Damn, this guy is the ultimate sleezeball. If you ask me. Jack Thompson is a shining example of everything wrong with America these days (bigoted, sue-happy, uninformed but with LOUD AND STRONG OPINIONS).
While clearly an idiot, the fact that people like Jack Thompson still exist in America at least gives me some comfort that free speech is not being infringed on. It gives me solace that our democracy has not yet gone down an irreparable path.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Voting appears ineffective. Total system corruption appears inevitable. Please send another copy of manual of Democracy, ours has been misplaced. Please instruct on how to reboot the system.
If it can be made to work reliably and securely, electronic voting is by far the best way to go as it offers the possibility of having a much more direct democracy instead of democracy-by-proxy as we have now.
There's a very good reason direct democracy should never be allowed to happen: People are Idiots.
The average joe knows nothing about the best practices of governance. As such, all you'll get with direct democracy is mob rule. The founders were well aware of this and tried to find the best way to give the "average joe" power, without that same person running the government into the sh'tter.
Democracy-by-proxy works best when people's _interests_ are represented, which I would argue is far more successful in portional representation elections. (No, America doesn't have these!) Portional representation is where you vote for a party, and then the party decides who to hand out the seats to. For example, (using Florida as an example) if there are 100 state senators, and 13.7% voted for the Green Party, 13 seats would be filled by whoever the Green Party thought would best represent and enforce their party beliefs.
I'd argue that our current system is flawed. Namely the House of Representatives is not representative of the country's true interests. Anyone only filling an office for 2 years should be elected via portional representation. Without portional representation, their term is too short to accomplish anything major, and most of the time they are just doing things to get reelected. Portional representation allows the best people a party has to offer to rise to the top and stay there much easier, which tends to guarantee and predict the direction that party will head.
But without a non-competition agreement I can't see that theirs would go very far. Of course anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything. Actually winning a judgement is another matter.
The person may not have signed a non-compete document, but most companies make you sign a corporate policy / rules document. I've noticed that especially low-life corporations tend to put text into this agreement that reads like a non-compete. I was forced to sign such a doc or be fired. However, I made the CEO rewrite the flipping thing 2 or 3 times before it didn't sound like "any knowledge or experience you have gained while being employed here may not be used elsewhere".
Yeah. Like people have a "delete" button that will wipe out all work-related activity. It was a VC firm that bought out our company, so I wasn't surprised.
Mickey Mouse wouldn't get elected. His sexuality would be questioned immediately. He walks around bare-chested, hangs out with a pantless duck, and has yet to produce a single offspring or even marry his girlfriend of 50+ years (not to mention that odd high pitched voice of his).
Bah! Goofy has a far better chance at the presidency. Now there's a complete fool I could respect!
"The president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," Gonzales wrote in a letter to congressional leaders that disclosed the administration's shift in approach.
The program finally gets oversight, so the president decides to shut it down. What I want to know is whether the court will be able to review any or all past uses of the terrorism surveillance. I don't think the administration should be able to say, "It's okay, we're not doing it anymore," and get away with anything they did previously.
I'm reminded of a FullMetal Alchemist quote, "I had to see it for myself...Innocent people don't cover their tracks." I was hoping that the administration was on the up and up, but this is definitely a signal that what they are and were doing has highly questionable legal merit. Far from proof, but highly suspicious looking.
i've been a slashdot fan since 1997. seems like the submissions, and comments, are getting further and further left. wow. seems like there's no centrists any more. or maybe all the conservatives have moved on to other sites. Or maybe they just all got sucked into the big-oil conspiracy vortex.
There are "conservative" opinions here, but they are in the minority. But the bar is usually set pretty high, so only well thought-out posts usually survive. Most conservative posts that I see are usually unsupported liberal bashing, or make a derogatory aside about the people who post here, or repeat the same catch-phrases that the media does without supporting information, and as such usually get modded down. But I have consistently seen conservative posts being modded up when they support their argument. Basically, the slashdot audience seems to like well-thought out arguments and occasional conservative bashing, go figure.
Not to mention troll bait (but just the fact that certain words ARE troll bait should tell you something) but global warming is just one of them.
"Global warming" is not troll bait. It is fact. The earth _is_ getting warmer. Where the argument breaks down is what is causing it and what will happen as a result.
Neither of them has a degree in the physical sciences and nothing they say should be taken as knowledge interpreted by a scientist. I don't care how far you want to twist it, a MD and a BA in government do not make you even remotely qualified to discuss climate change.
A person does _not_ need a degree in a particular field to express an educated or insightful opinion on a topic. Any person with dedication, passion and a keen mind will be able to construct a qualified and reasonable argument on a topic. I have dealt with (and continue to deal with) many people with Ph.D's, and have little doubt that any person who invests a little bit of time could learn 80% of what they know. (In addition, many of the Ph.D's I have met have only done a minimal amount of work to keep their knowledge up to date or even topical.) It is naive and foolish to believe that only a person with a degree in a certain area of science is qualified to discuss a topic. You should not put so high a value on that little piece of paper, or the CV he or she totes around.
Why the world has focused on these unqualified 'spokesmen' to be cheerleaders for their differing sides of the global warming debate is beyond me.
Both Al Gore and Michael Crichton have two things that give them an edge, money and name recognition. Money allows them to dedicate a portion of their lives to educating themselves on the global warming debate. Name recognition gives their side of the debate media coverage, which in turn increases public awareness. It is a good thing that both of them are the unofficial "spokesmen" for global warming (however, it's debateable whether Crichton's single book and occasional remarks would make him a spokesman). Because of them, global warming is one of the forerunner problems in the public's mind. (I'm sure oncology would love to have a world famous person making cancer the biggest problem.)
In short, they may not be climate scientists, but it is a naive and foolish belief to hold that they _must_ be climate scientists to argue for one side of the debate. The educated opinions and insights that they express should not be discredited so easily.
Why would we do that? A report by the UK government said that preventing extreme climate change is much cheaper than dealing with its consequences
True, prevention is most likely cheaper. However, businesses stand to lose a ton of money following all the limits and restrictions, so they will lobby. While overall it would be cheaper to prevent the underlying causes, most big businesses stand to make more money letting it happen and have the average joes pick up the check. People may vote, but politicians listen to lobbyists more often.
We know that the greenhouse effect is real because without it, earth would be frozen solid.
Actually, without an atmosphere or the greenhouse gases, we'd probably be subject to extreme temperatures similar to the moon. (-173 to 100 degrees celcius) The greenhouse gases and the abundant sources of water actually help maintain the earth's equilibrium. (Water is quite a good heat capacitor.) So you're partly right.
But the contribution and origination of the C02 in our atmosphere is something debatable.
Unless the world's animals are having an ongoing farting contest that's lasted decades, I don't really see another possible source of for the CO2. Although you could argue that deforestation is leading to the build up, since the number of plants worldwide are no longer absorbing as much as they used to. But there again deforestation is a human cause (aka: out fault). Volcanoes spew CO2, but they don't really erupt often enough to contribute the amounts that we're seeing.
However, I am interested to hear of alternative sources.
And the current weather is also definitely debatable as to whether it is abnormal or caused by global warming, or if it is a seasonal change due to the long range climate cycles like El Nino.
True, current weather patterns are not really a good indicator of long reaching trends. However, the average yearly temperature has been steadily increasing, which is a good indicator of some kind of global warming occurring.
Fact, people who get their science from the news media instead of scientific reports are stupid.
Fact. Stupid people who watched a 2 hour movie about global warming will believe they are climate experts.
In this age of information, no person can possibly read everything there is to know about everything. As such, some kind of summarization must occur. Where most individuals fail is in the ability to keep an open mind and not blindly choose one side of the argument to believe in. Sadly, most Americans have been brought up in a society that foists false dicotomies on people. "Democrat or Republican", "Support our Troops or Cut and Run", "black or white", etc. In reality, there are often more than two sides to a problem or an argument.
I can only hope that you are not one of these lemmings, Mr. Cranky Kodack from Texas.
This just shows that people don'r really understand what global warming means.
Most people erroneously lump global warming together as both the cause and effect. More clearly stated, "Global Warming" is the term that aptly describes humanity as producing an inordinate amount of greenhouse gases, which in turn is allowing the earth to trap much more of the sun's rays and converting them into heat. Whereas "Global Climate Change" is the likely effect of this process.
- Fact: Humanity is producing a considerable amount of greenhouse gases.
- Fact: Greenhouse gases cause more sunlight to be converted into heat.
Here is where the discussion usually breaks down into fisticuffs. We do know that this unnatural stress on the environment (global warming) will cause the global climate to change. However, we do NOT know exactly what will happen in response to this stress. In the past, global warming was a gradual process, as flora and fauna produce greenhouse gases naturally at a much reduced rate. This time the stress is acute, and we have no real past historical basis to predict what will happen.
Personally, I'm with the scientists on this one. (That this is most likely a "bad thing".) Earth has a nasty habit of responding with mass extinctions whenever it gets hit with something big and bad. However, there is a slim possibility that the earth will just "get warmer", which is not entirely a bad thing, but would make dwindling fresh water supplies a real cause for war and conflict.
So to sum up, "global warming" will most likely cause "global climate change". However, we don't know what exactly will change, but it's likely it'll be bad for us.
I am going to kill my neighbor. Every one here is guilty of not stopping me. Well, at least all Australians.
Technically, if I actually knew who you were and thought you could be serious, then yes, I probably would be guilty. Thankfully, I have no frakkin' idea who you are, so I'm safe.
Huh? Humans are animals. Animals killing off other animals is the quintessential example of natural selection.
We especially need to keep an eye on those insects that call themselves "Cockroaches". I hear they can survive a nuclear holocaust. So it's only a matter of time before they develop the bomb...
I know it claims to be 'open' but a blog isn't anything commercial so maybe these are just beginning petty threats that will lead to a domain squatting lawsuit?
Main Entry: commerce
Pronunciation: 'kä-(")m&rs
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin commercium, from com- + merc-, merx merchandise
1 : social intercourse : interchange of ideas, opinions, or sentiments
2 : the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure blogging would neatly fit under definition #1.
The whole idea of quantum smelling immediately brought Futurama to mind:
Cubert: I didn't realize you were the inventor of the junk heap!
Prof.: That's my price-winning Smelloscope. If a dog craps anywhere in the universe, you can bet I won't be out of the loop. And this is my Universal Translator. Unfortunately, it only translates into an incomprehensible dead language.
how long before we see these things mounted to the top of S.W.A.T. vans for domestic crowd control? And, is that a bad idea?
In it's current form it is only suitable for military use. If this device were to be refashioned for civil use, I'd fully expect a loud buzz or siren to be emitted when the device is in use. Since there is no visible indication of the source of the "heat", I'd expect civil applications to emit an accompanying audible cue as well so that "crowd control" can be more effective.
In Iraq, this device is probably only effective on a large crowd if the crowd knows where the source of the pain is originating from. While it is probably obvious to test subjects where the "heat" is coming from, an educated guess would say that large crowds may panic and potentially stampede. (Yet another reason for Iraqi's to hate the U.S, oh goodie.)
It's probably a better tool for crowd control and riots that existing methods, but it'll probably get a mandatory audible cue if it sees civil deployment.
But he said more needed to be done by the web community in general to encourage people to use the internet to "solve problems" rather than simply abuse politicians or make "incommensurate" demands on them.
Translation: "Waaa! No fair, you changed the rules!"
So the bar to be a "good" politician has been raised? About f*cking time, says I.
All this extra openness that the internet is providing will at least force a smarter breed of politician to develop. (All the dumb ones will be "raked over the coals" by the blogosphere.) There will still be occasional bad eggs that will be smart enough to school the system, but hopefully the ability for outright slimeballs to walk into office is lessened a bit.
Honestly, anything my politician says or does should be available publically with three exceptions:
1. Personal Matters - Family issues, etc.
2. Political Strategizing - Don't want the other side to hear our game plans.
3. National Security - Don't want the "Bad People" to hear our battle plans.
And I think exception #2 is less important (even if the other side hears the plan, they'll probably think it's dumb). I should be able to see a politician's daily calendar, who they met with, and potentially what they said (technology permitting). They're a public servant, and we're their boss. How many employees that you know of are allowed to hide their job activities from their boss?
Anything a politician does on behalf of the people, or by employing the government tools available to him or her should be public record, no exceptions.
Please say someone at Slashdot verified this post with the people at Blackbox voting, and didn't unwittingly just fall for someone's email or post to get the organization in trouble.
Call that a flame or troll if you want (and I'm sure that politically-charged mods who love to abuse their mod privileges will be more than willing to do so); but with the collective hatred for anything republican on Slashdot, things have finally gotten to the point where any statements against Diebold are as knee-jerk or fashionable as the rampant anti-Microsoftism and anti-republicanism that we all see. They're almost as cliché as the "overlord" and "you insensitive clod" comments.
From my observations, Slashdot does mod up insightful Republican-leaning posts on a frequent basis. However, it mods down Republican-leaning trolls and bashes on a regular basis (less than tactful responses). On the flip side Slashdot mods up insightful Democratic-leaning posts on a frequent basis, in addition to modding up Democratic-leaning trolls and bashes on a regular basis (less than tactful responses).
So insightful Republican and Democratic posts get modded up, but so do the Democratic trolls and idiots. There is often a decent argument with both sides being presented here. It's just that the majority of readers here lean Democratic and often promote trolls that lean that way. (Mostly for comedic value, from my observations.)
And, just to clarify, intelligent people don't blindly side with one party over another. That's something that people incapable of critical thought must rely on. And unfortunately, there are a whole lot of those people on Slashdot as well. (Democrat, Republican, Pirate Party, or whatever.)
when you vote you're given a ticket with a number, anyone can go online and see how everyone voted but only you are able to tell which vote was yours by the corresponding ticket number.
This is exactly why ticket numbers are not given out. Voting must remain anonymous to prevent coercion. You like your job? Bring me your ticket stub that says you voted Republican to keep it. You want this unemployment check? Bring me your ticket stub that says you voted Democrat. Etc.
In order for Democracy to be effective, the voters must retain some form of anonymoty to prevent intimidation, coercion and retribution. Democracy would suffer if it did not preserve this.
I'm not sure how the article's author would see the user base reacting. Pick a different platform? How? At what expense? No, Microsoft has got this one in the bag.
I know exactly how the user base will respond: They won't buy it.
Windows XP Professional works fine for me, and as such I've bought my last Microsoft operating system. I will never buy Vista. Microsoft has completely ignored the requests of it's customer pool on this one, and has instead opted for responding with "you'll lump it and like it."
I have no doubt that in a year's time they'll pull all support for non-Vista versions to improve sales. (I also wouldn't put it past them to release virus's that take advantage of XP weaknesses.)
The upside is that if any company out there EVER wanted to finish Microsoft once and for all, now's their chance. If I were Google, I'd announce a user-friendly Linux install, and provide tools to developers for easy driver and software support.
Really, the only way for Microsoft to survive the expected backlash that will be coming is to lock in exclusive software (MS Office is a gimme), and pull support for all non-Vista versions. Yes, Vista will sell. But not near expectations, and it will have a hell of a time trying to convince people to switch.
Bill Gates was smart to leave before this pile of [censored by Vista] hit the market.
Slashdot Mirror
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Dear Rest of World,
Voting appears ineffective. Total system corruption appears inevitable. Please send another copy of manual of Democracy, ours has been misplaced. Please instruct on how to reboot the system.
Help!
- U.S. Citizens.
The average joe knows nothing about the best practices of governance. As such, all you'll get with direct democracy is mob rule. The founders were well aware of this and tried to find the best way to give the "average joe" power, without that same person running the government into the sh'tter.
Democracy-by-proxy works best when people's _interests_ are represented, which I would argue is far more successful in portional representation elections. (No, America doesn't have these!) Portional representation is where you vote for a party, and then the party decides who to hand out the seats to. For example, (using Florida as an example) if there are 100 state senators, and 13.7% voted for the Green Party, 13 seats would be filled by whoever the Green Party thought would best represent and enforce their party beliefs.
I'd argue that our current system is flawed. Namely the House of Representatives is not representative of the country's true interests. Anyone only filling an office for 2 years should be elected via portional representation. Without portional representation, their term is too short to accomplish anything major, and most of the time they are just doing things to get reelected. Portional representation allows the best people a party has to offer to rise to the top and stay there much easier, which tends to guarantee and predict the direction that party will head.
Yeah. Like people have a "delete" button that will wipe out all work-related activity. It was a VC firm that bought out our company, so I wasn't surprised.
Dear Earth,
Which one of you apes put the sponge in the cosmic microwave?
- God
Mickey Mouse wouldn't get elected. His sexuality would be questioned immediately. He walks around bare-chested, hangs out with a pantless duck, and has yet to produce a single offspring or even marry his girlfriend of 50+ years (not to mention that odd high pitched voice of his).
Bah! Goofy has a far better chance at the presidency. Now there's a complete fool I could respect!
I'm reminded of a FullMetal Alchemist quote, "I had to see it for myself...Innocent people don't cover their tracks." I was hoping that the administration was on the up and up, but this is definitely a signal that what they are and were doing has highly questionable legal merit. Far from proof, but highly suspicious looking.
"Global warming" is not troll bait. It is fact. The earth _is_ getting warmer. Where the argument breaks down is what is causing it and what will happen as a result.
Both Al Gore and Michael Crichton have two things that give them an edge, money and name recognition. Money allows them to dedicate a portion of their lives to educating themselves on the global warming debate. Name recognition gives their side of the debate media coverage, which in turn increases public awareness. It is a good thing that both of them are the unofficial "spokesmen" for global warming (however, it's debateable whether Crichton's single book and occasional remarks would make him a spokesman). Because of them, global warming is one of the forerunner problems in the public's mind. (I'm sure oncology would love to have a world famous person making cancer the biggest problem.)
In short, they may not be climate scientists, but it is a naive and foolish belief to hold that they _must_ be climate scientists to argue for one side of the debate. The educated opinions and insights that they express should not be discredited so easily.
Unless the world's animals are having an ongoing farting contest that's lasted decades, I don't really see another possible source of for the CO2. Although you could argue that deforestation is leading to the build up, since the number of plants worldwide are no longer absorbing as much as they used to. But there again deforestation is a human cause (aka: out fault). Volcanoes spew CO2, but they don't really erupt often enough to contribute the amounts that we're seeing.
However, I am interested to hear of alternative sources.
True, current weather patterns are not really a good indicator of long reaching trends. However, the average yearly temperature has been steadily increasing, which is a good indicator of some kind of global warming occurring.
In this age of information, no person can possibly read everything there is to know about everything. As such, some kind of summarization must occur. Where most individuals fail is in the ability to keep an open mind and not blindly choose one side of the argument to believe in. Sadly, most Americans have been brought up in a society that foists false dicotomies on people. "Democrat or Republican", "Support our Troops or Cut and Run", "black or white", etc. In reality, there are often more than two sides to a problem or an argument.
I can only hope that you are not one of these lemmings, Mr. Cranky Kodack from Texas.
- Fact: Humanity is producing a considerable amount of greenhouse gases.
- Fact: Greenhouse gases cause more sunlight to be converted into heat.
Here is where the discussion usually breaks down into fisticuffs. We do know that this unnatural stress on the environment (global warming) will cause the global climate to change. However, we do NOT know exactly what will happen in response to this stress. In the past, global warming was a gradual process, as flora and fauna produce greenhouse gases naturally at a much reduced rate. This time the stress is acute, and we have no real past historical basis to predict what will happen.
Personally, I'm with the scientists on this one. (That this is most likely a "bad thing".) Earth has a nasty habit of responding with mass extinctions whenever it gets hit with something big and bad. However, there is a slim possibility that the earth will just "get warmer", which is not entirely a bad thing, but would make dwindling fresh water supplies a real cause for war and conflict.
So to sum up, "global warming" will most likely cause "global climate change". However, we don't know what exactly will change, but it's likely it'll be bad for us.
br /
Pronunciation: 'kä-(")m&rs
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin commercium, from com- + merc-, merx merchandise
1 : social intercourse : interchange of ideas, opinions, or sentiments
2 : the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure blogging would neatly fit under definition #1.
In Iraq, this device is probably only effective on a large crowd if the crowd knows where the source of the pain is originating from. While it is probably obvious to test subjects where the "heat" is coming from, an educated guess would say that large crowds may panic and potentially stampede. (Yet another reason for Iraqi's to hate the U.S, oh goodie.)
It's probably a better tool for crowd control and riots that existing methods, but it'll probably get a mandatory audible cue if it sees civil deployment.
So the bar to be a "good" politician has been raised? About f*cking time, says I.
All this extra openness that the internet is providing will at least force a smarter breed of politician to develop. (All the dumb ones will be "raked over the coals" by the blogosphere.) There will still be occasional bad eggs that will be smart enough to school the system, but hopefully the ability for outright slimeballs to walk into office is lessened a bit.
Honestly, anything my politician says or does should be available publically with three exceptions:
1. Personal Matters - Family issues, etc.
2. Political Strategizing - Don't want the other side to hear our game plans.
3. National Security - Don't want the "Bad People" to hear our battle plans.
And I think exception #2 is less important (even if the other side hears the plan, they'll probably think it's dumb). I should be able to see a politician's daily calendar, who they met with, and potentially what they said (technology permitting). They're a public servant, and we're their boss. How many employees that you know of are allowed to hide their job activities from their boss?
Anything a politician does on behalf of the people, or by employing the government tools available to him or her should be public record, no exceptions.
Please say someone at Slashdot verified this post with the people at Blackbox voting, and didn't unwittingly just fall for someone's email or post to get the organization in trouble.
So insightful Republican and Democratic posts get modded up, but so do the Democratic trolls and idiots. There is often a decent argument with both sides being presented here. It's just that the majority of readers here lean Democratic and often promote trolls that lean that way. (Mostly for comedic value, from my observations.)
And, just to clarify, intelligent people don't blindly side with one party over another. That's something that people incapable of critical thought must rely on. And unfortunately, there are a whole lot of those people on Slashdot as well. (Democrat, Republican, Pirate Party, or whatever.)
In order for Democracy to be effective, the voters must retain some form of anonymoty to prevent intimidation, coercion and retribution. Democracy would suffer if it did not preserve this.
Let me just respond to Microsoft by saying, "Nice Try. I still won't buy it."
Windows XP Professional works fine for me, and as such I've bought my last Microsoft operating system. I will never buy Vista. Microsoft has completely ignored the requests of it's customer pool on this one, and has instead opted for responding with "you'll lump it and like it."
I have no doubt that in a year's time they'll pull all support for non-Vista versions to improve sales. (I also wouldn't put it past them to release virus's that take advantage of XP weaknesses.)
The upside is that if any company out there EVER wanted to finish Microsoft once and for all, now's their chance. If I were Google, I'd announce a user-friendly Linux install, and provide tools to developers for easy driver and software support.
Really, the only way for Microsoft to survive the expected backlash that will be coming is to lock in exclusive software (MS Office is a gimme), and pull support for all non-Vista versions. Yes, Vista will sell. But not near expectations, and it will have a hell of a time trying to convince people to switch.
Bill Gates was smart to leave before this pile of [censored by Vista] hit the market.