Really - I've been working with Windows for years, and the reaction to XP from both NT users and 98 users was overwhelmingly positive.
Of course, yeah, XP used more memory, but people could see what they were getting in exchange. Vista sucks up memory for very little return that I've noticed.
I don't know, is it similar to the term for a person that installs electrical wiring incorrectly because he never actually studied for an electricians license?
More interestingly, people that decided to use him as a bulwark of their campaign didn't pay enough attention to him to find any of that out.
But wanted people to believe they were up to the task of running a government. Using their 'gut' to distinguish the 'truthy' answers to our problems no doubt.
There is a difference between the 'preconceived idea' that was writ in stone tablets, and the 'preconceived idea' that is a theory that explains verified observations and should only be overturned when new observations show it to be incomplete or incorrect.
Let's not setup a false equivalence between the two.
Actually, I would go so far as to agree with the concept of clear and present danger - We often go with the 'Eye of The Beholder' argument with the codicil that the beholder is a "Reasonable Man" (Well, I'm sure today it would be "Reasonable Person", but I don't know if that has changed as a term of art.)
The problem with the "Clear and Present Danger" argument today is that there are so many ways to panic a Reasonable Person into making a bad judgment call. There were plenty of people that were saying Iraq was not a clear and present danger - at best (well, worst) a potential issue to have a skeptical watch over, but there were a lot of other people that got kicked into panic mode by an ever escalating rhetoric from an administration talking about mushroom clouds.
How to consolidate both the premise that a clear and present danger as perceived by reasonable men is something that may have to be dealt with quickly, and the awareness that reasonable men can be panicked into bad judgment by unreasonable rhetoric, is a question I don't have an answer to, save that we should not allow people prone to unreasonable panic-inciting rhetoric in important jobs.
As a liberal myself, it is of course a problem to see something in my portion of the political spectrum that is self-complimentary. That said . . .
The political left actually values contrary opinions, in a way the right doesn't seem to. That's why I thought Air America wasn't going to take off - it's premised on the liberals and progressives wanting a left wing 'voice' that excluded contrary views - and by and large, they don't. (I note for the record that the only alumni I've noticed going on to the 'mainstream' media is Rachel Maddow, who quite happily debates conservatives on their own terms.)
The left tends to want a civil debate, where one side gets the chance to actually make it's case to people that don't already believe it. Admittedly, that's partly an ego thing - we believe we will win that debate, but we also think it's odd that conservatives obviously don't think they would, because they fight any attempt to have a debate on those terms.
Of course, that does put me in the odd position of trying to decide whether conservatives are correct or not about services like NPR, which give a lot of conservative guests airtime - typically more conservatives than liberals. Is such a service actually conservative, because it give more conservatives a voice than it does liberals, or is it liberal because in doing so it is honoring the liberal premise that it's important to have exactly that civil debate?
What the hell is a 'right to royalties in perpetuity'?
Am I reading the Wiki right? What idiot thought setting a precedent where someone can receive royalties after the copyright expired was a good idea?
Pug
Re:Missing the point here
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
Not really. I make no false claims that I'm going to advocate tolerance for anyone that disagrees with me.
I do claim I will tolerate those who disagree with me and can spell out and support the assumptions and logic for that disagreement in such a way that I don't look at them and say "You're out of damnfool little mind.". Lots of people can.
All this argument about which is the best book from an author that wrote one of the great books on tolerance of differences . . .
But whose public rantings have gone to so much trouble to highlight the fact that he personally holds anyone of differing opinions from his own in contempt.
There seems to be some odd theory of media neutrality that says there should be no indications that the person running the better campaign is in fact running the better campaign.
Of course Obama got better coverage. While McCain was talking about professors that did violent acts in the sixties (And BTW - notice how all the people that claim the second amendment is about resisting the government when it abuses it's power happily jumped on a bandwagon to vilify someone, y'know, resisting the government, when it abused it's power. I guess it's patriotism when conservatives shoot, terrorism when liberals shoot back - {G}.)
Was John McCain supposed to get front page coverage *every* time he brought up the fact he was a pow? If that was the definition of 'fair' we're looking for just say so.
It's kinda funny, because you have the vote-ratings "OmiGod Barack is more liberal than Ted Stevens!!!!", and then you have, quietly to the side, the actual 'issues' that they decided Barack Obama voted 'liberal' on.
Now, to be fair, some of these votes were pretty definite conservative/liberal issues.
But there were a lot of votes that it was so obvious that they looked at where he voted, and then worked backwards from there to make it a 'liberal' vote. Balancing the Budget is now a liberal issue! So is searching cargo at ports! So is requiring Mexican Trucks to meet U.S. standards driving inside the U.S.!
It was about half pathetic, as often as that thing got quoted, how obviously it had been rigged to change Obama from 'left of center' to 'Oh my God, he's a Radical!!!'
Actually, I have had the exact opposite result - I was concerned given the moderately bad reception where we are at that Digital reception would be an issue. Instead, it's been as good or better than our Dish network has been.
Some channel that, perhaps with public funding, broadcast news programs over the airwaves, that would cover that kind of thing?
For myself - I had to drop Dish network, but went ahead and got two TR-40/DTVpal Digital-->Analog tuners before I did, and it turns out my PBS affiliate has three HDTV channels, with another two from another affiliate I get decent reception on, none of them have the same programming, so I actually have five pretty decent channels for free.
Free unsolicited endorsement - if you have a government coupon you need to use, I highly recommend the DTVPal. I miss comedy central, some of the science channels, and C-Span, (And PPV/Movie Channels, but they went two months before I quit Satellite entirely) but other than those, HDTV is actually doing very well.
The mere fact that you somehow believe that reasonable definition of prior restraint starts at the NRA's agreement upon no private ownership of missile technology speaks volumes.
Oh sorry, let me rephrase - "No Private ownership of missiles - sure, that's exactly where the line should be drawn."
So, you've come up with a better example of what you would consider to be a borderline case, and clearly established that sane people can easily come to the conclusion that it's *not* prior restraint.
Hey - my point was just that the absolute lack of any restraint on the second amendment (The one that actually has a "Well-regulated Militia mentioned, y'know, *RIGHT THERE*) is an argument that neither the ACLU nor the NRA has argued for in interpreting any other amendment.
So no - I don't think you have a case for complaining when the ACLU's defense of your favorite amendment would be pretty much in the same line as their defense of the other nine. That's not the ACLU being hypocritical. It's the NRA being crazy.
Pardon my naivete, but given the theories of hyperexpansion in the early universe, isn't it just as likely that the preponderance of matter was strictly local, the same way the differences in the background radiation were exceedingly small, but sufficient differentiate spacial regions?
Neat as any gamma ray spectra at X keV would be, I would presume that any ongoing border between a matter/antimatter region would create sufficient 'pressure' for the regions to not mix, the same way dropping sodium on water causes it to 'skitter' across the surface because the energy of the chemical reaction is sufficient to keep it out of the water itself.
So, if there *was* a local preponderance of matter that was gradated into an area with a local preponderance of antimatter, the energy released at those border regions would tend to blow themselves away from each other during the same timeperiod that hyperexpansion would be causing that 'temporary' separation to become permanent?
Welcome to lovely Guantanamo Bay - with it's wonderful beaches and frat party like atmosphere, Guantanamo Bay is *the* place to be for those tired of silly restrictions like "The Rule Of Law" and "Habeas Corpus".
Our low cost suites have excellent security, with no possibility of anyone dropping in 'uninvited' - it's just fun in the sun, with no Bills!*
Because the Second Amendment partisans don't ascribe the the same theory of protection that the ACLU ascribes to the other amendments.
They see, and are quite vocal about, considering *any* legally mandated responsibility to balance out the right to bear arms as 'infringement'.
If the other rights were 'protected' with the same vapid reflexiveness the 2nd amendment is 'protected' by the NRA, then it would be perfectly legal to lie about someone publicly (Hard to enforce, but illegal), shout fire in a public theater, take illegal drugs for anything in any way related to religious activities, or any of the other thousands of 'infringements' on the other rights that are actually simply saying that you are still responsible for the consequences to your actions.
Now - maybe the problem is that the ACLU is not nearly aggressive enough and should be defending libel and slander instead of merely relying on the 'Truth as a defense' theory, or saying that human sacrifice should be fine as long as it's in a religious cause rather than agreeing "Non-religious restrictions still apply to religious activity".
But they don't.
So when someone says "gun owners should have a responsibility to register their weapons and not sell them to complete strangers at unregulated gun shows", and the 2nd amendment aficionados have screaming fits about how "If the ACLU cared about *all* the bill of rights instead of just nine of them they would be defending my right to automatic weaponry!", it rings kinda hollow.
We won't even go into the fact that the same people that reflexively consider gun ownership an 'absolute' right so often vilify the ACLU for the far more moderate stance it carries on the Bill of Rights. How many times has Gitmo been defended by fine upstanding members of the NRA? Pug
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm - who said this?
Really - I've been working with Windows for years, and the reaction to XP from both NT users and 98 users was overwhelmingly positive.
Of course, yeah, XP used more memory, but people could see what they were getting in exchange. Vista sucks up memory for very little return that I've noticed.
Pug
I don't know, is it similar to the term for a person that installs electrical wiring incorrectly because he never actually studied for an electricians license?
Pug
More interestingly, people that decided to use him as a bulwark of their campaign didn't pay enough attention to him to find any of that out.
But wanted people to believe they were up to the task of running a government. Using their 'gut' to distinguish the 'truthy' answers to our problems no doubt.
Pug
There is a difference between the 'preconceived idea' that was writ in stone tablets, and the 'preconceived idea' that is a theory that explains verified observations and should only be overturned when new observations show it to be incomplete or incorrect.
Let's not setup a false equivalence between the two.
Pug
And by advocating hypocrisy and then living his life virtuously, 'Hey!' introduced a divide by zero error, crashing the universe.
The End
Actually, I would go so far as to agree with the concept of clear and present danger - We often go with the 'Eye of The Beholder' argument with the codicil that the beholder is a "Reasonable Man" (Well, I'm sure today it would be "Reasonable Person", but I don't know if that has changed as a term of art.)
The problem with the "Clear and Present Danger" argument today is that there are so many ways to panic a Reasonable Person into making a bad judgment call. There were plenty of people that were saying Iraq was not a clear and present danger - at best (well, worst) a potential issue to have a skeptical watch over, but there were a lot of other people that got kicked into panic mode by an ever escalating rhetoric from an administration talking about mushroom clouds.
How to consolidate both the premise that a clear and present danger as perceived by reasonable men is something that may have to be dealt with quickly, and the awareness that reasonable men can be panicked into bad judgment by unreasonable rhetoric, is a question I don't have an answer to, save that we should not allow people prone to unreasonable panic-inciting rhetoric in important jobs.
Pug
I'm not entirely sure that's true.
As a liberal myself, it is of course a problem to see something in my portion of the political spectrum that is self-complimentary.
That said . . .
The political left actually values contrary opinions, in a way the right doesn't seem to. That's why I thought Air America wasn't going to take off - it's premised on the liberals and progressives wanting a left wing 'voice' that excluded contrary views - and by and large, they don't. (I note for the record that the only alumni I've noticed going on to the 'mainstream' media is Rachel Maddow, who quite happily debates conservatives on their own terms.)
The left tends to want a civil debate, where one side gets the chance to actually make it's case to people that don't already believe it. Admittedly, that's partly an ego thing - we believe we will win that debate, but we also think it's odd that conservatives obviously don't think they would, because they fight any attempt to have a debate on those terms.
Of course, that does put me in the odd position of trying to decide whether conservatives are correct or not about services like NPR, which give a lot of conservative guests airtime - typically more conservatives than liberals. Is such a service actually conservative, because it give more conservatives a voice than it does liberals, or is it liberal because in doing so it is honoring the liberal premise that it's important to have exactly that civil debate?
Pug
"The observations confirmed the presence of three lines of glycolaldegyde towards the most central part of the core of the region"
Three lines?
Umm I hate to mention it, but that's not sugar . . .
Pug
Weird - Wiki link was just culled;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Wendy#Copyright_status
What the hell is a 'right to royalties in perpetuity'?
Am I reading the Wiki right? What idiot thought setting a precedent where someone can receive royalties after the copyright expired was a good idea?
Pug
Not really. I make no false claims that I'm going to advocate tolerance for anyone that disagrees with me.
I do claim I will tolerate those who disagree with me and can spell out and support the assumptions and logic for that disagreement in such a way that I don't look at them and say "You're out of damnfool little mind.". Lots of people can.
I've read his columns. He can't.
Pug
I've been posting "Information Technology *needs* Babes like you" signs everywhere, and it has had *no* effect.
I even put my picture on it!
Pug
All this argument about which is the best book from an author that wrote one of the great books on tolerance of differences . . .
But whose public rantings have gone to so much trouble to highlight the fact that he personally holds anyone of differing opinions from his own in contempt.
I'll pass, thanks.
Pug
There seems to be some odd theory of media neutrality that says there should be no indications that the person running the better campaign is in fact running the better campaign.
Of course Obama got better coverage. While McCain was talking about professors that did violent acts in the sixties (And BTW - notice how all the people that claim the second amendment is about resisting the government when it abuses it's power happily jumped on a bandwagon to vilify someone, y'know, resisting the government, when it abused it's power. I guess it's patriotism when conservatives shoot, terrorism when liberals shoot back - {G}.)
Was John McCain supposed to get front page coverage *every* time he brought up the fact he was a pow? If that was the definition of 'fair' we're looking for just say so.
Pug
In the neither here nor there range, I actually looked up the National Journal Vote Ratings awhile back.
It's kinda funny, because you have the vote-ratings "OmiGod Barack is more liberal than Ted Stevens!!!!", and then you have, quietly to the side, the actual 'issues' that they decided Barack Obama voted 'liberal' on.
Now, to be fair, some of these votes were pretty definite conservative/liberal issues.
But there were a lot of votes that it was so obvious that they looked at where he voted, and then worked backwards from there to make it a 'liberal' vote. Balancing the Budget is now a liberal issue! So is searching cargo at ports! So is requiring Mexican Trucks to meet U.S. standards driving inside the U.S.!
It was about half pathetic, as often as that thing got quoted, how obviously it had been rigged to change Obama from 'left of center' to 'Oh my God, he's a Radical!!!'
Pug
Actually, I have had the exact opposite result - I was concerned given the moderately bad reception where we are at that Digital reception would be an issue. Instead, it's been as good or better than our Dish network has been.
Not that I claim enough skill to say *why* - {G}.
Pug
Some channel that, perhaps with public funding, broadcast news programs over the airwaves, that would cover that kind of thing?
For myself - I had to drop Dish network, but went ahead and got two TR-40/DTVpal Digital-->Analog tuners before I did, and it turns out my PBS affiliate has three HDTV channels, with another two from another affiliate I get decent reception on, none of them have the same programming, so I actually have five pretty decent channels for free.
Free unsolicited endorsement - if you have a government coupon you need to use, I highly recommend the DTVPal. I miss comedy central, some of the science channels, and C-Span, (And PPV/Movie Channels, but they went two months before I quit Satellite entirely) but other than those, HDTV is actually doing very well.
I was pleasantly surprised.
Pug
The mere fact that you somehow believe that reasonable definition of prior restraint starts at the NRA's agreement upon no private ownership of missile technology speaks volumes.
Oh sorry, let me rephrase - "No Private ownership of missiles - sure, that's exactly where the line should be drawn."
One could weep - Pug
Yeah - they can knock him on his arse anytime now too.
Pug
So, you've come up with a better example of what you would consider to be a borderline case, and clearly established that sane people can easily come to the conclusion that it's *not* prior restraint.
Hey - my point was just that the absolute lack of any restraint on the second amendment (The one that actually has a "Well-regulated Militia mentioned, y'know, *RIGHT THERE*) is an argument that neither the ACLU nor the NRA has argued for in interpreting any other amendment.
So no - I don't think you have a case for complaining when the ACLU's defense of your favorite amendment would be pretty much in the same line as their defense of the other nine. That's not the ACLU being hypocritical. It's the NRA being crazy.
Pug
Ah. So, by having a license to drive a car, the government is engaging in 'Prior Restraint' on my driving.
We'd better get right on that!
Pug
Pardon my naivete, but given the theories of hyperexpansion in the early universe, isn't it just as likely that the preponderance of matter was strictly local, the same way the differences in the background radiation were exceedingly small, but sufficient differentiate spacial regions?
Neat as any gamma ray spectra at X keV would be, I would presume that any ongoing border between a matter/antimatter region would create sufficient 'pressure' for the regions to not mix, the same way dropping sodium on water causes it to 'skitter' across the surface because the energy of the chemical reaction is sufficient to keep it out of the water itself.
So, if there *was* a local preponderance of matter that was gradated into an area with a local preponderance of antimatter, the energy released at those border regions would tend to blow themselves away from each other during the same timeperiod that hyperexpansion would be causing that 'temporary' separation to become permanent?
Pug
Welcome to lovely Guantanamo Bay - with it's wonderful beaches and frat party like atmosphere, Guantanamo Bay is *the* place to be for those tired of silly restrictions like "The Rule Of Law" and "Habeas Corpus".
Our low cost suites have excellent security, with no possibility of anyone dropping in 'uninvited' - it's just fun in the sun, with no Bills!*
*(Of Rights . . some fees may apply!)
Pug
Honestly, from my point of view?
Because the Second Amendment partisans don't ascribe the the same theory of protection that the ACLU ascribes to the other amendments.
They see, and are quite vocal about, considering *any* legally mandated responsibility to balance out the right to bear arms as 'infringement'.
If the other rights were 'protected' with the same vapid reflexiveness the 2nd amendment is 'protected' by the NRA, then it would be perfectly legal to lie about someone publicly (Hard to enforce, but illegal), shout fire in a public theater, take illegal drugs for anything in any way related to religious activities, or any of the other thousands of 'infringements' on the other rights that are actually simply saying that you are still responsible for the consequences to your actions.
Now - maybe the problem is that the ACLU is not nearly aggressive enough and should be defending libel and slander instead of merely relying on the 'Truth as a defense' theory, or saying that human sacrifice should be fine as long as it's in a religious cause rather than agreeing "Non-religious restrictions still apply to religious activity".
But they don't.
So when someone says "gun owners should have a responsibility to register their weapons and not sell them to complete strangers at unregulated gun shows", and the 2nd amendment aficionados have screaming fits about how "If the ACLU cared about *all* the bill of rights instead of just nine of them they would be defending my right to automatic weaponry!", it rings kinda hollow.
We won't even go into the fact that the same people that reflexively consider gun ownership an 'absolute' right so often vilify the ACLU for the far more moderate stance it carries on the Bill of Rights. How many times has Gitmo been defended by fine upstanding members of the NRA?
Pug
Thanks - I was going to look that up but you got there first.
For Reference Purpose: Sixth Amendement
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence .
Pug