Motivation to go have a beer? When you're depressed? Yeah, that's just what you need, to sit in a smoke-filled room and ingest depressants with the other losers who think that spending too much on a mug full of fuel additive is good treatment for their depression.
What a bunch of moralistic bullshit. Socialization is a major factor in happiness. For a depressed person, going out to have a drink with friends can do a lot for their mental health. Getting a little disinhibited from the alcohol helps too. Obviously you can over do it. But that doesn't mean that going out for a drink with friends isn't an entirely healthy activity for someone to engage in.
The point is to do something real. Video-game achievements just aren't a high-enough density feeling of accomplishment to really satisfy you for the rest of the day.
Maybe to you they're not. Personally, I don't see much difference between putting a ball in a hole or putting a sprite through another sprite. As for the feeling of accomplishment, you're playing the wrong games. Get away from the grind fests and play something challenging. Completing a difficult game, like ascending in nethack, or completing a hardcore shmup is a feeling of accomplishment that stays with you for a lot longer than a day.
Physical activity *is* very good for depression, because of the physiological effects of exercise. Video gaming can't replace an active lifestyle, I just object to your characterization of gaming as not "real". It's as real as any other hobby.
Linux doesn't need to become a mainstream OS. It just needs enough people to sustain a healthy pace of development. I'd be more interested in these numbers plotted as absolute values instead of percentages.
What do we call the "He's right, therefore I like him" effect? If you've been right in the past, you're more likely to be right in the future. It's not exactly a bias to give them the benefit of a doubt in such cases.
It works the other way too. I hate Rush Limbaugh. I also don't believe anything he says. That's not a bias, I don't disbelieve him because I hate him. I both hate and disbelieve him because he is frequently and verifiable untruthful.
But it's still rape so long as one party was made to have sex through force or the threat of force, and forensic science can't "prove or disprove rape".
So what's left? Without physical evidence we cannot prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. We either have to let men rape women, or we have to let women incarcerate any man they want based on nothing but an accusation. I don't like either of these.
As critical as I am of US foreign policy, this is unfortunately true. If the USA didn't take care of many of the hotbeds and warzones of the world, some other country would have to assume the responsibility.
What evidence do you have that your assertion is actually true? Your argument is nothing but a thinly veiled rationalization for imperialism. You saw the same sort of things said during the colonization of Africa, and look how good that turned out.
Failed nation states are like addicts. No on can make them change except themselves.
Blaming the object of abuse is a common tactic addicts use to deflect blame from themselves. Even with highly addictive drugs like nicotine and heroin people can and do will themselves to quit. If you are addicted to something the responsibility lies on your shoulders, no one else's.
That the moon is undergoing these kinds of changes shows that the moon is geologically active. There may be no convection going on in its core, but this is still geological activity.
It might be fair for them to say "no, you can't torrent right now" since you torrenting could kill everybody else trying to share your tower. We may not agree with them on this, but it is a valid point of view.
It is! We call that point of view QoS (Quality of Service). It is shaping traffic based on type. It is entirely orthogonal to Network Neutrality, which refers to treating packets the same, no matter their point of origin.
Network Neutrality and QoS are completely different things. Poorly written language enforcing Network Neutrality might accidentally ban QoS. We should be careful not to do this. But we must not let the need for QoS deter us from enforcing Network Neutrality.
So what you're saying is that the Tea Party movement is just politics as usual. That is pretty much what I suspected.
On the topic of welfare, what bothers me isn't that they see welfare recipients as freeloaders. I understand that. What bothers me is that they don't see corporate welfare recipients as freeloaders. If you're against government handouts on principle, you should be against them for everyone. That they don't tells me that their opposition to government handouts is not in fact principled. Knowing that, I see no reason to consider any of their rhetoric as anything but crass political gamesmanship. If you follow the Tea Party movement, you are being used. But to be clear, I hold the Democratic and Republican parties in similar esteem.
Well, why don't the tea partiers make a bigger deal over this? They'll rant and rave about socialism when we talk about welfare. But they'll happily vote for people who have received handouts from the government. What this indicates to me is that they don't care about the handouts themselves, but who is getting them. Handouts to the poor, that's socialism. Handouts to the rich, that's just business.
When angry middle aged white guys start ranting at rallies about subsidies their own candidates have received I'll believe it's just a few odd hypocrites. For now though, it looks like the whole movement is hypocritical.
Here's another question. If Tea Partiers are honestly in favor of small government and reducing the deficit, why have so many of them accepted Farm Subsidies? Stephen Fincher, Marlin Stutzman, Clint Didier, Michele Bachmann, Kristi Noem, all speak at tea party rallies and tote the small governemnt, free market line. Yet, they've all received farm subsidies.
As an analogy, consider my personal budget. The biggest single expense is my rent, and yet, if I am personally going to try to cut costs, it is one of the last things I am going to change. You don't have to focus on the single largest item in order to cut spending.
You should still seriously consider it. If you're going deeply into debt, reducing your rent by taking in a roommate or moving back home is a great way to save money. If you're unwilling to consider changing your living situations, you're not really serious about saving money.
Now I am going to mock your information gathering skills. Tom Price, for example
Tom Price is a Republican representative. A Republican moving to reduce the defense budget is a breath of fresh air, but doesn't do much to indicate that the tea party is anything but a tool of the Republican party.
In other words, defense spending is a manageable expense. Entitlement spending is exactly the reverse. It is continuing to grow, so much that even if we cut military spending completely, we would not be able to cover it all.
Clearly we do have to get entitlement spending under control. But we should take care of the low hanging fruit first. We could cut military spending in half, and we'd still have the largest military in the world by a very large margin. We should do this. Today.
Cutting military spending is one place where the small-government right and pacifist left should be able to work together to do some good. I understand why it's so hard to cut entitlements. No one wants to deny medication to Grandma. Military spending however is a no-brainer. How people can push for the former and ignore the latter is just beyond me.
Oh also, concerning the way I want to see things. I'd really love for there to be a viable party that actually wants to reduce the size of our government and restore individual liberties. I'm no fan of Obama, he's scarcely better than Bush. But I haven't seen anything that indicates that the Tea Party is anything but a bunch of frightened reactionaries. They certainly show all the hallmarks of an authoritarian movement.
The tea party can say it's about a lot of things. But actions speak louder than words. When they organize to pressure the government to cut the largest source of spending in the budget, I will believe them that they seriously want to reduce the deficit. That hasn't happened, and I'm not optimistic that it will happen.
Yes, that part of my statement is pretty subjective. The first part of my statement was not. Military spending is the single largest item in our budget. If you honestly want to reduce spending, you look for where the most spending is first. No tea-partier has done so. The only logical conclusion is that they are not honestly interested in reducing spending. Since you're such a fan of logic, please tell me where mine is wrong.
It would still in no way contradict the idea that the main focus of the tea-party is cutting deficits through cutting spending.
Yes, yes it would. Military spending accounts for more of our budget than any other program. If you claim to want to cut spending and ignore the single largest expense, you're either a liar or an idiot.
The real goal of the Tea Party is to obstruct anything and everything Obama does, in order to give Republicans a better chance in 2012.
The main focus of the tea-party is cutting deficits through cutting spending
So which tea party leader has come out in favor of cutting spending to the largest military in the world? Or saving some money by not imprisoning more of our citizens than any other country in the world?
Slashdot Mirror
Helium makes your voice sound funny. N2O makes everyone else's voice sound funny.
Freedom of the press is afforded only to those who can afford a press.
Motivation to go have a beer? When you're depressed? Yeah, that's just what you need, to sit in a smoke-filled room and ingest depressants with the other losers who think that spending too much on a mug full of fuel additive is good treatment for their depression.
What a bunch of moralistic bullshit. Socialization is a major factor in happiness. For a depressed person, going out to have a drink with friends can do a lot for their mental health. Getting a little disinhibited from the alcohol helps too. Obviously you can over do it. But that doesn't mean that going out for a drink with friends isn't an entirely healthy activity for someone to engage in.
The point is to do something real. Video-game achievements just aren't a high-enough density feeling of accomplishment to really satisfy you for the rest of the day.
Maybe to you they're not. Personally, I don't see much difference between putting a ball in a hole or putting a sprite through another sprite. As for the feeling of accomplishment, you're playing the wrong games. Get away from the grind fests and play something challenging. Completing a difficult game, like ascending in nethack, or completing a hardcore shmup is a feeling of accomplishment that stays with you for a lot longer than a day.
Physical activity *is* very good for depression, because of the physiological effects of exercise. Video gaming can't replace an active lifestyle, I just object to your characterization of gaming as not "real". It's as real as any other hobby.
Linux doesn't need to become a mainstream OS. It just needs enough people to sustain a healthy pace of development. I'd be more interested in these numbers plotted as absolute values instead of percentages.
What do we call the "He's right, therefore I like him" effect? If you've been right in the past, you're more likely to be right in the future. It's not exactly a bias to give them the benefit of a doubt in such cases.
It works the other way too. I hate Rush Limbaugh. I also don't believe anything he says. That's not a bias, I don't disbelieve him because I hate him. I both hate and disbelieve him because he is frequently and verifiable untruthful.
But it's still rape so long as one party was made to have sex through force or the threat of force, and forensic science can't "prove or disprove rape".
So what's left? Without physical evidence we cannot prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. We either have to let men rape women, or we have to let women incarcerate any man they want based on nothing but an accusation. I don't like either of these.
Run Tor. There's plenty of data for you to proxy.
As critical as I am of US foreign policy, this is unfortunately true. If the USA didn't take care of many of the hotbeds and warzones of the world, some other country would have to assume the responsibility.
What evidence do you have that your assertion is actually true? Your argument is nothing but a thinly veiled rationalization for imperialism. You saw the same sort of things said during the colonization of Africa, and look how good that turned out.
Failed nation states are like addicts. No on can make them change except themselves.
And when it is, it's only a matter of time until TRIM-resistant HIV develops.
Castlevania was never on any Apple platform. You may be thinking of Castlevania on the Amiga. Or you may be thinking of Dark Castle on the Macintosh.
Blaming the object of abuse is a common tactic addicts use to deflect blame from themselves. Even with highly addictive drugs like nicotine and heroin people can and do will themselves to quit. If you are addicted to something the responsibility lies on your shoulders, no one else's.
That the moon is undergoing these kinds of changes shows that the moon is geologically active. There may be no convection going on in its core, but this is still geological activity.
It might be fair for them to say "no, you can't torrent right now" since you torrenting could kill everybody else trying to share your tower. We may not agree with them on this, but it is a valid point of view.
It is! We call that point of view QoS (Quality of Service). It is shaping traffic based on type. It is entirely orthogonal to Network Neutrality, which refers to treating packets the same, no matter their point of origin.
Network Neutrality and QoS are completely different things. Poorly written language enforcing Network Neutrality might accidentally ban QoS. We should be careful not to do this. But we must not let the need for QoS deter us from enforcing Network Neutrality.
Indeed, 5 years old and no exploit.
How do you know?
So what you're saying is that the Tea Party movement is just politics as usual. That is pretty much what I suspected.
On the topic of welfare, what bothers me isn't that they see welfare recipients as freeloaders. I understand that. What bothers me is that they don't see corporate welfare recipients as freeloaders. If you're against government handouts on principle, you should be against them for everyone. That they don't tells me that their opposition to government handouts is not in fact principled. Knowing that, I see no reason to consider any of their rhetoric as anything but crass political gamesmanship. If you follow the Tea Party movement, you are being used. But to be clear, I hold the Democratic and Republican parties in similar esteem.
Well, why don't the tea partiers make a bigger deal over this? They'll rant and rave about socialism when we talk about welfare. But they'll happily vote for people who have received handouts from the government. What this indicates to me is that they don't care about the handouts themselves, but who is getting them. Handouts to the poor, that's socialism. Handouts to the rich, that's just business.
When angry middle aged white guys start ranting at rallies about subsidies their own candidates have received I'll believe it's just a few odd hypocrites. For now though, it looks like the whole movement is hypocritical.
There's a difference between magical-thinking and predicting behavior based on knowledge of how a system actually works.
Here's another question. If Tea Partiers are honestly in favor of small government and reducing the deficit, why have so many of them accepted Farm Subsidies? Stephen Fincher, Marlin Stutzman, Clint Didier, Michele Bachmann, Kristi Noem, all speak at tea party rallies and tote the small governemnt, free market line. Yet, they've all received farm subsidies.
You didn't say "RFID tagging is less scary than existing privacy intrustions teenagers gladly accept."
As an analogy, consider my personal budget. The biggest single expense is my rent, and yet, if I am personally going to try to cut costs, it is one of the last things I am going to change. You don't have to focus on the single largest item in order to cut spending.
You should still seriously consider it. If you're going deeply into debt, reducing your rent by taking in a roommate or moving back home is a great way to save money. If you're unwilling to consider changing your living situations, you're not really serious about saving money.
Now I am going to mock your information gathering skills. Tom Price, for example
Tom Price is a Republican representative. A Republican moving to reduce the defense budget is a breath of fresh air, but doesn't do much to indicate that the tea party is anything but a tool of the Republican party.
In other words, defense spending is a manageable expense. Entitlement spending is exactly the reverse. It is continuing to grow, so much that even if we cut military spending completely, we would not be able to cover it all.
Clearly we do have to get entitlement spending under control. But we should take care of the low hanging fruit first. We could cut military spending in half, and we'd still have the largest military in the world by a very large margin. We should do this. Today.
Cutting military spending is one place where the small-government right and pacifist left should be able to work together to do some good. I understand why it's so hard to cut entitlements. No one wants to deny medication to Grandma. Military spending however is a no-brainer. How people can push for the former and ignore the latter is just beyond me.
You assume that we accept cell phones. You also forget that cell phones can be turned off.
Oh also, concerning the way I want to see things. I'd really love for there to be a viable party that actually wants to reduce the size of our government and restore individual liberties. I'm no fan of Obama, he's scarcely better than Bush. But I haven't seen anything that indicates that the Tea Party is anything but a bunch of frightened reactionaries. They certainly show all the hallmarks of an authoritarian movement.
The tea party can say it's about a lot of things. But actions speak louder than words. When they organize to pressure the government to cut the largest source of spending in the budget, I will believe them that they seriously want to reduce the deficit. That hasn't happened, and I'm not optimistic that it will happen.
Yes, that part of my statement is pretty subjective. The first part of my statement was not. Military spending is the single largest item in our budget. If you honestly want to reduce spending, you look for where the most spending is first. No tea-partier has done so. The only logical conclusion is that they are not honestly interested in reducing spending. Since you're such a fan of logic, please tell me where mine is wrong.
It would still in no way contradict the idea that the main focus of the tea-party is cutting deficits through cutting spending.
Yes, yes it would. Military spending accounts for more of our budget than any other program. If you claim to want to cut spending and ignore the single largest expense, you're either a liar or an idiot.
The real goal of the Tea Party is to obstruct anything and everything Obama does, in order to give Republicans a better chance in 2012.
The main focus of the tea-party is cutting deficits through cutting spending
So which tea party leader has come out in favor of cutting spending to the largest military in the world? Or saving some money by not imprisoning more of our citizens than any other country in the world?