"Our conversation here while getting a bit more civil is, frankly, boring."
I don't care to change my attitudes so that you can be more amused. You, on the other hand, seem to be completely happy with ad hominem attacks until such time as you discover they're not getting you anywhere, and then switch to nicey-nice mode.
You play the game any way you like. I still hold that attitude in contempt. If you find that insulting, that's just too bad.
"As far as the political discourse comment, I don't see how one can be "civil" and have anyone pay attention to them. Our conversation here while getting a bit more civil is, frankly, boring. The people who NEED to get the message will have tuned out. There's no winning against fiercly polarized systems by trying to be reasoned. It was possible once, but not any longer."
Well, I won't bore you any further, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to draw contrasts between how to run a public library and how to run a nation.
You have determined that you're going to be part of the problem (shrill, polarized political thinking) rather than part of the solution (reasoned discourse) because the latter bores you. I find that attitude contemptible.
Uh, what? Two discussions later, and NOW you decide to be civil? OK, that's just fine. We'll see how long you can keep it up.
"But we're obviously of opposite minds"
I find that with most discussions of any substance, the positions are more nuanced than "The people that agree with you" and "the people who are the opposite of you". As evidence of my argument, I refer you to our prior discussion on faith, where you attempted to lump me in with the Spanish Inquisition. You were mistaken there, as well.
"I personally trust government to do more for people than businesses."
That's an article of faith. What is your "Government doing stuff for people" success story?
"In other words I don't believe in the power of the individual at all"
Then you disagree with the fundamental principles of the United States of America. Yes, I agree that the people in power do not hew to those principles either, but I still hold them (now here's an emotionally charged word!) sacred.
Preserving the rights of individuals is the ONLY way to guarantee liberty. If you consider only the rights of groups (or corporations), that way tyranny lies.
"I happen to disagree highly with the current administration, the war in Iraq, etc"
On that we find ourselves in agreement. Amazing.
"My problem with that is that you can't achieve great things in a uniform fashion without large concentrations of power."
OK. How do you know that the things you think are great are the things I think are great (for any value of "you" and "I")? Why do these things need to be uniform? Federalism has some limitations, but it's a good idea.
"cell phones suck ass compared to the old land lines of the Bell telephone system"
I'll take today's suck-ass cell phones over the leased monopoly system of the 70's. While we're at it, why is AT&T allowed to be a company again?
I fail to understand your most fundamental disconnect: Businesses control government. Why do you think raising my taxes is going to magically fix the ozone hole, end our dependence on foreign oil, lower CO2 emissions, and make bunnies softer and fluffier? You presuppose a rational, forward thinking government that simply doesn't exist. If you'd like to have discussions about how to improve the federal government, well that might indeed be fruitful. But your blind faith that somehow the government is going to save the environment seems to me rather silly.
"I have a lot of difficulty understanding how it's acceptable to "tilt at windmills" for things like cancer research, AIDS research, or Iraq all at huge expense and yet when it comes to staging a preemptive attack on global warming it's suddenly wrong."
You're putting words in my mouth. Stop that.
"To me, Kyoto seemed like a fine start to a plan which hit the real polluters: businesses."
Who do you think will foot the bill? You. Me. There is no magic environmental money fairy. While we're on the subject, how would you measure Kyoto's efficacy? You purport to be a scientifically minded person. How do you know if your experiment is working? When do you stop dumping money down the rathole when it doesn't?
And you're mistaken: Real polluters are not businesses, they're nations like China and India. Who are exempt from Kyoto.
"It's obvious that we're on opposite sides of the spectrum"
Your assumption that this is a one-dimensional system clouds your understanding.
"As soon as you cross the line and attack my views or vice-versa, that's where the real issue is"
I defy you to find the post where I did that. It didn't happen.
"And that is what "political discourse" has evolved into today."
"EA fits both categories, they have highly experimental games coming from studios they own like Maxis."
That's a pretty serious oversimplification. EA bought Maxis, and then tried to kill The Sims. Any "highly experimental" game that comes out of EA is an accident, not an experiment.
I DO do "the right thing". I think that raising my taxes to tilt at environmental windmills is "the wrong thing". I think the government doesn't give a damn about conservation, and only wants more of my money. Is that difficult for you to understand?
That moist "splat" sound was the point hitting you in the forehead.
Stand up. Stretch your hand up over your head. The distance from the floor to your hand is the distance they were JOKING ABOUT HAVING between you and the car before you at highway speeds. Does that sound prudent to you?
You said that if the government raised your taxes, you'd pay them. Problem is, if you get your taxes raised, I get my taxes raised, hence my disagreement with you.
I encourage you to spend your money however you want. I discourage you from spending my money however you want. I do not understand how this points to me having an overinflated ego.
"There is NO solution until the people with the money and power take our side"
And why on EARTH would they do that?
"The best I can do right now is contribute to the movements I believe in. And I do. Regularly."
OK, so you're not willing to "pay your share" until the Government forces you to. Great! Way to stand by your principles! I think you're a splendid human being.
"We all know that Kyoto failed because businesses paid to have it fail."
We know that, do we? How would you know if Kyoto had succeeded? What would it look like if it 'failed' because it was poorly designed and shoddily implemented?
Come on, now. In another discussion, you took me to task because you didn't like my articles of faith. But now, we're just supposed to take your bald assertions and raise our tax burden? Horse shit.
My totally non-scientific articles of faith don't cost you any money.
a) I don't know why you introduced Jobs to the discussion. You seem to have an axe to grind.
b) Design is not fashion. Design is human interface engineering. It is very difficult to get right. Microsoft has never even bothered themselves to try.
c) I think Microsoft has never innovated anything, ever. I think Gates is a backstabbing cheat, and I think he'd fit right in with the a lot of the Presidents, and do an equally dismal job, therefore I hope he doesn't get said job.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do I get the "useable package" option from Microsoft? Do I have to talk to my reseller?
I KNEW I was missing SOMETHING...
OK, and you're trying to tell me it takes 25% of the PhD candidates to make a computer that doesn't blow up?
Come on, now. You can't possibly be serious.
Microsoft research is sturm und drang. Noisy blah blah waves shiny pie-in-the-sky nonsense...and never makes anything of value.
Writing a paper is not innovation.
With acronyms like that, who needs innovation?
You said:
"Our conversation here while getting a bit more civil is, frankly, boring."
I don't care to change my attitudes so that you can be more amused. You, on the other hand, seem to be completely happy with ad hominem attacks until such time as you discover they're not getting you anywhere, and then switch to nicey-nice mode.
You play the game any way you like. I still hold that attitude in contempt. If you find that insulting, that's just too bad.
"It is just as morally wrong to copy a book and make it available for download as it is to copy a cd."
Which is to say, "not at all morally wrong".
"As far as the political discourse comment, I don't see how one can be "civil" and have anyone pay attention to them. Our conversation here while getting a bit more civil is, frankly, boring. The people who NEED to get the message will have tuned out. There's no winning against fiercly polarized systems by trying to be reasoned. It was possible once, but not any longer."
Well, I won't bore you any further, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to draw contrasts between how to run a public library and how to run a nation.
You have determined that you're going to be part of the problem (shrill, polarized political thinking) rather than part of the solution (reasoned discourse) because the latter bores you. I find that attitude contemptible.
"I won't attack as long as you don't."
Uh, what? Two discussions later, and NOW you decide to be civil? OK, that's just fine. We'll see how long you can keep it up.
"But we're obviously of opposite minds"
I find that with most discussions of any substance, the positions are more nuanced than "The people that agree with you" and "the people who are the opposite of you". As evidence of my argument, I refer you to our prior discussion on faith, where you attempted to lump me in with the Spanish Inquisition. You were mistaken there, as well.
"I personally trust government to do more for people than businesses."
That's an article of faith. What is your "Government doing stuff for people" success story?
"In other words I don't believe in the power of the individual at all"
Then you disagree with the fundamental principles of the United States of America. Yes, I agree that the people in power do not hew to those principles either, but I still hold them (now here's an emotionally charged word!) sacred.
Preserving the rights of individuals is the ONLY way to guarantee liberty. If you consider only the rights of groups (or corporations), that way tyranny lies.
"I happen to disagree highly with the current administration, the war in Iraq, etc"
On that we find ourselves in agreement. Amazing.
"My problem with that is that you can't achieve great things in a uniform fashion without large concentrations of power."
OK. How do you know that the things you think are great are the things I think are great (for any value of "you" and "I")? Why do these things need to be uniform? Federalism has some limitations, but it's a good idea.
"cell phones suck ass compared to the old land lines of the Bell telephone system"
I'll take today's suck-ass cell phones over the leased monopoly system of the 70's. While we're at it, why is AT&T allowed to be a company again?
I fail to understand your most fundamental disconnect: Businesses control government. Why do you think raising my taxes is going to magically fix the ozone hole, end our dependence on foreign oil, lower CO2 emissions, and make bunnies softer and fluffier? You presuppose a rational, forward thinking government that simply doesn't exist. If you'd like to have discussions about how to improve the federal government, well that might indeed be fruitful. But your blind faith that somehow the government is going to save the environment seems to me rather silly.
"I have a lot of difficulty understanding how it's acceptable to "tilt at windmills" for things like cancer research, AIDS research, or Iraq all at huge expense and yet when it comes to staging a preemptive attack on global warming it's suddenly wrong."
You're putting words in my mouth. Stop that.
"To me, Kyoto seemed like a fine start to a plan which hit the real polluters: businesses."
Who do you think will foot the bill? You. Me. There is no magic environmental money fairy. While we're on the subject, how would you measure Kyoto's efficacy? You purport to be a scientifically minded person. How do you know if your experiment is working? When do you stop dumping money down the rathole when it doesn't?
And you're mistaken: Real polluters are not businesses, they're nations like China and India. Who are exempt from Kyoto.
"It's obvious that we're on opposite sides of the spectrum"
Your assumption that this is a one-dimensional system clouds your understanding.
"As soon as you cross the line and attack my views or vice-versa, that's where the real issue is"
I defy you to find the post where I did that. It didn't happen.
"And that is what "political discourse" has evolved into today."
Don't like it? Stop doing it.
"EA fits both categories, they have highly experimental games coming from studios they own like Maxis."
That's a pretty serious oversimplification. EA bought Maxis, and then tried to kill The Sims. Any "highly experimental" game that comes out of EA is an accident, not an experiment.
EA is reaping what they have sown. I have not any sympathy. /former EA employee
You're cute when you get all self-righteous.
I DO do "the right thing". I think that raising my taxes to tilt at environmental windmills is "the wrong thing". I think the government doesn't give a damn about conservation, and only wants more of my money. Is that difficult for you to understand?
OK. It's still a pretty far leap from "I had a wreck one time" to "everybody should drive slower than I am capable of driving."
See below. You're wrong, I'm right. Thanks for playing!
So, every time a car approaches me from behind, I should charge through the stoplight?
May I have your address, so I can send you my tickets? Thanks!
That moist "splat" sound was the point hitting you in the forehead.
Stand up. Stretch your hand up over your head. The distance from the floor to your hand is the distance they were JOKING ABOUT HAVING between you and the car before you at highway speeds. Does that sound prudent to you?
Um, maybe you're just a driver that can't drive at speed safely. What leads you to believe that you are the benchmark for the rest of humanity?
I'm not saying that speeding can be done safely, but I'm also not arguing that just because I can't do it, it can't be done.
You said that if the government raised your taxes, you'd pay them. Problem is, if you get your taxes raised, I get my taxes raised, hence my disagreement with you.
I encourage you to spend your money however you want. I discourage you from spending my money however you want. I do not understand how this points to me having an overinflated ego.
"There is NO solution until the people with the money and power take our side"
And why on EARTH would they do that?
"The best I can do right now is contribute to the movements I believe in. And I do. Regularly."
That's just great. Leave my tax money alone.
OK, so you're not willing to "pay your share" until the Government forces you to. Great! Way to stand by your principles! I think you're a splendid human being.
Yeah, because your opinion is 40,936 better than the millionth user's.
Get off my lawn.
"So, instead of spending time and money on making a better product"
OK, what? We're talking about Microsoft. When has "making a better product" ever been their goal?
It was illegal to hold Mr. Mitnick without trial. Do you really think that matters?
"We all know that Kyoto failed because businesses paid to have it fail."
We know that, do we? How would you know if Kyoto had succeeded? What would it look like if it 'failed' because it was poorly designed and shoddily implemented?
Come on, now. In another discussion, you took me to task because you didn't like my articles of faith. But now, we're just supposed to take your bald assertions and raise our tax burden? Horse shit.
My totally non-scientific articles of faith don't cost you any money.
If it's worth the cost, why aren't you paying it, voluntarily, yourself?
I ride the bus and pay extra for allegedly "green" power. What are you doing?
"Saving the environment at any financial cost is always worth the expenditure."
But you're presupposing that the environment is in danger. If it's worth any financial cost, how much are YOU paying?
Oh, what, you want my money too? There's where we disagree.
a) I don't know why you introduced Jobs to the discussion. You seem to have an axe to grind.
b) Design is not fashion. Design is human interface engineering. It is very difficult to get right. Microsoft has never even bothered themselves to try.
c) I think Microsoft has never innovated anything, ever. I think Gates is a backstabbing cheat, and I think he'd fit right in with the a lot of the Presidents, and do an equally dismal job, therefore I hope he doesn't get said job.