*shrug* If a mom was in a car accident, and her infant was seriously wounded, and she wanted to forgo treatment because "the surgery would cost too much" or "I'm not ready to handle the responsibility of the convalescence" or whatever, we'd say she was allowing her child to die for the sake of her own "convenience" (nor would she be allowed to do so). Same difference - but only because I value prenatal life and you don't. So we'll have to recognize that long-winded arguments aren't going to change either opinion, and agree to disagree on that point.
I am indeed not "totally opposed to stem cell research", as I already stated rather clearly (I thought) elsewhere in this thread. I believe the laws signed by Clinton and Bush that limited federal funding of embryonic stem cell research in certain ways were appropriate. Since I would stand to benefit personally from a possible future cure found by creating and destroying embryos to help those of us who managed to survive gestation, let's skip over the "you're a heartless Republican!" that usually comes next in the argument - I'm neither - but I do respect the opinion of the sizable group of Americans that object to the moral costs of that research, and thus am willing to accept the long-standing laws that have required private funding for it - recognizing that Obama will almost certainly strike them down if elected, and McCain will almost certainly retain them. It's now up to the electorate, as is also appropriate.
Oh, wait, I see the miscommunication now. I read "(bans on Federally funded stem cell research) that have had a massive impact on the research community", but you meant "bans on (federally funded stem cell research that have had a massive impact on the research community)".
IOW, you were intending to attack only the bans that eliminated federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines, not asserting that federal funding for all stem cell research had been banned. That wouldn't change my position, of course, but it certainly would change my assertion that your statement itself was in error. My apologies for that misunderstanding.
Lucky that English is so ambiguous, otherwise, look at all the fun we'd have missed!:-)
And on a related note - have you heard about Lojban yet?!?:-)
That's one possibility, though I don't personally think that's the primary factor. "Andy" was a young single friend of mine with whom I had many debates on issues like abortion and welfare. He was consistently more liberal - abortion for any reason, strong long-term safety net, etc.
When he told me he was getting married, I warned him that our differences were about to decrease and the days of our hot debates nearing an end. He laughed at me, because his views were all "well reasoned". After his first child, he was ranting on about people who supported late-term abortions when he saw my smirk - and we both laughed.
Life changes your views.
But the era in which you grew up may be a bigger contributor than your life experience - I've been wrong before (are you allowed to admit that on/.?:-). I've never seen a good study of the topic. Somebody should prepare a killer thesis on this!
Such persons can recite facts, same as anyone else.
How deliciously ironic. Earlier in the thread, I was accused thus: "Now, the interesting thing about your post is that it's technically correct on nearly every point, and yet the overall thrust is entirely misleading." Obviously "reciting facts" isn't the key, but the "overall thrust" - as long as your thrust toes the local political line.;-) That's sad, too, but also human nature. But to your two mistaken points.
There are a hundred reasons why an abortion ought to be an option, and very few of them are convenient for anyone.
Well... no. At least we can "recite facts" here with confidence.
Well-researched statistics show the following distribution of reasons for having an abortion in the USA:
Rape or incest: 1%
Mother's health: 3%
Fetal defects: 3%
Convenience: 90%
Other: 3%
"Convenience" includes unready to have a child, can't afford it, parents or father want the abortion, baby would change my life, etc.
The reasons raised in a discussion first usually indicates the debater's position. The "abortion at any stage of development for any reason" folks like yourself, about 20% of the US population, always seem to jump to the single-digit reasons like rape or mother's health. Those like myself who support some limits on abortion (such as opposing late-term abortions), about 60% of the US population, tend to focus on entire spectrum. Those who oppose abortions in all cases (about 12%) usually focus on the convenience issues only.
In that respect, at least, you didn't disappoint.
You know very well no one has advocated the killing off of babies.
I wish that were true. My early much stronger pro-life values were very affected when, as a teenager in the 1970's, I read an article by or about a doctor who had performed a late-term abortion that resulted in a live birth. He lay the screaming baby on a table, ordered the nurse not to tend to him, and went outside to smoke a cigarette. After about 15 minutes the nurse reported that the baby had died, and his response was "Good". (It was definitely intended as a pro-abortion tome, but was at least honest in its assessment of the downsides of legal abortion. Ah, the good old days.:-)
That this continues to be an issue even today is evident by Obama's well-reported vote against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in the Illinois senate (which was intended to prohibit allowing a living baby resulting from a late term abortion to be killed by neglect). He did vote for identical legislation in the US Senate (yes, it's identical - go get the text of both bills for yourself), which is why I mentioned that his position may have changed, or his earlier vote may have been due to other considerations (legislating is such a fascinating avocation). The bill has now become law, thankfully.
But the outlying cases of rape / health / defect and late term / partial birth / live birth is exactly why the majority of Americans take a more nuanced view of abortion than you. Compromise would be a good thing. Unfortunately, the current polarized environment makes that unlikely - more's the pity.
It is indeed sad, though of course not all posts against religion or Republicans are modded up. But that is the tendency here, it seems to me. Every forum has a bias, including/.; it's not a vast left-wing conspiracy, nor is it really surprising. It's simply self-selecting.
Here's my take on life, the universe and everything, and especially/. What the heck, karma is over-rated anyway.
It's human nature to mod up posts with which you agree, despite the rules. And a good proportion of/. is likely young, single technophiles - people likely to be somewhat to the left of center politically.
Many such folk think nothing of destroying human embryos to advance science, just as they think nothing of aborting a fetus if the mother doesn't want it. I suspect many wouldn't even object to allowing a living baby to die of neglect if the mother intended him to be aborted anyway; Obama has voted for just such legislation as a young state senator, though he seems to be backing away from it now. Young people tend to relate most strongly to other young people - like young mothers whose lives will be changed forever by an unexpected child.
As people get older, marry, and have kids and grandkids, though, they tend to move more to the right of center politically. They also often begin to value life more highly - perhaps because they have so many lives they value, or because they've seen so many new lives enter the world. They begin to relate more strongly to the unborn or newly born child, and less to the young mother whose choices most likely led her to her current situation. Aborting a baby or allowing a living breathing baby to die of neglect, just because the mother doesn't want it, just starts to seem wrong. Do we not devalue life when we destroy it just for convenience? And isn't a fertilized embryo life?
I don't believe it's a coincidence that Obama's strength is in young voters, and McCain's is in older voters. The life experiences of the two groups, to this point in their lives, tend to lead them to approve of the message of their respective candidate.
Of course this is all generalization, with plenty of exceptions, and it's all just my (informed) opinion, no sources offered. But since a majority of young people are pro-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell research, and/. tends to attract young people, and people tend to mod up posts with which they agree more often than posts with which they disagree...
I'll state my point clearly, since you seem to have missed it. You accused Bush of outlawing funding for all federally funded stem cell research. You were mistaken (intentionally or accidentally) on two points:
He cut federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but increased federal funding for adult stem cell research. You erroneously stated he cut funding for all federally funded stem cell research.
He included funding for existing embryonic stem cell lines, prohibiting federal funds only from creating new stem cell lines. Again, you erroneously stated that all federally funded stem cell research was banned.
You may hate the president with as much passion as you like, I don't really care, but your post was inaccurate. Surely you can see that.
If my post, although factually accurate, misled you as to intent, I'll apologize for not understanding how you would interpret the quotes I presented. It would show honest good faith if you would in turn admit that your post was factually inaccurate - and if that was unintentional because you were shooting for brevity, and you felt your point was clear despite the inaccuracy, I certainly understand.
I would not deny that not using federal funds to create new stem cell lines will impact research, just as not using involuntary human subjects for experimentation does. Morally, I find the former questionably immoral and the latter repugnant. It's possible for us to disagree on the morality of the former with civil discourse. I hope we can at least agree on that.
Only 15% of Americans believe that humans evolved, and that God was not involved. With that size of a majority, it's almost inevitable that most school board members, principals, and teachers don't buy the full implications of evolutionary theory.
And yet, evolution continues to be taught in schools nationwide, even most private schools. The clear implication is that most parents may believe in creation to at least some extent, but most don't want their children ignorant of science.
If that's true, then why should Sarah Palin frighten you? Have you seen any policy statements from her office that would imply she favored limiting the teaching of science in school?
"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."
That's true, Obama will likely bankrupt the USA. Of course, McCain will likely bankrupt us even faster:
Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.
Where oh where is the fiscal conservative candidate in this stinkin' race?
...instituting bans on Federally funded stem cell research that have had a massive impact on the research community...
It would be easier to take your posts seriously if your assertions resembled reality. "U.S. President George W. Bush signs an executive order which restricts federally-funded stem cell research on embryonic stem cells to the already derived cell lines. He supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on the already existing lines of approximately $100 million and $250 million for research on adult and animal stem cells."
Claiming Bush banned all federally funded stem cell research is a simple lie with a clear partisan purpose. That's easy to see because you don't mention the Dickey amendment:
The Dickey Amendment is the name of an appropriation's bill rider attached to a bill passed by United States Congress in 1995, and signed by former President Bill Clinton which prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed.
I spent a week in Singapore in 1997 (the week before the return of Hong Kong to China), and agree it's a lovely place - beautiful, friendly and remarkably clean (don't even think of chewing gum).
The only downside was the huge "Death to Drug Smugglers" sign that greets everyone even before they leave the plane. I left my cholesterol medicine in the seat pocket, with the label torn off; I have no idea what kind of drugs people smuggle over there, but I was taking no chances!
I studied the French language in high school, and have visited several times. France is a delightful country filled with warm and friendly people, and everyone I know likes it (the "freedom fries" silliness notwithstanding).
Perhaps Americans struggle to understand French politics a bit, and us older folk still bristle a bit at having to fly all the way around France for that Libyan thing. But the Statue of Liberty reminds us of our centuries of friendship, as Jean-Marie Colombani reminded us that when push comes to shove, we are all Frenchmen.
sadly, they could not come with us when we went on holidays in Cuba - what the hell is up with that???
Something to do with nuclear missiles and the resulting hard feelings. Yeah, you'd think we'd be over it by now. Perhaps things will change when Castro's successor attains power.
I took my family on a two-week tour of Europe in 2002 (England, France, Spain and Italy), and we were treated exceptionally well everywhere we went. Possibly it's because we tried hard to speak the native language (though in the end, almost everyone's English was better than our Franspanitalian), and tried hard to know and respect local custom (which was kind of the whole point of the trip, actaully).
I suspect European hostility to individual Americans is oversold; you're nicer than you realize. Hating the American government is more rational. Heck, it's a tradition on this side of the ocean as well!:-)
The really funny thing about this AC rant is that about half of the posts on this article are non-US, usually starting with "well in MY country...". It's one of the most international discussions I've seen in a while. Awkward choice of article for an "Americocentric" rant.
(By the way, I haven't written a paper check in years - I don't believe our banking system is quite as antiquated as you Europeans keep insisting!;-)
that McCain is still trying to figure out how to generate enthusiasm this late in the game is not a good sign.
Perhaps, although his campaign raised $4 million over the Internet in the 24 hours after the announcement. Their previous single-day fund-raising record was under a million. So at least he seems to have figured it out.:-)
Cite, please? The current polls don't appear to back up your claim.
Obama currently leads by thirteen points among women while McCain leads by six among men. Among white women, the candidates are essentially even while McCain holds a substantial lead among white men (see other recent demographic observations).
Democrats are a bit stronger among women overall, and Republicans among men, but it sounds a lot more complex than your overly simplistic "mostly men" to me.
I think your analysis is spot on, even though I'm decidedly not a registered Republican. If only 5% of Hillary's supporters were so based primarily on her gender, McCain would still pull 2% from the Democratic base. That's could easily be enough to sway the election (they've been really close lately, if you haven't been watching). And yes, I just pulled those numbers out of my hat; it's political debate.:-)
Palin has the "maverick" image that McCain has made central to his campaign, while simultaneously turning the openly hostile (to McCain) Republican base almost giddy overnight. And Obama's campaign has already signaled they won't touch a direct Palin attack line with a 10 foot pole - and attacking McCain for picking someone so inexperienced just begs for a comparison with Obama's short career (relative to McCain or Biden).
The down side is that all of those previously disaffected Republicans won't be voting Libertarian this year. Drat it all.
I'd mod you +1 interesting if I could.:-) Thanks for the insight into libertarian principles. However...
[BSDL]... allow downstream developers to apply as strict a copyright policy as they wish to any derivative works.
I don't follow this. The late, great wireless driver controversy was specifically about a BSD-licensed driver being changed to GPL, and the consensus seems (I believe) to be that this is not permitted - only the copyright holder can change the license once under BSD.
The original phrase was "Copyleft: All rights reversed". The "reversed" means that the rights of the end user are protected more so than the rights of the developer (the more natural beneficiary of copyright) - to wit, the end user is preserved the rights to run the program for any reason, share the program, examine and learn from the source code, and build and distribute derivatives.
Berkeley et. al. focus on protecting the rights of the developer more than the end user - to wit, the developer can create proprietary products from such code and deny the above freedoms to their end users.
Since libertarian principles focus on individual liberty over corporate or state interests, I firmly believe that copyleft is clearly the more libertarian license, and choose it over the alternatives for my own modest endeavors. Its popularity indicates that I am not alone.
Oddly enough, I've been called "right-wing" on several occasions, but never "left-wing" (though it truth I'm neither). Go figure.
Your opinion may (and almost certainly will;-) differ.
Well, it needn't be a crusade. The first movie I bought that wouldn't play on my computer because of DRM (and couldn't be returned because it was opened) pretty much cured me of buying movies - they intentionally designed them not to work. The first threatening letter I got from the BSA cured me of buying their proprietary software - they'll threaten me if I do. The first song I bought from iTunes, and then couldn't play on my PDA because of the DRM, cured me of buying from iTunes - their music is fragile.
It's not a crusade - their products work poorly and they treat their customers like trash. No sale. I want products that work.
Why does this country dislike socialized programs for the protection of its citizens,...
Two reasons, really. (1) What our government takes over, it screws up - then we're stuck with their pitiful monopoly. (2) Granting the government the power to "protect" me also grants them the power to abuse me. No thanks.
...yet encourages socializing the support of whole industries?
Many Americans oppose socialism regardless of the beneficiary. We cringe at the "land of the free" driving headlong into the "land of the entitled". Wish there were more of us.
Slashdot Mirror
*shrug* If a mom was in a car accident, and her infant was seriously wounded, and she wanted to forgo treatment because "the surgery would cost too much" or "I'm not ready to handle the responsibility of the convalescence" or whatever, we'd say she was allowing her child to die for the sake of her own "convenience" (nor would she be allowed to do so). Same difference - but only because I value prenatal life and you don't. So we'll have to recognize that long-winded arguments aren't going to change either opinion, and agree to disagree on that point.
I am indeed not "totally opposed to stem cell research", as I already stated rather clearly (I thought) elsewhere in this thread. I believe the laws signed by Clinton and Bush that limited federal funding of embryonic stem cell research in certain ways were appropriate. Since I would stand to benefit personally from a possible future cure found by creating and destroying embryos to help those of us who managed to survive gestation, let's skip over the "you're a heartless Republican!" that usually comes next in the argument - I'm neither - but I do respect the opinion of the sizable group of Americans that object to the moral costs of that research, and thus am willing to accept the long-standing laws that have required private funding for it - recognizing that Obama will almost certainly strike them down if elected, and McCain will almost certainly retain them. It's now up to the electorate, as is also appropriate.
Oh, wait, I see the miscommunication now. I read "(bans on Federally funded stem cell research) that have had a massive impact on the research community", but you meant "bans on (federally funded stem cell research that have had a massive impact on the research community)".
IOW, you were intending to attack only the bans that eliminated federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines, not asserting that federal funding for all stem cell research had been banned. That wouldn't change my position, of course, but it certainly would change my assertion that your statement itself was in error. My apologies for that misunderstanding.
Lucky that English is so ambiguous, otherwise, look at all the fun we'd have missed! :-)
And on a related note - have you heard about Lojban yet?!? :-)
That's one possibility, though I don't personally think that's the primary factor. "Andy" was a young single friend of mine with whom I had many debates on issues like abortion and welfare. He was consistently more liberal - abortion for any reason, strong long-term safety net, etc.
When he told me he was getting married, I warned him that our differences were about to decrease and the days of our hot debates nearing an end. He laughed at me, because his views were all "well reasoned". After his first child, he was ranting on about people who supported late-term abortions when he saw my smirk - and we both laughed.
Life changes your views.
But the era in which you grew up may be a bigger contributor than your life experience - I've been wrong before (are you allowed to admit that on /.? :-). I've never seen a good study of the topic. Somebody should prepare a killer thesis on this!
How deliciously ironic. Earlier in the thread, I was accused thus: "Now, the interesting thing about your post is that it's technically correct on nearly every point, and yet the overall thrust is entirely misleading." Obviously "reciting facts" isn't the key, but the "overall thrust" - as long as your thrust toes the local political line. ;-) That's sad, too, but also human nature. But to your two mistaken points.
Well... no. At least we can "recite facts" here with confidence. Well-researched statistics show the following distribution of reasons for having an abortion in the USA:
"Convenience" includes unready to have a child, can't afford it, parents or father want the abortion, baby would change my life, etc.
The reasons raised in a discussion first usually indicates the debater's position. The "abortion at any stage of development for any reason" folks like yourself, about 20% of the US population, always seem to jump to the single-digit reasons like rape or mother's health. Those like myself who support some limits on abortion (such as opposing late-term abortions), about 60% of the US population, tend to focus on entire spectrum. Those who oppose abortions in all cases (about 12%) usually focus on the convenience issues only.
In that respect, at least, you didn't disappoint.
I wish that were true. My early much stronger pro-life values were very affected when, as a teenager in the 1970's, I read an article by or about a doctor who had performed a late-term abortion that resulted in a live birth. He lay the screaming baby on a table, ordered the nurse not to tend to him, and went outside to smoke a cigarette. After about 15 minutes the nurse reported that the baby had died, and his response was "Good". (It was definitely intended as a pro-abortion tome, but was at least honest in its assessment of the downsides of legal abortion. Ah, the good old days. :-)
That this continues to be an issue even today is evident by Obama's well-reported vote against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in the Illinois senate (which was intended to prohibit allowing a living baby resulting from a late term abortion to be killed by neglect). He did vote for identical legislation in the US Senate (yes, it's identical - go get the text of both bills for yourself), which is why I mentioned that his position may have changed, or his earlier vote may have been due to other considerations (legislating is such a fascinating avocation). The bill has now become law, thankfully.
But the outlying cases of rape / health / defect and late term / partial birth / live birth is exactly why the majority of Americans take a more nuanced view of abortion than you. Compromise would be a good thing. Unfortunately, the current polarized environment makes that unlikely - more's the pity.
It is indeed sad, though of course not all posts against religion or Republicans are modded up. But that is the tendency here, it seems to me. Every forum has a bias, including /.; it's not a vast left-wing conspiracy, nor is it really surprising. It's simply self-selecting.
Here's my take on life, the universe and everything, and especially /. What the heck, karma is over-rated anyway.
It's human nature to mod up posts with which you agree, despite the rules. And a good proportion of /. is likely young, single technophiles - people likely to be somewhat to the left of center politically.
Many such folk think nothing of destroying human embryos to advance science, just as they think nothing of aborting a fetus if the mother doesn't want it. I suspect many wouldn't even object to allowing a living baby to die of neglect if the mother intended him to be aborted anyway; Obama has voted for just such legislation as a young state senator, though he seems to be backing away from it now. Young people tend to relate most strongly to other young people - like young mothers whose lives will be changed forever by an unexpected child.
As people get older, marry, and have kids and grandkids, though, they tend to move more to the right of center politically. They also often begin to value life more highly - perhaps because they have so many lives they value, or because they've seen so many new lives enter the world. They begin to relate more strongly to the unborn or newly born child, and less to the young mother whose choices most likely led her to her current situation. Aborting a baby or allowing a living breathing baby to die of neglect, just because the mother doesn't want it, just starts to seem wrong. Do we not devalue life when we destroy it just for convenience? And isn't a fertilized embryo life?
I don't believe it's a coincidence that Obama's strength is in young voters, and McCain's is in older voters. The life experiences of the two groups, to this point in their lives, tend to lead them to approve of the message of their respective candidate.
Of course this is all generalization, with plenty of exceptions, and it's all just my (informed) opinion, no sources offered. But since a majority of young people are pro-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell research, and /. tends to attract young people, and people tend to mod up posts with which they agree more often than posts with which they disagree...
I'll state my point clearly, since you seem to have missed it. You accused Bush of outlawing funding for all federally funded stem cell research. You were mistaken (intentionally or accidentally) on two points:
You may hate the president with as much passion as you like, I don't really care, but your post was inaccurate. Surely you can see that.
If my post, although factually accurate, misled you as to intent, I'll apologize for not understanding how you would interpret the quotes I presented. It would show honest good faith if you would in turn admit that your post was factually inaccurate - and if that was unintentional because you were shooting for brevity, and you felt your point was clear despite the inaccuracy, I certainly understand.
I would not deny that not using federal funds to create new stem cell lines will impact research, just as not using involuntary human subjects for experimentation does. Morally, I find the former questionably immoral and the latter repugnant. It's possible for us to disagree on the morality of the former with civil discourse. I hope we can at least agree on that.
If not - well, it's /.
Only 15% of Americans believe that humans evolved, and that God was not involved. With that size of a majority, it's almost inevitable that most school board members, principals, and teachers don't buy the full implications of evolutionary theory.
And yet, evolution continues to be taught in schools nationwide, even most private schools. The clear implication is that most parents may believe in creation to at least some extent, but most don't want their children ignorant of science.
If that's true, then why should Sarah Palin frighten you? Have you seen any policy statements from her office that would imply she favored limiting the teaching of science in school?
(To save you some time, here's what she actually said on the topic:
That's true, Obama will likely bankrupt the USA. Of course, McCain will likely bankrupt us even faster:
Where oh where is the fiscal conservative candidate in this stinkin' race?
It would be easier to take your posts seriously if your assertions resembled reality. "U.S. President George W. Bush signs an executive order which restricts federally-funded stem cell research on embryonic stem cells to the already derived cell lines. He supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on the already existing lines of approximately $100 million and $250 million for research on adult and animal stem cells."
Claiming Bush banned all federally funded stem cell research is a simple lie with a clear partisan purpose. That's easy to see because you don't mention the Dickey amendment:
The Dickey Amendment is the name of an appropriation's bill rider attached to a bill passed by United States Congress in 1995, and signed by former President Bill Clinton which prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed.
Exactly. Then we'll need a government organization to manage the contracts. Let's call them, I don't know, "NASA".
Oh, wait...
I spent a week in Singapore in 1997 (the week before the return of Hong Kong to China), and agree it's a lovely place - beautiful, friendly and remarkably clean (don't even think of chewing gum).
The only downside was the huge "Death to Drug Smugglers" sign that greets everyone even before they leave the plane. I left my cholesterol medicine in the seat pocket, with the label torn off; I have no idea what kind of drugs people smuggle over there, but I was taking no chances!
I studied the French language in high school, and have visited several times. France is a delightful country filled with warm and friendly people, and everyone I know likes it (the "freedom fries" silliness notwithstanding).
Perhaps Americans struggle to understand French politics a bit, and us older folk still bristle a bit at having to fly all the way around France for that Libyan thing. But the Statue of Liberty reminds us of our centuries of friendship, as Jean-Marie Colombani reminded us that when push comes to shove, we are all Frenchmen.
Something to do with nuclear missiles and the resulting hard feelings. Yeah, you'd think we'd be over it by now. Perhaps things will change when Castro's successor attains power.
I took my family on a two-week tour of Europe in 2002 (England, France, Spain and Italy), and we were treated exceptionally well everywhere we went. Possibly it's because we tried hard to speak the native language (though in the end, almost everyone's English was better than our Franspanitalian), and tried hard to know and respect local custom (which was kind of the whole point of the trip, actaully).
I suspect European hostility to individual Americans is oversold; you're nicer than you realize. Hating the American government is more rational. Heck, it's a tradition on this side of the ocean as well! :-)
The really funny thing about this AC rant is that about half of the posts on this article are non-US, usually starting with "well in MY country...". It's one of the most international discussions I've seen in a while. Awkward choice of article for an "Americocentric" rant.
(By the way, I haven't written a paper check in years - I don't believe our banking system is quite as antiquated as you Europeans keep insisting! ;-)
Perhaps, although his campaign raised $4 million over the Internet in the 24 hours after the announcement. Their previous single-day fund-raising record was under a million. So at least he seems to have figured it out. :-)
Cite, please? The current polls don't appear to back up your claim.
Democrats are a bit stronger among women overall, and Republicans among men, but it sounds a lot more complex than your overly simplistic "mostly men" to me.
Looks like McCain just wrapped up the election this year. I mean, he has all of Alaska's electors in the bag!
I think your analysis is spot on, even though I'm decidedly not a registered Republican. If only 5% of Hillary's supporters were so based primarily on her gender, McCain would still pull 2% from the Democratic base. That's could easily be enough to sway the election (they've been really close lately, if you haven't been watching). And yes, I just pulled those numbers out of my hat; it's political debate. :-)
Palin has the "maverick" image that McCain has made central to his campaign, while simultaneously turning the openly hostile (to McCain) Republican base almost giddy overnight. And Obama's campaign has already signaled they won't touch a direct Palin attack line with a 10 foot pole - and attacking McCain for picking someone so inexperienced just begs for a comparison with Obama's short career (relative to McCain or Biden).
The down side is that all of those previously disaffected Republicans won't be voting Libertarian this year. Drat it all.
The eeePC is "for geeks by geeks"? Firefox? OpenOffice.org? Android? TiVo? How exactly do you define "geek"?
I'd mod you +1 interesting if I could. :-) Thanks for the insight into libertarian principles. However...
I don't follow this. The late, great wireless driver controversy was specifically about a BSD-licensed driver being changed to GPL, and the consensus seems (I believe) to be that this is not permitted - only the copyright holder can change the license once under BSD.
Or am I missing your point?
The original phrase was "Copyleft: All rights reversed". The "reversed" means that the rights of the end user are protected more so than the rights of the developer (the more natural beneficiary of copyright) - to wit, the end user is preserved the rights to run the program for any reason, share the program, examine and learn from the source code, and build and distribute derivatives.
Berkeley et. al. focus on protecting the rights of the developer more than the end user - to wit, the developer can create proprietary products from such code and deny the above freedoms to their end users.
Since libertarian principles focus on individual liberty over corporate or state interests, I firmly believe that copyleft is clearly the more libertarian license, and choose it over the alternatives for my own modest endeavors. Its popularity indicates that I am not alone.
Oddly enough, I've been called "right-wing" on several occasions, but never "left-wing" (though it truth I'm neither). Go figure.
Your opinion may (and almost certainly will ;-) differ.
Well, it needn't be a crusade. The first movie I bought that wouldn't play on my computer because of DRM (and couldn't be returned because it was opened) pretty much cured me of buying movies - they intentionally designed them not to work. The first threatening letter I got from the BSA cured me of buying their proprietary software - they'll threaten me if I do. The first song I bought from iTunes, and then couldn't play on my PDA because of the DRM, cured me of buying from iTunes - their music is fragile.
It's not a crusade - their products work poorly and they treat their customers like trash. No sale. I want products that work.
Well? Where's the URL? Don't just leave us all hanging!
Two reasons, really. (1) What our government takes over, it screws up - then we're stuck with their pitiful monopoly. (2) Granting the government the power to "protect" me also grants them the power to abuse me. No thanks.
Many Americans oppose socialism regardless of the beneficiary. We cringe at the "land of the free" driving headlong into the "land of the entitled". Wish there were more of us.