I like what you've said here. Invoking fractalness seems more appropriate than claiming any relationship to hypertext, which is a bit more of an eccentric claim.
There was dualism represented by white and black very early in the series. In one of the first few episodes of Season 1, Lockes eyes are one black, and one white.
That said, I think the writers had no idea about where it was going and lied about this fact. There are still things to like about the show, and I'm a big fan of the current head writer (BKV) so hopefully some sort of satisfying conclusion will result in these final few episodes.
This is perhaps too harsh. XKCD is sometimes funny and sometimes insightful. Sometimes its not. Randall seems to have become more taken with himself over time which is a bad thing, because the art is brilliant if its a non-artist expressing himself the only way he knows how, OTOH its terrible if its from someone who thinks they are a gift to the art world.
PA used to be funnier and they do phone it in a lot of the time now, but they at least try to do some other things and take it in artistic directions that interest them, which I can respect.
I will say I've been reading qwantz for as long as those other two, and it is still funny, although it doesn't really evolve as a comic. <_< OK...that pun was terrible.
Companies that treat their employees well don't have unions...SHOCKER!
If every company out there treated their employees that well, there wouldn't be a need for unions. No one said they are the be all end all, but RJ Reynolds isn't enough to sustain the middle class all by itself.
Free speech is about being able to get your message out against the government. To say that "copyright trumps free speech" is exactly wrong. Where copyright is counter to free political speech, copyright gives way.
And Freedom of Religion means you get to fly planes into buildings, right? There are pragmatic constraints on rights. To suggest otherwise means you're either very stupid or a child. What's more disappointing is that you were modded up.
Good liberalism supports totally free speech: freedom of speech, freedom of expression. For supposed "liberal" artists to get upset when their works are used as free speech is hypocritical.
Good conservativism teaches that freedom of expression and specifically music (more specifically rock music) is a tool of the devil. For supposed "conservative" politicians to play Don Henley is hypocritical.
But no, the Right is lauded for appropriating culture, the Left is criticized for being pragmatic, and drivel like this gets upvoted. Sad world.
Except cops are busting people who have a glass of wine with their kids, they're busting rampant parties where 15 year olds are disturbing the neighborhood, getting into fights, and date raping each other (and no, I don't just mean statutory).
Man, I remember when Slashdot's IQ wasn't in the single digits. Ah for the good ol' days.
I know that recently the Google Blog has spoken about the number of requests they get for information from the government, and their intention to stay as transparent as they can. That said, I'm still no fan of Google for the way they track and store your searches.
Also, a bit offtopic, but their once clean UI continues its downward slide. Its like someone there wants them to someday achieve the level of unusability that facebook has achieved. Anyways, there are other search engines out there.
Yeah, I absolutely agree. Legal definitions that drift apart from the common usage of particular words cause confusion and unnecessary negative connotations. Calling it Civil Union avoids that problem.
A similar issue would seem to be statutory rape. When you have a 17 year old getting it on with an 18 year old, or even another 17 year old, that is not rape. And saying that a 17 year old can't consent is simply inaccurate to what is occurring. They might be being exploited, or not old enough to make the right choices, but to say they aren't consenting implies something other than what actually happened.
What law would you have congress enact? The SCOTUS is there to interpret the constitution. The way they're doing it is abhorent, and clearly politically motivated (as opposed to looking to make good law), but its certainly in the scope of their job to do so.
I would certainly argue IP law is inherently unconstitutional. The construct by which abstract things can be "owned" is deeply flawed. Some of those flaws are exposed each time technology advances. Free speech and our right to ownership of our own person are ultimately compromised (things like patenting DNA).
This isn't really the sort of issue justices are chosen for. Not that they should be chosen for stance on an issue at all, but I'd say if its going to happen, its going to be about abortion or progressiveness in general.
Obama's a pragmatist. He may float a less progressive nominee hoping that it will ease the nomination process. Which would really be too bad (see Slate's article on how law student's don't have any heroes anymore) for several reasons.
Anyways, defeating IP nonsense should be the within the domain of the liberals (being a socially liberal stance), but it doesn't always work out that way. As it is, we're looking at a crap shoot. It might be true that Diane Wood would be a beneficial choice if work enforcing anti-trust laws can be read to mean she's anti-corporatists, but who knows. The best thing you can do is write your Senator and try to get a question asked during the confirmation hearings.
Wow. Union bashing apparently doesn't need to have any real substantive base anymore, you can just go at it without knowing any facts at all.
Which is too bad. As the unions go, so goes the middle class. This is historically accurate. But hey, if the wealthy can convince the stupid to hate unions, I don't have a huge problem with it. I've been in management. My subordinates made a fraction of what their union counterparts did, and we treated them terribly. Yet they still bashed unions.
So you didn't read the article then? What happened to slashdot? You've been modded as insightful...this is ridiculous.
From the paper:
The paper spoke to a co-author of the legislation. She called the DA's letter "irresponsible" and said it was "laughable to think teachers could be charged for telling students how to use contraception."
"Using condoms isn't a crime for anyone," said Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, D-Madison. "This guy is not a credible legal source on this matter, I'm sorry to say. His purpose is to intimidate and create enough panic in the minds of school administrators that they'll turn their backs on young people and their families."
The only one talking about the 'contributing to delinquency' law is the insano DA. And the reason they're teaching kids about contraception isn't that kids will have sex as a consequence, but that kids will have sex regardless.
And do you really think the Republican DA wants the old law changed? It'd be terrific if he did, but let's face facts, his agenda is abstinence only, which we know doesn't work.
Christ slashdot has gotten stupid. It wasn't like this 10 years ago. Get your heads out of your asses.
We need anti-UFO guns too. If we're not prepared for them, we're just inviting aliens to attack us.
Look, maybe people do go a bit overboard with this 'war between nations is obsolete' stuff, but on the other hand, America's understanding of China is just friggin' embarrassing. Its been 20 years of 'I don't trust the Chinese' or 'They have a bigger army' or 'They're going to beat us economically'. NEWSFLASH: China helped save our American asses when the recession hit. It wasn't some wiley crazy plan.
If you're intensely cynical, you could say the self-interest that's motivating them is because they need the US to buy their products, but ultimately, you're going to have accept a fact. China is not perfect and the way they treat their people is at times grotesque, but its also not evil.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow...the Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarians live here on Slashdot.
Sure you might say that. But I would suggest you're just taking a very reticular view of what is in essence really a fabrege egg.
I like what you've said here. Invoking fractalness seems more appropriate than claiming any relationship to hypertext, which is a bit more of an eccentric claim.
There was dualism represented by white and black very early in the series. In one of the first few episodes of Season 1, Lockes eyes are one black, and one white.
That said, I think the writers had no idea about where it was going and lied about this fact. There are still things to like about the show, and I'm a big fan of the current head writer (BKV) so hopefully some sort of satisfying conclusion will result in these final few episodes.
This is perhaps too harsh. XKCD is sometimes funny and sometimes insightful. Sometimes its not. Randall seems to have become more taken with himself over time which is a bad thing, because the art is brilliant if its a non-artist expressing himself the only way he knows how, OTOH its terrible if its from someone who thinks they are a gift to the art world.
PA used to be funnier and they do phone it in a lot of the time now, but they at least try to do some other things and take it in artistic directions that interest them, which I can respect.
I will say I've been reading qwantz for as long as those other two, and it is still funny, although it doesn't really evolve as a comic. <_< OK...that pun was terrible.
Companies that treat their employees well don't have unions...SHOCKER!
If every company out there treated their employees that well, there wouldn't be a need for unions. No one said they are the be all end all, but RJ Reynolds isn't enough to sustain the middle class all by itself.
And Freedom of Religion means you get to fly planes into buildings, right? There are pragmatic constraints on rights. To suggest otherwise means you're either very stupid or a child. What's more disappointing is that you were modded up.
Good conservativism teaches that freedom of expression and specifically music (more specifically rock music) is a tool of the devil. For supposed "conservative" politicians to play Don Henley is hypocritical.
But no, the Right is lauded for appropriating culture, the Left is criticized for being pragmatic, and drivel like this gets upvoted. Sad world.
Except cops are busting people who have a glass of wine with their kids, they're busting rampant parties where 15 year olds are disturbing the neighborhood, getting into fights, and date raping each other (and no, I don't just mean statutory).
Man, I remember when Slashdot's IQ wasn't in the single digits. Ah for the good ol' days.
Why does this get modded as insightful? You're the opposite of insightful. You're sophmoric.
Youths smoking does increase when there are no laws against it. And then they get addicted, and their life expectancy loses 20 years.
You believe in the moon...haha sucker! They've pulled the wool over your eyes entirely...
I know that recently the Google Blog has spoken about the number of requests they get for information from the government, and their intention to stay as transparent as they can. That said, I'm still no fan of Google for the way they track and store your searches.
Also, a bit offtopic, but their once clean UI continues its downward slide. Its like someone there wants them to someday achieve the level of unusability that facebook has achieved. Anyways, there are other search engines out there.
Yeah, I absolutely agree. Legal definitions that drift apart from the common usage of particular words cause confusion and unnecessary negative connotations. Calling it Civil Union avoids that problem.
A similar issue would seem to be statutory rape. When you have a 17 year old getting it on with an 18 year old, or even another 17 year old, that is not rape. And saying that a 17 year old can't consent is simply inaccurate to what is occurring. They might be being exploited, or not old enough to make the right choices, but to say they aren't consenting implies something other than what actually happened.
but I have no idea why someone would use there phone to view pornography as opposed to, say, a home computer.
Also the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition? Really? When did this become pornography?
That corpratist is currently working on bringing financial reform to Wall Street.
What law would you have congress enact? The SCOTUS is there to interpret the constitution. The way they're doing it is abhorent, and clearly politically motivated (as opposed to looking to make good law), but its certainly in the scope of their job to do so.
I would certainly argue IP law is inherently unconstitutional. The construct by which abstract things can be "owned" is deeply flawed. Some of those flaws are exposed each time technology advances. Free speech and our right to ownership of our own person are ultimately compromised (things like patenting DNA).
This isn't really the sort of issue justices are chosen for. Not that they should be chosen for stance on an issue at all, but I'd say if its going to happen, its going to be about abortion or progressiveness in general.
Obama's a pragmatist. He may float a less progressive nominee hoping that it will ease the nomination process. Which would really be too bad (see Slate's article on how law student's don't have any heroes anymore) for several reasons.
Anyways, defeating IP nonsense should be the within the domain of the liberals (being a socially liberal stance), but it doesn't always work out that way. As it is, we're looking at a crap shoot. It might be true that Diane Wood would be a beneficial choice if work enforcing anti-trust laws can be read to mean she's anti-corporatists, but who knows. The best thing you can do is write your Senator and try to get a question asked during the confirmation hearings.
The parent is at +5. I'm not sure I've ever seen more immediate evidence that some was wrong about something.
We don need no stinking Badgers, not when we have the fighting Lactococcus Lacti!
Wow. Union bashing apparently doesn't need to have any real substantive base anymore, you can just go at it without knowing any facts at all.
Which is too bad. As the unions go, so goes the middle class. This is historically accurate. But hey, if the wealthy can convince the stupid to hate unions, I don't have a huge problem with it. I've been in management. My subordinates made a fraction of what their union counterparts did, and we treated them terribly. Yet they still bashed unions.
*pencils in trip to Europe w/beach time on itinerary* ...better to get used to it sooner rather than later, right?
I completely agree. Why should anyone support a product that got its start as malware. I'd love to see them tank.
Well, regardless of qualifications, he's probably one of the top 5 presidents we've ever had.
It'd be interesting to see how well the US would be doing if war wasn't constantly being waged on it by the wealthy and the stupid.
So you didn't read the article then? What happened to slashdot? You've been modded as insightful...this is ridiculous.
From the paper:
The paper spoke to a co-author of the legislation. She called the DA's letter "irresponsible" and said it was "laughable to think teachers could be charged for telling students how to use contraception."
"Using condoms isn't a crime for anyone," said Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, D-Madison. "This guy is not a credible legal source on this matter, I'm sorry to say. His purpose is to intimidate and create enough panic in the minds of school administrators that they'll turn their backs on young people and their families."
The only one talking about the 'contributing to delinquency' law is the insano DA. And the reason they're teaching kids about contraception isn't that kids will have sex as a consequence, but that kids will have sex regardless.
And do you really think the Republican DA wants the old law changed? It'd be terrific if he did, but let's face facts, his agenda is abstinence only, which we know doesn't work.
Christ slashdot has gotten stupid. It wasn't like this 10 years ago. Get your heads out of your asses.
We need anti-UFO guns too. If we're not prepared for them, we're just inviting aliens to attack us.
Look, maybe people do go a bit overboard with this 'war between nations is obsolete' stuff, but on the other hand, America's understanding of China is just friggin' embarrassing. Its been 20 years of 'I don't trust the Chinese' or 'They have a bigger army' or 'They're going to beat us economically'. NEWSFLASH: China helped save our American asses when the recession hit. It wasn't some wiley crazy plan.
If you're intensely cynical, you could say the self-interest that's motivating them is because they need the US to buy their products, but ultimately, you're going to have accept a fact. China is not perfect and the way they treat their people is at times grotesque, but its also not evil.