People are ignoring the message because the messenger is Bill Gates.
Giving third world children crappy laptops is not going to do anything to help them. First of all, there WILL NOT BE ANY OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE for these laptops... the specs are too different from a normal PC to use normal open source software off the bat, and since the laptop is restricted for purchase to governments, you are not going to have any open source community of hobbiests or developers working on it. ONLY school kids and government officials will have access to these things. Where is the internet connectivity going to come from? Part of giving people laptops is allowing them to contact people in other countries, to establish possible buisness connections, to keep them up to date on weather or medical info, to help them trade seeds and capital goods to spur development, etc. It is a glorified e-book without internet connectivity.
What happens when a family, who makes $200 a year, decides that selling their $100 laptop and buying food is worth more than having a glorified e-book reader? How long is this laptop going to last? What happens if people lose it or it is stolen? What infrastructure is there to repair these things? Are these private property, or owned by the government?
If we really wanted to help the third world, we would stop giving huge amounts of aid and resources to local dictators, and end restrictions on trade and our huge farm subsidies that western countries use to undermind competition from farmers in the third world. The $100 laptop is a feelgood solution looking for a problem.
A major realignment in Congress? A major realignment to what? The chances of the Green Party or the Libertarian party don't seem that good.
If you are talking about a realignment to the Democrats, you will soon realize that the Democrats are as rabid nannie-state authoritarians as the Republics. If fact, placing restrictions on video games, websites, online gambling, etc., is one of those "centrist" issues that Democrats and Republicans usually join forces on.
No, the only thing that will happen next election will be the Dems and Repubs each promising to restrict more.
"Expensive" is a subjective thing. Would $50-$100 be an "expensive" monthly cost for university tution? Would $50-$100 a month be expensive for full health insurance? Certainly $50-$100 would be a cheap price for a car. We would say these things are "cheap", even though we would be paying the same amount of money for those services as high-speed internet. The overwelming vast majority of U.S. households think nothing of spending $50-$100 on cable or sat TV (low income families are actually MORE likely to spend on TV, presumably because they can afford more expensive alternatives for entertainment... so it isn't a question of being "expensive" relative to income).
So, when we say $50-$100 is "expensive", we are making a value judgement. When you are saying $50-$100 for high speed internet is expensive, you are saying that virtually endless access to information from all around the world, and instant global communication, is not worth as much a nice meal at a resteraunt.
High speed internet is "expensive" because we place less value on this truly amazing global information source than we do seeing the latest episodes of The Sopranos. For a truly healthy, modern society, we should see Internet service as vital to our well being as we do education.
In my dreams, I imagine another universe, where gopher became the dominant technology on the Internet instead of the web, and it is great!
I really like the menu tree paradigm instead of the hypertext paradigm... It was simpler, maps better to the whole directory tree structure, and it probably would have created a system less about presentation and more based on information.
Voting was never supposed to put the "best" candidate in power, or a candidate that truly "represents the people". Never, ever, ever. It was supposed to keep political parties battling against each other so that the government would never become too powerful (and thus, oppressive).
Unfortunatly, the government became powerful anyway. So long as the government remains so big and powerful, you are going to have "bad" leaders elected, because the flaw of the system is extreme centralized power, not who wields the power.
"Big Money" in elections is the inevitable result of merging the political and economic. Of course, when you have central planning, huge government contracts, regulations that can destroy competitors, you are going to have "big money" involved in elections.
The Republicans sometimes give some lip service to "less government", but the Republicans have never provided less government, ever, period. Both parties have expanded government regulation as fast as they can, with the only difference being that Republicans can get away with increasing government more than the Democrats, because when Republicans increase government, Democrats complain that Republicans "aren't doing enough", where as when Democrats increase government, Republicans complain about the size of government. This has created the weird situation that the Democrats are actually less for big government than Republicans in practice (Clinton was the biggest fiscal conservative of the 20th Century), although they are clearly for totalitarian government ideologicaly.
What's the political theory that supports the idea that the feds can just demand anything they want and expect to get it?
No one has political theories any more. People have an agenda they want the government to work towards, and the government is simply a machine for promoting the agenda. The "morality" of the government comes from the "morality" of the causes it promotes, not from any idea of what is moral or immoral for a government to do.
So the left are trying to get the government to promote its social agenda, and the right it's own social agenda, and none have any concept of obeying the constitution, or of limited government, seperation of powers, due process, etc. The government is simply the rope in the tug-of-war, or the big club that everyone is trying to grab to beat the "bad guys" on the other side.
I don't know why you would take either side in the Xbox 360 vs. Playstation 3 debate. Even if you don't like Microsoft's buisness practices, Sony has dome some extremly unethical things to customers (Music CDs that install rootkits on your computer, anyone?). And from a Geek perspective, Sony is super annoying (Microsoft actually publishes system specs on it's hardware... where as Sony gives vauge statements about "emotion engines").
The fact is, having more than one game machine and one company dominating the whole industry is a good thing. Having Playstation the MAIN console with everyone else distant competitors (like it has been so long) is a bad thing, having several powerful competitors is a good thing. Don't worry, Sony isn't out of the video game industry yet despite their screw ups, there are too many die hard Sony fanboys for the Playstation 3 to flop. But the good news is that the market will probably be split evenly between the large companies, instead of the Sony quasi-monopoly on consoles.
So, from a consumer perspective, what is there to worry about? If you have extra money to burn, or are impatient, or you could care less which one will be the "winner", buy a Xbox 360 now... or simply wait a few months until the Sony machine comes out, and decide then what is the best console. Why have loyalty to any company (they certainly aren't loyal to us)?
They sold out all the Xbox 360s they made, so if sales are slow it is because they haven't manufactured enough... but I agree with you, the whole benifit of consoles is that you don't have to deal with all the crap setup and compatibility issues that you do on a PC.
Why does repression in one area make respression in another area OK? Just because Tennessee has implemented a backwards and repressive policy restricting videogames, doesn't mean that they need to implement a backwards and respressive policy aimed at citizen disarmament. Just because Tennessee has given up the 1st Amendment on the bill of rights, doesn't mean they should flush the whole constitution away. Instead they should realize that freedom of speech is just as sacred as the right to bear arms, and like the right to bear arms should not be restricted in any way.
I love that the whole "Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theater" arguement, as it is told in the wikipedia article you linked, was created to justify why it was acceptable to jail people for printing fliers against the military draft during WWI.
When you think about it, virtually anything that one doesn't like, can be argued to present some sort of public danger in order to justify censorship. If it is jailing people for questioning the U.S. government in WWI, or argueing against censorship of video games, people who hate free speech always bring that lame "Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theater" arguement around.
Just like we have Godwins law, I propose the egotistically named "Rhino's Law"... it states that "Virtually any speech will be accused by someone of being as dangerous as 'yelling fire in a crowded theater', such that it makes the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' arguement useless."
Come on man, Democrats are just as fear mongering bastards. Will this fictional "successful Democrat" who is a "proud heir to Patrick Henry" stand up for our personal freedom when it comes to our Second Amendment rights? Will they declare that freedom of speech includes the right to run political advertisments within 60 days of an election?
Do you really expect the Democrats to stop fearmongering? Shit, they way Democrats talk, our children are going to die any second unless we ban ads for breakfast cereral! The Democrats are rapid fear-mongering haters of the constitution and individual liberty. The only difference is that the Democrats pander to the fear of a different subgroup of society than Republicans.
Leberman is a Republican? Of course! All Democrats are Republics! Democrats are just Republicans that are too stupid to get elected. But how can anyone but the most brainwashed partisan think that Democrats are even remotely for any sort of personal freedom?
I often think that Republicans and Democrats are really secretly being controlled by the same perople. Give people the illusion of of choice, get them so riled up against the "other party" that they ignore their own party, and no matter what side wins, the government still takes more and more freedom from us.
I don't think people disagree that video games might effect behavior. They just don't like the idea that the government can restrict them from doing an peaceful activity they enjoy.
If only the people who don't want the government to tell them not to play video games, were willing to give others the same right on their prefered activities.
Now I'm a liberal, and proud of it. Why am I a liberal? I like the whole liberty thing.
Liberalism is that? Modern Liberalism is simply Socialism. Socialism is based on the concept of central planning, social engineering, and individual choice giving way to collective decision making. There is nothing involving "liberty" about it. Modern liberals even go so far as to support policies that 20 years ago would have been considered ultra-far-Right (i.e. Swedish Socialists amoung others banning blasphomy and insulting religion after the whole Danish Mohommad newspaper thing... hardcore feminists calling for banning pornography because it "demeans women"... American leftists rallying around the Kelo decision which allows governments to take property from private citizens and give it to big corporations).
Yes, there is "classical liberalism" of the 18th and 19th century, which really did tend to be about liberty. and if you are that type of liberal then I apologize for misjudging you. But virtually no-one who calls themselves a "Liberal" nowadays (at least in North America), means that they are a "classical liberal"
I don't care if someone else's child is going to be harmed by playing a game that their parents shouldn't have let them have in the first place. But "it takes a village to raise a child" as Hillary Clinton would say. Sure, you may not care if some child is harmed, but certain many people do. Part of the whole concept of "social democracy" that is fundamental to Liberalism is that when personal choice and freedom mess with the collective safety and social needs of society, then personal choice and freedom must give way. Your right to play whatever video game you want is not as important as societies need to protect it's weakest member, children.
If you support government regulation, then obviously you must recognize that the government regulators and central planners are much more capable of regulating your choices than you are. If you do not have implicit faith in Democracy to choose regulators who are fair and effective, then how can you complain when people are against any other type of regulation.
Basicly, you need to suck it up. If you support individual freedom, then support it wholeheartedly. But if you want a regulated, supervised, and controlled society, then you are going to have to make sacrifices of choice and personal freedom to have that. You are upset simply because you probably like the types of video games that Hillary Clinton has it in her mind to control, not because you against the government controlling products on the market per say. Everyone loves regulation and government, until they find the thing they enjoy restricted by the government. Unfortunatly, so many "liberals" (and "conservatives" for that matter), are entirely willing to have the things they like regulated, in exchange for the ability to tell everyone else how to live.
Unless you are proposing everyone gets a nuclear reactor on their block... This is not as silly as it might seem. Pebble bed reactors can be built quite small, and quite safe. A Japanese company is building a small pebble bed reactor for a tiny town in Alaska with a few thousand people, so a network of small local reactors is quite reasonable.
The big leap is not the technology, it is the "OMFG, You are going to build a NUCLEAR BOMB next door to me! No way!" reaction to it.
The Rand corporation, back in the 1950s, determined that the U.S. could provide all developing nations with all the power they needed by operating nuclear power plants for them indefinitly, for less than it would cost to fight a single small-scale war (the Iraq wars, for example) every 20 years or so. So one solution to keeping small countries from developing nuclear weapons is to give them non-weapons grade reactor material for free, in exchange for inspections or an agreement to return the waste, or some such plan that will prevent proliferation.
That being said, you can not keep a technology secret forever. Eventually, any government that wants nuclear weapons, will get nuclear weapons. The question we have to ask, is why countries like Sweden, or Canada, or Japan, despite having all the technology they need to build nuclear weapons, currently do not have nuclear weapons? And why do countries like Iran, or North Korea, etc., so desperatly want to get nuclear weapons, even at a high cost and risk?
It seems that this very important government body only has one (yes, only one) PHD scientist on it's board (a metallurgist)... and zero (yes, no-one), with any knowledge of nuclear energy or physics at all!
Nearly all of the people on the board are lawyers, administrators, or prominent members of anti-nuclear organizations.
So a government body of people, with no knowledge whatsoever of nuclear power, and who were already ideologically dead set against nuclear power from the get-go, decided that nuclear power is bad. Wow, what a shock!
Yes, the advanced research determined that if you double the tiny amount of energy produced by nuclear power in England, you get double a tiny amount! Wow! I wonder what happens if you generated ALL OR THE VAST MAJORITY OF ENERGY VIA NUCLEAR ENERGY? I guess that would produce a lot more energy and reduce a lot of greenhouse gases, wouldn't it?
How come people take things like the "Sustainable Development Commission" seriously? I mean, this "commission" is a joke!
If there is a "shortage" of something, whoever has the power to ration that resource has enourmous power. No matter if it is food, water, energy, medical care, whatever... if you can decide who, where, and why one gets the resource, you have an giant stick and a giant carrot to enforce obedience.
No government panel wants a solution to global warming that produces a lot of energy. No one wants there to be plenty of energy for everyone who needs it. They want an excuse to strictly limit and control energy. If they can decide who gets energy, and who doesn't, they have total control in a modern industrialized world.
Wind power, solar power, and such, cannot produce enough energy to satisfy current consumption. Nuclear Energy is the only technology that we have off the shelf that can produce the energy in vast amounts to satisfy our energy hungry society. That is why so many people are so dead against it. How are you going to usher in a new age of central planning and government control if there is no crisis to justify such a thing. Nuclear power is just not acceptable.
Libertarian label so avoid being thought of as a raving fucking lunatic the way people see you "real" Libertarians. Let me get this straight, you voted for a candidate and party that fully supports invading other countries for virtually no reason (Kerry said that he would have invaded Iraq even if there was no weapons of mass destruction for gods sake), that supports locking up millions and millions of Americans for victimless crimes, who almost universally supports the Partiot act and the police state... and the Libertarians are the raving lunatics?
What could the Libertarian party do to be more "reasonable". Perhaps we could advocate nuking Iran? Advocating house to house searches in America without warrents? Refusing to let gays marry? Siezing people's homes to give it to big corporations? Banning video games? Which of these "sane" and "reasonable" Democratic Party positions should we adopt?
I guess if the Libertarians adopted the Republican party platform, as the Democrats have, then we would be considered less of "lunitics"... But then we wouldn't be the Libertarian party, we would be the Democratic party. And looking at the Democratic party as a model, being facist totalitarian pricks doesn't seemed to have helped the Democrats all that much at winning elections.
The Libertarian party will gain no traction as long as it remains so focused on ideals. Learn some fucking pragmatism. Sorry, we are very pragmatic. The U.S. can't continue to exist the way it is, going bankrupt, destroying the economy, and pissing off everyone else in the world. The policies that you support are taking us there. If we imitated you we could get elected, but we would be pushing the country towards national suicide.
Don't, don't, didn't. But were I in a state where the vote could have gone either way, I'd have voted _against Bush_, because in this particular case, I think the lesser of two evils would have been a damn sight better than what we've got. But that's neither here nor there.
You didn't vote against Bush. There is no mechanism in the U.S. election system for voting AGAINST candidates. If Kerry would have won by a landslide, he would not have said "Gee, I guess everyone hates Bush", he would have said "Gee, I guess I have a clear mandate to do all the things I want to do". You voted FOR the Democrats... you voted FOR Kerry. By voting for them, you are wholeheartedly endorsing their ideals. You support censorship! Vote for the lesser of two evils, and gou get, suprise suprise, EVIL!
The Libertarian party is too extreme. If they want to get anywhere, they'll have to meet the people somewhere between their extreme ideals and the reality that the people are living in. Too extreme? The U.S. invaded Iraq with the support of both parties, has started a demostic survailence program with the support of both parties. Has an imprisoned population of around 2 million because of drug laws supported by both parties. The government is running trillion dollar deficits, and increasing spending for everything, and as our country is about to go bankrupt the only comment the Democrats have is that we are not spending enough money? Meanwhile the Republicans are passing laws in South Dakota banning abortion. You don't call that extreme?
Seriously, how could the Libertarian party be any more extreme than the Republicans or Democrats? Have you lost your mind? Libertarians are quite moderate and reasonable. We simply want the type of constitutional liberal democracy that the American was supposed to be. Libertarianism seems extreme to you because Totalitarianism and Extremism has become the norm, and the Libertarians are neither Totalitarian nore Extremist.
Having lived in both Detroit and Tornto, I can tell you the homeless problem in Detroit isn't as bad as Toronto.
The last census count of homeless in Detroit was 1,300... with advocacy groups saying the population is closer to 10,000. Toronto, according to it's last homeless report card had 3,300 - 34,000. (counting homeless is hard, that is why there is the huge range in numbers). But the comparison is consistant no matter how it is estimated: 1,300 low estimate for detroit, 3,300 low estimate for Toronto. 10,000 high estimate for Detroit, 34,000 high estimate for Toronto.
And it makes sense when you look at housing costs. Housing in Detroit is cheap, housing in Toronto is expensive. My best friend purchased a house in Detroit for $100,000 that would cost $1,000,000 in a comparable neighborhood in Toronto (and no, the neighborhood isn't crime ridden, it actually has a crime rate comparible to where I live in Toronto), and that same house went for closer to $10,000 just a couple years ago - my friend just happen to buy in a housing boom. You can rent a decent enough place to live in Detroit for $150 monthly, where as good luck finding anything without cockroaches and mice for less than $800 in Toronto. So it makes a lot of sense that the homeless rate would be higher in Toronto.
You should probably check into things before you jump on with the typical Detroit hatred.
But to the point of the topic, neither Detroit, nor Toronto should be spending a cent on municiple wi-fi. Detroit isn't planning to do that I know of, but Toronto has too many yuppies who will be giddy to use their powerbook in the park to resist.
Living in Toronto, I can't wait. I have always thought that Toronto lacked the kind of nightlife and thrills that say a Miami beach has... I am looking forward to people driving down the street in hot custom cars, the girlies walking around in sexy outfits... the glamour and nightlife. It is great that the people in the majors office have finally come to their senses and realized that we need to make this city HOT! Hell yeah.
Oh wait, they are talking about wireless internet, aren't they? Come on guys, I can just steal that from my neighbor!
Well, the chances of that happening are extremly unlikely, so stop using your irrational fear of the poor and working class as an excuse for your facist politics. You are thousands of times more likely to get killed at the intersection by a soccor mom and her SUV than anyone shooting you.
I love it that people who want to ban firearms always talk about nuclear bombs. Nuclear bombs are not a weapon in any conventional sense of the word.
But in regards to nuclear weapons, I support complete nuclear disarmament... If private citizens are not allowed to own nuclear weapons, then I think governments should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons either. That would avoid any problems of having an "upper class" of the nuclear armed, and a "lower class" of those without nuclear weapons. Since most of the governments on the planet do not have nuclear weapons, and they have only ever been used in war once and it was generally considered a bad idea, there is no reason to believe that nuclear disarmament isn't possible. But even if we accepted the unlikely and a bit silly situation that people would want or could even afford privately owned nuclear weapons, do you think that is some how more dangerous than Bush and Putin having nuclear weapons?
However, I don't see how it would be practicle, or desirable, to eliminate firearms. Firearms are useful for law enforcement, protecting national borders, defense against wild animals, personal defense against criminals, armed revolution against facist governments, sport and hunting, etc., etc... Since we need firearms, they should not be controlled only by an elite ruling class, they should be the property of all the people. An armed population can replace a professional army, and eliminate the danger that a defensive military can be used for imperialism and agression. An armed population can also be the final defense against despotism or government sponsered genocide - if the people are armed, you can have a people's revolution and overthrow the government.
So, my views on weapons, the Constitution, and the views of great advocates of freedom (such as the ones I gave, Ghandi, Malcom X, George Orwell, who were all against gun control), are all very consistant. Gun control, and disarmament of the people is not only reasonable and safe... it is not only completly consistant with the idea that people shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but it is the most important right of all - because an armed population is the final guardian off all democracy and all other rights.
Like I said, those who are for gun control, are for totalitarianism. They are either too smart to admit it, or too stupid to understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
People are ignoring the message because the messenger is Bill Gates.
Giving third world children crappy laptops is not going to do anything to help them. First of all, there WILL NOT BE ANY OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE for these laptops... the specs are too different from a normal PC to use normal open source software off the bat, and since the laptop is restricted for purchase to governments, you are not going to have any open source community of hobbiests or developers working on it. ONLY school kids and government officials will have access to these things. Where is the internet connectivity going to come from? Part of giving people laptops is allowing them to contact people in other countries, to establish possible buisness connections, to keep them up to date on weather or medical info, to help them trade seeds and capital goods to spur development, etc. It is a glorified e-book without internet connectivity.
What happens when a family, who makes $200 a year, decides that selling their $100 laptop and buying food is worth more than having a glorified e-book reader? How long is this laptop going to last? What happens if people lose it or it is stolen? What infrastructure is there to repair these things? Are these private property, or owned by the government?
If we really wanted to help the third world, we would stop giving huge amounts of aid and resources to local dictators, and end restrictions on trade and our huge farm subsidies that western countries use to undermind competition from farmers in the third world. The $100 laptop is a feelgood solution looking for a problem.
A major realignment in Congress? A major realignment to what? The chances of the Green Party or the Libertarian party don't seem that good.
If you are talking about a realignment to the Democrats, you will soon realize that the Democrats are as rabid nannie-state authoritarians as the Republics. If fact, placing restrictions on video games, websites, online gambling, etc., is one of those "centrist" issues that Democrats and Republicans usually join forces on.
No, the only thing that will happen next election will be the Dems and Repubs each promising to restrict more.
"Expensive" is a subjective thing. Would $50-$100 be an "expensive" monthly cost for university tution? Would $50-$100 a month be expensive for full health insurance? Certainly $50-$100 would be a cheap price for a car. We would say these things are "cheap", even though we would be paying the same amount of money for those services as high-speed internet. The overwelming vast majority of U.S. households think nothing of spending $50-$100 on cable or sat TV (low income families are actually MORE likely to spend on TV, presumably because they can afford more expensive alternatives for entertainment... so it isn't a question of being "expensive" relative to income).
So, when we say $50-$100 is "expensive", we are making a value judgement. When you are saying $50-$100 for high speed internet is expensive, you are saying that virtually endless access to information from all around the world, and instant global communication, is not worth as much a nice meal at a resteraunt.
High speed internet is "expensive" because we place less value on this truly amazing global information source than we do seeing the latest episodes of The Sopranos. For a truly healthy, modern society, we should see Internet service as vital to our well being as we do education.
In my dreams, I imagine another universe, where gopher became the dominant technology on the Internet instead of the web, and it is great!
I really like the menu tree paradigm instead of the hypertext paradigm... It was simpler, maps better to the whole directory tree structure, and it probably would have created a system less about presentation and more based on information.
Voting was never supposed to put the "best" candidate in power, or a candidate that truly "represents the people". Never, ever, ever. It was supposed to keep political parties battling against each other so that the government would never become too powerful (and thus, oppressive).
Unfortunatly, the government became powerful anyway. So long as the government remains so big and powerful, you are going to have "bad" leaders elected, because the flaw of the system is extreme centralized power, not who wields the power.
"Big Money" in elections is the inevitable result of merging the political and economic. Of course, when you have central planning, huge government contracts, regulations that can destroy competitors, you are going to have "big money" involved in elections.
The Republicans sometimes give some lip service to "less government", but the Republicans have never provided less government, ever, period. Both parties have expanded government regulation as fast as they can, with the only difference being that Republicans can get away with increasing government more than the Democrats, because when Republicans increase government, Democrats complain that Republicans "aren't doing enough", where as when Democrats increase government, Republicans complain about the size of government. This has created the weird situation that the Democrats are actually less for big government than Republicans in practice (Clinton was the biggest fiscal conservative of the 20th Century), although they are clearly for totalitarian government ideologicaly.
What's the political theory that supports the idea that the feds can just demand anything they want and expect to get it?
No one has political theories any more. People have an agenda they want the government to work towards, and the government is simply a machine for promoting the agenda. The "morality" of the government comes from the "morality" of the causes it promotes, not from any idea of what is moral or immoral for a government to do.
So the left are trying to get the government to promote its social agenda, and the right it's own social agenda, and none have any concept of obeying the constitution, or of limited government, seperation of powers, due process, etc. The government is simply the rope in the tug-of-war, or the big club that everyone is trying to grab to beat the "bad guys" on the other side.
I don't know why you would take either side in the Xbox 360 vs. Playstation 3 debate. Even if you don't like Microsoft's buisness practices, Sony has dome some extremly unethical things to customers (Music CDs that install rootkits on your computer, anyone?). And from a Geek perspective, Sony is super annoying (Microsoft actually publishes system specs on it's hardware... where as Sony gives vauge statements about "emotion engines").
The fact is, having more than one game machine and one company dominating the whole industry is a good thing. Having Playstation the MAIN console with everyone else distant competitors (like it has been so long) is a bad thing, having several powerful competitors is a good thing. Don't worry, Sony isn't out of the video game industry yet despite their screw ups, there are too many die hard Sony fanboys for the Playstation 3 to flop. But the good news is that the market will probably be split evenly between the large companies, instead of the Sony quasi-monopoly on consoles.
So, from a consumer perspective, what is there to worry about? If you have extra money to burn, or are impatient, or you could care less which one will be the "winner", buy a Xbox 360 now... or simply wait a few months until the Sony machine comes out, and decide then what is the best console. Why have loyalty to any company (they certainly aren't loyal to us)?
They sold out all the Xbox 360s they made, so if sales are slow it is because they haven't manufactured enough... but I agree with you, the whole benifit of consoles is that you don't have to deal with all the crap setup and compatibility issues that you do on a PC.
Why does repression in one area make respression in another area OK? Just because Tennessee has implemented a backwards and repressive policy restricting videogames, doesn't mean that they need to implement a backwards and respressive policy aimed at citizen disarmament. Just because Tennessee has given up the 1st Amendment on the bill of rights, doesn't mean they should flush the whole constitution away. Instead they should realize that freedom of speech is just as sacred as the right to bear arms, and like the right to bear arms should not be restricted in any way.
I love that the whole "Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theater" arguement, as it is told in the wikipedia article you linked, was created to justify why it was acceptable to jail people for printing fliers against the military draft during WWI.
When you think about it, virtually anything that one doesn't like, can be argued to present some sort of public danger in order to justify censorship. If it is jailing people for questioning the U.S. government in WWI, or argueing against censorship of video games, people who hate free speech always bring that lame "Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theater" arguement around.
Just like we have Godwins law, I propose the egotistically named "Rhino's Law"... it states that "Virtually any speech will be accused by someone of being as dangerous as 'yelling fire in a crowded theater', such that it makes the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' arguement useless."
Where do we draw the line at what is considered "neglect" by a parent?
Anything that deveates from mainstream, white, upper-middle class values is "neglect".
Come on man, Democrats are just as fear mongering bastards. Will this fictional "successful Democrat" who is a "proud heir to Patrick Henry" stand up for our personal freedom when it comes to our Second Amendment rights? Will they declare that freedom of speech includes the right to run political advertisments within 60 days of an election?
Do you really expect the Democrats to stop fearmongering? Shit, they way Democrats talk, our children are going to die any second unless we ban ads for breakfast cereral! The Democrats are rapid fear-mongering haters of the constitution and individual liberty. The only difference is that the Democrats pander to the fear of a different subgroup of society than Republicans.
Leberman is a Republican? Of course! All Democrats are Republics! Democrats are just Republicans that are too stupid to get elected. But how can anyone but the most brainwashed partisan think that Democrats are even remotely for any sort of personal freedom?
I often think that Republicans and Democrats are really secretly being controlled by the same perople. Give people the illusion of of choice, get them so riled up against the "other party" that they ignore their own party, and no matter what side wins, the government still takes more and more freedom from us.
I don't think people disagree that video games might effect behavior. They just don't like the idea that the government can restrict them from doing an peaceful activity they enjoy.
If only the people who don't want the government to tell them not to play video games, were willing to give others the same right on their prefered activities.
Now I'm a liberal, and proud of it. Why am I a liberal? I like the whole liberty thing.
Liberalism is that? Modern Liberalism is simply Socialism. Socialism is based on the concept of central planning, social engineering, and individual choice giving way to collective decision making. There is nothing involving "liberty" about it. Modern liberals even go so far as to support policies that 20 years ago would have been considered ultra-far-Right (i.e. Swedish Socialists amoung others banning blasphomy and insulting religion after the whole Danish Mohommad newspaper thing... hardcore feminists calling for banning pornography because it "demeans women"... American leftists rallying around the Kelo decision which allows governments to take property from private citizens and give it to big corporations).
Yes, there is "classical liberalism" of the 18th and 19th century, which really did tend to be about liberty. and if you are that type of liberal then I apologize for misjudging you. But virtually no-one who calls themselves a "Liberal" nowadays (at least in North America), means that they are a "classical liberal"
I don't care if someone else's child is going to be harmed by playing a game that their parents shouldn't have let them have in the first place.
But "it takes a village to raise a child" as Hillary Clinton would say. Sure, you may not care if some child is harmed, but certain many people do. Part of the whole concept of "social democracy" that is fundamental to Liberalism is that when personal choice and freedom mess with the collective safety and social needs of society, then personal choice and freedom must give way. Your right to play whatever video game you want is not as important as societies need to protect it's weakest member, children.
If you support government regulation, then obviously you must recognize that the government regulators and central planners are much more capable of regulating your choices than you are. If you do not have implicit faith in Democracy to choose regulators who are fair and effective, then how can you complain when people are against any other type of regulation.
Basicly, you need to suck it up. If you support individual freedom, then support it wholeheartedly. But if you want a regulated, supervised, and controlled society, then you are going to have to make sacrifices of choice and personal freedom to have that. You are upset simply because you probably like the types of video games that Hillary Clinton has it in her mind to control, not because you against the government controlling products on the market per say. Everyone loves regulation and government, until they find the thing they enjoy restricted by the government. Unfortunatly, so many "liberals" (and "conservatives" for that matter), are entirely willing to have the things they like regulated, in exchange for the ability to tell everyone else how to live.
Unless you are proposing everyone gets a nuclear reactor on their block...
This is not as silly as it might seem. Pebble bed reactors can be built quite small, and quite safe. A Japanese company is building a small pebble bed reactor for a tiny town in Alaska with a few thousand people, so a network of small local reactors is quite reasonable.
The big leap is not the technology, it is the "OMFG, You are going to build a NUCLEAR BOMB next door to me! No way!" reaction to it.
The Rand corporation, back in the 1950s, determined that the U.S. could provide all developing nations with all the power they needed by operating nuclear power plants for them indefinitly, for less than it would cost to fight a single small-scale war (the Iraq wars, for example) every 20 years or so. So one solution to keeping small countries from developing nuclear weapons is to give them non-weapons grade reactor material for free, in exchange for inspections or an agreement to return the waste, or some such plan that will prevent proliferation.
That being said, you can not keep a technology secret forever. Eventually, any government that wants nuclear weapons, will get nuclear weapons. The question we have to ask, is why countries like Sweden, or Canada, or Japan, despite having all the technology they need to build nuclear weapons, currently do not have nuclear weapons? And why do countries like Iran, or North Korea, etc., so desperatly want to get nuclear weapons, even at a high cost and risk?
It seems that this very important government body only has one (yes, only one) PHD scientist on it's board (a metallurgist)... and zero (yes, no-one), with any knowledge of nuclear energy or physics at all!
Nearly all of the people on the board are lawyers, administrators, or prominent members of anti-nuclear organizations.
So a government body of people, with no knowledge whatsoever of nuclear power, and who were already ideologically dead set against nuclear power from the get-go, decided that nuclear power is bad. Wow, what a shock!
Yes, the advanced research determined that if you double the tiny amount of energy produced by nuclear power in England, you get double a tiny amount! Wow! I wonder what happens if you generated ALL OR THE VAST MAJORITY OF ENERGY VIA NUCLEAR ENERGY? I guess that would produce a lot more energy and reduce a lot of greenhouse gases, wouldn't it?
How come people take things like the "Sustainable Development Commission" seriously? I mean, this "commission" is a joke!
If there is a "shortage" of something, whoever has the power to ration that resource has enourmous power. No matter if it is food, water, energy, medical care, whatever... if you can decide who, where, and why one gets the resource, you have an giant stick and a giant carrot to enforce obedience.
No government panel wants a solution to global warming that produces a lot of energy. No one wants there to be plenty of energy for everyone who needs it. They want an excuse to strictly limit and control energy. If they can decide who gets energy, and who doesn't, they have total control in a modern industrialized world.
Wind power, solar power, and such, cannot produce enough energy to satisfy current consumption. Nuclear Energy is the only technology that we have off the shelf that can produce the energy in vast amounts to satisfy our energy hungry society. That is why so many people are so dead against it. How are you going to usher in a new age of central planning and government control if there is no crisis to justify such a thing. Nuclear power is just not acceptable.
Libertarian label so avoid being thought of as a raving fucking lunatic the way people see you "real" Libertarians.
Let me get this straight, you voted for a candidate and party that fully supports invading other countries for virtually no reason (Kerry said that he would have invaded Iraq even if there was no weapons of mass destruction for gods sake), that supports locking up millions and millions of Americans for victimless crimes, who almost universally supports the Partiot act and the police state... and the Libertarians are the raving lunatics?
What could the Libertarian party do to be more "reasonable". Perhaps we could advocate nuking Iran? Advocating house to house searches in America without warrents? Refusing to let gays marry? Siezing people's homes to give it to big corporations? Banning video games? Which of these "sane" and "reasonable" Democratic Party positions should we adopt?
I guess if the Libertarians adopted the Republican party platform, as the Democrats have, then we would be considered less of "lunitics"... But then we wouldn't be the Libertarian party, we would be the Democratic party. And looking at the Democratic party as a model, being facist totalitarian pricks doesn't seemed to have helped the Democrats all that much at winning elections.
The Libertarian party will gain no traction as long as it remains so focused on ideals. Learn some fucking pragmatism.
Sorry, we are very pragmatic. The U.S. can't continue to exist the way it is, going bankrupt, destroying the economy, and pissing off everyone else in the world. The policies that you support are taking us there. If we imitated you we could get elected, but we would be pushing the country towards national suicide.
Don't, don't, didn't. But were I in a state where the vote could have gone either way, I'd have voted _against Bush_, because in this particular case, I think the lesser of two evils would have been a damn sight better than what we've got. But that's neither here nor there.
You didn't vote against Bush. There is no mechanism in the U.S. election system for voting AGAINST candidates. If Kerry would have won by a landslide, he would not have said "Gee, I guess everyone hates Bush", he would have said "Gee, I guess I have a clear mandate to do all the things I want to do". You voted FOR the Democrats... you voted FOR Kerry. By voting for them, you are wholeheartedly endorsing their ideals. You support censorship! Vote for the lesser of two evils, and gou get, suprise suprise, EVIL!
The Libertarian party is too extreme. If they want to get anywhere, they'll have to meet the people somewhere between their extreme ideals and the reality that the people are living in.
Too extreme? The U.S. invaded Iraq with the support of both parties, has started a demostic survailence program with the support of both parties. Has an imprisoned population of around 2 million because of drug laws supported by both parties. The government is running trillion dollar deficits, and increasing spending for everything, and as our country is about to go bankrupt the only comment the Democrats have is that we are not spending enough money? Meanwhile the Republicans are passing laws in South Dakota banning abortion. You don't call that extreme?
Seriously, how could the Libertarian party be any more extreme than the Republicans or Democrats? Have you lost your mind? Libertarians are quite moderate and reasonable. We simply want the type of constitutional liberal democracy that the American was supposed to be. Libertarianism seems extreme to you because Totalitarianism and Extremism has become the norm, and the Libertarians are neither Totalitarian nore Extremist.
Having lived in both Detroit and Tornto, I can tell you the homeless problem in Detroit isn't as bad as Toronto.
The last census count of homeless in Detroit was 1,300... with advocacy groups saying the population is closer to 10,000. Toronto, according to it's last homeless report card had 3,300 - 34,000. (counting homeless is hard, that is why there is the huge range in numbers). But the comparison is consistant no matter how it is estimated: 1,300 low estimate for detroit, 3,300 low estimate for Toronto. 10,000 high estimate for Detroit, 34,000 high estimate for Toronto.
And it makes sense when you look at housing costs. Housing in Detroit is cheap, housing in Toronto is expensive. My best friend purchased a house in Detroit for $100,000 that would cost $1,000,000 in a comparable neighborhood in Toronto (and no, the neighborhood isn't crime ridden, it actually has a crime rate comparible to where I live in Toronto), and that same house went for closer to $10,000 just a couple years ago - my friend just happen to buy in a housing boom. You can rent a decent enough place to live in Detroit for $150 monthly, where as good luck finding anything without cockroaches and mice for less than $800 in Toronto. So it makes a lot of sense that the homeless rate would be higher in Toronto.
You should probably check into things before you jump on with the typical Detroit hatred.
But to the point of the topic, neither Detroit, nor Toronto should be spending a cent on municiple wi-fi. Detroit isn't planning to do that I know of, but Toronto has too many yuppies who will be giddy to use their powerbook in the park to resist.
Living in Toronto, I can't wait. I have always thought that Toronto lacked the kind of nightlife and thrills that say a Miami beach has... I am looking forward to people driving down the street in hot custom cars, the girlies walking around in sexy outfits... the glamour and nightlife. It is great that the people in the majors office have finally come to their senses and realized that we need to make this city HOT! Hell yeah.
Oh wait, they are talking about wireless internet, aren't they? Come on guys, I can just steal that from my neighbor!
Well, the chances of that happening are extremly unlikely, so stop using your irrational fear of the poor and working class as an excuse for your facist politics. You are thousands of times more likely to get killed at the intersection by a soccor mom and her SUV than anyone shooting you.
I love it that people who want to ban firearms always talk about nuclear bombs. Nuclear bombs are not a weapon in any conventional sense of the word.
But in regards to nuclear weapons, I support complete nuclear disarmament... If private citizens are not allowed to own nuclear weapons, then I think governments should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons either. That would avoid any problems of having an "upper class" of the nuclear armed, and a "lower class" of those without nuclear weapons. Since most of the governments on the planet do not have nuclear weapons, and they have only ever been used in war once and it was generally considered a bad idea, there is no reason to believe that nuclear disarmament isn't possible. But even if we accepted the unlikely and a bit silly situation that people would want or could even afford privately owned nuclear weapons, do you think that is some how more dangerous than Bush and Putin having nuclear weapons?
However, I don't see how it would be practicle, or desirable, to eliminate firearms. Firearms are useful for law enforcement, protecting national borders, defense against wild animals, personal defense against criminals, armed revolution against facist governments, sport and hunting, etc., etc... Since we need firearms, they should not be controlled only by an elite ruling class, they should be the property of all the people. An armed population can replace a professional army, and eliminate the danger that a defensive military can be used for imperialism and agression. An armed population can also be the final defense against despotism or government sponsered genocide - if the people are armed, you can have a people's revolution and overthrow the government.
So, my views on weapons, the Constitution, and the views of great advocates of freedom (such as the ones I gave, Ghandi, Malcom X, George Orwell, who were all against gun control), are all very consistant. Gun control, and disarmament of the people is not only reasonable and safe... it is not only completly consistant with the idea that people shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but it is the most important right of all - because an armed population is the final guardian off all democracy and all other rights.
Like I said, those who are for gun control, are for totalitarianism. They are either too smart to admit it, or too stupid to understand it.