With my luck, my love interest would end up being Grace Hopper. And not the young version, either.
Re:No successful terrorist attacks since 9/11?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
The Ft. Hood shootings and attacks on U.S. military are *NOT* terrorism. "Terrorism," if it is to have any meaningful definition, has at least two distinct characteristics: 1) It involves attacks which deliberately target *civilians* and 2) It is meant to incite general fear more than actual physical damage.
Attacks on the military are acts of war, not acts of terrorism. The attacks on the USS Cole and the Pentagon weren't terrorism. The attacks on the World Trade Center certainly were.
That's the same kind of misguided logic that makes people buy lottery tickets. Every day, millions of "visionary" inventors/pioneers/dreamers squander their time and savings on awful or/or unworkable ideas and dreams that fail miserably. But every blue moon one of them comes up with a good idea and succeeds. But no one does a news report on the millions who failed. Only the successes get publicized. This lionizes the inventor/pioneer/dreamer and creates the illusion that it's easier to succeed at such an endeavor than it actually is.
For the vast majority of people, it's quite sensible to avoid being a wild-eyed dreamer. The more outlandish your dreams, the more likely it is that pursuing them would be the equivalent of blowing your money on lottery tickets. The more realistic your dreams (i.e., the less wild-eyed), the more likely others will be willing to join your work and invest in them, making it unnecessary to blow all your money and time in the first place.
Telling people to "follow their dreams" is all well and good if their dreams aren't stupid. But the vast majority of dreams *are* stupid. Go to any high school in America and ask kids what they really dream about, and most of them will probably (if they're really being honest) answer something along the lines of "rap star," "rock star," "movie star," "sports star," etc. These kids would be much better off being "corporate drones" (as you so derisively put it) than wasting their lives trying to pursue those dreams, but people like you would have them go for it (to quote an old lottery advertising standard: "You can't win if you don't play!"). Thank god most people are sensible enough to be "corporate drones" or NOTHING would ever get done in this world.
Rand Paul and the other libertarian Tea Partiers are just being used by the Republican establishment. The second Republicans are back in charge, they'll purge the party of libertarians and anything related to *individual* rights will be quickly shunted aside (only corporations and the wealthy will have the government "off their back"). Paul is just a dupe.
It's not defeatist, its realist. If you want to get something done in Washington today, the old "Write your Congressman, have a protest rally" thing is a terrible way to go about it. It's just a waste of time in an age of record-breakingly expensive political campaigns, insane levels of lobbying, and a Supreme Court that just made it okay for corporations to throw as much money as they like at politicians.
If you want to change something these days, you need money and lots of it. Raise money, hire a lobbyist, and arrange for fundraisers for the politician you want to support your cause. THAT'S how you get it done if you want action in Washington.
Actually, they had an excellent chance. They had a larger standing army already in place, established supply lines, strong native support, and an established local political structure.
No, too many of them don't want just any man. They want a dangerous bad-boy. Unfortunately, real-life bad-boys aren't anything like the bad-boys in chick-flicks and romance novels. A RL bad-boy is less likely to take you on an exciting adventure and much more likely to sit around getting drunk and beating the crap out of you for mouthing off.
It may not be very PC to say it, but "Don't blame the victim!" still doesn't excuse stupid behavior. If I walk down the street of the worst neighborhood in town waving a big wad of cash and screaming "Hey look at all this money!" it doesn't excuse someone to rob me. But it would still be fair to call me very stupid for doing so. Reasonable behavior and common sense are expected out of any parent. And using a habitual convict as your babysitter ranks pretty high on the piss-poor parenting checklist.
I hate to sound pessimistic, but what good is a letter to my Congressman when some media conglomerate can afford to pay lobbyists to throw hundreds of thousands of dollars into his reelection campaign? I can't even afford to buy him Springsteen tickets.
Some women have the worst taste in men. I had an aunt who would climb a tree to find the worst possible guy when she could have stood on the ground and dated a nice guy. She dated a string of guys literally coming right out of prison. Needless to say, she took a string of beatings, was stabbed a couple of times, her kids were beaten. The family finally just cut her off and told her that they weren't going to help her anymore until she started making smarter decisions. AFAIK, she never did (her kids cut off contact with her long ago too).
Slashdot Mirror
In many states, if you're 18 and your GF is 17, that's not only illegal, it will get you labeled a sex offender for the rest of your life.
He was once.
That wasn't Christmas, it was Wookie Life Day--a day when we celebrate horrid musical performances and godawful comedy bits.
I hear Mel Gibson is available.
Well, we could go that way. Or, alternatively, we could just tell them to stop being wussies.
My son just turned b.
Wow, I can spend a month trapped in a place where I'm surrounded by bratty kids all day, without pay? Sign me up!
With my luck, my love interest would end up being Grace Hopper. And not the young version, either.
The Ft. Hood shootings and attacks on U.S. military are *NOT* terrorism. "Terrorism," if it is to have any meaningful definition, has at least two distinct characteristics: 1) It involves attacks which deliberately target *civilians* and 2) It is meant to incite general fear more than actual physical damage.
Attacks on the military are acts of war, not acts of terrorism. The attacks on the USS Cole and the Pentagon weren't terrorism. The attacks on the World Trade Center certainly were.
I would like to buy that rock, sir. Please sell it to me, I have kids!
You had slide rules?
That's the same kind of misguided logic that makes people buy lottery tickets. Every day, millions of "visionary" inventors/pioneers/dreamers squander their time and savings on awful or/or unworkable ideas and dreams that fail miserably. But every blue moon one of them comes up with a good idea and succeeds. But no one does a news report on the millions who failed. Only the successes get publicized. This lionizes the inventor/pioneer/dreamer and creates the illusion that it's easier to succeed at such an endeavor than it actually is.
For the vast majority of people, it's quite sensible to avoid being a wild-eyed dreamer. The more outlandish your dreams, the more likely it is that pursuing them would be the equivalent of blowing your money on lottery tickets. The more realistic your dreams (i.e., the less wild-eyed), the more likely others will be willing to join your work and invest in them, making it unnecessary to blow all your money and time in the first place.
Telling people to "follow their dreams" is all well and good if their dreams aren't stupid. But the vast majority of dreams *are* stupid. Go to any high school in America and ask kids what they really dream about, and most of them will probably (if they're really being honest) answer something along the lines of "rap star," "rock star," "movie star," "sports star," etc. These kids would be much better off being "corporate drones" (as you so derisively put it) than wasting their lives trying to pursue those dreams, but people like you would have them go for it (to quote an old lottery advertising standard: "You can't win if you don't play!"). Thank god most people are sensible enough to be "corporate drones" or NOTHING would ever get done in this world.
Actually, I would argue that Waterworld was a philanthropic effort too. Anything that hurts Sony is probably a good thing for humanity.
Rand Paul and the other libertarian Tea Partiers are just being used by the Republican establishment. The second Republicans are back in charge, they'll purge the party of libertarians and anything related to *individual* rights will be quickly shunted aside (only corporations and the wealthy will have the government "off their back"). Paul is just a dupe.
Hey, wookies need love too.
It's not defeatist, its realist. If you want to get something done in Washington today, the old "Write your Congressman, have a protest rally" thing is a terrible way to go about it. It's just a waste of time in an age of record-breakingly expensive political campaigns, insane levels of lobbying, and a Supreme Court that just made it okay for corporations to throw as much money as they like at politicians.
If you want to change something these days, you need money and lots of it. Raise money, hire a lobbyist, and arrange for fundraisers for the politician you want to support your cause. THAT'S how you get it done if you want action in Washington.
The iDenial(TM), the smart new way to shift blame.
Actually, they had an excellent chance. They had a larger standing army already in place, established supply lines, strong native support, and an established local political structure.
No, too many of them don't want just any man. They want a dangerous bad-boy. Unfortunately, real-life bad-boys aren't anything like the bad-boys in chick-flicks and romance novels. A RL bad-boy is less likely to take you on an exciting adventure and much more likely to sit around getting drunk and beating the crap out of you for mouthing off.
It may not be very PC to say it, but "Don't blame the victim!" still doesn't excuse stupid behavior. If I walk down the street of the worst neighborhood in town waving a big wad of cash and screaming "Hey look at all this money!" it doesn't excuse someone to rob me. But it would still be fair to call me very stupid for doing so. Reasonable behavior and common sense are expected out of any parent. And using a habitual convict as your babysitter ranks pretty high on the piss-poor parenting checklist.
The U.S. government has been doing similar stuff to controversial TV and radio broadcasters for a while now. The internet is just a logical extension.
I hate to sound pessimistic, but what good is a letter to my Congressman when some media conglomerate can afford to pay lobbyists to throw hundreds of thousands of dollars into his reelection campaign? I can't even afford to buy him Springsteen tickets.
Some women have the worst taste in men. I had an aunt who would climb a tree to find the worst possible guy when she could have stood on the ground and dated a nice guy. She dated a string of guys literally coming right out of prison. Needless to say, she took a string of beatings, was stabbed a couple of times, her kids were beaten. The family finally just cut her off and told her that they weren't going to help her anymore until she started making smarter decisions. AFAIK, she never did (her kids cut off contact with her long ago too).
Just remember--one day at a time, brother. One day at a time.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.