One important point to remember: most critics of socialized healthcare in the US point out how the Canadian health care system is on the rocks. Of course, they fail to consider that the problem with the Canadian health care system is the US health care system. Because it's so broken, doctors are flooding to the US to make a mint. Take that mint out of the equation, there's no more benefit for the Canadian doctors to come down, and the system restores to the balance it had before.
Most businesses, when sued, look at the economics of the fight; how much is this going to cost to fight in court? What are the repercussions of settling? Is it less expensive to settle than to bother?
Businesses have that choice because they typically have attorneys on retainer. Even then, there's a cost involved with ramping them up if they feel it's fiscally viable for them to do so. Individuals do not have that choice. They either pay the RIAA or they pay an attorney. That's not a choice, that's the RIAA manipulating the system to their advantage.
So if you got a letter, really the question comes down to this; is this a fight you really want to get into? You can buy your way out with a fixed sum. You can negotiate with them and say, "I want to pay you, but I make 4 dollars a year, and so what can I give you to settle? etc." Or..... You can fight it head on, get your own attorneys and fight it with righteous zeal, defending your honor, truth and all that is holy and right. Mind you, this latter choice, while emotionally rewarding, will cost many many times what the original settlement offer was. So is it worth it to spend tens of thousands of dollars over a year or more to prove a point? Or just pay it and get them out of your hair?
I'm fortunate in that I have a friend who is a lawyer who would gladly make a name for herself for free to push back on this case. But, most folks aren't so fortunate. Are you suggesting that a family who falls below the poverty line, and doesn't even own a computer, should just cough up the buckage if they get the letter from the RIAA? Are you suggesting that everyone should just do that? Isn't that really just the RIAA's plan? Are you a plant?
It's your personal choice. Choosing one over the other isn't necessarily morally right. I don't think GP deserved the lashing later in your post.
Anyone who suggests that innocent folks should just cough over money to the RIAA deserves that lashing and more. If it weren't the end of the day and I wasn't exhausted, I'd give you one, too. Suffice it to say you've been brutally lashed, ok?:)
Does the RIAA need to be stopped? You bet. But stopping RIAA's crusade against their own customers isn't going to happen while you're defending yourself in court. The best you could really do is not have to pay, and maybe make them look like fools, (ie: the "I have no computer" example), but that won't stop them.
Actually, you're wrong. The cases the RIAA are bringing are getting harder and harder because people have been fighting back. That's why they've stepped up this tactic of involving the university administration. They know the courts aren't going to willy-nilly give them subpoenas anymore, so they're circumventing them entirely. UW is now in collusion with an extortion racket, pure and simple.
Something else needs to happen to bring the whole thing to a halt, and I'm not sure what that needs to be.
I don't have a perfect solution either, but I can tell you: rolling over and playing dead is certainly not going to effect ANY change.
Lower class people may have a hard time defending themselves, but, they also have very little to lose.
Well, hey, then let's take all we can from them since they won't miss it. There's a fine line between bleeding heart liberal and cold-hearted ass, and you aren't anywhere near it.
Middle class people have something to lose, but most live little better than paycheck-2-paycheck. Very few have savings. Most are already heavily in debt.
My point is that just because you are too weak to play does not exempt you from the game. Life is really tough. It's best to learn that early on. Most times, it's better to pay someone off than to fight through the legal system. That's just the way it is.
So, your idea is that if someone gets one of these letters they should just send the RIAA a check, regardless of if they are or aren't guilty? Regardless, as in a few cases, that the person doesn't even HAVE A COMPUTER? That's a great plan! You know, you should pitch that to the RIAA. After all, they're spending all this money trying to get these out to folks in a not-at-all legal way. What they should do, according to your plan, is just just send one to everyone in the US. The poor folk'll just have to go without food for a couple of months, but at least they've learned life is hard (as if they didn't already know that). The middle class can just get a little more in debt and the rich folks'll just cut a check. It's brilliant in it's simplistic, narrow-minded, dumbass, fucktard stupidity!
Seriously, you need a therapist. There is something significantly wrong with your brain. And, since you've brought it up numerous times in your mindless rants: what exactly are YOU doing to change the system? Aside from beating down anyone who has a problem with it, you haven't mentioned your tactics. Or, is just rolling over in happy submission and hoping for a belly-rub the extent of it?
Well, when one of my computers breaks at home, the same guy fixes it as the guy who does the company computers. Does that count?
Only if your company pays for it.:)
I've got all the responsibility for the computers, both good and bad. If something breaks, it is my job to fix it. On the other hand, when I need something, it's maybe three days, tops, before the funds have been allocated to buy whatever I need. Now, I can only assume that abusing this power would lead to repercussions, but I really don't have the desire to risk ruining a good thing.
So, does that include hiring help? I'm really not sure how the company being good about buying you what you need to do your job equates to your giving up your life for free. I mean, your "theme" seems to be "well, it's your job, just do it". Buying you what you need is their job, great they're doing their job. So, because they're doing their job, you'll do yours for free?
As for the employee stock, I'll let it be known right now that I've never been in a position to get employee stock.
Don't worry. As others have pointed out unless you're getting a couple of million shares, it's really not worth it.
But it seems to me that it doesn't have to be statistically significant when compared to all the money gained by various entities who stood to gain from the stock price increase. It just has to be statistically significant when compared to the money you have. I am reminded of the story of the young boy who was going down a beach, picking up starfish, and throwing them into the ocean. A man stopped him, and asked what he was doing. The boy said that he was throwing the starfish back into the ocean before they died. The man said that there were so many starfish, the boy couldn't possibly make a difference. The boy threw another starfish back and said, "It made a difference to that one." Now, if the extra work that you do is not worth the $300 you'll make above what you'd make just doing your job, then don't do it. Opportunity cost is a very real thing. But how something benefits or doesn't benefit someone else is not part of the economics of this situation, other than that if the powers that be didn't think giving employees stock would lead to increased value for their own, they wouldn't do it.
So, are you supposed to be the little boy in that analogy or the starfish? Actually, neither fit. A better analogy would be the little boy is stepping on all of the starfish because he doesn't feel like walking on the hot sand. The little boy being the uppity-ups who are making millions everyday off of your successes. Of course employers give employees stock to increase the value of their own. If they give you a couple of them, you feel like you've been patted on the head and then work nights, weekends and vacations for free, thus increasing the value of their thousands or millions. A dog rarely learns how to do tricks unless you offer him a little treat.
Let's put it another way. The meager wage generic Wal-Mart employee gets is insignificant compared to the money Sam Walton gets. But that wage is still a benefit to the employee.
Yes, but even the meager wage slave at Wallieworld wouldn't work a second past the time he's paid for because Sam Walton because Sam Walton couldn't even be bothered to know WageSlave24601's real name. In theory, he works hard for the company, and is paid comparatively to the benefit he provides the company. When ol' Sammy was alive, he worked hard and was paid, in theory, commensurate with the value HE provided the company. But, we're not talking the normal "it's your job" kinda thing. We're talking above and beyond and compensation. You work during your vacation, is that compensated? Certainly not by employee stock. But, let's say it was: why should you get a couple of hundred dollars for your work that was above and beyond, but your boss' boss get a couple of million? He provided no extra value to the co
Some people don't work for large nameless corporations. When you're the only tech guy at a small business, and you go on vacation, everything that breaks while you're on vacation either results in a phone call to you, or a phone call to the Geek Squad. I wouldn't let the Geek Squad close enough to my computers to hit them with a 10' pole. I'll take the phone call.
Two problems with your theory (and I've been there, so I've tested this in practice):
1) They're not YOUR computers. They're your RESPONSIBILITY, but they're not YOUR computers. You know, kinda like when that salesman installs pirated software on his laptop and you grouse about how it's not his computer to muck with? When you're at work and one of your systems breaks at home, does your company send someone over to fix it for you?
2) So, because your company is too cheap to spend the money to adequately cover their systems, you have to pick up the slack. How's that working out for you? VP of IT in 5 years, right? Yeah, I didn't think so. See, if they don't realize now that they have a need to spend money maintaining their systems, how are they ever going to learn? Do you think once they start making some money they'll hire someone else to help out? Of course they will! But, not after spending millions having you install more systems (unpaid and on your time) so that by the time they hire the new guy (or gal), you'll actually be at the point where you needed two or three. Let Geek Squad screw up your systems, you'll just fix 'em when you get back.
I know where you're coming from, I do. I've been there. I've got a set of pictures from when my ex-wife and I went to DC for a week. In almost every one I'm on the phone with work talking them through some issue. Know what happened? I got bitchy because I was working 70-80 hour weeks with no benefit to me, and got myself fired. Best thing that ever happened to me. Now, I work my 40 hours, and if shit don't get done then I had too much shit. Not my problem, I just work here. Ironically, I keep winning all kinds of awards for outstanding service, too. Go fig.
Don't love your job. It can't love you back.
As far as the employee stock thing goes, you're absolutely right. If they can get you to work harder to increase the value of your stock, it also increases the value of their stock. Now, why do you feel you're losing on this win-win? Because someone else is winning more? If I do something fantastic for the stock prices, and I make a few hundred bucks, that's a few hundred bucks that I wouldn't have had otherwise. You recommend screwing yourself, and justify it with 'sticking it to the man.' Believe it or not, you only need to worry about whether something will help you. You sound just as greedy as you accuse the people on top of being, just less successful.
Because, it's really quite simple: you did all the work, they got all the benefit (you got a couple of hundred bucks, they got a couple of million. Your gain is not statistically significant, so you got no benefit. QED) Is it really that hard to understand? It's not win-win. I think you need to take a peek over your shoulder to see whose dick that really is in your ass. Another example from "That Place" described a couple of paragraphs ago: I can document clearly over $5.2 million dollars I saved that company in the three and a half years I was there, yet I still got single-digit merit raises. Now, however, I do exactly the job I'm supposed to and not a step more and get all kinds of awards for service and consistently the highest raises in my group. So, who exactly is screwing themselves here?
Ask any parent who's had more than one child and they'll all tell you the same thing: "with the first one, you so very careful. You measure this, protect against that...but, the second one...at that point it's all pretty much old hat and pretty much throw all caution to the wind." If this "ease" that comes during the second child's rearing includes lower quality foods (because you don't NEED to purchase the most expensive, you learn), different parenting techniques, etc wouldn't that result in a change? It seems more common that a woman who breastfed her first child isn't as likely to do the same with subsequent children and there's some evidence to suggest higher intelligence through breastfeeding. Dunno, just throwing some things out there. Correlation not being causation and all.
Well technically its about abusing a monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage over competitors....Microsoft did it previously with Internet Explorer.
Well, technically, it's not. It's about providing the most basic software necessary for people to do with their computers what they bought the computer to do. IE may not be the best browser, but it allows Granny Jane to surf the web, find recipes and look at videos of her grandchillens. Outlook Express isn't the best mail client, but she can send mails to her kids to start feeding them grandchillens of hers! They look soooo thin! If Granny Jane wants to use another browser, there's nothing stopping her from doing so whatsoever. If she wants to use another mail client, there's nothing stopping her. If she wants to use a different desktop search, there was never anything stopping her. Yes, MS holds a monopoly on the desktop OS market, but that doesn't mean their actions are monopolistic. Ever other OS, including all Linux distributions, ships with a browser and mail client. How can you expect MS not? "Ohhh, but you have a CHOICE of browser when you use one of those OSes". No I don't. Most distros ship with Firefox as the default browser. What if I want to use Konquerer? I HAVE TO MAKE A CHANGE!! Shame on those Linux geeks for forcing me to use Firefox!
Apply this reasoning to a Vista drive search thing vs Google drive search thing and you can see where this is heading.
Yes, another sham DOJ trial where MS' competitors all line up to complain that the reason their crappy software failed wasn't because the software was crappy, but because MS wouldn't let them compete. They'll make up crap all over the place, the technically inept/. crowd will shout "see, we were right!!", taxpayers will spend billions of dollars and nothing will change. All because the MS search feature, which is on an MS OS from MS was turned on by default instead of some third-party app that replaces it anyway. Yay. Can you smell the excitement?
You mean you have such a low opinion of Americans that you don't think they're capable of doing PCA on their own?
It's a tough call. Every time I start to have some hope that they're not the clueless barbarians they make themselves out to be, they start doing something stupid like rallying behind Fred Thompson for President.:) But, in all honesty, I'm actually surprised most people manage to get their shoes tied every morning, let alone figure out who to vote for to run the country...
That should read "et cetera or etc."
Then again, those of us smartasses with too much to say on the topic should either learn how to spell or STFA.:)
Little known bonus fact: the ampersand character (&) is medieval shorthand for the Latin et, meaning "and".
As a fan of etymologies, I appreciate the info! About the only reason I read the MW word of the day is to get the origin of that word..
I think you're asking too much from the average American. "Two" seems to be their magic number: two parties, two paradigms, good & evil, terrorist or not, liberal or conservative, employed or lazy, etcetera or etc. A simplified PCA where you input your ideals, and it spits out who to vote for would go over well, though.:)
First, the problem isn't that obvious to the majority of the people in America. This issue, for instance, will only see major coverage on places like Slashdot, I haven't seen it on my local news and very few people watch the major news outlets. It doesn't affect them directly in their day-to-day lives, so it gets bumped for the local high school's latest win. The issues with electronic voting didn't get wide coverage, either, so that's not going to change any time soon. The only national issue most Americans are aware of right now is the Iraq war, which is where the lines are drawn. That tiny percentage who still support the 'pubs do so because they think we should be in Iraq.
Secondly, the vast majority of Americans are single-issue voters. They pick their one issue and vote for the one of the two "teams" that claims to support their stance on it. The remainder of the issues are too big for the average person to deal with. Illegal immigration? Economic policy? Foreign policy? What are the right solutions to these problems? Joe Smith barely can balance his checkbook, how does he determine whose economic policy to vote for? So, he picks his single issue and then regurgitates the remaining stances of the party he voted for as if they're the only real solution to the other problems he doesn't understand. After all, if they believe how he believes on that one issue, they must be right on all of the others. Right? They ignore everything else that party stands for because they're just voting AGAINST the other side on their one issue (no one votes for anyone anymore, they just vote against). My wife, for example, is pro-choice, so she always voted for the Dems. Had she paid attention to them, she would've disliked a lot of their other stances, but voted for them because the only other choice was to vote for pro-lifers. For the longest time, I voted Republican because I believed in their stated goals and didn't believe in those of the Democrats. I was able to ignore the theist side of the 'pubs because I didn't think it represented a major portion of their stance. I've learned my lesson, especially now that I see they don't follow ANY of their stated goals. I still found it difficult to vote Democrat during the last election, but I couldn't take the chance of the 'pubs maintaining a majority. That said, I will be looking at other candidates in the future from outside the two parties. I've come to learn that voting for other parties is not as much a "waste" of my vote as voting for either of the two majors.
I think it should be required that all people take the Political Compass test before being allowed to register to vote. I think everyone would be surprised to find where their true political views lie (I've always considered myself a bit of a social liberal, but fiscally conservative which the chart more or less confirmed). If nothing else, it shows people there's more than one axis on which to base their decisions.
It seems to me that the alternative to abstinence education has increased the teen pregnancy in America.
Just because you wish it to be so, doesn't make it true. A recent study just showed that with abstinence-only programs, the amount of teens having sex was EXACTLY the same as those who'd received traditional education. The difference between the two groups was a higher incidence of teen pregnancy and STDs on the side of those who'd received abstinence-only training. This coincides with the fact that teen pregnancies and STDs are at a higher rate in areas that are predominantly religious areas, such as the bible belt.
You see, abstinence isn't taught in replacement to any other sex ed. It is taught in addition to it. All it does is tells young women that they don't need to trollop around the bed in order to be happy.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. First, abstinence is taught as part of a standard sex education program as the ideal method of preventing pregnancy and STDs. In the programs Bush has given funding to, abstinence is taught as the only option...Promise Ring and Silver Ring programs being the predominant kinds. Studies have shown, however, that kids in those types of programs typically engage in higher rates of sexual activity than in others. The "promise" is there just to shut their parents up about it...until little Bobbi Sue comes home with a full belly, that is. Well, assuming she does come home and doesn't just drop it in a toilet somewhere and throw the baby in the dumpster. Good christian folk are the only kind of people who do that.
However, I don't see how the schools should be training or predispositioning them for this line of work. And you should really look at your numbers, Since abstinence training was included in sex ed, the number of teenage pregnancies have gone down when regular usacondum approaches only were used.
Firstly, teaching kids about sex is not training them for prostitution, that's just the kind of stupid comment that leads to the problems we have today. Second, abstinence training was ALWAYS included in sex ed, it's only when sex ed was taught from a more realistic point of view (kids have sex, nothing changes that. As much as the old timers would like us to believe we invented sex, it just ain't true) the numbers went down. So, your point is valid, if not completely opposite from reality. Teen pregnancies went down when abstinence was made to be just PART of the program, and stopped being the entirety of it. Again, abstinence is stressed from day one of every valid sex ed course as the BEST method of preventing pregnancy and STDs, but it's also shown that it's not the ONLY method. But, we know the faiths wouldn't get very far if everyone had the knowledge they needed. Ignorance breeds parishes (pun intended).
No, they don't do GOOD. The act as a crutch for people incapable of providing for themselves. And the differences is, one is a hand out while the other is a hand out with a support group option. Neither that I know of is a hand up which would be doing "good". With the support network, there is a chance for a hand up.
Please, telling people to "put your faith in the jayzus" doesn't not qualify as a support group. It qualifies as a recrutement method, the same kind used by other cults around the world. "Give me your tired and your hungry 'cause their the most likely to submit to our stories". That's why, for example, AA only has about a 5% success rate and just quitting on your own has an 80% success rate. That "support group" of yours just tells people how they're just worthless sinners, which causes more and worse drinking. Worse, once a person gets in to one of those programs and find out how god-based it really is, they typically leave thus eliminating any chance they'll get better.
Now, some non faith based charities do have the infrastructures and such to compete along the same lines. but the arguments against the faith ba
And, thus the problem. It's been shown that abstinence-only sex ed not only does nothing to lower teen pregnancies, it only increases the amount of teen STDs because they're not getting real, valid information. They're being told "just don't do it" without being told what can happen if they do or how to protect themselves. That money would have been better used as a bonfire outside the White House. At least then maybe a couple of bums could've gotten warmth for a few minutes.
faith based charities already have th majority of their infra structure paid for
As do the nonfaith-based charities, the difference being, the nonfaith-based ones actually do some good. Their purpose is to help people, not bring them closer to "god". Again, money wasted.
But, the point wasn't these two items. After all, we're only talking a couple of billion for them. There are others, and they add up. Money wasted on religious stupidity is money that can't be spend on effective programs. If you want to talk big numbers, there's always the $400 billion on a holy war in Iraq, the vast majority of which was spent after our "mission" was "accomplished". That's ignoring the 3500 killed and 25,000 wounded, of course.
Isn't more bang for you buck a good thing?
Always is, but what's that got to do with what Bush has done?
those programs have what to do with science and technology?
Exactly. If money hadn't been wasted feeding the fundies' need for ignorance, perhaps it could've been applied to education in the sciences and technology. Do YOU understand now? It's really not that difficult.
Actually, unlike folks who like to just use ad hominem attacks, I have a pretty good idea how much went into those programs. Let's see....abstinence-only sex ed...over $1B in the last 10 years (over $800 million of that in the last 6 years to programs like "Silver Ring". All such programs recently having been proven to have absolutely NO effect on reducing teenage sexual activity, but having a great result in increasing the numbers of teenage pregnancy and STDs among those who got the fire-and-brimstone type "education". Gee, what a surprise.) Approximately $900M in federal funding to faith-based programs in the last 5 years. It's called "Google", try using it.
That's right! Everyone knows what's most important is the needs of the corporations. If it weren't for the corporations, no one would have jobs, then where would they be?! Friggin' people, always getting in the way of progress. If only we could bring back the days where if someone stepped out of line, we could just stick 'em in a woodchipper. Ahhhh, the days of innocence...gone forever they are. Give these laborers a little freedom and they expect to keep it!
because he is a total fsckwad loser attention hound
All I've criticized here are the man's methods, not the man himself.
I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro, and I do like both it and the operating system it runs, but neither are particularly essential to me
The first statement is an ad hominem attack from a fanboy (I refuse to spell it the other way), the second is part of a reasoned response from a reasonable person as demonstrated by the third statement. The grandparent's opinion still stands as valid.:)
Really? When? do you have some real proof that they did something specifically to break Samba, or is it more likely that they made improvements and the Samba team, despite the stale "open source is faster at updating" rhetoric, just not catch up fast enough?
The Courts have access to expert witnesses, and an adversarial system whereby all parties to the question can bring forth experts to testify on the expert stuff which lay people can't understand.
Okay, then, how do we determine the legitimacy of the experts? For example, I'm of the personal belief (after having worked for 20+ years in the field) that a good 90-95% of IT people are completely incompetent, and yet they continue to get hired. Why? Simple..they get a job in the field and spend a year or so screwing it up. They then move on to another company who sees they have a year or so of experience, and hire them for a higher level job. The process continues until you've got a field of people with tons of experience but not a lick of skill. If the hiring managers can't sort out who's qualified, how is a layperson like a judge or congressperson? Rely on referrals from other laypeople? At the end of the day, your typical judge is going to see "expert" witnesses with competing arguments, and in the end they have to base their decision on who's best at convincing them that their version of the truth is reality. The decision is made on charisma, not technical merit.
A fine example of that is the DOJ's "expert" witness in the Microsoft debacle a couple of years back. In his "expert" testimony, he listed 7 different ways IE would still be used even if Netscape Navigator were set to the default browser. All but 6 of his claims were complete bunk, and the 7th was only partially true: IE was used because Navigator doesn't support reading CHM files. All one had to do to confirm that was to set NN as the default browser and duplicate what he did. A large portion of that case hinged on that testimony, how much different would the outcome been if MS had bothered to put any effort into the trial (or there had been an impartial judge)?
I would find it highly unlikely that this is simply limited to IT folks, which is why I consider suspect any advice I get from any expert until I've had a chance to confirm the accuracy myself.
Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want
Yeah, that whole freedom of speech thing just keeps getting in the way of the theo-pub's religio-political agenda! We must squash any idea that it's okay to say what you think, ESPECIALLY if it differs from the teachings of the cross. What's next? Expecting parents to pay attention to what their kids watch and do? Jeebus help us, this country's heading down to that hot place in a handcart!
But, in all seriousness....oh, your god...my hope meter just blipped. First time in...mmmmmm...about 7 years since that happened...
Of course he is, that's how all Open Sourcers do it. Why would you praise something that works when you can criticize what once didn't? Notice also that responses immediately point out how some poorly written drivers will still cause your machine to bluescreen, but that they still fail to realize this isn't a fault of the OS. Back in the day, the joke was "oh, look a bluescreen, that's MS way of telling me I'm supposed to reboot! Yuck, yuck, yuck!" No, moron, the bluescreen is the OS' way of telling you there's a problem and you should fix it. This is why I still say that programmers are only slightly more proficient than your average user (and in a lot of cases, a lot less).
Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them?
Yes, I'm afraid I do. Worse yet, the people who think they're intellectually superior also pay no attention to really important points, and focus all of their attention on matters that are truly trivial in the grand scheme of things. For example, remember a couple of weeks back the big "number" meme? where everyone was so upset that Digg had removed the article about the HDDVD key from the front page? The whole Internet was flooded with stories and articles and t-shirts covering this stupid key, yet during that time we had the Republican debates during which FOUR of those on the stage raised their hands when asked the question "who of you don't believe in evolution?" Um, one of these idiots is going to be our next president unless someone starts paying attention to them. Think the south is going to vote for a woman or a black? Even the blacks aren't going to vote for Obama. The Dems are handing the presidency to the Pubs, and I for one don't welcome our jayzus-freak, anti-reality lovin' overlords. Thankfully Falwell's finally dead, but it might be too little too late.
For years IT folks have been blaming their issues on Microsoft's technology. Somehow their putting into production a machine that wasn't tested and blue screens on a regular basis or machines in their workplace catching viruses is MS' fault.
Great, then the ignorant christian wacko hick farmers are no longer allowed to vote in any election that doesn't concern anything but food, 'kay? They don't need "our" Internet? Fine, your representatives aren't allowed to vote on net neutrality issues. Don't need "our" advertising? Great, you don't get to vote on issues relating to mass media, which includes so called "obscenity" issues. See where I'm going with this? If all they know is food and the jaysus, we don't need their opinion. And, as another so eloquently pointed out, we don't buy our food from those states, it goes to feed the terrorists. (For the morons without a sense of humor, and there's a significant number of them on slashdot, that last bit was a joke.)
BTW, you don't need to be a liberal to know the midwest is full of ignorant hick christian wackos, you just need to have been there.
Slashdot Mirror
One important point to remember: most critics of socialized healthcare in the US point out how the Canadian health care system is on the rocks. Of course, they fail to consider that the problem with the Canadian health care system is the US health care system. Because it's so broken, doctors are flooding to the US to make a mint. Take that mint out of the equation, there's no more benefit for the Canadian doctors to come down, and the system restores to the balance it had before.
Most businesses, when sued, look at the economics of the fight; how much is this going to cost to fight in court? What are the repercussions of settling? Is it less expensive to settle than to bother?
:)
Businesses have that choice because they typically have attorneys on retainer. Even then, there's a cost involved with ramping them up if they feel it's fiscally viable for them to do so. Individuals do not have that choice. They either pay the RIAA or they pay an attorney. That's not a choice, that's the RIAA manipulating the system to their advantage.
So if you got a letter, really the question comes down to this; is this a fight you really want to get into? You can buy your way out with a fixed sum. You can negotiate with them and say, "I want to pay you, but I make 4 dollars a year, and so what can I give you to settle? etc." Or..... You can fight it head on, get your own attorneys and fight it with righteous zeal, defending your honor, truth and all that is holy and right. Mind you, this latter choice, while emotionally rewarding, will cost many many times what the original settlement offer was. So is it worth it to spend tens of thousands of dollars over a year or more to prove a point? Or just pay it and get them out of your hair?
I'm fortunate in that I have a friend who is a lawyer who would gladly make a name for herself for free to push back on this case. But, most folks aren't so fortunate. Are you suggesting that a family who falls below the poverty line, and doesn't even own a computer, should just cough up the buckage if they get the letter from the RIAA? Are you suggesting that everyone should just do that? Isn't that really just the RIAA's plan? Are you a plant?
It's your personal choice. Choosing one over the other isn't necessarily morally right. I don't think GP deserved the lashing later in your post.
Anyone who suggests that innocent folks should just cough over money to the RIAA deserves that lashing and more. If it weren't the end of the day and I wasn't exhausted, I'd give you one, too. Suffice it to say you've been brutally lashed, ok?
Does the RIAA need to be stopped? You bet. But stopping RIAA's crusade against their own customers isn't going to happen while you're defending yourself in court. The best you could really do is not have to pay, and maybe make them look like fools, (ie: the "I have no computer" example), but that won't stop them.
Actually, you're wrong. The cases the RIAA are bringing are getting harder and harder because people have been fighting back. That's why they've stepped up this tactic of involving the university administration. They know the courts aren't going to willy-nilly give them subpoenas anymore, so they're circumventing them entirely. UW is now in collusion with an extortion racket, pure and simple.
Something else needs to happen to bring the whole thing to a halt, and I'm not sure what that needs to be.
I don't have a perfect solution either, but I can tell you: rolling over and playing dead is certainly not going to effect ANY change.
Lower class people may have a hard time defending themselves, but, they also have very little to lose.
Well, hey, then let's take all we can from them since they won't miss it. There's a fine line between bleeding heart liberal and cold-hearted ass, and you aren't anywhere near it.
Middle class people have something to lose, but most live little better than paycheck-2-paycheck. Very few have savings. Most are already heavily in debt.
My point is that just because you are too weak to play does not exempt you from the game. Life is really tough. It's best to learn that early on. Most times, it's better to pay someone off than to fight through the legal system. That's just the way it is.
So, your idea is that if someone gets one of these letters they should just send the RIAA a check, regardless of if they are or aren't guilty? Regardless, as in a few cases, that the person doesn't even HAVE A COMPUTER? That's a great plan! You know, you should pitch that to the RIAA. After all, they're spending all this money trying to get these out to folks in a not-at-all legal way. What they should do, according to your plan, is just just send one to everyone in the US. The poor folk'll just have to go without food for a couple of months, but at least they've learned life is hard (as if they didn't already know that). The middle class can just get a little more in debt and the rich folks'll just cut a check. It's brilliant in it's simplistic, narrow-minded, dumbass, fucktard stupidity!
Seriously, you need a therapist. There is something significantly wrong with your brain. And, since you've brought it up numerous times in your mindless rants: what exactly are YOU doing to change the system? Aside from beating down anyone who has a problem with it, you haven't mentioned your tactics. Or, is just rolling over in happy submission and hoping for a belly-rub the extent of it?
Well, when one of my computers breaks at home, the same guy fixes it as the guy who does the company computers. Does that count?
:)
Only if your company pays for it.
I've got all the responsibility for the computers, both good and bad. If something breaks, it is my job to fix it. On the other hand, when I need something, it's maybe three days, tops, before the funds have been allocated to buy whatever I need. Now, I can only assume that abusing this power would lead to repercussions, but I really don't have the desire to risk ruining a good thing.
So, does that include hiring help? I'm really not sure how the company being good about buying you what you need to do your job equates to your giving up your life for free. I mean, your "theme" seems to be "well, it's your job, just do it". Buying you what you need is their job, great they're doing their job. So, because they're doing their job, you'll do yours for free?
As for the employee stock, I'll let it be known right now that I've never been in a position to get employee stock.
Don't worry. As others have pointed out unless you're getting a couple of million shares, it's really not worth it.
But it seems to me that it doesn't have to be statistically significant when compared to all the money gained by various entities who stood to gain from the stock price increase. It just has to be statistically significant when compared to the money you have. I am reminded of the story of the young boy who was going down a beach, picking up starfish, and throwing them into the ocean. A man stopped him, and asked what he was doing. The boy said that he was throwing the starfish back into the ocean before they died. The man said that there were so many starfish, the boy couldn't possibly make a difference. The boy threw another starfish back and said, "It made a difference to that one." Now, if the extra work that you do is not worth the $300 you'll make above what you'd make just doing your job, then don't do it. Opportunity cost is a very real thing. But how something benefits or doesn't benefit someone else is not part of the economics of this situation, other than that if the powers that be didn't think giving employees stock would lead to increased value for their own, they wouldn't do it.
So, are you supposed to be the little boy in that analogy or the starfish? Actually, neither fit. A better analogy would be the little boy is stepping on all of the starfish because he doesn't feel like walking on the hot sand. The little boy being the uppity-ups who are making millions everyday off of your successes. Of course employers give employees stock to increase the value of their own. If they give you a couple of them, you feel like you've been patted on the head and then work nights, weekends and vacations for free, thus increasing the value of their thousands or millions. A dog rarely learns how to do tricks unless you offer him a little treat.
Let's put it another way. The meager wage generic Wal-Mart employee gets is insignificant compared to the money Sam Walton gets. But that wage is still a benefit to the employee.
Yes, but even the meager wage slave at Wallieworld wouldn't work a second past the time he's paid for because Sam Walton because Sam Walton couldn't even be bothered to know WageSlave24601's real name. In theory, he works hard for the company, and is paid comparatively to the benefit he provides the company. When ol' Sammy was alive, he worked hard and was paid, in theory, commensurate with the value HE provided the company. But, we're not talking the normal "it's your job" kinda thing. We're talking above and beyond and compensation. You work during your vacation, is that compensated? Certainly not by employee stock. But, let's say it was: why should you get a couple of hundred dollars for your work that was above and beyond, but your boss' boss get a couple of million? He provided no extra value to the co
Some people don't work for large nameless corporations. When you're the only tech guy at a small business, and you go on vacation, everything that breaks while you're on vacation either results in a phone call to you, or a phone call to the Geek Squad. I wouldn't let the Geek Squad close enough to my computers to hit them with a 10' pole. I'll take the phone call.
Two problems with your theory (and I've been there, so I've tested this in practice):
1) They're not YOUR computers. They're your RESPONSIBILITY, but they're not YOUR computers. You know, kinda like when that salesman installs pirated software on his laptop and you grouse about how it's not his computer to muck with? When you're at work and one of your systems breaks at home, does your company send someone over to fix it for you?
2) So, because your company is too cheap to spend the money to adequately cover their systems, you have to pick up the slack. How's that working out for you? VP of IT in 5 years, right? Yeah, I didn't think so. See, if they don't realize now that they have a need to spend money maintaining their systems, how are they ever going to learn? Do you think once they start making some money they'll hire someone else to help out? Of course they will! But, not after spending millions having you install more systems (unpaid and on your time) so that by the time they hire the new guy (or gal), you'll actually be at the point where you needed two or three. Let Geek Squad screw up your systems, you'll just fix 'em when you get back.
I know where you're coming from, I do. I've been there. I've got a set of pictures from when my ex-wife and I went to DC for a week. In almost every one I'm on the phone with work talking them through some issue. Know what happened? I got bitchy because I was working 70-80 hour weeks with no benefit to me, and got myself fired. Best thing that ever happened to me. Now, I work my 40 hours, and if shit don't get done then I had too much shit. Not my problem, I just work here. Ironically, I keep winning all kinds of awards for outstanding service, too. Go fig.
Don't love your job. It can't love you back.
As far as the employee stock thing goes, you're absolutely right. If they can get you to work harder to increase the value of your stock, it also increases the value of their stock. Now, why do you feel you're losing on this win-win? Because someone else is winning more? If I do something fantastic for the stock prices, and I make a few hundred bucks, that's a few hundred bucks that I wouldn't have had otherwise. You recommend screwing yourself, and justify it with 'sticking it to the man.' Believe it or not, you only need to worry about whether something will help you. You sound just as greedy as you accuse the people on top of being, just less successful.
Because, it's really quite simple: you did all the work, they got all the benefit (you got a couple of hundred bucks, they got a couple of million. Your gain is not statistically significant, so you got no benefit. QED) Is it really that hard to understand? It's not win-win. I think you need to take a peek over your shoulder to see whose dick that really is in your ass. Another example from "That Place" described a couple of paragraphs ago: I can document clearly over $5.2 million dollars I saved that company in the three and a half years I was there, yet I still got single-digit merit raises. Now, however, I do exactly the job I'm supposed to and not a step more and get all kinds of awards for service and consistently the highest raises in my group. So, who exactly is screwing themselves here?
Ask any parent who's had more than one child and they'll all tell you the same thing: "with the first one, you so very careful. You measure this, protect against that...but, the second one...at that point it's all pretty much old hat and pretty much throw all caution to the wind." If this "ease" that comes during the second child's rearing includes lower quality foods (because you don't NEED to purchase the most expensive, you learn), different parenting techniques, etc wouldn't that result in a change? It seems more common that a woman who breastfed her first child isn't as likely to do the same with subsequent children and there's some evidence to suggest higher intelligence through breastfeeding. Dunno, just throwing some things out there. Correlation not being causation and all.
Well technically its about abusing a monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage over competitors....Microsoft did it previously with Internet Explorer.
/. crowd will shout "see, we were right!!", taxpayers will spend billions of dollars and nothing will change. All because the MS search feature, which is on an MS OS from MS was turned on by default instead of some third-party app that replaces it anyway. Yay. Can you smell the excitement?
Well, technically, it's not. It's about providing the most basic software necessary for people to do with their computers what they bought the computer to do. IE may not be the best browser, but it allows Granny Jane to surf the web, find recipes and look at videos of her grandchillens. Outlook Express isn't the best mail client, but she can send mails to her kids to start feeding them grandchillens of hers! They look soooo thin! If Granny Jane wants to use another browser, there's nothing stopping her from doing so whatsoever. If she wants to use another mail client, there's nothing stopping her. If she wants to use a different desktop search, there was never anything stopping her. Yes, MS holds a monopoly on the desktop OS market, but that doesn't mean their actions are monopolistic. Ever other OS, including all Linux distributions, ships with a browser and mail client. How can you expect MS not? "Ohhh, but you have a CHOICE of browser when you use one of those OSes". No I don't. Most distros ship with Firefox as the default browser. What if I want to use Konquerer? I HAVE TO MAKE A CHANGE!! Shame on those Linux geeks for forcing me to use Firefox!
Apply this reasoning to a Vista drive search thing vs Google drive search thing and you can see where this is heading.
Yes, another sham DOJ trial where MS' competitors all line up to complain that the reason their crappy software failed wasn't because the software was crappy, but because MS wouldn't let them compete. They'll make up crap all over the place, the technically inept
You keep using that word, Comrade. I do not think it means what you think it means, da!?
You mean you have such a low opinion of Americans that you don't think they're capable of doing PCA on their own?
:) But, in all honesty, I'm actually surprised most people manage to get their shoes tied every morning, let alone figure out who to vote for to run the country...
:)
It's a tough call. Every time I start to have some hope that they're not the clueless barbarians they make themselves out to be, they start doing something stupid like rallying behind Fred Thompson for President.
That should read "et cetera or etc."
Then again, those of us smartasses with too much to say on the topic should either learn how to spell or STFA.
Little known bonus fact: the ampersand character (&) is medieval shorthand for the Latin et, meaning "and".
As a fan of etymologies, I appreciate the info! About the only reason I read the MW word of the day is to get the origin of that word..
I think you're asking too much from the average American. "Two" seems to be their magic number: two parties, two paradigms, good & evil, terrorist or not, liberal or conservative, employed or lazy, etcetera or etc. A simplified PCA where you input your ideals, and it spits out who to vote for would go over well, though. :)
First, the problem isn't that obvious to the majority of the people in America. This issue, for instance, will only see major coverage on places like Slashdot, I haven't seen it on my local news and very few people watch the major news outlets. It doesn't affect them directly in their day-to-day lives, so it gets bumped for the local high school's latest win. The issues with electronic voting didn't get wide coverage, either, so that's not going to change any time soon. The only national issue most Americans are aware of right now is the Iraq war, which is where the lines are drawn. That tiny percentage who still support the 'pubs do so because they think we should be in Iraq.
Secondly, the vast majority of Americans are single-issue voters. They pick their one issue and vote for the one of the two "teams" that claims to support their stance on it. The remainder of the issues are too big for the average person to deal with. Illegal immigration? Economic policy? Foreign policy? What are the right solutions to these problems? Joe Smith barely can balance his checkbook, how does he determine whose economic policy to vote for? So, he picks his single issue and then regurgitates the remaining stances of the party he voted for as if they're the only real solution to the other problems he doesn't understand. After all, if they believe how he believes on that one issue, they must be right on all of the others. Right? They ignore everything else that party stands for because they're just voting AGAINST the other side on their one issue (no one votes for anyone anymore, they just vote against). My wife, for example, is pro-choice, so she always voted for the Dems. Had she paid attention to them, she would've disliked a lot of their other stances, but voted for them because the only other choice was to vote for pro-lifers. For the longest time, I voted Republican because I believed in their stated goals and didn't believe in those of the Democrats. I was able to ignore the theist side of the 'pubs because I didn't think it represented a major portion of their stance. I've learned my lesson, especially now that I see they don't follow ANY of their stated goals. I still found it difficult to vote Democrat during the last election, but I couldn't take the chance of the 'pubs maintaining a majority. That said, I will be looking at other candidates in the future from outside the two parties. I've come to learn that voting for other parties is not as much a "waste" of my vote as voting for either of the two majors.
I think it should be required that all people take the Political Compass test before being allowed to register to vote. I think everyone would be surprised to find where their true political views lie (I've always considered myself a bit of a social liberal, but fiscally conservative which the chart more or less confirmed). If nothing else, it shows people there's more than one axis on which to base their decisions.
It seems to me that the alternative to abstinence education has increased the teen pregnancy in America.
Just because you wish it to be so, doesn't make it true. A recent study just showed that with abstinence-only programs, the amount of teens having sex was EXACTLY the same as those who'd received traditional education. The difference between the two groups was a higher incidence of teen pregnancy and STDs on the side of those who'd received abstinence-only training. This coincides with the fact that teen pregnancies and STDs are at a higher rate in areas that are predominantly religious areas, such as the bible belt.
You see, abstinence isn't taught in replacement to any other sex ed. It is taught in addition to it. All it does is tells young women that they don't need to trollop around the bed in order to be happy.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. First, abstinence is taught as part of a standard sex education program as the ideal method of preventing pregnancy and STDs. In the programs Bush has given funding to, abstinence is taught as the only option...Promise Ring and Silver Ring programs being the predominant kinds. Studies have shown, however, that kids in those types of programs typically engage in higher rates of sexual activity than in others. The "promise" is there just to shut their parents up about it...until little Bobbi Sue comes home with a full belly, that is. Well, assuming she does come home and doesn't just drop it in a toilet somewhere and throw the baby in the dumpster. Good christian folk are the only kind of people who do that.
However, I don't see how the schools should be training or predispositioning them for this line of work. And you should really look at your numbers, Since abstinence training was included in sex ed, the number of teenage pregnancies have gone down when regular usacondum approaches only were used.
Firstly, teaching kids about sex is not training them for prostitution, that's just the kind of stupid comment that leads to the problems we have today. Second, abstinence training was ALWAYS included in sex ed, it's only when sex ed was taught from a more realistic point of view (kids have sex, nothing changes that. As much as the old timers would like us to believe we invented sex, it just ain't true) the numbers went down. So, your point is valid, if not completely opposite from reality. Teen pregnancies went down when abstinence was made to be just PART of the program, and stopped being the entirety of it. Again, abstinence is stressed from day one of every valid sex ed course as the BEST method of preventing pregnancy and STDs, but it's also shown that it's not the ONLY method. But, we know the faiths wouldn't get very far if everyone had the knowledge they needed. Ignorance breeds parishes (pun intended).
No, they don't do GOOD. The act as a crutch for people incapable of providing for themselves. And the differences is, one is a hand out while the other is a hand out with a support group option. Neither that I know of is a hand up which would be doing "good". With the support network, there is a chance for a hand up.
Please, telling people to "put your faith in the jayzus" doesn't not qualify as a support group. It qualifies as a recrutement method, the same kind used by other cults around the world. "Give me your tired and your hungry 'cause their the most likely to submit to our stories". That's why, for example, AA only has about a 5% success rate and just quitting on your own has an 80% success rate. That "support group" of yours just tells people how they're just worthless sinners, which causes more and worse drinking. Worse, once a person gets in to one of those programs and find out how god-based it really is, they typically leave thus eliminating any chance they'll get better.
Now, some non faith based charities do have the infrastructures and such to compete along the same lines. but the arguments against the faith ba
Anything that could prevent a teen pregnancy
And, thus the problem. It's been shown that abstinence-only sex ed not only does nothing to lower teen pregnancies, it only increases the amount of teen STDs because they're not getting real, valid information. They're being told "just don't do it" without being told what can happen if they do or how to protect themselves. That money would have been better used as a bonfire outside the White House. At least then maybe a couple of bums could've gotten warmth for a few minutes.
faith based charities already have th majority of their infra structure paid for
As do the nonfaith-based charities, the difference being, the nonfaith-based ones actually do some good. Their purpose is to help people, not bring them closer to "god". Again, money wasted.
But, the point wasn't these two items. After all, we're only talking a couple of billion for them. There are others, and they add up. Money wasted on religious stupidity is money that can't be spend on effective programs. If you want to talk big numbers, there's always the $400 billion on a holy war in Iraq, the vast majority of which was spent after our "mission" was "accomplished". That's ignoring the 3500 killed and 25,000 wounded, of course.
Isn't more bang for you buck a good thing?
Always is, but what's that got to do with what Bush has done?
those programs have what to do with science and technology?
Exactly. If money hadn't been wasted feeding the fundies' need for ignorance, perhaps it could've been applied to education in the sciences and technology. Do YOU understand now? It's really not that difficult.
Actually, unlike folks who like to just use ad hominem attacks, I have a pretty good idea how much went into those programs. Let's see....abstinence-only sex ed...over $1B in the last 10 years (over $800 million of that in the last 6 years to programs like "Silver Ring". All such programs recently having been proven to have absolutely NO effect on reducing teenage sexual activity, but having a great result in increasing the numbers of teenage pregnancy and STDs among those who got the fire-and-brimstone type "education". Gee, what a surprise.) Approximately $900M in federal funding to faith-based programs in the last 5 years. It's called "Google", try using it.
Anything else to say, Fucktard?
And, how much of that money went to science education? How much of that went to fund failed abstinence-only sex education or to faith-based schools?
That's right! Everyone knows what's most important is the needs of the corporations. If it weren't for the corporations, no one would have jobs, then where would they be?! Friggin' people, always getting in the way of progress. If only we could bring back the days where if someone stepped out of line, we could just stick 'em in a woodchipper. Ahhhh, the days of innocence...gone forever they are. Give these laborers a little freedom and they expect to keep it!
because he is a total fsckwad loser attention hound
:)
All I've criticized here are the man's methods, not the man himself.
I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro, and I do like both it and the operating system it runs, but neither are particularly essential to me
The first statement is an ad hominem attack from a fanboy (I refuse to spell it the other way), the second is part of a reasoned response from a reasonable person as demonstrated by the third statement. The grandparent's opinion still stands as valid.
They fought SAMBA
Really? When? do you have some real proof that they did something specifically to break Samba, or is it more likely that they made improvements and the Samba team, despite the stale "open source is faster at updating" rhetoric, just not catch up fast enough?
The Courts have access to expert witnesses, and an adversarial system whereby all parties to the question can bring forth experts to testify on the expert stuff which lay people can't understand.
Okay, then, how do we determine the legitimacy of the experts? For example, I'm of the personal belief (after having worked for 20+ years in the field) that a good 90-95% of IT people are completely incompetent, and yet they continue to get hired. Why? Simple..they get a job in the field and spend a year or so screwing it up. They then move on to another company who sees they have a year or so of experience, and hire them for a higher level job. The process continues until you've got a field of people with tons of experience but not a lick of skill. If the hiring managers can't sort out who's qualified, how is a layperson like a judge or congressperson? Rely on referrals from other laypeople? At the end of the day, your typical judge is going to see "expert" witnesses with competing arguments, and in the end they have to base their decision on who's best at convincing them that their version of the truth is reality. The decision is made on charisma, not technical merit.
A fine example of that is the DOJ's "expert" witness in the Microsoft debacle a couple of years back. In his "expert" testimony, he listed 7 different ways IE would still be used even if Netscape Navigator were set to the default browser. All but 6 of his claims were complete bunk, and the 7th was only partially true: IE was used because Navigator doesn't support reading CHM files. All one had to do to confirm that was to set NN as the default browser and duplicate what he did. A large portion of that case hinged on that testimony, how much different would the outcome been if MS had bothered to put any effort into the trial (or there had been an impartial judge)?
I would find it highly unlikely that this is simply limited to IT folks, which is why I consider suspect any advice I get from any expert until I've had a chance to confirm the accuracy myself.
Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want
Yeah, that whole freedom of speech thing just keeps getting in the way of the theo-pub's religio-political agenda! We must squash any idea that it's okay to say what you think, ESPECIALLY if it differs from the teachings of the cross. What's next? Expecting parents to pay attention to what their kids watch and do? Jeebus help us, this country's heading down to that hot place in a handcart!
But, in all seriousness....oh, your god...my hope meter just blipped. First time in...mmmmmm...about 7 years since that happened...
Of course he is, that's how all Open Sourcers do it. Why would you praise something that works when you can criticize what once didn't? Notice also that responses immediately point out how some poorly written drivers will still cause your machine to bluescreen, but that they still fail to realize this isn't a fault of the OS. Back in the day, the joke was "oh, look a bluescreen, that's MS way of telling me I'm supposed to reboot! Yuck, yuck, yuck!" No, moron, the bluescreen is the OS' way of telling you there's a problem and you should fix it. This is why I still say that programmers are only slightly more proficient than your average user (and in a lot of cases, a lot less).
Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them?
Yes, I'm afraid I do. Worse yet, the people who think they're intellectually superior also pay no attention to really important points, and focus all of their attention on matters that are truly trivial in the grand scheme of things. For example, remember a couple of weeks back the big "number" meme? where everyone was so upset that Digg had removed the article about the HDDVD key from the front page? The whole Internet was flooded with stories and articles and t-shirts covering this stupid key, yet during that time we had the Republican debates during which FOUR of those on the stage raised their hands when asked the question "who of you don't believe in evolution?" Um, one of these idiots is going to be our next president unless someone starts paying attention to them. Think the south is going to vote for a woman or a black? Even the blacks aren't going to vote for Obama. The Dems are handing the presidency to the Pubs, and I for one don't welcome our jayzus-freak, anti-reality lovin' overlords. Thankfully Falwell's finally dead, but it might be too little too late.
For years IT folks have been blaming their issues on Microsoft's technology. Somehow their putting into production a machine that wasn't tested and blue screens on a regular basis or machines in their workplace catching viruses is MS' fault.
Great, then the ignorant christian wacko hick farmers are no longer allowed to vote in any election that doesn't concern anything but food, 'kay? They don't need "our" Internet? Fine, your representatives aren't allowed to vote on net neutrality issues. Don't need "our" advertising? Great, you don't get to vote on issues relating to mass media, which includes so called "obscenity" issues. See where I'm going with this? If all they know is food and the jaysus, we don't need their opinion. And, as another so eloquently pointed out, we don't buy our food from those states, it goes to feed the terrorists. (For the morons without a sense of humor, and there's a significant number of them on slashdot, that last bit was a joke.)
BTW, you don't need to be a liberal to know the midwest is full of ignorant hick christian wackos, you just need to have been there.