Interesting, and also proves my point. 9/11 is very real, it's not a movie. So of course people can be traumatized by it. The same is if you show real violence to people, even in movie form. Like a CCTV clip, or a police video.
I don't know why it's so difficult to understand. Virtual, fake, violence is not real. People can watch and even enjoy virtual violence because they know that it's not real. Case in point, every action, horror, splatter, thriller, etc. movie. But if it's real, then people know it's real and are affected completely different.
But you also need to know about "we vs. them" psychology, People also react and affected differently depending what group is done violence against. If the group is a "we" group, then we are affected. If the group is a "them" group people are not affected. That explains genocide, enjoyment of gladiator fights and so on.
The discussion is not about whether or not people enjoy watching violence. It is obvious that they do. The discussion is about whether or not the excessive observation of violent acts alters one's behaviour.
You see: "want" and "forced" are at a very distributed end of the spectrum.
Which is probably why the summary says the change will killoff BerkelyDB. To avoid being forced into the new license, people will continue with the old version. Of course, if they want bug fixes and new features, then they have to choose between using the new new license and BerkelyDB or swiching to some other database that doesn't make them make such choices.
BerkeleyDB seems to be a niche product and according to TFA
It comes standard with Perl, Python and Java, among many other things. It may appear niche because it rarely gets much mention, but it's pretty much been the standard tool used for persistent associative arrays for a long time. Of course, it's also fairly generic, and eminently replaceable. I agree that this is unlikely to be a huge problem.
Wait, if BerkelyeDB comes standard with Java, does that mean Java is going to be AGPL instead of LGPL?
Of course real violence desensitizes people. No question in that.
But we are talking about virtual violence. That is completely different. Virtual violence, like video games, do not desensitizes people to real violence. Because that one is virtual and the other is real.
A horror movie will not desensitize you. A plane crash movie will not traumatize you.
And yet the videos of the planes crashing into the World Trade Towers on 9/11 that were played over and over again, did indeed traumatize many. So evidently, some plane crash movies do traumatize people.
The problem with a proper study upon violent video games and its impact on anti-social behavior is that you have to also expand it to gaming in general. The researcher would have to find a statistically significant number of gamers of violent games and a second set of gamers that only plays non-violent games and has little to no exposure to so called violent games. An additional problem would be showing that any conclusion was truly due to gaming rather than that the people attracted to violent games (or games in general) are not predisposed to being anti-social.
That is true. That is why, very often, such studies look at something a little easier to quantify, like porn. There is no question that porn impacts behaviour and it is much easier to isolate porn watchers from non-porn watchers than violent video gamers from non (and other violent exposure such as TV and movies).
What has been learned from the porn research is that exposure to such stimulus does impact future behaviour. It does not show that porn watchers are going to be tomorrows rapists, just that their behaviour changes after repeated exposure. We also have industrial studies, for instance pilot simulator training, that shows that pilots that spend more time in a simulator respond better in air emergency situations than those who do not. Again, the simulation impacts ones future behaviour. Of course, almost crashing in a simulator is not going to make a pilot then go intentionally fly a plane into a mountain, but it does impact future behaviour.
The question with violent content in video games and movies and TV, is to what extent future behaviour is influenced by repeated exposure. So far, studies have shown that "normal" people will not exhibit violent or aggressive behaviour in "normal" situations. Research already exists showing that non-normal or individuals with a pre-disposition to violence will be negatively impacted. new research is being conducted, however on "normal" people in non-normal situations, situation that have high stress or life changing events and the like and even rush hour road rage.
So far the data is inconclusive and as you point out may remain that way, because there are so many influences that trying to correlate it specifically to video games or other violent content is difficult at best. On top of that, researchers have to wait for the stressful events to occur and then work backwards (it is considered unethical to intentionally cause such events in people's lives).
So what is known is that the things we watch do influence our behaviour. What is still undecided is to what extent.
Yes, the military uses video games, they just don't call them that. They are various types of electronic tactical simulations. They aren't alone. The airline industry spends a lot of money on simulation training for pilots so they react instinctively when trouble occurs in flight. We accept it as something good, you know, practice makes perfect, but in effect, it is a type of neural programming to elicit a specific type of behaviour.
The process, in and off itself, is neither good nor bad, it would depend on what its purpose is used for. For pilots and even military personnel, one could easily argue that those would be good uses. The point being, though, that video games, TV, etc. all have the same effect on us, like it or not (otherwise, companies wouldn't pay so much money for advertising).
There are no studies that show playing violent video games or watching shows will cause "normal" people to alter their behaviour and act out in "normal" circumstances. There are plenty of studies that show that watching porn will cause "normal" people to alter their behaviour and act out in normal circumstances. So, behaviour can be modified and relatively easily. The issue with violence comes with the "normal" clauses. Not every person is "normal" and some of them will act out regardless and even those people who are "normal" if placed in a stressful situation may be more inclined to act out than if they had not been exposed to the violent stimulus.
I'm not making a judgement statement as to whether there should or should not be violent games or porn or anything else, but to deny the evidence that they impact behaviour is like denying the evidence that there is climate change. How climate change is coming about (man made or natural) may be open for debate and the overall impact that such stimulus as video games or porn or whatever impact behaviour may likewise be debated, but that doesn't change that the change is there. If the impact is enough that it is a problem, then the first thing we have to do is quit denying there is any impact.
The military would seem to disagree with you. They use video games to desensitize soldiers. Just like flight simulators are used to train pilots so they can react when problem occur, there is a lot of science on exactly how video simulations (games) impact people's behaviour). The US government, military and majore industries spend lots of money on video simulations for training, they must be doing it for a reason.
Why would one expect a study to of violent video games and shows to impact pro-social behaviour? Shouldn't the study be looking at the impact on anti-social behaviour or violent behaviour? I would posit that porn doesn't impact pro-social behaviour, either. On the other hand, it most definitely impacts sexual behaviour.
So, based on the Australian study, people that play GTA are just as likely to pick up a pen that fell to the ground for somebody than somebody who didn't play GTA. What exactly does that prove?
before video games kids played cowboys and indians. we learned at an early age to kill off the idiots trying to kick us off their land
Actually, playing cowboys and indians is different because in the end you know you are play acting. TV and video games affect different parts of the brain than play acting. Nobody goes to a broadway play and becomes emotionally attached to the characters portrayed. But how many people see characters from their favorite TV show and cannot separate them from the actor playing the part? People form emotional attachments with the characters portrayed in media endeavors. That doesn't happen with the characters portrayed in our back yards. Somehow our brains know that it is still johnny or suzie. It also doesn't happen with Broadway and other stage plays. It is a phenomenom related to electronic media and film.
Whether such media makes one more prone to violent acts or not is yet to be determined. On the other hand, prior to the rise of easy access porn, sexual behaviour was a lot different. So, the question is if watching sexual activity influences our own ideas and mores about sexual practices, is it that far of a stretch to expect that it does likewise to other mores and values including violence?
If violent games don't impact behaviour, then the military can save millions on all of those desensitizing programs (games) that they use. Of course their research probably differs from this study as they, the military aren't trying to show that violent games don't impact "pro" social behaviour. Wouldn't the proper study have been that violent video games impact anti-social behaviour? But then, maybe I missed the frames in GTA where you have to pick up pens from the ground?
Of course this assumes every body speaks English, too. Depending on who you listen to, we should be downloading either Spanish keyboards if in the Americas or Mandrian keyboards for everywhere else. Or maybe just leave the keyboard alone. It might be antiquated, but really, the convenience of a "Th" key over all of the muscle memory and fine motor skills involved with the QWERTY keyboard for billions of people? The Dvorak keyboard was supposed to be a better design, too, but it never caught on, eithe.
At some point, with all of those design patterns floating around in cyber-space, isn't it going to just be a matter of a program assembling the pieces based on the parameters inputted by the user, not the programmer?
There's this anecdote about a mechanic which slightly adjusted a screw and thus repaired an expensive car many others failed before. Being asked why he charged thousands of dollars for a 3 mins job, he answered: "Look sonny, you ain't paying me for tightening that screw, you are paying for me knowing which screw to tighten" (those floating design pattern won't magically settle in the necessary form just by drag-dropping).
If we can AI that can drive cars and fly planes, surely AI for making a decision as to which design pattern to use based on a set patterns can't be that difficult. We've already got code generators for UI and database connectors. Is it that far of a leap to expect code generators for the connectors that put it all together?
Surely with all of these advances in techonolgy, most programming chores can be turned over to virtual robots in the future. If the predictions are correct that robots will replace most labor jobs, then couldn't they also replace most programming jobs, too? Might we not be headed back to the day where we looked at programs as accepting inputs into a black box and spitting out the outputs?
For sure, there will be computer scientists in the future, just like there will be physicists, but in the early days of the automobile and even into the middle of the last century, you had to be a mechanic to operate one. Today, everything is plug and play. Architecture used to require drafting and engineering skills, but today, you input your ideas on a computer and behold you have your plans.
At some point, with all of those design patterns floating around in cyber-space, isn't it going to just be a matter of a program assembling the pieces based on the parameters inputted by the user, not the programmer?
That they have done it for a long time doesn't make it right! And even if they have been doing it for a long time, there was an even longer time when they didn't do it. For example the US didn't even have an intelligence agency until after WWII, and in no way was the FBI of 193x and 194x involved in mass surveillance of the public.
I never said or implied it was right, but the outrage that has been expressed isn't that they have been doing it. Everybody knows they have been doing it. The outrage is that they lied and said they weren't doing it and then Snowden released the documents showing they actually were.
As for US intelligence capabilities prior to the WWII and the FBI, you are free to believe what ever you want so you can sleep easy, but the Library of Congress has many volumes documenting what was going on now that much of it has been declassified.
No that's not the problem. Spying on your citizens is fine.
Speak for yourself. 1984 was never intended to be an instruction manual. Is that really the kind of society you want to live in? Your every communication monitored like you are some kind of lab animal?
You miss the point. The government is already spying on its people and was doing so long before the information age. Technology has only made it easier. Most people knew or already suspected that. One only has to look at the history of the FBI or McCarthyism to realize that it has been going on in the US ages. However, both the FBI and McCarthyism were more or less public spying. Nobody denied it was going on. The NSA got caught spying on the public after saying they weren't. That is why it is such a scandal.
Cell phones and facebook and email don't enable the government to spy on their citizens, they just make the task much easier.
I suspect most if not all nations do it to some extent, the questions are which ones and to what extent.
...and how many of them profess to be the "Land of the Free".
No that's not the problem. Spying on your citizens is fine. Everybody knows they do it. As usual what gets them in trouble is denying they're doing it. As soon as they were aware that Snowden had the data, which was hopefully before he went public, but who knows, they should have released that they were doing this. People wouldn't have liked it, but it wouldn't be a scandal. It's not the deed that gets you in trouble, its the denial and cover-up.
What makes you think that Intel doesn't have ARM designs that they could turn around and Fab? Just because they don't have a commercial product that they sell does not mean they don't have something on the back burner that they could bring to market if they felt the need to do so.
If they did, wouldn't that be exactly what ARM wants? ARM doesn't care who makes the ARM server chips, it gets paid either way. And having Intel develop ARM server ecosystem so that other partners can jump in would be downright fantastic for them.
Intel would have to be close to bankruptcy to do something that desperate.
But Intel doesn't care if ARM gets paid. Intel cares that Intel shareholders get paid. If they can make a return on producing ARM chips that meats their internal ROI requirements, they will produce ARM chips. Intel is interested in profits, it doesn't matter what chip line it comes from.
In government, you are not judged by results. You are judged by appearances, specifically how many people you can fool for long enough that they forget all the stuff you've screwed up.
This is why as little as possible should be entrusted to government. Even government workers will generally agree with this: government works best when it has a small set of goals and some way of measuring "success" other than cheering uninformed voters.
It is much more simple than that. In government you are judged or valued not by what you or your section accomplish, but simply by how many people report to you. The more that report to you, the more important you are. That is why it is so difficult to introduce more efficient processes. If processes are improved so staff could be reassigned to other projects, the manager/superviosr in charge loses prestige because they have fewer people working for them.
Government, like any business, should have measurable objectives and people should be evaluated on those standards. The problem is that nobody wants to upset the system, because the people who would be responsible for making the changes also have their prestige based on the number of people who report to them. And so the cycle repeats itself.
Timothy (the poster of the story) better watch out. If we have learned anything from the Snowden affair, the government doesn't like it's dirty secrets aired in public.
Anyone that's fled from a communist country can tell you how it all worked out in practice. It's not quite the ideal that commie wannabes make it out to be.
People are still greedy and corrupt.
Centralizing power just makes that worse.
Except that communism is a form of government and socialism is an economic system like capitalism. What you are basically saying is that not having universal healthcare is a Republic and Universal healthcare is Communism. When I think you are trying to say is Universal healthcare is socialism versus our current system which is capitalism. How healthcare is delivered has nothing to do with how the government itself is organized, other than a communistic government would have an easier time changing the method of healthcare delivery than the Obama administration is.
And suddenly every patent produces negative profit just like movies.
No, the profit is exactly the same as it was before. It is simply allocated proportionately as to who invested the money into the research. If 80% public finance research then 80% back to the public. If 80% private research then 80% back to the corporation. That is exactly how business partnerships work for everything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting, and also proves my point.
9/11 is very real, it's not a movie. So of course people can be traumatized by it.
The same is if you show real violence to people, even in movie form. Like a CCTV clip, or a police video.
I don't know why it's so difficult to understand. Virtual, fake, violence is not real.
People can watch and even enjoy virtual violence because they know that it's not real. Case in point, every action, horror, splatter, thriller, etc. movie.
But if it's real, then people know it's real and are affected completely different.
But you also need to know about "we vs. them" psychology, People also react and affected differently depending what group is done violence against. If the group is a "we" group, then we are affected. If the group is a "them" group people are not affected. That explains genocide, enjoyment of gladiator fights and so on.
The discussion is not about whether or not people enjoy watching violence. It is obvious that they do. The discussion is about whether or not the excessive observation of violent acts alters one's behaviour.
You see: "want" and "forced" are at a very distributed end of the spectrum.
Which is probably why the summary says the change will killoff BerkelyDB. To avoid being forced into the new license, people will continue with the old version. Of course, if they want bug fixes and new features, then they have to choose between using the new new license and BerkelyDB or swiching to some other database that doesn't make them make such choices.
BerkeleyDB seems to be a niche product and according to TFA
It comes standard with Perl, Python and Java, among many other things. It may appear niche because it rarely gets much mention, but it's pretty much been the standard tool used for persistent associative arrays for a long time. Of course, it's also fairly generic, and eminently replaceable. I agree that this is unlikely to be a huge problem.
Wait, if BerkelyeDB comes standard with Java, does that mean Java is going to be AGPL instead of LGPL?
Of course real violence desensitizes people. No question in that.
But we are talking about virtual violence. That is completely different.
Virtual violence, like video games, do not desensitizes people to real violence. Because that one is virtual and the other is real.
A horror movie will not desensitize you. A plane crash movie will not traumatize you.
And yet the videos of the planes crashing into the World Trade Towers on 9/11 that were played over and over again, did indeed traumatize many. So evidently, some plane crash movies do traumatize people.
The problem with a proper study upon violent video games and its impact on anti-social behavior is that you have to also expand it to gaming in general. The researcher would have to find a statistically significant number of gamers of violent games and a second set of gamers that only plays non-violent games and has little to no exposure to so called violent games. An additional problem would be showing that any conclusion was truly due to gaming rather than that the people attracted to violent games (or games in general) are not predisposed to being anti-social.
That is true. That is why, very often, such studies look at something a little easier to quantify, like porn. There is no question that porn impacts behaviour and it is much easier to isolate porn watchers from non-porn watchers than violent video gamers from non (and other violent exposure such as TV and movies).
What has been learned from the porn research is that exposure to such stimulus does impact future behaviour. It does not show that porn watchers are going to be tomorrows rapists, just that their behaviour changes after repeated exposure. We also have industrial studies, for instance pilot simulator training, that shows that pilots that spend more time in a simulator respond better in air emergency situations than those who do not. Again, the simulation impacts ones future behaviour. Of course, almost crashing in a simulator is not going to make a pilot then go intentionally fly a plane into a mountain, but it does impact future behaviour.
The question with violent content in video games and movies and TV, is to what extent future behaviour is influenced by repeated exposure. So far, studies have shown that "normal" people will not exhibit violent or aggressive behaviour in "normal" situations. Research already exists showing that non-normal or individuals with a pre-disposition to violence will be negatively impacted. new research is being conducted, however on "normal" people in non-normal situations, situation that have high stress or life changing events and the like and even rush hour road rage.
So far the data is inconclusive and as you point out may remain that way, because there are so many influences that trying to correlate it specifically to video games or other violent content is difficult at best. On top of that, researchers have to wait for the stressful events to occur and then work backwards (it is considered unethical to intentionally cause such events in people's lives).
So what is known is that the things we watch do influence our behaviour. What is still undecided is to what extent.
Yes, the military uses video games, they just don't call them that. They are various types of electronic tactical simulations. They aren't alone. The airline industry spends a lot of money on simulation training for pilots so they react instinctively when trouble occurs in flight. We accept it as something good, you know, practice makes perfect, but in effect, it is a type of neural programming to elicit a specific type of behaviour.
The process, in and off itself, is neither good nor bad, it would depend on what its purpose is used for. For pilots and even military personnel, one could easily argue that those would be good uses. The point being, though, that video games, TV, etc. all have the same effect on us, like it or not (otherwise, companies wouldn't pay so much money for advertising).
There are no studies that show playing violent video games or watching shows will cause "normal" people to alter their behaviour and act out in "normal" circumstances. There are plenty of studies that show that watching porn will cause "normal" people to alter their behaviour and act out in normal circumstances. So, behaviour can be modified and relatively easily. The issue with violence comes with the "normal" clauses. Not every person is "normal" and some of them will act out regardless and even those people who are "normal" if placed in a stressful situation may be more inclined to act out than if they had not been exposed to the violent stimulus.
I'm not making a judgement statement as to whether there should or should not be violent games or porn or anything else, but to deny the evidence that they impact behaviour is like denying the evidence that there is climate change. How climate change is coming about (man made or natural) may be open for debate and the overall impact that such stimulus as video games or porn or whatever impact behaviour may likewise be debated, but that doesn't change that the change is there. If the impact is enough that it is a problem, then the first thing we have to do is quit denying there is any impact.
The military would seem to disagree with you. They use video games to desensitize soldiers. Just like flight simulators are used to train pilots so they can react when problem occur, there is a lot of science on exactly how video simulations (games) impact people's behaviour). The US government, military and majore industries spend lots of money on video simulations for training, they must be doing it for a reason.
Why would one expect a study to of violent video games and shows to impact pro-social behaviour? Shouldn't the study be looking at the impact on anti-social behaviour or violent behaviour? I would posit that porn doesn't impact pro-social behaviour, either. On the other hand, it most definitely impacts sexual behaviour.
So, based on the Australian study, people that play GTA are just as likely to pick up a pen that fell to the ground for somebody than somebody who didn't play GTA. What exactly does that prove?
before video games kids played cowboys and indians. we learned at an early age to kill off the idiots trying to kick us off their land
Actually, playing cowboys and indians is different because in the end you know you are play acting. TV and video games affect different parts of the brain than play acting. Nobody goes to a broadway play and becomes emotionally attached to the characters portrayed. But how many people see characters from their favorite TV show and cannot separate them from the actor playing the part? People form emotional attachments with the characters portrayed in media endeavors. That doesn't happen with the characters portrayed in our back yards. Somehow our brains know that it is still johnny or suzie. It also doesn't happen with Broadway and other stage plays. It is a phenomenom related to electronic media and film.
Whether such media makes one more prone to violent acts or not is yet to be determined. On the other hand, prior to the rise of easy access porn, sexual behaviour was a lot different. So, the question is if watching sexual activity influences our own ideas and mores about sexual practices, is it that far of a stretch to expect that it does likewise to other mores and values including violence?
If violent games don't impact behaviour, then the military can save millions on all of those desensitizing programs (games) that they use. Of course their research probably differs from this study as they, the military aren't trying to show that violent games don't impact "pro" social behaviour. Wouldn't the proper study have been that violent video games impact anti-social behaviour? But then, maybe I missed the frames in GTA where you have to pick up pens from the ground?
Of course this assumes every body speaks English, too. Depending on who you listen to, we should be downloading either Spanish keyboards if in the Americas or Mandrian keyboards for everywhere else. Or maybe just leave the keyboard alone. It might be antiquated, but really, the convenience of a "Th" key over all of the muscle memory and fine motor skills involved with the QWERTY keyboard for billions of people? The Dvorak keyboard was supposed to be a better design, too, but it never caught on, eithe.
At some point, with all of those design patterns floating around in cyber-space, isn't it going to just be a matter of a program assembling the pieces based on the parameters inputted by the user, not the programmer?
There's this anecdote about a mechanic which slightly adjusted a screw and thus repaired an expensive car many others failed before. Being asked why he charged thousands of dollars for a 3 mins job, he answered: "Look sonny, you ain't paying me for tightening that screw, you are paying for me knowing which screw to tighten" (those floating design pattern won't magically settle in the necessary form just by drag-dropping).
If we can AI that can drive cars and fly planes, surely AI for making a decision as to which design pattern to use based on a set patterns can't be that difficult. We've already got code generators for UI and database connectors. Is it that far of a leap to expect code generators for the connectors that put it all together?
Are they teaching Comp Sci or Java? There's a difference, after all.
Yes there is, just like there is a difference between mathematics and engineering. One is theory the other is practical.
Surely with all of these advances in techonolgy, most programming chores can be turned over to virtual robots in the future. If the predictions are correct that robots will replace most labor jobs, then couldn't they also replace most programming jobs, too? Might we not be headed back to the day where we looked at programs as accepting inputs into a black box and spitting out the outputs?
For sure, there will be computer scientists in the future, just like there will be physicists, but in the early days of the automobile and even into the middle of the last century, you had to be a mechanic to operate one. Today, everything is plug and play. Architecture used to require drafting and engineering skills, but today, you input your ideas on a computer and behold you have your plans.
At some point, with all of those design patterns floating around in cyber-space, isn't it going to just be a matter of a program assembling the pieces based on the parameters inputted by the user, not the programmer?
That they have done it for a long time doesn't make it right! And even if they have been doing it for a long time, there was an even longer time when they didn't do it. For example the US didn't even have an intelligence agency until after WWII, and in no way was the FBI of 193x and 194x involved in mass surveillance of the public.
I never said or implied it was right, but the outrage that has been expressed isn't that they have been doing it. Everybody knows they have been doing it. The outrage is that they lied and said they weren't doing it and then Snowden released the documents showing they actually were.
As for US intelligence capabilities prior to the WWII and the FBI, you are free to believe what ever you want so you can sleep easy, but the Library of Congress has many volumes documenting what was going on now that much of it has been declassified.
No that's not the problem. Spying on your citizens is fine.
Speak for yourself. 1984 was never intended to be an instruction manual. Is that really the kind of society you want to live in? Your every communication monitored like you are some kind of lab animal?
You miss the point. The government is already spying on its people and was doing so long before the information age. Technology has only made it easier. Most people knew or already suspected that. One only has to look at the history of the FBI or McCarthyism to realize that it has been going on in the US ages. However, both the FBI and McCarthyism were more or less public spying. Nobody denied it was going on. The NSA got caught spying on the public after saying they weren't. That is why it is such a scandal.
Cell phones and facebook and email don't enable the government to spy on their citizens, they just make the task much easier.
Everyone is doing it. It must be ok then... so move along, "don't rock the boat - keep your head down Just another fool in the crowd"...
/sarcasm
No, it doesn't make it okay, but like most things, lying about it definitely makes it worse.
I suspect most if not all nations do it to some extent, the questions are which ones and to what extent.
...and how many of them profess to be the "Land of the Free".
No that's not the problem. Spying on your citizens is fine. Everybody knows they do it. As usual what gets them in trouble is denying they're doing it. As soon as they were aware that Snowden had the data, which was hopefully before he went public, but who knows, they should have released that they were doing this. People wouldn't have liked it, but it wouldn't be a scandal. It's not the deed that gets you in trouble, its the denial and cover-up.
Don't know why I got modded down. She's people on /. have no sense of humour.
If they did, wouldn't that be exactly what ARM wants? ARM doesn't care who makes the ARM server chips, it gets paid either way. And having Intel develop ARM server ecosystem so that other partners can jump in would be downright fantastic for them.
Intel would have to be close to bankruptcy to do something that desperate.
But Intel doesn't care if ARM gets paid. Intel cares that Intel shareholders get paid. If they can make a return on producing ARM chips that meats their internal ROI requirements, they will produce ARM chips. Intel is interested in profits, it doesn't matter what chip line it comes from.
In government, you are not judged by results. You are judged by appearances, specifically how many people you can fool for long enough that they forget all the stuff you've screwed up.
This is why as little as possible should be entrusted to government. Even government workers will generally agree with this: government works best when it has a small set of goals and some way of measuring "success" other than cheering uninformed voters.
It is much more simple than that. In government you are judged or valued not by what you or your section accomplish, but simply by how many people report to you. The more that report to you, the more important you are. That is why it is so difficult to introduce more efficient processes. If processes are improved so staff could be reassigned to other projects, the manager/superviosr in charge loses prestige because they have fewer people working for them.
Government, like any business, should have measurable objectives and people should be evaluated on those standards. The problem is that nobody wants to upset the system, because the people who would be responsible for making the changes also have their prestige based on the number of people who report to them. And so the cycle repeats itself.
Timothy (the poster of the story) better watch out. If we have learned anything from the Snowden affair, the government doesn't like it's dirty secrets aired in public.
Universal healthcare would also be communism.
Anyone that's fled from a communist country can tell you how it all worked out in practice. It's not quite the ideal that commie wannabes make it out to be.
People are still greedy and corrupt.
Centralizing power just makes that worse.
Except that communism is a form of government and socialism is an economic system like capitalism. What you are basically saying is that not having universal healthcare is a Republic and Universal healthcare is Communism. When I think you are trying to say is Universal healthcare is socialism versus our current system which is capitalism. How healthcare is delivered has nothing to do with how the government itself is organized, other than a communistic government would have an easier time changing the method of healthcare delivery than the Obama administration is.
And suddenly every patent produces negative profit just like movies.
No, the profit is exactly the same as it was before. It is simply allocated proportionately as to who invested the money into the research. If 80% public finance research then 80% back to the public. If 80% private research then 80% back to the corporation. That is exactly how business partnerships work for everything else.
problem with non-uniformed civilians carrying guns is that they cameoflage the bad guys.
It's called concealed carry, and it's not a new idea.
As a side benefit, if anyone could be carrying concealed, it's risky to attack anyone.
And yet even the NRA's own statistics don't back that up. #1 place criminals get guns, home invasions. #2 off of other victims, #3 gun shows.