ParanoiA

This is awesome. It's just too bad we don't get more of that on every subject. You wouldn't listen to a scientist about acting, so why listen to an actor about science?

There, I added the missing bit inferred by the arguments in this thread. Clearly the military is a bunch of yes-men pansies that choose to do wrong and hide behind their superiors with the pretense that they don't have time nor the platform or rank to have a talk about it and argue it all out on the battlefield. As if... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Interesting how even the most objective, obvious analysis of unlawful orders could still result in this dilemma, let alone subjective after-the-fact haggling that remains open for interpretation. Too bad. Hang 'em anyway. That's a great way to promote confidence in putting your life on the line, not to mention a splendid version of 'thanks for risking your life while I sit here all comfy at home in my controlled environments, women, beer, TV, good times; judging your decision to obey your superiors is so much easier without all the sand and sweat and bullets flying'.

Honestly, I usually never do, for the same reasons. I don't want to know plots or anything. However, I had not planned on seeing it. I've been disconnected from Star Trek ever since TNG went off the air. I fell for the disparaging remarks by die hard Trek fans and went to read about it to see how they screwed it up. And then I was surprised to learn how Nimoy supported the film, Gene Roddenbury's wife, now deceased, doing the computer voice, and Abrams' insistence on high security - actors receiving their lines one scene at a time and so forth. And the high praise for Quinto's performance, including Nimoy's compliment that he brought a fresh dimension to Spock. That stuff interested me and now I want to see it really bad. But as far as plot and trailers, I've only seen the previews on TV. I wouldn't want to know any of that before seeing the flick. I'm just one of those guys that really enjoys the "process" of creation. I love behind the scenes stuff on movies, books, music, any of that. I'm fascinated by it.

It isn't hard to do...you could say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. (I couldn't find a thread on this, but I'm just sure this was a topic at some point.) So what if there were no parties? What if we didn't create partisanship and competition right out of the gate by proposing the whole pyschological notion of grouping up, permanently more or less? Here's a decent answer I found doing a google search on "What purpose do political parties serve?" If that's a fair list, then I can see the immediate attraction and the obvious contention. Consolidating the message of a group is why marijuana laws continue to put good people in prison, because groups of people are limiting their thoughts right out of the gate. Priority can still take place without "limiting the platform". The word "platform" is insulting as it presupposes a limited scope of purpose. Total BS for folks making 160 grand or more a year with an amazing, lifetime benefits package. Candidates are supposed to share values with their constituents, not a group of legislators. And raising money for their candidates is precisely how they are able to keep out "fringe" party candidates altogether, cementing this party duo-poly we're stuck with. I'm not sure if this list represents the thoughts of those in here or not. I'm expecting to learn something here, because there must be a good reason for parties beyond what I've been able to find. From what I can tell, political parties are a way of consolidating power by grouping up. This is an insulting compromise and creates the obligation to a group of people that they don't represent, at the expense of those that elected them - the ones they are supposed to represent; their constituents. And I don't think I have to remind a forum full of scientists about the psychological nature of competition - how even shirt color can cause the "us vs them" mentallity that ruins the point of our government - diversity of ideas and debate that represents the people's voice. What do you all think? Do we really need political parties? Without them, wouldn't we have to actually go learn about someone instead of using guilt by association due to the 'R' or 'D' label?

I've read too much about the movie and now my expectations are way up. I like the changes and deviation from the Star Trek canon I've heard so far (not sure if I'm using that word correctly, doesn't make a lot of sense to me..) Does anyone know how long it is? I'm taking my kids Sunday afternoon, and I'm looking forward to yelling "Go Star Wars!!" to any trekkies I run into. Maybe an inquisitive reference to Darth Vader might be fun too. 'Hey, does Kirk get his first light saber in this one?'

And I guess that's right where we split. I cannot separate the business from the individual since, in reality, they are not separate at all. The business does not run on its own without people. It's not an end table or a batting machine. It's people engaged in trade competing with others to gain capital. Corporations, businesses and so forth are just grouped up people in various forms, using their numbers and cooperation to gain an advantage in the competition of trade. I translate your point to mean that you are for individual rights, and not group rights. I still admire your position more than most. I don't think very many are really for individual rights as much as they claim. And I guess I understand your position a little better too.

Corporations did not, but businesses did and I do not believe Franklin was excepting the individuals in a business. Corporations are made up of individuals and when you cap an 'individual's' salary, for instance, you have infringed on an individual's liberties. When the state encroaches on the market and buys up business they threaten the liberties of individuals in that market. That's just more upper level opportunity taken away from the pool of free citizens that could have and should have been occupying that space. Not to mention it puts too much power in the hands of pandering politicians. These liberties may seem vague to you, they don't to me. Business is just declaring an individual's motives. Me, ParanoiA, acting in the capacity of successfully acquiring capital. It's not a non-human entity, it's quite the opposite. And unlike liberaltarians, I follow through without judgement. I don't pick and choose who gets to be free - everyone does. Their rights end where other's begin. To me, laws are not for engineering paradise, they are an answer to a liberty being restricted by another. Paradise is to be engineered by society, cooperatively, without the tool of coersion if it is to last and be a genuine reflection of the will of the people. I believe Franklin's point was about putting freedom over security, in any form that represents. He was warning us about using fears to justify trumping freedoms - everyone's freedoms, not just laborers.

Nope. I've pointed it out in the numerous economy threads on the bailouts, the federal reserve, central planning..etc. Part of the reason I used it in those threads was precisely for this reason - to get him to think dynamically about Franklin's warning, instead of relegating it to GWB civil liberties arguments.

I am. For the reason I offered.

Exactly. Some will use a fancy phrase about security and liberty when they think it represents war and fear, but not economy and fear. As if Franklin could only be talking about terrorism or foreign threats provoking concession of liberty for protection, and nothing about ANY threat provoking concession of liberty for protection.

Fixed. The president of the executive branch blatantly lied in court; he violated the laws of the land to undermine the duty of the judicial branch. That's an affront to our balance of powers and structure of our government. But I don't really care. I don't care about what GWB did either because it's too open for interpretation. There is enough muddy water in both scenarios here. Neither is worth splitting the country over. If we can't even agree, after the fact, then how in the world can you really hold people accountable for such decisions at the time? That's not the reason we prosecute bad leaders.

If that's true, then how can one say it's sensationalized? It's noticing the difference that makes it apparent, yet continually rewarding the effort. How many times have you been tricked into reading a story by the headline, only to find they had to stretch and dramatize to formulate that headline? Yet we keep reading. We keep clicking on more stories. We do it to the point that now it's accepted to essentially lie to us with the headline. They haven't been punished for it one bit. huh? How do they exist if you're not buying it? My wife buys bottled water at the auction - water that didn't get bought in retail because soda won out. Both were available. They chose soda. Everything marketed to you is an attempt to figure out what you want and then give it to you. Sure, part of the game is get you to think you should want this, or everyone else is doing it - playing your desires, your wants, your expectations - and then you buy it and confirm it. I'm just pointing out that we are not free from blame. Your wallet, or lack of access to it, can put every single contemptible market out of business. But you won't. Or I should say, we won't. We love fat and sugar and drama and they sell the hell out of it, to us. This is not some unfair advantage or yet another play by the evil wicked rich empire to trick and oppress the poor little noble peasants of the land.

Two can play this game. I think there's a bit more difference between "listening to private phone conversations" and "mass expansion of federal goverment buying private banking institutions with tax payer money despite their consent". Spin is so much fun. Democrats and republicans are a freaking joke. They are competing federalists trying to outspend and outpander each other for power. They are thieves and salesmen in nice suits that validate prejudices. Anyone who tries to make believe one is better than the other is part of the problem - the partisan problem. Skeptic had it right, and still has it right, and will continue to have it right that the two party system is a monopoly. It's like General Motors competing with Chevy. They capitalize on your aversions and your tendency to "group up" and choose sides and they always win. When the president breaks the law, for real, he'll get tossed out on his ass or put in a cell. There will be no room for interpretation. Until then, any pretense created from zealous execution of the office by partisan hackery is just that. And it's horrible for the country to repeat Rome's mistakes.

Great posts above. I would only add that it's not impossible to balance their good with their bad. I think too many folks line up against the founding fathers over slavery and other shameful practices while too many line up in blind support over the wonderful experiment we're living out. In reality, I wish we could see that they were men. Flawed and gifted men. I would like to see us revere their message, in spite of their actions or inability to live up to it. That may mean that we have to admit that we can't and aren't living up to it either. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Makes me sick too. I'm still pissed at him for his grandstanding and exploitation of 9/11 during his exchange with Dr Paul in the primary debates. I don't think the average citizen knows anything meaningful about our government. They don't understand the structure, the philosophical foundation of democracy checked by a constitution, the difference between "the founders" and "the framers" - none of it. Try this. Ask people what the constitution is. Just ask them (well not your science buddies, they actually have a clue). Most don't even know there are 'Articles' in it that establish the government. Most of them think it's a preamble with a list of amendments. And almost nobody understands the meaning of rights limited only where other's rights begin. Most believe our government is all about getting together and dreaming up laws to make life better. As if football is played by the referees, and not by players on the field. Good things don't happen from rule books, they happen on the field of play. And since it's always easier to change the rules than to improve personal performance, our rulebook - our government - has become the field of play.

The main advantage of keeping a land line is 911 service. On a land line 911 call your address information is stored in an ALI database, and thus your precise location is immediatley available, even if you get cut-off just after connection. For cell phones, they are at different phases of deployment and phase 0 and 1 do not provide any location information, but merely a tower face - a rough estimate of where you are. Phase II provides latitude and longitude, but depending on the technology used by the answering PSAP, it may or may not quickly translate to precision addressing very quickly. Maybe in a few more years we can better count on the counties to have technologically current PSAPs funded so it can be a bit more standardized. I'm not sure if there's any directive by the FCC for this, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was. So, for me, I'm sticking with my land line until I can count on the cell network to be just as reliable and speedy for emergency services. You would be surprised how many 911 calls are too brief or too chaotic for someone to verbally give out where they are.

But we're not though. I don't listen to him at all. The few times I did was out of curiousity and I wasn't forced in the least. Again, it all falls back on us. We buy that crap. Of course they're going to sell it. It falls on the free society in this relatively free market to do the filtering. And we've decided we like the sensationalism. Look at the major majority of our media - it's all sensationalized. That's the inherent problem with the business of information. News, political commentators, and etc. If you're in the business of selling information then it's in your interest for that information to be as valuable as possible - drama. How else do you sell information to someone when they have no need of it? You dramatize it. And when you can create value by "spinning" the information, you will. The only thing that stops outright overt lying is the inevitable discovery and thus total loss of value. They do to information what McDonald's does to cheeseburgers. Why does McDonald's sell greasy, sloppy cheese drenched burgers with a mere superficial application of veggies? Because that's what we buy. That's what we want. They didn't make us eat those burgers because that's all that's available in our market - our market is making the burgers that we voted for with our wallets. The healthy burger guys went broke because we wouldn't do business with them. Same with Savage. Instead of refusing entry, the fix is to stop paying him. A daunting task to be sure, when you consider the market he is servicing. But it's not impossible if one is to redirect their efforts to the market and away from the service provider. The only way to truly stop it is to get people to stop buying the crap. And no, I don't mean by coersion.

All I can say is, wow. Especially on the last one.

I'm not familiar with UK law structure, but I don't see what illegal thing Savage is guilty of doing. I would think someone must be engaging in illegal activity, or at least illegal by UK standards, in order to overtly reject an individual, by name. I don't think we can do this in America. We would have to reject some "category" of person, and then include some kind of criteria that puts someone like Savage in that category. We can't just pick on a single individual, or a list of folks our government doesn't like, unless of course they're guilty of some sort of crime or would be crime in our country. At least I think that's true. That's just intuition really, so I could be wrong. Whatever the case, Savage is probably the worst I've ever heard. Commited right wing conservatives should be ashamed of him, but they aren't. He's the epitome of anti-intellectual conservatism, from what little I've heard of him. The UK is not missing anything, trust me. However, the method is still disturbing.

D H just knocked it out of the ball park. Wish I could add, but I'll just sit here and be envious instead.

Oh, actually yeah I do. I get all my TV from torrents. I'm going to keep an eye on that then and see if that's when it craps out the most. I'll bet that's been the deal all this time. Thanks Cap'n.

For those interested in music, this is a refreshing perspective. Otherwise, it will probably bore you. For some reason, this almost made me cry. I'm not a fraction of the musician this guy is, but I aspire to be as he writes here: http://www.bostonconservatory.edu/s/940/Bio.aspx?sid=940&gid=1&pgid=1241 An excerpt:

Yes, but not by screwing the world. We should quit pretending this republic is a good idea since we quit paying attention a long damn time ago. You can't afford a willfully ignorant citizenry in a republic. The duty is upon them and only about 10% of the population is living up to the responsibility. People died and sacrificed in ways we never ever would dream of nowadays and handed us a nicely built constitutional republic and we've made it as much of a joke as they did. We rationalize around every principle established in it, just like our forefathers did and just like the framers did. The republic is not respected by any stretch of the imagination. Your politicians could roll tanks down your block tomorrow and no one's gonna do squat about it. The people lost this government decades ago. Congress ignores us and we do nothing. We are gutless and cling to antiquated BS that the people give the government its power. So, let's stop pretending and just write a new constitution that compliments a society that can't be bothered with paying attention to governing and the principles rolled up in it. Install a dictator or something since efficiency and performance is all anybody gives a crap about anymore. Freedom was sold out for security, just like Franklin warned. And we deserve neither, just as he judged. In fact, you might just toss out the constitutional thing altogether, it doesn't carry much weight anyway and just serves as a record of your previous rhetoric and makes it inconvenient when your post rhetoric doesn't live up to it. Sorry. This is my Monday.

I'm no scientist and I don't even play one on TV, hell I didn't even stay at a holiday inn last night, but isn't HUP due to the lack of definitive states, which is a human construct? Is it inaccurate to conclude that for these states to be indefinite or infinite, that we are making a statement about our physiological inability to understand? And not a statement about reality? I don't know, just thought it was interesting and wanted to ask.

I've gone through several wireless routers, from CompUSA brand to LinkSys and I can't seem to find a relatively trouble free router. What is the freakin' deal? We have 3 PC's in the house - my PC is the only one with a direct ethernet connection, the other two are wireless. Every two or three days I'm having to restart it because the router freezes, or wireless connection speeds are crawling, or won't let my son connect at all. Security is a pain in the ass because I have to set all of this crap up, over and over again. And this has been the case with every wireless router I've owned. I'm not doing anything out of the ordinary. I connect to my DSL via pppoe with the router, and of course, my PC - the "wired" connection - doesn't have any issues at all - never. What do I have to do to get a router that will just route, and quit making me get under the hood every few days to set everything up again and again?

I don't know that I'd call them "beauties". Breast augmentation looks ridiculous. I had no idea they paid for that though. Should have known.