Consider: in the 1700's, most people didn't have a problem with slavery. Was it wrong? Yes, Virginia, there are moral absolutes.
But is copyright infringement really a moral absolute? Sure, on slavery you have a case, but come on... we exist in an age and society where ideas, sounds, images and text can be copied millions of times and distributed at little to no cost--should it really be surprising that archaic, artificial limitations on content distribution don't work anymore?
Our laws need to reflect both the public interest and the realities of the times in which we live. There's a reason why sodomy laws have fallen out of favor, a reason why buggy-whip manufactures have gone out of business,a reason why 60 million people download music online, and it has nothing to do with moral absolutes.
Try as I might, I just can't see any benefit to political commercials. They are full of mudslinging and sound bites that certainly leave the viewer less informed rather then more informed.
I actually see this as a result of the time-constraints on political ads. Sound bites only work because you're limited to MAYBE a thirty second message.
My solution? Make three public access channels (national/state/local) that are devoted solely to campaigns. If you can get a certain number of primary votes, you are alloted a certain amount of time. Every candidate gets the same amount of time to discuss the issues to his liking. Public debates between ALL eligible candidates will occur on these channels uninterrupted.
Now this doesn't completely solve the problem, because it doesn't address advertising outside of those channels, but it's a start as it allows under-fiananced campaigns a place to be heard.
However, every time someone engineers some system like this, there are people who are taken advantage of. And, of course, there is stratification. If the goal of Catholicism were as stated, to save souls and help people, then there wouldn't need to be a pope dressed up in gold and silk. You might still have a pope but he could be in an office building for all that matters. The most important realization to come to about religion is that it is not about spirituality when it is wrapped up in complex trappings. It's about control, and the people on top getting what they want. You don't need all that shit to make a statement about spirituality. I'm not sure what's so special about gold and jewels that they should adorn religious icons anyway; they're pretty but most precious metals have only specialty uses. Using them for corrosion protection seems a bit excessive and, well, arrogant.
I'm not defending organized religion. Where in my post did I try to defend the excesses of the Catholic church? I, in fact, declared that the Catholic church, being an organization made by fallible men, has undeniably made mistakes. In fact, on that point, I'm fairly certain that all religions as institutions have made mistakes.
I'm not so sure where, on this point, you're disagreeing with me. The OP was saying that "being religious" was a "bad thing," because being religious required faith which is dangerous. Such a statement could just as well apply to agnostics as it could to Christians.
Even religions which do not amass wealth like the Catholic church are still about controlling people and making them behave in the way the founder(s) desire(d).
Not necessarily. What about Taoism? If someone chooses to live a certain way of their own free will, how is that a system of control or domination?
Do you really need someone else to tell you how to connect with your spiritual self?
Me? Right now? No. But, unfortunately that isn't the case for all individuals all of the time.
First of all, self-reflection is a skill, and something that I think gets lost in these types of discussions among learned individuals is that not everyone is capable of productively exploring their faith on their own. Interacting with others in their religious community benefits these people greatly by providing perspectives that they, otherwise, may not have experienced.
Moreover, life isn't easy. Sometimes, it's easy to lose your faith/spirituality when you're upset or depressed. A religious community can really be of a benefit and help you keep things in perspective by being there when times are rough.
I hope you're not seriously arguing that this is the case of non-religious people.
No. It was a rhetorical point. The parent suggested that believing in religion led to blind faith, which is dangerous. I'm saying that atheism, can lead to feeling as if your life has no meaning or purpose, which is equally dangerous.
My point wasn't to declare that being religious was somehow better. I was just point out that such a criticism is unfair.
You didn't answer the question at all. The OP asked what's wrong with being religious.
Since religion was used as an excuse to fly planes into skyscrapers?
Religious fanaticism is not "being religious" any more than liking sex makes you a pedophile.
Since the Salem Witch trials? Since it was used as an excuse to enslave and convert native people? Since the Crusades? Since it is used as an excuse to mutilate body parts of children? Since the Inquisition? Since the latest rash of obviously covered up molestation scandals? Since the systematic persecution of homosexuals (and other minority groups)? Since mostly looking the other way during the worlds worst genocide?
Again, this completely avoids the question. Nobody claims that groups of people don't make mistakes. Why would religious groups be any different? Look at the horrors committed under Stalin in the name of atheism... how is that any different--or better?
When you talk about religion you're missing something very important. The word "religion" has two separate definitions: religion as a system of beliefs and religion as an institution, which consists of fallible men. Judging Christians on the basis of immoral actions of the institution of Catholicism is like you accountable for the actions of the United States under George W. Bush.
Are all religions (as systems of beliefs) are equal? No. Obviously some are better than others. And some are undeniably evil. But to group them all into a single group called "religion" and classify it as "morally indefensible" is unfair.
It seems that blind faith in all its many forms, including religion, is a very dangerous thing indeed.
And living in despair without purpose or reason isn't?
If the countries within it (especially the most powerful ones - guess where I'm going with this...) decide its in their interest not to stop genocides (or whatever), then by definition UN can't stop them. Seems unfair to cause UN to be powerless and then blame it for being powerless.
Oh so you're suggesting unilateral military action when the UN is unable or unwilling to address a worldwide problem...
*ahem* Isn't that what got Europeans so upset with the United States to begin with--unilateral military action in Iraq? After all the crap I've heard about the US not being the world police and "illegal wars" in recent months, how can you even begin to attempt to justify the inaction of the UN with the lack of unilateral military action of the US?
IMHO, no system is unhackable, does that mean that companies shouldn't spend time, money and effort to make it more difficult for it to be hacked? Or would you prefer your bank not invest in security?
Your analogy is flawed. The difference is that the Bank doesn't want its data sitting in the living rooms of millions of people.
We can agree that bank security, while not invulnerable, can be implemented with reasonably good security because, by design, not many have access to and knowledge of its security measures.
This isn't the case with DVDs. Both the data and the means to extract it (the players) are commonly available. The system is inherently insecure. The best they can do is make it a hassle to extract the data--which is exactly what the current system does. Why waste money in attempting in vain to do anything more?
How much has (will?) this "copy-protection" mechanism cost to design and implement?
If they're so strapped for cash, why even bother if it only works for 97%? As the OP stated, that 3% will just become the preferred method. This all just seems like a bunch of sound, fury, and wasted money, signifying nothing.
I know this is funny and all, but is this what our world is coming to? Is it going to be someday that imprinted on your hamburger patty is an EULA that absolves the fast food companies of any obligation to your health?
Why is it that the courts are more worried about enforcing the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law? Wasn't that the whole point of English Common law to begin with? To make the law accessible to the people? If people are entering into contracts and agreements simply by visiting websites, listening to ads on TV/radio, and even going to public parks how can they realistically know every facet of every agreement? That is to say that if I actually took the time to read all the small print on every ad I see, all the EULAs on software I've already bought, and check to make sure that every time I take a picture I'm not violating someone's copyright, I wouldn't get anything done.
Moreover, don't contracts/agreements hinge upon the idea of benefiting both parties in some way? What possible benefit are people gaining from being restricted by rules they neither know nor understand?
You miss the old days when indie record stores and stores like Tower were more prevalent, and you wouldn't mind paying a few extra bucks for more selection and the opportunity to avoid going to Wal-Mart for your music.
Uhh... If that's the old days, fuck em'. Sorry but I can hardly justify paying $15 dollars for a CD that has maybe three or four good songs. How could I ever justify paying "a few extra bucks" more?
But if the man-in-the-middle is forced to change the key every time for every connection, isn't that a weakness in itself?
Sure, a server could probably handle generating hashes constantly for a couple of connections, but what about a horde of zombie computers whose only goal is to exchange hashes?
Is it just me, or does the MPAA seem desperate lately? I mean look at lokitorrent.com--was that even necessary? "You can click but you can't hide"? Anyway, this whole plan seems rather silly because:
A.) It's completely DDOSable
B.) With multiple layers of security it becomes infeasible. (using SSH for "plaintext" exchange)
C.) It disregards the fact that some exchange systems use more than one protocol. For example, BitTorrent files can be downloaded via FTP, HTTP, etc. If the keys are stored there, how can they ever hope to find them? Do ISPs really have an obligation to parse every packet for the damn content companies?
>> however, it doesn't really matter, that is not since the GOP corrupted and sold out america... overly affluent americans are traitors
its pretty sad how the parent is considered insightful on slashdot. have all the adults left?
No, because of moderation abuse by the liberal majority here on Slashdot, nearly all of the conservatives and moderates have left.
The politics section has become an echo chamber of malcontent liberalism--the epitome of what's wrong with the Democratic party. With them, there's no room for legitimate disagreement. They're right and George Bush and everyone who voted for him are wrong and evil (or, at the very least, stupid).
But if they remade themselves as the Party of Tolerance, I think they could do a lot better. They could brand the Republicans as intolerant, exclusionist, backwards. They could make gay rights into the Civil Rights struggle of the new generation that it will inevitably be and call themselves the champions of it... Put some very charismatic, very likable gay people on TV. Have them tell their stories. "Why does President Bush hate this man? Why doesn't he deserve the right to marry someone he loves? Why does the Republican Party think they're more moral than him, when he's just trying to live his life with the hand God dealt him?" The Republicans are VERY vulnerable on this front, and the Democrats could make a lot of headway pushing at it. They could also make the world a much better place.
*psst*.... In case you haven't noticed, the media has tried this. They've tried their best to put a palatable face on homosexuality. Tell me, when is the last time you've ever seen an ugly or mean homosexual on T.V.? Prison scenes excluded (and one could make a viable case that many prisoners involved in prison rape are not homosexual), what about a violent one? In fact, that whole portrayal of the Matthew Shepard murder was almost exactly what you describe. What's more, notice how those who disagree with homosexuality are portrayed; they're violent, backwater idiots.
And yet, despite the fact that the media has attempted to shove homosexuality down our throats, most Americans remain unconvinced. Most of this generation embrace the civil rights struggle of the '60s and Women's rights movements, and see both as necessary, good things. However, gay rights movement of today isn't the same thing or of the same merit. Homosexuals can still vote. Homosexuals can and do hold office. Legally, there's nothing different from a homosexual individual than a heterosexual. In fact, because hate crime laws are only enforced for minorities, one could make the case that a homosexual has more institutional rights than a heterosexual.
The fact of the matter is that the gay rights movement of today doesn't want tolerance: they already have it. They want acceptance, which paradoxically is an ideologically intolerant position. If the democratic party centers itself around that kind of liberal fascism, they can only look forward to more losses in the future--which would be a bad thing for all of us. The system needs a viable opposition to work.
I'm not quite sure why people are so vitriolic in their response to this. It's not like these guys are asking us to submit to their prediction devices or donate to vaporware. They're simply studying what they define as an interesting phenomena. The only problem is that that their observation questions some of current theories with regard to biology and physics. Isn't that the essence of science?
Maybe it's because, in Feynman's words, science is skepticism.
Skepticism should, however, go both ways. An unwavering belief that our theories are unquestionably correct is only slightly better than mysticism.
This is a big problem in the scientific world right now. All the talented scientists are afraid to do anything unusual. Because as soon as you do, your career is effectively over; it's damn near impossible to get the stigma of "pseudoscience" off. Read some PhD thesis papers that come out nowadays. Nothing of real merit is accomplished in them, and they are always full of references and citations--just in case anybody questions their validity.
A perfect example: for years two researchers in Australia had been claiming that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria, but nobody believed them. Bacteria could at best survive in the stomach; surely they couldn't thrive there! In the end, the one of the scientists, Barry Marshall actually had to publicly infect and then cure himself before anyone would listen. Of course, now it's common knowledge that bacteria cause ulcers and there's a couple drugs used to treat them.
So, whatever, if these guys want to analyze the results of random number generators, let them! It's not likely that they're right for a bunch of reasons that have already been discussed at length by others, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an open mind.
How about atheists? Seven. There are seven states who have written into law or as part of their constiutions that no atheist may hold any public office. Arkansas goes so far as to forbid them from testifying in court.
But how many of those laws were created recently? As a matter of fact, aren't all of them the result of sections of the original state constitutions?
Moreover, the fact that only 7 out of 50 states has those ridiculous statements is telling to how accepting and tolerant Christians were even back when the state constitutions were ratified.
So tell me something. If you, hypothetically, had the goal of eliminating (or otherwise reducing to irrelevance) a large chunk of the population (~10%) that you just didn't like, what would you do first? Say...., deny them the ability to wield power to defend themselves?
Our law books are full of vestigial laws. I read one once that it's illegal for a mustached man to kiss a woman in Texas. The kind of claims that you're making are akin to me pointing to that law and asserting that an agenda against mustached men exists within the Bush administration. Soon all mustached men will be hunted down and killed for their beliefs!
Even if Bush and crew had helped establish those laws (and lets be clear: THEY DIDN'T), would it matter? Atheists in those seven states can still vote. Atheists in other states can run candidates. Atheists can still sue the state and probably win when the case goes to the Supreme Court. The whole premise of your argument is ridiculous.
Knowing that this exact scenario has played out in history many, many times, don't you think that this whole pro-Christian, anti-Enlightenment process going on might perhaps be cause for concern? Christians have, after all, expressed a deep-seated hatred of non-christians in general and atheists in particular for a good 1500 years.
Anti-enlightenment? Since when is having religious convictions being un-enlightened? I believe that Christians in America today are far more accepting and tolerant than many atheist liberals. Christians routinely hear secular and multi-cultural statements, ideas, and demonstrations in public, but if a Christian display comes anywhere near the public sphere, one can expect a flurry of lawsuits from offended atheists.
As usual, too, your sweeping statements and stereotypes are as ignorant as those you attempt to critisize. I am a Christian. I'm not hateful towards non-christians. In fact, I'm dating a Hindu.
I won't deny that Christianity as an institution (run by fallible men) has made some serious mistakes in the past. But that doesn't say any more about Christians than the acts of the United States under the run of GWB says about you.
Here's an idea...how about we don't support any dictators! What a novel concept. You know those countries Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? You know, our "allies?" Those are dictatorships that we shouldn't support.
And I too wish we didn't. Unfortunately, we have to start somewhere. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are, for now, necessary alliances. The day will come when they have to answer to their people.
Where is your plan? All you (and liberals in general) are offering is criticism without solutions or, at best, idealistic isolationism.
You see, we shouldn't be in the business of invading countries that aren't truly threatening us at all.
The United States has a right to protect itself. Gone unchecked, Islamic extremists will continue to attempt attacks within our borders. Eventually, they would succeed given the size and insecure nature of the infrastructure we have. The only question is: will they have nuclear weapons when they do?
We can't afford to sit back and wait for it to happen. Rather than try to attack the symptom that is terrorist organizations, our strategy is to address the underlying cause in the region--disenfranchisement and poverty.
Our invasion of Iraq was the logical step in combating the cause of terrorism. While it turns out that Iraq wasn't as much of a threat as we thought it was originally (their nuclear and ICBM programs were not what our allies' and our own intelligence expected), the invasion of Iraq was done with the ultimate goal of providing United States security.
Oh, and even if they were sitting out in the middle of the pacific, we would not invade them if they had nuclear weapons. That was the point that damned well every potential enemy of ours has now learned.
Are you sure about that? There is a reason why the United States pulled from the international treaty regarding the development of anti-ICBM technology.
How is invading Iraq confronting islamic extremism?
If you aren't seeing the plan, then you aren't listening to President Bush or reading my various synopsizes that I've put in nearly every post in this thread.
...Not only this, but we've polarized the entire region against us and created the best possible recruiting tool for groups like Al Quaida. "The infidel Americans have started a new crusade and now occupy many of our holy places! Join the Jihad!"
Hey, I never said it was the ideal plan. In fact, I'm inclined to say that it's the worst possible plan except for all others. You're right, the polarization of the Middle East is a problem in the short-term. However, if it works (and you'd be right in saying that it might not), if Iraqis are able to join the world community as a democratic state ruled by themselves, the United States, Iraq, and the entire region will be better off.
Is it risky? Sure. If the Iraqis can't put aside their own differences and rise up against the extremists, it won't work. But it's not as risky as crossing our fingers and hoping that an ideology of hate and intolerance will suddenly change its ways and spare us its wrath.
Great, a "You must hate America" card.
That was a rhetorical point meant only to display the absurdity of your recruitment bilge.
I feel what this administration is doing is evil and wrong. The neoconservatives are an imperial movement. You need to understand this before you can understand why their policies could bring about the downfall of this country.
I don't think the neoconservatives are an imperialist movement--no more than capitalism itself is an imperialist movement, at least. Nobody wants to establish a 51st state or a colony. I implore you to find a writing or statement from the Administration that implicates that. Our occupation of Iraq is temporary--just like we've said all along. Again, the whole plan revolves around us handing the country back to the Iraqis as an example to the rest of the Middle East.
Ignore it? We helped cause it. The policy of the US has consistently to support pro-western dictators in the region who, surprise surprise, oppress their people and create poverty...out of which comes terrorism.
So what were we expected to do? Support the anti-Western dictators in the region? If you want to start playing the blame game, what about Europeans? What about muslim countries across the world? Can you really say that they haven't acted selfishly or apathetic towards the middle east as well?
Moreover, how would the mistakes of previous administrations justify the in-action of this one?
I'll argue that our actions in the last 3 years have made this scenario much more likely. As evidenced by North Korea, all a nation needs to do to keep us from invading (unprovoked as we did with Iraq) is build nuclear weapons. No nuclear weapons? We'll invade. Nuclear weapons, we won't invade. Its as simple as that.
But it's not that simple! South Korea, a huge U.S. economic and military ally in the region, is situated perilously nearby. Approximately one-fourth the size of Utah, South Korea the home of millions of people. It's capital, Seoul, is actually within artillery range of the North Koreans. Estimates state that if the North Koreans decided to attack that South Korea would be concurred in less than 20 minutes. Twenty minutes...
If we invaded North Korea, not only would our losses be incredible from the heavily militarized and indoctrinated populace, but we'd be signing a death warrant for millions of South Koreans. Ironically, if we invaded, the same people that point to North Korea as an inconsistency in our policy now would be blaming the U.S., yet again, for every and every death.
Hmm, you mean like Iran? Yeah, maybe you forgot the latest target of our sabre-rattling IS a democratic Islamic state. Yes, this is the same nation who's other democratic government we overthrew in the 1970s because they weren't pro-western enough.
Umm.. except for the fact that Iran isn't really democratic. They're effectively ruled by the Ayatollah; the recent democratic reforms failed. What's more: Iranians live under Sharia law. Exactly how, do you classify them as a free, democratic state?
You are equating the French help in the American Revolution with the unilateral invasion of the US into Iraq to overthrow Hussein? You do realize that every major nation in Europe transitioned into democracies without having to be invaded, don't you? That's right, the reform came from within these countries.
What makes you think that reform isn't rising up within Iraq as well? Isn't the voter turnout at the last election an indicator of that? My point was that the establishment of a democracy isn't some formulaic method. It's happened in a number of different ways in a number of different places. To assert that democracy can't work in Iraq simply because of a single difference is wholly ignorant of the social factors that indicate it can and--well--history.
Are you honestly saying not invading Iraq is the equivalent of appeasing Nazi Germany?
Yes, not confronting islamic extremism in a direct, meaningful way would have been just as cowardly and ineffective as appeasement of Nazi Germany.
Iraq wasn't even a threat to its immediate neighbors when we invaded. Every single nation's population polled (except US) said that the US is a greater threat to world peace than Iraq was.
What a loaded polling question! And one that definitely derives some strength from the popularity of anti-Americanism in Europe and abroad as well.
If you think its "cowardly" to not start an unprovoked war against a nation completely lacking any effective military power, then why don't you go down to your recruiters office and sign up. Tell them you want to be kicking d
Iraq was the most industrialized and progressive Arab nation before Desert Storm.
Desert Storm simply pushed the Iraqis out of Kuwait. If their aggressive actions led to their economic disparity, they have nobody to blame but themselves--or rather their now defunct leadership.
Regardless, I wasn't referring to simply Iraq. With the exceptions of Turkey and Isreal, we can classify every country in the Middle East as either impoverished or disenfranchised; or both in cases like pre-war Afghanistan. Seeing the Iraqi people take destiny in their own hands and succeed can ONLY make the people stop blaming the Great Satan of the West with their problems and start placing the blame where it really lies: their corrupt regimes and Islamic theocracies.
Well, for numerous reasons, but the main reason being that the next week will be a neverending stream of propaganda to give you the impression that it's a miraculous, historic, unprecedented turnout of Iraqis who are experiencing freedom for the first time. There will be shitloads of rhetoric, incessant self-fellating and praise about the red, white, and the blue... This is all bullshit.
Yeah, dare not let images of the good things you've done get in the way of a self-demonizing temper tantrum. After all, the United States is supposed to take both sides of every issue, make the every foreign person in the world happy in the process, and never think of itself. Forgetting to do so might make put us on the standard we use for everybody else.
We have killed at least 15,000 innocent Iraqis. This is a fact.
But is it a correct one? Or did you personally know every innocent person? Isn't there a certain level of ambiguity when judging innocence? That is after all how the argument against the imprisonment of people in Gitmo goes, right?
But, for the sake of the discussion, if it is right, how does that "fact" compare to the number of people Saddam killed and/or would kill on a regular basis under his regime?
So how can any of this be justified?
Easy. September 11th showed us that we can no longer ignore the problem in the Middle East. A proactive approach to combating Islamic extremism had to be taken before a nuclear weapon went off in a major American city. As a short-term means, we attacked Afghanistan, disorienting the enemy long enough to achieve our long-term objective: fighting extremism at its source--poverty and disenfranchisement. The means of doing so would be establishing a free and democratic Islamic state right smack in the center of the Middle East. The best target for this was Iraq. Its leader was illegitimate and evil. Its people were the most likely in the region to accept democratic values. Its economy was viable for the excesses of capitalism. And, we thought they had weapons of mass destruction too; a politically convenient way to get the rest of the world on-board. Unfortunately, we were wrong about the last one. But that still doesn't mean the whole assessment was wrong. It wasn't. Against all predictions, the majority of the Iraqi people showed up to vote, virtually without incident.
Was it the right decision? History will tell, but it wasn't unjustified or for naught.
This election is complete bullshit. You can not force democracy with the barrel of a gun. Democracy must not be delivered by a foreign hand. It ceases to be democracy. This is Empire. Why is this not bothering anyone??
This is bullshit. I can't believe this got modded to +5. Regardless, do you really think democratic roots are as glorious as the classical image of citizens uniting in brotherhood against tyranny? Please... You do realize that the success of the revolutionary war had less to do with the colonists and more to do with a spiteful France who poured billions into the effort? In fact, only a third of the colonists up to the battles of Concord and Lexington actively wanted to secede from Great Briton. The whole tea tax thing was a political ploy used to rally support for the cause. All across the world, successful, stable democracies have been established with less-than-picturesque beginnings--why should (will?) Iraq be any different?
Empire? Half our country wants to cut and run as it is! And even if we could stay there permanently (disregarding internal pressures not to), why would we want to stay? The whole plan revolves around us handing power to the Iraqis as an example to the rest of the middle east.
Have you ever heard of Al-Jazeera? Why does our media not feel the same?
Oh you mean that Arabic television station that refers to suicide bombers in Isreal as martyrs? The same one that airs videotapes of infidels pleading for their lives as they get their hea
Re:Bush's Reality Distortion Field rivals Steve Jo
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 1
Bush's proposal may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now. For that, President Bush deserves our sincere thanks.
I think I'll hold the applause for now. I'm not some kind of anti-Bush nut. In fact, you'll see me often on here defending Bush; not on this issue, however. I can't help but feel that Bush's plan, if successful, has some ulterior motives. Mainly:
(1): Increase investment into large, American public corporations, increasing their stock value. I'm sure some important campaign contributors just love that idea. In that suspicious part of my head, the words "pump-and-dump" just won't go away.
(2): Artificially create an image of strength in the American economy by increasing stock values.
(3): Since dividends are no longer taxed, thanks to last term, further redistribute wealth from the average person to those who need it the least--his self-termed "base" (Socioeconomic elites who mainly make their money off of investment.).
But, here's the real question: what happens when/if the economy tanks? Sure, the 70% returned scenario Bush laid out might be bad and understandably upsetting, but if my financial well-being is dependent upon a finicky stock market which decides to crash, what kind of returns am I going to get when I presumably need it the most?
I'm not much of an economics buff, but it seems to me that this whole idea is a strategy of running a nation's economy and social welfare on the razor's edge. Sure, if everything goes well it'll work great, but if it doesn't, well...
They are trying to re-write the Constitution to take us back before 1776, back to 11th century Europe, where people were hunted down and killed for opposing beliefs. This is why these amendments always get shot down, because they de-construct 200+ years of US history.
Quite a slippery slope you've created there. Instituting laws defining marriage between a man and a women -> hunting down and killing people for their beliefs?
Yeah... right.
Tell me again, mods, in what way was this alarmist drivel insightful?
You know they removed the CD-check about 4 weeks after the game was released. Valve aren't stupid. People complained and they did something about it.
Sorry, but you're mistaken.
My girlfriend bought the boxed version of Half-life 2 for me as a gift just this past weekend (1/28/05), and I definitely had to enter the CD-key to play. In fact, I found the whole process of installing and registering the biggest frustration about the game--apart from the single-player load times, that is.
Oh come on! Let's be honest, what happened at Abu Ghirab, while deplorable, wasn't much worse than what happens during fraternity hazing on campuses all across the US.
It's amazing when panties placed on a muslim's head are equated to terminal illnesses. I guess hyperbole knows no bounds when practicing the new form of/. karma-whoring; that is, incoherently spewing anti-Bush buzzwords and platitudes.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider: in the 1700's, most people didn't have a problem with slavery. Was it wrong? Yes, Virginia, there are moral absolutes.
But is copyright infringement really a moral absolute? Sure, on slavery you have a case, but come on... we exist in an age and society where ideas, sounds, images and text can be copied millions of times and distributed at little to no cost--should it really be surprising that archaic, artificial limitations on content distribution don't work anymore?
Our laws need to reflect both the public interest and the realities of the times in which we live. There's a reason why sodomy laws have fallen out of favor, a reason why buggy-whip manufactures have gone out of business ,a reason why 60 million people download music online, and it has nothing to do with moral absolutes.
-Grym
Try as I might, I just can't see any benefit to political commercials. They are full of mudslinging and sound bites that certainly leave the viewer less informed rather then more informed.
I actually see this as a result of the time-constraints on political ads. Sound bites only work because you're limited to MAYBE a thirty second message.
My solution? Make three public access channels (national/state/local) that are devoted solely to campaigns. If you can get a certain number of primary votes, you are alloted a certain amount of time. Every candidate gets the same amount of time to discuss the issues to his liking. Public debates between ALL eligible candidates will occur on these channels uninterrupted.
Now this doesn't completely solve the problem, because it doesn't address advertising outside of those channels, but it's a start as it allows under-fiananced campaigns a place to be heard.
-Grym
Churches, like corporations, are not people - should it be legal to prohibit churches from making statements on political issues?...
Interestingly enough, it IS illegal for churches to make statements endorsing one candidate over another under current laws.
Why? The tax-exempt status granted by the government prevents them from endorsing one candidate over another.
-Grym
Are you kidding?
I used to rub my left thumb raw on the old NES controllers all the time. They were only good for on run through Contra... tops.
-Grym
However, every time someone engineers some system like this, there are people who are taken advantage of. And, of course, there is stratification. If the goal of Catholicism were as stated, to save souls and help people, then there wouldn't need to be a pope dressed up in gold and silk. You might still have a pope but he could be in an office building for all that matters. The most important realization to come to about religion is that it is not about spirituality when it is wrapped up in complex trappings. It's about control, and the people on top getting what they want. You don't need all that shit to make a statement about spirituality. I'm not sure what's so special about gold and jewels that they should adorn religious icons anyway; they're pretty but most precious metals have only specialty uses. Using them for corrosion protection seems a bit excessive and, well, arrogant.
I'm not defending organized religion. Where in my post did I try to defend the excesses of the Catholic church? I, in fact, declared that the Catholic church, being an organization made by fallible men, has undeniably made mistakes. In fact, on that point, I'm fairly certain that all religions as institutions have made mistakes.
I'm not so sure where, on this point, you're disagreeing with me. The OP was saying that "being religious" was a "bad thing," because being religious required faith which is dangerous. Such a statement could just as well apply to agnostics as it could to Christians.
Even religions which do not amass wealth like the Catholic church are still about controlling people and making them behave in the way the founder(s) desire(d).
Not necessarily. What about Taoism? If someone chooses to live a certain way of their own free will, how is that a system of control or domination?
Do you really need someone else to tell you how to connect with your spiritual self?
Me? Right now? No. But, unfortunately that isn't the case for all individuals all of the time.
First of all, self-reflection is a skill, and something that I think gets lost in these types of discussions among learned individuals is that not everyone is capable of productively exploring their faith on their own. Interacting with others in their religious community benefits these people greatly by providing perspectives that they, otherwise, may not have experienced.
Moreover, life isn't easy. Sometimes, it's easy to lose your faith/spirituality when you're upset or depressed. A religious community can really be of a benefit and help you keep things in perspective by being there when times are rough.
-Grym
I hope you're not seriously arguing that this is the case of non-religious people.
No. It was a rhetorical point. The parent suggested that believing in religion led to blind faith, which is dangerous. I'm saying that atheism, can lead to feeling as if your life has no meaning or purpose, which is equally dangerous.
My point wasn't to declare that being religious was somehow better. I was just point out that such a criticism is unfair.
-Grym
You didn't answer the question at all. The OP asked what's wrong with being religious.
Since religion was used as an excuse to fly planes into skyscrapers?
Religious fanaticism is not "being religious" any more than liking sex makes you a pedophile.
Since the Salem Witch trials? Since it was used as an excuse to enslave and convert native people? Since the Crusades? Since it is used as an excuse to mutilate body parts of children? Since the Inquisition? Since the latest rash of obviously covered up molestation scandals? Since the systematic persecution of homosexuals (and other minority groups)? Since mostly looking the other way during the worlds worst genocide?
Again, this completely avoids the question. Nobody claims that groups of people don't make mistakes. Why would religious groups be any different? Look at the horrors committed under Stalin in the name of atheism... how is that any different--or better?
When you talk about religion you're missing something very important. The word "religion" has two separate definitions: religion as a system of beliefs and religion as an institution, which consists of fallible men. Judging Christians on the basis of immoral actions of the institution of Catholicism is like you accountable for the actions of the United States under George W. Bush.
Are all religions (as systems of beliefs) are equal? No. Obviously some are better than others. And some are undeniably evil. But to group them all into a single group called "religion" and classify it as "morally indefensible" is unfair.
It seems that blind faith in all its many forms, including religion, is a very dangerous thing indeed.
And living in despair without purpose or reason isn't?
-Grym
Oh so you're suggesting unilateral military action when the UN is unable or unwilling to address a worldwide problem...
*ahem* Isn't that what got Europeans so upset with the United States to begin with--unilateral military action in Iraq? After all the crap I've heard about the US not being the world police and "illegal wars" in recent months, how can you even begin to attempt to justify the inaction of the UN with the lack of unilateral military action of the US?
-Grym
Your analogy is flawed. The difference is that the Bank doesn't want its data sitting in the living rooms of millions of people.
We can agree that bank security, while not invulnerable, can be implemented with reasonably good security because, by design, not many have access to and knowledge of its security measures.
This isn't the case with DVDs. Both the data and the means to extract it (the players) are commonly available. The system is inherently insecure. The best they can do is make it a hassle to extract the data--which is exactly what the current system does. Why waste money in attempting in vain to do anything more?
-Grym
Which brings us back to the real question:
How much has (will?) this "copy-protection" mechanism cost to design and implement?
If they're so strapped for cash, why even bother if it only works for 97%? As the OP stated, that 3% will just become the preferred method. This all just seems like a bunch of sound, fury, and wasted money, signifying nothing.
-Grym
I know this is funny and all, but is this what our world is coming to? Is it going to be someday that imprinted on your hamburger patty is an EULA that absolves the fast food companies of any obligation to your health?
Why is it that the courts are more worried about enforcing the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law? Wasn't that the whole point of English Common law to begin with? To make the law accessible to the people? If people are entering into contracts and agreements simply by visiting websites, listening to ads on TV/radio, and even going to public parks how can they realistically know every facet of every agreement? That is to say that if I actually took the time to read all the small print on every ad I see, all the EULAs on software I've already bought, and check to make sure that every time I take a picture I'm not violating someone's copyright, I wouldn't get anything done.
Moreover, don't contracts/agreements hinge upon the idea of benefiting both parties in some way? What possible benefit are people gaining from being restricted by rules they neither know nor understand?
-Grym
You miss the old days when indie record stores and stores like Tower were more prevalent, and you wouldn't mind paying a few extra bucks for more selection and the opportunity to avoid going to Wal-Mart for your music.
Uhh... If that's the old days, fuck em'. Sorry but I can hardly justify paying $15 dollars for a CD that has maybe three or four good songs. How could I ever justify paying "a few extra bucks" more?
-Grym
But if the man-in-the-middle is forced to change the key every time for every connection, isn't that a weakness in itself?
Sure, a server could probably handle generating hashes constantly for a couple of connections, but what about a horde of zombie computers whose only goal is to exchange hashes?
Is it just me, or does the MPAA seem desperate lately? I mean look at lokitorrent.com--was that even necessary? "You can click but you can't hide"? Anyway, this whole plan seems rather silly because:
A.) It's completely DDOSable
B.) With multiple layers of security it becomes infeasible. (using SSH for "plaintext" exchange)
C.) It disregards the fact that some exchange systems use more than one protocol. For example, BitTorrent files can be downloaded via FTP, HTTP, etc. If the keys are stored there, how can they ever hope to find them? Do ISPs really have an obligation to parse every packet for the damn content companies?
-Grym
its pretty sad how the parent is considered insightful on slashdot. have all the adults left?
No, because of moderation abuse by the liberal majority here on Slashdot, nearly all of the conservatives and moderates have left.
The politics section has become an echo chamber of malcontent liberalism--the epitome of what's wrong with the Democratic party. With them, there's no room for legitimate disagreement. They're right and George Bush and everyone who voted for him are wrong and evil (or, at the very least, stupid).
-Grym
But if they remade themselves as the Party of Tolerance, I think they could do a lot better. They could brand the Republicans as intolerant, exclusionist, backwards. They could make gay rights into the Civil Rights struggle of the new generation that it will inevitably be and call themselves the champions of it... Put some very charismatic, very likable gay people on TV. Have them tell their stories. "Why does President Bush hate this man? Why doesn't he deserve the right to marry someone he loves? Why does the Republican Party think they're more moral than him, when he's just trying to live his life with the hand God dealt him?" The Republicans are VERY vulnerable on this front, and the Democrats could make a lot of headway pushing at it. They could also make the world a much better place.
*psst*.... In case you haven't noticed, the media has tried this. They've tried their best to put a palatable face on homosexuality. Tell me, when is the last time you've ever seen an ugly or mean homosexual on T.V.? Prison scenes excluded (and one could make a viable case that many prisoners involved in prison rape are not homosexual), what about a violent one? In fact, that whole portrayal of the Matthew Shepard murder was almost exactly what you describe. What's more, notice how those who disagree with homosexuality are portrayed; they're violent, backwater idiots.
And yet, despite the fact that the media has attempted to shove homosexuality down our throats, most Americans remain unconvinced. Most of this generation embrace the civil rights struggle of the '60s and Women's rights movements, and see both as necessary, good things. However, gay rights movement of today isn't the same thing or of the same merit. Homosexuals can still vote. Homosexuals can and do hold office. Legally, there's nothing different from a homosexual individual than a heterosexual. In fact, because hate crime laws are only enforced for minorities, one could make the case that a homosexual has more institutional rights than a heterosexual.
The fact of the matter is that the gay rights movement of today doesn't want tolerance: they already have it. They want acceptance, which paradoxically is an ideologically intolerant position. If the democratic party centers itself around that kind of liberal fascism, they can only look forward to more losses in the future--which would be a bad thing for all of us. The system needs a viable opposition to work.
-Grym
I'm not quite sure why people are so vitriolic in their response to this. It's not like these guys are asking us to submit to their prediction devices or donate to vaporware. They're simply studying what they define as an interesting phenomena. The only problem is that that their observation questions some of current theories with regard to biology and physics. Isn't that the essence of science?
Maybe it's because, in Feynman's words, science is skepticism.
Skepticism should, however, go both ways. An unwavering belief that our theories are unquestionably correct is only slightly better than mysticism.
This is a big problem in the scientific world right now. All the talented scientists are afraid to do anything unusual. Because as soon as you do, your career is effectively over; it's damn near impossible to get the stigma of "pseudoscience" off. Read some PhD thesis papers that come out nowadays. Nothing of real merit is accomplished in them, and they are always full of references and citations--just in case anybody questions their validity.
A perfect example: for years two researchers in Australia had been claiming that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria, but nobody believed them. Bacteria could at best survive in the stomach; surely they couldn't thrive there! In the end, the one of the scientists, Barry Marshall actually had to publicly infect and then cure himself before anyone would listen. Of course, now it's common knowledge that bacteria cause ulcers and there's a couple drugs used to treat them.
So, whatever, if these guys want to analyze the results of random number generators, let them! It's not likely that they're right for a bunch of reasons that have already been discussed at length by others, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an open mind.
-Grym
How about atheists? Seven. There are seven states who have written into law or as part of their constiutions that no atheist may hold any public office. Arkansas goes so far as to forbid them from testifying in court.
But how many of those laws were created recently? As a matter of fact, aren't all of them the result of sections of the original state constitutions?
Moreover, the fact that only 7 out of 50 states has those ridiculous statements is telling to how accepting and tolerant Christians were even back when the state constitutions were ratified.
So tell me something. If you, hypothetically, had the goal of eliminating (or otherwise reducing to irrelevance) a large chunk of the population (~10%) that you just didn't like, what would you do first? Say...., deny them the ability to wield power to defend themselves?
Our law books are full of vestigial laws. I read one once that it's illegal for a mustached man to kiss a woman in Texas. The kind of claims that you're making are akin to me pointing to that law and asserting that an agenda against mustached men exists within the Bush administration. Soon all mustached men will be hunted down and killed for their beliefs!
Even if Bush and crew had helped establish those laws (and lets be clear: THEY DIDN'T), would it matter? Atheists in those seven states can still vote. Atheists in other states can run candidates. Atheists can still sue the state and probably win when the case goes to the Supreme Court. The whole premise of your argument is ridiculous.
Knowing that this exact scenario has played out in history many, many times, don't you think that this whole pro-Christian, anti-Enlightenment process going on might perhaps be cause for concern? Christians have, after all, expressed a deep-seated hatred of non-christians in general and atheists in particular for a good 1500 years.
Anti-enlightenment? Since when is having religious convictions being un-enlightened? I believe that Christians in America today are far more accepting and tolerant than many atheist liberals. Christians routinely hear secular and multi-cultural statements, ideas, and demonstrations in public, but if a Christian display comes anywhere near the public sphere, one can expect a flurry of lawsuits from offended atheists.
As usual, too, your sweeping statements and stereotypes are as ignorant as those you attempt to critisize. I am a Christian. I'm not hateful towards non-christians. In fact, I'm dating a Hindu.
I won't deny that Christianity as an institution (run by fallible men) has made some serious mistakes in the past. But that doesn't say any more about Christians than the acts of the United States under the run of GWB says about you.
-Grym
Here's an idea...how about we don't support any dictators! What a novel concept. You know those countries Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? You know, our "allies?" Those are dictatorships that we shouldn't support.
And I too wish we didn't. Unfortunately, we have to start somewhere. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are, for now, necessary alliances. The day will come when they have to answer to their people.
Where is your plan? All you (and liberals in general) are offering is criticism without solutions or, at best, idealistic isolationism.
You see, we shouldn't be in the business of invading countries that aren't truly threatening us at all.
The United States has a right to protect itself. Gone unchecked, Islamic extremists will continue to attempt attacks within our borders. Eventually, they would succeed given the size and insecure nature of the infrastructure we have. The only question is: will they have nuclear weapons when they do?
We can't afford to sit back and wait for it to happen. Rather than try to attack the symptom that is terrorist organizations, our strategy is to address the underlying cause in the region--disenfranchisement and poverty.
Our invasion of Iraq was the logical step in combating the cause of terrorism. While it turns out that Iraq wasn't as much of a threat as we thought it was originally (their nuclear and ICBM programs were not what our allies' and our own intelligence expected), the invasion of Iraq was done with the ultimate goal of providing United States security.
Oh, and even if they were sitting out in the middle of the pacific, we would not invade them if they had nuclear weapons. That was the point that damned well every potential enemy of ours has now learned.
Are you sure about that? There is a reason why the United States pulled from the international treaty regarding the development of anti-ICBM technology.
How is invading Iraq confronting islamic extremism?
If you aren't seeing the plan, then you aren't listening to President Bush or reading my various synopsizes that I've put in nearly every post in this thread.
Hey, I never said it was the ideal plan. In fact, I'm inclined to say that it's the worst possible plan except for all others. You're right, the polarization of the Middle East is a problem in the short-term. However, if it works (and you'd be right in saying that it might not), if Iraqis are able to join the world community as a democratic state ruled by themselves, the United States, Iraq, and the entire region will be better off.
Is it risky? Sure. If the Iraqis can't put aside their own differences and rise up against the extremists, it won't work. But it's not as risky as crossing our fingers and hoping that an ideology of hate and intolerance will suddenly change its ways and spare us its wrath.
Great, a "You must hate America" card.
That was a rhetorical point meant only to display the absurdity of your recruitment bilge.
I feel what this administration is doing is evil and wrong. The neoconservatives are an imperial movement. You need to understand this before you can understand why their policies could bring about the downfall of this country.
I don't think the neoconservatives are an imperialist movement--no more than capitalism itself is an imperialist movement, at least. Nobody wants to establish a 51st state or a colony. I implore you to find a writing or statement from the Administration that implicates that. Our occupation of Iraq is temporary--just like we've said all along. Again, the whole plan revolves around us handing the country back to the Iraqis as an example to the rest of the Middle East.
-Grym
Ignore it? We helped cause it. The policy of the US has consistently to support pro-western dictators in the region who, surprise surprise, oppress their people and create poverty...out of which comes terrorism.
So what were we expected to do? Support the anti-Western dictators in the region? If you want to start playing the blame game, what about Europeans? What about muslim countries across the world? Can you really say that they haven't acted selfishly or apathetic towards the middle east as well?
Moreover, how would the mistakes of previous administrations justify the in-action of this one?
I'll argue that our actions in the last 3 years have made this scenario much more likely. As evidenced by North Korea, all a nation needs to do to keep us from invading (unprovoked as we did with Iraq) is build nuclear weapons. No nuclear weapons? We'll invade. Nuclear weapons, we won't invade. Its as simple as that.
But it's not that simple! South Korea, a huge U.S. economic and military ally in the region, is situated perilously nearby. Approximately one-fourth the size of Utah, South Korea the home of millions of people. It's capital, Seoul, is actually within artillery range of the North Koreans. Estimates state that if the North Koreans decided to attack that South Korea would be concurred in less than 20 minutes. Twenty minutes...
If we invaded North Korea, not only would our losses be incredible from the heavily militarized and indoctrinated populace, but we'd be signing a death warrant for millions of South Koreans. Ironically, if we invaded, the same people that point to North Korea as an inconsistency in our policy now would be blaming the U.S., yet again, for every and every death.
Hmm, you mean like Iran? Yeah, maybe you forgot the latest target of our sabre-rattling IS a democratic Islamic state. Yes, this is the same nation who's other democratic government we overthrew in the 1970s because they weren't pro-western enough.
Umm.. except for the fact that Iran isn't really democratic. They're effectively ruled by the Ayatollah; the recent democratic reforms failed. What's more: Iranians live under Sharia law. Exactly how, do you classify them as a free, democratic state?
You are equating the French help in the American Revolution with the unilateral invasion of the US into Iraq to overthrow Hussein? You do realize that every major nation in Europe transitioned into democracies without having to be invaded, don't you? That's right, the reform came from within these countries.
What makes you think that reform isn't rising up within Iraq as well? Isn't the voter turnout at the last election an indicator of that? My point was that the establishment of a democracy isn't some formulaic method. It's happened in a number of different ways in a number of different places. To assert that democracy can't work in Iraq simply because of a single difference is wholly ignorant of the social factors that indicate it can and--well--history.
Are you honestly saying not invading Iraq is the equivalent of appeasing Nazi Germany?
Yes, not confronting islamic extremism in a direct, meaningful way would have been just as cowardly and ineffective as appeasement of Nazi Germany.
Iraq wasn't even a threat to its immediate neighbors when we invaded. Every single nation's population polled (except US) said that the US is a greater threat to world peace than Iraq was.
What a loaded polling question! And one that definitely derives some strength from the popularity of anti-Americanism in Europe and abroad as well.
If you think its "cowardly" to not start an unprovoked war against a nation completely lacking any effective military power, then why don't you go down to your recruiters office and sign up. Tell them you want to be kicking d
Iraq was the most industrialized and progressive Arab nation before Desert Storm.
Desert Storm simply pushed the Iraqis out of Kuwait. If their aggressive actions led to their economic disparity, they have nobody to blame but themselves--or rather their now defunct leadership.
Regardless, I wasn't referring to simply Iraq. With the exceptions of Turkey and Isreal, we can classify every country in the Middle East as either impoverished or disenfranchised; or both in cases like pre-war Afghanistan. Seeing the Iraqi people take destiny in their own hands and succeed can ONLY make the people stop blaming the Great Satan of the West with their problems and start placing the blame where it really lies: their corrupt regimes and Islamic theocracies.
-Grym
Well, for numerous reasons, but the main reason being that the next week will be a neverending stream of propaganda to give you the impression that it's a miraculous, historic, unprecedented turnout of Iraqis who are experiencing freedom for the first time. There will be shitloads of rhetoric, incessant self-fellating and praise about the red, white, and the blue... This is all bullshit.
Yeah, dare not let images of the good things you've done get in the way of a self-demonizing temper tantrum. After all, the United States is supposed to take both sides of every issue, make the every foreign person in the world happy in the process, and never think of itself. Forgetting to do so might make put us on the standard we use for everybody else.
We have killed at least 15,000 innocent Iraqis. This is a fact.
But is it a correct one? Or did you personally know every innocent person? Isn't there a certain level of ambiguity when judging innocence? That is after all how the argument against the imprisonment of people in Gitmo goes, right?
But, for the sake of the discussion, if it is right, how does that "fact" compare to the number of people Saddam killed and/or would kill on a regular basis under his regime?
So how can any of this be justified?
Easy. September 11th showed us that we can no longer ignore the problem in the Middle East. A proactive approach to combating Islamic extremism had to be taken before a nuclear weapon went off in a major American city. As a short-term means, we attacked Afghanistan, disorienting the enemy long enough to achieve our long-term objective: fighting extremism at its source--poverty and disenfranchisement. The means of doing so would be establishing a free and democratic Islamic state right smack in the center of the Middle East. The best target for this was Iraq. Its leader was illegitimate and evil. Its people were the most likely in the region to accept democratic values. Its economy was viable for the excesses of capitalism. And, we thought they had weapons of mass destruction too; a politically convenient way to get the rest of the world on-board. Unfortunately, we were wrong about the last one. But that still doesn't mean the whole assessment was wrong. It wasn't. Against all predictions, the majority of the Iraqi people showed up to vote, virtually without incident.
Was it the right decision? History will tell, but it wasn't unjustified or for naught.
This election is complete bullshit. You can not force democracy with the barrel of a gun. Democracy must not be delivered by a foreign hand. It ceases to be democracy. This is Empire. Why is this not bothering anyone??
This is bullshit. I can't believe this got modded to +5. Regardless, do you really think democratic roots are as glorious as the classical image of citizens uniting in brotherhood against tyranny? Please... You do realize that the success of the revolutionary war had less to do with the colonists and more to do with a spiteful France who poured billions into the effort? In fact, only a third of the colonists up to the battles of Concord and Lexington actively wanted to secede from Great Briton. The whole tea tax thing was a political ploy used to rally support for the cause. All across the world, successful, stable democracies have been established with less-than-picturesque beginnings--why should (will?) Iraq be any different?
Empire? Half our country wants to cut and run as it is! And even if we could stay there permanently (disregarding internal pressures not to), why would we want to stay? The whole plan revolves around us handing power to the Iraqis as an example to the rest of the middle east.
Have you ever heard of Al-Jazeera? Why does our media not feel the same?
Oh you mean that Arabic television station that refers to suicide bombers in Isreal as martyrs? The same one that airs videotapes of infidels pleading for their lives as they get their hea
Bush's proposal may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now. For that, President Bush deserves our sincere thanks.
I think I'll hold the applause for now. I'm not some kind of anti-Bush nut. In fact, you'll see me often on here defending Bush; not on this issue, however. I can't help but feel that Bush's plan, if successful, has some ulterior motives. Mainly:
(1): Increase investment into large, American public corporations, increasing their stock value. I'm sure some important campaign contributors just love that idea. In that suspicious part of my head, the words "pump-and-dump" just won't go away.
(2): Artificially create an image of strength in the American economy by increasing stock values.
(3): Since dividends are no longer taxed, thanks to last term, further redistribute wealth from the average person to those who need it the least--his self-termed "base" (Socioeconomic elites who mainly make their money off of investment.).
But, here's the real question: what happens when/if the economy tanks? Sure, the 70% returned scenario Bush laid out might be bad and understandably upsetting, but if my financial well-being is dependent upon a finicky stock market which decides to crash, what kind of returns am I going to get when I presumably need it the most?
I'm not much of an economics buff, but it seems to me that this whole idea is a strategy of running a nation's economy and social welfare on the razor's edge. Sure, if everything goes well it'll work great, but if it doesn't, well...
-Grym
They are trying to re-write the Constitution to take us back before 1776, back to 11th century Europe, where people were hunted down and killed for opposing beliefs. This is why these amendments always get shot down, because they de-construct 200+ years of US history.
Quite a slippery slope you've created there. Instituting laws defining marriage between a man and a women -> hunting down and killing people for their beliefs?
Yeah... right.
Tell me again, mods, in what way was this alarmist drivel insightful?
-Grym
You know they removed the CD-check about 4 weeks after the game was released. Valve aren't stupid. People complained and they did something about it.
Sorry, but you're mistaken.
My girlfriend bought the boxed version of Half-life 2 for me as a gift just this past weekend (1/28/05), and I definitely had to enter the CD-key to play. In fact, I found the whole process of installing and registering the biggest frustration about the game--apart from the single-player load times, that is.
-Grym
Think Abu Ghirab?
Oh come on! Let's be honest, what happened at Abu Ghirab, while deplorable, wasn't much worse than what happens during fraternity hazing on campuses all across the US.
It's amazing when panties placed on a muslim's head are equated to terminal illnesses. I guess hyperbole knows no bounds when practicing the new form of /. karma-whoring; that is, incoherently spewing anti-Bush buzzwords and platitudes.
-Grym