Re:Things have been more violent in the past...
on
In the Year 2020
·
· Score: 1
I'm not saying everything is better today, but things aren't nearly as violent as they have been during some periods in the past.
Just wait. They may get there soon enough.
In the 60s and 70s, the President was assinated, we we in a war which was much bigger then the Iraqi conflict as it is today, there were massive race riots, radicals on the left were blowing up banks, radicals on right were burning down Churches, sometimes during Sunday school with children still inside.
Just wait, again. Iraq is slipping through our fingers and will probably eclipse Vietnam in terms of scope in import before it's done. I believe this to be an ugly and defining moment in our history. I hope we can recover from it as we did with the others. I'm not so optimistic anymore though. Our national character has changed. We are fat, coddled and weak in a way which hasn't been true before now.
I think a lot of the things you mention are happening. Our attention is just more fragmented than it has been previously and more of it goes unnoticed.
Re:Internal conflict is what I worry about...
on
In the Year 2020
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Maybe I should complete my thoughts bit better.
I'm perhaps a bit more weary of it all due to the fact that I live in such close proximity to it and get extra-concentrated, regular doses of the national bile. Hence the voicing of my wish to which you refer. The melancholy in my statement perhaps belies my own awareness of the fact that I believe myself to be wishing in one hand and crapping in the other. Foolishly hoping I'll get my wish. The crap hand is fast filling up.
No one has been "nice" here for a long time. Nor should they be now. I would agree, it's high time for the gloves to come off, but I don't have to enjoy it or relish the prospect. Civil strife is anything but civil.
Re:Internal conflict is what I worry about...
on
In the Year 2020
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The country may weaken itself due to internal conflict. Especially if the draconian measures continue to erode our personal freedoms.
It pains me to say this, but I fear you may be on to something. I'm sitting a few blocks from the capitol building right now. I have Thursday off next week (yay!).
Though I can use the rest, I'm troubled for the reasons I'm getting it. The reason: all the forecasts are calling for the most heavily protested inaugural event ever. It is supposedly going to be such a mess due to the number of protesters, that several of our subway lines will be closed, there will sharpshooter around, streets will be closed off and large portions of the city will be virtually off limits.
What the hell is happening to us? We as a nation have historically weathered contentious times in relatively peaceful fashion. It seems as though this may be coming to an end. It is scary and sad.
I couldn't in good conscience tell a protester to stay home and let it slide, so to speak. But I do wish we could all just turn down the volume a bit a try to proceed a bit more mindfully and rationally.
No, I missed it. I treat myself to an Economist when I fly somewhere, so I only see it sporadically. The Economist isn't very economical (kinda like Liberals aren't very liberal). Though, I'd say you certainly get what you pay for in this case.
That's interesting. I'll have to check it out. Was that the last issue?
Especially nice choice in listing "liberal." Classical liberals barely exist in the US anymore. Modern American liberalism is hawking what is essentially the noblese oblige that classical liberals abhorred. They're not even remotely similar.
Much of classical liberal thinking is at the core of the modern American political conscience. But don't try to call a fiscally conservative Republican a liberal. You run a high risk of them slapping or puking on you.
Another perfectly good word, misappropriated and ruined.
As to Nazi Germany being capitalist... I seem to remember they where the National Socialist party. How Socialist they where I do not know.
They were pretty darn socialist in many respects.
The local Gauleiter organized local political unions (for lack of the actual term), or branch of the party. In the early days of the brownshirts, when Adolf's buddy, Roehm, was still running them they were not much more than an organized mob. Once the purging started and the Nazi party had exlusive control of all German political thought and discourse, these organizations missions were expanded to cover virtually all aspects of German life and society. They organized trade and union groups, leisure activities, education... everything. I'm paraphrasing a lot here, but it's more or less an outline of the chain of event from Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich by William L. Shirer.
The corporate/capitalist distinction shouldn't be dismissed either. The factory owners were allowed to keep their interests (and were given additional interests seized from dissenters by the state) as long as they played by the party rules. To think they had any real control over their assets would be a mistake, though. Sure, they were allowed to make money and accumulate wealth, as long they didn't run afoul of Nazi doctrine.
Think about why Schindler had to keep his list a secret. He would have lost everything: life, family, factories. The factories, and keeping what control he could over their production, was the best, and perhaps only, tool he had to save the people he saved.
The Nazis had a very organized planned economy. Highly corporatized at the top and rigidly socialist at the bottom.
One of the biggest differences between Nazi Germany and its communist contemporaries was their emphasis on Aryan purity. The communist brainwashers tended to hype equality among different races, as long as you were a good communist, of course. However, that said, it is certainly arguable whether or not they were any better than the Nazis in practice. Read/watch Europa, Europa sometime. Much is made of this when the main character is captured by the Soviets and sent to the orphanage for reeducation.
My only question is what about the carpet -- say an apartment complex? You can't paint the carpet, so the leak goes through the floor. Does that mean that your downstairs neighbor gets to enjoy a really strong signal?
That might not give you a very desirable result, but you could paint the floor before laying the carpet, or pull it up, paint and re-lay it. The floors in some the apartments I've lived in were so full of rebar concrete, metal framing, and/or duct work that wifi signals didn't get through to begin with.
This could stop it from getting through the sheetrock walls, however.
Why, so he beat any humor an irony right out of the discussion?
Maybe he means WPA or RADIUS, or even WEP, possibly with MAC restrictions and strong passwords. Maybe he means running everything through ssh tunnels on his wide-ass open wireless network.
Probably many of the same ones I was using. You make the mistake of presuming that mathematical theories are inviolate. When conjectures are proven and become theories, they are then accepted as true by the community. This doesn't necessarily remove the possibility, however unlikely, that it will be disproved by someone at later date.
You missed the point. I could have listed theorems, axioms, conjectures and a whole list of other stuff in my original post but it wouldn't have made any sense to the dimwitted creation scientist I was reponding to, just you and me.
I took topology and abstract algebra. I've read Hempel, Popper, and Russell too. I worked proofs o'plenty. If it makes you feel better, just think "conjecture" where I said "theory" for the non-mathematicians. Hell, I'm feeling charitable. You (and only you) can assume the whole list of logical constructions in place of 'theory' in my original post.
If it helps, I was being sarcastic when I wrote it.
Bye, and thanks for being my own personal troll for a few rounds.
Scientists (and other academics, for that matter) have come up with some seemingly ridiculous ideas in other areas and have been allowed to pursue them to the point that they became mainstream.
Puuuulease....
The biggest difference I see between scientists and creation scientists is that when real scientists' seemingly ridiculous ideas get shot down, they tend to go away. Eventually they may come back with another idea, or a modification to the original one (punctuated equilibrium anyone?). Their offensive counterparts in creation science la la land tend to keep coming back with the same ideas, over and over again. They're collectively the basic equivalent of kids playing cops and robbers. Creation science proponents being the ones who keep insisting, 'NO YOU DI'INT!' when one of the other kids shoots them fair and square.
Their ideas more properly belong in a religion or political science text book, if they belong anywhere at all.
Thank you for the clarification, which misses the forest for the trees.
Very little of what you encounter in math textbooks rises to the level of mathematical law. Furthermore, a conjecture is just that. Someone's conjecture.
Please. Split hairs with someone else.
What if these were creation science text books? Would it be okay to put stickers on them warning about quaint and fanciful theories regarding the creation of the universe and the origins of life contained therein? Would the creation science crowd not call foul due to some evolutionist agenda pushing?
Funny. I don't ever recall seeing any such stickers on any of my mathematics text books when I majored in it back in college (I had/have a lot of them) and they are almost nothing but theories.
To pretend the sticker was placed there as some altruistic warning with no religious agenda-pushing pretense is absurd and preposterous.
What part of the article causes you to believe they were there on any sort of business, beyond raising a small amount of hell? Anyone can wait in the security line at a courthouse. You don't need an invitation. The general public can go observe courtroom proceedings (in most cases, but not always) without being courtroom personnel, counsel or party to a lawsuit before the court.
The article did state they are part of a legal reform protest group of some sort, but no where did it say they were there for jury duty or to sue someone or to defend themselves or otherwise having any business before the court.
Based on that, I'm inferring that they were likely there, taking advantage of the public's access to open court proceedings simply to make a nuisance of themselves.
I'm not familiar with this particular courthouse but many small town courthouses grant passes to local attorneys who frequently have business there to get them around the security gates without hassle.
They're getting special treatment... so what?
The courtroom is like an extension of their office in many cases. Doesn't it sound totally unreasonable to make someone with whom you're on a firstname basis waste a minimum of five or more minutes going through a scanner everytime they stop by?
Their livelihood in part depends on their respect for the court and their willingness to abide by a rigorous code of conduct. There are worse consequences for violating this than having to go through the security gate.
If anyone should be told anything, these losers should be told to excerise their first amendment rights where they will not disrupt the court. Maybe, right in front of the courthouse*??? Heh. Looks to me like that's exactly what happened.
And, yes, there are limits to your first amendment rights. Get over it.
* note for the slow folk among us -- that's right outside, on the sidewalk.
I would point out: what the child to my original post referred to isn't anything like the "cool thing" (video delivered over the cellular phone network), mentioned in the article, that I was referring to in the first place.
No, it wouldn't if that's actually what he meant. After rereading his response to my original post, I'm not sure. I didn't parse what he said quite as precisely as you did, but I took him to mean a means of decoding video delivered over a wireless phone network.
I could see this making sense in Japan both ways and likewise failing both ways here in the US.
Firstly, I wonder how much appeal the four networks have around here for most people. Timeshifted viewing, unedited (HBO-style, if you will) content, commercial free viewing... all these concepts are starting to catch on, or have already, here. I can't believe very many people would care about getting over-the-air American network TV on a cell phone. Of course, this assumes they can get a good enough signal to make it practical anyway. I admittedly have no idea, but I'd guess Japanese broadcast TV is less limited due to having to cover a smaller area than the US. I cannot speak to the quality of the content versus the 4 broadcast networks here.
As for the video-over-wireless-phone-network approach, I don't think my collective reasoning is too far off the mark.
I would point out: what the child to my original post referred to isn't anything like the "cool thing" (video delivered over the cellular phone network), mentioned in the article, that I was referring to in the first place.
The fact that they're decent in Japan is probably because their wireless phone infrastructure is light years ahead of the US though, wouldn't you say?
Even if Verizon hands their version out for free, I doubt we'll see this take off here. The typical Japanese appetite for latest, hottest gadgetry far outstrips the typical American appetite.
However, that said, I'd love to be proven wrong on both counts. I just think I will anytime soon.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a lot of the things you mention are happening. Our attention is just more fragmented than it has been previously and more of it goes unnoticed.
I'm perhaps a bit more weary of it all due to the fact that I live in such close proximity to it and get extra-concentrated, regular doses of the national bile. Hence the voicing of my wish to which you refer. The melancholy in my statement perhaps belies my own awareness of the fact that I believe myself to be wishing in one hand and crapping in the other. Foolishly hoping I'll get my wish. The crap hand is fast filling up.
No one has been "nice" here for a long time. Nor should they be now. I would agree, it's high time for the gloves to come off, but I don't have to enjoy it or relish the prospect. Civil strife is anything but civil.
It pains me to say this, but I fear you may be on to something. I'm sitting a few blocks from the capitol building right now. I have Thursday off next week (yay!).
Though I can use the rest, I'm troubled for the reasons I'm getting it. The reason: all the forecasts are calling for the most heavily protested inaugural event ever. It is supposedly going to be such a mess due to the number of protesters, that several of our subway lines will be closed, there will sharpshooter around, streets will be closed off and large portions of the city will be virtually off limits.
What the hell is happening to us? We as a nation have historically weathered contentious times in relatively peaceful fashion. It seems as though this may be coming to an end. It is scary and sad.
I couldn't in good conscience tell a protester to stay home and let it slide, so to speak. But I do wish we could all just turn down the volume a bit a try to proceed a bit more mindfully and rationally.
And may they ever remain the wonderful, cheeky people that they are.
Cheerio.
No, I missed it. I treat myself to an Economist when I fly somewhere, so I only see it sporadically. The Economist isn't very economical (kinda like Liberals aren't very liberal). Though, I'd say you certainly get what you pay for in this case. That's interesting. I'll have to check it out. Was that the last issue?
Make your time.
Especially nice choice in listing "liberal." Classical liberals barely exist in the US anymore. Modern American liberalism is hawking what is essentially the noblese oblige that classical liberals abhorred. They're not even remotely similar.
Much of classical liberal thinking is at the core of the modern American political conscience. But don't try to call a fiscally conservative Republican a liberal. You run a high risk of them slapping or puking on you.
Another perfectly good word, misappropriated and ruined.
They were pretty darn socialist in many respects.
The local Gauleiter organized local political unions (for lack of the actual term), or branch of the party. In the early days of the brownshirts, when Adolf's buddy, Roehm, was still running them they were not much more than an organized mob. Once the purging started and the Nazi party had exlusive control of all German political thought and discourse, these organizations missions were expanded to cover virtually all aspects of German life and society. They organized trade and union groups, leisure activities, education... everything. I'm paraphrasing a lot here, but it's more or less an outline of the chain of event from Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich by William L. Shirer.
The corporate/capitalist distinction shouldn't be dismissed either. The factory owners were allowed to keep their interests (and were given additional interests seized from dissenters by the state) as long as they played by the party rules. To think they had any real control over their assets would be a mistake, though. Sure, they were allowed to make money and accumulate wealth, as long they didn't run afoul of Nazi doctrine.
Think about why Schindler had to keep his list a secret. He would have lost everything: life, family, factories. The factories, and keeping what control he could over their production, was the best, and perhaps only, tool he had to save the people he saved.
The Nazis had a very organized planned economy. Highly corporatized at the top and rigidly socialist at the bottom.
One of the biggest differences between Nazi Germany and its communist contemporaries was their emphasis on Aryan purity. The communist brainwashers tended to hype equality among different races, as long as you were a good communist, of course. However, that said, it is certainly arguable whether or not they were any better than the Nazis in practice. Read/watch Europa, Europa sometime. Much is made of this when the main character is captured by the Soviets and sent to the orphanage for reeducation.
Damn. What kind of house do live in? Or did you just paint the doors and windows shut, too, for extra NSA-quality security? :)
This could stop it from getting through the sheetrock walls, however.
Maybe he means WPA or RADIUS, or even WEP, possibly with MAC restrictions and strong passwords. Maybe he means running everything through ssh tunnels on his wide-ass open wireless network.
Why would encryption equate with WEP necessarily?
Alpha State! Get your stickers and call the school board quickly! I think this databyss guy has found their next textbook.
Damn, that was funny. I'm still laughing. Thank you.
You missed the point. I could have listed theorems, axioms, conjectures and a whole list of other stuff in my original post but it wouldn't have made any sense to the dimwitted creation scientist I was reponding to, just you and me.
I took topology and abstract algebra. I've read Hempel, Popper, and Russell too. I worked proofs o'plenty. If it makes you feel better, just think "conjecture" where I said "theory" for the non-mathematicians. Hell, I'm feeling charitable. You (and only you) can assume the whole list of logical constructions in place of 'theory' in my original post.
If it helps, I was being sarcastic when I wrote it.
Bye, and thanks for being my own personal troll for a few rounds.
Their ideas more properly belong in a religion or political science text book, if they belong anywhere at all.
Very little of what you encounter in math textbooks rises to the level of mathematical law. Furthermore, a conjecture is just that. Someone's conjecture. Please. Split hairs with someone else.
To pretend the sticker was placed there as some altruistic warning with no religious agenda-pushing pretense is absurd and preposterous.
Hahahahahah!!!! Now that, is some damn funny legal humor. Bravo.
The article did state they are part of a legal reform protest group of some sort, but no where did it say they were there for jury duty or to sue someone or to defend themselves or otherwise having any business before the court.
Based on that, I'm inferring that they were likely there, taking advantage of the public's access to open court proceedings simply to make a nuisance of themselves.
I'm not familiar with this particular courthouse but many small town courthouses grant passes to local attorneys who frequently have business there to get them around the security gates without hassle.
They're getting special treatment... so what? The courtroom is like an extension of their office in many cases. Doesn't it sound totally unreasonable to make someone with whom you're on a firstname basis waste a minimum of five or more minutes going through a scanner everytime they stop by?
Their livelihood in part depends on their respect for the court and their willingness to abide by a rigorous code of conduct. There are worse consequences for violating this than having to go through the security gate.
If anyone should be told anything, these losers should be told to excerise their first amendment rights where they will not disrupt the court. Maybe, right in front of the courthouse*??? Heh. Looks to me like that's exactly what happened.
And, yes, there are limits to your first amendment rights. Get over it.
* note for the slow folk among us -- that's right outside, on the sidewalk.
My interest is piqued. Did I read you properly or did 'ANSI C compiler guy' (I jest) who responded to me get it right?
I could see this making sense in Japan both ways and likewise failing both ways here in the US. Firstly, I wonder how much appeal the four networks have around here for most people. Timeshifted viewing, unedited (HBO-style, if you will) content, commercial free viewing... all these concepts are starting to catch on, or have already, here. I can't believe very many people would care about getting over-the-air American network TV on a cell phone. Of course, this assumes they can get a good enough signal to make it practical anyway. I admittedly have no idea, but I'd guess Japanese broadcast TV is less limited due to having to cover a smaller area than the US. I cannot speak to the quality of the content versus the 4 broadcast networks here.
As for the video-over-wireless-phone-network approach, I don't think my collective reasoning is too far off the mark.
I would point out: what the child to my original post referred to isn't anything like the "cool thing" (video delivered over the cellular phone network), mentioned in the article, that I was referring to in the first place.
don't think I will, that is.
Even if Verizon hands their version out for free, I doubt we'll see this take off here. The typical Japanese appetite for latest, hottest gadgetry far outstrips the typical American appetite.
However, that said, I'd love to be proven wrong on both counts. I just think I will anytime soon.