Whoa - You read way too much into my post, turning a possible future scenario for the US's decline into a vigorous attempt to defend atheism.
I also only included the "under God" snippet because it was in the Pledge of Allegiance - which fit the zeitgeist of the mid-to-late 20th century after World War II, which future historians will eventually call the peak of the US's dominance in the world (culturally, socially, militarily, etc.)
Feel free to throw up your Festivus poles and do your thing... and thank (name of deity/idol/philosophy of choice) for the First Amendment!
You're ignoring too many social forces at play - especially religion. Despite the growth of atheism in the USA, a large majority of people in the US still turn to God as a last resort when really pressed by a life or death crisis. If the country actually fractured, it would likely be on those cultural/social lines. I can't say what would happen to every state, but you'd for sure have the Bible Belt holding together from Texas to Florida along the Mason/Dixon line and West Virginia (pretty much the old confederacy). You'd also have a landlocked "Mormon belt" of Utah, most of Arizona (possibly sans everything south of the Gila River - more liberal Tucson, etc), and parts of California, southern Idaho, and a lot of Nevada. It would be the recreation of their original, larger "state of Deseret" in the 1800's (before the feds carved that way down to what is modern-day Utah). (BTW - If you think the Mormons couldn't pull this off, they got Prop 8 passed in California by popular vote and a 4% margin of victory. If they can accomplish that, they can get a LOT done when they work together.) Throw in a couple of regional coalitions based on what would probably resemble old college football conferences (Pac 8, Big 8, etc), and that'd be pretty close to what you'd get - maybe with some kind of loose confederacy between some regions (like what was thrown out in the 1780s before the Constitution?) Maybe the West Coast would toil under official Asian rule (Chinese or Indian) as a natural resource for farming and cheap labor to support the elevated Asian lifestyle - simply to pay off the US's debts (and be "protected" from other countries and keep the money flowing from Asia)?
However, IMO, all of that kind of major political upheaval is pretty far-fetched. The more likely scenario is borders across North America fading out of practical enforcement. It wouldn't be by national decree or a redrawing of borders. It'll simply happen because people will stop enforcing laws to protect them. We're already seeing this administration struggle with enforcing existing federal laws or constitutional principles they a) don't agree with (immigration), b) can't enforce or effectively implement (Obamacare), or defend (Constitutional protections against unwarranted surveillance). This empire will fall a lot like the Roman Empire fall quietly came and went - slowly from the inside over generations. Just like back then in Britannia, Germania, Gaul, etc. the indigenous people will stop kowtowing to their corrupt and comfortable masters and realize the federal government really is only as strong as the people make it. Also like the Roman Empire, it will probably take future historians decades to realize that the real USA (as it was - "one nation, under God, indivisible", with guaranteed rights and liberties actually protected by a government that was accountable to a people who cared) had quietly disappeared right under their noses - even if some of the borders remained on paper.
They may wonder (as an academic exercise) how we let such a great empire fall apart, but nobody will really mourn its loss - as long as they have a reasonably comfortable life and some other stuff to care about. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
There's at least some accidental truth to this, even if Madison Avenue didn't directly plan it this way.
However, the real problem is that the government's programs increasingly keep people from suffering from their bad life choices and allowing the market to correct itself naturally. Eat like a pig? Here's some free healthcare to take care of you. Can't keep a job? Here's SNAP, a perpetual unemployment check, and if you're lucky, here's a "permanent disability" check from Social Security for some "disability". Don't make enough money to keep consuming? Don't worry - the rich will pay your taxes while we give you thousands a year in federal income tax "returns" on taxes you never paid in the first place.
It could be argued that this is all subsidized consumption based on debt spending to keep Madison Avenue's clients going, but that's another argument.
One other thing: Theaters being bedbug hangouts sounds crazy, but per the companies it is far more common than you'd think - and they are a real problem. A common transport vector is when a woman puts their purse on their floor of the theater, next to or under their seat. The bedbugs drop right into the open purse, she takes the purse home, they crawl out in your bedroom, and you suddenly have a real problem.
Per companies a friend of mine contacted when they had a sudden infestation in a single bedroom, the only way to kill bedbugs (as of 2013, when it happened) was to seal up the room and literally bake the space at a really high temperature, for a day or two (I don't recall the exact timeframe, but it was substantial and sounded expensive, energy-wise.)
That process kills the bugs, larvae, and eggs - everything. Nothing else is guaranteed to work - especially because of the really long gestation time of the eggs (you may think they're gone but then they pop up again months later.) The process worked for the friend, and they haven't had a problem since.
It's too bad we don't have something as effective as DDT was that also won't do as much collateral damage.
Why? Because I can (for now) at least make one choice in my life where I can protect my privacy just a little.
These companies collecting data are like the scorpion riding on the back of the animal crossing the river and can't help but sting their purveyor and drown as a result. These companies just can't help themselves but spy on you if it will make a buck - especially if the government will pay them for it.
Aside from perhaps breaking some obscure city ordinance about using public bus stops, this Google/Apple bussing plan is EXACTLY what left-leaners should loudly support. It saves on energy, pollution, and traffic - and adds a wealthier, local tax base to support the liberal programs that require significant tax revenue and generally reduce crime. A win, win - except that the protesters are trying to violently stop it.
Talk about cognitive dissonance for the left-leaning./ers. You can see it in the, "I hate to make it sound like.." like starts to posts, as if people don't want to attack the type of people they would've gladly jumped behind in most other cases... The 1% the past "occupy" movements have gone after is now THEM (developers), and the shoe is on the other foot? It shows just how dangerous and philosophically ignorant these protesters can be.
Instead of saying, "hey, hey - not US, dummies.. go get the RICH people!", maybe an open discussion and a little more political balance from people on both sides is in order?
According to a Nissan salesman I spoke to, they had a launch button a few years back in its top end car, and as soon as you pushed the button certain warranties were voided. It seemed like a really stupid idea to have a button that could potentially cost you thousands in future repairs, but I'm pretty sure that Nissan didn't mind not covering the car.
I know these new Navy ships have had critics about various things, including the weakness of their armor. I thought that maybe they were overstating that, but I saw video today of the hole punched in the side of the ship and was surprised. That was just a drone crashing into the side (vs. some form of live ordinance - missile, artillery, etc. - designed to penetrate and destroy) and it punched a hole like it was a bullet going through a car door.
Maybe the Navy does need to take a second look at the armor on these boats?
First of all, if someone is telling you that you have a communications problem, that is a BIG red flag in any career you need to look at immediately.
"...without having exponentially many needless conversations,"... "I don't have to hold my tongue when someone is wrong or worry about formalities"... "Traditional advice isn't relevant to casual, less hierarchical companies"
You are 100% wrong here. Those conversations don't sound "needless" if you have a "problem".
Here's some traditional advice that applies to ALL careers/jobs that you probably need to hear: "Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care." Maybe you sound arrogant/intimidating to others (technical or not), and/or like you don't give a crap about your coworkers (whether you do or not)?
Whatever the problem is, it sounds significant - and you'd better figure it out quickly for your career's sake. There's very little room for error if you don't have "communication skills", and you can forget moving up the chain at your current job without some major changes in how you may be operating.
Several states are moving to make vehicle registration require location tracking, with permanent warrant-less tracking.
I don't think that everyone would just roll over for this yet. Yeah, 99% of the people would, but there are enough people (who would be branded as "terrorists") out there who would say no.
You're not legally driving if your car is in park.
Umm, Driving !== Operating a motor vehicle. If you are behind the wheel of a car and it's running, whether you're in Park or not, you're still operating a motor vehicle.
Consider this: If you get caught with an open alcohol container in your hand, even with your car in park, and you're above the legal drinking limit, you will be arrested. I'd imagine that the same legal philosophy can be applied to texting and driving.
On a more personal note: I can't stand to be around smartphone-operating (i.e. texting, perusing) drivers. They unknowingly drive slower than everyone else because of some kind of limbic reaction in their brains to be "safer" while they do something else that requires their concentration. While doing this, they are playing peekaboo with traffic - up and down, up and down with their eyes, playing russian roulette with those around them in rush hour traffic.
Driving texters may be nice people at every other point in time of the day, but when they're swiping their thumb and reading that "important business deal" text or that must-read Twitter feed while operating a motor vehicle, they are ACTING LIKE TOTAL ASSHOLES.
If you need to communicate instantly and "the text can't wait", then just CALL them instead. At least you'll keep your eyes on the road.
For those of you whining about this overzealous, "dickhead" cop as if he's profiling innocent drivers and crushing libertarian ideals with his nightstick: Be honest with yourself and admit that the overquoted idea, "with freedom comes responsibility" applies here. Admit that texting (or otherwise using the "smart" part of a smartphone) and driving puts other drivers at risk - even at a stop signal. Those texters are operating a potential 3000+ lb. battering ram, and they need to treat their vehicle as such.
Someone posted a perfect formula for getting mod points years ago, but I can't find it. I'm stealing some of the following from that post:
1 - The earlier you post, the more people will read it - thus, the higher the moderation may go.
2 - If you reply to a +5 post (vs. starting your own thread), you're more likely to get read and get modded up.
3 - Repeat something obvious someone else has said (getting modded Redundant doesn't seem to happen often anymore).
4 - Keep your posts shorter, and more people will read them - possibly modding them higher.
5 - Use subtle flamebaiting that comes off as Insightful in a groupthink-like environment.
6 - Have a left-leaning, Democrat-focused, progressive viewpoint. If you lean more conservative on/. with your posts, you'd better have a solid argument or it's more likely to get ignored/blasted.
I'd list more, but I need to post this now or I may miss out of a mod point or two.
4b) Humiliation/Realization. Something happens that humbles one or more of the main characters into realizing just how stupid the Conflict in #3 really was. Optionally, there's a montage of regret set to sappy music (Pretty Woman), really pounding their regret home.
Who said anything about Fox News? For the most part, Fox News sucks...
Maybe you need to take off your bipolar glasses and realize that not everyone who has an opinion you don't agree with is on one side or the other. What a tool...
Right or wrong, it's hard to take this article seriously when thebulletin.org doesn't exactly look like an objective and balanced source of information on climate change.
When I read the headline I thought it was something new and sinister to worry about, but valley fever? This is nothing new - at least here in Arizona. As a kid growing up here in the 70s and 80s there was a public service announcement on TV about it played pretty often (Channel 5 maybe?). (Imagine a scene in a small farming town, near a cotton or alfalfa field, on a hot, dry summer day. A tractor is discing a field in the background, kicking up a wall of dust behind it, in the warped light of the baking summer sun. Cue a narrator's voice - "dusty... Dusty... Dusty... DUSTY...")
This is only based on my Arizona experience and as a "study of one", but FWIW:
1) People who grow up in AZ from the start don't seem to have as much trouble with it as those who move here at some point. I have heard a couple of stories of people having to move away from Arizona solely because of it, but that is pretty rare to hear about.
2) Unlike diseases where you get a specific set of symptoms, different people respond to valley fever differently. My entire family (4th or 5th generation Arizonans) grew up on a small farm in rural AZ, and none of us ever experienced a case of diagnosed valley fever in my entire life. I probably had it at least once and just got over it like some small bout of the flu when I was younger. OTOH, my borderline asthmatic wife that grew up in multiple states (coastal CA, CO, and AZ) got it as an adult and she was miserable. It took a few weeks of suffering (including some coughing rough enough to bruise ribs) to overcome it, and she wasn't the same for a while afterwards. (According to her doctor/specialist at the time, testing for the disease is quite unreliable, coming back false quite often when in reality you do have it.)
I forgot to add that the state government and her replacement (Jan Brewer) did a great job of managing the fiscal disaster Napalitano bailed on for her cushy job. Instead of accounting gimmicks like what Janet did (selling state government properties and leasing them from new owners, etc.), they tightened their belts and got the job done by raising revenue and cutting costs. Even hard core, liberal Democrats that hate Jan Brewer for wagging her finger at President Obama have to appreciate what she did to beat down the more extreme elements of her own party in the GOP-led legislature to fix Arizona's books and manage the state through the tough times. The governor helped lead the people to a three year, temporary sales tax (that just expired). They also painfully cut many services to the bone. The state still needs to do more work to stabilize its long-term prospects, but we're long since off of life support.
OTOH, who's to say what kind of gridlocked mess we'd be in as a state if Janet had remained governor when everything ultimately collapsed here in the fall of 2008...
With her resigning her post, this day is a great day for the entire country.
While governor of my home state (Arizona), she was a friend of big government and an enemy of libertarian views. She ran up the Arizona state budget by billions, starting new and costly programs, with no long-term plans on how to pay for them in leaner times. She also pushed hard for planting the roots of a surveillance state, led by state-wide photo radar on state highways.
Then in 2008, seeing the writing on the wall - she was term-limited and couldn't run again, the state's economy/budget was about to tank as the first signs of the housing collapse were appearing - she sucked up HARD to Barack Obama on the 2008 campaign trail and grabbed the first government post thrown her way as payment.
Many of us here in Arizona cheered when she left, but quietly shuddered when we realized what position she'd taken, knowing her views. IMO, we're lucky we've only had to deal with naked body scanners and that enough people pushed back against her, "to hell with privacy - we need to keep these idiots safe," mentality to keep her in check. Maybe we're also lucky she was generally incompetent and became more of a DC bureaucrat that became too politically paralyzed to push for her grand views of what she would've really wanted to implement?
And you've gotta wonder what changes she could possibly bring to a university system. She was part of a sprawling bureaucracy in DC - I guess the UC system wants a bigger bureaucracy? Maybe they just want to capitalize on her connections in DC to get federal funds (making her a de facto lobbyist)?
On the future DHS replacement - here's to hoping the president doesn't pick another bureaucrat. Maybe the president will live up to some of his campaign promises now on openness in government when picking her successor? Realistically, I'm pretty sure it won't be a Ron Paul type...
if Napolitano can bring the same magic to the UC system that she did to DHS, then maybe the UC system will be safe from...
If by "magic" you mean her using her DC connections to get more federal dough into the UC system one way or another, then probably. This reeks of hiring a DC insider to get cash...
A friendly tip, you might want to think carefully before continuing with "traditional Old Testament marriage" as a foundation of your case.
Yeah, the cultures surrounding the OT style of marriage (polygamy, man pretty much owns everything, etc.) are long gone, so many of the mores addressed in the OT's first five books (the Pentatauch, or Torah) seem a little crazy in modern society.
"Leviticus says this" arguments, but the short, short version is that the first five books of the OT are the Law of Moses, and a lot of that (handed down by "God" - i.e. Jesus around 1300-1400 BC) was "fulfilled" (i.e. thrown out and/or clarified) by Jesus (as a mortal man) in the NT. Why he did that is a long, unrelated history lesson - but that doesn't mean that his stance on morality changed during that time.
Again, people who throw that "But Leviticus says..." argument frankly don't know the history, meaning or purpose behind those parts of the Bible. They're just trying to blow off doctrine A in the OT (homosexuality, fornication, adultery, etc.) because doctrine B (don't eat shellfish, etc.) is no longer relevant. That logic isn't sustainable.
I cannot, in good conscience, support a work, however good, that would lead to harm to others' civil rights.
Another argument that is built on the foundation that "gay rights are civil rights". When and how did gay rights become civil rights? What widely accredited, factual basis is this built upon?
Even in 2013 there's still no widely accredited evidence that says people are "born gay", have a "gay gene", etc., but that doesn't matter anymore because that old argument - which can't be won by gay activists - has been buried in a shroud of bigorty.
Don't think so? Try and answer the questions above with facts (not "truth"), without resorting to the "civil rights" argument. While some may respond with fringe arguments like "look at the gay monkeys" or quoting some flawed study that is never widely accepted by science, just about all responses eventually filter down to the following: "Gay rights are a civil right because people never made a choice that led them to become gay. It's just who they are. Therefore, they should be accepted as equals on every social level and in all social institutions - without any tags or flags labeling them as 'different'. If you don't think so, you're a bigot/moron/idiot/religiousnutjob that needs to get educated or shut the hell up."
In the end, IMO, gay activists aren't pushing for "civil rights" - that's just their legal tool they've employed. Instead, they want something much more basic: They just want to feel normal/accepted/loved for "who they are". They just want to "normalize" their lives - and if that requires stripping off social mores that clash with that feeling of normalcy, they will attack them, slowly - 24/7 - for as long as it takes, until they've wiped those "hateful" mores out of existence or placed such a strong taboo on them that they marginalize those who use them in the same extreme manner they've been shunned/hated/attacked by societies for millenia.
Anyone truly concerned about "civil rights" and "freedoms" would never take that fascist tact that many here on this board are taking, with many viciously attacking Mr. Card directly vs. responding to his points.
BTW - I have a theory as to why society shifted on the issue so far and quickly over the last 15-20 years.
Americans suddenly become more educated, smarter, wiser, and/or more compassionate over the last 15-20 years (according to various studies on education, etc.)
The Internet itself has made the world much smaller, opening up people's minds to other societies, mores, etc. However, many people tend to listen to those of their own viewpoint vs. listening to and considering others.
The spread of pornography online likely changed social mores about all kinds of sexuality for some, but that still can't account 20% worth of shift in less than 20 years. Besides, porn has been around for millenia w/o ever causing a shift nearly as seismic as this - regardless of the powers of the Internet.
IMO, the reason is much more basic - popularity and peer pressure. After all of the pro-gay pushing by various people in society and media it finally reached critical mass, making opposing gay marriage the "uncool" stance to take. Those that didn't have a strong opinion have jumped on the more popular side of the issue just to be cool and not cause any trouble.
This infers that "gay rights are civil rights" is an unquestionable corollary/fact to build arguments off of.
Marriage predates recorded history. Unlike Christ.
Not if Christ was the same god/person/deity as the god of the Old Testament, which my particular vein of Christianity believes is the case. If they're one and the same, then Christ (under the name Jehovah/Yahweh in the OT) does go back to the beginning of the Bible (which is pretty dang close to the beginning of "recorded history") and predates it.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine that 1000 years into the future some 20th century English runologist will crack the code of pig latin.
Whoa - You read way too much into my post, turning a possible future scenario for the US's decline into a vigorous attempt to defend atheism.
I also only included the "under God" snippet because it was in the Pledge of Allegiance - which fit the zeitgeist of the mid-to-late 20th century after World War II, which future historians will eventually call the peak of the US's dominance in the world (culturally, socially, militarily, etc.)
Feel free to throw up your Festivus poles and do your thing... and thank (name of deity/idol/philosophy of choice) for the First Amendment!
You're ignoring too many social forces at play - especially religion. Despite the growth of atheism in the USA, a large majority of people in the US still turn to God as a last resort when really pressed by a life or death crisis. If the country actually fractured, it would likely be on those cultural/social lines. I can't say what would happen to every state, but you'd for sure have the Bible Belt holding together from Texas to Florida along the Mason/Dixon line and West Virginia (pretty much the old confederacy). You'd also have a landlocked "Mormon belt" of Utah, most of Arizona (possibly sans everything south of the Gila River - more liberal Tucson, etc), and parts of California, southern Idaho, and a lot of Nevada. It would be the recreation of their original, larger "state of Deseret" in the 1800's (before the feds carved that way down to what is modern-day Utah). (BTW - If you think the Mormons couldn't pull this off, they got Prop 8 passed in California by popular vote and a 4% margin of victory. If they can accomplish that, they can get a LOT done when they work together.) Throw in a couple of regional coalitions based on what would probably resemble old college football conferences (Pac 8, Big 8, etc), and that'd be pretty close to what you'd get - maybe with some kind of loose confederacy between some regions (like what was thrown out in the 1780s before the Constitution?) Maybe the West Coast would toil under official Asian rule (Chinese or Indian) as a natural resource for farming and cheap labor to support the elevated Asian lifestyle - simply to pay off the US's debts (and be "protected" from other countries and keep the money flowing from Asia)?
However, IMO, all of that kind of major political upheaval is pretty far-fetched. The more likely scenario is borders across North America fading out of practical enforcement. It wouldn't be by national decree or a redrawing of borders. It'll simply happen because people will stop enforcing laws to protect them. We're already seeing this administration struggle with enforcing existing federal laws or constitutional principles they a) don't agree with (immigration), b) can't enforce or effectively implement (Obamacare), or defend (Constitutional protections against unwarranted surveillance). This empire will fall a lot like the Roman Empire fall quietly came and went - slowly from the inside over generations. Just like back then in Britannia, Germania, Gaul, etc. the indigenous people will stop kowtowing to their corrupt and comfortable masters and realize the federal government really is only as strong as the people make it. Also like the Roman Empire, it will probably take future historians decades to realize that the real USA (as it was - "one nation, under God, indivisible", with guaranteed rights and liberties actually protected by a government that was accountable to a people who cared) had quietly disappeared right under their noses - even if some of the borders remained on paper.
They may wonder (as an academic exercise) how we let such a great empire fall apart, but nobody will really mourn its loss - as long as they have a reasonably comfortable life and some other stuff to care about. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
If the network hardware was compromised, what would've stopped the hackers from collecting the PINs as well?
With this increase in security encourage hackers to go after debit cards more - which would be worse for consumers (fewer fraud protections there)?
Will there even really be a difference between credit and debit cards anymore?
How will this affect online transactions (especially for web developers)?
This sounds like a bigger change than some people realize.
There's at least some accidental truth to this, even if Madison Avenue didn't directly plan it this way.
However, the real problem is that the government's programs increasingly keep people from suffering from their bad life choices and allowing the market to correct itself naturally. Eat like a pig? Here's some free healthcare to take care of you. Can't keep a job? Here's SNAP, a perpetual unemployment check, and if you're lucky, here's a "permanent disability" check from Social Security for some "disability". Don't make enough money to keep consuming? Don't worry - the rich will pay your taxes while we give you thousands a year in federal income tax "returns" on taxes you never paid in the first place.
It could be argued that this is all subsidized consumption based on debt spending to keep Madison Avenue's clients going, but that's another argument.
One other thing: Theaters being bedbug hangouts sounds crazy, but per the companies it is far more common than you'd think - and they are a real problem. A common transport vector is when a woman puts their purse on their floor of the theater, next to or under their seat. The bedbugs drop right into the open purse, she takes the purse home, they crawl out in your bedroom, and you suddenly have a real problem.
Per companies a friend of mine contacted when they had a sudden infestation in a single bedroom, the only way to kill bedbugs (as of 2013, when it happened) was to seal up the room and literally bake the space at a really high temperature, for a day or two (I don't recall the exact timeframe, but it was substantial and sounded expensive, energy-wise.)
That process kills the bugs, larvae, and eggs - everything. Nothing else is guaranteed to work - especially because of the really long gestation time of the eggs (you may think they're gone but then they pop up again months later.) The process worked for the friend, and they haven't had a problem since.
It's too bad we don't have something as effective as DDT was that also won't do as much collateral damage.
GM = OnStar = off my shopping list.
Why? Because I can (for now) at least make one choice in my life where I can protect my privacy just a little.
These companies collecting data are like the scorpion riding on the back of the animal crossing the river and can't help but sting their purveyor and drown as a result. These companies just can't help themselves but spy on you if it will make a buck - especially if the government will pay them for it.
Aside from perhaps breaking some obscure city ordinance about using public bus stops, this Google/Apple bussing plan is EXACTLY what left-leaners should loudly support. It saves on energy, pollution, and traffic - and adds a wealthier, local tax base to support the liberal programs that require significant tax revenue and generally reduce crime. A win, win - except that the protesters are trying to violently stop it.
Talk about cognitive dissonance for the left-leaning ./ers. You can see it in the, "I hate to make it sound like.." like starts to posts, as if people don't want to attack the type of people they would've gladly jumped behind in most other cases... The 1% the past "occupy" movements have gone after is now THEM (developers), and the shoe is on the other foot? It shows just how dangerous and philosophically ignorant these protesters can be.
Instead of saying, "hey, hey - not US, dummies.. go get the RICH people!", maybe an open discussion and a little more political balance from people on both sides is in order?
According to a Nissan salesman I spoke to, they had a launch button a few years back in its top end car, and as soon as you pushed the button certain warranties were voided. It seemed like a really stupid idea to have a button that could potentially cost you thousands in future repairs, but I'm pretty sure that Nissan didn't mind not covering the car.
I know these new Navy ships have had critics about various things, including the weakness of their armor. I thought that maybe they were overstating that, but I saw video today of the hole punched in the side of the ship and was surprised. That was just a drone crashing into the side (vs. some form of live ordinance - missile, artillery, etc. - designed to penetrate and destroy) and it punched a hole like it was a bullet going through a car door.
Maybe the Navy does need to take a second look at the armor on these boats?
First of all, if someone is telling you that you have a communications problem, that is a BIG red flag in any career you need to look at immediately.
"...without having exponentially many needless conversations," ... "I don't have to hold my tongue when someone is wrong or worry about formalities"... "Traditional advice isn't relevant to casual, less hierarchical companies"
You are 100% wrong here. Those conversations don't sound "needless" if you have a "problem".
Here's some traditional advice that applies to ALL careers/jobs that you probably need to hear: "Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care." Maybe you sound arrogant/intimidating to others (technical or not), and/or like you don't give a crap about your coworkers (whether you do or not)?
Whatever the problem is, it sounds significant - and you'd better figure it out quickly for your career's sake. There's very little room for error if you don't have "communication skills", and you can forget moving up the chain at your current job without some major changes in how you may be operating.
Several states are moving to make vehicle registration require location tracking, with permanent warrant-less tracking.
I don't think that everyone would just roll over for this yet. Yeah, 99% of the people would, but there are enough people (who would be branded as "terrorists") out there who would say no.
You're not legally driving if your car is in park.
Umm, Driving !== Operating a motor vehicle. If you are behind the wheel of a car and it's running, whether you're in Park or not, you're still operating a motor vehicle.
Consider this: If you get caught with an open alcohol container in your hand, even with your car in park, and you're above the legal drinking limit, you will be arrested. I'd imagine that the same legal philosophy can be applied to texting and driving.
On a more personal note: I can't stand to be around smartphone-operating (i.e. texting, perusing) drivers. They unknowingly drive slower than everyone else because of some kind of limbic reaction in their brains to be "safer" while they do something else that requires their concentration. While doing this, they are playing peekaboo with traffic - up and down, up and down with their eyes, playing russian roulette with those around them in rush hour traffic.
Driving texters may be nice people at every other point in time of the day, but when they're swiping their thumb and reading that "important business deal" text or that must-read Twitter feed while operating a motor vehicle, they are ACTING LIKE TOTAL ASSHOLES .
If you need to communicate instantly and "the text can't wait", then just CALL them instead. At least you'll keep your eyes on the road.
For those of you whining about this overzealous, "dickhead" cop as if he's profiling innocent drivers and crushing libertarian ideals with his nightstick: Be honest with yourself and admit that the overquoted idea, "with freedom comes responsibility" applies here. Admit that texting (or otherwise using the "smart" part of a smartphone) and driving puts other drivers at risk - even at a stop signal. Those texters are operating a potential 3000+ lb. battering ram, and they need to treat their vehicle as such.
Someone posted a perfect formula for getting mod points years ago, but I can't find it. I'm stealing some of the following from that post:
1 - The earlier you post, the more people will read it - thus, the higher the moderation may go. /. with your posts, you'd better have a solid argument or it's more likely to get ignored/blasted.
2 - If you reply to a +5 post (vs. starting your own thread), you're more likely to get read and get modded up.
3 - Repeat something obvious someone else has said (getting modded Redundant doesn't seem to happen often anymore).
4 - Keep your posts shorter, and more people will read them - possibly modding them higher.
5 - Use subtle flamebaiting that comes off as Insightful in a groupthink-like environment.
6 - Have a left-leaning, Democrat-focused, progressive viewpoint. If you lean more conservative on
I'd list more, but I need to post this now or I may miss out of a mod point or two.
Great summary! I'd like to add one more step.
4b) Humiliation/Realization. Something happens that humbles one or more of the main characters into realizing just how stupid the Conflict in #3 really was. Optionally, there's a montage of regret set to sappy music (Pretty Woman), really pounding their regret home.
Who said anything about Fox News? For the most part, Fox News sucks...
Maybe you need to take off your bipolar glasses and realize that not everyone who has an opinion you don't agree with is on one side or the other. What a tool...
Right or wrong, it's hard to take this article seriously when thebulletin.org doesn't exactly look like an objective and balanced source of information on climate change.
When I read the headline I thought it was something new and sinister to worry about, but valley fever? This is nothing new - at least here in Arizona. As a kid growing up here in the 70s and 80s there was a public service announcement on TV about it played pretty often (Channel 5 maybe?). (Imagine a scene in a small farming town, near a cotton or alfalfa field, on a hot, dry summer day. A tractor is discing a field in the background, kicking up a wall of dust behind it, in the warped light of the baking summer sun. Cue a narrator's voice - "dusty... Dusty... Dusty... DUSTY...")
This is only based on my Arizona experience and as a "study of one", but FWIW:
1) People who grow up in AZ from the start don't seem to have as much trouble with it as those who move here at some point. I have heard a couple of stories of people having to move away from Arizona solely because of it, but that is pretty rare to hear about.
2) Unlike diseases where you get a specific set of symptoms, different people respond to valley fever differently. My entire family (4th or 5th generation Arizonans) grew up on a small farm in rural AZ, and none of us ever experienced a case of diagnosed valley fever in my entire life. I probably had it at least once and just got over it like some small bout of the flu when I was younger. OTOH, my borderline asthmatic wife that grew up in multiple states (coastal CA, CO, and AZ) got it as an adult and she was miserable. It took a few weeks of suffering (including some coughing rough enough to bruise ribs) to overcome it, and she wasn't the same for a while afterwards. (According to her doctor/specialist at the time, testing for the disease is quite unreliable, coming back false quite often when in reality you do have it.)
I forgot to add that the state government and her replacement (Jan Brewer) did a great job of managing the fiscal disaster Napalitano bailed on for her cushy job. Instead of accounting gimmicks like what Janet did (selling state government properties and leasing them from new owners, etc.), they tightened their belts and got the job done by raising revenue and cutting costs. Even hard core, liberal Democrats that hate Jan Brewer for wagging her finger at President Obama have to appreciate what she did to beat down the more extreme elements of her own party in the GOP-led legislature to fix Arizona's books and manage the state through the tough times. The governor helped lead the people to a three year, temporary sales tax (that just expired). They also painfully cut many services to the bone. The state still needs to do more work to stabilize its long-term prospects, but we're long since off of life support.
OTOH, who's to say what kind of gridlocked mess we'd be in as a state if Janet had remained governor when everything ultimately collapsed here in the fall of 2008...
With her resigning her post, this day is a great day for the entire country.
While governor of my home state (Arizona), she was a friend of big government and an enemy of libertarian views. She ran up the Arizona state budget by billions, starting new and costly programs, with no long-term plans on how to pay for them in leaner times. She also pushed hard for planting the roots of a surveillance state, led by state-wide photo radar on state highways.
Then in 2008, seeing the writing on the wall - she was term-limited and couldn't run again, the state's economy/budget was about to tank as the first signs of the housing collapse were appearing - she sucked up HARD to Barack Obama on the 2008 campaign trail and grabbed the first government post thrown her way as payment.
Many of us here in Arizona cheered when she left, but quietly shuddered when we realized what position she'd taken, knowing her views. IMO, we're lucky we've only had to deal with naked body scanners and that enough people pushed back against her, "to hell with privacy - we need to keep these idiots safe," mentality to keep her in check. Maybe we're also lucky she was generally incompetent and became more of a DC bureaucrat that became too politically paralyzed to push for her grand views of what she would've really wanted to implement?
And you've gotta wonder what changes she could possibly bring to a university system. She was part of a sprawling bureaucracy in DC - I guess the UC system wants a bigger bureaucracy? Maybe they just want to capitalize on her connections in DC to get federal funds (making her a de facto lobbyist)?
On the future DHS replacement - here's to hoping the president doesn't pick another bureaucrat. Maybe the president will live up to some of his campaign promises now on openness in government when picking her successor? Realistically, I'm pretty sure it won't be a Ron Paul type...
if Napolitano can bring the same magic to the UC system that she did to DHS, then maybe the UC system will be safe from...
If by "magic" you mean her using her DC connections to get more federal dough into the UC system one way or another, then probably. This reeks of hiring a DC insider to get cash...
A friendly tip, you might want to think carefully before continuing with "traditional Old Testament marriage" as a foundation of your case.
Yeah, the cultures surrounding the OT style of marriage (polygamy, man pretty much owns everything, etc.) are long gone, so many of the mores addressed in the OT's first five books (the Pentatauch, or Torah) seem a little crazy in modern society.
"Leviticus says this" arguments, but the short, short version is that the first five books of the OT are the Law of Moses, and a lot of that (handed down by "God" - i.e. Jesus around 1300-1400 BC) was "fulfilled" (i.e. thrown out and/or clarified) by Jesus (as a mortal man) in the NT. Why he did that is a long, unrelated history lesson - but that doesn't mean that his stance on morality changed during that time.
Again, people who throw that "But Leviticus says..." argument frankly don't know the history, meaning or purpose behind those parts of the Bible. They're just trying to blow off doctrine A in the OT (homosexuality, fornication, adultery, etc.) because doctrine B (don't eat shellfish, etc.) is no longer relevant. That logic isn't sustainable.
I cannot, in good conscience, support a work, however good, that would lead to harm to others' civil rights.
Another argument that is built on the foundation that "gay rights are civil rights". When and how did gay rights become civil rights? What widely accredited, factual basis is this built upon?
Even in 2013 there's still no widely accredited evidence that says people are "born gay", have a "gay gene", etc., but that doesn't matter anymore because that old argument - which can't be won by gay activists - has been buried in a shroud of bigorty.
Don't think so? Try and answer the questions above with facts (not "truth"), without resorting to the "civil rights" argument. While some may respond with fringe arguments like "look at the gay monkeys" or quoting some flawed study that is never widely accepted by science, just about all responses eventually filter down to the following: "Gay rights are a civil right because people never made a choice that led them to become gay. It's just who they are. Therefore, they should be accepted as equals on every social level and in all social institutions - without any tags or flags labeling them as 'different'. If you don't think so, you're a bigot/moron/idiot/religiousnutjob that needs to get educated or shut the hell up."
In the end, IMO, gay activists aren't pushing for "civil rights" - that's just their legal tool they've employed. Instead, they want something much more basic: They just want to feel normal/accepted/loved for "who they are". They just want to "normalize" their lives - and if that requires stripping off social mores that clash with that feeling of normalcy, they will attack them, slowly - 24/7 - for as long as it takes, until they've wiped those "hateful" mores out of existence or placed such a strong taboo on them that they marginalize those who use them in the same extreme manner they've been shunned/hated/attacked by societies for millenia.
Anyone truly concerned about "civil rights" and "freedoms" would never take that fascist tact that many here on this board are taking, with many viciously attacking Mr. Card directly vs. responding to his points.
BTW - I have a theory as to why society shifted on the issue so far and quickly over the last 15-20 years.
Americans suddenly become more educated, smarter, wiser, and/or more compassionate over the last 15-20 years (according to various studies on education, etc.)
The Internet itself has made the world much smaller, opening up people's minds to other societies, mores, etc. However, many people tend to listen to those of their own viewpoint vs. listening to and considering others.
The spread of pornography online likely changed social mores about all kinds of sexuality for some, but that still can't account 20% worth of shift in less than 20 years. Besides, porn has been around for millenia w/o ever causing a shift nearly as seismic as this - regardless of the powers of the Internet.
IMO, the reason is much more basic - popularity and peer pressure. After all of the pro-gay pushing by various people in society and media it finally reached critical mass, making opposing gay marriage the "uncool" stance to take. Those that didn't have a strong opinion have jumped on the more popular side of the issue just to be cool and not cause any trouble.
Being equal under the law, on the other hand...
This infers that "gay rights are civil rights" is an unquestionable corollary/fact to build arguments off of.
Marriage predates recorded history. Unlike Christ.
Not if Christ was the same god/person/deity as the god of the Old Testament, which my particular vein of Christianity believes is the case. If they're one and the same, then Christ (under the name Jehovah/Yahweh in the OT) does go back to the beginning of the Bible (which is pretty dang close to the beginning of "recorded history") and predates it.