Oh, people *dont* like that? That explains why no one ever emails me back when i send them links. That, and they are all locked into the facebook paradigm, i guess.
Personally, i love email. I gives you so much more control, i constantly have Sylpheed open with five accounts streaming into it and an every 15 minute autocheck and make noise on delivery, setup. The application is only apparent when i know there is something there to check. It is really very efficient.
But, i suppose its apples and oranges, to an extent. Whilst both email and facebook are both ostensibly about online communication, facebook is really more for hanging out and being part of a scene. Even if that does mean you are subjected to the torture of attention seekers, cheesy "i'm so unique/clever" comments, and a torrent of information regarding what your "friends" are putting on toast at any given moment.
No thanks. I have made quite a home under this rock.
Agreed. I am on a six year old laptop with 2ghz CPU and i find Ff to be quite snappy. I have done some, rather unscientific, comparisons between it and Chromium and i can not really clock a perceptible difference, and i would willing tolerate a small difference to retain Ff's functionality too, any day.
Which is not to say that i wouldnt like it to be leaner, of course.
"So no, I really don't think we can single out one and say "their policies have been shown to be unacceptable". I think the same is just as true of both sides. The only difference is which policies we are talking about."
Fair enough.
We could also say that the financial collapse of recent years and decades previous, has been an example of how untrammeled neo-liberal capitalism has failed us.
We might also say that evidence of so called communist countries' failures are not really a true reflection of the failure of Marxist ideas, but are indeed an example of them not being correctly implemented. I am not a Marxist by the way.
I do not believe we can say that excessive government spending drives a nation to the poor house, as the Scandinavian countries demonstrate, they have the highest public spending and are some of the wealthiest, yet least unequal societies in the world, with the most well functioning state infrastructure and public services. In Europe socialism is not a dirty word and doing things in the public interest is seen as a laudable aspiration, and keeping governmental check on the power of big business is seen as sensible and necessary.
Neither do i believe that the US has ever been an example of of excessive government spending, perhaps from some individual perspectives, but certainly not when compared to other "western" nations. Obama's stimulus went muchly to the banks, to make up for their failings as regards their neo-liberal, unregulated, capitalist disaster, and was not really spent on encouraging much growth in other areas of the economy or on supporting private individuals who might need state help in hard times, to get them back on their feet and contributing to the economy again.
So, no, i would not say that the US provides and example of high government spending (and so is thus not excessive) and can thus not provide an example of the failing of high state spending.
I do believe that private individuals need to be supported, in many instances, against the interests of big business, which does not have the population of any nation as its core interest.
Sorry if this post hasnt been very well articulated, but i am late for a date with my mate (no, not like that, this aint the discovery channel, this is Blighty), i will raise a fat one to you though, and get back to you tomorrow if you want to continue debating.
Hello Jane, didn’t realise it was you i was replying to again. We should meet up and debate over cyber coffee or something.
Less scruples than Bush is defiantly debatable though. However, i guess you could say that Bush was blatantly a small minded, small brained, callous individual, where Obama pretends to be all sweetness and light, but fails to deliver any sugar.
Bush got elected though, imagine the bozos we would get in Heinlein's lottery!
"Left and Right have, at different times, both demonstrated great wisdom in some areas while simultaneously engaging in complete idiocy in other area"
Totally agreed. But, denying that was not at all my point, i am not partisan, i see it as a divide and rule strategy (whether conscious or not) and partly as a system of compromise to gain critical mass for any one group. I do not deny that both Repubs and Dems, Conservatives and Labour, or whatever, have both put feet wrong, repeatedly. It's just that, as i see it, reactionary views of right wingers eventually come to be seen as unacceptable, even by later generations of conservatives, at least publicly, as it becomes apparent that the populace at large find such views repugnant (once more public space has been given to rational discourse on such matters). So, i assume the same will be true in future, not necessarily, but i would put money on it. This shows us (me at least) that clinging to imagined ideas of tradition and historical categorisations of people is futile, as public opinion is subject to change.
No, i am not saying that, i was merely pointing out to hedwards that the US government is not about as incorruptible as they get, indeed, quite far from it when compared to Scandinavian governments in general.
Contrasting the negative example of Italy against the US, to demonstrate that the US is not one of the most corrupt regimes, is surely, by your logic, as invalid as my citing Norway in the opposite light, to demonstrate that the US is not one of the least corrupt governments. However, you are right, citing one example in a group of many, as being more or less so, does not determine the absolute ranking of another member of that group.
However, i was not claiming that the US is one of the most corrupt governments, clearly far from it, i was merely pointing out that it was not the least, and (IMHO) not even one of the least.
Also, to an extent, some things are a matter of perspective. For example, i would see the power that lobbying groups have over US politics as corruption of the highest order. Why should interest groups with the most money have the most influence. I would like to see interest groups barred from contributing to political groups and, private meetings with politicians made illegal. Such interest groups should argue their cases, along side others, in a more public forum, where minutes are released and journalists present. I would also argue that the system of campaign financing in the US is corrupt, as it it just becomes a giant advertising campaign, where only big money can talk. I would like to see caps put on campaign spending and all such spending disclosed and monitored by and independent group. This way all political groups could compete on a more level playing field.
Granted these are not legally defined as corruption, yet. But, i would see them as instances of corruption, personally.
Where i would agree with you: my personal attack was rude; sorry to hedwards.
Don't you think there should be some legal way to bind politicians to, at least, attempting to achieve what they claim they will. Or, at very least, not doing the opposite.
Here, in the UK, the conservatives got in (in a way) saying they would ring fence spending on the NHS (national health service) and are now going about trying to privatise it.
Why should they be able to deceive the public with impunity?
The US has many inbuilt controls which do lot allow much of the behaviour exhibited by politicians in younger countries. And, yet they try as they might to work away at those controls to give themselves more leeway.
This is just an anecdote, but my mums friend is a lawyer and he started his carrier, way back, as a human rights lawyer. He ended up defending Microsoft in the 90s and is now a real high flyer. A great bloke, yes, but his morals fell somewhat by the wayside.
The guy is as much white as he is black. I hate the way the media always refer to him as a black man. It is reminiscent of the bad old days, when all people of colour were seen as lesser and any "black" blood had you relegated to that category. We might call him African American (bearing in mind he is also European American) if his heritage must be singled out.
Hello again, Jane. Here i would be inclined to agree with you. It reminds me of a Frank Baum story my mum used to read me, Sky Island, i think. Where the ruler is selected for their qualities by the populace, and does not put them self forward. Something like, he/she who wants to rule, probably should not, and he/she who has the right qualities, but does not lust for power, is more likely able to handle it. And crucially, in the book, the ruler is not given a lavish lifestyle for the duration of their stay in power, but is instead obliged to live in lowly lodgings. When i hear things, like governors mansions i think, WTF, are these the kind of incentives that are going to attract the right candidate?
Firstly, dont you think the whole left/right thing is a bit of a false dichotomy? Why should believing in one policy necessarily discern your beliefs in other ares? Because you are part of a side?
Secondly, You only have to look at history to see that beliefs held by conservatives at any one time end up being seen as unacceptable by the majority in time, eg, equal rights for non-"white" Americans and women. Resisting change is futile, flux is the base state.
Less a phobia, more a resentment, for the wealthy outsiders who came in with guns and took what they wanted from those already there, and who continue to treat those original inhabitants in a belligerent and dehumanising manner.
A feeling somewhat justified, wouldnt you say?
Perhaps not.
But, when you consider how many USAians (Europeans too, are getting pretty xenophobic) regard the AYErab 'other', which (IMHO) is a far less rightly founded resentment, it's surely at least understandable.
I know, i know dont feed the trolls. But, i need to ask, is it just this one crazy racist (i refrain from harsher language as i dont want to get it exited) that spams up Slashdot or...?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, people *dont* like that? That explains why no one ever emails me back when i send them links. That, and they are all locked into the facebook paradigm, i guess.
Personally, i love email. I gives you so much more control, i constantly have Sylpheed open with five accounts streaming into it and an every 15 minute autocheck and make noise on delivery, setup. The application is only apparent when i know there is something there to check. It is really very efficient.
But, i suppose its apples and oranges, to an extent. Whilst both email and facebook are both ostensibly about online communication, facebook is really more for hanging out and being part of a scene. Even if that does mean you are subjected to the torture of attention seekers, cheesy "i'm so unique/clever" comments, and a torrent of information regarding what your "friends" are putting on toast at any given moment.
No thanks. I have made quite a home under this rock.
He has been arrested.
I would say that Opera has far more features than Firefox, out of the box. Yet, it remains very fast.
Agreed. I am on a six year old laptop with 2ghz CPU and i find Ff to be quite snappy. I have done some, rather unscientific, comparisons between it and Chromium and i can not really clock a perceptible difference, and i would willing tolerate a small difference to retain Ff's functionality too, any day.
Which is not to say that i wouldnt like it to be leaner, of course.
Initially i was interestedly reading your reply, but it didn’t take me long to realise you’re an ignoramus.
"So no, I really don't think we can single out one and say "their policies have been shown to be unacceptable". I think the same is just as true of both sides. The only difference is which policies we are talking about."
Fair enough.
We could also say that the financial collapse of recent years and decades previous, has been an example of how untrammeled neo-liberal capitalism has failed us.
We might also say that evidence of so called communist countries' failures are not really a true reflection of the failure of Marxist ideas, but are indeed an example of them not being correctly implemented. I am not a Marxist by the way.
I do not believe we can say that excessive government spending drives a nation to the poor house, as the Scandinavian countries demonstrate, they have the highest public spending and are some of the wealthiest, yet least unequal societies in the world, with the most well functioning state infrastructure and public services. In Europe socialism is not a dirty word and doing things in the public interest is seen as a laudable aspiration, and keeping governmental check on the power of big business is seen as sensible and necessary.
Neither do i believe that the US has ever been an example of of excessive government spending, perhaps from some individual perspectives, but certainly not when compared to other "western" nations. Obama's stimulus went muchly to the banks, to make up for their failings as regards their neo-liberal, unregulated, capitalist disaster, and was not really spent on encouraging much growth in other areas of the economy or on supporting private individuals who might need state help in hard times, to get them back on their feet and contributing to the economy again.
So, no, i would not say that the US provides and example of high government spending (and so is thus not excessive) and can thus not provide an example of the failing of high state spending.
I do believe that private individuals need to be supported, in many instances, against the interests of big business, which does not have the population of any nation as its core interest.
Sorry if this post hasnt been very well articulated, but i am late for a date with my mate (no, not like that, this aint the discovery channel, this is Blighty), i will raise a fat one to you though, and get back to you tomorrow if you want to continue debating.
Cheers. Have a good one.
You are right, but i made my own definition clear and meant to give some examples of it. I wasnt saying they were the only instances of US corruption.
And, yes, there are open forums and what not, but i was saying that such a format should be used in a specific context where it is not currently.
Hello Jane, didn’t realise it was you i was replying to again. We should meet up and debate over cyber coffee or something.
Less scruples than Bush is defiantly debatable though. However, i guess you could say that Bush was blatantly a small minded, small brained, callous individual, where Obama pretends to be all sweetness and light, but fails to deliver any sugar.
Bush got elected though, imagine the bozos we would get in Heinlein's lottery!
I guessed as much. Cheers for the clarification.
"Left and Right have, at different times, both demonstrated great wisdom in some areas while simultaneously engaging in complete idiocy in other area"
Totally agreed. But, denying that was not at all my point, i am not partisan, i see it as a divide and rule strategy (whether conscious or not) and partly as a system of compromise to gain critical mass for any one group. I do not deny that both Repubs and Dems, Conservatives and Labour, or whatever, have both put feet wrong, repeatedly. It's just that, as i see it, reactionary views of right wingers eventually come to be seen as unacceptable, even by later generations of conservatives, at least publicly, as it becomes apparent that the populace at large find such views repugnant (once more public space has been given to rational discourse on such matters). So, i assume the same will be true in future, not necessarily, but i would put money on it. This shows us (me at least) that clinging to imagined ideas of tradition and historical categorisations of people is futile, as public opinion is subject to change.
Oh right, you are hedwards. My apologies for being rude.
No, i am not saying that, i was merely pointing out to hedwards that the US government is not about as incorruptible as they get, indeed, quite far from it when compared to Scandinavian governments in general.
Contrasting the negative example of Italy against the US, to demonstrate that the US is not one of the most corrupt regimes, is surely, by your logic, as invalid as my citing Norway in the opposite light, to demonstrate that the US is not one of the least corrupt governments. However, you are right, citing one example in a group of many, as being more or less so, does not determine the absolute ranking of another member of that group.
However, i was not claiming that the US is one of the most corrupt governments, clearly far from it, i was merely pointing out that it was not the least, and (IMHO) not even one of the least.
Also, to an extent, some things are a matter of perspective. For example, i would see the power that lobbying groups have over US politics as corruption of the highest order. Why should interest groups with the most money have the most influence. I would like to see interest groups barred from contributing to political groups and, private meetings with politicians made illegal. Such interest groups should argue their cases, along side others, in a more public forum, where minutes are released and journalists present. I would also argue that the system of campaign financing in the US is corrupt, as it it just becomes a giant advertising campaign, where only big money can talk. I would like to see caps put on campaign spending and all such spending disclosed and monitored by and independent group. This way all political groups could compete on a more level playing field.
Granted these are not legally defined as corruption, yet. But, i would see them as instances of corruption, personally.
Where i would agree with you: my personal attack was rude; sorry to hedwards.
Don't you think there should be some legal way to bind politicians to, at least, attempting to achieve what they claim they will. Or, at very least, not doing the opposite.
Here, in the UK, the conservatives got in (in a way) saying they would ring fence spending on the NHS (national health service) and are now going about trying to privatise it.
Why should they be able to deceive the public with impunity?
The US has many inbuilt controls which do lot allow much of the behaviour exhibited by politicians in younger countries. And, yet they try as they might to work away at those controls to give themselves more leeway.
This is just an anecdote, but my mums friend is a lawyer and he started his carrier, way back, as a human rights lawyer. He ended up defending Microsoft in the 90s and is now a real high flyer. A great bloke, yes, but his morals fell somewhat by the wayside.
And are you embarrassed on behalf of all disgraced white men?
Is pink not a colour, whitey?
The guy is as much white as he is black. I hate the way the media always refer to him as a black man. It is reminiscent of the bad old days, when all people of colour were seen as lesser and any "black" blood had you relegated to that category. We might call him African American (bearing in mind he is also European American) if his heritage must be singled out.
Hello again, Jane. Here i would be inclined to agree with you. It reminds me of a Frank Baum story my mum used to read me, Sky Island, i think. Where the ruler is selected for their qualities by the populace, and does not put them self forward. Something like, he/she who wants to rule, probably should not, and he/she who has the right qualities, but does not lust for power, is more likely able to handle it. And crucially, in the book, the ruler is not given a lavish lifestyle for the duration of their stay in power, but is instead obliged to live in lowly lodgings. When i hear things, like governors mansions i think, WTF, are these the kind of incentives that are going to attract the right candidate?
"...aside from his leftist leanings"
Firstly, dont you think the whole left/right thing is a bit of a false dichotomy? Why should believing in one policy necessarily discern your beliefs in other ares? Because you are part of a side?
Secondly, You only have to look at history to see that beliefs held by conservatives at any one time end up being seen as unacceptable by the majority in time, eg, equal rights for non-"white" Americans and women. Resisting change is futile, flux is the base state.
Norway.
Right, right, the US gov is less corrupt than, say, the Norwegian government.
Pull down that wool, American dreamer.
Less a phobia, more a resentment, for the wealthy outsiders who came in with guns and took what they wanted from those already there, and who continue to treat those original inhabitants in a belligerent and dehumanising manner.
A feeling somewhat justified, wouldnt you say?
Perhaps not.
But, when you consider how many USAians (Europeans too, are getting pretty xenophobic) regard the AYErab 'other', which (IMHO) is a far less rightly founded resentment, it's surely at least understandable.
I know, i know dont feed the trolls. But, i need to ask, is it just this one crazy racist (i refrain from harsher language as i dont want to get it exited) that spams up Slashdot or...?
Very clever, big clap.
Now we know your age, your user name seems creepy.