"I know there are a lot of Linux zealots on Slashdot, but does this really suprise anyone?"
It surprised me. I would not have imagined any Linux zealots on slashdot.
"Certainly not me."
You must know more about the habits of Linux zealots than I do.
"There are a couple of things to consider here."
#1. Linux? #2. Zealots?
"1. The only replacement for Windows on the desktop is Mac OS X. Linux is not that replacement."
Whatever. Hey, I have a question for you. If if a "zealot" is someone who is overly fond of an OS, what is the term for someone who is overly antagonistic towards an OS?
"2. A lot of people are unwilling to pay for what they want, or have a feeling of entitlement that they don't actually have."
Whatever. The story I read was about WINDOWS users who were "pirating" WINDOWS licenses. That seems to be Microsoft's problem.
"You end up with the people who are willing to switch, and willing to pay, switching to Mac OS X."
Possibly. But I have heard rumours that certain people actually PAY for a Linux distribution and CHOOSE to run that on PC hardware. I know, it's difficult to believe and probably not true. But wouldn't it be cool?
"People who are unwilling to pay for a Win XP software license will buy a cheap PC and not a Mac anyway."
Yeah, but do we really care about cheap Windows users?
"Since they don't care about licenseing either, you end up with pirated copies of Windows software run on Linux-shipped PC's."
Yeah. Could be. I don't know of any personally, but I do have a couple Windows servers that are now running Debian Linux.
"It makes logical sense to me. It may be a sad state of affairs from a plethora of angles, but it's certainly not a surprise!"
Whereas all I see are cheap WINDOWS users "pirating" WINDOWS licenses. Why isn't this article about how a certain percentage of Windows users are thieving crooks with no respect for licensing or "intellectual property"?
On the plus side... this means that there is more Linux-friendly hardware being sold.
"Basically, viewers of certain TV networks were less informed than viewers of other networks - not naming any names here, mind you - and people who got their news from other sources, such as radio and newspapers tended to be more informed than people who got their news just from TV."
Yup. I'm with you so far.
"But picking on viewers of certains shows is like picking on special ed teachers for the abilities of their class - those teachers have a tough job on their hands and people need to cut them some slack. Here they are, working selflessly for little compensation to educate the common man, and people ridicule them for mistakes of their students."
Nope. That's the problem. The "political" talk show hosts aren't "working selflessly for little compensation to educate the common man".
They have their agenda to push and the manner in which they push it determines their audience.
If you are a small-minded, mean bigot, your audience will, primarily, be others of that type.
Therefore, surveying the self-selected audience gives you a good indication of the nature of that show.
#1. Convince management that this is a BAD idea. -or- #2. Convince managment to give you some funding/equipment to implement network security upstream of those insecure PC's.
The next question is WHAT you'd implement and HOW you'd do so and HOW you'd monitor it.
Anyone can throw a bunch of PC's on a hub and claim to have setup a "network". It's the added security and monitoring that differentiates the best from the worst.
yeah, right, whatever.
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"Neither do the political candiates whom I trust and believe in. This is your opinion, not a factual argument. Learn to keep the two separate."
Hmmm, and who are those "political candidates" that you "trust and believe in"? Why do you not just name them instead of typing all of that?
"Ahem. Did you not receive a tax cut? Thank you."
Yep, from the Federal government. But it wasn't much of a tax cut and I have paid MORE in total taxes because Bush is running of the deficit and dumping the problems onto the states who then have to find ways to pay.
Sorry, I'm paying higher taxes.
"And what's more, your argument here is predicated on the "given" that the Government owns all of everything, and that tax cuts "cost" the Government in lost revenue. I don't know about you, but I want to keep *more* of the money I make. I want to "allow" the government to take only that which is necessary to provide what the Constitution says it should--and not a penny more."
You need to look at the deficit then. Or don't you understand that BORROWED money needs to be paid back.
Bush is just shifting the FEDERAL tax burden.
"As far as the health of the economy goes, from what I can tell, the left is using historical figures and the right is using current trends."
Current trends are based upon historical figures.
The only difference is WHEN you start the chart.
Republicans want to start the chart when the situation was WORSE so any improvement, no matter how slight, APPEARS to be an OVERALL improvement.
Democrats want to start the chart when things were much BETTER so any improvement APPEARS to be an OVERALL loss.
Personally, I'll take the Democrat's approach.
"Bush is doing a "decent" job helping the economy to recover in a tough time, that's how I read it. The current trends are good, and that is well...good. Sorry, you can't disagree with this, it's an actual fact."
Ummm, "good" is not a term usually associated with the word "fact". The term "good" is a judgement call.
So it is NOT "an actual fact".
"Whoah Nelly! Now you're going a bit off the deep end. I think you have stepped from debate into the realm of fiction. When you get back to earth, let me know and we can continue."
You seem to be more than a bit mis-informed on that. It has been on his agenda. Even his own people admit that he was asking about it.
"Sorry, they did find WMD's...hate to break it to ya."
No they did not. Not in the respect that Bush was talking about. All they found were the remains from before the PREVIOUS war. You seem to be a bit out of touch with current events.
Despite all my years in the workforce, I have NEVER been surveyed by the government to see if I was working or not.
"Because unemployment insurance records, which many people think are the source of total unemployment data, relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. As explained later, the CPS estimates, beginning in 1994, reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey."
Not that I doubt The Government. But I am also not aware of any of my friends who have been surveyed to find out if they are employed or not.
What we need is no "free trade" UNLESS the other country matches our levels of worker/environmental protections.
If everyone in the world is working 40 hour weeks (or less) and has health care and so forth (not counting China's prison labour here), then I don't see a problem with the jobs going where it is most profitable.
The problem I see is NOT looking at those factors and letting the corporations use slave labour. Your tariffs and such will NOT stop that abuse nor will they stop the jobs from going to overseas slaves.
People tend to have emotional reactions FIRST and then their brains kick in and try to paint it as "logical" by rationalizing it.
Not to mention that most people pick up their political views the same place (and the same way) they pick up their religion. At home.
So when you disagree with someone's political position, you are attacking his place in the world and everything he's been taught is good and right and holy.
That's why attack ads are so popular. They WORK and they work WELL. They play to the fundamental building blocks of politics: fear, unknown, different.
"As if it wasn't obvious what decision he was going to make..."
Big time. Anyone with any brains whatsoever could see what Bush had planned. And how his administration used politics to get most people to support it.
"Moreover, even if we accept Kerry's argument that it came as a surprise to him that Bush would use any excuse to invade Iraq, it seems rather dishonest to vote to give the President blanket authority to declare war and then complain when that decision is made."
Pretty much. I think Kerry is way off on this one. But he doesn't know any other way to be against the current mess without contradicting his original vote.
"The truth is that Kerry, like virtually every other Democrat, was afraid of being labelled "unpatriotic" and "weak on defense" and so took the politically safe position."
Yup.
"Why don't we debate that, instead?"
Not as much interest. Not as much emotion. Not as much flamage.
"Why not talk about how we use patriotism as a political weapon?"
I think that would be a good topic. The first step would be to define "patriotism" (as opposed to "nationalism"). Too many of those words have been stolen by the politicians and re-assigned meanings.
"Why not talk about how that, more than anything Bush has done, needs to change if we're going to have a healthy democracy?"
Yup. But polarization is SOOOOO much more entertaining. That's why you only see the freaks on the news.
"The issue is not so much that Bush led us into a quagmire, it's that we and our elected representatives allowed him to lead us there."
Allowed. Supported! Endorsed. And failed to consider any other options.
But they won't care. It isn't like our politicians are the ones who will die over there. Dead Iraqis won't be voting in our election.
Personally, I don't believe that anyone who voted for the war even CARES if people die in it or how big of a mess it becomes. They just like to PRETEND they care for the media. It's all about being tougher and getting the most votes.
We really need to overhaul our voting system and get a third party in.
The problem with the mainstream "news" organizations is that they have to sell a product.
That product is entertainment packaged as "news".
But they only have one real supplier: The Government.
So, if they don't fall into line, they will find that they aren't given the choice contacts. They will end up depending upon the "news" that other, more government friendly "news" people have already broadcast.
So, we get soft questions with no follow up and "news" that is almost totally devoid of critique.
But the "bloggers" (I hate that term) are NOT operating on the same "it's 6 o'clock and here's the news" time schedule. They can WAIT and CHECK and do some ANALYSIS of the material.
What we need is for the mainstream media to get some guts and WALK OUT of any "press meeting" where the politicians are trying to manipulate them. It won't happen, but that's what we need.
"OK. Prove it. Prove Christopher Columbus even came here."
Proof only exists in mathematics.
"Fact , and truth, are subjective. Truth is of the individual, fact is of the plebescite."
Incorrect. Facts exist whether you know them or not, whether you believe they are "true" or not.
"Well, in your own words, that's what *you* call fact. And what you didn't say was that there has to be something that is right - for *you*. You are not in charge of what other people think is right."
It's called "reality". Whether someone believes in it or not, it exists.
What people THINK is their "Truth".
"I mean, if I choose not to believe in the scientific method (and yes, I do believe in it), you can't prove a damn thing to me, ever."
Again, proof only exists in mathematics.
You can believe whatever you want. That is your "Truth".
"Face it, fact is subjective, predicated on a previously existing system of belief and trust."
You're confusing facts with belief. Facts are not based upon "belief and trust". Belief and trust are what people use to determine whether a specific fact is "true" or not.
"Just ask the Amish aboyut facts. They'll have a bunch for you (electicity is the work of the Devil, etc)."
That is not a fact. That is a belief. It may also be a fact, but it is impossible to contradict unless the Devil comes by and says that it is.
"They will not listen to "scientific" proof because they don't believe in science."
Not the use of the word "believe" in that sentence.
"And until we die, we won't really know for sure whether they might actually be right about a thing or two."
You're starting to catch on. The FACT exists whether you believe it or not. You might be wrong about what you BELIEVE are "facts", they might be right. But no matter WHAT either of you BELIEVE, the FACTS are still the FACTS.
"The only sources of knowledge in the world are that which you discover *for yourself* to be true, and that which you accept as true from others. If fact is so immutable, why are there so many debates about it?"
Because what you "discover" for yourself is based upon the limitations of your senses and you pre-existing belief system. This causes people to accept the "facts" that support their existing "Truth" and discard anything that contradicts it.
"Not if I challenge everything you are basing your "facts" on. (ie, those figures are wrong, that research is flawed, etc). Everyting you believe is based on something else that you believed first. Fact is just what the majority happen to consider to be truth."
It seems you are arguing over the definition of a term. Yet you are not offering any other term to fit the to which he put the term "fact".
If you do not agree with its usage, you really should provide a term that you will agree with.
"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660"
Resolution 678 (1990)
Resolution 678 that was passed in the year 1990.
You're referencing a resolution for the WRONG WAR.
It's even from the wrong DECADE.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0660.ht m
The Security Council,
Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,
Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,
Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;
2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;r
3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;
4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.
"Yale students are at the extreem end of the scale."
Do you have support for that statement? From the math I see, their median score was only 180 points higher than Bush's.
You do know what "median" means, right?
"Your proof he is of average intelligents is that he was below the median at *YALE*, pardon me if I dont buy that as some kind of "proof" he is just average. I bet a C student at Yale has more upstairs than B students at some other university."
You need to do more research.
#1. He was a "C" student at Phillips Andover.
#2. His freshman year at Yale, he was in the 21st percentile. 80% of the people there were doing better than him.
"Your proof he is of average intelligents is that he was below the median at *YALE*, pardon me if I dont buy that as some kind of "proof" he is just average."
No, the proof is his test scores and his grades. His SAT's put him in the 70th percentile. Look up "bell curve" sometime. Because you don't want to believe it does not make change the facts of the situation.
"I bet a C student at Yale has more upstairs than B students at some other university."
Possibly. But you offer nothing other than your beliefs to support that.
Meanwhile, I have presented the FACTS that Bush was not at the top of the pile. Nor was he even close to the top of the pile. He was average.
"So bush got more than twelve hundred when the nation average was under a thousand... how is he just aveage again?"
Average is a range. I suppose if he had scored 1 point above the mathematical average, you'd be claiming he was "above average". Wouldn't you?:D
You will remember that I posted how he was 180 points below the median for Yale students? The average Yale student scores at the high end of the SAT. Bush wasn't at the high end.
He was in the average range.
"Is it possible to buy a degree?"
DUH! Of course it is.
"But I dont care who your father is it wont fly a jet for you.."
Your ORIGINAL question was whether the average person could fly a jet. And, given Bush's scores, the obvious answer is "YES".
#1. "...these included targeting planes in the no-fly zone,..."
The "no-fly zone" is a US construct. It was not in any UN order.
#2. "... kicking out inspectors in 1998..."
Iraq did NOT kick out the inspectors. The UN pulled them out to protect them when we threatened air strikes in Iraq.
#3. "...and mis-using the oil for food program."
Big deal. How was that a threat to the US?
#4. "The US, UK, Italy, Poland and others decided to do something about as the UN (France and Russia who were owed money by Saddam) refused to act on the multitude of threats it put to Iraq."
So, we had to invade because the UN wouldn't sanction our invasion? WTF?
#5. "Finally the US did something about it, if the UN had enforced its own mandates peharps the burden sharing would be a such that the us had the capacity to move into the Sudan."
Stay on topic. This is about Iraq.
And you claim that because the UN didn't sanction an invasion of Iraq, that the US was forced to invade Iraq. Again, WTF?
Seems like you've already established in your mind that there had to be an invasion.
Yet all of the FACTS (no "WMD's", no facilities to build "WMD's", no secret programs researching "WMD's") seem to indicate that the UN's approach had worked, was working and there is nothing to show that the UN's approach would not CONTINUE to work.
So WHAT did the UN do that FORCED the US to invade?
Seems like you're a little short on the FACTS of the situation.
The question was: "How did the UN get us in a war in Iraq?"
You replied: "I did not support the war but I also did not support endless sancations and inaction by the UN while they scammed money for oil, err I mean oil for food.."
I did not ask what you supported or did not support. You had CLAIMED (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122579&cid=10 310250) that we are in this war because of the UN. Explain that.
"Where are your fucking WMD? A "Capability" to make WMD? Give me a break, there are 100 countries with a "Capability", and there always have been. Should we invade them all?"
From the LATEST hand-picked inspection team (which replaced the LAST hand-picked inspection team after that one said that there weren't any weapons or facilities, which had to be hand-picked because the UN team said that they couldn't find any weapon or facilities) there aren't any weapons or facilities or capability.
The BEST they could come up with is the DESIRE... to one day have the ability... to one day build the facility... that would one day build a "WMD".
With that criteria, EVERYONE who ever said anything bad about the US would be on our invasion list.
"Not sure if you've noticed, but Spain, Italy & the Phillipines have all pulled out. I think they agree with me."
Not only that, but their POPULATIONS were against the actions of their governments. Which is one of the reasons that we saw Spain's government replaced in their last election.
"His scores were below the median for *YALE* students, hardly a dumb crowd."
I didn't say the Yale students were dumb. I said Bush was average. 566 verbal 640 math
The average for seniors was: 463 verbal 510 math 488,793 students tested.
So, to AGAIN answer your question, YES, an average person CAN get an MBA from Harvard (with the appropriate political and financial backing) AND that person CAN learn to fly jets.
And if you'll look at Bush's scores, you'll see that he was BELOW the median (by 180 points) for his test scores when he was originally admitted to Yale.
So, yes, the average person is quite capable of doing exactly what Bush did PROVIDED that that person has all the political and financial advantages that Bush did.
"The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions."
Fuck that!
They shouldn't be wasting ANY time on that crap. They should be focusing on what THEIR agenda and what THEIR plans are.
NO rhetorical questions.
But I do believe that each side should be able to submit 2 or 3 questions to be asked of both of them. That way they can highlight their strong points and illustrate their opponent's weak points. But the questions must be submitted prior to the debate.
Slashdot Mirror
"I know there are a lot of Linux zealots on Slashdot, but does this really suprise anyone?"
... this means that there is more Linux-friendly hardware being sold.
It surprised me. I would not have imagined any Linux zealots on slashdot.
"Certainly not me."
You must know more about the habits of Linux zealots than I do.
"There are a couple of things to consider here."
#1. Linux?
#2. Zealots?
"1. The only replacement for Windows on the desktop is Mac OS X. Linux is not that replacement."
Whatever. Hey, I have a question for you. If if a "zealot" is someone who is overly fond of an OS, what is the term for someone who is overly antagonistic towards an OS?
"2. A lot of people are unwilling to pay for what they want, or have a feeling of entitlement that they don't actually have."
Whatever. The story I read was about WINDOWS users who were "pirating" WINDOWS licenses. That seems to be Microsoft's problem.
"You end up with the people who are willing to switch, and willing to pay, switching to Mac OS X."
Possibly. But I have heard rumours that certain people actually PAY for a Linux distribution and CHOOSE to run that on PC hardware. I know, it's difficult to believe and probably not true. But wouldn't it be cool?
"People who are unwilling to pay for a Win XP software license will buy a cheap PC and not a Mac anyway."
Yeah, but do we really care about cheap Windows users?
"Since they don't care about licenseing either, you end up with pirated copies of Windows software run on Linux-shipped PC's."
Yeah. Could be. I don't know of any personally, but I do have a couple Windows servers that are now running Debian Linux.
"It makes logical sense to me. It may be a sad state of affairs from a plethora of angles, but it's certainly not a surprise!"
Whereas all I see are cheap WINDOWS users "pirating" WINDOWS licenses. Why isn't this article about how a certain percentage of Windows users are thieving crooks with no respect for licensing or "intellectual property"?
On the plus side
"Basically, viewers of certain TV networks were less informed than viewers of other networks - not naming any names here, mind you - and people who got their news from other sources, such as radio and newspapers tended to be more informed than people who got their news just from TV."
Yup. I'm with you so far.
"But picking on viewers of certains shows is like picking on special ed teachers for the abilities of their class - those teachers have a tough job on their hands and people need to cut them some slack. Here they are, working selflessly for little compensation to educate the common man, and people ridicule them for mistakes of their students."
Nope. That's the problem. The "political" talk show hosts aren't "working selflessly for little compensation to educate the common man".
They have their agenda to push and the manner in which they push it determines their audience.
If you are a small-minded, mean bigot, your audience will, primarily, be others of that type.
Therefore, surveying the self-selected audience gives you a good indication of the nature of that show.
Their ISP ran Linux/Oracle 9 years ago. That's 1995.
I recall that Oracle's announcements in 1998 about Linux.
If that article is accurate, it seems the company has a history of beta roll-outs for production systems.
#1. Convince management that this is a BAD idea.
-or-
#2. Convince managment to give you some funding/equipment to implement network security upstream of those insecure PC's.
The next question is WHAT you'd implement and HOW you'd do so and HOW you'd monitor it.
Anyone can throw a bunch of PC's on a hub and claim to have setup a "network". It's the added security and monitoring that differentiates the best from the worst.
"Neither do the political candiates whom I trust and believe in. This is your opinion, not a factual argument. Learn to keep the two separate."
Hmmm, and who are those "political candidates" that you "trust and believe in"? Why do you not just name them instead of typing all of that?
"Ahem. Did you not receive a tax cut? Thank you."
Yep, from the Federal government. But it wasn't much of a tax cut and I have paid MORE in total taxes because Bush is running of the deficit and dumping the problems onto the states who then have to find ways to pay.
Sorry, I'm paying higher taxes.
"And what's more, your argument here is predicated on the "given" that the Government owns all of everything, and that tax cuts "cost" the Government in lost revenue. I don't know about you, but I want to keep *more* of the money I make. I want to "allow" the government to take only that which is necessary to provide what the Constitution says it should--and not a penny more."
You need to look at the deficit then. Or don't you understand that BORROWED money needs to be paid back.
Bush is just shifting the FEDERAL tax burden.
"As far as the health of the economy goes, from what I can tell, the left is using historical figures and the right is using current trends."
Current trends are based upon historical figures.
The only difference is WHEN you start the chart.
Republicans want to start the chart when the situation was WORSE so any improvement, no matter how slight, APPEARS to be an OVERALL improvement.
Democrats want to start the chart when things were much BETTER so any improvement APPEARS to be an OVERALL loss.
Personally, I'll take the Democrat's approach.
"Bush is doing a "decent" job helping the economy to recover in a tough time, that's how I read it. The current trends are good, and that is well...good. Sorry, you can't disagree with this, it's an actual fact."
Ummm, "good" is not a term usually associated with the word "fact". The term "good" is a judgement call.
So it is NOT "an actual fact".
"Whoah Nelly! Now you're going a bit off the deep end. I think you have stepped from debate into the realm of fiction. When you get back to earth, let me know and we can continue."
You seem to be more than a bit mis-informed on that. It has been on his agenda. Even his own people admit that he was asking about it.
"Sorry, they did find WMD's...hate to break it to ya."
No they did not. Not in the respect that Bush was talking about. All they found were the remains from before the PREVIOUS war. You seem to be a bit out of touch with current events.
Despite all my years in the workforce, I have NEVER been surveyed by the government to see if I was working or not.
"Because unemployment insurance records, which many people think are the source of total unemployment data, relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. As explained later, the CPS estimates, beginning in 1994, reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey."
Not that I doubt The Government. But I am also not aware of any of my friends who have been surveyed to find out if they are employed or not.
We don't need trade barriers.
What we need is no "free trade" UNLESS the other country matches our levels of worker/environmental protections.
If everyone in the world is working 40 hour weeks (or less) and has health care and so forth (not counting China's prison labour here), then I don't see a problem with the jobs going where it is most profitable.
The problem I see is NOT looking at those factors and letting the corporations use slave labour. Your tariffs and such will NOT stop that abuse nor will they stop the jobs from going to overseas slaves.
http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson =EM219
Pay particular attention to the line where the government DOES NOT COUNT 75 MILLION PEOPLE (retired, students, individuals choosing not to work).
"individuals choosing not to work"
That includes people who still can't find jobs so they're given up actively looking for them.
I want that number taken OUT of that calculation.
I can see lumping students and retired people together. They are either still training up for the workforce or have retired from it.
But not counting people who CAN work but have given up LOOKING for a job is wrong.
People tend to have emotional reactions FIRST and then their brains kick in and try to paint it as "logical" by rationalizing it.
Not to mention that most people pick up their political views the same place (and the same way) they pick up their religion. At home.
So when you disagree with someone's political position, you are attacking his place in the world and everything he's been taught is good and right and holy.
That's why attack ads are so popular. They WORK and they work WELL. They play to the fundamental building blocks of politics: fear, unknown, different.
"As if it wasn't obvious what decision he was going to make..."
Big time. Anyone with any brains whatsoever could see what Bush had planned. And how his administration used politics to get most people to support it.
"Moreover, even if we accept Kerry's argument that it came as a surprise to him that Bush would use any excuse to invade Iraq, it seems rather dishonest to vote to give the President blanket authority to declare war and then complain when that decision is made."
Pretty much. I think Kerry is way off on this one. But he doesn't know any other way to be against the current mess without contradicting his original vote.
"The truth is that Kerry, like virtually every other Democrat, was afraid of being labelled "unpatriotic" and "weak on defense" and so took the politically safe position."
Yup.
"Why don't we debate that, instead?"
Not as much interest. Not as much emotion. Not as much flamage.
"Why not talk about how we use patriotism as a political weapon?"
I think that would be a good topic. The first step would be to define "patriotism" (as opposed to "nationalism"). Too many of those words have been stolen by the politicians and re-assigned meanings.
"Why not talk about how that, more than anything Bush has done, needs to change if we're going to have a healthy democracy?"
Yup. But polarization is SOOOOO much more entertaining. That's why you only see the freaks on the news.
"The issue is not so much that Bush led us into a quagmire, it's that we and our elected representatives allowed him to lead us there."
Allowed.
Supported!
Endorsed.
And failed to consider any other options.
But they won't care. It isn't like our politicians are the ones who will die over there. Dead Iraqis won't be voting in our election.
Personally, I don't believe that anyone who voted for the war even CARES if people die in it or how big of a mess it becomes. They just like to PRETEND they care for the media. It's all about being tougher and getting the most votes.
We really need to overhaul our voting system and get a third party in.
The problem with the mainstream "news" organizations is that they have to sell a product.
That product is entertainment packaged as "news".
But they only have one real supplier: The Government.
So, if they don't fall into line, they will find that they aren't given the choice contacts. They will end up depending upon the "news" that other, more government friendly "news" people have already broadcast.
So, we get soft questions with no follow up and "news" that is almost totally devoid of critique.
But the "bloggers" (I hate that term) are NOT operating on the same "it's 6 o'clock and here's the news" time schedule. They can WAIT and CHECK and do some ANALYSIS of the material.
What we need is for the mainstream media to get some guts and WALK OUT of any "press meeting" where the politicians are trying to manipulate them. It won't happen, but that's what we need.
"OK. Prove it. Prove Christopher Columbus even came here."
Proof only exists in mathematics.
"Fact , and truth, are subjective. Truth is of the individual, fact is of the plebescite."
Incorrect. Facts exist whether you know them or not, whether you believe they are "true" or not.
"Well, in your own words, that's what *you* call fact. And what you didn't say was that there has to be something that is right - for *you*. You are not in charge of what other people think is right."
It's called "reality". Whether someone believes in it or not, it exists.
What people THINK is their "Truth".
"I mean, if I choose not to believe in the scientific method (and yes, I do believe in it), you can't prove a damn thing to me, ever."
Again, proof only exists in mathematics.
You can believe whatever you want. That is your "Truth".
"Face it, fact is subjective, predicated on a previously existing system of belief and trust."
You're confusing facts with belief. Facts are not based upon "belief and trust". Belief and trust are what people use to determine whether a specific fact is "true" or not.
"Just ask the Amish aboyut facts. They'll have a bunch for you (electicity is the work of the Devil, etc)."
That is not a fact. That is a belief. It may also be a fact, but it is impossible to contradict unless the Devil comes by and says that it is.
"They will not listen to "scientific" proof because they don't believe in science."
Not the use of the word "believe" in that sentence.
"And until we die, we won't really know for sure whether they might actually be right about a thing or two."
You're starting to catch on. The FACT exists whether you believe it or not. You might be wrong about what you BELIEVE are "facts", they might be right. But no matter WHAT either of you BELIEVE, the FACTS are still the FACTS.
"The only sources of knowledge in the world are that which you discover *for yourself* to be true, and that which you accept as true from others. If fact is so immutable, why are there so many debates about it?"
Because what you "discover" for yourself is based upon the limitations of your senses and you pre-existing belief system. This causes people to accept the "facts" that support their existing "Truth" and discard anything that contradicts it.
"Not if I challenge everything you are basing your "facts" on. (ie, those figures are wrong, that research is flawed, etc). Everyting you believe is based on something else that you believed first. Fact is just what the majority happen to consider to be truth."
It seems you are arguing over the definition of a term. Yet you are not offering any other term to fit the to which he put the term "fact".
If you do not agree with its usage, you really should provide a term that you will agree with.
"Sure. Just as soon as you prove it."
Again, proof only exists in mathematics.
"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660"
t m
Resolution 678 (1990)
Resolution 678 that was passed in the year 1990.
You're referencing a resolution for the WRONG WAR.
It's even from the wrong DECADE.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0660.h
The Security Council,
Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,
Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,
Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;
2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;r
3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;
4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.
Hee hee hee.....
I'm not seeing any place where it talks about authorizing a US invasion.
:D
Maybe you linked the wrong one?
"Yale students are at the extreem end of the scale."
Do you have support for that statement? From the math I see, their median score was only 180 points higher than Bush's.
You do know what "median" means, right?
"Your proof he is of average intelligents is that he was below the median at *YALE*, pardon me if I dont buy that as some kind of "proof" he is just average. I bet a C student at Yale has more upstairs than B students at some other university."
You need to do more research.
#1. He was a "C" student at Phillips Andover.
#2. His freshman year at Yale, he was in the 21st percentile. 80% of the people there were doing better than him.
"Your proof he is of average intelligents is that he was below the median at *YALE*, pardon me if I dont buy that as some kind of "proof" he is just average."
No, the proof is his test scores and his grades. His SAT's put him in the 70th percentile. Look up "bell curve" sometime. Because you don't want to believe it does not make change the facts of the situation.
"I bet a C student at Yale has more upstairs than B students at some other university."
Possibly. But you offer nothing other than your beliefs to support that.
Meanwhile, I have presented the FACTS that Bush was not at the top of the pile. Nor was he even close to the top of the pile. He was average.
Go ahead. Find one and post a link to it.
"So bush got more than twelve hundred when the nation average was under a thousand... how is he just aveage again?"
:D
Average is a range. I suppose if he had scored 1 point above the mathematical average, you'd be claiming he was "above average". Wouldn't you?
You will remember that I posted how he was 180 points below the median for Yale students? The average Yale student scores at the high end of the SAT. Bush wasn't at the high end.
He was in the average range.
"Is it possible to buy a degree?"
DUH! Of course it is.
"But I dont care who your father is it wont fly a jet for you.."
Your ORIGINAL question was whether the average person could fly a jet. And, given Bush's scores, the obvious answer is "YES".
You might not like that, but the scores show it.
#1. "...these included targeting planes in the no-fly zone, ..."
..."
The "no-fly zone" is a US construct. It was not in any UN order.
#2. "... kicking out inspectors in 1998
Iraq did NOT kick out the inspectors. The UN pulled them out to protect them when we threatened air strikes in Iraq.
#3. "...and mis-using the oil for food program."
Big deal. How was that a threat to the US?
#4. "The US, UK, Italy, Poland and others decided to do something about as the UN (France and Russia who were owed money by Saddam) refused to act on the multitude of threats it put to Iraq."
So, we had to invade because the UN wouldn't sanction our invasion? WTF?
#5. "Finally the US did something about it, if the UN had enforced its own mandates peharps the burden sharing would be a such that the us had the capacity to move into the Sudan."
Stay on topic. This is about Iraq.
And you claim that because the UN didn't sanction an invasion of Iraq, that the US was forced to invade Iraq. Again, WTF?
Seems like you've already established in your mind that there had to be an invasion.
Yet all of the FACTS (no "WMD's", no facilities to build "WMD's", no secret programs researching "WMD's") seem to indicate that the UN's approach had worked, was working and there is nothing to show that the UN's approach would not CONTINUE to work.
So WHAT did the UN do that FORCED the US to invade?
Seems like you're a little short on the FACTS of the situation.
The question was:
0 310250) that we are in this war because of the UN. Explain that.
"How did the UN get us in a war in Iraq?"
You replied:
"I did not support the war but I also did not support endless sancations and inaction by the UN while they scammed money for oil, err I mean oil for food.."
I did not ask what you supported or did not support. You had CLAIMED (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122579&cid=1
"Where are your fucking WMD? A "Capability" to make WMD? Give me a break, there are 100 countries with a "Capability", and there always have been. Should we invade them all?"
... ... ...
From the LATEST hand-picked inspection team (which replaced the LAST hand-picked inspection team after that one said that there weren't any weapons or facilities, which had to be hand-picked because the UN team said that they couldn't find any weapon or facilities) there aren't any weapons or facilities or capability.
The BEST they could come up with is the DESIRE
to one day have the ability
to one day build the facility
that would one day build a "WMD".
With that criteria, EVERYONE who ever said anything bad about the US would be on our invasion list.
"Not sure if you've noticed, but Spain, Italy & the Phillipines have all pulled out. I think they agree with me."
Not only that, but their POPULATIONS were against the actions of their governments. Which is one of the reasons that we saw Spain's government replaced in their last election.
We HAD to invade because the UN wasn't doing anything?
Check the FACTS.
No "WMD's".
No support for Osama.
No threat to the US.
It seems that the UN had the right idea. No invasion necessary. Keep the inspections going.
"His scores were below the median for *YALE* students, hardly a dumb crowd."
I didn't say the Yale students were dumb. I said Bush was average.
566 verbal
640 math
The average for seniors was:
463 verbal
510 math
488,793 students tested.
So, to AGAIN answer your question, YES, an average person CAN get an MBA from Harvard (with the appropriate political and financial backing) AND that person CAN learn to fly jets.
Flying a jet does not require high intelligence.
And if you'll look at Bush's scores, you'll see that he was BELOW the median (by 180 points) for his test scores when he was originally admitted to Yale.
So, yes, the average person is quite capable of doing exactly what Bush did PROVIDED that that person has all the political and financial advantages that Bush did.
Moderator: Targeted specific question about exact concrete details that you would do the next four years in your administration.
Kerry: Patriotism, I am not Bush, purple heart, I am not Bush.
Bush: 9/11, fear, terrorists, tax cut.
"The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions."
Fuck that!
They shouldn't be wasting ANY time on that crap. They should be focusing on what THEIR agenda and what THEIR plans are.
NO rhetorical questions.
But I do believe that each side should be able to submit 2 or 3 questions to be asked of both of them. That way they can highlight their strong points and illustrate their opponent's weak points. But the questions must be submitted prior to the debate.