And you are a fool if you think the Republicans will be any different this time around.
LOL. Any Republican that doesn't change the way they operate won't be around after the next election either. And you're a fool if you think that won't happen. The American people aren't going to put up with the dishonesty and politicians working against them anymore.
A meaningless phrase if I've ever heard one. They've grown government in ways you don't like is what you really mean.
No. It's not a meaningless phrase. You can't grow government without more and more government interference in the lives of individuals, and the corresponding loss of the individual's freedoms. I value freedom over the supposed security that a larger government offers every time.
Every regulation or entitlement that the government gets involved with it necessarily grows the size of the government as it creates new agencies, more government employees, more government spending, more laws controlling behavior, etc.... It also creates more taxes taking money out of its citizens pockets and more debt. All of these are things are negatives, imo.
When was this golden age of American prosperity exactly?
LOL. You're kidding me, right? The US was the most prosperous nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth until you progressives came into power. How do you think we've done all that consuming that you hate without being very prosperous?
Why do the progressives want to redistribute our wealth to the world? Because we have so little of it?
Why have the poorest Americans always had living standards that the average person in the rest of the world could only dream about? Because we weren't rich, free, and offered the immigrant the opportunity to follow their dreams? Yeah, there's no prosperity involved in that at all. We had to be dirt poor for that to happen.
Why do so many people want to enter the US illegally? Because we have so little to offer? Because there isn't more wealth here, by far, than in their countries? I don't know about you, but I've worked side-by-side with both illegal and legal immigrants and become friends with many of them.
None of them came to the US because it wasn't prosperous. They all came here because they could make more money here than they could at home. In fact, even though they were working doing nonunion farm labor or manual labor in the timber industry, they were able to support themselves, and send money back home to help support their families. They weren't anywhere close to getting rich here, but they were far better off making a couple of dollars an hour more than minimum wage, or doing piece work, here than they were in their own country.
In the '70's I worked in a sawmill with two brothers, Juan and Albert Escobedo, whose family owned a hacienda of more than 100000 acres in Mexico. You would think that with that much land they would have been prosperous, but they were working here to make sure their family could keep their farm. They were sending money back home every two weeks to help pay the wages for their workers. They were two intelligent, educated guys who spoke very good English, and they were delighted to earn far more than they could at home.... The fact that we were making $7.31/hour wasn't a negative to them. In their eyes they were doing very well. In my eyes I figured we were way underpaid, and we were. We were only making about 1/2 the average wage that everyone else was making for the job we were doing. The difference was in the perspective. I was used to being wealthy in comparison to the situation in their home country.
There was a LOT of seeking input, and a good bit of compromise offered, but the only input that was ever given was either "No", or "Lets make it even better for insurance companies wishing to cherry pick their clients".
Let's see. Who had complete control of both houses of Congress? Democrats. They didn't need a single Republican vote to pass anything. Yet, there was so much public opposition to much of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda that they had a tough time getting their own party members to vote their way because of voter opposition. Those Democrats and Republicans who caved in and voted against their own constituency have now paid the price. What they feared came true. In fact, many of the Democrats leaders paid the price, and several RINOs didn't make it out of their own primaries.
Trying to blame the Republicans is just plain ignorant as there are many RINOs who have moved away from their party's basic agenda. It's the American citizens who really fought the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda. They have just intensified their resistance. They said, hey, Republicans, ignore us again at your own peril. We don't want what has been forced upon us, and you better not go along with what we have just rejected, again.
So, if anyone is being obstructionists with respect to the liberal agenda it's the American citizens themselves. They are saying, we don't want it. We don't like it. You politicians are supposed to be representing us, and you'd better start doing your job the right way.
If you post one sentence that regurgitates someone else's logical fallacy of a talking point, yeah, that tends to get modded down.
Here's where you're 100% wrong. Completely logical people who start from opposing basic premises end up at completely opposite ideas as to what is right, or wrong, on many different specific issues. Thus to mod someone as troll just because in your eyes their point of view is illogical means you often want to shut down those who have started from an opposing basic premise but are completely logical and have a valid point of view.
Here's a very good example. Obama has made it legal for him to assassinate US citizens with nothing more than an accusation and the citizen is given no opportunity for due process. It's a fact. It was first reported by a couple of liberal reporters. This is a serious breach of the constitution as it basically deprives US citizens of the right to life. It means that any president from now on can order the assassination of his political enemies by doing nothing more than making the accusation that they're a terrorist. That should have every US citizen up in arms, and the media putting intense pressure on both Congress and the President. Yet, very little was said about it, and it's accepted here on/. without any reaction other than to mod any mention of it as trolling. Why is that? Is that party politics over reality? Is that party politics over freedom? Is that party politics over the constitution? That's exactly how I see it.
It's this type of thing, as well as tax and spend, that gave rise to the Tea Party. What did they get from the entire left? Mocking, name calling, insults, false accusations, etc.... However, they showed that they are going to make a difference, and they acted with far more restraint and civility than their opponents. They were faced with hatred and responded with civility. That showed me a lot about the character of both sides.
So, despite the fact that the voters have rejected Obama's agenda the Republicans must agree with Obama or they're obstructionists. Don't forget that the vote last night was a rejection of what Obama has stood for. The voters spoke very loudly last night. They said no more Obama agenda. The voters want the country to move in the opposite direction.
No President has ever decided they should be able to hold a US citizen without due process other than Abraham Lincoln and his situation was far, far different than Obama's. Lincoln was in the middle of an armed insurrection. Furthermore, no President has ever given himself the power to assassinate a US citizen. Let alone without any due process or without anything other than an accusation.
I haven't agreed with much the Republicans have done for years. They have become just as progressive as the Democrats with respect to tax and spend. They've grown government way too much. However, in with respect to Republican failings the Democrats have been Republicans on steroids.
We are at a point in our history where we must make a 180 degree turn and go back to what worked, or we will end up bankrupt and all our freedoms will be gone. We can't afford to keep on creating debt for our grandchildren and their children. Debt is slavery, and that's exactly what we've been doing to ourselves and our posterity. We're enslaving ourselves in the vain hope of getting something for nothing. It's unsustainable.
Our founding fathers did things right. Under their system we became a country in which even our poorest citizens were better off than a very large percentage of the world, and our country was fiscally sound. Now we are bankrupt, morally and financially.
So, that's a big old "I'm gonna obstruct," then. Super.
So, anyone who disagrees with the way you want to do things is an obstructionist?
There was a very clear mandate given to the Republicans by the citizens of the US last night. If they don't act on it they will have lost all credibility in the eyes of their constituency and they know it. The voters said, no more Obamacare. No more ramming bills through congress without understanding them. They also said, follow the constitution. Cut spending. Create a political climate that isn't anti-business. Cut taxes. Reduce the size of government
In other words, the voters repudiated everything Obama has stood for and the way he has gone about doing things. If Obama doesn't listen he's the obstructionist.
Actually it's just that the Paranoid right is simply completely nuts.
I have met the man, you can not help but like him when you meet him and talk to him.
And that's supposed to mean the man is trustworthy? Con artists are the most likable people in the world. That's how they get past your defenses. Their personality makes you like and trust them, and then they screw you over big time.
I'm not formally saying Obama is con artist, just pointing out that the likability factor is a very poor indicator of honesty and trustworthiness.
Ummm.... From the conservative point of view it's just the other way around. Take a look at this site for an example as it's very liberal. Any conservative voices are modded as trolls. Yeah, liberals around here really want to compromise and meet people half way. They claim to be paragons of tolerance but instead they attempt to shut down any and all discussion and dialog and engage very regularly in ad hominen attacks . Even known facts which were first reported by liberal media sources are modded as trolling when brought up here.
So, when the main liberal community has this attitude why should we expect their leaders to have a different attitude? I haven't seen one. I see Obama calling those who disagree with his legislation enemies. I see Pelosi saying bills must be passed so they can be read. I see Obama giving himself the ability to deny US citizens due process. I see Obama giving himself the ability to assassinate US citizens with absolutely no due process. Yeah, real compromise and reaching out. A real effort on his part to preserve and protect the constitution, which is part and parcel of the presidency. He swore a public oath in which he promised to do so, and has violated it again and again.
While you disagree with how great a percentage of the knowledge of the universe we know, in essence you agree with my conclusion. That conclusion being that we are ignorant about many things. That should lead to an attitude in which a new discovery should never be referred to as a "strange anomaly". It should be referred to as a new discovery that calls into question our current assumptions. The wisdom of the second way of looking at new discoveries should be self-evident to anyone.
I was replying to someone who said the Republicans were the ones trying to force their morality on him. In response I pointed out how the left is much more forceful in trying to force their own morality. Political correctness is a very pervasive and pushed very stridently in our society today, much more so than the influence of Christianity.
Just what do you think the political correctness pushed by the left is all about? It's all about forcing their particular version of morality on everyone else.
I don't understand why this should be considered strange. Scientists acknowledge that they have only gathered about 1% of the total amount of information available in the universe. Thus the study of the universe is in its infancy and thus new data that contradicts known data shouldn't be considered to be a "strange anomaly". Since when as knowledge gathered from the first 1% of the data in any large study been considered conclusive? Doesn't that missing 99% of the data say any conclusions drawn from the first 1% say that those conclusions should be considered as nothing more than preliminary suppositions?
I do, but I can't speak for others. I really just don't think that trying to get every pirate in the world to stop pirating things is necessary or will even help. You can't judge an entire movement by a few people who won't listen. The real answer is education and getting people who won't be corrupted by a few pieces of paper into power.
Who said anything about getting all pirates to stop pirating? What you do need is to have the group of people doing the advocating for change stop all perceived dishonesty and don't let anyone officially join the group who is still pirating software.
The education can only be done effectively by people who aren't seen as dishonest. Otherwise what you have to say will be ignored because it will be seen as self-justification, and your opponents will use the fact that you're breaking the law to smear you.
Yes, you probably need some honest politicians to work with, but Ghandi, MLK, and the other individuals who have made a difference, succeeded because even dishonest politicians bow to public pressure when that pressure comes from a large enough segment of the population. They will jump on a bandwagon if it makes them look good. Never underestimate the power of self-interest, and an opportunity for self-promotion, in a politician.
Do you really think piracy is invisible and as such means no one knows about it? And do you really want to change things when you have consistently claimed throughout this conversation that nothing can be done about the situation? Your attitude is one of someone who's already defeated. That's not a surprise though as I've had this same conversation several times here on/. and everyone that's taken your position has given the same responses you have.
You admit your cause can't succeed in the way you're pursuing it, but yet don't really look at alternative strategies. Single individuals have started movements that have changed laws here in the US several times. They figured out how to get publicity and how to present their case convincingly in ways that not only didn't alienate the general public, but actually gained support for their cause. Several grade school kids have individually raised awareness and made an impact on society on issues they were passionate about. Some of them have raised millions of dollars to fund fights against what they see as wrong.
Why can't you guys do the same? Do you just not feel as passionately about your cause as you claim you do? Or, is your cause just a convenient justification for your behavior?
I don't disagree with you at all on the unintended consequences of the law. I'm not even sure I like the idea of the law itself as bigots are going to be bigots no matter what laws are enacted, and laws cannot change human nature.
In my view the hate crimes laws are overreactions. We already have laws against murder, harassment, assault, etc... and those laws already have provisions to cover particularly heinous actions in their sentencing recommendations, and since laws cannot change human nature hate crimes laws are redundant. I feel the same way about hate speech laws. They're political correctness run amok, and when they reach their logical end they do nothing but limit the individual freedoms of everyone and burden the court systems with lawsuits as there are a lot of people out there looking to see what excuse they can find to be offended over so they can sue.
Here's an example of how outrageous things can get with political correctness. My last name has 3 k's in it, and if I make fun of myself as to how I'm a bigot because of those 3 k's I've been accused of bigotry for pointing them out. Having enough of a sense of humor to mock yourself is enough to get you accused of being a bigot these days of political correctness run amok. I guess I ought to sue myself for not being politically correct. I wonder what I'd get in monetary damages if I won.... Maybe I'd get rich....
Would someone with a good grounding in semiconductors please elaborate on why MIM diodes are significant? I have a good handle on basic electronics but not enough experience to deduce how MIM diodes would improve circuit design.
The article said one of the advantages of this is that it is faster than silicon technology. Instead of an electron having to travel through silicon in the normal way, with an MIM the electron "tunnels" through the middle layer and reaches the opposite metal side almost instantaneously. While the cost savings will be nice, the speed is the main advantage inside circuits.
I was a service tech for my entire career. That was made possible by my understanding of the theories involved in electricity, steam, heat transfer, combustion, etc.... I never had to do the grunt work that almost everyone who gets into the trade does, and had a better technical understanding of the systems I worked on than any of my bosses, except for one. He was a retired NASA engineer and one of the two smartest people I've ever met. The other was an Egyptian guy who was working as an engineer for Boeing when I met him.
I'd disagree on the bit about guys who don't understand the theory still getting things done. When you have guys trying to use an ohmmeter or ammeter without the requisite background in electrical theory they have no idea of what the meter is telling them. They're guessing at what the problem is, and acting as parts replacers until they change out the failed part through trial-and-error. I don't know how many times I've watched guys measure the resistance through the windings of a 240v motor, see 20 megohms resistance, declare the motor good because there was connectivity, and want to start replacing controls, or misdiagnose a controller and want to replace an expensive motor. The same goes for almost any electrical component. You don't understand how something is supposed to work, it's extremely difficult to diagnose it.
Plus, basically you have to reverse engineer many systems in your head to troubleshoot them as documentation can be non-existent in the field. You end up having to figure out how a system that has components in several locations in, and/or on top of, a building is supposed to work before you can start figuring out why it isn't working. It's a challenging and interesting way to make a living. I enjoyed it.
Most people don't need the math. As a software engineer, I the most advanced math I have had to use was Trig. Algebra and geometry aren't really used directly BUT the thought process taught in those classes is invaluable to a software developer. But the kids who went on to become salesmen, tradesmen, gravediggers, businessmen, etc, will never use any of it.
I would disagree with your inclusion of tradesmen in your list.
I worked as an HVAC service tech for about 20 years, and my knowledge of electrical theory was very valuable to me. It made it possible me to easily figure out electrical issues that other guys would spend hours figuring out.
I really struggled with algebra, and didn't take trig, in high school as I couldn't understand what the math was used for, but once I was introduced electrical theory algebra and trig became very easy for I then understood how and why they were useful. Had I not taken the math needed to understand electrical theory I would have been far less skilled in the field. Those math skills helped me visualize a lot of problems that the eye cannot see.
What would that be? I'm pretty sure that they used illegal (or at least frowned upon), non-violent methods to get their point across (such as not moving to the back of the bus, or visiting a location that is only supposed to be available for whites).
I'll just focus on this for now for it goes to the heart of the matter.
They made sure everything they did was aboveboard and beyond reproach in the eyes of the general public. They made sure they didn't appear dishonest in any way. They knew that would be used by their enemies to smear them with the accusations of dishonesty and immorality. They understood that any perception of dishonesty would hurt their cause.
Your tactics set you up to be accused of dishonesty right off the bat. It destroys any possibility of the general public seeing justice in your arguments.
That's how Ghandi's and MLK's tactics differ from yours. They truly practiced civil disobedience in that they protested in public places with the authorities all around them while literally putting their lives on the line. They followed the law in their protests because if they didn't they would have been arrested immediately and their marches broken up.
You do nothing of the sort. You break the law as your protest, and you do it, not on the courthouse steps, but away from the cameras, away from public scrutiny.
From what I can see you really don't care if the law is changed or not. You don't believe it can be changed, so you're not even going to try. You're just going to keep on breaking it. That's a completely ineffective tactic and anyone who believes they have a lost cause to begin with will never change anything. You've lost before you've even started because of your own attitude.
What assumptions? You've been unable to grasp any argument other than your own, or to see things through someone else's eyes, in this entire conversation. Why do I say this? Read below.
What makes you think the the only possible tactic for changing public opinion is through appearing dishonest? I've given you two classic examples of individuals who faced much greater odds than what you're facing and won far more difficult battles. They did so by going to great lengths to avoid any appearance of exactly what you promote. They both faced corrupt lawmakers, bigotry in both the general public and the government in their societies, and a public uneducated in the principles they were wanting people to live by. How are those odds less significant than what you think you face?
Truly smart people look at what has already been proven to work, and then follow that example as closely as possible. So, give me examples of how individuals have changed society for the better by changing its laws through promoting apparent dishonesty in the eyes of the vast majority of their society.
You're wrong in your assertions. Your assertions numbered 4 and 5 are only true if you start your logical process from a completely different perspective than Beck does.
Your basic premise is that socialistic policies are the best thing for the country. Beck's basic premise is that the founders of our country got things right and that the constitution, as written, is the best basis for our laws and our prosperity. These are two diametrically opposed basic premises. Holding to either premise doesn't make either person deranged or a liar. But, they do cause perfectly logical holders of the opposing basic premises to disagree on assertions numbered 4 and 5, as well as on a host of other issues.
Well, since you are incapable of trying to understand any viewpoint other than your own, or even look at a situation through anyone else's eyes, I'll stop the conversation at this point.
I'd wish you good luck with thinking you can effect societal change by appearing dishonest, but I have no sympathy for your self-imposed blindness.
I understood exactly what you wrote. It makes no sense.
The only people who have ever expressed hatred of Jews because they are Jews are bigots. Law or no law it's bigots that deny the Holocaust. The law doesn't stop those who don't hate Jews and want to cause them pain from denying the Holocaust. They don't deny the Holocaust because they have no motivation to deny it.
The law against murder doesn't keep me from murdering anyone. I don't commit murder because there is nothing within that desires to commit murder. The laws against theft don't stop me from stealing. I don't steal because it doesn't lie within me to steal. Laws against that type of behavior are there so those people who are motivated to commit those crimes can be punished when they are caught. That's why all laws relating to criminal behavior have punishment for the crime as an integral part of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL. Any Republican that doesn't change the way they operate won't be around after the next election either. And you're a fool if you think that won't happen. The American people aren't going to put up with the dishonesty and politicians working against them anymore.
No. It's not a meaningless phrase. You can't grow government without more and more government interference in the lives of individuals, and the corresponding loss of the individual's freedoms. I value freedom over the supposed security that a larger government offers every time.
Every regulation or entitlement that the government gets involved with it necessarily grows the size of the government as it creates new agencies, more government employees, more government spending, more laws controlling behavior, etc.... It also creates more taxes taking money out of its citizens pockets and more debt. All of these are things are negatives, imo.
LOL. You're kidding me, right? The US was the most prosperous nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth until you progressives came into power. How do you think we've done all that consuming that you hate without being very prosperous?
Why do the progressives want to redistribute our wealth to the world? Because we have so little of it?
Why have the poorest Americans always had living standards that the average person in the rest of the world could only dream about? Because we weren't rich, free, and offered the immigrant the opportunity to follow their dreams? Yeah, there's no prosperity involved in that at all. We had to be dirt poor for that to happen.
Why do so many people want to enter the US illegally? Because we have so little to offer? Because there isn't more wealth here, by far, than in their countries? I don't know about you, but I've worked side-by-side with both illegal and legal immigrants and become friends with many of them.
None of them came to the US because it wasn't prosperous. They all came here because they could make more money here than they could at home. In fact, even though they were working doing nonunion farm labor or manual labor in the timber industry, they were able to support themselves, and send money back home to help support their families. They weren't anywhere close to getting rich here, but they were far better off making a couple of dollars an hour more than minimum wage, or doing piece work, here than they were in their own country.
In the '70's I worked in a sawmill with two brothers, Juan and Albert Escobedo, whose family owned a hacienda of more than 100000 acres in Mexico. You would think that with that much land they would have been prosperous, but they were working here to make sure their family could keep their farm. They were sending money back home every two weeks to help pay the wages for their workers. They were two intelligent, educated guys who spoke very good English, and they were delighted to earn far more than they could at home.... The fact that we were making $7.31/hour wasn't a negative to them. In their eyes they were doing very well. In my eyes I figured we were way underpaid, and we were. We were only making about 1/2 the average wage that everyone else was making for the job we were doing. The difference was in the perspective. I was used to being wealthy in comparison to the situation in their home country.
You could at least try to be reasonable.
There was a LOT of seeking input, and a good bit of compromise offered, but the only input that was ever given was either "No", or "Lets make it even better for insurance companies wishing to cherry pick their clients".
Let's see. Who had complete control of both houses of Congress? Democrats. They didn't need a single Republican vote to pass anything. Yet, there was so much public opposition to much of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda that they had a tough time getting their own party members to vote their way because of voter opposition. Those Democrats and Republicans who caved in and voted against their own constituency have now paid the price. What they feared came true. In fact, many of the Democrats leaders paid the price, and several RINOs didn't make it out of their own primaries.
Trying to blame the Republicans is just plain ignorant as there are many RINOs who have moved away from their party's basic agenda. It's the American citizens who really fought the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda. They have just intensified their resistance. They said, hey, Republicans, ignore us again at your own peril. We don't want what has been forced upon us, and you better not go along with what we have just rejected, again.
So, if anyone is being obstructionists with respect to the liberal agenda it's the American citizens themselves. They are saying, we don't want it. We don't like it. You politicians are supposed to be representing us, and you'd better start doing your job the right way.
If you post one sentence that regurgitates someone else's logical fallacy of a talking point, yeah, that tends to get modded down.
Here's where you're 100% wrong. Completely logical people who start from opposing basic premises end up at completely opposite ideas as to what is right, or wrong, on many different specific issues. Thus to mod someone as troll just because in your eyes their point of view is illogical means you often want to shut down those who have started from an opposing basic premise but are completely logical and have a valid point of view.
Here's a very good example. Obama has made it legal for him to assassinate US citizens with nothing more than an accusation and the citizen is given no opportunity for due process. It's a fact. It was first reported by a couple of liberal reporters. This is a serious breach of the constitution as it basically deprives US citizens of the right to life. It means that any president from now on can order the assassination of his political enemies by doing nothing more than making the accusation that they're a terrorist. That should have every US citizen up in arms, and the media putting intense pressure on both Congress and the President. Yet, very little was said about it, and it's accepted here on /. without any reaction other than to mod any mention of it as trolling. Why is that? Is that party politics over reality? Is that party politics over freedom? Is that party politics over the constitution? That's exactly how I see it.
It's this type of thing, as well as tax and spend, that gave rise to the Tea Party. What did they get from the entire left? Mocking, name calling, insults, false accusations, etc.... However, they showed that they are going to make a difference, and they acted with far more restraint and civility than their opponents. They were faced with hatred and responded with civility. That showed me a lot about the character of both sides.
So, despite the fact that the voters have rejected Obama's agenda the Republicans must agree with Obama or they're obstructionists. Don't forget that the vote last night was a rejection of what Obama has stood for. The voters spoke very loudly last night. They said no more Obama agenda. The voters want the country to move in the opposite direction.
I'll agree, with some qualifiers.
No President has ever decided they should be able to hold a US citizen without due process other than Abraham Lincoln and his situation was far, far different than Obama's. Lincoln was in the middle of an armed insurrection. Furthermore, no President has ever given himself the power to assassinate a US citizen. Let alone without any due process or without anything other than an accusation.
I haven't agreed with much the Republicans have done for years. They have become just as progressive as the Democrats with respect to tax and spend. They've grown government way too much. However, in with respect to Republican failings the Democrats have been Republicans on steroids.
We are at a point in our history where we must make a 180 degree turn and go back to what worked, or we will end up bankrupt and all our freedoms will be gone. We can't afford to keep on creating debt for our grandchildren and their children. Debt is slavery, and that's exactly what we've been doing to ourselves and our posterity. We're enslaving ourselves in the vain hope of getting something for nothing. It's unsustainable.
Our founding fathers did things right. Under their system we became a country in which even our poorest citizens were better off than a very large percentage of the world, and our country was fiscally sound. Now we are bankrupt, morally and financially.
So, that's a big old "I'm gonna obstruct," then. Super.
So, anyone who disagrees with the way you want to do things is an obstructionist?
There was a very clear mandate given to the Republicans by the citizens of the US last night. If they don't act on it they will have lost all credibility in the eyes of their constituency and they know it. The voters said, no more Obamacare. No more ramming bills through congress without understanding them. They also said, follow the constitution. Cut spending. Create a political climate that isn't anti-business. Cut taxes. Reduce the size of government
In other words, the voters repudiated everything Obama has stood for and the way he has gone about doing things. If Obama doesn't listen he's the obstructionist.
Actually it's just that the Paranoid right is simply completely nuts.
I have met the man, you can not help but like him when you meet him and talk to him.
And that's supposed to mean the man is trustworthy? Con artists are the most likable people in the world. That's how they get past your defenses. Their personality makes you like and trust them, and then they screw you over big time.
I'm not formally saying Obama is con artist, just pointing out that the likability factor is a very poor indicator of honesty and trustworthiness.
Ummm.... From the conservative point of view it's just the other way around. Take a look at this site for an example as it's very liberal. Any conservative voices are modded as trolls. Yeah, liberals around here really want to compromise and meet people half way. They claim to be paragons of tolerance but instead they attempt to shut down any and all discussion and dialog and engage very regularly in ad hominen attacks . Even known facts which were first reported by liberal media sources are modded as trolling when brought up here.
So, when the main liberal community has this attitude why should we expect their leaders to have a different attitude? I haven't seen one. I see Obama calling those who disagree with his legislation enemies. I see Pelosi saying bills must be passed so they can be read. I see Obama giving himself the ability to deny US citizens due process. I see Obama giving himself the ability to assassinate US citizens with absolutely no due process. Yeah, real compromise and reaching out. A real effort on his part to preserve and protect the constitution, which is part and parcel of the presidency. He swore a public oath in which he promised to do so, and has violated it again and again.
While you disagree with how great a percentage of the knowledge of the universe we know, in essence you agree with my conclusion. That conclusion being that we are ignorant about many things. That should lead to an attitude in which a new discovery should never be referred to as a "strange anomaly". It should be referred to as a new discovery that calls into question our current assumptions. The wisdom of the second way of looking at new discoveries should be self-evident to anyone.
That should be "left is much more forceful in trying to push"....
Wow. You need to get a little bit of perspective.
I was replying to someone who said the Republicans were the ones trying to force their morality on him. In response I pointed out how the left is much more forceful in trying to force their own morality. Political correctness is a very pervasive and pushed very stridently in our society today, much more so than the influence of Christianity.
Just what do you think the political correctness pushed by the left is all about? It's all about forcing their particular version of morality on everyone else.
I don't understand why this should be considered strange. Scientists acknowledge that they have only gathered about 1% of the total amount of information available in the universe. Thus the study of the universe is in its infancy and thus new data that contradicts known data shouldn't be considered to be a "strange anomaly". Since when as knowledge gathered from the first 1% of the data in any large study been considered conclusive? Doesn't that missing 99% of the data say any conclusions drawn from the first 1% say that those conclusions should be considered as nothing more than preliminary suppositions?
Who said anything about getting all pirates to stop pirating? What you do need is to have the group of people doing the advocating for change stop all perceived dishonesty and don't let anyone officially join the group who is still pirating software.
The education can only be done effectively by people who aren't seen as dishonest. Otherwise what you have to say will be ignored because it will be seen as self-justification, and your opponents will use the fact that you're breaking the law to smear you.
Yes, you probably need some honest politicians to work with, but Ghandi, MLK, and the other individuals who have made a difference, succeeded because even dishonest politicians bow to public pressure when that pressure comes from a large enough segment of the population. They will jump on a bandwagon if it makes them look good. Never underestimate the power of self-interest, and an opportunity for self-promotion, in a politician.
Do you really think piracy is invisible and as such means no one knows about it? And do you really want to change things when you have consistently claimed throughout this conversation that nothing can be done about the situation? Your attitude is one of someone who's already defeated. That's not a surprise though as I've had this same conversation several times here on /. and everyone that's taken your position has given the same responses you have.
You admit your cause can't succeed in the way you're pursuing it, but yet don't really look at alternative strategies. Single individuals have started movements that have changed laws here in the US several times. They figured out how to get publicity and how to present their case convincingly in ways that not only didn't alienate the general public, but actually gained support for their cause. Several grade school kids have individually raised awareness and made an impact on society on issues they were passionate about. Some of them have raised millions of dollars to fund fights against what they see as wrong.
Why can't you guys do the same? Do you just not feel as passionately about your cause as you claim you do? Or, is your cause just a convenient justification for your behavior?
I don't disagree with you at all on the unintended consequences of the law. I'm not even sure I like the idea of the law itself as bigots are going to be bigots no matter what laws are enacted, and laws cannot change human nature.
In my view the hate crimes laws are overreactions. We already have laws against murder, harassment, assault, etc... and those laws already have provisions to cover particularly heinous actions in their sentencing recommendations, and since laws cannot change human nature hate crimes laws are redundant. I feel the same way about hate speech laws. They're political correctness run amok, and when they reach their logical end they do nothing but limit the individual freedoms of everyone and burden the court systems with lawsuits as there are a lot of people out there looking to see what excuse they can find to be offended over so they can sue.
Here's an example of how outrageous things can get with political correctness. My last name has 3 k's in it, and if I make fun of myself as to how I'm a bigot because of those 3 k's I've been accused of bigotry for pointing them out. Having enough of a sense of humor to mock yourself is enough to get you accused of being a bigot these days of political correctness run amok. I guess I ought to sue myself for not being politically correct. I wonder what I'd get in monetary damages if I won.... Maybe I'd get rich....
Would someone with a good grounding in semiconductors please elaborate on why MIM diodes are significant? I have a good handle on basic electronics but not enough experience to deduce how MIM diodes would improve circuit design.
The article said one of the advantages of this is that it is faster than silicon technology. Instead of an electron having to travel through silicon in the normal way, with an MIM the electron "tunnels" through the middle layer and reaches the opposite metal side almost instantaneously. While the cost savings will be nice, the speed is the main advantage inside circuits.
No disrespect taken.
I was a service tech for my entire career. That was made possible by my understanding of the theories involved in electricity, steam, heat transfer, combustion, etc.... I never had to do the grunt work that almost everyone who gets into the trade does, and had a better technical understanding of the systems I worked on than any of my bosses, except for one. He was a retired NASA engineer and one of the two smartest people I've ever met. The other was an Egyptian guy who was working as an engineer for Boeing when I met him.
I'd disagree on the bit about guys who don't understand the theory still getting things done. When you have guys trying to use an ohmmeter or ammeter without the requisite background in electrical theory they have no idea of what the meter is telling them. They're guessing at what the problem is, and acting as parts replacers until they change out the failed part through trial-and-error. I don't know how many times I've watched guys measure the resistance through the windings of a 240v motor, see 20 megohms resistance, declare the motor good because there was connectivity, and want to start replacing controls, or misdiagnose a controller and want to replace an expensive motor. The same goes for almost any electrical component. You don't understand how something is supposed to work, it's extremely difficult to diagnose it.
Plus, basically you have to reverse engineer many systems in your head to troubleshoot them as documentation can be non-existent in the field. You end up having to figure out how a system that has components in several locations in, and/or on top of, a building is supposed to work before you can start figuring out why it isn't working. It's a challenging and interesting way to make a living. I enjoyed it.
I would disagree with your inclusion of tradesmen in your list.
I worked as an HVAC service tech for about 20 years, and my knowledge of electrical theory was very valuable to me. It made it possible me to easily figure out electrical issues that other guys would spend hours figuring out.
I really struggled with algebra, and didn't take trig, in high school as I couldn't understand what the math was used for, but once I was introduced electrical theory algebra and trig became very easy for I then understood how and why they were useful. Had I not taken the math needed to understand electrical theory I would have been far less skilled in the field. Those math skills helped me visualize a lot of problems that the eye cannot see.
I'll just focus on this for now for it goes to the heart of the matter.
They made sure everything they did was aboveboard and beyond reproach in the eyes of the general public. They made sure they didn't appear dishonest in any way. They knew that would be used by their enemies to smear them with the accusations of dishonesty and immorality. They understood that any perception of dishonesty would hurt their cause.
Your tactics set you up to be accused of dishonesty right off the bat. It destroys any possibility of the general public seeing justice in your arguments.
That's how Ghandi's and MLK's tactics differ from yours. They truly practiced civil disobedience in that they protested in public places with the authorities all around them while literally putting their lives on the line. They followed the law in their protests because if they didn't they would have been arrested immediately and their marches broken up.
You do nothing of the sort. You break the law as your protest, and you do it, not on the courthouse steps, but away from the cameras, away from public scrutiny.
From what I can see you really don't care if the law is changed or not. You don't believe it can be changed, so you're not even going to try. You're just going to keep on breaking it. That's a completely ineffective tactic and anyone who believes they have a lost cause to begin with will never change anything. You've lost before you've even started because of your own attitude.
What assumptions? You've been unable to grasp any argument other than your own, or to see things through someone else's eyes, in this entire conversation. Why do I say this? Read below.
What makes you think the the only possible tactic for changing public opinion is through appearing dishonest? I've given you two classic examples of individuals who faced much greater odds than what you're facing and won far more difficult battles. They did so by going to great lengths to avoid any appearance of exactly what you promote. They both faced corrupt lawmakers, bigotry in both the general public and the government in their societies, and a public uneducated in the principles they were wanting people to live by. How are those odds less significant than what you think you face?
Truly smart people look at what has already been proven to work, and then follow that example as closely as possible. So, give me examples of how individuals have changed society for the better by changing its laws through promoting apparent dishonesty in the eyes of the vast majority of their society.
You're wrong in your assertions. Your assertions numbered 4 and 5 are only true if you start your logical process from a completely different perspective than Beck does.
Your basic premise is that socialistic policies are the best thing for the country. Beck's basic premise is that the founders of our country got things right and that the constitution, as written, is the best basis for our laws and our prosperity. These are two diametrically opposed basic premises. Holding to either premise doesn't make either person deranged or a liar. But, they do cause perfectly logical holders of the opposing basic premises to disagree on assertions numbered 4 and 5, as well as on a host of other issues.
Well, since you are incapable of trying to understand any viewpoint other than your own, or even look at a situation through anyone else's eyes, I'll stop the conversation at this point.
I'd wish you good luck with thinking you can effect societal change by appearing dishonest, but I have no sympathy for your self-imposed blindness.
I understood exactly what you wrote. It makes no sense.
The only people who have ever expressed hatred of Jews because they are Jews are bigots. Law or no law it's bigots that deny the Holocaust. The law doesn't stop those who don't hate Jews and want to cause them pain from denying the Holocaust. They don't deny the Holocaust because they have no motivation to deny it.
The law against murder doesn't keep me from murdering anyone. I don't commit murder because there is nothing within that desires to commit murder. The laws against theft don't stop me from stealing. I don't steal because it doesn't lie within me to steal. Laws against that type of behavior are there so those people who are motivated to commit those crimes can be punished when they are caught. That's why all laws relating to criminal behavior have punishment for the crime as an integral part of the law.