There is a Facebook that works well for the 99% and the remaining 1% as well, its called Facebook. If they don't like Facebook there are other existing options.
I show up at the polls for every election, not just the big ones. I always vote for the person I want, and never against the person I don't want. If I don't think either is qualified to do the job or will screw it up I vote for neither. This is still a vote in my book as I'm making the decision to not support either candidate. For some reason the higher up the political spectrum the position is the less likely I am to actually cast a vote. I simply can't justify voting for the lesser of two evils, either way your still voting for evil.
The Russians got off easy when it came to the Soviet Union compared to others. Russia dominated 14 other countries to create the Soviet Union. How many of them stayed when they had the chance to leave? How many of their citizens share the view of the Russians?
Also I knew a Russian back in college, good friend, he definitely was not a fan, his whole family risked their lives to escape.
I wouldn't call it just the western view, from what I've seen it was the view of many in the countries that Russia took over to form the Soviet Union.
How many of those countries wanted to stay in the Soviet Union, to my knowledge none, that is why Russia is Russia today, and not the Soviet Union as those other countries that were forced in left when Russia fell on hard times.
Communists act the part while the movement is happening, but when they take over they are anything but.
Once they have control those in power move to maintain control, in two separate countries (china and the soviet union) these governments caused the largest amount of peace time deaths in the history of nations, then it happened again and again. Under Stalin and Mao you will find several instances of this. They let their own people starve to death either in an effort to control them or through lack of caring. This and other brutal measures are what was required to keep said government in power. Ironically they never even met the stated goals of Communism after decades of "trying".
Oh? Interesting, I'm in that bottom 2/3's, at least twice a year I am able to schedule appointments with my senator and representative (both Democrat and Republican, and on the national as well as state levels) and have a conversation with them about what is happening, where I, a voting member of the populace stand in regards to what the politician has done and why, what my concerns are and such, as well as where we are going in the future. Some of these meetings have gone for hours. On in particular, my current Senator from what most would consider the "other" party is in the habit of scheduling an afternoon off for these meetings. They think its refreshing to hear views and concerns from an opposing viewpoint that does their research rather than spout off with popular one liners as many people in both parties love to do.
Every time I have done this I have treated them with respect, and they have returned the favor, even if we vehimitly disagree on pretty much everything.
You would also be surprised as to how much research on pretty much everything I do for these meetings, I am always the better prepared.
To say that because I'm not rich I have no representation is ridiculous, I have seen first hand that this is NOT true.
I've been to my state capital for these, and one of these days I intend to make it to Washington DC for a meeting or two. Who knows, I may get a tour out of it...
Try it. Do your research, be respectful not argumentative, don't be afraid to ask the tough questions and have several examples ready rather then just hearsay and opinion, take notes, rinse, repeat.
If more people did this it would be better for everyone.
You say same percentage, I say same relative impact to standard of living. Fair means different things to different people.
Be careful with that argument as well, its as ambiguous as what I was responding to earlier with the line "Define Fair Share."
I could easily take what you just said to mean that if I get a raise that taxes should go up to include all of my new income... After all, a raise has the effect of increasing my standard of living, which would be an impact...
I'm about 90% sure that that is not what you meant, however it could easily be interpreted that way.
The two political parties aren't exactly the same. You have the bad one and then worse one. Depending on your point of view which is which can vary...
Unless of course your a hack for one party or the other, in which case you believe your party can do no wrong and the other is the most evil entity that has ever existed...
From what I'm reading we are very close in principle.
As I said in my last post, in the world today there is no reasonable way to meet said principle.
Also I would also extend the doing it yourself to any plant life you consume. Just my opinion, but I think you can't have one without the other without being, as you say, a hypocrite.
You are missing the entire point and going off on your own tangent.
Am I?
I made no assertions about current levels of healthcare or whether or not poor people are, in fact, currently dying in the street today. That is all you. My statements were hypothetical, note the important little word "if" in there a few times.
the premise I actually put forward is simple:
OK...
IF you are not ok with giving poor people health care, ONLY if you do not have to see them die in the street, that is EQUAL TO being ok with eating meat but NOT being ok with killing animals, in terms of cowardice and hypocrisy.
And to this I simply suggested you use a less political comparison. Health Care is a hotly debated issue in my country today and people have strong feelings on both sides. There are those that will take your hypothetical metaphor as a direct link.
...cut a small portion of your text...If you do not have the moral fortitude to own up to the consequence of your own action in a direct sense, then you are simply a coward who needs to be insulated from the world you promote, and I have no respect for that, in myself or in anyone else.
No argument here.
If you eat meat now, but would not eat meat if you had to kill it yourself, you should not eat meat now because someone else does the killing for you.
In principle I have no problem with this statement either. There was a time in our past where pretty much everything a family group/clan ate they killed/picked/harvested themselves. Unfortunately in the modern day world today it simply isn't feasible.
If it came down to it and it was a choice of me surviving or that animal over there, well sorry animal.
If you don't know if you would kill for meat, you should probably figure that out. It might, at the least, change how much meat you eat.
I have been camping where we brought no food, we fished for everything we ate. We ate well. As I mentioned above, if it comes to it, I have no problem with it.
exactly similar would be IF... IF... IF.... you were willing to say no one should get health care they cannot pay for, but were unwilling to stick to that principle when faced with a dying kid. You'd be a monster, IMHO, if you did stick to your guns in that case, but you would not be a coward or a hypocrite. If you can imagine that you would not be able to stick to those guns, then it would be important to recognize that you do, in fact, believe that people should get health care even if they can't afford it. How, why, how much, when, none of those questions apply to my HYPOTHETICAL statement.
If you look at my original reply to your first message that I replied to I simply said that using something other than a sometimes fiercely debated political issue as an example, one that many people reading will assume you have a specific political viewpoint on a topic other that what is currently being debated.
As far as the meat, and as I posted already, I struggle with this already myself, as I'm not sure I would eat as much meat as I do now.. or at all... if I had to face the killing of it myself directly. I haven't had the courage to face this concern of mine as of yet. I just don't rationalize my cowardice, or my hypocrisy. At least, not as successfully as some others in this thread.
It depends for me, if it comes down to it I know I would do it for survival. However I simply don't see something like this happening in the modern day world. Where would we put the animals, and for that matter plants in a city environment today...
Long story short, I agree with you in principle, however I don't see it being feasible in the modern day world, and, as I said in my initial reply, I suggest using a less hot button issue than healthcare in any form to try and get your point across, even if it is only hypothetical.
I challenge you, then, to illustrate how the two things are different. If you are not ok with watching poor people die on the sidewalk walking into a hospital, but you also do not think we should give them health care, then you are just as hypocritical as someone who thinks it's ok to eat meat but that it's not ok to personally kill an animal.
the fact that your level of comfort with the two situations may be different doesn't make the situations themselves different.
Show how they are different? Thats easy, animals are a food source, the "poor" are not. The article is talking about a food source and an opinion on a certain method of obtaining meat. Are you saying we kill "poor" people for meat? These two are only the same if your answer is yes.
I would also like to point out that this same group of people have access to a measure of health insurance. Its not official, and they don't pay anything (everyone else pays for it through their insurance actually, one big reason insurance rates are so high) but its there. Hospitals are, after all, not allowed to refuse anyone for emergency service. Ironically this provides better health care to the "poor" than many universal health care systems that are in theory designed to try and help them, usually hurting the rest of the populace in the process.
Is there a better way to do cover them? I'm sure there is, however that debate has no place here when taking about personally killing animals for ones food as opposed to having some invisible third party do it.
You will notice the word poor has been in quotes every time before now, this is because many of these "poor" people apparently make more money than I do. Many of the "poor" people in this country are poor because they spend to much of their income on the wrong things.
Also before you read into the above I'm not saying that there aren't any truly poor people in this country, and I"m not doing to say that there aren't any that die on the streets alone. This, however, is also true for those countries that have this so called "universal" health care, and if you were able to find an accurate source of numbers I think you would be surprised as to how many this happens to in countries with universal health care...
Am I a hypocrite? No. As I said before, you are putting two things together here that have no relation.
Now I'm not going to talk about the poor or healthcare any more here, the article in question simply does not warrant it.
...That's like saying I'm fine with not giving poor people health care as long as I don't have to watch them die.
You had me up until you compared it to a personal political view. This is being debated enough that a comparison to a political viewpoint doesn't need to be inserted.
I am curious how many people noticed that it stated that he has largely been a vegetarian... Well this is slashdot so I'm guessing not many...
I went hunting once, killed my first and only deer. It made me feel bad inside. I also learned just what it costs to keep someone alive...
But it isn't "Mr." Obama; it's Mr. President or President Obama.
You could also use The President or POTUS.
Saying "Mr." Obama isn't just disrespecting him, it's disrespecting The Office of the President. It's tacky.
Its been almost 20 years since I respected the person who holds the office. The office I respect, the people who seem to make it there lately are another story.
Take a look at presidents even in this time period and you will find that various presidents respect the office to varying degrees. There is one that dresses in a suite and tie even if he has to just run by the office and pick up a piece of paperwork that he needed. He simply would not enter unless he was dressed for it. There is also one in particular that clearly shows no respect for the office.
Honestly many of the best games I have ever played had no graphics or old style graphics at best. To often modern day games substitute content for beauty. In the end beauty only goes so far.
This is just an opinion and should be treated as such, odds are yours is different.
As I recall Windows NT 4.0 was independent of hardware. They had this concept they called HAL, which did all of the communication when it came to hardware. You had an alpha chip, no problem, just get a alpha HAL. I have in person seen Windows NT 4.0 running on other architectures, including alphas and apples of the day (long before they switched to intel equipment).
I'm guessing they dropped this capability with one of the newer incarnations...
What we have is a claim that anyone can make versus an organization that is not allowed to talk about it during an investigation ironically to protect that person. What a world we live in.
If the FBI presses charges that explain why they were investigating let me know. Or when they drop their case and can then talk about it let me know. Until either of these are done we are drawing conclusions on half of the story, if that...
The bad news is that the tech industry has to compete more with itself which means its scrambling over a smaller total of dollars available.
The good news is that as the installed base of five-year-old PCs and netbooks increases, publishers of commercial software may finally realize that the common practice of increasing published system requirements rather than the efficiency of algorithms, commonly called Wirth's law, is costing them customers.
In the days of Windows XP this wasn't an issue. When they usually came out with a user version of Windows every year and a half or so how long was XP the latest version of Windows out? Five plus years? then at least through the Windows Vista days almost all software (and hardware for that matter) work work with XP or Vista. Even now *most* hardware/software that you buy will work with Windows XP. That being said I see XP compatibility in most items being dropped sooner rather then later as there were many changes when they switched to Vista (ans many members of slashdot are well aware).
Also consider that with the very low pricing of computers today from the price wars over the last two decades, and the fact that labor prices have not gone down, if something like a motherboard or hard drive goes bad outside of a warranty it often doesn't cost the customer to much more (and often costs less) to get a new computer that is more powerful that the original.
Like it or hate it, the low to mid range computers sold in the last five plus years are throw away devices. They simply don't have the reliability of the computers that came before. I worked for a major computer manufacturer ten years ago, and even then they kept what they considered a three year supply of replacement parts.
Simple, its their network, they can allow or not as they see fit. What you do with your PS3 is your business, however if you do certain things to it there are consequences, and this is one of them. That's life, live with it...
I almost never advocate privatization, I consider myself to a socialist on many issues. But I would totally support dismantling Amtrak and turning the rails over to private companies. Amtrak and its staggeringly poor managment is the reason interstate rail is so terrible in the US. 3rd world countries have better long distance rail systems than the US.
I am on the opposite side of the fence as you when it comes to privatization as you in general, however something like this would have to be done by our government.
I wonder though, are we just trying to do what has been done in Europe or does our president think this would actually be a good idea.
I'm torn on weather I would support such a railway, while on the plus side a high speed railway would have more benefit I think than it does in many countries in part due to the size of our country, I simply don't see it making much if any money, and worry about it being an additional taxpayer burden
One big hurdle is the existing airline system it would have to compete with, would it be faster or slower, and how much would it cost in comparison?
Another hurdle is the fact that we Americans love our cars. We use them for near everything. For better or worse they are part of our culture, as is the "road trip".
I simply don't see it being a success, at least not in the short term. I wonder if we have the wherewithal to keep paying for it long enough for people to really start using it, and thats assuming that people in general see enough of a benefit in it to use it.
One thing that could help make such an endeavor work would be light package transport. If they can get it cheap enough to compete with trucking and just as fast or faster there may be a supporting market to help pay for it in the long term. I don't see heavy packages using this service but what about mail or much of what goes through UPS or Fedex?
Hmm, the public wants health care reform... Health care reform does not necessarily mean the public health care option which most people in my experience (unscientific obviously) clearly don't want.
The people who pay taxes want an end to tax cuts? I'm sorry no... Are you talking about the same tax cuts that were billed as only affecting the rich up until they were due to expire, now there is a panic on both sides of the isle worrying about the tax increases on the middle class when they expire?
Patriot act repealed, hmm I can't argue with this, never liked it in the first place... My question is what happened to those of you on the left that stopped complaining about this once our current president took office?
I have no problem with closing gitmo, but before we can we need to figure out what to do with the prisoners there first, many of whom the countries we would normally deport them to don't even want them...
I to want to see our brothers and sisters in the military come home. Who doesn't. However, just up and leaving isn't the best solution here or we will find ourselves going back at some point in the future... Did Bush do well in these wars? No. Is our current president doing any better? No.
Odd, three of your five points have been agreed to at least in principle by someone who who is definitely right of center... I do however have a few conditions on some of your absolutes...
One thing I've learned over the years, both the left and the right think they are near the center, in reality neither has a clue as to where the center is and who is actually in it. All to often the people in the center feel their choices when voting are bad and worse, which side is which can vary depending on the beliefs of the individual.
For the most part, people seem to look at reality through the lense of their beliefs, not seeing reality but their interpretation of reality, which doesn't always match up to what is actually happening...
The party system is the problem. The fix includes screwing with the system. I am part of the solution. You are part of the problem, with some mindless zombie attachment to some party in particular.
I don't agree with everything this person says but this line hits the nail on the head.
Unfortunately the parties are playing with the system and making anything other than a two party system impossible.
I'd love to see more major political parties so that people can vote closer to their own beliefs rather then a choice between bad and worse, believe it or not most people don't perfectly (or even closely) line up with either party. Although its entirely possible that the choice will be bad, worse, still worse, even more worse...
...It's a fact. And the fact remains that wealthy Americans are fucking traitors for refusing to pay their fair share for the government and the infrastructure that made their wealth possible...
Wow, first I'm surprised as to how civil the comments have remained. Usually this topic brings out heated debate and arguing very quickly. I have to say good job to those who have posted.
Copponex, I have read many of your posts in multiple threads, I will tell you first off based on what I have read in your posts that we have near opposite views when it comes to politics. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, this is still a free country after all no thanks to the efforts of both political parties.
I'm getting that you are saying just because someone makes more money that they should pay a higher percent of that money in taxes. I don't agree with this on a fundamental level, for even at the same rates they are already paying more in taxes than someone who makes less money. If they pay enough of a higher percentage what is the point of trying to better oneself as the gains quickly dwindle and the extra effort is more and more for not. In the end this line of thought is ultimately self defeating and will eventually lead to collapse, unless you can find a new source of income as the "rich" will not always be "rich".
On your statement of rich Americans being traitors you need to define you definition of "rich". All to often to may people blame the "rich". If you poll pretty much any American they will consider those who make usually not that much more then themselves as rich, and thus being "rich" takes on a different meaning to different people.
The "Tea Party Movement" has a specific set of core beliefs. However, this also is a loose affiliation of different groups within the movement have differing beliefs. Believe it or not there are many Democrats that support this group and call themselves members of the movement. I personally am not a member, however I am sympathetic to some of their core beliefs. People on a grass roots level, primarily the middle class that is largely ignored by both parties have made their mark on politics, and weather you agree with them or not they are trying to make a difference. When the silent majority speaks you would do well to listen or their will or their will be hell to pay, and this goes for both parties, neither one of which has shown much care for this group of people.
The Republican Party at least plays lip service to the beliefs and has given such lip service every time they have been the minority party, before they won control and acted just like Democrats with their enormous spending.
So you think Republicans are only for the rich? Of course this could potentially be true as those on the far right I know seem to believe that anyone who actually has a job is considered rich by Democrat standards. Ironically these two beliefs, while both wrong, seem to be compatible...
First off, not me. I once thought I was a republican, then as time went on I realized that I was not. I then thought I was a conservative however I discovered that this was not the case when I actually did research on the subject.
I do have many conservative friends (and many liberal friends as well, go figure).
What you put forth for examples of conservatism don't even remotely match anything that the conservatives I know believe.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a Facebook that works well for the 99% and the remaining 1% as well, its called Facebook. If they don't like Facebook there are other existing options.
I show up at the polls for every election, not just the big ones. I always vote for the person I want, and never against the person I don't want. If I don't think either is qualified to do the job or will screw it up I vote for neither. This is still a vote in my book as I'm making the decision to not support either candidate. For some reason the higher up the political spectrum the position is the less likely I am to actually cast a vote. I simply can't justify voting for the lesser of two evils, either way your still voting for evil.
The Russians got off easy when it came to the Soviet Union compared to others. Russia dominated 14 other countries to create the Soviet Union. How many of them stayed when they had the chance to leave? How many of their citizens share the view of the Russians?
Also I knew a Russian back in college, good friend, he definitely was not a fan, his whole family risked their lives to escape.
I wouldn't call it just the western view, from what I've seen it was the view of many in the countries that Russia took over to form the Soviet Union.
How many of those countries wanted to stay in the Soviet Union, to my knowledge none, that is why Russia is Russia today, and not the Soviet Union as those other countries that were forced in left when Russia fell on hard times.
Communists act the part while the movement is happening, but when they take over they are anything but.
Once they have control those in power move to maintain control, in two separate countries (china and the soviet union) these governments caused the largest amount of peace time deaths in the history of nations, then it happened again and again. Under Stalin and Mao you will find several instances of this. They let their own people starve to death either in an effort to control them or through lack of caring. This and other brutal measures are what was required to keep said government in power. Ironically they never even met the stated goals of Communism after decades of "trying".
Oh? Interesting, I'm in that bottom 2/3's, at least twice a year I am able to schedule appointments with my senator and representative (both Democrat and Republican, and on the national as well as state levels) and have a conversation with them about what is happening, where I, a voting member of the populace stand in regards to what the politician has done and why, what my concerns are and such, as well as where we are going in the future. Some of these meetings have gone for hours. On in particular, my current Senator from what most would consider the "other" party is in the habit of scheduling an afternoon off for these meetings. They think its refreshing to hear views and concerns from an opposing viewpoint that does their research rather than spout off with popular one liners as many people in both parties love to do.
Every time I have done this I have treated them with respect, and they have returned the favor, even if we vehimitly disagree on pretty much everything.
You would also be surprised as to how much research on pretty much everything I do for these meetings, I am always the better prepared.
To say that because I'm not rich I have no representation is ridiculous, I have seen first hand that this is NOT true.
I've been to my state capital for these, and one of these days I intend to make it to Washington DC for a meeting or two. Who knows, I may get a tour out of it...
Try it. Do your research, be respectful not argumentative, don't be afraid to ask the tough questions and have several examples ready rather then just hearsay and opinion, take notes, rinse, repeat.
If more people did this it would be better for everyone.
You say same percentage, I say same relative impact to standard of living.
Fair means different things to different people.
Be careful with that argument as well, its as ambiguous as what I was responding to earlier with the line "Define Fair Share."
I could easily take what you just said to mean that if I get a raise that taxes should go up to include all of my new income... After all, a raise has the effect of increasing my standard of living, which would be an impact...
I'm about 90% sure that that is not what you meant, however it could easily be interpreted that way.
...It's our patriotic duty to make sure they pay their fair share for this country...
Define fair share.
To some people that means they need to pay a higher percentage.
To others that means they need to pay the same percentage.
The two political parties aren't exactly the same. You have the bad one and then worse one. Depending on your point of view which is which can vary...
Unless of course your a hack for one party or the other, in which case you believe your party can do no wrong and the other is the most evil entity that has ever existed...
From what I'm reading we are very close in principle.
As I said in my last post, in the world today there is no reasonable way to meet said principle.
Also I would also extend the doing it yourself to any plant life you consume. Just my opinion, but I think you can't have one without the other without being, as you say, a hypocrite.
You are missing the entire point and going off on your own tangent.
Am I?
I made no assertions about current levels of healthcare or whether or not poor people are, in fact, currently dying in the street today. That is all you. My statements were hypothetical, note the important little word "if" in there a few times.
the premise I actually put forward is simple:
OK...
IF you are not ok with giving poor people health care, ONLY if you do not have to see them die in the street, that is EQUAL TO being ok with eating meat but NOT being ok with killing animals, in terms of cowardice and hypocrisy.
And to this I simply suggested you use a less political comparison. Health Care is a hotly debated issue in my country today and people have strong feelings on both sides. There are those that will take your hypothetical metaphor as a direct link.
No argument here.
If you eat meat now, but would not eat meat if you had to kill it yourself, you should not eat meat now because someone else does the killing for you.
In principle I have no problem with this statement either. There was a time in our past where pretty much everything a family group/clan ate they killed/picked/harvested themselves. Unfortunately in the modern day world today it simply isn't feasible.
If it came down to it and it was a choice of me surviving or that animal over there, well sorry animal.
If you don't know if you would kill for meat, you should probably figure that out. It might, at the least, change how much meat you eat.
I have been camping where we brought no food, we fished for everything we ate. We ate well. As I mentioned above, if it comes to it, I have no problem with it.
exactly similar would be IF... IF... IF.... you were willing to say no one should get health care they cannot pay for, but were unwilling to stick to that principle when faced with a dying kid. You'd be a monster, IMHO, if you did stick to your guns in that case, but you would not be a coward or a hypocrite. If you can imagine that you would not be able to stick to those guns, then it would be important to recognize that you do, in fact, believe that people should get health care even if they can't afford it. How, why, how much, when, none of those questions apply to my HYPOTHETICAL statement.
If you look at my original reply to your first message that I replied to I simply said that using something other than a sometimes fiercely debated political issue as an example, one that many people reading will assume you have a specific political viewpoint on a topic other that what is currently being debated.
As far as the meat, and as I posted already, I struggle with this already myself, as I'm not sure I would eat as much meat as I do now.. or at all... if I had to face the killing of it myself directly. I haven't had the courage to face this concern of mine as of yet. I just don't rationalize my cowardice, or my hypocrisy. At least, not as successfully as some others in this thread.
It depends for me, if it comes down to it I know I would do it for survival. However I simply don't see something like this happening in the modern day world. Where would we put the animals, and for that matter plants in a city environment today...
Long story short, I agree with you in principle, however I don't see it being feasible in the modern day world, and, as I said in my initial reply, I suggest using a less hot button issue than healthcare in any form to try and get your point across, even if it is only hypothetical.
I challenge you, then, to illustrate how the two things are different. If you are not ok with watching poor people die on the sidewalk walking into a hospital, but you also do not think we should give them health care, then you are just as hypocritical as someone who thinks it's ok to eat meat but that it's not ok to personally kill an animal.
the fact that your level of comfort with the two situations may be different doesn't make the situations themselves different.
Show how they are different? Thats easy, animals are a food source, the "poor" are not. The article is talking about a food source and an opinion on a certain method of obtaining meat. Are you saying we kill "poor" people for meat? These two are only the same if your answer is yes.
I would also like to point out that this same group of people have access to a measure of health insurance. Its not official, and they don't pay anything (everyone else pays for it through their insurance actually, one big reason insurance rates are so high) but its there. Hospitals are, after all, not allowed to refuse anyone for emergency service. Ironically this provides better health care to the "poor" than many universal health care systems that are in theory designed to try and help them, usually hurting the rest of the populace in the process.
Is there a better way to do cover them? I'm sure there is, however that debate has no place here when taking about personally killing animals for ones food as opposed to having some invisible third party do it.
You will notice the word poor has been in quotes every time before now, this is because many of these "poor" people apparently make more money than I do. Many of the "poor" people in this country are poor because they spend to much of their income on the wrong things.
Also before you read into the above I'm not saying that there aren't any truly poor people in this country, and I"m not doing to say that there aren't any that die on the streets alone. This, however, is also true for those countries that have this so called "universal" health care, and if you were able to find an accurate source of numbers I think you would be surprised as to how many this happens to in countries with universal health care...
Am I a hypocrite? No. As I said before, you are putting two things together here that have no relation.
Now I'm not going to talk about the poor or healthcare any more here, the article in question simply does not warrant it.
...That's like saying I'm fine with not giving poor people health care as long as I don't have to watch them die.
You had me up until you compared it to a personal political view. This is being debated enough that a comparison to a political viewpoint doesn't need to be inserted.
I am curious how many people noticed that it stated that he has largely been a vegetarian... Well this is slashdot so I'm guessing not many...
I went hunting once, killed my first and only deer. It made me feel bad inside. I also learned just what it costs to keep someone alive...
Look, I'm not into the whole "political" thing.
But it isn't "Mr." Obama; it's Mr. President or President Obama.
You could also use The President or POTUS.
Saying "Mr." Obama isn't just disrespecting him, it's disrespecting The Office of the President. It's tacky.
Its been almost 20 years since I respected the person who holds the office. The office I respect, the people who seem to make it there lately are another story.
Take a look at presidents even in this time period and you will find that various presidents respect the office to varying degrees. There is one that dresses in a suite and tie even if he has to just run by the office and pick up a piece of paperwork that he needed. He simply would not enter unless he was dressed for it. There is also one in particular that clearly shows no respect for the office.
...with abysmal graphics...
Honestly many of the best games I have ever played had no graphics or old style graphics at best. To often modern day games substitute content for beauty. In the end beauty only goes so far.
This is just an opinion and should be treated as such, odds are yours is different.
As I recall Windows NT 4.0 was independent of hardware. They had this concept they called HAL, which did all of the communication when it came to hardware. You had an alpha chip, no problem, just get a alpha HAL. I have in person seen Windows NT 4.0 running on other architectures, including alphas and apples of the day (long before they switched to intel equipment).
I'm guessing they dropped this capability with one of the newer incarnations...
What we have is a claim that anyone can make versus an organization that is not allowed to talk about it during an investigation ironically to protect that person. What a world we live in.
If the FBI presses charges that explain why they were investigating let me know. Or when they drop their case and can then talk about it let me know. Until either of these are done we are drawing conclusions on half of the story, if that...
The bad news is that the tech industry has to compete more with itself which means its scrambling over a smaller total of dollars available.
The good news is that as the installed base of five-year-old PCs and netbooks increases, publishers of commercial software may finally realize that the common practice of increasing published system requirements rather than the efficiency of algorithms, commonly called Wirth's law, is costing them customers.
In the days of Windows XP this wasn't an issue. When they usually came out with a user version of Windows every year and a half or so how long was XP the latest version of Windows out? Five plus years? then at least through the Windows Vista days almost all software (and hardware for that matter) work work with XP or Vista. Even now *most* hardware/software that you buy will work with Windows XP. That being said I see XP compatibility in most items being dropped sooner rather then later as there were many changes when they switched to Vista (ans many members of slashdot are well aware).
Also consider that with the very low pricing of computers today from the price wars over the last two decades, and the fact that labor prices have not gone down, if something like a motherboard or hard drive goes bad outside of a warranty it often doesn't cost the customer to much more (and often costs less) to get a new computer that is more powerful that the original.
Like it or hate it, the low to mid range computers sold in the last five plus years are throw away devices. They simply don't have the reliability of the computers that came before. I worked for a major computer manufacturer ten years ago, and even then they kept what they considered a three year supply of replacement parts.
How is that even legal?!?!
Simple, its their network, they can allow or not as they see fit. What you do with your PS3 is your business, however if you do certain things to it there are consequences, and this is one of them. That's life, live with it...
I almost never advocate privatization, I consider myself to a socialist on many issues. But I would totally support dismantling Amtrak and turning the rails over to private companies. Amtrak and its staggeringly poor managment is the reason interstate rail is so terrible in the US. 3rd world countries have better long distance rail systems than the US.
I am on the opposite side of the fence as you when it comes to privatization as you in general, however something like this would have to be done by our government.
I wonder though, are we just trying to do what has been done in Europe or does our president think this would actually be a good idea.
I'm torn on weather I would support such a railway, while on the plus side a high speed railway would have more benefit I think than it does in many countries in part due to the size of our country, I simply don't see it making much if any money, and worry about it being an additional taxpayer burden
One big hurdle is the existing airline system it would have to compete with, would it be faster or slower, and how much would it cost in comparison?
Another hurdle is the fact that we Americans love our cars. We use them for near everything. For better or worse they are part of our culture, as is the "road trip".
I simply don't see it being a success, at least not in the short term. I wonder if we have the wherewithal to keep paying for it long enough for people to really start using it, and thats assuming that people in general see enough of a benefit in it to use it.
One thing that could help make such an endeavor work would be light package transport. If they can get it cheap enough to compete with trucking and just as fast or faster there may be a supporting market to help pay for it in the long term. I don't see heavy packages using this service but what about mail or much of what goes through UPS or Fedex?
Hmm, the public wants health care reform... Health care reform does not necessarily mean the public health care option which most people in my experience (unscientific obviously) clearly don't want.
The people who pay taxes want an end to tax cuts? I'm sorry no... Are you talking about the same tax cuts that were billed as only affecting the rich up until they were due to expire, now there is a panic on both sides of the isle worrying about the tax increases on the middle class when they expire?
Patriot act repealed, hmm I can't argue with this, never liked it in the first place... My question is what happened to those of you on the left that stopped complaining about this once our current president took office?
I have no problem with closing gitmo, but before we can we need to figure out what to do with the prisoners there first, many of whom the countries we would normally deport them to don't even want them...
I to want to see our brothers and sisters in the military come home. Who doesn't. However, just up and leaving isn't the best solution here or we will find ourselves going back at some point in the future... Did Bush do well in these wars? No. Is our current president doing any better? No.
Odd, three of your five points have been agreed to at least in principle by someone who who is definitely right of center... I do however have a few conditions on some of your absolutes...
One thing I've learned over the years, both the left and the right think they are near the center, in reality neither has a clue as to where the center is and who is actually in it. All to often the people in the center feel their choices when voting are bad and worse, which side is which can vary depending on the beliefs of the individual.
For the most part, people seem to look at reality through the lense of their beliefs, not seeing reality but their interpretation of reality, which doesn't always match up to what is actually happening...
The party system is the problem. The fix includes screwing with the system. I am part of the solution. You are part of the problem, with some mindless zombie attachment to some party in particular.
I don't agree with everything this person says but this line hits the nail on the head.
Unfortunately the parties are playing with the system and making anything other than a two party system impossible.
I'd love to see more major political parties so that people can vote closer to their own beliefs rather then a choice between bad and worse, believe it or not most people don't perfectly (or even closely) line up with either party. Although its entirely possible that the choice will be bad, worse, still worse, even more worse...
...It's a fact. And the fact remains that wealthy Americans are fucking traitors for refusing to pay their fair share for the government and the infrastructure that made their wealth possible...
Wow, first I'm surprised as to how civil the comments have remained. Usually this topic brings out heated debate and arguing very quickly. I have to say good job to those who have posted.
Copponex, I have read many of your posts in multiple threads, I will tell you first off based on what I have read in your posts that we have near opposite views when it comes to politics. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, this is still a free country after all no thanks to the efforts of both political parties.
I'm getting that you are saying just because someone makes more money that they should pay a higher percent of that money in taxes. I don't agree with this on a fundamental level, for even at the same rates they are already paying more in taxes than someone who makes less money. If they pay enough of a higher percentage what is the point of trying to better oneself as the gains quickly dwindle and the extra effort is more and more for not. In the end this line of thought is ultimately self defeating and will eventually lead to collapse, unless you can find a new source of income as the "rich" will not always be "rich".
On your statement of rich Americans being traitors you need to define you definition of "rich". All to often to may people blame the "rich". If you poll pretty much any American they will consider those who make usually not that much more then themselves as rich, and thus being "rich" takes on a different meaning to different people.
The "Tea Party Movement" has a specific set of core beliefs. However, this also is a loose affiliation of different groups within the movement have differing beliefs. Believe it or not there are many Democrats that support this group and call themselves members of the movement. I personally am not a member, however I am sympathetic to some of their core beliefs. People on a grass roots level, primarily the middle class that is largely ignored by both parties have made their mark on politics, and weather you agree with them or not they are trying to make a difference. When the silent majority speaks you would do well to listen or their will or their will be hell to pay, and this goes for both parties, neither one of which has shown much care for this group of people.
The Republican Party at least plays lip service to the beliefs and has given such lip service every time they have been the minority party, before they won control and acted just like Democrats with their enormous spending.
So you think Republicans are only for the rich? Of course this could potentially be true as those on the far right I know seem to believe that anyone who actually has a job is considered rich by Democrat standards. Ironically these two beliefs, while both wrong, seem to be compatible...
By your definition, who IS a conservative?
Wow.
First off, not me. I once thought I was a republican, then as time went on I realized that I was not. I then thought I was a conservative however I discovered that this was not the case when I actually did research on the subject.
I do have many conservative friends (and many liberal friends as well, go figure).
What you put forth for examples of conservatism don't even remotely match anything that the conservatives I know believe.