually saying is:
"During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
Now I don't know about you, but I could take that as meaning that he is claiming he "invented" the Internet. Sure, what he is really saying is that he was a supporter of ARPANET before it became what we know as the Internet. But come on, he DID NOT create the Internet. ARPANET was created in the late 60's, Gore didn't even graduate from Harvard until 1969 and he wasn't a member of Congress until 1976. No sir, Al Gore had nothing to do with "creating" the Internet. Now, if you want to play with words and say that the Internet didn't exist until 1994 when the web came alive, then I suppose his claim of being an early supporter has some weight. It's a pretty good stretch either way in my book.
Because of his generous claim I think he deserves to be made fun of a little.
How are those voting for "Bore" (to borrow your 1980 newsgroup flamer renaming method) voting any less blindly? How can you support a candidate that was a primary force behind the Clipper chip?
I'm voting Nader, but frankly it astounds me that anyone with a even a small degree of technical sense would vote for Gore. Just because he understands technology to some extent does NOT mean his uses of it will be all for the good!
Gore is my absolute last choice, I would write in a vote for Nixon or Carter before I'd vote Gore.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's exactly the kind of thing I've been looking for - though I'd wish they included at least Nader as well. I apologize for any mispellings, I didn't have time to proofread well.
Here's a summary of the ten issues:
Space Exploration:
Both support the space program and the ISS.
Bush - Mentions support for Mars exploration and trying to make it cheaper to get people into space.
Gore - Has a short blurb on support for space exploration and would complete the ISS.
Science Education:
Bush - Supports a number of funds to help promote math education - also supports H1B visas.
Gore - Continue connecting schools to the internet (E-Rate program), deploy AmeriCorps people to help train techers to use the Internet, and also supports H1B visas.
I guess if you don't like the H1B visa program you are out of luck this election.
National Labs:
Bush - redo security at labs, provide $20b for R&D between now and 2006. Rework military to handle information warefare.
Gore - supports current energy department initiatives to increase security. Supports General John A. Gordon in revewing national nuclear security.
International Science Projects:
Bush - small blurb about how it's a good idea, but we need to make sure of accountabliliy.
Gore - committed to helping along international science projects, like the human genome project.
Energy Policy:
Bush - reduce dependance on foreign oil, increase funding for research into alternative enegry (though without goverment interference).
Suports nuclear power, deregulation of electric and gas, R&D tax credit for energy research.
Gore - maintain tax incetives for coal, oil, gas. Pursue tax policies to support efficient use of energy. Pursue much better efficiency of light duty vehicle fleets.
Global Warming:
Bush - Rejects Koyoto Protocol on the grounds of 80% world exemption. Use market based mechanisms to reduce pollution (tax credits).
Gore - Strongly supports Koyoto Protocol and through that market based mechanisms.
Biological and Physical Sciences:
Bush - increase funding of basic research (including it research), also double budget of National Institutes of Health.
Gore - Significant increase for "Twenty-First Century Research Fund", including National Institutes of Health. Stop cuts in funding for physical research.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Bush - reduce nuclear arsenal to smallest level needed to maintain national security (probably less than StartII). Reduce as many weapons from high alert status as possible. Supports missle defense and attempt to recude availiable supply of materials need for more nuclear weapons. Does not support Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Gore - Supports limited missle defense system. Ratify Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Continue to denuclearize Russian Federation, build up anti-terrorist capabilities.
Missile Defense
Bush - Build NMD to protect US and allies overseas. Try to work with Russia to amend Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, but opt out of treaty if that doesn't work.
Gore - Support limited NMD. Also work with Russia on adjusting Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, but will not let Russia override veto on NMD if NMD is needed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What's truly amazing is that there's been so much focus on Gore's exagerations (a politician exagerating- what a story!) and virtualy none on Bush's straight out lies about his own budget. Lies spanning _billions_ of dollars of spending differences between what he says and what his own budget says. Misrepresentations about what Social Security even is (and complete neglect of the fact that there's a huge a DEBT owed to current retirees that has to be paid somehow) Anyne who's been following Paul Krugman's opinion collumn in the New York Times should know this, but apparently most people don't read that anymore. Krugman stuff - needs a free registration to read if you haven't already.
You are absolutely correct, and had I not blown all my moderator points on a bunch of $2 karma whores yesterday, this post would be significantly higher up the page.
--
--
E_NOSIG
...unless they're tearing apart someone else's opinions. Jon, you rule. Everyone else who can't seem to find anything better to do with their day than pick at every miniscule detail of every JonKatz post, get a life. The grammar isn't perfect, but whose is? Things occasionally get misspelled, but who among us has never misspelled anything? Yes, he seems preoccupied with the youth of today, but there's a good reason for that: they're the future. This world is divided into two camps: all the control freaks currently running the government, big business, and the media, and all the rest of us who are appalled at the idea of downsizing a company just so its stock value goes up a tenth of a point, or of a program like that hideous WAVE thing (which encouraged kids to rat each other out for things like "being different" just like in Nazi Germany), or of restricting anyone's access to information that might encourage them to formulate their own opinion instead of just taking on faith whatever Society crams down their throats. I'd be willing to bet that damn near everyone who reads slashdot belongs to the second camp. Guess what, folks? That puts us all on the same team. It's us, the freedom-loving people who hate the thought of being kept under the heels of those who strive to control us, against them. Like it or not, most of you people who bitch at Jon every time he puts two words together and forms a sentence are at heart actually on the same side as he is. As I am. As we all are. You just need to realize that the reason it seems like he keeps repeating himself about things like kids and Columbine is because you haven't gotten it yet, which is self-evident from the fact that 90% of the responses to anything the man says are overwhelmingly negative.
Now to address the subject of his essay: Politicians suck. Like anyone can argue with that. I haven't voted in any election in about 15 years because I realized long ago that voting is pointless. Like it or not, we do have to put up with a 2-party system. 80% of the voters in this country will vote either Republican or Democrat no matter what. Ralph Nader? He doesn't have a chance in hell because so few people take *any* third-party candidate seriously. My own parents, god love 'em, always always always vote Republican no matter what, especially now that the Republican is someone who professes to be as Christian as they are. In their minds, all that matters is that the man says "I'm a Southern Baptist." His actual opinions and views on important things like education and freedom and how much control the government has over them don't matter whatsoever; "As long as he's a Christian, he'll do the right thing." When I remind them that Bill Clinton also professed to be a Christian during election times, their faces go all grey and clammy and suddenly the topic changes to what I want for Christmas or something. They hate Clinton with a passion, you see, and can't reconcile themselves with the fact that he fooled them by saying he was a Christian (not that they voted for him, of course, since he's a Democrat). My point is that you can't trust anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician, ever, before or after they're elected:
How many times do we have to catch them in lies before we stop believing what they say?
It's all about control, people. They'll say quite literally anything to get voted into office; whether it's true or not, and whether they intend to follow through on it or not, doesn't enter into it. We can't even tell if Bush Jr. actually believes that the net turns kids into brutal dark-hearted monsters that yearn to take out all their frustrations on the people who're mean to them; he's saying that because he thinks that's what the majority of Americans wants to hear. Everything that they say is geared towards making us more likely to vote in their favor. We're nothing but a table full of demographics to them, and whatever they think the majority of people wants to hear is what they'll spew forth; screw the minorities and their opinions. That's the biggest fault with democracy, incidentally; if 90% of the people think that the other 10% shouldn't be allowed to, say, marry each other, even though it doesn't affect that 90% in any way whatsoever at all, period, then 27,000,000 people are just out of luck. Viewing things in percentages disguises the extent of the truth. If there are 27,000,000 people who have a certain opinion, I'd have to say it's a pretty valid one no matter what the other 90% says, and that 90% has no right whatsoever to force 27,000,000 people into a way of life that they hate... and all politicians pander to this "You'll do what we say whether you like it or not" mentality because voting is also geared around what the majority wants. "Truth," "compassion," "understanding," "tolerance"... these are all concepts which escape them utterly, and so millions upon millions of people have to suffer because whatever group outnumbers them gets to dictate how they'll live their lives. That concept sickens me, and being the freedom-loving bunch of guys slashdot readers are, it probably sickens you too.
And that's all Jon is trying to do... point out to us the fact that the politicians we're presented with every few years -- the "official" ones, of course, not those third-party and fourth-party and green-party candidates who're doomed from the word go because they favor taking some control away from the government and giving it to We, the People, where it belongs, which they of course just can't allow -- are complete idiots who spout beliefs they think will be popular in an attempt to get elected. Doesn't anyone remember the Simpsons Halloween special where Kang and Kodos, the space aliens, replaced Dole and Clinton? "It doesn't matter which one of us you vote for," they said... "Either way, your planet is doomed! Doooooomed!!" Nothing could be closer to the truth... but I suppose because it was presented as humor, nobody took it seriously. I think the show's writers were being deadly serious when they wrote that episode. And everyone who watched it knew it was true, said "Boy, that's so true," especially the part about how voting for a third-party candidate was tantamount to throwing your vote away, but then went right on with their lives afterward. Nobody thinks they have any chance of changing the very foundation of the political system, so we all just put up with it, thus guaranteeing that nothing will change. A self-perpetuating system of oppression designed to keep the powerful in power. You can't even hope to run for any office unless you have millions of dollars to throw away on advertising yourself. If this were truly an equal opportunity political system, there wouldn't be any election campaign fundraisers; all politicians would be allowed a certain number of free political ads on TV and radio and newspapers and magazines and websites. That way, nobody would have an advantage simply by virtue of being wealthier than the rest of them. "Who will pay for the ads," I hear you ask. Well, who pays for public service announcements? I think political ads are just as important to the public as PSA's are and should be just as free to those who make them. Think that'll ever happen? Think those in power (who are, remember, among the wealthiest in America) will willingly give up the advantage that their wealth gives them? Think again.
Politics as a whole stinks. Politicians stink. I can count the number of good honest politicians who actually worked for the public interest (as opposed to the interests of Big Business and themselves) in the past 50 years on one hand. And as long as we all just put up with it and keep deluding ourselves into thinking that happiness and liberty and freedom and equality for all are merely one election away, that all it'll take is the right person in the White House, we might as well just glue wool to our bodies, get down on all fours, and let the shepherds bugger us until the end of time. Why do you think "equality for all" has eluded us for hundreds of years? It should be a very simple thing to accomplish; just treat everyone like you yourself would want to be treated. The quintessence of simplicity. And I think most people do that, for the most part, except when it conflicts with their religion (which is another post entirely, although you could probably replace every instance of "politics" in this post with "religion" and be close to the truth). What's stopping us as a society from just loosening up our sphincters and letting people be who they are without trying to force them into whatever ethical/moral mold is currently in vogue? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. And now, back to the point.
Jon Katz is trying to wake you sheep up and reveal What's Really Goin' On to you. Soon as you open your eyes and break out of the social conditioning you've been subjected to all your lives, as soon as you think for yourselves instead of letting someone else do it for you, as soon as you realize the ridiculousness and idiocy that permeates all things political, as soon as you let yourselves believe that nothing is going to get any better as long as the governments of this world (yes, it isn't just the US that sucks) keep everyone under their thumbs and heels, "the healing can begin." Separately we may not have enough power to do anything about it (though I thrill to the thought of the positive changes that could be wrought on this planet if we all banded together and said "Screw you and your greed!" to those in power), but at least we don't have to keep deluding ourselves into thinking that our votes matter and we only have a choice between Republican A and Democrat B, between Kang and Kodos. Realize that saying "Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos!" isn't an excuse; we are all to blame.
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."
Gore can't win for losing. If he makes a minor mistake he is raked over the coals as a serial exagerator. But if the press and the Bush campaign embellish the alleged Gore exagerations (btw, Gore WAS an inspiration for Love Story) then, again, that is Gore's fault.
When are people going to start holding the press and Dubya responsible for their own embellishments and exagerations?
Gore's contributions to the development of the internet were not minor. He never claimed to have been the sole inspiration, creator, etc. of the internet. But, no less an authority then Newt Gingrich has admitted that Gore WAS on the leading edge of understanding the importance of computer networks and he was the leading supporter of groundbreaking legislation that lead to the privatizing and expansion of th net.
You can try to minimize his importance in these matters, but then it is YOU who are doing the exagerating.
BTW, Gore WAS an inspiration for Love Story. He never claimed that Tipper was as well. He only quoated a newspaper article that misquoted the author as saying she was. The reporters who were there have expressed suprise that the story has been so massively distorted as it has been.
Also, Gore never claimed to have written the EITC. He claimed to have written an EXPANSION of the EITC (he did). And Gore DID work on the SPR. It was first created before he entered congress. But the funding and structure of it was not put in place until AFTER he joined.
The lies, embellishments, and exagerations about Gore's alleged lies, embellishments, and exagerations dwarf those alleged lies, embellishments and exagerations.
To today's modern corporations the dissemination of wealth shows up as a loss on their books. After all. Trickle-down economis works only so long as the corporations don't view that as a sign of them running a leaky ship.
I find it interesting that you appear to define freedom and wealth by how many possessions we can get. The freedom to buy more stuff and the freedom to live our lives as we chose are NOT the same thing.
lets see...
data points = {25.7, 26.1, 26.0, 25.9, 25.7}
Mean = 25.88
Median = 25.9
Mode = 25.7 - i find this kindof useless
Standard Deviation = 0.1788 .3576
SD*2 =
so ... + or - 2 standard deviations of the mean would be {25.5224 , 26.2376}
All values are within this range, so it would be tough to say that there is any appreciable change in graduating populations.
sigh...
tagline
... hi bingo
Dont vote for people because no one will vote for them. It severely limits your choices and options.
if people dont vote their consicense, and vote for who they feel is the best candidate, and instead vote for one of the two candidates that might "win", that, by definition assures that there will never be a new viewpoint.
politics is not an either or choice.
tagline
... hi bingo
tagline
... hi bingo
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
This clears it up, and refreshes my memory.
If what you are saying is correct (that the reps don't have to vote the way the popular vote went), and that getting the votes in the big states is what mattered, then wouldn't all a large corporate entity (or group, like the MPAA) need to do to influence (or even control!) who gets elected would be to "buy" the representatives in the states (via campaign funds or such)?
I take it that the electoral college seems to have been set up to prevent this very thing (perhaps), is it feasible that it might be failing (or has failed)?
What is really needed is some way to make voting easier (more convenient) for the working public, as well as much more stricter controls on corporate influence of candidates (so that the richest candidate can't win, and so that corps can't control via kickbacks, funding, etc - or by telling their employee's how to vote under penalty of being fired or some such).
In short, make it possible for real third party action - make it possible for normal people to get into office, level the playing field...
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
How does this work? It has been a long time since this was explained to me, and I would like a refresher.
As I understand it, the popular vote means almost nothing, with the EC being there. The question is, who elects (or how are they chosen) the people in the EC?
Finally, who becomes pres is almost irrelevant - while we sit here and discuss all of this, who would be best, blah, blah - we ignore the candidates and such regarding those seeking offices in the House and Senate - where the REAL decisions are made. Or am I off base?
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
...that when Bush speaks about there needing to be a "family hour" on TV each night, he is really saying "a Christian family hour". I would be further willing to be he has the network in mind to deliver it, as well: ABC.
Since you note that you haven't looked at network TV for a while, let me assure you the ABC has instead become the "Christian family hour - all day" channel (or so it seems every time I flip past it). There are more shows on there pandering in various ways to "Christian" morality, etc - that it makes me sick (between that and Disney ads).
LET ME DECIDE MY RELIGION, IF ANY!
Family hour - BAH!
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
In other words, the internet is a slum?
Every time a politician slams this virtual place in which geeks have made a home for ourselves, geeks (rightly) feel slammed. After all, a politician dissing the 'net is a politician dissing the people who choose to use it and find it a positive force in their lives.
We "netizens" have built this place, and feel a quite reasonable attachment to it therefore. We don't like being told, no matter how subtlely, that we should be ashamed of being here, or being a part of this realm.
What you seem to be missing is the emotional subtext, which is blindingly clear to the weepy masses. The logical component of his statement may be vacuous enough to be dismissed, but as an emotional appeal its dangerous.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Well, actually you can. Or homeschool, if you don't want to deal with the regulations of founding a school.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
I'll admit, George Bush might not want to censor the Internet (it's tough to tell what his real positions and what his "look I'm a good Christian censorship fanatic" positions are), but you conservatives shouldn't keep lying about your positions. You don't believe in Liberty in general or the First Amendment in particular.
A George Bush presidency, provided the congress doesn't change, means Dick Armey, House majority leader, will be free to enact legislation. What is Armey's position on this issue?
Armey's Reflection on Values in Our Society
Henry Hyde actually tried to pass legislation on this issue right after the Columbine.
Basically, the only reason Republicans claim to be for freedom, is so they can continue to fool small 'l' libertarians into voting for them. But the only real Libertarian position they are solid on is the Second Amendment, they'd like to see an end to the rest of the Constitution.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll be "wasting my vote" and voting against the Two Party Tyranny system.
My parents will be heartbroken, they're Republicans and have been active in politics. Don't you remember Orrin Hatch on TV banging a copy of Quake and saying how eeevil it was, right after Columbine? All they do is try to scare me, "you don't want Lieberman to get in, do you? That would be even worse" because they know they can't defend the Republican party on this issue. What's the difference between the two parties on this issue?
At least be honest about the tyranny the Republican party wants to inflict on the American people. You'll still get fascists, people living in fantasy land, and idiots to vote for your candidate. They seem to make up a significant portion of the electorate. Leave people who legitimately believe in freedom alone.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
reality that there is no consensus whatsoever among scientists that
humans have affected global temperatures. See the Petition Project,
which has been signed by something like 19,000 scientists, for
details.
Ah, petitions! That crucial piece of the scientific method.
Seriously, the signatures to the petition have been a laughing
stock on the net for months. There are no `authentication' procedures
in place: for all I know I am a signatory to this petition.
is a `greenhouse gas' (ie. increased concentrations of atmospheric
CO_2 are correlated with increased atmospheric retention of heat).
No part of the petition denies this. What apparently all of the
signatories agree to is that *in fact* this increased concentration is
beneficial to the environment and the earth's population. There is no
scientific consensus to this end, and no conscientious scientist would
agree that this claim has credibly been established.
Also the petition sponsors have in the past tried to give the
impression that they were associated with the NAS, and were in fact
rebuked by the NAS for this. The whole of the association is that
Seitz' used to be a president of the NAS.
Fair enough. There is real room for scientific controversy about
the consequences of global warming, and the environmental lobby have
hardly played fair. Let's not try to pretend, though, that this
petition is any more respectable than the tactics of the environmental
activists.
First, several recent studies have suggested that computers in schools have little or no impact on educational performance. Second, the amount of tech jobs is not dependent on how much the government spends. I could just as plausibly claim that Bush's tax cuts will give taxpayers the ability to buy more technology products, therefore increasing demand for tech workers.
Bush talks about boosting funds to fight the drug war!!!!!
So does Gore. You're not going to find any sort of rational drug policy in the major parties.
I've lived in this damned state and I can tell you some of the things he's done.
I currently live in Texas, and much appreciate not having a state income tax. And amazingly, children and old people aren't starving in the streets.
Gore/Lieberman while still not great, are technology friendly.
Excuse me? These would be the same people who brought us the CDA, the Clipper chip, Carnivore, and whose Justice Department wanted to have strong encryption completely banned.
Bush is far from ideal, but Gore and Lieberman are no better.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Short answer: yes. Trying to convince someone to buy Coke instead of Pepsi does not involve changing his moral values, and is far more likely to occur than someone watching Die Hard and deciding that maybe murdering innocent people isn't so bad after all.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
First, the reason stupid attacks like the one Bush made are feasible is that the *vast* majority of Americans, even those with access, have no real idea about the origin, operation, culture and communities that are its constituent elements. Their perceptions are based on either an AOL-astigmatism or a perverse hyper-marketed "Unleash Your Earning Income with Spam!" outlook. The natural results are good old-fashioned fear of the unknown and misrepresentation.
Second, the issues that Katz considers most crucial are *far* from what the average voter considers to be important: am I paying less taxes, am I better off, am I going to go broke taking care of my ailing parents? This doesn't mean the issues he raised are not important, but they don't have the traction of prescription drugs and social security.
It's nothing new for politicians to lump problems together in a way that makes it easy to demagogue but difficult to solve. We can remove the politicians' crutch here by eliminating the FUD and focusing on the benefits of universal access.
What's the matter, are we afraid to take Mr. Kurtz down the river? Maybe it's too fun here in the darkness...
Vulgo enim dicitur, iucundi acti labores.
I'm curious. This one statement comes up so often (usually misquoted, too - you went one step further by putting the incorrect word in all caps)... is this the worst thing that Gore-bashers have as ammunition?
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
However, social criticism of web culture demonstrated recently is not as extreme as that example, although many here clearly feel as though it is. There is a need in society to occasionally slow down and ask if we are headed in the right direction.
I often wonder, as is the case with the idiotic D&D scandals, that perhaps part of this is the failure of the young to adequately communicate with their elders. People are afraid of what they don't understand or what they can't control. Communication can alleviate this fear.
I am reminded of a Stanislaw Lem story in Cyberiad where Trurl and Klapaucius (sp?) come across a society in which everybody spends all day indoors doing all commerce, learning, and socialization via computers. Production is via robotic factories. I can understand if some are afraid we are headed this way.
Fact is, both politicians and certain journalists who post regular features here might be overgeneralizing to prove a point. I presume it is our responsibility to filter accordingly.
In other words,there is some truth to what these politicians are saying about the web culture, notable exceptions notwithstanding.
Now mind you, I might be tempted to spend a lot more time indoors if our winter season lasted 5+ months, as in Scandinavia :-)
---
You were a moderator with 5 points. You should have read the moderator guidelines before you did any moderating
Excuse me? Where did you get this stuff? I've spent 15 years in Europe and no-one here thinks Bush has any grip on anything - let alone "foreign" policy. People do, of course, feel almost any European media moderator (esp a BBC attack dog journo like Jeremy Paxman) would have done a better job than the patsy chosen to "moderate" your Presidential deabtes.
/.), says Greek citizens speak "Grecian"...etc., etc., etc. - The guy's quite clearly a dolt. His trying to make fun of it is downright scary ("Ah may have mangled a syll-AH-ble or two mahself").
/. evidently sincerely hold that a vote for anyone other than Gore constitutes some registration of their independence from the US system. You have two choices, that's it. Any way US voters vote, it counts for Gore OR Bush.
The saddest thing about the whole US election process is the media and it's insistence on ranking success in the very same terms you use: who "maneuvers" best; who "wins on charm", etc. Of course these "reporters" are very well-paid and thus will benefit from any Bush regime. Of course major coporations also own the mainstream US stations/broadcast outlets. It's not 'fuzzy" at all to the rest of the world what's going on...just very sad.
It's hardly "leftist crap" to observe these things, either. Anyone with eyes and ears can see what's right in front of them: one articulate candidate who is basically consistent - whether you agree with him or not. Additionally (leaving his years-ago education aside) Gore's record bears out 99% of his statements. This is being pointed out in most of the "foreign" press.
Then there's the ONLY OTHER REAL candidate - who clearly says whatever comes into his mind, regardless of the facts and heedless of things such as basic grammtical skills.
Bush brags about putting 3 people to death when he's only frying 2, fails to remember which state he governs (check out the online Bush interview with Lehrer at pbs.org where Shrub refers to his own "little brother" as governor of Texas; it was linked on
The idea there is any "left bias" in US mainstream media is utterly ridiculous...So much so it has to be seen from outside the US to be fully appreciated. As does the sadness of the idea many on
If you think the random spouting of platitudes constitutes political "manuevering" on a world stage, you need to adjust your world view. The "furriners" expect a good bit more of a nation's chief representative.
Gore has actually been dealing with in-the-flesh politicians of many countries for years, as a Vice-President; additionally, he enjoys respect abroad. Bush most assuredly does not.
Actually, most corporations effectively concentrate wealth better than they disseminate it. Look at all the smaller businesses, companies and other corporations that get gobbled up along the way. This past decade has seen a concentration of wealth like no other, along with a widening of the gap between the economic strata. There may be more leisure time for the top brackets, but check the lower rungs, particularly of the working poor and you won't see many people taking vacations.
An up-to-date discussion of Bush's "missing in action" period
A link to lots of resources on the Bush vs National Guard issue
Marty Heidt, the investigator here, is apparently an Iowa farmer in real life. What amazes me is that virtually no member of the mainstream press seems to have bothered to look into the materials Mr. Heidt has gathered to determine whether his interpretations are tenable.
MEK
Credo quia impossibilis -- Tertullian
Forget about GW. What about Tipper and her crusade against music!!!. GW may sound like an idiot, but he's for less government, and more for private sector self-regulation. Tipper would love to regulate everything everything from your games to your tv shows.
Someone you trust is one of us.
How do you really make GWB look like an idiot?
ROTFLMAO.
You say you want a revolution?
What both extreme sides of this issue miss is that there are many, many of the old-ish guard--like me, a 40 year old high tech worker--who strive to find the middle ground. Not everything new is good, but neither is everything new bad.
Just because technology allows the exchange of kidi-porn to now be done anonymously in near real time doesn't mean the abused kids went unharmed. Just because technology makes it easy to copy CDs doesn't mean that copying other peoples' CDs isn't theft.
Being able to do something doesn't make it right. The fact that something feels good to do it doesn't mean that it is good to do. I am able to run people over with my car, but I don't. I feel good when I insult an ignorant customer service person, but it doesn't help him/her or I to do it.
Wisdom is all about knowing the difference between what one is able to do and what one should do. The process of maturing is all about learning this difference and teaching one's self to modify one's behaviour accordingly.
Sorry this reads like a sermon, but I'm not Heinlein and didactic brain candy isn't my specialty.
Bush's statements on global warming were actually much milder than the reality that there is no consensus whatsoever among scientists that humans have affected global temperatures. See the Petition Project, which has been signed by something like 19,000 scientists, for details. It asserts: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
Rather than wondering whether Bush is too stupid to understand this issue, maybe you should worry that you are too willfully ignorant to comment. Beware of getting your opinions about science from Time magazine.
Also, I'd admit Bush's response to the 'hate crimes' law should have been more explicit. But he did point out that punishing the intention as well as the crime itself was redundant. And he did not falsely assert that the Texas law (the one that did not die in committee) does not cover anti-gay hatred.
Finally, it is well-known that Gore favors the registration of firearms. He has not empahasized it because he wants to win in gun-toting Michigan and Pennsylvania. It's difficult to understand what you are saying here, but of course Gore has not favored outright universal confiscation. But many gun owners (don't forget there are 60 million or so of them) believe that registration will precede confiscation, as it did in Australia and England.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
The reason Bush doesn't worry about offending young net-literate adults is because insignificant percentages of them vote in most places. The only way to change that is to vote.
Find out who your representative is here. Scroll to the bottom of the page for a zip code lookup. I guarantee someone in that office will be able to tell you how to register to vote if you aren't currently registered.
These opinions are my own. My employer is not aware of them, does not endorse them, and is not responsible for them.
First, I am not an American citizen and therefore it would be wrong of me to write to the campaign myself. If I had a vote it would go to Gore.
You should write to the Gore campaign and suggest that they mount a TV ad campaign to dispute the concept that Al exaggerates everything (Bush's favorite attack). If Kahn and Cerf really wrote this and really believe this, Gore should create a TV spot that begins looking like a Bush camp ad. The ad could be something like....4 seconds--Jay Leno or Letterman joking about Gore inventing the net...4 seconds--Bush ad-libbing about Gore's invention of the calculator....4 seconds--Al Gore's actual words in the origional statement....12 seconds..Kahn and Cerf state who they are and why what Gore said was correct...2 seconds...Al Gore--please listen to what I actually say and not what others say that I say......Gore for President..
Feel free to send this idea to anyone who may find it useful.
Cheers,
P
no sig.
I would have to say your arguments are sortof weak. Give me a break trying to say that tradition folk song is what Gore meant. Bah! That is pathetic, it is well known that the context he said it in was soley stating the Union Label song. Want hard evidence that he is a compulsive liar, can anyone say Buddhist Temple. No one can argue that he did not lie. He knew exactly what he was doing, Libetto Memo, Internal emails all prove this go get a clue.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
The concept of throwing away your vote is the biggest lie to ever be put upon the American People. Case in point, the current Govener of Minnesota is Jesse Ventura. Dispite the fact that the polls showed him as having very few votes he ended up taking the race.
This is not to say I agree with Ventura's views, however, it does show that youth of America, who typically don't vote, aren't taking this shit anymore. The baby boom generation sold out. The political system is based on large donations.
This election isn't going to change anything. It will either be the pot smoker who's boring and lies, or the pot smoker who's shifty and dumb. Both think it's fine to kill retards under capital punishment, both like guns. GW, who's grandfather was one of the first supporters of planned parenthood, and his father GW Sr. spent the majority of his political life as pro-choice, will pander to the religious right. Gore is of course pro-choice. There's the only difference I can see.
This year it's about matching funds. The reform party was out foxed by the religious right. Perhaps even by the Republican party if you think they were that sneaky.
As much as I dislike GW (go Nader) I have to say that his comments about the Internet where so short that it slipped by most people. Let's face it, debte number two was boring. I'd be suprised if most people were still watching after the first 45 minutes.
And when you think about it, how can you expect GW to have a concept of the internet, or computers for that matter. He's like any other "manager" who's been promoted based on the Peter principal. Computers ain't his gig.
Jon thinks they "all relate to technology". Maybe for the educated, technologically literate and technologically immersed set. But I would have said that child poverty, malnutrition, the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few and in corporations, the emergence of two working members of a household as a financial necessity, appalling educational systems in our inner cities (in particular), pollution of the air and the water, destruction of natural landscapes, increasing levels of domestic violence, the power and debt relationship between different countries of the world, the debate over abortion, racism: theses are the important issues, and they have as much to do with technology as any other part of life - not much. Whether you think that DeCSS and the DCMA are very significant issues or not (and I do), they pale in comparison to the problems, injustices and inequalities faced by millions of Americans and many more people around the world.
Part of the problem with Gore and Bush -- and certainly with the creepy veeps -- is that they fail to realize that in order to get the "youth vote" they have to have some emotional investment in the youth they're attempting to persuade.
It's the generation gap, yes, but it strikes me these days that it's more than just a "generation" gap. Technology -- and that includes stuff like film and music -- has brought about an enormous "knowledge" gap -- or "emotion" gap -- between politicians and their young constituents.
Sure, Gore has his daughter as one of his top advisors. Okay, but that's not enough.
It doesn't take a genius to dive into Napster these days, pull up some popular music tracks -- Bush, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Kid Rock, you name it -- and realize there's a lot of "rage" out there. Rock and Roll and Rap are certainly good vehicles for expressing that rage.
For once, I'd love to hear candidate talk about music and realize that rock and roll (for example) is a verb and not a noun. It's not a *thing*. The key to rock and roll isn't the words of the songs themselves -- it's what those words are pointing and leading to.
Rock music (and film) are only cultural vehicles for deep human impulses. I mean, I'd love it if, for example, Lieberman would rail against *bad* movies instead of just the standard things like violence and sex.
I'd love it if a candidate stood up and, for once, said: "Look, instead of trying to get Hollywood (or rock and roll or whatever) to stop violence and sex, let's get them to start making *better* movies. The real danger is in the dumbing down of America. It's not of the propagation of impulses that are in our biology (i.e. sex and violence.)"
As wacky as that would sound, it would (to my mind at least) signal a kind of understanding.
It was called "Dumb and Dumber".
http://www.reelwavs.com/msdb/dumb.html
Listen up, Katz and his followers....
Gore voted to spend some tax money on the (already established) arpanet. He thinks that means he "took the initiative in creating" it!
You are in for a big surprise if he wins. Gore wants to regulate everything in sight; health care, political speech (except his own ;),
the Internet (digital divide? "accesibility"?), etc.
I'll laugh if he wins when I see the looks on your faces as he regulates the hell out of the Internet. But it will be a costly laugh.
In fact, when you actually look at the record of the debates so far, it's interesting to notice the other times the word "Internet" has been uttered.
In the first debate (3 Oct 00), the word "Internet" was used three times, all by Governor Bush:
And that's it! Neither of the vice presidential candidates mentioned the word "Internet" in their debate, and in Wednesday night's debate, the word "Internet" was only used in the instance which inspired (if that is the right word for Katz's repetitious drumming) this discussion.
So in all, four mentions of the Internet, all by Gov. Bush: once in a joke, once in a cultural criticism, and twice in useful applications of information technology.
Yours,
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.
Hmmm... If 18 year-olds didn't already know that politicians in general were idiots who basically (for the most part) got to where they are by being wealthy mofos and good public speakers, then we have a problem. Anyone who didn't realize that Bush was an idiot from day one, in my opinion, needs to have their IQ knocked down a few (dozen) points. At least Gore started off with a solid game plan, and said straight out "this is where I stand, this is what I plan on doing, this is how I will do it." Bush waited until his numbers began to fall before he said or did anything besides trash talk and shovel you-know-what - and when he did form a solid plan, it seemed to be formed with Gore's plans in mind - an attempt to exploit the potential weaknesses of Gore's agenda. His talk of education is pure BS - one of the largest problems with education today is funding, where the schools cannot afford the supplies they need or enough teachers to go around - and the few teachers they do have are underpaid, making the field undesirable in most areas. Teaching is an inportant role and vital to the nation's economy both now and in the distant future, and the teachers deserve real pay. They can't even go on strike! "Expecting more" will get us nothing but dissapointment, especally in a world where money rules all. Just look at Texas - one of the worst, if not the worst, educational systems in the country. His brother, Jeb, is now the governor of Florida - my current home state - and has not done much there either, especially considering his bold claims of education reform. "education my top priority" my @$$. But, that's Jeb, not George. But, do we see a pattern here? :) (sorry for the cheap shot, please don't flame me)
I personally think that the only thing that got Bush into the elections to begin with is his father's popularity (at least among Republicans) - he simply rode George bush's coattails. On the other hand, Gore has to work against Clinton's reputation just to build his own. Bush knows this, and has attacked the Clinton administration a number of times - almost as though Gore ran it. Bush repeatedly tries to connect Gore to Clinton - which is probably the biggest weapon he has. He does it in subtle ways, but he still does it.
I'm not saying that Gore is the ideal candidate here - far from it - but I'd vote Gore just to keep Bush out of office. I wasn't originally planning to vote this year simply for lack of a truly good candidate (I think that's the major problem with the last 10 or so elections) but I will vote now, just to keep Bush out. Gore is, at least, a competent, intelligent individual, which is more than I can say about Bush. He has the potential to make a decent president.
He may not have created the Internet, but I do believe he had a role (albeit a small one) in fostering its popularity - and I'm willing to bet he understands it a heck of a lot more than Bush does. And, at least, he has a clue about education. Expectations and "testing" get nowhere, and "accountablity" has been shown in the past (and in Florida, it's called the FCAT) not to make a real difference. It becomes a case of the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
I just hope that if Bush does get elected, he doesn't waste billions on kissing the upper 1%'s asses. Put the money into the defecit and education, where it is needed most. And give the lower classes a break. They actually have to consider taxes when planning a budget - and don't have the lawyers to cut that down. The upper 1% considers it when buying new sports cars, and hire lawyers to keep it as low as possible. Do you think these people really FEEL the effects of taxation? I know low-income families do. Taxes make a difference in what they buy and when they buy it, especially major expenses.
Sorry for the long post, I have a habit of ranting.
When I first heard "Dubya"'s comment during the debate, I was as shocked at end. I knew that there would be people (here on /.) chastising him endlessly because of the remark. Firstly, I don't think he meant it exactly how it was stated, but that aside: it's not incorrect to assume that many people would not build or know how to build certain explosive devices without the wealth of information on the Net. I'm not saying that the particular case in Columbine would not have occured if the AlgoreNet (now known as the Internet) didn't exist, because those teens were obviously demented. I will say that there are some events that would not have occured if the Internet or any other medium was not present. This doesn't mean the Internet is bad or that television is bad or even that books are bad, it's just a fact that certain information presented in any form can be bad in the minds of some.
Your article started out good Katz, but degraded into pointless pandering to geeks of the internet as a panacea. The best we can do for our schools is throw money at internet connections and computers? The communication revolution presented by the internet may facilitate creative hacking, but it doesn't improve lives, people do. And, like any distribution of randomness, there will be people of immense virtue, and people of immense evil. The internet is a reflection of the real world, with all of her highs and lows in equal measure. When will you give it a rest and realize that the internet won't cure every ill known to humanity?
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
Desire is not an occupation.
Oh and, how about some of that "better than 20-20 vision". I'll also take photographic memory, and would it hurt to be able to run like Michael Johnson & jump like Michael Jordan?
Make my hair blonder, my skin creamier - oh my personality can suck sometimes so lets get rid of that. Gimme some of those outgoing genes so I can schmooze with the winners circle.
Man I tell you, once I get my genetic shopping list out of the way, you won't be able to recognize me!
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
>> Why should "hate crime" legislation, if it is to exist at all, "include" gays? Scripture is very clear on this. Read the book of Leviticus. Hint: "put to death" does not mean "celebrate diversity."
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law.
When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I also know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Now I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
Then, Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
A friend of mine also feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
And Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Actually its about 80 million. Also the anti-gun hysteria following Columbine actually caused the NRA's membership numbers to dramatically increase by 50%, from 3 million to 4.5 million.
I don't have the figures, but most politicians who operate on an anti-gun platform soon find it to be the demise of their campaign. There have been several examples of neck-and-neck congressional and senatorial races that had the balance dramatically tipped(for the other guy) when the candidate rolled out his/her anti-gun stance.
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Well duh, Katz just HAD to say something nice about his boss...
This is another view of the world.
"Great, let's teach Christianity to everyone because we know it makes them a more caring, less psycho-killer person."
Well, besides the fact that is actualy dose, why do you assume he is talking only about Christianity? I am a devout heritic non-believer myself, but I can't fault him for promoting other solutions instead of regulation of the internet.
"most everything, has millions of people who will twist his words to find some meaning out of them that fits their personal idealism. "
Oh ya, speaking of twisting words, the actual quote was: "have their heart turned dark as a result of the Internet" sounds like he was blaming content more than the concept.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
"Al Gore never claimed to invent the Internet. That story was started by none other then Declan McCallugh
So that video clip I saw of him SAYING he invented the internet was just CGI?? prehaps a clone? His evil twin?
Dirty Pirate Hooker
that Bush's coment was a short scare tactic, and he never actualy said the internet was responsible for killing anyone. Instead he was trying to make the point that parents need to take more responsibility for the upbringing of their children. People are scared of what they don't know, and just 'cause the nutballs in Columbine were on the internet, they imidiately attach that to the kids behavior while searching for the "real" cause, instead of asking where the parents were. The trend nowadays is away from personal reponsibility and the internet is a perfect target. Back to the original point, while he did mention the internet, he placed far more emphasis on the role parents need to take. Gore, of course, had no response.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
It's clear that the SlashDot editors are reflexively anti-Republican and anti-conservative. However, it was the Clinton administration who sponsored, signed, and defended the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. After it was struck down, the administration, not content to leave the matter alone, put forward the Child On-line Protection Act, struck down by a federal appeals court in June 2000 as unconstitutional. Other bills have required libraries to install filtering software. Al Gore has made public statements in favor of these laws, and prominent Democrats like Ernest Hollings and Patty Murray have been co-sponsors of these sorts of internet censorship bills. As long as you're ladling out vitriol like calling people 'idiots' (translation: someone who holds an opinion differnt from mine), why not expend some of it toward the Democratic side, where it is well-deserved? Or is it that only Republicans can do wrong?
Hmmm...We get enormous amounts of things, but not leisure. Plus, do corporations, so much create wealth as just shift it?
Corporations prefer a behaved, homogenous populace. It makes it easy to plan investment and market their goods. Plus, new competition is discouraged as the market is already saturated and their are no niches to exploit.
Thank goodness their are still areas that value diversity and that the US won't soon become the stale, regular, white-bread society so ardently advocated by the Republicans!
Mod this suckah up! That's the most insightful comment I've ever seen from a Katz troll.
Almost all of his articles are about youth, misspent youth, ignored youth, trod on youth or any other kind of youth.
My personal feeling is the guy did a lot of dorking around when he was young and hasn't been able to get laid since he got out of high school. Much like the ex-jocks from my high school, the only difference between them and him is that he turned to writing crap instead of serving french-fries or pumping gasoline. Wow, is Jon Katz a closet ex-jock?
Bite my yammer.
I agree. Tipper makes me suspicious. Especially with the grandstanding around who's a Born-Again Christian and who's an Orthodox Jew.
But I hardly think GW is in favor of less government. Does he not call for more police? Does he not call for more military? Does he not insist that government continue to regulate morality (think smut, prostitution, drug use)? Will he not willingly go along with the "Ay-rabs are terrorists" line, and thereby continue to aid discrimination against Muslims (of all colors) and immigrants? Will he support a woman's right to privacy between herself and her doctor? Does he really care about racial profiling (and can you back this up with statistics that show Texas leads the nation in removing bias from the police and justice departments)? GIVE UP. The idea that any Republican wants less government interference in our private lives is total nonsense. The idea that by regulating business less that they are the patriotic protectors of Freedom is total nonsense. For hundreds of years, businesses have been the prime American concern, where freedom is at stake. The USA has enjoyed a relatively long string of freedom from government (outright) oppression and has spent most of the last century trying to balance the needs of the population with those of business. It is to the point where many political analysts see business as being more relevant than government. And I challenge you to show us one large scale example of any business doing something in the public interest when it wasn't regulated or related to tax-deductible charity.
I do not have a signature
Lets remember that the main objectives of Bush,
Gore, And the Media are to Get elected and keep
keep us buying more articles. So the statements
coming from these sources will tend to be
exagerated to make a point and make a profit.
I think it is very dangerous for us to talk about
something that is very important without any
metrics being applied. If we FEEL that the
net is causing harm, then we should be able
to MEASURE the effect. Perhaps the opposite
of what we FEEL is what is true! Or perhaps
the NET is causing harm. With some real data,
maybe we could find out why.
I FEEL that the principle operating influence
here is NOT agression in the lower age bracket.
The real problem is that people in the upper
age brackets feel disconnected and out of
touch with the younger generation. This
disconnect breeds fear which sells newspapers
and votes.
And GUESS WHAT! That has always been the case.
The older generation has NEVER understood the
younger generation. Rock music will turn them
all into Fiends! Amorality will rule the earth!
We will fall into the Pit and God will abandon
us!
Are you a Fiend? Or are you a victim of
your parents poor choice of leaders because
they fell for the same hard sell you are
falling for. The Fear Sell.
Sell, Sell, Sell.
As a person whose first contact with computers was at school at the age of ten, I couldn't disagree with you more. Not all parents want to buy a computer, some do but can't afford one. Everyone has to learn to use computer someday, and having seen newbies of various ages, I can guarantee you that it's better to start young.
Starting early isn't good just because learing is faster and easier, but also because it's more fun. If I hadn't had such a great teacher, I might not have become so interested in computers. Now I am studying computer science in a university, and could probably find an interesting and a well paying job in couple of weeks (days). All this thanks to a teacher who ten years ago decided that this time the class should try writing an essay with MSWrite (vi might have been to hard for a ten-year old *g*) instead of writing it on paper by hand.
--
If either Bush, Cheney, Gore or Lieberman cared a whit about children, they would shriek instead about the paucity of decent Internet access -- and even decent computers -- in America's public elementary and middle schools.
American schools face far greater crises than the availability of decent workstations and fat pipes. The shortage of skilled, motivated, and inspiring teachers springs immediately to mind. Granted it's been a couple of years since high school, but I do seem to remember some of the things that were wrong with my school. It didn't matter that only a few of us could waste time BBSing in the back of the chem lab. The problem was the overabundance of teachers named "coach".
Computer skills training, access on online resources, and enhanced colaboration through the net may compliment efforts to improve our schools. But these are not a complete fix for a system in crisis. And in a year in which vouchers are touted as the solution to all educational problems, anyone who cares a whit about children has a lot more to worry about.
Wait... you mean you still haven't joined the ACLU?
Some demographers do argue that Gen Y (those born between 1976 and 96, although definition differ) is larger than the Boomers when you include immigrants. But the fact is that it depends on how you define each generation, and nobody agrees. Do you do it by birth date, in 20 year increments? By a common unifying experience (depression, technology, war)? Or by the peaks and troughs in birth cycles?
As of this year, the twenty-year generations are sized as follows (according to this page at the Census dept):
0-20: 78.5m
21-40: 78.3m
41-60: 73.2M
The first roughly aligns with Gen Y, the last roughly with the Boomers. That's the point Katz is trying to make, I think
If the average lifespan is 75 years, then the age range of 21 and under IS 28% of the average person's lifespan. And actually, since lifespan increases with each generation, then assuming that we replace as many people as die, the number of people alive in the first 28% of the average lifespan should exceed 28% to reflect the growing lifespan. If should exceed it by even more if we're actually have a population boom in the current 0-21-ers.
So.. uhh... what was your point about people under 21 making up 28% of the population?
11*43+456^2
Yes... It was a jab at Gore. Let me give you my view. Bush wants to cut funding for technology and education. The man preaches about the importance of education, however, he wants to stop a $120 million investment to merge technology with education. This would put internet into many schools and give computers to many schools that would otherwise not be able to afford them. Anyone who is pro-technology and knows the issues can clearly see that your pocketbook is more protected by Gore than Bush. More technology, more jobs for techies.
Bush also is against abortion and is pro-christian right wing, pro prayer, and wants to shove his values on America. You may not want your games censored, however, I don't want religion rammed down my throat. I may believe in the bible just like the next guy but who say's I want Bush Christianity becoming the state religion. This is where McCain would have gotten my vote over Gore even... He was a republican for economic freedom and nothing more.
Abortion is nobody elses business except the mother in question. Prohibition of any kind on a moral basis has not worked and will never work - look at the 18th ammendment and the fiasco that followed. Bush talks about boosting funds to fight the drug war!!!!! Here is a man who wants to fight a war that will NEVER end and wants to cut funding to education. How bout cutting funding to the drug war and funneling that money into education so that children can be better taught the woes of drug use. It will take a cultural change for people to stop abusing harmful substances - not force, not govt, not laws, not even jailtime.
Btw, I live in TX and I can tell you that prisons here are filling up with non-violent offenders faster than you can blink . Tougher drug laws are putting non-violent offenders in jail and when that happens some rapist/murderer/child molester gets let out early on parole. The majority of Americans are delighted by his "hometown" goodness and "charm". Well, he is a hard-headed hypocrite. I've lived in this damned state and I can tell you some of the things he's done. You may well know that Texas takes the lead in the US for the number of executions. Bush might have given one reprieve and that is all. A man who's possible innocence was in question was not given a second chance to prove this. Bush reacted saying Texas has "adequately answered innocence or guilt" in this death penalty case. After the execution, it was determined that the man might have well been innocent from DNA evidence.
I'll end my rant here. Most of you who are Computer/IT professionals please consider what Al Gore really meant with his now infamous words - He helped the internet along with government funding. Gore/Lieberman while still not great, are technology friendly. Sure the democrats have censorship issues, but bush/cheney and party, technologically and culturally illiterate, will take America one giant step backwards.
"Excuse me? These would be the same people who brought us the CDA, the Clipper chip, Carnivore, and whose Justice Department wanted to have strong encryption completely banned."
Actually you have a good point here. I know many peoples opinions differ and I'm simply saying one is the lesser of the evils. I know they are both evil and I agree that Bush is far from ideal. Both parties suck in reality and I wish that a third-party candidate would gain enough popular votes to make the government consider the issues at stake.
I don't think browsing the web is any more harmful than watching tv or reading a book. What is harmful is the startling notion that Americans have developed that children should have all the rights and privileges of adults.
What are we doing when we as parents by expensive equipment and then give it to children to play with unsupervised? I don't just mean computers, but all of the big ticket items that used to be clearly for adults only; automobiles, stock portfolios, telephones, you get the idea. How many sixteen year old children do you know that not only have access to these things, but also have these things for their own personal use. To me, this is the source of insanity. It's like unlocking the safety on a primed fire arm and handing it to a chimp. Here ChimChim, go nuts.
Children have no place using, much less owning, such things without training and supervision. If you as the parent don't have time to provide that supervision, then hire someone who can provide the proper guidance for the desired tool. If you can't do that, then educate yourself so you can educate your child. If this is still not feasible, then too bad. Do without. It will probably help reduce your irresponsible amount of debt.
Is Bush the sharpest pencil in the box? Nope. However, he's right on this one. Go take a look at the science out there...our global temperature may be warming up, but nowhere near even the most conservative GW theoretical predictions. Has anyone ever bothered to think about the fact that we're coming out of the coolest period, geologically-speaking, since the last Ice Age?
--
-- Geof F. Morris
Say huh? Now, there are some of us who do fun things whilst in college--hell, I've been working on sports ezines since I was in high school--but when does access necessarily equal "creativity, confidence, and opportunity"? Perhaps you mean that such access can foster these things, but access can only foster creativity and opportunity--confidence comes from within. And all three of these things can be provided by that one unit that everyone wants to forget: the family.
Anyway, how is this a sad political truth? I understand some of the points in your piece, Katz, but are you reading this or having someone else do so?/P
--
-- Geof F. Morris
Two articles on this subject in two days. What has you so scared? I think that once you have some children, you'll begin to see why some people are concerned with what they're exposed to. There are some horrific crimes being committed by children these days (a child of 5 thrown to his death from a high window by two other children because he wasn't willing to steal for them; a girl of 12 clubbing an elderly neighbor to death just because she wanted to see what it was like to kill someone; Columbine), and it's natural to wonder what might be behind it. And I don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing to examine all possible causes, including the net, violent games, violent movies and television, etc. I don't advocate indiscriminate banning of any of these, but a thoughtful process of study to determine their real effects would be smart. We've come to the justifiable conclusion that trying to keep alcohol and tobacco away from children is a good idea, and it's entirely possible that it might also be a good idea in the case of other things as well. Simply dismissing the notion out of hand is not going to improve the situation. Let's try to do something that might actually make sense.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
We've been given intelligence and the ability to manipulate our own genetic code for a reason and for us not to take advantage of this would be sheer folly. When we can do so much for ourselves and the world, why is it that so many people seem willing to wallow in their own crapulance?
In order for us to acheive our manifest destiny in the far future, we need to continually improve both ourselves and our abilities. We're coming to a real watershed now, a point where we can radically change the mode of our existance and ensure that we don't go the way of the dinosaurs. Anyone arguing against genetic engineering is arguing against both progress and humanity, and is a danger to all of us.
Thankfully it is only in countries where irrationality is prevalent that these anti-genetic engineering sentiments are prevaling. Whilst America may have it's problems with corporate ethics, the one thing that can be said for the free market is that it encourages innovation, and when it comes to technologies like this, we need that innovation for the future of the race.
So it's a matter of balancing short-term and long-term gain. Which should be more important is obvious, but the issue isn't as clear cut as Jon would have you think.
Yes, the chicken-hypnotizing internet-inventing "I harvested the tobacco" "watched my $RELATIVE die of lung cancer" "who is this person" (referring to a Thomas Jefferson bust) condescending-voiced tree.
"Gore, Gore, Gore of the Jungle, watch out he's a tree!" (bum da dum)
Posted with Mozilla M18 WinNT
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
So WHAT!!! The percentage of 18 yo's that vote is SOOOO miniscule it won't amount to squat.
Personally, I would LOVE to see more people my age and younger(18-25 yo) voting. It would be fantastic. I think it would really shake things up in the government to get some of those "good-ol-boys" out of there and put some fresh blood in there. BUT, this will not happen. It is hard enough to get them (18 yo's) out of bed to take a job, off their collective lazy ass (mostly referring to "Uh-mer-can" kids) to do anything, go to college, focus on doing "something" with their lives etc. etc. etc.
Greatoak.
PS. There is a certain amount of sarcasm injected into what I am saying but it is also IMHO.
If you look at this& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; lt;/a> site at the US Census you can do a query and see that the number of 18 year olds was less during the baby boom years than it is now. Not that unusual. The baby boomers have 18 year olds now, and the average family has more children than parents. Here are stats for the years 1963-68 and 1999-2000 just as an example.
You should fact check before you call somebody an idiot... or just call him an idiot without using statistics as an excuse.
-N
Let's look at it closely:
- Only two of those three Byrd killers will receive the death penalty. But worse, many legal analysts think Bush's callous statement about putting the killers to death will actually help them on appeal, because as the chief law enforcement officer Bush showed serious bias in public.
- Bush's statements on global warming shows a serious misunderstanding of the issue... or else he's in the pocket of the oil industry. Hmmmm... I wonder which one it is... naaaa, he's too stupid to actually understand.
- Re: the hate crimes legislation which died in committe... well, turns out he enacted a hate crimes law which excludes gays and didn't want to admit as such. DUHHHHH...
- And what about his "we'll enforce the gun laws" tripe? Uh huh, Gore plans on enacting federal licensing? Who's the "exaggerator"????
This whole campaign makes me sick Gore's too. Screw them both.Why do you bother with gaming on Li
This has to be one of the most liberally biased articles I've ever read posted here. If you don't like Bush how about coming up with something substantial instead of trying to peg him with this crap. Not only was in a very minor comment in the debate but most politicians have this misconception. Regardless, I'd rather have a president with this misconception than one who thinks he created the internet. Tell me which is the deeper misunderstanding of the reality of techno-culture. But hey, if you want a tree hugging liberal that has changed positions more times than Jenna Jameson to inflate the national government then vote gore in 2000.
Whenever the issue of violence or sexual content in the media comes up there is always a wave of people that trumpet how "harmless" these things are, and how little they affect the viewers. What I don't understand is that if the media is so powerless to affect the state of mind of their audience then why do companies pay them so much money for their advertisements?
Are they seriously trying to tell me that the 30 minutes of sex and violence in a television show has no affect on the viewers, but the 30 second commercial for a soft drink has a big enough affect on these same people to be worth thousands of dollars? Clearly it has to be one way or the other. Either the media has little affect (and the advertisers are getting ripped off) or it has a huge affect and the media is simply being disingenuous.
But that violence is already in human nature. Most of the manifestations are in the form of flaming. Rarely does it reach real life, but it does happen. What's scary about it to older people is that they really don't understand it, and they don't understand or see all the overwhelming good the Internet is doing, and how miniscule a part of it all that this real violence actually is.
There are cases of Internet induced violence. One incident in Texas that George W. may have on his mind involved a meeting by e-mail and an eventual murder. In another case from Oregon I'm sure you all know about, it has been documented that Kip Kinkle was downloading lots of weaponry and satanic related material on the Internet.
Blaming the Internet is wrong, of course. The problem is ourselves. The Internet is just a very efficient communications medium. And the important thing is that we need to keep it all in perspective; the Internet is bringing far more value to our lives, our economy, and our society, than it is bringing these few problems. If we can find ways to addresses these problems without harming the good, then I'm for that.
You can find the stats on car deaths per year. Those exceed the Internet deaths per year. But we don't doubt the value of having cars. We are not proposing to ban cars (well, most of us aren't). The Internet is nowhere near as bad as cars in terms of the negative, and in fact it may well help reduce the negative of cars by its very being.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
"Mr." Katz:
If I may quote?:The sad political truth is that access to the Net, the Web and broadband equals creativity, confidence and opportunity.
Might I be the first to ask how you come to that conclusion? To me, such a claim seems to be pure lunacy, equivalent to saying that "access to paint and canvas equals Rembrandt-level talent" or "access to a football equals multi-million dollar contracts with the New York Giants." Perhaps we should begin converting "Katz-isms" into general lines of code... "access_to_broadband == confidence" would equate to true... or perhaps you are merely wishing this were a true statement, giving us "access_to_broadband = confidence" instead.
Just because there are good things on the 'net doesn't mean that there aren't bad things as well, Jon. There are "dark" things out there, things that most people would regard as hideous: child pornography, snuff flicks, etc. Does access to these sorts of things equate to creativity?
I don't think any candidate is correct in blaming Columbine, etc. on the 'net (poor parenting would be on the top of my "Blame List"...) but I also do not think that "unlimited access to the 'net for all" equates to virtuous ends by default.
The Internet is simply another way to access information, just like a public library. We all have access to libraries, Jon, but I know plenty of people who I wouldn't place in the creative, confident or opportunistic categories.
Unless you were attempting to be ironic and illustrate the opposite position of most politicians ("access to the net == a corrupting force capable of swaying young minds to bloodshed" vs. "accesss to the net == a shaping force capable of manufacturing miniature DaVincis from average children"), I believe you have failed. Examine your own articles for Irony and Consistency, along with the almighty Logic before hitting that Submit button in the future, mmmkay?
-------------
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
So that video clip I saw of him SAYING he invented the internet was just CGI??
See? He invented the Common Gateway Interface too!
--
--
E_NOSIG
I've been reading Katz for a long time. I've always thought he was a bit of a blowhard, and definitely an "idiot" who doesn't really grok much about the community or the Net. A wannabe who rather dramatically doesn't fit in with the group of geeks he claims to revere.
/..
I haven't said anything because, well, he hasn't been worth it, but the irony here of Katz slamming Bush for not getting it is just too much. Worse, it is a knee jerk attempt to excite the least thoughful elements of
The Internet has the capacity to be a bad place. This, like so many other communities, is merely a reflection of the world outside, except without transaction costs. No long travel times to get to the red light district. No easy parental supervision to keep kids from getting to the back alleys of the Internet. The vast majority of the Internet, like the rest of the world, is a great, creative, positive environment - no doubt.
However, to believe that the Net is ONLY a creative, positive place is naive, perhaps even "stupid." Yes, Bush misspoke when he said that Columbine was because of time spent on the Internet. Not because it was necessarily wrong, but because he did not more carefully qualify. I'm sure the two individuals spent a great deal of time on the Net. This was largely because Bush doesn't fully understand. But Gore definitely doesn't understand any better, and even if he says he does, do you really believe him? He's just better at BS.
Yes, the real issue is parenting, and yes the only real response is parenting on the Internet, not filters, not censorship. But most parents are scared of the Internet, because they don't know how to parent in the brave new world. Yes Bush was wrong to use FUD against the Internet to reach all those incompetent baby boomers (obviously the geek BBers are excepted). Still, we should acknowledge that we do permit strange communities to form. That we do see bitter and unhappy teens dwelling on the wrong issues, off in a corner by themselves.
Whether that corner is the dark end of the lunch room in high school, or a dark little IRC channel, it is the same thing. Yes people need to reach out, and brighten those corners. Parents and administrators should do it in the lunch room by addressing the very real flaws of the high school community dynamic. But we shouldn't be so shallow or naive as to believe that that dark little IRC channel doesn't bear consequences.
Now John "Polly Anna" Katz is trying to play demagogue to tens of thousands of people who grok the Net a thousand times better than he. He grabs the easy issues, and trolls responses from people who should have better things to do, and for that, perhaps, we should thank him. But the pathetic politics of a non-geek don't play well.
If you want to focus on that comment, don't forget what Gore said. Didn't the Al and Tipper (the censor herself) reference, and concerns about violence send a chill down your spine? I'll admit I was angry when I heard Bush's comment, but I just got cold when I heard Gore's response. Do the math. We have a lot of work to do either way!
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes "Who Keeps the Keepers Themselves" ~ Juvenal
Look at Nader and Browne, hell look at Buchanan. Dont be deceived into thinking that you only have one choice.
Its kindof like saying that there is choice in the MS operating system... THeres Win98, NT4.0, W2K enterprise, advanced, data, personal, WinCE... See there are a lot of options... but they all suck.
take a stand, vote for someone other than Gore or Bush. And no, it isnt wasting your vote.
tagline
... hi bingo
In fact, a slew of new studies document that the young are using broadband to re-shape media and the information culture. They are the gurus, visionaries, technicians and authorities on the Information Revolution.
That's BS. While there have been a notable group of high school and college students who have become successful through starting web sites (e.g. Slashdot), there's very little reason to trot out terms like "guru" and "visionary."
In the Open Source world, for example, there's much enthusiasm and idealism among young programmers, but there's also an obvious lack of software engineering principles and experience. Witness that almost no open source projects have regression test suites, save some of the old projects like gcc. And it's hard to apply to the term "visionary," to people who are mostly trying to write software that's like something available for Windows. Is Gnome visionary? Star Office? Any of the half dozen clones of Breakout announced daily at linuxgames.com?
nah, they already found out... but now there is no longer a shred of doubt. it all reminds me of rock'n'roll, which was supposedly bad... Oh no! I heard Jerry Lee Lewis! Now I'm gonna marry my 13yr old cousin and shoot an innocent bystander while I'm beating my wife..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
One thing I find very displeasing, is how politicians and the media (more so the media I think) blame the troubles of todays youth on guns, rock and roll, the internet, etc. Its not these things that turn children into violent maniacs...its the fact that nobody is paying attention to them while they grow up.
In most families, both parents work. Usually they put their children into day care by the time they are toddlers. If both parents are working and come home at the end of the day tired, are they really going to want to listen to their children's questions or ask them how their day was? No, instead they put them in front of the t.v. or a video game console. As much as we all like t.v. and video games, this isn't something that young children need to be imersed in. There's plenty of time for that later.
I guess to make my point, I'd like to reference the columbine incident. The media has blamed everything from guns to the ineternet on this tragedy (I didn't follow it all that closely so I'm not 100% sure). But isn't anyone going to blame the parents? I mean, from what I heard, the children had the weapons and stuff like that in their own homes! Even papers talking about it...Doesn't anyone pay attention to their children or take responsibility for what their children do?
The blame needs to be put on bad parenting...not the internet or television. Someone needs to be there when a child sees a cartoon kill another cartoon on t.v. and remind them that killing isn't acceptable, what they're seeing is "make believe." Expand childrens minds with television and the internet. The information is very powerful if used correctly so why don't we use it properly to teach children what's right from what's wrong. Obviously some children these days don't know the difference. Perhaps we should spend more time pointing out that parenting is a problem these days and that we need to guide people towards being better parents for their children.
Neither Bush nor Gore should be debating about the internet filling the heads of today's youth with bad ideas and thoughts. They should be debating about how today's parents aren't teaching their children the values and morals that our parent's parent's had as children. Yeah, there was murder and what not back then, but nothing like we have today.
The other 1/3 are voting for Shrub are those who want Andy Griffith in the White House so they don't have to look at the boring, intelligent, responsible Al Gore on their TV screens.
So, in other words, you want a president who has the horribly flawed idea that it is the governments responsibility to pay for your retirement. You want a president who thinks that its the United States' job to play the part of world police force. You want a president who supports socialized medicine. Lets me say that again, SOCIALIZED medicine. As in socialism. You think socialism is a neat idea?
Geuss what, not all of us want to pay for your medical bills. If you didn't save properly in your youth and prepare for retirement, then quite frankly, fuck you. If you don't have enough money to survive thats your own damn fault and I sure as hell do not want to be forking over my money that I could be using to prevent myself from being in that same position.
It all has to do with consequences. If you don't take responsibility for you actions, why should I have to pick up the slack? Don't get the wrong impression, I do care about my fellow man, and I don't mind supporting them when they need help, but that doesn't mean that I want to pay for someones entire lifestyle. It's your respoonsibility to make sure that you can support yourself when you retire, not the governments, and not mine either.
That's boldly inaccurate, therefore your entire premise is flawed. This is the second article on here today that misstates what Governor Bush said, so allow me to post the question and his answer in context.
From the 2nd Presidential Debate 10-11-2000
MR. LEHRER: Back to the question about the differences on gun control. What are they, Governor, from your point of view, between you and the vice president?
GOV. BUSH: Well, I'm not for photo licensing. But let me say something about Columbine.
MR. LEHRER: All right.
GOV. BUSH: And, listen, we've got gun laws. He says we ought to have gun-free schools. Everybody believes that. I'm sure every state in the unions got them. You can't carry a gun into a school. And there ought to be a consequence when you do carry a gun into a school.
But Columbine spoke to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line, we've begun to disrespect life, where a child can walk in and can have their heart turned dark as a result of being on the Internet, and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life. So gun laws are important, no question about it.
But so is loving children and, you know, character education classes, and faith-based programs being a part of after-school programs. Somebody -- some desperate child needs to have somebody put their arm around them and say, "We love you." And so there's a -- this is a society that -- of ours has got to do a better job of teaching children right from wrong.
And we can enforce law. But there seems to be a lot of preoccupation on -- not necessarily in this debate, but just in general, on law. But there's a larger law: Love your neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself -- and that's where our society must head if we're going to be a peaceful and prosperous society.
BUSH is practically exculpating the internet! He is saying that it's our culture/society (kids being neglected by parents, no respect for REAL human lives not 64 bit ones etc..) that causes violence, and something has gone wrong WHEN a "heart can turn dark" from video games, internet use etc...
Your censors in this election sit on the LEFT side of the aisle. If you are truly concerned about censorship and the First Amendment, you should familiarize yourself with Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman. Conservatives "Conserve" the Constitution, Liberals treat it like a thread.
If the people turning 18 are just now finding out that politicians are idiots, the world has much to fear.
Spotteddog
. there used to be a sig here.....
gore has been long touting his invention of the internet..
Al Gore never claimed to invent the Internet. That story was started by none other then Declan McCallugh (of LiViD defamation fame and in no small part responsible for inciting the persecution of DeCSS and css-auth developers).
For the story debunking the myth that Al Gore claimed to have invent the internet see this ; Salon story.
Caveat: I am voting for either Ralph Nader or Harry Brown (currently leaning toward Mr. Brown). If you oppose Gore (or Bush) that is fine, but be sure you do so for factual reasons, not myths propogated by yellow journalists.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Great post Jon.
I hadn't decided who to vote for yet, but that post really sent the message home and I'm definitely going to vote for Gore now.
Thanks for letting me know that Bush was an idiot, I hadn't noticed. In fact, I guess I was just trying to make an educated decision based on their proposed policies as well as their character and experience...Geesh, I guess that was silly wasn't it! Oh well, luckily I saw your post in time!
Please keep posting more stories like that one. It was well thought out, researched, and --most importantly-- it was very fair and unbiased.
Keep up the great work!
www.niceFire.com
www.niceFire.com
Funnier than a speeding bullet
Let's see. In the most recent debate, Bush claimed that the three men convicted in the dragging death of James Bird were all given the death penalty and were going to die for their crime. Actually, only two were given the death penalty. One was sentenced to life in prison.
... There are significant questions as to whether Gov. Bush actually fulfilled his service obligation in the Air National Guard. Nobody in the unit he was supposed to be attached to in Alabama can seem to remember him. Army paperwork shows no record of Bush ever reporting for duty in Alabama.
So was Bush lying, stretching the truth, or as I suspect, he just didn't really know, because he's not all that aware of what is actually happening in his home state and relies on his "advisors" to tell him?
And just so it's clear that this is not the only incident of Bush stretching the truth
Then there is education reform in Texas, which Bush is claiming so much responsibility for. Education reform in Texas actually got started two Governers ago, when Mark White (Democrat) was Governer of Texas. It continued under Ann Richards (Democrat) and has, to be fair continued under Governer Bush. But for Bush to claim any real responsibility for education reform in Texas is at best a stretch.
Want me to go on? How about Bush's much touted "tax cut" in Texas, giving "some of the surplus back to the people". Well, I live in Texas and let me tell you how it really worked. It is true that the State property tax rate was cut. When that happened, all of the counties, cities, college districts, school boards, and other taxing districts that rely on state funding immediately had to raise their property tax rates to compensate for the decreased funding they would receive from the state. Net effect - my total property taxes (and those of everyone in my city that I have spoken to) have actually increased. Nice tax cut.
Then there is the "Compationate Conservative" thing. How compationate is it for the state of Texas to have the second highest percentage of uninsured people in the nation? Particularly when the majority of those without insurance are Latino children (who Bush otherwise acts so fond of). How compationate is it that Bush actively tried to limit the access that children in Texas had to the new federal CHIP program that provides affordable insurance to children of low income families?
Bush is a liar too (aren't all politicians). He's just not called on it much.
The problem is that even if everyone in America voted for Ralph Nader, he still wouldn't be made president because the Electoral college wouldn't permit it. In my opinion, the college is the biggest obstacle to third party success on the national stage. As far as I know there have been two cases of a candidate winning the popular vote, but losing the office b/c of the college. Am I the only one who thinks this is not Democratic? Well, it only goes to show that this country is not a Democracy, but a government of the people not by the people. The "intellectual elite" has faded away into the "mainstream popular" and a whole multitude of voices is not being heard. Ah well...enough ranting.
>in the past 20 years, we have been nowhere near the record of Americans turning 18
Thought that too. And besides, even if it were true, it means very little. The current crop of 18-yr-old voters are hardly the most poitically aware and active bunch in the last 20 years. I might go as far to say that they are probably the least likely bunch since the late 60's to actually be aware, much less participate in the presidential election. That's too bad, and I hope I'm wrong about that.
Katz's drift that alienating the young net-savvy voters by insulting their intelligence by painting the net as a chasm of evil seems somewhat moot. Is there really a chance that large numbers of the 18 20 23&1/2 doom/quake/napster crowd is going to vote for him anyway?
I doubt it. Are there hordes of registered voters in the 36-52 demographic with young kids that are scared to death their child might be the next Klebold and are waiting to hear which candidate "understands" how evil this internet thing is and is going to do something about keeping this bugaboo from corrupting their kid.
GW isn't going to be swept into office by swaying young voters and he knows this. If he were to stand up there and demonstrate a real understanding of the internet to the extent that Jon Katz would hail him as a true revolutionary political candidate, he would lose votes from that majoruty of registered voters that are afraid of the internet because they don't understand it and don't want to.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
If you're going to get informed on the platforms, you might as well get informed on the decisions that really matter.
UBU
First of all, I know the definition of the word "stupid". Shrub is stupid.
Shrub thinks that muggin' and smirkin' and actin' like Andy Griffith will get him into the White House. Shrub thinks that calling facts and figures "fuzzy math" and mangling the English language will ensure him the "common people" vote. Shrub thinks that "being relaxed" in a debate makes him the winner of such, and many stupid media types are going along with that nonsense.
Of course, perhaps the American people are becoming more stupid. A lot of people seem to think that it doesn't matter who occupies the White House, that life will go on just the same. A lot of people like to put down smart people, call them "geeks", "nerds" or "dorks", thinking none of them have common sense or at least any sociability. A lot of people think it's OK to be stupid and not even try to understand any of the world around us.
Obviously, 2/3 of Shrub's support is coming from staunch conservatives who support Republican policies in a knee-jerk fashion. You know, these are the Christian right types who want moral control over your lives and the pseudo-Libertarians who simultaneously want to "give you more personal control by reducing what the government does for you." That's not to mention that if government stopped doing a lot of the things it does, our personal lives would have a lot less freedom of time.
The other 1/3 are voting for Shrub are those who want Andy Griffith in the White House so they don't have to look at the boring, intelligent, responsible Al Gore on their TV screens.
If the American people vote in Shrub, they'll get what they deserve. A stupid President for stupid people.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
This prompted me to go to http://www.bush2000.com/contact.asp ; and submit the following...
I have no doubt that this will turn the tide in the election.
---
Now, you can cut that up like a lawyer, but to anybody whole is familiar with the English language, Gore was taking a granule of truth and exaggerating it out of proportion.
He was overemphesizing his congressional record, in which he actively supported and promoted the creation of the internet. He in no way claimed or implied that he invented the internet, any more than Jed Bush's statements that he was instrumental in creating Florida's voucher program imply that he invented the notion of vouchers or was the first to implement them. At worst he was guilty of exaggerating his congressional record, nothing more.
They have diametrically opposing views of the role of government. They could not be more contrary! Their only similarity is that neither one has the remotest chance of being elected. Your simultaneous interest in both these candidates says a lot about your political knowledge.
No, it says nothing about my political knowledge. What is says is two things:
* The individual is being marginalized in favor of large special interest and corporate influence in government, and both candidates offer a solution
* I remain undecided on whether the best approach is government regulation of industry (which can and does work quite well in some instances) or very, very small government and corresponding freedom (both for individuals and corporations) that implies.
Why am I undecided? Because freedom for corporations often translates directly into less freedom for individuals (e.g. up until a few years ago people with medical conditions were effectively locked into their jobs because they would lose medical insurance if they went to another employer with a pre-existing condition. Later regulation which decreased the freedom and discretion of the insurance industry had a direct and immediate effect in enhancing the freedom of the individual. One may make sophist arguments such as "people were free to leave and aren't entitled to basic medical anyway, so they shouldn't complain" but the reality was, if your life depended on medical care and you would lose it if you changed jobs or were fired, you had the freedom any prisoner or slave has ever had: comply or die). The Libertarians make some compelling arguments, but they also gloss over a number of important and very complex details.
As with nearly everything in life, the ideal situation will probably end up being somewhere in the middle, though probably more in the libertarian direction than the Green direction (hence my leaning toward Brown).
I will say this, however. Your inflexibility in considering two differing points of view on a number of complex issues says a great deal about the openness of your mind, and the simplicity with which you appear to view the political world.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
So him saying that this is the largest demographic group is correct. It's what happens when the previous largest generation's kids grow up. Baby Boomers kids are graduating high-school, and there are a whole lot of them.
Oh - and to all you people who are voting for "lesser evil" or whatever, please take a stand and consider voting for someone beside the two big parties - and no, its not wasting your vote.
tagline
... hi bingo
. . . there are more Americans turning 18 than ever before,
and they now know that at least one presidential candidate is an idiot.
- JonKatz
Ahem, in the past 20 years, we have been nowhere near the record of Americans turning 18. That event occured when the peak of the babyboom generation turned 18 in the 70's (or was that the late 60's?) and the current number of 18yr olds pales in comparison.
Umm, wanna expand on that idiot part Jon?
Visit DC2600
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
While our democracy may have failed a bit, the candidates do, through extensive focus group testing, try to represent the people. Bush wouldn't say a word without his advisors telling him which demographic we're talking to.
So let's get it straight who Bush was talking to. Bush was talking to the Million Mom March. Bush was talking to the same Mom's who needed Microsoft's Digital Diva to explain to them how to send their email messages from their "cyberspace address" out over the "information superhighway".
He was talking to all the people who watched a high school full of children being led out by SWAT teams, the people who read newspapers and read about those two kid's obsession with the internet.
He was representing the great swath of Americans who just don't get it
My point is, don't blame Bush. Bush, as a C student, is uniuqely qualified to represent the vast and growing idiot demographic in America.
Blame the idiots. Think globally, but mock them locally.
-just a thought.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
I hope I'm not the only person in the USA who is bothered by the status of the government. Not neccisarly their "injustices to Americans" or the widespread corruption that you see on the news, but the fact that we're listening to a bunch of 50, 60 year old people who probably don't know what modem stands for. It's sad that it's going to take another 30 or 40 years before college people today get into the government. Sometimes I wonder if it will even happen in my lifetime.
Will the Net remain a unique and free space, or will it be forced to conform to non-virtual traditions and constraints?
Let's look at this logically. Eventually, someone who is elected to an important position is going to be very pro-freedom-of-information. If we elect someone today who is either against it, or the topic isn't on their priority list, then they are going to let monopoly companies decide what happens to freedom of speech online. What happens when we elect the person who is very pro-freedom of speech? It's going to be a lot of backtracking, might as well get someone who understands the issue now.
But most important, we can't do shit unless we vote. It's free, it's quick, and it's the easiest way to change the world. Register.
Gore: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
Now, you can cut that up like a lawyer, but to anybody whole is familiar with the English language, Gore was taking a granule of truth and exaggerating it out of proportion. That is another way of saying he lied. It would not be so noteworthy if he didn't do it every week, like claiming he and Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story, claiming to have written the Earned Income Tax Cut law and worked on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while in Congress (both were created before he entered Congress), like claiming to have helped write candidate Hubert Humphrey's convention speech in 1968 (he didn't) ... And the list goes on.
A good compiliation of some of Gore's most egregious lies are here. You are an apologist for a compulsive liar.
Now, what is equally amazing to me is how you could be having difficulty choosing between Browne and Nader. They have diametrically opposing views of the role of government. They could not be more contrary! Their only similarity is that neither one has the remotest chance of being elected. Your simultaneous interest in both these candidates says a lot about your political knowledge.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
I thought it was rather funny =]
NightHawk
Tyranny =Gov. choosing how much power to give the People.
Anyone who cared one whit about children would never equate anything to related to computers with their general welfare. If you care about kids and their schools, talk about class size, books, inspirational and loving teachers, safety from violence, interesting curricula, engaging and nurturing environments, respect from adults and children; computers are just about at the bottom of the list of what any informed educator sees as making a difference in children's experience of school. Many trendy and ill-informed people see them as a remedy for all kinds of things, but to my knowledge, no research into the area has ever suggested that computers aid learning or the educational experience to anything like the degree that the things I mention above do.
Since the public in general doesn't understand much about the Internet it is an easy target. Rock and roll isn't much of a target anymore because it is mainstream, people have moved on to rap music. The same logic can be applied to women voting, alcohol, printing presses, etc. If its new, someone will attack it despite the enormous good that might come of it, Politicians are just capitalizing on the sensationalism that the media can stir up over things like the Columbine shootings. Once the media brands the Internet as contributing to some tragedy it is very hard to convince people (who don't know much about it) that that idea is ludicrous.
Politicians are particularly skilled at this type of spin. Examples abound: Vote against a gun control measure and you might be branded 'pro-crime', vote to cut some sprending out of a bloated federal program and you could be branded 'anti-education' or be accused of wanting to throw old people out into the streets.
Society is, by and large, ignorant of what the internet is and what it can do for them. They assume its only purpose, other than IMing your friends on AOL, is evil. Politicians are just trying to ride wave into office. Unfortunately, these are the guys who make the laws.
Icebox
If every student can't have their own at their desk, they are nothing more than toys for the few that have the opportunity to use them. The rest can only view from a distance; the majority can't interact. Couple that with the fact that there's just not enough room in a classroom for thirty or more of these boxes, and the immediate conclusion that computers in school, if they are there at all, should be in a lab. In this day and age of portable classrooms, what facility has the space to spare to set up a sporadically-used computer lab, and pay for the staff to operate it?
Secondly, computers are distractions. In a classroom they take even more time away from the real reason students are there-- to learn. No, not everything in school is fun. Some of it may, to the kids, not seem neccessary. But lack of fundamentals is one of the things that's killing this country. I can't tell you how often I find illiterate high-school students. They read like third graders! Why? Certainly not because they don't have computers in the classroom.
Computers in the classroom-- ya might as well call an arcade a "classroom." Don't give me platitudes about how they'll be able to research projects on the Web. With very limited exceptions, it just doesn't happen. What does happen? Games. Note-passing. Oggling naked women. Software piracy (in high school we called it "off-site archival preservation"). Generally, those things that in the past were not allowed in the classroom.
Information on the 'net is uncatagorized and unorganized. Students can hardly write these days, do you really think they'll be able to distill terabytes of noise and glean the kilobytes of needed data? Even if they could get to the stuff they need, much of it is on the 'net as advertisements. I am often frustrated to find that information that would be available printed and bound in the library is only on the web in the form of an abstract and order form. Not particularly useful for school-age researchers. I end up hiking to the library anyway. At least their card catalogs are focused, and don't contain millions of porn links disguised as what I want.
Americans have missed the boat on what education means. Education is not job skills. True education make one a better person. It builds character. Education creates wisdom. If kids today get out of school knowing little more than where the power switch is and how to run a small set of software applications, we have done a grave disservice to not only them, but to ourselves. We will have weakend the fabric of this country's society.
How about we get back to teaching what kids need to know to get through life. Reading is important for numerous reasons. Math lets them describe their world in measurable ways. Literature helps them understand their feelings, and express themselves to others. History tells them how we got here, and generally points to where we're going. Science teaches critical thinking. These are what schools need, not computers. Ignore these, and we'll get a society that won't even know how to build a computer!
Jeff