Does it pollute? Use child labor? Include finite resources?

Does the company responsible for it do the above but with different products?

I’d spend more if I knew my money was going to a good home.

Do look around to see if your question has already been asked (and maybe even answered!) before you ask. However, as long as you’ve looked, if you end up asking a question that has been asked before, that is OK and deliberately allowed. Other users will hopefully edit in links to related or similar questions to help future visitors find their way.

Not to pick on stackoverflow.com at all, everyone other documentation-based forum has something similar.

Aren’t we past this “search first” mentality? Can’t we finally build a system to maintain previously answered questions?

There are half a million words in the English language.

What are the chances that the way you describe a problem is the same way another person does?

What are the chances that your problem with product/language/idea X is the problem everyone else is having (and not something completely different)?

What if the variables related to your problem are slightly/completely different?

“Search first” is a nice idea, but works poorly in implementation. Documentation (which, unfortunately, a lot of forums turn into) needs structure.

There need to be a set of tools for asking, answering, organizing, and finalizing questions. Most forums don’t offer any.

And the ones that do, usually leave a lot to be wanted, either visually, or technically.

One last thing, don’t think because you threw a wiki up somewhere you’re doing any better.

Good for us, we have a free market, unfettered by the woes of morality.

Now, how can a person, such as myself, make a decision (not based solely on price) in this current market.

Regulation?

Fantastic.

So: a market, standing free of social responsibility & accountability, is (through this playful use of words) only concerned with the bottom line: not you; only your money).

Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing: they’re in it for the money-I get that-I’m cool with that; I am too. It’s the only reason I work.

However, this unfettered market isn’t free. It’s free for them (the big players), but costly to us (the majority).

We just learned that a Free Market isn’t Democratic. Wonderful.

Currently, our only deciding factor in this fabulous market is price. What’s cheapest.

What if I want to make my decision on products on a greater scale: environmental/economic impact?

How much does Product X destroy the planet on it’s way to my front door? Does Product Y cost me more, but is overall “kinder?” I’ll take that.

I don’t want to force Producers into environmentally-friendly standards, or economically-friendly standards. I don’t want to force them into any manufacturing standards at all.

I want to know everything about every product they’re trying to convince me into wasting my money on.

Where did it get built? What are the conditions of the plant? What nonrenewable resources does it contain?

When I know all this, and more, and how it makes me feel, I’ll know if I’m getting a good deal or not.

Apparently tired, poor, weak huddled masses only describes White Immigrants (possibly olive in complexion) from European Nations.

Marriage will stay the same as it has for as long as it has had a meaning: “A union between a man and a woman.”

Now, let’s replace the word “Marriage”, with these words: “Civil Union.” We’re going to redefine that word, and we’re going to use it in place–legally–of “Marriage.”

Under the eyes of The Law; “Marriage” will have no legal standing, two people–a woman and a man, a man and a man, a woman and a woman–will from now on, legally, referred to as a “Civil Union.”

If religious people run to defend a word steeped in religious ritual and law, because of the word having great religious meaning; then that word has no constitutional place within our legal system.

In short, defending an entity within a legal standpoint using only a religious defense is unconstitutional.

The films compare the rise of the American Neo-Conservative movement and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and noting strong similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is in fact a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.

You can watch the three-part documentary down below, or check out the respective Google Video pages (link to video is within respective titles).

The Power of Nightmares Part One: Baby It’s Cold Outside

The Power of Nightmares Part Two: The Phantom Victory

The Power of Nightmares Part Three: The Shadows in the Cave

How, Mr. President, can you state so adamantly that the predominantly Saudi Arabian terrorists that attacked us on September 11th, 2001, hated us for our freedom when you have made it your pleasure to take those very freedoms away? Are you trying to take away their very reason for hatred? If America didn’t have any personal freedoms/civil liberties, do you think we would be safe?

Or, maybe:

Mr. President, you have stated that we are hated for our freedom. Yet, six short weeks after September 11th, 2001, you enabled Congress to encroach on our civil liberties. Are you insinuating that our personal freedoms were a contributing factor to those attacks on September 11th, 2001? By taking away our Freedom, are you alluding to the idea that the terrorists. were correct in thinking we had too much Freedom?

How about this one:

Mr. President, if we are hated for our Freedom, why weren’t other free-loving countries also attacked? I am aware of the London and Madrid incidents, yet those weren’t attributed to Freedom as the underlying cause. Could it be, Mr. President, that our meddling–and not our Freedom–in the Middle East could be the actual reason the World Trade Center was targeted?

Assuming he would follow the track he has been on since he addressed the nation on September 11th, 2001, his answer would be something close to, “America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.”

Then why, Mr. President, have you decided to time-and-time again take away the very things we are defending? You have authorized the Federal Government to spy and impose on the American People. Is the fact that we have too much freedom to blame for the attacks? Is this why you have authorized countless measures that curtail (or altogether remove) many of our personal freedoms? Do you wish to defend our Freedom by removing it?

If you’re reading an article, it makes sense to have something pointing you to even more articles:

Articles » Don’t Quote Me

That bread crumb would inform you that you’re reading an article, and if “Articles” was a link (imagine it is) it should lead you to more articles.

We’ve gotten good at this as a whole; we’re presenting relationships in a logical manner even more. However, there is a problem…

Quotation Marks

That glyph in the previous example (“»”) is a quotation mark; for a host of nations and languages.

Let’s look at a few more examples:

Articles » Don’t Quote Me

Articles › Don’t Quote Me

Articles ” Don’t Quote Me

Articles ’ Don’t Quote Me

Articles „ Don’t Quote Me

Articles ‚ Don’t Quote Me

All of these symbols have one thing in common: they are all quotation marks; they do not naturally resemble a relationship. This is a problem if your main language–the language you use most fluently–is not English.

The first two examples “fit”; they seem to point to the second item. I know they look snazzy (and the fact there’s a pointy-end and a nonpointy-end don’t help), they just don’t work.

The last four are quotation marks, in English and other languages. They don’t “fit”; something feels odd about using them in this context. Do they resemble a relationship between the two items?

No. They are out-of-place. English-speaking programmers/designers wouldn’t use an English quotation mark (or those last two at the bottom) to signify a relationship; why do we use a foreign-language to do so?

What’s a Boy to Do?

Let me all introduce you to one of the seldom-used “arrow” glyphs:

Articles → Don’t Quote Me

The arrow is universal, it starts somewhere, and goes to another place, as-if to say: “Hey, I’m taking you here. I know you stared over there, but this is where we’ll end up. These two pieces of information share a relationship, and the direction of my pointy-end shows you an example of that relationship”.

There’s also an arrow going in another direction:

Articles ← Don’t Quote Me

Just looking at it you know that there is a relationship to these two things. They go together:

Mom and Dad → Lil’ Jessica

It might as well say:

Mom and Dad had Lil’ Jessica

Taking it a step further:

Lil’ Jessica belongs to Mom and Dad

Depending upon use, and how you decide to prevent your information, you can utilize various arrows in different positions and context to show your avid readers hierarchy & relationships:

1. ← ← leftwards arrow
2. ↑ ↑ upwards arrow
3. → → rightwards arrow
4. ↓ ↓ downwards arrow
5. ↔ ↔ left right arrow
6. ↵ ↵ downwards arrow with corner leftwards

Of course, this solution creates a problem: using arrow glyphs inside the HTML title tag is problematic. I’ll admit it first: I don’t have a solution to this.

The Dash Glyph

I’m well aware that some languages use the – (–) as the start of a quote. It does, however, signify a change in pace or thought in the English Language. I’m okay with this; it already has multiple meanings.

If you’d like a little more, try this: The Wealth Primary. The facts might be a little old (from the 1992 election), but the message is still dead on.

Highly recommended.

1. Absolutely no contributions, to either the candidate or party; during the election or term.
2. Free & equal advertising on all broadcast media.

Alright, kinda extreme. Here are some benefits:

1. More than two parties will have a chance.
2. Elected officials will be held accountable by everyone instead of just people who can afford it.
3. You won’t have to be a millionaire to run for office.

All good points. How about some drawbacks:

1. Someone can make a very strong argument that political donations are free speech (I’ll deal with this soon).
2. Elections could move even more towards a circus (they’re very close now).

Any questions?