True, but he did not have a majority. Under my system (which I believe is the same system for Senate elections in Louisiana), there would have been a runoff between Gore and Bush. But because the liberal voters would know this would happen, there would be no reason NOT to vote for Nader, which would have given Bush the lead in the general election, and he would have lost the run off. It would have looked something like this:
General Election: Gore: 41% Nader: 10% Bush: 49%
Runoff: Gore: 51% Bush: 49%
Of course, I would still like to see the electoral college stay intact as well where the winner would have to win both the electoral and the popular vote. If not, another run off. Without the electoral college, candidates would only campaign in the top 10 cities and blow off the rest. Why campaign in Utah and Idaho when you get more votes for your dollar by campaigning in Chicago and LA?
This is exactly why we need a viable third party that can field actual candidates
We will not have a viable third party until we change the election laws require the winner to have a majority. Basically, we would have the election with all participants. If no candidate has a majority, then the two top candidates have a runoff. This would have prevented Clinton from winning in '92 due to Ross Perot and Bush winning in 2000 due to Ralph Nader. The way it is right now, a vote for the Green Party takes a vote away from the Democrats (usually) and a vote for Libertarians takes a vote from the Republicans (usually).
Unfortunately, I don't see any such election overhaul happening anytime soon.
In response to Rwanda, that was a civil war between the Hutu and the Tutsi, neither of which is a church. Just like the US Civil War was not about religion, neither was Rwanda's.
As for the "Western Meddling" excuse for Islamic rage, it doesn't really explain all the other Islamic terror NOT in the west. One example would be the Christian school girl beheadings I linked to in the parent post. Other examples would be attacks in Somalia, Pakistan and Thailand. All three of the attacks were today, by the way, just today! None of these were attacks against the West. So either we have really good security here in the west or Muslims are angry about more than "Western Meddling".
First, in response to the whole Muslims are merciful bit, I invite you to read this post. So either Muslims are not doing what they are taught when the kill all these people, or they are being taught something different entirely. Now, I understand that there are really peaceful muslims, but it seems to me that everywhere that Islam takes hold, shit like the examples I've given become more and more common.
As for abortion doctor bombings... How many of those have happened this century? (here is hint, it's looks like a capital "Oh") Do you really think it is a fair comparison to compare abortion clinic doctor murders to Islamic terrorism? How many planes have Christians hijacked and rammed into hospitals or clinics that perform abortions?
And while I certainly don't condone abortion bombings, I still don't think it is fair to compare it to Islamic terrorism. Theo van Gogh was murdered for making a movie that Muslims didn't like. He was killed because he hurt someone's feelings. The fatwa taken out of Salmon Rushdie was taken because he insulted Islam. No one was hurt, mind you, just insulted. An abortion doctor is murdered because he is going to be killing babies in the eyes of his killer. There is a difference between feeling insulted and genuinely thinking you are saving a life. Again, I don't condone it, but it is not a fair comparison.
workers have a right to unionize, and the tactics that walmart (and some others) use to prevent unionization are illegal.
And Walmart has the right to hire and fire who they like. Why is that hard so hard for union likes to understand? If you feel you need to be part of a union to get a better deal from your employer, tell your boss to fuck off and go find a job that gives you that better deal without fucking it up for the rest of us.
You see, every time I've worked at a job that had a union presence, I was fucked because I did not belong to the union. No matter how much I busted my ass, I could not get promoted because that fat, lazy bastard who was always late, always left early, never missed a break and didn't work the rest of the time was hired two weeks before me. That means that he was in line to get promoted before me. Sure, they'd like to fire him, but they can't because he's union. So, they promote some other loser from another department who has been here two weeks longer than the fat-ass above me and transfer him to my department. Now I'm stuck under two lazy bastards until my manager gets smart and writes them glowing evaluations so he can transfer their fat asses out of our department! Of course, I usually quit long before that happens and find a job where I can get paid according to my abilities and effort, not time in service.
Yeah...at least in some fantasy world where "U.S." cars aren't made in Mexico. Where, I understand, there aren't any maquiladora labor unions.
Gee, when I lived in Lansing Michigan, I had no idea I was in Mexico! When did Mexico annex Lansing, Cadillac, Flint, Novi, Grand Rapids, Detroit, Toledo, Findlay, Columbus, Indianapolis, San Antonio and all the other places where I saw cars, trucks or auto parts being made?
Christians are taught to forgive. Muslims are taught to die in defense of Islam. Wrong.
Both are supposedly taught to forgive. It only took me about a minute on Wikiquote: Really? Do you think Theo Van Gogh would agree with that. Of course not! He's dead. He was murdered for making a film that offended Muslims. Actually, "The filmmaker focused on the shameful abuse of Muslim women by Muslim men in Europe."
Why don't you ask those three Christian school girls that were beheaded in Indonesia. Well, since the girl's are dead, I'm sure their parents of these dead girls will like to hear how forgiving and tolerant Islam really is. I think the beheading of their teenage daughters kinda gave them the wrong idea.
You should tell the brothers of Hatin Surucu that Islam is forgiving. You see, her brothers killed her. They said, "The Whore Lived Like a German". I don't think they got the same memo you did about Islam being forgiving. I think they either didn't read the Quran verse you quoted or read several others that contradicted it.
Want to tell me some more how Islam is a forgiving religion of peace? There were several terrorist attacks this weekend I can link.
The Crusades To recapture the Holy Land and much of Europe from Muslim invaders. This happened how may hundreds of years ago.
WW2 (remember, the Germans were christians and they didn't forgive the Jews/athiests for being different). Uh, the Nazis were not Christians. Sorry.
Spanish Inquisition. This was a purging of Muslims (Moors) from Spain. Unfortunately, Jews were lumped in as well. Anyway, how many hundreds of years ago was this?
No one race/religion/group is perfect, so pull your head outta your ignorant ass.
I never said that. I said that an "artist" dumps a cross in a jar of piss and it is called art. Same when an "artist" makes a portrait the Virgin Mary out of elephant dung or porn pictures. Even more recent was a chocolate Jesus in New York. Patrons were invited to "nibble their favorite part". Of course, all of this is encourage to show freedom of speech and expression.
But, Holy Shit! Have Opus make a comment that could be considered offensive to Muslims and a bunch of "free speech supporters" from Berkley and several other newspapers from around the country ban it.
So rather put words in MY mouth, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and start writing these newspapers the same letters you would write them if they banned the cartoon because it is offensive to Christians. You know you would be having a shit-fit if you thought this was because these newspapers didn't want to offend Christianity. If not, you are showing your own personal biggotry against Christianity.
As for the censorism: I am sure Slashdot will be full of "we wouldn't censor stuff like this if it was about Christianity/etc., so why should we pander to Islam?". Now, technically that is correct - far worse material appears about Christianity than Islam; there is far more sensitivity towards Islam. However, I don't think that makes it wrong to do so. As I see it, there is a solid basis for attempting to not offend Muslims (whereas what I am about to say now is extremely offensive to them): They can't take a joke. Just like if you have a sensitive neurotic kid in your neighborhood, you wouldn't call him names in jest that you would call everyone else.
I call bullshit! As a Christian, seeing a Cross dipped in a jar of urine is just as offensive as a Mohamed giving Peter a salmon helmet is to a Muslim. The difference is that I won't go blow shit up over it. Christians are taught to forgive. Muslims are taught to die in defense of Islaam. THAT is the difference. That sensitive neurotic kid will carry a can a gasoline over to your house and burn it down while you sleep. Of course, he'd make it a point to pour most of the gasoline in the doorways to prevent escape and start the fire in the baby's room, just to make sure his point gets out on the 5 O'clock news.
So this isn't about sensitivities toward Muslims. It is about a fear of reprisal. Which is what really pisses me off. When the gov't does something to fight terrorism, people say it's all about fear and that they would rather die than have the government listen to their phone calls, if they should ever make one to Pakistan. But when a liberal newspaper bows in submission to Islam, people make excuses about some politically correct bullshit.
And those 3 reasons are a huge part of why desktop Linux has been on life support for years, way too much effort has been devoted to them. Nerds concentrate on those features and don't get me wrong they are important. What constantly gets left out is usability, installation needs to be simple enough that I can give my parents a CD/DVD and let them install it. There needs to be a consistent UI between applications and components. Installing software must not require editing config files and if additional components are needed then it should just be a click Yes to install additional components.
I wholeheartedly agree, but I just considered that type of thing more Distro development than Linux dev. On that same train of thought though, I would like to see a easy to use, consistent software installation manager across distros.
Visual coherency and a refined GUI. Taste in UI's vary between people, but most linux GUIs that aren't very minimalist tend to suffer from wasted space.
Granted, this is important to the Linux community, but when I hear Linux development, I think kernel, modules, and organization (like what goes in/etc, what goes in/bin, what goes in/usr/bin, and so on). Things like KDE, Gnome and other window managers are merely applications as far as I'm concerned and should be considered no more Linux development than, say, Open Office. Of course, I don't mean to say your view is wrong in the least. I just considered the question more narrow than you did and wanted to explain why I didn't consider any X development as part of the question. Also, since X relies on video hardware, I'd consider X and XGL/Compiz-Fusion/Beryl to be categorized under hardware support.
In interests of making linux more accessible, more configuration utilities that don't require specific knowledge and in-errant editing of configuration text files.
Good point, or better yet, make these files standard across distros so the same configuration utilities works as well on Gentoo as Ubuntu.
A standard method for installing applications across distros would be nice too. I forgot to mention that!
I strongly disagree. There are very effective ways to keep teens away from porn. They involve teaching a kid to respect themselves and others.
Yeah, that works real well until your 15-yr-old's gf/bf dumps him/her for a new partner who is 21, has a car, their own place, can buy beer and puts out regularly. This usually happens right before that "respect yourself and others" bullshit goes out the window.
"My question: is there ever a case for letting national security issues dictate the limits of an open source project?"
I doubt it. Once the genie is out of the bottle, there is no way to get it back in. Shutting down a project because the enemy is using will not stop the enemy, just ourselves!
"While evolution can explain a variety of life within species, it can not explain why different species exist." oh great macro vs. micro evolution, say you separate a population into two groups, they'll start evolving in different directions, remember, random mutations, but each group shares the mutations through breeding inside its own group.. make enough mutations, and members from one group won't be able to interbreed with members from the other, voila a new species, I don't understand why people still buy that micro vs. macro evolution argument.. Sorry, I used the wrong term. I meant to go the other way and use Kingdom instead of Species. You are correct in that evolution does explain different species. Once a group of creatures is no longer able to reproduce with another, they could be considered a different species (in a very broad sense).
As to my first paragraph, no one can explain how the loss of the ability to photosynthesize (or thermo or whatever) could be a beneficial trait that would allow for a species to survive and reproduce better than its photosynthesizing ancestors. According to evolution that says that positive traits are passed down their offspring, we should all be green and have the ability to fill our mouths with dirt and water and lay out in the sun when we get hungry and can't find a blueberry to eat.
Then again, maybe (probably... OK, certainly) I'm missing large parts of the picture. I am not qualified to dispute evolution at all. But as far as faith goes, I find evolution to be much more of a miracle than God simply setting "Let it Be" (and it was). The more complicated life the universe and everything becomes, the more I'm in awe of the Creator. (and by Creator of Life, The Universe and Everything, I do not mean Douglas Adams!)
**Disclaimer** I am an organic chemist... but only by marriage. Just as my wife, who has a degree in chemistry is a computer geek by marriage;-)
Alright, this is a dead thread, reply if you like, but I won't. I think we can agree to disagree. We do agree on this point:
the parent has the power to make the decision. The difference is that I believe that if it truly is the parent's say, then the parent should be present when purchasing an adult product, like a video game. Laws that require a parent to be present reinforce this and truly give the parent the final say. If a child can not purchase a game without a parent, then I think it is quite obvious that the parent truly has the power. I fail to understand how allowing children to make such a purchase without a parent somehow gives the parents the final say. It appears that the law is saying that the children have the final say. Striking down laws actually take the power away from parents, but leaves them with the responsibility.
As for the reasons for the rulings: 1) I fail to see how making a purchase is protected under free speech. The right of the game makers to produce such as game can be considered such, but I don't see how playing it could be. An example would be that I have the right to say whatever I like, but that doesn't mean you have a right to listen. In the same vein, I have a right to produce whatever game I like, but that doesn't me you have a right to buy it. 2) Children don't have free speech rights as consumers without parental permission and businesses do not have the right to sell to children. Examples would be the upheld laws that forbid strip clubs and tobacco adds within a certain distance from schools. Kids are not allowed to purchase certain products such as tobacco and alcohol. As for free speech in general, that is still out for debate. Cases have gone both ways. One example would be a student that lost a case when he sued after being expelled for writing a poem about Columbine from the first person as a shooter.
We also agree that it is not the responsibility of retailers to raise children. Nor is it the responsibility of retailers to enforce the law. However, these arguments could be used by liquor stores just as easily as Best Buy. While I understand that alcohol and tobacco can physically harm children, if children have the same rights as adults, the it is their right to harm themselves. You can't say kids have rights when it comes to one product and not another. To do so shows governmental favoritism for one company's product over another. All companies are equal under the law! The fact that some products are harmful doesn't apply either. Twinkies and coffee are harmful as well, but they are not banned. And even if you can apply the harmful argument, research still shows that violent video games are harmful to children. Only they are harmful to the psyche instead of the liver or lungs.
In all reality, our little discussion here is irrelevant as current laws have been shot down and new laws will be passed and tested again.
guess my general question to this kind of thing is: if someone somehow disproved the existence of god, would you be able to accept it? I don't think it's possible to truly disprove god, but just theoretically? Can you imagine letting it go?
Unfortunately, disproving God is just as likely as proving God. Actually, proving God is MORE possible since God can come down and say, "Here I am!" But the lack of God is not disproof.
I ask because I think that all of my most deeply held beliefs could be turned over if someone showed me a convincing proof. I've let go of dear convictions before in the face of strong evidence, and I think that is what any true explorer of life has to do. You may be able to hold on to a belief in god your whole life, and that's fine, but if you can't even imagine letting it go then you've crossed into irrationality.
If you no longer challenge your beliefs, how do you know if you believe them? Your last sentence should be modded up all by itself!
Disclaimer: I'm not trolling; I'm genuinely curious.
How is it that you can be both a geek and a believer in a god, especially an omnipotent and omniscient one?
In saying you're a geek, I assume you're a pretty intelligent fellow who uses reason to form his view of the universe. I assume you don't follow crowds, that you evaluate products you buy on their merits, and that, at least sometime in your life, you've reasoned out who would win in a battle between two fantasy characters.
How is it, then, that you make a special exemption for your god? How do you reconcile the inherent illogic of religion with the rest of your life?
Well, as seeing my first explanation was downmodded as "overrated", I'm reluctant to answer. I'm sorry, but that is the biggest piece of shit mod EVER! But you asked, much like the GP, so I'll answer.
At first, it was because it was what I was told from birth. I won't deny that. I am Christian, but had I been born to a Jewish family, I'd be Jewish. I won't say that my faith is any more "right" or important than others (provided it's not something utterly stupid (Scientology) or didn't exist 100 years ago (Spaghetti Monster, Scientology, Wicka)).
But as far as general faith goes, there came a time when I had to stop and evaluate it, and decide what is right. (I feel that this is necessary for any aspect in people's life. If you don't challenge yourself, how do you know for sure!) I guess my main reason could be answered by the first cause argument and Genesis. No one outside of a church can answer "why?". Sure, science can say that there was a small singularity that exploded and created everything, but they can't tell me why. And even if they could some day have an explanation as to why, they couldn't tell me why that was. There will always be a why that science can not answer. And no, to you philosophy majors, "Why Not" is not a valid answer. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Everything that exists, was created. These two laws contradict each other. Now do I think the Universe was made in six 24-hr days days? Probably not. (Why should I assume that God runs on a 24-hr day calendar. Besides, what was a day when there was not sun or earth?) But to look at the size and complexity of the Universe and think that it just appeared by chance is a bit hard for me to swallow. Something like that must have a creator.
Next, evolution. I consider evolution and see that aspects of it are correct. Mutations exist. Some, although very few are beneficial. But evolution can answer one basic question. Why are there plants and animals? According to evolutionary biologists, life started as a single, photosynthesizing (or thermo-synthesizing or whatever) cells. Life took energy from light or heat and converted it into energy and used that to make copies of itself. Pretty simple, makes sense. But at some point, that life evolved into life that didn't produce it's own energy and lived off of cells that did. This branch led to animals. Well, there had to be a first one, right? How did it survive? I mean, when all cells are photosynthetic. A mutation that can not photosynthesize will not survive long enough to mutate a mouth to eat the plant life! And if it mutated with a mouth first, why did it lose the ability to photosynthesize. It seems to me that the ability to make your own food from heat or light would be a pretty beneficial trick! Why would evolution dump such an ability from animal life? Beneficial traits simply do not get dumped by evolution. Evolution will pass an appendix down to me but not chlorophyll? I think we got robbed!
Next, Why would life ever evolve beyond the algae stage in the first place? Algae has everything it needs. Of course, algae can mutate, but into what? I could see it being able to mutate so that it survives close to the equator than it does near the poles, but other than that, there's really not a whole lot of improvement you can do for something that floats around and turns ligh
If this is proven to be fact ( and i dont think this really *proves* anything. Its still theory ), how is this going to sit with the religions of the world that truly think we are the only ones 'god' created?
As a believer and geek, let me tell you I see it.
I think it is unreasonable and arrogant to think that an infinite being (God) would just create one planet with life. Why would we place such limits on an omnipotent and omnipresent God?
The problem is, how do you know its the parents making that decision?
You don't. And you don't need to. It's none of your business, and most certainly none of the government's.
So, the government is either allowed to make laws in this regard or they are not. You can't say that it's OK to put age restrictions on purchasing arms, which is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution by NAME, but not on video games, which are not mentioned. And before you say "freedom of speech", the speech the founders were referring to was political speech, as in, you are allowed to criticize the government. Freedom of expression is not mentioned. For that matter, neither is freedom of commerce. The only way a video game can considered free speech is if it's free, as in beer.
Also, here is what Judge Richard A. Posner said:
'Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.'"
Sounds to me like HE (speaking for the state) is making the final say, not the parents. Do you agree that the state should decide when my children can be exposed to violence?
No, the judge did NOT say that, nor did any of the other judges who shot down these laws. Stop putting words in other people's mouths. I didn't. I evaluated what the ruling meant. You said that parents have the final say. The result of this law is the exact opposite. Parents do NOT have the final say. The judge himself said parents making that decision would be would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it. Now, if the laws were banning these games completely, he would have a point, but that was not the case. These laws forced the parents to decide, and he thought parents would over shield their children. That's MY decision, not his!
Unlike you, I comprehended it all. Which is why, for your convenience, I've changed the emphasis to show why it doesn't even approach the conclusiveness you need to be taken seriously on a forum, let alone successfully defend a law in court. Funny, when I list an article that was written in the '90's, you say it's too old. When I list an article that says the same thing, from 2003, you say it doesn't mean anything. YOU set up the rules by saying that "Rational people do not ignore scientific research". I provided that research. Research, btw, only suggests. Research doesn't "prove", especially when dealing with something as fluid as psychology. For there to be laws in psychology, all people would have to act the same to stimuli, and they don't. I'm sorry if those with doctorates disagree with what you "think", but a rational person wouldn't let their personal opinions interfere with the years of research that went into these studies.
But, if you don't like my sources, I'll even offer a few more. HERE (PDF warning) HERE (update of above, also pdf) HERE (Last edited 11/9/05) HERE and HERE
Of course, there are several more, but a "rational person" would get the idea. Besides, from the looks of the judges
You don't. And you don't need to. It's none of your business, and most certainly none of the government's. Alright, First things first. Does the government have any rights whatsoever in limiting what children can do without their parents. This means going into bars, drinking, renting porno's driving, whatever? Does the government have the right? I think they do. And if they do when it comes to pornography and cigarettes, then they do when it comes to video games. Otherwise, I could simply say, "It's none of your business, and most certainly none of the government's." just like you did. Is it my business if the neighbor's 5-yr old smokes? Is it my business if the neighbor's 5-yr old is selling crack? So I ask again, does the government have any business in our lives. If you say NO, then read no further, you are too far gone to think rationally. If you say yes, then it most certainly IS the government's business!
Neither. You simply keep mischaracterizing others' arguments via gross distortion. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now and assume you're not doing it on purpose. You have a point. When you said, "No, it does not. You do not get to decide games are or are not appropropriate for someone else's kid. Ever." I assumed that you were saying it was the kid's parents to decide. So tell me, is it up to the kids parents or not? Who makes the decisions, the parent or the kid? The judge said it's the kid's decision. Who's decision to you think it is?
Nonsense. Parents already have the final say over what games the kids can play without these laws in place (remember, none of them have survived court challenges or even been enforced). Their ability to stand up in court has nothing to do with whether or not they make sense or a good idea. The judge said that they "impede free speech". Really? What "speech" is involved in buying a fucking video game? Besides, as long as the kids got their parent's permission, these laws didn't impede shit! If a parent bought the game, they could play all they wanted. These games were never banned! So tell me, do you really think it makes sense to say that something that is NOT banned somehow impedes free speech?
How can you defend allowing children to purchase violent video games without a parent's knowledge by saying "parents have the final say"? You are contradicting yourself. When these laws were in effect, parents had the final say. Now the kids do. The judge took the parents out of the equation. The judge took the final say and gave it to the kids. I agree that parents have the ultimate responsibility, but that's different than saying "they have the final say". The judge said, "You don't need parents to purchase these games." How does that give parents the final say?
Putting the law in place, on the other hand, puts an undue burden onto the government and the retailers to play backup parent. Undo burden? "Uh, do you have ID?" Really? Is that really that hard? They already ask for ID for alcohol, cigarettes and lottery tickets, sinus medicine and even spray paint! What makes video games an undo burden? And it's not even all games, just the ones labeled "Contains violent content. Must be 18 and over to purchase this game". Gee, I thought figuring sales tax was an undue burden!
The only thing a parent gains from these laws is a convenience to which they are not entitled. Wait! Parents are not entitled to convenience in raising their kids, but their kids are entitled to adult video games? Why do kids have more rights than their parents?
Read it, don't just quote it. The first one is long outdated and suggests a correlation (correlation != causation), and the second is nothing but speculation (nor does it pretend to be). This is why the laws keep getting shredded in court. The evidence is weak. 2000 and 2003 are outdated? Hell, if I quoted Freud, it would still be a LOT more recent than the scientific research you quoted! Besides, I think the o
You mistake their purpose. They seek to make us bow and huddle in terror, not to kill us. Think about why we call them terrorists instead of murders. No, I'm pretty sure they want us all dead. If they could kill all of us, I'm sure they would gladly oblige. The purpose of genocide is not submission.
If I have done nothing wrong, then they should have no right to have a file on me what so ever, at least not on things which should be private. Like what, exactly? Do you know what is in your file? Do you know what was in anyone's file? How do you know it's not just an accumulation of all the other crap other agencies have one you, like income, credit history, bank records, previous addresses and so on. What makes you think your favorite sexual position is listed somewhere in a NSA database?
To be honest, its just something that makes it easier for them to abuse in unlawful ways. Name for me a tool that is used for crime fighting or investigation that does NOT make it easier for them to abuse in unlawful ways. Just one. Should we take phones out of all government offices? After all, they could be used to make abusing your rights easier. Are any tools really abused in unlawful ways to take away your rights? Are your Constitutional rights squelched? Have you ever been asked for you papers? Have you ever been denied or even had to request travel within the US? NO! Why do you think a bunch of ones and zeros on a government bank of hard drives is going to change any of that at all. How can data kept anywhere have any effect on you. Data can't keep you from going to work. Data can't keep your from speaking out. Data can not keep you from going to church. A database can not touch you in any way shape or form. I'll grant you that people can, but if that was their goal, they would already be doing it with or without this database.
If your rights are being violated, there are many major media outlets that would love to be the first to break your story! You'd be the number ONE on Keith Uberman tonight and the see through flat-screen on Bill Mahr! There would be protests all over the country with people screaming "One Two Three Four! Kick Bush's out right out the Door!" How does this database make the government immune from the press and the public?
Maybe you should be going after your imaginary boogie-men before you take away tools for honest men and women who really just want to make a career out of protect you and me. Now I understand you probably think that view is a bit optimistic, and maybe it is, but it's certainly more likely than your scenario of men with black suits want to watch all Americans, all the time so that they can lock all Americans in their homes and say "Boo!" in your window late at night.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
True, but he did not have a majority. Under my system (which I believe is the same system for Senate elections in Louisiana), there would have been a runoff between Gore and Bush. But because the liberal voters would know this would happen, there would be no reason NOT to vote for Nader, which would have given Bush the lead in the general election, and he would have lost the run off. It would have looked something like this:
General Election:
Gore: 41%
Nader: 10%
Bush: 49%
Runoff:
Gore: 51%
Bush: 49%
Of course, I would still like to see the electoral college stay intact as well where the winner would have to win both the electoral and the popular vote. If not, another run off. Without the electoral college, candidates would only campaign in the top 10 cities and blow off the rest. Why campaign in Utah and Idaho when you get more votes for your dollar by campaigning in Chicago and LA?
This is exactly why we need a viable third party that can field actual candidates
We will not have a viable third party until we change the election laws require the winner to have a majority. Basically, we would have the election with all participants. If no candidate has a majority, then the two top candidates have a runoff. This would have prevented Clinton from winning in '92 due to Ross Perot and Bush winning in 2000 due to Ralph Nader. The way it is right now, a vote for the Green Party takes a vote away from the Democrats (usually) and a vote for Libertarians takes a vote from the Republicans (usually).
Unfortunately, I don't see any such election overhaul happening anytime soon.
You speak from your ass well!
In response to Rwanda, that was a civil war between the Hutu and the Tutsi, neither of which is a church. Just like the US Civil War was not about religion, neither was Rwanda's.
As for the "Western Meddling" excuse for Islamic rage, it doesn't really explain all the other Islamic terror NOT in the west. One example would be the Christian school girl beheadings I linked to in the parent post. Other examples would be attacks in Somalia, Pakistan and Thailand. All three of the attacks were today, by the way, just today! None of these were attacks against the West. So either we have really good security here in the west or Muslims are angry about more than "Western Meddling".
A very well put post.
First, in response to the whole Muslims are merciful bit, I invite you to read this post. So either Muslims are not doing what they are taught when the kill all these people, or they are being taught something different entirely. Now, I understand that there are really peaceful muslims, but it seems to me that everywhere that Islam takes hold, shit like the examples I've given become more and more common.
As for abortion doctor bombings... How many of those have happened this century? (here is hint, it's looks like a capital "Oh") Do you really think it is a fair comparison to compare abortion clinic doctor murders to Islamic terrorism? How many planes have Christians hijacked and rammed into hospitals or clinics that perform abortions?
And while I certainly don't condone abortion bombings, I still don't think it is fair to compare it to Islamic terrorism. Theo van Gogh was murdered for making a movie that Muslims didn't like. He was killed because he hurt someone's feelings. The fatwa taken out of Salmon Rushdie was taken because he insulted Islam. No one was hurt, mind you, just insulted. An abortion doctor is murdered because he is going to be killing babies in the eyes of his killer. There is a difference between feeling insulted and genuinely thinking you are saving a life. Again, I don't condone it, but it is not a fair comparison.
workers have a right to unionize, and the tactics that walmart (and some others) use to prevent unionization are illegal.
And Walmart has the right to hire and fire who they like. Why is that hard so hard for union likes to understand? If you feel you need to be part of a union to get a better deal from your employer, tell your boss to fuck off and go find a job that gives you that better deal without fucking it up for the rest of us.
You see, every time I've worked at a job that had a union presence, I was fucked because I did not belong to the union. No matter how much I busted my ass, I could not get promoted because that fat, lazy bastard who was always late, always left early, never missed a break and didn't work the rest of the time was hired two weeks before me. That means that he was in line to get promoted before me. Sure, they'd like to fire him, but they can't because he's union. So, they promote some other loser from another department who has been here two weeks longer than the fat-ass above me and transfer him to my department. Now I'm stuck under two lazy bastards until my manager gets smart and writes them glowing evaluations so he can transfer their fat asses out of our department! Of course, I usually quit long before that happens and find a job where I can get paid according to my abilities and effort, not time in service.
Yeah...at least in some fantasy world where "U.S." cars aren't made in Mexico. Where, I understand, there aren't any maquiladora labor unions.
Gee, when I lived in Lansing Michigan, I had no idea I was in Mexico! When did Mexico annex Lansing, Cadillac, Flint, Novi, Grand Rapids, Detroit, Toledo, Findlay, Columbus, Indianapolis, San Antonio and all the other places where I saw cars, trucks or auto parts being made?
Wal-mart is so damned evil...
You mean they force you to work and shop there? Otherwise, you don't really have any justification for your comment, do you?
Both are supposedly taught to forgive. It only took me about a minute on Wikiquote: Really? Do you think Theo Van Gogh would agree with that. Of course not! He's dead. He was murdered for making a film that offended Muslims. Actually, "The filmmaker focused on the shameful abuse of Muslim women by Muslim men in Europe."
Why don't you ask those three Christian school girls that were beheaded in Indonesia. Well, since the girl's are dead, I'm sure their parents of these dead girls will like to hear how forgiving and tolerant Islam really is. I think the beheading of their teenage daughters kinda gave them the wrong idea.
You should tell the brothers of Hatin Surucu that Islam is forgiving. You see, her brothers killed her. They said, "The Whore Lived Like a German". I don't think they got the same memo you did about Islam being forgiving. I think they either didn't read the Quran verse you quoted or read several others that contradicted it.
Want to tell me some more how Islam is a forgiving religion of peace? There were several terrorist attacks this weekend I can link.
The Crusades
To recapture the Holy Land and much of Europe from Muslim invaders. This happened how may hundreds of years ago.
WW2 (remember, the Germans were christians and they didn't forgive the Jews/athiests for being different).
Uh, the Nazis were not Christians. Sorry.
Spanish Inquisition.
This was a purging of Muslims (Moors) from Spain. Unfortunately, Jews were lumped in as well. Anyway, how many hundreds of years ago was this?
No one race/religion/group is perfect, so pull your head outta your ignorant ass.
I never said that. I said that an "artist" dumps a cross in a jar of piss and it is called art. Same when an "artist" makes a portrait the Virgin Mary out of elephant dung or porn pictures. Even more recent was a chocolate Jesus in New York. Patrons were invited to "nibble their favorite part". Of course, all of this is encourage to show freedom of speech and expression.
But, Holy Shit! Have Opus make a comment that could be considered offensive to Muslims and a bunch of "free speech supporters" from Berkley and several other newspapers from around the country ban it.
So rather put words in MY mouth, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and start writing these newspapers the same letters you would write them if they banned the cartoon because it is offensive to Christians. You know you would be having a shit-fit if you thought this was because these newspapers didn't want to offend Christianity. If not, you are showing your own personal biggotry against Christianity.
As for the censorism: I am sure Slashdot will be full of "we wouldn't censor stuff like this if it was about Christianity/etc., so why should we pander to Islam?". Now, technically that is correct - far worse material appears about Christianity than Islam; there is far more sensitivity towards Islam. However, I don't think that makes it wrong to do so. As I see it, there is a solid basis for attempting to not offend Muslims (whereas what I am about to say now is extremely offensive to them): They can't take a joke. Just like if you have a sensitive neurotic kid in your neighborhood, you wouldn't call him names in jest that you would call everyone else.
I call bullshit! As a Christian, seeing a Cross dipped in a jar of urine is just as offensive as a Mohamed giving Peter a salmon helmet is to a Muslim. The difference is that I won't go blow shit up over it. Christians are taught to forgive. Muslims are taught to die in defense of Islaam. THAT is the difference. That sensitive neurotic kid will carry a can a gasoline over to your house and burn it down while you sleep. Of course, he'd make it a point to pour most of the gasoline in the doorways to prevent escape and start the fire in the baby's room, just to make sure his point gets out on the 5 O'clock news.
So this isn't about sensitivities toward Muslims. It is about a fear of reprisal. Which is what really pisses me off. When the gov't does something to fight terrorism, people say it's all about fear and that they would rather die than have the government listen to their phone calls, if they should ever make one to Pakistan. But when a liberal newspaper bows in submission to Islam, people make excuses about some politically correct bullshit.
And those 3 reasons are a huge part of why desktop Linux has been on life support for years, way too much effort has been devoted to them. Nerds concentrate on those features and don't get me wrong they are important. What constantly gets left out is usability, installation needs to be simple enough that I can give my parents a CD/DVD and let them install it. There needs to be a consistent UI between applications and components. Installing software must not require editing config files and if additional components are needed then it should just be a click Yes to install additional components.
I wholeheartedly agree, but I just considered that type of thing more Distro development than Linux dev. On that same train of thought though, I would like to see a easy to use, consistent software installation manager across distros.
Visual coherency and a refined GUI. Taste in UI's vary between people, but most linux GUIs that aren't very minimalist tend to suffer from wasted space.
/etc, what goes in /bin, what goes in /usr/bin, and so on). Things like KDE, Gnome and other window managers are merely applications as far as I'm concerned and should be considered no more Linux development than, say, Open Office. Of course, I don't mean to say your view is wrong in the least. I just considered the question more narrow than you did and wanted to explain why I didn't consider any X development as part of the question.
Granted, this is important to the Linux community, but when I hear Linux development, I think kernel, modules, and organization (like what goes in
Also, since X relies on video hardware, I'd consider X and XGL/Compiz-Fusion/Beryl to be categorized under hardware support.
In interests of making linux more accessible, more configuration utilities that don't require specific knowledge and in-errant editing of configuration text files.
Good point, or better yet, make these files standard across distros so the same configuration utilities works as well on Gentoo as Ubuntu.
A standard method for installing applications across distros would be nice too. I forgot to mention that!
I strongly disagree. There are very effective ways to keep teens away from porn. They involve teaching a kid to respect themselves and others.
Yeah, that works real well until your 15-yr-old's gf/bf dumps him/her for a new partner who is 21, has a car, their own place, can buy beer and puts out regularly. This usually happens right before that "respect yourself and others" bullshit goes out the window.
Better hardware support
Better performance
Maintain excellent reliability.
What else could you need?
http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanish es/vanishes.htm
Fixed that link for ya.
"My question: is there ever a case for letting national security issues dictate the limits of an open source project?"
I doubt it. Once the genie is out of the bottle, there is no way to get it back in. Shutting down a project because the enemy is using will not stop the enemy, just ourselves!
As to my first paragraph, no one can explain how the loss of the ability to photosynthesize (or thermo or whatever) could be a beneficial trait that would allow for a species to survive and reproduce better than its photosynthesizing ancestors. According to evolution that says that positive traits are passed down their offspring, we should all be green and have the ability to fill our mouths with dirt and water and lay out in the sun when we get hungry and can't find a blueberry to eat.
Then again, maybe (probably... OK, certainly) I'm missing large parts of the picture. I am not qualified to dispute evolution at all. But as far as faith goes, I find evolution to be much more of a miracle than God simply setting "Let it Be" (and it was). The more complicated life the universe and everything becomes, the more I'm in awe of the Creator. (and by Creator of Life, The Universe and Everything, I do not mean Douglas Adams!)
**Disclaimer**
I am an organic chemist... but only by marriage. Just as my wife, who has a degree in chemistry is a computer geek by marriage
As for the reasons for the rulings:
1) I fail to see how making a purchase is protected under free speech. The right of the game makers to produce such as game can be considered such, but I don't see how playing it could be. An example would be that I have the right to say whatever I like, but that doesn't mean you have a right to listen. In the same vein, I have a right to produce whatever game I like, but that doesn't me you have a right to buy it.
2) Children don't have free speech rights as consumers without parental permission and businesses do not have the right to sell to children. Examples would be the upheld laws that forbid strip clubs and tobacco adds within a certain distance from schools. Kids are not allowed to purchase certain products such as tobacco and alcohol. As for free speech in general, that is still out for debate. Cases have gone both ways. One example would be a student that lost a case when he sued after being expelled for writing a poem about Columbine from the first person as a shooter.
We also agree that it is not the responsibility of retailers to raise children. Nor is it the responsibility of retailers to enforce the law. However, these arguments could be used by liquor stores just as easily as Best Buy. While I understand that alcohol and tobacco can physically harm children, if children have the same rights as adults, the it is their right to harm themselves. You can't say kids have rights when it comes to one product and not another. To do so shows governmental favoritism for one company's product over another. All companies are equal under the law! The fact that some products are harmful doesn't apply either. Twinkies and coffee are harmful as well, but they are not banned. And even if you can apply the harmful argument, research still shows that violent video games are harmful to children. Only they are harmful to the psyche instead of the liver or lungs.
In all reality, our little discussion here is irrelevant as current laws have been shot down and new laws will be passed and tested again.
guess my general question to this kind of thing is: if someone somehow disproved the existence of god, would you be able to accept it? I don't think it's possible to truly disprove god, but just theoretically? Can you imagine letting it go?
Unfortunately, disproving God is just as likely as proving God. Actually, proving God is MORE possible since God can come down and say, "Here I am!" But the lack of God is not disproof.
I ask because I think that all of my most deeply held beliefs could be turned over if someone showed me a convincing proof. I've let go of dear convictions before in the face of strong evidence, and I think that is what any true explorer of life has to do. You may be able to hold on to a belief in god your whole life, and that's fine, but if you can't even imagine letting it go then you've crossed into irrationality.
If you no longer challenge your beliefs, how do you know if you believe them? Your last sentence should be modded up all by itself!
Disclaimer: I'm not trolling; I'm genuinely curious.
How is it that you can be both a geek and a believer in a god, especially an omnipotent and omniscient one?
In saying you're a geek, I assume you're a pretty intelligent fellow who uses reason to form his view of the universe. I assume you don't follow crowds, that you evaluate products you buy on their merits, and that, at least sometime in your life, you've reasoned out who would win in a battle between two fantasy characters.
How is it, then, that you make a special exemption for your god? How do you reconcile the inherent illogic of religion with the rest of your life?
Well, as seeing my first explanation was downmodded as "overrated", I'm reluctant to answer. I'm sorry, but that is the biggest piece of shit mod EVER! But you asked, much like the GP, so I'll answer.
At first, it was because it was what I was told from birth. I won't deny that. I am Christian, but had I been born to a Jewish family, I'd be Jewish. I won't say that my faith is any more "right" or important than others (provided it's not something utterly stupid (Scientology) or didn't exist 100 years ago (Spaghetti Monster, Scientology, Wicka)).
But as far as general faith goes, there came a time when I had to stop and evaluate it, and decide what is right. (I feel that this is necessary for any aspect in people's life. If you don't challenge yourself, how do you know for sure!) I guess my main reason could be answered by the first cause argument and Genesis. No one outside of a church can answer "why?". Sure, science can say that there was a small singularity that exploded and created everything, but they can't tell me why. And even if they could some day have an explanation as to why, they couldn't tell me why that was. There will always be a why that science can not answer. And no, to you philosophy majors, "Why Not" is not a valid answer. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Everything that exists, was created. These two laws contradict each other. Now do I think the Universe was made in six 24-hr days days? Probably not. (Why should I assume that God runs on a 24-hr day calendar. Besides, what was a day when there was not sun or earth?) But to look at the size and complexity of the Universe and think that it just appeared by chance is a bit hard for me to swallow. Something like that must have a creator.
Next, evolution. I consider evolution and see that aspects of it are correct. Mutations exist. Some, although very few are beneficial. But evolution can answer one basic question. Why are there plants and animals? According to evolutionary biologists, life started as a single, photosynthesizing (or thermo-synthesizing or whatever) cells. Life took energy from light or heat and converted it into energy and used that to make copies of itself. Pretty simple, makes sense. But at some point, that life evolved into life that didn't produce it's own energy and lived off of cells that did. This branch led to animals. Well, there had to be a first one, right? How did it survive? I mean, when all cells are photosynthetic. A mutation that can not photosynthesize will not survive long enough to mutate a mouth to eat the plant life! And if it mutated with a mouth first, why did it lose the ability to photosynthesize. It seems to me that the ability to make your own food from heat or light would be a pretty beneficial trick! Why would evolution dump such an ability from animal life? Beneficial traits simply do not get dumped by evolution. Evolution will pass an appendix down to me but not chlorophyll? I think we got robbed!
Next, Why would life ever evolve beyond the algae stage in the first place? Algae has everything it needs. Of course, algae can mutate, but into what? I could see it being able to mutate so that it survives close to the equator than it does near the poles, but other than that, there's really not a whole lot of improvement you can do for something that floats around and turns ligh
If this is proven to be fact ( and i dont think this really *proves* anything. Its still theory ), how is this going to sit with the religions of the world that truly think we are the only ones 'god' created?
As a believer and geek, let me tell you I see it.
I think it is unreasonable and arrogant to think that an infinite being (God) would just create one planet with life. Why would we place such limits on an omnipotent and omnipresent God?
Just my $0.02
Really? You said:
The problem is, how do you know its the parents making that decision?
You don't. And you don't need to. It's none of your business, and most certainly none of the government's.
So, the government is either allowed to make laws in this regard or they are not. You can't say that it's OK to put age restrictions on purchasing arms, which is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution by NAME, but not on video games, which are not mentioned. And before you say "freedom of speech", the speech the founders were referring to was political speech, as in, you are allowed to criticize the government. Freedom of expression is not mentioned. For that matter, neither is freedom of commerce. The only way a video game can considered free speech is if it's free, as in beer.
Also, here is what Judge Richard A. Posner said:
'Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low ... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.'"
Sounds to me like HE (speaking for the state) is making the final say, not the parents. Do you agree that the state should decide when my children can be exposed to violence?
No, the judge did NOT say that, nor did any of the other judges who shot down these laws. Stop putting words in other people's mouths.
I didn't. I evaluated what the ruling meant. You said that parents have the final say. The result of this law is the exact opposite. Parents do NOT have the final say. The judge himself said parents making that decision would be would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it. Now, if the laws were banning these games completely, he would have a point, but
that was not the case. These laws forced the parents to decide, and he thought parents would over shield their children. That's MY decision, not his!
Unlike you, I comprehended it all. Which is why, for your convenience, I've changed the emphasis to show why it doesn't even approach the conclusiveness you need to be taken seriously on a forum, let alone successfully defend a law in court.
Funny, when I list an article that was written in the '90's, you say it's too old. When I list an article that says the same thing, from 2003, you say it doesn't mean anything. YOU set up the rules by saying that "Rational people do not ignore scientific research". I provided that research. Research, btw, only suggests. Research doesn't "prove", especially when dealing with something as fluid as psychology. For there to be laws in psychology, all people would have to act the same to stimuli, and they don't.
I'm sorry if those with doctorates disagree with what you "think", but a rational person wouldn't let their personal opinions interfere with the years of research that went into these studies.
But, if you don't like my sources, I'll even offer a few more.
HERE (PDF warning)
HERE (update of above, also pdf)
HERE (Last edited 11/9/05)
HERE
and HERE
Of course, there are several more, but a "rational person" would get the idea. Besides, from the looks of the judges
You don't. And you don't need to. It's none of your business, and most certainly none of the government's.
Alright, First things first. Does the government have any rights whatsoever in limiting what children can do without their parents. This means going into bars, drinking, renting porno's driving, whatever? Does the government have the right? I think they do. And if they do when it comes to pornography and cigarettes, then they do when it comes to video games. Otherwise, I could simply say, "It's none of your business, and most certainly none of the government's." just like you did. Is it my business if the neighbor's 5-yr old smokes? Is it my business if the neighbor's 5-yr old is selling crack? So I ask again, does the government have any business in our lives. If you say NO, then read no further, you are too far gone to think rationally. If you say yes, then it most certainly IS the government's business!
Neither. You simply keep mischaracterizing others' arguments via gross distortion. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now and assume you're not doing it on purpose.
You have a point. When you said, "No, it does not. You do not get to decide games are or are not appropropriate for someone else's kid. Ever." I assumed that you were saying it was the kid's parents to decide. So tell me, is it up to the kids parents or not? Who makes the decisions, the parent or the kid? The judge said it's the kid's decision. Who's decision to you think it is?
Nonsense. Parents already have the final say over what games the kids can play without these laws in place (remember, none of them have survived court challenges or even been enforced).
Their ability to stand up in court has nothing to do with whether or not they make sense or a good idea. The judge said that they "impede free speech". Really? What "speech" is involved in buying a fucking video game? Besides, as long as the kids got their parent's permission, these laws didn't impede shit! If a parent bought the game, they could play all they wanted. These games were never banned! So tell me, do you really think it makes sense to say that something that is NOT banned somehow impedes free speech?
How can you defend allowing children to purchase violent video games without a parent's knowledge by saying "parents have the final say"? You are contradicting yourself. When these laws were in effect, parents had the final say. Now the kids do. The judge took the parents out of the equation. The judge took the final say and gave it to the kids. I agree that parents have the ultimate responsibility, but that's different than saying "they have the final say". The judge said, "You don't need parents to purchase these games." How does that give parents the final say?
Putting the law in place, on the other hand, puts an undue burden onto the government and the retailers to play backup parent.
Undo burden? "Uh, do you have ID?" Really? Is that really that hard? They already ask for ID for alcohol, cigarettes and lottery tickets, sinus medicine and even spray paint! What makes video games an undo burden? And it's not even all games, just the ones labeled "Contains violent content. Must be 18 and over to purchase this game". Gee, I thought figuring sales tax was an undue burden!
The only thing a parent gains from these laws is a convenience to which they are not entitled.
Wait! Parents are not entitled to convenience in raising their kids, but their kids are entitled to adult video games? Why do kids have more rights than their parents?
Read it, don't just quote it. The first one is long outdated and suggests a correlation (correlation != causation), and the second is nothing but speculation (nor does it pretend to be). This is why the laws keep getting shredded in court. The evidence is weak.
2000 and 2003 are outdated? Hell, if I quoted Freud, it would still be a LOT more recent than the scientific research you quoted! Besides, I think the o
You mistake their purpose. They seek to make us bow and huddle in terror, not to kill us. Think about why we call them terrorists instead of murders.
No, I'm pretty sure they want us all dead. If they could kill all of us, I'm sure they would gladly oblige. The purpose of genocide is not submission.
If I have done nothing wrong, then they should have no right to have a file on me what so ever, at least not on things which should be private.
Like what, exactly? Do you know what is in your file? Do you know what was in anyone's file? How do you know it's not just an accumulation of all the other crap other agencies have one you, like income, credit history, bank records, previous addresses and so on. What makes you think your favorite sexual position is listed somewhere in a NSA database?
To be honest, its just something that makes it easier for them to abuse in unlawful ways.
Name for me a tool that is used for crime fighting or investigation that does NOT make it easier for them to abuse in unlawful ways. Just one. Should we take phones out of all government offices? After all, they could be used to make abusing your rights easier. Are any tools really abused in unlawful ways to take away your rights? Are your Constitutional rights squelched? Have you ever been asked for you papers? Have you ever been denied or even had to request travel within the US? NO! Why do you think a bunch of ones and zeros on a government bank of hard drives is going to change any of that at all. How can data kept anywhere have any effect on you. Data can't keep you from going to work. Data can't keep your from speaking out. Data can not keep you from going to church. A database can not touch you in any way shape or form. I'll grant you that people can, but if that was their goal, they would already be doing it with or without this database.
If your rights are being violated, there are many major media outlets that would love to be the first to break your story! You'd be the number ONE on Keith Uberman tonight and the see through flat-screen on Bill Mahr! There would be protests all over the country with people screaming "One Two Three Four! Kick Bush's out right out the Door!" How does this database make the government immune from the press and the public?
Maybe you should be going after your imaginary boogie-men before you take away tools for honest men and women who really just want to make a career out of protect you and me. Now I understand you probably think that view is a bit optimistic, and maybe it is, but it's certainly more likely than your scenario of men with black suits want to watch all Americans, all the time so that they can lock all Americans in their homes and say "Boo!" in your window late at night.