Seriously folks, what's with the all the backslash lately.
And if you really wanted an answer to that question instead of wanting to gripe about it, you'd have browsed through the first and second of the next-day backslashes. Your concern was discussed by many.
It's an action of a local municipal police department, period.
How many of these incidents have to occur before it's not just a single action by a single officer?
How many people have to have their rights trampled before it's necessary to do something about it?
This single instance is indicative of the actions that lead many of us to have a growing concern about the role of law enforcement (from the very top of the federal level all the way down to local yokels) with respect to the rights of the individual. Only constant attention and rectification of these problems will prevent a gradual, habitual acquiescence that will lead us ever closer to the authoritarian police state that can be seen just over the horizon.
Not to pick nits here, but whether or not a voting machine is trustworthy is a boolean variable. Either it's trustworthy, or it is not (and therefore worthless).
As far as I'm concerned, every election using any machine found to be compromisable should be invalidated, and a paper ballot revote should be held.
If you don't trust $[POLITICALPARTY] with your democracy, why should you trust the men behind the curtain?
But... but... but then I'd be taxed at an even higher amount per mile than I'm already paying to commute in my Canyonero. Us gas-guzzlers are already paying a disproportionate amount of tax, a flat rate per gallon is by its very nature progressive./sarcasm
I like the idea, but I think it'd be fairly simple to spoof the tag.
Bah. It's Darwinism. Stupid enough to take the risk, stupid enough to get out of the gene pool. That company has done the human race a favor.
/saracasm.
I'm sure the reason why they're not isn't greed so much as a fear of litigation.
I think it's also to limit future liability... what happens if their next Stage 2 or Stage 3 research injures a bunch more people? We're talking several millions in medical expenses for each patient in this case. Setting a precedent like that is Bad News for big pharma and their stockholders.
I suppose it all depends on how you define conservatism and liberalism, and people have been arguing about that for decades. I personally like Goldwater's definition, which would be what I call Classic Conservatism, and what I consider true conservatism to be: When change is necessary, do it cautiously. Every person should have the opportunity and means to better themselves; when the community, family, and private organisations fail to do so, it is the role of government to provide the means. People are equal in the eyes of the law and should be equal in the eyes of the community. We must study what has succeeded in the past and apply the same principles today.
Classic liberalism is: The search for new solutions to problems; the state should agressively seek to treat societal problems.
John W. Dean covers a lot of this stuff pretty well in "Conservatives Without Conscience" (Viking Penguin, 2006). A good read, and a ton of insight into how the conservative philosophy has been bastardized.
Just one more note --
Republicans focus more on protecting America than Democrats do, and this was a direct result of that.
I would say that Republicans focus more on hyping the potential threat to national security for political gain more than Democrats do. But it's no more than grandstanding, IMO.
Just wanted to add that the national debt figures are understated. We also have a liability to Social Security (and other funds we've borrowed from internally) that need to be paid back, either by borrowing more money, or from the general treasury by means of regular budget items.
It's friggin' Harry and Lloyd (Dumb & Dumber) leaving IOUs (in this case, non-marketable "special issue" Treasury Certificates) in the suitcase to pay for what they want today, but without the funny bits.
A good deal of Eisenhower's success was based on limiting spending and the size of government as a result of the unprecedented growth seen under Roosevelt.
In terms of Eisenhower's victories, they were largely a result of checking the actions of the previous administrations, as you point out... which goes back to conservatism being defined by a resistance to liberalism. However, I'd also point out that Eisenhower was the direct beneficiary of the spending initiated by his predecessors. His success was also largely due to the general contentment of the populace... contentment breeds classic conservatism (if it ain't broke, why fix it?) Look at the Senate and Congressional races, and it was a little different, I'll address this below.
It's not like the fear of Communism went away during Democrat presidencies and was brought back to life during Republican ones. It was an overarching theme present and understood in both parties.
True, but the Republican party capitalized on the fear of Communism far more than the Democrats did. Democrats were decried as weak-on-Communism all over the place, and their liberal sentiments were labeled as Communistic. Their reaction to this is one reason why the two parties are so similar today.
While there are plenty of people that associate themselves with the parties and not the bases, it's the bases that by and large determine candidates.
It's my cynicism showing, but the bases are greatly manipulated by the people in power. A two-party system with corporate/political control of the media means that the electorate is largely powerless. We're not in the age of political bosses anymore, but the bases have far less say in who runs than most people imagine... the preliminary funding has to come from somewhere, right? Also, bases change. A lot of the red-state rural base used to be Democrat based on traditional liberal philosophy. Kansas, for example, was a hotbed of liberalism in the early 20th century. The additional of social $[conservatism|liberalism] to the political mix has really allowed the Republican party to manipulate their base by revving up the fear of the 'godless liberal.' From what I've read recently, KS is one state starting to swing back, but examination of the methods used by the Republican machine in KS is pretty telling.
Anyway, both parties are now neither liberal nor conservative wholly. Both are interested in preserving the status quo (a conservative quality), but both also believe in large government (a liberal quality). The division now is not along classic liberal vs. conservative lines (ie, political) but rather social liberal vs. conservative.
(I don't really consider progressive to be the opposite of reactionary)
I'm a little unclear as to what you mean by the 'opposite of reactionary.' Do you mean complacent, or pro-active? By definition, liberalism is pro-active (e.g., progressive). Which, if I understand you correctly, means that you don't consider the Democratic party to be liberal (which I partly agree with you on). But I wouldn't say they are complacent, either (anymore).
i'm sorry but people need to make their own mistakes growing up and then feel the consequences of those mistakes
This works fine for things that:
(1) Have easily apparent, immediate consequences (unlike eating poorly) and (2) Have relatively benign consequences (unlike lifelong poor eating habits)
It's not just about preparing kids to deal with real life by teaching them about consequences; it's also about establishing the good habits that they will carry with them for the rest of their life. Exercise, diet, sleeping habits, responsibility... these are all things taught best by repetition, by ingraining the habits, rather than letting kids deal with the consequences of poor decisions.
By the time a child is in high school, some reins can be loosened. But the teenage years are very formative for adult habits, and some things still need to be enforced to ensure that a child is best prepared for adulthood.
If we make murder legal today, that doesn't mean we need to free yesterday's murderers from prison does it? If we make speeding on our streets legal, does that mean speeders should get a refund?
Actually, yes. Historically, it's customary to pardon individuals who were convicted of a crime that is no longer considered a crime. Kind of an we-admit-it-we-were-wrong, so-sorry-for-the-inconvenience type deal.
The precedent also exists for outgoing Presidents to be pardoned by incoming ones -- though Carter paid a stiff political price for his pardon of Nixon. Who knows if the next president will act on precedent or not.
Also of note, GWB could face international criminal charges. I suspect that if he gets off scot free here in the US, there will be very vocal proponents of his prosecution under international law all around the world.
But come on... The big scary Democrats are going to not motivated by personal interest oncall it the "Dubay" adminstration and giggle while the world goes to crap... That's it, That's your plan? It didn't work in 2004 (or ever). what makes you think it will work now?
It worked for the Republicans in the 50s, it worked for them in the 80s and 90s. The Commie boogeyman, the Liberal boogeyman...
The modern Republican party is based on opposing Liberalism (though it opposes it with another kind of liberalism). It is a reactionary party, despite recent efforts to call it something else -- and the Democratic party has better do its damndest to not fall into the same reactionary mold. The entire basis of conservatism is fighting against liberalism.
As to electing intelligent people, that's not the solution. There are plenty of very intelligent people in office who do terrible things, or allow terrible things to happen. What's needed are people who are motivated by the public interest, and not by games, self-promotion, and party-promotion. They need to be sufficiently versed in history, economics, and political theory. The ability to treat subjects rationally is a must.
When every candidate meets those criteria, we can have meaningful elections based upon the views held by the candidates. Then again, this will NEVER happen, so we have to play the hand we're dealt... and frankly, I can't see a clear way of cleaning house while the corporate world is married to the political one.
Only one group of people is responsible for that: the children's caretakers, be that parents at home, teacher's at school, whoever is watching over the children at any given time. The legal guardians are responsible for gradually teaching the kids what's what.
And yet you'll find that decency standards have been enforced throughout history (including here in the 1st-amendment-protected USA). I'm not completely disagreeing with you -- it's just that communities have always enforced decency standards of some sort. Whether it's as simple as asking a diner (or inn) patron not to swear around kids, or as complex as passing a law against spitting in the street, it's commonplace and not new to the TV/Media age. People in communities often depend on others in the community to not expose their children to the undesirable (this is why we have laws against indecent exposure).
That said, parents need to take responsibility for what their kids are exposed to as well. You know, like not taking your 8-year-old into a topless biker bar, you may not want to let them play GTA:SA. Of course, if the sign outside says Chuck-E-Cheese, you would be understandably upset if inside it turned out to be the aforementioned topless biker bar.
My point is this: Yes, parents are responsible for what their children are exposed to, and to teach their children to make good decisions. However, if you're going to voluntarily rate your games to assist parents, then you should at least be truthful, and do the job to the best of your ability. It's what a member of a community expects of other members of the community. Otherwise, the rating isn't worth the plastic it's printed on.
I'm just wondering who, way back in the days of yore, decided it would be better to measure fruit by liquid measurements and not by their mass.
Well, first, a bushel isn't a liquid measurement, it's a volume measurement.
Second, To answer your question with another: Do you think the typical orchard or field had a scale available for use several hundreds of years ago? Or that it's labor-efficient to weigh each basket of produce? If you're buying a bushel of something, and it looks a little scant, you say something... and either get the seller to top it off, or to lower his price.
When one writes a program that produces pictures, the software may itself be art, but the pictures it produces are not.
So, Rembrandt's expertise and brushtrokes were art, but his paintings are not?
'd go further and say that 'good art' also requires the input of emotion, and the stronger the emotion, and the more the viewer feels this emotion, the better the art in many cases.
Not all art is intended to evoke emotion. Some is meant to provoke thought. Some is meant to just be aesthetically pleasing.
I'll just say that 'good art' can't be categorized. What is good is completely in the purview of the audience. Sure, a lot of people happen to agree about some pieces, but you simply can't apply an engineer's way of thought to art.
Once a buy a game, I head over to gamefaqs for in-depth strategy.
The fun for me is figuring out the strategy myself. If I get really stuck, or if I'm at the point where I've learned almost all I'll learn by myself, then I head over to gamefaqs.
Otherwise, it's just like doing yesterday's crossword with today's paper (and therefore yesterday's completed puzzle) in hand.
Because brand identity and recognition is important to successful marketing. Its not good enough (from a marketing perspective) to hit just the people interested in your product/brand *now*. It's important to hit the people who might be interested *later*. This is why most successful marketing campaigns are not one-ff pieces, they are often multi-year campaigns.
Why *anyone* should feel entitled to my eyes and attention in order to try and sell me on their crappy products really escapes me.
Trust me, they don't feel entitled... they pay quite large sums of money for that privilege. Your anger is misdirected at advertisers; really, you should be angry with the people selling the airtime. They are the ones who feel entitled to sell off time that you paid for via your cable/satellite subscription.
Why are you so sure that it does benefit society? Maybe everyone working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week in a tiny cubicle might do wonders for corporate porfit margins, employee income and GDP, but is such a lifestyle really better?
Where is that assumption of working conditions coming from? The reason I think it benefits society is because it leads to greater wealth overall -- whether that wealth comes in the form of higher profits for the privileged few, or increased leisure time for the workforce, is not a matter of technology -- that's a matter of social construct.
Also, please note -- this isn't about more efficient production of a good -- it's about more efficient allocation of labor resources.
As to the varying weight of a vote, I wholeheartedly agree with you, I adressed that in another post in the thread. As to the president being directly elected by national popular vote, I disagree. The whole concept of a state as a separate political entity on the national stage is disappearing, and I think this is not a Good Thing (tm).
How so? Who is twisting the States' arms? What particular right is being abrogated by this? It's only a proposal, and legislatures are free to either adopt it or reject it.
Just because it is voluntary doesn't mean it is contrary to the principles of states' rights. The whole idea of the national popular vote deciding who is president debases the value of the individual states.
(2) the state's choice of electors will only be affected in a way that causes the popular vote winner to be elected. (1) is simply the status quo, and (2) is enough of a desirable end that some legislatures may be swayed.
According to some people it is desirable. Not according to me. Again, it goes back to the fact that the national popular vote does not factor in the states' right have electors vote for the candidates they choose.
Operational costs are a big deal to ALL companies. Period. As to what fraction of that comes from power usage of grahpics cards, that's a different question... But I'll tell you quite honestly that my company (revenues over 40 million) cares about individual monthly operating expenses less than a hundred dollars. Seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
How many people have to have their rights trampled before it's necessary to do something about it?
This single instance is indicative of the actions that lead many of us to have a growing concern about the role of law enforcement (from the very top of the federal level all the way down to local yokels) with respect to the rights of the individual. Only constant attention and rectification of these problems will prevent a gradual, habitual acquiescence that will lead us ever closer to the authoritarian police state that can be seen just over the horizon.
Not to pick nits here, but whether or not a voting machine is trustworthy is a boolean variable. Either it's trustworthy, or it is not (and therefore worthless).
As far as I'm concerned, every election using any machine found to be compromisable should be invalidated, and a paper ballot revote should be held.
If you don't trust $[POLITICALPARTY] with your democracy, why should you trust the men behind the curtain?
But... but... but then I'd be taxed at an even higher amount per mile than I'm already paying to commute in my Canyonero. Us gas-guzzlers are already paying a disproportionate amount of tax, a flat rate per gallon is by its very nature progressive. /sarcasm
I like the idea, but I think it'd be fairly simple to spoof the tag.
I think it's also to limit future liability... what happens if their next Stage 2 or Stage 3 research injures a bunch more people? We're talking several millions in medical expenses for each patient in this case. Setting a precedent like that is Bad News for big pharma and their stockholders.
Classic liberalism is: The search for new solutions to problems; the state should agressively seek to treat societal problems.
John W. Dean covers a lot of this stuff pretty well in "Conservatives Without Conscience" (Viking Penguin, 2006). A good read, and a ton of insight into how the conservative philosophy has been bastardized.
Just one more note --
Just wanted to add that the national debt figures are understated. We also have a liability to Social Security (and other funds we've borrowed from internally) that need to be paid back, either by borrowing more money, or from the general treasury by means of regular budget items.
It's friggin' Harry and Lloyd (Dumb & Dumber) leaving IOUs (in this case, non-marketable "special issue" Treasury Certificates) in the suitcase to pay for what they want today, but without the funny bits.
Yeah, slip of the brain. Not enough coffee yet.
True, but the Republican party capitalized on the fear of Communism far more than the Democrats did. Democrats were decried as weak-on-Communism all over the place, and their liberal sentiments were labeled as Communistic. Their reaction to this is one reason why the two parties are so similar today.
It's my cynicism showing, but the bases are greatly manipulated by the people in power. A two-party system with corporate/political control of the media means that the electorate is largely powerless. We're not in the age of political bosses anymore, but the bases have far less say in who runs than most people imagine... the preliminary funding has to come from somewhere, right? Also, bases change. A lot of the red-state rural base used to be Democrat based on traditional liberal philosophy. Kansas, for example, was a hotbed of liberalism in the early 20th century. The additional of social $[conservatism|liberalism] to the political mix has really allowed the Republican party to manipulate their base by revving up the fear of the 'godless liberal.' From what I've read recently, KS is one state starting to swing back, but examination of the methods used by the Republican machine in KS is pretty telling.
Anyway, both parties are now neither liberal nor conservative wholly. Both are interested in preserving the status quo (a conservative quality), but both also believe in large government (a liberal quality). The division now is not along classic liberal vs. conservative lines (ie, political) but rather social liberal vs. conservative.
I'm a little unclear as to what you mean by the 'opposite of reactionary.' Do you mean complacent, or pro-active? By definition, liberalism is pro-active (e.g., progressive). Which, if I understand you correctly, means that you don't consider the Democratic party to be liberal (which I partly agree with you on). But I wouldn't say they are complacent, either (anymore).
(1) Have easily apparent, immediate consequences (unlike eating poorly) and
(2) Have relatively benign consequences (unlike lifelong poor eating habits)
It's not just about preparing kids to deal with real life by teaching them about consequences; it's also about establishing the good habits that they will carry with them for the rest of their life. Exercise, diet, sleeping habits, responsibility... these are all things taught best by repetition, by ingraining the habits, rather than letting kids deal with the consequences of poor decisions.
By the time a child is in high school, some reins can be loosened. But the teenage years are very formative for adult habits, and some things still need to be enforced to ensure that a child is best prepared for adulthood.
The precedent also exists for outgoing Presidents to be pardoned by incoming ones -- though Carter paid a stiff political price for his pardon of Nixon. Who knows if the next president will act on precedent or not.
Also of note, GWB could face international criminal charges. I suspect that if he gets off scot free here in the US, there will be very vocal proponents of his prosecution under international law all around the world.
The modern Republican party is based on opposing Liberalism (though it opposes it with another kind of liberalism). It is a reactionary party, despite recent efforts to call it something else -- and the Democratic party has better do its damndest to not fall into the same reactionary mold. The entire basis of conservatism is fighting against liberalism.
As to electing intelligent people, that's not the solution. There are plenty of very intelligent people in office who do terrible things, or allow terrible things to happen. What's needed are people who are motivated by the public interest, and not by games, self-promotion, and party-promotion. They need to be sufficiently versed in history, economics, and political theory. The ability to treat subjects rationally is a must.
When every candidate meets those criteria, we can have meaningful elections based upon the views held by the candidates. Then again, this will NEVER happen, so we have to play the hand we're dealt... and frankly, I can't see a clear way of cleaning house while the corporate world is married to the political one.
That said, parents need to take responsibility for what their kids are exposed to as well. You know, like not taking your 8-year-old into a topless biker bar, you may not want to let them play GTA:SA. Of course, if the sign outside says Chuck-E-Cheese, you would be understandably upset if inside it turned out to be the aforementioned topless biker bar.
My point is this: Yes, parents are responsible for what their children are exposed to, and to teach their children to make good decisions. However, if you're going to voluntarily rate your games to assist parents, then you should at least be truthful, and do the job to the best of your ability. It's what a member of a community expects of other members of the community. Otherwise, the rating isn't worth the plastic it's printed on.
Second, To answer your question with another: Do you think the typical orchard or field had a scale available for use several hundreds of years ago? Or that it's labor-efficient to weigh each basket of produce? If you're buying a bushel of something, and it looks a little scant, you say something... and either get the seller to top it off, or to lower his price.
And I'd be willing to bet that those same 10% of songs represent over 90% of the airplay on pop, pop country, and hip-hop radio stations.
Oh wait... Never mind. My bad.
Not all art is intended to evoke emotion. Some is meant to provoke thought. Some is meant to just be aesthetically pleasing.
I'll just say that 'good art' can't be categorized. What is good is completely in the purview of the audience. Sure, a lot of people happen to agree about some pieces, but you simply can't apply an engineer's way of thought to art.
Otherwise, it's just like doing yesterday's crossword with today's paper (and therefore yesterday's completed puzzle) in hand.
Because brand identity and recognition is important to successful marketing. Its not good enough (from a marketing perspective) to hit just the people interested in your product/brand *now*. It's important to hit the people who might be interested *later*. This is why most successful marketing campaigns are not one-ff pieces, they are often multi-year campaigns.
Also, please note -- this isn't about more efficient production of a good -- it's about more efficient allocation of labor resources.
As to the varying weight of a vote, I wholeheartedly agree with you, I adressed that in another post in the thread. As to the president being directly elected by national popular vote, I disagree. The whole concept of a state as a separate political entity on the national stage is disappearing, and I think this is not a Good Thing (tm).
According to some people it is desirable. Not according to me. Again, it goes back to the fact that the national popular vote does not factor in the states' right have electors vote for the candidates they choose.
Operational costs are a big deal to ALL companies. Period. As to what fraction of that comes from power usage of grahpics cards, that's a different question... But I'll tell you quite honestly that my company (revenues over 40 million) cares about individual monthly operating expenses less than a hundred dollars. Seriously.