Sociopaths don't rationalize their actions. This guy wants to believe he's in the right because he cares what others think. He has a skewed moral compass and an over developed sense of self-justification, but he's nowhere near a sociopath.
You'd think the fix to this would be to allow the RIAA to acquire proof that what is offered is really their copyrighted material. You know, by letting them introduce in court the files they can (and probably did) download from the respondent. That way only the actual distributors get hammered by the laws that they are actually violating.
The reason we see so much resistance to this is, I think, because we don't believe that someone who distributes someone's "intellectual property" should really be punished with a civil judgement. So instead of advocating for the change that makes sure only the violators are caught, and not the guy who named his porn collection "aerosmith - Dream On.avi" we advocate for a severe contortion of the current law so that people who are actually guilty never have to pay a price that we find unjust.
We should all be able to agree that, as much as we might not like it, the people who are making available are probably actually distributing, too. Forcing the RIAA to show who is distributing, and allowing them to do so, would be a step forward in making sure the law is enforced.
That is a very poor analogy for the downloading of files for the reason that MediaSentry can actually download the files being offered for distribution. When thy are, in fact, distributed to the public which MediaSentry by rights should be taken as, that's distribution. The fact that the downloader is employed by the RIAA shouldn't change the fact that the download could happen from anyone. It's a catch-22 for someone who's works are actually being distributed by someone else. You can go out and get a copy from them, but that's somehow not enough to prove they were distributing it? Preposterous.
It seems that all to often we here on Slashdot confuse what we would like the law to be with what a reasonable interpretation of the current law is.
There's a huge difference between targeting people who place themselves in civilian areas for their own protection, and targeting civilian areas. No one here who is honest with themselves really thinks Israel is targeting the civilian population.
And, though it's lopsided, it would also be lopsided if I were to slap Mike Tyson and call him a bitch, then complain when he beat me up. The fact that the militias are bad at what they do (kill as many Israelis with as little risk as possible) as the Israelis are very good at what they do (kill as many militia as necessary) has no bearing on the justice of the actions of either.
Actually, there has been extensive writing on the moral hazard inherent in the disconnect of incentives between principals and agents in insurance. You do have a stronger incentive to leave your keys in your car if you have insurance, just not a strong enough incentive to leave them there. But, because rational people think at the margins, a guy with a nice car and a mountain of debt just might have enough incentive intentionally get his car "stolen" if he has insurance, which he would never do if he weren't covered.
I'm an amateur cage fighter with (after calculating) over 800 hours spent training, primarily in Jiu-jitsu. I'm not a big guy, though. I fight at 155 and walk around about 165. If an athletic 200+ pound man were to attack me, I wouldn't feel confident that I could win. Sure I could armbar him, maybe throw on a triangle choke or take his back, but do you really want to pull guard in a street fight? If that man were of equal size to me and armed with a knife, I wouldn't even want to try to fight him.
Martial arts are really fun, and very useful for feeling prepared to fight back against opponents who would use force against you, but weapons are a force multiplier, and I don't carry any kind of knife suitable for fighting. The truth is that in a conflict of force the more well-armed party wins. And unarmed martial arts are no match for an armed opponent, especially if the opponent understands their weapon. In an unarmed society, there is simply no means available for the weak to practice self-defense.
I am a conservative (technically a Jeffersonian), but I still believe in providing a "safety net" for those who fall off the highwire of life & need government assistance to survive.
So did the renowned socialist Milton Friedman and the anti-market zealot Friedrick Hayek.
I don't know where you get the idea that schools are having their funding reduced. In fact public per capita spending in America on education, in real dollars, has risen dramatically. And it takes a much larger share of spending than it did 40 years ago, too.
The vast majority of public funding still goes to public schools despite the fact that the return per dollar spent is immensely better under a voucher program. If you're going by results, vouchers are the best education investment America is making right now. If you're going by ideology, you're sentencing low-income kids to public schools that are broken because of something completely different to a lack of funding. Public schools are failing for the same reason our automakers are failing. They can't make a competitive product because they are focused on keeping the current system in place. Free our schools to compete, and the improvement will naturally happen, almost as if guided by in invisible hand.
And this was only trolling very slightly, in the phrasing. I believe everything I wrote.
I know one administrator in DC is worth all the $. Michelle Rhee is trying her best to bring real reform to D.C. She has even attracted an unheard of investment from private donors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the extent that she was able to offer senior teachers six figures a year.
The catch is that she is replacing the never ending job guarantee based on seniority with a merit-based system. One where the better teachers get more of the money. Not that the plan is exactly bad for the teachers who want to keep seniority status. They all get a raise to go along with the scarlet letter of choosing to be judged on their seniority rather than their merit.
Take a look in Michelle Rhee's school reform plans and you'll see what real reform of American schools looks like. Take a look at all the opposition from people who want to maintain the status quo (in D.C. of all places!) and you'll see why we don't get more meaningful school reform.
The real kicker is that Rhee is a Democrat. Democrats for school reform. It could be a new movement in American politics, and maybe even do something to ameliorate the root causes of multi-generational poverty in America, instead of constantly raising the current standard of living for the impoverished. Real change comes when you put educational results ahead of the educators. Go Michelle Rhee!
I still remember driving back in to town after a week of camping and seeing all the flags at half staff, leaving a lurching feeling in the pit of my stomach. Had we been attacked? Had our president been assassinated? I asked the people I came across on the street to find out what tragedy had befallen our country, but no one knew. I saw a news stand and went to it. It was there I saw the first images of the exploding ball of flame, ending the lives of Americans who sought to extend the boundaries that has always limited men. It was a day I'll never forget.
This is Obama reading an excerpt from the very first sermon he heard Jeremiah Wright give, and the one he credits with bringing him to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. Directly from his book, "The Audacity of Hope" which is named after the very same sermon.
That Jeremiah Wright racist is only a question if you redefine racism to an absurd extent. Maybe it would throw the quote into starker relief for you if it were a more familiar kind of racism. Imagine defending someone who claimed "Jew folks' greed runs a world in need" as not a racist. This is absurd on it's face.
So is the claim that he is anything other than anti-American. Though I understand his anti-American views are not far outside the mainstream in this day and age, the discussion shouldn't be about whether he's racist or anti-American, but whether those are bad things. I submit that they are, and that America and even "white folks" have plenty to be proud of, especially today and in our recent history, when he was still giving these sermons.
The man gives his "Audacity of Hope" sermon all the time. Sometimes he leaves in the white folks' greed line, sometimes not. This, to me, indicates that he knows well how inflammatory and, yes, racist that charge is.
That's only because instead of selling the land to those who want to get the oil out of it, the Alaskan government instead is obligated to handle the oil rights in the best interests of the Alaskan people, as they, in fact, actually own all that oil. So if by government handout, you mean an equal portion of something that is partially owned by the residents of the state, then I guess you're right.
As far as the alcoholism and rape, that messed up. But Palin has a great record as a governor, and she replaced someone who was largely viewed as corrupt because he appointed his own daughter to fill the senate seat he had previously held. In Alaska, she returned put the government back firmly on the side of the people.
She can appoint herself to the post. It is totally within her power. She won't. No matter what happens, there has to be a special election within 90 days of the appointment of a new Senator. Whoever she appoints will not serve out the remainder of the term.
We'll see in about 4 years if it's time to move to Galt's Gulch, CO. And because the vast majority of people here are in the "productive" half of the doers/looters division, I look forward to seeing you there.
One guy with the backing of all the supposed checks and balances means that "1 guy" now has a blank check to pursue his agenda in government. The only thing that will slow him down is the possibility of republican filibusters in the Senate. Now, however, the dems are the ones with the nuclear option. If they employ it, the government will be Obama's to do with whatever he pleases.
If Obama fails to dish out the welfare, (doubtful, as he opposed even the immensely popular, reasonable, and humane welfare reform under Gingrich/Clinton) I think the charge of sellout is almost guaranteed. Not that it will hurt him in the voter turnout next election.
In reality, blacks in America (I refuse to use african-american ever since I heard a commentator call a Jamacian man african-american) have voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat's candidate in every election since I can remember. Black turnout was actually very comparable this year to what it was four and eight years ago. To say that race was the turning point in this campaign might make sense, but the truth is we have to look outside the black community to see any deviation from historical trends.
As it stands, I think it's VERY hard to say to what extent Obama's race helped or hurt him, as polling about racial issues is very heavily fraught with personal/social implications that may make poll respondents less than truthful. But the numbers of the white voters he got lends itself much more easily to the idea that race-conscious whites voted for him as a show of racial transcendence than it does to the idea that race-conscious whites voted for McCain out of racial rejection.
He quit his church when, earlier this year, he discovered his pastor was a racist. He no longer attends a church, though he may start again now that his campaign is over.
Slashdot Mirror
Sociopaths don't rationalize their actions. This guy wants to believe he's in the right because he cares what others think. He has a skewed moral compass and an over developed sense of self-justification, but he's nowhere near a sociopath.
You'd think the fix to this would be to allow the RIAA to acquire proof that what is offered is really their copyrighted material. You know, by letting them introduce in court the files they can (and probably did) download from the respondent. That way only the actual distributors get hammered by the laws that they are actually violating.
The reason we see so much resistance to this is, I think, because we don't believe that someone who distributes someone's "intellectual property" should really be punished with a civil judgement. So instead of advocating for the change that makes sure only the violators are caught, and not the guy who named his porn collection "aerosmith - Dream On.avi" we advocate for a severe contortion of the current law so that people who are actually guilty never have to pay a price that we find unjust.
We should all be able to agree that, as much as we might not like it, the people who are making available are probably actually distributing, too. Forcing the RIAA to show who is distributing, and allowing them to do so, would be a step forward in making sure the law is enforced.
That is a very poor analogy for the downloading of files for the reason that MediaSentry can actually download the files being offered for distribution. When thy are, in fact, distributed to the public which MediaSentry by rights should be taken as, that's distribution. The fact that the downloader is employed by the RIAA shouldn't change the fact that the download could happen from anyone. It's a catch-22 for someone who's works are actually being distributed by someone else. You can go out and get a copy from them, but that's somehow not enough to prove they were distributing it? Preposterous. It seems that all to often we here on Slashdot confuse what we would like the law to be with what a reasonable interpretation of the current law is.
There's a huge difference between targeting people who place themselves in civilian areas for their own protection, and targeting civilian areas. No one here who is honest with themselves really thinks Israel is targeting the civilian population. And, though it's lopsided, it would also be lopsided if I were to slap Mike Tyson and call him a bitch, then complain when he beat me up. The fact that the militias are bad at what they do (kill as many Israelis with as little risk as possible) as the Israelis are very good at what they do (kill as many militia as necessary) has no bearing on the justice of the actions of either.
Actually, there has been extensive writing on the moral hazard inherent in the disconnect of incentives between principals and agents in insurance. You do have a stronger incentive to leave your keys in your car if you have insurance, just not a strong enough incentive to leave them there. But, because rational people think at the margins, a guy with a nice car and a mountain of debt just might have enough incentive intentionally get his car "stolen" if he has insurance, which he would never do if he weren't covered.
I'm an amateur cage fighter with (after calculating) over 800 hours spent training, primarily in Jiu-jitsu. I'm not a big guy, though. I fight at 155 and walk around about 165. If an athletic 200+ pound man were to attack me, I wouldn't feel confident that I could win. Sure I could armbar him, maybe throw on a triangle choke or take his back, but do you really want to pull guard in a street fight? If that man were of equal size to me and armed with a knife, I wouldn't even want to try to fight him.
Martial arts are really fun, and very useful for feeling prepared to fight back against opponents who would use force against you, but weapons are a force multiplier, and I don't carry any kind of knife suitable for fighting. The truth is that in a conflict of force the more well-armed party wins. And unarmed martial arts are no match for an armed opponent, especially if the opponent understands their weapon. In an unarmed society, there is simply no means available for the weak to practice self-defense.
I am a conservative (technically a Jeffersonian), but I still believe in providing a "safety net" for those who fall off the highwire of life & need government assistance to survive.
So did the renowned socialist Milton Friedman and the anti-market zealot Friedrick Hayek.
I don't know where you get the idea that schools are having their funding reduced. In fact public per capita spending in America on education, in real dollars, has risen dramatically. And it takes a much larger share of spending than it did 40 years ago, too.
Look at table two of this pdf for the figures.
The vast majority of public funding still goes to public schools despite the fact that the return per dollar spent is immensely better under a voucher program. If you're going by results, vouchers are the best education investment America is making right now. If you're going by ideology, you're sentencing low-income kids to public schools that are broken because of something completely different to a lack of funding. Public schools are failing for the same reason our automakers are failing. They can't make a competitive product because they are focused on keeping the current system in place. Free our schools to compete, and the improvement will naturally happen, almost as if guided by in invisible hand.
And this was only trolling very slightly, in the phrasing. I believe everything I wrote.
I know one administrator in DC is worth all the $. Michelle Rhee is trying her best to bring real reform to D.C. She has even attracted an unheard of investment from private donors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the extent that she was able to offer senior teachers six figures a year.
The catch is that she is replacing the never ending job guarantee based on seniority with a merit-based system. One where the better teachers get more of the money. Not that the plan is exactly bad for the teachers who want to keep seniority status. They all get a raise to go along with the scarlet letter of choosing to be judged on their seniority rather than their merit.
Take a look in Michelle Rhee's school reform plans and you'll see what real reform of American schools looks like. Take a look at all the opposition from people who want to maintain the status quo (in D.C. of all places!) and you'll see why we don't get more meaningful school reform.
The real kicker is that Rhee is a Democrat. Democrats for school reform. It could be a new movement in American politics, and maybe even do something to ameliorate the root causes of multi-generational poverty in America, instead of constantly raising the current standard of living for the impoverished. Real change comes when you put educational results ahead of the educators. Go Michelle Rhee!
They could have said "we want to help fight this disease that's been overlooked until now because it's mainly minorities that suffer from it."
Like AIDS. No one ever does anything about AIDS.
They took the regular Godzilla and improved on his methods a bit, too. He used some Chiaroscuro shading...
Don't forget the majesty.
Those guys wouldn't know majesty if it bit them in the face.
Yeah. That was too soon.
I still remember driving back in to town after a week of camping and seeing all the flags at half staff, leaving a lurching feeling in the pit of my stomach. Had we been attacked? Had our president been assassinated? I asked the people I came across on the street to find out what tragedy had befallen our country, but no one knew. I saw a news stand and went to it. It was there I saw the first images of the exploding ball of flame, ending the lives of Americans who sought to extend the boundaries that has always limited men. It was a day I'll never forget.
You insensitive clod.
I found an article about it. And it's written by real lawyers. Would you like to know more?
This is Obama reading an excerpt from the very first sermon he heard Jeremiah Wright give, and the one he credits with bringing him to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. Directly from his book, "The Audacity of Hope" which is named after the very same sermon.
That Jeremiah Wright racist is only a question if you redefine racism to an absurd extent. Maybe it would throw the quote into starker relief for you if it were a more familiar kind of racism. Imagine defending someone who claimed "Jew folks' greed runs a world in need" as not a racist. This is absurd on it's face.
So is the claim that he is anything other than anti-American. Though I understand his anti-American views are not far outside the mainstream in this day and age, the discussion shouldn't be about whether he's racist or anti-American, but whether those are bad things. I submit that they are, and that America and even "white folks" have plenty to be proud of, especially today and in our recent history, when he was still giving these sermons.
The man gives his "Audacity of Hope" sermon all the time. Sometimes he leaves in the white folks' greed line, sometimes not. This, to me, indicates that he knows well how inflammatory and, yes, racist that charge is.
That's only because instead of selling the land to those who want to get the oil out of it, the Alaskan government instead is obligated to handle the oil rights in the best interests of the Alaskan people, as they, in fact, actually own all that oil. So if by government handout, you mean an equal portion of something that is partially owned by the residents of the state, then I guess you're right.
As far as the alcoholism and rape, that messed up. But Palin has a great record as a governor, and she replaced someone who was largely viewed as corrupt because he appointed his own daughter to fill the senate seat he had previously held. In Alaska, she returned put the government back firmly on the side of the people.
She can appoint herself to the post. It is totally within her power. She won't. No matter what happens, there has to be a special election within 90 days of the appointment of a new Senator. Whoever she appoints will not serve out the remainder of the term.
Let's all not forget that MLK Jr. was a Republican, though also an anti-war one.
We'll see in about 4 years if it's time to move to Galt's Gulch, CO. And because the vast majority of people here are in the "productive" half of the doers/looters division, I look forward to seeing you there.
Does a person below the poverty level even pay income tax?
Yes.
Actually, no. It's called the EITC. Under Obama, the bottom approximately 54% of workers will pay no income tax.
One guy with the backing of all the supposed checks and balances means that "1 guy" now has a blank check to pursue his agenda in government. The only thing that will slow him down is the possibility of republican filibusters in the Senate. Now, however, the dems are the ones with the nuclear option. If they employ it, the government will be Obama's to do with whatever he pleases.
If Obama fails to dish out the welfare, (doubtful, as he opposed even the immensely popular, reasonable, and humane welfare reform under Gingrich/Clinton) I think the charge of sellout is almost guaranteed. Not that it will hurt him in the voter turnout next election.
In response to GP.
In reality, blacks in America (I refuse to use african-american ever since I heard a commentator call a Jamacian man african-american) have voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat's candidate in every election since I can remember. Black turnout was actually very comparable this year to what it was four and eight years ago. To say that race was the turning point in this campaign might make sense, but the truth is we have to look outside the black community to see any deviation from historical trends.
As it stands, I think it's VERY hard to say to what extent Obama's race helped or hurt him, as polling about racial issues is very heavily fraught with personal/social implications that may make poll respondents less than truthful. But the numbers of the white voters he got lends itself much more easily to the idea that race-conscious whites voted for him as a show of racial transcendence than it does to the idea that race-conscious whites voted for McCain out of racial rejection.
You, sir, win the Internets.
He quit his church when, earlier this year, he discovered his pastor was a racist. He no longer attends a church, though he may start again now that his campaign is over.