did you check the source of my claim? go ahead...fine if you're just that impatient I'll paste it below...
it has some pretty good scientific backing:
Research into quantum entanglement was initiated by a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen describing the EPR paradox[13] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter.[14][15] Although these first studies focused on the counterintuitive properties of entanglement, with the aim of criticizing quantum mechanics, eventually entanglement was verified experimentally,[16] and recognized as a valid, fundamental feature of quantum mechanics. The focus of the research has now changed to its utilization as a resource for communication and computation.
[13] Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N (1935). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?". Phys. Rev. 47 (10): 777–780. Bibcode:1935PhRv...47..777E. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777.
I want it to happen. I think it will. I think it is not the same thing as the 'singularity' but that some people do...
The point is, what these Quantum Computing research groups are doing has nothing to do with harnessing the mysterious forces of nature or testing hypothesis proper....this is standard, state-of-the-art microprocessor research gussied up with hyperbolic language
If you have a design, you will know what call things. If you have names for everything, you will be able to build a design from there.
words are our tools...well alpha/numberic symbols arranged in groups to form instructions for a machine to execute
typing a word is the same as 'naming' the thing you are creating when you type...ha! this certainly gets us into a Mobius Strip of language after awhile
as I've learned programming, I've found that 2nd Order Cybernetics concepts to be incredibly helpful
you start with the 'Social Construction of Reality' which has become a convention almost like the Big Bang more than a theory from any one scientist...it is broadly accepted across the Social Sciences
essentially, they idea is: humans communicate meaning and construct our individual brain's concept of the 'universe' based on language
notice the parallels the author draws between controlled and autonomous systems in machines and in nature on the definitions table on page 1
I believe we can push computing languages further by applying these concepts to coding, precisely because they are founded upon and grounded in the truth that you hit upon when you say this:
9. Designing a solution 1. Naming things
are pretty much two sides of the same coin
if we *start* there and continue with a 'cybernetic' approach programming becomes more inviting to noobs, new languages are easier to learn for experience programmers, skills transfer across any system or domain in programming better, and coding starts to resemble network topology
I'm not doing the best job explaining things, cybernetics is a tough concept to just bat around in conversation...but if this interests you have a look at the paper I linked above...the first thing they do is discuss what cybernetics is and why it is useful
its kind of my mission to push computing towards a more cyberntic model and away from a Turing model
show them I approve of their actions and vote more of them into office?
voting for the best of two options doesn't mean you approve of **everything** the option you chose does, nor does it mean that you are 'one of them'...no politician out there thinks that everyone who voted for them agrees with them on everything...
you're being naive and you need to stop....just stop forever and change
you just can't accept that in politics, depending on how you look at it, YOU ARE ALWAYS PICKING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS
you are never, ever, ever ever ever ever going to get any candidate or party that lines up w/ what you want
Are we disagreeing because *A*you dispute that the policy of Democrats is authoritarian (despite them being clearly represented that way in your political compass link) or *B*because you think that it makes sense for people who dislike authoritarianism to vote for authoritarian representatives?
right
if you check my original comment about the Political Compass, I said it is "has its problems" but is useful...
the answer to your question is not A or B because the Politcal Compass isn't calibrated properly. specifically, it was calibrated for US politics using **International** political norms...
the language is mind-numbingly confusing, for example: the 'conservative' analog of the Republican party in England supports things like abortion that the US conservatives would kill themselves over...
so, that's why IMHO the Political Compass is a bit skewed for US politicians
when I took it I was strongly libertarian and weakly 'left' (but well over the line)
I felt like I should have landed squarely in the 'strongly left, strongly libertarian' quadrant
I haven't answered your question, but I hope this explanation helps
Again, plz don't let the fact that the Political Compass is a nice, **quantifiable** graph for politics lead you into using it as a "Rosetta Stone" for each issue...it is virtually impossilbe to calibrate haha!
More to your point, having personally worked long ago in the military and in GOP politics (briefly as a staffer in DC) and now of course, 'leftist-libertarian' is how I define myself...so I've seen some changes...
'Democrats' are flawed but there is a core of people (probably 1/3-40% of the electorate) that are essentially like Gene Roddenberry types!
Honestly!
They are reasonable, patriotic to a point, willing to share, support the free market, not afraid of 'big business' when proper checks are in place, socially liberal (legal pot, gay marriage), pro net-neutrality...
Seriously...that's what the **people** who make up the Democratic party are like...they are the good guys.
The DNC and Washington politicians are, of course, not exactly the same...but many are trying....and there is an active effort in the Democratic party machine to weed out old-school out of touch people (like Pelosi)
Lastly, look at GOP obstructionism...historic!...if the GOP wasn't such sore losers Obama's policies wouldn't have had do endure so much bargaining. Ex: We'd have a 'public option' for Obamacare at least...that'd change things
So that's a long answer to a short question...
tl;dr you're confusing 'democrats' as in the citizenry who support that side with the way the current elected leaders are behaving
you are only getting smug with yourself. That is not much difference from the post you are replying to!
trolling is a form of bullying...IMHO, for reasons I stated, I believe 'libertarians' (read: GOP'ers) are purposefully sabotaging our system...they 'bully' anyone who wants to make a constructive point...("it's all bullshit"..."privacy is dead"...."both parties suck")
I wasn't being smug...I was being **mean**
I'm trying to (within the bounds of/.'s norms) shake some cognitive dissonance into this psycological moebius strip of a discussion!!!!
when the policy of Democrats is extremely authoritarian.
I think you're hung up on this point, but whatever...you seem like you have a good head on your shoulders so let's just agree to disagree on this point?
look I think you're wrong but wrong or right, you haven't refuted my point...
you actually agree with me:
The Dems may be less batshit right now
exactly.
that's my point...i don't use the same language as you but you exactly agree with me...
in any binary, such is the case!
there is no excuse for unprofessional, illogical governance...but you still seem like you want to bury the truth under mounds of flame-language
it is precisely people like you who are really stalling this country...the GOP is a rump party and survives only by stoking their rich, white, old base, taking bribes from big biz, and trolling the discourse with Ron Paul and 'libertarianism'
its a binary choice...you agree with me what the right choice is...make the choice
this is about money...or at least facebook.com's perception of how they can make money
those annoying news feed tickers aren't to 'help you connect' they are 'clickbait'
everyone understands this...its the same principle as broadcast TV commercials
i think Social Fixer would get some traction if they cut out the 'aw shucks...us?' routine...Social Fixer subverts Facebook's ad delivery system...only an idiot would think f/b wouldn't respond
i hate facebook.com precisely because of their profit model...that doesn't mean we have to pretend to wonder why facebook would act against Social Fixer
It identifies 'authoritarian/libertarian' and 'left/right' dichotomies on a two axis scale (instead of just a binary)
Sure it has its weaknesses, but its a great converstation fixer when things go off the rails over definitions...
I'm a 'left-leaning libertarian' according to academic definitions...
Your problem: You have bought into Republican/Tea Party propaganda that to be "libertarian" means to oppose whatever Democrats do
All libertarians...except strongly totalitarian leaning...should logically support the Democrats right now on a ***POLICY basis***
policy basis...look at what the GOP actually proposes as law...go ahead...on virtually every issue voted upon, the Democrat side is the more rational side of the two
I would love to reclaim the word "libertarian" from the maw of the GOP/Fox brainwash machine...
Of course the Republicans aren't very good at that either. They're just as meddling as the Democrats.
trying not to freak out here...but you *did* make a coherent point and used blockquotes as requested...so here goes:
The point of a free market is that the politicians don't have the ideas. They keep government from interfering with others who do have the good ideas
this is Ayn Rand revisionism...Paul Ryan type stuff...people who understand economic theory through the lense of **ONE** theorist only...that's your mistake.
the 'free market' is a heuristic of human behavior....it is independent of political/social systems (ex: the huge black market in Soviet Russia, street vendors, etc)
the 'free market' applied to government means a competition of ideas...
**competition of ideas**
my point was/is, that of the two, the Repubs and their supporters talk often and loudly about their love of the 'free market'
if you apply 'free market' ideas to politics, logically you would expect a lively debate of new ideas and old ideas adapted in interesting ways...
also, what is the difference if Robert Oppenheimer makes the A-bomb for Boening or for the DoD? does it really matter who signed his paycheck? he went in and did his work...
the 'free market' isn't any better or worse than the 'government' at doing any one project...that's comparing apples and oranges...b/c the 'free market' isn't an economic system its a heuristic of human behavior
They keep government from interfering with others who do have the good ideas
that is a drastically reductive idea of what government does...based on Ayn Rand...a bad reading of Rand even...
The US Constitution spells out why our government exists, and it makes alot of sense.
I certainly agree that **YES** you are right, one function of government (of many, many functions) is to protect the 'idea people' from unfair competition!!!
I really want you to know that you're right on there...but I think your premise is wrong...
The only difference is which rich assholes get richer....It's douchebags on both sides fighting for their piece of the pie -- we all get fucked over in the end.
I sympathize with your frustration but, no you're wrong.
Look at *policy*...Dem's and Repub's are very, very different. One party has a coordinated effort to end all abortion (including fertitlity tests in Louisiana) and teach young-earth creationism.
That's Repbublicans, that's "libertarians"...don't kid yourself....you want to criticize money in politics? welcome to the fucking club...the rich get richer **in any situation** fact is, even the best case scenario, with two functional, representative parties, money in politics will still be just as much of a problem...
no....the fact that humans can be corrupt does not validate your argument
In the end, the defeatist "Bah...it's all bullshit...meh" is immature and reductive. It's not an intellectual conclusion....it's the opposite...the refusal to engage a complex situation...something that requires mental effort to dig below the rhetoric.
Your position reminds me of Dr. Zeus in Planet of the Apes...covering his ears and screaming so he doesn't hear the human speak.
Democrats are the only people trying to do anything resembling professional governance right now. **accept and deal with that fact** if you think about it, the Chinese idea of 'crisis/opportunity' applies...
I'm surprised at Republicans...for 'free market' people their party is remarkable bereft of any new ideas.
trolls: if you want to express your hate for what I've said, please use blockquote to specify which part of my post you are criticizing
Drupal is a beast. IMHO, To make Drupal function at the state-of-the-art requires solid internet programming skills. The kind of skills you can't make an "API" for...
Drupal's speed issues are, IMHO, a symptom of too many abstraction layers in the 'development stack' (i hate that term)...
see, you have a 'frame' and in that frame you can put any number of 'units'...each 'unit' has community-contriubted 'modules' that allow you to integrate functions like a web-sign up form or picture slideshow...to download a module, use the 'Doober-flop Jetpack' plug-in...to install the plug-in, pick from one of these common Module API's contributed by users: X, Y, Z...but you can only use Y on Drupal 7...plug-ins can also be their own 'module', depending on they type of 'unit' you use in the 'frame'...except on future versions 'plug-in/modules' will get their own 'unit' type.
That's my experience installing a site from scratch from Drupal. I used to think that the level of knowledge required to make a full 'ecommerce' site from scratch from Drupal was equal to the skills needed to code it from scratch by hand in a text editor (people really hardly ever do this)...but I'm learning...still I don't see Drupal catching on as fast as it should.
It's a great concept...drupal as the developer's FOSS version of Wordpress (plus alot more)...
The U.S. is recovering from the Bush years, it has to in a way...the question is how much progress can democracy make against colonial-era revenue chains?
nested above someone mentioned the 'question' of whether the 'universe is a computer' which started this mess
i can't quibble with your contextualization of the terms, and using your definitions, I'd have to say that the question of whether the 'universe is a computer' is functionally the same as asking if the 'universe has a programmer'
*that* is an interesting question...one which science isn't fit to answer
what i mean is, the question of the existence of 'god' relates and involves science, but by definition isn't answerable scientifically
good comment, definitely we should all make a point to seek out different points of view in news...
however, having worked in news (Fox affilitate in Iowa a century ago) I can tell you this is not going to get you 'diversity'
I would recommend reading diverse viewpoints. I read fox news, huffington post, bbc....
It's the Fox News thing...
See it's a false dichotomy and drastic oversimplification to say 'MSNBC is for liberals, Fox is for conservatives, therefor to have balance I must watch both'
The premise is wrong, based on an oversimplification...
Fox is not a news organization. It **resembles** a news organization, and sometimes what they do could be termed 'reporting' but it is not a news organization. When you watch Fox, you are seeing not 'news' but propaganda for a certain position presented as news. It is not fit to be compared to other news organizations.
It is a publicity company that leverages the need for 'news' to carve out a market for itself. Sure they wiill claim in their ads and promotions that Fox News is 'Fair and Balanced'...that doesn't make it true.
To falsify my point, take the Washington Post...it has a conservative bent (and their opinion page is open to the highest bidder) but they proudly and rightly claim that they are not like Fox, and other journalists defend them.
Diversity in your news is going to take more work. True value-added, objective reporting is difficult even when you are part of a **real** news organization.
You need to start thinking mainstream/non-mainstream...that's where you will find stories that others do not report. Look at the NFL concussion story as an example:
ESPN pulled a documentary that exposed the NFL's negligence in dealing with concussions. The documentary presented damning evidence...and ESPN decided not to air it...instead the documentary ran on PBS's 'Frontline'
Watching another sports network won't get you "diversity" in that situation...you have to seek it out through a non-sport independent non-profit or you'd miss it!
Also, the BBC should be watched with caution regarding U.S. news...I've yet to see them demonstrate a true understanding of how our 2-party, 3-branch system works...maybe b/c they are still a monarchy?
good comment, definitely we should all make a point to seek out different points of view in news...
however, having worked in news (Fox affilitate in Iowa a century ago) I can tell you this is not going to get you 'diversity'
I would recommend reading diverse viewpoints. I read fox news, huffington post, bbc....
It's the Fox News thing...
See it's a false dichotomy and drastic oversimplification to say 'MSNBC is for liberals, Fox is for conservatives, therefor to have balance I must watch both'
The premise is wrong, based on an oversimplification...
Fox is not a news organization. It **resembles** a news organization, and sometimes what they do could be termed 'reporting' but it is not a news organization. When you watch Fox, you are seeing not 'news' but propaganda for a certain position presented as news. It is not fit to be compared to other news organizations.
It is a publicity company that leverages the need for 'news' to carve out a market for itself. Sure they wiill claim in their ads and promotions that Fox News is 'Fair and Balanced'...that doesn't make it true. To falsify my point, take the Washington Post...it has a conservative bent (and their opinion page is open to the highest bidder) but they proudly and rightly claim that they are not like Fox, and other journalists defend them.
Diversity in your news is going to take more work. True value-added, objective reporting is difficult even when you are part of a **real** news organization.
You need to start thinking mainstream/non-mainstream...that's where you will find stories that others do not report.
Also, the BBC should be watched with caution regarding U.S. news...I've yet to see them demonstrate a true understanding of how our 2-party, 3-branch system works...maybe b/c they are still a monarchy?
Slashdot Mirror
did you check the source of my claim? go ahead...fine if you're just that impatient I'll paste it below...
it has some pretty good scientific backing:
Research into quantum entanglement was initiated by a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen describing the EPR paradox[13] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter.[14][15] Although these first studies focused on the counterintuitive properties of entanglement, with the aim of criticizing quantum mechanics, eventually entanglement was verified experimentally,[16] and recognized as a valid, fundamental feature of quantum mechanics. The focus of the research has now changed to its utilization as a resource for communication and computation.
[13] Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N (1935). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?". Phys. Rev. 47 (10): 777–780. Bibcode:1935PhRv...47..777E. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777.
the 'race' to quantum computing is all about Marketing: "Now with QUANTUM technology!"
everyone wants to be the computing/physics genius who 'ushers humanity into a new era of computing'....someone might mention the 'singularity'
properly understood, Quantum Entanglement is at the core of all Quantum Physics
if a research group **truly** were able to maintain a standing quantum entangled state with **non-local force transfer** and **quantum teleportation of information** then that would be, essentially, the **single greatest physics accomplishment of all human history**
I want it to happen. I think it will. I think it is not the same thing as the 'singularity' but that some people do...
The point is, what these Quantum Computing research groups are doing has nothing to do with harnessing the mysterious forces of nature or testing hypothesis proper....this is standard, state-of-the-art microprocessor research gussied up with hyperbolic language
it makes me happy to see this:
words are our tools...well alpha/numberic symbols arranged in groups to form instructions for a machine to execute
typing a word is the same as 'naming' the thing you are creating when you type...ha! this certainly gets us into a Mobius Strip of language after awhile
as I've learned programming, I've found that 2nd Order Cybernetics concepts to be incredibly helpful
you start with the 'Social Construction of Reality' which has become a convention almost like the Big Bang more than a theory from any one scientist...it is broadly accepted across the Social Sciences
essentially, they idea is: humans communicate meaning and construct our individual brain's concept of the 'universe' based on language
to see what I mean, now dig in to some Cybernetics theory to see how theorists define 'cybernetics'...Norbert Weiner is my favorite
notice the parallels the author draws between controlled and autonomous systems in machines and in nature on the definitions table on page 1
I believe we can push computing languages further by applying these concepts to coding, precisely because they are founded upon and grounded in the truth that you hit upon when you say this:
if we *start* there and continue with a 'cybernetic' approach programming becomes more inviting to noobs, new languages are easier to learn for experience programmers, skills transfer across any system or domain in programming better, and coding starts to resemble network topology
I'm not doing the best job explaining things, cybernetics is a tough concept to just bat around in conversation...but if this interests you have a look at the paper I linked above...the first thing they do is discuss what cybernetics is and why it is useful
its kind of my mission to push computing towards a more cyberntic model and away from a Turing model
The shutdown was for nothing more than 'branding' of their party.
That's not governance in any way shape or form...
Any GOP congressman who voted for the shutdown should be arrested.
Let me guess...you're one of the "it's all bullshit...they're all criminals....parties are sold out to same big biz..."
and on it goes ad infinitum
the parties are VERY different
your position is one of naivety & willful ignorance
if this was about 3rd parties, then you'd have said that 5 comments ago...
there are two parties in the US...the other ones **caucus** with one side or the other
look at Bernie Sanders from Vermont...he's an 'independent' but is a total Democrat by voting record
here's the crux of your issue, IMHO:
voting for the best of two options doesn't mean you approve of **everything** the option you chose does, nor does it mean that you are 'one of them'...no politician out there thinks that everyone who voted for them agrees with them on everything...
you're being naive and you need to stop....just stop forever and change
you just can't accept that in politics, depending on how you look at it, YOU ARE ALWAYS PICKING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS
you are never, ever, ever ever ever ever going to get any candidate or party that lines up w/ what you want
you're being naive to expect it
right
if you check my original comment about the Political Compass, I said it is "has its problems" but is useful...
the answer to your question is not A or B because the Politcal Compass isn't calibrated properly. specifically, it was calibrated for US politics using **International** political norms...
the language is mind-numbingly confusing, for example: the 'conservative' analog of the Republican party in England supports things like abortion that the US conservatives would kill themselves over...
so, that's why IMHO the Political Compass is a bit skewed for US politicians
when I took it I was strongly libertarian and weakly 'left' (but well over the line)
I felt like I should have landed squarely in the 'strongly left, strongly libertarian' quadrant
I haven't answered your question, but I hope this explanation helps
Again, plz don't let the fact that the Political Compass is a nice, **quantifiable** graph for politics lead you into using it as a "Rosetta Stone" for each issue...it is virtually impossilbe to calibrate haha!
More to your point, having personally worked long ago in the military and in GOP politics (briefly as a staffer in DC) and now of course, 'leftist-libertarian' is how I define myself...so I've seen some changes...
'Democrats' are flawed but there is a core of people (probably 1/3-40% of the electorate) that are essentially like Gene Roddenberry types!
Honestly!
They are reasonable, patriotic to a point, willing to share, support the free market, not afraid of 'big business' when proper checks are in place, socially liberal (legal pot, gay marriage), pro net-neutrality...
Seriously...that's what the **people** who make up the Democratic party are like...they are the good guys.
The DNC and Washington politicians are, of course, not exactly the same...but many are trying....and there is an active effort in the Democratic party machine to weed out old-school out of touch people (like Pelosi)
Lastly, look at GOP obstructionism...historic!...if the GOP wasn't such sore losers Obama's policies wouldn't have had do endure so much bargaining. Ex: We'd have a 'public option' for Obamacare at least...that'd change things
So that's a long answer to a short question...
tl;dr you're confusing 'democrats' as in the citizenry who support that side with the way the current elected leaders are behaving
trolling is a form of bullying...IMHO, for reasons I stated, I believe 'libertarians' (read: GOP'ers) are purposefully sabotaging our system...they 'bully' anyone who wants to make a constructive point...("it's all bullshit"..."privacy is dead"...."both parties suck")
I wasn't being smug...I was being **mean**
I'm trying to (within the bounds of /.'s norms) shake some cognitive dissonance into this psycological moebius strip of a discussion!!!!
thanks for reading! yes that was my point!
aw, shucks
I think you're hung up on this point, but whatever...you seem like you have a good head on your shoulders so let's just agree to disagree on this point?
look I think you're wrong but wrong or right, you haven't refuted my point...
you actually agree with me:
exactly.
that's my point...i don't use the same language as you but you exactly agree with me...
in any binary, such is the case!
there is no excuse for unprofessional, illogical governance...but you still seem like you want to bury the truth under mounds of flame-language
it is precisely people like you who are really stalling this country...the GOP is a rump party and survives only by stoking their rich, white, old base, taking bribes from big biz, and trolling the discourse with Ron Paul and 'libertarianism'
its a binary choice...you agree with me what the right choice is...make the choice
this is about money...or at least facebook.com's perception of how they can make money
those annoying news feed tickers aren't to 'help you connect' they are 'clickbait'
everyone understands this...its the same principle as broadcast TV commercials
i think Social Fixer would get some traction if they cut out the 'aw shucks...us?' routine...Social Fixer subverts Facebook's ad delivery system...only an idiot would think f/b wouldn't respond
i hate facebook.com precisely because of their profit model...that doesn't mean we have to pretend to wonder why facebook would act against Social Fixer
In common usage, yes they sure as hell are ;) this is measurable...
However I agree that using proper definitions, yes Libertarian ideas are wholly independent (and in conflict with) most of what Republicans do.
I always liked the Political Compass
It identifies 'authoritarian/libertarian' and 'left/right' dichotomies on a two axis scale (instead of just a binary)
Sure it has its weaknesses, but its a great converstation fixer when things go off the rails over definitions...
I'm a 'left-leaning libertarian' according to academic definitions...
Your problem: You have bought into Republican/Tea Party propaganda that to be "libertarian" means to oppose whatever Democrats do
All libertarians...except strongly totalitarian leaning...should logically support the Democrats right now on a ***POLICY basis***
policy basis...look at what the GOP actually proposes as law...go ahead...on virtually every issue voted upon, the Democrat side is the more rational side of the two
I would love to reclaim the word "libertarian" from the maw of the GOP/Fox brainwash machine...
trying not to freak out here...but you *did* make a coherent point and used blockquotes as requested...so here goes:
this is Ayn Rand revisionism...Paul Ryan type stuff...people who understand economic theory through the lense of **ONE** theorist only...that's your mistake.
the 'free market' is a heuristic of human behavior....it is independent of political/social systems (ex: the huge black market in Soviet Russia, street vendors, etc)
the 'free market' applied to government means a competition of ideas...
**competition of ideas**
my point was/is, that of the two, the Repubs and their supporters talk often and loudly about their love of the 'free market'
if you apply 'free market' ideas to politics, logically you would expect a lively debate of new ideas and old ideas adapted in interesting ways...
also, what is the difference if Robert Oppenheimer makes the A-bomb for Boening or for the DoD? does it really matter who signed his paycheck? he went in and did his work...
the 'free market' isn't any better or worse than the 'government' at doing any one project...that's comparing apples and oranges...b/c the 'free market' isn't an economic system its a heuristic of human behavior
that is a drastically reductive idea of what government does...based on Ayn Rand...a bad reading of Rand even...
The US Constitution spells out why our government exists, and it makes alot of sense.
I certainly agree that **YES** you are right, one function of government (of many, many functions) is to protect the 'idea people' from unfair competition!!!
I really want you to know that you're right on there...but I think your premise is wrong...
The only difference is which rich assholes get richer....It's douchebags on both sides fighting for their piece of the pie -- we all get fucked over in the end.
I sympathize with your frustration but, no you're wrong.
Look at *policy*...Dem's and Repub's are very, very different. One party has a coordinated effort to end all abortion (including fertitlity tests in Louisiana) and teach young-earth creationism.
That's Repbublicans, that's "libertarians"...don't kid yourself....you want to criticize money in politics? welcome to the fucking club...the rich get richer **in any situation** fact is, even the best case scenario, with two functional, representative parties, money in politics will still be just as much of a problem...
no....the fact that humans can be corrupt does not validate your argument
In the end, the defeatist "Bah...it's all bullshit...meh" is immature and reductive. It's not an intellectual conclusion....it's the opposite...the refusal to engage a complex situation...something that requires mental effort to dig below the rhetoric.
Your position reminds me of Dr. Zeus in Planet of the Apes...covering his ears and screaming so he doesn't hear the human speak.
Democrats are the only people trying to do anything resembling professional governance right now. **accept and deal with that fact** if you think about it, the Chinese idea of 'crisis/opportunity' applies...
I'm surprised at Republicans...for 'free market' people their party is remarkable bereft of any new ideas.
trolls: if you want to express your hate for what I've said, please use blockquote to specify which part of my post you are criticizing
Drupal is a beast. IMHO, To make Drupal function at the state-of-the-art requires solid internet programming skills. The kind of skills you can't make an "API" for...
Drupal's speed issues are, IMHO, a symptom of too many abstraction layers in the 'development stack' (i hate that term)...
see, you have a 'frame' and in that frame you can put any number of 'units'...each 'unit' has community-contriubted 'modules' that allow you to integrate functions like a web-sign up form or picture slideshow...to download a module, use the 'Doober-flop Jetpack' plug-in...to install the plug-in, pick from one of these common Module API's contributed by users: X, Y, Z...but you can only use Y on Drupal 7...plug-ins can also be their own 'module', depending on they type of 'unit' you use in the 'frame'...except on future versions 'plug-in/modules' will get their own 'unit' type.
That's my experience installing a site from scratch from Drupal. I used to think that the level of knowledge required to make a full 'ecommerce' site from scratch from Drupal was equal to the skills needed to code it from scratch by hand in a text editor (people really hardly ever do this)...but I'm learning...still I don't see Drupal catching on as fast as it should.
It's a great concept...drupal as the developer's FOSS version of Wordpress (plus alot more)...
I see this too, in even historic coverage back to the "War in the Crimea" the news was used to stoke sentiment exactly as you describe.
Charge of the Light Brigade indeed
Fox News talking heads are now openly praising Putin:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/10/putin-is-one-who-really-deserves-that-nobel-peace-prize/
full analysis: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/06/a-right-wing-media-star-is-born-vladimir-putin/195756
The U.S. is recovering from the Bush years, it has to in a way...the question is how much progress can democracy make against colonial-era revenue chains?
makes sense as a dichotomy in that context...
nested above someone mentioned the 'question' of whether the 'universe is a computer' which started this mess
i can't quibble with your contextualization of the terms, and using your definitions, I'd have to say that the question of whether the 'universe is a computer' is functionally the same as asking if the 'universe has a programmer'
*that* is an interesting question...one which science isn't fit to answer
what i mean is, the question of the existence of 'god' relates and involves science, but by definition isn't answerable scientifically
we can't prove or disprove the existence of 'god'
that's IMHO
absolutely they are...they tried with HTML4.x and were stymied by the WHATWG and HTML5
do you know what the WHATWG is?
everything about their existence and the standardization of HTML5 in the face of W3C's obstruction proves your statement wrong...
start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHATWG
just dropped in to say 'hell yeah' to your comments...and express my joy that the W3C is being rightly criticized in this manner
as an internet programmer (ok 'web developer' if you must) I don't trust the W3C's policies and approach to standards...
as to when the W3C 'jumped the shark'...IMHO it was the HTML4 fiasco resulting in WHATWG breaking off and forming HTML5
when Google, Firefox, M$, etc went to HTML5 it was over, in my estimation...
HTML needed to improve and the W3C *couldn't do it*...
/.'ers please forgive my error, I posted the above comment in the wrong thread...will look more closely before I post next time ;)
good comment, definitely we should all make a point to seek out different points of view in news...
however, having worked in news (Fox affilitate in Iowa a century ago) I can tell you this is not going to get you 'diversity'
It's the Fox News thing...
See it's a false dichotomy and drastic oversimplification to say 'MSNBC is for liberals, Fox is for conservatives, therefor to have balance I must watch both'
The premise is wrong, based on an oversimplification...
Fox is not a news organization. It **resembles** a news organization, and sometimes what they do could be termed 'reporting' but it is not a news organization. When you watch Fox, you are seeing not 'news' but propaganda for a certain position presented as news. It is not fit to be compared to other news organizations.
It is a publicity company that leverages the need for 'news' to carve out a market for itself. Sure they wiill claim in their ads and promotions that Fox News is 'Fair and Balanced'...that doesn't make it true.
To falsify my point, take the Washington Post...it has a conservative bent (and their opinion page is open to the highest bidder) but they proudly and rightly claim that they are not like Fox, and other journalists defend them.
Diversity in your news is going to take more work. True value-added, objective reporting is difficult even when you are part of a **real** news organization.
You need to start thinking mainstream/non-mainstream...that's where you will find stories that others do not report. Look at the NFL concussion story as an example:
ESPN pulled a documentary that exposed the NFL's negligence in dealing with concussions. The documentary presented damning evidence...and ESPN decided not to air it...instead the documentary ran on PBS's 'Frontline'
Here's an article explaining the whole mess w/ link to the Frontline report: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/sports/football/by-shunning-concussion-documentary-espn-gives-it-a-lift.html
Watching another sports network won't get you "diversity" in that situation...you have to seek it out through a non-sport independent non-profit or you'd miss it!
Also, the BBC should be watched with caution regarding U.S. news...I've yet to see them demonstrate a true understanding of how our 2-party, 3-branch system works...maybe b/c they are still a monarchy?
good comment, definitely we should all make a point to seek out different points of view in news...
however, having worked in news (Fox affilitate in Iowa a century ago) I can tell you this is not going to get you 'diversity'
It's the Fox News thing...
See it's a false dichotomy and drastic oversimplification to say 'MSNBC is for liberals, Fox is for conservatives, therefor to have balance I must watch both'
The premise is wrong, based on an oversimplification...
Fox is not a news organization. It **resembles** a news organization, and sometimes what they do could be termed 'reporting' but it is not a news organization. When you watch Fox, you are seeing not 'news' but propaganda for a certain position presented as news. It is not fit to be compared to other news organizations.
It is a publicity company that leverages the need for 'news' to carve out a market for itself. Sure they wiill claim in their ads and promotions that Fox News is 'Fair and Balanced'...that doesn't make it true. To falsify my point, take the Washington Post...it has a conservative bent (and their opinion page is open to the highest bidder) but they proudly and rightly claim that they are not like Fox, and other journalists defend them.
Diversity in your news is going to take more work. True value-added, objective reporting is difficult even when you are part of a **real** news organization.
You need to start thinking mainstream/non-mainstream...that's where you will find stories that others do not report.
Also, the BBC should be watched with caution regarding U.S. news...I've yet to see them demonstrate a true understanding of how our 2-party, 3-branch system works...maybe b/c they are still a monarchy?
interesting quotation