Doesn't disbelieving parts of the Bible kind of undermine your faith? If you can just claim that parts of the Bible are untrue, then what's to say that the parts you do believe are true?
People that believe that everything in there is true (though maybe misinterpreted by the majority of people), make more sense.
An interesting idea, but it isn't really even supported by scripture. If you look at the ages recorded in the Bible, after the flood people began dying at progressively younger ages. Noah was the oldest person to die after the flood, and every generation death-age decreased by about 75 to 80 years. So by your logic, these people would have to be repeatedly redefining the term "year" to slightly longer periods of time.
By making the argument that these things are impossible, you are pre-supposing that God does not exist. Or at least that He is not omnipotent, preventing him from overriding physical laws. So, your scientific argument against God is as invalid as any scientific argument for him.
That may not seem to apply to the 6000-years thing at first, but the other responder was correct. The Hebrew word that was translated to the English "day" in Gensis 1 did not actually mean a 24-hour period. There was no English word with an equivalent meaning, so they substituted day.
I don't think that the grandparent's comment was meant to be condescending. It was more likely referencing the fact that you can't really convince someone to have faith in an unprovable idea if they don't want to.
You make a good case for the original intent of copyright. But I still think that the way that society has evolved around it has shown that's not what we want from it.
Beyond that, all I can really say is that I don't think that software and music/movies should be lumped under the same umbrella. Though they are alike in medium, they are very different in nature, purpose, and use, with the possible exception of games.
I see no reason to restrict my freedoms even further so that he can have a slightly bigger mansion.
Specifically what rights are you talking about?
Throughout the rest of your comment, you say that it's okay for the artist to make a profit, but only to a point. You then proceed to call this the free market. How is it free if you're placing limits on how many copies of the creation that the artist can benefit from? Why is it okay for people to earn money off their creations, but not to get rich, even if they are really popular?
Additionally, there is already a time limit built into the copyright system. Personally, I don't think it should extend beyond the life of the creator (which it currently does), but let's face it, we're not talking about that situation. We're talking about people who are alive and kicking, like the infamous Metallica. Again, why is it okay for people to earn money off their creations for a little while, but not for their whole life, even if it's in demand for their whole life? Are you saying that Tolkein should have only made money off his first million books, despite the fact that they are generally considered to be the foundation of the entire modern Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre?
If the answer to my "why's" is that you just don't believe it's morally right, then come out and say it, and I will agree to disagree. But within the contexts of a free market system, there is nothing, I repeat nothing that says it shouldn't happen. If you want the free market limited, write your senator, but I think you'll get some opposition.
You're taking fair use to an extreme. By that logic, it would be perfectly okay for one person to buy a CD, and then distribute a free copy to anyone and everyone who would be interested in buying the CD, which would prevent the creator from making any profit on their product beyond that first sale. There has to be a limit on this free fair use. IMO, I don't think the *AA's are going about it the right way, but that is beside the point. You are dangerously close to the argument that "as long as they are still making money, it's okay". Well, what happens if they really do proveably start losing money? Then suddenly it's not okay, and we can start forcing people to stop? No judicial system could enforce that. I'm so sick of hearing this double-standard inspired argument. Why is it okay for small companies to protect their profits and products, but not big companies?
The downloaders are not demons trying to kill the companies they download the products of - many of them feel they are exercising the fairly dead concept of Fair Use...
A) The keyword here is "many". I would bet my life savings that your "many" is not "most", or even "a majority".
B) I think you, or these people you speak of, need to do some research on "the fairly dead concept of Fair Use". I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with getting a preview to see if you really want to pay for something. Again, this comes down to the fact that we have no right to be entertained. If the creator/producer/whatever doesn't offer a preview service, then too bad. That doesn't make it okay to create your own without the permission of said creator/publisher.
If he used Ferrari's blueprints to make it, or even if he reverse-engineered Ferrari's design to make his own, then Joe would be okay. But that's about akin to getting a bunch of guys together to recreate a piece of music from scratch on your own instruments. So I don't think you're analogy is right either.
However, if Joe, or this makeshift band, started selling the product that they made that was created using the original creators' blueprints, then yes, Ferrari, or the original band, would have every right to sue you. Or at least demand a license fee for using their design.
Ideally, the producers of copyrighted works need only be paid just enough to make the producing worthwhile.
Ideally for the consumer maybe, but not for the creator. It has been a long time since things worked that way. Society has evolved to a point where there is so much "creative work" out there that it isn't good enough just to put your work out there. If you want people to see it, you have to have someone finance and hype it, or else you'll probably be ignored. Hence the rise of production and advertising companies in the entertainment industry.
Now, you can argue that since this material is "art" and not a "rivalrous resource" that the creator's financial benefit shouldn't be proportional to the level of consumption of his work. But there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people out there who disagree and are plenty willing to pay what they consider to be a fair price for the art they consume.
If you don't want to support that lifestyle, then I suggest you don't buy from those artists.
Personally, I do think it is odd to include the Dakotas, but hey, these are relatively reliable references, so I'm prepared to accept conventional wisdom on the matter.
Anyway, my understanding was that the term midwest was from one of two origins. A) It was the geographical counterpart of the middle east (i.e. the middle of the North American continent) Or B) it was far (considering the travel methods of the time) west of the colonies, but nowhere near as far as the west coast.
I've always had a picture of the midwest being primarily mid to northern states, as the linked pages describe. It's what I was taught all the way through school. (Ohio would definitely be the absolute easternmost border though. No PA.) South of Missouri I've alwasy considered "the south", having it's own western and eastern sub-parts, and not being at all part of the mid-west. Never really had a name for that region between the bordering rectangle points of Minnesota, Washington, California, and Missouri.
Anyway, I'd say at least 99.9% of Wisconsinites consider Wisconsin and Illinois as definitely being in the midwest, and would be appalled, as I was, to hear someone contradict that. And I'd feel quite confident saying,b>at least 75% would accept the definitions I linked to. I don't know where you grew up that you were taught any different.
Agreed, there are states where big cities (which trend liberal) cause division within the state. Thinking about it more, this may also have been more true 200, or even 100 years ago compared to now. But I don't see how we could improve representation much beyond the way the state system does it.
Maybe group all the big cities into their own non-geographical state? Or maybe just set a threshold population, where a city becomes its own separate city-state once the threshold is passed? Those don't seem too feasible to me at this point.
It's interesting to think about the problem though. It sure would be nice to have a way for these disparate cultures to both be better represented in their respective areas. Ohio currently has a huge population on both the left and the right. No matter who their electoral votes go for, there's a huge number of disappointed people.
Sorry to disappoint you, buddy. I'm a relatively conservative guy from La Crosse, Wisconsin. Born and raised in Milwaukee. Tried and true Packer fan.
I (and most other people I've encountered) consider Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan to always be part of the midwest. And I think Indiana and Ohio fit that as well. And, by the way, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota all went Kerry (and Gore, if I remember correctly).
Now, in direct response to your complaint, maybe I should have said "upper midwest" instead of just the midwest in general. But I have never, ever, in my life, heard Louisiana and Arkansas been counted part of the midwest. Nor have I ever heard Wisconsin and Illinois discounted.
I agree that the electoral system is far from perfect. I wasn't really advocating it. I was just responding to a claim that inaccurately placed the blame for the imperfections. Personally, I have no idea why the electoral system is the way it is. Yes, it is a reasonable approximation of a popular vote system, except in close races. Did the forefathers think we'd never have a close race? I doubt it. More likely they decided that the nation couldn't wait several months for every single vote to be counted and for the results to be accurately communicated across hundreds of miles without malicious interference. They didn't, after all, have secure, reliable electronic connections for transmitting large amounts of data back then.
In any case, it seems to me that with its vast resources, if it really tried the government could come up with some nationwide electronic or on-line voting system that was reasonably secure and reliable.
Oh, and regarding the "separate issue", it's not really an issue. The Senate is meant for representation of states, not individuals. That's what the House of Representatives is for. Anyone who has taken an American government class knows that this was a hotly debated issue for the forefathers. Ours is a federal system. States are supposed to do the micromanaging, dealing with individuals, because generally within a state, the culture is fairly homogenous. Hence New York is rather liberal as a whole and Texas is rather Conservative as a whole.
However, the US as a whole is about as far from homogenous as you can get. Which is why the federal government's job of deciding when something is good for all of America, by and large comes down to issues of economy and foreign policy.
Personally, I think it is silly for the federal government to get involved in things such as gay rights and gun control, because they are largely cultural issues that should be decided by the cultures, i.e. the states. The government needn't get involved unless the issue is one that has had different resolutions in different states, and the lack of homogeneity in the resolutions is causing unrest. For example, if Ohio implemented a kick-butt health-care system all on it's own, and suddenly people started flooding there from other states to be a part of it, this would be bad for the union. So maybe the federal government should step in, take Ohio's idea and expand it to apply to all states, restoring the balance. That, in my understanding, is what the federal government is for, not for deciding whether all the people in Texas should be able to keep their guns just because people in New York, Ohio, and California, don't want to.
For the record, I think that deciding the president is something that needs to be governed by the federal government all the way down to the individual level. But other issues fitting that criteria are few and far between.
Your response applies perfectly to the parent's comment, but not at all to our electoral system. Electoral votes are assigned to a state by population. Which is why Ohio has 20 votes, but California has 55, and Wisconsin only has 10. The ones with less people have less votes, and the reverse is true as well.
The thing about the electoral system is that it's an honor system, in which for the most part, and elector has no obligation to follow the popular vote in his region.
That wouldn't really be fair either. Ever hear of the House of Representatives? States have bigger pull there if they have more people. The president needs to represent the people too, not just the states.
The problem at the heart of things here is that US culture is very divided into two categories across three regions. The two costal areas (plus midwest) are largely liberal/Democratic, and the rest is largely conservative/Republican. And the populations are about equal in the two camps, despite one region being geographically larger. So you hear a lot of complaining from the vocal minority in the smaller, denser coastal regions, but in the larger, sparser regions you have a competing population of relatively statisfied people who have no reason to hoot and holler.
Now if Kerry got elected, I have a feeling those roles would have reversed. I mean, after all, what reason do the satisfied people (who would then be the Democrats) have for being so vocal about their position. Unless your dissatisfied, you just sound like a fanatic yelling your support for one guy over another when it's not election-time. Under Bush, his supporters didn't say much. Under Kerry, I'd wager Kerry's supporters wouldn't say much either.
So anyway, I'd say that the problem, as Senator Kerry pointed out to President Bush this morning, is that, as a nation, we are divided. Kerry becoming president wouldn't have automagically solved that. But yes, we really need to do something about that. After all "united we stand, divided we fall".
Milwaukee School of Engineering, which is a decently well-known school even outside the US. Every full time student has a laptop. Part of their tuition pays for it. A large majority of classrooms have a network port for each seat (no wireless though). Though the school doesn't have much high-technology research, what they have does beat out any number of schools on this list.
It always bothers me when people compile lists like this and though they try to get a lot of entries, they don't always seem to do good research.
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
I think that part of the reason for blaming the "tool" of abortion is because of the fact that in the past there was little control against using it for purposes of convenience, rather than necessity, that are arguably immoral.
I don't think it belongs in the same category as the gun control argument and the file-sharing argument. Using file-sharing gives you the ability to essentially take money out of someone's pocket. Using a gun gives you the more dangerous ability to harm or kill someone. Using abortion always kills someone. It is arguable whether those typically illegal/immoral actions are justified in some cases.
On a side note, I do find it odd that the "liberal agenda" is so often anti-death-penalty, but pro-abortion-for-convenience (as in not for the mother's health).
I've got to wholeheartedly agree with the general sense of this article, that Lucas does deserve this award. I think people are overlooking some things when they consider this.
First of all, Lucas has made more than 5 movies. Second, Lucas has made more than 5 blockbuster movies. (He had to be doing something right.) Third, not only has he made blockbuster movies, but he's made meaningful movies, such as American Grafitti and THX-1138.
Regarding people's newfound hate of Lucas for his remastering/editing of the Star Wars Trilogy... I'll admit that I'm young enough that I saw the first three movies on VHS when I was very young. When the remastered versions came out I didn't remember the originals very well. It was like seeing them for the first time. And from that viewpoint I can tell you that the remakes are still good movies. I also think the prequels are good. As good as the originals. The problem is that the overall quality of movies in general has improved so much. There are many movies that flop today, but would have been blockbusters in the 1970s. The prequels are just not as far above the average today as the originals were when they came out.
Lucas essentially created the film epic. It may have been tried before, but Lucas was the first to do it successfully in both the eyes of his peers and the eyes of the public. And I'll go so far as to say that he has had no rival. The Matrix started out great, but most of the people that went to the third one did it only out of half-hearted hope and a desire for some sort of closure. The LOTR trilogy is awesome, but it's an adaptation, not an original work like Star Wars. (And don't talk about theft of concepts, because Tolkein was just as "bad", stealing from all sorts of mythologies.)
Lucas deserves this award, if solely for what he did with the original Star Wars movies. Even if you can't get over his recent changes, that doesn't changes how he affected the movie industry.
I completely agree that we've become lazy. But I personally don't believe that the recent war movements of the US are meant to disguise it. I just think the current administration has different priorities (whether they are wrong or not, I'll leave the reader to decide). However, the proposition that we "stop outsourcing", which is a big movement lately from the opposition, is not going to solve it either. We'll just get and fatter and lazier, lulled into a false sense of security, while the rest of the world flourishes. In my opinion, the wars do need to stop, but the outsourcing doesn't. We need a reason to improve our education systems, and the threat of competition from other nations can only help that.
Amen. I may catch a lot of flack, and maybe labelled as a flamebaiter, but I say that if the U.S. employees suck, fire 'em and hire whoever can get the job done right. If that's Indians or Chinese, then so be it. We aren't going to get any better by not buying the better product. And we're not going to get any better if we don't try to compete. The damage being done isn't going to be repaired by repeated consumption of painkillers such as laws or acts to prevent outsourcing.
Isn't the whole point of capitalism to find the most efficient way of making/obtaining the best product? It's a system that should encourage people to better themselves if they want to compete, and discourage stagnation. The U.S. has been caught in the quicksand of stagnation since the peak of our hegemonic status at the end of WWII. Maybe we need a threat like this, a shot in the arm, to make us realize we have to get off our duffs and be the best if we want to be the best.
Would you rather instate the people that are terrified of outsourcing anything? The ones that will stop outsourcing to "protect" our jobs? While we struggle to fix our broken system without the good influence of the countries that seem already to be improving upon it, they will continue to grow and further surpass us in that respect. That seems like a faster path to removing our global economic power than what's happening now.
Slashdot Mirror
Form what I've heard, genetically speaking it's safe to breed with your 2nd cousin. Some argue even your first cousin has enough diversity.
Honest question, not intended to be a troll:
Doesn't disbelieving parts of the Bible kind of undermine your faith? If you can just claim that parts of the Bible are untrue, then what's to say that the parts you do believe are true?
People that believe that everything in there is true (though maybe misinterpreted by the majority of people), make more sense.
An interesting idea, but it isn't really even supported by scripture. If you look at the ages recorded in the Bible, after the flood people began dying at progressively younger ages. Noah was the oldest person to die after the flood, and every generation death-age decreased by about 75 to 80 years. So by your logic, these people would have to be repeatedly redefining the term "year" to slightly longer periods of time.
That may not seem to apply to the 6000-years thing at first, but the other responder was correct. The Hebrew word that was translated to the English "day" in Gensis 1 did not actually mean a 24-hour period. There was no English word with an equivalent meaning, so they substituted day.
I don't think that the grandparent's comment was meant to be condescending. It was more likely referencing the fact that you can't really convince someone to have faith in an unprovable idea if they don't want to.
Genesis was supposed to have been dictated to Moses by God. So the possibility of Noah having memory problems is sidestepped.
You make a good case for the original intent of copyright. But I still think that the way that society has evolved around it has shown that's not what we want from it.
Beyond that, all I can really say is that I don't think that software and music/movies should be lumped under the same umbrella. Though they are alike in medium, they are very different in nature, purpose, and use, with the possible exception of games.
Specifically what rights are you talking about?
Throughout the rest of your comment, you say that it's okay for the artist to make a profit, but only to a point. You then proceed to call this the free market. How is it free if you're placing limits on how many copies of the creation that the artist can benefit from? Why is it okay for people to earn money off their creations, but not to get rich, even if they are really popular?
Additionally, there is already a time limit built into the copyright system. Personally, I don't think it should extend beyond the life of the creator (which it currently does), but let's face it, we're not talking about that situation. We're talking about people who are alive and kicking, like the infamous Metallica. Again, why is it okay for people to earn money off their creations for a little while, but not for their whole life, even if it's in demand for their whole life? Are you saying that Tolkein should have only made money off his first million books, despite the fact that they are generally considered to be the foundation of the entire modern Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre?
If the answer to my "why's" is that you just don't believe it's morally right, then come out and say it, and I will agree to disagree. But within the contexts of a free market system, there is nothing, I repeat nothing that says it shouldn't happen. If you want the free market limited, write your senator, but I think you'll get some opposition.
You're taking fair use to an extreme. By that logic, it would be perfectly okay for one person to buy a CD, and then distribute a free copy to anyone and everyone who would be interested in buying the CD, which would prevent the creator from making any profit on their product beyond that first sale. There has to be a limit on this free fair use. IMO, I don't think the *AA's are going about it the right way, but that is beside the point. You are dangerously close to the argument that "as long as they are still making money, it's okay". Well, what happens if they really do proveably start losing money? Then suddenly it's not okay, and we can start forcing people to stop? No judicial system could enforce that. I'm so sick of hearing this double-standard inspired argument. Why is it okay for small companies to protect their profits and products, but not big companies?
The downloaders are not demons trying to kill the companies they download the products of - many of them feel they are exercising the fairly dead concept of Fair Use... A) The keyword here is "many". I would bet my life savings that your "many" is not "most", or even "a majority". B) I think you, or these people you speak of, need to do some research on "the fairly dead concept of Fair Use". I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with getting a preview to see if you really want to pay for something. Again, this comes down to the fact that we have no right to be entertained. If the creator/producer/whatever doesn't offer a preview service, then too bad. That doesn't make it okay to create your own without the permission of said creator/publisher.
Amen! Someone sane and intelligent! MOD this guy UP!
If he used Ferrari's blueprints to make it, or even if he reverse-engineered Ferrari's design to make his own, then Joe would be okay. But that's about akin to getting a bunch of guys together to recreate a piece of music from scratch on your own instruments. So I don't think you're analogy is right either. However, if Joe, or this makeshift band, started selling the product that they made that was created using the original creators' blueprints, then yes, Ferrari, or the original band, would have every right to sue you. Or at least demand a license fee for using their design.
Ideally, the producers of copyrighted works need only be paid just enough to make the producing worthwhile.
Ideally for the consumer maybe, but not for the creator. It has been a long time since things worked that way. Society has evolved to a point where there is so much "creative work" out there that it isn't good enough just to put your work out there. If you want people to see it, you have to have someone finance and hype it, or else you'll probably be ignored. Hence the rise of production and advertising companies in the entertainment industry.
Now, you can argue that since this material is "art" and not a "rivalrous resource" that the creator's financial benefit shouldn't be proportional to the level of consumption of his work. But there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people out there who disagree and are plenty willing to pay what they consider to be a fair price for the art they consume.
If you don't want to support that lifestyle, then I suggest you don't buy from those artists.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=midwest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwest
Personally, I do think it is odd to include the Dakotas, but hey, these are relatively reliable references, so I'm prepared to accept conventional wisdom on the matter.
Anyway, my understanding was that the term midwest was from one of two origins. A) It was the geographical counterpart of the middle east (i.e. the middle of the North American continent) Or B) it was far (considering the travel methods of the time) west of the colonies, but nowhere near as far as the west coast.
I've always had a picture of the midwest being primarily mid to northern states, as the linked pages describe. It's what I was taught all the way through school. (Ohio would definitely be the absolute easternmost border though. No PA.) South of Missouri I've alwasy considered "the south", having it's own western and eastern sub-parts, and not being at all part of the mid-west. Never really had a name for that region between the bordering rectangle points of Minnesota, Washington, California, and Missouri.
Anyway, I'd say at least 99.9% of Wisconsinites consider Wisconsin and Illinois as definitely being in the midwest, and would be appalled, as I was, to hear someone contradict that. And I'd feel quite confident saying ,b>at least 75% would accept the definitions I linked to. I don't know where you grew up that you were taught any different.
Agreed, there are states where big cities (which trend liberal) cause division within the state. Thinking about it more, this may also have been more true 200, or even 100 years ago compared to now. But I don't see how we could improve representation much beyond the way the state system does it.
Maybe group all the big cities into their own non-geographical state? Or maybe just set a threshold population, where a city becomes its own separate city-state once the threshold is passed? Those don't seem too feasible to me at this point.
It's interesting to think about the problem though. It sure would be nice to have a way for these disparate cultures to both be better represented in their respective areas. Ohio currently has a huge population on both the left and the right. No matter who their electoral votes go for, there's a huge number of disappointed people.
Sorry to disappoint you, buddy. I'm a relatively conservative guy from La Crosse, Wisconsin. Born and raised in Milwaukee. Tried and true Packer fan. I (and most other people I've encountered) consider Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan to always be part of the midwest. And I think Indiana and Ohio fit that as well. And, by the way, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota all went Kerry (and Gore, if I remember correctly). Now, in direct response to your complaint, maybe I should have said "upper midwest" instead of just the midwest in general. But I have never, ever, in my life, heard Louisiana and Arkansas been counted part of the midwest. Nor have I ever heard Wisconsin and Illinois discounted.
In any case, it seems to me that with its vast resources, if it really tried the government could come up with some nationwide electronic or on-line voting system that was reasonably secure and reliable.
Oh, and regarding the "separate issue", it's not really an issue. The Senate is meant for representation of states, not individuals. That's what the House of Representatives is for. Anyone who has taken an American government class knows that this was a hotly debated issue for the forefathers. Ours is a federal system. States are supposed to do the micromanaging, dealing with individuals, because generally within a state, the culture is fairly homogenous. Hence New York is rather liberal as a whole and Texas is rather Conservative as a whole.
However, the US as a whole is about as far from homogenous as you can get. Which is why the federal government's job of deciding when something is good for all of America, by and large comes down to issues of economy and foreign policy.
Personally, I think it is silly for the federal government to get involved in things such as gay rights and gun control, because they are largely cultural issues that should be decided by the cultures, i.e. the states. The government needn't get involved unless the issue is one that has had different resolutions in different states, and the lack of homogeneity in the resolutions is causing unrest. For example, if Ohio implemented a kick-butt health-care system all on it's own, and suddenly people started flooding there from other states to be a part of it, this would be bad for the union. So maybe the federal government should step in, take Ohio's idea and expand it to apply to all states, restoring the balance. That, in my understanding, is what the federal government is for, not for deciding whether all the people in Texas should be able to keep their guns just because people in New York, Ohio, and California, don't want to.
For the record, I think that deciding the president is something that needs to be governed by the federal government all the way down to the individual level. But other issues fitting that criteria are few and far between.
Your response applies perfectly to the parent's comment, but not at all to our electoral system. Electoral votes are assigned to a state by population. Which is why Ohio has 20 votes, but California has 55, and Wisconsin only has 10. The ones with less people have less votes, and the reverse is true as well.
The thing about the electoral system is that it's an honor system, in which for the most part, and elector has no obligation to follow the popular vote in his region.
That wouldn't really be fair either. Ever hear of the House of Representatives? States have bigger pull there if they have more people. The president needs to represent the people too, not just the states.
The problem at the heart of things here is that US culture is very divided into two categories across three regions. The two costal areas (plus midwest) are largely liberal/Democratic, and the rest is largely conservative/Republican. And the populations are about equal in the two camps, despite one region being geographically larger. So you hear a lot of complaining from the vocal minority in the smaller, denser coastal regions, but in the larger, sparser regions you have a competing population of relatively statisfied people who have no reason to hoot and holler.
Now if Kerry got elected, I have a feeling those roles would have reversed. I mean, after all, what reason do the satisfied people (who would then be the Democrats) have for being so vocal about their position. Unless your dissatisfied, you just sound like a fanatic yelling your support for one guy over another when it's not election-time. Under Bush, his supporters didn't say much. Under Kerry, I'd wager Kerry's supporters wouldn't say much either.
So anyway, I'd say that the problem, as Senator Kerry pointed out to President Bush this morning, is that, as a nation, we are divided. Kerry becoming president wouldn't have automagically solved that. But yes, we really need to do something about that. After all "united we stand, divided we fall".
Milwaukee School of Engineering, which is a decently well-known school even outside the US. Every full time student has a laptop. Part of their tuition pays for it. A large majority of classrooms have a network port for each seat (no wireless though). Though the school doesn't have much high-technology research, what they have does beat out any number of schools on this list.
It always bothers me when people compile lists like this and though they try to get a lot of entries, they don't always seem to do good research.
I think that part of the reason for blaming the "tool" of abortion is because of the fact that in the past there was little control against using it for purposes of convenience, rather than necessity, that are arguably immoral.
I don't think it belongs in the same category as the gun control argument and the file-sharing argument. Using file-sharing gives you the ability to essentially take money out of someone's pocket. Using a gun gives you the more dangerous ability to harm or kill someone. Using abortion always kills someone. It is arguable whether those typically illegal/immoral actions are justified in some cases.
On a side note, I do find it odd that the "liberal agenda" is so often anti-death-penalty, but pro-abortion-for-convenience (as in not for the mother's health).
I've got to wholeheartedly agree with the general sense of this article, that Lucas does deserve this award. I think people are overlooking some things when they consider this.
First of all, Lucas has made more than 5 movies. Second, Lucas has made more than 5 blockbuster movies. (He had to be doing something right.) Third, not only has he made blockbuster movies, but he's made meaningful movies, such as American Grafitti and THX-1138.
Regarding people's newfound hate of Lucas for his remastering/editing of the Star Wars Trilogy... I'll admit that I'm young enough that I saw the first three movies on VHS when I was very young. When the remastered versions came out I didn't remember the originals very well. It was like seeing them for the first time. And from that viewpoint I can tell you that the remakes are still good movies. I also think the prequels are good. As good as the originals. The problem is that the overall quality of movies in general has improved so much. There are many movies that flop today, but would have been blockbusters in the 1970s. The prequels are just not as far above the average today as the originals were when they came out.
Lucas essentially created the film epic. It may have been tried before, but Lucas was the first to do it successfully in both the eyes of his peers and the eyes of the public. And I'll go so far as to say that he has had no rival. The Matrix started out great, but most of the people that went to the third one did it only out of half-hearted hope and a desire for some sort of closure. The LOTR trilogy is awesome, but it's an adaptation, not an original work like Star Wars. (And don't talk about theft of concepts, because Tolkein was just as "bad", stealing from all sorts of mythologies.)
Lucas deserves this award, if solely for what he did with the original Star Wars movies. Even if you can't get over his recent changes, that doesn't changes how he affected the movie industry.
I completely agree that we've become lazy. But I personally don't believe that the recent war movements of the US are meant to disguise it. I just think the current administration has different priorities (whether they are wrong or not, I'll leave the reader to decide). However, the proposition that we "stop outsourcing", which is a big movement lately from the opposition, is not going to solve it either. We'll just get and fatter and lazier, lulled into a false sense of security, while the rest of the world flourishes. In my opinion, the wars do need to stop, but the outsourcing doesn't. We need a reason to improve our education systems, and the threat of competition from other nations can only help that.
Isn't the whole point of capitalism to find the most efficient way of making/obtaining the best product? It's a system that should encourage people to better themselves if they want to compete, and discourage stagnation. The U.S. has been caught in the quicksand of stagnation since the peak of our hegemonic status at the end of WWII. Maybe we need a threat like this, a shot in the arm, to make us realize we have to get off our duffs and be the best if we want to be the best.
Would you rather instate the people that are terrified of outsourcing anything? The ones that will stop outsourcing to "protect" our jobs? While we struggle to fix our broken system without the good influence of the countries that seem already to be improving upon it, they will continue to grow and further surpass us in that respect. That seems like a faster path to removing our global economic power than what's happening now.