While I wholeheartedly encourage your call to political activism in general; I'd suggest picking a better battle. Asking for this bill to get killed in committee is like asking for gravity to keep working. Sure, it's important, but it's just not in question. If you're going to make a phone call, pick something with more support than one unpopular minority party member.
My guess, Rep. King introduced it, and can now say that to his one loony-tunes donor who was upset about it, and not even he will ever mention the bill again.
"There is no reason to RTFA. It's easy to tell from the headline..."
I'm sorry I have to be the one to tell you, but every so often, Slashdot headlines are not quite entirely accurate...
For example, this ones use of the word "law" instead of "bill that will never become a law or indeed be heard of again", and the words "will require" without the disclaimer "after it's only supporter uses the massive power of a single, unpopular minority congressman to get at least 366 more legislators behind it..."
Or better yet, do something intelligent like look up who proposed this (Peter T King, R-NY) and who else supports it (nobody) and in the next election cycle, vote accordingly (if you live in New Yorks 3rd congressional district).
Whenever someone says "OMG, all politicians are terrible" it always seems to be a case of a particular Republican being terrible.
It means nothing for open source or anything else because it is not a "New Law".
It is a bill, introduced by single Republican Congressman, and not co-sponsored by anyone. To become law it just needs the support of 215 more congress people, 50 senators and the President...
It means nothing except that Peter T. King (R-NY) is an idiot, a fact already well established, IMO.
"when it comes to US and Israeli military action in the Middle East, they can "do no right" almost 100% of the time, in spite of being the best military forces in the world."
You'd almost think military action didn't make people like you. Killing bad guys does not make up for killing innocents. Protecting innocents might, and killing bad guys might potentially be part of that, but that is not the case here. No matter how many combatants Israel killed, their actions clearly resulted in the deaths of vastly more innocent people than their actions prevented.
If you kill innocent people, you don't get a wash from me simply because bad guys hid behind them.
The recent "flareup" in Gaza involved massive airstrikes on an area containing one of the densest civilian populations in the world. A civilian population the bomb-droppers will not allow to leave or import food. They certainly killed 1000+ civilians and blew up both hospitals and UN shelters. I don't know how many Hamas members they killed, though I do expect it was more than 3.
Interestingly, I believe 3 is the number of Israelis killed by the Hamas missiles this whole "flareup" was supposed to stop.
Please note that I'm no Hamas fan. Put some Hamas guys responsible for missile attacks out in a field with no one around, I'll push the button myself. But put them in my neighbors house, and have Israel drop a bomb killing them along with my whole family, do you think I'm going to go out of my way to acknowledge "there's a reason why the action was taken" when contacted for a "local report"? Of course I won't. Hell, in that situation I'm almost certainly going to run out and join Hamas...
Realistically though, this isn't anything but a completely false statement in a slashdot article summarry. Obama has not publicly sided with Bush policy on wiretaps in any way shape or form. An assistant AG (appointed by Bush) has filed a motion asking a Judge to not require producing some piece of evidence until appeals of the order to produce that evidence are concluded.
"Strangely, in the middle east, American (or Israeli) attacks never seem to kill anyone with a weapon, just women and children."
Anywhere in the world, anyone firing missles or dropping bombs in populated areas is going to kill a variety of people, some of whom will probably be innocent. War is messy that way. 90% of people making "local reports" are going to be more focused on the neighbors kids that got killed than the a-holes with guns hiding in the other neighbors basement. That doesn't make them "full of shit". Maybe you think the particular a-holes with guns in a particular case are bad enough that getting them is worth killing some innocent people who live next door too. That's a damn harsh call to have to make, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make it, and I won't second guess the people who do make it without more information than I have.
But don't tell me we're not really killing any innocent people when go after bad guys with high explosives. If you support particular policies of your government, have the simple decency to admit their consequences.
These same people oppose all organ transplants, I assume? And blood transfusions?
My concern is with holding up scientific advance over concerns that make no sense just because someone says "ethics".
*If* we find the cure to a number of diseases, that strikes me as a good thing. *If* that or any other good thing that happens leads to some ethical question in the future, we should deal with that question when it arises. Based on my understanding of the science, your concerns are not plausible. But in any case, any new scientific knowledge could create the possibility of some negative side effect; I choose to learn new things anyway.
What's the issue with accurately describing our political system? I'm not clear which "side" you take (I assume the adamantly incorrect one), but confusing a pointless semantic argument with an "issue" is exactly the sort of pointlessness I'm talking about. It takes it to a particularly stupid level to pick a semantic argument where every dictionary there is is in agreement.
democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (Mirriam-Webster, sense 2)
I was paraphrasing the poster to whom I was responding; argue with him if you like - the two of you go together well; the shrillness of your whining matched only by it's pointlessness.
If you don't think the plight of the poor in our society is a concern, pick something else. Find something you do think is a problem, and try to make it better. Perhaps tomorrow I'll argue about socioeconomic policy if you like; today my opposition is only for apathy.
"I thought on Slashdot we were smart enough that speeches were nothing more than that."
Actually, I find the eloquent expression of good ideas inspiring. I'm not sure why that makes me unintelligent. Can smart people appreciate beauty in your view?
I cannot imagine why you undervalue eloquence, considering the fine command of English grammar you display.
"it's incapable of showing us whether or not it's a good thing to, for example, kill a viable embryo s.t. a parent of young children might live."
Nor can science explain why people think embryonic stem cell research involves killing viable embryos in the first place. Science is no help to the intentionally ignorant.
Yeah! Maybe, against all evidence to the contrary, Obama thinks science is unimportant, and "rightful place" is a clever code-phrase covering his intention to ignore science entirely!
I mean, seriously, what are you on about? Do you really think it's a stretch to assume "restore science to its rightful place" means he intends to put greater emphasis on science?
When are we going to completely redesign the governmental system of the country along entirely new and untested lines? Never. Our current system has plenty of warts, but after a couple hundred years of it, I would say we're doing pretty good. Despite it's flaws, this isn't exactly the worst country in the world to live in.
Yes, rich people will still screw over poor people. Yes, you will still have to work for a living. Yes, many of the improvements we would like to see in our country will be derailed by petty politics. When will we decide that's a lame excuse for not trying? When will we decide cynicism, however justified, is as boring as it is futile? I pick today.
The original poster (ghandi_2) bemoaned the inability to put code on his own device without paying Apple more money. mikael_j claimed this was actually possible - specifically describing ad hoc distribution as an alternative to paying the $99. That surprised me, so I asked for a reference. His response: "Try using Google". I did. He's wrong. Saying that without having done it yourself: Troll.
Are you just trolling? I mean, I was genuinely interested when I asked for a citation at first, but I googled that and read the top few hits, so now I'm annoyed at you for wasting my time. According to those top few hits, you are definitely wrong.
"ad-hoc distribution" apparently lets one beta test on up to 100 (pre-identified) iPhones, instead of just one. As widely understood (by everyone but you) you still can't put code on your own iPhone without paying $99, nor can you give someone code without involving Apple.
"My point was simply that becoming director does not necessarily correlate to being a good manager."
True. Having people look at you record as manager and nominate you for Secretary of Energy might be more indicative though. Chu isn't a big campaign contributor nor a famous partisan ideologue. Obama appears (to me) to be appointing people largely on competence anyway, but in this particular case, I've not heard any suggestion of any other reason to go with Chu.
So, the government is "YOU AND ME", until it does something you don't like, at which point you'll automatically assume they are idiots doing something "most of you" don't want?
Officials we elected want to us to take some of everybodies money and spend it on things we think are worthwhile. We elected them, presumably, because we generally agree with them about what's worthwhile. That's what government is.
"This is why taxes must be cut."
Bah! Nobody want's to pay taxes, that's an easy sell. Tell me what you don't want to pay for. Especially since you seem to lean Republican, the party of big government spending. (looking of course, at what they do, not what they say; the record is clear.)
As far as the policy at hand, they're trying to stimulate the economy. You try to find ways to spend money that have some positive side effect, but spending money is mostly the point. This one does seem a bit lame; I already sold my clunker, and got nothing to replace it. I'm helping the environment (but not the economy) even more, but I get nothing.
I had assumed you were using "foreign" to mean the opposite of "domestic", as many do. I find your classification of these comunications as foriegn-yet-domestic somewhat contorted, but OK. In any case, everything you said in your original post is still wrong.
"What do you think the point of the Second Amendment is?"
I think the point had something to do with a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state... Can't remember where I got that idea though; nobody arguing against gun regulation seems to have ever heard the phrase. You'd think people who love a particular amendment so much wouldn't misquote it so consistently. You'd almost get the idea they think it weakens their case.
For what it's worth, the problem with the second amendment isn't that some people misunderstand what it means. The problem is that everyone does, intentionally. The second clearly enshrines the inalienable right of every individual to own nuclear bombs if they want to.
Calling someone a stupid liberal because they incorrectly interpret the second amendment a very slightly different way than you incorrectly interpret it seems a bit daft.
Slashdot Mirror
While I wholeheartedly encourage your call to political activism in general; I'd suggest picking a better battle. Asking for this bill to get killed in committee is like asking for gravity to keep working. Sure, it's important, but it's just not in question. If you're going to make a phone call, pick something with more support than one unpopular minority party member.
My guess, Rep. King introduced it, and can now say that to his one loony-tunes donor who was upset about it, and not even he will ever mention the bill again.
"There is no reason to RTFA. It's easy to tell from the headline..."
I'm sorry I have to be the one to tell you, but every so often, Slashdot headlines are not quite entirely accurate...
For example, this ones use of the word "law" instead of "bill that will never become a law or indeed be heard of again", and the words "will require" without the disclaimer "after it's only supporter uses the massive power of a single, unpopular minority congressman to get at least 366 more legislators behind it..."
Or better yet, do something intelligent like look up who proposed this (Peter T King, R-NY) and who else supports it (nobody) and in the next election cycle, vote accordingly (if you live in New Yorks 3rd congressional district).
Whenever someone says "OMG, all politicians are terrible" it always seems to be a case of a particular Republican being terrible.
It means nothing for open source or anything else because it is not a "New Law".
It is a bill, introduced by single Republican Congressman, and not co-sponsored by anyone. To become law it just needs the support of 215 more congress people, 50 senators and the President...
It means nothing except that Peter T. King (R-NY) is an idiot, a fact already well established, IMO.
"when it comes to US and Israeli military action in the Middle East, they can "do no right" almost 100% of the time, in spite of being the best military forces in the world."
You'd almost think military action didn't make people like you. Killing bad guys does not make up for killing innocents. Protecting innocents might, and killing bad guys might potentially be part of that, but that is not the case here. No matter how many combatants Israel killed, their actions clearly resulted in the deaths of vastly more innocent people than their actions prevented.
"Blindly accepting them as pure, unadulterated truth, on the other hand, is troubling..."
And you think I or the original poster are doing that because...
If you kill innocent people, you don't get a wash from me simply because bad guys hid behind them.
The recent "flareup" in Gaza involved massive airstrikes on an area containing one of the densest civilian populations in the world. A civilian population the bomb-droppers will not allow to leave or import food. They certainly killed 1000+ civilians and blew up both hospitals and UN shelters. I don't know how many Hamas members they killed, though I do expect it was more than 3.
Interestingly, I believe 3 is the number of Israelis killed by the Hamas missiles this whole "flareup" was supposed to stop.
Please note that I'm no Hamas fan. Put some Hamas guys responsible for missile attacks out in a field with no one around, I'll push the button myself. But put them in my neighbors house, and have Israel drop a bomb killing them along with my whole family, do you think I'm going to go out of my way to acknowledge "there's a reason why the action was taken" when contacted for a "local report"? Of course I won't. Hell, in that situation I'm almost certainly going to run out and join Hamas...
Realistically though, this isn't anything but a completely false statement in a slashdot article summarry. Obama has not publicly sided with Bush policy on wiretaps in any way shape or form. An assistant AG (appointed by Bush) has filed a motion asking a Judge to not require producing some piece of evidence until appeals of the order to produce that evidence are concluded.
"Strangely, in the middle east, American (or Israeli) attacks never seem to kill anyone with a weapon, just women and children."
Anywhere in the world, anyone firing missles or dropping bombs in populated areas is going to kill a variety of people, some of whom will probably be innocent. War is messy that way. 90% of people making "local reports" are going to be more focused on the neighbors kids that got killed than the a-holes with guns hiding in the other neighbors basement. That doesn't make them "full of shit". Maybe you think the particular a-holes with guns in a particular case are bad enough that getting them is worth killing some innocent people who live next door too. That's a damn harsh call to have to make, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make it, and I won't second guess the people who do make it without more information than I have.
But don't tell me we're not really killing any innocent people when go after bad guys with high explosives. If you support particular policies of your government, have the simple decency to admit their consequences.
These same people oppose all organ transplants, I assume? And blood transfusions?
My concern is with holding up scientific advance over concerns that make no sense just because someone says "ethics".
*If* we find the cure to a number of diseases, that strikes me as a good thing. *If* that or any other good thing that happens leads to some ethical question in the future, we should deal with that question when it arises. Based on my understanding of the science, your concerns are not plausible. But in any case, any new scientific knowledge could create the possibility of some negative side effect; I choose to learn new things anyway.
What's the issue with accurately describing our political system? I'm not clear which "side" you take (I assume the adamantly incorrect one), but confusing a pointless semantic argument with an "issue" is exactly the sort of pointlessness I'm talking about. It takes it to a particularly stupid level to pick a semantic argument where every dictionary there is is in agreement.
democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (Mirriam-Webster, sense 2)
I was paraphrasing the poster to whom I was responding; argue with him if you like - the two of you go together well; the shrillness of your whining matched only by it's pointlessness.
If you don't think the plight of the poor in our society is a concern, pick something else. Find something you do think is a problem, and try to make it better. Perhaps tomorrow I'll argue about socioeconomic policy if you like; today my opposition is only for apathy.
"I thought on Slashdot we were smart enough that speeches were nothing more than that."
Actually, I find the eloquent expression of good ideas inspiring. I'm not sure why that makes me unintelligent. Can smart people appreciate beauty in your view?
I cannot imagine why you undervalue eloquence, considering the fine command of English grammar you display.
"it's incapable of showing us whether or not it's a good thing to, for example, kill a viable embryo s.t. a parent of young children might live."
Nor can science explain why people think embryonic stem cell research involves killing viable embryos in the first place. Science is no help to the intentionally ignorant.
Yeah! Maybe, against all evidence to the contrary, Obama thinks science is unimportant, and "rightful place" is a clever code-phrase covering his intention to ignore science entirely!
I mean, seriously, what are you on about? Do you really think it's a stretch to assume "restore science to its rightful place" means he intends to put greater emphasis on science?
When are we going to completely redesign the governmental system of the country along entirely new and untested lines? Never. Our current system has plenty of warts, but after a couple hundred years of it, I would say we're doing pretty good. Despite it's flaws, this isn't exactly the worst country in the world to live in.
Yes, rich people will still screw over poor people. Yes, you will still have to work for a living. Yes, many of the improvements we would like to see in our country will be derailed by petty politics. When will we decide that's a lame excuse for not trying? When will we decide cynicism, however justified, is as boring as it is futile? I pick today.
The original poster (ghandi_2) bemoaned the inability to put code on his own device without paying Apple more money. mikael_j claimed this was actually possible - specifically describing ad hoc distribution as an alternative to paying the $99. That surprised me, so I asked for a reference. His response: "Try using Google". I did. He's wrong. Saying that without having done it yourself: Troll.
Are you just trolling? I mean, I was genuinely interested when I asked for a citation at first, but I googled that and read the top few hits, so now I'm annoyed at you for wasting my time. According to those top few hits, you are definitely wrong.
"ad-hoc distribution" apparently lets one beta test on up to 100 (pre-identified) iPhones, instead of just one. As widely understood (by everyone but you) you still can't put code on your own iPhone without paying $99, nor can you give someone code without involving Apple.
"You can do limited ad-hoc distribution"
It is my understanding that you are wrong. Can you provide any sort of citation?
"My point was simply that becoming director does not necessarily correlate to being a good manager."
True. Having people look at you record as manager and nominate you for Secretary of Energy might be more indicative though. Chu isn't a big campaign contributor nor a famous partisan ideologue. Obama appears (to me) to be appointing people largely on competence anyway, but in this particular case, I've not heard any suggestion of any other reason to go with Chu.
"You think Obama is going to bring about change?"
Probably.
"How's 4 more years of Clinton/Kennedy for you?"
Sounds utterly fabulous; do you really think he'll do that well?
So, the government is "YOU AND ME", until it does something you don't like, at which point you'll automatically assume they are idiots doing something "most of you" don't want?
Officials we elected want to us to take some of everybodies money and spend it on things we think are worthwhile. We elected them, presumably, because we generally agree with them about what's worthwhile. That's what government is.
"This is why taxes must be cut."
Bah! Nobody want's to pay taxes, that's an easy sell. Tell me what you don't want to pay for. Especially since you seem to lean Republican, the party of big government spending. (looking of course, at what they do, not what they say; the record is clear.)
As far as the policy at hand, they're trying to stimulate the economy. You try to find ways to spend money that have some positive side effect, but spending money is mostly the point. This one does seem a bit lame; I already sold my clunker, and got nothing to replace it. I'm helping the environment (but not the economy) even more, but I get nothing.
I had assumed you were using "foreign" to mean the opposite of "domestic", as many do. I find your classification of these comunications as foriegn-yet-domestic somewhat contorted, but OK. In any case, everything you said in your original post is still wrong.
"What do you think the point of the Second Amendment is?"
I think the point had something to do with a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state... Can't remember where I got that idea though; nobody arguing against gun regulation seems to have ever heard the phrase. You'd think people who love a particular amendment so much wouldn't misquote it so consistently. You'd almost get the idea they think it weakens their case.
For what it's worth, the problem with the second amendment isn't that some people misunderstand what it means. The problem is that everyone does, intentionally. The second clearly enshrines the inalienable right of every individual to own nuclear bombs if they want to.
Calling someone a stupid liberal because they incorrectly interpret the second amendment a very slightly different way than you incorrectly interpret it seems a bit daft.
"it does seem like quite the contradiction doesn't it?"
Yeah, those straw men sure are wacky.