PhantomOwl

Originally posted by: chris0101 Here are my observations on the US and it's current educational system. I once lived in the US (mainly in the mid-West and I later lived in Boston) .... I certainly don't feel that all Americans are like this, but this is the prevaling public opinion right now in the US. quote> I have to say (begrudgingly, of course) that your assessment of our national character is more or less on spot. I wouldn't go so far as to say that we're a conservative nation so much as we're a polarized nation. I think that to those of us on the left side of the political spectrum make the mistake of identifying the US as having the tendency to be backwards and conservative. I'm sure the same thing happens on the other side of the spectrum, where conservatives declare that as a nation we're headed off into the abyss of liberal decadence. The issue here is that the system is broken. Not just the educational system, but the entire political process. The left and the right are always deadlocked, and never compromise. And so nothing gets done, nothing gets fixed, and the two major parties go on slinging mud at each other and blowing raspberries. I've long attributed this to the way our constitution sets the government up. Mind you, when the US was founded it was something of an experiment. Our government is structured much differently from the other liberal democracies out there simply because we were the first, and our revolution happened decades before the rest of the world threw off the shackles of tyranny. We don't have a parliament where there are 3 or more large parties that must compromise to put through a functioning agenda and thus have a functioning government. We have two levels of government, state and federal, which are constantly at odds with each other over jurisdiction. The borders of the states themselves were mostly drawn up before we adopted industrial lifestyles; as a result economic regions are often divided geographically, with different rules and regulations and laws for different portions. The system might have worked well for the pre-industrial society it was drawn up to serve, but as technology has improved and the distinction of being an urban New Yorker vs. a rural Coloradan ebbed, the regional governments we've set up have become a major hindrance. Because national representation is based on the idea of regional representation rather than ideological representation, two strong parties dominate the system. But neither party ever gets a good enough majority to do anything constructive, so as a result, the pendulum swings back and forth as people get fed up with the party in power. Is it a cultural problem? Maybe. Can it be fixed? I don't know. Like a lot of progressives in the country I'm getting impatient for the president to get through all of the changes that he's promised. But we're at a point in this country where the major form of political debate has been for decades to poke fun at caricatures of the other side. That has a lot of momentum, and will be hard to turn around. So its predictable that we have conservatives screaming that socialism is coming and the sky is falling. It's not a departure from what we've had, just an extension of the deadlock we've been in for a long time. But for all of the problems we have, we're one hell of a country. Yeah, there are some blemishes, but it's a big country, and that's to be expected. For all of the corruption and nonsense that goes on between the parties, we're still really well off. We enjoy high standards of living, political freedoms unknown in 2/3rds of the world and a great cosmopolitan heritage. Yes, we bicker among ourselves and can act arrogant. And we will probably never entirely fix the system. But we can try. And I think, more than anything, that's what counts.

Hmm... I wonder if you would necessarily have to back the currency with a physical commodity that has a static or diminishing ultimate supply (like gold, silver, platinum... oil, etc). Those are things that industry uses, so wouldn't backing currencies with them mean that we'd have a lot less to work with? That would mess up the supply demand dynamic that establishes the values for those commodities. Why not use something like kilowatt-hours? kWh are basically units of energy consumption. They're not things that stick around, unless you plug in a battery to charge. And aren't basically all goods and services just embodied energy? It takes energy to extract a resource, build a product and ship it, and all of the people working to make that product or service require energy for themselves. And the volume of economic activity in a country is generally proportional to energy consumption. If the idea of backing a currency is basically pegging it to a capital good, why not just follow the idea to its logical conclusion and peg it to the source of all goods? Energy is defined by physics as the ability to do work, and in economic terms, money is embodied work, or the ability to purchase work. In the US, a kWh goes for around $0.10, depending on the source and demand.

Agreed. In the US, we've let our manufacturing capacity slide too far. Outsourcing manufacturing jobs that pay ~$50K a year here to someone who will earn maybe $1K in a year "over there" may be appealing to some parties, but overall, everyone loses. People here lose because there are fewer and fewer jobs available that don't require a college degree. And while some people say that the people working in 3rd world sweatshops are lucky to be paid, those laborers lose just as much. Instead of making sneakers for us at basically slave wages, they should be making products for their own domestic markets. That's the only way that wealth differences between the West and the third world are going to shrink. They're not going to turn China or Indonesia or India into middle class paradises like the West unless there's a commitment to paying their blue collar workers wages comparable to those in the west. At the same time, imagine a scenario in which the third world somehow makes a large leap in quality of life. On a middle class earth, where it costs basically the same to manufacture a car in Seol as it does in Detroit, and the sneakers form Jakarta cost the same as the ones from San Diego, the US would be in big trouble. The countries with the biggest manufacturing capacity would have the most economic power, and since we've let our factories rust, we'd be the planet's economic backwaters. So even if those "world is flat" economic libertarians are right about the direction of globalization (and I don't think they are), they're setting us up for trouble in the long run. Although... middle class earth is definitely something to aspire to...

I don't really think that the stimulus bill will cause hyperinflation. $700 billion may seem like a lot, but it's actually not. If you take a look at Japan's 'lost decade,' you'll see that the Japanese government spent over $3 billion to bail out their banks. (The bail out didn't work by the way; too little too late. Japan was finally yanked out of its funk by increased trade with China.) If you compare Japan's economy to the US's, you'd see that our recent two bailouts are just drops in the bucket. The current bailout is watered down too much. It's not forceful enough, there isn't enough spending in it, and it is going to fail. The fundamentals of the US economy are all out of whack because of the housing bubble that started in the 80's. Back then the average home was valued in the tens of thousands of dollars. Even after the bubble popped a few months ago, the same houses are valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the time since this rise in housing values started, per capita income has grown only slightly. The supply of houses has risen far faster than the country's population. The higher housing prices were largely a function of easier credit (due to unstable rules) and idiotic notions that a house should function like a hedge fund (constantly gain value). The result is that a large number of people (who owned their homes before the bubble began) basically got rich overnight, and an even larger number of people signed up for mortgages that they couldn't afford, banking on the idea that the house would appreciate so much value it would pay for itself. The result was that everyone had more purchasing power than they actually deserved. The money was imaginary to begin with, but the WHOLE economy started to rely on it. Now it has more or less evaporated. The purpose of the bailout is essentially to prepare the whole economy for the contraction of the sectors that are no longer functioning properly. The idea is that since construction has basically halted, (and we need new infrastructure anyway), we can create work for the construction industry and other ancillary industries while we wait for the bubble to deflate properly and some other (hopefully more stable) sector to take off. Speaking from a civil engineering perspective (I'm still an undergrad, but I work relatively closely with some professors who also do consulting), we really need the spending. Really. At least half of our bridges and tunnels are way over their design life. Our water systems are a mess. Very little work has been done on getting our levees up to spec. We're due for another major infrastructure failure soon, and it will probably dwarf the colossal failure of New Orleans' levees in 2005. I was really counting on Obama to be more firm about needing to spend this money. I'm kind of disappointed that he's been so timid.

I had heard that there weren't any arrests made at the inauguration. Has anyone else heard any reports to the contrary? I feel that's that's really amazing, that you can stuff almost 2 million people into a small area and not have any trouble. It really speaks about the new spirit of optimism that's sweeping the nation.

I had heard that there weren't any arrests made at the inauguration. Has anyone else heard any reports to the contrary? I feel that's that's really amazing, that you can stuff almost 2 million people into a small area and not have any trouble. It really speaks about the new spirit of optimism that's sweeping the nation.

Originally posted by: manticorefan As I've pointed out, when talking about things in the Bible, they need to be viewed from the proper exegesis, i.e. in consideration of the full weight of Scripture. Old Testament commandments need to be placed in the proper context, that is, keeping in mind Christ's words that He came not to change the law, but to fulfill it. Thus the Old Testament's 'eye for an eye' was no longer in effect, but was now the New Testament's 'love thy enemies'.quote> That's all very well and good, but the fact remains that the Bible is not a legal document. It is a religious text, and while it has had a great impact on the development of Western culture, it has absolutely no bearing on US law. We never sat down and all agreed that we would live our lives according to the Bible, or any other religious text. We all, however, agree to follow the laws of the US by accepting the rights that accompany citizenship. These are laws that we democratically determine, and that we generally write based on the ideals of fairness and equality. Look, at the end of the day, taking away my right to marry the person I love based on the fact that a 2000+ year old document calls my relationship an 'abomination' is hurtful, and it is unfair. Setting aside the legal precedents for discrimination these ballot initiatives put into place, they are tremendously painful. It is incredibly painful to be told by society that you are not worth the same rights as everyone else. That is why we're going to continue to fight for marriage equality no matter what, and that is why, ultimately, we are going to win.

You know, when you say that your desire to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples stems not from your homophobia, but rather from a desire to protect the sanctity of marriage and to provide a “proper” environment for child development, what you are really saying is that the romantic relationship that I conduct with my boyfriend is somehow worth less that the ones that you conduct with members of the opposite sex, and that somehow my future husband and I will be unable to provide a loving environment for our children. That sweeping assumption that you make about my relationship is based solely on the fact that it is between two members of the same gender. If you take a step back and look at our history with a wide view, it’s easy to see that the American story is all about erasing artificial barriers based on external factors, including race, religion, and gender. The founding fathers established our great nation on the notion that all human beings are fundamentally equal, and because of that fundamental equality, should be afforded the same legal rights and responsibilities as everyone else. Of course, they were flawed in their execution of that ideal by applying it only to white males, and it has been the work of generations to remedy that mistake. And now, I think we’re at a point at which that dream of fundamental equality is almost realized. If you go over the laws of our country, you will find no instance where one group: blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, men, or women, are afforded any extra rights over any other group. It is the promise of America, that no matter what external differences you may have, you will be legally treated as everyone’s equal. That is, unless you’re gay. In almost every state, there is a statute or constitutional amendment that states that marriage is only defined between a man and a woman, and that people cannot marry someone of the same sex. The law, in this case, is not gender neutral. Rather, it discriminates on the basis of gender. This is unacceptable. When I go with my significant other to the courthouse for a marriage license, the state should not see two men asking for that license. Nor should is see a man and a woman walking up to the window when a heterosexual couple applies for one. The state, which should not discriminate on the basis of gender, should only see two individuals, two citizens, two human beings applying to marry. If the genders are to be truly equal before the law, if all people are to be treated justly, then we must work to ensure marriage equality. Now, the opposition may say that gay relationships “hurt children” and “result in incest.” After all, the fundamental difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples is that heterosexual couples can naturally produce children and homosexual couples cannot. I happen to think that I’d make a good parent; I do well with my younger relatives, and I look forward to the day when I will be able to settle down and have children. While my future husband and I will not be able to have a child that is genetically related to both of us, it is possible to proceed with either surrogacy, or in most of the country, adoption. Despite a different mechanics of reproduction, there is no difference in the loving environment that a stable relationship that heterosexual and homosexual couples provide for child rearing. To insist that there exists such a difference is to imply that men and women are fundamentally unequal, a notion that I believe we are far beyond as a society. As for the incest question, society doesn’t permit incest for a number of reasons, not only genetic errors that result in offspring. Incestuous relationships are unhealthy because they are abuses by a person with power (an older sibling or parent). Incest is seldom consensual, and usually results in the subordination of the victim into a role that he or she is unwilling and should not comply to. Because it is a violation of the rights of the victim, we criminalize incestuous relationships, and will never, ever, grant them the recognition of marriage. Additionally, putting the same sex relationship that I have with my boyfriend on the same moral plane as that of incest is not only insulting, but it reveals that your understanding of same sex relationships is poor at best. This is also evidenced by the stereotype you bring up that gay men are unfaithful. I have never been unfaithful, nor do I ever intend to be; I value the trust and companionship of whomever I’m in a relationship with too much. And it’s true, many homosexual and heterosexual couples are in open relationships. They do not, however, represent the majority, and their behavior is their own prerogative, and not reason to deny a whole group the right to marry.

Call me crazy, but I don't want to be within a dozen miles of a nuclear warhead, let alone have one driven in front of me. Even the conventional weapons freak me out. I can understand admiring the effort that goes into designing weapons hardware, but seriously, how does viewing these inspire a feeling of patriotism? I'm glad that the closest thing we do to this in America is a flyby by fighter jets. They keep a nice distance, and are supposed to be up there patrolling anyway.

It would seem that I have a slightly different take on all of this than has been presented in this thread thus far. I think the media has over sensationalized the threat of radical islamic terrorists carrying out a large scale attack on western nations. While the public deserves to remain informed about such threats, and while freedom of speech is an important right, the ways in which much of the media has handled the situation amount to a serious breach in journalistic integrity. Pundits can't keep making incendiary remarks and accusations about the Muslim faith and culture, because such behavior actively undermines the ultimate goal of stamping out radical islamism. In reality, the number of muslims throughout the world who actually seriously support a violent jihad against the West probably numbers less than a few hundred thousand. Essentially, I think it's fair to break down the Muslim population into 3 groups; the first and smallest is made up of fundamentalists who actively wish and plan violence to further their jihad. The second, and largest, can be termed as "moderates." They make up the bulk of the Muslim population in both Muslim countries and in the west. This group just keeps its heads down and follows the rules and ideology of whatever community they happen to live in, be it democratic or islamist. The third group is made up of those Muslims who actively work for a secular, democratic government in their countries. This group is small compared to the second group, but probably larger than the first. Whenever the western media publishes incendiary remarks against Muslims (such as the Dutch cartoons), we solidify the power that group 1 has over the majority. They can say to the public, "Look at the evils that western ideals like free speech causes. Our jihad is a just cause." And group 2 will go along with it, because they don't want to be called heretics. What we should be doing, instead of helping group 1, is help group 3. This is difficult though, because in these communities, group 1 has had power for a very long time due to their religious ties. Group 3 is made up mostly of educated professionals. So in order to help group 3 push democratic reforms in their countries, we have to set up secular universities to enlarge group 3 and give them political power. And the western media that filters into group 2 should focus on making group 3 look good instead of grouping all Muslims in with group 1. Most importantly, there is no reason why we should write off the muslim cultures of the world as being permanently under the control of group 1. In the west, it took many decades of our own progressives (group 3) to throw off the power of the aristocracies (group 1) and ensure democracy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It was an arduous and violent process, but there is no reason that, with western aid, the muslim liberalization process should be so.

Although I had never suspected Dumbledore to be gay, it doesn't surprise me that Rowling decided to make one of her characters gay. The genius of the Harry Potter series is not in the quality of the literature (of which many people have doubts), but in the fact that it teaches children very important ethical lessons in a story that they can identify with. A central theme of the series is overcoming bigotry, and Rowling presents this to her readers in a very subtle and effective way. Instead of drawing the lines of prejudice along skin color or creed, she places them along a quality that is invisible to the children reading the story. Moreover, she places them in the group that is oppressed for no obvious reason (what muggle child who reads the series does not wish to receive their very own invitation to Hogwarts?). And of course, Rowling makes it clear to us that Dumbledore has his flaws, just like the rest of us.

Clearly this thread is devolving into bigotry and hate speech. I sincerely hope for his own dignity that Insane Child of Bodom was being sarcastic... As someone who was raised a Catholic and spent my elementary and high school careers in Catholic schools, it's been my observation that many Catholics, devout or not, generally treat birth control methods as acceptable. This includes many who believe that sexual relations should be held off until marriage. This includes a number of priests whom I got to know personally over the years; they generally feel that JPII made a mistake when he announced the ban on birth control methods to include married couples and that this decision alienated a great deal of young catholics. In all, this issue boils down to the doctrine of papal infallacy as much as it does to the actual concepts of birth control. Then again, by the time I was midway through high school, the Catholic educational system had turned me into an atheist. So perhaps my views are jaded, but they're the impression I have of the issue.

Plans for something like this have been around since the energy crisis in the 70's. They're called solar power satellites (SPS for short). The entire train of thought behind them is kind of interesting. The academics who proposed them used the cheap, limitless, and clean source of energy they could provide as the justification for a push toward a space based economy. A lot of interesting orbital habitat designs, including Bernal spheres, Stanford toruses, and O'Neil cylinders were designed as a result, all of which were supposedly feasible to build with 1970's technology. Of course, OPEC ended the embargo, and any chance of such designs and promises of clean energy fell to dust. Perhaps this new period of high energy prices will prompt some government funding into constructing an experimental SPS. I think the Japanese space agency has already begun such a program, and plans to have one up in orbit by 2015 (I'm not so sure about the date). It's a pretty cool idea, if you ask me.

Just a word of advice: I would avoid shutting down your system by pulling the plug. This cuts the electricity before the hard drive has been properly shut down, and increases your likelihood of a hard drive failure. If you have to shut down the computer, and the system is not responding, simply hold the power button down for 7-10 seconds. This properly shuts down the hard drive, and will not damage your system. This applies for laptops as well: in general it's a bad idea to unplug a laptop from an outlet and then rip out the battery, for the same reasons. Trust me, I learned the hard way. Whenever my system crashed or stopped responding, i would pull the plug. The last time I did that, I caused the hard drive to fail, and lost all of my data, including a paper that was due the next day. Treat your computer gently, it's your friend!

This is something that I'm particularly concerned about. I recently made "the switch," and I haven't bothered to set up bootcamp yet. In all honesty, if my expectations of Cities Unlimited are realized when more information about the game is released in October, I will probably install XP just for this game. (and also because I don't want to have to wait for the mac port of Spore). I really do hope that Monte Cristo will do a mac port of Cities Unlimited. In my opinion, Apple is really beginning to gain a significant market share, especially among college students. Alas, one can hope...