...That is all the WTO and GATT do. That is it. End of story.
True, if only in the most immediate sense. Have you ever, for instance, read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man? Have you seen Life and Debt? The inner machinations of international trade and aid are far from the simplistic portrait you paint.
In fact, what you're talking about is a totally different thing. I don't even know what to call it. Foreign investment? Political manipulation? Wealth imbalance? In any case, it is a separate problem that has no place in a rational discussion about free trade.
That's like saying Mark Foley's unusual interest in pages, and his party's subsequent coverup of it, hasn't a place in a rational discussion about the current state of US politics. In many instances problems of political manipulation, wealth imbalance and foreign investment are inexorably tied to the way in which first world governments and megacorps practice what they define as "free trade."
I'm sorry, but based upon your votes in 2000 and 2004, you've only yourself to blame for being lumped in with the zealots. Not because you're conservative or Republican, mind you, but because you voted for the current administration (which has little in common with either of the aforementioned categorizations).
It's sorta like attending bear parties and being offended because it's assumed that you're gay.
And, to further the rational argument, the problem isn't merely one of "OMG! I don't want Bush spying on me!" Traditionally civil rights are hard fought to obtain yet amazingly easy to lose. Admittedly I don't like this administration and, because of their past performance, don't trust them a whit with this or any other information. What's potentially more frightening to me, however, are administrations to come. This isn't a temporary measure in the face of an extreme situation (though indeed they'll have you believe that), it's a pandoras box. Once allowed to open it's gonna be hell to try and shut it again.
I ask my republican friends who are defending this NSA tactic if they'd trust, oh, say Hillary with this sort of information. By and large the answer is resoundingly "No," yet they can't seem to comprehend that, by accepting these actions now they're tacitly agreeing to future administrations, whoever they may be, utilizing the same tactics.
It's foolish. It's shortsighted. It's, unfortunately, American.
As far as I'm concerned, it's our job as Americans to forever view our government with a critical eye. We are the last check and balance when all else has failed. Only a fool assumes the best about their government... any government.
Unfortunately these days the United States seems overrun with fools.
I think that prior history would dictate that no one, short of Karl Rove or Dick Cheney, should attempt to determine what they "think what Bush was trying to say."
In fact, there's plenty of evidence in support of the notion that often even Bush doesn't know what Bush was trying to say.
Are you implying that the deer don't breed on their own?
Where in my post would you get that idea? Of course deer breed on their own. The point is that hunting, especially given the permit imbalance, doesn't reduce the amount of offspring produced and may, according to some scientific studies, even encourage more prolific breeding.
doesn't that just point out how little sense it makes to over-litigate this necessary activity?
Given the studies, it's difficult to accept the necessity of this activity. And, as previously mentioned, the imbalance would exist even without the doe-to-buck permit ratio, as the majority of sport-hunters (which make up the vast majority of deer hunters) are specifically after bucks regardless. The lopsided litigation is certainly a factor, but it's far from the only factor. And as irresponsible hunting results in over-killing even with the permit system in place there's a definite likelihood that the removal or severe relaxation of restrictions could result in the decimation of deer populations. Here in North Georgia it's common to run across hunting kill that has been left to rot in favor of a "better" kill every season (often found on private and/or "no hunting" designated areas to boot). Frankly, after 20 years of living amidst hunters and witnessing their tactics in a game area such as this it's near impossible to accept that any reasonable percentage of them are practicing anything akin to a "public service." But the argument of propaganda vs. reality vis-a-vis the psychology of hunters is for another thread.
How is that relevant to the fundamental issue of whether it is moral or necessary to hunt?
Nowhere in my post, other than perhaps at the close where I mentioned my personal stance on hunting in general, did I ever mention or allude to the morality (or lack thereof) or necessity to hunt. In fact, I closed by saying that if a person wants to hunt then fine. The entire post was about whether or not claiming hunting is a form of conservation and a "public service" is a viable statement. So hey, you're right; it isn't relevant... because I never brought it up as an argument against hunting in the first place.
Given that lack of natural predators, it is required.
Actually, given the lack of other implemented control measures, it's merely justified. Sigh... once again, there is evidence that the way deer is hunted doesn't "control" population, and may in fact have the opposite effect. As for natural predators, another irony is that those predators by their very nature served primarily to cull the old, infirm and unwell; hardly the goal of hunters. The actual population control by natural predators has never been conclusively determined though there are studies, including a 30 year one on ungulate/wolf population dynamics in Yellowstone in which the data showed that prey population had a greater influence on predator population rather than the opposite.
Simple as that.
The entire point of my first post that it is not "simple as that."
If you choose not to hunt, well fine that's your choice, but don't go off half-cocked and forget that any species, given a lack of natural predators, will grow to fill the food supply available, and then die of of disease and starvation.
Again, there are other options. Natural population checks combined, for instance, with selective immunocontraception would actually be an effective population control. But such a plan costs money while hunting generates money.
And "half-cocked?" Pot calling kettle... come in kettle.
So, if you are so hell-bent on exposing the evil corporate enterprise of hunting.
Pfeh. Welcome to discussions in the year 2005, where pointing out inaccuracies and contrary information in the hopes of having a truly honest and above-board debate is magically transmogrified into a substance free rant. At l
Indeed some of us do have at least the remotest understanding of what conservationism is really all about. Deer hunting as a viable "conservation tool" is questionable at best. It's ironic that states with the most deer hunting (like mine, Georgia, and my old home state of Minnesota) also seem to have the most deer. Or is it? The permit system surrounding deer hunting is not a conservation plan but a business plan, and it's in the best financial interest of game management to have as many deer to shoot at as possible. In many areas (again, such as Georgia) game management use such techniques as slash-and-burn, winter feeding and even active planting in order to maximize deer habitat to this end. Conservation?
Here in Georgia the forest service even goes so far as to plant vast swaths of non-native and invasive plants as foodstuff to enhance the availability of game animals such as turkeys. These methods wreak havoc on our indigenous natural areas, especially what little old-growth we have left. Again, conservation?
Additionally the very nature of deer hunting, along with current management policy, does little to nothing to reduce deer populations because it creates an imbalance in the natural sex ratio. In most states there are far fewer doe permits issued than buck permits (and hey, most "sportsmen" want a rack to display to denote the immensity of their johnson anyway). Deer, however, are polygamous. Thinning males in a herd does little to nothing to reduce the number of offspring that herd produces per season. It simply means more available breeding opportunities for the remaining bucks of the herd when in rut.
Some scientists also argue that the culling of herds (remember, predominantly males) also triggers natural reproduction compensation mechanisms, causing the more prevalent does to generate more offspring to both fill out the herd and take advantage of the temporary increase in in space and food within a territory.
In short, if you find pleasure in killing things then fine. I'll confess I can't comprehend how it can be satisfying, but that'd be why I don't hunt. But selling it as a "public service?" There are an awful lot of studies, save those bankrolled by forces that stand to profit from hunting, that call bullshit on any such notion.
Nice. Leave it to Microsoft to expect consumers to be omniscient. Scads of machines (specifically laptops to my knowledge) have been sold with the Athlon 64 processor and XP Home preinstalled. I, for instance, purchased mine back in February of '04. Somehow at that time I was expected to be cognizant of the fact that I'd need to have Pro preinstalled in order to simply have legitimate access to the future 64 bit version of Windows.
Off the top of my head I can think of 64 bit eMachines, Compaqs and Gateways that have been available for purchase since the release of the 64 Athlon that all came with XP Home preinstalled. Amazingly it would seem that these users can't even upgrade to Windows 64 final even if they're willing to pony up a full retail cost. Ridiculous.
Society has a RESPONSIBILITY to protect children. I think passing laws which help parents is a positive first step.
Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps. But in saying so you're implying that government=society, which is a disturbing thought.
Here's an analogy for you: the EPA just made a new ruling on mercury emissions from power plants (article here.I quote from the article:
When the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a rule last week to limit mercury emissions from U.S. power plants, officials emphasized that the controls could not be more aggressive because the cost to industry already far exceeded the public health payoff.
What they did not reveal is that a Harvard University study paid for by the EPA, co-authored by an EPA scientist and peer-reviewed by two other EPA scientists had reached the opposite conclusion.
That analysis estimated health benefits 100 times as great as the EPA did, but top agency officials ordered the finding stripped from public documents, said a staff member who helped develop the rule. Acknowledging the Harvard study would have forced the agency to consider more stringent controls, said environmentalists and the study's author.
Suuuure, the govt's doing a swell job of "protecting children."
Look, protecting children doesn't mean dumbing down all facets of society to meet the lowest common denominator. Me, I'm more worried about my kids physical health than whether or not he can access boobies on the 'net. I, as a parent and member of society, can teach my kid about human sexuality (rather than shield him)... I don't need the governments help. I would, however, appreciate it if the government would, say, actually make rulings against poisoning my kid (and the rest of us) rather than for it.
Kids are voluntary. If you opt to become a parent (and rest assured, the race will perservere regardless) welcome to your new job. Be it Elvis' hips or Paris Hilton taking it in the pooper, it is and always has been your job as parent to "protect" your kid. Let's not sterilize every facet of media (therefore grossly misrepresenting the reality of society) because you're not interested or capable of performing the tasks you signed up for.
Your analogy of porn to firestone tires is broken beyond belief. You're comparing safety to morality; that faulty tires kill and maim is a fact. Given that every otherwise well adjusted grown person in our society has likely ogled some tit and vag (or, to be fair, tallywacker) prior to turning 18 makes it hard to believe that porn, as a blanket generalism, is "harmful."
Not that I'm in favor of legislating this either, but I'm pretty sure that the garbage Ann Coulter is allowed to spew on public radio and television has a far greater potential to damage a developing mind than any pic you can dig up on Suicide Girls.
if Clinton was president under the same set of circumstances would you still be anti-war? I don't think so.
This is my official request to Repubs and Conservatives everywhere; stop trotting this ridiculous shit out when you run short of valid arguments. If nothing else it insinuates to me that politics has devolved in your mind to simple partisan allegience.
Me? I'm not pissed at this administration because they're Repubs, or because they're Conservatives (or, more rightly, Neo-Conservatives). I'm pissed because, whether or not I agree with their plans and goals, they've yet to not fuck one of them up. Not only do I disagree with the vast majority of their undertakings, they've failed miserably at executing all of them. If they worked for me they'd be fired for gross incompetence, regardless of their surnames.
Oh, wait... they do supposedly work for me. For all of us. Why the hell are they still in the office?
Lastly, as many other posters have pointed out, WMD were not a reason for the war, they were the reason. Liberating Iraq was not. And, if it were, my first question would have been "So, I assume they've asked us to liberate them, hey?"
Judging by the fact that they're still throwing bombs instead of the predicted flowers, I'm guessing the answer was a resounding No.
My 43 year old reservist brother, father of two, got called to active duty over xmas and is currently in Kuwait training for the show. I know he'd appreciate it if all of you war supporters would head on over and give him a hand... it might increase his chances for safe return.
Dandy and fine... 'cept that American society is no longer equipped properly for "personal responsibility." The worth of the individual has decreased exponentially with the rising worth of the corporate entities, and in many cases a person no longer has the means by which to exercise true personal fiscal responsibility.
For example, take a microcosm like the north Georgian Rabun County, population approximately 15,000. The median income there is currently $23k annual (and it pays to remember that, according to 2002 stats, the average national was a mere $30k). It doesn't cost much to live there and, just a handful of years ago, local business provided adequate jobs and salaries for these families, most of whom have lived in the area for umpteen generations.
Then Wal-Mart moved in with the allure of cheap goods. Local businesses shuttered, unable to compete against retail prices lower than their wholesale costs. Money that had once remained in the community via local business owners now filtered out to parts unknown. Decent wages and benefits withered, replaced by fewer jobs at lower salaries with little, if any, benefits, meager advancement and no community responsibility.
In a few short years Wal-Mart has become the biggest employer in their county seat, not because anyone wants to work there, but because people have to work to eat. To survive.
Now Home Depot is on the docket, and poised to kill the locally owned and staffed hardware store, feed and seed and building supply store. Lower prices indeed, but at what cost? Sadly, it's cyclical; the more destitute a person becomes, the more they have to rely on these big-box corporate ventures for their goods. You might want to shop at the local grocers, but now that the only job you could score is as a Super Wal-Mart stocker the only place you can afford to shop is, ironically, your employers. Add to that the facet of the wealthy snowbirds who flock to vacation in the lower Blue Ridge and used to spend their money at local establishments, but now go to Wal-Mart because it's familiar, they dont't really care where they shop, and it's rapidly becoming the only game in town, and the entire economy of the area has been turned on its ear.
Did they fight the introduction of these corporate giants? Well, they tried. Problem is that the local government stands to gain from bringing these entities in, and pushes to make it happen. And, when it inevitably does, the only remaining option is the voting booth... and the damage has already been done. Interestingly, a lot of other northeast Georgia counties have redoubled their efforts to keep giants like Wal-Mart out of their area, bolstered by witnessing the results in places like the city of Clayton.
The average citizen of Rabun County isn't a person of means, and they don't come from a lineage of people with means. They're hard workers from a line of hard workers. Without money, and without secondary education, these people are trapped in their circumstances. They can't move to Atlanta to get a job... not only do they lack the funds to make such a move or afford a place to live in the city, they haven't the credentials to score the employment necessary to remain in the city. They just have to tough it out.
I don't necessarily expect the average participant on/. to understand the life of small town folks with small town salaries and small town aspirations, but these are the people who will be left out in the cold without Social Security. We, as a nation, have defined capitalism such that a vast swath of citizens haven't any choice but to rely on social programs, fine tuned and effective or not.
Trust me; these people want to be personally responsible. Now lets concentrate on making them capable of being personally responsible. Pulling a safety net, no matter how meager, out from under them isn't teaching them. It's punishing them for the misfortune of being born into the wrong station.
I receive tons of hits from various groups sniffing about while I'm d/ling via BitTorrent (I run PeerGuardian) and I often wonder how culpable I am. While not all of my downloads are technically "legal," it's all stuff I'm pulling down because it's the only way I can get it.
My most recent downloads, for instance, have been copies of Sifl & Olly (which hasn't been released on DVD) episodes of the BBC's Spaced (which, while released on DVD, is only available in the UK on region 2 media, and I'm in the states), and the Drive-By Truckers Pizza Deliverance, which is woefully out of print. In the case of the Truckers, I already own a copy of the record, but it's beat to shit. Supposedly they'll be re-releasing it sometime in 2005, and I'll undoubtedly be buying myself a new copy. In the meantime, however, I'd like to be able to listen to it.
I'm one of those folks who would happily purchase the stuff I pull via BitTorrent... if I could. It irritates the shit out of me to be snooped online, and to read article after article about the RIAA and MPAA pissing and moaning over downloading, when they don't really seem to be paying attention to what is being downloaded.
Sure, there's a shit-ton of folks dealing in warez and publicly available media, but there are also tons of sites dealing specifically with stuff people seek that can't currently be purchased legitimately (I don't understand downloading a crappy boot of a movie destined for DVD release, or downloading a movie that can be purchased for a few bucks online or rented. Frankly, it's a waste of my bandwidth). You'd think they'd look at the popularity of, say, Sifl & Olly torrents and say "Well shit, there's a market. Maybe we should release a DVD of that stuff."
And hey; how about not pricing it outlandishly (a la Carnivale or Six Feet Under)? Nothing makes me consider downloading more than knowing that, by purchasing it, I'm voluntarily allowing myself to get screwed.
It's off topic, but still... there seem to be a LOT of folks who do home/small office IT consulting as a side venture. I've been out of full time work for some awhile now and believe that I could make ends meet supplementing my freelance development work with this type of consulting. Slashdotters out there; how are you doing it? I mean, how "official" is your side business? Business license? LLC? Contracts for clients to sign to avoid the old Being Blamed For Data Loss on a Drive That Was Dead Before You Got There? Or is it just a seat of the pants, paid under the table sort of thing?
I guess Rev. Al Shizzazzle had the title right in his recent written statement "Will the real Howard Dean please stand up?"
While you say that Dean is Captain Far-Left, Al says that, as Vermont governer, Dean:
opposed affirmative action
supported the death penalty
appointed conservative judges
According to most folks who know me I'm pretty much a left to far-left kinda guy... I know what affords that designation, and Dean ain't over here with me.
You could clear this whole matter up by referencing some facts to back up your assertions. And by facts I mean voting records, not rhetoric spewed from the podium in a debate. Bush made it clearer than ever before what percentage of campaign dialog aught be construed as honesty; precious little.
And hey ho! He voted for the Patriot Act as well! He recently held a public meeting in Atlanta, and there was asked why he did so. "I made a mistake," he responded.
Great, Bob. Did you read it before you "made a mistake?"
Lets not be daft and think that Buffets comments have anything to do with philanthropy. They are, ironically enough, about his desire to make money.
Warren is shrewd (and how could one amass such wealth without being so?); he knows that the tax cut is a short term windfall, one he doesn't need, that will likely bring longer term negative effects. He's made his money, after all, on you. And me. And other regular shmoes that purchase the things that the businesses in which he invests provide. It is, therefore, in Warrens best interest for you and I to have as much disposable income as possible, and he recognizes this. He bought controlling stock in Larson Juhl, for example, to make money by selling picture frames. Unfortunately for him picture frames are hardly a staple need. Times get tough; people stop buying frivolous shit. The more money you have, the more money he stands to make.
The fact that you don't see him "give "his money to the poor" hardly negates the validity of his opinion here. In fact, it's irrelevant.
And, because I can't resist it, on the philanthropic tip, the Buffett Foundation makes charitable donations to the tune of about $12 mil a year. He has also claimed he intends disburse 99% of his wealth after his death to good causes.
I'm not trying to necessarily defend Buffet here. He just happens to be an example of a guy that gets rich secondarily; his thing is business, not money. His satisfaction comes from business successes; the dough is just the inevitable return on those successes. I've worked with folks like this before. A few. A precious, tiny few. Think, just for a moment, of all the people you've seen in positions of power at your jobs, past and present. Then think about those amongst them that you saw make decisions that were great for them personally, but terrible for the company (and they knew it). Personally, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen this. Those are the folks so hot and heavy over these tax cuts. Those are, IMHO, representatives of the new school of executive business; one that seems to derive satisfaction solely through the acquisition of money and power. In the long run their lack of dedication to anything other than the aforementioned two desires is detrimental to the supposed interests of their businesses, not to mention the economic landscape as a whole, but they don't care so long as they get theirs.
But, then, our current administration is all about reaping personal gain in exchange for long term damage. It ain't a partisan thing; it's a reality thing. Sadly, I'm beginning to think that American citizens are merely getting what they deserve.
I'm not sure how Radiohead, of all bands, got mentioned. I recall them providing one of their recent albums online in it's entirety (albeit at 128 kbit) temporarily prior to its 'official' release.
Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
Funny things, convictions. Everyone likes to espouse and demand respect for their own, while alternately disrespecting those they don't personally hold.
'Most' vegans, like most christians, most conservatives, most liberals, most (insert personal strongly held belief here) and most Linux-heads truly believe they're trying to help you by sharing their conviction with you.
"Most slashdotters love to shove their pro-Linux views down your throat more than an entire clan of Jehova's Witness' combined, and yet Jehova's witnesses still get more dates."
Maintained... to a point. For a little insight on the 'concept' of punk, and specifically the current sad trend of cashing out integrity, take a look at Mark Vallen's commentary on the Clash and Jaguar.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but based upon your votes in 2000 and 2004, you've only yourself to blame for being lumped in with the zealots. Not because you're conservative or Republican, mind you, but because you voted for the current administration (which has little in common with either of the aforementioned categorizations). It's sorta like attending bear parties and being offended because it's assumed that you're gay.
wave your hands about like a snake
Ummm...
And, to further the rational argument, the problem isn't merely one of "OMG! I don't want Bush spying on me!" Traditionally civil rights are hard fought to obtain yet amazingly easy to lose. Admittedly I don't like this administration and, because of their past performance, don't trust them a whit with this or any other information. What's potentially more frightening to me, however, are administrations to come. This isn't a temporary measure in the face of an extreme situation (though indeed they'll have you believe that), it's a pandoras box. Once allowed to open it's gonna be hell to try and shut it again. I ask my republican friends who are defending this NSA tactic if they'd trust, oh, say Hillary with this sort of information. By and large the answer is resoundingly "No," yet they can't seem to comprehend that, by accepting these actions now they're tacitly agreeing to future administrations, whoever they may be, utilizing the same tactics. It's foolish. It's shortsighted. It's, unfortunately, American.
As far as I'm concerned, it's our job as Americans to forever view our government with a critical eye. We are the last check and balance when all else has failed. Only a fool assumes the best about their government... any government. Unfortunately these days the United States seems overrun with fools.
I think that prior history would dictate that no one, short of Karl Rove or Dick Cheney, should attempt to determine what they "think what Bush was trying to say." In fact, there's plenty of evidence in support of the notion that often even Bush doesn't know what Bush was trying to say.
What's truly frightening is that, in todays America, you had to give some consideration to whether that quote was factual or not.
You've missed out on some woefully now out of print gems like the Joe R Lansdale compiled Razored Saddles, then.
Are you implying that the deer don't breed on their own?
Where in my post would you get that idea? Of course deer breed on their own. The point is that hunting, especially given the permit imbalance, doesn't reduce the amount of offspring produced and may, according to some scientific studies, even encourage more prolific breeding.
doesn't that just point out how little sense it makes to over-litigate this necessary activity?
Given the studies, it's difficult to accept the necessity of this activity. And, as previously mentioned, the imbalance would exist even without the doe-to-buck permit ratio, as the majority of sport-hunters (which make up the vast majority of deer hunters) are specifically after bucks regardless. The lopsided litigation is certainly a factor, but it's far from the only factor. And as irresponsible hunting results in over-killing even with the permit system in place there's a definite likelihood that the removal or severe relaxation of restrictions could result in the decimation of deer populations. Here in North Georgia it's common to run across hunting kill that has been left to rot in favor of a "better" kill every season (often found on private and/or "no hunting" designated areas to boot). Frankly, after 20 years of living amidst hunters and witnessing their tactics in a game area such as this it's near impossible to accept that any reasonable percentage of them are practicing anything akin to a "public service." But the argument of propaganda vs. reality vis-a-vis the psychology of hunters is for another thread.
How is that relevant to the fundamental issue of whether it is moral or necessary to hunt?
Nowhere in my post, other than perhaps at the close where I mentioned my personal stance on hunting in general, did I ever mention or allude to the morality (or lack thereof) or necessity to hunt. In fact, I closed by saying that if a person wants to hunt then fine. The entire post was about whether or not claiming hunting is a form of conservation and a "public service" is a viable statement. So hey, you're right; it isn't relevant... because I never brought it up as an argument against hunting in the first place.
Given that lack of natural predators, it is required.
Actually, given the lack of other implemented control measures, it's merely justified. Sigh... once again, there is evidence that the way deer is hunted doesn't "control" population, and may in fact have the opposite effect. As for natural predators, another irony is that those predators by their very nature served primarily to cull the old, infirm and unwell; hardly the goal of hunters. The actual population control by natural predators has never been conclusively determined though there are studies, including a 30 year one on ungulate/wolf population dynamics in Yellowstone in which the data showed that prey population had a greater influence on predator population rather than the opposite.
Simple as that.
The entire point of my first post that it is not "simple as that."
If you choose not to hunt, well fine that's your choice, but don't go off half-cocked and forget that any species, given a lack of natural predators, will grow to fill the food supply available, and then die of of disease and starvation.
Again, there are other options. Natural population checks combined, for instance, with selective immunocontraception would actually be an effective population control. But such a plan costs money while hunting generates money.
And "half-cocked?" Pot calling kettle... come in kettle.
So, if you are so hell-bent on exposing the evil corporate enterprise of hunting.
Pfeh. Welcome to discussions in the year 2005, where pointing out inaccuracies and contrary information in the hopes of having a truly honest and above-board debate is magically transmogrified into a substance free rant. At l
Indeed some of us do have at least the remotest understanding of what conservationism is really all about. Deer hunting as a viable "conservation tool" is questionable at best. It's ironic that states with the most deer hunting (like mine, Georgia, and my old home state of Minnesota) also seem to have the most deer. Or is it? The permit system surrounding deer hunting is not a conservation plan but a business plan, and it's in the best financial interest of game management to have as many deer to shoot at as possible. In many areas (again, such as Georgia) game management use such techniques as slash-and-burn, winter feeding and even active planting in order to maximize deer habitat to this end. Conservation?
Here in Georgia the forest service even goes so far as to plant vast swaths of non-native and invasive plants as foodstuff to enhance the availability of game animals such as turkeys. These methods wreak havoc on our indigenous natural areas, especially what little old-growth we have left. Again, conservation?
Additionally the very nature of deer hunting, along with current management policy, does little to nothing to reduce deer populations because it creates an imbalance in the natural sex ratio. In most states there are far fewer doe permits issued than buck permits (and hey, most "sportsmen" want a rack to display to denote the immensity of their johnson anyway). Deer, however, are polygamous. Thinning males in a herd does little to nothing to reduce the number of offspring that herd produces per season. It simply means more available breeding opportunities for the remaining bucks of the herd when in rut.
Some scientists also argue that the culling of herds (remember, predominantly males) also triggers natural reproduction compensation mechanisms, causing the more prevalent does to generate more offspring to both fill out the herd and take advantage of the temporary increase in in space and food within a territory.
In short, if you find pleasure in killing things then fine. I'll confess I can't comprehend how it can be satisfying, but that'd be why I don't hunt. But selling it as a "public service?" There are an awful lot of studies, save those bankrolled by forces that stand to profit from hunting, that call bullshit on any such notion.
Nice. Leave it to Microsoft to expect consumers to be omniscient. Scads of machines (specifically laptops to my knowledge) have been sold with the Athlon 64 processor and XP Home preinstalled. I, for instance, purchased mine back in February of '04. Somehow at that time I was expected to be cognizant of the fact that I'd need to have Pro preinstalled in order to simply have legitimate access to the future 64 bit version of Windows.
Off the top of my head I can think of 64 bit eMachines, Compaqs and Gateways that have been available for purchase since the release of the 64 Athlon that all came with XP Home preinstalled. Amazingly it would seem that these users can't even upgrade to Windows 64 final even if they're willing to pony up a full retail cost. Ridiculous.
Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps. But in saying so you're implying that government=society, which is a disturbing thought. Here's an analogy for you: the EPA just made a new ruling on mercury emissions from power plants (article here.I quote from the article:
Suuuure, the govt's doing a swell job of "protecting children."
Look, protecting children doesn't mean dumbing down all facets of society to meet the lowest common denominator. Me, I'm more worried about my kids physical health than whether or not he can access boobies on the 'net. I, as a parent and member of society, can teach my kid about human sexuality (rather than shield him)... I don't need the governments help. I would, however, appreciate it if the government would, say, actually make rulings against poisoning my kid (and the rest of us) rather than for it.
Kids are voluntary. If you opt to become a parent (and rest assured, the race will perservere regardless) welcome to your new job. Be it Elvis' hips or Paris Hilton taking it in the pooper, it is and always has been your job as parent to "protect" your kid. Let's not sterilize every facet of media (therefore grossly misrepresenting the reality of society) because you're not interested or capable of performing the tasks you signed up for.
Your analogy of porn to firestone tires is broken beyond belief. You're comparing safety to morality; that faulty tires kill and maim is a fact. Given that every otherwise well adjusted grown person in our society has likely ogled some tit and vag (or, to be fair, tallywacker) prior to turning 18 makes it hard to believe that porn, as a blanket generalism, is "harmful."
Not that I'm in favor of legislating this either, but I'm pretty sure that the garbage Ann Coulter is allowed to spew on public radio and television has a far greater potential to damage a developing mind than any pic you can dig up on Suicide Girls.
Thanks. The problem with the adage of pulling yourself up is that it assumes you have bootstraps. A fair number of us don't.
if Clinton was president under the same set of circumstances would you still be anti-war? I don't think so.
This is my official request to Repubs and Conservatives everywhere; stop trotting this ridiculous shit out when you run short of valid arguments. If nothing else it insinuates to me that politics has devolved in your mind to simple partisan allegience.
Me? I'm not pissed at this administration because they're Repubs, or because they're Conservatives (or, more rightly, Neo-Conservatives). I'm pissed because, whether or not I agree with their plans and goals, they've yet to not fuck one of them up. Not only do I disagree with the vast majority of their undertakings, they've failed miserably at executing all of them. If they worked for me they'd be fired for gross incompetence, regardless of their surnames.
Oh, wait... they do supposedly work for me. For all of us. Why the hell are they still in the office?
Lastly, as many other posters have pointed out, WMD were not a reason for the war, they were the reason. Liberating Iraq was not. And, if it were, my first question would have been "So, I assume they've asked us to liberate them, hey?"
Judging by the fact that they're still throwing bombs instead of the predicted flowers, I'm guessing the answer was a resounding No.
My 43 year old reservist brother, father of two, got called to active duty over xmas and is currently in Kuwait training for the show. I know he'd appreciate it if all of you war supporters would head on over and give him a hand... it might increase his chances for safe return.
Money where your mouths are...
Dandy and fine... 'cept that American society is no longer equipped properly for "personal responsibility." The worth of the individual has decreased exponentially with the rising worth of the corporate entities, and in many cases a person no longer has the means by which to exercise true personal fiscal responsibility.
/. to understand the life of small town folks with small town salaries and small town aspirations, but these are the people who will be left out in the cold without Social Security. We, as a nation, have defined capitalism such that a vast swath of citizens haven't any choice but to rely on social programs, fine tuned and effective or not.
For example, take a microcosm like the north Georgian Rabun County, population approximately 15,000. The median income there is currently $23k annual (and it pays to remember that, according to 2002 stats, the average national was a mere $30k). It doesn't cost much to live there and, just a handful of years ago, local business provided adequate jobs and salaries for these families, most of whom have lived in the area for umpteen generations.
Then Wal-Mart moved in with the allure of cheap goods. Local businesses shuttered, unable to compete against retail prices lower than their wholesale costs. Money that had once remained in the community via local business owners now filtered out to parts unknown. Decent wages and benefits withered, replaced by fewer jobs at lower salaries with little, if any, benefits, meager advancement and no community responsibility.
In a few short years Wal-Mart has become the biggest employer in their county seat, not because anyone wants to work there, but because people have to work to eat. To survive. Now Home Depot is on the docket, and poised to kill the locally owned and staffed hardware store, feed and seed and building supply store. Lower prices indeed, but at what cost? Sadly, it's cyclical; the more destitute a person becomes, the more they have to rely on these big-box corporate ventures for their goods. You might want to shop at the local grocers, but now that the only job you could score is as a Super Wal-Mart stocker the only place you can afford to shop is, ironically, your employers. Add to that the facet of the wealthy snowbirds who flock to vacation in the lower Blue Ridge and used to spend their money at local establishments, but now go to Wal-Mart because it's familiar, they dont't really care where they shop, and it's rapidly becoming the only game in town, and the entire economy of the area has been turned on its ear.
Did they fight the introduction of these corporate giants? Well, they tried. Problem is that the local government stands to gain from bringing these entities in, and pushes to make it happen. And, when it inevitably does, the only remaining option is the voting booth... and the damage has already been done. Interestingly, a lot of other northeast Georgia counties have redoubled their efforts to keep giants like Wal-Mart out of their area, bolstered by witnessing the results in places like the city of Clayton.
The average citizen of Rabun County isn't a person of means, and they don't come from a lineage of people with means. They're hard workers from a line of hard workers. Without money, and without secondary education, these people are trapped in their circumstances. They can't move to Atlanta to get a job... not only do they lack the funds to make such a move or afford a place to live in the city, they haven't the credentials to score the employment necessary to remain in the city. They just have to tough it out.
I don't necessarily expect the average participant on
Trust me; these people want to be personally responsible. Now lets concentrate on making them capable of being personally responsible. Pulling a safety net, no matter how meager, out from under them isn't teaching them. It's punishing them for the misfortune of being born into the wrong station.
I receive tons of hits from various groups sniffing about while I'm d/ling via BitTorrent (I run PeerGuardian) and I often wonder how culpable I am. While not all of my downloads are technically "legal," it's all stuff I'm pulling down because it's the only way I can get it.
My most recent downloads, for instance, have been copies of Sifl & Olly (which hasn't been released on DVD) episodes of the BBC's Spaced (which, while released on DVD, is only available in the UK on region 2 media, and I'm in the states), and the Drive-By Truckers Pizza Deliverance, which is woefully out of print. In the case of the Truckers, I already own a copy of the record, but it's beat to shit. Supposedly they'll be re-releasing it sometime in 2005, and I'll undoubtedly be buying myself a new copy. In the meantime, however, I'd like to be able to listen to it.
I'm one of those folks who would happily purchase the stuff I pull via BitTorrent... if I could. It irritates the shit out of me to be snooped online, and to read article after article about the RIAA and MPAA pissing and moaning over downloading, when they don't really seem to be paying attention to what is being downloaded.
Sure, there's a shit-ton of folks dealing in warez and publicly available media, but there are also tons of sites dealing specifically with stuff people seek that can't currently be purchased legitimately (I don't understand downloading a crappy boot of a movie destined for DVD release, or downloading a movie that can be purchased for a few bucks online or rented. Frankly, it's a waste of my bandwidth). You'd think they'd look at the popularity of, say, Sifl & Olly torrents and say "Well shit, there's a market. Maybe we should release a DVD of that stuff."
And hey; how about not pricing it outlandishly (a la Carnivale or Six Feet Under)? Nothing makes me consider downloading more than knowing that, by purchasing it, I'm voluntarily allowing myself to get screwed.
It's off topic, but still... there seem to be a LOT of folks who do home/small office IT consulting as a side venture. I've been out of full time work for some awhile now and believe that I could make ends meet supplementing my freelance development work with this type of consulting. Slashdotters out there; how are you doing it? I mean, how "official" is your side business? Business license? LLC? Contracts for clients to sign to avoid the old Being Blamed For Data Loss on a Drive That Was Dead Before You Got There? Or is it just a seat of the pants, paid under the table sort of thing?
- opposed affirmative action
- supported the death penalty
- appointed conservative judges
According to most folks who know me I'm pretty much a left to far-left kinda guy... I know what affords that designation, and Dean ain't over here with me. You could clear this whole matter up by referencing some facts to back up your assertions. And by facts I mean voting records, not rhetoric spewed from the podium in a debate. Bush made it clearer than ever before what percentage of campaign dialog aught be construed as honesty; precious little.And hey ho! He voted for the Patriot Act as well! He recently held a public meeting in Atlanta, and there was asked why he did so. "I made a mistake," he responded. Great, Bob. Did you read it before you "made a mistake?"
Lets not be daft and think that Buffets comments have anything to do with philanthropy. They are, ironically enough, about his desire to make money.
Warren is shrewd (and how could one amass such wealth without being so?); he knows that the tax cut is a short term windfall, one he doesn't need, that will likely bring longer term negative effects.
He's made his money, after all, on you. And me. And other regular shmoes that purchase the things that the businesses in which he invests provide. It is, therefore, in Warrens best interest for you and I to have as much disposable income as possible, and he recognizes this.
He bought controlling stock in Larson Juhl, for example, to make money by selling picture frames. Unfortunately for him picture frames are hardly a staple need. Times get tough; people stop buying frivolous shit. The more money you have, the more money he stands to make.
The fact that you don't see him "give "his money to the poor" hardly negates the validity of his opinion here. In fact, it's irrelevant.
And, because I can't resist it, on the philanthropic tip, the Buffett Foundation makes charitable donations to the tune of about $12 mil a year. He has also claimed he intends disburse 99% of his wealth after his death to good causes.
I'm not trying to necessarily defend Buffet here. He just happens to be an example of a guy that gets rich secondarily; his thing is business, not money. His satisfaction comes from business successes; the dough is just the inevitable return on those successes. I've worked with folks like this before. A few. A precious, tiny few.
Think, just for a moment, of all the people you've seen in positions of power at your jobs, past and present. Then think about those amongst them that you saw make decisions that were great for them personally, but terrible for the company (and they knew it). Personally, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen this. Those are the folks so hot and heavy over these tax cuts. Those are, IMHO, representatives of the new school of executive business; one that seems to derive satisfaction solely through the acquisition of money and power. In the long run their lack of dedication to anything other than the aforementioned two desires is detrimental to the supposed interests of their businesses, not to mention the economic landscape as a whole, but they don't care so long as they get theirs.
But, then, our current administration is all about reaping personal gain in exchange for long term damage. It ain't a partisan thing; it's a reality thing. Sadly, I'm beginning to think that American citizens are merely getting what they deserve.
peace;
I'm not sure how Radiohead, of all bands, got mentioned. I recall them providing one of their recent albums online in it's entirety (albeit at 128 kbit) temporarily prior to its 'official' release.
peace
How ya like dat?
I'd love it... were it accurate.
Always, always research.
Funny things, convictions. Everyone likes to espouse and demand respect for their own, while alternately disrespecting those they don't personally hold.
'Most' vegans, like most christians, most conservatives, most liberals, most (insert personal strongly held belief here) and most Linux-heads truly believe they're trying to help you by sharing their conviction with you.
"Most slashdotters love to shove their pro-Linux views down your throat more than an entire clan of Jehova's Witness' combined, and yet Jehova's witnesses still get more dates."
Generalities are funny things too.
Maintained... to a point. For a little insight on the 'concept' of punk, and specifically the current sad trend of cashing out integrity, take a look at Mark Vallen's commentary on the Clash and Jaguar.
jsfk
"punk is whatever we made it to be" -- D. Boon