I am for drug patents and against govermental price controls. I am for allowing pharmycetical companies to have control of the drugs they create, and this includes price, which should be what the market will bear, not an artificial government price designed to keep the company from making a profit.
Bush isn't cutting spending. He is growing the goverment at a rate that is unmatched in the past 40 years. And most of the growth in spending isn't from the War on Terror, it is from domestic spending. Spending that the GOP doesn't have to do.
So, you think Medicare is fine the way it was?
Domestic spending is unfortunetly what "most" of the US wants right now. You might not realize it, but it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. You make it sound like there's some "solution" out there that President Bush just needs to find and sign on the dotted line and all the domestic spending will go away. But the problem remains that much of the people in this country demand domestic spending. So some money has to be spent domestically while trying to reform things the best you can. That's the consequence of a Republic form of government instead of a dictatorship.
It's like a car that people are pushing down a slippery hill. You can apply the brakes and try to get back up the hill, but you're going to slige further before you go up.
We didn't get into this mess yesterday, and we are not going to get out tomorrow.
Do you think I should not support President Bush because of his domestic spending? If not, who should I support? Certainly none of the Democratic candidates will have better policies on domestic spending.
Since you appear to be a conservative, how can you support the big goverment programs that GWB loves? What about his high levels of goverment spending. (55% of which isn't related to the War on Terror)
Supporting, and not liking something are 2 very different things. I might not like big government but this is a Republic, and some people demand big government. Ok, lot's a people demand big government.
As much as I'd like to do something to reduce government, say privatize education, I recognise that Bush can't come out tomorrow and cut all education funding. That would be perpostuous. It's the same way with Medicare. Bush can't cut all funding immediately. That's why we call it reform. The people "need" medicare, and we need to work within that parameter, while working on reforming it. Social Security is the same way.
How about the GWB Drug Bill that PROHIBITS the goverment from bargining for cheaper drug prices?
I'm unfamiliar with this bill. If you give me a bill number, I'd be glad to research it and write a JE.
And shoudn't the rest of the world pay for the R&D (R&D that is about HALF of AD SPENDING) that goes into these drugs? Afterall the pharmcos do not pay back the taxpayer when they use taxpayer paid for reasearch.
We have a great governer in Minnesota. The liberals here have been whining that we need to import drugs from Canada. So Pawlenty ealier this year said, yes, let's allow drug importation and *see* what happens to the drug industry. Well, what do you know? The liberals had a cow. They threatened to sue, and whined like crazy. I guess you really can't make a liberal happy.
Anyways, the point I guess is that we should allow countries to import drugs into the US. The result is that the rest of the world will then be forced to "pay" for the R&D to compete. And that results in the liberal's nirvana.
Wanna do away with government interference in drug prices? Fine - start by ceasing the issuance of patents.
You just want people to die from diseases that could be cured pharmacytically, don't you? If a drug company is going to invest tons of money to develop a drug that another companies are just going to sell to drive them out of business, do you think that they are going to invest that money?
No, they're just going to let you die. And you deserve it.
If I can share what I bought on physical media, why can't I share what I bought digitally. Of course, one of the things I most want to share is new tunes I've grabbed, and I don't want to go around authorizing/deauthorizing my colleauges' machines. Hopefully, they'll find a way to enable sharing of ITMS purchases in the future.
That doesn't make sense. Doesn't it violate copyrights to be sharing your music that you purchased with your colleauges? Shouldn't they be buying their own music?
It's one thing to share my iTunes library so that I can listen too it personally on both my iMac and my Windows PC. It's quite a bit different to share it with my colleauges so that they can listen to it on their computers.
Since you're bridging the same network adapter or sitting behind the same router (physical or virtual), they've still got your IP Address and MAC address.
So? I'm failing to see why this should be an issue. Unless you don't ever access the internet expect through a trusted third party proxy. I mean, your IP address is supposed to be relatively public to begin with, isn't it?
If your cell phone has a camera you leave it off and in your pocket during the movie. Most movies seem to play a short blurb beforehand reminding you to turn your cell phone off during the movie already anyways. I can't see where the problem would be.
It would be nice if there was a review somewhere from somebody who had actually used the product.. or even just some screenshots?
I just got the evaluation CD Saturday, so haven't had a chance to play around with it a lot yet. Basically it looks like it is an OS, compiler, and debugger independent IDE. You can run it on Solaris, Linux, or XP and tell it which compiler and debugger to use, and it will use it.
And if a third party organization (like the ACLU) believed that the manufacturer did not adequetly correct existing issues, isn't it that organization's duty to raise awareness or stop falty machines from being instituted and used?
Yes. That's what I've been saying. I think that the ACLU will try to "stop falty machines from being instituted and used." There. I quoted your post. Does that make you feel better?:)
You are saying that I can't make that claim though in this thread because the original article doesn't speculate what the ACLU's response will be. Is that correct? Because in this reply you seem to concur with me. So why argue the same conclusion?
Side note: if you expect the Democrats or the RNC to not use issues to their political or financial advantage, then you're quite naive.
Politically and financially, yes. But, I don't expect them to do anything ethically wrong. I don't have evidence of Republicans being involved in anything ethically wrong. I wish I could say the same thing about Democrats. But then, you know that I am obviously bias:)
So, I'm not really sure where you got the "Bush & RNC control voting machines" rhetoric.
I didn't. It was burgburgburg who brought "Bush & RNC control voting machines" rhetoric. I was just responding to it.
Otherwise you would have found that the story does not mention the ACLU or the RNC or President Bush.
Hello!?!? Just because the story doesn't mention the ACLU or the RNC or President Bush doesn't mean that they don't can't about the issue. If you only accept a subset of facts about an issue, you can confine the facts to push your agenda.
The fact is that some people have issues with voting accuracy. The ACLU has issues with voting accuracy. This article talks about electronic voting issues, the ACLU filed a lawsuit dealing with paper voting issues. I fail to see why next March the ACLU wouldn't see the issues also with electronic voting that people are seeing now.
So, you are either saying that this story is bunk, and has no real facts, the ACLU is blind and can't see the issues with electronic voting, or the ACLU doesn't care whether the Republicans steal the election with electronic votes. I know which theory I'm going to believe.
If all of the new voting machines are in place, what legal reason does the ACLU have for stopping the March Primary? Or the General Election? And please realise that the ACLU cannot simply dream up a legal reason. You actually have to have an educated and well-thought out arguement before you step in front of a judge.
It's not like/.
But isn't this story all about Electronic Voting Machines being unreliable, and unauditable, and being Republican controlled? Don't you think that the ACLU will sue to stop the primary election until the voting machines have been "audited", so that voters won't be "disenfranchised" by the "inaccurate" and "Republican-controlled" ballots? It wouldn't surprise me. Why should they not care about voters being disenfranchised by eletronic votes if they do care about paper ballots?
Or perhaps this whole story is just a joke, and there's really no issue with electronic voting machines to begin with. Of course, the ACLU realises this and knows that they can't get away with anything.
Stay on target and argue the FACTS. burgburgburg made no mention of California and his point was right on target.
Anyone can pick out a few facts and come to any conclusion they want. The full story is that the Democrats in CA wanted the recall election to happen after all precincts had electronic voting machines. Yet these voting machines are supposed to be error-prone, un-auditable, and Republican controlled.
I fully expect the CA ACLU to try to stop the primary in March. And the general election in November. Why shouldn't they? They'll always find some issue that they can use to impose their will on democracy. I don't think the recall election was unique.
Considering that W has directed millions of dollars of federal monies to Diebold to replace those old, "untrustworthy" voting machines, why does this shock?
I thought it was the ACLU and California democrats that wanted the recall election put on hold until all the precincts had these nice 100% accurate electronic voting machines. Now you are telling me that the ACLU and democrats were just pawns of the W.?
Scary. This is worse then I thought.
Good thing the Appeals Court stood up to W and his cronies and reinstituted the recall date.
This means you have to physically go down to the police department, fill out paperwork for a harassment claim, then you can call SBC and give them the case number and they will enable call trapping on your line and take steps to block that one and only that one caller.
What a crock. Could they make it any harder? Not to mention, the lady at the police station made it very plain by the tone of her voice that the last thing they wanted to waste their time with was a telemarketter complaint.
You really want SBC to be handing out telephone information like that without official police paperwork? My goodness, and some people think that the Patiot Act allows to much freedom.
Imagine what the world would be like when SBC just pursues any claim for absolutely any reason.
This is the start of something bad. Once Joe Q. Public starts to think that this is cool, he won't mind having every single thing he buys trackable by satelite. He won't even think about it, and thus he'll be a little less free.
2 Questions.
First, what's wrong with having everything I purchase trackable.
And second, *how* will this make me less free?
I'm serious, I want answers. Because I have no problem buying Coke with GPS locator doodads in them, and I seriously can't figure out how that will make me less free.
I saw the articles, I've checked out the "sitefinder" page, and I don't see the problem? What is the problem? Can someone take the time to explain it to me?
This sounds like a really big non-issue, as far as I can tell.
Wouldn't this simply turn the average user curious about Linux off from Mandrake and more into Lindows or any other alternative geared toward migrating Windows users?
I don't know. How does advertising related products turn average users off from Linux. I'd assume it would make them more interested in Linux products. Presumely average users would be interested in see advertising about StarOffice, and Linux classes, and other related stuff.
I can only think of *one* situation... Pearl Harbor.
Yes, and I want to do all I can to prevent another "Pearl Harbour." Look, if you value the freedoms we have in this country then you need to be willing to do what it takes to defend them. I am. You apparently are not.
That's fine. A lot of people in the US today don't seem to value their freedoms. Thankfully, there are still lots of people like me how are willing to give our lives to protect our freedoms. You benefit from our sacrifice also. I know you wish you didn't benefit from the sacrifice of those who are willing to defend our freedoms, but that's the way it is in a free country. Everyone benefits alike whether they value the cost of freedom or not.
Do you have a moral or ethical responsibility, knowing that, to abstain from such research?
No. Don't you understand? North Korea and Pakistan, and Syria, and probably other countries even have nuclear weapons programs. We must continue defense research to be able to defend ourselves against future attacks. If we do not, we will quickly find ourselves fighting an enemy that has superior weapons that we will be defenseless against.
If the best way to defend our country right now is to mass produce rifles, then I am going to be mass producing rifles. If that's what it takes to defend our country, then I wouldn't even give it a second thought.
I sure would feel bad if my cousin, or brother, or sister, or friend or anyone else was killed because I refused to make rifles that could have been used to defend our country. Therefore, I am for any and all defense research that can be done.
Now, what do you not see? Iraqis greeting americans as altruistic liberators. When U.S. soldiers liberated France in WWII, did they keep getting attacked and killed afterwards? No, they didn't.
When the Allies moved into Germany, those who were fighting to make Germany into a world power, and were slaughtering Jews didn't fall down and welcome the Allies either. People who are in power because they are violating human rights usually aren't happy when someone takes that power away. Neither are the people in Iraq who are still bitter that they no longer have the power to kill and destroy and violate human rights in Iraq.
That doesn't mean what we did isn't right. It just means that it was all that more important to liberate Iraq.
Fundamentally, would you take money to develop something that may one day kill your cousin?
Yes.
Going back to black powder rifles isn't going to protect my cousin. Have better weapons then the enemy is going to protect my cousin. Therefore, there is no struggle. If my research is going to result in more powerful weapons, then I am going to do it.
I know that terrorists are working on better weapons. I don't hear any reports of Osama struggling over a moral dilemma. If we are producing better weapons they *will* destroy my cousin. And I'd do anything to stop them.
is to realize the megalomaniac ambitions of ExxonMobil and its puppet-in-chief in Washington - and that hardly entails "defending" the country you love.
I'm sorry, I most have missed a major news story. I don't remember the US bombing for oil anywhere in the world in the last 2 years.
Either you or I are being delusional. I see 2 towers that no longer exist and thousands dead. I see mass graves of people in Iraq killed by the hand of a dictator no longer in power. I see a list of terrorists who no longer are able to kill innocent poeple around the world.
I don't see oil pouring in from anywhere or cheap gas prices, which would be the result of having access to lots of oil.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll type a little slower this time.
I am for drug patents and against govermental price controls. I am for allowing pharmycetical companies to have control of the drugs they create, and this includes price, which should be what the market will bear, not an artificial government price designed to keep the company from making a profit.
-BrentSo, you think Medicare is fine the way it was?
Domestic spending is unfortunetly what "most" of the US wants right now. You might not realize it, but it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. You make it sound like there's some "solution" out there that President Bush just needs to find and sign on the dotted line and all the domestic spending will go away. But the problem remains that much of the people in this country demand domestic spending. So some money has to be spent domestically while trying to reform things the best you can. That's the consequence of a Republic form of government instead of a dictatorship.
It's like a car that people are pushing down a slippery hill. You can apply the brakes and try to get back up the hill, but you're going to slige further before you go up.
We didn't get into this mess yesterday, and we are not going to get out tomorrow.
Do you think I should not support President Bush because of his domestic spending? If not, who should I support? Certainly none of the Democratic candidates will have better policies on domestic spending.
-BrentSupporting, and not liking something are 2 very different things. I might not like big government but this is a Republic, and some people demand big government. Ok, lot's a people demand big government.
As much as I'd like to do something to reduce government, say privatize education, I recognise that Bush can't come out tomorrow and cut all education funding. That would be perpostuous. It's the same way with Medicare. Bush can't cut all funding immediately. That's why we call it reform. The people "need" medicare, and we need to work within that parameter, while working on reforming it. Social Security is the same way.
How about the GWB Drug Bill that PROHIBITS the goverment from bargining for cheaper drug prices?I'm unfamiliar with this bill. If you give me a bill number, I'd be glad to research it and write a JE.
And shoudn't the rest of the world pay for the R&D (R&D that is about HALF of AD SPENDING) that goes into these drugs? Afterall the pharmcos do not pay back the taxpayer when they use taxpayer paid for reasearch.
We have a great governer in Minnesota. The liberals here have been whining that we need to import drugs from Canada. So Pawlenty ealier this year said, yes, let's allow drug importation and *see* what happens to the drug industry. Well, what do you know? The liberals had a cow. They threatened to sue, and whined like crazy. I guess you really can't make a liberal happy.
Anyways, the point I guess is that we should allow countries to import drugs into the US. The result is that the rest of the world will then be forced to "pay" for the R&D to compete. And that results in the liberal's nirvana.
-BrentYou just want people to die from diseases that could be cured pharmacytically, don't you? If a drug company is going to invest tons of money to develop a drug that another companies are just going to sell to drive them out of business, do you think that they are going to invest that money?
No, they're just going to let you die. And you deserve it.
-BrentThat doesn't make sense. Doesn't it violate copyrights to be sharing your music that you purchased with your colleauges? Shouldn't they be buying their own music?
It's one thing to share my iTunes library so that I can listen too it personally on both my iMac and my Windows PC. It's quite a bit different to share it with my colleauges so that they can listen to it on their computers.
-BrentSo? I'm failing to see why this should be an issue. Unless you don't ever access the internet expect through a trusted third party proxy. I mean, your IP address is supposed to be relatively public to begin with, isn't it?
-BrentIf your cell phone has a camera you leave it off and in your pocket during the movie. Most movies seem to play a short blurb beforehand reminding you to turn your cell phone off during the movie already anyways. I can't see where the problem would be.
-BrentI just got the evaluation CD Saturday, so haven't had a chance to play around with it a lot yet. Basically it looks like it is an OS, compiler, and debugger independent IDE. You can run it on Solaris, Linux, or XP and tell it which compiler and debugger to use, and it will use it.
-BrentYes. That's what I've been saying. I think that the ACLU will try to "stop falty machines from being instituted and used." There. I quoted your post. Does that make you feel better? :)
You are saying that I can't make that claim though in this thread because the original article doesn't speculate what the ACLU's response will be. Is that correct? Because in this reply you seem to concur with me. So why argue the same conclusion?
Side note: if you expect the Democrats or the RNC to not use issues to their political or financial advantage, then you're quite naive.Politically and financially, yes. But, I don't expect them to do anything ethically wrong. I don't have evidence of Republicans being involved in anything ethically wrong. I wish I could say the same thing about Democrats. But then, you know that I am obviously bias :)
So, I'm not really sure where you got the "Bush & RNC control voting machines" rhetoric.I didn't. It was burgburgburg who brought "Bush & RNC control voting machines" rhetoric. I was just responding to it.
-BrentHello!?!? Just because the story doesn't mention the ACLU or the RNC or President Bush doesn't mean that they don't can't about the issue. If you only accept a subset of facts about an issue, you can confine the facts to push your agenda.
The fact is that some people have issues with voting accuracy. The ACLU has issues with voting accuracy. This article talks about electronic voting issues, the ACLU filed a lawsuit dealing with paper voting issues. I fail to see why next March the ACLU wouldn't see the issues also with electronic voting that people are seeing now.
So, you are either saying that this story is bunk, and has no real facts, the ACLU is blind and can't see the issues with electronic voting, or the ACLU doesn't care whether the Republicans steal the election with electronic votes. I know which theory I'm going to believe.
-BrentAnd please realise that the ACLU cannot simply dream up a legal reason. You actually have to have an educated and well-thought out arguement before you step in front of a judge.
It's not like
But isn't this story all about Electronic Voting Machines being unreliable, and unauditable, and being Republican controlled? Don't you think that the ACLU will sue to stop the primary election until the voting machines have been "audited", so that voters won't be "disenfranchised" by the "inaccurate" and "Republican-controlled" ballots? It wouldn't surprise me. Why should they not care about voters being disenfranchised by eletronic votes if they do care about paper ballots?
Or perhaps this whole story is just a joke, and there's really no issue with electronic voting machines to begin with. Of course, the ACLU realises this and knows that they can't get away with anything.
-BrentAnyone can pick out a few facts and come to any conclusion they want. The full story is that the Democrats in CA wanted the recall election to happen after all precincts had electronic voting machines. Yet these voting machines are supposed to be error-prone, un-auditable, and Republican controlled.
I fully expect the CA ACLU to try to stop the primary in March. And the general election in November. Why shouldn't they? They'll always find some issue that they can use to impose their will on democracy. I don't think the recall election was unique.
-BrentI thought it was the ACLU and California democrats that wanted the recall election put on hold until all the precincts had these nice 100% accurate electronic voting machines. Now you are telling me that the ACLU and democrats were just pawns of the W.?
Scary. This is worse then I thought.
Good thing the Appeals Court stood up to W and his cronies and reinstituted the recall date.
-BrentI thought for sure in the US we had the right to private ballots.
-BrentWhat a crock. Could they make it any harder? Not to mention, the lady at the police station made it very plain by the tone of her voice that the last thing they wanted to waste their time with was a telemarketter complaint.
You really want SBC to be handing out telephone information like that without official police paperwork? My goodness, and some people think that the Patiot Act allows to much freedom.
Imagine what the world would be like when SBC just pursues any claim for absolutely any reason.
-Brent2 Questions.
First, what's wrong with having everything I purchase trackable.
And second, *how* will this make me less free?
I'm serious, I want answers. Because I have no problem buying Coke with GPS locator doodads in them, and I seriously can't figure out how that will make me less free.
-BrentI saw the articles, I've checked out the "sitefinder" page, and I don't see the problem? What is the problem? Can someone take the time to explain it to me?
This sounds like a really big non-issue, as far as I can tell.
-Brent
Ok, *why* would it bother you? Stop being evasive please. :) I just want to know why anyone would have a problem with ads.
-BrentBut why? Why does it both you that someone trying out Mandrake has the opportunity to learn more about Linux-related products and services?
-BrentI don't know. How does advertising related products turn average users off from Linux. I'd assume it would make them more interested in Linux products. Presumely average users would be interested in see advertising about StarOffice, and Linux classes, and other related stuff.
-BrentYes, and I want to do all I can to prevent another "Pearl Harbour." Look, if you value the freedoms we have in this country then you need to be willing to do what it takes to defend them. I am. You apparently are not.
That's fine. A lot of people in the US today don't seem to value their freedoms. Thankfully, there are still lots of people like me how are willing to give our lives to protect our freedoms. You benefit from our sacrifice also. I know you wish you didn't benefit from the sacrifice of those who are willing to defend our freedoms, but that's the way it is in a free country. Everyone benefits alike whether they value the cost of freedom or not.
-BrentNo. Don't you understand? North Korea and Pakistan, and Syria, and probably other countries even have nuclear weapons programs. We must continue defense research to be able to defend ourselves against future attacks. If we do not, we will quickly find ourselves fighting an enemy that has superior weapons that we will be defenseless against.
If the best way to defend our country right now is to mass produce rifles, then I am going to be mass producing rifles. If that's what it takes to defend our country, then I wouldn't even give it a second thought.
I sure would feel bad if my cousin, or brother, or sister, or friend or anyone else was killed because I refused to make rifles that could have been used to defend our country. Therefore, I am for any and all defense research that can be done.
-BrentWhen the Allies moved into Germany, those who were fighting to make Germany into a world power, and were slaughtering Jews didn't fall down and welcome the Allies either. People who are in power because they are violating human rights usually aren't happy when someone takes that power away. Neither are the people in Iraq who are still bitter that they no longer have the power to kill and destroy and violate human rights in Iraq.
That doesn't mean what we did isn't right. It just means that it was all that more important to liberate Iraq.
-BrentYes.
Going back to black powder rifles isn't going to protect my cousin. Have better weapons then the enemy is going to protect my cousin. Therefore, there is no struggle. If my research is going to result in more powerful weapons, then I am going to do it.
I know that terrorists are working on better weapons. I don't hear any reports of Osama struggling over a moral dilemma. If we are producing better weapons they *will* destroy my cousin. And I'd do anything to stop them.
-BrentI'm sorry, I most have missed a major news story. I don't remember the US bombing for oil anywhere in the world in the last 2 years.
Either you or I are being delusional. I see 2 towers that no longer exist and thousands dead. I see mass graves of people in Iraq killed by the hand of a dictator no longer in power. I see a list of terrorists who no longer are able to kill innocent poeple around the world.
I don't see oil pouring in from anywhere or cheap gas prices, which would be the result of having access to lots of oil.
What do you see again?
-Brent