"so they'd rather spend %80 of their budget on Health insurance for non-workers and education."
Libertarian streak and all, I feel obligated to point out that, according to the state constitution, WA is specifically REQUIRED to do the education thing, AND the state supreme court has ruled on this also.
"Haha, it's *Washington*! I'm sure they're taxed, they're just not Monorail-taxed."
Exactly correct. The monorail proposal exempted new(ly purchased) cars on the theory that they were already paying enough in the state excise/sales taxes. What's amazing is that they actually felt it was POSSIBLE to pay enough!...
" I see. So walking, riding, carpooling to a rail station is out of the question then, sounds pretty damn lazy to me."
You obviously know nothing about the monorail that was approved. It goes from West Seattle to downtown, and back. Period. If you live in West Seattle, that kinda rocks. If you are in downtown, and need to go to West Seattle, that rocks too. Otherwise, you are SOL.
If you are coming from outside of downtown and need to go to downtown, it does nothing for you. It would take LONGER to fight your way to West Seattle (Going *Through* Seattle to get there...)and take the monorail. If you are coming from outside of West Seattle and need to go to West Seattle, it would take you LONGER to fight your way to downtown and take the monorail.
" Actally it will go to points a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j, and k."
Actually, no it won't. Read up on it a little. It will go from West Seattle to downtown. And back. A few miles. If you don't live in West Seattle and need to go downtown (or the other way), it's useless. It's NOT a train. There is a regional light-rail/train system in it's infancy, but this isn't even slightly related.
Re:What happened to all those tribbles??
on
Ask William Shatner
·
· Score: 1
I hesitate to admit I know this... The Klingons ended up up destroying the ship to get rid of the tribbles. (subtext to "the Klingon Gambit" TOS book.)
Why thet didn't just open the ship to vacuum and get rid of the tribbles that way was never mentioned.
Why is it so wonderful to have the states interfere with my life and so terrible to have the feds do it?
Wasn't what the OP said. OP said it was wrong to have the FEDS interfere. Didn't say anything about what the states should/shouldn't do. See 10th Amendment.
But to answer your question: It ISN'T "wonderful". It IS, however, closer to the people who are directly impacted by the laws in question. i.e. the people who have to live under the laws have some ability (greater than they do w/federal laws) to CHANGE laws they disagree with.
"Yeah, personally I'd like you to vote democratic. Overall, their party represents my view more than the republicans and I want the dems to be in office."
That's rather a different statement than "No, no it isn't OK."
You're welcome to your opinion, but if it's all the same (or even if it isn't for that matter), I'd just as soon use my own opinion. And, Overall, their (democratic) party represents my view less than the republicans. Not that that's saying much. However, I would much rather NOT have the dems in office.
btw, I didn't think a smiley at the end was necessary either. That's why there wasn't one. (smiley follows for comparison purposes):)
" Is it OK if I hope Democrats don't win a majority this year?
No, no it isn't ok."
Uhm...Could you send me a listing of the candidates it's ok for me to cast my ballot for? Or am I just required to vote for all the guys with D after thier names?
Seriously, you state that both parties should favor individal rights (actually, you said "consumer" but I digress), but that both fall short. So why is it then required to vote for the Dems?
Is it OK if I hope Democrats don't win a majority this year? I don't think the Dems are all that much more friendly to fair use/consumer privacy. They may have Boucher (sp?), but they also have Hollings/"the man from disney".
"I do not know if things are for the better. All I know is that I have been called on to use my meager technical skills to help my country when it was sorely needed. I'm doing my part to make sure we make it through."
" Accept the Jimmy Carter point, but that was quite some time ago now. Things have got worse - demonstrably so in the case of the current Bush. Funded by companies later declared criminal, son of an ex-leader, put in power by a political appointee of his brother. Come on - it's a long way from the ideal, isn't it? "
- A (not so minor) point. The current Bush was NOT put in office by a "political appointee of his brother". Ms. Harris, the FL Secretary of State (I assumed that you didn't mean SCOTUS..)occupied a statewide ELECTED office. She did NOT serve at the pleasure of the FL Gov. I could go off on a tangent, and point out that he was elected under the then-current Florida law, but I digress.... - Also, those "criminal companies" (not arguing, though I think the term may be vauge) gave to BOTH of the major political parties...
"as if that wasn't enough, diamonds have no resale value. Naddah. Zilch. They'll sell you the shit, but damn it, they're not taking it back at any price."
Always an important consideration as one approaches marriage! 50/50 chance you'll have to pawn it!
So, to eliminate that possibility, carriers may examine all potential handsets and only approve "the ones that could not easily be modified to do such damaging things. One thing I don't understand, though, is how this could bring antitrust accusations against these companies. The only case I can think of is possibly collusion between the carriers, but with the competition between low rates occurring with such viciousness, I don't believe that is even a possibility."
The problem is that they REQUIRE you to buy the phone from them. It is one thing saying "We will only let you connect with phones that meet with our seal of approval" It is quite another to say "Yes, I see you already have a phone that you used with our competitor, that's cute. Now, which one of our fine phones would you like to buy in order to use our service?" I, for instance, have an older Qualcomm QCP-2700, which is PCS compatable. When I recently signed up with Sprint, they said I couldn't use it. Reason? It is a GTE phone....
I have a computer with a pre-installed version of Windows. It's a package deal. This Is Significant And Important (TM). I donate the PC to a school. The Windows license must accompany it.
...Uhm....Why couldn't I wipe the HD and throw the CD in the trash? What is it that magically requires the OEM software to accompany the hardware to the end of it's days?
What is the law that says if someone gives me a hard drive, the cannot have wiped it first?
(continued use of the OEM software might violate the license, but note that I said "throw away").
I picked up a Zaurus on monday and have had zero problems with it. As a matter of fact, kick ass is the best way to describe it. I got mine to sync with Outlook without any problems at all.
He tells us that he read the manual(s) and it didn't work. It must be true. He's a journalist... What would be illuminating is finding out whether he called the handy-dandy 800 number. Or if he verified he had everything attached correctly...
I think they should offer a slimmed down version of SO to those users who don't need all the bells and whistles. I would be happy with an office suite that had just a word processor and a spreadsheet program. I don't need much else.
>Software liability would be a disaster for free software, right?
Wrong. 2 points.
1. If you PAY for a product, you have a higher *legitimate* expectation that it lives up to it's advertising from the vendor. That's why you...paid...for it. In a very real sense, there is no vendor for free (beer)software. Nobody is selling you anything. Nobody is making a profit.
2. The fact that free (speech) software comes with the...source...would act to greatly mitigate any potential liability (IANAL, etc). "The software doesn't behave as you think it should? OK make it do so"
>Schneier is right on many things, but he is 100% wrong on this one.
>>If you don't want to give back, then you don't get to modify.
You get to modify. You don't get to publish, profit from, or take credit from. If you want to make your own derivitive work, and keep it to yourself, you're golden.
Slashdot Mirror
"so they'd rather spend %80 of their budget on Health insurance for non-workers and education."
Libertarian streak and all, I feel obligated to point out that, according to the state constitution, WA is specifically REQUIRED to do the education thing, AND the state supreme court has ruled on this also.
"Haha, it's *Washington*! I'm sure they're taxed, they're just not Monorail-taxed."
Exactly correct. The monorail proposal exempted new(ly purchased) cars on the theory that they were already paying enough in the state excise/sales taxes. What's amazing is that they actually felt it was POSSIBLE to pay enough!...
" I see. So walking, riding, carpooling to a rail station is out of the question then, sounds pretty damn lazy to me."
You obviously know nothing about the monorail that was approved. It goes from West Seattle to downtown, and back. Period. If you live in West Seattle, that kinda rocks. If you are in downtown, and need to go to West Seattle, that rocks too.
Otherwise, you are SOL.
If you are coming from outside of downtown and need to go to downtown, it does nothing for you. It would take LONGER to fight your way to West Seattle
(Going *Through* Seattle to get there...)and take the monorail.
If you are coming from outside of West Seattle and need to go to West Seattle, it would take you LONGER to fight your way to downtown and take the monorail.
Oh, if you're a tourist, It'll rock, too.
" Actally it will go to points a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j, and k."
Actually, no it won't. Read up on it a little. It will go from West Seattle to downtown. And back. A few miles.
If you don't live in West Seattle and need to go downtown (or the other way), it's useless.
It's NOT a train. There is a regional light-rail/train system in it's infancy, but this isn't even slightly related.
I hesitate to admit I know this...
The Klingons ended up up destroying the ship to get rid of the tribbles. (subtext to "the Klingon Gambit" TOS book.)
Why thet didn't just open the ship to vacuum and get rid of the tribbles that way was never mentioned.
off-topic, blatant attempt at a fp
fp fp fp ?
Why is it so wonderful to have the states interfere with my life and so terrible to have the feds do it?
Wasn't what the OP said. OP said it was wrong to have the FEDS interfere. Didn't say anything about what the states should/shouldn't do. See 10th Amendment.
But to answer your question: It ISN'T "wonderful". It IS, however, closer to the people who are directly impacted by the laws in question. i.e. the people who have to live under the laws have some ability (greater than they do w/federal laws) to CHANGE laws they disagree with.
"Yeah, personally I'd like you to vote democratic. Overall, their party represents my view more than the republicans and I want the dems to be in office."
:)
That's rather a different statement than "No, no it isn't OK."
You're welcome to your opinion, but if it's all the same (or even if it isn't for that matter), I'd just as soon use my own opinion. And, Overall, their (democratic) party represents my view less than the republicans. Not that that's saying much. However, I would much rather NOT have the dems in office.
btw, I didn't think a smiley at the end was necessary either. That's why there wasn't one. (smiley follows for comparison purposes)
" Is it OK if I hope Democrats don't win a majority this year?
No, no it isn't ok."
Uhm...Could you send me a listing of the candidates it's ok for me to cast my ballot for? Or am I just required to vote for all the guys with D after thier names?
Seriously, you state that both parties should favor individal rights (actually, you said "consumer" but I digress), but that both fall short. So why is it then required to vote for the Dems?
"I believe in free market, personal responsibility, and actually working for my money...... Therefore I am a Republican."
...
Just a suggestion for your consideration:
www.lp.org
"``Lofgren's bill aims to restore what Congress thought it was doing -- preserving fair use for people who have lawful rights to use stuff,'' "
That's what Hollings thought he was doing?...
"Sure, it's ok if your trust-fund is still going strong. But for the rest of us who actually need our jobs, maybe you'll reconsider?"
So you're saying only the rich are allowed to disagree w/the democrats?
For the record, no trust fund, btw.
Is it OK if I hope Democrats don't win a majority this year?
I don't think the Dems are all that much more friendly to fair use/consumer privacy.
They may have Boucher (sp?), but they also have Hollings/"the man from disney".
Someone, somewhere in congress finally gets it!
btw, FP?
"I do not know if things are for the better. All I know is that I have been called on to use my meager technical skills to help my country when it was sorely needed. I'm doing my part to make sure we make it through."
Thanks.
" Accept the Jimmy Carter point, but that was quite some time ago now. Things have got worse - demonstrably so in the case of the current Bush. Funded by companies later declared criminal, son of an ex-leader, put in power by a political appointee of his brother. Come on - it's a long way from the ideal, isn't it? "
- A (not so minor) point. The current Bush was NOT put in office by a "political appointee of his brother". Ms. Harris, the FL Secretary of State (I assumed that you didn't mean SCOTUS..)occupied a statewide ELECTED office. She did NOT serve at the pleasure of the FL Gov.
I could go off on a tangent, and point out that he was elected under the then-current Florida law, but I digress....
- Also, those "criminal companies" (not arguing, though I think the term may be vauge) gave to BOTH of the major political parties...
"as if that wasn't enough, diamonds have no resale value. Naddah. Zilch. They'll sell you the shit, but damn it, they're not taking it back at any price."
Always an important consideration as one approaches marriage! 50/50 chance you'll have to pawn it!
So, to eliminate that possibility, carriers may examine all potential handsets and only approve
"the ones that could not easily be modified to do such damaging things. One thing I don't understand, though, is how this could bring antitrust accusations against these companies. The only case I can think of is possibly collusion between the carriers, but with the competition between low rates occurring with such viciousness, I don't believe that is even a possibility."
The problem is that they REQUIRE you to buy the phone from them. It is one thing saying "We will only let you connect with phones that meet with our seal of approval" It is quite another to say "Yes, I see you already have a phone that you used with our competitor, that's cute. Now, which one of our fine phones would you like to buy in order to use our service?"
I, for instance, have an older Qualcomm QCP-2700, which is PCS compatable. When I recently signed up with Sprint, they said I couldn't use it. Reason? It is a GTE phone....
The point is...
/.er...
I have a computer with a pre-installed version of Windows. It's a package deal. This Is Significant And Important (TM). I donate the PC to a school. The Windows license must accompany it.
...Uhm....Why couldn't I wipe the HD and throw the CD in the trash? What is it that magically requires the OEM software to accompany the hardware to the end of it's days?
What is the law that says if someone gives me a hard drive, the cannot have wiped it first?
(continued use of the OEM software might violate the license, but note that I said "throw away").
Try to use little words, as I'm a typical
I picked up a Zaurus on monday and have had zero problems with it. As a matter of fact, kick ass is the best way to describe it. I got mine to sync with Outlook without any problems at all.
He tells us that he read the manual(s) and it didn't work. It must be true. He's a journalist...
What would be illuminating is finding out whether he called the handy-dandy 800 number. Or if he verified he had everything attached correctly...
I think they should offer a slimmed down version of SO to those users who don't need all the bells and whistles. I would be happy with an office suite that had just a word processor and a spreadsheet program. I don't need much else.
--They do. It's called Open Office
>Software liability would be a disaster for free software, right?
...source...would act to greatly mitigate any potential liability (IANAL, etc). "The software doesn't behave as you think it should? OK make it do so"
Wrong. 2 points.
1. If you PAY for a product, you have a higher *legitimate* expectation that it lives up to it's advertising from the vendor. That's why you...paid...for it. In a very real sense, there is no vendor for free (beer)software. Nobody is selling you anything. Nobody is making a profit.
2. The fact that free (speech) software comes with the
>Schneier is right on many things, but he is 100% wrong on this one.
For values of wrong where wrong = right.
>>If you don't want to give back, then you don't get to modify.
You get to modify. You don't get to publish, profit from, or take credit from. If you want to make your own derivitive work, and keep it to yourself, you're golden.