After he's dead, he still doesn't want people to know because it'll reflect badly on him and make people he's close to feel bad or uncomfortable?
I mean just because you'll be dead doesn't mean that you, now, alive, can't think of other people's feelings and how future revelations will affect them.
Then why is he creating the record in the first place?
The rule of law means that the law applies the same to everyone and that it doesn't change from day to day (that is, changes to law take quite a bit of time to implement and are well advertised in advance of actually taking affect).
The question was whether or not it is Constitutional for Congress to pass a law requiring Americans to eat three vegetables and three fruits a day. I know this, the men who wrote the Constitution would have had no problem giving a short, quick "No" to that. Anyone who cannot see that any law like that results in requiring Americans to eat three vegetables and three fruits a day is unconstitutional, should not be in any position of governmental authority. The reason she hemmed and hawed when she answered that question is because she could imagine that such a law might be Constitutional under certain circumstances (she didn't know what circumstances, but she could imagine that there might be).
If the Supreme Court had not stepped in, the election would have been decided by Congress. Considering the makeup of the Congress in 2000, that means that Congress would have decided that George W. Bush was the next President.
Personally, I think the Supreme Court should have ruled that the Florida Supreme Court had no jurisdiction and that the matter of Florida's electors should have been decided by the Florida legislature (the Constitution rest all authority for deciding how a state's electors are chosen on the state legislatures). Or alternatively, they could have ruled that in one of several different ways that said that no Electoral College majority was determined so the election gets decided by Congress. In either of those cases the result would have been that George W. Bush ended up President.
The only possible way that Al Gore would have ended up President is if the recount was continued selectively in such a way as to guarantee that only Al Gore got additional votes. Several news organizations (most of which favored Al Gore), ran their own recount after the election and determined that George W. Bush won the Florida election.
Let's see, in July of 2002, unemployment rates under George W. Bush stood at around 6%, this is around 10 months after 9/11. In July of 2010, unemployment rates under Barack Obama stood at around 10%. Looks to me like George W. Bush's "super-duper governing skillz" would be nice right about now.
You are claiming that the Democrats voted for "Health Care Reform" bacuse they are listening to their constituents? The same constituents that overwhelmingly opposed its passing, and now that it has passed overwhelmingly favor its repeal? Further you are claiming the Democrats passed a "Financial Reform Act" which strengthens the big banks and promises to bail them out if they screw up again because the Democrats aren't beholden to corporate interests?
I am confused how you can perceive that a group of people (the Democrats in Congress) who take actions that their constituents oppose and their largest campaign contributors favor are less responsive to corporate interests than they are to the interests of thier constituents. I suppose it is the same way that people perceive that the party that ended slavery in this country, championed passing a Civil Rights Act, and in other ways worked to eliminate racism in this country is more racist than the party that fought to extend slavery, founded the KKK, resegregated the Federal Government, passed Jim Crow laws and in many other ways worked to maintain blacks as second class citizens.
I have two problems with the sex offenders lists. The first is that people whose convictions occured before these lists existed are put on them. Many people pled guilty to minor offenses that they were either innocent of, or that they had a decent chance of convincing a jury were not worth punishing them for, to avoid the risk of a jury finding them guilty of a much more serious offense. They did this because the punishment for the crime they pled guilty to was, at the time, minor enough to be not worth facing the risk of the more severe penalty. If the sex offender lists had existed at the time, the calculation would have been different and many of them would have chosen to go to court.
The second problem is one that someone else mentioned in an earlier post. The sex offender registries rarely make a distinction between someone who urinates in public (and other essentially non-sexual crimes) and is therefore convicted of indecent exposure and pedophiles and rapists. If we are going to have these lists, they should be reserved for people who have committed serious offenses (pedophilia and rape), not minor crimes like indecent exposure. And in cases of conviction of having sex with a minor, there should be a minimum age difference before it results in being on the registry. I'm not sure even under these limitations these lists are a good idea, but as they exist currently they are a bad idea.
Operation Ore in the UK fingered all sorts of people, including The Who's Pete Townshend, who were in fact innocent and victims of online credit card fraud.
I don't know about the other people on the list, but Pete Townshend's defense was that he was researching the easy availability of child porn on the Internet for a treatise he was writing. Pete Townshend admitted to entering his credit card number on a kiddie ponr site according to several news sources.
Because progressive these days is moving away from personal rights, not towards more.
Progressives have always favored increasing government power, which inherently means reducing individual rights. The base idea of progressives is running society "scientifically". Progressives believe that allowing people to make their own decisions on a variety of things (exactly which things varies from progressive to progressive) is inefficient and that society would function much better if those decisions were made by some central authority who can identify the best way to do something and then mandate that everyone do it that way.
The root of progressive is progress. In the late 19th century the idea was that science was finding new and better ways to do things, but many people were resisting these new and better ways out of stubbornness and ignorance. Of course, it turns out that many of those 19th "new and better" ways of doing things were actually worse (and often not really new either), but today's progressives have learned from the mistakes of thier predecessors and so they have different "new and better" ways of doing things.
As you might guess, I do not believe the modern progressives have learned the most ipmortant lesson from thier predecessors. That being that a central planner cannot know enough to make better decisions than the people who are actually going to have to live with the results of the decision (at least not often enough to offset the misery that will result when they are wrong).
Re:Solution in need of a (perceived) problem
on
Why Wave Failed
·
· Score: 1
email took longer to become "successful" than Google has been in business.
You see, I haven't run across anyone who was outraged when the russian spies were caught. I do know a lot of people that were outraged that the spys were so rapidly traded to the Russians for people who had limited (if any) involvement with our government. The anger I have run across was over the fact that the spies were allowed to leave the country without any real attempt being made to extract information about their activities.
However, if you read the article you find that B&N is not poised to fall. It is up for sale because of a dispute between the founder and some of the stockholders. One of the stockholders is trying to carve off a piece of B&N and sell it to one of his other companies. He is trying to use legal maneuvers to gain control of enough B&N stock in order to force this. Leonard Riggio (B&N's founder) came up with the plan to take B&N private in order to thwart him (or at least make his plan unprofitably expensive).
You apparently haven't heard about the mother who was charged with child pronography for having pictures of her naked two year old running around in her house? Sorry, I do not currently have the reference for it, butthere have been several cases of parents being charged with child pornography for having pictures of their own naked toddler.
The problem is that he has kept the promises that the voters thought he didn't really mean and broken the ones that the voters really wanted him to keep (transparency, not raising taxes on people earning less than $250,000 a year).
This is not a sign that B&N is in trouble. This is about a fight between Leonard Riggio (the founder of B&N and holder of the largest number of shares) and another investor. Mr. Riggio is facing challenges to his control of the company from another investor who actually wants to buy a bunch of B&N stores for his own company (and is trying to buy enough shares to force the issue). I think it is likely that he will be successful in taking B&N private.
I for one have not forgotten about Books-A-Million. Of course, that is because before your post, I had never heard of Books-A-Million. That is probably because there are none anywhere near where I live. Which means they are at best a regional chain and thus not really a competitor to B&N and Borders.
As long as viewers are required to wear special glasses to view 3D, it will not be readily accepted by the public for the majority of movies. Every couple of years someone tries to make a big wave about 3D movies. This has been going on since the 1950s. It is not like the move from black & white to color (except insofar as adding 3D post production will detract from a good movie, just as colorization detracted from a good black & white movie, although for different reasons). It is like the move from stereo to surround sound, except that you didn't need to wear special headphones for surround sound. While surround sound allows for some really cool sound effects, for most movies people would not miss it if they were in stereo rather than surround sound. I do not have surround sound at home and I have never noticed the difference in experience between movies I watched in the theater and at home.
The problem with your idea is that you are proposing giving the government the power to decide what is and is not "news". The other problem is that you think there was a time when the news was more fact based than it is today. Research the term "yellow journalism". The only difference between the time when "news" meant something and today is that people are able to independently check more of the "news" than they used to (and get the results of those checks published).
If they did that people would quickly realize how much stuff they make up. If they had to rely on facts, it would be almost impossible for them to get people to support their favorite policy initiatives.
Being willing to decimate villages that were the base for guerilla attacks on occupying forces helped as well. Check the records to see how the Allies responded to the numerous attacks that Germans who refused to admit defeat launched in post war Germany. If the U.S. had used a similar strategy in Iraq as they used in post war Germany, the insurgency would be over by now.
It is inherently better. If you're spending half the lecture writing something on the board that could very well be flashed up there in an instant using PowerPoint or similar, you're wasting the students time.
There was a study one or two years ago showing that people are less likely to learn when a powerpoint presentation is used as part of a lecture. So perhaps using Powerpoint or similar is not only not inherently better, it may be inherently worse. Taking the time to write things on the board gives the students time to absorb a concept before the teacher moves on to the next one.
Slashdot Mirror
After he's dead, he still doesn't want people to know because it'll reflect badly on him and make people he's close to feel bad or uncomfortable?
I mean just because you'll be dead doesn't mean that you, now, alive, can't think of other people's feelings and how future revelations will affect them.
Then why is he creating the record in the first place?
The rule of law means that the law applies the same to everyone and that it doesn't change from day to day (that is, changes to law take quite a bit of time to implement and are well advertised in advance of actually taking affect).
The question was whether or not it is Constitutional for Congress to pass a law requiring Americans to eat three vegetables and three fruits a day. I know this, the men who wrote the Constitution would have had no problem giving a short, quick "No" to that. Anyone who cannot see that any law like that results in requiring Americans to eat three vegetables and three fruits a day is unconstitutional, should not be in any position of governmental authority. The reason she hemmed and hawed when she answered that question is because she could imagine that such a law might be Constitutional under certain circumstances (she didn't know what circumstances, but she could imagine that there might be).
If the Supreme Court had not stepped in, the election would have been decided by Congress. Considering the makeup of the Congress in 2000, that means that Congress would have decided that George W. Bush was the next President.
Personally, I think the Supreme Court should have ruled that the Florida Supreme Court had no jurisdiction and that the matter of Florida's electors should have been decided by the Florida legislature (the Constitution rest all authority for deciding how a state's electors are chosen on the state legislatures). Or alternatively, they could have ruled that in one of several different ways that said that no Electoral College majority was determined so the election gets decided by Congress. In either of those cases the result would have been that George W. Bush ended up President.
The only possible way that Al Gore would have ended up President is if the recount was continued selectively in such a way as to guarantee that only Al Gore got additional votes. Several news organizations (most of which favored Al Gore), ran their own recount after the election and determined that George W. Bush won the Florida election.
Let's see, in July of 2002, unemployment rates under George W. Bush stood at around 6%, this is around 10 months after 9/11. In July of 2010, unemployment rates under Barack Obama stood at around 10%. Looks to me like George W. Bush's "super-duper governing skillz" would be nice right about now.
You are claiming that the Democrats voted for "Health Care Reform" bacuse they are listening to their constituents? The same constituents that overwhelmingly opposed its passing, and now that it has passed overwhelmingly favor its repeal? Further you are claiming the Democrats passed a "Financial Reform Act" which strengthens the big banks and promises to bail them out if they screw up again because the Democrats aren't beholden to corporate interests?
I am confused how you can perceive that a group of people (the Democrats in Congress) who take actions that their constituents oppose and their largest campaign contributors favor are less responsive to corporate interests than they are to the interests of thier constituents. I suppose it is the same way that people perceive that the party that ended slavery in this country, championed passing a Civil Rights Act, and in other ways worked to eliminate racism in this country is more racist than the party that fought to extend slavery, founded the KKK, resegregated the Federal Government, passed Jim Crow laws and in many other ways worked to maintain blacks as second class citizens.
I have two problems with the sex offenders lists. The first is that people whose convictions occured before these lists existed are put on them. Many people pled guilty to minor offenses that they were either innocent of, or that they had a decent chance of convincing a jury were not worth punishing them for, to avoid the risk of a jury finding them guilty of a much more serious offense. They did this because the punishment for the crime they pled guilty to was, at the time, minor enough to be not worth facing the risk of the more severe penalty. If the sex offender lists had existed at the time, the calculation would have been different and many of them would have chosen to go to court.
The second problem is one that someone else mentioned in an earlier post. The sex offender registries rarely make a distinction between someone who urinates in public (and other essentially non-sexual crimes) and is therefore convicted of indecent exposure and pedophiles and rapists. If we are going to have these lists, they should be reserved for people who have committed serious offenses (pedophilia and rape), not minor crimes like indecent exposure. And in cases of conviction of having sex with a minor, there should be a minimum age difference before it results in being on the registry. I'm not sure even under these limitations these lists are a good idea, but as they exist currently they are a bad idea.
Operation Ore in the UK fingered all sorts of people, including The Who's Pete Townshend, who were in fact innocent and victims of online credit card fraud.
I don't know about the other people on the list, but Pete Townshend's defense was that he was researching the easy availability of child porn on the Internet for a treatise he was writing. Pete Townshend admitted to entering his credit card number on a kiddie ponr site according to several news sources.
Because progressive these days is moving away from personal rights, not towards more.
Progressives have always favored increasing government power, which inherently means reducing individual rights. The base idea of progressives is running society "scientifically". Progressives believe that allowing people to make their own decisions on a variety of things (exactly which things varies from progressive to progressive) is inefficient and that society would function much better if those decisions were made by some central authority who can identify the best way to do something and then mandate that everyone do it that way.
The root of progressive is progress. In the late 19th century the idea was that science was finding new and better ways to do things, but many people were resisting these new and better ways out of stubbornness and ignorance. Of course, it turns out that many of those 19th "new and better" ways of doing things were actually worse (and often not really new either), but today's progressives have learned from the mistakes of thier predecessors and so they have different "new and better" ways of doing things.
As you might guess, I do not believe the modern progressives have learned the most ipmortant lesson from thier predecessors. That being that a central planner cannot know enough to make better decisions than the people who are actually going to have to live with the results of the decision (at least not often enough to offset the misery that will result when they are wrong).
email took longer to become "successful" than Google has been in business.
You see, I haven't run across anyone who was outraged when the russian spies were caught. I do know a lot of people that were outraged that the spys were so rapidly traded to the Russians for people who had limited (if any) involvement with our government. The anger I have run across was over the fact that the spies were allowed to leave the country without any real attempt being made to extract information about their activities.
Does that actually work out cheaper than buying the book (at least if your time has any value)?
However, if you read the article you find that B&N is not poised to fall. It is up for sale because of a dispute between the founder and some of the stockholders. One of the stockholders is trying to carve off a piece of B&N and sell it to one of his other companies. He is trying to use legal maneuvers to gain control of enough B&N stock in order to force this. Leonard Riggio (B&N's founder) came up with the plan to take B&N private in order to thwart him (or at least make his plan unprofitably expensive).
You apparently haven't heard about the mother who was charged with child pronography for having pictures of her naked two year old running around in her house? Sorry, I do not currently have the reference for it, butthere have been several cases of parents being charged with child pornography for having pictures of their own naked toddler.
The problem is that he has kept the promises that the voters thought he didn't really mean and broken the ones that the voters really wanted him to keep (transparency, not raising taxes on people earning less than $250,000 a year).
This is not a sign that B&N is in trouble. This is about a fight between Leonard Riggio (the founder of B&N and holder of the largest number of shares) and another investor. Mr. Riggio is facing challenges to his control of the company from another investor who actually wants to buy a bunch of B&N stores for his own company (and is trying to buy enough shares to force the issue). I think it is likely that he will be successful in taking B&N private.
Have we forgotten about Books-A-Million?
I for one have not forgotten about Books-A-Million. Of course, that is because before your post, I had never heard of Books-A-Million. That is probably because there are none anywhere near where I live. Which means they are at best a regional chain and thus not really a competitor to B&N and Borders.
How do you pirate a book (not an e-book, just a regular book)?
As long as viewers are required to wear special glasses to view 3D, it will not be readily accepted by the public for the majority of movies. Every couple of years someone tries to make a big wave about 3D movies. This has been going on since the 1950s. It is not like the move from black & white to color (except insofar as adding 3D post production will detract from a good movie, just as colorization detracted from a good black & white movie, although for different reasons). It is like the move from stereo to surround sound, except that you didn't need to wear special headphones for surround sound. While surround sound allows for some really cool sound effects, for most movies people would not miss it if they were in stereo rather than surround sound. I do not have surround sound at home and I have never noticed the difference in experience between movies I watched in the theater and at home.
Oh, so he's an Eliot Spitzer wannabe.
And if you believe that the people showing you a warrant are wielding fake ID badges, why on Earth would you let them into your house?
I think it has something to do with the guns they are carrying.
The problem with your idea is that you are proposing giving the government the power to decide what is and is not "news". The other problem is that you think there was a time when the news was more fact based than it is today. Research the term "yellow journalism". The only difference between the time when "news" meant something and today is that people are able to independently check more of the "news" than they used to (and get the results of those checks published).
If they did that people would quickly realize how much stuff they make up. If they had to rely on facts, it would be almost impossible for them to get people to support their favorite policy initiatives.
Being willing to decimate villages that were the base for guerilla attacks on occupying forces helped as well. Check the records to see how the Allies responded to the numerous attacks that Germans who refused to admit defeat launched in post war Germany. If the U.S. had used a similar strategy in Iraq as they used in post war Germany, the insurgency would be over by now.
It is inherently better. If you're spending half the lecture writing something on the board that could very well be flashed up there in an instant using PowerPoint or similar, you're wasting the students time.
There was a study one or two years ago showing that people are less likely to learn when a powerpoint presentation is used as part of a lecture. So perhaps using Powerpoint or similar is not only not inherently better, it may be inherently worse. Taking the time to write things on the board gives the students time to absorb a concept before the teacher moves on to the next one.