I don't know about Canada, but the US is not a democracy, and it was never intended to be. The founders of the country setup a representative republic, where people elect representatives based on their views, and leave the legislative decisions to those representatives. If they don't perform as you want them to, you vote against them next election cycle.
I, for one, am glad it is that way. If we all had to vote on every piece of legislation, laws were never be passed, but that is the very definition of a complete democracy. As for random legislators, I don't know that anyone would go for that. There would be people with absolutely no interest in the process being asked to vote on things that they have no clue about, and don't have the time/inclination/pick your excuse to properly research and make their decision on the legislation. Kids should also not be able to vote. They don't understand, in most cases, what they are voting for. Granted many people who vote also have no clue what they are voting for, but they are of legal age to be considered adults, can be drafted, fight for their country, etc. Kids should be allowed to be kids and not worry about the politics of the day, and giving their vote to the parents just gives people with children more of a say than people without. While this would benifit me personally, I don't think people without children should get any less say in how are tax $'s are spent just because they don't have kids. Personally, I like the system the way it is, just that the people within the system are, in many cases, corrupt and/or out of touch with the general population.
Seems to me that the whole article is indicative of people in general. People tend to congregate with other people with the same interests/views etc. Just post an article about Microsoft or religion in/. and read the posts, almost all of which are negative toward those respective subjects. On the flip side, post a story about Linux or P2P networks, and the responses are generally positive. Everyone has a bias, and they vote for the things that represent their bias. Nothing wrong with it, but the whole study seems like they were stating the obvious.
I wonder how much time and money they spent on this study...
I did read it. I also knew that someone would misunderstand what my point was because I didn't word it very well. I know P2P software in itself isn't illegal. What I was trying to convey was that the university may have had a concern because P2P is used for illegal activity as well legal activity, and may not have wanted any association with it. This is why I would like to have seen a release that had their POV on it, so we could be more informed about their reason for, and logic behind, pressuring him to resign.
Not saying I agree with the university or the instructor, just another point of view on the subject.
Talking about P2P networks isn't illegal (at least in the USA, maybe Spain is different). My suspicion is that the university didn't want anyone on their payroll to be endorsing illegal activity (which obviously happens on P2P networks). It would be similar to someone inciting a riot, only without the physical harm and property damage, only monotary damage. The university may also have been afraid of lawsuits because they gave the teacher resources (time, place, etc.) to encourage using P2P for distribution of copyrighted material. Like it or not (I don't) it is illegal to distribute music, movies, etc without permission.
I do wish that/. would have posted the other side of this instead of just the link to the teacher's blog where only his side is brought out. It would have been nice to have an opposing point of view to see if there were other circumstances surrounding the pressured resignation.
It got the "Flamebait" because you're comment didn't have any left wing propaganda, and that seems to be the only thing appreciated by a lot of/. readers.
And I'll say it, the US is better than Cuba, and any other socialist/communist regime.
All these people complaining about the US election system. Must be because they keep losing elections.
Just another note, the USA is not, has never been, and wasn't intended to be, a democracy. It is a representative republic (hence the name "Republicans"). You may have even heard about it in the Pledge of Allegiance "...and to the Republic..."
Okay, I read the web sites you linked to and, I will agree, that those are nutjobs (who should have gotten the death penalty, btw). But they only represent a very small part of the midwest (not to mention they are in Kansas, nowhere near where I am). These are the exact type of nutjobs that get passed off in the media as representative of life in the midwest, and it just isn't the case. And for people who don't know any different to take an example like this and extrapolate that the entire midwestern population is like this would be/is stereotyping. The only thing I have in common with those extremists is that I think homosexuality is wrong, but that's my opinion and I don't try to force it on anyone else. The only thing I ask is that it works both ways. I shouldn't have to agree that it's okay either.
I don't know what "Matthew Shepard Burn in Hell" is, but I am gathering it was some sort of gay bashing publication from a wacko homophobe. Frankly, I couln't care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes, even if I happen to think it's wrong.
I think a lot of what people say about the inland culture is a matter of perception. You percieve that we are afraid of anything different, and we perceive that the coastal areas are afraid of any kind of rules and/or religion. Even the very mention of the word brought profanities and insults to anyone who happens to believe in God (not from you, I appreciate that you have been pretty civil).
I don't know anyone afraid of "newly expressive members of society" around here. What I will say, without apology, is that behaviours can be very disturbing, and my perception from way over here in Indiana is that places like California and New York seem out of control. Rampant drug use/abuse, violent crime, high taxes to support the results of those behaviours, etc.. all, in my opinion, stem from the breakdown of people willing to follow the rules, combined with the breakdown of the "midwestern" family values that are ridiculed.
I also enjoy influencing people, so long as they are as reasonable as you have been. I have thouroughly enjoyed this. At the least, I have had good communication with someone who thinks things through even though, as you say, we don't agree.
Also, if you look back through this thread, you'll see that the first time I posted anything was after the anonymous coward had already posted ridiculous claims and insults toward the midwest, so I could not have provoked the insults he delivered, and his second, and most charming, "asshole" comment was because of the way a message was formatted, not because of the content of the message. You, on the other hand, only threw out a couple of mild remarks that followed my sarcasm (which was only intended as humor, but did spark off an interesting discussion), which I can understand.
First of all, I did not sterotype all left wingers as thinking that anyone religious is a conservative hypocrite. That deduction was made about a single person based on his/her comments on slashdot (and I say his/her because the post was anonymous, at least you used your username). So your first paragraph in the previous post I disregarded as an honest misunderstanding. If I wasn't clear on that, I apologize. I don't think anyone voting blue is an idiot. Many of my peers are liberal and we have some very good discussions. Obviously from my statements, I am right leaning, but not without thought. I have no problem being critical of a Republican.
I did not ignore the point of your last post, he did sterotype an entire group. "Anyone else that voted for Bush is..." So he was talking about anyone else that voted for Bush. Furthermore, and I quote: "The middle or America is still in the middle ages if you evaluate based on what you find in the heads." This statement cleary states that the entire middle of America, ie: midwest, is ignorant. I don't know anyone here that wants to burn witches (which was also a claim he/she made). There are some wacko's here, and ours tend to be right wingers. A lot of people here belive the exact same thing about the coasts, a bunch of out of control left wing wackos, which do tend to be in the major metropolitan area. I don't subscribe to this particular way of thinking, and believe, from experience, that the wackos in those areas tend to be left wing wackos, but most of the people in those areas are NOT ignorant left wing nutjobs.
I happen to work in the automotive industry and, although there is a lot in Detroit, most of the assembly plants are no longer located there. The entire GMT800 platform (full size trucks) are built in the midwest. Janesville, WI, Oklahoma City, OK, and Mishawaka, IN are not exactly Detroit. There are also many automotive plants in Ohio, Kentucky, et al.
I never claimed that agriculture was a Midwestern invention. What has been done in the midwest, however, is maximizing what can be done on a small piece of land. I noticed in your remarks that you think the current farmers are destroying the quality of the product and the ecosystem. While I am not an agricultural expert, it seems to me that they are doing more work with less land, and many farms are being turned into housing developments because of the overcapacity that the innovations made in farming have created. So there is less land being used for farming, and more land being used by people for living, I am confused as to how that is destroying the ecosystem.
Another observation I have made in this particular thread is that, so far, I have been called "closed minded", ignorant, and asshole to name a few (your's was not the asshole comment). I have not resorted to name calling (unless you consider "left winger" name calling, but I figured the guy/girl would be proud of that particular label) and have only debated with facts and my conclusions given the information. You have stuck, for the most part, to facts and your opinion, with only a couple of cheap shots. Why is that.
I really do enjoy intelligent discussion, but the person that started with the ingorant midwestern crap really was out of line. I think even you would admit that there are intelligent people and stupid people everywhere.
I think you missed the point, my sarcasm must have gotten in the way. Let me spell it out for you.
People from the midwest aren't a bunch of ignorant hicks. There are a few things that come out of the midwest that you may have heard of, automobiles and food, for example. Some of the most advanced manufacturing and farming techniques are developed in this area (those creative midwest hicks).
The other irony I find with the previous statement is the sterotype of a certain group of people. I am inferring that this is coming from another person that thinks that anyone religous is a conservative hypocrite (ie: left winger). This is the same group that rails against any type of sterotype that they don't like, then turns around and really believes that they are being logical and making a valid point by using the very thing they claim to hate (again, the stereotype).
I really thought that most people, even ones I don't agree with, were smart enough to know that there is diversity within every group. Yes, there are midwest hicks, and there are nutjobs living in every part of the country and world, but to pigeon hole and entire group of people because of their politcal and/or religious views is insane. I have heard on conservative radio that this stereotype was held by certain groups of people (before you start into a rant about conservative radio, I also listen to liberal radio to get both sides) but didn't believe it. Maybe there is some truth to the statement.
"The rest of Bush-voters are the dumb mid-west sunday school peasants who can only count to two (that many barrels in their shotguns). They simply succumb to Dumbya (more precisely the jews who hold his puppet-strings). The middle or America is still in the middle ages if you evaluate based on what you find in the heads. They would be burning witches if it were not against the FBI."
There's some intelligent discourse, oh wait, I am a Midwestern hick and am not supposed to be able to use words with multiple syllables
The ruling was not put forth by the entire court, just by a three judge panel, with one of the panel members noting that the supreme court already found the pledge constitutional. The government will most likely ask that the entire court hear the case, where, according to NPR, the panel will probably be overturned.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about Canada, but the US is not a democracy, and it was never intended to be. The founders of the country setup a representative republic, where people elect representatives based on their views, and leave the legislative decisions to those representatives. If they don't perform as you want them to, you vote against them next election cycle.
I, for one, am glad it is that way. If we all had to vote on every piece of legislation, laws were never be passed, but that is the very definition of a complete democracy. As for random legislators, I don't know that anyone would go for that. There would be people with absolutely no interest in the process being asked to vote on things that they have no clue about, and don't have the time/inclination/pick your excuse to properly research and make their decision on the legislation. Kids should also not be able to vote. They don't understand, in most cases, what they are voting for. Granted many people who vote also have no clue what they are voting for, but they are of legal age to be considered adults, can be drafted, fight for their country, etc. Kids should be allowed to be kids and not worry about the politics of the day, and giving their vote to the parents just gives people with children more of a say than people without. While this would benifit me personally, I don't think people without children should get any less say in how are tax $'s are spent just because they don't have kids. Personally, I like the system the way it is, just that the people within the system are, in many cases, corrupt and/or out of touch with the general population.
Some cells are replaced by new ones, and some are not. I don't believe that brain cells are replaced, once they are dead, you just have fewer.
That's also my rationalization for drinking, kill off the weak brain cells and the rest must work faster...
Seems to me that the whole article is indicative of people in general. People tend to congregate with other people with the same interests/views etc. Just post an article about Microsoft or religion in /. and read the posts, almost all of which are negative toward those respective subjects. On the flip side, post a story about Linux or P2P networks, and the responses are generally positive. Everyone has a bias, and they vote for the things that represent their bias. Nothing wrong with it, but the whole study seems like they were stating the obvious.
I wonder how much time and money they spent on this study...
I did read it. I also knew that someone would misunderstand what my point was because I didn't word it very well. I know P2P software in itself isn't illegal. What I was trying to convey was that the university may have had a concern because P2P is used for illegal activity as well legal activity, and may not have wanted any association with it. This is why I would like to have seen a release that had their POV on it, so we could be more informed about their reason for, and logic behind, pressuring him to resign.
Not saying I agree with the university or the instructor, just another point of view on the subject.
Talking about P2P networks isn't illegal (at least in the USA, maybe Spain is different). My suspicion is that the university didn't want anyone on their payroll to be endorsing illegal activity (which obviously happens on P2P networks). It would be similar to someone inciting a riot, only without the physical harm and property damage, only monotary damage. The university may also have been afraid of lawsuits because they gave the teacher resources (time, place, etc.) to encourage using P2P for distribution of copyrighted material. Like it or not (I don't) it is illegal to distribute music, movies, etc without permission.
/. would have posted the other side of this instead of just the link to the teacher's blog where only his side is brought out. It would have been nice to have an opposing point of view to see if there were other circumstances surrounding the pressured resignation.
I do wish that
It got the "Flamebait" because you're comment didn't have any left wing propaganda, and that seems to be the only thing appreciated by a lot of /. readers.
And I'll say it, the US is better than Cuba, and any other socialist/communist regime.
All these people complaining about the US election system. Must be because they keep losing elections.
Just another note, the USA is not, has never been, and wasn't intended to be, a democracy. It is a representative republic (hence the name "Republicans"). You may have even heard about it in the Pledge of Allegiance "...and to the Republic..."
Okay, I read the web sites you linked to and, I will agree, that those are nutjobs (who should have gotten the death penalty, btw). But they only represent a very small part of the midwest (not to mention they are in Kansas, nowhere near where I am). These are the exact type of nutjobs that get passed off in the media as representative of life in the midwest, and it just isn't the case. And for people who don't know any different to take an example like this and extrapolate that the entire midwestern population is like this would be/is stereotyping. The only thing I have in common with those extremists is that I think homosexuality is wrong, but that's my opinion and I don't try to force it on anyone else. The only thing I ask is that it works both ways. I shouldn't have to agree that it's okay either.
I don't know what "Matthew Shepard Burn in Hell" is, but I am gathering it was some sort of gay bashing publication from a wacko homophobe. Frankly, I couln't care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes, even if I happen to think it's wrong.
I think a lot of what people say about the inland culture is a matter of perception. You percieve that we are afraid of anything different, and we perceive that the coastal areas are afraid of any kind of rules and/or religion. Even the very mention of the word brought profanities and insults to anyone who happens to believe in God (not from you, I appreciate that you have been pretty civil).
I don't know anyone afraid of "newly expressive members of society" around here. What I will say, without apology, is that behaviours can be very disturbing, and my perception from way over here in Indiana is that places like California and New York seem out of control. Rampant drug use/abuse, violent crime, high taxes to support the results of those behaviours, etc.. all, in my opinion, stem from the breakdown of people willing to follow the rules, combined with the breakdown of the "midwestern" family values that are ridiculed.
I also enjoy influencing people, so long as they are as reasonable as you have been. I have thouroughly enjoyed this. At the least, I have had good communication with someone who thinks things through even though, as you say, we don't agree.
Also, if you look back through this thread, you'll see that the first time I posted anything was after the anonymous coward had already posted ridiculous claims and insults toward the midwest, so I could not have provoked the insults he delivered, and his second, and most charming, "asshole" comment was because of the way a message was formatted, not because of the content of the message. You, on the other hand, only threw out a couple of mild remarks that followed my sarcasm (which was only intended as humor, but did spark off an interesting discussion), which I can understand.
First of all, I did not sterotype all left wingers as thinking that anyone religious is a conservative hypocrite. That deduction was made about a single person based on his/her comments on slashdot (and I say his/her because the post was anonymous, at least you used your username). So your first paragraph in the previous post I disregarded as an honest misunderstanding. If I wasn't clear on that, I apologize. I don't think anyone voting blue is an idiot. Many of my peers are liberal and we have some very good discussions. Obviously from my statements, I am right leaning, but not without thought. I have no problem being critical of a Republican.
I did not ignore the point of your last post, he did sterotype an entire group. "Anyone else that voted for Bush is..." So he was talking about anyone else that voted for Bush. Furthermore, and I quote: "The middle or America is still in the middle ages if you evaluate based on what you find in the heads." This statement cleary states that the entire middle of America, ie: midwest, is ignorant. I don't know anyone here that wants to burn witches (which was also a claim he/she made). There are some wacko's here, and ours tend to be right wingers. A lot of people here belive the exact same thing about the coasts, a bunch of out of control left wing wackos, which do tend to be in the major metropolitan area. I don't subscribe to this particular way of thinking, and believe, from experience, that the wackos in those areas tend to be left wing wackos, but most of the people in those areas are NOT ignorant left wing nutjobs.
I happen to work in the automotive industry and, although there is a lot in Detroit, most of the assembly plants are no longer located there. The entire GMT800 platform (full size trucks) are built in the midwest. Janesville, WI, Oklahoma City, OK, and Mishawaka, IN are not exactly Detroit. There are also many automotive plants in Ohio, Kentucky, et al.
I never claimed that agriculture was a Midwestern invention. What has been done in the midwest, however, is maximizing what can be done on a small piece of land. I noticed in your remarks that you think the current farmers are destroying the quality of the product and the ecosystem. While I am not an agricultural expert, it seems to me that they are doing more work with less land, and many farms are being turned into housing developments because of the overcapacity that the innovations made in farming have created. So there is less land being used for farming, and more land being used by people for living, I am confused as to how that is destroying the ecosystem.
Another observation I have made in this particular thread is that, so far, I have been called "closed minded", ignorant, and asshole to name a few (your's was not the asshole comment). I have not resorted to name calling (unless you consider "left winger" name calling, but I figured the guy/girl would be proud of that particular label) and have only debated with facts and my conclusions given the information. You have stuck, for the most part, to facts and your opinion, with only a couple of cheap shots. Why is that.
I really do enjoy intelligent discussion, but the person that started with the ingorant midwestern crap really was out of line. I think even you would admit that there are intelligent people and stupid people everywhere.
I think you missed the point, my sarcasm must have gotten in the way. Let me spell it out for you.
People from the midwest aren't a bunch of ignorant hicks. There are a few things that come out of the midwest that you may have heard of, automobiles and food, for example. Some of the most advanced manufacturing and farming techniques are developed in this area (those creative midwest hicks).
The other irony I find with the previous statement is the sterotype of a certain group of people. I am inferring that this is coming from another person that thinks that anyone religous is a conservative hypocrite (ie: left winger). This is the same group that rails against any type of sterotype that they don't like, then turns around and really believes that they are being logical and making a valid point by using the very thing they claim to hate (again, the stereotype).
I really thought that most people, even ones I don't agree with, were smart enough to know that there is diversity within every group. Yes, there are midwest hicks, and there are nutjobs living in every part of the country and world, but to pigeon hole and entire group of people because of their politcal and/or religious views is insane. I have heard on conservative radio that this stereotype was held by certain groups of people (before you start into a rant about conservative radio, I also listen to liberal radio to get both sides) but didn't believe it. Maybe there is some truth to the statement.
"The rest of Bush-voters are the dumb mid-west sunday school peasants who can only count to two (that many barrels in their shotguns). They simply succumb to Dumbya (more precisely the jews who hold his puppet-strings). The middle or America is still in the middle ages if you evaluate based on what you find in the heads. They would be burning witches if it were not against the FBI." There's some intelligent discourse, oh wait, I am a Midwestern hick and am not supposed to be able to use words with multiple syllables
The source of this was "All Things Considered", the afternoon news program on NPR. I can't remember who the comentator was.
The ruling was not put forth by the entire court, just by a three judge panel, with one of the panel members noting that the supreme court already found the pledge constitutional. The government will most likely ask that the entire court hear the case, where, according to NPR, the panel will probably be overturned.