And to survive as an investment banker on Wall Street, you need to be a sociopath (or at least afflicted with a severe case of Asperger's). You must believe, with every fiber of your being, that you cannot possibly make enough money -- and that it is entirely fair and just that you do so. Your morals must be self-centric, or at the very least easily suspended. (Confession: I are an MBA, so I know a little about this.)
The question is: Should someone like this, no matter how qualified, be president? I'd say no.
"The audience at the inauguration were puzzled by the beginning of President Romney's long-anticipated speech, in which he simply intoned: 'Attention all planets of the solar federation: we have assumed control, we have assumed control, we have assumed control..'"
Seriously, if you think there's no difference between the two parties, take a look at what's been happening at the state level since 2010. The union-busting in Wisconsin, the gerrymander-on-steroids in Pennsylvania, and in my state of North Carolina, a push to add an amendment to the state constitution to abolish the recognition of gay marriages and domestic partnerships. For starters. And, may I add, none of the voters (except hardcore partisans and other evolutionary throwbacks) actually wanted any of this bullshit. Do you really think Republicans are not that much more evil? Really?
Yes, it does seem that we deal with the lesser of 2 evils every fourth November. But there are different shades of "evil". One is the "rather unseemly, somewhat sleazy and a bit embarrassing", and the other is "totally, truly, absolutely frigging, dangerously whacked".
On behalf of all American citizens who understand the poisonous effects of lobbying on American democracy and society, I would like to thank you for your hard work. The US Chamber of Commerce is not a government agency, but may as well be so for all intents and purposes. It lobbies our elected officials to adopt policies that favor only big business, with the misguided belief that only laissez-faire capitalism will improve the American way of life. Nothing is further from the truth.
In short, you're doing us a favor.
If it's not too much to ask, could you please submit your findings to Wikileaks, or just post them on a publicly accessible blog? I think more of my countrymen should know about the inner workings of this nefarious herd of swine, and their attempts to sell naked greed as enlightened self-interest.
May we also interest you in targeting other groups, such as "The Club for Growth", "Americans for Prosperity", and "Crossroads GPS"? I'm sure you'd find them just as interesting.
..when Time chose "Hungarian Freedom Fighter" as Person of the Year. More specific than the other examples, but the precedent for not naming one person goes pretty far back.
More sensible politicians. A parliamentary system that resets itself until it actually works. Tough banking laws that keep the economy from crashing. A sane attitude towards health care. Better (yes, better) protection of civil liberties.
And I'd get a lot more satisfaction from a dozen Tim Horton's doughnuts than today's US Congress.
Once the OWS organizers (if they exist) come up with at least some bullet points, then I'll take them more seriously.
That's not to say that their anger is misguided. Those who got us into this mess have done less time in the slammer than the protesters who were unlucky enough to get arrested. Our political system is not so much broken as already bought. And the wealthy in this country, by and large, have every reason to regard themselves as America's upper caste, since they're effectively immune from poverty, or even the rule of law for that matter.
But if there is a message here, it's getting lost in the noise.
Who the hell is Norquist, anyway?
If the constituents who elected me say "do this", and Mr. Norquist says "don't", I honestly wouldn't care what this pathetic little man would have to say.
For every buck he can raise to oppose my re-election, I can turn out one more voter ("Meoward: Standing Firm For You!")
IIRC that was actually the case in 18th century England.
It also lays bare that attempts to keep one's choice of termination illegal has never had anything to do with the protection of life, but with the assertion of a nation's sovereignty over the existence of its citizens.
Am I the only one who noticed that the Tea Party was co-opted and neutralized by the Republican party?
Nope. And let's be honest. It was an incredibly, transparently easy thing to do, especially with a crapload of money available.
Fact is, most TPers have lower levels of education and are easily manipulated. (Go ahead, mod me as a troll.) Fear-mongering will never go out of style, as Roger Ailes will gladly tell you.
Remember the movie "Meet John Doe"? Well, the Tea Party is just like the John Doe Party in the film. It started with good intentions, and once it achieved a certain political critical mass, it was co-opted by powerful interests with other agendas. Including convincing the rabble that they needed what those interests wanted.
For that reason, I see the Tea Party role in the next election being practically insignificant. They were duped after their big win in 2010, and who doesn't believe that whey won't get fooled again?
Do you really feel that ANYTHING will make them rethink their views?
I like the world you live in - where all people change their opinions and beliefs once they learn new facts or contrary rational arguments. I really wish I lived there.
Unfortunately, I find myself in a world where people only use facts and arguments to buttress preconceived notions, no matter how untrue, unprovable, or illogical those notions may be. (Many of these people can be found in the Texas legislature.)
When the willfully ignorant claim intellectual superiority for no reason, it's the ultimate in arrogance. Why not hurl a few rocks their way?
I don't see Microsoft as "the good guy" at all here. Just an underdog, and not a necessarily very talented one.
Basically, Microsoft's marketing department has yet to admit that it's simply not as forward-thinking as Apple's. The Microsoft Way is to allow others to pay the price of innovation first, then move in on the emerging market after analyzing others' failures. Apple woke up, and simply decided not to fail anymore. Rather than play by the rules MSFT (and everyone else) was following, they simply changed the game.
Consequently, there is no more cheese for the second mouse these days.
All of this does NOT mean that MSFT is now being bullied, or that they should get some points on the ethics scorecard. (They're still a convicted monopolist; we know very well what they would like to do if they had the chance.) They're paying the price for their commitment to a failing strategy. Since when do we re-label "the incompetent guy" to be "the good guy"?
It would be a shame to see Apple become truly evil and monopolistic (I don't think they're there yet), or to see Microsoft lumber its way into irrelevance (that hasn't happened yet either). But MSFT does need a massive strategic overhaul -- starting with the repudiation of their marketing strategies to date (e.g. vendor lock-in, risk aversion to innovation), as signified by the canning of Mr. Ballmer.
Yeah, I remember when the Birthers latched onto what they thought was a birth certificate from the Republic of Kenya as evidence.
Problem was, the Republic didn't exist at the time of Obama's birth (still a British colony). Oops.
It's not enforced at the federal level, but AFAIK, everyone who wishes to own a motor vehicle in the States is required by (state) law to buy auto insurance or face a fine.
(The only defense against this counter-example I've ever heard is that "driving is a luxury". This argument does not hold up for those of us who must commute to work.)
Retrofitting Symbian to compete with Android or iOS is folly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the latter two are fundamentally Unix-based (iOS being a stripped down MacOS X, and Android running on a Linux kernel -- man it was weird to see a penguin and boot screen on a candy bar-sized object..). So they probably leave Symbian in the dust for robustness and reliability, by virtue of the size of each of the development communities alone. Then there's the issue of availability of development environments.
This is a last-ditch effort at best. If Nokia doesn't switch platforms soon, they are screwed.
My biggest beef with the OP's argument is its implicit premise that a university education should only train a student for a job. Nonsense!
Yes, it would be nice to have a job waiting in one's field after graduating, but let's be honest with ourselves. Chances are, you will NOT have the same career in 5,10, or 20 years after college. And a liberal arts college can provide the education you need to adapt to changing times. (Did you attend an engineering school with crummy English or philosophy departments?* Too bad, you probably won't make that transition to law you might have been contemplating. It helps to know how to write in that field, IIRC.)
Besides, who said "education" had to be practical? College is the one time in your life when you get to learn about things that genuinely interest you. Why not take advantage of it?
*(Disclaimer: I did, but for graduate study. I thanked God for my little liberal arts college degree, once it was time for me to write my master's thesis.)
..I don't care for AT&T's terms. I have a pre-paid account with them already, don't care for data over 3G (WiFi is perfectly fine for me), and I'd rather just stick my SIM into this model and be done with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to be picky, but Abraham Maslow, the psychologist and father of the concept of 'self-actualization', was the first to use that expression.
And to survive as an investment banker on Wall Street, you need to be a sociopath (or at least afflicted with a severe case of Asperger's). You must believe, with every fiber of your being, that you cannot possibly make enough money -- and that it is entirely fair and just that you do so. Your morals must be self-centric, or at the very least easily suspended. (Confession: I are an MBA, so I know a little about this.)
The question is: Should someone like this, no matter how qualified, be president? I'd say no.
"The audience at the inauguration were puzzled by the beginning of President Romney's long-anticipated speech, in which he simply intoned: 'Attention all planets of the solar federation: we have assumed control, we have assumed control, we have assumed control..'"
Seriously, if you think there's no difference between the two parties, take a look at what's been happening at the state level since 2010. The union-busting in Wisconsin, the gerrymander-on-steroids in Pennsylvania, and in my state of North Carolina, a push to add an amendment to the state constitution to abolish the recognition of gay marriages and domestic partnerships. For starters. And, may I add, none of the voters (except hardcore partisans and other evolutionary throwbacks) actually wanted any of this bullshit. Do you really think Republicans are not that much more evil? Really?
Yes, it does seem that we deal with the lesser of 2 evils every fourth November. But there are different shades of "evil". One is the "rather unseemly, somewhat sleazy and a bit embarrassing", and the other is "totally, truly, absolutely frigging, dangerously whacked".
To The Hackers This May Concern:
On behalf of all American citizens who understand the poisonous effects of lobbying on American democracy and society, I would like to thank you for your hard work. The US Chamber of Commerce is not a government agency, but may as well be so for all intents and purposes. It lobbies our elected officials to adopt policies that favor only big business, with the misguided belief that only laissez-faire capitalism will improve the American way of life. Nothing is further from the truth.
In short, you're doing us a favor.
If it's not too much to ask, could you please submit your findings to Wikileaks, or just post them on a publicly accessible blog? I think more of my countrymen should know about the inner workings of this nefarious herd of swine, and their attempts to sell naked greed as enlightened self-interest.
May we also interest you in targeting other groups, such as "The Club for Growth", "Americans for Prosperity", and "Crossroads GPS"? I'm sure you'd find them just as interesting.
Thanks again,
- Meoward
..when Time chose "Hungarian Freedom Fighter" as Person of the Year. More specific than the other examples, but the precedent for not naming one person goes pretty far back.
And I'd get a lot more satisfaction from a dozen Tim Horton's doughnuts than today's US Congress.
Don't like this Congress? Thank the people who pay for, and respond to, this kind of ad. We always elect the government we deserve.
It's about time someone used the word "efficient" in this debate.
That's not to say that their anger is misguided. Those who got us into this mess have done less time in the slammer than the protesters who were unlucky enough to get arrested. Our political system is not so much broken as already bought. And the wealthy in this country, by and large, have every reason to regard themselves as America's upper caste, since they're effectively immune from poverty, or even the rule of law for that matter.
But if there is a message here, it's getting lost in the noise.
Who the hell is Norquist, anyway? If the constituents who elected me say "do this", and Mr. Norquist says "don't", I honestly wouldn't care what this pathetic little man would have to say. For every buck he can raise to oppose my re-election, I can turn out one more voter ("Meoward: Standing Firm For You!")
The original article is utter bollocks. Society does claim this right already, and the state has no plans on relenting either.
The church, with this one issue at least, is merely using the state's current stance to foist its views on the rest of us.
IIRC that was actually the case in 18th century England.
It also lays bare that attempts to keep one's choice of termination illegal has never had anything to do with the protection of life, but with the assertion of a nation's sovereignty over the existence of its citizens.
Am I the only one who noticed that the Tea Party was co-opted and neutralized by the Republican party?
Nope. And let's be honest. It was an incredibly, transparently easy thing to do, especially with a crapload of money available.
Fact is, most TPers have lower levels of education and are easily manipulated. (Go ahead, mod me as a troll.) Fear-mongering will never go out of style, as Roger Ailes will gladly tell you.
Remember the movie "Meet John Doe"? Well, the Tea Party is just like the John Doe Party in the film. It started with good intentions, and once it achieved a certain political critical mass, it was co-opted by powerful interests with other agendas. Including convincing the rabble that they needed what those interests wanted.
For that reason, I see the Tea Party role in the next election being practically insignificant. They were duped after their big win in 2010, and who doesn't believe that whey won't get fooled again?
Do you really feel that ANYTHING will make them rethink their views?
I like the world you live in - where all people change their opinions and beliefs once they learn new facts or contrary rational arguments. I really wish I lived there.
Unfortunately, I find myself in a world where people only use facts and arguments to buttress preconceived notions, no matter how untrue, unprovable, or illogical those notions may be. (Many of these people can be found in the Texas legislature.)
When the willfully ignorant claim intellectual superiority for no reason, it's the ultimate in arrogance. Why not hurl a few rocks their way?
Basically, Microsoft's marketing department has yet to admit that it's simply not as forward-thinking as Apple's. The Microsoft Way is to allow others to pay the price of innovation first, then move in on the emerging market after analyzing others' failures. Apple woke up, and simply decided not to fail anymore. Rather than play by the rules MSFT (and everyone else) was following, they simply changed the game.
Consequently, there is no more cheese for the second mouse these days.
All of this does NOT mean that MSFT is now being bullied, or that they should get some points on the ethics scorecard. (They're still a convicted monopolist; we know very well what they would like to do if they had the chance.) They're paying the price for their commitment to a failing strategy. Since when do we re-label "the incompetent guy" to be "the good guy"?
It would be a shame to see Apple become truly evil and monopolistic (I don't think they're there yet), or to see Microsoft lumber its way into irrelevance (that hasn't happened yet either). But MSFT does need a massive strategic overhaul -- starting with the repudiation of their marketing strategies to date (e.g. vendor lock-in, risk aversion to innovation), as signified by the canning of Mr. Ballmer.
If they had only taken Kenny Loggins too, nobody would have complained.
Yeah, I remember when the Birthers latched onto what they thought was a birth certificate from the Republic of Kenya as evidence. Problem was, the Republic didn't exist at the time of Obama's birth (still a British colony). Oops.
It's not enforced at the federal level, but AFAIK, everyone who wishes to own a motor vehicle in the States is required by (state) law to buy auto insurance or face a fine.
(The only defense against this counter-example I've ever heard is that "driving is a luxury". This argument does not hold up for those of us who must commute to work.)
Spoiler. ;)
He'd kill us if he had the chance.
Retrofitting Symbian to compete with Android or iOS is folly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the latter two are fundamentally Unix-based (iOS being a stripped down MacOS X, and Android running on a Linux kernel -- man it was weird to see a penguin and boot screen on a candy bar-sized object..). So they probably leave Symbian in the dust for robustness and reliability, by virtue of the size of each of the development communities alone. Then there's the issue of availability of development environments.
This is a last-ditch effort at best. If Nokia doesn't switch platforms soon, they are screwed.
My biggest beef with the OP's argument is its implicit premise that a university education should only train a student for a job. Nonsense!
Yes, it would be nice to have a job waiting in one's field after graduating, but let's be honest with ourselves. Chances are, you will NOT have the same career in 5,10, or 20 years after college. And a liberal arts college can provide the education you need to adapt to changing times. (Did you attend an engineering school with crummy English or philosophy departments?* Too bad, you probably won't make that transition to law you might have been contemplating. It helps to know how to write in that field, IIRC.)
Besides, who said "education" had to be practical? College is the one time in your life when you get to learn about things that genuinely interest you. Why not take advantage of it?
*(Disclaimer: I did, but for graduate study. I thanked God for my little liberal arts college degree, once it was time for me to write my master's thesis.)
I just read this a while back. There are larger ramifications than political sniping, and beyond politics altogether.
It's a perfect illustration of why this phenomenon matters to all of us.
..I don't care for AT&T's terms. I have a pre-paid account with them already, don't care for data over 3G (WiFi is perfectly fine for me), and I'd rather just stick my SIM into this model and be done with it.