Slashdot Mirror
Obama Significantly Revises Technology Positions
method9455 writes "Barack Obama has edited his official website on many issues, including a huge revision on the technology page. Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important as it was a few months ago, and the swaths of detail have been removed and replaced with fairly vague rhetoric. Many technologists were alarmed with the choice of Joe Biden before, and now it appears their fears might have been well founded." Update: 09/22 18:07 GMT by T : Julian Sanchez of Ars Technica passed on a statement from an Obama campaign representative who points out that the changes in wording highlighted by Versionista aren't the whole story, and that more Obama tech-plan details are now available in a PDF, saying "there is absolutely no substantive change to our policy - folks who want more information can click to get our full plan."
When are people going to learn to assess politicians and parties on their actions, rather than their promises? Those that might have really introduced change have already been weeded out. Vote for the puppet of your choice, folks.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important as it was a few months ago
He has to appease the big corps that are giving him money. What do you expect? He's running for President.
This is exactly what I wanted.
It has worked out so well before. Another white house run by a strong VP, taking advantage of the President's inexperience.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
in 5....4...3...2...
Change we can believe in.
See you all in 2012.
They've cut out about half the content, and large chunks about what they'll do for kids.
Either they've had advice that they shouldn't be promising definite things (makes it harder to weasel out of stuff later) or they're just cutting down the page size for some reason.
Either way, bit of a non story.
Politician changes mind, big whoop.
They're all rich white men
You mean, except the one black guy, right?
You just got troll'd!
...Sesame Street :(
Every American election always reminds me of the phrase from Alien vs Predator.
"Whoever wins, we all lose." or something like that.
and the swaths of detail have been removed and replaced with fairly vague rhetoric
Which gives (rather odd) evidence that even politicians are capable of learning.
Disclaimer: I may add that I do not believe that the outcome of the US-elections will initiate any notable change, some evidence may be the unitedly agreed upon upstream redistribution of money from the (poor) taxpayer to (for short) the rich. Besides, I am not US-citizen and located in Europe.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
The technology stance is important, but there are a lot of substantially more important issues on the table right now.
We're looking at the candidate who has spoken for and stood for change and integrity from before his political career started, and the candidate who has resorted to making bald faced, demonstrably false and misleading lies that in a non-political context would be grounds for a successful slander/libel suit.
When considering technology specifically, your choices are Obama, who at least understands technology well enough to have created a successful social networking style community site, and McCain who admits he barely even knows how to turn his computer on. If you're voting technology, Obama is the clear superior choice to McCain.
I know, 3rd party candidate and all that. I'm a supporter of breaking the 2-party system we have here in the US because I think it really hurts us; but to be completely honest, in this election it is down to two candidates.
It is extremely unlikely that a 3rd party candidate will successfully run for president until there are a fair share of 3rd party candidates in congress who can prove their chops in a way that makes the lot of them look less crazy (some 3rd party candidates look that way, it gives the better ones a bad name). If you support this ideal, trying to support it top-down isn't the way to get it to happen, it's got to be bottom up - local, state, and federal officials.
In the mean time, support a candidate who has the ability and perspicacity to restore our good will with the rest of the world. The way the economy is going right now, in 2 or 4 years, net neutrality is going to be a lot less important than food on the table and whether or not our troops are committing war crimes abroad, and whether or not our government is committing anti-constitutional crimes domestically.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
When McCain chose Palin, he basically wrote off the urban and more educated voters to focus on the what has become the Republican base: rural and less educated voters.
The revisions to Obama's technology page are less about shifting policy and more about recognizing that, thanks to McCain's choice of Palin, this election is going come down to the rural and less educated voters.
Detailed technology policy isn't going to win over rural and less educated voters. To appeal to those demographics, Obama has to keep it broad and simple.
"Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."
Barack is completely behind net neutrality, where as McCain is not, but don't let the facts get in the way of the way you try and put FUD out there.
They're all rich white men
You mean, except the one black guy, right?
It is called meta-color.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important
What the fuck are you talking about? It's THE VERY FIRST GODDAMN THING HE MENTIONS.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Ideas through an Open Internet and Diverse Media Outlets
* Protect the Openness of the Internet
If you're a McCain supporter trying to weasel votes away on Slashdot, you need to say so.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Actually the black guy qualifies in anyone's book as a rich white guy ... Unless you're totally obsessed with skin color.
millionaire - check
ivy league educated in law - check
wife and kids - check
lives in suburbs - check
"change" - well I guess not that much change. Okay, let me revise that, no change at all.
Obama is just another lawyer. One who doesn't have a principles stance of "freedom" but "hmmm, these RIAA guys, they DO pay kinda nice".
It looks to me like they hired an editor to cut the wall of text down to size. The first huge cut under the heading "Protect the Openness of the Internet" kept the main point while eliminating a massive unnecessary explanation. Readers who are unfamiliar with net neutrality would have been turned off by the wall of text anyway. Also, notice that Versionista doesn't track when blocks of text move to different locations on the page. There are a few paragraphs that simply got moved to other sections. This is just a sensationalist headline that doesn't really belong here. It isn't a "position revision." It is an edit that takes a very lengthy page & cuts it down to a more digestible size. Yes, there's new content, and yes, there are revisions. But on the whole, it's nothing to get up in arms about.
From his current page:
"Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."
He still holds the same position, he dumbed down the verbage because dumb people wouldn't understand his first version of his website.
no matter who gets elected president the direction the government is going is the same, the rich & powerful will continue getting more money and power while whittling away at fair use and the rights of citizens, GWB created a debt that will not be paid off for decades...
it is the nature of all governments (including ours) to usurp more power and authority at the expense of the freedoms and rights of its citizens and it is going to take a hell of a lot more than a change of presidents to fix that...
Voting= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u6lCBnRoHQ
The Big Club= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4SSvVbhLw
Religion is Bullshit= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
Carlin may be a comedian but his insight on these topics are on the mark
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Ha, but you're forgetting one thing. Well two actually, he can dance and he can jump! If that doesn't make him black, that makes him pretty fly for a rich white guy.
You just got troll'd!
If you are worried that he changed the content on his site, removing vast swaths of what he promised before, in order to defend going back on his initial positions, once he become president..do you really think he would care what was said on the campaign website if he was planning to flip positions later?
Presidential campaigns are like incremental releases of a software product. You get slightly better features but nothing revolutionary. Sales and Marketing usually prevents that so that people are back in line when the next release is out.
Rapid Nirvana
MAYBE it's going to be hard to enact a lot of programs, now that we have to bail out Wall Street to the tune of a trillion dollars. His new plan still says he supports Net Neutrality, this new version just seems trimmed down.
Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."
From his site:
Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.
I have not thoroughly analyzed the differences but many of changes appear to be stating his same positions more concisely.
Is Slashdot now part of some political machine, releasing a highly charged yet fairly baseless "article" early on a Monday morning?
Or is it a mere attempt to drive ad revenue?
Perhaps there should be some balance here. Say, 70% ad revenue, 30% political positioning?
And this surprises anyone...why? Obama seems to find safety in vagueness, just like most politicians. Gives them more room to waffle later.
Change we can believe in!
When are people going to learn to assess politicians and parties on their actions, rather than their promises?
Why stop at politicians? There are plenty of people around who suffer from a word/deeds mismatch.
Those that might have really introduced change have already been weeded out. Vote for the puppet of your choice, folks.
The people who can change things aren't running for president.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
OMG! Green leafy vegetables! How did it come to this? How can someone who eats rabbit food be this close to the White House?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
This post is pretty much pure bullshit.
If you look at the revisions, Obama has shortened some bullet points to make them more readable.
He still lists what he supports, but he does not going into massive detail in each one of them.
For instance, his current stance on network neutrality is now (emphasis mine):
"* Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."
Instead of:
"* # Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the Internet. Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a two-tier Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. Such a result would threaten innovation, the open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among content and backbone providers. It would also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has begun to transform American political and cultural discourse. Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or non-profit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences. Obama will protect the Internetâ(TM)s traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy. "
So instead of a massive (and unreadable) paragraph, it is now a very simple bullet point saying that Obama strongly supports network neutrality. How on earth is this "downplaying" network neutrality?
Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important as it was a few months ago
Here is a quote Obama's first bullet point in his updated and clarified technology position statement, the same paper that the /. summary claims that "net neutrality" is no longer important:
Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet
It seems like Slashdot sees the campaign as merely a vehicle for ad revenue. A correction in the Slashdot summary is warranted.
have out-and-out banned the industry altogether
Seems to me there are an awful lot of bans, confiscations, laws, rules and regulations in "the land of the free".
I figure if you're dumb enough to get a loan at 25%+, you deserve to lose your money. Conversely if you're willing to lose your entire principal once in a while by making loans to people with poor/no credit, the 25%+ interest rate reflects this risk.
But will someone please think of the meth addicts?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Except an empty suit.
Obama is just another lawyer
Could we please stop attacking lawyers just for being lawyers? Do civil rights attorneys bother you? Consumer rights attorneys? How about the lawyers who argued Brown v. Board of Education? How about Clarence Darrow (argued for the defense in the Scopes Trial)? What about John Adams (Founding Father)? What about Ray Beckerman (aka: NewYorkCountryLawyer)?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that not every lawyer is a RIAA extortionist.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
There are two new PDF links at the bottom of the page, where all the bullet points are expanded upon in greater detail. The Network Neutrality text (though removed from the main page) is now in the first PDF, verbatim.
WTF????
I would love it if your industry disappeared. Loan sharking (nice job on the wikipedia article, btw... totally non-obvious) used to be illegal. What you do for a living is called racketeering.
ahahahahahaahah!!!!!!!
Seriously, though, you're parasites who profit from the misfortune of others.
Take your online strategy and shove it.
Welcome to politics. Wishy-washy positions mean nothing in the face of issues people don't care(i.e. know) about, but lobbyists do.
Um, Barack lives right here on the South Side of Chicago. And brother, let me tell you, this ain't the suburbs.
Also, he only became a "millionaire" in the past three years or so after writing a couple of best selling books. He only paid off his and his wife's student loans about five years ago.
He was never "just another lawyer". Ask any of his students from the UofC law school or the people at the community organization at which he worked, for about $29,000 per year.
Don't be a bozo.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What a surprise....
"My fellow America-" *blam* *blam* *blam*
I wish it wasn't so likely that some racist fuck will shoot him.
In my state (kansas), it's not merely 25%+; it's 391%. Just to put some things in perspective. Sure, you can sit there on your all-knowing libertarian ass, but until you've been there, you have no sense of perspective. It is predatory, period.
READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.
She made the willows dance
These are guesses, or even hopes. I agree that any of the viable candidates are going to serve the corporate interest, but there are important differences.
1. Obama will engage in diplomacy with Iran, and hopefully in covert ways with Hezbollah, Hamas, and the nationalist Iraqi forces. If you're serious about ending terrorism, you have to engage the enemy dipomatically and address the conditions that lead to it. Protip: killing more muslims with western weapons isn't helping.
2. His Administration will sweep out the Bush/Reagan Administration, while McCain would probably keep a lot of it. That's worth my vote right there.
3. Obama does not pander to Jerry Falwell or any of his imitators. It's America, so he has to recognize the religious element, but he doesn't associate with the fundamentalist nutcases.
4. Obama has shown his distaste of the Bush and Clinton Dynasties. Change is good.
Most importantly, Obama is not McCain. McCain has turned from a moderate Republican, who I would have seriously considered voting for in 2000, to a complete shill, pandering to evangelicals, touting proto-fascist military slogans, and most importantly, has shown the same inability to engage in serious self-criticism that has truly frightened the rest of the world in regards to the Bush Administration. McCain also claims to believe that the Iraq war has something to do with counterterrorism or the spread of freedom, which to any serious observer, is total fucking nonsense.
Well, Obama, as a representative of the Chicago Political Machine, isn't a particularly non-white candidate.
I mean, he was raised in Hawaii, by his white grandmother, who was a Bank Officer. That isn't close at all to 'the black experience' in growing up. He's no blacker than any other political hack from the Daley machine.
"Actually the black guy qualifies in anyone's book as a rich white guy ... Unless you're totally obsessed with skin color."
Or checklists.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
true enough, but I would prefer a world without lawyers to one with 'good' lawyers and 'bad' lawyers.
I realize we need laws but the very large majority of the lawyers is simply parasitic to society.
It should be possible to get by with far far less of them then there currently are.
MP3 Search Engine
Okay, well. He fulfills the requirements of 'blackness' for racial stereotyping, or at least he fills in the checkbox on two items on the list, for the camera.
Sarah Palin was a star Women's Basketball player. In the 70's before women's sports turned into an 'entitlements' thing.
That is being racially intolerant of his mother. Or does black plus white equal black?
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Almost...
Except Barack's net worth is $799,006.
http://fortune535.sunlightprojects.org/lawmaker/507/
Maybe you were thinking of McCain? ($36,431,099)
http://fortune535.sunlightprojects.org/lawmaker/498/
And if you think you will get *any* change from an old man who has been in Office 30 years and only agrees with Bush *MORE* as it gets closer to election, I think you are misguided.
I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
No, but they are still lawyers.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Yes, but if all lawyers were good lawyers (crazy, I know), wouldn't the problem fix itself?
Awwww poor baby is disillusioned now that he's found out all politicians regardless of party are the same.
You're right - it's just the 95% of them that give the rest a bad name.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
No, but they are still lawyers.
Well, we could always get rid of our legal system and go back to might makes right. Probably wouldn't work out so well for most of us here on /. though.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I think the legal profession is a bit like a priesthood, it actually thrives on obscure interpretations of language and on serious consequences of failing such interpretations. It's like an arms race, if your opponent has a lawyer then you'd better get one yourself and so on. The end result is a legal system that is well beyond the average smart persons capability to interpret.
It should have never ever gotten this far.
If you simply removed all lawyers and let the parties argue their own cases exclusively we'd see two things:
- a significant drop in caseload
- a return to reasonable verdicts instead of verdicts on technicalities
Of course it's a pipe dream (especially in criminal law) but like with most extreme positions it has a grain of truth in it somewhere and it would be nice to be able to shift the 'middle ground' to the point where lay people would stand a chance against a seasoned lawyer, and where verdicts would actually make sense to an informed outsider.
MP3 Search Engine
He became a 'millionaire' because he wrote a couple memoirs? Huh? So writing a couple memoirs is a 'get rich quick' scheme that we should all engage in, it isn't a way for the politically connected to siphon in some green?? Well, then, I guess we should all write our memoirs.
So now we hate authors too?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I didn't realise that a good diet was the exclusive preserve of the Caucasian. Okay, they might have a better diet in the US in general, but I'm pretty sure that's just economic. I think Cerebus the Aardvark put it best: "Rich men are usually rich men first, and whatever else they might be second."
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
I mean, he was raised in Hawaii, by his white grandmother, who was a Bank Officer. That isn't close at all to 'the black experience' in growing up.
Yeah, sounds more like the American experience to me. The horror!
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Okay, well. He fulfills the requirements of 'blackness' for racial stereotyping, or at least he fills in the checkbox on two items on the list, for the camera.
Er, he also fits the white guy by racial stereotyping. Is it any wonder the blacks in America have such a crappy time if people question their "blackness" as soon as they start to achieve? It's like to be black is to fail from these posts.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
Ummmmmm ... yes. Until such time as they start writing laws in a language that the average person can read and understand and so, can defend themselves. Of course it would require much clearer and more straight forward laws and rules with less chance for built in loop holes for weasels to find their way through. There is a reason they get well paid... it takes forever to learn how to wade through the self made bullshit. I don't trust any self regulating industry very much. Yeah someone will make the 'don't you trust doctors' comment. Two things: the human body is complex on its own, the doctors can't help that and aren't the ones responsible for it being complex. But I still don't like the fact that they are the only ones on disciplinary committees. There is too much tendency to 'protect your own' than in taking a guilty party to task. Lawyers on the other hand work with legislators to word our laws such that simple ideas and other things are too complex for the common man to understand. Job security.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
And brother, let me tell you, this ain't the suburbs.
Oh, I DO hope you're black after posting that.
I do agree with the rest tho, he's not your typical presidential candidate.
You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
I keep forgetting -- does having a wife and kids make you rich, or white?
American US President Hopeful changes his plan! Again!
Americans in Shock and Awe for no real reason WTF so ever!
Who really gives a damn!?
US law schools churn out far more lawyers than we need, yet we have a looming shortage of family physicians since the insurance companies (i.e. their employers) don't want to be bothered actually paying them. The average salary for non-ivy league lawyers is far lower than you might think, particularly if you exclude the hapless drones working at the big lawsuit factories.
We will be able to do without lawyers once we can all agree to make and abide by the rules rationally, i.e never. We COULD do with fewer lawyers which could happen but probably won't.
I'd suggest we would do better with a major reform of the health insurance industry so every doctor doesn't feel compelled to specialize in order to make their investment of time and effort to become doctors (which is far more difficult than in law) pay off.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
"You really want to make the Executive even more powerful? Are you nuts?"
Think of it as a fine-grained power to say no. Sort of a counter agent to the whole "lets lump it all together and vote on it" that causes so much grief.
Do away with the latter and you don't need the former.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
>> Do civil rights attorneys bother you? Oh Yes. >> Consumer rights attorneys? Yes. >> How about the lawyers who argued Brown v. Board of Education? Even if the result was good, yes. >> How about Clarence Darrow...? Yes >> What about John Adams? Accomplished some great stuff, but I hold the lawyer thing against him. >> What about Ray Beckerman? Yes
RIAA lawyers do serve a purpose too, they take money away from RIAA... which is a good thing. If they would give them back to the people they would be modern day Robin Hoods.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
From a non-US point of view, it's an interesting game to follow this slashdot discussion and try to keep score for the two parties' spin doctors.
Is the grass also green?
...Support real campaign finance reform.
If the Democrats and Republicans and all the PACs and 527s that surround them are forced to play by rules that are actually reasonable in terms of making sure that more money != more votes, that's when third parties will start to have a real chance of getting into elected office.
I'm a liberal Democrat who believes in my party, and in Obama, but I know that the best way to improve both the Democrats and the Republicans is to make there be some more choices out there.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
oh.. wait a second..
Stop trying to paint him as some poor working class guy.
The man makes 250 G's a year. He's rich.
And don't go throwing out "lives right here on the South Side of Chicago" like Barack's hanging out in the projects. The man has a house, not in the inner city. I don't care if the crime rate is a bit higher than Podunk Town, USA, it's still the suburbs.
You sound like an idiot when you try and make him out to be something he's not.
This is why America will fall. As I see it, you just turned having an ivy league education into a negative point...
And, he's a rich white guy because he's got a wife and kids? Really? Couldn't think of anything else?
No, you're right. There's absolutely no change between a white child of privilege who's father and grandfather's influences gave him his education and career, and a guy from a single family mixed race household who went to college on scholarship, earned his admittance, and finished in the top of the class.
The President can only approve/veto bills that are sent to him by congress. If congress kills a bill in committee, or it fails to get the required votes in either the senate or the house, the President's position is irrelevant. Put the pressure on ALL politicians - not just the Pres & VP.
I was watching campaign ads from previous American presidential elections here -- it starts with the Eisenhower campaign and works forward -- and I was struck by how many candidates used the same rhetoric. "Change" has been a staple campaign theme for a long, long time.
It seemed there were three major types of ads:
There might also have been a fourth, "Our candidate is a nice human being!"
Here are some examples of #2, "Change," below (I've quoted the last sentences from a number of the ads at the above URL):
"Change" is exactly what you can expect the opposition party to be selling in any election. The only reason Obama's campaign seems novel is that we have the collective memory and attention-span of a goldfish.
He better support net neutrality.
That's simply not true. He's just changed his position.
His blackness was questioned by other black people. I believe the quote was about him "lacking slave blood." [Charles Kenzie Steele, Jr.] And let's not forget that by having a white mother he is just as much white as black.
Funny how both sides can simultaneously make race an issue and denounce race as an issue.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
millionaire - inherited?
ivy league educated in law - Legacy quota?
i moderated -1 by accident, posting to undo
wud
Okay, you're pitching a software project to me. You've taken a week to study the initial project outline. You come back with a firm promise to solve the design problems in a very precise way. You state that you will stick firmly to your proposed design come hell or high water - that any later inputs from me, my staff, my clients who will be using the software will not be taken into consideration. Your deliberations on design are finished. Your word on what you'll do is a sacred contract, accepting no further input, no revision.
I'd tell you to take a flying hike.
So political solutions are supposed to be amenable to a week's study (about all any one of the many issues a campaign issuing position papers can afford per issue), and contractual lockdown to every last detail of the first draft proposal of a solution?
Isn't that how the Iraq war was planned? Didn't we only start making progress once revisions to the original concept were accepted?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
OMG! Green leafy vegetables! How did it come to this? How can someone who eats rabbit food be this close to the White House?
No kidding. He looks wayyyy too good for 47. Look at how fit and trim he his! Why, it must have something to do with all that rabbit food he eats.
My blog
you mean 'removes any stance he made and posts complete bullshit'?
Doesn't everyone realize Joe Biden is a COMPLETE BOOTLICKING MORON?
Mod me down if you want, the bloody Democrats are what's killing this country. Well, them and the Republicans too.
So, I'm voting SAVAGE/HYNEMAN '08!
Pax Vobiscum
Umm unless your name is Geroge W. Bush. Then you legislate by issuing Executive Orders!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Let me watch him hail a cab on South Michigan Avenue and I will tell you what his skin color is.
You know...is anyone *REALLY* that surprised by this? I mean, you do realize that Obama's received TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars from corporate donations, right? So why should we be surprised when he bows down to them? ---- I decided long ago (right after his pro-FISA vote) to switch over to Nader; He's at least consistent in his platform and doesn't go waffling around bigwigs like McCain and Obama do. ((votenader.org/issues)
Early on, I was really quite excited about this election with an actual candidate that seemed to have values I do and wanted to make positive changes, but it looks like the rich people have gotten to Obama. Whether the changes to the website are anecdotal or not, Obama voted for telecom immunity and choose Biden for VP. I don't think I am voting for the presidential candidate this time around (will vote in the other elections), and will wait 4 more years to hope a great man does appear (with a backbone and conviction) that wants to try to run the country. Things might be bad enough then.
My colour-sampler puts him at #A67A61
That's because there wasn't one. "They mixed telecom immunity in with another bill" isn't a changing circumstance, it's a centuries-old political ploy that could have been seen a mile away and could have been countered easily: by both filibustering the poisoned bill (as he promised, for those of us who care about such things) and introducing an unpoisoned alternative.
I'm sure you can have one of these things but it's hard to see how you would get both.
Browsing with your threshold at -1, you learn a lot about what slashdot's trolls are like.
He's as white as he is black.
That said, the GP was the first to see an artificial distinction.
Could we please stop attacking lawyers just for being lawyers?
Reminds me of the joke of how 99% or all lawyers give the other 1% a bad name.
Sometimes I wish Daleks existed in reality, and threatened to do what they do best to people that think (and speak openly as to proliferate those thoughts) like Shakrai.
What we really need is another president like Washington, one that takes the job because it needs to be done. Not one that lobbies for appointment of himself. One that also steps down voluntarily when the job is finished.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that not every lawyer is a RIAA extortionist.
Substitute "thief" for "lawyer". It is indeed possible to name a handful of thieves who steal for good reasons, but the exceptions don't magically erase the malfeasance of the rest. The nature of "lawyering" is such that it attracts a lot of folks with a certain degree of "moral flexibility", the ability to rationalize their client's position as the "right" one, based solely on the fact that their paycheck is coming from there. People like that aren't often good people. My cousin is one. Slick, charming, and as morally ambivalent as any psychopath.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
"Ummmmmm ... yes. Until such time as they start writing laws in a language that the average person can read and understand and so, can defend themselves."
"Thou shall not murder" seems pretty clear and look what happened to that.
". Of course it would require much clearer and more straight forward laws and rules with less chance for built in loop holes for weasels to find their way through."
It's human nature to see what we can get away with. Just ask any parent.
"There is a reason they get well paid... it takes forever to learn how to wade through the self made bullshit."
Much like any technical profession.
"Lawyers on the other hand work with legislators to word our laws such that simple ideas and other things are too complex for the common man to understand."
What's complicated about the fact that some things can have subtle and shaded distinctions?
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
This is a new age. We can do the fights as they did in medieval times, but in a virtual world. We will, rule. RULE! I tell you!
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
that is reassuring.
He gives a link that shows his exact same page as before in pdf format. This is a shortened view that includes Biden's views. Obama's views are the same as they were before. Here is the link at the bottom of the page http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf
It's not just Bush - they all use EOs for good & bad purposes... http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
Obama's positions were vague before, and they are vague after; they have to be, it's the process. And it's not like you can sue the president for not sticking to his campaign promises.
What you should go by is what the candidates have done before with their lives. And, to me, Obama comes across as clearly the better candidate.
McCain has serious ethical problems, he seems to have a problem with his temper and making rash decisions, and I don't trust him with control of the military. I think he would also be a bad representative of the US to the rest of the world. Palin is even worse, both in terms of ethics and record.
Or, alternately, we could probably do without lawyers if we'd just simplify the damn legal code, and we could DEFINITELY do with fewer lawyers if we'd stop making stupid laws.
Take drug laws for example. The US annually arrests upwards of 800,000 people for marijuana violations alone. That means you're creating 1.6 million opportunities for lawyers (prosecutor and defense) on an annual basis. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather open up that industry to farmers, pot-bar/"coffee-house" owners, and other related private ventures, instead of creating jobs for lawyers, judges, police officers, and criminals.
There are countless such examples - marijuana was just the first one to come to mind because I was recently discussing the idea with some friends in law enforcement. Eventually it evolved into a discussion about law enforcement as a whole, and the general consensus seemed to be that we just have way too many pointless laws.
If you want to have a society in which law and order are taken seriously, it's much better to have a few very important laws which you enforce with a high degree of success rather than having a whole slew of laws, half of which you can't effectively enforce, and the other half of which you can only enforce sporadically because you're forced to waste resources on stuff that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Not only does the current criminal code make law-enforcement less effective, but it makes the legal system unnecessarily complex, wastes taxpayer money on jobs that shouldn't even exist, and actually encourages crime.
What a troll.
The anti-lawyer rhetoric on this board is pretty ridiculous. In case you forgot, the drafters of every open source license are lawyers. Lawrence Lessig is a lawyer. Charles Nesson is a lawyer. The people representing the defendants in RIAA suits are lawyers.
Obama is just another lawyer ... who ... ha[s] a ... stance of ... "hmmm, these RIAA guys, they DO pay kinda nice."
[citation needed] buddy. This truthiness crap is ridiculous. Unless you can prove the RIAA has employed Obama, that's libel. Watch yourself bub.
Um .... no. RIAA lawyers fees come out of RIAA's operating costs, which come out of various record labels profits, which are calculated into their loss/profit margins, so the cost is eventually passed on to the consumer. That's not to say that the average consumer would see much of a price drop on CD's if the lawyers weren't taking their cut, but let's not pretend that their existence is in any way beneficial.
....Then you don't pay much long-term attention to American politics.
I was wondering when B.O.'s new "handler" would quietly start pulling him into line. Stay tuned for more, especially after the election.
Regards;
I'm a right wing Republican whose endorsing John McCain but I am appalled at the way you liberals are once destroying yourselves and your candidate with your withering self doubt. We have on the right have a joke, that is, only Democrats could be so smart as to figure out a way to blow election after election and here you go again.
Can you please have some hope?
What Obama did with his web site was to basically rewrite it from the mishmash that it was into something more coherent. There is nothing substantively different about this restructuring. Obama has always been in favor of strong IP legislation, but, so what of it?
Do you really think that a man who spent his formative years arguing in favor of some form of socialism will suddenly turn his back on that?
Do you really believe that a man who has worked his entire life organizing his own liberal constituency into an election machine is suddenly going to come out looking like Reagan?
I mean, seriously, don't you think Michelle would kick his rear if he even thought of selling out?
I mean come on liberals. You are getting a guy whose is your best standard bearer for your commy liberalism in easily 40 years, if not since Roosevelt, and arguably all time. Obama knows well that which he argues and that's why on the right hate the son of a gun so much. If you are liberally inclined, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Obama is a committed idealist with the trappings of greatness about him and in spades. A minor shift in a political position or a rephrasing of a web site is not going to alter the overall thrust of this man's policy or his life.
So, don't lose faith because some staff member re-edited the web site. Obama is going to deliver for you liberals nearly everything that you believe in if he is elected. Obama is the real deal of liberalism. This is your chance. Don't f--- it up.
Now, quit whining, liberals, as you so often do, and get off your asses and vote for this guy. He's the best you'll have in your lifetime and now is the time to go for it.
This is my sig.
Ok, so the site has been redacted a bit. Is the alternative any better?
That is being racially intolerant of his mother. Or does black plus white equal black?
Turd in the punchbowl theory. Nobody cares if it's only 1/100th turd by volume, it's all turd as far as everyone is concerned. If someone has just a few drops of black blood in them, they're all black. Tiger Woods is something like equal quarters white, chienese, american indian and black. What race is he? Black.
America remains racially biased.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Also, he only became a "millionaire" in the past three years or so after writing a couple of best selling books. He only paid off his and his wife's student loans about five years ago.
The first million is the most difficult. That was what the felon named Tony Rezco did with Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle.
For the Obama lovers who will not believe, a source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOFT8jtuVpo
Mate - I ain't disputing it. :)
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Ummmmmm ... yes. Until such time as they start writing laws in a language that the average person can read and understand and so, can defend themselves
How about just smarter average people?
You'll have that sometimes...
So now we hate authors too?
I suddenly feel like hating you for authoring that post...
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
The changes look cosmetic to me. Someone probably rewrote it and toned it down a bit to cater it to people with short attention spans. Intelligent people who follow the news know that Obama is by far the lesser of two evils and will vote for him. Idiots that vote for abortion or other religiously biased stances will vote for McCain and his new earth creationist running mate. However they may get a few more votes from people who choose a candidate at the last minute as they watch the debates and read up on them. For this purpose it makes sense to tone down some of the details in order to address the key issues and how he stands.
Saying "I support net neutrality" vs, I support Net neutrality and here is a paragraph supporting my stance, hardly indicates that he no longer supports it.
Well, if you define "The Black Experience" as "grew up in the ghetto, did a lot of drugs, spent half his life on welfare, and has 3 baby-mommas", then no, Obama didn't have "The Black Experience". On the other hand, characterizing blacks in such a ways is just a wee bit racist, eh?
I find it interesting that so many other "African Americans" are essentially saying: "He succeeded in life, therefore he doesn't represent us!". If that attitude is representative of the black community, then it's no wonder that the ghetto's are so disproportionately black. It's like their whole self-identity is based on failure.
You really have to question the submitters' motivation on this one.
If anybody bothered to read the diff, it is obvious that the page was re-written to improve accessibility, so that more voters can understand the issues. Long paragraphs were shortened and some of the details were omitted so that the page does not sound like a treatise.
Some of the items like immigration was taken out, I suppose, because it didn't belong on the technology page. A lot of the text was rearranged, I assume, for better structure.
If all you wanted to know about is net neutrality, then yes, a lot of the material that described the mechanism in detail is gone. However, this issue has been debated to death online and most people have less of an idea of how the internet works than Ted Stevens. I seriously don't think Obama has changed his stance on this, other than to put it on equal footing with other issues related to technology on that page.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Until such time as they start writing laws in a language that the average person can read and understand and so, can defend themselves. [...] it takes forever to learn how to wade through the self made bullshit.
I've toyed with this idea. In common law, judges can, essentially, create laws by calling them rulings. If you cut down on the volume of the laws in the books--this may be non-trivial, we live in a complex world--you still have to consider all the case law. You can't really outlaw trials, or the world would disappear in a puff of disappear in a puff of disappear in a puff... ;)
So you'd have to abandon common law, or in some other way give very little influence to past findings. But, one might argue, that means that every part of every question that is raised more than once has to be answered without relying on previous answers, instead of relying on past answers and just looking at what's different this time. Seems wasteful.
Just a thought :)
I don't trust any self regulating industry very much.
I'd much rather have someone well versed with the ways of the industry regulate it, than some out-of-touch bureaucrat, as long as the regulating body is not shielded from the public will.
Um, Barack lives right here on the South Side of Chicago. And brother, let me tell you, this ain't the suburbs.
Are you serious? He lives in Kenwood!!! Maybe geographically it's not the suburbs but c'mon dude. It's Kenwood! You know, Kenwood
You'll have that sometimes...
You don't understand... there's a glass ceiling of black education. If they break through that ceiling, they suddenly lose the street cred and become white. Now, if he had made his money off of music, then he'd be a hero. It all makes sense if you just ignore logic.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
And the Middle-class White woman. ;)
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Is that some sort of sexual innuendo?
Are you kidding, gun ownership is very high among geeks so a might makes right world wouldn't be so bad today for us. I don't care how muscle bound someone is, a high caliber pistol make all men the same size. Oh and personally I would have little to worry about even without a pistol, 6'3" 220 relatively lean pounds, not all of us are shapeless blobs =)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
If you removed all lawyers and let all parties argue their own cases, you'd immediately see a drastic shift in power to the upper class and more educated, who would actually know the law, and have time to study and interpret it. The reason we have lawyers is so that EVERYONE has an expert on the law on their side. Also there'd be a shift in power towards prosecution, since the state pretty much by definition has to have a lawyer, or at least one person who puts forward cases against a multitude of defendants.
Despite the left's attempts to paint McCain as "Bush III" (rather laughable, really, although there are certainly many reasons not to support McCain) the libertarian candidate Bob Barr is the real flag-bearer for neo-con economic and social insanity.
Think about this - the LIBERTARIAN candidate wants to prohibit flag-burning by constitutional amendment. That's right, the candidate who supposedly represents LIBERTY wants a federal prohibition against you disposing of your own property, just because it happens to have a colored pattern on it that is meaningful to somebody else. He wants to MODIFY THE CONSTITUTION in order to protect a PIECE OF CLOTH - and in the process jettison the freedom that flag supposedly represents, along with the very concept of private property.
The closest thing to a real 3rd party vote these days is to write in Ron Paul. Post-Reagan Republican party values are essentially the opposite of the traditional Republic values that Paul still represents, and old school conservatism is now considered the lunatic fringe.
Are you kidding, gun ownership is very high among geeks so a might makes right world wouldn't be so bad today for us.
I realize you are probably joking but even with gun ownership I don't think I'd want to live in a lawless society. Read up on sniper alley during the Bosnian War.....
Oh and personally I would have little to worry about even without a pistol, 6'3" 220 relatively lean pounds
You'd have something to worry about if the other guy had a pistol and you didn't ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
OK... Lets look at this logically... there are now two people running for president. John McCain and Joe Biden. Neither Obama nor Palin have the political capital or experience to be taken seriously. This being said both men are a problem when it comes to technology. In fact most of Congress is a problem. While the war is on McCain will not care about your privacy (this is being said by a Republican Troll by the way) and as the war fades away I am not sure what would bring it to his attention if he could even understand it; he's 72 years old. Biden, however, will sit as the tie breaking vote in the senate and he swings a big stick (the guy has been in office longer than I have been alive). If you are worried about net neutrality and privacy, worry about Biden. If you don't believe me call Phil Zimmermann and ask him what he thinks of Biden. Even Microsoft has had to lobby against him. I am talking about impact here and Biden will have the most. Ask yourself if that is good or bad. As for me if it weren't for that stupid flat tax I like many would choose Ron Paul if I were voting for net freedom. Thanks for your time... If you would like to reach me with comments please direct all correspondence to.. Winston Smith c/o Miniluv Room 101 "Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."... John Adams (Our First VP)
> I didn't realise that a good diet was the exclusive preserve of the Caucasian.
I guess you didn't watch the Katrina coverage...
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
And a nice house with the help of Tony Rezko. He's a sleezebag.
He might as well be a dictator to an extent, since he ignores constitutional limitations on his office and feels that he doesn't have to share any information whatsoever, and is generally unaccountable to anyone except Cheney.
It will be a good long time, if ever, before the damage he's done to our law is repaired.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
You're supposed to log out and into a different account before you sock puppet.
vote Third Party. FTW.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Actually he is not half as black as many think he is... Either way neither race no over abundance of Whitey Guilt is a basis for choosing a President.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
My thought is that Obama is for slowing down my browsing pleasure with a lot of Flash adds saying how great he is!
I want those 8 seconds of my life back!
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
North Kenwood suffered significant depopulation and attendant decline of the housing stock and retail base, bottoming out around 1990, although the area has been gradually redeveloping since then. South Kenwood fared this period rather better, escaping middle-class flight in the 1970s due to the efforts of the Kenwood Open House Committee to have the area zoned single-family homes only, halting a trend then underway to apartment and rooming-house conversion. In the real estate boom of the mid-2000s, houses sold for in excess of two million dollars, and long vacant lots were redeveloped with high-end luxury houses.
So is he from South or North Kenwood?
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
Seems to me that the parent is just making a few valid points. Where's the flamebait, mods?
Honestly, while I care about the candidates' views on technology, I think long-term impact will be felt far more strongly based on who they appoint to the Supreme Court ("SCOTUS"). The reason I say this is because, by-and-large, republican nominees have been more willing to clamp down on civil liberties, with special attention to interpretation of free speech. (Alas, they've all proved pretty wrong-headed when it came to Eldred v. Ashcroft, a/k/a the unfettered expansion of copyright... but that's where the difference between interpretation and legislation comes in, and, alas (for this case), the SCOTUS isn't nearly as revisionary as the fundies would have us believe.)
So, anyway, I care about McCain and Obmama's positions. But I care far more that the Court is becoming substantially unbalanced, and worry that a republican in office will have decades-long influence over most every freedom we currently take for granted.
I generally can't bring myself to read the entirety of these types of threads. I usually give up after awhile, as I've done today. So can someone please explain why they believe it's a bad summary as it was tagged?
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
In the past two years, Senator and Mrs. McCain have contributed $340,323 to charitable causes, according to their tax returns (they file separately). Senator McCain's giving constituted about 28 percent of his income for each of those two years.
From 2000 through 2004, Senator Obama and his wife contributed less than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings (they were paying off student loans according to their spokesman). In 2006, however, that total jumped to to $60,307 (6.1 percent) and to $240,370 (5.8 percent) in 2007. (Sorry, couldn't find their tax returns on his website - anybody got that link?)
Here's the numbers for last year:
McCain earned $396,527, paid $118,660 (30.7%) in taxes,and gave $105,467 (27.3%) to charity.
Obama earned $4,139,965, paid $1,396,772 (33.7%) in taxes, and gave $240,370 (5.8%) to charity
I'm not criticizing either candidate here, just pointing out the facts.
After reading the website, it sounds to me like the plan is to nationalize the internet in the U.S. With Democrats in control of Congress and the Whitehouse, all dissenters will be sought out on the net, located, and imprisoned.
The Fairness Doctrine will be implemented in tandem and our transformation to the Socialist Republic of America will be complete.
Next, the eugenics program will move into full swing. First, we'll begin terminating all pregnancies that "fail" genetic testing. Next, well move on to roping up all the genetically defective persons running around and do away with them. Of course, I'll put a bullet in the head of anyone that comes after my daughter, who happens to have Down syndrome.
For those who are lucky enough to be left, you will get free healthcare. However, anyone who costs too much will be euthanized for the good of everyone. YIf you have a good consitution, you may be able to wait out the year-long waiting lists for certain procedures or tests.
Everyone will be reassigned to new jobs, as the government sees fit.
Ironically, no one on the left will say a word. The ACLU will be silent. The media will not cover it. For once, Bush will not be to blame.
Long Live the Revolution!
It's a bit out of topic, but I have to link to The Onion for this.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
How does that apply to the idiots who voted Perot?
What about the ones that are lining up to thow away a vote on that other Texas idiot?
How about adjusting your statement...wait, adjusting your statement would destroy your argument.
If the "third party" is aligned with the Left, such as the Green Party, then yes it will draw off Democrat voters. If the party is aligned with the Right, such as the myriad of "Small Government, Law and Order" parties, then you will draw off Republicans.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
He became a 'millionaire' because he wrote a couple memoirs? Huh? So writing a couple memoirs is a 'get rich quick' scheme that we should all engage in, it isn't a way for the politically connected to siphon in some green?? Well, then, I guess we should all write our memoirs.
And McCain is poor and in loads of credit-card debt, with a very rich wife. Look it up - it's publicly available, as well as the records of Obama's book sales.
Whoah, I just checked out the wiki, he IS 47. :)
I think that's a good age to become a president, but he does look damn young.
I hope I will still look that good when I'm 47
This is the sig that says NI (again)
It's not watered down or vague -- its politically expedient. "Technologist" only were only needed during the primary and he needs to appeal to both sides of the issue now.
Y'all are probably wishing you voted for a proven flip-flopper than a promising flip-flopper now.
I think the legal profession is a bit like a priesthood, it actually thrives on obscure interpretations of language and on serious consequences of failing such interpretations.
I'll agree with you on that. Laws should be more clearly interpretable by everyday people.
- a significant drop in caseload
Yes, because that's more important than ensuring justice is carried through.
- a return to reasonable verdicts instead of verdicts on technicalities
The idea of what constitutes a technicality can be subjective. They're there to make sure that the law was carried through correctly, and that no "short-cuts" have been taken. Sure, sometimes getting off "on a technicality" can seem ridiculous, but there will be other times when that technicality prevented a miscarriage of justice.
Lawyers reduce the chance that a defendant that cannot successfully argue their case is found guilty, just because the other guy is able to make a more convincing argument.
No innuendo.
The reality is that Michelle Obama was part of the curiously timed real estate deal between Barack Obama and the criminal Tony Rezco.
Could we please stop attacking lawyers just for being lawyers?
Turn on any TV channel less high-brow than The History Channel (and maybe even that one; I don't watch it because I'm not that high-brow). Wait 15 minutes. You will see at least one advertisement for lawyers who want you to get rich from asbestos exposure ("even second hand!") or to get you that social security disability check that "you know you deserve". This probably accounts for 90% of the average person's contact with the legal community. Can you really blame them for thinking poorly of the profession?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
So is he from South or North Kenwood?
I'll give you one guess.
You'll have that sometimes...
In the US, it usually makes you a man ;)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
I'm not sure it matters too much who gets in. Yes, I know that one at least has the promise of change, I'm aware of that.
As I understand it, one of the aims of the neoconservative movement is to bankrupt the government, paying out to neocon interests in the process. When the government hurts enough, they will go to the corporations to help them and thereby be indebted to the corporations (ultimately fascism).
The current financial situation is so far beyond broken that it seems to me BushCo has won. They've successfully repealed enough legislation that the financial system fails. I'm in the financial industry, and without government intervention I can tell you we would have had another Great Depression. The government naturally steps in to help out, and they are forced to pick up the tab for these corporations (yes, I know it's supposed to be a loan. Look at the S&L crisis, "loan" is a farce)
Basically, the government is spending so far beyond the tax base now that we could see some serious inflation. I have to wonder if BushCo has already won, as the government may have a hard time recouping its already bloated losses.
Just a thought, really. I'm sure others with a deeper knowledge of economics could chime in on this one too.
-
And owning what,m 7 houses and 13 vehicles?
Barak isn't some common man, and nobody is claiming that except strawmen constructed by the flailing rightists.
It's not like Barack failed utterly at his job, and after 5.5 years of dealing with that failure, returned to divorce his loyal wife and marry a young woman.
That goes more to character than any amount of wealth.
Blar.
If you look at the bottom of the linked page, there are now links to two PDF files which contain a lot of the sort of details removed from the main web page...
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
I feel like this is the veil of the darkside here. Net neutrality and government accountability were cornerstones of his tech platform, now they've been removed in the last month. I just don't know if I can support that. Those issues are extremely important to me.
I think Joe Biden has influenced these changes. Who knew he was so in bed with the IAAs? That's special interest. That's bad for America.
This is a slap in the face to plenty of people who have been supporting Obama since before the primary.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Responding to hyperbole with pedantry. Then again, this is slashdot, home of the clueless gripper.
Blar.
I can't wait to see the discussion here on Slashdot once the government tries to subpeona the IP logs for this thread's Anonymous Coward author. After all, "Vote with a bullet" could reasonably be construed as a veiled death threat against one of the major candidates.
Somebody's gonna have a strange knockin' at the door real soon...
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Actually reading the page comparison, it seems like its not as bad as this article suggests. It still says he supports network neutrality, it just no longer goes onto a rambling long paragraph explaining it. It still says he wants to protect the first ammendment, it no longer goes into a tirade about porn. Basically, its been optimized to not put someone asleep.
Wow. You guys do not know what it's like to live next to WoodLawn and 47th st.
It's not as pretty as you think.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
Honestly!
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Since you mentioned John Adams, allow me to present his words on the topic of lawyering:
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
You know, you can call them Americans. Strictly speaking, everyone in the western hemisphere is a person from the Americas, but only people from the United States are called Americans. Everyone else would just be offended by the implications of being called American ;-)
What's the value of information that you don't know?
The problem of judging them on their actions is that they already are in power by the time you have something on which to judge them. It's just like having an IDS--it doesn't prevent an intrusion, it just lets you know that one has already happened.
While some people have always said one thing and lived another, I believe we are in an age where that behavior (a lack of integral integrity) is more readily accepted as normal. We expect politicians to behave that way.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
"it would be nice [if] lay people would stand a chance against a seasoned lawyer"
That's literally analogous to saying, "it'd be nice if the average person could every once in a while out-paint an expert painter."
Or better, "it'd be nice if a person who played a lot of guitar hero could out-play a real, expert guitar player." The relationship between what people think of the law and the way its presented in movies and tv shows, and how lawyers practice law is just about the same as the relationship between playing guitar hero and playing a real guitar.
Tag this story flipflop
He's a politician!!!! Just like all the rest.
Decide on the views:
If you're for gun-control, pro-choice, social programs, expanded government control and regulation of personal life and business. VOTE FOR OBAMA.
If you're pro-gun, pro-life, pro-fiscal conservative, pro-limited government - DON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA.
If you want an honest Congressman, it's probably not going to happen until we stop electing them and start drafting people to the position.
I suppose, I assume, I seriously don't think. You are making a lot of suppositions and assumptions to soothe your desire to believe what you want about Obama. I'm not saying the alternative is better. Just don't assume because you want something to be true, it is. That is how wives trick themselves into ignoring facts about their husbands when things are blatantly obvious to others.
MOD PARENT UP!
They are absolutely correct here. There is a reason indigent defendants are appointed a lawyer in criminal cases instead of being told to defend themselves: it balances it. Let two law educated professionals duke it out for their clients, instead of one poor client and one law expert. All of a sudden it is no longer a fair argument, and one side will begin to prevail far more often than the other (moreso than now).
The summary said network neutrality "is no longer as important as it was a few months ago."
Alarmed, I went and read through the comparison. I'm not so worried - yet.
It's still the first bullet point in the candidate's platform. They call it by name - "network neutrality" - quite specific. It appears to be his biggest specific concern. He put the bullet point on it at the top of his list, both before the change and after.
All they did was trim a description of what it is. That may be significant but you are really reading tea leaves. It may just as easily be good editing (bullet points shouldn't be 500 words long, or no one reads the next bullet).
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
I totally agree with you, right now it is all about telling your point in the simplest way possible and making that emotional connection (hence the heavy prevalence and inclusion of Science and Math two subjects that America ranks about 23rd worldwide at 7th and 8th grade level).
End of line
Doesn't that just make him a rich black guy?
Do you have to be relatively poor to be black these days? If so, then I was black for most of my childhood and am only now beginning to turn white.
Additionally that would make 100% of the black celebrities actually rich white people.
Sean Combs
JayZ
Ludicrous
Opera of course
All black sports stars
or do they do something different that somehow retains their blackness while still being incredibly rich?
They all have teams of lawyers on retainer... even if not one themselves.
Many of them are corporate shills used to market to the black community
Very few have done any real community service or given back anything other than money and a distorted cultural heritage
your post doesn't seem quite so insightful anymore....
Maybe it's really the same as it's always been, have's vs have nots... where the have nots will try to distinguish themselves as particularly oppressed as a group to win sympathy from guilty conscience have's who will aid them in becoming have's too.
Even within the poor it's a struggle for the scraps, which is where you get racism.... dirt poor whites trying to exclude dirt poor blacks from access to the left over resources the rich people don't care about.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Or at least play one on TV!
GWB created a debt that will not be paid off for decades
you can hardly say he *created* the national debt
You are being disingenuous. You are talking about 'the' national debt (the sum of the entire debt of the US) while the GP was talking about 'a' debt (the debt of the Iraq war). There's a difference between 'a' and 'the'.
While one could reasonably say that Congress (which includes Democrats) equally share in the blame for the Iraq war and the resulting debt, we both know that's not that what you were talking about.
So what you're saying is, it's about time we voted for an 18 year old unmarried absentee father of three crack addicted Hispanic who is functionally illiterate? I mean, that's be a real change, right?
Damn all these smart, successful and capable people running for the Presidency!
Sarah Palin was a star Women's Basketball player.>
Ok so here come the lesbian jokes.
It's actually kind of an interesting question what would happen if one undertook a sustained push to make it possible for citizens to apply the law without a law degree. Certainly all the nuanced precedent that's been developed would be chucked, both for better and for worse, but I'm not convinced that that stuff wouldn't grow back rahter quickly. I guess the question is whether law is inherently complicated or is being made more complicated by the way it's used and developed.
By analogy, think about how a big application develops complexity. The needs for the system never truly fit into one bucket or another, but the developers take a stab at some paradigm. Then the requirements change, and the paradigm, which didn't fit perfectly to begin with, gets modified. Eventually the application acquires a huge amount of cruft and history, and becomes very difficult to change - even with well-designed applications and relatively good requirements and consensus-building processes. Sometimes organizations succeed in changing those kinds of applications, equally (or more) often they fail. And that kind of entrenchment is with organizations of O(1K-1M) people, with organizational re-invention timelines of less than a decade.
As an outsider unburdened by knowledge of how legal systems work in practice, what seems to be missing in law is some kind of purging process that actually rethinks whole legal frameworks and allows them to modernize and start the cruftation process anew. The entrenchment problem is at least several orders of magnitude harder as it involves more people, far more money, and issues of vastly greater complexity. But I do believe we'd be getting there a lot faster if we could drop this stupid ideological debate over "more government vs. less government" and let that be a consequence of well-designed legal and government systems rather than a driving principle.
By voting you really cannot the change the substance, you can only change the look and feel for coming years.
Ummmmmm ... yes. Until such time as they start writing laws in a language that the average person can read and understand and so, can defend themselves. Of course it would require much clearer and more straight forward laws and rules with less chance for built in loop holes for weasels to find their way through.
Funny, I've not had a day's worth of law school, but it's rare that I find a bill, law, legal brief or opinion that I don't understand at least at some level. Access to any of the case references often helps quite a bit. In other words, it's not anything more than reading comprehension just like we've all been doing since the 1st grade.
Legal documents are written in thick, complex language for a reason. The reason is to make it possible for judges to later infer legislative intent when interpreting laws later. Law written in loose language often cause us all problems later. See Jaynes v. Commonwealth of Virginia as a classic example; in that case the Virginia Legislature passed a law that forbid "false" routing information on email as opposed to "fraudulent" routing information. The difference in the two terms led the judge to conclude that the use of false information was akin to hiding one's identity as opposed to the real goal of shifting the blame onto an innocent third party.
There is a reason they get well paid... it takes forever to learn how to wade through the self made bullshit.
Well, our legal system is built upon 1000 years of case law, logic and legislation. As most lawyers will tell you, law school is less about learning the law than it is about learning logic of how law is constructed and how to find references (case law) to support your theory of a case.
lives in suburbs - check
Suburbs? That will come as news to anyone who has been to Hyde Park...
My bicyles
Obama is about as black as George W Bush.
Don't just fall for the way things look.
Oh wait, everyone did with Obama so far. He looked slick, like most democrats (anyone remember Slick Willie), but people seem to forget just how FUCKING corrupt the democrat party is as well......
Yup, Obama is nothing more than a spokesperson for the same assholes that brought us Clintonia.
--Toll_Free
--Toll_Free
When blacks stop accusing other blaqs of losing their blaqness, racial stereotyping, and racism itself, will be on their way out.
Until every friggin race STOPS trying to show it's uniqueness, people will look at each and every race different. It's called common sense, and the human element.
--Toll_Free
true enough, but I would prefer a world without lawyers to one with 'good' lawyers and 'bad' lawyers.
I realize we need laws but the very large majority of the lawyers is simply parasitic to society.
It should be possible to get by with far far less of them then there currently are.
If we lived in a world without lawyers, we'd need to invent them. Or rather, we would invent them, and those who didn't get back on the bandwagon using lawyers would be at the mercy of those who did.
Consider: we have judges and juries to determine judgment in legal cases: but like anybody else these folks are human and prone to influence and mistakes. Plus not every case is clear-cut according to the laws. Add to that the fact that it's difficult to codify things unambiguously (this is why we have "legalese" - it's similar to the reason why computers have programming languages and mathematicians have their own set of notations) and in the case where there is an ambiguity, you need someone who understands that ambiguity and can work with it. And finally you need people who can write progressively less-ambiguous laws...
So if we got rid of the legal profession, then the "big evil corporations" would still have lawyers (even if they were rebranded as "corporate representatives" or something, they'd make sure there were spokespeople for the company who could make good, compelling arguments with respect to the law...) - All that would really change is that individuals would now be completely (rather than mostly) at the mercy of those who have studied law, or those who can afford to retain such individuals...
Bow-ties are cool.
Yeah, but if you look at slashdot, you'd think that all lawyers where MS shills.
Of course, it might be true. It's just going to take a few more years for people to get linux to finish installing, all the drivers updated, and their wifi cards to actually WORK before the proof can be posted.
BUT, rest assured! Proof is in the pudding, and the pudding tastes good! I'll let you know when the install is done and we can connect lol.
--Toll_Free
Now that I have kids, I agree with Louis McMaster Bujold's idea that true wealth is biological
No sig for the moment.
IIRC Obama is half white, 1/32 black and the rest is mostly Arab.
The government can't save you.
They're all rich white men
You mean, except the one RICH black guy, right?
emphasis and additional word is mine.
Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
For this to work in the US, you would need to also remove the "case precedent" portion from the legal system. "Common folk" would not know enough about previous cases to be able to stand a chance against the rich who would have a lawyer build their case for them even if the law required the individual to defend themselves. If you remove case precedent and if you simplify the entire legal code, and then you have a system where self representation would be feasible.
Those are pretty big ifs, and cut out all of those who are making so much money off our legal system. Sadly, because of this, it is not likely to ever happen.
Interestingly enough, many good presidents have also been lawyers. Go figure.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
Do you really think that if Al Gore had won in 2000 that we'd be in Iraq right now?
"He did."
(Well, really "winning" would have meant, you know, being able to claim the presidency... So maybe not.)
Bow-ties are cool.
Obama is bad for America because he's a hardcore socialist and an enemy of our Second Amendment rights. Let's all quit attacking the stereotypes and attack the issues.
The government can't save you.
and there is no difference between someone who gave up years of his life serving his country in the millitary and someone who did community organization.
These are clearly two people from very different backgrounds and to compare them as apples to apples is irresponsible.
I would suggest we look into how much of McCain's "wealth" comes from marriage. You know Cindy McCain is no slouch. She may be responsible for the McCain real estate. I personally do not keep track of the things my wife keeps track of, I do not neet to double manage everything. She is an adult and has the legal right to manage our houshold assets.
Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
This is why America will fall. As I see it, you just turned having an ivy league education into a negative point...
Agreed.
No, you're right. There's absolutely no change between a white child of privilege who's father and grandfather's influences gave him his education and career, and a guy from a single family mixed race household who went to college on scholarship, earned his admittance, and finished in the top of the class.
This election has way too much emphasis on the person of John McCain versus the person of Barack Obama instead of their respective policies.
Is it so inconceivable that two men of diverse backgrounds could end up with similar policies? I am aware that there are differences, and that some of these are important in the short term. Taking the long view, however, results in an identical push by both candidates for more government and less individual freedom. These ramifications won't be made apparent for another 10-20 years, but they will show up. I cannot vote for any candidate who will (sometimes with the best intentions) do such a thing to my country.
Your brain is not a computer.
Why? She doesn't play golf.
Sigs are for losers
Since when is quoting the Constitution trolling? If I had to wager a guess, I'd say, "when truth is worth less than opinion". Typically, that's what political news articles tend to be on Slashdot. Indeed, political posts anywhere tend to devolve into opinion-based arguments, but, for some reason, when this happens on Slashdot, I'm always a little disappointed. But then, your question was probably rhetorical.
Simplification of the legal code is a temporary fix. The code, by nature, will become more complex again because there will always be people who will find a way to abuse anything they can understand. Also - the legal codes will just go and get messy again unless there's a process in place to clean it up every so often, akin to garbage collection.
Drug laws are one small part of the legal process. Look at estate law and the process a family goes through when a family member passes away. Look at employment cases, like wrongful termination. Look at (this is a big one) liability cases between whoever you want. Having few *important* laws is subjective and varies greatly depending on who you talk to.
There is a great demand for law, and consequently, law services. I agree that we have too many pointless laws, but I understand that the ones that are important to me aren't important to others. When you try to setup a system that serves all people, it's going to be complex, nasty and all the above complaints. You can simplify, but then there'll be that group that wants those laws put back cause they were *good to them.*
I totally understand wanting to toss the war on drugs. It's a potential industry that would allow people to engage in activities that wouldn't make them criminals. I can totally understand believing that the basis for such laws is flawed. But, once those laws are lifted, how do you handle that industry? It'll need regulation... More lawyers there. Standards would need enforcement, quality control, taxation, and even liability for workers and customers. Then there'd be the people who would want the drugs locked down like alcohol in some locations... preventing sale to minors, not selling at certain hours... The infrastructure demands are still all there.
line item VETO (if implemented correctly) would only give the executive more power, if the way laws were worded remained unchanged.
IE their could be no more submarine a good bill by loading it with crap. Granted it would technically only stop the party that didn't have the president behind them. However in congress/senate it is a negotiation IE the dems allow the repubs to stick in a rider, in exchange they know they'll get their chance next time.
By letting the (R) president veto Democrat riders, it will cause the Democrats to make sure and kill the Republican riders, before their bill gets to the Pres.
So my theory is that it should put a end to unrelated things put together in the same bill, just to be vetoed out.
Of course this doesn't work when you got a super majority in both houses, and president all aligned. Then again they can just then just pass the individual bills they want in that scenario without worrying about line items.
IIRC Obama is half white, 1/32 black and the rest is mostly Arab.
I fail to understand why people still persist with this simplistic notion that genes are carried down through the generations in nice neat fractions like this. Whatever the morphology of his skin, Obama represents a synthesis of cultural values to which he has been exposed.
The thing is, all this could be solved by adding a "Read More" link to expand out the section to include more detail. In its current version, it does look watered down to be more corporate-friendly even if that was not the intent.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
lives in suburbs - check
South side of Chicago is not the "Suburbs"
Recent millionaire (2-3 years ago) after writing a book.
Choosing to work as a public defense type of lawyer working for $30K a year, after graduating from Harvard.
So, no, you are wrong..
--
..........FULL STOP.
Looks like a wordsmithing to make it shorter and punchier. Bottom of the page still has a link to what appears to be the full original text, perhaps with even more details, http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf I haven't checked it word for word, but it looks like no cause for alarm.
The man makes 250 G's a year. He's rich.
According to John McCain, that's middle class.
--Obyron
Whether you stereotype him for being a rich lawyer from the 'burbs or somebody that can dance and jump is meaningless. The only thing that matters is that he could beat me at basketball, but I could out-bowl him. That makes him blacker than me.
The jury's still out on Palin - She could definitely take me on a basketball court, I have no idea how well she bowls, but she's not black because she's from Alaska. The only issue remaining there is that her fishing/whaling skills could make her an Eskimo.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Well I'm assuming that the reader understands that it goes both ways. :)
Using qualifiers in that sense highlights that the submitter assumed a particular interpretation of the changes, but did not acknowledge his assumptions.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Actually the black guy qualifies in anyone's book as a rich white guy ... Unless you're totally obsessed with skin color.
millionaire - check ivy league educated in law - check wife and kids - check lives in suburbs - check
My gosh......I don't meet a single one of those. As much as I'd like to be a millionaire.....
I just realized I don't qualify as white!! Wow, talk about identity crisis. Unless you've somehow redefined white to mean something BESIDES skin color.
Qxe4
McCain's income is missing his wife's, which should be fair game to include. All reasonable people would consider that "household" income anyway. Good job playing games with the percentages though.
If anybody bothered to read the diff, it is obvious that the page was re-written to improve accessibility, so that more voters can understand the issues. Long paragraphs were shortened.
The original page is a huge amount of text -- 5462 words on the page. This is like "War and Peace" for a web page. The new version only has 3319 words on the page and the text has been simplified.
The average person reads around 200-250 WPM for fifth grade reading material. For technically detailed information (the earlier version of the webpage), the rate can drop to 70-80 words per minute.
The first version had a large number of technical details and was extremely long. Assuming a generous 100 WPM for non-technical readers, it would have taken nearly an hour (54 minutes) to read. The new version is much less wordy and the technical details have been simplified a bit so if we assume a faster reading speed of at least 200 WPM, it will still take most people over 15 minutes to read.
What Obama really should do is make the web page smaller still - to the 5 minutes-to-read range and then have an extended document like the original page that you can download to read over an hour or two if you want the technical details.
And we don't have that now? I think education would be a better equalizer than having a better lawyer, which costs more money or in the case of many corporations, a whole mini law firm at their hands. Civil cases does not guarantee the right to an attorney, only criminal cases.
With that being said, even if we tried having each party argue their own cases, the emergence of lawyers would be inevitable for the reasons you just said. Someone may not have time to research the law, they will go hire someone who is an expert in the law and made it their trade to be knowledgeable in it and they would argue the cases on their behalf and then you have the lawyer profession born again.
Or, alternately, we could probably do without lawyers if we'd just simplify the damn legal code, and we could DEFINITELY do with fewer lawyers if we'd stop making stupid laws.
Alternatively, people could stop treating the legal system as a money bucket to be plundered whenever it suits them. The US took the lead in the pursuit of frivolous or vexatious lawsuits, and unfortunately, the rest of the world has, rather than eschewing this squalid and undignified practice, followed the example with glee and abandon.
The legal system and profession would have more respect if they were used as such. One is the product of the other, and the more the "system" (such as it is) is abused, the worse the situation will become.
Uhuh ... I don't mean to be intruding but ... ahem ... There's this slight issue that you seem to leave out.
aren't good lawyers more expensive than bad lawyers ? And if that is so, then doesn't the "upper class" have better interpretations of the law on their side. Furthermore there is corruption to spoil your broth further and there are plain and simple lyers.
Ever tried to sue the phone company ? You should, it will teach you a very good lesson about how & when the police will actually do something.
Laws don't change a thing about the fairness in society, nor do they make anyone honest. Afghanistan under the taliban lead the world in all these very fine trades : rapes, drug production and drug use, yet they had no shortage whatsoever of either laws or lawyers (drug production with lawyers on your side - sure that's legal, but don't you dare put tomatoes and cucumbers in the same bag !).
The real issue is simple : it's ideology that matters, that defines the fairness of a society. What defines whether YOU think a society is fair is how well it's "system" matches YOUR values. E.g. there is obviously a nontrivial portion of muslims that find the taliban's system fair, since they're killing eachother over it ("taliban", incidentally, means "wise muslim").
Which is not to say that a lawyers advice cannot be useful to people. However laws are today, and will always remain, fundamentally flawed, and lawyers' motivation is fundamentally flawed : financial gain. That obviously is more easily available from the worst of people.
I think it's keenly observed that the priest "class" was replaced by lawyers in our society. The main difference is that the priests had good intentions, at least in theory (even if too often not in practice). Lawyers only want money. Those are the drivers of their respective professions. Priests want a fair society, that upholds high moral standards (in theory). Lawyers want money, whatever the consequences (again in theory).
A priest that's bad for justice is a priest that's less moral than his/her profession demands. A lawyer that's GOOD for justice is a lawyers that's MORE moral than his profession demand. The "default position" has been switched.
That's why rich child killers run free because of "procedural error" and people get in jail for refusing to pay a parking fine : a judge is a lawyer. Intentions nor reasonableness matter, only the letter of the law, and money. Granted priest-judges execute too many innocents, and are VERY opposed to freedom of expression, and prevent religions from being practiced freely, but let's not kid ourselves that courts are anywhere near perfect.
I am happy with the system we have. That doesn't make me blind : it's not perfect. Not by a long shot.
I do agree with the rest tho, he's not your typical presidential candidate.
No, but voting party-line 96% of the time does make him a typical Democratic senator. (Sorry if that sounds like Dem-bashing, but 29/30 of the top party-line voters are Dems. The other is an 'Independant'.) For comparison, Hillary's at 97.2% and Biden's at 96.6%. Even McCain, who 5-6 years ago actually looked kind of like a vote-the-issues-not-the-party senator, is standing at 88.3%.
Change my ass - Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Is it so inconceivable that two men of diverse backgrounds could end up with similar policies? I am aware that there are differences, and that some of these are important in the short term. Taking the long view, however, results in an identical push by both candidates for more government and less individual freedom. These ramifications won't be made apparent for another 10-20 years, but they will show up. I cannot vote for any candidate who will (sometimes with the best intentions) do such a thing to my country.
If this is truly your position then you should vote republican. Unless you seriously believe that having medical care "administered" (meaning some guy in washington decides whether you can get cancer treatment or not, without possibility for a second opinion). This is just one example, because Obama wants many more things regulated : your finances for example, how & where you put your money. Or the way your children are educated and by whom (and what those people say to your children).
And yes, maybe you're right about the loss of freedom. But at least McCain will delay the loss of freedom somewhat.
Those facts are a strawman. Why I should care how much the candidates have donated to charity?
The thing is, those are not the "two sides". They are all on the racists side...
I can personally testify that having a wife and kids does not make you rich. Although it has darkened my skin some by encouraging me to get off my ass and go play outside.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Your facts are stupid, you're counting only 50% of John and Cindy McCains combined income. For Obama you're counting 100% of his and Michelle's combined incomes. Furthermore, Cindy McCain like many wealth people gets most of her income not from salary but through capital gains and other tax advantaged sources which McCain is not required to report on his tax returns (which he files separately).
The people representing the defendants in RIAA suits are lawyers.
And who, exactly, is representing the RIAA ? In fact that firm that's actively sabotaging networks ... isn't that a lawyer firm ? Hmmm ...
I'm probably stating the obvious. And stop threatening me.
You must be new here...
It keeps there foreskin from slipping up over their head and suffocating them!
Yea, because of course, we don't want to make people spend more than five minutes doing something as inconsequential as choosing who gets to be the most powerful man on the planet.
I hate printers.
...it's not anything more than reading comprehension just like we've all been doing since the 1st grade.
:-)
;-)
I would normally consider it otiose to point out that this is Slashdot... But this is Slashdot, and the majority of readers fail to parse more than one sentence.
In fairness, this also applies to non-Slashdot readers. I have a number of acquaintances who, although educated to a high level, are incapable of satisfactorily answering an email consisting of more than one sentence.
On occasions, I'm a bit brutal about this: I split every point I want to make or receive a response to into individual one-line emails. It pisses people off, but it gets the message across...
Oh no! Here come the G{#000000}AA trolls!
I hate printers.
"rights attorneys bother you"
They do insofar as we have a need for them.
I hate printers.
If you removed all lawyers and let all parties argue their own cases, you'd immediately see a drastic shift in power to the upper class and more educated, who would actually know the law, and have time to study and interpret it. The reason we have lawyers is so that EVERYONE has an expert on the law on their side.
Nice sentiment, but sadly, the upper class already has the power. I'm sorry, but a poor working man who is wrongly accused of murder has little chance of finding a lawyer who will get him off, whereas... well, OJ Simpson. An immigrant family-owned business has no real legal discourse if the large real estate conglomerate that leases the storefront of the business decides to screw over the family.
People talk about a health care disparity, which exists and must be fixed. There also exists a justice disparity that no one really seems to talk about. Given the proportion of politicians who made the practice of law their previous profession, I doubt this will ever change.
And one point that continues to irk me about Obama. As a soon-to-be doctor, one of the biggest issues that I'm concerned with is health care reform. Absolutely recognizing the need for universal health care and health care reform, I worry that many of the proposed changes will lead to short-term cost savings at the expense of long-term innovation. Looking at Obama's health care plan, he blames many elements for the outrageous cost of health care today-- the heartless insurance companies, the wasteful hospitals, the greedy drug companies. What party does Obama not even mention?
You guessed it.... the money-sucking lawyers. Coincidence?
From the campaign:
We've been updating the entire website to ensure consistency across the pages. The full tech plan is still available on the page, so there is absolutely no substantive change to our policy -- folks who want more information can click to get our full plan. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf
Right now this is the top comment in a discussion where it's completely clear that the article summary is wrong and the poster's comment is mostly irrelevant and somewhat inane. It's at the top of a tree of comments that get in the way of people seeing the raft of stuff correctly communicating what's going on with Obama's tech policy.
And yet it's moded "5, Insightful".
Definitely a strong candidate for "overrated" and possibly "offtopic", since "Wrong" is unavailable.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
The problem is, the US government thinks it should protect its citizens from themselves, and thus the anti-drug laws. This is a touchy subject because some people can't control themselves and the drugs destroy them, giving the government more fodder for preventing use by all, and then you've got neo-prohibitionists that lobby hard for stricter laws (what MADD is now, for instance). It probably doesn't help that the current President was a coke and booze addict and is now a teetotaler, and the on-deck Democrat candidate used coke and weed and neither he or the Republican candidate is for changing that legislation.
Still, legalization probably creates as many problems as it solves from a law enforcement or even financial standpoint - sure it no longer is illegal to possess and the government profits by taxing, but suddenly you have a much bigger "under the influence" category to enforce, whether that be driving under the influence, stealing to support a habit, rehab, crimes committed under the influence, or some other category. And while pot may not be the best example, there are plenty of other drugs that are. A friend of mine has a cousin that routinely dropped 4-5 hits of acid before driving because it was "cool" - often he would stop back at our place (I was living in a house with four friends at the time) because he was tripping too much to go home (mom woulda known). If he were my cousin I would have called the cops on him if he left, but my friend always let him go (probably because that cousin was his dealer). On the plus side, that guy realized his life was going down the toilet, quit drugs, went to college, and now has some kind of engineering job.
Personally, I am for legalization, but any money earned from legal sales and cultivation needs to go to education and users should be monitored for addiction. Why education? Because I watched a heroin addict go through kicking the habit (bandmate a long time ago) and later lived in a house with 3 reformed heroin addicts (6 renters there - big old house - the owner and two tenants met in rehab) and after hearing their stories, I can tell you heroin scares the shit out of me. After watching a tenant at my wife's rental property self destruct on meth losing her job, kids, and getting evicted from our property, then choosing to live on the street vs rehab (her mom was going to help if she sought treatment), I can tell you meth scares the shit out of me. Education on the effects and how to resist the peer pressure is more useful than enforcement, in my opinion.
Obama & Dean struck a backroom deal which allowed (1) Obama to get the nod from the party's bigwigs and (2) Dean to replace the clinton's as the new democratic power broker.
The main problem for Obama is that he had to agree to take the old guard, in particular Biden, with him. All of a sudden, he has been reduced to a pretty face on the establishment. And now, the idealistic ideas he once explained clearly are now nothing more than vague lip service.
Obama is looking more and more like Howard Dean's puppet, with a tilt for Chicago-style politics.
Yea, because of course, we don't want to make people spend more than five minutes doing something as inconsequential as choosing who gets to be the most powerful man on the planet.
That's not what I was saying at all.
Time is precious and most people aren't going to spend an hour reading a single webpage. I basically said to turn the Web Page into something quickly readable -- like a 5-minute Executive Summary. Then have the detailed plans available for download.
Imagine if you were interested in building a new house and the architect gave you a written proposal that included all the local ordinances for plumbing / electrical wiring / et cetera inline with the description of what he was going to try to achieve. Or if his vision statement of a green rooftop with solar panels was interspersed with all the building codes and the number of applicable permits required for the installation.
Wouldn't you prefer that he give you a clean vision statement and then have an addendum with the code compliance details. You might be interested in all the excruciating permit details but it'd be easier to sell your wife on the vision if she could skip the extra hour of tedious reading -- especially if the boring minutia were technical enough she would have trouble understanding it anyhow.
"You guessed it.... the money-sucking lawyers. Coincidence?"
Because lawyers don't have much to do with it? Of course, neither do the drug companies....
Because lawyers don't have much to do with it? Of course, neither do the drug companies....
Sure. 6-figure malpractice insurance premiums aren't affecting the cost of health care at all. That sounds logical...
"yet we have a looming shortage of family physicians since the insurance companies (i.e. their employers) don't want to be bothered actually paying them."
You are kidding, right? Family practice doctors make good money (at least according to average salary ranges). They just don't make as much money as specialists with more skills.
McCain's numbers are his own, from his tax return. His wife's income and charitable giving are excluded, because she's not a candidate for public office and thus not required to release her personal records.
No games, just the numbers to which both candidates are legally obligated to report accurately upon penalty of the Wrath of the IRS.
2. His Administration will sweep out the Bush/Reagan Administration, while McCain would probably keep a lot of it. That's worth my vote right there. Ideological difference. I won't argue with you here, as I'm unlikely to change your mind as to whether this is goodor bad.
3. Obama does not pander to Jerry Falwell or any of his imitators. It's America, so he has to recognize the religious element, but he doesn't associate with the fundamentalist nutcases. Nothing wrong with the Hollywood fringe or racist extremist element like Jeremiah Wright of course.
4. Obama has shown his distaste of the Bush and Clinton Dynasties. Change is good. Obama has pissed all over these "dynasties" strictly for political purposes. He's already come crawling back to the Clinton's for help in his campaign. And if he kicks out all of the Clinton democrats, who's he going to be left with?
McCain, has not changed. He did have to pander to the right, just like Obama had to pander to the far left, in order to win in their respective primaries and secure donations. It's the media that has largely turned on McCain, and is so in the tank for Obama, it took an SNL skit for any of them to realize it.
If we were a truly colorblind society, we wouldn't talk about "black people" and "white people", so we wouldn't be concerned about "racial intolerance of his mother" because it wouldn't occur to us. But we're not a color blind society.
And our current racial categorization as determined by society is primarily based on skin color. If your skin is even a little dark as a result of African descent, then you're "black". That's how people see you, and insofar as people are going to judge you by the color of your skin, people are going to think of you as "black". And so by societal definitions of race (which there isn't really much besides the societal definition), Obama is a black man. What's more, he self-identifies as "black" (which is a fancy way of saying that if you ask him whether he's black, he'll say "yes").
I'm not sure what grounds you have to argue. But then, I guess it also depends on why you think any of this matters.
right, so right now we have a bias towards money, whoever can hire the most/best lawyers often wins the case.
It seems to be very hard to have a system without bias (including the one where you simply buy the judge, sure that *NEVER* happens...).
MP3 Search Engine
Liar.
But now that Obama has been caught astroturfing without required notices, consider how he'd prefer is opposition not have free access to do similar stuff on the Internet in four years. But then, paid advertisements without notices are already illegal.
only in the us
MP3 Search Engine
lol, here is his "humble" homestead.
the one that he got for a $300,000 discount from rezco:
http://sedulia.blogs.com/photos/everywhere_else/barack_obamas_house.html
no, they are not analogous.
A judge should decide the case the same way not depending on who has the deepest pockets, as soon as lawyers are involved that automatically becomes a (big) factor.
Amateur painters do a pretty good job of painting but they do not depend on that for justice.
MP3 Search Engine
I think you are looking for 'refactoring'.
MP3 Search Engine
Parent is nothing butastroturf. Either slashdot's liberal bias is real, or the sockpuppets are already running the show around here, like they are over at digg and reddit.
Facts are what they are, only "stupid" if you hate the implications. All of your caveats were in my original post. I'm reporting the numbers from their income tax returns, which must be accurate under penalty of law (from which rich people aren't excluded, just ask Spiro Agnew).
And the source of Mrs. McCain's income is irrelevant - if they file separately, then all of their income and charitable giving is reported separately as well. That's the law.
Actually, I though Obama's giving was pretty reasonable in 2006 and 2007, especially relative to Democrats like Al Gore. The average American gives about 3.5%, so it's above-average. As a self-described Christian, I would have expected him to give at least 10%, but that's between him and God. I was just responding to the OP's claim that McCain wasn't charitable.
As opposed to McCain who is a hardcore delusionist and an enemy of our 1st and 4th amendment rights. Lets all quit attacking the candidates on the issues and continue ignoring reality.
What if the judge agrees with your opponent's idea of "reasonableness" and not with yours?
I don't think our kids are watching the space shuttle launches. It used to be a remarkable thing. It doesn't even pass for news anymore
One of the areas where we're in danger of losing our competitive edge is in science and technology and nothing symbolizes that more than our space program
Science and Techology doesn't even pass for news.
Of course, this is sloppy logic strung together from previous Obama quotes. But yes Obama has flip flopped\changed his mind\evolved on this issue. Started with a delay of the Constellation program, to now saying that our current Administration has short changed NASA and he will continue to support NASA and Ares\CEV development to shorten the Shuttle\CEV gap. (this change occurred when he visited Florida. Coincidence?)
Yes, Barack Obama, by mentioning arugula, has shown he is the elitist among the major party candidates.
John McCain, on the other hand, is just chock-full of mavericky goodness and simple values, and isn't elitist at all, despite the fact that he and his wife own a private jet and 8-12 homes on 8 properties (McCain says he doesn't know... it must be hard to keep track), spent $273,000 on household employees last year, and THIS JUST IN: own 13 cars. Oh, and despite McCain's claims that he has only bought American cars all his life, those cars include a Honda, a Lexus, and a Volkswagen, and also in the family is the Prius he boasted about his daughter buying just last year when he was pandering to voters with different concerns.
Oh, and Cindy McCain may have worn a $313,100 outfit on the first night of the Republican convention and said you just can't get around Arizona without a private plane, but trust the people who brought you the Iraq war: she's as down-to-Earth and "simple folk" as they come.
Those "uppity" Obamas, with their one house, on which they got a better-than-average mortgage deal (gasp!) based on Obama's senate income and book proceeds, have one car for the family. And both Obamas paid for their education with student loans, with Barack, who was raised by a single mother and his grandparents, ending up as president of the Harvard Law Review. John McCain, the son and grandson of Navy Admirals, was practically the definition of a legacy admission at the U.S. Naval Academy.
Yeah, that arugula comment really tells the whole story of who's an elitist.
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
Yeah, as opposed to McCain who is only in favor of two amendments:
Like most rightwingers. . .
2nd (because it gets him donations and support from the NRA), and the 5th (because it keeps him and his friends in the banking and financial industries out of jail).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Or, we could question your motivation as an Obama supporter defending the removal of information, especially the net neutrality positions. Wheee.
"Sufferin' succotash."
While in theory you are right, the majority of people have neither the time, nor the capacity, to critically think about every issue in depth. Until really recently, the Obama campaign had a terminal case of TL;DR in just about everything they did.
Recently they've figured out how to do soundbites and how to get their message across without boring the "Friends" crowd to death. While it's a sad indictment of the average level of intelligence in our society, it's how you gotta do things in politics (and no, it isn't going to change).
Obama can count his Houses(1) and Cars(1). Made his money the hard way...
While McCain married into wealth and doesnt know how many houses he owns(8-10) and cars(13).
yeah lets keep comparing.
Fact is McCain doesnt know how to use email...thats a big red flag.
Lawyers don't win cases because they have, or represent someone who has, deep pockets. They win when they present convincing arguments.
The problem is that the average joe doesn't know how to present a convincing argument, especially not on matters of law. So, that's why tort suits are based on contingent fees, and criminal defense is provided by the state.
Don't forget, judges are lawyers too. And usually, they're the bad lawyers who couldn't hack it in private practice.
Finally, you should also know that small claims courts feature a judge and no lawyers - just a plaintiff and defendant who argue their case before the judge. The small claims court is limited to cases involving less than 5 or 10K. Think Judge Judy. By definition, all other cases are sufficiently complex or significant (in terms of money involved) that lawyers should be the ones handling the legal arguments.
I don't think you even know what a "hardcore socialist" is.
There has never been a viable socialist candidate in the US, much less a "hardcore" one.
That's why rich child killers run free because of "procedural error"
Umm, that's what's supposed to happen in our system. It's not limited to rich kids either -- criminals of from every social class get off all the time because the police or DA screwed up. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Or would you rather convict someone based on evidence that wasn't probably handled or that was collected without a warrant?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Turn on any TV channel less high-brow than The History Channel (and maybe even that one; I don't watch it because I'm not that high-brow)
Should have said PBS... History isn't that high-brow ;) They used to be, but nowadays what passes for 'History' are CGI images of warships/aircraft and "Ice Road Truckers".
You will see at least one advertisement for lawyers who want you to get rich from asbestos exposure ("even second hand!") or to get you that social security disability check that "you know you deserve". This probably accounts for 90% of the average person's contact with the legal community. Can you really blame them for thinking poorly of the profession?
Well, I would hope that people would be smart enough to realize that the dirtbags advertising on TV aren't representative of the whole profession. Would you judge all newspapers by the standards of the New York Post?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Nice theory,problem is things like SLAPP suits have really turned justice into a rich mans game. Which is why we have asshats like the RIAA able to accost little kids at school and sue dead people. Because the cost of actually fighting back is simply too high for 99% of the population. And don't even get me started on criminal. I have sat in court and watched as rich guys with baddass lawyers walked over and over again while the poor schmuck with the public pretender went to jail.
The simple fact is the system is broken,but how to fix it considering those making the laws are all lawyers(talk about a conflict of interest) I have no idea. But as it is now if I have major cash and you don't my lawyer will slaughter you,or keep you tied up in court so long you go broke trying to fight me. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Trouble is 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Each puppet has a set of strings leading to the entity that is controlling them. Given the Democrats' cozy relationship with the entertainment industry, I seriously doubt that net neutrality or any sort of copyright or DRM reform will see the light of day.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Before I get ambushed. There are, in fact, one hundred senators in the united states. =)
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
Wikipedia isn't working for me at the moment, but I think I noticed it said he had a net worth of >$2,000,000.
Still, legalization probably creates as many problems as it solves from a law enforcement or even financial standpoint - sure it no longer is illegal to possess and the government profits by taxing, but suddenly you have a much bigger "under the influence" category to enforce, whether that be driving under the influence, stealing to support a habit, rehab, crimes committed under the influence, or some other category.
All of that stuff was illegal before (except rehab of course). I see no reason that it won't continue to be illegal afterwards under the current laws.
Personally, I am for legalization, but any money earned from legal sales and cultivation needs to go to education and users should be monitored for addiction. Why education? Because I watched a heroin addict go through kicking the habit (bandmate a long time ago) and later lived in a house with 3 reformed heroin addicts (6 renters there - big old house - the owner and two tenants met in rehab) and after hearing their stories, I can tell you heroin scares the shit out of me. After watching a tenant at my wife's rental property self destruct on meth losing her job, kids, and getting evicted from our property, then choosing to live on the street vs rehab (her mom was going to help if she sought treatment), I can tell you meth scares the shit out of me. Education on the effects and how to resist the peer pressure is more useful than enforcement, in my opinion.
Absolutely. The problem is that the current laws cause "education" in practice to be nothing more than "drugs are bad, mmmkay" and scare tactics. Tobacco and alcohol, despite being legal, also fall under this category. Legalization is the first step. Education abut responsibility (as opposed to abstinence) is the next one.
What I've always said is that laws should be 'filtered'. Or, rather, hierarchical.
That we should actually organize, and require by law, all laws so that they are under specific subclasses of behavior.
I know the laws are organized this way generally, but in actual fact they fail at this at the highest level, where laws about one action are often in entire different multiple sections of code, and at the lowest levels, where rules are often just listed in some linear order one after another.
We should be able to go the table of contents in a legal book and be able to immediately learn of all the laws that apply to any specific action we wish to do, and just have to read, at most, a page of text.
And we should have a legal reassurance that no law can apply outside the specific plain-English scope it is listed in.
I.e, if the scope is motor vehicles, and I am not, in any way, dealing with a motor vehicle, it should be impossible for any law under that scope to apply to me, regardless of a law that includes, for example, bicycles in there.
Oh, and also, any exceptions to a law should be listed at the higher level. For example, if a large sections of the motor vehicle laws exempt farm vehicles crossing the road, then there should be, at the branch of that tree, that exemption actually placed there. Instead of, as is common, semi-randomly at the end.
The entire system is structured, right now, so that you literally have to know the entire code just in case some law might apply to what you doing. This is clearly incredibly stupid. Anyone should be able to look up the ten or fifteen laws that might apply to what they are doing, using a simple tree structure, and read just them, secure in the knowledge that no other law can apply to their actions.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
TV / Movies / Music: Top Recipients
Hmm, nearly $5 million donated to Obama. Do you think the entertainment industry is donating all that money to Obama because he promised to reform the DMCA as more consumer-friendly?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Your comments are less about lawyers than about law makers--many of whom do not even posses law degrees much less a basic understanding of existing laws, principals of fairness or the fundamental underpinnings of the United States of America.
-rd
They used to be, but nowadays what passes for 'History' are CGI images of warships/aircraft and "Ice Road Truckers".
Ooh, I'd forgotten about Ice Road Truckers. DVRs water down channel branding quite a bit, to the point I don't know what stations run half the shows I watch.
Well, I would hope that people would be smart enough
Shakrai, my friend, I am afraid that you may be setting yourself up for a difficult realization one of these days.
to realize that the dirtbags advertising on TV aren't representative of the whole profession.
But in fairness to them, if every "real life" lawyer they've seen is a shyster ambulance chaser, why would they have a reason to think otherwise?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The guy is so hypocritical he's self defeating, so let him speak for himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
All of those quotes are in context.
Compare the treatment of Obama with that of Palin. She's so incompetent she's not allowed to speak her own words, and anyone who states this fact is decried as sexist. There's media bias that swings right and left as usual, and this time they are at least attempting to be journalists.
Nah lawyers fuck everyone. :)
And in honour of that line here's the best lawyer joke I ever read
Ahh - To Marry A Lawyer ...I am still a virgin."
A lawyer got married to a woman who had previously been married twelve
times.
On their wedding night they settle into the bridal suite at their hotel and the bride says to her new groom, "Please promise to be gentle,
This puzzled the groom, since after twelve marriages he thought that at least one of her husbands would have been able to perform. He asked his new bride to explain the phenomena. The bride responded:
"My first husband was a Sales Representative who spent our entire marriage telling me, in grandiose terms, 'It's gonna be great'!
My second husband was from Software Services; he was never quite sure how it was supposed to function, but he said he would send me documentation.
My third husband was in Field Service who constantly said that everything was diagnostically "okay", but he just couldn't get the system up.
My fourth husband was in Educational Services, and he simply said, "Those who can... do; those who can't...teach."
My fifth husband worked as a Telemarketing Manager and said that he had the orders, but he wasn't quite sure when he was going to be able to deliver.
My sixth husband was an Engineer. He told me that he understood the basic process but needed three years to research, implement, and design a new state-of-the-art method.
My seventh husband was in Finance and Administration. His comments were that he knew how, but he just wasn't sure whether or not it was his job.
My eighth husband was from Standards and Regulations and told me that he was up to the standards but that regulations said nothing about how to do it.
My ninth husband was a Marketing Manager. He said, "I know I have the product, I'm just not sure how to position it!"
My tenth husband was a psychiatrist and all he ever wanted to do was talk about it.
My eleventh husband was a gynecologist and all he ever wanted to do was look at it.
My twelfth husband was a stamp collector and all he ever wanted to do was... God I miss him!
So now I have married a lawyer, I know I'll definitely get screwed."
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Shakrai, my friend, I am afraid that you may be setting yourself up for a difficult realization one of these days.
Hahahahaha, true enough :) Well said!
Ooh, I'd forgotten about Ice Road Truckers
Yeah, I didn't mean to bash it either -- it's a pretty good show. I just don't get the connection to history and I don't like the fact that the shows that do cater to history (did you see the series about the Enterprise during WW2?) have become a CGI-fest.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You brought logic to an emotional battle. Prepare to die.
The change you were looking for was in the balance sheet of your presidential candidate?
You wanted him to be poorer and have less education?
The website clearly states:
"Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."
I know Biden voted on some net bills (the run down can be read at gizmodo), but I am confident that the revised website supports both Obama + Biden's views/plans.
Why? If someone was harmed, they've standing to sue for themselves. If noone was harmed, maybe it shouldn't be illegal.
I am trolling
No, he's a rich white man too.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Actually anyone who lives in chi-town is suspicious to me. Did you know it was voted the most stressful place to live in the Unites States? Nobody in their right mind would WANT to live there. Only the corruption and crime (and the industry that creates for politicians) makes people attracted to that place.
Voting republican won't work for me. They are traditionally the party of smaller government and individuality, but they left those traditions in the dust years ago when the neocons took over. They may return to it eventually, but judging by the way he toes the line nowadays McCain isn't the one to take them there.
I failed to mention foreign policy as the other dealbreaker in my original post. Both McCain's and Obama's foreign policies are variations on the same meddlesome one that George Bush has been using, the one that has alienated us from much of the world. Obama seems more willing to give up some US sovereignty and McCain more eager to stomp on the sovereignty of other nations. Neither of these is acceptable to me.
Also, for the record, I understand that no 3rd party is going to win, so we're stuck with Obama or McCain. Of the two, I would rather have Obama. I would much rather have my tax dollars spent on inefficient health care that will certainly help some people at home than on bombing Iran, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, or whoever is at the top of the warmongers' hit list this week.
Your brain is not a computer.
Their family income was 1.6 mil last year, if I'm not mistaken. Is he counting his net worth separately from his wife's? Then McCain is practically a bum, with not a dime to his name, since his wife owns everything.
I can't mod you up any more so I'll join in with you. I can't stand all those people who say there should be more of this or that profession in Congress instead of Lawyers. I am glad I'm not the only one who might feel that the people writing our laws should be those actually have a Doctorate in the LAW!!!!
You could put an expiration date on case law.
Any case law made could get forwarded back to the legislature, with the request to actually include it in the law, or at least consider this specific boundary case and either include or exclude it, regardless of the way the ruling went.
Until then, for, say, a decade, the ruling stands as case law, but after that it's discarded.
Which, of course, doesn't mean it's valueless in a court of law. If the expired ruling was based on actual legal research and the issues are similar enough and the laws haven't changed, any lawyer could use it as starting point, but it would not automatically be assumed to be correct.
Unfortunately, there's really no method to implement 'expiring case law'. The inner workings of the court, at least in American, were magically inherited from the English, which means that almost none of them are defined by 'law' per se, except the few specifically laid out in amendments. (The most infamous example of this being the writ of habeas corpus, which, as has been pointed out, is not actually granted, listed, or defined anywhere at all.)
In other words, the use of case law is defined by case law, in an impossible-to-modify self-referential manner. And is outside the scope of legislatures. (OTOH, the 'forwarding border cases back to the legislature' could easily be done with legislation.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
What we need to do is periodically organize the case law, merge it into the statutes themselves, and disallow referencing from (the original version of) cases which have been so incorporated.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
> How much more "for it" can you be than a YEA vote for a bill which contains it?
You can be among the Republicans who WROTE the bill containing it and you can be one of the sponsors of that bill.
> As a congress critter, if there is a part of a bill you don't like IT IS YOUR JOB TO VOTE AGAINST THE WHOLE THING!!!! That's what the whole "checks and balances" thing is all about.
That's why they create bills that are along the lines of "Bill to Give Lobbyists $1 Trillion and Protect Children from Terrorist Pedophiles." Obama knew this bill was going to pass without him, so he voted yes so that he wouldn't be accused of supporting the terrorist pedophiles. Yes, we need to fix that. And yes, they really would have accused him of supporting terrorists (and they still do...) if he hadn't voted for it.
I'm not excusing him, mind you. I wish he had stood up. But he's not the one who authored this. Bush and the Republicans caused the problem. I blame them first and foremost.
> The immunity is unconstitutional (see ex post facto) even without the 4th amendment violations.
It SHOULD be, but the Supreme Court gutted that part of the Constitution ages ago. It's only ex post facto to punish someone after the fact, not to free them. Unfortunately, they're PART of those checks & balances, so we can't just cut them out of the loop.
> Between FISA and the Patriot Act, why even have the 4th amendment any more?
Oh, I hear you. I agree! I want my rights back, but it's an uphill climb.
But when assigning blame, look to the people like McCain who supported it publicly along with his party. Yeah, McCain abstained. But that's because he hasn't voted on *anything* since March or something like that.
Either of the corporate douches still running are just going to do whatever the corporations tell them to. Obama is nothing but a black Bill Clinton, pandering to the intellectual left, and giving charming speeches, while he has no intention of:
A. Ending the Iraq War.
B. Restoring the Bill of Rights.
C. Restoring our rigged elections.
D. Breaking the corporate monopolies.
E. Arresting the known criminals in our government.
F. Fixing the Environment.
G. Fixing Education.
H. Ending Police Brutality.
I. Anything our founding fathers would have wanted.
Why isn't anyone talking about the obvious? Because every paper, magazine, radio, television, movie and internet channel is run by five corporations:
AOL/Time Warner
Bertelsmann
Disney
Viacom
Murdoch's News Corp.
We are their slaves already, and they have little regard for any life, human included. The only candidates the represented any kind of human interest at all were Kucinich and Paul, and the corporate news channels would not give them any traction at all, of course.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
oh if only it could be... Then we'd have reasonable laws! Except that people still interpret the words differently than the intended meaning, so we'd still have lawyers looking to twist the law to fit the situation, and we'd be back where we are.
I think Shakespeare was on to something "Kill all the lawyers." (Not the best solution, but lawyers definitely have screwed up the system.)
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I would argue that might makes right as it stands now. Financial might, in this case.
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
Actually, what would happen is that the rich would hire people to study the case for them, and make that their life. In other words, if there were no lawyers, rich people would create them. Which is kinda the case right now anyway. Unless the EFF or ACLU takes an interest in your case, you're pretty much forced to either pay out of your own pocket, or represent yourself.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I really do have a long record of sticking up for my Republican boys on ./, but, I also try to call it when I see it. So yeah, I said that liberals should vote for Obama, rather than not vote at all.
I think Obama is aweful but, just because you don't like someone or their politics doesn't mean that you shouldn't just stand back and watch his supporters do something as stupid as sit out an election over a petty difference with their standard bearer.
Sure, it would work out better for McCain if they did, but, you know, its just a crummy way to win an election, IMHO.
This is my sig.
It would be nice if it didn't matter but in fact people are voting FOR Barack Obama simply because he identifies himself as black. They think they will create some GREAT SOCIAL JUSTICE by voting in the first "Black" president.
And I'm contending that the information on this is not the same as "just another webpage".
You better believe that I'd spend at least several hours going over his final plans to make sure it a) complied with local laws b) matched what I wanted properly and c) indicated that he knew what he's doing.
Sure, I don't want *every* piece of minutia. But I sure as *hell* want more than five minutes' worth of detail.
I hate printers.
Society is too complex for the parties to all represent themselves. Excessive judgments are caused more by ignorant/emotional juries than lawyers. If you want to eliminate lawyers maybe we should also eliminate judges who are lawyers.
In primitive times one could take a dispute to a tribal chief to decide simple property rights. Try to imagine a complex patent or anti trust case tried without professional legal reresentation.
The original page is a huge amount of text -- 5462 words on the page. This is like "War and Peace" for a web page. The new version only has 3319 words on the page and the text has been simplified.
This new version is much smaller, like "War and P."
A Smith and Wesson beast 4 aces every time....
Why do I have to read Obama's books to find a time when Obama showed any inkling toward leadership?
Off the top of my head, I can think of a half dozen times John McCain has demonstrated leadership:
So, OK. Let's hear what, exactly, Obama has accomplished as a community organizer. Let's hear how he reformed corrupt Chicago politics. Surely if he intends to reform Washington, he must have done a great job back in Chicago. </sarcasm> Let's hear how he showed some leadership. Anywhere. At any point in his life.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
BEATS 4 aces every time....
its still early here in Hawaii
The man makes 250 G's a year. He's rich.
According to John McCain, that's middle class.
According to Obama, that's rich.
Nice sentiment, but sadly, the upper class already has the power. I'm sorry, but a poor working man who is wrongly accused of murder has little chance of finding a lawyer who will get him off, whereas... well, OJ Simpson. An immigrant family-owned business has no real legal discourse if the large real estate conglomerate that leases the storefront of the business decides to screw over the family.
Well, you're right, other than that these issues don't have much to do with the existence or non-existence of lawyers. Celebrities almost always get treated more leniently, and large corporations and conglomerates can usually find ways to screw over small business.
However, the upper classes having more power than the lower classes isn't new, nor did I say it wasn't the case. I said that eliminating lawyers would give the upper classes MORE power, even more than they already have.
Having a lawyer on your side is a good equalizer, even if the other side has a more expensive one. It's still better than no lawyer at all.
"if I'm also not mistaken, the entire neocon movement has been one designed to fleece people into thinking that they are liberals and are all for smaller government and conservation"
You're somewhat mistaken. Well not mistaken, but half right.
The other half is the socialist left saying we're going to help the needy. Instead, they take all the money they can and dish it out to their friends.
(See Charles Rangel for an example. See every other politician for another example.)
Essentially both parties are about fleecing the people.
"Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to
charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or non-profit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences. Obama will protect the
Internet's traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy."
How is this different from Net neutrality???
No one is forcing you to not pay the loan back, or take the loan in the first place. Caveat emptor.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
For everyone who thinks Barack Obama is a corporate whore and they think that McCain is a better choice:
1. McCain and Sarah Palin are good buddies with the guy who calls the Internet a series of tubes, Ted Stevens.
2. McCain and especially his running mate feel strongly that their religious beliefs should definitely play into any decision on science, going so far as to use their own personal religious beliefs to define their scientific policy in the past. Despite what they tell you this week.
3. McCain and Palin have been solidly against Net Neutrality since the very beginning, and are solidly funded by the major telcos.
Given the proportion of politicians who made the practice of law their previous profession, I doubt this will ever change.
Coincidence is not causation. The rich have many advantages directly due to them having more money:
Access to better health care.
Access to better schools and colleges.
Access to better jobs via networking with other rich people.
Access to better lawyers.
and so on.
That's part of what brought about the Marxist revolution back in the day. The rich have huge advantages over poorer people. But how can you stop the rich from having these advantages if you don't want to have some sort of Marxist society?
There is a partial countermeasure to rich people getting better lawyers, and that's pro-bono work by lawyers. While not every deserving person gets a lawyer to work for them pro-bono, at least some do which is better than nothing (or a law school washout public defender).
1) there's no such thing as "rightly" getting off scott-free for any criminal, and this has nothing to do with the evidence. Crime and guilt are utterly independent of evidence. It's just that we're human and limited and need evidence to be confident about truth. Evidence doesn't change truth. ... I mean can be if you're rich enough).
2) rich kids get off, poor ones don't. Does this really deserve to be argued ? Obviously someone who pays a lawyer to go over every last letter ever written down by anyone involved in the case is going to discover procedural errors. No lawyer does this pro-bono.
3) there are many cases where I could live with "without a warrant". A murder isn't excused because a police officer broke down a door in real life. Only in law it is (I am sorry
4) that's only the "way the system is supposed to work" if you think of the letter of the law as a goal in itself. If it's justice you're after, that is not -at all- how the system is supposed to work. It's just "admitting defeat" on the part of the police/judge/court/... Admitting that because someone screwed up, and can't trust their evidence anymore, and the case can't continue. It does not in any way change the crime. It does not make bodies come to life. It does not unrape a person.
A question comes to mind ... especially since you think this is how the system's supposed to work ... are you a lawyer ? Law student perhaps ? The law is a (very) imperfect method to achieve some (low and equally imperfect) measure of justice. It is NOT the definition of justice.
That's okay - most lawyers fail in making that distinction.
At least McCain has (some) stated goals that agree with your goals, even if you (rightly, imho) doubt he will implement them.
Obama's stated goals are the exact opposite of yours, and he equally fails to implement them (and apparently he'll invade pakistan. He's just stupid about the use of military force, attacking "friends" (troubled friends, VERY troubled friends, but still some -sometimes a bit unclear- measure better than enemies) instead of enemies, he's not really using less of it).
Are you only pro-Obama because you feel he's the more incompetent of the two ? If you're really libertarian, what other possible motivation can there be ?
It baffles the mind how one can vote democrat and claim libertarianism as an ideology. Cradle to grave government healthcare really is (as any idiot knows) cradle to grave government control. With that the government literally decides who lives and who dies.
To say the least, the essential part of democrat policy is the very antithesis of libertarianism.
BADA BING!
Thank you, thank you, I will be here all night.
Ok FINE, I don't get it! What did he want to do?!?
Yes, I realize this isn't the punchline but after the humor of the psychiatrist and gynecologist, this one looked like it should be especially funny.
Everyone is equally able to learn how to use a gun. Unless Obama wins....
Here's your sig.
And look at all those "socialist" (actually capitalist with more regulation than in the US) countries in Europe with a much higher standard of living than the US.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
To quote Bill Maher: "I don't like him because he's smarter than me!"
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Taking the long view, however, results in an identical push by both candidates for more government and less individual freedom.
What do you want? Anarchy? Wall Street being able to pay out as much bonuses as they want? Companies allowed to produce and sell whatever they want, irrespective of health or environmental consequences (like milk in China?)
There are good and bad regulations. Nobody in a capitalist society adheres to the golden rule when it comes to their wallet so we need regulations.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
No, but black+white=non-white.
I.e., not part of the ruling caste. Outsider. Not supposed to be at the helm. Etc.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Obama is just another lawyer ... who ... ha[s] a ... stance of ... "hmmm, these RIAA guys, they DO pay kinda nice."
[citation needed] buddy. This truthiness crap is ridiculous. Unless you can prove the RIAA has employed Obama, that's libel. Watch yourself bub.
He didn't say the RIAA *employed* Obama...only that he got paid, which he did, *$5,161,298 from the media corporations that own the labels that are members of the RIAA (and studios, etc in the case of the MPAA).
*[citation] http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Ninth on the list.
Also of note:
"Lawyers/lawfirms"-$24,060,136
"Education"-$10,375,038
"Securities and investment"-$9,873,356
"Business services"-$6,746,937
He seems to be beholden to many "interests" that Slashdotters love to hate.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Do you have some support for this? Or are you just assuming that no one would possibly want to vote for any black man except for the sole purpose of voting for a black man?
It seems to me that, even if you don't like his policies, you have to admit that Obama is very charismatic and an extremely savvy politician. He has run what has been probably the best organized presidential campaign in decades. Even if race is playing in his favor with some people, there are certainly people who will refuse to vote for him because of his race, and it's not clear how those two groups balance out. But I outright reject the idea that people are voting for him "simply" because he's black as some kind of affirmative action candidate.
true enough, but I would prefer a world without lawyers to one with 'good' lawyers and 'bad' lawyers.
I realize we need laws but the very large majority of the lawyers is simply parasitic to society.
It should be possible to get by with far far less of them then there currently are.
Damn, you are an ignorant fuck that's for sure. The very large majority of lawyers are NOT parasitic to society. You hear about the minority that are... so you think all of them are like that.
Way to go. We should vote with bullets so we can put people like you out of our misery.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/18/poll.2008/index.html Black voters vote black.
He's only half black, you insensitive clod!
Consumer rights attorneys DO bother me (frivolous, to say the least). For every one legit consumer advocate case, there are 500 bogus McDonalds hot coffees (not to be confused with GTA hot coffee). But the lawyer that argued Brown v BoE was my wife's great-uncle, so that's cool with me.
This is only true if you ignore facts. Sarah Palin was on a state-championship high school basketball team in 1982. Title IX was enacted in 1972. So, it wasn't the 70's, it wasn't before women's sports became an "entitlement", and she wasn't really a basketball star.
But, your spelling is pretty good. Maybe Slashdot should have a "+1 spels reel gud" moderation.
Blame Congress for where we are now.
You know, when a bank gets robbed, and the police department watches as the robbers get away, it's certainly a failure on the police side of things, but the primary responsibility still lies on the robbers themselves.
Not that you shouldn't try to address both problems, but ultimate responsibility for the crime is still pretty clear.
(Now, if the police provide the guns and the getaway car...)
Tweet, tweet.
Double logical fallacy of composition.
~(f(x) & (x E A) & (A E B) -> f(B))
HTFH.
PS - Slashdot - Please work on your Unicode support. TYVMIA.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that not every lawyer is a RIAA extortionist.
But can you say that Obama was a good lawyer, i.e. any of those wonderful people that you mentioned?
Until you can say that, I guess Obama was another bad lawyer.
Face it, you and probably the majority of Slashdotters are not "the average American voter". Would you think it smart of Obama to adopt your stance and lose the election because his web site turns off the majority of voters who visit it? Frankly, I can't believe anyone who would be that inflexible would be a good President.
As an Australian citizen, I would hope that I'm not the average American voter.
And yes, I concede that the average American voter is too retarded to read more than 5 minutes, and would rather get back to watching MTV. It is that fact that is the primary reason the US government has degenerated to the cesspool of corruption that it is today.
I hate printers.
What do you do to stamps to make them stick to the envelope? :)
.
.
.
.
it involves the tongue
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Except in some states, or Canada, where you could be a woman.
He also has a section of detail on filtering of content, which sounds like filters and blocks at the client side, to protect free speech. That's my opinion, your right to free speech doesn't imply a right to make me listen. My reading of the McCain position is that he's "going to get the filth off the Internet." Oh, and he'll provide experts to tell you what's filth.
The very first line of your post was an attack on a person. Therefore, I have no need to offer you any more respect than you gave the person you were replying to.
Quite funny that it's OK for you to attack the person, but it's not OK for me to do the same.
I am an American, making a very healthy income taking advantage of the ignorance of the god-believing imbeciles who pollute my great land with their backwards natures.
Besides, citizenship in any nation is a business relationship. I don't get all butthurt when someone insults my choice of OS or automobile.
Blar.
Wait, so you're citing an article about how he, the black candidate, had to win over black voters who were planning on voting for a white woman? You're citing that article as evidence that black people are voting for him simply because he's black, and for no other reason?
Don't you see a problem in that reasoning? If they weren't going to vote for him at first, then obviously they require something more of their chosen candidate than that he's black. Further, if you're merely going to show that a lot of black people are voting for Obama and claim that as evidence that "black voters vote black", then I should be able to point to every white person voting for McCain and say "white voters vote white". People are voting for McCain simply because he's white, right?
I don't think it would be fair, though. I'm not going to assume that everyone who's voting for McCain is racist. It'd be unfair and it'd be poor reasoning. Just like your post.
Vague rhetoric for a vague, completely clueless candidate (and staff)!
New motto while still keeping the message of change:
Hey, hey, do the brand new thing!
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Offtopic, but I had arugula for the first time the other week. It's actually really good. It's like spinach, but slightly more bitter, and with a very interesting nutty flavor. Throw on some tomato and a oil-dressing, and you've got yourself one mean salad. And it was cheaper than lettuce on the day I was in the store.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
As an American, I would like to present this opportunity to invite you to come live here. We could use more folks like you and fewer of the kind we do have. I understand the government of Australia would never go for the swap of one of our ignorant citizens for one of yours, therefore we will just shoot one random US citizen to eliminate any balance they might have provided.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
Nope, not kidding at all. Stop relying on the first numbers you can google up. On paper it looks like they do well, but with medical school debt loads approaching the value of a house and the amount of training they have to take to get there, a few more years to quadruple your salary is rational.
Your comment reflects typical uninformed bias against physician's incomes. Please remember that it takes the better part of a decade to go into practice and that it costs close to $200,000 to do it. When they start a practice they assume the same risk as any entrepreneur. There is also the additional risk of medical liability, insurance against which (in our overly litigious society where too many lawyers and the temptation of "free" money rule) costs tens of thousands of dollars annually (some specialties like obstetrics cost over $100k/year - they get sued for birth defects even when mom downs a 6 pack of bud every day). Most physicians I know work very, very hard. In order to actually get paid, they need to spend a ludicrous amount of time filing and following up on insurance claims, many of which get arbitrarily rejected or returned for minor administrative details. Sound like fun? Then remember that they provide indispensable life-saving services to everyone.
ASK a family physician what life is like, if it's better or worse than it used to be, and what the future looks like. Physicians generally represent some of the best and brightest in any society and they don't do it for the love of money - nobody would suffer the grind for money alone. There are far too many easier ways to make far more money. If they can't make a good living, what exactly is the incentive to go into family practice?
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Many thanks.
1) She opposes putting polar bears on the endangered species list due to potential interference with oil drilling, in a wildlife refuge, no less.
2) Her stance on sex-ed is abstinence only, and with her granddaughter you can just see how gloriously THAT worked.
3) She advocates teaching creation alongside evolution in science classes, which, if you're not braindead, should raise more than a few red flags.
4) She's the governor of Seward's goddamn Icebox, so she has absolutely on connection with mainstream politics at all.
5) Any public official stupid enough to maintain an easily compromisable email account deserves to get smacked with a trout, not installed into the office of veep.
I'm sure there are other problems I'm merely overlooking at the moment, but those five should be food for thought. And re: Obama's Weathermen connection, allow me to quote from Obama spokesman Bill Burton:
"But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous."
This article is very unfair. Obama's campaign simply removed technical details and put them in a PDF document, this is a good idea as most non-techie readers' eyes glaze over when there is too much detail. Sheeesh!