I'd vote Libertarian. They are more likely to let me shoot some strange indecisive Slashdotter wandering onto my property.
Good on GP for voting for another. I always feel awkward commenting about US matters, but I share the "someone else" sentiment
If you've got libertarian tendencies, then you probably shouldn't vote Greens. Although in NZ's experience, they were the only party who stop up against the 3-strike copyright, prove your innocence, MP3 downloading law - so I give them credit there.
Our Greens are a bit too watermelon. The advertise vagaries about the environment, but their policies all want to take more of the money you earn and spend it in ways they think are superior to you.
Out of interest, do you vote for them? Or another small party?
I'm not an American (I'm a NZer), and New Zealand now has a (semi-)proportional system now (so that if 34% of people vote for a party, they'll get 34% of seats in parliament), but we used to have a similar system which lead to just two viable parties.
Rather than voting for the lesser of two evils (whether you consider that Dem or Rep), if you think they're both bad, vote someone else. It won't be a wasted vote, because you're supporting the party you support - so what if they don't get in? If you don't want to vote for the Democrats or the Republics, the only wasted vote is a vote for one of them.
I think this is a message that the smaller parties should be pushing, even parties on the opposite sides of the political spectrum. It should also be emphasised to the "I don't bother voting, they're all crooks" crowd as they're a reasonable proportion of the population.
It is an effectively unelected all-powerful organisation that is run by Germans and Belgians. They are able to make laws which member states have to adopt, so effectively they can write the laws of half a continent.
They're overpaid and corrupt. They don't have the faintest regard for the freedom of the population, and while the Germans might be historically used to this method of governance, it's not fair to impose it on other countries.
I agree. And I doubt these were even "predictions", more like fun cliches and what-ifs. It's the same as how many movies think that everyone in the future will wear vinyl clothing.
It is painful trying to watch the writer compare the postcard to something either Google or Apple have made (rather than saying the generic term), then explaining that the prediction was "not far off".
Then to top it off, he states some of the postcards as bad ideas. Such as rapidly turning eggs into baby chicks. This idea could revolutionise the poultry industry! But it's bad! Then there's the heater with the glow: the author interprets it as radium, but it might just be electricity and be quite correct. Or it might be contained nuclear fusion, and the illustrator just got the timing wrong by 1000 years.
A pathetic, lame, cliched, "lol at predictions from the past" story. I find it interesting to see the pictures, but the commentary makes me cringe more than Cringely.
I do. (Well, I don't do much to defend it, just write on internet forums, but IMO saying negative things about gay people should be allowed, and flag burning shouldn't be illegal.)
Which is going to be hard, as many "western countries" have imported hundred of thousands of people with these views, who breed like rabbits, and will not accept the way of life in the country they live in. They come to western countries to get a better life, then start with the shit that makes their countries fucking hell holes.
It is despicable that our "leaders" don't. I don't know much about Julia Gillard, (I'm a NZer), but I understand she is offended by everything, and has absolutely no moral character. She is a pathetic joke of a prime minister.
Disgusting to see the UN leader agreeing that we're not allowed to talk about Islam in a negative light either. No surprised there though, the UN is just a bunch of failed national politicians bludging off the world's taxpayers.
So you two seem to be in agreement about the main topic then.
It's just Frankie70 piously lecturing some AC about what he should drink, rather than wanting the government to control what he drinks. That's okay with me. It's a bit rude, but that's okay.:-D
I guess my choice of language was ambiguous at the best. (I was using "anti-religion" because that's what the parent said.)
By anti-religion I don't mean church-burning, Mormon-punching, Nativity-banning psychopathy. I meant "anti-" in the same way as used in "antifreeze" or "anticlockwise".
I meant that when approached by someone who tells you that "God will heal that sunburn, and if you believe in Him you'll live forever in eternity. Join now for an obligation free meeting." that you'd have the sense to evaluate what they're saying and reject it as falsehood.
I guess the differences are: 1. That there is some sort of plausible process that makes this belief conceivable. (Mail gets read by secretary, passed to the big man himself, he thinks great idea, proposes it to congress, and change happens.) 2. It is testable. If we got a rational person to test it (perhaps getting them to write 1000 unique letters to the President and observing change in laws), they'd probably change their mind.
But you're correct in many cases. I think many people had irrational and poorly considered views on what would happen when Barrack won the election.
To stop belief in the irrational, you can teach people new ways of thinking about things. And what is religion but a shared set of irrational beliefs (with some rational ones thrown in to entice people)?
There are "recognised" religions (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism etc) and then there are de facto religions such as the cargo cults, hippie communes, and vague spiritualism. You're right, I am applying the same broad brush to all of these - they're all the same phenomenon: faith without questioning.
And BTW, if "God tell"s people to pray to Him as a placebo, then what type of pathetic god is he?!
As for six days, there are a number of Christians who take this literally. What makes them wrong and you right? Instead of saying "6 days represents 6 eras", why not just say "the whole thing is a load of shit invented by some Jewish guy thousands of years ago"? I mean "6x = exact age of the universe (for a certain value of x)" is a bit of a cop out!
Fraud, eugenics, lobotomies, stoning, terrorism, Christian rock, baby rape to cure HIV... These are things that result from irrational thinking. They may not fit into a narrow definition of religion, but it's the same process.
No. It fails because there are enough educated people in the population to realise that it's not a good idea to let the government dictating everything we're allowed to consume.
Nothing forces me to buy from corporates, the can't arrest me if I disobey. The government can - and to have them regulating shit like this is scary.
You seem like a control freak. Why don't you mind your own business?
Actually, I think you need some exercise. I mandate having a cop in your room, waking you up at 5am and making you run 5 miles every morning. And no more alcohol at all for you. No computer games, and a limit to internet access - 5 hours per week - it rots your brain.
If we need to take the internet off the little nerd to let him live a life, then so be it.
Slashdot Mirror
Distinctly Kenyan accent? With a hint of Muslim? :-D
Doesn't sound Hawaiian.
If there was demand without businesses, you wouldn't have jobs either.
I'd vote Libertarian. They are more likely to let me shoot some strange indecisive Slashdotter wandering onto my property.
Good on GP for voting for another. I always feel awkward commenting about US matters, but I share the "someone else" sentiment
If you've got libertarian tendencies, then you probably shouldn't vote Greens. Although in NZ's experience, they were the only party who stop up against the 3-strike copyright, prove your innocence, MP3 downloading law - so I give them credit there.
Our Greens are a bit too watermelon. The advertise vagaries about the environment, but their policies all want to take more of the money you earn and spend it in ways they think are superior to you.
Out of interest, do you vote for them? Or another small party?
I'm not an American (I'm a NZer), and New Zealand now has a (semi-)proportional system now (so that if 34% of people vote for a party, they'll get 34% of seats in parliament), but we used to have a similar system which lead to just two viable parties.
Rather than voting for the lesser of two evils (whether you consider that Dem or Rep), if you think they're both bad, vote someone else. It won't be a wasted vote, because you're supporting the party you support - so what if they don't get in? If you don't want to vote for the Democrats or the Republics, the only wasted vote is a vote for one of them.
I think this is a message that the smaller parties should be pushing, even parties on the opposite sides of the political spectrum. It should also be emphasised to the "I don't bother voting, they're all crooks" crowd as they're a reasonable proportion of the population.
Why do people keep defending the EU?
It is an effectively unelected all-powerful organisation that is run by Germans and Belgians. They are able to make laws which member states have to adopt, so effectively they can write the laws of half a continent.
They're overpaid and corrupt. They don't have the faintest regard for the freedom of the population, and while the Germans might be historically used to this method of governance, it's not fair to impose it on other countries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI
Although just because someone said it in a movie, doesn't make it notable.
I agree. And I doubt these were even "predictions", more like fun cliches and what-ifs. It's the same as how many movies think that everyone in the future will wear vinyl clothing.
It is painful trying to watch the writer compare the postcard to something either Google or Apple have made (rather than saying the generic term), then explaining that the prediction was "not far off".
Then to top it off, he states some of the postcards as bad ideas. Such as rapidly turning eggs into baby chicks. This idea could revolutionise the poultry industry! But it's bad! Then there's the heater with the glow: the author interprets it as radium, but it might just be electricity and be quite correct. Or it might be contained nuclear fusion, and the illustrator just got the timing wrong by 1000 years.
A pathetic, lame, cliched, "lol at predictions from the past" story. I find it interesting to see the pictures, but the commentary makes me cringe more than Cringely.
I do. (Well, I don't do much to defend it, just write on internet forums, but IMO saying negative things about gay people should be allowed, and flag burning shouldn't be illegal.)
I'm sure many people are consistent.
You'll find it's mostly "left"-leaning politicians who support the Islamist crusade to restrict what the rest of us say.
Gillard is a prime example. Although she basically has no principles.
Which is going to be hard, as many "western countries" have imported hundred of thousands of people with these views, who breed like rabbits, and will not accept the way of life in the country they live in. They come to western countries to get a better life, then start with the shit that makes their countries fucking hell holes.
Most people agree with you.
It is despicable that our "leaders" don't. I don't know much about Julia Gillard, (I'm a NZer), but I understand she is offended by everything, and has absolutely no moral character. She is a pathetic joke of a prime minister.
Disgusting to see the UN leader agreeing that we're not allowed to talk about Islam in a negative light either. No surprised there though, the UN is just a bunch of failed national politicians bludging off the world's taxpayers.
You can't fire a gun and hit another bullet in mid-air? You need more practice.
Touche :-D
I would love to hear you explain why a mix of glucose and fructose is less healthy than sucrose (a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose).
I'm sucrase deficient you insensitive clod!
Orange juice actually has no chemicals in it. It's just a fluid mixture of protons, neutrons and electrons - none of those dirty evil atoms.
That's not going to be a problem in Manhattan. Since it's an island, you can't just drive to the city limits and get your cheap fix.
I understand there is at least one bridge on the Island of Manhattan? :-D
I wouldn't.
A corporation can't easily force me to do something I don't want to. A government can.
So you two seem to be in agreement about the main topic then.
It's just Frankie70 piously lecturing some AC about what he should drink, rather than wanting the government to control what he drinks. :-D
That's okay with me. It's a bit rude, but that's okay.
I guess my choice of language was ambiguous at the best. (I was using "anti-religion" because that's what the parent said.)
By anti-religion I don't mean church-burning, Mormon-punching, Nativity-banning psychopathy. I meant "anti-" in the same way as used in "antifreeze" or "anticlockwise".
I meant that when approached by someone who tells you that "God will heal that sunburn, and if you believe in Him you'll live forever in eternity. Join now for an obligation free meeting." that you'd have the sense to evaluate what they're saying and reject it as falsehood.
I guess the differences are:
1. That there is some sort of plausible process that makes this belief conceivable. (Mail gets read by secretary, passed to the big man himself, he thinks great idea, proposes it to congress, and change happens.)
2. It is testable. If we got a rational person to test it (perhaps getting them to write 1000 unique letters to the President and observing change in laws), they'd probably change their mind.
But you're correct in many cases. I think many people had irrational and poorly considered views on what would happen when Barrack won the election.
To stop belief in the irrational, you can teach people new ways of thinking about things. And what is religion but a shared set of irrational beliefs (with some rational ones thrown in to entice people)?
There are "recognised" religions (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism etc) and then there are de facto religions such as the cargo cults, hippie communes, and vague spiritualism. You're right, I am applying the same broad brush to all of these - they're all the same phenomenon: faith without questioning.
And BTW, if "God tell"s people to pray to Him as a placebo, then what type of pathetic god is he?!
As for six days, there are a number of Christians who take this literally. What makes them wrong and you right?
Instead of saying "6 days represents 6 eras", why not just say "the whole thing is a load of shit invented by some Jewish guy thousands of years ago"? I mean "6x = exact age of the universe (for a certain value of x)" is a bit of a cop out!
Fraud, eugenics, lobotomies, stoning, terrorism, Christian rock, baby rape to cure HIV... These are things that result from irrational thinking. They may not fit into a narrow definition of religion, but it's the same process.
No one's banning anything.
Uh, they're banning sale of sugary drinks in 32-oz containers.
..it doesn't really explain why we should prefer moving decision-making from one group of stupid people to another group of stupid people.
Yes, but that second group of stupid people think that they're smarter than everyone else.
No. It fails because there are enough educated people in the population to realise that it's not a good idea to let the government dictating everything we're allowed to consume.
Nothing forces me to buy from corporates, the can't arrest me if I disobey. The government can - and to have them regulating shit like this is scary.
You seem like a control freak. Why don't you mind your own business?
Actually, I think you need some exercise. I mandate having a cop in your room, waking you up at 5am and making you run 5 miles every morning. And no more alcohol at all for you. No computer games, and a limit to internet access - 5 hours per week - it rots your brain.
If we need to take the internet off the little nerd to let him live a life, then so be it.