The pointlessness of a two-party system based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Sadly, when you look to countries which have more workable multi-party systems you often see far more political instability. Look at Japan, many European countries and so on - weak coalitions that are easily toppled as political allegiances change.
I'm not advocating a two-party system as perfect. I just can't see anything better in practice today.
The political instability in these countries has more to do with their form of government, not the number of parties that participate. Most of these countries have a Prime Minister or equivalent. The Prime minister is the head of state / head of the executive, but is a member of the legislature. This means he can be voted out (vote of no confidence) by the legislature at any time.
These governments can be considered unstable, but you also have to consider the fact that they are also more responsive. When the leaders can be voted out at a moments notice instead of waiting 4 years, things tend to happen quicker!
"There's no situation where a teenager needs to drive over 80, probably; that only occurs on the highway, and most parents probably aren't going to let their teenagers drive on the interstate."
Where do you live where parents don't let their teenagers drive on the interstate? That sounds fairly impractical in any large city.
Here's a question for you: how many buildings have you seen collapse that were not due to a controlled demolition? How many buildings have you seen collapse due to earthquake? Unless you've seen quite a few of these, then you have no basis for comparison between the controlled and non-controlled demolitions. These buildings are designed to collapse a certain way, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Maybe this is to limit the damage to surrounding areas?
But that IS like a top. When the top stops spinning, it restabilizes in a way that most people aren't very comfortable with: by falling over and lying still.
"Allow me to translate Ms. Wilderman's words into plain English: 'Mr. Deeb hasn't actually violated any law or regulation that I can find, but I don't like what he's doing because I'm ignorant and irrationally afraid of chemicals, so I'll abuse my power to steal his property and shut him down."
appears nowhere in the linked article, yet kdawson has chosen to sensationalize by adding his own words and making it look as if they were part of the article.
In fact the article actually states:
"Mr. Deebâ(TM)s home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties. "
Maybe you should read the summary again. The part where he says "Allow me to translate" is enough to let any reader with common sense know that he was adding his own words, and that those words summed up his own sensationalist viewpoint. Any rational person would know that this sentence was NOT a part of the article.
Furthermore, you respond with a correct quote from the original article, but ignore the fact that the sensational editorializing was in response to another correct quote from the same article; the one that is actually in the summary and begins with "I think Mr. Deeb. has crossed a line somewhere .."
There may be plenty of problems with this summary but yours do not hold up.
When the officer says, "This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation," he's implying a zoning violation. It can be answered with, "This is not what we consider to be a customary neighborhood nuisance." Zoning laws should protect people from things like junk yards, car dealerships and noisy manufacturing. Going after this man is a stretch of those intentions.
Not to mention that zoning laws are intended to section off areas of the community for business, manufacturing, and residence. They usually don't apply to hobbies.
The big bang theory is not derived from man's egotistical need to be at the center of anything. Hell, in the Big Bang theory, we AREN'T in the center of anything. We are there, but definitely not the center. As opposed to earlier model's concerning earths orbit around the sun, the big bang theory was proposed to explain solid evidence that had been collected and because logically most things do have a beginning and an end. Also, it isn't that "this is all we know" but more like "this is what has held up to the most scrutiny and still explains the data"
There are multiple simpler theories that predict certain things. String theory comes along and kind of predicts the same things, you just have to add a whole lot of "extra shit" for it to work. Therefore, string theory fails occam's razor. How does this string of logic fail your definition?
I'm pretty sure that was exactly his point. He's saying that an interaction force would be produced when this astronomical event occurs, therefore the word "smashing" would apply just as much as it applies when dealing with rocks and windows.
Every problem has a solution? What about the problem of people inevitably hacking into this car to car network and causing all kinds of mayhem and destruction? We can't even get the simplest pieces of electronic equipment secure from hacking so I don't see it happening with a car. For that matter, what about when the owner tries to tinker with his own car, causing all kinds of mayhem and destruction? And finally, what about the problem of the government or various agencies getting their very own back door into this system, so that when an individual ends up "wanted for questioning" as soon as he gets into a car, it takes control and delivers him to the nearest gestapo station? What about how really simple it would be, once you have this infrastructure in place, for all these automated cars to record or report its whereabouts to some random authority? Add these hypotheticals to the scenario you described where it would be illegal to take back manual control and you have all kinds of icky situations coming up.
I generally agree with you, it is sometimes hard to get decent help when the staff has no incentive to give it to you, but you are changing the argument. The discussion was not about how helpful the staff is; rather, it was about salespeople trying to upsell a product that you really don't need. Personally, I'd much rather have the salesman leave me alone until I am ready for help, instead of being harassed about the brand new shiny merchandise on display.
"salesmen are going to sell you the most expensive machine they'll be able to sell you"
I disagree. How many computer salesmen work for commission? The teenage part-time salesman working at Best Buy or the electronics section of Wal-Mart doesn't care about squeezing a couple hundred dollars more out of you, no matter what corporate says. I've purchased a few computers and laptops over the years, and they always shoot straight with me. Yeah, they try to sell just to get a sale, but I've never seen a computer salesman try to force a bigger sale. Maybe that's the case if you tried to buy directly from Dell or something, but I don't think the type of purchaser who would do that is who you were originally talking about.
The point is, people buy much more expensive machines than what they need, because they don't know what the hell they are doing, and they get help from the geek of the family.
"More people under 30 get their news from Jon Stewart than any other source. Worse though is the fact that Stewart's fake news is better than the real news."
Maybe it's actually more people under 30 get their news from Jon Stewart than from any other source BECAUSE OF the fact that Stewart's fake news is better than the real news.
Jon Stewart probably spends a lot more time discussing important topics than mainstream media. He might do so in a humorous way, but the content is still there.
From what I understand, that is not exactly true. You can download whatever you want, and there really isn't much the authorities can do to you. The problem comes in when you download something, and then make that file available for other's to download from you. The RIAA does not prosecute the sharee; it prosecutes the sharer.
I say enjoy it while it lasts, however long that may be. Can you just imagine some time in the future when these types of kids start making nostalgic murals of power rangers or pokemon or 64 bit mario?
Your argument would make sense if a 30 year old made this mural, but that is not the case. The people who did this are current high schoolers, and they did it for their own amusement, not for us old timers.
The term graffiti has very negative connotations, because most people think this means that no permission was given for the project. The website says permission was given, and in fact this mural was done by a legitimate school club. As for your assertion that the project is lame, well it is a mural of very popular video game characters, isn't it? I think that satisfies the nerd requirement here. So what is the problem here? Are you simply against a few high schoolers having a little fun?
This isn't about each student's ability to gain admission into college. The schools are doing this because when students get good grades, the school gets recognition and money. If more students take harder classes and therefore get lower grades, the school gets less money and less recognition. Therefore, make everyone take classes they will get A's in and all is good.
I disagree. If an oil company were to acknowledge they had such a device, the government would take control of it under the auspices of "the public good" or other such nonsense. This government would then have complete control of energy production, effectively killing the oil company. Therefore, the best option for the oil company would still be to pay off the inventor and keep the device a secret.
Slashdot Mirror
The pointlessness of a two-party system based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Sadly, when you look to countries which have more workable multi-party systems you often see far more political instability. Look at Japan, many European countries and so on - weak coalitions that are easily toppled as political allegiances change.
I'm not advocating a two-party system as perfect. I just can't see anything better in practice today.
The political instability in these countries has more to do with their form of government, not the number of parties that participate. Most of these countries have a Prime Minister or equivalent. The Prime minister is the head of state / head of the executive, but is a member of the legislature. This means he can be voted out (vote of no confidence) by the legislature at any time. These governments can be considered unstable, but you also have to consider the fact that they are also more responsive. When the leaders can be voted out at a moments notice instead of waiting 4 years, things tend to happen quicker!
"There's no situation where a teenager needs to drive over 80, probably; that only occurs on the highway, and most parents probably aren't going to let their teenagers drive on the interstate." Where do you live where parents don't let their teenagers drive on the interstate? That sounds fairly impractical in any large city.
Why is a poorly sourced, unconfirmed story from the Reg posted on the front page? VERY slow news day?
But trolls used to be *good* right??
Here's a question for you: how many buildings have you seen collapse that were not due to a controlled demolition? How many buildings have you seen collapse due to earthquake? Unless you've seen quite a few of these, then you have no basis for comparison between the controlled and non-controlled demolitions. These buildings are designed to collapse a certain way, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Maybe this is to limit the damage to surrounding areas?
But that IS like a top. When the top stops spinning, it restabilizes in a way that most people aren't very comfortable with: by falling over and lying still.
Unfortunately for us, the USDA recommended amount of freedom fries is severely limited. Damned trans-fats!
The summary text
"Allow me to translate Ms. Wilderman's words into plain English: 'Mr. Deeb hasn't actually violated any law or regulation that I can find, but I don't like what he's doing because I'm ignorant and irrationally afraid of chemicals, so I'll abuse my power to steal his property and shut him down."
appears nowhere in the linked article, yet kdawson has chosen to sensationalize by adding his own words and making it look as if they were part of the article.
In fact the article actually states:
"Mr. Deebâ(TM)s home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties. "
Maybe you should read the summary again. The part where he says "Allow me to translate" is enough to let any reader with common sense know that he was adding his own words, and that those words summed up his own sensationalist viewpoint. Any rational person would know that this sentence was NOT a part of the article. Furthermore, you respond with a correct quote from the original article, but ignore the fact that the sensational editorializing was in response to another correct quote from the same article; the one that is actually in the summary and begins with "I think Mr. Deeb. has crossed a line somewhere . ."
There may be plenty of problems with this summary but yours do not hold up.
When the officer says, "This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation," he's implying a zoning violation. It can be answered with, "This is not what we consider to be a customary neighborhood nuisance." Zoning laws should protect people from things like junk yards, car dealerships and noisy manufacturing. Going after this man is a stretch of those intentions.
Not to mention that zoning laws are intended to section off areas of the community for business, manufacturing, and residence. They usually don't apply to hobbies.
The big bang theory is not derived from man's egotistical need to be at the center of anything. Hell, in the Big Bang theory, we AREN'T in the center of anything. We are there, but definitely not the center. As opposed to earlier model's concerning earths orbit around the sun, the big bang theory was proposed to explain solid evidence that had been collected and because logically most things do have a beginning and an end. Also, it isn't that "this is all we know" but more like "this is what has held up to the most scrutiny and still explains the data"
There are multiple simpler theories that predict certain things. String theory comes along and kind of predicts the same things, you just have to add a whole lot of "extra shit" for it to work. Therefore, string theory fails occam's razor. How does this string of logic fail your definition?
how do you get "allowing the parents to do and see whatever they want on the computer" from "reality of privacy"?
I'm pretty sure that was exactly his point. He's saying that an interaction force would be produced when this astronomical event occurs, therefore the word "smashing" would apply just as much as it applies when dealing with rocks and windows.
*puts on tinfoil hat*
Every problem has a solution? What about the problem of people inevitably hacking into this car to car network and causing all kinds of mayhem and destruction? We can't even get the simplest pieces of electronic equipment secure from hacking so I don't see it happening with a car. For that matter, what about when the owner tries to tinker with his own car, causing all kinds of mayhem and destruction? And finally, what about the problem of the government or various agencies getting their very own back door into this system, so that when an individual ends up "wanted for questioning" as soon as he gets into a car, it takes control and delivers him to the nearest gestapo station? What about how really simple it would be, once you have this infrastructure in place, for all these automated cars to record or report its whereabouts to some random authority? Add these hypotheticals to the scenario you described where it would be illegal to take back manual control and you have all kinds of icky situations coming up.
I generally agree with you, it is sometimes hard to get decent help when the staff has no incentive to give it to you, but you are changing the argument. The discussion was not about how helpful the staff is; rather, it was about salespeople trying to upsell a product that you really don't need. Personally, I'd much rather have the salesman leave me alone until I am ready for help, instead of being harassed about the brand new shiny merchandise on display.
"salesmen are going to sell you the most expensive machine they'll be able to sell you" I disagree. How many computer salesmen work for commission? The teenage part-time salesman working at Best Buy or the electronics section of Wal-Mart doesn't care about squeezing a couple hundred dollars more out of you, no matter what corporate says. I've purchased a few computers and laptops over the years, and they always shoot straight with me. Yeah, they try to sell just to get a sale, but I've never seen a computer salesman try to force a bigger sale. Maybe that's the case if you tried to buy directly from Dell or something, but I don't think the type of purchaser who would do that is who you were originally talking about. The point is, people buy much more expensive machines than what they need, because they don't know what the hell they are doing, and they get help from the geek of the family.
"More people under 30 get their news from Jon Stewart than any other source. Worse though is the fact that Stewart's fake news is better than the real news." Maybe it's actually more people under 30 get their news from Jon Stewart than from any other source BECAUSE OF the fact that Stewart's fake news is better than the real news. Jon Stewart probably spends a lot more time discussing important topics than mainstream media. He might do so in a humorous way, but the content is still there.
I think you may have missed the /sarcasm tags
From what I understand, that is not exactly true. You can download whatever you want, and there really isn't much the authorities can do to you. The problem comes in when you download something, and then make that file available for other's to download from you. The RIAA does not prosecute the sharee; it prosecutes the sharer.
I say enjoy it while it lasts, however long that may be. Can you just imagine some time in the future when these types of kids start making nostalgic murals of power rangers or pokemon or 64 bit mario?
Your argument would make sense if a 30 year old made this mural, but that is not the case. The people who did this are current high schoolers, and they did it for their own amusement, not for us old timers.
The term graffiti has very negative connotations, because most people think this means that no permission was given for the project. The website says permission was given, and in fact this mural was done by a legitimate school club. As for your assertion that the project is lame, well it is a mural of very popular video game characters, isn't it? I think that satisfies the nerd requirement here. So what is the problem here? Are you simply against a few high schoolers having a little fun?
This isn't about each student's ability to gain admission into college. The schools are doing this because when students get good grades, the school gets recognition and money. If more students take harder classes and therefore get lower grades, the school gets less money and less recognition. Therefore, make everyone take classes they will get A's in and all is good.
Instant Messaging!
I disagree. If an oil company were to acknowledge they had such a device, the government would take control of it under the auspices of "the public good" or other such nonsense. This government would then have complete control of energy production, effectively killing the oil company. Therefore, the best option for the oil company would still be to pay off the inventor and keep the device a secret.