Other than the cool factor, the article doesn't touch on what good it will do us to study particles older than the sun. Anyone in the know care to elaborate?
Two answers, depending on if you mean, "why are we spending money on this?" or "science is cool, teach me more!"
The answer to the first question is two-fold. One is you never know where the next crucial clue or insight is going to come from, but even if you discount a scientific endeavor altogether as impractical, it's the same reason we play sports, watch TV, listen to music, etc. These all serve no primary, "practical" purpose, but they are crucial to a robust culture.
The answer to the second question is it will help us (I'm speculating here) understand which of the models regarding the formation of stars and star systems best match observed reality. This leads to answering other questions, for example, which stars to look at more closely (perhaps for signs of life). If you're still at a loss to why we should do such a thing, I refer you to my first answer.
Oh, so the state was hurt, and they're the ones who have to go after Sony?
The State (in America) is us. It's We The People.
The way I see it, Sony breached a contract. This is easily resolved in court, and anyone who had their contract breached by Sony should go ahead and file an independent lawsuit (not a class action lawsuit). You can hire a local attorney and move forward.
That worked so well with the Linux geeks who tried to return Windows per the OEM EULA.
Oh, wait. No, it didn't.
But it's worse than that. Let's assume you manage to design a low-cost way for individuals to sue a large corporation, how many people are actually going to sue Sony? Not many. So Sony will just eat the cost of a few lawsuits, and continue as usual.
Do you really expect people to sue over every little transgression? Do you have the time to be diligent over every EULA, every "implied" contract in your everyday life? Odds are you don't. That's what the State is for (in the US), to look after our collective interests. Doesn't always work out that way, but it does work out better than without the State. There are also Class Action suits, which are not necessarily brought on by a State, but are backed by the State, so the effect(collective power, backed by the State) is the same.
Who is with me in asking for an amendment limiting all laws to one topic, 200 words or less, and only can pass with a signature of the President and a signature of a random person with a 3rd grade education who agrees that even they understand the law?
Not I. Your post is more than 200 words. Do you think it's complex enough to cover questions like automobile operation? Building codes?
Laws can't be as simple as "thou shalt not kill", because sometimes thou shall kill. And sometimes different types of killing are met with differing levels of "shalt not".
The law is a mockery of justice today, and there is ZERO way for any individual or small group to win in the long run.
Under the current Republican House, Senate, and Presidency, that's become ever more true. They are systematically removing the rights of the people, and empowering the corporation. It's disgusting.
FYI, for other anarchocapitalists out there, my solution is true moderated arbitration mechanisms in a free market, not the law or the courts.
There is no such thing as the Free Market. Laws and Courts are required to prevent Capitalism from reverting to the Law of the Jungle.
I'm confused by your use of the word "No", for it sounds like your statement agrees with, and complements nicely, the post by revividus.
As I read it, he said being modular will make contributing to X.org will be easier, and that might very well bring in more coders... And you said getting involved with X.org will be easier, and that you very well might just join in because of that.
This scenario has been the core strategy of the DLC, a centrist Democratic party group, since the late 80s. This can be modeled as a game of chicken with you declaring before the game even starts that you will swerve.
The problem is that, by the national convention, the candidate is chosen, and that candidate will not swerve either.
In other words: From the day after the election to the primaries, I can make a difference, lobby for liberal democrats (there are many) and liberal ideals. But once the candidate is chosen, I cannot change who that person is.
Between the three choices, a DLC Dem, a NeoCon Rep and a super-cool Independent, and let's say the odds are (as they usually are), something like 50.00-50.00-0.00 (rounded to the nearest hundredth), my next four years are going to either be DLC or NeoCon. Voting "none of the above" will not shield me from the effects of whoever wins.
The time to make a difference is in-between elections (a time that Nader was consipicuously silent!). Sure, Kerry might be able to more or less "count on" my vote, after the election he can still gain or lose my approval, and even President Bush is not immune to poor approval numbers. Successful mainstream Dems might be more willing to compromise than we'd like, but they are still liberal, and will still support things that this current president and congress are tearing down on a daily basis.
The only reason to "pass" on the liberal candidate today is in the hopes of gaining an even more liberal candidate tomorrow. But how many four-year cycles will this take? I'll take a string of OK liberals now over a really good one in 20 years.
And on the topic of playing chicken, by putting yourself on the fringe, why on Earth would a candidate court your vote? There are far more votes on the right for him to seek, and the DLC exists for the very purpose of seeking those votes. You think you're punishing them for not being liberal enough, but you risk pushing them further to the right.
Why shouldn't I vote for Filet Mignon when what I am going to get is day-old lasagne no matter how I vote? (even If I would prefer stupid wiener-wraps?)
When that's the case, you are correct. In that situation, it's really just a one-party system.
But it doesn't change my point. A vote for Nader (for example) is wasted no matter what. It's just that in Utah, so is a vote for Kerry.
At that point, you still need to make your voice heard, and it's important to vote for other reasons, so you could argue about the definition of "wasted". For clarity, I'll define my meaning in that the primary purpose of a vote is to get your candidate of choice elected. A secondary use (but orders of magnitude less useful if your candidate has a chance of winning) is to "make your voice heard".
However, had the Nader-ites voted Dem (their closest allies), the last 5 years would have been markedly different, even if not idyllic.
Put more simply, had the Nader voters in 2000 voted for Gore, they would be happier today than they are now. Why would you vote for a "perfect" that you can't have, when you could make a difference and vote for a "better" that you actually can have? (yes, in your case, you're sorta screwed either way)
This line of thought is why the US is stuck electing Republicrats every election. The only wasted vote is one that isn't cast.
No, the reason we are stuck electing "Republicrats" every election is that our system is at equilibrium only when there are two parties.
Don't you think you deserve better than the best of the worst two? Aren't you all sick of electing one of two fratboys offered up each election?
Yes, I am, but I have no other choice. The time for you Nader-ites to make a difference is before the election. Convince the Dems (your closest allies) to pick the most liberal candidate they can. Once the die is cast, once the public sees the choice is Dem A or Rep B, then all you can do is siphon votes from the only party that will give you even the slightest chance of getting your way.
Look, I believe doors should work like on Star Trek. But if I pretend like doors work that way, I'll just smash my nose everywhere (except the grocery store, I suppose). An intelligent person would accept the fact that reality trumps ideology. If you want doors to work like on Star Trek, get out there and do something about it, but when you walk up to a door that's not automatic, treat it as such.
Likewise, although I'd love a more democratic Presidential election system, I understand that reality is that it's a two-party game. If I want a liberal candidate, the time for me to act to change minds is every day. Right now, for example. But in the polls, my choice is Republican or Democrat.
How do you expect a third party candidate to win an election if you don't change the attitudes of the people during the intervening years? If you go into the election knowing you're going to lose (and if you don't realize that, you are extremely delusional), then you must realize that you're going to siphon votes from the real candidate that is closest to your ideals. By demanding the perfect, you are sabotaging your best hope.
Now yo'all stop voting for the 2 parties , vote independant, and no neo-cons any more.
Reality is that in most cases, a vote for an independent candidate is a wasted vote. Sorry, I really hate that it's true, but it is.
Presumably, one of the two major candidates is more preferable to the other (the lesser of two evils, or the evil of two lessers, if you want).
If you have a choice at the cafeteria of day-old lasagne, or wiener-wraps, you can vote for "Filet Mignon" (or "Falafel", if you don't eat meat) all you want, but you won't get it. You instead get whatever you're told you get (since you've "thrown away" your vote).
Of course, in between lunches, you can campaign for better choices, you can promote your ideals of what a cafeteria lunch should be like, but if your choice isn't on the menu, you can't actually vote for it.
In the case of Nader, he actually was on the menu... sort of. It would be like having the choice of lasagne, wiener-wraps, or pizza, where the cafeteria is out of pizza.
It's called reality, and sometimes it really, really sucks, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Now, if you are referring to local races, or even federal races, where the independent or third-party candidate has an actual chance (ie: your cafeteria actually does have pizza available), then by all means, vote for the independent candidate!
If all I had to do was vote for the independent candidate, and that candidate would have an actual chance of winning, I'd do it in a heartbeat, but that's not the way it works. It's not up to me, it's up to everyone else, and everyone else sure as hell won't play along.
Or, put simply, even if Gore and/or Kerry aren't up to your standards, even if you believe they'd support corporations as well, and (in the case of Kerry), believe he'd continue the war in Iraq, do you honestly believe we wouldn't be better off, even just a little bit, than we are now with them instead of Bush? And don't you think that with Gore (or Kerry) in office, it'd be just that much easier to elect an even more liberal, less corporate, politician in office?
Yes, like Chomsky, RMS thinks that words dictate thoughts.
Are you denying a link between words and thoughts?
That's why he's so insistant that we always use the word "freedom". If we don't say "freedom", we won't think "freedom".
No, he suggests that if we call it "Open Source" instead of "Free Software", we won't be explicitly emphasizing the "Free(dom)" aspect of the software.
The US and other countries today are not fascist nor resemble anything like a fascist nation. Does big business run the country? Yes. Do politicians suck up to it? Yes. Is this a good thing? NO! But its NOT fascism. To call it such is at the least a bit ignorant.
Absolutely false. What you've described is, in fact, the definition of Fascism.
"Fascism should more properly be called Corporatism, because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
Although the term "Fascism" is commonly met with revulsion, the ideals of Fascism are alive and well. In fact, there are people who openly support Fascism, whether they accept the title of Fascist or not.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis (1935)
Vice President Henry A. Wallace warned quite often of the dangers of Fascism in America.
"With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power." -- US Vice President Henry A. Wallace
He also defined it in the classical, Mussolini sense:
"If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort."
-- US Vice President Henry A. Wallace, "The Danger of American Fascism," New York Times, 1944.
The point is, is that Rush and his type cling to whatever meager possibilities exist that might remotely support his agenda. That makes him intellectually unreliable.
The problem isn't that he's wrong, per se, but that his methods are exceedingly error-prone.
Now that Media Matters has pointed out his error, do you think he'll make any effort to correct the notion he put forth? Do you think his original bias is even rational to begin with? He's clearly attempting to make the case that the EPA kills more people than it would had it not existed, but even assuming the false notion that the EPA is the cause of the Columbia disaster, how many lives throughout the history of the EPA have been saved due to cleaner air and water than we would have had without the EPA? How many cancers, crippling illnesses, dangerous accidental (but inevitable) spills, fires, etc, have seen fewer casualties than otherwise would have occurred?
Don't excuse Rush from personal responsibility, like so many do. If you agree with him politically, at least have the honesty to face the facts of your political views, such as the resulting bad science, the fact that you think it's OK to endanger disinterested third parties' lives for economic expediency, and so on.
Shame on you for putting the blame on Rush Limbaugh. He has nothing to do with this.
What did Mr. Slippery say? "That's a popular meme spread by the likes of Rush Limbaugh"
He blamed Limbaugh for being one of the people who spread that popular (but false) meme.
In Limbaugh's own words (shame on *you* for not even reading the linked site, wherein the words are written):
"So maybe -- a lot of people are beginning to think that the banning of Freon actually caused the shuttle accident, the Columbia shuttle accident, two flights ago. And I'm inclined to believe it when I hear this."
And your space.com quote? It doesn't contradict what anyone was saying. The well-annotated Media Matters report clearly points out that the foam that damaged Columbia was applied/created using freon.
In other words, the EPA regulations (which NASA could legally ignore anyway) did *not* cause the destruction of Columbia. Shame on you for ignoring the facts in order to support an agenda which contradicts reality.
Could it be that the music industry is just putting 40% less desirable music?
Prior to iTunes, if you wanted to buy the few good songs on a CD, you had to buy the whole CD. Now you can just buy those few good songs. The drop in sales, I'd bet, is largely affected by people no longer buying the music they really didn't want in the first place.
This is the market correcting itself. As the stranglehold the labels have over the music market wanes, the proper balance between listeners, artists and labels will be struck. As it is now, the labels wield far too much power. They definitely play a valuable role, and deserve the chance to make a profit, but their current model depends on certain inefficiencies (where they can most significatly exert control) which no longer exist.
This process of seeking a more equitable equilibrium is too slow, but it's definitely going in the right direction.
I think the real question is wether or not they will be able to offer music from ALL labels. The way I see it, the major draw back to ITunes is the fact that any music on the SONY/BMG label is not available...
Not available... in Australia. The article doesn't mention whether it will be a US-only launch, or a world-wide launch, but these things tend to be US-only at first.
Which means it's most probable that Urge will not have more music available than iTunes no matter where you live.
It seems odd to me that a company would not want their music available for purchase as widely as possible. After all, a $0.99 iTunes (Wal-Mart, Napster, Real, etc) download is worth more than a $0 fileshare download. But if there was going to be a hold-out, it would be Sony, wouldn't it? (they could have owned the entire market that iTunes and the iPod now hold, if they hadn't been so paranoid)
So do chimps. Additionally, the chimps in the test were specifically still in childhood (although their age was not mentioned).
Whereas a chimpanzee may be considered an adult by age three, humans may not even reach (emotional) adulthood until well into their 30s.
This wasn't an "emotional" comparison, it was an intellectual comparison. It's quite disingenuous of you to bring it up, and shows bias on your part.
So it seems a little disingenuous to compare chimpanzees to human babies when the rates of growth and maturity are so different.
What's disingenuous about it? It was a fair test, and the results are interesting, suggesting further research. Seems quite fair to me, and a perfectly valid issue to approach scientifically.
"Low Earth Orbit isn't high enough to cause feelings of weightlessness"
You've got me confused for someone else. I not only did not write those words above, I not only did not even include those words as a quite, I specifically pointed out that the exact opposite is the case.
According to what I've just looked up (here), Low Earth Orbit isn't high enough to cause feelings of weightlessness. The sensation is caused by being in free-fall as I described - you are falling, but you keep overshooting due to your speed.
The shuttle and ISS both operate in LEO. Being in orbit, any orbit, necessitates being in freefall.
The Chinese standards would have to displace the incumbents (so to speak) and become widely adopted by those same former incumbents. It sounds like a very difficult - if not insurmountable - obstacle.
Almost every standard available today will be replaced sometime (exceptions are those which is freely implementable, and adequately address their requirements, but even those aren't immune to change...), probably within the next decade or five. If the Chinese standards are sufficiently better and/or cheaper, they will replace aging standards.
China already makes a large percentage of our electronic goods, it won't be long before they really start creating goods of their own (see: Lenovo).
The "helping the people not the government" argument is utter bullshit. It helps US Corporations to do business in China, period. THAT's why we still do business with them and not in places like North Korea. It has NOTHING to do with helping the average Chinese.
The poster you didn't say "do business", he said, "Refusing to do business with them or have any sort of relationship with them..." He's not talking about corporate relations so much as governmental relations (at least, that's how I read it).
Governmental relations quite often have, as part of their intention, the goal of helping people in other countries.
As for North Korea, I imagine the fact that the Korean War isn't officially over, and North Korea is still quite hostile to American interests has a lot to do with it. Even worse for your point, if the only reason to have relations with other governments was to promote American business interests, why would we stop American businesses from doing trade with North Korea?
I agree 100%. Microsoft is "Evil" as they use government power to exercise extra rights.
What rights, specifically, are you talking about? MS has used the government very sparingly. The closest things I can think of to support your assertion are MS's use of copyright, their filing of (but AFAIK, never enforcing) patents, and the occasional lawsuit. Are these what you are referring to?
Yet government is looking to use a power not applicable to you or I - standards through force.
Not everything the government does is predicated on force. Massachusetts won't "force" you to use OpenOffice. Your acceptance of such documents is purely voluntary.
My business can standardize on Lotus 1.0 DOS, I'd lose customers.
That doesn't even make any sense. You certainly could do that. The government could too, and they would lose "customers" as well (ie: fewer people would make use of the online documents).
I'm against Microsoft trying to set a standard, but they can because the citizens want Massachusetts run that way. They've given the politicians sole discretion in almost every decision.
And you have another way for it to work? If the people of Massachusetts really care, they could put up a ballot initiative (whatever the variation of such democracy Massachusetts has) to require all government documents to be in format x. But people just really don't care about such minutia. They vote for their representatives for the very purpose of making those decisions for them.
You post about how you love personal freedom and hate the state, but you have never put forth an alternative system that would work any better.
Given: The State exists. Given: The State will have documents. Given: Those documents will have to be in some format.
How can you accept those three givens (as they are true), yet not think it proper for the State to chose which formats their documents will be stored in?
His reviews tend to have a major bias in favor of Sony. It's annoying to read a review of a Sony camera, and see in the "compared to" chart there's a Canon or Nikon camera that beats it hands-down, but the conclusion for the Sony camera is "Highly Recommended" and the Canon (or Nikon) was merely given "Recommended".
Look at the list of negatives on the conclusion for the R1 and ask yourself how such a camera can be "Highly Recommended". How can the camera have such problems, but still get the highest rating? What would he rate an R1 that had the same lens (which he gushes over), but also addressed the issues he has with it? "Super Highly Recommended"? Even his list of "pros" in the conclusion are full of caveats.
I still enjoy his reviews, but his love of Sony does tend to negatively impact their value.
Slashdot Mirror
Other than the cool factor, the article doesn't touch on what good it will do us to study particles older than the sun. Anyone in the know care to elaborate?
Two answers, depending on if you mean, "why are we spending money on this?" or "science is cool, teach me more!"
The answer to the first question is two-fold. One is you never know where the next crucial clue or insight is going to come from, but even if you discount a scientific endeavor altogether as impractical, it's the same reason we play sports, watch TV, listen to music, etc. These all serve no primary, "practical" purpose, but they are crucial to a robust culture.
The answer to the second question is it will help us (I'm speculating here) understand which of the models regarding the formation of stars and star systems best match observed reality. This leads to answering other questions, for example, which stars to look at more closely (perhaps for signs of life). If you're still at a loss to why we should do such a thing, I refer you to my first answer.
Oh, so the state was hurt, and they're the ones who have to go after Sony?
The State (in America) is us. It's We The People.
The way I see it, Sony breached a contract. This is easily resolved in court, and anyone who had their contract breached by Sony should go ahead and file an independent lawsuit (not a class action lawsuit). You can hire a local attorney and move forward.
That worked so well with the Linux geeks who tried to return Windows per the OEM EULA.
Oh, wait. No, it didn't.
But it's worse than that. Let's assume you manage to design a low-cost way for individuals to sue a large corporation, how many people are actually going to sue Sony? Not many. So Sony will just eat the cost of a few lawsuits, and continue as usual.
Do you really expect people to sue over every little transgression? Do you have the time to be diligent over every EULA, every "implied" contract in your everyday life? Odds are you don't. That's what the State is for (in the US), to look after our collective interests. Doesn't always work out that way, but it does work out better than without the State. There are also Class Action suits, which are not necessarily brought on by a State, but are backed by the State, so the effect(collective power, backed by the State) is the same.
Who is with me in asking for an amendment limiting all laws to one topic, 200 words or less, and only can pass with a signature of the President and a signature of a random person with a 3rd grade education who agrees that even they understand the law?
Not I. Your post is more than 200 words. Do you think it's complex enough to cover questions like automobile operation? Building codes?
Laws can't be as simple as "thou shalt not kill", because sometimes thou shall kill. And sometimes different types of killing are met with differing levels of "shalt not".
The law is a mockery of justice today, and there is ZERO way for any individual or small group to win in the long run.
Under the current Republican House, Senate, and Presidency, that's become ever more true. They are systematically removing the rights of the people, and empowering the corporation. It's disgusting.
FYI, for other anarchocapitalists out there, my solution is true moderated arbitration mechanisms in a free market, not the law or the courts.
There is no such thing as the Free Market. Laws and Courts are required to prevent Capitalism from reverting to the Law of the Jungle.
Talk about a HUGE step backwards! X11R6.x supports dozens of platforms. X11R7 supports only two. What a shame.
No, it's a huge(ish) step forwards for Linux and Solaris. The rest have moved forward as well with R6.9.
WRT end-user features, R6.9 and R7 are essentially equal at the moment. Expect to see support for all the other systems in due time.
Or Y?
You mean Y Windows?
I ask myself that all the time...
No...
I'm confused by your use of the word "No", for it sounds like your statement agrees with, and complements nicely, the post by revividus.
As I read it, he said being modular will make contributing to X.org will be easier, and that might very well bring in more coders... And you said getting involved with X.org will be easier, and that you very well might just join in because of that.
This scenario has been the core strategy of the DLC, a centrist Democratic party group, since the late 80s. This can be modeled as a game of chicken with you declaring before the game even starts that you will swerve.
The problem is that, by the national convention, the candidate is chosen, and that candidate will not swerve either.
In other words: From the day after the election to the primaries, I can make a difference, lobby for liberal democrats (there are many) and liberal ideals. But once the candidate is chosen, I cannot change who that person is.
Between the three choices, a DLC Dem, a NeoCon Rep and a super-cool Independent, and let's say the odds are (as they usually are), something like 50.00-50.00-0.00 (rounded to the nearest hundredth), my next four years are going to either be DLC or NeoCon. Voting "none of the above" will not shield me from the effects of whoever wins.
The time to make a difference is in-between elections (a time that Nader was consipicuously silent!). Sure, Kerry might be able to more or less "count on" my vote, after the election he can still gain or lose my approval, and even President Bush is not immune to poor approval numbers. Successful mainstream Dems might be more willing to compromise than we'd like, but they are still liberal, and will still support things that this current president and congress are tearing down on a daily basis.
The only reason to "pass" on the liberal candidate today is in the hopes of gaining an even more liberal candidate tomorrow. But how many four-year cycles will this take? I'll take a string of OK liberals now over a really good one in 20 years.
And on the topic of playing chicken, by putting yourself on the fringe, why on Earth would a candidate court your vote? There are far more votes on the right for him to seek, and the DLC exists for the very purpose of seeking those votes. You think you're punishing them for not being liberal enough, but you risk pushing them further to the right.
Why shouldn't I vote for Filet Mignon when what I am going to get is day-old lasagne no matter how I vote? (even If I would prefer stupid wiener-wraps?)
When that's the case, you are correct. In that situation, it's really just a one-party system.
But it doesn't change my point. A vote for Nader (for example) is wasted no matter what. It's just that in Utah, so is a vote for Kerry.
At that point, you still need to make your voice heard, and it's important to vote for other reasons, so you could argue about the definition of "wasted". For clarity, I'll define my meaning in that the primary purpose of a vote is to get your candidate of choice elected. A secondary use (but orders of magnitude less useful if your candidate has a chance of winning) is to "make your voice heard".
However, had the Nader-ites voted Dem (their closest allies), the last 5 years would have been markedly different, even if not idyllic.
Put more simply, had the Nader voters in 2000 voted for Gore, they would be happier today than they are now. Why would you vote for a "perfect" that you can't have, when you could make a difference and vote for a "better" that you actually can have? (yes, in your case, you're sorta screwed either way)
This line of thought is why the US is stuck electing Republicrats every election. The only wasted vote is one that isn't cast.
No, the reason we are stuck electing "Republicrats" every election is that our system is at equilibrium only when there are two parties.
Don't you think you deserve better than the best of the worst two? Aren't you all sick of electing one of two fratboys offered up each election?
Yes, I am, but I have no other choice. The time for you Nader-ites to make a difference is before the election. Convince the Dems (your closest allies) to pick the most liberal candidate they can. Once the die is cast, once the public sees the choice is Dem A or Rep B, then all you can do is siphon votes from the only party that will give you even the slightest chance of getting your way.
Look, I believe doors should work like on Star Trek. But if I pretend like doors work that way, I'll just smash my nose everywhere (except the grocery store, I suppose). An intelligent person would accept the fact that reality trumps ideology. If you want doors to work like on Star Trek, get out there and do something about it, but when you walk up to a door that's not automatic, treat it as such.
Likewise, although I'd love a more democratic Presidential election system, I understand that reality is that it's a two-party game. If I want a liberal candidate, the time for me to act to change minds is every day. Right now, for example. But in the polls, my choice is Republican or Democrat.
How do you expect a third party candidate to win an election if you don't change the attitudes of the people during the intervening years? If you go into the election knowing you're going to lose (and if you don't realize that, you are extremely delusional), then you must realize that you're going to siphon votes from the real candidate that is closest to your ideals. By demanding the perfect, you are sabotaging your best hope.
Now yo'all stop voting for the 2 parties , vote independant, and no neo-cons any more.
Reality is that in most cases, a vote for an independent candidate is a wasted vote. Sorry, I really hate that it's true, but it is.
Presumably, one of the two major candidates is more preferable to the other (the lesser of two evils, or the evil of two lessers, if you want).
If you have a choice at the cafeteria of day-old lasagne, or wiener-wraps, you can vote for "Filet Mignon" (or "Falafel", if you don't eat meat) all you want, but you won't get it. You instead get whatever you're told you get (since you've "thrown away" your vote).
Of course, in between lunches, you can campaign for better choices, you can promote your ideals of what a cafeteria lunch should be like, but if your choice isn't on the menu, you can't actually vote for it.
In the case of Nader, he actually was on the menu... sort of. It would be like having the choice of lasagne, wiener-wraps, or pizza, where the cafeteria is out of pizza.
It's called reality, and sometimes it really, really sucks, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Now, if you are referring to local races, or even federal races, where the independent or third-party candidate has an actual chance (ie: your cafeteria actually does have pizza available), then by all means, vote for the independent candidate!
If all I had to do was vote for the independent candidate, and that candidate would have an actual chance of winning, I'd do it in a heartbeat, but that's not the way it works. It's not up to me, it's up to everyone else, and everyone else sure as hell won't play along.
Or, put simply, even if Gore and/or Kerry aren't up to your standards, even if you believe they'd support corporations as well, and (in the case of Kerry), believe he'd continue the war in Iraq, do you honestly believe we wouldn't be better off, even just a little bit, than we are now with them instead of Bush? And don't you think that with Gore (or Kerry) in office, it'd be just that much easier to elect an even more liberal, less corporate, politician in office?
If so, then why throw away your vote?
Yes, like Chomsky, RMS thinks that words dictate thoughts.
Are you denying a link between words and thoughts?
That's why he's so insistant that we always use the word "freedom". If we don't say "freedom", we won't think "freedom".
No, he suggests that if we call it "Open Source" instead of "Free Software", we won't be explicitly emphasizing the "Free(dom)" aspect of the software.
Absolutely false. What you've described is, in fact, the definition of Fascism.
Although the term "Fascism" is commonly met with revulsion, the ideals of Fascism are alive and well. In fact, there are people who openly support Fascism, whether they accept the title of Fascist or not.
Vice President Henry A. Wallace warned quite often of the dangers of Fascism in America.
He also defined it in the classical, Mussolini sense:
The point is, is that Rush and his type cling to whatever meager possibilities exist that might remotely support his agenda. That makes him intellectually unreliable.
The problem isn't that he's wrong, per se, but that his methods are exceedingly error-prone.
Now that Media Matters has pointed out his error, do you think he'll make any effort to correct the notion he put forth? Do you think his original bias is even rational to begin with? He's clearly attempting to make the case that the EPA kills more people than it would had it not existed, but even assuming the false notion that the EPA is the cause of the Columbia disaster, how many lives throughout the history of the EPA have been saved due to cleaner air and water than we would have had without the EPA? How many cancers, crippling illnesses, dangerous accidental (but inevitable) spills, fires, etc, have seen fewer casualties than otherwise would have occurred?
Don't excuse Rush from personal responsibility, like so many do. If you agree with him politically, at least have the honesty to face the facts of your political views, such as the resulting bad science, the fact that you think it's OK to endanger disinterested third parties' lives for economic expediency, and so on.
What did Mr. Slippery say? "That's a popular meme spread by the likes of Rush Limbaugh"
He blamed Limbaugh for being one of the people who spread that popular (but false) meme.
In Limbaugh's own words (shame on *you* for not even reading the linked site, wherein the words are written):
And your space.com quote? It doesn't contradict what anyone was saying. The well-annotated Media Matters report clearly points out that the foam that damaged Columbia was applied/created using freon.
In other words, the EPA regulations (which NASA could legally ignore anyway) did *not* cause the destruction of Columbia. Shame on you for ignoring the facts in order to support an agenda which contradicts reality.
Could it be that the music industry is just putting 40% less desirable music?
Prior to iTunes, if you wanted to buy the few good songs on a CD, you had to buy the whole CD. Now you can just buy those few good songs. The drop in sales, I'd bet, is largely affected by people no longer buying the music they really didn't want in the first place.
This is the market correcting itself. As the stranglehold the labels have over the music market wanes, the proper balance between listeners, artists and labels will be struck. As it is now, the labels wield far too much power. They definitely play a valuable role, and deserve the chance to make a profit, but their current model depends on certain inefficiencies (where they can most significatly exert control) which no longer exist.
This process of seeking a more equitable equilibrium is too slow, but it's definitely going in the right direction.
It seems to me that MS are trying to fill a hole that's already been covered...
Wow. If you think about it, that is the best one-sentence description of Microsoft ever written.
It's true on so many levels, it's almost Zen.
I think the real question is wether or not they will be able to offer music from ALL labels. The way I see it, the major draw back to ITunes is the fact that any music on the SONY/BMG label is not available...
Not available... in Australia. The article doesn't mention whether it will be a US-only launch, or a world-wide launch, but these things tend to be US-only at first.
Which means it's most probable that Urge will not have more music available than iTunes no matter where you live.
It seems odd to me that a company would not want their music available for purchase as widely as possible. After all, a $0.99 iTunes (Wal-Mart, Napster, Real, etc) download is worth more than a $0 fileshare download. But if there was going to be a hold-out, it would be Sony, wouldn't it? (they could have owned the entire market that iTunes and the iPod now hold, if they hadn't been so paranoid)
Human babies have a prolonged childhood.
So do chimps. Additionally, the chimps in the test were specifically still in childhood (although their age was not mentioned).
Whereas a chimpanzee may be considered an adult by age three, humans may not even reach (emotional) adulthood until well into their 30s.
This wasn't an "emotional" comparison, it was an intellectual comparison. It's quite disingenuous of you to bring it up, and shows bias on your part.
So it seems a little disingenuous to compare chimpanzees to human babies when the rates of growth and maturity are so different.
What's disingenuous about it? It was a fair test, and the results are interesting, suggesting further research. Seems quite fair to me, and a perfectly valid issue to approach scientifically.
Oops...
I did quote that part. But the point remains that you replied to the wrong person.
"Low Earth Orbit isn't high enough to cause feelings of weightlessness"
You've got me confused for someone else. I not only did not write those words above, I not only did not even include those words as a quite, I specifically pointed out that the exact opposite is the case.
According to what I've just looked up (here), Low Earth Orbit isn't high enough to cause feelings of weightlessness. The sensation is caused by being in free-fall as I described - you are falling, but you keep overshooting due to your speed.
The shuttle and ISS both operate in LEO. Being in orbit, any orbit, necessitates being in freefall.
The Chinese standards would have to displace the incumbents (so to speak) and become widely adopted by those same former incumbents. It sounds like a very difficult - if not insurmountable - obstacle.
Almost every standard available today will be replaced sometime (exceptions are those which is freely implementable, and adequately address their requirements, but even those aren't immune to change...), probably within the next decade or five. If the Chinese standards are sufficiently better and/or cheaper, they will replace aging standards.
China already makes a large percentage of our electronic goods, it won't be long before they really start creating goods of their own (see: Lenovo).
The "helping the people not the government" argument is utter bullshit. It helps US Corporations to do business in China, period. THAT's why we still do business with them and not in places like North Korea. It has NOTHING to do with helping the average Chinese.
..." He's not talking about corporate relations so much as governmental relations (at least, that's how I read it).
The poster you didn't say "do business", he said, "Refusing to do business with them or have any sort of relationship with them
Governmental relations quite often have, as part of their intention, the goal of helping people in other countries.
As for North Korea, I imagine the fact that the Korean War isn't officially over, and North Korea is still quite hostile to American interests has a lot to do with it. Even worse for your point, if the only reason to have relations with other governments was to promote American business interests, why would we stop American businesses from doing trade with North Korea?
I agree 100%. Microsoft is "Evil" as they use government power to exercise extra rights.
What rights, specifically, are you talking about? MS has used the government very sparingly. The closest things I can think of to support your assertion are MS's use of copyright, their filing of (but AFAIK, never enforcing) patents, and the occasional lawsuit. Are these what you are referring to?
Yet government is looking to use a power not applicable to you or I - standards through force.
Not everything the government does is predicated on force. Massachusetts won't "force" you to use OpenOffice. Your acceptance of such documents is purely voluntary.
My business can standardize on Lotus 1.0 DOS, I'd lose customers.
That doesn't even make any sense. You certainly could do that. The government could too, and they would lose "customers" as well (ie: fewer people would make use of the online documents).
I'm against Microsoft trying to set a standard, but they can because the citizens want Massachusetts run that way. They've given the politicians sole discretion in almost every decision.
And you have another way for it to work? If the people of Massachusetts really care, they could put up a ballot initiative (whatever the variation of such democracy Massachusetts has) to require all government documents to be in format x. But people just really don't care about such minutia. They vote for their representatives for the very purpose of making those decisions for them.
You post about how you love personal freedom and hate the state, but you have never put forth an alternative system that would work any better.
Given: The State exists.
Given: The State will have documents.
Given: Those documents will have to be in some format.
How can you accept those three givens (as they are true), yet not think it proper for the State to chose which formats their documents will be stored in?
His reviews tend to have a major bias in favor of Sony. It's annoying to read a review of a Sony camera, and see in the "compared to" chart there's a Canon or Nikon camera that beats it hands-down, but the conclusion for the Sony camera is "Highly Recommended" and the Canon (or Nikon) was merely given "Recommended".
Look at the list of negatives on the conclusion for the R1 and ask yourself how such a camera can be "Highly Recommended". How can the camera have such problems, but still get the highest rating? What would he rate an R1 that had the same lens (which he gushes over), but also addressed the issues he has with it? "Super Highly Recommended"? Even his list of "pros" in the conclusion are full of caveats.
I still enjoy his reviews, but his love of Sony does tend to negatively impact their value.