I agree with you except for the gay marriage. Gays already have the same rights everyone else has, they can marry a person of the opposite sex. The blacks and so on were actually barred from marrying into interracial marriages at one time which is completely different then gay marriage. As long as a Gay man can do what a straight man can do (marry someone of the opposite sex) then they have the same rights. Lesbians are the same (marry a man). The fact that they don't want to or want to do something else. The 14th doesn't apply to that situation.
I'd imagine you're aware of the usual response to your argument, but I think it's important enough that it bears repeating.
Whether or not being gay is a preference/choice or biologically determined is is irrelevant to the arguments in favor of gay marriage. Regardless of the cause of homosexuality, the government should not be in the business of regulating the behavior of consenting adults or discriminating based on said behavior.
In general, the argument for marriage only being valid for a man and a woman revolves around child-rearing. If that's the case, it's odd that so many of the legal and financial rights/privileges granted by marriage do not directly relate to child reading and, indeed, apply regardless of whether or not the married couple has children, ever plans to have children, or even can have children. For example, my mom is now past child-bearing age. Does that mean she shouldn't be allowed to get (re)married?
So please don't act like qualifying homosexuality as a preference and talking about the rights of gay men and women to marry people of the opposite sex as if it takes the wind out of the sails of gay marriage proponents. It doesn't.
-Trillian
PS - As a side note, part of a well-functioning government's role is to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. Interracial marriage was one such instance of tyranny of the majority, gay marriage is another.
I really want to disagree with you, because I'm very opposed to Prop 8, but the arguments put forth in the lawsuits to overturn prop 8 do seem somewhat weak...
Which isn't to say the part of me ruled by emotions doesn't want them to win...
I've posted this elsewhere in this thread, but I'm trying to reply to people who are posting politely on the side of either anti-gay marriage, or on the fence:
Basically, the government should not be in the business of regulating the behavior of consenting adults or discriminating based on said behavior. That's the one core issue for me that makes gay marriage very different from marrying a goat (or a minor).
As for marrying your sister, or a group of people, I (again) can't see why the government should be in the business of telling consenting adults what they can and can't do. That isn't to say marrying your sister is a good idea, or that I'd ever be interesting in a group relationships, but I don't understand the moral or legal ground to object to such unions.
Gays of course have the right to marry. The opposite sex.
Of course, that does not match their personal preference, but then again having your preferences catered to by the state isn't something you can count on when you are a distinct minority.
I'd imagine you're aware of the usual response to that, but I think it's important enough that it bears repeating.
Whether or not being gay is a preference/choice or biologically determined is is irrelevant to the arguments in favor of gay marriage. Regardless of the cause of homosexuality, the government should not be in the business of regulating the behavior of consenting adults or discriminating based on said behavior.
In general, the argument for marriage only being valid for a man and a woman revolves around child-rearing. If that's the case, it's odd that so many of the legal and financial rights/privileges granted by marriage do not directly relate to child reading and, indeed, apply regardless of whether or not the married couple has children, ever plans to have children, or even can have children. For example, my mom is now past child-bearing age. Does that mean she shouldn't be allowed to get (re)married?
So please don't act like qualifying homosexuality as a preference and talking about the rights of gay men and women to marry people of the opposite sex as if it takes the wind out of the sails of gay marriage proponents. It doesn't.
-Trillian
PS - As a side note, part of a well-functioning government's role is to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. So while you're right, a minority population can't count on the state's protection, it's not unreasonable to expect such protection in the (theoretical) 'ideal' state.
Electric toothbrushes suck. I can't use them because they tickle, and besides, the vibrations make it feel like I'm sucking on a sex toy.
Undoing some moderation to post this but I felt I should reply to the one post in this discussion I could comment knowledgeably on...
Yes, they tickle at first. For about a week, for most people. After that, you stop noticing it. When I first switched from a normal toothbrush to a cheapy electric, it took a week or so for me to be able to do it without cringing horribly. Likewise, when I switched from the cheapy to a nicer one (recommended by my dentist) it took another week or so until it didn't feel tickly and obnoxious. But now I actually like it - it makes my mouth feel cleaner than non-electric
brushes ever did - and my dentist says my teeth are better.
-Trillian
PS - I love slashdot precisely because a discussion on work schedules leads logically to a discussion on electric versus non-electric toothbrushes.
PPS - Can't help you with the sex toy issue. That's one you'll have to deal with on your own. Or with a consenting partner.
These percentage comparisons [about overhead] may be deceptive, because service costs for Medicare beneficiaries are much higher than those for FEHBP enrollees. The two programs might spend the same dollar amounts on administration, but Medicare's spending would appear lower as a
percent of claims. Absolute dollar amounts for private insurance administration are difficult to
obtain, but one source does produce estimates for Blue Cross Blue Shield plans. For plans
operating a PPO on an administrative services-only basis - essentially the way Blue Cross
operates under FEHBP - mean administrative costs per member year were $271 in 2002 (Sherlock Company, 2002). Medicare-s costs in 2002, $4.8 billion for about 36 million fee-forservice
beneficiaries, were about $133 per beneficiary, or about one-half as large.
(Emphasis added)
So it sounds like the original 3% quoted might be true, but nevertheless misleading due to the higher cost-per-patient expenses of Medicare's older recipients. Regardless, Medicare's per-beneficiary costs were still lower than Blue Cross Blue Shield, which would indicate a national health care service in the style of Medicare could provide lower administrative costs than the private sector.
For what it's worth, you can be racist and still have a grain of truth.
As I've said elsewhere on this thread, I identify as culturally Jewish, but was raised in a religiously Jewish household. And in spite of (or, perhaps, because of) all that, I don't support Israel; not it's creation by UN mandate and not its current policy of war. Not that I support the Palestinians (or anyone else) attacking Israel, either... 50 years after Israel's creation, the Middle East is between a rock and a hard place and no one is willing to budge.
So while I 100% agree that smoker2 is more than a tad bit racist, I also agree that divine intervention should not be a qualification in granting real estate to a group of people...
I don't disagree that almost all Jews are in favor of a Jewish state in theory, and most are specifically pro-Israel. I just wanted to weigh in as someone who is culturally Jewish (that is, I enjoy and appreciate the rituals/holidays without believing in the Judeo-Christian god) but was nevertheless raised religiously Jewish (complete with Bat Mitzvah). So, with all that in mind, I'll say my piece...
I think Israel is nuts. I think any religiously-based country has problems at its very core but especially one that was founded by outsiders who relocated a lot of people to create the country.
If a bunch of people get together and decide together to form a religious community, great. As long as they don't prevent people from leaving, I really don't care (even if I might not understand the motivation). But do have the winning powers of WWII spin the globe and say, "Hey, this'll work! Lets stick they Jews here so we don't have to deal with them!" is just monumentally stupid and asking for trouble.
Furthermore, the Israeli and Palestinian governments (such that they are) are behaving like children. I have nothing but sympathy for the people on both sides, but Israel and whoever happens to be 'representing the Palestinians at any one moment are both acting like they couldn't possibly understand how anyone could see the other's viewpoint. And, from where I'm sitting, when two bullies are fighting, even if they're both ultimately wrong, more of the fault lies with the bigger bully. In this situation, that means Israel. If they want to keep any sort of position as an internationally respected power, they need to stop acting like it's the Palestinian's fault they're fighting because the Palestinians knocked over Israel's sandcastle when Israel retaliates by carpet-bombing the Palestinian beach. (An exaggeration, I know...)
So that's this (cultural) Jew's two cents...
-Trillian
PS - I know that's monumentally simplifying how Israel was created, but the more I've read and studied about Israel's history and the history of a Jewish state, the less I like it...
I don't even disagree with what you (or Frank) is saying, but I have to point out that saying "Obama wants to create 2.5 million jobs for 2k+9" (emphasis added) is just ridiculous.
2009 is perfectly serviceable (or even '09 or 09) while "2k+9" just makes you look silly. It doesn't even work if it's read out loud: 'two kay plus nine' has as many syllables as 'two thousand nine' and twice as many as 'oh nine.'
Anyway, sorry to pounce on you. I'm pro-manned space flight, and certainly long to see humanity spreading into the stars. But I'll be looking forward to Obama's inauguration in '09, not 2k+9
-Trillian
PS - Why does the first 'Preview' of posts take so long, while subsequent 'Previews' happen almost instantaneously?
Are you familiar with the Parable of the broken window ?
Because thats where your "puts money back in the economy" is going.
You see, if you are just circulating money through these guys, you arent creating any value. There has to be a tangible benefit.
I'm not the author of the post you're replying to, but I agree with techess's arguments, so I thought I'd respond to your post. Basically, I appreciate your point of view, and can understand why you don't feel NASA has offered a tangible benefit in the last 30 years, but I have to disagree with your requirement the benefit be 'tangible' to be worth spending our tax dollars on. ('Tangible' presumably meaning 'financially successful' in this case, although please correct me if I'm wrong.)
A Slashdot post on another story recently said, in response to someone promoting drastically smaller government, "Yes, lets get government out of the picture. But we'll need to band together to build things important, like streets. And we probably won't all have time to deal with handling the money and the plans, so we'll appoint someone to do it. And maybe someone else to make sure the trash gets picked up. And someone else to deal with making sure our community has good schools. And maybe someone to oversee all these projects and report on how they're doing. Wait, that's what government is!" Government is deciding as a society something is important enough that it shouldn't be left exclusively to the private sector. (Sorry for not being able to find the link to the original post.)
So I don't believe the benefit has to be tangible for something to be worth spending money on, just something we've decided is important. I work in the arts, and while I don't believe government should just pay for any and all arts programing people can think up, I do believe strongly that government should support the arts because it creates an intangible value for society as a whole (and no, I don't think that just because it funds my paycheck). Likewise, while NASA has contributed tangible scientific research, I would argue the intangible benefits of exploration and seeing what the human race can do when we put our mind to it is worthwhile in and of itself.
Now, I imagine you might argue that, if it's so important, I should get a bunch of people together and just do it ourselves (a la SpaceShipOne). And I don't believe that government money should flow without restrictions to something with admittedly intangible results like the arts, or pure scientific research, or exploration. But I desire to live in a society where such things are valued, and don't believe it's inappropriate for government to - as a reflection of societal values - step in to lend a helping hand.
To bring it back to your original point, of the Parable of the Broken Window, I guess I just don't feel it applies. No one is breaking anything - we're taking our money, as a society, and using that money to pay members of the society to do work which does generate value (in my eyes, and the eyes of many others). We're certainly not magically generating something from nothing, but I'd also argue that the output from NASA and funding space exploration/research is (or, at least, can be) proportional and appropriate to the input.
Absolutely we would. The only difference is that under Gore we would have lost.
I'm undoing quite a bit of moderation to reply, but I have to ask what "lost" means in this context. (In the interest of full disclosure, I would have much rather seen Gore as POTUS than Bush, so am biased in that direction. But I am hoping for an honest conversation, not trying to flamebait.)
Specifically, I keep hearing 'lost' tossed around in reference to Iraq, but I don't have a clear idea of what that means. Googling 'obama lose iraq' brings up a ton of pages, including one with Lieberman saying Obama "was prepared to accept retreat and defeat." But, coming from the viewpoint of someone who was born after the US was already out of Vietnam, I feel strongly that acknowledging something was poorly handled and, yes, even retreating shouldn't be such a horrible, dirty thing. I feel like discussion about Iraq has become more about whether our national pride can deal with 'losing' than about what's best for the US, the Middle East, and the world.
Now, I know I've drifted from my original question: What would it mean for Gore to have lost in Iraq compared to where we are now? With Obama (or McCain) it's a different issue than if we're talking about Gore, really, since we are in Iraq and no amount of wishing or hoping will magic us out. But if we're saying "what if" about Gore, I don't see him having involved the US military in Iraq in the first place. So part of my question with what you said is why you feel Gore would have invaded Iraq in the same fashion Bush did. But, more to the point, I'm curious how you think Gore would have handled it up to now to say we would have lost under gore.
Please don't take this as an attack - I'm just curious where your perspective is coming from.
For what it's worth, the ringback tone (in my experience) is a function of the cell provider, not the phone itself. I found myself getting messages like "What the hell is the music playing when I call you?" and called Verizon to find that when I upgraded my phone they 'helpfully upgraded' (ugh) the ringback feature as well.
I told them to un-upgrade, and they did. So now it sounds like a phone when people call me. Like it should. So you may have better luck calling your cell company directly, rather than futzing with your phone settings.
I actually just rediscovered Freespace (and spent the last hour trying to configure my joystick in Ubuntu) because it has been released, complete with all media and mission files, as open source. As such, checking out sites like http://scp.indiegames.us/ or Googling for the open installer will take you to pages with instructions for automatic downloads of Freespace 1 and 2, along with a host of mods (including a total conversion BSG mod!) all for free and DRM free. I'm rather excited to play through Freespace 1 and 2 before trying out some of the conversion mods.
So lets do the math (I'm honestly not sure which way it's going to end up, so I'm trying not to go into this with preconceived notions of whether the air pressure thing will help). Full disclosure, I am an Obama supporter, and think offshore drilling is a short-sighted plan.
According to your fact sheet, properly inflated tires can provide up to 3% better fuel economy. According to the Department of Energy, US residential vehicles drove 1,793 billion miles in 1994 (the most recent year a lazy Google lookup brought - if someone has more recent data, by all means lets use that). According to what I could find, 1 gallon of crude makes approximately.45 gallons of gasoline (based on brief Google search - anyone have more accurate numbers?) I wasn't able to find national averages for fuel efficiency, so I'm going to pull numbers out of my ass, but use a few different possible 'national MPG' numbers for comparison, so we can at least can idea of whether the tire pressure idea could have any impact...
First, lets look at a national average of 10 MPG (probably too low). At 1,793 billion miles in 1994, consumers used 179.3 billion gallons of gas, assuming that 10 MPG number. But if they were driving on low tires (at 97% fuel efficiency...) they had 9.7 MPG and used 192.8 billion gallons of gas. So, in that case, Americans could have saved up to 13.5 billion gallons of gas inflating their tires. Max savings: 30 billion gallons of crude oil, or 710 million barrels
Assuming 20 MPG, the hypothetical 97% fuel efficient country drives around at 19.4 MPG and uses 92.4 billion gallons of gas, versus 89.7 billion gallons of gas at 20 MPG (a potential savings of 2.75 billion gallons). Max savings: 6.1 billion gallons of crude oil, or 145 million barrels
At 30 MPG (extremely unlikely, but presented for the sake of completeness) the country drives around at 29.1 MPG and uses 61.6 billion gallons of gas, versus 59.8 billion gallons at 30MPG (a potential savings of 1.8 billion gallons). Max savings: 4 billion gallons of crude oil, or 95 million barrels
So what do those numbers mean? Well, according to the Energy Information Administration, offshore drilling would potentially tap 18 billion barrels of crude, with production at max capacity by 2030.[1] So it looks like, even at the extreme end, just inflating tires would only be in the ballpark of 5% of the lower 48 states' offshore drilling capacity. (If all my math is right, which seems rather unlikely for math done during my lunch break...anyone spot any major flaws?)
At the same time, those savings would be per year. The same report says that offshore drilling would not have a large effect on oil production or prices "before 2030,"[2] so that 100 million barrels (the lower end of the savings spectrum) would add up to 2.2 billion barrels saved by 2030, a more respectable chunk of the estimated offshore capacity. So While I certainly don't pretend to have done enough research to say what (if anything...) can bring down gas prices, it looks like offshore drilling is not the short-term answer McCain says it is. Likewise, a 3% drop in gas prices in my area (Chicago) would be 12 cents, which is nothing to sneeze at - in fact, when I go in to get my oil changed this month, I'm going to make sure they check my tire pressure...
Thus, I hereby suggest hiring a transsexual robot to lead the next survey.
Male-to-female or female-to-male? Though, as someone who is trans, I was always a little jealous of the ease of MTF and FTM adapters in the computer world...just pop one in and you're good to go.
If everyone gave up every luxury and transferred everything to the poor, all we would have is more poor people. This is critical: lack of resources is not caused by lack of money, it's caused by the lack of capability to create money. Nearly all poverty is covered by two causes: 1) self choice, and 2) lack of political freedom and political infrastructure.
First, I honestly don't know the ratio of, lets call them "Luxurious" and "Poor." That is, while you're definitely right that transferring all wealth to the poor would result in some people having a lower standard of living, I'm not convinced that more people would end up poor than before; perhaps the mean standard of living would go down (that is, the height of luxury would be lowered more than the depths of poverty would be raised) but perhaps the median or mode standard of living would shift up. I'm not promoting this as a good system to redistribute wealth and, obviously, the definitions of poor and wealthy are somewhat subjective. But I do think it's a worthwhile thought experiment and while I'm not convinced my outcome is what would actually happen, I'm not convinced yours is either.
As for (most) poverty being caused by self choice and/or lack of political freedom/infrastructure, you said below that
"[the] reason a place has chronic unemployment is because not enough wealth is being created to have a healthy enough economy for full employment."
(If this was from someone else's post, I apologize and the rest of this post is off the mark.) It's difficult for me to reconcile that concept - that chronic unemployment exists due to some 'critical wealth mass' not being reached - with most poverty being caused by personal choice and/or a lack or political infrastructure/freedom.
A Google search puts the long-term unemployment rate in the US at.8% (about 1.2 million people) as of 2007. While I wouldn't necessarily hold up the United States as a beacon of political freedom and infrastructure, it's certainly not the worst place to start. So I'm curious if most of the.8% of the US population that's chronically unemployed is so out of personal choice?
-Trillian
I had thought so, and from the screenshots I saw online I thought it looked great. But on the TV I had it didn't look stylized and painting-like, it just looked out-of-focus. It's entirely possible the TV was just a tad too large, but since no other Wii games I've played have had a similar problem, I was a little disappointed.
Again, I'm not talking about a stylistic choice, but about my eyes hurting from trying to focus on something that was just blurry, and seemed poorly done rather than an artistic choice. It may be that you're right and I should have tried it on a smaller TV, but that doesn't exactly endear the game to me.
I agree with most of your list (that I've played, anyway). Twighlight Princess, Zack and Wiki, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Paper Mario, SSMB, and Resident Evil 4 are all great games. I'm also looking forward to getting Metroid Prime: Corruption, Mario Kart Wii, and Boom Blox one of these days. But I have to disagree about Okami.
I don't know what the problem was - I read the reviews and got myself very excited about the game. I prepped myself for a Zelda-esque adventure game with a long, detailed story and pretty (if not mind-blowing) environments. I ended up returning it after playing about five hours. (Sidenote: GameStop is once again accepting returns on used games!)
The story didn't ramp up, like Zelda's, it just dropped you in the middle after a half hour of cutscenes with obnoxious 'wahwahwah' voice overs. The graphics were actually very fuzzy on my TV (where the rest of the games I mentioned look perfectly fine). The controls and camera seemed very loose. I was very disappointed, especially after the reviews I'd read and after enjoying Twilight Princess so much, but I simply ended up strongly disliking Okami.
Don't really have much else to add. I know that every once in a while, even if the whole rest of a 'liked games' list lines up, it's possible to disagree. I'm enjoying my Wii, really having a blast with Lego Star Wars right now, and buy few enough games that I'm satisfied looking forward to Metroid Prime, Mario Kart, Boom Blox, and others. But just wanted to weigh in on Okami, since I wanted so badly to like it.
-Trillian
I'm currently living with four (4) girls (three daughters, wife) all of which are able to speak in riddles and conundrums that they themselves understand, while leaving me completely at a loss of any valuable information.
So, I've mentioned my status as transgendered before on SlashDot. I have to say that, having begun to socialize more with women as a woman (semantic arguments about what that means aside), women are only slightly less crazy than you think they are.
For example, I've been on hormones for over a year now (estrogen and testosterone blockers). Upon telling a male friend that my emotions seem to be heightened (both positive and negative; it's easier to laugh and easier to cry) I was told that's because women are crazy. Upon telling a female friend the same thing, and the same story, she said, "Welcome to the club."
That said, I'd like to think my solid geek upbringing keeps me somewhat grounded in reality...I don't promise that I'm not crazy (though there's a solid argument that wanting/needing to transition in the first place makes one a bit crazy) but I usually know when I'm acting crazy...
I'm not sure I understand. Three of the Ds (Clinton, O'Leary, and Kerry) were against it and three of them (Durbin, Braun, and Simon) were for it. Wait, you mean not every Democrat agrees all the time? Shocking!
-Trillian
(As a bonus, Durbin, Braun, and Simon are from my state, which makes me feel even better, because I think they were right and Clinton was - unfortunately - wrong.)
"*Paris to Amsterdam is 504km. It's at best a 5h drive. 10h back and forth. How many people do that in the US?"
Anyone who drives from San Francisco to LA. Anyone who drives across Nevada on I80.
Pretty much anyone who lives west of the Mississippi. Or anyone who drives in the midwest. I'm in Illinois, near Chicago, and could drive for five hours and not even leave the state (albeit I'm within an hour of Indiana and Wisconsin, and a three hours of Iowa).
-Trillian
You said:
The US Constitution applies to "We the People of the United States". The protections and rights described therein do not automatically apply to enemies captured on the battlefield, or any non-US-citizen. The prisoners fall under the purview of the president in his role as Commander-in-Chief. The Constitution does not use citizen and person interchangeably. In the Amendment 14, for example, it says
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Emphasis added)
So the Constitution does establish that there is a difference between 'people' in general and 'citizens' specifically. Now, I admit, that's a separate question from whether, in this specific case, the prisoners at Guantanamo have the right to habeas corpus, so lets look at that.
From Article 1, Section 9:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not use 'person,' citizen,' or any other potentially clarifying language. However, I read the Constitution to mean to apply to 'persons' when identifying language is absent, as the Constitution seems to go out of its way to identify when it's talking about someone else.
Shockingly, I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion has no legal bearing. However, the SCOTUS would seem to agree...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you except for the gay marriage. Gays already have the same rights everyone else has, they can marry a person of the opposite sex. The blacks and so on were actually barred from marrying into interracial marriages at one time which is completely different then gay marriage. As long as a Gay man can do what a straight man can do (marry someone of the opposite sex) then they have the same rights. Lesbians are the same (marry a man). The fact that they don't want to or want to do something else. The 14th doesn't apply to that situation.
I'd imagine you're aware of the usual response to your argument, but I think it's important enough that it bears repeating.
Whether or not being gay is a preference/choice or biologically determined is is irrelevant to the arguments in favor of gay marriage. Regardless of the cause of homosexuality, the government should not be in the business of regulating the behavior of consenting adults or discriminating based on said behavior.
In general, the argument for marriage only being valid for a man and a woman revolves around child-rearing. If that's the case, it's odd that so many of the legal and financial rights/privileges granted by marriage do not directly relate to child reading and, indeed, apply regardless of whether or not the married couple has children, ever plans to have children, or even can have children. For example, my mom is now past child-bearing age. Does that mean she shouldn't be allowed to get (re)married?
So please don't act like qualifying homosexuality as a preference and talking about the rights of gay men and women to marry people of the opposite sex as if it takes the wind out of the sails of gay marriage proponents. It doesn't.
-Trillian
PS - As a side note, part of a well-functioning government's role is to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. Interracial marriage was one such instance of tyranny of the majority, gay marriage is another.
I really want to disagree with you, because I'm very opposed to Prop 8, but the arguments put forth in the lawsuits to overturn prop 8 do seem somewhat weak...
Which isn't to say the part of me ruled by emotions doesn't want them to win...
-Trillian
I've posted this elsewhere in this thread, but I'm trying to reply to people who are posting politely on the side of either anti-gay marriage, or on the fence:
Basically, the government should not be in the business of regulating the behavior of consenting adults or discriminating based on said behavior. That's the one core issue for me that makes gay marriage very different from marrying a goat (or a minor).
As for marrying your sister, or a group of people, I (again) can't see why the government should be in the business of telling consenting adults what they can and can't do. That isn't to say marrying your sister is a good idea, or that I'd ever be interesting in a group relationships, but I don't understand the moral or legal ground to object to such unions.
-Trillian
Gays of course have the right to marry. The opposite sex.
Of course, that does not match their personal preference, but then again having your preferences catered to by the state isn't something you can count on when you are a distinct minority.
I'd imagine you're aware of the usual response to that, but I think it's important enough that it bears repeating.
Whether or not being gay is a preference/choice or biologically determined is is irrelevant to the arguments in favor of gay marriage. Regardless of the cause of homosexuality, the government should not be in the business of regulating the behavior of consenting adults or discriminating based on said behavior.
In general, the argument for marriage only being valid for a man and a woman revolves around child-rearing. If that's the case, it's odd that so many of the legal and financial rights/privileges granted by marriage do not directly relate to child reading and, indeed, apply regardless of whether or not the married couple has children, ever plans to have children, or even can have children. For example, my mom is now past child-bearing age. Does that mean she shouldn't be allowed to get (re)married?
So please don't act like qualifying homosexuality as a preference and talking about the rights of gay men and women to marry people of the opposite sex as if it takes the wind out of the sails of gay marriage proponents. It doesn't.
-Trillian
PS - As a side note, part of a well-functioning government's role is to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. So while you're right, a minority population can't count on the state's protection, it's not unreasonable to expect such protection in the (theoretical) 'ideal' state.
Electric toothbrushes suck. I can't use them because they tickle, and besides, the vibrations make it feel like I'm sucking on a sex toy.
Undoing some moderation to post this but I felt I should reply to the one post in this discussion I could comment knowledgeably on...
Yes, they tickle at first. For about a week, for most people. After that, you stop noticing it. When I first switched from a normal toothbrush to a cheapy electric, it took a week or so for me to be able to do it without cringing horribly. Likewise, when I switched from the cheapy to a nicer one (recommended by my dentist) it took another week or so until it didn't feel tickly and obnoxious. But now I actually like it - it makes my mouth feel cleaner than non-electric brushes ever did - and my dentist says my teeth are better.
-Trillian
PS - I love slashdot precisely because a discussion on work schedules leads logically to a discussion on electric versus non-electric toothbrushes.
PPS - Can't help you with the sex toy issue. That's one you'll have to deal with on your own. Or with a consenting partner.
These percentage comparisons [about overhead] may be deceptive, because service costs for Medicare beneficiaries are much higher than those for FEHBP enrollees. The two programs might spend the same dollar amounts on administration, but Medicare's spending would appear lower as a percent of claims. Absolute dollar amounts for private insurance administration are difficult to obtain, but one source does produce estimates for Blue Cross Blue Shield plans. For plans operating a PPO on an administrative services-only basis - essentially the way Blue Cross operates under FEHBP - mean administrative costs per member year were $271 in 2002 (Sherlock Company, 2002). Medicare-s costs in 2002, $4.8 billion for about 36 million fee-forservice beneficiaries, were about $133 per beneficiary, or about one-half as large.
(Emphasis added)
So it sounds like the original 3% quoted might be true, but nevertheless misleading due to the higher cost-per-patient expenses of Medicare's older recipients. Regardless, Medicare's per-beneficiary costs were still lower than Blue Cross Blue Shield, which would indicate a national health care service in the style of Medicare could provide lower administrative costs than the private sector.
-Trillian
For what it's worth, you can be racist and still have a grain of truth.
As I've said elsewhere on this thread, I identify as culturally Jewish, but was raised in a religiously Jewish household. And in spite of (or, perhaps, because of) all that, I don't support Israel; not it's creation by UN mandate and not its current policy of war. Not that I support the Palestinians (or anyone else) attacking Israel, either... 50 years after Israel's creation, the Middle East is between a rock and a hard place and no one is willing to budge.
So while I 100% agree that smoker2 is more than a tad bit racist, I also agree that divine intervention should not be a qualification in granting real estate to a group of people...
-Trillian
I don't disagree that almost all Jews are in favor of a Jewish state in theory, and most are specifically pro-Israel. I just wanted to weigh in as someone who is culturally Jewish (that is, I enjoy and appreciate the rituals/holidays without believing in the Judeo-Christian god) but was nevertheless raised religiously Jewish (complete with Bat Mitzvah). So, with all that in mind, I'll say my piece...
I think Israel is nuts. I think any religiously-based country has problems at its very core but especially one that was founded by outsiders who relocated a lot of people to create the country.
If a bunch of people get together and decide together to form a religious community, great. As long as they don't prevent people from leaving, I really don't care (even if I might not understand the motivation). But do have the winning powers of WWII spin the globe and say, "Hey, this'll work! Lets stick they Jews here so we don't have to deal with them!" is just monumentally stupid and asking for trouble.
Furthermore, the Israeli and Palestinian governments (such that they are) are behaving like children. I have nothing but sympathy for the people on both sides, but Israel and whoever happens to be 'representing the Palestinians at any one moment are both acting like they couldn't possibly understand how anyone could see the other's viewpoint. And, from where I'm sitting, when two bullies are fighting, even if they're both ultimately wrong, more of the fault lies with the bigger bully. In this situation, that means Israel. If they want to keep any sort of position as an internationally respected power, they need to stop acting like it's the Palestinian's fault they're fighting because the Palestinians knocked over Israel's sandcastle when Israel retaliates by carpet-bombing the Palestinian beach. (An exaggeration, I know...)
So that's this (cultural) Jew's two cents...
-Trillian
PS - I know that's monumentally simplifying how Israel was created, but the more I've read and studied about Israel's history and the history of a Jewish state, the less I like it...
Terrabotagism!
I don't even disagree with what you (or Frank) is saying, but I have to point out that saying "Obama wants to create 2.5 million jobs for 2k+9" (emphasis added) is just ridiculous.
2009 is perfectly serviceable (or even '09 or 09) while "2k+9" just makes you look silly. It doesn't even work if it's read out loud: 'two kay plus nine' has as many syllables as 'two thousand nine' and twice as many as 'oh nine.'
Anyway, sorry to pounce on you. I'm pro-manned space flight, and certainly long to see humanity spreading into the stars. But I'll be looking forward to Obama's inauguration in '09, not 2k+9
-Trillian
PS - Why does the first 'Preview' of posts take so long, while subsequent 'Previews' happen almost instantaneously?
Replying to undo accidental moderation.
Are you familiar with the Parable of the broken window ? Because thats where your "puts money back in the economy" is going. You see, if you are just circulating money through these guys, you arent creating any value. There has to be a tangible benefit.
I'm not the author of the post you're replying to, but I agree with techess's arguments, so I thought I'd respond to your post. Basically, I appreciate your point of view, and can understand why you don't feel NASA has offered a tangible benefit in the last 30 years, but I have to disagree with your requirement the benefit be 'tangible' to be worth spending our tax dollars on. ('Tangible' presumably meaning 'financially successful' in this case, although please correct me if I'm wrong.)
A Slashdot post on another story recently said, in response to someone promoting drastically smaller government, "Yes, lets get government out of the picture. But we'll need to band together to build things important, like streets. And we probably won't all have time to deal with handling the money and the plans, so we'll appoint someone to do it. And maybe someone else to make sure the trash gets picked up. And someone else to deal with making sure our community has good schools. And maybe someone to oversee all these projects and report on how they're doing. Wait, that's what government is!" Government is deciding as a society something is important enough that it shouldn't be left exclusively to the private sector. (Sorry for not being able to find the link to the original post.)
So I don't believe the benefit has to be tangible for something to be worth spending money on, just something we've decided is important. I work in the arts, and while I don't believe government should just pay for any and all arts programing people can think up, I do believe strongly that government should support the arts because it creates an intangible value for society as a whole (and no, I don't think that just because it funds my paycheck). Likewise, while NASA has contributed tangible scientific research, I would argue the intangible benefits of exploration and seeing what the human race can do when we put our mind to it is worthwhile in and of itself.
Now, I imagine you might argue that, if it's so important, I should get a bunch of people together and just do it ourselves (a la SpaceShipOne). And I don't believe that government money should flow without restrictions to something with admittedly intangible results like the arts, or pure scientific research, or exploration. But I desire to live in a society where such things are valued, and don't believe it's inappropriate for government to - as a reflection of societal values - step in to lend a helping hand.
To bring it back to your original point, of the Parable of the Broken Window, I guess I just don't feel it applies. No one is breaking anything - we're taking our money, as a society, and using that money to pay members of the society to do work which does generate value (in my eyes, and the eyes of many others). We're certainly not magically generating something from nothing, but I'd also argue that the output from NASA and funding space exploration/research is (or, at least, can be) proportional and appropriate to the input.
-Trillian
Absolutely we would. The only difference is that under Gore we would have lost.
I'm undoing quite a bit of moderation to reply, but I have to ask what "lost" means in this context. (In the interest of full disclosure, I would have much rather seen Gore as POTUS than Bush, so am biased in that direction. But I am hoping for an honest conversation, not trying to flamebait.)
Specifically, I keep hearing 'lost' tossed around in reference to Iraq, but I don't have a clear idea of what that means. Googling 'obama lose iraq' brings up a ton of pages, including one with Lieberman saying Obama "was prepared to accept retreat and defeat." But, coming from the viewpoint of someone who was born after the US was already out of Vietnam, I feel strongly that acknowledging something was poorly handled and, yes, even retreating shouldn't be such a horrible, dirty thing. I feel like discussion about Iraq has become more about whether our national pride can deal with 'losing' than about what's best for the US, the Middle East, and the world.
Now, I know I've drifted from my original question: What would it mean for Gore to have lost in Iraq compared to where we are now? With Obama (or McCain) it's a different issue than if we're talking about Gore, really, since we are in Iraq and no amount of wishing or hoping will magic us out. But if we're saying "what if" about Gore, I don't see him having involved the US military in Iraq in the first place. So part of my question with what you said is why you feel Gore would have invaded Iraq in the same fashion Bush did. But, more to the point, I'm curious how you think Gore would have handled it up to now to say we would have lost under gore.
Please don't take this as an attack - I'm just curious where your perspective is coming from.
-Trillian
For what it's worth, the ringback tone (in my experience) is a function of the cell provider, not the phone itself. I found myself getting messages like "What the hell is the music playing when I call you?" and called Verizon to find that when I upgraded my phone they 'helpfully upgraded' (ugh) the ringback feature as well.
I told them to un-upgrade, and they did. So now it sounds like a phone when people call me. Like it should. So you may have better luck calling your cell company directly, rather than futzing with your phone settings.
-Trillian
My sig has never seemed more appropriate!
-Trillian
I actually just rediscovered Freespace (and spent the last hour trying to configure my joystick in Ubuntu) because it has been released, complete with all media and mission files, as open source. As such, checking out sites like http://scp.indiegames.us/ or Googling for the open installer will take you to pages with instructions for automatic downloads of Freespace 1 and 2, along with a host of mods (including a total conversion BSG mod!) all for free and DRM free. I'm rather excited to play through Freespace 1 and 2 before trying out some of the conversion mods.
Pretty sweet!
-Trillian
So lets do the math (I'm honestly not sure which way it's going to end up, so I'm trying not to go into this with preconceived notions of whether the air pressure thing will help). Full disclosure, I am an Obama supporter, and think offshore drilling is a short-sighted plan.
According to your fact sheet, properly inflated tires can provide up to 3% better fuel economy. According to the Department of Energy, US residential vehicles drove 1,793 billion miles in 1994 (the most recent year a lazy Google lookup brought - if someone has more recent data, by all means lets use that). According to what I could find, 1 gallon of crude makes approximately .45 gallons of gasoline (based on brief Google search - anyone have more accurate numbers?) I wasn't able to find national averages for fuel efficiency, so I'm going to pull numbers out of my ass, but use a few different possible 'national MPG' numbers for comparison, so we can at least can idea of whether the tire pressure idea could have any impact...
First, lets look at a national average of 10 MPG (probably too low). At 1,793 billion miles in 1994, consumers used 179.3 billion gallons of gas, assuming that 10 MPG number. But if they were driving on low tires (at 97% fuel efficiency...) they had 9.7 MPG and used 192.8 billion gallons of gas. So, in that case, Americans could have saved up to 13.5 billion gallons of gas inflating their tires. Max savings: 30 billion gallons of crude oil, or 710 million barrels
Assuming 20 MPG, the hypothetical 97% fuel efficient country drives around at 19.4 MPG and uses 92.4 billion gallons of gas, versus 89.7 billion gallons of gas at 20 MPG (a potential savings of 2.75 billion gallons). Max savings: 6.1 billion gallons of crude oil, or 145 million barrels
At 30 MPG (extremely unlikely, but presented for the sake of completeness) the country drives around at 29.1 MPG and uses 61.6 billion gallons of gas, versus 59.8 billion gallons at 30MPG (a potential savings of 1.8 billion gallons). Max savings: 4 billion gallons of crude oil, or 95 million barrels
So what do those numbers mean? Well, according to the Energy Information Administration, offshore drilling would potentially tap 18 billion barrels of crude, with production at max capacity by 2030.[1] So it looks like, even at the extreme end, just inflating tires would only be in the ballpark of 5% of the lower 48 states' offshore drilling capacity. (If all my math is right, which seems rather unlikely for math done during my lunch break...anyone spot any major flaws?)
At the same time, those savings would be per year. The same report says that offshore drilling would not have a large effect on oil production or prices "before 2030,"[2] so that 100 million barrels (the lower end of the savings spectrum) would add up to 2.2 billion barrels saved by 2030, a more respectable chunk of the estimated offshore capacity. So While I certainly don't pretend to have done enough research to say what (if anything...) can bring down gas prices, it looks like offshore drilling is not the short-term answer McCain says it is. Likewise, a 3% drop in gas prices in my area (Chicago) would be 12 cents, which is nothing to sneeze at - in fact, when I go in to get my oil changed this month, I'm going to make sure they check my tire pressure...
-Trillian
[1] - http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
[2] - http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/18/eia-bombshell-offshore-drilling-would-not-have-a-significant-impact-on-domestic-crude-oil-and-natural-gas-production-or-prices-before-2030/
Thus, I hereby suggest hiring a transsexual robot to lead the next survey.
Male-to-female or female-to-male? Though, as someone who is trans, I was always a little jealous of the ease of MTF and FTM adapters in the computer world...just pop one in and you're good to go.
Oh, how I wish it were that simple...
-Trillian
If everyone gave up every luxury and transferred everything to the poor, all we would have is more poor people. This is critical: lack of resources is not caused by lack of money, it's caused by the lack of capability to create money. Nearly all poverty is covered by two causes: 1) self choice, and 2) lack of political freedom and political infrastructure.
First, I honestly don't know the ratio of, lets call them "Luxurious" and "Poor." That is, while you're definitely right that transferring all wealth to the poor would result in some people having a lower standard of living, I'm not convinced that more people would end up poor than before; perhaps the mean standard of living would go down (that is, the height of luxury would be lowered more than the depths of poverty would be raised) but perhaps the median or mode standard of living would shift up. I'm not promoting this as a good system to redistribute wealth and, obviously, the definitions of poor and wealthy are somewhat subjective. But I do think it's a worthwhile thought experiment and while I'm not convinced my outcome is what would actually happen, I'm not convinced yours is either.
As for (most) poverty being caused by self choice and/or lack of political freedom/infrastructure, you said below that
"[the] reason a place has chronic unemployment is because not enough wealth is being created to have a healthy enough economy for full employment."
(If this was from someone else's post, I apologize and the rest of this post is off the mark.) It's difficult for me to reconcile that concept - that chronic unemployment exists due to some 'critical wealth mass' not being reached - with most poverty being caused by personal choice and/or a lack or political infrastructure/freedom.
A Google search puts the long-term unemployment rate in the US at .8% (about 1.2 million people) as of 2007. While I wouldn't necessarily hold up the United States as a beacon of political freedom and infrastructure, it's certainly not the worst place to start. So I'm curious if most of the .8% of the US population that's chronically unemployed is so out of personal choice?
-Trillian
I had thought so, and from the screenshots I saw online I thought it looked great. But on the TV I had it didn't look stylized and painting-like, it just looked out-of-focus. It's entirely possible the TV was just a tad too large, but since no other Wii games I've played have had a similar problem, I was a little disappointed.
Again, I'm not talking about a stylistic choice, but about my eyes hurting from trying to focus on something that was just blurry, and seemed poorly done rather than an artistic choice. It may be that you're right and I should have tried it on a smaller TV, but that doesn't exactly endear the game to me.
-Trillian
I agree with most of your list (that I've played, anyway). Twighlight Princess, Zack and Wiki, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Paper Mario, SSMB, and Resident Evil 4 are all great games. I'm also looking forward to getting Metroid Prime: Corruption, Mario Kart Wii, and Boom Blox one of these days. But I have to disagree about Okami.
I don't know what the problem was - I read the reviews and got myself very excited about the game. I prepped myself for a Zelda-esque adventure game with a long, detailed story and pretty (if not mind-blowing) environments. I ended up returning it after playing about five hours. (Sidenote: GameStop is once again accepting returns on used games!)
The story didn't ramp up, like Zelda's, it just dropped you in the middle after a half hour of cutscenes with obnoxious 'wahwahwah' voice overs. The graphics were actually very fuzzy on my TV (where the rest of the games I mentioned look perfectly fine). The controls and camera seemed very loose. I was very disappointed, especially after the reviews I'd read and after enjoying Twilight Princess so much, but I simply ended up strongly disliking Okami.
Don't really have much else to add. I know that every once in a while, even if the whole rest of a 'liked games' list lines up, it's possible to disagree. I'm enjoying my Wii, really having a blast with Lego Star Wars right now, and buy few enough games that I'm satisfied looking forward to Metroid Prime, Mario Kart, Boom Blox, and others. But just wanted to weigh in on Okami, since I wanted so badly to like it.
-Trillian
So, I've mentioned my status as transgendered before on SlashDot. I have to say that, having begun to socialize more with women as a woman (semantic arguments about what that means aside), women are only slightly less crazy than you think they are.
For example, I've been on hormones for over a year now (estrogen and testosterone blockers). Upon telling a male friend that my emotions seem to be heightened (both positive and negative; it's easier to laugh and easier to cry) I was told that's because women are crazy. Upon telling a female friend the same thing, and the same story, she said, "Welcome to the club."
That said, I'd like to think my solid geek upbringing keeps me somewhat grounded in reality...I don't promise that I'm not crazy (though there's a solid argument that wanting/needing to transition in the first place makes one a bit crazy) but I usually know when I'm acting crazy...
Just food for thought.
-Trillian
I'm not sure I understand. Three of the Ds (Clinton, O'Leary, and Kerry) were against it and three of them (Durbin, Braun, and Simon) were for it. Wait, you mean not every Democrat agrees all the time? Shocking!
-Trillian
(As a bonus, Durbin, Braun, and Simon are from my state, which makes me feel even better, because I think they were right and Clinton was - unfortunately - wrong.)
-Trillian
So the Constitution does establish that there is a difference between 'people' in general and 'citizens' specifically. Now, I admit, that's a separate question from whether, in this specific case, the prisoners at Guantanamo have the right to habeas corpus, so lets look at that. From Article 1, Section 9: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not use 'person,' citizen,' or any other potentially clarifying language. However, I read the Constitution to mean to apply to 'persons' when identifying language is absent, as the Constitution seems to go out of its way to identify when it's talking about someone else.
Shockingly, I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion has no legal bearing. However, the SCOTUS would seem to agree...
You said: Actually, the Red Cross has had extensive access to the detainees, and there never was any "torture", despite insinuations to the contrary. Red Cross access:
Red Cross Monitors Barred from Guantanamo
U.S. Rebuffs Red Cross Request for Access to Detainees Held in Secret
Red Cross blasts Gitmo
Claims of torture:
Text to be displayed
Claims of torture at Guantanamo
Top Bush aides pushed for Guantanamo torture
UK Rights Group: US has photographic evidence of torture
Searching for 'guantanamo torture' and 'guantanamo red cross access' brings up tons more.
-Trillian