1. Nope, no partisan name calling here. I called you a libertarian (the political ideology) not a Libertarian (the political party). Jerry Pournelle, the Republican (the party, as opposed to republicans, those who support a republic as a form of government), would likely agree with this statement, as the official party line of the Republicans tends to be fiscally libertarian (as opposed to their social policies, which tend to be morally fascist). Of course, while Republicans talk a good game, they can spend tax money as well as anybody else, as we've seen lately...
2. One would probably identify the Constitution as the primary document establishing the social contract, for the U.S. anyways. You could add to it the body of statutes, regulations, case law, etc., but the idea of a social contract is more of a metaphorical construct. It's the rules we establish so (ideally) we can all live with each other without killing each other. It's the expectation we have of what our government will do to serve it's citizens.
What I wrote is not just the *stated purpose* of government, it is *the purpose* of government. The fact that said purpose can be and often is perverted for other means does not change this. As I stated before, a government that recuses itself from conducting said duties will ultimately lose legitimacy with its citizenry and, given the proper circumstances, will be replaced (think regime change...).
Once again to re-state my previous point, the size of government is related to 2 things:
a. size of population
b. services provided
So naturally, as population increases over time, the size of government will tend to increase, even if no new services are implemented, however it should stay fairly constant as a percentage of the GDP. However, the idea that no new services will be implemented for from the government is ludicrous. There will be highway and other public works projects, welfare, social security, farm subsidies, whatever. Generally speaking, the government doesn't just come up with these ideas as an employment program for more government employees. They come about because somebody or some group asks for/demands it. As standards of living increase, so do expectations. And in the end, the result is/may be/probably will be more government employees.
Now, back to the point. What I invited you to prove is your little truism:
The purpose of government is to employ more government employees.
Because while a nice soundbite, your statement is simplistic, meaningless, and false. Your taking a fact (government tends to increase over time, which is bascially true) and assigning a bullshit reason to it (that that's it's purpose). But I guess you'd know that if you hadn't slept through 10th grade, as then maybe you would have made it to college where you might have taken a real poli sci course and actually learned something.
Because it is an incorrect assumption based on a particular ideological belief usually associated with those who reside on the libertarian portion of the political spectrum. I'd like to see you prove where this is so clearly demonstrated in history instead of just repeating what your party leaders tell you.
The purpose of government is to enforce a social contract. Who is party to developing that contract and who it benefits vary from nation to nation, but generally that contract defines somewhat how are actions relate to one another and how that nation will act in relation to other nations in the world.
When the legitimacy of the government to wield the power it has is sufficiently called into question, and there is sufficient force (force not necessarily being the use of a gun or other weapon, although most often it is), then the government is changed. The history of most revolutions is that they tend to produce more bureaucratic forms of government and a centralization of power, but that is not the same as saying that the purpose of government is to employ more people - bureaucratization and centralization is not synonymous with an increase in size. Size of government tends to relate more to national population and programs and services provided by the government (regardless of whether you think those programs are beneficial, effective, or legitimate). You're confusing results with purpose.
Or at least until they move to their "Trusted Computing/Untrusted User" platform, after which you probably won't be able to run anything at all in it if you don't update it, as that could compromise their efforts to protect the computer (and MS, the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc) from you.
Doesn't MS-Word actually already run in a semi-interpreted Java-like language they developed back in the early 90's?
If I recall correctly, the whole MS Office suite of apps (or at least the Word/Excel/Powerpoint portion thereof) do fork off from a set of shared code that was the evil incarnation known as Word 5 (or was it 6?) et al. You know, the version most Mac users still refer to in horror as "Office for Windows for Mac". From what I understand, the codebases for the respective platforms are now pretty much completely seperate, although I would guess that some of that bastard code still lurks...probably what makes it so damn slow and crash all of the time.
Of course, I'm probably just being bitter because no matter how many times I reinstall Office X, I still get freakin' "shared library [insert obscure alpha-numeric code of choice] can not be found" errors upon launching Excel.
What I meant in terms of the "I feel for him" is the apparent disparity between what you had inferred were his views and your own, and my own experiences with my family. I can only hope that you are more understanding with him then my family has been. I've been virtually disowned by most of the fam', mostly because I decided I wasn't going to sit back and listen to them berate me without any sort of discussion or understanding (my grandmother's favorite response: "Why do you always have to be so contrary?"). While I am very strong in my beliefs and make no apologies for them, I am generally willing to listen and discuss, and agree to disagree (hence my original "half apology": I apologized for the tone, not for the beliefs underlying it). Hence also my disdain for the typically "are not/are too" arguments.
Oh, and glad to hear you shop at Gentle Strength. Wild Oats/Whole Foods suck. Tip if you didn't already know it: Tuesday is member day (10% off).
Necessary vs. inconvenient is a line almost as difficult to draw as need vs. want. I try to draw the line as strict as possible. For example, in my moving scenario, it would not be possible to move my stuff without a truck. I'm moving to Tucson (going to back to school in the fall), and the desk, bed, and table would be rather tough to carry. Although I could probably get the rest of it in a couple of trips...
And I'll give ya that 40 miles a day on a bike would be a bit much, although it's still within the realm of possibility. I ain't budging on the truck though. Deal.:)
Thanks for the offer on the moving assistance. Better be careful - I may just take you up on it.
As far as the camping goes - Superstition Wilderness, baby. Boulder Canyon (sort of just south-ish of Canyon Lake). Best time of year to hike there - hot as hell, so no people...they're all up north.
Glad to hear you're making some effort to acclimate to the valley. No, I don't turn off my AC in the office, although I wish I could, as I spend most of my time freezing my bloody ass off, and I usually keep my apartment AC at around 85-90. Having grown up in a house in Phoenix with no air conditioning (it was quite the event when my dad put in the swamp cooler when I was five or so...), I've found it to be not at all uncomfortable. And I would agree with your point that it makes going outside a lot more comfortable when there isn't the large temperature differential.
And I would also agree with your point that Phoenix drivers are not exactly the most friendly in the world (yes, the understatement of the year). But Boston drivers are still a heck of a lot worse...
And now to go all Sierra Club on your ass:
To make a blanket statement like "But if you drove just once, then take it all back" is a pretty weak position. It's not about "Thou must never drive", it's about "Thou must drive only when necessary". So yeah, I'm moving in a few weeks and I'll rent a truck to move my stuff. If I'm going out of town camping, I'll rent a car if need be to get me there.
And no, you piss off about the truck. Escpecially since you apparently "need" a truck because you may on occasion have to go and pick up a TV or PVC pipe, but in the meantime you're driving around in a vehicle that is total overkill for a daily commute. You drive a truck because you want a truck, because you feel cooler driving a truck, and on occasion you may actually need a truck. You and about a million other selfish people in this city.
And biking doesn't "suck". You're lazy. I don't have a car and I bike by choice, not because I can't afford a car.
Finally, I'm barely a "twenty-something" and look forward to very soon being a "thirty-something" still enjoying all the "sucking fun".
Living in and being from Tempe, AZ (for the non-locals, a suburb), this is exactly the kind of attitude that really irks me.
1.) Yes, it is hot here. As far as I know, it was hot here 500 years ago, it was hot here 27 years ago when I was a little kid, and guess what, it's going to be hot again tomorrow. If you didn't know this before you moved here, then we have bigger issues to deal with. Oh, and don't believe that "it's a dry heat" BS. IT'S HOT. Turn off your wussy AC and get used to it or move. Just don't move to Flagstaff: we don't need any more people up there.
2.) While I myself do not ride twenty miles to work, I do ride just shy of nine, and I am no where near challenging Lance Armstrong in the next Tour. In fact, one of the reasons I started riding a bike to work is because I was sick of being athletically challenged. So give it a try.
3.) While it is lacking in oh so many ways, there is public transportation here, and trust me, it has improved tremendously in the past five years. Give it a try. You can even take that bike you purchased in #2 and put it on the front of the bus, so you can bike part way and bus part way to work.
Oh, and if you live too far out to ride the bus...then move closer. Freakin' sprawling housing developments should all be razed anyways.
4.) And finally, if you decide you absolutely have to drive then get rid of that gas guzzling POS and get a commuter car, you know - something that will consume less than 3-4 gallons of gas each day.
I half apologize for the tone of my rant, but as somebody born and raised in Arizona, who has split his time mostly between Flagstaff and the lesser Phoenix area (as it is now becoming), I really get upset about people who move here and then feel they need to terraform it so that it looks and feels like some crappy SoCal or Jersey suburb, rather then taking the time to adapt to their new surroundings. Having now spent the three of the last four years living around the country before moving back here, I am only more certain that Arizona is one of the most beautiful states in the country, and I wish that people moving here (something that I have mixed feelings about) would really takt the time to move here and live here and love it here.
1. Brushed Metal is not nearly as elegant as the aqua interface, especially is you've applied the smooth aqua them that destroys the stupid pinstripes that seem to make everything look blurry. Personally, I would probably not be as opposed to it if they'd get rid of the brushed portion of it, but that's just me.
2. It's being done in a totally half assed way. The whole "some things are brushed metal, somethings are not" reminds me too much of running windows (or most X desktops) where it seems the standard UI is whatever the app developers want to do. When it was just a few apps that made sense (ie, quicktime or itunes) to be brushed, it wasn't that bad. Then they came up with the UI guidelines for what should be brushed, and of course Apple was the first major developer to throw that out the window. Reallt it is getting to the point where Apple's just got to go with one or the other, or give users a choice.
2a. alot of the interface elements just don't look right with the brushed metal. Looking at the finder screenshots sans the places section and the toolbar, the window looks really odd.
3. Brushed Metal (as implemented) wastes a LOT of space. It's quite inefficient.
Personally, I'm not too worried about it, as I figure somebody will have a hack out by the time of Panther's release that will strip the Brushed Metal. Then Apple will break the hack. And then somebody will come out with a new hack...I think you get the idea.
It would seem to me though that this is one of the benefits of the service - you choose whether or not to sign them up. If you feel that you'd end up spending hours each week troubleshooting their setup, then don't sign them up.
Heck, you could even give them a test they have to pass before you'll sign them on.
The Jews called it the Torah long before those pesky Christians came along with their less than stellar sequel and decided to re-name it the "Old Testament" to better fit their marketing plan.
Re:"things well understood by the slashdot crowd..
on
Does Google = God?
·
· Score: 1
How about the proper spelling of usage?
If you're going to correct somebody else, make sure that you aren't going to make some silly mistake. You know, the whole casting stones thing...
Oh, and you forgot to correct the spelling of disseminate.
Free press does nothing to eliminate rumors and establish truth. All it does is allow anybody to chime in with their two cents and add more to the abundance of half-truths and lies (and rare truths as well) circling the globe.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for free speech. It's just that it does nothing of what you are claiming. All one has to do is look at the explosion of the internet - has it helped increase the amount of so-called "truth" in the world? No. There's a lot of great stuff floating around out there, but let's be honest: most of it is shit.
The point of a free press is (as you alluded to in your example) that nobody can control the shit (and information) available to you. So you're free to read and subscribe to the views of the NYT, BBC, or even the Neo-Nazi Weekly if that's what floats your boat. There's no guarantee that the information you get is going to be of any better quality, no matter how much we would like it to be. If you think otherwise, then please explain to me the popularity of Britney Spears, N' Sync, et al.
I'm not confused about anything. I fully agree that my right to free speech is contingent upon you having that same right, and whether I agree with you or not (as I surely do not in this case) I would do nothing to infringe upon your right.
I think where we fundamentally disagree is on what a corporation is.
The law treats a corporation primarily as you have described it: it is a collection of individuals, and inherits the rights of those individuals, gaining personhood in that process.
But a corporation is not a person: it is a thing. It is a piece of property, the result of the efforts of many individuals who have worked to create it, as evidenced by the fact that you, and many others, own pieces of that property. Property does not have rights. But people who own property do.
So while I have no problem with say, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or whomever, lobbying for laws that would benefit the companies they work for, using their own personal wealth, versus Apple Computer or Microsoft or whatever other corporation using corporate funds to do the same thing.
And on a final note, I do understand as well that the right of free speech does not guarantee the right to be heard. My issue is primarily that speech is too often equated with wealth, which, particularly in relation to political speech, I feel is dangerous. It skews the debate over issues, allowing those with wealth too often to dictate the scope of debate and narrowing the spectrum of ideas. Of course, here's the real kicker: how do you compensate for that in such a way that one does not infringe on the free speech of those with wealth (who I would argue are infringing on the free speech of those without)? I don't have a great answer for that. In terms of political campaigns, contribution limits seem fine to me. Other limits that have been instituted or proposed as campaign finance reform I'm not so fond of, and I don't think that even if they were legal and/or moral, they would have the intended impact of the reformers.
Now, if there's anything that you have failed to understand or are confused about, please feel free to ask.
to deny rights to corporations is to deny rights to individuals
More correctly, to grant rights to corporations is to weaken the rights of individuals.
Due to wealth and size, corporations have the ability to impact and influence issues far more easily then any individual. A perfect example is the SLAPP (Strategis Lawsuits Against Public Participation) suit. These suits are generally baseless countersuits launched by corporations against non-profit organizations or individuals who speak out against, sue, or press charges against corporations who have violated the law or acted unethically, and the only purpose of these suits is to bankrupt the corporation's opponents until they shut up. So tell me how this benefits individual rights.
Another good example is the influence of said corporations on the political systems, internationally and particularly here in the U.S.
The travesty here is that coporations are able to act like 800 pound gorillas in the public arena fue to their equal standing as "individuals" and the fact that so much of what passes for "justice" and "speech" is really just exercising one's wealth. And the loser in this system is the individual.
Just like calling somebody something doesn't make them that thing. There was very little that was socialist about the Nazis just as there is very little that is truly communist about China.
I highly doubt that this will have any real impact on the importance of advertising - it'll just open up new avenues and ways for companies to advertise their wares. For example, for years clothing companies have been hiring the trendsetting kids to be their real-life product placement ads in their local schools, realizing that this is one of the most sure-fire ways to build their "street cred". It has worked fairly well in the chase to capture that lucrative teenage market (a good reference - No Logo by Naomi Klein). What's to stop them from co-opting opinion sites for those same purposes?
As I read this I found myself mostly in agreement until...
but refraining from giving overall OPINION, and sticking with OVERALL fact
You speak as if "facts" were some pure and knowable thing, freed from bias. I think this has been the thing that has most plagued the teaching of history, particularly US history, particularly at the primary and secondary levels. Because there are no facts devoid of bias, and even if we were able to boil the teaching of history down to "just the facts", we would be in a worse situation then we are now. Already history is generally rated as HS students' least favorite subject, and largely because it is taught as a series of dates and names to be memorized without any greater coherent meaning. But the minute you start to show that meaning (or more, correctly, meanings), you start to inject increasing levels of bias. In the past, that bias was almost universally of the "my country, right or...well, we're always right" sort, as history was generally viewed as a tool to teach nationalism. More recently, that history has been subject to various interest-group and sectional whims - ie, up until fairly recently, the Civil War was almost always taught (outside of the South) as being about slavery, which is the more correct interpretation of events, as historical evidence show. However, in the last half century or so, the more commonly given reason is "states' rights."
One of the first thing you learn in studying historiography is that bias is inherent in the writing of history - it is in the facts we choose to use and choose not to use, and the interpretation of those facts. The key is to understand the author's bias, which should be stated at the beginning of the work.
So what's the solution? The elimination of bias is an impossible goal, and teaching "just the facts" just plain sucks. I think the key is to teach history as it is - a fascinating field wher most questions have more than one answer. Instead of eliminating bias, minimize it by teaching multiple viewpoints and helping students recognize and understand bias, and ultimately come to their own conclusions.
And don't bother teaching facts or anecdotes that have no meaning or context. To answer the question of is it important to know that Lincoln prosecuted slaves, that Washington was a slave owner, or that most colonists were Loyalists? Yes and no. If that's all you have to say about it, it's probably best lest unsaid. But if it's part of a larger discussion that leads to better understanding, then yes.
As far as I am aware, the American Revolution was in large part fought over the issues of class-based society
Actually, the American Revolution had little if anything to do with class-based society. It was about the legitimacy of being governed by a country thousands of miles away without any input by the governed. Most of the rhetoric about equality, etc. was to recruit those who really saw little to gain from the revolution (ie the poor, who didn't see much difference between an English master and an American).
The U.S. has always been a class-based society, and continues to be one today. While the barriers to upward mobility are more flexible than in many other countries, they still exist and many (particularly those on top) continue to fight to uphold and even strengthen those barriers.
Re:Theres no scientific proof for any of this.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
And I would totally agree that Ritalin and all the other "wonder drugs" are vastly over-prescribed. I have known people who couldn't deal with their depression/anxiety/whatever and were just looking to take the easy way out instead of dealing with their problems. But I've also seen people who without the aid of medication would probably not be able to function well enough to even begin to be able to deal with their problems. I guess my point is that it seems too many people posting here are quick to discount even the possibility that this could be a medical condition just because it's a recently identified disorder, spouting BS like "Well I was a hyperactive little kid and I grew out of it and look at me now!" without even realizing that being hyperactive is not the same as being ADD/ADHD. I mean, I have trouble breathing sometimes - does that make me asthmatic? (The answer is no I am not, but following the logic of some here that would be the obvious conclusion).
My whole initial post was meant to show that you could substitute almost any scientific discovery for ADD/ADHD in the original posters rant and it would be quite historically accurate. I'm not defending pharmaceutical companies (I personally think they're all a bunch of greedy bastards and they can fry in hell, but hey, whatever floats your boat) and I'm not even necessarily saying that ADHD is real (although I believe it is). All I'm saying is that the logic being batted around here seems to deny it exists without even really giving it a moment's consideration. Which seems to me to be a very anti-scientific attitude for/.
But hey, to each their own I guess. I need to get back to my usual role of cursing the evils of modern technology now......oh, and lobotomies were definitely a fucked up idea from the beginning if you ask me...
Re:Theres no scientific proof for any of this.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
You obviously missed the point. At one point in time people didn't believe in bacteria. Then somebody pointed out theat it was real, and caused lots of problems like disease and infection, and people still didn't believe in bacteria, and then they were proven to be dumb.
I think the parallel is quite clear. As I posted elsewhere, our understanding of the human mind and how it works is still very limited. So the debate rages - is ADHD real or not?
Or maybe you were just trying to be funny...
Re:Theres no scientific proof for any of this.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Theres no scientific proof that bacteria even exists. This is all experienced based. People with bacteria reporting to so called experts, experts watching people with bacteria and conducting studies and tests.
Sound about right?
Re:About the MRI and so called studies.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
You can say I'm speaking bullshit but this is absolute fact, everything I say can be backed up by facts
OK, so back it up. We're all waiting.
OK, while you're doing that, here's some facts for you. Our understanding of how the brain works is still incredibly limited. Our understanding of ADD and ADHD and what causes them is limited. For every "fact" you dig up I'm willing to bet that there's a contradicting fact. Almost everything you have stated so far ranges from being a hypothesis to your unsubstantiated opinion.
The one thing I will concede is that drugs really are not the best solution for treating ADD/ADHD. They don't deal with the underlying problem, they mitigate the symptoms to enable people to live with their disorder. I've always felt that doctors in general are too quick to prescribe the latest wonder drug instead of actually taking the time to actually treat the disease. I think drugs should be used only in the truly "untreatable" cases or as a temporary measureto treat the symptoms while working to actually cure the disease. But hell, I guess that's just my opinion.
Re:"Actively searching for new suppliers"?
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 1
That works for me. Just like it's legal to kill somebody in self defense but illegal to kill somebody to steal their wallet - circumstances define the legality of the action. What in one situation is a barrier to entry in another situation is not.
In other words, blah blah blah words words words blah blah I'm tired and want to go home blah blah blah have a swell day:)
Slashdot Mirror
1. Nope, no partisan name calling here. I called you a libertarian (the political ideology) not a Libertarian (the political party). Jerry Pournelle, the Republican (the party, as opposed to republicans, those who support a republic as a form of government), would likely agree with this statement, as the official party line of the Republicans tends to be fiscally libertarian (as opposed to their social policies, which tend to be morally fascist). Of course, while Republicans talk a good game, they can spend tax money as well as anybody else, as we've seen lately...
2. One would probably identify the Constitution as the primary document establishing the social contract, for the U.S. anyways. You could add to it the body of statutes, regulations, case law, etc., but the idea of a social contract is more of a metaphorical construct. It's the rules we establish so (ideally) we can all live with each other without killing each other. It's the expectation we have of what our government will do to serve it's citizens.
What I wrote is not just the *stated purpose* of government, it is *the purpose* of government. The fact that said purpose can be and often is perverted for other means does not change this. As I stated before, a government that recuses itself from conducting said duties will ultimately lose legitimacy with its citizenry and, given the proper circumstances, will be replaced (think regime change...).
Once again to re-state my previous point, the size of government is related to 2 things:
a. size of population
b. services provided
So naturally, as population increases over time, the size of government will tend to increase, even if no new services are implemented, however it should stay fairly constant as a percentage of the GDP. However, the idea that no new services will be implemented for from the government is ludicrous. There will be highway and other public works projects, welfare, social security, farm subsidies, whatever. Generally speaking, the government doesn't just come up with these ideas as an employment program for more government employees. They come about because somebody or some group asks for/demands it. As standards of living increase, so do expectations. And in the end, the result is/may be/probably will be more government employees.
Now, back to the point. What I invited you to prove is your little truism:
The purpose of government is to employ more government employees.
Because while a nice soundbite, your statement is simplistic, meaningless, and false. Your taking a fact (government tends to increase over time, which is bascially true) and assigning a bullshit reason to it (that that's it's purpose). But I guess you'd know that if you hadn't slept through 10th grade, as then maybe you would have made it to college where you might have taken a real poli sci course and actually learned something.
Because it is an incorrect assumption based on a particular ideological belief usually associated with those who reside on the libertarian portion of the political spectrum. I'd like to see you prove where this is so clearly demonstrated in history instead of just repeating what your party leaders tell you.
The purpose of government is to enforce a social contract. Who is party to developing that contract and who it benefits vary from nation to nation, but generally that contract defines somewhat how are actions relate to one another and how that nation will act in relation to other nations in the world.
When the legitimacy of the government to wield the power it has is sufficiently called into question, and there is sufficient force (force not necessarily being the use of a gun or other weapon, although most often it is), then the government is changed. The history of most revolutions is that they tend to produce more bureaucratic forms of government and a centralization of power, but that is not the same as saying that the purpose of government is to employ more people - bureaucratization and centralization is not synonymous with an increase in size. Size of government tends to relate more to national population and programs and services provided by the government (regardless of whether you think those programs are beneficial, effective, or legitimate). You're confusing results with purpose.
Lesson over. Now go read a book.
Or at least until they move to their "Trusted Computing/Untrusted User" platform, after which you probably won't be able to run anything at all in it if you don't update it, as that could compromise their efforts to protect the computer (and MS, the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc) from you.
Doesn't MS-Word actually already run in a semi-interpreted Java-like language they developed back in the early 90's?
If I recall correctly, the whole MS Office suite of apps (or at least the Word/Excel/Powerpoint portion thereof) do fork off from a set of shared code that was the evil incarnation known as Word 5 (or was it 6?) et al. You know, the version most Mac users still refer to in horror as "Office for Windows for Mac". From what I understand, the codebases for the respective platforms are now pretty much completely seperate, although I would guess that some of that bastard code still lurks...probably what makes it so damn slow and crash all of the time.
Of course, I'm probably just being bitter because no matter how many times I reinstall Office X, I still get freakin' "shared library [insert obscure alpha-numeric code of choice] can not be found" errors upon launching Excel.
What I meant in terms of the "I feel for him" is the apparent disparity between what you had inferred were his views and your own, and my own experiences with my family. I can only hope that you are more understanding with him then my family has been. I've been virtually disowned by most of the fam', mostly because I decided I wasn't going to sit back and listen to them berate me without any sort of discussion or understanding (my grandmother's favorite response: "Why do you always have to be so contrary?"). While I am very strong in my beliefs and make no apologies for them, I am generally willing to listen and discuss, and agree to disagree (hence my original "half apology": I apologized for the tone, not for the beliefs underlying it). Hence also my disdain for the typically "are not/are too" arguments.
:)
Oh, and glad to hear you shop at Gentle Strength. Wild Oats/Whole Foods suck. Tip if you didn't already know it: Tuesday is member day (10% off).
Necessary vs. inconvenient is a line almost as difficult to draw as need vs. want. I try to draw the line as strict as possible. For example, in my moving scenario, it would not be possible to move my stuff without a truck. I'm moving to Tucson (going to back to school in the fall), and the desk, bed, and table would be rather tough to carry. Although I could probably get the rest of it in a couple of trips...
And I'll give ya that 40 miles a day on a bike would be a bit much, although it's still within the realm of possibility. I ain't budging on the truck though. Deal.
Thanks for the offer on the moving assistance. Better be careful - I may just take you up on it.
As far as the camping goes - Superstition Wilderness, baby. Boulder Canyon (sort of just south-ish of Canyon Lake). Best time of year to hike there - hot as hell, so no people...they're all up north.
p.s. - Sierra Clubbers rock!
First where we agree:
Glad to hear you're making some effort to acclimate to the valley. No, I don't turn off my AC in the office, although I wish I could, as I spend most of my time freezing my bloody ass off, and I usually keep my apartment AC at around 85-90. Having grown up in a house in Phoenix with no air conditioning (it was quite the event when my dad put in the swamp cooler when I was five or so...), I've found it to be not at all uncomfortable. And I would agree with your point that it makes going outside a lot more comfortable when there isn't the large temperature differential.
And I would also agree with your point that Phoenix drivers are not exactly the most friendly in the world (yes, the understatement of the year). But Boston drivers are still a heck of a lot worse...
And now to go all Sierra Club on your ass:
To make a blanket statement like "But if you drove just once, then take it all back" is a pretty weak position. It's not about "Thou must never drive", it's about "Thou must drive only when necessary". So yeah, I'm moving in a few weeks and I'll rent a truck to move my stuff. If I'm going out of town camping, I'll rent a car if need be to get me there.
And no, you piss off about the truck. Escpecially since you apparently "need" a truck because you may on occasion have to go and pick up a TV or PVC pipe, but in the meantime you're driving around in a vehicle that is total overkill for a daily commute. You drive a truck because you want a truck, because you feel cooler driving a truck, and on occasion you may actually need a truck. You and about a million other selfish people in this city.
And biking doesn't "suck". You're lazy. I don't have a car and I bike by choice, not because I can't afford a car.
Finally, I'm barely a "twenty-something" and look forward to very soon being a "thirty-something" still enjoying all the "sucking fun".
Give my condolences to your son. I feel for him.
Living in and being from Tempe, AZ (for the non-locals, a suburb), this is exactly the kind of attitude that really irks me.
1.) Yes, it is hot here. As far as I know, it was hot here 500 years ago, it was hot here 27 years ago when I was a little kid, and guess what, it's going to be hot again tomorrow. If you didn't know this before you moved here, then we have bigger issues to deal with. Oh, and don't believe that "it's a dry heat" BS. IT'S HOT. Turn off your wussy AC and get used to it or move. Just don't move to Flagstaff: we don't need any more people up there.
2.) While I myself do not ride twenty miles to work, I do ride just shy of nine, and I am no where near challenging Lance Armstrong in the next Tour. In fact, one of the reasons I started riding a bike to work is because I was sick of being athletically challenged. So give it a try.
3.) While it is lacking in oh so many ways, there is public transportation here, and trust me, it has improved tremendously in the past five years. Give it a try. You can even take that bike you purchased in #2 and put it on the front of the bus, so you can bike part way and bus part way to work.
Oh, and if you live too far out to ride the bus...then move closer. Freakin' sprawling housing developments should all be razed anyways.
4.) And finally, if you decide you absolutely have to drive then get rid of that gas guzzling POS and get a commuter car, you know - something that will consume less than 3-4 gallons of gas each day.
I half apologize for the tone of my rant, but as somebody born and raised in Arizona, who has split his time mostly between Flagstaff and the lesser Phoenix area (as it is now becoming), I really get upset about people who move here and then feel they need to terraform it so that it looks and feels like some crappy SoCal or Jersey suburb, rather then taking the time to adapt to their new surroundings. Having now spent the three of the last four years living around the country before moving back here, I am only more certain that Arizona is one of the most beautiful states in the country, and I wish that people moving here (something that I have mixed feelings about) would really takt the time to move here and live here and love it here.
Actually, both 195.3% and 95.3% are correct, depending on how it is phrased:
...or something like that.
1.) it is 95.3% greater than...
2.) it is 195.3% of...
Mac users also generally know how to spell Muad'Dib
1. Brushed Metal is not nearly as elegant as the aqua interface, especially is you've applied the smooth aqua them that destroys the stupid pinstripes that seem to make everything look blurry. Personally, I would probably not be as opposed to it if they'd get rid of the brushed portion of it, but that's just me.
2. It's being done in a totally half assed way. The whole "some things are brushed metal, somethings are not" reminds me too much of running windows (or most X desktops) where it seems the standard UI is whatever the app developers want to do. When it was just a few apps that made sense (ie, quicktime or itunes) to be brushed, it wasn't that bad. Then they came up with the UI guidelines for what should be brushed, and of course Apple was the first major developer to throw that out the window. Reallt it is getting to the point where Apple's just got to go with one or the other, or give users a choice.
2a. alot of the interface elements just don't look right with the brushed metal. Looking at the finder screenshots sans the places section and the toolbar, the window looks really odd.
3. Brushed Metal (as implemented) wastes a LOT of space. It's quite inefficient.
Personally, I'm not too worried about it, as I figure somebody will have a hack out by the time of Panther's release that will strip the Brushed Metal. Then Apple will break the hack. And then somebody will come out with a new hack...I think you get the idea.
It would seem to me though that this is one of the benefits of the service - you choose whether or not to sign them up. If you feel that you'd end up spending hours each week troubleshooting their setup, then don't sign them up.
Heck, you could even give them a test they have to pass before you'll sign them on.
The Jews called it the Torah long before those pesky Christians came along with their less than stellar sequel and decided to re-name it the "Old Testament" to better fit their marketing plan.
How about the proper spelling of usage?
If you're going to correct somebody else, make sure that you aren't going to make some silly mistake. You know, the whole casting stones thing...
Oh, and you forgot to correct the spelling of disseminate.
Wow, that's a bit of irrational optimism.
Free press does nothing to eliminate rumors and establish truth. All it does is allow anybody to chime in with their two cents and add more to the abundance of half-truths and lies (and rare truths as well) circling the globe.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for free speech. It's just that it does nothing of what you are claiming. All one has to do is look at the explosion of the internet - has it helped increase the amount of so-called "truth" in the world? No. There's a lot of great stuff floating around out there, but let's be honest: most of it is shit.
The point of a free press is (as you alluded to in your example) that nobody can control the shit (and information) available to you. So you're free to read and subscribe to the views of the NYT, BBC, or even the Neo-Nazi Weekly if that's what floats your boat. There's no guarantee that the information you get is going to be of any better quality, no matter how much we would like it to be. If you think otherwise, then please explain to me the popularity of Britney Spears, N' Sync, et al.
I'm not confused about anything. I fully agree that my right to free speech is contingent upon you having that same right, and whether I agree with you or not (as I surely do not in this case) I would do nothing to infringe upon your right.
I think where we fundamentally disagree is on what a corporation is.
The law treats a corporation primarily as you have described it: it is a collection of individuals, and inherits the rights of those individuals, gaining personhood in that process.
But a corporation is not a person: it is a thing. It is a piece of property, the result of the efforts of many individuals who have worked to create it, as evidenced by the fact that you, and many others, own pieces of that property. Property does not have rights. But people who own property do.
So while I have no problem with say, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or whomever, lobbying for laws that would benefit the companies they work for, using their own personal wealth, versus Apple Computer or Microsoft or whatever other corporation using corporate funds to do the same thing.
And on a final note, I do understand as well that the right of free speech does not guarantee the right to be heard. My issue is primarily that speech is too often equated with wealth, which, particularly in relation to political speech, I feel is dangerous. It skews the debate over issues, allowing those with wealth too often to dictate the scope of debate and narrowing the spectrum of ideas. Of course, here's the real kicker: how do you compensate for that in such a way that one does not infringe on the free speech of those with wealth (who I would argue are infringing on the free speech of those without)? I don't have a great answer for that. In terms of political campaigns, contribution limits seem fine to me. Other limits that have been instituted or proposed as campaign finance reform I'm not so fond of, and I don't think that even if they were legal and/or moral, they would have the intended impact of the reformers.
Now, if there's anything that you have failed to understand or are confused about, please feel free to ask.
to deny rights to corporations is to deny rights to individuals
More correctly, to grant rights to corporations is to weaken the rights of individuals.
Due to wealth and size, corporations have the ability to impact and influence issues far more easily then any individual. A perfect example is the SLAPP (Strategis Lawsuits Against Public Participation) suit. These suits are generally baseless countersuits launched by corporations against non-profit organizations or individuals who speak out against, sue, or press charges against corporations who have violated the law or acted unethically, and the only purpose of these suits is to bankrupt the corporation's opponents until they shut up. So tell me how this benefits individual rights.
Another good example is the influence of said corporations on the political systems, internationally and particularly here in the U.S.
The travesty here is that coporations are able to act like 800 pound gorillas in the public arena fue to their equal standing as "individuals" and the fact that so much of what passes for "justice" and "speech" is really just exercising one's wealth. And the loser in this system is the individual.
Just like calling somebody something doesn't make them that thing. There was very little that was socialist about the Nazis just as there is very little that is truly communist about China.
I highly doubt that this will have any real impact on the importance of advertising - it'll just open up new avenues and ways for companies to advertise their wares. For example, for years clothing companies have been hiring the trendsetting kids to be their real-life product placement ads in their local schools, realizing that this is one of the most sure-fire ways to build their "street cred". It has worked fairly well in the chase to capture that lucrative teenage market (a good reference - No Logo by Naomi Klein). What's to stop them from co-opting opinion sites for those same purposes?
As I read this I found myself mostly in agreement until...
but refraining from giving overall OPINION, and sticking with OVERALL fact
You speak as if "facts" were some pure and knowable thing, freed from bias. I think this has been the thing that has most plagued the teaching of history, particularly US history, particularly at the primary and secondary levels. Because there are no facts devoid of bias, and even if we were able to boil the teaching of history down to "just the facts", we would be in a worse situation then we are now. Already history is generally rated as HS students' least favorite subject, and largely because it is taught as a series of dates and names to be memorized without any greater coherent meaning. But the minute you start to show that meaning (or more, correctly, meanings), you start to inject increasing levels of bias. In the past, that bias was almost universally of the "my country, right or...well, we're always right" sort, as history was generally viewed as a tool to teach nationalism. More recently, that history has been subject to various interest-group and sectional whims - ie, up until fairly recently, the Civil War was almost always taught (outside of the South) as being about slavery, which is the more correct interpretation of events, as historical evidence show. However, in the last half century or so, the more commonly given reason is "states' rights."
One of the first thing you learn in studying historiography is that bias is inherent in the writing of history - it is in the facts we choose to use and choose not to use, and the interpretation of those facts. The key is to understand the author's bias, which should be stated at the beginning of the work.
So what's the solution? The elimination of bias is an impossible goal, and teaching "just the facts" just plain sucks. I think the key is to teach history as it is - a fascinating field wher most questions have more than one answer. Instead of eliminating bias, minimize it by teaching multiple viewpoints and helping students recognize and understand bias, and ultimately come to their own conclusions.
And don't bother teaching facts or anecdotes that have no meaning or context. To answer the question of is it important to know that Lincoln prosecuted slaves, that Washington was a slave owner, or that most colonists were Loyalists? Yes and no. If that's all you have to say about it, it's probably best lest unsaid. But if it's part of a larger discussion that leads to better understanding, then yes.
As far as I am aware, the American Revolution was in large part fought over the issues of class-based society
Actually, the American Revolution had little if anything to do with class-based society. It was about the legitimacy of being governed by a country thousands of miles away without any input by the governed. Most of the rhetoric about equality, etc. was to recruit those who really saw little to gain from the revolution (ie the poor, who didn't see much difference between an English master and an American).
The U.S. has always been a class-based society, and continues to be one today. While the barriers to upward mobility are more flexible than in many other countries, they still exist and many (particularly those on top) continue to fight to uphold and even strengthen those barriers.
And I would totally agree that Ritalin and all the other "wonder drugs" are vastly over-prescribed. I have known people who couldn't deal with their depression/anxiety/whatever and were just looking to take the easy way out instead of dealing with their problems. But I've also seen people who without the aid of medication would probably not be able to function well enough to even begin to be able to deal with their problems. I guess my point is that it seems too many people posting here are quick to discount even the possibility that this could be a medical condition just because it's a recently identified disorder, spouting BS like "Well I was a hyperactive little kid and I grew out of it and look at me now!" without even realizing that being hyperactive is not the same as being ADD/ADHD. I mean, I have trouble breathing sometimes - does that make me asthmatic? (The answer is no I am not, but following the logic of some here that would be the obvious conclusion).
/.
...oh, and lobotomies were definitely a fucked up idea from the beginning if you ask me...
My whole initial post was meant to show that you could substitute almost any scientific discovery for ADD/ADHD in the original posters rant and it would be quite historically accurate. I'm not defending pharmaceutical companies (I personally think they're all a bunch of greedy bastards and they can fry in hell, but hey, whatever floats your boat) and I'm not even necessarily saying that ADHD is real (although I believe it is). All I'm saying is that the logic being batted around here seems to deny it exists without even really giving it a moment's consideration. Which seems to me to be a very anti-scientific attitude for
But hey, to each their own I guess. I need to get back to my usual role of cursing the evils of modern technology now...
You obviously missed the point. At one point in time people didn't believe in bacteria. Then somebody pointed out theat it was real, and caused lots of problems like disease and infection, and people still didn't believe in bacteria, and then they were proven to be dumb.
I think the parallel is quite clear. As I posted elsewhere, our understanding of the human mind and how it works is still very limited. So the debate rages - is ADHD real or not?
Or maybe you were just trying to be funny...
Theres no scientific proof that bacteria even exists. This is all experienced based. People with bacteria reporting to so called experts, experts watching people with bacteria and conducting studies and tests.
Sound about right?
You can say I'm speaking bullshit but this is absolute fact, everything I say can be backed up by facts
OK, so back it up. We're all waiting.
OK, while you're doing that, here's some facts for you. Our understanding of how the brain works is still incredibly limited. Our understanding of ADD and ADHD and what causes them is limited. For every "fact" you dig up I'm willing to bet that there's a contradicting fact. Almost everything you have stated so far ranges from being a hypothesis to your unsubstantiated opinion.
The one thing I will concede is that drugs really are not the best solution for treating ADD/ADHD. They don't deal with the underlying problem, they mitigate the symptoms to enable people to live with their disorder. I've always felt that doctors in general are too quick to prescribe the latest wonder drug instead of actually taking the time to actually treat the disease. I think drugs should be used only in the truly "untreatable" cases or as a temporary measureto treat the symptoms while working to actually cure the disease. But hell, I guess that's just my opinion.
That works for me. Just like it's legal to kill somebody in self defense but illegal to kill somebody to steal their wallet - circumstances define the legality of the action. What in one situation is a barrier to entry in another situation is not.
:)
In other words, blah blah blah words words words blah blah I'm tired and want to go home blah blah blah have a swell day