Your right, my name is VERY unique. A quick Google search shows me that there is only 5-6 of me represented online (who knows how many who aren't represented) in the US. Also there is probably about 1,000 people sharing my name in Ireland and other parts of the UK. Hell, there are two of me in my state. I don't have a terribly common surname name either, especially since my father changed it back to its pre-immigration roots, meaning it isn't shared with any of my relatives.
I'm beginning to think the "pro-anonymity" crowd is going a bit overboard, especially whinging about a free, optional, service. Great, you don't want to give your real name to Google... DON'T. No one cares if you're on Google+ or not. If anonymity is necessary (and not merely some silly fetish, as it seems to be with some crowds online) then don't participate in places where it is barred. Seems pretty simple to me.
I suppose it is a testimony to Google+'s desirability that some people feel they have to be members.
I really don't care anymore. I view superfluous anonymity as a mere artifact of the early days of computing, when online (via the internet or BBS) presence was completely separate from life. It was an alter-ego, an escapist identity, often used to cover potentially extra-legal activity, or at least activities outside of the established societal norms. Having anonymity made sense. Now, on the other hand, the internet is about as separate from out day-to-day life as going to the grocery store, or local bar. It's a normal, quotidian, aspect of life. I was a very firm believer in pseudonyms for years, but lately I've been pondering to using my real name, for the sake of credibility. I have a much harder time taking an AC seriously, than someone who at least has a small stake in their behaviors and statements. If your not willing to risk reputation, then what you say should be valued less than someone who is. Yes, there is some need for anonymity for certain groups, and this should be protected, but it is also within the right of a site owner to bar them entry. Though, in reality, there is no anonymity, even on the internet, it is an illusion. Someone with some time, dedication, or a subpoena, could easily get a decent idea of who you are. Hell, the way things are going right now, a 14 year old "hacker" with a bit of freely available software, and a couple minutes of free time, could probably grab your identity from some giant corporation like Sony.
Generally people are AC because they want to be bigger morons than is generally acceptable in civil society, and not for any genuine NEED of privacy. If some forum wants to bar AC posters, or presences, that is perfectly fine. Hell, I even see it as a strength. It would help to kill off trolls, morons, and 13 year olds with power trips.
I'm not arguing that the whole of the internet should require real identities. There is still a need for anonymity. And if sites with to keep anonymity, they should be allowed. But if I run a service, and decide not to allow you in, you just have to cope. Tough. You don't have the "right" to be an AC.
Maybe I'm just getting old, and am oddly free of the common internet tendencies towards narcissism and paranoia. What does anonymity get me? Marketers will find a way of tracking me. The government, or dedicated individuals can trace me. Etc... The solution, treat the internet like you would treat anything else in "real" life. Keep your secrets secret. Don't act like an asshole in public. And, for the internet, realize that EVERYTHING IS PUBLIC, and act accordingly.
I'm a techie, I own a Nook, I also still have an ever expanding room full of dead tree books. I don't see digital copies ever replacing my actual library. I admit, part of this is nostalgia, but there are also real, decent, reasons behind this. I'm not going to discount nostalgia, either, though, since casual reading is about enjoyment and not just technical matters of efficiency and cutting-edge-itude. I like sitting in my sunny room, on my comfortable leather chair, smoking my pipe with a decent glass of bourbon, reading actual books. There is something comforting in it. There also is something comforting in being able to walk into a room, and actual SEE books, to be able to walk past them, touch them, pull them off a shelf and physically examine them, and furthermore, quickly re-experience the pleasant memories of reading them. There also is something to having old books that you've carried around with you for decades, with its unique record of wear, it familiar heft and appearance. A good, loved, book is much like an old friend. I don't get that same feeling examining a flat list of titles and authors on my neat digital gadget.
Another reason I like physical books... I trust them. Being a technical, geeky, type, one thing I've learned is the transitory nature of digital things. Especially digital things tied into the whims and fortunes of a single device or entity. No one, barring a Fahrenheit 451 world, can take away, or spontaneously edit my physical books. The death of a single company, or server, or a simple policy change within a corporate behemoth, can't take a book away from me. In ten years I know my books will be sitting here still, but I'm not as sure about my insubstantial collection of small digital files (and oft included DRM).
I went to school for something hugely reading based, and academic (philosophy) field, so I have a large collection of strange, and utterly unpopular books sitting in my office. Being that these are niche titles (sadly), many of them will never turn into ebooks. There are still many, many, movies that have never made it to DVD, much less the newest, and greatest, trends. Will all format changes you run into the problem of popularity guiding conversion. The more obscure the title, and the small niche it may occupy, the less of a chance that some publisher will decide its worth it to convert to the newest trend. Further, my obscure titles don't lend themselves to linear reading, which is something that various ereaders completely fail at. Its hard to have 10-20 pages which you need to continually re-reference, plus constant flipping to indexes, figures, diagrams, and, heaven forbid, arbitrary points in completely different texts. Outside of casual fiction, I rarely read a book in the way that my ereader wants me too.
There also is the question of the second-hand market, and the joys of wandering through bookstores, flipping through random books at whim. I often discover whole new genres and authors this way. The ability to sit in a chair and read a chapter of two of a completely random book is one of the rare joys in life. Going to a book store is an experience, shopping on line is a focused, targeted, and purposeful activity. Its efficient, merely. Me and my girlfriend often set aside a whole day to go browse a large used bookstore, or go to one of the now defunct multi-story Borders in a ritzy shopping center. Often we even drag our friends and parents along. Its a fun summer outing. Hitting up Amazon's website for a quick, efficient, purposeful, transaction doesn't compete. These new or used books often cost less than than the ebook versions. Its amazing, I save money for buying something with actual materials and an actual supply chain.
That said, I love my Nook. I usually buy books for my Nook, and if I like them, I'll grab them for real. I end up wasting less space, in theory, with my large "too read" pile, and end up with less physical books taking up space. I generally only collect books by authors I truly enjoy now.
Thank you for the clarification. Generally when morals come up in a conversation about society it is meant as "people don't believe the same stuff I do, and that is bad". This raises my hackles, obviously. Not that I don't think we have some problems on that front, we've become a bit too callous to the plight of others, a bit too quick to assign blame, and wish the maximum level of punishment on others without minimal actual knowledge of them or the events. We put almost no emphasis on empathy, and instead ponder only "how will this benefit me?", completely uncaring about potential consequences to others. This is evident in 90% of discussion of "rights", where all that matter is MY rights, the downward tickle of consequences don't matter one bit. These "moral" aspects (or rather, I suppose, ethical) don't come up when people talk of morals usually, though. It generally is more along the line of "my religious upbringing told me that these people are evil, therefore we should find a way of barring them from acting these ways".
I agree with your premise, though. Our larger, systemic, morals are wanting. Generally we can toss them aside when we utter one of two words though, "security", or "profits". These are magic words that allow us to cast aside all expectations of causal decency, and basically do what ever is expedient for the power-elite. A bigger problem is that somehow us plebes have been sold on this idea. We, for some reason, support the, as you call it, immoral actions of power, against our own well-being and benefit.
As for there being no turning back... In fear you may be right, but I withhold a modicum of hope. The U.S. isn't alone in this trend, both the UK and Canada seem to be drinking from the same troth, as is much of Europe. And looking at history tells me that many trends like this are cyclical. Before WWII there was the competing rises of both fascism and communism, both of which completely took over the world. There was the desire for tyranny in the post WWII communism scare. In the 20's the world was gripped by pretty much the same desire to put aside human dignity for the will of corporations, which was also trend that gripped most of the West. I'm hoping that the current situation in America, and the West, is also some cyclical instance of mass hysteria, and will eventually pass leaving us wiser, and our future historians a bit richer.
On the other hand we might have hit the point where our decay becomes a feedback loop (I already see this with the state of education), where our own decline is inevitable.
You have me with politically and economically, but I don't know about socially, especially when it comes to "morals". Whose morals? "Morals" is generally just an excuse for totalitarianism, and enforcing arbitrary religious and social views on others who don't hold those views.
Oh wait, you don't contribute to anything, so you wouldn't know actually know why they're doing this. You're just blowing random emotional ignorant smoke out of your ass like everyone else on Slashdot. I can't believe Mozilla isn't paying attention to you.
Ahh... I'm glad Mozilla has decided to adopt Apple's design strategy. I'm sick of developer arrogance gaining accendency in the free software world these days (Mozilla, Gnome, and Canonical seem to be particularly infected with it).
Know why Mozilla should listen to me? Because I use their browser. Beyond that, I've gotten over 40 people to switch over to it, and they probably have gotten even more people to switch over. They should listen to me, because I'm a nerd, and nerds drive others to use their product. Further, they should listen to me because I'm a user, and without us, they wouldn't exist.
I'm using Chromium/Chrome now. I've switched around 10 people to Chrome as well, of late. I feel bad doing it, since I've been using Firefox since Phoenix (doing free beta testing), and I was terribly loyal. But I noticed that Mozilla doesn't care one bit about me anymore, or even the actual quality of their product. Their whole goal of late, it seems, is dressing an old car like a hot rod, then telling us that its so much better, and if we don't like the changes its because we don't recognize that Moz knows best.
No corporation, or headless design committee knows my needs better than me. Not Apple, not the Gnome team, not the Ubuntu team, and sure as hell not Mozilla.
I still have no clue who "ladyada" is important, all I've seen is some rant about Google temporarily suspending her account. The articles blurb gave the authors credentials as "internet celebrity", which really built a fair amount of credibility.
I don't see the big deal about using your real name, personally. It keeps the trolls at bay, and might help fighting sock puppets and astroturfing. I like that. Hell it might even keep people "friending" actual friends, and not random fictional entities, and complete strangers. And if you don't like it, you might be forced to pick a pseudonym that actually sounds like a real name. Oh dear.
I stopped caring about sharing my real name awhile ago. Sure, I keep many public-facing accounts under aliases, but I also keep some accounts, the accounts I use for genuine networking, under my own name. Hell, I've got my old internet identity, "Omestes". A real sounding pseudonym for registering products. Another old handle for some other services I don't want linked to my internet identity or real name. And sometimes I use my own name, for time when I interact with real friends and acquaintances. I also have a couple older aliases bouncing around from the mid 90's, that I haven't bothered to change. Three of these identities have Facebook pages, two have Google+ accounts, all of them have their own email. Think of it as layers of security.
So that means people will be scanning your profile waiting for you to "slip up" and accidentally post to the wrong circle. Inevitably like Weiner Gate someone will.
Who?
And again, don't EVER share anything that can harm you on the internet, no matter what service you use.
. If you didn't friend them and your defaults are setup so that only friend see your posts... you're golden.
Oddly this doesn't work. I recently had a bit of a legal battle with someone, and then later, though some diligent scanning of Facebook, managed to find that they weren't honoring legal terms, and used that against them. Worse, I circumvented their security settings (blocking me) by enlisting my girlfriend, and some other people in their "friends" list's accounts, one or two of which were only "friends" to monitor their account for illegal activities.
This is possible on Facebook, this is possible on Google+.
The one thing that Google+ has over Facebook, and Twitter, is the lack of moronic, arbitrary, character limits. I can actually write something substantial. There is only so much depth that you can convey with 160 characters, which pretty much forces conversations into the realm of "I pooped!". I'm hoping Google eventually ties Google+ into Docs, so I can actually use it for useful collaboration.
But then again I realize I'm bizarre, since I realize that people are as interested in my banal, day-to-day, life as I am in theirs. Not at all.
But that's not the current standard, they might as well reference 5.25" floppy discs if they are trying to inflate their breakthrough.
For consumer optical storage, it is. Bluray might be the big thing for content producers (though I think DVDs still out sell them), most people still use DVDs for back-up, when they aren't using platters. I don't actually know anyone who bought a Bluray burner, much less anyone who uses one. The hardware is expensive, the media is expensive, it isn't wildly popular (for data or PCs), so you can't share it as well.
There are other issues, since it doesn't work like it should thanks to restrictive and ubiquitous DRM (can I stick this burned movie into my living room players?).
Right now its cheaper to by a 1TB external HDD than to by a Bluray burner. Actually, I don't see much reason to invest in optical media, at all. I have about 30 old HDDs strewn about the house, with various backups, media, etc... When I want to watch something on the TV, I generally stream Netflix or pull it off a networked computer. If I want to back up, I have a nice gleaming eSata part at the top of my computer, which is twice as fast and supports media many times the size of Blueray. For small jobs I probably have a terabyte of old flash drives sitting around.
The only reason my and my girlfriend bought a Blueray player was because I didn't have the HTPC set up yet, and it supported streaming off Netflix. Its a technology that's doomed, and what little success it has is based almost exclusively on hype.
What he's saying is that anyone who criticizes those games or movies simply on the basis that they have failed to do anything particularly new or groundbreaking or edgy are just being pretentious.
Why the hell would I want to see a movie I've seen before, much less pay for the pleasure? Why not just re-watch the previous iteration for cheaper? If you don't do anything different, then there is no point; I have no reason to give you more money for it.
... If, instead, you got Crime And Punishment, you'd probably be more than a little bit pissed off, regardless of how "original" it would be for Transformers to go in that direction.
Depending on how it was done, I'd be a huge fan. But then again I am the "pretentious" sort. I like my media to be, confusing, and challenging. But then again I also read books in my spare time, which makes me an "intellectual". I'd rather watch Michael Heneke movies than things with Adam Sandler (I haven't seen a movie with him since the mid-90's), or Nostalgia Based Marketing Ploy #300: The Retcon.
Different strokes for different folks. If you want to watch Transformers 3, or play "brown, edgy, shooter #4021" be my guest. But you really can't mock people who want more meat and less filler either.
There is that... I kind of like it that my friend list has been pruned down to only nerds and early adopters. It means the quality of the chatter has risen significantly. Being that its a complete wasteland I've been spurned to go out and read and comment on almost perfect strangers posts, just out of sense of community. Its sort of refreshing.
s. I mean, events is a biggie, the number of concert events that correlate to concerts that I go to is increasing on facebook, and on most of those events, there has been discussion amongst attendees about public transit options, door opening times, etc
I agree. But remember that G+ is a beta, a Google beta, meaning it isn't even close to being complete. I'm guessing the rest of Google's services will be integrated, including Calender. And I'm sure that eventually it will be all "socialized". Well maybe, since I think Calender might the the neglected mutant child locked in Google's attic from time to time.
Personally this isn't a feature I care too much about, though it would be nice. All the events that I'm invited to on Facebook are generally things I don't care about... Like my friends wanting me to pay them money so it looks like their band has some fans, and the smattering of silly political protests that I have no desire to endure.
Another example: Google+ seems to lack the ability for companies to set up pages, with multiple users administering them, at least not unless you just give everyone access to the same account, and that seems a little ridiculous, and PROBABLY violates the TOS.
This is a plus, in my book. I don't "friend" people who don't have the capability of being my friend. Having the ability to add McDonalds to a circle doesn't really enhance anything for me. If Google makes it too easy for businesses to have a presence there, I will probably even stop using G+. I hope it never gets as nasty as Facebook where there are millions of fake users who exist only to pad corporate pages so they look arbitrarily more popular... and sock puppets... Why would I be "socially networked" with a corporation?
Further, Google already said their working on it, and have some limited partnerships with a few selected companies, like Ford.
I don't think that Google is suddenly going to kill Facebook overnight. People like your friends (and most of mine) will stick with Facebook. What will probably happen, if G+ is at all successful, it Facebook will stagnate like MySpace. The pool of constant users will dwindle, people just emerging into the "social networking scene" will stop coming. The all-powerful network effect will weaken. And it will lurch on like a zombie for years. Probably, in that time, Google will adopt all of the features your talking about, wooing more and more people over since more and more of their friends are there. Until at some point 5-10 years after Google gets dominance, someone else enters the scene with a new, and sexy, service, and the same happens to Google.
I'm not saying this is probable. G+ still has plenty of time to pull a Wave or a Buzz, and die quickly, and humiliatingly. Judging from Google's track record, it will either be a huge success or a completely miserable failure. There seems to be no middle ground.
it's that it just does a hell of a lot less than Facebook
Such as? I suppose I don't have to spend time each week trying to permanently block whatever stupid game people feel the need to spam me with. It makes spamming people who don't care a bit more difficult... I'm not constantly regaled to "like" or "friend" non-human corporations for no benefit to me... Not having games is a plus to me, I have Steam, I have a smart phone with a market place, I have a Wii, I have a DS, and I have a PS2, so I don't really care about Facebook games.
I don't see a down side yet.
Yes, there are some flaws, like adding pictures, and the complete lack of the ability to post things to people. Finding people who know, who are members, still sucks a bit as well. Yes, a lot of my "friends" haven't hopped over, and probably won't for some time. But, on the other hand, I've become much closer to the ones that have, including reconnecting with some people I haven't talked to in years (generally the nerdier sort). I'm also sure some of my "friends" will hop over eventually, since I'm sure they felt the same way about me when I refused to leave other social networks that allowed me to express more than a simple "I pooped today"-type-message for Facebook or MySpace,
I've been dual posting on both networks (not that hard), but have been shifting to more and more Google+ based content, since it, so far, isn't as spammy, and thus I get into deeper replies and conversations.
I don't know if Google+ will kill Facebook, but I'm guessing it will manage to woo a decent population away. It is generally a better experience, and will get more so as more people join and the networks get richer.
So move your ass and do what only Americans can do to make that nation great again, this time w/ less racism once you're there.
If you have any suggestions, I'd be very happy. I've been scratching my head at this little problem for a while, and no conclusions suggest themselves. We really need an international psychiatrist.
Actually the more vocal religions here are Christians and Mormons being a minority they get to make more noise that Catholics, because catholics simply don't care, people is Catholic because they got baptized when they were 1 year old and Church makes sure to shove that numbers on the statistics.
I'm not saying that Catholic teachings are the only problem, but I'm sure they contribute at least a bit. Even if their contribution to the popuation problem is minor, its still socially irresponsible, and dangerous. Basically, if it isn't a practical problem, it is a moral one. I'm guessing, though, that there is some influence, at least judging from some of the recent immigrant Catholics I know, have known, and talked to. The apartments behind my old place were pretty much colonized by one extended Mexican family, they were ultra orthodox Catholics, who really did believe in basically everything Rome says. My family is pretty much wholly Irish Catholic, and we love our babies (my father was one of fourteen, and many of his brothers and sisters have sizable broods), religion definitively played a roll since my grandmother was very pious. Obviously this was a bit blunted as we gained income and status, and shed some of the "immigrant" stigma.
Again, I didn't mean to imply, though, that there weren't other factors at play.
... but since we have the resources to somewhat support that growth I can't help but think that what pisses the developed world is that we are using our own resources instead of selling them to You.
Hey, I don't want your resources. I actually find many of the actions of my country, on that front, to be distasteful. I'm actually very hopeful for much of the third world (or developing world, whatever term is proper). Many places seem to be getting their acts together, and actually, you know, developing. Some places seem as hopeless as ever, but many places are doing well.
Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. Also arguably Pakistan based on the number of sorties run in it, but they're an ally, so that "doesn't count," I guess.
Those aren't wars. We've been in a low grade conflict in Somalia for years. Libya has a UN mandate, and officially isn't our "war", its NATO's. None of these three could really be considered "wars" in the first place... Compared to Obama's predecessors pet wars, at least. The US is always involved in a smattering of conflicts around the world, constantly. Hell, if we were famous for one thing wolrdwide, it would be our desire to stick troops and guns in small countries around the world. I doubt anyone else would be much better... Especially when compared to most of the contenders on the Republican side, who are pretty much hawks down the line.
I see your math, and your point. But... How can you tell who's a Muslim? Islam is a religion, and is followed by people of all colors and nationalities. Not all Muslims even have Muslim sounding names, for all you know the "John Smith" sitting next to you has a copy of the Koran in his backpack.
That said; if we just profile people with brown-ish skin, or Muslim sounding names, there is nothing stopping the terrorists from recruiting from their non-Muslim membership.
In the end, a sufficiently determined terrorist will have no problem hitting us with a bit of work and brain power, no matter what we do.
Simple fact: Obama is the worst president the US has seen for at least three decades. He's increased the deficit, he destroyed the economy, the job market is in the toilet, and he's already managed to start at least three wars (that we know about).
Wait? Three wars? We're pretty much out of Iraq. Afghanistan was started by quite a different president, and Libya isn't a war nor a strictly US concern. The Job market was in the toilet long before Obama hit the office, as was the financial crisis. Further, pretty much every president in recent memory takes it as a holy mission to increase the deficit, his predecessor didn't really do a very good at NOT increasing the deficit either. And I hate to say it, neither will whatever GOP backed moron who replaces him, being that they might actually be more bat-shit-crazy than the Democrats (quite an achievement there).
I'm VERY disappointed in Obama, but I still think Bush Jr. holds the title of worst. Obama is merely a mediocre president stuck in a time that requires a great president. We haven't had a great president in my lifetime, and we probably won't in the time that remains (sadly, America's days of relevance have probably past).
The simple fact is that if you're not upset with Obama, and by extension the Democrats, you're either stupid, or racist, or insane.
How is liking Obama racist? How are ad hominems constructive, for that matter? And yes, obviously all people who dislike Obama are Republicans, since all people who like the Democratic Party are stupid, insane, or inexplicably racist. Obviously, by your reasoning, all Democrats like, and support Obama. Which, as a Democrat, from a Democratic family who all dislikes Obama, is obviously true. With that logic, is it okay to hate every Republican because of the actions of their weakest members (Palin, and Bush Jr.), since obviously because of these people all republicans are stupid, crazy, or vegan (which is as inexplicable as racist in this context)?
Also, what is the alternative? Obama isn't great, but we could have Sarah Palin (or that Bachmann woman, who is almost as scary), which makes me happy that we at least have an ineffectual president over a malevolent one. I'll take mediocre over bad any day.
Further, you realize it takes both parties to work towards a balanced budget, right? The Republicans are as ineffectual as the Democrats in that regard, since both parties REFUSE to compromise. Raising taxes (and cutting subsidies lived by the GOP's Heartland base), and cutting spending (including the social programs loved by the Democrat's base) is the only way. Just because someone isn't doing it "your way" doesn't mean the other side is wrong, since you are probably as big a moron as anyone who thinks they know the God's honest revealed truth of politics, and obviously the other 50% of the population is completely wrong.
That thinking is whats dragging us down... And we, sadly, deserve it so I'm not crying too much.
You do realise that Israel has to deal with a neighbouring country who's core tenet is basically that Israel doesn't exist?
Life, and politics, are never simple. The Palestinians (a portion of them) voted for Hamas because Israel's previous actions. Isreal's previous actions (leading to putting Hamas in power) were caused by some of the Palestinians previous actions, which in turn were caused by some of Israels actions, which were caused by... I'm sure you see the point.
This, obviously, ignores the fact that not all Palestinians want Israel gone, no more than all Israeli's agree with some of the draconian Zionist agendas of their government. This is a story of people letting extremists rule the roost for a very long time, neither group is wholly wrong, or right, and both have their zealots far over-represented.
The Palestinians basically voted in a known terrorist organisation, who's made it their mandate to destroy Israel at any costs, civilian or otherwise.
One group of Palestinians voted for a "known terrorist organisation", the other voted for a largely secular organization which, for the most part, supports Israel's right to exist (and even cooperates from time to time). This causes a bit of tension between the various factions of Palestinians as well.
The Israel's are being heavy-handed, sure, but they've had to deal with these sorts of terrorist attacks for the last 50 years. And surprisingly, their techniques usually work
I might have spent to much time in philosophy classes, but the ends rarely, if ever, justify the means. That type of logic generally makes things much worse. Further, this conflict has made things much worse for the rest of us. It might be the second most idiotic and internationally damaging ideological kerfuffle since the Cold War. The world would be a much better place if both groups would shut the hell up and act like adults. (don't ask me how to implement that, whoever figures that out deserves all the accolades possible).
Try my hardest to be decent to my neighbors, and to people in general. Then, I can claim moral high ground when people still act badly towards me. That way I know attacks are "genuine aggression" and not merely a reaction to my own being a bad neighbor.
(Notice the lack of bias here. I have very little sympathy for either "side", only the innocent people who are pawns to either groups idiotic ideology. As always, the dogmatists profit while the innocent suffer. Also notice the very sad fact that I have to include a disclaimer in the first place)
I'm breaking into your house and stealing your television. I won in fair combat. Your television is mine! So the US should be allowed to do whatever we want in any country we conquered? How did that work out for the world after WWI (for the allies)?
Winning a war doesn't justify immoral actions. If you win a war, and act like an asshat, people should still treat you as such.
Why do a we always tolerate the religious beliefs of people who do not tolerate our own religious beliefs?
Because we're better than them? If we act like our enemy, can we truly say we're better than them? Furthermore, all Muslims are not bad Muslims. I very much dislike a lot of Americans (I am American), but that doesn't mean I hate ALL Americans, because most of us are decent folk. I dislike a ton of Christians, but I realize that most Christians are different. Islam is like Christianity, there are hundreds of creeds, philosophies, and sects, only a few of which are "bad guys". Shockingly, this applies to every group of people. There are badly behaved Jews out there, even if the majority of them are benign; there are bad police out there, but a majority of them are doing a job to support their families and perhaps do a bit of good for their community, there are bad politicians, but some of them genuinely think their helping make the world a better place, even if we disagree with them.... I can go on, since this is a universal characteristic of groups.
Why is it that we have to understand them? Why Don't they try to understand us?
I take it you missed the irony in that statement, right?
I would not TOLERATE any RELIGION that DOES NOT TOLERATE my RELIGION
So, if we don't tolerate Islam, then they are fine to not tolerate your religion? I'm an atheist, does this mean I have the right to attack the Christians (or whoever, again, every group has their violent, intolerant, ignorant, morons) who hate us?
If Israel decide one day to be the nicest neighbor possible, allow palestinians to return, go back to 1967 borders and disband its military, would you accept military intervention to protect it should the neighboring countries decide to use that opportunity to finish it ?
That would depend on a lot of things. Obviously. Should we be more willing to protect it than we are any other country in the same circumstance?
That said, I don't think anyone wants Israel to disband their military. A military is the right of any sovereign nation, as is self-protection. I would be very happy if Israel was just a nice neighbor, and let the Palestinians have their own land and self-sovereignty/autonomy. Obviously, once things are set up nicely, and Israel can be said to be the "good guy" they have the right to defend themselves.
Right now, though, neither side has a moral imperative. Neither one of them deserves a shred of support or aid, aside from humanitarian aid if needed.
Can we stop the "third world and catholics are teh rabbitz" meme? And use instead "Poor people all over the world don't give a fuck/don't know about birth control" It's worst in the first world where you get paid to keep on the breeding thanks to welfare [wisegeek.com].
No, because there is a sliver of truth in it. The Church is very much against any form of birth control. Catholicism is mostly prevalent in poor, 3rd world, countries. Most third world countries have population problems, or looming population problems. These statements don't depend on any particular reasons, so saying "the third world has a population problems", and "people in the third world don't care" aren't mutually exclusive. They might, gasp, even be an effect and a cause.
It's worst in the first world where you get paid to keep on the breeding thanks to welfare [wisegeek.com].
Oddly growth and birth statistics don't show this. Many of the countries with VERY high levels of welfare (so high that American conservatives can't go there without exploding) have negative growth. Actually most of the developed world (which often has higher welfare rates and social services than America) have sustainable or negative growth rates. The U.S., itself, with all its dreaded welfare, would be near replacement levels if it wasn't for immigration, and might even reach negative growth in a generation or so.
When we consider the third world, with its generally higher birth rates, we will find that there is a relative lack of "welfare" systems in existence. Why? Because its the third world, and they don't have the extra wealth to support such systems. Further, often these countries are ruled by kleptocrats who have no desire to support the general welfare of their states, nor have the slightest shred of sympathy for the people forced to lived under them.
It's all in the education...
This is true... But when education fails, religion quickly fills its shoes. If you live in a country with a very low level of education you lack the tools to critically analyze stupid statements made by religious authorities (see vast swaths of the U.S. for proof that this isn't a third world problem exclusively). And the anti-birth control message of the Church is harmful; it holds some stupid ideological castle high above human effects and suffering. If the Catholic church cared one bit about its followers they would be air-dropping condoms on their followers in impoverished countries, and talking about how it is sinful to bring a baby into such a world, since the child is doomed to suffer (though somehow the Catholics turned "doomed to suffer" into a positive thing, which helped switch much of my family towards agnosticism, humanism, and atheism).
One issue... If your going to profile for crime in a neighborhood with a significant minority population, your wasting your time since a random sample of suspect will show a higher amount of said minority. Profiling is generally looking for "x" in a neighborhood that is "predominately not x", which doesn't work very well.
My current neighborhood is mostly Caucasian (creepily so...), and I feel a bit sorry for the single black family down the road. They obviously have roughly the same income as the rest of us white folk, and probably share habits, education, and such with everyone else who lives here. When I see them walking down the road, my first thought isn't "criminal", but a friendly wave at their children. Further, whichever approved majority (whoever we deem not criminal enough to profile) is living in a crime ridden minority neighborhood, is likely to fall into the same social class as the "suspect" minorities, and thus just as likely to be a criminal.
90% of everybody, reguardless of their color, race, religion, or culture, are probably not criminals. This is where things break down. Pulling aside every brown-ish, Muslim-ish, man at an airport isn't going to stop terrorism, or crime, or whatnot; since 99.999% of all Muslim looking men passing through an airport isn't going to be a terrorist..00001% might be, but then again.000001% of white, American, men might be terrorists too...
And, living in a state where profiling is a VERY hot issue at the moment... It generally causes more harm than its worth. All it does is make whatever minority we decide is more criminal feel victimized and ostracized, which can lead to further resentment, which can lead to higher crime rates. Its best to limit profiling to just those who appear suspicious, regardless of secondary characteristics like skin color or wardrobe.
How about we accept different races are different ?
Because different races, as such, aren't really different? All circumstances being the same, a Caucasian is just as likely to cause a crime as a Black person, Hispanic, or Asian. Crime comes from deeper factors than mere race, like culture, upbringing, education, income, levels of drug use, etc... Often times race can be (mostly loosely) correlated with these other, more important, factors. Often times these factors are geographically centered, and often times these are predominantly minority neighborhoods.
But as a white kid who grew up in a very poor, mostly Mexican, neighborhood (with the highest crime-rate in my city), I can say that more Mexicans were caught doing crimes because there were more Mexicans population-wise, but the same factors causing those crimes were also helping the local minority whites and blacks along too. Later, when the demographics changed, blacks were causing most of the (same types) of crime, but only because the population shifted.
Those of us who weren't being jailed or shot at moved the hell out as soon as we could.
Slashdot Mirror
Your right, my name is VERY unique. A quick Google search shows me that there is only 5-6 of me represented online (who knows how many who aren't represented) in the US. Also there is probably about 1,000 people sharing my name in Ireland and other parts of the UK. Hell, there are two of me in my state. I don't have a terribly common surname name either, especially since my father changed it back to its pre-immigration roots, meaning it isn't shared with any of my relatives.
I'm beginning to think the "pro-anonymity" crowd is going a bit overboard, especially whinging about a free, optional, service. Great, you don't want to give your real name to Google... DON'T. No one cares if you're on Google+ or not. If anonymity is necessary (and not merely some silly fetish, as it seems to be with some crowds online) then don't participate in places where it is barred. Seems pretty simple to me.
I suppose it is a testimony to Google+'s desirability that some people feel they have to be members.
I really don't care anymore. I view superfluous anonymity as a mere artifact of the early days of computing, when online (via the internet or BBS) presence was completely separate from life. It was an alter-ego, an escapist identity, often used to cover potentially extra-legal activity, or at least activities outside of the established societal norms. Having anonymity made sense. Now, on the other hand, the internet is about as separate from out day-to-day life as going to the grocery store, or local bar. It's a normal, quotidian, aspect of life. I was a very firm believer in pseudonyms for years, but lately I've been pondering to using my real name, for the sake of credibility. I have a much harder time taking an AC seriously, than someone who at least has a small stake in their behaviors and statements. If your not willing to risk reputation, then what you say should be valued less than someone who is. Yes, there is some need for anonymity for certain groups, and this should be protected, but it is also within the right of a site owner to bar them entry. Though, in reality, there is no anonymity, even on the internet, it is an illusion. Someone with some time, dedication, or a subpoena, could easily get a decent idea of who you are. Hell, the way things are going right now, a 14 year old "hacker" with a bit of freely available software, and a couple minutes of free time, could probably grab your identity from some giant corporation like Sony.
Generally people are AC because they want to be bigger morons than is generally acceptable in civil society, and not for any genuine NEED of privacy. If some forum wants to bar AC posters, or presences, that is perfectly fine. Hell, I even see it as a strength. It would help to kill off trolls, morons, and 13 year olds with power trips.
I'm not arguing that the whole of the internet should require real identities. There is still a need for anonymity. And if sites with to keep anonymity, they should be allowed. But if I run a service, and decide not to allow you in, you just have to cope. Tough. You don't have the "right" to be an AC.
Maybe I'm just getting old, and am oddly free of the common internet tendencies towards narcissism and paranoia. What does anonymity get me? Marketers will find a way of tracking me. The government, or dedicated individuals can trace me. Etc... The solution, treat the internet like you would treat anything else in "real" life. Keep your secrets secret. Don't act like an asshole in public. And, for the internet, realize that EVERYTHING IS PUBLIC, and act accordingly.
I'm a techie, I own a Nook, I also still have an ever expanding room full of dead tree books. I don't see digital copies ever replacing my actual library. I admit, part of this is nostalgia, but there are also real, decent, reasons behind this. I'm not going to discount nostalgia, either, though, since casual reading is about enjoyment and not just technical matters of efficiency and cutting-edge-itude. I like sitting in my sunny room, on my comfortable leather chair, smoking my pipe with a decent glass of bourbon, reading actual books. There is something comforting in it. There also is something comforting in being able to walk into a room, and actual SEE books, to be able to walk past them, touch them, pull them off a shelf and physically examine them, and furthermore, quickly re-experience the pleasant memories of reading them. There also is something to having old books that you've carried around with you for decades, with its unique record of wear, it familiar heft and appearance. A good, loved, book is much like an old friend. I don't get that same feeling examining a flat list of titles and authors on my neat digital gadget.
Another reason I like physical books... I trust them. Being a technical, geeky, type, one thing I've learned is the transitory nature of digital things. Especially digital things tied into the whims and fortunes of a single device or entity. No one, barring a Fahrenheit 451 world, can take away, or spontaneously edit my physical books. The death of a single company, or server, or a simple policy change within a corporate behemoth, can't take a book away from me. In ten years I know my books will be sitting here still, but I'm not as sure about my insubstantial collection of small digital files (and oft included DRM).
I went to school for something hugely reading based, and academic (philosophy) field, so I have a large collection of strange, and utterly unpopular books sitting in my office. Being that these are niche titles (sadly), many of them will never turn into ebooks. There are still many, many, movies that have never made it to DVD, much less the newest, and greatest, trends. Will all format changes you run into the problem of popularity guiding conversion. The more obscure the title, and the small niche it may occupy, the less of a chance that some publisher will decide its worth it to convert to the newest trend. Further, my obscure titles don't lend themselves to linear reading, which is something that various ereaders completely fail at. Its hard to have 10-20 pages which you need to continually re-reference, plus constant flipping to indexes, figures, diagrams, and, heaven forbid, arbitrary points in completely different texts. Outside of casual fiction, I rarely read a book in the way that my ereader wants me too.
There also is the question of the second-hand market, and the joys of wandering through bookstores, flipping through random books at whim. I often discover whole new genres and authors this way. The ability to sit in a chair and read a chapter of two of a completely random book is one of the rare joys in life. Going to a book store is an experience, shopping on line is a focused, targeted, and purposeful activity. Its efficient, merely. Me and my girlfriend often set aside a whole day to go browse a large used bookstore, or go to one of the now defunct multi-story Borders in a ritzy shopping center. Often we even drag our friends and parents along. Its a fun summer outing. Hitting up Amazon's website for a quick, efficient, purposeful, transaction doesn't compete. These new or used books often cost less than than the ebook versions. Its amazing, I save money for buying something with actual materials and an actual supply chain.
That said, I love my Nook. I usually buy books for my Nook, and if I like them, I'll grab them for real. I end up wasting less space, in theory, with my large "too read" pile, and end up with less physical books taking up space. I generally only collect books by authors I truly enjoy now.
Thank you for the clarification. Generally when morals come up in a conversation about society it is meant as "people don't believe the same stuff I do, and that is bad". This raises my hackles, obviously. Not that I don't think we have some problems on that front, we've become a bit too callous to the plight of others, a bit too quick to assign blame, and wish the maximum level of punishment on others without minimal actual knowledge of them or the events. We put almost no emphasis on empathy, and instead ponder only "how will this benefit me?", completely uncaring about potential consequences to others. This is evident in 90% of discussion of "rights", where all that matter is MY rights, the downward tickle of consequences don't matter one bit. These "moral" aspects (or rather, I suppose, ethical) don't come up when people talk of morals usually, though. It generally is more along the line of "my religious upbringing told me that these people are evil, therefore we should find a way of barring them from acting these ways".
I agree with your premise, though. Our larger, systemic, morals are wanting. Generally we can toss them aside when we utter one of two words though, "security", or "profits". These are magic words that allow us to cast aside all expectations of causal decency, and basically do what ever is expedient for the power-elite. A bigger problem is that somehow us plebes have been sold on this idea. We, for some reason, support the, as you call it, immoral actions of power, against our own well-being and benefit.
As for there being no turning back... In fear you may be right, but I withhold a modicum of hope. The U.S. isn't alone in this trend, both the UK and Canada seem to be drinking from the same troth, as is much of Europe. And looking at history tells me that many trends like this are cyclical. Before WWII there was the competing rises of both fascism and communism, both of which completely took over the world. There was the desire for tyranny in the post WWII communism scare. In the 20's the world was gripped by pretty much the same desire to put aside human dignity for the will of corporations, which was also trend that gripped most of the West. I'm hoping that the current situation in America, and the West, is also some cyclical instance of mass hysteria, and will eventually pass leaving us wiser, and our future historians a bit richer.
On the other hand we might have hit the point where our decay becomes a feedback loop (I already see this with the state of education), where our own decline is inevitable.
Sorry for the lengthy reply.
You have me with politically and economically, but I don't know about socially, especially when it comes to "morals". Whose morals? "Morals" is generally just an excuse for totalitarianism, and enforcing arbitrary religious and social views on others who don't hold those views.
Oh wait, you don't contribute to anything, so you wouldn't know actually know why they're doing this. You're just blowing random emotional ignorant smoke out of your ass like everyone else on Slashdot. I can't believe Mozilla isn't paying attention to you.
Ahh... I'm glad Mozilla has decided to adopt Apple's design strategy. I'm sick of developer arrogance gaining accendency in the free software world these days (Mozilla, Gnome, and Canonical seem to be particularly infected with it).
Know why Mozilla should listen to me? Because I use their browser. Beyond that, I've gotten over 40 people to switch over to it, and they probably have gotten even more people to switch over. They should listen to me, because I'm a nerd, and nerds drive others to use their product. Further, they should listen to me because I'm a user, and without us, they wouldn't exist.
I'm using Chromium/Chrome now. I've switched around 10 people to Chrome as well, of late. I feel bad doing it, since I've been using Firefox since Phoenix (doing free beta testing), and I was terribly loyal. But I noticed that Mozilla doesn't care one bit about me anymore, or even the actual quality of their product. Their whole goal of late, it seems, is dressing an old car like a hot rod, then telling us that its so much better, and if we don't like the changes its because we don't recognize that Moz knows best.
No corporation, or headless design committee knows my needs better than me. Not Apple, not the Gnome team, not the Ubuntu team, and sure as hell not Mozilla.
I still have no clue who "ladyada" is important, all I've seen is some rant about Google temporarily suspending her account. The articles blurb gave the authors credentials as "internet celebrity", which really built a fair amount of credibility.
I don't see the big deal about using your real name, personally. It keeps the trolls at bay, and might help fighting sock puppets and astroturfing. I like that. Hell it might even keep people "friending" actual friends, and not random fictional entities, and complete strangers. And if you don't like it, you might be forced to pick a pseudonym that actually sounds like a real name. Oh dear.
I stopped caring about sharing my real name awhile ago. Sure, I keep many public-facing accounts under aliases, but I also keep some accounts, the accounts I use for genuine networking, under my own name. Hell, I've got my old internet identity, "Omestes". A real sounding pseudonym for registering products. Another old handle for some other services I don't want linked to my internet identity or real name. And sometimes I use my own name, for time when I interact with real friends and acquaintances. I also have a couple older aliases bouncing around from the mid 90's, that I haven't bothered to change. Three of these identities have Facebook pages, two have Google+ accounts, all of them have their own email. Think of it as layers of security.
So that means people will be scanning your profile waiting for you to "slip up" and accidentally post to the wrong circle. Inevitably like Weiner Gate someone will.
Who?
And again, don't EVER share anything that can harm you on the internet, no matter what service you use.
. If you didn't friend them and your defaults are setup so that only friend see your posts... you're golden.
Oddly this doesn't work. I recently had a bit of a legal battle with someone, and then later, though some diligent scanning of Facebook, managed to find that they weren't honoring legal terms, and used that against them. Worse, I circumvented their security settings (blocking me) by enlisting my girlfriend, and some other people in their "friends" list's accounts, one or two of which were only "friends" to monitor their account for illegal activities.
This is possible on Facebook, this is possible on Google+.
The one thing that Google+ has over Facebook, and Twitter, is the lack of moronic, arbitrary, character limits. I can actually write something substantial. There is only so much depth that you can convey with 160 characters, which pretty much forces conversations into the realm of "I pooped!". I'm hoping Google eventually ties Google+ into Docs, so I can actually use it for useful collaboration.
But then again I realize I'm bizarre, since I realize that people are as interested in my banal, day-to-day, life as I am in theirs. Not at all.
But that's not the current standard, they might as well reference 5.25" floppy discs if they are trying to inflate their breakthrough.
For consumer optical storage, it is. Bluray might be the big thing for content producers (though I think DVDs still out sell them), most people still use DVDs for back-up, when they aren't using platters. I don't actually know anyone who bought a Bluray burner, much less anyone who uses one. The hardware is expensive, the media is expensive, it isn't wildly popular (for data or PCs), so you can't share it as well.
There are other issues, since it doesn't work like it should thanks to restrictive and ubiquitous DRM (can I stick this burned movie into my living room players?).
Right now its cheaper to by a 1TB external HDD than to by a Bluray burner. Actually, I don't see much reason to invest in optical media, at all. I have about 30 old HDDs strewn about the house, with various backups, media, etc... When I want to watch something on the TV, I generally stream Netflix or pull it off a networked computer. If I want to back up, I have a nice gleaming eSata part at the top of my computer, which is twice as fast and supports media many times the size of Blueray. For small jobs I probably have a terabyte of old flash drives sitting around.
The only reason my and my girlfriend bought a Blueray player was because I didn't have the HTPC set up yet, and it supported streaming off Netflix. Its a technology that's doomed, and what little success it has is based almost exclusively on hype.
What he's saying is that anyone who criticizes those games or movies simply on the basis that they have failed to do anything particularly new or groundbreaking or edgy are just being pretentious.
Why the hell would I want to see a movie I've seen before, much less pay for the pleasure? Why not just re-watch the previous iteration for cheaper? If you don't do anything different, then there is no point; I have no reason to give you more money for it.
... If, instead, you got Crime And Punishment, you'd probably be more than a little bit pissed off, regardless of how "original" it would be for Transformers to go in that direction.
Depending on how it was done, I'd be a huge fan. But then again I am the "pretentious" sort. I like my media to be, confusing, and challenging. But then again I also read books in my spare time, which makes me an "intellectual". I'd rather watch Michael Heneke movies than things with Adam Sandler (I haven't seen a movie with him since the mid-90's), or Nostalgia Based Marketing Ploy #300: The Retcon.
Different strokes for different folks. If you want to watch Transformers 3, or play "brown, edgy, shooter #4021" be my guest. But you really can't mock people who want more meat and less filler either.
There is that... I kind of like it that my friend list has been pruned down to only nerds and early adopters. It means the quality of the chatter has risen significantly. Being that its a complete wasteland I've been spurned to go out and read and comment on almost perfect strangers posts, just out of sense of community. Its sort of refreshing.
s. I mean, events is a biggie, the number of concert events that correlate to concerts that I go to is increasing on facebook, and on most of those events, there has been discussion amongst attendees about public transit options, door opening times, etc
I agree. But remember that G+ is a beta, a Google beta, meaning it isn't even close to being complete. I'm guessing the rest of Google's services will be integrated, including Calender. And I'm sure that eventually it will be all "socialized". Well maybe, since I think Calender might the the neglected mutant child locked in Google's attic from time to time.
Personally this isn't a feature I care too much about, though it would be nice. All the events that I'm invited to on Facebook are generally things I don't care about... Like my friends wanting me to pay them money so it looks like their band has some fans, and the smattering of silly political protests that I have no desire to endure.
Another example: Google+ seems to lack the ability for companies to set up pages, with multiple users administering them, at least not unless you just give everyone access to the same account, and that seems a little ridiculous, and PROBABLY violates the TOS.
This is a plus, in my book. I don't "friend" people who don't have the capability of being my friend. Having the ability to add McDonalds to a circle doesn't really enhance anything for me. If Google makes it too easy for businesses to have a presence there, I will probably even stop using G+. I hope it never gets as nasty as Facebook where there are millions of fake users who exist only to pad corporate pages so they look arbitrarily more popular... and sock puppets... Why would I be "socially networked" with a corporation?
Further, Google already said their working on it, and have some limited partnerships with a few selected companies, like Ford.
I don't think that Google is suddenly going to kill Facebook overnight. People like your friends (and most of mine) will stick with Facebook. What will probably happen, if G+ is at all successful, it Facebook will stagnate like MySpace. The pool of constant users will dwindle, people just emerging into the "social networking scene" will stop coming. The all-powerful network effect will weaken. And it will lurch on like a zombie for years. Probably, in that time, Google will adopt all of the features your talking about, wooing more and more people over since more and more of their friends are there. Until at some point 5-10 years after Google gets dominance, someone else enters the scene with a new, and sexy, service, and the same happens to Google.
I'm not saying this is probable. G+ still has plenty of time to pull a Wave or a Buzz, and die quickly, and humiliatingly. Judging from Google's track record, it will either be a huge success or a completely miserable failure. There seems to be no middle ground.
it's that it just does a hell of a lot less than Facebook
Such as? I suppose I don't have to spend time each week trying to permanently block whatever stupid game people feel the need to spam me with. It makes spamming people who don't care a bit more difficult... I'm not constantly regaled to "like" or "friend" non-human corporations for no benefit to me... Not having games is a plus to me, I have Steam, I have a smart phone with a market place, I have a Wii, I have a DS, and I have a PS2, so I don't really care about Facebook games.
I don't see a down side yet.
Yes, there are some flaws, like adding pictures, and the complete lack of the ability to post things to people. Finding people who know, who are members, still sucks a bit as well. Yes, a lot of my "friends" haven't hopped over, and probably won't for some time. But, on the other hand, I've become much closer to the ones that have, including reconnecting with some people I haven't talked to in years (generally the nerdier sort). I'm also sure some of my "friends" will hop over eventually, since I'm sure they felt the same way about me when I refused to leave other social networks that allowed me to express more than a simple "I pooped today"-type-message for Facebook or MySpace,
I've been dual posting on both networks (not that hard), but have been shifting to more and more Google+ based content, since it, so far, isn't as spammy, and thus I get into deeper replies and conversations.
I don't know if Google+ will kill Facebook, but I'm guessing it will manage to woo a decent population away. It is generally a better experience, and will get more so as more people join and the networks get richer.
So move your ass and do what only Americans can do to make that nation great again, this time w/ less racism once you're there.
If you have any suggestions, I'd be very happy. I've been scratching my head at this little problem for a while, and no conclusions suggest themselves. We really need an international psychiatrist.
If only they made Thorazine for countries.
Actually the more vocal religions here are Christians and Mormons being a minority they get to make more noise that Catholics, because catholics simply don't care, people is Catholic because they got baptized when they were 1 year old and Church makes sure to shove that numbers on the statistics.
I'm not saying that Catholic teachings are the only problem, but I'm sure they contribute at least a bit. Even if their contribution to the popuation problem is minor, its still socially irresponsible, and dangerous. Basically, if it isn't a practical problem, it is a moral one. I'm guessing, though, that there is some influence, at least judging from some of the recent immigrant Catholics I know, have known, and talked to. The apartments behind my old place were pretty much colonized by one extended Mexican family, they were ultra orthodox Catholics, who really did believe in basically everything Rome says. My family is pretty much wholly Irish Catholic, and we love our babies (my father was one of fourteen, and many of his brothers and sisters have sizable broods), religion definitively played a roll since my grandmother was very pious. Obviously this was a bit blunted as we gained income and status, and shed some of the "immigrant" stigma.
Again, I didn't mean to imply, though, that there weren't other factors at play.
... but since we have the resources to somewhat support that growth I can't help but think that what pisses the developed world is that we are using our own resources instead of selling them to You.
Hey, I don't want your resources. I actually find many of the actions of my country, on that front, to be distasteful. I'm actually very hopeful for much of the third world (or developing world, whatever term is proper). Many places seem to be getting their acts together, and actually, you know, developing. Some places seem as hopeless as ever, but many places are doing well.
Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. Also arguably Pakistan based on the number of sorties run in it, but they're an ally, so that "doesn't count," I guess.
Those aren't wars. We've been in a low grade conflict in Somalia for years. Libya has a UN mandate, and officially isn't our "war", its NATO's. None of these three could really be considered "wars" in the first place... Compared to Obama's predecessors pet wars, at least. The US is always involved in a smattering of conflicts around the world, constantly. Hell, if we were famous for one thing wolrdwide, it would be our desire to stick troops and guns in small countries around the world. I doubt anyone else would be much better... Especially when compared to most of the contenders on the Republican side, who are pretty much hawks down the line.
I see your math, and your point. But... How can you tell who's a Muslim? Islam is a religion, and is followed by people of all colors and nationalities. Not all Muslims even have Muslim sounding names, for all you know the "John Smith" sitting next to you has a copy of the Koran in his backpack.
That said; if we just profile people with brown-ish skin, or Muslim sounding names, there is nothing stopping the terrorists from recruiting from their non-Muslim membership.
In the end, a sufficiently determined terrorist will have no problem hitting us with a bit of work and brain power, no matter what we do.
Simple fact: Obama is the worst president the US has seen for at least three decades. He's increased the deficit, he destroyed the economy, the job market is in the toilet, and he's already managed to start at least three wars (that we know about).
Wait? Three wars? We're pretty much out of Iraq. Afghanistan was started by quite a different president, and Libya isn't a war nor a strictly US concern. The Job market was in the toilet long before Obama hit the office, as was the financial crisis. Further, pretty much every president in recent memory takes it as a holy mission to increase the deficit, his predecessor didn't really do a very good at NOT increasing the deficit either. And I hate to say it, neither will whatever GOP backed moron who replaces him, being that they might actually be more bat-shit-crazy than the Democrats (quite an achievement there).
I'm VERY disappointed in Obama, but I still think Bush Jr. holds the title of worst. Obama is merely a mediocre president stuck in a time that requires a great president. We haven't had a great president in my lifetime, and we probably won't in the time that remains (sadly, America's days of relevance have probably past).
The simple fact is that if you're not upset with Obama, and by extension the Democrats, you're either stupid, or racist, or insane.
How is liking Obama racist? How are ad hominems constructive, for that matter? And yes, obviously all people who dislike Obama are Republicans, since all people who like the Democratic Party are stupid, insane, or inexplicably racist. Obviously, by your reasoning, all Democrats like, and support Obama. Which, as a Democrat, from a Democratic family who all dislikes Obama, is obviously true. With that logic, is it okay to hate every Republican because of the actions of their weakest members (Palin, and Bush Jr.), since obviously because of these people all republicans are stupid, crazy, or vegan (which is as inexplicable as racist in this context)?
Also, what is the alternative? Obama isn't great, but we could have Sarah Palin (or that Bachmann woman, who is almost as scary), which makes me happy that we at least have an ineffectual president over a malevolent one. I'll take mediocre over bad any day.
Further, you realize it takes both parties to work towards a balanced budget, right? The Republicans are as ineffectual as the Democrats in that regard, since both parties REFUSE to compromise. Raising taxes (and cutting subsidies lived by the GOP's Heartland base), and cutting spending (including the social programs loved by the Democrat's base) is the only way. Just because someone isn't doing it "your way" doesn't mean the other side is wrong, since you are probably as big a moron as anyone who thinks they know the God's honest revealed truth of politics, and obviously the other 50% of the population is completely wrong.
That thinking is whats dragging us down... And we, sadly, deserve it so I'm not crying too much.
You do realise that Israel has to deal with a neighbouring country who's core tenet is basically that Israel doesn't exist?
Life, and politics, are never simple. The Palestinians (a portion of them) voted for Hamas because Israel's previous actions. Isreal's previous actions (leading to putting Hamas in power) were caused by some of the Palestinians previous actions, which in turn were caused by some of Israels actions, which were caused by... I'm sure you see the point.
This, obviously, ignores the fact that not all Palestinians want Israel gone, no more than all Israeli's agree with some of the draconian Zionist agendas of their government. This is a story of people letting extremists rule the roost for a very long time, neither group is wholly wrong, or right, and both have their zealots far over-represented.
The Palestinians basically voted in a known terrorist organisation, who's made it their mandate to destroy Israel at any costs, civilian or otherwise.
One group of Palestinians voted for a "known terrorist organisation", the other voted for a largely secular organization which, for the most part, supports Israel's right to exist (and even cooperates from time to time). This causes a bit of tension between the various factions of Palestinians as well.
The Israel's are being heavy-handed, sure, but they've had to deal with these sorts of terrorist attacks for the last 50 years. And surprisingly, their techniques usually work
I might have spent to much time in philosophy classes, but the ends rarely, if ever, justify the means. That type of logic generally makes things much worse. Further, this conflict has made things much worse for the rest of us. It might be the second most idiotic and internationally damaging ideological kerfuffle since the Cold War. The world would be a much better place if both groups would shut the hell up and act like adults. (don't ask me how to implement that, whoever figures that out deserves all the accolades possible).
Were you Israel, what would you do?
Try my hardest to be decent to my neighbors, and to people in general. Then, I can claim moral high ground when people still act badly towards me. That way I know attacks are "genuine aggression" and not merely a reaction to my own being a bad neighbor.
(Notice the lack of bias here. I have very little sympathy for either "side", only the innocent people who are pawns to either groups idiotic ideology. As always, the dogmatists profit while the innocent suffer. Also notice the very sad fact that I have to include a disclaimer in the first place)
" To The Victor Goes The Spoils Of War".
I'm breaking into your house and stealing your television. I won in fair combat. Your television is mine! So the US should be allowed to do whatever we want in any country we conquered? How did that work out for the world after WWI (for the allies)?
Winning a war doesn't justify immoral actions. If you win a war, and act like an asshat, people should still treat you as such.
Why do a we always tolerate the religious beliefs of people who do not tolerate our own religious beliefs?
Because we're better than them? If we act like our enemy, can we truly say we're better than them? Furthermore, all Muslims are not bad Muslims. I very much dislike a lot of Americans (I am American), but that doesn't mean I hate ALL Americans, because most of us are decent folk. I dislike a ton of Christians, but I realize that most Christians are different. Islam is like Christianity, there are hundreds of creeds, philosophies, and sects, only a few of which are "bad guys". Shockingly, this applies to every group of people. There are badly behaved Jews out there, even if the majority of them are benign; there are bad police out there, but a majority of them are doing a job to support their families and perhaps do a bit of good for their community, there are bad politicians, but some of them genuinely think their helping make the world a better place, even if we disagree with them.... I can go on, since this is a universal characteristic of groups.
Why is it that we have to understand them? Why Don't they try to understand us?
I take it you missed the irony in that statement, right?
I would not TOLERATE any RELIGION that DOES NOT TOLERATE my RELIGION
So, if we don't tolerate Islam, then they are fine to not tolerate your religion? I'm an atheist, does this mean I have the right to attack the Christians (or whoever, again, every group has their violent, intolerant, ignorant, morons) who hate us?
If Israel decide one day to be the nicest neighbor possible, allow palestinians to return, go back to 1967 borders and disband its military, would you accept military intervention to protect it should the neighboring countries decide to use that opportunity to finish it ?
That would depend on a lot of things. Obviously. Should we be more willing to protect it than we are any other country in the same circumstance?
That said, I don't think anyone wants Israel to disband their military. A military is the right of any sovereign nation, as is self-protection. I would be very happy if Israel was just a nice neighbor, and let the Palestinians have their own land and self-sovereignty/autonomy. Obviously, once things are set up nicely, and Israel can be said to be the "good guy" they have the right to defend themselves.
Right now, though, neither side has a moral imperative. Neither one of them deserves a shred of support or aid, aside from humanitarian aid if needed.
Can we stop the "third world and catholics are teh rabbitz" meme? And use instead "Poor people all over the world don't give a fuck/don't know about birth control" It's worst in the first world where you get paid to keep on the breeding thanks to welfare [wisegeek.com].
No, because there is a sliver of truth in it. The Church is very much against any form of birth control. Catholicism is mostly prevalent in poor, 3rd world, countries. Most third world countries have population problems, or looming population problems. These statements don't depend on any particular reasons, so saying "the third world has a population problems", and "people in the third world don't care" aren't mutually exclusive. They might, gasp, even be an effect and a cause.
It's worst in the first world where you get paid to keep on the breeding thanks to welfare [wisegeek.com].
Oddly growth and birth statistics don't show this. Many of the countries with VERY high levels of welfare (so high that American conservatives can't go there without exploding) have negative growth. Actually most of the developed world (which often has higher welfare rates and social services than America) have sustainable or negative growth rates. The U.S., itself, with all its dreaded welfare, would be near replacement levels if it wasn't for immigration, and might even reach negative growth in a generation or so.
When we consider the third world, with its generally higher birth rates, we will find that there is a relative lack of "welfare" systems in existence. Why? Because its the third world, and they don't have the extra wealth to support such systems. Further, often these countries are ruled by kleptocrats who have no desire to support the general welfare of their states, nor have the slightest shred of sympathy for the people forced to lived under them.
It's all in the education...
This is true... But when education fails, religion quickly fills its shoes. If you live in a country with a very low level of education you lack the tools to critically analyze stupid statements made by religious authorities (see vast swaths of the U.S. for proof that this isn't a third world problem exclusively). And the anti-birth control message of the Church is harmful; it holds some stupid ideological castle high above human effects and suffering. If the Catholic church cared one bit about its followers they would be air-dropping condoms on their followers in impoverished countries, and talking about how it is sinful to bring a baby into such a world, since the child is doomed to suffer (though somehow the Catholics turned "doomed to suffer" into a positive thing, which helped switch much of my family towards agnosticism, humanism, and atheism).
One issue... If your going to profile for crime in a neighborhood with a significant minority population, your wasting your time since a random sample of suspect will show a higher amount of said minority. Profiling is generally looking for "x" in a neighborhood that is "predominately not x", which doesn't work very well.
My current neighborhood is mostly Caucasian (creepily so...), and I feel a bit sorry for the single black family down the road. They obviously have roughly the same income as the rest of us white folk, and probably share habits, education, and such with everyone else who lives here. When I see them walking down the road, my first thought isn't "criminal", but a friendly wave at their children. Further, whichever approved majority (whoever we deem not criminal enough to profile) is living in a crime ridden minority neighborhood, is likely to fall into the same social class as the "suspect" minorities, and thus just as likely to be a criminal.
90% of everybody, reguardless of their color, race, religion, or culture, are probably not criminals. This is where things break down. Pulling aside every brown-ish, Muslim-ish, man at an airport isn't going to stop terrorism, or crime, or whatnot; since 99.999% of all Muslim looking men passing through an airport isn't going to be a terrorist. .00001% might be, but then again .000001% of white, American, men might be terrorists too...
And, living in a state where profiling is a VERY hot issue at the moment... It generally causes more harm than its worth. All it does is make whatever minority we decide is more criminal feel victimized and ostracized, which can lead to further resentment, which can lead to higher crime rates. Its best to limit profiling to just those who appear suspicious, regardless of secondary characteristics like skin color or wardrobe.
My car is my home, you insensitive clod!
How about we accept different races are different ?
Because different races, as such, aren't really different? All circumstances being the same, a Caucasian is just as likely to cause a crime as a Black person, Hispanic, or Asian. Crime comes from deeper factors than mere race, like culture, upbringing, education, income, levels of drug use, etc... Often times race can be (mostly loosely) correlated with these other, more important, factors. Often times these factors are geographically centered, and often times these are predominantly minority neighborhoods.
But as a white kid who grew up in a very poor, mostly Mexican, neighborhood (with the highest crime-rate in my city), I can say that more Mexicans were caught doing crimes because there were more Mexicans population-wise, but the same factors causing those crimes were also helping the local minority whites and blacks along too. Later, when the demographics changed, blacks were causing most of the (same types) of crime, but only because the population shifted.
Those of us who weren't being jailed or shot at moved the hell out as soon as we could.