The point being that journalists should use some sort of rational criteria when determining which opinions to include on a given piece. For example, if I were doing a piece on the existence of extra-terrestrials, I would go out and do research on what opinions on the subject existed. Likely, I'd come up with a list that would include: "there are no aliens because God says so," "given probability and what we know of the universe, it is unlikely there are aliens," "given probability and what we know of the universe, it is likely there are aliens," "They could, I guess," and "aliens exist and abducted me last night."
In investigating each of these opinions, it would quickly come out that several of the opinions have little in the way of facts behind them. What evidence is there that aliens abducted some guy from Kansas? Does "because god says so" qualify as evidence for or against the existence of aliens? Further, and opinion like "they could exist, I guess" isn't really worth much, is it? What does that opinion add to the discussion?
Now that the opinions have been filtered a bit, we are left with those opinions which have some backing and credibility. There are still multiple sides to the argument, and there is still debate about facts, evidence and probabilities.
Think this is elitest? Fine. Let's add those filtered opinions back into our story. But do we give those opinions equal time? Do we spend as much time on "because God says" as we do on the guy who has poured years of research into a given subject as we do for the "they could, I guess" opinion? Why?
Others might say, "give the ideas a share of time based on popularity of the ideas." Ick! That seems a pretty lame set of criteria to me. That would mean that we'd probably give the "because God says" crowd more time than the "aliens abducted me!" crowd, even though neither group has any evidence backing them up.
What I'd ask of journalists is to give various ideas time based on the credibility of those ideas. This is obviously subjective and puts a big burden on journalists to do their research and use objective criteria for considering each idea. But then again, isn't that what most people EXPECT journalists to do? The sad fact, is that popularity seems to be the most common set of criteria for reporting on a subject. When has popularity EVER been an indicator of truth?
Given this, if I were doing a program on existence of aliens, I'd focus heavily on the scientific opinions using probability, astronomy, and physics, and make passing mention of the God and abduction ideas.
1) Complaining about Apple's lack of a battery replacement policy is dumb because they have one now.
2) Complaining about iPod batteries dying may be a valid complaint if you're talking about them dying faster than other mp3 jukeboxes.
3) Complaining about how hard it is to replace iPod batteries yourself relative to other mp3 jukeboxes is a fair complaint.
Agreed. Very rational.
I would like to see stats on the length of the iPod battery's life versus other players, though. I know that not all batteries are created equal, but they ARE commodity products, so I am a bit sceptical that Apple would be too far below the average in terms of quality.
Because Apple is the only manufacturer in the world whose batteries eventually die, right? Or is it that, IN THE PAST, they didn't have a battery replacement program?
IN THE PAST, they didn't have a way to fix the issue of a dead battery. That was bad. Bad Apple! But they fixed that problem. Now, they are just like every other manufacturer out there: your battery dies within the warranty period? You get it fixed for free. Your batter dies outside the warranty period, you pay to replace it (either through Apple, or through many of the "unofficial" sources available).
Can we stop grousing about this issue now? Please?
Its funny that you would highlight that article, given that it completely ignores several choice quotes from Hasan Rowhani, head of Iran's top decision making body.
"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) against Bush.
Hmmm. So if Iran doesn't want to see a Democrat get elected, who would they like to see in office? The Green Party candidate? I don't think so.
Very dishonest, BTW. Maybe a clue should have been the fact that you had to go to the Turkish Press to get the spin you were looking for. Oh so reputable...
Why do you assume HE has a custom setup? Could it not be that YOU have a custom setup? From the posts on this thread, it seems that the majority have permissions of drwxr-xr-x and are owned by root:wheel. That is, in fact, exactly what my system has, and I haven't manually altered the foler myself. It is possible that some installers would create the directory with improper permissions, but running fix permissions in disk utility should fix that. I run fix permissions frequently, as many thirdy party (and Apple! Yikes!) installers seem to be sloppy.
To be absolutely clear, I am talking about Mac OS X version 10.3.5. Older versions seem to be more permissive about this folder by default.
I wasn't really advocating the inclusion of race into the process of determining level of representation, I was just using that to make a point.
I guess I was attacking the assumption that rural folk and city folk are so fundamentally different that we need to actively protect those groups from one another. I think there ARE differences between rural folk and city folk, but I would liken those differences to the differences between whites and blacks, jews and gentiles, etc. Everyone has a different background and that background forms their ideals and outlook on the world.
My point is that we have much more diversity today than we had when the constitution was written. I believe that today, the rural and urban ideologies are no farther apart than our racial, religious and ethnic differences. And since we give racial, religious and ethnic differences no regard when choosing a President, why should we give the differences between rural and urban folk any regard? Some might disagree with my assumptions, but maybe you can see where my assumptions lead me.
Don't you think there is a problem with rural voters getting more of a voice than urban voters?
I'm all for the protection of the rights of the minority, but that isn't the same as letting the minority have a bigger say in how the country is run than the majority. And that is the current situation: rural voters have a disproportionally large say in how the country is run. There are fewer rural voters, yet they have (approximately) the same amount of pull as urban voters.
What would happen if 95% of all Americans lived in cities? Would the 5% of rural voters still get 50% of the representation? That would mean rural voters have 20 times the influence as urban voters. 20 times! Those are going to be some hefty argriculture subsidies!
I am left wondering why geographical boundries should determine representation. Why should 5% of the population have the same amount of say as 95% of the population? We don't have representatives based on race or religion, right? About 13% of Americans are black, yet they don't have an equal share of representation as white people. On the logic that minority groups should have equal representation, they should get their representation boosted, right?
The question I am trying to expose (and to which I don't have an answer) is: what constitutes a minority group that should get equal representation in our legislature? It seems to me that determining a minority on the basis of population density and geography is a pretty arbitrary metric. What makes rural America as a minority group so special as to warrant higher legislative representation (or voting clout)? Why not blacks, too? Or latinos? Or Jews? Or amputees? Or homosexuals?
It seems to me that the current system is disproportionately assigning representation based on somewhat arbitrary standards. What is a better standard? I'm not sure. But I'd be open to suggestions. Or critiques of my logic.:)
True, but you have to consider their ungodly large set of possible hardware configurations. Since Apple tightly controls the hardward base compatible with their OS, they have to do far less installs to thoroughly test new OS versions. This gives them a big advantage over MS who has to test TONS of hardware for every release. Being big has its disadvantages, too, I guess.
This situation combined with MS's propensity to re-invent themselves technologically while remaining compatible with billions of existing pieces of software creates a logical nightmare! I do not envy MS that task.
This, however, does not excuse their many lapses in on-tiem feature delivery or their generally buggy and somtimes poorly designed software. I'm just trying to look at it from a computing monopoly's viewpoint. Poor babies.:)
That's a nice looking strawman you've got there...
You completely misrepresented the grandparent's argument. The author of this software created somthing which could be used illegally. This, in and of itself, is not unethical so long as there are valid legal uses for the software. (That point is arguable for this particular case--can you think of any valid uses of the software?) But if the author then goes out and profits from that software's illegal use, that is unethical.
So to alter your analogy to actually fit what the grandparent said...
If a man creates a knife, that is OK (ethically speaking). He can use that knife to cut cord, chop veggies, etc. But if that man uses the knife to kill a person, that is NOT OK. Nor would it be OK to sell this knife to people (a.k.a. make a profit) who you know are going to use it to kill a person.
But will you be releasing those apps before dotNet 2.0 is officially released (not a beta) and supported? I doubt it. I understand that 2.0 is coming, but to say it is here when the first beta was just released is a bit disingenuous, to say the least.
I applaude MS getting a beta out there and in the hands of developers. But most enterprise operations wouldn't touch a beta product from MS with a ten foot pole, and with good reason (read: history).
Just because someone patented a physical implementation of a technology, doesn't mean that they were the actual innovators or that their patent is valid. This post seems to indicate that the patent isn't valid.
Sure, this isn't another "we own Linux" type case, but that doesn't make it any more valid.
Note: I noticed you posted this twice, so I'm replying to both of your posts. Slashdot is telling me to Slow Down! and that I posted an identical comment. Hence this note.:)
From page 470 of the 9/11 Commission Report (Notes on Chapter 2--this is relevant to the second paragraph of what you quoted):
We have seen other intelligence reports at the CIA about 1999 contacts. They are consistent with the conclusions we provide in the text, and their reliability is uncertain. Although there have been suggestions of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda regarding chemical weapons and explosives training, the most detailed information alleging such ties came from an al Qaeda operative who recanted much of his original information. Intelligence report, interrogation of al Qaeda operative, Feb. 14, 2004. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any such ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM and Zubaydah, 2003...
Just thought the FULL context might be interesting. From all the info I've seen, there seems to have been contacts between the two groups (Iraq and al Qaeda) initiated from both sides, but NO relationship ever existed and some of the evidence supporting the idea of contacts between the two groups is suspect.
Also, from page 61 of the report:
Bin Laden was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda--save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.
It goes on to state (I'm tired of typing) that a neutral party eventually brokered a deal between Saddam and Bin Ladin which effectively called a truce to their war.
From all of this I would have a hard time believing that the two groups had any real interest in working with each other. Yes, there were contacts. But besides a mutual hatred of the US, the groups had little in common.
From page 470 of the 9/11 Commission Report (Notes on Chapter 2--this is relevant to the second paragraph of what you quoted):
We have seen other intelligence reports at the CIA about 1999 contacts. They are consistent with the conclusions we provide in the text, and their reliability is uncertain. Although there have been suggestions of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda regarding chemical weapons and explosives training, the most detailed information alleging such ties came from an al Qaeda operative who recanted much of his original information. Intelligence report, interrogation of al Qaeda operative, Feb. 14, 2004. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any such ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM and Zubaydah, 2003...
Just thought the FULL context might be interesting. From all the info I've seen, there seems to have been contacts between the two groups (Iraq and al Qaeda) initiated from both sides, but NO relationship ever existed and some of the evidence supporting the idea of contacts between the two groups is suspect.
Also, from page 61 of the report:
Bin Laden was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda--save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.
It goes on to state (I'm tired of typing) that a neutral party eventually brokered a deal between Saddam and Bin Ladin which effectively called a truce to their war.
From all of this I would have a hard time believing that the two groups had any real interest in working with each other. Yes, there were contacts. But besides a mutual hatred of the US, the groups had little in common.
Very true, but there is a balance to THAT tyrany as well: the legislative branch.
If there is some flaw in a law that ties the executive branch's hands in such a way that they can't do their job or if some over-zealous judge interprets the law so that it ties the hands of the executive branch, the legislative branch can amend our laws (even our constitution, should the need arise) to fix the problem. So really, an appeal to a higher level of the judicial branch is the FIRST step the executive branch can take. The next step would be an appeal to congress to fix the laws.
In fact, to my recollection, that is EXACTLY how the Patriot Act was passed. The president and the Justice Department thought they needed more power to fight the war on terror and worked with congress to get a bill going to give them that power.
Granted, this process is not always fast and the legislative branch doesn't HAVE to hear the appeal of the executive branch. But that is why we have congress: to carefully consider and weigh laws before they make it to the books. They don't rubber stamp every idea to come out of the Whitehouse, and for good reason. But in the end, I think the balance of powers is maintained quite nicely.
Their positions on the two issues are NOT inconsistent with each other. However, given your out of context and selective quoting, people reading your post would think they are.
In their argument for taxpayer-funded abortions they are arguing that a particular group's religious beliefs should not interfere with government funding issues. In their argument against school vouchers they are arguing that religious groups should not receive federal funding--even for the purpose of education--as it would amount to an endorsement of said religious group.
The difference is subtle, but very real. In both casees they are arguing for a seperation of religion and state. In the abortion case they are saying that one group's morality shouldn't be forced upon the whole country. In the voucher case they are arguing that government funding shouldn't go to religious groups. Very consistent if you ask me.
The problem with your quotation (especially the second quote) is that it is completely out of context. Given the appropriate context of the rest of their argument, it would read: School voucher schemes would use government dollars to support religious organizations holding beliefs and practices with which many Americans strongly disagree. Your quotation gives the mistaken impression that the taxpayers would be supporting government policy with which they strongly disagree instead of religious organizations with which they strongly disagree. In terms of constitutionality, the difference is night and day.
You (or whoever originally wrote this) are misrepresenting their arguments.
Taft
Re:low unemployment compared to europe
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
Here is the information you two are dancing around: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm
You most certainly did not make up the fallacy of consensus (aka. the Democratic fallacy). Since you are too lazy to look it up (and so quick to assume), here is a link telling you what that fallacy means. (Note: it does not mean what you originally said.)
Quote: Gee, where could I ever have gotten the idea that you're a superior sumbitch? Where could I ever have gotten that idea? It's a big mystery, that's what it is. Because, you know, you don't sound superior at all. You don't sound smug and self-satisfied. You don't sound like you have rod up your ass that's got a rod up its ass. So where could I have gotten that idea? Wherever could that idea have come from?
Does anyone else see the irony in this statement and its tone?
Well, I've been baited long enough. You win, I responded to your childish and mindless posts. Congratulations.
I wasn't America bashing. I'm sure that the exact same attitude is pervasive in many societies, not just our own. That doesn't exactly let us off the hook though, does it. When you can't argue with any substance, I guess you have to resort to cries of me being anti-American. Whatever.
I also find it funny that you equate adherance to logic with a lack of common sense AND a sense of superiority. Wierd, I always thought that adherance to logic was just, well, logical. If we don't look at the world through reasoning, thought and logic, how is truth even possible?
Finally, I did not use the Democratic fallacy. I'll leave it to you to actually look something up and figure it out for yourself. Have fun.
See, the thing about defying logic is that by doing so, your argument is invalid. Whatever conclusions you reach are not proven by your argument. Those conclusions may be correct, but not on the basis of your argument.
This is NOT a matter of fairness. This is about what constitutes truth. Your final statement seems to be, "It doesn't matter that my arguments are half-assed, full of holes and logically invalid. I'm right, dammit, so admit it!" Fuck that! Why the hell should I (or anyone else here) believe in your conclusion if you have given us no compelling arguments to back up your conclusion?
The short answer is that we shouldn't. All you have proven by your mindless and childish posts is how intellectual honesty is no longer important to the average American. There is this fucked up notion that "common sense" should overrule logic. "It doesn't matter that my arguments are full of holes! Believe me anyway! I just make sense! See!?!?!" Say it enough times and somehow you have credibility.
Well, it isn't good enough for me, or any other critically thinking American, for that matter. You have a point? Prove it. If you don't, I'm going to call you on it. And no manner of name-calling or berating will make you any more right. It will only serve to lower the quality of discourse here.
Hopefully the mods on this board realize that point. By the fact that your response to my observatives was met with a +3 Funny, I'm not so sure they will. Oh well...
Ah, yes. See? That's the great thing about the rabid, frothing Bush-haters. They can't compose more than about two paragraphs without spinning off into irrational hatred.
Yet another crazy person.
OK, this really pisses me off. In one breath you are bitching about people so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they sound like raving lunatics. In the next breath, you resort to name calling (an exercise of irrational hatred, if I've ever seen one).
And this is ain't the first time, either. Check out your other posts on this thread:
There are a ton of other examples, but I don't think I need to post them./.ers should get the point by now.
And this has nothing to do with being overly sensitive. This is about your tactics. In just about every post, your response is, "No. Wrong. That is false. You are lying. Dipshit!!!!" In some posts you even try to pass off logical fallacies as valid. Basically you are just using name-calling and brute-force refutation without anything to back you up.
To take a play out of your book...
You suck, dipshit! Go home.
Seriously, can we please have a debate where disagreements don't result in name calling? It's infantile. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them an idiot. Also, I'd like to take the opportunity to say something about logical fallacies: don't use them. It is really hard to debate a person who doesn't play fair (ie. stay within the bounds of logic). That is why most people don't even try.
You can also take a drive through many immigrant neighborhoods in our major cities. They are all slums, and not a single immigrant group today understands cleanliness and exhibit no pride in their new home. How much money does it take to sweep the sidewalk in front of your apartment?
...
I unfortunately do live among them, and witness their uncivilized and barbaric ways on a daily basis, so spare me any response that suggests I am being anything less that completely honest.
OK, I can agree that many (most?) immigrants are poor and uneducated and this results in increased crime, etc. But these two paragraphs are such utter bullshit it makes me want to scream.
Come to Chicago and walk through Pilsen, the Chinatown in Uptown, Devon avenue (through the Indian, Pakistani and Jewish communities), the West end of Ukranian Villiage or Wicker Park, or Polonia. Given your outlook on immigrants, you could use the education. Those communities are built mostly on immigration and have thriving local economies and are pretty safe. Sure, there are *some* rundown houses, but the neighborhoods are relatively clean and well-kept and there are many neighborhood watch programs and a sense of community.
Then, when you've had a taste of Chicago's immigrant communities, walk through the projects on the West or South sides. These are inhabited mostly by US citizens. Believe me when I say you'll notice a difference.
Finally, notice the current trend in most US cities where immigrants are increasingly moving to Suburbs, rather than in the urban center. In the Chicagoland area, this has created mini-booms in many suburbs, where developers put up multi-unit residential rentals along the commuter tracks in the suburban centers. Rather than tearing the communities apart, it has resulted in a bigger suburban economy and given immigrants cheaper residences outside the city. Not to say there haven't been problems, but not to the level your post would imply.
To sum up: the quotes I took from your post are the worst type of generalization. They offer only a blind dislike for foreigners and offer little in the way of reality. Barbaric? Unclean? Who, exactly, is succumbing to popular mythology.
Man, I don't think you got the point of ANY of the grandparent's comments.
And what is preventing me from moving from Windows to BSD?
The grandparent was referring to the fact that you can take a GNU/linux distro and replace the kernel, thereby making it a GNU/BSD distro. So far as I know, you can't replace MS's kernel and have Windows running on a BSD kernel.
There are lots of third-party replacements shells for Windows.
Ahh, so it must be oh-so-easy to run GNUStep as your only window manager on an NT platform. Or were you really referring to a shell? While its true that you can swap out a DOS shell for something else (or wrap DOS with a more full featured interpreter), it is by no means as easy as it is on Linux. Further, Windows includes, by default, one and only one shell: DOS. I personally, think it is a pile o' crap.
Thats because they are the one distrbuting it.
Which is exactly the friggin' point. They are the ONLY company distributing Windows. With Linux, you get choice. With MS, you get...well, MS. Or "MS: presented by Dell."
You have points with your GUI comments, but most Linux distros are trying to provide the GUI tools that Windows/Mac users take for granted. And those tools are becoming more evolved all the time.
As far as I can tell, UPNP is the superior technology.
Many would disagree. O'Reilly wrote up a good piece about the two technologies a while back. Its a good overview of what they offer and the pros and cons of each.
A quick rundown? Zeroconf (Rendezvous) provides a way to discover services and addresses automatically, without address duplication by multiple devices. UPnP does the same thing. The difference is that UPnP also dictates HOW to talk to devices and services, while Zeroconf forces devices to know how to talk to each other.
Java-GNOME is completely dead. Java on the desktop, except for Eclipse and SWT (no thanks to Sun) is completely dead. GTK#/Mono has a lot of momentum and Ximian/Novell throwing their weight behind it which is not to be underestimated. Guess which is more likely to have support two years from now, Java-GNOME or GTK#?
What criteria are you using to proclaim Java-Gnome dead? From the statistics on sourceforge, it seems that there is interest in the project and far more reports of bugs than for GTK#.
I agree that Sun hasn't been as cooperative as I'd like to see in terms of Java's relationship with the open source community. However, I think you are making some baseless assertions about the current and future relevence of projects supporting Java in the open source arena.
Also, I think it is laughable that the mono team claims "Java applications do not conform to the Linux GUI look and feel." Which look and feel is that, exactly? KDE? Gnome? FVWM? The majority of Linux apps that I use do not conform to any single look and feel. OpenOffice? Looks like Windows 95. Mozilla/Firefox (by default)? Completely different (though skinable). Sure, Mono, with GTK# looks like a Gnome app, but that really isn't going to help a KDE or FVWM user, is it?
Much of the anti-Java sentiment around slashdot seems to originate from rabid pro-open source ideology. I wish people would evaluate these technologies on their capabilities and applicability rather than whether the companies supporting them conform to their particular ideology.
Slashdot Mirror
The point being that journalists should use some sort of rational criteria when determining which opinions to include on a given piece. For example, if I were doing a piece on the existence of extra-terrestrials, I would go out and do research on what opinions on the subject existed. Likely, I'd come up with a list that would include: "there are no aliens because God says so," "given probability and what we know of the universe, it is unlikely there are aliens," "given probability and what we know of the universe, it is likely there are aliens," "They could, I guess," and "aliens exist and abducted me last night."
In investigating each of these opinions, it would quickly come out that several of the opinions have little in the way of facts behind them. What evidence is there that aliens abducted some guy from Kansas? Does "because god says so" qualify as evidence for or against the existence of aliens? Further, and opinion like "they could exist, I guess" isn't really worth much, is it? What does that opinion add to the discussion?
Now that the opinions have been filtered a bit, we are left with those opinions which have some backing and credibility. There are still multiple sides to the argument, and there is still debate about facts, evidence and probabilities.
Think this is elitest? Fine. Let's add those filtered opinions back into our story. But do we give those opinions equal time? Do we spend as much time on "because God says" as we do on the guy who has poured years of research into a given subject as we do for the "they could, I guess" opinion? Why?
Others might say, "give the ideas a share of time based on popularity of the ideas." Ick! That seems a pretty lame set of criteria to me. That would mean that we'd probably give the "because God says" crowd more time than the "aliens abducted me!" crowd, even though neither group has any evidence backing them up.
What I'd ask of journalists is to give various ideas time based on the credibility of those ideas. This is obviously subjective and puts a big burden on journalists to do their research and use objective criteria for considering each idea. But then again, isn't that what most people EXPECT journalists to do? The sad fact, is that popularity seems to be the most common set of criteria for reporting on a subject. When has popularity EVER been an indicator of truth?
Given this, if I were doing a program on existence of aliens, I'd focus heavily on the scientific opinions using probability, astronomy, and physics, and make passing mention of the God and abduction ideas.
Taft
2) Complaining about iPod batteries dying may be a valid complaint if you're talking about them dying faster than other mp3 jukeboxes.
3) Complaining about how hard it is to replace iPod batteries yourself relative to other mp3 jukeboxes is a fair complaint.
Agreed. Very rational.
I would like to see stats on the length of the iPod battery's life versus other players, though. I know that not all batteries are created equal, but they ARE commodity products, so I am a bit sceptical that Apple would be too far below the average in terms of quality.
Taft
IN THE PAST, they didn't have a way to fix the issue of a dead battery. That was bad. Bad Apple! But they fixed that problem. Now, they are just like every other manufacturer out there: your battery dies within the warranty period? You get it fixed for free. Your batter dies outside the warranty period, you pay to replace it (either through Apple, or through many of the "unofficial" sources available).
Can we stop grousing about this issue now? Please?
Taft
From yahoo news, we get this quote:
"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) against Bush.
Hmmm. So if Iran doesn't want to see a Democrat get elected, who would they like to see in office? The Green Party candidate? I don't think so.
Very dishonest, BTW. Maybe a clue should have been the fact that you had to go to the Turkish Press to get the spin you were looking for. Oh so reputable...
Taft
To be absolutely clear, I am talking about Mac OS X version 10.3.5. Older versions seem to be more permissive about this folder by default.
Taft
I guess I was attacking the assumption that rural folk and city folk are so fundamentally different that we need to actively protect those groups from one another. I think there ARE differences between rural folk and city folk, but I would liken those differences to the differences between whites and blacks, jews and gentiles, etc. Everyone has a different background and that background forms their ideals and outlook on the world.
My point is that we have much more diversity today than we had when the constitution was written. I believe that today, the rural and urban ideologies are no farther apart than our racial, religious and ethnic differences. And since we give racial, religious and ethnic differences no regard when choosing a President, why should we give the differences between rural and urban folk any regard? Some might disagree with my assumptions, but maybe you can see where my assumptions lead me.
Taft
I'm all for the protection of the rights of the minority, but that isn't the same as letting the minority have a bigger say in how the country is run than the majority. And that is the current situation: rural voters have a disproportionally large say in how the country is run. There are fewer rural voters, yet they have (approximately) the same amount of pull as urban voters.
What would happen if 95% of all Americans lived in cities? Would the 5% of rural voters still get 50% of the representation? That would mean rural voters have 20 times the influence as urban voters. 20 times! Those are going to be some hefty argriculture subsidies!
I am left wondering why geographical boundries should determine representation. Why should 5% of the population have the same amount of say as 95% of the population? We don't have representatives based on race or religion, right? About 13% of Americans are black, yet they don't have an equal share of representation as white people. On the logic that minority groups should have equal representation, they should get their representation boosted, right?
The question I am trying to expose (and to which I don't have an answer) is: what constitutes a minority group that should get equal representation in our legislature? It seems to me that determining a minority on the basis of population density and geography is a pretty arbitrary metric. What makes rural America as a minority group so special as to warrant higher legislative representation (or voting clout)? Why not blacks, too? Or latinos? Or Jews? Or amputees? Or homosexuals?
It seems to me that the current system is disproportionately assigning representation based on somewhat arbitrary standards. What is a better standard? I'm not sure. But I'd be open to suggestions. Or critiques of my logic. :)
Taft
This situation combined with MS's propensity to re-invent themselves technologically while remaining compatible with billions of existing pieces of software creates a logical nightmare! I do not envy MS that task.
This, however, does not excuse their many lapses in on-tiem feature delivery or their generally buggy and somtimes poorly designed software. I'm just trying to look at it from a computing monopoly's viewpoint. Poor babies. :)
Taft
You completely misrepresented the grandparent's argument. The author of this software created somthing which could be used illegally. This, in and of itself, is not unethical so long as there are valid legal uses for the software. (That point is arguable for this particular case--can you think of any valid uses of the software?) But if the author then goes out and profits from that software's illegal use, that is unethical.
So to alter your analogy to actually fit what the grandparent said...
If a man creates a knife, that is OK (ethically speaking). He can use that knife to cut cord, chop veggies, etc. But if that man uses the knife to kill a person, that is NOT OK. Nor would it be OK to sell this knife to people (a.k.a. make a profit) who you know are going to use it to kill a person.
See the difference?
Taft
But will you be releasing those apps before dotNet 2.0 is officially released (not a beta) and supported? I doubt it. I understand that 2.0 is coming, but to say it is here when the first beta was just released is a bit disingenuous, to say the least.
I applaude MS getting a beta out there and in the hands of developers. But most enterprise operations wouldn't touch a beta product from MS with a ten foot pole, and with good reason (read: history).
Taft
Sure, this isn't another "we own Linux" type case, but that doesn't make it any more valid.
Taft
From page 470 of the 9/11 Commission Report (Notes on Chapter 2--this is relevant to the second paragraph of what you quoted):
We have seen other intelligence reports at the CIA about 1999 contacts. They are consistent with the conclusions we provide in the text, and their reliability is uncertain. Although there have been suggestions of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda regarding chemical weapons and explosives training, the most detailed information alleging such ties came from an al Qaeda operative who recanted much of his original information. Intelligence report, interrogation of al Qaeda operative, Feb. 14, 2004. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any such ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM and Zubaydah, 2003 ...
Just thought the FULL context might be interesting. From all the info I've seen, there seems to have been contacts between the two groups (Iraq and al Qaeda) initiated from both sides, but NO relationship ever existed and some of the evidence supporting the idea of contacts between the two groups is suspect.
Also, from page 61 of the report:
Bin Laden was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda--save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.
It goes on to state (I'm tired of typing) that a neutral party eventually brokered a deal between Saddam and Bin Ladin which effectively called a truce to their war.
From all of this I would have a hard time believing that the two groups had any real interest in working with each other. Yes, there were contacts. But besides a mutual hatred of the US, the groups had little in common.
Taft
We have seen other intelligence reports at the CIA about 1999 contacts. They are consistent with the conclusions we provide in the text, and their reliability is uncertain. Although there have been suggestions of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda regarding chemical weapons and explosives training, the most detailed information alleging such ties came from an al Qaeda operative who recanted much of his original information. Intelligence report, interrogation of al Qaeda operative, Feb. 14, 2004. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any such ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM and Zubaydah, 2003 ...
Just thought the FULL context might be interesting. From all the info I've seen, there seems to have been contacts between the two groups (Iraq and al Qaeda) initiated from both sides, but NO relationship ever existed and some of the evidence supporting the idea of contacts between the two groups is suspect.
Also, from page 61 of the report:
Bin Laden was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda--save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.
It goes on to state (I'm tired of typing) that a neutral party eventually brokered a deal between Saddam and Bin Ladin which effectively called a truce to their war.
From all of this I would have a hard time believing that the two groups had any real interest in working with each other. Yes, there were contacts. But besides a mutual hatred of the US, the groups had little in common.
Taft
If there is some flaw in a law that ties the executive branch's hands in such a way that they can't do their job or if some over-zealous judge interprets the law so that it ties the hands of the executive branch, the legislative branch can amend our laws (even our constitution, should the need arise) to fix the problem. So really, an appeal to a higher level of the judicial branch is the FIRST step the executive branch can take. The next step would be an appeal to congress to fix the laws.
In fact, to my recollection, that is EXACTLY how the Patriot Act was passed. The president and the Justice Department thought they needed more power to fight the war on terror and worked with congress to get a bill going to give them that power.
Granted, this process is not always fast and the legislative branch doesn't HAVE to hear the appeal of the executive branch. But that is why we have congress: to carefully consider and weigh laws before they make it to the books. They don't rubber stamp every idea to come out of the Whitehouse, and for good reason. But in the end, I think the balance of powers is maintained quite nicely.
Taft
In their argument for taxpayer-funded abortions they are arguing that a particular group's religious beliefs should not interfere with government funding issues. In their argument against school vouchers they are arguing that religious groups should not receive federal funding--even for the purpose of education--as it would amount to an endorsement of said religious group.
The difference is subtle, but very real. In both casees they are arguing for a seperation of religion and state. In the abortion case they are saying that one group's morality shouldn't be forced upon the whole country. In the voucher case they are arguing that government funding shouldn't go to religious groups. Very consistent if you ask me.
The problem with your quotation (especially the second quote) is that it is completely out of context. Given the appropriate context of the rest of their argument, it would read: School voucher schemes would use government dollars to support religious organizations holding beliefs and practices with which many Americans strongly disagree. Your quotation gives the mistaken impression that the taxpayers would be supporting government policy with which they strongly disagree instead of religious organizations with which they strongly disagree. In terms of constitutionality, the difference is night and day.
You (or whoever originally wrote this) are misrepresenting their arguments.
Taft
Ahh, the power of citations...
Taft
You most certainly did not make up the fallacy of consensus (aka. the Democratic fallacy). Since you are too lazy to look it up (and so quick to assume), here is a link telling you what that fallacy means. (Note: it does not mean what you originally said.)
Quote: Gee, where could I ever have gotten the idea that you're a superior sumbitch? Where could I ever have gotten that idea? It's a big mystery, that's what it is. Because, you know, you don't sound superior at all. You don't sound smug and self-satisfied. You don't sound like you have rod up your ass that's got a rod up its ass. So where could I have gotten that idea? Wherever could that idea have come from?
Does anyone else see the irony in this statement and its tone?
Well, I've been baited long enough. You win, I responded to your childish and mindless posts. Congratulations.
Taft
A: "I'm right."
B: "But your argument is full of holes."
A: "I'm still right."
B: "But you didn't prove anything."
A: "I'm still right."
B: "Prove it."
A: "I'm right."
Etc. Etc.
I wasn't America bashing. I'm sure that the exact same attitude is pervasive in many societies, not just our own. That doesn't exactly let us off the hook though, does it. When you can't argue with any substance, I guess you have to resort to cries of me being anti-American. Whatever.
I also find it funny that you equate adherance to logic with a lack of common sense AND a sense of superiority. Wierd, I always thought that adherance to logic was just, well, logical. If we don't look at the world through reasoning, thought and logic, how is truth even possible?
Finally, I did not use the Democratic fallacy. I'll leave it to you to actually look something up and figure it out for yourself. Have fun.
Taft
See, the thing about defying logic is that by doing so, your argument is invalid. Whatever conclusions you reach are not proven by your argument. Those conclusions may be correct, but not on the basis of your argument.
This is NOT a matter of fairness. This is about what constitutes truth. Your final statement seems to be, "It doesn't matter that my arguments are half-assed, full of holes and logically invalid. I'm right, dammit, so admit it!" Fuck that! Why the hell should I (or anyone else here) believe in your conclusion if you have given us no compelling arguments to back up your conclusion?
The short answer is that we shouldn't. All you have proven by your mindless and childish posts is how intellectual honesty is no longer important to the average American. There is this fucked up notion that "common sense" should overrule logic. "It doesn't matter that my arguments are full of holes! Believe me anyway! I just make sense! See!?!?!" Say it enough times and somehow you have credibility.
Well, it isn't good enough for me, or any other critically thinking American, for that matter. You have a point? Prove it. If you don't, I'm going to call you on it. And no manner of name-calling or berating will make you any more right. It will only serve to lower the quality of discourse here.
Hopefully the mods on this board realize that point. By the fact that your response to my observatives was met with a +3 Funny, I'm not so sure they will. Oh well...
Taft
Yet another crazy person.
OK, this really pisses me off. In one breath you are bitching about people so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they sound like raving lunatics. In the next breath, you resort to name calling (an exercise of irrational hatred, if I've ever seen one).
And this is ain't the first time, either. Check out your other posts on this thread:
Good name-calling here. "Loser" is one of my favorites.
The venerable "Feel free to be a dipshit."
Everyone's favorite: "Bein' a dumbass ...interesting."
There are a ton of other examples, but I don't think I need to post them. /.ers should get the point by now.
And this has nothing to do with being overly sensitive. This is about your tactics. In just about every post, your response is, "No. Wrong. That is false. You are lying. Dipshit!!!!" In some posts you even try to pass off logical fallacies as valid. Basically you are just using name-calling and brute-force refutation without anything to back you up.
To take a play out of your book...
You suck, dipshit! Go home.
Seriously, can we please have a debate where disagreements don't result in name calling? It's infantile. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them an idiot. Also, I'd like to take the opportunity to say something about logical fallacies: don't use them. It is really hard to debate a person who doesn't play fair (ie. stay within the bounds of logic). That is why most people don't even try.
Taft
I unfortunately do live among them, and witness their uncivilized and barbaric ways on a daily basis, so spare me any response that suggests I am being anything less that completely honest.
OK, I can agree that many (most?) immigrants are poor and uneducated and this results in increased crime, etc. But these two paragraphs are such utter bullshit it makes me want to scream.
Come to Chicago and walk through Pilsen, the Chinatown in Uptown, Devon avenue (through the Indian, Pakistani and Jewish communities), the West end of Ukranian Villiage or Wicker Park, or Polonia. Given your outlook on immigrants, you could use the education. Those communities are built mostly on immigration and have thriving local economies and are pretty safe. Sure, there are *some* rundown houses, but the neighborhoods are relatively clean and well-kept and there are many neighborhood watch programs and a sense of community.
Then, when you've had a taste of Chicago's immigrant communities, walk through the projects on the West or South sides. These are inhabited mostly by US citizens. Believe me when I say you'll notice a difference.
Finally, notice the current trend in most US cities where immigrants are increasingly moving to Suburbs, rather than in the urban center. In the Chicagoland area, this has created mini-booms in many suburbs, where developers put up multi-unit residential rentals along the commuter tracks in the suburban centers. Rather than tearing the communities apart, it has resulted in a bigger suburban economy and given immigrants cheaper residences outside the city. Not to say there haven't been problems, but not to the level your post would imply.
To sum up: the quotes I took from your post are the worst type of generalization. They offer only a blind dislike for foreigners and offer little in the way of reality. Barbaric? Unclean? Who, exactly, is succumbing to popular mythology.
Please.
Taft
I'm not disagreeing with your comments about selective enforcement. This is just not one of those cases.
Taft
And what is preventing me from moving from Windows to BSD?
The grandparent was referring to the fact that you can take a GNU/linux distro and replace the kernel, thereby making it a GNU/BSD distro. So far as I know, you can't replace MS's kernel and have Windows running on a BSD kernel.
There are lots of third-party replacements shells for Windows.
Ahh, so it must be oh-so-easy to run GNUStep as your only window manager on an NT platform. Or were you really referring to a shell? While its true that you can swap out a DOS shell for something else (or wrap DOS with a more full featured interpreter), it is by no means as easy as it is on Linux. Further, Windows includes, by default, one and only one shell: DOS. I personally, think it is a pile o' crap.
Thats because they are the one distrbuting it.
Which is exactly the friggin' point. They are the ONLY company distributing Windows. With Linux, you get choice. With MS, you get...well, MS. Or "MS: presented by Dell."
You have points with your GUI comments, but most Linux distros are trying to provide the GUI tools that Windows/Mac users take for granted. And those tools are becoming more evolved all the time.
Something makes me think I've taken the bait...
Taft
Many would disagree. O'Reilly wrote up a good piece about the two technologies a while back. Its a good overview of what they offer and the pros and cons of each.
A quick rundown? Zeroconf (Rendezvous) provides a way to discover services and addresses automatically, without address duplication by multiple devices. UPnP does the same thing. The difference is that UPnP also dictates HOW to talk to devices and services, while Zeroconf forces devices to know how to talk to each other.
Taft
Smells like trolls 'round these parts.
Here are sourceforge's statistics on GTK#.
Here are sourceforge's statistics on Java-Gnome.
What criteria are you using to proclaim Java-Gnome dead? From the statistics on sourceforge, it seems that there is interest in the project and far more reports of bugs than for GTK#.
I agree that Sun hasn't been as cooperative as I'd like to see in terms of Java's relationship with the open source community. However, I think you are making some baseless assertions about the current and future relevence of projects supporting Java in the open source arena.
Also, I think it is laughable that the mono team claims "Java applications do not conform to the Linux GUI look and feel." Which look and feel is that, exactly? KDE? Gnome? FVWM? The majority of Linux apps that I use do not conform to any single look and feel. OpenOffice? Looks like Windows 95. Mozilla/Firefox (by default)? Completely different (though skinable). Sure, Mono, with GTK# looks like a Gnome app, but that really isn't going to help a KDE or FVWM user, is it?
Much of the anti-Java sentiment around slashdot seems to originate from rabid pro-open source ideology. I wish people would evaluate these technologies on their capabilities and applicability rather than whether the companies supporting them conform to their particular ideology.
Taft