I don't understand. What's newsworthy about this? Guy takes photos and displays them. He is not censored. No censorship was alleged.
He wants to make a statement about the parallel between himself being censored and something from 500 years ago. But he wasn't censored and there's really no parallel.
And this would be news if something had actually happened. Are we supposed to be pretend outraged at the imagined censorship that didn't happen? How is that different than the usual pretense to outrage that some folks engage in all the time?
Yeah, it's clearly an attempt to censor and to deprive the public of easy access to both sides of the argument. But that's nothing new.
McCain deserves what he gets though. He's the #1 censor and violator of free speech in the last 50 years with his McCain Feingold campaign finance reform act.
BTW: About those "morals". Those apply to other people. There's always enough leeway to make an exception for anything you're doing yourself. That's the beauty of making up your own set of morals. The most moral thing is when your side wins.
You could try being concise instead of going on for pages. You could come up with one argument that doesn't involve your personal feelings to start with.
The reason that "moral justification" isn't guiding policy of US leaders is fairly clear to responsible individuals. A responsible person will say "I did everything I could" even when things go bad. A moral rationalizer will say "don't blame me, I made the morally justified choice even though other non-morally justified choices would have succeeded".
"Don't blame me" doesn't bring back the dead. Feeling good about yourself isn't a good guideline for policy choices when the difference between success and failure is life and death for people -- which it always is in foreign policy.
BTW: I don't know what you think neocons are -- anyone who doesn't agree with you maybe. You seem extremely close-minded.
You don't see the relevance of our addiction to propping up third-rate thugs, when the subject at hand is whether or not we should once again overthrow a foreign government? Again, this is not a logical argument. If it's relevant, then point out why. If it is a good indication that some choice will be a failure while some other choice will succeed, then explain. What are the criteria for success or failure? How did you weigh the pros and cons?
It's pretty clear this is simply an attack on the US by the use of the words "addiction" and "third-rate thugs".
When we propped up the Shah in Iran, we did a morally unjustifiable thing... And again, this is not rational or logical. Morals are a personal choice often based on a philosophy or religious faith. One can claim his morals are logically derived, but you don't do that.
The job of the the US government isn't to maintain some level of moral justification. The US leadership has the responsibility to protect the US people from harm by foreign attack and to promote the best interests of the US. It's not about pandering to the feelings of Europeans. It's not about pandering to the feelings of adolescent-minded academics. It's not about satisfying some wishy-washy moral "global test". It's not about how you feel about yourself.
I think that's the key to the miscommunication here.
As long as I can still cheat with Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, A, B, Select Use of the Konami Code was outlawed by The Osaka Convention in 2010 after the Big Shell Incident (except when playing in "Hard" mode).
It doesn't take a carpenter to say that the guy nailing his thumb to the wall is doing it wrong. This is actually a good example.
The carpenter is trying to solve a problem. If it goes badly, it may take him a few tries, but he may solve it. The complainer accomplishes precisely nothing and has no chance to ever solve any problem. He's useless.
I'm not sure the above as written actually means anything, but if your argument is that past mistakes and transgressions shouldn't be considered when similar behaviour is up for question... No. It means "this thing happened 60 years ago" is not an argument for or against anything. When "what about this thing that happened in 1921?" is offered as an argument, it's never offered as a logical argument. It's offered as an emotional attack that changes the subject.
Maybe I can explain the difference with some examples. This is an example of a logical argument that makes a good point: "We can't use nuclear weapons because we scrapped them all 60 years ago. There are no more."
Here is an example of an emotional argument that makes no particular point, even though we've all heard it a hundred times: "We shouldn't invade Iraq. We armed Saddam Hussein 20 years ago."
You see the difference? The second argument is just code words for "the US is bad". It makes no logical argument for anything. It presents no context about 20 years ago. It doesn't explain why the one event precludes the other. It doesn't explain why the facts are (implied to be) exactly the same now as they were 20 years ago. It's really not a debate point at all. It changes the subject to an emotional attack on the US.
If you want to say that some event in the past is meaningful because there's a lesson that should be learned, then state the conclusion. The implied conclusion to most of these arguments is "I hate the US". The lesson seems to be "the US is always wrong". But the arguments don't really make a convincing case, so the conclusion is left for the US-haters to fill in with their own prejudices.
Anti-war folks seem to be extremely intellectually lazy, dishonest, discontent, and altogether unable to put together a logical argument of any kind on the subjects they talk the most about. They seem indifferent to the real consequences of their choices and they have no apparent curiosity or desire to understand other viewpoints.
Also, they don't solve problems. They just complain when other people try to solve them. "Those other people are doing it wrong again. There's this thing that happened 60 years ago, after all."
I think the key is to play it in "Normal" mode. "Easy" mode is too easy and "Hard" mode can get frustrating. Normal mode is the most fun. Save the "Hard" mode for after you win it in "Normal" mode.
Don't tell me. I get it. Stop the future! Take no action. Something bad might happen. Because something bad happened in the past.
No need to have any solutions to anything. Those people who had solutions in the past didn't stop everything bad from happening. They made mistakes.
People who are in favor of anything or who advocate taking any action just haven't learned from the past. They're ignorant. Not like us at all. We are the smart ones.
Stop the future! Something "bad" was done 60 years ago!
That justifies any position in favor or opposed to anything from now until the end of time. And it automatically makes the other side wrong, regardless of anything -- because nothing they want to do will change what happened 60 years ago. And what if it happens again?
Congrats on hating the US. I'm sure that will help your social standing among your fellows. Your social skills in the area of groupthink are finely honed. Bravo.
And you really showed the US too. Hypocrites. Telling people that freedom is a good thing. And honor? They should be telling people to be dishonorable and not to like freedom. Because the number one virtue in life is being able to avoid the charge of hypocrisy. And the only way to avoid it for sure is never to be in favor of anything -- good, bad, or neutral. Ideals are for hypocrites.
Can I be in your nasty little social circle? I want to look down on people with ideals too. Looking down on people makes me feel better about myself.
Restricting production to try to force people to save energy will just increase the price and put a big burden on the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Those who can still afford the increased price will need to spend their time and effort saving energy instead of producing useful goods and services. Prices on all goods and services will increase as a result. Again, this hurts poor and vulnerable people the most.
As energy is made more and more artificially scarce, production will move to areas of the world where energy can be produced without all the added burdens. Places with fewer energy conservation regulations tend to have fewer pollution regulations, so the net result of moving this production is greater pollution. It mostly only affects the locals though, which may or may not be "environmental racism" and may be a concern to some.
The only cure for these issues is the free market. Essentially, the people paying the electric bill should decide what is "wasteful excess" and what is "the energy we need" and production should seek to meet demand rather than shape behavior to some idealistic goal. That will result in the cheapest energy, helping the poor and vulnerable (and everyone else) to have better lives.
I just feel that making a few changes in our lives to reduce our energy usage is quite different from "desperate want". And what would happen to make that opinion (or "feeling") change? How much conservation is enough? What evidence would you have to see to decide we need to switch gears and just make more energy available?
How do we know when we've sacrificed enough of our wealth and wellbeing to meet your standards?
Not in this case. It's the Big Stone 2 plant in South Dakota. The locals want it. The environmental elites that live hundreds of miles away are trying to kill it.
People already do the things that will "save themselves significant money for a very small effort".
Why not just make more? It's easy and we know how and it's cheap and people are happy to buy it because they want their lives to be lives of plenty instead of lives of desperate want.
On the other hand, it might be the final push that people need to start making their homes and businesses as energy efficient as possible... None of that generates any power.
It's like asking a hungry person to cut back on his food intake just a little more to share with the other hungry people in his family or village.
Or we could just generate some more power and have good lives instead of slowly starving ourselves.
There's already one a short distance from my house, thanks. They are trying to build more in the region (a long way away from everyone's house), but the environmentalists won't allow it.
This is only a problem because the power grid has become very fragile.
Electricity generation hasn't grown ahead of demand due to government meddling, atom-ophobia, and environmentalist obstruction in the courts and on planning boards.
The rolling blackouts will be coming soon. It'll start with small ones. Then everyone will buy battery backups that draw a lot of power to recharge once power is restored. This will cause the duration of the periodic blackouts to go from a few minutes to a few hours in about 2 years.
Not long after that, we'll start building power generation capacity in the US again.
Measuring the degree of car territorialisation to predict road rage? Seems like a damn roundabout way of doing it... That wasn't what they were doing. Are you sure you read the article?
I suspect analyzing drivers' I.Q would make a simpler, better job at predicting stupid road behaviour. Why should anyone care what you "suspect"? Unlike you, these guys actually did a study and found something that actually predicts road rage (or at least correlates with it).
In other words: "Nevermind the facts! MY opinion is..."
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Governments keep secrets. It's 1984. Or 1498. Or 489. Or 49 B.C.E. Or whenever.
Secrecy is only actually detectable to this Galileo-wannabe because all this info is published in publicly available, searchable databases.
Galileo was actually talented at something besides seeking attention.
I don't understand. What's newsworthy about this? Guy takes photos and displays them. He is not censored. No censorship was alleged.
He wants to make a statement about the parallel between himself being censored and something from 500 years ago. But he wasn't censored and there's really no parallel.
And this would be news if something had actually happened. Are we supposed to be pretend outraged at the imagined censorship that didn't happen? How is that different than the usual pretense to outrage that some folks engage in all the time?
Yeah, it's clearly an attempt to censor and to deprive the public of easy access to both sides of the argument. But that's nothing new.
McCain deserves what he gets though. He's the #1 censor and violator of free speech in the last 50 years with his McCain Feingold campaign finance reform act.
BTW: About those "morals". Those apply to other people. There's always enough leeway to make an exception for anything you're doing yourself. That's the beauty of making up your own set of morals. The most moral thing is when your side wins.
You could try being concise instead of going on for pages. You could come up with one argument that doesn't involve your personal feelings to start with.
The reason that "moral justification" isn't guiding policy of US leaders is fairly clear to responsible individuals. A responsible person will say "I did everything I could" even when things go bad. A moral rationalizer will say "don't blame me, I made the morally justified choice even though other non-morally justified choices would have succeeded".
"Don't blame me" doesn't bring back the dead. Feeling good about yourself isn't a good guideline for policy choices when the difference between success and failure is life and death for people -- which it always is in foreign policy.
BTW: I don't know what you think neocons are -- anyone who doesn't agree with you maybe. You seem extremely close-minded.
It's pretty clear this is simply an attack on the US by the use of the words "addiction" and "third-rate thugs". When we propped up the Shah in Iran, we did a morally unjustifiable thing... And again, this is not rational or logical. Morals are a personal choice often based on a philosophy or religious faith. One can claim his morals are logically derived, but you don't do that.
The job of the the US government isn't to maintain some level of moral justification. The US leadership has the responsibility to protect the US people from harm by foreign attack and to promote the best interests of the US. It's not about pandering to the feelings of Europeans. It's not about pandering to the feelings of adolescent-minded academics. It's not about satisfying some wishy-washy moral "global test". It's not about how you feel about yourself.
I think that's the key to the miscommunication here.
The carpenter is trying to solve a problem. If it goes badly, it may take him a few tries, but he may solve it. The complainer accomplishes precisely nothing and has no chance to ever solve any problem. He's useless.
Maybe I can explain the difference with some examples. This is an example of a logical argument that makes a good point: "We can't use nuclear weapons because we scrapped them all 60 years ago. There are no more."
Here is an example of an emotional argument that makes no particular point, even though we've all heard it a hundred times: "We shouldn't invade Iraq. We armed Saddam Hussein 20 years ago."
You see the difference? The second argument is just code words for "the US is bad". It makes no logical argument for anything. It presents no context about 20 years ago. It doesn't explain why the one event precludes the other. It doesn't explain why the facts are (implied to be) exactly the same now as they were 20 years ago. It's really not a debate point at all. It changes the subject to an emotional attack on the US.
If you want to say that some event in the past is meaningful because there's a lesson that should be learned, then state the conclusion. The implied conclusion to most of these arguments is "I hate the US". The lesson seems to be "the US is always wrong". But the arguments don't really make a convincing case, so the conclusion is left for the US-haters to fill in with their own prejudices.
Anti-war folks seem to be extremely intellectually lazy, dishonest, discontent, and altogether unable to put together a logical argument of any kind on the subjects they talk the most about. They seem indifferent to the real consequences of their choices and they have no apparent curiosity or desire to understand other viewpoints.
Also, they don't solve problems. They just complain when other people try to solve them. "Those other people are doing it wrong again. There's this thing that happened 60 years ago, after all."
So nothing to offer then? No plan, no action, no accountability. Just complaints about other people's actions.
And, to answer your question:
"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy" -- Helmuth von Moltke the Elder
And what's the anti-war "terrorism" plan then? Please detail it for us.
Because I've only heard about things we shouldn't do.
I think the key is to play it in "Normal" mode. "Easy" mode is too easy and "Hard" mode can get frustrating. Normal mode is the most fun. Save the "Hard" mode for after you win it in "Normal" mode.
Don't tell me. I get it. Stop the future! Take no action. Something bad might happen. Because something bad happened in the past.
No need to have any solutions to anything. Those people who had solutions in the past didn't stop everything bad from happening. They made mistakes.
People who are in favor of anything or who advocate taking any action just haven't learned from the past. They're ignorant. Not like us at all. We are the smart ones.
Stop the future! Something "bad" was done 60 years ago!
That justifies any position in favor or opposed to anything from now until the end of time. And it automatically makes the other side wrong, regardless of anything -- because nothing they want to do will change what happened 60 years ago. And what if it happens again?
Congrats on hating the US. I'm sure that will help your social standing among your fellows. Your social skills in the area of groupthink are finely honed. Bravo.
And you really showed the US too. Hypocrites. Telling people that freedom is a good thing. And honor? They should be telling people to be dishonorable and not to like freedom. Because the number one virtue in life is being able to avoid the charge of hypocrisy. And the only way to avoid it for sure is never to be in favor of anything -- good, bad, or neutral. Ideals are for hypocrites.
Can I be in your nasty little social circle? I want to look down on people with ideals too. Looking down on people makes me feel better about myself.
My childish illusions are crushed. Crushed!
Does this mean you can't win wars by giving the enemy a lollipop?
Restricting production to try to force people to save energy will just increase the price and put a big burden on the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Those who can still afford the increased price will need to spend their time and effort saving energy instead of producing useful goods and services. Prices on all goods and services will increase as a result. Again, this hurts poor and vulnerable people the most.
As energy is made more and more artificially scarce, production will move to areas of the world where energy can be produced without all the added burdens. Places with fewer energy conservation regulations tend to have fewer pollution regulations, so the net result of moving this production is greater pollution. It mostly only affects the locals though, which may or may not be "environmental racism" and may be a concern to some.
The only cure for these issues is the free market. Essentially, the people paying the electric bill should decide what is "wasteful excess" and what is "the energy we need" and production should seek to meet demand rather than shape behavior to some idealistic goal. That will result in the cheapest energy, helping the poor and vulnerable (and everyone else) to have better lives.
How do we know when we've sacrificed enough of our wealth and wellbeing to meet your standards?
The blackouts are coming.
Not in this case. It's the Big Stone 2 plant in South Dakota. The locals want it. The environmental elites that live hundreds of miles away are trying to kill it.
People already do the things that will "save themselves significant money for a very small effort".
Why not just make more? It's easy and we know how and it's cheap and people are happy to buy it because they want their lives to be lives of plenty instead of lives of desperate want.
It's like asking a hungry person to cut back on his food intake just a little more to share with the other hungry people in his family or village.
Or we could just generate some more power and have good lives instead of slowly starving ourselves.
There's already one a short distance from my house, thanks. They are trying to build more in the region (a long way away from everyone's house), but the environmentalists won't allow it.
This is only a problem because the power grid has become very fragile.
Electricity generation hasn't grown ahead of demand due to government meddling, atom-ophobia, and environmentalist obstruction in the courts and on planning boards.
The rolling blackouts will be coming soon. It'll start with small ones. Then everyone will buy battery backups that draw a lot of power to recharge once power is restored. This will cause the duration of the periodic blackouts to go from a few minutes to a few hours in about 2 years.
Not long after that, we'll start building power generation capacity in the US again.
In other words: "Nevermind the facts! MY opinion is
Nuts to that.
So if any way of transferring a file takes any more time than another way, Comcast is guilty. It sounds unreasonable.
Also the article talks about this.