Indoor smoking affects those who aren't participating in it or even offended by it. Just like your right to move your fist ends at my nose, we've decided your right to put nicotine and tar into your body ends when you're also doing the same to mine. You'll note that smoking in your own home is generally legal as well (although probably stupid due to the health effects on any kids).
Yes, it's unpleasant for smokers, especially in the winter, but there's a real reason behind it.
The other interesting bit about the story of Lot at Sodom is that the story is hardly unique to the biblical reference. The basic story shows up in lots of other cultures and goes something like this:
- 2 divine figures are traveling around looking for righteous people disguised as poor wanderers.
- Most everyone in town reject them, and treat them badly.
- One family takes them in and takes care of them to the best of their ability.
- The divine figures reward that one family, and punish the rest of the populace.
This story shows up in Ovid and in the Poetic Edda, for instance.
Calling something "extremist" is an attempt to slide the Overton Window away from that position.
A silly example of how this works: Party A: This bill proposes that we kill 10 puppies a day, just for the fun of it! Party B: That's horrible! Why would you ever do such a thing? Party A: Ok, ok, we'll compromise - how about only 5 a day? Party B: In the interests of bipartisanship, we'll go along with that.
If the US wants to view corporation as a living entity, they should have corporal punishment.
Are you suggesting we cane Lloyd Blankfein and other corporate crooks? I suspect you help balance the budget by selling the chance to perform the caning to the highest bidder.
There are alternatives to cheating and total monogamy also. The big difference between cheating and open relationships is that the cheater cheats without their partner knowing, whereas the open relationship partner knows what's going on.
What about those who are against the Kagan appointment but aren't Republicans, who had the consistent view that neither Kagan nor Thomas were up to snuff?
What about the cheaters who get divorced in order to marry their other lover? Is their partner on the hook for that?
As a rule though, documenting infidelity anywhere is just plain stupid, whether we're talking a bunch of emails, a compromising video, or a credit card charge at a hotel. Facebook is no different.
I believe you're making the mistake of thinking that a (D) after her patron's name makes her "extreme left wing". She's not even close to left-wing. For comparison's sake, compare her views on this (and many other issues) with those of John Paul Stevens (appointed by raving leftist Gerald Ford) or David Souter (appointed by leftist loony George H.W. Bush).
Prior to modern public schools kids learned all of those things
Which kids?
In 1870, which is when the US government first started keeping statistics on literacy, about 20% of the US population over age 14, including 80% of the black population, was illiterate (source). By 1959 that was down to about 2% of the US population, including 8% of the non-white population.
A reasonable assessment of education in 19th century in the US, based on government stats and contemporary literature, might go something like this: - Upper-class kids got education from mostly private schools, private tutors, and possibly some parental instruction. They frequently went on to study at a university at some sort. - Middle-class kids got some education from a combination of public and parochial schools, Sunday schools (which would have emphasized biblical reading and the like), and home instruction, but rarely finished what we'd now consider to be a high school education. Farm kids, for instance, frequently stopped attending school at around 8th grade to help out on the farm. - Poor white kids would possibly get basic literacy from public schools, and not much more than that. They often dropped out early to go work in factories once the Industrial Revolution really started to take hold. - Black kids got essentially no education at all. This was a matter of policy - many southern states banned teaching slaves, and many teachers who arrived in the south during Reconstruction to teach ex-slaves were run out of town by force or intimidation.
That's no left-leaning watchdog, that's an Obama-leaning watchdog. There's a definite difference - the real left-wingers are generally upset with Kagan's ideas about civil liberties and keeping people prisoner in Gitmo without charges for years on end, among other things.
Oh, and the accusation that she's too inexperienced definitely still carries weight for me. Your link attempts to argue that it's OK, because she has not much less experience than Clarence Thomas. If Clarence Thomas is your model of everything a good Supreme Court justice should be, I guess that's ok, but for the rest of us that's hardly a ringing endorsement.
For comparison, consider efforts to get voter approval for casino gambling in my home state. The potential casino owners attempted to get approval in just about every election, and despite being shot down 2 times eventually won on the third try. Why did they keep trying? Because even if they had to spend $100 million in advertising and campaigning, they knew that the upside was much higher than that. So they were continually willing to spend whatever money and time it took to win.
ACTA is much like this. The copyright owners believe it will make them huge sums of money long-term, quite possibly in the $trillions. So they will keep spending the time and the money to propose ACTA or ACTA-like ideas until their opponents run out of time and money.
The unpleasant side of mining and firefighting are the very high risks of respiratory problems as a result of doing those jobs. For logging, the risk is much more that of severe injuries. That's why they're considered unpleasant.
As far as why IT employees are treated poorly, while your answer is one explanation it doesn't explain the poor treatment of IT employees at technology companies such as Electronic Arts. I for one think that there's a real opportunity for unionization to help out (with union contracts being not so much about pay as working conditions), but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
What you're reflecting here is a story that's very common: When men are faced with the choice of a lower-paying but more satisfying career versus a higher-paying but unpleasant career, they tend towards the higher pay. Women faced with the same choice tend towards the greater personal satisfaction.
That's why you'll find more men doing jobs that are really unpleasant but well-paid (relative to their education level), such as mining, logging, or firefighting, and more women doing jobs that are often lower paid but very personally satisfying, such as nursing, cooking, and teaching.
Now, what's interesting is that a career in IT ought to fall into the low-risk personally-rewarding camp (the physical risks are minimal, and there's a lot of joy in building things), but instead falls into the higher-pay less-reward camp due to the way IT employees are treated.
Which, incidentally, can be a problem with petition drives too. Part of the verification process for a petition can involve contacting signatories and asking them why they signed - if the answer is "Some guy paid me 5 bucks" or "What petition?", smell a rat.
More to the point, signing a petition is the equivalent of standing on your front lawn saying "Hey everyone, I agree with this proposal!" That's the whole point of a petition - to publicly state your support for a particular position.
There's a time and place for anonymous speech too - online forums, in-person protests, pamphlets left on the street, whatever. But that's not the same thing as a petition.
I mean, if you don't feel strongly enough to write your name publicly, why not just write Mickey Mouse? And hell, if there is going to be no public scrutiny of who is brave enough to actually back the petition, what's to keep the petitioner from just writing Mickey Mouse 120,000 times?
Lieberman hasn't been officially in the Democratic Party since he lost the 2006 Connecticut primary. Unofficially, many of the Democratic Party establishment support Lieberman's independent candidacy over their own party's nominee.
A better way of describing him is that he represents what much of the Democratic Party leadership really thinks:
- They view principled Democrats like Russ "No to Patriot Act" Feingold and Dennis Kucinich are enemies rather than allies.
- They believe that what their party rank-and-file, and the voting public at large, don't matter.
- When they come into conflict, will (at least in the case of Lieberman) put the interests of Israel over the interests of the United States.
Is that any different from the ads that are shown constantly in EA sporting games (they'll claim it's a way to provide stadium atmosphere)? I'd say the frog is already pretty well boiled by now.
To quote Philip J Fry: Only on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and written in the sky. But not in dreams. No, sir-ee!
Said professor also has navigated precisely the same waters you're asking complete strangers for advice on, and presumably is somebody you trust. They will likely appreciate your work, teach you how to turn it into proper research, and critique it so you fix any glaring flaws.
Oh, and be prepared for that professor, or the conference or journal you submit to, to promptly inform you that your idea is nothing new and that very smart people have either worked out this idea before you or have demonstrated conclusively why it doesn't work.
The question is not whether ACTA is in the public interest, but whether it's in the collective interest of those empowered to enact it. It's safe to assume that with the supporters of ACTA in control of a lot of cash and the majority of television airtime, the folks in power are very likely not giving a rat's behind what these professors and petitions are saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Indoor smoking affects those who aren't participating in it or even offended by it. Just like your right to move your fist ends at my nose, we've decided your right to put nicotine and tar into your body ends when you're also doing the same to mine. You'll note that smoking in your own home is generally legal as well (although probably stupid due to the health effects on any kids).
Yes, it's unpleasant for smokers, especially in the winter, but there's a real reason behind it.
The other interesting bit about the story of Lot at Sodom is that the story is hardly unique to the biblical reference. The basic story shows up in lots of other cultures and goes something like this:
- 2 divine figures are traveling around looking for righteous people disguised as poor wanderers.
- Most everyone in town reject them, and treat them badly.
- One family takes them in and takes care of them to the best of their ability.
- The divine figures reward that one family, and punish the rest of the populace.
This story shows up in Ovid and in the Poetic Edda, for instance.
Calling something "extremist" is an attempt to slide the Overton Window away from that position.
A silly example of how this works:
Party A: This bill proposes that we kill 10 puppies a day, just for the fun of it!
Party B: That's horrible! Why would you ever do such a thing?
Party A: Ok, ok, we'll compromise - how about only 5 a day?
Party B: In the interests of bipartisanship, we'll go along with that.
Apparently the situation with Rasmussen is complicated, but this seems to be a fairly decent starting place (that's not just some activist blogger).
If the US wants to view corporation as a living entity, they should have corporal punishment.
Are you suggesting we cane Lloyd Blankfein and other corporate crooks? I suspect you help balance the budget by selling the chance to perform the caning to the highest bidder.
There are alternatives to cheating and total monogamy also. The big difference between cheating and open relationships is that the cheater cheats without their partner knowing, whereas the open relationship partner knows what's going on.
What about those who are against the Kagan appointment but aren't Republicans, who had the consistent view that neither Kagan nor Thomas were up to snuff?
What about the cheaters who get divorced in order to marry their other lover? Is their partner on the hook for that?
As a rule though, documenting infidelity anywhere is just plain stupid, whether we're talking a bunch of emails, a compromising video, or a credit card charge at a hotel. Facebook is no different.
I believe you're making the mistake of thinking that a (D) after her patron's name makes her "extreme left wing". She's not even close to left-wing. For comparison's sake, compare her views on this (and many other issues) with those of John Paul Stevens (appointed by raving leftist Gerald Ford) or David Souter (appointed by leftist loony George H.W. Bush).
Prior to modern public schools kids learned all of those things
Which kids?
In 1870, which is when the US government first started keeping statistics on literacy, about 20% of the US population over age 14, including 80% of the black population, was illiterate (source). By 1959 that was down to about 2% of the US population, including 8% of the non-white population.
A reasonable assessment of education in 19th century in the US, based on government stats and contemporary literature, might go something like this:
- Upper-class kids got education from mostly private schools, private tutors, and possibly some parental instruction. They frequently went on to study at a university at some sort.
- Middle-class kids got some education from a combination of public and parochial schools, Sunday schools (which would have emphasized biblical reading and the like), and home instruction, but rarely finished what we'd now consider to be a high school education. Farm kids, for instance, frequently stopped attending school at around 8th grade to help out on the farm.
- Poor white kids would possibly get basic literacy from public schools, and not much more than that. They often dropped out early to go work in factories once the Industrial Revolution really started to take hold.
- Black kids got essentially no education at all. This was a matter of policy - many southern states banned teaching slaves, and many teachers who arrived in the south during Reconstruction to teach ex-slaves were run out of town by force or intimidation.
What is a 'facist' anyways? Someone who discriminates based on whether someone is on Facebook?
not everyone feels comfortable talking to random strangers
But if you pay that random stranger, that makes the situation much better!
That's no left-leaning watchdog, that's an Obama-leaning watchdog. There's a definite difference - the real left-wingers are generally upset with Kagan's ideas about civil liberties and keeping people prisoner in Gitmo without charges for years on end, among other things.
Oh, and the accusation that she's too inexperienced definitely still carries weight for me. Your link attempts to argue that it's OK, because she has not much less experience than Clarence Thomas. If Clarence Thomas is your model of everything a good Supreme Court justice should be, I guess that's ok, but for the rest of us that's hardly a ringing endorsement.
For comparison, consider efforts to get voter approval for casino gambling in my home state. The potential casino owners attempted to get approval in just about every election, and despite being shot down 2 times eventually won on the third try. Why did they keep trying? Because even if they had to spend $100 million in advertising and campaigning, they knew that the upside was much higher than that. So they were continually willing to spend whatever money and time it took to win.
ACTA is much like this. The copyright owners believe it will make them huge sums of money long-term, quite possibly in the $trillions. So they will keep spending the time and the money to propose ACTA or ACTA-like ideas until their opponents run out of time and money.
The unpleasant side of mining and firefighting are the very high risks of respiratory problems as a result of doing those jobs. For logging, the risk is much more that of severe injuries. That's why they're considered unpleasant.
As far as why IT employees are treated poorly, while your answer is one explanation it doesn't explain the poor treatment of IT employees at technology companies such as Electronic Arts. I for one think that there's a real opportunity for unionization to help out (with union contracts being not so much about pay as working conditions), but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
What you're reflecting here is a story that's very common: When men are faced with the choice of a lower-paying but more satisfying career versus a higher-paying but unpleasant career, they tend towards the higher pay. Women faced with the same choice tend towards the greater personal satisfaction.
That's why you'll find more men doing jobs that are really unpleasant but well-paid (relative to their education level), such as mining, logging, or firefighting, and more women doing jobs that are often lower paid but very personally satisfying, such as nursing, cooking, and teaching.
Now, what's interesting is that a career in IT ought to fall into the low-risk personally-rewarding camp (the physical risks are minimal, and there's a lot of joy in building things), but instead falls into the higher-pay less-reward camp due to the way IT employees are treated.
Which, incidentally, can be a problem with petition drives too. Part of the verification process for a petition can involve contacting signatories and asking them why they signed - if the answer is "Some guy paid me 5 bucks" or "What petition?", smell a rat.
More to the point, signing a petition is the equivalent of standing on your front lawn saying "Hey everyone, I agree with this proposal!" That's the whole point of a petition - to publicly state your support for a particular position.
There's a time and place for anonymous speech too - online forums, in-person protests, pamphlets left on the street, whatever. But that's not the same thing as a petition.
I mean, if you don't feel strongly enough to write your name publicly, why not just write Mickey Mouse? And hell, if there is going to be no public scrutiny of who is brave enough to actually back the petition, what's to keep the petitioner from just writing Mickey Mouse 120,000 times?
Walt Disney's legal department?
Lieberman hasn't been officially in the Democratic Party since he lost the 2006 Connecticut primary. Unofficially, many of the Democratic Party establishment support Lieberman's independent candidacy over their own party's nominee.
A better way of describing him is that he represents what much of the Democratic Party leadership really thinks:
- They view principled Democrats like Russ "No to Patriot Act" Feingold and Dennis Kucinich are enemies rather than allies.
- They believe that what their party rank-and-file, and the voting public at large, don't matter.
- When they come into conflict, will (at least in the case of Lieberman) put the interests of Israel over the interests of the United States.
Is that any different from the ads that are shown constantly in EA sporting games (they'll claim it's a way to provide stadium atmosphere)? I'd say the frog is already pretty well boiled by now.
To quote Philip J Fry: Only on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and written in the sky. But not in dreams. No, sir-ee!
Said professor also has navigated precisely the same waters you're asking complete strangers for advice on, and presumably is somebody you trust. They will likely appreciate your work, teach you how to turn it into proper research, and critique it so you fix any glaring flaws.
Oh, and be prepared for that professor, or the conference or journal you submit to, to promptly inform you that your idea is nothing new and that very smart people have either worked out this idea before you or have demonstrated conclusively why it doesn't work.
To quote Woody Guthrie:
Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.
Just because they're legally getting away with it doesn't mean they aren't crooks.
The question is not whether ACTA is in the public interest, but whether it's in the collective interest of those empowered to enact it. It's safe to assume that with the supporters of ACTA in control of a lot of cash and the majority of television airtime, the folks in power are very likely not giving a rat's behind what these professors and petitions are saying.
That's because you aren't thinking like a true BOFH - Obviously the problem here was that potential witnesses and evidence survived the fire.