Have you actually read the ms office EULA. That clause is in there! Seriously it is. You just have to translate the legalese back into plain old english and translate to French and then German then back to english. It'll be there plain as day.
Microsoft EULAs are much better in the original Klingon.
I'm curious about how so many technical people can be behind Ron Paul on an issue like this, when they should be aware of the massive databases of personal information that companies like Google are collecting.
The fact is that it's just about impossible to find a candidate that aligns with your views 100%. Everyone has to prioritize their issues when choosing a candidate to vote for.
I don't like the fact that companies have so much personal information at their fingertips. I also think that a net neutrality law would be a good thing. In spite of these views, I have donated money to Ron Paul, actively promoted him with friends and family, and will vote for him in the primary. Just because I have an understanding of the problems we face with privacy in the corporate sector does not mean that I think it's the most important issue in the campaign. I'm much more concerned about our country's presence in the middle east, the government's handling of the economy and budget, and the increasing power of the federal government.
Since there's a paper trail you can always retabulate the results, by hand if need be.
The problem is that a properly rigged electronic election won't look suspicious enough to give people any reason to hand recount the paper trail. And if you're going to require everyone to do hand recounts to get around that problem, then aren't the machines just a big waste of money?
Wow. Both of your posts reminded me why I hate politics: it's just a big game to see which side can hold power. It has always sickened me how politicians will fight so hard to win and hold power, as if they should be applauded for "wanting it more". As far as I'm concerned, the ones who fight the hardest and dirtiest to win an election are the ones least trustworthy of wielding power.
Honestly that's a big reason why I support Ron Paul. He's the only politician I've ever seen who approach campaigning with humility (though there must be more like him out there). Ignoring his stances on issues, that humility alone suggests he may be trustworthy of holding power. Combine that with the fact that I actually do agree with him on most issues, and you have the reason I've lost my apathy towards this election cycle.
The bad guy had this device the size of a ring that sits on his finger, and when he pulls out one end, it creates this laser rope that will cut through anything.
He had a schwartz? Did he get the up side or the down side?
Do I like surveillance? God no! But please, let's just be sure to step outside the hyperbole and remind ourselves that a national ID card does not a police state make.
The Real ID won't turn us into a police state, but it will make us a little bit more like one. So I have to weigh the benefits of the Real ID before I can support it. But I haven't really seen any substantial benefits, other than vague "it'll stop the terrists" or "it'll stop illegal immigration" without specifying exactly how it will accomplish those goals. I have, however seen a few significant drawbacks, such as high cost to implement and generally moving control away from the states and to the federal government. So why do I want a national ID again?
"When asked for comment Mr. Rove stated, 'I believe we will be settling down in this place called The Shire. I understand great opportunity exists there to squash more insurgency....'"
That is so inconsiderate. Even though this is Slashdot, there are still people out there who haven't read the books and don't need you coming along and spoiling the chapter where Karl Rove enslaves the Hobbits.
Colin Powell resigned as Secretary of State in 2004, and was the first high ranking Republican official to go on to testify on record about all the many mistakes were made leading up to the war, including the lies that were included in his speeches leading up to the invasion.
I'm not aligned either way, but in my opinion he's the *only* Republican that has an ounce of credibility left.
It's a shame that Powell got caught up in this administration, as I had a lot of respect for him. I still do, but I wish he had left the administration sooner than he did because I think it hurt his credibility.
As far as being the only Republican with an ounce of credibility, I think that title belongs to Ron Paul, and I'd say he has more than an ounce.:) I would dearly love to see "Dr. No" wielding veto power over our congress, whether it's controlled by Democrats or Republicans.
what if 4 philosophers are sitting around a display and each one needs 2 windows but the display resolution only supports rendering 6 windows at a time?
what then?
The one without any windows can pick up his chopsticks and eat.
I like cutting of taxes, but, it has to go with smaller govt. spending too!! I want a candidate that is for that, that fiscally conservative, slightly liberal socially....and most of all, respects and honors the Constitution.
As others have said, Ron Paul almost perfectly meets your criteria. I don't know that I would describe him as "slightly liberal" socially, but since he is a strict constitutionalist, he views most of those as issues for the states to deal with (like gay marriage).
He may be a long shot, but he's honest and humble (two words I wouldn't normally attribute to a politician), and he consistently votes by his principles. He's the only politician I have ever even considered donating money to, yet last month I sent him my first political donation.
I stand corrected then. In the 3 states I've lived in - Illinois, Missouri, and Alabama - I haven't heard much if any talk of state level universal health care. Though I have heard of states discussing coverage for the uninsured, I haven't heard any talk about taking the system away from the insurance companies, which is was I think of when I hear socialized or universal health care.
First of all, let's just note the fact that federalized health care is blatantly unconstitutional. No, I won't explain that in detail, because I am tired of explaining about enumerated rights and the Tenth Amendment.
I agree, and what I don't understand is why the issue of universal/socialized health care is rarely suggested at the state level. Clearly there is some significant portion of Americans who are interested in seeing universal health care, or there wouldn't be a discussion. So why don't some of the states try it? But all discussion I've seen has been for or against implementing federal health care.
I watched Sicko, and if nothing else, it did get me thinking more about the issue of health care. I don't quite buy Moore's argument that we need federal health care, but I do believe it's a worthy debate to have at the state level. In the movie, he tries to sell us the idea of socialized health care by pointing to the other socialized services we enjoy: firefighters, education, police departments, etc. All of these serve the public good (in theory, if not always in practice), but these services are largely managed at the state or local levels. I think there could be room for health care in that list. At the very least, I believe it's a worthy enough issue to be on the table for debate.
Only electable candidates are about taking more of your money. There are unelectable candidates that aren't.
It's still early. We are over a half a year away from the primary elections. I think the media (and consequently the people) give up way to early on candidates. They like to pick who they see as "the big three" in each party and act like everyone else doesn't matter and can't win. They can win if people support them instead of just assuming the race is over before it's even begun.
We live in a two-party system where one side says "We'll take all your money and give it to the welfare programs, prisons, and the poor" and the other side says "We'll take all your money and give it to the oil companies, airlines, and the telecoms". Either way, they've taken all your money.
This is the depressing part about US politics today, but there is some hope. Not all candidates running are about taking more of your money. Most, perhaps, but not all.
Now, with the automation of so many of life's crucial processes, fewer and fewer people are needed to rig any thing.
Which is why I think we should return to traditional paper ballots, honestly. The field of computer security is simply too new and too fast paced to trust with the foundation of our democracy: elections.
At the very least, I feel that any software used in the election process should have its source viewable by the public. It doesn't necessarily have to be free/open source (though I think it would be beneficial), but people should at least be able to audit the code used to determine the nation's elections.
Politicians aren't in the buisness of giving up power, and if we get a Democratic president, then signing statements etc will become "useful tools in the right hands".
Exactly. The danger of the expanding executive power occurring during this administration are not limited to how much Bush can abuse power. These new powers will be available to the next president, Democratic or Republican. And the next, and the next, and every future president of this country, unless these powers are specifically taken away. I fear for the future of this country...
2: When you exercise, the muscle you build requires energy to run it 24/7 day. You may only expend 200 calories during the exercise itself, but if it makes your body consume 5% more calories while resting you are going to lose weight automatically if your intake remains constant.
That's the kicker. If you start exercising heavily, you're going to crave more food. So to lose weight/fat, you need to learn to manage your food intake regardless of whether or not you want to lose through exercise.
I read the hacker's diet a few months ago (which argues that exercise is great and important but difficult to use as a weight loss method), and I've lost 25 pounds so far. My approach was to start with lowering my calories, then work in the exercise program suggested in the book as the diet continued. IMO a couple benefits to this approach are:
1. You're not trying to do too many things at once. If you want to burn fat through exercise, you have to start off learning 2 things: exercising more and managing your food intake to ensure you're burning more than you eat.
2. As you said, exercising will start building more muscle mass. If you focus primarily on shedding fat first, you might be able to see your muscles getting toned when you do start exercising seriously. For me, at least with the fat burning, being able to see visual improvements has been a tremendous motivator to stay with the diet.
Oh boy. For what it's worth, I work for a D.C. government watchdog and am very familiar with Cato. I read their books, I go to their events. Their office is sweet - lots of windows, big atrium. Bottom line is their science positions are intellectually dishonest at a comprehensive level, and that keeps them well funded by industry. So yeah, I distrust the information they put out, because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders.
It would be worth a lot more if you cited some examples and/or sources. I know very little about Cato, so I have no reason to give their studies more or less weight than others. But your post, which is currently modded 5 Insightful, gives me no information on why I should distrust their information.
Slashdot Mirror
But the designer is Man. So does that mean that Man is God?
What does God need with a schnauzer?
So now we've got true north, magnetic north, and bovine north?
Microsoft EULAs are much better in the original Klingon.
The fact is that it's just about impossible to find a candidate that aligns with your views 100%. Everyone has to prioritize their issues when choosing a candidate to vote for.
I don't like the fact that companies have so much personal information at their fingertips. I also think that a net neutrality law would be a good thing. In spite of these views, I have donated money to Ron Paul, actively promoted him with friends and family, and will vote for him in the primary. Just because I have an understanding of the problems we face with privacy in the corporate sector does not mean that I think it's the most important issue in the campaign. I'm much more concerned about our country's presence in the middle east, the government's handling of the economy and budget, and the increasing power of the federal government.
The problem is that a properly rigged electronic election won't look suspicious enough to give people any reason to hand recount the paper trail. And if you're going to require everyone to do hand recounts to get around that problem, then aren't the machines just a big waste of money?
Wow. Both of your posts reminded me why I hate politics: it's just a big game to see which side can hold power. It has always sickened me how politicians will fight so hard to win and hold power, as if they should be applauded for "wanting it more". As far as I'm concerned, the ones who fight the hardest and dirtiest to win an election are the ones least trustworthy of wielding power.
Honestly that's a big reason why I support Ron Paul. He's the only politician I've ever seen who approach campaigning with humility (though there must be more like him out there). Ignoring his stances on issues, that humility alone suggests he may be trustworthy of holding power. Combine that with the fact that I actually do agree with him on most issues, and you have the reason I've lost my apathy towards this election cycle.
Rofl and pwned?
He had a schwartz? Did he get the up side or the down side?
The Real ID won't turn us into a police state, but it will make us a little bit more like one. So I have to weigh the benefits of the Real ID before I can support it. But I haven't really seen any substantial benefits, other than vague "it'll stop the terrists" or "it'll stop illegal immigration" without specifying exactly how it will accomplish those goals. I have, however seen a few significant drawbacks, such as high cost to implement and generally moving control away from the states and to the federal government. So why do I want a national ID again?
That is so inconsiderate. Even though this is Slashdot, there are still people out there who haven't read the books and don't need you coming along and spoiling the chapter where Karl Rove enslaves the Hobbits.
It's a shame that Powell got caught up in this administration, as I had a lot of respect for him. I still do, but I wish he had left the administration sooner than he did because I think it hurt his credibility.
As far as being the only Republican with an ounce of credibility, I think that title belongs to Ron Paul, and I'd say he has more than an ounce.
The one without any windows can pick up his chopsticks and eat.
There really isn't a significant premium for SATA anymore. A quick check of newegg came up with at least one example:
8 2E16827106048
8 2E16827106070
Lite-On 20x DVD burner (IDE): $28.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N
Lite-On 20x DVD burner (SATA): $30.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N
As others have said, Ron Paul almost perfectly meets your criteria. I don't know that I would describe him as "slightly liberal" socially, but since he is a strict constitutionalist, he views most of those as issues for the states to deal with (like gay marriage).
He may be a long shot, but he's honest and humble (two words I wouldn't normally attribute to a politician), and he consistently votes by his principles. He's the only politician I have ever even considered donating money to, yet last month I sent him my first political donation.
http://ronpaul2008.com/
Wow, it's really improved over the years!
*sob*
I stand corrected then. In the 3 states I've lived in - Illinois, Missouri, and Alabama - I haven't heard much if any talk of state level universal health care. Though I have heard of states discussing coverage for the uninsured, I haven't heard any talk about taking the system away from the insurance companies, which is was I think of when I hear socialized or universal health care.
I agree, and what I don't understand is why the issue of universal/socialized health care is rarely suggested at the state level. Clearly there is some significant portion of Americans who are interested in seeing universal health care, or there wouldn't be a discussion. So why don't some of the states try it? But all discussion I've seen has been for or against implementing federal health care.
I watched Sicko, and if nothing else, it did get me thinking more about the issue of health care. I don't quite buy Moore's argument that we need federal health care, but I do believe it's a worthy debate to have at the state level. In the movie, he tries to sell us the idea of socialized health care by pointing to the other socialized services we enjoy: firefighters, education, police departments, etc. All of these serve the public good (in theory, if not always in practice), but these services are largely managed at the state or local levels. I think there could be room for health care in that list. At the very least, I believe it's a worthy enough issue to be on the table for debate.
And without paying for those lessons! Can we sue them under the DMCA?
It's still early. We are over a half a year away from the primary elections. I think the media (and consequently the people) give up way to early on candidates. They like to pick who they see as "the big three" in each party and act like everyone else doesn't matter and can't win. They can win if people support them instead of just assuming the race is over before it's even begun.
This is the depressing part about US politics today, but there is some hope. Not all candidates running are about taking more of your money. Most, perhaps, but not all.
So would free range gold farmers get to play outside on laptops over wireless?
Which is why I think we should return to traditional paper ballots, honestly. The field of computer security is simply too new and too fast paced to trust with the foundation of our democracy: elections.
At the very least, I feel that any software used in the election process should have its source viewable by the public. It doesn't necessarily have to be free/open source (though I think it would be beneficial), but people should at least be able to audit the code used to determine the nation's elections.
Exactly. The danger of the expanding executive power occurring during this administration are not limited to how much Bush can abuse power. These new powers will be available to the next president, Democratic or Republican. And the next, and the next, and every future president of this country, unless these powers are specifically taken away. I fear for the future of this country...
That's the kicker. If you start exercising heavily, you're going to crave more food. So to lose weight/fat, you need to learn to manage your food intake regardless of whether or not you want to lose through exercise.
I read the hacker's diet a few months ago (which argues that exercise is great and important but difficult to use as a weight loss method), and I've lost 25 pounds so far. My approach was to start with lowering my calories, then work in the exercise program suggested in the book as the diet continued. IMO a couple benefits to this approach are:
1. You're not trying to do too many things at once. If you want to burn fat through exercise, you have to start off learning 2 things: exercising more and managing your food intake to ensure you're burning more than you eat.
2. As you said, exercising will start building more muscle mass. If you focus primarily on shedding fat first, you might be able to see your muscles getting toned when you do start exercising seriously. For me, at least with the fat burning, being able to see visual improvements has been a tremendous motivator to stay with the diet.
It would be worth a lot more if you cited some examples and/or sources. I know very little about Cato, so I have no reason to give their studies more or less weight than others. But your post, which is currently modded 5 Insightful, gives me no information on why I should distrust their information.