As a huge Star Wars geek, I've hated almost any discussion of the films I've been involved in since the prequels came out. I liked the prequels, especially Episode III, which is by far Lucas' best film. Just because you have fond childhood memories of the originals doesn't mean the prequels suck. Why is it that everyone acts as if the original three Star Wars films were perfect? They can be scrutinized just as much as the prequels have been. How is it that Darth Vader didn't sense Han coming up behind him when he was about to shoot down Luke in Episode IV? What happened to the force? What happened to Vader being the best pilot in the galaxy? Why didn't Obi-Wan kill Vader rather than sacrificing himself? He claimed that in death he would be more powerful, but his ghost did the same thing he did in life: guide Luke. We later learn that Luke never has the power to take on the Emperor himself, so wouldn't it have been better to eliminate Vader and then team up with Yoda and Luke and go after the Emperor? And for those who complain about Jar-Jar, I have one word: Ewoks. The entire series is riddled with plot-holes and silliness, but that's okay with me because IT'S A SILLY SCI-FI ADVENTURE. People are able to disregard that fact because, as a child, it was so much more. But as much as everyone wanted to revert back to that childhood mindset when they went to see the prequels, they couldn't, because like it or not they'd matured and the silliness of it all became apparent.
I feel the same way about Indiana Jones. How is the Crystal Skull any more silly than Temple of Doom? And the Holy Grail one was just absurd on every level. If you want to watch a serious Lucas film, watch THX-1138.
Concerning Star Wars, I'll always view the prequels as better, despite my fond childhood memories of the originals. The originals were so black and white, good vs. evil. The only intellectually intriguing moments was when Vader turned on the Emperor, and that lasted like 5 minutes. Episode III gave a deeper meaning to the entire series. A balance between good and evil can never be achieved when one group (Sith or Jedi) is in power. In the end, their allegiance is to an absolute adherence to their ideals, not to what they know in their heart to be right. Compromising men are the only effective governors, men like Han Solo or Lando Calrissian. Men who have vices but have a good heart. But Han and Lando are just presented as bumbling adventurers, it's not until the prequels that their greater significance is realized. It's not until the prequels until we are told that "the Jedi aren't all that," a message that many fans probably didn't want to here.
All this directly ties into politics: we want our politicians to be Jedis. To be free of vice, absolute to their ideals, and courageous. But setting such impossible standards is what makes politics as a whole so dishonest. It's what makes distinguishing between a Sith and Jedi nearly impossible. So we never understand the motives of our politicians because they're so cold an calculating, whether for good or for bad.
Maybe that's not the best explanation of the prequel's theme but that's also what makes them so good: there are so many different angles one can view them from. With the originals, it's black and white. The final declarative message clearly deals with paternity, something like, "nothing can destroy a father's love for his son." I just find the prequel haters to be so ungrateful. Lucas not only made the films, but he added elements that went beyond the simple adventurism. If you didn't like the end product, don't hate on Lucas for it, it's HIS saga, not yours.
This post makes way too many absolute claims. Individual rights are something that almost all politically concerned Americans, liberal or conservative, progressive or libertarian, value above all else. The difference is how you define rights and liberty.
Your argument that only negative rights exist is valid, but that doesn't mean the progressive/liberal stance that positive rights can also exist is invalid. Two conflicting arguments can both be valid when both are logical and it's impossible to prove either.
Does the FDA, which limits businesses' freedom to sell contaminated food, limit my individual right to buy contaminated food or does it give me the positive right to expect grocers to only carry non-contaminated food? Some people don't consider being exploited, swindled, or coerced a right. In fact, they strongly believe they have a right not to be a victim of such practices. That doesn't necessitate a 'central planner,' which is a not to subtle way of saying 'Big Brother.' The FDA made society better. If there is a blizzard and I'm trapped in my home with stockpiles of canned food, I can trust that canned food will be good until the expiration date the FDA requires to be posted on the can. I can trust that the can isn't made of lead or any other poisonous metal. Am I, the person who is going to have to live with the end result of the decision to buy the can, better prepared to assess the quality than the FDA? If all my cans happened to have rotten food because there was no FDA and I died, would you really define that as greater individual liberty?
Conservatives don't have a monopoly on individual rights, they just define them differently. You seem to only understand progressives in the context of criticism, so you shouldn't try to explain their motives. You obviously don't understand. Progressives are not evil Ellsworth M. Tooheys, killing the world with kindness in hopes of turning it against itself so humanity enslaves itself
I never understood the anti-AT&T hype that's been around since the iPhone came out. They've been my only cellphone provider since back when they were Cingular, it's been almost ten years now, and I've never had reception problems. The only time I get dropped calls is when I cross a road called "County Line" which is true to its name. But that was fairly easy to get used to, "I'm about to switch counties so the call will drop, let me call you back." I try not to talk on the phone too much while driving anyway, my car's a stick-shift so it's kind of awkward.
I always assumed that I didn't experience the problems of other users because Cingular was an early carrier in my area. But I've traveled quite a bit with it and it's always been dependable. I drop a bar or two in the Appalachians, but it still works. I always figured I was just lucky because here on Slashdot everyone's lambasted AT&T's service for the last couple years, but perhaps that's just a sign of how good Verizon's marketing has been.
I think you make an excellent point by mentioning Wikipedia. It's the largest conglomerate of human knowledge anywhere on the planet -- the largest libraries in the world don't contain as much knowledge as Wikipedia. Furthermore, as long as you play by the rules (use proper citations, only write objective content, ect.) you have the power to contribute to Wikipedia. I've contributed to Wikipedia and I'm sure several other people here have as well. It's our own Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
The problem with 'The Wisdom of Crowds,' to me, is that it's completely unscientific to argue one way or the other. Sure, you can set up some experiments and evaluate them empirically, but as with most abstract ideas with the goal of reducing complex systems into a simple form of understanding, it's questionable whether any empirical experiment in such cases really proves anything. Lets face it, anecdotes and literature do a better job of examining such issues, and they often fall flat.
I would argue that it's a moot point. Wisdom is not a characteristic that can be attributed to a conglomerate of individuals. Individuals within the crowd may be wise and some form of written collaboration by the crowd may express wisdom (Wiki), but the crowd itself is not the type of thing which can have wisdom. It's like saying "that sounds blue."
until something sticks. That seems to be their current strategy with cell phones, and unfortunately, despite this individual failure, with their money and resources, I have a feeling something will stick eventually. For every Clippy and Bob and ME and Vista there is an XP and 7. Hrmm, okay, no alternative to Clippy and Bob ever took off. But hell, Office is still raking in dough.
But Apple takes it further, by holding a monopoly on the hardware stack their software runs on.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Your personification of businesses shows your complete lack of understanding of how they work. It's like the Greeks calling the force behind the ocean Poseidon because they didn't understand how the gravitational pull from the moon causes waves.
Microsoft was a problem in the 90's b/c it was getting to the point where any computer solution would require utilizing their products. If you don't like the iPad/iPhone contracts, then don't use the products. These are luxury items, they're not comparable to a platform that governments and businesses depend on. That's like complaining about how BMW makes you take any of their newer cars into a dealer to get the most basic maintenance done. For someone who changes his own oil, such as myself, that's a drawback. But for people who can buy a brand new BMW (not me) it's a feature because as long as they do what their car's computer tells them to do ("You have reached 3k miles, please see an Authorized BMW dealer for maintenance") it works better than most other cars. What MS did in the 90s is more comparable to if GM were to start selling engines to Ford and Chrysler and monopolize the engine market so all non-luxury cars on the market would be GM under the hood, and then forcing Ford and Chrysler to sign contracts agreeing to pay GM money for every car they produce, whether it includes a GM engine or not, thus locking out future competitors and having a lock on the cheapest aftermarket parts.
Basically, you're comparing Apples and Oranges (Microsofts).
Oh King Nerd, I don't deserve to be in your almighty presence, much less use the same OS as you! It's you against the stupid world! You better lock your basement from the inside so the general stupidity of the world can't interfere with your omniscient productivity.
If you don't believe that anything exists except for yourself, take your solipsism and go hang out with yourself. Belief in an objective reality isn't just rational, but it's necessary to account for the world and all of its occurrence. So I would say that I have justified true belief that objective reality exists.
By "zero latency" he means that a person cannot notice a latency issue. What you're saying is like arguing that the latency between the TV and your eye is an issue because the speed of light isn't instantaneous. Technically, it isn't instantaneous. But practically, from what we can perceive, it is.
I record music onto my computer. Technically, there's no such thing as zero latency recording. But I don't have the perceptual acuteness necessary to be aware of this and neither does anyone else, so it doesn't matter and it doesn't throw my rhythm off when going from one instrument to another, one cord length to another, or one usb interface to another.
When they were talking about Kinect latency, they were talking about a latency that could actually hinder the gamer.
Well, I'd assume if you were the parent of an underprivileged child then you wouldn't be able to afford to live in a wealthy MA school district. The poor school districts are the one's I'm concerned about and they'd never be able to implement something like this. The U.S.'s educational structure is classism at its worst.
That's a horrible comparison b/c with TVs the hardware manufacturer isn't the content provider and TVs work under the same universal standards so all content providers have access to them. In this case Apple is the content provider and hardware manufacturer - basically, they have a platform. The way I see it, as long as this platform isn't monopolistic (which it's not -Android, Win Mobile, RIM, and Nokia all have decent chunks of the cell phone market), then Apple can do whatever the hell they want with it.
What got MS in trouble during the 90's wasn't their hardline competitiveness, it was combining that with a 95% marketshare in desktop OSes. Apple doesn't have that type of clout in cellphones/tablets to hold a near-monopoly so it's not possible for them to be abusing a monopoly. So I completely disagree, they are allowed to do whatever the hell they want, because as a consumer there are plenty of alternatives available if you don't like it. If Sony wanted to make TVs that were only compatible with the PS3 and its content distribution, that would be their prerogative. Hell, if they wanted to make their TV go dark during competitors commercials, they can try. But it's technically unfeasible and it would just cause a customer service nightmare (everyone would assume their TV was broken).
Really not doing much to change the stereotype of hicks-ville America are you guys. You will be stopping and searching people on suspicion of being illegal aliens next.......oh wait thats Arizona
And you aren't doing much to change the stereotype that costal liberals are faggots that get off on the smell of their own farts.
I'm from Ohio. I once got pulled over, and though I was speeding (and quite excessively), the officer didn't radar me. He wasn't legally allowed to write me a ticket for speeding so he just gave me a ticket for reckless operation. The speeding ticket would actually have been cheaper and put less points on my license. Bottom line: this doesn't change much.
While if what you're saying is true I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, I wonder how you came across this information. Blind speculation isn't logical. It's one thing to be skeptical of the competence of those involved, it's another to accuse them of malice. . .
This is why logic should be taught in elementary schools.
It's sad that someone on a public board of education doesn't believe in public education. Perhaps Texas should follow this model and hire police officers who don't believe in serving/protecting and firefighters who don't believe in putting out fires. Kind of sounds like Fahrenheit 451.
Show me a textbook that even slightly implies that Nixon started Vietnam. Please. Perhaps you meant ended.
Goldwater is barely worth studying (much more important things occurred during that era, like civil rights) and the Contract with America, while important, has yet to be a part of history long enough to be properly evaluated. Detailed modern history is usually reserved for higher education.
Your argument that we have less reason to trust the federal government than the state of Texas with our educational criteria is absurd. How ironic that you used Orwell, a socialist, to defend this absurd claim. Perhaps if the state of Texas wasn't making it mandatory for their textbooks to print lies then you would have a point, but there has never been any indication that the federal government, if they did control academic curriculum, would utilize it to for propaganda. You trust the Texas Board of Education more than the federal government because you fear the feds might do what the TBE is doing?
Orwell is probably rolling in his grave over how grossly misunderstood 1984 is. The guy wasn't a libertarian, he wasn't anti-federal government. If anything, he'd be critical of the double-speak the TBE is trying to implement into their textbooks. To say this nation was founded as a theocracy is a lie. To deny the intentional boundary our founding fathers formed between church and state is to lie. This crazy brand of Christianity these evangelicals practice didn't even exist when this country was founded and when Thomas Jefferson used the word "God" he never meant "the Judeo-Christian God."
You're right. I remember reading a study in a psychology class about how sociopathic CEOs tended to be. If not a sociopath, they tend to be obsessive compulsive. Think about it: most people, if paid as much as a Fortune 500 CEO, would retire after one year. Being a CEO is extremely stressful and most will never utilize the vast amounts of wealth they acquire. For them, business is a game that they just can't put down.
I think Microsoft with Gates/Balmer are a prime example of this. Their willingness to sink more resources into a project than it will profit for the sake of market-share demonstrates that they view business as a game of Monopoly. Look at the XBox, Bing, and IE. Gates cares more about his legacy than anything else. He cares more about having credit for modern technological achievements than actually contributing to society. Just look at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I know it's taboo to criticize, but as the Priest in A Clockwork Orange said, "What does God want? Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness?" Intentions and motivations matter, and Gates has demonstrated time after time that he is motivated by selfishness and arrogance. If he cared about technological progress he wouldn't try to beat the competition to the market with half-assed products, stagnate progress once he has a lock on a market, and make an enemy of open source. If he cared about helping people then he wouldn't insist on being given credit for it with interviews every time his foundation spends a few cents. He's a sociopath.
Slashdot Mirror
As a huge Star Wars geek, I've hated almost any discussion of the films I've been involved in since the prequels came out. I liked the prequels, especially Episode III, which is by far Lucas' best film. Just because you have fond childhood memories of the originals doesn't mean the prequels suck. Why is it that everyone acts as if the original three Star Wars films were perfect? They can be scrutinized just as much as the prequels have been. How is it that Darth Vader didn't sense Han coming up behind him when he was about to shoot down Luke in Episode IV? What happened to the force? What happened to Vader being the best pilot in the galaxy? Why didn't Obi-Wan kill Vader rather than sacrificing himself? He claimed that in death he would be more powerful, but his ghost did the same thing he did in life: guide Luke. We later learn that Luke never has the power to take on the Emperor himself, so wouldn't it have been better to eliminate Vader and then team up with Yoda and Luke and go after the Emperor? And for those who complain about Jar-Jar, I have one word: Ewoks. The entire series is riddled with plot-holes and silliness, but that's okay with me because IT'S A SILLY SCI-FI ADVENTURE. People are able to disregard that fact because, as a child, it was so much more. But as much as everyone wanted to revert back to that childhood mindset when they went to see the prequels, they couldn't, because like it or not they'd matured and the silliness of it all became apparent.
I feel the same way about Indiana Jones. How is the Crystal Skull any more silly than Temple of Doom? And the Holy Grail one was just absurd on every level. If you want to watch a serious Lucas film, watch THX-1138.
Concerning Star Wars, I'll always view the prequels as better, despite my fond childhood memories of the originals. The originals were so black and white, good vs. evil. The only intellectually intriguing moments was when Vader turned on the Emperor, and that lasted like 5 minutes. Episode III gave a deeper meaning to the entire series. A balance between good and evil can never be achieved when one group (Sith or Jedi) is in power. In the end, their allegiance is to an absolute adherence to their ideals, not to what they know in their heart to be right. Compromising men are the only effective governors, men like Han Solo or Lando Calrissian. Men who have vices but have a good heart. But Han and Lando are just presented as bumbling adventurers, it's not until the prequels that their greater significance is realized. It's not until the prequels until we are told that "the Jedi aren't all that," a message that many fans probably didn't want to here.
All this directly ties into politics: we want our politicians to be Jedis. To be free of vice, absolute to their ideals, and courageous. But setting such impossible standards is what makes politics as a whole so dishonest. It's what makes distinguishing between a Sith and Jedi nearly impossible. So we never understand the motives of our politicians because they're so cold an calculating, whether for good or for bad.
Maybe that's not the best explanation of the prequel's theme but that's also what makes them so good: there are so many different angles one can view them from. With the originals, it's black and white. The final declarative message clearly deals with paternity, something like, "nothing can destroy a father's love for his son." I just find the prequel haters to be so ungrateful. Lucas not only made the films, but he added elements that went beyond the simple adventurism. If you didn't like the end product, don't hate on Lucas for it, it's HIS saga, not yours.
This post makes way too many absolute claims. Individual rights are something that almost all politically concerned Americans, liberal or conservative, progressive or libertarian, value above all else. The difference is how you define rights and liberty.
Your argument that only negative rights exist is valid, but that doesn't mean the progressive/liberal stance that positive rights can also exist is invalid. Two conflicting arguments can both be valid when both are logical and it's impossible to prove either.
Does the FDA, which limits businesses' freedom to sell contaminated food, limit my individual right to buy contaminated food or does it give me the positive right to expect grocers to only carry non-contaminated food? Some people don't consider being exploited, swindled, or coerced a right. In fact, they strongly believe they have a right not to be a victim of such practices. That doesn't necessitate a 'central planner,' which is a not to subtle way of saying 'Big Brother.' The FDA made society better. If there is a blizzard and I'm trapped in my home with stockpiles of canned food, I can trust that canned food will be good until the expiration date the FDA requires to be posted on the can. I can trust that the can isn't made of lead or any other poisonous metal. Am I, the person who is going to have to live with the end result of the decision to buy the can, better prepared to assess the quality than the FDA? If all my cans happened to have rotten food because there was no FDA and I died, would you really define that as greater individual liberty?
Conservatives don't have a monopoly on individual rights, they just define them differently. You seem to only understand progressives in the context of criticism, so you shouldn't try to explain their motives. You obviously don't understand. Progressives are not evil Ellsworth M. Tooheys, killing the world with kindness in hopes of turning it against itself so humanity enslaves itself
I never understood the anti-AT&T hype that's been around since the iPhone came out. They've been my only cellphone provider since back when they were Cingular, it's been almost ten years now, and I've never had reception problems. The only time I get dropped calls is when I cross a road called "County Line" which is true to its name. But that was fairly easy to get used to, "I'm about to switch counties so the call will drop, let me call you back." I try not to talk on the phone too much while driving anyway, my car's a stick-shift so it's kind of awkward.
I always assumed that I didn't experience the problems of other users because Cingular was an early carrier in my area. But I've traveled quite a bit with it and it's always been dependable. I drop a bar or two in the Appalachians, but it still works. I always figured I was just lucky because here on Slashdot everyone's lambasted AT&T's service for the last couple years, but perhaps that's just a sign of how good Verizon's marketing has been.
http://flyingmeat.com/acorn/
Costs $50. Did you mean Gimp?
I can start smoking again! Aside from the "it's bad for ya" aspect, tobacco is awesome.
Conspiracy! The witch floated, he must be a witch!
I think you make an excellent point by mentioning Wikipedia. It's the largest conglomerate of human knowledge anywhere on the planet -- the largest libraries in the world don't contain as much knowledge as Wikipedia. Furthermore, as long as you play by the rules (use proper citations, only write objective content, ect.) you have the power to contribute to Wikipedia. I've contributed to Wikipedia and I'm sure several other people here have as well. It's our own Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
The problem with 'The Wisdom of Crowds,' to me, is that it's completely unscientific to argue one way or the other. Sure, you can set up some experiments and evaluate them empirically, but as with most abstract ideas with the goal of reducing complex systems into a simple form of understanding, it's questionable whether any empirical experiment in such cases really proves anything. Lets face it, anecdotes and literature do a better job of examining such issues, and they often fall flat.
I would argue that it's a moot point. Wisdom is not a characteristic that can be attributed to a conglomerate of individuals. Individuals within the crowd may be wise and some form of written collaboration by the crowd may express wisdom (Wiki), but the crowd itself is not the type of thing which can have wisdom. It's like saying "that sounds blue."
Yes. Except that it did not have the huge sales numbers of Zune.
Triple digits would be quite a feat.
until something sticks. That seems to be their current strategy with cell phones, and unfortunately, despite this individual failure, with their money and resources, I have a feeling something will stick eventually. For every Clippy and Bob and ME and Vista there is an XP and 7. Hrmm, okay, no alternative to Clippy and Bob ever took off. But hell, Office is still raking in dough.
But how can you personify and hyperbolize the actions of corporations when you look at it so realistically? That doesn't make for a good news story.
But Apple takes it further, by holding a monopoly on the hardware stack their software runs on.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Your personification of businesses shows your complete lack of understanding of how they work. It's like the Greeks calling the force behind the ocean Poseidon because they didn't understand how the gravitational pull from the moon causes waves.
Microsoft was a problem in the 90's b/c it was getting to the point where any computer solution would require utilizing their products. If you don't like the iPad/iPhone contracts, then don't use the products. These are luxury items, they're not comparable to a platform that governments and businesses depend on. That's like complaining about how BMW makes you take any of their newer cars into a dealer to get the most basic maintenance done. For someone who changes his own oil, such as myself, that's a drawback. But for people who can buy a brand new BMW (not me) it's a feature because as long as they do what their car's computer tells them to do ("You have reached 3k miles, please see an Authorized BMW dealer for maintenance") it works better than most other cars. What MS did in the 90s is more comparable to if GM were to start selling engines to Ford and Chrysler and monopolize the engine market so all non-luxury cars on the market would be GM under the hood, and then forcing Ford and Chrysler to sign contracts agreeing to pay GM money for every car they produce, whether it includes a GM engine or not, thus locking out future competitors and having a lock on the cheapest aftermarket parts.
Basically, you're comparing Apples and Oranges (Microsofts).
Oh King Nerd, I don't deserve to be in your almighty presence, much less use the same OS as you! It's you against the stupid world! You better lock your basement from the inside so the general stupidity of the world can't interfere with your omniscient productivity.
If you don't believe that anything exists except for yourself, take your solipsism and go hang out with yourself. Belief in an objective reality isn't just rational, but it's necessary to account for the world and all of its occurrence. So I would say that I have justified true belief that objective reality exists.
-1 Pedantic
By "zero latency" he means that a person cannot notice a latency issue. What you're saying is like arguing that the latency between the TV and your eye is an issue because the speed of light isn't instantaneous. Technically, it isn't instantaneous. But practically, from what we can perceive, it is.
I record music onto my computer. Technically, there's no such thing as zero latency recording. But I don't have the perceptual acuteness necessary to be aware of this and neither does anyone else, so it doesn't matter and it doesn't throw my rhythm off when going from one instrument to another, one cord length to another, or one usb interface to another.
When they were talking about Kinect latency, they were talking about a latency that could actually hinder the gamer.
Well, I'd assume if you were the parent of an underprivileged child then you wouldn't be able to afford to live in a wealthy MA school district. The poor school districts are the one's I'm concerned about and they'd never be able to implement something like this. The U.S.'s educational structure is classism at its worst.
That's a horrible comparison b/c with TVs the hardware manufacturer isn't the content provider and TVs work under the same universal standards so all content providers have access to them. In this case Apple is the content provider and hardware manufacturer - basically, they have a platform. The way I see it, as long as this platform isn't monopolistic (which it's not -Android, Win Mobile, RIM, and Nokia all have decent chunks of the cell phone market), then Apple can do whatever the hell they want with it.
What got MS in trouble during the 90's wasn't their hardline competitiveness, it was combining that with a 95% marketshare in desktop OSes. Apple doesn't have that type of clout in cellphones/tablets to hold a near-monopoly so it's not possible for them to be abusing a monopoly. So I completely disagree, they are allowed to do whatever the hell they want, because as a consumer there are plenty of alternatives available if you don't like it. If Sony wanted to make TVs that were only compatible with the PS3 and its content distribution, that would be their prerogative. Hell, if they wanted to make their TV go dark during competitors commercials, they can try. But it's technically unfeasible and it would just cause a customer service nightmare (everyone would assume their TV was broken).
You're probably just going for the cheap methane is farts joke.
Obviously. Who ever heard of an -expensive- methane fart?
Apparently someone hasn't tried caviar.
Any conversation with a police officer should start with you saying "Evening officer, what seems to be the trouble?"
Unless it happens to be morning. Or early afternoon.
Really not doing much to change the stereotype of hicks-ville America are you guys. ......oh wait thats Arizona
You will be stopping and searching people on suspicion of being illegal aliens next.
And you aren't doing much to change the stereotype that costal liberals are faggots that get off on the smell of their own farts.
I'm from Ohio. I once got pulled over, and though I was speeding (and quite excessively), the officer didn't radar me. He wasn't legally allowed to write me a ticket for speeding so he just gave me a ticket for reckless operation. The speeding ticket would actually have been cheaper and put less points on my license. Bottom line: this doesn't change much.
While if what you're saying is true I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, I wonder how you came across this information. Blind speculation isn't logical. It's one thing to be skeptical of the competence of those involved, it's another to accuse them of malice. . .
This is why logic should be taught in elementary schools.
If you ask me, the entire system is designed to make the most profit for people that are already extremely well off. Its a joke.
Sounds like capitalism to me.
It's sad that someone on a public board of education doesn't believe in public education. Perhaps Texas should follow this model and hire police officers who don't believe in serving/protecting and firefighters who don't believe in putting out fires. Kind of sounds like Fahrenheit 451.
"Reality has a liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert
Show me a textbook that even slightly implies that Nixon started Vietnam. Please. Perhaps you meant ended.
Goldwater is barely worth studying (much more important things occurred during that era, like civil rights) and the Contract with America, while important, has yet to be a part of history long enough to be properly evaluated. Detailed modern history is usually reserved for higher education.
Your argument that we have less reason to trust the federal government than the state of Texas with our educational criteria is absurd. How ironic that you used Orwell, a socialist, to defend this absurd claim. Perhaps if the state of Texas wasn't making it mandatory for their textbooks to print lies then you would have a point, but there has never been any indication that the federal government, if they did control academic curriculum, would utilize it to for propaganda. You trust the Texas Board of Education more than the federal government because you fear the feds might do what the TBE is doing?
Orwell is probably rolling in his grave over how grossly misunderstood 1984 is. The guy wasn't a libertarian, he wasn't anti-federal government. If anything, he'd be critical of the double-speak the TBE is trying to implement into their textbooks. To say this nation was founded as a theocracy is a lie. To deny the intentional boundary our founding fathers formed between church and state is to lie. This crazy brand of Christianity these evangelicals practice didn't even exist when this country was founded and when Thomas Jefferson used the word "God" he never meant "the Judeo-Christian God."
You're right. I remember reading a study in a psychology class about how sociopathic CEOs tended to be. If not a sociopath, they tend to be obsessive compulsive. Think about it: most people, if paid as much as a Fortune 500 CEO, would retire after one year. Being a CEO is extremely stressful and most will never utilize the vast amounts of wealth they acquire. For them, business is a game that they just can't put down.
I think Microsoft with Gates/Balmer are a prime example of this. Their willingness to sink more resources into a project than it will profit for the sake of market-share demonstrates that they view business as a game of Monopoly. Look at the XBox, Bing, and IE. Gates cares more about his legacy than anything else. He cares more about having credit for modern technological achievements than actually contributing to society. Just look at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I know it's taboo to criticize, but as the Priest in A Clockwork Orange said, "What does God want? Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness?" Intentions and motivations matter, and Gates has demonstrated time after time that he is motivated by selfishness and arrogance. If he cared about technological progress he wouldn't try to beat the competition to the market with half-assed products, stagnate progress once he has a lock on a market, and make an enemy of open source. If he cared about helping people then he wouldn't insist on being given credit for it with interviews every time his foundation spends a few cents. He's a sociopath.