It seems the writers of the "patriot" act (and many other laws, for that matter) have forgotten the constraints on their power that are written in to the document they are sworn to protect!!!
*sigh* guess its time to break out the tin-foil hats...
the editors let in these kind of story submissions just because its a slow news day and watching us all get riled up and keeping ourselves on our toes checking up facts entertains them?
Of course!
These posts are like their personal gladiator arenas!
Voting with your money is a good approach; I've advocated it many times. However, the problem is that many people will mindlessly buy company X's "New, Hip, Super-Awesome, Must-Have" product anyway, thus giving that company an effective monopoly.
Not a problem, unless Company X happens to be, say, a major motherboard maker. Now that they control the entire market, if you want a new Mobo, you're forced to buy from them, at whatever terms they feel like. And, if the example set by most governments these days is followed, little to nothing will be done.
And you can't just keep you're old board forever. Eventually, it will break, or you'll need to upgrade something, etc.
Thus, the people get screwed by The Man. Gotta love the world these days...
Something tells me we'll be hearing from Canadian music-swappers about how "the record companies only put one or two good songs on a CD...". If they, and all their U.S. counterparts, vote with their money (i.e. don't buy CD's, or iTunes songs, etc) and stop downloading music, the *IAA will have nothing to explain away lost profits, and the record companies will be forced to produce decent music to survive.
As a member of the age group commonly targeted as violent, drug-addicted, and just generally evil, I think I can provide some insight.
First, many of us are extreemly upset with how stupid the world seems today. I know this is probably charistic of teenagers throughout time, but it seems to me that my generation is very extreme in these viewpoints. Example: many of us hate Geroge W. Bush. Not because of his politics, but because he is a dumbass.
Now, this hatred of society generally gets channeled into one of three forms:
Attempts at change. Some teenagers decide to try to fix things. Unfortunatly, we are rarely taken seriously, and thus, most would-be reformers eventually fall into the second response:
Rebellion. This includes: somking, drinking, doing drugs, sleeping around, occasional shoplifting, listining to "offensive" music, and, of coures, playing violent video games. These things aren't done for the sake of doing them, but rather because "mainstream" society shuns them.
The third response generally includes events such as Columbine. I think this is pretty self-explainitory.
Now, how would teenagers playing GTA3 affect younger children? I'll tell you: pop culture generally stresses that, somehow, teenagers are "cool". This is why you see 7 year old girls dressing like sluts. And it is why young children feel the need to play violent video games.
Now, as to whether these games cause violent behavior, my humble oppinion is that most of the "violent" children that the talking heads say were bred by "media violence", are actually just violent people, who happen to prefer violent video games to other entertainment. (btw, I find it ironic that after the news people are done blaming the latest violent act on violent media, a 5-hour COPS marathon starts)
Fianlly, the "blame the media" response is leveled by the parents of antisocial children, because the parents are too damn lazy to raise their own children, and just park them in front of the TV all day. Well, what did you expect?
So, next time you see one of those "special reports" on TV violence, or whatever, remember this post.
50 billion dollars (more or less to taste)
1 Team of scientists and engineers
1 Rocket
Put money and team into a lab and let sit for a few years, or until product becomes feasable. Remove result from lab, and load onto rocket. Launch rocket for Mars, and Enjoy!
Like I said, this is only an idea. What I came up with for the whole "getting taxed for nothing" problem was this: Social Security would have to be funded just like any other government program, and not with a special tax. That way, people aren't charged specifically for something they don't get. And, If you're still upset about that, consider this: You are paying for public schools, highways in Pennsylvania, and tax breaks for rich CEOs with your taxes. I doubt you use all those things, but you still have to pay for them. Yeah, paying taxes sucks, but it's a necessary evil. And also, once you pay your taxes, that is the GOVERNMENT'S money, not yours. Once again, this sucks, but that's how it works.
About the "Added Costs" you speak of, do you have any clue how much the government spends on getting people to vote? I'm sure you could fund a program like this with that money.
And, about fraud and excess work, I have this to say: There will always be people who try to cheat the system. And personally, I would be willing to wait a few extra days on an audit, if it meant that the majority of people actually bothered to cast a ballot, bullshit or not.
Finally, the whole point of this would be to turn social security into a reward for those who care about the future of their country, not to penalize those who are too lazy to take a few hours every year and participate in the government.
Yes, I know my idea is flawed, but we need to do more than throw money into ad campaigns to get people to vote. It sickens me when I see 35% turnouts for elections in my home state, Colorado. There will be ballot issues determining the entire course of our state government, such as how to handle growth and water resources (a huge issue here), and only about a third of the state cares enough to take some time and say how they feel. The whole point of a democracy is that the majority rules, but if only a minority decides everything, we're heading down a bad road.
And hey, imagine how awesome the country would be if Mickey Mouse were president!
Penalizing people for not voting is like penalizing someone for not having an opinion on every and all subjects.
Perhaps I should have made myself more clear. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO FILL OUT A COMPLETE BALLOT In fact, you could vote for yourself on everything, or just leave the damn thing blank. As long as you bothered to show up and help our government work.
If we cherish the freedom provided by the Constitution of the United States of America, why should we take steps towards removing the freedom to not act?
Being a U.S. Citizen carries with it many obligations, the highest of which is to VOTE! A rebublic doesn't work if it's citizens don't participate!!! The entire point of this is to persuade citizens to preform their civic duty. After all, you would be upset if punishments for violating other laws were lifted (at least, I hope so). So why get upset about penalties for other cop-outs of civic duty?
This line of thought smacks of systems where you have to be a member of a certain political party in order to participate in society
I find it kinda difficult to draw this conclusion. This is actually the exact opposite of that. The whole point of this idea is to get more people to vote, regardless of beliefs. There would be no obligation to vote, just a reward (getting Social Security) if you did.
However, you do raise legitamate questions. My idea is anything but ready to be enacted into law; its just something me and my friends thought up.
introducing legislation to take away privelliges from non-voters.
Interesting you should say (errr, post) that. I was just talking that over with some of my friends, and we all agreed on a solution: If you don't vote, you can't draw social security. Think about it. We penalize non-voters, and help ease the strain on social security. Its win-win.
Are you joking? The government has been supporting Microsoft for quite a while now, by not admitting that good old Billy-G has a monopoly on his hands. That's a large part of what the government (all parties involved in it) does, has done, and will continue to do: support those who give cash to campaigns, or who could sink re-election bids.
I think I've said something like this before, but I'll say it again: The new 64 bit Windows will crash in approxmatly 1/10 the time, since it is a (more or less) new Microsoft product.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but all you'd have to do is to put a copywrite on your internet transmissions, and then sue the FBI under the DMCA!
...who says its all bad? ;)
*sigh* guess its time to break out the tin-foil hats...
Of course!
These posts are like their personal gladiator arenas!
you mean to say that people did things other that that?
thats some scary shit, there...
How did that become legal in the first place?
*dons tin-foil hat* there must be dome sort of government conspiricy brewing...
How is this not legitimate???
I thought usuing the name of a company to criticize said company was perfectly legal
...or am I supposed to refer to Micro$oft as something else?
...that people actually buy the stuff in spam... What kind of idiot would--HEY! look! Cheap Viagra! woohoo!!! what luck!
Not a problem, unless Company X happens to be, say, a major motherboard maker. Now that they control the entire market, if you want a new Mobo, you're forced to buy from them, at whatever terms they feel like. And, if the example set by most governments these days is followed, little to nothing will be done.
And you can't just keep you're old board forever. Eventually, it will break, or you'll need to upgrade something, etc.
Thus, the people get screwed by The Man. Gotta love the world these days...
Something tells me we'll be hearing from Canadian music-swappers about how "the record companies only put one or two good songs on a CD...". If they, and all their U.S. counterparts, vote with their money (i.e. don't buy CD's, or iTunes songs, etc) and stop downloading music, the *IAA will have nothing to explain away lost profits, and the record companies will be forced to produce decent music to survive.
...Whenever I try to open a text message from a friend, I get some message trying to sell me cheap Viagra knockoffs...
Will tech support using this system thats been outsourced to India understand english curses?
you have a point...
First, many of us are extreemly upset with how stupid the world seems today. I know this is probably charistic of teenagers throughout time, but it seems to me that my generation is very extreme in these viewpoints. Example: many of us hate Geroge W. Bush. Not because of his politics, but because he is a dumbass.
Now, this hatred of society generally gets channeled into one of three forms:
Attempts at change. Some teenagers decide to try to fix things. Unfortunatly, we are rarely taken seriously, and thus, most would-be reformers eventually fall into the second response:
Rebellion. This includes: somking, drinking, doing drugs, sleeping around, occasional shoplifting, listining to "offensive" music, and, of coures, playing violent video games. These things aren't done for the sake of doing them, but rather because "mainstream" society shuns them.
The third response generally includes events such as Columbine. I think this is pretty self-explainitory.
Now, how would teenagers playing GTA3 affect younger children? I'll tell you: pop culture generally stresses that, somehow, teenagers are "cool". This is why you see 7 year old girls dressing like sluts. And it is why young children feel the need to play violent video games.
Now, as to whether these games cause violent behavior, my humble oppinion is that most of the "violent" children that the talking heads say were bred by "media violence", are actually just violent people, who happen to prefer violent video games to other entertainment. (btw, I find it ironic that after the news people are done blaming the latest violent act on violent media, a 5-hour COPS marathon starts)
Fianlly, the "blame the media" response is leveled by the parents of antisocial children, because the parents are too damn lazy to raise their own children, and just park them in front of the TV all day. Well, what did you expect?
So, next time you see one of those "special reports" on TV violence, or whatever, remember this post.
1 Team of scientists and engineers
1 Rocket
Put money and team into a lab and let sit for a few years, or until product becomes feasable. Remove result from lab, and load onto rocket. Launch rocket for Mars, and Enjoy!
Though I bet NASA is working on one of those, too.
About the "Added Costs" you speak of, do you have any clue how much the government spends on getting people to vote? I'm sure you could fund a program like this with that money.
And, about fraud and excess work, I have this to say: There will always be people who try to cheat the system. And personally, I would be willing to wait a few extra days on an audit, if it meant that the majority of people actually bothered to cast a ballot, bullshit or not.
Finally, the whole point of this would be to turn social security into a reward for those who care about the future of their country, not to penalize those who are too lazy to take a few hours every year and participate in the government.
Yes, I know my idea is flawed, but we need to do more than throw money into ad campaigns to get people to vote. It sickens me when I see 35% turnouts for elections in my home state, Colorado. There will be ballot issues determining the entire course of our state government, such as how to handle growth and water resources (a huge issue here), and only about a third of the state cares enough to take some time and say how they feel. The whole point of a democracy is that the majority rules, but if only a minority decides everything, we're heading down a bad road.
And hey, imagine how awesome the country would be if Mickey Mouse were president!
Perhaps I should have made myself more clear. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO FILL OUT A COMPLETE BALLOT In fact, you could vote for yourself on everything, or just leave the damn thing blank. As long as you bothered to show up and help our government work.
If we cherish the freedom provided by the Constitution of the United States of America, why should we take steps towards removing the freedom to not act?
Being a U.S. Citizen carries with it many obligations, the highest of which is to VOTE! A rebublic doesn't work if it's citizens don't participate!!! The entire point of this is to persuade citizens to preform their civic duty. After all, you would be upset if punishments for violating other laws were lifted (at least, I hope so). So why get upset about penalties for other cop-outs of civic duty?
This line of thought smacks of systems where you have to be a member of a certain political party in order to participate in society
I find it kinda difficult to draw this conclusion. This is actually the exact opposite of that. The whole point of this idea is to get more people to vote, regardless of beliefs. There would be no obligation to vote, just a reward (getting Social Security) if you did.
However, you do raise legitamate questions. My idea is anything but ready to be enacted into law; its just something me and my friends thought up.
Interesting you should say (errr, post) that. I was just talking that over with some of my friends, and we all agreed on a solution: If you don't vote, you can't draw social security. Think about it. We penalize non-voters, and help ease the strain on social security. Its win-win.
Are you joking? The government has been supporting Microsoft for quite a while now, by not admitting that good old Billy-G has a monopoly on his hands. That's a large part of what the government (all parties involved in it) does, has done, and will continue to do: support those who give cash to campaigns, or who could sink re-election bids.
...okay, done ranting
So that's why apple constantly gets toasted in benchmark competitions...