Kristopher S.
Recent Activity
Re: Is the U.S. Ready for a Woman to be President?
I will try not to be to cynical in this. Let us imagine that the voters held the absolute power to vote in a presidential candidate. It is hard for me to to perceive our votes are not manipulated behind the scenes when it is proven our President received votes in electronic form. Whether you can prove the source of the organization who paid for this to happen is not the point, but the people are now reserving the notion our votes will never matter anymore. Being a computer technician myself and looking how the electronic voting box works I was simply shocked and made me weep a little on the inside. I might as well yell out loud who I am voting for at the booth so everyone else knows and it isn't a secret that will be erased on a disk. http://www.blackboxvoting.org/I think though the U.S. is ready for a president to just uphold the law, possibly react better to disasters, and do the job given to them. Do I think women are capable of doing this? Yes indeed. Unfortunately the only women candidate is Mrs. Clinton on the roster. I say this because her campaign is filthy and I wouldn't trust her to run the U.S. Since that sort of liable comments can not be proven. I simply respond with look at her reporting finances for her campaign and make your own judgement. I think the U.S. might not even mind a President that has ill-gotten gains to be able to compete with other candidates, just as long the ideas they are selling on their image is enacted on while in office. … Read More
February 10, 2008 |
Kristopher S. commented on Paul Krugman on Crisis Causality on January 17, 2008, 12:05 AM
Looming, yes. Avoidable, yes. How? Stop creating another (insert category) to soak up the last (insert category) that failed to soak up the unemployed. Creating another market does create a wave of stimulation, we are riding out the housing one now. DON'T CREATE ANOTHER MESS TO CLEAN. Steadying the economy is possibly the hardest thing to do. A suggestion would be to cut the high corporate tax rate we have in the U.S, maybe broker a deal with companies to make sure they hire a % of workers because of this. I could imagine that with lower overheard companies could hire more people, give larger wages to live off from, and not have the need to outsource jobs. Then the money in time from the working masses would insert it back into the economy. The only idea so far that has been able to push the economy up the next hill is the one I stated I don't want to happen! Maybe this time we will not have enough gas to go over this hill? *Yes pun was intended*
Kristopher S. commented on Iraq: What's Next? on January 16, 2008, 11:45 PM
It is a nice quaint diplomatic approach, that I agree with. Would it be done? My thoughts, no. Simply to say its a matter of gathering that many people that you describe all together to agree on sections of land, that they believe individually, have rights to hold themselves under the guidance of their beliefs. I could imagine as you described a deal being brokered between certain higher controlling neighbors. I don't imagine smaller sects being involved to their own liking. Obviously your talking about what might be referred to as a hot button issue "cut-and-run". This to me is at least "play roulette-and-run". As we can see being in Iraq is not a gamble, it's a known loss. What does it matter then to gamble on an at least ANY exit strategy.
Kristopher S. commented on Paul Krugman on Crisis Causality on January 16, 2008, 7:05 PM
Looming, yes. Avoidable, yes. How? Stop creating another (insert category) to soak up the last (insert category) that failed to soak up the unemployed. Creating another market does create a wave of stimulation, we are riding out the housing one now. DON'T CREATE ANOTHER MESS TO CLEAN. Steadying the economy is possibly the hardest thing to do. A suggestion would be to cut the high corporate tax rate we have in the U.S, maybe broker a deal with companies to make sure they hire a % of workers because of this. I could imagine that with lower overheard companies could hire more people, give larger wages to live off from, and not have the need to outsource jobs. Then the money in time from the working masses would insert it back into the economy. The only idea so far that has been able to push the economy up the next hill is the one I stated I don't want to happen! Maybe this time we will not have enough gas to go over this hill? *Yes pun was intended*
Kristopher S. commented on What does it mean to be alive? Can computer programs be considered alive? on January 17, 2008, 1:06 AM
I disagree that we nothing more then a series of programs. Your interpretation though on programs being alive exclusively is agreeable. Some programs are reactive, alert, and knowing .In your use of the Jelly-fish, we could possibly quantify being alive in numbers and compare it with any creature. Being alive though is not inclusive with being human to me. The part where I differ in this is from the ability to perform freely compared to a program. It is true our emotions are chemical reactions inputed into a conscious brain, but humans have the ability to make choices from the input point. This is also known as free will. I know people that choose not to feel anything from certain events. Additionally there are proven cases that people don't react to the chemical responses given to situations. Depression all the way to Love, depending purely from the input of the event could be responsive/unresponsive by either choice or instinct. Programs even from a repository of information give output in a range, even random numbers are a range to it. Where is the subroutine for "free-will"? If you know, please put in a bottle and share it with the Jelly-fish. Action to reaction is the same to me, where the distinction takes place is with people. We have the choice. The act of life is living, that's something different in my opinion of being alive.