As an underserved customer, I'm glad that Valve is taking this move and I hope other companies will follow. However, they are still underserving one important segment of the market. And that's the one I belong to: people who want to get things without paying for them. I think that if Valve made a serious effort to cater to us by not charging money for their games, they would see their piracy rates drop almost to zero.
I am sure you have this backwards - Micro$oft probably made campaign contributions to Obama and Obama owed M$ the favor....
I think some people may need to get their priorities straight. The United States is facing some incredible challenges right now. The economy is failing. We are fighting two major wars in the Middle East. The federal debt is 10 trillion dollars (about $40,000 per person). We've got a prison full of detainees in Guantanamo to figure out what to do with. And our entire economy is based around petroleum, which we seem to be running out of. I want Obama and his team to dedicate 100% of his time to figuring out those problems, and until they're under control I couldn't possibly care less what kind of technology is being used to stream his events.
I too had always heard he was a devoutly, and humble, religious man. At least the Pope thought so as he was giving him the highest honor a non clergyman could get, the Knight Commander of St. Gregory.
Well, that settles it, doesn't it? Clearly the Pope agreed that Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan was the best of the Trek movies.
I think the answer can be found in the way the question is being asked: in plain text.
We're being presented a summary of a story in text. The linked articles are all blocks of text with some images, and a few links to the aforementioned interactive features. I read about these interactive features. The text makes them sound really interesting. But ironically, since the text told me exactly what I was going to find when I played with the interactive simulations, I didn't feel any particular need to actually play with the simulations themselves. Now we're going to sit around and argue, insult each other, and make references to tired internet memes... all using blocks of text.
The basic model used by newspapers and magazines- large blocks of text, sometimes with embedded pictures, and a place for readers to leave comments (in the olden, bygone days, these were the Letters to the Editor, today it's online forums)- it still works really well in terms of conveying information. I think that additional features [links to other web pages and videos, interactive content, the ability to update stories within moments of recieving new information] all add a huge amount value to more the traditional content, and provide for a richer means of communication. But they are by no means necessary for good journalism. And they are certainly not a substitute for good journalism. People still have to find the important stories, talk to the sources, figure out what's going on, and then present it. Interactive web pages aren't going to tell you whether the White House is exaggerating the evidence on WMD, whether Sarah Palin is capable of assuming control of the country, or what kind of leader Barack Obama will really be.
It's true that newspapers are facing something of a crisis due to declining advertising revenue. But if anything, I probably spend as much or more time reading stories than I did before. That suggests to me that it's their advertising model that is hopelessly outdated, not the journalism.
Imagine - the price of a human mission we could fill the solar system with squadrons of rovers. The numbers are rough, but they suggest that we can get more science for our buck with robots.
Another important factor to keep in mind is time. Offhand, I'd guess that a manned Mars mission would take about 10-20 years from initiating the mission to the first footfall on Mars. If you look at complex aerospace programs they take a very long time to put together. The shuttle took around 13 years (studies began in 1968, shuttle flew in 1981). The F-22 Raptor, which took 17 years (request for proposals in 1986, first aircraft delivered in 2003). In contrast, the first Mars rover (Sojourner) was initiated and launched within a span of around 3 years.
So the idea that human geologists can do more is just ignoring some basic logistics. Yes, a human geologist could cover a fair amount of ground in a day... once you get them there. But it would take 10-20 years to get him (or her) there; in the meantime you could develop and launch several generations of increasingly sophisticated robotic robots which would be able to map increasingly large swaths of the planet. By the time the human geologist gets there, the robots will have done most of the work and made most of the major discoveries.
This is a really serious matter. Iran already has highly advanced technology allowing them to photoshop pictures of missiles. Now, thanks to HP, they have the technology needed to print pictures of those photoshopped missiles. Next, they could be photoshopping and then printing pictures of tanks, ships, aircraft... where will it all end?
It's called providing for the common defense... one of the few things the damn government is supposed to be doing, as apposed to all the crap they are, and want, to do.
The question is, are the F-22 and F-35 (a) addressing the real needs of our military forces, and (b) are they cost-effective ways of doing that (particularly the F-22, which costs upwards of 100 million per plane)? Currently, the United States Air Force has air superiority, and few nations have anything (or plan to build anything) that can touch the F-15. Now, it's probably a good idea to make sure that we retain our air superiority, but do we really need both the F-22 and the F-35 to do that, or could we get by with just one? Or what about maintaining air superiority using unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs)? Doubtless, being able to maintain air superiority is going to be critical in future wars. But the reality is that many of the wars of the next 20-30 years will probably look a lot more like Afghanistan and Iraq than they will look like World War II. A 100 million dollar supercruising stealth plane doesn't do you a hell of a lot of good if the enemy's primary weapon is illiterate, brainwashed jihadis armed with kalashnikovs.
Greenpeace is just being *completely* unfair here. I mean, what next? Are they now going to go after Apple for the new sealskin covered MacBook, or the walrus ivory iPod?
While it's possible that one day hydrogen might be a real alternative, the way hydrogen has been pursued suggests to me that it's been little more than a cynical PR stunt for the American auto makers. Detroit has thrown a few million at producing some prototypes so they can say "Look at us, we really care about the environment!" Meanwhile, the bulk of the industry's efforts went into designing, building, and selling huge, gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks. If Detroit really gave a damn about global warming and dependence on foreign oil, they would have made a major push to reallocate their resources to producing smaller, more efficient vehicles, which would have major benefits today, instead of promising to solve everything with hydrogen at some indefinite point in the future.
Billy Mc Asshat was brought before a military court yesterday accused of team killing, he was summarily sentenced to death by firing squad.
Dunno, maybe it was originally marketed as a fast-paced shooter, but it sounds more like it's gonna be a MMORPG to me. You know, "Farmer Tariq cannot harvest his olive groves because they are overrun with insurgents. Bring the turbans of 12 Al Qaeda in Iraq members, 12 Shiite extremists, and 12 Iranian intelligence agents to Farmer Tariq for your reward." Or, "The Coalition cannot patrol Main Street because it is lined with improvised explosive devices. Find and disarm 20 IEDs and bring them back to Sarjeant Slothrop for your reward." Sounds like a lot of endless grinding to me.
Especially, if it happened to be a non-cannibalistic species.
That would suggest that outer space turns spiders into cannibals.
Why haven't we seen this effect on humans yet?
Maybe it takes a while for those wacky cosmic-cannibal-rays to accumulate, and humans have just not been up in outer space long enough?
Dear sir,
I represent a major Hollywood film producer. I find your ideas creative and the narrative compelling, and I wish to purchase your script.
Re:I lost it
on
American Nerd
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If you asked me to name the one person who, more than anyone, was responsible for making nerds acceptable... well, I'm not exactly a huge fan of his, but I think I'd have to say Bill Gates.
First, Windows made computers more usable to more people. Admittedly, Apple did it first and better, but Gates did more to bring it to the masses, simply because Apple had so little market share. Second- and perhaps more importantly- he made a s***load of money doing that. Americans have a strong anti-intellectual streak, but they do respect the ability to make unholy amounts of cash.
All I can say is, I've been way, WAY into politics as of late, because I thought for a second this said, 'VR Snow Game Functions as Palin Management'...
"I know it's pretty extreme, John, but she's become a danger to the party. The only way we can keep her under control is to immerse her in this virtual Alaska. Now she spends six, eight hours a day in there, snowshoeing, chasing after moose, shooting polar bears, clubbing seals. She's been much more calm and manageable since we started using the simulation."
A first person non-shooter, huh? You know, at first I didn't think something like this would work, but the more I think about it, the more I like this idea. I think it could really work well, and be a refreshing change from the all those tiresome shooters.
So what kind of melee weapons do you get to use? Baseball bats, butcher knives, broken bottles, axes, chainsaws, weed-whackers, two-by-fours with lots of nails pounded into them? The old standby, the trusty rock? Or do you just like, gouge your opponents eyes out with your bare hands and bite their ears off?
Oh give me a break! I mean, assume for argument's sake that this technique actually worked. If it actually did, then the recent spike in search terms such as "mysterious virus", "flesh reanimation technology", "revivified corpses: control techniques" and "shotguns" on Google would indicate we're facing a major outbreak of zombies. That's just nonsense.
I'd write more about why this idea won't work, but I'll have to do it tomorrow. Right now I've got a splitting headache, so I'm just going to put some neosporin on that bite I got from the weird guy on the subway train and then head to bed.
However, most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets. Where we may disagree is in degree, but at its core, the Republican stance has always been these three pillars.
After eight years of the Bush administration, I think it's clear that the party has completely lost its way. To me, the Republican Party stands for corruption, for putting radical ideology ahead of competent government, and for racism and intolerance.
So I'm glad to see the Republican Party thoroughly defeated this time around. The party has earned this with eight years of misrule, and they need to be held accountable. What worries me, however, is how the Democrats will govern, given a decisive majority in congress and control of the presidency. Power needs to be held accountable, and with the Republican party in such disarray and so little control over government now, I'm not sure how that will happen. Giving the Democrats free reign may not be a good idea- speaking as a Democrat, I know too well how my party can screw things up.
For that reason, I hope the Republican party comes back- but as something different. I really hope that the Republican party will take a long look at the errors of the Bush administration, and learn something. I would like to see a Republican party that is in favor of good government, appointing smart, competent people from any party, instead of incompetent hacks. I would like to see a Republican party that is pragmatic, basing policy on fact instead of religion and right-wing ideology. I would like to see a Republican Party that is genuinely compassionate, and that appeals to people's aspirations instead of their fears and prejudices.
Don't learn the wrong lesson from John McCain. John McCain embodies the best of the party. It was the rest of the party that dragged him down.
feel free to disagree with her, but I'll take someone speaking their mind, and not the party line, any day of the week
Give me a freakin' break. "speaking their mind"? She 'spoke her mind', and there was nothing on it. It's just gibberish. There are signing apes that can communicate more coherently. It's the same deal as Bush: her language isn't awkward because she has trouble finding the right words to express her thoughts, it's because her thoughts themselves are poorly formed.
As for not speaking the party line, that's bullshit too. The only time she sounds coherent is when she's repeating pre-programmed phrases handed to her by Republican Party speechwriters. That's why she performs so well in speeches and in the highly structured format of the VP debate, but completely screws up in interviews.
The Republican party gave her a remarkable opportunity to show her stuff on a national stage. Not only did she blow it, she helped take McCain and her party down with her.
There is NO such right, because in order for that right to exist, you must STEAL MONEY from your neighbors' weekly paychecks. You do not have a right to commit theft. That's exactly what the Plantation Masters used to do when they made black & white slaves work without pay.
Let me take a wild guess. You're young, fairly healthy, and single, and you don't have anyone who depends on you like a spouse or children.When all you think about is yourself, it's easy to think, hey, what do I need healthcare for? Even if I do get sick, if it's my time, then it's my time. The situation changes pretty rapidly when you've got a family, and you've got to start putting other people's needs ahead of your own. All of a sudden, your health is something you can't take chances with, because other people are depending upon you staying healthy. And their health is something you don't want to take chances with.
I have a friend who has a high paying job selling people expensive equipment. He hates his job, and would like to strike out for himself and do something less lucrative, but more rewarding. But he can't, and it's because of health insurance. A few years ago, he collapsed and had to be rushed to the hospital. As I understand things, the doctors were not entirely clear what the problem was, or what the best course of treatment was, and he now appears to be healthy. But according to the guys who do the calculations for the insurance companies, he was in an extreme high risk category. It became impossible for him to afford health care on his own, so he has to stay with his job. Here's his choice: stay with his job, and have health care. Or quit and try something new... but know that if you get sick, it could ruin your family financially. If your wife gets sick, it could ruin you. If your kid gets sick, it could ruin you.
Being forced to contribute to a government health care plan may take away some of your choices. But the lack of affordable health care options can take away your freedom as well. It's a complicated situation, I don't know what the answer is, but hysterical comparisons to slavery aren't really helpful.
Right to healthcare?
Well. You have a Right to Free Speech, and you can direct your speech at a doctor, and request that he heal your sick body. As a professional the doctor will do his best to accommodate you.
What you do NOT have a right to do is take you Bill, hand it to your neighbors, and force them to pay the bill. That's theft.
If I ever see you slowly bleeding to death on the side of the road, I hope you'll remind me that you have no right to expect any help from your fellow citizens, and I can then be on my way, secure in my knowledge that there will soon be one less selfish bastard in the world.
Hey, Thrall ain't perfect, but he's a warlord and he'll soon put an end to the war in Crossroads. He's exactly the sort of murderous bastard we need in troubled times like this. And have you seen the floating castle that just showed up outside Thunder Bluff? That's obviously the result of 8 years of failed Alliance rule. You want four more years of that?
I just don't think I can vote for a green-skin for president. Plus, I keep hearing these rumors that Thrall is secretly a Muslim.
Obama's lack of experience -- if he is elected, the 4 year presidential term will be the longest job he's ever held -- he's a talented Senator, but he's never actually run anything
That was always the McCain camp's argument, and not a bad one, either. But with the selection of Palin, McCain really shot himself in the foot, or perhaps the face. First, it negates his ability to attack Obama on experience. You can't insist plausibly that Sarah "Caribou Barbie" Palin is qualified to be president, and Obama isn't, "executive experience" notwithstanding. She has "executive experience" but by that argument, McCain himself isn't qualified, since he's been a legislator his entire career.
Second, it raises questions about the virtues of McCain's own experience. Given his lengthy service to the country as a military man and as a senator, he has it in spades. So how in the hell was he able to screw up so badly on one of the most important issues of his campaign- selecting his VP? It's not a minor issue; he had to pick someone who can win over his base, appeal to the center, and run the entire country if needed. Palin does appeal to the radical right, but she's dangerously ignorant of national and international politics. As for winning over the center and the Hillary voters, fat chance. I consider myself part of the center (I don't want liberals, or conservatives, competent government) and was originally willing to vote for McCain, but when he selected Palin... well, I'm sorry, I just can't vote for someone who believes that the Flintstones is an accurate portrayal of human history.
As for Obama... I'll admit, I thought he was just empty rhetoric, which was why I supported Hillary. But despite her supposed experience, he outmaneuvered her, and soundly defeated her. That's what impressed me- not the hope and change bullshit. Any man who can take on Hillary Clinton and emerge with his testes intact has my respect. If he can outmaneuver Hillary Clinton, and now the Republican Party, then I think Obama can handle guys like Putin just fine.
The point that IS relevant, to me at least, is that already about 60% of our taxes are paid by the top 5% of wage earners. Over a third of all wage-earners pay no income tax at all. How is this remotely fair? Obama wants to shift the burden even more onto the top wage-earners, and calls that "more fair". Rubbish.
It's not an issue of fairness. We shouldn't shift the tax burden to higher earners because it's altruistic, we should do it because it's selfish. We tried the whole trickle-down thing for the past eight years, but it should be clear from where we're sitting that it doesn't lead to a robust economy. If you want to stimulate the economy with $100,000 in tax breaks, it works a hell of a lot better to hand it out to a hundred lower and middle class Americans than to give it all to Warren Buffett. Anyhow, that was Warren Buffett's take on it, and I think the guy knows a hell of a lot more about economies and what drives them than the incompetent hacks of the Republican Party.
That's the question- where do we need to keep taxes low to stimulate the economy? In the short term, I don't like the idea of the government taking more of my paycheck. But in the long term, I would rather have the government take a bit more, if it's offset by higher earnings and better stock market performance. I might even end up ahead. I don't know, perhaps it won't work. What I *do* know is that we've tried it your way, for eight years. We lowered taxes on the rich, and the economy has gone to hell.
At this point the odds of a McCain presidency range from slim to nonexistent, depending on who you ask. According to CNN's electoral map, Obama has 192 electoral votes all but guaranteed, and can count on 85 more from states that are likely to go his way, giving him 277- and he needs 270 to win. So even if McCain wins every single red state, every single state that is leaning Republican, and all the races that are too close to call, he's going to lose. The Intrade prediction market predicts that Obama will pick up 364 electoral votes. Slate.com has an electoral map predicting that Obama has 272 electoral votes in the bag, 39 likely to go his way, and 85 in play. RealClearPolitics.com predicts 306 Obama, 157 McCain, 75 tossup. Again, he needs 270 to win. The only people who pretend there is anything like a sense of suspense here are (surprise, surprise) Fox News.
I almost feel bad for McCain. Having to run on the Bush legacy and having to embrace the same Republican establishment that attacked him in 2000 must suck. But his decision to nominate Palin made me finally decide I could never vote for him. McCain runs on the premise of "Country First" but picking someone as inexperienced, brain-dead, and radical as Palin is an example of putting electoral politics first, and country second. It's classic Bush Administration politics all over again: appoint an incompetent right wing hack who agrees with your politics, instead of someone who could actually do a decent job. At this point, I figure whatever he gets, he deserves.
Husayn is trying to figure out these stupid remote triggering devices. Anything to avoid spending Ramadan with his wife's sisters!
Ali is watching Coalition troop movements. Bo-ring!
Kamel wishes the carpet bombing would stop soon. The cave is cold. And the other martyrs smell bad.
Akbar is thinking about the 72 virgins awaiting him in Paradise. They better not be fat like his sister Fatima, or he is going to feel very mislead by his imam.
Commander Tariq says his Mujahedin should stop using the Zionist tool Twitter and get back to fighting the infidels, or he will beat them like the cowardly she-goats they are.
Slashdot Mirror
As an underserved customer, I'm glad that Valve is taking this move and I hope other companies will follow. However, they are still underserving one important segment of the market. And that's the one I belong to: people who want to get things without paying for them. I think that if Valve made a serious effort to cater to us by not charging money for their games, they would see their piracy rates drop almost to zero.
I think some people may need to get their priorities straight. The United States is facing some incredible challenges right now. The economy is failing. We are fighting two major wars in the Middle East. The federal debt is 10 trillion dollars (about $40,000 per person). We've got a prison full of detainees in Guantanamo to figure out what to do with. And our entire economy is based around petroleum, which we seem to be running out of. I want Obama and his team to dedicate 100% of his time to figuring out those problems, and until they're under control I couldn't possibly care less what kind of technology is being used to stream his events.
Well, that settles it, doesn't it? Clearly the Pope agreed that Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan was the best of the Trek movies.
We're being presented a summary of a story in text. The linked articles are all blocks of text with some images, and a few links to the aforementioned interactive features. I read about these interactive features. The text makes them sound really interesting. But ironically, since the text told me exactly what I was going to find when I played with the interactive simulations, I didn't feel any particular need to actually play with the simulations themselves. Now we're going to sit around and argue, insult each other, and make references to tired internet memes... all using blocks of text.
The basic model used by newspapers and magazines- large blocks of text, sometimes with embedded pictures, and a place for readers to leave comments (in the olden, bygone days, these were the Letters to the Editor, today it's online forums)- it still works really well in terms of conveying information. I think that additional features [links to other web pages and videos, interactive content, the ability to update stories within moments of recieving new information] all add a huge amount value to more the traditional content, and provide for a richer means of communication. But they are by no means necessary for good journalism. And they are certainly not a substitute for good journalism. People still have to find the important stories, talk to the sources, figure out what's going on, and then present it. Interactive web pages aren't going to tell you whether the White House is exaggerating the evidence on WMD, whether Sarah Palin is capable of assuming control of the country, or what kind of leader Barack Obama will really be.
It's true that newspapers are facing something of a crisis due to declining advertising revenue. But if anything, I probably spend as much or more time reading stories than I did before. That suggests to me that it's their advertising model that is hopelessly outdated, not the journalism.
Another important factor to keep in mind is time. Offhand, I'd guess that a manned Mars mission would take about 10-20 years from initiating the mission to the first footfall on Mars. If you look at complex aerospace programs they take a very long time to put together. The shuttle took around 13 years (studies began in 1968, shuttle flew in 1981). The F-22 Raptor, which took 17 years (request for proposals in 1986, first aircraft delivered in 2003). In contrast, the first Mars rover (Sojourner) was initiated and launched within a span of around 3 years.
So the idea that human geologists can do more is just ignoring some basic logistics. Yes, a human geologist could cover a fair amount of ground in a day... once you get them there. But it would take 10-20 years to get him (or her) there; in the meantime you could develop and launch several generations of increasingly sophisticated robotic robots which would be able to map increasingly large swaths of the planet. By the time the human geologist gets there, the robots will have done most of the work and made most of the major discoveries.
This is a really serious matter. Iran already has highly advanced technology allowing them to photoshop pictures of missiles. Now, thanks to HP, they have the technology needed to print pictures of those photoshopped missiles. Next, they could be photoshopping and then printing pictures of tanks, ships, aircraft... where will it all end?
Or maybe a little pair of buckyballs to hang off the trailer hitch.
The question is, are the F-22 and F-35 (a) addressing the real needs of our military forces, and (b) are they cost-effective ways of doing that (particularly the F-22, which costs upwards of 100 million per plane)? Currently, the United States Air Force has air superiority, and few nations have anything (or plan to build anything) that can touch the F-15. Now, it's probably a good idea to make sure that we retain our air superiority, but do we really need both the F-22 and the F-35 to do that, or could we get by with just one? Or what about maintaining air superiority using unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs)? Doubtless, being able to maintain air superiority is going to be critical in future wars. But the reality is that many of the wars of the next 20-30 years will probably look a lot more like Afghanistan and Iraq than they will look like World War II. A 100 million dollar supercruising stealth plane doesn't do you a hell of a lot of good if the enemy's primary weapon is illiterate, brainwashed jihadis armed with kalashnikovs.
Greenpeace is just being *completely* unfair here. I mean, what next? Are they now going to go after Apple for the new sealskin covered MacBook, or the walrus ivory iPod?
While it's possible that one day hydrogen might be a real alternative, the way hydrogen has been pursued suggests to me that it's been little more than a cynical PR stunt for the American auto makers. Detroit has thrown a few million at producing some prototypes so they can say "Look at us, we really care about the environment!" Meanwhile, the bulk of the industry's efforts went into designing, building, and selling huge, gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks. If Detroit really gave a damn about global warming and dependence on foreign oil, they would have made a major push to reallocate their resources to producing smaller, more efficient vehicles, which would have major benefits today, instead of promising to solve everything with hydrogen at some indefinite point in the future.
Dunno, maybe it was originally marketed as a fast-paced shooter, but it sounds more like it's gonna be a MMORPG to me. You know, "Farmer Tariq cannot harvest his olive groves because they are overrun with insurgents. Bring the turbans of 12 Al Qaeda in Iraq members, 12 Shiite extremists, and 12 Iranian intelligence agents to Farmer Tariq for your reward." Or, "The Coalition cannot patrol Main Street because it is lined with improvised explosive devices. Find and disarm 20 IEDs and bring them back to Sarjeant Slothrop for your reward." Sounds like a lot of endless grinding to me.
Dear sir, I represent a major Hollywood film producer. I find your ideas creative and the narrative compelling, and I wish to purchase your script.
First, Windows made computers more usable to more people. Admittedly, Apple did it first and better, but Gates did more to bring it to the masses, simply because Apple had so little market share. Second- and perhaps more importantly- he made a s***load of money doing that. Americans have a strong anti-intellectual streak, but they do respect the ability to make unholy amounts of cash.
"I know it's pretty extreme, John, but she's become a danger to the party. The only way we can keep her under control is to immerse her in this virtual Alaska. Now she spends six, eight hours a day in there, snowshoeing, chasing after moose, shooting polar bears, clubbing seals. She's been much more calm and manageable since we started using the simulation."
A first person non-shooter, huh? You know, at first I didn't think something like this would work, but the more I think about it, the more I like this idea. I think it could really work well, and be a refreshing change from the all those tiresome shooters.
So what kind of melee weapons do you get to use? Baseball bats, butcher knives, broken bottles, axes, chainsaws, weed-whackers, two-by-fours with lots of nails pounded into them? The old standby, the trusty rock? Or do you just like, gouge your opponents eyes out with your bare hands and bite their ears off?
Oh give me a break! I mean, assume for argument's sake that this technique actually worked. If it actually did, then the recent spike in search terms such as "mysterious virus", "flesh reanimation technology", "revivified corpses: control techniques" and "shotguns" on Google would indicate we're facing a major outbreak of zombies. That's just nonsense.
I'd write more about why this idea won't work, but I'll have to do it tomorrow. Right now I've got a splitting headache, so I'm just going to put some neosporin on that bite I got from the weird guy on the subway train and then head to bed.
After eight years of the Bush administration, I think it's clear that the party has completely lost its way. To me, the Republican Party stands for corruption, for putting radical ideology ahead of competent government, and for racism and intolerance.
So I'm glad to see the Republican Party thoroughly defeated this time around. The party has earned this with eight years of misrule, and they need to be held accountable. What worries me, however, is how the Democrats will govern, given a decisive majority in congress and control of the presidency. Power needs to be held accountable, and with the Republican party in such disarray and so little control over government now, I'm not sure how that will happen. Giving the Democrats free reign may not be a good idea- speaking as a Democrat, I know too well how my party can screw things up.
For that reason, I hope the Republican party comes back- but as something different. I really hope that the Republican party will take a long look at the errors of the Bush administration, and learn something. I would like to see a Republican party that is in favor of good government, appointing smart, competent people from any party, instead of incompetent hacks. I would like to see a Republican party that is pragmatic, basing policy on fact instead of religion and right-wing ideology. I would like to see a Republican Party that is genuinely compassionate, and that appeals to people's aspirations instead of their fears and prejudices.
Don't learn the wrong lesson from John McCain. John McCain embodies the best of the party. It was the rest of the party that dragged him down.
Give me a freakin' break. "speaking their mind"? She 'spoke her mind', and there was nothing on it. It's just gibberish. There are signing apes that can communicate more coherently. It's the same deal as Bush: her language isn't awkward because she has trouble finding the right words to express her thoughts, it's because her thoughts themselves are poorly formed.
As for not speaking the party line, that's bullshit too. The only time she sounds coherent is when she's repeating pre-programmed phrases handed to her by Republican Party speechwriters. That's why she performs so well in speeches and in the highly structured format of the VP debate, but completely screws up in interviews.
The Republican party gave her a remarkable opportunity to show her stuff on a national stage. Not only did she blow it, she helped take McCain and her party down with her.
Let me take a wild guess. You're young, fairly healthy, and single, and you don't have anyone who depends on you like a spouse or children.When all you think about is yourself, it's easy to think, hey, what do I need healthcare for? Even if I do get sick, if it's my time, then it's my time. The situation changes pretty rapidly when you've got a family, and you've got to start putting other people's needs ahead of your own. All of a sudden, your health is something you can't take chances with, because other people are depending upon you staying healthy. And their health is something you don't want to take chances with.
I have a friend who has a high paying job selling people expensive equipment. He hates his job, and would like to strike out for himself and do something less lucrative, but more rewarding. But he can't, and it's because of health insurance. A few years ago, he collapsed and had to be rushed to the hospital. As I understand things, the doctors were not entirely clear what the problem was, or what the best course of treatment was, and he now appears to be healthy. But according to the guys who do the calculations for the insurance companies, he was in an extreme high risk category. It became impossible for him to afford health care on his own, so he has to stay with his job. Here's his choice: stay with his job, and have health care. Or quit and try something new... but know that if you get sick, it could ruin your family financially. If your wife gets sick, it could ruin you. If your kid gets sick, it could ruin you.
Being forced to contribute to a government health care plan may take away some of your choices. But the lack of affordable health care options can take away your freedom as well. It's a complicated situation, I don't know what the answer is, but hysterical comparisons to slavery aren't really helpful.
If I ever see you slowly bleeding to death on the side of the road, I hope you'll remind me that you have no right to expect any help from your fellow citizens, and I can then be on my way, secure in my knowledge that there will soon be one less selfish bastard in the world.
I just don't think I can vote for a green-skin for president. Plus, I keep hearing these rumors that Thrall is secretly a Muslim.
That was always the McCain camp's argument, and not a bad one, either. But with the selection of Palin, McCain really shot himself in the foot, or perhaps the face. First, it negates his ability to attack Obama on experience. You can't insist plausibly that Sarah "Caribou Barbie" Palin is qualified to be president, and Obama isn't, "executive experience" notwithstanding. She has "executive experience" but by that argument, McCain himself isn't qualified, since he's been a legislator his entire career.
Second, it raises questions about the virtues of McCain's own experience. Given his lengthy service to the country as a military man and as a senator, he has it in spades. So how in the hell was he able to screw up so badly on one of the most important issues of his campaign- selecting his VP? It's not a minor issue; he had to pick someone who can win over his base, appeal to the center, and run the entire country if needed. Palin does appeal to the radical right, but she's dangerously ignorant of national and international politics. As for winning over the center and the Hillary voters, fat chance. I consider myself part of the center (I don't want liberals, or conservatives, competent government) and was originally willing to vote for McCain, but when he selected Palin... well, I'm sorry, I just can't vote for someone who believes that the Flintstones is an accurate portrayal of human history.
As for Obama... I'll admit, I thought he was just empty rhetoric, which was why I supported Hillary. But despite her supposed experience, he outmaneuvered her, and soundly defeated her. That's what impressed me- not the hope and change bullshit. Any man who can take on Hillary Clinton and emerge with his testes intact has my respect. If he can outmaneuver Hillary Clinton, and now the Republican Party, then I think Obama can handle guys like Putin just fine.
It's not an issue of fairness. We shouldn't shift the tax burden to higher earners because it's altruistic, we should do it because it's selfish. We tried the whole trickle-down thing for the past eight years, but it should be clear from where we're sitting that it doesn't lead to a robust economy. If you want to stimulate the economy with $100,000 in tax breaks, it works a hell of a lot better to hand it out to a hundred lower and middle class Americans than to give it all to Warren Buffett. Anyhow, that was Warren Buffett's take on it, and I think the guy knows a hell of a lot more about economies and what drives them than the incompetent hacks of the Republican Party.
That's the question- where do we need to keep taxes low to stimulate the economy? In the short term, I don't like the idea of the government taking more of my paycheck. But in the long term, I would rather have the government take a bit more, if it's offset by higher earnings and better stock market performance. I might even end up ahead. I don't know, perhaps it won't work. What I *do* know is that we've tried it your way, for eight years. We lowered taxes on the rich, and the economy has gone to hell.
I almost feel bad for McCain. Having to run on the Bush legacy and having to embrace the same Republican establishment that attacked him in 2000 must suck. But his decision to nominate Palin made me finally decide I could never vote for him. McCain runs on the premise of "Country First" but picking someone as inexperienced, brain-dead, and radical as Palin is an example of putting electoral politics first, and country second. It's classic Bush Administration politics all over again: appoint an incompetent right wing hack who agrees with your politics, instead of someone who could actually do a decent job. At this point, I figure whatever he gets, he deserves.
Husayn is trying to figure out these stupid remote triggering devices. Anything to avoid spending Ramadan with his wife's sisters!
Ali is watching Coalition troop movements. Bo-ring!
Kamel wishes the carpet bombing would stop soon. The cave is cold. And the other martyrs smell bad.
Akbar is thinking about the 72 virgins awaiting him in Paradise. They better not be fat like his sister Fatima, or he is going to feel very mislead by his imam.
Commander Tariq says his Mujahedin should stop using the Zionist tool Twitter and get back to fighting the infidels, or he will beat them like the cowardly she-goats they are.