The main problem here is that the voting system itself induces people to vote based on the popularity polls. They vote for the candidate they see as the lesser of two evils rather than voting for the candidate that they really want because they fear that they could end up splitting the vote between the two candidate that they prefer and thus the least-preferred candidate will win. If we would adopt a sensible voting system, then this wouldn't be a problem.
Actually, I understand your post completely. There was absolutely nothing wrong with either the/. article or the linked article. Yet you decided to take a shot at the/. article as being biased somehow. Seemed like a pretty jackass-ish thing to do.
You know, MAYBE, just MAYBE I was commenting on the idiotic editor who posted the story, and not the story itself.
Umm, what, exactly, is wrong with the/. article? All it does is state a simple fact that the Republicans are currently pissing off Democrats by using a very accurate method of gerrymandering. Simple and to-the-point. It puts the focus on the method more than the action itself. And then the article is pretty balanced as well. I think you're just being a jackass.
No, if you read their comments more closely, you'll see that they're not exactly saying "two wrongs make a right". They're saying an actual wrong and a hypothetical wrong make a right. "If your side was in power they'd be doing this too so it's OK."
Exactly. There's absolutely no reason why 3rd party components couldn't perform all of the functions that IE peforms. No reason, except that Microsoft wouldn't allow it. They deserved to be smacked down. Now Bill knows he can get away with whatever the hell he pleases.
I support the free market and believe that in the long run, it fixes all problems, but I have been consistently flabbergasted at why people *choose* Windows.
I personally think there's no singular mind at work on it, it's just one IBMer trying to get a patent listed on their resume and their manager trying to look important.
I actually think it's funny that people will brag about how many patents their division or company received in the last year. After seeing the kinds of crap that get patents over the last 10 years or so, I'm not likely to be impressed, regardless of their numbers. In fact, a high number is more likely to be indicative of a large number of truly undeserving patents rather than exceptional innovation. As long as businesses can keep spamming the PTO with every crap idea that pops into someone's head and the PTO keeps granting them a monopoly on the idea, we are going to see more and more small companies and entrepreneurs locked out of competition by the anti-competitive force that this mountain of ridiculous patents represents.
I think he means that there is corruption among Democrats today, just as there is among Republicans, and both should be covered. I understand that the Republicans are currently running the show, and therefore it seems natural to focus on them, but in the interests of your site being taken more seriously, you may want to include information about the corruption on both sides of the aisle. A bit more like how http://www.factcheck.org covers both sides.
I dislike being taxed just to have the privacy that I should have in the first place. They should have made a Federal Please Call Me and Offer Me Whatever Stupid Crap You Have to Sell List so all those people that the marketers claim exist and want their offers could get them, frequently, relentlessly even. The DNC list is just the wrong solution.
Well, if they can charge a kid with gajillions of dollars in unsubstantiated damages, then why shouldn't we be able to sue Microsoft and others for whatever damages we can dream up and somehow connect to their crappy software?
Democracy or not, Iran has and does support terrorists. Do we let them continue their nuclear program? They are doing much better at it than Iraq. As for N. Korea, of course S. Korea doesn't want us to attack them. If we did, thounsands of S. Koreans would be slaughtered within hours. But I'm not talking about going to war with N. Korea. I'm talking about addressing the problem, which is something that Bush refuses to do. If N. Korea can start producing a significant number of nukes, they WILL sell them to anyone with money. Bush seems to think that if we don't speak to them, eventually something will change for the better. He needs to get engaged and start working towards a solution, not just screw around with Iraq.
When I see men getting their hands and heads chopped off and I hear stories of men receiving video tapes of their wives being raped or have to sit their while their kids legs are broken, I have a hard time callng Iraq a mistake and I doubt those that lived throught that would say it was a mistake either.
Ahh, play the emotional card. Ok. Yeah, Saddam is a bad man and has done many horrible things. So have countless other dictators. There are plenty of things as bad or worse going on in Africa right now. You don't see us liberating half of Africa though, do you? Where's the outrage?! Bush went to war with Iraq for his own reasons. He had a hell of a time convincing us that we needed to do it, and most everything he said turned out to be false. Iraq wasn't supporting Al-Qaeda, as he suggested. Iraq wasn't trying to purchase nukes from Nigere as he said they were. Iraq didn't have any WMDs as he said they did. Iraq was certainly wanting to develop such weapons, but they were only in the very early stages, and we've got plenty of others to worry about. As for Iraq planning an attack on the US, how does invading Iraq make a difference in that area? Fixing our intelligence and security problems should have been his main goal. But ok, Saddam is a bad man. I'll give him that one. I just don't think it would have convinced anyone of the need to liberate Iraq if it weren't for the pack of lies that came with it. He just got up and spouted off every unsupported, half-assed theory he and his cohorts could think of in the hopes that we would be willing to go to war. Oh yeah, and he lied about the costs too. Bigtime.
Bottom line, if he wanted us to support the war because Saddam is a bad person that commits attrocities, then he should have just said that, and left it at that. That he went to the extend of fabricating so many other reasons leads me to believe that he had ulterior motives that he was not willing to divulge.
Well Bush chose to go fight a war in Iraq. Bush chose the size and nature of the tax cuts. Bush was wrong on both counts and the people of this country have been paying for it, especially those serving in the military. There were much more pressing problems than Iraq. Iran is much farther along with their nuclear ambitions. North Korea has become a major problem and is a much bigger threat than Iraq would ever be in the near to mid future. So why are we fighting in Iraq? Bush and co. claim it is because Saddam is a bad bad man and we need to send a message to countries that we won't allow them to have WMDs. Some message. Maybe we should have picked a country that actually has WMDs. It's not like there aren't other choices. Now we're still stuck there and can't seem to extricate ourselves. We're still losing troops every day. There's still no peace in Iraq. Bush was il-equipped to lead us into war, and I really don't see what he has to be proud of in that department. Not that Kerry would have done any better. Even if he would have gone to war, it's easy to claim that you would have done it differently given the benefit of hindsight. But the war was a really bad idea, and Bush damn well should have had to make sacrifices. He should have let the tax cuts go. He should have admitted that he screwed up pretty damn bad. But he won't. So I don't fault Kerry for voting against the extra funding. It shouldn't have been needed. Maybe it wouldn't have been needed if Bush had actually planned for what would take place after we rolled over Saddam's main forces. Seems everything Bush was telling us leading up to the war was a bunch of BS. He screws up and wants us to spend and spend and spend to help cover his mistakes. Like the deficit needs to get any bigger. Yeah, you're right. The troops weren't in any danger of not being equipped. I'm sure everyone voting against the bill knew that too. And they were right to make it painful for him. If he's not going to own up to his mistakes, then it's the least they can do.
First of all, there were a lot of crimes committed by US forces in Vietnam. I don't think you or anyone else can dispute that. Second, does it really matter whether the people that made the claims were soldiers or not? How does that affect the validity of their claims? They are either correct, or they aren't. I haven't seen any evidence either way. As for his voting record, I don't think any politician votes "not to equip our troops". Those bills have a lot of other effects that can influence how congresspeople vote on them. Those that put the bills forth know this, as do those that amend them. Why just blame someone for voting against a bill? Why not blame the one who got us over there in the first place and whose cost estimates were WAAAAY under the actual costs, in more ways than one?
Someone better ask Teresa about offshoring, seeing as how 57 out of 79 of the Heinz's factories are overseas.
I'm sure you'll receive a classy "Shove It" response though...
Might be appropriate in this case considering that she doesn't run the company, and doesn't make any of the decisions for it. Besides, I still don't see where Republicans get off bashing her for saying "shove it" to a reporter. Cheney said a lot worse than that on the Senate floor to a US Senator.
It's no surprise America got its ass handed to it on a plate by the VC. Those guys knew how to fight properly, not throw HE at problems until they go away. sheesh.
Not that I disagree or anything, but it IS a bit easier to fight well when you can identify your enemy easily. That's one big thing that the VC had going for them. Well that and their numbers. Besides, it's not like the VC didn't intentionally put their civilians at risk by using them as weapons whenever possible.
How the bloody hell is pointing out that crimes were being committed, and that those in command knew about it, considered back-stabbing? We're supposed to support war-crimes now? Vietnam was a fucked up situation. Kerry was pointing out what everyone should have known, but some chose to ignore. I may not like Kerry for other reasons, but I don't see how that amounts to back-stabbing.
One of the silver stars being falsely questioned was for charging his swiftboat into an ambush and routing an entrenched VC force.
As I heard it (from an interview with one of the guys that served with him), the force was one guy with an RPG. Now don't get me wrong, that guy could have taken out Kerry's boat, or given them away to others which could have been just as fatal, but it was still just one guy. Nice site though. I'm gonna have to spend some time reading through it:)
Buy a licensed DVD decoder, or write one yourself. The DMCA doesn't outlaw someone writing their own--it outlaws telling someone else to do it or selling one that does it.
Brilliant. So in order to use a DVD that we legitimately bought with our Linux system we must all become skilled programmers and write our own software, or pay whomever the industry decides to grant a license to, which may be nobody as the case was with Linux for the longest time, which also enables monopolistic pricing since there may be only one licensed vendor offering a solution. You're a fucking genius.
His aids likely scan your email so that they can figure out which form letter to send to you and put another check under the For or Against column for that bill. Not that it matters much when only a handfull of people care enough one way or the other to write to him about that particular bill. This one won't even make the evening news, so virtually nobody will know about it, so he won't receive more than a handfull of letters about it. I've written to my congresscritters several times in the past, and I invariably get a response that doesn't even remotely address my concerns. Once I got a response that seemed to think that I agreed with him, even though I was vehemently against the bill. Writing letters doesn't do a damn thing unless you can generate an absolute flood of letters. For a bill such as this one, that's not likely to happen.
Digital piracy is on the rise, and in the case of software piracy alone, infringers siphoned away nearly $29 billion from copyright holders in 2003.
I love how he just flings out a number like so much monkey feces. He could at least cite a source for it. I would love to know how they came up with that number.
Actually, I thought it sounded more like something I would order from Taco Bell. Figured that maybe they'd come out with an upgraded model and call it the Jackito Supreme:)
Slashdot Mirror
The main problem here is that the voting system itself induces people to vote based on the popularity polls. They vote for the candidate they see as the lesser of two evils rather than voting for the candidate that they really want because they fear that they could end up splitting the vote between the two candidate that they prefer and thus the least-preferred candidate will win. If we would adopt a sensible voting system, then this wouldn't be a problem.
Actually, I understand your post completely. There was absolutely nothing wrong with either the /. article or the linked article. Yet you decided to take a shot at the /. article as being biased somehow. Seemed like a pretty jackass-ish thing to do.
You posted the initial flame buddy. I just called you on it.
You know, MAYBE, just MAYBE I was commenting on the idiotic editor who posted the story, and not the story itself.
/. article? All it does is state a simple fact that the Republicans are currently pissing off Democrats by using a very accurate method of gerrymandering. Simple and to-the-point. It puts the focus on the method more than the action itself. And then the article is pretty balanced as well. I think you're just being a jackass.
Umm, what, exactly, is wrong with the
No, if you read their comments more closely, you'll see that they're not exactly saying "two wrongs make a right". They're saying an actual wrong and a hypothetical wrong make a right. "If your side was in power they'd be doing this too so it's OK."
Do you see that as being any better?
Exactly. There's absolutely no reason why 3rd party components couldn't perform all of the functions that IE peforms. No reason, except that Microsoft wouldn't allow it. They deserved to be smacked down. Now Bill knows he can get away with whatever the hell he pleases.
I support the free market and believe that in the long run, it fixes all problems, but I have been consistently flabbergasted at why people *choose* Windows.
Network effects.
I personally think there's no singular mind at work on it, it's just one IBMer trying to get a patent listed on their resume and their manager trying to look important.
I actually think it's funny that people will brag about how many patents their division or company received in the last year. After seeing the kinds of crap that get patents over the last 10 years or so, I'm not likely to be impressed, regardless of their numbers. In fact, a high number is more likely to be indicative of a large number of truly undeserving patents rather than exceptional innovation. As long as businesses can keep spamming the PTO with every crap idea that pops into someone's head and the PTO keeps granting them a monopoly on the idea, we are going to see more and more small companies and entrepreneurs locked out of competition by the anti-competitive force that this mountain of ridiculous patents represents.
I think he means that there is corruption among Democrats today, just as there is among Republicans, and both should be covered. I understand that the Republicans are currently running the show, and therefore it seems natural to focus on them, but in the interests of your site being taken more seriously, you may want to include information about the corruption on both sides of the aisle. A bit more like how http://www.factcheck.org covers both sides.
Sheeesh, this is pretty much a re-post of the same comment a few days ago. First the stories are duped, now comments are getting duped?
A few days ago? Several comments virtually identical to this one have been posted to every RIAA-related story for the last few years.
I'm not opposed to paying for law enforcement. We have to pay to enforce the law against people that violate the DNC list anyway.
I dislike being taxed just to have the privacy that I should have in the first place. They should have made a Federal Please Call Me and Offer Me Whatever Stupid Crap You Have to Sell List so all those people that the marketers claim exist and want their offers could get them, frequently, relentlessly even. The DNC list is just the wrong solution.
Well, if they can charge a kid with gajillions of dollars in unsubstantiated damages, then why shouldn't we be able to sue Microsoft and others for whatever damages we can dream up and somehow connect to their crappy software?
Democracy or not, Iran has and does support terrorists. Do we let them continue their nuclear program? They are doing much better at it than Iraq. As for N. Korea, of course S. Korea doesn't want us to attack them. If we did, thounsands of S. Koreans would be slaughtered within hours. But I'm not talking about going to war with N. Korea. I'm talking about addressing the problem, which is something that Bush refuses to do. If N. Korea can start producing a significant number of nukes, they WILL sell them to anyone with money. Bush seems to think that if we don't speak to them, eventually something will change for the better. He needs to get engaged and start working towards a solution, not just screw around with Iraq.
When I see men getting their hands and heads chopped off and I hear stories of men receiving video tapes of their wives being raped or have to sit their while their kids legs are broken, I have a hard time callng Iraq a mistake and I doubt those that lived throught that would say it was a mistake either.
Ahh, play the emotional card. Ok. Yeah, Saddam is a bad man and has done many horrible things. So have countless other dictators. There are plenty of things as bad or worse going on in Africa right now. You don't see us liberating half of Africa though, do you? Where's the outrage?! Bush went to war with Iraq for his own reasons. He had a hell of a time convincing us that we needed to do it, and most everything he said turned out to be false. Iraq wasn't supporting Al-Qaeda, as he suggested. Iraq wasn't trying to purchase nukes from Nigere as he said they were. Iraq didn't have any WMDs as he said they did. Iraq was certainly wanting to develop such weapons, but they were only in the very early stages, and we've got plenty of others to worry about. As for Iraq planning an attack on the US, how does invading Iraq make a difference in that area? Fixing our intelligence and security problems should have been his main goal. But ok, Saddam is a bad man. I'll give him that one. I just don't think it would have convinced anyone of the need to liberate Iraq if it weren't for the pack of lies that came with it. He just got up and spouted off every unsupported, half-assed theory he and his cohorts could think of in the hopes that we would be willing to go to war. Oh yeah, and he lied about the costs too. Bigtime.
Bottom line, if he wanted us to support the war because Saddam is a bad person that commits attrocities, then he should have just said that, and left it at that. That he went to the extend of fabricating so many other reasons leads me to believe that he had ulterior motives that he was not willing to divulge.
Well Bush chose to go fight a war in Iraq. Bush chose the size and nature of the tax cuts. Bush was wrong on both counts and the people of this country have been paying for it, especially those serving in the military. There were much more pressing problems than Iraq. Iran is much farther along with their nuclear ambitions. North Korea has become a major problem and is a much bigger threat than Iraq would ever be in the near to mid future. So why are we fighting in Iraq? Bush and co. claim it is because Saddam is a bad bad man and we need to send a message to countries that we won't allow them to have WMDs. Some message. Maybe we should have picked a country that actually has WMDs. It's not like there aren't other choices. Now we're still stuck there and can't seem to extricate ourselves. We're still losing troops every day. There's still no peace in Iraq. Bush was il-equipped to lead us into war, and I really don't see what he has to be proud of in that department. Not that Kerry would have done any better. Even if he would have gone to war, it's easy to claim that you would have done it differently given the benefit of hindsight. But the war was a really bad idea, and Bush damn well should have had to make sacrifices. He should have let the tax cuts go. He should have admitted that he screwed up pretty damn bad. But he won't. So I don't fault Kerry for voting against the extra funding. It shouldn't have been needed. Maybe it wouldn't have been needed if Bush had actually planned for what would take place after we rolled over Saddam's main forces. Seems everything Bush was telling us leading up to the war was a bunch of BS. He screws up and wants us to spend and spend and spend to help cover his mistakes. Like the deficit needs to get any bigger. Yeah, you're right. The troops weren't in any danger of not being equipped. I'm sure everyone voting against the bill knew that too. And they were right to make it painful for him. If he's not going to own up to his mistakes, then it's the least they can do.
First of all, there were a lot of crimes committed by US forces in Vietnam. I don't think you or anyone else can dispute that. Second, does it really matter whether the people that made the claims were soldiers or not? How does that affect the validity of their claims? They are either correct, or they aren't. I haven't seen any evidence either way. As for his voting record, I don't think any politician votes "not to equip our troops". Those bills have a lot of other effects that can influence how congresspeople vote on them. Those that put the bills forth know this, as do those that amend them. Why just blame someone for voting against a bill? Why not blame the one who got us over there in the first place and whose cost estimates were WAAAAY under the actual costs, in more ways than one?
Someone better ask Teresa about offshoring, seeing as how 57 out of 79 of the Heinz's factories are overseas.
I'm sure you'll receive a classy "Shove It" response though...
Might be appropriate in this case considering that she doesn't run the company, and doesn't make any of the decisions for it. Besides, I still don't see where Republicans get off bashing her for saying "shove it" to a reporter. Cheney said a lot worse than that on the Senate floor to a US Senator.
Um. Don't look now, but ... Bush went to Yale.
Yep, and apparently going there was about all he did.
It's no surprise America got its ass handed to it on a plate by the VC. Those guys knew how to fight properly, not throw HE at problems until they go away. sheesh.
Not that I disagree or anything, but it IS a bit easier to fight well when you can identify your enemy easily. That's one big thing that the VC had going for them. Well that and their numbers. Besides, it's not like the VC didn't intentionally put their civilians at risk by using them as weapons whenever possible.
How the bloody hell is pointing out that crimes were being committed, and that those in command knew about it, considered back-stabbing? We're supposed to support war-crimes now? Vietnam was a fucked up situation. Kerry was pointing out what everyone should have known, but some chose to ignore. I may not like Kerry for other reasons, but I don't see how that amounts to back-stabbing.
One of the silver stars being falsely questioned was for charging his swiftboat into an ambush and routing an entrenched VC force.
:)
As I heard it (from an interview with one of the guys that served with him), the force was one guy with an RPG. Now don't get me wrong, that guy could have taken out Kerry's boat, or given them away to others which could have been just as fatal, but it was still just one guy. Nice site though. I'm gonna have to spend some time reading through it
Buy a licensed DVD decoder, or write one yourself. The DMCA doesn't outlaw someone writing their own--it outlaws telling someone else to do it or selling one that does it.
Brilliant. So in order to use a DVD that we legitimately bought with our Linux system we must all become skilled programmers and write our own software, or pay whomever the industry decides to grant a license to, which may be nobody as the case was with Linux for the longest time, which also enables monopolistic pricing since there may be only one licensed vendor offering a solution. You're a fucking genius.
His aids likely scan your email so that they can figure out which form letter to send to you and put another check under the For or Against column for that bill. Not that it matters much when only a handfull of people care enough one way or the other to write to him about that particular bill. This one won't even make the evening news, so virtually nobody will know about it, so he won't receive more than a handfull of letters about it. I've written to my congresscritters several times in the past, and I invariably get a response that doesn't even remotely address my concerns. Once I got a response that seemed to think that I agreed with him, even though I was vehemently against the bill. Writing letters doesn't do a damn thing unless you can generate an absolute flood of letters. For a bill such as this one, that's not likely to happen.
Digital piracy is on the rise, and in the case of software piracy alone, infringers siphoned away nearly $29 billion from copyright holders in 2003.
I love how he just flings out a number like so much monkey feces. He could at least cite a source for it. I would love to know how they came up with that number.
Actually, I thought it sounded more like something I would order from Taco Bell. Figured that maybe they'd come out with an upgraded model and call it the Jackito Supreme :)