(the Russians aren't the only ones: too many average 'Americans' will readily nod to a statement such as "We ought to just nuke the entire Middle East", etc.)
BUT... there is a point to this thinking. Sometimes a hammer does fix the problem... And it can be the smartest solution when time is of the essence.
My opinion of Bradbury has dropped a notch or two.
I will grant him this: There is a lot of nonsense on the internet. But there has always been a shitload of nonsense on the shelves of your average library. No library, no matter how up to date, represents the end-all, be-all pinnacle of human knowledge and wisdom. A good proportion of it is valuable, timelessly relevant observation of the human condition, and good hard historical fact. But an equal or greater amount of it is mythical nonsense and hackjob bullshit fit for reading at the beach and little else.
In the end, the most important thing people people have to realize is that they need to learn how to THINK CRITICALLY and not accept things as fact simply because they were told to believe that it was fact or that it fits their previous assumptions. They need to be ready to admit that their previous assumptions were wrong and that they can change their minds when new and better information comes along and not feel threatened in some way. And this applies equally to a book in the library, a news report on CNN or FoxNews, the pronouncements of a government (or the protesters against that government) or the statements on a webpage. Don't believe anything right away but think about it, chew on it, digest it, analyse it, compare it, test it, and then do it all again. No matter where it came from or where you found it.
Yahoo looks like a sinking ship to me. Sending out an SOS. It's like they're giving up. What is the corporate mentality now at Yahoo: do they see themselves as some sort of start-up seeking to make a big splash so they can get bought-up by a big corporation? How rinky-dink.
I can't but think he didn't die. He's getting plastic surgery done on him right now, and will assume a new identity. They could have been planning this for the last several years. Christ, they've had enough time to think the details through...
Can be very close to keeping one's head buried in the sand. There's often a fine line between hope and denial.
We can hope that something is or isn't. But we should still be willing to face and deal with unpleasantries. Otherwise, those "unpleasantries" can grow into major catastrophies.
Nip a problem in the bud, before it becomes a threat to everything you hold dear.
When I bought my car the dealership tossed me the keys for a test drive. Not being able to test drive a damn 2 dollar song is beyond reason.
[beyond reason]? Not really. The car in question cost quite a few thousands of dollars. It makes sense to accomodate test drives, and show rooms, etc. Do you really insist on getting a free test of anything before you spend 2 dollars on it? For a $20,000 ITEM, hell yes. But for a $2 item? Personally, I don't waste 5 seconds deliberating over such trivia. If I need to 'test' a $2 item before I am convinced I want to buy it, I DON'T FREAKIN NEED IT!
Meanwhile, I agree with the sentiment that what the music industry has let itself evolve into deserves to die a painful death, since technology has made them little more than unnecessary middlemen, and they should go the way of the buggywhip.
But your logic is faulty.
Ever wonder why gasoline costs so much now? Take a look at all the SUVs.
We both share very similar concerns and attitudes, and with all respect, I do not intend to disagree with you at all. The rest of this post is simply fo rthe sake of discussion.
I guess my pet peeve, one among many perhaps, is that our society tends to overlook some of the basic ethical concepts that so much else depends upon.
Honesty--not the cynical focusing upon the honesty of others (which the GOP has shown itself so good at), but a true and heartfelt concern for honesty in ourselves--is so important that it is easy to overlook.
A healthy respect for differences. Not only of political opinion, but of basic morality, even. One person's morals can be another man's source of laughter. I think this awareness and attitude of repsect is severely lacking in the USA, and in many other industrialized countries, and it is the foremost issue that feeds the very concerns and fears you have expressed.
Having respect for another person's right to be radically different from us is an ingredient as essential to an open society as honesty. The lack of this concept is exactly what keeps us honest people afraid of creating a truly open society.
We've got too many 'culture' jihads going on, too many simple-minded, busy-body, morality crusaders, who label all sorts of things as 'crimes'. They label things as criminal that are really none of their damned business. Victimless crimes like extramarital sex or schmokin' a doobie every once in a while should not be crimes at all.
For example: If you get drunk and then drive, you are recklessly endangering other people's lives, and that is a criminal act. No arguments there. And our society is mature enough to still have a reasonable attitude towards alcohol, and not make it illegal. So why can't we have a similar reasonable attitude towards marijuana? (We spend for too much tax money fighting something no more dangerous than alcohol...)
We are prevented from having a reasonable attitude because of the narrow-minded morality crusaders. Their vacuous, puritanical, medieval religious superstitions have warped our sense of what is truly criminal and dangerous to society. We put a casual doobie smokers in jail for years, and yet ethical monsters--and true criminals of gigantic proportions--men like Kenneth Lay, roam free.
If honest men have to lie to be free, then what kind of freedom do they really have?
We have basically allowed the religious cranks to dominate our ethical awareness. These are the very types of dimwitted morons who fought against the Enlightenment and all the great and noble ideas that our modern society is based upon...
Sorry, got to cut this short. I am very intrigued with David Brin's idea. http://www.davidbrin.com/tschp1.html
Yes, there are many good people who are lawyers! So what? Did I say that they were all evil-doers?
That still doesn't negate the fact that far too many lawyers are basically employed as professional liars.
Should blame those who pay them big bucks to lie for them, or should we blame those lawyers willing to prostitute their ethics?
Does it have anything to do with freedom? The question is probably very relevent to how long freedom will last in our society if our laws are malleable to the wishes of the highest bidder.
Trolling? *sigh* I do apologize, Progman3K! I guess it does read like a troll... sorry. And I do see you point, and actually agree with you.
I honestly am not a big stickler about lying. We all do it, and as long as it concerns matters that are nobody else's business in the first place, it is rather harmless.
It's just that something about equating 'lying' with 'freedom' that touches a raw nerve...
To me such statement are evidence we have reached the rock bottom of ethical thinking.
Corporations can't put you in jail for things (courts and juries do that.)
Courts and juries should be following the laws.
If the laws are written by politicians who are beholden to corporate donors, then the laws will reflect the interests and needs of those corporations.
If a law reflects the interests and needs of profits of corporations, then, indeed, a corporation can put you in jail. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/10/1 0683294 88834.html
When there is too close a relationship between business and government, then the political rights and freedoms of citizens will take a back seat to profit-seeking, and whatever group of powerful business men currently controls the politicians will write the laws to their whim and fancy.
It's called facism. And its back with us, even worse than before!
The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting. - Milan Kundera
Bill Clinton doesn't deserve an ounce of credit for the boom that happened on his watch. Well, yes of course. That's because he's a democrat.
We all know that if he had been a Republican presiding over such a boom, there would be a national airport and numerous federal buildings named after him by now.
...And after a few years, maybe even an aircraft carrier.
The economic boom that exploded in an instant, having a foundation of lies, deceit, and fabrications? Oh...THAT economic boom.
..."a foundation of lies, deceit, and fabrications"...You must be thinking about ENRON...
Oh, and btw, the economic boom did not end in an instant. It took Alan Greenspan about 6 months to "explode" that boom. He began a series of interest rate hikes in June of 1999 which brought the short-term Federal Funds rate to its highest level in nine years.
Right before the 2000 elections, the Fed was taking drastic measures to destroy the economic boom. Looks political?
Someone was so desperate to remove this political ace up the incumbants' sleeve, they were willing to punish ALL of the economy, just to counteract the exuberance of stock speculators and the Enron-type con artists.
Then, a few months after the elections, (we don't want to make it too obvious, right?) the Fed is seen dropping the rate like it's never been dropped in history.
Hey, thanks Alan. What great finesse. Why don't you take your "soft landing" and shove it.
And I God forbid: I forget to mention that I know the difference between a LAN and a WAN in order to appease the self-righteous indignation of all the know-it-alls.
But do you have to beat me into the ground? Sheesh!
Slashdot Mirror
What a worthless pussy.
Fuck the AUTODESK!
I bet waves from a good-size storm would capsize or damage those things easily. Needs some redesign, IMHO.
Nice idea, though!
Every problem looks like a nail.
(the Russians aren't the only ones: too many average 'Americans' will readily nod to a statement such as "We ought to just nuke the entire Middle East", etc.)
BUT... there is a point to this thinking. Sometimes a hammer does fix the problem... And it can be the smartest solution when time is of the essence.
Those who want to pretend it is a nuanced issue seem to be the Intel fanboys, (and maybe even Intel employees...)
"If you think that, then you're obviously not living on the same planet as the rest of us."
Please MrNaz, refrain from such liberal usage of the term "us".
My opinion of Bradbury has dropped a notch or two.
I will grant him this: There is a lot of nonsense on the internet. But there has always been a shitload of nonsense on the shelves of your average library. No library, no matter how up to date, represents the end-all, be-all pinnacle of human knowledge and wisdom. A good proportion of it is valuable, timelessly relevant observation of the human condition, and good hard historical fact. But an equal or greater amount of it is mythical nonsense and hackjob bullshit fit for reading at the beach and little else.
In the end, the most important thing people people have to realize is that they need to learn how to THINK CRITICALLY and not accept things as fact simply because they were told to believe that it was fact or that it fits their previous assumptions. They need to be ready to admit that their previous assumptions were wrong and that they can change their minds when new and better information comes along and not feel threatened in some way.
And this applies equally to a book in the library, a news report on CNN or FoxNews, the pronouncements of a government (or the protesters against that government) or the statements on a webpage. Don't believe anything right away but think about it, chew on it, digest it, analyse it, compare it, test it, and then do it all again. No matter where it came from or where you found it.
Yahoo looks like a sinking ship to me. Sending out an SOS. It's like they're giving up. What is the corporate mentality now at Yahoo: do they see themselves as some sort of start-up seeking to make a big splash so they can get bought-up by a big corporation? How rinky-dink.
And, News Corp! Christ, can they go any lower?
I can't but think he didn't die. He's getting plastic surgery done on him right now, and will assume a new identity.
They could have been planning this for the last several years. Christ, they've had enough time to think the details through...
Great timing for this latest round of Google bashing.v s_google/
It turns out the "other guys" are whimps and puds:
'MS, AOL and Yahoo! caved to Feds' fishing expedition'.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/21/gonzales_
Say what you like, but looks like Google is the only one with any goddammed balls to stand up to the intrusiveness of the US Feds.
"Radio however works well for many hundreds or thousands of miles"
Yeah.
Thousands of miles of frikin COMMERICALS.
Oldstyle, corporate/corrupt, Milli Vanilli crapola infested "Radio" can suck my quivering antenna.
Can be very close to keeping one's head buried in the sand. There's often a fine line between hope and denial.
We can hope that something is or isn't. But we should still be willing to face and deal with unpleasantries. Otherwise, those "unpleasantries" can grow into major catastrophies.
Nip a problem in the bud, before it becomes a threat to everything you hold dear.
When I bought my car the dealership tossed me the keys for a test drive. Not being able to test drive a damn 2 dollar song is beyond reason.
[beyond reason]? Not really.
The car in question cost quite a few thousands of dollars. It makes sense to accomodate test drives, and show rooms, etc.
Do you really insist on getting a free test of anything before you spend 2 dollars on it?
For a $20,000 ITEM, hell yes.
But for a $2 item? Personally, I don't waste 5 seconds deliberating over such trivia. If I need to 'test' a $2 item before I am convinced I want to buy it, I DON'T FREAKIN NEED IT!
Meanwhile, I agree with the sentiment that what the music industry has let itself evolve into deserves to die a painful death, since technology has made them little more than unnecessary middlemen, and they should go the way of the buggywhip.
But your logic is faulty.
Ever wonder why gasoline costs so much now? Take a look at all the SUVs.
It's designed to be a tool for them to protect themselves from mistakes.
...And the endless variations of the Backstreet Boys and New Kids on the Block?
"Well, it bombed in the market, but the software algorithm said it had a chance. I did what the software said was right."
It's your run-of-the-mill corporate bullshit. No creativity, and no real courage to try something different and take a risk.
How do you think we got Milli Vanilli?
The music industry as it is, is little more than a middle-man. Cut them out of the picture, and the consumers benefit, and the REAL artists do too!
You have made some very wonderful and important points, dandelion_wine!
And my tendency to paint with a broad brush is a terrible fault I have that needs much work...
I hope to read more of your posts!
We both share very similar concerns and attitudes, and with all respect, I do not intend to disagree with you at all. The rest of this post is simply fo rthe sake of discussion.
I guess my pet peeve, one among many perhaps, is that our society tends to overlook some of the basic ethical concepts that so much else depends upon.
Honesty--not the cynical focusing upon the honesty of others (which the GOP has shown itself so good at), but a true and heartfelt concern for honesty in ourselves--is so important that it is easy to overlook.
A healthy respect for differences. Not only of political opinion, but of basic morality, even. One person's morals can be another man's source of laughter. I think this awareness and attitude of repsect is severely lacking in the USA, and in many other industrialized countries, and it is the foremost issue that feeds the very concerns and fears you have expressed.
Having respect for another person's right to be radically different from us is an ingredient as essential to an open society as honesty.
The lack of this concept is exactly what keeps us honest people afraid of creating a truly open society.
We've got too many 'culture' jihads going on, too many simple-minded, busy-body, morality crusaders, who label all sorts of things as 'crimes'. They label things as criminal that are really none of their damned business. Victimless crimes like extramarital sex or schmokin' a doobie every once in a while should not be crimes at all.
For example: If you get drunk and then drive, you are recklessly endangering other people's lives, and that is a criminal act. No arguments there. And our society is mature enough to still have a reasonable attitude towards alcohol, and not make it illegal.
So why can't we have a similar reasonable attitude towards marijuana? (We spend for too much tax money fighting something no more dangerous than alcohol...)
We are prevented from having a reasonable attitude because of the narrow-minded morality crusaders.
Their vacuous, puritanical, medieval religious superstitions have warped our sense of what is truly criminal and dangerous to society. We put a casual doobie smokers in jail for years, and yet ethical monsters--and true criminals of gigantic proportions--men like Kenneth Lay, roam free.
If honest men have to lie to be free, then what kind of freedom do they really have?
We have basically allowed the religious cranks to dominate our ethical awareness. These are the very types of dimwitted morons who fought against the Enlightenment and all the great and noble ideas that our modern society is based upon...
Sorry, got to cut this short.
I am very intrigued with David Brin's idea.
http://www.davidbrin.com/tschp1.html
Best regards, xedd
Gandhi was a lawyer, my friend.
Yes, there are many good people who are lawyers! So what? Did I say that they were all evil-doers?
That still doesn't negate the fact that far too many lawyers are basically employed as professional liars.
Should blame those who pay them big bucks to lie for them, or should we blame those lawyers willing to prostitute their ethics?
Does it have anything to do with freedom?
The question is probably very relevent to how long freedom will last in our society if our laws are malleable to the wishes of the highest bidder.
Trolling? *sigh* I do apologize, Progman3K!
I guess it does read like a troll... sorry.
And I do see you point, and actually agree with you.
I honestly am not a big stickler about lying. We all do it, and as long as it concerns matters that are nobody else's business in the first place, it is rather harmless.
It's just that something about equating 'lying' with 'freedom' that touches a raw nerve...
To me such statement are evidence we have reached the rock bottom of ethical thinking.
So, telling lies is the most extreme expression of freedom that you can think of?
...Henrik Ibsen
Seems very likely you are a lawyer! Whatever you might be, you certainly have no sense of honor, pride or self worth...
It's the freedom to tell the truth and not fear the consequences that should matter to us more than anything.
The spirit of truth and the spirit of freedom -- they are the pillars of society.
Corporations can't put you in jail for things (courts and juries do that.)
1 0683294 88834.html
Courts and juries should be following the laws.
If the laws are written by politicians who are beholden to corporate donors, then the laws will reflect the interests and needs of those corporations.
If a law reflects the interests and needs of profits of corporations, then, indeed, a corporation can put you in jail.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/10/
When there is too close a relationship between business and government, then the political rights and freedoms of citizens will take a back seat to profit-seeking, and whatever group of powerful business men currently controls the politicians will write the laws to their whim and fancy.
It's called facism. And its back with us, even worse than before!
The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.
- Milan Kundera
Bill Clinton doesn't deserve an ounce of credit for the boom that happened on his watch.
Well, yes of course. That's because he's a democrat.
We all know that if he had been a Republican presiding over such a boom, there would be a national airport and numerous federal buildings named after him by now.
Oh, and btw, the economic boom did not end in an instant.
It took Alan Greenspan about 6 months to "explode" that boom. He began a series of interest rate hikes in June of 1999 which brought the short-term Federal Funds rate to its highest level in nine years.
Right before the 2000 elections, the Fed was taking drastic measures to destroy the economic boom. Looks political?
Someone was so desperate to remove this political ace up the incumbants' sleeve, they were willing to punish ALL of the economy, just to counteract the exuberance of stock speculators and the Enron-type con artists.
Then, a few months after the elections, (we don't want to make it too obvious, right?) the Fed is seen dropping the rate like it's never been dropped in history.
Hey, thanks Alan. What great finesse.
Why don't you take your "soft landing" and shove it.
If it weren't for the Supremes, Bush would have lost the Florida count, too.
Haha!
Thanks. Believe me: I will make sure to do that!
And I God forbid: I forget to mention that I know the difference between a LAN and a WAN in order to appease the self-righteous indignation of all the know-it-alls.
But do you have to beat me into the ground?
Sheesh!
(...And then my post gets moderated as a troll!)
Wow. I just gotta laugh.