The article is based on a survey a psychology student did, and only 30 people in the survey were over age 55. I think a bit more research needs to be done before we can draw the conclusion the article is trying to make.
I can't wait to see the Linux Haters blog mocking this story. Linux as a model for new government? Ever visited the flamefests of the LKML? Hell, ever tried to program sound on Linux? There are so many broken APIs, you can barely get anything done.
All such a government would produce is constantly fighting factions. There would be no order or leadership. It would be tribalism.
Hippies tried the self-sustaining, anarchist commune thing in the 1960s. When they found out they'd have to work to make their own food, they gave up and went to the grocery store in town.
Not today's liberalism, which is about giving the government centralized power to dictate how you should live. Liberalism used to be about things like open interpretation of the Constitution in which it is treated as merely a skeleton framework that can be interpreted multiple ways, as opposed to treating it as a rigid, literal framework of government.
Somewhere along the way, goofy hippies took over and turned liberalism into a pseudo-socialist movement so that college kids could latch onto it and make themselves think they're part of some cultural rebellion because they read a Naom Chomsky book. It's about people in urban areas like New York City looking down condescendingly on middle America. I've met people up north who are actually afraid of southern people. All they've ever seen of them is movies in which southerners are racist morons with an accent (if someone has a southern accent in a Hollywood movie, they will always be portrayed as closed-minded in some way). It's the same stereotyping they claim to fight against in racism.
It's become a movement of class warfare in which liberal leaders exploit the emotions of low-income people in order to give themselves more power. One way of doing this is to tell low-income people that they'll tax the wealthy. This taps into a built-in sense of class envy and hatred against the successful, so it brings those liberals votes. Liberals form special interest groups to exploit everything from race (Jesse Jackson will stage protests and boycotts against a company until they hire one of his family members to oversee their "racial diversity") to environmental disaster (claiming the government was racist in its handling of Hurricane Katrina when stats show more white people died anyway, and the rescue response time was the highest it had ever been for a flooded city after a hurricane). They'll tie into anti-capitalist fears to trick people into giving the government more power.
So no, liberalism is not about freedom of the individual. That's what we now call libertarianism. I could go into a spiel about how the religious took over conservatism, but that's off-topic (interestingly, Obama is a Christian who went to Reverend Wright's church for 20 years, and Joe Biden is a Catholic...turns out McCain is the least religious in this election. I just found that funny).
Most of their proposals seem to be based on the idea of some sort of dictator, with everyone's best interests in mind. I'm sure like communism it might work well in theory.
Honestly, most liberal views--and they seem to hate when I point this out to them--are fundamentally fascist in nature. Most of them involve giving power to the government to make everyone live the way that particular liberal wants them to live. It always starts small, like wanting to give the government the power to ban everyone from smoking cigarettes or making them speak a certain way by banning politically incorrect phrases. Those are first steps on a path toward giving the government enough power to dictate to its citizens how they should live (and to take away their weapons if they dare oppose). Yeah, I know it sounds a little kooky and right-winger, but unfortunately it's the truth.
Soros is a left-winger who funds MoveOn.org, funds gun control groups, and believes capitalism is flawed because there's no powerful, centralized government. He's part of what makes the Democratic Party a party of elites--it's a party funded by Hollywood celebrities and liberal worldly millionaires like Soros.
Price comparisons have already been done proving that Apple is more affordable than Dell. Macs ALREADY compete on price. You refuse to acknowledge it because you're ridiculously biased against Apple, for whatever reason. My random guess is you're an angry Linux kid.
I was fighting 20v20 battles in tier 2. What tier are you at? When the majority of the game's population has hit max level, it's going to be nonstop carnage.
No, I mean Dells with equivalent and in some cases lesser hardware, yet the Macs beat them in price. I know it's a tough idea for you to swallow, but sometimes we must shed old assumptions to accept new truths.
Firewire isn't past its prime. Apple wanted to further differentiate the consumer and pro versions of their laptops, and Steve Jobs' comment about recent consumer camcorders using USB is a reflection f that. Firewire is still used in the professional space for audio and other high-bandwidth data transfer situations where you don't want the CPU bogged down.
How many times do people have to post Dell vs. Mac Pro price comparisons showing Apple BEATING Dell? Or laptop comparisons? Some people blindly hate Apple so much that they will never let go.
Apple continued to support PowerPC and even introduced Universal Binaries to let developers ship one app that runs on both platforms. Apple continued to support Mac OS 9 for over half a decade, porting its older APIs to Carbon and allowing you to actually boot OS 9 inside OS X to run older apps. The great thing about relying on a single company is that they have a financial motivation to make their customers happy, or they will lose them. Apple has done this.
Also, it's OS X, not "OS/X." Big pet peeve of mine.:) I don't know why people add a slash that's not there.
"Not bad considering I'm looking at it like it's a hobby and there are more expensive hobbies out there than World of Warcraft."
Yeah, sure, buddy. You're only looking at it as a hobby. There are worse hobbies than what you're doing, right? Try to convince yourself that it's totally normal.
I do stand for something. That's why I'm staying home.
Third-party candidates will NEVER win. It's completely pointless to waste a vote on them just so they get some 0.001% percentage increase in funding that will never match the Republicans and Democrats.
The game is fun the first time through. Unfortunately, it only takes a few hours to get through the game, and then you're out of anything to do. It's basically a bunch of editors tied together with short stages of gameplay and not at all the epic-scale sandbox it looked like in the original presentation video from 2005.
I'm not the one putting these people into power. You are. You keep electing these assholes who increase the size and power of the government. We're very likely about to establish another one-party government. We just had one of those! The new one-party government will be controlled by the very same assholes who caused the mortgage crisis, ignored the public's demand for offshore drilling, and voted for a government bailout the public didn't want. The swing voters are rewarding these jerks with an increased majority and a liberal, inexperienced president who will give them no opposition because he believes Americans should "spread the wealth" (his words).
It's Bush 2.0. Bigger government, increased spending, and little oversight (the increase in seats means the minority party won't be able to oppose anything). The polls show who's going to win. Why drive out and cast a meaningless vote when the swing voters have decided for me?
So you are suggesting that the solution to having two poor candidates is to not participate and yet still deal with the repercussions?
Yes. When you have two poor candidates--especially when one of them is high enough in the polls that it's likely they'll be the president and establish another one-party supermajority--you shouldn't bother participating. That way you can say you had nothing to do with it. You didn't find anything you liked in either candidate, so you rescinded your vote from the system. My vote is precious enough that if neither candidate meets my standards, neither gets it.
I don't see what you get out of voting for a third party other than a wasted trip. You may as well not vote at all since a third party will not win an election in America.
Slashdot Mirror
The article is based on a survey a psychology student did, and only 30 people in the survey were over age 55. I think a bit more research needs to be done before we can draw the conclusion the article is trying to make.
I can't wait to see the Linux Haters blog mocking this story. Linux as a model for new government? Ever visited the flamefests of the LKML? Hell, ever tried to program sound on Linux? There are so many broken APIs, you can barely get anything done.
All such a government would produce is constantly fighting factions. There would be no order or leadership. It would be tribalism.
Hippies tried the self-sustaining, anarchist commune thing in the 1960s. When they found out they'd have to work to make their own food, they gave up and went to the grocery store in town.
Not today's liberalism, which is about giving the government centralized power to dictate how you should live. Liberalism used to be about things like open interpretation of the Constitution in which it is treated as merely a skeleton framework that can be interpreted multiple ways, as opposed to treating it as a rigid, literal framework of government.
Somewhere along the way, goofy hippies took over and turned liberalism into a pseudo-socialist movement so that college kids could latch onto it and make themselves think they're part of some cultural rebellion because they read a Naom Chomsky book. It's about people in urban areas like New York City looking down condescendingly on middle America. I've met people up north who are actually afraid of southern people. All they've ever seen of them is movies in which southerners are racist morons with an accent (if someone has a southern accent in a Hollywood movie, they will always be portrayed as closed-minded in some way). It's the same stereotyping they claim to fight against in racism.
It's become a movement of class warfare in which liberal leaders exploit the emotions of low-income people in order to give themselves more power. One way of doing this is to tell low-income people that they'll tax the wealthy. This taps into a built-in sense of class envy and hatred against the successful, so it brings those liberals votes. Liberals form special interest groups to exploit everything from race (Jesse Jackson will stage protests and boycotts against a company until they hire one of his family members to oversee their "racial diversity") to environmental disaster (claiming the government was racist in its handling of Hurricane Katrina when stats show more white people died anyway, and the rescue response time was the highest it had ever been for a flooded city after a hurricane). They'll tie into anti-capitalist fears to trick people into giving the government more power.
So no, liberalism is not about freedom of the individual. That's what we now call libertarianism. I could go into a spiel about how the religious took over conservatism, but that's off-topic (interestingly, Obama is a Christian who went to Reverend Wright's church for 20 years, and Joe Biden is a Catholic...turns out McCain is the least religious in this election. I just found that funny).
Honestly, most liberal views--and they seem to hate when I point this out to them--are fundamentally fascist in nature. Most of them involve giving power to the government to make everyone live the way that particular liberal wants them to live. It always starts small, like wanting to give the government the power to ban everyone from smoking cigarettes or making them speak a certain way by banning politically incorrect phrases. Those are first steps on a path toward giving the government enough power to dictate to its citizens how they should live (and to take away their weapons if they dare oppose). Yeah, I know it sounds a little kooky and right-winger, but unfortunately it's the truth.
Soros is a left-winger who funds MoveOn.org, funds gun control groups, and believes capitalism is flawed because there's no powerful, centralized government. He's part of what makes the Democratic Party a party of elites--it's a party funded by Hollywood celebrities and liberal worldly millionaires like Soros.
Price comparisons have already been done proving that Apple is more affordable than Dell. Macs ALREADY compete on price. You refuse to acknowledge it because you're ridiculously biased against Apple, for whatever reason. My random guess is you're an angry Linux kid.
I was fighting 20v20 battles in tier 2. What tier are you at? When the majority of the game's population has hit max level, it's going to be nonstop carnage.
No, I mean Dells with equivalent and in some cases lesser hardware, yet the Macs beat them in price. I know it's a tough idea for you to swallow, but sometimes we must shed old assumptions to accept new truths.
More page hits this way.
Firewire isn't past its prime. Apple wanted to further differentiate the consumer and pro versions of their laptops, and Steve Jobs' comment about recent consumer camcorders using USB is a reflection f that. Firewire is still used in the professional space for audio and other high-bandwidth data transfer situations where you don't want the CPU bogged down.
How many times do people have to post Dell vs. Mac Pro price comparisons showing Apple BEATING Dell? Or laptop comparisons? Some people blindly hate Apple so much that they will never let go.
See you in line for a MacBook...
At least you can't read them anymore once the white-on-green color scheme burns out your retinas.
No, you can't run DOS or all its apps. That's why the DOSBox project was started.
Apple continued to support PowerPC and even introduced Universal Binaries to let developers ship one app that runs on both platforms. Apple continued to support Mac OS 9 for over half a decade, porting its older APIs to Carbon and allowing you to actually boot OS 9 inside OS X to run older apps. The great thing about relying on a single company is that they have a financial motivation to make their customers happy, or they will lose them. Apple has done this.
Also, it's OS X, not "OS/X." Big pet peeve of mine. :) I don't know why people add a slash that's not there.
Other than all those camcorders and external hard drives, of course. Oh, sorry, I forgot we're making blanket statements today.
That claim has been disproved so many times that people who continue to bleat it come off as hate-filled sheep who can't accept reality.
High-bandwidth devices like camcorders and sound cards use Firewire. My external DVD-DL burner also has a Firewire port.
Yeah, sure, buddy. You're only looking at it as a hobby. There are worse hobbies than what you're doing, right? Try to convince yourself that it's totally normal.
All this test really says is that healthy people will score higher on mental tests and have higher counts of sperm. Not really surprising.
I do stand for something. That's why I'm staying home.
Third-party candidates will NEVER win. It's completely pointless to waste a vote on them just so they get some 0.001% percentage increase in funding that will never match the Republicans and Democrats.
The game is fun the first time through. Unfortunately, it only takes a few hours to get through the game, and then you're out of anything to do. It's basically a bunch of editors tied together with short stages of gameplay and not at all the epic-scale sandbox it looked like in the original presentation video from 2005.
He's describing their internal infrastructure. which uses Linux servers running Oracle.
I'm not the one putting these people into power. You are. You keep electing these assholes who increase the size and power of the government. We're very likely about to establish another one-party government. We just had one of those! The new one-party government will be controlled by the very same assholes who caused the mortgage crisis, ignored the public's demand for offshore drilling, and voted for a government bailout the public didn't want. The swing voters are rewarding these jerks with an increased majority and a liberal, inexperienced president who will give them no opposition because he believes Americans should "spread the wealth" (his words).
It's Bush 2.0. Bigger government, increased spending, and little oversight (the increase in seats means the minority party won't be able to oppose anything). The polls show who's going to win. Why drive out and cast a meaningless vote when the swing voters have decided for me?
Yes. When you have two poor candidates--especially when one of them is high enough in the polls that it's likely they'll be the president and establish another one-party supermajority--you shouldn't bother participating. That way you can say you had nothing to do with it. You didn't find anything you liked in either candidate, so you rescinded your vote from the system. My vote is precious enough that if neither candidate meets my standards, neither gets it.
I don't see what you get out of voting for a third party other than a wasted trip. You may as well not vote at all since a third party will not win an election in America.