Welfare recipients in our country live better than the European monarchy did two centuries ago.
I don't know what country you live in, but that's certainly not true in America. Try telling that to all the homeless people I pass every day, including many who die on the street. Housing is not universally available, nor is food, nor is basic medical care. Homeless people don't even have a way to urinate legally, for Chrissake.
It's an accepted notion the the welfare system is an utter an complete failure.
Accepted by you, perhaps. Welfare has never really been implemented well in America, having been continually crippled by political wrangling. Some form of welfare seems to work great in many countries outside of America, such as in most of Europe. People keep working, except without the edge of desperation we're used to in America. Some countries even have a higher standard of living than the US.
My only obligation is to pay enough taxes so that the public has clean water, accomodation, food, and primary/secondary education.
Hey, I'm all for it! I wish that everyone in America could rely on these basic elements of survival. Unfortunately, many here go without. It should be a no-brainer that if people aren't desperate for survival, we as a society would have a lot fewer problems (crime, etc.), but there is strong opposition in the USA against giving anybody *anything*. I don't know what country you live in, but I wish we had it as good here.
These days, I think the word has come to mean "whoever's not in power". That's really what's most relevant about it anyway. Because various social structures have persistence (and other reasons), a true minority can still hold the bulk of the power. I think almost anyone would agree that white males dominate the power in America today. I'm not stating any further conclusions, not trying to start a flamewar, I'm just observing an obvious fact. (I'm a white male myself.) Ultimately I'd like to make gender and skin color irrelevant, but look at Congress and most CEO's today and you can see it's still an issue.
The reality of the modern economy is that more than a third of the population is limited by ability or gumption to working in the low-end service sector. We can't change that, and unless you want to make your own McFries, I humbly submit that we don't really want to.
This comment gives me the creeps. "We need to keep a third of the population uneducated, because we'll need servants."
What if it's your own brother or sister or mother that has to make those fries? How would you feel then? Would you help them improve their situation? If so, then you acknowledge that social connections do help. If not, then that indicates weak family bonds, IMHO.
It's a good thing there is some sort of inequality, as well.... Do we really want a world in which everyone thinks he should be a sysadmin or a programmer?
You're confusing different meanings of the word "inequality". Of course we need different professions, but that doesn't mean one part of the population has to be controlled by another. Our economy doesn't have to devolve into a caste system, the way it has.
You're essentially saying "The caste system is a good thing, because I'm in the upper caste." (The scary part is that so many people agreed with this post.)
Now it seems like you're just looking for an argument, getting defensive because you were wrong in a public forum. I don't really feel like that kind of argument, if all you're doing now is essentially calling me a liar, while you still have no basis for the statements you made.
Nor would I reveal the drug habits of other people, like you request. But I've been involved in the entertainment industry since 1983, including music, visual art, performance art, and little bit of movies. For all, both mainstream and alternative (and more innovation is in the alternative circles).
And don't list people like Aldous Huxley. He explored mescaline, as have quite a few people in the past. He didn't saturate his body with dope. And he moved on after checking it out a bit.
Actually, since you brought it up, your statement is quite wrong. He pursued and advocated psychedelics for the rest of his life, at great cost of his social standing. On his deathbed, per his request, his wife Laura injected him with a high dose of (I think) LSD. As of 1990, Laura was still involved in psychedelic research; I don't know if she still is, or if she's even still alive.
You seem to have quite an emotional stake in your conclusions; I don't know why. In any case, it's invalid to make up data to support your desired conclusions. You're harming society, and harming everyone you spread misinformation to.
And I take it you've met just droves and droves of great artists.
Yes, I have. You should try it sometime. From your posts, I can guarantee you would learn a lot from them, if you were willing to listen instead of pretending to know things you don't. You're speaking about stuff you apparently have no experience with; you may think it makes you sound smart, but it doesn't.
Are you selling them their bags?
Please refrain from personal attacks. All I was doing was correcting your own propoganda-inspired misinformation.
Well, I don't know where to start responding to this post; almost every phrase contains a bad assumption. How about: Don't pretend to be able to speak for everyone else. If you think about it, that's pretty pompous. YOU cannot tell ANYONE ELSE what their experience is. Where do you get the notion that you can? Maybe you've known some people in denial; you admit were in denial a while yourself. But many people aren't.
I'm not saying pot's an IQ pill for everyone. I'm saying it's a creativity pill for some people. That's a fact supported by the direct experience of those people, and supported by some of their creations that have lasted. No, smoking pot won't make Einsteins out of idiots, but it has helped many Einsteins expand their potential.
It's a shame if the only use you found for THC was numbing yourself, but believe me, many people find much more. Don't deny the possibility of things you don't understand.
Hardly. Most influential artists I've met enjoy smoking pot. Many influential artists of the past are on record as enjoying it, or perhaps opium, absinthe, or various psychedelics.
I'm not talking about hang-in-corporate-lobbies art, or Top 40 Radio. I mean lasting and influential art forms.
As I understand it, he first predicted the possibility of "nuclear winter", which was later confirmed by Russian scientists (who said the risk was even worse than Sagan calculated).
But his main contribution IMHO was the popularization of science in general, and astronomy in particular. Communicating knowledge in an interesting way to the general public is a very valuable and rare skill-- and usually underappreciated by people already familiar with that knowledge! But we can thank him for much of today's interest in astronomy by the general public.
I think you missed the point, which is: Many people don't smoke pot for a "cheap kick". Many people get intellectual gains from it, and enhance what their brain is already giving them. Certainly more so than alcohol. It's always been this way, but basically, US government propoganda has been trying to convince people otherwise for the last 60 or so years. This isn't paranoia, this is obvious to anyone who's smoked much pot. And yes, the US government has self-interested motives here, financial and otherwise. (For example, at least one major US presidential candidate is getting a lot of money from the prison industry. There are many very different examples too; ask me if you want to hear them.) The US government then applies pressure to other governments around the world.
Much development of human culture has come from brains enhanced by drug experiences, including some of our most influential computer scientists, and many if not MOST artists of ANY medium, ever. The problem is, they're not allowed to speak about it because of the current political climate. They'd risk their careers, not to mention jail time. Any pro-drug, anti-propoganda opinions are very effectively censored by this threat. So you very rarely hear those opinions in any public forum, but believe me, those opinions are out there. The only opinions you ever hear are either inexperienced, or lying.
I don't mean to give you a hard time, Jan. I admire you for having the attitude that "people can do whatever they want"; I wish more people in this country (USA) thought that way. Instead, because of the "War on Drugs", literally millions of people are rotting away in jail here for non-violent drug offenses. In many ways, they are in jail because of their political beliefs, a "crime" which is only defined as such by a government they strongly disagree with. So to the end of rectifying this extremely corrupt human rights abuse, I try to correct any misinformation I see. I'm trying to confront the propoganda head-on.
(And yes, I agree that many people are pretty lame and waste much of their potential by abusing (not just using) drugs, but that's no reason to throw them in jail. I have no right to tell a stranger how to run their life, if they're not imposing on me.)
I've hated Intel's monopoly for a long time and have avoided them ever since.
On principle, I always avoid buying from monopolistic companies if I can help it. When a monopoly wields power over me against my will, I do not quietly accept it. Corporations should not be kings, and we should not be their subjects.
Do you really believe a "safety report" from NASA?
on
Cassini visits Earth
·
· Score: 1
Convenient that NASA wrote the safety report. Kind of like the CIA investigating itself.
Do you think NASA, the rest of the government, and the nuclear power industry are any more honest than Ralph Nader et al.? NASA has lied plenty in the past. If they say the odds against the probe crashing are "a million to one", they're pulling the number out of their ass! They also said the problem of a certain takeoff (was it Cassini?) were a million to one. We've had a lot less than a million launches, and a lot more than one crash.
NASA, the DoD, the defense industry, and the nuclear industry all have very direct, self-interested reasons why they want us to think this is safe-- they get money and power. (Ralph Nader et al., isn't getting rich here; he's a favorite target of liberal-bashers because he's a "consumer advocate", but ya know, you're one of the people he's trying to help. You do know he promotes Linux against Microsoft, right?)
They're lying, people! I mean, I want to promote space travel too, but don't be a sucker because they can count on all geeks blindly supporting NASA in everything they do. We are being used.
Really, we should be a little more critically-thinking than this. We should know better. I'm surprised that I'm the first slashdotter in over a hundred comments that has raised these points.
This is one time that Microsoft got caught doing their dirty tricks. They have been caught several times.
But you can bet that for every one time they're caught, there are many more times that they're not caught. And you know they've pulled the most absurdly outrageous things, beyond our imagination, and gotten away with it, because no one dreamed they'd do what they do. They keep outdoing themselves. They are simply better than us at subterfuge, deception, and not being restrained by scruples.
This point isn't getting the attention it deserves: If "reverse engineering" is banned, then open systems and system compatibility will be victims. This will push any dominant product toward a monopoly, and will entrench existing monopolies.
In fact, I suspect Microsoft was a major lobbyist for this particular clause of UCITA. Don't forget, in the Halloween Documents, they talk about the threat of Samba and they propose to complicate SMB just to make it difficult to reverse-engineer.
Anything that is "xxx-compatible" was created through reverse engineering. Do you think Microsoft published the format of Word files, to help their competitors be "Word-compatible"? People had to reverse-engineer it. This is true for any proprietary file format or network protocol, like SMB for Samba. If reverse engineering becomes illegal, then all software that can read Word or Excel or Powerpoint or Whatever files will become illegal! Samba will become illegal.
This would greatly damage any migration path that would allow users and businesses to escape from a proprietary system.
I just called twice and got two different agents. Neither had heard of Linux and were greatly confused when I tried to explain it was an OS; they didn't really understand what an OS is. (One suggested I try running the Windows version on Linux.)
They both said they had no idea if Intuit had any plans to make a Linux version. One said that "Intuit does not release any pre-sales information"; the other said I should call their tech support.
I disagree strongly. I'm not using Linux out of any misplaced sense of rebellion; I have very practical reasons for wanting to use it.
When Linux becomes dominant, I will finally do what I wanted to do in the first place, the whole reason I got into it: I'll use my computer to its fullest, and help friends, families, and clients do the same. That very natural path was blocked by having Windows installed on my machine and installed in the computer industry as a whole. No configurability, no programmability, low quality, very limited control over the whole thing. And the squashing by Microsoft of any attempts to improve things. As a user, Microsoft has thoroughly alienated me in so many ways.
I never wanted to be fighting an OS war. I just wanted a computer that I could be doing things on. We shouldn't have to be fighting this battle to begin with. I mean, really. There are much better things to do, but it's taken so long to overcome the basic OS obstacle. We should have been able to take a good OS for granted many years ago.
When a good thing becomes popular in music, art, or computers, I celebrate it, because frankly it's rare. I don't cry "sell-out" unless something really is a sell-out. Some are, some aren't. I truly wish all good things were popular. (My own experience here is in music and the music industry.)
Gore's wife Tipper is extremely active in pro-censorship organizations - I believe she was behind the "Parental Advisory" labels on CDs.
She was indeed. It was the Parent's Music Resource Coalition (PMRC), which I really despised when it happened, because I was involved in underground radio. It did get Frank Zappa testifying to Congress, though.:)
But seriously, I don't like her either, for this. Such censorship is normally the domain of the right wing, with its close ties to fundamentalists. I wouldn't vote against Gore in favor of someone even more censoring!
Gore's rabidly anti-technology book Earth in the Balance is required reading before making up your mind about him.
Haven't read it, but I've heard it's more pro-environment and be-careful-with-technology, rather than "rabidly anti-technology". I've always supported appropriate use of technology, but I think we *do* need to be careful what we're doing, and to not ignore obvious environmental data (like global warming). Ecology is very scientific. Unfortunately, companies value short-term profits far more than the ecology, and we all suffer.
I'm making wild assumptions here, because I haven't read the book. But based on what Gore's said before, he's pro-environmentalist (which I think is a good thing), and also pro-technology. He was, after all, promoting the "information superhighway" back in the early 90's, which was after we knew about it but long before most people did. Very few people had even heard the word "Internet" (remember then?), and Gore was talking about wiring all schools and homes.
What arrogance! Who are you to presume that they are ignorant savages?
Do you think everyone that doesn't know everything is an ignorant savage? Then which is it-- do you know everything, or are you an ignorant savage?
Everybody has a lot to learn, and we in "civilized" nations surely have a lot to learn from less industrialized cultures. Believe me, I espouse this a whole lot.
In this case, most people who study the problem agree that overpopulation is causing a lot of ecological problems in a lot of locations. Apparently a lot of people bearing children don't know the urgency of the situation. Sure, listen to them and their views and ideas, but make sure they understand the consequences as you see them. Ultimately, they choose. It's not like I'm advocating forced sterilization or anything.
I know well-educated, otherwise intelligent people in America who are still quite ignorant of the risk of AIDS! Scary. As if ignoring it makes the risk go away.
I'll still vote for him over Gore any day of the week,...
OK, I'm curious about this. From your post, you share some of the same values as me, but I can't fathom what is better about Bush. So I'm asking sincerely, what is? I have problems with Gore, but Bush seems the far worse of the two evils, on every issue I find out about, Internet or otherwise.
Why do people hate Gore so much that they'd vote for anyone instead of him? I mean, things like homophobia are pretty scary if you're gay or have any friends that are (and almost everyone does, even if they're not aware of it).
If you're not already, make sure you register to vote as a non-Democrat, non-Republican. You probably know there are many other options. The more we do this now, the sooner we WILL get real options.
Unfortunately, George W. Bush is even worse when it comes to Internet issues. He got upset when someone made a parody of his own site, and took legal action against them. He called in the FEC, more than once.
Is this really someone you want to be in charge of the country? Do you really think he'll favor the rights of Internet users over law enforcement? Don't fool yourself.
Here's the details. I'm very surprised we didn't see anything about this on Slashdot.
Until recently, I knew almost nothing about George Bush Jr. I must say, the more I see, the more I think he's only popular because people don't know anything about him. Scary-- anti-choice, homophobic, pro-corporate in just about everything. If anyone knows anything good about him, please let us know.
Don't forget about third parties! There's lots more candidates than just the Republicrats.
Slashdot Mirror
This is information we should really be thinking about.
I don't know what country you live in, but that's certainly not true in America. Try telling that to all the homeless people I pass every day, including many who die on the street. Housing is not universally available, nor is food, nor is basic medical care. Homeless people don't even have a way to urinate legally, for Chrissake.
Accepted by you, perhaps. Welfare has never really been implemented well in America, having been continually crippled by political wrangling. Some form of welfare seems to work great in many countries outside of America, such as in most of Europe. People keep working, except without the edge of desperation we're used to in America. Some countries even have a higher standard of living than the US.
Hey, I'm all for it! I wish that everyone in America could rely on these basic elements of survival. Unfortunately, many here go without. It should be a no-brainer that if people aren't desperate for survival, we as a society would have a lot fewer problems (crime, etc.), but there is strong opposition in the USA against giving anybody *anything*. I don't know what country you live in, but I wish we had it as good here.
These days, I think the word has come to mean "whoever's not in power". That's really what's most relevant about it anyway. Because various social structures have persistence (and other reasons), a true minority can still hold the bulk of the power. I think almost anyone would agree that white males dominate the power in America today. I'm not stating any further conclusions, not trying to start a flamewar, I'm just observing an obvious fact. (I'm a white male myself.) Ultimately I'd like to make gender and skin color irrelevant, but look at Congress and most CEO's today and you can see it's still an issue.
The reality of the modern economy is that more than a third of the population is limited by ability or gumption to working in the low-end service sector. We can't change that, and unless you want to make your own McFries, I humbly submit that we don't really want to.
This comment gives me the creeps. "We need to keep a third of the population uneducated, because we'll need servants."
What if it's your own brother or sister or mother that has to make those fries? How would you feel then? Would you help them improve their situation? If so, then you acknowledge that social connections do help. If not, then that indicates weak family bonds, IMHO.
It's a good thing there is some sort of inequality, as well. ... Do we really want a world in which everyone thinks he should be a sysadmin or a programmer?
You're confusing different meanings of the word "inequality". Of course we need different professions, but that doesn't mean one part of the population has to be controlled by another. Our economy doesn't have to devolve into a caste system, the way it has.
You're essentially saying "The caste system is a good thing, because I'm in the upper caste." (The scary part is that so many people agreed with this post.)
Now it seems like you're just looking for an argument, getting defensive because you were wrong in a public forum. I don't really feel like that kind of argument, if all you're doing now is essentially calling me a liar, while you still have no basis for the statements you made.
Nor would I reveal the drug habits of other people, like you request. But I've been involved in the entertainment industry since 1983, including music, visual art, performance art, and little bit of movies. For all, both mainstream and alternative (and more innovation is in the alternative circles).
And don't list people like Aldous Huxley. He explored mescaline, as have quite a few people in the past. He didn't saturate his body with dope. And he moved on after checking it out a bit.
Actually, since you brought it up, your statement is quite wrong. He pursued and advocated psychedelics for the rest of his life, at great cost of his social standing. On his deathbed, per his request, his wife Laura injected him with a high dose of (I think) LSD. As of 1990, Laura was still involved in psychedelic research; I don't know if she still is, or if she's even still alive.
You seem to have quite an emotional stake in your conclusions; I don't know why. In any case, it's invalid to make up data to support your desired conclusions. You're harming society, and harming everyone you spread misinformation to.
Yes, I have. You should try it sometime. From your posts, I can guarantee you would learn a lot from them, if you were willing to listen instead of pretending to know things you don't. You're speaking about stuff you apparently have no experience with; you may think it makes you sound smart, but it doesn't.
Are you selling them their bags?
Please refrain from personal attacks. All I was doing was correcting your own propoganda-inspired misinformation.
I'm not saying pot's an IQ pill for everyone. I'm saying it's a creativity pill for some people. That's a fact supported by the direct experience of those people, and supported by some of their creations that have lasted. No, smoking pot won't make Einsteins out of idiots, but it has helped many Einsteins expand their potential.
It's a shame if the only use you found for THC was numbing yourself, but believe me, many people find much more. Don't deny the possibility of things you don't understand.
Hardly. Most influential artists I've met enjoy smoking pot. Many influential artists of the past are on record as enjoying it, or perhaps opium, absinthe, or various psychedelics.
I'm not talking about hang-in-corporate-lobbies art, or Top 40 Radio. I mean lasting and influential art forms.
And yes, a trained mind can help.
But his main contribution IMHO was the popularization of science in general, and astronomy in particular. Communicating knowledge in an interesting way to the general public is a very valuable and rare skill-- and usually underappreciated by people already familiar with that knowledge! But we can thank him for much of today's interest in astronomy by the general public.
I think you missed the point, which is: Many people don't smoke pot for a "cheap kick". Many people get intellectual gains from it, and enhance what their brain is already giving them. Certainly more so than alcohol. It's always been this way, but basically, US government propoganda has been trying to convince people otherwise for the last 60 or so years. This isn't paranoia, this is obvious to anyone who's smoked much pot. And yes, the US government has self-interested motives here, financial and otherwise. (For example, at least one major US presidential candidate is getting a lot of money from the prison industry. There are many very different examples too; ask me if you want to hear them.) The US government then applies pressure to other governments around the world.
Much development of human culture has come from brains enhanced by drug experiences, including some of our most influential computer scientists, and many if not MOST artists of ANY medium, ever. The problem is, they're not allowed to speak about it because of the current political climate. They'd risk their careers, not to mention jail time. Any pro-drug, anti-propoganda opinions are very effectively censored by this threat. So you very rarely hear those opinions in any public forum, but believe me, those opinions are out there. The only opinions you ever hear are either inexperienced, or lying.
I don't mean to give you a hard time, Jan. I admire you for having the attitude that "people can do whatever they want"; I wish more people in this country (USA) thought that way. Instead, because of the "War on Drugs", literally millions of people are rotting away in jail here for non-violent drug offenses. In many ways, they are in jail because of their political beliefs, a "crime" which is only defined as such by a government they strongly disagree with. So to the end of rectifying this extremely corrupt human rights abuse, I try to correct any misinformation I see. I'm trying to confront the propoganda head-on.
(And yes, I agree that many people are pretty lame and waste much of their potential by abusing (not just using) drugs, but that's no reason to throw them in jail. I have no right to tell a stranger how to run their life, if they're not imposing on me.)
On principle, I always avoid buying from monopolistic companies if I can help it. When a monopoly wields power over me against my will, I do not quietly accept it. Corporations should not be kings, and we should not be their subjects.
Do you think NASA, the rest of the government, and the nuclear power industry are any more honest than Ralph Nader et al.? NASA has lied plenty in the past. If they say the odds against the probe crashing are "a million to one", they're pulling the number out of their ass! They also said the problem of a certain takeoff (was it Cassini?) were a million to one. We've had a lot less than a million launches, and a lot more than one crash.
NASA, the DoD, the defense industry, and the nuclear industry all have very direct, self-interested reasons why they want us to think this is safe-- they get money and power. (Ralph Nader et al., isn't getting rich here; he's a favorite target of liberal-bashers because he's a "consumer advocate", but ya know, you're one of the people he's trying to help. You do know he promotes Linux against Microsoft, right?)
They're lying, people! I mean, I want to promote space travel too, but don't be a sucker because they can count on all geeks blindly supporting NASA in everything they do. We are being used.
Really, we should be a little more critically-thinking than this. We should know better. I'm surprised that I'm the first slashdotter in over a hundred comments that has raised these points.
Ask your primary doctor which insurance company they prefer working with. (Assuming you trust your doctor.)
But you can bet that for every one time they're caught, there are many more times that they're not caught. And you know they've pulled the most absurdly outrageous things, beyond our imagination, and gotten away with it, because no one dreamed they'd do what they do. They keep outdoing themselves. They are simply better than us at subterfuge, deception, and not being restrained by scruples.
I assume scroll-lock functionality is addable to Emacs/Xemacs, for someone who knows what they're doing... anyone know more about it?
In fact, I suspect Microsoft was a major lobbyist for this particular clause of UCITA. Don't forget, in the Halloween Documents, they talk about the threat of Samba and they propose to complicate SMB just to make it difficult to reverse-engineer.
Anything that is "xxx-compatible" was created through reverse engineering. Do you think Microsoft published the format of Word files, to help their competitors be "Word-compatible"? People had to reverse-engineer it. This is true for any proprietary file format or network protocol, like SMB for Samba. If reverse engineering becomes illegal, then all software that can read Word or Excel or Powerpoint or Whatever files will become illegal! Samba will become illegal.
This would greatly damage any migration path that would allow users and businesses to escape from a proprietary system.
They both said they had no idea if Intuit had any plans to make a Linux version. One said that "Intuit does not release any pre-sales information"; the other said I should call their tech support.
Bah. Has no one tried to educate Intuit yet?
I disagree strongly. I'm not using Linux out of any misplaced sense of rebellion; I have very practical reasons for wanting to use it.
When Linux becomes dominant, I will finally do what I wanted to do in the first place, the whole reason I got into it: I'll use my computer to its fullest, and help friends, families, and clients do the same. That very natural path was blocked by having Windows installed on my machine and installed in the computer industry as a whole. No configurability, no programmability, low quality, very limited control over the whole thing. And the squashing by Microsoft of any attempts to improve things. As a user, Microsoft has thoroughly alienated me in so many ways.
I never wanted to be fighting an OS war. I just wanted a computer that I could be doing things on. We shouldn't have to be fighting this battle to begin with. I mean, really. There are much better things to do, but it's taken so long to overcome the basic OS obstacle. We should have been able to take a good OS for granted many years ago.
When a good thing becomes popular in music, art, or computers, I celebrate it, because frankly it's rare. I don't cry "sell-out" unless something really is a sell-out. Some are, some aren't. I truly wish all good things were popular. (My own experience here is in music and the music industry.)
I'm sorry, Linux is not analogous to Windows.
She was indeed. It was the Parent's Music Resource Coalition (PMRC), which I really despised when it happened, because I was involved in underground radio. It did get Frank Zappa testifying to Congress, though. :)
But seriously, I don't like her either, for this. Such censorship is normally the domain of the right wing, with its close ties to fundamentalists. I wouldn't vote against Gore in favor of someone even more censoring!
Gore's rabidly anti-technology book Earth in the Balance is required reading before making up your mind about him.
Haven't read it, but I've heard it's more pro-environment and be-careful-with-technology, rather than "rabidly anti-technology". I've always supported appropriate use of technology, but I think we *do* need to be careful what we're doing, and to not ignore obvious environmental data (like global warming). Ecology is very scientific. Unfortunately, companies value short-term profits far more than the ecology, and we all suffer.
I'm making wild assumptions here, because I haven't read the book. But based on what Gore's said before, he's pro-environmentalist (which I think is a good thing), and also pro-technology. He was, after all, promoting the "information superhighway" back in the early 90's, which was after we knew about it but long before most people did. Very few people had even heard the word "Internet" (remember then?), and Gore was talking about wiring all schools and homes.
Do you think everyone that doesn't know everything is an ignorant savage? Then which is it-- do you know everything, or are you an ignorant savage?
Everybody has a lot to learn, and we in "civilized" nations surely have a lot to learn from less industrialized cultures. Believe me, I espouse this a whole lot.
In this case, most people who study the problem agree that overpopulation is causing a lot of ecological problems in a lot of locations. Apparently a lot of people bearing children don't know the urgency of the situation. Sure, listen to them and their views and ideas, but make sure they understand the consequences as you see them. Ultimately, they choose. It's not like I'm advocating forced sterilization or anything.
I know well-educated, otherwise intelligent people in America who are still quite ignorant of the risk of AIDS! Scary. As if ignoring it makes the risk go away.
OK, I'm curious about this. From your post, you share some of the same values as me, but I can't fathom what is better about Bush. So I'm asking sincerely, what is? I have problems with Gore, but Bush seems the far worse of the two evils, on every issue I find out about, Internet or otherwise.
Why do people hate Gore so much that they'd vote for anyone instead of him? I mean, things like homophobia are pretty scary if you're gay or have any friends that are (and almost everyone does, even if they're not aware of it).
If you're not already, make sure you register to vote as a non-Democrat, non-Republican. You probably know there are many other options. The more we do this now, the sooner we WILL get real options.
Is this really someone you want to be in charge of the country? Do you really think he'll favor the rights of Internet users over law enforcement? Don't fool yourself.
Here's the details. I'm very surprised we didn't see anything about this on Slashdot.
Until recently, I knew almost nothing about George Bush Jr. I must say, the more I see, the more I think he's only popular because people don't know anything about him. Scary-- anti-choice, homophobic, pro-corporate in just about everything. If anyone knows anything good about him, please let us know.
Don't forget about third parties! There's lots more candidates than just the Republicrats.