I certainly do not condone the behavior of the investigator working for the News Corp subsidiary. However, I do have a question for people who defend wikileaks no matter what they are releasing. Where do you draw the line for a third party doing an investigation of a sensitive matter? I'm not trying to troll. It's a serious question from someone who is trying to figure out the role of today's media.
Yeah- you solve the encryption and then get prosecuted as the murderer. You get to feel mentally superior to the FBI and they get to close the case. It's a win-win!
This is a bad idea. Karl Rove's strategy has proved that you can win elections by motivating your base rather than having broad appeal.
If Palin gets the nomination and right around the election we wind up with a double dip recession and Afghanistan gets even worse, it isn't unrealistic that she could win.
What kind of travel do you do? While I've never used a kindle, I assume that it falls into the category of electronic devices that must be turned off prior to taking off and then before landing. I travel regularly for work and like to read on the plane. The time when flight door closes until we're in the air combined with the the approach to land is a minimum of 30 minutes. At worst, it can be over an hour where I wouldn't be able to read and that's not an option.
I think you'll see a change in this if and when Obama becomes president. Just like the Clinton administration led to the mainstreaming of foxnews, dennis miller (back when he was successful), and talk radio-- the Bush administration has led to the success of Kos, Olbermann and Colbert. While I'm sure the Daily Show and Colbert Report will still be funny, they won't be as poignant and cutting edge with a Democrat in the office. Something else will come along and be the new "in" thing of political satire.
Nice post. I agree with you on Ron Paul (my first choice) and Barack Obama (my second favorite). The point I'd like to challenge you on is McCain kissing the ass of the religious right. I hear that a lot and while I understand the sentiment, I don't think it's a problem. As far as I can tell, he hasn't adopted any new policies based on the religious right. He appears with constituents that I might find repugnant, but until he starts speaking like them, he's still fine with me. He used to call out those people in unflattering terms, but now he meets with them and acknowledges where they agree and where they disagree. That's the mark of a more mature statesman in my mind.
4. Slashdot is moderated largely by hypocritical children who will mod up popular opinion and mod down unpopular posts regardless of accuracy. I predict the slow demise of Slashdot as the comments area, a once fertile land of discussion and intelligent observation becomes a members only arena linux/mac fanboys and video gamers who can't envision anyone else's opinion being right other than theirs. It will be a place where where speaking ill of religion, republicans or windows will be given an automatic +2 informative while speaking ill social web sites, video games, or modding practices will be an auto -2 troll.
My biggest realization is related to this as well. 2007 was the year where I realized that I will not adapt and have no desire to engage with "the next generation" who is now online. I personally can't stand seeing online discussions filled with nothing but people chiming in without anything to say. I don't know if it's self absorption, arrogance, or something else entirely, but why post comments that only say LOL, OMG, QFT, FTMFW, etc? I used to love reading message boards for the variety of ideas and arguments. While there have always been trolls and garbage to sift through, you could still get to decent content. Now I've stopped reading a number of sites I used to enjoy because all I see are people who post their acronymed reactions and insults that they think are arguments. Slashdot has held up so far, but you can certainly notice a shift towards this trend in both the comments and the moderating. I'm hoping the trend doesn't continue, but it probably will unless adjustments are made to the moderating system.
2007 was the year that I decided that I'm an Online Curmudgeon. Now get off my lawn.
While I agree with your sentiments about seeing real change if gas gets more expensive, I think you're incorrect about the US not looking for alternative fuels. If you know anyone in a top MBA program, I guarantee they'll tell you how VC's are pouring money into alternative energy and many of their classmates are seeking jobs in that field. While it's not happening as fast as I'd like, right now we have alot of smart, ambitious, and environmentally conscious people focused on this issue. I would bet the next 2 years are going to see alot of new developments in alternative energy.
As for your issues with politicians sucking in the US... here's a secret: they suck everywhere.
"I wouldn't personally worry about Hillary. I don't think that she has a snowballs chance. What with the way that large parts of the country hating her and all."
That's a very common sentiment. However, Bill Clinton, who regardless of your opinion on him personally, is arguably the most successful politician of our generation. However, he never received more than 50% of the popular vote. So even if more than half of the country absolutely HATES Hilary, it doesn't really matter if her opponent can't sufficiently motivate a significant number of people in the states that matter electorally.
As for the other part of your post: "I mean I thought that conservativism had something to do with states rights, keeping the government out of ones business and cutting spending."
I think that's dead on. So come election day, who is going to have the more motivated group of voters: The Democrats and left leaning Independents eager for a change? Or the Republicans and right leaning Independents (some of which feel betrayed by there own party)?
I think Hilary is the clear favorite in the general election.
"The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district."
That's quite a stretch. When person A has more of something than person B, YES, there is inequality, but NO it does not mean that person B's rights are being violated. There's a difference.
"Under God, indivisible, with LIBERTY and justice for ALL"
Quoting the pledge of allegiance (not a real law mind you) is considered insightful in this discussion??
The Constitution specifically says when Liberty can be taken from someone. Ammendment 5 says that one cannot be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
So yeah- Liberty and Justice for all unless you are convicted of a crime in which case you forfeit the Liberty part in order to fulfill the Justice part.
"I don't think it makes any sense to deny that a basketball player may get a hot hand and have an occational exceptional game."
I totally agree with this. I think it's ridiculous that people try chalk up scoring streaks or hot hand to being a random distribution.
The argument is that these streaks don't fall outside of the parameters for a random distribution. But playing sports is much more complicated than flipping a coin. There are any number of factors that can lead to a streak: - a coach firing up his players getting them back into the game - coming off the bench rested and then scoring a bunch of points in a row - exploiting a weakness in the opponents defense
I'm not sure if this is arrogance or jealousy on the part of researchers to minimize accomplishments of players or if its just a lack of understanding on how complicated sports are.
And before you think thats too harsh, I had a professor who told a story to our class about how his research on this was told to Pat Riley. When Pat said he was full of crap, this professor responded by making cracks about their comparitive education and Riley probably couldn't understand the research.
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly do not condone the behavior of the investigator working for the News Corp subsidiary. However, I do have a question for people who defend wikileaks no matter what they are releasing. Where do you draw the line for a third party doing an investigation of a sensitive matter? I'm not trying to troll. It's a serious question from someone who is trying to figure out the role of today's media.
While wikipedia is impressive, it's just one small part of the internet. Why wouldn't the internet as a whole qualify as a world wonder?
Yeah- you solve the encryption and then get prosecuted as the murderer. You get to feel mentally superior to the FBI and they get to close the case. It's a win-win!
This is a bad idea. Karl Rove's strategy has proved that you can win elections by motivating your base rather than having broad appeal. If Palin gets the nomination and right around the election we wind up with a double dip recession and Afghanistan gets even worse, it isn't unrealistic that she could win.
FACT: "FACT" does not mean what you think it means.
Verizon had an exclusive deal where they were the only carrier whose android phones could have skype.
What kind of travel do you do? While I've never used a kindle, I assume that it falls into the category of electronic devices that must be turned off prior to taking off and then before landing. I travel regularly for work and like to read on the plane. The time when flight door closes until we're in the air combined with the the approach to land is a minimum of 30 minutes. At worst, it can be over an hour where I wouldn't be able to read and that's not an option.
because there's just something amusing about hippies getting a beat down.
Have you ever seen him in anything else?
Then of course you won't see him as anyone else.
I think you'll see a change in this if and when Obama becomes president. Just like the Clinton administration led to the mainstreaming of foxnews, dennis miller (back when he was successful), and talk radio-- the Bush administration has led to the success of Kos, Olbermann and Colbert. While I'm sure the Daily Show and Colbert Report will still be funny, they won't be as poignant and cutting edge with a Democrat in the office. Something else will come along and be the new "in" thing of political satire.
On Thursday they handed over information on terrorists
On Friday they handed over information on file-sharers
On Saturday they handed over information on everyone
Wednesday was the hardest. Every day after that it got easier and easier.
On Wednesday I punched a person who attacked my child
On Thursday I punched someone who said something mean to me
On Friday I punched someone who cut me off
On Saturday I just started punching everybody
yup. just another stupid slippery slope argument.
at what point did we start? oh yes, i forgot- a scientific or engineering degree guarantees good teaching.
Nice post. I agree with you on Ron Paul (my first choice) and Barack Obama (my second favorite). The point I'd like to challenge you on is McCain kissing the ass of the religious right. I hear that a lot and while I understand the sentiment, I don't think it's a problem. As far as I can tell, he hasn't adopted any new policies based on the religious right. He appears with constituents that I might find repugnant, but until he starts speaking like them, he's still fine with me. He used to call out those people in unflattering terms, but now he meets with them and acknowledges where they agree and where they disagree. That's the mark of a more mature statesman in my mind.
My biggest realization is related to this as well. 2007 was the year where I realized that I will not adapt and have no desire to engage with "the next generation" who is now online. I personally can't stand seeing online discussions filled with nothing but people chiming in without anything to say. I don't know if it's self absorption, arrogance, or something else entirely, but why post comments that only say LOL, OMG, QFT, FTMFW, etc? I used to love reading message boards for the variety of ideas and arguments. While there have always been trolls and garbage to sift through, you could still get to decent content. Now I've stopped reading a number of sites I used to enjoy because all I see are people who post their acronymed reactions and insults that they think are arguments. Slashdot has held up so far, but you can certainly notice a shift towards this trend in both the comments and the moderating. I'm hoping the trend doesn't continue, but it probably will unless adjustments are made to the moderating system.
2007 was the year that I decided that I'm an Online Curmudgeon. Now get off my lawn.
While I agree with your sentiments about seeing real change if gas gets more expensive, I think you're incorrect about the US not looking for alternative fuels. If you know anyone in a top MBA program, I guarantee they'll tell you how VC's are pouring money into alternative energy and many of their classmates are seeking jobs in that field. While it's not happening as fast as I'd like, right now we have alot of smart, ambitious, and environmentally conscious people focused on this issue. I would bet the next 2 years are going to see alot of new developments in alternative energy.
As for your issues with politicians sucking in the US... here's a secret: they suck everywhere.
"I wouldn't personally worry about Hillary. I don't think that she has a snowballs chance. What with the way that large parts of the country hating her and all."
That's a very common sentiment. However, Bill Clinton, who regardless of your opinion on him personally, is arguably the most successful politician of our generation. However, he never received more than 50% of the popular vote. So even if more than half of the country absolutely HATES Hilary, it doesn't really matter if her opponent can't sufficiently motivate a significant number of people in the states that matter electorally.
As for the other part of your post: "I mean I thought that conservativism had something to do with states rights, keeping the government out of ones business and cutting spending."
I think that's dead on. So come election day, who is going to have the more motivated group of voters:
The Democrats and left leaning Independents eager for a change? Or the Republicans and right leaning Independents (some of which feel betrayed by there own party)?
I think Hilary is the clear favorite in the general election.
I first read it as Sid Meier's Pirates and got really excited. That'd be a game worth buying.
"The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district."
That's quite a stretch. When person A has more of something than person B, YES, there is inequality, but NO it does not mean that person B's rights are being violated. There's a difference.
But seriously- has there ever been a study on how many rats get cancer under normal conditions compared to humans?
"Under God, indivisible, with LIBERTY and justice for ALL"
Quoting the pledge of allegiance (not a real law mind you) is considered insightful in this discussion??
The Constitution specifically says when Liberty can be taken from someone. Ammendment 5 says that one cannot be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
So yeah- Liberty and Justice for all unless you are convicted of a crime in which case you forfeit the Liberty part in order to fulfill the Justice part.
"I don't think it makes any sense to deny that a basketball player may get a hot hand and have an occational exceptional game."
I totally agree with this. I think it's ridiculous that people try chalk up scoring streaks or hot hand to being a random distribution.
The argument is that these streaks don't fall outside of the parameters for a random distribution. But playing sports is much more complicated than flipping a coin. There are any number of factors that can lead to a streak:
- a coach firing up his players getting them back into the game
- coming off the bench rested and then scoring a bunch of points in a row
- exploiting a weakness in the opponents defense
I'm not sure if this is arrogance or jealousy on the part of researchers to minimize accomplishments of players or if its just a lack of understanding on how complicated sports are.
And before you think thats too harsh, I had a professor who told a story to our class about how his research on this was told to Pat Riley. When Pat said he was full of crap, this professor responded by making cracks about their comparitive education and Riley probably couldn't understand the research.