Can private prisons make deals to murder their prisoners?
Anyway, who cares what deals a privatized Census Bureau will make? They won't be able to force you to answer their questions, so who cares what they ask?
The only question the Constitution allows the Census to ask is "how many people live in your house?" Who cares who they give that information to?
Are you afraid you're going to get junk mail that's specifically targetted at houses with 3 people in them?
And I would expect Libertarians would be less afraid of Greens than the other two parties, because putting the political system back in the hands of the people could also allow the system to be changed the way they like it.
That's how Libertarians would feel if the Greens were indeed wanting to put political power "back in the hands of the people".
However, the Greens want political power in the hands of the people about as much as the Bolsheviks did.
Remember that when Nader says he wants control of various "societal assets" taken away from those who control them now and returned to "the people", what he is saying is that he wants property and businesses taken away from private companies and given to the government. I.E., Socialism, pure and simple.
When he says our "18th Century Democratic Rights need retooling for the proper exercise of our responsibilities as citizens in the 21st century" he means the Bill of Rights can't be allowed to get in his way.
Read their "Ten Key Values" and remind yourself that they're talking about THE GOVERNMENT controlling these things, not the people.
These people want to take complete control over all education in the US, eliminating the voice of even the states in their own public school systems, much less the community school boards.
The Greens have some occasional language in the US that is a sop to folks disgusted with the Democrats and the Republicans, but when you take their writings on the whole instead of looking at just a paragraph, you see a scary repeat of history that's already played out elsewhere.
-
Re:Apple or BSDaemon, good question...
on
X On OSX Now Free
·
· Score: 2
More Unix-like behavior in OSX is always a good thing for the same reason why many Linux afficionados still run Solaris on their Sun boxen;
Support.
When something goes out, the last thing you want to do when getting it fixed is have to waste time proving to the vendor that it's not the unsupported OS you added that's causing the problem.
And if any such laws are made, I would like them, as a citizen of the federation, to be uniform accross all states. I think it *is* a federal issue because it affects citizens everywhere, regardless of state.
Just because something affects everyone doesn't mean the federal government legally can or should address it.
The Constitution is quite explicit on this; anything not specifically granted to the federal government is the purview of the states, period.
I won't address your horrible misconceptions about Libertarianism; it's obvious that you haven't read anything of consequence on the subject. There are four times as many Libertarians working with the system as there are Greens, if measured by people in elected and/or appointed government positions who are members of the associated party.
There needs to be something done to prevent kids from sitting down next to some guy staring at beastiality pics with one hand in his pocket.
I completely agree. And that something needs to be done by parents, not by the Federal government.
There's nothing in the Constitution that grants them the power to regulate that. Therefore, that right is reserved to the people and the states, period.
"Our society, even 10 or 20 years ago, would not have tolerated such youth-beamed depravity. These are the motivations that relentlessly drive the creation, production, and marketing of ever more Doom, Quake, Basketball Diaries, Marilyn Mansons, Mortal Kombat I and II and III and IV, Jerry
Springers, Howard Sterns, South Parks, and the rest of it.
This poison has got to stop. Enough is enough."
How do you interpret "This poison has got to stop. Enough is enough."?
I interpret it to mean he thinks the things he mentions are poison, and that he wants to stop them.
Before you argue that he doesn't want Congress to legislate them away, consider this, from later in the document:
"There is nothing Congress could do that is more important than making America's children safe again from the interests that would rob them of their childhood."
MAKING them safe. He's quite clear about it.
You picked out the nice safe quote that didn't hurt your case, but conveniently left out the damning revelations. That's why I linked the whole document instead of quoting; my agenda was to let people read it, not just your wishful-thinking interpretation of what you wish he'd said.
They claim to be in absolute favor of state sovreignity, but they also want federal laws requiring states to observe one particular religion's ideas about marraige, regardless of the wishes of the citizens of those states.
Thus, they expose themselves even in their own party platform.
When/how did you interpret Bush as regulating speech from his debates?
I didn't get it from his debates. He lies in them, remember?
The man is on record as stating that requiring v-chips is "ok", and that Columbine was caused by the Internet. He's a kook.
And don't forget his response when asked if he was violating Zach Exley's free speech rights when he forced him to get rid of gwbush.com:
"There ought to be limits to freedom."
That seems pretty clear to me; he claims to be against Internet censorship because it attracts voters, but when push comes to shove he's right there with the red pen.
If you have studied philosophy or sociology, then you know from the Kantian problem of order that there is no natural law or rights. The
government is socially constructed and is enpowered by the people. The people decided that free speech is good and therefore it was put in the amendments. If people then choose to limit it in someway, then it is the people's choice.
The people chose to be bound by the Constitution. If they decide to choose to no longer be bound by it, that's one thing; but to simply violate it because part is inconvenient violates the law.
Not the natural law, you pulled that one out of your ass; the Law, which is what I was clearly talking about.
Niether of their positions is terribly radical and I can't think of anything either could say about the internet as a whole that would be more
important to me than their positions on other core issues.
The problem is, they both lie.
You can use their positions on the Internet, however, to determine something about their basic philosophies.
They both belief the government has the power to regulate speech, despite the fact that the Constitution specifically says they don't. From this, you can clearly see that their respect for the rule of law is lacking.
This means they will interfere with your basic rights as a human being, which is born out by their positions on other issues.
Politicians are trying to take away your right to read what you want, and to say what you want. "
Harry Browne's specific position:
"You have the right to speak and write freely -- on paper, on the airwaves, on the Internet --even if the government thinks it has a "compelling interest" in shutting you up."
As for Ralph Nader, he even wants to censor non-pornographic web sites; he doesn't want children to be able to access marketting information. He is one of those people we all berate here who think Doom causes violence.
You know a way to make 802.11b work as a LAN (ie, not just peer-to-peer) without an access point? Do tell.
Routing is a basic concept of TCP/IP networking. If you are so unfamiliar with it that you don't even know it exists, I would recommend you start here:
Well, that would be a savings of nearly $800-1000 (when you included 802.11b's access point and LAN cards together) and HomeRF now matches 802.11b's 11mbs.
Why would I be so foolish as to include the access point?
As for the "now matching" speed; I define "now" as "I can go into a store and buy one". Unless every web page I've checked is mistaken, 11Mbs HomeRF doesn't meet that qualification.
My understanding is that Linux plans are in the works for both.
Neither Vincent Cerf, Al Gore, nor God herself can transmit packets over a plan; it requires actual products with actual drivers.
FedEx pays a flat rate for the time you're on-call whether you get paged or not (how much varies with different positions, but generally is higher than the $60 you mentioned), *AND* pays you your full "hourly rate" for any time you actually get called.
I put "hourly rate" in quotes because most people in on-call positions are salaried.
I assure you that virtually every border patrol in the world has the authority to search you on a whim.
Yes, it's very true that virtually every country in the world sucks. That doesn't mean our goal should be to be just like them.
Until very recently, the majority of the people in the world lived in countries whose governments were either one-party or military; should we have been trying to emulate them?
6 billion people can most assuredly be wrong. Or, more importantly, be wronged.
Well, for one thing, the Bundesgrenzschutz can search you without any reasonable suspicion.
Germany is really big on the privacy of electronically-stored information gathered by businesses, but they have a very authoritarian government that pokes it's nose into areas of their citizens' lives that ought to be private.
In particular, their propensity for passing laws that parse to "you're free to say anything you want, unless it's on this list of things you're not allowed to say" should frighten anyone who recognizes the value of free speech.
Hell, you're talking about the country that outlawed web browser cookies in 1996.
The US is the only major industrialized country in the World without such an agency. More than 40 countries have them. An aggressive, independent watchdog agency is essential to protect citizens? privacy from corporate and governmental invasions.
Sorry, I don't get a warm, fuzzy feeling from a candidate who says he wants us to have the privacy of Germany and France.
If they want every student to have a computer, they should provide every student a computer, or make them available at a REAL discount through the university system.
Why should I have to pay for their laptop?
Why should my tax dollars go to make sure multiple students, half of whom are going to drop out or flunk out, have better laptops than I do?
Exactly where in the Constitution was the government given the power to confiscate my wages at gunpoint and spend them on purchasing laptop computers for a bunch of goddamn teenagers in another state?
Slashdot Mirror
Privatization != unregulated
Can private prisons make deals to murder their prisoners?
Anyway, who cares what deals a privatized Census Bureau will make? They won't be able to force you to answer their questions, so who cares what they ask?
The only question the Constitution allows the Census to ask is "how many people live in your house?" Who cares who they give that information to?
Are you afraid you're going to get junk mail that's specifically targetted at houses with 3 people in them?
-
Yet another reason to vote Libertarian:
With no IRS and no extensive Census records, there's nothing to correlate.
-
Actually, I run solaris on sun hardware because it's a better enterprise level OS than Linux currently is.
:-)
I wasn't talking about Enterprise 6500s, I was
talking about Ultra 2s.
-
And I would expect Libertarians would be less afraid of Greens than the other two parties, because putting the political system back in the hands of the people could also allow the system to be changed the way they like it.
That's how Libertarians would feel if the Greens were indeed wanting to put political power "back in the hands of the people".
However, the Greens want political power in the hands of the people about as much as the Bolsheviks did.
Remember that when Nader says he wants control of various "societal assets" taken away from those who control them now and returned to "the people", what he is saying is that he wants property and businesses taken away from private companies and given to the government. I.E., Socialism, pure and simple.
When he says our "18th Century Democratic Rights need retooling for the proper exercise of our responsibilities as citizens in the 21st century" he means the Bill of Rights can't be allowed to get in his way.
Read their "Ten Key Values" and remind yourself that they're talking about THE GOVERNMENT controlling these things, not the people.
These people want to take complete control over all education in the US, eliminating the voice of even the states in their own public school systems, much less the community school boards.
The Greens have some occasional language in the US that is a sop to folks disgusted with the Democrats and the Republicans, but when you take their writings on the whole instead of looking at just a paragraph, you see a scary repeat of history that's already played out elsewhere.
-
More Unix-like behavior in OSX is always a good thing for the same reason why many Linux afficionados still run Solaris on their Sun boxen;
Support.
When something goes out, the last thing you want to do when getting it fixed is have to waste time proving to the vendor that it's not the unsupported OS you added that's causing the problem.
-
And if any such laws are made, I would like them, as a citizen of the federation, to be uniform accross all states. I think it *is* a federal issue because it affects citizens everywhere, regardless of state.
Just because something affects everyone doesn't mean the federal government legally can or should address it.
The Constitution is quite explicit on this; anything not specifically granted to the federal government is the purview of the states, period.
I won't address your horrible misconceptions about Libertarianism; it's obvious that you haven't read anything of consequence on the subject. There are four times as many Libertarians working with the system as there are Greens, if measured by people in elected and/or appointed government positions who are members of the associated party.
-
Monkey didn't say DIVX wasn't immoral and evil, he just said that's not why it failed.
If it had been more convenient, it might very well have succeeded, despite being immoral and evil.
-
There needs to be something done to prevent kids from sitting down next to some guy staring at beastiality pics with one hand in his pocket.
I completely agree. And that something needs to be done by parents, not by the Federal government.
There's nothing in the Constitution that grants them the power to regulate that. Therefore, that right is reserved to the people and the states, period.
It's that simple, there is no gray area here.
-
I'm willing to agree that *both* candidates lie, and that neither is particularly trustworthy.
You say "both" like there are two candidates.
There are a hell of a lot more than two.
Dunno, I still haven't seen any reason to vote for Gore yet. His ISP/monitoring plan bothers me.
If you think I'm suggesting you vote for Gore, you must have not only skimmed my post instead of reading it, but also turned off signatures.
I wouldn't vote for Gore to be put out if he was on fire. As for his wife, I've called her a dangerous idiot to her face.
-
You left out this part:
"Our society, even 10 or 20 years ago, would not have tolerated such youth-beamed depravity. These are the motivations that relentlessly drive the creation, production, and marketing of ever more Doom, Quake, Basketball Diaries, Marilyn Mansons, Mortal Kombat I and II and III and IV, Jerry
Springers, Howard Sterns, South Parks, and the rest of it.
This poison has got to stop. Enough is enough."
How do you interpret "This poison has got to stop. Enough is enough."?
I interpret it to mean he thinks the things he mentions are poison, and that he wants to stop them.
Before you argue that he doesn't want Congress to legislate them away, consider this, from later in the document:
"There is nothing Congress could do that is more important than making America's children safe again from the interests that would rob them of their childhood."
MAKING them safe. He's quite clear about it.
You picked out the nice safe quote that didn't hurt your case, but conveniently left out the damning revelations. That's why I linked the whole document instead of quoting; my agenda was to let people read it, not just your wishful-thinking interpretation of what you wish he'd said.
-
The Constitution party has their own set of lies.
They claim to be in absolute favor of state sovreignity, but they also want federal laws requiring states to observe one particular religion's ideas about marraige, regardless of the wishes of the citizens of those states.
Thus, they expose themselves even in their own party platform.
-
When/how did you interpret Bush as regulating speech from his debates?
I didn't get it from his debates. He lies in them, remember?
The man is on record as stating that requiring v-chips is "ok", and that Columbine was caused by the Internet. He's a kook.
And don't forget his response when asked if he was violating Zach Exley's free speech rights when he forced him to get rid of gwbush.com:
"There ought to be limits to freedom."
That seems pretty clear to me; he claims to be against Internet censorship because it attracts voters, but when push comes to shove he's right there with the red pen.
-
If you have studied philosophy or sociology, then you know from the Kantian problem of order that there is no natural law or rights. The
government is socially constructed and is enpowered by the people. The people decided that free speech is good and therefore it was put in the amendments. If people then choose to limit it in someway, then it is the people's choice.
The people chose to be bound by the Constitution. If they decide to choose to no longer be bound by it, that's one thing; but to simply violate it because part is inconvenient violates the law.
Not the natural law, you pulled that one out of your ass; the Law, which is what I was clearly talking about.
-
Niether of their positions is terribly radical and I can't think of anything either could say about the internet as a whole that would be more
important to me than their positions on other core issues.
The problem is, they both lie.
You can use their positions on the Internet, however, to determine something about their basic philosophies.
They both belief the government has the power to regulate speech, despite the fact that the Constitution specifically says they don't. From this, you can clearly see that their respect for the rule of law is lacking.
This means they will interfere with your basic rights as a human being, which is born out by their positions on other issues.
I kind of like my rights. I'd like to keep them.
-
The Libertarian party's position:
"Stop Internet Censorship
Politicians are trying to take away your right to read what you want, and to say what you want. "
Harry Browne's specific position:
"You have the right to speak and write freely -- on paper, on the airwaves, on the Internet --even if the government thinks it has a "compelling interest" in shutting you up."
As for Ralph Nader, he even wants to censor non-pornographic web sites; he doesn't want children to be able to access marketting information. He is one of those people we all berate here who think Doom causes violence.
And he doesn't want to stop at censoring it; he actually wants to outlaw it.
-
You know a way to make 802.11b work as a LAN (ie, not just peer-to-peer) without an access point? Do tell.
Routing is a basic concept of TCP/IP networking. If you are so unfamiliar with it that you don't even know it exists, I would recommend you start here:
TCP/IP for Dummies, Fourth Edition
-
Well, that would be a savings of nearly $800-1000 (when you included 802.11b's access point and LAN cards together) and HomeRF now matches 802.11b's 11mbs.
Why would I be so foolish as to include the access point?
As for the "now matching" speed; I define "now" as "I can go into a store and buy one". Unless every web page I've checked is mistaken, 11Mbs HomeRF doesn't meet that qualification.
My understanding is that Linux plans are in the works for both.
Neither Vincent Cerf, Al Gore, nor God herself can transmit packets over a plan; it requires actual products with actual drivers.
-
Gosh, for a savings of a few dollars, I can have 1/10th the speed, *AND* it only works on Windows and Mac?
Sign me up!!!
-
FedEx pays a flat rate for the time you're on-call whether you get paged or not (how much varies with different positions, but generally is higher than the $60 you mentioned), *AND* pays you your full "hourly rate" for any time you actually get called.
I put "hourly rate" in quotes because most people in on-call positions are salaried.
-
I assure you that virtually every border patrol in the world has the authority to search you on a whim.
Yes, it's very true that virtually every country in the world sucks. That doesn't mean our goal should be to be just like them.
Until very recently, the majority of the people in the world lived in countries whose governments were either one-party or military; should we have been trying to emulate them?
6 billion people can most assuredly be wrong. Or, more importantly, be wronged.
-
Did he every say Germany when he said 40 countries?
He said "every major industrialized country" except the US.
If you disagree that Germany is a "major industrialized country" you have a legitimate beef with my post. If not, don't waste my time.
-
Well, for one thing, the Bundesgrenzschutz can search you without any reasonable suspicion.
Germany is really big on the privacy of electronically-stored information gathered by businesses, but they have a very authoritarian government that pokes it's nose into areas of their citizens' lives that ought to be private.
In particular, their propensity for passing laws that parse to "you're free to say anything you want, unless it's on this list of things you're not allowed to say" should frighten anyone who recognizes the value of free speech.
Hell, you're talking about the country that outlawed web browser cookies in 1996.
-
The US is the only major industrialized country in the World without such an agency. More than 40 countries have them. An aggressive, independent watchdog agency is essential to protect citizens? privacy from corporate and governmental invasions.
Sorry, I don't get a warm, fuzzy feeling from a candidate who says he wants us to have the privacy of Germany and France.
-
If they want every student to have a computer, they should provide every student a computer, or make them available at a REAL discount through the university system.
Why should I have to pay for their laptop?
Why should my tax dollars go to make sure multiple students, half of whom are going to drop out or flunk out, have better laptops than I do?
Exactly where in the Constitution was the government given the power to confiscate my wages at gunpoint and spend them on purchasing laptop computers for a bunch of goddamn teenagers in another state?
-
Case in point, Nader does not specifically support the platform position of the Green party that 100% of wages over 10xMinimumWage should be taxed.
That's true, he's claimed he doesn't support that.
Following up with saying that he thinks it should be set at $100,000, not necessarily 10x minimum wage.
He also wants to double the minimum wage, which is pretty much guaranteed to be a big boon to the robotics industry, but crush nearly everything else.
-