I want you to name any candidate from either side that is not a joke?
I've been watching both sides pretty closely, and it appears that we have two this time around: Hillary Clinton, (who by all rights ought to be a joke but unfortunately she's deadly serious, with emphasis on the "deadly",) and Bernie Sanders (who's running on fixing a lot of problems not only in American politics but in the campaign process itself, and actually having a noteworthy amount of success. Which hasn't stopped the segments of the mainstream media who want the next election to be a coronation for Hillary from doing their best to pretend he doesn't exist, unfortunately.)
On the Republican side, no non-joke candidates that I can see this time. And that's unfortunate, especially since whichever Republican candidate wins the primary is very likely to become the next President.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: watched the GOP debates for once
The "American" identity you think exists does not. American culture is a mix of cultures, bringing in all sorts of things from other places where people came. The idea that people came to America and gave up their previous identity is laughable and ignorant.
They brought in some things and left others behind. As I pointed out a few posts ago, the USA is quite notable for the time of its founding for lacking any concept of titled nobility, to give just one example. No one came here from Europe and tried to be more Europe. In fact, we kinda had this big war over the idea that that was exactly what we were not supposed to be. (Yes, I know, England isn't technically part of the continent of Europe, but you know what I mean.)
See this is why people claim you're a bigot. That's the kind of ignorant, fact-free statement that suggests someone who just doesn't like someone who is different.
Yup, you got me. I can't stand people who are different. That's why I spent two years in South America, where the culture, the food, and even the climate were completely different from what I'm used to, where you can't even perform such fundamental tasks as buying food without learning to speak a second language: because I hate "different."
That's a myth. A myth pushed by racists.
Are their actual writings, copies of which (and some originals even) still exist today, mythical?
And... seriously, you claim to despise partisan politics, to such a degree that you refuse to publish party affiliations when talking about a member of Congress in one of your posts. (Which is a laudable ideal that I completely agree with, BTW.) So why are you playing the "systemic racism" card? That's essentially the "terrorism" of the far left: a problem that hurt a lot of Americans years ago, that we must never be allowed to forget, or to acknowledge how little of an actual problem it is today, because it's so valuable for playing on people's emotions for political profit. It's this huge blind spot that a lot of people have. Even people who are aware of the Shirky Principle and Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy don't seem to understand that yes, they apply to groups such as civil rights organizations too.
If you actually take a more than superficial look into racial issues, what you find is that almost every time, Occam's Razor cuts accusations of racism in the USA, particularly of the "systemic" variety, to shreds, as the underlying problems in almost every case can be adequately explained without any need to invoke a racially-prejudiced oppressor. (My personal favorite is the widely-reported claim that the housing crash of 2008 was somehow a racist event, because when all the dust had settled, the data showed that all of the socioeconomic gains that the black community had made since the Civil Rights movement had been nullified. The part that they're not telling, because it doesn't fit their narrative, is that long before 2008, economists were already pointing out how those gains had been erased, and that the culprit was the widespread use of drugs, particularly cocaine, in many parts of the black community; real estate had nothing to do with it. Taken at face value, this might even suggest that the negative impact of the housing crash on black Americans was disproportionately light!)
Moving to a new country is not giving up your identity.
"Giving up your identity" is your phrase, not mine. Please don't put words in my mouth, particularly not for the sake of pointing out how silly they sound when I didn't actually say them. Changing where you live, though--especially to a far away place--absolutely does involve changing your identity to a pretty serious degree, because a lot of your identity is bound up with where you live. It affects everything from the climate you live in, (which in turn affects what sorts of clothes are practical to wear,) to the people you associate with (your neighbors) to the meanings of certain words.
No. Not at all. Moving to a country for new opportunities or to experience new things or to get away from persecution is one thing. Pretending that you don't keep your *culture* and *customs* or even *language* is another thing entirely.
I don't want to jump to conclusions, but if I had to guess, I'd guess that you haven't moved very many times in your life even within the USA, much less outside of it. Would I be right?
Speaking as someone who's actually done it, when you go to live in another country, trying to keep your old customs and language is just asking for trouble. I wasn't kidding when I said you have to know Spanish to buy food in Argentina. If you go to the supermarket and the clerk asks you "¿Por favor de teclar tu nùmero DNI?" and you don't know what that means, you're not leaving that store with any food! (They're asking for an identification number roughly equivalent to SSNs in the USA. It's required by law as part of the sale. That's just one of a hundred cultural details that you pick up very quickly by basic necessity.)
Again, please check your assumptions here because they match up identically to standard racist and bigoted thinking and you appear to be pushing the myths of such people.
This is known, somewhat informally, as the "Hitler Ate Sugar" fallacy:
1) Hitler was evil. 2) Hitler ate sugar. 3) Therefore, eating sugar is evil.
Simply because some person or group that is undoubtedly evil says or does some specific thing does not necessarily make that specific thing evil too. It's a rhetorical trap that's all too easy to fall into.
the version you seem to have gleaned is not an accurate portrayal of either historical or modern America.
I wasn't aware that history had "versions". It's supposed to be something objective: history is what really happened. Of course, that's often not politically palatable to certain groups, so they come up with "versions" that better fit their ideals. But I prefer to stick with what really happened. Personally I find it difficult to take seriously people who talk about history having versions and believe in contemporary systemic racism. But maybe that's just me.
This is truly a bizarre lawsuit. Yelp pulls its infamous protection racket scam on Superior... and instead of fighting back against Yelp, they turn around and try to victimize a bunch of Yelp's users because they're less likely to be able to fight back?
If you have to ask that question, you don't know the first thing about American history.
I've studied it pretty extensively, actually, but I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything. What is the important "first thing" that I'm missing?
Holding onto pieces of your past culture are quite typical. Each successive generation tends to integrate more and that's fine.
...right up until they don't, and then it isn't. You end up with ghettoized communities and all of the social problems that that brings with it, which we are actually seeing today. Which, as I explained above, is why the idea of American national identity was created in the first place: because we had some very smart people who had studied history and government pretty extensively, who knew about these sorts of problems and tried to head them off. They made some mistakes, but this wasn't one of them.
Telling people to give up their identities just because *you* think it's appropriate is fairly ridiculous, don't you think?
What I think is ridiculous is for someone who has already chosen to "give up their identity," as you put it--or at the very least, to perform major surgery on it--to then be dishonest about it and pretend that they didn't. Moving to another country is not a simple task that one undertakes lightly; you've got to have a really good reason to not want to stay where you are. So if you wanted to leave your past behind that badly, isn't it a little bit ridiculous to then cling to it?
Funny, I don't see you living in a teepee. Seems like your ancestors came over and set-up mini-versions of your own culture.
No, they created a new one, as evidenced by the fact that you also don't see serfs and a titled noble class, which were both common throughout Europe at the time.
Integration is literally the very meaning of the word "American." The term was invented by Benjamin Franklin to get people to stop thinking of themselves as Irish and English and German and Dutch and whatever else, to let go of the lives that they had left behind--because they had chosen to leave them behind, so why continue to cling to them?--and focus instead on what they had chosen to come and be a part of instead. (Note: yes, that absolutely does mean that anyone using hyphenated "something-American" terms are completely missing the point.)
I know where my ancestors came from, before they showed up here. They were from all over the place, a little bit here, a little bit there, but I don't identify with any of those nationalities or cultures. I'm American, and that's all. That's good enough for me, and if it's not good enough for someone else, then why are they coming to live here in the first place?
There's nothing bigoted about that. There's nothing degrading to point out that when you freely choose to live in Rome, you're expected to do as the Romans do, except perhaps insofar as it highlights how dumb someone is for having to be told something so obvious in the first place.
But really that's just plain common sense, and it works both ways. When I spent some time in Argentina, I didn't try to live like an American; I learned their language and their culture. I learned to appreciate their food, (to this day I find it frustrating how difficult it is to get ahold of alfajores--Argentine snack cookies--in the USA), and even to not be weirded out by stuff like greeting everyone, of either gender, with a kiss on the cheek or widespread breast feeding in public. Because that's what you do when you're living in a different country: you learn to live the way they do. And you do this because you understand that if you don't, you'll be making trouble for yourself and those around you.
So when someone points out the simple truth that people who refuse to do so are causing trouble and violating the basic social contract, can we please not jump all over them for it?
Kyle Wiens called it "copyright creep", Mike said that someone else calls it "copyright immigration". Why not simply call it what it is: a "get out of competition free card". That's what it's truly about: abusing DRM to ensure that competitors are locked out of being able to service equipment you produced.
If the farmers never agreed to share their data with John Deere, how is what they are doing not illegal (and highly actionable!) industrial espionage?
Mike said, "it's very tough to explain the innovations you don't have yet." This brings to mind something Henry Ford once said: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
Kyle says, "I'm kind of wondering if this [won't be] the last triennial review." Let's hope so! Hopefully because somewhere within the next 3 years, the DMCA will be repealed.
WRT international obligations, every time someone brings this up I always wonder, why is it that it's so easy to enter into a bad treaty, but you never hear of the country withdrawing from one?
What's never acknowledged in these rulings is that removing links from search engine results is pretty much the same thing as removing it from the original websites. If search engines can't "find" it, it ceases to exist for all intents and purposes.
I often see this accepted as an article of faith, but how true is it really? I run a few websites, and I get maybe 20% of my traffic from general-purpose search engines such as Google. The vast majority of it comes in as links from more specialized sites.
You might sound like a conspiracy theorist if the companies weren't openly bragging about this to their shareholders. When you find a drug that turns cancer from a death sentence into a chronic condition, where you just take a pill every day (for the rest of your life!) and it keeps the cancer in check, that's the holy grail of for-profit pharmaceutical research.
I will say, at the very least, that it's somewhat refreshing to hear a government representative admit that at least some part of aiport and passenger security boils down to the feel-goods, but I'm of the opinion that a security agency unconcerned about security probably shouldn't be allowed to exist any longer. Especially when that same agency has been touting those same useless locks for years to passengers.
The bad job they're doing notwithstanding, it doesn't help your case when you twist their words. Luggage locks have nothing to do with "airport and passenger security".
If someone steals stuff out of your luggage, that's no fun for you, but it does not pose a threat to aviation security (keeping planes from coming down when or where they shouldn't). It just poses a threat to the security of your luggage, which is not the TSA's mandate, which appears to be the point that Mr. England is making.
KO: Pooh-Bah, it seems that the festivities in connection with my approaching marriage must last a week. I should like to do it handsomely, and I want to consult you as to the amount ought to spend upon them. POOH: Certainly. In which of my capacities? As First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chamberlain, Attorney General, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Privy Purse, or Private Secretary? KO: Suppose we say as Private Secretary. POOH: Speaking as your Private Secretary, I should say that, as the city will have to pay for it, don't stint yourself, do it well. KO: Exactly—as the city will have to pay for it. That is your advice. POOH: As Private Secretary. Of course you will understand that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am bound to see that due economy is observed. KO: Oh! But you said just now "Don't stint yourself, do it well". POOH: As Private Secretary. KO: And now you say that due economy must be observed. POOH: As Chancellor of the Exchequer. KO: I see. Come over here, where the Chancellor can't hear us. (They cross the stage.) Now, as my Solicitor, how do you advise me to deal with this difficulty? POOH: Oh, as your Solicitor, I should have no hesitation in saying "Chance it——" KO: Thank you. (Shaking his hand.) I will. POOH: If it were not that, as Lord Chief Justice, I am bound to see that the law isn't violated. KO: I see. Come over here where the Chief Justice can't hear us. (They cross the stage.) Now, then, as First Lord of the Treasury? POOH: Of course, as First Lord of the Treasury, I could propose a special vote that would cover all expenses, if it were not that, as Leader of the Opposition, it would be my duty to resist it, tooth and nail. Or, as Paymaster General, I could so cook the accounts that, as Lord High Auditor, I should never discover the fraud. But then, as Archbishop of Titipu, it would be my duty to denounce my dishonesty and give myself into my own custody as first Commissioner of Police. KO: That's extremely awkward.