This. Mod parent up.
But what if my vote is that both candidates are power-hungry, narcissistic, and self-serving, and I find neither of them fit for office? Where's my 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' option? Preferably it's an option that, if it wins, invalidates the other two candidates for political office for a set number of years. "You have been weighted and measured by your populace, and you have been found wanting. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done." Then we start a new campaign, and the new candidates look REALLY HARD at why their predecessors got the no-vote.
Sure, we'd have periods of time with no governor, or missing a senator or two. But let's be honest: they shut the government down on a whim anyway, right? And life has carried on in their absence. So what can it hurt?
The fact is we have very little say in WHO ends up in our elections. The parties manage those choices for us these days. I'm not a fan of their candidates, because in a state like Texas I don't have much "choice" in my choices. That starts to stretch the bonds of democracy.
That sounds good. Except for one tiny thing:
I DON'T BELIEVE YOU.
These people are so fucking sutpid, it is astonishing to think that they developed nuclear weapons; waged the Cold War; and to this day, launch people into space! Their entirely dysfunctional leadership does not seem capable of any rational thought. Perhaps those early accomplishments were just manifestations of autonomous reflexes?
Are we still talking about Russia? America isn't exactly running the smoothest, most intelligent government at the moment either...
I take my watch off at the end of the day. I put it on in the morning. How big a difference is it to set it "on a charger on my nightstand", instead of just "on my nightstand?"
Much ado about nothing.
Are they actively anti-consumer, or simply pro-self, and we get caught in the wake?
Greed that accidentally destroys your country I can understand. Willfully destroying your country I can't. Occam's razor and all that.
You didn't say so definitively, so I'm just gonna ask:
Would you like us to get off your lawn now?
As I read this article, I was reminded of the push back in the 90's to get off the corporate networks (Compuserve, AOL, etc.) where data and people were walled off from opposing networks, and dive into the World Wide Web. At some point the pendulum swung back towards the value brought by corporate networks, the biggest of which seems to be ease of construction compared to traditional web design.I first noticed the shift with community sites like angelfire/geocities and then moving towards social networks, where you just add content.
Now the pendulum is swinging back again because the cost/value equation in favor of corporate networks makes less sense (specifically, we didn't realize the consequences of selling ourselves and our data for 'free' services until it was too late.).
True, but from your original post:
"You don't blame the person if they left the house unlocked."
I'm telling you the cops won't, but the insurance company will. There's a big difference between the legal consequences of our actions and the social consequences of our actions.
Yes, someone 'hacked' their accounts. Yes, there should be consequences for that sort of thing. At the same time, celebrities shouldn't be shocked that nude photos of themselves are a [disturbingly] valuable commodity on the internet. The fact is, these should have been better protected, (either by the celeb or their management) and that has some social consequences apart from the legal standing. And frankly, this shouldn't be shocking news to celebrities. It's not news to any of us out here in the real world.
The police will most certainly blame the person who broke in to your house.
The insurance company will most certainly blame you for leaving your house unlocked.
This isn't an either/or situation. It's both/and, as has been pointed out numerous times over the last few weeks.
Why are we still talking about this? (Oh God. I'm part of the problem....)
Tell that to Kirk. He liked blue women just fine.
Well, based on nationality, actually. American isn't a race.
Agreed, because "distancing from 8" IS "marketing."
" If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison, Federalist Papers #51
The thing these programs [try] to bring isn't so much help with learning as much as EQUAL ACCESS to learning. It attempts to level the playing field between the kids at home with no pc for research and the more well-off kids with greater tech access.
That said, it doesn't provide in home internet access, satellite or 3g coverage, so many times it seems like a wasted effort, but it allows students greater flexibility than previous generations. They aren't tied down to a classroom, or getting shuffled out of the lab so a new class can come in. They can do their work anywhere there's free wifi. Further, it adds a value to your district in less tangible ways: showing kids you trust them with not-inexpensive hardware does interesting things to their psyche.