Re:why does your opinion matter?
on
Palm's Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
Let me guess.. You used a palm pilot twice also.
I bought one of the old Visor palm pilots and used it more than two times. I learned the Grafiti input symbols. Once you learn it, it is faster than writing normal letters would be. Of course you would only know that if you have actually bothered to learned to use the fucking thing. I actually adopted several grafiti letters into my notetaking in school to save time. The letters don't need to be giant either. See above about learning to use the fucking thing.
I don't know if the Newton synced with outlook or had the great program library that the palm pilot had so, I will take my advice and not judge other than to say that they seemed pretty big when I last saw one and the Newton's handwriting recognition was widely considered iffy at best. Once I learned Grafitti my accuracy was close to 100%.
Anyways, congratulations! you have thrown your uninformed opinion on the shitheap of slashdot, and made demonsterably false statements all in one fell swoop. Proud day for you and your family.
I fire off my arguments (not normally as vitriolic as this, I must add), wait eagerly for the other side's reply, and watch as they argue until they're backed into a corner, then just stop posting to avoid having to admit they're wrong.
Even worse, I often see the self-same people in other threads advancing exactly the same arguments I'd shot down in previous debates, who then stop posting if I point out the problems again.
I have seen this done so many times it blows my mind. What do you want to bet that the person who posted this will be back at posting his free market solves everything nonsense again even after being repeatedly bitchslapped with the facts.
I always seem to get modded troll based on my anti-socialist position.
Sorry about that, I wouldn't mod this post troll though someon apparently already has.
First, my parents were the poorest people in my town. I didn't find wealth until I created it myself, without using any government grants or welfare dole.
Good for you, I take back what I said about your parents. Say, did your parents by any chance send you to public school? Please answer this question.
Second, companies don't exist to make money. They exist to make wealth. There is a difference. Companies that offer wealth to their customers in the form of long term happiness in exchange for giving up their wealth of money, tend to prosper. Those who rip people off tend to fail. Also, a company has to make sure their employees see added wealth in exchange for their time, or they lose those good employees.
Did I say anything about companies that rip off their customers? The problem is companies that pollute their neighbors. Unless the neighbors can afford to move out of town and switch jobs they have no choice but to live in a polluted area. They certainly can not influence the company except through environmental regulations and lawsuits.
Birth defects from what? Who really knows what causes birth defects.
Scientists know. Doctors know.
Government mandates scarcity in doctors and researchers in the form of regulation of colleges and grants, yet more doctors and researchers could find more cures for what ails us.
There are plenty of 'cures' on late night television. What's that? They don't cure anything? What a surprise.
If one company profits on creating more death and birth defects, another company will find out about it and let you know. But if government profits on the same, they'll just ask for more money to combat what is obvious a "social problem."
They will 'let you know'? And then what? Sell you a cure that doesn't exist? By the way, how well have the commercial television stations reported on pollution, much of which is produced by their advertisers, compared to PBS? That is what I thought. Governments do things besides "throw money at the problem". They create regulations which reduce the problem. I thought that was what you were opposing more than anything.
Don't start touting government as the one-size-fits-all savior. We all would be far better off with far smaller government. Marx and Keynes were proven wrong years before they were even born, but it seems to be that opinions such as mine are irrelevant and troll-ful because the opinions exist and refute the ideaology of the average slashdotter.
Don't start throwing Marx at me like you can make me look like some kind of communist. Opinions such as yours are not irrelivent, as they are held by some powerful rich people. Unfortunately many of them are just dead wrong. It is too bad that there is no '-1 Wrong' moderation because you deserve it alot more than '-1 troll'.
Quote of the day: "Birth defects from what? Who really knows what causes birth defects."
My solution is environmental protection laws which prevent companies from dumping dangerous chemicals in to our air and water.
More useless government regulation?
Only if you consider the prohibition of dumping mercury into a city's water supply a useless regulation. There are many chemicals which companies produce that we need to be protected from. Our survival and health depend on it.
Perhaps you hold the laughable idea that socialism will save those poor, enslaved workers suffering from birth defects?
The phrasing of that question is so condecnding and misleading that I hesitate to even dignify it with an answer. Environmental protection laws are not socialism.
No one needs any form of regulation from government at any level as they all create favoritism and don't fix any problem. Even pollution regulations are better controlled by the free market. Heavy polluters get blasted by watchdog groups, cleaner emitters get praised and consumers make the decision who succeeds and who fails.
That has to be the dumbest thing I have read all day. It is no wonder it got modded to +4 insightful.
Companies exist to make money. That is their sole responsibilty. In the vast majority of cases a PR problem will not affect them as much as the increased cost of doing business associated with not polluting. If you think a company won't exchance birth defects in 1000 children for a $2,000,000 increase in profits you are kidding yourself. You are also ignoring history. Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.
I've got a feeling that you aren't too worried though. You can afford to move away from the parts of America where birth defects are staggeringly common. Assuming that you earned your wealth rather than inheriting it (though I'm positive your parents were at least well off) you know better than to believe the drivel you are spuing.
There is a minimun level of education that US. public students are required to recieve. The flaws in the current system are no excuse to eliminate public eduation. The US public school system may not be that good compared to the rest of the industrialized world, but compared to countries without public schools we are doing pretty damn good. The countries producing better prepared kids than us typically spend more(relative to their government's overall budget) on their public schools than we do. Often, as in the case of European countries, most of which put the US public school system to shame taxes tend to be higher. What conclusion does that lead you to?
Eh, so GlobalChem's disposal budget is a bit overdrawn this year, and Councilman Daniels is driving a fancy new Porche now...
I guess then we both agree that corrupt government is bad. Kinda nice to have a court system to take your grievences to. In an ideal government Councilman Daniels would go to jail and GlobalChem would go bankrupt. In practice the consequences arent quite so bad but their existence is a deterrent. We need a deterrent. Without one many more will die needlessly.
Let's see... I've had mine. Didn't use taxpayer money to pay for 'em either. So what do I care?
You seem to be under the impression that your vaccinations are an impenatable forcefield against disease. They are not. The just reduce your chances of getting infected. The less infected people you have around you the better. Also, am I the only one who thinks it is not ok to let the poor die of disiease to save a few dollars?
I know several people who through no fault of their own were born poor. They got free vaccinations and free school lunches. They went to public school and they studied hard. They weren't looking to pass, they were looking to excell. They went to college on a scholarship paid for by the state. In America, everyone is given a chance, thanks to free public education. Sure the rich kids can fail out of college twice like my roomate and have their millionair parents keep paying indefinately while the poor kids have one chance to get it right or leave school. But the poor kids have a chance. Don't take this away from them.
If I am ever lucky enough to make it in to the top income tax bracket, I just hope my taxes are put to good use.
What about public education?
Do you really want to be surrounded by a bunch of illiterates?
What about environmental protection?
Do you really want it to be possible for GlobalChem to by a plot of land next to your home an dump chemicals all over the place and ruin your health?
What about public health services?
Do you really want to be surrounded by people who haven't had their vaccinations?
I think the bigger problem is not getting what you pay for. If you are paying 50% of your salary to the government, you should probably get free health care too. That is definately more useful than a govt propaganda campaign to make sure Cannabis is never legalized. Or a campaign to lie about the next government killing spree. I can't believe how much of my money actually goes to having the government lie to me. Or how much of it goes to fund homocides all over the world. disgusting.
I don't hate government, but I sure hate this government. Corrupt from the top down, and nobody can stop them.
"To quote Colin Powell: "if we break it, we own it"."
This quote has always bothered me. It implies a need to stay in the country to fix the problem, and is repeated by people who 'oppose' the war while supporting it.
If I had a quote to throw in to this mess it would be, "If we break it its broken. I don't care how much krazy glue you slather the pieces with, there is no way you will ever really fix it. So pay that cashier and leave the store."
Its sad how John Kerry went from telling unpleasent truthes to the government, putting it all on the line to justify a wrong, to being just another politician. He complained about the war while being complicit in it.
What ever happened to the guy that asked, "how can you ask someone to be the last person to die for a lie"? There was so much he could have said about Iraq and chose not to. How can this be the same person?
I saw him give his speach before congress on c-span, and I was so inspired. It is so refreshing when you hear blatent truth spoken in a place usually dominated by deceptive wording and outright lies. If you ever want to piss an political machine, stand up and tell the truth.
When we needed him most he became just the kind of political stooge he had helped defeat years earlier.
He may have been 'reporting for duty' to somebody, but the Johm Kerry who rocked the nation with unpleasent truthes was Missing in Action.
Fighting the privatization of space?? Are you high? Is there an private orbital spacecraft somewhere that I'm not aware about? I would absolutely love to see regular private orbital flights to space. If I had the money I would be among the first in line to buy a ticket.
The problem is that people are advocating that private industry take over something (manned orbital flight) that it still hasn't even done once yet. You can pontificate on the virtues of privatizing our manned space missions till your head turns blue, but it won't make companies invest the monumental sums of money in to a field which may have limited rewards.
I personally admire Burt Rutan. I think he has done great things with a relatively small amount of money, and is persuing wonderful dreams. That said, so far he has basically flown a rocket plane really high. Also, where do you think he got his start in aerospace? NASA!
You can laugh all you want about NASA's beaurocracy and everything else, but the things you suggest, having companies build their spacecraft have been implemented a long time ago. The Space Shuttle which you deride as an inefficient waste is maintained by a private company. Where is you mirical of privatization now?
You pontificate on NASA but are ignorant about things which are known by anyone with a more than passing familiarity of its practices. I think it is time you shut the hell up.
Your crack about the space shuttle pilots not looking like they do in the movies is particularly gauling. You want to know about the right stuff? Try gliding a massive and unwieldy spacecraft to a landing so soft that the astronauts in the orbiter have been unable to actually feel the moment the craft touches down. When was the last time you didn't notice a 737 touch down?
Did you know that the Shuttle is already largely maintained by a private corporation?
Many NASA spaceships are aleady built by Lockheed Martin and others. The old joke Apollo astronaughts used to tell went something like, "How would you feel being strapped in above a half billion tons of high explosives surrounded by a thin metal shell built by the lowest bidder."
There are problems of course, but last I checked NASA has been able to maintain a manned presence in space through some pretty daunting challenges. The last thing we need is another 'reorganization' of a government agency by the same people who 'reorganized' FEMA.
He never said that black people should be moved out of the city, but that there were forces at work which may result in that.
The bit about Guliani forcing out the 'criminal class' was a bit poorly worded, but I don't think he was implying that he thought blacks were undesirable. It seems that he sees forces at work which view many blacks as part of an undesireable group of people. Many blacks were in fact forced out of New York by a process known as 'gentrification' where property values and as a result rental rates are increased, forcing poor people to leave. Even by non-racists this is seen as a threat to the black community. This is because blacks are statistically more likely to be poor. This fact is actually embraced by anti-racists who see cuts to programs for the poor as an attack on blacks.
Gentrification coincided with a major crackdown on crime. Indeed the two processes were designed to work together. Poor neighborhoods tend to have higher crime rates, and Guliani's policies were seen as a double proged approach at attacking the crime problem.
Again, I see no endorsement of these practices, merely an aknowlagement of their existance. I come to this conclusion because rather that calling the results he describes a success, he calls it a "success", implicitly questioning whether it is a good thing.
His whole post is meant to describe the actions of real estate developers, not promote or encourage them.
I would agree with you that rehabbing poor neighborhoods is better than bulldozing them. I think a healthy variety of economic status and race is good for a community. The city I am from, Houston is a pretty random mix of economic class, races, and cultures. The result is a city which is much more fun and interesting than Dallas, where each race and economic level prettymuch is contained in one or two areas. It is also seen as 'more ghetto' than Dallas.
In many ways New Orleans is more like Dallas than it is like Houston, even though 75% of the people in New Orleans are black. There is a rich white area built on high ground and a much larger area surrounding it comprised mostly of blacks. Statistically in New Orleans white=rich, black=poor. Since most black people are too poor to afford flood insurance, they will likely be unable to afford to rebuild. They are also more likely to be renting their home rather than own it, which gives them nothing to even come back to.
Real Estate developers are ruthless people.
even if they are not racist, they assume that their clients are. In many respects they are right. Property values in white neighborhoods are statistically higher than those in similar minority neighborhoods. Knowing this, they do whatever they can to turn their property into a white property, which they can expect will secure a higher price.
Again, putko is describing what he thinks real estate deveopers are likely to do in this situation, and predicting its outcome.
So it is more complicated than that. so what. That doesn't make it flamebait.
I guess saying anything involving race is now flamebait on slashdot. I assume you had no problem with the media ignoring that almost everyone left in New Orleans was black for the first few days of hurricane coverage. They tiptoed around that simple statistical reality because of wrongheaded political correctness which got in the fact of reporting.
Sometimes there is a plainly racial element. This is one of those times.
Do you think black neighborhoods are never bulldozed for upscale, largely white housing? There are thousands of companies litterally looking for an excuse to bulldoze poor neighborhoods and build over them. Their only major obstacle is usually the people living there. This is real. Ignore these facts at your own peril.
putko didn't seem to be advocating building a resort over the black neighborhoods at all, merely aknowlaging that the situation existed. The post appears to have been made in good faith. Moderators would do well to not use mod points to intimidate people into ignoring these issues.
There is racial friction in this country, especially in the south. It's not out in the open, but anyone who looks around can plainly see it. Many cities still have defacto segregation still going strong in 2005. When you ignore it in the name of political correctness you hurt the people you are probably trying to help.
I have wondered this myself. The questions he brings up are real, if not openly discussed on TV.
Did you know that the rich (white) part of New Orleans is already dry? It has been for a few days, even before the pumps started working. The large part of the city which is submerged will likely have to be rebuilt from scratch anyways. How we rebuild it will change the face of New Orleans.
Uptight moderators may have called your comment flamebait, but for what its worth, I think this is one of the few posts on this story which cuts to the heart of an important issue. I have read many commentaries on New Orleans and this is the first time that pressing question has been asked (that I have seen).
Jesse Jackson has been trying to keep people in a disused army base close to the city so when it is rebuilt they will be the first ones back. He fears the scenario you are describing, and is attempting to prevent it. Everyone else is doing their best to publicly ignore it.
New Orleans is a national treasure, unlike any other city in the US. If we lose it, we lose some of the very limited culture this country has left.
I guess it would probably be cheaper to move everyone to another generic suburb with Walmart, a Chiles, a Gap, five Starbucks, amd a cookie cutter mall with faux stone exteriors. Generic suburbs like the one you likely live in are replaceable, expendable, and boring. That may be fine with you, and I don't mind them too much either.
There are, however people who want to live in a city with houndreds of years of history behind it, with a culture all its own. There are many others who wish to visit such a city and learn about a world different from there own. This history and culture is worth protecting. We shouldn't just pave over Burban street and say to hell with Mardigras. Lets celebrate Fat Tuesday at TGI Fridays.
New Orleans is worth presevering, and can be made resiliant against hurricanes and natural disasters. Jest because 100 year old levees couldn't hold back the waters in a Catagory 5 hurricane doesn't mean levees built today can't.
No, you need to drop your self-rightous worthless opinons. Who do you think you are?
Compete on features, not on dirty tricks.
Aww screw it, who are we kidding. You morons would tell someone to ban IE from their website even if it would run them out of business.
Why?
Because you are a bunch of self rightous pricks. Thats it. You get on your high horse and you pontificate on matters which you don't really understand or have any business attempting to infuluence.
But what the hell. This is slashdot. Thrust your hypocritcal ideologies on the shitheap. It doesn't matter. Nobody takes you seriously.
Aww screw it, who are we kidding. You morons would tell someone to ban IE from their website even if it would run them out of business.
Why?
Because you are a bunch of self rightous pricks. Thats it. You get on your high horse and you pontificate on matters which you don't really understand or have any business attempting to infuluence.
But what the hell. This is slashdot. Thrust your hypocritcal ideologies on the shitheap. It doesn't matter. Nobody takes you seriously.
This story is primarily about a MS lol virus bashfest where the object of ridicule is someone who went overseas and came home with an illniss so shitty that it made the evening news. The people (slashdot editors etc...) who are (or tried) using this as an excuse to another lol MS virus circlejerk are pathetic.
The "geeks" who came up with this story are a pimple on the taint of technology. That is what a closer inspection of the story reveals.
I don't get it. Did you guys used to sit around making lousy, possibly illogical jokes about microsoft and laugh your asses off for hours? I mean every time slashdot posts a story about microsoft which is rightly worthy of ridicule someone with a low uid is here, ready to rant about how all the geeks have left. I don't know what/. used to be like for you. Since I have been here, there have been at least a few who have gone against the
"geek" (defined as running linux, only, and making fun of M$ lol, I don't know about apple, and generally beating eachother off about open source).
I dunno. This story is every bit as stupid as anything I have ever read on a "news" site. I honestly can't even believe how fucking stupid this story is. MS employee got sick over sees. Holy Shit MS has a virus!! lol lol I suck and have no integrity lol. It really does seem like a new low for slashdot, though I would be surprised if it actaully was a new low.
Anyways, sorry for chasing away all the geeks. I hope I didn't inturrupt your GNU/circlejerk.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me guess.. You used a palm pilot twice also.
I bought one of the old Visor palm pilots and used it more than two times. I learned the Grafiti input symbols. Once you learn it, it is faster than writing normal letters would be. Of course you would only know that if you have actually bothered to learned to use the fucking thing. I actually adopted several grafiti letters into my notetaking in school to save time. The letters don't need to be giant either. See above about learning to use the fucking thing.
I don't know if the Newton synced with outlook or had the great program library that the palm pilot had so, I will take my advice and not judge other than to say that they seemed pretty big when I last saw one and the Newton's handwriting recognition was widely considered iffy at best. Once I learned Grafitti my accuracy was close to 100%.
Anyways, congratulations! you have thrown your uninformed opinion on the shitheap of slashdot, and made demonsterably false statements all in one fell swoop. Proud day for you and your family.
Keep up the great jokes!
Do you think for the next article you could like summarize what the writeup says and maybe post it within the first five posts or so?
Thanks!
In two sessions of Palm OS use you don't even have time to learn the graffiti language.
Why does your opinion matter??
Hey everybody! I used Rational Rose twice and it sucked.
In the 5 minutes it takes to start Rational Rose, I could have already sketched out a UML diagram on a cocktail napkin.
he may just want your credit card number.
this is incredible.
are you guys going to make some jokes about this?
I fire off my arguments (not normally as vitriolic as this, I must add), wait eagerly for the other side's reply, and watch as they argue until they're backed into a corner, then just stop posting to avoid having to admit they're wrong.
Even worse, I often see the self-same people in other threads advancing exactly the same arguments I'd shot down in previous debates, who then stop posting if I point out the problems again.
I have seen this done so many times it blows my mind. What do you want to bet that the person who posted this will be back at posting his free market solves everything nonsense again even after being repeatedly bitchslapped with the facts.
I always seem to get modded troll based on my anti-socialist position.
Sorry about that, I wouldn't mod this post troll though someon apparently already has.
First, my parents were the poorest people in my town. I didn't find wealth until I created it myself, without using any government grants or welfare dole.
Good for you, I take back what I said about your parents. Say, did your parents by any chance send you to public school? Please answer this question.
Second, companies don't exist to make money. They exist to make wealth. There is a difference. Companies that offer wealth to their customers in the form of long term happiness in exchange for giving up their wealth of money, tend to prosper. Those who rip people off tend to fail. Also, a company has to make sure their employees see added wealth in exchange for their time, or they lose those good employees.
Did I say anything about companies that rip off their customers? The problem is companies that pollute their neighbors. Unless the neighbors can afford to move out of town and switch jobs they have no choice but to live in a polluted area. They certainly can not influence the company except through environmental regulations and lawsuits.
Birth defects from what? Who really knows what causes birth defects.
Scientists know. Doctors know.
Government mandates scarcity in doctors and researchers in the form of regulation of colleges and grants, yet more doctors and researchers could find more cures for what ails us.
There are plenty of 'cures' on late night television. What's that? They don't cure anything? What a surprise.
If one company profits on creating more death and birth defects, another company will find out about it and let you know. But if government profits on the same, they'll just ask for more money to combat what is obvious a "social problem."
They will 'let you know'? And then what? Sell you a cure that doesn't exist? By the way, how well have the commercial television stations reported on pollution, much of which is produced by their advertisers, compared to PBS? That is what I thought. Governments do things besides "throw money at the problem". They create regulations which reduce the problem. I thought that was what you were opposing more than anything.
Don't start touting government as the one-size-fits-all savior. We all would be far better off with far smaller government. Marx and Keynes were proven wrong years before they were even born, but it seems to be that opinions such as mine are irrelevant and troll-ful because the opinions exist and refute the ideaology of the average slashdotter.
Don't start throwing Marx at me like you can make me look like some kind of communist. Opinions such as yours are not irrelivent, as they are held by some powerful rich people. Unfortunately many of them are just dead wrong. It is too bad that there is no '-1 Wrong' moderation because you deserve it alot more than '-1 troll'.
Quote of the day: "Birth defects from what? Who really knows what causes birth defects."
And what's your solution?
My solution is environmental protection laws which prevent companies from dumping dangerous chemicals in to our air and water.
More useless government regulation?
Only if you consider the prohibition of dumping mercury into a city's water supply a useless regulation. There are many chemicals which companies produce that we need to be protected from. Our survival and health depend on it.
Perhaps you hold the laughable idea that socialism will save those poor, enslaved workers suffering from birth defects?
The phrasing of that question is so condecnding and misleading that I hesitate to even dignify it with an answer. Environmental protection laws are not socialism.
No one needs any form of regulation from government at any level as they all create favoritism and don't fix any problem. Even pollution regulations are better controlled by the free market. Heavy polluters get blasted by watchdog groups, cleaner emitters get praised and consumers make the decision who succeeds and who fails.
That has to be the dumbest thing I have read all day. It is no wonder it got modded to +4 insightful.
Companies exist to make money. That is their sole responsibilty. In the vast majority of cases a PR problem will not affect them as much as the increased cost of doing business associated with not polluting. If you think a company won't exchance birth defects in 1000 children for a $2,000,000 increase in profits you are kidding yourself. You are also ignoring history. Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.
I've got a feeling that you aren't too worried though. You can afford to move away from the parts of America where birth defects are staggeringly common. Assuming that you earned your wealth rather than inheriting it (though I'm positive your parents were at least well off) you know better than to believe the drivel you are spuing.
Your selfishness and greed astound me.
Apparently we're not talking about the U.S. here.
There is a minimun level of education that US. public students are required to recieve. The flaws in the current system are no excuse to eliminate public eduation. The US public school system may not be that good compared to the rest of the industrialized world, but compared to countries without public schools we are doing pretty damn good. The countries producing better prepared kids than us typically spend more(relative to their government's overall budget) on their public schools than we do. Often, as in the case of European countries, most of which put the US public school system to shame taxes tend to be higher. What conclusion does that lead you to?
Eh, so GlobalChem's disposal budget is a bit overdrawn this year, and Councilman Daniels is driving a fancy new Porche now...
I guess then we both agree that corrupt government is bad. Kinda nice to have a court system to take your grievences to. In an ideal government Councilman Daniels would go to jail and GlobalChem would go bankrupt. In practice the consequences arent quite so bad but their existence is a deterrent. We need a deterrent. Without one many more will die needlessly.
Let's see... I've had mine. Didn't use taxpayer money to pay for 'em either. So what do I care?
You seem to be under the impression that your vaccinations are an impenatable forcefield against disease. They are not. The just reduce your chances of getting infected. The less infected people you have around you the better. Also, am I the only one who thinks it is not ok to let the poor die of disiease to save a few dollars?
I know several people who through no fault of their own were born poor. They got free vaccinations and free school lunches. They went to public school and they studied hard. They weren't looking to pass, they were looking to excell. They went to college on a scholarship paid for by the state. In America, everyone is given a chance, thanks to free public education. Sure the rich kids can fail out of college twice like my roomate and have their millionair parents keep paying indefinately while the poor kids have one chance to get it right or leave school. But the poor kids have a chance. Don't take this away from them.
If I am ever lucky enough to make it in to the top income tax bracket, I just hope my taxes are put to good use.
What about public education?
Do you really want to be surrounded by a bunch of illiterates?
What about environmental protection?
Do you really want it to be possible for GlobalChem to by a plot of land next to your home an dump chemicals all over the place and ruin your health?
What about public health services?
Do you really want to be surrounded by people who haven't had their vaccinations?
I think the bigger problem is not getting what you pay for. If you are paying 50% of your salary to the government, you should probably get free health care too. That is definately more useful than a govt propaganda campaign to make sure Cannabis is never legalized. Or a campaign to lie about the next government killing spree. I can't believe how much of my money actually goes to having the government lie to me. Or how much of it goes to fund homocides all over the world. disgusting.
I don't hate government, but I sure hate this government. Corrupt from the top down, and nobody can stop them.
"To quote Colin Powell: "if we break it, we own it"."
This quote has always bothered me. It implies a need to stay in the country to fix the problem, and is repeated by people who 'oppose' the war while supporting it.
If I had a quote to throw in to this mess it would be, "If we break it its broken. I don't care how much krazy glue you slather the pieces with, there is no way you will ever really fix it. So pay that cashier and leave the store."
Its sad how John Kerry went from telling unpleasent truthes to the government, putting it all on the line to justify a wrong, to being just another politician. He complained about the war while being complicit in it.
What ever happened to the guy that asked, "how can you ask someone to be the last person to die for a lie"? There was so much he could have said about Iraq and chose not to. How can this be the same person?
I saw him give his speach before congress on c-span, and I was so inspired. It is so refreshing when you hear blatent truth spoken in a place usually dominated by deceptive wording and outright lies. If you ever want to piss an political machine, stand up and tell the truth.
When we needed him most he became just the kind of political stooge he had helped defeat years earlier.
He may have been 'reporting for duty' to somebody, but the Johm Kerry who rocked the nation with unpleasent truthes was Missing in Action.
Thanks for the information. I'm always glad to learn a little more about this stuff.
Fighting the privatization of space?? Are you high? Is there an private orbital spacecraft somewhere that I'm not aware about? I would absolutely love to see regular private orbital flights to space. If I had the money I would be among the first in line to buy a ticket.
The problem is that people are advocating that private industry take over something (manned orbital flight) that it still hasn't even done once yet. You can pontificate on the virtues of privatizing our manned space missions till your head turns blue, but it won't make companies invest the monumental sums of money in to a field which may have limited rewards.
I personally admire Burt Rutan. I think he has done great things with a relatively small amount of money, and is persuing wonderful dreams. That said, so far he has basically flown a rocket plane really high. Also, where do you think he got his start in aerospace? NASA!
You can laugh all you want about NASA's beaurocracy and everything else, but the things you suggest, having companies build their spacecraft have been implemented a long time ago. The Space Shuttle which you deride as an inefficient waste is maintained by a private company. Where is you mirical of privatization now?
You pontificate on NASA but are ignorant about things which are known by anyone with a more than passing familiarity of its practices. I think it is time you shut the hell up.
Your crack about the space shuttle pilots not looking like they do in the movies is particularly gauling. You want to know about the right stuff? Try gliding a massive and unwieldy spacecraft to a landing so soft that the astronauts in the orbiter have been unable to actually feel the moment the craft touches down. When was the last time you didn't notice a 737 touch down?
Go back to your movies.
Did you know that the Shuttle is already largely maintained by a private corporation?
Many NASA spaceships are aleady built by Lockheed Martin and others. The old joke Apollo astronaughts used to tell went something like, "How would you feel being strapped in above a half billion tons of high explosives surrounded by a thin metal shell built by the lowest bidder."
There are problems of course, but last I checked NASA has been able to maintain a manned presence in space through some pretty daunting challenges. The last thing we need is another 'reorganization' of a government agency by the same people who 'reorganized' FEMA.
He never said that black people should be moved out of the city, but that there were forces at work which may result in that.
The bit about Guliani forcing out the 'criminal class' was a bit poorly worded, but I don't think he was implying that he thought blacks were undesirable. It seems that he sees forces at work which view many blacks as part of an undesireable group of people. Many blacks were in fact forced out of New York by a process known as 'gentrification' where property values and as a result rental rates are increased, forcing poor people to leave. Even by non-racists this is seen as a threat to the black community. This is because blacks are statistically more likely to be poor. This fact is actually embraced by anti-racists who see cuts to programs for the poor as an attack on blacks.
Gentrification coincided with a major crackdown on crime. Indeed the two processes were designed to work together. Poor neighborhoods tend to have higher crime rates, and Guliani's policies were seen as a double proged approach at attacking the crime problem.
Again, I see no endorsement of these practices, merely an aknowlagement of their existance. I come to this conclusion because rather that calling the results he describes a success, he calls it a "success", implicitly questioning whether it is a good thing.
His whole post is meant to describe the actions of real estate developers, not promote or encourage them.
I would agree with you that rehabbing poor neighborhoods is better than bulldozing them. I think a healthy variety of economic status and race is good for a community. The city I am from, Houston is a pretty random mix of economic class, races, and cultures. The result is a city which is much more fun and interesting than Dallas, where each race and economic level prettymuch is contained in one or two areas. It is also seen as 'more ghetto' than Dallas.
In many ways New Orleans is more like Dallas than it is like Houston, even though 75% of the people in New Orleans are black. There is a rich white area built on high ground and a much larger area surrounding it comprised mostly of blacks. Statistically in New Orleans white=rich, black=poor. Since most black people are too poor to afford flood insurance, they will likely be unable to afford to rebuild. They are also more likely to be renting their home rather than own it, which gives them nothing to even come back to.
Real Estate developers are ruthless people. even if they are not racist, they assume that their clients are. In many respects they are right. Property values in white neighborhoods are statistically higher than those in similar minority neighborhoods. Knowing this, they do whatever they can to turn their property into a white property, which they can expect will secure a higher price.
Again, putko is describing what he thinks real estate deveopers are likely to do in this situation, and predicting its outcome.
So it is more complicated than that. so what. That doesn't make it flamebait.
I guess saying anything involving race is now flamebait on slashdot. I assume you had no problem with the media ignoring that almost everyone left in New Orleans was black for the first few days of hurricane coverage. They tiptoed around that simple statistical reality because of wrongheaded political correctness which got in the fact of reporting.
Sometimes there is a plainly racial element. This is one of those times.
Do you think black neighborhoods are never bulldozed for upscale, largely white housing? There are thousands of companies litterally looking for an excuse to bulldoze poor neighborhoods and build over them. Their only major obstacle is usually the people living there. This is real. Ignore these facts at your own peril.
putko didn't seem to be advocating building a resort over the black neighborhoods at all, merely aknowlaging that the situation existed. The post appears to have been made in good faith. Moderators would do well to not use mod points to intimidate people into ignoring these issues.
There is racial friction in this country, especially in the south. It's not out in the open, but anyone who looks around can plainly see it. Many cities still have defacto segregation still going strong in 2005. When you ignore it in the name of political correctness you hurt the people you are probably trying to help.
I have wondered this myself. The questions he brings up are real, if not openly discussed on TV.
Did you know that the rich (white) part of New Orleans is already dry? It has been for a few days, even before the pumps started working. The large part of the city which is submerged will likely have to be rebuilt from scratch anyways. How we rebuild it will change the face of New Orleans.
Uptight moderators may have called your comment flamebait, but for what its worth, I think this is one of the few posts on this story which cuts to the heart of an important issue. I have read many commentaries on New Orleans and this is the first time that pressing question has been asked (that I have seen).
Jesse Jackson has been trying to keep people in a disused army base close to the city so when it is rebuilt they will be the first ones back. He fears the scenario you are describing, and is attempting to prevent it. Everyone else is doing their best to publicly ignore it.
New Orleans is a national treasure, unlike any other city in the US. If we lose it, we lose some of the very limited culture this country has left.
I guess it would probably be cheaper to move everyone to another generic suburb with Walmart, a Chiles, a Gap, five Starbucks, amd a cookie cutter mall with faux stone exteriors. Generic suburbs like the one you likely live in are replaceable, expendable, and boring. That may be fine with you, and I don't mind them too much either.
There are, however people who want to live in a city with houndreds of years of history behind it, with a culture all its own. There are many others who wish to visit such a city and learn about a world different from there own. This history and culture is worth protecting. We shouldn't just pave over Burban street and say to hell with Mardigras. Lets celebrate Fat Tuesday at TGI Fridays.
New Orleans is worth presevering, and can be made resiliant against hurricanes and natural disasters. Jest because 100 year old levees couldn't hold back the waters in a Catagory 5 hurricane doesn't mean levees built today can't.
No, you need to drop your self-rightous worthless opinons. Who do you think you are? Compete on features, not on dirty tricks. Aww screw it, who are we kidding. You morons would tell someone to ban IE from their website even if it would run them out of business. Why? Because you are a bunch of self rightous pricks. Thats it. You get on your high horse and you pontificate on matters which you don't really understand or have any business attempting to infuluence. But what the hell. This is slashdot. Thrust your hypocritcal ideologies on the shitheap. It doesn't matter. Nobody takes you seriously.
Compete on features, not on dirty tricks.
Aww screw it, who are we kidding. You morons would tell someone to ban IE from their website even if it would run them out of business.
Why?
Because you are a bunch of self rightous pricks. Thats it. You get on your high horse and you pontificate on matters which you don't really understand or have any business attempting to infuluence.
But what the hell. This is slashdot. Thrust your hypocritcal ideologies on the shitheap. It doesn't matter. Nobody takes you seriously.
But what you say about staying healthy when you travel is right on.
I'm glad that you want to spread this messege about travel health, but your original post was a pretty standard "Yet Another Slashdot Bitch Session".
This story is primarily about a MS lol virus bashfest where the object of ridicule is someone who went overseas and came home with an illniss so shitty that it made the evening news. The people (slashdot editors etc...) who are (or tried) using this as an excuse to another lol MS virus circlejerk are pathetic.
The "geeks" who came up with this story are a pimple on the taint of technology. That is what a closer inspection of the story reveals.
With a title like "Microsoft Infected by Virus", how can you say this story is not "about microsoft"?
I don't get it. Did you guys used to sit around making lousy, possibly illogical jokes about microsoft and laugh your asses off for hours? I mean every time slashdot posts a story about microsoft which is rightly worthy of ridicule someone with a low uid is here, ready to rant about how all the geeks have left. I don't know what /. used to be like for you. Since I have been here, there have been at least a few who have gone against the
"geek" (defined as running linux, only, and making fun of M$ lol, I don't know about apple, and generally beating eachother off about open source).
I dunno. This story is every bit as stupid as anything I have ever read on a "news" site. I honestly can't even believe how fucking stupid this story is. MS employee got sick over sees. Holy Shit MS has a virus!! lol lol I suck and have no integrity lol. It really does seem like a new low for slashdot, though I would be surprised if it actaully was a new low.
Anyways, sorry for chasing away all the geeks. I hope I didn't inturrupt your GNU/circlejerk.