companies should NOT get a free ride on any marketing, much less marketing to children.
I agree with this. I don't care if a consenting adult shoves his burger hole full of McDonalds "food". But I think it is unethical to directly market to young children.
It also stems from the fact that we don't lock up innocent people in the western world.
Say what?
Given that in America, at least, the *ideal* is to hold all charged with a crime as innocent until otherwise proven guilty, how would you explain the situation at Gitmo? There are people who have been incarcerated there for years now without even being *charged* with a crime, never mind having had even a bullshit kangaroo-court trial.
I'm a believer in habeas corpus: either put up, or shut up.
I run into the same situation at my job. Some people just refuse to accept that no matter how dedicated they are to their job, at the end of the day, what the CEO says is what must get done. Even if it's stupid, it still must get done. Try reasoning with management, if you must/dare, but do what it is they ask regardless of how idiotic it might seem at the time.
If you want to call all the shots at work, start your own business. Otherwise, do what the check-signers say (unless it's patently illegal).
Bruce is the friggin' man. He ought to get some kind of advisory role in the next administration. I think his views on security in general would help straighten out a lot of FUD...assuming that anyone in Washington would actually listen to him, that is.:)
No, it's the democratic governments that are controlled by the people, so therefore, any controlling done by the government is controlling by the people (by proxy).
America is *not* a democracy, however. It is a republic.
So in essence, controlling of the populace is done by the government in what they view as the "best interest" of the people and not necessarily at the direct and express request of the people. Big effing difference, at least in my paranoid liberal opinion.
I've got a Canon S750, and it is great on reporting ink levels. It also has three separate color cartridges, which is nice. There have a been a few times when it was over zealous in reporting low ink, but all I had to do was take the cartridge out and put it back in and it ran fine until it was actually out of ink.
The war on terror is every bit as much bullshit as the war on drugs. You cannot win a war against an idea.
Amen! I've been saying this same thing for years now, and people just don't seem to understand that you cannot defeat a concept with a gun or with economic sanctions.
And since it seems that we are determined to continue these foolish crusades against ideas, I propose that we launch a global "War on War."
Doesn't it make sense to cut the highest paid people? Isn't this what we demand that companies do (i.e. stop paying the CEOs and managers so much more than the peons?
Wouldn't it make more sense to cut a few executive bonuses by a few percent instead of firing a couple thousand hard-working "peons", as you call them? If you want to talk about cutting pay at the top, then start at the *actual* top, not near the bottom.
The Matrix films don't involve much real philosophy beyond the brain in a vat thought experiment. After that, it's not really philosophy, merely, "deep." i.e. it sounds nice, but means nothing.
I suppose it depends on how you define philosophy. I regard the first Matrix film as being very philosophical. It raises some important questions, such as:
What is real?
What is reality?
Is there just one reality?
Is there such a thing as a "perfect copy" (ie - a simulacrum)? If so, is the copy just as good a the original?
I consider those to be heavy-duty philosophical topics. And there's also this book, which is fantastic (and no, the link is not an affiliate link).
Sounds like fun, I can't imagine why this hasn't been done yet!!! Do you honestly believe that a politician would be involved with legislation specifically designed to get people to stop doing things that they enjoy?
And there's the problem:
1) When politicians aren't pandering to corporate lobbyists and special interest groups, they're busy worrying about getting reelected rather than doing what needs to be done (as un-fun as it might be). What would be nice would be to have a crop of politicians that put reelection as a lower priority than doing actual legislative work.
2) Americans, by and large, really care about the environment and people in other countries and other parts of the world...until it negatively impacts them having a good time or becomes, in some way, inconvenient.
It would be great if all of us (Americans, that is) could see our lives (really see it) relative to those who live in countries like Sudan or even Iraq. I think that would help put things into perspective and stop all the whining about gas prices and credit card debt. But I could be wrong.:)
Looks like the folks at SGI really did have a plan for restructuring. It's a shame that is' predicated on litigation rather than innovation. Although with the way companies are greedily gobbling up "intellectual property" (hah!), I don't feel too much pity for ATI.
I wonder if the cost of going forward with this suit will hamper SGI's ability to produce and market new products?
My guess is that they will, ultimately, lose this case, and that they will end up, in 18 months or so, filing Chapter 22.
The recent law that Bush signed gives him (the office of President) and the Secretary of Defense sole discretion in determining who qualifies as an enemy combatant. The old guidelines are out the window.
Check this out for more info: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/ Note: the article was written after the bill was passed by Congress but before Bush signed it into law.
Since the report was recently released (yesterday), I wonder if the US' ranking includes the fact that habeas corpus has more or less been abolished for any US citizen that the president deems to be an "enemy combatant"?? I'm guessing that after the election, there are going to be journalists who will be shut down (read: vanish) on the grounds that they are undermining the War on Terror(tm) by vocalizing criticism of administration policy.
Then again, as a journalist, I'm a little bit biased in favor of the first amendment (for everyone, not just my viewpoint).
If you're so sure he has, why are you posting as an Anonymous Coward?
Because since Bush just signed into law the abolishment of habeus corpus, any citizen can be detained for any length of time with no probable cause and no access to legal council and no way to demand that a court review the charges. People, citizens no less, can now -- in America -- just disappear.
Oh shit! Forgot to post as AC...Hotel Guantanamo here I come.
Instead of making America take more drugs and waste more money, how about they just ban high fructose corn syrup? We might not have the big diabetes epidemic we have right now if we stopped filling all our food with such a dangerous sweetener.
While I agree with you that there is entirely too much high fructose corn syrup in the foods that are commonly available, I don't think banning it is an appropriate fix. Corn syrup, in and of itself, isn't deadly, so there's no need to ban it. People who cannot grasp the concept of moderation will not be helped by banning any given thing. They'll just find something else to abuse.
People need to take responsibility for their own dietary intake. If they become giant blubbering lard-asses and develop Type II diabetes through their own actions, so be it. I don't want to be denied access to something because other people are too goddamn stupid to stop constantly shoveling it in their pie hole.
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds like an interesting book. Do you recall the title and/or author?
Thanks
Definitely felt the whole building moving. Very new feeling for me.
I'm sure it's no biggie for West Coast folks, but that's the first time I felt the actual ground under me move.
I agree with this. I don't care if a consenting adult shoves his burger hole full of McDonalds "food". But I think it is unethical to directly market to young children.
Dude, I totally spewed water all over my keyboard. That's going on a t-shirt!
I have always found it highly questionable that something one can give away for free should be illegal to sell.
Reminds me of the old George Carlin line:
Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? :)
It also stems from the fact that we don't lock up innocent people in the western world.
Say what?
Given that in America, at least, the *ideal* is to hold all charged with a crime as innocent until otherwise proven guilty, how would you explain the situation at Gitmo? There are people who have been incarcerated there for years now without even being *charged* with a crime, never mind having had even a bullshit kangaroo-court trial.
I'm a believer in habeas corpus: either put up, or shut up.
Well said, Sycraft.
I run into the same situation at my job. Some people just refuse to accept that no matter how dedicated they are to their job, at the end of the day, what the CEO says is what must get done. Even if it's stupid, it still must get done. Try reasoning with management, if you must/dare, but do what it is they ask regardless of how idiotic it might seem at the time.
If you want to call all the shots at work, start your own business. Otherwise, do what the check-signers say (unless it's patently illegal).
Bruce is the friggin' man. He ought to get some kind of advisory role in the next administration. I think his views on security in general would help straighten out a lot of FUD...assuming that anyone in Washington would actually listen to him, that is. :)
You should run for office. I would totally vote for you.
No, it's the democratic governments that are controlled by the people, so therefore, any controlling done by the government is controlling by the people (by proxy).
America is *not* a democracy, however. It is a republic.
http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html
So in essence, controlling of the populace is done by the government in what they view as the "best interest" of the people and not necessarily at the direct and express request of the people. Big effing difference, at least in my paranoid liberal opinion.
I've got a Canon S750, and it is great on reporting ink levels. It also has three separate color cartridges, which is nice. There have a been a few times when it was over zealous in reporting low ink, but all I had to do was take the cartridge out and put it back in and it ran fine until it was actually out of ink.
Amen! I've been saying this same thing for years now, and people just don't seem to understand that you cannot defeat a concept with a gun or with economic sanctions.
And since it seems that we are determined to continue these foolish crusades against ideas, I propose that we launch a global "War on War."
Dude, that just blew my mind. Brilliant!
Wouldn't it make more sense to cut a few executive bonuses by a few percent instead of firing a couple thousand hard-working "peons", as you call them? If you want to talk about cutting pay at the top, then start at the *actual* top, not near the bottom.
Simple: Stillsuit
Probably not long. And then only the criminals will have hammers. That's why we should all join the National Hammer Association.
They can have my hammer when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
I suppose it depends on how you define philosophy. I regard the first Matrix film as being very philosophical. It raises some important questions, such as:
What is real?
What is reality?
Is there just one reality?
Is there such a thing as a "perfect copy" (ie - a simulacrum)? If so, is the copy just as good a the original?
I consider those to be heavy-duty philosophical topics. And there's also this book, which is fantastic (and no, the link is not an affiliate link).
And there's the problem:
1) When politicians aren't pandering to corporate lobbyists and special interest groups, they're busy worrying about getting reelected rather than doing what needs to be done (as un-fun as it might be). What would be nice would be to have a crop of politicians that put reelection as a lower priority than doing actual legislative work.
2) Americans, by and large, really care about the environment and people in other countries and other parts of the world...until it negatively impacts them having a good time or becomes, in some way, inconvenient.
It would be great if all of us (Americans, that is) could see our lives (really see it) relative to those who live in countries like Sudan or even Iraq. I think that would help put things into perspective and stop all the whining about gas prices and credit card debt. But I could be wrong.
Looks like the folks at SGI really did have a plan for restructuring. It's a shame that is' predicated on litigation rather than innovation. Although with the way companies are greedily gobbling up "intellectual property" (hah!), I don't feel too much pity for ATI.
I wonder if the cost of going forward with this suit will hamper SGI's ability to produce and market new products?
My guess is that they will, ultimately, lose this case, and that they will end up, in 18 months or so, filing Chapter 22.
You're right, it's not a totally unbiased look at the issue. But it does highlight some very real potential abuses of the new law.
The recent law that Bush signed gives him (the office of President) and the Secretary of Defense sole discretion in determining who qualifies as an enemy combatant. The old guidelines are out the window.
Check this out for more info:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/
Note: the article was written after the bill was passed by Congress but before Bush signed it into law.
Since the report was recently released (yesterday), I wonder if the US' ranking includes the fact that habeas corpus has more or less been abolished for any US citizen that the president deems to be an "enemy combatant"?? I'm guessing that after the election, there are going to be journalists who will be shut down (read: vanish) on the grounds that they are undermining the War on Terror(tm) by vocalizing criticism of administration policy.
Then again, as a journalist, I'm a little bit biased in favor of the first amendment (for everyone, not just my viewpoint).
Because since Bush just signed into law the abolishment of habeus corpus, any citizen can be detained for any length of time with no probable cause and no access to legal council and no way to demand that a court review the charges. People, citizens no less, can now -- in America -- just disappear.
Oh shit! Forgot to post as AC...Hotel Guantanamo here I come.
No it's not.
While I agree with you that there is entirely too much high fructose corn syrup in the foods that are commonly available, I don't think banning it is an appropriate fix. Corn syrup, in and of itself, isn't deadly, so there's no need to ban it. People who cannot grasp the concept of moderation will not be helped by banning any given thing. They'll just find something else to abuse.
People need to take responsibility for their own dietary intake. If they become giant blubbering lard-asses and develop Type II diabetes through their own actions, so be it. I don't want to be denied access to something because other people are too goddamn stupid to stop constantly shoveling it in their pie hole.