I am just saying you shouldn't buy Kerry's Vaporware, your best interests would be served by voting either independent or Green or Liberatarian (Which is my party of choice and my suggestion to you). Yes, if you live in a swing state, your vote going to Nader(I) or Badnarik(L) could result in Bush winning that state and most likely being re-elected, but you win in the sense that in 2008 the DNC is more likely to listen to you.
This is wrong, and generally hurts those who listen to you.
If you were right -- that the DNC would flip over to Nader or Badnarik supporters in the next election -- you would already see things happening. Nader's presence in Florida in 2000 was what gave Bush the election, and we have a down-to-the-wire election this year. You can't ask for a better scenario for convincing the Demms to listen to Nader demands. However, it clearly isn't happening, as evidenced by your discontent with Kerry. So your philosophy of "throw away your vote as a protest" clearly is ineffectual. The *actual* impact of throwing away your vote is to give one vote to those who prefer the candidate you most dislike of the Big Two.
No, I don't like the current system, but I'm realistic. Preferential or instant run-off or another form of vote reform getting pushed through is the *only* way that third parties will ever become significant under the American voting system. I'd support that wholeheartedly. But voting for a third party in the election is just throwing away your vote. There's no point in throwing tantrums about the existing election system -- it doesn't accomplish what you want. The election scheme isn't a forum (or at least an effective one) -- it's a place to choose the next President of the United States. If you choose not to take advantage of it, you simply hurt yourself.
Do the smart thing. Vote for your favorite of the two major candidates, and then push for vote reform so that your favorite of *all* the candidates actually has a serious shot at the White House.
You know, I've seen a number of posts attacking Soros' character. It took me a moment to realize that they're all from you.
Seriously, if you don't like Soros' points, great. Rebut what he wrote. I'm just not interested in reading someone flaming someone's past character. It isn't relevant as to whether I buy into the man's points or not. Soros might like to screw midgets in Times Square, but if he wrote an intelligent article, then he wrote an intelligent article.
This guy has said that he would spend all the money he had if he could guarantee that President Bush wasn't reelected...Soros is interested in one thing only and that is himself and his wealth.
Okay, I admit that I'm not very familiar with Soros's background. However, just on logical grounds alone, your set of claims seems pretty absurd. If he's only interested in himself and his wealth, then why would he give away all his money if it would ensure that Bush didn't get re-elected? That just doesn't pan out.
My fellows conservatives and Republicans don't want a right wing slashdot, just balance out some of the lefty stuff, k? We're geeks of different opinions of worldviews, so can you throw some of us in the minority a bone here? Please!
Slashdot is generally a highly-informed, young, educated group of people. Politically informed, young, and educated people *tend* to oppose Bush. Less educated, older, rural and religious citizens *tend* to support Bush. Such is life -- you have a user demographic that is generally hostile to your opinions.
Furthermore, a large chunk of the conservatives on Slashdot are Libertarian supporters, and Bush has pretty much done the exact opposite of what they want -- he's been fiscally liberal, hasn't supported the original Constitution, and been socially conservative. Libertarians generally want conservative views towards keeping the original meaning of the Constitution, minimizing government spending, and are socially liberal (pro lesbian and gay rights and so forth).
You are more than free to post your conservative comments and criticism, though! If you're worried about a Bush-supporting voice getting out, go ahead and post!
Um, no. The outcry has been over the fact that George Soros is a well-documented dumbass with nothing constructive to add to the discussion, but he's been pimped here like the greatest political philosopher of our times.
Would you care to back up your claim that he is a "well-documented dumbass"? I know little of Soros other than that he is an important supporter of drug legalization, but other than that -- nothing. What he wrote seemed to be reasonably straightforward. His critique -- that we should not have gone to Iraq and once there, we severely mismanaged the PR side of occupation -- seems pretty spot on. I guess you could argue with his conclusion (that Bush must go), maybe say "Sure, Bush screwed up on Iraq, but you expect everyone to make mistakes", but the points he brings up seem to be pretty straightforward.
I agree with you and enjoy your commentary on most of these points. However, I do think that voting reform (allowing preferential voting or some other system that allows me to make a non-top-runner my first choice without penalty) would be great. Never going to happen, but it'd help make people aware of the issue, and it's a tough one to waffle out of.
Uh, because 9/11 was an extremely obvious parallel to the Reichstag Fire and because Ashcroft is more authoritarian than than any AG that we've had for a while. You'd only expect Nazi comparisons to pop up.
You know, I KNEW you were going to bring up the McDonald's case as an example, and fall prey to the same ignorant propaganda that you're regurgitate
Actually, I didn't bring up the case. I was just complaining about my coffee cup. I don't know what set of cases prompted the change -- it could well have been the McDonalds one. You did.
But, hey, I'm happy to argue about this case, because I've argued against it in the past on Slashdot, and I'm familiar with the arguments both ways.
For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
Your first statement is loaded. This does not indicate a problem. McDonalds knew that they sold their coffee hotter. They did not "know that they had a problem with the way they make their coffee".
Do you want to know why McDonalds sold their coffee hotter? Because they did focus group tests and discovered that people preferred to get their coffee hotter.
McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
Sure. Why is this surprising? You're citing an absolute number in the case of a very large corporation to try to make the thing sound larger. This is McDonalds. They sell a billion cups of coffee a year. That's seventy incidents a year -- or saying that people burned themselves with coffee.000007 percent of the time. I've burned myself at home with hot drinks before. I average under a hot drink a day. Let's say I've had 10,000 hot drinks in my life (which is probably an overestimate). If I burned myself *once* (which is an underestimate, again in your favor), I'm already looking at a.01% burn rate.
McDonalds is a favorite target for lawsuits because they are large and value PR highly. McDonalds has been sued for making people obese, for not using healthiest varieties of cooking oils, and all sorts of things that are completely out of whack with common sense.
As for knowing that people hurt themselves -- sure. I'd expect that some McDonalds customer has managed to hurt themselves by stabbing themselves in the eye with a McDonalds plastic fork or knife at least once too. Did McDonalds consult a knife wound expert? Of course not -- there's no systematic endangerment above what you'd expect.
The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
Jury members in the case were quoted as making their decision after seeing the extent of the injuries -- *not* what they should been deciding culpability on. If I give someone an Oreo and they manage to choke themselves to death on it, the fact that they died is completely irrelevant as to determining whether I am culpable.
Yes, she was an old lady, she was holding the cup right in a rather dangerous spot between her legs and dumped the hot coffee right in the wrong spot, and she didn't remove her clothes after doing so, and she ended up getting hurt. McDonalds gave her something that she could hurt herself with, she exhibited bad judgement and managed to hurt herself. Does the woman not brew tea at home? I expect an adult to be able to deal with the realities of handling *boiling* water, much less 180 degree coffee.
The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
This is again irrelevant as to whether McDonalds is at fault -- it's an emotional plea. Works nicely on juries, but it's not appropri
Yes. All you French, British, Polish, and Swedish should also ignore what Germany is doing, because it probably won't affect you anyway, right? Who cares who gets appointed Fuher?
HDTV turned into an expensive toy for the few and resulted in a lot of bad experiences due to early adopters being frequently screwed over than into the next must-have home entertainment product.
My guess? The next mass media infrastructure will be over the Internet, a la carte, and done with the partnership of major ISPs.
2) The programs they are increasingly producing are aimed at the lowest common denominator to reduce costs and increase audience share for that program. But that's causing an increasing number of people to find *nothing* they want to watch at all.
Specialization at the *show* level is down, but at the *channel* level it's up. The idea of the "niche" or "specialty" channel is more popular than ever.
That being said, aside from liking to turn on the History Channel in the background (good filler), I don't really watch TV much anymore. The concept of sitting down to watch a show or kill some time just doesn't exist any more after I put together a computer to put on the couch endtable.
You know, some of us actually left their parent's basement and need to make their own money, strange as it may seem to you.
I wonder what would have happened if someone like you had managed to make Steve Jobs ashamed enough not to start Apple Computer in his parents' garage.
And so what is your explanation for the hyper-avoidance of liability in the United States?
I'm not proposing an end to restitution -- what I don't like is punitive damages.
For every goofy case you can cite that appears to be an abuse of the system, there are a thousand people who were shafted by corporate america and don't get the justice they deserve.
The problem is that the current model -- allow those who sue to take as large a chunk of flesh as they can rip off -- clearly has major problems. I'm watching general practitioners unable to practice in West Virginia because the costs of insurance now exceed the money that can be made. I drink my coffee in the morning from a cup with a safety-molded top with a tiny slit in it so that the coffee can only come out slowly with a big extruded text warning reading "CAUTION: BEVERAGE MAY BE HOT! SIP WITH CAUTION!" I want to pont out that no products can list actual health hazards any more because they're drowned out with cover-your-ass garbage added onto the products by corporate lawyers.
Stop propagating myths trumped up by corporate america to further screw over the consumer.
Really? I can't think of many times that a consumer had a real, legitimate problem but couldn't get anything done, and I can think of an awful lot of lawsuits in the news that I'd consider to be bullshit. And the news that I watch tends to be vaguely liberal -- not somewhere you'd expect to see a pro-corporate bias.
I have strong (and vocally expressed) views about things that I view as abusable by large corporations, like the current patent system. However, if a system is abused by consumers, it's just as broken as one abused by corporations.
Well, you said it, so it must be true! But what is your basis for this, as I'm sure you know, mainstream physics categorically denies this statement. So, some evidence would be nice.
rufusdufus, it's not a very strong statement.
Say God likes to influence events, make people do things -- we just include God in the system. I was just clarifying the situation, not trying to make some bold new claim. I was trying to point out that the question of whether the universe is deterministic isn't a very interesting question -- sure, we can consider it to be deterministic, if we like. We just make the rules complex and the system larger.:-)
Uh, the reason you get Wikipedia and IMDB results is because they are very good resources.
Filing for an IPO and screwing up pretty innocently doesn't seem like an underhanded business tactic -- Google more than deserves the benefit of the doubt.
I agree with you about the email privacy issue. Google should be up front about how they make money from their services. What, they don't want to present a bad image and their competitors do the same thing? Google can point that out, then.
Slashdot Mirror
I am just saying you shouldn't buy Kerry's Vaporware, your best interests would be served by voting either independent or Green or Liberatarian (Which is my party of choice and my suggestion to you). Yes, if you live in a swing state, your vote going to Nader(I) or Badnarik(L) could result in Bush winning that state and most likely being re-elected, but you win in the sense that in 2008 the DNC is more likely to listen to you.
This is wrong, and generally hurts those who listen to you.
If you were right -- that the DNC would flip over to Nader or Badnarik supporters in the next election -- you would already see things happening. Nader's presence in Florida in 2000 was what gave Bush the election, and we have a down-to-the-wire election this year. You can't ask for a better scenario for convincing the Demms to listen to Nader demands. However, it clearly isn't happening, as evidenced by your discontent with Kerry. So your philosophy of "throw away your vote as a protest" clearly is ineffectual. The *actual* impact of throwing away your vote is to give one vote to those who prefer the candidate you most dislike of the Big Two.
No, I don't like the current system, but I'm realistic. Preferential or instant run-off or another form of vote reform getting pushed through is the *only* way that third parties will ever become significant under the American voting system. I'd support that wholeheartedly. But voting for a third party in the election is just throwing away your vote. There's no point in throwing tantrums about the existing election system -- it doesn't accomplish what you want. The election scheme isn't a forum (or at least an effective one) -- it's a place to choose the next President of the United States. If you choose not to take advantage of it, you simply hurt yourself.
Do the smart thing. Vote for your favorite of the two major candidates, and then push for vote reform so that your favorite of *all* the candidates actually has a serious shot at the White House.
Wikipedia's article on fascism seems to take a different stance.
You know, I've seen a number of posts attacking Soros' character. It took me a moment to realize that they're all from you.
Seriously, if you don't like Soros' points, great. Rebut what he wrote. I'm just not interested in reading someone flaming someone's past character. It isn't relevant as to whether I buy into the man's points or not. Soros might like to screw midgets in Times Square, but if he wrote an intelligent article, then he wrote an intelligent article.
This guy has said that he would spend all the money he had if he could guarantee that President Bush wasn't reelected...Soros is interested in one thing only and that is himself and his wealth.
Okay, I admit that I'm not very familiar with Soros's background. However, just on logical grounds alone, your set of claims seems pretty absurd. If he's only interested in himself and his wealth, then why would he give away all his money if it would ensure that Bush didn't get re-elected? That just doesn't pan out.
My fellows conservatives and Republicans don't want a right wing slashdot, just balance out some of the lefty stuff, k? We're geeks of different opinions of worldviews, so can you throw some of us in the minority a bone here? Please!
Slashdot is generally a highly-informed, young, educated group of people. Politically informed, young, and educated people *tend* to oppose Bush. Less educated, older, rural and religious citizens *tend* to support Bush. Such is life -- you have a user demographic that is generally hostile to your opinions.
Furthermore, a large chunk of the conservatives on Slashdot are Libertarian supporters, and Bush has pretty much done the exact opposite of what they want -- he's been fiscally liberal, hasn't supported the original Constitution, and been socially conservative. Libertarians generally want conservative views towards keeping the original meaning of the Constitution, minimizing government spending, and are socially liberal (pro lesbian and gay rights and so forth).
You are more than free to post your conservative comments and criticism, though! If you're worried about a Bush-supporting voice getting out, go ahead and post!
Fox News isn't *that* balanced, judging from their current headlines:
* Kidnappers Issue Statement Praising France (keep that French hate alive)
* Bush: 'I Proudly Served'
President tells O'Reilly he got no special treatment in Nat'l Guard
* The Risk of Surrogates
Some wonder if Kerry backers like Gore are helping or hurting
* Different Kerry, Not So Swift
Out There: John Allen Kerry's ex calls cops on him, earning him DUI
* Saudis to Boost Oil Output (minor but positive Middle East news)
Godwin's Law is often invoked by people who try to use it to kill arguments, saying "you referenced Hitler".
0x0d0a's Law:
Those who invoke Godwin's Law usually lack a counterargument.
If GW Bush asked the taxpayers to bail him out on a $2-billion dollar flop investment he made, there'd be a feeding frenzy (and rightfully so).
And if Soros was President and tried getting any direct federal bailouts, you can bet that he'd get chewed out by the public and the media.
Um, no. The outcry has been over the fact that George Soros is a well-documented dumbass with nothing constructive to add to the discussion, but he's been pimped here like the greatest political philosopher of our times.
Would you care to back up your claim that he is a "well-documented dumbass"? I know little of Soros other than that he is an important supporter of drug legalization, but other than that -- nothing. What he wrote seemed to be reasonably straightforward. His critique -- that we should not have gone to Iraq and once there, we severely mismanaged the PR side of occupation -- seems pretty spot on. I guess you could argue with his conclusion (that Bush must go), maybe say "Sure, Bush screwed up on Iraq, but you expect everyone to make mistakes", but the points he brings up seem to be pretty straightforward.
I agree with you and enjoy your commentary on most of these points. However, I do think that voting reform (allowing preferential voting or some other system that allows me to make a non-top-runner my first choice without penalty) would be great. Never going to happen, but it'd help make people aware of the issue, and it's a tough one to waffle out of.
Uh, because 9/11 was an extremely obvious parallel to the Reichstag Fire and because Ashcroft is more authoritarian than than any AG that we've had for a while. You'd only expect Nazi comparisons to pop up.
I'd vote for a bagel over Bush just to see if it could run the country better, and even in that case I'd be more hopeful and optimistic than I am now.
I'm guessing that a bagel wouldn't be able to declare war on Iraq.
Second your comment. Seriously, why would someone ask this? They had no reason to mention "closed source" at all except to annoy people.
You know, I KNEW you were going to bring up the McDonald's case as an example, and fall prey to the same ignorant propaganda that you're regurgitate
.000007 percent of the time. I've burned myself at home with hot drinks before. I average under a hot drink a day. Let's say I've had 10,000 hot drinks in my life (which is probably an overestimate). If I burned myself *once* (which is an underestimate, again in your favor), I'm already looking at a .01% burn rate.
Actually, I didn't bring up the case. I was just complaining about my coffee cup. I don't know what set of cases prompted the change -- it could well have been the McDonalds one. You did.
But, hey, I'm happy to argue about this case, because I've argued against it in the past on Slashdot, and I'm familiar with the arguments both ways.
For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
Your first statement is loaded. This does not indicate a problem. McDonalds knew that they sold their coffee hotter. They did not "know that they had a problem with the way they make their coffee".
Do you want to know why McDonalds sold their coffee hotter? Because they did focus group tests and discovered that people preferred to get their coffee hotter.
McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
Sure. Why is this surprising? You're citing an absolute number in the case of a very large corporation to try to make the thing sound larger. This is McDonalds. They sell a billion cups of coffee a year. That's seventy incidents a year -- or saying that people burned themselves with coffee
McDonalds is a favorite target for lawsuits because they are large and value PR highly. McDonalds has been sued for making people obese, for not using healthiest varieties of cooking oils, and all sorts of things that are completely out of whack with common sense.
As for knowing that people hurt themselves -- sure. I'd expect that some McDonalds customer has managed to hurt themselves by stabbing themselves in the eye with a McDonalds plastic fork or knife at least once too. Did McDonalds consult a knife wound expert? Of course not -- there's no systematic endangerment above what you'd expect.
The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
Jury members in the case were quoted as making their decision after seeing the extent of the injuries -- *not* what they should been deciding culpability on. If I give someone an Oreo and they manage to choke themselves to death on it, the fact that they died is completely irrelevant as to determining whether I am culpable.
Yes, she was an old lady, she was holding the cup right in a rather dangerous spot between her legs and dumped the hot coffee right in the wrong spot, and she didn't remove her clothes after doing so, and she ended up getting hurt. McDonalds gave her something that she could hurt herself with, she exhibited bad judgement and managed to hurt herself. Does the woman not brew tea at home? I expect an adult to be able to deal with the realities of handling *boiling* water, much less 180 degree coffee.
The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
This is again irrelevant as to whether McDonalds is at fault -- it's an emotional plea. Works nicely on juries, but it's not appropri
Yes...so what, exactly, is wrong with this? Isn't it this guy's job to represent Qualcom's interests?
Yes. All you French, British, Polish, and Swedish should also ignore what Germany is doing, because it probably won't affect you anyway, right? Who cares who gets appointed Fuher?
Have some conservative friends, do you?
HDTV turned into an expensive toy for the few and resulted in a lot of bad experiences due to early adopters being frequently screwed over than into the next must-have home entertainment product.
My guess? The next mass media infrastructure will be over the Internet, a la carte, and done with the partnership of major ISPs.
2) The programs they are increasingly producing are aimed at the lowest common denominator to reduce costs and increase audience share for that program. But that's causing an increasing number of people to find *nothing* they want to watch at all.
Specialization at the *show* level is down, but at the *channel* level it's up. The idea of the "niche" or "specialty" channel is more popular than ever.
That being said, aside from liking to turn on the History Channel in the background (good filler), I don't really watch TV much anymore. The concept of sitting down to watch a show or kill some time just doesn't exist any more after I put together a computer to put on the couch endtable.
You know, some of us actually left their parent's basement and need to make their own money, strange as it may seem to you.
I wonder what would have happened if someone like you had managed to make Steve Jobs ashamed enough not to start Apple Computer in his parents' garage.
And so what is your explanation for the hyper-avoidance of liability in the United States?
I'm not proposing an end to restitution -- what I don't like is punitive damages.
For every goofy case you can cite that appears to be an abuse of the system, there are a thousand people who were shafted by corporate america and don't get the justice they deserve.
The problem is that the current model -- allow those who sue to take as large a chunk of flesh as they can rip off -- clearly has major problems. I'm watching general practitioners unable to practice in West Virginia because the costs of insurance now exceed the money that can be made. I drink my coffee in the morning from a cup with a safety-molded top with a tiny slit in it so that the coffee can only come out slowly with a big extruded text warning reading "CAUTION: BEVERAGE MAY BE HOT! SIP WITH CAUTION!" I want to pont out that no products can list actual health hazards any more because they're drowned out with cover-your-ass garbage added onto the products by corporate lawyers.
Stop propagating myths trumped up by corporate america to further screw over the consumer.
Really? I can't think of many times that a consumer had a real, legitimate problem but couldn't get anything done, and I can think of an awful lot of lawsuits in the news that I'd consider to be bullshit. And the news that I watch tends to be vaguely liberal -- not somewhere you'd expect to see a pro-corporate bias.
I have strong (and vocally expressed) views about things that I view as abusable by large corporations, like the current patent system. However, if a system is abused by consumers, it's just as broken as one abused by corporations.
Tell that to the general practitioners in West Virginia who are leaving because costs of medical practice have been exceeding revenues.
I'm not saying that business doesn't like to use liability as a playing card. But there really is a significant problem.
Well, you said it, so it must be true! But what is your basis for this, as I'm sure you know, mainstream physics categorically denies this statement. So, some evidence would be nice.
:-)
rufusdufus, it's not a very strong statement.
Say God likes to influence events, make people do things -- we just include God in the system. I was just clarifying the situation, not trying to make some bold new claim. I was trying to point out that the question of whether the universe is deterministic isn't a very interesting question -- sure, we can consider it to be deterministic, if we like. We just make the rules complex and the system larger.
Uh, the reason you get Wikipedia and IMDB results is because they are very good resources.
Filing for an IPO and screwing up pretty innocently doesn't seem like an underhanded business tactic -- Google more than deserves the benefit of the doubt.
I agree with you about the email privacy issue. Google should be up front about how they make money from their services. What, they don't want to present a bad image and their competitors do the same thing? Google can point that out, then.
Uh, huh. You mean a good idea that OSS took from closed source that took it from open source? XFree86 had a "3d cube hack" *way* back in the day.