Or maybe it's like Churchill said: "When you're young, you vote based upon emotions and lean liberal. When you're old, you vote based upon your logic and lean conservative." (Or something like that.) I know I was more liberal when I was younger, mainly because I didn't understand how the world worked.
That's a good summary, but I think it boils down to this:
- What if we would have had Clinton for another 4 years (2000-2004). If my view his sterling image would have faded as people became disillusioned with the failing economy, the attack on 9/11, and Clinton's poor handling of foreign affairs.
- Clinton still signed that awful Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act... although one could argue he had no choice since it passed with HUGE support from his own Democratic party: "The final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57"
- Which brings the blame around to the Democrats for the bank failures, not just the Republicans as so many are falsely claiming.
Gotta disagree. I think Bush Senior was a far better president than Clinton. I voted to reelect him to four more years, and if I could turn back the clock, I'd do exactly the same thing.
You know... it helps if you read the WHOLE post instead of just the first sentence. Let me quote the part you missed:
"The blame lies mostly on Bush, with a remainder being spread-evenly across both sides of the Congress. Both R's and D's acted poorly these last two decades."
It only took 90 days for the Republicans to pass their "Contract with America" in 1995. After the Democrats won dominance in 2006, they had eight times as long to offer changes and repeal bad laws. Plus: If you look at the actual votes, you'll see that the Democrats voted with the Republicans almost every single time since 1994. They were Democrats acting like Republicans.
That's what I consider BOTH parties to blame for these last ~15 years. (Including the terrorist attacks on various targets throughout the 90s, the dot-com 1999 crash, the 2007 housing crash, and rampant bank failures.)
>>>That has more to do with the state of our society than it does with the Republicans though.
Precisely. It's a flaw on both sides. Recall that the Democrats did not act very mature in 2000 or 2004 either. I can understand why they were upset in 2000, because it was a mess in Florida, but in 2004? There's absolutely no cause to still be making false accusations that 2004 was stolen from Kerry. None at all.
That's fine. Maybe they would have realized the Spanish-American War Tax no longer applies, and decided not to include it in the omnibus bill, rather than let it continue on forever.
Thomas Jefferson often said there should be a new Constitution every 25 years, to more-accurately reflect THIS generation of the People, rather than the 1790s generation. That obviously never happened, but I think the idea still has merit and should be applied to Congressional laws. I'm sure having the Spanish-American War Tax was a great idea for those people who lived in the 1890s, but they're dead. The law should die with them.
On the other hand, McCain's been in power for a long time, and it's obvious he has a grasp of how the internet works given how effectively he used it for campaigning. He didn't raise as much money as Obama, but McCain still collected more cash than any other Republican candidate, mainly because of his internet canvassing.
I wouldn't want to see McCain (who sits in the middle of the aisle - a moderate) pulled out of office just because he's been there too long. That decision should lie with the people he represents in Arizona and/or the Arizona Legislature.
The Democrats controlled the Congress almost-continuously from 1932 with the sole exceptions of the 1946 and 1954 elections. So the Democrats had dominated Congress for 58 out of 62 years (three generations of Democrat Congress). It was during these 62 years that most of the New Deal initiatives of FDR, JFK, and LBJ were put into effect.
Then in 1994 the Democrats lost their dominance when there was a voter backlash against Bill & Hillary Clinton, and the Republicans took over. The Republicans dominated for twelve years - an event that hasn't happened since the 1920s.
And now we're back to a Democrat-dominated Congress, and it will probably remain that way for quite a while.
>>>unlike most guys on/. who can barely make eye contact, let alone flirt.
I was like that when I first started working, because I was shy and afraid to talk to people, but I got some "on the job" training of how to interact with people, so now I can talk to just about anyone. Even the cute blonde. Based upon my experience, I think all nerds/geeks should work at least a year at a store. Or sales. You rapidly lose your shyness.
I also read the book "Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus" back when I was still in high school.
The most-useful advice from that book is - ask lots of questions. That way the woman does most of the talking. Plus she'll often say something like "Doing laundry sucks," and you can agree with her and tell her your own horrible experiences with laundry (locking yourself outside your room). And of course that will make her laugh which starts the endorphins flowing and the process of pair-bonding. Most women don't expect perfection; they just want a guy who listens. Asking questions gets the ball rolling.
So to summarize: Working in a store and asking questions. That's what helped me overcome shyness around other people.
If the government actually did tax the rich, I wouldn't care. I think Bill Gates and Donald Trump will do just fine.
But in reality it's the middle class that gets taxed, and that money goes to poor people too lazy to work. Some of these poor people might be handicapped and therefore have no other choice but to rely on Welfare, but the huge majority of them are perfectly healthy human beings who simply lack a work ethic. I object to redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the lazy class.
So what the previous poster actually meant is there is "lots of unused spectrum" if you live in the Midwest. Those of us on the crowded seaboard probably wouldn't see any benefit, since our channels are booked almost completely-solid.
>>>Dense urban markets like Boston will have ~30% underused
Bull. I just used tvfool.com to check the Boston area (which also includes reception from Rhode Island, Connecticut, Western Mass, and part of New Hampshire). There's 2 open UHF channels that can be safely used by whitespace devices without interfering with the existing TV stations. That's only 5% free. You need to stop blindly listening to biased reports, and do the research yourself.
(The reason I excluded VHF is because VHF requires huge antennas, completely unsuitable for a portable gadget.)
"Economies of scale" says otherwise. The larger the company, the lower their costs per-item, and in most cases that is a HUGE price difference.
I don't agree with you, but if we assume you are correct: Where's the harm in having a monopoly? As you point-out, economy of scale makes the product cheaper. Why are you anti-monopoly?
monopoly keeps prices rather high.
You contradict yourself. Which is it? Monopolies keep prices lower, or higher? If it's the former, then that's good for the consumer, and no reason to bust-up the monopoly. ----- If it's the latter, then a new startup company (Theaveng Company) can produce the same item for a lower price and thereby reintroduce competition.
But as I pointed-out elsewhere, a monopoly can not last forever because new innovators arrive on the scene. They either (a) offer new alternatives or (b) undercut the monopoly's prices. Case in point: Sony & Philips had a monopoly on music distribution in the form of CDs and Compact Cassettes.
Along came cheaper MP3 downloads and now the Sony/Philips music distribution monopoly no longer exists.
>>>Bush, when he had to have the complete cooperation of the House and Senate to even write all of the crazy laws that were passed in the last 8 years. >>>
As I said: "The Democrats were equally-complicit, since BOTH parties supported legislation that helped created the current crisis."
And: "The Democrats held Congress for two years; [they could have stopped Bush in his tracks but] did anything improve? Nope."
And: "Both R's and D's acted poorly these last two decades." (Like passing laws to force banks to accept people who couldn't afford a house (1994), and repealing the Glass-Stauley Act which protected banks from risky stock investments (1999).)
BOTH parties deserve blame. The people are unfairly blaming just the Republicans (imho).
I can see a problem with this. If the meat is not properly cloned, it might create random prions (bits of protein) that can invade the human body through the stomach & cause brain damage.
fanatical vegans... say that even if no animal was actually killed, people have still not subdued that part of themselves that gets pleasure from eating animal flesh.
Mmmm. Animal flesh. (drool). I wonder what Vegan tastes like?
This animal is more like a hydra with multiple tentacles but extremely small and simplistic in design.
BTW there were LOTS of creatures that came before the dinosaurs.
There were the Cambrian creatures, followed by the Synapsids that were huge reptile-like creatures that dominated the planet until they were eventually replaced the dinosaurs. The Synapsids then evolved into mammals - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid For more info see the BBC's "Before the Dinosaurs"
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps.
Or maybe it's like Churchill said: "When you're young, you vote based upon emotions and lean liberal. When you're old, you vote based upon your logic and lean conservative." (Or something like that.) I know I was more liberal when I was younger, mainly because I didn't understand how the world worked.
That's a good summary, but I think it boils down to this:
- What if we would have had Clinton for another 4 years (2000-2004). If my view his sterling image would have faded as people became disillusioned with the failing economy, the attack on 9/11, and Clinton's poor handling of foreign affairs.
- Clinton still signed that awful Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act... although one could argue he had no choice since it passed with HUGE support from his own Democratic party: "The final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57"
- Which brings the blame around to the Democrats for the bank failures, not just the Republicans as so many are falsely claiming.
Gotta disagree. I think Bush Senior was a far better president than Clinton. I voted to reelect him to four more years, and if I could turn back the clock, I'd do exactly the same thing.
You know... it helps if you read the WHOLE post instead of just the first sentence. Let me quote the part you missed:
"The blame lies mostly on Bush, with a remainder being spread-evenly across both sides of the Congress. Both R's and D's acted poorly these last two decades."
It only took 90 days for the Republicans to pass their "Contract with America" in 1995. After the Democrats won dominance in 2006, they had eight times as long to offer changes and repeal bad laws. Plus: If you look at the actual votes, you'll see that the Democrats voted with the Republicans almost every single time since 1994. They were Democrats acting like Republicans.
That's what I consider BOTH parties to blame for these last ~15 years. (Including the terrorist attacks on various targets throughout the 90s, the dot-com 1999 crash, the 2007 housing crash, and rampant bank failures.)
>>>That has more to do with the state of our society than it does with the Republicans though.
Precisely. It's a flaw on both sides. Recall that the Democrats did not act very mature in 2000 or 2004 either. I can understand why they were upset in 2000, because it was a mess in Florida, but in 2004? There's absolutely no cause to still be making false accusations that 2004 was stolen from Kerry. None at all.
That's fine. Maybe they would have realized the Spanish-American War Tax no longer applies, and decided not to include it in the omnibus bill, rather than let it continue on forever.
Thomas Jefferson often said there should be a new Constitution every 25 years, to more-accurately reflect THIS generation of the People, rather than the 1790s generation. That obviously never happened, but I think the idea still has merit and should be applied to Congressional laws. I'm sure having the Spanish-American War Tax was a great idea for those people who lived in the 1890s, but they're dead. The law should die with them.
On the other hand, McCain's been in power for a long time, and it's obvious he has a grasp of how the internet works given how effectively he used it for campaigning. He didn't raise as much money as Obama, but McCain still collected more cash than any other Republican candidate, mainly because of his internet canvassing.
I wouldn't want to see McCain (who sits in the middle of the aisle - a moderate) pulled out of office just because he's been there too long. That decision should lie with the people he represents in Arizona and/or the Arizona Legislature.
The Democrats controlled the Congress almost-continuously from 1932 with the sole exceptions of the 1946 and 1954 elections. So the Democrats had dominated Congress for 58 out of 62 years (three generations of Democrat Congress). It was during these 62 years that most of the New Deal initiatives of FDR, JFK, and LBJ were put into effect.
Then in 1994 the Democrats lost their dominance when there was a voter backlash against Bill & Hillary Clinton, and the Republicans took over. The Republicans dominated for twelve years - an event that hasn't happened since the 1920s.
And now we're back to a Democrat-dominated Congress, and it will probably remain that way for quite a while.
>>>unlike most guys on /. who can barely make eye contact, let alone flirt.
I was like that when I first started working, because I was shy and afraid to talk to people, but I got some "on the job" training of how to interact with people, so now I can talk to just about anyone. Even the cute blonde. Based upon my experience, I think all nerds/geeks should work at least a year at a store. Or sales. You rapidly lose your shyness.
I also read the book "Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus" back when I was still in high school.
The most-useful advice from that book is - ask lots of questions. That way the woman does most of the talking. Plus she'll often say something like "Doing laundry sucks," and you can agree with her and tell her your own horrible experiences with laundry (locking yourself outside your room). And of course that will make her laugh which starts the endorphins flowing and the process of pair-bonding. Most women don't expect perfection; they just want a guy who listens. Asking questions gets the ball rolling.
So to summarize: Working in a store and asking questions. That's what helped me overcome shyness around other people.
If the government actually did tax the rich, I wouldn't care. I think Bill Gates and Donald Trump will do just fine.
But in reality it's the middle class that gets taxed, and that money goes to poor people too lazy to work. Some of these poor people might be handicapped and therefore have no other choice but to rely on Welfare, but the huge majority of them are perfectly healthy human beings who simply lack a work ethic. I object to redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the lazy class.
A fan of old movies and old music from the pre-WW2 era.
So what the previous poster actually meant is there is "lots of unused spectrum" if you live in the Midwest. Those of us on the crowded seaboard probably wouldn't see any benefit, since our channels are booked almost completely-solid.
>>>Dense urban markets like Boston will have ~30% underused
Bull. I just used tvfool.com to check the Boston area (which also includes reception from Rhode Island, Connecticut, Western Mass, and part of New Hampshire). There's 2 open UHF channels that can be safely used by whitespace devices without interfering with the existing TV stations. That's only 5% free. You need to stop blindly listening to biased reports, and do the research yourself.
(The reason I excluded VHF is because VHF requires huge antennas, completely unsuitable for a portable gadget.)
"Economies of scale" says otherwise. The larger the company, the lower their costs per-item, and in most cases that is a HUGE price difference.
I don't agree with you, but if we assume you are correct: Where's the harm in having a monopoly? As you point-out, economy of scale makes the product cheaper. Why are you anti-monopoly?
monopoly keeps prices rather high.
You contradict yourself. Which is it? Monopolies keep prices lower, or higher? If it's the former, then that's good for the consumer, and no reason to bust-up the monopoly. ----- If it's the latter, then a new startup company (Theaveng Company) can produce the same item for a lower price and thereby reintroduce competition.
But as I pointed-out elsewhere, a monopoly can not last forever because new innovators arrive on the scene. They either (a) offer new alternatives or (b) undercut the monopoly's prices. Case in point: Sony & Philips had a monopoly on music distribution in the form of CDs and Compact Cassettes.
Along came cheaper MP3 downloads and now the Sony/Philips music distribution monopoly no longer exists.
>>>Bush, when he had to have the complete cooperation of the House and Senate to even write all of the crazy laws that were passed in the last 8 years.
>>>
As I said: "The Democrats were equally-complicit, since BOTH parties supported legislation that helped created the current crisis."
And: "The Democrats held Congress for two years; [they could have stopped Bush in his tracks but] did anything improve? Nope."
And: "Both R's and D's acted poorly these last two decades." (Like passing laws to force banks to accept people who couldn't afford a house (1994), and repealing the Glass-Stauley Act which protected banks from risky stock investments (1999).)
BOTH parties deserve blame.
The people are unfairly blaming
just the Republicans (imho).
China is communist, not socialist - please look up the difference.
No China is definitely NOT communist. It's socialist. Perhaps YOU should "look up the difference"?
I can see a problem with this. If the meat is not properly cloned, it might create random prions (bits of protein) that can invade the human body through the stomach & cause brain damage.
fanatical vegans... say that even if no animal was actually killed, people have still not subdued that part of themselves that gets pleasure from eating animal flesh.
Mmmm. Animal flesh. (drool). I wonder what Vegan tastes like?
Did I use these quote tags properly?
Pass.
This animal is more like a hydra with multiple tentacles but extremely small and simplistic in design.
BTW there were LOTS of creatures that came before the dinosaurs.
There were the Cambrian creatures, followed by the Synapsids that were huge reptile-like creatures that dominated the planet until they were eventually replaced the dinosaurs. The Synapsids then evolved into mammals - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid For more info see the BBC's "Before the Dinosaurs"
>>>>>You, sir, do not belong on Slashdot.
Why ya say dat?
>>>Falco, is that you?
No.
>>>EA will learn, someday
I'm sure they will eventually stop using DRM, but corporations are a lot like women. Reluctant.
At first.