However, there is plenty of case evidence where a set of parents will raise two or three (or five or six) children, all of whom turn out to be fairly good people, and another who doesn't.
There is, apparently, only so much parents can do--children still have the ability to choose.
Yes, but most of his spending has been done in a way that the dems could never justify under their socialist regime--war. War is a great way to get more money and power for the gov't.
That said, spending and gov't hires aren't necessarily the same as BG...the PATRIOT act is more along those lines (Big Brother), while the dems want something slightly different (socialism).
At one point I thought socialism might be good, but then I grew up and realized that it destroys personal responsibility and therefore freedom. I am dead against that.
Re:Thanks TMBG!
on
TMBG on DRM
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The RIAA, unfortunately, doesn't care about individual bands. It only cares about the recording studios. Why? Because is was formed by, and is controlled by, the studios. From their perspective it makes sense to push DRM and the latest craze (a la Brittney Spears), because this is what makes them the most money.
They are not, like some have supposed, in it for the long haul as far as any one band is concerned. Older bands do not make as much money off albums as do newer bands (generally speaking), because they can't tap into the market that spends the most--teenage kids.
The teenage kids buy more cds, go to more concerts, and purchase more paraphenalia than other demographics. This is because they aren't generally paying any bills, and are rarely saving money (if they even have a job--many recieve an "allowance", which just makes folks lazy).
Thus, from the marketeers perspective, it makes sense to engender one craze after another, because these are what make money. Granted, they will squeeze every penny they can from every artist they can, but the big money isn't there for bands like TMBG.
That said, I do agree that in the long run, bands that care about their fans, and that care about making music, are the ones that I generally enjoy listening to more.
Think about the difference in attitude illustrated by, "I want to be a rock star", compared to, "I want to play music". The one is focused on being rich, famous, and having lots of neat toys. The other focuses on playing great music, and if the other (money, fame, etc) comes to them, great.
Brittney Spears is not around for the long haul because she doesn't care about the music the same way that TMBG.
FWIW, I love their music, but am far from up to date on their latest stuff.
Which is one of the worst things that the gov't can do. Unfortunately your last paragraph describes the goals of the democratic party fairly well.
As I see it, the goal of the dems is to increase reliance on the gov't. This is bad. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for an individual whose stated goal is to make me more dependent on the gov't.
I agree with Mr. A. Coward (sibling post), who states that this is something that Bush does and it is annoying. That said, however much you think GWB is a proponent on BIG government, he is not nearly as pro BG as Mr. Kerry & Mr. Edwards. That doesn't mean that he (GW) is my first pick as president, but he isn't as pro-BG as the dems.
I suggest that everyone do something different this year and vote 3rd party. I plan to.
I agree--gentoo is not for those who frequently upgrade their processor...or other key components...frequently (exception: video card of the same variety).
I'll tell you what--watch my journal and the next time I re-install (which I plan to soon, since I missed somethings the first time that I want to fix this time), I will keep track of how long things take to compile. I can't promise shocking accuracy, since I frequently go to bed immediately after beginning a long compile (its a great way to pass time...), but I'll give it a shot.
no. That would be one sixth of the world population having sex every day.
Logically that would mean that everyone has sex one in six days, which isn't really likely either.
Furthermore, we can assume that a large percentage of the population isn't ready/willing/able to have sex on any given day (age, lack of partner, etc). We will, for sake of argument, state that 1/2 the world population falls in this category. This now means that in order for a billion people to be having sex on any given day, you have assume that the average person that is able/ready/willing to have sex is doing so once every three days.
I think that most of us will agree that the above scenario is unlikely (considering that on any given day statistics tell us that 25% of all women are likely to be on their period (assuming it lasts 1 week and only occurs 1 in 4 weeks--birth control and certain medical issues change this, but we're making assumptions).
So then we assume that on any given day, 25% of the female population is going to be unable to have sex (or at least unwilling...). That means that our above scenario of a 50/50 split is not exactly accurate. It means that on any given day an additional 12.5% (1/4 * 50) of the population is out.
Oh heck--you get the idea. A billion is too large an estimate.
Having spent some time in Portugal, I understand how easy it is to misinterpret what is going on in a different country (not that you are, just that it is easy).
At the time I was there, I didn't watch much tv (still don't), so I was fairly far removed from the political situation.
Looking on any country from the outside, we ALL seem parochial and uncaring. Once you start talking to individuals within a single country, it is very different. I think the real issue is that when I hear news about France, its all about its leader, not about Jacque Average (do the french have "Joe Average" equivalent?). Therefore you get a mistaken impression about what the whole country is like.
Don't from opinions about a whole group based on small samples of that group (basic stats, folks). You are very likely to make extreme mistakes.
He didn't say that the world court had anything to do with the NL's, just that it was there. You have to realize that many Americans have a serious problem with the concept of the UN. I happen to be one of them.
I am actually in favor of a world government in many ways, but not in the form that the UN takes, and not unless EVERY government/region that participates is willing to completely dissolve itself into that world gov't. You won't get that--humans are too parochial and set on having their own gov'ts (even the French).
I personally don't think that the French (or $nationality) wants everyone to be like them. If they were, then they wouldn't have anyone to be better than and arrogant towards. The USA is a little different than many countries--we have less chronological history, and we happen to be very large and diverse.
This changes how we handle things. Also, we happen to have a lot more power than most other individual countries. Now for some countries, its a lack of resources that makes them unable to produce as much power. For others, I don't know what the deal is--take Brazil--its not that much different in size, but its history of drug wars, inflation and similar problems has kept it from being a world player.
European countries are so small, by comparison, that it makes it hard for them to be as powerful in sheer numbers, tech and production.
Does any of this excuse the USA from being a bully at times? Not really, but when you realize that EVERY government takes actions to further its own interests on the world stage (in some form or fashion), then you realize that the real difference is the amount of media coverage and publicity that country gets. I think that if France could, they would certainly take actions to see their particular ideology made standard. That doesn't mean that they want everyone to be just like them, however.
I personally don't want everyone to be just like the USA. That would be boring. I do want, however, to protect my country and keep it safe from freaks that try to ram airplanes into buildings (whatever their reasons may be). I think that GW has lost track of that in some regards, but I don't think that ANY other potential president would have done better (different, yes; better, no).
Seriously, the idea of keeping the floor open past the official time is very odd to me. I also don't know the rules about changing votes, but it seems a poor idea in some regards.
The whole idea behind a representative gov't is that those who are sent should vote the way those that they represent would. The trouble is that they don't usually know how they would really vote, and use party politics to substitute for how the citizen's in their area would vote. I suppose the logic is: I am a democrat/republican/whatever, people should know my philosophy based on this, therefor I will just vote the party line because that's what they expect. What garbage!
I would much rather that my congressman/woman actually found out how I (and those around me) feel about the issues (no, DON'T raise my taxes you moron), instead of assuming that we support the party line just because they got elected.
As far as a two party system is concerned (while we're at it), it stinks!! It tends to polarize issues that shouldn't be (although I can't think of one at the moment), and gives people another source of conflict that is unnecessary (which also has the effect of defraying any dissatisfaction that individuals may have with the gov't by allowing them to blame current problems on "the left" or "the right", when really both are guilty, and the war between them is mostly contrivance).
As far as the PATRIOT Act is concerned, I could do without it. This is the one thing that Bush has done that really bothers me (to all who might flame me for that, remember that its my personal beliefs, not yours or the media's that I'm discussing--I fully recognize that many people hate him for many other reasons). While I don't believe that he will misuse it the way that some will, the potential for abuse is so clear that I am amazed that it hasn't received more attention.
If I had my way, the PATRIOT act would be fully revoked, as would all the other weird legislation from the past ten years or so (DMCA included, which is just as bad in many ways). We have had a terrible rash of poor laws passed over the past ten years, and the PATRIOT Act is just one of many. It may be the worst (or not, you decide!), but it certainly isn't the only one.
I've seen some interesting responses, but they missed some of these apps:
-statistical computing--it can take a long time to do heavy number crunching
-simulations--seismology, weather, astronomy, astrophysics, and similar fields need number crunching power. This is not even talking about things like the NEC earth simulator--it gets used!
-medical research--the human genome project, IIRC, was finished early due to faster computers. I think the cure for AIDS/cancer will be a similar situation: if we want the answer, it will be found through the data processing power we now possess (along with human resourcefulness and creativity).
The list could continue, but the next time you take a modern drug, remember that pharmaceuticals have been heavily advanced by good computers.
I think that these reasons suffice--we need faster computers, more refined equipment, and better technology in general. There are uses for these things, and while we can get by in the mean time, remember that businesses got by before there were even any automated adding machines (aside from the abacus). Our ancestors all survived long enough to breed without any of our conveniences, but that doesn't mean I want to back to that. It just means that I consider myself lucky (statistically speaking) to have access to the technology that I do.
I am seeing a lot of complaints about this being censorship, and in some ways I agree--the gov't should stay out of these matters, and parents should step in and take responsibility.
In order for parents to do this, however, broadcasters must be honest about the shows content before broadcasting. Personally I deplore a lot of the material on TV/Radio these days, but I respect that they have the right to broadcast it, just as anyone who wants to has the right to listen/watch.
Someone mentioned that media companies are trying to have their cake and eat it too, with the broadcast flag. Personally, I think that if they are going to make it illegal/impossible to record broadcast shows, they should require companies to record the broadcast in order to provide evidence of truth in advertising (hey, this show is rated TV-Y, but they are talking about sex, that's not right!).
That said, I am comfortable with either situation--either make it easy to obtain the broadcast later, or make it legal/easy to tape it yourself.
As someone who feels that personal liberty is of supreme importance, I think that it should be perfectly legal to record a broadcast. As far as decency is concerned, I'm not that concerned--censorship should be practiced at the level of the family. If you don't want your kids watching a certain show, then don't let them. Complaining to the gov't is not the way to go.
I don't what to think about this discussion, but I think that it is ridiculous to assume that either Bush or Kerry even knows or cares what there website runs. And to those morons on this topic that think that because Bush hires "like-minded individuals" there is an instinctive love of MS in everyone that works for him, GROW UP!
Think about it like this: IBM is big business. Period. They are a huge company. They use linux. They also happen to use Windows (on systems they sell). They also happen to make chips for a lot of different companies. My point is this: the conflict of open vs. closed is NOT a political statement. I know a lot of Republicans that use and love Linux, Apple, and all kinds of open source tools. I also know a lot of Democrats that love Windows.
All that said, there is a certain amount of overlap. Personally, I tend to agree with the libertarian philosophies, and think that Linux (and the *BSD's) are the best expression of personal freedom available. Traditionally I have voted republican, but don't particularly care for every thing that the republican party stands for.
To whomever decided that this was a worthy topic:: you should have discarded the article itself as flamebait--that's all it was, and resulted in almost pure flamewar. Enough for now.
Doesn't that depend on what point in history you take a look at things. I hate to bring it up, but the Armada didn't happen until quite late in history, comparitively speaking. At the time that all that occurred, perhaps what you said is true, but its the same argument that always happens when two countries fight over a peice of land--at one point they both ignored the fact that the other was there, and just fought their neighbors a little closer.
Wars are nothing more (in many cases, not all), than two kids fighting over where to draw the line down the middle of their clubhouse. At some point one of them decides, "hey, I'll just take the whole clubhouse, and then it'll be over." Sometimes (rarely) they agree to share the clubhouse in some fashion (think treaties), but generally they just fight over where to draw the line. This is war on a small scale. The big scale is, "hey, I own that river!" Never mind the fact that its been there for millenia before mankind ever stepped foot into that part of the world.
England, in some form, was around long before the Spanish Armada. At the same time, Spain, in some form, was also around long before the Spanish Armada. At one point Spain, like much of Portugal, was owned by the Moors, who were kicked out rather brutally (and enslaved). This shows up in Portuguese words like oxalá (I think I have the accent correct), which is from Arabic. Its an oath meaning something like "if Allah wishes it". Now it should be obvious that the good Christian folk of Portugal would never pick that up without some interesting political background, but it shows my point--war is about taking over a big clubhouse. In this case it was the Iberian Peninsula.
To the topic at hand, the whole idea of politicising games is nothing even remotely new. In fact, why not do it? We've been doing it for years. Ever play "ring around the rosie"? Its a political game fromt the Cold War (USians only, sorry folks). I can't think of any more examples, but there have been political games since games were a popular way to pass the time. BTW, ever stop to think about what the game of Monopoly is trying to teach? Yes, boys and girls, it should be obvious that those darn capitalists are trying to teach that capitalism is good (although the alternate view is that communists are trying to show that capitalism is bad--Look! with capitalism, everyone but one guy loses!).
We can't get away from political games, because they too will sell. It's like selling sex--it sells because it causes controversy, excitement and arguments. If sex was a commodity to 14 year olds, then they wouldn't be enticed by it. Instead its largely forbidden to them, so they will go to virtually any lengths to view even slightly voyeuristic material (oooh, I saw her panties!). I'm not saying we should send kids out to get laid at 12 like the Sumerians did (I think that's what Gilgamesh was, not thinking too clearly this morning), but I am saying that sex sells because of its social nature (until you've experienced it, then it sells because of the good feelings associated with it).
Politics are the same way--they sell because of the controversy, excitement and whatnot. We like our guy to win because of the good feelings associated with winning. Once you've stopped to analyze it, however, it (like sex) can lose some of its appeal, but you are more like to make good decisions regarding your voting patterns (and sex life...). Games, like ads, are designed to keep us from thinking about the actual message and subject of the message, and enhance the "feel good" factor. They make us predict a certain feeling if our candidate wins, or if we purchase certain types of pills. They also make us think we will feel bad if our candidate loses or we don't engage in the latest social fad.
The truth is that we don't feel so bad. Numerous studies (Daniel Kahneman is a prevalent researcher, as was Amos Tversky; there are a lot of others in the field as well -- the term is affective prediction or
I don't know about most libertarians, but I know that that is the way the official party line reads to me. The libertarian philosophy cannot ignore some basic facts, one of those being that there are poor folks that need help. It just shifts the burden from the government to private individuals, and that is something I am comfortable with.
FWIW, I have, at certain times, been the recipient of certain social programs. Unlike some libertarians who would say that if I don't think they should exist I shouldn't use them, I take the attitude that since they exist, they should be used, even though it would be better if there were private charities doing the same.
I have to agree--your employer does benefit from your work. That is part of the employment contract. How much they get is dependent on which company you work for. I heard once (can't prove it) that on average CE0's make 400 times more than the average worker in their company (or some such). To be honest, this bothers me just as much as the government's stance.
Libertarianism is based on the idea of personal responsibility, which is, as I recall, a fairly healthy psychological attitude. While the legal stance of the libertarian party would be "do what you like", the truth is that like any other party, it is made up of humans who vary in their moral outlook, and have decided to accept that difference.
This is closer to the left on terms of alternative lifestyles than it is to the right. In terms of "help the guy who's down on his luck", the party line is something like this: there are, and should be, private charities that can help this individual, and if the government wasn't taxing us to death, those private charities would recieve sufficient donations to help everyone sufficiently.
The issue I have with socialism is not that it cares about humans and human rights, but that I am forced to give my money to the government to fund social programs that I am not directly using. I recognize that there is some benefit to keeping poverty low, but there are other ways to acheive this--taxing everyone to death is not the best option.
Frankly the 60% tax rate that some countries pay is frightening, and it costs companies more money, since they have to increase the base salary to compensate or they will lose workers to companies that do.
To me, Libertarianism is me saying, "I am a good person, and would love to help those in need. However, the government has currently taxed me to the point where I cannot help, and they are wasting that money. I might just be better off without that kind of government."
Socialism, on the other hand, says, "The gov't will help everyone. Just give us all your money, and we'll help everyone. We may lose some of it, pad some pockets and such, but give it to us, because we know better than you how to help the poor, and whatnot. Nevermind that the constitution is about liberty and responsibility, we will take that from you and help everyone."
It doesn't sound so bad, but it really does mean abdicating some of your rights. I would rather not do that. You might like to, but I find it much more appealing to say: I will give my money to whom I chose. If I wish to donate to my church so that they can help, I should be able to. If I wish to donate to the local salvation army, then I can. In the Libertarian philosophy, you would be more able to do this, because the government would not have taxed you.
I also happen to agree with the GP--the founding fathers were closer to libertarian than either liberal or conservative. One thing that some people forget is that libertarians also want a rather drastic change--but not for its own sake. By definition the liberals want constant change. This is dangerous. If you want socialism, make a socialist party. That would be more acceptable to me than lumping it with the Democratic party.
As far as communism--I have to say that it is not a bad idea, its just not practical as long as humans have a chance to corrupt the system.
I'll bite into this mess. Left or right, both sides have their lunatics. Period. Even those who are middle-road have a few loons. This is not a problem as long as everyone remembers this.
The truth is that neither side is particularly based in fact. This is because we don't know exactly how certain policies will affect us in the long run. Social benefits programs (such as the left sponsors [think medicare]) may actually benefit us in the long run. Who knows, maybe the not-so environmentally friendly right is right and it doesn't make that big of a difference in the long run (okay I'm skeptical, but you get the idea).
The sad part is that we just don't know exactly how every policy will interact to work for the best. Bush doesn't know, Kerry doesn't know. They both have plans, that much I know. Whose is the best? Well, its hard to say.
If you think that the right's beliefs are not based in "fact", you may be right. That said, I'm not ready to believe that either side has more facts than the other. Both will provide "experts" to support them. Both can commission studies to show that the other side is looney.
Personally, I like to think that the GP of this post is really an egg-headed martian--I don't think it makes a difference though.
I was gonna say! Anyone with an IQ of 328 should have already perfected cold fusion, or something equally amazing (or maybe made a proc that doesn't give off heat).
I have to question just one thing: what is a "loss" for microsoft. How much does it cost to produce a single licensed CD of windows XP (including the hidden costs)? I've seen profit margin estimates for each copy at upward of 200%!
Now, how at what point does Windows sell for a loss?
Slashdot Mirror
In general terms, I would agree.
However, there is plenty of case evidence where a set of parents will raise two or three (or five or six) children, all of whom turn out to be fairly good people, and another who doesn't.
There is, apparently, only so much parents can do--children still have the ability to choose.
Yes, but most of his spending has been done in a way that the dems could never justify under their socialist regime--war. War is a great way to get more money and power for the gov't.
That said, spending and gov't hires aren't necessarily the same as BG...the PATRIOT act is more along those lines (Big Brother), while the dems want something slightly different (socialism).
At one point I thought socialism might be good, but then I grew up and realized that it destroys personal responsibility and therefore freedom. I am dead against that.
The RIAA, unfortunately, doesn't care about individual bands. It only cares about the recording studios. Why? Because is was formed by, and is controlled by, the studios. From their perspective it makes sense to push DRM and the latest craze (a la Brittney Spears), because this is what makes them the most money.
They are not, like some have supposed, in it for the long haul as far as any one band is concerned. Older bands do not make as much money off albums as do newer bands (generally speaking), because they can't tap into the market that spends the most--teenage kids.
The teenage kids buy more cds, go to more concerts, and purchase more paraphenalia than other demographics. This is because they aren't generally paying any bills, and are rarely saving money (if they even have a job--many recieve an "allowance", which just makes folks lazy).
Thus, from the marketeers perspective, it makes sense to engender one craze after another, because these are what make money. Granted, they will squeeze every penny they can from every artist they can, but the big money isn't there for bands like TMBG.
That said, I do agree that in the long run, bands that care about their fans, and that care about making music, are the ones that I generally enjoy listening to more.
Think about the difference in attitude illustrated by, "I want to be a rock star", compared to, "I want to play music". The one is focused on being rich, famous, and having lots of neat toys. The other focuses on playing great music, and if the other (money, fame, etc) comes to them, great.
Brittney Spears is not around for the long haul because she doesn't care about the music the same way that TMBG.
FWIW, I love their music, but am far from up to date on their latest stuff.
Which is one of the worst things that the gov't can do. Unfortunately your last paragraph describes the goals of the democratic party fairly well.
As I see it, the goal of the dems is to increase reliance on the gov't. This is bad. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for an individual whose stated goal is to make me more dependent on the gov't.
I agree with Mr. A. Coward (sibling post), who states that this is something that Bush does and it is annoying. That said, however much you think GWB is a proponent on BIG government, he is not nearly as pro BG as Mr. Kerry & Mr. Edwards. That doesn't mean that he (GW) is my first pick as president, but he isn't as pro-BG as the dems.
I suggest that everyone do something different this year and vote 3rd party. I plan to.
you'd better hope she doesn't read /.
I agree--gentoo is not for those who frequently upgrade their processor...or other key components...frequently (exception: video card of the same variety).
I still enjoy it though.
I'll tell you what--watch my journal and the next time I re-install (which I plan to soon, since I missed somethings the first time that I want to fix this time), I will keep track of how long things take to compile. I can't promise shocking accuracy, since I frequently go to bed immediately after beginning a long compile (its a great way to pass time...), but I'll give it a shot.
no.
That would be one sixth of the world population having sex every day.
Logically that would mean that everyone has sex one in six days, which isn't really likely either.
Furthermore, we can assume that a large percentage of the population isn't ready/willing/able to have sex on any given day (age, lack of partner, etc). We will, for sake of argument, state that 1/2 the world population falls in this category. This now means that in order for a billion people to be having sex on any given day, you have assume that the average person that is able/ready/willing to have sex is doing so once every three days.
I think that most of us will agree that the above scenario is unlikely (considering that on any given day statistics tell us that 25% of all women are likely to be on their period (assuming it lasts 1 week and only occurs 1 in 4 weeks--birth control and certain medical issues change this, but we're making assumptions).
So then we assume that on any given day, 25% of the female population is going to be unable to have sex (or at least unwilling...). That means that our above scenario of a 50/50 split is not exactly accurate. It means that on any given day an additional 12.5% (1/4 * 50) of the population is out.
Oh heck--you get the idea. A billion is too large an estimate.
it generally doesn't on modern hardware--openoffice takes about 3 hours on my athlon xp 3200+ (512mb ram, YMMV).
I haven't installed KDE, so I can't vouch for that, but I am guessing that it wouldn't take 24 hours. Just a thought though.
Hence the whole idea behind compile everything distros like gentoo, which not only handles dependencies, but also handles compiling.
Now if gentoo only had a simpler way to install everything... (but they do have a nice upgrade path!)
Having spent some time in Portugal, I understand how easy it is to misinterpret what is going on in a different country (not that you are, just that it is easy).
At the time I was there, I didn't watch much tv (still don't), so I was fairly far removed from the political situation.
Looking on any country from the outside, we ALL seem parochial and uncaring. Once you start talking to individuals within a single country, it is very different. I think the real issue is that when I hear news about France, its all about its leader, not about Jacque Average (do the french have "Joe Average" equivalent?). Therefore you get a mistaken impression about what the whole country is like.
Don't from opinions about a whole group based on small samples of that group (basic stats, folks). You are very likely to make extreme mistakes.
He didn't say that the world court had anything to do with the NL's, just that it was there. You have to realize that many Americans have a serious problem with the concept of the UN. I happen to be one of them.
I am actually in favor of a world government in many ways, but not in the form that the UN takes, and not unless EVERY government/region that participates is willing to completely dissolve itself into that world gov't. You won't get that--humans are too parochial and set on having their own gov'ts (even the French).
I personally don't think that the French (or $nationality) wants everyone to be like them. If they were, then they wouldn't have anyone to be better than and arrogant towards. The USA is a little different than many countries--we have less chronological history, and we happen to be very large and diverse.
This changes how we handle things. Also, we happen to have a lot more power than most other individual countries. Now for some countries, its a lack of resources that makes them unable to produce as much power. For others, I don't know what the deal is--take Brazil--its not that much different in size, but its history of drug wars, inflation and similar problems has kept it from being a world player.
European countries are so small, by comparison, that it makes it hard for them to be as powerful in sheer numbers, tech and production.
Does any of this excuse the USA from being a bully at times? Not really, but when you realize that EVERY government takes actions to further its own interests on the world stage (in some form or fashion), then you realize that the real difference is the amount of media coverage and publicity that country gets. I think that if France could, they would certainly take actions to see their particular ideology made standard. That doesn't mean that they want everyone to be just like them, however.
I personally don't want everyone to be just like the USA. That would be boring. I do want, however, to protect my country and keep it safe from freaks that try to ram airplanes into buildings (whatever their reasons may be). I think that GW has lost track of that in some regards, but I don't think that ANY other potential president would have done better (different, yes; better, no).
Anywho, this is all very offtopic. Oh well.
THANK YOU!!
Seriously, the idea of keeping the floor open past the official time is very odd to me. I also don't know the rules about changing votes, but it seems a poor idea in some regards.
The whole idea behind a representative gov't is that those who are sent should vote the way those that they represent would. The trouble is that they don't usually know how they would really vote, and use party politics to substitute for how the citizen's in their area would vote. I suppose the logic is: I am a democrat/republican/whatever, people should know my philosophy based on this, therefor I will just vote the party line because that's what they expect. What garbage!
I would much rather that my congressman/woman actually found out how I (and those around me) feel about the issues (no, DON'T raise my taxes you moron), instead of assuming that we support the party line just because they got elected.
As far as a two party system is concerned (while we're at it), it stinks!! It tends to polarize issues that shouldn't be (although I can't think of one at the moment), and gives people another source of conflict that is unnecessary (which also has the effect of defraying any dissatisfaction that individuals may have with the gov't by allowing them to blame current problems on "the left" or "the right", when really both are guilty, and the war between them is mostly contrivance).
As far as the PATRIOT Act is concerned, I could do without it. This is the one thing that Bush has done that really bothers me (to all who might flame me for that, remember that its my personal beliefs, not yours or the media's that I'm discussing--I fully recognize that many people hate him for many other reasons). While I don't believe that he will misuse it the way that some will, the potential for abuse is so clear that I am amazed that it hasn't received more attention.
If I had my way, the PATRIOT act would be fully revoked, as would all the other weird legislation from the past ten years or so (DMCA included, which is just as bad in many ways). We have had a terrible rash of poor laws passed over the past ten years, and the PATRIOT Act is just one of many. It may be the worst (or not, you decide!), but it certainly isn't the only one.
I've seen some interesting responses, but they missed some of these apps:
-statistical computing--it can take a long time to do heavy number crunching
-simulations--seismology, weather, astronomy, astrophysics, and similar fields need number crunching power. This is not even talking about things like the NEC earth simulator--it gets used!
-medical research--the human genome project, IIRC, was finished early due to faster computers. I think the cure for AIDS/cancer will be a similar situation: if we want the answer, it will be found through the data processing power we now possess (along with human resourcefulness and creativity).
The list could continue, but the next time you take a modern drug, remember that pharmaceuticals have been heavily advanced by good computers.
I think that these reasons suffice--we need faster computers, more refined equipment, and better technology in general. There are uses for these things, and while we can get by in the mean time, remember that businesses got by before there were even any automated adding machines (aside from the abacus). Our ancestors all survived long enough to breed without any of our conveniences, but that doesn't mean I want to back to that. It just means that I consider myself lucky (statistically speaking) to have access to the technology that I do.
I am seeing a lot of complaints about this being censorship, and in some ways I agree--the gov't should stay out of these matters, and parents should step in and take responsibility.
In order for parents to do this, however, broadcasters must be honest about the shows content before broadcasting. Personally I deplore a lot of the material on TV/Radio these days, but I respect that they have the right to broadcast it, just as anyone who wants to has the right to listen/watch.
Someone mentioned that media companies are trying to have their cake and eat it too, with the broadcast flag. Personally, I think that if they are going to make it illegal/impossible to record broadcast shows, they should require companies to record the broadcast in order to provide evidence of truth in advertising (hey, this show is rated TV-Y, but they are talking about sex, that's not right!).
That said, I am comfortable with either situation--either make it easy to obtain the broadcast later, or make it legal/easy to tape it yourself.
As someone who feels that personal liberty is of supreme importance, I think that it should be perfectly legal to record a broadcast. As far as decency is concerned, I'm not that concerned--censorship should be practiced at the level of the family. If you don't want your kids watching a certain show, then don't let them. Complaining to the gov't is not the way to go.
perhaps, but he does play "high school dork" fairly well. Too bad it should have been "high school nerd", which he doesn't quite get. Oh well.
I don't what to think about this discussion, but I think that it is ridiculous to assume that either Bush or Kerry even knows or cares what there website runs. And to those morons on this topic that think that because Bush hires "like-minded individuals" there is an instinctive love of MS in everyone that works for him, GROW UP!
Think about it like this: IBM is big business. Period. They are a huge company. They use linux. They also happen to use Windows (on systems they sell). They also happen to make chips for a lot of different companies. My point is this: the conflict of open vs. closed is NOT a political statement. I know a lot of Republicans that use and love Linux, Apple, and all kinds of open source tools. I also know a lot of Democrats that love Windows.
All that said, there is a certain amount of overlap. Personally, I tend to agree with the libertarian philosophies, and think that Linux (and the *BSD's) are the best expression of personal freedom available. Traditionally I have voted republican, but don't particularly care for every thing that the republican party stands for.
To whomever decided that this was a worthy topic:: you should have discarded the article itself as flamebait--that's all it was, and resulted in almost pure flamewar. Enough for now.
I am replying to both of you--I stand corrected on both points. My apologies.
Doesn't that depend on what point in history you take a look at things. I hate to bring it up, but the Armada didn't happen until quite late in history, comparitively speaking. At the time that all that occurred, perhaps what you said is true, but its the same argument that always happens when two countries fight over a peice of land--at one point they both ignored the fact that the other was there, and just fought their neighbors a little closer.
Wars are nothing more (in many cases, not all), than two kids fighting over where to draw the line down the middle of their clubhouse. At some point one of them decides, "hey, I'll just take the whole clubhouse, and then it'll be over." Sometimes (rarely) they agree to share the clubhouse in some fashion (think treaties), but generally they just fight over where to draw the line. This is war on a small scale. The big scale is, "hey, I own that river!" Never mind the fact that its been there for millenia before mankind ever stepped foot into that part of the world.
England, in some form, was around long before the Spanish Armada. At the same time, Spain, in some form, was also around long before the Spanish Armada. At one point Spain, like much of Portugal, was owned by the Moors, who were kicked out rather brutally (and enslaved). This shows up in Portuguese words like oxalá (I think I have the accent correct), which is from Arabic. Its an oath meaning something like "if Allah wishes it". Now it should be obvious that the good Christian folk of Portugal would never pick that up without some interesting political background, but it shows my point--war is about taking over a big clubhouse. In this case it was the Iberian Peninsula.
To the topic at hand, the whole idea of politicising games is nothing even remotely new. In fact, why not do it? We've been doing it for years. Ever play "ring around the rosie"? Its a political game fromt the Cold War (USians only, sorry folks). I can't think of any more examples, but there have been political games since games were a popular way to pass the time. BTW, ever stop to think about what the game of Monopoly is trying to teach? Yes, boys and girls, it should be obvious that those darn capitalists are trying to teach that capitalism is good (although the alternate view is that communists are trying to show that capitalism is bad--Look! with capitalism, everyone but one guy loses!).
We can't get away from political games, because they too will sell. It's like selling sex--it sells because it causes controversy, excitement and arguments. If sex was a commodity to 14 year olds, then they wouldn't be enticed by it. Instead its largely forbidden to them, so they will go to virtually any lengths to view even slightly voyeuristic material (oooh, I saw her panties!). I'm not saying we should send kids out to get laid at 12 like the Sumerians did (I think that's what Gilgamesh was, not thinking too clearly this morning), but I am saying that sex sells because of its social nature (until you've experienced it, then it sells because of the good feelings associated with it).
Politics are the same way--they sell because of the controversy, excitement and whatnot. We like our guy to win because of the good feelings associated with winning. Once you've stopped to analyze it, however, it (like sex) can lose some of its appeal, but you are more like to make good decisions regarding your voting patterns (and sex life...). Games, like ads, are designed to keep us from thinking about the actual message and subject of the message, and enhance the "feel good" factor. They make us predict a certain feeling if our candidate wins, or if we purchase certain types of pills. They also make us think we will feel bad if our candidate loses or we don't engage in the latest social fad.
The truth is that we don't feel so bad. Numerous studies (Daniel Kahneman is a prevalent researcher, as was Amos Tversky; there are a lot of others in the field as well -- the term is affective prediction or
I don't know about most libertarians, but I know that that is the way the official party line reads to me. The libertarian philosophy cannot ignore some basic facts, one of those being that there are poor folks that need help. It just shifts the burden from the government to private individuals, and that is something I am comfortable with.
FWIW, I have, at certain times, been the recipient of certain social programs. Unlike some libertarians who would say that if I don't think they should exist I shouldn't use them, I take the attitude that since they exist, they should be used, even though it would be better if there were private charities doing the same.
I have to agree--your employer does benefit from your work. That is part of the employment contract. How much they get is dependent on which company you work for. I heard once (can't prove it) that on average CE0's make 400 times more than the average worker in their company (or some such). To be honest, this bothers me just as much as the government's stance.
Libertarianism is based on the idea of personal responsibility, which is, as I recall, a fairly healthy psychological attitude. While the legal stance of the libertarian party would be "do what you like", the truth is that like any other party, it is made up of humans who vary in their moral outlook, and have decided to accept that difference.
This is closer to the left on terms of alternative lifestyles than it is to the right. In terms of "help the guy who's down on his luck", the party line is something like this: there are, and should be, private charities that can help this individual, and if the government wasn't taxing us to death, those private charities would recieve sufficient donations to help everyone sufficiently.
The issue I have with socialism is not that it cares about humans and human rights, but that I am forced to give my money to the government to fund social programs that I am not directly using. I recognize that there is some benefit to keeping poverty low, but there are other ways to acheive this--taxing everyone to death is not the best option.
Frankly the 60% tax rate that some countries pay is frightening, and it costs companies more money, since they have to increase the base salary to compensate or they will lose workers to companies that do.
To me, Libertarianism is me saying, "I am a good person, and would love to help those in need. However, the government has currently taxed me to the point where I cannot help, and they are wasting that money. I might just be better off without that kind of government."
Socialism, on the other hand, says, "The gov't will help everyone. Just give us all your money, and we'll help everyone. We may lose some of it, pad some pockets and such, but give it to us, because we know better than you how to help the poor, and whatnot. Nevermind that the constitution is about liberty and responsibility, we will take that from you and help everyone."
It doesn't sound so bad, but it really does mean abdicating some of your rights. I would rather not do that. You might like to, but I find it much more appealing to say: I will give my money to whom I chose. If I wish to donate to my church so that they can help, I should be able to. If I wish to donate to the local salvation army, then I can. In the Libertarian philosophy, you would be more able to do this, because the government would not have taxed you.
I also happen to agree with the GP--the founding fathers were closer to libertarian than either liberal or conservative. One thing that some people forget is that libertarians also want a rather drastic change--but not for its own sake. By definition the liberals want constant change. This is dangerous. If you want socialism, make a socialist party. That would be more acceptable to me than lumping it with the Democratic party.
As far as communism--I have to say that it is not a bad idea, its just not practical as long as humans have a chance to corrupt the system.
That is amusing.
I'll bite into this mess. Left or right, both sides have their lunatics. Period. Even those who are middle-road have a few loons. This is not a problem as long as everyone remembers this.
The truth is that neither side is particularly based in fact. This is because we don't know exactly how certain policies will affect us in the long run. Social benefits programs (such as the left sponsors [think medicare]) may actually benefit us in the long run. Who knows, maybe the not-so environmentally friendly right is right and it doesn't make that big of a difference in the long run (okay I'm skeptical, but you get the idea).
The sad part is that we just don't know exactly how every policy will interact to work for the best. Bush doesn't know, Kerry doesn't know. They both have plans, that much I know. Whose is the best? Well, its hard to say.
If you think that the right's beliefs are not based in "fact", you may be right. That said, I'm not ready to believe that either side has more facts than the other. Both will provide "experts" to support them. Both can commission studies to show that the other side is looney.
Personally, I like to think that the GP of this post is really an egg-headed martian--I don't think it makes a difference though.
Only if it is in the past. forget is present tense, so it works.
I was gonna say! Anyone with an IQ of 328 should have already perfected cold fusion, or something equally amazing (or maybe made a proc that doesn't give off heat).
I have to question just one thing: what is a "loss" for microsoft. How much does it cost to produce a single licensed CD of windows XP (including the hidden costs)? I've seen profit margin estimates for each copy at upward of 200%!
Now, how at what point does Windows sell for a loss?