Seriously, do you think Obama is your enemy? Do you think Harry Reid is your enemy? I don't agree with everything Obama does, but I generally feel he is trying to help the American people. Harry Reid is kind of a dud but calling him an enemy is a bit much. Even if you do a character analysis of Bush (whose policies I generally hated), read his speeches, look at his actions and try to figure out who he really is, it's hard to claim that he wasn't at least trying to help out the American people.
Agreed. If these people truly wanted to DESTROY our country, it would have happened a long time ago. The problem is that while trying to help our country, they are also helping themselves. This leads to conflicts of interests, hence you get things like Obama filling his cabinet with old Chicago cronies, or Bush having former connections to energy companies while oil prices skyrocket.
As far as citizens are concerned, we often forget that we are on the same side. Arguing over things like abortion and gay marriage distract us from important questions, like...how can we prevent our infrastructure from falling apart? How can we keep ourselves safe without infringing on our own rights?
The founders of the United States would disagree with you. The goal was to create a multi-branch government with equal power, such that each has the power to keep the other branches in check. Sadly, much of the power that was to sit with the legislative has been lost to the executive. Worse still, the judicial and more specifically the SCOTUS has been slow to intervene when the legislative or executive overstep their boundaries.
Which would work perfectly if there was no such thing as political parties. However, referring to people as Democrat or Republican or a third party instead of just American destroyed any hopes of a balanced government.
I don't agree that any government is benign by default. This depends a lot on the goals of the government and what power the public has to make meaningful change to the government. In some ways, a republic is no longer serving the needs of the US. Direct democracy would lead to a lot of changes in policy that are bad for government but good for citizens. Initially it sounds like it would be mob rule, but sadly, I trust the good nature of citizens in general a lot more than I trust politicians.
Government is just a tool. Whether the people weilding the tool use it to build or to demolish is up to them. Remember, a hammer can drive nails to hold up a wall...or it can knock them down.
The politicians look out for #1: themselves and reelection. You vote for them because you trust that they will represent your opinions in legislation but it doesn't work.
Not sure about other countries, but in my own (USA), this is because of the requirements to get into power. You have to know the right people and follow their orders to move up in the ranks, but you can't do that while working for the citizens...you can only do that while working for the asshole with the power.
I think a better, and more appropriate question is, "Who are THEY to decide what's right and what's wrong?"
Agreed, but I threw that in there just to cut off any potential posts about how I was presenting my opinion as if it was the only correct one...which I have been accused of more than once on here -_-;;
Whoa there. Government itself is inherently sterile. Government can empower its citizens, or it can empower its leaders, but not both at the same time.
The problem is that leaders always turn government so it empowers them, not us. Power-hungry leaders who run the government are the problem...the government itself only does what its leaders tell it to do.
Well Google should tell China they can deep throat it and choke. I'm all for companies having to comply with national and international laws, but censoring search results is NOT something they should comply with. I realize this gets into the grey area of "who are you to decide what's right and what's wrong", but still...government-sponsored censorship of search results? Nothing you could do or say could convince me that is a good idea.
I always want to ask if they ever think it might mean something that all of the best educated and best informed people have such a strong tendency to disagree with them...
I find it funny that being intelligent is now looked down upon, at least in the Republican/Conservative part of the political spectrum. "What? You have multiple degrees? You elitest!"
Universities tend to be the place where this kind of "out of box" thinking takes place.
Really? Because Fox News and the Teaparty loonies seem to be convinced that Universities are where they indoctrinate the next generation of socialists.
When I was in middle school during the mid-90's (I turn 26 next month), I started getting into chat rooms (as many people did around that time.) My parents taught me from an early age to be very aware of what information I put out there, and it has served me quite well. I rarely talk about work, and if I do it is done in a very generic, non-identifiable way. Most of my friends on social networking sites are from K-12, and I use it primarily to keep in contact with them.
...I would like to help them out by providing the necessary data, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am with it...tinfoil hat and all that. Anyone planning on doing this? Why or why not?
AT&T speeds are generally faster than Verizon in my area, but the reception of AT&T phones around where I live is absolutely horrendous...based on what friends who have the iPhone have told me, there are TONS of dead spots around here (Montgomery County, Maryland...hardly the boonies.)
I will gladly take a slow network over spotty network coverage.
This is more about the closed nature of the App Store more than the necessity (or lack thereof) for a security app. In fact, the sporadic and seemingly hypocritical nature of Apple's approval process alone is reason enough for me to not get an iPhone (being stuck on AT&T and having no hardware keyboard are the other two reasons...although I could look past those two if it meant anyone could had an app put up for download.)
Granted, you can jailbreak an iPhone and install whatever you want, but I shouldn't have to hack a phone just so I can use whatever program I want on it. Being held to Apple's decision on what I can or can't use on there is a deal breaker for me.
Shake: Drizzle here. Meatwad: Hello, yes Drizzle. Violent criminals have put...Fat Albert, what, what it's... Frylock: No, no, it's Prince Albert. Meatwad: Oh, have put...Fat Albert in a can, in your can. Shake: I'll need precise coordinates, ma'am. Meatwad: Oh okay, it's...it's in your butt, boy! It's in your butt! Did you hear me? It's in your butt!
Thing totally looks like a dildo. There better be some vibraty downloadables on the PSN...otherwise, they are missing out on a HUGE market for this product.
Eh...we own firearms (a.22 Marlin 39A, a 12 gauge pump-action, and a.22 pistol), but they stay in the safe unless we are going to the range. No, in our house our defense is one of numerous blades hidden around the house.
Anyone could have a gun for home defense...but when a burglar sees you wielding an 8 inch serrated knife, they know you mean business. Guns for show, knives for a pro:-)
Sorry...just a bit worked up. I read about this story a couple of days ago, and it really pissed me off. As a gun owner who, even without kids, still keeps his firearms locked up, it bothers me greatly that people out there are exercising their second amendment rights without knowing their asshole from their elbow.
Absolutely. I am a conceal-carry holder and I have a number of handguns. I also have a one year-old and a seven year-old. I have an electronic safe which all my guns go in, as well as trigger locks. It's called being a responsible gun-owner.
Glad to see some other people are...it's getting harder and harder to find people that take the extra steps necessary to keep things safe.
This father should be hung. Who leaves a loaded gun in the house, let alone on the table, let alone with kids in the house? And you know what? Kids like guns, even before video game consoles. Even if this kid wouldn't have played Wii she probably would have grabbed it.
Not just loaded, but with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked back. Unless someone wants to try to convince me that a three year old had the knowledge and strength to pull the hammer back...
Chances are very high it was loaded, round in chamber, and with the hammer cocked (and the safety off). The girl was three years old. Are you saying that she had the knowledge (and strength) to make that pistol ready to fire if it wasn't already like that?
Re:Why is the wii controller even mentioned?
on
Accidental Wii Suicide
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Irrelevant (although having guns in the house AND having a controller shell that looks like that is a bad idea). The point here is a moron left a loaded firearm where a kid could reach it. The fact that the kid managed to shoot herself implies that it was left with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked as well...I doubt a three-year-old could do anything with a gun beyond pulling the trigger.
That makes this go from tragic and avoidable to just plain despicable.
Agreed...this is punishment enough. He shouldn't be made an example of, but he should be used as an example as to why we need more education 9although having to tell someone to not leavea loaded gun laying around a kid is...wow, that's pretty bad.)
Remember folks: just because it is your right doesn't mean you have to be a fuckhead about it. Use some common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, do you think Obama is your enemy? Do you think Harry Reid is your enemy? I don't agree with everything Obama does, but I generally feel he is trying to help the American people. Harry Reid is kind of a dud but calling him an enemy is a bit much. Even if you do a character analysis of Bush (whose policies I generally hated), read his speeches, look at his actions and try to figure out who he really is, it's hard to claim that he wasn't at least trying to help out the American people.
Agreed. If these people truly wanted to DESTROY our country, it would have happened a long time ago. The problem is that while trying to help our country, they are also helping themselves. This leads to conflicts of interests, hence you get things like Obama filling his cabinet with old Chicago cronies, or Bush having former connections to energy companies while oil prices skyrocket.
As far as citizens are concerned, we often forget that we are on the same side. Arguing over things like abortion and gay marriage distract us from important questions, like...how can we prevent our infrastructure from falling apart? How can we keep ourselves safe without infringing on our own rights?
The founders of the United States would disagree with you. The goal was to create a multi-branch government with equal power, such that each has the power to keep the other branches in check. Sadly, much of the power that was to sit with the legislative has been lost to the executive. Worse still, the judicial and more specifically the SCOTUS has been slow to intervene when the legislative or executive overstep their boundaries.
Which would work perfectly if there was no such thing as political parties. However, referring to people as Democrat or Republican or a third party instead of just American destroyed any hopes of a balanced government.
I don't agree that any government is benign by default. This depends a lot on the goals of the government and what power the public has to make meaningful change to the government. In some ways, a republic is no longer serving the needs of the US. Direct democracy would lead to a lot of changes in policy that are bad for government but good for citizens. Initially it sounds like it would be mob rule, but sadly, I trust the good nature of citizens in general a lot more than I trust politicians.
Government is just a tool. Whether the people weilding the tool use it to build or to demolish is up to them. Remember, a hammer can drive nails to hold up a wall...or it can knock them down.
The politicians look out for #1: themselves and reelection. You vote for them because you trust that they will represent your opinions in legislation but it doesn't work.
Not sure about other countries, but in my own (USA), this is because of the requirements to get into power. You have to know the right people and follow their orders to move up in the ranks, but you can't do that while working for the citizens...you can only do that while working for the asshole with the power.
I think a better, and more appropriate question is, "Who are THEY to decide what's right and what's wrong?"
Agreed, but I threw that in there just to cut off any potential posts about how I was presenting my opinion as if it was the only correct one...which I have been accused of more than once on here -_-;;
Whoa there. Government itself is inherently sterile. Government can empower its citizens, or it can empower its leaders, but not both at the same time.
The problem is that leaders always turn government so it empowers them, not us. Power-hungry leaders who run the government are the problem...the government itself only does what its leaders tell it to do.
Well Google should tell China they can deep throat it and choke. I'm all for companies having to comply with national and international laws, but censoring search results is NOT something they should comply with. I realize this gets into the grey area of "who are you to decide what's right and what's wrong", but still...government-sponsored censorship of search results? Nothing you could do or say could convince me that is a good idea.
Information yearns to be free.
I always want to ask if they ever think it might mean something that all of the best educated and best informed people have such a strong tendency to disagree with them...
I find it funny that being intelligent is now looked down upon, at least in the Republican/Conservative part of the political spectrum. "What? You have multiple degrees? You elitest!"
Sigh.
Universities tend to be the place where this kind of "out of box" thinking takes place.
Really? Because Fox News and the Teaparty loonies seem to be convinced that Universities are where they indoctrinate the next generation of socialists.
::Ace Ventura voice:: Obsess much?
And what's wrong with sucking cunt?
I wonder if having a name so similar to Jack Thompson caused any problems for this guy...probably not, but who knows?
When I was in middle school during the mid-90's (I turn 26 next month), I started getting into chat rooms (as many people did around that time.) My parents taught me from an early age to be very aware of what information I put out there, and it has served me quite well. I rarely talk about work, and if I do it is done in a very generic, non-identifiable way. Most of my friends on social networking sites are from K-12, and I use it primarily to keep in contact with them.
...I would like to help them out by providing the necessary data, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am with it...tinfoil hat and all that. Anyone planning on doing this? Why or why not?
AT&T speeds are generally faster than Verizon in my area, but the reception of AT&T phones around where I live is absolutely horrendous...based on what friends who have the iPhone have told me, there are TONS of dead spots around here (Montgomery County, Maryland...hardly the boonies.)
I will gladly take a slow network over spotty network coverage.
This is more about the closed nature of the App Store more than the necessity (or lack thereof) for a security app. In fact, the sporadic and seemingly hypocritical nature of Apple's approval process alone is reason enough for me to not get an iPhone (being stuck on AT&T and having no hardware keyboard are the other two reasons...although I could look past those two if it meant anyone could had an app put up for download.)
Granted, you can jailbreak an iPhone and install whatever you want, but I shouldn't have to hack a phone just so I can use whatever program I want on it. Being held to Apple's decision on what I can or can't use on there is a deal breaker for me.
When I get pissed, you get mist...
Frylock: Here's what your internet search turned up...
Shake: Sex with animals? But there's no time, man!
Shake: Drizzle here.
Meatwad: Hello, yes Drizzle. Violent criminals have put...Fat Albert, what, what it's...
Frylock: No, no, it's Prince Albert.
Meatwad: Oh, have put...Fat Albert in a can, in your can.
Shake: I'll need precise coordinates, ma'am.
Meatwad: Oh okay, it's...it's in your butt, boy! It's in your butt! Did you hear me? It's in your butt!
Thing totally looks like a dildo. There better be some vibraty downloadables on the PSN...otherwise, they are missing out on a HUGE market for this product.
No, but we do have a steel set of sharpened throwing cards that my fiancee bought after she played American McGee's Alice :-)
Eh...we own firearms (a .22 Marlin 39A, a 12 gauge pump-action, and a .22 pistol), but they stay in the safe unless we are going to the range. No, in our house our defense is one of numerous blades hidden around the house.
Anyone could have a gun for home defense...but when a burglar sees you wielding an 8 inch serrated knife, they know you mean business. Guns for show, knives for a pro :-)
I'm quite aware of that, but the .380 caliber Smith & Wesson that (according to TFA) the child shot herself with certainly does.
Sorry...just a bit worked up. I read about this story a couple of days ago, and it really pissed me off. As a gun owner who, even without kids, still keeps his firearms locked up, it bothers me greatly that people out there are exercising their second amendment rights without knowing their asshole from their elbow.
Absolutely. I am a conceal-carry holder and I have a number of handguns. I also have a one year-old and a seven year-old. I have an electronic safe which all my guns go in, as well as trigger locks. It's called being a responsible gun-owner.
Glad to see some other people are...it's getting harder and harder to find people that take the extra steps necessary to keep things safe.
This father should be hung. Who leaves a loaded gun in the house, let alone on the table, let alone with kids in the house? And you know what? Kids like guns, even before video game consoles. Even if this kid wouldn't have played Wii she probably would have grabbed it.
Not just loaded, but with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked back. Unless someone wants to try to convince me that a three year old had the knowledge and strength to pull the hammer back...
Chances are very high it was loaded, round in chamber, and with the hammer cocked (and the safety off). The girl was three years old. Are you saying that she had the knowledge (and strength) to make that pistol ready to fire if it wasn't already like that?
Irrelevant (although having guns in the house AND having a controller shell that looks like that is a bad idea). The point here is a moron left a loaded firearm where a kid could reach it. The fact that the kid managed to shoot herself implies that it was left with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked as well...I doubt a three-year-old could do anything with a gun beyond pulling the trigger.
That makes this go from tragic and avoidable to just plain despicable.
Agreed...this is punishment enough. He shouldn't be made an example of, but he should be used as an example as to why we need more education 9although having to tell someone to not leavea loaded gun laying around a kid is...wow, that's pretty bad.)
Remember folks: just because it is your right doesn't mean you have to be a fuckhead about it. Use some common sense.