Anyone see the irony in the medical field making these announcements about sleep and memory, while at the same time the people entering the medical field as interns an the like to learn are busy working 36 hour shifts and struggling for sleep?
Perhaps doctors would get better faster if they had time to sleep after the workday and establish what they learned in their memory? And at the same time reduce the number of people misdiagnosed and mistreated because the doctor hasn't had any sleep in the same time you've had two full nights' worth?
I'll make a bet with anyone that the field that made the discovery is the first to ignore it's implications... ---
It's funny, because if you do a search, and Yahoo goes to google, well, google uses the ODP in it's search. So Yahoo often ends up returning results from the ODP. Guess they have it covered, don't they? They can be lax on their directory because they've got a better one to back them up. ---
Moron Party: I'm such a complete idiot that, although I meant to vote for Gore, I was baffled by this extremely simple ballot. I am clearly too stupid to be included in the process of electing a president."
Sigh.
1) A few people well experienced in UI design have all commented on the ballot and stated that it was designed very poorly.
2) When you're told it's been confusing people, then you'll look at it with figuring it out in mind. There's a difference between that, and just sitting down to vote and then being caught off guard with it.
3) The results speak for themselves. You can make fun of it all you want, but it's clear that it significantly affected the results. If the mechanism for voting affects the results, then the mechanism is faulty.
4) The better-than-thou attitude, the feelings of superiority, are a sign that nobody should take any of your opinions seriously since you're more interested in making yourself better than others than actually being concerned with any problems, the truth, etc. ---
think that the new controller for RTS games wouldn't be very good. I think all the avid gamers are already used to key combinations, such as B->F for building a farm, or pressing F1, F2 for group command forces. So I don't think a controller would be necessary for these types of things
Unless they're using over 24 hotkeys, then the controller still gives the advantage of putting them right at your fingers where they're easier to get to. I have the 6 buttons programmed for each of the 4 states (one unshifted and three shifted) for Quake, and it's not really too much.
But I could see some of its use for Diablo II, and like Unreal Tournament. Instead of switching spells in Diablo 2 with the F1-F8 keys or pressing S, you could easily program a button to do what you feel like, because in diablo II, theres a whole mess of spells that are useful, but we have to reorder them in only 8 keys. In first person shoot em up, you could use them to do specific things, like switching weapons, reloading, opening doors. That would save a lot of time.
The thing is great for Diablo II. I've been working on programming mine, by paying attention to what I use the most, and rearranging the profile based on that. It's definately easier not to have to hunt around the keyboard.
There's also the ease of switching skills with the hotkeys right at your fingers, and it would be no problem to set up sort of a "pre-combat" macro, for example, with the barb, just program it to do the three war cries you want before dealing with monsters. One click, you're all set.
ANY program that doesn't require regular use of more than 24 or 26 keys becomes easier with the SC. Even if you can control everything with the mouse, if there are hotkeys that you can use, or a map to scroll around, this is an improvement.
No, I'm not a M$ supporter, just someone who is VERY happy with this controller. ---
Simply, YES, it works incredibly well, if you are willing to put a little bit of time into getting the feel for it. It's a little tough at first, but a couple days and you can adapt.
Just don't program the twisting to do anything, at least if you're going to use the mouse to look. ---
I've hardly used it with any strategy games because I've been too busy using it for Quake 2 and Quake 3.
It works incredibly well for the directional movement (after setting the dead zone to the largest setting), allowing me forward, backward, and strafing with ease. And, unlike using the keyboard, I still have ALL of my fingers free while moving. It takes a period of adjustment (I spent the first weekend beating Quake 2 on single player mode for the first time), but after, I'm definately playing better.
I was a bit concerned at first that the three shift buttons and the seeming closeness of the finger buttons might make them a bit difficult to use, but that hasn't been the case at all. I have them ALL bound for my Q2CTF play - and how many of you can bounce around, moving in all directions, jumping and croutching, while sending messages to your team that the base is under attack? You'd have to be amazing with the keyboard to pull that off, yet it's easy for me.
The only real problem I had was that the unit wasn't heavy enough to keep from sliding and slipping during play. After all, you're not going to be moving it as much in a strategy game. A little bit of sticky tack (that adhesive putty often used for posters in college) to the bottom has anchored it solidly to my desk, and solved it completely.
All told, I am VERY happy with the money spent on this, especially since you can play just about any game using it. Even simple stuff like SC3000, or Rollercoaster Tycoon - just bind the hot keys to the thing, and you're more efficient.
Of course, if you're a keyboard master on the FPS games, you probably won't improve. ---
True, they make things more lenient for something that cannot be proven.
It's not like I don't see the reason to be against hate crimes. I'll be honest, I think the stiffer penalties should be handed out for HOW the crime was performed. After all, hate crimes almost always result in more vicious crimes, because the criminal is releasing the anger in that way. So if we penalized for that, it would catch most of them, and they wouldn't need to continue to list what qualifies as a hate crime.
But I think there are plenty of hate crimes which are more obvious in what they are then many self-defense and mental defect cases. For example, what happened to Matthew Sheppard, or that guy down in Texas - while you can't prove it 100%, you can easily eliminate any reasonable doubt it was a hate crime. ---
The thing to pay attention to today is that the anti-political correctness movement is much bigger than political correctness ever was. It's gotten to the point where it's more acceptable to be a racist/bigot than to try to tell people those kinds of viewpoints are wrong. The first is almost honored for "fighing against political correctness", while the second gets you in trouble for promoting that evil PC stuff...
Besides, for some of us, it's not about "doing what we're told", it's about giving a shit about the feelings and thoughts of others and not needlessly offending and insulting them. But then again, so many people are busy being "strong" by fighting political correctness (usually by doing anything they can find that is supposedly wrong under PC) that they neither realize anti-PC is more common, and that they're pissing people off in the process.
Most of the people who do things that are considered "politically correct" don't do the because they're considered that, they do them because they think it's right. ---
Hate Crimes Legislation => Thought Crimes Legislation
Don't forget that there are plenty of other laws that base the punishment (or lack thereof) based on what you were thinking at the time. If you kill someone because you THOUGHT your life was in danger, it's called self-defense. If you have a mental defect, you can plead not guilty due to it. I've not seen many people throwing fits about those... ---
stand sadly corrected. Evidently at one time Bush did not believe witchcraft is a religion, and possibly still does not. I'm not sure I can blame him for that. However, you may take solace in the fact that it's the judicial system which ultimately decides if something is a religion, or maybe the IRS. There's got to be some guidelines! E.g., me worshipping my car constitutes being deranged, not having a religion.
In any case, the ultimate decision on whether a belief system is a religion does not lie with the President--and we need to be careful about extending 'religion' status to just any old belief system. There must be some rational guidelines.
I don't think anyone should be getting into the area of deciding what makes a religion legitimate, and what doesn't. It shouldn't matter. You shouldn't be allowed to do something other people aren't just because of your religion, and you shouldn't be kept from doing things other people are allowed to (by the government, of course).
After all, when someone decides what makes a religion, and what doesn't, it's all due to personal perspectives and biases. For example, claim that car worship is a sign of being deranged. Wouldn't ritual cannibalism and the belief that bread becomes flesh fit that also? There isn't a single religion that doesn't have SOMETHING about it that other people would consider downright ridiculous - why leave it up to someone who might see it that way to determine if it's legit? ---
A good point, but isn't the president's influence on things like this minimal?
I do believe he's got the power to issue executive orders which can influence some things. He's stated in the past (I probably can find a place that still has the quote) that if elected, he will sign an executive order to prohibit practice of Wicca in the military. (so the people fighting for our freedoms don't get the protection of them?)
He does have some influence. And just as we wouldn't want a racist president, since it has some effect, we really shouldn't want a religious bigot there either. ---
Check out the response to a similar question at Web White & Blue.
His response there?
Religious Freedom And Tolerance Is A Protected Right
I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity.
Whether Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, or Muslim, Americans should be able to participate in their constitutional free exercise of religion. I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it.
(emphasis added)
What's funny is that allowing Wiccans in the military to practice is promoting witchcraft... but allowing Christians to practice isn't an unconstitutional promotion of Christianity.
Regardless, if he's going to arbitrarily decide something doesn't count as a religion, and therefore doesn't deserve 1st Amendment protection, then he's not truly in favor of religious freedom and diversity. ---
The question was ridiculous anyway, as it applied to such a small minority of its readers.
Bull. This is EXACTLY why it was an important question. The majority doesn't need protection from the government - they ARE the government, their will directs what the government does. It's the minorities that are always the victims. The majority denies them their rights, their freedoms, and elects people to do the same. And you're not really free if you don't have the same rights if you choose not to be part of the mainstream (or never even have the choice to be in it).
We should always be on the alert for people who refuse to help out the minorities - because when you frame demographics in a certain way, YOU become the minority. And if you don't support the rights of the minority while in the majority, who's going to support yours when you become one? ---
where is freedom from religion spelled out in our country's constitution or laws?
It's part of freedom of religion. You don't have true freedom if you don't have the right to not believe in any of them. After all, freedom of speech includes the right to not say anything, and freedom of assembly doesn't mean that can assemble in any group you want just as long as you pick one, right?
The majority doesn't look down on you if you choose not to voice your opinions... but they do if you choose not to believe in a supernatural entitiy (or entities) - but then again, they also look down on you if you don't believe in the ones they approve of. ---
Is anyone else just getting really sick and tired of this? It's one thing to continue to make fun of someone because of something they really said or really did. But continuing to use this comment, which has been shown repeatedly to NOT have been what he said, is horrible. It's pretty said when someone decides to ignore the truth and continue to repeat a proven falsehood... ---
I am committed to the First Amendment, whether the person believe in a Judeo-Christian God, a Judeo-Christian God, a Judeo-Christian God, or a Judeo-Christian God.
Very very well put... of course he didn't actually address the REAL minority religions, the ones that aren't considered mainstream minority. But that's not necessary, because we already knows how he feels on that.
Heck, if give then chance, since "Wicca" isn't a religion according to him, he'd probably like to have them tossed in jail with drug users (other than himself, of course) because of the "moral damage" they do to him and this wonderful nation of Christians. ---
Our current political system is based upon the assumption that those elected to office are benevolent, but that ignores the truth of the corruptability of man.
And the more fundamental flaw of the gullibility of people. The willingness to believe what a person says even when their past record doesn't live up to it, because what they say sounds so good. The high number of people that fall victim to psychics, faith healers, and the like is proof of this - the lack of critical thinking most people have.
When they're so easily taken in by the small timers like this, of course the charismatic con-men that are attracted to power will gravitate to politics, because there they can get it. There they can get control over peoples' lives, over money, etc. (A few hundred years ago they went into religion, because they had a lot of power and control there. Some still do, but it doesn't have the importance it used to.)
Sometimes I think the flaw is that we have to vote for people who WANT into office - I worry that politicans are the worst people to run the country. (OK, second worst, behind religious leaders - but then again, they already run quite a bit *Cough*Pat Robertson*Cough*Christian Coalition*Cough*Republicans*Cough*. ---
I am tired of hearing people complain about the way the system works or that the people in office are crooks, etc. The only way to change the system is to make your voice heard. Don't like any of the candidates. Vote against the one you hate most. Your state going to elect the guy you don't like for president? Vote for a 'third-party' candidate. Maybe that person will now get 5% of the vote and their party gets matching government funds.
I wonder if it's time to find/found a group/party with the sole intention of "fixing" the system, to return more power to the people, and try and reduce the corporate and republocrat hold on the government. Not one that gets involved in all the other issues, because that just becomes divisive, but solely with improving things.
If there's one out there, please someone, let us know. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would want to get involved. And if there isn't, anyone up for trying to create one? ---
The best way to put it is: If you don't care about the government, then the government won't care about you.
If you don't take the time to use the little bit of influence you have, the government's not going to bother doing anything to please you. Why should they care if they upset you, or even take away your freedoms, when you won't spend the time or the effort to let them know how you feel?
Sitting around complaining and doing little more doesn't change anything, it just makes you unhappier. And the fact is, it has a lot of effect on your life - even if you're not in the US. Don't believe me? The free market and capitalism sure didn't bring about this internet thing.
Oh, and if you're only concerned about the internet, technology, computers, and programming, then you're in trouble anyways. ---
I know the big problem with the strategic commander for a lot of people here is that it's by M$ and therefore only for Windows. But I would suggest people get working on making a driver for it, because it is quite useful - and seems to be tons better than this device. As pointed out by cdrugde, the thing moves in the x and y directions, plus twist, and then has all those buttons on top of it. And it's useful for many games - already used it on Diablo II with some success, and just about any game that makes use of the keyboard can be adapted to it.
It took me the weekend to get used to it for Quake - at first I was having a lot of trouble moving around. So I used the time to finally beat Quake 2 on single player, and in the process, got the hang of it, and am already better than I ever was with the keyboard.
Now I just need to find a good way to keep it stuck in one place on the desk - it's not quite heavy enough to handle the movement of a game of CTF without sliding a little. Going to try some sticky tack on it, see if that does it. ---
You left out the "threat of force" part and that is crucial. Under capitalism workers trade the products of thier labor away in return for a wage, no force involved.
Bull. Physical force isn't the only force. Being told you have to work to be able to have shelter and food is economic force. You are not free to "opt-out" of the economic system in the US; you have to participate to live. You are FORCED to be involved.
It doesn't matter whether the choice is between "turn over your work products or get shot" or "turn over your work products or starve"; and in some ways, the former is nicer because your death is quicker and less painful.
At least in a socialist society, everyone benefits from everyone else's work In a capitalist society, only a few already wealthy people really benefit from that work. ---
McReynolds made alot of good points, but I guess what I would like to know is why as school children, etc., we have been brainwashed to "fear" Socialism?
Cold war/anti-communism (and socialism by extention) mentality that they tried to entrench in us. See, they're the enemy, they do things differently, and their way is wrong, which is why we're fighting them. Or something like that.
And I think there's also a lot of that protestant work ethic in this country, where you are defined by your work and how hard to work at it, and you get your rewards in life based on that work - so financial success means you're a hard worker, and lack of success means you're lazy and a leech. (See just about any anti-welfare tirade for more evidence of this) Of course, bad luck and bad situation don't come into play in it...
I'll be honest, I think a lot of it is selfishness; the "I earned it, it's all mine" attitude. That having some of your money taken away for some "service" that is hard to quantify seems to be unfair. And the richer you are, the more you pay for these "services" that people would rather pay "on their own" instead of to the government - of course, never mind the people who can't pay for it on their own for whatever reason. ---
In the same paragraph, McReynolds calls himself an athiest, and then at the end, he thanks God.
Is he lying? Just using cliche to get himself elected?
"Thank god..." is a phrase that has pretty much become divorced from the actual meaning of the words. I'm atheist, yet I use it. And also things like "holy shit!", "god damn!", or whatever. Heck, when people sneeze you say "bless you" - do you really intend for some higher entity to give them their blessings over a sneeze? ---
I'm suprised McReynolds replied here to Slashdot. If he's paid any attention he's got to know that it has a very large Anarcho-Libertarian user base. (Including the fringe who seem to want to eliminate government and turn the world into something that resembles corporate feudalism "for the good of capitalism")
His Socialist views surely are going to get little more than attacked and razzed by the majority on this site. Personally, though I like some of his ideas, and do believe that some decently intelligent people running the gov't with the best interests of the public (and not just themselves like today's politicnas) in mind can do some things better than any money/greed driven could ever do. Mind you, not ALL things better, just some of them. ---
I nearly forgot, to some people being able to tell a lie well is more important than the ability to tell the truth.
Who's telling the truth? Gore and Bush both lie, just that Bush doesn't say it as well.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but you don't have a right to sodomy.
It's kind of funny to hear these people talking about the "moral decay" in this country promiting views that it's ok to hate, but not ok to love. And some people might want to think that the guarantee of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" might include being able to be with the person who makes you happy without requiring government approval.
It's not their fault some people have decided it's more important to take moral advice from a book that talks about selling daugthers into slavery and having a bear maul kids to death over making fun of someone's bald head.
Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. Do you ask Jewish people not to wear certain articles of head covering when they're in your presence? Would you ask me to cover the Hex on my chest if we were swimming at the same public pool? Would you ask a muslim woman to remove that silly little veil so that you can see who you're talking to?
Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion. You're not really free to believe what you wish if you're still required to believe in one of them. But that doesn't mean being free from all religious symbolism anywhere, since you have to respect the freedom of others also, but it means not having religion forced on you by the government.
Besides, Bush doesn't believe in freedom of religion. He's already decided to pick and choose for himself which belief systems are legitimate religions and which aren't, and he's stated publicly that he doesn't consider Wicca a religion - and stated he plans to sign an executive order to prevent Wiccans from practicing in the military. Never mind that pesky first amendment. ---
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone see the irony in the medical field making these announcements about sleep and memory, while at the same time the people entering the medical field as interns an the like to learn are busy working 36 hour shifts and struggling for sleep?
Perhaps doctors would get better faster if they had time to sleep after the workday and establish what they learned in their memory? And at the same time reduce the number of people misdiagnosed and mistreated because the doctor hasn't had any sleep in the same time you've had two full nights' worth?
I'll make a bet with anyone that the field that made the discovery is the first to ignore it's implications...
---
It's funny, because if you do a search, and Yahoo goes to google, well, google uses the ODP in it's search. So Yahoo often ends up returning results from the ODP. Guess they have it covered, don't they? They can be lax on their directory because they've got a better one to back them up.
---
Moron Party: I'm such a complete idiot that, although I meant to vote for Gore, I was baffled by this extremely simple ballot. I am clearly too stupid to be included in the process of electing a president."
Sigh.
1) A few people well experienced in UI design have all commented on the ballot and stated that it was designed very poorly.
2) When you're told it's been confusing people, then you'll look at it with figuring it out in mind. There's a difference between that, and just sitting down to vote and then being caught off guard with it.
3) The results speak for themselves. You can make fun of it all you want, but it's clear that it significantly affected the results. If the mechanism for voting affects the results, then the mechanism is faulty.
4) The better-than-thou attitude, the feelings of superiority, are a sign that nobody should take any of your opinions seriously since you're more interested in making yourself better than others than actually being concerned with any problems, the truth, etc.
---
think that the new controller for RTS games wouldn't be very good. I think all the avid gamers are already used to key combinations, such as B->F for building a farm, or pressing F1, F2 for group command forces. So I don't think a controller would be necessary for these types of things
Unless they're using over 24 hotkeys, then the controller still gives the advantage of putting them right at your fingers where they're easier to get to. I have the 6 buttons programmed for each of the 4 states (one unshifted and three shifted) for Quake, and it's not really too much.
But I could see some of its use for Diablo II, and like Unreal Tournament. Instead of switching spells in Diablo 2 with the F1-F8 keys or pressing S, you could easily program a button to do what you feel like, because in diablo II, theres a whole mess of spells that are useful, but we have to reorder them in only 8 keys. In first person shoot em up, you could use them to do specific things, like switching weapons, reloading, opening doors. That would save a lot of time.
The thing is great for Diablo II. I've been working on programming mine, by paying attention to what I use the most, and rearranging the profile based on that. It's definately easier not to have to hunt around the keyboard.
There's also the ease of switching skills with the hotkeys right at your fingers, and it would be no problem to set up sort of a "pre-combat" macro, for example, with the barb, just program it to do the three war cries you want before dealing with monsters. One click, you're all set.
ANY program that doesn't require regular use of more than 24 or 26 keys becomes easier with the SC. Even if you can control everything with the mouse, if there are hotkeys that you can use, or a map to scroll around, this is an improvement.
No, I'm not a M$ supporter, just someone who is VERY happy with this controller.
---
See my comment here.
Simply, YES, it works incredibly well, if you are willing to put a little bit of time into getting the feel for it. It's a little tough at first, but a couple days and you can adapt.
Just don't program the twisting to do anything, at least if you're going to use the mouse to look.
---
I've hardly used it with any strategy games because I've been too busy using it for Quake 2 and Quake 3.
It works incredibly well for the directional movement (after setting the dead zone to the largest setting), allowing me forward, backward, and strafing with ease. And, unlike using the keyboard, I still have ALL of my fingers free while moving. It takes a period of adjustment (I spent the first weekend beating Quake 2 on single player mode for the first time), but after, I'm definately playing better.
I was a bit concerned at first that the three shift buttons and the seeming closeness of the finger buttons might make them a bit difficult to use, but that hasn't been the case at all. I have them ALL bound for my Q2CTF play - and how many of you can bounce around, moving in all directions, jumping and croutching, while sending messages to your team that the base is under attack? You'd have to be amazing with the keyboard to pull that off, yet it's easy for me.
The only real problem I had was that the unit wasn't heavy enough to keep from sliding and slipping during play. After all, you're not going to be moving it as much in a strategy game. A little bit of sticky tack (that adhesive putty often used for posters in college) to the bottom has anchored it solidly to my desk, and solved it completely.
All told, I am VERY happy with the money spent on this, especially since you can play just about any game using it. Even simple stuff like SC3000, or Rollercoaster Tycoon - just bind the hot keys to the thing, and you're more efficient.
Of course, if you're a keyboard master on the FPS games, you probably won't improve.
---
True, they make things more lenient for something that cannot be proven.
It's not like I don't see the reason to be against hate crimes. I'll be honest, I think the stiffer penalties should be handed out for HOW the crime was performed. After all, hate crimes almost always result in more vicious crimes, because the criminal is releasing the anger in that way. So if we penalized for that, it would catch most of them, and they wouldn't need to continue to list what qualifies as a hate crime.
But I think there are plenty of hate crimes which are more obvious in what they are then many self-defense and mental defect cases. For example, what happened to Matthew Sheppard, or that guy down in Texas - while you can't prove it 100%, you can easily eliminate any reasonable doubt it was a hate crime.
---
The thing to pay attention to today is that the anti-political correctness movement is much bigger than political correctness ever was. It's gotten to the point where it's more acceptable to be a racist/bigot than to try to tell people those kinds of viewpoints are wrong. The first is almost honored for "fighing against political correctness", while the second gets you in trouble for promoting that evil PC stuff...
Besides, for some of us, it's not about "doing what we're told", it's about giving a shit about the feelings and thoughts of others and not needlessly offending and insulting them. But then again, so many people are busy being "strong" by fighting political correctness (usually by doing anything they can find that is supposedly wrong under PC) that they neither realize anti-PC is more common, and that they're pissing people off in the process.
Most of the people who do things that are considered "politically correct" don't do the because they're considered that, they do them because they think it's right.
---
Hate Crimes Legislation => Thought Crimes Legislation
Don't forget that there are plenty of other laws that base the punishment (or lack thereof) based on what you were thinking at the time. If you kill someone because you THOUGHT your life was in danger, it's called self-defense. If you have a mental defect, you can plead not guilty due to it. I've not seen many people throwing fits about those...
---
stand sadly corrected. Evidently at one time Bush did not believe witchcraft is a religion, and possibly still does not. I'm not sure I can blame him for that. However, you may take solace in the fact that it's the judicial system which ultimately decides if something is a religion, or maybe the IRS. There's got to be some guidelines! E.g., me worshipping my car constitutes being deranged, not having a religion.
In any case, the ultimate decision on whether a belief system is a religion does not lie with the President--and we need to be careful about extending 'religion' status to just any old belief system. There must be some rational guidelines.
I don't think anyone should be getting into the area of deciding what makes a religion legitimate, and what doesn't. It shouldn't matter. You shouldn't be allowed to do something other people aren't just because of your religion, and you shouldn't be kept from doing things other people are allowed to (by the government, of course).
After all, when someone decides what makes a religion, and what doesn't, it's all due to personal perspectives and biases. For example, claim that car worship is a sign of being deranged. Wouldn't ritual cannibalism and the belief that bread becomes flesh fit that also? There isn't a single religion that doesn't have SOMETHING about it that other people would consider downright ridiculous - why leave it up to someone who might see it that way to determine if it's legit?
---
A good point, but isn't the president's influence on things like this minimal?
I do believe he's got the power to issue executive orders which can influence some things. He's stated in the past (I probably can find a place that still has the quote) that if elected, he will sign an executive order to prohibit practice of Wicca in the military. (so the people fighting for our freedoms don't get the protection of them?)
He does have some influence. And just as we wouldn't want a racist president, since it has some effect, we really shouldn't want a religious bigot there either.
---
Check out the response to a similar question at Web White & Blue.
His response there?
Religious Freedom And Tolerance Is A Protected Right
I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity.
Whether Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, or Muslim, Americans should be able to participate in their constitutional free exercise of religion. I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it.
(emphasis added)
What's funny is that allowing Wiccans in the military to practice is promoting witchcraft... but allowing Christians to practice isn't an unconstitutional promotion of Christianity.
Regardless, if he's going to arbitrarily decide something doesn't count as a religion, and therefore doesn't deserve 1st Amendment protection, then he's not truly in favor of religious freedom and diversity.
---
The question was ridiculous anyway, as it applied to such a small minority of its readers.
Bull. This is EXACTLY why it was an important question. The majority doesn't need protection from the government - they ARE the government, their will directs what the government does. It's the minorities that are always the victims. The majority denies them their rights, their freedoms, and elects people to do the same. And you're not really free if you don't have the same rights if you choose not to be part of the mainstream (or never even have the choice to be in it).
We should always be on the alert for people who refuse to help out the minorities - because when you frame demographics in a certain way, YOU become the minority. And if you don't support the rights of the minority while in the majority, who's going to support yours when you become one?
---
where is freedom from religion spelled out in our country's constitution or laws?
It's part of freedom of religion. You don't have true freedom if you don't have the right to not believe in any of them. After all, freedom of speech includes the right to not say anything, and freedom of assembly doesn't mean that can assemble in any group you want just as long as you pick one, right?
The majority doesn't look down on you if you choose not to voice your opinions... but they do if you choose not to believe in a supernatural entitiy (or entities) - but then again, they also look down on you if you don't believe in the ones they approve of.
---
Where's the "inventor" of the Internet?
Is anyone else just getting really sick and tired of this? It's one thing to continue to make fun of someone because of something they really said or really did. But continuing to use this comment, which has been shown repeatedly to NOT have been what he said, is horrible. It's pretty said when someone decides to ignore the truth and continue to repeat a proven falsehood...
---
I am committed to the First Amendment, whether the person believe in a Judeo-Christian God, a Judeo-Christian God, a Judeo-Christian God, or a Judeo-Christian God.
Very very well put... of course he didn't actually address the REAL minority religions, the ones that aren't considered mainstream minority. But that's not necessary, because we already knows how he feels on that.
Heck, if give then chance, since "Wicca" isn't a religion according to him, he'd probably like to have them tossed in jail with drug users (other than himself, of course) because of the "moral damage" they do to him and this wonderful nation of Christians.
---
Our current political system is based upon the assumption that those elected to office are benevolent, but that ignores the truth of the corruptability of man.
And the more fundamental flaw of the gullibility of people. The willingness to believe what a person says even when their past record doesn't live up to it, because what they say sounds so good. The high number of people that fall victim to psychics, faith healers, and the like is proof of this - the lack of critical thinking most people have.
When they're so easily taken in by the small timers like this, of course the charismatic con-men that are attracted to power will gravitate to politics, because there they can get it. There they can get control over peoples' lives, over money, etc. (A few hundred years ago they went into religion, because they had a lot of power and control there. Some still do, but it doesn't have the importance it used to.)
Sometimes I think the flaw is that we have to vote for people who WANT into office - I worry that politicans are the worst people to run the country. (OK, second worst, behind religious leaders - but then again, they already run quite a bit *Cough*Pat Robertson*Cough*Christian Coalition*Cough*Republicans*Cough*.
---
I am tired of hearing people complain about the way the system works or that the people in office are crooks, etc. The only way to change the system is to make your voice heard. Don't like any of the candidates. Vote against the one you hate most. Your state going to elect the guy you don't like for president? Vote for a 'third-party' candidate. Maybe that person will now get 5% of the vote and their party gets matching government funds.
I wonder if it's time to find/found a group/party with the sole intention of "fixing" the system, to return more power to the people, and try and reduce the corporate and republocrat hold on the government. Not one that gets involved in all the other issues, because that just becomes divisive, but solely with improving things.
If there's one out there, please someone, let us know. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would want to get involved. And if there isn't, anyone up for trying to create one?
---
The best way to put it is: If you don't care about the government, then the government won't care about you.
If you don't take the time to use the little bit of influence you have, the government's not going to bother doing anything to please you. Why should they care if they upset you, or even take away your freedoms, when you won't spend the time or the effort to let them know how you feel?
Sitting around complaining and doing little more doesn't change anything, it just makes you unhappier. And the fact is, it has a lot of effect on your life - even if you're not in the US. Don't believe me? The free market and capitalism sure didn't bring about this internet thing.
Oh, and if you're only concerned about the internet, technology, computers, and programming, then you're in trouble anyways.
---
I know the big problem with the strategic commander for a lot of people here is that it's by M$ and therefore only for Windows. But I would suggest people get working on making a driver for it, because it is quite useful - and seems to be tons better than this device. As pointed out by cdrugde, the thing moves in the x and y directions, plus twist, and then has all those buttons on top of it. And it's useful for many games - already used it on Diablo II with some success, and just about any game that makes use of the keyboard can be adapted to it.
It took me the weekend to get used to it for Quake - at first I was having a lot of trouble moving around. So I used the time to finally beat Quake 2 on single player, and in the process, got the hang of it, and am already better than I ever was with the keyboard.
Now I just need to find a good way to keep it stuck in one place on the desk - it's not quite heavy enough to handle the movement of a game of CTF without sliding a little. Going to try some sticky tack on it, see if that does it.
---
You left out the "threat of force" part and that is crucial. Under capitalism workers trade the products of thier labor away in return for a wage, no force involved.
Bull. Physical force isn't the only force. Being told you have to work to be able to have shelter and food is economic force. You are not free to "opt-out" of the economic system in the US; you have to participate to live. You are FORCED to be involved.
It doesn't matter whether the choice is between "turn over your work products or get shot" or "turn over your work products or starve"; and in some ways, the former is nicer because your death is quicker and less painful.
At least in a socialist society, everyone benefits from everyone else's work In a capitalist society, only a few already wealthy people really benefit from that work.
---
McReynolds made alot of good points, but I guess what I would like to know is why as school children, etc., we have been brainwashed to "fear" Socialism?
Cold war/anti-communism (and socialism by extention) mentality that they tried to entrench in us. See, they're the enemy, they do things differently, and their way is wrong, which is why we're fighting them. Or something like that.
And I think there's also a lot of that protestant work ethic in this country, where you are defined by your work and how hard to work at it, and you get your rewards in life based on that work - so financial success means you're a hard worker, and lack of success means you're lazy and a leech. (See just about any anti-welfare tirade for more evidence of this) Of course, bad luck and bad situation don't come into play in it...
I'll be honest, I think a lot of it is selfishness; the "I earned it, it's all mine" attitude. That having some of your money taken away for some "service" that is hard to quantify seems to be unfair. And the richer you are, the more you pay for these "services" that people would rather pay "on their own" instead of to the government - of course, never mind the people who can't pay for it on their own for whatever reason.
---
In the same paragraph, McReynolds calls himself an athiest, and then at the end, he thanks God.
Is he lying? Just using cliche to get himself elected?
"Thank god..." is a phrase that has pretty much become divorced from the actual meaning of the words. I'm atheist, yet I use it. And also things like "holy shit!", "god damn!", or whatever. Heck, when people sneeze you say "bless you" - do you really intend for some higher entity to give them their blessings over a sneeze?
---
I'm suprised McReynolds replied here to Slashdot. If he's paid any attention he's got to know that it has a very large Anarcho-Libertarian user base. (Including the fringe who seem to want to eliminate government and turn the world into something that resembles corporate feudalism "for the good of capitalism")
His Socialist views surely are going to get little more than attacked and razzed by the majority on this site. Personally, though I like some of his ideas, and do believe that some decently intelligent people running the gov't with the best interests of the public (and not just themselves like today's politicnas) in mind can do some things better than any money/greed driven could ever do. Mind you, not ALL things better, just some of them.
---
I nearly forgot, to some people being able to tell a lie well is more important than the ability to tell the truth.
Who's telling the truth? Gore and Bush both lie, just that Bush doesn't say it as well.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but you don't have a right to sodomy.
It's kind of funny to hear these people talking about the "moral decay" in this country promiting views that it's ok to hate, but not ok to love. And some people might want to think that the guarantee of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" might include being able to be with the person who makes you happy without requiring government approval.
It's not their fault some people have decided it's more important to take moral advice from a book that talks about selling daugthers into slavery and having a bear maul kids to death over making fun of someone's bald head.
Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. Do you ask Jewish people not to wear certain articles of head covering when they're in your presence? Would you ask me to cover the Hex on my chest if we were swimming at the same public pool? Would you ask a muslim woman to remove that silly little veil so that you can see who you're talking to?
Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion. You're not really free to believe what you wish if you're still required to believe in one of them. But that doesn't mean being free from all religious symbolism anywhere, since you have to respect the freedom of others also, but it means not having religion forced on you by the government.
Besides, Bush doesn't believe in freedom of religion. He's already decided to pick and choose for himself which belief systems are legitimate religions and which aren't, and he's stated publicly that he doesn't consider Wicca a religion - and stated he plans to sign an executive order to prevent Wiccans from practicing in the military. Never mind that pesky first amendment.
---