1) She was/is the highest rated governor in the Country.
2) Alaska joined the Union for its oil reserves, and Palin strongly believes that this country needs energy independence (despite any reasons / understanding or how closely she may have had business with oil companies).
3) She is not a Washington insider / new face
4) She is a role model for women that take the same position as her on women's issues, not to mention she is a very positive example of a person that takes that kind of position
And as I mentioned earlier, all together, I think the pair / plan would have beat Hillary. It is just senseless against Obama. The GOP picked the perfect weapon, for the wrong type of target.
McCain sold the "I am not Bush" plan. Palin is the "I am not Hillary" plan. In addition to being the complete opposite of Hillary with respect to the issues mentioned above, Palin is a more likable person (remember polls saying in 2000 that Bush was the candidate voters would most like to sit with and have a beer? I meant something), and 5) she is really hot.
McCain hasn't changed at all. I think knowing him, Palin was the perfect pick. The issue was that McCain was the perfect pick to put up against Hillary. The PROBLEM is that McCain didn't change his strategy. An over simplification of the issue was that Hillary would have come off as an unrealistic leftist, while McCain made off as the conservative / left moderate. The problem (for him) is honestly Obama's change thing. He wants to revolutionize socialism (what some have called democratic socialism). McCain's plan of attack didn't anticipate this at all, and not knowing how to deal with it, he has defaulted to sticking with a failed game plan OR he is being consistent. Either way, we are now forced to decided between a democrat, and a socialist.
And only one is seen as a traitor to their party.
Republicans have not stood on a conservative platform in over 20 years, and conservatives that loved their party are jumping ship. Republicans on their conservative platform saw the advantage of pandering to the religious right. The problem is that they ended up selling out and letting their constituents take over so far as to sell out on their conservative beliefs.
I consider myself a conservative, and do republicans, but my democrat friends say I am an extreme libertarian. I had hope and belief that Republicans had conservatism as the fore front of their policy, but the constant compromising and this neo-conservative nightmare has become "do whatever sounds nice for the people that support us".
Some people like this. Obviously, otherwise why would the Republicans have adopted it? They just under estimated the number of people that are conservative because it is the best thing for the country, not their self serving interests. There are people that love Palin, and there are Republicans that see McCain's move to the left as a positive, encouraging bipartisanship.
And I think it would have been enough for a win against Hillary. It was just the wrong strategy against Obama when it comes to getting the majority of electorates. I do not fault McCain for sticking to what he believes in, if you can at least believe for a moment that he did that. I think the fault lies more with the GOP. I know many people would say this is crazy, but I think the reason Ron Paul was not supported by the GOP is because he is hated by the media / entertainment industry. The GOP be that it couldn't beat the media at that game. Ron Paul ran on a platform of change. dramatic change back to logic and traditional conservatism that believes in a rational science of politics. I think with the back of the GOP, and unfortunately the religious right that would never have voted for Obama, HIS conservative platform of change, getting the Republican party to what it stood for, and had MAJOR victories throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's would have brought hope to people that we can get back to what worked, within an enlightened vision, versus this radically untested democratic socialist platform of Obama's. The media would have been forced to back off and cover the election in the way it could to get ratings. McCain's coverage is proof that the media doesn't go light on any candidate it doesn't support, and McCain got hit harder than has been seen in a long time. McCain's actual weaknesses didn't help either.
I really think Paul could have stood up to the heat, and I really wish there could have been a real debate between Obama and Paul rather than that monkey dance we were made to endure. IMHO, the reason McCain could not hit any of Obama's weaknesses was because on his important faults, McCain is virtually the same person. I seriously wish some of those weaknesses could have been addressed by a real, experienced, and lovable conservative.
To anyone that follows business stuff, the GOP was to the entertainment industry what Rubbermaid was to Walmart; a disposable asset that could be manipulated in their favor. And to (certain) music lovers, the only chance they had was what happened between ICP and Disney. ICP may not have done as well, as they could have.. but they are doing a whole lot better than Rubbermaid.
The GOP didn't know when to quit, so their voters did instead.
People talk about free market like as if it is an anything goes. If that was true, why was "Wealth of Nations" and "The Theory of Money and Credit" such massive works?
Free market theory theory of economics, IMHO, isn't about what the government shouldn't do, it is about what it CAN'T do given the nature of an economy. The government can be a normal competitor, and one with BIG money, but it can't make bad businesses successful. Money doesn't create wealth, no matter how much you give away. We can redistribute wealth, and that costs money. Doing useful work is the only thing that improves the 'wealth of a nation'.
Sure, people are greedy, but people are driven by greed to do really great things. Greed can always lead to corruption, but what? Somehow our politicians are above that? What country have you been living in? At least greedy businessmen have something to loose. I think the most important thing we can do set high standards and educate people. And the balance? Employees are greedy, and nothing is more greedy than a consumer.
I don't get this whole "how much regulation is enough?". No amount of the wrong regulation is going to work. We need to look at what types of regulations can and can not work. Price fixing DOES NOT WORK. Taxes need to be product and revenue neutral. Regulations need to be equal, but the government needs to know its place. Mises says that one of the few roles of government that it can play that are different than any other large consumer is the handling of broken contracts. In particular, when someone provides goods, services, or money today to get goods, services, or money in the future, and one of those parties fails to meet their obligation, then the government can intervene to see that the failing party is treated fairly in the liquidation of it's assets as appropriate. That is why this bailout thing is such a nightmare! Businesses that have proven not worthy of survival, for many different reasons, need to die. The government needs to ensure that those businesses are liquidated in a fair manner. Instead, they are being propped up? Why?!?
Now I know that isn't all that is happening. Anyone can buy these loans, and if the government wants to get into that business, then they can be an equal player, but buying any loan under its fair market value makes little sense.
The place where there can be a problem is when government tried to drive the market in a direction it doesn't want to go. I think a great example of this is the drug war. We spend tons of money, for a number of different reason to artificially reduce the supply of certain drugs deemed unsafe. What happens? price goes up. That isn't regulation, that is just manipulation. Regulation would be oversight into ensuring drugs were made cleanly and that customers knew what they were getting. Government could give oversight to certification programs that have various standards, just like the FDA, BBB, HUD, and such. If someone is brewing drugs in their bathtub, they should be shut down for the fire hazard. If a place has quality equipment that is well maintained, doctors, clean needles, safe rooms, and counseling services, not only should they get an A+ like the health department does for restaurants, but nobody is going to buy from the drug dealer on the street corner. And I thought this was all about keeping people safe. It has worked in European countries that have adopted this, and I think Canada has a similar program, and that was exactly the result. Also, a good number of people cleaned up, not to mention drug crime virtually disappeared. How can we keep saying that the type of regulation we have today is working when the number one cause of accidental death in this country is from overdose prescription drugs?
Free market says the best players win that give the customer what they want with quality and at a low price. Government has the power to encourage the best business, and that is the type of regulation we need. We can also use a lot of it. But the current ideology in regulation is
The packages are there, but my driver did not load automatically. Don't know why. But where I previously had been using nvidia-glx-new, which it says conflicts with xorg-server-foo. Turned out I needed to pick nvidia-glx-771 for my particular card, and then everything worked fine. Not sure which one you need, but if you search the packages for nvidia-glx, it explains which drivers are appropriate.
You might not be experiencing the same bug I was, but if you are, this is what I figured out.
Looking through dmesg, I noticed what appeared to be authentication requests. It appeared to be coming from me. Doing a little hunting, it appears that a lot of routers do not support ipv6 in addition to a few wireless drivers not fully supporting ipv6. Either way, browsing would be fine, until an ipv6 connection was attempted. This would return a "connection not found" type error, and resulted in deauthentication, technically the right course of action.
Long story short, and from reading about other people having similar problems, opened up/etc/modprobe.d/blacklist and add the line 'blacklist ipv6'.
My wireless worked fine after this, when previously it would disconnect somewhere instantly, and rarely staying up as long as 2 minutes. Hope this helps.
Which is why people are so intolerant of F/OSS bugs. Microsoft works very carefully using game / reward theory to calculate just how little debugging or feature complete software can be combined with a carefully devised marketing strategy such that the software gets people in stores and holds up long enough to makes its way off the shelf. To off set any margin of error, any flare ups of customer complaints, there are promises of service packs and updates, and excuses for bug fixes that basically come down to "someone else's problem was more important first". And let's not forget the overall stabilizing ingredient of FUD into the equation that begins and ends with "How can you complain about the best software the world has to offer? Our market penetration is proof it doesn't get any better".
I think what Linux really need is more "Kernel Panic" and "Failed to connect to DBUS" errors at random in order to make people more grateful that the software runs at all. Also, the 1 year anticipation of critical bug fixes and security patches get people very excited. Linux takes all that away, too often bugs are fixed before I even have time to finish filling out a good bug report. And security patches that are delivered the same day as news of the vulnerability kills all the thrill of waiting and hoping I don't loose everything on my hard drive.
I think we need to learn from Microsoft about QC. Its more then building software that is "useful" or "productive", it is about making software that makes people feel good about using it. That's all I am trying to say.
Interesting perspective on history. But if many people think this is the way that it happened, no wonder we are in the mess we are in today, IMHO.
Survival has always been about advantage. Even in interspecies interaction, the winner most always the one that knows something the other does not. Where food is, where predators are not, deceptions in numbers, camouflage, and other things. Ultimately, nature and human history have shown that knowledge is power. Further, in competition, it is about having more power, even if by simply ensuring less knowledge by potential adversaries.
It may not have been called copyright in the century leading up to the Statute of Anne, but the control over the flow of information, and special armies to protect such information from falling into the "wrong hands" has been around as long as there has been written language. In some places, there were even were secret spoken languages meant only for the elite that were forbidden to be learned by commoners by threat of death. Even Caesar used encryption algorithms to pass secret messages to troops (Still known today as the Caesar shift). Scribes were required to take oaths not to reveal the secrets shared with them, and master texts were bound by shackle to the most trusted members, not in ways necessarily to keep the book from harm, but to keep the text away from unauthorized eyes.
All this is copy protection because every time we see an image or read a text, or see a sound, our brains make a copy... albeit some better than others.
So in many ways, copyright, the protection and control over knowledge came first, and with the birth of creativity and free thinking immediately came with it along side was methods of copy protection.
Wit the invention of the printing press in 1439, copyright was thrown into chaos. The distribution of knowledge was able to fight copyright in new ways never before conceived. Governments quickly responded with copyright police that hunted down book publishers, rounding them up for public hangings and beheading for their crimes to serve as an example of how they would deal with pirates; stealing work from scribes and writers. It was a problem the elite argued would destroy knowledge, creativity, and progress as there would be no longer any motivation for thinkers to think, scientists to study, or writers to write.
Well, they were right in part. The scribes guild vanished over a period of time. Knowledge as it was known, held in secret by a powerful few, had been destroyed.
But... someone and for some reason people did keep writing books, and all the tales of the end of the world of creativity never quite came about. Some argue it was actually the other way around, that a revolution took place and a generation of thinkers were born, but whose to say what really happened, right?
But then came a new battle. The scribes were gone, and book publishing had taken over. People had been enlightened, and there was a new thirst for knowledge, this time in masses, and printed books had been legalized. This time, the control was in the hands of the book publishers. But as the elite scribes had known, power isn't just control, but exclusive power. Book publishers wanted exclusive rights to publish books. The printers guild aka Stationer's Company, were granted exclusive right to print the books, so long as royalties were paid to the Queen. Books were 'bought' by the queen, and she would give the texts to book publishers that would get exclusive printing rights indefinitely. No royalties were ever paid to writers, and writers were banned from self publishing or seeking an independent press. Queen Mary I of Great Britain was the first MPAA / RIAA of its kind. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet
By 1709, Shakespeare had been dead nearly 100 years. The independent publishers fought even harder for a more free copyright law, as opposed to the indefinitely perpetual copyright law in place. Shakespeare is a part of our culture and can not be owned by anyone. Stories are
I am not anti government assistance, or even anti taxes. I think most people could use quite a bit of help regarding financial planning including myself, and companies that help their employees with those kinds of things should be rewarded. I just believe that times have changed more than anything with regard to employee abuse. Not to excuse the terrible things that happened, but pre-industrial society is quite harsh, and the transition is worse.
Unions can serve a purpose, but when unions start demanding employers hire union only, they are a modern mob. Allow wages to be competitive, and if enough people are dissatisfied, they can join the union voluntarily, forcing employers to change. It makes for a give-take relationship. I am sure there are good unions out there, but too many I have had experiences with have a "Join or Perish" mentality, all the while raking in huge union dues that do little to serve the employees. Unions should enlighten employers to the ROI of treating employees well.
To keep it short, Ron Paul, and people like him, or those that believe in his vision are not selfish, hate mongering idiots any more so than others, they just see a different means to the same end of a peace loving world... it just happens to be drastically different.
There is also a big difference between anti-taxes, and anti income tax. While some of the best rhetoric revolves around the idea we are slaves and our money is not our own, that tends to come from the idea that there is poor accountability and that the system is very corrupt. The same goes for unions and their dues.
Why not just upload the torrent and get your friends to download it the same way. With the way bit torrent works, all your friends (or anyone else for that matter) will become seeders in no time if they just stay connected. Also, if you post the torrent here, I am sure there are a fair number of/.ers willing to seed it. Also, if by any stretch of the imagination you don't know about it already, Pick out the CC License of your choice and at the end there are many sites listed that will host CC Licensed work for free, including the internet archive. Found some interesting info at Zimibo.com too.
Wow, how the ideals of the welfare state have saturated this country. The idea of a person taking financial responsibility for a future where they may not want to work till they die is a troll? Or is it just an accepted truth that the average person is so incompetent that workers need to pay unions/government to harass our employers to take money out of our pay checks so we can't squander it before we are too old to work without paying a penalty. I'm sorry, but I am not paying someone else to handle my investments and not going to cry to the government/boss/union/anyone when I knowingly spent all my money on beer/cigarettes/pizza/computer games/vacations to Europe instead of considering my wife and family another 30/40/50 years from now.
It is, in fact, why our founding fathers devised checks and balances; spreading out the power between three branches limits the degree to which it can be abused.
Ah, those must have been the days. Wish we still had something like that now.
The only things in a code which the electrical engineer wouldn't be able to work out are things put there arbitrarily by state officials.
Well, sounds like it all comes down to whether or not there was a permit involved. While there are a lot of BS rules out there, Underwriters Laboratories does a lot to ensure that peoples homes are safely protected against scams that can put you or your family at risk? If you had some massive server in your house, you may buy the cheaper UPS, but there is no way in hell you would buy a non-UL approved UPS. Further, recent article talking about California copyrighting its laws, it is because many times they come from standards boards whose jobs are to know what is safe and what is not. That has nothing to do with unions.
More to the point, say the engineer does a decent job, but doesn't get the permit, and decides to do it a "better way" than what the code says is right. They sell the house, and you buy it. Well, it turns out that there was a reason you weren't supposed to do it the "better way". Some accident causes unlikely circumstances that causes the electrical to burn the house down. While there may always be a risk of that in some way when it is to code, doesn't fix things when Fire Department writes it off as "Illegal Electrical Wiring" to which your insurance company responds "Illegal = not covered by policy". Oops.
However, the codes are not difficult to follow, and it keeps insurance rates down when they don't have to be liable for damage caused by illegal / dangerous work. Now, if your friend the 20 year electrical engineer is willing to do it right with the paper work and everything, not to mention allow some shit-brain building inspector criticize off his work, go for it.
Do we really need a new lot of self-important busybodies to protect us from another?
Unfortunately, we do, to an extent. The problems we face today is the influence of money within that process. Let me just say that Snake Oil products have gotten a lot more attention since Electricity was introduced. Underwriter Laboratories aren't a bad bunch. They do good, solid scientific work, then sell it to the government to make it the law. Sounds like a pretty decent process to me, even if it can seem to move slow at times when you want to do everything "your way".
Well, now that the 4th amendment has been repealed, they could say the charges against you are copyright by the police and not allow you in the court room at your trial for fear that you will pirate them otherwise. How about that?
Good work here. I am going to save of a copy of this for reference. However, you never gave a final opinion, sort of, even if it wasn't the scope of your introductory statement. But what you have written leads me to believe that California can technically claim copyright for a variety of reasons (especially if they paid a contractor to compile the work), and even if it isn't too derivitive, the cases cited lead me to believe that The state will have a valid case against Carl Malamud, and subsequently loose. For once, I wish this was a conspiracy between the state and Carl for copyright reform.
While I can understand your cynicism, the government and your home owners association are very different.
AND
They broke the law. Covenants of a Home Owners Association falls under full disclosure which while still copyrightable must be shared with any prospective home buyer.
Perhaps the most significant disclosures, however, concern the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions on the property, commonly called the CC&Rs. These, plus a full disclosure of Homeowners Association (HOA) membership requirements for the property, can make or break a sale if the restrictions and requirements are not in accord with a buyer's approval.
and for a bit of clarity...
[ghost sightings are] about the only report about the house that [is] spared in these days of full disclosure.
This article was an interesting read. btw, sorry you got screwed. Full disclosure records vital for homeowner, prospective buyers. Here, they must give anyone a copy of the information that requests it, but because it is still under copyright, that just means you can't make copies of it and give it to others. You could still give / show someone the original.
Ok, I can't help saying it only because I know otherwise someone else will. You should sue the CRAP out of them... and their money. Let us know.
Slippery slope. Next thing you will be saying is that they should do that with software, then we will be just like the rest of the world. How will we continue to distinguish ourselves? What next, Open Education Standards? BAH!/sarcasm
Other way around. If a corporation were to do a study and propose a law paid for with tax dollars, the proposed law and the law that passed are public domain, however, the copyright for the study could be held on behalf of the corporation.
I identify as poly, but have been too scared to really tell many people. My family doesn't know, a few close friends heard me talking a lot about it about two years ago, and since then I've not mentioned it to anyone.
"Hi, I am hetrosexual and I only want to be in a relationship with one person at a time, and the lord is my savior". Can I assume not a lot of people go around saying that kind of thing? For the most part how you love and who you love is your own personal business. There is no reason to come out of a closet if you have never been in one. If, per chance, you have close friends you trust, and you have pretended or lied about who you are for a long time, then there may be reason to "clear the air". My advice would be not to bring it up unless you have a reason, and if you don't feel comfortable talking about something in particular, don't. May leave people wondering, but you won't be lying.
I've been single since then and intentionally not looking because I have this belief that what I want is wrong in this society and that even if I did manage to find anyone who would "put up with" me being poly, they wouldn't be happy in that situation. The other possibility is that they'd be poly themselves, but that would require me to have some way of finding other poly people without outing myself first.
Well, here is the best part. There are more people like you than you think. Date, and see where things go. most first date conversations often revolve around past relationships or other dating experiences. Also, casual dating is fun. Without jumping straight into "I want to see other people" on the first date, let it be known that you have many friends, male and female, that you are very close to in whatever way the truth applies. I am under the impression most women appreciate knowing that you have your own life. Most women want to date a person, not an empty shell. If your date is not comfortable with the idea of you having close female friends, take that as the first sign this probably isn't your sole mate or soul mate.
Don't settle for someone willing to "put up with" poly. As with seeking any relationship, make friends and see where things go. Allow the relationship to develop as you discover how much you two seek the same goals in like and would be compatible to work together on those goals. If you allow time or labels to lead your relationship, it is very unlikely to work out, no matter what you seek. I would bet it would not be long before you meet someone hoping to come out of the closet too, and poly double dates are the best! (Just make sure your friends date is enjoying themselves as much as you are;)
And then, how would I explain it to my parents, coworkers and friends if they found out?
Well, things usually "come up" when there are questions, usually revolving around whether or not you or your partner knows what the other is doing. To the normals out there, when questions come up regarding things my wife is off doing with someone, it is most always a response revolving around the theme of "They are close / friends" or "I know, he/she is really cool / I trust him/her", "I hope she is having a good time" or the brain-twister for the ever inquisitive, "I have my own relationship with my wife with which I am very happy and satisfied / I am busy with xyz and can't be bothered at the moment, why should I be the one to stop her from having some fun?". Much more than that is rarely necessary. Much more is usually because you have captured the persons interest.
When my now wife and I started living together, it was in a big house with a lot of people. One of my best memories was when we were having a movie night. Parking lot filled with couches, and a big screen draped over the back of the house. My wife went on a date (very casual) as she was in more of a mood to club than watch the movies we had planned. I met a neighbor that came over, and through the cour
Most of my experience comes having been in normal relationships. I have many friends in normal relationships. I highly doubt that as many of them are as miserable as I perceive, because that would just hurt way too much to accept. However, most of the problems I see in relationships are very similar, and for some, I speculate many, letting go of this fantasy of the ideal codependent relationship we have grown up idealizing causes more problems than it prevents. But people get into relationships for all kinds of reasons, and every relationship is different. I have learned from them all, and they have all contributed to me being a better person. I have one partner I am legally married to, coming previously from a mind set of never wanting to get married for a variety of reasons. We have the relationship we want with each other, but how that impacts the natural way her or I develop natural relationships with other people isn't suddenly limited by "oh, by the way, i'm married". Anyone else I am in a relationship with I do my best to help them understand the relationship I have with my wife, not that it is so difficult, it is just a popular topic of conversation for me. I don't expect to find another woman that compliments me as well as my wife, but at the same time, I never expected to find someone as wonderful as her ever before. I am very grateful to have her in my life and being poly doesn't come from a place of thinking she isn't good enough. We just find wonderful people to be wonderful, and looking brings tremendous rewards, emotionally and sexually if things are right. Any we know this because we managed to find each other.
But forming a steady relationship with more than one person? I honestly can't see the appeal.
and I completely understand. One thing that may give some insight is that the relationships between different are never exactly the same, concurrent or otherwise. The important thing is that there are many people, even if a few (like more than linux and mac users combined, few) that are very torn up inside and feel broken because they love multiple people, and want multiple steady relationships, but think they have to pick one person to love or share a part of their lives with to be seen as normal. I have known just as many people to say that the reason they aren't gay is because their parents wouldn't approve, and the same goes for poly. Sometimes issues are really divided between normal for one person that makes them happy, and normal that is oppressive and hurtful. Neither are wrong, just incompatible. Most important thing in any relationship? Honest and open communication, from worst fears to greatest fantasies. Just be where you are for the right reasons.
Ok, before this gets too out of hand, don't be a victim of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. All women love great dick. ALL of them. The difference is that men are more easily satisfied by ANYTHING with a hole in it, while women actually have to hunt something out. Women not only love to fuck more than men, they do it a lot more too. There is just a large subset of men that wish they could get a women to even touch their dick and can't. Why is it hard for some to find a good woman? They are all out getting laid. ESPECIALLY the hot nerdy chicks. Blizzard-style is just like doggy-style, except there is a laptop on her back and another on the floor. Hurray for technology (I have a 'close' friend who has sworn on her life never to be mono again, and this is her favorite position. I love nerds.)
A predisposition for involuntary celibacy is a predictor for monogomy.
I believed that strongly, and still do to a point. In my observation, the reasons people are mono are very unnatural and usually have more to do with immaturity and self image. Most people have a very hard time becoming comfortable enough with themselves to even be with one person at a time, let alone manage multiple deeply intimate relationships. But this study shows some people are just born that way and can't help it.
Slashdot Mirror
1) She was/is the highest rated governor in the Country.
2) Alaska joined the Union for its oil reserves, and Palin strongly believes that this country needs energy independence (despite any reasons / understanding or how closely she may have had business with oil companies).
3) She is not a Washington insider / new face
4) She is a role model for women that take the same position as her on women's issues, not to mention she is a very positive example of a person that takes that kind of position
And as I mentioned earlier, all together, I think the pair / plan would have beat Hillary. It is just senseless against Obama. The GOP picked the perfect weapon, for the wrong type of target.
McCain sold the "I am not Bush" plan. Palin is the "I am not Hillary" plan. In addition to being the complete opposite of Hillary with respect to the issues mentioned above, Palin is a more likable person (remember polls saying in 2000 that Bush was the candidate voters would most like to sit with and have a beer? I meant something), and 5) she is really hot.
Hillary never would have had a chance.
McCain hasn't changed at all. I think knowing him, Palin was the perfect pick. The issue was that McCain was the perfect pick to put up against Hillary. The PROBLEM is that McCain didn't change his strategy. An over simplification of the issue was that Hillary would have come off as an unrealistic leftist, while McCain made off as the conservative / left moderate. The problem (for him) is honestly Obama's change thing. He wants to revolutionize socialism (what some have called democratic socialism). McCain's plan of attack didn't anticipate this at all, and not knowing how to deal with it, he has defaulted to sticking with a failed game plan OR he is being consistent. Either way, we are now forced to decided between a democrat, and a socialist.
And only one is seen as a traitor to their party.
Republicans have not stood on a conservative platform in over 20 years, and conservatives that loved their party are jumping ship. Republicans on their conservative platform saw the advantage of pandering to the religious right. The problem is that they ended up selling out and letting their constituents take over so far as to sell out on their conservative beliefs.
I consider myself a conservative, and do republicans, but my democrat friends say I am an extreme libertarian. I had hope and belief that Republicans had conservatism as the fore front of their policy, but the constant compromising and this neo-conservative nightmare has become "do whatever sounds nice for the people that support us".
Some people like this. Obviously, otherwise why would the Republicans have adopted it? They just under estimated the number of people that are conservative because it is the best thing for the country, not their self serving interests. There are people that love Palin, and there are Republicans that see McCain's move to the left as a positive, encouraging bipartisanship.
And I think it would have been enough for a win against Hillary. It was just the wrong strategy against Obama when it comes to getting the majority of electorates. I do not fault McCain for sticking to what he believes in, if you can at least believe for a moment that he did that. I think the fault lies more with the GOP. I know many people would say this is crazy, but I think the reason Ron Paul was not supported by the GOP is because he is hated by the media / entertainment industry. The GOP be that it couldn't beat the media at that game. Ron Paul ran on a platform of change. dramatic change back to logic and traditional conservatism that believes in a rational science of politics. I think with the back of the GOP, and unfortunately the religious right that would never have voted for Obama, HIS conservative platform of change, getting the Republican party to what it stood for, and had MAJOR victories throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's would have brought hope to people that we can get back to what worked, within an enlightened vision, versus this radically untested democratic socialist platform of Obama's. The media would have been forced to back off and cover the election in the way it could to get ratings. McCain's coverage is proof that the media doesn't go light on any candidate it doesn't support, and McCain got hit harder than has been seen in a long time. McCain's actual weaknesses didn't help either.
I really think Paul could have stood up to the heat, and I really wish there could have been a real debate between Obama and Paul rather than that monkey dance we were made to endure. IMHO, the reason McCain could not hit any of Obama's weaknesses was because on his important faults, McCain is virtually the same person. I seriously wish some of those weaknesses could have been addressed by a real, experienced, and lovable conservative.
To anyone that follows business stuff, the GOP was to the entertainment industry what Rubbermaid was to Walmart; a disposable asset that could be manipulated in their favor. And to (certain) music lovers, the only chance they had was what happened between ICP and Disney. ICP may not have done as well, as they could have.. but they are doing a whole lot better than Rubbermaid.
The GOP didn't know when to quit, so their voters did instead.
People talk about free market like as if it is an anything goes. If that was true, why was "Wealth of Nations" and "The Theory of Money and Credit" such massive works?
Free market theory theory of economics, IMHO, isn't about what the government shouldn't do, it is about what it CAN'T do given the nature of an economy. The government can be a normal competitor, and one with BIG money, but it can't make bad businesses successful. Money doesn't create wealth, no matter how much you give away. We can redistribute wealth, and that costs money. Doing useful work is the only thing that improves the 'wealth of a nation'.
Sure, people are greedy, but people are driven by greed to do really great things. Greed can always lead to corruption, but what? Somehow our politicians are above that? What country have you been living in? At least greedy businessmen have something to loose. I think the most important thing we can do set high standards and educate people. And the balance? Employees are greedy, and nothing is more greedy than a consumer.
I don't get this whole "how much regulation is enough?". No amount of the wrong regulation is going to work. We need to look at what types of regulations can and can not work. Price fixing DOES NOT WORK. Taxes need to be product and revenue neutral. Regulations need to be equal, but the government needs to know its place. Mises says that one of the few roles of government that it can play that are different than any other large consumer is the handling of broken contracts. In particular, when someone provides goods, services, or money today to get goods, services, or money in the future, and one of those parties fails to meet their obligation, then the government can intervene to see that the failing party is treated fairly in the liquidation of it's assets as appropriate. That is why this bailout thing is such a nightmare! Businesses that have proven not worthy of survival, for many different reasons, need to die. The government needs to ensure that those businesses are liquidated in a fair manner. Instead, they are being propped up? Why?!?
Now I know that isn't all that is happening. Anyone can buy these loans, and if the government wants to get into that business, then they can be an equal player, but buying any loan under its fair market value makes little sense.
The place where there can be a problem is when government tried to drive the market in a direction it doesn't want to go. I think a great example of this is the drug war. We spend tons of money, for a number of different reason to artificially reduce the supply of certain drugs deemed unsafe. What happens? price goes up. That isn't regulation, that is just manipulation. Regulation would be oversight into ensuring drugs were made cleanly and that customers knew what they were getting. Government could give oversight to certification programs that have various standards, just like the FDA, BBB, HUD, and such. If someone is brewing drugs in their bathtub, they should be shut down for the fire hazard. If a place has quality equipment that is well maintained, doctors, clean needles, safe rooms, and counseling services, not only should they get an A+ like the health department does for restaurants, but nobody is going to buy from the drug dealer on the street corner. And I thought this was all about keeping people safe. It has worked in European countries that have adopted this, and I think Canada has a similar program, and that was exactly the result. Also, a good number of people cleaned up, not to mention drug crime virtually disappeared. How can we keep saying that the type of regulation we have today is working when the number one cause of accidental death in this country is from overdose prescription drugs?
Free market says the best players win that give the customer what they want with quality and at a low price. Government has the power to encourage the best business, and that is the type of regulation we need. We can also use a lot of it. But the current ideology in regulation is
The packages are there, but my driver did not load automatically. Don't know why. But where I previously had been using nvidia-glx-new, which it says conflicts with xorg-server-foo. Turned out I needed to pick nvidia-glx-771 for my particular card, and then everything worked fine. Not sure which one you need, but if you search the packages for nvidia-glx, it explains which drivers are appropriate.
You might not be experiencing the same bug I was, but if you are, this is what I figured out.
/etc/modprobe.d/blacklist and add the line 'blacklist ipv6'.
My wireless worked fine after this, when previously it would disconnect somewhere instantly, and rarely staying up as long as 2 minutes. Hope this helps.
Looking through dmesg, I noticed what appeared to be authentication requests. It appeared to be coming from me. Doing a little hunting, it appears that a lot of routers do not support ipv6 in addition to a few wireless drivers not fully supporting ipv6. Either way, browsing would be fine, until an ipv6 connection was attempted. This would return a "connection not found" type error, and resulted in deauthentication, technically the right course of action.
Long story short, and from reading about other people having similar problems, opened up
Which is why people are so intolerant of F/OSS bugs. Microsoft works very carefully using game / reward theory to calculate just how little debugging or feature complete software can be combined with a carefully devised marketing strategy such that the software gets people in stores and holds up long enough to makes its way off the shelf. To off set any margin of error, any flare ups of customer complaints, there are promises of service packs and updates, and excuses for bug fixes that basically come down to "someone else's problem was more important first". And let's not forget the overall stabilizing ingredient of FUD into the equation that begins and ends with "How can you complain about the best software the world has to offer? Our market penetration is proof it doesn't get any better".
I think what Linux really need is more "Kernel Panic" and "Failed to connect to DBUS" errors at random in order to make people more grateful that the software runs at all. Also, the 1 year anticipation of critical bug fixes and security patches get people very excited. Linux takes all that away, too often bugs are fixed before I even have time to finish filling out a good bug report. And security patches that are delivered the same day as news of the vulnerability kills all the thrill of waiting and hoping I don't loose everything on my hard drive.
I think we need to learn from Microsoft about QC. Its more then building software that is "useful" or "productive", it is about making software that makes people feel good about using it. That's all I am trying to say.
Interesting perspective on history. But if many people think this is the way that it happened, no wonder we are in the mess we are in today, IMHO.
Survival has always been about advantage. Even in interspecies interaction, the winner most always the one that knows something the other does not. Where food is, where predators are not, deceptions in numbers, camouflage, and other things. Ultimately, nature and human history have shown that knowledge is power. Further, in competition, it is about having more power, even if by simply ensuring less knowledge by potential adversaries.
It may not have been called copyright in the century leading up to the Statute of Anne, but the control over the flow of information, and special armies to protect such information from falling into the "wrong hands" has been around as long as there has been written language. In some places, there were even were secret spoken languages meant only for the elite that were forbidden to be learned by commoners by threat of death. Even Caesar used encryption algorithms to pass secret messages to troops (Still known today as the Caesar shift). Scribes were required to take oaths not to reveal the secrets shared with them, and master texts were bound by shackle to the most trusted members, not in ways necessarily to keep the book from harm, but to keep the text away from unauthorized eyes.
All this is copy protection because every time we see an image or read a text, or see a sound, our brains make a copy... albeit some better than others.
So in many ways, copyright, the protection and control over knowledge came first, and with the birth of creativity and free thinking immediately came with it along side was methods of copy protection.
Wit the invention of the printing press in 1439, copyright was thrown into chaos. The distribution of knowledge was able to fight copyright in new ways never before conceived. Governments quickly responded with copyright police that hunted down book publishers, rounding them up for public hangings and beheading for their crimes to serve as an example of how they would deal with pirates; stealing work from scribes and writers. It was a problem the elite argued would destroy knowledge, creativity, and progress as there would be no longer any motivation for thinkers to think, scientists to study, or writers to write. Well, they were right in part. The scribes guild vanished over a period of time. Knowledge as it was known, held in secret by a powerful few, had been destroyed. But... someone and for some reason people did keep writing books, and all the tales of the end of the world of creativity never quite came about. Some argue it was actually the other way around, that a revolution took place and a generation of thinkers were born, but whose to say what really happened, right? But then came a new battle. The scribes were gone, and book publishing had taken over. People had been enlightened, and there was a new thirst for knowledge, this time in masses, and printed books had been legalized. This time, the control was in the hands of the book publishers. But as the elite scribes had known, power isn't just control, but exclusive power. Book publishers wanted exclusive rights to publish books. The printers guild aka Stationer's Company, were granted exclusive right to print the books, so long as royalties were paid to the Queen. Books were 'bought' by the queen, and she would give the texts to book publishers that would get exclusive printing rights indefinitely. No royalties were ever paid to writers, and writers were banned from self publishing or seeking an independent press. Queen Mary I of Great Britain was the first MPAA / RIAA of its kind. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet
By 1709, Shakespeare had been dead nearly 100 years. The independent publishers fought even harder for a more free copyright law, as opposed to the indefinitely perpetual copyright law in place. Shakespeare is a part of our culture and can not be owned by anyone. Stories are
Note: some clients are designed to prefer downloading the rarest chunk first.
I assumed doing it the right way :) To be a little less cynical, you and your friends can use the latest version of Transmission.
I am not anti government assistance, or even anti taxes. I think most people could use quite a bit of help regarding financial planning including myself, and companies that help their employees with those kinds of things should be rewarded. I just believe that times have changed more than anything with regard to employee abuse. Not to excuse the terrible things that happened, but pre-industrial society is quite harsh, and the transition is worse.
Unions can serve a purpose, but when unions start demanding employers hire union only, they are a modern mob. Allow wages to be competitive, and if enough people are dissatisfied, they can join the union voluntarily, forcing employers to change. It makes for a give-take relationship. I am sure there are good unions out there, but too many I have had experiences with have a "Join or Perish" mentality, all the while raking in huge union dues that do little to serve the employees. Unions should enlighten employers to the ROI of treating employees well.
To keep it short, Ron Paul, and people like him, or those that believe in his vision are not selfish, hate mongering idiots any more so than others, they just see a different means to the same end of a peace loving world... it just happens to be drastically different.
There is also a big difference between anti-taxes, and anti income tax. While some of the best rhetoric revolves around the idea we are slaves and our money is not our own, that tends to come from the idea that there is poor accountability and that the system is very corrupt. The same goes for unions and their dues.
Why not just upload the torrent and get your friends to download it the same way. With the way bit torrent works, all your friends (or anyone else for that matter) will become seeders in no time if they just stay connected. Also, if you post the torrent here, I am sure there are a fair number of /.ers willing to seed it. Also, if by any stretch of the imagination you don't know about it already, Pick out the CC License of your choice and at the end there are many sites listed that will host CC Licensed work for free, including the internet archive. Found some interesting info at Zimibo.com too.
Wow, how the ideals of the welfare state have saturated this country. The idea of a person taking financial responsibility for a future where they may not want to work till they die is a troll? Or is it just an accepted truth that the average person is so incompetent that workers need to pay unions/government to harass our employers to take money out of our pay checks so we can't squander it before we are too old to work without paying a penalty. I'm sorry, but I am not paying someone else to handle my investments and not going to cry to the government/boss/union/anyone when I knowingly spent all my money on beer/cigarettes/pizza/computer games/vacations to Europe instead of considering my wife and family another 30/40/50 years from now.
It is, in fact, why our founding fathers devised checks and balances; spreading out the power between three branches limits the degree to which it can be abused.
Ah, those must have been the days. Wish we still had something like that now.
The only things in a code which the electrical engineer wouldn't be able to work out are things put there arbitrarily by state officials.
Well, sounds like it all comes down to whether or not there was a permit involved. While there are a lot of BS rules out there, Underwriters Laboratories does a lot to ensure that peoples homes are safely protected against scams that can put you or your family at risk? If you had some massive server in your house, you may buy the cheaper UPS, but there is no way in hell you would buy a non-UL approved UPS. Further, recent article talking about California copyrighting its laws, it is because many times they come from standards boards whose jobs are to know what is safe and what is not. That has nothing to do with unions.
More to the point, say the engineer does a decent job, but doesn't get the permit, and decides to do it a "better way" than what the code says is right. They sell the house, and you buy it. Well, it turns out that there was a reason you weren't supposed to do it the "better way". Some accident causes unlikely circumstances that causes the electrical to burn the house down. While there may always be a risk of that in some way when it is to code, doesn't fix things when Fire Department writes it off as "Illegal Electrical Wiring" to which your insurance company responds "Illegal = not covered by policy". Oops.
However, the codes are not difficult to follow, and it keeps insurance rates down when they don't have to be liable for damage caused by illegal / dangerous work. Now, if your friend the 20 year electrical engineer is willing to do it right with the paper work and everything, not to mention allow some shit-brain building inspector criticize off his work, go for it.
Do we really need a new lot of self-important busybodies to protect us from another?
Unfortunately, we do, to an extent. The problems we face today is the influence of money within that process. Let me just say that Snake Oil products have gotten a lot more attention since Electricity was introduced. Underwriter Laboratories aren't a bad bunch. They do good, solid scientific work, then sell it to the government to make it the law. Sounds like a pretty decent process to me, even if it can seem to move slow at times when you want to do everything "your way".
You loose. Wal-Mart already beat you to it.
Well, now that the 4th amendment has been repealed, they could say the charges against you are copyright by the police and not allow you in the court room at your trial for fear that you will pirate them otherwise. How about that?
Good work here. I am going to save of a copy of this for reference. However, you never gave a final opinion, sort of, even if it wasn't the scope of your introductory statement. But what you have written leads me to believe that California can technically claim copyright for a variety of reasons (especially if they paid a contractor to compile the work), and even if it isn't too derivitive, the cases cited lead me to believe that The state will have a valid case against Carl Malamud, and subsequently loose. For once, I wish this was a conspiracy between the state and Carl for copyright reform.
AND
They broke the law. Covenants of a Home Owners Association falls under full disclosure which while still copyrightable must be shared with any prospective home buyer.
Perhaps the most significant disclosures, however, concern the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions on the property, commonly called the CC&Rs. These, plus a full disclosure of Homeowners Association (HOA) membership requirements for the property, can make or break a sale if the restrictions and requirements are not in accord with a buyer's approval.
and for a bit of clarity...
[ghost sightings are] about the only report about the house that [is] spared in these days of full disclosure.
This article was an interesting read. btw, sorry you got screwed. Full disclosure records vital for homeowner, prospective buyers. Here, they must give anyone a copy of the information that requests it, but because it is still under copyright, that just means you can't make copies of it and give it to others. You could still give / show someone the original.
Ok, I can't help saying it only because I know otherwise someone else will. You should sue the CRAP out of them... and their money. Let us know.
I wish we still had that fourth amendment. really sounded like a good theory when we had to study it in school.
Slippery slope. Next thing you will be saying is that they should do that with software, then we will be just like the rest of the world. How will we continue to distinguish ourselves? What next, Open Education Standards? BAH! /sarcasm
Other way around. If a corporation were to do a study and propose a law paid for with tax dollars, the proposed law and the law that passed are public domain, however, the copyright for the study could be held on behalf of the corporation.
I identify as poly, but have been too scared to really tell many people. My family doesn't know, a few close friends heard me talking a lot about it about two years ago, and since then I've not mentioned it to anyone.
"Hi, I am hetrosexual and I only want to be in a relationship with one person at a time, and the lord is my savior". Can I assume not a lot of people go around saying that kind of thing? For the most part how you love and who you love is your own personal business. There is no reason to come out of a closet if you have never been in one. If, per chance, you have close friends you trust, and you have pretended or lied about who you are for a long time, then there may be reason to "clear the air". My advice would be not to bring it up unless you have a reason, and if you don't feel comfortable talking about something in particular, don't. May leave people wondering, but you won't be lying.
I've been single since then and intentionally not looking because I have this belief that what I want is wrong in this society and that even if I did manage to find anyone who would "put up with" me being poly, they wouldn't be happy in that situation. The other possibility is that they'd be poly themselves, but that would require me to have some way of finding other poly people without outing myself first.
Well, here is the best part. There are more people like you than you think. Date, and see where things go. most first date conversations often revolve around past relationships or other dating experiences. Also, casual dating is fun. Without jumping straight into "I want to see other people" on the first date, let it be known that you have many friends, male and female, that you are very close to in whatever way the truth applies. I am under the impression most women appreciate knowing that you have your own life. Most women want to date a person, not an empty shell. If your date is not comfortable with the idea of you having close female friends, take that as the first sign this probably isn't your sole mate or soul mate.
;)
Don't settle for someone willing to "put up with" poly. As with seeking any relationship, make friends and see where things go. Allow the relationship to develop as you discover how much you two seek the same goals in like and would be compatible to work together on those goals. If you allow time or labels to lead your relationship, it is very unlikely to work out, no matter what you seek. I would bet it would not be long before you meet someone hoping to come out of the closet too, and poly double dates are the best! (Just make sure your friends date is enjoying themselves as much as you are
And then, how would I explain it to my parents, coworkers and friends if they found out?
Well, things usually "come up" when there are questions, usually revolving around whether or not you or your partner knows what the other is doing. To the normals out there, when questions come up regarding things my wife is off doing with someone, it is most always a response revolving around the theme of "They are close / friends" or "I know, he/she is really cool / I trust him/her", "I hope she is having a good time" or the brain-twister for the ever inquisitive, "I have my own relationship with my wife with which I am very happy and satisfied / I am busy with xyz and can't be bothered at the moment, why should I be the one to stop her from having some fun?". Much more than that is rarely necessary. Much more is usually because you have captured the persons interest.
When my now wife and I started living together, it was in a big house with a lot of people. One of my best memories was when we were having a movie night. Parking lot filled with couches, and a big screen draped over the back of the house. My wife went on a date (very casual) as she was in more of a mood to club than watch the movies we had planned. I met a neighbor that came over, and through the cour
Hmm... Sorry, don't know why it posted anonymously.
But forming a steady relationship with more than one person? I honestly can't see the appeal.
and I completely understand. One thing that may give some insight is that the relationships between different are never exactly the same, concurrent or otherwise. The important thing is that there are many people, even if a few (like more than linux and mac users combined, few) that are very torn up inside and feel broken because they love multiple people, and want multiple steady relationships, but think they have to pick one person to love or share a part of their lives with to be seen as normal. I have known just as many people to say that the reason they aren't gay is because their parents wouldn't approve, and the same goes for poly. Sometimes issues are really divided between normal for one person that makes them happy, and normal that is oppressive and hurtful. Neither are wrong, just incompatible. Most important thing in any relationship? Honest and open communication, from worst fears to greatest fantasies. Just be where you are for the right reasons.
Ok, before this gets too out of hand, don't be a victim of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. All women love great dick. ALL of them. The difference is that men are more easily satisfied by ANYTHING with a hole in it, while women actually have to hunt something out. Women not only love to fuck more than men, they do it a lot more too. There is just a large subset of men that wish they could get a women to even touch their dick and can't. Why is it hard for some to find a good woman? They are all out getting laid. ESPECIALLY the hot nerdy chicks. Blizzard-style is just like doggy-style, except there is a laptop on her back and another on the floor. Hurray for technology (I have a 'close' friend who has sworn on her life never to be mono again, and this is her favorite position. I love nerds.)
A predisposition for involuntary celibacy is a predictor for monogomy.
I believed that strongly, and still do to a point. In my observation, the reasons people are mono are very unnatural and usually have more to do with immaturity and self image. Most people have a very hard time becoming comfortable enough with themselves to even be with one person at a time, let alone manage multiple deeply intimate relationships. But this study shows some people are just born that way and can't help it.