No, you missed the point - Fahrenheit, Celsius, Kelvin, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the unit is *specified* correctly. A 'degree' unit is a 360th of a single complete angular rotation. Obviously a 'degree C' or 'degree F' is completely different. Wow, I hope you've never ever said "it's 20 degrees outside today" or anything like that! Like the other poster said, we humans are generally pretty good about figuring out context.
There's nothing wrong with specifying a non-standard unit, as long as it's specified accurately. Doing conversions is all part of the fun. You're trying to defend an entirely different POV from the GP, because the GP was pretty clear about being derogatory towards fahrenheit.
I agree, the post SHOULD have listed the unit. I don't think that was the point the GP wanted to make--he was just anti-American trolling imho..
Besides, your options for what "70" could have been are realistically what, celsius, fahrenheit or kelvin? If it was 70 kelvin we'd all be in a really, really deep freeze, and if it was 70 celsius, trees would quite toasty worldwide! Ergo, process of elimination...
Ahh I see, so when you said "for anyone living in the 21st century" that wasn't meant to be derogatory at all, you were just referring to... the young people? right on
Other reply -- Medieval_Gnome -- is absolutely correct. Unless you've DELETED by hand the Apple Remote Desktop files, the exploit works. I do not have ARD enabled, and the exploit works.
On the other hand, since this exploit seems to require physical access to the machine to be rooted It does? Am I missing something? I just SSHed to my laptop and succesfully tested the above command. So remote shell access works. Clever people could probably figure out some other ways of triggering an applescript to run without there being any physical machine access, I don't know.
Admittedly most OS X users probably don't have any kind of remote shell access enabled, but this does seem to be a problem...
No, I'm saying X is a full-on network protocol, and not fairly compared to the Windows GDI.exe. I see. Ok. I won't argue that they have different strengths/origins.
The question becomes how deep is Aqua? The tone of your question would seem to imply that the answer is "everything above the command line", and I don't know enough to argue otherwise. OSX is an interesting beast. As you quoted, it runs a hybrid microkernes, has a largely FreeBSD derived userland, and API and other inheritances from NeXT, etc--it draws from many sources!
I'd recommend the following Ars Technica article on Quartz which is what I think you're looking for, rather than Aqua (aqua being basically the theme/skin) http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10-4.ars/13
(I think they're calling it "Core Graphics" instead of Quartz nowadays)
In short, graphically, OSX is not at all based on X11. You CAN install an optional X11 server that allows you to run X programs, but it's neither required nor integral to the OS.
X is a portable, network-based display system, and its various capabilities make it roughly as fair to compare the Microsoft Windows windowing system to X as it does to compare the Microsoft kernel to Linux. I'm not quite sure how to parse that? You're saying X is comparable to Windows (the windowing systems?)...yeah..and?
BTW: what, pray tell, do you think Mac OS X is running, hmmm? Not X11 (unless you choose to optionally install it, much as you can run X programs in Windows with the proper software installed)...or did you think it DID run X?
While Microsoft several times has claimed to "write the operating system from the ground up" they never do. They just keep bloating and never really optimizing. You need more memory, a larger graphics card, faster processor, etc. All the features you don't want and none you need. Writing from the ground up and optimization etc are not necessarily linked!
I'm sure many slashdotters have shared in the experience of a project rewrite that ended up bigger, buggier, and all around worse than the system or project it replaced...
Critical reading--I neither cited nor mentioned what you quoted (and indeed said I agreed with most of the rest of his post!). I said his grasp on the facts in the one sentence were off!
I say interesting because my reaction when I'm reading something and find myself agreeing--and then find someway in which the author is completely wrong / offbase / whatever, I think, hmmm, maybe I need to reevaluate my opinions!
Though, actually.. since you mention it... I wouldn't entirely agree with the statement you quoted. I'm not arguing that there was an equality between whites and blacks, of course there was not. I will say that in the rural south, poor whites (ie, non-plantation owners, non-merchant/cityfolk class) had it very badly. Of course everybody looks down on everybody else (nobody wants to be at the bottom of the social ladder) but I remember reading some texts years ago that recorded slaves talking disdainfully about the poor white trash who in SOME ways were as bad or worse as the slaves. Of course, they had freedom, so that really removes the equation, but anyway...
As for black slaveowners in America: Citation please. (i.e. I call B.S.). Interesting, because I agreed with much of the rest of your post a d you seemed pretty will historically informed, but then are completely offbase (and surprised?) here.
is the first example that came up when I searched amazon, couldn't find the book I was looking for though, it's been awhile.
I remember hearing a talk a number of years ago by I believe John Hope Franklin who mentioned black slave owners in New Orleans in fairly substantial numbers (don't remember specifics though, sorry).
note that these acquaintances (plural) that I've received these opinions from were *Republican* Senate staff). FWIW I've heard the exact same thing from a friend of mine who was a Republican Senate staffer. Said Mccain was a total prick and incredibly abusive to his staffers.
I'm talking about the policies of the Republican party specifically. Attempting to enact a gay hatred amendment using no rational arguments whatsoever and only claims of moral superiority. Sorry, but if you keep trying to ignore reality and pretend that somehow, magically the gross abuses and assaults on the constitution carried out by the Republican party specifically using explicitly religious arguments as the sole basis of their moral standing, are just supposed to be ignored in favor of pretending both parties are equal, then you will continue to be treated as a fool because you have demonstrated that you will accept nothing else. I'm confused--I don't think I said both parties are equal? I said both parties claim the moral high ground, and they do. Google "Obama Moral High Ground" if you don't believe me:-P
I asked you to provide a valid reason for you choices which have been proven disastrous and all you could do was lie and spout idiotic buzzwords. So, if you want to be treated with respect or courtesy, then you might look at doing that to other people first. please point out to me where I "lied" ? Don't go off on tangents about how I am a fool, a traitor, a coward, whatever, just be short, to the point, and show me where I lied.
That is not at all true. It is a fact that to be a Republican still in this day and age after all of their crimes against humanity and this nation requires one to be a traitor a coward or a fool. Whereby it's yet again apparent that I'm being trolled and you didn't read my previous post....
It's good you're not holding your breath, but if you really think it's possible, then you're still far too pie in the sky and desperately need a reality check. There is no realistic possibility that that will occur. You might want to consider proposing a mechanism by which such a thing would even be possible. Good luck with that. Now you're just being crazy--even a broken clock is right twice a day and sometimes inaction is the best. It's always possible something good will happen by accident! I would also hope the Republican party gets back its balls and can cause a good stalemate. As far as I'm concerned, if the government is NOT doing anything, it's going well.
That wasn't the definition of intelligence I was using. However, the intel community is largely blameless. The CIA told Bush it was bad unconfirmed intel and not to run with it. I don't agree with this, and I think your facts are incorrect.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian although he runs Republican. Not according to him... nice of you to put words in his mouth though.
OK, so I'm perfectly ok to enslave you at gunpoint for 9 months and alter your body at my discretion? If so, no thanks. If no, then your argument just vanished. No, you can't. But you're perfectly able to go on birth control, use a condom, not have sex, and/or use a morning after pill. Coincidentally, most of those things are free. Nobody in this country FORCES anybody to get pregnant.
It's completely insane and delusional. So let's see, I'm a coward, traitor, fool, and also insane and delusional. I feel the love:-)
But to completely ignore the actions that people pay and force others to pay to have done when assessing their character as you've chosen to do, is again complete nonsense. This is why I say your worldview is black and white. When have I ever claimed the Republicans are perfect? Have I attempted to defend everything they have done? Absolutely not, I don't agree with many things they have done. You've made the decision that the democrats are the better of the two. I've made the opposite decision.
Well, you weren't and you've yet to refute any of my points It's pretty hard to refute anything when the invariable response is "I'm right, you're a fool/coward/traitor"
any moral high ground, or even basic human decency
I don't think I ever claimed any moral high ground! IF you're talking about the parties, they of course ALL claim the moral high ground. I don't really understand how people like you can talk about things like "human decency" while flaming, insulting, attacking, denigrating, etc another human being. It goes both ways.
Projection.
You're defending the party which runs on such quotes.
See, the ironic thing is that the INESCAPABLE conclusion of this thread is that it's you who see the world as black and white. Everything I've said where you disagree makes me a fool, a coward or whatever. There's no middleground for you. It's so very partisan, it's bothering! You can see the confusion in your reply as you mention "your party." Well, I told you about how I vote, and I'm an unaffiliated voter. Yes, I tend to vote Republican, and I make no bones about that. Your "us against them" attitude is just so... overbeearing though! Really, time for some introspection on this one.
I'm not going to try and claim that the Democrats are "good" in any way shape or form, but compared to the Republicans, they're just not as good at being scum and they're not organized so tightly around that goal.
At the moment that very well may be true. I'm actually fairly excited for Obama presidency and overwhelmingly Democratic senate+house which I fully expect we'll have. Mostly to see what happens. It's possible we'll get some good out of it, but I'm not holding my breath.
Well, your narrow ignorant worldview would obviously lead you to that conclusion while ignoring the relevant fact. No matter when we withdraw it's going to be a bloodbath. Iraq isn't a nation in any coherent sense and never has been. It's a geographical area set up by the British containing many different ethnic and religious groups who largely despise each other
I disagree with you, and I wrote my thesis on Ottoman history, so I hopefully no a little bit about this! Boiling the situation down to "many different ethnic and religious groups who largely despise each other" is IMHO the "narrow ignorant worldview" in your words. I disagree about the bloodbath, the situation in Iraq has stabilized remarkably over the past 2 years, and political reconciliation is on the rise.
d complete contempt for intelligence that characterizes the Republican party is why we're in Iraq
I also disagree with this. I blame the intel community IN PART for Iraq. Saying it was all Bush is not factual and ignores the role of the CIA, screwball, etc.
They are the biggest big government party, and have been since 1980. The Democrats are the small big government party.
I agree both are big government parties, but there are still some (like Ron Paul) in the republican party who have their heads on straight. We still got tax cuts out of Bush, etc. If Democrats are the party of small government, let's reconvene this discussion in 4 years:-)
Then add in the fact that it's not a question of one "person's" rights. Your position is that if a person ends up pregnant then you, and big daddy government knows far more about what it best for them than they do.
It's a difficult issue, no doubt.
Holding a gun to a woman's face and forcing her to bear and raise a child for your benefit is slavery pure and simple.
If that's what happened, sure it would be slavery. Nobody forces women to raise children though.
No, the "righteousness" is one of the major problems with the side you chose to defend.
Righteousness -- that which everyone lacks except the faithful? Let's see, "faithful" is Democrat (or however you like to classify your black and white world view) and if you're a republican you cannot be a good person, because you are a) coward b) fool c)traitor d) all of the above. I think someone has
Interesting, that seems contrary to most people's experiences. Blizzard has optimized WoW for the mac substantially since the early days, but the difference at least used to be fairly large.
That's true and I agree with you (I've argued the same point on slashdot before--who cares if people have fun doing it, it's up to them)
but I think the GP is referring more generally to the feeling of disillusionment/ennui? many people seem to feel after falling head over heels into WoW. I played soon after the game came out, and was very addicted. I then stopped and it was like... crap, what I was doing, I could have done X,Y,Z etc instead. Of course I reactivated my account 2 years later, played for a couple months, and felt the same thing again, so I obviously didn't learn my lesson:-P
Oh pishaw. Do you mean to say that you honestly believe that, "Wow....people like you are why I vote Republican. And there's much that I don't like about that party," is at all a meaningful statement? You think that was a useful and worthwhile post that added to the discussion? A legitimate response to a logical argument with reasoned support? SERIOUSLY? I don't think I've ever once said it was meaningful? Or that it added to the discussion? Or that it was arguing, etc etc? I thought it was YOU claiming that that one sentence meant (in your words) "My response is all about him claiming to vote against his own principles "... there was never any claim of voting against principle...that's all!
It's clear to me that you don't believe that, that's why you keep arguing around the edges of it. Making up BS like the 100% baloney (with which you betrayed your understanding and then realized your claim was quite weak so you had to bolster it with a strawman argument). His post was pure tripe and I called him on it. I believe exactly what I said, and have said--the GGGGGGGGP never indicated he was voting against his principles. I was attempting to show you how your statement didn't make sense--as you rightly point out, all he said was "Wow....people like you are why I vote Republican. And there's much that I don't like about that party.".. that's it.. nothing about "claiming to vote against his own principles."
I'm unsure what the strawman you're referring to is? You claim that the original poster is "voting against his own principles" because he says "there's much [he doesn't] like about that party." I responded by pointing out that nobody (or at least very few people!) agree with everything of a party or candidate, therefore, there's nothing inconsistent voting for a party even if there are things you don't like!
Thus, when you said "people who can make a logical argument with supporting statements are the reason you vote illogically?" still does not make sense to me as I (and the original poster) do not understand your logic in determining his illogic. Unfortunately, I replied, and he did not:-P
Talk about a mountain out of a molehill!
You just tried to cover it up by pinning it all on an obscure reference. Sir, with all due respect, the #1 (#2 depending on who you as) blawg can hardly be considered obscure! This is slashdot after all, not digg!
Yeah, yeah. Your smarmy and conceited apologies have been soo authentic. You want to think I'm being "smarmy," "conceited," "mentally masturbating," "smug," "rude," "passive aggressive," "stupid, stupid," "not giving a shat," "a jerk," etc, be my guest (anything else you want to toss out there while you're at it? This is definitely a personal record for being slandered on slashdot:-P). I am sorry that my posts angered you, though you are of course able to take it or leave it, believe it or not. I've attempted to respond to just about everything you've said, though once again it's obvious you're unhappy with the quality of my reply.
I said, "vote against his principles with nothing more than an unsupported statement as his justification." Again WHERE IS THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT? Where is the justification? I really don't know where the supporting statement is! That was my point--he never claimed to vote against his principles, and there have been what--5?--back and forth posts arguing about one sentence which we clearly interpret entirely differently! You see something illogical/inconsistent, I don't see it. I think we've hashed this one to death!
You offended me with the "touchy touchy" shit, you offended me with your trivializing accusation that I was criticizing the guy for claiming to vote republican rather than for just spouting off a meaningless flame. I sincerely apologize for even considering that you might be a little touchy!
It does seem to me that you were criticizing him for voting Republican, though you of course know what you meant better than I do.
You offended me with your smug assertion that, "there's a lot [I] could learn" if I would just go off and google something I've never heard of and dig through a bunch of crap to get some point that you only felt was worth hinting at up front. I'm sorry you felt offended by that--it really is an excellent blog (the #1 blawg!), and I hope that you don't let your anger at me affect taking a look at it. I've learned a lot there, and there are some really interesting discussions (it also doesn't tend to devolve into profane flame fests!). I really am a little mystified about why referring you (and whoever else) to an interesting blog (even if I didn't link to a specific post) merits such wrath though... All my posts will be properly cited in the future, consider me chastised, I won't even THINK of referring to a blog by name without explicitly linking!;-)
That was fucking rude of you. You should not have been surprised that your rudeness was returned. Don't fool yourself into thinking that being blunt is any worse than being smug and trivializing. I'm very sorry you feel that way. As I have said multiple times, it was not my intention to make you upset as you clearly are.
Why are you in the kitchen? What kitchen?
What part of, "Wow....people like you are why I vote Republican. And there's much that I don't like about that party." Is supporting substantiation? Eh? That's ALL he wrote. Ok, to attempt to avoid selective quoting, YOU said "My response is all about him claiming to vote against his own principles." You already quoted above what he said...where does he say he votes against his principles? Do you 100% agree with every single policy of Obama, the Democrat Party, or whatever party or candidate you choose to vote for? I highly doubt it! If there is a candidate or party out there that I agree with 100%, I have yet to find it! That's the point. The assumption that voting for somebody or something that you don't 100% agree with means going against your principals is a rather simplistic and unrealistic view.
Apparently not since a website is not a link to a specific discussion on that website. Again, if you wanted to do more than crap in public you would actually post a link to the specific discussion on the website. Why do you bother posting, TWICE now, if you can't be bothered to actually say something useful? Do you get off on playing the, "I know something you have to dig through google to find out" card? I didn't even know that was a card!! Whee, I can have fun with that;-)
If I offended you by just giving you the main link, I apologize. The way this--and many other academic blogs [and more general blogs to for that matter]--work is that a series of bloggers will often write on similar issues. Thus there are often a number of topical frontpage stories.
It really is a very interesting blog too, if you're at all interested, but anyhow, I will gladly provide you the direct links you ask for:
There's a good bit of good information in there, and a lot of the comments are also by cj experts / workers. I enjoyed it, I hope you find it at all interesting.
Jeesuz chreeist! You posted a couple of words with no meaningful content, no explanation of why anyone should make the effort to check it out. Extremely solipsistic of you. hold on a second... You mean you're more than just words on a screen?
If you actually cared about posting coherently there is a lot you could learn. There's a guest blogger over on the Asimbonanga right now who has published extensively in the field (and not just as as slashdot armchair quarterback). I'd recommend you take a look. I get your attempted -- humor, whatever --but it didn't really work. If you google for "Volokh Conspiracy" (or use the link I provided at your requests) it's right there.
FWIW, I googled and was unable to find an Asimbonanga blog:-P
No need to be so smug and passive aggressive. I'm really sorry my posts upset/irritate/whatevered you so much. If you don't want to go to the blog, don't! End of story, I'm happy with the thread ending at that! It hardly seems worthwhile to go profane and excoriate me over that!
Because there are no reasons to be a Republican that can't be easily categorized as making them a coward a fool or a traitor. That's kind of rough, I guess to quote GW "you're either with us or against us"! I really would like to discuss this with you, but since you've boiled it down to an opinion issue (which it of course is), it's hard to do. Must be nice to see the world so black and white though--much like a certain president;-)
I defy you to attempt to provide a valid reason for voting Republican. I will easily show how it falls into one or more of the three. I typically have voted Republican at the national level. At the local level, there essentially is no Republican party (my area votes Democrat around 70+% though I'm in an allegedly "red state") and I often will vote for the Democrat candidates or Libertarian as a "meh" vote. Party policies don't really matter so much on a local level though, so I think we should rightfully focus on the national level.
Actually, I really consider myself more of an anti-democrat than a republican... but anyway, there are some good things!
I worked in the intelligence community for a couple of years, before I ultimately couldn't take it any longer. This made a large impression on me. I know Obama has backed down significantly from earlier claims that he will have us withdraw from Iraq immediately, which is good. I think an immediate withdrawal would be a very bad thing. I think Bush's policies had a great deal to do with Libya opening up, which is a good thing. In this case, I think McCain's stated policies are better than Obama's. So is that fool or coward?:-P
Philosophically, the Republican party does not believe in punitive taxation. I don't believe in punitive taxation. See Obama's recent comments about the capital gains tax. Obama says he would raise capital gains tax even if it meant lower revenue, for a more just society. Most republicans say they want to lower taxes (and in some cases even have). I support a smaller government, so lower taxes are good, and budget shortfalls don't upset me that much either--shortfalls force cutbacks. I think this probably falls under "fool" again?
I am torn on the issue of abortion, but I will play the devil's advocate here. I believe that the government has a responsibility to protect human life--and this includes the unborn. I am not against condoms, sex ed, or any of that good stuff, I merely think the government has a duty to protect living human beings. I'm assuming this will put me in the "fool" category again?
I believe that free trade benefits everybody, and the Republican party (though with some protectionist elements) is more free trade than the Democratic party. Fool?
I find Mccain's attitude and proposals dealing with subprime/mortgage issues/etc to be better than Obama's. Support a much more limited bailout. Fool?
It really must be nice to be so certain in your righteousness:-)
Google for the "Weldon Angelos" case. Not quite the same thing. I agree that his case is absolutely ridiculous. Even the judge--a conservative and republican appointee agrees too. The sentencing was due to being charged with multiple counts of having weapons while being a drug dealer (and being caught selling with weapons mutiple times).\
I can understand what happened, and I think he is less of a danger to society than some ass who does a drive by shooting. THis is very possible, and he certainly would have "given back" more in the form of ReiserFS, etc.
Stupid, stupid. And Ad Hominems! Well done:-)
My response has nothing to do with him claiming to vote republican. My response is all about him claiming to vote against his own principles with nothing more than an unsupported statement as his justification. Except he didn't say any such thing! If you're going to chastise me for "not giving a shat," "mental masturbation," and being "stupid, stupid" you might want to consider attempting to avoid the same thing!
If you gave a shat you'd at least state your thesis I don't have a thesis, I'm not by any means an expert on crime and imprisonment, and I'm not going to armchair quarterback it here.
furthermore you'd actually post a link to the specific discussion instead of just wave your hands in the air. I'd be delighted to help you out. FYI, you could have just googled for "Volokh Conspiracy." The link is volokh.com. You can just scan down to posts by "James Q. Wilson" and the ensuing discussions below. This is a lawyer blog (though many non-lawyers have joined the comments lately).
BUT, considering your total lack of insight into this thread so far I think you are just committing an act of mental masturbation in public simply because it gets you off Pot, kettle? No need to be so hyper aggressive, I provided a link to a resource of further information. You obviously didn't feel it necessary to check it out, and instead decided it would be much better to attack someone who you (perhaps mistakenly!) believe you disagree with!
Someone else used the term of tribalism, group feeling--I gotta agree. It's like a lot of people projected aspects of themselves onto Reiser and it brought the murder case uncomfortably close to home (he didn't do it, he's just misunderstood, aspergers, etc--it could have been me!!)
It's kind of interesting, because I doubt the same people feel the same way about the average street criminal...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, the post SHOULD have listed the unit. I don't think that was the point the GP wanted to make--he was just anti-American trolling imho..
Besides, your options for what "70" could have been are realistically what, celsius, fahrenheit or kelvin? If it was 70 kelvin we'd all be in a really, really deep freeze, and if it was 70 celsius, trees would quite toasty worldwide! Ergo, process of elimination...
Ahh I see, so when you said "for anyone living in the 21st century" that wasn't meant to be derogatory at all, you were just referring to ... the young people? right on
Gotta love the units nazis. I'd really think there would be better things to get upset about than what temperature unit someone else chooses to use!
Other reply -- Medieval_Gnome -- is absolutely correct. Unless you've DELETED by hand the Apple Remote Desktop files, the exploit works. I do not have ARD enabled, and the exploit works.
Admittedly most OS X users probably don't have any kind of remote shell access enabled, but this does seem to be a problem...
I'd recommend the following Ars Technica article on Quartz which is what I think you're looking for, rather than Aqua (aqua being basically the theme/skin)
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10-4.ars/13
wiki has an article too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_(graphics_layer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Graphics
(I think they're calling it "Core Graphics" instead of Quartz nowadays)
In short, graphically, OSX is not at all based on X11. You CAN install an optional X11 server that allows you to run X programs, but it's neither required nor integral to the OS.
I'm sure many slashdotters have shared in the experience of a project rewrite that ended up bigger, buggier, and all around worse than the system or project it replaced...
Critical reading--I neither cited nor mentioned what you quoted (and indeed said I agreed with most of the rest of his post!). I said his grasp on the facts in the one sentence were off!
I say interesting because my reaction when I'm reading something and find myself agreeing--and then find someway in which the author is completely wrong / offbase / whatever, I think, hmmm, maybe I need to reevaluate my opinions!
Though, actually.. since you mention it... I wouldn't entirely agree with the statement you quoted. I'm not arguing that there was an equality between whites and blacks, of course there was not. I will say that in the rural south, poor whites (ie, non-plantation owners, non-merchant/cityfolk class) had it very badly. Of course everybody looks down on everybody else (nobody wants to be at the bottom of the social ladder) but I remember reading some texts years ago that recorded slaves talking disdainfully about the poor white trash who in SOME ways were as bad or worse as the slaves. Of course, they had freedom, so that really removes the equation, but anyway...
http://www.amazon.com/NYCs-African-Slaveowners-Material-American/dp/0815315368
is the first example that came up when I searched amazon, couldn't find the book I was looking for though, it's been awhile.
I remember hearing a talk a number of years ago by I believe John Hope Franklin who mentioned black slave owners in New Orleans in fairly substantial numbers (don't remember specifics though, sorry).
any moral high ground, or even basic human decency
I don't think I ever claimed any moral high ground! IF you're talking about the parties, they of course ALL claim the moral high ground. I don't really understand how people like you can talk about things like "human decency" while flaming, insulting, attacking, denigrating, etc another human being. It goes both ways.
Projection.
You're defending the party which runs on such quotes.
See, the ironic thing is that the INESCAPABLE conclusion of this thread is that it's you who see the world as black and white. Everything I've said where you disagree makes me a fool, a coward or whatever. There's no middleground for you. It's so very partisan, it's bothering! You can see the confusion in your reply as you mention "your party." Well, I told you about how I vote, and I'm an unaffiliated voter. Yes, I tend to vote Republican, and I make no bones about that. Your "us against them" attitude is just so ... overbeearing though! Really, time for some introspection on this one.
I'm not going to try and claim that the Democrats are "good" in any way shape or form, but compared to the Republicans, they're just not as good at being scum and they're not organized so tightly around that goal.
At the moment that very well may be true. I'm actually fairly excited for Obama presidency and overwhelmingly Democratic senate+house which I fully expect we'll have. Mostly to see what happens. It's possible we'll get some good out of it, but I'm not holding my breath.
Well, your narrow ignorant worldview would obviously lead you to that conclusion while ignoring the relevant fact.
No matter when we withdraw it's going to be a bloodbath. Iraq isn't a nation in any coherent sense and never has been. It's a geographical area set up by the British containing many different ethnic and religious groups who largely despise each other
I disagree with you, and I wrote my thesis on Ottoman history, so I hopefully no a little bit about this! Boiling the situation down to "many different ethnic and religious groups who largely despise each other" is IMHO the "narrow ignorant worldview" in your words. I disagree about the bloodbath, the situation in Iraq has stabilized remarkably over the past 2 years, and political reconciliation is on the rise.
d complete contempt for intelligence that characterizes the Republican party is why we're in Iraq
I also disagree with this. I blame the intel community IN PART for Iraq. Saying it was all Bush is not factual and ignores the role of the CIA, screwball, etc.
They are the biggest big government party, and have been since 1980. The Democrats are the small big government party.
I agree both are big government parties, but there are still some (like Ron Paul) in the republican party who have their heads on straight. We still got tax cuts out of Bush, etc. If Democrats are the party of small government, let's reconvene this discussion in 4 years :-)
Then add in the fact that it's not a question of one "person's" rights. Your position is that if a person ends up pregnant then you, and big daddy government knows far more about what it best for them than they do.
It's a difficult issue, no doubt.
Holding a gun to a woman's face and forcing her to bear and raise a child for your benefit is slavery pure and simple.
If that's what happened, sure it would be slavery. Nobody forces women to raise children though.
No, the "righteousness" is one of the major problems with the side you chose to defend.
Righteousness -- that which everyone lacks except the faithful? Let's see, "faithful" is Democrat (or however you like to classify your black and white world view) and if you're a republican you cannot be a good person, because you are a) coward b) fool c)traitor d) all of the above. I think someone has
Interesting, that seems contrary to most people's experiences. Blizzard has optimized WoW for the mac substantially since the early days, but the difference at least used to be fairly large.
That's true and I agree with you (I've argued the same point on slashdot before--who cares if people have fun doing it, it's up to them)
... crap, what I was doing, I could have done X,Y,Z etc instead. Of course I reactivated my account 2 years later, played for a couple months, and felt the same thing again, so I obviously didn't learn my lesson :-P
but I think the GP is referring more generally to the feeling of disillusionment/ennui? many people seem to feel after falling head over heels into WoW. I played soon after the game came out, and was very addicted. I then stopped and it was like
I've heard similar reactions from others.
Is it sad that that was my first thought as well?
Too bad it was a lie...
SERIOUSLY? I don't think I've ever once said it was meaningful? Or that it added to the discussion? Or that it was arguing, etc etc? I thought it was YOU claiming that that one sentence meant (in your words) "My response is all about him claiming to vote against his own principles "
I'm unsure what the strawman you're referring to is? You claim that the original poster is "voting against his own principles" because he says "there's much [he doesn't] like about that party." I responded by pointing out that nobody (or at least very few people!) agree with everything of a party or candidate, therefore, there's nothing inconsistent voting for a party even if there are things you don't like!
Thus, when you said "people who can make a logical argument with supporting statements are the reason you vote illogically?" still does not make sense to me as I (and the original poster) do not understand your logic in determining his illogic. Unfortunately, I replied, and he did not
Talk about a mountain out of a molehill! You just tried to cover it up by pinning it all on an obscure reference. Sir, with all due respect, the #1 (#2 depending on who you as) blawg can hardly be considered obscure! This is slashdot after all, not digg! Yeah, yeah. Your smarmy and conceited apologies have been soo authentic. You want to think I'm being "smarmy," "conceited," "mentally masturbating," "smug," "rude," "passive aggressive," "stupid, stupid," "not giving a shat," "a jerk," etc, be my guest (anything else you want to toss out there while you're at it? This is definitely a personal record for being slandered on slashdot
Cheers, take it easy!
It does seem to me that you were criticizing him for voting Republican, though you of course know what you meant better than I do. You offended me with your smug assertion that, "there's a lot [I] could learn" if I would just go off and google something I've never heard of and dig through a bunch of crap to get some point that you only felt was worth hinting at up front. I'm sorry you felt offended by that--it really is an excellent blog (the #1 blawg!), and I hope that you don't let your anger at me affect taking a look at it. I've learned a lot there, and there are some really interesting discussions (it also doesn't tend to devolve into profane flame fests!). I really am a little mystified about why referring you (and whoever else) to an interesting blog (even if I didn't link to a specific post) merits such wrath though... All my posts will be properly cited in the future, consider me chastised, I won't even THINK of referring to a blog by name without explicitly linking!
I think we're done here? Take it easy!
If I offended you by just giving you the main link, I apologize. The way this--and many other academic blogs [and more general blogs to for that matter]--work is that a series of bloggers will often write on similar issues. Thus there are often a number of topical frontpage stories.
It really is a very interesting blog too, if you're at all interested, but anyhow, I will gladly provide you the direct links you ask for:
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1212959006.shtml
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1212699333.shtml
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1213046433.shtml
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1213046814.shtml
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1213047646.shtml
There's a good bit of good information in there, and a lot of the comments are also by cj experts / workers. I enjoyed it, I hope you find it at all interesting. Jeesuz chreeist! You posted a couple of words with no meaningful content, no explanation of why anyone should make the effort to check it out. Extremely solipsistic of you. hold on a second
FWIW, I googled and was unable to find an Asimbonanga blog
Actually, I really consider myself more of an anti-democrat than a republican... but anyway, there are some good things!
I worked in the intelligence community for a couple of years, before I ultimately couldn't take it any longer. This made a large impression on me. I know Obama has backed down significantly from earlier claims that he will have us withdraw from Iraq immediately, which is good. I think an immediate withdrawal would be a very bad thing. I think Bush's policies had a great deal to do with Libya opening up, which is a good thing. In this case, I think McCain's stated policies are better than Obama's. So is that fool or coward?
Philosophically, the Republican party does not believe in punitive taxation. I don't believe in punitive taxation. See Obama's recent comments about the capital gains tax. Obama says he would raise capital gains tax even if it meant lower revenue, for a more just society. Most republicans say they want to lower taxes (and in some cases even have). I support a smaller government, so lower taxes are good, and budget shortfalls don't upset me that much either--shortfalls force cutbacks. I think this probably falls under "fool" again?
I am torn on the issue of abortion, but I will play the devil's advocate here. I believe that the government has a responsibility to protect human life--and this includes the unborn. I am not against condoms, sex ed, or any of that good stuff, I merely think the government has a duty to protect living human beings. I'm assuming this will put me in the "fool" category again?
I believe that free trade benefits everybody, and the Republican party (though with some protectionist elements) is more free trade than the Democratic party. Fool?
I find Mccain's attitude and proposals dealing with subprime/mortgage issues/etc to be better than Obama's. Support a much more limited bailout. Fool?
It really must be nice to be so certain in your righteousness
Interesting, thanks for the link, I didn't know all of that.
Someone else used the term of tribalism, group feeling--I gotta agree. It's like a lot of people projected aspects of themselves onto Reiser and it brought the murder case uncomfortably close to home (he didn't do it, he's just misunderstood, aspergers, etc--it could have been me!!)
It's kind of interesting, because I doubt the same people feel the same way about the average street criminal...