You still haven't validated your idiotic claim that CO2 is a pollutant. By your logic Oxygen, Nitrogen, and every other gas necessary for life is a pollutant because too much of it can be harmful.
So I reiterate -- if you think CO2 is a pollutant, do your part. Stop emitting it.
Otherwise, let the plants do their job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
In the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate. Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% between 1946 - 2007.
Hauser's Law
Taxation and Economic Performance by W Kurt Hauser
US Govt Budget Documents
What I mean is that no matter what the tax rate, the actual revenue remains a consistent percentage rate. Behaviors change to avoid what is perceived as oppressive taxation, and the actual percentage collected remains at a constant level. The only way to ACTUALLY increase revenue is to increase economic growth. A fixed percentage of a smaller economy means less dollars, not more. Raising taxes is a "feel good" tactic to stick-it to the bogey-man, but in reality it harms everyone. True prosperity comes from widespread growth of business across the board. Favorable economic and regulatory policies have the potential to make up for our current deficits.
Does that clear up what "don't work" means for you?
We also have experienced dismal economic growth for the last 8 years. We've done it all before, we know what works and what doesn't. Too bad we don't teach history. If we did, then no one would accept the progressive policies that have kept the economy in a recession for almost a decade.
Tax increases don't work. Never have, never will.
That's a tired argument with no substance. Even Russia has more favorable taxes than the USA because they've accepted this simple truth. Reducing the tax burden increases overall productivity which increases revenue at a rate well beyond oppressive hikes.
Compromising on known truths isn't a virtue.
At least in the US, conservatives stand for small government. Except on the issue of abortion, and sex education, and recreational substances, and national security, and pornography, and broadcast indecency, and regulation of marriage. Oh, and they insist the government has a duty to issue non-binding religious proclamations telling the people who and how they are supposed to worship and erect tax-funded monuments to their deity. And regulate who is allowed to use which restroom. But aside from all that, they stand for small government.
Abortion - The taking of a human life. Other than cases of rape/incest or when the mother's life is in danger, there really is no grey area here. The right to life, not just "convenient" life should be protected. That's not exactly "Big Government", that's fundamental right to life.
What does actual conservatism say about the other issues you cited?
Sex Education -- ANY/ALL Education not the Federal Government's Business. It's a state-level issue
Recreational Substances -- Not a federal issue.
Pornography -- Not a federal issue
Broadcast -- Not a federal issue
Marriage -- Not a federal issue
Religious Freedom -- Protected by the first amendment.
Removal of Christianity from [xyz...] Not in the Constitution, and demonstrably never intended by the framers of it.
Restrooms? -- Certainly not a federal issue. Common sense issue, but not Federal Gov't. Use the plumbing that matches your plumbing.
You're confusing progressive's in sheep's clothing with actual conservatism.
The entire premise of this relies on a supposition that the FAA has inherent powers over the people of the United States, except where specifically blocked by Congress.
The reality is that the FAA has no powers under the constitution - period. Congress has been enumerated certain powers, and possesses no right to give those powers to any other entity. Only the legislative branch is allowed to create legislation. It's about time we started following that pesky constitution and giving a big one-finger salute to "regulations" that exist outside of it's bounds.
if you fuck your girlfriend in the window, you have absolutely NO right to be pissed if someone takes pictures. This victim mentality is absurd.
If you care about the privacy of your wireless network, then either learn to secure it yourself, or pay someone to do so.
Crying about your own ignorance or stupidity just makes you more pathetic.
You CAN limit the power of your signal, and you CAN secure it if it matters to you.
Surely not with People like FCC Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd, praising Dictators like Hugo Chavez for his forced takeover the Venezuelan media in his 'incredible revolution'.
The policy is Framework being put into place. Dangerous framework.
Specifically, which part of the constitution gives congress the authority to take over any private individual or company's network (or any other property for that matter)?
If none, then please refer to 10th Amendment. And tell Lieberman where to go.
The emergencies will happen -- Never let a good emergency go to waste.
Seems a new one is generated every month lately.
2) Marriage is a judeo-christian religious institution. Yes, I know Muslims, etc... marry as well. Look at their roots - they are a branch that fell away in Old Testament times. The point is that marriage is not a gov't institution. Gov't may recognize it, but it is a religious institution. I'm all for gays having equal rights to insurance, etc... But forcing pastors to marry gays, etc... is a violation of the first Amendment. Congress would be impeding the free exercise of religion. This is an example of where separate but equal would actually apply. Civil union, life contract, whatever you want to call it, that's fine. But marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman.
Clearly you have no understanding of the Constitution or our Founding Fathers. The nation was founded under God, and Judeo-Christian principles. While the nation cannot respect one specific church above another (see first amendment, and actually realize what it means), the nation as a whole is based on Christian principles. The original government printed Bibles for the use in public schools.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." endowed by whom?
"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," -- Govt gets its power from whom? And they get their right from who?
In the words of Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded assylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here."
George Mason is called the father of the Bill of Rights, for he insisted that the first ten amendments be added to the Constitution. The purpose for such an addition? "The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth," Mason said.
There is an insurmountable list of historical documents / evidence showing that your position is absolutely contrary to that of the founders, and the foundation of the United States. You are free to worship, or not worship according to the dictates of your own conscience. However, the first Amendment is there to protect religion and freedom of speech. Not to remove religion.
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." - United States Supreme Court, 1892.
While you two cry Dem/Repub, please ignore the elephants in the room, like Acorn or SEIU who were sending astroturf protestors to the HOMES of bank execs, scaring their familes to pressure them to give bad loans. It's racist not to give money to people who can't afford it.
The problem was largely created by many groups who are now being shown to be Socialist fronts. They're being more open about it now with the current administration in power.
You really should follow up on the hearings regarding the housing market. It was actually all Democrats that were insisting that all was well, and nothing could go wrong. Republicans put the measures into place, but at the time it was clearly stated that it would be okay temporarily. As things were heading south, and they wanted to remove them, it was the Democrats who refused and swore up and down that there was zero risk in the housing market.
Now I don't care what letter is beside a person's name. As far as I'm concerned, they're all mostly corrupt. But you should get your facts straight before blaming parties...
Actually, many of us have studied history, and the idiotic policies of FDR that EXTENDED the great depression by many years. 'Propping up' by the govt only makes things worse.
You said: ...Maybe I'm wrong, lets ask someone who knows a bit more on the subject then us shall we?
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington (who is a Grade A Badass) January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address
-------
While I agree that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the people from enemies including their own government (they just shook off one corrupt govt)...
The quote in your comment was not in George Washington's State of the Union Address that you referenced.
The reference at that time to being armed and disciplined was due to concerns with hostile Indians, particularly in Virginia.
The Address was as follows:
Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:
I embrace with great satisfaction the opportunity which now presents itself of congratulating you on the present favorable prospects of our public affairs. The recent accession of the important state of north Carolina to the Constitution of the United States (of which official information has been received), the rising credit and respectability of our country, the general and increasing good will toward the government of the Union, and the concord, peace, and plenty with which we are blessed are circumstances auspicious in an eminent degree to our national prosperity.
In resuming your consultations for the general good you can not but derive encouragement from the reflection that the measures of the last session have been as satisfactory to your constituents as the novelty and difficulty of the work allowed you to hope. Still further to realize their expectations and to secure the blessings which a gracious Providence has placed within our reach will in the course of the present important session call for the cool and deliberate exertion of your patriotism, firmness, and wisdom.
Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is on e of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy.
There was reason to hope that the pacific measures adopted with regard to certain hostile tribes of Indians would have relieved the inhabitants of our southern and western frontiers from their depredations, but you will perceive from the information contained in the papers which I shall direct to be laid before you (comprehending a communication from the Commonwealth of Virginia) that we ought to be prepared to afford protection to those parts of the Union, and, if necessary, to punish aggressors.
The interests of the United States require that our intercourse with other nations should be facilitated by such provisions as will enable me to fulfill my duty in that respect in the manner which circumstances may render most conducive to the public good, and to this end that the compensation to be made to the persons who may be employed should, according to the nature of their appointments, be defined by law, and a competent fund designated for defraying the expenses incident to the conduct of foreign affairs.
Various considerations also render it expedient that the terms on which foreigners may be admitted to
Bzzzt...Sorry to disappoint you and your conspiracy theory, but no. My account is new, but not just to respond to your misadventures.
I used to actively post here years ago. I can't figure out my old ID, thought it was Suicidal, or something like that. The nick was based on my favorite Quake technique of attaching a grappling hook into another players stomach and reeling in while using the shotgun to blast them....Suicidal.
I haven't posted in a long time, but yours deserved a little perspective considering the years of consulting I've done and the complete opposite of the spectrum that my experiences have yielded. I'm definitely pro Trend Micro, but that's because of repeated positive experiences Trend has provided. My loyalty has been earned, but not through any monetary means.
I've implemented Trend Micro at medium sized businesses, phasing out the virus known as Symantec. Only once have I actually run into an issue where Trend was 'broken', and their support resolved the issue extremely quickly. Frankly, it was the best support experience I have had with any company. The ROI, was realized within the first year due to Trend's reasonable licensing costs. Additionally, I have personally seen Trend catching many viruses that Symantec and McAffee both missed completely. This is in line with reports I've read on reliability testing showing the same conclusions between AV vendors. However, the main reason I choose Trend over McAfee or Symantec (gag), is the health of the host system. Symantec is the worst for trashing the OS, and leaving behind garbage. Trend is the cleanest, thinnest client, which, in my experience has the least possibility of negatively impacting the desktop. I've never had to remove/reinstall a Trend client on either desktop or server. (and I've done a LOT of em).
Sorry that you've had bad experiences with an implementation, but I've done many and found them to have not only the best product, but by far the best support as well.
Yep, filtering at the gateway is now a common practice, but someone had to develop it first. So, for a limited time, people will have to pay their dues.
Slashdot Mirror
You still haven't validated your idiotic claim that CO2 is a pollutant. By your logic Oxygen, Nitrogen, and every other gas necessary for life is a pollutant because too much of it can be harmful. So I reiterate -- if you think CO2 is a pollutant, do your part. Stop emitting it. Otherwise, let the plants do their job. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Try median vs median of similar occupancy class vehicles. You're changing the argument. What do THOSE number come to?
CO2 is a form of pollution to be sure
Please stop breathing. The plants are offended by your stupidity.
In the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate. Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% between 1946 - 2007. Hauser's Law Taxation and Economic Performance by W Kurt Hauser US Govt Budget Documents
What I mean is that no matter what the tax rate, the actual revenue remains a consistent percentage rate. Behaviors change to avoid what is perceived as oppressive taxation, and the actual percentage collected remains at a constant level. The only way to ACTUALLY increase revenue is to increase economic growth. A fixed percentage of a smaller economy means less dollars, not more. Raising taxes is a "feel good" tactic to stick-it to the bogey-man, but in reality it harms everyone. True prosperity comes from widespread growth of business across the board. Favorable economic and regulatory policies have the potential to make up for our current deficits. Does that clear up what "don't work" means for you?
We also have experienced dismal economic growth for the last 8 years. We've done it all before, we know what works and what doesn't. Too bad we don't teach history. If we did, then no one would accept the progressive policies that have kept the economy in a recession for almost a decade.
Tax increases don't work. Never have, never will. That's a tired argument with no substance. Even Russia has more favorable taxes than the USA because they've accepted this simple truth. Reducing the tax burden increases overall productivity which increases revenue at a rate well beyond oppressive hikes. Compromising on known truths isn't a virtue.
At least in the US, conservatives stand for small government. Except on the issue of abortion, and sex education, and recreational substances, and national security, and pornography, and broadcast indecency, and regulation of marriage. Oh, and they insist the government has a duty to issue non-binding religious proclamations telling the people who and how they are supposed to worship and erect tax-funded monuments to their deity. And regulate who is allowed to use which restroom. But aside from all that, they stand for small government.
Abortion - The taking of a human life. Other than cases of rape/incest or when the mother's life is in danger, there really is no grey area here. The right to life, not just "convenient" life should be protected. That's not exactly "Big Government", that's fundamental right to life. What does actual conservatism say about the other issues you cited? Sex Education -- ANY/ALL Education not the Federal Government's Business. It's a state-level issue Recreational Substances -- Not a federal issue. Pornography -- Not a federal issue Broadcast -- Not a federal issue Marriage -- Not a federal issue Religious Freedom -- Protected by the first amendment. Removal of Christianity from [xyz...] Not in the Constitution, and demonstrably never intended by the framers of it. Restrooms? -- Certainly not a federal issue. Common sense issue, but not Federal Gov't. Use the plumbing that matches your plumbing. You're confusing progressive's in sheep's clothing with actual conservatism.
Can you say HIPAA non-compliant?
Your forgot...Freshmeat.net is renamed and static content. Much like Slashdot, but without being renamed.
The entire premise of this relies on a supposition that the FAA has inherent powers over the people of the United States, except where specifically blocked by Congress. The reality is that the FAA has no powers under the constitution - period. Congress has been enumerated certain powers, and possesses no right to give those powers to any other entity. Only the legislative branch is allowed to create legislation. It's about time we started following that pesky constitution and giving a big one-finger salute to "regulations" that exist outside of it's bounds.
Hmm.... re-reading the Constitution..... Nope, no authority.
if you fuck your girlfriend in the window, you have absolutely NO right to be pissed if someone takes pictures. This victim mentality is absurd. If you care about the privacy of your wireless network, then either learn to secure it yourself, or pay someone to do so. Crying about your own ignorance or stupidity just makes you more pathetic. You CAN limit the power of your signal, and you CAN secure it if it matters to you.
I'm very happy with my HTC Hero instead of an iPhone. You couldn't pay me to sign up with AT&T.
Perhaps you should look at their budget then... It's not the cops that are bankrupting CA.
Surely not with People like FCC Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd, praising Dictators like Hugo Chavez for his forced takeover the Venezuelan media in his 'incredible revolution'.
The policy is Framework being put into place. Dangerous framework. Specifically, which part of the constitution gives congress the authority to take over any private individual or company's network (or any other property for that matter)? If none, then please refer to 10th Amendment. And tell Lieberman where to go. The emergencies will happen -- Never let a good emergency go to waste. Seems a new one is generated every month lately.
1) Mormon's don't have more than one wife.
2) Marriage is a judeo-christian religious institution. Yes, I know Muslims, etc... marry as well. Look at their roots - they are a branch that fell away in Old Testament times. The point is that marriage is not a gov't institution. Gov't may recognize it, but it is a religious institution. I'm all for gays having equal rights to insurance, etc... But forcing pastors to marry gays, etc... is a violation of the first Amendment. Congress would be impeding the free exercise of religion. This is an example of where separate but equal would actually apply. Civil union, life contract, whatever you want to call it, that's fine. But marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman.
Clearly you have no understanding of the Constitution or our Founding Fathers. The nation was founded under God, and Judeo-Christian principles. While the nation cannot respect one specific church above another (see first amendment, and actually realize what it means), the nation as a whole is based on Christian principles. The original government printed Bibles for the use in public schools.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." endowed by whom?
"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," -- Govt gets its power from whom? And they get their right from who?
In the words of Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded assylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here."
George Mason is called the father of the Bill of Rights, for he insisted that the first ten amendments be added to the Constitution. The purpose for such an addition? "The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth," Mason said.
There is an insurmountable list of historical documents / evidence showing that your position is absolutely contrary to that of the founders, and the foundation of the United States. You are free to worship, or not worship according to the dictates of your own conscience. However, the first Amendment is there to protect religion and freedom of speech. Not to remove religion.
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." - United States Supreme Court, 1892.
While you two cry Dem/Repub, please ignore the elephants in the room, like Acorn or SEIU who were sending astroturf protestors to the HOMES of bank execs, scaring their familes to pressure them to give bad loans. It's racist not to give money to people who can't afford it. The problem was largely created by many groups who are now being shown to be Socialist fronts. They're being more open about it now with the current administration in power.
You really should follow up on the hearings regarding the housing market. It was actually all Democrats that were insisting that all was well, and nothing could go wrong. Republicans put the measures into place, but at the time it was clearly stated that it would be okay temporarily. As things were heading south, and they wanted to remove them, it was the Democrats who refused and swore up and down that there was zero risk in the housing market. Now I don't care what letter is beside a person's name. As far as I'm concerned, they're all mostly corrupt. But you should get your facts straight before blaming parties...
Actually, many of us have studied history, and the idiotic policies of FDR that EXTENDED the great depression by many years. 'Propping up' by the govt only makes things worse.
You said:
...Maybe I'm wrong, lets ask someone who knows a bit more on the subject then us shall we?
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
-- George Washington (who is a Grade A Badass) January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address
------- While I agree that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the people from enemies including their own government (they just shook off one corrupt govt)...
The quote in your comment was not in George Washington's State of the Union Address that you referenced.
The reference at that time to being armed and disciplined was due to concerns with hostile Indians, particularly in Virginia.
The Address was as follows:
Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:
I embrace with great satisfaction the opportunity which now presents itself of congratulating you on the present favorable prospects of our public affairs. The recent accession of the important state of north Carolina to the Constitution of the United States (of which official information has been received), the rising credit and respectability of our country, the general and increasing good will toward the government of the Union, and the concord, peace, and plenty with which we are blessed are circumstances auspicious in an eminent degree to our national prosperity.
In resuming your consultations for the general good you can not but derive encouragement from the reflection that the measures of the last session have been as satisfactory to your constituents as the novelty and difficulty of the work allowed you to hope. Still further to realize their expectations and to secure the blessings which a gracious Providence has placed within our reach will in the course of the present important session call for the cool and deliberate exertion of your patriotism, firmness, and wisdom.
Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is on e of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy.
There was reason to hope that the pacific measures adopted with regard to certain hostile tribes of Indians would have relieved the inhabitants of our southern and western frontiers from their depredations, but you will perceive from the information contained in the papers which I shall direct to be laid before you (comprehending a communication from the Commonwealth of Virginia) that we ought to be prepared to afford protection to those parts of the Union, and, if necessary, to punish aggressors.
The interests of the United States require that our intercourse with other nations should be facilitated by such provisions as will enable me to fulfill my duty in that respect in the manner which circumstances may render most conducive to the public good, and to this end that the compensation to be made to the persons who may be employed should, according to the nature of their appointments, be defined by law, and a competent fund designated for defraying the expenses incident to the conduct of foreign affairs.
Various considerations also render it expedient that the terms on which foreigners may be admitted to
Bzzzt...Sorry to disappoint you and your conspiracy theory, but no. My account is new, but not just to respond to your misadventures.
I used to actively post here years ago. I can't figure out my old ID, thought it was Suicidal, or something like that. The nick was based on my favorite Quake technique of attaching a grappling hook into another players stomach and reeling in while using the shotgun to blast them....Suicidal.
I haven't posted in a long time, but yours deserved a little perspective considering the years of consulting I've done and the complete opposite of the spectrum that my experiences have yielded. I'm definitely pro Trend Micro, but that's because of repeated positive experiences Trend has provided. My loyalty has been earned, but not through any monetary means.
AAAAARrrrrrrrrrrrrrr *put's on eye patch*
I've implemented Trend Micro at medium sized businesses, phasing out the virus known as Symantec. Only once have I actually run into an issue where Trend was 'broken', and their support resolved the issue extremely quickly. Frankly, it was the best support experience I have had with any company. The ROI, was realized within the first year due to Trend's reasonable licensing costs. Additionally, I have personally seen Trend catching many viruses that Symantec and McAffee both missed completely. This is in line with reports I've read on reliability testing showing the same conclusions between AV vendors. However, the main reason I choose Trend over McAfee or Symantec (gag), is the health of the host system. Symantec is the worst for trashing the OS, and leaving behind garbage. Trend is the cleanest, thinnest client, which, in my experience has the least possibility of negatively impacting the desktop. I've never had to remove/reinstall a Trend client on either desktop or server. (and I've done a LOT of em). Sorry that you've had bad experiences with an implementation, but I've done many and found them to have not only the best product, but by far the best support as well. Yep, filtering at the gateway is now a common practice, but someone had to develop it first. So, for a limited time, people will have to pay their dues.