I've read each of the first four books eleven times.
I've only read the fifth book in the series three times. Didn't much care for the way it ended.
In a way, I'd love to see each of the books presented in movie form. It would be interesting to see how the folk from Krikkit get presented.:) I've managed to envision something like Little Twelve-Toes from "School House Rock".
The portrayal of the Golgafrinchams would be easy: Average Americans. On the whole, we're a bit overweight, which fits the appearance of 'em quite well.
(I'm marginally alarmed that I remembered "Golgafrincham", considering it has been about eight years since I read the books. It's time to read through them again.)
There has been an idea to use this sort of technology for a while- Circumnav Networks aims to allow cars to share information on traffic patterns and such, so that the driver can determine the quickest route to his (or her) destination.
Their website is a little sketchy, but from what I hear, it looks cool.
For five years, I worked in the QA lab of a company which is no more (one of its co-founders went on to become governor).
I remember one or two occasions when "tweaking" occured for a test, and I would not be terribly surprised if there were more instances.
I wasn't especially impressed that the Powers-That-Be felt the need to do that, since I felt that the product(s) should stand (or fall) on their own merits. I asked about the fairness of the practice, and I was told "The other guys are going to do it. If we don't we won't look good against them."
I still wasn't thrilled at the prospect, but from that point, I judged the product by its performance when I had it in my posession (preferably on a trial basis).
I've managed the TV usage to certain programs and certain times of the day. I don't want the idito box on otherwise.
When I was a kid, I spent more time out of doors than in. I'd like my kids to do the same. The problem is that these days, it's not as safe (if it ever was safe, anyway) for them.
I'm moving soon, to a place with a back yard (we don't have one where we are now). There, I won't have to worry about the kids stumbling onto needles discarded in the grass, or drug deals going on in the parking lot.
Yeah, we'll have cable, but the kids WILL be spending time outdoors playing.
BSA doesn't take action on piracy reports of software that isn't members software.
Although this was not immediately clear from their website, I think you make a good point.
I've often wondered how the BSA could possibly offer licenses to companies that were found to be "shy" any. I do believe your point explains that quite well: The BSA can offer to sell licenses to violators because the BSA's member company is quite able to provide them.
I still think the BSA borders on extortion, though. 8\
...Or some guy just liked using his cracked copy of SF, and brought it into work to use.
I don't know exactly how the law is worded (perhaps this is better talked about on GrokLaw), but if the pirate copy is on a Corporate computer, then Microsoft is still responsible. Most of the companies I have worked for have had rules about installing personal software on company-owned computers for this very reason.
I think what will actually happen is this: MS will look into it, verify it, figure out who did it, and if he's not gone already, they'll can his butt. In the next release of the WinMediaPlayer, they'll have the files fixed, in one way or another.
This isn't MS being hypocrites, it is an employee breaking company policy and bringing in outside sofware.
Precisely. Scratch one employee at Microsoft. Look for the opening in their job postings soon.
If they're at all consistent with past actions, they would probably stifle any attempts by the BSA to do any serious investigations. In all fairness, though, that's pure conjecture.
pro-war and pro-Bush seem to have a hard time admitting that they may be wrong
People that know me know that I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. On subjects like Iraq, nobody has been able to present evidence that I am, in fact, wrong. All I have seen the anti-war people present as "evidence" has been biased, partial, or subjective.
Why is it that even though the whole planet disagrees with the US that the US HAVE TO BE RIGHT???
China is (with the probable exception on India) the most populous nation on Earth. A major staple in the diet of the Chinese people is rice. Does that mean that the rest of the world should make rice their major staple? No.
See, from my perspective, most of the nations that disagree with the United States about Iraq do so because it interferes with policies and/or business dealings of their own. As an example, both France and Russia have been outspoken opponents of America's action in Iraq. Russian materiel has been found in bunkers in the Iraqi desert. French companies, it turns out, had huge amounts of money invested in the Iraqi oil industry that they would likely lose as a result of the Allied invasion. These are just two of many things that have come to light.
I can understand how the public here doesn't understand basics in world politics.
Yeah, I can see that, too. That's why I don't limit my news sources to American media.
In fact, as soon as I get a chance, I'm getting out of this country.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Au revoir... Bon chance!
It claims to have the most freedoms ever, but when you look closely, it's not quite true. At least not anymore.
Freedom comes at a price. People tend to forget that over time. When that freedom is threatened, steps must be taken to protect it. The thing that makes protecting those freedoms so challenging today is that the political climate is such that one cannot do "racial profiling" to hunt for the people that are trying to terrorize the people. Racial profiling, in and of itself is a Bad Thing, but because we cannot just stop anyone that looks Arab and question them, these people have an easy time moving about, once they get in to the country.
See, you may have noticed that Americans don't carry "papers", as people in other countries might. racial profiling would mean that people that are just "ordinary Americans" could be stopped, harrassed by the police (or worse, another citizen). That infringes on that citizen's right to move about the country freely, as is their right. What is the solution to that?
Germany, the UK and Switzerland offer more freedom to individuals than the US.
I haven't been to any of these three nations, but I know a couple of examples that blow holes in your theory. In England, it is illegal to carry firearms. It was not long ago that someone got a gun, went to a school in the UK, and started shooting people (as I recall, teachers and children). A big stink was made about how that event just proved that people shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons. Here in the US, we have the right to carry weapons. Sure, we have problems of the occasional gun violence in schools, but considering the availability of guns here, I think that the level of incidence is pretty low. In Germany, it is illegal to even talk about the Nazis. (Germans are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong...) As I understand it, it is illegal there to even play Castle Wolfenstein, where Nazis are the enemy, being killed-off by the game player. In the United States, we can play anything we want. There is software out there where one is encouraged to beat-up on sitting presidents, blow things up, kill people, and even learn to fly airplanes into realistic cities. I don't know much of anything about Switzerland. Sorry.
So suck that pride of yours, look at facts presented from another side and try and be just a bit critical of your own o
you evidently didn't read about the fact that Bush has limited access to his website to people in the US only..
....and you evidently missed the discussion that followed in that thread, where people that (I presume) know more about the technology involved than I do suggested that it is cheaper to guarantee access to a site on one continent than it is wordwide, and that this fact may have been a factor. It serves no political benefit to limit the reach of one's message. Finances, when one considers the last weeks going into a hotly-contested political campaign, are are another matter.
Does he have anything to hide? Like the blatant truth maybe?
You've GOT to be kidding. A political website (especially one geared up for a campaign) is most definitely out to make the candidate look as good as possible. This fact is most evident in Kerry's website, where vital facts relevant to Kerry's military record were missing. Kerry said that he was so proud of his service now, 30 years after he accused American servicemen in Vietnam of being nothing shy of war criminals. What does he have to hide?
we shouldn't be there in the first place!
Strictly opinion. I believe that we should be there. I know several people that are in Baghdad now, and they agree. Where is your perspective coming from? Safely on American soil, never to fear striding Iraqi land, searching for terrorist factions?
Why can't Americans just take the facts and analyze them without the comments from politicians which are obviously biaised?
Why, indeed. I manage. It just pisses me off when complete gits think that it is impossible to look at the facts and arrive at a different opinion than they do. People may not agree with me, and that's fine. Anti-war folk seem to have a real hard time accepting the possibility that they might actually be wrong.
And to all of you out there saying, "Boo hoo, Kerry lost. Get over it." How is it that Democracy in America is being hijacked, and you don't seem to give a shit?
(1) I do give a shit, (2) I do not think that Democracy in America is being hijacked. The only people that seem to be screaming about any hijacking are the left-wing Kerry supporters. I think that if anything, the Democrat Party may be being hijacked. Think about that, and what it means for America if they can pull it off.
I have abolutely no problem putting my life on the line for the American citizen's right to speak their mind. Kerry wants you to think that he stands for that, but he doesn't. I doubt he ever has. Would you do the same thing, even if it means my right to speak my mind grinds your teeth like fingernails across a chalkboard? If you're serious about what you said, I doubt it.
You do a lot of name calling, but when the shit hits the fan you show your true natures.
Yeah... About that. Let's talk about "true colors". I noticed that in the weeks before the election, there were a lot of problems where Bush's campaign offices were getting stormed by Kerry supporters, and Bush's campaign offices were getting looted... No problems with Kerry's offices. I wonder why? Maybe because at the heart of the matter, people that have no problem breaking the law, simply because it is being done against someone they consider "evil", tend to support Kerry?
That's all we need... Fuel for the Gore lemmings and Kerry fanatics (oh, those poor, depressed souls!) to complain for the next four years about Bush stealing the election again.
Let the conspiracy theories commence.
Crap like this comes out, and people on Slashdot wonder why I think switching to something like IRV, at least until we get the modernization glitches worked out of our system now, is nothing shy of completely stupid.
The problem is that there is no easy solution. Let's run through some of the alternatives to fossil fuel:
Solution: Nuclear power plants
Problem: Nobody wants to have one anywhere near them, and there's the problem of the waste...
Solution: Wind turbines
Problem: birds get killed around them because they don't recognize the danger. The result is that this is one of the least favorite possibilities of the animal lovers. If the wind turbines are placed off the coast, then people complain that the warning lights on the turbines ruin the view of the ocean at night.
Solution: Wave power generators
Problem: Many environmentalists insist that this method of power generation is a hazard to marine animals. This option also gets complaints about any warning lights.
Solution: Space stations collecting solar power (or even nuclear power), which is then transmitted to Earth-bound distribution stations.
Problem: Some are afraid that the microwaves involved will cook them, if the beams were aimed wrong.
Obviously, this is not a complete list, nor does it provide all of the arguments against the alternative.
There are many more ideas that would help to alleviate the need for oil (foreign and domestic), but for each one, there are many who scream "NIMBY!" out of fear, paranoia, or just because they think that the initial costs would be prohibitive.
In order to be able to actually do something, though, we'll have to take the risk of offending someone. Everything has its price.
I couldn't disagree more. The fact that we're American means we SHOULD discuss this.
Please don't misunderstand me. I did not mean that we shouldn't discuss this. I think discussing this is a great idea, because it means we can discover what may have gone wrong, and work to fix those problems.
My point was that I didn't think it would be right for the losing side to whine about the loss, like Gore and his supporters did. (I'm sick of seeing stupid things like stickers and posters saying, "Let's not elect Bush this time, either", and other such indicators of a sore loser.)
I also think it would be wrong for the winning side to gloat about the victory. Sure, being proud of Bush's victory is okay, but we needn't get cocky about it.
When all is said and done, President Bush still represents the American people. That means the Kerry supporters, as well as the Bush supporters. With that in mind, we cannot allow ourselves to remain diametrically opposed. We need to understand that not everyone is going to agree, but we can still work together to get things done.
Senator Kerry is still a senator. Although he did not win the presidency, he still has the opportunity to convince his peers in the Senate to consider and/or support things that he would have liked to see come across his desk, had he won the Oval Office. He owes it to the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to suck it up, go back to Washington, and do the best job he can do as our senator. (I'm a resident of Massachusetts, you see.)
How the hell can anything be fairly voted on when 22% of the counties effectively control 50% of the vote.
This pretty-much explains why the Electoral college is so important.
Without it, a handful of states would control the elections, based on population alone. (California, Texas, Florida, Ohio, and New York come to mind.) Because of the EC, the combined population of a few states don't (necessarily) out-vote the population of the rest of the country.
I realize that I'm comparing apples with oranges, but the idea is this: there are a few counties in California that have a deciding influence on the results of elections there. By the same token, California (as a state) COULD have a deciding influence over presidential elections, were it not for the EC.
For an example: California has 55 electoral votes. This is the same as the combined electoral votes of the six New England states (ME, NH, VT, CT, RI and MA) and Pennsylvania. The combined population of those seven states is 26,486,610 (based on 2003 estimates), compared with California's 35,484,453. This looks to me like the EC helps to even-out the pull a state has over others. If we went by population, one populous state would be able to have a greater numerical pull than it does now.
The Kerry supporters (and, by proxy, the Gore supporters from 2000) should agree not to whine for the next four years. It's okay not to be happy about the result, but one can voice one's displeasure without whining.
The Bush supporters should agree not to gloat. Yes, we won, but the margin was still pretty close. Fortunately, it was a little more decisive that the 2000 elections.
Through it all, we're still Americans. (Well... The American readers, anyway.) The system of electing our president for the next four years worked like it should. That is something that both sides can be proud of.
For the "foreigners" readng this post: This is how American politics goes sometimes. There are winners, there are losers. If you don't like the way our elections turned out (based on the posts I've seen in the recent past, I think that's an understatement), too bad. I'm not going to apologize to anyone about the way our system works. The American people chose who their president would be for the next four years, and that's that.
No claim was made regarding whether or not it was substantial legislation; I would say there a few there that are pretty substantial, the rest aren't that great, but my point was that the parent was incorrect in stating that Kerry had not passed any bills that he authored.
Please allow me to correct my original statement, to make it more specific: Kerry has had practically nothing of substance come out of Congress with his name attached to it. By this, I mean that if one disregards relatively things like bills to rename federal buildings, there are what? only a couple things that might be argued to be substantial, but that's open to discussion. I didn't see much of anything listed on the site you referred to that affected the average American.
There's so much of that crap that goes on by both sides it's disgusting.
You are exactly right.
Like the RNC ads that claim Kerry voted to raise taxes so many times. Half of those are amendment votes to the same bill, or procedural votes related to the bills. A good number of them were votes against bills lowering taxes (which is not a vote to raise taxes).
Gotta love Spin Doctors. I've seen cases where Democrats wanted to raise funding for Social Security N% and the Republicans wanted to raise it by P%. Because N% > P%, the Democrats went off on a tirade, proclaiming that the Republicans wanted to cut Social Security by the difference, which is a flat-out lie, because the proposed increases were only proposed, not real. Senior Citizens fell for the gag, and the Republican that was running for Congress that term lost the bid to keep his seat. This crap happens all the time.
It's perfectly legal to lie in political ads, but if you lie to us about a cheeseburger, we'll sue you and make sure you stop. Which is more important, and why is one protected and the other not?
You'll never see a politician argue for something like Truth In Advertising for political adverts because all of them twist the truth in their ads. You've given a good example of what the RNC does. Kerry and the DNC, to give an example on the other side of the fence, is blaming President Bush for missing explosives that may have been moved before U.S. forces went into Iraq. There isn't any conclusive proof either way (at this writing), but that doesn't stop Kerry from proclaiming his version of the story as if it were the gospel truth.
You missed the part where anyone can draft legislation, but it takes a member of congress to support it and bring it to committee.
I'll give you this, but I think my point still stands, since if a bill were initiated by the sitting president, there's no guarantee that it would make it out of committee, or even through Congress. The brunt of my point is that just because the president wants to see something to come across his desk, there's nothing that says that it has to.
He could of introduced plenty of bills supporting his current election platform as a senator, why didn't he? What makes you think he'll do it now if elected president? Just asking.
That's a good question. I've heard it said that there's practically nothing that made it out of the Senate with John Kerry's name attached to it. Nothing.
The President of the United States, by design, cannot initiate any bills. He can tell Congress what he would like to see, but that's no guarantee that he'll see it, or that he'll get it.
People running for the highest office of the land have often stumped, claiming that they would do such-n-such a thing, and people accept it as if it were a done deal. Why is that?
Senator Kerry has had twenty years to get bills out to the president, and he has not. It's not because he can't get his point across-- we've seen from the presidential debates that John Kerry is a very able speaker. I think the problem is that he doesn't care about anyone but himself, and he is therefore not motivated to do much, unless it will make himself look better.
If John Kerry will not do anything useful for anyone else while he's in a position to convince his peers to agree on bills to send to the president, why should we believe that he'll take an active roll for the American people as president? We can't, and history proves that we would be gravely mistaken if we did.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read each of the first four books eleven times.
:) I've managed to envision something like Little Twelve-Toes from "School House Rock".
I've only read the fifth book in the series three times. Didn't much care for the way it ended.
In a way, I'd love to see each of the books presented in movie form. It would be interesting to see how the folk from Krikkit get presented.
The portrayal of the Golgafrinchams would be easy: Average Americans. On the whole, we're a bit overweight, which fits the appearance of 'em quite well.
(I'm marginally alarmed that I remembered "Golgafrincham", considering it has been about eight years since I read the books. It's time to read through them again.)
I know one person (my boss) who has a firewall running on localhost.
Paranoid? Just because you are, it doesn't mean that they aren't after you.
There has been an idea to use this sort of technology for a while- Circumnav Networks aims to allow cars to share information on traffic patterns and such, so that the driver can determine the quickest route to his (or her) destination.
Their website is a little sketchy, but from what I hear, it looks cool.
I've seen this happen myself...
For five years, I worked in the QA lab of a company which is no more (one of its co-founders went on to become governor).
I remember one or two occasions when "tweaking" occured for a test, and I would not be terribly surprised if there were more instances.
I wasn't especially impressed that the Powers-That-Be felt the need to do that, since I felt that the product(s) should stand (or fall) on their own merits. I asked about the fairness of the practice, and I was told "The other guys are going to do it. If we don't we won't look good against them."
I still wasn't thrilled at the prospect, but from that point, I judged the product by its performance when I had it in my posession (preferably on a trial basis).
You're not just whistling Dixie, friend.
I've managed the TV usage to certain programs and certain times of the day. I don't want the idito box on otherwise.
When I was a kid, I spent more time out of doors than in. I'd like my kids to do the same. The problem is that these days, it's not as safe (if it ever was safe, anyway) for them.
I'm moving soon, to a place with a back yard (we don't have one where we are now). There, I won't have to worry about the kids stumbling onto needles discarded in the grass, or drug deals going on in the parking lot.
Yeah, we'll have cable, but the kids WILL be spending time outdoors playing.
The two solutions are:
--- Get rid of the TV. I don't see this one as very realistic, since the kids would completely freak out.
--- Stick to watching VHS and DVD shows. This is more likely, since I don't watch much "regular TV" anyway.
Leave it to the Marketing Union (if there is such a thing) to fsck things up. It's always got to be about the all-mighty dollar, doesn't it?
BSA doesn't take action on piracy reports of software that isn't members software.
Although this was not immediately clear from their website, I think you make a good point.
I've often wondered how the BSA could possibly offer licenses to companies that were found to be "shy" any. I do believe your point explains that quite well: The BSA can offer to sell licenses to violators because the BSA's member company is quite able to provide them.
I still think the BSA borders on extortion, though. 8\
...Or some guy just liked using his cracked copy of SF, and brought it into work to use.
I don't know exactly how the law is worded (perhaps this is better talked about on GrokLaw), but if the pirate copy is on a Corporate computer, then Microsoft is still responsible. Most of the companies I have worked for have had rules about installing personal software on company-owned computers for this very reason.
I think what will actually happen is this: MS will look into it, verify it, figure out who did it, and if he's not gone already, they'll can his butt. In the next release of the WinMediaPlayer, they'll have the files fixed, in one way or another.
This isn't MS being hypocrites, it is an employee breaking company policy and bringing in outside sofware.
Precisely. Scratch one employee at Microsoft. Look for the opening in their job postings soon.
when does the well of microsoft garbage end?
:)
Apparently, the concept of a "bottomless pit" is new to you...
Where is the BSA when you need them?
Good question, but don't hold your breath-- Microsoft is a member of the BSA...
If they're at all consistent with past actions, they would probably stifle any attempts by the BSA to do any serious investigations. In all fairness, though, that's pure conjecture.
How can he say FF is not a threat if he hasn't even downloaded and installed it?
;)
It came to him in a dream. That's the only logical explanation.
It's that, or SCO told him all he needed to know about it.
pro-war and pro-Bush seem to have a hard time admitting that they may be wrong
People that know me know that I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. On subjects like Iraq, nobody has been able to present evidence that I am, in fact, wrong. All I have seen the anti-war people present as "evidence" has been biased, partial, or subjective.
Why is it that even though the whole planet disagrees with the US that the US HAVE TO BE RIGHT???
China is (with the probable exception on India) the most populous nation on Earth. A major staple in the diet of the Chinese people is rice. Does that mean that the rest of the world should make rice their major staple? No.
See, from my perspective, most of the nations that disagree with the United States about Iraq do so because it interferes with policies and/or business dealings of their own. As an example, both France and Russia have been outspoken opponents of America's action in Iraq. Russian materiel has been found in bunkers in the Iraqi desert. French companies, it turns out, had huge amounts of money invested in the Iraqi oil industry that they would likely lose as a result of the Allied invasion. These are just two of many things that have come to light.
I can understand how the public here doesn't understand basics in world politics.
Yeah, I can see that, too. That's why I don't limit my news sources to American media.
In fact, as soon as I get a chance, I'm getting out of this country.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Au revoir... Bon chance!
It claims to have the most freedoms ever, but when you look closely, it's not quite true. At least not anymore.
Freedom comes at a price. People tend to forget that over time. When that freedom is threatened, steps must be taken to protect it. The thing that makes protecting those freedoms so challenging today is that the political climate is such that one cannot do "racial profiling" to hunt for the people that are trying to terrorize the people. Racial profiling, in and of itself is a Bad Thing, but because we cannot just stop anyone that looks Arab and question them, these people have an easy time moving about, once they get in to the country.
See, you may have noticed that Americans don't carry "papers", as people in other countries might. racial profiling would mean that people that are just "ordinary Americans" could be stopped, harrassed by the police (or worse, another citizen). That infringes on that citizen's right to move about the country freely, as is their right. What is the solution to that?
Germany, the UK and Switzerland offer more freedom to individuals than the US.
I haven't been to any of these three nations, but I know a couple of examples that blow holes in your theory. In England, it is illegal to carry firearms. It was not long ago that someone got a gun, went to a school in the UK, and started shooting people (as I recall, teachers and children). A big stink was made about how that event just proved that people shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons. Here in the US, we have the right to carry weapons. Sure, we have problems of the occasional gun violence in schools, but considering the availability of guns here, I think that the level of incidence is pretty low. In Germany, it is illegal to even talk about the Nazis. (Germans are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong...) As I understand it, it is illegal there to even play Castle Wolfenstein, where Nazis are the enemy, being killed-off by the game player. In the United States, we can play anything we want. There is software out there where one is encouraged to beat-up on sitting presidents, blow things up, kill people, and even learn to fly airplanes into realistic cities. I don't know much of anything about Switzerland. Sorry.
So suck that pride of yours, look at facts presented from another side and try and be just a bit critical of your own o
you evidently didn't read about the fact that Bush has limited access to his website to people in the US only..
....and you evidently missed the discussion that followed in that thread, where people that (I presume) know more about the technology involved than I do suggested that it is cheaper to guarantee access to a site on one continent than it is wordwide, and that this fact may have been a factor. It serves no political benefit to limit the reach of one's message. Finances, when one considers the last weeks going into a hotly-contested political campaign, are are another matter.
Does he have anything to hide? Like the blatant truth maybe?
You've GOT to be kidding. A political website (especially one geared up for a campaign) is most definitely out to make the candidate look as good as possible. This fact is most evident in Kerry's website, where vital facts relevant to Kerry's military record were missing. Kerry said that he was so proud of his service now, 30 years after he accused American servicemen in Vietnam of being nothing shy of war criminals. What does he have to hide?
we shouldn't be there in the first place!
Strictly opinion. I believe that we should be there. I know several people that are in Baghdad now, and they agree. Where is your perspective coming from? Safely on American soil, never to fear striding Iraqi land, searching for terrorist factions?
Why can't Americans just take the facts and analyze them without the comments from politicians which are obviously biaised?
Why, indeed. I manage. It just pisses me off when complete gits think that it is impossible to look at the facts and arrive at a different opinion than they do. People may not agree with me, and that's fine. Anti-war folk seem to have a real hard time accepting the possibility that they might actually be wrong.
And to all of you out there saying, "Boo hoo, Kerry lost. Get over it." How is it that Democracy in America is being hijacked, and you don't seem to give a shit?
(1) I do give a shit, (2) I do not think that Democracy in America is being hijacked. The only people that seem to be screaming about any hijacking are the left-wing Kerry supporters. I think that if anything, the Democrat Party may be being hijacked. Think about that, and what it means for America if they can pull it off.
I have abolutely no problem putting my life on the line for the American citizen's right to speak their mind. Kerry wants you to think that he stands for that, but he doesn't. I doubt he ever has. Would you do the same thing, even if it means my right to speak my mind grinds your teeth like fingernails across a chalkboard? If you're serious about what you said, I doubt it.
You do a lot of name calling, but when the shit hits the fan you show your true natures.
Yeah... About that. Let's talk about "true colors". I noticed that in the weeks before the election, there were a lot of problems where Bush's campaign offices were getting stormed by Kerry supporters, and Bush's campaign offices were getting looted... No problems with Kerry's offices. I wonder why? Maybe because at the heart of the matter, people that have no problem breaking the law, simply because it is being done against someone they consider "evil", tend to support Kerry?
That's all we need... Fuel for the Gore lemmings and Kerry fanatics (oh, those poor, depressed souls!) to complain for the next four years about Bush stealing the election again.
Let the conspiracy theories commence.
Crap like this comes out, and people on Slashdot wonder why I think switching to something like IRV, at least until we get the modernization glitches worked out of our system now, is nothing shy of completely stupid.
Problem: Nobody wants to have one anywhere near them, and there's the problem of the waste...
Problem: birds get killed around them because they don't recognize the danger. The result is that this is one of the least favorite possibilities of the animal lovers. If the wind turbines are placed off the coast, then people complain that the warning lights on the turbines ruin the view of the ocean at night.
Problem: Many environmentalists insist that this method of power generation is a hazard to marine animals. This option also gets complaints about any warning lights.
Problem: Some are afraid that the microwaves involved will cook them, if the beams were aimed wrong.
Obviously, this is not a complete list, nor does it provide all of the arguments against the alternative.
There are many more ideas that would help to alleviate the need for oil (foreign and domestic), but for each one, there are many who scream "NIMBY!" out of fear, paranoia, or just because they think that the initial costs would be prohibitive.
In order to be able to actually do something, though, we'll have to take the risk of offending someone. Everything has its price.
Yeah, I know... I was just kinda hoping that I wouldn't have to listen to the whining.
On the other hand, I live and work in Massachusetts, so the whining and complaining is pretty-well guaranteed. <sigh>
I couldn't disagree more. The fact that we're American means we SHOULD discuss this.
Please don't misunderstand me. I did not mean that we shouldn't discuss this. I think discussing this is a great idea, because it means we can discover what may have gone wrong, and work to fix those problems.
My point was that I didn't think it would be right for the losing side to whine about the loss, like Gore and his supporters did. (I'm sick of seeing stupid things like stickers and posters saying, "Let's not elect Bush this time, either", and other such indicators of a sore loser.)
I also think it would be wrong for the winning side to gloat about the victory. Sure, being proud of Bush's victory is okay, but we needn't get cocky about it.
When all is said and done, President Bush still represents the American people. That means the Kerry supporters, as well as the Bush supporters. With that in mind, we cannot allow ourselves to remain diametrically opposed. We need to understand that not everyone is going to agree, but we can still work together to get things done.
Senator Kerry is still a senator. Although he did not win the presidency, he still has the opportunity to convince his peers in the Senate to consider and/or support things that he would have liked to see come across his desk, had he won the Oval Office. He owes it to the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to suck it up, go back to Washington, and do the best job he can do as our senator. (I'm a resident of Massachusetts, you see.)
For John Kerry, there's always next time.
How the hell can anything be fairly voted on when 22% of the counties effectively control 50% of the vote.
This pretty-much explains why the Electoral college is so important.
Without it, a handful of states would control the elections, based on population alone. (California, Texas, Florida, Ohio, and New York come to mind.) Because of the EC, the combined population of a few states don't (necessarily) out-vote the population of the rest of the country.
I realize that I'm comparing apples with oranges, but the idea is this: there are a few counties in California that have a deciding influence on the results of elections there. By the same token, California (as a state) COULD have a deciding influence over presidential elections, were it not for the EC.
For an example: California has 55 electoral votes. This is the same as the combined electoral votes of the six New England states (ME, NH, VT, CT, RI and MA) and Pennsylvania. The combined population of those seven states is 26,486,610 (based on 2003 estimates), compared with California's 35,484,453. This looks to me like the EC helps to even-out the pull a state has over others. If we went by population, one populous state would be able to have a greater numerical pull than it does now.
Through it all, we're still Americans. (Well... The American readers, anyway.) The system of electing our president for the next four years worked like it should. That is something that both sides can be proud of.
For the "foreigners" readng this post: This is how American politics goes sometimes. There are winners, there are losers. If you don't like the way our elections turned out (based on the posts I've seen in the recent past, I think that's an understatement), too bad. I'm not going to apologize to anyone about the way our system works. The American people chose who their president would be for the next four years, and that's that.
If Kerry gets the victory, I want to go to Kerry's celebration party. I want his autograph.... ...on a copy of "Unfit for Command". :D
No claim was made regarding whether or not it was substantial legislation; I would say there a few there that are pretty substantial, the rest aren't that great, but my point was that the parent was incorrect in stating that Kerry had not passed any bills that he authored.
Please allow me to correct my original statement, to make it more specific: Kerry has had practically nothing of substance come out of Congress with his name attached to it. By this, I mean that if one disregards relatively things like bills to rename federal buildings, there are what? only a couple things that might be argued to be substantial, but that's open to discussion. I didn't see much of anything listed on the site you referred to that affected the average American.
There's so much of that crap that goes on by both sides it's disgusting.
You are exactly right.
Like the RNC ads that claim Kerry voted to raise taxes so many times. Half of those are amendment votes to the same bill, or procedural votes related to the bills. A good number of them were votes against bills lowering taxes (which is not a vote to raise taxes).
Gotta love Spin Doctors. I've seen cases where Democrats wanted to raise funding for Social Security N% and the Republicans wanted to raise it by P%. Because N% > P%, the Democrats went off on a tirade, proclaiming that the Republicans wanted to cut Social Security by the difference, which is a flat-out lie, because the proposed increases were only proposed, not real. Senior Citizens fell for the gag, and the Republican that was running for Congress that term lost the bid to keep his seat. This crap happens all the time.
It's perfectly legal to lie in political ads, but if you lie to us about a cheeseburger, we'll sue you and make sure you stop. Which is more important, and why is one protected and the other not?
You'll never see a politician argue for something like Truth In Advertising for political adverts because all of them twist the truth in their ads. You've given a good example of what the RNC does. Kerry and the DNC, to give an example on the other side of the fence, is blaming President Bush for missing explosives that may have been moved before U.S. forces went into Iraq. There isn't any conclusive proof either way (at this writing), but that doesn't stop Kerry from proclaiming his version of the story as if it were the gospel truth.
You missed the part where anyone can draft legislation, but it takes a member of congress to support it and bring it to committee.
I'll give you this, but I think my point still stands, since if a bill were initiated by the sitting president, there's no guarantee that it would make it out of committee, or even through Congress. The brunt of my point is that just because the president wants to see something to come across his desk, there's nothing that says that it has to.
He could of introduced plenty of bills supporting his current election platform as a senator, why didn't he? What makes you think he'll do it now if elected president? Just asking.
That's a good question. I've heard it said that there's practically nothing that made it out of the Senate with John Kerry's name attached to it. Nothing.
The President of the United States, by design, cannot initiate any bills. He can tell Congress what he would like to see, but that's no guarantee that he'll see it, or that he'll get it.
People running for the highest office of the land have often stumped, claiming that they would do such-n-such a thing, and people accept it as if it were a done deal. Why is that?
Senator Kerry has had twenty years to get bills out to the president, and he has not. It's not because he can't get his point across-- we've seen from the presidential debates that John Kerry is a very able speaker. I think the problem is that he doesn't care about anyone but himself, and he is therefore not motivated to do much, unless it will make himself look better.
If John Kerry will not do anything useful for anyone else while he's in a position to convince his peers to agree on bills to send to the president, why should we believe that he'll take an active roll for the American people as president? We can't, and history proves that we would be gravely mistaken if we did.
I saw that claim by Edwards.
I'm really surprised that the televangelists didn't cause an uproar because Edwards started treading on their turf...