1) Just in case you guys think I'm hanging out with young girls a little too much, I volunteer at a local community theatre. I know at least two girls under 16 who are often cast as parents to people older then them, simply because they are fully developed (So much so that the very first thing we tell new male volunteers is 'She's 15, don't touch her'.), and I know at least three 22-30 year-old women who get cast as adolescents because they are small of stature and breast.
I am doing voter registration this summer for the November election. Because I get maybe 5 seconds to get someone's attention to ask them if they're registered to vote before the old "get out of my way" look comes out, I have to work very hard to make sure I maximize the efficacy of those I ask.
That means, trying my damndest to only ask what are apparently legal adults. Yet even still, I have on multiple occasions found myself surprised by someone answering "I'm only 12!" or "I'm only 13!" when I ask if they're registered to vote (males AND females) - because not only are they fully developed, but they LOOK physically mature. The development of secondary sex characteristics is only the first step - further refinements generate the look of maturity. The age of emotional maturity has not really changed, but physical maturity is getting younger and younger with each half or quarter generation - e.g., every 5 years or so, at least from what I'm observing.
Some of this is the sexualization of young people as seen in movies, ads, etc. and young people's attempt to emulate that. The other is that the healthier and well-fed a population is, the younger it matures.
True. I am not criticizing the technology. I think it is sound. I am criticizing the marketing statement.
Fair enough.
I think the alternative though - something along the lines of "TrueCrypt offers NEAR full disc encryption" is far more confusing and would do a far greater disservice to those non-technical people attempting to use it.
Sorry dude, you're out of luck. The code is still theirs. Their ownership of it is not predicated on whether or not they actually decide to use it.
You can always ask them if they'll give it to you. I've done this successfully. If they really have no interest in it, they might be willing to discard it.
Your answer is basically I could know by being you and having your opinions.
Not at all. You asked how a layman such as yourself could reach such a conclusion. This is simply one method one COULD use. I never said it would guarantee you'd come to the same conclusion I do.
I'm not interested in your conversation so much as exploring how you think you can rationalize your personal and apparent distaste for Clinton in a pretendingly-objective way.
Nice strawman. I never claimed I could, nor will I. It's pointless, since you have your point of view and I have mine. You constructed that standard; I didn't.
Like I said, you were never interested in a conversation of any sort.
Hey, I wasn't saying my assertion was factual:) It does betray my opinion about Hillary, though. One I think is well-informed, but intelligent people can disagree.
I think that's a tic people use to keep it straight between Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. Pity it can have the effect of a diminutive, because I suspect it's not deliberate for a lot of people.
Hillary herself chooses to be referred to this way. Check out her campaign material. If it has the effect of a diminutive, she has nobody to blame but herself.
It's deliberate insofar as Hillary's choice to be referred to that way has allowed/encouraged everyone else to.
Just disregard little Johnny Fox News in the parent post, friend. People like that are irresponsible idiots who will manufacture any fact to try to justify their opinions about a candidate.
Pathetic child. Any dissenting opinion to your own is seen as "people who are irresponsible idiots." You're a million times worse than anything you could ever accuse me of being.
Perhaps you misread my comment. By, "Absolutely, experience is only one measure by which to judge a candidate", I'm saying that there are indeed other qualities to consider. You seem to have taken it to mean that experience is the only measure worth looking at.
That'll teach me to slow down.. I did read it the wrong way. I apologize.
There are many aspects to consider between various candidates, and between Obama and Clinton, on the experience front, Clinton comes out ahead.
I suppose this is where we disagree. It's a rather subjective measure, I suppose, I think raw number of years says little, and that leaves us placing different weight on various aspects of experience (for instance, I'd say Obama's many years outside the country, although not in an official capcity, give him a perspective of the world few Americans will share, but I can see where some would disagree).
Why has Barack Obama himself readily conceded that Hillary Clinton did heavy lifting on a number of issues when she was first lady? I suspect it's because she actually did. Unless you're trying to imply that Obama is a liar?
Not at all. I'm using hyperbole to point how the ridiculousness of the point of view that Obama doesn't have enough experience to be president.
Also, most people would absolutely resent your implication that a first lady cannot be an influential and politically active figure.
Absolutely, experience is only one measure by which to judge a candidate
You're telling me that a (hypothetical) psychotic sociopath with 25 years of foreign policy experience would be a better candidate than someone with fewer years but with obvious qualities like wisdom, thoughtfulness, and an ability to inspire?
Nope. Even you wouldn't agree to that if pressed - because Hillary doesn't have the experience necessary to be president either, by that measure. Nobody does, except ex-presidents.
but to argue that Obama's political experience is on par with or surpasses Clinton's is ludicrous.
No, to argue that Clinton's experience is in any way relevant to becoming president is the hallmark of someone who's already chosen their candidate and sees what they want to see.
I'm not disputing that Clinton has the experience necessary to be president, because I'm actually capable of being fair about the subject. You, however, are not, because you've chosen your side and you'll vilify anyone necessary in order to defend it.
I love how Hillary had to run for senate outside her home state. Was rather smart of her really, she knew her home state wouldn't be dumb enough to vote her into any sort of public office. Lets hope the majority of democrates are smart enough to know not to vote for Hillary and her conservative ideology wrapped in "think of the children" rhetoric.
Oh it's much worse than that. A disproportionate number of US Presidents have first been senators in New York. Hillary ran there because she believed it to be her best route to the White House. She's so hungry for power that she can taste it, and she's been planning this for years.
I'd consider anyone with significant experience as a governor or senator to pass the bar on this one. In Obama's case, however, he's been in the Senate for a very short time, and has spent most of that time running for President. Hillary's experience is genuine; she was part of the White House inner circle for 8 years, and has been a heavy hitter in the Senate, not just a seat-filler. I know she inspires intense vitriol amongst conservatives, but she's certainly experienced enough to be a credible candidate.
Obama has been in *actual* public service longer than Hillary - 10 years to her 6+. You're essentially arguing that you'd be happy to get open heart surgery by a heart surgeon's wife just because she might have been exposed to the work he did.
That sort of position is just an apology for the fact that Hillary's "experience" argument is a terrible one.
Besides, this whole emphasis on "experience" is disingenuous at best, a position taken in order to avoid talking about qualities such as leadership, intelligence, courage, fairness, judgment, temperament and integrity--qualities that truly matter in a leader. The same arguments about inexperience were made against Bill Clinton when he was running for president, and he did fine, and yet supposedly more experience public servants like.. oh.. George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney have made an absolute mess of world politics.
If Hillary is experienced enough to be a credible candidate (and I think she is), then so is Obama. Try reading up on his actual experience before you believe Hillary's propaganda about him not having any experience.
It also works if the person doing the intimidating has a.45 caliber revolver pointed at your head. Or your child's or spouse's head. Or has already beaten the lower part of your legs to dust and is threatening to do the same thing to someone you care about.
Why do you think the ballot is secret in the first place?!
To some degree, infinite copyright hasn't stopped such things, but only inasmuch as people break copyright.
The only reason it hasn't changed things much is because (effectively) infinite copyright is relatively new.
The REAL test will be in two or three generations when we look at the quality and variety of creative work coming out of people and industry. When we realize it all bares a striking resemblance to all other entertainment produced in the 50 years prior, then we'll begin to get some idea of what infinite copyright really does to a society - it causes stagnation.
we are talking about the corruption of judicial entities because of political influence. All that I am saying is that it doesn't exist, the person claiming it did is wrong.
If you believe that, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. You can't be that naive.
And for what it's worth, morality can never be removed from a debate. Our morals define our character and it is our character that guides our actions.
For you to be sitting here making purely legalistic arguments in defense of torture tells me you know you can never win the moral argument, and tells me that deep down in your mind, in the part you don't want to pay attention to, you know you're wrong.
Apparently you've somehow managed to remain ignorant of the Federalist Papers....
Apparently you see what you want to see.
I have read the Federalist Papers. What I'm talking about are social norms that dictate how we interpret our laws, the parts of our society we DON'T write down.
I do see this as rational and understandable, but I cannot accept it as "applies it to all humans equally" and not calling it "hypocritical".
I was the GP.
At any rate - yes, our founders struggled with the seeming hypocrisy of the issue for the rest of their lives. Jefferson was especially bothered by it, which is why he freed his slaves in his will. It was a terrible compromise made so that the US could be formed at all; the Southern States would not have joined the Revolutionary War had they not been promised that they would be able to keep their slaves, nor would they have ratified the US Constitution. In that case, unity was chosen as a higher value than the ideals the nation was founded on.
Some call the Civil War the "last battle of the American Revolution" precisely because it finally addressed that issue.
Killing people from your own nation just because they want to get rid of government is bit puzzling to me. Should the south be considered conquered territory? This sure sounds like flaming but I really want to know.
I'm American; personally? I don't justify it. Some say it was an overall good because it eliminated slavery, which is a fair enough argument; the problem I have with it is that the Civil War was used to justify solidifying the power of the Federal Government over the many US States. It was at that point that the centralized power of the US began to grow, and we see what the effect of that concentration of power has been.
Abraham Lincoln justified the war in legalese by saying there was no justification to dissolve the union, or more precisely, that there is no exit clause in the Constitution if States decided they no longer wanted to be part of it. It was a calculated risk backed up by military force but the justification he used has always been questionable.
It was a laudable goal to eliminate slavery, but that wasn't the reason the Civil War started; it was only a very small part of it. Not until 1863 did Lincoln say that abolishing slavery was one of the goals; prior to that, it was all about putting down the rebellion.
The British Crown would not have stripped colonials of citizenship, for the simple reason they didn't have citizenship. Nor did any resident of Britain from the lowliest Cockney tinker to the haughtiest peer of the realm, for the simple reason the Crown didn't have citizens, it had subjects.
I should have chosen my words more carefully: they'd be stripped of the protections of the Magna Carta and associated law by merely declaring them enemies of the crown. Such abuse is well documented.
Although I agree with your philosophy, I don't think your argument holds water.
Fair enough.
As much as I agree that the people have human rights, and the Bill of Rights reflects this, people can and do make serious arguments that it doesn't apply to people who are aliens.
And on principle I simply can't accept those arguments. Anyone who is believed to have done something so heinous should have such evidence presented against them in a public court of law. Law, justice, its practice, and people's faith in the fairness of that law is seriously compromised when "justice" becomes something done in secret. I think the value of transparency and general faith in the principles of one's government are greater than the value of some supposed secret.
Whether it did or not would probably have been clear to every patriotic American in the first decades of independence.
I ponder on that point frequently; it's unfortunate more of our founders' ideas weren't explicitly written down. So much of what they took for granted has changed. They KNEW it was inevitable that we'd lose sight of the principles on which this country was founded; Jefferson wrote extensively on the subject.
Then, sometimes I think that BECAUSE they knew it was inevitable, they didn't attempt to stave it off; and instead allowed for the situation when revolutions would have to be fought again, because attempting to hold off the need for revolutions pretty much prolongs the inevitable.
And then, sometimes, I get tired of thinking of the whole thing and wish I could be as indifferent as everyone else seems to be..
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Yes I do. Thank you :)
"Using a word in a way other than it's intended meaning - now that's IRONY!!" /Bender
I am doing voter registration this summer for the November election. Because I get maybe 5 seconds to get someone's attention to ask them if they're registered to vote before the old "get out of my way" look comes out, I have to work very hard to make sure I maximize the efficacy of those I ask.
That means, trying my damndest to only ask what are apparently legal adults. Yet even still, I have on multiple occasions found myself surprised by someone answering "I'm only 12!" or "I'm only 13!" when I ask if they're registered to vote (males AND females) - because not only are they fully developed, but they LOOK physically mature. The development of secondary sex characteristics is only the first step - further refinements generate the look of maturity. The age of emotional maturity has not really changed, but physical maturity is getting younger and younger with each half or quarter generation - e.g., every 5 years or so, at least from what I'm observing.
Some of this is the sexualization of young people as seen in movies, ads, etc. and young people's attempt to emulate that. The other is that the healthier and well-fed a population is, the younger it matures.
I think the alternative though - something along the lines of "TrueCrypt offers NEAR full disc encryption" is far more confusing and would do a far greater disservice to those non-technical people attempting to use it.
Sorry dude, you're out of luck. The code is still theirs. Their ownership of it is not predicated on whether or not they actually decide to use it.
You can always ask them if they'll give it to you. I've done this successfully. If they really have no interest in it, they might be willing to discard it.
Not at all. You asked how a layman such as yourself could reach such a conclusion. This is simply one method one COULD use. I never said it would guarantee you'd come to the same conclusion I do.
Nice strawman. I never claimed I could, nor will I. It's pointless, since you have your point of view and I have mine. You constructed that standard; I didn't.
Like I said, you were never interested in a conversation of any sort.
Umm.. by observing the candidate's behavior, words, voting record, etc.? Of course you can't decide merely by hearing the person's name.
Not that it really matters, because...
You weren't really interested in a conversation anyway.
Hey, I wasn't saying my assertion was factual :) It does betray my opinion about Hillary, though. One I think is well-informed, but intelligent people can disagree.
Hillary herself chooses to be referred to this way. Check out her campaign material. If it has the effect of a diminutive, she has nobody to blame but herself.
It's deliberate insofar as Hillary's choice to be referred to that way has allowed/encouraged everyone else to.
Hmm, I see. I suppose any factually negative information about Hillary would be seen as 'bashing' as well.
Pathetic child. Any dissenting opinion to your own is seen as "people who are irresponsible idiots." You're a million times worse than anything you could ever accuse me of being.
Hey, there's a first time for everything
That'll teach me to slow down.. I did read it the wrong way. I apologize.
I suppose this is where we disagree. It's a rather subjective measure, I suppose, I think raw number of years says little, and that leaves us placing different weight on various aspects of experience (for instance, I'd say Obama's many years outside the country, although not in an official capcity, give him a perspective of the world few Americans will share, but I can see where some would disagree).
Somehow, the above grammar was completely hosed.
"point how" = "point out"
Not at all. I'm using hyperbole to point how the ridiculousness of the point of view that Obama doesn't have enough experience to be president.
See above.
You're telling me that a (hypothetical) psychotic sociopath with 25 years of foreign policy experience would be a better candidate than someone with fewer years but with obvious qualities like wisdom, thoughtfulness, and an ability to inspire?
Nope. Even you wouldn't agree to that if pressed - because Hillary doesn't have the experience necessary to be president either, by that measure. Nobody does, except ex-presidents.
No, to argue that Clinton's experience is in any way relevant to becoming president is the hallmark of someone who's already chosen their candidate and sees what they want to see.
I'm not disputing that Clinton has the experience necessary to be president, because I'm actually capable of being fair about the subject. You, however, are not, because you've chosen your side and you'll vilify anyone necessary in order to defend it.
Obama has been in *actual* public service longer than Hillary - 10 years to her 6+. You're essentially arguing that you'd be happy to get open heart surgery by a heart surgeon's wife just because she might have been exposed to the work he did.
That sort of position is just an apology for the fact that Hillary's "experience" argument is a terrible one.
Besides, this whole emphasis on "experience" is disingenuous at best, a position taken in order to avoid talking about qualities such as leadership, intelligence, courage, fairness, judgment, temperament and integrity--qualities that truly matter in a leader. The same arguments about inexperience were made against Bill Clinton when he was running for president, and he did fine, and yet supposedly more experience public servants like.. oh.. George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney have made an absolute mess of world politics.
If Hillary is experienced enough to be a credible candidate (and I think she is), then so is Obama. Try reading up on his actual experience before you believe Hillary's propaganda about him not having any experience.
It also works if the person doing the intimidating has a
Why do you think the ballot is secret in the first place?!
Ahh..
The REAL test will be in two or three generations when we look at the quality and variety of creative work coming out of people and industry. When we realize it all bares a striking resemblance to all other entertainment produced in the 50 years prior, then we'll begin to get some idea of what infinite copyright really does to a society - it causes stagnation.
If you believe that, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. You can't be that naive.
And for what it's worth, morality can never be removed from a debate. Our morals define our character and it is our character that guides our actions.
For you to be sitting here making purely legalistic arguments in defense of torture tells me you know you can never win the moral argument, and tells me that deep down in your mind, in the part you don't want to pay attention to, you know you're wrong.
Apparently you see what you want to see.
I have read the Federalist Papers. What I'm talking about are social norms that dictate how we interpret our laws, the parts of our society we DON'T write down.
I was the GP.
At any rate - yes, our founders struggled with the seeming hypocrisy of the issue for the rest of their lives. Jefferson was especially bothered by it, which is why he freed his slaves in his will. It was a terrible compromise made so that the US could be formed at all; the Southern States would not have joined the Revolutionary War had they not been promised that they would be able to keep their slaves, nor would they have ratified the US Constitution. In that case, unity was chosen as a higher value than the ideals the nation was founded on.
Some call the Civil War the "last battle of the American Revolution" precisely because it finally addressed that issue.
I'm American; personally? I don't justify it. Some say it was an overall good because it eliminated slavery, which is a fair enough argument; the problem I have with it is that the Civil War was used to justify solidifying the power of the Federal Government over the many US States. It was at that point that the centralized power of the US began to grow, and we see what the effect of that concentration of power has been.
Abraham Lincoln justified the war in legalese by saying there was no justification to dissolve the union, or more precisely, that there is no exit clause in the Constitution if States decided they no longer wanted to be part of it. It was a calculated risk backed up by military force but the justification he used has always been questionable.
It was a laudable goal to eliminate slavery, but that wasn't the reason the Civil War started; it was only a very small part of it. Not until 1863 did Lincoln say that abolishing slavery was one of the goals; prior to that, it was all about putting down the rebellion.
I should have chosen my words more carefully: they'd be stripped of the protections of the Magna Carta and associated law by merely declaring them enemies of the crown. Such abuse is well documented.
Fair enough.
And on principle I simply can't accept those arguments. Anyone who is believed to have done something so heinous should have such evidence presented against them in a public court of law. Law, justice, its practice, and people's faith in the fairness of that law is seriously compromised when "justice" becomes something done in secret. I think the value of transparency and general faith in the principles of one's government are greater than the value of some supposed secret.
I ponder on that point frequently; it's unfortunate more of our founders' ideas weren't explicitly written down. So much of what they took for granted has changed. They KNEW it was inevitable that we'd lose sight of the principles on which this country was founded; Jefferson wrote extensively on the subject.
Then, sometimes I think that BECAUSE they knew it was inevitable, they didn't attempt to stave it off; and instead allowed for the situation when revolutions would have to be fought again, because attempting to hold off the need for revolutions pretty much prolongs the inevitable.
And then, sometimes, I get tired of thinking of the whole thing and wish I could be as indifferent as everyone else seems to be..