As a member of the left, I am so dishearted by the left's willingness to stand up for itself. Democratic politicians have apparently decided that their electoral success lays in being Republican-lite. War protesters have been cowed into silence by the right wing and the media by the slightest suggestion that war protesters are unpatriotic. People who consider themselves liberal are frightened to confess that in public.
Read 1984 people. Groupthink is not patriotism.
The left needs to stand up and fight back. Especially now, since the right's vision of the future is a government that is keeping tabs on people who buy 1984 and Cather in the Rye from Amazon.com.
The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that the liberal cares about you and the conservative doesn't.
Replay users will stil be able to set up their recordings manually.
You can use the Replay, at least the 4000 series, as an advanced VCR. You can manually tell your Replay to record channel 5 at 12pm everyday or just on Thursdays. It's slightly kludgy to name the recordings, but not difficult.
Good point. Couldn't you reduce speed the same way you build it up, by using the gravity of the planets? Could you travel a circular path through the solar system by repeatedly using the planets to speed up and slow down?
I knew space probes travelled fast, but 82,000 mph !!! Could we get a ship with people in it going that fast??? Of course at that speed I imagine that when it eventually was hit by the smallest spec of space dust the ship would be toast. Then again, Pioneer 10 made it 82 AU alright.
I think you are thinking of Voyager's appearance in the original series transformed into V'ger. V'ger was the probe that was destroying all the imperfect species and thought Kirk was "the Creator".
The Total Information Awarness agency shows up on your doorstep with a can of whoopass because you happen to do searches on the Koran, Fallafel, and Jihad.
To pull out the DeSade as they example of what people on my side of the arguement are saying is so over the top dumb I find myself laughing.
For your information, the concept of "Sexual liberty" is thousands upon thousands of years old. You may be horrified to know that people have been enjoying sex as long as there have been people. I'm sorry to inform you that people are having sex right now. They are not ashamed and they are actually enjoying themselves.
But if I had to take DeSade's "Sexual Liberty" over your "Anti-Sexual Prison Hell", I'd go with De Sade.
My point was that in a democracy people with one set of morals don't get to overrule those people who don't share those morals.
You seem to think that if your children view certain images they will be harmed. You want to protect your children from that harm. Fair enough. IF..we are talking about what goes on under your roof.
What a lot of us are getting up in arms about is that you seem to think your morality should be the rule for the rest of us.
Many people believe that a lot of psycological damage can be done to children by forbidding access to information and, yes, images of the human body and our primary biological function, reproduction. My own personal theory is that more rapist are created parents who brow-beat their kids into fearing their own sexuallity than by kids who see images of the human body or sex.
I'm not saying that children should have unfettered access to hard core porn, but I think the harm caused by kids seeing the naked body is absurdly exagerated.
You seem to be fairly level headed, but their are a lot of people on your side of the arguement who want to run the world by the precepts of whackos like Jerry Falwell. For those of us who think that religion has nothing to do with reality,that would not be a democracy.
You raise your family as you want, but leave me alone.
Why should I, as a taxpayer, want to allow my taxes to continue to support an evil war that will kill thousands of innocent people, ruin most of our long term strategic alliances, and bring on an new era of nuclear armament?
>>And finally, not a flamebait, but my thoughts -- True, the government cannot force religious views. BUT, thankfully, elected officials are perfectly allowed to publicly show their faith system. We elect a *person* into office, and I personally want one that represents his or her thoughts, whether or not it offends people. Laws are based on the moral (often religious) views of our officials, and as long as they don't force the *practice* of a certain religion, then hoorah!
You seem to have the mistaken attitude that a lot of Americans have. The Judicial branch of government is a fully equal branch of governement with the Executive and the Legislative. The Supreme Court acts exactly as its role is laid out in the Constituion. The court usually puts a lot of empahsis on being consistent with previous court rulings.
Of course, in these days of Bush's Nazi regime you wouldn't know there were three equal branches of government.
By your logic you could say I don't have a right to drive a car, because cars aren't mentioned in the constiution.
In many cases you are right. But in other cases you'd be wrong.
An example from today's paper. Doctors have just begun to realize that allergies to wheat gluten are far more prevalent than previously known. People who have suffrered from this potentially deadly allergy were misdiagnosed. Many people eventually found help from support groups who clued suffering people in to what was wrong with them.
I could just as easily say that trusting information simply because it was printed in a book is laughable.
How often is medical knowledge completely reversed by new information? The answer is, frequently. It could be just as stupid to follow a course of treatment in a ten year old book, than to follow a course of treatment solely because you heard about it on the internet.
The Supreme Court has ruled several times that the internet is both speech and the press. It has also over the centuries extended first ammendment protection to anything that is even remotely like actual speech e.g.; art and PORNOGRAPHY.
Of yes, of course books are always up to date. They are so easy and cheap to print that all the medical texts in a library are replaced daily with the most up to date information. You also over look the fact that many support groups and forums online can provide filters for bad information and sources of information that for one reason or another might not have made it into printed book.
You would go so far as to prevent sick people from getting the most upto date information, particularly in a field like cancer research that is evolving so quickly that publishing in books would delay the information getting to the people who need it by up to a year. I've worked in publishing, sometimes it takes forever to get something in print
Americans are so willing to give up their freedoms these days, this country seems more like Nazi Germany to me every day.
Without freedom of information America is a big pile of shit on a sidewalk.
Slashdot Mirror
Your right, but it is pretty damn close to being disappeared. Too damn close for my liking.
As a member of the left, I am so dishearted by the left's willingness to stand up for itself. Democratic politicians have apparently decided that their electoral success lays in being Republican-lite. War protesters have been cowed into silence by the right wing and the media by the slightest suggestion that war protesters are unpatriotic. People who consider themselves liberal are frightened to confess that in public.
Read 1984 people. Groupthink is not patriotism.
The left needs to stand up and fight back. Especially now, since the right's vision of the future is a government that is keeping tabs on people who buy 1984 and Cather in the Rye from Amazon.com.
The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that the liberal cares about you and the conservative doesn't.
n/t
n/t
How could I forget....
.
The Year of Living Dangerously
LA Story
1984
The Fifth Element
The Razor's Edge, the best movie Bill Murray ever made.
Maybe many of you have appreciated it, its a Slashdot kind of flick, but I've never known anyone who liked it.
What about those of us who paid for the lifetime activation?
Replay users will stil be able to set up their recordings manually.
You can use the Replay, at least the 4000 series, as an advanced VCR. You can manually tell your Replay to record channel 5 at 12pm everyday or just on Thursdays. It's slightly kludgy to name the recordings, but not difficult.
Oh, I see..... ...only 20,000 mph. I guess it's not that impressive. ;-)
Good point. Couldn't you reduce speed the same way you build it up, by using the gravity of the planets? Could you travel a circular path through the solar system by repeatedly using the planets to speed up and slow down?
My bad. I replied to the wrong parent. I meant to reply to the guy who thought the grandparent meant Voyager.
I knew space probes travelled fast, but 82,000 mph !!! Could we get a ship with people in it going that fast??? Of course at that speed I imagine that when it eventually was hit by the smallest spec of space dust the ship would be toast. Then again, Pioneer 10 made it 82 AU alright.
I think you are thinking of Voyager's appearance in the original series transformed into V'ger. V'ger was the probe that was destroying all the imperfect species and thought Kirk was "the Creator".
The Total Information Awarness agency shows up on your doorstep with a can of whoopass because you happen to do searches on the Koran, Fallafel, and Jihad.
>> There's a long disconnect in between the ancients and the 'Modern Era' we're the direct descendants of.
Wrong again. Much of the thinking that came out of the enlightenment was the result of a rediscovery of ancient greek, roman, and arabic writings
Now your just being stoopid!!!!
To pull out the DeSade as they example of what people on my side of the arguement are saying is so over the top dumb I find myself laughing.
For your information, the concept of "Sexual liberty" is thousands upon thousands of years old. You may be horrified to know that people have been enjoying sex as long as there have been people. I'm sorry to inform you that people are having sex right now. They are not ashamed and they are actually enjoying themselves.
But if I had to take DeSade's "Sexual Liberty" over your "Anti-Sexual Prison Hell", I'd go with De Sade.
My point was that in a democracy people with one set of morals don't get to overrule those people who don't share those morals.
You seem to think that if your children view certain images they will be harmed. You want to protect your children from that harm. Fair enough. IF..we are talking about what goes on under your roof.
What a lot of us are getting up in arms about is that you seem to think your morality should be the rule for the rest of us.
Many people believe that a lot of psycological damage can be done to children by forbidding access to information and, yes, images of the human body and our primary biological function, reproduction. My own personal theory is that more rapist are created parents who brow-beat their kids into fearing their own sexuallity than by kids who see images of the human body or sex.
I'm not saying that children should have unfettered access to hard core porn, but I think the harm caused by kids seeing the naked body is absurdly exagerated.
You seem to be fairly level headed, but their are a lot of people on your side of the arguement who want to run the world by the precepts of whackos like Jerry Falwell. For those of us who think that religion has nothing to do with reality,that would not be a democracy.
You raise your family as you want, but leave me alone.
Why should I, as a taxpayer, want to allow my taxes to continue to support an evil war that will kill thousands of innocent people, ruin most of our long term strategic alliances, and bring on an new era of nuclear armament?
>>And finally, not a flamebait, but my thoughts -- True, the government cannot force religious views. BUT, thankfully, elected officials are perfectly allowed to publicly show their faith system. We elect a *person* into office, and I personally want one that represents his or her thoughts, whether or not it offends people. Laws are based on the moral (often religious) views of our officials, and as long as they don't force the *practice* of a certain religion, then hoorah!
Not a flamebait,just my thoughts....
Religion is mental illness.
You don't have to agree.
I'm not going to waste any more energy on your silly theory except to respond to this;
>> Neither was it given the ability to decide the Constitutionality of a law.
That is exactly role of the Supreme Court. You are exactly wrong.
You seem to have the mistaken attitude that a lot of Americans have. The Judicial branch of government is a fully equal branch of governement with the Executive and the Legislative. The Supreme Court acts exactly as its role is laid out in the Constituion. The court usually puts a lot of empahsis on being consistent with previous court rulings.
Of course, in these days of Bush's Nazi regime you wouldn't know there were three equal branches of government.
By your logic you could say I don't have a right to drive a car, because cars aren't mentioned in the constiution.
In many cases you are right. But in other cases you'd be wrong.
An example from today's paper. Doctors have just begun to realize that allergies to wheat gluten are far more prevalent than previously known. People who have suffrered from this potentially deadly allergy were misdiagnosed. Many people eventually found help from support groups who clued suffering people in to what was wrong with them.
I could just as easily say that trusting information simply because it was printed in a book is laughable.
How often is medical knowledge completely reversed by new information? The answer is, frequently. It could be just as stupid to follow a course of treatment in a ten year old book, than to follow a course of treatment solely because you heard about it on the internet.
The Supreme Court has ruled several times that the internet is both speech and the press. It has also over the centuries extended first ammendment protection to anything that is even remotely like actual speech e.g.; art and PORNOGRAPHY.
Of yes, of course books are always up to date. They are so easy and cheap to print that all the medical texts in a library are replaced daily with the most up to date information. You also over look the fact that many support groups and forums online can provide filters for bad information and sources of information that for one reason or another might not have made it into printed book.
You would go so far as to prevent sick people from getting the most upto date information, particularly in a field like cancer research that is evolving so quickly that publishing in books would delay the information getting to the people who need it by up to a year. I've worked in publishing, sometimes it takes forever to get something in print
Americans are so willing to give up their freedoms these days, this country seems more like Nazi Germany to me every day.
Without freedom of information America is a big pile of shit on a sidewalk.
You have a right to look at tits in a library if you have breast cancer and are trying to do research that might save your life.