Man, do/. users ever feel a slightly sickly sense of shame? The FIRST comment -- pointing out that there has been a number of pro-American leaders elected lately -- was insightful. And it gets modded "troll."
Why don't I ever see such blatant abuses when I am meta-moderating?
See, that alone for me would almost justify purchasing vista.
As I alluded to above, you can come *close* to this by using the "Favorites" folder. Put aliases to your favorite folders and files in there, then open the pane by using the button. As noted, though, the pane won't STAY open.
Ultimately, of course, what I'm really talking about here what the Mac's Finder has: A pane on the left-hand side that you can drag things into and out of willy-nilly to your heart's content. I certainly find plenty to criticize about the Finder, but for crying out loud, I don't understand why this concept has proven so elusive to Microsoft.
Apple: Any folder you want, a click away. Microsoft: Also any folder you want, as long as it's one of the five we've predetermined for you.
17 years (!) after Windows 95-style open-and-save dialog boxes debuted, and I still can't simply drag and drop the folders *I* want into and out of the "Places" bar. (Or change the "Other places" links, if I have that left-hand taskbar thingie enabled.)
In explorer, I can open the favorites in the left-hand pane by clicking the "favorites" button -- but there is no way to KEEP it permanently open. I have to click the favorites button every. single. time.
Open and save dialogs highlight the entire filename in the text entry field, despite the fact that 99 times out of 100, I don't want to change the extension.
etc etc etc.
- Alaska Jack
PS Using Windows XP pro. Don't know if these have changed in Vista.
Good points, and frankly I can't believe that everyone is being so civil, buried down here in the/. murk. But let me make a few points:
1. The fatality statistics you cite bolster MY point, not the original posters. When I read your post, I thought "Wait -- 900 civilian deaths? That's all?" Given the protracted period we are talking about, I thought it was a lot higher. And as the GP stated, there is simply a huge qualitative difference between a long-term war of attrition and a massive attack causing the deaths of 3,000 men, women and children.
2. I'm not belittling anything or anyone. Also, I think you are resorting to a sort of hyperbole -- i.e., "we treat the events of that day as being the most awful tragedy ever to occur" -- because you have a weak point here. I don't know a single person who would describe 9/11 that way. The world sees terrible tragedies every day. But there's a difference between, say, a natural disaster and a carefully planned, murderous attack on innocent civilians.
3. That kind of leads in to my last point. You write: "I believe that roughly ten times as many people die in car accidents on US roads each year than died on 9/11, for example." I hear that all the time. But it's ludicrously besides the point. When Japanese forces attacked Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt didn't appear before Congress and say "Well, yes, the attack was terrible. But let's not overreact. 10 times as many people die in car accidents every year. Let's tighten up highway safety standards, implement some tough drunk-driver laws, and start requiring seatbelts in all our cars. Once that is accomplished -- and of course after we address heart disease, unsafe working conditions and all the other leading causes of fatalities -- we will get around to addressing Pearl Harbor."
Well said yourself. As you may have noticed, some numbskull has already seen my original post, thought "Hmm, I don't agree with that," and modded me down.
I've actually thought that/. would be better if you *couldn't* mod down... only up. Eventually, all the good stuff would bubble up to the topanyway, right? And if you didn't like what you read, your only recourse would be to ignore it. What am I missing? Why wouldn't that be a better system?
- AJ
PS Another thought -- maybe/. should just go ahead and implement an "I don't agree with this, but I lack the intellectual firepower to argue with it" mod.
Wow, I'm not sure how to respond to this. You write: "I really think that the so-called emotional impact of that event was due to people choosing to let it impact them." Well, yes, just like any other event in life, from the birth of a child to the death of a loved one. No offense, but most people would suggest that it is normal to have an emotional reaction to the slaughter of 3,000 of your countrymen before your eyes.
I sincerely don't want to sound flippant, but your response tracks closely with the affect (pardon the jargon) displayed by people on a too-high dose of Xanax or Zoloft. Nothing bothers them -- even things that *should* bother them.
"An increase in funding for energy research will increase the rate at which new energy technology is discovered."
Respectfully, this is pure conjecture. Take batteries, for example. Millions and millions have been invested trying to develop better batteries, but the technology has basically been stagnant for a long time. No great leaps in battery technology are on the horizon.
One could also, I guess, make the argument that we already *have* better energy technology -- nuclear. We just don't use it, for assorted reasons.
Again, I appreciate your respectful discussion. But I stand by my point that simply asserting "We could solve the world's energy problems -- all we need is to spend more money on it" doesn't make it so.
I understand your point of view, and greatly respect the way the British have dealt with IRA thugs and other assorted murderous loonies. In that context, let me make two points.
1. If this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdom is accurate, the most deaths from a single terrorist attack were 270 from the Lockerbie plane bombing. If you can remember back to that instance, you remember the consternation, chaos and grief that caused. Now, to put it in perspective, imagine 10 or 11 of those bombings happening at once in the skies over Britain. Oh, also, the two tallest buildings in London, which happen to be at or near the center of your economic infrastructure, are demolished.
2. Relative to the U.S., residents of Great Britain are more able to "live [their lives] as normal" because Great Britain *already accepts* a greater level of government intrusion as "normal". In the U.S., we don't have videocameras everywhere (not yet, anyway). The question of whether or not the state has the ability to tell us we can't own firearm in our own homes is a matter of great debate, not a settled question. Etc. etc. etc.
This article http://www.espionageinfo.com/Ul-Vo/United-Kingdom-Counter-Terrorism-Policy.html also seems to dispute your contention. Excerpts: "Parliament... responded to the rise of fundamentalist religious terrorist groups by passing the Anti-Terrorism, Crime, and Security Act in 2001, an action that was criticized by many civilrights groups... After bombs exploded in two pubs in Birmingham... Parliament passed the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1974. The act allowed authorities to arrest suspected terrorists without a warrant and detain them for up to a week without filing charges against them. Suspected terrorists could also be deported from England to Northern Ireland. The policy of internment raised international criticism, as did the practice of "hooding," in which detainees would be isolated and forced to wear hoods over their heads. After an investigation by the European Commission of Human Rights in 1976, the practices of food and sleep deprivation, noise bombardment, forced standing at attention, and hooding were condemned by the body. Despite the commission's decision, the practices continued." etc.
Not trying to start a flame war. I just think the situation's more nuanced than you describe.
Ha ha, maybe you missed the part where I said I'm not a computer guy:^)
Seriously, I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to make the the suggestion. But to me, the page you linked to looks about the same as a what you'd get from the proverbial monkey banging on a keyboard. I might be able to change the color of an element, but I highly doubt I'd be able to create anything as sophisticated as a completely new layout.
I am good at some things. Computers aren't one of them.:^(
1. Are you an American? If so, fine. If not, let me explain something to you. Watching thousands of people die in a terrorist attack is certainly horrifying whoever you are. But when it's your own country attacked, and your own countrymen dying, it's different in a way that would have been impossible for me to articulate before 9/11. You only really understand when it happens to you. I don't mean to sound patronizing about this -- I didn't understand it either, before 9/11. Very few Americans did. Of course, I knew all about Pearl Harbor, for example; but I suddenly realized how Americans of the time *felt* when they saw those newsreels and heard the radio broadcasts. That's our "perspective."
2. There was no need to fight "over the last reserves of oil." Anyone with an elementary knowledge of economics can point out what laughable nonsense that is. The oil companies didn't want war, oil companies want *stability*. They make billions of dollars as it is -- war just throws a giant, unpredictable monkey wrench into things. The oil companies wanted to end the sanctions, and do business with Iraq. They didn't care that Saddam was an repressive dictator. Why would they? They cheerfully do business with dictatorships all the time.
3. "If there was the will, the USA could solve our energy problems permanently." This is laughably naive. Let me try recasting it. ""If there was the will, the USA could cure cancer." "If there was the will, the USA could achieve world piece." "If there was the will, the USA could invent a way to turn lead into gold." Researchers around the country are exploring new energy sources, as they have been for decades. I am not saying they couldn't use more money. What I am saying is that it is not a slam dunk that throwing more money at them will suddenly result in more or better inventions. Inventions and discoveries don't always work that way.
CmrTaco: I'm not a computer guy -- though I do learn a lot by reading/. -- so bear with me if this is a stupid question. What I've taken away from CSS Garden is that, through CSS, you can provide drastically different interfaces with the same content. Why couldn't Slashdot do something like that? Provide users with different ways of viewing the forums?
To be, by FAR the best forum interface ever is provided by Google Groups (in the "Tree View" mode). It's the only forum presentation I've ever seen that provides intuitive navigation from a left-hand pane, letting you see immediately where you are in the "tree". It is so superior, I am baffled as to why it hasn't been widely emulated. Other forums make you constantly go up to the top of the screen to see the hierarchy, which is obviously useless.
Where I'm going with this: I wonder if you'd ever consider approaching Google and asking them to share that code with you. I bet they'd do it -- it seems like a good, high-profile PR move for them. And what a huge boon for users. Man, Slashdot with a navigable left-pane hierarchy -- that would be a dream come true.
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here, so I'll just note that nothing you wrote contradicts what I wrote. Again, I've never met anyone who reacted with "mindless fury" about something so benign as a suggestion that the U.S. is not #1 in every single thing.
"Mindless fury" is a pretty strong term: It implies violence, or at least screaming and ranting. So here's a challenge. Go down to the mall, or a fair, or any place with a lot of people. Pose as a pollster or something. Suggest to people that the U.S. is not #1 in every single thing. See how many of them erupt in "mindless fury." I'd bet it would be somewhere south of 1 in 1,000.
"Mindless fury" is just a meaningless piece of hyperbole a person uses to describe how he or she thinks other people -- i.e., rubes and sheeple -- surely must react. Like I said, not helpful.
"The mindless fury with which many Americans react to any suggestion that the USA is not absolutely, positively #1 in every single way"
Unlike the previous commenter, I can't say I agree with you. I've never met a single American, let alone "many," who reacted with "mindless fury" to "any suggestion that the USA is not absolutely, positively #1 in every single way".
For that matter, I've never met any American who reacted with "mindless fury" to any suggestion, period.
Perhaps you were exaggerating to make a point, but I don't think that's helpful in discussions like these, where we're talking about stereotypes and such. Your comment just seems like more of the same.
I actually think you could accomplish this by doing away with negative mods altogether, and increasing the positive "ceiling" -- to, say, 10 or 15. Wouldn't this work, or am I missing something?
"Suppose some guy stands on a street corner every day for a year with a large sign that says "Impeach Bush". Now suppose the police make a rule that he can only say "Impeach Bush" exactly once a year (WHEN) and he can only say it in an email directly to Bush (HOW). According to you, there's no difference. In both cases, the guy was allowed to express his opinion."
Nice try, but wrong. Here's the train of thought.
1. Absolutely unrestricted speech/behavior has some severe drawbacks. (Yelling fire in a crowded building, libel, etc.)
2. On the other hand, we don't want to restrict the free flow of ideas.
3. So we decide that what restrictions we place on speech must be limited and reasonable.
4. Q: Oh yeah? Who decides what is "reasonable"? You?
5. A: No. That's what we have judges for.
A judge is someone with no interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of any particular scenario. Their sole responsibility is to ask "Are the restrictions in question limited and reasonable?"
Naturally that puts the decision in the hands of a human being, and is thus prone to error. But it's the best we can do.
"If a few extra minutes of everyone's time meant that this guy got what he really really wanted, I don't see the problem."
Interesting. I see so many problems with this -- philosophical and practical -- it's difficult to know where to begin. First of all, it's MY time. What gives him the right to hijack it? Multiply the time by the number of people in the room, and you've stolen hundreds of man-hours.
Second, your theory of "intensity of desire" is legally quite novel. I don't find the woman walking outside particularly attractive. But if I find her REALLY REALLY attractive, would that make it OK to conk her over the head and take her home? No? Ok, what if I found her REALLY REALLY REALLY attractive?
The "contract" is actually between the speaker and the host -- in this case, the University. The speaker agrees to come to campus. In return, the host agrees to maintain and enforce certain forum rules. If they did not do this, the speaker would not agree to come to campus, and everyone loses: The speaker loses an audience, the host loses an opportunity for education (their reason for existence), and the audience loses a chance to learn.
"Doesn't it bother you just a little to have the police deciding what people can say and what they can't?"
Disingenuous. The police don't decide WHAT you can say -- they enforce rules relating to HOW and WHEN you can say it. I.e., no screaming obscenities at the candidate, speaking out of turn, etc.
You need to keep in mind an important distinction. This was not public property, like a sidewalk. Different rules apply.
(And I should note that even on a sidewalk, the police can still arrest you for disorderly conduct.)
Sorry to say this, but you've been had. I don't blame you though; the CNN reporter was had too. Although on the other hand, as a professional journalist, he should tried the novel technique of making a few calls to be sure he got his information correct.
The mortality numbers are fundamentally flawed, and here's why. The U.S. has the most advanced neo-natal care in the world. U.S. hospitals try to save babies that other countries just write off. That, in a nutshell, is it. I could elaborate on this, but basically there you have it.
This statistic comes up all the time in my line of work, especially with respect to Cuba. The Cuban regime loves to trumpet its IM numbers. As I indicated, they get their numbers by "writing off" newborns that are "beyond help." And beyond help they are -- of Cuba's health care system. But many of them are not beyond help of the U.S. healthcare system, which DOES count these mortalities.
Hmm. How about taking the kudzu waste, and pressing it into rods, and using those to build lattices and towers and jungle-gym-type structures. Then you don't have to worry about preserving the structure -- just scrape the whole thing into a pile with a bulldozer and put a new one in place.
- Alaska Jack
PS Totally talking out of my butt here. Never even seen a kudzu plant.
Better than that Gandalf guy, though he wasn't bad.
Also, I'm not a big trekkie, but I thought Nimoy had a literally emmy-level performance in that episode of STTNG, where he played an aged Spock on the planet of the Romulans. I suppose he probably never even got considered though.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, do /. users ever feel a slightly sickly sense of shame? The FIRST comment -- pointing out that there has been a number of pro-American leaders elected lately -- was insightful. And it gets modded "troll."
Why don't I ever see such blatant abuses when I am meta-moderating?
- Alaska Jack
Thanks for the response. An AC noted the same thing upthread, but for some reason you were able to do it without being an obnoxious jerk.
In the original post, I was actually talking about Windows Explorer, not Internet Explorer. I didn't specify that though -- sorry.
- AJ
You are absolutely correct.
Or you would be, anyway, if I had said INTERNET explorer.
True, I didn't specify WINDOWS Explorer, which is my bad.
On the other hand, I didn't specify that you had to sound like a condescending jerk either.
Seriously -- do you talk like that to people in real life?
Yeah?
- Alaska Jack
See, that alone for me would almost justify purchasing vista.
As I alluded to above, you can come *close* to this by using the "Favorites" folder. Put aliases to your favorite folders and files in there, then open the pane by using the button. As noted, though, the pane won't STAY open.
Ultimately, of course, what I'm really talking about here what the Mac's Finder has: A pane on the left-hand side that you can drag things into and out of willy-nilly to your heart's content. I certainly find plenty to criticize about the Finder, but for crying out loud, I don't understand why this concept has proven so elusive to Microsoft.
Apple: Any folder you want, a click away.
Microsoft: Also any folder you want, as long as it's one of the five we've predetermined for you.
- Alaska Jack
Touche' :^)
- AJ
17 years (!) after Windows 95-style open-and-save dialog boxes debuted, and I still can't simply drag and drop the folders *I* want into and out of the "Places" bar. (Or change the "Other places" links, if I have that left-hand taskbar thingie enabled.)
In explorer, I can open the favorites in the left-hand pane by clicking the "favorites" button -- but there is no way to KEEP it permanently open. I have to click the favorites button every. single. time.
Open and save dialogs highlight the entire filename in the text entry field, despite the fact that 99 times out of 100, I don't want to change the extension.
etc etc etc.
- Alaska Jack
PS Using Windows XP pro. Don't know if these have changed in Vista.
Good points, and frankly I can't believe that everyone is being so civil, buried down here in the /. murk. But let me make a few points:
1. The fatality statistics you cite bolster MY point, not the original posters. When I read your post, I thought "Wait -- 900 civilian deaths? That's all?" Given the protracted period we are talking about, I thought it was a lot higher. And as the GP stated, there is simply a huge qualitative difference between a long-term war of attrition and a massive attack causing the deaths of 3,000 men, women and children.
2. I'm not belittling anything or anyone. Also, I think you are resorting to a sort of hyperbole -- i.e., "we treat the events of that day as being the most awful tragedy ever to occur" -- because you have a weak point here. I don't know a single person who would describe 9/11 that way. The world sees terrible tragedies every day. But there's a difference between, say, a natural disaster and a carefully planned, murderous attack on innocent civilians.
3. That kind of leads in to my last point. You write: "I believe that roughly ten times as many people die in car accidents on US roads each year than died on 9/11, for example." I hear that all the time. But it's ludicrously besides the point. When Japanese forces attacked Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt didn't appear before Congress and say "Well, yes, the attack was terrible. But let's not overreact. 10 times as many people die in car accidents every year. Let's tighten up highway safety standards, implement some tough drunk-driver laws, and start requiring seatbelts in all our cars. Once that is accomplished -- and of course after we address heart disease, unsafe working conditions and all the other leading causes of fatalities -- we will get around to addressing Pearl Harbor."
- Alaska Jack
Well said yourself. As you may have noticed, some numbskull has already seen my original post, thought "Hmm, I don't agree with that," and modded me down.
/. would be better if you *couldn't* mod down ... only up. Eventually, all the good stuff would bubble up to the topanyway, right? And if you didn't like what you read, your only recourse would be to ignore it. What am I missing? Why wouldn't that be a better system?
/. should just go ahead and implement an "I don't agree with this, but I lack the intellectual firepower to argue with it" mod.
I've actually thought that
- AJ
PS Another thought -- maybe
Wow, I'm not sure how to respond to this. You write: "I really think that the so-called emotional impact of that event was due to people choosing to let it impact them." Well, yes, just like any other event in life, from the birth of a child to the death of a loved one. No offense, but most people would suggest that it is normal to have an emotional reaction to the slaughter of 3,000 of your countrymen before your eyes.
I sincerely don't want to sound flippant, but your response tracks closely with the affect (pardon the jargon) displayed by people on a too-high dose of Xanax or Zoloft. Nothing bothers them -- even things that *should* bother them.
- Alaska Jack
"An increase in funding for energy research will increase the rate at which new energy technology is discovered."
Respectfully, this is pure conjecture. Take batteries, for example. Millions and millions have been invested trying to develop better batteries, but the technology has basically been stagnant for a long time. No great leaps in battery technology are on the horizon.
One could also, I guess, make the argument that we already *have* better energy technology -- nuclear. We just don't use it, for assorted reasons.
Again, I appreciate your respectful discussion. But I stand by my point that simply asserting "We could solve the world's energy problems -- all we need is to spend more money on it" doesn't make it so.
- Alaska Jack
I understand your point of view, and greatly respect the way the British have dealt with IRA thugs and other assorted murderous loonies. In that context, let me make two points.
... responded to the rise of fundamentalist religious terrorist groups by passing the Anti-Terrorism, Crime, and Security Act in 2001, an action that was criticized by many civilrights groups ... After bombs exploded in two pubs in Birmingham ... Parliament passed the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1974. The act allowed authorities to arrest suspected terrorists without a warrant and detain them for up to a week without filing charges against them. Suspected terrorists could also be deported from England to Northern Ireland. The policy of internment raised international criticism, as did the practice of "hooding," in which detainees would be isolated and forced to wear hoods over their heads. After an investigation by the European Commission of Human Rights in 1976, the practices of food and sleep deprivation, noise bombardment, forced standing at attention, and hooding were condemned by the body. Despite the commission's decision, the practices continued." etc.
1. If this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdom is accurate, the most deaths from a single terrorist attack were 270 from the Lockerbie plane bombing. If you can remember back to that instance, you remember the consternation, chaos and grief that caused. Now, to put it in perspective, imagine 10 or 11 of those bombings happening at once in the skies over Britain. Oh, also, the two tallest buildings in London, which happen to be at or near the center of your economic infrastructure, are demolished.
2. Relative to the U.S., residents of Great Britain are more able to "live [their lives] as normal" because Great Britain *already accepts* a greater level of government intrusion as "normal". In the U.S., we don't have videocameras everywhere (not yet, anyway). The question of whether or not the state has the ability to tell us we can't own firearm in our own homes is a matter of great debate, not a settled question. Etc. etc. etc.
3. Finally, a related point: What you present as a fact -- i.e., the UK has gone about it's business as usual -- would be hotly disputed by many of your own countrymen. Articles like this http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1759344,00.html and this http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece suggest that this is a matter of some dispute.
This article http://www.espionageinfo.com/Ul-Vo/United-Kingdom-Counter-Terrorism-Policy.html also seems to dispute your contention. Excerpts: "Parliament
Not trying to start a flame war. I just think the situation's more nuanced than you describe.
- Alaska Jack
Ha ha, maybe you missed the part where I said I'm not a computer guy :^)
:^(
Seriously, I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to make the the suggestion. But to me, the page you linked to looks about the same as a what you'd get from the proverbial monkey banging on a keyboard. I might be able to change the color of an element, but I highly doubt I'd be able to create anything as sophisticated as a completely new layout.
I am good at some things. Computers aren't one of them.
- AJ
Dear Anonymous Coward -
1. Are you an American? If so, fine. If not, let me explain something to you. Watching thousands of people die in a terrorist attack is certainly horrifying whoever you are. But when it's your own country attacked, and your own countrymen dying, it's different in a way that would have been impossible for me to articulate before 9/11. You only really understand when it happens to you. I don't mean to sound patronizing about this -- I didn't understand it either, before 9/11. Very few Americans did. Of course, I knew all about Pearl Harbor, for example; but I suddenly realized how Americans of the time *felt* when they saw those newsreels and heard the radio broadcasts. That's our "perspective."
2. There was no need to fight "over the last reserves of oil." Anyone with an elementary knowledge of economics can point out what laughable nonsense that is. The oil companies didn't want war, oil companies want *stability*. They make billions of dollars as it is -- war just throws a giant, unpredictable monkey wrench into things. The oil companies wanted to end the sanctions, and do business with Iraq. They didn't care that Saddam was an repressive dictator. Why would they? They cheerfully do business with dictatorships all the time.
3. "If there was the will, the USA could solve our energy problems permanently." This is laughably naive. Let me try recasting it. ""If there was the will, the USA could cure cancer." "If there was the will, the USA could achieve world piece." "If there was the will, the USA could invent a way to turn lead into gold." Researchers around the country are exploring new energy sources, as they have been for decades. I am not saying they couldn't use more money. What I am saying is that it is not a slam dunk that throwing more money at them will suddenly result in more or better inventions. Inventions and discoveries don't always work that way.
- Alaska Jack
CmrTaco: I'm not a computer guy -- though I do learn a lot by reading /. -- so bear with me if this is a stupid question. What I've taken away from CSS Garden is that, through CSS, you can provide drastically different interfaces with the same content. Why couldn't Slashdot do something like that? Provide users with different ways of viewing the forums?
To be, by FAR the best forum interface ever is provided by Google Groups (in the "Tree View" mode). It's the only forum presentation I've ever seen that provides intuitive navigation from a left-hand pane, letting you see immediately where you are in the "tree". It is so superior, I am baffled as to why it hasn't been widely emulated. Other forums make you constantly go up to the top of the screen to see the hierarchy, which is obviously useless.
Where I'm going with this: I wonder if you'd ever consider approaching Google and asking them to share that code with you. I bet they'd do it -- it seems like a good, high-profile PR move for them. And what a huge boon for users. Man, Slashdot with a navigable left-pane hierarchy -- that would be a dream come true.
- Alaska Jack
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here, so I'll just note that nothing you wrote contradicts what I wrote. Again, I've never met anyone who reacted with "mindless fury" about something so benign as a suggestion that the U.S. is not #1 in every single thing.
"Mindless fury" is a pretty strong term: It implies violence, or at least screaming and ranting. So here's a challenge. Go down to the mall, or a fair, or any place with a lot of people. Pose as a pollster or something. Suggest to people that the U.S. is not #1 in every single thing. See how many of them erupt in "mindless fury." I'd bet it would be somewhere south of 1 in 1,000.
"Mindless fury" is just a meaningless piece of hyperbole a person uses to describe how he or she thinks other people -- i.e., rubes and sheeple -- surely must react. Like I said, not helpful.
- Alaska Jack
"The mindless fury with which many Americans react to any suggestion that the USA is not absolutely, positively #1 in every single way"
Unlike the previous commenter, I can't say I agree with you. I've never met a single American, let alone "many," who reacted with "mindless fury" to "any suggestion that the USA is not absolutely, positively #1 in every single way".
For that matter, I've never met any American who reacted with "mindless fury" to any suggestion, period.
Perhaps you were exaggerating to make a point, but I don't think that's helpful in discussions like these, where we're talking about stereotypes and such. Your comment just seems like more of the same.
- Alaska Jack
I actually think you could accomplish this by doing away with negative mods altogether, and increasing the positive "ceiling" -- to, say, 10 or 15. Wouldn't this work, or am I missing something?
- Alaska Jack
Mods: "Informative" doesn't mean "I passionately agree with this person's opinion"
Just saying.
- Alaska Jack
1. Bags are in the cart already. You take something down off the shelf, and put it right in the bag.
2. That's why you get a receipt on your way out.
- Alaska Jack
"Suppose some guy stands on a street corner every day for a year with a large sign that says "Impeach Bush". Now suppose the police make a rule that he can only say "Impeach Bush" exactly once a year (WHEN) and he can only say it in an email directly to Bush (HOW). According to you, there's no difference. In both cases, the guy was allowed to express his opinion."
... well, you get the picture.
Nice try, but wrong. Here's the train of thought.
1. Absolutely unrestricted speech/behavior has some severe drawbacks. (Yelling fire in a crowded building, libel, etc.)
2. On the other hand, we don't want to restrict the free flow of ideas.
3. So we decide that what restrictions we place on speech must be limited and reasonable.
4. Q: Oh yeah? Who decides what is "reasonable"? You?
5. A: No. That's what we have judges for.
A judge is someone with no interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of any particular scenario. Their sole responsibility is to ask "Are the restrictions in question limited and reasonable?"
Naturally that puts the decision in the hands of a human being, and is thus prone to error. But it's the best we can do.
"If a few extra minutes of everyone's time meant that this guy got what he really really wanted, I don't see the problem."
Interesting. I see so many problems with this -- philosophical and practical -- it's difficult to know where to begin. First of all, it's MY time. What gives him the right to hijack it? Multiply the time by the number of people in the room, and you've stolen hundreds of man-hours.
Second, your theory of "intensity of desire" is legally quite novel. I don't find the woman walking outside particularly attractive. But if I find her REALLY REALLY attractive, would that make it OK to conk her over the head and take her home? No? Ok, what if I found her REALLY REALLY REALLY attractive?
Third
Respectfully,
Alaska Jack
Brave words, O anonymous coward.
- Alaska Jack
Wrong on so many levels.
The "contract" is actually between the speaker and the host -- in this case, the University. The speaker agrees to come to campus. In return, the host agrees to maintain and enforce certain forum rules. If they did not do this, the speaker would not agree to come to campus, and everyone loses: The speaker loses an audience, the host loses an opportunity for education (their reason for existence), and the audience loses a chance to learn.
"Doesn't it bother you just a little to have the police deciding what people can say and what they can't?"
Disingenuous. The police don't decide WHAT you can say -- they enforce rules relating to HOW and WHEN you can say it. I.e., no screaming obscenities at the candidate, speaking out of turn, etc.
You need to keep in mind an important distinction. This was not public property, like a sidewalk. Different rules apply.
(And I should note that even on a sidewalk, the police can still arrest you for disorderly conduct.)
- Alaska Jack
Netsavior -
Sorry to say this, but you've been had. I don't blame you though; the CNN reporter was had too. Although on the other hand, as a professional journalist, he should tried the novel technique of making a few calls to be sure he got his information correct.
The mortality numbers are fundamentally flawed, and here's why. The U.S. has the most advanced neo-natal care in the world. U.S. hospitals try to save babies that other countries just write off. That, in a nutshell, is it. I could elaborate on this, but basically there you have it.
This statistic comes up all the time in my line of work, especially with respect to Cuba. The Cuban regime loves to trumpet its IM numbers. As I indicated, they get their numbers by "writing off" newborns that are "beyond help." And beyond help they are -- of Cuba's health care system. But many of them are not beyond help of the U.S. healthcare system, which DOES count these mortalities.
Just something to chew on.
- Alaska Jack
Hmm. How about taking the kudzu waste, and pressing it into rods, and using those to build lattices and towers and jungle-gym-type structures. Then you don't have to worry about preserving the structure -- just scrape the whole thing into a pile with a bulldozer and put a new one in place.
- Alaska Jack
PS Totally talking out of my butt here. Never even seen a kudzu plant.
Better than that Gandalf guy, though he wasn't bad.
Also, I'm not a big trekkie, but I thought Nimoy had a literally emmy-level performance in that episode of STTNG, where he played an aged Spock on the planet of the Romulans. I suppose he probably never even got considered though.
- Alaska Jack