TA does not mention IQ at all. Only one time in the headline, a few times in the Slashdot summary, but not once in the actual article. The researchers gave them a vocabulary test, not an IQ test.
Holy Monkey! Where did all that come from? Read it again, please. I have children. I think procreation is wonderful. I think my procreation is none of your business. Now, reread my earier post and try to think what I possible could have meant, knowing what you now know.
Consider the wide definition that pornographic activities could mean. That was probably my mistake, leaving it so broad.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn't trying to address the issue of whether or not the government should regulate these things. I was saying that this is a rationale for regulation. The OP seemed to not understand why a government would want to regulate porn sites but not murder sites. I thought my explanation seemed very reasonable.
Plus, the question of actions between consenting adults can conceivably become my business, though that isn't what I was thinking about. I was thinking about criminal or public behavior. I do think there is something wrong with pornographic actions, but there's really not much I can do to control what you do in your home even if I wanted to (I don't want to).
The question of whether or not the government should regulate either of these sites is a completely different one.
Well, whether or not words can be immoral, actions certainly can. A site about murder is far less likely to inspire murderous actions than a porn site is to incite pornographic actions. Perhaps that is why porn is regulated more than violence in situations like this.
I don't know why, but when I hear of the Pirate Party, I think of this little nugget of goodness from Blackadder the Third:
("H" is Mr. Hanna, the reporter, and "I" is Ivor, the candidate)
H: Quite. Now; Ivor Biggun, no votes at all for the Standing-At-The-Back-
Dressed-Stupidly-And-Looking-Stupid Party. Are you disappointed?
I: Ah, no, not really, no... I always say, "If you can't laugh, what *can*
you do?" Ha-ha-ha-ha (squirts Hanna with flower).
H:...take up politics, perhaps. Has your party got any policies?
I: Oh yes, certainly! We're for the compulsory serving of asparagus at break-
fast, free corsets for the under-fives, and the abolition of slavery.
H: Now, you see, many moderate people would respect your stand on asparagus,
but what about this extremist nonsense about abolishing slavery?
I: Oh, we just put that in for a joke! See you next year!
- - - - -
I am not trying to insult the Pirate Party, nor am I trying to downplay the seriousness of the abuses of copyright by Disney and others. I just think that a party like the Pirate Party is hard to take seriously on so many other issues.
While we may be foolish to totally disregard concerns for future shortages, it is very reasonable to assume that there will be innovations that will keep up with the crises. How can we assume this so safely? Because past performance is the best predictor of future performance. While not foolproof, it is a reasonable assumption that things will continue as they have. Unless we have evidence that we will experience some sort of virus that will kill the innovation centers of the brain or that something will come up to make innovation unnecessary, we can assume that innovation will continue.
To hijack your example, I have survived more than 11,600 days, and it is reasonable to assume I will survive 11,601. In fact, I plan on it. I keep making mortgage payments and trying to earn more money, because payday will come, I will still need a house, etc. Of course, I would be foolish to totally disregard concerns of future problems (as I said above). I have life insurance and medical policies, just in case. But the difference in the amount of money I spend on plans to live n+1 days or years compared to the amount of money I spend on plans to die tomorrow shows just how confident I am that I will indeed live to be n+1.
So you're right, oil is indeed finite. But we have every reason to believe (and none to disbelieve) that innovation will continue quickly enough to keep us alive. But only a fool would bet his life on it.
I think it's more about the will. If I understand correctly, we had North VietNam beat after the Tet offensive failed. It was about Political will. We had the will to start it, but not to do what it took to finish it.
Likewise, I think, in Iraq. We certainly have the ability and the skill to destroy whomever opposed us. But without the political will to make sure it got done (send in enough troops, etc.), it isn't getting done.
In WWII, it wasn't over until it was over: the war wouldn't end until it was OVER. We pulled out all the stops until it was over. You could say that one critical difference between that and Iraq was enough support for the war. Maybe even if the war in Iraq was justified (as I think it was), it may have been a mistake to go in without enough support.
...but that wasn't really a fair game, that was the Superbowl Champs vs. the local grade school J.V. team.
That reminds me of the Pirates of Penzance: for the sake of honor and nobility, they refuse to fight those weaker than themselves, but can't figure out why they are always getting the crap kicked out of them.
I have no problem if a war is fought with NFL vs. powderpuff types of odds. It's more about if there is some sort of justification or not (and there's a whole other millions of posts of discussion).
The failure of the US to win in N. Korea in the 50s was not due to a lack of ability to win. It was because of a lack of permission to win. I guess you could say the same about Viet Nam, but from what I understand, Korea was in the bag, and the UN forces were not allowed to do what it took to seal the deal, and the Chinese kept on a-comin'.
They were not allowed to block the entry of Chinese forces into N. Korea, even though they had that capability; they were not allowed to use the Atom bomb (it may not have been the right weapon to use, but it probably would have been effective); and other things, too.
Ever since WWII, the USA has hardly been able to summon the will to prosecute a war. If you believe that war is never the answer, then this could be a good thing (as long as the war is never begun). But a poorly prosecuted war is one of the most immoral things a government can do! (I think that last sentence is from Sun Tzu)
I hope you're right: N Korea will hopefully realize they can't really get anything out of this, and will not use it.
Which brings me back to my earlier point, which was that Goodman and Chomsky are anti-establishment. I geuss it comforts me to know that they are not just anti-conservative (though with conservative being relative, Clinton and Bush are both conservative compared to Goodman and Chomsky).
No, I've watched Democracy Now. I'm watching it right now, in fact. That's where I got my idea that they thrive on their self-righteous vision of themselves as courageous speakers-out on stuff that the mainstream won't tell you.
While it was indeed a cheap attack, and deserved a troll-mod, I actually have watched Democracy Now (I'm watching it right now), and I have actually read Chomsky. I am convinced that Goodman really does thrive on her image of an outspoken revolutionary. If she became the mainstream, she wouldn't be able to revolt against anything. Chomsky really knows what he's talking about within the sphere of his expertise: linguistics. Everything else he has written is worth about as much as Rush Limbaugh, probably even less than that.
No, the fact is that Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky thrive on their anti-establishment status. I have no doubt that they have performed remarkable feats of investigative journalism. I would be very surprised to find a single report they have done in the past 4 years or so about anything besides how much Bush and the Republicans suck.
What makes their patriotic self-interest in keeping jobs in their own American economy instead of overseas where workers unfairly compete without labor, environmental, political or economic protections into "racism"? The "radicals" who protest the WTO are more diverse ethnicly than either the foreign countries or America as a whole.
Perhaps it's wrong to call it 'racism,' but then what is it? Campaigning to prevent jobs from going to those who arguable need them more may not be racism, but it is certainly something.
As for the lack of labor, environmental, political, or economic protections, are they better off with no job, or with a job, even without all those restrictions. Perhaps that's what Manuel can tell his children at night: "It's okay, mijito, you're hungry because the poor guy in El Norte with the job at least has his labor, environmental, political, and economic protections. It's better that way." There must be labor for there to be protections, no?
I guess that all I'm trying to say is that those who oppose globalization because they're 'looking out for the little guys' have some explaining to do on how exactly this works.
Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman? If they made it to the mainstream media, what would they talk about? "Well here we are with more news the mainstream media won't.... Oh, wait."
Without their self-righteous self-appointed position as the guardians of all things outside the mainstream, they are nothing.
I have to respectfully disagree. I think the idea is that the article is an example of Bush-bashing, not an attempt to reform the voting process. I really, really want to improve voting accuracy, but I get uncomfortable in discussions like this because they seem to turn into hate-filled name-calling sessions in which no progress is possible.
I feel like the Republican party is not necessarily to blame. All I see in my state (Utah, WAY Republican) is new Diebold machines with the voter-verified paper that you get to check after you vote.
Maybe I'm missing something, though. If so, please enlighten me.
Yes, it is. But I see it being all too likely. Well, maybe not all that likely, but it certainly does point out some of the problems with a socialized health-care system.
This is very different. The man was not arrested for gambling while in the UK. The man was arrested in the US for breaking US laws that had a direct effect on the US. A REALLY bad analogy would be pelting INS agents with oranges from across the Mexican border. There is no law in Mexico against throwing oranges. (That was bad. Someone should find a way to work a car into it.)
Plus, if he set up some sort of gambling server, and the server is still running while he comes to the US, then he was breaking US law while he was in the US.
I agree that there is some merit to your argument, but I think you are trying to draw a flawed analogy. Anyway, while I suppose it is true that the US has done some things that can be taken as harassment or thinking it has rights to push the rest of the world around, I don't think this is one of those things.
Then again, I have no sympathy at all for gamblers and those who support/profit from/encourage them, and that probably has something to do with my views on this.
The human body breaks down, it doesn't wear out. That is to say, we don't die, cancer kills us. We don't die, our heart kills us. It reminds me of the deacon's one-hoss shay. We get rid of all the things that kill us, and then what will happen?
Slashdot Mirror
TA does not mention IQ at all. Only one time in the headline, a few times in the Slashdot summary, but not once in the actual article. The researchers gave them a vocabulary test, not an IQ test.
Consider the wide definition that pornographic activities could mean. That was probably my mistake, leaving it so broad.
Plus, the question of actions between consenting adults can conceivably become my business, though that isn't what I was thinking about. I was thinking about criminal or public behavior. I do think there is something wrong with pornographic actions, but there's really not much I can do to control what you do in your home even if I wanted to (I don't want to).
The question of whether or not the government should regulate either of these sites is a completely different one.
Well, whether or not words can be immoral, actions certainly can. A site about murder is far less likely to inspire murderous actions than a porn site is to incite pornographic actions. Perhaps that is why porn is regulated more than violence in situations like this.
Or am I oversimplifying?
That was the Whigs.
("H" is Mr. Hanna, the reporter, and "I" is Ivor, the candidate)
H: Quite. Now; Ivor Biggun, no votes at all for the Standing-At-The-Back- Dressed-Stupidly-And-Looking-Stupid Party. Are you disappointed?
I: Ah, no, not really, no... I always say, "If you can't laugh, what *can* you do?" Ha-ha-ha-ha (squirts Hanna with flower).
H: ...take up politics, perhaps. Has your party got any policies?
I: Oh yes, certainly! We're for the compulsory serving of asparagus at break- fast, free corsets for the under-fives, and the abolition of slavery.
H: Now, you see, many moderate people would respect your stand on asparagus, but what about this extremist nonsense about abolishing slavery?
I: Oh, we just put that in for a joke! See you next year!
- - - - -
I am not trying to insult the Pirate Party, nor am I trying to downplay the seriousness of the abuses of copyright by Disney and others. I just think that a party like the Pirate Party is hard to take seriously on so many other issues.
To hijack your example, I have survived more than 11,600 days, and it is reasonable to assume I will survive 11,601. In fact, I plan on it. I keep making mortgage payments and trying to earn more money, because payday will come, I will still need a house, etc. Of course, I would be foolish to totally disregard concerns of future problems (as I said above). I have life insurance and medical policies, just in case. But the difference in the amount of money I spend on plans to live n+1 days or years compared to the amount of money I spend on plans to die tomorrow shows just how confident I am that I will indeed live to be n+1.
So you're right, oil is indeed finite. But we have every reason to believe (and none to disbelieve) that innovation will continue quickly enough to keep us alive. But only a fool would bet his life on it.
That WAS cool!
Likewise, I think, in Iraq. We certainly have the ability and the skill to destroy whomever opposed us. But without the political will to make sure it got done (send in enough troops, etc.), it isn't getting done.
In WWII, it wasn't over until it was over: the war wouldn't end until it was OVER. We pulled out all the stops until it was over. You could say that one critical difference between that and Iraq was enough support for the war. Maybe even if the war in Iraq was justified (as I think it was), it may have been a mistake to go in without enough support.
That reminds me of the Pirates of Penzance: for the sake of honor and nobility, they refuse to fight those weaker than themselves, but can't figure out why they are always getting the crap kicked out of them.
I have no problem if a war is fought with NFL vs. powderpuff types of odds. It's more about if there is some sort of justification or not (and there's a whole other millions of posts of discussion).
They were not allowed to block the entry of Chinese forces into N. Korea, even though they had that capability; they were not allowed to use the Atom bomb (it may not have been the right weapon to use, but it probably would have been effective); and other things, too.
Ever since WWII, the USA has hardly been able to summon the will to prosecute a war. If you believe that war is never the answer, then this could be a good thing (as long as the war is never begun). But a poorly prosecuted war is one of the most immoral things a government can do! (I think that last sentence is from Sun Tzu)
I hope you're right: N Korea will hopefully realize they can't really get anything out of this, and will not use it.
Jedi Outcast, and Jedi Academy with the cheats on!
No, he's asking for donations to medical research.
Which brings me back to my earlier point, which was that Goodman and Chomsky are anti-establishment. I geuss it comforts me to know that they are not just anti-conservative (though with conservative being relative, Clinton and Bush are both conservative compared to Goodman and Chomsky).
While it was indeed a cheap attack, and deserved a troll-mod, I actually have watched Democracy Now (I'm watching it right now), and I have actually read Chomsky. I am convinced that Goodman really does thrive on her image of an outspoken revolutionary. If she became the mainstream, she wouldn't be able to revolt against anything. Chomsky really knows what he's talking about within the sphere of his expertise: linguistics. Everything else he has written is worth about as much as Rush Limbaugh, probably even less than that.
No, the fact is that Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky thrive on their anti-establishment status. I have no doubt that they have performed remarkable feats of investigative journalism. I would be very surprised to find a single report they have done in the past 4 years or so about anything besides how much Bush and the Republicans suck.
Perhaps it's wrong to call it 'racism,' but then what is it? Campaigning to prevent jobs from going to those who arguable need them more may not be racism, but it is certainly something.
As for the lack of labor, environmental, political, or economic protections, are they better off with no job, or with a job, even without all those restrictions. Perhaps that's what Manuel can tell his children at night: "It's okay, mijito, you're hungry because the poor guy in El Norte with the job at least has his labor, environmental, political, and economic protections. It's better that way." There must be labor for there to be protections, no?
I guess that all I'm trying to say is that those who oppose globalization because they're 'looking out for the little guys' have some explaining to do on how exactly this works.
Without their self-righteous self-appointed position as the guardians of all things outside the mainstream, they are nothing.
I feel like the Republican party is not necessarily to blame. All I see in my state (Utah, WAY Republican) is new Diebold machines with the voter-verified paper that you get to check after you vote.
Maybe I'm missing something, though. If so, please enlighten me.
Only if you like what he says. If you don't like it, it could get a lot worse.
When she was a telehustler, my cousin used to write down those kind of phone numbers and call them back in the middle of the night from a payphone.
Plus, if he set up some sort of gambling server, and the server is still running while he comes to the US, then he was breaking US law while he was in the US.
I agree that there is some merit to your argument, but I think you are trying to draw a flawed analogy. Anyway, while I suppose it is true that the US has done some things that can be taken as harassment or thinking it has rights to push the rest of the world around, I don't think this is one of those things.
Then again, I have no sympathy at all for gamblers and those who support/profit from/encourage them, and that probably has something to do with my views on this.
The human body breaks down, it doesn't wear out. That is to say, we don't die, cancer kills us. We don't die, our heart kills us. It reminds me of the deacon's one-hoss shay. We get rid of all the things that kill us, and then what will happen?