I realize that sounds like a sophisticated perspective, but consider another. The surest thing we can do to impoverish future generations is *impoverish ourselves*. By the same token, future generations gain by and build upon our own prosperity.
From reading some of the comments here, you'd never guess that our environment is in far better shape than it was 15 years ago, and it was in better shape then than the 15 years prior, etc. Almost every single enviromental indice is improving, and has been for a long time.
Note that this applies mainly to developed countries. But then, people who have been following the issues understand that developed countries is where environmental progress is made. We're the ones who have the time and resources to devote to environmental protection. This suggests that development is a good thing.
- AJ
PS I don't pretend to know whether all the above is correct or not. Too many variables!
I've heard that lots of airline pilots have UFO stories they won't talk about, since questions about their psychological stability would be the kiss of death in that particular career field.
I don't know if that's true or not. It sounds like a good book opportunity would be to go around and interview a bunch of *retired* airline pilots.
Rationalize it all you like. I'm glad YOU'RE not serving any more. They may have been assholes, but what you did was evil. There's no code of ethics on the planet that would condone it.
The fact is, in the face of a challenge, your mission was to find a straight-up way to deal with it and overcome. You failed miserably.
- Alaska Jack
HONOR: Huge fail COURAGE: Fail COMMITTMENT: "Demand respect up and down the chain of command.. care for the safety, professional, personal and spiritual well-being of our people... Show respect toward all people... treat each individual with human dignity... exhibit the highest degree of moral character"... yep, you=fail
Do you have any idea how big Alaska is? Let's say you live in, oh, I don't know -- Memphis, Tenn. Here are a few places that are closer to YOU than Amchitka Island is to Wasilla:
Phoenix, Arizona Boise, Idaho Mexico City, Mexico Regina, Saskatchewan Montego Bay, Jamaica
I understand the difference, I think, between Napster and BitTorrent. But as I understand it, both require central servers to track the locations of files. So if the music industry found it simple to shut down Napster, why is it so difficult for them to shut down TPB?
Put another way, why couldn't Napster just have relocated to a place like Sweden? Is there some technical difference I don't understand, or was it a legal/political issue?
Others in this thread have already pretty convincingly refuted most of this. Let me just point out one more thing:
You said "For nearly a decade and a half, Russia did exactly as IMF and Washington DC told it. Needless to say, neither of the two had Russia's interests in mind."
Iit is not in Washington's interest to have the biggest country in the world be an embittered, paranoid and resentful second-rate superpower-wannabe. It is in Washington's interest -- indeed, in all of ours -- to have Russia evolve into peaceful, stable, prosperous democracy through the rule of law. A partner in maintaining world stability, no different than Canada, Australia, Italy, Poland, Germany, or dozens of other first-world nations.
Tell me again how this is not also in Russia's best interest?
You're spot on my friend. I remember sending Digg a feedback asking them to implement the simplest thing -- a button by each story that says something like "Don't show me any more stories from _________" Fill in the blank with Rawstory, moveon,org, truthout.org, alternet, democraticunderground, etc. Of course they didn't do it, even though from a technical standpoint it would be simple.
It used to be a daily stop for me, then I just got tired of the ceaseless propaganda. I've been there maybe twice in the last 6 or 7 months.
Oh, and don't even get me started on the comments section. If you ever have a doubt about how stupid, uninformed, crude, etc the bulk of people are, just check the comments section of Digg. Or of Youtube.
Seriously? You'd prefer two buttons to a simple knob? I admit, it never occured to me that *anyone* would say that. With a knob, you can instantly twist it to where you want it (no press press press press, or delay while you hold it down), you get instant tactile feedback as to the level you set it at, you can tell at a glance what level it's set to, it's easier to move your hand to it without looking at it, you have finer granularity... frankly, I'm hard-pressed to think of a single advantage a button has, unless you mean simply for aesthetic purposes.
Why wouldn't you want a scroll wheel? I mean, everyone needs to scroll sometimes. Or do you mean you just don't want one on the left?
As for software, that was my whole point. You wouldn't NEED it, but if you wanted it, it would be some widely-used and well-tried software, like USB Overdrive, not some half-baked proprietary solution.
To each his own, of course. I still say that if you carefully took the best features of existing keyboards, and made them available in one well-designed and constructed model, that model would sell like hot cakes.
After reviewing a ton of near-misses online, I just don't think it would be that hard to make a keyboard almost everyone would be happy with, and would happily pay a little extra for.
+ Full-sized, absolutely standard layout. No playing cute with the arrow keys, or the insert/delete/home/end group, like MSFT Natural Elite does. + Scroll-wheel at left (MSFT made one like this) + Simple, intuitive, non-flashy shortcut keys and media keys (with volume knob, like Dell's, not buttons) + Scroll wheel, shortcut keys and media keys should all be easily programmable on a per-application basis. Just license one of many good shareware programs that do exactly that. + One or two extra USB slots on wired version
Make a four-square matrix: . -------------Wired/Wireless Straight...........X.......X Ergonomic........X.......X
(butchered, but you get the drift)
So it's essentially four different versions of the same keyboard. Then sell it as "the perfect keyboard" or something like that.
Obviously the biggest "personal taste" item is key feel. If you don't want noise or expense of clicky keys, I would suggest using something like the kensington slim-type keys. But the important thing is don't skimp: The whole point is to make a keyboard that people WANT to use, and will GLADLY spend a little more for. After all, they'll be using it for the next 10+ years.
BONUS: Make it easily reconfigurable between Mac and PC. When I plug it into my MacBook, I'd like it to automatically detect that it was being plugged into a Mac, and re-map the option/cmd/alt/windows keys accordingly.
"8 years of explicitly promoting a lax regulatory environment for every category of business in the U.S."
is simply wrong.
BUSH REGULATORY SPENDING BREAKS RECORDS {Reuters]
ARLINGTON, Va., Aug. 12/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- After nearly eight years in office, President Bush is on track to be one of the biggest regulatory budget spending presidents in history, according to a new study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and the Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St. Louis
Hey, you'll get no argument from me. The whole federal-ownership-of-land deal to me is pretty bizarro. The guys who wrote the constitution clearly never intended the federal government to own ANY land, except for dockyards, military bases and other "needful buildings." And even then, those places must be purchased. And even THEN, only with the consent of the state legislature.
Now, you can say, "But it's a GOOD thing that the government do X" -- in this case, X being, for example, protecting national parks. That's fine, as long as you understand you're making an outcomes-based judgement. A libertarian would reply "Yes, but in the bigger picture, the government shouldn't have the freedom to do things based simply on whether some people think they're a good idea or not. Historically, that's been a surefire recipe for tyranny. The government should be constrained by rules, and do things based on due process and the rule of law. If we all agree something is a good idea, then we should write it into the constitution."
"Thanks, but I'd rather see a steady hand on the controls even if some of y'all think it's a dead one"
Yes, and hopefully that strong, steady hand could keep all the trains running on time too. And when that steady hand arrives at some arbitrary decision that affects you -- like, I don't know, telling you what you can and can't do with your own body, or what food crops you can grow on your own property for private consumption -- well, just remember, it's all for the greater good.
Hmm? You don't get why it might be sad when a person who has accomplished a lot of great things, worthy of a great deal of respect, succumbs to temptation and becomes corrupt? You base your entire response on this:
"Doing the right thing doesn't excuse you from having to comply with the law."
Even though I never said or implied that it did. To the contrary, I AGREE with you.
Yeah, I hear that a lot. And when I do, I always respond: "Hey -- make you a deal. For you, no more pork for Alaska. For us, we get back the unprecedented 60% of Alaska owned by the federal government, to develop as we see fit."
Any Alaskan would take that deal in a New York Second. We have far more natural resources than, say, Norway, which seems to get along just fine.
This is just really sad. Ted Stevens played a greater role in the development of Alaska as a state than any other person. Most people outside Alaska are unaware that he was literally named Alaskan of the Century. Think about that for a moment.
This is not to defend him. I disagreed with a lot of what he did. (Well, to be more accurate, I disagree with him and all the Robert Byrds, etc who stuffed their states full of pork at the expense of the nation. But at least Stevens had the excuse that Alaska really got a hugely raw deal in its statehood compact, and the lack of fulfillment thereof by the federal government.)
Stevens eventually became exhibit A in the argument for term limits. Well OK, Exhibit C after Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd.) When you are in office that long, you just naturally begin to believe that that office is YOURS, it belongs to YOU. And it's not fair that after your decades of able public service, your buddies on K Street are all filthy rich while you make a tenth of what they do. After all the billions you've brought to your state, who could possibly begrudge you $10,000 here or there? Heck, you DESERVE it!
I just want to point out that at one time, there was more to Stevens' career than this, including distinguished service in the Army Air Corps in WWII.
Thanks for the link! If anyone is still reading this thread, I should point out that I can't find the material I was referencing in the link provided. Three possibilities: (1) The edition I have is older than the third edition, and the preface has completely changed; (2) I am remembering something from another part of the book, or (3) I am thinking of a completely different book altogether! I suspect the answer is (2). I will have to check this when I go home tonight. Sorry for any confusion.
- Alaska Jack
No, I haven't read it. Looks good! Unfortunately, all the books I read we from before I had kids:^/ So I can't comment on its arguments. All I can say is that the Held book gave me a better understanding of how the founders would have thought about democracy, given enlightment political thought (strongly pro) and historical precendent (strongly suggestive that it was a fiasco).
canajin56's flippant responses above notwithstanding, I'm actually curious about this situation. Why did the government think it was a good idea to get into the liquor business? Did its business exist alongside private vendors, or was it a monopoly? Do I understand correctly that it ended up selling the business? If so, why? What was the government's justification for selling liquor and not groceries, cars and, well, everything else? Sounds interesting.
You're welcome.
1. Please show me where I said the ALCB wasn't making a profit.
2. Please show me where I said that no government program could ever be run at a profit.
3. Please note that I said you would *almost* certainly be paying less (overall, including taxes) if it was a private business. There are no absolutes, and I don't pretend to have any special knowledge about this specific situation.
- Alaska Jack
Slashdot Mirror
I realize that sounds like a sophisticated perspective, but consider another. The surest thing we can do to impoverish future generations is *impoverish ourselves*. By the same token, future generations gain by and build upon our own prosperity.
From reading some of the comments here, you'd never guess that our environment is in far better shape than it was 15 years ago, and it was in better shape then than the 15 years prior, etc. Almost every single enviromental indice is improving, and has been for a long time.
Note that this applies mainly to developed countries. But then, people who have been following the issues understand that developed countries is where environmental progress is made. We're the ones who have the time and resources to devote to environmental protection. This suggests that development is a good thing.
- AJ
PS I don't pretend to know whether all the above is correct or not. Too many variables!
I've heard that lots of airline pilots have UFO stories they won't talk about, since questions about their psychological stability would be the kiss of death in that particular career field.
I don't know if that's true or not. It sounds like a good book opportunity would be to go around and interview a bunch of *retired* airline pilots.
- AJ
Like this:
Search: awesome amazing bestest -hamsters -"youth participation" -yahoo
- Alaska Jack
Rationalize it all you like. I'm glad YOU'RE not serving any more. They may have been assholes, but what you did was evil. There's no code of ethics on the planet that would condone it.
The fact is, in the face of a challenge, your mission was to find a straight-up way to deal with it and overcome. You failed miserably.
- Alaska Jack
HONOR: Huge fail .. care for the safety, professional, personal and spiritual well-being of our people ... Show respect toward all people ... treat each individual with human dignity ... exhibit the highest degree of moral character" ... yep, you=fail
COURAGE: Fail
COMMITTMENT: "Demand respect up and down the chain of command
More advanced robots, that we developed (along with much faster propulsion systems) in the decades since the originals were launched.
Hat tip: Carl Sagan, I think. Or maybe Azimov.
- Alaska Jack
Haha.... well played, sir!
- Alaska Jack
Do you have any idea how big Alaska is? Let's say you live in, oh, I don't know -- Memphis, Tenn. Here are a few places that are closer to YOU than Amchitka Island is to Wasilla:
Phoenix, Arizona
Boise, Idaho
Mexico City, Mexico
Regina, Saskatchewan
Montego Bay, Jamaica
- Alaska Jack
...back in the day.
Project Chariot was a program to blast a new harbor near Point Hope, led by none other than Ed Teller.
Alaska was also the site of several nuclear test blasts, among them the largest one the U.S. ever conducted: Amchitka's Nuclear Legacy.
- Alaska Jack
After all, if they do get scared, China WILL step in and handle the situation.
Not if North Korea gets nukes first, they won't.
- Alaska Jack
I understand the difference, I think, between Napster and BitTorrent. But as I understand it, both require central servers to track the locations of files. So if the music industry found it simple to shut down Napster, why is it so difficult for them to shut down TPB?
Put another way, why couldn't Napster just have relocated to a place like Sweden? Is there some technical difference I don't understand, or was it a legal/political issue?
- Alaska Jack
Keeping Russia's interests in mind ...
Others in this thread have already pretty convincingly refuted most of this. Let me just point out one more thing:
You said "For nearly a decade and a half, Russia did exactly as IMF and Washington DC told it. Needless to say, neither of the two had Russia's interests in mind."
Iit is not in Washington's interest to have the biggest country in the world be an embittered, paranoid and resentful second-rate superpower-wannabe. It is in Washington's interest -- indeed, in all of ours -- to have Russia evolve into peaceful, stable, prosperous democracy through the rule of law. A partner in maintaining world stability, no different than Canada, Australia, Italy, Poland, Germany, or dozens of other first-world nations.
Tell me again how this is not also in Russia's best interest?
- Alaska Jack
That's actually a pretty good idea! It would significantly increase the level of trust, I think. Kudos.
- Alaska Jack
You're spot on my friend. I remember sending Digg a feedback asking them to implement the simplest thing -- a button by each story that says something like "Don't show me any more stories from _________" Fill in the blank with Rawstory, moveon,org, truthout.org, alternet, democraticunderground, etc. Of course they didn't do it, even though from a technical standpoint it would be simple.
It used to be a daily stop for me, then I just got tired of the ceaseless propaganda. I've been there maybe twice in the last 6 or 7 months.
Oh, and don't even get me started on the comments section. If you ever have a doubt about how stupid, uninformed, crude, etc the bulk of people are, just check the comments section of Digg. Or of Youtube.
- Alaska Jack
Seriously? You'd prefer two buttons to a simple knob? I admit, it never occured to me that *anyone* would say that. With a knob, you can instantly twist it to where you want it (no press press press press, or delay while you hold it down), you get instant tactile feedback as to the level you set it at, you can tell at a glance what level it's set to, it's easier to move your hand to it without looking at it, you have finer granularity ... frankly, I'm hard-pressed to think of a single advantage a button has, unless you mean simply for aesthetic purposes.
Why wouldn't you want a scroll wheel? I mean, everyone needs to scroll sometimes. Or do you mean you just don't want one on the left?
As for software, that was my whole point. You wouldn't NEED it, but if you wanted it, it would be some widely-used and well-tried software, like USB Overdrive, not some half-baked proprietary solution.
To each his own, of course. I still say that if you carefully took the best features of existing keyboards, and made them available in one well-designed and constructed model, that model would sell like hot cakes.
- Alaska Jack
After reviewing a ton of near-misses online, I just don't think it would be that hard to make a keyboard almost everyone would be happy with, and would happily pay a little extra for.
+ Full-sized, absolutely standard layout. No playing cute with the arrow keys, or the insert/delete/home/end group, like MSFT Natural Elite does.
+ Scroll-wheel at left (MSFT made one like this)
+ Simple, intuitive, non-flashy shortcut keys and media keys (with volume knob, like Dell's, not buttons)
+ Scroll wheel, shortcut keys and media keys should all be easily programmable on a per-application basis. Just license one of many good shareware programs that do exactly that.
+ One or two extra USB slots on wired version
Make a four-square matrix:
.
-------------Wired/Wireless
Straight...........X.......X
Ergonomic........X.......X
(butchered, but you get the drift)
So it's essentially four different versions of the same keyboard. Then sell it as "the perfect keyboard" or something like that.
Obviously the biggest "personal taste" item is key feel. If you don't want noise or expense of clicky keys, I would suggest using something like the kensington slim-type keys. But the important thing is don't skimp: The whole point is to make a keyboard that people WANT to use, and will GLADLY spend a little more for. After all, they'll be using it for the next 10+ years.
BONUS: Make it easily reconfigurable between Mac and PC. When I plug it into my MacBook, I'd like it to automatically detect that it was being plugged into a Mac, and re-map the option/cmd/alt/windows keys accordingly.
- Alaska Jack
Speaking of choking on misinformation. This:
"8 years of explicitly promoting a lax regulatory environment for every category of business in the U.S."
is simply wrong.
BUSH REGULATORY SPENDING BREAKS RECORDS {Reuters]
ARLINGTON, Va., Aug. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- After nearly eight years in
office, President Bush is on track to be one of the biggest regulatory budget
spending presidents in history, according to a new study from the Mercatus
Center at George Mason University and the Weidenbaum Center at Washington
University in St. Louis
MORE: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS192062+12-Aug-2008+PRN20080812
- Alaska Jack
Hey, you'll get no argument from me. The whole federal-ownership-of-land deal to me is pretty bizarro. The guys who wrote the constitution clearly never intended the federal government to own ANY land, except for dockyards, military bases and other "needful buildings." And even then, those places must be purchased. And even THEN, only with the consent of the state legislature.
Now, you can say, "But it's a GOOD thing that the government do X" -- in this case, X being, for example, protecting national parks. That's fine, as long as you understand you're making an outcomes-based judgement. A libertarian would reply "Yes, but in the bigger picture, the government shouldn't have the freedom to do things based simply on whether some people think they're a good idea or not. Historically, that's been a surefire recipe for tyranny. The government should be constrained by rules, and do things based on due process and the rule of law. If we all agree something is a good idea, then we should write it into the constitution."
That happens to be my position as well.
- Alaska Jack
"Thanks, but I'd rather see a steady hand on the controls even if some of y'all think it's a dead one"
Yes, and hopefully that strong, steady hand could keep all the trains running on time too. And when that steady hand arrives at some arbitrary decision that affects you -- like, I don't know, telling you what you can and can't do with your own body, or what food crops you can grow on your own property for private consumption -- well, just remember, it's all for the greater good.
- AJ
Hmm? You don't get why it might be sad when a person who has accomplished a lot of great things, worthy of a great deal of respect, succumbs to temptation and becomes corrupt? You base your entire response on this:
"Doing the right thing doesn't excuse you from having to comply with the law."
Even though I never said or implied that it did. To the contrary, I AGREE with you.
- Alaska Jack
Yeah, I hear that a lot. And when I do, I always respond: "Hey -- make you a deal. For you, no more pork for Alaska. For us, we get back the unprecedented 60% of Alaska owned by the federal government, to develop as we see fit."
Any Alaskan would take that deal in a New York Second. We have far more natural resources than, say, Norway, which seems to get along just fine.
- Alaska Jack
This is just really sad. Ted Stevens played a greater role in the development of Alaska as a state than any other person. Most people outside Alaska are unaware that he was literally named Alaskan of the Century. Think about that for a moment.
This is not to defend him. I disagreed with a lot of what he did. (Well, to be more accurate, I disagree with him and all the Robert Byrds, etc who stuffed their states full of pork at the expense of the nation. But at least Stevens had the excuse that Alaska really got a hugely raw deal in its statehood compact, and the lack of fulfillment thereof by the federal government.)
Stevens eventually became exhibit A in the argument for term limits. Well OK, Exhibit C after Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd.) When you are in office that long, you just naturally begin to believe that that office is YOURS, it belongs to YOU. And it's not fair that after your decades of able public service, your buddies on K Street are all filthy rich while you make a tenth of what they do. After all the billions you've brought to your state, who could possibly begrudge you $10,000 here or there? Heck, you DESERVE it!
I just want to point out that at one time, there was more to Stevens' career than this, including distinguished service in the Army Air Corps in WWII.
- Alaska Jack
Thanks for the link! If anyone is still reading this thread, I should point out that I can't find the material I was referencing in the link provided. Three possibilities: (1) The edition I have is older than the third edition, and the preface has completely changed; (2) I am remembering something from another part of the book, or (3) I am thinking of a completely different book altogether! I suspect the answer is (2). I will have to check this when I go home tonight. Sorry for any confusion. - Alaska Jack
No, I haven't read it. Looks good! Unfortunately, all the books I read we from before I had kids :^/ So I can't comment on its arguments. All I can say is that the Held book gave me a better understanding of how the founders would have thought about democracy, given enlightment political thought (strongly pro) and historical precendent (strongly suggestive that it was a fiasco).
- Alaska Jack
canajin56's flippant responses above notwithstanding, I'm actually curious about this situation. Why did the government think it was a good idea to get into the liquor business? Did its business exist alongside private vendors, or was it a monopoly? Do I understand correctly that it ended up selling the business? If so, why? What was the government's justification for selling liquor and not groceries, cars and, well, everything else? Sounds interesting.
- Alaska Jack
You're welcome. 1. Please show me where I said the ALCB wasn't making a profit. 2. Please show me where I said that no government program could ever be run at a profit. 3. Please note that I said you would *almost* certainly be paying less (overall, including taxes) if it was a private business. There are no absolutes, and I don't pretend to have any special knowledge about this specific situation. - Alaska Jack