Yet, the US has not been in Iraq for a while now and while Iran still has no nukes, the US hasn't invaded.
Well the invasion of Iraq taught the US that while invading is easy, truly conquering or winning Hearts and Minds is hard. Nothing like burning your hand on the stove once to teach you not to do that again.
Oh, and the election of non-warhawks might have had something to do with it too.
So your supposition is that if Bush hadn't made the "axis of evil" speech, Iran wouldn't be pursuing nuclear weapons?
It's hard to say, but it didn't help matters. There's nothing like the most powerful (and possibly most militarily aggressive powerful) nation in the world branding you one of the three prime evils, one of whom they immediately invade despite lack of evidence that the invasion was necessary, to get your ass in gear and decide to acquire something that would be a huge disincentive to invasion.
I was fine with the invasion of Afghanistan. But damn, the invasion of Iraq blew up in so many fucked-up ways. It distracted from Afghanistan, making that affair more drawn out and blood than it needed to be, and it sent a message: "You're next" to North Korea and Iran. North Korea got the bomb, Iran didn't want to be the only one left out.
If the terms of the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 were instead enacted in - say - 1920, a good portion of our current legacy of movies and music likely would not exist.
But they weren't prevented from doing it back then, and that's all they care about. They don't care if current laws stifle progress, prevent works from entering the public domain, and cheat the public. All they care about is protecting existing rights-holders and their current libraries and protecting whatever they can currently make under the current regime. The "think of what works could be created if copyright lengths were sensible" argument is very nebulous, current executives and lawmakers will look around at what we actually have and say instead "I think what we're making now is just fine. Let's do everything in our power to protect it."
Gandhi's way is foolproof against any government that wants to be seen as civilized. The way of the gun is a crapshoot, where we kill our brothers while the government runs the casino.
Gandhi succeeded for one reason -- there were violent people on his side, not committing acts of violence in his name. Those rational among the British felt it better to deal with the non-violent Gandhi rather than the violent Indian independence movement. Without the latter, there were so many other ways to deal with Gandhi's movement.
This case never got to the trial phase. The case the SC decided was on a pre-trial procedural issue, i.e., do the parties who brought the suit have standing such that they are harmed parties who have the right to sue the government. The SC decided they do not have standing because they don't conclusively know they were spied upon, and that as a result: there will NOT be a trial. If there is no trial, there is no jury, and thus no chance for jury nullification.
This is an extremely important point that non-lawyers will just brush past. Non-lawyers often think that anyone can (successfully) sue for anything, but 'standing' is important in the legal world. In a way the SC ducked the issue in this suit, but what it means is that people damaged by FISA wiretaps will have to bring the suit, then the SC might hear it.
Ron Paul never had much of a chance in the long term, but that's because his positions on issues did not reflect the values of most voters. Nonetheless, he was shamefully treated by his own party, and part of that was because he was a libertarian running as a Republican. The Republican establishment knew he wasn't really a Republican, and treated him as such. Paul admitted as much, saying (paraphrased) that running from the Republican Party was the only way libertarians could really gain much support in the short term. He probably didn't really gamble on the dismissal he'd get from party bosses.
The thing that no libertarian has been able to answer for me convinced me it would be nothing but some sort of neo-feudalism which is thus: If I have money, and no law to stop me, WTF is gonna keep me from just hiring my own goon squad and helping myself to your land, your women, or any other damned thing I want?
Not a libertarian, but I can answer that easily enough -- your situation is anarchy, not libertarianism. Libertarians believe in a strong police force and legal system to enforce private property rights and punish violence. It's one of the very few things a libertarian thinks government is necessary for.
RedHat is only big with a small group of Enterprises more interested in red tape and bureaucracy than getting work done. RedHat would have no product without Linus.
That.... is just a really stupid statement. No way does this deserve to stay at +5.
If you want proof of this, just read slashdot. Not the articles, but the comments. It's pretty hard to find a liberal that is in favor of gun control, yet still they vote in droves for politicians who are in favor of gun control. It's hard to find a conservative that is in favor of big government, yet they still vote in droves for politicians that are in favor of big government.
That's because we don't have politicians for single issues (usually). Instead, when voting, we have to decide the following: Do I want to vote for candidate 1 whom I agree with on issue X and Y, but disagree on Z, or do I vote for candidate 2 whom I agree with on Y and Z but disagree with his position on X? You'll almost never find someone whom you agree with all the time, always you'll have to choose someone who -best- represents your interests, not perfectly represents them. If I vote in candidate 2, does that mean I voted in a candidate who I disagree with on position X? Yes it does, but the reason I did so was I agreed with issue Y and Z, and the combination of that was more important.
If we could vote in representatives who only handle gun control, other representatives who only handle intellectual property issues, etc, maybe you could actually vote for everyone you agree with 100% of the time, but that seems entirely unsustainable anyway.
We'll see. We've been hearing that for a LONG time now and it always seems to be "just around the corner." Good CG takes manpower, 'indistinguishable CG" takes ridiculous amounts of manpower and time, and the very best effects films use a blend of CG touching up traditional physical effects.
Every CG-human film I've ever seen has had what I'd considered "bad CG effects." They're noticeable, they really detract, and I usually end up wishing they'd filmed actual people.
Decisions betray the belief that in spite of astronomical odds the ticket will be the one to send them to retirement and riches, every day/ week, for months, years, decades. It is a self imposed tax for irrational belief, sponsored by the state who profits. Ergo, it is an idiot tax.
It's entertainment, same as buying darts at the county fair stall. Saying it's nothing more than an "idiot tax" greatly oversimplifies the issue, just like "marijuana is safe" is a great oversimplification, "the media lies" is so general and oversimplified as to be a useless statement, etcetc. It just detracts from any meaningful discussion.
Ah, but his post was spot on. So what you're really say is, "You might offend the mindless drones you just insulted."
Aah, so if you've studied the issues and feel the OP is mistaken on some points, you're a "mindless drone" for not shutting up and just following the OP.
Been in an apartment with powerline. It wouldn't even work out in the hallway. If you have your own power meter, you're good.
Depends on how many circuits you have. At my house, powerline ethernet works from one end of the house to the other. In my mom's house, we couldn't connect two halves of the house together, they were on different circuits.
Wireless never worked (I swear something was in the walls), the only way I eventually was able to get a connection from the living room to the bedroom where the DSL was was by running Cat 6 through the attic.
Oh, I see. Well then it is a great and good thing that Zimmerman apprehended the kid. Since it was just a suggestion, it was perfectly okay for Zimmerman to apprehend and shoot the kid
Your Milage May Vary as to whether Zimmerman is telling the truth, but his story is that he was walking back to his car when Martin jumped him. But if I was a black man in south Florida and someone with a gun was following me, I might try to get the jump on him as well.
In fact, it doesn't seem like Stand Your Ground has anything to do with the Treyvon Martin affair. It seems like one of two situations is what happened. Either Zimmerman hunted down and shot Martin, in which case that's murder and Stand Your Ground has no bearing, or else Martin attacked Zimmerman who shot back, in which case standard self-defense laws hold and Stand Your Ground has no bearing. It seems like a law made for totally different situations.
And when he answers, you grab him by the hair, grab the door, and slam his face in it until he starts coughing up teeth. Walk into his apartment while he is down on the ground, find a spare mouse he has laying around, pull down his pants, and shove it up his ass.
... Then you find out it wasn't him but his roommate. Or someone on the side of the other wall in a different apartment. Good goin'! This is the sort of lack of thinking things through that gets you on Tosh.0 to be mocked countrywide.
Either way, you'll be going to jail for awhile and will be financially ruined. "Oh sorry your honor, but he disconnected me a few times from my wireless network" won't really fly.
Someone with an ounce of self-respect, and testicular fortitude, want to explain why I was modded down so much?
Because what you said was really stupid? I'm just guessing, I'm not the moderator and don't know what was going through his head.
"Troll" might be inappropriate though since you weren't -really- trolling. There's no "-1, he just said something really really dumb" option though. I've used 'overrated' in the past, since having such posts at Score:1 or Score:2 is too high.
So the real problem isn't the plastic, but the fact that people don't properly dispose it.
Well it sucks if they're sitting in landfills, and they're still a waste of resources. But really the plastic bag bans come out of the following reasoning: We can approach this from the perspective of what people should do, or we can craft a solution based on what they will do. Phasing out plastic bags acknowledges that many people will just never care enough to dispose of their trash properly, and the only realistic way to clean up is to not allow that option.
There aren't usually free bags at the meat counter, which means everything else you carry is going to get contaminated if you buy meat.
Where the heck do you get your meat? If you ask for a chicken breast are they just plopping a raw breast in your hand that you toss into the basket? Every single meat counter I've seen, from actually butcher's markets to a counter in Safeway wrap the meat in 1-2 layers of butcher's paper, sometimes with a very thin (thinner than a grocery bag) sheet of plastic around it. Things with high moisture content or something like shrimp go into a plastic bag that is wrapped in the paper. I don't have any liquids seeping out of the wraps.
His entire bit is based on the premise that length and quality of human life doesn't matter. Some day humans will go extinct, so it's okay for us to hasten that by fucking up the environment and make the planet unlivable as quickly as possible.
And he was right. He's dead now and he was able to live it up while he was alive.
Sure, his grandchildren (if his daughter ever has any) are fucked, but hey, he's not them. He got his.
So basically, you're saying that to avoid having a plastic bag blow on your tree once in a blue moon, you'd rather enslave yourself to washing reusable bags?
Enslave? I toss them in the laundry with dirty clothes. It takes all of five seconds, boo hoo. I spend more time than that messing around with the plastic bags to bundle them and take them in to be recycled.
And you continue to want reusable bags even if it's not clear that washing (using electricity, water and soap) doesn't hurt the environment more?
The washing cost is negligible. Sure, it might be bad if you decide you want to run a full laundry load for two bags, but most people aren't that dumb.
And you continue to want reusable bags even if you're told that people do reuse even plastic bags (assuming they aren't completely crappy)?
There are other bags. See below.
And you continue to want reusable bags even if they cause food poisoning - rarely, but still measurably?
I don't know where everyone else is doing their shopping, but where I shop (where the bags are banned), only the larger grocery bags are banned -- everyone still puts produce inside the (usually smaller) plastic vegetable bags, so the majority of produce doesn't touch the canvas bag. The things that don't need bags are the lemons, the onions, garlic, etc which have an outer casing you remove before preparing, or potatoes which get scrubbed before prepping.
All of this sounds to me like reusable bags is a religion, not anything related to logic or science.
Understandable if you make incorrect assumptions.
Ok, so you're saying that this is a common religion only outside the USA, but it nevertheless sounds like a religion.
Here's something you might consider a religion: our plastic usage needs to come down. Our waste needs to be reduced. When all these other countries that are industrializing start using the amounts of power and materials that the US uses, we all will be -fucked- unless we've found a better way.
And atheists are different? Big bang was the atheist answer to God for nearly a century
The Big Bang Theory was widely adopted first by the religious. Stephen Hawking has mentioned that he and many other scientists were initially uncomfortable with it (until the theory was able to accurately predict things like the existence of cosmic background microwave radiation), but theologists immediately heralded it as proof of a creator.
Remember, the Big Bang theory simply states that a big bang occurred. It does not state why it occurred or what caused it or whether it was spontaneous or not -- indeed, such questions are considered unanswerable by the theory and outside of its purview. What the theory does emphatically disprove is the notion of a 6000-8000 year old Earth, but so many other things had torpedoed that notion anyway.
There is a word your (and apparently Ayn Rand's) actions: hypocrisy
Not really. Using a service you are forced to pay for while working to remove that service is just getting what you're paying for.
Hypocrisy would be railing against a service while still using it if not paying for the service was an option. If you are required by the government to buy something, you might as well get your money's worth. Otherwise that's just a donation, which is even more against Objectivist ideals.
(Note: not a libertarian, don't like objectivism, just wanted to clarify their ideals though)
Whoops, I really should have read the rest of this thread and the other replies first. But anyway, I think it's still relevant to bring up agnosticism vs atheism, or that one could consider them both atheism of different strengths.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet, the US has not been in Iraq for a while now and while Iran still has no nukes, the US hasn't invaded.
Well the invasion of Iraq taught the US that while invading is easy, truly conquering or winning Hearts and Minds is hard. Nothing like burning your hand on the stove once to teach you not to do that again.
Oh, and the election of non-warhawks might have had something to do with it too.
So your supposition is that if Bush hadn't made the "axis of evil" speech, Iran wouldn't be pursuing nuclear weapons?
It's hard to say, but it didn't help matters. There's nothing like the most powerful (and possibly most militarily aggressive powerful) nation in the world branding you one of the three prime evils, one of whom they immediately invade despite lack of evidence that the invasion was necessary, to get your ass in gear and decide to acquire something that would be a huge disincentive to invasion.
I was fine with the invasion of Afghanistan. But damn, the invasion of Iraq blew up in so many fucked-up ways. It distracted from Afghanistan, making that affair more drawn out and blood than it needed to be, and it sent a message: "You're next" to North Korea and Iran. North Korea got the bomb, Iran didn't want to be the only one left out.
Countries standing-up, establishing independent (democratic(!)) governments and showing the independence? Intolerable!
I'll be a bit more respectful of Iran's claims of democracy once they eliminate the supreme leader position and fix their electoral fraud problems.
If the terms of the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 were instead enacted in - say - 1920, a good portion of our current legacy of movies and music likely would not exist.
But they weren't prevented from doing it back then, and that's all they care about. They don't care if current laws stifle progress, prevent works from entering the public domain, and cheat the public. All they care about is protecting existing rights-holders and their current libraries and protecting whatever they can currently make under the current regime. The "think of what works could be created if copyright lengths were sensible" argument is very nebulous, current executives and lawmakers will look around at what we actually have and say instead "I think what we're making now is just fine. Let's do everything in our power to protect it."
Yeah, but that's a false choice, since there's a third option.
I don't think it's much to ask for someone to be both civil and frank and transparent.
Gandhi's way is foolproof against any government that wants to be seen as civilized. The way of the gun is a crapshoot, where we kill our brothers while the government runs the casino.
Gandhi succeeded for one reason -- there were violent people on his side, not committing acts of violence in his name. Those rational among the British felt it better to deal with the non-violent Gandhi rather than the violent Indian independence movement. Without the latter, there were so many other ways to deal with Gandhi's movement.
This case never got to the trial phase. The case the SC decided was on a pre-trial procedural issue, i.e., do the parties who brought the suit have standing such that they are harmed parties who have the right to sue the government. The SC decided they do not have standing because they don't conclusively know they were spied upon, and that as a result: there will NOT be a trial. If there is no trial, there is no jury, and thus no chance for jury nullification.
This is an extremely important point that non-lawyers will just brush past. Non-lawyers often think that anyone can (successfully) sue for anything, but 'standing' is important in the legal world. In a way the SC ducked the issue in this suit, but what it means is that people damaged by FISA wiretaps will have to bring the suit, then the SC might hear it.
Ron Paul never had much of a chance in the long term, but that's because his positions on issues did not reflect the values of most voters. Nonetheless, he was shamefully treated by his own party, and part of that was because he was a libertarian running as a Republican. The Republican establishment knew he wasn't really a Republican, and treated him as such. Paul admitted as much, saying (paraphrased) that running from the Republican Party was the only way libertarians could really gain much support in the short term. He probably didn't really gamble on the dismissal he'd get from party bosses.
The thing that no libertarian has been able to answer for me convinced me it would be nothing but some sort of neo-feudalism which is thus: If I have money, and no law to stop me, WTF is gonna keep me from just hiring my own goon squad and helping myself to your land, your women, or any other damned thing I want?
Not a libertarian, but I can answer that easily enough -- your situation is anarchy, not libertarianism. Libertarians believe in a strong police force and legal system to enforce private property rights and punish violence. It's one of the very few things a libertarian thinks government is necessary for.
RedHat is only big with a small group of Enterprises more interested in red tape and bureaucracy than getting work done. RedHat would have no product without Linus.
That.... is just a really stupid statement. No way does this deserve to stay at +5.
If you want proof of this, just read slashdot. Not the articles, but the comments. It's pretty hard to find a liberal that is in favor of gun control, yet still they vote in droves for politicians who are in favor of gun control. It's hard to find a conservative that is in favor of big government, yet they still vote in droves for politicians that are in favor of big government.
That's because we don't have politicians for single issues (usually). Instead, when voting, we have to decide the following: Do I want to vote for candidate 1 whom I agree with on issue X and Y, but disagree on Z, or do I vote for candidate 2 whom I agree with on Y and Z but disagree with his position on X? You'll almost never find someone whom you agree with all the time, always you'll have to choose someone who -best- represents your interests, not perfectly represents them. If I vote in candidate 2, does that mean I voted in a candidate who I disagree with on position X? Yes it does, but the reason I did so was I agreed with issue Y and Z, and the combination of that was more important.
If we could vote in representatives who only handle gun control, other representatives who only handle intellectual property issues, etc, maybe you could actually vote for everyone you agree with 100% of the time, but that seems entirely unsustainable anyway.
indistinguishable from any "real" production
We'll see. We've been hearing that for a LONG time now and it always seems to be "just around the corner." Good CG takes manpower, 'indistinguishable CG" takes ridiculous amounts of manpower and time, and the very best effects films use a blend of CG touching up traditional physical effects.
Every CG-human film I've ever seen has had what I'd considered "bad CG effects." They're noticeable, they really detract, and I usually end up wishing they'd filmed actual people.
Decisions betray the belief that in spite of astronomical odds the ticket will be the one to send them to retirement and riches, every day/ week, for months, years, decades. It is a self imposed tax for irrational belief, sponsored by the state who profits. Ergo, it is an idiot tax.
It's entertainment, same as buying darts at the county fair stall. Saying it's nothing more than an "idiot tax" greatly oversimplifies the issue, just like "marijuana is safe" is a great oversimplification, "the media lies" is so general and oversimplified as to be a useless statement, etcetc. It just detracts from any meaningful discussion.
Ah, but his post was spot on. So what you're really say is, "You might offend the mindless drones you just insulted."
Aah, so if you've studied the issues and feel the OP is mistaken on some points, you're a "mindless drone" for not shutting up and just following the OP.
Been in an apartment with powerline. It wouldn't even work out in the hallway. If you have your own power meter, you're good.
Depends on how many circuits you have. At my house, powerline ethernet works from one end of the house to the other. In my mom's house, we couldn't connect two halves of the house together, they were on different circuits.
Wireless never worked (I swear something was in the walls), the only way I eventually was able to get a connection from the living room to the bedroom where the DSL was was by running Cat 6 through the attic.
Oh, I see. Well then it is a great and good thing that Zimmerman apprehended the kid. Since it was just a suggestion, it was perfectly okay for Zimmerman to apprehend and shoot the kid
Your Milage May Vary as to whether Zimmerman is telling the truth, but his story is that he was walking back to his car when Martin jumped him. But if I was a black man in south Florida and someone with a gun was following me, I might try to get the jump on him as well.
In fact, it doesn't seem like Stand Your Ground has anything to do with the Treyvon Martin affair. It seems like one of two situations is what happened. Either Zimmerman hunted down and shot Martin, in which case that's murder and Stand Your Ground has no bearing, or else Martin attacked Zimmerman who shot back, in which case standard self-defense laws hold and Stand Your Ground has no bearing. It seems like a law made for totally different situations.
And when he answers, you grab him by the hair, grab the door, and slam his face in it until he starts coughing up teeth. Walk into his apartment while he is down on the ground, find a spare mouse he has laying around, pull down his pants, and shove it up his ass.
... Then you find out it wasn't him but his roommate. Or someone on the side of the other wall in a different apartment. Good goin'! This is the sort of lack of thinking things through that gets you on Tosh.0 to be mocked countrywide.
Either way, you'll be going to jail for awhile and will be financially ruined. "Oh sorry your honor, but he disconnected me a few times from my wireless network" won't really fly.
Someone with an ounce of self-respect, and testicular fortitude, want to explain why I was modded down so much?
Because what you said was really stupid? I'm just guessing, I'm not the moderator and don't know what was going through his head.
"Troll" might be inappropriate though since you weren't -really- trolling. There's no "-1, he just said something really really dumb" option though. I've used 'overrated' in the past, since having such posts at Score:1 or Score:2 is too high.
So the real problem isn't the plastic, but the fact that people don't properly dispose it.
Well it sucks if they're sitting in landfills, and they're still a waste of resources.
But really the plastic bag bans come out of the following reasoning: We can approach this from the perspective of what people should do, or we can craft a solution based on what they will do. Phasing out plastic bags acknowledges that many people will just never care enough to dispose of their trash properly, and the only realistic way to clean up is to not allow that option.
There aren't usually free bags at the meat counter, which means everything else you carry is going to get contaminated if you buy meat.
Where the heck do you get your meat? If you ask for a chicken breast are they just plopping a raw breast in your hand that you toss into the basket? Every single meat counter I've seen, from actually butcher's markets to a counter in Safeway wrap the meat in 1-2 layers of butcher's paper, sometimes with a very thin (thinner than a grocery bag) sheet of plastic around it. Things with high moisture content or something like shrimp go into a plastic bag that is wrapped in the paper. I don't have any liquids seeping out of the wraps.
His entire bit is based on the premise that length and quality of human life doesn't matter. Some day humans will go extinct, so it's okay for us to hasten that by fucking up the environment and make the planet unlivable as quickly as possible.
And he was right. He's dead now and he was able to live it up while he was alive.
Sure, his grandchildren (if his daughter ever has any) are fucked, but hey, he's not them. He got his.
So basically, you're saying that to avoid having a plastic bag blow on your tree once in a blue moon, you'd rather enslave yourself to washing reusable bags?
Enslave? I toss them in the laundry with dirty clothes. It takes all of five seconds, boo hoo. I spend more time than that messing around with the plastic bags to bundle them and take them in to be recycled.
And you continue to want reusable bags even if it's not clear that washing (using electricity, water and soap) doesn't hurt the environment more?
The washing cost is negligible. Sure, it might be bad if you decide you want to run a full laundry load for two bags, but most people aren't that dumb.
And you continue to want reusable bags even if you're told that people do reuse even plastic bags (assuming they aren't completely crappy)?
There are other bags. See below.
And you continue to want reusable bags even if they cause food poisoning - rarely, but still measurably?
I don't know where everyone else is doing their shopping, but where I shop (where the bags are banned), only the larger grocery bags are banned -- everyone still puts produce inside the (usually smaller) plastic vegetable bags, so the majority of produce doesn't touch the canvas bag. The things that don't need bags are the lemons, the onions, garlic, etc which have an outer casing you remove before preparing, or potatoes which get scrubbed before prepping.
All of this sounds to me like reusable bags is a religion, not anything related to logic or science.
Understandable if you make incorrect assumptions.
Ok, so you're saying that this is a common religion only outside the USA, but it nevertheless sounds like a religion.
Here's something you might consider a religion: our plastic usage needs to come down. Our waste needs to be reduced. When all these other countries that are industrializing start using the amounts of power and materials that the US uses, we all will be -fucked- unless we've found a better way.
And atheists are different? Big bang was the atheist answer to God for nearly a century
The Big Bang Theory was widely adopted first by the religious. Stephen Hawking has mentioned that he and many other scientists were initially uncomfortable with it (until the theory was able to accurately predict things like the existence of cosmic background microwave radiation), but theologists immediately heralded it as proof of a creator.
Remember, the Big Bang theory simply states that a big bang occurred. It does not state why it occurred or what caused it or whether it was spontaneous or not -- indeed, such questions are considered unanswerable by the theory and outside of its purview. What the theory does emphatically disprove is the notion of a 6000-8000 year old Earth, but so many other things had torpedoed that notion anyway.
At least one famous person shares my name. Which one of us owns the dot com rights?
If the site is about you, then you own it. If it's about the famous person, then the famous person may have rights to it.
There is a word your (and apparently Ayn Rand's) actions: hypocrisy
Not really. Using a service you are forced to pay for while working to remove that service is just getting what you're paying for.
Hypocrisy would be railing against a service while still using it if not paying for the service was an option. If you are required by the government to buy something, you might as well get your money's worth. Otherwise that's just a donation, which is even more against Objectivist ideals.
(Note: not a libertarian, don't like objectivism, just wanted to clarify their ideals though)
Whoops, I really should have read the rest of this thread and the other replies first. But anyway, I think it's still relevant to bring up agnosticism vs atheism, or that one could consider them both atheism of different strengths.