Trivial little toy applications are neither here nor there.
<sarcasm>Oh, suuuuure.</sarcasm> That's why Apple has shipped as part of an OS release... Garageband. iMovie. iPhoto. Mail. iChat. iCal. iDVD. iWeb. Grab. Omni Outliner. Comic Life. XCode. Calculator. Safari. Address book. DVD player. iTunes. Stickies. Preview. Dictionary. That's why Appleworks was shipped for so long (until the lack of Unicode and proper maintainance killed its coolness... you don't keep up, you end up behind the curve.)
And as for "toy apps"; a good example of why you're completely in the dark here is brought to the table by comparing user features of CocoaTech's Pathfinder and Apple's Finder. In that comparison, unquestionably, the toy is Apple's finder - Pathfinder is a beauty. Finder is an app missing some very important features. Like being able to refresh a directory share. You'd think that (cough) "OS engineers" would know better than to create something that depends upon volumes controlled by other systems remaining static, but nooo...
So don't presume to lecture me about "trivial little toy applications." On the one hand, I wasn't talking about barely-sufficient apps like Finder, except as examples of OS FUNCTIONALITY that are substandard; on the other, the usability of the system out of the box directly depends on the apps that ship as part of the OS. Apple knows that, although you clearly don't.
There's a difference between being technically part of the OS, and part of the OS release, certainly, but at the user level, the things that matter beyond reliability are what enables them to get things done. Apps are the meat and potatoes of that, and they always will be. Apps that ship with the system set a minimum level of capability everyone with that release has. They add features in a way that is at least as important as any low-level capability, and often, quite a bit moreso.
For instance, Appleworks let me create and use a basic, but extremely useful, spreadsheet. When Apple stopped shipping Appleworks, the usability of the system out of the box took a huge step backwards. Now I not only can't do that on a new machine unless an old machine (upon which I still have a legal copy of Appleworks) is also handy, I have to go out and spend more money on something. Gee, thanks. Thanks a bunch. See? User experience, right out of the box, depends on what's IN the box. How hard is that to understand?
I distinctly remember Jobs demonstrating Garageband, being just completely all happy about it. Just a "toy app", according to you, but to Jobs, it was very clearly a "sell this release" feature. And in fact to me -- I'm a musician, among other things -- it was. Garageband is about 1000x more important to me than, for instance, ZFS. Jobs knew that, and he used it at the time to sink a nice, sharp marketing hook right into me and people like me. And here I am today, owner of multiple Macs, and actively developing software for the machine as well. So... maybe you ought to align your views with management before you jam your foot all the way down your throat, eh?
All the "features" that you're talking about aren't part of an operating system
No? You think OSX would be anywhere near as usable without Finder or a similar app? You think Grab isn't essentially basic OS functionality? I don't think "operating SYSTEM" means what you think it means. I think you think it means OS kernel. But it doesn't; it really never has. Not since CP/M and Flex shipped with directories full of loadable commands, anyway.
When Jobs -- or anyone, really - says "OS X v5.X", the legions of Mac users don't think "kernel!"... no sir, they visualize everything that comes on the install disk(s). Because that, my all-too-tightly focused friend, is what comprises that particular release of "the OS."
OS engineers do not write "cool apps".
[glances at Finder] Yes... yes, I see that can be a problem for some of you. Perhaps you should learn.
Uh... [checks Applications folder to be sure] aside from the fact that it doesn't come with OS X, and so it's not adding value to OS X for Apple, you mean? [looks around suspiciously] Is this a trick question?
[heads off to Google what's wrong with Quicken]
[back from Google] Well, they definitely had problems with Quicken 2006, but it looks like the R2 release fixed them. Is that the answer you were looking for? [waves hands like Jedi]
I've got five Macs. My daily driver is an 8GB, 8-core Intel Mac Pro. My carry along a is loaded dual-core Macbook pro. Both are typically running linux, windows, and OSX all at once. I write graphics software for a living. Powerful graphics software, written at the metal level. I'm all for multicore/multiprocessor at the OS level; the easier, the better, and likewise, multi-machine for even bigger jobs. However, this does not change the fact that Apple is mostly doing iPhone work, and that not adding obvious consumer-level goodies to OS X will cost them dearly -- which they don't care about, because -- wait for it -- they're all about the iPhone now. I meant the post to be funny, all right, but only because it's true.
The very idea that low level improvements and bugfixes precludes feature addition at the GUI/high level is absurd, and if anyone at Apple had half a brain focused on the Mac, they'd never have said anything like that, or even implied it.
OS "features" can be as simple as adding a nice set of programs to the stable. Things like a decent personal finance manager. Wouldn't affect system stability one whit, but it'd increase the value of the Mac to the first time buyer by quite a bit. How about a nice, basic paint program? Or a set of kids coloring books / tools? A basic expert system? Lots of middle to high end users could use one, and heck, they're not that difficult to write. I wrote one in python that, minus the knowledge base, isn't even 10k and you'd be blinking amazed at how much it knows about rocks and minerals, and how well it can generalize and leap to conclusions. How about including a language teacher? How about a finder with a decent feature set? Something like... Pathfinder - buy it, maybe tweak it, and ship it. That would be @#$%^&*$ awesome. Heck, I'd probably pee right down my leg if they simply shipped a working, color version of midnight commander (a findery thing for shellfolk.)
See where I'm going here? Put an expert programmer in a corner, say "make a COOL one of these apps" and leave them be. In a year, if you don't have something really cool, the programmer should be shot. Total investment, one programmer's salary. Put ten programmers to ten tasks, watch em decently, and in a year, you'd have ten new selling points that had ZERO to do with OS stability, etc. Or just reach out the the Mac community and buy a few things, again, there are tons of them out there and I can assure you that many of them could be had for what amounts to peanuts. And also as we know, Apple's got more than peanuts in its pocket, and dropping a few million on programmers and/or acquisitions isn't a problem if they simply want to. So when they say "no features for you", what they're telling you is, "we're not going to exert ourselves on your behalf." They're not saying why... but just wake up and smell the iPhone marketing, man.
JD-1027 writes in to kick off a discussion of OS X Snow Leopard
Translation: "Let's see if we can distract Mac owners from the fact that the recent Apple developer conference produced no new upgrades, no new hardware, no Jobs-ian announcements on OSX, just iPhonery."
Taking a break from adding new features
Translation: "We're an iPhone company now"
Snow Leopard -- scheduled to ship in about a year
Translation: "We've put off any serious work on OS X for eleven months"
builds on Leopard's enormous innovations by delivering a new generation of core software technologies that will streamline Mac OS X, enhance its performance, and set new standards for quality.
Translation: "We're hoping to bugfix some of the the low-level tweaks promised for Leopard and finally get them out the door... if we're not too busy with the iPhone."
[original Leopard features] most likely will help get Macs into corporate environments
Translation: "We really might be able to fix those bugs..."
We've previously discussed ZFS
Translation: "Yet another feature, like resolution independent graphics, that didn't make it into Leopard, because we were way too busy with the iPhone. But we might have it for you in a year. Read-only, of course. And not turned on by default. For developers only. And only in beta, of course. Use this feature at your own risk."
Oh balls. First of all, you should be talking about the legislative system, not the legal system. The people who write the laws, not the people who enforce them.
No. I meant exactly what I said. The legislators are screwing up; they make lousy law, and they make unconstitutional law. But the judiciary is just as complicit; they make the problem even worse. The supreme court itself has confirmed ex post facto laws, the inversion of the commerce clause, ridiculous misinterpretations of the 2nd amendment, abuses of the first amendment... judges at any particular level cannot be trusted to do the right thing, or even to know what it is. I'm talking history here, this is not speculation. I can pull concrete examples out of my pocket all day.
The local cops, the state police, the various federal police agencies, they also are complicit. In fact, one need go no further than looking to the "war on drugs" to find people at every level working counter to the best interests of the citizens; I'm talking from concept, to implementation of law, to enforcement of law, to punishment, sentencing, prison, probation, parole, and the frameworks that make it legal to even *consider* any such action with regard to getting a job unless there was drug use or intoxication on the job.
The system delivers the weight of the worst sentences and other consequences upon those with inexpensive representation, while those with expensive litigators get off lightly or go free; the system is poisoned by money at every level.
Jurors don't even understand their obligations and powers, and courts see to it that they're kept in the dark as much as possible -- see jury nullification for a good example of courts doing precisely that.
When I said "legal system" I meant to indict the whole thing, top to bottom. Prisons themselves are poisonous, evil places where "punishment" turns to torture and the authorities you seem to trust so well turn a manifestly blind eye.
There is no valid argument that "the guy upstairs makes the rules, I just enforce them." The technical term for that is "accomplice", if you really want to throw fundamental concepts around, though I doubt you do. That kind of arbitrary support for the implementation arm of an out of control government is the worst kind of pandering.
Nevertheless, we generally obey the law
No. We absolutely do not. Not in the sense of respect, and not in the sense of "it's law, so I will obey." The citizens generally speed. A very large group does illegal drugs. An entire generation are running roughshod over the copyright laws. So many people have broken laws on sex it probably is a majority, not a minority... everything from sex in public to sex over the arbitrary age lines to sex with toys or sex in ways that are forbidden... this is not an indicator of "respect." What we see here is that laws are obeyed (1) if people think it is likely they will be caught, or (2) if they agree with the specific law, and (3) based on increasing caution in line with how weighty the penalties are, strongly correlated with (1). None of this is respect based. It's about fear and caution. Of course if you think something is actually a bad thing by your own lights you aren't going to be very likely to do it... that's not respect for the law, that's respect for yourself. But clearly, the act of making a law isn't causing the citizens to go "Gee, it's a law, I'll just not do that, because those lawmakers are so erudite and correct all the time, I must just not be seeing it!" Hell no. They'll just break the law if they don't agree.
we generally serve on juries
A lot of people intentionally avoid jury duty. Others - like myself - want to get on certain juries because the laws in question are arbitrary instruments of power, not of legitimately delegated authority, a
So before you go attacking boy scouts, maybe you should step back and look at the American social climate that Boy Scouts lives in.
Now we're getting to the meat of the matter. You see the social climate, just as I do. Your response is to say that the very people who are inculcating that climate into these kids should get a free pass because the climate is bad.
I say that's self-perpetrating; it just continues the problem, or even makes it worse. I say that because the social climate is lousy and unfair with regard to personal, informed, consensual choices and currently promotes superstition as a world model over scientifically based critical thinking, that we need to look at those institutions and say to them, "Hey, look here, you're out of line. You need to step up to the plate, take the high road, serve as a proper example instead of a model of ignorance, intolerance, and outright stupidity. These kids need the best that can be offered; you're not doing that."
Furthermore, as long as they don't try to be good social models, I don't think that offering to support them in the general case is the right thing to do. Better to put my time and money elsewhere. But it is important to let them know why, so that they can decide if enough resistance exists so that they might be motivated to change course.
Legislating for the sake of "sending signals" or making people feel like "something is being done" is corrosive of liberty and any kind of respect for the law. A law should either be damn necessary, and obviously so, or it should not exist.
...and this is precisely why a growing number of Americans have no respect for the American legal system as presently implemented.
I think that not wanting a gay boy to sleep in a tent with a straight boy is a long shot from "institutionalized homophobia."
What's your problem with that? You think the straight kid is going to turn gay by osmosis? You think the straight kid hasn't been taught how to properly refuse an overture and will turn into an ax murderer, or that he cannot learn, or that it is impossible he will ever face such a thing elsewhere? Or do you just want to perpetuate the myth that straight people must remain segregated from gays so "they don't get any on them"?
I suppose it's a lost cause if I have to point it out to you, but regardless, you do realize that a gay boy and a straight boy are not the same kind of combination as a straight boy and a straight girl, right? It isn't like there will be squishy noises coming out of the tent. A little common sense here would go a long way, but with homophobia, common sense appears to be one of the rarest qualities ever.
And even if it wasn't, is that really a reason why you should withhold help? Simply because of your ideals?
Liberty is, in my view, the most important issue at the heart of any society worth living in. Given that, I reserve the right to contribute my time and energy to those institutions which I am convinced promote the cause of liberty; and contrariwise, to withhold my time and energy from those I believe promote ideas and actions that are antithetical to the cause of liberty. Does that answer your question?
The Boy Scouts do a lot of good for young boys and to say "your views are wrong therefore I won't help you" is pretty bad.
Agreed; as an ex-scout myself, I'm well aware of the good they do. However, helping them continue with their agenda of promoting mythology and homophobia is clearly far worse, and one must also keep in mind that there are other ways to add events and training to young boys lives that offer similar or even more extensive advantages. Such as an active life with a parent, guardian, or mentor. Presuming the current hysteria against contact with children has left any mentors willing to enter into such an arrangement. In any case, my choice is clear. I will not support them until or unless they change these policies. As the boy scouts themselves will probably put it once they mature, it's a matter of honor.
You claim the Boy Scouts are not a tolerant enough organization to be worthy of your support, yet in your post you set the bar quite low on tolerance with unnecessary denigration of their religion.
Look. Say you have a murderer, and a cop. They are at odds by nature; the cop doesn't like the murderer's attitude, and the murderer doesn't like the cops. By your logic, they're on equal ground. Let me put to you as simply as I can: They're not.
Likewise, religion's active crimes and polemics against people's personal, consensual choices are not on the same level with my position that liberty is far more important than what the religious person's imagination does with the idea of someone else's sexual proclivities.
As for your "homophobia" claim, people have different standards as to what sort of sexual activities are good or bad.
That's entirely irrelevant. Those standards are something they can, and should, apply to their own personal lives and to those with whom they have consensual, informed sexual relations. They have no right - let me repeat that - NO RIGHT - to apply those standards to other people. The word "morals" is not, and never will be, a magic key that lets one person control other's personal, informed choices. When people pretend it is, they have sunken to the lowest of the low.
Should I be mad at vegan groups for not doing enough to make meat-eaters feel welcome?
The vegans unquestionably have the high ground there, just as advocates for liberty do in any conflict over freedom of speech and personal choices. So while no doubt meat-eaters object to the vegan position as much as the vegans object to the meat-eater's own, it is quite clear who is right and who is wrong. Which means the answer is, meat-eaters can certainly object, but they'll never traverse the high road for doing so. No one in the discussion, however, is wrong for saying what they are thinking. There are fewer acts that are more important. Despite the contrary outlook of the present administration and the feeble-minded that support it.
you would know that more Christians died in the Spanish Red Terror than in the Spanish Inquisition (nearly 7,000 for the former, nearly 2,000 for the latter which lasted about 300 years!)
You really need to get a better grasp on history. The Spanish inquisition lasted from 1478 to 1834, 356 years, and the papal inquisition (which is a little difficult to excuse the pope from) lasted from 1231 until 1808, 577 years. Rome quit first, but then again, they started quite a bit earlier.
And to lightly characterize the inquisitions by the number of deaths is to blithely ignore the fact that they were using torture as a very effective tool to convert and control people; they weren't trying to kill them. Death was viewed as a failure of the inquisitor.
"Religion is [a] set of beliefs and practices based on stories"
There, fixed that for you. No problem, no need to thank me.:)
Value of religion is still there even if you prove the mythology unscientific.
Yes, and so are the threats and pathologies. Which only concern me when they crossover into my life and the political system that governs my life. Which, sadly, is fairly often.
Also, if I believe in false stories, that never happened, and it makes me a better person, why shouldn't I?
I have no problem with you believing whatever you want to believe. Just don't inflict it on me or those dear to me, and you'll find I'm 100% tolerant of your beliefs. Not respectful, mind you, because respect you have to earn, but tolerant. As soon as you try to get creationism into my kids schools, you're my enemy; as soon as you tell my daughter she's a "bad person" because she has sex outside of marriage, you're my enemy. As soon as you tell my friend he can't marry six wives who want to marry him, you're my enemy. As soon as you tell the liquor store it can't be open on Sunday, you're my enemy. Religion provides a constant stream of interfering zealots that have to be fought at every turn in order to keep society and life in general from regressing. Those religions that do not do so, I have no problem with. For instance, the Buddhists have not gotten in my bad books thus far. So it is possible.
Using the term "mythology" has an implied derision toward whatever you're talking about. That's disrespectful, and there's no call for it.
Yes, it is disrespectful. Accurate all the same, though. While I do tolerate religions as long as they stay out of my face, I don't respect them at all. Furthermore, I see no reason to respect religion. You, on the other hand, are obviously of the mind that I should respect religion. Perhaps you'll take a moment to explain why you think so. For your reference, the call for disrespect that I personally feel is that religion is, in my opinion, a force promoting myth over science; dogma over reason; blind obedience over liberty. Where respect is supposed to come from in that context I don't know, but by all means, feel free to explain it to me.
..no. Just no. If you honestly believe that only stupid/fearful people are religious, and that all religious people are being taken advantage of by their leaders, then you are an utterly unreasonable, close-minded person.
Hold on. You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say stupid. I said gullible, which is something else entirely. People can be very smart indeed, and still fall for an attractive idea, especially when fear (of death, for instance) is added to the social pressures to join the group (or conversely, to not be ostracized, a very typical religious reaction, even a formal one in some cases.)
I also didn't say that all religious people were being taken advantage of by their leaders. I said that there were legions of people around who did so; that's quite a different thing. If you want to discuss what I actually said, that's fine -- but don't rework it into something I didn't say and then try to attack me on the basis of your new constructions.
If you had any significant amount of first-hand experience with people of faith (I do, for the record, most of my family and a good few of my friends are religious), you would understand that they're just normal people.
I understand they're normal people. Even those who would take advantage of them are normal people. That doesn't mean they're correct, you know, nor does it it magically give them the right to interfere with my life and the lives of those dear to me.
Tell you what: when you can actually prove them wrong, you can run around calling them idiots if they still persist in believing in God.
No. You've fallen into a logical fallacy. I'm not the one making supernatural claims. They are. My position is, if they want to convince me there's a god, show me the evidence. I have no more obligation to try to prove them wrong than I do you if you come up to me and insist there's a colony of magical dwarves living 50 feet under my house, banging out swords and axes. If you make such a claim, it is your obligation to prove it.
Until then, though, do the whole world a favor and show a little respect. We don't get anywhere by sitting and calling each other names for their beliefs.
On the contrary. The fewer planes flying into buildings, the fewer wars between the Catholics and the Protestants, the fewer pogroms, the fewer inquisitions, the fewer witch burnings, the fewer laws against informed, consensual sexual and social behaviors, the fewer religious tax burdens on taxpayers, the fewer incursions into our schools of pathologies like creationism... the better off we'll be. And we won't get there by "respecting" outlooks that do not earn our respect, but instead, harm our society directly by interfering, by policy, with others.
I am perfectly willing to tolerate other people's belief in stories, as long as they don't fool with me or with the system. As soon as they bring their mythology to bear upon how I and those dear to me are expected to li
"respecting" religion isn't important at all. Tolerating it on my part, you could perhaps make an argument for, but respecting... not likely. Respect needs to be earned. Tolerance (as long as other's liberties are not interfered with) is an obligation born of freedom.
There's quite a gulf between religion, which is largely made up of systems for trying to influence what people of dissimilar outlooks (religious and otherwise) think through the promotion of myths, as compared to healthy sexuality, which is consensual activity between informed individuals of already similar outlooks.
If you want to find unhealthy sexual outlooks, just look for the people promoting, writing, and enforcing laws against consensual, informed sexual behaviors. There's no easier way to find the sexually dysfunctional.
The irony is, you're declining because they aren't "inclusive", and yet using wording that is also not "inclusive". So, you're free to say those things, but you are being illogical and hypocritical.
You're confusing irony (admittedly a difficult concept for many people) with liberty. They're free to refuse anyone they like, for any reason they like. I'm free to do the same. They are doing so. I am doing so. Nothing ironic about it at all.
What is confusing you is the deeply mistaken idea that I am somehow obligated to remain silent in the face of a request that I find problematic. I didn't ask them if I could help. They did the asking. That's my answer.
As for my being illogical and hypocritical, you'll have to make your case. Straight ad hominem won't do it.
I'm perfectly tolerant of them. I'm just not going to help them as long as they advocate those two particular positions. Tolerance is the attitude that they can exist as long as they don't attempt to interact with me. They just did that by asking me, as someone who writes FOSS, to help them out; I refused, and specified why. Clearly and openly. If you think that religion and homophobia ought to get a free pass no matter what they promote, I'm afraid you and I have fundamentally irreconcilable differences.
You managed to dismiss religious faith as "mythology" and "stone age views", and equate moral criticism of homosexuality with irrational phobias
Yes. In my considered opinion, this is precisely what they are. Is it your intent to muzzle me? If so, by what rationale?
...no one could possibly have different values than you unless they're being irrational, right?
Certainly they can. However, in these specific cases, no.
Homophobia is a mental failing of people who cannot separate the personal choices made by other people from their own feelings. There's nothing positive about it, and there is a great deal in such an attitude that is negative and outright dangerous. I have no right to tell you what your personal sexual interests or activities should as long as they don't impinge on another person's liberties. Likewise, you have no right to tell me; and the BSA have no right to tell anyone, either. There is nowhere for them to obtain that right; such a right cannot not exist in a society properly based upon liberty, which is something we should all be striving towards.
As for mythology... it defines itself. It's not due to any act of mine these people's belief systems are inextricably entwined with claims of supernatural powers, events and individuals. I didn't make those stories up. They did. So your problem isn't with me, no matter how much you may think it is. You're just confused.
...what is it you feel the need to "hold them accountable for"?
I'll rephrase: I hold them accountable for denying gay kids the same opportunities as straight ones, and for the promotion of nonsense stories as truth. Did you not understand my original post?
Using the word "homophobia" in regard to a legal choice to beleive(sic) one's religion is HATE speech... Referring to religion as mythology is also HATE speech.
Nonsense. It's just accurate reporting. Religion is mythology. Stories. There are no facts whatsoever behind those stories in the important areas (specifically the existence of deities.) There is no more basis in reason for believing in a deity than there is for believing in the tooth fairy, unless you count peer pressure as a legitimate force for belief. Those stories remain in force because people are gullible, fearful, and uninformed in critical areas, and because there are legions of people around who prey on those who exhibit said vulnerabilities.
You appear to only recognize free speech as speech that agrees with you.
No, not at all. I recognize all kinds of speech, and encourage the use of it by all. That's the only way we can know which people take which positions. That in no way says I have to agree with the positions taken, and (this is the important part for you to study), it in no way obligates me to remain silent in the face of things I disagree with.
In this case, the BSA asked for help. I'm one of those who could help, and I'm also an alumnus. I'm declining, and I'm saying why I'm declining. If that upsets you, perhaps you should re-examine your core values. Or come up with a better argument than (cough) "hate speech", which is a crock.
Just as soon as they lose the institutionalized homophobia and pandering to mythology.
Other than that, I think they're entirely deserving of assistance. And yes, I was a boy scout.:)
Of course, I recognize that as a private organization, they have the right to such stone age views; however, I also have the right to hold them accountable for them.
No. Politicians don't qualify politicians. Voters "qualify" politicians, only the metrics used usually range from "I like that guy" to "I don't like that other guy" to "I vote my party", all of which are insufficient to the task of getting informed, competent people into office. Which is precisely my point. Politicians that want to run for national office should -- in my view -- not be allowed to until they can demonstrate in a controlled and monitored test situation that they are competent to do so. From those who can cross that hurdle, by all means, let the voters pick whom they prefer.
You want a position of great power and responsibility? Fine. Show me you are prepared to handle it, that you at least have taken the time to study the underpinnings behind the issues; I really don't understand the resistance to this idea. You wouldn't want a guy who knows nothing about mechanics working on your car for obvious reasons; why are you so hot to throw any idiot with a firm handshake and a knack for kissing babies at the problems that face the nation? No wonder the congress can't do anything right.
You suggest a system whereby the only people with any right to rule are those born with certain intellectual or financial advantages, and in fact suggested that the majority be left out.
No, in fact I didn't, and I think it's quite telling that you interpreted what I said that way. I suggest a system where people who are INFORMED on issues are qualified to be elected. If you can't show you're informed, you can't run. I didn't say the standard had to be sky-high, and I said NOTHING about degrees or money. I'm tired of people like that idiot Stevens running teh intertubes; I'm tired of people making law who can't quote back the constitution -- heck it's a short document, and most of these idiots couldn't quote it to you if their life depended upon it. I've seen the same from presidential candidates. Even the most basic level of competence would set a politician so far apart from the run of the mill pinheads that are in there now it would be startling, in my view. Look at them, inverting the commerce clause, making ex post facto laws, restricting freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, right to bear arms, habeas corpus, right to trial... it's like the local group home was raided to fill congress.
The fact is that feudal systems were just what you describe.
No, the fact is that only what sprang into your imagination is. What I suggest is no more than you'd ask of a manager of any enterprise. Not a bloodline, not money, not a degree. Information -- competence -- testing for same. Prospective national politicians should know the constitution. They should be able to tell you all about the creation of the document. They should know who our trading partners are. They should know how big the budget is, and the general way it is distributed. They should know where the money comes from in terms of corporate pocket taxes and people's pocket taxes and things like fines and fees. They should have a handle on immigration numbers; be able to clearly describe the difference between civil and criminal law, cite the national debt in dollars and recent trends, describe the social security obligations... this stuff isn't rocket science, but it would require work and study. And why not? If you can't understand this kind of stuff, as far as I'm concerned, no matter HOW bad it hurts your widdle feelings, you don't qualify for the bloody job.
If you want to argue with me, argue with what I say, and if I haven't said something, ask for my position. Don't make up a bunch of stupid crap and attribute it to me.
Who makes the test? The people in power obviously.
No, that's not obvious at all. Look, who picks those who qualify the physicists? How do they get qualified? Why don't we get a majority of dimwit creationists running around physics labs? What about lawyers? Why can't just anyone be a lawyer? Wouldn't that be "fair"? Subject the selection process to scrutiny. Let the academics work it out. Define it as working that way. Etc. This isn't insoluble.
Are you seriously telling me that because it isn't easy, we should turn away and let this mess continue sliding downhill? I'm not saying its easy, I'm just saying what we have is BROKEN. Don't think my ideas are any good for fixing it? Fine. Fix it some other way. Just blinking fix it before our torturing, big-brother-esque, rights-eroding, liberty-crushing, save-the-everloving-children at the expense of anything at all society falls apart at the seams.
Trans-Atlantic takes about a week. And it is very pleasant. You can gamble; dance; swim; play all manner of games, both physical and table; there is wall climbing, there are shows, the meals are _unbelievable_, a lot of staterooms offer private balconies, the price is easily competitive (though you can step up and do very well indeed for what you'd pay for a "1st class seat" on an aircraft)... don't knock it until you've tried it.
For anyone who is curious, I suggest you take a weekend jaunt down to the Bahamas on a cruise ship. That'll show you what it's all about, usually for very little money. They figure they're going to get it out of you gambling and drinking; so just don't gamble and drink. Unless you want to, of course.:)
maybe you should tell us how to decide who is informed and who isn't? and who gets to decide what is informed and what is uninformed?
The same way you'd qualify anyone for any other important job. Test them. Would you hire an engineer who has no experience in engineering? Would you hire a doctor who hasn't passed the medical boards? Would you put a soldier in the field who doesn't know how to fight? No? Then why are you so bloody eager to employ anyone off the street to decide issues they have no expertise in?
Qualification for any important job is only sensible. The myth that "we are all created equal" was a philosophical blunder that was probably meant to imply no more than "we should all be afforded the same opportunities, and what we make of them is what we get." The opportunity is to try for a job; not get it. The potential should be to pass or fail, not to get it just because you're breathing and slightly warmer than room temperature. As it is, the "qualifications" for political office are to pretend you believe in an imaginary friend and don't get caught doing anything the body politic can't afford to do themselves. As for who should issue the tests, just your average bureaucrat should do fine. I'm sure they could design them, too, that's the just the kind of thing they love to haggle over.
I'd rather have democracy than fascism.
Well, you have a democratic republic. Sort of. Insofar as its been able to obey its constituting authority, which isn't very far. Enjoy it.
Me, I'd rather have some form of meritocracy. The idea of people running an enterprise who are actually qualified to do so -- as opposed to being "popular" -- is alluring to me. Americans made Paris Hilton popular. And Britney Spears. And Flava Flav. If that doesn't tell you how busted the idea of "popular" is, I don't know what will.
Slashdot Mirror
<sarcasm>Oh, suuuuure.</sarcasm> That's why Apple has shipped as part of an OS release... Garageband. iMovie. iPhoto. Mail. iChat. iCal. iDVD. iWeb. Grab. Omni Outliner. Comic Life. XCode. Calculator. Safari. Address book. DVD player. iTunes. Stickies. Preview. Dictionary. That's why Appleworks was shipped for so long (until the lack of Unicode and proper maintainance killed its coolness... you don't keep up, you end up behind the curve.)
And as for "toy apps"; a good example of why you're completely in the dark here is brought to the table by comparing user features of CocoaTech's Pathfinder and Apple's Finder. In that comparison, unquestionably, the toy is Apple's finder - Pathfinder is a beauty. Finder is an app missing some very important features. Like being able to refresh a directory share. You'd think that (cough) "OS engineers" would know better than to create something that depends upon volumes controlled by other systems remaining static, but nooo...
So don't presume to lecture me about "trivial little toy applications." On the one hand, I wasn't talking about barely-sufficient apps like Finder, except as examples of OS FUNCTIONALITY that are substandard; on the other, the usability of the system out of the box directly depends on the apps that ship as part of the OS. Apple knows that, although you clearly don't.
There's a difference between being technically part of the OS, and part of the OS release, certainly, but at the user level, the things that matter beyond reliability are what enables them to get things done. Apps are the meat and potatoes of that, and they always will be. Apps that ship with the system set a minimum level of capability everyone with that release has. They add features in a way that is at least as important as any low-level capability, and often, quite a bit moreso.
For instance, Appleworks let me create and use a basic, but extremely useful, spreadsheet. When Apple stopped shipping Appleworks, the usability of the system out of the box took a huge step backwards. Now I not only can't do that on a new machine unless an old machine (upon which I still have a legal copy of Appleworks) is also handy, I have to go out and spend more money on something. Gee, thanks. Thanks a bunch. See? User experience, right out of the box, depends on what's IN the box. How hard is that to understand?
I distinctly remember Jobs demonstrating Garageband, being just completely all happy about it. Just a "toy app", according to you, but to Jobs, it was very clearly a "sell this release" feature. And in fact to me -- I'm a musician, among other things -- it was. Garageband is about 1000x more important to me than, for instance, ZFS. Jobs knew that, and he used it at the time to sink a nice, sharp marketing hook right into me and people like me. And here I am today, owner of multiple Macs, and actively developing software for the machine as well. So... maybe you ought to align your views with management before you jam your foot all the way down your throat, eh?
No? You think OSX would be anywhere near as usable without Finder or a similar app? You think Grab isn't essentially basic OS functionality? I don't think "operating SYSTEM" means what you think it means. I think you think it means OS kernel. But it doesn't; it really never has. Not since CP/M and Flex shipped with directories full of loadable commands, anyway.
When Jobs -- or anyone, really - says "OS X v5.X", the legions of Mac users don't think "kernel!"... no sir, they visualize everything that comes on the install disk(s). Because that, my all-too-tightly focused friend, is what comprises that particular release of "the OS."
[glances at Finder] Yes... yes, I see that can be a problem for some of you. Perhaps you should learn.
Uh... [checks Applications folder to be sure] aside from the fact that it doesn't come with OS X, and so it's not adding value to OS X for Apple, you mean? [looks around suspiciously] Is this a trick question?
[heads off to Google what's wrong with Quicken]
[back from Google] Well, they definitely had problems with Quicken 2006, but it looks like the R2 release fixed them. Is that the answer you were looking for? [waves hands like Jedi]
I've got five Macs. My daily driver is an 8GB, 8-core Intel Mac Pro. My carry along a is loaded dual-core Macbook pro. Both are typically running linux, windows, and OSX all at once. I write graphics software for a living. Powerful graphics software, written at the metal level. I'm all for multicore/multiprocessor at the OS level; the easier, the better, and likewise, multi-machine for even bigger jobs. However, this does not change the fact that Apple is mostly doing iPhone work, and that not adding obvious consumer-level goodies to OS X will cost them dearly -- which they don't care about, because -- wait for it -- they're all about the iPhone now. I meant the post to be funny, all right, but only because it's true.
The very idea that low level improvements and bugfixes precludes feature addition at the GUI/high level is absurd, and if anyone at Apple had half a brain focused on the Mac, they'd never have said anything like that, or even implied it.
OS "features" can be as simple as adding a nice set of programs to the stable. Things like a decent personal finance manager. Wouldn't affect system stability one whit, but it'd increase the value of the Mac to the first time buyer by quite a bit. How about a nice, basic paint program? Or a set of kids coloring books / tools? A basic expert system? Lots of middle to high end users could use one, and heck, they're not that difficult to write. I wrote one in python that, minus the knowledge base, isn't even 10k and you'd be blinking amazed at how much it knows about rocks and minerals, and how well it can generalize and leap to conclusions. How about including a language teacher? How about a finder with a decent feature set? Something like... Pathfinder - buy it, maybe tweak it, and ship it. That would be @#$%^&*$ awesome. Heck, I'd probably pee right down my leg if they simply shipped a working, color version of midnight commander (a findery thing for shellfolk.)
See where I'm going here? Put an expert programmer in a corner, say "make a COOL one of these apps" and leave them be. In a year, if you don't have something really cool, the programmer should be shot. Total investment, one programmer's salary. Put ten programmers to ten tasks, watch em decently, and in a year, you'd have ten new selling points that had ZERO to do with OS stability, etc. Or just reach out the the Mac community and buy a few things, again, there are tons of them out there and I can assure you that many of them could be had for what amounts to peanuts. And also as we know, Apple's got more than peanuts in its pocket, and dropping a few million on programmers and/or acquisitions isn't a problem if they simply want to. So when they say "no features for you", what they're telling you is, "we're not going to exert ourselves on your behalf." They're not saying why... but just wake up and smell the iPhone marketing, man.
Translation: "Let's see if we can distract Mac owners from the fact that the recent Apple developer conference produced no new upgrades, no new hardware, no Jobs-ian announcements on OSX, just iPhonery."
Translation: "We're an iPhone company now"
Translation: "We've put off any serious work on OS X for eleven months"
Translation: "We're hoping to bugfix some of the the low-level tweaks promised for Leopard and finally get them out the door... if we're not too busy with the iPhone."
Translation: "We really might be able to fix those bugs..."
Translation: "Yet another feature, like resolution independent graphics, that didn't make it into Leopard, because we were way too busy with the iPhone. But we might have it for you in a year. Read-only, of course. And not turned on by default. For developers only. And only in beta, of course. Use this feature at your own risk."
No. I meant exactly what I said. The legislators are screwing up; they make lousy law, and they make unconstitutional law. But the judiciary is just as complicit; they make the problem even worse. The supreme court itself has confirmed ex post facto laws, the inversion of the commerce clause, ridiculous misinterpretations of the 2nd amendment, abuses of the first amendment... judges at any particular level cannot be trusted to do the right thing, or even to know what it is. I'm talking history here, this is not speculation. I can pull concrete examples out of my pocket all day.
The local cops, the state police, the various federal police agencies, they also are complicit. In fact, one need go no further than looking to the "war on drugs" to find people at every level working counter to the best interests of the citizens; I'm talking from concept, to implementation of law, to enforcement of law, to punishment, sentencing, prison, probation, parole, and the frameworks that make it legal to even *consider* any such action with regard to getting a job unless there was drug use or intoxication on the job.
The system delivers the weight of the worst sentences and other consequences upon those with inexpensive representation, while those with expensive litigators get off lightly or go free; the system is poisoned by money at every level.
Jurors don't even understand their obligations and powers, and courts see to it that they're kept in the dark as much as possible -- see jury nullification for a good example of courts doing precisely that.
When I said "legal system" I meant to indict the whole thing, top to bottom. Prisons themselves are poisonous, evil places where "punishment" turns to torture and the authorities you seem to trust so well turn a manifestly blind eye.
There is no valid argument that "the guy upstairs makes the rules, I just enforce them." The technical term for that is "accomplice", if you really want to throw fundamental concepts around, though I doubt you do. That kind of arbitrary support for the implementation arm of an out of control government is the worst kind of pandering.
No. We absolutely do not. Not in the sense of respect, and not in the sense of "it's law, so I will obey." The citizens generally speed. A very large group does illegal drugs. An entire generation are running roughshod over the copyright laws. So many people have broken laws on sex it probably is a majority, not a minority... everything from sex in public to sex over the arbitrary age lines to sex with toys or sex in ways that are forbidden... this is not an indicator of "respect." What we see here is that laws are obeyed (1) if people think it is likely they will be caught, or (2) if they agree with the specific law, and (3) based on increasing caution in line with how weighty the penalties are, strongly correlated with (1). None of this is respect based. It's about fear and caution. Of course if you think something is actually a bad thing by your own lights you aren't going to be very likely to do it... that's not respect for the law, that's respect for yourself. But clearly, the act of making a law isn't causing the citizens to go "Gee, it's a law, I'll just not do that, because those lawmakers are so erudite and correct all the time, I must just not be seeing it!" Hell no. They'll just break the law if they don't agree.
A lot of people intentionally avoid jury duty. Others - like myself - want to get on certain juries because the laws in question are arbitrary instruments of power, not of legitimately delegated authority, a
Now we're getting to the meat of the matter. You see the social climate, just as I do. Your response is to say that the very people who are inculcating that climate into these kids should get a free pass because the climate is bad.
I say that's self-perpetrating; it just continues the problem, or even makes it worse. I say that because the social climate is lousy and unfair with regard to personal, informed, consensual choices and currently promotes superstition as a world model over scientifically based critical thinking, that we need to look at those institutions and say to them, "Hey, look here, you're out of line. You need to step up to the plate, take the high road, serve as a proper example instead of a model of ignorance, intolerance, and outright stupidity. These kids need the best that can be offered; you're not doing that."
Furthermore, as long as they don't try to be good social models, I don't think that offering to support them in the general case is the right thing to do. Better to put my time and money elsewhere. But it is important to let them know why, so that they can decide if enough resistance exists so that they might be motivated to change course.
What's your problem with that? You think the straight kid is going to turn gay by osmosis? You think the straight kid hasn't been taught how to properly refuse an overture and will turn into an ax murderer, or that he cannot learn, or that it is impossible he will ever face such a thing elsewhere? Or do you just want to perpetuate the myth that straight people must remain segregated from gays so "they don't get any on them"?
I suppose it's a lost cause if I have to point it out to you, but regardless, you do realize that a gay boy and a straight boy are not the same kind of combination as a straight boy and a straight girl, right? It isn't like there will be squishy noises coming out of the tent. A little common sense here would go a long way, but with homophobia, common sense appears to be one of the rarest qualities ever.
Liberty is, in my view, the most important issue at the heart of any society worth living in. Given that, I reserve the right to contribute my time and energy to those institutions which I am convinced promote the cause of liberty; and contrariwise, to withhold my time and energy from those I believe promote ideas and actions that are antithetical to the cause of liberty. Does that answer your question?
Agreed; as an ex-scout myself, I'm well aware of the good they do. However, helping them continue with their agenda of promoting mythology and homophobia is clearly far worse, and one must also keep in mind that there are other ways to add events and training to young boys lives that offer similar or even more extensive advantages. Such as an active life with a parent, guardian, or mentor. Presuming the current hysteria against contact with children has left any mentors willing to enter into such an arrangement. In any case, my choice is clear. I will not support them until or unless they change these policies. As the boy scouts themselves will probably put it once they mature, it's a matter of honor.
Look. Say you have a murderer, and a cop. They are at odds by nature; the cop doesn't like the murderer's attitude, and the murderer doesn't like the cops. By your logic, they're on equal ground. Let me put to you as simply as I can: They're not.
Likewise, religion's active crimes and polemics against people's personal, consensual choices are not on the same level with my position that liberty is far more important than what the religious person's imagination does with the idea of someone else's sexual proclivities.
That's entirely irrelevant. Those standards are something they can, and should, apply to their own personal lives and to those with whom they have consensual, informed sexual relations. They have no right - let me repeat that - NO RIGHT - to apply those standards to other people. The word "morals" is not, and never will be, a magic key that lets one person control other's personal, informed choices. When people pretend it is, they have sunken to the lowest of the low.
The vegans unquestionably have the high ground there, just as advocates for liberty do in any conflict over freedom of speech and personal choices. So while no doubt meat-eaters object to the vegan position as much as the vegans object to the meat-eater's own, it is quite clear who is right and who is wrong. Which means the answer is, meat-eaters can certainly object, but they'll never traverse the high road for doing so. No one in the discussion, however, is wrong for saying what they are thinking. There are fewer acts that are more important. Despite the contrary outlook of the present administration and the feeble-minded that support it.
You really need to get a better grasp on history. The Spanish inquisition lasted from 1478 to 1834, 356 years, and the papal inquisition (which is a little difficult to excuse the pope from) lasted from 1231 until 1808, 577 years. Rome quit first, but then again, they started quite a bit earlier.
And to lightly characterize the inquisitions by the number of deaths is to blithely ignore the fact that they were using torture as a very effective tool to convert and control people; they weren't trying to kill them. Death was viewed as a failure of the inquisitor.
If sex has nothing to do with development of your software, you're doing it wrong.
"Religion is [a] set of beliefs and practices based on stories"
There, fixed that for you. No problem, no need to thank me. :)
Yes, and so are the threats and pathologies. Which only concern me when they crossover into my life and the political system that governs my life. Which, sadly, is fairly often.
I have no problem with you believing whatever you want to believe. Just don't inflict it on me or those dear to me, and you'll find I'm 100% tolerant of your beliefs. Not respectful, mind you, because respect you have to earn, but tolerant. As soon as you try to get creationism into my kids schools, you're my enemy; as soon as you tell my daughter she's a "bad person" because she has sex outside of marriage, you're my enemy. As soon as you tell my friend he can't marry six wives who want to marry him, you're my enemy. As soon as you tell the liquor store it can't be open on Sunday, you're my enemy. Religion provides a constant stream of interfering zealots that have to be fought at every turn in order to keep society and life in general from regressing. Those religions that do not do so, I have no problem with. For instance, the Buddhists have not gotten in my bad books thus far. So it is possible.
Yes, it is disrespectful. Accurate all the same, though. While I do tolerate religions as long as they stay out of my face, I don't respect them at all. Furthermore, I see no reason to respect religion. You, on the other hand, are obviously of the mind that I should respect religion. Perhaps you'll take a moment to explain why you think so. For your reference, the call for disrespect that I personally feel is that religion is, in my opinion, a force promoting myth over science; dogma over reason; blind obedience over liberty. Where respect is supposed to come from in that context I don't know, but by all means, feel free to explain it to me.
Hold on. You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say stupid. I said gullible, which is something else entirely. People can be very smart indeed, and still fall for an attractive idea, especially when fear (of death, for instance) is added to the social pressures to join the group (or conversely, to not be ostracized, a very typical religious reaction, even a formal one in some cases.)
I also didn't say that all religious people were being taken advantage of by their leaders. I said that there were legions of people around who did so; that's quite a different thing. If you want to discuss what I actually said, that's fine -- but don't rework it into something I didn't say and then try to attack me on the basis of your new constructions.
I understand they're normal people. Even those who would take advantage of them are normal people. That doesn't mean they're correct, you know, nor does it it magically give them the right to interfere with my life and the lives of those dear to me.
No. You've fallen into a logical fallacy. I'm not the one making supernatural claims. They are. My position is, if they want to convince me there's a god, show me the evidence. I have no more obligation to try to prove them wrong than I do you if you come up to me and insist there's a colony of magical dwarves living 50 feet under my house, banging out swords and axes. If you make such a claim, it is your obligation to prove it.
On the contrary. The fewer planes flying into buildings, the fewer wars between the Catholics and the Protestants, the fewer pogroms, the fewer inquisitions, the fewer witch burnings, the fewer laws against informed, consensual sexual and social behaviors, the fewer religious tax burdens on taxpayers, the fewer incursions into our schools of pathologies like creationism... the better off we'll be. And we won't get there by "respecting" outlooks that do not earn our respect, but instead, harm our society directly by interfering, by policy, with others.
I am perfectly willing to tolerate other people's belief in stories, as long as they don't fool with me or with the system. As soon as they bring their mythology to bear upon how I and those dear to me are expected to li
"respecting" religion isn't important at all. Tolerating it on my part, you could perhaps make an argument for, but respecting... not likely. Respect needs to be earned. Tolerance (as long as other's liberties are not interfered with) is an obligation born of freedom.
There's quite a gulf between religion, which is largely made up of systems for trying to influence what people of dissimilar outlooks (religious and otherwise) think through the promotion of myths, as compared to healthy sexuality, which is consensual activity between informed individuals of already similar outlooks.
If you want to find unhealthy sexual outlooks, just look for the people promoting, writing, and enforcing laws against consensual, informed sexual behaviors. There's no easier way to find the sexually dysfunctional.
You're confusing irony (admittedly a difficult concept for many people) with liberty. They're free to refuse anyone they like, for any reason they like. I'm free to do the same. They are doing so. I am doing so. Nothing ironic about it at all.
What is confusing you is the deeply mistaken idea that I am somehow obligated to remain silent in the face of a request that I find problematic. I didn't ask them if I could help. They did the asking. That's my answer.
As for my being illogical and hypocritical, you'll have to make your case. Straight ad hominem won't do it.
I'm perfectly tolerant of them. I'm just not going to help them as long as they advocate those two particular positions. Tolerance is the attitude that they can exist as long as they don't attempt to interact with me. They just did that by asking me, as someone who writes FOSS, to help them out; I refused, and specified why. Clearly and openly. If you think that religion and homophobia ought to get a free pass no matter what they promote, I'm afraid you and I have fundamentally irreconcilable differences.
Yes. In my considered opinion, this is precisely what they are. Is it your intent to muzzle me? If so, by what rationale?
Certainly they can. However, in these specific cases, no.
Homophobia is a mental failing of people who cannot separate the personal choices made by other people from their own feelings. There's nothing positive about it, and there is a great deal in such an attitude that is negative and outright dangerous. I have no right to tell you what your personal sexual interests or activities should as long as they don't impinge on another person's liberties. Likewise, you have no right to tell me; and the BSA have no right to tell anyone, either. There is nowhere for them to obtain that right; such a right cannot not exist in a society properly based upon liberty, which is something we should all be striving towards.
As for mythology... it defines itself. It's not due to any act of mine these people's belief systems are inextricably entwined with claims of supernatural powers, events and individuals. I didn't make those stories up. They did. So your problem isn't with me, no matter how much you may think it is. You're just confused.
I'll rephrase: I hold them accountable for denying gay kids the same opportunities as straight ones, and for the promotion of nonsense stories as truth. Did you not understand my original post?
Nonsense. It's just accurate reporting. Religion is mythology. Stories. There are no facts whatsoever behind those stories in the important areas (specifically the existence of deities.) There is no more basis in reason for believing in a deity than there is for believing in the tooth fairy, unless you count peer pressure as a legitimate force for belief. Those stories remain in force because people are gullible, fearful, and uninformed in critical areas, and because there are legions of people around who prey on those who exhibit said vulnerabilities.
No, not at all. I recognize all kinds of speech, and encourage the use of it by all. That's the only way we can know which people take which positions. That in no way says I have to agree with the positions taken, and (this is the important part for you to study), it in no way obligates me to remain silent in the face of things I disagree with.
In this case, the BSA asked for help. I'm one of those who could help, and I'm also an alumnus. I'm declining, and I'm saying why I'm declining. If that upsets you, perhaps you should re-examine your core values. Or come up with a better argument than (cough) "hate speech", which is a crock.
Absolutely, love to help 'em.
Just as soon as they lose the institutionalized homophobia and pandering to mythology.
Other than that, I think they're entirely deserving of assistance. And yes, I was a boy scout. :)
Of course, I recognize that as a private organization, they have the right to such stone age views; however, I also have the right to hold them accountable for them.
There's that next flight to consider -- or in my case, not. Therein lies the problem.
No. Politicians don't qualify politicians. Voters "qualify" politicians, only the metrics used usually range from "I like that guy" to "I don't like that other guy" to "I vote my party", all of which are insufficient to the task of getting informed, competent people into office. Which is precisely my point. Politicians that want to run for national office should -- in my view -- not be allowed to until they can demonstrate in a controlled and monitored test situation that they are competent to do so. From those who can cross that hurdle, by all means, let the voters pick whom they prefer.
You want a position of great power and responsibility? Fine. Show me you are prepared to handle it, that you at least have taken the time to study the underpinnings behind the issues; I really don't understand the resistance to this idea. You wouldn't want a guy who knows nothing about mechanics working on your car for obvious reasons; why are you so hot to throw any idiot with a firm handshake and a knack for kissing babies at the problems that face the nation? No wonder the congress can't do anything right.
No, in fact I didn't, and I think it's quite telling that you interpreted what I said that way. I suggest a system where people who are INFORMED on issues are qualified to be elected. If you can't show you're informed, you can't run. I didn't say the standard had to be sky-high, and I said NOTHING about degrees or money. I'm tired of people like that idiot Stevens running teh intertubes; I'm tired of people making law who can't quote back the constitution -- heck it's a short document, and most of these idiots couldn't quote it to you if their life depended upon it. I've seen the same from presidential candidates. Even the most basic level of competence would set a politician so far apart from the run of the mill pinheads that are in there now it would be startling, in my view. Look at them, inverting the commerce clause, making ex post facto laws, restricting freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, right to bear arms, habeas corpus, right to trial... it's like the local group home was raided to fill congress.
No, the fact is that only what sprang into your imagination is. What I suggest is no more than you'd ask of a manager of any enterprise. Not a bloodline, not money, not a degree. Information -- competence -- testing for same. Prospective national politicians should know the constitution. They should be able to tell you all about the creation of the document. They should know who our trading partners are. They should know how big the budget is, and the general way it is distributed. They should know where the money comes from in terms of corporate pocket taxes and people's pocket taxes and things like fines and fees. They should have a handle on immigration numbers; be able to clearly describe the difference between civil and criminal law, cite the national debt in dollars and recent trends, describe the social security obligations... this stuff isn't rocket science, but it would require work and study. And why not? If you can't understand this kind of stuff, as far as I'm concerned, no matter HOW bad it hurts your widdle feelings, you don't qualify for the bloody job.
If you want to argue with me, argue with what I say, and if I haven't said something, ask for my position. Don't make up a bunch of stupid crap and attribute it to me.
No, that's not obvious at all. Look, who picks those who qualify the physicists? How do they get qualified? Why don't we get a majority of dimwit creationists running around physics labs? What about lawyers? Why can't just anyone be a lawyer? Wouldn't that be "fair"? Subject the selection process to scrutiny. Let the academics work it out. Define it as working that way. Etc. This isn't insoluble.
Are you seriously telling me that because it isn't easy, we should turn away and let this mess continue sliding downhill? I'm not saying its easy, I'm just saying what we have is BROKEN. Don't think my ideas are any good for fixing it? Fine. Fix it some other way. Just blinking fix it before our torturing, big-brother-esque, rights-eroding, liberty-crushing, save-the-everloving-children at the expense of anything at all society falls apart at the seams.
Trans-Atlantic takes about a week. And it is very pleasant. You can gamble; dance; swim; play all manner of games, both physical and table; there is wall climbing, there are shows, the meals are _unbelievable_, a lot of staterooms offer private balconies, the price is easily competitive (though you can step up and do very well indeed for what you'd pay for a "1st class seat" on an aircraft)... don't knock it until you've tried it.
For anyone who is curious, I suggest you take a weekend jaunt down to the Bahamas on a cruise ship. That'll show you what it's all about, usually for very little money. They figure they're going to get it out of you gambling and drinking; so just don't gamble and drink. Unless you want to, of course. :)
The same way you'd qualify anyone for any other important job. Test them. Would you hire an engineer who has no experience in engineering? Would you hire a doctor who hasn't passed the medical boards? Would you put a soldier in the field who doesn't know how to fight? No? Then why are you so bloody eager to employ anyone off the street to decide issues they have no expertise in?
Qualification for any important job is only sensible. The myth that "we are all created equal" was a philosophical blunder that was probably meant to imply no more than "we should all be afforded the same opportunities, and what we make of them is what we get." The opportunity is to try for a job; not get it. The potential should be to pass or fail, not to get it just because you're breathing and slightly warmer than room temperature. As it is, the "qualifications" for political office are to pretend you believe in an imaginary friend and don't get caught doing anything the body politic can't afford to do themselves. As for who should issue the tests, just your average bureaucrat should do fine. I'm sure they could design them, too, that's the just the kind of thing they love to haggle over.
Well, you have a democratic republic. Sort of. Insofar as its been able to obey its constituting authority, which isn't very far. Enjoy it.
Me, I'd rather have some form of meritocracy. The idea of people running an enterprise who are actually qualified to do so -- as opposed to being "popular" -- is alluring to me. Americans made Paris Hilton popular. And Britney Spears. And Flava Flav. If that doesn't tell you how busted the idea of "popular" is, I don't know what will.
Have you seen how many people the TSA employs to annoy passengers at airports??? Plus the air marshals that are actually running around?