Why is working faster good? Why should we revamp our whole lives for efficiency? Working faster (meaning getting more done) doesn't seem like an end in itself, to me. I'd rather get less done, more enjoyably, of higher quality. I'm getting sick of the American ideal of "MORE!", perhaps working more isn't desirable? Perhaps its not quantity of work, but quality (which is directly variable to the happiness of the doer).
My 2c.
As for language, keep it like it is, or adopt latin. Either way it makes it harder for idiots to speak.
In my eyes, when you target civilians for any purpose, you are a terrorist.
I said the same thing, except called them "asshats" and "sociopaths". "Terrorist" as a term has been rendered meaningless by politicians and sensationalist media outlets.
I'm wondering the point... It doesn't seem as useful a feature as Spotlight (which I rarely use). I bought a Mac to run OS X because it was better than Windows (for me), and then why would I want to run Windows on my Mac?
I downloaded bootcamp, and parallels, and was planning on installing XPpro on my MacMini, but never got around to it. I've only once had to run a Windows app once in my 4 years of owning a Mac (SPSS). Everything else I would be using Windows for has a Mac platform equivalent. So I never actually got around to USING bootcamp or parallels (especially since bootcamp doesn't support Linux, and parallels doesn't suport Ubuntu or Gentoo).
It would take me a lot to sacrafice the ease of use, stability, and eye candy (taken as a whole "Macishness") of OS X for the ugliness, instability, and outmoded computing of Windows Vista or XP. Not saying that no-one would have a use for this, but I think it is a niche use mainly filled by developers and programmers, and not your typical Mac user. Meaning it is a bad selling point in the practical sense, though I guess it might sway some frightened home users.
I guess the Wow factor is there, though. And it is something else for MS to copy in the OS after Vista, and claim that they did first.
Let me restate: TERRORISM IS IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER. To be more specific, in the rhetoric of the beholder, and it is used to deliniate bad guys.
Those in Iraq to are, in their eyes, freedom fighters fighting against an illegal, and unwanted, occupying army. Yes, civilians are being killed (by us and them), but why should they be the only terrorists if we are doing the same thing albeit with more sophisticated technology? I'm sure if you polled Iraqis, some would accuse the US of terrorism, and how is their point less valid than us calling them the same? The conclusion could be one of two things, both sides are terrorists (both labels correct), or that the use of the term is meaningless (both wrong). I guess there is a third path too, that they are terrorists because the US says so, which is nonsensical at best, and racist at worst.
Ignore feelings and CNN/Fox/MSNBC's use of the word, and look at the actual GLOBAL use of the word, it is biased and hence used only towards causes that the US doesn't agree with.
Your sig denies your point. If your a college student, then you know damn well that beer is free, you just have to find it. Sure the free beer isn't the easy beer, but it is the best tasting.
First, to clarify my point, I don't quite agree witht hese sources, but it shows the western-centric bias that only "those guys" do terrorism, and that our allies can do no harm, or do valid military strikes. Our terrorism, isn't their terrorism.
I don't support these views, but they support my point.
And how is what is happening in Iraq even CLOSE to terrorism? People fighting against us ARE NOT TERRORISTS, that is a misuse of the term. Its a war, they are fighting for their counbtry and beleifs. In WWII, were the germans terrorists? Were the Viet Cong terrorists in Vietnam? No, they were enemies in a conflict. The same goes for Iraq. To say otherwise admits a VERY racist view, "they are arab, they are fighting us, they are terrorits" whereas in the case of WWII, "they are white, they are fighting us, they are not terrorists". What is the only difference in those statements? It underlines my point, "terrorist" is empty rhetoric.
the term "redneck" has nothing to do with race. Well in a way it does, since you must be white. So I guess, as used, all rednecks are white, but not all white people are rednecks. For "nigger", it is applied to ALL black people. See the difference? Redneck is a word aimed at socioeconomic status (including lifestyle and education level), and not at just the ethnicity of a person. Hence it isn't racial, it is akin to calling one "bourgeoisie".
Not getting intot the debate that it is an undesirable term, though. I think people should lighten up, though. Words only have power if we choose for them to. There is no offence, or victims in language, unless someone chooses to be.
Second, didn't you just invalidate your point? " The catch-22 of the internet, even retards and cowards have voices, and often they voice their jack ass opinion insulting anyone they can, the reason because no one can break their nose."
So, in theory someone should break your nose too? Seems like a jackass opinion to me.
The second point, where is the point in calling yourself an uneducated, bigoted, moron? Isn't that what redneck actually means? People actually embracing their ignorance, it seems strange to me. Not that I have anything against people people fixing their cars, or such, it seems the term redneck has broader (and less desirable) implications. Its like black kids in the hood calling themselves "niggas" or "gangstas", they are deliberately embracing ignorance, idiocy, and violence. Since when did these characteristics become a badge of honor, or even desirable?
Most terrorist attacks of the last 20 years were commited my American imperialists, or Zionist zealots.
Yes, this ignoring a huge slice of terrorism too, the IRA has done a fair deal of terrorism in their day. The problem comes from defining terrorism. In the anglophone world we have our view, but it still is a slippery word to define. Are the Israelis terrorists? Common thought in the wsst says "no", but I think vast swaths of the world (mainly Muslim, but not exclusively) think otherwise. In a strictly technical definition you could say the opening salvos of the current Iraq war were terrorism, as well. "Shock and Awe" seem to infer wanting to drive terror or fear (awe) into the hearts of the local populance.
I really hate the word terrorism, it is a rhetorical term we leverage against our enemies, and not really a valid objective point. As pointed out "one man's terrorists is another's freedom fighters"
I think we should just call anyone who deliberatly targets civilian populations for ideological or political reasons a "blood-thristy asshat", or a "sociopath", this way we can remove some the the western-centric bias, and perhaps see the motivating factors behind asshatery.
I suppose this is where I disagree on esoteric and philosophical grounds. I can't see the ethics in rationally wanting anyone dead, no matter what they do to "deserve it". Death of the offensive is a phyrric victory, its hollow and amounts to no more than animal revenge. In wishing death we slide one step closer to being that which we hate.
First there is the question of human fallibility, who are you to wish the ultimate, and irrevocable, punisment on someone? What if your wrong? What is there is a lesser show of animal force (actually revenge isn't even animal, it is only a human trait) that would remove harm? It's like these asshats complaining about how killing people in self defence is illegal... of course it is, self defence is the "minimal" amount of force. No need to kill, only remove the threat.
Killing McVay didn't accomplish anything except a petty sense of revenge, the same feeling that many a suicide bomber could identify with.
I'm willing to show enough force to remove harm. And then I'm willing to understand the guilty, to remove the harm in a broader sense than a single example. And for punishment, I will allow public displays of chastisment, for the lesson, not for the revenge.
Allow me the pedantic pleasure of being philosophical for a second.
First, you are right, for the most part. Respect is something that largely is earned, and this does include self-respect (self-esteem). But, there is a certain amount of empathy needed here too, he gets some respect because he is one of our fellow featherless bipeds. Sure he ripped people off (a slight understatement) but he still has family that loves him, and still had inherent human dignity, he was much like us in many ways (excepty he made a few REALLY bad choices), meaning he even had human weakness.
Death isn't something one should ever wish on ones fellow man.
(though they've done much better at complying than the ruling would imply)
Er... Either you comply, or you don't. It's like being "kinda" pregnant, or "sorta" dead. Its A or B, there is not middle ground here. And allowing a fanciful middle ground would just encourage MS to hem and haw more.
A) This is/., it will take a hell of a lot more than being humorless to improve discussion here. (I may be talking of psychopharmaceuticals)
B) Humor is generally more insightful than not, it is funny because it contains truth. Humor serves, also, to clear the air, and state the unstated.
C) Humor is MUCH more insightful than tinfoil-hat talk, and over used car analogies.
D)/. is a basically democratic place. And looking at the funny mods, I can see that you don't have a majority view on this. You can, however, set your own bias towards humor, simply set Funny to -4, and be done with it.
First, thank you for the civil and rational tone, I've noticed that when I get into this debate I, at times, end up with some silly ad hominem thrown at me, or some odd dogmatic responce, instead an actual thought out answer.
Government tends to be one of the least efficient means to the ends we seek because they can simply hemorrhage money with no impact to the workers allowing it to happen.
As it stands, this is absolutely correct, but I think it is more because of a climate of apathy and complacence, than because of an inherent flaw in government welfare. As you state, there is no impact on the administrators who squander tax dollars, and this is true in more than just welfare programs. I think they should be culpable, and I think this is an easier fix than completely revamping the system. Shake things up, eliminate the consiquences of 60 years of the Peter principle.
The only people to whom I have real responsibility are my close friends, wife, and family.
On this I completely disagree. I think that we all have a responcibility to the society in which we exist, mostly due to the fact that this society (and thus its members) allowed us to be in the position or means to even allow help. To be shorter, if it wasn't for society allowing you to gain wealth (or free time), you wouldn't have. Second, due to factors (either ignorance, ego, or just apathy) most people of means DON'T help, and wouldn't even if the mitigating factors were eliminated. Look at the civil donations and philanthropic gestures by one of the most heavily wealthy, and libertarian, areas of the US, silicon valley. In modern society there is a general lack of community or humanitarian spirit. Its impossible to disagree that your responsibility is MUCH greater for family (and even friends) than some random welfare mother, but I think there still is a level where it should be obligitory since you can't expect people to do the right thing on their own.
I could get much more into responsibility. But I will avoid philosophy for a moment. But in short, we do have a degree of ethical responsibility for those less fortunate (of our society or no). And the role, in part, of government is the care of the people, by definition.
I agree with your last paragraph completely (except of course the libertarian, even quasi-libertarian part). I don't presume to know a solution, when I was younger I did, but it seems the older one gets the more ambiguous things become. I used to even be a social libertarian (I can't stand the uber-capitalism economically), but even the implications of a Lockean/Millsian view of rights break down eventually. But, as you said, that is another story.
This point is missed in the modern tech savvy libertarian geek. They want a system that benefits their immediate greed, their future and everyone else be damned. I really can't think of any other reason than greed that anyone would support such an untenable and intangible ideal.
Civilization is doomed to be imperfect, and unfair. Social security tries to evens this out a bit. I have a feeling that most people who are against it have never been down and out, or poor, or rendered incapable of work. I have a feeling that they really don't care that 90% of America is two paychecks away from the streets, meaning if they loose their job for two measly weeks their in a world of hurt and debt, of no fault of their own. Sure they could have invested, but this precludes the idea that they had excess capital to begin with. Its hard to invest money when your living paycheck to paycheck, and fighting off the debt of raising a family or paying off a mortgage on a wage that is grossly inadequate for any standard of living.
Adventures in capitalism is only for the rich. And a hugely vast majority of us aren't wealthy by any means, of no fault of our own. Not all of Americans have good paying tech jobs, but it seems that some people can't escape from their own position to see how other people live, and are far too egotistical to see that helping others is our responsibility, especially since we have the means to do so.
This is going to get modded to oblivion, isn't it? The anti-slashbot POV.
If some form of national policy change is immanent, then I agree that the standards of proof need to be higher, and more variables need to be checked. The larger the effect, the larger the burden of proof. This can go without saying.
On an anecdotal level, I have seen that cell phone use can lower ability, but so can everything you listed.
How many cell calls are made and no accident occurs (the vast majority).
A majority of drunk drivers don't cause accidents either, but it still is probably a good idea to make it illegal. If cell phones are (rigorously) proven to be of the same consequence as drunk driving, then I really wouldn't have a problem with banning there use, though. It becomes a question of your rights conflicting with the more important rights of others, just like drunk driving.
I do agree though, the nanny state is getting pretty damn annoying. But part of the governments job is to look out for its peoples welfare (theoretically, now I think its to look out for its own), and I suppose a degree of absurdity must be allowed.
But you mind if I ask the point of your post? Are you claiming to be case that makes the study invalid, or the exception that proves the rule? Or just found that you've been made culpable for something, and thus have the need to explain your actions in a more positive light?
Yes, some people can pull it off well. A significant portion can't.
This is true, but more "mature" games like the Metroid Prime games also add a lot to the system. I think Metroid Prime and Windwaker were my killer apps for the GC, with the upcoming Twilight Princess making it so I don't regret it. RE4, while being kickass, did sort of miss the mark with me, I found myself paying more attention to Animal Crossing than it, which I guess says what happens to aging gamers.
But he did say he was buying a Wii, which is a next-gen console (last time I checked). And I think he is probably a type exemplar, in that a signifigant portion of the 25+ crowd will just say "why bother" and buy a Wii because its cheaper, and Nintendo has a reputation for having generally better quality in the actual games. I think that this very mindset will give the Wii a bigger advantage than the GameCube has in the current gen (mostly because both other nextgen console are hideously over priced, with now real killer-app games at launch).
On the other hand, for a tech company, if your managment has no technical knowledge your equally screwed. I'm guessing Google wants their managers to get their hands dirty with actual work, and not just managing. This, to me, is smart, since it give real knowledge of exactly what you are managing. Granted it is non-standard, but I think it is a better idea than the popular clueless pencil pusher, completely divorced from production strategy.
For each new technology there are real and genuine cultural detriments. One doesn't have to be 70 to see this. Cell-phones are my favorite example, they came out, everyone accepted them blindly, and just now are we beginning to realize that they have some serious affects on our culture, both for good and ill. So we live with the good, and struggle to diminish the ill effects (bans in resturants/theaters/planes/ and cars in rational places). We could go for a heavy handed comparison with atomic bombs / power plants. Nuclear technology is the ultimate exemplar of this, I guess. One one hand (the wrong one) it can decimate huge chunks of the population, on the other (right) it is a cleanish source of power that can provide huge chunks of the population with power. without the fallout (erm) of coal or oil. So what is the answer? Regulation. Yes, it is against the/. libertarian ideal, but at times it is necissary.
That said, I really don't agree with the premise of tracking our children, unless it is the parents. Government should facilitate good parenting, but NOT practice parenting, that is the job of... well, parents.
Good argument/explication. The thing I don't understand is why we even need to argue for our civil liberties. Yes, in a real-politick sense I do, but in a more academic way I see the fact as a symptom of a deeper problem, and not necessarily the problem in itself. This main problem could probably be traced back to the basic mindset of our leaders, which can, ultimately, be traced back to the complacence (ignorance comes to mind, but its a mean word) of the public which they rule...
Sadly, in line with your point, on the arguing for civil liberties side, I generally here nothing but BAD arguments for it, or overly dogmatic idealist positions. It seems that the left-of-center has stopped being able to come up with any form of decent argument against the gradual decay of our liberties, and especially one that could convince the hoi polloi that it is in their best interests to make a stand, or at least voice the fact that we DO value our freedoms.
Not that I presume to have an actual answer to this, if I did I would have to hand in my philosophy schooling.
How is he not a gamer? He plays games, he is actually creative in his gaming (how does one go about hooking a 360 controller to a Mac Mini?), that seems the definition. I didn't think that the unthinking reflex to spend money on the VERY dubious bleeding edge was contained in the definition of gamer. I guess I'm not a gamer either since I still don't own an XBox or PS2, and refuse to buy a 360, ignoring the fact I have every retro console, and use them daily. Owning a Nintendo product exclusively, is that what precludes his being a gamer?
I really don't understand your definition of what makes a gamer... I always thought it was, put simply, one who plays a shit-ton of games, and is quite serious about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Random nitpick...
Why is working faster good? Why should we revamp our whole lives for efficiency? Working faster (meaning getting more done) doesn't seem like an end in itself, to me. I'd rather get less done, more enjoyably, of higher quality. I'm getting sick of the American ideal of "MORE!", perhaps working more isn't desirable? Perhaps its not quantity of work, but quality (which is directly variable to the happiness of the doer).
My 2c.
As for language, keep it like it is, or adopt latin. Either way it makes it harder for idiots to speak.
In my eyes, when you target civilians for any purpose, you are a terrorist.
I said the same thing, except called them "asshats" and "sociopaths". "Terrorist" as a term has been rendered meaningless by politicians and sensationalist media outlets.
I'm wondering the point... It doesn't seem as useful a feature as Spotlight (which I rarely use). I bought a Mac to run OS X because it was better than Windows (for me), and then why would I want to run Windows on my Mac?
I downloaded bootcamp, and parallels, and was planning on installing XPpro on my MacMini, but never got around to it. I've only once had to run a Windows app once in my 4 years of owning a Mac (SPSS). Everything else I would be using Windows for has a Mac platform equivalent. So I never actually got around to USING bootcamp or parallels (especially since bootcamp doesn't support Linux, and parallels doesn't suport Ubuntu or Gentoo).
It would take me a lot to sacrafice the ease of use, stability, and eye candy (taken as a whole "Macishness") of OS X for the ugliness, instability, and outmoded computing of Windows Vista or XP. Not saying that no-one would have a use for this, but I think it is a niche use mainly filled by developers and programmers, and not your typical Mac user. Meaning it is a bad selling point in the practical sense, though I guess it might sway some frightened home users.
I guess the Wow factor is there, though. And it is something else for MS to copy in the OS after Vista, and claim that they did first.
Keep on missing my point.
Let me restate: TERRORISM IS IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER. To be more specific, in the rhetoric of the beholder, and it is used to deliniate bad guys.
Those in Iraq to are, in their eyes, freedom fighters fighting against an illegal, and unwanted, occupying army. Yes, civilians are being killed (by us and them), but why should they be the only terrorists if we are doing the same thing albeit with more sophisticated technology? I'm sure if you polled Iraqis, some would accuse the US of terrorism, and how is their point less valid than us calling them the same? The conclusion could be one of two things, both sides are terrorists (both labels correct), or that the use of the term is meaningless (both wrong). I guess there is a third path too, that they are terrorists because the US says so, which is nonsensical at best, and racist at worst.
Ignore feelings and CNN/Fox/MSNBC's use of the word, and look at the actual GLOBAL use of the word, it is biased and hence used only towards causes that the US doesn't agree with.
Your sig denies your point. If your a college student, then you know damn well that beer is free, you just have to find it. Sure the free beer isn't the easy beer, but it is the best tasting.
Ah... memories.
First, to clarify my point, I don't quite agree witht hese sources, but it shows the western-centric bias that only "those guys" do terrorism, and that our allies can do no harm, or do valid military strikes. Our terrorism, isn't their terrorism.
m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3772609.st
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq22.html
http://www.musalman.com/palestine/index.html
I don't support these views, but they support my point.
And how is what is happening in Iraq even CLOSE to terrorism? People fighting against us ARE NOT TERRORISTS, that is a misuse of the term. Its a war, they are fighting for their counbtry and beleifs. In WWII, were the germans terrorists? Were the Viet Cong terrorists in Vietnam? No, they were enemies in a conflict. The same goes for Iraq. To say otherwise admits a VERY racist view, "they are arab, they are fighting us, they are terrorits" whereas in the case of WWII, "they are white, they are fighting us, they are not terrorists". What is the only difference in those statements? It underlines my point, "terrorist" is empty rhetoric.
the term "redneck" has nothing to do with race. Well in a way it does, since you must be white. So I guess, as used, all rednecks are white, but not all white people are rednecks. For "nigger", it is applied to ALL black people. See the difference? Redneck is a word aimed at socioeconomic status (including lifestyle and education level), and not at just the ethnicity of a person. Hence it isn't racial, it is akin to calling one "bourgeoisie".
Not getting intot the debate that it is an undesirable term, though. I think people should lighten up, though. Words only have power if we choose for them to. There is no offence, or victims in language, unless someone chooses to be.
First, you are a good, but transparent troll.
Second, didn't you just invalidate your point?
"
The catch-22 of the internet, even retards and cowards have voices, and often they voice their jack ass opinion insulting anyone they can, the reason because no one can break their nose."
So, in theory someone should break your nose too? Seems like a jackass opinion to me.
The second point, where is the point in calling yourself an uneducated, bigoted, moron? Isn't that what redneck actually means? People actually embracing their ignorance, it seems strange to me. Not that I have anything against people people fixing their cars, or such, it seems the term redneck has broader (and less desirable) implications. Its like black kids in the hood calling themselves "niggas" or "gangstas", they are deliberately embracing ignorance, idiocy, and violence. Since when did these characteristics become a badge of honor, or even desirable?
Wonder what they would think?
Most terrorist attacks of the last 20 years were commited my American imperialists, or Zionist zealots.
Yes, this ignoring a huge slice of terrorism too, the IRA has done a fair deal of terrorism in their day. The problem comes from defining terrorism. In the anglophone world we have our view, but it still is a slippery word to define. Are the Israelis terrorists? Common thought in the wsst says "no", but I think vast swaths of the world (mainly Muslim, but not exclusively) think otherwise. In a strictly technical definition you could say the opening salvos of the current Iraq war were terrorism, as well. "Shock and Awe" seem to infer wanting to drive terror or fear (awe) into the hearts of the local populance.
I really hate the word terrorism, it is a rhetorical term we leverage against our enemies, and not really a valid objective point. As pointed out "one man's terrorists is another's freedom fighters"
I think we should just call anyone who deliberatly targets civilian populations for ideological or political reasons a "blood-thristy asshat", or a "sociopath", this way we can remove some the the western-centric bias, and perhaps see the motivating factors behind asshatery.
I suppose this is where I disagree on esoteric and philosophical grounds. I can't see the ethics in rationally wanting anyone dead, no matter what they do to "deserve it". Death of the offensive is a phyrric victory, its hollow and amounts to no more than animal revenge. In wishing death we slide one step closer to being that which we hate.
First there is the question of human fallibility, who are you to wish the ultimate, and irrevocable, punisment on someone? What if your wrong? What is there is a lesser show of animal force (actually revenge isn't even animal, it is only a human trait) that would remove harm? It's like these asshats complaining about how killing people in self defence is illegal... of course it is, self defence is the "minimal" amount of force. No need to kill, only remove the threat.
Killing McVay didn't accomplish anything except a petty sense of revenge, the same feeling that many a suicide bomber could identify with.
I'm willing to show enough force to remove harm. And then I'm willing to understand the guilty, to remove the harm in a broader sense than a single example. And for punishment, I will allow public displays of chastisment, for the lesson, not for the revenge.
Allow me the pedantic pleasure of being philosophical for a second.
First, you are right, for the most part. Respect is something that largely is earned, and this does include self-respect (self-esteem). But, there is a certain amount of empathy needed here too, he gets some respect because he is one of our fellow featherless bipeds. Sure he ripped people off (a slight understatement) but he still has family that loves him, and still had inherent human dignity, he was much like us in many ways (excepty he made a few REALLY bad choices), meaning he even had human weakness.
Death isn't something one should ever wish on ones fellow man.
(though they've done much better at complying than the ruling would imply)
Er... Either you comply, or you don't. It's like being "kinda" pregnant, or "sorta" dead. Its A or B, there is not middle ground here. And allowing a fanciful middle ground would just encourage MS to hem and haw more.
An ideal market is just that, and ideal. It doesn't quite mesh with human nature, meaning it really isn't anything more than an abstraction.
Using an ideal that ignores human nature (or the actual nature of capitalism) can only lead to bad things, it is dehumanizing.
A good theory should be based on reality as it stands, which puts massive constraints on the amount of idealization possible.
A) This is /., it will take a hell of a lot more than being humorless to improve discussion here. (I may be talking of psychopharmaceuticals)
/. is a basically democratic place. And looking at the funny mods, I can see that you don't have a majority view on this. You can, however, set your own bias towards humor, simply set Funny to -4, and be done with it.
B) Humor is generally more insightful than not, it is funny because it contains truth. Humor serves, also, to clear the air, and state the unstated.
C) Humor is MUCH more insightful than tinfoil-hat talk, and over used car analogies.
D)
First, thank you for the civil and rational tone, I've noticed that when I get into this debate I, at times, end up with some silly ad hominem thrown at me, or some odd dogmatic responce, instead an actual thought out answer.
Government tends to be one of the least efficient means to the ends we seek because they can simply hemorrhage money with no impact to the workers allowing it to happen.
As it stands, this is absolutely correct, but I think it is more because of a climate of apathy and complacence, than because of an inherent flaw in government welfare. As you state, there is no impact on the administrators who squander tax dollars, and this is true in more than just welfare programs. I think they should be culpable, and I think this is an easier fix than completely revamping the system. Shake things up, eliminate the consiquences of 60 years of the Peter principle.
The only people to whom I have real responsibility are my close friends, wife, and family.
On this I completely disagree. I think that we all have a responcibility to the society in which we exist, mostly due to the fact that this society (and thus its members) allowed us to be in the position or means to even allow help. To be shorter, if it wasn't for society allowing you to gain wealth (or free time), you wouldn't have. Second, due to factors (either ignorance, ego, or just apathy) most people of means DON'T help, and wouldn't even if the mitigating factors were eliminated. Look at the civil donations and philanthropic gestures by one of the most heavily wealthy, and libertarian, areas of the US, silicon valley. In modern society there is a general lack of community or humanitarian spirit. Its impossible to disagree that your responsibility is MUCH greater for family (and even friends) than some random welfare mother, but I think there still is a level where it should be obligitory since you can't expect people to do the right thing on their own.
I could get much more into responsibility. But I will avoid philosophy for a moment. But in short, we do have a degree of ethical responsibility for those less fortunate (of our society or no). And the role, in part, of government is the care of the people, by definition.
I agree with your last paragraph completely (except of course the libertarian, even quasi-libertarian part). I don't presume to know a solution, when I was younger I did, but it seems the older one gets the more ambiguous things become. I used to even be a social libertarian (I can't stand the uber-capitalism economically), but even the implications of a Lockean/Millsian view of rights break down eventually. But, as you said, that is another story.
Goodbye mod points...
This point is missed in the modern tech savvy libertarian geek. They want a system that benefits their immediate greed, their future and everyone else be damned. I really can't think of any other reason than greed that anyone would support such an untenable and intangible ideal.
Civilization is doomed to be imperfect, and unfair. Social security tries to evens this out a bit. I have a feeling that most people who are against it have never been down and out, or poor, or rendered incapable of work. I have a feeling that they really don't care that 90% of America is two paychecks away from the streets, meaning if they loose their job for two measly weeks their in a world of hurt and debt, of no fault of their own. Sure they could have invested, but this precludes the idea that they had excess capital to begin with. Its hard to invest money when your living paycheck to paycheck, and fighting off the debt of raising a family or paying off a mortgage on a wage that is grossly inadequate for any standard of living.
Adventures in capitalism is only for the rich. And a hugely vast majority of us aren't wealthy by any means, of no fault of our own. Not all of Americans have good paying tech jobs, but it seems that some people can't escape from their own position to see how other people live, and are far too egotistical to see that helping others is our responsibility, especially since we have the means to do so.
This is going to get modded to oblivion, isn't it? The anti-slashbot POV.
If some form of national policy change is immanent, then I agree that the standards of proof need to be higher, and more variables need to be checked. The larger the effect, the larger the burden of proof. This can go without saying.
On an anecdotal level, I have seen that cell phone use can lower ability, but so can everything you listed.
How many cell calls are made and no accident occurs (the vast majority).
A majority of drunk drivers don't cause accidents either, but it still is probably a good idea to make it illegal. If cell phones are (rigorously) proven to be of the same consequence as drunk driving, then I really wouldn't have a problem with banning there use, though. It becomes a question of your rights conflicting with the more important rights of others, just like drunk driving.
I do agree though, the nanny state is getting pretty damn annoying. But part of the governments job is to look out for its peoples welfare (theoretically, now I think its to look out for its own), and I suppose a degree of absurdity must be allowed.
Not going to nitpick on the mathematical error.
But you mind if I ask the point of your post? Are you claiming to be case that makes the study invalid, or the exception that proves the rule? Or just found that you've been made culpable for something, and thus have the need to explain your actions in a more positive light?
Yes, some people can pull it off well. A significant portion can't.
This is true, but more "mature" games like the Metroid Prime games also add a lot to the system. I think Metroid Prime and Windwaker were my killer apps for the GC, with the upcoming Twilight Princess making it so I don't regret it. RE4, while being kickass, did sort of miss the mark with me, I found myself paying more attention to Animal Crossing than it, which I guess says what happens to aging gamers.
But he did say he was buying a Wii, which is a next-gen console (last time I checked). And I think he is probably a type exemplar, in that a signifigant portion of the 25+ crowd will just say "why bother" and buy a Wii because its cheaper, and Nintendo has a reputation for having generally better quality in the actual games. I think that this very mindset will give the Wii a bigger advantage than the GameCube has in the current gen (mostly because both other nextgen console are hideously over priced, with now real killer-app games at launch).
On the other hand, for a tech company, if your managment has no technical knowledge your equally screwed. I'm guessing Google wants their managers to get their hands dirty with actual work, and not just managing. This, to me, is smart, since it give real knowledge of exactly what you are managing. Granted it is non-standard, but I think it is a better idea than the popular clueless pencil pusher, completely divorced from production strategy.
Welcome the advent of Big Nanny.
Slightly devil's advocatey here, but:
/. libertarian ideal, but at times it is necissary.
For each new technology there are real and genuine cultural detriments. One doesn't have to be 70 to see this. Cell-phones are my favorite example, they came out, everyone accepted them blindly, and just now are we beginning to realize that they have some serious affects on our culture, both for good and ill. So we live with the good, and struggle to diminish the ill effects (bans in resturants/theaters/planes/ and cars in rational places). We could go for a heavy handed comparison with atomic bombs / power plants. Nuclear technology is the ultimate exemplar of this, I guess. One one hand (the wrong one) it can decimate huge chunks of the population, on the other (right) it is a cleanish source of power that can provide huge chunks of the population with power. without the fallout (erm) of coal or oil. So what is the answer? Regulation. Yes, it is against the
That said, I really don't agree with the premise of tracking our children, unless it is the parents. Government should facilitate good parenting, but NOT practice parenting, that is the job of... well, parents.
Good argument/explication. The thing I don't understand is why we even need to argue for our civil liberties. Yes, in a real-politick sense I do, but in a more academic way I see the fact as a symptom of a deeper problem, and not necessarily the problem in itself. This main problem could probably be traced back to the basic mindset of our leaders, which can, ultimately, be traced back to the complacence (ignorance comes to mind, but its a mean word) of the public which they rule...
Sadly, in line with your point, on the arguing for civil liberties side, I generally here nothing but BAD arguments for it, or overly dogmatic idealist positions. It seems that the left-of-center has stopped being able to come up with any form of decent argument against the gradual decay of our liberties, and especially one that could convince the hoi polloi that it is in their best interests to make a stand, or at least voice the fact that we DO value our freedoms.
Not that I presume to have an actual answer to this, if I did I would have to hand in my philosophy schooling.
Feeding the troll, recipe for disaster...
How is he not a gamer? He plays games, he is actually creative in his gaming (how does one go about hooking a 360 controller to a Mac Mini?), that seems the definition. I didn't think that the unthinking reflex to spend money on the VERY dubious bleeding edge was contained in the definition of gamer. I guess I'm not a gamer either since I still don't own an XBox or PS2, and refuse to buy a 360, ignoring the fact I have every retro console, and use them daily. Owning a Nintendo product exclusively, is that what precludes his being a gamer?
I really don't understand your definition of what makes a gamer... I always thought it was, put simply, one who plays a shit-ton of games, and is quite serious about it.