Alternate hypothesis: Today's ads better represent the industries that have bought into a heavy advertising philosophy than they do the industries that would most benefit. (or the ad methodologies) That, and ads are always more effective than the public gives them credit for (and usually less effective than the marketing staff thinks they are).
I once agreed with that sentiment. Unfortunately, the net result tends to be that it chases out the few people who aught to be there just after they figure out how congress works. On the other hand, there's always someone willing to do exactly as the lobbyists and special interests ask. It's done a real number on California politics (which was messed up to start with).
So... You're under the mistaken impression that greater attacks lead to fewer freedoms which in turn lead to changes in the political structure and more freedom? You're nuts.
... the VERY LEAST YOU COULD and VOTE to throw the bums out...
While I agree with the sentiment, It's not that simple. "The bums" inhabit both political parties (they look different only superficially). Duverger's law states that any first-past-the-post voting system will result in a two party system. Stated simply, people know that third party candidates cannot win, therefore they only vote for the lesser of two evils, and therefore third party candidates cannot win. It's stupid and cyclical, but it's also reality. Bringing about change in a two party system is very, very slow and painful. It would be somewhat faster if we could change our voting system, but that too is a long, long ways off.
I don't know what the FBI et al will consider acts of war, but they are certainly possible (if rare). Pen testers found a water treatment facility where chemical additives were controlled by a vulnerable computer. If the entire inventory were emptied into the system I suspect it would have caused some kind of harm (either directly, or indirectly when the water was shut off to the city). It has been suggested that our power infrastructure is vulnerable. A creative hack may be capable of significant financial damage. Officials have warned that a real cyber attack (ex: disabling emergency services) may be blended with a more traditional form of terrorism. Other ideas have been floated. Some involve killing people, others are simply economic. None are likely, but we must assume that something of them are possible. (I think prevention and pen testing are better methods than threats of war, but each to his own.)
Do you really think that when a "middle aged man with money to defend himself" and his "son is getting beaten up" that he enjoys wasting gobs of time and money in a defense or libel suit? If you're broad claim was legit, there'd be more "middle aged m[e]n" railing on the po'.
Yeah, there are a few bad cops. I maintain, though, that the greater problem lies in the anti-cop crowd. We'd have much less crime, much higher and more accurate solve rate if inner city culture was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Cops would err less on the side of hostility if the prevailing culture was less hostile against them. Think about it, if you're capable.
"... the guy that rubbed my head into the road for speeding" I wish you hadn't gone through that. I'm still highly dubious. By way of analogy.
...do you really think the TSA's antics have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks? Other than using the attacks as an excuse.
Uh, yes.
It's security theater. It's an inept attempt to reassure a panicky populace with an emotion driven response. I really don't think the TSA wanted the headache. They would much rather pretend there wasn't a problem at all (sort of what they're doing anyways).
Wiretapping (etc) on the other hand, is a different ball game. There are arguments for FBI, border patrol, et al. wanting more power. I don't generally subscribe to such theories, but I'm sure there's at least some truth to it.
Have you never seen middle eastern billboards / graffiti? Every suicide bomber is a "martyr" and is painted on the side of a building somewhere in the region. Many of them are painted all over the place. (particularly in Palestine)
I find it incredible that they feel that even after I paid for their content I should still be forced to look at their adverts.
And they wonder why I almost never buy a newspaper or magazine. It's also why I've always felt that cable (etc) was a rip-off. I'm either the customer, or the product. Pick one. I'm not going to pay for an unpleasant experience.
Stuxnet doesn't attack windows systems. It propagates using Windows systems, but tries to get its payload installed on very specific NON-WINDOWS systems. Jump to conclusions much?
The only issue not stopping the US from dismantling all at once is the fact that other countries like Russia still has a shitton of nukes.
And non-treaty members, and noncompliant members, and Iran (soon)... Total nuclear disarmament is theoretically possible, but the world is far to broken for that to happen in the foreseeable future. As long as we have warmongering megalomaniacs in politics anywhere, nuclear war is never more than a few years away.
Maybe he could convince them to put the server on a firewalled DMZ. Isolate it from the rest of the network as if malicious; enable the port that he needs. I don't see any reason a compromise couldn't be worked out.
Hospital security, though, must not be compromised. He's already made one critical mistake. He's unknowingly poked IT in the eye by bringing in outside computer hardware. That's a big no-no anywhere data security is important (and can lead to big lawsuits).
You two do realize that Stewart enjoys exposing liberal lies almost as much as he enjoys exposing so-called conservative ones? (Yes, he has a liberal bias, but it's almost forgivable.) As long as politicians exist, he'll be happy.
The so-called "Bush tax cuts" have been the effective tax rate for so long that doing away with them would be a tax increase. It's just a matter of perspective. Today I pay X. Tomorrow I pay 2X. Tax hike. (The Democrats may have won the spin battle. It doesn't make them right.)
Spending is causing the deficit. That is what a deficit is! You don't run up a deficit without spending! Both parties have run up the tab, and neither of them want to pay the piper. (No, the Republican party as a whole doesn't want spending cuts either.)
Let's take the USDA, just as an example. They have departments trying to get people to eat more cheese, and others trying to get people to eat less cheese. Seriously ?!? We don't expect magical cuts. Well -- We expect magical cuts only insofar as we need to counteract the government's magical growth and supernatural fraud. The deficit can be closed on cuts. Ultimately, it will be probably be closed on small cuts and massive tax increases. That's what the tea parties (not "express") are upset about.
Only amongst brethren (and in certain geographical locales). It makes no sense in context of railing against "the man". (yes, I'm lds - aka mormon) Frankly, I almost never hear this usage. It's almost always an appellation as opposed to a noun.
Maybe you are thinking of Brotha?
"You say poe-tae-toe, I and say poe-tah-toe." Besides, not everyone intentionally misspells words which are intentionally mispronounced.
"A brother" (without greater specificity) is almost always the description of one black guy by another. Inner city racist use it to segregate themselves from the rest of society. It doesn't even need to identify friendship, only perceived similarity in station due to skin color.
Hmmm. *Scratches head* I thought you were making a blanket hypocrisy argument.
I brought the conservative use of the Fairness Doctrine up to point out that the pendulum does sometimes swing left, and conservatives who are against the doctrine should pay serious attention to its potential positive benefits. Recognizing that is a valid point mean you necessarily have to think it is a *net* good idea.
No, but I concede that it is a decent argument as to why it is not as bad as party-loyal Republicans have feared.
Personally, I oppose it because I don't trust the fairness (or sanity) of regulators and because it further institutionalizes bipartisanship. I guess that is to say that I oppose it on ethical grounds, but not necessarily moral ones.
On point one, who's to say that a particular show or host (etc) is left or right? The line has always been at least a little fuzzy, and it is getting slowly blurred as time goes by. (It's ironic as politics are getting more partisan by the day.) The best shows are those which can hold some "liberal" opinions, and some "conservative" opinions. How do these get classified?
On point two, I hold that we really, really need more political parties in the US. The "Fairness Doctrine" would just be one more thing to discourage critical thinking and divide opinion leaders into two camps. We've got enough of that already.
(I consider myself Libertarian friendly, but I don't agree with them wholesale. Besides, I feel I can make a bigger difference by voting in the Republican primaries than by registering with another, (lesser) party that I also don't completely align with. We really need to get rid of first-past-the-post voting (Duverger's law). I'd even settle for Approval or IRV if I could.)
I for one take the libertarian notion that the Fairness Doctrine necessarily infringes on property owners' rights;
It really does. On the other hand, the airwaves are a natural oligopoly. That's where regulators can be crucial. I don't want them interfering here, or in this manner, but it's not somewhere anarchy-level free-market policies can be applied. It is a puzzle, to be sure.
... and if he were against it, well, I think it's OK for people to change their mind about something. Even though it *looks* hypocritical, people do learn things as they grow older. Even where people are just being inconsistent, it does not necessarily mean they are hypocrites.
I agree, but it becomes much harder to defend them. (or even want to)
It's just easier to see the intended consequences of our actions and preferred policies than their unintended consequences, and that applies across the board to liberals and conservatives both. It's hard to be as objective and fair-minded as we think we are.
...
I think we get a better, more productive debate if people consider each others points seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Alternate hypothesis: Today's ads better represent the industries that have bought into a heavy advertising philosophy than they do the industries that would most benefit. (or the ad methodologies) That, and ads are always more effective than the public gives them credit for (and usually less effective than the marketing staff thinks they are).
I usually don't mind finding additions on the Internet, but I'd rather block advertisements from getting through.
If you're going to grammar-troll or spell-troll, at least attack a legitimate target. There are plenty to go around.
I once agreed with that sentiment. Unfortunately, the net result tends to be that it chases out the few people who aught to be there just after they figure out how congress works. On the other hand, there's always someone willing to do exactly as the lobbyists and special interests ask. It's done a real number on California politics (which was messed up to start with).
So... You're under the mistaken impression that greater attacks lead to fewer freedoms which in turn lead to changes in the political structure and more freedom? You're nuts.
... the VERY LEAST YOU COULD and VOTE to throw the bums out...
While I agree with the sentiment, It's not that simple. "The bums" inhabit both political parties (they look different only superficially). Duverger's law states that any first-past-the-post voting system will result in a two party system. Stated simply, people know that third party candidates cannot win, therefore they only vote for the lesser of two evils, and therefore third party candidates cannot win. It's stupid and cyclical, but it's also reality. Bringing about change in a two party system is very, very slow and painful. It would be somewhat faster if we could change our voting system, but that too is a long, long ways off.
I don't know what the FBI et al will consider acts of war, but they are certainly possible (if rare). Pen testers found a water treatment facility where chemical additives were controlled by a vulnerable computer. If the entire inventory were emptied into the system I suspect it would have caused some kind of harm (either directly, or indirectly when the water was shut off to the city). It has been suggested that our power infrastructure is vulnerable. A creative hack may be capable of significant financial damage. Officials have warned that a real cyber attack (ex: disabling emergency services) may be blended with a more traditional form of terrorism. Other ideas have been floated. Some involve killing people, others are simply economic. None are likely, but we must assume that something of them are possible. (I think prevention and pen testing are better methods than threats of war, but each to his own.)
Do you really think that when a "middle aged man with money to defend himself" and his "son is getting beaten up" that he enjoys wasting gobs of time and money in a defense or libel suit? If you're broad claim was legit, there'd be more "middle aged m[e]n" railing on the po'.
Yeah, there are a few bad cops. I maintain, though, that the greater problem lies in the anti-cop crowd. We'd have much less crime, much higher and more accurate solve rate if inner city culture was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Cops would err less on the side of hostility if the prevailing culture was less hostile against them. Think about it, if you're capable.
"... the guy that rubbed my head into the road for speeding" I wish you hadn't gone through that. I'm still highly dubious. By way of analogy.
Says the AC troll. I bet you've had run-ins with the law, and I bet you did deserve it.
...do you really think the TSA's antics have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks? Other than using the attacks as an excuse.
Uh, yes.
It's security theater. It's an inept attempt to reassure a panicky populace with an emotion driven response. I really don't think the TSA wanted the headache. They would much rather pretend there wasn't a problem at all (sort of what they're doing anyways).
Wiretapping (etc) on the other hand, is a different ball game. There are arguments for FBI, border patrol, et al. wanting more power. I don't generally subscribe to such theories, but I'm sure there's at least some truth to it.
Have you never seen middle eastern billboards / graffiti? Every suicide bomber is a "martyr" and is painted on the side of a building somewhere in the region. Many of them are painted all over the place. (particularly in Palestine)
Wait... is it a "certificate of live death", or a "certificate of dead death"? I'm confused.
More people "showing initiative" have screwed up major projects than anything else I know...
Yeah, but people not showing initiative have messed up more minor projects than I can count. It's a matter of perspective, balance, and wisdom.
I find it incredible that they feel that even after I paid for their content I should still be forced to look at their adverts.
And they wonder why I almost never buy a newspaper or magazine. It's also why I've always felt that cable (etc) was a rip-off. I'm either the customer, or the product. Pick one. I'm not going to pay for an unpleasant experience.
Stuxnet doesn't attack windows systems. It propagates using Windows systems, but tries to get its payload installed on very specific NON-WINDOWS systems. Jump to conclusions much?
The only issue not stopping the US from dismantling all at once is the fact that other countries like Russia still has a shitton of nukes.
And non-treaty members, and noncompliant members, and Iran (soon)... Total nuclear disarmament is theoretically possible, but the world is far to broken for that to happen in the foreseeable future. As long as we have warmongering megalomaniacs in politics anywhere, nuclear war is never more than a few years away.
Maybe he could convince them to put the server on a firewalled DMZ. Isolate it from the rest of the network as if malicious; enable the port that he needs. I don't see any reason a compromise couldn't be worked out.
Hospital security, though, must not be compromised. He's already made one critical mistake. He's unknowingly poked IT in the eye by bringing in outside computer hardware. That's a big no-no anywhere data security is important (and can lead to big lawsuits).
Or Democrats. (A valid point, but the problem extends both ways.)
If you lost both mouse and keyboard for 48 hours, I bet you'd beg to be given your mouse back. (even if you couldn't have your keyboard)
Give them a break. It's a start.
Was that a joke? Normally I'd just laugh along, but this is Slashdot...
(Not that we get many cool-aid liberals here, but we have a few residents.)
You two do realize that Stewart enjoys exposing liberal lies almost as much as he enjoys exposing so-called conservative ones? (Yes, he has a liberal bias, but it's almost forgivable.) As long as politicians exist, he'll be happy.
The so-called "Bush tax cuts" have been the effective tax rate for so long that doing away with them would be a tax increase. It's just a matter of perspective. Today I pay X. Tomorrow I pay 2X. Tax hike. (The Democrats may have won the spin battle. It doesn't make them right.)
Spending is causing the deficit. That is what a deficit is! You don't run up a deficit without spending! Both parties have run up the tab, and neither of them want to pay the piper. (No, the Republican party as a whole doesn't want spending cuts either.)
Let's take the USDA, just as an example. They have departments trying to get people to eat more cheese, and others trying to get people to eat less cheese. Seriously ?!? We don't expect magical cuts. Well -- We expect magical cuts only insofar as we need to counteract the government's magical growth and supernatural fraud. The deficit can be closed on cuts. Ultimately, it will be probably be closed on small cuts and massive tax increases. That's what the tea parties (not "express") are upset about.
Only amongst brethren (and in certain geographical locales). It makes no sense in context of railing against "the man". (yes, I'm lds - aka mormon) Frankly, I almost never hear this usage. It's almost always an appellation as opposed to a noun.
Maybe you are thinking of Brotha?
"You say poe-tae-toe, I and say poe-tah-toe." Besides, not everyone intentionally misspells words which are intentionally mispronounced.
On second thought, you already knew that (at least subconsciously). Specifically, you knew I was referring to "a brother" and not to "the man".
1. n. a black person's male, black friend. : Another brother took a fall last night.
(Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions by Richard A. Spears.Fourth Edition. Copyright 2007. Published by McGraw Hill.)
"A brother" (without greater specificity) is almost always the description of one black guy by another. Inner city racist use it to segregate themselves from the rest of society. It doesn't even need to identify friendship, only perceived similarity in station due to skin color.
I hope you're being sarcastic. There's no reason to bring race into this.
Hmmm. *Scratches head* I thought you were making a blanket hypocrisy argument.
I brought the conservative use of the Fairness Doctrine up to point out that the pendulum does sometimes swing left, and conservatives who are against the doctrine should pay serious attention to its potential positive benefits. Recognizing that is a valid point mean you necessarily have to think it is a *net* good idea.
No, but I concede that it is a decent argument as to why it is not as bad as party-loyal Republicans have feared.
Personally, I oppose it because I don't trust the fairness (or sanity) of regulators and because it further institutionalizes bipartisanship. I guess that is to say that I oppose it on ethical grounds, but not necessarily moral ones.
On point one, who's to say that a particular show or host (etc) is left or right? The line has always been at least a little fuzzy, and it is getting slowly blurred as time goes by. (It's ironic as politics are getting more partisan by the day.) The best shows are those which can hold some "liberal" opinions, and some "conservative" opinions. How do these get classified?
On point two, I hold that we really, really need more political parties in the US. The "Fairness Doctrine" would just be one more thing to discourage critical thinking and divide opinion leaders into two camps. We've got enough of that already.
(I consider myself Libertarian friendly, but I don't agree with them wholesale. Besides, I feel I can make a bigger difference by voting in the Republican primaries than by registering with another, (lesser) party that I also don't completely align with. We really need to get rid of first-past-the-post voting (Duverger's law). I'd even settle for Approval or IRV if I could.)
I for one take the libertarian notion that the Fairness Doctrine necessarily infringes on property owners' rights;
It really does. On the other hand, the airwaves are a natural oligopoly. That's where regulators can be crucial. I don't want them interfering here, or in this manner, but it's not somewhere anarchy-level free-market policies can be applied. It is a puzzle, to be sure.
... and if he were against it, well, I think it's OK for people to change their mind about something. Even though it *looks* hypocritical, people do learn things as they grow older. Even where people are just being inconsistent, it does not necessarily mean they are hypocrites.
I agree, but it becomes much harder to defend them. (or even want to)
It's just easier to see the intended consequences of our actions and preferred policies than their unintended consequences, and that applies across the board to liberals and conservatives both. It's hard to be as objective and fair-minded as we think we are.
...
I think we get a better, more productive debate if people consider each others points seriously.
Amen.