Don't forget the most famous pork in recent time--the bridge to nowhere? Mentioning Pelosi ('s husband!) and Murtha might give the impression that you are partisan.
Re:Nothing inconvenient about the results
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Oh, put this lie to rest already. It only shows that objwiz is not believable.
The conservatives have been wrong about global warming and its causes, tell me why I should waste more time on yet anoher conservative denialist with a vested interest (articles in mostly conservative publications) and no training in science?
About the Author
Marlo Lewis , Jr. is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where he writes on global warming, energy policy, regulatory process reform, and other public policy issues. He has published in National Review, the Washington Times, Investors Business Daily, the American Spectator, Tech Central Station, Energy, Pollution Liability Report, and The Hill. He has appeared on various TV and radio programs including C-SPAN, CNBC Capital Report, CBC-News Marketplace, and BBC TV. He holds a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University and a B.A. in Political Science from Claremont McKenna College .
The standard robotic Overly Critical Guy response--the use of unsubstantiated super-duper-over-double-over-quadruple-over generalization to dismiss a post not to his liking, and smearing anything and everything without giving any proof. Prove that it is the "standard, robotic Slashdot response."
Sorry, the charges don't stick. Let me say why.
(1) You don't like the GPL, do not use it. Just walk away. Unless you are peed that something you like to take and not share is GPLed.
(2) The nutshell of GPL is this: there is no restriction besides the restriction that you impose no further restrictions. The BSD license allows further restriction of the code, and is usually beloved by those who wants to take the fruits of others and not share.
I suspect that you already know all that, hence I find you to be purposedly obtuse with a hidden agenda.:-P
Looking into 1000 bags a day and finding nothing except annoyed passengers will numb even the most hardcore TSA agents. It puts one into a trance. My friend just flew from Honolulu to Modesto, California, with a transit in San Francisco, and her bag was searched TWICE. They found the joke dildo (with witty remarks in permanent markers) we gave her as a going away present, but they missed the three inch pocket knife that was accidentally left at the bottom of the bag. She found the knife after she arrived at her destination.
LOL. Sorry you got a -1 Troll. A precise and concise return volley with just the right amount of respect deserved. An implicit irony following an explicit one was a nice touch.
Tax the underground economy--how? Tax the tourist more, sure, but make it 20% more expensive for tourist to be tourist, then you watch as a corresponding less amount of tourist spend their money here after they wise up. Grow economy through tax havens for foreign business? You mean the rich invest their money, creates jobs for foreign countries, make the dough, spend it locally, drive up inflation?
Just because the money is not spent, it doesn't mean that benefit has not been derived from it. Let me give you an example:
Larry makes $1,000,000. Spends $100,000, paid taxes on that. So it seems fair that, no? He only "enjoyed" $100,000, so should pay tax on that $100,000 only. All's fair, right? But that is not the case. Because Larry then takes that other $900,000 and invest it, and makes $200,000 next year (plus his $1,000,000 regular income). So next year he has $200,000 more, because income is not taxed. Now he can spend $120,000 and still only pay 2.3% of THIS year's income. Now, he got $900,000+$900,000+$180,000 to invest, which he gets another return of $440,000. Then he can spend $144,100 and still only pay 2.3% of his total income.
Contrast that to the people who has to spend most of their money to survive every year. They have nothing to invest, thus makes the same amount every year, and thus have the same amount to spend every year, and the situation doesn't improve.
Now, can you see why it benefits the rich? They make more money, because income is not taxed, and they have more money to spend a year compared to the previous year, so their living standard improves. Whereas the living standard of the 23-percenter remains the same.
This is just a rough idea of what will happen with FairTax. There are some "safeguards" to prevent that supposedly, but do you think the safeguard will really work to improve the conditions of the 23-percenters? I don't think so, and I don't think it was meant to.
It looks to me that that is the case in the interview/article. Given Larry's apparent tendencies and approach to the whole affair, I would pretty much take those second hand quotes with several grains of salt. I am not saying that those weren't the actual words uttered by Linus, of course.
Words can be used to color opinions. Let me give you an example: There is no need to explain to anyone that that WMD, like nuclear weapons, in the hands of an unstable tyrant can lead to horrifying outcome. It is of high possibility that Saddam Hussein has WMD right now, at this moment, today. Bad things can happen anytime, maybe tomorrow. We must act immediately to rectify a precarious situation. Each sentence could have been standalone or used in some other entirely different context. Each sentence is either a statement that is hard to argue against, or deniable (e.g., possibility). But used in the sequence like I did above, the innuendo is clear. They have been used to hoodwink a whole nation.
By select the right combinations of words and sentences, one can create colors.
Human nature is a bunch of grays; trying to understand it in binary terms of 1s and 0s is likely to lead to misleading conclusions. Back to what I am trying to say: it seems to me that those are quotes of Linus from Larry.
Just listen to yourself. I bet you still can't find any fallacy/discrepancy in your reasoning. So sad.
So, a person, for some undisclosed reason, is suspected of being a danger. But nothing is done to investigate this serious suspicion further. Just plonk the "suspect" into the list. Simple. If people ask, just say "we cannot disclose the source" or "we cannot tell you if you are on tht list" or if you are on the list (like Kennedy) "we cannot tell you why you are on the list" and "we cannot tell you how to get off the list".
You are so mistaken to believe that this list is effective in stopping people who are a real danger. Here are a few reasons (and there are lots more) why it is really useless and just a PR:
If a real terrorist is stopped at the gate, then he is given a signal that his cover is blown.
If a real terrorist is not stopped at the gate, he knows his cover is not blown.
Go read up on the political/peace/anti-war activists that are on the list. I am sure they have a history of blowing up planes.
Go read up on how easy it is to get a fake ID.
Shocking how you can think that this no-fly list is effective and justified. It has no transparency, no accountability, easily abused and misused, and did I mention that it is ineffective? Does that sound like a free country to you or more like 1984? Oh, if you are still too dim to figure out why it is ineffective, let me elaborate even further:
It is easy to circumvent, e.g., get a fake ID. Thus it won't stop a halfway determined bad guy.
You might think that the feds know what they are doing. Sorry to say that the evidence is to the contrary. What evidence? Well, it is staring right at you all the time, take for example Kennedy's case--does that show a bunch of people that knows what they are doing, or a bunch or arrogant incompetents? It is thus only a harassment to those who are really not a danger. Do you want to take a guess how many people are stopped each day? How many of them are really bad guys? How can anyone with three brain cells still try to justify this blight on the Constitution?
...am I part of the solution, or part of the problem?
Since you seem to be one of those who like to go "it is neither A nor B, it is C", I would categorize you as neither part of the solution nor part of the problem. Instead, you are part of the smug.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the most famous pork in recent time--the bridge to nowhere? Mentioning Pelosi ('s husband!) and Murtha might give the impression that you are partisan.
Oh, put this lie to rest already. It only shows that objwiz is not believable.
The conservatives have been wrong about global warming and its causes, tell me why I should waste more time on yet anoher conservative denialist with a vested interest (articles in mostly conservative publications) and no training in science?
The standard robotic Overly Critical Guy response--the use of unsubstantiated super-duper-over-double-over-quadruple-over generalization to dismiss a post not to his liking, and smearing anything and everything without giving any proof. Prove that it is the "standard, robotic Slashdot response."
Sorry, the charges don't stick. Let me say why. (1) You don't like the GPL, do not use it. Just walk away. Unless you are peed that something you like to take and not share is GPLed. (2) The nutshell of GPL is this: there is no restriction besides the restriction that you impose no further restrictions. The BSD license allows further restriction of the code, and is usually beloved by those who wants to take the fruits of others and not share. I suspect that you already know all that, hence I find you to be purposedly obtuse with a hidden agenda. :-P
Looking into 1000 bags a day and finding nothing except annoyed passengers will numb even the most hardcore TSA agents. It puts one into a trance. My friend just flew from Honolulu to Modesto, California, with a transit in San Francisco, and her bag was searched TWICE. They found the joke dildo (with witty remarks in permanent markers) we gave her as a going away present, but they missed the three inch pocket knife that was accidentally left at the bottom of the bag. She found the knife after she arrived at her destination.
LOL. Sorry you got a -1 Troll. A precise and concise return volley with just the right amount of respect deserved. An implicit irony following an explicit one was a nice touch.
True, but no waiting at intersection either.
...has no chance of being elected unless he (or she, but that's another thread) professes devotion to Christianity, there is your Christian Church.
I.e., you know exactly what is meant by Christian Church--feigned ignorance does not prove nor disprove anything.
Cheers,
e.
party like nothing is happening. Cheers, e.
So if you could get that little inconvenience outta the way, that would be just handsome!"
Tax the underground economy--how? Tax the tourist more, sure, but make it 20% more expensive for tourist to be tourist, then you watch as a corresponding less amount of tourist spend their money here after they wise up. Grow economy through tax havens for foreign business? You mean the rich invest their money, creates jobs for foreign countries, make the dough, spend it locally, drive up inflation?
Cheers,
e.
Just because the money is not spent, it doesn't mean that benefit has not been derived from it. Let me give you an example:
Larry makes $1,000,000. Spends $100,000, paid taxes on that. So it seems fair that, no? He only "enjoyed" $100,000, so should pay tax on that $100,000 only. All's fair, right? But that is not the case. Because Larry then takes that other $900,000 and invest it, and makes $200,000 next year (plus his $1,000,000 regular income). So next year he has $200,000 more, because income is not taxed. Now he can spend $120,000 and still only pay 2.3% of THIS year's income. Now, he got $900,000+$900,000+$180,000 to invest, which he gets another return of $440,000. Then he can spend $144,100 and still only pay 2.3% of his total income.
Contrast that to the people who has to spend most of their money to survive every year. They have nothing to invest, thus makes the same amount every year, and thus have the same amount to spend every year, and the situation doesn't improve.
Now, can you see why it benefits the rich? They make more money, because income is not taxed, and they have more money to spend a year compared to the previous year, so their living standard improves. Whereas the living standard of the 23-percenter remains the same.
This is just a rough idea of what will happen with FairTax. There are some "safeguards" to prevent that supposedly, but do you think the safeguard will really work to improve the conditions of the 23-percenters? I don't think so, and I don't think it was meant to.
Cheers,
e.
Are you dense? Or are you just unbalanced?
It does speak volumes! Where is the link to FOX News? RMS needs to be fair and balanced there.
Cheers,
e.
It looks to me that that is the case in the interview/article. Given Larry's apparent tendencies and approach to the whole affair, I would pretty much take those second hand quotes with several grains of salt. I am not saying that those weren't the actual words uttered by Linus, of course.
Words can be used to color opinions. Let me give you an example: There is no need to explain to anyone that that WMD, like nuclear weapons, in the hands of an unstable tyrant can lead to horrifying outcome. It is of high possibility that Saddam Hussein has WMD right now, at this moment, today. Bad things can happen anytime, maybe tomorrow. We must act immediately to rectify a precarious situation. Each sentence could have been standalone or used in some other entirely different context. Each sentence is either a statement that is hard to argue against, or deniable (e.g., possibility). But used in the sequence like I did above, the innuendo is clear. They have been used to hoodwink a whole nation.
By select the right combinations of words and sentences, one can create colors.
Human nature is a bunch of grays; trying to understand it in binary terms of 1s and 0s is likely to lead to misleading conclusions. Back to what I am trying to say: it seems to me that those are quotes of Linus from Larry.
Cheers,
e.
Cheers,
e.
With multiple personalities disorder to boot! :-P
Just listen to yourself. I bet you still can't find any fallacy/discrepancy in your reasoning. So sad.
So, a person, for some undisclosed reason, is suspected of being a danger. But nothing is done to investigate this serious suspicion further. Just plonk the "suspect" into the list. Simple. If people ask, just say "we cannot disclose the source" or "we cannot tell you if you are on tht list" or if you are on the list (like Kennedy) "we cannot tell you why you are on the list" and "we cannot tell you how to get off the list".
You are so mistaken to believe that this list is effective in stopping people who are a real danger. Here are a few reasons (and there are lots more) why it is really useless and just a PR:
- If a real terrorist is stopped at the gate, then he is given a signal that his cover is blown.
- If a real terrorist is not stopped at the gate, he knows his cover is not blown.
- Go read up on the political/peace/anti-war activists that are on the list. I am sure they have a history of blowing up planes.
- Go read up on how easy it is to get a fake ID.
Shocking how you can think that this no-fly list is effective and justified. It has no transparency, no accountability, easily abused and misused, and did I mention that it is ineffective? Does that sound like a free country to you or more like 1984? Oh, if you are still too dim to figure out why it is ineffective, let me elaborate even further:- It is easy to circumvent, e.g., get a fake ID. Thus it won't stop a halfway determined bad guy.
You might think that the feds know what they are doing. Sorry to say that the evidence is to the contrary. What evidence? Well, it is staring right at you all the time, take for example Kennedy's case--does that show a bunch of people that knows what they are doing, or a bunch or arrogant incompetents? It is thus only a harassment to those who are really not a danger. Do you want to take a guess how many people are stopped each day? How many of them are really bad guys? How can anyone with three brain cells still try to justify this blight on the Constitution?Nice.
How did that get an INSIGHTFUL rating is beyond me. Nothing to back it up, purely out of the a$$ conjecture. FLAMEBAIT is probably more appropriate.
Cheers,
e.
Since you seem to be one of those who like to go "it is neither A nor B, it is C", I would categorize you as neither part of the solution nor part of the problem. Instead, you are part of the smug.
Cheers,
e.
What exact is the Microsoft way?
Yes, good question. Maybe you can explain it.
What exactly is the traditional sense?
Cheers,
e.
Are you replying to the correct thread?