Most of the stuff you've listed is simply rhetoric used by one side or another to appeal to their "base". Very little of it ever turns into real legislation
It's not rhetoric to the people that care about those issues. It's not rhetoric if you are praying for the unborn children being murdered/lobbying the Government not to take away your right to choose (just to pick the most divisive issue I can). Do you think it was just rhetoric that allowed the right to torpedo the Harriet Miers nomination?
Mostly because you can find people on both sides of each of those issues in both parties
Not that many people. And most of it is regional. All of the pro-life Democrats are from the South. All of the pro-choice Republicans are from the Northeast.
Both parties use divisive issues to scare you into not voting for the other guy. Because all either of them really care about is power and pork.
Like you aren't using rhetoric to scare people away from voting for a major party candidate they like? It must be pretty sad to be as cynical as you are. Whether or not you'd agree with it there are major differences between the two parties. Whether or not that is the cause of the current bitterness in this country is open to debate. I'm personally with Jon Stewart on blaming the mass media for a lot of that.
the.xxx TLD is the more logical method than this port switching shenanegin. It can be filtered just as easily, and doesn't provide quite the stats on the level of deviance of users. i.e.- ISP operator: hmmm, 60% of your inbound traffic comes over port 69? you naughty wanker...
Actually, it's probably offtopic, but.xxx would provide just as many stats to any interested ISP operator as a port would.
Back when I worked for a regional ISP (approx 350 modems + 40 wireless customers) I used to use Etherpeek for network troubleshooting. One of the modules that Etherpeek had (still does?) was something that would translate (in real time) the URLs that people were going to and display them in a window.
I'll grant you that this is a completely unscientific statistic but I would say that about 40-45% of the traffic during the day was going to obvious porn sites. I never had cause to fire up Etherpeek during the evening or late night hours and see. But 40-45% of the daytime traffic -- that's about 200-250 active dial-up users plus at least another 250-500 users on the wireless (most of our wireless clients were businesses with tens or hundreds of PCs).
That's when I lost a lot of faith in my fellow human beings;) We are primal pigs.
Unless this kid has been watching sado-masochist master-slave bondage hardcore, he hasnt seen anyone degraded - how is a woman degraded by having sex?
Do you seriously think that most porn comes even remotely close to a genuine display of loving sex between two consenting adults? Forget the hardcore stuff that no sane person would want their blank slate child seeing. Do you really think that even mainstream porn is an accurate depiction of sex?
I don't see porn as exploitation of the actors. If anything it's exploitation of the idiots who buy it. But that doesn't mean that I think it's good for my 11 year old to see. If he is curious and downloads a few pictures of naked chicks off Usenet then I'm not going to be too worried about it. If I find a DivX movie of some chick having sex with three guys who ejaculate on her face and then shit on her -- well, I'm going to have to have a talk with the boy;)
I seem to remember there being more than two names on the ballot for president. But everybody sees that as "throwing their vote away". I ALWAYS vote for the third party. It could be hitler, ghandi, mother theresa, saddam...
And that's as stupid of a statement as the idiots who always vote party line Republican or Democrat. You'd vote for hitler (third party) against FDR (Democrat) or Abe Lincoln (Republican)?
I seem to recall their being more then one name on the ballot in the Democratic Primary. Perhaps if people hadn't been too busy to vote for "the guy we think can beat bush" they might have voted for somebody a little less stuffy then Kerry. Likewise, perhaps if Republicans cared less about staying in office and more about effective leadership, they would have run somebody against Bush.
This isn't some strange artifact of a large bureaucratic system, it is by design. They're really one party, and any display to the contrary is just theatre.
You know, I really get sick and tired of hearing this.
Pro-Choice/Pro-Life?
Prayer in schools/separation of Church and State?
Creationism/Intelligent Design or Science?
Taxes on the rich/tax breaks for the rich?
Environmental Protection/Drill in ANWR?
Required EPA fuel standards/tax breaks for buying H2s?
Balanced Budget/Deficit Spending
That's just off the top of my head! I don't care which side of those issues you are on -- you can't deny that they are real issues with real impact on the American people. They are also issues where you will find serious disagreement between the platforms of the RNC and the DNC.
In fact the only issues where the Republicans and Democrats have agreement are issues where business interests take over -- allowing illegal immigration, DMCA, gutting the SEC, etc, etc. They also seem to find agreement about staying in office at all costs -- witness gerrymandering and the gutless Democrats who were opposed to the war but too afraid to vote against it because Karl Rove would have slammed them. You could start to solve these problems by getting the money out of politics and changing the redistricting setup. You'll need somebody like McCain running for President (even if they won't win) to get attention to these issues -- but it's not as hopeless as people like you would believe.
And anyway, since when is sex a bad thing? Did I miss a meeting? "Hey Bill, we had a vote, fucking's out."
Sex isn't a bad thing. But have you looked at some of the crap on the internet lately? Do you really want your teenagers first impression of sex to be some woman with six inch long nails taking it up two orifices while screaming "CUM INSIDE OF ME!!!"? I highly doubt that comes remotely close to an actual representation of sex for 99% of the population.
I'm about as Liberal as they come and I don't want my kids looking at shit like that. The difference between me and this asshole is that I don't think I need the Government to raise my kids for me. Involved parents should be able to know what their kids are doing online -- without the Governments help.
Basically this is about as probable that MS wrote all their code using random number generators to create binary files. . .
That's why Wordpad in Windows 95 required ten times as much RAM as the size of the file you were opening!
Offtopic, but who doesn't remember that? "Crap, it's too big for notepad... let's use Wordpad" [swapping, swapping, swapping], "Almost there!", [swapping, swapping, swapping]....
Nothing is stoping you from downloading a source tarball and installing it the same way you would in slackware, in fedora.
No, except it defeats the whole point of having a package manager. I also think (this is personal opinion, YMMV) that packages have made it way too easy to create "dependency hell". Ever tried to compile GNUCash from source?
An ability to do things differently is not a bad thing, when the other method is still available.
And that's why I like Slackware. There are packages for almost everything (even a nice third party site that went through the pain staking process of installing GNUCash) -- but they don't take over the distribution. I like the BSD init scripts. I like the simplicity -- especially for my servers.
I'm not in the business of shoving Slackware down people's thoughts. Just pointing out that it still has a place. I still recommend it for people new to Linux. Fedora teaches you how to use Fedora, Slackware teaches you how to use Linux. For anybody out there who happens to agree with me I would encourage you to buy the current version and support Pat's efforts. For those that don't agree with me... to each their own:)
Slackware was the first distro I was successful using (had trouble making SLS work) and despite trying 'the big three' (Red Hat, Debian, Mandrake) over the years, I'm still a dedicated Slackware user
I recall once upon a time when Slackware was considered part of the 'big three', which also included Red hat and Debian. In fact my introduction to Linux came in the form of a $3.99 CD that I purchased that included all three of those distros. Back then they were all small enough to fit on a single CD -- yet large enough that I didn't feel like downloading any one of them on my v.34+ modem:)
I installed Slackware and never looked back. The few times I've tried forks of the others (tried Conectiva once, Stampede while it lasted, and Fedora) it seems too alien to me. A lot of the fun stuff is hidden behind package managers and I always thought that the boot script layout was a little over complicated.
I also think the MPAA are becomming smarter. This quote FTA shows that they are learning from the mistakes of and bad publicity of the RIAA:
Well, even most/.'ers would have to admit that there is a bit of a difference between MPAA and RIAA. RIAA's entire business model is based around enslaving artists into draconian contracts where they make the lions share of the money off CD sales and the only thing the artist gets out of it is publicity. One wonders why such a business model survives in the internet age.
The members of the MPAA actually make a product (of sorts) that's tangible. They aren't paying actors and writers 15 cents a movie and telling them to make it up with autograph sales and concerts. Who here can't understand why the MPAA would get pissed when the new Star Wars or Harry Potter movie is floating around the internet days before it's released? Granted, I still have issues with them (region codes come to mind), but nothing like the complete lack of respect that I have for RIAA.
As you raise taxes on the rich it more and more is to their advantage to invest in things that don't return as much, but also result in less taxes. So the income goes down as taxes go up, and vice-versa (though of course there is a limit to how far down you can go)
Unless the income tax rate is over 100% then that's a bullshit argument. When the hell is it to your advantage to invest in a lower yield security because of income taxes? The income tax is progressive.... only incomes over X amount are taxed at Y rate. The money below that amount is taxed at Z rate, which is lower.
Beyond that, what do you have against the rich?
I have nothing against the rich! I have everything against Bush who thinks he can finance his Middle East adventure. I have everything against Cheney who said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" when somebody suggested raising taxes to pay for the war. I'm completely disgusted that rather then raise taxes a few percentage points on people with money to spare or pull out of Iraq we are cutting social programs that actually make a difference to the people of this country.
I know a lot of people on the right really hate "entitlement" programs but what would your rather see money spent on? School lunches or gas for that M1A2 driving around Baghdad? Not to mention the minor little fact that some of the "entitlement" programs Bush is slashing are ones for veterans.
Besides all that, how much of the public debt of the United States is now held by foreign nations? Ones that might not be predisposed to continue paying for our lifestyle and wars since we've alienated the rest of the World. Or ones that might be enemies or competitors down the road (China?). Do you really think this is wise economic policy?
Your right, it's completely different then WW2. In WW2 we were actually attacked by someone. In WW2 the American public was united behind a thoughtful leader who was articulate. And before you pull a Dick Cheney and whip out 9/11, it wasn't Iraq that attacked us.
Also, to even compare the spending budge for WW2 to that of the war in Iraq is absolutely absurd.
Where did I compare the budget? I don't recall comparing any budget. I was only pointing out the minor little fact that the American people were actually asked to sacrifice during that war. If any war is worth fighting then it's worth sacrificing on the home front. Bush Co. asks us to do nothing more then run up our credit cards to keep the economy going while welcoming our new corporate overlords. If he can't even convince his base (the filthy rich and right wing bible thumpers) that the war is worth paying for then why the hell should I support it?
Also, how can we downsize the military when we are already short on troops as is?
We wouldn't be short on troops if we hadn't invaded Iraq. And explain to me how having twelve aircraft carrier battle groups helps us with the troop shortage problem.
Though, thank God you aren't in office, as you seem awfully quick to use nukes.
Thanks for putting words into my mouth. I didn't say I had any desire to use nuclear weapons. I was pointing out that it's highly unlikely that we will see the World revert to 19th/early 20th century rules of conduct -- where more powerful nations conquered resources as a matter of course. We won't revert to those rules of conduct because of the existence of nuclear weapons and the threat of mutually assured destruction.
All the Ommegangs are good, but you shouldn't be paying more than five or six bucks a bottle for any of them -- maybe a little more if you're far from the Northeast. Anyone charging $40 for Rare Vos is a criminal or a hotel minifridge, or both.
I would assume the $40.00 is in a restaurant/bar type setting. That's a bit high on the markup scale but not completely out of line for the hospitality business. How else do you explain $15 bottles of wine that sell for $60 just because you ordered it with dinner?
Yeah, I'm quite the big fan of Yuengling myself. For the longest time they had no distribution in NYS. When that changed it literally took over. You'd be hard pressed to find an establishment that doesn't have it now and it's in virtually all the stores. The lager is the predominate variety around here -- but I'm also very big on the Black and Tan and Porter.
I've also become rather fond of Smithwicks lately. It's rather expensive ($8 for a six pack) and it might not be distributed where you are -- but pick some up if you see it and give it a try. Like all real beer it's better on draft -- so jump at the chance if you get it. Guinness is also a favorite -- although I've never quite been able to stomach the bottled or canned kind.
I have to say that the absolute best beer I have ever had in my life was Rare Vos from Ommegang, a local microbrewery near Cooperstown. I'm told it sells for over $40 a bottle (750ml) in the city. We usually get a free case or two because friends of ours know the owners and we always volunteer to work the Belgian Beer Festival that they hold every year. If you ever grace these parts make sure you find the time to stop up there. Ithaca Brewing is also a good bet.
I think the biggest loss from prohibition was the destruction of the American microbreweries. Here's hoping they make a real come back.
Now to me, it seems, the only way to pay off the debt we currently have would be to privatize.
That's funny. What fraction of the Iraq War is NASA's budget again?
It seems to me (and go ahead and call me a bleeding heart liberal) that the way to pay off the debt would be to raise taxes on the rich. They are going to complain about a 45%-50% income tax rate? Did you know that it hit 77% during WW1 and 91% during WW2? If this "War on Terrorism" is really worth fighting then I would like to see Bush convince the American people that it's also worth paying for. If we can't pay for it today then I don't think we should be fighting it today.
Likewise, why the hell do we need to privatize NASA? What's the NASA budget compared to the cost of one CVBG (aircraft carrier battle group)? We have twelve of them!. Perhaps we should withdraw from the Middle East, withdraw from Europe (does the EU really need American troops for defense anymore?), withdraw from Korea and Japan (do they really need....) and bring our troops home. We could then downsize the military to something a little bit more reasonable for the defense of the United States/North America.
You think that's a bad idea? You think it spells the end of the American superpower? I call bullshit -- the real power in the 21st century is economic and information based. And even if the world reverted back to 19th/20th century rules (unlikely with the invention of nuclear weapons) we'd still have more then enough time to rearm. Hell, the military was virtually built from scratch to fight WW2 -- and we won that one as I recall.
I'm not certain what the people on the coast think we're missing, but it's not an extremely high-pressure lifestyle. I'm guessing people on both coasts (in the big cities, anyway) need vacations in order to survive or go splat! Living a quieter lifestyle takes a lot of that out of you. We're not lacking for much. But the standard of living is much, much different.
Your guessing wrong. There are people (I am one of them) who live for the big city lifestyle and wouldn't trade it for anything. When I lived in NYC I had 24/7 access to virtually I wanted. Almost every culture in the World is represented. I could get food just by walking half a block that I now have to drive over two hours to find. Virtually anything made by the human race can be found in a World City like New York.
When I moved out of the city and back upstate I relocated to a moderately sized city (Binghamton). I now live in the suburbs. Aside from losing access to all that culture and activities the biggest adjustment for me was how quiet it is around here. I miss the sounds and smells of the city.
Just pointing out that the country lifestyle is not for everybody.
it is the best acted (*cough*Star Wars / Star Trek*cough*)
Hey, now that's a little unfair. Granted, Star Trek gave us such moments as "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!" but once in awhile I think that William Shatner actually got it right. Think of the scene in Search for Spock when his son is murdered. Patrick Stewart is arguably one of the best actors of his generation. And don't even just look at TNG for that -- can you think of anybody better suited to be Professor X?
In fact, I've always thought that if you had made a movie out of "All Good Things" (the TNG finale) it would easily rank as the best Trek movie ever -- as well as one of the best Sci-Fi movies. That's an episode that aims to show the limitless possibilities of the human race in the context of exploring the Final Frontier. However you look at it that episode is classic Trek. Sometimes I wish they had just let TNG go out that way instead of the movies. Everything TNG that came after it seemed like recycled garbage and cheap plots.
Your kid is a moron. Please sue either (a) his genetic contributors or (b) the people who raised him poorly enough that he thought that reenacting a jumping scene from a computer game wouldn't result in his death.
The key word in your suggestion and TFA's is "sue" of course.
And to think, all this time I've been worried about our ability to successfully Americanize a billion Chinese. Seems like they are well on their way to adopting the very best of American culture and values;)
I love how people like you try to completely ignore my point by changing the conversation to how evil the United States is. Do I hear you slamming Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden or Denmark for being neutral?
The United States was neutral because that's what the American people wanted. FDR did everything he could to bring the United States into the European War. To the point that even after we were attacked on the other side of the World by an enemy that could have invaded American soil we devoted over 80% of our military and industrial resources to the European Front.
In 1939 there was not a damn thing the United States would have done to intervene in the war. Our armed forces were not ready. The standing Army at that time totaled less then 200,000 troops. The only branch of the armed forces that was remotely ready for war was our Navy -- most of which was deployed in the Pacific as a deterrence against Japanese aggression.
Contrast that to France and the UK, both of whom had massive standing armies stationed right on the poorly defended German border (the bulk of the Wehrmacht was in Poland). Instead of attacking they sat around and waited to be attacked themselves. They ceded the intuitive to the Germans and paid dearly for it. Regardless of whether or not you think that's moral cowardice (as I do) you have to admit it's pretty pathetic military leadership.
Umm. The only problem with that is that the United States never actually joined the League of Nations. Wilson wanted to but the Senate refused to ratify it. I still maintain that the United States had no legal obligation to come to Poland's aid. Not that legalese justifies staying neutral in the face of Nazi aggression -- but for all practical matters the United States didn't even have the ability to intervene. In 1939 the only branch of the US military was remotely ready for war was the US Navy. Given that the bulk of the Navy (including all of the capital ships) was deployed in the Pacific because of Japan I highly doubt there is anything we would have done to have helped.
The French and the Brits made an alliance. They then sat by in the phony war and watched as a member of that alliance was crushed. There's also the betrayal of Czechoslovakia -- another state that France had promised to defend.
I'm not defending or criticizing the actions or either the United States or France in 1939. I only started this conversation to point out that there is a reason why people (not just Americans) regard the French in the manner that they do. It's not all American chest pounding and arrogance. There's a historical basis for it as well.
But I still think your expectations of the F-22 are overly optimistic. It just costs too fucking much per unit and will be too maintainance intensive.
Hey, I'm not disputing the costs part of it. There's a lot of argument against it just for that reason alone. Plus unless you start talking about sixth generation fighters (Su-37, Rafale) then our existing airframes can easily defeat anything in the air today. Even against those birds, we'd probably trade at least a 1:1 ratio. Do we plan on going to war with Russia or the EU anytime soon?
I think we retired the A-10 and A-6 WAY too early, so that probably tells something about how I feel about current defense spending. Also a fan of cold war soviet designs.
No shit! The A-6 left the Navy without a dedicated attack aircraft. And I maintain that the biggest mistake we ever made was retiring the F-14 and it's Phoenix missiles. That will become rapidly apparent if the Russians start selling the Chinese some of their Naval Aviation technology. Do you want to defend a CVBG against supersonic bombers armed with super/hypersonic long ranged (200mi+) cruise missiles using the F/A-18 and AMRAAM?
Spend the weekend studying accounting, nursing, or farming.
Because you'll be so much happier wiping or shoveling shit then you would be pulling cat5 cable or helping an old woman set up her dial up connection. I have a great deal of respect for nurses and farmers -- I know there's no way in hell I could do their jobs.
And if you did decide to go into accounting (though I doubt I could) then your experience with computers will hardly hurt you any. I would like to go back to school and study meteorology because I've started to think that IT isn't all it's cracked up to be.... that's a field I would love to work in. And like my example above, I hardly think all my experience with computers would hurt me.
Sharp slacks and shirts (and worse still, ties) are NOT compatible with that environment. Besides, wearing fancy clothes does not make me code better.
No, not by a long shot. But that doesn't mean that we have to wear crummy jeans and a stained t-shirt to work either. My job includes all of the things you mentioned -- everything from pulling cables to database design and coding. There's also the added bonus of being the only IT guy which means pretty much everything electronic falls to you by default. The good example of that would be phone systems -- how many of us here signed up to do network administration and became experts in key and PBX systems?
My standard dress to work is a short sleeve button down shirt from Old Navy (my personal favorite) and a pair of khakis. Toss in a decent looking pair of casual dress shoes ($30-$50) and you are all set. On casual Friday I downgrade that to a polo shirt and khakis -- I personally dislike jeans but you could wear them on Friday in this scenario. If Old Navy costs too much for you then you could build the same outfit at Target or Wally World (gag) cheaper. I think that's a happy medium between "trailer park trash" and "upper class snob". Plus it's just as comfortable and just as easy to take care of -- I for one loath ironing and will go to great lengths to avoid it.
America was a part of the same treaties from WWI were we not?
We were part of the armistice that ended the war. But we weren't part an alliance with either the Allies or the Axis when WW2 broke out.
Were we not supposed to defend the same as Britan and France?
No, we were not. We were not part of any defensive agreement or alliance.
Just think we are making those same mistakes today. SDI? effective against small man deployed tactical nukes? how about bio agents poured into the water supply of a large city? I think not.
SDI is currently useless. It's beyond the scope of this discussion as to whether or not it should be researched more so that it wasn't useless. My two cents says that MAD worked quite well and we don't need to mess with that.
F-22? How many conventional aircraft can one defeat in a single sortie? I mean the cost is making us build MANY fewer than other nations will have in conventional, tried and trusted types. Will they stand up to the equivelent $ value of 80-90 era F-16s or MIGs? I think not. Not even if they are eventually perfected and combat ready, which is way behind schedule.
Umm??? I'm sorry but I'd disagree completely with you on this. The French stuck with "tried and true" designs and tactics -- look what it got them. As to whether or not the F-22 could stand up against an equal $ value of F-16s or MiGs? Most probably, yes it could. I recall a NATO simulation of the expected performance of various NATO types against the Su-37. The F-22 came out on top with an expected 12:1 kill ratio. It was followed by the Rafael (8:1), the Eurofighter (5:1), and the F-15 (0.8:1). Given that it is expected to perform that well against a modern fighter I would expect it to perform equally as well against 80s and 90s vintage technology.
That said, I'll leave it up to you to decide if investing billions of dollars into the F-22 when we are fighting terrorists on horseback is a good idea. Historically the United States has never fought a war without having air superiority -- which is the stated mission of the F-22. Despite that, at times it does feel like a nice big fat giveaway to the military-industrial complex.
The point is, the french were caught in a war they didnt plan for. And to be using that as a bludgeon to villify them is lame, and should have been played out a long damn time ago.
I wasn't vilifying them for anything. I was pointing out the reasons why many people (not just Americans) regard the French in this manner. And even if they didn't plan for the War (their own fault -- they had lots of warning) it doesn't excuse them for executing it so poorly when it finally arrived.
The time to have done something about the Nazis was when it was appearant that their "transport planes" and "airliners" were obviously made for the role of bomber and troop transports. We knew what they were up to then and did nothing, just like the french, british and almost any other nation you can name. It was well known that they were rearming and it was against the armistice treaty.
I don't think you can lay the blame for that on the United States though. We aren't the ones that ignored the warning signs across the border. We aren't the ones that backstabbed Czechoslovakia. We aren't the ones that let Poland down.
As for not invalidating your point, Um... Wasnt your point that France waited to enter the war until they were attacked?
No. France entered the war and then sat around and did nothing while Poland was crushed. If France didn't have any intention of fighting the Germans then they shouldn't have declared war on Germany. I would have had more respect for them as a neutral country that refused to get involved (like Belgium) then as somebody who makes an alliance and then does nothing while another member of that alliance is crushed. Picture the United States allowing the Soviet Union to roll over NATO and doing nothing about it but declaring war on a piece of paper and then not sending our troops to fight.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the stuff you've listed is simply rhetoric used by one side or another to appeal to their "base". Very little of it ever turns into real legislation
It's not rhetoric to the people that care about those issues. It's not rhetoric if you are praying for the unborn children being murdered/lobbying the Government not to take away your right to choose (just to pick the most divisive issue I can). Do you think it was just rhetoric that allowed the right to torpedo the Harriet Miers nomination?
Mostly because you can find people on both sides of each of those issues in both parties
Not that many people. And most of it is regional. All of the pro-life Democrats are from the South. All of the pro-choice Republicans are from the Northeast.
Both parties use divisive issues to scare you into not voting for the other guy. Because all either of them really care about is power and pork.
Like you aren't using rhetoric to scare people away from voting for a major party candidate they like? It must be pretty sad to be as cynical as you are. Whether or not you'd agree with it there are major differences between the two parties. Whether or not that is the cause of the current bitterness in this country is open to debate. I'm personally with Jon Stewart on blaming the mass media for a lot of that.
the .xxx TLD is the more logical method than this port switching shenanegin. It can be filtered just as easily, and doesn't provide quite the stats on the level of deviance of users. i.e.- ISP operator: hmmm, 60% of your inbound traffic comes over port 69? you naughty wanker...
Actually, it's probably offtopic, but .xxx would provide just as many stats to any interested ISP operator as a port would.
Back when I worked for a regional ISP (approx 350 modems + 40 wireless customers) I used to use Etherpeek for network troubleshooting. One of the modules that Etherpeek had (still does?) was something that would translate (in real time) the URLs that people were going to and display them in a window.
I'll grant you that this is a completely unscientific statistic but I would say that about 40-45% of the traffic during the day was going to obvious porn sites. I never had cause to fire up Etherpeek during the evening or late night hours and see. But 40-45% of the daytime traffic -- that's about 200-250 active dial-up users plus at least another 250-500 users on the wireless (most of our wireless clients were businesses with tens or hundreds of PCs).
That's when I lost a lot of faith in my fellow human beings ;) We are primal pigs.
Unless this kid has been watching sado-masochist master-slave bondage hardcore, he hasnt seen anyone degraded - how is a woman degraded by having sex?
Do you seriously think that most porn comes even remotely close to a genuine display of loving sex between two consenting adults? Forget the hardcore stuff that no sane person would want their blank slate child seeing. Do you really think that even mainstream porn is an accurate depiction of sex?
I don't see porn as exploitation of the actors. If anything it's exploitation of the idiots who buy it. But that doesn't mean that I think it's good for my 11 year old to see. If he is curious and downloads a few pictures of naked chicks off Usenet then I'm not going to be too worried about it. If I find a DivX movie of some chick having sex with three guys who ejaculate on her face and then shit on her -- well, I'm going to have to have a talk with the boy ;)
I seem to remember there being more than two names on the ballot for president. But everybody sees that as "throwing their vote away". I ALWAYS vote for the third party. It could be hitler, ghandi, mother theresa, saddam...
And that's as stupid of a statement as the idiots who always vote party line Republican or Democrat. You'd vote for hitler (third party) against FDR (Democrat) or Abe Lincoln (Republican)?
I seem to recall their being more then one name on the ballot in the Democratic Primary. Perhaps if people hadn't been too busy to vote for "the guy we think can beat bush" they might have voted for somebody a little less stuffy then Kerry. Likewise, perhaps if Republicans cared less about staying in office and more about effective leadership, they would have run somebody against Bush.
This isn't some strange artifact of a large bureaucratic system, it is by design. They're really one party, and any display to the contrary is just theatre.
You know, I really get sick and tired of hearing this.
That's just off the top of my head! I don't care which side of those issues you are on -- you can't deny that they are real issues with real impact on the American people. They are also issues where you will find serious disagreement between the platforms of the RNC and the DNC.
In fact the only issues where the Republicans and Democrats have agreement are issues where business interests take over -- allowing illegal immigration, DMCA, gutting the SEC, etc, etc. They also seem to find agreement about staying in office at all costs -- witness gerrymandering and the gutless Democrats who were opposed to the war but too afraid to vote against it because Karl Rove would have slammed them. You could start to solve these problems by getting the money out of politics and changing the redistricting setup. You'll need somebody like McCain running for President (even if they won't win) to get attention to these issues -- but it's not as hopeless as people like you would believe.
And anyway, since when is sex a bad thing? Did I miss a meeting? "Hey Bill, we had a vote, fucking's out."
Sex isn't a bad thing. But have you looked at some of the crap on the internet lately? Do you really want your teenagers first impression of sex to be some woman with six inch long nails taking it up two orifices while screaming "CUM INSIDE OF ME!!!"? I highly doubt that comes remotely close to an actual representation of sex for 99% of the population.
I'm about as Liberal as they come and I don't want my kids looking at shit like that. The difference between me and this asshole is that I don't think I need the Government to raise my kids for me. Involved parents should be able to know what their kids are doing online -- without the Governments help.
Basically this is about as probable that MS wrote all their code using random number generators to create binary files. . .
That's why Wordpad in Windows 95 required ten times as much RAM as the size of the file you were opening!
Offtopic, but who doesn't remember that? "Crap, it's too big for notepad... let's use Wordpad" [swapping, swapping, swapping], "Almost there!", [swapping, swapping, swapping]....
Nothing is stoping you from downloading a source tarball and installing it the same way you would in slackware, in fedora.
No, except it defeats the whole point of having a package manager. I also think (this is personal opinion, YMMV) that packages have made it way too easy to create "dependency hell". Ever tried to compile GNUCash from source?
An ability to do things differently is not a bad thing, when the other method is still available.
And that's why I like Slackware. There are packages for almost everything (even a nice third party site that went through the pain staking process of installing GNUCash) -- but they don't take over the distribution. I like the BSD init scripts. I like the simplicity -- especially for my servers.
I'm not in the business of shoving Slackware down people's thoughts. Just pointing out that it still has a place. I still recommend it for people new to Linux. Fedora teaches you how to use Fedora, Slackware teaches you how to use Linux. For anybody out there who happens to agree with me I would encourage you to buy the current version and support Pat's efforts. For those that don't agree with me... to each their own :)
Slackware was the first distro I was successful using (had trouble making SLS work) and despite trying 'the big three' (Red Hat, Debian, Mandrake) over the years, I'm still a dedicated Slackware user
I recall once upon a time when Slackware was considered part of the 'big three', which also included Red hat and Debian. In fact my introduction to Linux came in the form of a $3.99 CD that I purchased that included all three of those distros. Back then they were all small enough to fit on a single CD -- yet large enough that I didn't feel like downloading any one of them on my v.34+ modem :)
I installed Slackware and never looked back. The few times I've tried forks of the others (tried Conectiva once, Stampede while it lasted, and Fedora) it seems too alien to me. A lot of the fun stuff is hidden behind package managers and I always thought that the boot script layout was a little over complicated.
To each their own.
I also think the MPAA are becomming smarter. This quote FTA shows that they are learning from the mistakes of and bad publicity of the RIAA:
Well, even most /.'ers would have to admit that there is a bit of a difference between MPAA and RIAA. RIAA's entire business model is based around enslaving artists into draconian contracts where they make the lions share of the money off CD sales and the only thing the artist gets out of it is publicity. One wonders why such a business model survives in the internet age.
The members of the MPAA actually make a product (of sorts) that's tangible. They aren't paying actors and writers 15 cents a movie and telling them to make it up with autograph sales and concerts. Who here can't understand why the MPAA would get pissed when the new Star Wars or Harry Potter movie is floating around the internet days before it's released? Granted, I still have issues with them (region codes come to mind), but nothing like the complete lack of respect that I have for RIAA.
As you raise taxes on the rich it more and more is to their advantage to invest in things that don't return as much, but also result in less taxes. So the income goes down as taxes go up, and vice-versa (though of course there is a limit to how far down you can go)
Unless the income tax rate is over 100% then that's a bullshit argument. When the hell is it to your advantage to invest in a lower yield security because of income taxes? The income tax is progressive.... only incomes over X amount are taxed at Y rate. The money below that amount is taxed at Z rate, which is lower.
Beyond that, what do you have against the rich?
I have nothing against the rich! I have everything against Bush who thinks he can finance his Middle East adventure. I have everything against Cheney who said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" when somebody suggested raising taxes to pay for the war. I'm completely disgusted that rather then raise taxes a few percentage points on people with money to spare or pull out of Iraq we are cutting social programs that actually make a difference to the people of this country.
I know a lot of people on the right really hate "entitlement" programs but what would your rather see money spent on? School lunches or gas for that M1A2 driving around Baghdad? Not to mention the minor little fact that some of the "entitlement" programs Bush is slashing are ones for veterans.
Besides all that, how much of the public debt of the United States is now held by foreign nations? Ones that might not be predisposed to continue paying for our lifestyle and wars since we've alienated the rest of the World. Or ones that might be enemies or competitors down the road (China?). Do you really think this is wise economic policy?
The war was MUCH different
Your right, it's completely different then WW2. In WW2 we were actually attacked by someone. In WW2 the American public was united behind a thoughtful leader who was articulate. And before you pull a Dick Cheney and whip out 9/11, it wasn't Iraq that attacked us.
Also, to even compare the spending budge for WW2 to that of the war in Iraq is absolutely absurd.
Where did I compare the budget? I don't recall comparing any budget. I was only pointing out the minor little fact that the American people were actually asked to sacrifice during that war. If any war is worth fighting then it's worth sacrificing on the home front. Bush Co. asks us to do nothing more then run up our credit cards to keep the economy going while welcoming our new corporate overlords. If he can't even convince his base (the filthy rich and right wing bible thumpers) that the war is worth paying for then why the hell should I support it?
Also, how can we downsize the military when we are already short on troops as is?
We wouldn't be short on troops if we hadn't invaded Iraq. And explain to me how having twelve aircraft carrier battle groups helps us with the troop shortage problem.
Though, thank God you aren't in office, as you seem awfully quick to use nukes.
Thanks for putting words into my mouth. I didn't say I had any desire to use nuclear weapons. I was pointing out that it's highly unlikely that we will see the World revert to 19th/early 20th century rules of conduct -- where more powerful nations conquered resources as a matter of course. We won't revert to those rules of conduct because of the existence of nuclear weapons and the threat of mutually assured destruction.
All the Ommegangs are good, but you shouldn't be paying more than five or six bucks a bottle for any of them -- maybe a little more if you're far from the Northeast. Anyone charging $40 for Rare Vos is a criminal or a hotel minifridge, or both.
I would assume the $40.00 is in a restaurant/bar type setting. That's a bit high on the markup scale but not completely out of line for the hospitality business. How else do you explain $15 bottles of wine that sell for $60 just because you ordered it with dinner?
Yeah, I'm quite the big fan of Yuengling myself. For the longest time they had no distribution in NYS. When that changed it literally took over. You'd be hard pressed to find an establishment that doesn't have it now and it's in virtually all the stores. The lager is the predominate variety around here -- but I'm also very big on the Black and Tan and Porter.
I've also become rather fond of Smithwicks lately. It's rather expensive ($8 for a six pack) and it might not be distributed where you are -- but pick some up if you see it and give it a try. Like all real beer it's better on draft -- so jump at the chance if you get it. Guinness is also a favorite -- although I've never quite been able to stomach the bottled or canned kind.
I have to say that the absolute best beer I have ever had in my life was Rare Vos from Ommegang, a local microbrewery near Cooperstown. I'm told it sells for over $40 a bottle (750ml) in the city. We usually get a free case or two because friends of ours know the owners and we always volunteer to work the Belgian Beer Festival that they hold every year. If you ever grace these parts make sure you find the time to stop up there. Ithaca Brewing is also a good bet.
I think the biggest loss from prohibition was the destruction of the American microbreweries. Here's hoping they make a real come back.
Now to me, it seems, the only way to pay off the debt we currently have would be to privatize.
That's funny. What fraction of the Iraq War is NASA's budget again?
It seems to me (and go ahead and call me a bleeding heart liberal) that the way to pay off the debt would be to raise taxes on the rich. They are going to complain about a 45%-50% income tax rate? Did you know that it hit 77% during WW1 and 91% during WW2? If this "War on Terrorism" is really worth fighting then I would like to see Bush convince the American people that it's also worth paying for. If we can't pay for it today then I don't think we should be fighting it today.
Likewise, why the hell do we need to privatize NASA? What's the NASA budget compared to the cost of one CVBG (aircraft carrier battle group)? We have twelve of them!. Perhaps we should withdraw from the Middle East, withdraw from Europe (does the EU really need American troops for defense anymore?), withdraw from Korea and Japan (do they really need....) and bring our troops home. We could then downsize the military to something a little bit more reasonable for the defense of the United States/North America.
You think that's a bad idea? You think it spells the end of the American superpower? I call bullshit -- the real power in the 21st century is economic and information based. And even if the world reverted back to 19th/20th century rules (unlikely with the invention of nuclear weapons) we'd still have more then enough time to rearm. Hell, the military was virtually built from scratch to fight WW2 -- and we won that one as I recall.
The only problem with it is that you're left with a salty residue on your beer can/bottle. The first few sips are salty unless you wipe it off.
Can? I wasn't aware that real beer came in cans ;)
I'm not certain what the people on the coast think we're missing, but it's not an extremely high-pressure lifestyle. I'm guessing people on both coasts (in the big cities, anyway) need vacations in order to survive or go splat! Living a quieter lifestyle takes a lot of that out of you. We're not lacking for much. But the standard of living is much, much different.
Your guessing wrong. There are people (I am one of them) who live for the big city lifestyle and wouldn't trade it for anything. When I lived in NYC I had 24/7 access to virtually I wanted. Almost every culture in the World is represented. I could get food just by walking half a block that I now have to drive over two hours to find. Virtually anything made by the human race can be found in a World City like New York.
When I moved out of the city and back upstate I relocated to a moderately sized city (Binghamton). I now live in the suburbs. Aside from losing access to all that culture and activities the biggest adjustment for me was how quiet it is around here. I miss the sounds and smells of the city.
Just pointing out that the country lifestyle is not for everybody.
it is the best acted (*cough*Star Wars / Star Trek*cough*)
Hey, now that's a little unfair. Granted, Star Trek gave us such moments as "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!" but once in awhile I think that William Shatner actually got it right. Think of the scene in Search for Spock when his son is murdered. Patrick Stewart is arguably one of the best actors of his generation. And don't even just look at TNG for that -- can you think of anybody better suited to be Professor X?
In fact, I've always thought that if you had made a movie out of "All Good Things" (the TNG finale) it would easily rank as the best Trek movie ever -- as well as one of the best Sci-Fi movies. That's an episode that aims to show the limitless possibilities of the human race in the context of exploring the Final Frontier. However you look at it that episode is classic Trek. Sometimes I wish they had just let TNG go out that way instead of the movies. Everything TNG that came after it seemed like recycled garbage and cheap plots.
Your kid is a moron. Please sue either (a) his genetic contributors or (b) the people who raised him poorly enough that he thought that reenacting a jumping scene from a computer game wouldn't result in his death.
The key word in your suggestion and TFA's is "sue" of course.
And to think, all this time I've been worried about our ability to successfully Americanize a billion Chinese. Seems like they are well on their way to adopting the very best of American culture and values ;)
I love how people like you try to completely ignore my point by changing the conversation to how evil the United States is. Do I hear you slamming Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden or Denmark for being neutral?
The United States was neutral because that's what the American people wanted. FDR did everything he could to bring the United States into the European War. To the point that even after we were attacked on the other side of the World by an enemy that could have invaded American soil we devoted over 80% of our military and industrial resources to the European Front.
In 1939 there was not a damn thing the United States would have done to intervene in the war. Our armed forces were not ready. The standing Army at that time totaled less then 200,000 troops. The only branch of the armed forces that was remotely ready for war was our Navy -- most of which was deployed in the Pacific as a deterrence against Japanese aggression.
Contrast that to France and the UK, both of whom had massive standing armies stationed right on the poorly defended German border (the bulk of the Wehrmacht was in Poland). Instead of attacking they sat around and waited to be attacked themselves. They ceded the intuitive to the Germans and paid dearly for it. Regardless of whether or not you think that's moral cowardice (as I do) you have to admit it's pretty pathetic military leadership.
We were obligated to defend poland.
Umm. The only problem with that is that the United States never actually joined the League of Nations. Wilson wanted to but the Senate refused to ratify it. I still maintain that the United States had no legal obligation to come to Poland's aid. Not that legalese justifies staying neutral in the face of Nazi aggression -- but for all practical matters the United States didn't even have the ability to intervene. In 1939 the only branch of the US military was remotely ready for war was the US Navy. Given that the bulk of the Navy (including all of the capital ships) was deployed in the Pacific because of Japan I highly doubt there is anything we would have done to have helped.
The French and the Brits made an alliance. They then sat by in the phony war and watched as a member of that alliance was crushed. There's also the betrayal of Czechoslovakia -- another state that France had promised to defend.
I'm not defending or criticizing the actions or either the United States or France in 1939. I only started this conversation to point out that there is a reason why people (not just Americans) regard the French in the manner that they do. It's not all American chest pounding and arrogance. There's a historical basis for it as well.
But I still think your expectations of the F-22 are overly optimistic. It just costs too fucking much per unit and will be too maintainance intensive.
Hey, I'm not disputing the costs part of it. There's a lot of argument against it just for that reason alone. Plus unless you start talking about sixth generation fighters (Su-37, Rafale) then our existing airframes can easily defeat anything in the air today. Even against those birds, we'd probably trade at least a 1:1 ratio. Do we plan on going to war with Russia or the EU anytime soon?
I think we retired the A-10 and A-6 WAY too early, so that probably tells something about how I feel about current defense spending. Also a fan of cold war soviet designs.
No shit! The A-6 left the Navy without a dedicated attack aircraft. And I maintain that the biggest mistake we ever made was retiring the F-14 and it's Phoenix missiles. That will become rapidly apparent if the Russians start selling the Chinese some of their Naval Aviation technology. Do you want to defend a CVBG against supersonic bombers armed with super/hypersonic long ranged (200mi+) cruise missiles using the F/A-18 and AMRAAM?
Spend the weekend studying accounting, nursing, or farming.
Because you'll be so much happier wiping or shoveling shit then you would be pulling cat5 cable or helping an old woman set up her dial up connection. I have a great deal of respect for nurses and farmers -- I know there's no way in hell I could do their jobs.
And if you did decide to go into accounting (though I doubt I could) then your experience with computers will hardly hurt you any. I would like to go back to school and study meteorology because I've started to think that IT isn't all it's cracked up to be.... that's a field I would love to work in. And like my example above, I hardly think all my experience with computers would hurt me.
Sharp slacks and shirts (and worse still, ties) are NOT compatible with that environment. Besides, wearing fancy clothes does not make me code better.
No, not by a long shot. But that doesn't mean that we have to wear crummy jeans and a stained t-shirt to work either. My job includes all of the things you mentioned -- everything from pulling cables to database design and coding. There's also the added bonus of being the only IT guy which means pretty much everything electronic falls to you by default. The good example of that would be phone systems -- how many of us here signed up to do network administration and became experts in key and PBX systems?
My standard dress to work is a short sleeve button down shirt from Old Navy (my personal favorite) and a pair of khakis. Toss in a decent looking pair of casual dress shoes ($30-$50) and you are all set. On casual Friday I downgrade that to a polo shirt and khakis -- I personally dislike jeans but you could wear them on Friday in this scenario. If Old Navy costs too much for you then you could build the same outfit at Target or Wally World (gag) cheaper. I think that's a happy medium between "trailer park trash" and "upper class snob". Plus it's just as comfortable and just as easy to take care of -- I for one loath ironing and will go to great lengths to avoid it.
America was a part of the same treaties from WWI were we not?
We were part of the armistice that ended the war. But we weren't part an alliance with either the Allies or the Axis when WW2 broke out.
Were we not supposed to defend the same as Britan and France?
No, we were not. We were not part of any defensive agreement or alliance.
Just think we are making those same mistakes today. SDI? effective against small man deployed tactical nukes? how about bio agents poured into the water supply of a large city? I think not.
SDI is currently useless. It's beyond the scope of this discussion as to whether or not it should be researched more so that it wasn't useless. My two cents says that MAD worked quite well and we don't need to mess with that.
F-22? How many conventional aircraft can one defeat in a single sortie? I mean the cost is making us build MANY fewer than other nations will have in conventional, tried and trusted types. Will they stand up to the equivelent $ value of 80-90 era F-16s or MIGs? I think not. Not even if they are eventually perfected and combat ready, which is way behind schedule.
Umm??? I'm sorry but I'd disagree completely with you on this. The French stuck with "tried and true" designs and tactics -- look what it got them. As to whether or not the F-22 could stand up against an equal $ value of F-16s or MiGs? Most probably, yes it could. I recall a NATO simulation of the expected performance of various NATO types against the Su-37. The F-22 came out on top with an expected 12:1 kill ratio. It was followed by the Rafael (8:1), the Eurofighter (5:1), and the F-15 (0.8:1). Given that it is expected to perform that well against a modern fighter I would expect it to perform equally as well against 80s and 90s vintage technology.
That said, I'll leave it up to you to decide if investing billions of dollars into the F-22 when we are fighting terrorists on horseback is a good idea. Historically the United States has never fought a war without having air superiority -- which is the stated mission of the F-22. Despite that, at times it does feel like a nice big fat giveaway to the military-industrial complex.
The point is, the french were caught in a war they didnt plan for. And to be using that as a bludgeon to villify them is lame, and should have been played out a long damn time ago.
I wasn't vilifying them for anything. I was pointing out the reasons why many people (not just Americans) regard the French in this manner. And even if they didn't plan for the War (their own fault -- they had lots of warning) it doesn't excuse them for executing it so poorly when it finally arrived.
The time to have done something about the Nazis was when it was appearant that their "transport planes" and "airliners" were obviously made for the role of bomber and troop transports. We knew what they were up to then and did nothing, just like the french, british and almost any other nation you can name. It was well known that they were rearming and it was against the armistice treaty.
I don't think you can lay the blame for that on the United States though. We aren't the ones that ignored the warning signs across the border. We aren't the ones that backstabbed Czechoslovakia. We aren't the ones that let Poland down.
As for not invalidating your point, Um... Wasnt your point that France waited to enter the war until they were attacked?
No. France entered the war and then sat around and did nothing while Poland was crushed. If France didn't have any intention of fighting the Germans then they shouldn't have declared war on Germany. I would have had more respect for them as a neutral country that refused to get involved (like Belgium) then as somebody who makes an alliance and then does nothing while another member of that alliance is crushed. Picture the United States allowing the Soviet Union to roll over NATO and doing nothing about it but declaring war on a piece of paper and then not sending our troops to fight.