I doubt the "real" terrorists would speak in regular english, either. First, different languages have different grammatical rules and idioms. Secondly, they wouldn't talk openly about "BOMBING THE WHITEHOUSE", they'd probably say it more discretely in a semi-sophisticated code. This will just be another arms race--a [tele]communinications one--and civilian casualties will be the main results.
Unless I'm wrong ofcourse and terrorists write like NY Times writers.
That's a very shotsighted solution. Local governments have been known to be just as corrupt as federal government; devolution is definitely not the answer. Without government regulations, we'd have the same situation as in Nicaragua and other developing nations where IMF and World Bank imposed economic policies have opened up vulnerable (suicidal) "free markets" which create corporate plutocracies where you have international conglomerates coming in to privatize social infrastructures such as water, electricity, farming, etc. and hiking up the prices because there's an inelastic demand for these monopolized inelastic necessities absent of any sort of formidable opposition from domestic businesses.* Why do you think we impose strong tariffs and heavily regulate imported products ourselves (a bit hypocritical, no?). A strongly united people-based democratic government is the only thing that can stand up against these powerful multinational conglomerates.
Imagine a U.S. where all roadways are toll roads, all schools are charter schools run on corporate sponsorship (with curricula dictated by said financial interests), entirely privatized healthcare (no more state-funded healthcare for the poor), where monopolized industries can freely practice price gouging (as california electric companies are have already been convicted of doing), and there's no FDA regulation of foods and drugs, no federal agencies to investigate corporate corruption, no form of corporate responsibility being enforced other than half-hearted PR campaigns, which are are just charades for the public. We need a government that represents its true constituents, not its political campaign patrons, otherwise all these regulations will simply be ineffective slaps on the hand. A libertarian government would allow corporate scandals to continue with complete impunity.
The problem should be solved by giving the power of government back to the people. Right now we have an ersatzs democracy run by corporate America and the media conglomerates which they also happen to own--sound like a conspiracy? Google "NBC and General Electric." Government offices are sold to the highest bidder through PAC funds, and our legislation reflects that; the strangle hold on American media outlets just closes the loop. A simple look at the contrast between media coverage in any European nation and major U.S. publications will illustrate this--why do U.S. press picture Hugo Chavez as a ruthless dictatorship when he is one of the most beloved (and first democratically elected) presidents of Venezuela; why was the CIA engineered military coup in Venezuela a massive failure.** What we need to do is follow the lead of true democracies like Venezuela, where the people vote on constitutional amendments and new legislation through broadbased referendums. We need to get rid of the bipartisan system/mascarade--(which faction of the American Business Party would you like to vote for), and create a truely democratic electoral system where independent 3rd parties aren't just nominal choices.
But looking at the past 2 presidential elections, we are a long ways from reaching this ideal democracy. Just take a look at the corruption uncovered by Black Box Voting that the unmarginalized constituency is still too indifferent/oblivious to do anything about. No reform can happen when the only ones willing to revolt are marginalized and the empowered are too complacent to take action. He who controls the media truly controls the government. We live in a kleptocracy of the rich and powerful. None bothered to heed Eisenhower's warnings in his farewell address:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex[***]. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address January 17, 1961[8]
I see what you're saying, but consider this: what if the Puritians or the Christians in medieval europe had automatica machine guns. This is a class-war in a neo-marxist sense. If you interview most middle-class muslims, you would find that they are appalled by the acts of extremists. However, there are a great number of muslimes subjected to urban warware, oppression, and live in a perpetual desistute, all the while faced with the cognitive dissonance of what is broadcasted on the media, and by seeing the grotesque excess of a thin minority ruling class supported by U.S. economic & political policies.
I recommend reading the Bible and Koran next to next to see what superficial differences really lie in these "holy" text. Our culture has simply evolved passed, for the most part, beyond the cruel and anachornistic portions of religious texts. But the barbaric essence still resides in both scriptures. For this reason, it would be hard to find muslims in America who hold to such archaic believes as Jihad or the belligerent doctrines that the popular regliious leaders in the Middle East foster?
And do you think carpet bombings and more murders of civilian lives in the Middle East will strengthen the power of these Sheiks Leaders and Fundamentalists demagoues or will real concesions of peace? I mean, just look at what the 9/11 attacks has done to our nation culture. We, as they, are just human beings after all, and well all have our shortcomings
I think the best thing we can do now is to end the construciton of oil-pipelines and the misappropriation of national resources from corrupt (puppet) governments as a sign of free will, and invest those billions of dollars into rebuilding nationa infrastructure and helping nationalize the region's most profitable economic resource-oil so that their economy may be rebuilt. Content people will not resort of extreme measures and it may be a step towards "civilizing" to middle-eastern people to ideasl of peace and harmony with the global community.
Yea, perhaps that wasn't the most well thought out post. As I said, I know close to nothing about biology and medicine so I didn't want to jump to conclusions, but those were my first thoughts. After reading your post though, I rescind my previous statements. She should probably, as you said, see a physician first and get a diagnosis and then take it from there.
If it's put up on archive.org or some P2P network, it'd be backed up on people's computers in thousands of places, if not more. What kind of maintenance does that require? Even if it were only kept on a single server, what kind of "constant, expert, maintenance" does there need to be? Regular backups aren't hard to run. And a file sitting on a harddrive doesn't need constant attention paid to it.
I too think this would be a useful feature. I'm the type of person who doesn't do laundry until I completely run out of clean clothes, so I usually end up with several loads of laundry to do. As such, laundry becomes a day-long event which prevents me from leaving the house. If I could operate the laundry machine remotely or atleast know when the laundry is done, I could go out in between putting in new loads without worrying about forgetting to take the laundry out of the dryer or leaving it sitting in the washer too long.
That's what I was thinking, but I was afraid I'm just being a bit insensitive. Perhaps she does have a real issue, but it could be due to not using the mouse properly or something. I use the computer all day and I never experience any kind of fatigue or stress from using the mouse. I don't even see how it could possibly strain your hand--you don't use your thumb on a standard 3-button scrollwheel mouse. Perhaps she's gripping too hard? I play a fair amount of games, and use photoshop, illustrator, quarkxpress, office, messenger, and firefox on a daily basis, and I've never had to strain my hand to operate the mouse. You don't even need to grip the mouse to use it. You can operate most standard mice just by gently resting your hand and digits ontop of the mouse in the correct position. There's no need to use your thumb at all. In fact, someone with no thumb could more-than-likely operate a mouse just as well as someone without a thumb. So it seems to me that she's probably just holding onto the mouse too tight and operating it incorrectly.
Or perhaps she has a peculiar medical condition, in which case she should find a job which doesn't conflict with her medical condition.
I agree with most of your post except Islamic terrorism being a threat to us. Why isn't Islamic terrorism a threat to Canada? to France? to Switzerland? to Japan? to a host of other countries that are equally secular/developed. The threat of terrorism is a secondary result of the primary threat to this nation: corrupt leadership. Our government has long since been hijacked by corporate interests, the most grievous of which being the military industrial complex. Terrorism is merely blowback from our foreign policies, from our unwelcomed interference with the political process of other countries. Beyond that, look at why other non-militant & democratic countries despise our country--the way that the IMF and World Bank, both of which largely controlled by American corporations and conglomerates, impose suicidal economic policies on deevloping nations to open up "free markets", then exploit these nascent economies to the detriment of the native populations.
Despite what the Bush administration would like you to believe, terrorists aren't just crazies with a genetic defect causing them to "hate freedom"--whatever that means. Their actions may not be justifiable, but there certainly is a more logical explaination for their actions. Unfortunately, the dominant worldview in America paints the issue as black & white, even when these over-simplistic explainations make no sense at all. So it's not just the religious that are in the habit of believing in absurdities. It's simply human nature to use selective reasoning to retain their established worldview. Our minds will believe in all sorts of things in order to prevent cognitive dissonance.
True that. I'm a web developer/graphic designer for an independent metal label, and even though I absolutely abhor the design of MySpace, and find most people on the site to be very banal, I've been forced to recognize the usefulness of the site as a PR/marketing resource for indie musicians. All of our bands have their own websites, but many still choose to setup a MySpace page because of the exposure it gives them. They're obviously doing something right that a lot of developers can learn from.
Excellent post. I wish I had some mod points for you. I used to hate MySpace as well for the obvious reasons that have already been listed, but after I signed up for an account since my gf and many of my friends were members, I began to see its appeal. Sure, it doesn't negate the messy code/design, but as a programmer, I've gotten much more from browsing the site and trying to see why people are attracted to the site than from simply dismissing one of the most popular sites on the internet off hand.
It's easy to just disregard the site as having "good marketing", but as you said, that simply isn't true. In fact, MySpace began with very humble beginnings competing with much better marketed/funded social networks such as Findapix (now, Mixture), Xanga, and Friendster, but its feature design gained it widespread popularity through word of mouth.
As a web developer for an independent record label I am forced to recognize the efficacy of their musicians pages as well as other social networking features. The problem is, most of MySpace's brilliance doesn't lie in the code per se, but rather in the design of its social networking features and the kind of social interaction it facilitates. The site encourages users to reach out and network with new people, to explore new music, and connects people with similar tastes/interests. The extensive social network it builds is also a powerful PR resource for its users, particularly independent musicians. This kind of web development genius isn't likely to be tought in a CS class or discussed in programming texts. Unfortunately, most slashdotters are just too arrogant to see it and learn from MySpace's success.
It's easy to be bitter about the success of others, but it's more useful to keep an open mind and try to learn what it is that has helped others achieve their success.
Certain contraceptives like morning-after pills require a prescription, and in some states the pharmacist can even refuse to fill your prescription if it's against his/her personal ethics--meaning that their religious beliefs forbid the use of the contraceptive, and they have the right to force their religious views on customers. This is particularly disturbing as morning-after pills lose their effectiveness after the first 48 hours since intercourse, thus some women may end up having unwanted pregnancies because they could not find a pharmacy to fill their prescription in time (just obtaining the prescription takes some time).
I think if you had more scientific background on these "wild-ass theories" they wouldn't seem as absurd to you. I'm sure the idea that the earth was round was a pretty absurd theory for a while too, but that can be simply attributed to human ignorance. The only arrogance here is by people who are ignorant of the background research behind these theories asserting that these explainations are too absurd to be true without assessing them in the proper light.
The scientific process is about peer review, which involves continuous critical assessment and testing of theoretical models through experimentation. If you think today's popular scientific theories are wrong, then prove them wrong scientifically and publish your research. Your dismissal of modern scientific theories just because they seem "strange or non-intuitive" to your common-sense reasoning only illustrates the narrowness of your provincial mind. You may as well assert that the aerospace industry is arrogant and overly-reliant on wild-ass theories because making an aircraft out of steel and expecting it to fly is as unintuitive as the idea that there may be a form of dark matter out there that isn't accounted for in present scientific models of the universe.
I'm sure a lot of people who don't have very extensive scientific backgrounds would probably agree that the idea that matter and energy can be interchangeable is absurd and counter-intuitive too, as are many tenets of quantum mechanics. Luckily, the "that sounds too crazy to be true" argument doesn't hold in academic circles.
A good plot/storyline is nice, but it's not the most important aspect of a good game. A good videogame should have high replay value. The plot/story of a game loses its novelty after the first time you beat the game. Gameplay, on the other hand, can make a game continue to be fun after hundreds of hours of play. Books & cinema are much better mediums for crafting an enthralling story anyways. I mean, a good plot is integral to a good book/movie, but it's clearly not necessary for a good game. Just look at all the successful sports/racing games, shooters, puzzles etc. that aren't based on a plot/story. The only category of games that really relies on having a good plot/story are RPGs, but that's just one small subset of videogames.
So, because racism still exist, it must serve a necessary function? Murder and rape still exist, so that means the world would be worst off if we'd done away with them? That's a poorly reasoned argument if I ever saw one...
The media greatly exagerates the physical addictiveness of heroin. Don't get me wrong, it's an incredibly psychologically/physically addictive drug, but it takes much longer than a week of continuous use to develop physical dependence. Other opiates such as hydrocodone (Vicodin, Norco, Lortab), oxycodone (Oxy-Contin, Percocet), codeine (Tylenol 3), etc. are equally addictive, but prescription drugs don't have the same stigma in our culture for some reason. In fact, oxycodone and hydrocodone are both stronger than heroin by mass. Hydrocodone has less potential for abuse because it's mostly available only in preparations containing very small amounts of hydrocodone and large amounts of APAP (tylenol), similarly with codeine.
It'd take atleast 3 weeks to a month of continuous use to develop strong opioid withdrawal symptoms with an abrupt discontinuation of usage. Moreover, someone with a strong will would probably be able to hold out for the first 48-72 hours, afterwhich the withdrawal symptoms begin to subside. Not to say that it'd be easy, but many (ex)heroin addicts have done it and continue to do it. It's usually the psychological addiction which keeps them going back and causes relapses.
A benzo or alcohol dependence on the other hand could potentially kill you by causing you to go into a seizure. Physical dependence to benzodiazepines (Xanax, Valium, Klonopin, Ativan, etc.) develops just as quickly as opiate dependence, and it's not something that you can just quit cold-turkey. Without the proper medical oversight, detoxing from benzos could easily be fatal to the victim. So if I were to use drug addiction as a tool of extracting information from someone, I'd probably go with a short-acting benzo like Xanax or Ativan rather than heroin, despite the hollywood cliche of heroin being the single most addictive drug in the world. Also, large doses of benzos causes anterograde amnesia, so you could extract the information without the user even remember giving it up to you. Being a hypnotic and anxiolytic also can't hurt.
However, having been through opiate withdrawals, I would never subject another human being to that kind of torture.
Terrorism starts when the government neglects its responsibilities to protect citizens.
Ah, I see the propaganda machine has been doing its job. Do you really think that "terrorists" are just people born with an irrational hatred for "freedom" and that's why they blow themselves up just to terrorize people half way across the globe from them?
Why are we so often the target of terrorism, and not other countries? How come Canada doesn't have to worry about terrorist attacks in their country, despite their defense budget being miniscule compared to ours and their equally (if not more) free and open atmosphere?
Do you think Palestinians simply have a genetic defect which compels 17 year-old girls who once aspired to be journalists or teachers to strap bombs to their chest and blow up Israelis? Why would a nation with no standing army want to purposely instigate war with the second most well-armed nation in the world--thanks to the billions of dollars of annual defense aid from the U.S.? Because they've got some sort of terrorist gene and the Israeli government just isn't doing enough to protect its citizens?
Terrorism starts when desperate people are pushed to extremes through continuous oppression. It's what desperate people resort to when they have no other recourse. It has nothing to do with whether a government is performing its duty to protect its citizens. That's why no matter how much money we pour into "defense" and the War on Terrorism, and no matter how much power we grant to our government, we'll never be as safe as countries that don't interfere with the democratic will of foreign nations, that don't manipulate the political process of other states, don't impose suicidal economic policies on developing nations, and don't exploit weaker nations for their economic resources.
But keep buying into whatever CNN/Fox News wants you to believe, and ignore the obvious realities that are in front of you. The fact that the military industrial complex exerts enormous influence over our government and is exploiting our position as the world's superpower for its financial interests has nothing to do with the creation of terrorists, I'm sure. It's all just a bunch of crazy rag-heads who have a fanatical hatred of "freedom" and "democracy"...
The part where they didn't commit any crimes and didn't do anything except dress in blue polo shirts and khaki pants. If that's an 'act of provocation', then perhaps you're too easily provoked...
You are confusing 'cooperation for mutually benefitting ends' with 'mob mentality'. You also seem to be confusing 'sociopathic behavior' with 'individuality'.
These are people working together to leverage their collective buying power against retailers to get group discounts. Just because you have large groups of people working together for mutally benefitting ends doesn't mean that there is mob-like mentality. And just because you can't work with others doesn't make you more of an individual than those who can...
That has nothing to do with DRM. Physical books can only be in one place at one time. So since libraries are trying to serve a community of users, they have to limit the amount of time one can check out a book, otherwise someone who keeps a book forever would keep everyone else from being able to access the book.
DRM is used to create artificial restrictions. Library lending policies are used to overcome physical restrictions. They are two completely different issues.
So you think illegal immigrants are an invading military threat? Who do you think these people choose such perilous methods of crossing the border just so they can be treated as second class human-beings? Do you think they wouldn't rather just apply for a VISA and come here legally instead of having to be smuggled in the back of a cramped and unventilated car trailer or even in the trunks of the cars of smugglers, just so that when they get here they risk being sold into forced labor or into the sex trade?
Try to put yourself in their situations. People don't resort to such extreme means unless they really have to. Our immigration policy towards countries like Mexico make it impossible for the poor and dispossed to attain citizenship legally. Xenophobic attitudes that think that illegal immigrants are the ones destroying our country (rather than the moneyed elite who hold the actual power) only make it even more difficult for these people to find a better life for themselves here.
And the idea that just because you lucky enough to have been born here legally, or that your parents/grandparents were privileged enough to be able to immigrate here legally makes you more worthy of a decent quality of life than someone who risks everything they own, including their very lives, to come here, is total BS. I'm sorry.
I'll be honest, I'm a first generation immigrant myself so I may be biased (though so is everyone to a certain extent, unless you believe yourself to be omniscient and possess perfect clarity into every single possible perspective). My parents risked a lot to come to the United States from Taiwan, so that I may have a better education. Now, the U.S. immigration policy isn't nearly as stringent as it is with Mexico, but we still faced out share of problems. My family wasn't poor, we were pretty well off by most standards, but obtaining a green card was still quite costly for our family. In fact, the process took over 2 years, we had to employ the services of immigration lawyers, and as a result we were scammed of nearly half of our family fortune. Now, my parents are both educated, well to do, and skilled professionals without any kind of criminal record, yet gaining just a greencard was still an great ordeal for our family.
Now, imagine an impoverised Mexican family trying to do the same when the U.S.'s immigration policies towards Mexico are many times more. It's simply unrealistic to expect them to be able to go through what my family had to go through to get a greencard here. And IMO, they're even more deserving of coming here to start a new life since they have much harder lives, and especially if they are so desperate as to try to cross the border by foot or through shady smugglers and risk their lives just to have a taste of the freedoms we take for granted.
You are worried about the wrong issues as being threats to the American people. If you're opposed to hostile governments that exercise violent coercion on weaker nations, how about taking a look at our own foreign policy. Amnesty International estimates that the U.S. economic sanctions on Iraq killed about half a million Iraqi children through starvation and a lack of medical supplies. Or what about other atrocities, like pharmacutical giants which won't let African governments combating AIDS epidemics to produce their own generic AIDS medications, which they have the resources to produce and would allow them to treat their entire AIDS-infected population, rather than just the 5-15% that they're able to treat with the current system. What about the 30k+ civilian casualties caused by U.S bombing of Afghanistan in a few short months just to catch a terrorist organization that is composed of at most 3000 indiivduals world-wide?
Brutal governments and societies exist in all shapes and sizes, but often the greatest atrocities are the most subtle ones that are much more insidious than the sensationalized and demonized "invasion of illegal mexican immigrants" that politicians like to use as a scapeg
Ok, perhaps I misinterpreted your post. Parts of the message such as sarcasm and tone tend to get lost in text communication, so perhaps my response was a little too hostile. In any case, my point is that totalitarian regimes don't come into power over night. I wasn't implying that this act would immediately make the U.S. a police state, but I believe the cultural attitude it represents/encourages might allow us to drift in that direction. I'm just of the opinion that we should be more critical of those who are in power and actually run the show than the dishevelled have-nots of society.
Actually, I have attended public schools in Southern California, and I have also been to the hospital before. I also have (state) healthcare and pay car insurance in Southern California. I understand that the healthcare system has severe shortcomings and so do our schools (thoguh the schools I attended were pretty good IMO), but these problems have nothing to do with immigration.
Firstly, immigrants contribute to our economy by providing cheap labor for many industries, and we benefit from this through the cheaper goods produced by them. We also have one of the largest economies in the world, so if our school/healthcare systems are underfunded, it's because we don't employ a progressive tax system capable of supporting our educational/healthcare infrastructure, and/or because tax money is being misspent. Secondly, if you buy anything in California, you're paying state sales tax and putting money directly back into the economy. So saying that illegals don't pay taxes or are stealing from our economy is just a load of BS. An illegal immigrant who comes here to make minimum wage and shares a 2 bedroom apartment with 20 people is more likely to spend all of their disposable income on basic necessities than some millionaire who keeps most of his money in tax-exempt off-shore bank accounts.
A 2006 survey showed that the poorest families in California are paying the greatest share of their income in taxes. Meanwhile, the top 10% of America's families are the ones controlling 2/3 of the national wealth. Do you think this moneyed elite are putting over 90% of their disposable income back into the economy by shopping for food and paying for other basic necessities? The current Social Security tax cap is set at $10,900 a year. So while lower and middle class families are paying 6.2% of their income to Social Security, people like Bill Gates who have more money than many foreign countries are paying less than.1%. And the Bush administration continues to give tax cuts to the rich.
And if you're here illegally, you don't have a social security number, so how would you be able to sign up for welfare? In any case, most people receiving welfare aren't lazy freeloaders as you seem to believe. The reality is, most welfare recepients are single mothers working 2 jobs, or more. Besides, we live in the richest nation in the world. We constitute only 6% of the world's population yet hold over 40% of the world's resources. So why aren't we capable of providing social welfare services to our poor when other nations with less resources have all but eliminated poverty from their societies?
Blaming immigrants for the short comings of our society and all of our social/economic problems is not only reactionary, it's incredibly ignorant. I would advise you to study a little American history and learn what values our nation was founded upon, and what exactly made our nation so great to begin with. Perhaps you need to be reminded of what the inscription on the Statue of Liberty says:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Someone who risks their life and everything they have to cross the border in a sweltering unventilated truck trailer, a cramped and suffocating car trunk, or crosses the border by foot without adequate food, water, or protection from the elements, in order to make a better life for themselves in "the land of opportunity" dseerves to be here just as much as you and I. I think someone who risks being sold as forced laborers or sex workers, risks being robbed or killed by drug cartels and smuggler gangs, and came here to escape a life of poverty, would actually appreciate the opportunities we enjoy much more than someone who was simply born here, who takes their privilege for granted, and would actually seek to deny the less fortuna
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt the "real" terrorists would speak in regular english, either. First, different languages have different grammatical rules and idioms. Secondly, they wouldn't talk openly about "BOMBING THE WHITEHOUSE", they'd probably say it more discretely in a semi-sophisticated code. This will just be another arms race--a [tele]communinications one--and civilian casualties will be the main results.
Unless I'm wrong ofcourse and terrorists write like NY Times writers.
That's a very shotsighted solution. Local governments have been known to be just as corrupt as federal government; devolution is definitely not the answer. Without government regulations, we'd have the same situation as in Nicaragua and other developing nations where IMF and World Bank imposed economic policies have opened up vulnerable (suicidal) "free markets" which create corporate plutocracies where you have international conglomerates coming in to privatize social infrastructures such as water, electricity, farming, etc. and hiking up the prices because there's an inelastic demand for these monopolized inelastic necessities absent of any sort of formidable opposition from domestic businesses.* Why do you think we impose strong tariffs and heavily regulate imported products ourselves (a bit hypocritical, no?). A strongly united people-based democratic government is the only thing that can stand up against these powerful multinational conglomerates.
Imagine a U.S. where all roadways are toll roads, all schools are charter schools run on corporate sponsorship (with curricula dictated by said financial interests), entirely privatized healthcare (no more state-funded healthcare for the poor), where monopolized industries can freely practice price gouging (as california electric companies are have already been convicted of doing), and there's no FDA regulation of foods and drugs, no federal agencies to investigate corporate corruption, no form of corporate responsibility being enforced other than half-hearted PR campaigns, which are are just charades for the public. We need a government that represents its true constituents, not its political campaign patrons, otherwise all these regulations will simply be ineffective slaps on the hand. A libertarian government would allow corporate scandals to continue with complete impunity.
The problem should be solved by giving the power of government back to the people. Right now we have an ersatzs democracy run by corporate America and the media conglomerates which they also happen to own--sound like a conspiracy? Google "NBC and General Electric." Government offices are sold to the highest bidder through PAC funds, and our legislation reflects that; the strangle hold on American media outlets just closes the loop. A simple look at the contrast between media coverage in any European nation and major U.S. publications will illustrate this--why do U.S. press picture Hugo Chavez as a ruthless dictatorship when he is one of the most beloved (and first democratically elected) presidents of Venezuela; why was the CIA engineered military coup in Venezuela a massive failure.** What we need to do is follow the lead of true democracies like Venezuela, where the people vote on constitutional amendments and new legislation through broadbased referendums. We need to get rid of the bipartisan system/mascarade--(which faction of the American Business Party would you like to vote for), and create a truely democratic electoral system where independent 3rd parties aren't just nominal choices.
But looking at the past 2 presidential elections, we are a long ways from reaching this ideal democracy. Just take a look at the corruption uncovered by Black Box Voting that the unmarginalized constituency is still too indifferent/oblivious to do anything about. No reform can happen when the only ones willing to revolt are marginalized and the empowered are too complacent to take action. He who controls the media truly controls the government. We live in a kleptocracy of the rich and powerful. None bothered to heed Eisenhower's warnings in his farewell address:
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address January 17, 1961[8]
The political power and economi
I see what you're saying, but consider this: what if the Puritians or the Christians in medieval europe had automatica machine guns. This is a class-war in a neo-marxist sense. If you interview most middle-class muslims, you would find that they are appalled by the acts of extremists. However, there are a great number of muslimes subjected to urban warware, oppression, and live in a perpetual desistute, all the while faced with the cognitive dissonance of what is broadcasted on the media, and by seeing the grotesque excess of a thin minority ruling class supported by U.S. economic & political policies.
I recommend reading the Bible and Koran next to next to see what superficial differences really lie in these "holy" text. Our culture has simply evolved passed, for the most part, beyond the cruel and anachornistic portions of religious texts. But the barbaric essence still resides in both scriptures. For this reason, it would be hard to find muslims in America who hold to such archaic believes as Jihad or the belligerent doctrines that the popular regliious leaders in the Middle East foster?
And do you think carpet bombings and more murders of civilian lives in the Middle East will strengthen the power of these Sheiks Leaders and Fundamentalists demagoues or will real concesions of peace? I mean, just look at what the 9/11 attacks has done to our nation culture. We, as they, are just human beings after all, and well all have our shortcomings
I think the best thing we can do now is to end the construciton of oil-pipelines and the misappropriation of national resources from corrupt (puppet) governments as a sign of free will, and invest those billions of dollars into rebuilding nationa infrastructure and helping nationalize the region's most profitable economic resource-oil so that their economy may be rebuilt. Content people will not resort of extreme measures and it may be a step towards "civilizing" to middle-eastern people to ideasl of peace and harmony with the global community.
Yea, perhaps that wasn't the most well thought out post. As I said, I know close to nothing about biology and medicine so I didn't want to jump to conclusions, but those were my first thoughts. After reading your post though, I rescind my previous statements. She should probably, as you said, see a physician first and get a diagnosis and then take it from there.
That's what I do currently. But this feature would be more convenient IMO.
If it's put up on archive.org or some P2P network, it'd be backed up on people's computers in thousands of places, if not more. What kind of maintenance does that require? Even if it were only kept on a single server, what kind of "constant, expert, maintenance" does there need to be? Regular backups aren't hard to run. And a file sitting on a harddrive doesn't need constant attention paid to it.
I too think this would be a useful feature. I'm the type of person who doesn't do laundry until I completely run out of clean clothes, so I usually end up with several loads of laundry to do. As such, laundry becomes a day-long event which prevents me from leaving the house. If I could operate the laundry machine remotely or atleast know when the laundry is done, I could go out in between putting in new loads without worrying about forgetting to take the laundry out of the dryer or leaving it sitting in the washer too long.
That's what I was thinking, but I was afraid I'm just being a bit insensitive. Perhaps she does have a real issue, but it could be due to not using the mouse properly or something. I use the computer all day and I never experience any kind of fatigue or stress from using the mouse. I don't even see how it could possibly strain your hand--you don't use your thumb on a standard 3-button scrollwheel mouse. Perhaps she's gripping too hard? I play a fair amount of games, and use photoshop, illustrator, quarkxpress, office, messenger, and firefox on a daily basis, and I've never had to strain my hand to operate the mouse. You don't even need to grip the mouse to use it. You can operate most standard mice just by gently resting your hand and digits ontop of the mouse in the correct position. There's no need to use your thumb at all. In fact, someone with no thumb could more-than-likely operate a mouse just as well as someone without a thumb. So it seems to me that she's probably just holding onto the mouse too tight and operating it incorrectly.
Or perhaps she has a peculiar medical condition, in which case she should find a job which doesn't conflict with her medical condition.
I agree with most of your post except Islamic terrorism being a threat to us. Why isn't Islamic terrorism a threat to Canada? to France? to Switzerland? to Japan? to a host of other countries that are equally secular/developed. The threat of terrorism is a secondary result of the primary threat to this nation: corrupt leadership. Our government has long since been hijacked by corporate interests, the most grievous of which being the military industrial complex. Terrorism is merely blowback from our foreign policies, from our unwelcomed interference with the political process of other countries. Beyond that, look at why other non-militant & democratic countries despise our country--the way that the IMF and World Bank, both of which largely controlled by American corporations and conglomerates, impose suicidal economic policies on deevloping nations to open up "free markets", then exploit these nascent economies to the detriment of the native populations.
Despite what the Bush administration would like you to believe, terrorists aren't just crazies with a genetic defect causing them to "hate freedom"--whatever that means. Their actions may not be justifiable, but there certainly is a more logical explaination for their actions. Unfortunately, the dominant worldview in America paints the issue as black & white, even when these over-simplistic explainations make no sense at all. So it's not just the religious that are in the habit of believing in absurdities. It's simply human nature to use selective reasoning to retain their established worldview. Our minds will believe in all sorts of things in order to prevent cognitive dissonance.
True that. I'm a web developer/graphic designer for an independent metal label, and even though I absolutely abhor the design of MySpace, and find most people on the site to be very banal, I've been forced to recognize the usefulness of the site as a PR/marketing resource for indie musicians. All of our bands have their own websites, but many still choose to setup a MySpace page because of the exposure it gives them. They're obviously doing something right that a lot of developers can learn from.
Excellent post. I wish I had some mod points for you. I used to hate MySpace as well for the obvious reasons that have already been listed, but after I signed up for an account since my gf and many of my friends were members, I began to see its appeal. Sure, it doesn't negate the messy code/design, but as a programmer, I've gotten much more from browsing the site and trying to see why people are attracted to the site than from simply dismissing one of the most popular sites on the internet off hand.
It's easy to just disregard the site as having "good marketing", but as you said, that simply isn't true. In fact, MySpace began with very humble beginnings competing with much better marketed/funded social networks such as Findapix (now, Mixture), Xanga, and Friendster, but its feature design gained it widespread popularity through word of mouth.
As a web developer for an independent record label I am forced to recognize the efficacy of their musicians pages as well as other social networking features. The problem is, most of MySpace's brilliance doesn't lie in the code per se, but rather in the design of its social networking features and the kind of social interaction it facilitates. The site encourages users to reach out and network with new people, to explore new music, and connects people with similar tastes/interests. The extensive social network it builds is also a powerful PR resource for its users, particularly independent musicians. This kind of web development genius isn't likely to be tought in a CS class or discussed in programming texts. Unfortunately, most slashdotters are just too arrogant to see it and learn from MySpace's success.
It's easy to be bitter about the success of others, but it's more useful to keep an open mind and try to learn what it is that has helped others achieve their success.
Certain contraceptives like morning-after pills require a prescription, and in some states the pharmacist can even refuse to fill your prescription if it's against his/her personal ethics--meaning that their religious beliefs forbid the use of the contraceptive, and they have the right to force their religious views on customers. This is particularly disturbing as morning-after pills lose their effectiveness after the first 48 hours since intercourse, thus some women may end up having unwanted pregnancies because they could not find a pharmacy to fill their prescription in time (just obtaining the prescription takes some time).
I think if you had more scientific background on these "wild-ass theories" they wouldn't seem as absurd to you. I'm sure the idea that the earth was round was a pretty absurd theory for a while too, but that can be simply attributed to human ignorance. The only arrogance here is by people who are ignorant of the background research behind these theories asserting that these explainations are too absurd to be true without assessing them in the proper light.
The scientific process is about peer review, which involves continuous critical assessment and testing of theoretical models through experimentation. If you think today's popular scientific theories are wrong, then prove them wrong scientifically and publish your research. Your dismissal of modern scientific theories just because they seem "strange or non-intuitive" to your common-sense reasoning only illustrates the narrowness of your provincial mind. You may as well assert that the aerospace industry is arrogant and overly-reliant on wild-ass theories because making an aircraft out of steel and expecting it to fly is as unintuitive as the idea that there may be a form of dark matter out there that isn't accounted for in present scientific models of the universe.
I'm sure a lot of people who don't have very extensive scientific backgrounds would probably agree that the idea that matter and energy can be interchangeable is absurd and counter-intuitive too, as are many tenets of quantum mechanics. Luckily, the "that sounds too crazy to be true" argument doesn't hold in academic circles.
A good plot/storyline is nice, but it's not the most important aspect of a good game. A good videogame should have high replay value. The plot/story of a game loses its novelty after the first time you beat the game. Gameplay, on the other hand, can make a game continue to be fun after hundreds of hours of play. Books & cinema are much better mediums for crafting an enthralling story anyways. I mean, a good plot is integral to a good book/movie, but it's clearly not necessary for a good game. Just look at all the successful sports/racing games, shooters, puzzles etc. that aren't based on a plot/story. The only category of games that really relies on having a good plot/story are RPGs, but that's just one small subset of videogames.
So, because racism still exist, it must serve a necessary function? Murder and rape still exist, so that means the world would be worst off if we'd done away with them? That's a poorly reasoned argument if I ever saw one...
The media greatly exagerates the physical addictiveness of heroin. Don't get me wrong, it's an incredibly psychologically/physically addictive drug, but it takes much longer than a week of continuous use to develop physical dependence. Other opiates such as hydrocodone (Vicodin, Norco, Lortab), oxycodone (Oxy-Contin, Percocet), codeine (Tylenol 3), etc. are equally addictive, but prescription drugs don't have the same stigma in our culture for some reason. In fact, oxycodone and hydrocodone are both stronger than heroin by mass. Hydrocodone has less potential for abuse because it's mostly available only in preparations containing very small amounts of hydrocodone and large amounts of APAP (tylenol), similarly with codeine.
It'd take atleast 3 weeks to a month of continuous use to develop strong opioid withdrawal symptoms with an abrupt discontinuation of usage. Moreover, someone with a strong will would probably be able to hold out for the first 48-72 hours, afterwhich the withdrawal symptoms begin to subside. Not to say that it'd be easy, but many (ex)heroin addicts have done it and continue to do it. It's usually the psychological addiction which keeps them going back and causes relapses.
A benzo or alcohol dependence on the other hand could potentially kill you by causing you to go into a seizure. Physical dependence to benzodiazepines (Xanax, Valium, Klonopin, Ativan, etc.) develops just as quickly as opiate dependence, and it's not something that you can just quit cold-turkey. Without the proper medical oversight, detoxing from benzos could easily be fatal to the victim. So if I were to use drug addiction as a tool of extracting information from someone, I'd probably go with a short-acting benzo like Xanax or Ativan rather than heroin, despite the hollywood cliche of heroin being the single most addictive drug in the world. Also, large doses of benzos causes anterograde amnesia, so you could extract the information without the user even remember giving it up to you. Being a hypnotic and anxiolytic also can't hurt.
However, having been through opiate withdrawals, I would never subject another human being to that kind of torture.
Ah, I see the propaganda machine has been doing its job. Do you really think that "terrorists" are just people born with an irrational hatred for "freedom" and that's why they blow themselves up just to terrorize people half way across the globe from them?
Why are we so often the target of terrorism, and not other countries? How come Canada doesn't have to worry about terrorist attacks in their country, despite their defense budget being miniscule compared to ours and their equally (if not more) free and open atmosphere?
Do you think Palestinians simply have a genetic defect which compels 17 year-old girls who once aspired to be journalists or teachers to strap bombs to their chest and blow up Israelis? Why would a nation with no standing army want to purposely instigate war with the second most well-armed nation in the world--thanks to the billions of dollars of annual defense aid from the U.S.? Because they've got some sort of terrorist gene and the Israeli government just isn't doing enough to protect its citizens?
Terrorism starts when desperate people are pushed to extremes through continuous oppression. It's what desperate people resort to when they have no other recourse. It has nothing to do with whether a government is performing its duty to protect its citizens. That's why no matter how much money we pour into "defense" and the War on Terrorism, and no matter how much power we grant to our government, we'll never be as safe as countries that don't interfere with the democratic will of foreign nations, that don't manipulate the political process of other states, don't impose suicidal economic policies on developing nations, and don't exploit weaker nations for their economic resources.
But keep buying into whatever CNN/Fox News wants you to believe, and ignore the obvious realities that are in front of you. The fact that the military industrial complex exerts enormous influence over our government and is exploiting our position as the world's superpower for its financial interests has nothing to do with the creation of terrorists, I'm sure. It's all just a bunch of crazy rag-heads who have a fanatical hatred of "freedom" and "democracy"...
The part where they didn't commit any crimes and didn't do anything except dress in blue polo shirts and khaki pants. If that's an 'act of provocation', then perhaps you're too easily provoked...
You are confusing 'cooperation for mutually benefitting ends' with 'mob mentality'. You also seem to be confusing 'sociopathic behavior' with 'individuality'.
These are people working together to leverage their collective buying power against retailers to get group discounts. Just because you have large groups of people working together for mutally benefitting ends doesn't mean that there is mob-like mentality. And just because you can't work with others doesn't make you more of an individual than those who can...
What part of standing around wearing a blue polo shirt and khaki pants is "an act of provocation"?
That has nothing to do with DRM. Physical books can only be in one place at one time. So since libraries are trying to serve a community of users, they have to limit the amount of time one can check out a book, otherwise someone who keeps a book forever would keep everyone else from being able to access the book.
DRM is used to create artificial restrictions. Library lending policies are used to overcome physical restrictions. They are two completely different issues.
So you think illegal immigrants are an invading military threat? Who do you think these people choose such perilous methods of crossing the border just so they can be treated as second class human-beings? Do you think they wouldn't rather just apply for a VISA and come here legally instead of having to be smuggled in the back of a cramped and unventilated car trailer or even in the trunks of the cars of smugglers, just so that when they get here they risk being sold into forced labor or into the sex trade?
Try to put yourself in their situations. People don't resort to such extreme means unless they really have to. Our immigration policy towards countries like Mexico make it impossible for the poor and dispossed to attain citizenship legally. Xenophobic attitudes that think that illegal immigrants are the ones destroying our country (rather than the moneyed elite who hold the actual power) only make it even more difficult for these people to find a better life for themselves here.
And the idea that just because you lucky enough to have been born here legally, or that your parents/grandparents were privileged enough to be able to immigrate here legally makes you more worthy of a decent quality of life than someone who risks everything they own, including their very lives, to come here, is total BS. I'm sorry.
I'll be honest, I'm a first generation immigrant myself so I may be biased (though so is everyone to a certain extent, unless you believe yourself to be omniscient and possess perfect clarity into every single possible perspective). My parents risked a lot to come to the United States from Taiwan, so that I may have a better education. Now, the U.S. immigration policy isn't nearly as stringent as it is with Mexico, but we still faced out share of problems. My family wasn't poor, we were pretty well off by most standards, but obtaining a green card was still quite costly for our family. In fact, the process took over 2 years, we had to employ the services of immigration lawyers, and as a result we were scammed of nearly half of our family fortune. Now, my parents are both educated, well to do, and skilled professionals without any kind of criminal record, yet gaining just a greencard was still an great ordeal for our family.
Now, imagine an impoverised Mexican family trying to do the same when the U.S.'s immigration policies towards Mexico are many times more. It's simply unrealistic to expect them to be able to go through what my family had to go through to get a greencard here. And IMO, they're even more deserving of coming here to start a new life since they have much harder lives, and especially if they are so desperate as to try to cross the border by foot or through shady smugglers and risk their lives just to have a taste of the freedoms we take for granted.
You are worried about the wrong issues as being threats to the American people. If you're opposed to hostile governments that exercise violent coercion on weaker nations, how about taking a look at our own foreign policy. Amnesty International estimates that the U.S. economic sanctions on Iraq killed about half a million Iraqi children through starvation and a lack of medical supplies. Or what about other atrocities, like pharmacutical giants which won't let African governments combating AIDS epidemics to produce their own generic AIDS medications, which they have the resources to produce and would allow them to treat their entire AIDS-infected population, rather than just the 5-15% that they're able to treat with the current system. What about the 30k+ civilian casualties caused by U.S bombing of Afghanistan in a few short months just to catch a terrorist organization that is composed of at most 3000 indiivduals world-wide?
Brutal governments and societies exist in all shapes and sizes, but often the greatest atrocities are the most subtle ones that are much more insidious than the sensationalized and demonized "invasion of illegal mexican immigrants" that politicians like to use as a scapeg
Ok, perhaps I misinterpreted your post. Parts of the message such as sarcasm and tone tend to get lost in text communication, so perhaps my response was a little too hostile. In any case, my point is that totalitarian regimes don't come into power over night. I wasn't implying that this act would immediately make the U.S. a police state, but I believe the cultural attitude it represents/encourages might allow us to drift in that direction. I'm just of the opinion that we should be more critical of those who are in power and actually run the show than the dishevelled have-nots of society.
Actually, I have attended public schools in Southern California, and I have also been to the hospital before. I also have (state) healthcare and pay car insurance in Southern California. I understand that the healthcare system has severe shortcomings and so do our schools (thoguh the schools I attended were pretty good IMO), but these problems have nothing to do with immigration.
Firstly, immigrants contribute to our economy by providing cheap labor for many industries, and we benefit from this through the cheaper goods produced by them. We also have one of the largest economies in the world, so if our school/healthcare systems are underfunded, it's because we don't employ a progressive tax system capable of supporting our educational/healthcare infrastructure, and/or because tax money is being misspent. Secondly, if you buy anything in California, you're paying state sales tax and putting money directly back into the economy. So saying that illegals don't pay taxes or are stealing from our economy is just a load of BS. An illegal immigrant who comes here to make minimum wage and shares a 2 bedroom apartment with 20 people is more likely to spend all of their disposable income on basic necessities than some millionaire who keeps most of his money in tax-exempt off-shore bank accounts.
A 2006 survey showed that the poorest families in California are paying the greatest share of their income in taxes. Meanwhile, the top 10% of America's families are the ones controlling 2/3 of the national wealth. Do you think this moneyed elite are putting over 90% of their disposable income back into the economy by shopping for food and paying for other basic necessities? The current Social Security tax cap is set at $10,900 a year. So while lower and middle class families are paying 6.2% of their income to Social Security, people like Bill Gates who have more money than many foreign countries are paying less than .1%. And the Bush administration continues to give tax cuts to the rich.
And if you're here illegally, you don't have a social security number, so how would you be able to sign up for welfare? In any case, most people receiving welfare aren't lazy freeloaders as you seem to believe. The reality is, most welfare recepients are single mothers working 2 jobs, or more. Besides, we live in the richest nation in the world. We constitute only 6% of the world's population yet hold over 40% of the world's resources. So why aren't we capable of providing social welfare services to our poor when other nations with less resources have all but eliminated poverty from their societies?
Blaming immigrants for the short comings of our society and all of our social/economic problems is not only reactionary, it's incredibly ignorant. I would advise you to study a little American history and learn what values our nation was founded upon, and what exactly made our nation so great to begin with. Perhaps you need to be reminded of what the inscription on the Statue of Liberty says:
Someone who risks their life and everything they have to cross the border in a sweltering unventilated truck trailer, a cramped and suffocating car trunk, or crosses the border by foot without adequate food, water, or protection from the elements, in order to make a better life for themselves in "the land of opportunity" dseerves to be here just as much as you and I. I think someone who risks being sold as forced laborers or sex workers, risks being robbed or killed by drug cartels and smuggler gangs, and came here to escape a life of poverty, would actually appreciate the opportunities we enjoy much more than someone who was simply born here, who takes their privilege for granted, and would actually seek to deny the less fortuna