Someone sufficiently motivated can fight through the effects of OC, particularly if they have experienced it before and know how it affects them. Second, some people have no appreciable reaction to it.
I know I do - I've taken blasts to the face multiple times, and I can still draw and deliver reasonably accurate fire afterwards. It hurts like hell, but if you have the willpower, its completely doable. There is a difference between pain and impairment. The worst impairment is loss of visual acuity.
I get my news from a variety of sources, many of which are outside the US and have their own unique bias.
MSNBC is most certainly leftist. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they go out of their way on a daily basis to keep the left in a good light and the right in a negative one.
CNN is centrist-left. The information presented is almost always correct, but the conclusions drawn from it are highly suspect.
My thought was more of using one of the Martian moons as a refueling station and possibly as a manufacturing base, and using the planet's surface as colony.
Then, I'm all for getting a permanent human presence in as many locations as possible, as quickly as possible.
Opinion is information, and at least it is presented as such on Fox.
I don't understand the blind hatred for Fox by many libs --- MSNBC is the equivalent on the left, and you guys never get upset about that. CNN is left-of-center, but not as extreme. Neither separate opinion from news in their programming.
The only complaint I have with Fox is the whole "Fair and Balanced" line. They aren't balanced, and that's okay - they should own up to it.
Yes, I'd agree there is merit in studying xenobiology - but does that merit outweigh mankind's using Mars as an outpost to the outer solar system? I don't think so, but we need to consider the benefit as well as the cost of colonization.
What historical evidence do you have to the contrary? I don't see a single system similar to ours at any point.
Why do I think the average person would rise to the occasion? Have you noticed that people as a whole start to pay more attention to what's going on in Washington about every four years, coinciding with the presidential election? That's because this is the only time that politics impacts their life from their point of view.
With the people more active in the political process, decisions made on the floor of Congress would have be a source of discussion amongst everyone - because someone is always going to be pissed off. Where today, we sit back and say "that's unconstitutional, I'll watch this in the court system until it makes its way to the SCOTUS", in the world I propose, only direct action by the people would be able to change things.
Take, for instance, gay marriage. Prop 8 in California is being heavily battled in the courts. If that mechanism was not in place, would it be unreasonable to expect demonstrations in the street? If enough people felt strongly enough about the issue to form an actual movement with the potential to make a real impact, there would be no choice but to come to an equitable agreement on how to proceed, or to face violence. Sometimes the issue must be forced.
As it stands, gays in California have been subjugated by the majority. If they stood up with the resolve necessary to do so in the face of opposition, they could gain their liberty. Instead, they are content to fight in the court system, where they will almost certainly lose.
For what it's worth, I'm a white heterosexual male, I live in the rural South, and I don't think gays have any place "getting married". That said, government has no place telling me who I can get married to, as that is religious institution, not a civil one. If I had my way, there would be no recognition of marriage, whatsoever, by the government. If two men, two women, or some greater number of people want find a preacher that will marry them, more power to them. If that doesn't fit your worldview, I suggest you don't attend their church.
I did not suggest that the government be violently overthrown every few years - I suggested that the original intent was to have a government that operated under the everpresent *threat* of overthrown by the people.
Certainly there is a balance to be struck here - on one end, you have a disengaged citizenry that is easily swindled by anyone who comes along, and who loses the ideals of the republic over the generations. On the other, you have a mob.
I don't know if it would work or not. I'd love to have that enlightened discussion, but this isn't really the venue, now is it? I'm simply pointing out the the very stability that is inherent in our system today is what has led us down the road to authoritarianism.
Between GW Bush's "bailout", and Obama's administration's blatant disregard for Congressional oversight, there is a major problem here. People have become unquestioning of governmental power, and as a result, our government has ceased to be an instrument of the people bound by the framework of the Constitution - it has instead become an organization that dictates to its subjects.
My contention is that this slide for rational self-government to subjugation began with the removal of the power to nullify law from the citizenry, and placing it into the Judiciary.
"The people" wouldn't be apathetic to the political process. I don't know if that would yield a better result or not, but I believe it would.
And yes, it would be bloody. When Americans lost the desire and ability to stand up and put their own lives and fortunes on the line, then we lost what it was to be an American in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. I think that's very sad, as the American system was a grand experiment and a noble cause - certainly not without its problems, but also certainly the best we've ever devised.
Just look at today --- almost two and a half centuries later, the bastardized descendant of that system still provides the highest standard of living and opportunity to be found anywhere in the world.
[quote]God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."[/quote]
The fact is, stability in our governmental system was never the plan. Jefferson was right on this count - we got the stability, and Liberty died.
Whether or not you think that our current system is better, I simply don't see how you can deny that it is not what our Founders envisioned.
In the US, the people are the final authority on what is right and wrong, Constitutional or not.
In my opinion, Marbury v. Madison was a terrible ruling, and the beginning of the American decline. Without that ruling, it would have been up to the people to police Congress, and the level of apathy we see today would have never been attained.
I seem to swap between comment styles on th fly -- if I'm writing a simple wrapper function, I see no need to comment every two or three lines. If I'm writing a complex view for a webapp with imbedded business logic, i'm going to want to make sure that the individual rules are well commented.
The couple of times I looked into Gears, the main feature touted by Google was the ability to use your web apps when you're not connected to the internet. This was reason enough for me not to spend a lot of energy on Gears, as in practice, in this day and age, I never find a computer that is NOT connected to the internet.
So in short, I've never had a need for Gears.
You don't think this will change as we move to more and more powerful mobile computing platforms? Already, my iPhone runs into issues at times when the network isn't available - when WLAN netbook/tablets/retinal implants drop from the network, this type of tech will be key.
Contrary to popular culture, most slaves in the US where fairly well taken care of. It was an enormous investment to purchase and maintain slaves, and the owner wouldn't risk that lightly.
Of course, there were horrific exceptions to this.
I would argue that all words have multiple definitions, and that "words mean what I think they mean" cuts both ways. I often run into this issue in politics on trying to nail down the differences between the US's representative republic and a democracy. Rand was clear in what context she used her words though, and that is what I'm saying here - you can certainly believe something to be true while simultaneously recognizing that your own presuppositions could be incorrect.
I've read a bit here and there of Popper, but I guess it didn't really sink in. As to why I spoke of Rand exactly - well, I had something by one of her contemporaries open in another tab when I wrote that - Binswanger, actually. It was on my mind, and the parent's post annoyed me:)
Thanks for the compliment on my sig --- "The Gulag Archipelago" was one of the first non-fiction books I read when I was young that made a real impact on me. Between that, and the reams of Heinlein I had been reading, I really started to question the authority of government.
Simple - a conviction is nothing more than a firmly held belief. There is no emotion invested in a conviction.
Faith, on the other hand, is a conviction held without a rational basis, or in disregard of evidence to the contrary.
I can honestly say that I completely lack "faith". There are things that I hold as convictions - even things that I have never proven for myself, such as just about any advanced science - but none of those things are taken on faith. They are accepted on the value of the opinion of experts in the field.
I'm nowhere near Rand's vision of a "perfect" Objectivist. In fact, there are several issues where my own reason has led me to a completely different conclusion than hers. I can point to logical inconsistencies in several of her positions.
Finally, it doesn't particularly concern me what you think of Rand. I would urge you to read her work, and the work of other philosophers, and arrive at your own conclusions. Believe whatever you'd like, and so long as you do not cross the line to the point where you are intolerably interfering with my own free will and property, it is none of my concern.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone sufficiently motivated can fight through the effects of OC, particularly if they have experienced it before and know how it affects them. Second, some people have no appreciable reaction to it.
I know I do - I've taken blasts to the face multiple times, and I can still draw and deliver reasonably accurate fire afterwards. It hurts like hell, but if you have the willpower, its completely doable. There is a difference between pain and impairment. The worst impairment is loss of visual acuity.
I get my news from a variety of sources, many of which are outside the US and have their own unique bias.
MSNBC is most certainly leftist. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they go out of their way on a daily basis to keep the left in a good light and the right in a negative one.
CNN is centrist-left. The information presented is almost always correct, but the conclusions drawn from it are highly suspect.
+5 Informative my ass.
Care to provide some citations for those numbers?
I'm not sure how you managed to lump libertarians in with the religious right, but good job, I guess.
My thought was more of using one of the Martian moons as a refueling station and possibly as a manufacturing base, and using the planet's surface as colony.
Then, I'm all for getting a permanent human presence in as many locations as possible, as quickly as possible.
Opinion is information, and at least it is presented as such on Fox.
I don't understand the blind hatred for Fox by many libs --- MSNBC is the equivalent on the left, and you guys never get upset about that. CNN is left-of-center, but not as extreme. Neither separate opinion from news in their programming.
The only complaint I have with Fox is the whole "Fair and Balanced" line. They aren't balanced, and that's okay - they should own up to it.
Yes, I'd agree there is merit in studying xenobiology - but does that merit outweigh mankind's using Mars as an outpost to the outer solar system? I don't think so, but we need to consider the benefit as well as the cost of colonization.
It looks like a typo to me - "WRT" - "with regard to"
That's why they are assertions, not conclusions.
Your post makes AT&T's network cry.
You cannot provide historical evidence for a new concept. The system did not exist prior to 1791.
Wow, living in the US, I don't see a parallel there at all.
What historical evidence do you have to the contrary? I don't see a single system similar to ours at any point.
Why do I think the average person would rise to the occasion? Have you noticed that people as a whole start to pay more attention to what's going on in Washington about every four years, coinciding with the presidential election? That's because this is the only time that politics impacts their life from their point of view.
With the people more active in the political process, decisions made on the floor of Congress would have be a source of discussion amongst everyone - because someone is always going to be pissed off. Where today, we sit back and say "that's unconstitutional, I'll watch this in the court system until it makes its way to the SCOTUS", in the world I propose, only direct action by the people would be able to change things.
Take, for instance, gay marriage. Prop 8 in California is being heavily battled in the courts. If that mechanism was not in place, would it be unreasonable to expect demonstrations in the street? If enough people felt strongly enough about the issue to form an actual movement with the potential to make a real impact, there would be no choice but to come to an equitable agreement on how to proceed, or to face violence. Sometimes the issue must be forced.
As it stands, gays in California have been subjugated by the majority. If they stood up with the resolve necessary to do so in the face of opposition, they could gain their liberty. Instead, they are content to fight in the court system, where they will almost certainly lose.
For what it's worth, I'm a white heterosexual male, I live in the rural South, and I don't think gays have any place "getting married". That said, government has no place telling me who I can get married to, as that is religious institution, not a civil one. If I had my way, there would be no recognition of marriage, whatsoever, by the government. If two men, two women, or some greater number of people want find a preacher that will marry them, more power to them. If that doesn't fit your worldview, I suggest you don't attend their church.
I did not suggest that the government be violently overthrown every few years - I suggested that the original intent was to have a government that operated under the everpresent *threat* of overthrown by the people.
Certainly there is a balance to be struck here - on one end, you have a disengaged citizenry that is easily swindled by anyone who comes along, and who loses the ideals of the republic over the generations. On the other, you have a mob.
I don't know if it would work or not. I'd love to have that enlightened discussion, but this isn't really the venue, now is it? I'm simply pointing out the the very stability that is inherent in our system today is what has led us down the road to authoritarianism.
Between GW Bush's "bailout", and Obama's administration's blatant disregard for Congressional oversight, there is a major problem here. People have become unquestioning of governmental power, and as a result, our government has ceased to be an instrument of the people bound by the framework of the Constitution - it has instead become an organization that dictates to its subjects.
My contention is that this slide for rational self-government to subjugation began with the removal of the power to nullify law from the citizenry, and placing it into the Judiciary.
"The people" wouldn't be apathetic to the political process. I don't know if that would yield a better result or not, but I believe it would.
And yes, it would be bloody. When Americans lost the desire and ability to stand up and put their own lives and fortunes on the line, then we lost what it was to be an American in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. I think that's very sad, as the American system was a grand experiment and a noble cause - certainly not without its problems, but also certainly the best we've ever devised.
Just look at today --- almost two and a half centuries later, the bastardized descendant of that system still provides the highest standard of living and opportunity to be found anywhere in the world.
To quote Jefferson:
[quote]God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."[/quote]
The fact is, stability in our governmental system was never the plan. Jefferson was right on this count - we got the stability, and Liberty died.
Whether or not you think that our current system is better, I simply don't see how you can deny that it is not what our Founders envisioned.
In the US, the people are the final authority on what is right and wrong, Constitutional or not.
In my opinion, Marbury v. Madison was a terrible ruling, and the beginning of the American decline. Without that ruling, it would have been up to the people to police Congress, and the level of apathy we see today would have never been attained.
I seem to swap between comment styles on th fly -- if I'm writing a simple wrapper function, I see no need to comment every two or three lines. If I'm writing a complex view for a webapp with imbedded business logic, i'm going to want to make sure that the individual rules are well commented.
So which is it? Is Exxon paying "them", or are they not?
You Earther types are all the same - take both sides of an argument when it suits your agenda, then close your eyes to the logical contradictions.
The couple of times I looked into Gears, the main feature touted by Google was the ability to use your web apps when you're not connected to the internet. This was reason enough for me not to spend a lot of energy on Gears, as in practice, in this day and age, I never find a computer that is NOT connected to the internet.
So in short, I've never had a need for Gears.
You don't think this will change as we move to more and more powerful mobile computing platforms? Already, my iPhone runs into issues at times when the network isn't available - when WLAN netbook/tablets/retinal implants drop from the network, this type of tech will be key.
Contrary to popular culture, most slaves in the US where fairly well taken care of. It was an enormous investment to purchase and maintain slaves, and the owner wouldn't risk that lightly.
Of course, there were horrific exceptions to this.
I would argue that all words have multiple definitions, and that "words mean what I think they mean" cuts both ways. I often run into this issue in politics on trying to nail down the differences between the US's representative republic and a democracy. Rand was clear in what context she used her words though, and that is what I'm saying here - you can certainly believe something to be true while simultaneously recognizing that your own presuppositions could be incorrect.
I've read a bit here and there of Popper, but I guess it didn't really sink in. As to why I spoke of Rand exactly - well, I had something by one of her contemporaries open in another tab when I wrote that - Binswanger, actually. It was on my mind, and the parent's post annoyed me :)
Thanks for the compliment on my sig --- "The Gulag Archipelago" was one of the first non-fiction books I read when I was young that made a real impact on me. Between that, and the reams of Heinlein I had been reading, I really started to question the authority of government.
Simple - a conviction is nothing more than a firmly held belief. There is no emotion invested in a conviction.
Faith, on the other hand, is a conviction held without a rational basis, or in disregard of evidence to the contrary.
I can honestly say that I completely lack "faith". There are things that I hold as convictions - even things that I have never proven for myself, such as just about any advanced science - but none of those things are taken on faith. They are accepted on the value of the opinion of experts in the field.
I'm nowhere near Rand's vision of a "perfect" Objectivist. In fact, there are several issues where my own reason has led me to a completely different conclusion than hers. I can point to logical inconsistencies in several of her positions.
Finally, it doesn't particularly concern me what you think of Rand. I would urge you to read her work, and the work of other philosophers, and arrive at your own conclusions. Believe whatever you'd like, and so long as you do not cross the line to the point where you are intolerably interfering with my own free will and property, it is none of my concern.
Rand would argue that the belief that past results would continue into the future is not an act of faith, but a convinction.
You neighbor must hate his wrists :)
Aguila makes some low-recoil, shortened rounds that fire and cycle beautifully in the SSS.