REQUIRE a "none of the above" choice for EVERY elected office. It doesn't even have to be binding. I think voter turn-out would increase by a great degree. After all, if the vote was say 42-38-20 (Bush, Kerry, NoA) with near 100% turn-out, Bush would still be President but no one would have any illusions about a "mandate" or that the candidates represent most of the people.
"PS - an even simpler solution to tied results would of course be to get rid of the two party system and electoral voting crap and go with a parliamentary system like Canada's, but everyone knows they're a bunch of no-good commies."
HELL NO. In a parliament system the party platform acually means something. There is very little to prevent them from implementing it, lock, stock, and barrel. Which is great IF you want things to get done. IF those things are BAD however....
Of course, it might have the side effect of getting people to pay attention. But I doubt it. See, I shudder at the thought of EITHER party implementing its party platform-I just shudder at the thought of the Republicans platform more....
Hey, nice way of changing the subject. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I guess you ARE an ignorant fool.
The previous poster had a valid point. The networks use of exit polls to call the election DOES affect other peoples vote and their turnout. If it is bad for him to LIE to an exit pollster in order to, in your opinion, "influence" the outcome of an election, then why don't you have a problem with what the networks do? They DEFINITELY influence an election.
I believe an informed electorate is good, but their is no reason the networks have to call or inform others of the outcome of the election before ALL US polls have closed. They only do this to MAKE MONEY.
IF you are REALLY concerned about other persons opinions affecting the outcome of the election, I suggest a dictatorship. This way only one person's opinion counts.
IN OTHER WORDS, it is perfectly valid to attempt to sway the opions of others, at least in the US. As long as you don't do it in/near the polling location.
"So you are one of the people I referred to as "trying to rig an election," albeit on a very small scale; you are hoping that by lying you can influence how (or if) one or more of your fellow citizens vote."
Huh? I would lie (or maybe not answer) to an exit pollster. How is that rigging an election? I only voted once. I am not lying to attempt to influence other peoples votes (which apparently is NOT illegal BTW or considered "rigging"-see election ads....). I would lie to protect the idea of a secret ballot or to prevent others from profiting easily from my information. Exit polls by the NETWORKS are created to drive ratings, not to ferret out election fraud. Now, if they were to pay me, I would either refuse to answer or give an accurate answer-I just don't like to give out information for the purpose of making other people money when I am not getting reimbursed...
"P.S. In answer to your rhetorical question, the news media projects outcomes based on the theory that a well informed electorate is a key component of an effective democracy."
Bullsh$t. That would be the cover. They do it FOR MONEY. They don't give a rat's a$$ about an informed electorate (individuals within the media, may however). If you have any doubt about this, look at their programming and reporting.
"...became obvious that yet again the exit polls (the primary measure of voting fraud in foreign countries) were skewed yet again this year (even with different people in charge!). Either 5% of the population have started systematically lying to exit pollsters (refusal rates havn't changed significantly), or there is something else odd happening."
So why is it obvious that the exit polls would be accurate? There are a lot of ways to FUBAR a poll even if you try to do it correctly. Why wouldn't people lie to an exit pollster, for instance? I sure as hell would. I consider them part of the problem (let's try to call the election as early as possible rather than as accurately as possible).
"I don't know why it hasn't occurred to democrats, but not all people support heavy taxation for the wealthy, or huge social programs."
Taxation part, fair enough. But huge social programs? Have you looked at the deficit lately, Bush DOES support huge social programs. Some of them are just different....
"More over, not everyone is stupid enough to believe that Bush policies have led to the (relatively small) loss of jobs."
Don't know if I would term it "relatively small" or that Bush policies are not to blame but I can accept the later. HOWEVER, Bush was reelected because the economy DIDN'T suck. All other issues tend to be secondary. The fact that a sitting Pesident BARELY won (or that the election was close) indicates the economy is NOT perceived to be doing well (and perception is more important than the reality...)
But, if a President is going to take credit for the economy (which his policies probably didn't help) I expect him to take the blame for a bad economy (even if his policies didn't hurt). That's just how it is.
Uhh, it's not a computer, it's not electronic and therefore bad?:):) After all, if we use computers all the problems will magically disappear....:):) Granted, the "problems" had everything to do with procedures and interfaces and not counting, but remember, computers are the solution:):) Hey did I mention that....
Seems to be the basic "logic" applied. Frankly, I think it is proof that a heck of a lot of people ARE idiots.
Well, there is a video feed, so the engineers "at home" CAN see the damage. There is a checklist of needed information. The people on the ground probably include some type of combat engineers (who would be making these decisions ANYWAY). It is merely a way of augmenting their knowledge.
So I don't see the problem. It merely lessens the risk to troops. There is also a LARGE difference between a building being checked by an engineer for LONG TERM safety versus IS IT SAFE FOR THE SHORT TERM (they don't need to LIVE there). Different acceptable risk levels.
"The patriot act has done a lot to make us safer."
Evidence? I know I will be waiting a long time because there isn't any.
"The 9/11 hijackers were suspected terrorists were under investigation before the incidents, and had the PATRIOTACT been in place at that time, the plane hijackings would never have occured."
So, are you an ignorant fool in real life, or just play one on/. ? If various agencies had just DONE THEIR JOB, the hijackings would not have occured. The USAPatriotAct was not needed. In any case, one cannot determine what effect the legislation would have had on past events.
"The PATRIOTACT probably does a poor job of this, but hopefully in its' new form it will do more to protect citizens rights and provide them the appropriate due process. The patriot act has done a lot to make us safer."
Sorry for the redundant quote, but you do realize you just contradicted yourself? It does a poor job BUT we are much safer. WTF!?!
"Investigative agencies were clearly trying to do their jobs with their hands tied."
Now if you had said "with their brains tied together deprived of oxygen while high on [drug of your choice]", I would agree....
"It's good to know cops, it's good to be buddies with cops. For several different reasons. You will get a faster response time if the cops know you if you should need their help. You have an 'inside' to the local law enforcement goings-on."
So let me summarize: Be friends with cops and they will give you preferential treatment, just because you are a friend. They will also tell you juicy gossip. Pity if it screws someone else.
Having known cops, I would agree with your statements (anecdotal evidence). But if REALLY TRUE, it clearly shows that cops are NOT professionals. Knowing what I know, having had encounters with police on polite terms, I think a friend said it best (paraphrasing) "Nothing good comes with interactions with police-they are best avoided".
"Criminal elements will be more likely to stay away from you and yours."
Yes and no. Certainly helps to live near a cop. But a criminal might take something out on you that they wouldn't on a cop....
"People should have the right to make their own damn moral decisions. Protest, gripe, complain, educate, whatever, but don't legislate morality!"
An excellent point and one I would agree with.
Perhaps because they feel it (behavior X) is evil and must be stopped? After all if you really believe it is evil, doing less than everything in your power to stop or prevent it could be interpreted as an evil act.
Of course, I suspect it is mostly because X said it was wrong, it's different, etc....
"Of course, 2 months after the previous Unix admin quits, power goes out on a couple power strips at the AT&T Datacenter [3] and I need to restart the computers."
"[3] Top of the line reliability, yeah right."
Sounds like the Unix systems were very reliable. No system operates well without electricity. A sudden power loss can FUBAR most things....
And why did the power fail at an AT&T Datacenter? I doubt the power "just" went out on the power strips, although it is possible. Sounds like someone unplugged them....
Well, I know nothing about whether Meijer workers are unionized. It is likely because unions cover many aspects of the grocery/retail business. Oh, and by the way, some Wal-Marts have unionized workers in Canada. Having said that...
Perhaps you have never heard of the terms "closed" and "open" shop, and "right-to-work laws? 22 states have right to work laws in which you do not have to join a union OR pay dues to be employed.
In most other places you MAY not be forced to join a union. You DO have to pay dues that cover things like bargaining-things that help the WORKER. But you can get a refund of the percentage of contributions that went for political activity.
"But Meijer employees have no choice in membership. Wal-Mart employees, in contrast, are not forced to belong or give $$$$ to such organizations."
Actually, I would say that employees in both stores have the choice in most states. In my opinion, though, the chance of you being able to unionize at Wal-Mart (and stay employed) is slim....so I would say LESS choice there (sure they can't stop you legally in the US, but there is always SOMETHING you can be fired for....)
Next time, please research a little before spouting off...
"What i'm saying is, your argument boils down to "our present knowledge is perfect, thereby anything contradicting it cannot exist.""
No it wasn't, at least how I read it. It said the EVIDENCE was against it. New evidence can overcome old. But wishing something was true does not make it so.....
"In the 19th century, there was "good science to suggest" that, given a strong enough rocket engine, objects can be accelerated to speeds bigger than 300000km/s. There was also "good science" that suggested that the space is flat and euclidian."
Well, was it good science? I would say not, IF it was widely accepted WITHOUT critical analysis. The data was obviously flawed. But note that you use the word "suggested", not proven-which suggests that "science" was open to the possibility of new and better data.
"I am not saying that said teleportation project is sound and sane. I am saying that one should look at whatever paradigm he/she adheres to with caution."
You do realize this makes no sense from a SCIENCE standpoint? Paradigms are the end result of scientific experiments, hypotheses, theories, and laws. You DON'T start with them. He has a hypothesis, nothing more.
"Again, i am not implying anything, i just don't like it when people take a transitory scientific paradigm as dogma."
Yes, well, unfortunately that happens. What are the phases of science (paraphrasing poorly): 1. First everyone thinks you are an idiot, 2. then grudging acceptance (hmm, he/she might be right), 3. this is "THE TRUTH" (tm), 4. it's all wrong, 5. faults and strengths honestly evaluated. Unfortunately it often takes a lifetime or more....
How does science or the scientific method "prove" something?
It doesn't.
It gathers evidence to support hypotheses, which then may become theories, laws and paradigms. But it hasn't "proven" anything. It provides the most likely explanation, at best.
And I think it is reasonable to expect that incredible claims have incredibly strong evidence to back them up. Otherwise, they are unlikely to be accepted. If you claim teleportation is possible, you had better be able to do it, at least on a small scale, otherwise people will rightly think you are crackpot....
"While I agree with your basic point, look at it from the other side; Joe Dirt is in posession of their "property" which they value at full price."
Okay, then why do the studios not deduct this "cost" of piracy off their tax returns? I mean, it is a legitimate business loss, yes?
Perhaps because the IRS would laugh their asses off during an audit (Do you have any evidence to back this up?). In short, it IS NOT a legitimate expense-at least at the levels they state.
If someone (tax professional, IRS agent...) has a better explanation, I really would like to hear it.
"Now you can argue that there is some "theater experience", but for me that experience is only enjoyable under the rarest of circumstances. We only have a 27" TV at home, and it is fine for movies."
Well, I suspect I go to more movies than you and to ME there is a massive difference between a movie on a 27inch screen and a theater screen. The theater experience is better in many ways than watching the film at home-assuming that it takes advantage of the large screen and to a lesser extent the sound and crowd (yes, I said audience). Look, I have been to movies where the various sounds from the audience distracted me, but often the audience HELPS the experience. Not always. Watching at home is a different experience. Of course, if you are not interested in movies that have extensive sound effects or expansive scenery, then it probably WON'T matter where you see the movie....
"I know people who go see movies almost every weekend, regardless of what is playing. I hope one day that the United States of Consumerism wakes up."
Granted, I am more selective when I have to pay more money, but I go to be entertained-if I don't think the movie will be entertaining (or worth the price of a couple of rentals). I don't really want to think during a movie-I do that in my job and research and rest of my life. Movies also tend to be a social event for younger people-the movie isn't the most important thing anyway.
And putting out crap is NOT NEW. It has ALWAYS happened since the beginning of movies.
"As much as some people hate to hear it, we're not fighting in the Middle East because of oil."
Well, yes we are. At least in part. Our support of Israel, our desire to stop terrorism, and our belief in human rights also play a smaller roll. But let's face it, we don't give a flying F@ck about what happens in most of Africa, for instance Rwanda, because they have no resources we need....
See, we are the largest user of oil. Sure we don't use it for electricity. But we do need it to run our cars, trains, trucks, mining equipment, etc.
I don't know if there is a easy way to wean us off of oil. Mandating higher mileage vehicles, increasing the cost of fuel, and designing cities so they are livable without vehicles would be a start.
"What I found truly frightening was the apparent decline of reason that seemed like an undercurrent of the entire electoral process. People in the United States of America no longer seem to be making fewer and fewer decisions based on rational analysis of the situation."
I think the key word is "apparent". Did most (hell, even many) people EVER make decisions based on rational analysis? In the US or elsewhere? Most "analyis" tends to work backwords to support decisions already made or decisions that people WANT to make. So are you really seeing a decline? Or are you seeing more of reality?
Some countries or societies MAY just SEEM more suited to "reasoned" choices. Of course, if the choice was left to the people in France, nuclear power might not fare so well... And there are policies in Japan that may leave you scratching your head.... But those same things that allow nuclear power to exist in those countries (besides the fact that they HAVE no domestic oil supply) may cause them to make other "unreasoned" choices about other topics...
What makes it difficult to assess cost/benefit is that different people have different opinions about various "costs". And not all costs can be reliably/accurately quantified.
Of course, because most people can't understand the concept of risk, what I have just written is largely irrelevant....
and always will be. I believe this is the gist of the common quote. I will suspect economic fusion power is possible when they are building the first generating plant on the public grid. I will believe it when they are operating in numbers.
Research is good but you can't reliably predict success....
"Meanwhile, we're still developing nuclear fusion which is coming along a lot better than most people think...No uranium (or oil or coal or gas) required."
Uh, huh. So what powers those machines that build the materials for the reactors, produce the reactor fuel, build the roads the stuff is transported on, build the transmission lines, blah, blah, blah....? Like the people who say fission produces no CO2. Sure, not DIRECTLY.
"If Bin Laden were to disrupt the flow of gas from Siberia to Europe and plunge the continent into chaos, cold, darkness, sickness and death, maybe the politicians will do something about it."
OOOOH, the bogeyman. Look, Bin Laden is a relatively insignificant figure. IF gas/oil supplies are disrupted, he is VERY, VERY, VERY far down on the list of people/countries/things that are likely to be the cause. Plain old incompetent people are likely to be the cause (see Chernobyl disaster).
But what was factually incorrect about the quote? Bush DID say it. It was taken out of context. News at 11. Most quotes are, because the context takes time to set up, gets in the way of the "story", or is irrelevent.
The difference is that Bush is the President and Moore makes movies (entertainment)-one of them is/should be held to a MUCH higher standard.
Anyone who thought F911 was unbiased is a fool (lacks critical reasoning skills). It is pretty obvious that the movie/documentary had large amount of opinion and that the parts and pieces were skillfully edited together to get a certain reaction or paint a certain picture. That a lot of people believe it as the unbiased truth (or a total falsehood) just goes to show you the reasoning ability of many (most?) people. Frankly, THAT inability to reason does scare me, but it IS reality, has been reality for ALL of human history, and will continue to be. There is a reason that most media is the way it is (TV, commercials, etc.), it panders to this mentality because that is where the money/influence lies.
"A few decades ago, most people got their milk delivered in a bottle which was then reused by the milk company."
"Now everything comes in disposable stuff, often wrapped by more disposable stuff. Not only is this wasteful, but it fills up landfills at a faster clip."
But is wasteful energy wise? I mean, on the surface it seams that you are wasting a lot of material. But transportation of those milk bottles costs a LOT of energy. Plastics are essentially "free" considering the amount of gasoline we require (byproduct of the gasoline refining process). Because almost everyone regularly goes to the store it is a waste to have a separate distribution system for milk.
I would submit that it would REALLY be better to live on a farm and have your own cows (no milk delivery required) or don't drink soda at all (no bottles have to be made or distributed). In a similar vein, producing a car has very little energy footprint compared to its USE. Recycling is nice but the REAL savings in energy come from not USING or BUYING the product at all.
"I voted for Bush because I want to cut the legs out from underneath government bureaucrats. I want whole wings of the government to be forced out of business,..." "... and to get REAL jobs in the private sector."
Umm, didn't you know that you were supposed to vote for a Republican not those free-spending Democrats.
Oh, you say Bush IS a Republican and has some of the largest deficits in history, destroying a budget surplus and is rapidly increasing the size of government? Oops, my bad.
"... and to get REAL jobs in the private sector."
Yes, there are a number of cabinent members, members of Congress and a President that I WOULD like to meet at the local drive through. Not that it will ever happen. My hardest jobs were working for the government, not private enterprise. And private enterprise isn't run any better....
Slashdot Mirror
"P.S.: If you need someone to annoint you with cooking oil for your next job, just give me a call. I've got a bottle of Wesson in the cabinet."
:)
Hey with a little notice, I think I can dig up a few barrels of oil and a lighter. Heck, I will even splurge on the "good" stuff.
Much more impressive
The one federal mandate I would like to see:
REQUIRE a "none of the above" choice for EVERY elected office. It doesn't even have to be binding. I think voter turn-out would increase by a great degree. After all, if the vote was say 42-38-20 (Bush, Kerry, NoA) with near 100% turn-out, Bush would still be President but no one would have any illusions about a "mandate" or that the candidates represent most of the people.
But, it will never happen.
"PS - an even simpler solution to tied results would of course be to get rid of the two party system and electoral voting crap and go with a parliamentary system like Canada's, but everyone knows they're a bunch of no-good commies."
HELL NO. In a parliament system the party platform acually means something. There is very little to prevent them from implementing it, lock, stock, and barrel. Which is great IF you want things to get done. IF those things are BAD however....
Of course, it might have the side effect of getting people to pay attention. But I doubt it. See, I shudder at the thought of EITHER party implementing its party platform-I just shudder at the thought of the Republicans platform more....
Hey, nice way of changing the subject. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I guess you ARE an ignorant fool.
The previous poster had a valid point. The networks use of exit polls to call the election DOES affect other peoples vote and their turnout. If it is bad for him to LIE to an exit pollster in order to, in your opinion, "influence" the outcome of an election, then why don't you have a problem with what the networks do? They DEFINITELY influence an election.
I believe an informed electorate is good, but their is no reason the networks have to call or inform others of the outcome of the election before ALL US polls have closed. They only do this to MAKE MONEY.
IF you are REALLY concerned about other persons opinions affecting the outcome of the election, I suggest a dictatorship. This way only one person's opinion counts.
IN OTHER WORDS, it is perfectly valid to attempt to sway the opions of others, at least in the US. As long as you don't do it in/near the polling location.
"So you are one of the people I referred to as "trying to rig an election," albeit on a very small scale; you are hoping that by lying you can influence how (or if) one or more of your fellow citizens vote."
Huh? I would lie (or maybe not answer) to an exit pollster. How is that rigging an election? I only voted once. I am not lying to attempt to influence other peoples votes (which apparently is NOT illegal BTW or considered "rigging"-see election ads....). I would lie to protect the idea of a secret ballot or to prevent others from profiting easily from my information. Exit polls by the NETWORKS are created to drive ratings, not to ferret out election fraud. Now, if they were to pay me, I would either refuse to answer or give an accurate answer-I just don't like to give out information for the purpose of making other people money when I am not getting reimbursed...
"P.S. In answer to your rhetorical question, the news media projects outcomes based on the theory that a well informed electorate is a key component of an effective democracy."
Bullsh$t. That would be the cover. They do it FOR MONEY. They don't give a rat's a$$ about an informed electorate (individuals within the media, may however). If you have any doubt about this, look at their programming and reporting.
"...became obvious that yet again the exit polls (the primary measure of voting fraud in foreign countries) were skewed yet again this year (even with different people in charge!). Either 5% of the population have started systematically lying to exit pollsters (refusal rates havn't changed significantly), or there is something else odd happening."
So why is it obvious that the exit polls would be accurate? There are a lot of ways to FUBAR a poll even if you try to do it correctly. Why wouldn't people lie to an exit pollster, for instance? I sure as hell would. I consider them part of the problem (let's try to call the election as early as possible rather than as accurately as possible).
"I don't know why it hasn't occurred to democrats, but not all people support heavy taxation for the wealthy, or huge social programs."
Taxation part, fair enough. But huge social programs? Have you looked at the deficit lately, Bush DOES support huge social programs. Some of them are just different....
"More over, not everyone is stupid enough to believe that Bush policies have led to the (relatively small) loss of jobs."
Don't know if I would term it "relatively small" or that Bush policies are not to blame but I can accept the later. HOWEVER, Bush was reelected because the economy DIDN'T suck. All other issues tend to be secondary. The fact that a sitting Pesident BARELY won (or that the election was close) indicates the economy is NOT perceived to be doing well (and perception is more important than the reality...)
But, if a President is going to take credit for the economy (which his policies probably didn't help) I expect him to take the blame for a bad economy (even if his policies didn't hurt). That's just how it is.
Uhh, it's not a computer, it's not electronic and therefore bad? :) :) After all, if we use computers all the problems will magically disappear.... :) :) Granted, the "problems" had everything to do with procedures and interfaces and not counting, but remember, computers are the solution :) :) Hey did I mention that....
Seems to be the basic "logic" applied. Frankly, I think it is proof that a heck of a lot of people ARE idiots.
Well, there is a video feed, so the engineers "at home" CAN see the damage. There is a checklist of needed information. The people on the ground probably include some type of combat engineers (who would be making these decisions ANYWAY). It is merely a way of augmenting their knowledge.
So I don't see the problem. It merely lessens the risk to troops. There is also a LARGE difference between a building being checked by an engineer for LONG TERM safety versus IS IT SAFE FOR THE SHORT TERM (they don't need to LIVE there). Different acceptable risk levels.
Of course, if you had READ THE ARTICLE...
"The patriot act has done a lot to make us safer."
/. ? If various agencies had just DONE THEIR JOB, the hijackings would not have occured. The USAPatriotAct was not needed. In any case, one cannot determine what effect the legislation would have had on past events.
Evidence? I know I will be waiting a long time because there isn't any.
"The 9/11 hijackers were suspected terrorists were under investigation before the incidents, and had the PATRIOTACT been in place at that time, the plane hijackings would never have occured."
So, are you an ignorant fool in real life, or just play one on
"The PATRIOTACT probably does a poor job of this, but hopefully in its' new form it will do more to protect citizens rights and provide them the appropriate due process. The patriot act has done a lot to make us safer."
Sorry for the redundant quote, but you do realize you just contradicted yourself? It does a poor job BUT we are much safer. WTF!?!
"Investigative agencies were clearly trying to do their jobs with their hands tied."
Now if you had said "with their brains tied together deprived of oxygen while high on [drug of your choice]", I would agree....
"It's good to know cops, it's good to be buddies with cops. For several different reasons. You will get a faster response time if the cops know you if you should need their help. You have an 'inside' to the local law enforcement goings-on."
So let me summarize: Be friends with cops and they will give you preferential treatment, just because you are a friend. They will also tell you juicy gossip. Pity if it screws someone else.
Having known cops, I would agree with your statements (anecdotal evidence). But if REALLY TRUE, it clearly shows that cops are NOT professionals. Knowing what I know, having had encounters with police on polite terms, I think a friend said it best (paraphrasing) "Nothing good comes with interactions with police-they are best avoided".
"Criminal elements will be more likely to stay away from you and yours."
Yes and no. Certainly helps to live near a cop. But a criminal might take something out on you that they wouldn't on a cop....
"People should have the right to make their own damn moral decisions. Protest, gripe, complain, educate, whatever, but don't legislate morality!"
An excellent point and one I would agree with.
Perhaps because they feel it (behavior X) is evil and must be stopped? After all if you really believe it is evil, doing less than everything in your power to stop or prevent it could be interpreted as an evil act.
Of course, I suspect it is mostly because X said it was wrong, it's different, etc....
"Of course, 2 months after the previous Unix admin quits, power goes out on a couple power strips at the AT&T Datacenter [3] and I need to restart the computers."
"[3] Top of the line reliability, yeah right."
Sounds like the Unix systems were very reliable. No system operates well without electricity. A sudden power loss can FUBAR most things....
And why did the power fail at an AT&T Datacenter? I doubt the power "just" went out on the power strips, although it is possible. Sounds like someone unplugged them....
"Meijer workers are forced to join unions,..."
Well, I know nothing about whether Meijer workers are unionized. It is likely because unions cover many aspects of the grocery/retail business. Oh, and by the way, some Wal-Marts have unionized workers in Canada. Having said that...
Perhaps you have never heard of the terms "closed" and "open" shop, and "right-to-work laws? 22 states have right to work laws in which you do not have to join a union OR pay dues to be employed.
In most other places you MAY not be forced to join a union. You DO have to pay dues that cover things like bargaining-things that help the WORKER. But you can get a refund of the percentage of contributions that went for political activity.
"But Meijer employees have no choice in membership. Wal-Mart employees, in contrast, are not forced to belong or give $$$$ to such organizations."
Actually, I would say that employees in both stores have the choice in most states. In my opinion, though, the chance of you being able to unionize at Wal-Mart (and stay employed) is slim....so I would say LESS choice there (sure they can't stop you legally in the US, but there is always SOMETHING you can be fired for....)
Next time, please research a little before spouting off...
"What i'm saying is, your argument boils down to "our present knowledge is perfect, thereby anything contradicting it cannot exist.""
No it wasn't, at least how I read it. It said the EVIDENCE was against it. New evidence can overcome old. But wishing something was true does not make it so.....
"In the 19th century, there was "good science to suggest" that, given a strong enough rocket engine, objects can be accelerated to speeds bigger than 300000km/s. There was also "good science" that suggested that the space is flat and euclidian."
Well, was it good science? I would say not, IF it was widely accepted WITHOUT critical analysis. The data was obviously flawed. But note that you use the word "suggested", not proven-which suggests that "science" was open to the possibility of new and better data.
"I am not saying that said teleportation project is sound and sane. I am saying that one should look at whatever paradigm he/she adheres to with caution."
You do realize this makes no sense from a SCIENCE standpoint? Paradigms are the end result of scientific experiments, hypotheses, theories, and laws. You DON'T start with them. He has a hypothesis, nothing more.
"Again, i am not implying anything, i just don't like it when people take a transitory scientific paradigm as dogma."
Yes, well, unfortunately that happens. What are the phases of science (paraphrasing poorly): 1. First everyone thinks you are an idiot, 2. then grudging acceptance (hmm, he/she might be right), 3. this is "THE TRUTH" (tm), 4. it's all wrong, 5. faults and strengths honestly evaluated. Unfortunately it often takes a lifetime or more....
Well, because we are nitpicking...
When exactly does science "prove" something?
How does science or the scientific method "prove" something?
It doesn't.
It gathers evidence to support hypotheses, which then may become theories, laws and paradigms. But it hasn't "proven" anything. It provides the most likely explanation, at best.
And I think it is reasonable to expect that incredible claims have incredibly strong evidence to back them up. Otherwise, they are unlikely to be accepted. If you claim teleportation is possible, you had better be able to do it, at least on a small scale, otherwise people will rightly think you are crackpot....
"While I agree with your basic point, look at it from the other side; Joe Dirt is in posession of their "property" which they value at full price."
Okay, then why do the studios not deduct this "cost" of piracy off their tax returns? I mean, it is a legitimate business loss, yes?
Perhaps because the IRS would laugh their asses off during an audit (Do you have any evidence to back this up?). In short, it IS NOT a legitimate expense-at least at the levels they state.
If someone (tax professional, IRS agent...) has a better explanation, I really would like to hear it.
"Now you can argue that there is some "theater experience", but for me that experience is only enjoyable under the rarest of circumstances. We only have a 27" TV at home, and it is fine for movies."
Well, I suspect I go to more movies than you and to ME there is a massive difference between a movie on a 27inch screen and a theater screen. The theater experience is better in many ways than watching the film at home-assuming that it takes advantage of the large screen and to a lesser extent the sound and crowd (yes, I said audience). Look, I have been to movies where the various sounds from the audience distracted me, but often the audience HELPS the experience. Not always. Watching at home is a different experience. Of course, if you are not interested in movies that have extensive sound effects or expansive scenery, then it probably WON'T matter where you see the movie....
"I know people who go see movies almost every weekend, regardless of what is playing. I hope one day that the United States of Consumerism wakes up."
Granted, I am more selective when I have to pay more money, but I go to be entertained-if I don't think the movie will be entertaining (or worth the price of a couple of rentals). I don't really want to think during a movie-I do that in my job and research and rest of my life. Movies also tend to be a social event for younger people-the movie isn't the most important thing anyway.
And putting out crap is NOT NEW. It has ALWAYS happened since the beginning of movies.
"As much as some people hate to hear it, we're not fighting in the Middle East because of oil."
Well, yes we are. At least in part. Our support of Israel, our desire to stop terrorism, and our belief in human rights also play a smaller roll. But let's face it, we don't give a flying F@ck about what happens in most of Africa, for instance Rwanda, because they have no resources we need....
See, we are the largest user of oil. Sure we don't use it for electricity. But we do need it to run our cars, trains, trucks, mining equipment, etc.
I don't know if there is a easy way to wean us off of oil. Mandating higher mileage vehicles, increasing the cost of fuel, and designing cities so they are livable without vehicles would be a start.
"What I found truly frightening was the apparent decline of reason that seemed like an undercurrent of the entire electoral process. People in the United States of America no longer seem to be making fewer and fewer decisions based on rational analysis of the situation."
I think the key word is "apparent". Did most (hell, even many) people EVER make decisions based on rational analysis? In the US or elsewhere? Most "analyis" tends to work backwords to support decisions already made or decisions that people WANT to make. So are you really seeing a decline? Or are you seeing more of reality?
Some countries or societies MAY just SEEM more suited to "reasoned" choices. Of course, if the choice was left to the people in France, nuclear power might not fare so well... And there are policies in Japan that may leave you scratching your head.... But those same things that allow nuclear power to exist in those countries (besides the fact that they HAVE no domestic oil supply) may cause them to make other "unreasoned" choices about other topics...
Thanks, that is an excellent summary.
What makes it difficult to assess cost/benefit is that different people have different opinions about various "costs". And not all costs can be reliably/accurately quantified.
Of course, because most people can't understand the concept of risk, what I have just written is largely irrelevant....
and always will be. I believe this is the gist of the common quote. I will suspect economic fusion power is possible when they are building the first generating plant on the public grid. I will believe it when they are operating in numbers.
Research is good but you can't reliably predict success....
"Meanwhile, we're still developing nuclear fusion which is coming along a lot better than most people think...No uranium (or oil or coal or gas) required."
Uh, huh. So what powers those machines that build the materials for the reactors, produce the reactor fuel, build the roads the stuff is transported on, build the transmission lines, blah, blah, blah....? Like the people who say fission produces no CO2. Sure, not DIRECTLY.
"If Bin Laden were to disrupt the flow of gas from Siberia to Europe and plunge the continent into chaos, cold, darkness, sickness and death, maybe the politicians will do something about it."
OOOOH, the bogeyman. Look, Bin Laden is a relatively insignificant figure. IF gas/oil supplies are disrupted, he is VERY, VERY, VERY far down on the list of people/countries/things that are likely to be the cause. Plain old incompetent people are likely to be the cause (see Chernobyl disaster).
Interesting.
But what was factually incorrect about the quote? Bush DID say it. It was taken out of context. News at 11. Most quotes are, because the context takes time to set up, gets in the way of the "story", or is irrelevent.
The difference is that Bush is the President and Moore makes movies (entertainment)-one of them is/should be held to a MUCH higher standard.
Anyone who thought F911 was unbiased is a fool (lacks critical reasoning skills). It is pretty obvious that the movie/documentary had large amount of opinion and that the parts and pieces were skillfully edited together to get a certain reaction or paint a certain picture. That a lot of people believe it as the unbiased truth (or a total falsehood) just goes to show you the reasoning ability of many (most?) people. Frankly, THAT inability to reason does scare me, but it IS reality, has been reality for ALL of human history, and will continue to be. There is a reason that most media is the way it is (TV, commercials, etc.), it panders to this mentality because that is where the money/influence lies.
"A few decades ago, most people got their milk delivered in a bottle which was then reused by the milk company."
"Now everything comes in disposable stuff, often wrapped by more disposable stuff. Not only is this wasteful, but it fills up landfills at a faster clip."
But is wasteful energy wise? I mean, on the surface it seams that you are wasting a lot of material. But transportation of those milk bottles costs a LOT of energy. Plastics are essentially "free" considering the amount of gasoline we require (byproduct of the gasoline refining process). Because almost everyone regularly goes to the store it is a waste to have a separate distribution system for milk.
I would submit that it would REALLY be better to live on a farm and have your own cows (no milk delivery required) or don't drink soda at all (no bottles have to be made or distributed). In a similar vein, producing a car has very little energy footprint compared to its USE. Recycling is nice but the REAL savings in energy come from not USING or BUYING the product at all.
"I voted for Bush because I want to cut the legs out from underneath government bureaucrats. I want whole wings of the government to be forced out of business,..." "... and to get REAL jobs in the private sector."
Umm, didn't you know that you were supposed to vote for a Republican not those free-spending Democrats.
Oh, you say Bush IS a Republican and has some of the largest deficits in history, destroying a budget surplus and is rapidly increasing the size of government? Oops, my bad.
"... and to get REAL jobs in the private sector."
Yes, there are a number of cabinent members, members of Congress and a President that I WOULD like to meet at the local drive through. Not that it will ever happen. My hardest jobs were working for the government, not private enterprise. And private enterprise isn't run any better....