Banks are the number one enemy these days, and rightfully so. They could have actually helped stop the recession by helping homeowners with the mortgages.
I hate to break it to you, but businesses exist to make money - they're not charities. If you made a business transaction (taking out a mortgage) and later on it turns out to be not such a great deal (you lose your job or your property value goes down), this is not the banks fault and it's pure greed on your part for you to expect them to lose money by altering the mortgage simply because your situation has changed.
You know what would have prevented the recession? Consumers not racking up endless debt on credit cards or buying cars and homes way more expensive than they needed. Like it or not, this was a self inflicted recession due to consumers all over the world thinking that they can continually live beyond their means and never suffer any consequences for it.
It is damn difficult to put together a cohesive team when they seldom meet each other.
No, it's damn difficult to put together a cohesive team if they seldom communicate with each other. I can talk to you just fine over the phone / im / email / video chat without ever having to drive in to the office. If you have to be talking to someone in person in order to effectively communicate, perhaps you need to work on your communications skills?
And what do you not understand about the concept of "distance between cities"?
There's utterly massive costs involved in laying cable to connect all the different cities / towns due to the sheer distance between them. It's not just population density, but the fact that where Finland is the size of one or two states, the US takes up most of a fucking continent.
Population density means nothing if you're not covering much land - and obviously the "1 square mile" thing was hyperbole, something you're not familiar with.
It's not a major cost to run 100 miles of cable to get to a remote town in Finland when compared to running THOUSANDS of miles of cable through empty plains to get to remote towns in the US.
Population density is only one part of the equation. Sheer cost of laying all that cable to connect the towns / cities is a much, much bigger part of it.
Your country is also around 1 square mile. It's not just population density, but also sheer size. I just looked up the size of Finland and the US - Finland is 3.44% the size of the US and your population is 1.73% of the size of the US. It would be an embarrassment if you COULDN'T fully cover a country that tiny. No, I'm not insulting your country, merely pointing out that you have no understanding of how big and spread out the US is, where you can drive for hundreds of miles at a time and see nothing - that plays a big role in it.
And it is not that I disagree with any specific law, I disagree with the idea that it is okay for states to infringe on constitutionally protected rights of citizens.
What right was violated? Hm? As for the Supreme Court overruling it, well first, we all know that they're bastards who make decisions based on their political views and not on what the Constitution says. Secondly, they cited a completely irrelevant section of the Constitution to support their decision. Thirdly, they had no grounds to over turn a STATE law that did not usurp any power granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.
Ron Paul's efforts would undo the protections against state level oppression of rights and would be a regressive move for the United States as a representative democracy.
What state level oppression? Or do you not understand concepts such as "move to another state", "elect new politicians" or "pass a referendum to add / remove a law by popular vote"?
All you're arguing for is a massive, tyrannical Federal government and NOT following the Constitution.
I agree with many of Ron's statements and positions but in reading his legislative record I see some significant issues.
No, you found THREE issues, one of which is fictional (your claims of him wanting a theocracy), one of which is him saying that the US should own the structure it paid to build, and one that virtually all politicians support (anti-flag burning laws). Hell, most Americans in general support anti-flag burning laws (I don't).
Wrong, if you read his legislation the intention is to remove the Constitutional protections of individual's rights.
The section of the Constitution you're referring to states that the federal government can't pass such laws. No such restriction is placed on individual states. Also, those laws you mentioned are not necessarily based in religion - they're based on personal views, which may or may not be influenced by religion. You're claiming that since you don't like law X and some religious people support law X, then it's a "theocracy" to have law X - that's a logical fallacy. States have the right to have an anti-sodomy law (as stupid as it is). That's what the US is about (or was about when it followed the Constitution) - States have the power to have laws they desire instead of having the Federal government rule with an iron fist.
This was finally resolved in 1977 but Ron's bill would circumvent the resolution and return the issue back to the days of French Imperialism.
Yes the "imperialism" of "we paid for the construction of the canal which provides a great economic benefit to your country - we have the right to control it". Since you hate the idea of the country who paid for it owning it, would you support Panama paying the US back (adjusted for inflation of course)?
I am atheist, it is about the truth and it is about Constitutional law that was put in place to protect individual liberty.
Atheism is a religion, especially since many atheists (such as yourself) have a fanatical hatred of anything that goes against your views and trying to blame it on "evil christians". The Constitution does NOT prevent states from passing a law such as an anti-sodomy law (but citizens do have the ability to forcefully repeal the law if they do not agree with it).
The only role religion plays is in the fact that Ron Paul is using his religion as the driving force behind his desire to remove Constitutional protections for individual rights.
No, he's not. He's standing up for States rights, as guaranteed them under the Constitution. The only reason religion is brought into this is because you're using it as a strawman because you disagree with those particular laws. I disagree with those laws too, but realize that they're fully Constitutional and have nothing to do with establishing a religious role in government.
No, he doesn't. He simply wants to remove FEDERAL control over laws passed by the citizens of a particular state. While I may not agree with everything they want, the citizens of a particular state have the right to pass state laws to have the society of their choosing - and those who don't like it can either try to persuade people as to why how the majority feels is wrong or they can move to a state where most people agree with their views.
Also, regarding your "he wants an empire!" crap, the Panama Canal was built and paid for by the US - why SHOULDN'T we own it? This isn't walking in and saying "All your base are belong to us", it's saying "We're taking our property back".
You should be aware of this since you seem like an intelligent person, but I think political / religious fantacism is clouding your judgement.
Amen to that. If EA does this, then they'll lose me as a potential customer. I don't waste my time on multiplayer only games due to the lack of worthwhile people to play with.
It's more like you and your friend walk outside while it's barely sprinkling and your friend says "I need to get inside or we'll drown in a flood" and you say "What flood? It's barely raining"!
Do you:
A) Drive recklessly and cause multiple accidents along the way to hurry home to avoid the flood?
B) Ask him to prove why he thinks a flood is coming when it's highly unlikely and the existing evidence is showing that you'll only get a few inches of standing water, not several feet?
But surely you see that if it is because of what we do, it is actually more encouraging that if not; because if it is something we do, then there is a chance that we can stop doing it, but if it isn't, then we are powerless.
I think you inadvertently explained why so many people join the cult of global warming fanatics - fear. They're so terrified of things being out of their control that they would rather grossly exaggerate a problem, claim it's man made, and damn society for decades (or possibly centuries) in a useless attempt to stop their exaggerated problem just to feel like they're "doing something".
I mean, how can anybody hope to cooperate or reach a compromise with that sort of attitude?
And how can anyone cooperate with the attitude of the church of GW of "we must abandon all technology and revert society back 200 years"? I seem to remember a movie made in the mid-to-late 90's where there was a villain who wanted to ban refrigerants and gas / oil for heating home to "save the planet". The hero pointed out that if we do this, millions will die from hunger and cold. The villains response? "An acceptable loss to save the planet". The hero's retort? "People come first Dr. Isley".
Sorry, but your attitude seems to very much be "who cares how much damage we do to stop something that may or may not actually be a problem". Then there's the fact that most of the biggest proponents of global warming are some of the biggest polluters who demand everyone ELSE change their lives and give up technology, but they themselves refuse to do so.
What would actually convince you that climate change represents a danger to the lives of millions, possibly billions of people?
For me, if we stopped getting ridiculous dramatizations that are beyond the realm of reason. If they got it so that it was COMPLETELY a matter of scientists at organizations not funded by politicians or companies to agree on what was going on. Hell, if the scientists themselves were consistent (you're as well aware as I am that they spent a decade or more going on about how we were cooling down and headed for an ice age, then all of the sudden that same data magically morphed into an irrefutable warming trend).
Especially when the person who's the main leader of the global warming cause is a politician who likes to pretend to be a scientist and not an actual scientist.
I know you'll come back with all sorts of reasons for why the politicians are right and anyone who disagrees with them is just bought off by a corporation because god forbid, theres a chance you might have been hoodwinked by the politician and scientists supporting him may have been paid off.
Go ahead, damn the economy, take away all our technology to stop the boogeyman of "climate change". What I want to know is, if you're proven wrong in 20-30 years, how hard are you going to kiss the ass of everyone who said it was blown out of proportion? Are you willing to back a law saying that all climate change supporters must be registered and if proven wrong, must do slave labor (in whatever form) for the rest of their lives to make up for the damage caused by their policies to stop climate change? If you're not that confident, then you shouldn't be pursuing these polices that will have massive repercussions for hundreds of millions of people.
Regarding your comment of "There will always be a question of how much evidence is enough". Well, first off, I hope to god you're never on a jury with your "we don't need to be fully informed!" attitude. Secondly, don't you find it the least bit ironic that every time a scientific study comes out showing that climate change isn't the big bad destroyer of worlds that it's made out to be, people like you come out and say that the scientists were paid off or that they're religious or some other stupid shit to claim that they can't be right, yet every time a report comes out that says "ZOMG!! Oceans will rise 9,000,000,00% and the whole planet will be covered in water up to the clouds unless we sacrifice technology to please Gaia!" you all unthinkingly back them because "they're scientists" (funny how you ignored those scientists who disagree with you)? If you were as much into "science", you wouldn't blindly support one side because they agree with you. Remember, when doing research / experiments, you collect ALL the data and examine it, you don't ignore the data that doesn't match your hypothesis.
Let the standard "you don't agree with my religious views" modding down commence. And yes, global warming is more religion than science.
I do wonder what the ratio is for cops pulling over speeders to tailgaters. In my opinion tailgating is more dangerous, although most of the time the cause would be speeding too.
The cause is being a moron / asshole. You can speed and still leave a safe distance (I always leave at least 3 car lengths and normally do around 15 mph over the speed limit, I always use my turn signals, don't cut people off, don't try to beat yellow lights, etc). They think that being a dick and riding your bumper will make you go faster (for some people, they're dumb enough to move) - most people I know just give the brakes a good push when someone's tailgating - it normally makes them back off.
If you're driving at a safe distance (at least 3 car lengths behind) you can easily see THE WHOLE CAR plus plenty of things around it by looking directly ahead. Hence why all these people left comments about you tailgating and as a result, you can't see the passenger side taillight.
Well, circumstances are irrelevant. Like it or not, you will die. The only questions are when and how. As my dad always says: "You're not getting out of life alive, so you might as well enjoy yourself".
I have no fear of death, partly because it's inevitable, and partly because I can think of many cases where living can be much worth than death. The reason people fear death is because of the uncertainty over if there's an afterlife and what it's like - primarily, they're afraid that maybe those religious wackos are right and you really WILL be tortured for all eternity for not following what they say.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think it was stolen? It could easily have been tossed by a careless IT employee and someone picked it up from the dumpster.
And I'll market it to the ISP's as "and now I cancel my service and go net-free!"
Banks are the number one enemy these days, and rightfully so. They could have actually helped stop the recession by helping homeowners with the mortgages.
I hate to break it to you, but businesses exist to make money - they're not charities. If you made a business transaction (taking out a mortgage) and later on it turns out to be not such a great deal (you lose your job or your property value goes down), this is not the banks fault and it's pure greed on your part for you to expect them to lose money by altering the mortgage simply because your situation has changed.
You know what would have prevented the recession? Consumers not racking up endless debt on credit cards or buying cars and homes way more expensive than they needed. Like it or not, this was a self inflicted recession due to consumers all over the world thinking that they can continually live beyond their means and never suffer any consequences for it.
It doesn't matter - lets see them use raw computing power to generate the missing keyfiles to my TrueCrypt partition.
I was going to suggest grounding them or sending them to bed without dinner, but hitting would work too.
You forgot the 6 months of vacation and 2 hour drunken lunch breaks too! =D
I didn't mean "you" in the personal sense, I meant it in the general sense as in applicable to any person.
It is damn difficult to put together a cohesive team when they seldom meet each other.
No, it's damn difficult to put together a cohesive team if they seldom communicate with each other. I can talk to you just fine over the phone / im / email / video chat without ever having to drive in to the office. If you have to be talking to someone in person in order to effectively communicate, perhaps you need to work on your communications skills?
And what do you not understand about the concept of "distance between cities"?
There's utterly massive costs involved in laying cable to connect all the different cities / towns due to the sheer distance between them. It's not just population density, but the fact that where Finland is the size of one or two states, the US takes up most of a fucking continent.
Population density means nothing if you're not covering much land - and obviously the "1 square mile" thing was hyperbole, something you're not familiar with.
It's not a major cost to run 100 miles of cable to get to a remote town in Finland when compared to running THOUSANDS of miles of cable through empty plains to get to remote towns in the US.
Population density is only one part of the equation. Sheer cost of laying all that cable to connect the towns / cities is a much, much bigger part of it.
Your country is also around 1 square mile. It's not just population density, but also sheer size. I just looked up the size of Finland and the US - Finland is 3.44% the size of the US and your population is 1.73% of the size of the US. It would be an embarrassment if you COULDN'T fully cover a country that tiny. No, I'm not insulting your country, merely pointing out that you have no understanding of how big and spread out the US is, where you can drive for hundreds of miles at a time and see nothing - that plays a big role in it.
And it is not that I disagree with any specific law, I disagree with the idea that it is okay for states to infringe on constitutionally protected rights of citizens.
What right was violated? Hm? As for the Supreme Court overruling it, well first, we all know that they're bastards who make decisions based on their political views and not on what the Constitution says. Secondly, they cited a completely irrelevant section of the Constitution to support their decision. Thirdly, they had no grounds to over turn a STATE law that did not usurp any power granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.
Ron Paul's efforts would undo the protections against state level oppression of rights and would be a regressive move for the United States as a representative democracy.
What state level oppression? Or do you not understand concepts such as "move to another state", "elect new politicians" or "pass a referendum to add / remove a law by popular vote"?
All you're arguing for is a massive, tyrannical Federal government and NOT following the Constitution.
I agree with many of Ron's statements and positions but in reading his legislative record I see some significant issues.
No, you found THREE issues, one of which is fictional (your claims of him wanting a theocracy), one of which is him saying that the US should own the structure it paid to build, and one that virtually all politicians support (anti-flag burning laws). Hell, most Americans in general support anti-flag burning laws (I don't).
Wrong, if you read his legislation the intention is to remove the Constitutional protections of individual's rights.
The section of the Constitution you're referring to states that the federal government can't pass such laws. No such restriction is placed on individual states. Also, those laws you mentioned are not necessarily based in religion - they're based on personal views, which may or may not be influenced by religion. You're claiming that since you don't like law X and some religious people support law X, then it's a "theocracy" to have law X - that's a logical fallacy. States have the right to have an anti-sodomy law (as stupid as it is). That's what the US is about (or was about when it followed the Constitution) - States have the power to have laws they desire instead of having the Federal government rule with an iron fist.
This was finally resolved in 1977 but Ron's bill would circumvent the resolution and return the issue back to the days of French Imperialism.
Yes the "imperialism" of "we paid for the construction of the canal which provides a great economic benefit to your country - we have the right to control it". Since you hate the idea of the country who paid for it owning it, would you support Panama paying the US back (adjusted for inflation of course)?
I am atheist, it is about the truth and it is about Constitutional law that was put in place to protect individual liberty.
Atheism is a religion, especially since many atheists (such as yourself) have a fanatical hatred of anything that goes against your views and trying to blame it on "evil christians". The Constitution does NOT prevent states from passing a law such as an anti-sodomy law (but citizens do have the ability to forcefully repeal the law if they do not agree with it).
The only role religion plays is in the fact that Ron Paul is using his religion as the driving force behind his desire to remove Constitutional protections for individual rights.
No, he's not. He's standing up for States rights, as guaranteed them under the Constitution. The only reason religion is brought into this is because you're using it as a strawman because you disagree with those particular laws. I disagree with those laws too, but realize that they're fully Constitutional and have nothing to do with establishing a religious role in government.
No, he doesn't. He simply wants to remove FEDERAL control over laws passed by the citizens of a particular state. While I may not agree with everything they want, the citizens of a particular state have the right to pass state laws to have the society of their choosing - and those who don't like it can either try to persuade people as to why how the majority feels is wrong or they can move to a state where most people agree with their views.
Also, regarding your "he wants an empire!" crap, the Panama Canal was built and paid for by the US - why SHOULDN'T we own it? This isn't walking in and saying "All your base are belong to us", it's saying "We're taking our property back".
You should be aware of this since you seem like an intelligent person, but I think political / religious fantacism is clouding your judgement.
Epic. I was going to post that, but you beat me to it.
Well that's what happens when the majority of your recruits are people who couldn't get into college....
Amen to that. If EA does this, then they'll lose me as a potential customer. I don't waste my time on multiplayer only games due to the lack of worthwhile people to play with.
Bad analogy.
It's more like you and your friend walk outside while it's barely sprinkling and your friend says "I need to get inside or we'll drown in a flood" and you say "What flood? It's barely raining"!
Do you:
A) Drive recklessly and cause multiple accidents along the way to hurry home to avoid the flood?
B) Ask him to prove why he thinks a flood is coming when it's highly unlikely and the existing evidence is showing that you'll only get a few inches of standing water, not several feet?
But surely you see that if it is because of what we do, it is actually more encouraging that if not; because if it is something we do, then there is a chance that we can stop doing it, but if it isn't, then we are powerless.
I think you inadvertently explained why so many people join the cult of global warming fanatics - fear. They're so terrified of things being out of their control that they would rather grossly exaggerate a problem, claim it's man made, and damn society for decades (or possibly centuries) in a useless attempt to stop their exaggerated problem just to feel like they're "doing something".
I mean, how can anybody hope to cooperate or reach a compromise with that sort of attitude?
And how can anyone cooperate with the attitude of the church of GW of "we must abandon all technology and revert society back 200 years"? I seem to remember a movie made in the mid-to-late 90's where there was a villain who wanted to ban refrigerants and gas / oil for heating home to "save the planet". The hero pointed out that if we do this, millions will die from hunger and cold. The villains response? "An acceptable loss to save the planet". The hero's retort? "People come first Dr. Isley".
Sorry, but your attitude seems to very much be "who cares how much damage we do to stop something that may or may not actually be a problem". Then there's the fact that most of the biggest proponents of global warming are some of the biggest polluters who demand everyone ELSE change their lives and give up technology, but they themselves refuse to do so.
What would actually convince you that climate change represents a danger to the lives of millions, possibly billions of people?
For me, if we stopped getting ridiculous dramatizations that are beyond the realm of reason. If they got it so that it was COMPLETELY a matter of scientists at organizations not funded by politicians or companies to agree on what was going on. Hell, if the scientists themselves were consistent (you're as well aware as I am that they spent a decade or more going on about how we were cooling down and headed for an ice age, then all of the sudden that same data magically morphed into an irrefutable warming trend).
Especially when the person who's the main leader of the global warming cause is a politician who likes to pretend to be a scientist and not an actual scientist.
I know you'll come back with all sorts of reasons for why the politicians are right and anyone who disagrees with them is just bought off by a corporation because god forbid, theres a chance you might have been hoodwinked by the politician and scientists supporting him may have been paid off.
Go ahead, damn the economy, take away all our technology to stop the boogeyman of "climate change". What I want to know is, if you're proven wrong in 20-30 years, how hard are you going to kiss the ass of everyone who said it was blown out of proportion? Are you willing to back a law saying that all climate change supporters must be registered and if proven wrong, must do slave labor (in whatever form) for the rest of their lives to make up for the damage caused by their policies to stop climate change? If you're not that confident, then you shouldn't be pursuing these polices that will have massive repercussions for hundreds of millions of people.
Regarding your comment of "There will always be a question of how much evidence is enough". Well, first off, I hope to god you're never on a jury with your "we don't need to be fully informed!" attitude. Secondly, don't you find it the least bit ironic that every time a scientific study comes out showing that climate change isn't the big bad destroyer of worlds that it's made out to be, people like you come out and say that the scientists were paid off or that they're religious or some other stupid shit to claim that they can't be right, yet every time a report comes out that says "ZOMG!! Oceans will rise 9,000,000,00% and the whole planet will be covered in water up to the clouds unless we sacrifice technology to please Gaia!" you all unthinkingly back them because "they're scientists" (funny how you ignored those scientists who disagree with you)? If you were as much into "science", you wouldn't blindly support one side because they agree with you. Remember, when doing research / experiments, you collect ALL the data and examine it, you don't ignore the data that doesn't match your hypothesis.
Let the standard "you don't agree with my religious views" modding down commence. And yes, global warming is more religion than science.
I do wonder what the ratio is for cops pulling over speeders to tailgaters. In my opinion tailgating is more dangerous, although most of the time the cause would be speeding too.
The cause is being a moron / asshole. You can speed and still leave a safe distance (I always leave at least 3 car lengths and normally do around 15 mph over the speed limit, I always use my turn signals, don't cut people off, don't try to beat yellow lights, etc). They think that being a dick and riding your bumper will make you go faster (for some people, they're dumb enough to move) - most people I know just give the brakes a good push when someone's tailgating - it normally makes them back off.
If you're driving at a safe distance (at least 3 car lengths behind) you can easily see THE WHOLE CAR plus plenty of things around it by looking directly ahead. Hence why all these people left comments about you tailgating and as a result, you can't see the passenger side taillight.
Well, circumstances are irrelevant. Like it or not, you will die. The only questions are when and how. As my dad always says: "You're not getting out of life alive, so you might as well enjoy yourself".
I have no fear of death, partly because it's inevitable, and partly because I can think of many cases where living can be much worth than death. The reason people fear death is because of the uncertainty over if there's an afterlife and what it's like - primarily, they're afraid that maybe those religious wackos are right and you really WILL be tortured for all eternity for not following what they say.
And apparently not in the middle of the lane either. =)