Blame is irrelevant. It simply does not matter. The system can not change while it is union-controlled. Not if you blame A, not if you blame B, not at all, under any circumstance.
Could everyone put their country in the comment, if applicable? It saves people arguing back-and-forth about the same point, when both are correct for their own country and experiences, but on opposite sides of the world Good idea. And no, we won't be doing that.
The union keeps the system from improving. Non-union industries can improve their work methods to increase productivity. They can be flexible. They can try new things and stop doing things that don't work.
It's the old nonsense we always heard from union manufacturing: "We can't automate. It would put people out of work. We're working hard doing the same thing we've always done. Really hard. It's killing us. But we can't automate or improve productivity in any way." And then the factory went out of business because it couldn't compete with someone who could be flexible.
The schools just go load up on more money from taxpayers and never, ever change.
Question them for the purposes of deciding who to vote for. Choose as you like. This is about whether he's a proper speaker at a game convention. His religion is not relevant.
No one is going to say that the teachers are doing a better and better job every year. No one is going to say that the students are held to higher and higher standards in math and that they are achieving those standards more often than before.
This is because it would be false. You might get arguments about the extent of the change, but none on the direction.
And nothing in education will ever improve in the US as long as the system is union-controlled.
Let's pretend somebody blew the dust off of Louis Farrakhan and invited him to be a keynote speaker at E3. If that made you unhappy, would have to be because he's black and automatically make you a racist, or could you be unhappy because of what he has to say about whites, Christians, Jews, etc? And if I attacked that choice by comparing Louis Farrakhan's skin color to that of the attendees of the event, would that make it bigotted? What if I made a point to highlight his race in the headline of my post?
Also, the comparison is more than a little ridiculous. Farrakhan is outspoken. Perry was minding his own business and was asked about something and reportedly said "In my faith, that's what it says, and I'm a believer of that". And then he clarified it later. While it might have been better to tell the reporters "no comment" or "quit trying to divide people based on religion in order to further your personal political goals", it's not like he went out of his way condemn anyone or even make a statement at all.
What does that have to do with E3 or the ESA? Why would GamePolitics bring it up to attack someone?
It's completely off topic and not relevant to anything.
GamePolitics might as well have said the TX governor was fat or had the wrong skin color or some other nonsense that doesn't have anything to do with the subject. But they chose a religion-based attack. Other than bigotry, what might cause someone to make that choice?
I know this is Slashdot, but it's more interesting to discuss an article like the GamePolitics one if you actually read it. GamePolitics attacked the TX governor on the basis of his religion.
It seems fair to ask whether GamePolitics is motivated by anti-Christian or anti-religious bigotry in their coverage. There's no information to suggest that the keynote speech was going to have a religious theme or message of any kind.
A lot of game companies are located in Texas. The governor of Texas seems like he might have some interest in that.
The ESA is doing a poor job lately and the TX governor seems like a poor choice for an E3 speaker. Most people might suggest someone in the game business instead.
But none of that is an excuse for bigotry against religious folks in general or any particular religion. What other reason would GamePolitics have for their attack?
Wow, you make a good case: "Valve this research, you ignorant American hicks, or I'll call you ignorant hicks again and look down on you some more. Now gimme some tax money."
Why shouldn't the government fund it? How much? A trillion dollars?
The government shouldn't fund it because the government isn't a charity. The money the congress spends is not theirs to give to causes, no matter how good the cause or how altruistic the motive.
If the American people don't value basic research enough to donate to it voluntarily, then they should have that choice. Basic research may be valuable to all as you say, but it is not essential (unless it's specifically for national defense). Money shouldn't be taken from people by force to fund luxuries.
I'm not a Libertarian. That's a big plus for Libertarians then.
You did sound a little more hateful and screechy than the Libertarians tend to be. They have more than their share of conspiracy nuts. But it's usually the "I'm ever so smart" conspiracy nonsense rather than the purely hysterical "cry yourself to sleep because you're so unhappy" hatred-and-rage conspiracy nonsense.
Assuming the donor was a US citizen, this shows what's great about the US. Someone who valued the research freely decided to fund the research. The government did not need to forcibly confiscate the $5 million dollars from innocent taxpayers against their will.
Gifts freely given enrich both the giver and the recipient. The people of the US excel in individual generosity.
You guys can't have a reasonable discussion. Everything is "murder batshit insane criminal" and you see normal, rational policy decisions in terms of conspiracy theories and black helicopters.
There's no way that kind of raving is going to appeal to a large number of voters. It's really too bad the Libertarian Party can't be a party for people who are in favor of freedom and liberty instead of a party of paranoid raving misfits.
The Libertarian Party's problem is that they lead with their weaknesses. People don't love the idea of freedom so they can smoke pot with hookers and have orgies on the front lawn. Yet the Libertarian party won't let people forget those things.
It's almost like the Libertarian Party is trying to avoid being taken seriously so they don't have to actually get to power. They can continue to be "right" without ever being responsible for any outcomes.
People want freedom because they'll be better off economically. They'll be more secure in their lives without having to defend against an omnipotent government overseer. They can make their own choices instead of trying to find "the right person" in the government to choose for them.
But the Libertarian Party spend their time talking about legalizing drugs. And they talk about surrendering the US military influence around the world. How is that supposed to advance liberty in the US again?
I want to know what the Green and Libertarian candidates stances are on tech issues. Green Party
Turn all your technology off because it's harming the planet. Grow an organic garden, sterilize yourself so you can't reproduce, and build a house for yourself out of mud. The EPA will be strictly enforcing this. Celebrities and politicians are exempt.
Libertarian Party
Do whatever you want with your technology. Are you taking us seriously? Try smoking some pot. And marry your cousins. Or get some hookers, whatever. Are you still taking us seriously? Why not?
You can, however, face a tort action for violating the company's charter if some of the shareholders feel there was gross negligence or willful wrongdoing. In the US, you can face a tort action for any reason or none at all You can then decide to pay a settlement or pay lawyer bills. Most decide on whichever is cheaper, regardless of justice or the merits of the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Blame is irrelevant. It simply does not matter. The system can not change while it is union-controlled. Not if you blame A, not if you blame B, not at all, under any circumstance.
It's easy. Here's an article with a handy flowchart on the process. (WARNING: flowchart is very, very large.)
No one said anything about being lazy.
The union keeps the system from improving. Non-union industries can improve their work methods to increase productivity. They can be flexible. They can try new things and stop doing things that don't work.
It's the old nonsense we always heard from union manufacturing: "We can't automate. It would put people out of work. We're working hard doing the same thing we've always done. Really hard. It's killing us. But we can't automate or improve productivity in any way." And then the factory went out of business because it couldn't compete with someone who could be flexible.
The schools just go load up on more money from taxpayers and never, ever change.
Question them for the purposes of deciding who to vote for. Choose as you like. This is about whether he's a proper speaker at a game convention. His religion is not relevant.
No one is going to say that the teachers are doing a better and better job every year. No one is going to say that the students are held to higher and higher standards in math and that they are achieving those standards more often than before.
This is because it would be false. You might get arguments about the extent of the change, but none on the direction.
And nothing in education will ever improve in the US as long as the system is union-controlled.
No, "sitting" and "attending" are really the very definition of "minding your own business".
What does this have to do with the games business again?
Also, the comparison is more than a little ridiculous. Farrakhan is outspoken. Perry was minding his own business and was asked about something and reportedly said "In my faith, that's what it says, and I'm a believer of that". And then he clarified it later. While it might have been better to tell the reporters "no comment" or "quit trying to divide people based on religion in order to further your personal political goals", it's not like he went out of his way condemn anyone or even make a statement at all.
What does that have to do with E3 or the ESA? Why would GamePolitics bring it up to attack someone?
It's completely off topic and not relevant to anything.
GamePolitics might as well have said the TX governor was fat or had the wrong skin color or some other nonsense that doesn't have anything to do with the subject. But they chose a religion-based attack. Other than bigotry, what might cause someone to make that choice?
I know this is Slashdot, but it's more interesting to discuss an article like the GamePolitics one if you actually read it. GamePolitics attacked the TX governor on the basis of his religion.
It seems fair to ask whether GamePolitics is motivated by anti-Christian or anti-religious bigotry in their coverage. There's no information to suggest that the keynote speech was going to have a religious theme or message of any kind.
A lot of game companies are located in Texas. The governor of Texas seems like he might have some interest in that.
The ESA is doing a poor job lately and the TX governor seems like a poor choice for an E3 speaker. Most people might suggest someone in the game business instead.
But none of that is an excuse for bigotry against religious folks in general or any particular religion. What other reason would GamePolitics have for their attack?
If you make your predictions vague enough, they have a good chance of being correct (for generous interpretations of correct).
I predict the next 4 years in technology is going to be similar to this year. This will end up being correct for generous definitions of "similar".
Those cameras are watching everyone now!
Someone setup a jungle expedition. Those tribesmen need tinfoil hats!
Wow, you make a good case: "Valve this research, you ignorant American hicks, or I'll call you ignorant hicks again and look down on you some more. Now gimme some tax money."
Are you Barack Obama?
The government shouldn't fund it because the government isn't a charity. The money the congress spends is not theirs to give to causes, no matter how good the cause or how altruistic the motive.
If the American people don't value basic research enough to donate to it voluntarily, then they should have that choice. Basic research may be valuable to all as you say, but it is not essential (unless it's specifically for national defense). Money shouldn't be taken from people by force to fund luxuries.
Salami attack -- wow, there's now a term for everything.
Take that, people who are trying to learn English. You'll never learn it all!
You did sound a little more hateful and screechy than the Libertarians tend to be. They have more than their share of conspiracy nuts. But it's usually the "I'm ever so smart" conspiracy nonsense rather than the purely hysterical "cry yourself to sleep because you're so unhappy" hatred-and-rage conspiracy nonsense.
Assuming the donor was a US citizen, this shows what's great about the US. Someone who valued the research freely decided to fund the research. The government did not need to forcibly confiscate the $5 million dollars from innocent taxpayers against their will.
Gifts freely given enrich both the giver and the recipient. The people of the US excel in individual generosity.
That's the other problem with Libertarians.
You guys can't have a reasonable discussion. Everything is "murder batshit insane criminal" and you see normal, rational policy decisions in terms of conspiracy theories and black helicopters.
There's no way that kind of raving is going to appeal to a large number of voters. It's really too bad the Libertarian Party can't be a party for people who are in favor of freedom and liberty instead of a party of paranoid raving misfits.
The Libertarian Party's problem is that they lead with their weaknesses. People don't love the idea of freedom so they can smoke pot with hookers and have orgies on the front lawn. Yet the Libertarian party won't let people forget those things.
It's almost like the Libertarian Party is trying to avoid being taken seriously so they don't have to actually get to power. They can continue to be "right" without ever being responsible for any outcomes.
People want freedom because they'll be better off economically. They'll be more secure in their lives without having to defend against an omnipotent government overseer. They can make their own choices instead of trying to find "the right person" in the government to choose for them.
But the Libertarian Party spend their time talking about legalizing drugs. And they talk about surrendering the US military influence around the world. How is that supposed to advance liberty in the US again?
No you aren't. Just keep your dime.
The service is only for people who want to pay the dime.
For people who have nothing to offer but complaints and an unearned sense of entitlement, there is no service.
Turn all your technology off because it's harming the planet. Grow an organic garden, sterilize yourself so you can't reproduce, and build a house for yourself out of mud. The EPA will be strictly enforcing this. Celebrities and politicians are exempt.
Libertarian Party
Do whatever you want with your technology. Are you taking us seriously? Try smoking some pot. And marry your cousins. Or get some hookers, whatever. Are you still taking us seriously? Why not?
Average unemployment during the Bush administration is lower (better) than average unemployment during the Clinton administration.
Source data: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp