Do not underestimate the number of people who think of "anarchists" as those bomb-throwing, window-shattering, break-into-your-house-and-poop-on-the-carpet kinds of people. I would guess Zittrain was using the term with that in mind.
I recall an Ellen Goodman column (sorry, I can't find it now - it was a couple of months ago) in which she was genuinely distressed that black women might not be able to decide whom to vote for, Obama or Clinton. Apparently, she was reasoning that the choice would be obvious if there were one black candidate, or one female candidate, since blacks or women would automatically practice identity politics.
There has been a warming trend over past 20 years or so. What this data does is support the notion that worldwide temperatures change constantly. That means they are either going up (global warming), or going down.
Not to mention, there was a cooling trend between the 1940s and the 1970s. There was some alarmism about it, but nothing compared to today. However, if the Internet as we know it had been in existence...
You seem to be saying that because it snowed a lot in North America this year, what we see when we look at satellite photos that show the poles melting is not really happening?
Do I have that right?
At most, I think he's saying that you are not looking at the satellite evidence that he provided in the link.
Dr. Paul's supporters are almost diametrically opposed to most of the other Republicans' stands on issues, so it's highly unlikely they'd even vote Republican if Dr. Paul weren't running.
Paul supporters may be diametrically opposed to the Republican platform, but by and large, Dr. Paul himself is not. In different circumstances, Ron Paul is a Republican/conservative wet-dream:
Ron Paul is pro-life. Whether his Libertarian sensibilities would prevent him from directly supporting anti-abortion legislation, I don't know.
Ron Paul believes strongly in the 2nd amendment, and that it guarantees an individual right to gun ownership.
On environmental issues, Ron Paul believes the best solutions come from ownership of private property and the exercise of a free market economy.
Ron Paul supports home schooling, and wants the government to be less involved in education.
Other information on his site indicate that he may be a "strong borders" candidate.
Now, why is he not a conservative darling? It's that one difference on Iraq. Conservatives have have hitched their wagon to Iraq, and they'll be there to the end, for good or ill. (Well, the principled conservatives, anyway.) Other than that, he is Old School conservative, even more hard-core than Reagan. Other than that, I would have his sign in my front yard.
What puzzles me is, why do so many liberals support him? Just because of his Iraq stance? The Democrat candidates don't want us in Iraq, and they believe in abortion, 2nd amendment restrictions, etc. I believe the reason is this: many liberals know that neither Obama nor Clinton, no matter what their rhetoric, would pull our presence from Iraq immediately. Paul, however, might just do it.
Well, look at it this way: it seems the Democrats (and the major media, et al) are pretty much assured that the Democrat candidate will win this fall, and quite handily. This means that you have a few extra votes to burn! So pick your "ideal" candidate - Nader, McKinney, etc. You could even engage in some write-ins, like Hugo Chavez or Raul Castro. Heck, you might even get Fidel out of retirement with a few votes.
In effect, and in his on words, he has put the well-being of the telcos over the safety of the American public
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Bush wanted the telecom immunity in order to 1. prevent classified information from being exposed in discovery (civil trial) and 2. to better retain the cooperation of the telco companies in the wiretapping efforts. He is not putting their "well-being" over anything.
No thanks, I'd prefer real alternative energy solutions.
I've often wondered why we don't see alternative energy startups these days. Of course, 10 to 15 years ago (and of course further back), we could assume that any serious capital that was capable of such a startup was already in the hands of people who did not desire such a thing. But these days, we have Warren Buffet, Mike Bloomberg, Bill Gates - these people have some some serious cash, and the "green" philosophy to perhaps make a go of it. Why don't we see a serious attempt at generating wind, solar, or tidal power?
Your comment conjured up a little mind movie: 2 techie guys driving around the neighborhood on a Sunday afternoon, wearing their dark slacks, white shirts and ties. They ring the doorbell. "Hi - would you happen to have a few minutes to talk about the importance of information security and privacy?"
Big, loaded words like "terrorist" get thrown around so much thanks to (often incorrectly) implied affiliation/association such as this, and it's why they lose their meaning over time. We'll all have the wolf-crying likes of you to thank for people not giving a damn if and when a genuine threat is imminent.
According to the same Wikipedia article, Kacynski killed 3 people, and wounded 23. What's a guy got to do to get the quote-marks removed from the word "terrorist?"
...less of life needs to be focused around what happens on TV
I agree with your opinion. Unfortunately, I think a prolonged writers strike would only encourage more bad "reality" TV. (Although, those shows are probably not as unscripted as they would like you to believe.) I do like quality television, so I wouldn't want to see it disappear entirely. But we could do with a lot less.
The review stated $40.00 for the pair, and that's pretty much what they've always been since I first played the game in the early 80s. I have a 2nd edition Player's Handbook of that era here, which has the price on the back of $20.00 US. I also have a "new edition" 2nd edition - different (i.e., uglier) artwork, etc. - which has a price of $25.00. If anything, they have come down in price, when adjusting for inflation.
Of course, I know your post was all in fun, but never let it be said that we missed a chance to belabor a point on Slashdot.
The obvious solution is to not broadcast the game. Then, they don't have to worry about too many people seeing it, on one screen or many.
This, FTA:
After a crackdown by the National Football League on big-screen Super Bowl gatherings by churches, the Springfield church has sacked its event.
This glosses over the actual mechanism of the coercion/intimidation. The article indicates the NFL sent out a letter, and I guess the church just decided to skip the event. I can't imagine the NFL having any real teeth here, as the OP pointed it, the game is broadcast over free TV, supported by commercials. I don't care how many people are there, they will see the commercials. (Unless, as some others have indicated here, the church is substituting those commercials with more wholesome fare. In that case, I could see the NFL's point, but there still wouldn't be a damn thing they could do about it.)
When I saw the headline, I almost spit beer. Someone would have paid dearly...
Perhaps if we can reverse this alarming trend of speech repression on campus, they can once again open their gates to the ROTC and military recruiting officers.
I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just curious: how do they scare you? Can you tell us some specific incidents that scared you?
I am an American living in the heartland, and I hardly get the opportunity to travel even a couple of hundred miles, so I don't think I can visit another country for a little while. Maybe it just looks like a police state to people coming in, because of the (presumably) beefed up border security?
Keep in mind, the Cole bombing killed a handful of sailors and *didn't sink the ship*.
Oh, well, if it merely killed sailors... and it didn't even sink the ship! Pray tell, what is your standard for judging a hostile act?
The point is that Iran *didn't* attack our ships
My point is that naval vessels are correct to be wary of small craft.
yet the GOP thinks this is all but grounds for war!
You mentioned the debates. I didn't see it, but if you would like to post some quotes from a Republican who wanted to declare war on Iran, please do so.
You're just shamelessly using fear to promote your political agenda...
I posted a link.
To be afraid of a few speedboats? WTF?
The real fear here is that the Iranians are trying to provoke a war, one that we could not afford to wage, nor afford to turn away from. Does that not make you concerned?
Last night's GOP debate brought up the issue of the speed boats that approached our destroyers. Ron Paul thought it was ridiculous to assume that the world's most powerful navy should feel threatened by speed boats. Everyone else thought it was a good reason to go to war with Iran...
Slashdot Mirror
Do not underestimate the number of people who think of "anarchists" as those bomb-throwing, window-shattering, break-into-your-house-and-poop-on-the-carpet kinds of people. I would guess Zittrain was using the term with that in mind.
Where's the guy that's always posting stuff about "goodnight, Liberty" and "ah, my children" and "get out while you can?"
Oh, that's right - this is Japan we're talking about.
He'll have it for you in a couple of days.
I recall an Ellen Goodman column (sorry, I can't find it now - it was a couple of months ago) in which she was genuinely distressed that black women might not be able to decide whom to vote for, Obama or Clinton. Apparently, she was reasoning that the choice would be obvious if there were one black candidate, or one female candidate, since blacks or women would automatically practice identity politics.
Not to mention, there was a cooling trend between the 1940s and the 1970s. There was some alarmism about it, but nothing compared to today. However, if the Internet as we know it had been in existence...
I agree. So can we all just chill out (heh) when we have hot summers? Or when we have a bad hurricane or tornado season?
At most, I think he's saying that you are not looking at the satellite evidence that he provided in the link.
Paul supporters may be diametrically opposed to the Republican platform, but by and large, Dr. Paul himself is not. In different circumstances, Ron Paul is a Republican/conservative wet-dream:
Other information on his site indicate that he may be a "strong borders" candidate.
Now, why is he not a conservative darling? It's that one difference on Iraq. Conservatives have have hitched their wagon to Iraq, and they'll be there to the end, for good or ill. (Well, the principled conservatives, anyway.) Other than that, he is Old School conservative, even more hard-core than Reagan. Other than that, I would have his sign in my front yard.
What puzzles me is, why do so many liberals support him? Just because of his Iraq stance? The Democrat candidates don't want us in Iraq, and they believe in abortion, 2nd amendment restrictions, etc. I believe the reason is this: many liberals know that neither Obama nor Clinton, no matter what their rhetoric, would pull our presence from Iraq immediately. Paul, however, might just do it.
Well, look at it this way: it seems the Democrats (and the major media, et al) are pretty much assured that the Democrat candidate will win this fall, and quite handily. This means that you have a few extra votes to burn! So pick your "ideal" candidate - Nader, McKinney, etc. You could even engage in some write-ins, like Hugo Chavez or Raul Castro. Heck, you might even get Fidel out of retirement with a few votes.
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Bush wanted the telecom immunity in order to 1. prevent classified information from being exposed in discovery (civil trial) and 2. to better retain the cooperation of the telco companies in the wiretapping efforts. He is not putting their "well-being" over anything.
I've often wondered why we don't see alternative energy startups these days. Of course, 10 to 15 years ago (and of course further back), we could assume that any serious capital that was capable of such a startup was already in the hands of people who did not desire such a thing. But these days, we have Warren Buffet, Mike Bloomberg, Bill Gates - these people have some some serious cash, and the "green" philosophy to perhaps make a go of it. Why don't we see a serious attempt at generating wind, solar, or tidal power?
Your comment conjured up a little mind movie: 2 techie guys driving around the neighborhood on a Sunday afternoon, wearing their dark slacks, white shirts and ties. They ring the doorbell. "Hi - would you happen to have a few minutes to talk about the importance of information security and privacy?"
Yes!
Uhmm... you don't happen to have some, do you?
According to the same Wikipedia article, Kacynski killed 3 people, and wounded 23. What's a guy got to do to get the quote-marks removed from the word "terrorist?"
I agree with your opinion. Unfortunately, I think a prolonged writers strike would only encourage more bad "reality" TV. (Although, those shows are probably not as unscripted as they would like you to believe.) I do like quality television, so I wouldn't want to see it disappear entirely. But we could do with a lot less.
The review stated $40.00 for the pair, and that's pretty much what they've always been since I first played the game in the early 80s. I have a 2nd edition Player's Handbook of that era here, which has the price on the back of $20.00 US. I also have a "new edition" 2nd edition - different (i.e., uglier) artwork, etc. - which has a price of $25.00. If anything, they have come down in price, when adjusting for inflation.
Of course, I know your post was all in fun, but never let it be said that we missed a chance to belabor a point on Slashdot.
The obvious solution is to not broadcast the game. Then, they don't have to worry about too many people seeing it, on one screen or many.
This, FTA:
This glosses over the actual mechanism of the coercion/intimidation. The article indicates the NFL sent out a letter, and I guess the church just decided to skip the event. I can't imagine the NFL having any real teeth here, as the OP pointed it, the game is broadcast over free TV, supported by commercials. I don't care how many people are there, they will see the commercials. (Unless, as some others have indicated here, the church is substituting those commercials with more wholesome fare. In that case, I could see the NFL's point, but there still wouldn't be a damn thing they could do about it.)When I saw the headline, I almost spit beer. Someone would have paid dearly...
Perhaps if we can reverse this alarming trend of speech repression on campus, they can once again open their gates to the ROTC and military recruiting officers.
I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just curious: how do they scare you? Can you tell us some specific incidents that scared you?
I am an American living in the heartland, and I hardly get the opportunity to travel even a couple of hundred miles, so I don't think I can visit another country for a little while. Maybe it just looks like a police state to people coming in, because of the (presumably) beefed up border security?
Because everyone thinks "You're being a dick; I, on the other hand, am airing a legitimate greivance."
In my experience, liberals have always worked hard to counter facts. It would seem strange to consider facts having a liberal bias.
Deniability? You misunderstand me. Hell, I would hope for at least some blustery talk on this issue from a Presidential candidate.
I can't really disagree with any of your points. And my condolences on the loss of your friends (or, acquaintances).
Oh, well, if it merely killed sailors... and it didn't even sink the ship! Pray tell, what is your standard for judging a hostile act?
My point is that naval vessels are correct to be wary of small craft.
You mentioned the debates. I didn't see it, but if you would like to post some quotes from a Republican who wanted to declare war on Iran, please do so.
I posted a link.
The real fear here is that the Iranians are trying to provoke a war, one that we could not afford to wage, nor afford to turn away from. Does that not make you concerned?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing