I dunno. The US never signed Kyoto, and it's just as well. Kyoto is all about harming the American economy while helping other countries' economies. Sorry, but no thanks.
As for this "no militarization of space" treaty, it looks like it is written in regards to the Soviet Union, a major space threat at the time. Since the Soviet Union is gone, wouldn't that make the purpose of the treaty go away, which would make the treaty next to useless?
Then again, I'm from the US, and I really don't care if the US dominates space or not.
Hey. If we broke states into zones, unless it is done by population (ie, 50-60 zones in Chicago alone), then the republicans would win every election from then to the end of time. The fact is that the majority of the geographical US is farmland, and the majority of the population of the US is in some city or another.
There is a large distinction between the needs and wants of rural people and urban people. The rural ones are fairly autonomous, but rely on the government for subsidies and other support type things. They prefer to own their guns, and don't really give too much thought to the poor people that sleep on benches in Grant park. The urbanites, though, don't have much of a clue about what rural life is like. They have a completely different set of needs and wants. Unfortunately, the government has to take care of both of these groups.
Well, from the people I know or have talked to in bars and on the street- I can say that the more intelligent (not necessarily more educated) people all supported Kerry. The less intelligent (but not necessarily less educated) all went for Bush.
If you managed to give these people IQ tests, or some other form of aptitude testing (especially in a bar), then you would have a point.
Take a look at the CNN polls. They give me a silly theory... Bush took the majority of High School -> College grad, with Kerry taking the two opposing ends of the spectrum. My thinking goes as such: Schooling only helps you so much, but is detrimental if you stay for too long. Your mind is young and naive in the beginning, then you become more educated, and then you have the option of leaving or staying. If you leave, you learn in a different environment, and become well-rounded. If you stay, you focus your attention on something very specific, and re-gain your naivity over time. Eventually, you get over-educated to the point where you're the intellectual equivalent of a beginner.
Well, it goes something like that, but should be less biased.;-)
Dead coastal Chicago dwellers vote liberal too. Notice how the tall Chicago building is higher than the actual population of Chicago?
For those who don't get it, Chicago has a history that is rife with the motto: "Vote early, vote often, even if you're dead." It is also the home of the democratic machine.
A vote in Alaska is more valuabe than a vote in New York. Why? Every state regardless of population starts with 2 eletoral votes.
Alas, your infinite wisdom supercedes mine. I'm sorry, but I didn't know that New York didn't have more electoral votes than Alaska. I guess "winning" California isn't that big of a deal then. Hmm.
I don't think that the feds should mandate to the states how their electoral votes should be cast. For one thing, this would marginalize the power of the state, because it would appear as if the states were too dumb to decide for themselves.
For another, that would be just another step towards complete federalization, and the abolishment of the state. This, IMHO, would be the death of the USA. First it would be the state, then it would be the people. Soon enough, you'll just be an automaton, like those that live in socialist states. I wouldn't be happy if this were to occur.
So someone in Alaska's vote matters more than someone's in New York? If a state only has 1 million people, their vote is more valuable than a state that has 10 million.
No. If Alaska had the same number of electoral votes as New York, then you'd have a valid point. Since New York has something like seven times the number of electoral votes that Alaska has, one vote in New York is just as valuable as one vote in Alaska.
1 person, 1 vote is quite possibly the worst system that we could have. The US is a democratic republic, not a full democracy. The concentration of written laws should be at the state level, since the state is much closer to the citizen than the feds will ever be. States rights are the issue in this argument, and I think that they should not be impeded.
There is nothing wrong with the system, except that it seems to generate whines from the sore losers. Look at the number of states that Bush won compared to Kerry or even Gore. How could either Kerry or Gore be the best choice for all of the states, if the majority of them don't want them?
The real problem is the ignorance of US citizens, and the failure of the education systems in the states. If citizens think that it's better than LA, NYC, and Chicago be given governance over piplines in Alaska, or the beaches of Hawaii, the citizens are grieviously mistaken. The power for real law and governance lays at the states' feet. The power for regulation and interstate commerce lies with the feds. Leave it this way.
You might as well stay there if you're going to vote for Hillary. Her health plan back in the 90's would have boosted our taxes to equivalent levels with Canada.
Even if Hillary does run (probably with Obama, from what I hear), I doubt that she'd win. If people think that this election was polarized, it will be even more if she runs. There is a far larger love/hate relationship between Americans and that woman than Bush will ever have. Hopefully, the 'pubs nominate Guliani/McCain, which would make her prospects of winning even less.
It's just as well that his site is knocked off. His links are either pro-Kerry, Non-Partisan, or "Mixed." There are no pro-Bush links.
I realize that he's got just as much of a right to say whatever he wants, but it troubles me that some people are looking to this as an authoritative source of information. IOW, he's biased.
How naive. I've been here for quite a while, and I'll devolve into a "Back in the day..." statement.
Back in the day, we used to have animated discussions over librarians fighting anti-erotica laws. We used to have hilights of the MS anti-trust case. We discussed the roles in gender in computer games, and whether or not chicks could compete with guys in Quake 3. Enlightenment was pushed more. Various little linux and open source apps were discussed.
The nature of the readership used to be primarily libertarian, and there weren't very many political rants. The trolls had come out to feed every now and then, but hadn't started multiplying until later. That was back before moderation was a random user thing, before meta-moderation existed, and everyone tried to kiss up to the real moderators. You used to be able to post a comment, go away for an hour, then load up the page and still be able to see your comment.
I used to know most of the regular commenter's names. Now, it's like a circus. The discussion used to be relevant, but has been degraded quite a bit. Hell, this whole post is completely off-topic.
It is important to have a good forum where inteligent people can discuss and debate their views.
It frustrates me greatly when someone says "oh, we shouldn't talk about politics...". For those of us in the US, why the hell shouldn't we talk politics?
I don't believe that the first quote really could ever mean "don't talk about politics." You missed the point, totally. The parent poster said that it's important that you don't get stupid when you talk about politics.
Your blustering is a good example of stupid political discussion. Everyone knows why we should talk politics, but everyone should know that it should be discussed intelligently. There should be acceptance of all viewpoints. There should not be the mud slinging that occurs in the media. The discussion should revolve around actual political concepts, not news postings, he-said-she-said stuff, people dying, or any of that, since that only serves to raise an emotional and typically irrational response.
Instead of talking about 1,000 troops dying in the middle east and asia, the discussion should be foriegn policy. Instead of homosexual marriage / union, there should be a discussion of civil rights and separation of church and state. It's more important that we resolve what we want to happen, then finding a way to make that happen. This can really only be approached on a conceptual basis, not by hollow posturing on how much a certain detail sucks, or by yelling and screaming about how more brain-dead one candidate is over the other.
Here are a few suggestions for good conversation:
Should the US take an isolationist foriegn policy? What defines isolationist? Should it be that way, or exclusionist, or completely open?
Where is the line between governmental power and the rights of the citizen? What should it be?
What is the responsibility that every man has to everyone else? Why should it be this way? Should the government have any responsibility for taking care of it's citizens? How would the proposed answer be possible, and why?
What is the individual's responsibility to the environment? Is it something individuals should be concerned with, or is it something that only the government should deal with?
There's a whole lot more topics to talk about, but those are general enough to get something started. They also manage to fall outside the bounds of partisan thinking, which should invite intelligent thought instead of red-faced finger waving.
What's fascinating is the sheer control of the media by people who lean to the left, or even further to the left. The biggest spreaders of FUD are you ABC's, CBS's, NBC's, and CNN's. All of them are liberal outlets. The closest one to the right is Fox News, which is still a liberal station.
The demonizing of Europe comes from the American attitude towards their role in the world, and the European response to it. Most Americans understand that they are citizens of perhaps the most economically, socially, and culturally important country in the world. The only country that could have a greater impact is China, which does not really have the foreign policy that the US does. When the US does something, there is an existing patriotism in most Americans that makes them very supportive. When smaller countries protest the actions of the US, Americans who feel a lot of patriotism tend to think poorly of the protesting country. This is what leads to the majority of Americans calling french fries "freedom fries."
Perhaps the most interesting bit is that the most vocal segment of the US is the one that is empathetic with Europe. Then again, this segment is also a tiny percentage of the whole. If you don't believe me, go out on the street and talk to some people that don't hang in your particular group of friends.
I wouldn't go blaming the right for an attitude that has existed since the revolutionary war. The country was also founded on politically liberal ideals anyway, ie every man has a responsibility for his own well being, every man has an oppurtunity, every man can make his own way. Sorry, but socialistic political ideals are definitely not liberal. The term "liberal" seems to have been adopted by the left, even though if they were confronted with the true definition of "liberal," they would immediately reject it.
But that isn't controlling the status bar. What it is doing is intercepting the click before it gets to the "A" element, and telling the browser that the "A" element wasn't in fact clicked.
After it intercepts the click, it then sets the document's location to something completely different from what the href said. Yes, disabling javascript will eliminate this problem, but a lot of sites won't work without javascript.
heh. Whenever Kerry has an "opinion," I call it "pandering." There isn't anything that comes out of his mouth that defines a position on anything other than what he thinks people want to hear. I'm pretty sure that if he gets elected, though, he's going to go on and do his own damn thing. He's not going to remember some promise that he made to republican Iowa for their vote, or something else that he said to some swing state in order to gain a vote.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey! That means that the hydrogen bomb is a weapon of mass creation!
I don't see any "treaties" governing WMC!
Welcome to our nightmare...
Only for the rest of the world.
Mwohahahahaha!
I dunno. The US never signed Kyoto, and it's just as well. Kyoto is all about harming the American economy while helping other countries' economies. Sorry, but no thanks.
As for this "no militarization of space" treaty, it looks like it is written in regards to the Soviet Union, a major space threat at the time. Since the Soviet Union is gone, wouldn't that make the purpose of the treaty go away, which would make the treaty next to useless?
Then again, I'm from the US, and I really don't care if the US dominates space or not.
Now the virtual machine and its tools etc still come from one provider...
Now the Virtual Machine and its tools etc still come from one provider?
And also, don't forget about this one...
Hey. If we broke states into zones, unless it is done by population (ie, 50-60 zones in Chicago alone), then the republicans would win every election from then to the end of time. The fact is that the majority of the geographical US is farmland, and the majority of the population of the US is in some city or another.
There is a large distinction between the needs and wants of rural people and urban people. The rural ones are fairly autonomous, but rely on the government for subsidies and other support type things. They prefer to own their guns, and don't really give too much thought to the poor people that sleep on benches in Grant park. The urbanites, though, don't have much of a clue about what rural life is like. They have a completely different set of needs and wants. Unfortunately, the government has to take care of both of these groups.
Well, from the people I know or have talked to in bars and on the street- I can say that the more intelligent (not necessarily more educated) people all supported Kerry. The less intelligent (but not necessarily less educated) all went for Bush.
If you managed to give these people IQ tests, or some other form of aptitude testing (especially in a bar), then you would have a point.
Take a look at the CNN polls. They give me a silly theory... Bush took the majority of High School -> College grad, with Kerry taking the two opposing ends of the spectrum. My thinking goes as such: Schooling only helps you so much, but is detrimental if you stay for too long. Your mind is young and naive in the beginning, then you become more educated, and then you have the option of leaving or staying. If you leave, you learn in a different environment, and become well-rounded. If you stay, you focus your attention on something very specific, and re-gain your naivity over time. Eventually, you get over-educated to the point where you're the intellectual equivalent of a beginner.
Well, it goes something like that, but should be less biased. ;-)
Dead coastal Chicago dwellers vote liberal too. Notice how the tall Chicago building is higher than the actual population of Chicago?
For those who don't get it, Chicago has a history that is rife with the motto: "Vote early, vote often, even if you're dead." It is also the home of the democratic machine.
My biggest question is what do they do with the corn shells?
A vote in Alaska is more valuabe than a vote in New York. Why? Every state regardless of population starts with 2 eletoral votes.
Alas, your infinite wisdom supercedes mine. I'm sorry, but I didn't know that New York didn't have more electoral votes than Alaska. I guess "winning" California isn't that big of a deal then. Hmm.
Yeah, especially when those fraudulent jerks are outside of the US.
Wait a second...
I don't think that the feds should mandate to the states how their electoral votes should be cast. For one thing, this would marginalize the power of the state, because it would appear as if the states were too dumb to decide for themselves.
For another, that would be just another step towards complete federalization, and the abolishment of the state. This, IMHO, would be the death of the USA. First it would be the state, then it would be the people. Soon enough, you'll just be an automaton, like those that live in socialist states. I wouldn't be happy if this were to occur.
So someone in Alaska's vote matters more than someone's in New York? If a state only has 1 million people, their vote is more valuable than a state that has 10 million.
No. If Alaska had the same number of electoral votes as New York, then you'd have a valid point. Since New York has something like seven times the number of electoral votes that Alaska has, one vote in New York is just as valuable as one vote in Alaska.
1 person, 1 vote is quite possibly the worst system that we could have. The US is a democratic republic, not a full democracy. The concentration of written laws should be at the state level, since the state is much closer to the citizen than the feds will ever be. States rights are the issue in this argument, and I think that they should not be impeded.
There is nothing wrong with the system, except that it seems to generate whines from the sore losers. Look at the number of states that Bush won compared to Kerry or even Gore. How could either Kerry or Gore be the best choice for all of the states, if the majority of them don't want them?
The real problem is the ignorance of US citizens, and the failure of the education systems in the states. If citizens think that it's better than LA, NYC, and Chicago be given governance over piplines in Alaska, or the beaches of Hawaii, the citizens are grieviously mistaken. The power for real law and governance lays at the states' feet. The power for regulation and interstate commerce lies with the feds. Leave it this way.
Well, my view of the midwest was that it was full of religious nuts with superiority complexes...
And that's different from the rest of the US? Pick your religion, be it atheist, liberal politics, or whatever, we all have a superiority complex.
You might as well stay there if you're going to vote for Hillary. Her health plan back in the 90's would have boosted our taxes to equivalent levels with Canada.
Even if Hillary does run (probably with Obama, from what I hear), I doubt that she'd win. If people think that this election was polarized, it will be even more if she runs. There is a far larger love/hate relationship between Americans and that woman than Bush will ever have. Hopefully, the 'pubs nominate Guliani/McCain, which would make her prospects of winning even less.
Amusing. Most of the military voted Bush.
As a bonus, its markup is compatible with the Opera Show Format
After it gets it's first bloat-ware patch, it'll be Oprah Show compatible too!
I'm here all week.
It's just as well that his site is knocked off. His links are either pro-Kerry, Non-Partisan, or "Mixed." There are no pro-Bush links.
I realize that he's got just as much of a right to say whatever he wants, but it troubles me that some people are looking to this as an authoritative source of information. IOW, he's biased.
How naive. I've been here for quite a while, and I'll devolve into a "Back in the day..." statement.
Back in the day, we used to have animated discussions over librarians fighting anti-erotica laws. We used to have hilights of the MS anti-trust case. We discussed the roles in gender in computer games, and whether or not chicks could compete with guys in Quake 3. Enlightenment was pushed more. Various little linux and open source apps were discussed.
The nature of the readership used to be primarily libertarian, and there weren't very many political rants. The trolls had come out to feed every now and then, but hadn't started multiplying until later. That was back before moderation was a random user thing, before meta-moderation existed, and everyone tried to kiss up to the real moderators. You used to be able to post a comment, go away for an hour, then load up the page and still be able to see your comment.
I used to know most of the regular commenter's names. Now, it's like a circus. The discussion used to be relevant, but has been degraded quite a bit. Hell, this whole post is completely off-topic.
Oh well.
It is important to have a good forum where inteligent people can discuss and debate their views.
It frustrates me greatly when someone says "oh, we shouldn't talk about politics...". For those of us in the US, why the hell shouldn't we talk politics?
I don't believe that the first quote really could ever mean "don't talk about politics." You missed the point, totally. The parent poster said that it's important that you don't get stupid when you talk about politics.
Your blustering is a good example of stupid political discussion. Everyone knows why we should talk politics, but everyone should know that it should be discussed intelligently. There should be acceptance of all viewpoints. There should not be the mud slinging that occurs in the media. The discussion should revolve around actual political concepts, not news postings, he-said-she-said stuff, people dying, or any of that, since that only serves to raise an emotional and typically irrational response.
Instead of talking about 1,000 troops dying in the middle east and asia, the discussion should be foriegn policy. Instead of homosexual marriage / union, there should be a discussion of civil rights and separation of church and state. It's more important that we resolve what we want to happen, then finding a way to make that happen. This can really only be approached on a conceptual basis, not by hollow posturing on how much a certain detail sucks, or by yelling and screaming about how more brain-dead one candidate is over the other.
Here are a few suggestions for good conversation:
There's a whole lot more topics to talk about, but those are general enough to get something started. They also manage to fall outside the bounds of partisan thinking, which should invite intelligent thought instead of red-faced finger waving.
That's just my $.02
The Geek code includes a code for jurisprudence.
The good thing about being a geek is that it's relatively easy for them to get out of jury duty. That's my code for jurisprudence.
What's fascinating is the sheer control of the media by people who lean to the left, or even further to the left. The biggest spreaders of FUD are you ABC's, CBS's, NBC's, and CNN's. All of them are liberal outlets. The closest one to the right is Fox News, which is still a liberal station.
The demonizing of Europe comes from the American attitude towards their role in the world, and the European response to it. Most Americans understand that they are citizens of perhaps the most economically, socially, and culturally important country in the world. The only country that could have a greater impact is China, which does not really have the foreign policy that the US does. When the US does something, there is an existing patriotism in most Americans that makes them very supportive. When smaller countries protest the actions of the US, Americans who feel a lot of patriotism tend to think poorly of the protesting country. This is what leads to the majority of Americans calling french fries "freedom fries."
Perhaps the most interesting bit is that the most vocal segment of the US is the one that is empathetic with Europe. Then again, this segment is also a tiny percentage of the whole. If you don't believe me, go out on the street and talk to some people that don't hang in your particular group of friends.
I wouldn't go blaming the right for an attitude that has existed since the revolutionary war. The country was also founded on politically liberal ideals anyway, ie every man has a responsibility for his own well being, every man has an oppurtunity, every man can make his own way. Sorry, but socialistic political ideals are definitely not liberal. The term "liberal" seems to have been adopted by the left, even though if they were confronted with the true definition of "liberal," they would immediately reject it.
But that isn't controlling the status bar. What it is doing is intercepting the click before it gets to the "A" element, and telling the browser that the "A" element wasn't in fact clicked.
After it intercepts the click, it then sets the document's location to something completely different from what the href said. Yes, disabling javascript will eliminate this problem, but a lot of sites won't work without javascript.
I think I made it rather plainly.
Property, yes. Intellectual? Well, that's debatable.
heh. Whenever Kerry has an "opinion," I call it "pandering." There isn't anything that comes out of his mouth that defines a position on anything other than what he thinks people want to hear. I'm pretty sure that if he gets elected, though, he's going to go on and do his own damn thing. He's not going to remember some promise that he made to republican Iowa for their vote, or something else that he said to some swing state in order to gain a vote.