Damn that's a depressing wiki article. How much funding do these type of political nutjobs get? It's a non-profit, right? Where would I go to take a look at their books?
Also, back in 08 I had a discussion with a republican friend. He mentioned how Obama didn't take public funds. I shot back that republicans were a lot better at funneling money around campaign finance laws. This here would be a prime example of that. A little on the crazy side, but it still fits the bill.
Except the "novel, useful, unobvious" requirements on a patent are hardly ever the reason that patents get rejected. Come on, "exercising a cat with a laser pointer", "displaying an insanity bar", "[fill in the blank] on a [specialized hardware]". I had someone trying to convince me to patent a super-basic PCL printer driver just because it was on an flow computer (it's an embedded device for measuring flows, like on an oil pipeline). That's bullshit. But it probably would have gone through. If the system truly worked like it was supposed to, sure. But it doesn't.
Also, your opinion is crap. Repeat after me: "Anyone can sue Anyone for Anything."
I can fight the patent on lead-free solder. I don't have a case, and I'd be thrown out of court, but there'd be a fight. Perhaps what you want is an option for the judge in the patent fight to simply anull the patent as trivial, effectively making both parties lose. The problem with that is that neither party would fight for that.
Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We move your e-mail, we delete your trash, we connect your websites, we write the drivers for your gadgets. We guard your data while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us.
I don't think it's an act. Now, some of her mannerisms and terminology she uses could be with that whole "appealing to common folk" shtick in mind, but her overall platform, policies, and knee-jerk twitter reactions paint her as an idiot tried and true. A lot of people thought that Bush was simply putting on an act, that he wasn't really that much of an imbecile. But I don't buy that either.
Do you really think someone who gets to be Governor of one of the states in the US and become the de facto leader of a multi-million person movement is "a total idiot"?
Yeah, pretty much. Plenty of stupid people vote you know. Half the populace has an IQ less then 100.
I'm sorry if that sounds elitist, but anyone that would willingly want to put her in a place of political power is a bigger idiot then she is.
And WHY have I decided that she's an idiot?
Well, from every instance I've seen of her on television, most of her political decisions, and from a judgment of the crowd that supports her, both the general populace and individuals I've met and chatted with.
It comes down to how much confidence you have in the system. If you have a lot of confidence, then yeah, you'd believe that you'd share your views with your representatives, and they in turn would apply the correct political pressure to shape the government to match.
If you little or no confidence in the system, then you don't believe that anything you do will be able to change the government. Being governed without representation is tyranny.
All that said, the political involvement for most people is damn near zero. Good ol' George W. on his way out said that we should first try to change the system from withint, he worked really hard to set it up just so you COULD do that. Most people I know don't like to talk politics. Of those that do, it's usually just over the dinner table or online. Actually writing to officials doesn't seem to register to these people.
8) No, not everyone can be president. Not anymore. You need to have a saintly background and/or a TON of money.
What now? We have a weed smoker and cocaine sniffer in the white house. And he didn't come from money, but yeah, I guess his friends got him a hefty chunk of change. That whole "party" system kinda sucks. But if this last one showed anything, YES, anyone that gets FANTASTICALLY lucky and is personable enough can go be president. And who knows what the future will bring, maybe one day we'll elect an intelligent introvert. Doubtful, but maybe.
And if McCain and Feingold have their way, and more the power to them (on this at least), campaigning will be limited to public funds. Which will (help) remove the massive cash requirement.
And the rest of your list is only mostly true. But I think that's your main beef with the school system, so that's kinda funny.
In retaliation for this ruling, my next D&D campaign will railroad the players into a prison where they have to get the warring factions inside to band together ultimately building to a riot and jailbreak.
Well stop calling me a customer, I'm a citizen. While I occasion buy things and sometimes consume said purchase, it's really not my defining trait. I'm a human being and member of this society. I work, play, buy, sell, teach, trade, learn, take, fence, give, sing, dance, and all sorts of other activities, often without any money chancing hands. The day that the populace is defined by buying things is the day that the USA peaks. (And sadly that day may have already come).
Yeah. I'd agree with this. I'd say that this is another method in which network neutrality is broken. But apparently the powers that be have defined NN in a way that doesn't cover this. They focus on the ISP initiating the act rather then the content owner, but the result is the same.
And, just to be nitpicky, I'd like the point out that paywalls also break NN. They carve up the Internet (or at least, the web) into sections that prefer one group over another. At the heart of the issue, this breaks NN. But you know what? I'm totally ok with that. Don't get me wrong, this could get way out of hand, like if Slashdot kept linking to New York Times sites that the plebeian users couldn't access. *cough*
But the important part is that the power to choose where the money goes is in the hands of the end-users. The littlest people with the least amount of individual power over the structure of the system. This is the free market in action. This is good. Power to the people and all that.
Partially, I guess. But it was mostly because there's this hole above the fireplace, and the big-ass TV wasn't quite big enough to fill it. Yes, there were plenty of jokes about filling holes. Move on.
uh huh, but sinking thousands into solar power when you live in the cloudiest city on earth isn't friendly to the environment. Neither does stuffing your house full of insulation, when you live in the mystical perma-70-degree coastal areas.
It might be a legitimate product, but this half-flush thing doesn't help us a bit. We live next to a major river and over a massive aquifer.
This is funny, but it focuses on a revelation I've had about this whole "green" thing going on. By and far, it's a marketing term. It's something to slap on a product to help it sell. Maybe it didn't start that way. Maybe it has true roots and it's merely been co-opted by the marketing weasels. That's their job after all.
But the "greenest" thing to do is to not buy the god-damned thing. Or, by an extreme extrapolation, mass genocide. My wife tries to be a "green" consumer, yet we got a giant-ass TV to replace the free big-ass CRT that a friend gave us. And we've now got this water saving thing that can half-flush. But this thing cost $30. I'm certain that spending that $30 to save a few cents on water every month isn't economical. But I'm really not sure it's even environmentally sound.
So anyway, my argument is that we need some sort of empirical measurement for how polluting a product is. If it costs money, it's polluting if you follow the money back far enough. With that we could step away from this bullshit "green" label, and focus on the efficiency of whatever it is we're getting. To get real meaningful work out of our gizmos and services, and the lowest cost, with the least pollution. But maybe I'm just daydreaming.
Actually, I believe you've hit the peak of shadowrun. The books are interesting fluff-wise and character creation is fun to play around with, but the actual game play is questionable at best. In theory, sure, any P&P RPG can epic and awesome, but in practice shadowrun games always fall short. It's hard to get everyone on the same page as shadowrun tries to incorporate gritty noir with high-powered corporate espionage. Plus half the players can simply to take a break whenever the matrix comes into play. It feels like the books are focused on describing the cyberpunk genre with some game play rules tacked on the side. The most hashed out portion of the game mechanics is simply firing a gun, with 15 variables depending on what you bought, how your character is built, the setting of the gun, how you're firing it, along with typical things like cover and visibility.
The previous versions had an interesting dice system where there was always a chance and you had to make real decisions about when to commit. But it was really rather complicated. So the latest version did away with that, making it more approachable, but more, I dunno, more blah.
So trust me, unless you've got a group of cyberpunk fans, just let it go.
No, the scary part is that the software running on the hardware get's reprogrammed constantly and that the whole concept of self is more fluid then we like to admit.
I'd like to tweak that a little.
When the government spends on infrastructure, education, and science, it doesn't actually generate growth. Not real growth. I mean, sure, you can pay someone to dig ditches, and that's cash-in-hand and GDP and whatnot. These things do that, for sure. They put much needed cash where it's needed. But what they do is ALLOW for growth. No one is going to drive on a bridge to nowhere, and you can't teach calculus to a gorilla. IF, and only if, you have people that CAN learn a thing or two, or if people WOULD drive out to that island, presumably for some economic activity, then you get real growth. The nation and society expand it's power. And there are diminishing returns for that sort of growth.
When does government spend on religion?
Government spending on the environment, like paying to dredge the river or replacing tainted soil isn't for growth. It's a cost saving measure. Not poisoning people to half-death is amazingly good for society, economy-wise.
But most the government's role in the environment is mostly regulations that stop pollution. Which isn't government spending, but rather private sector spending to adhere to regulations.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn that's a depressing wiki article. How much funding do these type of political nutjobs get? It's a non-profit, right? Where would I go to take a look at their books?
Also, back in 08 I had a discussion with a republican friend. He mentioned how Obama didn't take public funds. I shot back that republicans were a lot better at funneling money around campaign finance laws. This here would be a prime example of that. A little on the crazy side, but it still fits the bill.
RANDOM ENCOUNTER!
You face a -dead hooker in the trunk
Roll a felony saving throw with a -3 media frenzy penalty
Except the "novel, useful, unobvious" requirements on a patent are hardly ever the reason that patents get rejected. Come on, "exercising a cat with a laser pointer", "displaying an insanity bar", "[fill in the blank] on a [specialized hardware]". I had someone trying to convince me to patent a super-basic PCL printer driver just because it was on an flow computer (it's an embedded device for measuring flows, like on an oil pipeline). That's bullshit. But it probably would have gone through. If the system truly worked like it was supposed to, sure. But it doesn't.
Also, your opinion is crap. Repeat after me: "Anyone can sue Anyone for Anything."
I can fight the patent on lead-free solder. I don't have a case, and I'd be thrown out of court, but there'd be a fight. Perhaps what you want is an option for the judge in the patent fight to simply anull the patent as trivial, effectively making both parties lose. The problem with that is that neither party would fight for that.
The second draft had:
"We do not copy results from any of our competitors. Period. Full stop."
And then the article actually stopped.
Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We move your e-mail, we delete your trash, we connect your websites, we write the drivers for your gadgets. We guard your data while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us.
I don't think it's an act. Now, some of her mannerisms and terminology she uses could be with that whole "appealing to common folk" shtick in mind, but her overall platform, policies, and knee-jerk twitter reactions paint her as an idiot tried and true. A lot of people thought that Bush was simply putting on an act, that he wasn't really that much of an imbecile. But I don't buy that either.
Do you really think someone who gets to be Governor of one of the states in the US and become the de facto leader of a multi-million person movement is "a total idiot"?
Yeah, pretty much. Plenty of stupid people vote you know. Half the populace has an IQ less then 100.
I'm sorry if that sounds elitist, but anyone that would willingly want to put her in a place of political power is a bigger idiot then she is.
And WHY have I decided that she's an idiot?
Well, from every instance I've seen of her on television, most of her political decisions, and from a judgment of the crowd that supports her, both the general populace and individuals I've met and chatted with.
It comes down to how much confidence you have in the system. If you have a lot of confidence, then yeah, you'd believe that you'd share your views with your representatives, and they in turn would apply the correct political pressure to shape the government to match.
If you little or no confidence in the system, then you don't believe that anything you do will be able to change the government. Being governed without representation is tyranny.
All that said, the political involvement for most people is damn near zero. Good ol' George W. on his way out said that we should first try to change the system from withint, he worked really hard to set it up just so you COULD do that. Most people I know don't like to talk politics. Of those that do, it's usually just over the dinner table or online. Actually writing to officials doesn't seem to register to these people.
8) No, not everyone can be president. Not anymore. You need to have a saintly background and/or a TON of money.
What now? We have a weed smoker and cocaine sniffer in the white house. And he didn't come from money, but yeah, I guess his friends got him a hefty chunk of change. That whole "party" system kinda sucks. But if this last one showed anything, YES, anyone that gets FANTASTICALLY lucky and is personable enough can go be president. And who knows what the future will bring, maybe one day we'll elect an intelligent introvert. Doubtful, but maybe.
And if McCain and Feingold have their way, and more the power to them (on this at least), campaigning will be limited to public funds. Which will (help) remove the massive cash requirement.
And the rest of your list is only mostly true. But I think that's your main beef with the school system, so that's kinda funny.
Perhaps it's time that that packed up their gear into a van and and played some Guerrilla Radio?
In retaliation for this ruling, my next D&D campaign will railroad the players into a prison where they have to get the warring factions inside to band together ultimately building to a riot and jailbreak.
Heinous villainous scum that need to be dragged out into the street, beaten, tarred, feathered, and beaten again for good measure. That's who.
Well stop calling me a customer, I'm a citizen. While I occasion buy things and sometimes consume said purchase, it's really not my defining trait. I'm a human being and member of this society. I work, play, buy, sell, teach, trade, learn, take, fence, give, sing, dance, and all sorts of other activities, often without any money chancing hands. The day that the populace is defined by buying things is the day that the USA peaks. (And sadly that day may have already come).
Yeah. I'd agree with this. I'd say that this is another method in which network neutrality is broken. But apparently the powers that be have defined NN in a way that doesn't cover this. They focus on the ISP initiating the act rather then the content owner, but the result is the same.
And, just to be nitpicky, I'd like the point out that paywalls also break NN. They carve up the Internet (or at least, the web) into sections that prefer one group over another. At the heart of the issue, this breaks NN. But you know what? I'm totally ok with that. Don't get me wrong, this could get way out of hand, like if Slashdot kept linking to New York Times sites that the plebeian users couldn't access. *cough*
But the important part is that the power to choose where the money goes is in the hands of the end-users. The littlest people with the least amount of individual power over the structure of the system. This is the free market in action. This is good. Power to the people and all that.
Normally, with an abusive swearing coward, I'd discard this comment out of hand. But honestly, this was my first thoughts on the matter as well.
Partially, I guess. But it was mostly because there's this hole above the fireplace, and the big-ass TV wasn't quite big enough to fill it. Yes, there were plenty of jokes about filling holes. Move on.
uh huh, but sinking thousands into solar power when you live in the cloudiest city on earth isn't friendly to the environment. Neither does stuffing your house full of insulation, when you live in the mystical perma-70-degree coastal areas.
It might be a legitimate product, but this half-flush thing doesn't help us a bit. We live next to a major river and over a massive aquifer.
This is funny, but it focuses on a revelation I've had about this whole "green" thing going on. By and far, it's a marketing term. It's something to slap on a product to help it sell. Maybe it didn't start that way. Maybe it has true roots and it's merely been co-opted by the marketing weasels. That's their job after all.
But the "greenest" thing to do is to not buy the god-damned thing. Or, by an extreme extrapolation, mass genocide. My wife tries to be a "green" consumer, yet we got a giant-ass TV to replace the free big-ass CRT that a friend gave us. And we've now got this water saving thing that can half-flush. But this thing cost $30. I'm certain that spending that $30 to save a few cents on water every month isn't economical. But I'm really not sure it's even environmentally sound.
So anyway, my argument is that we need some sort of empirical measurement for how polluting a product is. If it costs money, it's polluting if you follow the money back far enough. With that we could step away from this bullshit "green" label, and focus on the efficiency of whatever it is we're getting. To get real meaningful work out of our gizmos and services, and the lowest cost, with the least pollution. But maybe I'm just daydreaming.
Actually, I believe you've hit the peak of shadowrun. The books are interesting fluff-wise and character creation is fun to play around with, but the actual game play is questionable at best. In theory, sure, any P&P RPG can epic and awesome, but in practice shadowrun games always fall short. It's hard to get everyone on the same page as shadowrun tries to incorporate gritty noir with high-powered corporate espionage. Plus half the players can simply to take a break whenever the matrix comes into play. It feels like the books are focused on describing the cyberpunk genre with some game play rules tacked on the side.
The most hashed out portion of the game mechanics is simply firing a gun, with 15 variables depending on what you bought, how your character is built, the setting of the gun, how you're firing it, along with typical things like cover and visibility.
The previous versions had an interesting dice system where there was always a chance and you had to make real decisions about when to commit. But it was really rather complicated. So the latest version did away with that, making it more approachable, but more, I dunno, more blah.
So trust me, unless you've got a group of cyberpunk fans, just let it go.
So heavily discounted they might even call it $0!
No, the scary part is that the software running on the hardware get's reprogrammed constantly and that the whole concept of self is more fluid then we like to admit.
So you go to your bank. They say the money "just isn't there", even as they hand out (diminishing) paychecks to the employees. What do you do?
A hell of a lot of overweight diabetic Vietnam vets would be up in arms. It's flat out theft of their savings.
I'd like to tweak that a little.
When the government spends on infrastructure, education, and science, it doesn't actually generate growth. Not real growth. I mean, sure, you can pay someone to dig ditches, and that's cash-in-hand and GDP and whatnot. These things do that, for sure. They put much needed cash where it's needed. But what they do is ALLOW for growth. No one is going to drive on a bridge to nowhere, and you can't teach calculus to a gorilla. IF, and only if, you have people that CAN learn a thing or two, or if people WOULD drive out to that island, presumably for some economic activity, then you get real growth. The nation and society expand it's power. And there are diminishing returns for that sort of growth.
When does government spend on religion?
Government spending on the environment, like paying to dredge the river or replacing tainted soil isn't for growth. It's a cost saving measure. Not poisoning people to half-death is amazingly good for society, economy-wise.
But most the government's role in the environment is mostly regulations that stop pollution. Which isn't government spending, but rather private sector spending to adhere to regulations.
Sounds good. When are you running for office that I may campaign for you?