I always find it intersting that Americans complain and complain about taxes (even if they have the lowest in the G7), and that the government does nothing for it's citizens, then two minutes later I hear them saying "We need to spend more money on the military".
I find it amazing that anyone thinks one or two Americans speak for the rest of us. The U.S. is a large country with a large population of people of all stripes and opinions. There are those who want lower taxes. There are those who want more government expenditures. And, surprise!, there are those who have opinions different from these.
From the Yahoo story: U.S. District Judge James Ware found Stephen Cohen liable for fraud and forgery in the five-year battle over sex.com, hitting him for $40 million in compensation for lost profits and an additional $25 million in punitive damages.
This has to be wrong. No one makes a profit on the internet!
So, I underclock the CPU to 100MHz, and have removed the CPU fan. The power-supply fan is disconnected, because the case interior simply does not get hot. There is no disk drive in the machine (it netboots) and the box is totally silent.
No offense, but that was a pretty foolish question. If the Supreme Court says "the Constitution grants no rights" (Cruickshank is the first cite I can find), then that's a pretty clear indicator that free speech isn't guaranteed to citizens in law.
I still don't buy it. The Supreme Court says "the Constitution grants no rights". Agreed. The Constitution is not the source of our rights. However, I say the Constitution protects all rights. Protecting rights and granting them are not the same thing. This is why I say that the comment "free speech is guaranteed to citizens in law" is not false. It simply describes the purpose of our law: to protect (i.e. guarantee) our natural rights.
Consider, in the absense of law, are your rights guaranteed? What does it mean to have rights if you cannot exercise them? You may have natural rights, but many people would be happy to take yours from you. Thus, we need a society with laws to protect those rights, thereby guaranteeing (for the most part) to each of us our ability to exercise them.
No offense taken, since I don't think it was a foolish question to begin with.:)
Absolutely false. The Supreme Court has said, time and time again, that the Constitution grants absolutely no rights. Instead, the Constitution recognizes some rights as existing even in the absence of law which establishes them. Under American legal theory, free speech is a universal human right; that even were the Government to abolish the First Amendment tomorrow, citizens would still enjoy the liberty of speaking freely.
What is false about this?? People create law and form governments, in part, to protect their rights. Yes, the rights come first -- I agree with that. But they are of no use if they are trampled on. My right to speak freely is of no use if I am unable to speak. My right to life has no value if I am forcibly planted 6 feet under. Our free speech is guaranteed to us by our laws, which are sensible laws because they recognize our natural rights to free speach.
You are correct to check the mentality that suggests that the only rights we have are the ones granted to us, but the original poster wasn't claiming that.
In the house, if there is a VCR and I take it, then the original owner has lost all use of it. What if I came in and *cloned* the VCR, so the original owner still had his fully functional unit, but now I jad one just like it?
Playing devil's advocate...
What if I am online using my sucky modem to access the internet when you attempt to clone my MP3s? At that point I would be losing my use of my bandwidth. Or say I have a cable modem and am playing Quake3 online when you initiate the cloning: my framerate starts to take a big hit; I am losing bandwidth here too.
Also, if anyone thinks they would use this access to store large files, then the cloning defense is totally out. At that point, if you use my share as a file repository, I am losing the use of a portion of my HD.
Of course, you're last comment is the best one. Don't provide an open share -- password-protect it.
Hint: The primary point of the original poster was that schools do not seem very interested in teaching children to think critically.
He wasn't jeering at the need to teach children how to conform to society. He was jeering at the mentality that thinks this is all a school needs to do.
Yes, it is in everyone's best interest to teach kids how to function in our society and to instill into them a set of common values. But we also need them to grow up to be intelligent, independently-functioning adults too. Teaching and rewarding initiative, creative thinking, reasoning, and the scientific method are all things all kids should also be getting out of their years of schooling. Too often, these things are not emphasized because the public schools are really a mill shuttling kids from grade to grade via social promotion. The emphasis is on what teachers' unions represent are the needs of teachers, with the kids as an afterthought. Obviously, there are exceptions to this, but all too often this is the way it is.
This article really resonates with me! I am (belatedly) playing my way through Homeworld. The copy I bought came with a Strategy Guide. This game is great in many respects, but my big complaint is that I see no realistic way I could expect to play through this game without having to retry most of the missions several times. Many times it is necessary to anticipate what you will encounter before you hyperspace jump to the next mission and build a fleet customized to deal with that situation. No amount of thinking, forethought, stategizing, etc. will enable you to appropriately react to the game situation. The game is unwinnable first time through. This is because there is a lack of information. And then, it becomes winnable because the situation in each mission is scripted, so you know exactly what you will be dealing with and can tailor specific, trial-an-error-proved responses to deal with it.
To me, this is not Real Time Strategy, but rather, Real Time Puzzle Solving. The Strategy Guide saves you the trouble of playing through (and losing) a mission just to learn what the situation will be. I think this indicates a flaw in the game. You should be able to devise a winnable strategy based on the information you learn while playing the game (you may not, but it should be reasonable to expect that you could). It's a shame because it really does ruin some of the immersion factor of the game.
So, I think this should be a tenet of good game design: It should be reasonably possible to win the game without needing a crystal ball!
Can't agree. The Far Side wins, hands down. Bloom County was funny, don't get me wrong, but The Far Side is responsible for more tear-inducing laughter than any other comic I can recall.
Doing genetic testing is NOT the same as an insurance company asking if you're a smoker. You can always lie about being a smoker.
Yes you can. And if you develop a smoking-related illness and the insurance company learns that you lied, they will deny your coverage.
The chief difference between asking you what your risk factors are and doing genetic testing to determine them is that, in the former case, you have the opportunity to lie about it and the lie not be discovered. The net effect of getting away with the lie is the raising of rates for everybody and the reduction of out-of-pocket expenses for the person doing the lying (should they become ill).
The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk and spread the wealth. Running it for profit is a mugs game.
You end up with the argument from the companies that if you need it you can't get it.
This type of testing will prove self-defeating because if you can get insurance, you aren't likely to need it so its a waste of money so don't buy any insurance.
If we had access to perfect knowledge about who was going to be sick with what and when it would happen, insurance systems would disappear. Instead we would have some form of medical savings plan - likely required of those who we know will be suffering a catastrophic illness. The form of the plan might be as a large, government-run honey pot, or as some form of individual savings plan, run by the government and/or private saving institutions.
Since we do lack this perfect knowledge, there will alway be an incentive for insurance companies to exist and do business. The government will certainly also be involved, but private insurers will be there as well. And they have as much right as you or I do to get the most complete information possible before committing to a contract with any given person (same right as anybody considering entering into a binding agreement).
The purpose of insurance, for individuals, is to cover their risk of financially catastrophic illness. The purpose of insurance for private companies is to make a profit by providing that risk-covering service.
Of course, if we could somehow abolish insurance and make everything pay-as-you-go, it would drive medical costs down, but that is another subject...
Re:CmdrTaco is a far left liberal
on
Norway Bans Spam
·
· Score: 1
Liberals tend to limit personal freedom to protect others from things like secondhand smoke and gun-violence.
Conservatives pass laws to impose their religious and moral beliefs on others.
Liberals believe they are doing a noble thing because they believe their motives are as you describe. However, I don't believe it is noble what they do for a couple of reasons.
First, they often do not think out their proposed "solution" to the perceived problem and we all suffer unintended consequences of their remedies. For example, requiring safety equipment in automobiles means safer cars, right? Well, the presence of those safety features means folks drive less safely! They no longer have to drive as carefully. So, the accident rate increases and the overall safety record is essentially even. What we've achieved is requiring huge costs be added to all vehicles and you and I get to pay those. Another example is gun regulation. The number of lives saved because a gun was available, the number of violent acts thwarted because a gun was available (the number of violent acts not even attempted because a gun might be available!), is rarely counted by those advocating increased restrictions on guns. If the liberals had their pipe dream, all guns would be banned. But it is very far from clear that this won't mean an increase in gun violence and/or other forms of violence. In other words, will total human suffering go up or down if we ban guns? My guess is up. Legalize drugs (I'm in favor, BTW) and ban smoking? We'll just swap the War on Drugs with the War on Cigarettes.
Second, liberals not only believe they have noble goals. They want to enforce them. They want to coerce you into following their plan, even if you do not agree with it. They will do your thinking for you because they know better than you how you should live your life. This is not noble; it is arrogant.
Both groups pass laws to impose their religious and moral beliefs on others. Conservatives do this in the name of God. Liberals do this in the name of Mankind. Neither entity exists, but both groups have generated much harm to real human beings in the name of serving their respective masters.
Re:CmdrTaco is a far left liberal
on
Norway Bans Spam
·
· Score: 1
Most of the government regulation of personal lives comes from conservatives. They are the ones that are pushing for the government to regulate and/or outlaw abortion. They fight against needle-exchange programs so that drug addicts don't spread HIV. The conservatives are the ones that launched the whole "War On Drugs" and have fought for mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related convictions.
I think your point is highly debatable. I agree with you that conservatives are the ones pushing for government regulation of abortions. But it is more typically liberals who are pushing for government regulation of smoking. Liberals also push for laws to restrict your 2nd Amendment rights. Further, they are constantly advocating laws to control how you may use your own personal property. Both groups advocate taking large portions of your personal income to spend as they see fit. And both groups are equally strong in their support for the War on Drugs. One of the few truly liberal groups that is against the WoD is the Libertarians.
Conservatives tend to support laws based on traditional Judeo-Christian morality: laws against abortion, laws against homosexuality, laws against adultry, laws against what your body may ingest, etc. "Liberals" tend to support laws based on New Age morality: laws against smoking, laws against guns, laws against your use of your own property, laws against freedom of association, etc.
Both groups are equally culpable in the regulation of our personal lives. Again, the Libertarians are one of the few groups honestly advocating getting government regulation out of our personal lives.
Yea, it really sucks to be white and in the sports industry right now. After all, that means that you're probably an agent, manager, or executive, making a whole ton of money and not taking any physical risk.
<Sarcasm>
I know all those athletes are bitching about all the risk they have to take. They just hate playing, but they have to! And the agents, managers, and executives don't know what the meaning of the word "risk" is! Such soft, cushy, easy jobs theirs.
</Sarcasm>
So many athletes are paid such enormous salaries, many guaranteed, to play! They usually hate to give up the game and only do so because their skills are no longer up to it or they are injured and simply must. But given the choice, they invariably want to play for as long as they can. They know the physical risks and it doesn't deter them.
The owners of sports franchises are usually damn wealthy. But the athletes are also damn wealthy and I would bet they are, on average, far better paid than the agents and managers.
Seriously, did anyone else notice the progression of less intelligent people in college?
They'd start out in Mech E or EE, then drop to Industrial E when Mech E or EE was too hard, then drop to business when Engineering was too hard, then end up in Nutrition or Education.
Heh, that's funny! My progression was very similar, only I ended up in Computer Science!
Oh please. It's on topic because it's directly refering to a link in the posted story that around 70% of all web surfers will be unable to view because of a lame-ass browser based blocking.
The only reason people have problems with that post is that it is saying something positive about a Microsoft product.
That's right. Go straight to the defensive posture and assume this is just MS-bashing.
Spare me. I could not care less about the fact that it had anything good or bad to say about any particular browser. Hell, I use IE 5.5 and think it is a great browser! I still say the discussion was (and is) off-topic and should not be moderated up.
Off-topic moderation is for Natlie Portman and Beowulf cluster postings - not for stuff like this. You will find 50 "Microsoft sucks" postings on your average "New Planet Found" story and I never hear anyone crying "moderators, wake up!" on those so relax a little and moderate the really BAD stuff and the really GOOD stuff. IMHO, my post didn't deserve "interesting" but it also sure has hell didn't deserve "off topic".
Off-topic moderation is for postings that are off-topic. Personally, if I am going to moderate something off-topic, it will likely be for something that got moderated up that shouldn't have (because it was off-topic). In other words, I don't waste the points on Natalie Portman and First Post! postings. They won't get moderated up anyhow. Your final comment is, in fact, my true point. Stop moderating stuff like this up.
Glad to oblige: it talks about one of the articles that is linked to by the/. story. Thus it comments on the topic of the parent/. story , thus it is not offtopic. Why don't you read the linked stories before posting sometimes, moron?
You do yourself a real disservice: you make reasonably intelligent comments in your first two sentences but then mess all over yourself in the last. Pity.
(Clue train: I did follow the links and did get blocked on the second one.)
Well, the moderators are really blowing it here. Interesting or not, this is completely off topic. Recall, the topic was "Can you back up data on Audio/Visual media?"
Now awaiting the obligatory rationalization as to why it should still not be rated "Off Topic"...
These same concerns were raised when D/FW considered switching to 10-digit dialing. They are legitimate concerns, but the fact remains that, in this area, we were running out of phone numbers. It had to be done. Now it has been done and everyone adjusted to it.
We're not machines. We have a thing which we call culture, and that culture is the very definition of our identity (this is especially true for old European countries).
But the culture you claim you have is rather arbitrarily identified. After all, French (German, whatever) culture today is not the same as it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 1000 years ago. The language has changed with time as well. That is the normal course of events. Languages evolve over time. They have to have utility in the present world -- otherwise they tend to die.
Efforts to freeze or protect languages so they remain "pure" are the result of people taking a romantic view of their own lives and upbringing. I'm not going to advocate that they not try, but I am predicting that they will fail because their cause is not rational.
Oh, I just LOVED the Libertarian answer to this one:
Hand over $50 billion to Lockheed and tell them to build and operate the shield for us.
From Harry Browne's response to this question:
The only thing the government should do is post a reward -- $25, or even $50 billion -- to be given to the first private company that can demonstrate a working, functioning, fool-proof missile defense system. Not a prototype, not a plan -- but the actual system.
Your characterization of the LP position seems to be "pay mega bucks to evil corporation and then hope we get a defense system from them." That is obviously completely wrong.
Gee, what if they build one, and China launches, and we find out that it was just paper-mache missile silos, and that the $50 billion went up the Lockheed executives' noses? Do we order a recall?
Are you kidding? Are you really such a hater of the private sector that you honestly think this is what would happen? Considering Browne's plan, as quoted above, I seriously doubt anyone will succeed in demonstrating a working defense system with paper-mache silos. Do you really think the government would just hand over $50 billion on assurances and not even inspect and verify that the system functions?
I guess you would rather send $50 billion to Congress to squander over 17 years with nothing to show for it. Great plan.
Oh yeah, the Libertarians would eliminate the Consumer Products Safety Commission, (which admittedly didn't do a very good job for 80 or so Ford customers).
Slashdot Mirror
I always find it intersting that Americans complain and complain about taxes (even if they have the lowest in the G7), and that the government does nothing for it's citizens, then two minutes later I hear them saying "We need to spend more money on the military".
I find it amazing that anyone thinks one or two Americans speak for the rest of us. The U.S. is a large country with a large population of people of all stripes and opinions. There are those who want lower taxes. There are those who want more government expenditures. And, surprise!, there are those who have opinions different from these.
From the Yahoo story: U.S. District Judge James Ware found Stephen Cohen liable for fraud and forgery in the five-year battle over sex.com, hitting him for $40 million in compensation for lost profits and an additional $25 million in punitive damages.
This has to be wrong. No one makes a profit on the internet!
We (the TiVo using community) knew they were collecting anonymous information. What did you *think* they were going to use it for?
:)
Does it really matter what we think? I mean, this is Slashdot, for crisakes! Hysteria is the order of the day!
So, I underclock the CPU to 100MHz, and have removed the CPU fan. The power-supply fan is disconnected, because the case interior simply does not get hot. There is no disk drive in the machine (it netboots) and the box is totally silent.
This is so cool! It's like a PC low-rider!
No offense, but that was a pretty foolish question. If the Supreme Court says "the Constitution grants no rights" (Cruickshank is the first cite I can find), then that's a pretty clear indicator that free speech isn't guaranteed to citizens in law.
:)
I still don't buy it. The Supreme Court says "the Constitution grants no rights". Agreed. The Constitution is not the source of our rights. However, I say the Constitution protects all rights. Protecting rights and granting them are not the same thing. This is why I say that the comment "free speech is guaranteed to citizens in law" is not false. It simply describes the purpose of our law: to protect (i.e. guarantee) our natural rights.
Consider, in the absense of law, are your rights guaranteed? What does it mean to have rights if you cannot exercise them? You may have natural rights, but many people would be happy to take yours from you. Thus, we need a society with laws to protect those rights, thereby guaranteeing (for the most part) to each of us our ability to exercise them.
No offense taken, since I don't think it was a foolish question to begin with.
Free Speech is guaranteed to citizens in law.
Absolutely false. The Supreme Court has said, time and time again, that the Constitution grants absolutely no rights. Instead, the Constitution recognizes some rights as existing even in the absence of law which establishes them. Under American legal theory, free speech is a universal human right; that even were the Government to abolish the First Amendment tomorrow, citizens would still enjoy the liberty of speaking freely.
What is false about this?? People create law and form governments, in part, to protect their rights. Yes, the rights come first -- I agree with that. But they are of no use if they are trampled on. My right to speak freely is of no use if I am unable to speak. My right to life has no value if I am forcibly planted 6 feet under. Our free speech is guaranteed to us by our laws, which are sensible laws because they recognize our natural rights to free speach.
You are correct to check the mentality that suggests that the only rights we have are the ones granted to us, but the original poster wasn't claiming that.
In the house, if there is a VCR and I take it, then the original owner has lost all use of it. What if I came in and *cloned* the VCR, so the original owner still had his fully functional unit, but now I jad one just like it?
Playing devil's advocate...
What if I am online using my sucky modem to access the internet when you attempt to clone my MP3s? At that point I would be losing my use of my bandwidth. Or say I have a cable modem and am playing Quake3 online when you initiate the cloning: my framerate starts to take a big hit; I am losing bandwidth here too.
Also, if anyone thinks they would use this access to store large files, then the cloning defense is totally out. At that point, if you use my share as a file repository, I am losing the use of a portion of my HD.
Of course, you're last comment is the best one. Don't provide an open share -- password-protect it.
Hint: The primary point of the original poster was that schools do not seem very interested in teaching children to think critically.
He wasn't jeering at the need to teach children how to conform to society. He was jeering at the mentality that thinks this is all a school needs to do.
Yes, it is in everyone's best interest to teach kids how to function in our society and to instill into them a set of common values. But we also need them to grow up to be intelligent, independently-functioning adults too. Teaching and rewarding initiative, creative thinking, reasoning, and the scientific method are all things all kids should also be getting out of their years of schooling. Too often, these things are not emphasized because the public schools are really a mill shuttling kids from grade to grade via social promotion. The emphasis is on what teachers' unions represent are the needs of teachers, with the kids as an afterthought. Obviously, there are exceptions to this, but all too often this is the way it is.
This article really resonates with me! I am (belatedly) playing my way through Homeworld. The copy I bought came with a Strategy Guide. This game is great in many respects, but my big complaint is that I see no realistic way I could expect to play through this game without having to retry most of the missions several times. Many times it is necessary to anticipate what you will encounter before you hyperspace jump to the next mission and build a fleet customized to deal with that situation. No amount of thinking, forethought, stategizing, etc. will enable you to appropriately react to the game situation. The game is unwinnable first time through. This is because there is a lack of information. And then, it becomes winnable because the situation in each mission is scripted, so you know exactly what you will be dealing with and can tailor specific, trial-an-error-proved responses to deal with it.
To me, this is not Real Time Strategy, but rather, Real Time Puzzle Solving. The Strategy Guide saves you the trouble of playing through (and losing) a mission just to learn what the situation will be. I think this indicates a flaw in the game. You should be able to devise a winnable strategy based on the information you learn while playing the game (you may not, but it should be reasonable to expect that you could). It's a shame because it really does ruin some of the immersion factor of the game.
So, I think this should be a tenet of good game design: It should be reasonably possible to win the game without needing a crystal ball!
The best cartoon ever. Period.
Can't agree. The Far Side wins, hands down. Bloom County was funny, don't get me wrong, but The Far Side is responsible for more tear-inducing laughter than any other comic I can recall.
Obviously, IMNSHO.
Doing genetic testing is NOT the same as an insurance company asking if you're a smoker. You can always lie about being a smoker.
Yes you can. And if you develop a smoking-related illness and the insurance company learns that you lied, they will deny your coverage.
The chief difference between asking you what your risk factors are and doing genetic testing to determine them is that, in the former case, you have the opportunity to lie about it and the lie not be discovered. The net effect of getting away with the lie is the raising of rates for everybody and the reduction of out-of-pocket expenses for the person doing the lying (should they become ill).
The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk and spread the wealth. Running it for profit is a mugs game.
You end up with the argument from the companies that if you need it you can't get it.
This type of testing will prove self-defeating because if you can get insurance, you aren't likely to need it so its a waste of money so don't buy any insurance.
If we had access to perfect knowledge about who was going to be sick with what and when it would happen, insurance systems would disappear. Instead we would have some form of medical savings plan - likely required of those who we know will be suffering a catastrophic illness. The form of the plan might be as a large, government-run honey pot, or as some form of individual savings plan, run by the government and/or private saving institutions.
Since we do lack this perfect knowledge, there will alway be an incentive for insurance companies to exist and do business. The government will certainly also be involved, but private insurers will be there as well. And they have as much right as you or I do to get the most complete information possible before committing to a contract with any given person (same right as anybody considering entering into a binding agreement).
The purpose of insurance, for individuals, is to cover their risk of financially catastrophic illness. The purpose of insurance for private companies is to make a profit by providing that risk-covering service.
Of course, if we could somehow abolish insurance and make everything pay-as-you-go, it would drive medical costs down, but that is another subject...
Isn't this the essence of a Monopoly situation?
I don't know if you intended to condemn Microsoft for being in a monopoly position in this instance, but if you did, that would be absurd.
In this case, Microsoft appears to be the only one providing a workable answer. They deserve credit for this, not scorn.
Someone please mod this up. This is good stuff.
So, the Libertarians are liberals?
:)
Yes, actually, in the truest sense of the word.
Liberals tend to limit personal freedom to protect others from things like secondhand smoke and gun-violence.
Conservatives pass laws to impose their religious and moral beliefs on others.
Liberals believe they are doing a noble thing because they believe their motives are as you describe. However, I don't believe it is noble what they do for a couple of reasons.
First, they often do not think out their proposed "solution" to the perceived problem and we all suffer unintended consequences of their remedies. For example, requiring safety equipment in automobiles means safer cars, right? Well, the presence of those safety features means folks drive less safely! They no longer have to drive as carefully. So, the accident rate increases and the overall safety record is essentially even. What we've achieved is requiring huge costs be added to all vehicles and you and I get to pay those. Another example is gun regulation. The number of lives saved because a gun was available, the number of violent acts thwarted because a gun was available (the number of violent acts not even attempted because a gun might be available!), is rarely counted by those advocating increased restrictions on guns. If the liberals had their pipe dream, all guns would be banned. But it is very far from clear that this won't mean an increase in gun violence and/or other forms of violence. In other words, will total human suffering go up or down if we ban guns? My guess is up. Legalize drugs (I'm in favor, BTW) and ban smoking? We'll just swap the War on Drugs with the War on Cigarettes.
Second, liberals not only believe they have noble goals. They want to enforce them. They want to coerce you into following their plan, even if you do not agree with it. They will do your thinking for you because they know better than you how you should live your life. This is not noble; it is arrogant.
Both groups pass laws to impose their religious and moral beliefs on others. Conservatives do this in the name of God. Liberals do this in the name of Mankind. Neither entity exists, but both groups have generated much harm to real human beings in the name of serving their respective masters.
Most of the government regulation of personal lives comes from conservatives. They are the ones that are pushing for the government to regulate and/or outlaw abortion. They fight against needle-exchange programs so that drug addicts don't spread HIV. The conservatives are the ones that launched the whole "War On Drugs" and have fought for mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related convictions.
I think your point is highly debatable. I agree with you that conservatives are the ones pushing for government regulation of abortions. But it is more typically liberals who are pushing for government regulation of smoking. Liberals also push for laws to restrict your 2nd Amendment rights. Further, they are constantly advocating laws to control how you may use your own personal property. Both groups advocate taking large portions of your personal income to spend as they see fit. And both groups are equally strong in their support for the War on Drugs. One of the few truly liberal groups that is against the WoD is the Libertarians.
Conservatives tend to support laws based on traditional Judeo-Christian morality: laws against abortion, laws against homosexuality, laws against adultry, laws against what your body may ingest, etc. "Liberals" tend to support laws based on New Age morality: laws against smoking, laws against guns, laws against your use of your own property, laws against freedom of association, etc.
Both groups are equally culpable in the regulation of our personal lives. Again, the Libertarians are one of the few groups honestly advocating getting government regulation out of our personal lives.
Yea, it really sucks to be white and in the sports industry right now. After all, that means that you're probably an agent, manager, or executive, making a whole ton of money and not taking any physical risk.
<Sarcasm>
I know all those athletes are bitching about all the risk they have to take. They just hate playing, but they have to! And the agents, managers, and executives don't know what the meaning of the word "risk" is! Such soft, cushy, easy jobs theirs.
</Sarcasm>
So many athletes are paid such enormous salaries, many guaranteed, to play! They usually hate to give up the game and only do so because their skills are no longer up to it or they are injured and simply must. But given the choice, they invariably want to play for as long as they can. They know the physical risks and it doesn't deter them.
The owners of sports franchises are usually damn wealthy. But the athletes are also damn wealthy and I would bet they are, on average, far better paid than the agents and managers.
Seriously, did anyone else notice the progression of less intelligent people in college?
They'd start out in Mech E or EE, then drop to Industrial E when Mech E or EE was too hard, then drop to business when Engineering was too hard, then end up in Nutrition or Education.
Heh, that's funny! My progression was very similar, only I ended up in Computer Science!
Oh please. It's on topic because it's directly refering to a link in the posted story that around 70% of all web surfers will be unable to view because of a lame-ass browser based blocking.
The only reason people have problems with that post is that it is saying something positive about a Microsoft product.
That's right. Go straight to the defensive posture and assume this is just MS-bashing.
Spare me. I could not care less about the fact that it had anything good or bad to say about any particular browser. Hell, I use IE 5.5 and think it is a great browser! I still say the discussion was (and is) off-topic and should not be moderated up.
Off-topic moderation is for Natlie Portman and Beowulf cluster postings - not for stuff like this. You will find 50 "Microsoft sucks" postings on your average "New Planet Found" story and I never hear anyone crying "moderators, wake up!" on those so relax a little and moderate the really BAD stuff and the really GOOD stuff. IMHO, my post didn't deserve "interesting" but it also sure has hell didn't deserve "off topic".
Off-topic moderation is for postings that are off-topic. Personally, if I am going to moderate something off-topic, it will likely be for something that got moderated up that shouldn't have (because it was off-topic). In other words, I don't waste the points on Natalie Portman and First Post! postings. They won't get moderated up anyhow. Your final comment is, in fact, my true point. Stop moderating stuff like this up.
Glad to oblige: it talks about one of the articles that is linked to by the /. story. Thus it comments on the topic of the parent /. story , thus it is not offtopic. Why don't you read the linked stories before posting sometimes, moron?
You do yourself a real disservice: you make reasonably intelligent comments in your first two sentences but then mess all over yourself in the last. Pity.
(Clue train: I did follow the links and did get blocked on the second one.)
Well, the moderators are really blowing it here. Interesting or not, this is completely off topic. Recall, the topic was "Can you back up data on Audio/Visual media?"
Now awaiting the obligatory rationalization as to why it should still not be rated "Off Topic"...
These same concerns were raised when D/FW considered switching to 10-digit dialing. They are legitimate concerns, but the fact remains that, in this area, we were running out of phone numbers. It had to be done. Now it has been done and everyone adjusted to it.
We're not machines. We have a thing which we call culture, and that culture is the very definition of our identity (this is especially true for old European countries).
But the culture you claim you have is rather arbitrarily identified. After all, French (German, whatever) culture today is not the same as it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 1000 years ago. The language has changed with time as well. That is the normal course of events. Languages evolve over time. They have to have utility in the present world -- otherwise they tend to die.
Efforts to freeze or protect languages so they remain "pure" are the result of people taking a romantic view of their own lives and upbringing. I'm not going to advocate that they not try, but I am predicting that they will fail because their cause is not rational.
Oh, I just LOVED the Libertarian answer to this one:
Hand over $50 billion to Lockheed and tell them to build and operate the shield for us.
From Harry Browne's response to this question:
The only thing the government should do is post a reward -- $25, or even $50 billion -- to be given to the first private company that can demonstrate a working, functioning, fool-proof missile defense system. Not a prototype, not a plan -- but the actual system.
Your characterization of the LP position seems to be "pay mega bucks to evil corporation and then hope we get a defense system from them." That is obviously completely wrong.
Gee, what if they build one, and China launches, and we find out that it was just paper-mache missile silos, and that the $50 billion went up the Lockheed executives' noses? Do we order a recall?
Are you kidding? Are you really such a hater of the private sector that you honestly think this is what would happen? Considering Browne's plan, as quoted above, I seriously doubt anyone will succeed in demonstrating a working defense system with paper-mache silos. Do you really think the government would just hand over $50 billion on assurances and not even inspect and verify that the system functions?
I guess you would rather send $50 billion to Congress to squander over 17 years with nothing to show for it. Great plan.
Oh yeah, the Libertarians would eliminate the Consumer Products Safety Commission, (which admittedly didn't do a very good job for 80 or so Ford customers).
Hell of an endorsement for government oversight.