What we do NOT believe is that you can force your neighbors to pay the bill.
You do believe in forcing neighbors to pay the bill, just under certain circumstances. You can't make grand statements about how socialization is theft of services, then turn around and say you support it in certain situations.
I wouldn't call them pretty religious actually. A lot of them will go about the Shinto/Buddhist rituals, but very few (based on discussions with wife/friends/other students while I was studying there) hold to any real belief in the supernatural. That is, they are not "true believers" in the same way a lot of Christians claim to be.
What we do NOT believe is that you can force your neighbors to pay the bill. Most Americans consider that theft of another man's labor.
Which American's would those be? It seems people are perfectly fine with Medicare and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, both of which essentially socialize cost of medical care in America. Its not efficient or effective socialization, but its socialization none-the-less. The fact that politicians and pundits seem to overlook this does not escape my notice: most of the people who complain about socialized medicine are hypocrites.
I've certainly heard "data" used to refer extrapolated trends in colloquial discussions, which is what these emails represent. So, in the lack of any other context, I can't say one way or another whether there is anything wrong. You're making assumptions that they're throwing away data, when its not clear from the email exactly what they're doing.
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but [The CERES data] are surely wrong.
That is, when they say that "the data is wrong," they meant the published data predicting warming, because its not matching whats observed. Consequently, this is what I learned when I was taught the scientific method.
I can agree with that. I am unfortunately part of a party - based on my conservative beliefs, not Republican beliefs - that whines as much as the other party. It's stupid.
To be absolutely fair, my perceptions of whining may be due to confirmation bias. I don't think its possible to take a significant assessment of the total levels of whining and form some sort of baseline about whats acceptable.;) Its just my opinion and, hopefully, I've made that clear.
As far as racism, there does - from my real life experience - seem to be a distinct racism in the name of being non-racist. Affirmative Action, IMO, is one big racist legislation: force people to be racist in an effort to combat racism. We can disagree and argue about it, of course.
Pretty much. My views on the above topics can't be lumped onto one side or another. AA is, in some ways, racist, and in other ways not. There's not some sort of racism-meter that you can use to figure out whether someone or something is immediately racist or not, so in some cases it boils down to context and interpretation. This has only gotten more difficult, as overt racism is in its death throws and systemic racism is starting to wither.
Anyways: I agree, it's overblown and "my" side falls into the "one person from that party said some stupid racist comment, so the entire party must be thinking that" trap, too.
Its a common line of thought, unfortunately, and everyone does it. I do too. Even if they claim that they don't, they do. Everyone has their biases. Whats important is that people approach the debate in good faith and willingness to address biases. Unfortunately, politics is poluted with people who are unwilling to do so. My distaste for talk-show hosts is because I feel that very few, if any, try to approach issues in good faith.
Also, it does appear that many voters did vote for Obama because he was black... which I find to be racist... but it seems many on Slashdot don't think so.:)
I think its supremely naive to think that no-one voted for (or against) Obama because of his skin color. I think there are quite a lot of black Americans that voted for him because they felt that another black man would represent their interests. I think that there are a lot of people who also voted for him because they wanted to be part of something historic, or feel better about themselves. I also think that a lot of KKK members probably voted for McCain due to similar reasons. However, some of the logic put out there completely over-estimates the contribution, to the point of out-right ignoring historical voting trends to insinuate some sort of mass racism (and, to be clear, I've seen this same approach used to support both positions: racism of white Americans and racism of black Americans). Speculating on the impact of the former may be the start of a good-faith debate, while the latter is simply intellectually dishonest.
I guess my problem is that I don't watch talk-show hosts then. They pretty much uniformly produce debate at the level of an angsty teenager. In that regard, I don't find it surprising that such people would make stupid claims.
I can't say that I've seen much of that kind of talk on Slashdot, aside from people whining that they'll be called racists for disagreeing, which pretty much never pans out the way they'll claim. As far as the generic "people" are concerned, I've never met anyone making the racism claim in real life.
I hadn't heard anyone claim that Wilson's comment was anything other than rude, and possibly ill-informed. Doing some Google searches, it appears that some people have made the claim that it was founded in racism. So yes, that does support your claims.
Regarding the ABC's comments, while presidents have had death threats made against them, they are typically not accompanied by said people standing outside town hall meetings with weapons. Potok's comments, cited in the ABC article, and Carter's comments (IIRC) certainly can be categorized as supporting your claim. However, the context of their claims is that the level of hatred towards Obama far exceeds what one would expect from a typical president, especially one that's pretty much taken the ball from Bush and ran with it. Not that I agree or condone such an analysis, but its a bit more nuanced than outright saying "You disagree so you're racist."
As far as Jeneane Garofalo goes: yep, supports your claim.
The sum of my arguments is thus: You've convinced me that there are people out there that claim that disagreement with Obama is due to racism. You've also convinced me that such claims are mostly made by idiots or hacks, and in a few rare cases are more nuanced then claim. You've failed to convince me that such claims are occurring at such a frequency to stifle dissent, nor warrant the amount of whining from conservatives and Republicans (for the record here, Republicans are not conservatives).
The fact that so many people complain about those racist bigots that dare to disagree with the first black President are only displaying one thing to me: they are so racist that they can't see past the color of his skin and think it's his most important trait.
Who exactly are these people that equate disagreement with racism? TV personalities? Politicians? Who exactly? This argument gets trotted out a lot, but I've never seen an actual person claim that people disagreeing with the president are racist. I may be woefully misinformed, but it seems to me that conservatives trot out this strawman because they want to make it seem like their views are being rejected due to strong-arming rather than plain disagreement.
On the other hand, what do you do with countries/people/rulers/dictators/societies that decide they want to take over the world, they want to kill all western civilization, they want to kill all the Jews/get rid of Israel, they want everyone to be communist, etc...?
G.I. Joe isn't a good way to learn about international politics.
Which isn't a violation of the First Amendment. They aren't forbidding Fox News from operating. What they are doing is deciding to ignore a news organization that obviously has it out for the administration and, historically, has toed the line on ethics in their reporting. Nothing in the Constitution obligates the White House to invite Fox News to their press events, or give appearances on the same.
Well, lets be fair here. Vileness and poor discourse isn't limited to supporters of the current administration. The discourse was just as terrible with the previous administration, and the previous administration before that. Glenn Beck is hardly a high-standard in terms of excellent political discourse.
Pretty much all the American news networks are bad, too. Well, lets not kid ourselves though, Fox (including the likes of Hannity and Beck) are particularly bad (and I don't blame the president from cock-blocking Fox either). But you're not going to get good facts and discussion from, say, MSNBC either.
Libertarians, Republicans, Greens, Democrats, Socialists, Communists... in general, people who ascribe to a political philosophy tend to want an echo chamber rather than debate. I know of, myself, only a handful of people who I'd discuss politics with, and those are people who actually care to discuss facts. It always amuses me when advocates of one party claim that theirs is based on "fact logic and reason" while their opponents are irrational. Its a sure sign that the person claiming this is, in fact, irrational.
No, the PS3 doesn't run Linux for its normal function (Blu-ray, games, PSN, etc). It has the *option* to run Linux, but that isn't exactly the same thing. Whether or not it uses OpenGL, I don't know, although I've heard from online game development discussion sites that it uses a Sony-specific API that resembles, but is not quite, OpenGL.
Regardless, development is only part of the equation where Linux support is concerned. There's also QA and support costs that have to be factored in. And then, you're limited to the cross-section of gamers who use Linux, but don't own an XBox, PS3, or Windows PC. I can't imagine that amount of sales adds up to anything significant.
That is, correlation between making money and "self-made" individuals, or a negative correlation between "socialists" and making money. I apparently have trouble reading what I write.
I'm guessing that there's a large amount of selection bias going into this. I haven't seen any strong correlation between "socialist" (socialist here being keyword for some sense of social responsibility) and "self-made" individuals. I also find that self-made individuals tend to grossly overlook the non-obvious benefits that they've received from their parents and their society. Likewise, people who exalt these people do the same.
Typically, most of these technologies are designed for certain situations. Then the sales guys gets their hands on it, and decide that they need to spruce up the claims (in other words, lie).
Seems to me like these are the "I don't have a telephone number!" or "I don't want you cold-calling me during dinner!" options, depending on what kind of database app this actually is. Maybe the problem is that you actually require a telephone number (unless it actually is required for practical, not marketing, reasons)?
Take them to a court of law after doing due diligence to figure out if they were really the ones infringing. Subject them to due process. Don't play shenanigans in court or behave unethically in the proceedings. If found guilty, then charge them fair, not extortionist, penalties.
The problem is that the media companies don't like the idea of not being able to railroad everyday people into settlement, or not being able to threaten the public with ridiculous penalties. This is because they lose the FUD-factor, and the cost of throwing lawyers at the problem becomes prohibitive.
How do you solve this? I don't know. Its not my problem, and its not the duty of society to ensure that litigation is profitable. Its the duty of society to make sure that due process is followed and the justice system improves society. It's not my duty to ensure that the media companies stay in business.
Its a response to the "Governments can never do anything right ever," sentiment, not the one that you professed. I mean, governments aren't perfect. Neither are corporations, co-ops, or any other group-of-people-working-on-a-problem. Government programs work pretty well in Europe and Asia, so I'm not exactly sure why I should believe the Libertarian line that I should bend over for private corporations with little-to-no accountability (in practice), while demonizing an elected body that is supposed to represent me. Furthermore, why should I elect a person who doesn't believe that improvement is possible to the very same position that he demonizes?
If you spend all your time parroting the line that government can do nothing right, refuse to acknowledge any success, elect people who believe that the government is always wrong to positions of power in same government, and generally piss all over any constructive efforts to improve things, then you shouldn't be surprised when the result is an incompetent governing body.
Moreover, its entirely tiresome how anti-government types tend to gloss over all the really shitty things that private entities do, and re-write history to make it into government's fault. Its like a friggen religion for them.
The blue states also generate FAR more federal money, so it tends to even out. Typically the citation is this study posted by the Tax Foundation. It is old, however (2005).
Slashdot Mirror
It wouldn't be the first time they've lied about bomb threats.
What we do NOT believe is that you can force your neighbors to pay the bill.
You do believe in forcing neighbors to pay the bill, just under certain circumstances. You can't make grand statements about how socialization is theft of services, then turn around and say you support it in certain situations.
I wouldn't call them pretty religious actually. A lot of them will go about the Shinto/Buddhist rituals, but very few (based on discussions with wife/friends/other students while I was studying there) hold to any real belief in the supernatural. That is, they are not "true believers" in the same way a lot of Christians claim to be.
What we do NOT believe is that you can force your neighbors to pay the bill. Most Americans consider that theft of another man's labor.
Which American's would those be? It seems people are perfectly fine with Medicare and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, both of which essentially socialize cost of medical care in America. Its not efficient or effective socialization, but its socialization none-the-less. The fact that politicians and pundits seem to overlook this does not escape my notice: most of the people who complain about socialized medicine are hypocrites.
No, he was referring to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, totaling $700 billion in "stimulus," signed into law by President Bush.
I've certainly heard "data" used to refer extrapolated trends in colloquial discussions, which is what these emails represent. So, in the lack of any other context, I can't say one way or another whether there is anything wrong. You're making assumptions that they're throwing away data, when its not clear from the email exactly what they're doing.
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but [The CERES data] are surely wrong.
That is, when they say that "the data is wrong," they meant the published data predicting warming, because its not matching whats observed. Consequently, this is what I learned when I was taught the scientific method.
I can agree with that. I am unfortunately part of a party - based on my conservative beliefs, not Republican beliefs - that whines as much as the other party. It's stupid.
To be absolutely fair, my perceptions of whining may be due to confirmation bias. I don't think its possible to take a significant assessment of the total levels of whining and form some sort of baseline about whats acceptable. ;) Its just my opinion and, hopefully, I've made that clear.
As far as racism, there does - from my real life experience - seem to be a distinct racism in the name of being non-racist. Affirmative Action, IMO, is one big racist legislation: force people to be racist in an effort to combat racism. We can disagree and argue about it, of course.
Pretty much. My views on the above topics can't be lumped onto one side or another. AA is, in some ways, racist, and in other ways not. There's not some sort of racism-meter that you can use to figure out whether someone or something is immediately racist or not, so in some cases it boils down to context and interpretation. This has only gotten more difficult, as overt racism is in its death throws and systemic racism is starting to wither.
Anyways: I agree, it's overblown and "my" side falls into the "one person from that party said some stupid racist comment, so the entire party must be thinking that" trap, too.
Its a common line of thought, unfortunately, and everyone does it. I do too. Even if they claim that they don't, they do. Everyone has their biases. Whats important is that people approach the debate in good faith and willingness to address biases. Unfortunately, politics is poluted with people who are unwilling to do so. My distaste for talk-show hosts is because I feel that very few, if any, try to approach issues in good faith.
Also, it does appear that many voters did vote for Obama because he was black... which I find to be racist... but it seems many on Slashdot don't think so. :)
I think its supremely naive to think that no-one voted for (or against) Obama because of his skin color. I think there are quite a lot of black Americans that voted for him because they felt that another black man would represent their interests. I think that there are a lot of people who also voted for him because they wanted to be part of something historic, or feel better about themselves. I also think that a lot of KKK members probably voted for McCain due to similar reasons. However, some of the logic put out there completely over-estimates the contribution, to the point of out-right ignoring historical voting trends to insinuate some sort of mass racism (and, to be clear, I've seen this same approach used to support both positions: racism of white Americans and racism of black Americans). Speculating on the impact of the former may be the start of a good-faith debate, while the latter is simply intellectually dishonest.
I guess my problem is that I don't watch talk-show hosts then. They pretty much uniformly produce debate at the level of an angsty teenager. In that regard, I don't find it surprising that such people would make stupid claims.
I can't say that I've seen much of that kind of talk on Slashdot, aside from people whining that they'll be called racists for disagreeing, which pretty much never pans out the way they'll claim. As far as the generic "people" are concerned, I've never met anyone making the racism claim in real life.
I hadn't heard anyone claim that Wilson's comment was anything other than rude, and possibly ill-informed. Doing some Google searches, it appears that some people have made the claim that it was founded in racism. So yes, that does support your claims.
Regarding the ABC's comments, while presidents have had death threats made against them, they are typically not accompanied by said people standing outside town hall meetings with weapons. Potok's comments, cited in the ABC article, and Carter's comments (IIRC) certainly can be categorized as supporting your claim. However, the context of their claims is that the level of hatred towards Obama far exceeds what one would expect from a typical president, especially one that's pretty much taken the ball from Bush and ran with it. Not that I agree or condone such an analysis, but its a bit more nuanced than outright saying "You disagree so you're racist."
As far as Jeneane Garofalo goes: yep, supports your claim.
The sum of my arguments is thus: You've convinced me that there are people out there that claim that disagreement with Obama is due to racism. You've also convinced me that such claims are mostly made by idiots or hacks, and in a few rare cases are more nuanced then claim. You've failed to convince me that such claims are occurring at such a frequency to stifle dissent, nor warrant the amount of whining from conservatives and Republicans (for the record here, Republicans are not conservatives).
The fact that so many people complain about those racist bigots that dare to disagree with the first black President are only displaying one thing to me: they are so racist that they can't see past the color of his skin and think it's his most important trait.
Who exactly are these people that equate disagreement with racism? TV personalities? Politicians? Who exactly? This argument gets trotted out a lot, but I've never seen an actual person claim that people disagreeing with the president are racist. I may be woefully misinformed, but it seems to me that conservatives trot out this strawman because they want to make it seem like their views are being rejected due to strong-arming rather than plain disagreement.
On the other hand, what do you do with countries/people/rulers/dictators/societies that decide they want to take over the world, they want to kill all western civilization, they want to kill all the Jews/get rid of Israel, they want everyone to be communist, etc...?
G.I. Joe isn't a good way to learn about international politics.
You might want to be consistent in checking "Post Anonymously" the next time you spam the same comment all over a story.
VS(.NET)
Visual Studio 2008 Express is free.
Windows
Yes, unless you use Mono.
SourceSafe, Windows Server, Sybase SQL
No, no, and no. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Which isn't a violation of the First Amendment. They aren't forbidding Fox News from operating. What they are doing is deciding to ignore a news organization that obviously has it out for the administration and, historically, has toed the line on ethics in their reporting. Nothing in the Constitution obligates the White House to invite Fox News to their press events, or give appearances on the same.
Well, lets be fair here. Vileness and poor discourse isn't limited to supporters of the current administration. The discourse was just as terrible with the previous administration, and the previous administration before that. Glenn Beck is hardly a high-standard in terms of excellent political discourse.
Pretty much all the American news networks are bad, too. Well, lets not kid ourselves though, Fox (including the likes of Hannity and Beck) are particularly bad (and I don't blame the president from cock-blocking Fox either). But you're not going to get good facts and discussion from, say, MSNBC either.
Libertarians, Republicans, Greens, Democrats, Socialists, Communists... in general, people who ascribe to a political philosophy tend to want an echo chamber rather than debate. I know of, myself, only a handful of people who I'd discuss politics with, and those are people who actually care to discuss facts. It always amuses me when advocates of one party claim that theirs is based on "fact logic and reason" while their opponents are irrational. Its a sure sign that the person claiming this is, in fact, irrational.
No, the PS3 doesn't run Linux for its normal function (Blu-ray, games, PSN, etc). It has the *option* to run Linux, but that isn't exactly the same thing. Whether or not it uses OpenGL, I don't know, although I've heard from online game development discussion sites that it uses a Sony-specific API that resembles, but is not quite, OpenGL.
Regardless, development is only part of the equation where Linux support is concerned. There's also QA and support costs that have to be factored in. And then, you're limited to the cross-section of gamers who use Linux, but don't own an XBox, PS3, or Windows PC. I can't imagine that amount of sales adds up to anything significant.
That is, correlation between making money and "self-made" individuals, or a negative correlation between "socialists" and making money. I apparently have trouble reading what I write.
I'm guessing that there's a large amount of selection bias going into this. I haven't seen any strong correlation between "socialist" (socialist here being keyword for some sense of social responsibility) and "self-made" individuals. I also find that self-made individuals tend to grossly overlook the non-obvious benefits that they've received from their parents and their society. Likewise, people who exalt these people do the same.
Typically, most of these technologies are designed for certain situations. Then the sales guys gets their hands on it, and decide that they need to spruce up the claims (in other words, lie).
Seems to me like these are the "I don't have a telephone number!" or "I don't want you cold-calling me during dinner!" options, depending on what kind of database app this actually is. Maybe the problem is that you actually require a telephone number (unless it actually is required for practical, not marketing, reasons)?
Take them to a court of law after doing due diligence to figure out if they were really the ones infringing. Subject them to due process. Don't play shenanigans in court or behave unethically in the proceedings. If found guilty, then charge them fair, not extortionist, penalties.
The problem is that the media companies don't like the idea of not being able to railroad everyday people into settlement, or not being able to threaten the public with ridiculous penalties. This is because they lose the FUD-factor, and the cost of throwing lawyers at the problem becomes prohibitive.
How do you solve this? I don't know. Its not my problem, and its not the duty of society to ensure that litigation is profitable. Its the duty of society to make sure that due process is followed and the justice system improves society. It's not my duty to ensure that the media companies stay in business.
If he had marked you as a troll, his posting would have undone the moderation. Someone else marked you as a troll. Take off the tinfoil.
Seattle also has government run electricity. link I think you'll find its a bit more common than you think.
Its a response to the "Governments can never do anything right ever," sentiment, not the one that you professed. I mean, governments aren't perfect. Neither are corporations, co-ops, or any other group-of-people-working-on-a-problem. Government programs work pretty well in Europe and Asia, so I'm not exactly sure why I should believe the Libertarian line that I should bend over for private corporations with little-to-no accountability (in practice), while demonizing an elected body that is supposed to represent me. Furthermore, why should I elect a person who doesn't believe that improvement is possible to the very same position that he demonizes?
If you spend all your time parroting the line that government can do nothing right, refuse to acknowledge any success, elect people who believe that the government is always wrong to positions of power in same government, and generally piss all over any constructive efforts to improve things, then you shouldn't be surprised when the result is an incompetent governing body.
Moreover, its entirely tiresome how anti-government types tend to gloss over all the really shitty things that private entities do, and re-write history to make it into government's fault. Its like a friggen religion for them.
Bullshit. 3d drivers for Windows 7 are available *right now*.
The blue states also generate FAR more federal money, so it tends to even out. Typically the citation is this study posted by the Tax Foundation. It is old, however (2005).