"Besides, the world as a whole would currently be better off with a smaller and less aggressive USA..."
Sure... Right up until 1917, when the US entered WWI and helped turn the tide against the Kaiser.
Right up until 1940, when Germany (again) had conquered most of Europe, and Great Britain was holding on by its fingernails (and supplies from the US that made it past the U-boats). Nevermind the millions more Jews who would've been slaughtered when the UK fell.
Right after WWII, when all of Western Europe lay in ruins, and the pissed off Communists under Stalin were pushing their Iron Curtain west, when the Marshall Plan was kicked into effect by the US.
Right up through the 1980's, when the US in the Cold War's arms race finally bankrupt the Communists, brought the wall down, and re-introduced (at least limited) freedom to the Warsaw Pact.
Could a group of 48 separate states trying to peacefully co-exist (Alaska and Hawaii would've never been Americanized) have been able to do anything to stop any of those things from happening? No... And I'm sure that Alaska would be SO much better off, being part of Communist Russia. (The US would've never bought Alaska in 1867 if the country had fractured as a result of the Civil War...) And so on, and so on...
I'm not saying that the US is always the good guy or that its motives have always been for the world's common good. I'm pretty sure, however, that the world is much better off today with the United States being a strong democratic, capitalist republic that has so far been living proof that you don't need a king, dictator, or otherwise oppressive government to get things done. The US has so far generally push the world in the right direction, and nobody that has studied world history and economics can honestly argue against that.
I'd classify the three 24/7 cable news networks this way:
Fox News: The station does make an attempt at reporting the news, but it rarely feels thorough or balanced. Their bread and butter is "quotable inofotainment" that appeals to the lazy side of humanity that clings to soundbytes more than lengthy debate. Sean Hannity and Bill "F**k it! We'll do it live!" O'Reilly are masters of this, repeating facts (or factoids) that support their point of view, while belittling those who argue with them. I get a good laugh out of them sometimes and they are entertaining on occasion, but that's all they are. Others on the air there aren't so bad - John Stossel is entertaining, Greta V. is ok, etc. - but you can't shake the feeling it's all a puppet show. (Maybe The Daily Show and The Colbert Report has exposed enough of their unintentional, 24/7 cycle induced inconsistency to completely invalidate their "news cred"?)
MSNBC - The "ivory tower" of liberal news a**holes. Where did they find these people? Someone must've wounded Keith Olbermann (the king of liberal, sensationalistc bombast), and when his spilled blood hit the ground it grew into the intellectual monsters that are Rachel Maddow, Mr. Ed, and that O'Donnell guy. Rachel makes you want to punch her in the face within 5 minutes at times. She's sharp as a tack - right up until you realize that she's flat out ignoring the other side. Mr. Ed is a total dick that you couldn't discuss politics with at a party. His arguments are just as partisan, but don't even begin to hold up under scrutiny. And that O'Donnell guy - he's the worst. His calm administration of liberal venom via his soothsaying style is done with such partisan arrogance that I can't even listen to him. 100% revulsion... Case in point on MSNBC's problems: When the Wisconsin recall election was going the "wrong way", they were in flat out denial and spin mode. They even refused to broadcast most of Gov. Walker's speech... It should have been flat out embarrassing the way they were behaving. (The morning people are no better than Fox's blonde bimbo squad or their Red Eye crew) - more fun infotainment; all sugar, no substance.
CNN pretends to be in the middle, but they lean left. When you have openly homosexual "anchors", how can you not lean left on social issues? Their right-wing counterweights are too extreme and partisan to be acceptable. Case in point: Piers Morgan is a freak show (see "Robert Blake interview") that leans left whenever the show broaches a real topic, like gay marriage, etc. They miss the strength of shows like the 1980's Crossfire.
If I had to pick one of the three, I'd probably force myself to CNN, but I'd know that none of them is going to tell me the whole story and debate both sides of any issue without an agenda.
When you have to count on entertainment programming like "The Daily Show" to provoke new thought and expose hypocrisy in the government and news industry reporting, that's pretty sad.
I also miss the old CNN Headline News format. They did an old-school, 30 minute newscast every hour, on the hour, and repeated the content until new news stories came up and were rotated in. That was more informative and valuable to me than anything else in cable news today...
When you need Facebook to do anything to sustain a normal life, THEN it'll be 'in real time', oppressive surveillance. Until then, people can still opt out of Facebook and live a normal life relatively free from any pain (aside from social pressure, and even that is fleeting).
The problem is that any interpretation of what haplotypes mean tends to get very political very fast, especially with people who want to use it to support crank claims or religious/nationalist primacy fantasies.
I'm LDS/Mormon, and I agree. Trying to use the evolving knowledge and understanding of DNA evidence to support or refute anything of a religious nature is a dangerous undertaking. Just a few years ago, people were saying there's no way anything in the Book of Mormon could be factual because of the preliminary findings. Now with this haplotype X information, there's DNA evidence that possibly supports it. If they're wise, the same Mormon apologists from a few years ago shouldn't turn it around and use the DNA evidence to support the religion, either. Who knows where this research will be 10 years from now.
Besides, the spiritual foundation of a church member (of any Christian or Muslim faith, for that matter) is their personal faith or testimony (usually based in spiritual and life experience) - not in what scientist X thinks is true or proven at that point in time.
Design the system that demands human transcendence, inspires greatness, and puts strict limits to personal power and responsibly accounts for the grosser of human foibles and frailties, and you'll have a winner.
The problem is that people don't really want that winner of a solution.
Why? Because that system already exists and is functioning today - true Christianity. The guiding light is God (a perfect human we're made in the image of and are supposed to strive to emulate as much as humanly possible). The strict limits on personal power are voluntarily self-enforced, and the accounting/responsibility comes in this life (karma) and the next (judgment). And true Christians aren't afraid of the advancement of knowledge/science/learning. Instead, they embrace those disciplines and seek to be leaders in those fields. (Any "Christian" that claims otherwise - hiding behind ignorance, prejudice, and fear - isn't a true Christian.)
Sorry to go off-topic a bit - I have no clue how to tie that into C vs. C++ - but I had to add that to your insightful post.
...you're risking the security of the country. Americans can't handle the truth, and the less they know about the dark side of terrorism or the drug trade flowing into the US, the better. It's easier to deal with in obscurity than with the partisan press making it hard for the security of our country to be kept up.
(I kid, but the sad part is that there are some out there that would actually agree with that sentiment 100%...)
That sometimes means helping people who've made mistakes.
The problem with your logic: It's mandatory help that's enabling people to not make the individual decision to change their ways. To stop this problem, helping those who suffer MUST be voluntary because people as individuals are better at making decisions for the immediate world around them than some bureaucratic set of rules ever could be. When enough individuals do these "good deeds", then the world is made a better place overall. No government can ever match that level of combined individual efficacy, and the larger the government, the less efficient it becomes.
Of course, if everyone's a jerk in society, then this voluntary system fails... but in that case, so would any government help system - in even more spectacular fashion.
Your anecdotal story about instrumental music is supported by the study referenced here about multitasking and music with or without lyrics. In short, the processing part of your brain can only process ONE thing at a time. When your brain hears words, the processing part of the brain take over to interpret those words, breaking your concentration on whatever other task you're trying to do. If you're listening to classical music with no vocals/words, however, it doesn't interfere with your brain's processing of the other job you are doing.
So, instrumental classical music is fine. Classical opera, OTOH, is bad for multitasking (and may also tempt you to take out your eardrums with that staple remover...)
The recent ruling that banned cops placing GPS trackers on suspects without a warrant was criticized by some of the justices themselves for not going far enough to clear up privacy issues in public. This is just another example of how those justices are being proven right, and at some point, the limits of what forms of warrantless, electronic surveillance (by private or public entities) can be used as evidence in court will need to be clarified once and for all. (I hope this happens sooner rather than later because the public will be more tolerant further down the road as they grow number to it over time.)
A majority of the responses can be summed up as, "Shrinks are crazy", "You're old and out of touch", "it's just fear mongering about the latest social bogeyman", "I did those things and I'm fine...", "It's not my (gaming and/or porn). It's X.", or (my favorite) - "the WOMEN suck, not us".
I don't mean to sound like a troll, and maybe people are just half joking about it, but wow... If you don't agree with their work, fine - but at least have a valid argument to discredit it, instead of blowing off their work on porn and gaming addiction with those lazy copouts and anecdotes listed above.
They are talking about really important issues that affect real people every day - likely including many of the posters here.
Authoritarians are now angry that the punishment no longer works.
Come on... That's just a BS copout.
It doesn't take anything more than a little common sense (and a willingness to be honest with yourself) to see that human relationship skills take practice and effort, just like anything else of value in life.
Locking oneself away and jacking off to porn every day - and subsequently becoming increasingly numb to the same sexual stimulus that a real sex in a real relationship, especially those who feel guilty about it because they've been told it's wrong - is not good for healthy relationships as adults.
Also, instead of practicing talking to people ("cool" people or not), people take the easier route and spend hours and play video games. As a result, many people can't as easily communicate in person as those who spend more time in social situations.
All of that isn't about social exclusion by others or some kind of punishment by the whole to "keep control". If anything, that is social exclusion caused (or willingly done) by the individual themselves. They ostracize themselves because they doesn't know how to deal with real-life relationships.
If the government wants to shut people up and isolate people again, stripping online anonymity is a very powerful method.
Here in Arizona, there's a major news website that has two types of posting - 1) anonymous posts, and 2) Facebook account-related posts. The former has trolling of course, but there is also considerable serious and valuable discourse that goes on as well. It is also self-moderated - which cuts down on any alleged abuse or bullying. The latter, however, is a dead zone. Nobody comments there, unless it's a superhot topic - at which point only a few people post.
(Speaking of that, Facebook would likely benefit from a law like this, because web sites would scramble to find an easy way to make every poster easily identifiable - and FB would be an obvious choice for them. People would be more encouraged to join FB (or other social networks like it) as a result.)
Just because funding for the development of advanced weaponry like the Joint Strike Fighter or other big military projects (like ARPANET) ends up somewhere other than more traditional destinations for "science budgets" like universities doesn't mean it's not a big science budget (only with bullets included in the box).
FTA - "Google's car adheres strictly to the speed limit and follows the rules of the road, says Tom Jacobs, a spokesman for the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles...".. and from the summary... "They would mean fewer traffic jams. 'Congestion would be something you could tell your grandchildren about, once upon a time.'"
Wrong. I know it's counter-intuitive to those who believe strict adherence to current traffic laws is the best way, but according to a study of traffic flow done in 2009, traffic flow actually IMPROVES when some drivers break the laws. The ideal percentage of law-breaking drivers (the speeders, the "jerks who cut you off" and fill in that space in front of you, etc.) was discovered to be about 40%. Above or below that threshold made traffic worse...
So, this means that if cars were actually forced to follow ALL traffic laws to the letter, as this Google system would, traffic would actually get quite a bit worse for everyone, not better, as the summary above incorrectly suggests.
Of course, automated cars COULD over time force some fearmonger-driven (or revenue-driven) draconian traffic laws to be updated or repealed due to automated technology. That's assuming that the government officials could be as cold and logical as the automated cars and their algorithms, however, and that's probably not going to be happening - at least not until Skynet takes over...
BTW - I want no part of a car-tracking system like this. Even if it was designed to be anonymous from the start, certain government officials would sooner or later find a reason to override the anonymity. Maybe it'd be under the auspices of a "per mile tax", "disease/pest vector tracking" "terrorist monitoring", etc., but they'd find an innocuous or necessary enough of a reason to convince 50.1% of us that anonymity is "bad", and it'd all be over.
Both sides LOVE illegal immigrants... Republicans love them because they are an infinite font of cheap labor, which can suppress wages and break unions. No one wants to kill illegal immigration.
This is a belated response - sorry. That's a great point about the GOP and the cheap labor pool that I didn't think to add. I agree 100%.
So I'm watching less tv, DVDs, and haven't got the high score on the latest game.
You've touched on a very important change: Turning off the TV. You'd be surprised how much you can get done - work or fun - when you aren't channel surfing non-stop for a few hours daily.
Heck - just moving around sometimes is better than nothing because some recent studies have suggested that sitting still shortens your lifespan quite a bit (with purty pictures)...
I would buy this argument if the Dems (or the GOP) were trying to even attempt to balance the budget. That way we could look to the future with hope for stopping fund cuts like these.
Instead, both sides - and 99% of Americans, for that matter - aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary.
The lower income people who aren't paying a penny in income taxes but getting thousands back each year as Earned Income Credits... (Ask some of them what they do with that money... "It's vacation time, baby!"... GUILTY
The corporations shielding their billions in income overseas... GUILTY
The Dems that won't lower the corporate tax rate and at least get a large chunk of the money being held overseas... GUILTY
The politicians who keep giving the 99% their cash "they deserve" by simply having a pulse... GUILTY
The GOP for invading Iraq without good evidence and dropping a cool trillion plus on it... GUILTY
The Defense Department's never-ending war machine (the amount spent on four or five F-22s - that will never see combat, BTW - would cover the satellite funding difference)... GUILTY
The Dems who do nothing to stop the millions of illegal immigrants from coming here to cut local costs (violent crime, ID theft, social program costs) - possibly because they see a giant block of future, loyal Dem voters - all in the name of "stopping racism", of course - GUILTY
The American public as a whole, for not giving a crap about others, all while lying/cheating/stealing a little more than the day before and saying, "the banks did it - why not us?", and ignoring the imminent destruction of the dollar and/or the American economy... "Just keep the time bomb going somehow, and I don't care how..." GUILTY
It's really sad to watch our American empire slowly dying as it has been for decades now, with us - the American people - doing all the wrong things (or nothing at all) to stop it. We might as well rename our country The Neo Roman Empire (or for you Asimov fans, Trantor)...
The real solution is for people to really start caring about each other again, but anybody talking all "faggy and shit" like that is laughed out of town...
If it's a "national security threat", that means more government money needs to be spent on it... Maybe they'll even declare the entire country a "disaster zone" at some point?
If you're a troll, fine... but for anyone who really wants the answer to this question:
In Christian dogma, yes, everyone will be forgiven who truly repents in Jesus's name, but repentance is a complex process of many steps - true remorse (not just getting caught), renouncing the behavior and backing it up with action, making restitution for what you've done, etc.
Also consider the following from the Bible:
In Jesus's own parable "The Prodigal Son", the older son who never strayed and complained to the dad was reassured by the father that he would receive "all that I have" in the end. No comparable promise of reward was given by the father to the prodigal son, however.
The book of James in the New Testament says that "faith without works is dead..."
Those scriptures mean that both faith AND works count. While God loves all men, the level of "glory" (see King James version of 1 Cor. 15: 39-42(?)) that will be granted them by Him after being forgiven will depend upon their works, actions and the intents of their hearts.
In other words, if they both repented - your buddhist and the executed murderer - they'd be forgiven of their sins, but that does NOT mean all will end equally for them. To say so would (ironically) mean that God is a "respecter of persons" and didn't judge fairly. It would be a God with mercy but not balanced by justice (see the parable of the debtor).
(Certain evangelical Christians bristle at this and say that "the unlimited power of the grace of God is enough". However, they are only looking at part of the Bible's teachings (from Jesus and his apostles/prophets) and not others. When shown this logic/viewpoint, they willfully ignore that part of their own Bible because it doesn't fit their belief structure.)
Slashdot Mirror
"Besides, the world as a whole would currently be better off with a smaller and less aggressive USA..."
Sure... Right up until 1917, when the US entered WWI and helped turn the tide against the Kaiser.
Right up until 1940, when Germany (again) had conquered most of Europe, and Great Britain was holding on by its fingernails (and supplies from the US that made it past the U-boats). Nevermind the millions more Jews who would've been slaughtered when the UK fell.
Right after WWII, when all of Western Europe lay in ruins, and the pissed off Communists under Stalin were pushing their Iron Curtain west, when the Marshall Plan was kicked into effect by the US.
Right up through the 1980's, when the US in the Cold War's arms race finally bankrupt the Communists, brought the wall down, and re-introduced (at least limited) freedom to the Warsaw Pact.
Could a group of 48 separate states trying to peacefully co-exist (Alaska and Hawaii would've never been Americanized) have been able to do anything to stop any of those things from happening? No... And I'm sure that Alaska would be SO much better off, being part of Communist Russia. (The US would've never bought Alaska in 1867 if the country had fractured as a result of the Civil War...) And so on, and so on...
I'm not saying that the US is always the good guy or that its motives have always been for the world's common good. I'm pretty sure, however, that the world is much better off today with the United States being a strong democratic, capitalist republic that has so far been living proof that you don't need a king, dictator, or otherwise oppressive government to get things done. The US has so far generally push the world in the right direction, and nobody that has studied world history and economics can honestly argue against that.
Just as soon as we produce enough biodiesel to power the ships that'll do all the scooping...
In all seriousness, the people researching biodiesel aren't going to have any use for just any algae out there.
I'd classify the three 24/7 cable news networks this way:
Fox News: The station does make an attempt at reporting the news, but it rarely feels thorough or balanced. Their bread and butter is "quotable inofotainment" that appeals to the lazy side of humanity that clings to soundbytes more than lengthy debate. Sean Hannity and Bill "F**k it! We'll do it live!" O'Reilly are masters of this, repeating facts (or factoids) that support their point of view, while belittling those who argue with them. I get a good laugh out of them sometimes and they are entertaining on occasion, but that's all they are. Others on the air there aren't so bad - John Stossel is entertaining, Greta V. is ok, etc. - but you can't shake the feeling it's all a puppet show. (Maybe The Daily Show and The Colbert Report has exposed enough of their unintentional, 24/7 cycle induced inconsistency to completely invalidate their "news cred"?)
MSNBC - The "ivory tower" of liberal news a**holes. Where did they find these people? Someone must've wounded Keith Olbermann (the king of liberal, sensationalistc bombast), and when his spilled blood hit the ground it grew into the intellectual monsters that are Rachel Maddow, Mr. Ed, and that O'Donnell guy. Rachel makes you want to punch her in the face within 5 minutes at times. She's sharp as a tack - right up until you realize that she's flat out ignoring the other side. Mr. Ed is a total dick that you couldn't discuss politics with at a party. His arguments are just as partisan, but don't even begin to hold up under scrutiny. And that O'Donnell guy - he's the worst. His calm administration of liberal venom via his soothsaying style is done with such partisan arrogance that I can't even listen to him. 100% revulsion... Case in point on MSNBC's problems: When the Wisconsin recall election was going the "wrong way", they were in flat out denial and spin mode. They even refused to broadcast most of Gov. Walker's speech... It should have been flat out embarrassing the way they were behaving. (The morning people are no better than Fox's blonde bimbo squad or their Red Eye crew) - more fun infotainment; all sugar, no substance.
CNN pretends to be in the middle, but they lean left. When you have openly homosexual "anchors", how can you not lean left on social issues? Their right-wing counterweights are too extreme and partisan to be acceptable. Case in point: Piers Morgan is a freak show (see "Robert Blake interview") that leans left whenever the show broaches a real topic, like gay marriage, etc. They miss the strength of shows like the 1980's Crossfire.
If I had to pick one of the three, I'd probably force myself to CNN, but I'd know that none of them is going to tell me the whole story and debate both sides of any issue without an agenda.
When you have to count on entertainment programming like "The Daily Show" to provoke new thought and expose hypocrisy in the government and news industry reporting, that's pretty sad.
I also miss the old CNN Headline News format. They did an old-school, 30 minute newscast every hour, on the hour, and repeated the content until new news stories came up and were rotated in. That was more informative and valuable to me than anything else in cable news today...
NPR isn't quite as close to the center as it is to the left, IMO, but I do agree that the coverage is much more in-depth.
To add to the in-depth reporting list, I'd add the Lehrer News Hour on PBS. I find them to be closer to the center than NPR, to boot.
When you need Facebook to do anything to sustain a normal life, THEN it'll be 'in real time', oppressive surveillance. Until then, people can still opt out of Facebook and live a normal life relatively free from any pain (aside from social pressure, and even that is fleeting).
The problem is that any interpretation of what haplotypes mean tends to get very political very fast, especially with people who want to use it to support crank claims or religious/nationalist primacy fantasies.
I'm LDS/Mormon, and I agree. Trying to use the evolving knowledge and understanding of DNA evidence to support or refute anything of a religious nature is a dangerous undertaking. Just a few years ago, people were saying there's no way anything in the Book of Mormon could be factual because of the preliminary findings. Now with this haplotype X information, there's DNA evidence that possibly supports it. If they're wise, the same Mormon apologists from a few years ago shouldn't turn it around and use the DNA evidence to support the religion, either. Who knows where this research will be 10 years from now.
Besides, the spiritual foundation of a church member (of any Christian or Muslim faith, for that matter) is their personal faith or testimony (usually based in spiritual and life experience) - not in what scientist X thinks is true or proven at that point in time.
Design the system that demands human transcendence, inspires greatness, and puts strict limits to personal power and responsibly accounts for the grosser of human foibles and frailties, and you'll have a winner.
The problem is that people don't really want that winner of a solution.
Why? Because that system already exists and is functioning today - true Christianity. The guiding light is God (a perfect human we're made in the image of and are supposed to strive to emulate as much as humanly possible). The strict limits on personal power are voluntarily self-enforced, and the accounting/responsibility comes in this life (karma) and the next (judgment). And true Christians aren't afraid of the advancement of knowledge/science/learning. Instead, they embrace those disciplines and seek to be leaders in those fields. (Any "Christian" that claims otherwise - hiding behind ignorance, prejudice, and fear - isn't a true Christian.)
Sorry to go off-topic a bit - I have no clue how to tie that into C vs. C++ - but I had to add that to your insightful post.
You make people afraid to learn.
There are so many problems with that kind of law enforcement that just thinking about how to list them out here makes me tired...
...you're risking the security of the country. Americans can't handle the truth, and the less they know about the dark side of terrorism or the drug trade flowing into the US, the better. It's easier to deal with in obscurity than with the partisan press making it hard for the security of our country to be kept up.
(I kid, but the sad part is that there are some out there that would actually agree with that sentiment 100%...)
Think of it as a cost of "doing business" (i.e. having a stable society)
I think you meant this in a pragmatic way, but it sounds like it's straight out the mob's extortion playbook - as if it's social "protection money".
"This is a nice country you've got here. Nice homes. Nice income. You've worked hard for this good gig... We'd hate to see anything happen to it."
That sometimes means helping people who've made mistakes.
The problem with your logic: It's mandatory help that's enabling people to not make the individual decision to change their ways. To stop this problem, helping those who suffer MUST be voluntary because people as individuals are better at making decisions for the immediate world around them than some bureaucratic set of rules ever could be. When enough individuals do these "good deeds", then the world is made a better place overall. No government can ever match that level of combined individual efficacy, and the larger the government, the less efficient it becomes.
Of course, if everyone's a jerk in society, then this voluntary system fails... but in that case, so would any government help system - in even more spectacular fashion.
Now I'm just waiting for some city that's smarter than the rest of us to ban food.
Your anecdotal story about instrumental music is supported by the study referenced here about multitasking and music with or without lyrics. In short, the processing part of your brain can only process ONE thing at a time. When your brain hears words, the processing part of the brain take over to interpret those words, breaking your concentration on whatever other task you're trying to do. If you're listening to classical music with no vocals/words, however, it doesn't interfere with your brain's processing of the other job you are doing.
So, instrumental classical music is fine. Classical opera, OTOH, is bad for multitasking (and may also tempt you to take out your eardrums with that staple remover...)
The recent ruling that banned cops placing GPS trackers on suspects without a warrant was criticized by some of the justices themselves for not going far enough to clear up privacy issues in public. This is just another example of how those justices are being proven right, and at some point, the limits of what forms of warrantless, electronic surveillance (by private or public entities) can be used as evidence in court will need to be clarified once and for all. (I hope this happens sooner rather than later because the public will be more tolerant further down the road as they grow number to it over time.)
A majority of the responses can be summed up as, "Shrinks are crazy", "You're old and out of touch", "it's just fear mongering about the latest social bogeyman", "I did those things and I'm fine...", "It's not my (gaming and/or porn). It's X.", or (my favorite) - "the WOMEN suck, not us".
I don't mean to sound like a troll, and maybe people are just half joking about it, but wow... If you don't agree with their work, fine - but at least have a valid argument to discredit it, instead of blowing off their work on porn and gaming addiction with those lazy copouts and anecdotes listed above.
They are talking about really important issues that affect real people every day - likely including many of the posters here.
Authoritarians are now angry that the punishment no longer works.
Come on... That's just a BS copout.
It doesn't take anything more than a little common sense (and a willingness to be honest with yourself) to see that human relationship skills take practice and effort, just like anything else of value in life.
Locking oneself away and jacking off to porn every day - and subsequently becoming increasingly numb to the same sexual stimulus that a real sex in a real relationship, especially those who feel guilty about it because they've been told it's wrong - is not good for healthy relationships as adults.
Also, instead of practicing talking to people ("cool" people or not), people take the easier route and spend hours and play video games. As a result, many people can't as easily communicate in person as those who spend more time in social situations.
All of that isn't about social exclusion by others or some kind of punishment by the whole to "keep control". If anything, that is social exclusion caused (or willingly done) by the individual themselves. They ostracize themselves because they doesn't know how to deal with real-life relationships.
If the government wants to shut people up and isolate people again, stripping online anonymity is a very powerful method.
Here in Arizona, there's a major news website that has two types of posting - 1) anonymous posts, and 2) Facebook account-related posts. The former has trolling of course, but there is also considerable serious and valuable discourse that goes on as well. It is also self-moderated - which cuts down on any alleged abuse or bullying. The latter, however, is a dead zone. Nobody comments there, unless it's a superhot topic - at which point only a few people post.
(Speaking of that, Facebook would likely benefit from a law like this, because web sites would scramble to find an easy way to make every poster easily identifiable - and FB would be an obvious choice for them. People would be more encouraged to join FB (or other social networks like it) as a result.)
You're misapplying Ayn Rand's lesson.
The problem isn't when the government does big projects. The problem is when:
1) ..the government does big projects that the free market is capable of doing on its own and more efficiently.
2) ..the government restricts the free market to keep it from working as efficiently as possible.
Just because funding for the development of advanced weaponry like the Joint Strike Fighter or other big military projects (like ARPANET) ends up somewhere other than more traditional destinations for "science budgets" like universities doesn't mean it's not a big science budget (only with bullets included in the box).
FTA - "Google's car adheres strictly to the speed limit and follows the rules of the road, says Tom Jacobs, a spokesman for the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles...".. and from the summary... "They would mean fewer traffic jams. 'Congestion would be something you could tell your grandchildren about, once upon a time.'"
Wrong. I know it's counter-intuitive to those who believe strict adherence to current traffic laws is the best way, but according to a study of traffic flow done in 2009, traffic flow actually IMPROVES when some drivers break the laws. The ideal percentage of law-breaking drivers (the speeders, the "jerks who cut you off" and fill in that space in front of you, etc.) was discovered to be about 40%. Above or below that threshold made traffic worse...
So, this means that if cars were actually forced to follow ALL traffic laws to the letter, as this Google system would, traffic would actually get quite a bit worse for everyone, not better, as the summary above incorrectly suggests.
Of course, automated cars COULD over time force some fearmonger-driven (or revenue-driven) draconian traffic laws to be updated or repealed due to automated technology. That's assuming that the government officials could be as cold and logical as the automated cars and their algorithms, however, and that's probably not going to be happening - at least not until Skynet takes over...
BTW - I want no part of a car-tracking system like this. Even if it was designed to be anonymous from the start, certain government officials would sooner or later find a reason to override the anonymity. Maybe it'd be under the auspices of a "per mile tax", "disease/pest vector tracking" "terrorist monitoring", etc., but they'd find an innocuous or necessary enough of a reason to convince 50.1% of us that anonymity is "bad", and it'd all be over.
Both sides LOVE illegal immigrants ... Republicans love them because they are an infinite font of cheap labor, which can suppress wages and break unions. No one wants to kill illegal immigration.
This is a belated response - sorry. That's a great point about the GOP and the cheap labor pool that I didn't think to add. I agree 100%.
So I'm watching less tv, DVDs, and haven't got the high score on the latest game.
You've touched on a very important change: Turning off the TV. You'd be surprised how much you can get done - work or fun - when you aren't channel surfing non-stop for a few hours daily.
Heck - just moving around sometimes is better than nothing because some recent studies have suggested that sitting still shortens your lifespan quite a bit (with purty pictures)...
I would buy this argument if the Dems (or the GOP) were trying to even attempt to balance the budget. That way we could look to the future with hope for stopping fund cuts like these.
Instead, both sides - and 99% of Americans, for that matter - aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary.
The lower income people who aren't paying a penny in income taxes but getting thousands back each year as Earned Income Credits... (Ask some of them what they do with that money... "It's vacation time, baby!"... GUILTY
The corporations shielding their billions in income overseas... GUILTY
The Dems that won't lower the corporate tax rate and at least get a large chunk of the money being held overseas... GUILTY
The politicians who keep giving the 99% their cash "they deserve" by simply having a pulse... GUILTY
The GOP for invading Iraq without good evidence and dropping a cool trillion plus on it... GUILTY
The Defense Department's never-ending war machine (the amount spent on four or five F-22s - that will never see combat, BTW - would cover the satellite funding difference)... GUILTY
The Dems who do nothing to stop the millions of illegal immigrants from coming here to cut local costs (violent crime, ID theft, social program costs) - possibly because they see a giant block of future, loyal Dem voters - all in the name of "stopping racism", of course - GUILTY
The American public as a whole, for not giving a crap about others, all while lying/cheating/stealing a little more than the day before and saying, "the banks did it - why not us?", and ignoring the imminent destruction of the dollar and/or the American economy... "Just keep the time bomb going somehow, and I don't care how..." GUILTY
It's really sad to watch our American empire slowly dying as it has been for decades now, with us - the American people - doing all the wrong things (or nothing at all) to stop it. We might as well rename our country The Neo Roman Empire (or for you Asimov fans, Trantor)...
The real solution is for people to really start caring about each other again, but anybody talking all "faggy and shit" like that is laughed out of town...
If it's a "national security threat", that means more government money needs to be spent on it... Maybe they'll even declare the entire country a "disaster zone" at some point?
If you're a troll, fine... but for anyone who really wants the answer to this question:
In Christian dogma, yes, everyone will be forgiven who truly repents in Jesus's name, but repentance is a complex process of many steps - true remorse (not just getting caught), renouncing the behavior and backing it up with action, making restitution for what you've done, etc.
Also consider the following from the Bible:
Those scriptures mean that both faith AND works count. While God loves all men, the level of "glory" (see King James version of 1 Cor. 15: 39-42(?)) that will be granted them by Him after being forgiven will depend upon their works, actions and the intents of their hearts.
In other words, if they both repented - your buddhist and the executed murderer - they'd be forgiven of their sins, but that does NOT mean all will end equally for them. To say so would (ironically) mean that God is a "respecter of persons" and didn't judge fairly. It would be a God with mercy but not balanced by justice (see the parable of the debtor).
(Certain evangelical Christians bristle at this and say that "the unlimited power of the grace of God is enough". However, they are only looking at part of the Bible's teachings (from Jesus and his apostles/prophets) and not others. When shown this logic/viewpoint, they willfully ignore that part of their own Bible because it doesn't fit their belief structure.)