So this 63% are not stupid, as the liberal left constantly alleges, but happy for the powers that be to use one of the few tools they have to give us some small protection from suicidal, religiously deranged nihilists.
Really. And just how big a threat do you think these folks are to us? That is to say, where does the probability of being killed by an Islamic fanatic rank against the probability of being killed by automobile accident, drowning, lightning, snakebite, heart attack, or cancer? This terrorist business has been blown waaaaay out of proportion.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the
populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to
safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of
hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H.L. Mencken
Remember the War on Drugs?
It surprises me just how poorly the reality of global jihad has sunk into American mainstream consciousness.
Do you mean the Jihad that we are creating through our failed foreign policy? It seems to me that our current "leaders" are doing everything in their power to ensure that WW3 comes to pass and that it will be fought over religion. Here's a clue for you --- not all of the religious fanatics subscribe to Islam.
None taken. But, I don't believe for a second that car insurance is designed to protect the public interest. It is designed to make a profit for insurers --- plain and simple. Maybe once upon a time insurance was about the public good, just like education, law, and medicine. But nowadays, everything is about money. You see, it's not enough to do a job just to get by, or even to live comfortably --- you have to get RICH doing it. And getting rich is so much easier if you can get the government to force people to do business with you.
and demand that Congress pass a law requiring every person with a social security number to purchase 5 DRM loaded cd's per month, and staple their receipts on form 1040 come April 15th. After all, the government requires us to support the insurance companies by purchasing auto insurance. Why not entertainment too? I mean, EVERYBODY is guilty of pirating music anyway, right?
It's not that modern reporters can't show guts, it's that they they don't chose to show guts, i.e. they are a bunch of sniveling cowards afraid of losing their fat corporate sponsored pay check. Ironically though as history shows those that show leadership don't end up losing their pay check but go on to greater rewards. Our current batch of blow dry "news anchors," though aren't real reporters and perhaps don't even have the mental tools to show leadership.
Of course, when they do show guts they might just be eviscerated like Jane Akre and Steve Wilson were for trying to expose Bovine Growth Hormone. The corporations are locking everything up, including the truth.
If by representative democracy you mean one which represents the people, we don't even live under THAT type of government. All governments are plutocracies.
Of course, in our lovely world, police states and military dictatorships are fictions. But even if they were real, it could never happen at home. Whew! I was worried for a second there.
It will be worse than that. Just like the common organic solvent acetone was put on the DEA's watched list, we should soon be hearing tales of Radio Shack reporting suspicious activity to the Feds.
"Hello, FBI. We just sold a couple of 2.7 microfarad capacitors to Joe Bloe. I think he might be a pirate!!!"
"Yes sir, we've been watching him for some time. Thanks for being a good citizen. Your Wal-Mart coupon for the newest Britney Spears song will be arriving shortly."
WHile a lot of what you say has been well though out, this statement is a perfect example of a major problem amoung hard science people in their view of psychology. It is like an astrologer who says they understand asstronomy because they know astrology. In short, it is a statement that, to those who know much about the field, contains within itself an admission of complete ignorance of the field, yet continues to judge that field from that stand of complete ignorance.
I suppose that next you will be arguing in favor of phrenology exams as part of the interview process.
You are welcome to redefine any word you like; just don't expect anyone to understand what you are talking about.
I don't have to argue that any change is censorship --- merely those changes that suppress material that is offensive or that could jeopardize security.
Examples:
When I watch a PG film with my children and skip past the steamy sex scene, that isn't editing, that's censorship.
When a locally organized censorship group in Oklahoma city raised a stink about The Catcher in the Rye in 1961, the Mid-Continent News Company (a book wholesaler) dropped the book from its inventory. That's censorship. Source: 100 Banned Books by Karolides, Bald, and Sova.
If you prefer Oxford, fine. Their definition agrees with the other sources. There is no need for contextual interpretation --- the definition is plain enough: to suppress of remove objectionable parts.
censor (Transitive Verb) To examine and expurgate.
From Encarta:
censor (Transitive Verb) 1. remove offensive parts from something: to remove or change any part of a play, movie, letter, or publication considered offensive or a threat to security.
2. exercise control over something: to suppress or control something that may offend or harm others.
From Merriam-Webster:
censor (Transitive Verb) to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Now, also from Merriam-Webster:
censorship (noun) 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
I see nothing there about the government being necessarily involved. But then again, everyone carries around their own personal mental dictionary that they edit at will.
Censorship is when there is a legal requirement to change something.
YOU don't seem to understand the meaning of the word censored. Censorship is the suppression of material considered objectionable or deemed a security risk. I am no judge or police officer, but I censor materials for my children all the time.
What I don't get is the bit about crosses being symbolic of the quarters of the moon. Indeed, several online sources including Wikipedia and Christian Churches of God indicate that the cross was used in connection with Sun worship.
Silly rabbit, being in the right doesn't grant protection from frivolous lawsuits. Often the mere threat of a lawsuit is enough to make researchers shelve their projects.
Am I the only one here that believes there are other kinds of punishment that don't involve sending an entire family into bankruptcy? I suppose I should expect no less from a society where the citizens believe that money is the end all, be all of human existence. Jezu$ Chri$t!!!
I personally can't wait for the culture of 'boys will be boys' to die out completely.
You mean the culture of "let people learn from their mistakes"? You're absolutely correct. Clearly, these youngsters deserve to be disemboweled for their mistake, to serve as an example of course. Why stop there? Their parents are culpable too. Let's sell them into slavery as an example to all parents with wayward children.
Right. Because causing long-term financial hardship to at least 9 people balances with causing short-term emotional hardship to one person. It is exactly this sort of disproportionate punishment that leads to family fueds, or worse, genocide.
Seriously, how can you defend someone maliciously abusing a kid because you thought it was funny?
Keep in mind that the "abusers" were themselves kids. Should we hold them to the same standards as adults in every case? It's not like they raped and murdered the kid.
Would you really enjoy living out your most embarrassing moments over and over again in front of millions?
Nice hyperbole --- he doesn't live out these moments in front of millions; he is taunted by the locals. His parents should instruct him that it will go away. People will tire of it and forget him and his video.
If someone I hated did the same thing to me I'd do whatever it takes to let them know it wasn't okay, and taking them for 350k is a pretty good start.
But here is the problem: kids typically don't have $350,000 lying under the bed, so it doesn't punish the kid so much as his parents and immediate family. Moreover, who instructed these kids beforehand that such a prank could cause them to be sued for such a sum of money? It used to be, eons ago when there was some sanity and there weren't lawyers laying eggs in the bowels of every building, that making mistakes was part of growing up. Nowadays, one little slip and you may as well kiss the rest of your life goodbye.
Yes, it is frivolous. Lots of people go through hell in school --- maybe all of them. This kid needed to suck it up and get on with his life. But no. The only way of dealing with ANYTHING anymore is to drag someone into the courtroom. Out-fucking-rageous. I'm tempted to nail the door shut, draw the curtains, and never interact with people again. I might get sued, you know.
So what you are saying is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to roach distribution? Interesting. I guess that implies that all available space in the universe will ultimately be populated by roaches.
Slashdot Mirror
The Little Napoleon school administrators are the ones who need the meds. They think they can push people around with impunity.
The interested reader is directed to Sense and Nonsense about Plagiarism and The Plagiarism Witch Hunt Hall of Shame for further information regarding plagiarism.
You are in a room with Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and a troll. You have a gun with two bullets. What do you do?
Shoot the troll twice!!!
So what about "joe average"? Joe will need to install apps.
So, are you telling Joe that Weatherbug won't install under Linux???
So this 63% are not stupid, as the liberal left constantly alleges, but happy for the powers that be to use one of the few tools they have to give us some small protection from suicidal, religiously deranged nihilists.
Really. And just how big a threat do you think these folks are to us? That is to say, where does the probability of being killed by an Islamic fanatic rank against the probability of being killed by automobile accident, drowning, lightning, snakebite, heart attack, or cancer? This terrorist business has been blown waaaaay out of proportion.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H.L. Mencken
Remember the War on Drugs?
It surprises me just how poorly the reality of global jihad has sunk into American mainstream consciousness.
Do you mean the Jihad that we are creating through our failed foreign policy? It seems to me that our current "leaders" are doing everything in their power to ensure that WW3 comes to pass and that it will be fought over religion. Here's a clue for you --- not all of the religious fanatics subscribe to Islam.
None taken. But, I don't believe for a second that car insurance is designed to protect the public interest. It is designed to make a profit for insurers --- plain and simple. Maybe once upon a time insurance was about the public good, just like education, law, and medicine. But nowadays, everything is about money. You see, it's not enough to do a job just to get by, or even to live comfortably --- you have to get RICH doing it. And getting rich is so much easier if you can get the government to force people to do business with you.
and demand that Congress pass a law requiring every person with a social security number to purchase 5 DRM loaded cd's per month, and staple their receipts on form 1040 come April 15th. After all, the government requires us to support the insurance companies by purchasing auto insurance. Why not entertainment too? I mean, EVERYBODY is guilty of pirating music anyway, right?
This movie will only do well if someone applies the nude mod.
Hell, wait 'til it comes to DVD so that you can maximize the jiggle with the remote!!!
It's not that modern reporters can't show guts, it's that they they don't chose to show guts, i.e. they are a bunch of sniveling cowards afraid of losing their fat corporate sponsored pay check. Ironically though as history shows those that show leadership don't end up losing their pay check but go on to greater rewards. Our current batch of blow dry "news anchors," though aren't real reporters and perhaps don't even have the mental tools to show leadership.
Of course, when they do show guts they might just be eviscerated like Jane Akre and Steve Wilson were for trying to expose Bovine Growth Hormone. The corporations are locking everything up, including the truth.
If by representative democracy you mean one which represents the people, we don't even live under THAT type of government. All governments are plutocracies.
Of course, in our lovely world, police states and military dictatorships are fictions. But even if they were real, it could never happen at home. Whew! I was worried for a second there.
It will be worse than that. Just like the common organic solvent acetone was put on the DEA's watched list, we should soon be hearing tales of Radio Shack reporting suspicious activity to the Feds.
"Hello, FBI. We just sold a couple of 2.7 microfarad capacitors to Joe Bloe. I think he might be a pirate!!!"
"Yes sir, we've been watching him for some time. Thanks for being a good citizen. Your Wal-Mart coupon for the newest Britney Spears song will be arriving shortly."
WHile a lot of what you say has been well though out, this statement is a perfect example of a major problem amoung hard science people in their view of psychology. It is like an astrologer who says they understand asstronomy because they know astrology. In short, it is a statement that, to those who know much about the field, contains within itself an admission of complete ignorance of the field, yet continues to judge that field from that stand of complete ignorance.
I suppose that next you will be arguing in favor of phrenology exams as part of the interview process.
You are welcome to redefine any word you like; just don't expect anyone to understand what you are talking about.
I don't have to argue that any change is censorship --- merely those changes that suppress material that is offensive or that could jeopardize security.
Examples:
When I watch a PG film with my children and skip past the steamy sex scene, that isn't editing, that's censorship.
When a locally organized censorship group in Oklahoma city raised a stink about The Catcher in the Rye in 1961, the Mid-Continent News Company (a book wholesaler) dropped the book from its inventory. That's censorship. Source: 100 Banned Books by Karolides, Bald, and Sova.
If you prefer Oxford, fine. Their definition agrees with the other sources. There is no need for contextual interpretation --- the definition is plain enough: to suppress of remove objectionable parts.
From American Heritage Dictionary:
censor (Transitive Verb)
To examine and expurgate.
From Encarta:
censor (Transitive Verb)
1. remove offensive parts from something: to remove or change any part of a play, movie, letter, or publication considered offensive or a threat to security.
2. exercise control over something: to suppress or control something that may offend or harm others.
From Merriam-Webster:
censor (Transitive Verb)
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Now, also from Merriam-Webster:
censorship (noun)
1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
I see nothing there about the government being necessarily involved. But then again, everyone carries around their own personal mental dictionary that they edit at will.
Censorship is when there is a legal requirement to change something.
YOU don't seem to understand the meaning of the word censored. Censorship is the suppression of material considered objectionable or deemed a security risk. I am no judge or police officer, but I censor materials for my children all the time.
What about the eggs?
Pagan fertility festival.
What I don't get is the bit about crosses being symbolic of the quarters of the moon. Indeed, several online sources including Wikipedia and Christian Churches of God indicate that the cross was used in connection with Sun worship.
Silly rabbit, being in the right doesn't grant protection from frivolous lawsuits. Often the mere threat of a lawsuit is enough to make researchers shelve their projects.
Am I the only one here that believes there are other kinds of punishment that don't involve sending an entire family into bankruptcy? I suppose I should expect no less from a society where the citizens believe that money is the end all, be all of human existence. Jezu$ Chri$t!!!
I personally can't wait for the culture of 'boys will be boys' to die out completely.
You mean the culture of "let people learn from their mistakes"? You're absolutely correct. Clearly, these youngsters deserve to be disemboweled for their mistake, to serve as an example of course. Why stop there? Their parents are culpable too. Let's sell them into slavery as an example to all parents with wayward children.
Your attitude disgusts me.
Right. Because causing long-term financial hardship to at least 9 people balances with causing short-term emotional hardship to one person. It is exactly this sort of disproportionate punishment that leads to family fueds, or worse, genocide.
Seriously, how can you defend someone maliciously abusing a kid because you thought it was funny?
Keep in mind that the "abusers" were themselves kids. Should we hold them to the same standards as adults in every case? It's not like they raped and murdered the kid.
Would you really enjoy living out your most embarrassing moments over and over again in front of millions?
Nice hyperbole --- he doesn't live out these moments in front of millions; he is taunted by the locals. His parents should instruct him that it will go away. People will tire of it and forget him and his video.
If someone I hated did the same thing to me I'd do whatever it takes to let them know it wasn't okay, and taking them for 350k is a pretty good start.
But here is the problem: kids typically don't have $350,000 lying under the bed, so it doesn't punish the kid so much as his parents and immediate family. Moreover, who instructed these kids beforehand that such a prank could cause them to be sued for such a sum of money? It used to be, eons ago when there was some sanity and there weren't lawyers laying eggs in the bowels of every building, that making mistakes was part of growing up. Nowadays, one little slip and you may as well kiss the rest of your life goodbye.
Yes, it is frivolous. Lots of people go through hell in school --- maybe all of them. This kid needed to suck it up and get on with his life. But no. The only way of dealing with ANYTHING anymore is to drag someone into the courtroom. Out-fucking-rageous. I'm tempted to nail the door shut, draw the curtains, and never interact with people again. I might get sued, you know.
So what you are saying is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to roach distribution? Interesting. I guess that implies that all available space in the universe will ultimately be populated by roaches.