Free Speech is the ability to speak without such consequences like imprisonment, or pressure from the law. When those happen you no longer have Free Speech, instead it would be 'restrictive speech'. One doesn't have to listen to another to practice Free Speech themselves. The moderate amount of waste from Free Speech is easily handled by plants, which find CO2 useful, even to the point of being spoken upon all day.
However, the acts needed to obtain or maintain Free Speech are very serious and may included death, disfigurement, and long term imprisonment. The good news is that once Free Speech has been obtained, many people may benefit, and those benefits, with minor maintenance, may last a number of years.
The act needed to obtain Free Beer is often just being at the right time and right place, it is hard to get Free Beer for more than a couple of people and it usually only lasts one day.
Personally, if I had to choose, I'd choose Free Speech over Free Beer.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for free beer, but Free Beer generally comes with some catch, like advertisement, pressure to purchase other items, or spending time with someone who you'd rather not. It also generates other issues, for example: (in the U.S.) you are not able to have beer until your 21, Beer is taxed, and the act of consuming Beer produces waste.
I think that their pat answer for the National Guard is "He served honorably, and thus he recieved the prestegious recognition of being Honorably Discharged. We can't find* most of his service records.
*(We burnt most of his service records)
Trouble is that when you ask this president a tough question, the White House will shun not only you, but your entire network. They aren't worried about losing all media coverage, because Bush will always have FNC.
[question for Dubayou] You call yourself conservative, well so tell us what "Fiscally Conservative" means to you?
I for one would like to see Bush answer under oath that he never did coke at Camp David. Perhaps that's one reason he is always there, still looking for the baggy he lost!
logs, straws, blah, blah, blah, the one thing that I think the we both agree on is that the other doesn't read very well.
I saw Nader on Lou Dobbs last night. Basicly his point was: "
[paraphrasing] The Democrats lost %10 of their votes to the Republican party, so to gain those votes back they need to join me in the far left, or I'll take the last 2 or 3 percent advantage they have over the Republicans".
Why does the security thing have to be taught in the context of IT? Wouldn't this be more prudent as a "Stranger, Danger" topic?
Yea, your probably correct, I am sure that kids these days get many, many, more hours of professional, structured security education then I ever got. I think I remember a bike safety course once.
Basicly is was part of an incomplete thought, when I was (like I figured everyone else was) going to suggest a topic on some part of the Internet. Then I thought of programming, but what can you really teach a kid in 10 minutes. I can describe a flow chart in 10 minutes. Maybe that's why the college course was so boring for you; 10 minutes of material stretched to three hours a week for 3 months*. [*just kidding]
I still think trying to teach programming concepts to a diverse group of CHILDREN is inappropriate.
"Won't anyone think of the Children!?!". Kids just a little older than that are taught sex education. I could be wrong but you seem to be taking great offense to even mentioning programming to [these helpless, impressionable] children.
Repeat after me...
The Programmer is our friend,
trust the Programmer,
the Programmer will not harm you,
...
If instead it was a group of kids that are actually interested in learning to program...then it would be appropriate.
And I guess that every other child will be taught to flip burgers, by default. Or better yet, need permissions slips to learn algebra.
Basic flowcharting is just a structured way of looking at the steps of any process. Trust me, in limited form, it is very appropriate for children under the age of 10, they will not be harmed by the knowledge of the mighty Flow Chart.
I can understand some of your issue, you start a kid on Flow Charts, next thing you know they are thinking logically, then they *shudder* start thinking for themselves, next, total collapse of society.
That's fine. You have your opinion, I have mine.
No, actually, I have the opinion of some guy in Kansas, and he has mine, we traded for the day! So, I am not really reponsiable for this post, it content, or the next great flame war.
I learned flowcharting in middle school (and that was more than 20 years ago). In fact it is a very good start for basic analysis of a problem. I am not talking about a 'project size' flowchart, just a simple one with something like 4 boxes, perhaps even a simple loop.
walk in icecream store ->choose flavor -> have flavor (yes) > eat (N0) > return to choose
I think that you are right! My parents waited until I was 15 before they let me use that new fangled telephone.
All kidding aside, the Internet is a part of growing up now, IT is the engine which drives part of our society today. For kids 9-10, I'd touch on security, like don't give out personal information online (but I wouldn't drone on it, I am sure that they get it alot). Maybe for something quick, I'd introduce them to Flowcharting.
No, NO, NO, NO I am not 'blaming that damn straw', you are really intent on putting words in my mouth. Again for the deaf, dumb and blind, I think that Gore lost for a number of reasons, including (what I think) are his own campaign problems, but due to the closeness of the election both then and now, this "political noise" you referr to was and is statistically significant, when the race is as close as it is today.
I believe that minimizing the noise from Nader was one of Gore's campaign issues, hence part of your imaginary "log". The real irony with that example is 'there is no log', the camel story is about a pile of straw, with the last straw being the one to break it's back. You seem to want to wrap all of the other straw up into one issue. Then you try to compare that straw to your accumuated log and ignore that I believe is one fat straw (a smaller straw would be the rolling of the eyes during a cut away in one of the debates), however, I will acknowledge that there are many fatter straws (VP choice, who still ran for his Senate seat) , and most likely a couple of lead pipes (hiding Clinton away).
I believe you are doing is pulling the battery out of a car and saying that it is insignifcant when compared to the car.
I tend to change lanes if someone in front of me is slowing down, rather than slow down with them.
So then you force everyone in the other lane to slow down, and someone just behind the guy you just cut off decides that his lane is now slower, and so on , and so on, and so on. If you ever see a mystery slowdown in the middle of a crowded highway, now you know why [at least some of the time]. Oddly enough, all these people in a mad dash to find the 'quickest lane' often end up making the traffic jam.
playing "what ifs..." is hard and usually pointless. "What if Gore had a better campaign", "What if Gore was President on Sept 11?", "What if {blah, blah, blah}". Mostly because it's hard to understand cause and effect when talking in such broad terms.
You keep saying that Nader had no effect on the 2000 election. You won't even commit to saying that there is even a chance. However, statistical analysis tells a different story.
Weather forcasting, Hurricane projections, crop yield, even the amount of cereal dropped into a package are all subject to statistical analysis. It's been far too long since, I've done a proper statisical analysis of any data, but I don't believe that it takes a genius to understand that if less than one half of one percent of Florida Nader voters voted for Gore, the results would have been different. Even Nader thinks that 38% of his voters would have choosen Gore (vs. 25% for Bush and the rest non voting).
You most likely are correct that Gore could have run a better campaign, I can't say how statistically (too many variables over too long a time), but I can say that because of the small numbers, even a relatively weak third party canidate, which Nader was and is, did and does have an effect on the 2000 and the 2004 elections. It looks like it will be another 'photo-finish' election, and even a tick on one the horse's backside may decide the winner of the race.
But I am falling back to the same statements that I have gone over before. Personally, I wish that the 2000 election was McCain v. [someone else],
Your exaggeration is pathological
Wow now that's rude. What's so pathological
about being worried about someone who believes that they can do no wrong because God is on their side, which is a simular view point of the madmen who attacked the WTC. Now hold it, I am not trying to make Bush into Bin Laden, there are many differences. More Google results
Reread your posts, you are in denial over Gore's failure and desparately want a scapegoat...
I don't say the Gore could have done anything differently, I dont' say that "it all Nader's fault", I believe that Gore made some serious mistakes in the 2000 election, and in hindsight he probally wasn't the best canidate in general, but that is very subjective. The only items that easily lends itself to anaylsis is the actual vote count of the election, and I believe that to ignore the results wholesale (such as your posts clearly want) is denial. Analysis of past events is important to understanding the effects in the future. I guess that what I am trying to say in the end is...
If you want Bush to say in office for "4 more Years!", vote for Nader in 2004 (at least in the swing states). I am certainly not the only one who believe that because, Republican operatives in those states have been busy signing him up.
I don't have the reference handy, but I believe that most disaster scenarios have the cable snapping and anything higher than the break being hurled into space (like a mace). Most of what is left will (should!) burn up in the atmosphere. I suppose that if the platform got unstable for whatever reason, it could be let go at the base, sending the entire unit into space.
Actually I do not think any president since Reagan had half the votes, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, all were elected with popular minorities.
So, while Gore got more votes than Clinton or the Bush(es), you believe that he ran a bad campaign. I can't say that he ran a poorly, It wasn't my Campaign, it's awefully hard to make a run for President of the United States, I wouldn't pretend to understand the complexities, but apparently you do. Did Ralph 'Pied-Piper' Nader run a good Campaign? Seems to me, he was at least 20 to 30 times less effective, but just effective enough for Bush to win.
...last I heard 2000 Nader supporters were 25% Dem-leaning, 25% Rep-leaning, 50% unlikely to vote, no one really knows what would have happened.
Every poll that I have see says about 2/3 rds of all 'likely voters' who would vote for Nader would go to a Kerry/Gore if Nader wasn't in the running.
Other recent Presidents overcame far more threatening 3rd party candidates
Did you read my previous message or just poke though looking for quotes to burn?? Perot vetoed Bush Sr's bid at a second term. Some would say that Bob Dole had a hard time because he had to shift farther to the 'right' to try to pull enough 'conservative' votes from the Reform party. Do you even know American History? Teddy Roosevelt was an election spoiler for the Republican party in the 1912 election. Noteworthy third party canidates always shift the country in the 'other' direction. What makes a 'noteworthy canidate'? Someone who can statisically affect the outcome of the election; like Ralph 'pied-piper' Nader.
Actually Bush won according to the rules set prior to election day.
As I said many times he won by 500 votes, of course if you apply a looser definition of 'voter intention' Gore won by like 300. But rules are rules, and he did win FL by less than 1/2% of the people who voted for Nader in FL. Also, I really believe that you missed the point of the phrase of mine, which you quoted to make that point. I refered to him as "'choosen by God' Bush", not because I believe he was, but because many voters believe he was so, to 'lead' us through Sept 11 (reportedly even himself). That 'god-given mandate' is the scariest thing about Bush. Of course, I am sure that some of those same poeple believe that Ralph 'pied-piper' Nader is an unwitting instrument of God, fracturing those 'evil liberals' just enough to allow the 'right thinking' people to prevail.
This almost certainly is my last post of this thread. You must be a Green Party member (at least simpethetic), you dislike Nader now, but hold to the same story (the 'green party' line of 2000). I understand the anger, Nader was a great disappointment to the Green Party, they (or maybe ya'all) wanted Nader to push your party into national campain financing, but all they really ended up doing is putting a 'dirty air' Republican in office. In the end they blamed Gore for not getting past their spoiler. Should Gore have gone a little to the left, should he have embrased Clinton, should he have picked a different running mate? I think so, but those actions would have had other reactions.
We as voters (assuming that ya'all can vote in U.S. elections) need to understand the realities of the election process, it's our duty to our country's history, our country's future, and to the world. I doubt if I can change this notion in your head that Nader was/is an election spoiler, but do us all a favor, check out Kerry, if you can get by the Vietnam era stuff, I think that you will find him to be fine man with strong beliefs in ecology, and fiscal responsiablity. Personally I would have choosen someone with a little more moderate profile, but much like Dole in 1996 the Democrats need to push to the left to 'shore up the flank' against Nader's attack at their base. Hopefully Kerry will do just a little better than Dole did.
Your right about one thing Gore didn't get enough votes to get Gore elected. He only got over half the votes, but in this country you need a majority in a majority of the states (well the electorial college).
Your so busy looking for the forest, you've run smack into the tree right in front of you. Odd that you use the 'noise' example, in networking signal noise is a reality that must be minimized, so then you are saying that Nader should have been minimized?
Sure the butterfly ballot had problems, but it wasn't nearly the 100,000 votes which Nader got. It's also not like the Democrats are 'only blaming Nader' like you seem to say; Supreme Court, Fl election comm, Harris, themselves,etc, as well as Nader, are all acknowledged reasons why they lost. Ralph "the Spin Doctor" Nader would like you to believe that he had nothing to do with Bush being president, and that he is unfairly being singled out as the 'only reason', but the simple fact is that if less than 1% of the Nader voters voted for Gore in FL, Gore would now be looking for a second term (most likely) vs. about 800 for the 'hanging chad counts'. However that did not happen, and now we have "chosen by God" Bush the 43rd, who is looking for a second term. Kerry could be running a better campain, but does Nader really want Bush again. Hell, he has to find it odd that Bush supporters are signing him up for races in close states.
Nader, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FREAKING COFFEE.
If Nader had any interest in public office, he could have tried to pick up a congressional seat (a House seat would be a piece of cake for him), but instead he strokes his ego with another presidential campain, another turn as the pied piper leading left leaning away from the only man close to their views who has any real chance of being president.
Cingular is an LLC, but they wait until their legalpage to do it. Rather than making it part of the pitch. There are many other example of this, LLCs seem to be quite popular these days (at the very least a lot of slashdot posters are *in Love* with them!).
No it's not. You are confusing an LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) with an LLC (Limited Liability Corporation), they are very much the same in the nature, but they are legally different.
And No, I will not take your 'legal' advise and treat a 'LLC' just like a 'Inc.' It doesn't mean that I wouldn't do business with them, or even invest in them (if I had the money!), just that amongst other complaints, the part about the LLC was just minor, and my own opinion. I am not saying that all companies which do are corrupt (or even at all), but Enron had lots of LLCs.
As someone else pointed out, you are thinking about a LLP - "Limited Liability Partnership" An LLC is what corporations use when they engage with other corporations to conduct business. An LLC with a single Corporate owner (functionally) is either a liability firewall for a risky business (or division), or just another part of complicated deception (kinda like Enron).
The LLC complaint was a minor issue, mostly based on personal observations, it's amazing how many people are willing to jump on me about *the meaning* of an LLC
If a company is named "Evil Potsy Scheme, LLC", I'll avoid it, thank you very much. Most companies do advertising (including web pages) using a 'short name' for example I used to send checks to 'Cingular' not 'Cingular LLC', and thier website only mentions LLC in legal disclaimers.
I agree that even Bush is better than Nadar,if only because Nader sticks his head further in the sand than Bush. Any statistical analysis will tell you that Nader gave Bush the election. Hell, the offical difference was 500 votes in Florida alone. Even if you say the 95% of the Nader voters would have stayed home and of those who did turn up at the polls, 95% voted for, say, Mickey Mouse rather than Gore, with only half those being punch clean though (no hanging chads!). Gore still would have won by a clear margin.
Stop digging your head in the sand, and see the clear reality. Anyone who believes that Nader didn't elect Bush, doesn't understand America's political process. That's Nader's spin, and for a guy who prides himself on 'strait talk', I think a lot less of him for it. He does have the right to be on the ballot, where the Republicans can get the signatures for him and where 'Bush' backing minor parties can list him, but I for one am glad to see any challenges to being on a ballot.
You do know that the Cingular, largest wireless carrier in the US of A, (largest at the end of the year once merged with AWE) is an LLC...
No, I didn't, but it doesn't suprise me, LLC is a very useful legal entity, in particular for corporations which want to band together in a business venture with other corporations. It basicly 'firewalls' parent corporations from the (shareholder and debt) liability of subsidiaries. Cingular doesn't adverties that they are a LLC, but if you sue them, then you'll know. Still it bothers me when a company makes a big deal about it, combine that with other more important issues, and I wouldn't trust them with my spam trap.
I always worry about companies which use "LLC" as soon as the name is mentioned - 'Limited Liability Corporation'. It screams 'we are not responsable!'
[the address]
...Palmyra Atoll (Uninhabited Sovereign Territory)
Sounds like the 21th century equilivant of 'Florida Swamp land'.
Four pages, home, the product, terms of service, and about the company. The only thing they are missing is bios of the 'management team'. Even better the $67 million dollars in cash reserves are in Palmyra Atoll dollars; I wonder what the exchange rate is?
Overall, it looks like someone stole a 'dot com' idea from 1999. Anyone have a little red Corvette?
If your house is over 100 years old and only costs $1800/year to heat and cool, you must have had the HVAC upgraded (probally including duct work), and massive amounts of insulation, how much did that cost? Well if not you then some previous owner.
Personally I wouldn't suggest that you rip apart a 100 yo attic for a solar array (and for people like me who have other issues), but most [if not all] power plants take more than 10 years to recoup the initial investment. However, even if I could put up solar panels, I would hold off a couple of years, because I believe that the price will fall, to at least half the current prices.
Re:Those stats don't really mean much though
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
Did you actually research his 20 year Senate history? I don't think so. McCain (who I have a warm spot for) has called Kerry hard working and a good Senator. While McCain has publically endorsed his fellow Republican, he has been far more critical on a day to day basis of Bush.
In that case, bio-research was already approved for general cancer therapies and President Bush simply gave some ethical guidelines where previously there were none.
No, he used an executive order to stop development of more stem cell lines. It was a bad comprimise with the reliqous right. Since you seem to believe that he gave the process needed "ethical guidelines", I guess that you are one of them.
IMHO under a President Gore (or hypothetically a President Kerry), I think the casulties in Iraq would have been considerably higher, and there would have been major terrorist incidents in the continental USA since 9/11 as well.
More FUD, and there is nothing 'humble' about it. You pretend to know what changing the past woulddo. Maybe if the Supreme Court had appointed Gore leader, Sept 11 wouldn't have happened! One thing that we know about Bush, he has real problems reading his own intellegence reports.
The way the Bush admin has been fighting Iraq, it has become a recruiting tool. However, invading Afganistan was the right choice, that is is the war on terror, it helped push Bin Laden into hiding. Too bad that Bush was pulling troops from Afganistan (for Iraq) just when we were closing in on him. The one campain promise that I'd like to see Kerry make is "Within my first term, Bin Laden will be either dead or in jail, or I won't run for a second term."
Slashdot Mirror
However, the acts needed to obtain or maintain Free Speech are very serious and may included death, disfigurement, and long term imprisonment. The good news is that once Free Speech has been obtained, many people may benefit, and those benefits, with minor maintenance, may last a number of years.
The act needed to obtain Free Beer is often just being at the right time and right place, it is hard to get Free Beer for more than a couple of people and it usually only lasts one day.
Personally, if I had to choose, I'd choose Free Speech over Free Beer.
The correct term is "Free as in Speach"
I think that their pat answer for the National Guard is "He served honorably, and thus he recieved the prestegious recognition of being Honorably Discharged. We can't find* most of his service records. *(We burnt most of his service records)
[question for Dubayou] You call yourself conservative, well so tell us what "Fiscally Conservative" means to you?
I for one would like to see Bush answer under oath that he never did coke at Camp David. Perhaps that's one reason he is always there, still looking for the baggy he lost!
I saw Nader on Lou Dobbs last night. Basicly his point was: " [paraphrasing] The Democrats lost %10 of their votes to the Republican party, so to gain those votes back they need to join me in the far left, or I'll take the last 2 or 3 percent advantage they have over the Republicans".
Basicly is was part of an incomplete thought, when I was (like I figured everyone else was) going to suggest a topic on some part of the Internet. Then I thought of programming, but what can you really teach a kid in 10 minutes. I can describe a flow chart in 10 minutes. Maybe that's why the college course was so boring for you; 10 minutes of material stretched to three hours a week for 3 months*. [*just kidding]
Basic flowcharting is just a structured way of looking at the steps of any process. Trust me, in limited form, it is very appropriate for children under the age of 10, they will not be harmed by the knowledge of the mighty Flow Chart. I can understand some of your issue, you start a kid on Flow Charts, next thing you know they are thinking logically, then they *shudder* start thinking for themselves, next, total collapse of society.
No, actually, I have the opinion of some guy in Kansas, and he has mine, we traded for the day! So, I am not really reponsiable for this post, it content, or the next great flame war.All kidding aside, the Internet is a part of growing up now, IT is the engine which drives part of our society today. For kids 9-10, I'd touch on security, like don't give out personal information online (but I wouldn't drone on it, I am sure that they get it alot). Maybe for something quick, I'd introduce them to Flowcharting.
I believe that minimizing the noise from Nader was one of Gore's campaign issues, hence part of your imaginary "log". The real irony with that example is 'there is no log', the camel story is about a pile of straw, with the last straw being the one to break it's back. You seem to want to wrap all of the other straw up into one issue. Then you try to compare that straw to your accumuated log and ignore that I believe is one fat straw (a smaller straw would be the rolling of the eyes during a cut away in one of the debates), however, I will acknowledge that there are many fatter straws (VP choice, who still ran for his Senate seat) , and most likely a couple of lead pipes (hiding Clinton away).
I believe you are doing is pulling the battery out of a car and saying that it is insignifcant when compared to the car.
playing "what ifs..." is hard and usually pointless. "What if Gore had a better campaign", "What if Gore was President on Sept 11?", "What if {blah, blah, blah}". Mostly because it's hard to understand cause and effect when talking in such broad terms. You keep saying that Nader had no effect on the 2000 election. You won't even commit to saying that there is even a chance. However, statistical analysis tells a different story. Weather forcasting, Hurricane projections, crop yield, even the amount of cereal dropped into a package are all subject to statistical analysis. It's been far too long since, I've done a proper statisical analysis of any data, but I don't believe that it takes a genius to understand that if less than one half of one percent of Florida Nader voters voted for Gore, the results would have been different. Even Nader thinks that 38% of his voters would have choosen Gore (vs. 25% for Bush and the rest non voting).
You most likely are correct that Gore could have run a better campaign, I can't say how statistically (too many variables over too long a time), but I can say that because of the small numbers, even a relatively weak third party canidate, which Nader was and is, did and does have an effect on the 2000 and the 2004 elections. It looks like it will be another 'photo-finish' election, and even a tick on one the horse's backside may decide the winner of the race.
But I am falling back to the same statements that I have gone over before. Personally, I wish that the 2000 election was McCain v. [someone else],
Wow now that's rude. What's so pathological about being worried about someone who believes that they can do no wrong because God is on their side, which is a simular view point of the madmen who attacked the WTC. Now hold it, I am not trying to make Bush into Bin Laden, there are many differences. More Google results I don't say the Gore could have done anything differently, I dont' say that "it all Nader's fault", I believe that Gore made some serious mistakes in the 2000 election, and in hindsight he probally wasn't the best canidate in general, but that is very subjective. The only items that easily lends itself to anaylsis is the actual vote count of the election, and I believe that to ignore the results wholesale (such as your posts clearly want) is denial. Analysis of past events is important to understanding the effects in the future. I guess that what I am trying to say in the end is...If you want Bush to say in office for "4 more Years!", vote for Nader in 2004 (at least in the swing states). I am certainly not the only one who believe that because, Republican operatives in those states have been busy signing him up.
No I am not a "political operative" of any sort.
I don't have the reference handy, but I believe that most disaster scenarios have the cable snapping and anything higher than the break being hurled into space (like a mace). Most of what is left will (should!) burn up in the atmosphere. I suppose that if the platform got unstable for whatever reason, it could be let go at the base, sending the entire unit into space.
Queue, the correction hordes...
This almost certainly is my last post of this thread. You must be a Green Party member (at least simpethetic), you dislike Nader now, but hold to the same story (the 'green party' line of 2000). I understand the anger, Nader was a great disappointment to the Green Party, they (or maybe ya'all) wanted Nader to push your party into national campain financing, but all they really ended up doing is putting a 'dirty air' Republican in office. In the end they blamed Gore for not getting past their spoiler. Should Gore have gone a little to the left, should he have embrased Clinton, should he have picked a different running mate? I think so, but those actions would have had other reactions.
We as voters (assuming that ya'all can vote in U.S. elections) need to understand the realities of the election process, it's our duty to our country's history, our country's future, and to the world. I doubt if I can change this notion in your head that Nader was/is an election spoiler, but do us all a favor, check out Kerry, if you can get by the Vietnam era stuff, I think that you will find him to be fine man with strong beliefs in ecology, and fiscal responsiablity. Personally I would have choosen someone with a little more moderate profile, but much like Dole in 1996 the Democrats need to push to the left to 'shore up the flank' against Nader's attack at their base. Hopefully Kerry will do just a little better than Dole did.
Your so busy looking for the forest, you've run smack into the tree right in front of you. Odd that you use the 'noise' example, in networking signal noise is a reality that must be minimized, so then you are saying that Nader should have been minimized?
Sure the butterfly ballot had problems, but it wasn't nearly the 100,000 votes which Nader got. It's also not like the Democrats are 'only blaming Nader' like you seem to say; Supreme Court, Fl election comm, Harris, themselves,etc, as well as Nader, are all acknowledged reasons why they lost. Ralph "the Spin Doctor" Nader would like you to believe that he had nothing to do with Bush being president, and that he is unfairly being singled out as the 'only reason', but the simple fact is that if less than 1% of the Nader voters voted for Gore in FL, Gore would now be looking for a second term (most likely) vs. about 800 for the 'hanging chad counts'. However that did not happen, and now we have "chosen by God" Bush the 43rd, who is looking for a second term. Kerry could be running a better campain, but does Nader really want Bush again. Hell, he has to find it odd that Bush supporters are signing him up for races in close states.
Nader, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FREAKING COFFEE.
If Nader had any interest in public office, he could have tried to pick up a congressional seat (a House seat would be a piece of cake for him), but instead he strokes his ego with another presidential campain, another turn as the pied piper leading left leaning away from the only man close to their views who has any real chance of being president.
Cingular is an LLC, but they wait until their legalpage to do it. Rather than making it part of the pitch. There are many other example of this, LLCs seem to be quite popular these days (at the very least a lot of slashdot posters are *in Love* with them!).
And No, I will not take your 'legal' advise and treat a 'LLC' just like a 'Inc.' It doesn't mean that I wouldn't do business with them, or even invest in them (if I had the money!), just that amongst other complaints, the part about the LLC was just minor, and my own opinion. I am not saying that all companies which do are corrupt (or even at all), but Enron had lots of LLCs.
The LLC complaint was a minor issue, mostly based on personal observations, it's amazing how many people are willing to jump on me about *the meaning* of an LLC
If a company is named "Evil Potsy Scheme, LLC", I'll avoid it, thank you very much. Most companies do advertising (including web pages) using a 'short name' for example I used to send checks to 'Cingular' not 'Cingular LLC', and thier website only mentions LLC in legal disclaimers.
Stop digging your head in the sand, and see the clear reality. Anyone who believes that Nader didn't elect Bush, doesn't understand America's political process. That's Nader's spin, and for a guy who prides himself on 'strait talk', I think a lot less of him for it. He does have the right to be on the ballot, where the Republicans can get the signatures for him and where 'Bush' backing minor parties can list him, but I for one am glad to see any challenges to being on a ballot.
Four pages, home, the product, terms of service, and about the company. The only thing they are missing is bios of the 'management team'. Even better the $67 million dollars in cash reserves are in Palmyra Atoll dollars; I wonder what the exchange rate is?
Overall, it looks like someone stole a 'dot com' idea from 1999. Anyone have a little red Corvette?
I'll stick with Spamassassin, Thunderbird.
Personally I wouldn't suggest that you rip apart a 100 yo attic for a solar array (and for people like me who have other issues), but most [if not all] power plants take more than 10 years to recoup the initial investment. However, even if I could put up solar panels, I would hold off a couple of years, because I believe that the price will fall, to at least half the current prices.
The way the Bush admin has been fighting Iraq, it has become a recruiting tool. However, invading Afganistan was the right choice, that is is the war on terror, it helped push Bin Laden into hiding. Too bad that Bush was pulling troops from Afganistan (for Iraq) just when we were closing in on him. The one campain promise that I'd like to see Kerry make is "Within my first term, Bin Laden will be either dead or in jail, or I won't run for a second term."