however, you are forgetting that the GG is a shallow powderpuff position
therefore, give the shallow powderpuff person the shallow powderpuff position, and give the serious meaningful people you list serious meaningful positions
it would be insulting, as you say, to give a shallow powderpuff a serious meaningful position in spite of other serious meaningful candidates
but it is equally insulting to give a serious meaningful candidate a shallow powderpuff position
bilingual if... by that... you mean... that he... groups his... words in... groups of... two? The... random emphasis... and random... questions are... useless though?
if you are white, you'll never be black. if you're a man, you'll never be a woman
but if you are 20, some day you WILL be 50. therefore, all of the hatred you dish out will be visited back on you... by your own self. karma still applies to sexism and racism, but it comes back in the form of other people's views of you. not the special hell of a self-created low self-opinion
if you are 20, and have a bad attitude towards the aged, someday, you will have a bad attitude towards yourself. self-hatred is something all of us carry around to some extent, but to have self-hatred gradually grow as you get older must be a terrible weight to bear, and it keeps growing
you can see it on the street: the guys with the ridiculous fake hair and the women with the ridiculous facial plastic surgery: this is self-hatred. who wants to walk around broadcasting their lack of confidence and stinking of desperation, to telegraph that you want to be something you can never be again? to worship youth, but then turn into someone old, must be a terrible experience to go through. to simply look at yourself in the mirror and be filled with anguish: built in karma for being an ageist. this also might explain some suicides by people in their 40s and 50s
meanwhile, if you always treated the elderly fairly and gracefully, then when you yourself are older you will still be confident, and still like yourself, because you will treat your older self the way you treat older others today. built in karma still applies, but in the positive: you age gracefully, and have a full happy life
so the cost of being an ageist is to have an unhappy older life
don't be an ageist. look at the elderly and see yourself as you will be someday, and smile, for the sake of your own future happiness. you want to age gracefully, you really do. so prepare yourself psychologically now for aging gracefully, by treating the aged you encounter today with the same grace you want to treat yourself with later
"rapidly approaching" does not refer to a change in the speed of time itself. of course that is silly
but "rapidly approaching" DOES refer to the an increase in the rate of change in proportional age difference between your current age and the age of 40
in other words, it is perfectly appropriate and logical for someone to say they are "rapidly approaching" 40. it really does make sense
learning to speak a new language at age 7 is much easier than learning to speak a new language at 47
i don't see how this concept is any different between human languages and learning "machine" languages
at a young age, there's a certain plasticity of mind where if you learn to program, it always comes easy for you, but if you learn programming at an older age, programming will always be a dreary slog
much like the kid who learned spanish at age 7 can speak it without an accent and as fluently and as easily as any other native spanish speaker. but if you learn spanish at 47, you'll always have a funny accent, and it will always be a difficult slow cognitive slog to frame your words as you say them
"You think that free market principles and the idea of individual liberty..."
i stopped reading right there
yes: if you COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FUCKING SUBJECT MATTER then you can make me look like a total asshole by applying my observations to COMPLETELY FUCKING UNRELATED SUBJECT MATTER
i believe i was talking about regulating CORPORATIONS, no?
can you tell the difference between a CORPORATION and an INDIVIDUAL?
do you understand my observations are about CORPORATIONS?
do you agree with my observations about CORPORATIONS?
do you believe that CORPORATIONS deserve the same protections as an INDIVIDUAL?
no?
then apologize for going off on me like a spastic retard who can't keep track of the fucking subject matter, you histrionic twit
there is more than the threat of GOVERNMENTS to individual liberty. there is also the threat of CORPORATIONS to individual liberty. therefore in the name of individual liberty, support government regulation of CORPORATIONS
"the sort of regulation that allows a health insurance company to make an obscene profit by closing out competition"
regulations didn't do this. GREED did this. how the FUCK do you blame lack of adequate regulations instead of SIMPLE HUMAN GREED?
what we have now, case #1: shoddy poor quality regulations -> obscene profits, closing out competition what you want, case #2: less government, less regulations, less enforcement -> MORE obscene profits, monopolization, MORE corruption of remaining cauterized rump of a tiny government what should happen, case #3: MORE regulations, of HIGHER quality -> SMALLER corporate profiteering on people seeking healthcare, MORE competition
WITHOUT regulations, companies naturally gravitate towards oligopoly. monopoly. i DO hope you see this simple obvious truth, right?
say a bank was robbed because the doors were left open. a sane person would make sure a policy was put in place to make sure the doors are locked every night, and go after the thieves (aka: introduce more, higher quality regulations, and go after the REAL PERPETRATORS). but a libertarian/ free market fundamentalist/ tea party moron meanwhile would say:
1. forget about the thieves 2. the problem is the bank's regulations! (you mean LACK OF regulations/ SHODDY POOR QUALITY regulations!) 3. finally, the solution is: completely remove the doors from the bank! (less government! yay!...morons)
"maybe the answer is to have a small government"
then the power vacuum is filled by corporations. and they kick around the tiny government even more. do you know how corruption works?
"how many government employees do you actually really need?"
as many as it takes to adequately police the corporations. not more. not less. how many were needed to police bp before they let their oil well blow out? a hell of a lot more than they had before late april, that's for sure
"We can choose what companies we want to do business with."
you are a clueless naive moron. ever hear of a MONOPOLY you idiot? what is the only entity that keeps corporations from becoming monopolies?
i'll give you a hint retard: it starts with "g" and ends in "overnment"
seriously you free market fundamentalists are FUCKING MORONS. you would be hilarious if there weren't so many of you clueless assholes hellbent on destroying this great country with your STUPID INSANE NONSENSE
your ideology is a form of naive gullible wish fulfillment fantasy that is ignorant of history and common fucking sense. seriously
because we DO need more regulation. the 2008 market crash proves this: the fruits of years of deregulation in the financial world resulted in that (this is where you chirp in with your insane alternative reality explanation of why and how regulations resulted in the 2008 crash)
if you don't understand why healthcare needs regulation, you're truly insane
and enough with the commingling of government and corporations in your mind. if you reduce government, corporations take over in the power vacuum, commit every injustice you see a corporation corrupted government do, AND THEN SOME MORE INJUSTICES. what you do is you REDUCE the corrrupting influence of corporations in government. you certainly don't destroy the only thing you have protecting you from the abuse of corporations!
FIX government don't DESTORY it, libertarian morons
if your roof is infected with termites, is the solution to remove the roof from your house? no, the solution is to get rid of the termites! corporations are your enemy, NOT the government. without understanding this obvious fact, there is no understanding possible with you at all, because you are clearly insane if you believe your government, the only agent you have in the fight against corporations, is the enemy instead. INSANE
i think Google Wave is like the Apple Newton
on
Google Wave Out of Beta
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
the Apple Newton is the Apple iPhone, 10 years too early:
in other words, Google Wave is where we are headed, yes. but its too early. it has to be the most painful of technology-related efforts: your passion is correct, your efforts are noble... but no one adapts it only because there is no critical mass of people to use the tech to its righteous, intended effect, just yet
or more exactly, Google Wave is like AJAX. everyone knows AJAX as the ascendent internet development model that pretty much came to public conscience with Google Maps: "you mean i don't have to click and submit a form and reload the page entirely every time? wow!"
but did you know XmlHttpRequest (the X in AJAX) was originally a Microsoft Exchange Plug-in for IE 5.0 in 1999?
and that Microsoft dominance in browsers at the time (and its noncompliance) made use of the technology feasible, and therefore other browsers adapted it? too many people believe standards drive technological development. when the truth is, everything starts out as nonstandard, the standards only lag behind, making uniform the popular feature sets of the time. standards do NOT drive innovation. if you want to do exciting groundbreaking tech: fuck the standards
The concept behind the XMLHttpRequest object was originally created by the developers of Outlook Web Access for Microsoft Exchange Server 2000.[4] An interface called IXMLHTTPRequest was developed and implemented into the second version of the MSXML library using this concept.[4][5] The second version of the MSXML library was shipped with Internet Explorer 5.0 in March 1999, allowing access, via ActiveX, to the IXMLHTTPRequest interface using the XMLHTTP wrapper of the MSXML library.[6] The Mozilla Foundation developed and implemented an interface called nsIXMLHttpRequest into the Gecko layout engine. This interface was modelled to work as closely to Microsoft's IXMLHTTPRequest interface as possible.[7][8] Mozilla created a wrapper to use this interface through a JavaScript object which they called XMLHttpRequest.[9] The XMLHttpRequest object was accessible as early as Gecko version 0.6 released on December 6 of 2000,[10][11] but it was not completely functional until as late as version 1.0 of Gecko released on June 5, 2002.[10][11] The XMLHttpRequest object became a de facto standard amongst other major user agents, implemented in Safari 1.2 released in February 2004,[12] Konqueror, Opera 8.0 released in April 2005,[13] and iCab 3.0b352 released in September 2005.[14]
The World Wide Web Consortium published a Working Draft specification for the XMLHttpRequest object on April 5, 2006, edited by Anne van Kesteren of Opera Software and Dean Jackson of W3C.[15] Its goal is "to document a minimum set of interoperable features based on existing implementations, allowing Web developers to use these features without platform-specific code." The last revision to the XMLHttpRequest object specification was on November 19 of 2009, being a last call working draft.[16] [17]
do you think Microsoft knew where their minor sideshow Exchange Server ActiveX tech was headed? Microsoft constantly lags in the innovation department: silverlight competing with flash, zune, their tablet technology upstaged by iPad, their moribund smartphone OS competing with blackberry, android, apple, etc.
and yet Microsoft actually had a truly groundbreaking world changing piece of tech on their hands... and they pretty much relegated it to Microsoft Exchange Server plumbing. hilarious
this will be the development arc of Google Wave: 1. eventually forgotten after the initial publicity blitz 2. then someone rediscovers it in obscurity, repurposes it, and reintroduces it 3. 5-10 years from now, Google Wave
they profit from the taking of organs, be damned about the ethics or the consequences
the reason that there is no legal market for human organs is the the fact that the poor will sell their kidneys. there is a belief in human dignity, i don't know if you share it, and anyone ethical does not believe that poverty should be a gateway to permanent degradation of health, of loss of dignity. being poor does not mean you have no human dignity
of course, people will still sell their kidneys, on the black market. there's nothing that can be done if someone is hell bent on ignoring their human dignity
but that doesn't mean that anyone with ethics is going to accept the fact that some people have no dignity, and that some businessmen recognize no human dignity. accepting these thoughts is a gateway to a hell of social darwinism, where human life and human dignity has no value
you may have no problem with that, but i do, and plenty others with a belief in human dignity do as well. so, stay in the shadows with your black market with your fellow sociopaths, and understand that just because you convinced someone to degrade their dignity, and you yourself recognize no dignity, does not mean that human dignity does not exist, and that it is not important for most of us
take solace in the fact that you should do well in business, where sociopathology is rewarded
as if doing well in business is the ultimate determinant of what is right and wrong. as so many callous ayn rand fools currently believe in this world, unfortunately
it is kind of insulting to talk of eastern culture as this "shame culture/ honor culture", or a western "guilt" culture
it implies there is no shame/ honor in the west, and no guilt in the east. it also implies motivations in the east, or west, can be understood with simplistic facile concepts
what your words above really say is that some people, yourself, are simpleminded: that you buy into overly broad brushstrokes, surface level pop psychology ideas about other groups of people you know little about
i don't know how many stupid movies or bad television shows i've seen with an exotic "oriental" plotline where the sudden shock twist that the guest character feels shame, because he's chinese/ japanese. i can only guess in japan or china they have exotic western guest stars in television serials where the shocking plot twist is that the character is burdened with catholic guilt. pffffffft
this whole notion of shame/ honor in the east, or guilt in the west, as if those concepts don't motivate people in the west/ east, as if everyone in the east/ west were one dimensional stock hollywood characters, is stereotyping, plain and simple. it does not expand your mind to think in these ways about other cultures, it stultifies your mind and REDUCES your ability to understand other people in other cultures, to trade in puerile ideas about whole groups of people
guess what: we're all human beings. cultural differences are shallow surface level conceits, not deep mystical differences. there are no deep mystical differences. we all sit on the toilet in the morning, and we all laugh at bad jokes
stop with the shallow exoticizing of peoples and places you barely know
that the us healthcare system is extremely broken and needs an overhaul is plainly and painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain
there does however seem to be a large inflamed population of completely propagandized idiots that oppose the overhaul, but so what? there's also a bunch of morons who support creationism who think evolution is controversial too, and that simply teaching evolution is "activism"
i guess simple common sense is "activism" to a moron
but really, when it comes to the healthcare system in the usa, there's no controversy: its horribly broken, and it needs to resemble the way it is in other, saner countries in the world
and that is a simple obvious fact unless you are a hysterical propagandized twit
heck, there are desperately poor countries with saner healthcare policies than the usa:
Rwanda has had national health insurance for 11 years now; 92 percent of the nation is covered, and the premiums are $2 a year.
Sunny Ntayomba, an editorial writer for The New Times, a newspaper based in the capital, Kigali, is aware of the paradox: his nation, one of the world's poorest, insures more of its citizens than the world's richest does.
He met an American college student passing through last year, and found it "absurd, ridiculous, that I have health insurance and she didn't," he said, adding: "And if she got sick, her parents might go bankrupt. The saddest thing was the way she shrugged her shoulders and just hoped not to fall sick."
you really wonder exactly what the hell motivates people to oppose universal healthcare. you look at the idea of it, your mind examines all of the pros and cons of universal healthcare, compare it to the current system the usa has, or some libertarian social darwinistic fantasy of people unable to treat broken arms because they don't have $100,000 in their bank account, and it is such a NO BRAINER OBVIOUSLY SUPERIOR APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF HEALTHCARE
you really have to wonder exactly what motivates those to oppose a system of care which is in their own selfish interest to accept! do these people believe they are immortal? that they are immune to a sudden accident they can't afford? or that if you can't afford insurance, or are too stupid to realize you need to buy it, that the rest of us can just go "well sucks to be you" and watch you die on the street? is that it?: do you have to be a sociopath not to accept universal healthcare?
what exactly are these morons who oppose universal healthcare thinking?
SCENE: dead of night, full moon, desolate plain near kandahar
a group of mujahideen slowly creep through the brush towards an american outpost, one takes aim at a sentry
just then, the ground starts to shake, the mujahideen lower their arms and look at each other helplessly. suddenly, a periscope pokes out of the dirt behind the mujahideen, and then the top of an entire submarine
"mustapha, the infidels are using sand submarines!"
that those who oppose the idiocy of libertarianism are not "lovers of big government" as you say? why, why would we love big government? who would anyone? what is the motivation?
"oh, i am a sworn protector of bloated government bureaucracy, it is my burning passion" pffft
NO ONE loves big government. but we oppose libertarianism BECAUSE BE UNDERSTAND IT BETTER THAN LIBERTARIANS: it is clearly a road to hell
if you say "how could you understand libertarianism better than libertarians", well: do you understnad communism? do you have to be a communist to understand or oppose communism?
no: clearly communism is stupid, as it destroys society by removing any impulse to actually try and work. LIKEWISE, libertarianism removes the impulse to have any public good. libertarianism is simply social darwinism: humanity as craven selfish competing indivuduals with no rules, nothing to punish them for bad behavior, without the slightest concern for anyone else. a society of sociopaths
libertarianism is the mirror image of communism: the fanatical triumph of selfishness over altruism. much like communism is the fanatical triumph of altruism over selfishness. the truth is BOTH communism and libertarianism are dangerous destructive follies at either end of a spectrum. the ONLY true way to run a society is a MIX: socialism with capitalist engines, or capitalism with socialist safety nets
the MODERATE path is the only path that makes sense, because humans are a paradoxical mix of the selfish and the altruistic, and any ideology that addresses only one side of human nature fails to rule human beings, by not adequately reflecting who and what they are
we need GOVERNMENT, period. not BIG government. we're not idiots, we don't defend government blindly: government has problems, we need to FIX it. its an ongoing maintenance function that never ends
but libertarians want to THROW GOVERNMENT AWAY, to destroy it down to a cauterized ineffective nub. which is incredibly stupid. libertarians want this country to be like haiti or somalia, where there are a few ultrarich, legions of poor, abuses on every street corner, and the power vacuum of no government filled by mafias and corporations. libertarians may not actually say this is what they want, but this is the end result of their philosophy, whether they realize it or not
i think you are trying to say that going after hackers is unethical. you are of course right. but that doesn't mean you can't go after them, just that you can't wrap yourself in the cloak of ethics when you enter their shadowland
in other words, to catch a criminal, you should abide by good conduct, but you may have to get a little dirty yourself
it is not possible to fight crime completely straightjacketed by the highest standards of good behavior. as long as you yourself don't become a criminal in your pursuit of them, its ok to bend the rules
please don't read this as an acceptance of murder to fight shoplifting. my words are more an acceptance of jaywalking to fight drug dealing. i am proposing its ok to bend the rules slightly, not excuse vile crimes in the punishment of smaller ones. for example: its perfectly legal to lie to suspects when interrogating them. do you consider this unethical? maybe a goody two shoes does. but then a goody two shoes will never catch a criminal. you need to understand exactly what you are dealing with, and be prepared to bend the rules a bit
its a tough game. who ever said catching criminals was easy and trouble free? your notion of ethics should not preclude the vigorous pursuit of criminals. then its not ethics at all, for without the vigorous pursuit of crime, you only reward those who don't follow ethics at all, and therefore undermine the reason for anyone in society to act ethical. the reward for good ethics should be greater than the reward for being unethical. make sure of that
where our legislators whore themselves out to companies, and we look at canada, uk, australia, europe, etc., where companies are held, sanely, in check by the government
and you're telling me the truth is that these other places have it worse than the usa?
they have rules about this. and if the government doesn't notice, a competitor will promptly sue the hell out of the offending party for playing unfairly
basically, no, it doesn't make sense that your cable provider is colluding with your music/ movie distributor. no, sorry, it doesn't work that way, all hysteria to the contrary
businesses are powerful, but they are often balanced in power on some questions by other businesses. that is the case here. additionally, there are rules about what they can and cannot do. that is also the case here
i dislike the riaa, mpaa, etc. but we have to be smart in how we fight them. if we give into this sort of hysterical paranoia that you are peddling, then we've already lost
you are acting on spastic fear, not a solid understanding of the issues
between the internet and the old rules of old media, that they think can be applied to end consumers in the internet era
copyright will still apply to say: jk rowlings and the hollywood studio that makes her movie: finite identifiable individuals on a closed finite issue
but as applied to the end consumer, in the internet world: sorry, no, unenforceable
copyright law is akin to a gentleman's agreement between captains of industry drinking mojitos in an oak paneled room. copyright law does not, and cannot, be applied to end consumers in the internet world. they call it disruptive technology for a reason
let them try to destroy the internet. the world will simply not let the assholes grandfather themselves into our cultural space. do they really think they can hobble the internet for the sake of their continued unneeded existence? we don't NEED old school distributors anymore. they of course won't die quietly and gracefully, but die they will
Slashdot Mirror
however, you are forgetting that the GG is a shallow powderpuff position
therefore, give the shallow powderpuff person the shallow powderpuff position, and give the serious meaningful people you list serious meaningful positions
it would be insulting, as you say, to give a shallow powderpuff a serious meaningful position in spite of other serious meaningful candidates
but it is equally insulting to give a serious meaningful candidate a shallow powderpuff position
bilingual if... by that... you mean ... that he... groups his... words in... groups of ... two? The... random emphasis ... and random... questions are... useless though?
the movie sucks, i never released it, too embarrassing ;-P
cloud computing!
(kill me now)
has a built in karma
if you are white, you'll never be black. if you're a man, you'll never be a woman
but if you are 20, some day you WILL be 50. therefore, all of the hatred you dish out will be visited back on you... by your own self. karma still applies to sexism and racism, but it comes back in the form of other people's views of you. not the special hell of a self-created low self-opinion
if you are 20, and have a bad attitude towards the aged, someday, you will have a bad attitude towards yourself. self-hatred is something all of us carry around to some extent, but to have self-hatred gradually grow as you get older must be a terrible weight to bear, and it keeps growing
you can see it on the street: the guys with the ridiculous fake hair and the women with the ridiculous facial plastic surgery: this is self-hatred. who wants to walk around broadcasting their lack of confidence and stinking of desperation, to telegraph that you want to be something you can never be again? to worship youth, but then turn into someone old, must be a terrible experience to go through. to simply look at yourself in the mirror and be filled with anguish: built in karma for being an ageist. this also might explain some suicides by people in their 40s and 50s
meanwhile, if you always treated the elderly fairly and gracefully, then when you yourself are older you will still be confident, and still like yourself, because you will treat your older self the way you treat older others today. built in karma still applies, but in the positive: you age gracefully, and have a full happy life
so the cost of being an ageist is to have an unhappy older life
don't be an ageist. look at the elderly and see yourself as you will be someday, and smile, for the sake of your own future happiness. you want to age gracefully, you really do. so prepare yourself psychologically now for aging gracefully, by treating the aged you encounter today with the same grace you want to treat yourself with later
but i still think its a language grey area
"rapidly approaching" does not refer to a change in the speed of time itself. of course that is silly
but "rapidly approaching" DOES refer to the an increase in the rate of change in proportional age difference between your current age and the age of 40
in other words, it is perfectly appropriate and logical for someone to say they are "rapidly approaching" 40. it really does make sense
learning to speak a new language at age 7 is much easier than learning to speak a new language at 47
i don't see how this concept is any different between human languages and learning "machine" languages
at a young age, there's a certain plasticity of mind where if you learn to program, it always comes easy for you, but if you learn programming at an older age, programming will always be a dreary slog
much like the kid who learned spanish at age 7 can speak it without an accent and as fluently and as easily as any other native spanish speaker. but if you learn spanish at 47, you'll always have a funny accent, and it will always be a difficult slow cognitive slog to frame your words as you say them
"You think that free market principles and the idea of individual liberty..."
i stopped reading right there
yes: if you COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FUCKING SUBJECT MATTER then you can make me look like a total asshole by applying my observations to COMPLETELY FUCKING UNRELATED SUBJECT MATTER
i believe i was talking about regulating CORPORATIONS, no?
can you tell the difference between a CORPORATION and an INDIVIDUAL?
do you understand my observations are about CORPORATIONS?
do you agree with my observations about CORPORATIONS?
do you believe that CORPORATIONS deserve the same protections as an INDIVIDUAL?
no?
then apologize for going off on me like a spastic retard who can't keep track of the fucking subject matter, you histrionic twit
there is more than the threat of GOVERNMENTS to individual liberty. there is also the threat of CORPORATIONS to individual liberty. therefore in the name of individual liberty, support government regulation of CORPORATIONS
understand now you panicky fuckwit?
in relative terms, no
assume parent poster is 38
in one year, time until age 40 goes from 2 years to 1 year, or a 50% decrease in time until age 40
assume a comparison person of age 24
in one year, time until age 40 goes from 16 years to 15 years, or a 6.25% decrease in time until age 40
so time until age 40 is an accelerating change
so yes, a 38 year old is approaching 40 more rapidly than a 24 year old
i'm certain a real mathematician can express this concept far more elegantly than i can, but you get my point
"the sort of regulation that allows a health insurance company to make an obscene profit by closing out competition"
regulations didn't do this. GREED did this. how the FUCK do you blame lack of adequate regulations instead of SIMPLE HUMAN GREED?
what we have now, case #1: shoddy poor quality regulations -> obscene profits, closing out competition
what you want, case #2: less government, less regulations, less enforcement -> MORE obscene profits, monopolization, MORE corruption of remaining cauterized rump of a tiny government
what should happen, case #3: MORE regulations, of HIGHER quality -> SMALLER corporate profiteering on people seeking healthcare, MORE competition
WITHOUT regulations, companies naturally gravitate towards oligopoly. monopoly. i DO hope you see this simple obvious truth, right?
say a bank was robbed because the doors were left open. a sane person would make sure a policy was put in place to make sure the doors are locked every night, and go after the thieves (aka: introduce more, higher quality regulations, and go after the REAL PERPETRATORS). but a libertarian/ free market fundamentalist/ tea party moron meanwhile would say:
1. forget about the thieves ...morons)
2. the problem is the bank's regulations! (you mean LACK OF regulations/ SHODDY POOR QUALITY regulations!)
3. finally, the solution is: completely remove the doors from the bank! (less government! yay!
"maybe the answer is to have a small government"
then the power vacuum is filled by corporations. and they kick around the tiny government even more. do you know how corruption works?
"how many government employees do you actually really need?"
as many as it takes to adequately police the corporations. not more. not less. how many were needed to police bp before they let their oil well blow out? a hell of a lot more than they had before late april, that's for sure
and i don't care
"We can choose what companies we want to do business with."
you are a clueless naive moron. ever hear of a MONOPOLY you idiot? what is the only entity that keeps corporations from becoming monopolies?
i'll give you a hint retard: it starts with "g" and ends in "overnment"
seriously you free market fundamentalists are FUCKING MORONS. you would be hilarious if there weren't so many of you clueless assholes hellbent on destroying this great country with your STUPID INSANE NONSENSE
your ideology is a form of naive gullible wish fulfillment fantasy that is ignorant of history and common fucking sense. seriously
because we DO need more regulation. the 2008 market crash proves this: the fruits of years of deregulation in the financial world resulted in that (this is where you chirp in with your insane alternative reality explanation of why and how regulations resulted in the 2008 crash)
if you don't understand why healthcare needs regulation, you're truly insane
and enough with the commingling of government and corporations in your mind. if you reduce government, corporations take over in the power vacuum, commit every injustice you see a corporation corrupted government do, AND THEN SOME MORE INJUSTICES. what you do is you REDUCE the corrrupting influence of corporations in government. you certainly don't destroy the only thing you have protecting you from the abuse of corporations!
FIX government don't DESTORY it, libertarian morons
if your roof is infected with termites, is the solution to remove the roof from your house? no, the solution is to get rid of the termites! corporations are your enemy, NOT the government. without understanding this obvious fact, there is no understanding possible with you at all, because you are clearly insane if you believe your government, the only agent you have in the fight against corporations, is the enemy instead. INSANE
the Apple Newton is the Apple iPhone, 10 years too early:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(platform)
in other words, Google Wave is where we are headed, yes. but its too early. it has to be the most painful of technology-related efforts: your passion is correct, your efforts are noble... but no one adapts it only because there is no critical mass of people to use the tech to its righteous, intended effect, just yet
or more exactly, Google Wave is like AJAX. everyone knows AJAX as the ascendent internet development model that pretty much came to public conscience with Google Maps: "you mean i don't have to click and submit a form and reload the page entirely every time? wow!"
but did you know XmlHttpRequest (the X in AJAX) was originally a Microsoft Exchange Plug-in for IE 5.0 in 1999?
and that Microsoft dominance in browsers at the time (and its noncompliance) made use of the technology feasible, and therefore other browsers adapted it? too many people believe standards drive technological development. when the truth is, everything starts out as nonstandard, the standards only lag behind, making uniform the popular feature sets of the time. standards do NOT drive innovation. if you want to do exciting groundbreaking tech: fuck the standards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest#History_and_support
do you think Microsoft knew where their minor sideshow Exchange Server ActiveX tech was headed? Microsoft constantly lags in the innovation department: silverlight competing with flash, zune, their tablet technology upstaged by iPad, their moribund smartphone OS competing with blackberry, android, apple, etc.
and yet Microsoft actually had a truly groundbreaking world changing piece of tech on their hands... and they pretty much relegated it to Microsoft Exchange Server plumbing. hilarious
this will be the development arc of Google Wave:
1. eventually forgotten after the initial publicity blitz
2. then someone rediscovers it in obscurity, repurposes it, and reintroduces it
3. 5-10 years from now, Google Wave
they profit from the taking of organs, be damned about the ethics or the consequences
the reason that there is no legal market for human organs is the the fact that the poor will sell their kidneys. there is a belief in human dignity, i don't know if you share it, and anyone ethical does not believe that poverty should be a gateway to permanent degradation of health, of loss of dignity. being poor does not mean you have no human dignity
of course, people will still sell their kidneys, on the black market. there's nothing that can be done if someone is hell bent on ignoring their human dignity
but that doesn't mean that anyone with ethics is going to accept the fact that some people have no dignity, and that some businessmen recognize no human dignity. accepting these thoughts is a gateway to a hell of social darwinism, where human life and human dignity has no value
you may have no problem with that, but i do, and plenty others with a belief in human dignity do as well. so, stay in the shadows with your black market with your fellow sociopaths, and understand that just because you convinced someone to degrade their dignity, and you yourself recognize no dignity, does not mean that human dignity does not exist, and that it is not important for most of us
take solace in the fact that you should do well in business, where sociopathology is rewarded
as if doing well in business is the ultimate determinant of what is right and wrong. as so many callous ayn rand fools currently believe in this world, unfortunately
it is kind of insulting to talk of eastern culture as this "shame culture/ honor culture", or a western "guilt" culture
it implies there is no shame/ honor in the west, and no guilt in the east. it also implies motivations in the east, or west, can be understood with simplistic facile concepts
what your words above really say is that some people, yourself, are simpleminded: that you buy into overly broad brushstrokes, surface level pop psychology ideas about other groups of people you know little about
i don't know how many stupid movies or bad television shows i've seen with an exotic "oriental" plotline where the sudden shock twist that the guest character feels shame, because he's chinese/ japanese. i can only guess in japan or china they have exotic western guest stars in television serials where the shocking plot twist is that the character is burdened with catholic guilt. pffffffft
this whole notion of shame/ honor in the east, or guilt in the west, as if those concepts don't motivate people in the west/ east, as if everyone in the east/ west were one dimensional stock hollywood characters, is stereotyping, plain and simple. it does not expand your mind to think in these ways about other cultures, it stultifies your mind and REDUCES your ability to understand other people in other cultures, to trade in puerile ideas about whole groups of people
guess what: we're all human beings. cultural differences are shallow surface level conceits, not deep mystical differences. there are no deep mystical differences. we all sit on the toilet in the morning, and we all laugh at bad jokes
stop with the shallow exoticizing of peoples and places you barely know
that the us healthcare system is extremely broken and needs an overhaul is plainly and painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain
there does however seem to be a large inflamed population of completely propagandized idiots that oppose the overhaul, but so what? there's also a bunch of morons who support creationism who think evolution is controversial too, and that simply teaching evolution is "activism"
i guess simple common sense is "activism" to a moron
but really, when it comes to the healthcare system in the usa, there's no controversy: its horribly broken, and it needs to resemble the way it is in other, saner countries in the world
and that is a simple obvious fact unless you are a hysterical propagandized twit
heck, there are desperately poor countries with saner healthcare policies than the usa:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/health/policy/15rwanda.html
you really wonder exactly what the hell motivates people to oppose universal healthcare. you look at the idea of it, your mind examines all of the pros and cons of universal healthcare, compare it to the current system the usa has, or some libertarian social darwinistic fantasy of people unable to treat broken arms because they don't have $100,000 in their bank account, and it is such a NO BRAINER OBVIOUSLY SUPERIOR APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF HEALTHCARE
you really have to wonder exactly what motivates those to oppose a system of care which is in their own selfish interest to accept! do these people believe they are immortal? that they are immune to a sudden accident they can't afford? or that if you can't afford insurance, or are too stupid to realize you need to buy it, that the rest of us can just go "well sucks to be you" and watch you die on the street? is that it?: do you have to be a sociopath not to accept universal healthcare?
what exactly are these morons who oppose universal healthcare thinking?
SCENE: dead of night, full moon, desolate plain near kandahar
a group of mujahideen slowly creep through the brush towards an american outpost, one takes aim at a sentry
just then, the ground starts to shake, the mujahideen lower their arms and look at each other helplessly. suddenly, a periscope pokes out of the dirt behind the mujahideen, and then the top of an entire submarine
"mustapha, the infidels are using sand submarines!"
that those who oppose the idiocy of libertarianism are not "lovers of big government" as you say? why, why would we love big government? who would anyone? what is the motivation?
"oh, i am a sworn protector of bloated government bureaucracy, it is my burning passion" pffft
NO ONE loves big government. but we oppose libertarianism BECAUSE BE UNDERSTAND IT BETTER THAN LIBERTARIANS: it is clearly a road to hell
if you say "how could you understand libertarianism better than libertarians", well: do you understnad communism? do you have to be a communist to understand or oppose communism?
no: clearly communism is stupid, as it destroys society by removing any impulse to actually try and work. LIKEWISE, libertarianism removes the impulse to have any public good. libertarianism is simply social darwinism: humanity as craven selfish competing indivuduals with no rules, nothing to punish them for bad behavior, without the slightest concern for anyone else. a society of sociopaths
libertarianism is the mirror image of communism: the fanatical triumph of selfishness over altruism. much like communism is the fanatical triumph of altruism over selfishness. the truth is BOTH communism and libertarianism are dangerous destructive follies at either end of a spectrum. the ONLY true way to run a society is a MIX: socialism with capitalist engines, or capitalism with socialist safety nets
the MODERATE path is the only path that makes sense, because humans are a paradoxical mix of the selfish and the altruistic, and any ideology that addresses only one side of human nature fails to rule human beings, by not adequately reflecting who and what they are
we need GOVERNMENT, period. not BIG government. we're not idiots, we don't defend government blindly: government has problems, we need to FIX it. its an ongoing maintenance function that never ends
but libertarians want to THROW GOVERNMENT AWAY, to destroy it down to a cauterized ineffective nub. which is incredibly stupid. libertarians want this country to be like haiti or somalia, where there are a few ultrarich, legions of poor, abuses on every street corner, and the power vacuum of no government filled by mafias and corporations. libertarians may not actually say this is what they want, but this is the end result of their philosophy, whether they realize it or not
that we could be in error, without deeming ourselves idiotic or unworthy."
i guess Schulz has never read a comment board
i think you are trying to say that going after hackers is unethical. you are of course right. but that doesn't mean you can't go after them, just that you can't wrap yourself in the cloak of ethics when you enter their shadowland
in other words, to catch a criminal, you should abide by good conduct, but you may have to get a little dirty yourself
it is not possible to fight crime completely straightjacketed by the highest standards of good behavior. as long as you yourself don't become a criminal in your pursuit of them, its ok to bend the rules
please don't read this as an acceptance of murder to fight shoplifting. my words are more an acceptance of jaywalking to fight drug dealing. i am proposing its ok to bend the rules slightly, not excuse vile crimes in the punishment of smaller ones. for example: its perfectly legal to lie to suspects when interrogating them. do you consider this unethical? maybe a goody two shoes does. but then a goody two shoes will never catch a criminal. you need to understand exactly what you are dealing with, and be prepared to bend the rules a bit
its a tough game. who ever said catching criminals was easy and trouble free? your notion of ethics should not preclude the vigorous pursuit of criminals. then its not ethics at all, for without the vigorous pursuit of crime, you only reward those who don't follow ethics at all, and therefore undermine the reason for anyone in society to act ethical. the reward for good ethics should be greater than the reward for being unethical. make sure of that
where our legislators whore themselves out to companies, and we look at canada, uk, australia, europe, etc., where companies are held, sanely, in check by the government
and you're telling me the truth is that these other places have it worse than the usa?
they have rules about this. and if the government doesn't notice, a competitor will promptly sue the hell out of the offending party for playing unfairly
basically, no, it doesn't make sense that your cable provider is colluding with your music/ movie distributor. no, sorry, it doesn't work that way, all hysteria to the contrary
businesses are powerful, but they are often balanced in power on some questions by other businesses. that is the case here. additionally, there are rules about what they can and cannot do. that is also the case here
i dislike the riaa, mpaa, etc. but we have to be smart in how we fight them. if we give into this sort of hysterical paranoia that you are peddling, then we've already lost
you are acting on spastic fear, not a solid understanding of the issues
and isps aren't acting as distributor's agents
for legal and business reasons, that doesn't make sense
between the internet and the old rules of old media, that they think can be applied to end consumers in the internet era
copyright will still apply to say: jk rowlings and the hollywood studio that makes her movie: finite identifiable individuals on a closed finite issue
but as applied to the end consumer, in the internet world: sorry, no, unenforceable
copyright law is akin to a gentleman's agreement between captains of industry drinking mojitos in an oak paneled room. copyright law does not, and cannot, be applied to end consumers in the internet world. they call it disruptive technology for a reason
let them try to destroy the internet. the world will simply not let the assholes grandfather themselves into our cultural space. do they really think they can hobble the internet for the sake of their continued unneeded existence? we don't NEED old school distributors anymore. they of course won't die quietly and gracefully, but die they will