I've heard some moronic attacks on Obama, but this really takes the cake.
It's not like he's not giving you any -real- ammunition to use. Why not attack him for things that are real rather than lala-land fantasy conspiracy stuff?
I believe you're making the mistake of thinking that a (D) after her patron's name makes her "extreme left wing". She's not even close to left-wing. For comparison's sake, compare her views on this (and many other issues) with those of John Paul Stevens (appointed by raving leftist Gerald Ford) or David Souter (appointed by leftist loony George H.W. Bush).
John Paul Stevens and David Souter are good examples of justices whom held political views that their appointers did not know about. Especially David Souter. He's far far more leftist than George Bush was, and he never would have gotten appointed if the President had known it.
The biology is much more complex and this issue ties in with philosophy of mind and identity and is not anywhere at all clear-cut. The third trimester is an arbitrary decision of the court. And whether it can survive on its own or not is not a very good argument for whether it being killed is murder when you take away that support--that's a much more contentious point that (of course) the court decided to decide for everyone.
But the law is full of arbitrary lines to make legal decisions clearer. Why is someone who is 18 suddenly considered an adult, while a 17-and-a-half year old is not? Why can one have sex with an immature 18-year-old, but an emotionally-mature 16-year-old becomes pedastery? Why can you drink at 21 but not a day earlier? It's so that the law can be consistently and objectively applied without the need for subjective decisions on an individual's merits, like the emotional maturity of the person, or... at what date a specific fetus would be able to survive if removed from the mother.
> That group also happens to include people who are concerned about the courts abusing their powers.
IOW: people with a political agenda.
Which is.... everybody, no?
You like the outcome, well, the system works as intended. You don't like the outcome, well clearly it was done from people who had a political agenda, overreaching their authority.
Yes, they can. Federal law defines what copyright is and what it does, and guess who writes Federal law?
If there's a conflict between a law of Congress and the US Constitution, then it's not Congress that decides what the outcome will be. Part of the whole balance of powers thing.
To expand on this further: I'm a pussy, which is why I would never hop on a crotch rocket and go zooming at hundreds of miles an hour around a racetrack. There are plenty of people who aren't pussies, so they hop on crotch rockets, and go zooming at hundreds of miles an hour around a racetrack.
Ok...
Likewise, I will not and do not allow intimidation to impact how I feel about something, whether publicly or privately. Some people allow intimidation or retribution to impact how they publicly feel about something, and that's fine...I'm simply saying that I don't.
Tisk... and you call yourself a pussy. *shakes head*
"I don't let others intimidate me" isn't really one of their hallmarks.:-)
I recognize that just because I think a certain way doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with me...but I can still feel like they should. If that makes me a pretentious dick, then I guess I'm a pretentious dick...but I'm a pretentious dick with nothing to hide.::shrug:: Sorry for being honest.
Wait... are you a pussy or are you a dick? You can't be both. Are you a hermaphrodite?
Since OS X is a unix, could the school provide a server that the kids could log into from home using linux, export X windows to get work done at home if they cannot afford a mac laptop and cannot bring the school-borrowed one home with them?
But what "work" could they get done? I doubt that they're working on X applications, and any non-application-specific stuff could have been done on computers of any kind, not just the school-sponsored Apples.
Have you seen the cost of a windows license lately?
Yes. I've also seen the cost of windows licenses made to educational discounts. That's the spot in which Microsoft offers deep, deep discounts so they can get people used to windows, or at least not have students learn on Macs.
I have seen computers used in schools. I NEVER thought, "Wow! The kids are learning so much, what great payoff!" Usually they are toys. But I have had enough of the government requiring me to run specific OSes. It goes beyond cross-platform and just requiring assignments to be in a standard and if workable, open format.
That's for sure. It sounds like the school is saying "we want everything to be the same. We don't want to have to worry about differences in the computing environment, and we're flat broke anyway, so we'll push the costs off to the parents instead."
It doesn't really matter that Flash is terrible and useless- it isn't Apple's place to tell me what I can or can't do with *my* phone. I may be an outlier but I won't be a customer as long as Apple behaves like they maintain some sort of ownership over their customer's possessions.
Get used to it if you want to deal with Apple devices. Apple is very aggressively moving down the path towards the locked-down experience, where they decide how you use your devices and what you do with them. They say their customers don't want choices, they just want the Apple experience.
Jobs smugly says that the PC world, where the user has a billion choices for just about every decision, is dying (just like BSD). In their mind, it is ABSOLUTELY Apple's place to tell you what you can do with Apple's phone.
So, good for you for you for not supporting them if this is against your notion of what computing devices should be and how they should behave. I think Apple's philosophy is pretty damned dangerous to open computing.
Just as movies differ from books in length, games do. A game story's got to be sustained over 5-100 hours. It's a longer format, and that can be good or bad.
Is it? Metal Gear Solid aside, how much of that 5-100 hours is actually plot, and how much of that are fights that are all very similar and have little to do with the plot itself?
If I look at, say, Final Fantasy X (my favorite 'movie-like' title), I can putter around in that game for 100 hours easily, but the amount of actual plot that I'd get down to is about the length of a standard movie.
I'll certainly agree with you on different focuses of time spent.. like time spent traveling. In fact, I'd say games usually are build around the idea that the immersive worlds are there for their own sake and you spend time just interacting, while in movies, immersive worlds are almost always surrounding the characters while the plot is being advanced -- in other words something you pick up for free.
I think the Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within movie had a number of flaws which torpedoed it, but none of them are related to being a video game adaptation. In fact, the Final Fantasy movie seems more like a generic SCI-FI movie with the name "Final Fantasy" tacked on; it really doesn't bring anything from the series with it, even the more technological entries like FF7 and FF8. FF: The Spirits Within's biggest problem was poor character development -- the male lead should have been completely written out of the movie, he brought absolutely nothing either in plot or dialog. Useless at every turn.
Looking over just the article summary I was thinking to myself... "You know, I think Silent Hill is probably the best video game adaptation movie I've seen." It's hardly a masterpiece, but it's a cut above the rest I could think of, and it perfectly captured the -mood- and horror.
Like she's worried about the surely less than 0.1% of people who are actually informed about this.
Maybe if this was a US congressional election, that might make the case. But this is an alameda county court judge position -- the total number of votes cast for one candidate or the other is extremely small. You don't need that large of a "protest vote" to tip the scales.
You're too generous. I remove them from my list of parties to vote for ever again.... Mr. Harper and his cronies have been the only ones stupid enough to try it, though....
here's a clue, politicos: if my vote is worth courting, then it's worth having a human do it. it's patently insulting that you think it's ok to have a computer dial my phone number. more than that: it's illegal. I only have one phone number, and it's a cellular phone. exemptions for political and charity organizations don't include cellular phones.
Hmmm. Am I the only person who actually prefers a robo-call? They're far easier to hang up on.
The downside is that they do leave answering machine messages, while a normal charity/political caller usually doesn't.
I say: Fuck you, California, fuck you and your half-cocked, dimwitted and/or corrupted robo-calling judges, and stay the fuck away from OUR state. Go invade Utah or somewhere else.
You seemed to have totally missed the point of the article. The reason why this was done in the first place is that YOUR state allows for these disruptive practices.
cali pays $18 billion dollars more in fed taxes than the state receives in federal funds
Nope; Let me fix that for you:
State governments don't pay a penny in federal income taxes. Citizens within the states pay federal income taxes and then the federal government gives kickbacks to the state governments at non-uniform per-capita rates. California's local politicians just aren't as good at demanding per-capita kickback rates as some of the other states.
It's part of one of the negative side-effects of non-proportional representation. The US Senate, the electoral college, all of these systems designed to give smaller states, or at least states with lower population, more power and more say. That of course means they'll get more money, more influence.. which means that the more populous states will get less money per person in services given.
I still think it's the best system available to us, but sure it has its drawbacks.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard some moronic attacks on Obama, but this really takes the cake.
It's not like he's not giving you any -real- ammunition to use. Why not attack him for things that are real rather than lala-land fantasy conspiracy stuff?
I believe you're making the mistake of thinking that a (D) after her patron's name makes her "extreme left wing". She's not even close to left-wing. For comparison's sake, compare her views on this (and many other issues) with those of John Paul Stevens (appointed by raving leftist Gerald Ford) or David Souter (appointed by leftist loony George H.W. Bush).
John Paul Stevens and David Souter are good examples of justices whom held political views that their appointers did not know about.
Especially David Souter. He's far far more leftist than George Bush was, and he never would have gotten appointed if the President had known it.
And yet they're pretty anti-2A. If you don't even have the right to defend you're own life then the other rights are mostly just academic.
They don't need to be pro-2nd. The NRA has that niche pretty well sewn-up.
You picks your battles.
What exactly do schools really teach in the first place? Would we be better off without it?
Good Lord. That dip was New York State Teacher of the Year?
The root of the problem is that we have a meaningless currency based on absolutely nothing, with that comes insane inflation.
Ah yes, the insane inflation that has been crippling our country for the last several deca---wait a minute, that hasn't happened at all!
The biology is much more complex and this issue ties in with philosophy of mind and identity and is not anywhere at all clear-cut. The third trimester is an arbitrary decision of the court. And whether it can survive on its own or not is not a very good argument for whether it being killed is murder when you take away that support--that's a much more contentious point that (of course) the court decided to decide for everyone.
But the law is full of arbitrary lines to make legal decisions clearer. Why is someone who is 18 suddenly considered an adult, while a 17-and-a-half year old is not? Why can one have sex with an immature 18-year-old, but an emotionally-mature 16-year-old becomes pedastery? Why can you drink at 21 but not a day earlier? It's so that the law can be consistently and objectively applied without the need for subjective decisions on an individual's merits, like the emotional maturity of the person, or... at what date a specific fetus would be able to survive if removed from the mother.
> That group also happens to include people who are concerned about the courts abusing their powers.
IOW: people with a political agenda.
Which is.... everybody, no?
You like the outcome, well, the system works as intended. You don't like the outcome, well clearly it was done from people who had a political agenda, overreaching their authority.
Yes, they can. Federal law defines what copyright is and what it does, and guess who writes Federal law?
If there's a conflict between a law of Congress and the US Constitution, then it's not Congress that decides what the outcome will be. Part of the whole balance of powers thing.
"Real (artists|musicians) have a day job."
Yeah, usually working on their art.
Are you trolling? You're doing a magnificent job.
Warning: this post has very little substance.
To expand on this further: I'm a pussy, which is why I would never hop on a crotch rocket and go zooming at hundreds of miles an hour around a racetrack. There are plenty of people who aren't pussies, so they hop on crotch rockets, and go zooming at hundreds of miles an hour around a racetrack.
Ok...
Likewise, I will not and do not allow intimidation to impact how I feel about something, whether publicly or privately. Some people allow intimidation or retribution to impact how they publicly feel about something, and that's fine...I'm simply saying that I don't.
Tisk... and you call yourself a pussy. *shakes head*
"I don't let others intimidate me" isn't really one of their hallmarks. :-)
I recognize that just because I think a certain way doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with me...but I can still feel like they should. If that makes me a pretentious dick, then I guess I'm a pretentious dick...but I'm a pretentious dick with nothing to hide. ::shrug:: Sorry for being honest.
Wait... are you a pussy or are you a dick? You can't be both.
Are you a hermaphrodite?
Go walk into Harlem wearing that says you hate black people, and see how "freely expressive" you can be.
Hey, it worked out pretty nicely for John McLane, didn't it? He'd never have met Zeus otherwise.
We all saw spiderman 2.
And we all want the 2 hours of our life back.
Meh. I think it's one of the better superhero movies out there.
Since OS X is a unix, could the school provide a server that the kids could log into from home using linux, export X windows to get work done at home if they cannot afford a mac laptop and cannot bring the school-borrowed one home with them?
But what "work" could they get done? I doubt that they're working on X applications, and any non-application-specific stuff could have been done on computers of any kind, not just the school-sponsored Apples.
In the US that's called school choice, and too many people oppose choice.
Falcon
It's the public school administrators who oppose choice, since they want the dollars for the kids whether the kids go to the school or not.
Have you seen the cost of a windows license lately?
Yes. I've also seen the cost of windows licenses made to educational discounts. That's the spot in which Microsoft offers deep, deep discounts so they can get people used to windows, or at least not have students learn on Macs.
I have seen computers used in schools. I NEVER thought, "Wow! The kids are learning so much, what great payoff!" Usually they are toys. But I have had enough of the government requiring me to run specific OSes. It goes beyond cross-platform and just requiring assignments to be in a standard and if workable, open format.
That's for sure. It sounds like the school is saying "we want everything to be the same. We don't want to have to worry about differences in the computing environment, and we're flat broke anyway, so we'll push the costs off to the parents instead."
It doesn't really matter that Flash is terrible and useless- it isn't Apple's place to tell me what I can or can't do with *my* phone. I may be an outlier but I won't be a customer as long as Apple behaves like they maintain some sort of ownership over their customer's possessions.
Get used to it if you want to deal with Apple devices. Apple is very aggressively moving down the path towards the locked-down experience, where they decide how you use your devices and what you do with them. They say their customers don't want choices, they just want the Apple experience.
Jobs smugly says that the PC world, where the user has a billion choices for just about every decision, is dying (just like BSD). In their mind, it is ABSOLUTELY Apple's place to tell you what you can do with Apple's phone.
So, good for you for you for not supporting them if this is against your notion of what computing devices should be and how they should behave. I think Apple's philosophy is pretty damned dangerous to open computing.
Just as movies differ from books in length, games do. A game story's got to be sustained over 5-100 hours. It's a longer format, and that can be good or bad.
Is it? Metal Gear Solid aside, how much of that 5-100 hours is actually plot, and how much of that are fights that are all very similar and have little to do with the plot itself?
If I look at, say, Final Fantasy X (my favorite 'movie-like' title), I can putter around in that game for 100 hours easily, but the amount of actual plot that I'd get down to is about the length of a standard movie.
I'll certainly agree with you on different focuses of time spent.. like time spent traveling. In fact, I'd say games usually are build around the idea that the immersive worlds are there for their own sake and you spend time just interacting, while in movies, immersive worlds are almost always surrounding the characters while the plot is being advanced -- in other words something you pick up for free.
I think the Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within movie had a number of flaws which torpedoed it, but none of them are related to being a video game adaptation. In fact, the Final Fantasy movie seems more like a generic SCI-FI movie with the name "Final Fantasy" tacked on; it really doesn't bring anything from the series with it, even the more technological entries like FF7 and FF8. FF: The Spirits Within's biggest problem was poor character development -- the male lead should have been completely written out of the movie, he brought absolutely nothing either in plot or dialog. Useless at every turn.
Looking over just the article summary I was thinking to myself... "You know, I think Silent Hill is probably the best video game adaptation movie I've seen." It's hardly a masterpiece, but it's a cut above the rest I could think of, and it perfectly captured the -mood- and horror.
Even for $80 million, no human would be caught dead making calls for Meg Whitman.
Have you seen her Republican opposition?
Like she's worried about the surely less than 0.1% of people who are actually informed about this.
Maybe if this was a US congressional election, that might make the case. But this is an alameda county court judge position -- the total number of votes cast for one candidate or the other is extremely small. You don't need that large of a "protest vote" to tip the scales.
You're too generous. I remove them from my list of parties to vote for ever again.... Mr. Harper and his cronies have been the only ones stupid enough to try it, though....
here's a clue, politicos: if my vote is worth courting, then it's worth having a human do it. it's patently insulting that you think it's ok to have a computer dial my phone number. more than that: it's illegal. I only have one phone number, and it's a cellular phone. exemptions for political and charity organizations don't include cellular phones.
Hmmm. Am I the only person who actually prefers a robo-call? They're far easier to hang up on.
The downside is that they do leave answering machine messages, while a normal charity/political caller usually doesn't.
I say: Fuck you, California, fuck you and your half-cocked, dimwitted and/or corrupted robo-calling judges, and stay the fuck away from OUR state. Go invade Utah or somewhere else.
You seemed to have totally missed the point of the article. The reason why this was done in the first place is that YOUR state allows for these disruptive practices.
cali pays $18 billion dollars more in fed taxes than the state receives in federal funds
Nope; Let me fix that for you:
State governments don't pay a penny in federal income taxes. Citizens within the states pay federal income taxes and then the federal government gives kickbacks to the state governments at non-uniform per-capita rates. California's local politicians just aren't as good at demanding per-capita kickback rates as some of the other states.
It's part of one of the negative side-effects of non-proportional representation. The US Senate, the electoral college, all of these systems designed to give smaller states, or at least states with lower population, more power and more say. That of course means they'll get more money, more influence.. which means that the more populous states will get less money per person in services given.
I still think it's the best system available to us, but sure it has its drawbacks.
For God's sake, mod this one up to 11!
I could totally see a service like this being successful.
If nothing else, it would make a classic SNL routine. >_>