[...] the poor in the US are much better off than the middle class or rich in most of the world [...]
I'm not even going to go into the overarching falseness of that statement. But, the middle class in the rest of the world? Are you serious? Nothing better reveals your self-affirming bourgeoisie brain than this statement. You've seen all that middle class in the 94 countries you've been to? Have you been to poor parts of Philadelphia, or Chicago? What about urban centers in California? I'd be surprised. After all you don't vacation to those places, do you?
I guess it's easier to pull out the Churchill quote than go and read the above poster's cited recommendations. You make no claim against his that free trade leads to less equality.
Capitalism - the US, the EU - won. Communism - the USSR and China - lost. The USSR shattered [...]
And where did he even mention communism? What did the US win? I'm a US citizen. Show me what I won.
Are you so dense as to miss the already-posted about point that DISTRIBUTION [capacity / infrastructure / technology / etc] is a resource? And that in many parts of the world, it is not this way.
You stubbornly cling to your imagined notions that the disadvantaged of the world are being ignored under the banner of "there just aren't enough resources for everyone." Do you really think anyone believes this idea that you're decrying? And do you think that we all nod our heads, mutter about how unfortunate it is, and proceed with our lives?
What can you expect from someone replying to an AC who played the "parapsychology" card (no need to mention the ad hominem) to discredit political science? Apparently you can expect that they know nothing about political science.
Frankly, you're the one who doesn't care about Earth's disadvantaged humans. Because you trap yourself in these bullshit nihilistic impressions of why the world is as it is - what if we could "handle" the entire world's population on 100% of the landmass? In your style of argumentation, this is still feasible, and distribution of resources is the problem. But even if it were true, the world would most likely be very identical to today - some people drive Mercedes, some people live in Burma.
If we're going to go off with our tangential imaginings, why nuclear power? Why don't we power texas-town with the aforementioned ocean tube generators? In theory it would require even less manpower.
Oh, and no thanks on the food plan. Contrary to popular nutrition, you should be eating very little if any carbohydrate, and the carbohydrate that you do eat should most definitely be derived from vegetable matter and low-glycemic-load grains. I don't know that it's too feasible to feed us 6.6 billion on a vegetarian diet.
And, power plants in "the deserts of Nevada?" Why not in your texan urban sprawl? Why must the electricity travel so far?
You're a fool if you think we aren't overpopulated. I consider my home, the SF bay area, overpopulated. Do you have any idea what home prices are like here? As a result, many of the people who grow up here, live here, and work here will never own a home; do you want to guess at the personal economic implications of renting for a lifetime in said housing market? I think you need to review your position on political science.
That is essentially the spirit of wikipedia: people write what seems to be right, instead of bothering to research the issue and find out what actually is right.
So by that standard, "what actually is right" is out there in the world, just waiting, plainly available, to be researched.
Can you show me a wikipedia article where someone has written what seems to be right? Can you show me where this information is, in fact, wrong, perhaps because they didn't "research the issue"?
People act as if wikipedia is like an empty book and retards show up to draft the articles that will fill its pages. In this reasoning the collaborative efforts of wiki communities, along with the benefits of said efforts, are ignored.
While certainly there is an explicit risk that inaccurate or outright false information will be added to an article, I think it's going a bit far to assert that people write "what seems to be right." Furthermore, it's going a bit far to claim that this capacity detracts from wikipedia's quality and usefulness in any real fashion (it was a stretch; you had to claim it was "essentially the spirit of wikipedia").
Did someone open a window? because that was a breath of fresh air.
It is rarely said (but very much needed) that one can be against X concept but, in the spirit of freedom and self-governance (what's more sovereign than, say, your own decisions?) support the legality (a nice way of saying lack of government restriction) of said concept.
The more time passes, the more people seem to forget that the right to sovereignty is just that, nothing more. Sovereignty is not a fancy word for "decides how he or she will be governed." The fact that the institutions of government, whatever they may be, are practically necessary to encourage equality in human societies has been historically shown.
But, we all need to take a deep breath and remember - the role of government has been utterly reified. Taking it for granted is very dangerous. That's just my opinion.
[...] a moral society in which people can do what they want with their money is desirable to a morally corrupt society where everything goes as long as you're paying extortion money to the liberal government [...]
But seriously, I appreciate the majority of/.'ers who seem to champion privacy rights and issues, but whats the point of fighting for these rights if we are just going to turn around and voluntary post descriptions of our activities, locations of these activities, and photographic evidence with it? Sort of flys in the face of that mentality [...]
Only if you're a retard who cannot think critically.
Basic reasoning abilities alone ought to be enough to understand that the voluntary posts that you describe are just that - voluntary. If and when anything happens that I would like kept secret - be it having bought a losing lottery ticket or vehicular manslaughter - there are no privacy implications. No drive would even begin to arise to motivate me to go through the myriad of tasks (locating internet access & computer, logging in, composing message) to publish said goings on in the same fashion as motivates one to blog about all those "Cool" things they did last weekend.
Quite the opposite, really, and I don't know how one could be so mistaken as to believe blogging and similar activities [fly] in the face of that mentality.
I don't know about your LAN parties, but I can't imagine them without certain mind-altering substances.
Clubs are for people who don't want "substances," rather they want one substance - ethanol. And they want to do so in a dark loud room where frankly being drunk seems alright. With a lot of other "cool" people, too.
Show me something "good" about Mr. McCain. Because these articles exist, you see. So where is the "good" content that should come first? Maybe it can't come first cuz there's nothing good.
Or maybe it's poisoning. Who's to say?
Blah blah gaming the system. The system is there to game. It's called politics.
Yeah I checked out that truth you talked about; couldn't find it. The Obama being a Muslim thing? It seems that despite "some people believ[ing] that is 'truth'" it wasn't available to me.
Maybe that info wasn't available because it doesn't exist. But the articles on Mr. McCain document things that did happen, and they are information that do exist.
You think that reporting on Mr. McCain's stance on the minimum wage is somehow defaming him? Oh wait, it is. And it's the truth.
Surprised you could find your way to the keyboard, seeing as how blind you are.
Isn't one of the tenants of democracy that everyone have access to all information and then they decide who's best for themselves?
I don't really recall that, no. In fact, democracy refers to the structure of a governmental body and the interactions between that government and its constituents. At best, you could say that the United States of America is a "democratic republic."
So anyways, how did "this" prevent me from getting more information, exactly? I thought one of the articles was very interesting. It was about potential plans to raise the minimum wage. If I hadn't read it, I would have no idea how Mr. McCain intends to act with regards to minimum wage.
This is poisoning the available information so citizens don't have all of the information about a candidate.
Yeah, that's a lie. Let's assume that you hadn't, in fact, chosen the literally inappropriate and otherwise sensationalist term "poisoning." What could you possibly say on the issue?
Now, maybe you would have it that I and others never found or heard about these articles. But I think that a reasonable person would say that that constitutes less, not more, information. This is funny, since "more information" seems to be your stated goal.
And your morals would have me know less about certain aspects of a candidate? Telling.
Pretty surprising come from the left, you know, with their morals and such.
Pretty surprising coming from you, you know, with your low UID and such.
Did ya buy it?
Fairly recently, I believe. One term in particular that is being bandied about with increasing frequency is "divisive." Off the top of my head, I can recall Mr. Lieberman using it at least once. As if the worst thing you can do as a political leader is "divide."
What does it mean to unify a country? We are a nation of vastly different individuals, connected only vaguely through, you guessed it, nationhood. Attitudes like this use words like unify but really mean homogenize. Implying that one is "against" the nation reminds me of another sort of labeling; being called a heretic.
Let's all take a look into the past and recall that, once upon a time, we had a House Unamerican Activities Committee. Were the concerned activities unamerican? Up to debate, certainly, but calling them unamerican discursively indicates that "Americanness" is to be desired.
I for one wouldn't mind a President who doesn't have "unity" on his list of priorities. You know why? If for no other reason, unity can't be seen or measured. Electing an official because of your personally held belief that it will be good for the unity of the country is kind of like paying him or her to do nothing.
Prison is expensive, personally destructive, and frankly only necessary when an individual's evidenced propensities (such as a history of physical violence) demonstrate that removal from regular society is probably in someone's best interest.
Like being isolated from the people and places he knows will foster morality.
Consider this:
For every day of this "some jail time" that you believe "is called for," this child will spend one day away from friends, family, and familiar places. Do you know what it's like to be a child and be isolated from everything you know? Ostensibly, because you are a criminal?
In my state, juvenile prisons (and most prisons) have been constructed miles and miles from anything. On it's face, this seems like a good idea, but at the end of the day, it means one thing: even if these people have social support in their lives, in the way of family or friends or whatnot, they will be completely isolated from them.
Sure, your parents can visit. But only in these time slots. And only after driving, oh, four hundred miles. Oh, looks like the visit's over, see you in two weeks mom, I'll just go back to my institutionalized life where my identity as a rulebreaker and deviant is reinforced by my mere presence, my living conditions are lonely and lacking stimulation, and where I can't really make any progress in terms of personal growth or social connections. And that is if your parents have the economic means to not be working every free minute, not have other obligations that preclude visiting, and possess means of transportation. Let's just assume everyone's as up in the status quo as we are!
So many posters advocate jailtime (although most are careful to preface it with a "38 years is a bit much..." statement). I don't care if this kid tried to kill someone. He is not threat to me and I certainly don't need him imprisoned to feel that way. Furthermore, I can't in good conscience believe that imprisonment will combat any notions of recidivism - obviously he won't be changing to many grades from juvenile hall, but confrontation with the "justice industry" does little good in anyone's life.
Taking away this kid's freedom is totally an acceptable response for how he cruelly defrauded those "top students" of their "spots."
You think 38 years is too harsh? Wow. Compassionate.
Despite the boy's "malicious and clear" intent to change grades (interesting use of the word malicious, at the end of the day), I don't think that any prison term is appropriate. Let's be honest - when he "perpetrated" all these "counts," did he, his parents, or his friends have any inkling that these actions were felonies, let alone illegal in the first place?
I understand how you might want to "be hard on" crime. But this is a case in which, arguably, there are no victims and there is no damage. Furthermore, it isn't exactly an area in which morality clearly delineates boundaries to one's actions. You don't need jack knowledge of legal systems to understand the deviance represented by, say, burglary.
Probably, the summary vastly exaggerated that he could face 38 years. But that you think you're in a position to recommend sentencing, let alone recommend prison time, for such acts is just silly. I would have posted anonymously, too; I wouldn't want evidence that I made such uncaring assertions, either.
You claim that Wikipedia can be altered by anyone. This is, on its face, true. However, if the changes are malicious or useless, they won't stay. Try it.
Furthermore, you assert that Wikipedia is not peer reviewed. How can you think this is true? It is constantly reviewed; this is the reason that malicious, useless, and wrong changes aren't retained.
Providing temperatures in a system that large portions of its readers may not know off the top of their head seems silly and unncessary [...] It is most certainly both silly and unnecessary. I was born in the US and I live in the US. While I'm plenty familiar with Fahrenheit, I have no problem understanding a sentence that opts instead for Celsius or reading an instrument that uses Celsius.
Despite my origins, I can't imagine the demographic for which citing in Fahrenheit is necessary. I don't know anyone who "prefers" Fahrenheit in his or her daily speech that is not able to read and understand Celsius.
For the sake of the article's summary, I supposed that perhaps the 70dgF figure was chosen because it is commonly recognized as ~roomtemperature; but then, 21dgC is similarly recognized.
I believe that "Ihre" is the possessive for 2nd person plural.
I think, assuming that Papieren is feminine, that "Deine Papieren, bitte." would be more accurate.
To answer your question in short, yes, people will feel safer in such a society, where "safer" refers to "well managed." This is 100% Authoritarian personality.
But at the end of the day (sadly), people seem to desire authority, or at least settle for it. In the context of religion, for example, one is no longer "in the club" once he or she has challenged established doctrine. Religion is the ultimate example when discussing authority, as authority is not vested in a group, nor an individual, but a book - that has already been written - that will never change or grow.
Every established religion operates under the doctrine "we got it right the first time." Authority.
I was GOING to complain about snl2587's unique combination of "zero content post" plus "score of insightful," but that injustice pales in the face of the one before me. You see, I just couldn't live with myself knowing that I didn't do EVERYTHING IN MY POWER to let you know:
You suck.
Or is this poorly executed anti-linux rhetoric some sort of pro-linux troll?
Slashdot Mirror
[...] the poor in the US are much better off than the middle class or rich in most of the world [...]
I'm not even going to go into the overarching falseness of that statement. But, the middle class in the rest of the world? Are you serious? Nothing better reveals your self-affirming bourgeoisie brain than this statement. You've seen all that middle class in the 94 countries you've been to? Have you been to poor parts of Philadelphia, or Chicago? What about urban centers in California? I'd be surprised. After all you don't vacation to those places, do you?
I guess it's easier to pull out the Churchill quote than go and read the above poster's cited recommendations. You make no claim against his that free trade leads to less equality.
Capitalism - the US, the EU - won. Communism - the USSR and China - lost. The USSR shattered [...]
And where did he even mention communism? What did the US win? I'm a US citizen. Show me what I won.
Are you so dense as to miss the already-posted about point that DISTRIBUTION [capacity / infrastructure / technology / etc] is a resource? And that in many parts of the world, it is not this way.
You stubbornly cling to your imagined notions that the disadvantaged of the world are being ignored under the banner of "there just aren't enough resources for everyone." Do you really think anyone believes this idea that you're decrying? And do you think that we all nod our heads, mutter about how unfortunate it is, and proceed with our lives?
What can you expect from someone replying to an AC who played the "parapsychology" card (no need to mention the ad hominem) to discredit political science? Apparently you can expect that they know nothing about political science.
Frankly, you're the one who doesn't care about Earth's disadvantaged humans. Because you trap yourself in these bullshit nihilistic impressions of why the world is as it is - what if we could "handle" the entire world's population on 100% of the landmass? In your style of argumentation, this is still feasible, and distribution of resources is the problem. But even if it were true, the world would most likely be very identical to today - some people drive Mercedes, some people live in Burma.
If we're going to go off with our tangential imaginings, why nuclear power? Why don't we power texas-town with the aforementioned ocean tube generators? In theory it would require even less manpower.
Oh, and no thanks on the food plan. Contrary to popular nutrition, you should be eating very little if any carbohydrate, and the carbohydrate that you do eat should most definitely be derived from vegetable matter and low-glycemic-load grains. I don't know that it's too feasible to feed us 6.6 billion on a vegetarian diet.
And, power plants in "the deserts of Nevada?" Why not in your texan urban sprawl? Why must the electricity travel so far?
You're a fool if you think we aren't overpopulated. I consider my home, the SF bay area, overpopulated. Do you have any idea what home prices are like here? As a result, many of the people who grow up here, live here, and work here will never own a home; do you want to guess at the personal economic implications of renting for a lifetime in said housing market? I think you need to review your position on political science.
That is essentially the spirit of wikipedia: people write what seems to be right, instead of bothering to research the issue and find out what actually is right.
So by that standard, "what actually is right" is out there in the world, just waiting, plainly available, to be researched.
Can you show me a wikipedia article where someone has written what seems to be right? Can you show me where this information is, in fact, wrong, perhaps because they didn't "research the issue"?
People act as if wikipedia is like an empty book and retards show up to draft the articles that will fill its pages. In this reasoning the collaborative efforts of wiki communities, along with the benefits of said efforts, are ignored.
While certainly there is an explicit risk that inaccurate or outright false information will be added to an article, I think it's going a bit far to assert that people write "what seems to be right." Furthermore, it's going a bit far to claim that this capacity detracts from wikipedia's quality and usefulness in any real fashion (it was a stretch; you had to claim it was "essentially the spirit of wikipedia").
Why I read k5 (as if theres anything to read these days).
Did someone open a window? because that was a breath of fresh air.
It is rarely said (but very much needed) that one can be against X concept but, in the spirit of freedom and self-governance (what's more sovereign than, say, your own decisions?) support the legality (a nice way of saying lack of government restriction) of said concept.
The more time passes, the more people seem to forget that the right to sovereignty is just that, nothing more. Sovereignty is not a fancy word for "decides how he or she will be governed." The fact that the institutions of government, whatever they may be, are practically necessary to encourage equality in human societies has been historically shown.
But, we all need to take a deep breath and remember - the role of government has been utterly reified. Taking it for granted is very dangerous. That's just my opinion.
[...] a moral society in which people can do what they want with their money is desirable to a morally corrupt society where everything goes as long as you're paying extortion money to the liberal government [...]
Interesting dichotomy.
But seriously, I appreciate the majority of /.'ers who seem to champion privacy rights and issues, but whats the point of fighting for these rights if we are just going to turn around and voluntary post descriptions of our activities, locations of these activities, and photographic evidence with it? Sort of flys in the face of that mentality [...]
Only if you're a retard who cannot think critically.
Basic reasoning abilities alone ought to be enough to understand that the voluntary posts that you describe are just that - voluntary. If and when anything happens that I would like kept secret - be it having bought a losing lottery ticket or vehicular manslaughter - there are no privacy implications. No drive would even begin to arise to motivate me to go through the myriad of tasks (locating internet access & computer, logging in, composing message) to publish said goings on in the same fashion as motivates one to blog about all those "Cool" things they did last weekend.
Quite the opposite, really, and I don't know how one could be so mistaken as to believe blogging and similar activities [fly] in the face of that mentality.
Props for the "real job" argument.
And his country doesn't want him. Conclusive evidence age matters.
What, people smiling no matter what is being said isn't hip and awesome?
I don't know about your LAN parties, but I can't imagine them without certain mind-altering substances.
Clubs are for people who don't want "substances," rather they want one substance - ethanol. And they want to do so in a dark loud room where frankly being drunk seems alright. With a lot of other "cool" people, too.
I believe the term is derived of how they are "bombing google" not "using google to bomb" something.
Show me something "good" about Mr. McCain. Because these articles exist, you see. So where is the "good" content that should come first? Maybe it can't come first cuz there's nothing good.
Or maybe it's poisoning. Who's to say?
Blah blah gaming the system. The system is there to game. It's called politics.
Yeah I checked out that truth you talked about; couldn't find it. The Obama being a Muslim thing? It seems that despite "some people believ[ing] that is 'truth'" it wasn't available to me.
Maybe that info wasn't available because it doesn't exist. But the articles on Mr. McCain document things that did happen, and they are information that do exist.
You think that reporting on Mr. McCain's stance on the minimum wage is somehow defaming him? Oh wait, it is. And it's the truth.
Surprised you could find your way to the keyboard, seeing as how blind you are.
I don't really recall that, no. In fact, democracy refers to the structure of a governmental body and the interactions between that government and its constituents. At best, you could say that the United States of America is a "democratic republic."
So anyways, how did "this" prevent me from getting more information, exactly? I thought one of the articles was very interesting. It was about potential plans to raise the minimum wage. If I hadn't read it, I would have no idea how Mr. McCain intends to act with regards to minimum wage.
This is poisoning the available information so citizens don't have all of the information about a candidate.
Yeah, that's a lie. Let's assume that you hadn't, in fact, chosen the literally inappropriate and otherwise sensationalist term "poisoning." What could you possibly say on the issue?
Now, maybe you would have it that I and others never found or heard about these articles. But I think that a reasonable person would say that that constitutes less, not more, information. This is funny, since "more information" seems to be your stated goal.
And your morals would have me know less about certain aspects of a candidate? Telling.
Pretty surprising come from the left, you know, with their morals and such.
Pretty surprising coming from you, you know, with your low UID and such.
Did ya buy it?
Fairly recently, I believe. One term in particular that is being bandied about with increasing frequency is "divisive." Off the top of my head, I can recall Mr. Lieberman using it at least once. As if the worst thing you can do as a political leader is "divide."
What does it mean to unify a country? We are a nation of vastly different individuals, connected only vaguely through, you guessed it, nationhood. Attitudes like this use words like unify but really mean homogenize. Implying that one is "against" the nation reminds me of another sort of labeling; being called a heretic.
Let's all take a look into the past and recall that, once upon a time, we had a House Unamerican Activities Committee. Were the concerned activities unamerican? Up to debate, certainly, but calling them unamerican discursively indicates that "Americanness" is to be desired.
I for one wouldn't mind a President who doesn't have "unity" on his list of priorities. You know why? If for no other reason, unity can't be seen or measured. Electing an official because of your personally held belief that it will be good for the unity of the country is kind of like paying him or her to do nothing.
Amen.
Prison is expensive, personally destructive, and frankly only necessary when an individual's evidenced propensities (such as a history of physical violence) demonstrate that removal from regular society is probably in someone's best interest.
Like being isolated from the people and places he knows will foster morality.
Consider this:
For every day of this "some jail time" that you believe "is called for," this child will spend one day away from friends, family, and familiar places. Do you know what it's like to be a child and be isolated from everything you know? Ostensibly, because you are a criminal?
In my state, juvenile prisons (and most prisons) have been constructed miles and miles from anything. On it's face, this seems like a good idea, but at the end of the day, it means one thing: even if these people have social support in their lives, in the way of family or friends or whatnot, they will be completely isolated from them.
Sure, your parents can visit. But only in these time slots. And only after driving, oh, four hundred miles. Oh, looks like the visit's over, see you in two weeks mom, I'll just go back to my institutionalized life where my identity as a rulebreaker and deviant is reinforced by my mere presence, my living conditions are lonely and lacking stimulation, and where I can't really make any progress in terms of personal growth or social connections. And that is if your parents have the economic means to not be working every free minute, not have other obligations that preclude visiting, and possess means of transportation. Let's just assume everyone's as up in the status quo as we are!
So many posters advocate jailtime (although most are careful to preface it with a "38 years is a bit much..." statement). I don't care if this kid tried to kill someone. He is not threat to me and I certainly don't need him imprisoned to feel that way. Furthermore, I can't in good conscience believe that imprisonment will combat any notions of recidivism - obviously he won't be changing to many grades from juvenile hall, but confrontation with the "justice industry" does little good in anyone's life.
Taking away this kid's freedom is totally an acceptable response for how he cruelly defrauded those "top students" of their "spots."
You think 38 years is too harsh? Wow. Compassionate.
Despite the boy's "malicious and clear" intent to change grades (interesting use of the word malicious, at the end of the day), I don't think that any prison term is appropriate. Let's be honest - when he "perpetrated" all these "counts," did he, his parents, or his friends have any inkling that these actions were felonies, let alone illegal in the first place?
I understand how you might want to "be hard on" crime. But this is a case in which, arguably, there are no victims and there is no damage. Furthermore, it isn't exactly an area in which morality clearly delineates boundaries to one's actions. You don't need jack knowledge of legal systems to understand the deviance represented by, say, burglary.
Probably, the summary vastly exaggerated that he could face 38 years. But that you think you're in a position to recommend sentencing, let alone recommend prison time, for such acts is just silly. I would have posted anonymously, too; I wouldn't want evidence that I made such uncaring assertions, either.
You claim that Wikipedia can be altered by anyone. This is, on its face, true. However, if the changes are malicious or useless, they won't stay. Try it.
Furthermore, you assert that Wikipedia is not peer reviewed. How can you think this is true? It is constantly reviewed; this is the reason that malicious, useless, and wrong changes aren't retained.
Everyone's an expert.
I like the false thinking that, since the United States of America uses one system of measurement, it does not use another.
Despite my origins, I can't imagine the demographic for which citing in Fahrenheit is necessary. I don't know anyone who "prefers" Fahrenheit in his or her daily speech that is not able to read and understand Celsius.
For the sake of the article's summary, I supposed that perhaps the 70dgF figure was chosen because it is commonly recognized as ~roomtemperature; but then, 21dgC is similarly recognized.
I believe that "Ihre" is the possessive for 2nd person plural.
I think, assuming that Papieren is feminine, that "Deine Papieren, bitte." would be more accurate.
To answer your question in short, yes, people will feel safer in such a society, where "safer" refers to "well managed." This is 100% Authoritarian personality.
But at the end of the day (sadly), people seem to desire authority, or at least settle for it. In the context of religion, for example, one is no longer "in the club" once he or she has challenged established doctrine. Religion is the ultimate example when discussing authority, as authority is not vested in a group, nor an individual, but a book - that has already been written - that will never change or grow.
Every established religion operates under the doctrine "we got it right the first time." Authority.
And people eat it up.
I was GOING to complain about snl2587's unique combination of "zero content post" plus "score of insightful," but that injustice pales in the face of the one before me. You see, I just couldn't live with myself knowing that I didn't do EVERYTHING IN MY POWER to let you know:
You suck.
Or is this poorly executed anti-linux rhetoric some sort of pro-linux troll?