Personally, I'd LOVE to see politicians lose rights. Something like, when entering public office, your activities must be logged and recorded at all times during the day. You must wear a webcam on your head, with a direct feed to a public domain.
Yeah, try to be corrupt and shifty when THAT'S going on. I tell you what, I'm a LOT more afraid of people like Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. (note: Those three listed only because they're in office) than any Osama Bin Laden. And since we still haven't located the latter of those, we should be keeping tabs on THEM. (It may seem cruel and invasive, and counter-productive, but hey, when someone acts like a child, you treat 'em like one)
Actually I'm 20 years old, and I don't drink. Not because of the age limits, but just because I've tasted some beer, and... I think it tastes awful. (Also, I'm pretty sure at this point, someone is supposed to respond with "American beer is shit," "You need to try ________ instead," etc. but honestly, I don't care. My father's been an alcoholic, my grandfather, my uncle... it's all over my family, and I don't care to try. Did I mention I have problems with my pancreas which may not like alcohol and I have asperger's disorder so I don't get out and socialize anyway?)
Sorry, but, as an American, I feel obligated to take all my solutions in pill form. Don't you have some kind of confidence boosting pill I could take?
Anyway, back on topic, the teacher-to-be in question, from what I can tell, was the appropriate age at the party. I mean, unless she was handing out spiked punch to 19 year olds hanging around, she did nothing illegal. Or, even immoral, as far as most people will be concerned. So, how exactly was she "promoting underage drinking?" We get a lot of stupid lawsuits in this country, but if she did nothing wrong, this isn't one of them.
The Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, Versailles, vineyards, cuisine, literature...
What the fuck is wrong with you people and the mockery of France? Has the country made some stupid decisions? Yes. As have all countries. (America's made plenty. More than I care to list.) But France has massive amounts of culture. In Paris alone... it's staggering. To say the French have no culture is like saying that Rome has no history. You only make yourself out to be an ignorant dumbass.
And the cynicism in my mind tells me the reality is more likely to cause these people with high risk to live long enough to reproduce (sometimes quite a lot), but not very well, and often sending people into debt. Thus, the bad genes remain prominent, those with them have money problems that also get passed on, and costs still rise for everyone in general.
The analogy was simply a statement to say that politicians in office today are too old-fashioned (read: out of date) to possibly understand modern technology. Similarly, a combustion engine is probably a bit beyond a random farmer from the Middle Ages. Technological advancements seem to go hand in hand with educational advancements.
And I object to being called a fat American fucktard. I'm a rather skinny and pasty American fucktard, thank you very much, and I am part French, so I'm well aware of their culture and language.
This is true. But, IIRC, wasn't its initial purpose something along the lines of military communication in the event of an emergency? I seem to recall something like that, and I'd like to see what senators/reps. and such were involved.
Regardless, it feels almost like the Internet was an accident in that way. A great accident, IMHO, but an accident nonetheless. And I can't help but feel the vast majority of lawmakers have no clue as to the Internet or how it works. To be fair, I'll admit my knowledge of the infrastructure of the net is rather limited, but on the other hand, that would be why I don't submit proposals for new laws on it. I just can't help but get this feeling like we're trying to explain a combustion engine to 4th century British peasants.
Reading about the idea here, I can't help but think, "What the hell were they thinking?" I mean, how many spammers are "legit" anyway? How many would listen to such a list? How would this generate a profit when it would obviously require extensive maintenance and, of course, the buttload of lawsuits that would happen (let's face it, what DOESN'T end in a lawsuit these days?)?
I have an idea. Let's tinker and fine-tune the law to say "Politicians of any race, creed, party, or ideology shall not be allowed to use, be near, or think about any piece of technology more advanced than the ballpoint pen. Nor shall any legislation based on said technology ever be even mentioned."
I don't think I've ever read anything good come out of any proposal made by a politician about the Internet. Senators, Representatives.... Please, go home (walking in the snow, uphill both ways, of course) back to your world where the only "net" you know anything about is for fishing. Leave the Internet and its policies to people who aren't you.
No, I'm pretty sure it's because he was being a troll.
Let's take a comparison: What he COULD have said: "Copyright infringement is still illegal, and ISPs are not being forthcoming with help, because piracy only helps their business model. If the cops and the ISPs won't comply, what alternatives are there?" What he said: "Pirates are criminals, people who pirate are bad, and people here just won't admit it because they like to pirate."
To get your point across, you don't need to insult or demean your audience, especially when you know your opinion is unpopular. ("I'm just in the right-minded minority!" That rarely manages to boost support to your side, right or wrong.)
If they were, I'd like to ask them where they've been. In America alone, there are 300,000,000 arrest warrants out for "aggravated, unprovoked assault on language" and we only see ONE arrest NOW?
And isn't that what much of science is about? "His idea seems wacky. I can't believe it. Of course, I don't have much evidence to prove my ideas, either..." This is why there's a "hypothesis" stage in the scientific method: Because people tend to have guesses or ideas, even if there is no evidence to suggest a result. The difference is, in science, one accepts that their bias is just that: a bias, and that reality will not bend or warp itself to match up with a bias.
In the case of the GP, he seems to feel that even if we discovered life exists on other planets, it'd be pretty useless to us, as they'd be too far away too reach or communicate with. I'm sure he's thought that he could be wrong, but given the information he's observed, it's merely the most logical conclusion (for him).
Wow. That's very efficient. In most other nations, we usually have to wait for the votes to be counted and the politicians sworn in BEFORE their policies start killing people.
Another cluster of galaxies destroyed due to a shortage of human horn... (they should just come here to/.!)
Still, it is mind blowing... but now, add to this the theories about time and how we perceive it, and you have the perfect conversation for Thanksgiving dinner when you want to baffle, confuse, and scare everyone else at the table.
Personally, I'm not religious... at all... but I like to sum up life as this: Even God has to shit sometimes, and just hope you're not standing under Him.
I beg your pardon, but the FSM is a fake! I always pray to the Almighty Bob. I heard of His good name when the mayor came to speak of him in my quiet sandwich shop, and it has changed my life.
To be fair, I'm not an advocate of "humans are soooooooooo much better than animals." I just believe that humans are, for the most part, the most logic-based species. *Insert a flurry of jokes about how illogical most humans really are* I believe contemplating the finer points of existence is difficult even for us, so to assume other animals on Earth can, well... I'd like to see some evidence first (assuming we CAN...) My point was just that a lot of life on Earth is unaware of its own existence... or, pretty much, as far as we know, unaware of ALL things (plants are living creatures, after all). So the idea that life inherently has meaning just seems a little weird.
Of course, many counter this by saying animals ARE soulless, inferior creatures put on this Earth for OUR benefit. This makes me wonder what benefit sealife in volcanic vents provides us. And who could dare say this to the face of an adorable puppy?
Let's give the devil his due here. We can say that the FSM didn't REALLY make the world because we know people made him up as a clever parody of modern religious stupidity. With many different strong religions out there, there IS a possibility that at least one of them at its core isn't complete crap. Or maybe they all are, and God is an unknown, unspoken deity... or maybe it all depends on how you "define" God. Or... who cares? We're here, we're bipedal carbon-based life forms capable of analyzing our surroundings, get used to it.
Who knows... Someday, you may just get touched by His Noodly Appendage. R-amen.
In my professional opinion (and by professional, I mean "one I came up with while eating cookies at my desk and not working on an essay due in several hours"), people say it because it makes them feel like their life has a purpose. Doing good in the name of the Lord gives a reason for life. A reason to get up in the morning. They can HELP someone, and they KNOW it has to be a good reason, because, like, God told them to, supposedly.
At least, that's what I've figured out from listening to some of my relatives. Me, on the other hand... I'm agnostic, because I can't say there's NO chance that there is a God... but really, to me, I think the universe can be summed up in two words: Shit happens.
My aunt told me there must be a God because she couldn't face the world if there weren't. I didn't say this to her, but I thought, "Well, good for you. But, guess what: The Universe doesn't give a flying fuck about what you, or I, or anyone for that matter, thinks about it. If you gave up on life, the world would keep spinning, gravity would keep on pulling, men would be men, women would be women, and small blue creatures from Alpha Centauri would still be small blue creatures from Alpha Centauri." (Apologies to Douglas Adams for that last bit)
Basically, I believe the very concept of "meaning" is a human invention. Deer, fish, and elephants don't really care why they exist. They just do. But humans have grown intelligent enough (well, some of us, anyway) to ask "why are we here?" Unfortunately, there's no Intergalactic or Interdimensional phonebook to let us ask potential Creators or other races their opinions. So, humans had to make their own reasons, or else it got very depressing to think we'd suffer in life for no real reason and then just die.
Thus, if humans "created" meaning to feel better, we can say there really was no meaning before us...
Oh, if you can't tell, I'm a real SMASH at parties. I really brighten up the room.
This is why I don't care much for HD. I just want to sit down and watch my God damn show or (more often) play my damn game. When you start talking about if the eye can even take in all that data and from what distance, what size screen... it's too much.
It's still a fucking TV. Does it really matter just how blue X celebrity's jeans look? The reason I've stopped watching as much TV as I used to is because it's become so mindless... or at least I've come to realize how mindless it is. The picture is fine to me, even on my tiny, CRT 19" screen. HD might be a nice bonus, but it's just not worth the headache, the price, and the uncertainty.
What of the idea to have "Truth in Online Advertising?" So, for example, if I enter "Metal Gear Solid" into a google search, I don't get sent to www.DonkeyShow.com? There should be SOME relevancy between a keyword and the site's content...
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I'd LOVE to see politicians lose rights. Something like, when entering public office, your activities must be logged and recorded at all times during the day. You must wear a webcam on your head, with a direct feed to a public domain.
Yeah, try to be corrupt and shifty when THAT'S going on. I tell you what, I'm a LOT more afraid of people like Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. (note: Those three listed only because they're in office) than any Osama Bin Laden. And since we still haven't located the latter of those, we should be keeping tabs on THEM. (It may seem cruel and invasive, and counter-productive, but hey, when someone acts like a child, you treat 'em like one)
Actually I'm 20 years old, and I don't drink. Not because of the age limits, but just because I've tasted some beer, and... I think it tastes awful. (Also, I'm pretty sure at this point, someone is supposed to respond with "American beer is shit," "You need to try ________ instead," etc. but honestly, I don't care. My father's been an alcoholic, my grandfather, my uncle... it's all over my family, and I don't care to try. Did I mention I have problems with my pancreas which may not like alcohol and I have asperger's disorder so I don't get out and socialize anyway?)
I think of it another way. Captain Kirk once said, Alcohol is the cause of, and solution to, most of life's problems.
Government is the cause of all of life's problems, but have legislation preventing the solutions from being released to the general public.
Sorry, but, as an American, I feel obligated to take all my solutions in pill form. Don't you have some kind of confidence boosting pill I could take?
Anyway, back on topic, the teacher-to-be in question, from what I can tell, was the appropriate age at the party. I mean, unless she was handing out spiked punch to 19 year olds hanging around, she did nothing illegal. Or, even immoral, as far as most people will be concerned. So, how exactly was she "promoting underage drinking?" We get a lot of stupid lawsuits in this country, but if she did nothing wrong, this isn't one of them.
*Sigh* I should know better, but...
The Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, Versailles, vineyards, cuisine, literature...
What the fuck is wrong with you people and the mockery of France? Has the country made some stupid decisions? Yes. As have all countries. (America's made plenty. More than I care to list.) But France has massive amounts of culture. In Paris alone... it's staggering. To say the French have no culture is like saying that Rome has no history. You only make yourself out to be an ignorant dumbass.
And the cynicism in my mind tells me the reality is more likely to cause these people with high risk to live long enough to reproduce (sometimes quite a lot), but not very well, and often sending people into debt. Thus, the bad genes remain prominent, those with them have money problems that also get passed on, and costs still rise for everyone in general.
As much as I know not to feed AC trolls...
The analogy was simply a statement to say that politicians in office today are too old-fashioned (read: out of date) to possibly understand modern technology. Similarly, a combustion engine is probably a bit beyond a random farmer from the Middle Ages. Technological advancements seem to go hand in hand with educational advancements.
And I object to being called a fat American fucktard. I'm a rather skinny and pasty American fucktard, thank you very much, and I am part French, so I'm well aware of their culture and language.
Why, this handy dandy bill is fool-proof child molester repellent! ...What's that? Can I prove that? Do you see any child molesters around here?
This is true. But, IIRC, wasn't its initial purpose something along the lines of military communication in the event of an emergency? I seem to recall something like that, and I'd like to see what senators/reps. and such were involved.
Regardless, it feels almost like the Internet was an accident in that way. A great accident, IMHO, but an accident nonetheless. And I can't help but feel the vast majority of lawmakers have no clue as to the Internet or how it works. To be fair, I'll admit my knowledge of the infrastructure of the net is rather limited, but on the other hand, that would be why I don't submit proposals for new laws on it. I just can't help but get this feeling like we're trying to explain a combustion engine to 4th century British peasants.
Reading about the idea here, I can't help but think, "What the hell were they thinking?" I mean, how many spammers are "legit" anyway? How many would listen to such a list? How would this generate a profit when it would obviously require extensive maintenance and, of course, the buttload of lawsuits that would happen (let's face it, what DOESN'T end in a lawsuit these days?)?
I have an idea. Let's tinker and fine-tune the law to say "Politicians of any race, creed, party, or ideology shall not be allowed to use, be near, or think about any piece of technology more advanced than the ballpoint pen. Nor shall any legislation based on said technology ever be even mentioned."
I don't think I've ever read anything good come out of any proposal made by a politician about the Internet. Senators, Representatives.... Please, go home (walking in the snow, uphill both ways, of course) back to your world where the only "net" you know anything about is for fishing. Leave the Internet and its policies to people who aren't you.
No, I'm pretty sure it's because he was being a troll.
Let's take a comparison:
What he COULD have said: "Copyright infringement is still illegal, and ISPs are not being forthcoming with help, because piracy only helps their business model. If the cops and the ISPs won't comply, what alternatives are there?"
What he said: "Pirates are criminals, people who pirate are bad, and people here just won't admit it because they like to pirate."
To get your point across, you don't need to insult or demean your audience, especially when you know your opinion is unpopular. ("I'm just in the right-minded minority!" That rarely manages to boost support to your side, right or wrong.)
If they were, I'd like to ask them where they've been. In America alone, there are 300,000,000 arrest warrants out for "aggravated, unprovoked assault on language" and we only see ONE arrest NOW?
And isn't that what much of science is about? "His idea seems wacky. I can't believe it. Of course, I don't have much evidence to prove my ideas, either..." This is why there's a "hypothesis" stage in the scientific method: Because people tend to have guesses or ideas, even if there is no evidence to suggest a result. The difference is, in science, one accepts that their bias is just that: a bias, and that reality will not bend or warp itself to match up with a bias.
In the case of the GP, he seems to feel that even if we discovered life exists on other planets, it'd be pretty useless to us, as they'd be too far away too reach or communicate with. I'm sure he's thought that he could be wrong, but given the information he's observed, it's merely the most logical conclusion (for him).
Wow. That's very efficient. In most other nations, we usually have to wait for the votes to be counted and the politicians sworn in BEFORE their policies start killing people.
Another cluster of galaxies destroyed due to a shortage of human horn... (they should just come here to /.!)
Still, it is mind blowing... but now, add to this the theories about time and how we perceive it, and you have the perfect conversation for Thanksgiving dinner when you want to baffle, confuse, and scare everyone else at the table.
Personally, I'm not religious... at all... but I like to sum up life as this:
Even God has to shit sometimes, and just hope you're not standing under Him.
But the odds of anyone building an improbability drive are highly improbable! ....WHOA! *Zaps off to another planet*
I beg your pardon, but the FSM is a fake! I always pray to the Almighty Bob. I heard of His good name when the mayor came to speak of him in my quiet sandwich shop, and it has changed my life.
Thank you, and may Bob bless you.
Okay, this fish analogy is getting confusing. Who's who? And does anyone have tartar sauce?
Is there a chance the track could bend?
To be fair, I'm not an advocate of "humans are soooooooooo much better than animals." I just believe that humans are, for the most part, the most logic-based species. *Insert a flurry of jokes about how illogical most humans really are* I believe contemplating the finer points of existence is difficult even for us, so to assume other animals on Earth can, well... I'd like to see some evidence first (assuming we CAN...) My point was just that a lot of life on Earth is unaware of its own existence... or, pretty much, as far as we know, unaware of ALL things (plants are living creatures, after all). So the idea that life inherently has meaning just seems a little weird.
Of course, many counter this by saying animals ARE soulless, inferior creatures put on this Earth for OUR benefit. This makes me wonder what benefit sealife in volcanic vents provides us. And who could dare say this to the face of an adorable puppy?
Let's give the devil his due here. We can say that the FSM didn't REALLY make the world because we know people made him up as a clever parody of modern religious stupidity. With many different strong religions out there, there IS a possibility that at least one of them at its core isn't complete crap. Or maybe they all are, and God is an unknown, unspoken deity... or maybe it all depends on how you "define" God. Or... who cares? We're here, we're bipedal carbon-based life forms capable of analyzing our surroundings, get used to it.
Who knows... Someday, you may just get touched by His Noodly Appendage.
R-amen.
In my professional opinion (and by professional, I mean "one I came up with while eating cookies at my desk and not working on an essay due in several hours"), people say it because it makes them feel like their life has a purpose. Doing good in the name of the Lord gives a reason for life. A reason to get up in the morning. They can HELP someone, and they KNOW it has to be a good reason, because, like, God told them to, supposedly.
At least, that's what I've figured out from listening to some of my relatives. Me, on the other hand... I'm agnostic, because I can't say there's NO chance that there is a God... but really, to me, I think the universe can be summed up in two words: Shit happens.
My aunt told me there must be a God because she couldn't face the world if there weren't. I didn't say this to her, but I thought, "Well, good for you. But, guess what: The Universe doesn't give a flying fuck about what you, or I, or anyone for that matter, thinks about it. If you gave up on life, the world would keep spinning, gravity would keep on pulling, men would be men, women would be women, and small blue creatures from Alpha Centauri would still be small blue creatures from Alpha Centauri." (Apologies to Douglas Adams for that last bit)
Basically, I believe the very concept of "meaning" is a human invention. Deer, fish, and elephants don't really care why they exist. They just do. But humans have grown intelligent enough (well, some of us, anyway) to ask "why are we here?" Unfortunately, there's no Intergalactic or Interdimensional phonebook to let us ask potential Creators or other races their opinions. So, humans had to make their own reasons, or else it got very depressing to think we'd suffer in life for no real reason and then just die.
Thus, if humans "created" meaning to feel better, we can say there really was no meaning before us...
Oh, if you can't tell, I'm a real SMASH at parties. I really brighten up the room.
This is why I don't care much for HD. I just want to sit down and watch my God damn show or (more often) play my damn game. When you start talking about if the eye can even take in all that data and from what distance, what size screen... it's too much.
It's still a fucking TV. Does it really matter just how blue X celebrity's jeans look? The reason I've stopped watching as much TV as I used to is because it's become so mindless... or at least I've come to realize how mindless it is. The picture is fine to me, even on my tiny, CRT 19" screen. HD might be a nice bonus, but it's just not worth the headache, the price, and the uncertainty.
What of the idea to have "Truth in Online Advertising?" So, for example, if I enter "Metal Gear Solid" into a google search, I don't get sent to www.DonkeyShow.com? There should be SOME relevancy between a keyword and the site's content...