"... it's interesting that evolution, an unconscious process that far outperforms human 'intelligent' designers..."
Won't agree with that. An interesting topic for debate or research, perhaps, but no way in hell can you toss that out like everyone automatically agrees with it.
"...there would no doubt be large demand for such a remedy thanks to its apparent lack of side-effects."
It's funny, just *yesterday* I was thinking to myself the following: Every decade or so a new drug is invented that is claimed to have no adverse side-effects. The young kids say "Ah, at last! We can take this drug without a downside!" And only later in the decade do the side effects appear evident.
My girlfriend can remember her mother saying in the 80's "Have you heard about this new drug cocaine? It's the first drug that doesn't have side-effects..."
So actually I was wondering when the next one would come around. And there you go.
"Could you imagine, on the other side, countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Indonesia refusing to trade with us because we are not Muslim? Or Latin American countries refusing to trade with us because we are not Catholic? Or Europe refusing to trade with us because we don't have national health care? That entire idea is ludicrous... It's not our responsibility to force our ideas on those that don't want them."
All of that sounds absolutely excellent to me. Again, the alternative is to submit to a complete lassaiz-faire capitalist economy where everything is for sale to the highest bidder and all worker protections and human rights are untenable; and which has demonstrably been damaging standards of living everywhere it's been applied.
I am not in favor of forcing our ideas on those who don't want them, i.e., invading and threatening other countries, as is currently being done. However, I am even more opposed to funding, supporting, giving technology and capital to regimes that are opposed to our best ideals. For example: If it's good enough for Cuba, then it's good enough for China.
"Would you be fine with Chinese companies pushing their beliefs on us?"
I would be completely, perfectly fine with companies having to choose whether they do business in China, or the U.S., and not both. That is, having laws that make companies serving China's government incompatible with business in the U.S is ok by me.
As always, I would much rather have the U.S. electorate be able to vote on what corporate behavior they want in their country, than being at the mercy of either totalitarian foreign governments, or powerful entrenched rich people with legal protections from liability (i.e., the "invisible hand"). For me, that's definitely an easy call.
"Corporations may be based in different countries, but they are truly international identities. They also possess no morality other than pleasing their shareholders..."
Right there, you've constructed the perfect argument in favor of this law. If they have no morality, then we must pass laws forcing them to be constructive members of society in general. Only by levying massive fines, and leveraging their amoral need to "please their shareholders", can we force them to be good citizens.
Once upon a time, corporations were required, as part of their state charter, to serve the greater good; if they failed to do so, their corporate charter could be terminated. A series of legal judgements removed that as an option, but I would certainly be in favor of bringing that back. See references to H. Glasbeak and Noam Chomsky here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
Most people don't know what a hard disk is, what one looks like, how to get it out of their case, or what their options are. They call the tech guy and say "trash my data so no one can get it back". And the tech guy does that literally.
Bush believes that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his father in Kuwait, in 1993. More than anything else, Bush was looking for some way to pay Saddam back for that. My attitude is that it's basically a hillbilly family feud writ large.
Look, human physical evolution is simply over, and it has been for some time. As long as we have medical intervention that saves lives prior to childbearing years that will be the case -- are you really recommending a regime where any children who get a disease are allowed to die off, while those 25+ get medical care?
I wouldn't want to live in a worl like that, neither would most people. That's basic human compassion. Good riddance to evolution -- our future is in our own hands now, and we have to be smart about it.
Hey, are you the same guy who last year said "Oil at $60/barrel is historically high, but there's *no way* it will hit $70/barrel -- anyone saying that is out of their mind!"
"Not sure how the cows knew what time it was since none of them were wearing watches but they would often gather near the gate just before 3:00 in the afternoon and wait patiently for it to be opened."
That's easy -- their udders are full. Kind of like how you know it's time to go to the bathroom. (I've had the dog's job in a milking operation.)
"3. Fiscal responsibility: In the last 20+ years, both parties have had their chance to control both the legislative branch and Presidency simultaneously, but we have deficits every year and the national debt continues to swell."
If you look at U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP, there is a bright, shining difference between the two political parties. Debt/GDP increases under Republicans (Ford +0.1%, Reagan +11% and +9%, Bush I +15%, Bush II +8% and +4%). Debt/GDP decreases under Democrats (Carter -3%, Clinton -0.6% and -8%).
There is in fact one single year out of the last 20 where the U.S. debt actually went down, when adjusted for inflation: 1999-2000, under Clinton, when the adjusted debt went from $5.75 trillion down to $5.63 billion. Which was immediately followed by Republicans re-taking power and reversing this budgetary policy.
In the last 30 years (1978-2005), total debt increase under Democrats has been +4%. Total debt increase under Republicans has been +37%. As a fiscally conservative voter, the data forces me to support Democrats.
Here's the first argument I thought in favor of the under-18 ban. It has nothing to do with "people under 18 have worse judgement".
(1) Adults inherently have more rights, and are expected to shoulder more responsibility, than those who are minors (e.g., voting, driving, running for office, registering for military service, medical care, curfews, etc.)
(2) Granted that smoking is bad, we have considered banning it for everybody.
(3) It's been decided that this is not so critical an issue that it trumps adult rights and self-responsibility; therefore we feel it would be improper to make a ban for adults. However, it does rise to a level above the threshold for minor rights, and therefore a ban for minors is considered an acceptable prohibition.
Choice 3: Announce boldly "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", use military force only against actual attackers, and be proclaimed the greatest leader of a generation, possibly ever.
"Exactly. The free market decides who wins and loses."
Man, I'm going to have to start calling you free-market-sees-all-knows-all guys a bunch of religious nuts from now on.
If they had a working filter and people were circumventing it, the RIAA/MPAA would definitely try to make it a legal requirement to be used everywhere. You must fight politically for your freedoms or lose them.
"Atheists are capable of the worst atrocities by making Gods of themselves."
What a bunch of stinking horseshit. You religious types seriously can't have a discussion without seeing God here, there, everywhere, in your underwear. Get a grip, seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
"... it's interesting that evolution, an unconscious process that far outperforms human 'intelligent' designers..."
Won't agree with that. An interesting topic for debate or research, perhaps, but no way in hell can you toss that out like everyone automatically agrees with it.
After years of thought (and work as an educator), here's my counter-thesis:
"Computer science is about computers the same way that literature is about the alphabet."
Or, FBI criminal profilers: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/12/071112fa_fact_gladwell
I can confirm that (just did it myself). They don't bother to tell you that until after your submission has been completed.
"...there would no doubt be large demand for such a remedy thanks to its apparent lack of side-effects."
It's funny, just *yesterday* I was thinking to myself the following: Every decade or so a new drug is invented that is claimed to have no adverse side-effects. The young kids say "Ah, at last! We can take this drug without a downside!" And only later in the decade do the side effects appear evident.
My girlfriend can remember her mother saying in the 80's "Have you heard about this new drug cocaine? It's the first drug that doesn't have side-effects..."
So actually I was wondering when the next one would come around. And there you go.
Mod this up!
"Personal emails and other private communications would be excluded from the new laws..."
Oh, well, thank god for that. For now.
"Could you imagine, on the other side, countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Indonesia refusing to trade with us because we are not Muslim? Or Latin American countries refusing to trade with us because we are not Catholic? Or Europe refusing to trade with us because we don't have national health care? That entire idea is ludicrous... It's not our responsibility to force our ideas on those that don't want them."
All of that sounds absolutely excellent to me. Again, the alternative is to submit to a complete lassaiz-faire capitalist economy where everything is for sale to the highest bidder and all worker protections and human rights are untenable; and which has demonstrably been damaging standards of living everywhere it's been applied.
I am not in favor of forcing our ideas on those who don't want them, i.e., invading and threatening other countries, as is currently being done. However, I am even more opposed to funding, supporting, giving technology and capital to regimes that are opposed to our best ideals. For example: If it's good enough for Cuba, then it's good enough for China.
"Would you be fine with Chinese companies pushing their beliefs on us?"
I would be completely, perfectly fine with companies having to choose whether they do business in China, or the U.S., and not both. That is, having laws that make companies serving China's government incompatible with business in the U.S is ok by me.
As always, I would much rather have the U.S. electorate be able to vote on what corporate behavior they want in their country, than being at the mercy of either totalitarian foreign governments, or powerful entrenched rich people with legal protections from liability (i.e., the "invisible hand"). For me, that's definitely an easy call.
"Corporations may be based in different countries, but they are truly international identities. They also possess no morality other than pleasing their shareholders..."
Right there, you've constructed the perfect argument in favor of this law. If they have no morality, then we must pass laws forcing them to be constructive members of society in general. Only by levying massive fines, and leveraging their amoral need to "please their shareholders", can we force them to be good citizens.
Once upon a time, corporations were required, as part of their state charter, to serve the greater good; if they failed to do so, their corporate charter could be terminated. A series of legal judgements removed that as an option, but I would certainly be in favor of bringing that back. See references to H. Glasbeak and Noam Chomsky here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
On the contrary:
- A study sponsored by a consortium of media companies, done by the University of Chicago, found that under any of 4 methodologies, a full-state recount in Florida would have made Gore the winner in 2000.
Summary at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000_Florida_results
NORC Florida Ballots Project: http://www2.norc.org/fl/
- Gore offered to have a full-state recount, but this was rejected by Bush and Republicans:
Article from South Florida Sun-Sentinal: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-7243729_ITM
Most people don't know what a hard disk is, what one looks like, how to get it out of their case, or what their options are. They call the tech guy and say "trash my data so no one can get it back". And the tech guy does that literally.
Bush believes that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his father in Kuwait, in 1993. More than anything else, Bush was looking for some way to pay Saddam back for that. My attitude is that it's basically a hillbilly family feud writ large.
http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html
Look, human physical evolution is simply over, and it has been for some time. As long as we have medical intervention that saves lives prior to childbearing years that will be the case -- are you really recommending a regime where any children who get a disease are allowed to die off, while those 25+ get medical care?
I wouldn't want to live in a worl like that, neither would most people. That's basic human compassion. Good riddance to evolution -- our future is in our own hands now, and we have to be smart about it.
Why go through the self-lobotomy meditation exercise? Is it THAT important for you to sit through every crappy sequel that comes out?
There's still some real art being made. Go watch some of that instead and quadruple your fun.
Broken window fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy
Hey, are you the same guy who last year said "Oil at $60/barrel is historically high, but there's *no way* it will hit $70/barrel -- anyone saying that is out of their mind!"
Good to see you again!
"Not sure how the cows knew what time it was since none of them were wearing watches but they would often gather near the gate just before 3:00 in the afternoon and wait patiently for it to be opened."
That's easy -- their udders are full. Kind of like how you know it's time to go to the bathroom. (I've had the dog's job in a milking operation.)
"3. Fiscal responsibility: In the last 20+ years, both parties have had their chance to control both the legislative branch and Presidency simultaneously, but we have deficits every year and the national debt continues to swell."
Let's talk about #3 -- here is data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
If you look at U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP, there is a bright, shining difference between the two political parties. Debt/GDP increases under Republicans (Ford +0.1%, Reagan +11% and +9%, Bush I +15%, Bush II +8% and +4%). Debt/GDP decreases under Democrats (Carter -3%, Clinton -0.6% and -8%).
There is in fact one single year out of the last 20 where the U.S. debt actually went down, when adjusted for inflation: 1999-2000, under Clinton, when the adjusted debt went from $5.75 trillion down to $5.63 billion. Which was immediately followed by Republicans re-taking power and reversing this budgetary policy.
In the last 30 years (1978-2005), total debt increase under Democrats has been +4%. Total debt increase under Republicans has been +37%. As a fiscally conservative voter, the data forces me to support Democrats.
So there's no one in jail, then?
"Most people think veterans day is just "another day", but to the people serving in the military, and fighting for your rights, it means a lot."
Sorry, but as an American, you are NOT fighting for my rights.
I'm sure you're hurt and affected deeply by your experiences. But you were misled.
Here's the first argument I thought in favor of the under-18 ban. It has nothing to do with "people under 18 have worse judgement".
(1) Adults inherently have more rights, and are expected to shoulder more responsibility, than those who are minors (e.g., voting, driving, running for office, registering for military service, medical care, curfews, etc.)
(2) Granted that smoking is bad, we have considered banning it for everybody.
(3) It's been decided that this is not so critical an issue that it trumps adult rights and self-responsibility; therefore we feel it would be improper to make a ban for adults. However, it does rise to a level above the threshold for minor rights, and therefore a ban for minors is considered an acceptable prohibition.
Choice 3: Announce boldly "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", use military force only against actual attackers, and be proclaimed the greatest leader of a generation, possibly ever.
"Exactly. The free market decides who wins and loses."
Man, I'm going to have to start calling you free-market-sees-all-knows-all guys a bunch of religious nuts from now on.
If they had a working filter and people were circumventing it, the RIAA/MPAA would definitely try to make it a legal requirement to be used everywhere. You must fight politically for your freedoms or lose them.
"Atheists are capable of the worst atrocities by making Gods of themselves."
What a bunch of stinking horseshit. You religious types seriously can't have a discussion without seeing God here, there, everywhere, in your underwear. Get a grip, seriously.