I think - my opinion only - that 1984 carries serious social messages and concerns that star wars does not. I would also think that this leads directly to the popularity of the current video, and a lack of underlying meaning for your proposed video. I am not saying that the video accurately portrays Hillary; I'm just saying that it carries implications that her opponents find convenient, and her supporters do not. To the extent that people are undecided, but familiar with 1984, the video may evoke some discomfort that leans them away from her.
1984 used to be a very frightening scenario. Of course, now that we live in times that are worse in many ways, and we're working on what we missed out of Orwell's vision, I'm not sure if the message is quite what the maker of the video thought it was. Just because the video made an impact, doesn't mean it made the right kind of impact.
Have you looked at Ron Paul? Other than his stance on health care, I'm pretty well aligned with him, speaking as a person with strong libertarian leanings.
Actually, your constitution does not guarantee you freedom of all speech, but that which it does guarantee, it further guarantees no consequences.
That speech that is free is only speech that talks negative of the government (positive speech having never been threatened)
For your reference, the relevant portions of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, I read that part where it says "make no law" as a written version of the idea that congress should, uh, "make no law" that does what the part that says "abridging the freedom of speech" means, because that would, uh, abridge freedom of speech, you see. I do not see anything that says "except if you're not talking about the government, or if you agree, or if you're within 50 feet of a funeral or you're at a political rally, or in a theatre, or frankly, anything else of that nature.
I wold also note in passing that the 14th amendment requires the state governments to comply with the first ten amendments as well. So this isn't just a federal issue.
Now, I am aware of a number of significant misinterpretations of the 1st amendment, including the one about shouting "fire in theater" (entirely wrong-headed, as well as unconstitutional), but yours is a new one for me. Would you care to explain how you got the sense of "only in speech critical of the government" from the above text? Thanks. I appreciate you taking the time.
Lending, housing, employment, education, clearance, (lack of) privacy, forfeiture of rights, mandatory registration, classing and suppression of political power.
There's a full array of law out there to make sure these people remain as criminal as possible in their behavior once released. Don't you worry about that. No, sir. And they'll stay away from you out of pure respect. Sure they will.
Forgive my ignorance on this, but can the US Congress pass a law that clearly violates the Constitution
Yes. They routinely ignore the constitution, punctuated with episodes of misinterpreting it. The courts often follow up with the same, or worse, misinterpretations.
Are there any mechanisms in place to censure those who pass any such laws
No. Even when, as is the case with the presidency, there is a sworn oath to uphold the constitution involved.
can they just immediately pass COPA-II that's word-for-word identical, and will have full force of law until the courts knock that down as well?
You're assuming the courts will knock down unconstitutional laws. There is no such assurance. Again, they routinely back up blatant violations of the constitution. For example, the constitution says "No... ex post facto Law shall be passed." Yet we have numerous such laws, and several have been all the way to the supreme court. The constitution says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech", and again, there are numerous such laws and they've been to the supreme court and been upheld. The constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But it has, by law, and again, the supreme court has upheld these laws. The constitution says "No person... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", but they are (think IRS, for one) and again, the supreme court is all for it. Plus now we have the military commissions act, but that's not been to the supreme court yet. Of course, since it forbids any victim of the law to go to the courts, that's going to be an interesting tussle. The constitution also says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"... but it has, by law, and again... I could go on for quite a while.
George W Bush told us an important truth when he said that the constitution is "nothing but a piece of paper." It does not have the force of law, it is not taken seriously by the government, and you cannot count on it to do what it was intended to do, which is limit the powers of said government in very specific ways.
Religion screwed you up. Not porn. Now you're in the depths of a delusion that there is some dude in the sky and he's "helped you" but your "most amazing woman" is beneath his help and doubts you (and is even worried about this nonsense)... you are one messed-up unit, all right, but it sure isn't porn that did it, or is doing it. No wonder you can't reason your way out of a paper bag.
What if men who appreciate women are more likely to look at pornography? What if men who don't believe women are property are more likely to look at pornography? What if men who don't think they have the right to dictate to women what they can do with their own bodies look at pornography? What if men who appreciate smart, sexual women look at pornography?
What if porn isn't actually a problem? What if victorian outlooks, fears about sexuality, attempts to control people's sexuality, choices, preferences, activities ARE the problem, eh? What if naked bodies are sexy and interesting, rather than bad and somehow frightening or shameful? What if sex is a good thing and abstinence results in inexperienced people who miss out on a lot, and cannot compete in bed with people who actually take the time and energy to learn about the subject?
It is a subject, you know, with enormous breadth and depth, and technique a-plenty. And like any complex subject, getting good at it takes practice, good mentors and teachers are very useful, and visual aids are not a bad idea either.
You know what is a bad idea? Some moron who thinks that not doing something will make you better at it when you finally get around to it. That's just... stupid.
If I found weed in my kid's room, but his grades were good and he wasn't a lazy bastard, why should I care?
Because the legal system will kick your kid's ass, and indirectly, yours, if and when they find out. You should care, and you should try to keep your kid off drugs to protect your kid from society. Society's overreaction to drugs is far more dangerous to your child than any imaginable drug. Just be honest with your kid about why you're doing it, don't make up any bullshit (or pass any government bullshit on) about the dangers of drugs, and they won't blame you, they'll appreciate that you're trying to keep them safe. For real dangers - meth, heroin, dirty and used needles - just be straight with them. As soon as a parent buys into re-telling government lies, they lose the respect, and ear, of their kids. Kids aren't stupid. No matter what the government thinks. They're just less experienced. Parents who make the mistake of adding the experience of having a parent lie or demonstrate a deep lack of knowledge about drugs can kiss any ability to influence their kid good-fucking-bye on the subject.
since sex crimes are the only ones that have had "retroactive" prohibitions applied to them.
Actually, no. Felons with convictions previous to the laws that forbid them to own firearms have those laws applied to them. Ex post facto law isn't limited to sex offenders. A very good argument can also be made that in many cases, civil law has been used to make an end-run around ex post facto prohibitions and double jeopardy provisions for convictions under criminal law.
This additional punishment helps remind the felon that they made a choice, and choices have consequences.
Mostly what it reminds the felon of is that he is a criminal, there is no going back, he has little to no hope in legitimate society in terms of job or rights, and so said felon will be best rewarded by honing skills that are outside legitimate society. In other words, one way or another, making you and yours a target for crime. For example, if he wants a gun, he has to steal yours. If he wants to live at a higher standard than the street, he needs to rob you. If he wants diamonds for his girlfriend, your wife's are easier to get than those in a jewelry store, and stealing those from a jewelry store are still easier than buying them. Unless he steals your money, of course. Voting? No, he cannot affect society that way - presuming he ever could. Insurance costs are higher for him, assuming he can even get insured. But he can't get a good job. He can get your money. Or if not, he can sell your daughter. People will do anything to survive; especially if they're pissed off at the people they're doing that "anything" to.
Infinite punishment in the realm of a free person's rights and reputation is self-defeating for society. You might like the idea, but you really won't like the results when they get around to finding you. And the more people from whom we take these abilities, the more likely you and yours are to be victims. We're creating a broad underclass with a very specific set of skills and giving them a very good reason to resent the rest of us.
Either adjust the punishment so that criminals who commit the crime at hand must remain in prison for a longer amount of time if you're not satisfied with the current punishment, or leave it the same if you are, but either way, when you release them from imprisonment say they've paid their dues. Don't mix public life with punishment. It is, in the final analysis, harmful to society at all levels.
The same problem applies to prison conditions. They have to reach minimum standards of humanity. No rapes. No beatings. No exposure to STDs. A chance to improve one's self. Otherwise, when you release these people, you have been effectively beating the wasp's nest with a broom and you really shouldn't be surprised when the first thing that happens is they jam their stinger right into your tender parts. And you know what? After they mug you and kill your spouse, there's no fixing it. And just as you want to tell those felons your ideas about post-prison punishment "helps remind the felon that they made a choice, and choices have consequences", I would simply say the same to you. You made a choice to abuse these people far beyond what is reasonable for society's sake, and now the consequences have come home to roost. maybe next time, you'll be smarter. Because for you, there is nowhere to turn.
Other important reasons for punishing law breakers include, but are not limited to, incapacitation, general and specific deterrence, and good old fashioned punishment.
Well, one severe problem with this is that if we don't consider those released as having paid the entire debt for their conviction, which also incorporates the idea of being rehabilitated, then we end up with the current set of problems. Specifically that released people can't get jobs, and so their options for getting any further ahead in life than the day they walk out of the prison gate basically only include working outside the normal job environment - which basically means crime.
As far as I am concerned, that means the system is broken, plain and simple.
Except the "Islamists" can't threaten the survival of our culture.
On the contrary; they can, and they do. Our culture has broadly changed since 9/11, and I would argue that it is now quite dissimilar - and inferior - to that on 9/10. Cultural erosion is a fact in our case, and we have sacrificed many of our most prized ideals under pressure from Islam and those who fear the actions of that culture's most violent proponents. That's just so far. As the events on 9/11 showed, we are a fragile culture. The stock market tanked, our rights were shown to not be the "rock solid" foundation we thought they were, the air transport sector first became constipated, and then a nightmare of secret police style "lists" and outrageous searches. We reacted so badly we became an international pariah - we squandered the good will that sympathy brought and flailed about ineffectively, bringing war to countries that had no connection to our problems. Our constitution became even less of a factor in our law and in our actions, our news reports turned into sensationalist ravings, public travel is now a morass of "papers, please" and that continues to get worse, what with "Real-ID", finance tracking, and other similarly Orwellian erosions of our ideals. In short, we destabilized in a matter of days. The 9/11 attacks were very poorly targeted, if they had hit a more critical target instead of the WTC - or hit with a larger effect - we might have fallen completely apart. I fully expect to see just that due to our inability to address the actual problems of terrorist incursions. Time will tell. But you simply cannot argue that our culture is immune to these people. The culture we had is already only a memory, and it remains to be seen if the important parts can be recovered - and we are six years past the event. Imagine our reaction to a more serious attack. Or don't imagine it. Just wait; I'm pretty certain they're going to show you, and in detail.
Your assertion that "Islam produces second rate science" is completely irrelevant, even if accurate (which I doubt.) It isn't Islam's "scientists" that are attacking us. It is the superstitious, least educated elements of the culture. These people know perfectly well how to produce weapons and individuals that kill, and death isn't qualified by "how." They also have learned how to attack us in such a manner that we will not - perhaps cannot - fight back effectively, and we have seen that this works very well for them. What you seem to not understand is that you can be holding the latest and greatest infantry weapon, and someone can walk up behind you and garrote you or stab you in the neck. Worse, as civilians, most have no weapon, and they can still attack you with impunity. They're not limiting attacks to military targets. It is just that simple.
Their whole social system bears more than a passing resemblance to feudalism.
Islam isn't a culture defined by a nation the way the US is, it is a belief system spread across many nations, including the USA. These attacks aren't coming from "some country", they are coming from a culture that has already spread itself across the entire planet. Your arguments about oil fall flat because again, it isn't Iran or Iraq we're talking about here, it is Islam, which is something else again entirely. Oil has only been a factor in the last century; but if you could enquire of the effectiveness of Islam of, for instance, the crusaders, you'd find that oil wasn't a factor - these people fight to the death for ideas they utterly believe in, and that is their strength. Your idea that changing what we use for fuel would kill the demand for oil is wrong as well - oil is fundamental for many other products, plastics and lubricants to name just two.
Nuclear power
I am all for nuclear power. However, it doesn't address the problem.
Why would a person consider suicide at a loss of face?
For many, the outlook is simply, if you are going to be dead, there will be no "you" to care. Those who have not adopted an evidence-free position of "afterlife" as promulgated by the various superstitions take this viewpoint. All it takes to consider suicide as the optimum choice is encountering obstacles you are unwilling to face. Perceived or actual. Contrast that with continuous struggle against impossible odds and many will simply opt out. It is not an unreasonable position at this point in history; life-spans remain relatively short. Should we have the opportunity to live for thousands of years, a few years or decades of privation may stack up quite differently in people's minds. As it is, life offers a few short chapters for youthful freedom, child rearing, a little time to settle in with some more sophisticated ideas about life... and then you die. Should something untoward derail you along this path - cancer, a decades long sentence, loss of a loved one - perhaps you'll have had enough a few years early. As for "losing face"... that seems to me to be a concern for those who get their self image from others; or in other words, the very young or the very dim.
Why would someone give up all sexuality and wealth in order to commune with the divine?
Either an unusually profound experience when doing said communing on the one hand, or an unusually shallow understanding of sexuality on the other. Ditto wealth. The only people who claim wealth isn't a significant factor in one's life are those who either have never had it, or have always had it. Anyone who experiences the transition to or from sufficient wealth to live as they chose will learn better in a very short interval. As David Lee Roth said (roughly, from memory): "Money can't buy love, but it can buy you a yacht to pull up next to it." All claims of romantic love aside, he has a point. It is quite easy to be romantic on the bridge of a yacht or over fine wine. It is quite easy to be "swept away" by someone who can, in fact, deal with your earthly cares and bills with a wave of their hand.
Aside from that, the middle ground is probably occupied by reasons that have nothing at all to do with the "divine", experientially or with regard to some putative godhead. Power, for instance. Molesting little boys, for another. Love for architecture (seriously... some churches are amazing.) Respect. Religious experience isn't always defined by divinity.
Are these things moral? Can they be explained by biology?
I'd say they were 100% cognitive in origin, rather than moral, though they can certainly incorporate the moral. Based on the idea that I have never observed behavior that I would call superstitious in an animal. I have seen loyalty earned and then trust violated, but never trust given for no reason for a concept that had no consensual basis in reality. That behavior, I think, is limited to very high powered abstract thinkers - which I believe to be a fair description of those who put together superstition for consumption by the masses. Can such behaviors be explained by biology? Certainly. Ever see a rock make up a story? Of course not, nor have I. We're great storytellers, extremely creative and broadly imaginative. It is our biology that does the task. Scoop out the brain pan of Mark Twain and see what kind of stories you get from him then. As far as the evidence speaks to me, it says everything we do is biological as a first cause.
noting that it is impossible to understand why an animal is acting in a particular fashion.
It is often impossible to tell why a human acts in a particular fashion as well. There appears to be less difference here than you seem to be implying, at least insofar as our present understandings (as opposed to presumptions) can enlighten us. We do not understand
Public executions, slavery,rape, etc. were all perfectly acceptable to the average Roman citizen, all of which are considered moral crimes now.
Not at all. The fact is, these things are still 100% accepted by our society, and in some cases, enshrined into law. It is simply that the class which bears the brunt of these actions has changed slightly. For example, the 13th amendment enshrines slavery as perfectly acceptable for the very broad class of people "convicted of a crime", giving it the force of law at the very base of our system. Public executions are still performed, more so and more publicly in countries informed by Sharia law, but we still gather up family, friends and witnesses here in the USA. Rape is common in prisons, and we, as a society, don't even lift a finger to do anything about it - so while it may not have the force of law, it is certainly a normal part of our social functioning. Classing in general has actually devolved in some ways; the Romans wouldn't think twice about knowingly entrusting a homosexual with public office or their children for instruction; our society rarely does this. The Romans also understood that sexually mature teenagers were valid and reasonable sexual partners, while today, classing separates teenagers from (for instance) those in their twenties who might make very good mates indeed for them, as well as sexual mentors. I wouldn't get too excited about any supposed "moral sophistication" of today's society. A lot of that is illusion, more of it is socially enforced style without great moral substance.
Morally I couldn't blow up women and children with a bomb but it happens every day, are those people not biologically correct? If they are not biologically correct what do you do with these people, are they sick?
What you are talking about here are collisions of culture, which you are conflating with the idea that morals are absolute - which they certainly are not. In the past, when a severe collision occurred, the survivor's answer was to fight until only one culture survives. The Islamists still understand this, but the (quite different) morals of the west reject the idea of putting down an entire culture, even though that culture is polarizing against them in the most obvious manner possible, and has no such scruples. The answer that beckons with survival as the prize - from history - is clear and obvious (and it is the same answer the Islamists have come to.)
When someone has a different set of morals than you do, this does not mean that you are biologically different. Many outlooks are inset at an early age. Some are preset. Depends on the animal how many and which way, but that still leaves more than enough room for the dog that will rescue your broken body, and the dog that will eat you and tear off chunks for its puppies; the person who will help you homestead and the one that will take your land; the priest who will stand between you and your enemy, and the priest who will put you on the rack.
It also doesn't mean that you can "fix" or "educate" those with attitudes that clash with yours. That is why it was traditional - and acceptable - to kill all members who could fight (now, or later, as in male children) of any particular conquered group.
Some morals cost too much; no society can afford to pay with everything they have if they want to survive.
They're acting instinctively (because, for animals, there's little else).
You don't know that. You don't even know when I am acting instinctively. You're trapped in your own head, with no way, as yet, to learn what is motivating any other head.
Why do some aquatic animals push injured companions to the surface so they can breathe? Bottle-nosed Dolphin are known to do this, and so are some aquarium fish. Do you think this is based on "philosophy", or do you think there is some basic hard-wiring in there that arose from a biological imperative similar to the idea that that keeping the group healthy has a generally positive effect on the individual (and hence its genes)?
Why will a cat or dog or pig or any number of other animals accept another species to nurse at its teats, even when, as in many of these cases, said species is considered natural prey or predator?
Why will cats in particular, highly independent creatures who are extremely good at providing for themselves, go into a burning building to attempt to wake and save their owners, sometimes at the cost of their own lives? I understand the argument for saving one's kittens is that of propagating the gene (though cats could always make more kittens, and that is certainly a more effective strategy both at the personal and genetic levels) but why save some human? Cats don't generally need humans for survival. It is just one of several strategies available to them - and they do it. Many convert from one to the other, sometimes more than once. Cognition? Or wiring?
Do ethics and/or morals have to be "systems" in order to be valid, useful, or characterized as such? If yes, why? Could it be that such an outlook is primarily an exercise in hubris? Isn't it sufficient to choose not to do something based on a vague feeling that it isn't the right thing to do, or a simple situational evaluation that detects dissatisfaction as a likely outcome if a particular course is followed, or not?
Do such behaviors have to be high level cognitive products at all? If so, why? Many humans get their ethics and morals "canned", that is, from books or mentors in what amounts to final form. Do this. Don't do that. Most adhere to those admonitions; we generally consider them moral people as long as they do so. But is the bad feeling about taking what is not yours incurred by having your hand smacked by dad for stealing sister's lollipop any different than having your instincts and endocrine system twist your stomach in a knot when contemplating the bloody suffering of another? Both encourage what look like what we commonly call moral behaviors; neither one can reasonably be called "philosophy" on the part of the primary actor by any stretch of the imagination. They both come into play very early in events that call for them.
Personally, I don't think we're nearly as sophisticated as we'd like to imagine. Those of us who exhibit the most "sophistication" usually fall into a category of those who have a lot of time to think available to them, time often provided by channeling wealth from others, one way or another. The rest just muddle along. There are a number of structures in society that have existed for quite a long time that encourage and reinforce this precise pattern.
In the end, these questions all go to how the mind operates, and as we know very little about that, it seems to me that answers which assert certainty are probably untrustworthy at best. No matter the reputation of the "philosopher" who might put those ideas forth.
I am familiar with that page and the procedure there. It doesn't address the problems brought on by 2007-002, it only talks about networks that use WEP and WPA2 security, and in terms of what it refers to, it also predates the release of the 2007-002 update. This is a notice for the much earlier 10.4.8 upgrade, which also broke a lot of people's wifi.
In my situation, (a) there are no WEP or WPA2 networks in the machine's list (or any other networks for that matter), (b) we're not using WEP or WPA2 security, and you can remove the single network and put it back or create new ones all day with no change in behavior. So far, the only known solution is to re-install the OS and not install the 2007-002 update. Which isn't a solution so much as it is ducking a problem Apple should fix.
I did refer to this somewhat obliquely in an earlier post when I mentioned the attempts are adding and removing networks. But thanks for the follow-up.
While you extract your foot from your mouth, go read the threads on the Apple boards. This isn't a figment of my imagination. You, on the other hand, have a technical issue to learn: When something works for one situation, this is no assurance that it will work in other situations. Apple machines present a spectrum of hardware and software configurations to support. Less so than PC's, but still, not uniform. There are legitimate problems here. The fact that you are unwilling to see that discredits you - not me.
Untrue. My macbook pro came with one lousy button. It is brand new - even has the 'n' wifi chipset. I do carry a mouse around because of that; it'd have a been a darned sight more convenient if Apple wasn't still trying to pretend that one button is as functional as two and had bothered to bring the Macbook pro's buttonry into modern times. And yes, I know all about the two-button emulation. Doesn't provide the complete functionality of a two-button mouse. Some things just don't work.
My minis don't have the n-capable chipset. My Macbook pro does - but doesn't have the enabler (there is no n-network in my area.) Both are affected by the update; the mini as a network hub, and the pro as a client to all the networks I have access to, which amounts to about five or six of them. Most of them are Linksys running Linksys firmware, as that's what the local computer guy sells.
I suppose I could add the enabler; maybe that'd get the Macbook up and running. I'll let you know.
When I see problems like yours, I have the urge to ask: what troubleshooting - if any - have you done?
Yeah. When I see a post like yours, I have the urge to ask, why didn't you read the thread I linked to before you posted an aggressive reply presuming no troubleshooting has been done? A large number of highly competent people - and yes, that includes me - have done a lot of troubleshooting. Which includes taking these machines right down to the original OS installs, working back up without *any* non-Apple software right to the 2007-002 update, installation of which promptly and reliably hoses the wifi. The mini in my case does indeed have some third party-software on it (Delicious library - nothing else) but this has been ruled out as complicit in the problem; the identical machine (a backup) w/o DL fails the moment the 2007-002 update is installed.
The fact that the update does work for some, does not rule out that it can fail for others. The large (very large!) number of people who showed up on the Apple board immediately after the update with loss of connectivity is a very clear sign that the update has problems. The weeks of troubleshooting and attempt by the community to isolate what might be going wrong which ended up failing to resolve the problem (other than reinstalling the OS and going without the 2007-002 update) are also a sign that this problem is one that is legitimately in Apple's court. It is not unreasonable to expect Apple to address these problems. So try to pull your horns in a bit.
Have you considered it may be some other software that you've installed?
Have you tested this possibility?
Yes and yes, and no, that's not the case.
Do you backup or clone your system to some other storage before blindly applying updates? You should be doing these things.
That machine has one thing on it that is non-Apple default, and that is Delicious Library. Which is backed up, yes. The rest of the machine isn't; because it can be (and has been) reinstalled from the supplied DVD, followed by installing the Apple updates, to get it right to where I want it to be. Unfortunately, once the 2007-002 update is installed, the wifi immediately goes nipples north. Having determined this, the ball is now in Apple's court. I am running Ethernet until there is a fix. This does not in any way remove the need for Apple to come up with a fix.
Stop ranting and do something to fix it.
You know, people like you should really think a little longer before they get all up in people's faces. If I was "ranting", you'd know it. I'm simply inconvenienced by an error of Apple's; and I am waiting for them to fix it after having determined that the ball is legitimately in their court. In my post, I provided enough detail to make sure that anyone interested enough to reply would have the means to verify what I had to say; I didn't specifically point to the many other threads with similar issues, but they were right there in the same forums to discover as well. And over on Macfixit, etc. Your post is an exercise in (a) not paying attention to what you were told, (b) not looking at the issue via the links provided, and (c) pretending you have insight that others do not. This is no way to make a positive impression.
You might want to invest in a dedicated wireless access point
That's a bit of a tactical issue for me. The mini is part of the home theater system and it lives on a pedestal above the projector where it supplies DVD librarian services to the theater as well as wifi to the household. My home is a mostly open loft with a 204-inch theater, and the pedestal location isn't flexible, nor will it accommodate any additional equipment without being rebuilt. It kind of "owns" the central position in the building. With regard to n-wireless, only the Macbook pro supports this, and I don't find the speed of g-networking to be a problem. Signal strength: I don't have a signal strength problem; and as a matter of fact, until the 2007-002 update... I hadn't had any problems at all.:-)
I think it is reasonable, in my case, to wait for Apple to fix the software so that the mini can source an open network again. It was, after all, one of the selling points of the machine. I do appreciate your suggestion.
If there is a solution today, it's brand new. I'll go look. There *was* a post on removing wep entries for an earlier problem, that sort of thing, but of course if you have no such entries (running unencrypted and there are no other networks in the list) that's not going to fix anything. [surfs over to Apple]
No, nothing new on the issue other than some new messages with people who are having problems. No links to any solutions by Apple. Searching for 2007-002 in Apple support still returns no commentary at all regarding these problems.
Well, some of us want it, but we do appear to be in the minority. You know, you could copy it and leave us with the original - a copy should work fine if you don't elect "we know what's best mommy-staters" (the way we have been doing.) Maybe we can get the original working again. I'd suggest you keep that 2nd amendment, too. If you get in as bad a situation as we are right now, you might need it.
The problem I am talking about first reared its head in the 2007-002 update, not the.9 update (though I have little doubt that it exists there as well.)
Slashdot Mirror
I think - my opinion only - that 1984 carries serious social messages and concerns that star wars does not. I would also think that this leads directly to the popularity of the current video, and a lack of underlying meaning for your proposed video. I am not saying that the video accurately portrays Hillary; I'm just saying that it carries implications that her opponents find convenient, and her supporters do not. To the extent that people are undecided, but familiar with 1984, the video may evoke some discomfort that leans them away from her.
1984 used to be a very frightening scenario. Of course, now that we live in times that are worse in many ways, and we're working on what we missed out of Orwell's vision, I'm not sure if the message is quite what the maker of the video thought it was. Just because the video made an impact, doesn't mean it made the right kind of impact.
Have you looked at Ron Paul? Other than his stance on health care, I'm pretty well aligned with him, speaking as a person with strong libertarian leanings.
For your reference, the relevant portions of the first amendment:
Now, I read that part where it says "make no law" as a written version of the idea that congress should, uh, "make no law" that does what the part that says "abridging the freedom of speech" means, because that would, uh, abridge freedom of speech, you see. I do not see anything that says "except if you're not talking about the government, or if you agree, or if you're within 50 feet of a funeral or you're at a political rally, or in a theatre, or frankly, anything else of that nature.
I wold also note in passing that the 14th amendment requires the state governments to comply with the first ten amendments as well. So this isn't just a federal issue.
Now, I am aware of a number of significant misinterpretations of the 1st amendment, including the one about shouting "fire in theater" (entirely wrong-headed, as well as unconstitutional), but yours is a new one for me. Would you care to explain how you got the sense of "only in speech critical of the government" from the above text? Thanks. I appreciate you taking the time.
Lending, housing, employment, education, clearance, (lack of) privacy, forfeiture of rights, mandatory registration, classing and suppression of political power.
There's a full array of law out there to make sure these people remain as criminal as possible in their behavior once released. Don't you worry about that. No, sir. And they'll stay away from you out of pure respect. Sure they will.
Yes. They routinely ignore the constitution, punctuated with episodes of misinterpreting it. The courts often follow up with the same, or worse, misinterpretations.
No. Even when, as is the case with the presidency, there is a sworn oath to uphold the constitution involved.
You're assuming the courts will knock down unconstitutional laws. There is no such assurance. Again, they routinely back up blatant violations of the constitution. For example, the constitution says "No... ex post facto Law shall be passed." Yet we have numerous such laws, and several have been all the way to the supreme court. The constitution says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech", and again, there are numerous such laws and they've been to the supreme court and been upheld. The constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But it has, by law, and again, the supreme court has upheld these laws. The constitution says "No person... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", but they are (think IRS, for one) and again, the supreme court is all for it. Plus now we have the military commissions act, but that's not been to the supreme court yet. Of course, since it forbids any victim of the law to go to the courts, that's going to be an interesting tussle. The constitution also says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"... but it has, by law, and again... I could go on for quite a while.
George W Bush told us an important truth when he said that the constitution is "nothing but a piece of paper." It does not have the force of law, it is not taken seriously by the government, and you cannot count on it to do what it was intended to do, which is limit the powers of said government in very specific ways.
Religion screwed you up. Not porn. Now you're in the depths of a delusion that there is some dude in the sky and he's "helped you" but your "most amazing woman" is beneath his help and doubts you (and is even worried about this nonsense)... you are one messed-up unit, all right, but it sure isn't porn that did it, or is doing it. No wonder you can't reason your way out of a paper bag.
What if men who appreciate women are more likely to look at pornography? What if men who don't believe women are property are more likely to look at pornography? What if men who don't think they have the right to dictate to women what they can do with their own bodies look at pornography? What if men who appreciate smart, sexual women look at pornography?
What if porn isn't actually a problem? What if victorian outlooks, fears about sexuality, attempts to control people's sexuality, choices, preferences, activities ARE the problem, eh? What if naked bodies are sexy and interesting, rather than bad and somehow frightening or shameful? What if sex is a good thing and abstinence results in inexperienced people who miss out on a lot, and cannot compete in bed with people who actually take the time and energy to learn about the subject?
It is a subject, you know, with enormous breadth and depth, and technique a-plenty. And like any complex subject, getting good at it takes practice, good mentors and teachers are very useful, and visual aids are not a bad idea either.
You know what is a bad idea? Some moron who thinks that not doing something will make you better at it when you finally get around to it. That's just... stupid.
Because the legal system will kick your kid's ass, and indirectly, yours, if and when they find out. You should care, and you should try to keep your kid off drugs to protect your kid from society. Society's overreaction to drugs is far more dangerous to your child than any imaginable drug. Just be honest with your kid about why you're doing it, don't make up any bullshit (or pass any government bullshit on) about the dangers of drugs, and they won't blame you, they'll appreciate that you're trying to keep them safe. For real dangers - meth, heroin, dirty and used needles - just be straight with them. As soon as a parent buys into re-telling government lies, they lose the respect, and ear, of their kids. Kids aren't stupid. No matter what the government thinks. They're just less experienced. Parents who make the mistake of adding the experience of having a parent lie or demonstrate a deep lack of knowledge about drugs can kiss any ability to influence their kid good-fucking-bye on the subject.
Actually, no. Felons with convictions previous to the laws that forbid them to own firearms have those laws applied to them. Ex post facto law isn't limited to sex offenders. A very good argument can also be made that in many cases, civil law has been used to make an end-run around ex post facto prohibitions and double jeopardy provisions for convictions under criminal law.
Mostly what it reminds the felon of is that he is a criminal, there is no going back, he has little to no hope in legitimate society in terms of job or rights, and so said felon will be best rewarded by honing skills that are outside legitimate society. In other words, one way or another, making you and yours a target for crime. For example, if he wants a gun, he has to steal yours. If he wants to live at a higher standard than the street, he needs to rob you. If he wants diamonds for his girlfriend, your wife's are easier to get than those in a jewelry store, and stealing those from a jewelry store are still easier than buying them. Unless he steals your money, of course. Voting? No, he cannot affect society that way - presuming he ever could. Insurance costs are higher for him, assuming he can even get insured. But he can't get a good job. He can get your money. Or if not, he can sell your daughter. People will do anything to survive; especially if they're pissed off at the people they're doing that "anything" to.
Infinite punishment in the realm of a free person's rights and reputation is self-defeating for society. You might like the idea, but you really won't like the results when they get around to finding you. And the more people from whom we take these abilities, the more likely you and yours are to be victims. We're creating a broad underclass with a very specific set of skills and giving them a very good reason to resent the rest of us.
Either adjust the punishment so that criminals who commit the crime at hand must remain in prison for a longer amount of time if you're not satisfied with the current punishment, or leave it the same if you are, but either way, when you release them from imprisonment say they've paid their dues. Don't mix public life with punishment. It is, in the final analysis, harmful to society at all levels.
The same problem applies to prison conditions. They have to reach minimum standards of humanity. No rapes. No beatings. No exposure to STDs. A chance to improve one's self. Otherwise, when you release these people, you have been effectively beating the wasp's nest with a broom and you really shouldn't be surprised when the first thing that happens is they jam their stinger right into your tender parts. And you know what? After they mug you and kill your spouse, there's no fixing it. And just as you want to tell those felons your ideas about post-prison punishment "helps remind the felon that they made a choice, and choices have consequences", I would simply say the same to you. You made a choice to abuse these people far beyond what is reasonable for society's sake, and now the consequences have come home to roost. maybe next time, you'll be smarter. Because for you, there is nowhere to turn.
Well, one severe problem with this is that if we don't consider those released as having paid the entire debt for their conviction, which also incorporates the idea of being rehabilitated, then we end up with the current set of problems. Specifically that released people can't get jobs, and so their options for getting any further ahead in life than the day they walk out of the prison gate basically only include working outside the normal job environment - which basically means crime.
As far as I am concerned, that means the system is broken, plain and simple.
On the contrary; they can, and they do. Our culture has broadly changed since 9/11, and I would argue that it is now quite dissimilar - and inferior - to that on 9/10. Cultural erosion is a fact in our case, and we have sacrificed many of our most prized ideals under pressure from Islam and those who fear the actions of that culture's most violent proponents. That's just so far. As the events on 9/11 showed, we are a fragile culture. The stock market tanked, our rights were shown to not be the "rock solid" foundation we thought they were, the air transport sector first became constipated, and then a nightmare of secret police style "lists" and outrageous searches. We reacted so badly we became an international pariah - we squandered the good will that sympathy brought and flailed about ineffectively, bringing war to countries that had no connection to our problems. Our constitution became even less of a factor in our law and in our actions, our news reports turned into sensationalist ravings, public travel is now a morass of "papers, please" and that continues to get worse, what with "Real-ID", finance tracking, and other similarly Orwellian erosions of our ideals. In short, we destabilized in a matter of days. The 9/11 attacks were very poorly targeted, if they had hit a more critical target instead of the WTC - or hit with a larger effect - we might have fallen completely apart. I fully expect to see just that due to our inability to address the actual problems of terrorist incursions. Time will tell. But you simply cannot argue that our culture is immune to these people. The culture we had is already only a memory, and it remains to be seen if the important parts can be recovered - and we are six years past the event. Imagine our reaction to a more serious attack. Or don't imagine it. Just wait; I'm pretty certain they're going to show you, and in detail.
Your assertion that "Islam produces second rate science" is completely irrelevant, even if accurate (which I doubt.) It isn't Islam's "scientists" that are attacking us. It is the superstitious, least educated elements of the culture. These people know perfectly well how to produce weapons and individuals that kill, and death isn't qualified by "how." They also have learned how to attack us in such a manner that we will not - perhaps cannot - fight back effectively, and we have seen that this works very well for them. What you seem to not understand is that you can be holding the latest and greatest infantry weapon, and someone can walk up behind you and garrote you or stab you in the neck. Worse, as civilians, most have no weapon, and they can still attack you with impunity. They're not limiting attacks to military targets. It is just that simple.
Islam isn't a culture defined by a nation the way the US is, it is a belief system spread across many nations, including the USA. These attacks aren't coming from "some country", they are coming from a culture that has already spread itself across the entire planet. Your arguments about oil fall flat because again, it isn't Iran or Iraq we're talking about here, it is Islam, which is something else again entirely. Oil has only been a factor in the last century; but if you could enquire of the effectiveness of Islam of, for instance, the crusaders, you'd find that oil wasn't a factor - these people fight to the death for ideas they utterly believe in, and that is their strength. Your idea that changing what we use for fuel would kill the demand for oil is wrong as well - oil is fundamental for many other products, plastics and lubricants to name just two.
I am all for nuclear power. However, it doesn't address the problem.
For many, the outlook is simply, if you are going to be dead, there will be no "you" to care. Those who have not adopted an evidence-free position of "afterlife" as promulgated by the various superstitions take this viewpoint. All it takes to consider suicide as the optimum choice is encountering obstacles you are unwilling to face. Perceived or actual. Contrast that with continuous struggle against impossible odds and many will simply opt out. It is not an unreasonable position at this point in history; life-spans remain relatively short. Should we have the opportunity to live for thousands of years, a few years or decades of privation may stack up quite differently in people's minds. As it is, life offers a few short chapters for youthful freedom, child rearing, a little time to settle in with some more sophisticated ideas about life... and then you die. Should something untoward derail you along this path - cancer, a decades long sentence, loss of a loved one - perhaps you'll have had enough a few years early. As for "losing face"... that seems to me to be a concern for those who get their self image from others; or in other words, the very young or the very dim.
Either an unusually profound experience when doing said communing on the one hand, or an unusually shallow understanding of sexuality on the other. Ditto wealth. The only people who claim wealth isn't a significant factor in one's life are those who either have never had it, or have always had it. Anyone who experiences the transition to or from sufficient wealth to live as they chose will learn better in a very short interval. As David Lee Roth said (roughly, from memory): "Money can't buy love, but it can buy you a yacht to pull up next to it." All claims of romantic love aside, he has a point. It is quite easy to be romantic on the bridge of a yacht or over fine wine. It is quite easy to be "swept away" by someone who can, in fact, deal with your earthly cares and bills with a wave of their hand.
Aside from that, the middle ground is probably occupied by reasons that have nothing at all to do with the "divine", experientially or with regard to some putative godhead. Power, for instance. Molesting little boys, for another. Love for architecture (seriously... some churches are amazing.) Respect. Religious experience isn't always defined by divinity.
I'd say they were 100% cognitive in origin, rather than moral, though they can certainly incorporate the moral. Based on the idea that I have never observed behavior that I would call superstitious in an animal. I have seen loyalty earned and then trust violated, but never trust given for no reason for a concept that had no consensual basis in reality. That behavior, I think, is limited to very high powered abstract thinkers - which I believe to be a fair description of those who put together superstition for consumption by the masses. Can such behaviors be explained by biology? Certainly. Ever see a rock make up a story? Of course not, nor have I. We're great storytellers, extremely creative and broadly imaginative. It is our biology that does the task. Scoop out the brain pan of Mark Twain and see what kind of stories you get from him then. As far as the evidence speaks to me, it says everything we do is biological as a first cause.
It is often impossible to tell why a human acts in a particular fashion as well. There appears to be less difference here than you seem to be implying, at least insofar as our present understandings (as opposed to presumptions) can enlighten us. We do not understand
Not at all. The fact is, these things are still 100% accepted by our society, and in some cases, enshrined into law. It is simply that the class which bears the brunt of these actions has changed slightly. For example, the 13th amendment enshrines slavery as perfectly acceptable for the very broad class of people "convicted of a crime", giving it the force of law at the very base of our system. Public executions are still performed, more so and more publicly in countries informed by Sharia law, but we still gather up family, friends and witnesses here in the USA. Rape is common in prisons, and we, as a society, don't even lift a finger to do anything about it - so while it may not have the force of law, it is certainly a normal part of our social functioning. Classing in general has actually devolved in some ways; the Romans wouldn't think twice about knowingly entrusting a homosexual with public office or their children for instruction; our society rarely does this. The Romans also understood that sexually mature teenagers were valid and reasonable sexual partners, while today, classing separates teenagers from (for instance) those in their twenties who might make very good mates indeed for them, as well as sexual mentors. I wouldn't get too excited about any supposed "moral sophistication" of today's society. A lot of that is illusion, more of it is socially enforced style without great moral substance.
What you are talking about here are collisions of culture, which you are conflating with the idea that morals are absolute - which they certainly are not. In the past, when a severe collision occurred, the survivor's answer was to fight until only one culture survives. The Islamists still understand this, but the (quite different) morals of the west reject the idea of putting down an entire culture, even though that culture is polarizing against them in the most obvious manner possible, and has no such scruples. The answer that beckons with survival as the prize - from history - is clear and obvious (and it is the same answer the Islamists have come to.)
When someone has a different set of morals than you do, this does not mean that you are biologically different. Many outlooks are inset at an early age. Some are preset. Depends on the animal how many and which way, but that still leaves more than enough room for the dog that will rescue your broken body, and the dog that will eat you and tear off chunks for its puppies; the person who will help you homestead and the one that will take your land; the priest who will stand between you and your enemy, and the priest who will put you on the rack.
It also doesn't mean that you can "fix" or "educate" those with attitudes that clash with yours. That is why it was traditional - and acceptable - to kill all members who could fight (now, or later, as in male children) of any particular conquered group.
Some morals cost too much; no society can afford to pay with everything they have if they want to survive.
You don't know that. You don't even know when I am acting instinctively. You're trapped in your own head, with no way, as yet, to learn what is motivating any other head.
Why do some aquatic animals push injured companions to the surface so they can breathe? Bottle-nosed Dolphin are known to do this, and so are some aquarium fish. Do you think this is based on "philosophy", or do you think there is some basic hard-wiring in there that arose from a biological imperative similar to the idea that that keeping the group healthy has a generally positive effect on the individual (and hence its genes)?
Why will a cat or dog or pig or any number of other animals accept another species to nurse at its teats, even when, as in many of these cases, said species is considered natural prey or predator?
Why will cats in particular, highly independent creatures who are extremely good at providing for themselves, go into a burning building to attempt to wake and save their owners, sometimes at the cost of their own lives? I understand the argument for saving one's kittens is that of propagating the gene (though cats could always make more kittens, and that is certainly a more effective strategy both at the personal and genetic levels) but why save some human? Cats don't generally need humans for survival. It is just one of several strategies available to them - and they do it. Many convert from one to the other, sometimes more than once. Cognition? Or wiring?
Do ethics and/or morals have to be "systems" in order to be valid, useful, or characterized as such? If yes, why? Could it be that such an outlook is primarily an exercise in hubris? Isn't it sufficient to choose not to do something based on a vague feeling that it isn't the right thing to do, or a simple situational evaluation that detects dissatisfaction as a likely outcome if a particular course is followed, or not?
Do such behaviors have to be high level cognitive products at all? If so, why? Many humans get their ethics and morals "canned", that is, from books or mentors in what amounts to final form. Do this. Don't do that. Most adhere to those admonitions; we generally consider them moral people as long as they do so. But is the bad feeling about taking what is not yours incurred by having your hand smacked by dad for stealing sister's lollipop any different than having your instincts and endocrine system twist your stomach in a knot when contemplating the bloody suffering of another? Both encourage what look like what we commonly call moral behaviors; neither one can reasonably be called "philosophy" on the part of the primary actor by any stretch of the imagination. They both come into play very early in events that call for them.
Personally, I don't think we're nearly as sophisticated as we'd like to imagine. Those of us who exhibit the most "sophistication" usually fall into a category of those who have a lot of time to think available to them, time often provided by channeling wealth from others, one way or another. The rest just muddle along. There are a number of structures in society that have existed for quite a long time that encourage and reinforce this precise pattern.
In the end, these questions all go to how the mind operates, and as we know very little about that, it seems to me that answers which assert certainty are probably untrustworthy at best. No matter the reputation of the "philosopher" who might put those ideas forth.
I am familiar with that page and the procedure there. It doesn't address the problems brought on by 2007-002, it only talks about networks that use WEP and WPA2 security, and in terms of what it refers to, it also predates the release of the 2007-002 update. This is a notice for the much earlier 10.4.8 upgrade, which also broke a lot of people's wifi.
In my situation, (a) there are no WEP or WPA2 networks in the machine's list (or any other networks for that matter), (b) we're not using WEP or WPA2 security, and you can remove the single network and put it back or create new ones all day with no change in behavior. So far, the only known solution is to re-install the OS and not install the 2007-002 update. Which isn't a solution so much as it is ducking a problem Apple should fix.
I did refer to this somewhat obliquely in an earlier post when I mentioned the attempts are adding and removing networks. But thanks for the follow-up.
While you extract your foot from your mouth, go read the threads on the Apple boards. This isn't a figment of my imagination. You, on the other hand, have a technical issue to learn: When something works for one situation, this is no assurance that it will work in other situations. Apple machines present a spectrum of hardware and software configurations to support. Less so than PC's, but still, not uniform. There are legitimate problems here. The fact that you are unwilling to see that discredits you - not me.
Untrue. My macbook pro came with one lousy button. It is brand new - even has the 'n' wifi chipset. I do carry a mouse around because of that; it'd have a been a darned sight more convenient if Apple wasn't still trying to pretend that one button is as functional as two and had bothered to bring the Macbook pro's buttonry into modern times. And yes, I know all about the two-button emulation. Doesn't provide the complete functionality of a two-button mouse. Some things just don't work.
My minis don't have the n-capable chipset. My Macbook pro does - but doesn't have the enabler (there is no n-network in my area.) Both are affected by the update; the mini as a network hub, and the pro as a client to all the networks I have access to, which amounts to about five or six of them. Most of them are Linksys running Linksys firmware, as that's what the local computer guy sells.
I suppose I could add the enabler; maybe that'd get the Macbook up and running. I'll let you know.
Yeah. When I see a post like yours, I have the urge to ask, why didn't you read the thread I linked to before you posted an aggressive reply presuming no troubleshooting has been done? A large number of highly competent people - and yes, that includes me - have done a lot of troubleshooting. Which includes taking these machines right down to the original OS installs, working back up without *any* non-Apple software right to the 2007-002 update, installation of which promptly and reliably hoses the wifi. The mini in my case does indeed have some third party-software on it (Delicious library - nothing else) but this has been ruled out as complicit in the problem; the identical machine (a backup) w/o DL fails the moment the 2007-002 update is installed.
The fact that the update does work for some, does not rule out that it can fail for others. The large (very large!) number of people who showed up on the Apple board immediately after the update with loss of connectivity is a very clear sign that the update has problems. The weeks of troubleshooting and attempt by the community to isolate what might be going wrong which ended up failing to resolve the problem (other than reinstalling the OS and going without the 2007-002 update) are also a sign that this problem is one that is legitimately in Apple's court. It is not unreasonable to expect Apple to address these problems. So try to pull your horns in a bit.
Yes and yes, and no, that's not the case.
That machine has one thing on it that is non-Apple default, and that is Delicious Library. Which is backed up, yes. The rest of the machine isn't; because it can be (and has been) reinstalled from the supplied DVD, followed by installing the Apple updates, to get it right to where I want it to be. Unfortunately, once the 2007-002 update is installed, the wifi immediately goes nipples north. Having determined this, the ball is now in Apple's court. I am running Ethernet until there is a fix. This does not in any way remove the need for Apple to come up with a fix.
You know, people like you should really think a little longer before they get all up in people's faces. If I was "ranting", you'd know it. I'm simply inconvenienced by an error of Apple's; and I am waiting for them to fix it after having determined that the ball is legitimately in their court. In my post, I provided enough detail to make sure that anyone interested enough to reply would have the means to verify what I had to say; I didn't specifically point to the many other threads with similar issues, but they were right there in the same forums to discover as well. And over on Macfixit, etc. Your post is an exercise in (a) not paying attention to what you were told, (b) not looking at the issue via the links provided, and (c) pretending you have insight that others do not. This is no way to make a positive impression.
That's a bit of a tactical issue for me. The mini is part of the home theater system and it lives on a pedestal above the projector where it supplies DVD librarian services to the theater as well as wifi to the household. My home is a mostly open loft with a 204-inch theater, and the pedestal location isn't flexible, nor will it accommodate any additional equipment without being rebuilt. It kind of "owns" the central position in the building. With regard to n-wireless, only the Macbook pro supports this, and I don't find the speed of g-networking to be a problem. Signal strength: I don't have a signal strength problem; and as a matter of fact, until the 2007-002 update... I hadn't had any problems at all. :-)
I think it is reasonable, in my case, to wait for Apple to fix the software so that the mini can source an open network again. It was, after all, one of the selling points of the machine. I do appreciate your suggestion.
If there is a solution today, it's brand new. I'll go look. There *was* a post on removing wep entries for an earlier problem, that sort of thing, but of course if you have no such entries (running unencrypted and there are no other networks in the list) that's not going to fix anything. [surfs over to Apple]
No, nothing new on the issue other than some new messages with people who are having problems. No links to any solutions by Apple. Searching for 2007-002 in Apple support still returns no commentary at all regarding these problems.
Well, some of us want it, but we do appear to be in the minority. You know, you could copy it and leave us with the original - a copy should work fine if you don't elect "we know what's best mommy-staters" (the way we have been doing.) Maybe we can get the original working again. I'd suggest you keep that 2nd amendment, too. If you get in as bad a situation as we are right now, you might need it.
The problem I am talking about first reared its head in the 2007-002 update, not the .9 update (though I have little doubt that it exists there as well.)