nobody seriously believes that Glenn Beck may or may not have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
Although he really needs to come out and deny it, or people will continue to question it. The American people need answers.
This whole thing is so unfair. Honestly, it's unamerican to try and make someone deny their involvement in sexual assault or a homicide - I mean, just look at the fifth amendment!
All you Glenn Beck haters out there should stop asking him to deny that he raped and murdered that girl in 1990. If he denies it, he's just playing into the hands of the "law and order" liberal latte-drinking factinistas.
Stop hating Beck's freedom to refuse to refute accusations, or incriminate himself, because that's what terrorists do, and you're raping our children with your words.
Limbaugh and Beck are both "entertainment", obviously.
Of the "news" designated portions of Fox News, I challenge you to link a single clip of one minute or more that can reasonably be called either fair or balanced. Full disclosure: I don't believe it is possible.
Also, I don't have any idea what numbers you are referring to. Saying "the numbers prove you wrong" with no reference to what numbers is as absurdist as saying "the letters display pink daisies after the end!" It has no meaning.
Someone worked for that money. If I work and make wise investment decisions and make enough money so that my children do not have to work, so be it. That does not mean that money should be given to those poor factory workers.
What about if your father wrote the bestselling novel, "A Book To Read Sometimes". Should your great grandchildren be able to "earn" royalties 90 years after your father dies?
The situation you describe is less likely than the one I describe. Trust fund babies are created by parents who inherited vast amounts of family wealth themselves - not by shrewd working-class investors.
I should also add that the "public option" is, according to Congressman Barney Frank, just step one. He was caught on camera saying that healthcare will be completely taken-over by government circa 2020. Mr. Frank probably won't be there on that date, but that's the roadmap the Democrats have laid-out. They want the US to have a UK-style government monopoly.
Thank god! I was actually worried they didn't have a plan, and I really want to see a drumbeat to a single-payer system. In the meantime, I'm thrilled that my recent situation will never be repeated:
I needed a root canal. My dental insurance covered root canals! Nice. Except... when I called them to get the name of a local specialist that could perform the procedure they told me, "Oh, #4 tooth? We don't cover root canals on that tooth. Sorry." This is a direct quote.
Proper healthcare is vital to a strong workforce. A strong workforce results in stronger returns in taxes. Higher tax income pays for healthcare. Will everyone's taxes be a little higher? I suppose they'll have to be. I don't mind at all. The only people that have cause to object are those few who can truly afford platinum health insurance. I guess I can't feel bad that someone with that much money might have to pay a couple more bucks a year so all citizens have access to basic medical care. As John Hodgmin would say, "You're Welcome!" for your right to accumulate that kind of wealth. Well, ERs will still be required to provide care to non-citizens, but with adequate preventative care there will be far fewer ER visits from poverty-stricken citizens, and so the expense of them will be vastly reduced.
I'm sure whatever finally gets approved by the House and Senate (remember, this isn't even something the President can sign yet - not a done deal) will be a pale mockery of the needed reform, but I'm glad some people like Barney Frank are fighting to keep me healthy.
Remember: In science, NEVER be arrogant, or too convinced of your theories. Because that is usually when someone comes up with proof that you are wrong,
Please go have a chat with the global warming alarmists and get them to release the raw data and the algorithms they used to "massage" the data and arrive at their results. It'd be nice if global warming were true, and if it really isn't about the money (creating carbon exchanges, similar to stock exchanges).
Even though global warming is real, it simply isn't in our economical best interests to retool so many industries to account for it. Eventually science and desperation will solve the problem. Let's face it, the environmental movement just isn't a good investment.
Although global warming isn't real, it's part of a global debate because it's such a huge source of profit. Any fool can see it's all about the money. There's no other reason that people would be trying to develop entire industries around the environmental movement.
This space intentionally left blank: ____________________________________________________
If a small roll of Sellotape can generate X-rays in a vacuum chambers, we just need a larger or stickier roll to generate these gamma-rays and anti-matter. Alternatively, get someone to pull the tape extra fast.
Broadband/Dial up/Nothing. I'm sure there is a NetZero number in your area. You have a choice. You may not like it, but it's a choice.
You also have a choice, but for the sake of civil discourse I'll leave discerning it an exercise to the reader.
In an age where fast internet service is quickly becoming the tool both for information and communication, giving up broadband access is impossible for many of us without severe financial consequences - our careers literally depend on reliable home access. It is not a stretch to say that it will be as fundamental a human need as clean plumbing or electricity, if it is not already. From informed consumerism to informed democracy, not to mention the thousands of ways to self-educate, the need for access will only increase.
For one to assert that dial-up access is a solution to broadband monopolies suggests to me either a failure to fully grasp the topic, an undisclosed agenda, or a hateful sense of humor.
but don't ascribe to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence.
There were two "digital transitions". The first was the federally mandated change from analog broadcast TV to digital - and this was the only one that Comcast spoke of when discussing (advertising) digital transition. No boxes required for anyone except rabbit-ears users, because everyone else had a cable, or satellite, or coconut-powered video coming into their house.
HOWEVER, Comcast used this period to "enhance" their service with some buzz-word compliant digital protocol. This change just started up in my area a few weeks ago. They conflated these changes with each other, and then told everyone that they wouldn't need extra equipment for the "digital transition". Super!
Whoa whoa whoa... but they were talking about the federal transition! For their stealth transition, we all need a central box, and then a box for every TV in the house! They are "giving" people enough for 2 TVs per house... for the first year. Then you'll be getting a rental charge.
Oh, and if you want more than 2 TVs to work, you'll have to fork over rental for those now. Did I mention they also decided to drop several (more) stations from their extended cable service? (that's the one with local channels plus the "basic" cable channels like comedy central, syphi, TNT, etc)
Same price (for now - until our year of "free" rental runs out) - fewer channels - fewer TVs.
Never forget the corollary to your quoted reference: Sufficient levels of incompetence are indistinguishable from malice.
Claiming someone is "pro-abortion" is both factually false and politically devisive. It suggests that someone is in favor of abortions, rather than the stated goals of core constituents of the movement: to make abortions "legal, safe, and rare".
Many people that support the pro-choice position are opposed to abortion morally, but do not believe that legislation is the solution. You can hardly call such people "pro-abortion" with a straight face. Your choice of language entirely eliminates the validity of your remarks.
I wasn't trolling, and my remarks were not intended as an attack - simply an observation. Sorry it was so hard for you to interpret.
I don't see any clues coming from you about how to fight it. Sounds like you're just as much a bag of hot air as those you rant against.
Despite your AC trollishness, I'll respectfully suggest that he DID give you a clue about how to fight it - the first step being, understand it.
I would also, somewhat less respectfully, suggest that some exercises must be left to the reader. As much as you want us to, we can't always employ critical thinking on your behalf.
Congratulations, you now have zero credibility. Drop the incendiary rhetoric and maybe (rational, moderate) people will be interested in what you have to say.
someone who got on the no-fly list for repeated short notice, one-way trips between Boston and Palm Beach... an alternative explanation might be: affluent person with house in both cities.
Alternative to what? I'm probably being especially slow today but I don't get what the suspicious explanation would be.
Stop being dense, everyone knows terrorists can't plan anything in advance and never buy two-way tickets.
On March 26, 2007, Monica Goodling, the senior counselor to Gonzales and Department of Justice liaison to the White House who was on an "indefinite leave of absence," refused to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Goodling threatened to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to not incriminate herself
Your quote implies the fired attorneys were dismissed for wrongdoing, but the facts do not appear to support that supposition.
The question is perfectly valid; it presupposes that people are illegally downloading copyrighted content. Which they are.
If you're going to try to "unask" the question on the basis that it makes an invalid supposition you'll have to try to argue that no one is illegally downloading content. Good luck.
What the hell are you talking about? Isn't it *distribution* of copyrighted material that is illegal? In other words... there is no such thing as "illegally downloading content"... wait! I just proved it!
In your face, space coyote!
Now if you're trying to say that "everyone" is guilty of UPloading (c)ed content... then I need only point to my infant nephew. He is someone, and he is not guilty of sharing (c) content. Assertion disproved.
Just for the record -- not that anyone will ever read this -- I did not say that this law was a good idea: I merely asked what would be good alternatives, and so far, the only alternatice posted is that I should go and beat my wife.:(
Just for the record, you're a troll so no one's giving you a straight answer.
You ask for an alternative to passing this law? Well an obvious alternative is to NOT pass this law.
Yes, if you can't prove someone committed a crime you should let them go free. I think I've even seen that somewhere before. So you can't prove that someone is infringing copyright by sharing a torrent without violating their civil rights? I guess you can't prosecute them.
It's copyright violation or license violation; which carries the same moral penalty as theft
Although I appreciate the point you were trying to make, I feel compelled to point out that, ethically speaking, depriving someone else of something (theft) is clearly far worse than making a copy of something owned by someone else (infringement).
Of course, that assumes that something made up of bits (or thoughts) can truly be owned by anyone in any real way. Ownership seems to imply having something to the exclusion of others having it. You might as well start an Emotive Property movement and try to charge people for falling in love.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for certain limited legal protections of copyright, but in the real world it's absurd to suggest scarcity of an infinitely-reproducable good.
Its also a good place to organize raves and that type of thing, and is generally free from these AOL newbs that seem to be cropping up more and more on the World Wide Web. But anyways, on other topics I hear 1997 is going to be the year of the linux desktop.
Events like this should have the capitalists and free market supporters up in arms. But it doesn't. Why?
Because there aren't any with power in the US. There are corporatists and socialists (and there aren't any socialists). Noise to the contrary is just hand-waving.
as the FraUDulent money traders attempt to position themselves for any event, guess who gets left out of the calculations?
very similar to the last days of nazi germany.
no matter, the lights are coming up all over now, & despite all the plans of the corepirate nazi illuminati, there is no where left to hide.
Now if this post isn't an argument for socialized services, I don't know what is. If this poor guy could afford to take his pills his inane ramblings wouldn't be getting in the way of my Slashdot enjoyment!
Slashdot Mirror
nobody seriously believes that Glenn Beck may or may not have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
Although he really needs to come out and deny it, or people will continue to question it. The American people need answers.
This whole thing is so unfair. Honestly, it's unamerican to try and make someone deny their involvement in sexual assault or a homicide - I mean, just look at the fifth amendment!
All you Glenn Beck haters out there should stop asking him to deny that he raped and murdered that girl in 1990. If he denies it, he's just playing into the hands of the "law and order" liberal latte-drinking factinistas.
Stop hating Beck's freedom to refuse to refute accusations, or incriminate himself, because that's what terrorists do, and you're raping our children with your words.
Limbaugh and Beck are both "entertainment", obviously.
Of the "news" designated portions of Fox News, I challenge you to link a single clip of one minute or more that can reasonably be called either fair or balanced. Full disclosure: I don't believe it is possible.
Also, I don't have any idea what numbers you are referring to. Saying "the numbers prove you wrong" with no reference to what numbers is as absurdist as saying "the letters display pink daisies after the end!" It has no meaning.
Hopefully next year Black Isle or whatever they're called these days will get hold of this engine and make an absolutely amazing game.
I for one would not object to a remake of Planescape: Torment.
What can change the nature of a game?
Someone worked for that money. If I work and make wise investment decisions and make enough money so that my children do not have to work, so be it. That does not mean that money should be given to those poor factory workers.
What about if your father wrote the bestselling novel, "A Book To Read Sometimes". Should your great grandchildren be able to "earn" royalties 90 years after your father dies?
The situation you describe is less likely than the one I describe. Trust fund babies are created by parents who inherited vast amounts of family wealth themselves - not by shrewd working-class investors.
P.S.
I should also add that the "public option" is, according to Congressman Barney Frank, just step one. He was caught on camera saying that healthcare will be completely taken-over by government circa 2020. Mr. Frank probably won't be there on that date, but that's the roadmap the Democrats have laid-out. They want the US to have a UK-style government monopoly.
Thank god! I was actually worried they didn't have a plan, and I really want to see a drumbeat to a single-payer system. In the meantime, I'm thrilled that my recent situation will never be repeated:
I needed a root canal. My dental insurance covered root canals! Nice. Except... when I called them to get the name of a local specialist that could perform the procedure they told me, "Oh, #4 tooth? We don't cover root canals on that tooth. Sorry." This is a direct quote.
Proper healthcare is vital to a strong workforce. A strong workforce results in stronger returns in taxes. Higher tax income pays for healthcare. Will everyone's taxes be a little higher? I suppose they'll have to be. I don't mind at all. The only people that have cause to object are those few who can truly afford platinum health insurance. I guess I can't feel bad that someone with that much money might have to pay a couple more bucks a year so all citizens have access to basic medical care. As John Hodgmin would say, "You're Welcome!" for your right to accumulate that kind of wealth. Well, ERs will still be required to provide care to non-citizens, but with adequate preventative care there will be far fewer ER visits from poverty-stricken citizens, and so the expense of them will be vastly reduced.
I'm sure whatever finally gets approved by the House and Senate (remember, this isn't even something the President can sign yet - not a done deal) will be a pale mockery of the needed reform, but I'm glad some people like Barney Frank are fighting to keep me healthy.
Please go have a chat with the global warming alarmists and get them to release the raw data and the algorithms they used to "massage" the data and arrive at their results. It'd be nice if global warming were true, and if it really isn't about the money (creating carbon exchanges, similar to stock exchanges).
Even though global warming is real, it simply isn't in our economical best interests to retool so many industries to account for it. Eventually science and desperation will solve the problem. Let's face it, the environmental movement just isn't a good investment.
Although global warming isn't real, it's part of a global debate because it's such a huge source of profit. Any fool can see it's all about the money. There's no other reason that people would be trying to develop entire industries around the environmental movement.
This space intentionally left blank: ____________________________________________________
I thought they used fusion until the discovery of dilithium crystals 80 years later?
It's a...
*rolls d20* ... pleasure to meet you!
If a small roll of Sellotape can generate X-rays in a vacuum chambers, we just need a larger or stickier roll to generate these gamma-rays and anti-matter. Alternatively, get someone to pull the tape extra fast.
Is that you, Dr Wirnstrom?
Wirnstrom...
Broadband/Dial up/Nothing. I'm sure there is a NetZero number in your area. You have a choice. You may not like it, but it's a choice.
You also have a choice, but for the sake of civil discourse I'll leave discerning it an exercise to the reader.
In an age where fast internet service is quickly becoming the tool both for information and communication, giving up broadband access is impossible for many of us without severe financial consequences - our careers literally depend on reliable home access. It is not a stretch to say that it will be as fundamental a human need as clean plumbing or electricity, if it is not already. From informed consumerism to informed democracy, not to mention the thousands of ways to self-educate, the need for access will only increase.
For one to assert that dial-up access is a solution to broadband monopolies suggests to me either a failure to fully grasp the topic, an undisclosed agenda, or a hateful sense of humor.
Bad show, old man.
but don't ascribe to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence.
There were two "digital transitions". The first was the federally mandated change from analog broadcast TV to digital - and this was the only one that Comcast spoke of when discussing (advertising) digital transition. No boxes required for anyone except rabbit-ears users, because everyone else had a cable, or satellite, or coconut-powered video coming into their house.
HOWEVER, Comcast used this period to "enhance" their service with some buzz-word compliant digital protocol. This change just started up in my area a few weeks ago. They conflated these changes with each other, and then told everyone that they wouldn't need extra equipment for the "digital transition". Super!
Whoa whoa whoa... but they were talking about the federal transition! For their stealth transition, we all need a central box, and then a box for every TV in the house! They are "giving" people enough for 2 TVs per house... for the first year. Then you'll be getting a rental charge.
Oh, and if you want more than 2 TVs to work, you'll have to fork over rental for those now. Did I mention they also decided to drop several (more) stations from their extended cable service? (that's the one with local channels plus the "basic" cable channels like comedy central, syphi, TNT, etc)
Same price (for now - until our year of "free" rental runs out) - fewer channels - fewer TVs.
Never forget the corollary to your quoted reference: Sufficient levels of incompetence are indistinguishable from malice.
I was entirely specific.
Claiming someone is "pro-abortion" is both factually false and politically devisive. It suggests that someone is in favor of abortions, rather than the stated goals of core constituents of the movement: to make abortions "legal, safe, and rare".
Many people that support the pro-choice position are opposed to abortion morally, but do not believe that legislation is the solution. You can hardly call such people "pro-abortion" with a straight face. Your choice of language entirely eliminates the validity of your remarks.
I wasn't trolling, and my remarks were not intended as an attack - simply an observation. Sorry it was so hard for you to interpret.
I don't see any clues coming from you about how to fight it. Sounds like you're just as much a bag of hot air as those you rant against.
Despite your AC trollishness, I'll respectfully suggest that he DID give you a clue about how to fight it - the first step being, understand it.
I would also, somewhat less respectfully, suggest that some exercises must be left to the reader. As much as you want us to, we can't always employ critical thinking on your behalf.
The police do fine at apprehending criminals acting within the law
Yes, in my experience the police are quite expert at apprehending criminals who are acting within the law.
Those crafty "legal" criminals are no match for the thin blue line. They keep us safe from ourselves!
...pro-abortion...
Congratulations, you now have zero credibility. Drop the incendiary rhetoric and maybe (rational, moderate) people will be interested in what you have to say.
Thank you for your analysis. I hadn't heard of them either, and now I don't have to waste a google search.
someone who got on the no-fly list for repeated short notice, one-way trips between Boston and Palm Beach... an alternative explanation might be: affluent person with house in both cities.
Alternative to what? I'm probably being especially slow today but I don't get what the suspicious explanation would be.
Stop being dense, everyone knows terrorists can't plan anything in advance and never buy two-way tickets.
It's the freedom. They hate it.
Except if my boss is investigating me, *his* boss gets to know about it.
In this case, Congress' boss is the citizenry.
Try telling them that.
Except those prosecutors were fired for refusing to do their job prosecuting voter fraud cases.
That article is from 2007, and seems to lack many details surrounding this case. I googled up this timeline ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy ) that seems largely comprised of dates, direct quotes and similar facts. I see a very different story here. For example:
Your quote implies the fired attorneys were dismissed for wrongdoing, but the facts do not appear to support that supposition.
The question is perfectly valid; it presupposes that people are illegally downloading copyrighted content. Which they are.
If you're going to try to "unask" the question on the basis that it makes an invalid supposition you'll have to try to argue that no one is illegally downloading content. Good luck.
What the hell are you talking about? Isn't it *distribution* of copyrighted material that is illegal? In other words... there is no such thing as "illegally downloading content"... wait! I just proved it!
In your face, space coyote!
Now if you're trying to say that "everyone" is guilty of UPloading (c)ed content... then I need only point to my infant nephew. He is someone, and he is not guilty of sharing (c) content. Assertion disproved.
Now shoo, the big people want to talk.
Just for the record -- not that anyone will ever read this -- I did not say that this law was a good idea: I merely asked what would be good alternatives, and so far, the only alternatice posted is that I should go and beat my wife. :(
Just for the record, you're a troll so no one's giving you a straight answer.
You ask for an alternative to passing this law? Well an obvious alternative is to NOT pass this law.
Yes, if you can't prove someone committed a crime you should let them go free. I think I've even seen that somewhere before. So you can't prove that someone is infringing copyright by sharing a torrent without violating their civil rights? I guess you can't prosecute them.
Hang on, I feel a teardrop... no, no it's gone.
It's copyright violation or license violation; which carries the same moral penalty as theft
Although I appreciate the point you were trying to make, I feel compelled to point out that, ethically speaking, depriving someone else of something (theft) is clearly far worse than making a copy of something owned by someone else (infringement).
Of course, that assumes that something made up of bits (or thoughts) can truly be owned by anyone in any real way. Ownership seems to imply having something to the exclusion of others having it. You might as well start an Emotive Property movement and try to charge people for falling in love.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for certain limited legal protections of copyright, but in the real world it's absurd to suggest scarcity of an infinitely-reproducable good.
Its also a good place to organize raves and that type of thing, and is generally free from these AOL newbs that seem to be cropping up more and more on the World Wide Web. But anyways, on other topics I hear 1997 is going to be the year of the linux desktop.
You, sir, have brought the funny.
Kudos.
Events like this should have the capitalists and free market supporters up in arms. But it doesn't. Why?
Because there aren't any with power in the US. There are corporatists and socialists (and there aren't any socialists). Noise to the contrary is just hand-waving.
as the FraUDulent money traders attempt to position themselves for any event, guess who gets left out of the calculations?
very similar to the last days of nazi germany.
no matter, the lights are coming up all over now, & despite all the plans of the corepirate nazi illuminati, there is no where left to hide.
Now if this post isn't an argument for socialized services, I don't know what is. If this poor guy could afford to take his pills his inane ramblings wouldn't be getting in the way of my Slashdot enjoyment!
TERRORISM! PANDEMIC! SOCIALIST! um... ILLICIT NARCOTICS! (WoooOooOOooOOooo...)
Can I have my municipal broadband now please?
I was gonna do it but then I was thinking you'd hit my hand and gouge out my eye.
That's absurd, only people whose hands are larger than their faces are dumb enough to think that might happen.