Try to be constructive instead of an asshat. I base my statement on observations through out my entire life, everything Ive read, everything Ive experienced. Since you know nothing of the aforementioned, you are making just as many generalizations about me as you claim I am. It is my opinion, and you can go glue your eyes shut or just simply fuck off if you don't like stumbling across things that offend your weak sensibilities.
Furthermore, why should someone be tolerant of other beliefs when they are insane? Should we also tolerate Schizophrenics being allowed to obtain government positions when they refuse to take their medication? A prime example of how insane the Republican party truly is is how they continue to push for Intelligent Design in schools as an "alternate theory". It is not an alternate theory. Maybe god exists and set things in motion, but there is overwhelming evidence that evolution is the most correct model we have, yet these people continue to deny it. That is textbook insanity. Sure, not all Republicans are like that, but a significant enough number of them are and it continues to be tolerated by the party.
Your argument is completely misinformed and probably based on Fox propaganda. Left leaning people want a person to benefit from their work, not to have their work channeled into a structure that only benefits wealthy or powerful people. A prime analogy would be this. Suppose I make chairs. I came from a poor family so I do not have enough money to start out a business of my own. This being the case, I work for a furniture company. They pay me 15 dollars an hour. My income goes towards supporting one child and my wife and as such not much is left over to save. My chairs sell for 200 dollars a piece and take me five hours to produce. Why am I getting paid 75 dollars to produce a 200 dollar chair? Should I not be able to profit from the fruits of my labor? The entire corporate structure of America funnels the labor of many people at many levels into the hands of a few legally, but not justly. A true Republican (i.e. the work hard, get paid kind) would actually agree with me. Fricking Henry Ford obviously did by treating his employees very well, Google does it the same.
Ok. Clinton, and FDR are two people who came in power, who are left leaning, and who did not destroy the economy. You can hardly call a dictator "left-leaning" because that isn't even in the principal of the "left" so you can already scratch off numerous people from your argument. Whatever that syndrome's name, its been my experience that the majority of now-a-days Republicans fall under the "dumb but think they are smarter" category. Why else would they want to put "intelligent design" into schools? Why else did they sponsor a war in Iraq that literally has no worthwhile outcome for our nation? Why else has the disparity in wealth been getting worse since Reagan? It has also been my experience that Republicans make a mess of things for short term gains and then Democrats have to clean it up for the long term ones (FDR). Look, Im not even a Democrat, this is just an observation from a relatively centrist person. Wait to fulfill Godwin's law BTW, even though it was a little half-way.
The reason/. has a left leaning bias is because most honest and intelligent people are left leaning. It used to be that most honest and intelligent people were "centrist" however what occurred over the years has skewed the extremes to the right. Republicans are now either Neo-cons, Tea-party or simply bat-shit crazy religious fanatics.
The anarchists cookbook also has many things in it that are too dangerous to do, or wouldn't work at all. Some of them have a significant probability of hurting you.
Im merely trying to make the point that at some period in the past one of your, maybe OUR, ancestors made a better axe and split another person's head in two for his loot and/or food. That is probably why we exist today, because of some of our ancestors willingness to do so. Its ridiculous to assume that we should have no exposure to violence when we came from it and also expect our soldiers to commit state sanctioned violence for our protection. A person killing people in video games is not doing it in the real world so its not causing societal problems unless you can prove that it makes a person more violent. Most people I know that play these games realize the difference between a game and the real world, and actually are quite pacifist. Going off your "Odin's eye" phrase, the Viking age was characterized by a lot of violence (raiding), however also trading and colonization. I realize a successful civilization is not just violent (after all, other people will start banding together if they are abused too much), however if you are unwilling to commit violent acts against other civilizations you are actively competing with then eventually they will do so to you. Now, there has been some evidence that because humans are living in civilizations there is natural selection against aggression. After all, who wants a neighbor that will come over and beat you to a pulp if your dog shits on his lawn. You probably would get your other neighbors together and punish him in one way or another. I believe one day we may be far removed from violence but that simply is not now.
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.
Isaac Asimov
This quote reminds me of what you wrote. Im going to go ahead and "friend" you here on Slashdot because you actually sound like you would agree with most of my own thoughts. As far as my first reaction to what you wrote, you seem like you actually have something worthwhile to say.
Violence is human nature. Those of us that exist today are the offspring of violent civilizations and/or tribes. Simply put, violent people were the ones that out competed the peaceful ones. Sure, there still are peaceful tribes of people living in isolation in the middle of the jungle, however they continue to not build airplanes, and 42" TV's, and freeways. If a civilization tries to peacefully remedy all of their problems, be it for resources, faith, etc, then short of some social contract they will end up being out-competed by a violent civilization that raids the shit out of their settlements. Since we are the product of thousands of years of evolution where the violent ones win, we have this trait ingrained in us. Why else do people get more upset about sexual scenes in movies than violent ones? Hell, the violence in PG-13 movies a lot of the time ends up being way more extreme than a set of boobs in a R rated film. Maybe violent video games give some people an outlet for their violent tendencies, and as such they don't go around hurting people because of them. It is simply dishonest, hypocritical and against human nature to ban violent video games.
Violence is human nature. We are the offspring of violent civilizations and/or tribes. Simply put, they were the ones that out competed the peaceful ones. Sure, there still are peaceful tribes of people living in isolation in the middle of the jungle, however they continue to not build airplanes and freeways. If you try to peacefully remedy all your problems, be it for resources, faith, etc, short of some social contract you will end up being out-competed by a violent solution to the problem. Since we are the product of thousands of years of evolution where the violent ones win, we have this trait ingrained in us. Why else do people get more upset about sexual scenes in movies than violent ones? Hell, the violence in PG-13 movies a lot of the time ends up being way more extreme than a set of boobs in a R rated film. Maybe violent video games give some people an outlet for their violent tendencies, and as such they don't go around hurting people because of them. It is simply dishonest, hypocritical and against human nature to ban violent video games.
You can thank your grandparents. Seriously, the baby boomers are a bunch of assholes. They are as entitled, if not moreso, over social security and "Senior rights" and "Morals" as they claim the younger generation is about jobs and salary. Funny thing about that. There. are. no. jobs. At least not jobs that most of us young college graduates are not over-qualified for. I'm not suggesting that an Pottery major should be guaranteed a job in anything other than being an art teacher or being a pottery artist (i.e. not guaranteed to sell their pots). However, even us science and engineering majors cannot find work, at least not for a wage we could have received out of high school as a mechanic or carpenter. Both of the aforementioned are noble professions, however, in hindsight they were actually the smart ones due to the time value of money. Us science majors cannot afford to get better than a studio apartment while the Baby Boomers at least have a house in their name. Sure, the house came after years of hard work. You hear from them how they worked with X or Y company for decades, however, job opportunities were plentiful back then for highschool graduates. Nowadays, an equivalent job requires a college degree. It also generally requires loans, and pays less if you account for inflation than any job that existed during 1947-1970. Meanwhile, Baby Boomers are the ones who have the most capital and also are at an age where they make up the majority of government. Thanks grandparents.
Rocket surgery. Ok.... Then along comes one talented leech of a lawyer and convinces an old-fossil judge or a jury of under educated saps that they have some precedent for suing / an injunction. Then, either the court costs balloon to ruinous levels over the course of several years and thus the innovator runs out of capital or they settle and reward the sleaze bag behavior of the lawyer who rolls over and sues some other innovator. Nope. Your solution = FAIL.
Its quite a bit more complicated than that. The best thing to do is to redistribute the wealth and ramp up the education system. A working class that has collective wealth can force their agenda through their buying power, and educated people generally vote more in their own favor rather than vote on one item like religion, abortion, the environment, etc.
rakes in an amount of profit per machine that you could only dream of
This is precisely why Apple still sucks. They don't even try to compete. They could wipe the rest of the companies off the face of the planet, but they don't want to lower their prices to reasonable levels. You can buy a HP Envy with aluminum/magnesium chassis for $1000.00 that actually has overall better hardware in it over a $2000.00 Macbook Pro. If Apple would lower the price of the aforementioned Macbook Pro to say, 1300.00. They still would make more money, and people would choose it over the HP Envy. Why wont they do that? Seems like air-headed business practice to me and is one more reason I won't own a Apple unless someday I have money to piss away on a companies ego.
No kidding. One major gripe I had about grad school was the f^$^ing GRE. Why should I have to pay some private company (ETS) to test my abilities? They sell their own prep materials, which is a blatant conflict of interest. I refused to pay for their materials, but I had to pay for the test. I ended up not studying for it, and showing up drunk. I ended up getting into grad school, but by the skin of my teeth on the verbal section!
If Apple really wanted to take over market share they would try to compete with their prices. You can buy an Apple that has a superior OS, can use Linux software, has nice features, but it it is priced at 1.5 to 2 times the cost of a brand new Windows Laptop with the same hardware. Bloatware cannot possible account for the price difference, neither can the aluminum chassis (you can buy an HP Envy better than the base Macbook Pro for 1000). I simply don't get it. That is one reason I don't like Apple. They could easily dominate the market by lowering their prices a couple to a few hundred dollars, but they don't. Its either a conspiracy or unnecessary pride. Its doesn't seem like good business practice for their PC division.
Slashdot Mirror
Try to be constructive instead of an asshat. I base my statement on observations through out my entire life, everything Ive read, everything Ive experienced. Since you know nothing of the aforementioned, you are making just as many generalizations about me as you claim I am. It is my opinion, and you can go glue your eyes shut or just simply fuck off if you don't like stumbling across things that offend your weak sensibilities.
Im not a Democrat. Frankly Obama kind of sucks IMO.
I am not making sweeping generalizations. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=tierney%20haidt&st=cse
Furthermore, why should someone be tolerant of other beliefs when they are insane? Should we also tolerate Schizophrenics being allowed to obtain government positions when they refuse to take their medication? A prime example of how insane the Republican party truly is is how they continue to push for Intelligent Design in schools as an "alternate theory". It is not an alternate theory. Maybe god exists and set things in motion, but there is overwhelming evidence that evolution is the most correct model we have, yet these people continue to deny it. That is textbook insanity. Sure, not all Republicans are like that, but a significant enough number of them are and it continues to be tolerated by the party.
Your argument is completely misinformed and probably based on Fox propaganda. Left leaning people want a person to benefit from their work, not to have their work channeled into a structure that only benefits wealthy or powerful people. A prime analogy would be this. Suppose I make chairs. I came from a poor family so I do not have enough money to start out a business of my own. This being the case, I work for a furniture company. They pay me 15 dollars an hour. My income goes towards supporting one child and my wife and as such not much is left over to save. My chairs sell for 200 dollars a piece and take me five hours to produce. Why am I getting paid 75 dollars to produce a 200 dollar chair? Should I not be able to profit from the fruits of my labor? The entire corporate structure of America funnels the labor of many people at many levels into the hands of a few legally, but not justly. A true Republican (i.e. the work hard, get paid kind) would actually agree with me. Fricking Henry Ford obviously did by treating his employees very well, Google does it the same.
Nope. My family actually comes from Aberdeenshire, but they have been Americanized since about 1716.
Ok. Clinton, and FDR are two people who came in power, who are left leaning, and who did not destroy the economy. You can hardly call a dictator "left-leaning" because that isn't even in the principal of the "left" so you can already scratch off numerous people from your argument. Whatever that syndrome's name, its been my experience that the majority of now-a-days Republicans fall under the "dumb but think they are smarter" category. Why else would they want to put "intelligent design" into schools? Why else did they sponsor a war in Iraq that literally has no worthwhile outcome for our nation? Why else has the disparity in wealth been getting worse since Reagan? It has also been my experience that Republicans make a mess of things for short term gains and then Democrats have to clean it up for the long term ones (FDR). Look, Im not even a Democrat, this is just an observation from a relatively centrist person. Wait to fulfill Godwin's law BTW, even though it was a little half-way.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/glenn-beck-rape-murder-hoax
The reason /. has a left leaning bias is because most honest and intelligent people are left leaning. It used to be that most honest and intelligent people were "centrist" however what occurred over the years has skewed the extremes to the right. Republicans are now either Neo-cons, Tea-party or simply bat-shit crazy religious fanatics.
The anarchists cookbook also has many things in it that are too dangerous to do, or wouldn't work at all. Some of them have a significant probability of hurting you.
Im merely trying to make the point that at some period in the past one of your, maybe OUR, ancestors made a better axe and split another person's head in two for his loot and/or food. That is probably why we exist today, because of some of our ancestors willingness to do so. Its ridiculous to assume that we should have no exposure to violence when we came from it and also expect our soldiers to commit state sanctioned violence for our protection. A person killing people in video games is not doing it in the real world so its not causing societal problems unless you can prove that it makes a person more violent. Most people I know that play these games realize the difference between a game and the real world, and actually are quite pacifist. Going off your "Odin's eye" phrase, the Viking age was characterized by a lot of violence (raiding), however also trading and colonization. I realize a successful civilization is not just violent (after all, other people will start banding together if they are abused too much), however if you are unwilling to commit violent acts against other civilizations you are actively competing with then eventually they will do so to you. Now, there has been some evidence that because humans are living in civilizations there is natural selection against aggression. After all, who wants a neighbor that will come over and beat you to a pulp if your dog shits on his lawn. You probably would get your other neighbors together and punish him in one way or another. I believe one day we may be far removed from violence but that simply is not now.
You sir DO know what the fuck you are talking about.
Revolution?
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. Isaac Asimov
This quote reminds me of what you wrote. Im going to go ahead and "friend" you here on Slashdot because you actually sound like you would agree with most of my own thoughts. As far as my first reaction to what you wrote, you seem like you actually have something worthwhile to say.
Violence is human nature. Those of us that exist today are the offspring of violent civilizations and/or tribes. Simply put, violent people were the ones that out competed the peaceful ones. Sure, there still are peaceful tribes of people living in isolation in the middle of the jungle, however they continue to not build airplanes, and 42" TV's, and freeways. If a civilization tries to peacefully remedy all of their problems, be it for resources, faith, etc, then short of some social contract they will end up being out-competed by a violent civilization that raids the shit out of their settlements. Since we are the product of thousands of years of evolution where the violent ones win, we have this trait ingrained in us. Why else do people get more upset about sexual scenes in movies than violent ones? Hell, the violence in PG-13 movies a lot of the time ends up being way more extreme than a set of boobs in a R rated film. Maybe violent video games give some people an outlet for their violent tendencies, and as such they don't go around hurting people because of them. It is simply dishonest, hypocritical and against human nature to ban violent video games.
Religion also promotes the most atrociously awesome architecture that exists. Its a double edge sword man.
Violence is human nature. We are the offspring of violent civilizations and/or tribes. Simply put, they were the ones that out competed the peaceful ones. Sure, there still are peaceful tribes of people living in isolation in the middle of the jungle, however they continue to not build airplanes and freeways. If you try to peacefully remedy all your problems, be it for resources, faith, etc, short of some social contract you will end up being out-competed by a violent solution to the problem. Since we are the product of thousands of years of evolution where the violent ones win, we have this trait ingrained in us. Why else do people get more upset about sexual scenes in movies than violent ones? Hell, the violence in PG-13 movies a lot of the time ends up being way more extreme than a set of boobs in a R rated film. Maybe violent video games give some people an outlet for their violent tendencies, and as such they don't go around hurting people because of them. It is simply dishonest, hypocritical and against human nature to ban violent video games.
Or not play by the rules at all and maybe get caught.
You can thank your grandparents. Seriously, the baby boomers are a bunch of assholes. They are as entitled, if not moreso, over social security and "Senior rights" and "Morals" as they claim the younger generation is about jobs and salary. Funny thing about that. There. are. no. jobs. At least not jobs that most of us young college graduates are not over-qualified for. I'm not suggesting that an Pottery major should be guaranteed a job in anything other than being an art teacher or being a pottery artist (i.e. not guaranteed to sell their pots). However, even us science and engineering majors cannot find work, at least not for a wage we could have received out of high school as a mechanic or carpenter. Both of the aforementioned are noble professions, however, in hindsight they were actually the smart ones due to the time value of money. Us science majors cannot afford to get better than a studio apartment while the Baby Boomers at least have a house in their name. Sure, the house came after years of hard work. You hear from them how they worked with X or Y company for decades, however, job opportunities were plentiful back then for highschool graduates. Nowadays, an equivalent job requires a college degree. It also generally requires loans, and pays less if you account for inflation than any job that existed during 1947-1970. Meanwhile, Baby Boomers are the ones who have the most capital and also are at an age where they make up the majority of government. Thanks grandparents.
Rocket surgery. Ok.... Then along comes one talented leech of a lawyer and convinces an old-fossil judge or a jury of under educated saps that they have some precedent for suing / an injunction. Then, either the court costs balloon to ruinous levels over the course of several years and thus the innovator runs out of capital or they settle and reward the sleaze bag behavior of the lawyer who rolls over and sues some other innovator. Nope. Your solution = FAIL.
Its quite a bit more complicated than that. The best thing to do is to redistribute the wealth and ramp up the education system. A working class that has collective wealth can force their agenda through their buying power, and educated people generally vote more in their own favor rather than vote on one item like religion, abortion, the environment, etc.
That is the lawyer's, and the justice system's fault.
Most likely. 70 : 30 odds in favor of Kristalpete troll over Godwin's law.
rakes in an amount of profit per machine that you could only dream of
This is precisely why Apple still sucks. They don't even try to compete. They could wipe the rest of the companies off the face of the planet, but they don't want to lower their prices to reasonable levels. You can buy a HP Envy with aluminum/magnesium chassis for $1000.00 that actually has overall better hardware in it over a $2000.00 Macbook Pro. If Apple would lower the price of the aforementioned Macbook Pro to say, 1300.00. They still would make more money, and people would choose it over the HP Envy. Why wont they do that? Seems like air-headed business practice to me and is one more reason I won't own a Apple unless someday I have money to piss away on a companies ego.
No kidding. One major gripe I had about grad school was the f^$^ing GRE. Why should I have to pay some private company (ETS) to test my abilities? They sell their own prep materials, which is a blatant conflict of interest. I refused to pay for their materials, but I had to pay for the test. I ended up not studying for it, and showing up drunk. I ended up getting into grad school, but by the skin of my teeth on the verbal section!
If Apple really wanted to take over market share they would try to compete with their prices. You can buy an Apple that has a superior OS, can use Linux software, has nice features, but it it is priced at 1.5 to 2 times the cost of a brand new Windows Laptop with the same hardware. Bloatware cannot possible account for the price difference, neither can the aluminum chassis (you can buy an HP Envy better than the base Macbook Pro for 1000). I simply don't get it. That is one reason I don't like Apple. They could easily dominate the market by lowering their prices a couple to a few hundred dollars, but they don't. Its either a conspiracy or unnecessary pride. Its doesn't seem like good business practice for their PC division.