Yea, I sure feel GOOD about my ancestors kicking all those Indians off OUR land so we could grow food, be fruitful and multiple...
Pinhead. If you want to beat yourself up over what your ancestors did 500 years ago, don't bother trying to make anyone else feel guilty about something they had no control over. In case you missed Common Sense 101, what happened then was a superior force came in and took the spoils of a war they won. And 500 years later, you somehow feel responsible for something your great grandparents weren't even alive to see. I'd really hate to live life if I was so constantly depressed and guilty as you appear to be. Every success has to be marred by some failure several centuries ago by your ancestors... yeah, that must suck pretty mightily. Or maybe, and I'm just throwing this out for thought, you could GET OVER IT and start LIVING YOUR LIFE.
You're assuming that the ends always justifies the means. I don't care if we're pissing Pepsi in 200 years and in a state of constant orgasm. It's not worth a SINGLE human life. Not now, not then, not ever.
Holy Shit, if I could guarantee a constant orgasm for the human race if I died, I'd gladly light myself on fire, throw myself off a cliff, and shoot myself in the head on the way down. Without a second thought.
The first problem would be who decides what is an undesirable trait? Is dark skin an undesirable trait? Are "slanty" eyes an undesirable trait? Some may be clear cut but many are not.
Why not take a vote? I live in a Republic (although many think it's a Democracy). Let the people decide. Who wants dark skin in the future? 51% say yes, 49% say no. OK, dark skin stays. Slanty eyes? Again, 51-49. Slanty eyes are OK. Spina Bifida? Oh... 2-98. I guess the genes responsible for Spina Bifida must be eliminated.
Second - stopping disease is not that easy. Most diseases don't have just a simple piece of DNA code that identifies it. You'd never be able to eliminate all diseases.
Good point. I hadn't thought of that. I suppose I was thinking more of the genetic diseases than anything. Although, if we had nanobots that could kill people based on their parents, I'm sure we could reprogram them to kill cancer cells and cold cells too.
Third - Some things are not in the genes. Things like laziness, arrogance, and stupidity are tied to the environment a person is raised in. This is the classic nature vs. nurture debate.
Exactly. Therefore we test people to make sure they're good parents before they have children. If they exhibit signs of laziness and/or stupidity, perhaps they shouldn't be raising children to be lazy and stupid? Just a thought... I doubt you'd find many people that would agree that lazy and stupid people should reproduce... even lazy and stupid people probably would say so.
Finally - You'd be battling religious fervor. This is probably the biggest obstacle.
How about another vote? Who wants religious fanatics in the future? Or even better, who wants murderous religious fanatics in the future? We don't really care about religious fanatics... since most religions preach against violence... but the violent ones aren't really religious, are they? They're just angry, or jealous.... or lazy and stupid... Of course, if they're too lazy, they'll never get around to bombing us. And if they're too stupid, they'll never figure out we're targetting them. I guess it works out in the end.
Of course, we'll want to keep a database of all eliminated genes just in case we find that we really did need them. Though when the killer plague strikes that only spares those with bad eyesight, it will be too late.:)
Yeah.... because that's happened all of, what's the count up to now, 0 times? Can you honestly point to ANY disease that spares people with a "negative" gene?
I recognize that the concept of killing people is a little much to swallow for anybody... but is anyone really asking themselves what we may think we should have done, 200 years from now? Have you ever wondered what probably will happen 200 years from now if we DO use nanobots to eliminate "undesirable" people? In 200 years, we would have higher IQ's, longer lifespans, healthier lives, and just generally a happier life. Of course, the generation responsible for it would suffer the guilt until they perish, but the next couple generations would reap the benefits.
Again, I'm not suggesting going for it... I'm just asking people to look at the end result objectively, and suggest any alternate methods to get from here to there. Unless, of course, you're all saying that you don't WANT longer, healthier, happier lives.......
What, though, will happen when someone comes up with a way to attack cells based on the DNA within? Racial cleansing, removal of unworthies from the pool. It may not happen but it very well could if they don't come up with global policies and laws. (even then...)
I know I'm going to get flamed pretty bad for this suggestion, but maybe that's not such a bad thing. Seriously, if you could eliminate all the "undesirable" people from a generation, and practically guarantee that the traits that are undesirable would never again "plague" humanity, is that really such a bad concept?
In the first 50 years of these nanobots, we could effectively eliminate all disease, laziness, stupidity, arrogance, etc. Besides, say goodbye to the hereditary diseases, like glaucoma. No more bad eyesight (although now with LASIK, it's fairly easy to correct... I've done it) or bad hearing.
I'm just curious if anyone else wonders if the price would be too high, even if the benefits would come over the next millenium, leading to billions of lives saved from disease and stupidity. I'm not saying I'd approve of it... I'm just curious if anyone else had actually thought about it seriously, and objectively.
I believe that EA has the rights to all games made from the material in the movies, while Sierra has the rights to the books. If I'm completely full of shit, let me know... but that seemsright.
Sorry for the double-post... one of my tags wasn't closed.
I believe that EA has the rights to all games made from the material in the movies, while Sierra has the rights to the books. If I'm completely full of shit, let me know... but that seemsright.
2-7 odds that it coincides with the release of the DVD's this christmas.
I'll take that bet, especially since the DVDs are coming out in May and August... a full 4 months before Christmas. I'd provide a link to the announcement of an early Extended Edition release, but I can't find it at the moment. I'm fairly sure it was IGN, but am having trouble locating it.
Star Trek and the Olsen Twins having something remotely in common.
The only fans they have are skinny, pimply, horny mid-teen boys sitting alone in their parents' basement's?
Of course I refer only to Star Trek Enterprise... I can't argue that the age of the fans of TOS, TNG, or DS9 is limited only to mid-teens... Voyager is up for debate though.
I'm STILL amazed at the fact they haven't gone out of business. Guess that just makes them the cockroach company of gaming.. maybe nothing CAN kill them.
Give me a hatchet, a handsaw, and some heavy explosives, and I'll give it a go.
I found a few pictures and didnt find them very attractive. Judging from the comments, i guess it has a lot to do with them being twins. So i guess we have discovered a typical us male fantasy: twiiiiins!
I personally think it's some kind of combination of them being twins, and (in a very sick and disturbing way) watching them grow up on TV as one of America's favorite shows... sorta like Oedipus, only in reverse.
Having said it's sick and disturbing, I'd gladly fuck the brains out of both of them, in rapid succession.
This must be one of the most pointless and boring discussions I've ever read on Slashdot. Now we're discussing how unlikely something is the way it is, when it's quite clear that not one single person alive today will ever see it close enough for it to make any difference. Why don't we discuss how to make nanobots that fix our bodies from the inside, or the probability of another terrorist attack, or different ways to make 50,000,000 transistors fit into a one-inch square piece of silicon... or hell, even a beer that doesn't give you a hangover? Can someone please tell me the point of this discussion and what we could possibly learn that will make any difference whatsoever?
I thought of something else after I posted this. If this doesn't convince you that your philosophy is wrong, then nothing will.
There are 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, about which you said:
Now, Marxism hasn't done so well. I'll definitely give you that. It looks good on paper, but like many things (including much of capitalist theory) it fails to take basic human behavior into account.
Here are the 10 planks. I'll list each one, then state whether this country has them already, or are getting them.
1. Abolition of private property and the applicatin of all rents of land to public purposes.
How about the 14th amendment for this one? We also have a wonderful government agency called the Bureau of Land Management, for which we have to fill out extensive forms to use any land.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
This should be a no-brainer. The 16th amendment, which allowed Congress to collect a federal income tax allowed this one. If you make $100,000 per year, your federal income tax is around 35%, but if you make $10,000, it's only around 10%.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
AKA, the Federal & State Estate Tax of 1916. Also, Probate laws, death tax, etc.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Government seizures, tax liens, Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002, which lets the Department of Urban Developement seize private land, imprisonment of "terrorists" or others who speak out against the government, or the IRS confiscation of property.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Federal Reserve.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportations in the hands of the State.
Federal Communications Commission, and Department of Transportation.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Department of Agriculture... along with the Departments of Commerce, Labor, and Interior... plus the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, etc.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Minimum Wage. Also Social Security and the Department of Labor.
9. Combination of agruculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Planning Reorganization act of 1949. Super Corporate Farms. Executive Orders 11547 and 11731. Public law 89-136.
Now the BIG ONE:
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Duh. Department of Education, the NEA, Outcome Based Education.
Get my point? By your own admission, Marxist Communism doesn't work... yet we're not far from it ourselves. Could this possibly be the cause of the downturn in the economy lately, and for the Great Depression? Consider that a good number of these laws and amendments were passed in 1913-16, which wasn't long before the Great Depression.
Then it's good that you live in a country where you pay about 12% of your paycheck in income taxes, and maybe another 10% in various other taxes. If you do your deductions right, it's probably even less than that. Very, very few Americans pay more than a third of their income in all taxes.
That's just plain wrong. The LOWEST federal income tax rate is 10%. The average income per American is around $28,500, which puts the federal income tax rate at 15-25% (depending on whether the person is married). (Reference: here)
Saying that the average person doesn't pay more than 1/3 in taxes is also just plain wrong. According to the nonprofit, non-partison organization known as the Tax Foundation, this year's Tax Freedom day is April 11, which is very close to exactly 1/3 through the year. It's also the lowest since 1967. (Reference: here.
After you've controlled for family income, education of the parents, ethnicity, rural vs. urban setting, and the kid's IQ, you're left with very few comparable cases. This makes it very difficult to examine outcomes of children in private vs. public schools.
I'm not in as good of a mood as I was yesterday, so my responses may not be as "politically correct" as they were then... so forgive me if I say Bullshit. That's a cop-out that anybody can see through. People that actually believe that are just making excuses for why their children aren't getting as high grades as the next person's children. It's a really sad excuse that has NEVER been proven, or even evidenced. The very fact that you'd bring up ethnicity as a possible reason for why some children aren't performing as well as others is symptomatic of a deeper issue within yourself that I won't delve into here. As far as the person's IQ, rural vs. urban environment, or family income, there have been so many examples of why that formula doesn't apply, I'll only mention a couple... Bill Gates, Colin Powell (grew up in the Bronx, did you know that?), my own father, in fact.
Also, if you only measure academic performance, you're only getting part of the picture.
I'd say this was a cop-out as well. You're effectly saying that you can have no job, but as long as your family loves you and you have some good friends, you're successful in life. Again, bullshit. May I also point out that the lower you go in terms of education, the higher the chances are of you ending up on drugs or in therapy.
As far as saying human beings are social animals, you're right. We are. But I fail to see how that argument has anything to do with whether society will benefit from me having to pay your education. Unless the alternative is that I have to live alone, with no family, no friends, and no acquaintances, sitting in a cold dark room for the rest of my days, I'd rather keep the money I work for. If that's not the only alternative, maybe we should explore why you imply that it is?
No, not really. Having a lower standard of living now so that you can have a higher one later is not the same as going into debt and putting your life on hold such that you *never* have certain opportunities. Going into debt is expensive. Americans don't really seem to get this.
Or maybe you don't understand my point. If you go into debt, you have to make small payments every month for a long period of time. If you're saving for retirement, you have to make small payments every month for a long period of time. In the end, you're still putting aside a portion of your paycheck that you won't benefit from until later in life.
Actually, for a lot of people, it's most important to study something that will make you *happy*. For some people, that happens to be whatever will make them the most money... their happiness is tied to their financial status. For most, though, they can make tons of money and be perfectly miserable.
As I tell all my users when one person has a problem they can't really document, but when everyone else is working fine... If you can't show me any evidence of it, or give more details on what exactly happens and when, then I have to conclude you're doing something wrong.
To answer that question, ask this: how does society benefit from having well-educated people from diverse backgrounds?
If I have to pay 30-50% of my paycheck to see "society", which is, at best, an ambiguous term, benefit in a vague and unmeasurable way, then no, I'd rather keep my money. That's like your professor asking you to conduct an experiment with your own money, then not measure the result. How can we determine if society is better by government-funded education? I'd say the easiest, and most logical way is to compare scores in basic skills from publicly-education children to privately-educated children. Besides, a private education can cost as little as $1500 per year, but through the government, it's up to at least 3-4 times that.
Do the math. If I had to pay the full cost of my education, would I bother?
Education, like many things, is an investment in your future. If I had to put away 15% of my paycheck every month so I could live comfortably 40 years from now when I reture, would I bother? I mean, I wouldn't be able to afford the lifestyle I want now (analogous to being in debt), and I might not even live long enough to retire. See the correlation?
You may be in debt for 10 years, but when you graduate, the idea is that you'll be making substantially more than you currently are. That's why it's important to select a major that's high in demand, so you can command the best possible salary and be in debt for as short a time as possible. Something many, many people in this country don't seem to understand is that while going to college may be important, it's more important to learn skills that will help you make money. You can get a degree in almost anything, but many things will leave you making as much money as if you would have just worked at Walmart for 4 years.
But does society as a whole benefit from me getting a degree in Transportation Planning? Probably so.
Here is where our philosophies differ. Your concern is society, while mine is myself. Some may call me selfish. I prefer to think of it as practical. I can only control what I do, not what society does. Therefore, I try to make myself as successful as possible, and benefit those around me as much as possible.
Your view is centralized around "society". Let me make this comparison -- If you live the kind of life you think would be most beneficial to society, how will you be able to measure your success on your deathbed 70 years from now? By the number of roads you've designed? Perhaps the number of accidents the experts say your designs have prevented? To measure that kind of success, each person has to use differing standards. Therefore, it is practically impossible to measure your success.
In my lifetime, I will measure my success by how much money I've made. That will be the primary indicator. Secondary indicators will be how many businesses I've started and/or purchased, how much money those businesses have made, how many people I've employed, etc.
I understand your viewpoint, as it is a common one these days. Something to keep in mind is that the root word for Socialism is society. So far, the success rate for socialist countries is not good.
Keep in mind a few other things: many of the folks we're talking about didn't ever worry about stuff like this when they were our age, because either they didn't expect to live that long, or they expected their children to be able to take care of them, or whatever.
Exactly. They could have planned for their future, but didn't. That was their mistake. I have no problem with churches or charities or private individuals that want to ease the burden on these people, but I have a problem with the government forcing me to foot the bill for their mistake. Right now I'm paying a substantial amount of my pay towards social security that I'll never see a penny of. In 8 years, social security will be underfunded by $12 trillion, which is about 25-33% of the TOTAL wealth of the country
I'd think that the University of California's graduate programs are sort of important, but that's what's being cut...
I'll admit upfront that I'm not a college graduate, nor have I ever gone to college. Having provided that disclaimer, I have a couple questions. First, why should the government pay for your education? I don't understand the concept behind that philosophy. I do work in a university, and all the graduate programs that I know of here could easily be defended as priorities to each of the individual professors. However, I believe that each of those professors should seek funding from the private companies or organizations that their research wishes to improve. For instance, in one lab in my building, they're doing research that has something to do with engine efficiency. The professor in charge is a conservative from South America (really nice guy too), and instead of taking the hand-out from the budget committee, he spoke to people at Texaco and got privately funded. The only thing the "state" provides is the building.
Getting research monies from private companies has the added benefit of being forced to account for those monies. The government has no oversight committee dedicated to eliminating waste in education, or if it does, it's completely powerless thanks to the teacher's unions, and other advocacy groups.
... along with the Transportation Congestion Relief Program, eyeglasses for the elderly, and all sorts of stuff.
I can understand the Transportation department needing funds, as California has a lot of traffic. However, I must restate my previous question for the eyeglasses for the elderly... Why should the government be responsible for providing glasses to the elderly? Glasses don't cost much, maybe $250 for a very, very good pair, but even $250 for 500,000 elderly people or so really adds up. (I don't know the statistics of how many elderly people take advantage of this program, so consider the numbers purely speculative.) My question would be what choices did these elderly folks make during their prime years that requires someone else to pay for their glasses, or for that matter, their prescription drugs? I would assume those elderly people are the ones on social security, not ones that set up IRA's or personal savings accounts. Personally, I'm 23 years old, and I already have a retirement fund started so that I never have to give the answer "I need government help with my prescription drugs and my glasses because I never planned for my future."
In the meantime, we throw more people into prison, rather than using proven effective intervention programs that cost a LOT less.
I agree in principle, but for different reasons. I'm a big advocate of personal responsibility, so my reasons may seem harsh, but please take a few minutes to honestly think them through before judging them.
I would agree that our prisons are overflowing. The last figure I saw for the population of non-violent drug offenders was something like 60% of all prisons in the country. I would release all of those prisoners, and let them do whatever they'd like. However, before doing that, I would de-criminalize almost all drugs. Here are my reasons for wanting to do that:
1) Everything in an economy like ours is driven by supply and demand. Right now, the supply of illegal drugs is extremely low due to the laws that are in place, and the danger involved in trafficking them into the country. If suddenly those laws were revoked, the danger would decrease, and the supply of drugs in the country would increase. As basic economics states, when the supply is high, the demand would have to be low. Over time, fewer people would see the "thrill" of using those drugs, and the demand would decrease.
1a) This is a subset of reason #1, so it's not completely #2. When the demand decreases, so does the price. When the price decreases, the profit margin decreases (in some cases, the profit margin for narcotics is as high as 18
There are much more nuanced ways of injecting a social agenda than, say, the Michael Moore approach.
I can see it now. I pull someone out of their car so I can go and shoot someone to complete my mission, and the driver yells "You're bad! You're a very bad man with a gun who voted for Bush!" Eh, I somehow don't think that would add much to my gaming experience... unless I could torture him to death.
Slashdot Mirror
How exactly do you have d20 sex?
It's my turn! I roll the dice... only got a 4, guess that means no orgasm. Your turn!
Yea, I sure feel GOOD about my ancestors kicking all those Indians off OUR land so we could grow food, be fruitful and multiple...
Pinhead. If you want to beat yourself up over what your ancestors did 500 years ago, don't bother trying to make anyone else feel guilty about something they had no control over. In case you missed Common Sense 101, what happened then was a superior force came in and took the spoils of a war they won. And 500 years later, you somehow feel responsible for something your great grandparents weren't even alive to see. I'd really hate to live life if I was so constantly depressed and guilty as you appear to be. Every success has to be marred by some failure several centuries ago by your ancestors... yeah, that must suck pretty mightily. Or maybe, and I'm just throwing this out for thought, you could GET OVER IT and start LIVING YOUR LIFE.
You're assuming that the ends always justifies the means. I don't care if we're pissing Pepsi in 200 years and in a state of constant orgasm. It's not worth a SINGLE human life. Not now, not then, not ever.
Holy Shit, if I could guarantee a constant orgasm for the human race if I died, I'd gladly light myself on fire, throw myself off a cliff, and shoot myself in the head on the way down. Without a second thought.
Is Interplay making their final Descent?
Perhaps... and there may be some Fallout from this crash.
I don't think their going to publish another Descent, based on the things the article said about there financial situation... :-(
That was a pun, goddamnit!
The first problem would be who decides what is an undesirable trait? Is dark skin an undesirable trait? Are "slanty" eyes an undesirable trait? Some may be clear cut but many are not.
Why not take a vote? I live in a Republic (although many think it's a Democracy). Let the people decide. Who wants dark skin in the future? 51% say yes, 49% say no. OK, dark skin stays. Slanty eyes? Again, 51-49. Slanty eyes are OK. Spina Bifida? Oh... 2-98. I guess the genes responsible for Spina Bifida must be eliminated.
Second - stopping disease is not that easy. Most diseases don't have just a simple piece of DNA code that identifies it. You'd never be able to eliminate all diseases.
Good point. I hadn't thought of that. I suppose I was thinking more of the genetic diseases than anything. Although, if we had nanobots that could kill people based on their parents, I'm sure we could reprogram them to kill cancer cells and cold cells too.
Third - Some things are not in the genes. Things like laziness, arrogance, and stupidity are tied to the environment a person is raised in. This is the classic nature vs. nurture debate.
Exactly. Therefore we test people to make sure they're good parents before they have children. If they exhibit signs of laziness and/or stupidity, perhaps they shouldn't be raising children to be lazy and stupid? Just a thought... I doubt you'd find many people that would agree that lazy and stupid people should reproduce... even lazy and stupid people probably would say so.
Finally - You'd be battling religious fervor. This is probably the biggest obstacle.
How about another vote? Who wants religious fanatics in the future? Or even better, who wants murderous religious fanatics in the future? We don't really care about religious fanatics... since most religions preach against violence... but the violent ones aren't really religious, are they? They're just angry, or jealous.... or lazy and stupid... Of course, if they're too lazy, they'll never get around to bombing us. And if they're too stupid, they'll never figure out we're targetting them. I guess it works out in the end.
Of course, we'll want to keep a database of all eliminated genes just in case we find that we really did need them. Though when the killer plague strikes that only spares those with bad eyesight, it will be too late. :)
Yeah.... because that's happened all of, what's the count up to now, 0 times? Can you honestly point to ANY disease that spares people with a "negative" gene?
I recognize that the concept of killing people is a little much to swallow for anybody... but is anyone really asking themselves what we may think we should have done, 200 years from now? Have you ever wondered what probably will happen 200 years from now if we DO use nanobots to eliminate "undesirable" people? In 200 years, we would have higher IQ's, longer lifespans, healthier lives, and just generally a happier life. Of course, the generation responsible for it would suffer the guilt until they perish, but the next couple generations would reap the benefits.
Again, I'm not suggesting going for it... I'm just asking people to look at the end result objectively, and suggest any alternate methods to get from here to there. Unless, of course, you're all saying that you don't WANT longer, healthier, happier lives.......
By that logic because a weatherman incorectly predicts rain for 3 days, if on the 4th day he predicts it again it's a 100% guarantee it won't happen?
No, by the 4th day, everyone will have realized he had no credibility and stopped watching his channel.
What, though, will happen when someone comes up with a way to attack cells based on the DNA within? Racial cleansing, removal of unworthies from the pool. It may not happen but it very well could if they don't come up with global policies and laws. (even then...)
I know I'm going to get flamed pretty bad for this suggestion, but maybe that's not such a bad thing. Seriously, if you could eliminate all the "undesirable" people from a generation, and practically guarantee that the traits that are undesirable would never again "plague" humanity, is that really such a bad concept?
In the first 50 years of these nanobots, we could effectively eliminate all disease, laziness, stupidity, arrogance, etc. Besides, say goodbye to the hereditary diseases, like glaucoma. No more bad eyesight (although now with LASIK, it's fairly easy to correct... I've done it) or bad hearing.
I'm just curious if anyone else wonders if the price would be too high, even if the benefits would come over the next millenium, leading to billions of lives saved from disease and stupidity. I'm not saying I'd approve of it... I'm just curious if anyone else had actually thought about it seriously, and objectively.
I believe that EA has the rights to all games made from the material in the movies, while Sierra has the rights to the books. If I'm completely full of shit, let me know... but that seems right.
Sorry for the double-post... one of my tags wasn't closed.
I believe that EA has the rights to all games made from the material in the movies, while Sierra has the rights to the books. If I'm completely full of shit, let me know... but that seemsright.
2-7 odds that it coincides with the release of the DVD's this christmas.
I'll take that bet, especially since the DVDs are coming out in May and August... a full 4 months before Christmas. I'd provide a link to the announcement of an early Extended Edition release, but I can't find it at the moment. I'm fairly sure it was IGN, but am having trouble locating it.
Star Trek and the Olsen Twins having something remotely in common.
The only fans they have are skinny, pimply, horny mid-teen boys sitting alone in their parents' basement's?
Of course I refer only to Star Trek Enterprise... I can't argue that the age of the fans of TOS, TNG, or DS9 is limited only to mid-teens... Voyager is up for debate though.
I'm STILL amazed at the fact they haven't gone out of business. Guess that just makes them the cockroach company of gaming.. maybe nothing CAN kill them.
Give me a hatchet, a handsaw, and some heavy explosives, and I'll give it a go.
I found a few pictures and didnt find them very attractive. Judging from the comments, i guess it has a lot to do with them being twins. So i guess we have discovered a typical us male fantasy: twiiiiins!
I personally think it's some kind of combination of them being twins, and (in a very sick and disturbing way) watching them grow up on TV as one of America's favorite shows... sorta like Oedipus, only in reverse.
Having said it's sick and disturbing, I'd gladly fuck the brains out of both of them, in rapid succession.
This must be one of the most pointless and boring discussions I've ever read on Slashdot. Now we're discussing how unlikely something is the way it is, when it's quite clear that not one single person alive today will ever see it close enough for it to make any difference. Why don't we discuss how to make nanobots that fix our bodies from the inside, or the probability of another terrorist attack, or different ways to make 50,000,000 transistors fit into a one-inch square piece of silicon... or hell, even a beer that doesn't give you a hangover? Can someone please tell me the point of this discussion and what we could possibly learn that will make any difference whatsoever?
Some people just always have to go and ruin the joke. I hate that.
I thought of something else after I posted this. If this doesn't convince you that your philosophy is wrong, then nothing will.
There are 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, about which you said:
Now, Marxism hasn't done so well. I'll definitely give you that. It looks good on paper, but like many things (including much of capitalist theory) it fails to take basic human behavior into account.
Here are the 10 planks. I'll list each one, then state whether this country has them already, or are getting them.
1. Abolition of private property and the applicatin of all rents of land to public purposes.
How about the 14th amendment for this one? We also have a wonderful government agency called the Bureau of Land Management, for which we have to fill out extensive forms to use any land.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
This should be a no-brainer. The 16th amendment, which allowed Congress to collect a federal income tax allowed this one. If you make $100,000 per year, your federal income tax is around 35%, but if you make $10,000, it's only around 10%.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
AKA, the Federal & State Estate Tax of 1916. Also, Probate laws, death tax, etc.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Government seizures, tax liens, Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002, which lets the Department of Urban Developement seize private land, imprisonment of "terrorists" or others who speak out against the government, or the IRS confiscation of property.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Federal Reserve.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportations in the hands of the State.
Federal Communications Commission, and Department of Transportation.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Department of Agriculture... along with the Departments of Commerce, Labor, and Interior... plus the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, etc.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Minimum Wage. Also Social Security and the Department of Labor.
9. Combination of agruculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Planning Reorganization act of 1949. Super Corporate Farms. Executive Orders 11547 and 11731. Public law 89-136.
Now the BIG ONE:
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Duh. Department of Education, the NEA, Outcome Based Education.
Get my point? By your own admission, Marxist Communism doesn't work... yet we're not far from it ourselves. Could this possibly be the cause of the downturn in the economy lately, and for the Great Depression? Consider that a good number of these laws and amendments were passed in 1913-16, which wasn't long before the Great Depression.
So, what are your thoughts on this?
Then it's good that you live in a country where you pay about 12% of your paycheck in income taxes, and maybe another 10% in various other taxes. If you do your deductions right, it's probably even less than that. Very, very few Americans pay more than a third of their income in all taxes.
That's just plain wrong. The LOWEST federal income tax rate is 10%. The average income per American is around $28,500, which puts the federal income tax rate at 15-25% (depending on whether the person is married). (Reference: here)
Saying that the average person doesn't pay more than 1/3 in taxes is also just plain wrong. According to the nonprofit, non-partison organization known as the Tax Foundation, this year's Tax Freedom day is April 11, which is very close to exactly 1/3 through the year. It's also the lowest since 1967. (Reference: here.
After you've controlled for family income, education of the parents, ethnicity, rural vs. urban setting, and the kid's IQ, you're left with very few comparable cases. This makes it very difficult to examine outcomes of children in private vs. public schools.
I'm not in as good of a mood as I was yesterday, so my responses may not be as "politically correct" as they were then... so forgive me if I say Bullshit. That's a cop-out that anybody can see through. People that actually believe that are just making excuses for why their children aren't getting as high grades as the next person's children. It's a really sad excuse that has NEVER been proven, or even evidenced. The very fact that you'd bring up ethnicity as a possible reason for why some children aren't performing as well as others is symptomatic of a deeper issue within yourself that I won't delve into here. As far as the person's IQ, rural vs. urban environment, or family income, there have been so many examples of why that formula doesn't apply, I'll only mention a couple... Bill Gates, Colin Powell (grew up in the Bronx, did you know that?), my own father, in fact.
Also, if you only measure academic performance, you're only getting part of the picture.
I'd say this was a cop-out as well. You're effectly saying that you can have no job, but as long as your family loves you and you have some good friends, you're successful in life. Again, bullshit. May I also point out that the lower you go in terms of education, the higher the chances are of you ending up on drugs or in therapy.
As far as saying human beings are social animals, you're right. We are. But I fail to see how that argument has anything to do with whether society will benefit from me having to pay your education. Unless the alternative is that I have to live alone, with no family, no friends, and no acquaintances, sitting in a cold dark room for the rest of my days, I'd rather keep the money I work for. If that's not the only alternative, maybe we should explore why you imply that it is?
No, not really. Having a lower standard of living now so that you can have a higher one later is not the same as going into debt and putting your life on hold such that you *never* have certain opportunities. Going into debt is expensive. Americans don't really seem to get this.
Or maybe you don't understand my point. If you go into debt, you have to make small payments every month for a long period of time. If you're saving for retirement, you have to make small payments every month for a long period of time. In the end, you're still putting aside a portion of your paycheck that you won't benefit from until later in life.
Actually, for a lot of people, it's most important to study something that will make you *happy*. For some people, that happens to be whatever will make them the most money... their happiness is tied to their financial status. For most, though, they can make tons of money and be perfectly miserable.
I saw that after-school speci
As I tell all my users when one person has a problem they can't really document, but when everyone else is working fine... If you can't show me any evidence of it, or give more details on what exactly happens and when, then I have to conclude you're doing something wrong.
To answer that question, ask this: how does society benefit from having well-educated people from diverse backgrounds?
If I have to pay 30-50% of my paycheck to see "society", which is, at best, an ambiguous term, benefit in a vague and unmeasurable way, then no, I'd rather keep my money. That's like your professor asking you to conduct an experiment with your own money, then not measure the result. How can we determine if society is better by government-funded education? I'd say the easiest, and most logical way is to compare scores in basic skills from publicly-education children to privately-educated children. Besides, a private education can cost as little as $1500 per year, but through the government, it's up to at least 3-4 times that.
Do the math. If I had to pay the full cost of my education, would I bother?
Education, like many things, is an investment in your future. If I had to put away 15% of my paycheck every month so I could live comfortably 40 years from now when I reture, would I bother? I mean, I wouldn't be able to afford the lifestyle I want now (analogous to being in debt), and I might not even live long enough to retire. See the correlation?
You may be in debt for 10 years, but when you graduate, the idea is that you'll be making substantially more than you currently are. That's why it's important to select a major that's high in demand, so you can command the best possible salary and be in debt for as short a time as possible. Something many, many people in this country don't seem to understand is that while going to college may be important, it's more important to learn skills that will help you make money. You can get a degree in almost anything, but many things will leave you making as much money as if you would have just worked at Walmart for 4 years.
But does society as a whole benefit from me getting a degree in Transportation Planning? Probably so.
Here is where our philosophies differ. Your concern is society, while mine is myself. Some may call me selfish. I prefer to think of it as practical. I can only control what I do, not what society does. Therefore, I try to make myself as successful as possible, and benefit those around me as much as possible.
Your view is centralized around "society". Let me make this comparison -- If you live the kind of life you think would be most beneficial to society, how will you be able to measure your success on your deathbed 70 years from now? By the number of roads you've designed? Perhaps the number of accidents the experts say your designs have prevented? To measure that kind of success, each person has to use differing standards. Therefore, it is practically impossible to measure your success.
In my lifetime, I will measure my success by how much money I've made. That will be the primary indicator. Secondary indicators will be how many businesses I've started and/or purchased, how much money those businesses have made, how many people I've employed, etc.
I understand your viewpoint, as it is a common one these days. Something to keep in mind is that the root word for Socialism is society. So far, the success rate for socialist countries is not good.
Keep in mind a few other things: many of the folks we're talking about didn't ever worry about stuff like this when they were our age, because either they didn't expect to live that long, or they expected their children to be able to take care of them, or whatever.
Exactly. They could have planned for their future, but didn't. That was their mistake. I have no problem with churches or charities or private individuals that want to ease the burden on these people, but I have a problem with the government forcing me to foot the bill for their mistake. Right now I'm paying a substantial amount of my pay towards social security that I'll never see a penny of. In 8 years, social security will be underfunded by $12 trillion, which is about 25-33% of the TOTAL wealth of the country
I'd think that the University of California's graduate programs are sort of important, but that's what's being cut...
... along with the Transportation Congestion Relief Program, eyeglasses for the elderly, and all sorts of stuff.
I'll admit upfront that I'm not a college graduate, nor have I ever gone to college. Having provided that disclaimer, I have a couple questions. First, why should the government pay for your education? I don't understand the concept behind that philosophy. I do work in a university, and all the graduate programs that I know of here could easily be defended as priorities to each of the individual professors. However, I believe that each of those professors should seek funding from the private companies or organizations that their research wishes to improve. For instance, in one lab in my building, they're doing research that has something to do with engine efficiency. The professor in charge is a conservative from South America (really nice guy too), and instead of taking the hand-out from the budget committee, he spoke to people at Texaco and got privately funded. The only thing the "state" provides is the building.
Getting research monies from private companies has the added benefit of being forced to account for those monies. The government has no oversight committee dedicated to eliminating waste in education, or if it does, it's completely powerless thanks to the teacher's unions, and other advocacy groups.
I can understand the Transportation department needing funds, as California has a lot of traffic. However, I must restate my previous question for the eyeglasses for the elderly... Why should the government be responsible for providing glasses to the elderly? Glasses don't cost much, maybe $250 for a very, very good pair, but even $250 for 500,000 elderly people or so really adds up. (I don't know the statistics of how many elderly people take advantage of this program, so consider the numbers purely speculative.) My question would be what choices did these elderly folks make during their prime years that requires someone else to pay for their glasses, or for that matter, their prescription drugs? I would assume those elderly people are the ones on social security, not ones that set up IRA's or personal savings accounts. Personally, I'm 23 years old, and I already have a retirement fund started so that I never have to give the answer "I need government help with my prescription drugs and my glasses because I never planned for my future."
In the meantime, we throw more people into prison, rather than using proven effective intervention programs that cost a LOT less.
I agree in principle, but for different reasons. I'm a big advocate of personal responsibility, so my reasons may seem harsh, but please take a few minutes to honestly think them through before judging them.
I would agree that our prisons are overflowing. The last figure I saw for the population of non-violent drug offenders was something like 60% of all prisons in the country. I would release all of those prisoners, and let them do whatever they'd like. However, before doing that, I would de-criminalize almost all drugs. Here are my reasons for wanting to do that:
1) Everything in an economy like ours is driven by supply and demand. Right now, the supply of illegal drugs is extremely low due to the laws that are in place, and the danger involved in trafficking them into the country. If suddenly those laws were revoked, the danger would decrease, and the supply of drugs in the country would increase. As basic economics states, when the supply is high, the demand would have to be low. Over time, fewer people would see the "thrill" of using those drugs, and the demand would decrease.
1a) This is a subset of reason #1, so it's not completely #2. When the demand decreases, so does the price. When the price decreases, the profit margin decreases (in some cases, the profit margin for narcotics is as high as 18
No, I would say "please don't ever try and meet me".
I would say "please don't ever try TO meet me."
I never understood why people say "try and do something".
There are much more nuanced ways of injecting a social agenda than, say, the Michael Moore approach.
I can see it now. I pull someone out of their car so I can go and shoot someone to complete my mission, and the driver yells "You're bad! You're a very bad man with a gun who voted for Bush!" Eh, I somehow don't think that would add much to my gaming experience... unless I could torture him to death.