"The problem with China invading Taiwan and Japan is that the Chinese navy has far from the capabilities to move its huge army across to those island nations."
But they ARE building large landing craft in an attempt to gain that capability. And they don't even necessarily have to put troops on Taiwan. They could simply pound it to dust.
The Chinese government is determined, one way or another, and by force if necessary, to swallow up Taiwan.
Most things humans do effect the entire society. By that rationalization, you could justify pretty much any government control over our lives.
People getting fat? Health care costs go up. Ban pizza. Mandate vegetable consumption.
Auto accidents? Ban private cars. Mandate public transportation use.
I've got two children, and I've had them both vaccinated. But lets not pretend that there are no dangers with vaccines. Our doctors were, to their credit, very upfront with us about that. You're essentially taking a chance, playing the numbers when you take a vaccine, as a percentage of people will always have adverse reactions. Those numbers of adverse reactions are statistically low, and your chances are pretty good, but I do have a friend whose daughter lost the use of her legs from a vaccination. It does happen. And as for the HPV vaccine, you can't call all those parents nutjobs when Gardisil has had some unexpected side-effects. And should a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease be mandatory anyway?
Non-vaccinated people are a danger to no one but themselves. If everyone else is vaccinated, they're safe. And far from under-vaccinating, the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that we may be over-vaccinating. Increasing disease resistance to drugs and immunizations is a far greater threat to the populace than any parent withholding a vaccine.
It was indeed. Look at the 1939 World's Fair in NYC....look at the art, the exhibits, the buildings. Look at the Trylon and Perisphere. Look at each company's building. It was all a prediction of how they hoped the future would look, a prediction that was dazzling and brilliant to people still recovering from the great depression. Everything in art and architecture and engineering from the 30's until the war was a way of looking forward while not ignoring the glories of the past. This ethos, this hope gave us the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building. It gave us art deco. It gave us the DC-3 and the classic sleek trains of the period. Look at what we replaced them with. Boring glass and steel boxes resembling communist worker housing. Post modern art that looked more like a house painter's drop cloth than a work of artistic genius. Even our appliances and furniture, so rare and expensive in the depression, that became affordable to all after the war, became square and ugly.
Most of those predictions the creators of the '39 Worlds' Fair made have come to pass. But oh, not nearly as beautiful as they were first dreamed...
"Use IMAP with a low quota and make the students store their own mail on their own computers."
Why give email addresses to students at all now?
Back when I was in college in the 90's, it made sense for colleges to give students an email address, because in the early to mid 90's, Internet usage still wasn't widespread. Email was a strange and foreign novelty to most then. My first email address was supplied by my school, and I had to physically go to the computer lab to access my mail on a green or orange colored dumb terminal with text-only displays (hey, that was actually fun, though).
Now, the Internet is everywhere, and just about everyone has several email addresses, most of them from free services like Gmail, Yahoo Mail, or Hotmail. Why give a kid yet another email address to keep track of, one that will be taken away from them after graduation?
Why not just require a student to supply an email address when they first arrive, and use that? Then it stays in the admin records, and whenever a new class roster is created each semester, each instructor/grad assistant/professor will be supplied with their students' email addresses along with names, phone numbers, etc.
"Man, I'm sick of this strawman argument. The only people who want everything free, forevah, are retarded 12-year olds."
Well, then Slashdot is dominated by retarded 12 year olds. Because the dominant ethos here is "I want it free, and if you don't give it to me, I'll steal it, and there's nothing you can do about it".
A little background first: I work in IT at an airport, and I'm somewhat familiar with some of the administrative aspects of airport management.
"The problem with building more runways is that in most areas (New York, Los Angelas, Chicago), development is already done around the major airport. You can't expand further out."
While this is true somewhat, its still not an impediment to airport growth. Most airports are public entities, and thus have powers of eminent domain. Most will try to buy properties they want without resorting to ED in order to keep good relations with the neighbors, but if pressed, they'll use ED if needed. Airports have purchased entire border neighborhoods and paved them over, and they've gone to court and seized them as well. They still have to pay compensation, but likely not what owners would have gotten had they sold when first approached.
"What's needed is for airlines to move away from the hub and spoke model, and fly smaller planes directly between routes."
Airlines are already doing this, but with mixed success. The fact is, those kinds of routes just aren't as profitable. In fact, the airline industry will probably contract severely over the next twenty years. We might well end up with only two or three major carriers, and far fewer airports, as smaller regional airports close down. In order to keep current levels of air service, unless a major technology breakthrough comes along that makes direct flights cheaper, it'll take massive government subsidies to keep the number of flights we have now. I just don't see that happening.
Just as the coming of the airliner spelled the end of passenger rail, the coming of teleconferencing may spell the end of business travel, which is what drove the airlines in the first place. The airline industry will likely be dominated by cargo in a quarter century, with goods far outstripping people in the airplanes. Its likely that air freight companies will be America's largest commercial air providers in a quarter century. Fedex already has the largest commercial fleet in the world.
A much-smaller airline industry will be transporting mostly pleasure travelers, as high speed Internet has made long distance meetings a reality. America's greatest aircraft designer, Lockheed's Kelly Johnson, has predicted that the airline industry will basically disappear soon because of advances in IT. Looking at the numbers, its hard to disagree with him
Why is this story worthy of a post on Slashdot? So someone has come up with yet another MS Office competitor. Google already has Internet-accessed office apps. Others do as well. And there have been Office clones, free and otherwise, for over a decade. What makes this one so special? Was it that slow in the Slashdot bullpen today?
The parent poster is trolling, but he has a point...there are several factors that insure Linux will not be a dominant desktop anytime soon.
Ironically, some of those factors are the very reasons that Linux is so popular among computer rebels....the nearly unlimited choices they have. The problem is that one of those choices is the choice of GUI. Linux users will never agree on anything, much less unite on a single GUI to use. Until there is one kernel, one filesystem, one GUI on the majority of distros, most OEM's wont install Linux, and most commercial software companies won't write software for it either.
Companies (and people) like simplicity. Windows has a standard interface. OS X has a standard interface. Linux does not. We won't even get into the issues with GPL topics (and just as importantly, the demands by Linux users that all software be free as in beer; the successes here have been few on a large scale, and mostly with games by ID software).
Will more people be adopting Linux on the desktop? Yes. Will the general public in the US and Europe ever make Linux adoption as wide as say, the Mac? No. Linux on the desktop will largely stay in the realm of "power users" and academics.
I bet if you took a survey on Slashdot, you'd find far fewer Linux desktop users than you might think. Just about everyone runs Linux in the data center...but on the desktop?
"I still think your objection to embryonic research is down right stupid."
Thinking your opponents are stupid. Wow, there's a shock.
"stem cell researchers were using cells from unused IVF samples, not killing babies as you people like to compare it to. I can't even begin to understand how you could equate a couple of cells in a petree dish to a human."
Humans start somewhere. Where do you put that point at? Are fertilized eggs a whole person yet? Obviously not. Does that mean they're not human life then? Of course not. When you can create human life from scratch, then come back and claim you can declare when life begins.
"And no, this line of research would still have been pursured without your stupid agenda, because it solves other problems not rooted in religous objections."
This research took off precisely because of ethical concerns. It never would have gotten nearly as much support if scientists were allowed to take the easy way out and simply use human fetuses.
"So you don't get to claim this is some kind of victory."
Yes, yes we can. The liklihood that this research will largely displace the human fetus as a source of cells is a direct result of the President's policies, backed by the strong support of those policies from pro-life voters. Because of those policies, we can now conduct advanced, life-saving research, without the cost of chucking our ethics out the window and abandoning our own souls. This IS a victory, and thank God for it.
"I'm not trolling here, I am genuinely curious as to how further weakening our reputation in the international community is going to lead to the international community loving us."
You're just recycling John Kerry's "rebuild our alliances" argument. Its just as flawed now as it was then.
We've refused to abandon Iraq and Afghanistan, and rather than pushing Europe over the edge, those aging-leftists that were in office have been kicked out. Germany? Elected pro-alliance Angela Merkel. Britain? The new PM says America is "their most important ally". France? The French elected a man that's unabashedly pro-US. Canada? US-friendly Stephen Harper was just put into office.
Meanwhile, the countries that were pro-US all along....Italy, Japan, Poland, the list goes on....are still pro-US.
And our policies have stayed the same.
So, just what alliances were we supposed to "rebuild"?
Russia? China? Venezuela?
The "international community" is never going to love us. But most are never going to truly hate us either. Because nations don't have friends, they have interests. Its in Western Europe's interest to be our ally. Its in Russia's interest to undermine us. None of it is done out of love, or hate. Politics is, and always has been, cold calculation.
"They won't be doing that much time for a failed attempt at fixing the election. And, as has been shown in Florida, and 4 years later in Ohio, they will do no time for a successful attempt."
"They"? Who are "they" and what election did they steal? Proof? Something from a reliable source, please? And invoking Alex Jones is like invoking Hitler in usenet; it automatically disqualifies you.
Do you honestly think for a single second that most American Democrats would just lay down if they honestly, truly believe the election was stolen? Do you honestly believe the GOP got away with massive vote fraud in two elections, and the Democratic Party just sat on their hands?
Are you saying those Miami Herald investigations that declared Bush would have won the 2000 recounts was nothing but GOP propoganda? That they lied?
George Bush hasn't even been able to get the nominees he wants for many of his appointments. Are you telling me that those same Democrats that stonewall him at every turn just laid down for him in 2000 and 2004?
"Here's another happy slogan from an old college student of the '70s: When the revolution comes, he's going to be among the first with his back to a brick wall being offered the choice of a blindfold - or not."
Your revolution is never coming. Not in this country, anyway. And the reason why no one listened to, or in your own words, tolerated the listening of bands like Kiss is because you wannabe-hippies lived in a completely different world than the blue collar kids that listened to Kiss and went to their concerts.
"with mass-reproducible art forms - music, photography, print, film, industries were created which took copyright away from the content creators"
What? Who took that copyright away? Not Congress, which is the only entity that can grant or revoke it.
What you're really saying is "if technology allows me to copy it, I'm going to do it no matter what the law says". Technology allows you to break into my house with a lockpick. That damn well doesn't make it moral.
"It's clear what Gene Simmons' priorities are. Oh, besides being a greedy bastard. "
I keep seeing these dumb comments about "greed" and "he was in it to get rich".
Well, fscking duh. Of course he was in it to get rich. Rock bands are started with two dreams in mind...get rich, and get laid. Anyone here who's ever been in a band and claims they want neither is a goddam liar.
And please, no lectures about artistic integrity or changing the world being the most important things. No one would give a shit about Bob Dylan or John Lennon if they hadn't sold millions of records. For you people that think Lennon and McCartney did it all for artistic purity, I'd suggest you listen to what McCartney himself says about that....when they were songwriting, Lennon used to tell him "We have the house, now lets write a pool. Later, we can write a jaguar and then maybe a nice vacation". I'd argue that no one in music has guarded their copyrights more jealously than Apple Corps, the Beatle's holding company.
"Worse, he's a GREEDY dinosaur. Has anyone seen his "reality" show? My wife loves it, but I can't stand it because it's all about him trying to sell Kiss' collective souls for as much profit as possible. The guy seems like he cares much more about making money than enjoying life."
How the fsck would you know that? By all indications, Simmons loves what he does. He's rich. He has a business empire. He's shacked up with Shannon Tweed, gets more pussy than Petco, and has two kids he adores. He gets millions of dollars for doing what enjoys most. I'd be willing to be he's enjoying his life a hell of a lot more than someone bitching on Slashdot.
"Would I give up some of my money to support a sensible plan to improve the overall standard of living in my nation? You betcha! Voila une liberal!"
Be specific. All but the most hardcore Libertarians would be willing to give up some of their money for the betterment of their nation. The question is how much? I'd be willing to bet what your idea of "how much" is would be vastly different from mine.
"The simple truth of it is that it is a lot better for society to shoulder costs like education, care for the disabled, workfare, etc, because if society doesn't shoulder the cost, then individuals have to shoulder the costs and that generally causes problems itself and results in a less effective solution. "
The next time someone has the gall to claim that Slashdot is really a Libertarian website, please explain to me how the above post gets 5 stars and modded insightful.
That post basically apes much of the Democratic Party platform
"Just about everyone outside the US views libertarianism as some sort of extreme anarcho-capitalism being economically far right, and socially conservative (Small government)."
That used to be true, but it isn't any more. Libertarianism in this country has changed radically. At one time, Libertarians were for small government first, and then social conservatism second. Libertarian Republicans raised money for Barry Goldwater by selling Bibles at his rallies in the early 60's.
My, how they've changed though.
In the past twenty years, Libertarians (both LP members and Libertarian Republicans) have done a 180 on social issues, embracing abortion on demand, the legalization of prostitution and drugs, and turning very hostile to religion. There's a strong atheist contingent in Libertarian circles now. In addition, they're polar opposites of conservatives (and the vast majority of the population, for that matter) on the illegal immigration issue, advocating open borders and a completely open labor situation. To top it off, they've become damn near isolationist in their foreign policy thinking.
These aren't your father's Libertarians. And that's why there's a messy divorce going on in the GOP right now. The Conservatives and the Libertarians have basically realized that their ideas are becoming mostly incompatible.
"I've also taken it to mean that when you're 40, you have money and property you want to be greedy about and protect, and so don't care as much about the welfare of your fellow man."
Spoken like a man that's never had much money or property, nor having to defend it against those that want a piece of it in the name of "fairness".
"When anything more than the dismal world of blue-collar education requires a university degree, it sure is a necessity."
No it isn't. I'm so tired of people pushing college as a universal economic solution. We'll end up making college meaningless if we stay on this path.
Dismal blue collar world? I've got a bachelor's degree, and my plumber makes more than I do. So does the guy that fixes my heating and air conditioning. I'm pretty sure that one of the senior mechanics at the auto shop I patronize makes more than I do. I'm not rich, but I'm not poor either. Those guys are highly skilled, with skills that are marketable.
The average college graduate does indeed make more than the average non-graduate. But many college grads are not in jobs that actually requires a college education, and most of those non-graduates don't have marketable skills, either.
You do not have to go to college to be successful if you're hard working and willing to learn skills that are in demand. Furthermore, we need to stop changing college into an extension of high school, a universal "right" that is turning colleges into glorified vocational schools.
"Speaking as a Navy veteran, I hardly think that the military is a good way of putting yourself through university. Programmes like the G.I. Bill give you enough money for a second-rate state school. You can't easily get through four years at a decent private university through the military."
Speaking as another Navy veteran, I couldn't disagree with you more. The base GI Bill college funding will get you through the vast number of state colleges available. I don't know what you consider "second rate", but the GI Bill will get you through excellent state universities such as Penn State, Florida State, Auburn, etc, the list goes on. You might have to work a summer or part time job, but it'll get you through. Keep in mind that in some miltary branches, they give extra college benefits for enlisting in needed skillsets or longer enlistment periods, so depending on your choices, more than the base amount of GI Bill benefits are available, And as a Navy vet, surely you remember that the Navy is pretty generous about subsidizing college classes while on active duty. I took math classes at sea, and a local air force base near me has an extension campus of a state university right on base, with wide participation from both airmen and officers. The military's education benefits, far from being paltry, are outstanding.
As for the issue of private vs. state colleges, any honest education expert or employer will tell you that "elite" universities have been nigh indistinguishable from state universities at the undergraduate level for years now. There are exceptions, but they are few, and are tilted towards the technical side of education, with institutions such as MIT and Cal Tech. In general though, go to an employer like GE or Boeing, and an undergraduate engineering degree from Princeton isn't really an advantage over a similar degree from Texas A&M or Georgia Tech. Grad schools are where the elites make their mark, and even that advantage is eroding.
I wasn't going to get into an elite university anyway...most don't....so the GI Bill made college a reality without years of debt. I appreciated that, most other vets appreciate that, even if you don't.
"University loans are shackles."
All loans are "shackles". But more importantly, all loans are a trade....a trade of time and money for something you want. If what you take out that loan for is important enough to you, you'll pay the bill. So if you really have no interest in bettering yourself intellectually or becoming a leader, and you just want to make more money, then yes, student loans can be a shackle, because you're basically buying something you don't truly need. If you're willing to get a little dirty, there are good livings to be made in the blue collar sector, and even in other sectors. Does a lower level system adminis
"Theoretically, if we had candidates that represented us instead of the interests of corporations and special interest groups, our right to vote would be worth a great deal."
It never ceases to amaze me when people start bitching about "special interest groups".
Everyone is part of a special interest group. Everyone, I don't care who you are, supports something that other people do not, and thus work with or support a group that lobbies Washington for their position. So basically, people bitching about "special interest groups" are hypocrites.
If you think the health care system is unjust and you lobby Congress for government funded health care, you're part of a special interest group.
If you think math education is lacking in this country, and you lobby Congress for more money for teachers and programs, you're part of a special interest group.
If you think people are trying to ban your guns, and you lobby Congress on the Second Ammendment, you're part of a special interest group. For that matter, if you think we have too many guns, and you lobby Congress to get rid of them, you're part of a special interest group.
Arguing against "special interest groups" is a red herring and always has been. Those groups wouldn't exist without you and me.
"Your friends to the north of you seem to have come out reasonably ok."
And in reality, they ceased to be a colony long ago. When was the last time London dictated Canadian affairs? Wrote Canadian law? While the Queen is still on their money, the Canadians (and Australians and New Zealanders, for that matter) became independent republics in all but name a long time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
"The problem with China invading Taiwan and Japan is that the Chinese navy has far from the capabilities to move its huge army across to those island nations."
But they ARE building large landing craft in an attempt to gain that capability. And they don't even necessarily have to put troops on Taiwan. They could simply pound it to dust.
The Chinese government is determined, one way or another, and by force if necessary, to swallow up Taiwan.
Most things humans do effect the entire society. By that rationalization, you could justify pretty much any government control over our lives.
People getting fat? Health care costs go up. Ban pizza. Mandate vegetable consumption.
Auto accidents? Ban private cars. Mandate public transportation use.
I've got two children, and I've had them both vaccinated. But lets not pretend that there are no dangers with vaccines. Our doctors were, to their credit, very upfront with us about that. You're essentially taking a chance, playing the numbers when you take a vaccine, as a percentage of people will always have adverse reactions. Those numbers of adverse reactions are statistically low, and your chances are pretty good, but I do have a friend whose daughter lost the use of her legs from a vaccination. It does happen. And as for the HPV vaccine, you can't call all those parents nutjobs when Gardisil has had some unexpected side-effects. And should a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease be mandatory anyway?
Non-vaccinated people are a danger to no one but themselves. If everyone else is vaccinated, they're safe. And far from under-vaccinating, the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that we may be over-vaccinating . Increasing disease resistance to drugs and immunizations is a far greater threat to the populace than any parent withholding a vaccine.
"The present was so much cooler in the past...""
It was indeed. Look at the 1939 World's Fair in NYC....look at the art, the exhibits, the buildings. Look at the Trylon and Perisphere. Look at each company's building. It was all a prediction of how they hoped the future would look, a prediction that was dazzling and brilliant to people still recovering from the great depression. Everything in art and architecture and engineering from the 30's until the war was a way of looking forward while not ignoring the glories of the past. This ethos, this hope gave us the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building. It gave us art deco. It gave us the DC-3 and the classic sleek trains of the period. Look at what we replaced them with. Boring glass and steel boxes resembling communist worker housing. Post modern art that looked more like a house painter's drop cloth than a work of artistic genius. Even our appliances and furniture, so rare and expensive in the depression, that became affordable to all after the war, became square and ugly.
Most of those predictions the creators of the '39 Worlds' Fair made have come to pass. But oh, not nearly as beautiful as they were first dreamed...
"Use IMAP with a low quota and make the students store their own mail on their own computers."
Why give email addresses to students at all now?
Back when I was in college in the 90's, it made sense for colleges to give students an email address, because in the early to mid 90's, Internet usage still wasn't widespread. Email was a strange and foreign novelty to most then. My first email address was supplied by my school, and I had to physically go to the computer lab to access my mail on a green or orange colored dumb terminal with text-only displays (hey, that was actually fun, though).
Now, the Internet is everywhere, and just about everyone has several email addresses, most of them from free services like Gmail, Yahoo Mail, or Hotmail. Why give a kid yet another email address to keep track of, one that will be taken away from them after graduation?
Why not just require a student to supply an email address when they first arrive, and use that? Then it stays in the admin records, and whenever a new class roster is created each semester, each instructor/grad assistant/professor will be supplied with their students' email addresses along with names, phone numbers, etc.
"Man, I'm sick of this strawman argument. The only people who want everything free, forevah, are retarded 12-year olds."
Well, then Slashdot is dominated by retarded 12 year olds. Because the dominant ethos here is "I want it free, and if you don't give it to me, I'll steal it, and there's nothing you can do about it".
A little background first: I work in IT at an airport, and I'm somewhat familiar with some of the administrative aspects of airport management.
"The problem with building more runways is that in most areas (New York, Los Angelas, Chicago), development is already done around the major airport. You can't expand further out."
While this is true somewhat, its still not an impediment to airport growth. Most airports are public entities, and thus have powers of eminent domain. Most will try to buy properties they want without resorting to ED in order to keep good relations with the neighbors, but if pressed, they'll use ED if needed. Airports have purchased entire border neighborhoods and paved them over, and they've gone to court and seized them as well. They still have to pay compensation, but likely not what owners would have gotten had they sold when first approached.
"What's needed is for airlines to move away from the hub and spoke model, and fly smaller planes directly between routes."
Airlines are already doing this, but with mixed success. The fact is, those kinds of routes just aren't as profitable. In fact, the airline industry will probably contract severely over the next twenty years. We might well end up with only two or three major carriers, and far fewer airports, as smaller regional airports close down. In order to keep current levels of air service, unless a major technology breakthrough comes along that makes direct flights cheaper, it'll take massive government subsidies to keep the number of flights we have now. I just don't see that happening.
Just as the coming of the airliner spelled the end of passenger rail, the coming of teleconferencing may spell the end of business travel, which is what drove the airlines in the first place. The airline industry will likely be dominated by cargo in a quarter century, with goods far outstripping people in the airplanes. Its likely that air freight companies will be America's largest commercial air providers in a quarter century. Fedex already has the largest commercial fleet in the world.
A much-smaller airline industry will be transporting mostly pleasure travelers, as high speed Internet has made long distance meetings a reality. America's greatest aircraft designer, Lockheed's Kelly Johnson, has predicted that the airline industry will basically disappear soon because of advances in IT. Looking at the numbers, its hard to disagree with him
Why is this story worthy of a post on Slashdot? So someone has come up with yet another MS Office competitor. Google already has Internet-accessed office apps. Others do as well. And there have been Office clones, free and otherwise, for over a decade. What makes this one so special? Was it that slow in the Slashdot bullpen today?
"The year of Linux on the desktop is never."
The parent poster is trolling, but he has a point...there are several factors that insure Linux will not be a dominant desktop anytime soon.
Ironically, some of those factors are the very reasons that Linux is so popular among computer rebels....the nearly unlimited choices they have. The problem is that one of those choices is the choice of GUI. Linux users will never agree on anything, much less unite on a single GUI to use. Until there is one kernel, one filesystem, one GUI on the majority of distros, most OEM's wont install Linux, and most commercial software companies won't write software for it either.
Companies (and people) like simplicity. Windows has a standard interface. OS X has a standard interface. Linux does not. We won't even get into the issues with GPL topics (and just as importantly, the demands by Linux users that all software be free as in beer; the successes here have been few on a large scale, and mostly with games by ID software).
Will more people be adopting Linux on the desktop? Yes. Will the general public in the US and Europe ever make Linux adoption as wide as say, the Mac? No. Linux on the desktop will largely stay in the realm of "power users" and academics.
I bet if you took a survey on Slashdot, you'd find far fewer Linux desktop users than you might think. Just about everyone runs Linux in the data center...but on the desktop?
"May I ask "Mr. atheist", what makes *your* cell superior to the cells present on animals and plants?"
They taste better. Now shut up and eat your Quarter Pounder.
"I still think your objection to embryonic research is down right stupid."
Thinking your opponents are stupid. Wow, there's a shock.
"stem cell researchers were using cells from unused IVF samples, not killing babies as you people like to compare it to. I can't even begin to understand how you could equate a couple of cells in a petree dish to a human."
Humans start somewhere. Where do you put that point at? Are fertilized eggs a whole person yet? Obviously not. Does that mean they're not human life then? Of course not. When you can create human life from scratch, then come back and claim you can declare when life begins.
"And no, this line of research would still have been pursured without your stupid agenda, because it solves other problems not rooted in religous objections."
This research took off precisely because of ethical concerns. It never would have gotten nearly as much support if scientists were allowed to take the easy way out and simply use human fetuses.
"So you don't get to claim this is some kind of victory."
Yes, yes we can. The liklihood that this research will largely displace the human fetus as a source of cells is a direct result of the President's policies, backed by the strong support of those policies from pro-life voters. Because of those policies, we can now conduct advanced, life-saving research, without the cost of chucking our ethics out the window and abandoning our own souls. This IS a victory, and thank God for it.
"I'm not trolling here, I am genuinely curious as to how further weakening our reputation in the international community is going to lead to the international community loving us."
You're just recycling John Kerry's "rebuild our alliances" argument. Its just as flawed now as it was then.
We've refused to abandon Iraq and Afghanistan, and rather than pushing Europe over the edge, those aging-leftists that were in office have been kicked out. Germany? Elected pro-alliance Angela Merkel. Britain? The new PM says America is "their most important ally". France? The French elected a man that's unabashedly pro-US. Canada? US-friendly Stephen Harper was just put into office.
Meanwhile, the countries that were pro-US all along....Italy, Japan, Poland, the list goes on....are still pro-US.
And our policies have stayed the same.
So, just what alliances were we supposed to "rebuild"?
Russia? China? Venezuela?
The "international community" is never going to love us. But most are never going to truly hate us either. Because nations don't have friends, they have interests. Its in Western Europe's interest to be our ally. Its in Russia's interest to undermine us. None of it is done out of love, or hate. Politics is, and always has been, cold calculation.
"They won't be doing that much time for a failed attempt at fixing the election. And, as has been shown in Florida, and 4 years later in Ohio, they will do no time for a successful attempt."
"They"? Who are "they" and what election did they steal? Proof? Something from a reliable source, please? And invoking Alex Jones is like invoking Hitler in usenet; it automatically disqualifies you.
Do you honestly think for a single second that most American Democrats would just lay down if they honestly, truly believe the election was stolen? Do you honestly believe the GOP got away with massive vote fraud in two elections, and the Democratic Party just sat on their hands?
Are you saying those Miami Herald investigations that declared Bush would have won the 2000 recounts was nothing but GOP propoganda? That they lied?
George Bush hasn't even been able to get the nominees he wants for many of his appointments. Are you telling me that those same Democrats that stonewall him at every turn just laid down for him in 2000 and 2004?
Come back to reality.
"Here's another happy slogan from an old college student of the '70s: When the revolution comes, he's going to be among the first with his back to a brick wall being offered the choice of a blindfold - or not."
Your revolution is never coming. Not in this country, anyway. And the reason why no one listened to, or in your own words, tolerated the listening of bands like Kiss is because you wannabe-hippies lived in a completely different world than the blue collar kids that listened to Kiss and went to their concerts.
"with mass-reproducible art forms - music, photography, print, film, industries were created which took copyright away from the content creators"
What? Who took that copyright away? Not Congress, which is the only entity that can grant or revoke it.
What you're really saying is "if technology allows me to copy it, I'm going to do it no matter what the law says". Technology allows you to break into my house with a lockpick. That damn well doesn't make it moral.
"It's clear what Gene Simmons' priorities are.
Oh, besides being a greedy bastard. "
I keep seeing these dumb comments about "greed" and "he was in it to get rich".
Well, fscking duh. Of course he was in it to get rich. Rock bands are started with two dreams in mind...get rich, and get laid. Anyone here who's ever been in a band and claims they want neither is a goddam liar.
And please, no lectures about artistic integrity or changing the world being the most important things. No one would give a shit about Bob Dylan or John Lennon if they hadn't sold millions of records. For you people that think Lennon and McCartney did it all for artistic purity, I'd suggest you listen to what McCartney himself says about that....when they were songwriting, Lennon used to tell him "We have the house, now lets write a pool. Later, we can write a jaguar and then maybe a nice vacation". I'd argue that no one in music has guarded their copyrights more jealously than Apple Corps, the Beatle's holding company.
"Worse, he's a GREEDY dinosaur. Has anyone seen his "reality" show? My wife loves it, but I can't stand it because it's all about him trying to sell Kiss' collective souls for as much profit as possible. The guy seems like he cares much more about making money than enjoying life."
How the fsck would you know that? By all indications, Simmons loves what he does. He's rich. He has a business empire. He's shacked up with Shannon Tweed, gets more pussy than Petco, and has two kids he adores. He gets millions of dollars for doing what enjoys most. I'd be willing to be he's enjoying his life a hell of a lot more than someone bitching on Slashdot.
"Would I give up some of my money to support a sensible plan to improve the overall standard of living in my nation? You betcha! Voila une liberal!"
Be specific. All but the most hardcore Libertarians would be willing to give up some of their money for the betterment of their nation. The question is how much? I'd be willing to bet what your idea of "how much" is would be vastly different from mine.
"The simple truth of it is that it is a lot better for society to shoulder costs like education, care for the disabled, workfare, etc, because if society doesn't shoulder the cost, then individuals have to shoulder the costs and that generally causes problems itself and results in a less effective solution. "
The next time someone has the gall to claim that Slashdot is really a Libertarian website, please explain to me how the above post gets 5 stars and modded insightful.
That post basically apes much of the Democratic Party platform
"I would hesitate to look at Gene Simmons for any kind of intelligent statement on anything."
Yeah, because this Gene Simmons guy is dumb and has never achieved anything, and hey, we should take that as gospel from some guy posting on Slashdot.
"Just about everyone outside the US views libertarianism as some sort of extreme anarcho-capitalism being economically far right, and socially conservative (Small government)."
That used to be true, but it isn't any more. Libertarianism in this country has changed radically. At one time, Libertarians were for small government first, and then social conservatism second. Libertarian Republicans raised money for Barry Goldwater by selling Bibles at his rallies in the early 60's.
My, how they've changed though.
In the past twenty years, Libertarians (both LP members and Libertarian Republicans) have done a 180 on social issues, embracing abortion on demand, the legalization of prostitution and drugs, and turning very hostile to religion. There's a strong atheist contingent in Libertarian circles now. In addition, they're polar opposites of conservatives (and the vast majority of the population, for that matter) on the illegal immigration issue, advocating open borders and a completely open labor situation. To top it off, they've become damn near isolationist in their foreign policy thinking.
These aren't your father's Libertarians. And that's why there's a messy divorce going on in the GOP right now. The Conservatives and the Libertarians have basically realized that their ideas are becoming mostly incompatible.
"I've also taken it to mean that when you're 40, you have money and property you want to be greedy about and protect, and so don't care as much about the welfare of your fellow man."
Spoken like a man that's never had much money or property, nor having to defend it against those that want a piece of it in the name of "fairness".
"When anything more than the dismal world of blue-collar education requires a university degree, it sure is a necessity."
No it isn't. I'm so tired of people pushing college as a universal economic solution. We'll end up making college meaningless if we stay on this path.
Dismal blue collar world? I've got a bachelor's degree, and my plumber makes more than I do. So does the guy that fixes my heating and air conditioning. I'm pretty sure that one of the senior mechanics at the auto shop I patronize makes more than I do. I'm not rich, but I'm not poor either. Those guys are highly skilled, with skills that are marketable.
The average college graduate does indeed make more than the average non-graduate. But many college grads are not in jobs that actually requires a college education, and most of those non-graduates don't have marketable skills, either.
You do not have to go to college to be successful if you're hard working and willing to learn skills that are in demand. Furthermore, we need to stop changing college into an extension of high school, a universal "right" that is turning colleges into glorified vocational schools.
"Speaking as a Navy veteran, I hardly think that the military is a good way of putting yourself through university. Programmes like the G.I. Bill give you enough money for a second-rate state school. You can't easily get through four years at a decent private university through the military."
Speaking as another Navy veteran, I couldn't disagree with you more. The base GI Bill college funding will get you through the vast number of state colleges available. I don't know what you consider "second rate", but the GI Bill will get you through excellent state universities such as Penn State, Florida State, Auburn, etc, the list goes on. You might have to work a summer or part time job, but it'll get you through. Keep in mind that in some miltary branches, they give extra college benefits for enlisting in needed skillsets or longer enlistment periods, so depending on your choices, more than the base amount of GI Bill benefits are available, And as a Navy vet, surely you remember that the Navy is pretty generous about subsidizing college classes while on active duty. I took math classes at sea, and a local air force base near me has an extension campus of a state university right on base, with wide participation from both airmen and officers. The military's education benefits, far from being paltry, are outstanding.
As for the issue of private vs. state colleges, any honest education expert or employer will tell you that "elite" universities have been nigh indistinguishable from state universities at the undergraduate level for years now. There are exceptions, but they are few, and are tilted towards the technical side of education, with institutions such as MIT and Cal Tech. In general though, go to an employer like GE or Boeing, and an undergraduate engineering degree from Princeton isn't really an advantage over a similar degree from Texas A&M or Georgia Tech. Grad schools are where the elites make their mark, and even that advantage is eroding.
I wasn't going to get into an elite university anyway...most don't....so the GI Bill made college a reality without years of debt. I appreciated that, most other vets appreciate that, even if you don't.
"University loans are shackles."
All loans are "shackles". But more importantly, all loans are a trade....a trade of time and money for something you want. If what you take out that loan for is important enough to you, you'll pay the bill. So if you really have no interest in bettering yourself intellectually or becoming a leader, and you just want to make more money, then yes, student loans can be a shackle, because you're basically buying something you don't truly need. If you're willing to get a little dirty, there are good livings to be made in the blue collar sector, and even in other sectors. Does a lower level system adminis
"Theoretically, if we had candidates that represented us instead of the interests of corporations and special interest groups, our right to vote would be worth a great deal."
It never ceases to amaze me when people start bitching about "special interest groups".
Everyone is part of a special interest group. Everyone, I don't care who you are, supports something that other people do not, and thus work with or support a group that lobbies Washington for their position. So basically, people bitching about "special interest groups" are hypocrites.
If you think the health care system is unjust and you lobby Congress for government funded health care, you're part of a special interest group.
If you think math education is lacking in this country, and you lobby Congress for more money for teachers and programs, you're part of a special interest group.
If you think people are trying to ban your guns, and you lobby Congress on the Second Ammendment, you're part of a special interest group. For that matter, if you think we have too many guns, and you lobby Congress to get rid of them, you're part of a special interest group.
Arguing against "special interest groups" is a red herring and always has been. Those groups wouldn't exist without you and me.
"Your friends to the north of you seem to have come out reasonably ok."
And in reality, they ceased to be a colony long ago. When was the last time London dictated Canadian affairs? Wrote Canadian law? While the Queen is still on their money, the Canadians (and Australians and New Zealanders, for that matter) became independent republics in all but name a long time ago.
...but I play Enemy Territory and Day of Defeat with my son quite a bit.