How the English and most of the English-speaking word spell the word that Americans insist on spelling "spelled".
Damn, you Brits are funny. Still going on about how the entire world speaks British English rather than American English. Compensating for the fact that your 'Empire' consists of nothing more than some two-bit second-rate island off the coast of France now, I guess.
They don't just "feel oppressed". They *are* oppressed. If they don't comply, the government jackboots will come to punish them. Whether the jackboots are waving the religious flag or the environmentalist flag is of little importance to the victim.
and a reduction in how safe I feel on the road when I'm surrounded by vehicles prown to rolling whose owners think they can be driven like sports cars.
You don't have any right to 'feel safe' about anything. You'll never get this as a right either, no matter what your government promises.
If your bladder gets all weak by driving on the road with SUVs (much less triple-trailer trucks), then I suggest you do your part for "the environment" by using bus or train travel, which are both FAR more efficient than any personal road vehicle around.
Don't like it? Too bad - that's the price of living in a free, or semi-free society. Suck it up and move on.
One's freedom stops when it overlaps someone else's freedom.
Bullshit. One person's freedom ends where it actively harms the person or property of another. Otherwise, it isn't your business nor your concern.
I am entitle to a good environnement.
Perhaps some other countries actually have this written up as a law, but here in America you aren't entitled to anything of the sort. If you want such an 'entitlement' (assuming you can properly define it), then amend the Constitution. If you can.
You're confusing your personal desires with moral absolutes, then demanding that other people comply with your desires BECAUSE they're moral absolutes. This is nothing more than a greenie version of 'divine right', and it's just as egomaniacal as the older, more respectable version.
With the exception of nuclear and wind power, hydro is by far and away the safest form of power generation around. And like wind power it generates no waste of any kind, other than the waste made in construction and replacement parts.
No matter how loud the moaning that greenies do over "the environment" and certain fish stocks, and equivalent energy output in coal or oil planets is enormously more toxic and damaging to the ecosystem than hydropower will ever be. And far, far more dangerous to human beings in terms of waste products (especially those dumped into the air for all of us to breathe).
Hydro is the best source of power one can use, if you don't want to go nuclear and don't have a regularly windy climate to count on. Personally I think nuclear is much better, but being from the Northwest I'll definitely take the power-generating dams over coal and oil plants any day of the week.
It's a good thing, I think, that so very few people pay attention to the extremist greenies. Otherwise we might replace the dams with coal plants, and with some bitter irony do more damage to the environment in a single lifetime than we ever could in 10,000 years of dam operation.
you're definitely not going to contribute any more to society.
Riiight. As if contributing to society is what we should all be striving for, sacrificing self-interest on the altar of saintly altruism. They teach you that crap in school nowadays?
In any event, our friend here might be 'contributing to society' by pointing out that the $30 million dollars could be better spent elsewhere. Especially if it's $30 million in TAX dollars, in which case I agree with him.
Then try Opera. The open source zealots hate it because it isn't part of their religion, but it's the best browser out there, by far. And mouse gestures - once you start using 'em, you wonder why the hell they aren't available for every application.
Satisfaction comes from knowing the product inside and out
Perhaps for a geek. For the average user satisfaction comes from having the damned thing work, period. Having to research the product in order to fix a problem is just a pain in the ass and a waste of valuable time.
So basically you are taking the people who don't know how to use a computer and giving them a computer in a corporate environment.
So what? The point is that the computers are supposed to work properly for these people without excessive failure and they don't. It doesn't matter worth a damn what their skill level is; the vast majority of users aren't, and will never be, IT professionals.
I don't think putting "well-versed" scholars in charge of the government would be a terribly wise move. Let's not forget that in the past these so-called scholars actively promoted beliefs like social darwinism, eugenics, forced sterilization of 'criminal elements', and other atrocities - all in the name of science.
I'd never in a million years put a sociologist or psychologist in a position of authority. Nor a Keynesian economist, for that matter. I'm not interested in groupthink or socialist economics, thanks.
If you want a truly representative government that owes no party affiliation, then do the following:
- make all congressional terms four years in length
- no one may serve more than one term
- pick all congressmen by lottery, just like jury duty. You can refuse, of course - but then you risk the possibility that someone with ideas contrary to your own will be next down on the list.
I really can't see how this system could be any worse than the one we have now. Even better, such a Congress probably wouldn't get a whole lot done, which means the rest of us would have little fear from government interference.
Global warming is real, and measurable. It isn't up for debate, except among fools who like to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it isn't happening.
What's up for debate is how much of the warming is being caused by humans. It could be that human activity is having little impact and that the warming is natural; or it could be that humans are accelerating a natural process; or that humans are the primary cause of warming. Nobody knows.
This works only so long as the government doesn't continue to engage in deficit spending. Right now the deficit is the single biggest threat to long-term economic prosperity, and further increasing that debt is a recipe for disaster.
In a free country you never trust your leaders; you always question their actions and intentions, never taking your eye off the ball. It's the only way to keep them honest.
Regardless, there isn't anything a non-American can do about it. No nation in the world has the power to *force* this country to do anything; so your only hope of changing U.S. policy is by influencing Americans themselves, the voters, to elect Kerry (although as an American I see so little difference between Democrats and Republicans that I doubt it'll matter much who occupies the Oval Office).
Insulting Americans, their president, or their political processes is going to do nothing but piss those Americans off. And pissed-off Americans are going to vote for the President who specifically doesn't give a shit what foreigners think. I guess if you want Bush in office then insulting Americans is the way to go; but if you don't want Bush in office then insulting Americans is just a good way to show the rest of the world just how fucking clueless you are.
If those people did vote, however, you'd bring an end to this stupid two party system the US has and bring a wider spectrum of political opinion to the US.
I guess you don't know your history. There've been voter turnouts considerably higher than what's common today, and those people still voted for candidates that belonged to one of two major parties.
Higher voter turn out isn't the same as electing a third-party candidate. That isn't how the system works in the U.S.
And frankly, I'm only interested in "political diversity" if it's actually diverse and across the spectrum. If by "political diversity" you mean "a bunch of pseudo-socialist morons" then I'll take a pass, thanks.
eriously: if you are so concerned about this, pay everything with cash
I wonder how long you'll be able to do that.
A couple of years ago I walked into Radio Shack to by a $16 cable. Just a quick stop, I needed the cable pronto and my usual store didn't have any in stock.
I got the cable, went to the sales counter, and plopped it down along with a $20 bill. The salesperson started typing away on his cash register/computer, looked at my cable and my cash and asked "name and address?" I thought perhaps this boy had smoked a bit too much weed during his lunch break and had become confused, so I said "I'm paying with cash."
The salestwit gave me his best cold glare and said "I can see that. Your name and address, please."
And then it dawned on me that I'd heard that snide little limp-dicked moron ask the same question of every customer who went up to the sales counter, something I'd managed to tune out while I was hunting for my cable. Radio Shack was demanding my personal information in order to make a CASH purchase. Assholes.
So I leaned over the counter, looked this 19-year-old loser in the eye, and said "not in this lifetime, pal. Just give me my change - now!" Faced with a resistant customer the salesweasel folded and angrily handed me my $4, and I walked out of the store, cable in hand.
Haven't gone back to Radio Shack since then, for anything. Don't plan on it, either. But I do wonder how long it'll be before I have to give personal information to every store, even when making a cash purchase.
I can track my child on my own, thanks. I don't need the help of corporations, government, or especially well-meaning but clueless gits like some of the folks here to help me. If I want help, I'll ask for it; otherwise, mind your own business.
Funny, when I was a kid parents thought nothing about letting their 8-year-old kids wander off to play in the woods or go down to the swimming hole themselves. Now people scream about how 'irresponsible' that is and wonder what sort of parent would allow such a thing.
Slashdot Mirror
How the English and most of the English-speaking word spell the word that Americans insist on spelling "spelled".
Damn, you Brits are funny. Still going on about how the entire world speaks British English rather than American English. Compensating for the fact that your 'Empire' consists of nothing more than some two-bit second-rate island off the coast of France now, I guess.
Max
the people who live under it feel oppressed.
They don't just "feel oppressed". They *are* oppressed. If they don't comply, the government jackboots will come to punish them. Whether the jackboots are waving the religious flag or the environmentalist flag is of little importance to the victim.
Max
and a reduction in how safe I feel on the road when I'm surrounded by vehicles prown to rolling whose owners think they can be driven like sports cars.
You don't have any right to 'feel safe' about anything. You'll never get this as a right either, no matter what your government promises.
If your bladder gets all weak by driving on the road with SUVs (much less triple-trailer trucks), then I suggest you do your part for "the environment" by using bus or train travel, which are both FAR more efficient than any personal road vehicle around.
Don't like it? Too bad - that's the price of living in a free, or semi-free society. Suck it up and move on.
Max
One's freedom stops when it overlaps someone else's freedom.
Bullshit. One person's freedom ends where it actively harms the person or property of another. Otherwise, it isn't your business nor your concern.
I am entitle to a good environnement.
Perhaps some other countries actually have this written up as a law, but here in America you aren't entitled to anything of the sort. If you want such an 'entitlement' (assuming you can properly define it), then amend the Constitution. If you can.
You're confusing your personal desires with moral absolutes, then demanding that other people comply with your desires BECAUSE they're moral absolutes. This is nothing more than a greenie version of 'divine right', and it's just as egomaniacal as the older, more respectable version.
Max
Typical american response
Typical HUMAN response. Americans don't have any special corner on the market in stupidity - nor, it seems, juveline arrogance.
Max
With the exception of nuclear and wind power, hydro is by far and away the safest form of power generation around. And like wind power it generates no waste of any kind, other than the waste made in construction and replacement parts.
No matter how loud the moaning that greenies do over "the environment" and certain fish stocks, and equivalent energy output in coal or oil planets is enormously more toxic and damaging to the ecosystem than hydropower will ever be. And far, far more dangerous to human beings in terms of waste products (especially those dumped into the air for all of us to breathe).
Hydro is the best source of power one can use, if you don't want to go nuclear and don't have a regularly windy climate to count on. Personally I think nuclear is much better, but being from the Northwest I'll definitely take the power-generating dams over coal and oil plants any day of the week.
It's a good thing, I think, that so very few people pay attention to the extremist greenies. Otherwise we might replace the dams with coal plants, and with some bitter irony do more damage to the environment in a single lifetime than we ever could in 10,000 years of dam operation.
Max
Ah, O-Chem. My apologies. If I'd've known I wouldn't have stooped so low as to compare you to a slashdot editor!
Max
you're definitely not going to contribute any more to society.
Riiight. As if contributing to society is what we should all be striving for, sacrificing self-interest on the altar of saintly altruism. They teach you that crap in school nowadays?
In any event, our friend here might be 'contributing to society' by pointing out that the $30 million dollars could be better spent elsewhere. Especially if it's $30 million in TAX dollars, in which case I agree with him.
Max
I'm now prostletyzing for both.
I'd suggest that you put off preaching to the masses until you've finished the more important task of completing English 101.
Either that, or apply for a job as a Slashdot editor. In two sentences you've managed to make an excellent case concerning your qualifications.
Max
Then try Opera. The open source zealots hate it because it isn't part of their religion, but it's the best browser out there, by far. And mouse gestures - once you start using 'em, you wonder why the hell they aren't available for every application.
Max
Satisfaction comes from knowing the product inside and out
Perhaps for a geek. For the average user satisfaction comes from having the damned thing work, period. Having to research the product in order to fix a problem is just a pain in the ass and a waste of valuable time.
Max
So basically you are taking the people who don't know how to use a computer and giving them a computer in a corporate environment.
So what? The point is that the computers are supposed to work properly for these people without excessive failure and they don't. It doesn't matter worth a damn what their skill level is; the vast majority of users aren't, and will never be, IT professionals.
Max
Only on slashdot would a single case of anecdotal evidence be rated as 'insightful'.
Max
If you're forced to reboot a machine, that machine has a problem....FIX IT!
By removing Windows and installing Suse 9.1! No more blue screens of death, guarranteed!
Max
I don't think putting "well-versed" scholars in charge of the government would be a terribly wise move. Let's not forget that in the past these so-called scholars actively promoted beliefs like social darwinism, eugenics, forced sterilization of 'criminal elements', and other atrocities - all in the name of science.
I'd never in a million years put a sociologist or psychologist in a position of authority. Nor a Keynesian economist, for that matter. I'm not interested in groupthink or socialist economics, thanks.
If you want a truly representative government that owes no party affiliation, then do the following:
- make all congressional terms four years in length
- no one may serve more than one term
- pick all congressmen by lottery, just like jury duty. You can refuse, of course - but then you risk the possibility that someone with ideas contrary to your own will be next down on the list.
I really can't see how this system could be any worse than the one we have now. Even better, such a Congress probably wouldn't get a whole lot done, which means the rest of us would have little fear from government interference.
Max
Global warming is real, and measurable. It isn't up for debate, except among fools who like to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it isn't happening.
What's up for debate is how much of the warming is being caused by humans. It could be that human activity is having little impact and that the warming is natural; or it could be that humans are accelerating a natural process; or that humans are the primary cause of warming. Nobody knows.
Max
This works only so long as the government doesn't continue to engage in deficit spending. Right now the deficit is the single biggest threat to long-term economic prosperity, and further increasing that debt is a recipe for disaster.
Max
In a free country you never trust your leaders; you always question their actions and intentions, never taking your eye off the ball. It's the only way to keep them honest.
Max
Regardless, there isn't anything a non-American can do about it. No nation in the world has the power to *force* this country to do anything; so your only hope of changing U.S. policy is by influencing Americans themselves, the voters, to elect Kerry (although as an American I see so little difference between Democrats and Republicans that I doubt it'll matter much who occupies the Oval Office).
Insulting Americans, their president, or their political processes is going to do nothing but piss those Americans off. And pissed-off Americans are going to vote for the President who specifically doesn't give a shit what foreigners think. I guess if you want Bush in office then insulting Americans is the way to go; but if you don't want Bush in office then insulting Americans is just a good way to show the rest of the world just how fucking clueless you are.
Max
If those people did vote, however, you'd bring an end to this stupid two party system the US has and bring a wider spectrum of political opinion to the US.
I guess you don't know your history. There've been voter turnouts considerably higher than what's common today, and those people still voted for candidates that belonged to one of two major parties.
Higher voter turn out isn't the same as electing a third-party candidate. That isn't how the system works in the U.S.
And frankly, I'm only interested in "political diversity" if it's actually diverse and across the spectrum. If by "political diversity" you mean "a bunch of pseudo-socialist morons" then I'll take a pass, thanks.
Max
I Hate Linux! [blogspot.com] Read my blog to find out why
Read: I'm a pathetic little loser desperate for attention! Read my blog so I can pretend I'm actually popular and liked!
Max
eriously: if you are so concerned about this, pay everything with cash
I wonder how long you'll be able to do that.
A couple of years ago I walked into Radio Shack to by a $16 cable. Just a quick stop, I needed the cable pronto and my usual store didn't have any in stock.
I got the cable, went to the sales counter, and plopped it down along with a $20 bill. The salesperson started typing away on his cash register/computer, looked at my cable and my cash and asked "name and address?" I thought perhaps this boy had smoked a bit too much weed during his lunch break and had become confused, so I said "I'm paying with cash."
The salestwit gave me his best cold glare and said "I can see that. Your name and address, please."
And then it dawned on me that I'd heard that snide little limp-dicked moron ask the same question of every customer who went up to the sales counter, something I'd managed to tune out while I was hunting for my cable. Radio Shack was demanding my personal information in order to make a CASH purchase. Assholes.
So I leaned over the counter, looked this 19-year-old loser in the eye, and said "not in this lifetime, pal. Just give me my change - now!" Faced with a resistant customer the salesweasel folded and angrily handed me my $4, and I walked out of the store, cable in hand.
Haven't gone back to Radio Shack since then, for anything. Don't plan on it, either. But I do wonder how long it'll be before I have to give personal information to every store, even when making a cash purchase.
Max
I can track my child on my own, thanks. I don't need the help of corporations, government, or especially well-meaning but clueless gits like some of the folks here to help me. If I want help, I'll ask for it; otherwise, mind your own business.
Max
Just throw the tag in the trash the moment you step into the park. It's not as if they're in a position to force compliance.
Max
Funny, when I was a kid parents thought nothing about letting their 8-year-old kids wander off to play in the woods or go down to the swimming hole themselves. Now people scream about how 'irresponsible' that is and wonder what sort of parent would allow such a thing.
Max