Franklin has been quoted many ways on the same topic -- as all quotes are. For me this isn't not about a "greater good" or weight-scale ethics -- as any serious study of ethics will demonstrate the flaws of that theory. Our legal system, social structures and governments have grown out of totalitarian states where the people rebelled and revolted to gain certain fundamental rights -- rights that are now under attack. Why are people innocent until proven guilty? Why can people not be held without charge and presentation of evidence? Why does conviction of crime require burden of proof on the prosecution and absence of reasonable doubt? Because the rights of the innocent massively outweigh the rights of the guilty. Therefore, it is far better to let a guilty person go than convict an innocent person. These ideas have been formed through the years of oppression whereby governments and the upper-class ignored the rights of the innocent to ensure justice for the guilty. I am not sure where you are making the assumption of God-given rights; I would argue that these are hard fought and earned rights and that God has little to do with them. Maybe if you had read the Bible you would also see that God told even the slaves to be content in their position and serve their master loyally. We have a right to private conversation because we demand it -- if you want to so easily give up that right then my quote from Franklin still stands as I used it.
It should be clear to everyone by now that the government cannot be trusted to respect the privacy of its citizens. Pushing for stricter controls at the governmental level is futile, since the Powers That Be have absolutely no qualms about sidestepping any troublesome rules and regulations that stand between them and their agenda.
We are the creators of the democratic totalitarian state.
The true "Powers That Be" are the people. As people we have the power to govern our own state and restrict the government's snooping. The NSA can be disbanded, those that broke the rules jailed, and the path of the government reoriented. Unfortunately, a far greater level of education and political will would be required to restore the decision making process to the people. For as long as the people are afraid of terrorists, crime, and the "axis of evil", the people will willingly give up personal freedoms in vain hope of personal security.
Those who would give up a little freedom to gain a little security, deserve neither and lose both. -- Ben Franklin
Because I'm not the average American, douchebag.
Well, if that is true then money doesn't give a flying fuck about you. But my guess, is that on average, most Americans would say they are "not the average American" (in regards to complicity to advertisement) -- which makes me a douchebag and you the average American. Ironically, you posted as "Anonymous Coward".
Marketing works, even the stuff you hate. The problem is that these marketing companies are spending billions of dollars a year on researching and presenting new marketing techniques to sell you stuff you didn't know you needed. Then people have the smug arrogance to say, "Well, it doesn't effect me.". Really? Why then does the average American spend 103% of what they make? The truth is that marketing companies are very very good a getting you to think you need something and that somehow this company finally came out with what you are looking for. Whiter whites, iPods, new drugs, and a Coke. And the more data they can grab on what you do, the better they can get at making you need stuff. So you lie when people ask you for information? Well, a little thing called the laws of large numbers and demographics means that what you aren't saying about yourself, someone else is. Using even basic 101 level stats you can tell who is lieing and who is telling the truth once your sample size is big enough... and once the sample size is big enough they can pick out the truth and scrap the rest with the stroke of a key and come out with a probability of your profile, what products you would like and how you would like them presented. Maybe they aren't quite their yet, but this isn't sci-fi, this is just basic stats.
Most political issues are not a Left vs Right issue. Unfortunately many people find that the comfort of a simple left/right alignment releases them from the responsibility of actual critical thought. The argument get boiled down to a fight between the "loony-left" and the "self-righteous right" -- and I am sure the politicians would like to keep it that way. As long as the public keeps using this oversimplification (and often gross misrepresentation) of political theory, they policies will never be subject to much real thought. Both sides will just spew insults and half-truths to support or tear-down the position. In general, the moment people start claiming the leftness or rightness of a political theory I simply tune out, because obviously this person isn't interested in a conversation. The idea has already been pigeon-holed and the merit of the idea has been decided by the political group pitched it. So go back to your political demi-gods, get your brain back, and stop judging in Red vs. Blue, or left vs. right, and THINK!
"This is, of course, a pointless piece of product re-positioning, symptomatic of modern business's obsession with branding above and beyond the call of sense."
Obviously this blogger has never taken a basic marketing class in his 80's university classes. As one marketing giant once stated: "If you are too intelligent to be swayed by advertisement, then why, when I say 'Jolly Green Giant', you think frozen peas?". The power of branding is extreme and Nintendo realises that although their brand strikes a cord with those who grew-up with Mario and Co., everyone else sees Nintendo as a waste of time for young boys. Nintendo is realises that seizing the new "casual gamer" market can't be done through that lens and so is providing the new customer a way to look at the product without thinking of Mario and classic video games. To market everything under the Nintendo brand would make a difficult barrier for the new user and taint the brand image for the old user.
First off, Fascism and Dictatorships are mutually exclusive -- so I would say Webster's is wrong. It is entirely plausible to have a democratic, fascist state, just like it is plausible to have a democratic, communist state. However, while being mutually exclusive, they are complimentary -- the degree of public support/control required to effectively run a fascist or communist state is easier to attain through a dictatorship than a democracy. Also note, that many fascist states started as democracies -- Hitler moved up in politics through a democracy. He was never elected, but instead claimed a national emergency and had the courts grant him leadership... much like Bush's first election BTW. Second, while Bush has not been forcibly (with physical power) suppressing opposition and criticism, he has been forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism through Nationalism with statements like, "You are with us or you are with the terrorists", "Let us not tolerate conspiracy theories". Bush also enjoys extreme control over the media, which has largest control over public opinion. The media has ridiculed dissent and continually pushed the US Government's position on every story. And if you pay close attention, civil liberties have been rejected continually and the US government has been claiming "State Secrecy" to avoid all criminal prosecution. Thirdly, and this one is really easy: Mussolini himself said "FASCISM SHOULD MORE PROPERLY BE CALLED CORPORATISM, SINCE IT IS THE MERGER OF STATE AND CORPORATE POWER.". If you can honestly say the biggest player in US politics (including the entire democracy) is NOT the corporations, well, I would be very surprised. Fourthly, I think the whole world realises the extreme Nationalism of the US. Unilateral war actions, anti-immigration policies, constant focus on protecting "America", are just some of the clues. Even Democrats are promoting anti-flag burning legislation. Criticism of the war efforts is seen as un-American. The polar view of the world, that America is right and everyone else is ignorant (Iraq and the UN). Finally, if you can't see the racism in the US Administration, well then you aren't looking. I could start with New Orleans, move on to Immigration policy, dwell on the racial profiling at the boarders, and finish with a long review of US foreign policy. Ultimately, racism isn't a requirement of fascism, but a scapegoat is often required. Currently that scapegoat is "Islamofascist Terrorists", the great evil of the world. And the public is willing to suffer restrictions on civil liberties and grant power to government to deal with this problem. If you really want to be a patriot, remember what Ben Franklin said: "A country of citizens willing to give up a little liberty in exchange for a little security deserves neither and will loose both."
Attracted by a flashy, hip marketing and packaging, customers flocked to the Mac store. Once entering the "Mac World", customers found their experience, while aesthetically pleasing, was glitchy and bugged. Soon the customers realised that their Mac Experience was an exclusive experience, with no options outside the Mac World. While they could still see the outside world, they were not allowed to interact with it. The feeling of being trapped set in. Once serious problems began to develop, Mac was unable to solve the problems it had created and was force to call in a third party to undo to mess.
As a long time gamer I have never owned a console. I have always followed the matra: "Anything your console can do, my PC can do better". So, yet again, my PC is already out-performing the Xbox and Sony offers nothing but more beef -- and my PC will just pack on a few more pounds itself. But the Wii... wow. This thing touches on something that the new Hollywood-like gaming industry has fogotten. Hardware specs and graphics do not make a game... any more than a pile of icing makes a cake. The Wii, imho, is tapping back into the idea of "gaming" and then taking it in its logical direction (which is not better rendering speeds). For the first time ever, I will be buying a console system. I finally see a system that says "I am a gamer" and is backed by a company which, in taking such a risk, is making obvious its understanding of gaming. The view from here is that the Wii will be a helluvalotta fun. Sony and Microsoft, well you can kiss my PC's shiny metal ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Franklin has been quoted many ways on the same topic -- as all quotes are. For me this isn't not about a "greater good" or weight-scale ethics -- as any serious study of ethics will demonstrate the flaws of that theory. Our legal system, social structures and governments have grown out of totalitarian states where the people rebelled and revolted to gain certain fundamental rights -- rights that are now under attack. Why are people innocent until proven guilty? Why can people not be held without charge and presentation of evidence? Why does conviction of crime require burden of proof on the prosecution and absence of reasonable doubt? Because the rights of the innocent massively outweigh the rights of the guilty. Therefore, it is far better to let a guilty person go than convict an innocent person. These ideas have been formed through the years of oppression whereby governments and the upper-class ignored the rights of the innocent to ensure justice for the guilty. I am not sure where you are making the assumption of God-given rights; I would argue that these are hard fought and earned rights and that God has little to do with them. Maybe if you had read the Bible you would also see that God told even the slaves to be content in their position and serve their master loyally. We have a right to private conversation because we demand it -- if you want to so easily give up that right then my quote from Franklin still stands as I used it.
The true "Powers That Be" are the people. As people we have the power to govern our own state and restrict the government's snooping. The NSA can be disbanded, those that broke the rules jailed, and the path of the government reoriented. Unfortunately, a far greater level of education and political will would be required to restore the decision making process to the people. For as long as the people are afraid of terrorists, crime, and the "axis of evil", the people will willingly give up personal freedoms in vain hope of personal security.
Because I'm not the average American, douchebag. Well, if that is true then money doesn't give a flying fuck about you. But my guess, is that on average, most Americans would say they are "not the average American" (in regards to complicity to advertisement) -- which makes me a douchebag and you the average American. Ironically, you posted as "Anonymous Coward".
Marketing works, even the stuff you hate. The problem is that these marketing companies are spending billions of dollars a year on researching and presenting new marketing techniques to sell you stuff you didn't know you needed. Then people have the smug arrogance to say, "Well, it doesn't effect me.". Really? Why then does the average American spend 103% of what they make? The truth is that marketing companies are very very good a getting you to think you need something and that somehow this company finally came out with what you are looking for. Whiter whites, iPods, new drugs, and a Coke. And the more data they can grab on what you do, the better they can get at making you need stuff. So you lie when people ask you for information? Well, a little thing called the laws of large numbers and demographics means that what you aren't saying about yourself, someone else is. Using even basic 101 level stats you can tell who is lieing and who is telling the truth once your sample size is big enough... and once the sample size is big enough they can pick out the truth and scrap the rest with the stroke of a key and come out with a probability of your profile, what products you would like and how you would like them presented. Maybe they aren't quite their yet, but this isn't sci-fi, this is just basic stats.
Most political issues are not a Left vs Right issue. Unfortunately many people find that the comfort of a simple left/right alignment releases them from the responsibility of actual critical thought. The argument get boiled down to a fight between the "loony-left" and the "self-righteous right" -- and I am sure the politicians would like to keep it that way. As long as the public keeps using this oversimplification (and often gross misrepresentation) of political theory, they policies will never be subject to much real thought. Both sides will just spew insults and half-truths to support or tear-down the position. In general, the moment people start claiming the leftness or rightness of a political theory I simply tune out, because obviously this person isn't interested in a conversation. The idea has already been pigeon-holed and the merit of the idea has been decided by the political group pitched it. So go back to your political demi-gods, get your brain back, and stop judging in Red vs. Blue, or left vs. right, and THINK!
Obviously this blogger has never taken a basic marketing class in his 80's university classes. As one marketing giant once stated: "If you are too intelligent to be swayed by advertisement, then why, when I say 'Jolly Green Giant', you think frozen peas?". The power of branding is extreme and Nintendo realises that although their brand strikes a cord with those who grew-up with Mario and Co., everyone else sees Nintendo as a waste of time for young boys. Nintendo is realises that seizing the new "casual gamer" market can't be done through that lens and so is providing the new customer a way to look at the product without thinking of Mario and classic video games. To market everything under the Nintendo brand would make a difficult barrier for the new user and taint the brand image for the old user.
First off, Fascism and Dictatorships are mutually exclusive -- so I would say Webster's is wrong. It is entirely plausible to have a democratic, fascist state, just like it is plausible to have a democratic, communist state. However, while being mutually exclusive, they are complimentary -- the degree of public support/control required to effectively run a fascist or communist state is easier to attain through a dictatorship than a democracy. Also note, that many fascist states started as democracies -- Hitler moved up in politics through a democracy. He was never elected, but instead claimed a national emergency and had the courts grant him leadership... much like Bush's first election BTW.
Second, while Bush has not been forcibly (with physical power) suppressing opposition and criticism, he has been forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism through Nationalism with statements like, "You are with us or you are with the terrorists", "Let us not tolerate conspiracy theories". Bush also enjoys extreme control over the media, which has largest control over public opinion. The media has ridiculed dissent and continually pushed the US Government's position on every story. And if you pay close attention, civil liberties have been rejected continually and the US government has been claiming "State Secrecy" to avoid all criminal prosecution.
Thirdly, and this one is really easy: Mussolini himself said "FASCISM SHOULD MORE PROPERLY BE CALLED CORPORATISM, SINCE IT IS THE MERGER OF STATE AND CORPORATE POWER.". If you can honestly say the biggest player in US politics (including the entire democracy) is NOT the corporations, well, I would be very surprised.
Fourthly, I think the whole world realises the extreme Nationalism of the US. Unilateral war actions, anti-immigration policies, constant focus on protecting "America", are just some of the clues. Even Democrats are promoting anti-flag burning legislation. Criticism of the war efforts is seen as un-American. The polar view of the world, that America is right and everyone else is ignorant (Iraq and the UN).
Finally, if you can't see the racism in the US Administration, well then you aren't looking. I could start with New Orleans, move on to Immigration policy, dwell on the racial profiling at the boarders, and finish with a long review of US foreign policy. Ultimately, racism isn't a requirement of fascism, but a scapegoat is often required. Currently that scapegoat is "Islamofascist Terrorists", the great evil of the world. And the public is willing to suffer restrictions on civil liberties and grant power to government to deal with this problem.
If you really want to be a patriot, remember what Ben Franklin said: "A country of citizens willing to give up a little liberty in exchange for a little security deserves neither and will loose both."
Attracted by a flashy, hip marketing and packaging, customers flocked to the Mac store. Once entering the "Mac World", customers found their experience, while aesthetically pleasing, was glitchy and bugged. Soon the customers realised that their Mac Experience was an exclusive experience, with no options outside the Mac World. While they could still see the outside world, they were not allowed to interact with it. The feeling of being trapped set in. Once serious problems began to develop, Mac was unable to solve the problems it had created and was force to call in a third party to undo to mess.
As a long time gamer I have never owned a console. I have always followed the matra: "Anything your console can do, my PC can do better". So, yet again, my PC is already out-performing the Xbox and Sony offers nothing but more beef -- and my PC will just pack on a few more pounds itself. But the Wii... wow. This thing touches on something that the new Hollywood-like gaming industry has fogotten. Hardware specs and graphics do not make a game... any more than a pile of icing makes a cake. The Wii, imho, is tapping back into the idea of "gaming" and then taking it in its logical direction (which is not better rendering speeds). For the first time ever, I will be buying a console system. I finally see a system that says "I am a gamer" and is backed by a company which, in taking such a risk, is making obvious its understanding of gaming. The view from here is that the Wii will be a helluvalotta fun. Sony and Microsoft, well you can kiss my PC's shiny metal ass.