But reasonings like this is why justice is applied unequally between social classes. The judge thinks that its going to teach the poor kid a lesson if they send them to prison, whereas the rich kid gets off with a fine because hes "a good kid" even though the kid of lower economic status may be a good person.
Sadly that reasoning will always be applied, I fear. We generally work under the erroneous assumption that net worth = personal worth, it seems. Though I still think there their should be some punishment aspect to all crimes. The deterrent aspect to the legal system should still be there.
Its called the DEMOCRATIC party. I don't know where this "democrat" party meme came from, but I'm sick of it. All it does is make the speaker sound uninformed and ignorant of the thing they rail against so jingoistically.
Perhaps I should start calling the republican party "wepubwican party", that would make me sound mature, and make all the attached arguments so much more worthy of attention.
As to the meat of your statement, I half agree, people should be held responsible for their loans, they signed the paper work, therefore they agreed to the consiquences. I can see some issue though, were individual problems quickly balloon and become a serious problem to the rest of us, though. I'm rather tossed on the issue.
No, the Democrats of the Democratic party are not wholly to blame, though they must accept some share of it. Republicans deserve a decent share too for deregulation. The whole corporate ethos deserves even more blaim, since they decided that untenable short-term greed was more important than the long term health of their own companies (much less the economy as a whole). More so the very idea that our whole economy can be based on debt and not real funds.
Blaming on party is rather idiotic. Yes, being partisan is easy, and doesn't require much thought, but it also leads to making silly statements. I personally have a grudge against anyone who sits around regurgitating sound bites emanating from any side of our political system.
The only rational people are independents and moderates. The second you buy a whole proper-noun ideology, you probably divorced yourself from reality.
If Martha Stewart or Bernie Madoff lived next to you, would your life, property, freedom, or the lives of your family be threatened? No.
Contradicts
Petty theft? No.
Isn't petty theft a threat to your property by definition?
Other than that I do find your ideas pretty interesting. I would be all for legal reform along these lines, IF (and only if) the standard was applied universally, regardless of socioeconomic status, race, or demographic. Fat chance of that ever happening.
I do think that jail, though, can be a lesson. Remember the legal system should exist to punish and reform behavior, and not just make sure people pay back some "debt". Spending a weekend in jail can sometimes work wonders, especially for things like petty theft and graffiti (which should net the death penalty, IMO, even if I'm against the corporal punishment).
Thanks for answering frankly, and not just flaming me as is common when people don't call Vista the devil.
The top two of those were completely unknown to me, thanks for the links. The first one goes with "enabling content providers to use DRM" which I have no real problem with (I do, but with the person using the DRM, not just enabling it). As for the second one falls close to the first, it is a problem inherent in DRM itself, which no implementation on the OS of software level can ever fix. It isn't really Vista or Microsoft's fault (outside of offering DRM WMAs).
My general rule is don't purchase, view, or whatnot, anything with any form of DRM. I had an exclusion for iTMS since they had one of the least draconian schemes. If you do, expect the consequences, and blaim yourself for entering into it, and the provider who decided such a moronic scheme was a good idea.
The third one is a "nature of the beast" problem, that comes with DRM by its very nature. This is a legitimate complaint, and I can see being miffed about it.
The last one is a very valid problem, that sadly hits more than Vista (or Win7), these protected streams, and such, are in pretty much all hardware capable of dealing with video these days, and pretty much have to be to inter-operate with a lot of hardware. I don't blame Microsoft completely for this, but they still share a decent portion of the blame. I find the most issue with this because it isn't something I asked for (by buying DRMed software) unlike the first three issue you bring up.
What DRM? Is Win7 going to phone home for every MP3 I have on my computer, or force me to scan the CDs UPC before each play? Is it going to call the feds if I use a BT protocol, or try to install Soulseek? Its going to explode when I view a AVI?
Yes, I'm sure it'll be like Vista, where DRM enforcement is enabled for downloaded content that requires it (protected WMA, etc), it will probably have HDCP for Blue Ray. It will probably have the MS house DRM (genuine whatnot) to ensure you paid for your OS/Word.
None of which effects end users in the slightest. I've actually never encountered the much-maligned Vista DRM in my day to day use of my computer. Ever. I'm sure Windows 7 will feature DRM as cumbersome as Vista's.
If I'm wrong, please correct me and show me where DRM will show up and keep me from using my content?
Re:In some ways it was much better in 1996
on
Jurassic Web
·
· Score: 1
Not to mention a lot less Buzzwordery and fuckwittery.
Your kidding right? Every damn thing that happened on the Web in those days were "innovative" and the future, and definitely worth VC money. The Web is fueled by self-hype, always has, always will be. Yes, Web 2.0 is annoying, but its always been this way.
I got online through a local BBS that had a nice TCP/IP and telnet (more importantly TinTin for MUDs) option. the TCP/IP was for charge, but somehow I always managed to scam the sysop or other users into giving me credits. One kid I knew discovered a 1-800 number where they could tunnel into the corporate phone system, and bill credits via a 900 number which he shared with the rest of us. I think he fell into pretty hot water for that.
I generally ignored the Web until the BBS scene died. I liked the local flavor, and the sense of community (as in "lets go get some beers after we run out of turns on LoRD"-community).
I think I still have my copies of Telex sitting around somewhere. Sometimes in the middle of the night, I can even remember all the init strings.
Nostalgia is right... Now far more than half the people I know don't even know what a BBS is, much less the joys of Telnet, they think the internet is nothing but the Web, and that the Web has always existed.
The people above are right, the current Web doesn't do much more than the older Web, BBSs, or FTP/Archie/etc did. The only real innovation I can think of streaming video.
I noticed that in college, most of the freshmen were sporting Led Zep t-shirts, Nirvana t-shirts, or more amusingly Misfits t-shirts. I find this amusing, since they are pumping all this money to dead people, who will never (obviously) benefit from their fandom. It also is odd since there is so much good modern music out there, even if it isn't Mtv ready RIAA label crap that is being ignored for rebellious "nostalgia". Listening to overproduced massmarketed crap of previous decades is not much better than listening to the current crop. (Yes, I'll exclude the first half of Zep's discography from that generalization).
So far the indie bands haven't quite filled the gap. If you notice Led Zep merchandise is being more marketed than even when the band was around. It still is very much a industry ploy. Better quality than Britany Spears or Kid Rock, but still it fills the same niche.
I'm a large supporter of trying to get people hooked on contemporary small label bands. I found it odd that my crusty taste in music was more more contemporary than the 18 year old just entering college. There still is a ton of good modern music out there.
But as it stands, the large cities still pick the executive, and the rural areas still have no say whatsoever.
I live in Arizona, about 50% of our population lives in one city (Phoenix), that city is much more conservative than the rest of the state, and thus large areas of the state are disenfranchised because they know their vote will never counteract that of the city people.
When I lived in Flagstaff (a smallish liberal university town) I always wondered why I was even bothering voting for president, since the state would invariably go Republican. I, in other words, was throwing my vote away.
The EC also leads to the idiodic modern myth of "red states" and "blue states". Generally the margin between these fictions are less than 5% (10% in the extremes). Opening up the Electoral College to vote by the same percentage that the population does would kill the "red state vs. blue" idiocy, and give a voice to more minority voters (I don't mean ethnic). It would completely change the face of elections, and probably close margins for presidential elections even further (which might be a bad thing).
Not a Libertarian here, but there is one good argument for supporting government mandated net neutrality; the First Amendment, freedom of speech. What anti-Neutrality laws would do is allow corporations to censor speech based on financial motive.
And yes, this is the norm, generally. You can get kicked out of your local Denny's for yelling a racial diatribe in the lobby, the corporation (or business) is using their property rights. If you don't like it you can go elsewhere. Fine...
But ISPs are generally a regional monopoly, thus would be allowed to censor vast geographic areas with impetus, and no oversight. If Comcast, to pick a good villain, decides that Google needs to cough up a couple billion to be served at a speed higher than dial-up, then there is nothing anyone can do about it. I'm sure everyone (libertarian or not) can see the problem in this.
I agree that building quality is generally the best idea, even if you have a higher front cost. I generally throw all my money at the monitor (if building from scratch), or the mobo (if you got a decent mother board). Though people generally underestimate the PSU, NEVER skimp on that, no matter what final role your computer is going to have. I've had more computers die due to bad PSUs than to any other component.
I think part of the problem is that graphics cards are rather superfluous "bling" accesories, especially at the high end, that really don't serve much of a purpose. I haven't come across a game I can't play on "high" or "ultra" setting with my $80 video card (attached to a Core 2 Duo 2.6Ghz box, w/ 6BG RAM) except Crysis. But still the market somehow supports $800 behemoths that aren't really useful to anyone but kids who think $100 UV activated piping makes their computer faster, and perhaps high end video people.
I think most people are sick of needing to spend half the price of their computer on video cards, where a simple console costs less, and somehow pulls the same graphics.
An $800 video card gets you very little improvement over a $100 one, over a span of five years, really. Its sort of like buying a super-computer to play Microsoft Solitaire on. You just need the extra processing power to show you can afford it, not that it actually is useful.
The really amusing thing is that most PC games are cheap ports of console games these days, but somehow people think they need 10x the consoles GPU to play. There are very few games made for the high end.
Yes, I speak only of games, but what are you actually using that big $800 GPU for?
BTW: GPUs are like CPUs, not like full mobos, all the other crap is separate.
Let's say the child doesn't like church. What then? Or let's say you're an atheist and the child DOES like church. Too bad, you can't say he/she can't go to church and let himself be taught all those lies, it's his or her own choice.
Where is the problem with that? When I was around 10, I told my parents that they could take their church and shove it, they respected that. If I had a child who decided that they wanted to be religious, I would respect that as much as my parents respected me NOT wanting to be.
I see nothing wrong with letting children make up their own mind about what mumbo-jumbo they want to believe, as long as it isn't forced on them (by the parents or any other party)
Or how about homeschooling? Many states already hate homeschooling and think it's horrible for the children, somehow. So, what's in the child's best interests if the parent refuses to let them go to public schools? Hmmm. That alone (government deciding how and what children are taught) is scary, as the education of a child is a HUGE deal.
Homeschooling is often just a way to maintain the "ideological integrity" of the child, please read that as "brainwashing". It also generally serves to "keep children clean from outside influences", please also read this as brainwashing, and as a stupid means to keep the kid from developing critical dissent from whatever crap the parents are trying to fill them with (generally some form of lunatic fringe religion). I'm confused by this, if your indoctrination is so damn strong and correct, then why would you be afraid of other ideas?
On a more psychological level, school serves for more than teaching your kid how to read and write. It also socializes the child, equipping them with the mores and norms of the greater society, the norms and mores that we all require to successfully interact within that society. Children need this psychologically, or they do suffer actual psychological illnesses.
I'm paying for myriad "faith based" programs, and vouchers for religious schools. I don't want to either. I'm also paying for a bunch of silly wars that I find... well... silly. Right now I'm paying for a bunch of corrupt corporations who I'd rather see die than get a single cent from me as well.
Thats government for you. It isn't about you, your religion, your political ideologies. YOU have nothing to do with it, never have, never will. Government is about the society, not the individual. Its about the BIG picture. We, as individuals are not a part of that picture, unless we're very rich, or are buying politicians hookers.
This is how it SHOULD be. Since I'm guessing we disagree on about 90% of policy decisions, so if government was for you, it would be working against me. The same goes for the opposite, a government for me would be oppressing you.
Just because we believe in our political ideologies, does not mean they are right, or should be forced upon everyone. Good government comes to its policies after we have fought and argued a bit.
Oh noes! You mean to tell me when the people of another country are freed from oppression & poverty and enter into open trade with the world, the US gets a piece of the opportunities for trade along with all the other nations that trade in the world markets (and that typically didn't help or actively opposed that very action) after sacrificing US blood and treasure? How horrible! Everyone in the whole world should be equally poor and equally oppressed. It's only fair.
I have no problem with this, as long as they are genuinely oppressed (meaning genocide, and not just a political system we don't like, or a different version of economics than the one we like), and as long as there is POPULAR support for our assistance.
By public support I mean support of the people we are "freeing" and the American public (since their children will be being killed for these oppressed people).
Everyone in the world should have a say in their own culture, values, and economic system and values. Not just the US.
Actually we should just bugger out of other countries business, unless they are a direct threat to our actual, physical, security. In cases of genocide, or other forms of actual oppression, we should only hop in if their is a global mandate.
We should never intervene if we merely don't like their religious, political, or economical systems. Let Chavez run around being a socialist, it doesn't pose a threat to us.
They simply helped groups more friendly to the US in an effort to influence politics there. Sort of like if China were to give large amounts of money to Democrats to influence US elections and policies. Or if Russia were to knowingly and deliberately supply arms and funding to kill US troops in an active conflict. Not that *that* would ever happen, no sir!
You'd be okay with these then? I hope so, since you see no problem with us doing it. Iran is being a good freind by supplying our enemies arms, right?
Oh wait... Its okay if we do this to sow discord and overthrow democratically elected governments in South America, but not okay for others to do it to us...
So you'r the guy living in my apartment complex with 20 wifi servers all named "linksys"?
How can you tell them apart?!
I would be screwed, running Mac, Dell, Dell, HP, and Frankencomputer, instead of Goudjira (or Quesozilla), BluCheese, Caseus Mallus, and Bloodycheese. The names are cryptic to you, but they all have some meaning. Quesozilla is my big desktop/server box, BluCheese is an HP laptop infected with billions of superfluous LEDs, Bloodycheese is a MacBook that caused me to almost chop off my finger on its exquisitely wrapped packaging, and Caseus Mallus (which turned into QuesoToxico) was a nasty, buggy, test box.
Fallout 3 doesn't even need the disc. It just crashes randomly:)
My copy does, perhaps they removed it in a patch, perhaps the one that refused to install on my system. But then again I'm pissed enough that I can't download the new content without coughing up money, installing and registering Live, rereading the/. article on how to actually install it, then copy it to a different directory, so I can actually play it offline.
Online components REALLY need to die. Not everyone is online all the time, nor does everyone WANT to be online all the time. Some people don't trust ANY corporations continues existence just to be able to play a game they paid money for (and thus OWN, at least by common wisdom). I don't understand how Steam gets a pass even. Stardock I can see, but Steam is pretty nasty in my book. Worse than the old "you must have the book/wheel" schemes in the 80's, and far far worse than Stardock's system. 10 years from now steam might be long dead, but I still will own the manual to Wasteland, and the wheel from Hillsbrad.
Actually, DRM should die, period. I would switch to console, but they aren't worth the value. And even then they're moving towards online DRM schemes. Hell, even the overpriced shit they want me to replace my perfectly good DVD player with wants me to be online all the time.
I see it as they don't want my money. I shouldn't have to suffer to give people profit. They WANT their stuff to be free.
Bizarre, don't they know that whole generations of people have played with large mercury gobs for fun, or used them to clean dirty coins? Hell, most small placer operations use mercury to concentrate gold. Mercury probably isn't the safest thing in the world, but I really REALLY doubt that it is near as harmful as we decided it must be.
I remember in high school, some moron broke a vial containing less than a single ounce of mercury, they evacuated the whole building (probably around 150 students).
I'm not going to alter my language or humor for your benefit. If your ego feels weakened, that is your problem not mine. Relax, get over it. People are morons, people are intolerant of difference, etc... I'm sure there is a whole group of people who hate me lurking out there somewhere, but I don't care. I like myself. If you don't, then you really can't blame others. You can't expect people to go out of their way just for your benefit.
There is no real harm, since we all decided to let things affect us. Thus affect is a choice, and rests on our individual shoulders.
If you don't like the way someone speaks, who cares? Ignore them, walk away, punch them in the face.
But then again this is coming from someone who calls his gay friends "fags", and his multi-ethnic friends whatever the offensive racial slang is of the day (who return the favor).
You sound like a crank or a hair stylist - not sure which.
Good ad hominem, I'll try to keep that in mind, thanks.
You should actually crack a history book instead of getting your "news" from the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times.
As should anyone who waxes romantic about any partisan figure. Romanticizing Reagan is just as bad as demonizing him. My point is that he was just another crooked politician looking out for his cronies, and ruling based on a myopic ideology, just like most of the rest of them.
And you should throw in an economics class for good measure.
As should you, since you would learn that economics is largely a bunch of opinions, and is about as objective as Sociology (a little more, perhaps, but there still is a ton of disagreement in the field).
I'm guessing this is you defending the "trickle down" idea, or perhaps his decision that regulation exists for no reason whatsoever. As for those, the former has no real-world proof of actually being functional. The latter is ignoring the fact that regulation came into being to stop abuses, and generally deregulation has lead to pretty bad consequences (see our current mess).
I don't see where I was historically inaccurate, if you would have held back the ad hominem, and actually entered a discussion, or tried to correct me, it would have been helpful, or at least entertaining.
I'll never understand why it's "idiotic" to try and protect our people from nuclear strikes. I guess it's better if we just leave our cities vulnerable to blackmail by any crackpot despot who manages to figure out how to build a deliverable nuclear weapon.
It was a lot of money for a program that never would have actually, you know, worked. There was a lot of scientists who told him that it never would, but he still persisted.
That and the fact that it could have led to further escalation of the Cold War, and further nuclear prolification. It also would have broken some treaties, if I remember correctly.
I have nothing against protecting the so-called Homeland (I hate that term though), but we should do something EFFECTIVE to do so, with care not to make our problems worse, and we should have to do it legally, obviously.
I don't understand the Reagan nostalgia one bit. He introduced idiotic SDI program (Starwars), he renewed the cold war (though was fortunate enough to last until its inevitable decline, and thus take credit), he introduced the terrible "trickle down" motivation to focus everything on the rich and deprive the other 70% of the population of any benefits, he decided running government based on religion was a good idea (while his wife gave him astrological advice), and he started the modern idea of "make less spend more" rebranded as "conservationism" (viz "quit your decent job, get one at Taco Bell, and by a Mercedes Benz"). He continued to destabilize most of the world via the CIA, especially Latin America because he personally didn't agree with their popular democratic governments (for the sake of democracy mind, i.e. American interests). He funded most of the people who are now our "greatest enemies", in his wars against Russia.
What the hell was so great about him, except charisma?
This isn't a partisan attack, I also dislike Clinton, both Bushes, Nixon, and most of Carter. Hell, I even preferred the first Bush over Clinton, even if I lean somewhat left. Hell, I even think Kennedy would have been a terrible president. But after Nixon, Reagan was really the guy who led to the presidency being imperial, and the great destroyer of rights. He held lead into the era where we exist for the government, and not the other way around.
Reagan was one of our worst presidents... Besides GWB, of course, who did the most to destroy America, and all that we are founded on.
Slashdot Mirror
But reasonings like this is why justice is applied unequally between social classes. The judge thinks that its going to teach the poor kid a lesson if they send them to prison, whereas the rich kid gets off with a fine because hes "a good kid" even though the kid of lower economic status may be a good person.
Sadly that reasoning will always be applied, I fear. We generally work under the erroneous assumption that net worth = personal worth, it seems. Though I still think there their should be some punishment aspect to all crimes. The deterrent aspect to the legal system should still be there.
Democrat Party
Its called the DEMOCRATIC party. I don't know where this "democrat" party meme came from, but I'm sick of it. All it does is make the speaker sound uninformed and ignorant of the thing they rail against so jingoistically.
Perhaps I should start calling the republican party "wepubwican party", that would make me sound mature, and make all the attached arguments so much more worthy of attention.
As to the meat of your statement, I half agree, people should be held responsible for their loans, they signed the paper work, therefore they agreed to the consiquences. I can see some issue though, were individual problems quickly balloon and become a serious problem to the rest of us, though. I'm rather tossed on the issue.
No, the Democrats of the Democratic party are not wholly to blame, though they must accept some share of it. Republicans deserve a decent share too for deregulation. The whole corporate ethos deserves even more blaim, since they decided that untenable short-term greed was more important than the long term health of their own companies (much less the economy as a whole). More so the very idea that our whole economy can be based on debt and not real funds.
Blaming on party is rather idiotic. Yes, being partisan is easy, and doesn't require much thought, but it also leads to making silly statements. I personally have a grudge against anyone who sits around regurgitating sound bites emanating from any side of our political system.
The only rational people are independents and moderates. The second you buy a whole proper-noun ideology, you probably divorced yourself from reality.
If Martha Stewart or Bernie Madoff lived next to you, would your life, property, freedom, or the lives of your family be threatened? No.
Contradicts
Petty theft? No.
Isn't petty theft a threat to your property by definition?
Other than that I do find your ideas pretty interesting. I would be all for legal reform along these lines, IF (and only if) the standard was applied universally, regardless of socioeconomic status, race, or demographic. Fat chance of that ever happening.
I do think that jail, though, can be a lesson. Remember the legal system should exist to punish and reform behavior, and not just make sure people pay back some "debt". Spending a weekend in jail can sometimes work wonders, especially for things like petty theft and graffiti (which should net the death penalty, IMO, even if I'm against the corporal punishment).
Thanks for answering frankly, and not just flaming me as is common when people don't call Vista the devil.
The top two of those were completely unknown to me, thanks for the links. The first one goes with "enabling content providers to use DRM" which I have no real problem with (I do, but with the person using the DRM, not just enabling it). As for the second one falls close to the first, it is a problem inherent in DRM itself, which no implementation on the OS of software level can ever fix. It isn't really Vista or Microsoft's fault (outside of offering DRM WMAs).
My general rule is don't purchase, view, or whatnot, anything with any form of DRM. I had an exclusion for iTMS since they had one of the least draconian schemes. If you do, expect the consequences, and blaim yourself for entering into it, and the provider who decided such a moronic scheme was a good idea.
The third one is a "nature of the beast" problem, that comes with DRM by its very nature. This is a legitimate complaint, and I can see being miffed about it.
The last one is a very valid problem, that sadly hits more than Vista (or Win7), these protected streams, and such, are in pretty much all hardware capable of dealing with video these days, and pretty much have to be to inter-operate with a lot of hardware. I don't blame Microsoft completely for this, but they still share a decent portion of the blame. I find the most issue with this because it isn't something I asked for (by buying DRMed software) unlike the first three issue you bring up.
What DRM? Is Win7 going to phone home for every MP3 I have on my computer, or force me to scan the CDs UPC before each play? Is it going to call the feds if I use a BT protocol, or try to install Soulseek? Its going to explode when I view a AVI?
Yes, I'm sure it'll be like Vista, where DRM enforcement is enabled for downloaded content that requires it (protected WMA, etc), it will probably have HDCP for Blue Ray. It will probably have the MS house DRM (genuine whatnot) to ensure you paid for your OS/Word.
None of which effects end users in the slightest. I've actually never encountered the much-maligned Vista DRM in my day to day use of my computer. Ever. I'm sure Windows 7 will feature DRM as cumbersome as Vista's.
If I'm wrong, please correct me and show me where DRM will show up and keep me from using my content?
Not to mention a lot less Buzzwordery and fuckwittery.
Your kidding right? Every damn thing that happened on the Web in those days were "innovative" and the future, and definitely worth VC money. The Web is fueled by self-hype, always has, always will be. Yes, Web 2.0 is annoying, but its always been this way.
I got online through a local BBS that had a nice TCP/IP and telnet (more importantly TinTin for MUDs) option. the TCP/IP was for charge, but somehow I always managed to scam the sysop or other users into giving me credits. One kid I knew discovered a 1-800 number where they could tunnel into the corporate phone system, and bill credits via a 900 number which he shared with the rest of us. I think he fell into pretty hot water for that.
I generally ignored the Web until the BBS scene died. I liked the local flavor, and the sense of community (as in "lets go get some beers after we run out of turns on LoRD"-community).
I think I still have my copies of Telex sitting around somewhere. Sometimes in the middle of the night, I can even remember all the init strings.
Nostalgia is right... Now far more than half the people I know don't even know what a BBS is, much less the joys of Telnet, they think the internet is nothing but the Web, and that the Web has always existed.
The people above are right, the current Web doesn't do much more than the older Web, BBSs, or FTP/Archie/etc did. The only real innovation I can think of streaming video.
I noticed that in college, most of the freshmen were sporting Led Zep t-shirts, Nirvana t-shirts, or more amusingly Misfits t-shirts. I find this amusing, since they are pumping all this money to dead people, who will never (obviously) benefit from their fandom. It also is odd since there is so much good modern music out there, even if it isn't Mtv ready RIAA label crap that is being ignored for rebellious "nostalgia". Listening to overproduced massmarketed crap of previous decades is not much better than listening to the current crop. (Yes, I'll exclude the first half of Zep's discography from that generalization).
So far the indie bands haven't quite filled the gap. If you notice Led Zep merchandise is being more marketed than even when the band was around. It still is very much a industry ploy. Better quality than Britany Spears or Kid Rock, but still it fills the same niche.
I'm a large supporter of trying to get people hooked on contemporary small label bands. I found it odd that my crusty taste in music was more more contemporary than the 18 year old just entering college. There still is a ton of good modern music out there.
But as it stands, the large cities still pick the executive, and the rural areas still have no say whatsoever.
I live in Arizona, about 50% of our population lives in one city (Phoenix), that city is much more conservative than the rest of the state, and thus large areas of the state are disenfranchised because they know their vote will never counteract that of the city people.
When I lived in Flagstaff (a smallish liberal university town) I always wondered why I was even bothering voting for president, since the state would invariably go Republican. I, in other words, was throwing my vote away.
The EC also leads to the idiodic modern myth of "red states" and "blue states". Generally the margin between these fictions are less than 5% (10% in the extremes). Opening up the Electoral College to vote by the same percentage that the population does would kill the "red state vs. blue" idiocy, and give a voice to more minority voters (I don't mean ethnic). It would completely change the face of elections, and probably close margins for presidential elections even further (which might be a bad thing).
In the end, I'm for it.
Not a Libertarian here, but there is one good argument for supporting government mandated net neutrality; the First Amendment, freedom of speech. What anti-Neutrality laws would do is allow corporations to censor speech based on financial motive.
And yes, this is the norm, generally. You can get kicked out of your local Denny's for yelling a racial diatribe in the lobby, the corporation (or business) is using their property rights. If you don't like it you can go elsewhere. Fine...
But ISPs are generally a regional monopoly, thus would be allowed to censor vast geographic areas with impetus, and no oversight. If Comcast, to pick a good villain, decides that Google needs to cough up a couple billion to be served at a speed higher than dial-up, then there is nothing anyone can do about it. I'm sure everyone (libertarian or not) can see the problem in this.
Huh?
Where is the DRM in Firefox?
This might be the dumbest troll ever, a successful troll has SOME basis in reality.
I was using the parents $800 figure.
I agree that building quality is generally the best idea, even if you have a higher front cost. I generally throw all my money at the monitor (if building from scratch), or the mobo (if you got a decent mother board). Though people generally underestimate the PSU, NEVER skimp on that, no matter what final role your computer is going to have. I've had more computers die due to bad PSUs than to any other component.
I think part of the problem is that graphics cards are rather superfluous "bling" accesories, especially at the high end, that really don't serve much of a purpose. I haven't come across a game I can't play on "high" or "ultra" setting with my $80 video card (attached to a Core 2 Duo 2.6Ghz box, w/ 6BG RAM) except Crysis. But still the market somehow supports $800 behemoths that aren't really useful to anyone but kids who think $100 UV activated piping makes their computer faster, and perhaps high end video people.
I think most people are sick of needing to spend half the price of their computer on video cards, where a simple console costs less, and somehow pulls the same graphics.
An $800 video card gets you very little improvement over a $100 one, over a span of five years, really. Its sort of like buying a super-computer to play Microsoft Solitaire on. You just need the extra processing power to show you can afford it, not that it actually is useful.
The really amusing thing is that most PC games are cheap ports of console games these days, but somehow people think they need 10x the consoles GPU to play. There are very few games made for the high end.
Yes, I speak only of games, but what are you actually using that big $800 GPU for?
BTW: GPUs are like CPUs, not like full mobos, all the other crap is separate.
Let's say the child doesn't like church. What then? Or let's say you're an atheist and the child DOES like church. Too bad, you can't say he/she can't go to church and let himself be taught all those lies, it's his or her own choice.
Where is the problem with that? When I was around 10, I told my parents that they could take their church and shove it, they respected that. If I had a child who decided that they wanted to be religious, I would respect that as much as my parents respected me NOT wanting to be.
I see nothing wrong with letting children make up their own mind about what mumbo-jumbo they want to believe, as long as it isn't forced on them (by the parents or any other party)
Or how about homeschooling? Many states already hate homeschooling and think it's horrible for the children, somehow. So, what's in the child's best interests if the parent refuses to let them go to public schools? Hmmm. That alone (government deciding how and what children are taught) is scary, as the education of a child is a HUGE deal.
Homeschooling is often just a way to maintain the "ideological integrity" of the child, please read that as "brainwashing". It also generally serves to "keep children clean from outside influences", please also read this as brainwashing, and as a stupid means to keep the kid from developing critical dissent from whatever crap the parents are trying to fill them with (generally some form of lunatic fringe religion). I'm confused by this, if your indoctrination is so damn strong and correct, then why would you be afraid of other ideas?
On a more psychological level, school serves for more than teaching your kid how to read and write. It also socializes the child, equipping them with the mores and norms of the greater society, the norms and mores that we all require to successfully interact within that society. Children need this psychologically, or they do suffer actual psychological illnesses.
I'm paying for myriad "faith based" programs, and vouchers for religious schools. I don't want to either. I'm also paying for a bunch of silly wars that I find... well... silly. Right now I'm paying for a bunch of corrupt corporations who I'd rather see die than get a single cent from me as well.
Thats government for you. It isn't about you, your religion, your political ideologies. YOU have nothing to do with it, never have, never will. Government is about the society, not the individual. Its about the BIG picture. We, as individuals are not a part of that picture, unless we're very rich, or are buying politicians hookers.
This is how it SHOULD be. Since I'm guessing we disagree on about 90% of policy decisions, so if government was for you, it would be working against me. The same goes for the opposite, a government for me would be oppressing you.
Just because we believe in our political ideologies, does not mean they are right, or should be forced upon everyone. Good government comes to its policies after we have fought and argued a bit.
Oh noes! You mean to tell me when the people of another country are freed from oppression & poverty and enter into open trade with the world, the US gets a piece of the opportunities for trade along with all the other nations that trade in the world markets (and that typically didn't help or actively opposed that very action) after sacrificing US blood and treasure? How horrible! Everyone in the whole world should be equally poor and equally oppressed. It's only fair.
I have no problem with this, as long as they are genuinely oppressed (meaning genocide, and not just a political system we don't like, or a different version of economics than the one we like), and as long as there is POPULAR support for our assistance.
By public support I mean support of the people we are "freeing" and the American public (since their children will be being killed for these oppressed people).
Everyone in the world should have a say in their own culture, values, and economic system and values. Not just the US.
Actually we should just bugger out of other countries business, unless they are a direct threat to our actual, physical, security. In cases of genocide, or other forms of actual oppression, we should only hop in if their is a global mandate.
We should never intervene if we merely don't like their religious, political, or economical systems. Let Chavez run around being a socialist, it doesn't pose a threat to us.
They simply helped groups more friendly to the US in an effort to influence politics there. Sort of like if China were to give large amounts of money to Democrats to influence US elections and policies. Or if Russia were to knowingly and deliberately supply arms and funding to kill US troops in an active conflict. Not that *that* would ever happen, no sir!
You'd be okay with these then? I hope so, since you see no problem with us doing it. Iran is being a good freind by supplying our enemies arms, right?
Oh wait... Its okay if we do this to sow discord and overthrow democratically elected governments in South America, but not okay for others to do it to us...
There is a word for that.
So you'r the guy living in my apartment complex with 20 wifi servers all named "linksys"?
How can you tell them apart?!
I would be screwed, running Mac, Dell, Dell, HP, and Frankencomputer, instead of Goudjira (or Quesozilla), BluCheese, Caseus Mallus, and Bloodycheese. The names are cryptic to you, but they all have some meaning. Quesozilla is my big desktop/server box, BluCheese is an HP laptop infected with billions of superfluous LEDs, Bloodycheese is a MacBook that caused me to almost chop off my finger on its exquisitely wrapped packaging, and Caseus Mallus (which turned into QuesoToxico) was a nasty, buggy, test box.
Fallout 3 doesn't even need the disc. It just crashes randomly :)
My copy does, perhaps they removed it in a patch, perhaps the one that refused to install on my system. But then again I'm pissed enough that I can't download the new content without coughing up money, installing and registering Live, rereading the /. article on how to actually install it, then copy it to a different directory, so I can actually play it offline.
Online components REALLY need to die. Not everyone is online all the time, nor does everyone WANT to be online all the time. Some people don't trust ANY corporations continues existence just to be able to play a game they paid money for (and thus OWN, at least by common wisdom). I don't understand how Steam gets a pass even. Stardock I can see, but Steam is pretty nasty in my book. Worse than the old "you must have the book/wheel" schemes in the 80's, and far far worse than Stardock's system. 10 years from now steam might be long dead, but I still will own the manual to Wasteland, and the wheel from Hillsbrad.
Actually, DRM should die, period. I would switch to console, but they aren't worth the value. And even then they're moving towards online DRM schemes. Hell, even the overpriced shit they want me to replace my perfectly good DVD player with wants me to be online all the time.
I see it as they don't want my money. I shouldn't have to suffer to give people profit. They WANT their stuff to be free.
Bizarre, don't they know that whole generations of people have played with large mercury gobs for fun, or used them to clean dirty coins? Hell, most small placer operations use mercury to concentrate gold. Mercury probably isn't the safest thing in the world, but I really REALLY doubt that it is near as harmful as we decided it must be.
I remember in high school, some moron broke a vial containing less than a single ounce of mercury, they evacuated the whole building (probably around 150 students).
Relax, I don't care. Really, not one bit.
I'm not going to alter my language or humor for your benefit. If your ego feels weakened, that is your problem not mine. Relax, get over it. People are morons, people are intolerant of difference, etc... I'm sure there is a whole group of people who hate me lurking out there somewhere, but I don't care. I like myself. If you don't, then you really can't blame others. You can't expect people to go out of their way just for your benefit.
There is no real harm, since we all decided to let things affect us. Thus affect is a choice, and rests on our individual shoulders.
If you don't like the way someone speaks, who cares? Ignore them, walk away, punch them in the face.
But then again this is coming from someone who calls his gay friends "fags", and his multi-ethnic friends whatever the offensive racial slang is of the day (who return the favor).
We're all too damn sensitive.
It would have probably fallen anyways, as would have the Soviet Union. A large part of Soviet Communism's downfall was internal.
You sound like a crank or a hair stylist - not sure which.
Good ad hominem, I'll try to keep that in mind, thanks.
You should actually crack a history book instead of getting your "news" from the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times.
As should anyone who waxes romantic about any partisan figure. Romanticizing Reagan is just as bad as demonizing him. My point is that he was just another crooked politician looking out for his cronies, and ruling based on a myopic ideology, just like most of the rest of them.
And you should throw in an economics class for good measure.
As should you, since you would learn that economics is largely a bunch of opinions, and is about as objective as Sociology (a little more, perhaps, but there still is a ton of disagreement in the field).
I'm guessing this is you defending the "trickle down" idea, or perhaps his decision that regulation exists for no reason whatsoever. As for those, the former has no real-world proof of actually being functional. The latter is ignoring the fact that regulation came into being to stop abuses, and generally deregulation has lead to pretty bad consequences (see our current mess).
I don't see where I was historically inaccurate, if you would have held back the ad hominem, and actually entered a discussion, or tried to correct me, it would have been helpful, or at least entertaining.
I'll never understand why it's "idiotic" to try and protect our people from nuclear strikes. I guess it's better if we just leave our cities vulnerable to blackmail by any crackpot despot who manages to figure out how to build a deliverable nuclear weapon.
It was a lot of money for a program that never would have actually, you know, worked. There was a lot of scientists who told him that it never would, but he still persisted.
That and the fact that it could have led to further escalation of the Cold War, and further nuclear prolification. It also would have broken some treaties, if I remember correctly.
I have nothing against protecting the so-called Homeland (I hate that term though), but we should do something EFFECTIVE to do so, with care not to make our problems worse, and we should have to do it legally, obviously.
I don't understand the Reagan nostalgia one bit. He introduced idiotic SDI program (Starwars), he renewed the cold war (though was fortunate enough to last until its inevitable decline, and thus take credit), he introduced the terrible "trickle down" motivation to focus everything on the rich and deprive the other 70% of the population of any benefits, he decided running government based on religion was a good idea (while his wife gave him astrological advice), and he started the modern idea of "make less spend more" rebranded as "conservationism" (viz "quit your decent job, get one at Taco Bell, and by a Mercedes Benz"). He continued to destabilize most of the world via the CIA, especially Latin America because he personally didn't agree with their popular democratic governments (for the sake of democracy mind, i.e. American interests). He funded most of the people who are now our "greatest enemies", in his wars against Russia.
What the hell was so great about him, except charisma?
This isn't a partisan attack, I also dislike Clinton, both Bushes, Nixon, and most of Carter. Hell, I even preferred the first Bush over Clinton, even if I lean somewhat left. Hell, I even think Kennedy would have been a terrible president. But after Nixon, Reagan was really the guy who led to the presidency being imperial, and the great destroyer of rights. He held lead into the era where we exist for the government, and not the other way around.
Reagan was one of our worst presidents... Besides GWB, of course, who did the most to destroy America, and all that we are founded on.
tax my brain and force me to actually think.
This is /., we all hate taxes.