"The public good" has always been about providing a desirable product or service. Playboy is a legitimate business, but I would be hard-pressed to find any way in which it is for the "public good" other than providing something that people enjoy and are willing to pay for. Beyond that we only require that they not be completely sociopathic and that they obey the law. (Though sadly I admit we are somewhat lax on the latter.)
Your arrogant assertions notwithstanding, it has never meant that they have to be whatever we wish them to be. It has never meant that a website meant to allow friends and like-minded individuals to communicate must operate in such a way that it can instead be used to bring down governments or spread homophobia or anything else without fear of identification. You may have a right to say what you want, but corporations are not and have never been obligated to provide you a soapbox, much less a soapbox constructed entirely to your specifications.
I value the choice for anonymity, but I see no reason that Google or Facebook or any other company should be forced to grant it to you. In fact I tend to agree with their arguments that the site is far more useful without it. If you want to write a new aged Federalist Papers, please do -- but nobody has to help you get it done or published, and if they offer to do so it doesn't give you the right to dictate terms -- corporate charter or no.
Then the 1980s came and the big lie began. Carl Icahn and T. Boone Pickens an other corporate raiders started to argue that businesses had no responsiility but their bottom line.
Okay, but what is your point? Even if we grant you that you are completely and entirely right, the truth matters only in an academic way. In the real world, what matters is the perception of the truth. If I think you just punched me in the face, it only matters tangentially that in actuality it was the guy standing next to you. It's probably not going to stop me from rearing back and popping you. Truth and perception of truth.
If we have been living this lie for nigh on 30 years, is it a lie anymore? Or is it simply a new reality?
EVERY citizen of the United States has civic duties and responsibilties, and if corporations are to be considered "citizens," then why on Earth shouldn't they carry the same duties as the rest of us?
The issue of a corporation as a person is a serious one and one I wholly disagree with, but I am not seeing the inconsistency you seem to. They do have the same responsibilities with the exception of the ones that simply make no sense in the context. They pay taxes according to the law (though the law is a problem here); they are required to obey the law. They can be douchebags, but so can people. What's missing? Being drafted? Impractical. Going to jail? Impractical (though if you want to claim it should be easier to pierce the corporate veil, I agree). Voting? Impractical and undesirable; they are not a person deserving of a vote and they already have what I consider to be far too much free speech. What are they missing? Letting you use their websites in whatever manner and for whatever purpose you please? Yeah, I guess so. We're just going to have to disagree about that one being a responsibility I guess.
I understand that legally speaking, companies need to defend their trademarks. However, I'm not certain where this notion that sending a C&D letter without following it up counts as defending a trademark comes from, and I have seen it at least two times in this thread alone.
If somebody is in court challenging a trademark because it wasn't defended, do you think the judge is going to respond favorably to "But we sent a C&D, we just never had any intention of making him cease or desist!?" Or "you're violating our trademark, stop immediately!" "No we're not." "Oh okay, glad we cleared that up?" I don't see it.
There is definitely a legal requirement to defend one's trademarks, but I strongly doubt that blindly firing C&Ds all over the place that you have no intention whatsoever of following up on counts. Can somebody point to some case law proving me wrong, or is this just some invention of Slashdot with no basis in reality?
When have the Republicans? When Mitch McConnell woke up on the day of his "negotiation" with Obama and published an open letter about how he refuses to raise taxes? "I'm going to a negotiation but refuse to negotiate!" Lovely. We pay this man hundreds of thousands of dollars for this.
In fact, the Democrats haven't even proposed a single bill to correct this situation in either house.
Tax bills must originate in the House -- which the Republicans control. The only reason they bothered writing a bill is because they knew they could shove it through and force the Democrats to vote against it. They knew it had no chance whatsoever of actually becoming law. This is somehow a plus to you?
They just sit there and vote "No" to all options being presented without presenting one of their own.
Probably because the "options" have been "give us our way or fuck off." I personally enjoyed the Republicans' two step plan. Step one: Give us exactly what we want and in return we allow you to advance to step two. Step two: Unlike all evidence up until now, we really really promise to negotiate with you this time. Really. Scout's honor. Will you get any part of your way? Oh hells no, we couldn't do that!
The Republican party has been hijacked by the Tea Party, and they're betting that when the shit hits the fan they won't be the ones blamed. Frankly I'm not so sure. I think this is the first and only election cycle they will be relevant and there is no part of me whatsoever that will be sad about that.
1) Has been on Slashdot a long time.
and
2) Has a modest level of reading comprehension.
and therefore:
3) Knows a self-important twat when he sees one.
Why can't you simply not be snarky and give us the information of what other third-party services that do hosting, fulfillment and billing you have used, and what their costs/rates and terms were, and we can judge for ourselves whether it is not only perfectly reasonable but a damn good deal? If it's that simple, how is it that this debate goes on endlessly -- and not only endlessly, but endlessly without any such information being presented? There's an awful lot of self-appointed experts out there who have the time to stop by and point out (anonymously of course) how expert they are and how important their opinions are and yet somehow lack the time to back them up with anything more like, for examples, facts. It's strange right?
I don't know if you're simply a liar trying to sound important or an asshole who can only be bothered to cut other people down instead of actually provide useful information that may help people out, but the sad reality is that it's one or the other. You claim to have relevant facts, so let's hear them. We're all waiting with bated breath I am sure.
Well that's true, but the underlying problem is that many people can't accept that certain things are not for everybody. This is America, damn it! We're all supposed to have an equal chance of becoming rich tomorrow!
Unfortunately that's just not true. If you have a wife and kids or a sick mother or huge student loans or something, and you lack a deep savings to fall back on, then this advice is not for you. Not everybody can take risks and that's fine.
But at the same time, very few people (who aren't born into it) become uber wealthy without taking those risks. Some people can handle that risk and others can't. It doesn't mean it's bad advice; if you want to become uber-successful it may be great advice. It's just not a guarantee of success, and it's not for everybody. People have to be smart to determine whether it's for them and whether or not they can afford to fail.
The only realistic process I can see to start reforming the US political system--and it may take years or decades even if everything is going to plan--is something like the following:
1. Eliminate closed primaries. Closed primaries are how the fringes continues to exert so much political power and how the centrists get squeezed out. It's how the Tea Party is swinging the Republicans even more conservative than its own leadership is comfortable with. It's how people like Joe Lieberman loses his primary yet still wins the election. They simply do not represent the will of the people. The represent the "base," code for the extremes, and even though the centrist voters have their say in the general election they are left with extreme right or extreme left*. It's a bad choice for them because they are, by their very nature, not on the political extremes. It's also a major factor into disenfranchising so many centrist voters, making them feel like they're voting for the lesser of two evils. It's because they are. To them, both are evil.
You may even get some party support on this one. I think both sides recognize that the fringes paint them into corners and make their entire party less palatable to centrist voters. It reminds me of a political issue during the last election for a senate seat (sorry, can't remember which state). All the pollsters and analysts had the republican candidate winning the election -- right up until that candidate lost the primary to a Tea Pary'er, at which point they immediately changed their prediction to the democrat -- who ultimately won.
1b. Eliminate primaries. Potentially unnecessary, but an intermediate step might be to then remove primaries entirely. They still favor the die-hard party people, and even without strictly party primaries I don't think them exercising undue influence helps the reform process.
2. Eliminate political parties. So long as the parties have the candidates by the balls, and can threaten to easily defeat them in the primary next cycle if they don't follow along, this is impossible -- thus it is step #2. With some government houses filled with more centrists, less beholden to a political party and hopefully more interested in actually solving America's problems, there is at least a chance. It may be years or decades from step 1 to step 2 in order to get enough of the "old guard" out and the new in, and even then it's a long-shot. It might require a constitutional amendment on the federal level and possibly the state levels as well. There would clearly be somebody filing suit claiming it is infringing his right to free association -- and it very well might. But political parties are polarizing by their nature. Politicians should compete on their ideas, not the parenthetical letter by their name, and parties actively work against that goal. We even have concepts throughout our history like RINO--Republican In Name Only--the rallying cry of the Tea Party to remove from office Republicans they didn't feel were conservative enough.
3. Change the voting system. As you state, one problem with voting for a "third party" right now is that if they don't win--and that's a really good possibility--you may very well help the person you want to win the least. There are problems with all voting systems, but some form of preferential voting is probably a required third step to reforming the political process. It will definitely take a constitutional amendment, so it is a no-go as long as political parties or strong remnants of political parties remain in power. Still, I don't see how "give the people the person they want or the person they would want if that person doesn't win" is a negative compared to "fall in line! Your guy lost, shut the hell up until next election!" These people may be the representative of all the people of their state or district, but they clearly and obviously do not represent them.
And of course we need to get the voters more tuned in and m
Correct. However the reason that looking out for itself is not looking out for the people is because we have proven, time and again, that there is no consequence for doing otherwise. Approval rate of Congress? Approximately 30%. Re-election rate of incumbents? Around 90%.
This has little to do with the size of government. It has somewhat to do with the construction (the fact that we have allowed things to devolve to a two party system in particular), but ultimately it is a reflection on the fact that we are unwilling to hold politicians accountable, even about things that make us extremely angry; that we tend to be one-issue voters and that that issue is never "being a statesman instead of a politician." If we put them on notice that screwing around was going to lose them a job- and that we wouldn't simply bounce to the opposite party until they annoy us enough to bounce to the original--then looking out for itself and looking out for the people, political differences of opinion aside, would be one in the same.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: More and more I am coming to believe that we get exactly the government we deserve.
I will cancel the DVD-out portion of my plan. I'm at the point where the things I want to watch are mostly already gone and I'm just shuffling movies around the queue to get the most for my money. That's simply not worth $8/mo to me.
The streaming, however, I will keep. That is still providing tremendous value to me, even with the limited selection. So long as that remains the case, I will remain a subscriber to it. Just like you guys, no rage or emotion involved -- just a cost-benefit, and right now the streaming portion remains a value to me.
Ironically, the net effect of all of this from Netflix's side is that that they're going to lose $2/mo from me which somebody else will probably get (Amazon VOD perhaps -- all depends on who has what I want available).
Some of us like the knowledge that there is someone permanent around who is willing to help. Someone to talk to. Someone who gives a shit.
Which is awesome (though also kind of self-centered if you think about it) and something I think all humans want as part of the human condition.
But you seem to be implying that the only way to get that is with a long-term sexual relationship. Somebody to talk to, somebody who gives a shit... this sounds like the purview of friends and family, whether they are a spouse or not. It doesn't require a partnership or any love beyond the love of friends.
The bottom line is that getting married and having kids are very personal decisions, and there is no right or wrong choice -- only a right and wrong choice for you. If that is something you want, go for it. if it's not something the GP wants, that's fine too.
I stoppped reading your post after the fourth time you said "MafiAA."
The sad part is you probably had an intelligent post to make, but instead of simply making it you chose to name call no less than four times in less than half your post (vertically, and far less thanh alf of your post by word count), as if that somehow makes you better or your point more valid.
We get it. You think the *AAs act like the mafia. We got it after the first time. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious.
Honestly, I believe it (or something like it) happened.
They may be bad lawyers. They may be ambitious, ambivalent to the harm they cause others, out only for themselves and their pocketbooks.
In fact, that's why I believe it happened. This judge is pissed, and at some point self preservation has to kick in. Why antagonize him further? When a judge is considering beating you all about the courtroom with his gavel, I don't see how anybody with a functioning brain puts that off. They may be bad, unscrupulous lawyers, but they were at least smart enough to get into and through law school and pass the bar exam. I don't see them as stupid people. I don't see them as willing to risk their careers for... what? Cheap thrills? Two weeks of drunken partying before they realize they had an assignment due?
Yeah, because removing an image tag is roughly the same as posting peoples' login information, proprietary source code or a list of email addresses to a porn site and telling people to ridicule anybody they know on the list. Gosh dang kids these days just have no sense of humor.
How can a child be at a game store, in position to buy a game, without the parent having relinquished (or be ineffective at) their roll as the intermediary?
It's not an unreasonable question, but I think you're too absolutist in your analysis. I can buy (select) video games at 7-11. It's two blocks from my house and one block from our elementary school. If I was a child, it would not be unreasonable that I was given the freedom to go out to that store. A few birthday cards with $10 in it would take care of the purchase.
Now, I admit: I have never looked at the games there. I don't know what they offer. I don't know if they have some sort of corporate policy regarding what rating of video game they are willing to carry, but the fact that they do carry them is proof enough to me that a store, at a reasonable distance from a child given appropriate levels of freedom for their age, could very well sell these types of video games. It's probably even more true in smaller towns where a handful of stores sell pretty much everything that is available.
It may not be likely, but it is certainly possible without a parent being a failure at their job.
If the parents want a store to drop their child off at confident that they will not be sold a violent game, it is a failing of the market to create such a store.
That's only half true (and though somewhat off-topic, it's why I don't like libertarianism). Wanting these stores does not get them created. Not even wanting and using them -- unless such stores are used enough by enough people to turn a profit. Even then, if they can make more money by being a more generalized store rather than their claim to fame being "we don't sell violent video games!", they should well do that too. And that's without getting into any issues of cost or other reasons that such a store might not do well.
The market does not solve every problem. It never has and never will.
I don't believe that violent games are dangerous to children (nor porn, for that matter). I don't believe they should be banned. But I also don't have a problem with this law, at least not from the perspective of the store/game maker's free speech rights and only slightly from the perspective of the state asserting censorship over content.
For me, the real question about a law like this is actually the rights of children. Parents have a right to protect children and I don't object to the state helping them do so, so long as it does not affect adults. But children have rights too, and while courts have typically given parents (and schools) wide latitude to violent those rights, at some point they have to be bestowed. Is that point really the magical 18 year old age? They're driving and very possibly having sex by 16, they can get a job, but they can't buy a video game? If such a scheme is to be tolerated, step number one would be to decide at what point children have the right to make that decision for themselves (their parents' wrath notwithstanding). I'm utterly unconvinced that that would be 18. Even at 16, compared to other things we allow them to do, I'm not convinced but I would accept it. Frankly I would put it closer to 13 and would expect any law to be crafted with that in mind.
You are not required to present identification to a police officer. If you're driving, of course, that will lead to a rather quick arrest -- but you are still not required to do so. The only thing you are required to do is provide your name. And, for the record, a driver's license would not be sufficient proof. California, among other states, issues drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. "Drivers license please" is not equivalent to "drivers license and green card please" even if you accept a non-existant requirement to provide that identification.
Do you honestly have any belief whatsoever that a white guy is going to be asked to prove his immigration status? I don't. Not even a white guy who is clearly not (natively) American. Nor, for that matter, are black people likely to be required to prove THEIR citizenship. It's a law targetting Latinos, pure and simple, and should be opposed for that reason alone. It's codified racial profiling, with a wink-wink-nod that technically it can happen to anybody. It won't. Am I, as a fat white American going to be hauled to the station because I'm not carrying my birth certificate with me? How about my friend Salvador? Which seems more likely to you? And more importantly, why are you okay with that?
Of course it will be abused. It's the whole damn reason it was passed. Short of some sort of felony, in which case their immigration status will be found out awfully quickly anyway, the offenses under which somebody would be stopped pale compared to the offense they will be accused of next -- being an illegal immigrant. "You didn't come to a full stop back there and oh, you look pretty Mexican. Let's see your papers." No thanks. Not in this country.
All your barking about how I don't know the law means nothing other than that you are naive enough to believe the law was not firmly intended to harass latinos in the hope--and oh please god, at least let this be their true motivation!--that they find some illegal immigrants along the way. Even law enforcement agencies within Arizona want nothing to do with this. They know it's going to cause much bigger problems than it solves. Not to mention their badged brethren outside the state who know the same thing. Frankly the only people who don't seem to know this are the Republicans, but hell, I guess harassing people who don't vote for you until they'll leave is probably good politics.
"You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered," according to Lyndon Johnson. This is a law begging for abuse of a specific racial minority. Absent some SIGNIFICANT reason why this law is a great thing, so great to ignore all these issues and all the abuse that WILL, absolutely happen, I will stand opposed to it and I will call it out for what it is: Racism.
I'm all for enforcing immigration laws (though I do believe it should be done at the federal level), but that does not mean stopping people for driving while dark-skinned and asking for their papers is anything less than inherent and frankly disgusting racism, codified into law.
That much I will never support, and I really could not care less if you happen to know a Mexican who does.
I understand what you're saying, and to some degree I agree: The state of security on Internet-facing web properties is staggeringly bad, and the fact that companies who do an incompetent job protecting their users are getting publicly called out is, in its own way, a good thing.
Still, there are right ways and wrong ways to do things and LulzSec is clearly on the wrong side of the line. This is particularly true when you read their own postings about how they do it "for the lulz." "You wouldn't know we hacked people if we weren't arrogant shitheads about it!" was nothing more than a post-event attempt at rationalization. And their nonsense with hacking into porn sites and trying to publicly shame people who visit them made me want to strangle them with my own hands.
Some good can come of all this, and I hope it does. But yes, I also hope these people are caught and punished. There are a lot of horrible things people can do to one another that might, in some way, lead to good conclusions, but that does not mean that they should be done. Robbing your neighbor to prod them into locking their doors at night may end up with a good outcome, but I should still go to prison for it. The same applies here.
Once they have done their time and paid their debts, I'm sure they can make quite a handy little salary doing these same damn things the right way.
And somehow I think this group even more than average.
A group that, according to their own "literature," commits crimes "for the lulz?" I wonder how long they will find it funny when they're staring years or even decades of prison time in the face, along with the possibility that a portion of every dime they make for the rest of their lives could be going back as fine and restitution. Lulz.
This guy is going to fold, hard and fast. The only question is how much he knows. Every bit of that will soon be in the police's hands, of that I have no doubt.
Right or wrong, a lot of Americans draw a distinction between a boots-on-the-ground war and (for lack of a better term) an aerial war. Where the risk to our troops is almost nonexistent, so is the opposition.
Obviously it makes plenty of sense for millions of other customers who not only use the service, but pay for the privilege. It makes sense to all the other companies who are trying to do things similar to what Netflix does, like Hulu and every cable and satellite TV provider I know of. It makes sense, apparently, to enough of the users of you network that it has your panties so far up in a bunch that they're about to make you sneeze. Have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that you are wrong? Or that other people may value things differently than you do?
Is the quality of a DVD better? Sometimes. For TV shows I can see a difference in terms of video quality; for many movies I can't. Sound? Yeah, sure, but I don't have a 5.1 surround system. I used to. The component died out and I didn't find enough value in it to replace it, which says something all by itself. But obviously, for millions of people, the tradeoffs are worthwhile.
Then, of course, there's the savings. The Netflix streaming-only plan is $7.99 per month. As a personal example, I am currently watching through Stargare SG-1. I'm, oh, about 115 episodes or so in over the last four to five months. Let's call it five to make it look worse. 5 * 7.99 = $39.95. The cost to rent a DVD at blockbuster is $5, and, like the Netflix mail service, they make you rent shows like this disc by disc. I looked up Season 1 for reference, which is five discs. I'm slightly more than five season in, but we'll round down to five to make that look worse. Five seasons at five discs a piece at five dollars per disc -- 5 * 5 * $5 = $125. Or I can buy Season 1 from Amazon for a heck of a deal at $25 -- but expand that heck of a deal out to five seasons (each of which may be more expensive) and you're at, coincidentally, $125.
Last I checked, $125 is quite significantly higher than $40 -- and that's only for Stargate. Naturally I have watched a handful of movies during this time period as well, bringing the value I received compared to running out for DVDs that much higher. Are you beginning to see why people put such value on it now?
I could go on, of course, but the reality is that you either understand it by now or you're so set in your ways that you never will. Either way, my effort is concluded.
Slashdot Mirror
"The public good" has always been about providing a desirable product or service. Playboy is a legitimate business, but I would be hard-pressed to find any way in which it is for the "public good" other than providing something that people enjoy and are willing to pay for. Beyond that we only require that they not be completely sociopathic and that they obey the law. (Though sadly I admit we are somewhat lax on the latter.)
Your arrogant assertions notwithstanding, it has never meant that they have to be whatever we wish them to be. It has never meant that a website meant to allow friends and like-minded individuals to communicate must operate in such a way that it can instead be used to bring down governments or spread homophobia or anything else without fear of identification. You may have a right to say what you want, but corporations are not and have never been obligated to provide you a soapbox, much less a soapbox constructed entirely to your specifications.
I value the choice for anonymity, but I see no reason that Google or Facebook or any other company should be forced to grant it to you. In fact I tend to agree with their arguments that the site is far more useful without it. If you want to write a new aged Federalist Papers, please do -- but nobody has to help you get it done or published, and if they offer to do so it doesn't give you the right to dictate terms -- corporate charter or no.
Okay, but what is your point? Even if we grant you that you are completely and entirely right, the truth matters only in an academic way. In the real world, what matters is the perception of the truth. If I think you just punched me in the face, it only matters tangentially that in actuality it was the guy standing next to you. It's probably not going to stop me from rearing back and popping you. Truth and perception of truth.
If we have been living this lie for nigh on 30 years, is it a lie anymore? Or is it simply a new reality?
The issue of a corporation as a person is a serious one and one I wholly disagree with, but I am not seeing the inconsistency you seem to. They do have the same responsibilities with the exception of the ones that simply make no sense in the context. They pay taxes according to the law (though the law is a problem here); they are required to obey the law. They can be douchebags, but so can people. What's missing? Being drafted? Impractical. Going to jail? Impractical (though if you want to claim it should be easier to pierce the corporate veil, I agree). Voting? Impractical and undesirable; they are not a person deserving of a vote and they already have what I consider to be far too much free speech. What are they missing? Letting you use their websites in whatever manner and for whatever purpose you please? Yeah, I guess so. We're just going to have to disagree about that one being a responsibility I guess.
I understand that legally speaking, companies need to defend their trademarks. However, I'm not certain where this notion that sending a C&D letter without following it up counts as defending a trademark comes from, and I have seen it at least two times in this thread alone.
If somebody is in court challenging a trademark because it wasn't defended, do you think the judge is going to respond favorably to "But we sent a C&D, we just never had any intention of making him cease or desist!?" Or "you're violating our trademark, stop immediately!" "No we're not." "Oh okay, glad we cleared that up?" I don't see it.
There is definitely a legal requirement to defend one's trademarks, but I strongly doubt that blindly firing C&Ds all over the place that you have no intention whatsoever of following up on counts. Can somebody point to some case law proving me wrong, or is this just some invention of Slashdot with no basis in reality?
When have the Republicans? When Mitch McConnell woke up on the day of his "negotiation" with Obama and published an open letter about how he refuses to raise taxes? "I'm going to a negotiation but refuse to negotiate!" Lovely. We pay this man hundreds of thousands of dollars for this.
Tax bills must originate in the House -- which the Republicans control. The only reason they bothered writing a bill is because they knew they could shove it through and force the Democrats to vote against it. They knew it had no chance whatsoever of actually becoming law. This is somehow a plus to you?
Probably because the "options" have been "give us our way or fuck off." I personally enjoyed the Republicans' two step plan. Step one: Give us exactly what we want and in return we allow you to advance to step two. Step two: Unlike all evidence up until now, we really really promise to negotiate with you this time. Really. Scout's honor. Will you get any part of your way? Oh hells no, we couldn't do that!
The Republican party has been hijacked by the Tea Party, and they're betting that when the shit hits the fan they won't be the ones blamed. Frankly I'm not so sure. I think this is the first and only election cycle they will be relevant and there is no part of me whatsoever that will be sad about that.
As somebody who:
1) Has been on Slashdot a long time.
and
2) Has a modest level of reading comprehension.
and therefore:
3) Knows a self-important twat when he sees one.
Why can't you simply not be snarky and give us the information of what other third-party services that do hosting, fulfillment and billing you have used, and what their costs/rates and terms were, and we can judge for ourselves whether it is not only perfectly reasonable but a damn good deal? If it's that simple, how is it that this debate goes on endlessly -- and not only endlessly, but endlessly without any such information being presented? There's an awful lot of self-appointed experts out there who have the time to stop by and point out (anonymously of course) how expert they are and how important their opinions are and yet somehow lack the time to back them up with anything more like, for examples, facts. It's strange right?
I don't know if you're simply a liar trying to sound important or an asshole who can only be bothered to cut other people down instead of actually provide useful information that may help people out, but the sad reality is that it's one or the other. You claim to have relevant facts, so let's hear them. We're all waiting with bated breath I am sure.
Well that's true, but the underlying problem is that many people can't accept that certain things are not for everybody. This is America, damn it! We're all supposed to have an equal chance of becoming rich tomorrow!
Unfortunately that's just not true. If you have a wife and kids or a sick mother or huge student loans or something, and you lack a deep savings to fall back on, then this advice is not for you. Not everybody can take risks and that's fine.
But at the same time, very few people (who aren't born into it) become uber wealthy without taking those risks. Some people can handle that risk and others can't. It doesn't mean it's bad advice; if you want to become uber-successful it may be great advice. It's just not a guarantee of success, and it's not for everybody. People have to be smart to determine whether it's for them and whether or not they can afford to fail.
The only realistic process I can see to start reforming the US political system--and it may take years or decades even if everything is going to plan--is something like the following:
1. Eliminate closed primaries. Closed primaries are how the fringes continues to exert so much political power and how the centrists get squeezed out. It's how the Tea Party is swinging the Republicans even more conservative than its own leadership is comfortable with. It's how people like Joe Lieberman loses his primary yet still wins the election. They simply do not represent the will of the people. The represent the "base," code for the extremes, and even though the centrist voters have their say in the general election they are left with extreme right or extreme left*. It's a bad choice for them because they are, by their very nature, not on the political extremes. It's also a major factor into disenfranchising so many centrist voters, making them feel like they're voting for the lesser of two evils. It's because they are. To them, both are evil.
You may even get some party support on this one. I think both sides recognize that the fringes paint them into corners and make their entire party less palatable to centrist voters. It reminds me of a political issue during the last election for a senate seat (sorry, can't remember which state). All the pollsters and analysts had the republican candidate winning the election -- right up until that candidate lost the primary to a Tea Pary'er, at which point they immediately changed their prediction to the democrat -- who ultimately won.
1b. Eliminate primaries. Potentially unnecessary, but an intermediate step might be to then remove primaries entirely. They still favor the die-hard party people, and even without strictly party primaries I don't think them exercising undue influence helps the reform process.
2. Eliminate political parties. So long as the parties have the candidates by the balls, and can threaten to easily defeat them in the primary next cycle if they don't follow along, this is impossible -- thus it is step #2. With some government houses filled with more centrists, less beholden to a political party and hopefully more interested in actually solving America's problems, there is at least a chance. It may be years or decades from step 1 to step 2 in order to get enough of the "old guard" out and the new in, and even then it's a long-shot. It might require a constitutional amendment on the federal level and possibly the state levels as well. There would clearly be somebody filing suit claiming it is infringing his right to free association -- and it very well might. But political parties are polarizing by their nature. Politicians should compete on their ideas, not the parenthetical letter by their name, and parties actively work against that goal. We even have concepts throughout our history like RINO--Republican In Name Only--the rallying cry of the Tea Party to remove from office Republicans they didn't feel were conservative enough.
3. Change the voting system. As you state, one problem with voting for a "third party" right now is that if they don't win--and that's a really good possibility--you may very well help the person you want to win the least. There are problems with all voting systems, but some form of preferential voting is probably a required third step to reforming the political process. It will definitely take a constitutional amendment, so it is a no-go as long as political parties or strong remnants of political parties remain in power. Still, I don't see how "give the people the person they want or the person they would want if that person doesn't win" is a negative compared to "fall in line! Your guy lost, shut the hell up until next election!" These people may be the representative of all the people of their state or district, but they clearly and obviously do not represent them.
And of course we need to get the voters more tuned in and m
Quite possibly. What's the issue? Having the right to say something does not automatically mean it should be said. It never has and never will.
Now the police arresting him for it, on the other hand -- that is a big deal that needs to be deal with swiftly and severely.
Cool story bro.
(I couldn't resist.)
Correct. However the reason that looking out for itself is not looking out for the people is because we have proven, time and again, that there is no consequence for doing otherwise. Approval rate of Congress? Approximately 30%. Re-election rate of incumbents? Around 90%.
This has little to do with the size of government. It has somewhat to do with the construction (the fact that we have allowed things to devolve to a two party system in particular), but ultimately it is a reflection on the fact that we are unwilling to hold politicians accountable, even about things that make us extremely angry; that we tend to be one-issue voters and that that issue is never "being a statesman instead of a politician." If we put them on notice that screwing around was going to lose them a job- and that we wouldn't simply bounce to the opposite party until they annoy us enough to bounce to the original--then looking out for itself and looking out for the people, political differences of opinion aside, would be one in the same.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: More and more I am coming to believe that we get exactly the government we deserve.
I will cancel the DVD-out portion of my plan. I'm at the point where the things I want to watch are mostly already gone and I'm just shuffling movies around the queue to get the most for my money. That's simply not worth $8/mo to me.
The streaming, however, I will keep. That is still providing tremendous value to me, even with the limited selection. So long as that remains the case, I will remain a subscriber to it. Just like you guys, no rage or emotion involved -- just a cost-benefit, and right now the streaming portion remains a value to me.
Ironically, the net effect of all of this from Netflix's side is that that they're going to lose $2/mo from me which somebody else will probably get (Amazon VOD perhaps -- all depends on who has what I want available).
So is this what passes for humor by ACs now? Or trolling?
Ah, the legions of people who insult others but don't have the courage to do so behind an account. It's a disgusting thing.
Which is awesome (though also kind of self-centered if you think about it) and something I think all humans want as part of the human condition.
But you seem to be implying that the only way to get that is with a long-term sexual relationship. Somebody to talk to, somebody who gives a shit... this sounds like the purview of friends and family, whether they are a spouse or not. It doesn't require a partnership or any love beyond the love of friends.
The bottom line is that getting married and having kids are very personal decisions, and there is no right or wrong choice -- only a right and wrong choice for you. If that is something you want, go for it. if it's not something the GP wants, that's fine too.
I stoppped reading your post after the fourth time you said "MafiAA."
The sad part is you probably had an intelligent post to make, but instead of simply making it you chose to name call no less than four times in less than half your post (vertically, and far less thanh alf of your post by word count), as if that somehow makes you better or your point more valid.
We get it. You think the *AAs act like the mafia. We got it after the first time. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious.
The RIAA is?
Honestly, I believe it (or something like it) happened.
They may be bad lawyers. They may be ambitious, ambivalent to the harm they cause others, out only for themselves and their pocketbooks.
In fact, that's why I believe it happened. This judge is pissed, and at some point self preservation has to kick in. Why antagonize him further? When a judge is considering beating you all about the courtroom with his gavel, I don't see how anybody with a functioning brain puts that off. They may be bad, unscrupulous lawyers, but they were at least smart enough to get into and through law school and pass the bar exam. I don't see them as stupid people. I don't see them as willing to risk their careers for... what? Cheap thrills? Two weeks of drunken partying before they realize they had an assignment due?
I don't get that.
Yeah, because removing an image tag is roughly the same as posting peoples' login information, proprietary source code or a list of email addresses to a porn site and telling people to ridicule anybody they know on the list. Gosh dang kids these days just have no sense of humor.
It's not an unreasonable question, but I think you're too absolutist in your analysis. I can buy (select) video games at 7-11. It's two blocks from my house and one block from our elementary school. If I was a child, it would not be unreasonable that I was given the freedom to go out to that store. A few birthday cards with $10 in it would take care of the purchase.
Now, I admit: I have never looked at the games there. I don't know what they offer. I don't know if they have some sort of corporate policy regarding what rating of video game they are willing to carry, but the fact that they do carry them is proof enough to me that a store, at a reasonable distance from a child given appropriate levels of freedom for their age, could very well sell these types of video games. It's probably even more true in smaller towns where a handful of stores sell pretty much everything that is available.
It may not be likely, but it is certainly possible without a parent being a failure at their job.
That's only half true (and though somewhat off-topic, it's why I don't like libertarianism). Wanting these stores does not get them created. Not even wanting and using them -- unless such stores are used enough by enough people to turn a profit. Even then, if they can make more money by being a more generalized store rather than their claim to fame being "we don't sell violent video games!", they should well do that too. And that's without getting into any issues of cost or other reasons that such a store might not do well.
The market does not solve every problem. It never has and never will.
I don't believe that violent games are dangerous to children (nor porn, for that matter). I don't believe they should be banned. But I also don't have a problem with this law, at least not from the perspective of the store/game maker's free speech rights and only slightly from the perspective of the state asserting censorship over content.
For me, the real question about a law like this is actually the rights of children. Parents have a right to protect children and I don't object to the state helping them do so, so long as it does not affect adults. But children have rights too, and while courts have typically given parents (and schools) wide latitude to violent those rights, at some point they have to be bestowed. Is that point really the magical 18 year old age? They're driving and very possibly having sex by 16, they can get a job, but they can't buy a video game? If such a scheme is to be tolerated, step number one would be to decide at what point children have the right to make that decision for themselves (their parents' wrath notwithstanding). I'm utterly unconvinced that that would be 18. Even at 16, compared to other things we allow them to do, I'm not convinced but I would accept it. Frankly I would put it closer to 13 and would expect any law to be crafted with that in mind.
You are not required to present identification to a police officer. If you're driving, of course, that will lead to a rather quick arrest -- but you are still not required to do so. The only thing you are required to do is provide your name. And, for the record, a driver's license would not be sufficient proof. California, among other states, issues drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. "Drivers license please" is not equivalent to "drivers license and green card please" even if you accept a non-existant requirement to provide that identification.
Do you honestly have any belief whatsoever that a white guy is going to be asked to prove his immigration status? I don't. Not even a white guy who is clearly not (natively) American. Nor, for that matter, are black people likely to be required to prove THEIR citizenship. It's a law targetting Latinos, pure and simple, and should be opposed for that reason alone. It's codified racial profiling, with a wink-wink-nod that technically it can happen to anybody. It won't. Am I, as a fat white American going to be hauled to the station because I'm not carrying my birth certificate with me? How about my friend Salvador? Which seems more likely to you? And more importantly, why are you okay with that?
Of course it will be abused. It's the whole damn reason it was passed. Short of some sort of felony, in which case their immigration status will be found out awfully quickly anyway, the offenses under which somebody would be stopped pale compared to the offense they will be accused of next -- being an illegal immigrant. "You didn't come to a full stop back there and oh, you look pretty Mexican. Let's see your papers." No thanks. Not in this country.
All your barking about how I don't know the law means nothing other than that you are naive enough to believe the law was not firmly intended to harass latinos in the hope--and oh please god, at least let this be their true motivation!--that they find some illegal immigrants along the way. Even law enforcement agencies within Arizona want nothing to do with this. They know it's going to cause much bigger problems than it solves. Not to mention their badged brethren outside the state who know the same thing. Frankly the only people who don't seem to know this are the Republicans, but hell, I guess harassing people who don't vote for you until they'll leave is probably good politics.
"You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered," according to Lyndon Johnson. This is a law begging for abuse of a specific racial minority. Absent some SIGNIFICANT reason why this law is a great thing, so great to ignore all these issues and all the abuse that WILL, absolutely happen, I will stand opposed to it and I will call it out for what it is: Racism.
What's your point?
I'm all for enforcing immigration laws (though I do believe it should be done at the federal level), but that does not mean stopping people for driving while dark-skinned and asking for their papers is anything less than inherent and frankly disgusting racism, codified into law.
That much I will never support, and I really could not care less if you happen to know a Mexican who does.
I understand what you're saying, and to some degree I agree: The state of security on Internet-facing web properties is staggeringly bad, and the fact that companies who do an incompetent job protecting their users are getting publicly called out is, in its own way, a good thing.
Still, there are right ways and wrong ways to do things and LulzSec is clearly on the wrong side of the line. This is particularly true when you read their own postings about how they do it "for the lulz." "You wouldn't know we hacked people if we weren't arrogant shitheads about it!" was nothing more than a post-event attempt at rationalization. And their nonsense with hacking into porn sites and trying to publicly shame people who visit them made me want to strangle them with my own hands.
Some good can come of all this, and I hope it does. But yes, I also hope these people are caught and punished. There are a lot of horrible things people can do to one another that might, in some way, lead to good conclusions, but that does not mean that they should be done. Robbing your neighbor to prod them into locking their doors at night may end up with a good outcome, but I should still go to prison for it. The same applies here.
Once they have done their time and paid their debts, I'm sure they can make quite a handy little salary doing these same damn things the right way.
And somehow I think this group even more than average.
A group that, according to their own "literature," commits crimes "for the lulz?" I wonder how long they will find it funny when they're staring years or even decades of prison time in the face, along with the possibility that a portion of every dime they make for the rest of their lives could be going back as fine and restitution. Lulz.
This guy is going to fold, hard and fast. The only question is how much he knows. Every bit of that will soon be in the police's hands, of that I have no doubt.
Right or wrong, a lot of Americans draw a distinction between a boots-on-the-ground war and (for lack of a better term) an aerial war. Where the risk to our troops is almost nonexistent, so is the opposition.
To you. Makes no sense to you.
Obviously it makes plenty of sense for millions of other customers who not only use the service, but pay for the privilege. It makes sense to all the other companies who are trying to do things similar to what Netflix does, like Hulu and every cable and satellite TV provider I know of. It makes sense, apparently, to enough of the users of you network that it has your panties so far up in a bunch that they're about to make you sneeze. Have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that you are wrong? Or that other people may value things differently than you do?
Is the quality of a DVD better? Sometimes. For TV shows I can see a difference in terms of video quality; for many movies I can't. Sound? Yeah, sure, but I don't have a 5.1 surround system. I used to. The component died out and I didn't find enough value in it to replace it, which says something all by itself. But obviously, for millions of people, the tradeoffs are worthwhile.
Then, of course, there's the savings. The Netflix streaming-only plan is $7.99 per month. As a personal example, I am currently watching through Stargare SG-1. I'm, oh, about 115 episodes or so in over the last four to five months. Let's call it five to make it look worse. 5 * 7.99 = $39.95. The cost to rent a DVD at blockbuster is $5, and, like the Netflix mail service, they make you rent shows like this disc by disc. I looked up Season 1 for reference, which is five discs. I'm slightly more than five season in, but we'll round down to five to make that look worse. Five seasons at five discs a piece at five dollars per disc -- 5 * 5 * $5 = $125. Or I can buy Season 1 from Amazon for a heck of a deal at $25 -- but expand that heck of a deal out to five seasons (each of which may be more expensive) and you're at, coincidentally, $125.
Last I checked, $125 is quite significantly higher than $40 -- and that's only for Stargate. Naturally I have watched a handful of movies during this time period as well, bringing the value I received compared to running out for DVDs that much higher. Are you beginning to see why people put such value on it now?
I could go on, of course, but the reality is that you either understand it by now or you're so set in your ways that you never will. Either way, my effort is concluded.
Shit. You mean I'm not really watching Netflix in Chrome on my Mac? Some sort of really sophisticated man-in-the-middle attack perhaps?
Well I'm glad you warned me. I'll just catch up on some highlights on MLB.c--aw hell, I can't really do that either. These hackers are EVERYWHERE!