I wasn't talking about the white kids from the suburbs who are just another status symbol for their parents... they usually finish school and go on to at least do some college and live productive (though debt filled) lives. I was referring to the millions of broken inner city homes that produce children who are lucky to make it to high school before they drop out and start building a life of crime and producing the next generation of failure.
No amount of money spent on education is going to do any good if there isn't a parent there who forces the kid to go to school, do their best and stay out of trouble.
We still face problems of undereducation
Throwing more money at it won't fix the problem. We've spent hundreds of billions in new funds on top of what we were going to spend in the last 15 years and test scores are virtually unchanged. It is a social problem caused mostly by parents who don't care.
unemployment
What are we supposed to do, write everyone who gets fired a check for a million bucks? I know a LOT of people who've gotten fired and layed off and they wait until their benefits are about to run out before they start a serious crunch of a new job. Besides, we're at 4-5% unemployment, not 20%, there are MUCH bigger economic problems to worry about than that.
civil unrest
Yeah... everyone is rioting in the streets right now. There is always going to be a certain level of civil unhappiness, you can't eliminate it all without eliminating humanity.
disease
Cure every disease out there and watch another even nastier one creep up.
starvation
Generally not a major issue in the US. If you want the US to solve the starvation problems in the world, just let me know when you want to start overthrowing every 3rd world despot out there with our military. The problem isn't lack of food, it's lack of distribution.
international strife
See civil unrest... only there are very few bonds tying us together as an international community. There can never be perfect international harmony because somewhere out there, there will be at least one person who isn't happy and wants to lead a rebellion to overthrow it.
You have a low uid so I'm assuming you're not 15. I'm sorry that you still live in this happy little utopia where you get visted by Santa and the Tooth Fairy but the real world doesn't work the way you want it to and it never will. There will never be perfect harmony and happiness because each human is an individual with their own desires and viewpoint. With more than six billion people on the Earth, you're never going to get all of them to agreee on any single issue, much less the big picture.
I got a box from my local supermarket chain recently... I opened it to find a fusion (non vibrating model) sample inside. I normally use an electric but have a sensor (2 blade) razor if I want a closer shave for something. I've used the fusion 3 times now and don't notice any increase in the closeness of the shave. I also noted the near uselessness of the single blade on the back; It took me 3 tries to get the stray hair I missed under my nose. Overall, I don't see the need to switch from my current setup, especially since I can buy generic blades for my sensor for half the price of the gillette ones (however, the blades lose their sharpness 25% sooner than the brand name ones).
Firefox 1.5.0.7 on linux
DOM inpsector, Bookmarks Synchronizer, FlashGot, Flashblock, Adblock, Image Zoom
Started my browser about 18 hours ago. I've been to slashdot a few times, newegg and a couple other sites.
top shows 105m SWAP, 135m RES, 21m SHR.
Granted, I don't see some of the 400 or 500 meg marks that some people claim to see but I'd say 240 megs is rather excessive for 18 hours of being loaded (and considering I was asleep for a good chunk of that).
If you take away a verifiable record (be it an ID you can look up or an actual copy) of your vote, you open yourself to the following type scenarios:
1) Boss: You know, I really need to see your vote receipt so we can make sure you're protecting our interests. If you refuse or you don't vote the way we wanted, see you later.
2) Abusive spouse: Honey, lemme make sure you voted the way I wanted or I will beat the crap out of you.
3) Church: You heathen, you voted for people out to destroy our morality. I, requesting that you be excommunicated.
you do realize that the guy wasn't jailed due to the story, merely the community was informed about his presence. There also hasn't been any cry to kick him out of our community. The reporter simply did his job by informing the community about the guy living in their back yard who has an extremely violent past, lives near a plethora of his typical victim and belongs to a class of predator with one of the highest probabilities of recidivism.
It's not like the guy raped once or twice... we're talking about a guy who was convicted of 75 rapes but openly admits to committing more than 100. Would you want your 18 year old daughter being talked up by him without her knowing who he was?
Last month, a reporter here in Rochester NY filed a story about a convicted rapist who, due to a legal technicality was not listed on the state's sex offender registry despite raping over 100 women. He was dumped in a town a short bike ride away from a boatload of his typical victim (young college girls) and the police couldn't notify ANYONE in the area, including the school about him. I've personally seen him riding his bike near the college. After the report brought the problem with the sex offender registry to light, he had a hearing and ended up on the registry. If it wasn't for the reporter breaking the story, he could have started victimizing people at any time without the community knowing. Not all rapes are reported and should the cops be the only ones who know someone who's raped over 100 people is nearby?
Bad, bad reporter trying to protect the community by telling them what the police couldn't.
that also depends on how you define conservative... I'm a conservative who might be labeled as more of a libertarian by others. I want a tiny, little federal government that mostly stays out of my life. Basically, I want a government that actually conforms to the document that gives it power, the Constitution.
That said, I don't define myself as a libertarian because they often let their ideology block common sense. We can't have an entirely free market, we have to have some sort of anti-trust controls. We can't have entirely free speech (see "fire", libel, etc).
I vote for the republicans only because they're the lesser of two evils. Given the modern nanny state, I'm not sure that we're on a path for anything short of total government subjugation. The choice between the two parties is only a matter of when.
I don't listen to Hannity but I do listen to Rush... I've also tried to listen to some Air America because I wanted to see what the other side has to say. Granted, I have a conservative bias but this is what the difference I see between them is:
Rush is funny. There is a lot of political commentary on the show but it's interwoven with parodies, talk about football, one way jokes with his staff (mostly teasing them that he knows more than them), etc. Just the other day, he spent 10 minutes talking about his new car and the ipod system on the dashboard. Hardly something political. He's also a rather positive guy who will make fun of someone rather than lash out at them in a harsh way. "Der Schlickmeister", "Sandy Burglar", "Madeline Halfbright", etc will make people on the right and in the middle chuckle to themselves while not turning them off by being too extreme. It actually takes a couple weeks to get into the full swing of the show and start getting all the little inside jokes and gags.
I haven't been able to stomach a full dose of Air America for too long. All I hear is incessant ranting that is absolutely full of spite. There is a sheer arrogance that their view is the one and only view and anyone who disagrees is some type of Satan. Er, wait, Satan would imply a god... some type of McCarthy. Basically, the entire network feels like pure red meat for the far left and there isn't much to attract the rest of the spectrum of listeners.
When Michael Savage first hit my market, I did my best to listen when he was on. It astounded me that someone actually had the balls to say some of the things those of us on the right were thinking but didn't have the balls to say in public. Over time, he got even more rabid (and self contradictory) though and now he's gone so far off the deep end that I don't listen to him at all.
As others have pointed out, radio is all about capturing as large of an audience as possible and keeping them for as long as you can so you can get the most money for your advertising. In fact, once or twice a month, Rush reminds his audience of exactly that and that's why he lightens things up instead of railing hardcore politics all the time. Air America is your Michael Savage, you have no Rush Limbaugh equivalent that I know of.
Also, as a side note... I wish the people who run around criticizing guys like Rush would make an effort to actually listen to him a couple times instead of just repeating what others have told them. I'm not saying the poster I'm replying to didn't listen to him and truly found him distasteful but too many people are too quick to judge without examining the facts for themselves. Of course, maybe I'm wrong and even moderate democrats who have listened to Rush find him as extreme as I find most of Air America.
republicans do not see the democrats as destroying the moral foundations.
Once upon a time, there was stigma about taking a public handout... these days it's an entitlement. Everyone else is supposed to provide for you. That is part of destroying the moral foundation of our country. It's no longer seen as stealing. Same with a certain President lying under oath. It was never about sex but the story broke back in the days when CNN and the alphabets were still the primary networks so people are brainwashed into believing it was about sex. How about the esteemed Senator who left a girl to drown in his car? The Klan leader who is the "conscience" of the senate?
fox is not conservative; it is propaganda along the line of Pravda
And Olbermann and John Stewart are the centrist voice on television today, right?
Anway, back in reality-land, why is the issue of hacking an election considered partisan? Are republicans not concerned that democrats could take advantage of these documented weaknesses in the elections systems?
I want a paper ballot with some security features built in (ie, on special paper that is watermarked). You must circle a name completely with a distinct oddball colored marker (perhaps teal). If you cannot circle a single name, your vote doesn't count because you're an utter moron. I want you to have to show your free, state provided ID to prove you have the right to vote before you get your ballot. I want the media to not report on any status of the election until, oh, maybe the next morning when all the polling stations are closed and the vote has been counted. Poll workers are allowed to use ballpoint pens and pencils to tally the vote and cannot have any markers in the room during such time. The ballots will be placed in a box which is secured with a lock provided by one of the two major parties which is again, placed into a box locked by a padlock by the other major party.
That seems pretty straight forward and honest to me. However, people won't go for it... especially the part about requiring a free state provided ID because that means it gets a little harder to vote early and vote often.
It sounds like you're more neoconservative than conservative. If that's the case, there's no stopping you from embarking on your journey to find the bible infested, immigrant free, raise the deficit like it's going out of style, grass is greener forums.
Everyone who disagrees with you is a neocon? I'm an atheist, I really don't give a rats ass about the bible other than the fact that people should have a right to read it, talk about it and practice it WHEREVER they want. I'm not against immigration but I am for tighter quotas and I FIRMLY believe that you either come in via the rules or you have no right bitch about is kicking you back out much less whether you get to vote in our elections. I believe the federal government needs to be reduced to it's Constitutional limits and that we need to abolish the biggest expenses first and foremost (and hint, it ain't the military... the military is a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend on socialism).
Further... slashdot is quickly becoming the "grass is greener forum" for the left. It's turning into DU/Kos level absurdity around here lately.
Since when should a conservative care what a citizens sexual preference is?
When did I ever mention ANYTHING about sexual preference? Oh, I forgot.. it's leftdot where all these assumptions are prebuilt into people who don't conform to teh groupthink.
Since when should a conservative spend considerable amounts of money on it?
Show me the bills where conservatives have spent a considerable amount of money on people's sexual preference or drop the strawman.
Since when should a conservative care where the citizens of its nation come from?
Look at what's happening in Europe as the muslims are flooding in and reproducing faster than the natives. Pretty soon, you'll see them adopting Sharia there. It's already causing a lot of tension in places like France. If you don't control the input, you can't control the outcome. If you want to see a country become destabilized as they lose the core values that binds them all together, good luck in the ensuing anarchy.
Since when *shouldn't* a (fiscal) conservative care about the ungodly amounts of money the nation gives out as 100% uncooked bacon to gigantic, inefficient and incompetent organizations?
The pork is a drop in the bucket compared to the Unconstitutional programs that are burying us in debt... and again, it ain't the military budget. That said, I'm all about reducing the federal budget to a nice lean $500 billion/year figure over the next 10 years or so. Lemme preempt your reply. The evil conservative just wants to starve the children, kill the poor and let all sick people die. Take it up with your local governments where those policies are more appropriate.
newsflash: republicans see democrats destroying the moral foundation of the country, selling us out to international law via the court system, pandering for votes from illegals, wanting to destroy any successful corporation, etc.
The difference is that you see the things you disagree with, while the things you agree with you tend to gloss over. Most right wingers see CNN, NPR, BBC, etc as liberal (while most leftists call them neutral) and most liberals call Fox conservative (while most rightists call it neutral). It's all about hearing what you agree with MOST of the time and letting it reinforce your ideas.
Frankly, Slashdot is going further and further to the left... and while my post count is up lately from trying to point out the lunacy, it's growing very tiring and is pushing me away from wanting to even participate here. It's to the point where the Bush bashing and conspiracy theories creep into non-political stories. I haven't been to kuroshin in years for the same reason. If slashdot wants to turn into the next DU, that's fine... but don't be too surprised when all you have left is a bunch of people preaching to the choir and another bunch trolling.
I don't see Democrats using class and race resentment much at all. [...] giant tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes
Hmm... "giant tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes" remind me again who pays taxes. Is it possible to give tax breaks to the people who don't pay taxes? That statement alone is playing class warfare.
since 'trickle-down economics' was proved stupid by Reagan
Funny... what was it that pulled us out of Jimmah Carter's "malaise?" I seem to remember the 80s having a large rebirth of the American economy and the money corporations saved in taxes went to infrastructure and research, both of which made the boom of the 90s possible.
corrupt Republicans outnumber corrupt Democrats by about eighteen to one, judging by the Abramoff mess.
There are plenty of democrats tied in with the Ambramoff mess... not to mention if you look around in places like New Orleans, Chicago and the Clinton Administration (sleepovers for money, political contributions from china, John Huang, donations for the presidential library turning into pardons, etc). It's rather disingenuous to proclaim one is better than the other
corrupt racist white elite politicians tend to be the Republicans.
There are plenty on the left too... and I would argue that the whole notion that minority people NEED affirmative action, welfare, etc is inherently racist because it implies they are incapable of doing it on their own.
The current batch of Republicans in power have absolutely no fiscal responsibility whatsoever
I'll agree completely there. However, it's not like the democrats haven't played obstructionist when the republicans tried to make changes to the most expensive programs out there (ie, social security reform).
Why is it that with the last Republican presidents we've seen record deficits, but exactly the opposite with recent Democrat presidents?
Lets see...
Carter (D): Economic Malaise (his term) with a democrat congress. Double digit inflation, double digit interest, stagflation, etc
Reagan (R): Turned the economy around while a democrat congress drastically increased domestic spending in exchange for his policies which ended the soviet union
GHW Bush 41 (R): Much the same as Reagan, also with a democrat Congress. 1991 recession was largely due to poor money supply policy by the Federal Reserve.
Clinton (D): Started out wildly spending with a democrat Congress, immediately raised taxes and attempted to take over 1/7th of the US economy. Immediately bitchslapped and replaced with a republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich who forced some fiscal restraint. Huge economy boom from the investments made thanks to Reaganomics paying off which increased federal tax receipts (more commerce * same tax rate = higher receipts). Recession began at the end of his term, largely caused by a combination of Federal Reserve raising interest rates, highish tax rates (though not as bad as the Carter years) and the collapse of the totally irrational dotcom bubble.
GW Bush 42 (R): Gave a $500 tax rebate to all tax payers to help stimulate the economy and limit the recession with the help of a republican congress. The effects of 9/11 and the dotcom bubble affected the economy for years afterward. Tax receipts are growing faster than estimated but the republicans, in an attempt to triangulate the democrats away, have sold us out by increasing domestic spending drastically.
The cycles of the last 30 years largely have to do with tax rate imposed by the government and how much the entitlement programs are expanded regardless of who is in office. I also find it funny that while you give "the last couple democrats" some lip service about being great at the economy, you completely overlook the second to last democratic president who presided over the worst economy, second only to the Great Depression, in the United States. Take off the blinders, fo
Between the cost, the frustration of usually never getting a message back (I'd rather hear "thanks, but I don't think it'd work out" than never hear back at all - at least then it's a clean break)
Don't forget the ones who initiate contact with you so you go through the subscription process to write them back and they never write back to your response to them. Over the last 4 years on match, I've had 3 women write me and 5 wink at me. Only one of them ever wrote back (and we dated for about 2 months). Of all the ones I initiated contact with, none wrote back. Part of me thinks the ones who write/wink and don't reply when you do are part of a scam just to get your money knowing that if you wait a few days to give them a reasonable response time, it's too late to cancel before getting charged.
The real problem with Net Neutrailty is what happenes when only 1 isp can give you broadband.
Chances are, if you only have one choice of broadband provider, you live out in the middle of nowhere. That is one of the tradeoffs for living in an unpopulated place and they should be grateful to have broadband at all. I live in a mostly residential farm town. It's 2.5 miles to the nearest grocery store, 25 miles to the nearest computer store, etc but I do it because I can't stand the issues that come with the population density of city life. I might have to drive places but I don't need to listen to sirens going down the street, worry about violent crime, live in a neighborhood infested with roaches, etc. The nearest city got broadband in the mid 90s and I had to wait until about 2000 but I now have my choice of DSL (placed a CO in town a couple years ago) or cable.
If there isn't enough business to warrant cable/dsl in a rural town, nothing is stopping them from implementing some type of co-op access via wifi or something. There's also the satellite option (though it would be crappy as hell for gaming). My point being that we make choices and tradeoffs in our lives every day and there's no such thing as having everything we want.
how come whenever anyone proposes stuff like net neutrality or alternative fuels the conservatives say "the free market will take care of it"?
I'm a conservative in the strict Constitutionalist sense of the word. I think limited regulation is good but too much regulation or no regulation is harmful.
I see net neutrality as a solution in search of a problem. Some ISPs are out there threatening to charge the Googles of the world extra fees for carrying their data, throttling VOIP so it can't compete with their service as well, etc so people here at Slashdot are in a tizzy that something needs to be done to regulate it. That's the wrong attitude because it instantly assumes that the customers are completely powerless and can exert no force on the markets themselves. The minute popular sites like google get throttled, customers will be all over their ISPs complaining about how things don't work right and that if it doesn't get fixed, they're leaving for a competitor who won't engage in such practices. If every provider in the area engages in such things, someone will step in and change that if the customers rattle their cages loud enough. They could build a co-op, threaten to terminate utilities monopoly rights to the roadsides unless they comply, etc.
Legislation is the last step to try, not the first. Government is rarely the solution to problems because it is the largest tool you have and it WILL affect things in unforseen ways. Net neutrality gets implemented and suddenly, ISPs can't setup a low latency path to popular game servers to improve their customer's gameplay, they can't cache large popular files with a proxy, etc. Depending on the language of the bill, they might not even be able to peer with a larger network with faster pipes than a smaller network. There are tons of unforseen consequences in such broad legislation and you take a huge risk that you're going to make things worse... and good luck on fixing it after one bill has already been passed, it might take decades.
All that said, just up the thread here, people asked why conservatives think we have a free market economy. We don't think we have a free market economy. LOTS of us regular joe fiscal conservatives believe that the amount of regulation and taxation is EXTREMELY out of control though. Personally, I want to see the federal government reduced to what it's legally allowed to do under the Constitution (ie, handle interstate commerce and foreign relations (including military) and that's about it) and a lot of conservatives would agree, even many who are trying to get into office for the first time. However, once you're actually in office, your idealism all fades away as you realize you have no hope of changing anything because if you refuse to take pork for your district to set an example, the money will just get spent somewhere else and your opponent will accuse you of not bringing home the bacon. Try to reduce the federal entitlement programs (which are ALL ENTIRELY Unconstitutional IMO) and you get demogogued about wanting to starve children and old people, throw people out into the streets, etc. The longer you stay a part of that system, you will eventually lose faith that you can push your ideals into action.
In fact, that is one of the reasons why it was a HORRIBLE idea to make Senators popularly elected instead of chosen by state governments. It's the United STATES of America and the Senators were there to push for the interest of the states instead of being beholden to the immediate interests of the people. The Senate was once the chamber of esteem and statesmenship but today, it's more raucous than the house because usually a Senator has to pander to a significantly larger group of people and often, will only play up to the major population centers while ignoring the rest of the state. Here in NY, most of the state is actually fairly conservative - you'd think we were a midwest state but New York City dominates the state's politics on every level and instead of having a balance
She claims her take amounts to only about $60 a month, noting that if she made more than $85, the government would reduce her $601 monthly disability check.
My dad suffered a brain aneurysm and stroke in 1998 leaving his left arm 99% paralyzed (he can move the shoulder a matter of a couple degrees but that's it for the entire arm and hand) and his left leg paralyzed enough that he can't walk on his own. Further, there are documented short term memory problems, confusion, confabulation, etc. We still had to *PROVE* that he was unable to work a meaningful job to qualify for disability to begin with. Every few years, he's supposed to requalify but his case is bad enough that they usually just give him an exception to that.
If this woman is deliberately holding back from earning a leaving because she will lose disability income, ESPECIALLY if she's capable of earning a full living by working as a web designer or something similar for a living wage, isn't she defrauding the government and all the taxpayers? She's capable of tending to a garden and get to her neighbors to help them in addition to doing computer work. Granted, I don't know all the details but just on what I see here, it smells a little fishy to me and should require a fraud investigation. If even just 10% of all Social Security payments are fraudulent, you're looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of $120 billion in fraud each year at just the federal level.
GPL has a very specific clause that says it can't be linked with anything that has a more restrictive license. Apache and the like are linked against LGPL code rather than GPL code because the LGPL specifically allows linking with more restrictive code. Now, here's the problem: GPL 3 *IS* more restrictive than GPL 2. You have to open up your patents on GPL 3 code, give away your private keys, etc. Therefore, GPL 2 code cannot be linked with GPL 3 code.
Lets say GTK, GNOME and glibc all switch from LGPL (which Stallman hates) to GPL 3. No GPL 2 apps can link with supported versions of glibc, gtk, gnome, etc so those core projects will have to be forked to remain GPL 2. Similarly, Apache, Firefox, etc can't link with any of that GPL 3 code because their license is already encumbered with problems that won't let them link to GPL 2 code (but they link with LGPL code fine), much less the problems with new GPL 3 restrictions.
Commercial interests (normally distributions like Redhat) who currently fund development of gcc, glibc, gnome, etc are going to be hard pressed to let their developers go to GPL 3 if it means they can't do things like sign their packages without giving out their private keys. Further, they're going to be forced to work around all the landmines between what is allowed to link to what because GPL 3 and GPL 2 aren't compatable. They have a strong interest in pulling their developers out to work on a fork of the GPL 2 tools, leaving the FSF high and dry on GPL 3 development anyway. So you'll have some ideologues working on GPL 3 stuff while a ton of other people work on GPL 2 stuff. GPL 3 developers will generally have the right to take the GPL 2 additions and use them in the GPL 3 codebase (ie, the version 2 or later clause makes all the GPL stuff GPL 3'd anyway if someone wants to use it that way), but GPL 3 stuff can't be moved to the GPL 2 codebase. It'll be the UNIX wars of the 80s all over again.
BTW, I have yet to see a reference to a LGPL 3... is one actually being planned? If so, it seems that it would probably be at odds with everything Stallman wants to do with GPL 3. As a developer (of nothing particularly interesting), I love the GPL 2 while the GPL 3 seems to be at odds with my rights. I'll continue to write GPL 2 code with the restriction that it is GPL 2 only and can't be used under newer GPL licenses specifically because the FSF has betrayed my trust that they would continue to do the right thing for my rights in that half of the GPL bargain.
then you're going to need to explain why black voters are almost all Democrats and why rural Southern whites are almost all Republicans
Democrat to inner city(which is primarily minority): "The republicans want to starve your children, kill the elderly and take away your entitlements. You need to vote for us to stop them. BTW, rural america is a bunch of uneducated racist rednecks."
Republican to rural America(which is primarily white): "The democrats continue to raise taxes to give your money to the people in the cities who would rather collect a welfare check than go to work. Vote for us and we'll reform the system."
There isn't really any racism involved, it's all about one side demogoguing the other to pander to their constituents and they're both really good at it.
Exit polls have a lot of assumptions built into them as well. If a county votes roughly 70% to 30% in nearly every election, all they need to do is call the county and get the voter turnout. From there, they make an assumption that things followed the statistical trend because it's impossible to exit poll every location in the US.
For a specific example, take the case of the Hasidic Jews in Rockland County in 2000. They have a pretty long streak of voting overwhelmingly conservative but they voted 1400 to 12 for Hillary Clinton in the Senate race. Exit polling probably wouldn't have been conducted manually in that district given the past and the results would probably be roughly opposite of what the exit polling would have expected them to be.
In any given two year cycle, things can happen in districts which would make the locals vote in ways they normally wouldn't, but not all of those things make it on the radar significantly enough to warrant manual exit polling.
From the article: By most peoples' reading of laws, game companies can protect the actual text of the games via copyright, and they can protect the use of their system names for marketing via trademark. However, they can't actually protect the game systems themselves unless they file patents for them as inventions... and very, very few game companies do. By that reading, a book like The Primal Order can be produced without permission from the original publisher, as long as care is taken in the use of the trademarks.
Back in 2000, Ryan Dancey, the D&D Brand Manager for Hasbro, and to a lesser extent, Peter Adkinson himself, were involved in a rather
large multithreaddebate on rec.games.frp.dnd (there are a lot more threads), the TSR/WotC website, etc where Dancey pretty much explicitly stated that any creative work players produced in their AD&D games were derivative works of TSR/WotC and thus wholly owned by TSR, automatically invalidating any copyright that the actual creator had on the work and granting full copyright on their material to TSR/WotC even if the majority of the work was generic and made little reference to AD&D.
At the time, I immediately pulled all of the material about the campaign world I created off the net. It basically only used the AD&D rules and involved new character classes, monsters, maps, new worlds, etc. Dancey went so far as to claim even using the rules (which weren't patented and even if they had been patented, would have already expired) made the work of campaigns like mine derivative of AD&D and thus the sole property of TSR/WotC.
Needless to say, I never moved on to 3E and flat out refused to participate in anything like D20/OGL due to Dancey, because I refused to legitimize any of his stance. I have an entire three foot shelf of TSR books but I haven't bought anything in the last 6 years mostly because of what they tried to pull then. I find it rather ironic that when WotC was the small guy startup, they nearly died from the bigger fish suing them over the idea derivative works and less than a decade later, when WotC was the big fish in the sea, the same people took the exact opposite stance that got them off the ground.
beyond religious conviction,
Do you even understand the difference betwween religion, morality and ethics?
# Would it be ethical for scientists to create extra embryos that they have absolutely no intention of using for fertility, so they may conduct research on them when someone comes in to try to produce a child?
That's not the issue we're discussing here. If thats one of Bush's reasons for vetoing the bill, then he is guilty of incompetence. The embryos to be used were leftovers. Furthermore, no more would be created after the passing of the bill than would have otherwise.
It's a likely unintended consequence of encouraging it, therefore, directly related.
Is it ethical to create more than one or two at a time which they plan to attempt to impregnant a woman with since there is a very high likelihood that the rest will go to waste or is it a matter of convenience to do more than they need at once even though the rest will be discarded?
This is irrelevant. It is going to happen anyways.
Why is it going to happen anyway, and should it? Are we deliberately creating extra embryos so we can use them for scientific research? Are you sure there aren't people who would/are do it for expediency and to win your point of view that "they exist anyway so why not use them?"
Is it ethical to even create embryos outside of the normal process simply because a couple wants to have a child but hasn't been able to?
irrelevant
It's not irrelevant. If we weren't doing it, we wouldn't have the embryos to discard.
Is it ethical to sift through the many embryos that were created to pick the one you want with the right gene sequences?
irrelevent
Sure it is... the more embryos created to increase choice, the more that have to be discarded.
Would it be ok to harvest organs from prisoners condemned to death since they're going to die anyway?
irrelevant.
You claim we should harvest any and all embryos we want because they're going to be destroyed. It's the same argument.
But then, you fail to provide a single shred of evidence in support of your crime. This is why you get D's on all your essays. Once you provide a thesis, you must defend it somehow. Go on, tell me -what were the rational reasons for bush's decision?
It is not I who haven't supported my decision, it is you. EVERY answer you give is "because the embryos will be discarded anyway." The deeper question is why are we deliberately creating embryos to discard in the first place and is it ethical to encourage scientists to deliberately create more embryos for the sake of unproven research when we can study a similar cell (adult, placenta, etc stem cells) without the ethical hangups before we push all gung ho for something which does raise questions... Just because you feel the questions are irrelevant (probably due to your complete hatred of christians (of which, I am not - I'm an atheist), Bush, conservatives, etc), doesn't mean that those questions aren't valid.
bush decided to veto the bill, and thus he did so against all reason.
Your scope of reason != "all reason." You're as narrowminded as the people whom you so voraciously despise.
Finally, for the record... you started your post by attacking me
Ahem, you were the one who called me douche-smear in your very first reply to me... and I'm the one attacking you? Add narcissistic paranoia to your narrowmindedness problem if you think an ethical debate is a direct attack on you but calling me a douche-smear is perfectly fine because you didn't like me challenging your assertion. When you're ready to debate rather than just simply ignore everything I say and keep screaming the same thing like a spoiled child trying to get his way, you can reply... otherwise, i'm done with this thread.
we're talking about giving stem cells to researchers instead of throwing them in the trash. I'm not sure if that has sunk in yet -think about it for a minute. Most people thought letting the researchers use them is the best idea (any benefit whatsoever would be worth it,) bush decided, against all reason, that those people were wrong.
Not against all reason, against YOUR reason. Just because you feel a certain way about a subject, especially a subjective one, doesn't instantly make the other person wrong. Even if the majority of people felt they were right doesn't mean they necessarily are (or else we'd still be hanging black people, child molesters, etc without a trial).
Would it be ethical for scientists to create extra embryos that they have absolutely no intention of using for fertility, so they may conduct research on them when someone comes in to try to produce a child? Is it ethical to create more than one or two at a time which they plan to attempt to impregnant a woman with since there is a very high likelihood that the rest will go to waste or is it a matter of convenience to do more than they need at once even though the rest will be discarded? Is it ethical to even create embryos outside of the normal process simply because a couple wants to have a child but hasn't been able to? Is it ethical to sift through the many embryos that were created to pick the one you want with the right gene sequences? Would it be ok to harvest organs from prisoners condemned to death since they're going to die anyway? Or use them as guinea pigs to speed up clinical trials for the FDA?
None of those questions involve religion even if religion does try to offer guidance to them. There is nothing wrong with asking those questions and debating the morality of them. There is nothing wrong with questioning ourselves as we push our knowledge and abilities farther and farther. With great power comes great responsibility.
When you have to resort to such tactics, it means that you really don't have much worth listening to even if you know everything there is to know about a subject. You just became your own worst enemy and lost any debate you could try to have.
In fact, my post was entirely based in ethical argument -I argued thats its incredibly unethical to do what bush did -he is ensuring that many people will suffer from diseases for longer than is necessary, because he doesn't want to see lifeless embryos that are going to be destroyed anyways, used for the purpose of benevolent scientific research.
You are trying to argue on emotion rather than reason and you show that you are no more rational than what you think about the people who's view you oppose. You're also guilty of listening to the overhyped positives (why, if we had just funded embryonic stem cells, Christopher Reeve would be walking and living a full life today instead of being in a grave) while you try to dismiss the overhyped negatives. We don't know what embryonic stem cells are capable of, much less that the research will ensure anything.
My dad is a stroke victim who lost the part of his brain which controls his left side... It's not like I don't have an interest in medical advances which could improve his life, especially something which could help him regrow that portion or otherwise give him a means of learning to control his left side. However, I think there are limits on how fast we should jump into researching new areas before we truly understand everything we're doing.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't talking about the white kids from the suburbs who are just another status symbol for their parents... they usually finish school and go on to at least do some college and live productive (though debt filled) lives. I was referring to the millions of broken inner city homes that produce children who are lucky to make it to high school before they drop out and start building a life of crime and producing the next generation of failure.
No amount of money spent on education is going to do any good if there isn't a parent there who forces the kid to go to school, do their best and stay out of trouble.
We still face problems of undereducation
Throwing more money at it won't fix the problem. We've spent hundreds of billions in new funds on top of what we were going to spend in the last 15 years and test scores are virtually unchanged. It is a social problem caused mostly by parents who don't care.
unemployment
What are we supposed to do, write everyone who gets fired a check for a million bucks? I know a LOT of people who've gotten fired and layed off and they wait until their benefits are about to run out before they start a serious crunch of a new job. Besides, we're at 4-5% unemployment, not 20%, there are MUCH bigger economic problems to worry about than that.
civil unrest
Yeah... everyone is rioting in the streets right now. There is always going to be a certain level of civil unhappiness, you can't eliminate it all without eliminating humanity.
disease
Cure every disease out there and watch another even nastier one creep up.
starvation
Generally not a major issue in the US. If you want the US to solve the starvation problems in the world, just let me know when you want to start overthrowing every 3rd world despot out there with our military. The problem isn't lack of food, it's lack of distribution.
international strife
See civil unrest... only there are very few bonds tying us together as an international community. There can never be perfect international harmony because somewhere out there, there will be at least one person who isn't happy and wants to lead a rebellion to overthrow it.
You have a low uid so I'm assuming you're not 15. I'm sorry that you still live in this happy little utopia where you get visted by Santa and the Tooth Fairy but the real world doesn't work the way you want it to and it never will. There will never be perfect harmony and happiness because each human is an individual with their own desires and viewpoint. With more than six billion people on the Earth, you're never going to get all of them to agreee on any single issue, much less the big picture.
I got a box from my local supermarket chain recently... I opened it to find a fusion (non vibrating model) sample inside. I normally use an electric but have a sensor (2 blade) razor if I want a closer shave for something. I've used the fusion 3 times now and don't notice any increase in the closeness of the shave. I also noted the near uselessness of the single blade on the back; It took me 3 tries to get the stray hair I missed under my nose. Overall, I don't see the need to switch from my current setup, especially since I can buy generic blades for my sensor for half the price of the gillette ones (however, the blades lose their sharpness 25% sooner than the brand name ones).
Firefox 1.5.0.7 on linux
DOM inpsector, Bookmarks Synchronizer, FlashGot, Flashblock, Adblock, Image Zoom
Started my browser about 18 hours ago. I've been to slashdot a few times, newegg and a couple other sites.
top shows 105m SWAP, 135m RES, 21m SHR.
Granted, I don't see some of the 400 or 500 meg marks that some people claim to see but I'd say 240 megs is rather excessive for 18 hours of being loaded (and considering I was asleep for a good chunk of that).
If you take away a verifiable record (be it an ID you can look up or an actual copy) of your vote, you open yourself to the following type scenarios:
1) Boss: You know, I really need to see your vote receipt so we can make sure you're protecting our interests. If you refuse or you don't vote the way we wanted, see you later.
2) Abusive spouse: Honey, lemme make sure you voted the way I wanted or I will beat the crap out of you.
3) Church: You heathen, you voted for people out to destroy our morality. I, requesting that you be excommunicated.
etc, etc...
you do realize that the guy wasn't jailed due to the story, merely the community was informed about his presence. There also hasn't been any cry to kick him out of our community. The reporter simply did his job by informing the community about the guy living in their back yard who has an extremely violent past, lives near a plethora of his typical victim and belongs to a class of predator with one of the highest probabilities of recidivism.
It's not like the guy raped once or twice... we're talking about a guy who was convicted of 75 rapes but openly admits to committing more than 100. Would you want your 18 year old daughter being talked up by him without her knowing who he was?
Last month, a reporter here in Rochester NY filed a story about a convicted rapist who, due to a legal technicality was not listed on the state's sex offender registry despite raping over 100 women. He was dumped in a town a short bike ride away from a boatload of his typical victim (young college girls) and the police couldn't notify ANYONE in the area, including the school about him. I've personally seen him riding his bike near the college. After the report brought the problem with the sex offender registry to light, he had a hearing and ended up on the registry. If it wasn't for the reporter breaking the story, he could have started victimizing people at any time without the community knowing. Not all rapes are reported and should the cops be the only ones who know someone who's raped over 100 people is nearby?
Bad, bad reporter trying to protect the community by telling them what the police couldn't.
that also depends on how you define conservative... I'm a conservative who might be labeled as more of a libertarian by others. I want a tiny, little federal government that mostly stays out of my life. Basically, I want a government that actually conforms to the document that gives it power, the Constitution.
That said, I don't define myself as a libertarian because they often let their ideology block common sense. We can't have an entirely free market, we have to have some sort of anti-trust controls. We can't have entirely free speech (see "fire", libel, etc).
I vote for the republicans only because they're the lesser of two evils. Given the modern nanny state, I'm not sure that we're on a path for anything short of total government subjugation. The choice between the two parties is only a matter of when.
I don't listen to Hannity but I do listen to Rush... I've also tried to listen to some Air America because I wanted to see what the other side has to say. Granted, I have a conservative bias but this is what the difference I see between them is:
Rush is funny. There is a lot of political commentary on the show but it's interwoven with parodies, talk about football, one way jokes with his staff (mostly teasing them that he knows more than them), etc. Just the other day, he spent 10 minutes talking about his new car and the ipod system on the dashboard. Hardly something political. He's also a rather positive guy who will make fun of someone rather than lash out at them in a harsh way. "Der Schlickmeister", "Sandy Burglar", "Madeline Halfbright", etc will make people on the right and in the middle chuckle to themselves while not turning them off by being too extreme. It actually takes a couple weeks to get into the full swing of the show and start getting all the little inside jokes and gags.
I haven't been able to stomach a full dose of Air America for too long. All I hear is incessant ranting that is absolutely full of spite. There is a sheer arrogance that their view is the one and only view and anyone who disagrees is some type of Satan. Er, wait, Satan would imply a god... some type of McCarthy. Basically, the entire network feels like pure red meat for the far left and there isn't much to attract the rest of the spectrum of listeners.
When Michael Savage first hit my market, I did my best to listen when he was on. It astounded me that someone actually had the balls to say some of the things those of us on the right were thinking but didn't have the balls to say in public. Over time, he got even more rabid (and self contradictory) though and now he's gone so far off the deep end that I don't listen to him at all.
As others have pointed out, radio is all about capturing as large of an audience as possible and keeping them for as long as you can so you can get the most money for your advertising. In fact, once or twice a month, Rush reminds his audience of exactly that and that's why he lightens things up instead of railing hardcore politics all the time. Air America is your Michael Savage, you have no Rush Limbaugh equivalent that I know of.
Also, as a side note... I wish the people who run around criticizing guys like Rush would make an effort to actually listen to him a couple times instead of just repeating what others have told them. I'm not saying the poster I'm replying to didn't listen to him and truly found him distasteful but too many people are too quick to judge without examining the facts for themselves. Of course, maybe I'm wrong and even moderate democrats who have listened to Rush find him as extreme as I find most of Air America.
republicans do not see the democrats as destroying the moral foundations.
Once upon a time, there was stigma about taking a public handout... these days it's an entitlement. Everyone else is supposed to provide for you. That is part of destroying the moral foundation of our country. It's no longer seen as stealing. Same with a certain President lying under oath. It was never about sex but the story broke back in the days when CNN and the alphabets were still the primary networks so people are brainwashed into believing it was about sex. How about the esteemed Senator who left a girl to drown in his car? The Klan leader who is the "conscience" of the senate?
fox is not conservative; it is propaganda along the line of Pravda
And Olbermann and John Stewart are the centrist voice on television today, right?
Anway, back in reality-land, why is the issue of hacking an election considered partisan? Are republicans not concerned that democrats could take advantage of these documented weaknesses in the elections systems?
I want a paper ballot with some security features built in (ie, on special paper that is watermarked). You must circle a name completely with a distinct oddball colored marker (perhaps teal). If you cannot circle a single name, your vote doesn't count because you're an utter moron. I want you to have to show your free, state provided ID to prove you have the right to vote before you get your ballot. I want the media to not report on any status of the election until, oh, maybe the next morning when all the polling stations are closed and the vote has been counted. Poll workers are allowed to use ballpoint pens and pencils to tally the vote and cannot have any markers in the room during such time. The ballots will be placed in a box which is secured with a lock provided by one of the two major parties which is again, placed into a box locked by a padlock by the other major party.
That seems pretty straight forward and honest to me. However, people won't go for it... especially the part about requiring a free state provided ID because that means it gets a little harder to vote early and vote often.
It sounds like you're more neoconservative than conservative. If that's the case, there's no stopping you from embarking on your journey to find the bible infested, immigrant free, raise the deficit like it's going out of style, grass is greener forums.
Everyone who disagrees with you is a neocon? I'm an atheist, I really don't give a rats ass about the bible other than the fact that people should have a right to read it, talk about it and practice it WHEREVER they want. I'm not against immigration but I am for tighter quotas and I FIRMLY believe that you either come in via the rules or you have no right bitch about is kicking you back out much less whether you get to vote in our elections. I believe the federal government needs to be reduced to it's Constitutional limits and that we need to abolish the biggest expenses first and foremost (and hint, it ain't the military... the military is a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend on socialism).
Further... slashdot is quickly becoming the "grass is greener forum" for the left. It's turning into DU/Kos level absurdity around here lately.
Since when should a conservative care what a citizens sexual preference is?
When did I ever mention ANYTHING about sexual preference? Oh, I forgot.. it's leftdot where all these assumptions are prebuilt into people who don't conform to teh groupthink.
Since when should a conservative spend considerable amounts of money on it?
Show me the bills where conservatives have spent a considerable amount of money on people's sexual preference or drop the strawman.
Since when should a conservative care where the citizens of its nation come from?
Look at what's happening in Europe as the muslims are flooding in and reproducing faster than the natives. Pretty soon, you'll see them adopting Sharia there. It's already causing a lot of tension in places like France. If you don't control the input, you can't control the outcome. If you want to see a country become destabilized as they lose the core values that binds them all together, good luck in the ensuing anarchy.
Since when *shouldn't* a (fiscal) conservative care about the ungodly amounts of money the nation gives out as 100% uncooked bacon to gigantic, inefficient and incompetent organizations?
The pork is a drop in the bucket compared to the Unconstitutional programs that are burying us in debt... and again, it ain't the military budget. That said, I'm all about reducing the federal budget to a nice lean $500 billion/year figure over the next 10 years or so. Lemme preempt your reply. The evil conservative just wants to starve the children, kill the poor and let all sick people die. Take it up with your local governments where those policies are more appropriate.
I Have Been Trolled, HAND.
newsflash: republicans see democrats destroying the moral foundation of the country, selling us out to international law via the court system, pandering for votes from illegals, wanting to destroy any successful corporation, etc.
The difference is that you see the things you disagree with, while the things you agree with you tend to gloss over. Most right wingers see CNN, NPR, BBC, etc as liberal (while most leftists call them neutral) and most liberals call Fox conservative (while most rightists call it neutral). It's all about hearing what you agree with MOST of the time and letting it reinforce your ideas.
Frankly, Slashdot is going further and further to the left... and while my post count is up lately from trying to point out the lunacy, it's growing very tiring and is pushing me away from wanting to even participate here. It's to the point where the Bush bashing and conspiracy theories creep into non-political stories. I haven't been to kuroshin in years for the same reason. If slashdot wants to turn into the next DU, that's fine... but don't be too surprised when all you have left is a bunch of people preaching to the choir and another bunch trolling.
I don't see Democrats using class and race resentment much at all. [...] giant tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes
Hmm... "giant tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes" remind me again who pays taxes. Is it possible to give tax breaks to the people who don't pay taxes? That statement alone is playing class warfare.
since 'trickle-down economics' was proved stupid by Reagan
Funny... what was it that pulled us out of Jimmah Carter's "malaise?" I seem to remember the 80s having a large rebirth of the American economy and the money corporations saved in taxes went to infrastructure and research, both of which made the boom of the 90s possible.
corrupt Republicans outnumber corrupt Democrats by about eighteen to one, judging by the Abramoff mess.
There are plenty of democrats tied in with the Ambramoff mess... not to mention if you look around in places like New Orleans, Chicago and the Clinton Administration (sleepovers for money, political contributions from china, John Huang, donations for the presidential library turning into pardons, etc). It's rather disingenuous to proclaim one is better than the other
corrupt racist white elite politicians tend to be the Republicans.
There are plenty on the left too... and I would argue that the whole notion that minority people NEED affirmative action, welfare, etc is inherently racist because it implies they are incapable of doing it on their own.
The current batch of Republicans in power have absolutely no fiscal responsibility whatsoever
I'll agree completely there. However, it's not like the democrats haven't played obstructionist when the republicans tried to make changes to the most expensive programs out there (ie, social security reform).
Why is it that with the last Republican presidents we've seen record deficits, but exactly the opposite with recent Democrat presidents?
Lets see...
Carter (D): Economic Malaise (his term) with a democrat congress. Double digit inflation, double digit interest, stagflation, etc
Reagan (R): Turned the economy around while a democrat congress drastically increased domestic spending in exchange for his policies which ended the soviet union
GHW Bush 41 (R): Much the same as Reagan, also with a democrat Congress. 1991 recession was largely due to poor money supply policy by the Federal Reserve.
Clinton (D): Started out wildly spending with a democrat Congress, immediately raised taxes and attempted to take over 1/7th of the US economy. Immediately bitchslapped and replaced with a republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich who forced some fiscal restraint. Huge economy boom from the investments made thanks to Reaganomics paying off which increased federal tax receipts (more commerce * same tax rate = higher receipts). Recession began at the end of his term, largely caused by a combination of Federal Reserve raising interest rates, highish tax rates (though not as bad as the Carter years) and the collapse of the totally irrational dotcom bubble.
GW Bush 42 (R): Gave a $500 tax rebate to all tax payers to help stimulate the economy and limit the recession with the help of a republican congress. The effects of 9/11 and the dotcom bubble affected the economy for years afterward. Tax receipts are growing faster than estimated but the republicans, in an attempt to triangulate the democrats away, have sold us out by increasing domestic spending drastically.
The cycles of the last 30 years largely have to do with tax rate imposed by the government and how much the entitlement programs are expanded regardless of who is in office. I also find it funny that while you give "the last couple democrats" some lip service about being great at the economy, you completely overlook the second to last democratic president who presided over the worst economy, second only to the Great Depression, in the United States. Take off the blinders, fo
Between the cost, the frustration of usually never getting a message back (I'd rather hear "thanks, but I don't think it'd work out" than never hear back at all - at least then it's a clean break)
Don't forget the ones who initiate contact with you so you go through the subscription process to write them back and they never write back to your response to them. Over the last 4 years on match, I've had 3 women write me and 5 wink at me. Only one of them ever wrote back (and we dated for about 2 months). Of all the ones I initiated contact with, none wrote back. Part of me thinks the ones who write/wink and don't reply when you do are part of a scam just to get your money knowing that if you wait a few days to give them a reasonable response time, it's too late to cancel before getting charged.
The real problem with Net Neutrailty is what happenes when only 1 isp can give you broadband.
Chances are, if you only have one choice of broadband provider, you live out in the middle of nowhere. That is one of the tradeoffs for living in an unpopulated place and they should be grateful to have broadband at all. I live in a mostly residential farm town. It's 2.5 miles to the nearest grocery store, 25 miles to the nearest computer store, etc but I do it because I can't stand the issues that come with the population density of city life. I might have to drive places but I don't need to listen to sirens going down the street, worry about violent crime, live in a neighborhood infested with roaches, etc. The nearest city got broadband in the mid 90s and I had to wait until about 2000 but I now have my choice of DSL (placed a CO in town a couple years ago) or cable.
If there isn't enough business to warrant cable/dsl in a rural town, nothing is stopping them from implementing some type of co-op access via wifi or something. There's also the satellite option (though it would be crappy as hell for gaming). My point being that we make choices and tradeoffs in our lives every day and there's no such thing as having everything we want.
how come whenever anyone proposes stuff like net neutrality or alternative fuels the conservatives say "the free market will take care of it"?
I'm a conservative in the strict Constitutionalist sense of the word. I think limited regulation is good but too much regulation or no regulation is harmful.
I see net neutrality as a solution in search of a problem. Some ISPs are out there threatening to charge the Googles of the world extra fees for carrying their data, throttling VOIP so it can't compete with their service as well, etc so people here at Slashdot are in a tizzy that something needs to be done to regulate it. That's the wrong attitude because it instantly assumes that the customers are completely powerless and can exert no force on the markets themselves. The minute popular sites like google get throttled, customers will be all over their ISPs complaining about how things don't work right and that if it doesn't get fixed, they're leaving for a competitor who won't engage in such practices. If every provider in the area engages in such things, someone will step in and change that if the customers rattle their cages loud enough. They could build a co-op, threaten to terminate utilities monopoly rights to the roadsides unless they comply, etc.
Legislation is the last step to try, not the first. Government is rarely the solution to problems because it is the largest tool you have and it WILL affect things in unforseen ways. Net neutrality gets implemented and suddenly, ISPs can't setup a low latency path to popular game servers to improve their customer's gameplay, they can't cache large popular files with a proxy, etc. Depending on the language of the bill, they might not even be able to peer with a larger network with faster pipes than a smaller network. There are tons of unforseen consequences in such broad legislation and you take a huge risk that you're going to make things worse... and good luck on fixing it after one bill has already been passed, it might take decades.
All that said, just up the thread here, people asked why conservatives think we have a free market economy. We don't think we have a free market economy. LOTS of us regular joe fiscal conservatives believe that the amount of regulation and taxation is EXTREMELY out of control though. Personally, I want to see the federal government reduced to what it's legally allowed to do under the Constitution (ie, handle interstate commerce and foreign relations (including military) and that's about it) and a lot of conservatives would agree, even many who are trying to get into office for the first time. However, once you're actually in office, your idealism all fades away as you realize you have no hope of changing anything because if you refuse to take pork for your district to set an example, the money will just get spent somewhere else and your opponent will accuse you of not bringing home the bacon. Try to reduce the federal entitlement programs (which are ALL ENTIRELY Unconstitutional IMO) and you get demogogued about wanting to starve children and old people, throw people out into the streets, etc. The longer you stay a part of that system, you will eventually lose faith that you can push your ideals into action.
In fact, that is one of the reasons why it was a HORRIBLE idea to make Senators popularly elected instead of chosen by state governments. It's the United STATES of America and the Senators were there to push for the interest of the states instead of being beholden to the immediate interests of the people. The Senate was once the chamber of esteem and statesmenship but today, it's more raucous than the house because usually a Senator has to pander to a significantly larger group of people and often, will only play up to the major population centers while ignoring the rest of the state. Here in NY, most of the state is actually fairly conservative - you'd think we were a midwest state but New York City dominates the state's politics on every level and instead of having a balance
She claims her take amounts to only about $60 a month, noting that if she made more than $85, the government would reduce her $601 monthly disability check.
My dad suffered a brain aneurysm and stroke in 1998 leaving his left arm 99% paralyzed (he can move the shoulder a matter of a couple degrees but that's it for the entire arm and hand) and his left leg paralyzed enough that he can't walk on his own. Further, there are documented short term memory problems, confusion, confabulation, etc. We still had to *PROVE* that he was unable to work a meaningful job to qualify for disability to begin with. Every few years, he's supposed to requalify but his case is bad enough that they usually just give him an exception to that.
If this woman is deliberately holding back from earning a leaving because she will lose disability income, ESPECIALLY if she's capable of earning a full living by working as a web designer or something similar for a living wage, isn't she defrauding the government and all the taxpayers? She's capable of tending to a garden and get to her neighbors to help them in addition to doing computer work. Granted, I don't know all the details but just on what I see here, it smells a little fishy to me and should require a fraud investigation. If even just 10% of all Social Security payments are fraudulent, you're looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of $120 billion in fraud each year at just the federal level.
GPL has a very specific clause that says it can't be linked with anything that has a more restrictive license. Apache and the like are linked against LGPL code rather than GPL code because the LGPL specifically allows linking with more restrictive code. Now, here's the problem: GPL 3 *IS* more restrictive than GPL 2. You have to open up your patents on GPL 3 code, give away your private keys, etc. Therefore, GPL 2 code cannot be linked with GPL 3 code.
Lets say GTK, GNOME and glibc all switch from LGPL (which Stallman hates) to GPL 3. No GPL 2 apps can link with supported versions of glibc, gtk, gnome, etc so those core projects will have to be forked to remain GPL 2. Similarly, Apache, Firefox, etc can't link with any of that GPL 3 code because their license is already encumbered with problems that won't let them link to GPL 2 code (but they link with LGPL code fine), much less the problems with new GPL 3 restrictions.
Commercial interests (normally distributions like Redhat) who currently fund development of gcc, glibc, gnome, etc are going to be hard pressed to let their developers go to GPL 3 if it means they can't do things like sign their packages without giving out their private keys. Further, they're going to be forced to work around all the landmines between what is allowed to link to what because GPL 3 and GPL 2 aren't compatable. They have a strong interest in pulling their developers out to work on a fork of the GPL 2 tools, leaving the FSF high and dry on GPL 3 development anyway. So you'll have some ideologues working on GPL 3 stuff while a ton of other people work on GPL 2 stuff. GPL 3 developers will generally have the right to take the GPL 2 additions and use them in the GPL 3 codebase (ie, the version 2 or later clause makes all the GPL stuff GPL 3'd anyway if someone wants to use it that way), but GPL 3 stuff can't be moved to the GPL 2 codebase. It'll be the UNIX wars of the 80s all over again.
BTW, I have yet to see a reference to a LGPL 3... is one actually being planned? If so, it seems that it would probably be at odds with everything Stallman wants to do with GPL 3. As a developer (of nothing particularly interesting), I love the GPL 2 while the GPL 3 seems to be at odds with my rights. I'll continue to write GPL 2 code with the restriction that it is GPL 2 only and can't be used under newer GPL licenses specifically because the FSF has betrayed my trust that they would continue to do the right thing for my rights in that half of the GPL bargain.
then you're going to need to explain why black voters are almost all Democrats and why rural Southern whites are almost all Republicans
Democrat to inner city(which is primarily minority): "The republicans want to starve your children, kill the elderly and take away your entitlements. You need to vote for us to stop them. BTW, rural america is a bunch of uneducated racist rednecks."
Republican to rural America(which is primarily white): "The democrats continue to raise taxes to give your money to the people in the cities who would rather collect a welfare check than go to work. Vote for us and we'll reform the system."
There isn't really any racism involved, it's all about one side demogoguing the other to pander to their constituents and they're both really good at it.
Exit polls have a lot of assumptions built into them as well. If a county votes roughly 70% to 30% in nearly every election, all they need to do is call the county and get the voter turnout. From there, they make an assumption that things followed the statistical trend because it's impossible to exit poll every location in the US.
For a specific example, take the case of the Hasidic Jews in Rockland County in 2000. They have a pretty long streak of voting overwhelmingly conservative but they voted 1400 to 12 for Hillary Clinton in the Senate race. Exit polling probably wouldn't have been conducted manually in that district given the past and the results would probably be roughly opposite of what the exit polling would have expected them to be.
In any given two year cycle, things can happen in districts which would make the locals vote in ways they normally wouldn't, but not all of those things make it on the radar significantly enough to warrant manual exit polling.
From the article: ... and very, very few game companies do. By that reading, a book like The Primal Order can be produced without permission from the original publisher, as long as care is taken in the use of the trademarks.
By most peoples' reading of laws, game companies can protect the actual text of the games via copyright, and they can protect the use of their system names for marketing via trademark. However, they can't actually protect the game systems themselves unless they file patents for them as inventions
Back in 2000, Ryan Dancey, the D&D Brand Manager for Hasbro, and to a lesser extent, Peter Adkinson himself, were involved in a rather large multithread debate on rec.games.frp.dnd (there are a lot more threads), the TSR/WotC website, etc where Dancey pretty much explicitly stated that any creative work players produced in their AD&D games were derivative works of TSR/WotC and thus wholly owned by TSR, automatically invalidating any copyright that the actual creator had on the work and granting full copyright on their material to TSR/WotC even if the majority of the work was generic and made little reference to AD&D.
At the time, I immediately pulled all of the material about the campaign world I created off the net. It basically only used the AD&D rules and involved new character classes, monsters, maps, new worlds, etc. Dancey went so far as to claim even using the rules (which weren't patented and even if they had been patented, would have already expired) made the work of campaigns like mine derivative of AD&D and thus the sole property of TSR/WotC.
Needless to say, I never moved on to 3E and flat out refused to participate in anything like D20/OGL due to Dancey, because I refused to legitimize any of his stance. I have an entire three foot shelf of TSR books but I haven't bought anything in the last 6 years mostly because of what they tried to pull then. I find it rather ironic that when WotC was the small guy startup, they nearly died from the bigger fish suing them over the idea derivative works and less than a decade later, when WotC was the big fish in the sea, the same people took the exact opposite stance that got them off the ground.
beyond religious conviction,
Do you even understand the difference betwween religion, morality and ethics?
# Would it be ethical for scientists to create extra embryos that they have absolutely no intention of using for fertility, so they may conduct research on them when someone comes in to try to produce a child?
That's not the issue we're discussing here. If thats one of Bush's reasons for vetoing the bill, then he is guilty of incompetence. The embryos to be used were leftovers. Furthermore, no more would be created after the passing of the bill than would have otherwise.
It's a likely unintended consequence of encouraging it, therefore, directly related.
Is it ethical to create more than one or two at a time which they plan to attempt to impregnant a woman with since there is a very high likelihood that the rest will go to waste or is it a matter of convenience to do more than they need at once even though the rest will be discarded?
This is irrelevant. It is going to happen anyways.
Why is it going to happen anyway, and should it? Are we deliberately creating extra embryos so we can use them for scientific research? Are you sure there aren't people who would/are do it for expediency and to win your point of view that "they exist anyway so why not use them?"
Is it ethical to even create embryos outside of the normal process simply because a couple wants to have a child but hasn't been able to?
irrelevant
It's not irrelevant. If we weren't doing it, we wouldn't have the embryos to discard.
Is it ethical to sift through the many embryos that were created to pick the one you want with the right gene sequences?
irrelevent
Sure it is... the more embryos created to increase choice, the more that have to be discarded.
Would it be ok to harvest organs from prisoners condemned to death since they're going to die anyway?
irrelevant.
You claim we should harvest any and all embryos we want because they're going to be destroyed. It's the same argument.
But then, you fail to provide a single shred of evidence in support of your crime. This is why you get D's on all your essays. Once you provide a thesis, you must defend it somehow. Go on, tell me -what were the rational reasons for bush's decision?
It is not I who haven't supported my decision, it is you. EVERY answer you give is "because the embryos will be discarded anyway." The deeper question is why are we deliberately creating embryos to discard in the first place and is it ethical to encourage scientists to deliberately create more embryos for the sake of unproven research when we can study a similar cell (adult, placenta, etc stem cells) without the ethical hangups before we push all gung ho for something which does raise questions... Just because you feel the questions are irrelevant (probably due to your complete hatred of christians (of which, I am not - I'm an atheist), Bush, conservatives, etc), doesn't mean that those questions aren't valid.
bush decided to veto the bill, and thus he did so against all reason.
Your scope of reason != "all reason." You're as narrowminded as the people whom you so voraciously despise.
Finally, for the record...
you started your post by attacking me
Ahem, you were the one who called me douche-smear in your very first reply to me... and I'm the one attacking you? Add narcissistic paranoia to your narrowmindedness problem if you think an ethical debate is a direct attack on you but calling me a douche-smear is perfectly fine because you didn't like me challenging your assertion. When you're ready to debate rather than just simply ignore everything I say and keep screaming the same thing like a spoiled child trying to get his way, you can reply... otherwise, i'm done with this thread.
we're talking about giving stem cells to researchers instead of throwing them in the trash. I'm not sure if that has sunk in yet -think about it for a minute. Most people thought letting the researchers use them is the best idea (any benefit whatsoever would be worth it,) bush decided, against all reason, that those people were wrong.
Not against all reason, against YOUR reason. Just because you feel a certain way about a subject, especially a subjective one, doesn't instantly make the other person wrong. Even if the majority of people felt they were right doesn't mean they necessarily are (or else we'd still be hanging black people, child molesters, etc without a trial).
Would it be ethical for scientists to create extra embryos that they have absolutely no intention of using for fertility, so they may conduct research on them when someone comes in to try to produce a child? Is it ethical to create more than one or two at a time which they plan to attempt to impregnant a woman with since there is a very high likelihood that the rest will go to waste or is it a matter of convenience to do more than they need at once even though the rest will be discarded? Is it ethical to even create embryos outside of the normal process simply because a couple wants to have a child but hasn't been able to? Is it ethical to sift through the many embryos that were created to pick the one you want with the right gene sequences? Would it be ok to harvest organs from prisoners condemned to death since they're going to die anyway? Or use them as guinea pigs to speed up clinical trials for the FDA?
None of those questions involve religion even if religion does try to offer guidance to them. There is nothing wrong with asking those questions and debating the morality of them. There is nothing wrong with questioning ourselves as we push our knowledge and abilities farther and farther. With great power comes great responsibility.
Okay listen up douche-smear
When you have to resort to such tactics, it means that you really don't have much worth listening to even if you know everything there is to know about a subject. You just became your own worst enemy and lost any debate you could try to have.
In fact, my post was entirely based in ethical argument -I argued thats its incredibly unethical to do what bush did -he is ensuring that many people will suffer from diseases for longer than is necessary, because he doesn't want to see lifeless embryos that are going to be destroyed anyways, used for the purpose of benevolent scientific research.
You are trying to argue on emotion rather than reason and you show that you are no more rational than what you think about the people who's view you oppose. You're also guilty of listening to the overhyped positives (why, if we had just funded embryonic stem cells, Christopher Reeve would be walking and living a full life today instead of being in a grave) while you try to dismiss the overhyped negatives. We don't know what embryonic stem cells are capable of, much less that the research will ensure anything.
My dad is a stroke victim who lost the part of his brain which controls his left side... It's not like I don't have an interest in medical advances which could improve his life, especially something which could help him regrow that portion or otherwise give him a means of learning to control his left side. However, I think there are limits on how fast we should jump into researching new areas before we truly understand everything we're doing.