Well that, and when we TRIED to make it illegal we discovered a fun new way to give organized crime lots of money and power. Really, the US is STILL recovering from the effects of alcohol prohibition. The do-gooders *really* screwed the pooch on that one, and created far more problems than they solved. More drinking, more crime, more violence, and still all the nasty bathtub gin they could stomach.
That's as may be, but the effect is the same, is it not? In order for these people to 'serve' us, they are granted powers to do so. In the end, huge numbers of them abuse this power.
Actually, it doesn't seem to have to be deliberate.
One of the other responses to my post contained a link (which I haven't yet visited) that I suspect points to the study "Unskilled and Unaware of it". Essentially, the big problem with those who lack competence is that they are unable to recognize this problem in themselves or others. So it doesn't even need to be deliberate, because the poor fool can't even tell he (or she) is hiring yet another fool.
"I am computer literate! I have 22 years in computer systems engineering and operation. Now, can you tell me how to remove 'your software' that you acknowledge you provided free of charge? I consider this 'hacking.'"
22 years in systems engineering, but he hasn't got a clue as to how web sites operate. This guy epitomizes problems we all see every day: Incompetents who don't recognize their own incompetence. Then he compounds it by being an arrogant bastard and an overbearing, threatening weenie to boot.
Nice.
And these are the kinds of jackasses we ELECT to have power over us.
Hell, take it to the next level. Set up a video camera with a good microphone and record each lecture. It's not like there are production/distribution costs these days.
Have a student assistant set it up and the prof doesn't even need to understand it.
Everything I have said in this thread or ever about politicians, I retract when it comes to town councils. At least in the village where I live, they are quite responsive (sometimes a bit too much so) to the citizenry.
You aren't the only one to have made this error, but I'll pick on you:
In what way, precisely, does my posting on/. about my feelings preclude me from taking other, more effective actions politically? Where does this assumption arise?
Honestly, I'd like to know why people think that someone who writes about the problems they see in the system must *only* be writing about it on some collective blog for geeks.
I guess that's just how this place works. I must admit I do find some of the assumptions made here amusing, but rarely laugh-out-loud funny.
I really can't consider myself a libertarian, either, although if I get drunk enough they sound pretty good. However, I try not to get drunk like that anymore, not since that wedding a number of years back... I DO like some of the Libertarian ideas, but they take it way too far IMHO.
Liberal or conservative? That's just not correct. Our republicans aren't conservatives and our democrats aren't liberals.
As a very simple example, let's look at where the budget has gone under the Bush administration, assisted by a republican congress: Straight up into the stratosphere. Is that conservative in *any* way? I thought not.
Frankly, this is a false dichotomy when presented as it is in American politics. Financially I tend to agree with (TRUE) conservative principals: Let people take care of their own money, charge as little as possible, and don't let the government interfere any more than is necessary. Socially, I tend to agree more with the liberal side of things as presented, and I'm a great believer in people having the freedom to do pretty much what they want as long as they don't cross a line to hurting others.
So I reject your assertion that I must choose from 'conservative/liberal', translate that into 'republican/democrat' and vote against my conscience a big chunk of the time.
No. I never said that, but thanks a whole bunch for putting words into my keyboard. How about I just give you my password, and let you post what I'm thinking for me?
I'm essentially kept out of being part of the solution, because I cannot agree with either of the two empowered sides who are *entirely* unable to create solutions for the problems we have.
Both major parties are full of incompetent boobs, but they are incompetent boobs who set all the rules for the rest of us. And this is self-reinforcing, because anyone who shows tendencies towards thoughtfulness or considered opinion these days is painted as indecisive, wishy-washy, or as a 'flip-flopper'. Imagine that: Someone who is capable of realizing they've made a mistake, someone who can change their mind to cope with new facts, realities or understanding, is attacked viciously by those who are so entrenched in their beliefs that they can never change.
The system is badly broken, and it's damned difficult to try and change it, either from within or without. That being said, I am trying to do my part. I must say: The form letters one gets back after contacting legislators tends to be very depressing. One is generally either thanked for supporting some position which one has never mentioned, or given a paragraph along the lines of 'thanks for your opinion, but mine won't change'.
Yes, leaving out the word 'major' or perhaps 'viable' was a mistake on my part.
However, I stand by my point. I've "thrown my vote away" numerous times voting for a "third party candidate", knowing each time that it was nothing more than an act of protest which would be drowned out by the bickering tribes of Reps and Dems.
And tribalism is precisely what we have here. What we see for the most part is not logical, reasoned positions but merely 'we vs. they'.
For the most part I understand where you're coming from, but I must take issue with the idea that we have Choices.
We have no choices. There are only two parties, each of which has about 25% of a supportable platform, as far as I am concerned. What kind of a choice is that?
There seems to be an inverse relationship between importance and choice. I can select from literally hundreds of breakfast cereals, but only two presidential candidates? Where are the people who represent MY views?
Slashdot Mirror
Or just make sure you're *always* both stoned and tripping when using your system. You'll be just fine.
Kirk, while waterskiing, jumps over a shark pen.
Can I have my 45 grand back? I don't think the Feds'll be needing it now.
Oh dear... Are you even now unintentionally planting the seeds of a Battlestar Galactica MMORPG?
Will it have the classic Boomer and Starbuck or the new hotness?
Audio folks have a saying these days (and it doesn't apply to Bose's excellent 609 speakers from yesteryear):
No highs, no lows. Must be Bose.
Well that, and when we TRIED to make it illegal we discovered a fun new way to give organized crime lots of money and power. Really, the US is STILL recovering from the effects of alcohol prohibition. The do-gooders *really* screwed the pooch on that one, and created far more problems than they solved. More drinking, more crime, more violence, and still all the nasty bathtub gin they could stomach.
Or as Plato wrote it -
Glaucon: How can you convince us if we will not listen?
Socrates: I cannot.
Probably because Wal Mart controls modern game design (or so I've read... somewhere).
Turn it on?
And I do misspell it deliberately... This is what I copied from TFA:
Each virus, and thus each wire, is only 6 manometers -- 6 billionths of a metre -- in diameter, and 880 manometers long, the researchers said.
It made me chuckle, although I may be easily amused at this hour of the morning.
Another generation of the wealthy and clueless.
No Google, indeed... Similarly, I do not allow my children to use 'legs'.
That's as may be, but the effect is the same, is it not? In order for these people to 'serve' us, they are granted powers to do so. In the end, huge numbers of them abuse this power.
Actually, it doesn't seem to have to be deliberate.
e .html
One of the other responses to my post contained a link (which I haven't yet visited) that I suspect points to the study "Unskilled and Unaware of it". Essentially, the big problem with those who lack competence is that they are unable to recognize this problem in themselves or others. So it doesn't even need to be deliberate, because the poor fool can't even tell he (or she) is hiring yet another fool.
Here's a URL for the study (I avoided the PDF link)
http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unawar
The guy is a real piece of work. I liked this:
"I am computer literate! I have 22 years in computer systems engineering and operation. Now, can you tell me how to remove 'your software' that you acknowledge you provided free of charge? I consider this 'hacking.'"
22 years in systems engineering, but he hasn't got a clue as to how web sites operate. This guy epitomizes problems we all see every day: Incompetents who don't recognize their own incompetence. Then he compounds it by being an arrogant bastard and an overbearing, threatening weenie to boot.
Nice.
And these are the kinds of jackasses we ELECT to have power over us.
I'm WAY better at Unreal Tournament 2004 than my five year old.
Hell, take it to the next level. Set up a video camera with a good microphone and record each lecture. It's not like there are production/distribution costs these days.
Have a student assistant set it up and the prof doesn't even need to understand it.
Everything I have said in this thread or ever about politicians, I retract when it comes to town councils. At least in the village where I live, they are quite responsive (sometimes a bit too much so) to the citizenry.
Local politics can actually work.
You aren't the only one to have made this error, but I'll pick on you:
/. about my feelings preclude me from taking other, more effective actions politically? Where does this assumption arise?
In what way, precisely, does my posting on
Honestly, I'd like to know why people think that someone who writes about the problems they see in the system must *only* be writing about it on some collective blog for geeks.
I guess that's just how this place works. I must admit I do find some of the assumptions made here amusing, but rarely laugh-out-loud funny.
I really can't consider myself a libertarian, either, although if I get drunk enough they sound pretty good. However, I try not to get drunk like that anymore, not since that wedding a number of years back... I DO like some of the Libertarian ideas, but they take it way too far IMHO.
Liberal or conservative? That's just not correct. Our republicans aren't conservatives and our democrats aren't liberals.
As a very simple example, let's look at where the budget has gone under the Bush administration, assisted by a republican congress: Straight up into the stratosphere. Is that conservative in *any* way? I thought not.
Frankly, this is a false dichotomy when presented as it is in American politics. Financially I tend to agree with (TRUE) conservative principals: Let people take care of their own money, charge as little as possible, and don't let the government interfere any more than is necessary. Socially, I tend to agree more with the liberal side of things as presented, and I'm a great believer in people having the freedom to do pretty much what they want as long as they don't cross a line to hurting others.
So I reject your assertion that I must choose from 'conservative/liberal', translate that into 'republican/democrat' and vote against my conscience a big chunk of the time.
No. I never said that, but thanks a whole bunch for putting words into my keyboard. How about I just give you my password, and let you post what I'm thinking for me?
It's 'IMisinterpretOthersPostingsAllTheTime'
And that is *precisely* what I fear.
I'm essentially kept out of being part of the solution, because I cannot agree with either of the two empowered sides who are *entirely* unable to create solutions for the problems we have.
Both major parties are full of incompetent boobs, but they are incompetent boobs who set all the rules for the rest of us. And this is self-reinforcing, because anyone who shows tendencies towards thoughtfulness or considered opinion these days is painted as indecisive, wishy-washy, or as a 'flip-flopper'. Imagine that: Someone who is capable of realizing they've made a mistake, someone who can change their mind to cope with new facts, realities or understanding, is attacked viciously by those who are so entrenched in their beliefs that they can never change.
The system is badly broken, and it's damned difficult to try and change it, either from within or without. That being said, I am trying to do my part. I must say: The form letters one gets back after contacting legislators tends to be very depressing. One is generally either thanked for supporting some position which one has never mentioned, or given a paragraph along the lines of 'thanks for your opinion, but mine won't change'.
Yes, leaving out the word 'major' or perhaps 'viable' was a mistake on my part.
However, I stand by my point. I've "thrown my vote away" numerous times voting for a "third party candidate", knowing each time that it was nothing more than an act of protest which would be drowned out by the bickering tribes of Reps and Dems.
And tribalism is precisely what we have here. What we see for the most part is not logical, reasoned positions but merely 'we vs. they'.
For the most part I understand where you're coming from, but I must take issue with the idea that we have Choices.
We have no choices. There are only two parties, each of which has about 25% of a supportable platform, as far as I am concerned. What kind of a choice is that?
There seems to be an inverse relationship between importance and choice. I can select from literally hundreds of breakfast cereals, but only two presidential candidates? Where are the people who represent MY views?
I like it! The root 'mal' means bad, so combining that with 'jargon' makes perfect sense.