Women have had the right to work, but after WWII the family requires both spouses to work in order to pay the bills. That's not really any great leap forward for, uh, womankind. And for society as a whole, it's a step backwards.
I think I'm a neotraditionalist. I would gladly be a stay-at-home dad. But in my hypothetical family of the future, we probably couldn't afford that.
Do you see what I'm saying? Not that women must be kept at home. I'm saying that in terms of economic power, both men and women are so degraded nowadays that both must work to make ends meet. That's regressive. In other words, men and women are exploited equally. That's no victory.
Actually, I think the revolution did come to completion with the assassinations (JFK, MLK, etc.) in the 1960s. We still call it the USA, but it's not the same country it was before WWII. Eisenhower warned us about the "military industrial complex" or whatever you call it but we were already down that course. WWII, that great battle we won for freedom, well it also gave us an economy that requires both husband and wife to work. Women working was, for industrialists, an "added value" of WWII because now you get labor from both members of the team but you pay them each half. Women pitched in to save Democracy and got screwed by Capital. Nobody seems to recognize this.
What we're waiting for now is the counterrevolution, and that won't happen until the dollar tanks. Give it about twenty years, or not depending on how things go. We're so intertwined economically with the rest of the world that a marked crash in the US, while devastating for us, might harm our enemies more than they'd like to admit. How is China gonna stay afloat if America can't afford to buy Chinese goods at good old American Wal-Mart?
Honestly I'm not so claer on how things might change. I guess I'm expecting a big WMD-style war; either that or something like Mad Cow Disease to dramatically thin our numbers.
Fine, here's the non-tinfoil-hat version of my comment.
My point is that the system we have been using, called mailing in paper ballots, works fine. The electorate even recognizes the extra difficulty in receiving votes from military personnel out of the counry, and bends over backwards to make sure the votes are counted.
I said "technically" should not have been counted. I don't think it would be fair or proper, (though technically it would be correct) to dismiss their votes because the mail took an extra day to get here from Guam or whatever.
Funneling all the votes through some black box at the Pentagon seems entirely un-Democratic. There is no need for the middleman, and there's certainly the possibility for impropriety when your employer is collectig your votes, then handing them over to the poll workers. And since it's electronic data, tampering will be that much easier.
But I guess you're not worried about that. The Pentagon asserts the system is secure, end of story, right?
Do you want fair elections or do you want to see your candidate of choice elected, regardless of what America's voters want?
well, they could just vote the normal way. even when their ballots came in late in 2000, and technically should not have been counted, they were still added to the tally in... florida
Call me old fashioned, but I think we should find a better solution to our energy needs. Either use less of the stuff, and/or find ways to meet our energy needs more efficiently. Something renewable, like solar or wind, would be nice.
So let's say we end up with a huge energy glut from this moon idea. Ubiquitous energy will mean no need for efficiency, and consumption will grow unchecked. We'll need a new moon in no time.
In a relatively static corporate network, you're going to keep renewing the same IP address over and over and over. That's how DHCP works. (After your lease is 50% up, your 'puter asks the DHCP server if it can renew the lease on that IP addy again.) There are people on the LAN at work whose IP hasn't changed in years, despite being DHCP clients.
I don't know why ISPs mix up the pool of IP addresses, but sure enough I have a new one (though my subnet hasn't chagned) every week or so.
seriously, bro, you need to write a book or something. Don't go all politica with it; just recount all the crazy shit you saw. I am glad I am not you and envious of you at the same time.
Really, it's just human nature. We see it in both the government and the private sector. The thing I can't figure out is why we are so gullible as to expect industry or government to provide their own oversight. It's a conflict of interest, plain and simple.
When there is government oversight, that oversight is provided by people from the industry who've left to work for the public for a short while. The justification for this is that they know the industry. The reality is that they will probably go back to that industry after they've used their government influence to further sweeten the deal.
I hope you cannot find a way to defend a leader who used chemical weapons to kill his own people
We performed "tests" in the 1930s giving syphillis to prisoners to gain a better understanding of the disease. Of course, we did this on black people; given the civil rights of the time perhaps they weren't "our people."
And what is your defense of the USA, who blithely turned a blind eye when Saddam was using those chemical weapons? You must have seen the photo of Reagan's Special Envoy Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with one Saddam Hussein. Of course, that was back when we hated Iran, after a "radical strain of Islam" led by the Ayatollah Khomeini had overthrown the Shah. The Shah, in case you didn't know, had been installed to serve as "our man in Tehran" by the CIA in the 1950s.
What do you think the source of this "radical strain" is? And why did we support that radical strain of Islam known as the mujhadeen in Afhagnistan all throughout the 1980s, including giving them Stinger missiles?
You need to get some perspective. We have been playing the Muslim world for fools for half a century. They have come to resent us for that.
I do not agree with the tactics of Osama bin Laden, but I agree even less with the decision to provide him with all that CIA training and then leave him out in the cold.
Do Arabs have the right to live in a society of their choosing? Can they say "No thanks" to democracy and western values? What if the people of Iraq want to live in an Islamist state? Or, to paraphrase Henry Ford, can they have any government they want so long as it's Western?
I just hope that the winner of the popular vote is also the winner of the electoral college. Historically presidents who win the electorate but not the popular vote don't do very well. It's actually happened 4 times so far.
it's not wrong in and of itself, but let's look at Enron as an example. They certainly maximized shareholder value for a while there. Unfortunately they acted illegally and certainly immorally in the process.
It's a catch-22. In the 70s, there was the belief that the board and corporate executives weren't really doing all they could to maximize shareholder value, so they started paying them heavily in stock options and incentives. The result has been many executive who will do whatever it takes, including breaking the law, if it makes the shareholders happy. And if they do manange to increase stock price enough, they can afford enough lawyers that their misdeeds go unpunished, and you might even make enough money and enough campaign contributions that the feds could change their mind about prosecuting you.
Basically the problem is that companies are run by humans; usually very clever and creative people. They found they can get rich by a little bend here, a loophole there, and a tiny little bit of fraud over here. Since everyone is happy when shares go up, a whistleblower is ostracized since they might hurt the value of the stock!
Slashdot Mirror
What good is the freedom to be a wage slave?
Women have had the right to work, but after WWII the family requires both spouses to work in order to pay the bills. That's not really any great leap forward for, uh, womankind. And for society as a whole, it's a step backwards.
I think I'm a neotraditionalist. I would gladly be a stay-at-home dad. But in my hypothetical family of the future, we probably couldn't afford that.
Do you see what I'm saying? Not that women must be kept at home. I'm saying that in terms of economic power, both men and women are so degraded nowadays that both must work to make ends meet. That's regressive. In other words, men and women are exploited equally. That's no victory.
it's impressions chosen from another time. Not taken.
well, you needed to start dieting anyway.
Actually, I think the revolution did come to completion with the assassinations (JFK, MLK, etc.) in the 1960s. We still call it the USA, but it's not the same country it was before WWII. Eisenhower warned us about the "military industrial complex" or whatever you call it but we were already down that course. WWII, that great battle we won for freedom, well it also gave us an economy that requires both husband and wife to work. Women working was, for industrialists, an "added value" of WWII because now you get labor from both members of the team but you pay them each half. Women pitched in to save Democracy and got screwed by Capital. Nobody seems to recognize this.
What we're waiting for now is the counterrevolution, and that won't happen until the dollar tanks. Give it about twenty years, or not depending on how things go. We're so intertwined economically with the rest of the world that a marked crash in the US, while devastating for us, might harm our enemies more than they'd like to admit. How is China gonna stay afloat if America can't afford to buy Chinese goods at good old American Wal-Mart?
Honestly I'm not so claer on how things might change. I guess I'm expecting a big WMD-style war; either that or something like Mad Cow Disease to dramatically thin our numbers.
Looks like we missed out on that opportunity when Flight 94 crashed* in PA instead of hitting the Capitol building.
*or was shot down. Same difference.
Fine, here's the non-tinfoil-hat version of my comment.
My point is that the system we have been using, called mailing in paper ballots, works fine. The electorate even recognizes the extra difficulty in receiving votes from military personnel out of the counry, and bends over backwards to make sure the votes are counted.
I said "technically" should not have been counted. I don't think it would be fair or proper, (though technically it would be correct) to dismiss their votes because the mail took an extra day to get here from Guam or whatever.
Funneling all the votes through some black box at the Pentagon seems entirely un-Democratic. There is no need for the middleman, and there's certainly the possibility for impropriety when your employer is collectig your votes, then handing them over to the poll workers. And since it's electronic data, tampering will be that much easier.
But I guess you're not worried about that. The Pentagon asserts the system is secure, end of story, right?
Do you want fair elections or do you want to see your candidate of choice elected, regardless of what America's voters want?
well, they could just vote the normal way. even when their ballots came in late in 2000, and technically should not have been counted, they were still added to the tally in ... florida
nevermind. i think i figured it out.
your first sentence is grounded in scientific fact. the second, especially the part about "i'm sure" is much more tentative.
Call me old fashioned, but I think we should find a better solution to our energy needs. Either use less of the stuff, and/or find ways to meet our energy needs more efficiently. Something renewable, like solar or wind, would be nice.
So let's say we end up with a huge energy glut from this moon idea. Ubiquitous energy will mean no need for efficiency, and consumption will grow unchecked. We'll need a new moon in no time.
Microsoft is not an ISP.
In a relatively static corporate network, you're going to keep renewing the same IP address over and over and over. That's how DHCP works. (After your lease is 50% up, your 'puter asks the DHCP server if it can renew the lease on that IP addy again.) There are people on the LAN at work whose IP hasn't changed in years, despite being DHCP clients.
I don't know why ISPs mix up the pool of IP addresses, but sure enough I have a new one (though my subnet hasn't chagned) every week or so.
I prefer to think of myself as a poster child, not an actual poster.
Poster child for what; I'll leave that up to your imagination.
seriously, bro, you need to write a book or something. Don't go all politica with it; just recount all the crazy shit you saw. I am glad I am not you and envious of you at the same time.
is there such a thing as manual clave? Autoclave sounds like a misnomer considering how often it gets done wrong.
fetus != child
btw unless you are a vegan, you are talking out your ass when you say "...animals, you harm any of them, you can expect hell from me"
you then go on to say: "I would be too busy hunting people down and hurting them"
You are one conflicted troll, grasshoppa
I think I speak for all of us when I ask:
WHAT WAS IN THE DORM ROOM???
Maybe he was referring to the Iraqi civilians.
That only sucks if you actually worked for the data center.
Turn that around and it would be uber-elite if you were hacking into the datacenter, and you had gained physical access through the false floor.
"VPS Colo: Hosting your web server from our secure location, beneath the false floor at Global Crossing. Rock bottom prices!"
I hate to be a spelling troll but that's "subliminable." At least when our Commander in Chief says it.
My all-time favorite W. quote, one that is actually quite prescient, is another quip from the 2000 campaign:
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you have to concentrate on.
I'll have to put that in my sig pretty soon. It's so befitting.
Sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do.
One of his first jobs was to take an obligated pilgrimmage
I'm a big fan of the theory that Jesus travelled to the east and visited the Buddha. That explains a lot of the "new-age" dogma in the New Testament.
Jesus didn't want those immoral money lenders in the church, Osama doesn't want infidel US troops near holy Mecca. Is there really such a difference?
Really, it's just human nature. We see it in both the government and the private sector. The thing I can't figure out is why we are so gullible as to expect industry or government to provide their own oversight. It's a conflict of interest, plain and simple.
When there is government oversight, that oversight is provided by people from the industry who've left to work for the public for a short while. The justification for this is that they know the industry. The reality is that they will probably go back to that industry after they've used their government influence to further sweeten the deal.
well, at least they replaced it with the mobile mg-42. That thing does some damage.
Come back to RTCW. Only the die-hard wolf addicts are left. Like me.
After writing that post about the venom, I had to try it out last night. That thing can tear some people up, BUT you have to get the drop on them.
I hope you cannot find a way to defend a leader who used chemical weapons to kill his own people
We performed "tests" in the 1930s giving syphillis to prisoners to gain a better understanding of the disease. Of course, we did this on black people; given the civil rights of the time perhaps they weren't "our people."
And what is your defense of the USA, who blithely turned a blind eye when Saddam was using those chemical weapons? You must have seen the photo of Reagan's Special Envoy Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with one Saddam Hussein. Of course, that was back when we hated Iran, after a "radical strain of Islam" led by the Ayatollah Khomeini had overthrown the Shah. The Shah, in case you didn't know, had been installed to serve as "our man in Tehran" by the CIA in the 1950s.
What do you think the source of this "radical strain" is? And why did we support that radical strain of Islam known as the mujhadeen in Afhagnistan all throughout the 1980s, including giving them Stinger missiles?
You need to get some perspective. We have been playing the Muslim world for fools for half a century. They have come to resent us for that.
I do not agree with the tactics of Osama bin Laden, but I agree even less with the decision to provide him with all that CIA training and then leave him out in the cold.
Do Arabs have the right to live in a society of their choosing? Can they say "No thanks" to democracy and western values? What if the people of Iraq want to live in an Islamist state? Or, to paraphrase Henry Ford, can they have any government they want so long as it's Western?
I just hope that the winner of the popular vote is also the winner of the electoral college. Historically presidents who win the electorate but not the popular vote don't do very well. It's actually happened 4 times so far.
You didn't coin "misunderestimate," George W. Bush coined it on the campaign trail in 2000.
it's not wrong in and of itself, but let's look at Enron as an example. They certainly maximized shareholder value for a while there. Unfortunately they acted illegally and certainly immorally in the process.
It's a catch-22. In the 70s, there was the belief that the board and corporate executives weren't really doing all they could to maximize shareholder value, so they started paying them heavily in stock options and incentives. The result has been many executive who will do whatever it takes, including breaking the law, if it makes the shareholders happy. And if they do manange to increase stock price enough, they can afford enough lawyers that their misdeeds go unpunished, and you might even make enough money and enough campaign contributions that the feds could change their mind about prosecuting you.
Basically the problem is that companies are run by humans; usually very clever and creative people. They found they can get rich by a little bend here, a loophole there, and a tiny little bit of fraud over here. Since everyone is happy when shares go up, a whistleblower is ostracized since they might hurt the value of the stock!