It's the same thing with "Parents with Prams" parking spots - unless you want to discriminate against them as well?
Actually, that's discrimination in favor of parents. Handicapped spots make sense, because disability is a tragedy and we want to help these unfortunate people out. Parenthood is not a tragedy, it's a choice, a choice that doesn't really benefit anyone but the parent. Why should we make special concessions for them?
What most users want is this: Open box. Turn on computer. Search for the app they want. Hit "Install". Use app. That's it. Get shit done, and do other shit when the desire strikes.
People who don't understand this often adopt a condescending tone and claim iPhone / iPad users are just dumb sheep who buy into PR, etc. And that if users only opened their eyes and realized how they're being controlled...
Oh, no, we understand that just fine. That's WHY we call them sheep. Because they don't want to think.
That's a good thing if you take the traditional view that the OS is the platform - now you can run any old OS you like (with a standards compliant browser) and you'll be able to run the apps.
Except that it defeats the purpose of choosing your OS. Why bother having multiple OSs at all, if you're just going to launch a browser and do everything there. You might as well boot directly into the browser to begin with.
Not everyone actually knows about jury nullification, and prosecutors have gone as far as to charge people with jury tampering for trying to spread the word.
That said, I can't imagine why I should support undermining a system which has made possible my modest success.
Sounds like something my Uncle Tom would say.
The assumption that magical 'policy' decrees economic conditions, relative wealth of nations, dissemination of technology or availability of cheap labour and resources
Do you really believe that policy has no effect on personal and national economic fortunes? If policy is irrelevant, why not give us what we want?
Hypocrites who post about lack of manufacturing or service jobs via Iphones made in china and malaysia are not prepared to pay for (nor could they afford) these devices and services, were they realized with western labour.
Why do you assume we're unaware and unconcerned about global inequality? Socialists have always been aware of the global scope of the worker's struggle.
I'll close with the traditional 'Get a job, Hippie'
This is standard "potential applications" justification for basic research. It's intentionally speculative. There's probably a line or two in the discussion section that says future experiments should be done on alzheimers patients. Journalists just pick these things up and run with them.
It's really hard to get terribly upset that Facebook doesn't keep your private data any more private than you did. I avoid the whole issue by just not telling my secrets to anyone.
there are plenty of people of that 99% who have issues on their views too.
Any 99%er advocating for the status quo is advocating against his own interest. Those who do so simply haven't thought it through enough, and need to be made aware that there are serious problems. Protesting is an attempt to raise awareness.
The United States (and a good part of the world too) is in a Depression (not the Great Depression but a normal one).
Funny, I thought we were in a "jobless recovery". aka "Fuck you, I got mine."
However when things get better they will moderate a little.
Why do you assume things will get better? Why would a thirty year trend towards more inequality just get better on its own? It was caused by policy, and it will have to be fixed with policy. We just need to get enough people to pay attention and get outraged.
You can make a real difference by volunteering and getting people out to vote in the next election
No, no you can't. You can only legitimize the two (one, really) party system by increasing voter turnout. If you're trying to get a third party politician elected, there are nearly insurmountable biases built into the system. The system favors candidates with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal. The corporate media favors candidates with a pro corporate agenda. The winner take all voting system discourages people from voting third party, e.g. Ralph Nader in 2000. And even if you do get a credible agent for change in office, there's no way for the people to stand up to the sort of lobbying done by corporations.
No, the system is well and truly broken. If this was a fixable problem, it would have been fixed back in the 60s. Instead, the powerful have locked down their positions, homogenized society, and are extracting wealth at an accelerated pace. This is not what democracy looks like.
(e.g. the Tea Party, which actually accomplished something in that respect)
What has the Tea Party actually accomplished other than getting co-opted by republicans?
For how many thousands of years have there been greater than one billion people on the planet? How do you expect to get the yields to feed that many people without modern agriculture techniques?
It's not greedy corporations that "tell us we 'need' these things in our food". You can go start a farm or garden today, refuse to use these products, and see how your yields turn out. People who grow organically today compete on quality for a reason, they can't get the yields factory farming does.
Not saying the corporate farming industry is without its faults, just being realistic here.
In general, without natural borders, different races are impossible within a species. The fact that we have both global travel and different races is an exceptional situation, and a temporary one (in ~500 years, maybe less, there will only be 1 human race left, unless global travel ends before that time).
We already have but one race. There is more genetic variation within one troop of chimpanzees than there is among the entire human species. A random african and a random european have as much DNA in common as two random africans do. Race is genetically meaningless.
The whole U.S. is established on the idea of God and religion.
Sorry, this is just a myth. The founding fathers were deists, as secular as you could be in their day. The Constitution contains one reference to deity, in "the year of our lord". The Federalist Papers have equally few mentions of any sort of god.
You are falling for the revisionist history perpetuated by the very people you are afraid of. "Under God" wasn't even added to the pledge of allegiance until 1948. The real philosophical basis of the United States are the ideals of the Enlightenment, which we have progressively lost as we slip into a modern dark ages.
There would be incredible outcry if a politically large state got to go first and make the little states even less relevant, like CA or PA or NY or FL.
It's this kind of comment that demonstrates how undemocratic our system is. One person, one vote should be the law of the land. If that were the case, what size state you live in would be irrelevant.
They may have supposed the war would be short, but the desired effects of the war were (presumably) long-term.
Right. And if they couldn't predict the war six months out, what chance do they have of predicting the effects of the war 10 or 100 years out?
I don't know all of the goals, and neither do you, since we don't have access to the classified information
So any time there could be classified information, we're supposed to withhold all judgement and obey our leaders? Because they would never lie about having classfied information in order to wage an illegal war. That would never happen. They'd never use pretense to direct enormous no-bid contracts to well connected companies. We just have to assume that the completely vacuous, tenuous, and just utterly paper thin case they presented for war was an act, and they have this one really special key piece of evidence, and it's just too bad we can't see it because it's classified. But you know, it totally exists and everything.
my husband was there
Oh, I see. You are personally invested in believing this was not a horrible waste of American lives not to mention several years of your own. I understand that. It's still wrong, and ultimately harmful to the country to cast this as anything but the fools errand it was. But I can understand why.
Slashdot Mirror
Where as in capitalism, the slackers just run the whole show.
It's the same thing with "Parents with Prams" parking spots - unless you want to discriminate against them as well?
Actually, that's discrimination in favor of parents. Handicapped spots make sense, because disability is a tragedy and we want to help these unfortunate people out. Parenthood is not a tragedy, it's a choice, a choice that doesn't really benefit anyone but the parent. Why should we make special concessions for them?
What most users want is this: Open box. Turn on computer. Search for the app they want. Hit "Install". Use app. That's it. Get shit done, and do other shit when the desire strikes.
People who don't understand this often adopt a condescending tone and claim iPhone / iPad users are just dumb sheep who buy into PR, etc. And that if users only opened their eyes and realized how they're being controlled...
Oh, no, we understand that just fine. That's WHY we call them sheep. Because they don't want to think.
That's a good thing if you take the traditional view that the OS is the platform - now you can run any old OS you like (with a standards compliant browser) and you'll be able to run the apps.
Except that it defeats the purpose of choosing your OS. Why bother having multiple OSs at all, if you're just going to launch a browser and do everything there. You might as well boot directly into the browser to begin with.
Not everyone actually knows about jury nullification, and prosecutors have gone as far as to charge people with jury tampering for trying to spread the word.
It's BASIC, yes it's aimed at teenagers.
That said, I can't imagine why I should support undermining a system which has made possible my modest success.
Sounds like something my Uncle Tom would say.
The assumption that magical 'policy' decrees economic conditions, relative wealth of nations, dissemination of technology or availability of cheap labour and resources
Do you really believe that policy has no effect on personal and national economic fortunes? If policy is irrelevant, why not give us what we want?
Hypocrites who post about lack of manufacturing or service jobs via Iphones made in china and malaysia are not prepared to pay for (nor could they afford) these devices and services, were they realized with western labour.
Why do you assume we're unaware and unconcerned about global inequality? Socialists have always been aware of the global scope of the worker's struggle.
I'll close with the traditional 'Get a job, Hippie'
"Get a job" is today's "let them eat cake"
This is standard "potential applications" justification for basic research. It's intentionally speculative. There's probably a line or two in the discussion section that says future experiments should be done on alzheimers patients. Journalists just pick these things up and run with them.
It's really hard to get terribly upset that Facebook doesn't keep your private data any more private than you did. I avoid the whole issue by just not telling my secrets to anyone.
there are plenty of people of that 99% who have issues on their views too.
Any 99%er advocating for the status quo is advocating against his own interest. Those who do so simply haven't thought it through enough, and need to be made aware that there are serious problems. Protesting is an attempt to raise awareness.
The United States (and a good part of the world too) is in a Depression (not the Great Depression but a normal one).
Funny, I thought we were in a "jobless recovery". aka "Fuck you, I got mine."
However when things get better they will moderate a little.
Why do you assume things will get better? Why would a thirty year trend towards more inequality just get better on its own? It was caused by policy, and it will have to be fixed with policy. We just need to get enough people to pay attention and get outraged.
You can make a real difference by volunteering and getting people out to vote in the next election
No, no you can't. You can only legitimize the two (one, really) party system by increasing voter turnout. If you're trying to get a third party politician elected, there are nearly insurmountable biases built into the system. The system favors candidates with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal. The corporate media favors candidates with a pro corporate agenda. The winner take all voting system discourages people from voting third party, e.g. Ralph Nader in 2000. And even if you do get a credible agent for change in office, there's no way for the people to stand up to the sort of lobbying done by corporations.
No, the system is well and truly broken. If this was a fixable problem, it would have been fixed back in the 60s. Instead, the powerful have locked down their positions, homogenized society, and are extracting wealth at an accelerated pace. This is not what democracy looks like.
(e.g. the Tea Party, which actually accomplished something in that respect)
What has the Tea Party actually accomplished other than getting co-opted by republicans?
Not that it has anything to do with the matter at hand, but you agreed to Facebook's terms and conditions when you signed up.
Bitter and angry, maybe. But also correct.
For how many thousands of years have there been greater than one billion people on the planet? How do you expect to get the yields to feed that many people without modern agriculture techniques?
It's not greedy corporations that "tell us we 'need' these things in our food". You can go start a farm or garden today, refuse to use these products, and see how your yields turn out. People who grow organically today compete on quality for a reason, they can't get the yields factory farming does.
Not saying the corporate farming industry is without its faults, just being realistic here.
In general, without natural borders, different races are impossible within a species. The fact that we have both global travel and different races is an exceptional situation, and a temporary one (in ~500 years, maybe less, there will only be 1 human race left, unless global travel ends before that time).
We already have but one race. There is more genetic variation within one troop of chimpanzees than there is among the entire human species. A random african and a random european have as much DNA in common as two random africans do. Race is genetically meaningless.
Because the American financial system is deliberately inefficient in order to extract as much wealth from us as possible.
Meat gets antibiotics. Vegetables get synthetic fertilizer. No food source can feed the planet without modern agriculture techniques.
Freedom implies the freedom to share.
You are correct that the problem fundamentally is ignorance. However, religion promotes ignorance by encouraging people to believe without proof.
The whole U.S. is established on the idea of God and religion.
Sorry, this is just a myth. The founding fathers were deists, as secular as you could be in their day. The Constitution contains one reference to deity, in "the year of our lord". The Federalist Papers have equally few mentions of any sort of god.
You are falling for the revisionist history perpetuated by the very people you are afraid of. "Under God" wasn't even added to the pledge of allegiance until 1948. The real philosophical basis of the United States are the ideals of the Enlightenment, which we have progressively lost as we slip into a modern dark ages.
There would be incredible outcry if a politically large state got to go first and make the little states even less relevant, like CA or PA or NY or FL.
It's this kind of comment that demonstrates how undemocratic our system is. One person, one vote should be the law of the land. If that were the case, what size state you live in would be irrelevant.
At that point, they can just VPN back home.
Is this perhaps a $10.95 HDMI cable?
They may have supposed the war would be short, but the desired effects of the war were (presumably) long-term.
Right. And if they couldn't predict the war six months out, what chance do they have of predicting the effects of the war 10 or 100 years out?
I don't know all of the goals, and neither do you, since we don't have access to the classified information
So any time there could be classified information, we're supposed to withhold all judgement and obey our leaders? Because they would never lie about having classfied information in order to wage an illegal war. That would never happen. They'd never use pretense to direct enormous no-bid contracts to well connected companies. We just have to assume that the completely vacuous, tenuous, and just utterly paper thin case they presented for war was an act, and they have this one really special key piece of evidence, and it's just too bad we can't see it because it's classified. But you know, it totally exists and everything.
my husband was there
Oh, I see. You are personally invested in believing this was not a horrible waste of American lives not to mention several years of your own. I understand that. It's still wrong, and ultimately harmful to the country to cast this as anything but the fools errand it was. But I can understand why.
you just sound like a child
You sound just like an authoritarian sycophant.
Because the seat of power in the US is not in fact in Washington DC, but in corporate boardrooms.