Slashdot Mirror

Conservative: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/categories/social-security.html

Libertarian: http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Libertarian_Party_Social_Security.htm

"The Savage Nation has lost roughly 1 million dollars in advertising revenue as a result of being boycotted for exercising freedom of speech. In response, Michael has brought a suit against CAIR for copyright infringement, which should be an open-and-shut case."
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29673.html

That isn't exactly true... I give to you: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24518.html

Well, I see that you're familiar with Republican talking points. But did you know that:

• The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan and is in fact regaining control?
• That Al Qaeda is still a global organization?
• That Afghanistan is still largely controlled by warlords? Karzai; the President's nickname is the "Mayor of Kabul" because is sphere of control is so limited
• Your hero Bush found out that Al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole bombing in March of 2001, but did nothing about it until AFTER 9/11. The CIA refused to certify the cause during Clinton's presidency.
• That burqas are back in fashion (and not by choice) in Afghanistan?
• 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents, so I have no clue where your manufactured 5-4 usurpers figure came from. I'm sure the same right-wing sources that have so ill-informed you on these other bullets.
• There is no oil sharing agreement in Iraq. Not sure where you pulled that from either. That's why we're still there. And the Kurds just signed an independent oil agreement.
• I have no clue how you figure we've had 6 years of unprecedented economic growth. And, I have no clue how you seem to think the last time the economy was good was under Reagan (it was under Clinton).
• I'm glad that your family is doing well (as most upper class families are), but the buying power of Americans is going DOWN. And, . And, in the next year or so the bankruptcy crisis is going to explode as all those exotic loans are about to flip to higher interest rates.

Hopefully, you'll go out and try to understand why you're so uninformed, but I think you're going to continue rationalizing away reality.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

The consensus approach is the right approach. It also works in the case of global warming. The consensus among reputable scientists is that human activity is causing global warming. We must immediately deal with the situation by reducing the production of greenhouse gases.

Really?

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming...
Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action...

So, tell me again, why should we wreck our economy over something that not everyone can agree on? Why should I change my lifestyle and/or lose my job for when the loudest cheerleaders of global warming are the world's largest carbon producers (Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, John Edwards and so on) and at the same time, the one attacked the most (George Bush) has a home that produces less carbon the average, small, energy efficient abode!

In 1999, the Bushes purchased approximately 1600 acres of land, complete with house and outbuildings, eight miles northwest of Crawford, Texas. They later hired an associate professor of Architecture from the University of Texas at Austin, David Heymann, to design a new 5,000 sq. ft. house and to convert existing buildings into Secret Service quarters and guest houses.

The new house is a model of energy efficiency. Central to the energy efficiency of the house is a geothermal heating and cooling system which pumps water through pipes extending three hundred feet beneath the ground surface, using only twenty-five percent of the total electric usage of the house.

Pipes connected to a heat pump inside the house circulate water into the ground and back up through the house. As the water returns to ground level it is a constant 67 degrees F, sufficient for summer cooling and winter heating. The water for the outdoor pool is heated by the same system, which proved to be so efficient that plans to install solar energy panels were cancelled.

Compared to Gore's House

According to a report published by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Al and Tipper's

This story deals with watermelons, kumquats, and God. It's probably only a matter of time before the Kook Cameron and his buddy make a video of this,. . .

See Jury nullification. If you're bored, see "I Don't Care What The Judge Said!"

This is an existing racket which has just been ported to the web.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_ada_shak edown.html
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/artic le.html?storyid=5543
http://blog.mises.org/archives/001453.asp

There are over 5,400 orginal manuscript copies and they all correlate. This exceeds any other literary text by 5,000. 2,000 years of study and denial and not one definitive myth buster... hmmm. That doesn't even factor in all the eye witnesses and outside (non-christian, non-jewish) historocity that validates the claims in the new testament.

Ahh, and where are all of the transitional forms that have lived and died over the last 30 million years?

But, as soon as you give in you can't think of yourself as god any more... pity, is that what's holding you back?

"In fact, it is precisely because of these problems that more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don't see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species which produced "instantaneous" changes from one life form to another. The nature and issue of mutations will be discussed later and the reader will see why such an argument is not viable."

This is exactly what the Christian faith in God the creator is not. Christianity is an intellectual faith. There is more evidence that Jesus walked on water, healed the sick and blind, raised from the dead, and ascended into heaven than for an instantaneous change from one life form to another!

How could so many "intellectuals" be fooled by evolution? The Religion & Society Report says, "Putting God aside, as we are doing, at least on the government level, we do not insure ourselves against delusion: we become more susceptible to it." It is ironic that it is not the "Jesus people" trying to impose their beliefs on others, but they are simply asking for academic freedom and open discussion. On the other hand, it is "scientists" and "evolutionists" that are imposing their views on all American school children. The Religion & Society Report proclaims, "It is the militant evolutionists who say, 'We must not look [to see whether there is evidence of design]. It's not Science!'" Well, neither is evolution!

If this has captured your intellect, please read Babu Ranganathan's full article here: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/16669. html

And here are some other resources: Have we lost academic freedom in America? http://mdcyguy.blogspot.com/2006/01/where-is-acade mic-freedom-creation-vs.html

Make no mistake; America has a state sponsored religion that is indoctrinated in public schools! http://mdcyguy.blogspot.com/2006/02/march-of-white -witch.html

Species mutations and natural selection do not prove evolution! http://mdcyguy.blogspot.com/2006/02/evolution-real ly.html

There is more evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ than for evolution! http://mdcyguy.blogspot.com/2006/04/without-doubt- he-lives.html

Our understanding of nature is tenuous at best! http://mdcyguy.blogspot.com/2006/07/are-natures-fu ndamental-laws-changing.html

"Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species which produced "instantaneous" changes from one life form to another. "
If this has captured your intellect, please read Babu Ranganathan's full article here

Species mutations and natural selection do not prove evolution!
There is more evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ than for evolution!
Our understanding of nature is tenuous at best!

Now, personally, I think the death tax is the most fair tax possible. You can't take it with you anyways, and your heirs didn't earn it.

I must say, I disagree wholeheartedly with the philosophy of DRM, however, having said that, you're fooling yourself if you think ANY of the money AllOfMP3 gets goes to the artist. I recently read an article discussing the flow of money and AllOfMP3 simply takes a portion of your money and passes the rest to some sort of holding company that is designed by Russian law accept money on behalf of artists they have contracts with and 'hold it for them.' The problem is, the money never leaves these companies. AllOfMP3 isn't doing anything 'illegal,' it's these holding companies that are ripping the artist off. Of course, AllOfMP3 is likely owned by a friend of a holding company owner. Gee... I wonder what that means. Of course, AllOfMP3 can make some of that money back by selling your CC number later, too.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/ap/article.htm l?mi=D8I08K6G0 'under Russian copyright law, [ROMS] does not need permission from copyright holders to license the sale of music on the Internet.'

Now, I would say (and obviously you, too) that AllOfMP3 fills a great niche. We need a service like that in North America that actually compensates the artists. www.bleep.com is a step in the right direction, and certainly for me, WARP Records puts out a bunch of music I enjoy, but it's not for everybody. As it stands, I have a backlog of albums I've downloaded from p2p networks that I need to pay the artists for. The artists themselves really need to set up some sort of 'donation' network, and then just allow people to pay them for music they've downloaded elsewhere.

I'm not sure the spirit of this protest is in the right place. Sure, the RIAA is putting DRM in saleable material and that's bad, except the RIAA exists to enforce the 'rights' of the people _distributing_ the music. They care not about the people who actually _create_ the music, and to me, those people are the only important ones. Now that we have the internets, I can download whatever the eff I please, from whomever it pleases me to download it from. That's known as 'distribution.' The RIAA (and, more locally specific, the CRIA) has no place in my life.

Perhaps I should call them and tell them that.

It's these wily Republicans in charge now, their parents and grandparents probably had a finger in assassinating JFK and won't to cover it up.

What? No, no, no, Cuba Killed Kennedy and we're liberating it when Iraq is done, now that we have evidence.

Please try to keep your conspiracies straight!

China is well on it's way to puting us in second place in the next 10 years

Let's see, we're planning for a moon base (to fight aliens) and China is doing John-Glen-style orbits.

They get an A-for-effort though.

The key point is that an open source software cannot integrate a DRM system because 1. their algorithms are generally not available except under NDA and paid license, and 2. Even if a DRM-infected OSS software was released, it would be trivial to extirpate the DRM part from the code and release a DRM-free forked version.

By forbidding DRM bypassing, they outlaw brilliant hacks such as DeCSS.

So in France, the heinous crime of trying to watch a DVD on your Linux machine will land you in jail. I'd rather recommand Frenchmen to pursue safer activities that obviously aren't actively repressed.

As with so many debates, the real problem is the issue is being misstated, so that there appears to be a contradiction where there is none. "Information should be free" refers to knowledge about facts such as history, public policy, etc. It does not refer to my bank accounts or medical history. Same goes for abortion vs death penalty. The former has not commited a crime that suggests he may not be cabaple of living in society. You may still disagree with views on either, but to juxtapose the two issues for purposes of debate is ignorant.

Oddly, you don't do a very good job of restating the issues in any less misleading a manner.

How are bank account or medical records any less factual than "history, public policy, etc."? I don't think the issue is whether personal information is fundamentally different from public information, but that, as a society, we would like to classify certain facts into protected categories while leaving other facts in the open. While there may be valid public policy reasons for the different classifications, they are, essentially, arbitrary decisions.

As for the question of abortion versus the death penalty, your restatement makes the unwarrented assumption that the person being put to death is actually guilty of some crime. Recent events have shown, however, that innocent people can easily wind up on death row.

These views (information freedom/privacy rights, abortion/death penalty) are only contradictory based on the context in which they are evaluated. When you violently disagree with another person's views, it is very tempting to cast their views in a context that emphasizes the contradictions and suggests that the other person is a hypocrite. While there may be some truth to this sort of accusation, the tactic is more rhetorical than factual.

Since you consider yourself a liberal, I'll take this opportunity to say "thank you" - you guys are the ones that have always clamored for more government involvement in everything.