You raise a very good point. I'm still going to vote for the presidential candidate I support (Nader), but next election I'm going to focus more of my campaign efforts into local elections where I can make the most difference. You are right though - ground up works better.
Sure it does (make it valid), because honest people can disagree about whether smoking pot should be legal, but no one can argue as to whether genocide is wrong or not.
Many people already have argued that genocide is not wrong. Just ask someone from Germany, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, or Darfur.
Anyone who has ever busted a pot smoker is not a very good person at all. "I was just doing my job" is no excuse.
Associating marijuana smokers with Holocaust victims is a quick way to get you pegged as "idiotic ass-hat".
The superior orders defense predates the Holocaust by centuries, and the grandparent post made no mention of it. Even if we assume no historical context outside the Nuremburg trials, this would not make the defense any more valid when applied to a lesser injustice.
Speaking of voting for "alternate" parties, why can't we have a voting system like the French?
Actually, Ralph Nader supports voting system reform too. His 2008 campaign platform included instant run-off voting, which is similar in theory to the two-round system.
To answer your question, we can't have a voting system like the French because we are unwilling to vote for candidates who support it. An incumbent has no incentive to support a change that may put him out of a job.
it's easy to criticize the MPAA, but who is going to pay the millions of dollars to shoot a major movie if everyone simply copies content without paying for it?
(Emphasis mine)
1. You don't need millions of dollars to make a damn good movie. Take a look at Primer - awesome film with only a $7000 budget that went on to make $424,760 at the box office. Artistic vision can still be expressed without millions of dollars.
2. Many people, such as yourself, think one should pay for entertainment one has enjoyed. To say that everyone (but you?) will simply copy it without paying is unrealistic and cynical.
Requiring a quorum for all laws (as suggested by several posters above) could slow down the system. I think a better way to reduce this problem would be to allow proxy voting; when a deputy is not in session, they designate another deputy to vote on their behalf. Sixteen proxies wouldn't represent the populace as closely as a larger sample size of deputies would, but it would still be better than this.
The analogy only goes so far, and trying to stretch it to prove your point is rather meaningless. You perfectly well understand that in the case of international relations, everyone observes everyone else - so we know the past history of all actors involved, as well as the immediate events up to this point. There's no issue of "suddenly noticing".
Then why the hell am I just walking down the street where I already know someone is being beaten? This analogy makes no sense.
So, when you walk the street, and you see the guy beating up his wife, you won't intervene with force because it is "in conflict with the ideology"?
And before you say "police", you know that this simply doesn't apply in this analogy. Your only options are to walk away, try to argue (good luck with that!), or fight.
How do I know the man in question wasn't walking down the street moments ago when he saw his wife beating someone else? His only options would be to walk away, try to argue, or fight.
I certainly hope that no defenders of freedom like yourself see me beating this man in a fight, or I'm in for a world of hurt!
If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR THIS......Both major parties are for corporate wealth and will use legislation to back said corporate wealth.
Funny, I was about to say the same thing about people who didn't vote for Ralph Nader. He's just about as anti-corporate as they get, and got more votes than the Libertarian party. Our problem is that the third parties are splintered, while the Republicrats are frightfully united.
Reducing the gene pool is bad for the longevity of the species. As the gene pool becomes more homogeneous the risk of a species exterminating disease increases, since the likelihood of a genetic mutation which can resist the new disease is diminished.
Add in the fact that we know startlingly little about how genes really operate and you have the possibility of some serious unknown consequences.
Wow, once we globally provide food, clean water, education, basic medical care, housing, and then convince a significant percentage of the world that they want this, we might have a problem!
You fired your company and gave them 3 weeks notice. If they fired you would you get 3 weeks notice?
If my company fired me I'd get way more than three week's pay in the form of a severance package. Really it doesn't seem fair to the company - I doubt they could replace me as quickly as I could replace them.
Replacing the previous version is functionality that the production version needs to have. If the feature is disabled in beta, it won't be tested, and problems won't get fixed. It would be nice if they added an option to turn replacement of the previous version on and off, but that would require spending time/money on a feature that won't be in the production version. Assuming there are more than enough people willing to test the beta despite this handicap, this is the most cost-effective option.
What strikes me as odd is that this goes against the Iowa's best interests. Don't get me wrong, it's real swell that they're doing this for the rest of us, but I'd think that Iowa would want to maximize the influence of its own voters. Now candidates have less incentive to campaign in Iowa and promise it pork.
If democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner, then the American republic is a herd of sheep picking one of two wolves who will decide what is for dinner.
How about we simply improve our educational system and teach marketing majors a bit more about business ethics and ethical advertising?
I have a few doubts regarding the effectiveness of your proposal.
1. Improving our education system to teach anyone anything better is not very simple at all. There's usually a lot of disagreement as to what is "better" and how to achieve it.
2. Few spammers/clients have degrees in marketing.
3. A large percentage of spammers are from outside the USA, so we cannot change their educational system.
4. Spammers/clients either know what they're doing is unethical, or no amount of education will override their rationalizations. Their primary motivation is profit.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit! I'm still running IE6!
No, they'd just have lots of guns everywhere.
No one can validly argue that marijuana should be illegal either. :-P
You raise a very good point. I'm still going to vote for the presidential candidate I support (Nader), but next election I'm going to focus more of my campaign efforts into local elections where I can make the most difference. You are right though - ground up works better.
Many people already have argued that genocide is not wrong. Just ask someone from Germany, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, or Darfur.
The superior orders defense predates the Holocaust by centuries, and the grandparent post made no mention of it. Even if we assume no historical context outside the Nuremburg trials, this would not make the defense any more valid when applied to a lesser injustice.
Actually, Ralph Nader supports voting system reform too. His 2008 campaign platform included instant run-off voting, which is similar in theory to the two-round system.
To answer your question, we can't have a voting system like the French because we are unwilling to vote for candidates who support it. An incumbent has no incentive to support a change that may put him out of a job.
(Emphasis mine)
1. You don't need millions of dollars to make a damn good movie. Take a look at Primer - awesome film with only a $7000 budget that went on to make $424,760 at the box office. Artistic vision can still be expressed without millions of dollars.
2. Many people, such as yourself, think one should pay for entertainment one has enjoyed. To say that everyone (but you?) will simply copy it without paying is unrealistic and cynical.
Requiring a quorum for all laws (as suggested by several posters above) could slow down the system. I think a better way to reduce this problem would be to allow proxy voting; when a deputy is not in session, they designate another deputy to vote on their behalf. Sixteen proxies wouldn't represent the populace as closely as a larger sample size of deputies would, but it would still be better than this.
Then why the hell am I just walking down the street where I already know someone is being beaten? This analogy makes no sense.
How do I know the man in question wasn't walking down the street moments ago when he saw his wife beating someone else? His only options would be to walk away, try to argue, or fight.
I certainly hope that no defenders of freedom like yourself see me beating this man in a fight, or I'm in for a world of hurt!
That's a good idea! We could just rate all countries on this scale.
Funny, I was about to say the same thing about people who didn't vote for Ralph Nader. He's just about as anti-corporate as they get, and got more votes than the Libertarian party. Our problem is that the third parties are splintered, while the Republicrats are frightfully united.
The law should apply the same way to everyone. Why shouldn't Verizon patent an invention that could be patented if anyone else invented it?
Please don't correct him; Universal Media Studios has copyrighted the original word.
... Only outlaws will have designer babies.
Wow, once we globally provide food, clean water, education, basic medical care, housing, and then convince a significant percentage of the world that they want this, we might have a problem!
If my company fired me I'd get way more than three week's pay in the form of a severance package. Really it doesn't seem fair to the company - I doubt they could replace me as quickly as I could replace them.
Replacing the previous version is functionality that the production version needs to have. If the feature is disabled in beta, it won't be tested, and problems won't get fixed. It would be nice if they added an option to turn replacement of the previous version on and off, but that would require spending time/money on a feature that won't be in the production version. Assuming there are more than enough people willing to test the beta despite this handicap, this is the most cost-effective option.
What strikes me as odd is that this goes against the Iowa's best interests. Don't get me wrong, it's real swell that they're doing this for the rest of us, but I'd think that Iowa would want to maximize the influence of its own voters. Now candidates have less incentive to campaign in Iowa and promise it pork.
If democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner, then the American republic is a herd of sheep picking one of two wolves who will decide what is for dinner.
Why not get someone who's all three, the real deal? The time has come for a GALAH nominee!
How about we simply improve our educational system and teach marketing majors a bit more about business ethics and ethical advertising?
I have a few doubts regarding the effectiveness of your proposal.
1. Improving our education system to teach anyone anything better is not very simple at all. There's usually a lot of disagreement as to what is "better" and how to achieve it.
2. Few spammers/clients have degrees in marketing.
3. A large percentage of spammers are from outside the USA, so we cannot change their educational system.
4. Spammers/clients either know what they're doing is unethical, or no amount of education will override their rationalizations. Their primary motivation is profit.
Too bad they aren't competing with broadcast radio - they are competing with last.fm, which has no ads.
Actually, since it's a time of war and in a manner prescribed by law, requiring residents to quarter soldiers would be constitutional.