It's the politicians' fears, mostly!
on
"Traffic"
·
· Score: 2
A lot of the reasons listed by others here are essentially correct, but the biggest factor is the politiicians' _fears_, which are:
Fear of losing their jobs from saying the "wrong" things.
Fear of losing campaign contributions from corporations and interests who have a _need_ for the continuation of the War on the American People.
Fear of the results from radically changing a policy, even though we all know the results will be largely beneficial.
This seems to be a problem that only state initiatives seem to be solving (albeit slowly), as the public doesn't have to play politics over this issue. California voters, in fact, just accepted a drug treatment plan for first and second-time "offenders."
I know a lot of people here will disagree with me, but this War on the American People and politicians' innate inability to cope with issues directly and factually is a symptom of republicanism (small 'r') and can only be ultimately cured with increasing doses of direct democracy.
For more info on the failed War on the American People, check out this site: http://www.drcnet.org. They produce excellent articles in a weekly newsletter format that's emailed to subscribers.
If one is able to diffuse a time bomb in the nick of time, would people subsequently complain about the prior need to diffuse it, since the bomb didn't go off and hurt anyone?
I want solutions that end all ignorance and violence and make everyone happy 100% of the time (not from drugs, but instead arising from spiritual health and having all their personal needs met). And I want *everyone* to have food, shelter, warmth and health, not just a good majority of first-worlders. And I want everyone to say "thank you"... that's the tallest order of all.
I completely agree. There will be multiple bounce-backs in the dot-com realm. The possibilities are endless for viable, business-model-savvy companies to come on the scene to deliver services as yet undreamed and even services tried before by some of the current failures. If WebVan fails, there will be another WebVan started... people need this service!
Of course, there's no absolute guarantee, as there will always be hackers. But for the general public who choose to review documents in PDF, they won't know how to (nor will they care to go to the trouble to) tinker with the content. The most a lay person could do is corrupt the file, not deliberately change the content in a meaningful way. But if DOC format is used, for example, anyone could pop the thing into Word and change to their heart's content.
Assuming that the pages of a site are generated through some kind of server-side engine, "hit counters" should be implemented as database log entries, from which reports can be built. Visual hit counters from the users' POV are useless and annoying.
PDF is great for distributing copyrighted documents where it's important to the author and the posterity of the document itself that nobody will be able to alter the contents before redistributing it.
There is no magic bullet to take the place of innate talent and competence (pride in workmanship, follow-through, caring, etc.). I would like to coin a phrase: "It's the programmer, stupid!".
Extra "quality processes" can significantly improve quality, or they can get in the way of it... depends upon how the process is designed and implemented in reality. Even with immense software development experience, it's still a very difficult exercise to review somebody else's code and do a good job at revealing all or most of the problems therein.
``It's the world we live in,'' Sullivan said. ``Microsoft has every right to ask us for the information.''
I hate to use such foul language, but this guy is a pussy! Not one ounce of "we have rights too against this big corporation." No backbone at all.
Is succumbing to big corporations the coming trend in American behavior, and is this what is electing Bush? The trend: "Oh yes, let's let the big corporations do whatever evil they want to do to anyone, while we demonize government and neuter its ability to go after these thugs."
All taxation is the moral equivalent of theft. I never gave my government permission to take almost 40% of my paycheck. In fact, the government never even asked if they could take 40% of my paycheck.
The American people (many now dead) gave the government permission to do this. If you don't like it, vote. Meanwhile, I'm voting for the guy who's NOT doing the big tax giveaway to the rich to avoid paying down the debt.
OK. Tomorrow, avoid driving on any roads. Tomorrow, take a drug not recommended by the FDA for safe consumption. Tomorrow, ask your bank or utilities to charge whatever they want to charge for the services they provide. (And the list goes on and on)
So, tomorrow, just totally drop out of society. Go to an island, let's say the Survivor island. Fend for yourself using only your survival skills, with nobody else to depend on. That's what you want, isn't it? Even if you could hack that, imagine the masses who wouldn't have a prayer in that Darwinian environment. Hysterically opposing what government needs to provide for all only suggests that there's not much of a care for the other masses of people around.
Even my relatively limited knowledge of history would lead me to believe you are one heck of an optimist.
I suppose we live in different countries. I live in the calm waters of the USA. Yes, we have a small faction of bandits who want to topple the government, but they are few and far between. Most Americans have it good. Make that...Very good.
Why are presidents always given the credit/blame for the work of others?
Because its their leadership or lack thereof that oftentimes sets the stage for whatever happens. Clinton's 1993 tax increase proposal (roundly well-hated by most) did a lot of the work toward eliminating the deficits. But we also have to consider a booming economy (generating additional tax revenues) that resulted from lower interest rates and freed up capital from paying down the debt and the Internet (helping to drive new efficiencies and industries), that Gore actually did champion more than any other politician in existence! And the Congress did their thing with keeping expenses from rising as fast as they did before. Clinton didn't have to lead... he didn't have to propose policies that reduced the deficits... he didn't have to hire Robert Rubin... he didn't have to reappoint Alan Greenspan... he didn't have to work the way he did with a Republican Congress.
The point is: Clinton led us back to recovery. He didn't do all the work. But he (along with Gore) set the stage.
Your point on gun accidents is interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way before. On the other hand, statistics are also worse than damn lies either way you cut it. I think it's possible for either side to twist the same statistics to support their positions. Further, just the thought of an accident or a quarrel getting out of control makes me not keep a gun in my home (even with children not there), but this is a personal choice that I wouldn't push on others. To "ward off" criminals, I always have lived in relatively safe communities and I watch my back (you know, the paranoia thing). I've never been held up at gunpoint, so I must be doing something right.
Your point on licensing is well taken. I have to admit that it bothers me that anyone would have a weapon that 1) They didn't know how to operate, 2) They didn't know when to responsibly use it, and 3) They were not trustworthy (e.g., felon, mentally disabled, etc.) enough to own a particular weapon. Licensing would probably give the gun control crazies as well as regular folk better peace of mind while not effectively restricting the rights of gun owners; it's just an inconvenience. I'm sure everyone has peace of mind from the fact that auto drivers must be licensed before they can drive. However, I do agree that registration (esp. at the federal level) should give everyone the willies.
Regarding military weaponry, I'm not sure I would feel at all safe if my next-door neighbor owned an automatic weapon, no matter how trustworthy the fellow was. It's just shocking (to me) that anyone feels they need to stock such weapons. Maybe I'm an optimist about our nation's future, that political matters will always work themselves out one way or another. But I suppose the reverse is possible as well. This is one of those subjects though that makes my brain hurt everytime I consider the ramifications. It's just not clear cut which way is the best way to go in regards to whether ordinary folk should be able to possess military-style weapons. IMHO, there's danger in either direction.
Citizens need assault weapons? I know we can get into a big nasty discussion about how weapons are classified (it would be a semantic discussion at best). But really, can't we just hunt and protect ourselves with standard rifles and pistols? Why the military weaponry?
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of the reasons listed by others here are essentially correct, but the biggest factor is the politiicians' _fears_, which are:
This seems to be a problem that only state initiatives seem to be solving (albeit slowly), as the public doesn't have to play politics over this issue. California voters, in fact, just accepted a drug treatment plan for first and second-time "offenders."
I know a lot of people here will disagree with me, but this War on the American People and politicians' innate inability to cope with issues directly and factually is a symptom of republicanism (small 'r') and can only be ultimately cured with increasing doses of direct democracy.
For more info on the failed War on the American People, check out this site: http://www.drcnet.org. They produce excellent articles in a weekly newsletter format that's emailed to subscribers.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder
didn't find themselves on the list
then I would be mighty mighty pissed.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder
So you are opposed to great scientific progress?
I say... give NASA whatever it wants. Take us to the stars, baby!
Steve Magruder
Judging from the moderators' generosity with a lot of the comments in this topic, may I also whore myself by saying a very Happy Holidays to you all!
Now gimme 5.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder
There is no magic bullet to take the place of innate talent and competence (pride in workmanship, follow-through, caring, etc.). I would like to coin a phrase: "It's the programmer, stupid!".
Extra "quality processes" can significantly improve quality, or they can get in the way of it... depends upon how the process is designed and implemented in reality. Even with immense software development experience, it's still a very difficult exercise to review somebody else's code and do a good job at revealing all or most of the problems therein.
Steve Magruder
``It's the world we live in,'' Sullivan said. ``Microsoft has every right to ask us for the information.''
I hate to use such foul language, but this guy is a pussy! Not one ounce of "we have rights too against this big corporation." No backbone at all.
Is succumbing to big corporations the coming trend in American behavior, and is this what is electing Bush? The trend: "Oh yes, let's let the big corporations do whatever evil they want to do to anyone, while we demonize government and neuter its ability to go after these thugs."
Steve Magruder
All taxation is the moral equivalent of theft. I never gave my government permission to take almost 40% of my paycheck. In fact, the government never even asked if they could take 40% of my paycheck.
The American people (many now dead) gave the government permission to do this. If you don't like it, vote. Meanwhile, I'm voting for the guy who's NOT doing the big tax giveaway to the rich to avoid paying down the debt.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder
I get no government help. Nor do I want it!
OK. Tomorrow, avoid driving on any roads. Tomorrow, take a drug not recommended by the FDA for safe consumption. Tomorrow, ask your bank or utilities to charge whatever they want to charge for the services they provide. (And the list goes on and on)
So, tomorrow, just totally drop out of society. Go to an island, let's say the Survivor island. Fend for yourself using only your survival skills, with nobody else to depend on. That's what you want, isn't it? Even if you could hack that, imagine the masses who wouldn't have a prayer in that Darwinian environment. Hysterically opposing what government needs to provide for all only suggests that there's not much of a care for the other masses of people around.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder
Even my relatively limited knowledge of history would lead me to believe you are one heck of an optimist.
I suppose we live in different countries. I live in the calm waters of the USA. Yes, we have a small faction of bandits who want to topple the government, but they are few and far between. Most Americans have it good. Make that...Very good.
Steve Magruder
Why are presidents always given the credit/blame for the work of others?
Because its their leadership or lack thereof that oftentimes sets the stage for whatever happens. Clinton's 1993 tax increase proposal (roundly well-hated by most) did a lot of the work toward eliminating the deficits. But we also have to consider a booming economy (generating additional tax revenues) that resulted from lower interest rates and freed up capital from paying down the debt and the Internet (helping to drive new efficiencies and industries), that Gore actually did champion more than any other politician in existence! And the Congress did their thing with keeping expenses from rising as fast as they did before. Clinton didn't have to lead... he didn't have to propose policies that reduced the deficits... he didn't have to hire Robert Rubin... he didn't have to reappoint Alan Greenspan... he didn't have to work the way he did with a Republican Congress.
The point is: Clinton led us back to recovery. He didn't do all the work. But he (along with Gore) set the stage.
Steve Magruder
Try to imagine what the country would be like today if we had a republican president as well as a republican house and senate for the past 6 years.
A very scary thought indeed.
Steve Magruder
Your point on gun accidents is interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way before. On the other hand, statistics are also worse than damn lies either way you cut it. I think it's possible for either side to twist the same statistics to support their positions. Further, just the thought of an accident or a quarrel getting out of control makes me not keep a gun in my home (even with children not there), but this is a personal choice that I wouldn't push on others. To "ward off" criminals, I always have lived in relatively safe communities and I watch my back (you know, the paranoia thing). I've never been held up at gunpoint, so I must be doing something right.
Your point on licensing is well taken. I have to admit that it bothers me that anyone would have a weapon that 1) They didn't know how to operate, 2) They didn't know when to responsibly use it, and 3) They were not trustworthy (e.g., felon, mentally disabled, etc.) enough to own a particular weapon. Licensing would probably give the gun control crazies as well as regular folk better peace of mind while not effectively restricting the rights of gun owners; it's just an inconvenience. I'm sure everyone has peace of mind from the fact that auto drivers must be licensed before they can drive. However, I do agree that registration (esp. at the federal level) should give everyone the willies.
Regarding military weaponry, I'm not sure I would feel at all safe if my next-door neighbor owned an automatic weapon, no matter how trustworthy the fellow was. It's just shocking (to me) that anyone feels they need to stock such weapons. Maybe I'm an optimist about our nation's future, that political matters will always work themselves out one way or another. But I suppose the reverse is possible as well. This is one of those subjects though that makes my brain hurt everytime I consider the ramifications. It's just not clear cut which way is the best way to go in regards to whether ordinary folk should be able to possess military-style weapons. IMHO, there's danger in either direction.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder