The intent of the analogy is that the way you do something is just as important of the actual intent and outcome of what you do. I said news outlets can use twitter just fine- it only looks like the big red crayon for the AG because it is a poor medium for formal- rather than informational- communication.
I make no comment on how respectable news media are, but for a public figure a press release (perhaps printed in news media, perhaps on his official website) is more respectable than a tweet.
It is mostly a distinction of what kind of message you are trying to send, not the content. News media might appropriately tweet "murderer executed by firing squad, confirmed dead", as it is entirely informational. The AG is speaking as a professional doing his job- more formality is required than what Twitter allows.
Although not a perfect analogy, what if he signed documents for the execution using a big red crayon instead of a pen? Equivalent functionality by no means implies equivalent meaning.
I agree with the people offended by this AG. He should have simply used twitter when it is time for his press conference, using the press conference to announce the man's death in a professional manner. It makes sense for random people or news organizations to use twitter to spread news of the execution, but the AG should not be so informal, being the professional responsible for the execution (responsible in the sense of "in charge", not as in "to blame").
I don't think anyone would be offended at the "icky stuff" if he would just save it for the press conference or some other formal communication instead of twitter.
Iowa has detailed rules on how district lines are drawn, and therefore well known for preventing Gerrymandering. In contrast, Illinois has some interestingGerrymandering going on.
The "everybody wins" free market scenario doesn't hold so well with asymmetric information. I could tell someone they'll die of polio in the next 24 hours unless they take my magic pill, and if they believe me I've got a willing buyer despite the fact that he gains nothing (assuming he doesn't gain a bit of wisdom when he learns better of it). Similar things can happen in the medical field- they have all the information and usually you don't have time to do your research, so you often have to blindly trust them.
I do not trust healthcare in the hands of Congressmen, but I also don't trust it in the hands of capitalists who think "patient" is just a word for "customer easily milked for more cash". Given we will never have a properly functioning free market for healthcare, I would rather use more regulation to compensate for the uneven information.
A company going from small marketshare to moderate marketshare makes it no more monopoly-like than putting a small rock with another small rock makes them more blackhole-like. Sure, you could claim a scenario where Apple sudddenly has 90%+ of some market segment, but that doesn't seem likely. Making the two OSs compete directly should only help reduce any monopoly effect either company has.
I would consider intent a factor in determining whether someone is a troll, which would (usually) make the funny and troll posts exclusive. I agree that, using your definition, he is a troll regardless of humor value.
I apologize for my above response ignoring your argument; I suppose my overall thought process is, although you have valid points on why my strategy for voting reform is unlikely to happen, I won't agree it is bad to follow through on it unless you suggest a more likely strategy. Regardless, it won't be easy to get reform, so I'm afraid even a small chance is likely to be our best shot.
A constitutional amendment can be formed through high popular support in enough states- otherwise simply having enough popular pressure on congress may induce change. You are talking about under 40% of the eligible popular vote, but (maybe I used the wrong term) getting under 40% of votes cast (what I was going for) would mean enough people that care are unhappy, which may just be enough momentum to get that voting reform.
You seemed to have missed my point- I said independents don't have to win, so I am not relying on them to make the rule change. Just give the people a situation intolerable enough they stop being complacent and actually speak up about it. It doesn't matter who is in office, if there is enough popular support for voting reform it will happen (as in, enough that politicians really can't manipulate their way around it). The system is as bad as it is right now only because politicians know people are complacent and can't agree well enough to work against the system.
On a side note, right now I feel instant runoff voting would be the best option- not only is it (mostly) straight forward, but it functions enough like the current system that the D&R parties won't feel too threatened as at least one or the other will probably be one of the top two (meaning it may actually get implemented). It also eliminates any claim that third party votes are wasteful. I do realize there are rare scenarios where a sub-optimal candidate can win, but I feel all our current candidates are sub-optimal so I'm not too concerned.
Voting reform is my goal here, but I honestly don't think that can happen with the current D&R oligarchy. What I'm saying is people should vote for a third party as a vote for reform, not as a vote for that party or candidate- it doesn't matter who likes what party. I understand the mathematics, but if we can force the numbers so there are three viable candidates the two party system will break when no one is even reaching 40% of the popular vote. Even if the popular vote leader still gets in, enough people will be upset that people will be receptive to the idea of voting reform. A third party candidate never even has to win for this to happen, so losing is irrelevant.
But, as long as people like you* still think that a third party vote is a waste, voting reform will not happen.
(I get modding down if someone gives the usual brainwashed anti-socialism rant. Modding people down simply because they bring up socialism is censorship. I believe the parent isn't serious, and find him funny actually.)
Voting for third party candidates isn't so much about what policies you want to see in place now, as much as it is about wanting a long-term change in the voting system. In other words, your strategy is not based on winning this election, it is about just trying to win some election in the future.
People may want to vote for third parties, but don't because they don't expect others to- it's basically a reverse tragedy of the commons. People interested in third parties may be willing to vote for such a party after seeing them get 10%, 15%, etc. of the popular vote- more additional voters would be expected as you increase how many votes you get. In that sense, it is rational to vote for a third party candidate, as you would be helping to trigger this snowball effect. Your only rational way to improve the odds of a third party eventually winning, is to continually vote for them and encourage others to follow suit (voting reform would be more helpful, but not likely until third parties get involved).
I would love to vote for a candidate I actually agree with, but doing so right now would guarantee I will never get a good candidate in office. What we must do is pick green or libertarian and vote for them regardless of whether we agree with their platform. Don't stop until the two party system is thoroughly broken. Chances are, we will need voting reform before we move beyond 4 viable parties- we won't get that reform until we have at least 3 parties.
In short, you aren't voting for a candidate. You are simply voting against the two party system.
Google has just released a tool that could alleviate some of the above worries: it stops tracking by Google Analytics
Sounds great, I've always wanted a way to block that "google-analytics" I keep seeing on my NoScript blocked list.
I can't complain much though- there's an important difference between going to a third party (NoScript) to block Google, and Google offering a solution themselves.
Uhm.. it's good versus evil- you're supposed to fight the evil. Why would anyone care about something as mundane as helping millions when you can fight evil?
I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that when I give food to the local food pantry, or donate clothing at the church, that feeding and clothing of local impoverished people is actually only affecting Africa.
The original claim was that religion doesn't bring about any good, so I brought up charity as an example of something that churches commonly organize and facilitate that generally does good. Just about anything good has also been used to do harm, but that doesn't necessarily mean it only does harm.
Charity is not intended to be a permanent cure. It is used to help people who are between jobs, women who need to escape from domestic violence, victims of natural disasters that need time to rebuild. It is a way for people like me who can't solve poverty to still make a difference for those people while politicians twiddle their thumbs waiting for a solution to fall on their desk. Long term solutions intended to solve the overall problem help the people while ignoring the individuals. Unless you see yourself as a cog in the system first, and a person second, you should be able to relate to the need to help individuals too.
I don't advocate the religion, but the practicing Catholics I know are great people. I never understand when people attack Catholics saying they never do any good (as the above poster has suggested).
Establishing infrastructure and resources so people can move out of poverty and into middle class often takes generations. In the mean time, charity is basically the only way to relieve these people of (part of) the struggle of getting by. Your philosophy seems to be that a person doesn't matter, although people do. Charity is often about helping persons, with the knowledge that the resources at hand cannot properly help the people as a whole. Yes, charity can be abused, and I agree it should never be a long term solution, but for the most part it is intended to be temporary help so people have a chance to get back on their feet.
I apologize for the ambiguous wording. I was leaning more towards definition 3.
Also, you seem to overlook the large charity efforts encouraged by religions. Sure, you should feel compelled to give to charity regardless of whether you believe it gives you brownie points towards some afterlife, but churches and the like make it easier to organize effort (people would be reluctant to do service projects on their own). Of course you might decide since there are a few corrupt priests out there, no religion-backed charity is ever a good thing. As much as I think we could do without religion, I wouldn't go so far as to say nothing good comes of it.
The Catholic church recognizes it has a bad history with reacting to science, so they are trying to make up for that, yet it seems any effort to do so just that brings more complaints. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
By this point, the Catholic church has mostly improved from malicious to benign on the science front (they may contest doing research in certain areas of science on moral grounds, but they don't really try to contradict science anymore). Most of the anti-science creationism and whatnot isn't from the Catholic church.
Disclaimer: I was raised Catholic and appreciate most of the philosophy but don't care for the religion.
Slashdot Mirror
Responsibility brings both, I was just clarifying intent so as to not get unintended flamers.
The intent of the analogy is that the way you do something is just as important of the actual intent and outcome of what you do. I said news outlets can use twitter just fine- it only looks like the big red crayon for the AG because it is a poor medium for formal- rather than informational- communication.
I make no comment on how respectable news media are, but for a public figure a press release (perhaps printed in news media, perhaps on his official website) is more respectable than a tweet.
It is mostly a distinction of what kind of message you are trying to send, not the content. News media might appropriately tweet "murderer executed by firing squad, confirmed dead", as it is entirely informational. The AG is speaking as a professional doing his job- more formality is required than what Twitter allows.
Although not a perfect analogy, what if he signed documents for the execution using a big red crayon instead of a pen? Equivalent functionality by no means implies equivalent meaning.
I agree with the people offended by this AG. He should have simply used twitter when it is time for his press conference, using the press conference to announce the man's death in a professional manner. It makes sense for random people or news organizations to use twitter to spread news of the execution, but the AG should not be so informal, being the professional responsible for the execution (responsible in the sense of "in charge", not as in "to blame").
I don't think anyone would be offended at the "icky stuff" if he would just save it for the press conference or some other formal communication instead of twitter.
Iowa has detailed rules on how district lines are drawn, and therefore well known for preventing Gerrymandering. In contrast, Illinois has some interesting Gerrymandering going on.
The parent did say state senates- he's just suggesting to reduce states to 1-house legislatures I believe.
It seems posting "idle is pants" is 100% on-topic today.
The "everybody wins" free market scenario doesn't hold so well with asymmetric information. I could tell someone they'll die of polio in the next 24 hours unless they take my magic pill, and if they believe me I've got a willing buyer despite the fact that he gains nothing (assuming he doesn't gain a bit of wisdom when he learns better of it). Similar things can happen in the medical field- they have all the information and usually you don't have time to do your research, so you often have to blindly trust them.
I do not trust healthcare in the hands of Congressmen, but I also don't trust it in the hands of capitalists who think "patient" is just a word for "customer easily milked for more cash". Given we will never have a properly functioning free market for healthcare, I would rather use more regulation to compensate for the uneven information.
Their service must not actually be trying to prevent identity theft, but trying to keep you from knowing when it happens.
A company going from small marketshare to moderate marketshare makes it no more monopoly-like than putting a small rock with another small rock makes them more blackhole-like. Sure, you could claim a scenario where Apple sudddenly has 90%+ of some market segment, but that doesn't seem likely. Making the two OSs compete directly should only help reduce any monopoly effect either company has.
I would consider intent a factor in determining whether someone is a troll, which would (usually) make the funny and troll posts exclusive. I agree that, using your definition, he is a troll regardless of humor value.
I apologize for my above response ignoring your argument; I suppose my overall thought process is, although you have valid points on why my strategy for voting reform is unlikely to happen, I won't agree it is bad to follow through on it unless you suggest a more likely strategy. Regardless, it won't be easy to get reform, so I'm afraid even a small chance is likely to be our best shot.
A constitutional amendment can be formed through high popular support in enough states- otherwise simply having enough popular pressure on congress may induce change. You are talking about under 40% of the eligible popular vote, but (maybe I used the wrong term) getting under 40% of votes cast (what I was going for) would mean enough people that care are unhappy, which may just be enough momentum to get that voting reform.
You seemed to have missed my point- I said independents don't have to win, so I am not relying on them to make the rule change. Just give the people a situation intolerable enough they stop being complacent and actually speak up about it. It doesn't matter who is in office, if there is enough popular support for voting reform it will happen (as in, enough that politicians really can't manipulate their way around it). The system is as bad as it is right now only because politicians know people are complacent and can't agree well enough to work against the system.
On a side note, right now I feel instant runoff voting would be the best option- not only is it (mostly) straight forward, but it functions enough like the current system that the D&R parties won't feel too threatened as at least one or the other will probably be one of the top two (meaning it may actually get implemented). It also eliminates any claim that third party votes are wasteful. I do realize there are rare scenarios where a sub-optimal candidate can win, but I feel all our current candidates are sub-optimal so I'm not too concerned.
Voting reform is my goal here, but I honestly don't think that can happen with the current D&R oligarchy. What I'm saying is people should vote for a third party as a vote for reform, not as a vote for that party or candidate- it doesn't matter who likes what party. I understand the mathematics, but if we can force the numbers so there are three viable candidates the two party system will break when no one is even reaching 40% of the popular vote. Even if the popular vote leader still gets in, enough people will be upset that people will be receptive to the idea of voting reform. A third party candidate never even has to win for this to happen, so losing is irrelevant.
But, as long as people like you* still think that a third party vote is a waste, voting reform will not happen.
*People who want (real) change.
(Score:1, Troll): Socialism? Oh wait...
Censorship? Oh wait....
(I get modding down if someone gives the usual brainwashed anti-socialism rant. Modding people down simply because they bring up socialism is censorship. I believe the parent isn't serious, and find him funny actually.)
TLDR: read the third paragraph.
Voting for third party candidates isn't so much about what policies you want to see in place now, as much as it is about wanting a long-term change in the voting system. In other words, your strategy is not based on winning this election, it is about just trying to win some election in the future.
People may want to vote for third parties, but don't because they don't expect others to- it's basically a reverse tragedy of the commons. People interested in third parties may be willing to vote for such a party after seeing them get 10%, 15%, etc. of the popular vote- more additional voters would be expected as you increase how many votes you get. In that sense, it is rational to vote for a third party candidate, as you would be helping to trigger this snowball effect. Your only rational way to improve the odds of a third party eventually winning, is to continually vote for them and encourage others to follow suit (voting reform would be more helpful, but not likely until third parties get involved).
I would love to vote for a candidate I actually agree with, but doing so right now would guarantee I will never get a good candidate in office. What we must do is pick green or libertarian and vote for them regardless of whether we agree with their platform. Don't stop until the two party system is thoroughly broken. Chances are, we will need voting reform before we move beyond 4 viable parties- we won't get that reform until we have at least 3 parties.
In short, you aren't voting for a candidate. You are simply voting against the two party system.
They abbreviate Moldova 'MD'- they probably included D.C. with Maryland, then mixed up the abbreviations.
Seriously, though, they shouldn't use 2-letter abbreviations for both states and countries. Just say US/USA or both US and the state postal code.
Talk about messed up priorities. Insufficient means to build a house is unfortunate, but $60/mo for spotty, 2nd grade broadband is criminal!
Google has just released a tool that could alleviate some of the above worries: it stops tracking by Google Analytics
Sounds great, I've always wanted a way to block that "google-analytics" I keep seeing on my NoScript blocked list.
I can't complain much though- there's an important difference between going to a third party (NoScript) to block Google, and Google offering a solution themselves.
Uhm.. it's good versus evil- you're supposed to fight the evil. Why would anyone care about something as mundane as helping millions when you can fight evil?
Yeah right. I bet next you'll try to convince me chemists use "salt" to refer to more than just NaCl.
I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that when I give food to the local food pantry, or donate clothing at the church, that feeding and clothing of local impoverished people is actually only affecting Africa.
The original claim was that religion doesn't bring about any good, so I brought up charity as an example of something that churches commonly organize and facilitate that generally does good. Just about anything good has also been used to do harm, but that doesn't necessarily mean it only does harm.
Charity is not intended to be a permanent cure. It is used to help people who are between jobs, women who need to escape from domestic violence, victims of natural disasters that need time to rebuild. It is a way for people like me who can't solve poverty to still make a difference for those people while politicians twiddle their thumbs waiting for a solution to fall on their desk. Long term solutions intended to solve the overall problem help the people while ignoring the individuals. Unless you see yourself as a cog in the system first, and a person second, you should be able to relate to the need to help individuals too.
I don't advocate the religion, but the practicing Catholics I know are great people. I never understand when people attack Catholics saying they never do any good (as the above poster has suggested).
Establishing infrastructure and resources so people can move out of poverty and into middle class often takes generations. In the mean time, charity is basically the only way to relieve these people of (part of) the struggle of getting by. Your philosophy seems to be that a person doesn't matter, although people do. Charity is often about helping persons, with the knowledge that the resources at hand cannot properly help the people as a whole. Yes, charity can be abused, and I agree it should never be a long term solution, but for the most part it is intended to be temporary help so people have a chance to get back on their feet.
I apologize for the ambiguous wording. I was leaning more towards definition 3.
Also, you seem to overlook the large charity efforts encouraged by religions. Sure, you should feel compelled to give to charity regardless of whether you believe it gives you brownie points towards some afterlife, but churches and the like make it easier to organize effort (people would be reluctant to do service projects on their own). Of course you might decide since there are a few corrupt priests out there, no religion-backed charity is ever a good thing. As much as I think we could do without religion, I wouldn't go so far as to say nothing good comes of it.
The Catholic church recognizes it has a bad history with reacting to science, so they are trying to make up for that, yet it seems any effort to do so just that brings more complaints. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
By this point, the Catholic church has mostly improved from malicious to benign on the science front (they may contest doing research in certain areas of science on moral grounds, but they don't really try to contradict science anymore). Most of the anti-science creationism and whatnot isn't from the Catholic church.
Disclaimer: I was raised Catholic and appreciate most of the philosophy but don't care for the religion.