I got fed up and left my final IT job because of the war. I got so fed up with being told "Well if Bush and Cheney are criminal swhy haven't they been charged and put in jail?" that I eventually just told the whole place to stick it. Yes, politics may have no place in the workplace, but once it comes up, it sure is hard to respect or work with someone who has such an ignorant viewpoint. The job basically sucked anyway, and I'm glad I left, but boy did I get some serious shit (still do) for holding that they're just a bunch of criminals.
No, I don't think you like riding around egomaniacal crazies like us, but I sure as hell don't enjoy driving around bike riders whose shorts are so tight it squeezes their brains out so they can't follow the rules of the road.
I'm sorry, but you're comparing apples to oranges.
In the UK it can take all of what, 2 or 3 hours to go across all of England?
That's how long I have to drive just to get through the greater Chicago area.
YOU try stuffing a family into a car that small for a 6 or 10 or 15 hour car trip. THEN come back and you tell me that your U.K. "big" car is suitable for a family. I dare you.
Wow. Thsi really seems contrary to what's been said about the DMG, which seems geared to first time DMs/GMs. I would think that the PHB would be similarly positioned, not for beginners necessarily but to at least facilitate newcomers and ease of understanding. If/When I get the chance to check out the book perhaps I'll be back here to post a reply. I believe your side of things, but it's also hard for me to believe that they've created such an easy DMG while completely ignoring that aspect in the PHB.
I've only been playing D&D/RPGS for about 17 years or so. You've got me beat hands down!:)
Have you heard similar rumblings as yours from others on the rules?
Our characters were pregenerated, so I haven't been through that process. There did seem to be some miscommunication on a few of the rules where the DM had to ask someone else about rules, but that seems to be expected.
I haven't read through the books, I've just played the game. The experience was very enjoyable. Perhaps getting into the details will provde difficult, though.
...and got some neat little schwag. Dice, a play matt, and free mountain dew!
I'll tell you about the experience:
There was myself, my girlfriend, two of my friends, and some guy that stepped in for another who dropped out.
I am fairly analytical, my girlfriend is too although she hasn't really played much D&D despite being a big fantasy genre fan. The two friends have both enjoyed D&D over the years as I have (we're all mid-late 20's). The person we met up with seemed fairly analytical too.
My first impression was how powered up everything seemed. Many more hitpoints at 1st level. Simplified skills list, although they seem to be so general now that it could hinder the long-term roleplaying viability here. For instance, Thievery encompasses all thief skills now. Athletics lumps together things like running and climbing, which are really two very different ideas (as a runner and climber myself). The ease of understanding and keeping track of all this was pleasant, though.
Fairly easy to understand the rules, and with some GM prodding we were up and running quickly. I'm a 2nd Edition vet and so this was a breath of fresh air.
Combat was MUCH more fun at first level. Our dice rolls were very bad, and it would have been nice to see the 3rd edition rerolls again. Mages seemed quite useful even at first level, already possessing melf's acid arrow and an ice blast spell that was pretty spiffy.
The simplicity really helped the analytics move along for a change. The ease of getting into it made 4th much more fun than 2nd for the g-friend, and the other 2 vets seemed to enjoy the game system too. They had the rogue and wizard, and heartily enjoyed the powered-up aspects of those classes at 11st level.
All in all, a breath of fresh air. Me? I didn't like 3rd edition. It seemed oddly clunky and unintuitive to me, perhaps I just prefer the detailed math rules of 2nd edition. Here, though, the races and classes have been turned on their heads in some cases, and new ideas brought in that really make me want to play D&D again. Skill rolls and saving throws were all simplified too, which was enjoyable, even if I did lik saving vs Death Magic.
I went to Gary Gygax's funeral, and I have to say that I think as a story telling platform this is something he'd be very happy with if he were here. It's more acocesssible as many here have said, and since it lends itself to miniatures play, it will not only make the story more real to people, it will make Wizards more $$ as well:)
While I appreciate that it's supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" here in America, I will relate an experience:
This same "He has to be PROVEN guilty, where's the evidence?" attitude was laid on me time and time again about 4 years ago by coworkers who thought Bush and Cheney were not criminals, because if they were then the courts would have locked them up.
It's just NOT that simple. The judicial system doesn't actually work like that (pardon, I don't mean to insult intelligence).
Of COURSE the money isn't on McCain's tax return. I'm not saying that he's taking money directly from telecoms, but I'd bet that he's getting some nice perks or promises here and there from them. It's also called "creative accounting".
Things like this just aren't black and white in America, and saying "Well, if he's really guilty then where's the evidence?" is about as useful as saying,"It's colored green? Oooo it must be mint flavored!"
Do I think he might be innocent? Sure. Can I prove he's guilty? Of course not.
Economically yes, I wonder where he's going to get all this money he seems to be promising to education, health care, workers, etc. however in terms of oversight bodies and initiatives much of it seems feasible, if difficult. Certainly, those sorts of things require money as well.
Has there been a presidential candidate who has done what you're asking for and laid out a realistic plan before the election? Wouldn't that open a politician up to serious criticism that their plan does not address many of the ills in America?
With all the watchdog committees and standards agencies, it seems like people could just get caught up in a bunch of red tape instead of actually getting back to helping America grow again. On the other hand, a laissez-faire attitude has gotten us into a world of trouble in the last 8 years, and there are a lot of opportunities that have been missed during the W administration.
It does look like he's promising everything. Perhaps I am not cynical enough yet to give up thinking that he may be able to do some good. Ultimately it's just a roll of the dice. Might we look back in anger? I hope not. A situation like this is no different than hiring a new CEO to turn a company like Motorola around, for instance. It might work, it might not.
As an economist, what's your take on current policies in that arena?
Before this continues, can people *please* indicate what they mean by "being paid beans" and include numbers? That would make this a bit more scientific, and if you could include that number as AFTER TAX (including after pension and average retirement savings taken out), that would also make this more scientific.
I am here in the U.S. north of Chicago, in an admittedly very well-off suburb. Our teacher clients tell us about the math they are teaching the kids around here, and yes, it is much harder than what I had at that age.
So, perhaps the higher grades are getting easier? The high school (year 9-12) and university math I've seen that isn't Honors (advanced) level is woefully simple.
However, I know that at my university (6-10 years ago) the calculus there was REALLY hard. I may just be daft, as I'm not the very best at very complex math, but after struggling 3 times with Calc II (I should have passed it the first time, but that's a different story) I took the class at a local college and got one of the highest grades in the class since I had drilled myself into the ground on much harder problems. So I think difficulty also varies by institution.
My verdict over here? It depends where you go. The teachers I know (clients, friends) who are teaching well seem to be getting about $70-90K US Dollars per year to teach. Of course, pension benefits and retirement are taken from that, so it's less, but that's still a pretty decent wage in my book.
For the people who I've introduced to Castlevania, they found Symphony of the Night to be the scariest. While it does have a certain adventure element, it seems to be the darkest/goriest of all the games. I'm not a fan of the anime feel, either, so here's to hoping that they can take things in a good direction and get back some of the scare-factor.
First, you do understand that all presidents' policies are created by a bunch of academics and advisors, right? They don't come up with all that by themselves, so no matter where you go it will be a bunch of guff, to a certain extent. This is the main reason why politics is so broken in America: You're not electing the guy in charge as much as you're electing his advisors.
Your stance is fair, though, though seems a bit dismissive if you believe what I've said above. I'm not sure I can comment or argue much more on your position, so I suppose a more constructive question might be as follows: Has a candidate ever come out before the election and really laid out concrete issues and how exaclty they will deal with them?
I feel the same way, btw, and think that candidates ought to let people know what their stance is. I can understand your frustration with seeing one thing in his book and hearing another now. Having not read the book, I have to admit I cannot necessarily say you are right or wrong, I'd want to understand what was said there versus what he is really saying now.
A little off this topic, but since you mention McCain's crustiness:
Has anyone considered McCain's age of 71? I know that most people that age are beginning to have some serious issues in terms of cognition and physical movement. Is anyone worried that this will make McCain more of a puppet who dances on neocon strings rather than a viable president?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Read up on his issues. How does he have time to debate issues when he's running around madly trying to secure the nomination?
Read their stances on the issues, at their sites. Politicians run on hot button issues. It's called "salesmanship" and it's necessary to get peoples' attention any time you want to gain influence. I have to do some of it for a living, and while it doesn't make me happy about it, it's a necessary evil in order to get people to address important oversights. If you take a few minutes and dig a little deeper you'll find a lot more substance on the issues of each politician.
Just like that "stupid" computer user you helped at work the other day? Yeah, you're the "stupid" political commentator now. Just because we know technology doesn't mean we know everything. Just like everything, we have to dig a little deeper.
There you go. There are, in detail, his stances on the issues. Do you honestly think he has time to go over policy during a 5 minute campaign speech?
If this was too harsh, please mod me down, but I am really sick of people making that comment and I think that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Thank you and goodnight.
America has the greatest disparities between richest and poorest in the world. Certainly more poor than rich (and I realize I have not defined rich and poor). America is one of the worst in terms of average quality of life among 1st world nations. The health, services, nutrition, access to educatoin? All some of the worst in developed nations.
I hesitate to say that your reaction is a knee-jerk based only on the old-and-tired idea that America is the greatest country with the best of everything, and that the "free market" takes care of everything. I am a financial planner, and I can tell you that my knowledge of the free market indicates to me that the free market is as idealistic and broken as socialism or communism. There are ways which benefit more people, and they usually involve regulation and law.
If America's system is not getting things done for its people (and by the way that's what government is set up for: People give up freedoms in order to reap benefits. How many freedoms have we given up, and how many benefits have we seen ove rthe last 10-15 years?) then shouldn't we change it?
A better question might be: Would you enjoy a better-educated, healthier, more sustainable America? Would your family and friends benefit from that?
Are you safe in your McMansion already, with a trust fund set up to take care of your every whim and need? If not, I suspect that denying change is just shooting yourself in the foot. Middle class America is being squeezed badly, and wouldn't you prefer to finally see some real benefit from the taxes you pay all the time? And DON'T give me that BS about how other countries have higher tax rates so they stop the rich from being rreally rich. They DON'T have higher taxes than us. I will say that again for emphasis, they DON'T. After sales tax and state tax and capital gains and blah blah blah is taken out, we easily pay as much as any European country in taxes, and I know enough people who have moved from foreign countries and who have expressed this to me that I am confident in my assertion. So, we *can* have a much better America.
Ah, excuse me sir, but I believe that part of "accepting" means that we accept people for who they are, despite their faults. I'm fairly certain that people can have relationships with others despite their flaws. People are friends with you despite your flaws, right? Would you say that they are evil because of your missteps? Does it make any sense to judge people based on the actions of others? I've heard of a justice system, I believe it resides in a place called The United States, which is loosely based on that principal of free will and such. Correct me if I am wrong.
I've met plenty of people whose views or actions I do not like, however I am friends with them because I accept some of what they do as being human. If they do things I cannot abide by, I remove myself from being friends with or interacting them. If I were a public figure and someone close to me committed an action I felt was bad, I would denounce that action publicly, talk to them, and if we could not come to an agreement I would separate that relationship.
I believe that is what is called "maturity". Your mileage may vary.
Excuse me, but have you read up on the things McCain has been saying over the last 10 years?
When a man says one thing or takes a hard stance on something, then turns around later and says or does the complete opposite, and this on a regular basis, how can that be honorable or good? I undeerstand that people change their minds and morals, but McCain's record is full of these switches in position. I would call that a shill. If he stood by his principals instead of wanging them around in every direction in order to get power, I agree that he would probably be a good candidate.
I give you two links, the first of which has already been posted, and the second I submit with a grain of salt, as it appears to be a fairly liberal site but it does lay out some of McCain's flip-flopping. As in all endeavors I hope all readers will think for themselves before embracing any of this.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mccain-id-spy-o.htmlhttp://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html
I once respected McCain for his campaign finance reform legislation, but over the last couple years my respect has dwindled to nothing after reading about him in the news and comparing him to what he used to say and do. He's just another politician, and my hope (however small) is that whoever runs against him will be a little more than just your average politician.
"I am amazed. This has to be a joke, right? America is currently a largely consumerist society where a majority of citizens still live in denial of how coddled they are. The money spent on blowing things up in foreign countries could be better spent on education, infrastructure, and research. I am surprised at how short-sighted the Americanss are, and I already hold them in pretty low esteem."
Fixed that for ya.
What scares me about America's lack of priorities in spending money on useful science research and development is that it seems the Republican strategy is thus:
1) Run up an insurmountable debt. 2) Let a Democrat come in and fix their mess over 8 years 3) Bring another Republican back in to screw America's budget and priorities back up 4)....? 5) Profit! at every step.
At the rate we're going, we will need forward-thinking presidents for at least 4 full terms to get meaningful change. By that time I will be 45 years old. This thought makes me feel both helpless and sad.
The only alternative I see is to have someone with balls say "We're going to continue to run up Amerca's debt at the rate we did for Iraq, but we're going to put it toward science, education, and infrastructure" in the boldest ballsy move since the New Deal.
I can hope, can't I?
Re:Technical expertise is insufficient ...
on
The Rise of Geekdom
·
· Score: 1
First, the very fact that it has been labeled as geek culture (and let's face it, it has for years) says to me that commercialism surrounding it is already here and in full force. "Geek Culture" has already sucked people in for years. They call them hipsters, if I may make a somewhat ignorant and sweeping generalization (the actual existence and definition of hipsters is another discussion entirely).
Second, I would like to expand on the parent's idea that various types of people can be geeks. My upbringing involved a love of computers, D&D, cartoons, technology, and science which are many of the things that one might put in "geek culture". However, I discovered over time that my calling was not programming, IT, or even science per se. I saw people using the term "geek" to be exclusive and snotty. I saw it used to justify unchecked consumerism (also used to feel elite). I saw it used to justify actions which were as dickheaded as any "frat boy" (some of whom are really nice guys btw) and I decided to move on. Now I am in finance and consider myself on the way to a successful and fulfilling future. I do consider myself a geek though, and always have. My clients consider me to be one, and I openly embrace the term.
Being a geek is simply NOT about toys, or twitter, or even if you're involved with FOSS or databases or whether you can admin 50 servers without blinking an eye. In my short 28 years, it seems to be a thirst for knowledge and experience, with a bias toward eradication of ignorance no matter the subject.
Finally, although I think "we geeks" should be on our guard, I get the distinct feeling that unless people are predisposed to being a geek, there is a low chance they have the disposition, patience, or capacity (dare I say it?) to really involve themselves meaningfully.
Will this dilute our community (whatever that means)? Perhaps. Does it offer possibilities in terms of making geeks popular, giving them more social power (and hence RESPONSIBILITY)? Perhaps. Let's do what we've always done, ladies and gents: Let's keep our minds as open as possible and continue to offer reasoned solutions and discussions whenever possible. It could be a good thing for everybody!
Slashdot Mirror
While we're at it:
I got fed up and left my final IT job because of the war. I got so fed up with being told "Well if Bush and Cheney are criminal swhy haven't they been charged and put in jail?" that I eventually just told the whole place to stick it. Yes, politics may have no place in the workplace, but once it comes up, it sure is hard to respect or work with someone who has such an ignorant viewpoint. The job basically sucked anyway, and I'm glad I left, but boy did I get some serious shit (still do) for holding that they're just a bunch of criminals.
Egomaniacal?
Seems like a generalization, but ok I'll bite:
No, I don't think you like riding around egomaniacal crazies like us, but I sure as hell don't enjoy driving around bike riders whose shorts are so tight it squeezes their brains out so they can't follow the rules of the road.
I'm sorry, but you're comparing apples to oranges.
In the UK it can take all of what, 2 or 3 hours to go across all of England?
That's how long I have to drive just to get through the greater Chicago area.
YOU try stuffing a family into a car that small for a 6 or 10 or 15 hour car trip. THEN come back and you tell me that your U.K. "big" car is suitable for a family. I dare you.
Wow. Thsi really seems contrary to what's been said about the DMG, which seems geared to first time DMs/GMs. I would think that the PHB would be similarly positioned, not for beginners necessarily but to at least facilitate newcomers and ease of understanding. If/When I get the chance to check out the book perhaps I'll be back here to post a reply. I believe your side of things, but it's also hard for me to believe that they've created such an easy DMG while completely ignoring that aspect in the PHB. I've only been playing D&D/RPGS for about 17 years or so. You've got me beat hands down! :)
Have you heard similar rumblings as yours from others on the rules?
Our characters were pregenerated, so I haven't been through that process. There did seem to be some miscommunication on a few of the rules where the DM had to ask someone else about rules, but that seems to be expected. I haven't read through the books, I've just played the game. The experience was very enjoyable. Perhaps getting into the details will provde difficult, though.
...and got some neat little schwag. Dice, a play matt, and free mountain dew!
:)
I'll tell you about the experience:
There was myself, my girlfriend, two of my friends, and some guy that stepped in for another who dropped out.
I am fairly analytical, my girlfriend is too although she hasn't really played much D&D despite being a big fantasy genre fan. The two friends have both enjoyed D&D over the years as I have (we're all mid-late 20's). The person we met up with seemed fairly analytical too.
My first impression was how powered up everything seemed. Many more hitpoints at 1st level. Simplified skills list, although they seem to be so general now that it could hinder the long-term roleplaying viability here. For instance, Thievery encompasses all thief skills now. Athletics lumps together things like running and climbing, which are really two very different ideas (as a runner and climber myself). The ease of understanding and keeping track of all this was pleasant, though.
Fairly easy to understand the rules, and with some GM prodding we were up and running quickly. I'm a 2nd Edition vet and so this was a breath of fresh air.
Combat was MUCH more fun at first level. Our dice rolls were very bad, and it would have been nice to see the 3rd edition rerolls again. Mages seemed quite useful even at first level, already possessing melf's acid arrow and an ice blast spell that was pretty spiffy.
The simplicity really helped the analytics move along for a change. The ease of getting into it made 4th much more fun than 2nd for the g-friend, and the other 2 vets seemed to enjoy the game system too. They had the rogue and wizard, and heartily enjoyed the powered-up aspects of those classes at 11st level.
All in all, a breath of fresh air. Me? I didn't like 3rd edition. It seemed oddly clunky and unintuitive to me, perhaps I just prefer the detailed math rules of 2nd edition. Here, though, the races and classes have been turned on their heads in some cases, and new ideas brought in that really make me want to play D&D again. Skill rolls and saving throws were all simplified too, which was enjoyable, even if I did lik saving vs Death Magic.
I went to Gary Gygax's funeral, and I have to say that I think as a story telling platform this is something he'd be very happy with if he were here. It's more acocesssible as many here have said, and since it lends itself to miniatures play, it will not only make the story more real to people, it will make Wizards more $$ as well
While I appreciate that it's supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" here in America, I will relate an experience: This same "He has to be PROVEN guilty, where's the evidence?" attitude was laid on me time and time again about 4 years ago by coworkers who thought Bush and Cheney were not criminals, because if they were then the courts would have locked them up. It's just NOT that simple. The judicial system doesn't actually work like that (pardon, I don't mean to insult intelligence). Of COURSE the money isn't on McCain's tax return. I'm not saying that he's taking money directly from telecoms, but I'd bet that he's getting some nice perks or promises here and there from them. It's also called "creative accounting". Things like this just aren't black and white in America, and saying "Well, if he's really guilty then where's the evidence?" is about as useful as saying,"It's colored green? Oooo it must be mint flavored!" Do I think he might be innocent? Sure. Can I prove he's guilty? Of course not.
No, just curious what's at the fore.
Economically yes, I wonder where he's going to get all this money he seems to be promising to education, health care, workers, etc. however in terms of oversight bodies and initiatives much of it seems feasible, if difficult. Certainly, those sorts of things require money as well.
Has there been a presidential candidate who has done what you're asking for and laid out a realistic plan before the election? Wouldn't that open a politician up to serious criticism that their plan does not address many of the ills in America?
With all the watchdog committees and standards agencies, it seems like people could just get caught up in a bunch of red tape instead of actually getting back to helping America grow again. On the other hand, a laissez-faire attitude has gotten us into a world of trouble in the last 8 years, and there are a lot of opportunities that have been missed during the W administration.
It does look like he's promising everything. Perhaps I am not cynical enough yet to give up thinking that he may be able to do some good. Ultimately it's just a roll of the dice. Might we look back in anger? I hope not. A situation like this is no different than hiring a new CEO to turn a company like Motorola around, for instance. It might work, it might not.
As an economist, what's your take on current policies in that arena?
Before this continues, can people *please* indicate what they mean by "being paid beans" and include numbers? That would make this a bit more scientific, and if you could include that number as AFTER TAX (including after pension and average retirement savings taken out), that would also make this more scientific.
I am here in the U.S. north of Chicago, in an admittedly very well-off suburb. Our teacher clients tell us about the math they are teaching the kids around here, and yes, it is much harder than what I had at that age.
So, perhaps the higher grades are getting easier? The high school (year 9-12) and university math I've seen that isn't Honors (advanced) level is woefully simple.
However, I know that at my university (6-10 years ago) the calculus there was REALLY hard. I may just be daft, as I'm not the very best at very complex math, but after struggling 3 times with Calc II (I should have passed it the first time, but that's a different story) I took the class at a local college and got one of the highest grades in the class since I had drilled myself into the ground on much harder problems. So I think difficulty also varies by institution.
My verdict over here? It depends where you go. The teachers I know (clients, friends) who are teaching well seem to be getting about $70-90K US Dollars per year to teach. Of course, pension benefits and retirement are taken from that, so it's less, but that's still a pretty decent wage in my book.
For the people who I've introduced to Castlevania, they found Symphony of the Night to be the scariest. While it does have a certain adventure element, it seems to be the darkest/goriest of all the games. I'm not a fan of the anime feel, either, so here's to hoping that they can take things in a good direction and get back some of the scare-factor.
I meant "shuffle, creak, and groan (not necessarily in that order) on the strings of the neocon puppet masters"
very funny.
Strike on e of those comments: "main reason why politics is so broken"? Doesn't seem to hold much water.
It makes it a more difficult process, or more of a gamble, sort of a buyer-beware situation.
First, you do understand that all presidents' policies are created by a bunch of academics and advisors, right? They don't come up with all that by themselves, so no matter where you go it will be a bunch of guff, to a certain extent. This is the main reason why politics is so broken in America: You're not electing the guy in charge as much as you're electing his advisors.
Your stance is fair, though, though seems a bit dismissive if you believe what I've said above. I'm not sure I can comment or argue much more on your position, so I suppose a more constructive question might be as follows: Has a candidate ever come out before the election and really laid out concrete issues and how exaclty they will deal with them?
I feel the same way, btw, and think that candidates ought to let people know what their stance is. I can understand your frustration with seeing one thing in his book and hearing another now. Having not read the book, I have to admit I cannot necessarily say you are right or wrong, I'd want to understand what was said there versus what he is really saying now.
A little off this topic, but since you mention McCain's crustiness: Has anyone considered McCain's age of 71? I know that most people that age are beginning to have some serious issues in terms of cognition and physical movement. Is anyone worried that this will make McCain more of a puppet who dances on neocon strings rather than a viable president?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ Read up on his issues. How does he have time to debate issues when he's running around madly trying to secure the nomination?
They're not.
Read their stances on the issues, at their sites. Politicians run on hot button issues. It's called "salesmanship" and it's necessary to get peoples' attention any time you want to gain influence. I have to do some of it for a living, and while it doesn't make me happy about it, it's a necessary evil in order to get people to address important oversights. If you take a few minutes and dig a little deeper you'll find a lot more substance on the issues of each politician.
Just like that "stupid" computer user you helped at work the other day? Yeah, you're the "stupid" political commentator now. Just because we know technology doesn't mean we know everything. Just like everything, we have to dig a little deeper.
Can someone PLEASE mod the above as "lazy"?
Mod ALL posts or comments in the media like this as "lazy", please?
Do I have to be the person to come and post "RTFM" ?
For everything that's holy you're on the fracking INTERNET! USE IT!
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
There you go. There are, in detail, his stances on the issues. Do you honestly think he has time to go over policy during a 5 minute campaign speech?
If this was too harsh, please mod me down, but I am really sick of people making that comment and I think that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Thank you and goodnight.
So, let me get this straight:
America has the greatest disparities between richest and poorest in the world. Certainly more poor than rich (and I realize I have not defined rich and poor). America is one of the worst in terms of average quality of life among 1st world nations. The health, services, nutrition, access to educatoin? All some of the worst in developed nations.
I hesitate to say that your reaction is a knee-jerk based only on the old-and-tired idea that America is the greatest country with the best of everything, and that the "free market" takes care of everything. I am a financial planner, and I can tell you that my knowledge of the free market indicates to me that the free market is as idealistic and broken as socialism or communism. There are ways which benefit more people, and they usually involve regulation and law.
If America's system is not getting things done for its people (and by the way that's what government is set up for: People give up freedoms in order to reap benefits. How many freedoms have we given up, and how many benefits have we seen ove rthe last 10-15 years?) then shouldn't we change it?
A better question might be: Would you enjoy a better-educated, healthier, more sustainable America? Would your family and friends benefit from that?
Are you safe in your McMansion already, with a trust fund set up to take care of your every whim and need? If not, I suspect that denying change is just shooting yourself in the foot. Middle class America is being squeezed badly, and wouldn't you prefer to finally see some real benefit from the taxes you pay all the time? And DON'T give me that BS about how other countries have higher tax rates so they stop the rich from being rreally rich. They DON'T have higher taxes than us. I will say that again for emphasis, they DON'T. After sales tax and state tax and capital gains and blah blah blah is taken out, we easily pay as much as any European country in taxes, and I know enough people who have moved from foreign countries and who have expressed this to me that I am confident in my assertion. So, we *can* have a much better America.
Ah, excuse me sir, but I believe that part of "accepting" means that we accept people for who they are, despite their faults. I'm fairly certain that people can have relationships with others despite their flaws. People are friends with you despite your flaws, right? Would you say that they are evil because of your missteps? Does it make any sense to judge people based on the actions of others? I've heard of a justice system, I believe it resides in a place called The United States, which is loosely based on that principal of free will and such. Correct me if I am wrong. I've met plenty of people whose views or actions I do not like, however I am friends with them because I accept some of what they do as being human. If they do things I cannot abide by, I remove myself from being friends with or interacting them. If I were a public figure and someone close to me committed an action I felt was bad, I would denounce that action publicly, talk to them, and if we could not come to an agreement I would separate that relationship. I believe that is what is called "maturity". Your mileage may vary.
Excuse me, but have you read up on the things McCain has been saying over the last 10 years? When a man says one thing or takes a hard stance on something, then turns around later and says or does the complete opposite, and this on a regular basis, how can that be honorable or good? I undeerstand that people change their minds and morals, but McCain's record is full of these switches in position. I would call that a shill. If he stood by his principals instead of wanging them around in every direction in order to get power, I agree that he would probably be a good candidate. I give you two links, the first of which has already been posted, and the second I submit with a grain of salt, as it appears to be a fairly liberal site but it does lay out some of McCain's flip-flopping. As in all endeavors I hope all readers will think for themselves before embracing any of this. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mccain-id-spy-o.html http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html I once respected McCain for his campaign finance reform legislation, but over the last couple years my respect has dwindled to nothing after reading about him in the news and comparing him to what he used to say and do. He's just another politician, and my hope (however small) is that whoever runs against him will be a little more than just your average politician.
"I am amazed. This has to be a joke, right? America is currently a largely consumerist society where a majority of citizens still live in denial of how coddled they are. The money spent on blowing things up in foreign countries could be better spent on education, infrastructure, and research. I am surprised at how short-sighted the Americanss are, and I already hold them in pretty low esteem." Fixed that for ya.
If this is off topic, please mod it as such.
....?
What scares me about America's lack of priorities in spending money on useful science research and development is that it seems the Republican strategy is thus:
1) Run up an insurmountable debt.
2) Let a Democrat come in and fix their mess over 8 years
3) Bring another Republican back in to screw America's budget and priorities back up
4)
5) Profit! at every step.
At the rate we're going, we will need forward-thinking presidents for at least 4 full terms to get meaningful change.
By that time I will be 45 years old. This thought makes me feel both helpless and sad.
The only alternative I see is to have someone with balls say "We're going to continue to run up Amerca's debt at the rate we did for Iraq, but we're going to put it toward science, education, and infrastructure" in the boldest ballsy move since the New Deal.
I can hope, can't I?
First, the very fact that it has been labeled as geek culture (and let's face it, it has for years) says to me that commercialism surrounding it is already here and in full force. "Geek Culture" has already sucked people in for years. They call them hipsters, if I may make a somewhat ignorant and sweeping generalization (the actual existence and definition of hipsters is another discussion entirely).
Second, I would like to expand on the parent's idea that various types of people can be geeks. My upbringing involved a love of computers, D&D, cartoons, technology, and science which are many of the things that one might put in "geek culture". However, I discovered over time that my calling was not programming, IT, or even science per se. I saw people using the term "geek" to be exclusive and snotty. I saw it used to justify unchecked consumerism (also used to feel elite). I saw it used to justify actions which were as dickheaded as any "frat boy" (some of whom are really nice guys btw) and I decided to move on. Now I am in finance and consider myself on the way to a successful and fulfilling future. I do consider myself a geek though, and always have. My clients consider me to be one, and I openly embrace the term.
Being a geek is simply NOT about toys, or twitter, or even if you're involved with FOSS or databases or whether you can admin 50 servers without blinking an eye. In my short 28 years, it seems to be a thirst for knowledge and experience, with a bias toward eradication of ignorance no matter the subject.
Finally, although I think "we geeks" should be on our guard, I get the distinct feeling that unless people are predisposed to being a geek, there is a low chance they have the disposition, patience, or capacity (dare I say it?) to really involve themselves meaningfully.
Will this dilute our community (whatever that means)? Perhaps. Does it offer possibilities in terms of making geeks popular, giving them more social power (and hence RESPONSIBILITY)? Perhaps. Let's do what we've always done, ladies and gents: Let's keep our minds as open as possible and continue to offer reasoned solutions and discussions whenever possible. It could be a good thing for everybody!
"Microsoft" and "trust"? I thought it was "Microsoft" and "anti-trust".