I'm not the largest fan of Itunes on Windows either (too much bloat for the sake of products I don't own or want), but it is better for my uses than anything I've found on Linux. I had my HTPC using Ubuntu for awhile and switched it over to Windows7 for lack of an Mp3 player. Amarok was nice, but a bit creepy in modern version, Banshee was nice but died with my library of over 6000 songs, I used Guay-something mostly. I spent a month going through every damn Linux player I could find and none of them were feature rich, stable, or intuitive (pick two).
I have to agree. Though I did appreciate the earlier versions of Amarok, the latest incantation is blasphemy of the highest order. Now, that's not to say it has improved--when I last tried it, their 2.x (was that it?) branch was feature incomplete and still effectively in beta but being pushed to most distros' repositories as shippable software. I ditched it as quickly as I could and reverted back to the v1.4 as soon as possible. Though, that was also around the time I was taking a.NET class and didn't have enough RAM in my box to support running Windows + Visual Studio in a VM, so I ditched it all and returned to Windows. I still dual boot, but the majority of my media consumption (music) is under Windows.
I finally ditched Linux, though, because of Flash. What good is an HTPC that can't handle most streaming video? I feel dirty, and unnerdy about it, but... there comes a time when we have to pick function over ideology. Especially when I expect my girlfriend to be able to handle it. I get the "Flash is Adobe's fault" argument (and not being able to handle HDMI sound is Nvidia's) , but she didn't. "Wait, you have a HTPC that can't handle media? That makes sense how?". Oddly Boxee could handle 1080p streaming fine, but nothing else could, despite rolling back drivers and hand editing, and recompiling random crap. And Boxee become almost useless when Hulu pulled all support from them... again. And Hulu's client fails completely on Linux. None of it is Linux's fault... but damn.
Hear, hear. Flash support under Linux may be OK--if you have a decent gaming rig. The average HTPC can't handle it, though, unless it's a cast off from your previous generation of--*drum roll*--gaming rigs. I built a relatively cheap HTPC using Intel's Atom platform and Ubuntu for my parents in the hopes that I wouldn't have to worry too much about supporting it. I must say that I was rather underwhelmed, and fullscreen Flash is impossible (even with the various Xorg tweaks/Flash tweaks and so forth). It's almost painful to watch.
Admittedly, it improved a bit in recent versions, but I almost regret just not buying a cheap Athlon+mobo and going with that instead. So, really, it's probably more the fault of the Atom, but given my general experiences with Flash being very hit or miss, I think there's plenty of blame to share around.
We're opposites! I'm a shuffle fanatic. I collect completely random genres and listen to them all mixed on shuffle. Nothing like Mozart, followed by Slayer, followed by Coltrane, followed by Pink Floyd, followed by AC/DC, followed by Tool, followed by Dangermouse. followed by Fantomas, followed by Joanna Newsom, followed by John Zorn covering Ennio Morricone... etc...
That's hilarious! My playlist is somewhat schizophrenic, but my listening habits tend to force me to listen to a specific band (or sometimes song, as I pointed out) for a couple days. Then I shift over to something else that's wildly different. Although, it seems that recently I've been shifting between various European metal bands (Unsun seems to be my current favorite) and some weird mix of electronica/trance (Negative Format has one or two songs I've really liked listening to recently, but many are trash). Oh, and maybe a celtic folk song or two.
But, I've always maintained: True musical taste doesn't exist until your playlist is
You should really learn just a wee bit about what you are spouting out before you look like a complete idiot.
I know this stuff and I consider myself an agnostic theist.
I've pointed this out (subversively) elsewhere in this thread, but I think it's worth pointing out here and bouncing off of your complaints a little, because I think they're justified.
The biggest problem with a number of online communities--and it's a problem that is certainly growing--is that the overwhelming majority of those who are self-described liberals tend to bash, often unfairly, on theistic religions (specifically Western varieties) not because they necessarily believe these things but because it's the populist thing to do among themselves. Of course, they can't be real liberals, because real liberals should be in favor of and encouraging diversity but also widely tolerant of any and all belief systems.
In practice, of course, that's not true. Atheists are people, too, whether they would like to believe that they are or not, and they are thus victims of the same prejudices we all are. After all, it's easier to fall back to the notion of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" when faced with something you don't understand--and I think that's a part of the problem. The majority (or noisy minority) of them tend to believe they know a great deal more about religion than religious people do. While that might be a fair shake for the average religious person who is largely ignorant of many things, it easily lends itself to the same problem of tarring everyone with the same brush. Consequently, I think it should be noted that in this discussion, those who are atheist or agnostic but know a great deal about Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are among the most fair and are also the same ones who refuse to resort to the rather silly statement that anyone who believes in $religion is an outright fool.
But then, I think that's also because educated people know that they have their own choice to make about what they wish to believe (or not), and that it's counterproductive to force their beliefs on others, particularly through the vile method of casting insults.
Anyway, rant aside, I think the majority of posters here who are resorting to the "religious people are stupid" argument are precisely, as you point out, the same sort of idiots as the ones they're rallying against. It's a humorous irony until they grow a superiority complex combined with political power. Then you have things like purges of religious followers, because they are somehow impure. So much for tolerance, right?
You ARE superior if you have the intellect to distinguish fairy tails from real life.
Well, of course. Fairies don't exist, and I'm quite sure they don't have tails.
OH! You meant tale! At least, I think. Let's assume you weren't talking about the posterior of a small humanoid creature with the wings of a butterfly for a minute and that you're talking about elaborate works of fiction derived for the entertainment of children. Oh, not that kind of tale, either. You meant that as a tongue-in-cheek expression equating religious philosophy to works intended for the aforementioned purpose.
No, no, that's being a part of the problem. That line of thinking brought us, oh, the whole notion of Jews being subhuman and probably a better part of Stalin's purges. It's interesting that the greatly tolerant Communist regimes could hardly tolerate religion, because they were under the impression that religion would control someone enough to subvert the ultimate authority of the state. That alone, of course, is dangerous thinking; I think it was Reagan who once said (paraphrasing) "The most frightening thing anyone can hear is the statement 'I'm with the government, and I'm here to help.'" Yes, religion has had its problems over the years, but I'm not so sure granting the state ultimate authority über alles is a particularly wise idea, either.
Of course, since your username indicates you're Canadian, you may lack the appreciation for the rights Americans enjoy as granted to us by the Constitution to practice our religious beliefs (or lack of beliefs) as we like. Sure, the current government is stripping away those rights, but we still have the Constitution!
That said, I somehow doubt you would necessarily say the same thing toward Buddhists or any other non-theistic belief system (even though it, too, would be considered a "fairy tale"). It's much more populist to bash theistic (particularly Western theistic) religions. I mean, you're doing only what is popular, right? No harm in that.
As an aside, casting the stone of superiority only works when you can correctly write your turn of phrase without error. I refuse to cast such a stone, because I make mistakes which I will readily admit. In short: No one's perfect no matter how much they would like to believe they are. I suppose we have much to learn from the humility of Buddhists.:)
* yes, you read me correctly: I think firm belief in no superior being can become a religion, too, and this whole "discussion" is just a sad example of that. when I saw it had nearly 700 comments I was hoping to read some rants about how people should fucking start OWNING their stuff on the web, instead of giving it all up to faceless corps... or ANYTHING really, anything except another rehash of the tired old "those crazy fundies are so bad... and I'm not really any good either, so let me just use them to make me feel a bit better, ahhhh" "debates". talk about witch hunting, or rather kicking old people when they're on the ground. I don't even mind that, how petty it may be, I just wish it would end, so that more interesting ideas can surface./rant
No, you're absolutely 100% correct--and what you're pointing out is basic philosophy 101 stuff. The best way I've ever heard it put is:
Whether you believe or you don't you still believe.
The crux of it being that 1) religious deities exist beyond the metaphysical barrier outside the universe in which we can use empirical measurements to measure god/God/gods and 2) because of #1, the existence of a higher power (or not) is limited exclusively to belief and belief alone. It can't be measured (no, really, it can't--unless I suppose you're Hindu and believe that "god" is in everything, but that's another thread of thought since we're talking predominantly about Western theistic beliefs).
But, generally, it's a fad. It's the populist thing to do to make fun of the religious and paint them as mindless fools. Admittedly the overwhelming majority might be, but what about those following along with mindlessly bashing a religious philosophy they probably no nothing about?;)
One example: Browse the imgur galleries for a half hour. You'd be amazed at the anti-religious stuff that is almost frighteningly reminiscent of Hitler and his beliefs against Jews....apologies for invoking Godwin's Law.
You're right and you're wrong (at least in my anecdotal case). I am a Christian and stopped going to church a few years back. There were a number of reasons, I didn't like constantly defending myself against what other crazier Christians were doing, and I didn't like wasting my time going to church every week when 99% of what they preached didn't make any sense or didn't apply to me. My faith is still there, I just learned that organized religion does nothing but puts up barriers. For the record I believe in evolution, questioning the bible, and tolerance for everybody, be they black, white, gay, Klingon, or even woman.
We may be few in number, but you're not alone. I was raised as a Southern Baptist and tend to consider myself a more secular Christian (though still Baptist). I haven't regularly attended church for years precisely because I've grown tired of hearing the mantra "Anyone who believes the Earth is more than 6,000 years old is a heathen."
My response to them generally being, of course, "I'm as comfortable with being a heathen as you are clearly an idiot" never really won many friends... I can't imagine why. However, I think it's that group of individuals who tend to make the rest of us (you know, the ones who actually know what science is about and actually know and understand that things like the Big Bang and evolution are the best explanations we have for how we got here--and ones that aren't entirely incompatible with faith unless you make it such) look bad.
That said, I'm still a conservative. I tend to be more socially liberal in some regards, though. But I find that Beck is an absolute nutjob whacked out fanatical lunatic. Case in point: I made the mistake of watching an interview with him that a friend had linked me to, and Beck's arguments were disconnected, his statements were all over the place, and it was exceedingly difficult trying to follow precisely what his argument was! I think that's a pretty strong indicator that the guy is insane. He may have been entertaining to watch many years ago, but as he's grown more popular, his sanity has all but evaporated.
(Obvious disclaimer: Being conservative, you can take my anti-Beck statements where you like. I realize that I don't exactly match the typical conservative profile, and many of my beliefs differ from what I suppose would be considered "classical" conservatism. Thus, I'm likely far from Beck's target audience. Regardless, there are some of us on the political right who cannot stand the guy.)
Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."
Admittedly, cloaking could easily be argued to be different from what Experts Exchange does, but I can easily see how the opposite could be true, too: Show the real (or as real as possible) content to the search engine, show the paywall to the user.
I think they get around that by having the answer listed at the bottom, so the "deception" doesn't really apply to the search engine--it applies to misleading visitors (people) into thinking that they have to pay. But, my point is that if they did provide different content, Google would have delisted them.
Except for the fact that if any one of us non-politicians had an identical looking website as Palin's with gun crosshairs and a listing of people (one of which was just murdered), we would be in prison right now waiting for our trial in 2025 or later.
The Dems did a similar thing in 2004. And even then, I think that's a pretty silly example. While we're at it, let's investigate anyone who uses the phrase "targeted marketing."
The guy who shot Giffords was obsessed with killing her and had been for some time. It had nothing to do with Palin or with target emblems on some random site that very few people probably even looked at--and let's not get into a hypothetical rant.
I swear, the political Left in the US is just as bad (worse, actually) as the whackjobs they point to repeatedly on the Right.
That behavior in iTunes is no longer the default, at least. And, last I checked, it could keep a large, unorganized, directory organized within itself, without mucking with the directory.
As I seem to recall, the Windows version of iTunes (which is terrible, I admit, but that's another rant entirely) would at least ask if you wished for iTunes to manager your collection for you. I can't think of an instance where it automatically took it upon itself to do what it wanted, unlike what the OP suggested. Then again, I don't own a Mac.
Generally, though, I just bounce between using Winamp and a Python-based Amarok clone when I'm under Ubuntu. I loved the daylights out of Amarok when I used to use Gentoo as my primary OS, but the blasphemy that has become the latest version was abhorrent that last time I tried it. But for me, it doesn't really matter. I always have my music under some/mp3s/artists/[artist_name]/[album] structure anyway, and while I have about 40GiB worth of music, I seldom need a tagging system to keep track of what I want to listen to.
Then again, my listening habits are such that I'll listen to one song repeatedly until the neighbors lose their minds, so aside from queuing my entire collection and shuffling at random when I want to listen to something new, there's almost no point in using something like iTunes. Even Amarok was a little bit of overkill.
(As an example, I have listened to Disturbed's "Facade" from Indestructible around 3900 times.)
But you're right, it's insanely difficult to keep things well organized under Windows. I have most of my documents on my Windows install sync'd using Subversion, but since I don't like large OS partitions, I've had to do some odd tricks with junction (from sysinternals) to get it to behave nicely. It makes using a real OS a breath of fresh air compared to the nightmare that is the Windows directory layout, although it has improved slightly since the XP days--SLIGHTLY.
letting mission-critical systems be used by employees to surf facebook and download cute fonts and wallpaper.
Most likely: Yes.
A friend of mine works non-emergency dispatch--not quite the same thing as an emergency service, of course--and I get the impression that their network admin has a mild case of brain damage. Apparently they're prohibited from using non-MSIE browsers. Period. End of story. If it's not MSIE, it doesn't belong on the machine. I don't know if their internal network or the sites (externally) they have to access require ActiveX, but in either case, having ActiveX and/or requiring MSIE only and putting in place policies that prohibit the use of more easily secured browsers* is just asking for trouble. I'd guess most Windows-based organizations, either by creed or contract, have similar policies.
* Yes, I realize that Firefox is susceptible to drive-by-installs with Flash or whatever. I also realize that MSIE can be locked down fairly tightly (exploits notwithstanding) but it often isn't. Here's the catch: Locking down IE requires 1) access to the configuration which may be disabled by the network admin and 2) the majority of Windows network admins probably have zero (0) clue how to lock down the browser. Furthermore, since only recently have organizations begun shifting away from MSIE6 (!), I don't think it's possible to claim that the majority of Windows networks for small companies are sufficiently locked down.
While the points you make are true of many of the knee-jerk left-leaning individuals here (but not necessarily true of the more level headed ones--yes, they're out there), your post reminded me of something else that's mostly unrelated. So, here's my wholly tangential thought:
Going back to the summary (which is light on details--and the slideshow is kind of silly), there's a huge double standard both in the media and our government. I'm talking about the double standard that exists between the treatment of violence in video games (think of the children!) versus the violence in what are often critically acclaimed movies. Of course, this is largely because our representatives have strong ties to Hollywood and the video game industry hasn't a very powerful lobby in comparison (if at all?). There are undoubtedly forces that see video games as a danger to their entertainment income, and with random shootings every couple of years, it's easy to spin video games as the cause of such violence. Many movies are just as brutal as video games, and many others even more so, but since the mainstream press is often owned by the same conglomerates as own the major studios (hi, MPAA!), it's easy to see why they play softball with their kindred.
Never mind that the individuals who committed these acts are often very disturbed, disgruntled individuals who in some cases (think of the Arizona shooter) had a history of being disruptive with behavior that made at least one professor uneasy. But, hey, let's blame the video game industry. They aren't funneling enough money into the back pockets of our politicians! Shame on them.
I hate to reply to myself, but I was debating to address some of your points, because (surprise!) I largely agree. Unfortunately, I haven't a great deal of time today to do so as I need to get much more work done.
That said, I have added you (Omestes) as a friend so I can better track your comments. There's a method to my madness--see my journal for precisely why--but generally: If I've enjoyed a conversation with someone, it allows me to track your comments more easily. Also, level-headed, fair individuals tend to be added by me, regardless of whether I agree with their political stance.
I hope I didn't come off angry in this reply. I still am not. Though I do wish I had a bit more coffee this morning, but I assure you that it isn't your, nor the Tea Party's, fault.
No, no, fair enough. It's perfectly understandable.
I owe you an apology for misinterpreting your original post. I appreciate people who are willing to have a respectful disagreement, but I appreciate people much more who are willing to clarify their previous statements when faced with someone unfairly slamming them for being something they weren't. I truly apologize for that.
Thank you for the clarification. You describe yourself along a very similar thread to many of my liberal-leaning friends whom I get along with quite well.
However, this tidbit would probably explain why Anonymous retaliated:
But Barr got his Financial Times story, and with it the publicity he sought. He also made clear that he had the real names, and Anonymous knew he would soon meet with the FBI. Though Barr apparently planned to keep his names and addresses private even at this meeting, it was easy to see why Anonymous would have doubts.
Considering that Barr mentioned elsewhere (in the leaked e-mails Ars reported) that he was doing this for publicity and to bring in money--and probably also to bolster his company's name since that wing of HBGary was going to be sold for ~$2 million--I'm not sure you could trust him as far as he could be kicked. Even his programmer expressed concerns with what Barr was doing (both to Barr as well as company executives). So no, Barr never publicly stated he would release names--maybe he did in the leaked e-mails--but the guy was an arrogant tool. I don't condone what Anonymous did, mainly because it hurt many other people in the process, but I can't imagine a more deserving target of public embarrassment than Mr. Barr.
Barr's typing was also atrocious. In a way, I think they should have gone after him for that alone, but I think that's just my inner grammar Nazi talking.
Sounds like Google is taking it upon themselves to decide "right and wrong" on the internet and inflict punishment on those who don't comply with their dictates for what constitutes "fair", without anyone having any recourse. Color me not impressed.
No they're not. In case you didn't know, Google has their webmaster guidelines posted for all to see. The motivation behind these rules is to ensure (or at least try to ensure) that their search results continue to be relevant and useful for--wait for it--the user.
So, you can either play by the rules or not. If you break the rules, don't go complaining about Google being "unfair."
I'm sorry, but I don't. If you're going to smear an entire country like that, you're putting those who actually can and will do something in the same boat as those who don't give a fuck. It's also making the (unwarranted) assumption that everyone in American thinks the same way, wants the same things, cares about the same things. We don't. Hell, I'm an American too, and we're obviously disagreeing about something. That's how it's supposed to be, and maybe one or both of us comes away with a fresh perspective. Simply tarring everyone with the same brush discourages that, limits communication and creates bad feelings on both sides. How does that help? Tell me... how does it?
There seems to be a noisy movement among countries outside of the US (even, to an extent, including Canada) where their population seems to profess a great deal of (incorrect) knowledge of the US. I'd imagine much of that is derived from their media and probably our entertainment exports, most notably movies. Of course, I agree with you: Judging the US as a whole by a very small minority of people or stereotypes doesn't achieve much of anything at all and it certainly interferes with legitimate, worthwhile discussion.
As an anecdotal story: My mum is Australian, my father is American. Hence, much of my family is split between two countries. Sadly, I have more Aussie relatives than I can count on my fingers who seem to think they're very well educated with regards to US politics yet they haven't any clue about what the Bill of Rights is much less anything related to Jefferson's works and (as you alluded to in your post earlier) the extensive discussion our founding fathers undertook even following the drafting of the Constitution. I don't really understand this rationale per se, because I refuse to pretend knowing anything about Australian politics, of which I am admittedly 100% ignorant.
Anyway, aside from my aside, I agree with you completely, and I'm a little irritated with those who keep replying to you stating that the OP was right. I guess it's popular to bash on Americans in general just as it was to make French jokes post-9/11. Certainly while I may not agree with some of your other posts (we each have our friendly disagreements, and that's healthy), I'm thankful that you have taken the time to point out that it's grossly counter to any productive discussion to tar everyone with the same brush--to believe that all the stereotypes are true. I'm sure if we, playing the part of the ugly American, were to profess that our stereotypes of $country were equally true, we'd hear no end of bellyaching. Funny how it works out.
Though one question does arise: What, precisely, would happen to the steering control in the circumstance that the engine is shut off. I realize it's possible to steer (with some difficulty) if the engine is cut off, but I would assume that it is impossible to accidentally engage the steering wheel lock (such as when removing the key at a complete stop) while the vehicle is moving?
Pardon my ignorance, but this certainly isn't something I've actually tried, but it is something that I'd be interested in knowing. The other thing implied by my original post was that if I--a generally mechanically disinclined individual--can figure several ways to slow the vehicle in an emergency, why someone who was supposedly a former state trooper couldn't.
I wasn't quite expecting this much of a rant, but it's possible my tongue-in-cheek slightly sarcastically passive-aggressive writing style may have provoked a bit more of one than I expected. Either that or you wanted to vent about the Tea Party in some way or another.
There are some points I want to address. I'm not sure if this is to add more fuel to the fire or simply because I haven't much better to do tonight.
I very much disdain the Tea Party. Let me revise this, I very much disdain the "Palinesque" majority of the Tea Party, and only vehemently dislike (yet respect) the Libertarian minority of the Tea Party.
I really dislike this language. Granted, we're each allowed to express our opinion, but I find that the more I read comments like yours either here on Slashdot or some of the various drivel that exists on Reddit, the more I'm convinced that this attitude is part of the problem.
Progressive generally espouse the belief that it's good to have an open mind, but I'm rather puzzled as to why so many of them quite literally disdain anyone who disagrees--typically for no other reason than the views of religious conservatism. Yes, I do agree that there are religious conservatives who would like to force their beliefs on others, and I find that unproductive. I also find this general attack dog mentality of the left to be equally unproductive. It's equal parts frustration and disappointment.
This is especially true of the Tea Party, since it is a schizophrenic, fractured, beast. There isn't a unified Tea Party.
Aside from this notion of "unification," I think much of what you've stated could be said about each of the major US political parties. Only time will tell what may eventually become of the Tea Party, but I would personally like to see them ditch Palin. I don't have anything against her personally, but she's politically toxic given the various SNL skits, various public statements she has made, and certainly the negative media attention from the mainstream press hasn't helped.
This, to me, is irony. A lot of the Tea Party rhetoric I see puts them as the "for liberty", but are fully willing to be tyrannical and force their arbitrary religious choices on other people. They also talk about the founding fathers ad nauseum, but completely ignore the pains most of the founders went through to eliminate religion from government. They also ignore the fact that most modern Christians (of the Evangelical, and Fundamental flavor) would have condemned most of the founder's beliefs as being un-Christian, them being mostly Deists and all.
I'm still not sure why you cherry-picked parts of my statement when I was being mostly cordially and jestful--and largely talking about something entirely unrelated to this argument. Guess I struck a nerve.:) That wasn't intended.
Let me reiterate: I don't condone anyone who forces their views on others. By the same token, I think you've largely fallen for what has been repeated in the mainstream press of the Tea Party. I admit my own experiences are anecdotal, but of those I've met locally (possibly not representative of the Tea Party movement as a whole--but I find that hard to believe), I can't think of one that fits into this notion of religious tyranny. From how you describe it, it would seem that anyone who self-identifies with the Tea Party is just a stone's throw from the Spanish Inquisition! Seriously, take a few deep breaths and realize that some people might actually disagree with you; disagreement doesn't necessarily mean they want you to fall on your knees and pray to Jesus. Maybe they want you to be polite and amenable--not moments away from bursting an artery.
Brief aside: "Most modern Christians" are much more secular than I think you realize. The noisy minority tends to get most of the press. But, I suspect you're just generally anti-religious--with the possible excepti
Example, here in Alaska, 16% of the land area of the US, has copper running to about 5-7% of it.
Well I googled it. POTS copper line leads into 95% of Alaskan homes, mainly due to FDR's universal service fund subsidizing the lines. In other words - you were waaaaay off.
I may be wrong, but I suspect you misinterpreted the parent's point (which, if I'm right, was admittedly poorly phrased). I think what the OP was pointing out was that Alaska is 16% of the USA's total land area--implying how big Alaska truly is--while hinting that only 5-7% of Alaska's own land area is serviced by copper. This would make much more sense considering how few population centers Alaska has as well as it's relatively tiny population.
My interpretation may be way off, and you might very well be correct, but according to the US Census Bureau, Alaska has a population density of about 1.1 people per square mile which is well below the national average of 79.6. If the OP did mean to indicate that only 5% of Alaska's land area is serviced by copper, this figure would make much more sense.
than having my own car that is quiet and roomy and can be used to pick-up a week's worth of food on my way home from work.
This is what proponents of "public transport solves everything" seem to conveniently forget. If you have an efficient vehicle and you can transport a week's worth of groceries (or more), you're fundamentally saving more energy than if you had to ride a train to the store every couple days to pick up odds and ends that you can't easily carry. I also hate shopping, so I'd rather buy enough staples for 1-2 weeks at a time than to have to run to the store every couple of days.
The other side of the coin is that, for example, rural America has virtually no public transport to speak of. While a train through one of the towns through here might afford some transportation, getting home is an issue if you live 25-30 miles outside of that town. No train is going to ascend 2,000-4,000' mountains just to drop off maybe 5 or 10 people. Hell, there's no bus service around that drops anyone off up there! I can't see elderly grocery-goers carting around their day's worth of goods for 25+ miles.
With the way the US infrastructure is designed and considering the land area of the country that is largely rural, there's no way trains will supplant privately owned vehicles for a very long time. Though, I do recall an someone here on Slashdot arguing with me once that no one has to live in rural areas (it's a choice), and it'd be more efficient to cram everyone into living spaces in the cities, but that certainly doesn't sound very "free" to me. This notion also neglects to mention how many of the rural areas are generally too poor to be able to afford 1) the move to a city and 2) the cost of living elsewhere.
I don't see why getting into the movies doesn't require an extensive security check. Perfect occasion to hurt a lot of people there. Or on a bus, subway, ball game, or even a walk through Times Square. All dense concentrations of people, opportunities to kill many more people than on an airplane. Heck I think a ballgame has more people more exposed and is easier to setup than the wtc was at the time.
I think it's the fear factor. Extremists worldwide have shown a bizarre obsession with airlines and airline related things--think of the recent Moscow airport bombing. I'm not sure exactly why they target airlines (or airports), but as far as the plane goes, I would posit that it might have something to do with 1) killing people and 2) the fear of an uncontrolled wreck plummeting to the ground, possibly in a populated area.
I've discussed this with some friends of mine, and one of them brought up a point very similar to yours: There are many more "useful' targets that the terrorists could hit that the government doesn't seem interested in protecting. Yet the terrorists are still obsessed with air travel. I can only surmise that it's because they want to encourage fear very slightly more than achieving a negative economic impact on the rest of the world. Though, I do remember reading a NYT article following the attempted toner/printer bombings where one of the various terror groups seemed interested in bringing air shipments to a halt. I believe they referred to it as (paraphrasing) "economic death by a thousand cuts."
You forgot that the password should also have a maximum length of 16 characters.
I'm not sure what site it is, but I'm pretty sure one of them that I need to access requires a 6-8 character password.
That reminds me of one site I visited many years ago (no, I don't remember which one--we're talking probably 2000-2001). I entered a password, probably 7 characters of letters, numbers, and symbols. It told me it wanted a minimum of 8. I then proceeded to enter a favorite quote of mine at the time. And then......it told me that the maximum password length was 10 characters.
The only way it could have gotten worse was if it told me that the characters !, @, # and & were illegal. Which it did.
Save your praise: most of the Republicans actually supported extension. It only failed by seven votes, and that because almost every Democrat and some of the Tea Party newcomers opposed it.
Which is ironic considering how much most Slashdotters disdain the Tea Party.
In fairness (and admittedly anecdotally), most of the people from my area who self-identify with the Tea Party may tend toward the religious/Christian voting bloc, there's a great many of them who are more socially liberal. Perhaps not with issues like gay marriage, sex ed, and so forth, but certainly they generally dislike granting the government any extension of its powers.
The upshot is that while most of the Left and those who identify with the Tea Party may not always see eye to eye, at least there are a few among the latter who understand when it is important to block measures that would otherwise grant the federal government extension over stripping away our liberties.
Of course, I'd wager that most of the Tea Partiers who voted against it probably did so because they couldn't stomach the Obama administration having these powers.;)
(Disclaimer: I tend to self-identify with the Tea Party for most of their sensible policies. Hence, I also believe that my last statement is probably a significant reason why any of them would have voted against this measure.)
3.) The chance of every piece of a drive by wire failing in such a way as to cause your car to accelerate uncontrollably is probably similar to your chance of being struck down by a falling meteorite. In the unusual even that it does happen, you can shift your car into neutral to stop.
That's what I don't understand. There was at least one incident where the individual(s) involved in a fatal crash had sufficient time to phone 911 and describe their emergency but it didn't occur to them to pop the vehicle into neutral, use the handbrake, and pull over to diagnose the problem with the vehicle stopped?
I'm sorry, but if (if) the vehicle did anything unexpected to me, that'd be my first reaction. To hell with the engine--if it blows, it blows--they can be replaced, lives can't.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree. Though I did appreciate the earlier versions of Amarok, the latest incantation is blasphemy of the highest order. Now, that's not to say it has improved--when I last tried it, their 2.x (was that it?) branch was feature incomplete and still effectively in beta but being pushed to most distros' repositories as shippable software. I ditched it as quickly as I could and reverted back to the v1.4 as soon as possible. Though, that was also around the time I was taking a .NET class and didn't have enough RAM in my box to support running Windows + Visual Studio in a VM, so I ditched it all and returned to Windows. I still dual boot, but the majority of my media consumption (music) is under Windows.
Hear, hear. Flash support under Linux may be OK--if you have a decent gaming rig. The average HTPC can't handle it, though, unless it's a cast off from your previous generation of--*drum roll*--gaming rigs. I built a relatively cheap HTPC using Intel's Atom platform and Ubuntu for my parents in the hopes that I wouldn't have to worry too much about supporting it. I must say that I was rather underwhelmed, and fullscreen Flash is impossible (even with the various Xorg tweaks/Flash tweaks and so forth). It's almost painful to watch.
Admittedly, it improved a bit in recent versions, but I almost regret just not buying a cheap Athlon+mobo and going with that instead. So, really, it's probably more the fault of the Atom, but given my general experiences with Flash being very hit or miss, I think there's plenty of blame to share around.
That's hilarious! My playlist is somewhat schizophrenic, but my listening habits tend to force me to listen to a specific band (or sometimes song, as I pointed out) for a couple days. Then I shift over to something else that's wildly different. Although, it seems that recently I've been shifting between various European metal bands (Unsun seems to be my current favorite) and some weird mix of electronica/trance (Negative Format has one or two songs I've really liked listening to recently, but many are trash). Oh, and maybe a celtic folk song or two.
But, I've always maintained: True musical taste doesn't exist until your playlist is
I've pointed this out (subversively) elsewhere in this thread, but I think it's worth pointing out here and bouncing off of your complaints a little, because I think they're justified.
The biggest problem with a number of online communities--and it's a problem that is certainly growing--is that the overwhelming majority of those who are self-described liberals tend to bash, often unfairly, on theistic religions (specifically Western varieties) not because they necessarily believe these things but because it's the populist thing to do among themselves. Of course, they can't be real liberals, because real liberals should be in favor of and encouraging diversity but also widely tolerant of any and all belief systems.
In practice, of course, that's not true. Atheists are people, too, whether they would like to believe that they are or not, and they are thus victims of the same prejudices we all are. After all, it's easier to fall back to the notion of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" when faced with something you don't understand--and I think that's a part of the problem. The majority (or noisy minority) of them tend to believe they know a great deal more about religion than religious people do. While that might be a fair shake for the average religious person who is largely ignorant of many things, it easily lends itself to the same problem of tarring everyone with the same brush. Consequently, I think it should be noted that in this discussion, those who are atheist or agnostic but know a great deal about Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are among the most fair and are also the same ones who refuse to resort to the rather silly statement that anyone who believes in $religion is an outright fool.
But then, I think that's also because educated people know that they have their own choice to make about what they wish to believe (or not), and that it's counterproductive to force their beliefs on others, particularly through the vile method of casting insults.
Anyway, rant aside, I think the majority of posters here who are resorting to the "religious people are stupid" argument are precisely, as you point out, the same sort of idiots as the ones they're rallying against. It's a humorous irony until they grow a superiority complex combined with political power. Then you have things like purges of religious followers, because they are somehow impure. So much for tolerance, right?
Well, of course. Fairies don't exist, and I'm quite sure they don't have tails.
OH! You meant tale! At least, I think. Let's assume you weren't talking about the posterior of a small humanoid creature with the wings of a butterfly for a minute and that you're talking about elaborate works of fiction derived for the entertainment of children. Oh, not that kind of tale, either. You meant that as a tongue-in-cheek expression equating religious philosophy to works intended for the aforementioned purpose.
No, no, that's being a part of the problem. That line of thinking brought us, oh, the whole notion of Jews being subhuman and probably a better part of Stalin's purges. It's interesting that the greatly tolerant Communist regimes could hardly tolerate religion, because they were under the impression that religion would control someone enough to subvert the ultimate authority of the state. That alone, of course, is dangerous thinking; I think it was Reagan who once said (paraphrasing) "The most frightening thing anyone can hear is the statement 'I'm with the government, and I'm here to help.'" Yes, religion has had its problems over the years, but I'm not so sure granting the state ultimate authority über alles is a particularly wise idea, either.
Of course, since your username indicates you're Canadian, you may lack the appreciation for the rights Americans enjoy as granted to us by the Constitution to practice our religious beliefs (or lack of beliefs) as we like. Sure, the current government is stripping away those rights, but we still have the Constitution!
That said, I somehow doubt you would necessarily say the same thing toward Buddhists or any other non-theistic belief system (even though it, too, would be considered a "fairy tale"). It's much more populist to bash theistic (particularly Western theistic) religions. I mean, you're doing only what is popular, right? No harm in that.
As an aside, casting the stone of superiority only works when you can correctly write your turn of phrase without error. I refuse to cast such a stone, because I make mistakes which I will readily admit. In short: No one's perfect no matter how much they would like to believe they are. I suppose we have much to learn from the humility of Buddhists. :)
No, you're absolutely 100% correct--and what you're pointing out is basic philosophy 101 stuff. The best way I've ever heard it put is:
The crux of it being that 1) religious deities exist beyond the metaphysical barrier outside the universe in which we can use empirical measurements to measure god/God/gods and 2) because of #1, the existence of a higher power (or not) is limited exclusively to belief and belief alone. It can't be measured (no, really, it can't--unless I suppose you're Hindu and believe that "god" is in everything, but that's another thread of thought since we're talking predominantly about Western theistic beliefs).
But, generally, it's a fad. It's the populist thing to do to make fun of the religious and paint them as mindless fools. Admittedly the overwhelming majority might be, but what about those following along with mindlessly bashing a religious philosophy they probably no nothing about? ;)
One example: Browse the imgur galleries for a half hour. You'd be amazed at the anti-religious stuff that is almost frighteningly reminiscent of Hitler and his beliefs against Jews. ...apologies for invoking Godwin's Law.
We may be few in number, but you're not alone. I was raised as a Southern Baptist and tend to consider myself a more secular Christian (though still Baptist). I haven't regularly attended church for years precisely because I've grown tired of hearing the mantra "Anyone who believes the Earth is more than 6,000 years old is a heathen."
My response to them generally being, of course, "I'm as comfortable with being a heathen as you are clearly an idiot" never really won many friends... I can't imagine why. However, I think it's that group of individuals who tend to make the rest of us (you know, the ones who actually know what science is about and actually know and understand that things like the Big Bang and evolution are the best explanations we have for how we got here--and ones that aren't entirely incompatible with faith unless you make it such) look bad.
That said, I'm still a conservative. I tend to be more socially liberal in some regards, though. But I find that Beck is an absolute nutjob whacked out fanatical lunatic. Case in point: I made the mistake of watching an interview with him that a friend had linked me to, and Beck's arguments were disconnected, his statements were all over the place, and it was exceedingly difficult trying to follow precisely what his argument was! I think that's a pretty strong indicator that the guy is insane. He may have been entertaining to watch many years ago, but as he's grown more popular, his sanity has all but evaporated.
(Obvious disclaimer: Being conservative, you can take my anti-Beck statements where you like. I realize that I don't exactly match the typical conservative profile, and many of my beliefs differ from what I suppose would be considered "classical" conservatism. Thus, I'm likely far from Beck's target audience. Regardless, there are some of us on the political right who cannot stand the guy.)
If I site does that, it can be delisted:
Admittedly, cloaking could easily be argued to be different from what Experts Exchange does, but I can easily see how the opposite could be true, too: Show the real (or as real as possible) content to the search engine, show the paywall to the user.
I think they get around that by having the answer listed at the bottom, so the "deception" doesn't really apply to the search engine--it applies to misleading visitors (people) into thinking that they have to pay. But, my point is that if they did provide different content, Google would have delisted them.
Weird. I read that as:
The Dems did a similar thing in 2004. And even then, I think that's a pretty silly example. While we're at it, let's investigate anyone who uses the phrase "targeted marketing."
The guy who shot Giffords was obsessed with killing her and had been for some time. It had nothing to do with Palin or with target emblems on some random site that very few people probably even looked at--and let's not get into a hypothetical rant.
I swear, the political Left in the US is just as bad (worse, actually) as the whackjobs they point to repeatedly on the Right.
As I seem to recall, the Windows version of iTunes (which is terrible, I admit, but that's another rant entirely) would at least ask if you wished for iTunes to manager your collection for you. I can't think of an instance where it automatically took it upon itself to do what it wanted, unlike what the OP suggested. Then again, I don't own a Mac.
Generally, though, I just bounce between using Winamp and a Python-based Amarok clone when I'm under Ubuntu. I loved the daylights out of Amarok when I used to use Gentoo as my primary OS, but the blasphemy that has become the latest version was abhorrent that last time I tried it. But for me, it doesn't really matter. I always have my music under some /mp3s/artists/[artist_name]/[album] structure anyway, and while I have about 40GiB worth of music, I seldom need a tagging system to keep track of what I want to listen to.
Then again, my listening habits are such that I'll listen to one song repeatedly until the neighbors lose their minds, so aside from queuing my entire collection and shuffling at random when I want to listen to something new, there's almost no point in using something like iTunes. Even Amarok was a little bit of overkill.
(As an example, I have listened to Disturbed's "Facade" from Indestructible around 3900 times.)
But you're right, it's insanely difficult to keep things well organized under Windows. I have most of my documents on my Windows install sync'd using Subversion, but since I don't like large OS partitions, I've had to do some odd tricks with junction (from sysinternals) to get it to behave nicely. It makes using a real OS a breath of fresh air compared to the nightmare that is the Windows directory layout, although it has improved slightly since the XP days--SLIGHTLY.
Most likely: Yes.
A friend of mine works non-emergency dispatch--not quite the same thing as an emergency service, of course--and I get the impression that their network admin has a mild case of brain damage. Apparently they're prohibited from using non-MSIE browsers. Period. End of story. If it's not MSIE, it doesn't belong on the machine. I don't know if their internal network or the sites (externally) they have to access require ActiveX, but in either case, having ActiveX and/or requiring MSIE only and putting in place policies that prohibit the use of more easily secured browsers* is just asking for trouble. I'd guess most Windows-based organizations, either by creed or contract, have similar policies.
* Yes, I realize that Firefox is susceptible to drive-by-installs with Flash or whatever. I also realize that MSIE can be locked down fairly tightly (exploits notwithstanding) but it often isn't. Here's the catch: Locking down IE requires 1) access to the configuration which may be disabled by the network admin and 2) the majority of Windows network admins probably have zero (0) clue how to lock down the browser. Furthermore, since only recently have organizations begun shifting away from MSIE6 (!), I don't think it's possible to claim that the majority of Windows networks for small companies are sufficiently locked down.
While the points you make are true of many of the knee-jerk left-leaning individuals here (but not necessarily true of the more level headed ones--yes, they're out there), your post reminded me of something else that's mostly unrelated. So, here's my wholly tangential thought:
Going back to the summary (which is light on details--and the slideshow is kind of silly), there's a huge double standard both in the media and our government. I'm talking about the double standard that exists between the treatment of violence in video games (think of the children!) versus the violence in what are often critically acclaimed movies. Of course, this is largely because our representatives have strong ties to Hollywood and the video game industry hasn't a very powerful lobby in comparison (if at all?). There are undoubtedly forces that see video games as a danger to their entertainment income, and with random shootings every couple of years, it's easy to spin video games as the cause of such violence. Many movies are just as brutal as video games, and many others even more so, but since the mainstream press is often owned by the same conglomerates as own the major studios (hi, MPAA!), it's easy to see why they play softball with their kindred.
Never mind that the individuals who committed these acts are often very disturbed, disgruntled individuals who in some cases (think of the Arizona shooter) had a history of being disruptive with behavior that made at least one professor uneasy. But, hey, let's blame the video game industry. They aren't funneling enough money into the back pockets of our politicians! Shame on them.
I hate to reply to myself, but I was debating to address some of your points, because (surprise!) I largely agree. Unfortunately, I haven't a great deal of time today to do so as I need to get much more work done.
That said, I have added you (Omestes) as a friend so I can better track your comments. There's a method to my madness--see my journal for precisely why--but generally: If I've enjoyed a conversation with someone, it allows me to track your comments more easily. Also, level-headed, fair individuals tend to be added by me, regardless of whether I agree with their political stance.
No, no, fair enough. It's perfectly understandable.
I owe you an apology for misinterpreting your original post. I appreciate people who are willing to have a respectful disagreement, but I appreciate people much more who are willing to clarify their previous statements when faced with someone unfairly slamming them for being something they weren't. I truly apologize for that.
Thank you for the clarification. You describe yourself along a very similar thread to many of my liberal-leaning friends whom I get along with quite well.
Yes and no. He claimed that he wasn't going to release names, and Ars Technica seems to confirm that from publicly released information related to this incident.
However, this tidbit would probably explain why Anonymous retaliated:
Considering that Barr mentioned elsewhere (in the leaked e-mails Ars reported) that he was doing this for publicity and to bring in money--and probably also to bolster his company's name since that wing of HBGary was going to be sold for ~$2 million--I'm not sure you could trust him as far as he could be kicked. Even his programmer expressed concerns with what Barr was doing (both to Barr as well as company executives). So no, Barr never publicly stated he would release names--maybe he did in the leaked e-mails--but the guy was an arrogant tool. I don't condone what Anonymous did, mainly because it hurt many other people in the process, but I can't imagine a more deserving target of public embarrassment than Mr. Barr.
Barr's typing was also atrocious. In a way, I think they should have gone after him for that alone, but I think that's just my inner grammar Nazi talking.
No they're not. In case you didn't know, Google has their webmaster guidelines posted for all to see. The motivation behind these rules is to ensure (or at least try to ensure) that their search results continue to be relevant and useful for--wait for it--the user.
So, you can either play by the rules or not. If you break the rules, don't go complaining about Google being "unfair."
There seems to be a noisy movement among countries outside of the US (even, to an extent, including Canada) where their population seems to profess a great deal of (incorrect) knowledge of the US. I'd imagine much of that is derived from their media and probably our entertainment exports, most notably movies. Of course, I agree with you: Judging the US as a whole by a very small minority of people or stereotypes doesn't achieve much of anything at all and it certainly interferes with legitimate, worthwhile discussion.
As an anecdotal story: My mum is Australian, my father is American. Hence, much of my family is split between two countries. Sadly, I have more Aussie relatives than I can count on my fingers who seem to think they're very well educated with regards to US politics yet they haven't any clue about what the Bill of Rights is much less anything related to Jefferson's works and (as you alluded to in your post earlier) the extensive discussion our founding fathers undertook even following the drafting of the Constitution. I don't really understand this rationale per se, because I refuse to pretend knowing anything about Australian politics, of which I am admittedly 100% ignorant.
Anyway, aside from my aside, I agree with you completely, and I'm a little irritated with those who keep replying to you stating that the OP was right. I guess it's popular to bash on Americans in general just as it was to make French jokes post-9/11. Certainly while I may not agree with some of your other posts (we each have our friendly disagreements, and that's healthy), I'm thankful that you have taken the time to point out that it's grossly counter to any productive discussion to tar everyone with the same brush--to believe that all the stereotypes are true. I'm sure if we, playing the part of the ugly American, were to profess that our stereotypes of $country were equally true, we'd hear no end of bellyaching. Funny how it works out.
That's a very interesting take on the question. I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion, but it is certainly informative. Thank you. :)
Very interesting points, thank you.
Though one question does arise: What, precisely, would happen to the steering control in the circumstance that the engine is shut off. I realize it's possible to steer (with some difficulty) if the engine is cut off, but I would assume that it is impossible to accidentally engage the steering wheel lock (such as when removing the key at a complete stop) while the vehicle is moving?
Pardon my ignorance, but this certainly isn't something I've actually tried, but it is something that I'd be interested in knowing. The other thing implied by my original post was that if I--a generally mechanically disinclined individual--can figure several ways to slow the vehicle in an emergency, why someone who was supposedly a former state trooper couldn't.
I wasn't quite expecting this much of a rant, but it's possible my tongue-in-cheek slightly sarcastically passive-aggressive writing style may have provoked a bit more of one than I expected. Either that or you wanted to vent about the Tea Party in some way or another.
There are some points I want to address. I'm not sure if this is to add more fuel to the fire or simply because I haven't much better to do tonight.
I really dislike this language. Granted, we're each allowed to express our opinion, but I find that the more I read comments like yours either here on Slashdot or some of the various drivel that exists on Reddit, the more I'm convinced that this attitude is part of the problem.
Progressive generally espouse the belief that it's good to have an open mind, but I'm rather puzzled as to why so many of them quite literally disdain anyone who disagrees--typically for no other reason than the views of religious conservatism. Yes, I do agree that there are religious conservatives who would like to force their beliefs on others, and I find that unproductive. I also find this general attack dog mentality of the left to be equally unproductive. It's equal parts frustration and disappointment.
Aside from this notion of "unification," I think much of what you've stated could be said about each of the major US political parties. Only time will tell what may eventually become of the Tea Party, but I would personally like to see them ditch Palin. I don't have anything against her personally, but she's politically toxic given the various SNL skits, various public statements she has made, and certainly the negative media attention from the mainstream press hasn't helped.
I'm still not sure why you cherry-picked parts of my statement when I was being mostly cordially and jestful--and largely talking about something entirely unrelated to this argument. Guess I struck a nerve. :) That wasn't intended.
Let me reiterate: I don't condone anyone who forces their views on others. By the same token, I think you've largely fallen for what has been repeated in the mainstream press of the Tea Party. I admit my own experiences are anecdotal, but of those I've met locally (possibly not representative of the Tea Party movement as a whole--but I find that hard to believe), I can't think of one that fits into this notion of religious tyranny. From how you describe it, it would seem that anyone who self-identifies with the Tea Party is just a stone's throw from the Spanish Inquisition! Seriously, take a few deep breaths and realize that some people might actually disagree with you; disagreement doesn't necessarily mean they want you to fall on your knees and pray to Jesus. Maybe they want you to be polite and amenable--not moments away from bursting an artery.
Brief aside: "Most modern Christians" are much more secular than I think you realize. The noisy minority tends to get most of the press. But, I suspect you're just generally anti-religious--with the possible excepti
I may be wrong, but I suspect you misinterpreted the parent's point (which, if I'm right, was admittedly poorly phrased). I think what the OP was pointing out was that Alaska is 16% of the USA's total land area--implying how big Alaska truly is--while hinting that only 5-7% of Alaska's own land area is serviced by copper. This would make much more sense considering how few population centers Alaska has as well as it's relatively tiny population.
My interpretation may be way off, and you might very well be correct, but according to the US Census Bureau, Alaska has a population density of about 1.1 people per square mile which is well below the national average of 79.6. If the OP did mean to indicate that only 5% of Alaska's land area is serviced by copper, this figure would make much more sense.
This is what proponents of "public transport solves everything" seem to conveniently forget. If you have an efficient vehicle and you can transport a week's worth of groceries (or more), you're fundamentally saving more energy than if you had to ride a train to the store every couple days to pick up odds and ends that you can't easily carry. I also hate shopping, so I'd rather buy enough staples for 1-2 weeks at a time than to have to run to the store every couple of days.
The other side of the coin is that, for example, rural America has virtually no public transport to speak of. While a train through one of the towns through here might afford some transportation, getting home is an issue if you live 25-30 miles outside of that town. No train is going to ascend 2,000-4,000' mountains just to drop off maybe 5 or 10 people. Hell, there's no bus service around that drops anyone off up there! I can't see elderly grocery-goers carting around their day's worth of goods for 25+ miles.
With the way the US infrastructure is designed and considering the land area of the country that is largely rural, there's no way trains will supplant privately owned vehicles for a very long time. Though, I do recall an someone here on Slashdot arguing with me once that no one has to live in rural areas (it's a choice), and it'd be more efficient to cram everyone into living spaces in the cities, but that certainly doesn't sound very "free" to me. This notion also neglects to mention how many of the rural areas are generally too poor to be able to afford 1) the move to a city and 2) the cost of living elsewhere.
I think it's the fear factor. Extremists worldwide have shown a bizarre obsession with airlines and airline related things--think of the recent Moscow airport bombing. I'm not sure exactly why they target airlines (or airports), but as far as the plane goes, I would posit that it might have something to do with 1) killing people and 2) the fear of an uncontrolled wreck plummeting to the ground, possibly in a populated area.
I've discussed this with some friends of mine, and one of them brought up a point very similar to yours: There are many more "useful' targets that the terrorists could hit that the government doesn't seem interested in protecting. Yet the terrorists are still obsessed with air travel. I can only surmise that it's because they want to encourage fear very slightly more than achieving a negative economic impact on the rest of the world. Though, I do remember reading a NYT article following the attempted toner/printer bombings where one of the various terror groups seemed interested in bringing air shipments to a halt. I believe they referred to it as (paraphrasing) "economic death by a thousand cuts."
Thank God none of this has succeeded.
That reminds me of one site I visited many years ago (no, I don't remember which one--we're talking probably 2000-2001). I entered a password, probably 7 characters of letters, numbers, and symbols. It told me it wanted a minimum of 8. I then proceeded to enter a favorite quote of mine at the time. And then... ...it told me that the maximum password length was 10 characters.
The only way it could have gotten worse was if it told me that the characters !, @, # and & were illegal. Which it did.
Which is ironic considering how much most Slashdotters disdain the Tea Party.
In fairness (and admittedly anecdotally), most of the people from my area who self-identify with the Tea Party may tend toward the religious/Christian voting bloc, there's a great many of them who are more socially liberal. Perhaps not with issues like gay marriage, sex ed, and so forth, but certainly they generally dislike granting the government any extension of its powers.
The upshot is that while most of the Left and those who identify with the Tea Party may not always see eye to eye, at least there are a few among the latter who understand when it is important to block measures that would otherwise grant the federal government extension over stripping away our liberties.
Of course, I'd wager that most of the Tea Partiers who voted against it probably did so because they couldn't stomach the Obama administration having these powers. ;)
(Disclaimer: I tend to self-identify with the Tea Party for most of their sensible policies. Hence, I also believe that my last statement is probably a significant reason why any of them would have voted against this measure.)
That's what I don't understand. There was at least one incident where the individual(s) involved in a fatal crash had sufficient time to phone 911 and describe their emergency but it didn't occur to them to pop the vehicle into neutral, use the handbrake, and pull over to diagnose the problem with the vehicle stopped?
I'm sorry, but if (if) the vehicle did anything unexpected to me, that'd be my first reaction. To hell with the engine--if it blows, it blows--they can be replaced, lives can't.