Your only mistake is assuming the government doesn't already know more about you than you probably would otherwise want.
And this year, they are collecting even more information than before (Census), and you are REQUIRED by law to complete the entire census form, and then you are required to sign it under the laws of perjury and shit.
You want to FUCK with the government, fine. Just be willing to accept the consequences. Most people don't, because they are SHEEPLE. baaa.
And the problem is that people want all the services and *FREE* stuff the government provides, and then on the next breath complain about intrusion into every aspect of their life by government.
Want to eat cake and have it too? You can't. Compromise is always like that. And people like me are called RADICAL (or Troll) for wanting as little government intrusion and power as possible.
And next up is all your medical data. You left wingers complaining about privacy should realize that you're the ones promoting government intrusion into every aspect of our lives.
You've missed the point by mixing what you're complaining about with things you can't complain about.
iPhone is completely hackable via their SDA. Have you seen the App store? You're just pissed because you have to fully depend on Apple for apps, and that is understandable. You aren't the market for iPhone or the iPhone applications.
people like my wife just want the damn thing to play music or do whatever it supposed to do.
And nothing is going to prevent them doing that. 99% of users will take the device out of the box and just use it. They'll be happy with it and have no problems at all.
You're right and you're not right. iTunes is stupid easy to use, as is her iPod. I didn't have to train her to use the damn thing, she figured it all out on her own. Which is an accomplishment because she is anti-tech to the point of questioning me buying it for her for her birthday (CD's were good enough).
I'm complaining that they are deploying as much energy as possible in trying to make it impossible for those who want and are ready to cope with the risks to choose something
Then buy a Blackberry, Pre, or Droid. Just know that it isn't the same as an iPhone precisely because of why and how Apple chooses to do stuff.
Way 1: My computer is broken again, got another virus. Can you fix it for me or should I buy another one?
Way 2: It just works.
I realize that you're not gonna get this concept, but most people want stuff to just work, and not have to fiddle with it to keep it running right.
And while you and I are both Geeks, and like to play with stuff, and do whatever the heck we want to something, people like my wife just want the damn thing to play music or do whatever it supposed to do.
I have email, gTalk, gVoice, Facebook, Web, GPS etc etc on my Blackberry. My wife thinks that it is stupid. She has a basic, plain as vanilla cell. She uses it to make calls, and doesn't want it to do anything else.
Most people are like that. Some want more, some want less. It is called choice, and just because someone chooses something you wouldn't doesn't mean it is a wrong choice, just different.
1. Public Funds? That means public control of who runs. Bad idea.
2. I agree. But that also goes for Unions, Corps etc as well.
3. I don't see how that works. I would suggest random lots rather than appointments.
4. I'm against any limits whatsoever. My limits are people can only donate to candidates they can vote for.
5. No bundling allowed. Only individual donations.
6. New FEC replacement will have the same problem as FEC. Voter Fraud, Campaign Election Law violations = jail time, no exceptions.
1. Agreed. I'd do the same for all PACs, Unions and other "organizations". Only individuals can donate to campaigns.
2. I don't agree. I'd like to see all non-person entities have to declare who they are supporting. They can run their own ads. And no co-mingling, bundling of funds to get more publicity.
3. I disagree. Limit no-person entities by not allowing them to contribute to campaigns. No limit on contributions. Just make sure that people know that it is George Soros funding all the left wing PACs and groups. All donations are available for public viewing.
4. Yup. Agreed.
5. Libel and Slander only affect "persons", not ideas. But I like your idea, and would include politician promises as well. If a law supporters promise a certain outcome, and that outcome doesn't true, the politician goes to jail. Seems fair.;)
6. I'm all for FSM candidates. Either that or the PirateParty. FYI that is already the case in most states. My suggestion is that we eliminate "parties" altogether.
We're a Democratic Republic here in the US. Politicians aren't running the country, special interests are. Except you're probably all for special interests when the are in your favor, but not for them when they aren't.
We can solve this problem simply and easily. A person can donate as much money to any candidate they can vote for, otherwise it is strictly forbidden.
I'd also increase the number of House members to 1000, each state getting at least two, but they only serve six months (by lottery) at a time. And cut their pay in 1/2.
I'd also make sure that EVERYONE over 18 had to write a check out to the IRS, for some amount, say $25 (or so) "person" tax. The reason for this is because people who don't pay ANY taxes (now about 50% of the population) don't care about how government spends other people's money.
I would suppose it would matter what questions were asked;)
For example: I wonder if people who watched John Stewart's show could tell us exactly who Obama's associations were and why they were problematic for some people, especially his denial of ever hearing what seems to be a weekly diatribe in Wright's church or even the theological bent promoted by Wright.
Of course that probably doesn't matter to viewers of the DailyShow. They probably just accepted the "I never heard that" excuse as being true, and don't care even if he did hear it, chalking it up to political expedience or whatever.
And it doesn't matter what Stewart's view that he's a comedian (he's funny at times), what is interesting is the percentage of people in certain age groups who's only source of "news" is the DailyShow.
Changing the questions would necessarily change the results. One thing I haven't seen is the questions that were asked of the candidates to arrive at such a conclusion, because I've seen stats the other way as well. Again, I'm pretty sure that you could skew the results of such a survey by focusing on things Stewart talked about (or Beck, O'Rielly, Maddow) etc, rather than taking a broad sample of topics and depth of info being asked about.
Yes, you're also right. This is not an XOR problem.
Someone who knows how to read, write, and have basic math skills, can learn ANYTHING(they want), which was my premise.
We don't need "schools" for self motivated learners. We need schools for paper certificates that show you've mastered a certain level of understanding in a core set of skills/education.
If I were in charge of High Schools (all of them), I would have a test battery that could be given at any time, with Certificates given for mastery of skills. I wouldn't give HS diploma's, which are almost meaningless these days.
One would have to prove mastery to get a certificate, and require certification to progress through a system. None of this A - F scale that doesn't function because it REALLY doesn't mean mastery, but completed processes.
You missed one case where Peer Review doesn't work... group think.
Case in point, the whole Global Warming data set which had nothing but group think attached, along with the requisite shunning of anyone not belonging to the group think process.
I don't trust scientific peer review unless it is actively trying to DISPROVE the Thesis. You see, true scientific advancement comes not by Group Think, or even Peer review, but rather from rigorous Thesis, Antithesis and finally Synthesis processes.
Show me peer review that only has Thesis, I'll show your a flawed peer review.
Of course they are morons. They've spent the last 12 years of their lives not learning math, reading and writing, but rather the 12 pilars of Islam and Susie has two mommies, and GWB (or Clinton or Reagan or Carter) teh (sic) Evil, and watching the likes Glenn Beck and John Stewart, and not to forget the wonders of American Idol.
If you want people to know how to read, write, add and subtract properly, then we ought to spend more time teaching THESE things than the other stuff that in reality doesn't matter that much.
I have this theory about education. If you teach people to Read, Write and do Math, then they are well rounded and can learn ANYTHING. If they cannot do THESE basics, it doesn't matter how "well rounded" you think their education is, they are illiterate fools.
We should spend the first six years of education mastering these three things for that is the basis of ALL further education.
If you get to University level and can't read, write or do basic math properly, the system has failed you!
You forget to add in the R&D used to create said drug, the FDA Fees and costs to get the drug tested and approved. Now add in the Liability costs when shit happens to %.001 of the people taking the drug and are sued into oblivion by the likes of John Edwards and so on.
The real cost of a vaccine is probably closer to $200 per dose than the actual $1 cost to manufacture it.
Now, if you're suggesting we stop R&D, FDA approval process and torts against the vaccine manufacturer then we might be closer to getting your fictional $1/dose vaccine.
I must be an idiot for not thinking of that! Gee Whiz. Thank you so much for enlightening me.
Last time I checked, the babies weren't given a choice.
Oh wait, I clearly make the point that the only one being presented with a "choice" was the adult. BTW, a baby is not a choice, it is a baby. Calling the baby a choice is simply something people do to ease their conscience when they want to kill it.
Read my point about dehumanizing people in my previous post. Tell me why you feel comfortable dehumanizing a baby so you can kill it.
re-align your thoughts
You have given no reason why I should, other than my opinion is different than yours. But thanks for playing along with me.
Your choice of words "Choice" and "Anti Choice" give insight into who's choice you give deference to. Last time I checked, the babies weren't given a choice.
And at what time to you "choose" to stop calling it "fetal tissue" and start calling it a "baby" (human, person or otherwise)??
How come you didn't call it "Pro-Life" and "Pro-death" ?? By simply choosing your words, you've clearly tried to frame the "choice" into something more palatable to your feelings.
Here's my challenge to you. Stop calling it "Anti-choice" and calling it by "Pro-Life" for a year. The side hasn't changed, only your words, see if your view on the subject changes. I'm not even suggesting you change it from "Pro-Choice" to "Pro-Death" or "Anti-life". Just stop calling it Anti-life and call it Pro-Life for a year.
You see, I bet you can't or won't be able to do it. And now you'll make excuses and attack me for even making such a suggestion.
After all, it is always easier to kill someone if you dehumanize them first. Jews are Pigs. Christians are devils. Muslims are evil doers. Blacks are apes. Women are property. Babies are fetal tissue.
They call these "World Phones" because they operate on quad band GSM.
CDMA is going the way of the dodo (hopefully). I like my Verizon phone, because I don't have problems with 3G coverage where I am. GSM pretty much sucks around these parts.
And if you're on a Corporate LAN, and are allowing unauthorized communication devices onto your network, you deserve the headaches. If they are authorized, then you can make sure they are configured right when you authorize them, just as you would a PC running windows.
Or do you just allow any PC with whatever infestation on to your network?
The ethics of progressive thought is that all ethics are equal, none is superior to another. Except when those other "ethics" conflict with the ethics of progressives, in which case they are intolerant.
The humorous thing is, in expressing tolerance for all, while also expressing intolerance for those ethics that are rigid, the progressives thought is hypocritical at best.
Which is simply put this way... "Progressive ethics are the only ethics that are ethical" which is just as dogmatic as the ethics they reject for being too dogmatic.
You can see the result of this in the form of Political Correctness. You're free to say anything as long as it fits the PC crowd's ideas of what speech is protected.
Sounds about right. You don't think, therefore you don't know, just just love to pontificate your hatred for people who are just like you.
And I'd be willing to pit the average test and education levels of public education vs home school kids.
FYI, I home schooled my kids, my 17 year old is in college and will graduate HS next year with her AA degree, two years ahead of what "Public" schools can offer. I guess she is not getting a proper education.
Slashdot Mirror
Your only mistake is assuming the government doesn't already know more about you than you probably would otherwise want.
And this year, they are collecting even more information than before (Census), and you are REQUIRED by law to complete the entire census form, and then you are required to sign it under the laws of perjury and shit.
You want to FUCK with the government, fine. Just be willing to accept the consequences. Most people don't, because they are SHEEPLE. baaa.
And the problem is that people want all the services and *FREE* stuff the government provides, and then on the next breath complain about intrusion into every aspect of their life by government.
Want to eat cake and have it too? You can't. Compromise is always like that. And people like me are called RADICAL (or Troll) for wanting as little government intrusion and power as possible.
And next up is all your medical data. You left wingers complaining about privacy should realize that you're the ones promoting government intrusion into every aspect of our lives.
You've missed the point by mixing what you're complaining about with things you can't complain about.
iPhone is completely hackable via their SDA. Have you seen the App store? You're just pissed because you have to fully depend on Apple for apps, and that is understandable. You aren't the market for iPhone or the iPhone applications.
You're right and you're not right. iTunes is stupid easy to use, as is her iPod. I didn't have to train her to use the damn thing, she figured it all out on her own. Which is an accomplishment because she is anti-tech to the point of questioning me buying it for her for her birthday (CD's were good enough).
Then buy a Blackberry, Pre, or Droid. Just know that it isn't the same as an iPhone precisely because of why and how Apple chooses to do stuff.
Way 1: My computer is broken again, got another virus. Can you fix it for me or should I buy another one?
Way 2: It just works.
I realize that you're not gonna get this concept, but most people want stuff to just work, and not have to fiddle with it to keep it running right.
And while you and I are both Geeks, and like to play with stuff, and do whatever the heck we want to something, people like my wife just want the damn thing to play music or do whatever it supposed to do.
I have email, gTalk, gVoice, Facebook, Web, GPS etc etc on my Blackberry. My wife thinks that it is stupid. She has a basic, plain as vanilla cell. She uses it to make calls, and doesn't want it to do anything else.
Most people are like that. Some want more, some want less. It is called choice, and just because someone chooses something you wouldn't doesn't mean it is a wrong choice, just different.
That's why I don't have any friends. Now get out of my basement.
1. Public Funds? That means public control of who runs. Bad idea.
2. I agree. But that also goes for Unions, Corps etc as well.
3. I don't see how that works. I would suggest random lots rather than appointments.
4. I'm against any limits whatsoever. My limits are people can only donate to candidates they can vote for.
5. No bundling allowed. Only individual donations.
6. New FEC replacement will have the same problem as FEC. Voter Fraud, Campaign Election Law violations = jail time, no exceptions.
1. Agreed. I'd do the same for all PACs, Unions and other "organizations". Only individuals can donate to campaigns.
2. I don't agree. I'd like to see all non-person entities have to declare who they are supporting. They can run their own ads. And no co-mingling, bundling of funds to get more publicity.
3. I disagree. Limit no-person entities by not allowing them to contribute to campaigns. No limit on contributions. Just make sure that people know that it is George Soros funding all the left wing PACs and groups. All donations are available for public viewing.
4. Yup. Agreed.
5. Libel and Slander only affect "persons", not ideas. But I like your idea, and would include politician promises as well. If a law supporters promise a certain outcome, and that outcome doesn't true, the politician goes to jail. Seems fair. ;)
6. I'm all for FSM candidates. Either that or the PirateParty. FYI that is already the case in most states. My suggestion is that we eliminate "parties" altogether.
You're living in Teenage Wasteland.
We're a Democratic Republic here in the US. Politicians aren't running the country, special interests are. Except you're probably all for special interests when the are in your favor, but not for them when they aren't.
We can solve this problem simply and easily. A person can donate as much money to any candidate they can vote for, otherwise it is strictly forbidden.
I'd also increase the number of House members to 1000, each state getting at least two, but they only serve six months (by lottery) at a time. And cut their pay in 1/2.
I'd also make sure that EVERYONE over 18 had to write a check out to the IRS, for some amount, say $25 (or so) "person" tax. The reason for this is because people who don't pay ANY taxes (now about 50% of the population) don't care about how government spends other people's money.
Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!
I first read the Headline, my brain told me "LEGO TECH", and I was momentarily excited.
I would suppose it would matter what questions were asked ;)
For example: I wonder if people who watched John Stewart's show could tell us exactly who Obama's associations were and why they were problematic for some people, especially his denial of ever hearing what seems to be a weekly diatribe in Wright's church or even the theological bent promoted by Wright.
Of course that probably doesn't matter to viewers of the DailyShow. They probably just accepted the "I never heard that" excuse as being true, and don't care even if he did hear it, chalking it up to political expedience or whatever.
And it doesn't matter what Stewart's view that he's a comedian (he's funny at times), what is interesting is the percentage of people in certain age groups who's only source of "news" is the DailyShow.
Changing the questions would necessarily change the results. One thing I haven't seen is the questions that were asked of the candidates to arrive at such a conclusion, because I've seen stats the other way as well. Again, I'm pretty sure that you could skew the results of such a survey by focusing on things Stewart talked about (or Beck, O'Rielly, Maddow) etc, rather than taking a broad sample of topics and depth of info being asked about.
Yes, you're also right. This is not an XOR problem.
Someone who knows how to read, write, and have basic math skills, can learn ANYTHING(they want), which was my premise.
We don't need "schools" for self motivated learners. We need schools for paper certificates that show you've mastered a certain level of understanding in a core set of skills/education.
If I were in charge of High Schools (all of them), I would have a test battery that could be given at any time, with Certificates given for mastery of skills. I wouldn't give HS diploma's, which are almost meaningless these days.
One would have to prove mastery to get a certificate, and require certification to progress through a system. None of this A - F scale that doesn't function because it REALLY doesn't mean mastery, but completed processes.
You missed one case where Peer Review doesn't work ... group think.
Case in point, the whole Global Warming data set which had nothing but group think attached, along with the requisite shunning of anyone not belonging to the group think process.
I don't trust scientific peer review unless it is actively trying to DISPROVE the Thesis. You see, true scientific advancement comes not by Group Think, or even Peer review, but rather from rigorous Thesis, Antithesis and finally Synthesis processes.
Show me peer review that only has Thesis, I'll show your a flawed peer review.
Nope.
First login should require two things, new user name / password combo, and disabling the default username / password combo.
Seriously, the first half of an attack is trying to guess a username, which if in the open, cuts the amount of work needed to crack the device.
Nothing says "insecure" like default user names ... IMHO
Of course they are morons. They've spent the last 12 years of their lives not learning math, reading and writing, but rather the 12 pilars of Islam and Susie has two mommies, and GWB (or Clinton or Reagan or Carter) teh (sic) Evil, and watching the likes Glenn Beck and John Stewart, and not to forget the wonders of American Idol.
If you want people to know how to read, write, add and subtract properly, then we ought to spend more time teaching THESE things than the other stuff that in reality doesn't matter that much.
I have this theory about education. If you teach people to Read, Write and do Math, then they are well rounded and can learn ANYTHING. If they cannot do THESE basics, it doesn't matter how "well rounded" you think their education is, they are illiterate fools.
We should spend the first six years of education mastering these three things for that is the basis of ALL further education.
If you get to University level and can't read, write or do basic math properly, the system has failed you!
Renew at 30! (Logan's Run) ... problem solved!
You forget to add in the R&D used to create said drug, the FDA Fees and costs to get the drug tested and approved. Now add in the Liability costs when shit happens to %.001 of the people taking the drug and are sued into oblivion by the likes of John Edwards and so on.
The real cost of a vaccine is probably closer to $200 per dose than the actual $1 cost to manufacture it.
Now, if you're suggesting we stop R&D, FDA approval process and torts against the vaccine manufacturer then we might be closer to getting your fictional $1/dose vaccine.
It just isn't as simple as you suggest.
Okay, play monopoly on your cribbage board. How about Sorry! on your Chinese checker board. How about Chess on your poker table.
I have a whole closet full of "Board Games" and their props and pieces.
A reconfigurable game space would be nice.
I must be an idiot for not thinking of that! Gee Whiz. Thank you so much for enlightening me.
Oh wait, I clearly make the point that the only one being presented with a "choice" was the adult. BTW, a baby is not a choice, it is a baby. Calling the baby a choice is simply something people do to ease their conscience when they want to kill it.
Read my point about dehumanizing people in my previous post. Tell me why you feel comfortable dehumanizing a baby so you can kill it.
You have given no reason why I should, other than my opinion is different than yours. But thanks for playing along with me.
I realize you're not capable of my suggestion.
Your choice of words "Choice" and "Anti Choice" give insight into who's choice you give deference to. Last time I checked, the babies weren't given a choice.
And at what time to you "choose" to stop calling it "fetal tissue" and start calling it a "baby" (human, person or otherwise)??
How come you didn't call it "Pro-Life" and "Pro-death" ?? By simply choosing your words, you've clearly tried to frame the "choice" into something more palatable to your feelings.
Here's my challenge to you. Stop calling it "Anti-choice" and calling it by "Pro-Life" for a year. The side hasn't changed, only your words, see if your view on the subject changes. I'm not even suggesting you change it from "Pro-Choice" to "Pro-Death" or "Anti-life". Just stop calling it Anti-life and call it Pro-Life for a year.
You see, I bet you can't or won't be able to do it. And now you'll make excuses and attack me for even making such a suggestion.
After all, it is always easier to kill someone if you dehumanize them first. Jews are Pigs. Christians are devils. Muslims are evil doers. Blacks are apes. Women are property. Babies are fetal tissue.
I wonder if that is the problem Tiger Woods has. He obviously was thinking with the wrong head.
Moses didn't go to Sunday School either, he kept Sabbath. Sunday Heretics hmmmph
They call these "World Phones" because they operate on quad band GSM.
CDMA is going the way of the dodo (hopefully). I like my Verizon phone, because I don't have problems with 3G coverage where I am. GSM pretty much sucks around these parts.
And layer 3 "bridged" networks are so common.
And if you're on a Corporate LAN, and are allowing unauthorized communication devices onto your network, you deserve the headaches. If they are authorized, then you can make sure they are configured right when you authorize them, just as you would a PC running windows.
Or do you just allow any PC with whatever infestation on to your network?
Just askin
The ethics of progressive thought is that all ethics are equal, none is superior to another. Except when those other "ethics" conflict with the ethics of progressives, in which case they are intolerant.
The humorous thing is, in expressing tolerance for all, while also expressing intolerance for those ethics that are rigid, the progressives thought is hypocritical at best.
Which is simply put this way ... "Progressive ethics are the only ethics that are ethical" which is just as dogmatic as the ethics they reject for being too dogmatic.
You can see the result of this in the form of Political Correctness. You're free to say anything as long as it fits the PC crowd's ideas of what speech is protected.
CITATION NEEDED
Sounds about right. You don't think, therefore you don't know, just just love to pontificate your hatred for people who are just like you.
And I'd be willing to pit the average test and education levels of public education vs home school kids.
FYI, I home schooled my kids, my 17 year old is in college and will graduate HS next year with her AA degree, two years ahead of what "Public" schools can offer. I guess she is not getting a proper education.