I'm sure our brilliant intelligence services worked a deal out with Google to put out false information in these maps to confuse, befuddle and ultimately exploit the enemy, right? You blew our cover!
Not that I would want to argue much about your internal conflicts but The Revolution Will Not Be Televised has a much different (and literal camera) view of that 2002 attempt at a coup. There seems to be a ton of propaganda on both sides in Venezuela (and its mostly one sided here in America). I wonder why Chavez hasn't cracked down on freedom of speech if he is such an evil character? He does say some outragous bullshit, but he's very politically calculating and good at what he does. And this pisses off the monied interests that are losing to his so-called Bolivian revolution.
Now get on that position paper to describe why IP freedom will improve government services, shrink the cost of healthcare, decrease taxes all while creating both long and short term job growth and increasing global competitiveness.
Alrighty then. When you are unaware of something, you say I am ignorant (classic!). When I don't sufficiently acknowledge something in your eyes, I am ignorant. When I make a valid observation, you twist it into something off-topic or instantly dismiss it.
Nice chatting with you, I'm sure back home you are the life of the... nevermind.
I thought it was good intentions that paves the way to hell. But I have a feeling it is truly what ever you decide is wrong becomes your worldview of hell.
Sure we have had more than two parties, but its very rare a 3rd lasts as a major party past two presidential election cycles (most ralley around a person, not an lasting idea). Winner-take-all, single member districts certainly make this unsustainable.
As far as what is codified and what is not, single members districts is not codified in the Constitution but in 1842 Congress passed a law forcing this upon all states (modified by court ruling in 1932, followed by a 1967 law banning at-large and multi-member districts) . So you would be wrong this is up to the states anymore. Clearly these laws placed a stranglehold on third parties, intent or not.
Finally, as far as human nature goes, it surely hasn't changed, but we also have a better understanding of it. We also have better understandings of human needs, how vast the west and even the earth is, that oceans won't protect us, that there are limited resources, speedier communication and transportation, etc etc. Heck, even the concept of proportional voting had not been 'invented' in the 18th century. But somehow you truly believe all these men, which I greatly respect, wouldn't change a thing with such an expanded knowledgebase today. That's the only ignorant thought on this thread. You don't give them the credit they deserve.
And btw, your attack on my belief in rights is seriously misguided, or at least a poor excuse for rhetorical misdirection. Pathetic.
The structural way we elect our representatives created the two-party system. Winner-take-all combined with single-member districts. That's what implicitly created the two-party system.
As far as your appeal to the authority of men 250 years ago... I think about half of them would laugh at you silly, you know, if they weren't as dead as the document they created.
Guess what? I don't disagree at all. _Certain_ founders certainly wanted to avoid politicians becoming "men of faction". They certainly didn't ban parties textually despite this rhetoric.
I think we can safely assume they failed in this desire despite their good intentions. Can we adjust to that reality now? Parties are here to stay. Besides, historical commentary from 18th century don't really help our current situation.
There is how it ought to be and how it is. I don't blame you and I certainly don't blame Mr. Washington but parties...exist. Again, I fear you may not understand the meaning of the word 'implict'.
Its being reported, but I guess you could call it underreported. We don't really have the wherewithall to handle a lesser fuckup when we got a major fuckup going on, which is also underreported.
Most people have turned against the War in Iraq and Bush but seem to think there are no alternatives. Its not like our lifestyle has changed. Check in later when we start to reap the fruit.
Actually you could just modify one of the two major parties. Look at the Republican shift since Nixon (otherwise known as Pre-Reagan). Republicans have become hardline anti-regulatory, hardline religious, hardline anti-tax, anti-civil rights. Its a totally different party today than thirty years ago when they never would have cut taxes for the rich while going to war. Going further back, you can see a similiar shift in the Democratic party as the Solid South turned red.
Sure its partly generational replacement, but change is slow except in a crisis.
I think your reading comprehension is actually the one in question. For example, look up the word 'implicit' because I certainly did not say the two-party system was textual to the Constitution.
As for everything else, there are a lot of fundamentals that would need to be explained in a way in which/. is not the appropriate medium. I do hope you keep the list of identified problems in your head as I am sure you will begin to understand if you look hard enough while keeping them in mind.
The logical disconnect in your post is what is stymieing change more than anything. Not the parent.
Politics is a participation sport, yet you suggest getting off the field is the answer. No 3rd party that doesn't come out of one of the majors (or both) will have traction. You're a dreamer if you insist on anything else. A dreamer whose byproduct is status quo.
This is someone who "gets it". No one is insisting having real choice for 3rd parties (or 4th or 5th) would not make this a better country. However, whether you are a Libertarian or a Green or something else and you sit here and lecture us that all it takes is voting for a 3rd party to cure the structural ills to our political process you are dead wrong (and therefore perpetuating the problem).
The two-party system exists because it is implicit to our Constitution. Period. If you don't get past this fact we are lost.
If you want serious change, attack the real problems. Rampant gerrymandering. The primary system. Lack of "Ranked Voting". The electoral college. The unrepresentative Senate. The weak party system. Lack of a modern parliamentary system. Buckley v Valeo (money = free speech). The removal of only one or two of these structural problem would likely be a catalyst for much greater change.
Fact is, none of us have the balls to say the founders screwed up and/or we know something now they did not. We are the most archaic Republic in existance, its hard to believe we have it perfect and none of the ideas that came after are correct. Ultimately however, the immense difficulty of amending the Constitution is what ossifies the status quo. Not people who suggest working within the two party system to get rid of it.
You are having it both ways. First he is intentionally misleading us (according to you). Now you are arguing over the meaning of 'hidden fees' like a student of Jacques Derrida. You can deconstruct the statement all you want, but the only way to read it is online play will be free after paying for the console as long as you have a wireless internet connection.
Anything short of that yeah they are _lying_. 'Misleading' would be much too soft a word.
And no, I'm no Nintendo fanboi but I think you are just FUDing it up with no real proof but rather poor reading comprehension.
"We will offer online-enabled games that the consumers will not have to pay a subscription fee for. They'll be able to enjoy that right out of the box. The Wii console is going to be Wi-Fi enabled, so essentially, you'll be able to plug it in and go. It won't have hidden fees or costs."
I don't know why the parent is modded so high when it has a major factual inaccuracy, namely a dictionary/word suggester. Yup, it could use some help and not care that words like "internet" don't need to be capitalized but that's neither here nor there.
Gmail = labels/filters + basically unlimited disk usage + search = My best experience with email since 1996. And I install Exchange for a (partial) living. shhh
Democrats saw Leiberman as too close to President George W. Bush, not necessarily the Republican party. Realize this election is all about the lack of _faith_ this country has for Mr. Bush and friends right now. If you are seen as an enabler of this administration's policies, you are vulnerable. This pro-Lamont outcome is striking fear into certain Republicans who don't sit in clearly gerrymandered districts (which is a serious cancer on democracy spreading throughout this nation so _wake up_). Don't expect a large volume of changes in either house of Congress due this incumbency stranglehold/advantage, but perhaps enough to wrestle control of the direction of the country from the President back to Congress. As the founders intended (very slowly/deliberately).
Personally, I have to poo-poo the media on this. The Leiberman's website goes down, the liberal blogosphere takes notice and investigates almost in real time. One notable fact uncovered was other domains on the same box were serving pages just fine. This more or less rules out a denial of service which would have brought down the entire machine.
Hours later CNN and others are running stories with the Leiberman campaign accusing Lamont of unethical behavior. Give me a break! What a free pass CNN gives to Lieberman for a late smear. Two sides to a story (i'll accept the premise) perhaps, but one is obviously using the chance (perhaps a 'wired' one at that) for a cheapshot with no time on the clock. Reporters and editors should check with their local geek before becoming such avoidable pawns in a serious contest about the future of the USA.
Fortunately, it appears this didn't push the election.
There is another post on the frost page complaining about Windows (but this really affects all O/S) having such high resolution fonts appear too small. I've messed with this in OS X 10.4 via a dev kit (Quartz allows you to turn it on partially). It's quite nice when Viewer and other apps aren't crashing.
One of the dominate rumors for OS X v10.5 (Leopard) is that it will come with virtualization to run Windows programs. If it did that well (and there are many big IFs to this) Apple may be breaking through. Though, these same rumours suggest MS helped (with Intel) so there must be a poison pill.
I agree, you are most philosophically wise and moral. Meanwhile, other people with other values come to other conclusions.
I'll take freedom and choice over mindless religous fanaticism any day of the week.
Careful with that type of argument as it can easily be thrown back at your otherwise 'intense' motivations. Unfortunately, the market is generally not often affected by diminutive moral belief. But continue to vote with your dollars, but I suggest you address the more predominent reasons why OSS is not grabbing a huge chunk of the install base.
Sorry, umm a bunch of open source geeks who have different values than more regular consumers aren't convincing me of squat. One guy bought a Lenovo ThinkPad T60p (6.4 lbs) over a MacBook Pro (5.4 lbs) because of a couple hundred dollar price gap. Sorry dude, I'll eat that to lug around one less pound. Another blogger has a solid, but limited list of "essential" software he uses that can run on many different platorms. Umm, so? Cheers, if the only way to define the computer experience by the cheapest initial costs that still allows for successful compiles of Emacs and VLC.
You are taking a very narrow stance on what it takes to create innovation. Simply saying time is necessary plays down the need for educational investments, political will to overcome institutions who profit from stagnant innovation, access to resources, collaboration, etc.
There are 6 billion people living today, shouldn't we have some proportional gain in Einsteins and Rembrandts? Or maybe innovation can actually be induced by a variety of events; social, political, economic. Time moving forward does not create innovation. In fact, one could argue we are innovating more than ever today. Just not where it counts.
In other news, still no cure for cancer, alternative to fossil fuels, complete access to stem cell lines, or hoverboards. Your miltary-industrial complex dollars at work.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure our brilliant intelligence services worked a deal out with Google to put out false information in these maps to confuse, befuddle and ultimately exploit the enemy, right? You blew our cover!
Also, you can't disprove this.
And somehow Netzero was harder to cancel then that classmates.com ordeal? Grr, I might even have to click the link.
Not that I would want to argue much about your internal conflicts but The Revolution Will Not Be Televised has a much different (and literal camera) view of that 2002 attempt at a coup. There seems to be a ton of propaganda on both sides in Venezuela (and its mostly one sided here in America). I wonder why Chavez hasn't cracked down on freedom of speech if he is such an evil character? He does say some outragous bullshit, but he's very politically calculating and good at what he does. And this pisses off the monied interests that are losing to his so-called Bolivian revolution.
are at least as bad as single issue voters.
Now get on that position paper to describe why IP freedom will improve government services, shrink the cost of healthcare, decrease taxes all while creating both long and short term job growth and increasing global competitiveness.
Alrighty then. When you are unaware of something, you say I am ignorant (classic!). When I don't sufficiently acknowledge something in your eyes, I am ignorant. When I make a valid observation, you twist it into something off-topic or instantly dismiss it.
Nice chatting with you, I'm sure back home you are the life of the... nevermind.
I thought it was good intentions that paves the way to hell. But I have a feeling it is truly what ever you decide is wrong becomes your worldview of hell.
Sure we have had more than two parties, but its very rare a 3rd lasts as a major party past two presidential election cycles (most ralley around a person, not an lasting idea). Winner-take-all, single member districts certainly make this unsustainable.
As far as what is codified and what is not, single members districts is not codified in the Constitution but in 1842 Congress passed a law forcing this upon all states (modified by court ruling in 1932, followed by a 1967 law banning at-large and multi-member districts) . So you would be wrong this is up to the states anymore. Clearly these laws placed a stranglehold on third parties, intent or not.
Finally, as far as human nature goes, it surely hasn't changed, but we also have a better understanding of it. We also have better understandings of human needs, how vast the west and even the earth is, that oceans won't protect us, that there are limited resources, speedier communication and transportation, etc etc. Heck, even the concept of proportional voting had not been 'invented' in the 18th century. But somehow you truly believe all these men, which I greatly respect, wouldn't change a thing with such an expanded knowledgebase today. That's the only ignorant thought on this thread. You don't give them the credit they deserve.
And btw, your attack on my belief in rights is seriously misguided, or at least a poor excuse for rhetorical misdirection. Pathetic.
I'll also add the first amendment is a little more than "implict" in this area because in explicitly guarantees freedom of [political] association.
The structural way we elect our representatives created the two-party system. Winner-take-all combined with single-member districts. That's what implicitly created the two-party system.
As far as your appeal to the authority of men 250 years ago... I think about half of them would laugh at you silly, you know, if they weren't as dead as the document they created.
Guess what? I don't disagree at all. _Certain_ founders certainly wanted to avoid politicians becoming "men of faction". They certainly didn't ban parties textually despite this rhetoric.
I think we can safely assume they failed in this desire despite their good intentions. Can we adjust to that reality now? Parties are here to stay. Besides, historical commentary from 18th century don't really help our current situation.
There is how it ought to be and how it is. I don't blame you and I certainly don't blame Mr. Washington but parties...exist. Again, I fear you may not understand the meaning of the word 'implict'.
Its being reported, but I guess you could call it underreported. We don't really have the wherewithall to handle a lesser fuckup when we got a major fuckup going on, which is also underreported.
Most people have turned against the War in Iraq and Bush but seem to think there are no alternatives. Its not like our lifestyle has changed. Check in later when we start to reap the fruit.
Actually you could just modify one of the two major parties. Look at the Republican shift since Nixon (otherwise known as Pre-Reagan). Republicans have become hardline anti-regulatory, hardline religious, hardline anti-tax, anti-civil rights. Its a totally different party today than thirty years ago when they never would have cut taxes for the rich while going to war. Going further back, you can see a similiar shift in the Democratic party as the Solid South turned red.
Sure its partly generational replacement, but change is slow except in a crisis.
I think your reading comprehension is actually the one in question. For example, look up the word 'implicit' because I certainly did not say the two-party system was textual to the Constitution.
/. is not the appropriate medium. I do hope you keep the list of identified problems in your head as I am sure you will begin to understand if you look hard enough while keeping them in mind.
As for everything else, there are a lot of fundamentals that would need to be explained in a way in which
The logical disconnect in your post is what is stymieing change more than anything. Not the parent.
Politics is a participation sport, yet you suggest getting off the field is the answer. No 3rd party that doesn't come out of one of the majors (or both) will have traction. You're a dreamer if you insist on anything else. A dreamer whose byproduct is status quo.
This is someone who "gets it". No one is insisting having real choice for 3rd parties (or 4th or 5th) would not make this a better country. However, whether you are a Libertarian or a Green or something else and you sit here and lecture us that all it takes is voting for a 3rd party to cure the structural ills to our political process you are dead wrong (and therefore perpetuating the problem).
The two-party system exists because it is implicit to our Constitution. Period. If you don't get past this fact we are lost.
If you want serious change, attack the real problems. Rampant gerrymandering. The primary system. Lack of "Ranked Voting". The electoral college. The unrepresentative Senate. The weak party system. Lack of a modern parliamentary system. Buckley v Valeo (money = free speech). The removal of only one or two of these structural problem would likely be a catalyst for much greater change.
Fact is, none of us have the balls to say the founders screwed up and/or we know something now they did not. We are the most archaic Republic in existance, its hard to believe we have it perfect and none of the ideas that came after are correct. Ultimately however, the immense difficulty of amending the Constitution is what ossifies the status quo. Not people who suggest working within the two party system to get rid of it.
Now, wake up.
You are having it both ways. First he is intentionally misleading us (according to you). Now you are arguing over the meaning of 'hidden fees' like a student of Jacques Derrida. You can deconstruct the statement all you want, but the only way to read it is online play will be free after paying for the console as long as you have a wireless internet connection.
Anything short of that yeah they are _lying_. 'Misleading' would be much too soft a word.
And no, I'm no Nintendo fanboi but I think you are just FUDing it up with no real proof but rather poor reading comprehension.
** Some emphasis added
From the Slashdot article:
"We will offer online-enabled games that the consumers will not have to pay a subscription fee for. They'll be able to enjoy that right out of the box. The Wii console is going to be Wi-Fi enabled, so essentially, you'll be able to plug it in and go. It won't have hidden fees or costs."
I don't know why the parent is modded so high when it has a major factual inaccuracy, namely a dictionary/word suggester. Yup, it could use some help and not care that words like "internet" don't need to be capitalized but that's neither here nor there.
Gmail = labels/filters + basically unlimited disk usage + search = My best experience with email since 1996. And I install Exchange for a (partial) living. shhh
Democrats saw Leiberman as too close to President George W. Bush, not necessarily the Republican party. Realize this election is all about the lack of _faith_ this country has for Mr. Bush and friends right now. If you are seen as an enabler of this administration's policies, you are vulnerable. This pro-Lamont outcome is striking fear into certain Republicans who don't sit in clearly gerrymandered districts (which is a serious cancer on democracy spreading throughout this nation so _wake up_). Don't expect a large volume of changes in either house of Congress due this incumbency stranglehold/advantage, but perhaps enough to wrestle control of the direction of the country from the President back to Congress. As the founders intended (very slowly/deliberately).
Personally, I have to poo-poo the media on this. The Leiberman's website goes down, the liberal blogosphere takes notice and investigates almost in real time. One notable fact uncovered was other domains on the same box were serving pages just fine. This more or less rules out a denial of service which would have brought down the entire machine.
Hours later CNN and others are running stories with the Leiberman campaign accusing Lamont of unethical behavior. Give me a break! What a free pass CNN gives to Lieberman for a late smear. Two sides to a story (i'll accept the premise) perhaps, but one is obviously using the chance (perhaps a 'wired' one at that) for a cheapshot with no time on the clock. Reporters and editors should check with their local geek before becoming such avoidable pawns in a serious contest about the future of the USA.
Fortunately, it appears this didn't push the election.
AKA Resolution Scaling
- to-expect-in-leopard.html
There is another post on the frost page complaining about Windows (but this really affects all O/S) having such high resolution fonts appear too small. I've messed with this in OS X 10.4 via a dev kit (Quartz allows you to turn it on partially). It's quite nice when Viewer and other apps aren't crashing.
http://dustin.waterfallsw.com/2006/05/one-feature
One of the dominate rumors for OS X v10.5 (Leopard) is that it will come with virtualization to run Windows programs. If it did that well (and there are many big IFs to this) Apple may be breaking through. Though, these same rumours suggest MS helped (with Intel) so there must be a poison pill.
Careful with that type of argument as it can easily be thrown back at your otherwise 'intense' motivations. Unfortunately, the market is generally not often affected by diminutive moral belief. But continue to vote with your dollars, but I suggest you address the more predominent reasons why OSS is not grabbing a huge chunk of the install base.
Sorry, umm a bunch of open source geeks who have different values than more regular consumers aren't convincing me of squat. One guy bought a Lenovo ThinkPad T60p (6.4 lbs) over a MacBook Pro (5.4 lbs) because of a couple hundred dollar price gap. Sorry dude, I'll eat that to lug around one less pound. Another blogger has a solid, but limited list of "essential" software he uses that can run on many different platorms. Umm, so? Cheers, if the only way to define the computer experience by the cheapest initial costs that still allows for successful compiles of Emacs and VLC.
You are taking a very narrow stance on what it takes to create innovation. Simply saying time is necessary plays down the need for educational investments, political will to overcome institutions who profit from stagnant innovation, access to resources, collaboration, etc.
There are 6 billion people living today, shouldn't we have some proportional gain in Einsteins and Rembrandts? Or maybe innovation can actually be induced by a variety of events; social, political, economic. Time moving forward does not create innovation. In fact, one could argue we are innovating more than ever today. Just not where it counts.
In other news, still no cure for cancer, alternative to fossil fuels, complete access to stem cell lines, or hoverboards. Your miltary-industrial complex dollars at work.