See above for the TRUTH about the US and nuclear weapons. And tens of thousands is very debatable. Chemical and biological weapons are more weapons of mass hysteria than weapons of mass destruction, if you research the matter at all. A gust of wind can render them ineffective or noneffective. There are no known delivery methods for them which could anywhere near ensure widespread distribution over the populace.
The treaty you are referring to clearly states the US reserves the right to make adjustments to this policy (of not using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries) in the case of biological weapons threats. And the policy does NOT apply to countries not in compliance with the NPT.
The funniest part of your post is that as it is written, it STILL contains more basis in fact than the fairy tales about Iraq WMDs, Obama's foreign birth, death panels, and everything that collectively spews out of Glen Beck, Bill O'Liely, or Lush Bimbo's mouths.
Good story. Even if people are getting misinformation, at least they are trying to inform themselves, which as you story illustrates, is more than you could say of some doctors.
I agree that it is primarily MY responsibility to raise MY children. I can honestly say that I take an active interest in what my children learn in school and I constantly try to encourage independent thinking, especially considering my children also go to a "redneck" school. Because of the area we live in, I have no effective influence over what textbooks they buy, in fact they would likely buy those books BECAUSE of the nonsense they contain.
My concern is for those children whose parents do NOT do this, and the effect this will have on a country that already made the mistake of re-electing George W. Bush due to a prevalence of "redneck thinking."
(Please don't get all outraged about my use of the word "redneck." I grew up and live in a rural area. Some would undoubtedly consider me "redneck." I just honestly don't know what else to term the groupthink that seems to dominate some of these rural areas, especially in the south.)
Jay may very well have influenced our law, but how can there be any doubt but that Jefferson, more than anyone, defined our philosophy and principals? What was the Declaration of Independence, if not a clear statement of philosophy and principles?
Now compare the Declaration and Jefferson's other writings with John Locke's "The Two Treatises Of Government"
My major argument with the "Cristian Nation" propaganda is the denial of Jefferson's clear endorsement of the wall between church and state.
Yes, Byrd was a Dixiecrat. I'll give you that one. On the other hand, he has since renounced his segregationist views as well as the KKK...Unlike, say, Strom Thurmond.
Metzger is a Bircher, and like many Republicans, falsely claims to be a libertarian. How he won one Dem primary, I'll never know, but he changed parties right afterwards, and is clearly not a Dem by any stretch.
Duke never held office as a Democrat. To say he was a Democrat is disingenuous at best.
Then there was Ronald Reagan and Strom Thurmond, who clearly switched parties in the 60's due to their disagreement with Democratic support for Civil Rights legislation.
Let's face it, liberal and progressive views are not in line with racism, while conservatives often harken to a past filled with racism at the very least.
And as for rights, pleas tell me what rights I have lost under Obama. The worst he has done is not denounce or back away from Bush's assault on our rights, which is unsurprising. I warned while it was happening that governments and politicians don't give up power, no matter how progressive they are or make themselves out to be. It's the right's fault for pushing his policies through, and the left's fault for not opposing him more, and finally, the people's fault for electing him for a second term despite his clear idiocy and incompetence.
I was with you up until: "at least on principle, I find that their legal support of such people as some sort of "enlightened" viewpoint is almost just as shallow."
What?
"at least on principle" - Well of course...that's the whole reason behind the suit, the principle of the matter.
"I find that their legal support of such people as some sort of "enlightened" viewpoint is almost just as shallow."- What? If you believe in a principle, you defend the right of ALL people. Just like John Adams defending the British soldiers accused in the "Boston Massacre." You can't say "I wont defend Larry Flynt because he peddles "smut." We all have the right to equal protection under the law, even those you DON"T LIKE. And you say THEY'RE shallow?
The bottom line is that no one has the right to not be offended. Period.
That's the problem. Texas buys the most textbooks, and thus has undue influence on the industry. Thanks to scorched earth capitalism, making money is more important than making sure that textbooks are accurate. Anyone who does 10 minutes of research will find that the whole notion of the "Cristian Nation" is laughable. If anything our nation's ideals came from John Locke and his "The Two Treatises Of Government" through Thomas Jefferson.
By far the most reasoned treatise I've seen about this issue. Now if only we could get the MPAA, etc. to read and understand it. Or better yet, if only I could figure out how to provide 'better than free' content without billions of dollars, and thus put the archaic companies in the position to either compete or die. I-tunes has started this, but it needs to happen faster.
There is no doubt that Clinton signed both. And he has admitted it was a mistake, and he regrets it. Both were put through by a Republican controlled legislative branch, and Republicans had been trying to pass the repeal for 10 years. And I have heard NO Republicans suggesting that it was a mistake, in fact they are actively opposing any regulation of the financial industry even in the wake of the recent meltdown. There is no doubt that I would smack Clinton upside the head for his part, but to suggest he shares equally in the blame is ludicrous.
Didn't we already have 'Free Speech Zones' since the Vietnam war? And then wasn't limited use of free speech zones greatly expanded when Bush was pResident? (http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/dissent_report.pdf)
Let's face it, when Republicans are in power, you get a larger dose of both white supremacists AND Free Speech Zones. Just look at Arizona.
You make some interesting points. As much as I'm skeptical of server-side computing as a lasting technological solution with our current technologies and architectural scaling and advancement, considering the vast potential computational power of a quantum computer, you wouldn't need a portable version.
And to your point about language, I'm not sure I used all the proper terminology in the right places in my preceding statement, but hopefully you get the gist. That's the beauty of language, and yet also it's shortfall in that imprecise language can either still get a point across and/or completely change the meaning of a thought.
As for 'textese', it's so funny how it used to be that in the online gaming world a player's knowledge of such typing shortcuts used to be an indicator of gaming prowess and coolness, now many of the same groups, and in some cases the same people (myself included) recoil from and ridicule the use of what you are calling 'textese.' It reminds me of a South Park episode:
Mr. Garrison: Chef, what did you do when white people stole your culture? Chef: Oh, well, we black people just always tried to stay out in front of them. Mr. Slave: How did you do that? Chef: Well, like with our slang. Black people always used to say, "I'm in the house" instead of "I'm here." But then white people all started to say "in the house" so we switched it to "in the hizzouse." Hizzouse became hizzizzouse, and then white folk started saying that, and we had to change it to hizzie, then "in the hizzle" which we had to change to "hizzle fo shizzle," and now, because white people say "hizzle fo shizzle," we have to say "flippity floppity floop." Mr. Garrison: We don't have time for all that, Chef! Oh, if only those Queer Eye For the Straight Guy people understood what they were doing. Wait. That's it! I know exactly what to do! Come on, Mr. Slave! Let's get back to our flippity floppity floop. Chef: Oh no! Dammit! Don't call it that!
Don't get me wrong, I think reasonable skepticism and questioning of authority is necessary. I will go so far as to say that if I have equal reason to accept or question authority, I will doubtless land on the questioning side. But no further. Unreasonable skepticism is as idiotic as unreasonable faith.
Funny, not even a year ago, it seemed the consensus on/. was that there was no such thing as quantum computing at all. Now that there are proofs of concepts, it's "a long ways off." I'm starting to think the majority on this site say what they want to be true at least as much as what they have investigated and believe to be true. I suppose it's base human nature, but still funny to see. Fnord!
What brings the whole thing full circle is you're spouting the same 'government is the problem' nonsense that the Republicans used to justify deregulating the financial markets in the first place. Do you REALLY think it was coincidence that we had no banking problems since Glass-Steagall until Republicans started deregulating and then we had the S+L crisis (and also coincidentally Kneel, Jeb, and Poppy Bush were knee deep in associated scandal (Kneel effectively robbed us all of millions of dollars with nothing but a wrist slap)) and then in the 90's, they deregulated again, basically repealing the last of Glass-Steagall and the other huge crisis that prompted Bush Jr's administration to author the biggest bailout since his dad bailed out the S+L's?! America needs to wake the fuck up. Some of us obviously have not learned from history and thus we are repeating it. We are a bunch of Rubes. One family has enabled the theft of literally TRILLIONS of dollars...twice! By comparison, any malfeasance by Democrats is like comparing the guy who accidentally brings a pen home from work with the accountant who clears the accounts and flies to South America. THERE IS NO COMPARISON!
Your argument ("Both sides are the same") in this case really begs the question. It doesn't hold up to close scrutiny, especially in regards to this issue where you have one side literally yelling 'drill baby drill' and 'we don't need any more studies or regulation'. And you have the other saying (literally): 'we want to drill, but drill responsibly.'
Of course your argument doesn't really hold up out of the context (and off the topic) either. You have one party saying "we need to be decent human beings and show some compassion to the least fortunate by helping them acquire basic human needs (arguably falling within the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness) of healthcare, food, and shelter"; while on the other side you have the others literally saying "we are above the law in international folly and war crimes" and "screw humanity and our country, as long as the rich get theirs...it will surely 'trickle down' when we piss on you." I don't see them the same at all, in fact you'd have to be a moron not to see the difference. (for what it's worth, I truly mean no offense)
What?! It is perfectly acceptable to mock the stupid for being stupid, and to take pride in being part of a collective that is demonstrably less stupid concerning the issue in question. (Although considering we elected GWB...TWICE and Faux news still has not been completely discredited, we have some serious ground to regain before we can be too proud of anything IMO.)
So you disagree with liable laws? Somebody should be able to just say anything and be removed from any responsibility of the consequences? Okay, it wasn't Google that said it, but by hiding the person who did (or creating a situation where they make it impossible to find said person) they are in effect an accomplice.
World has consequences, this is hardly a civil liberties issue.
First: On what planet is this NOT a civil liberties issue? By prosecuting Google for allowing posters to post anonymously, you are directly threatening people's right to post anonymously.
Second: I think the word you are looking for is libel. If you don't even know the word, I have serious doubts about your ability to debate the issue intelligently.
Third: Read industrialcomplex's reply. I won't bother rehashing it since he did a good job of explaining it.
I was certainly speaking generally, in the interest of playing devil's advocate if nothing else. I certainly want scientists to get paid. As it is it seems they do an awful lot of work while corporations end up benefiting disproportionately. From my perspective, your system is not functioning very well if it's to support you materially. My point is that brilliance usually makes itself apparent, and pretenders are soon found out, especially in an environment were information flows freely.
The music business was the same way for the longest time in that corporations often made disproportionally more than the artists. Now, artists are better able to dictate the terms of their distribution, often including how big their share is. People who are good musicians will still thrive as people are willing to pay for a product that's good, while the one hit wonders, corporate bands, (often the same thing) and copycats will be more likely to have their one song downloaded in lower quality. The only ones who are hurt in the long run are the blood sucking middle men. In the meantime bands who might never get a shot in the corporate world have a chance to make it on their own.
Ultimately, despite my rhetoric, I agree that realistically there should be some limits to plagiarism; however I am unwilling to let the corporations draw that line. Unfortunately, with their recent decision, the partisan Supreme Court has decided to let corporations make all the laws by way of campaign financing.
A mutt can be an excellent dog even if it doesn't have any papers. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Neither art nor music should have any position about plagiarism. Plagiarism is for academics whose need for acknowledgment overwhelms their desire to further their own and society's knowledge, and those who care more about their bank account than producing something of value. While it seemed distasteful to me at first, Bowie, Mercury, and Van Halen were all exposed to new audiences when they were sampled, and I truly believe they were better off for being sampled. Jazz, Blues, and Rock and Roll would not exist without constant borrowing and even stealing. The best music in the world was created when everyone was stealing from everyone else in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Would Hendrix have been as big if he hadn't covered a folk song, All Along the Watchtower? Would Zeppelin, the Stones, or Clapton have been so big without such obviously stolen blues songs and riffs? Did Dylan suffer from Jimi's cover? No, his fan base grew. Did all the Blues musicians suffer? No, in fact many were likely saved from obscurity, for at the time no 'decent' white folk would listen to such music. I think it axiomatic that the more selfish you are, the more yourself and the world suffers. The more generous you are, the more yourself and the world benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
See above for the TRUTH about the US and nuclear weapons. And tens of thousands is very debatable. Chemical and biological weapons are more weapons of mass hysteria than weapons of mass destruction, if you research the matter at all. A gust of wind can render them ineffective or noneffective. There are no known delivery methods for them which could anywhere near ensure widespread distribution over the populace.
Stop spreading Fox's idiotic nonsense!
The treaty you are referring to clearly states the US reserves the right to make adjustments to this policy (of not using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries) in the case of biological weapons threats. And the policy does NOT apply to countries not in compliance with the NPT.
The funniest part of your post is that as it is written, it STILL contains more basis in fact than the fairy tales about Iraq WMDs, Obama's foreign birth, death panels, and everything that collectively spews out of Glen Beck, Bill O'Liely, or Lush Bimbo's mouths.
Good story. Even if people are getting misinformation, at least they are trying to inform themselves, which as you story illustrates, is more than you could say of some doctors.
I agree that it is primarily MY responsibility to raise MY children. I can honestly say that I take an active interest in what my children learn in school and I constantly try to encourage independent thinking, especially considering my children also go to a "redneck" school. Because of the area we live in, I have no effective influence over what textbooks they buy, in fact they would likely buy those books BECAUSE of the nonsense they contain.
My concern is for those children whose parents do NOT do this, and the effect this will have on a country that already made the mistake of re-electing George W. Bush due to a prevalence of "redneck thinking."
(Please don't get all outraged about my use of the word "redneck." I grew up and live in a rural area. Some would undoubtedly consider me "redneck." I just honestly don't know what else to term the groupthink that seems to dominate some of these rural areas, especially in the south.)
Jay may very well have influenced our law, but how can there be any doubt but that Jefferson, more than anyone, defined our philosophy and principals? What was the Declaration of Independence, if not a clear statement of philosophy and principles?
Now compare the Declaration and Jefferson's other writings with John Locke's "The Two Treatises Of Government"
My major argument with the "Cristian Nation" propaganda is the denial of Jefferson's clear endorsement of the wall between church and state.
Horse-manure.
Yes, Byrd was a Dixiecrat. I'll give you that one. On the other hand, he has since renounced his segregationist views as well as the KKK...Unlike, say, Strom Thurmond.
Metzger is a Bircher, and like many Republicans, falsely claims to be a libertarian. How he won one Dem primary, I'll never know, but he changed parties right afterwards, and is clearly not a Dem by any stretch.
Duke never held office as a Democrat. To say he was a Democrat is disingenuous at best.
Then there was Ronald Reagan and Strom Thurmond, who clearly switched parties in the 60's due to their disagreement with Democratic support for Civil Rights legislation.
Let's face it, liberal and progressive views are not in line with racism, while conservatives often harken to a past filled with racism at the very least.
And as for rights, pleas tell me what rights I have lost under Obama. The worst he has done is not denounce or back away from Bush's assault on our rights, which is unsurprising. I warned while it was happening that governments and politicians don't give up power, no matter how progressive they are or make themselves out to be. It's the right's fault for pushing his policies through, and the left's fault for not opposing him more, and finally, the people's fault for electing him for a second term despite his clear idiocy and incompetence.
I was with you up until: "at least on principle, I find that their legal support of such people as some sort of "enlightened" viewpoint is almost just as shallow."
What?
"at least on principle" - Well of course...that's the whole reason behind the suit, the principle of the matter.
"I find that their legal support of such people as some sort of "enlightened" viewpoint is almost just as shallow."- What? If you believe in a principle, you defend the right of ALL people. Just like John Adams defending the British soldiers accused in the "Boston Massacre." You can't say "I wont defend Larry Flynt because he peddles "smut." We all have the right to equal protection under the law, even those you DON"T LIKE. And you say THEY'RE shallow?
The bottom line is that no one has the right to not be offended. Period.
That's the problem. Texas buys the most textbooks, and thus has undue influence on the industry. Thanks to scorched earth capitalism, making money is more important than making sure that textbooks are accurate. Anyone who does 10 minutes of research will find that the whole notion of the "Cristian Nation" is laughable. If anything our nation's ideals came from John Locke and his "The Two Treatises Of Government" through Thomas Jefferson.
By far the most reasoned treatise I've seen about this issue. Now if only we could get the MPAA, etc. to read and understand it. Or better yet, if only I could figure out how to provide 'better than free' content without billions of dollars, and thus put the archaic companies in the position to either compete or die. I-tunes has started this, but it needs to happen faster.
Yeah, I realized you weren't. I guess I was doing some navel gazing myself, as well as adding a caveat to my statement. Cheers.
There is no doubt that Clinton signed both. And he has admitted it was a mistake, and he regrets it. Both were put through by a Republican controlled legislative branch, and Republicans had been trying to pass the repeal for 10 years. And I have heard NO Republicans suggesting that it was a mistake, in fact they are actively opposing any regulation of the financial industry even in the wake of the recent meltdown. There is no doubt that I would smack Clinton upside the head for his part, but to suggest he shares equally in the blame is ludicrous.
Didn't we already have 'Free Speech Zones' since the Vietnam war? And then wasn't limited use of free speech zones greatly expanded when Bush was pResident? (http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/dissent_report.pdf)
Let's face it, when Republicans are in power, you get a larger dose of both white supremacists AND Free Speech Zones. Just look at Arizona.
You make some interesting points. As much as I'm skeptical of server-side computing as a lasting technological solution with our current technologies and architectural scaling and advancement, considering the vast potential computational power of a quantum computer, you wouldn't need a portable version.
And to your point about language, I'm not sure I used all the proper terminology in the right places in my preceding statement, but hopefully you get the gist. That's the beauty of language, and yet also it's shortfall in that imprecise language can either still get a point across and/or completely change the meaning of a thought.
As for 'textese', it's so funny how it used to be that in the online gaming world a player's knowledge of such typing shortcuts used to be an indicator of gaming prowess and coolness, now many of the same groups, and in some cases the same people (myself included) recoil from and ridicule the use of what you are calling 'textese.' It reminds me of a South Park episode:
Mr. Garrison: Chef, what did you do when white people stole your culture?
Chef: Oh, well, we black people just always tried to stay out in front of them.
Mr. Slave: How did you do that?
Chef: Well, like with our slang. Black people always used to say, "I'm in the house" instead of "I'm here." But then white people all started to say "in the house" so we switched it to "in the hizzouse." Hizzouse became hizzizzouse, and then white folk started saying that, and we had to change it to hizzie, then "in the hizzle" which we had to change to "hizzle fo shizzle," and now, because white people say "hizzle fo shizzle," we have to say "flippity floppity floop."
Mr. Garrison: We don't have time for all that, Chef! Oh, if only those Queer Eye For the Straight Guy people understood what they were doing. Wait. That's it! I know exactly what to do! Come on, Mr. Slave! Let's get back to our flippity floppity floop.
Chef: Oh no! Dammit! Don't call it that!
Don't get me wrong, I think reasonable skepticism and questioning of authority is necessary. I will go so far as to say that if I have equal reason to accept or question authority, I will doubtless land on the questioning side. But no further. Unreasonable skepticism is as idiotic as unreasonable faith.
The ultimate improbability bomb...I like it. The advertising slogan could be "yes, God DOES play dice with the world...and you can, too!"
Funny, not even a year ago, it seemed the consensus on /. was that there was no such thing as quantum computing at all. Now that there are proofs of concepts, it's "a long ways off." I'm starting to think the majority on this site say what they want to be true at least as much as what they have investigated and believe to be true. I suppose it's base human nature, but still funny to see. Fnord!
What brings the whole thing full circle is you're spouting the same 'government is the problem' nonsense that the Republicans used to justify deregulating the financial markets in the first place. Do you REALLY think it was coincidence that we had no banking problems since Glass-Steagall until Republicans started deregulating and then we had the S+L crisis (and also coincidentally Kneel, Jeb, and Poppy Bush were knee deep in associated scandal (Kneel effectively robbed us all of millions of dollars with nothing but a wrist slap)) and then in the 90's, they deregulated again, basically repealing the last of Glass-Steagall and the other huge crisis that prompted Bush Jr's administration to author the biggest bailout since his dad bailed out the S+L's?! America needs to wake the fuck up. Some of us obviously have not learned from history and thus we are repeating it. We are a bunch of Rubes. One family has enabled the theft of literally TRILLIONS of dollars...twice! By comparison, any malfeasance by Democrats is like comparing the guy who accidentally brings a pen home from work with the accountant who clears the accounts and flies to South America. THERE IS NO COMPARISON!
Your argument ("Both sides are the same") in this case really begs the question. It doesn't hold up to close scrutiny, especially in regards to this issue where you have one side literally yelling 'drill baby drill' and 'we don't need any more studies or regulation'. And you have the other saying (literally): 'we want to drill, but drill responsibly.'
Of course your argument doesn't really hold up out of the context (and off the topic) either. You have one party saying "we need to be decent human beings and show some compassion to the least fortunate by helping them acquire basic human needs (arguably falling within the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness) of healthcare, food, and shelter"; while on the other side you have the others literally saying "we are above the law in international folly and war crimes" and "screw humanity and our country, as long as the rich get theirs...it will surely 'trickle down' when we piss on you." I don't see them the same at all, in fact you'd have to be a moron not to see the difference. (for what it's worth, I truly mean no offense)
In my eyes, nobody has ever surpassed Roger Zelazny's "Roadmarks" (published in 1979) when it comes to non-linear writing.
What?! It is perfectly acceptable to mock the stupid for being stupid, and to take pride in being part of a collective that is demonstrably less stupid concerning the issue in question. (Although considering we elected GWB...TWICE and Faux news still has not been completely discredited, we have some serious ground to regain before we can be too proud of anything IMO.)
So you disagree with liable laws? Somebody should be able to just say anything and be removed from any responsibility of the consequences? Okay, it wasn't Google that said it, but by hiding the person who did (or creating a situation where they make it impossible to find said person) they are in effect an accomplice.
World has consequences, this is hardly a civil liberties issue.
First:
On what planet is this NOT a civil liberties issue? By prosecuting Google for allowing posters to post anonymously, you are directly threatening people's right to post anonymously.
Second:
I think the word you are looking for is libel. If you don't even know the word, I have serious doubts about your ability to debate the issue intelligently.
Third:
Read industrialcomplex's reply. I won't bother rehashing it since he did a good job of explaining it.
It looks just like a telefunken U47.
Don't make a fuss, just get on the bus!
You'll love it.
It's a way of life!
I was certainly speaking generally, in the interest of playing devil's advocate if nothing else. I certainly want scientists to get paid. As it is it seems they do an awful lot of work while corporations end up benefiting disproportionately. From my perspective, your system is not functioning very well if it's to support you materially. My point is that brilliance usually makes itself apparent, and pretenders are soon found out, especially in an environment were information flows freely.
The music business was the same way for the longest time in that corporations often made disproportionally more than the artists. Now, artists are better able to dictate the terms of their distribution, often including how big their share is. People who are good musicians will still thrive as people are willing to pay for a product that's good, while the one hit wonders, corporate bands, (often the same thing) and copycats will be more likely to have their one song downloaded in lower quality. The only ones who are hurt in the long run are the blood sucking middle men. In the meantime bands who might never get a shot in the corporate world have a chance to make it on their own.
Ultimately, despite my rhetoric, I agree that realistically there should be some limits to plagiarism; however I am unwilling to let the corporations draw that line. Unfortunately, with their recent decision, the partisan Supreme Court has decided to let corporations make all the laws by way of campaign financing.
A mutt can be an excellent dog even if it doesn't have any papers. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Neither art nor music should have any position about plagiarism. Plagiarism is for academics whose need for acknowledgment overwhelms their desire to further their own and society's knowledge, and those who care more about their bank account than producing something of value. While it seemed distasteful to me at first, Bowie, Mercury, and Van Halen were all exposed to new audiences when they were sampled, and I truly believe they were better off for being sampled. Jazz, Blues, and Rock and Roll would not exist without constant borrowing and even stealing. The best music in the world was created when everyone was stealing from everyone else in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Would Hendrix have been as big if he hadn't covered a folk song, All Along the Watchtower? Would Zeppelin, the Stones, or Clapton have been so big without such obviously stolen blues songs and riffs? Did Dylan suffer from Jimi's cover? No, his fan base grew. Did all the Blues musicians suffer? No, in fact many were likely saved from obscurity, for at the time no 'decent' white folk would listen to such music. I think it axiomatic that the more selfish you are, the more yourself and the world suffers. The more generous you are, the more yourself and the world benefits.