But why did those 3,000 people die? Did they die because the U.S. has been meddling in middle-eastern affairs for over half a century? Did they die because terrorist organizations can only wage war against the mightiest nation in history using guerilla tactics?
They died because someone killed them. Because they wanted to kill them.
Putting those questions aside, it doesn't bode well for the United States to claim that terrorists killed 3,000 innocent civilians while killing thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, or engaging in torture, or invading sovereign (albeit unfriendly) nations who never attacked the United States. Do you see where I'm going here?
No. What are the practical consequenses of "it doesn't bode well"? Does it mean "I feel bad about it"? Why should we care?
We should defend ourselves, but we should do it in a fair manner or we risk looking to the world like a bogeyman.
Why should we care? Was the world going to do something helpful for the USA? When was that scheduled for?
Who's next? Iran? Syria? North Korea? Just how many countries must we invade, and how many wars must we wage to achieve our goals of destroying terrorism? And what if it can't BE destroyed?
The future is uncertain. Is that new to you? Are we worried about your feelings about an uncertain future? Why?
The big deal is that it is perfectly reasonable to devise a system of "terrorist surveilance" including judicial oversight.
Please devise such a system then. And get it passed through congress and signed into law (or adopted as a constitutional amendment, since it probably violates seperation of powers). Then get back to us.
Meanwhile, there's a responsibility to protect the USA from terrorist attacks.
Being a kid with no money but having access to all the best sci-fi in the world, other fiction, and non-fiction was one of the best things to ever happen to me.
It's not the 80s any more. Times change, you might want to consider changing with them. Libraries are anachronistic, and the process is accelerating.
Also, some poor old lady probably lost her house because she couldn't afford the property taxes to pay for your adolescent warm fuzzy. Nevermind that though.
...who's supposed to impose an open standard for public records...
I don't know. Who? I know you're relying onthe government for that. How's that going? What was this story about? I didn't RTFA, but the summary doesn't suggest relying of the government is working.
You're right, a man can ultimately leave his home and go into exile to escape a local government.
It's just wrong to routinely force this choice on folks to finance your luxuries.
Much of government works almost exactly like the Sopranos -- you pay, or else. The folks who pay protection money to the mafia could close up shop and move away too. So hooray for the Capo's justice, I guess.
--
This is off topic though. The ultimate point was that government decisions are political decisions. Whatever side you're on, you're going to be unhappy with the result a good deal of the time. So the benefit of all this force is questionable, and I'd like people to consider that. Maybe it's not worth the harm when you can't even be confident you'll get what you want.
You know what happens when a bunch of people work together to provide common resources and to regulate themselves as a community? You get what is called a "government".
You only get government (as it's currently known) when the provision of those "common resources" is against the will of some of the people in the community. Otherwise, it's an association, or a charity, or a club, or a company, or some other non-government organization. Force is the difference. Governments force certain people to do things for the benefit of the others. That's good when you're imprisoning a rapist. It's a lot less good when you're building a library or some other non-essential (luxury) service.
As long as we're going to have some form of government, I'm all for libraries.
And you're also for political decision-making, because it's part of the package.
And that might mean Microsoft-only file formats in government documents, or "decency" filters on library computers, or any number of other things. Often, political decisions are going to go against your wishes.
Apparently you don't understand. Open standards are good for some constituencies and bad for others. Politics decides who wins because it's the government.
If you want non-political decision-making, you need to remove the choice from the government. Period.
What does that mean? Are you saying constituents don't want these filters?
Obviously, they did want them. That's not the point.
There ought to be no government libraries. If people want libraries, they can build them and provide for them on a voluntary basis and choose the rules based on their whims.
The only reason for government involvement is to take money (and choices) away from people against their will.
A lot of pro-big-government people don't seem to like politics deciding government actions. They need to re-think their pro-big-government stance in light of the benefit of getting rid of the political decision-making.
And if you can figure out exactly what as little as possible translates to in the real world, you will be hailed as the greatest statesman-philosopher that ever lived.
Let's start with less than they do now, and see how it goes.
I'm shocked that politics is involved in government decisions. Shocked!
---
The key is to have the government do as little as possible. Then you can make your decisions, and I can make mine. When you decide for yourself, it's a personal question, not a political one. When the government decides, it's always going to be political.
This is the same issue as "decency" filters on (government) library computers. Politics decided that one too.
The only way everyone gets what they want is by taking it out of government hands.
They try to make it a hostile environment to any opinion that isn't sanctioned by the group that sets up this sort of thing.
So it's OK for professors to make the classroom a hostile environment for students that disagree. But it's wrong to point it out and return the favor a little.
So you're saying that these people should rebel against authority by agreeing with their college professors. They should "take the road to self-discovery" by conforming to the academic order and failing to stand up for their beliefs.
Have I said anything too "radical" here?
Nope. You've gone right down the line you're supposed to. (We'll overlook the fact that you didn't mention the environment -- this time.)
When the majority of the best and brightest in the country all lean towards a particular political philosophy, what should that tell you?
That they went to college in the late 60s to avoid being drafted and going to Vietnam. Sheltered from the real world in their academic setting, they never saw the need to reconsider their 1960s adolescent politics. No matter how many times world events suggested that those policies be reconsidered, well, by the time, they had tenure and their escape from the draft, from responsibility, and from the real world was complete.
But the UCLA effort... winds up looking like a blacklist
What's wrong with blacklists again? As long as everyone is free to choose, blacklists are no more than a collection of information.
Ratings and reviews of college professors are a good idea. Education is a service you pay (a lot of) money for. Ratings and reviews and blacklists and other exposure will help students decide whether a given professor is worth the price.
(Before you reply: Slashdot uses blacklists on "bad" IP numbers. If you don't like blacklists, you need to consider whether you're "supporting" blacklists by replying or putting Slashdot on a blacklist by not replying. Quite the conundrum of faux virtue.)
Why should we listen to studies? Shouldn't we believe that cell phones cause cancer if that belief meets our emotional needs?
After all, all studies are funded by someone. So we can decide they're biased based on what we wish their conclusions were. And then we can continue to believe what we want.
Yeah, like private sector employees any more competent
Maybe they are and maybe they're not. But private sector companies and their employees have to bid against each other for work. The company that provides the best service for the best price tends to win the business. Does the public employee union bid against anyone?
Articles that claim that "we're going to run out of resource XYZ" get published year after year. The authors don't understand economics. They're always wrong. But they keep getting published.
Slashdot Mirror
But why did those 3,000 people die? Did they die because the U.S. has been meddling in middle-eastern affairs for over half a century? Did they die because terrorist organizations can only wage war against the mightiest nation in history using guerilla tactics?
They died because someone killed them. Because they wanted to kill them.
Putting those questions aside, it doesn't bode well for the United States to claim that terrorists killed 3,000 innocent civilians while killing thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, or engaging in torture, or invading sovereign (albeit unfriendly) nations who never attacked the United States. Do you see where I'm going here?
No. What are the practical consequenses of "it doesn't bode well"? Does it mean "I feel bad about it"? Why should we care?
We should defend ourselves, but we should do it in a fair manner or we risk looking to the world like a bogeyman.
Why should we care? Was the world going to do something helpful for the USA? When was that scheduled for?
Who's next? Iran? Syria? North Korea? Just how many countries must we invade, and how many wars must we wage to achieve our goals of destroying terrorism? And what if it can't BE destroyed?
The future is uncertain. Is that new to you? Are we worried about your feelings about an uncertain future? Why?
The big deal is that it is perfectly reasonable to devise a system of "terrorist surveilance" including judicial oversight.
Please devise such a system then. And get it passed through congress and signed into law (or adopted as a constitutional amendment, since it probably violates seperation of powers). Then get back to us.
Meanwhile, there's a responsibility to protect the USA from terrorist attacks.
Being a kid with no money but having access to all the best sci-fi in the world, other fiction, and non-fiction was one of the best things to ever happen to me.
It's not the 80s any more. Times change, you might want to consider changing with them. Libraries are anachronistic, and the process is accelerating.
Also, some poor old lady probably lost her house because she couldn't afford the property taxes to pay for your adolescent warm fuzzy. Nevermind that though.
...who's supposed to impose an open standard for public records...
I don't know. Who? I know you're relying onthe government for that. How's that going? What was this story about? I didn't RTFA, but the summary doesn't suggest relying of the government is working.
You're right, a man can ultimately leave his home and go into exile to escape a local government.
It's just wrong to routinely force this choice on folks to finance your luxuries.
Much of government works almost exactly like the Sopranos -- you pay, or else. The folks who pay protection money to the mafia could close up shop and move away too. So hooray for the Capo's justice, I guess.
--
This is off topic though. The ultimate point was that government decisions are political decisions. Whatever side you're on, you're going to be unhappy with the result a good deal of the time. So the benefit of all this force is questionable, and I'd like people to consider that. Maybe it's not worth the harm when you can't even be confident you'll get what you want.
You know what happens when a bunch of people work together to provide common resources and to regulate themselves as a community? You get what is called a "government".
You only get government (as it's currently known) when the provision of those "common resources" is against the will of some of the people in the community. Otherwise, it's an association, or a charity, or a club, or a company, or some other non-government organization. Force is the difference. Governments force certain people to do things for the benefit of the others. That's good when you're imprisoning a rapist. It's a lot less good when you're building a library or some other non-essential (luxury) service.
As long as we're going to have some form of government, I'm all for libraries.
And you're also for political decision-making, because it's part of the package.
And that might mean Microsoft-only file formats in government documents, or "decency" filters on library computers, or any number of other things. Often, political decisions are going to go against your wishes.
But you're choosing to accept that outcome.
The dude was looking after an OPEN standard
Apparently you don't understand. Open standards are good for some constituencies and bad for others. Politics decides who wins because it's the government.
If you want non-political decision-making, you need to remove the choice from the government. Period.
What does that mean? Are you saying constituents don't want these filters?
Obviously, they did want them. That's not the point.
There ought to be no government libraries. If people want libraries, they can build them and provide for them on a voluntary basis and choose the rules based on their whims.
The only reason for government involvement is to take money (and choices) away from people against their will.
A lot of pro-big-government people don't seem to like politics deciding government actions. They need to re-think their pro-big-government stance in light of the benefit of getting rid of the political decision-making.
And if you can figure out exactly what as little as possible translates to in the real world, you will be hailed as the greatest statesman-philosopher that ever lived.
Let's start with less than they do now, and see how it goes.
I'm shocked that politics is involved in government decisions. Shocked!
---
The key is to have the government do as little as possible. Then you can make your decisions, and I can make mine. When you decide for yourself, it's a personal question, not a political one. When the government decides, it's always going to be political.
This is the same issue as "decency" filters on (government) library computers. Politics decided that one too.
The only way everyone gets what they want is by taking it out of government hands.
Last I checked, ID *was* being taught as a science, even if only briefly.
... This is different though - this is a large majority of people fucking with my future and the future of my kids.
Did the kids die instantly? Or is it more of a slow, lingering death?
Remember - "the price of democracy is eternal vigilance".
What's the price of a quotation dictionary?
I was considering moving to Europe
Yeah, nevermind what those people want. They're only the majority.
A little compromise goes a long way. I cannot fathom why leftists in this country can't bring themselves to support vouchers. Just bizarre.
Really? In the current system, they are going to get the money. A voucher would send it to someone else, and they wouldn't get it. It's greed.
but who needs facts?
Facts, schmacts. You can use so-called facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
They try to make it a hostile environment to any opinion that isn't sanctioned by the group that sets up this sort of thing.
So it's OK for professors to make the classroom a hostile environment for students that disagree. But it's wrong to point it out and return the favor a little.
So you're saying that these people should rebel against authority by agreeing with their college professors. They should "take the road to self-discovery" by conforming to the academic order and failing to stand up for their beliefs.
Have I said anything too "radical" here?
Nope. You've gone right down the line you're supposed to. (We'll overlook the fact that you didn't mention the environment -- this time.)
When the majority of the best and brightest in the country all lean towards a particular political philosophy, what should that tell you?
That they went to college in the late 60s to avoid being drafted and going to Vietnam. Sheltered from the real world in their academic setting, they never saw the need to reconsider their 1960s adolescent politics. No matter how many times world events suggested that those policies be reconsidered, well, by the time, they had tenure and their escape from the draft, from responsibility, and from the real world was complete.
But the UCLA effort ... winds up looking like a blacklist
What's wrong with blacklists again? As long as everyone is free to choose, blacklists are no more than a collection of information.
Ratings and reviews of college professors are a good idea. Education is a service you pay (a lot of) money for. Ratings and reviews and blacklists and other exposure will help students decide whether a given professor is worth the price.
(Before you reply: Slashdot uses blacklists on "bad" IP numbers. If you don't like blacklists, you need to consider whether you're "supporting" blacklists by replying or putting Slashdot on a blacklist by not replying. Quite the conundrum of faux virtue.)
This is totally unrealistic in this case.
Your view of what's realistic insensitively disregards my feelings about the reality that works for me.
I'm not sure that's officially considered a hate-crime yet though.
Why should we listen to studies? Shouldn't we believe that cell phones cause cancer if that belief meets our emotional needs?
After all, all studies are funded by someone. So we can decide they're biased based on what we wish their conclusions were. And then we can continue to believe what we want.
C'mon. Everyone's doing it.
Yeah, like private sector employees any more competent
Maybe they are and maybe they're not. But private sector companies and their employees have to bid against each other for work. The company that provides the best service for the best price tends to win the business. Does the public employee union bid against anyone?
Thank you.
Articles that claim that "we're going to run out of resource XYZ" get published year after year. The authors don't understand economics. They're always wrong. But they keep getting published.
There are a lot of opportunities for radio-like services. Selling ads in podcasts comes to mind.
I like their creative choices of monsters too. I think the next one is going to be about people who are attacked by giant squirrels.
Here is some inspiration from the news:
Truce called in war on squirrels
Squirrels Gone Wild
Russian squirrel pack 'kills dog'
That's going to be a good movie.
The most noteworthy thing about this show is how it's exactly like "The Pretender".
Is that really so impressive?
Yes.
You forgot GUIs, Laser printers. Apple didn't invent these, but they were the first to successfully market them to consumers.
There's also iTunes Music Store. I'm sure there are others as well.