Correction: Most of the founding fathers were strict adherents to a religion. They just didn't want there to be a state-sanctioned religion and crafted the Constitution accordingly. People who say that the founding fathers were "vehemently against religion" need to tone down the rhetoric and tone up the fact checking.
Oil prices are a function of demand. We have plenty of domestic stock for our plastics/pesticides industry. We should instead, convert to an oil-free energy policy. This is doable, and it's doable in four years.
My plan is to reverse Bush's policy of a declining dollar, so our purchasing power will rebound and level out.
I never mentioned housing prices in my original post, but to be fair, I wouldn't touch that one. People made bad choices and they are living with it. Why should the government run to their rescue?
I agree with all of your points, however you are missing mine.
The government should not regulate the economy, but it has a responsibility to the people for regulating currency, insuring banks, and setting national agendas. One of those agendas should be how we quickly move away from foreign oil. This *can* be done through the office of president and it can be done in four years.
The housing market is what it is. I don't propose that we try to close the barn door on that escaped horse, but I do propose that we examine the circumstances that brought it about and see if current government involvement contributed to it.
Smaller Federal Government costs less, requiring less taxes, increasing money in the hands of the citizens. That helps increase spending in the local economy, increasing jobs and increasing salaries.
The economy needs only basic watch care -- anything more will act as a magnifier, not a mitigator of economic forces. Bush's policy has been to play dumb and drive down the value of the dollar. So far, this has created a larger trade deficit, increased foreign investment and grown foreign economies relative to the U.S. economy. As President, I would reverse this through balancing the budget, decreasing taxes, and setting caps on imports. All three are tough on the short term, but I'd rather wade through some lean years and take the brunt of the blame then pass the buck to the next guy. Economies are not short term systems.
Oil prices can be reduced by weaning the country off it's dependency. There will always been a need for oil, regardless of where we get our energy from (plastics, pesticides, etc.) What we need to do is remove the dependency on foreign oil. We have the technology, just not the will to move away from oil-fueled cars and power plants. As President, I would unflinchingly take the auto industry to task for keeping alternative-fuel vehicles from coming to market. I would employ the full powers of my office to wreck their industry until they provided the means to get our country driving clean, oil-free vehicles.
The Federal Reserve Bank needs to have its charter revoked and a fully governmental system should be put in its place. As Rep. Lindberg Sr. said of the bill that made the current system law: "The People are the Government. Therefore the Government should, as the Constitution provides, regulate the value of money."
I'm not going to formulate a tick for tick plan to implement anything right now. Number one, I'm not ever going to be elected to any office, let alone POTUS. Second, POTUS doesn't have to work out the details, that's what the Cabinet, exploratory committees, oh... and the U.S. Congress are for. POTUS just needs a policy platform grounded in reality. Everything else is pure influence and politics.
By the time of the elections, I will have satisfied the age requirement. I already satisfy the natural born citizen requirement. Now I just need millions of dollars and a quarter of a million people to vote for me.
1) Straighten out the economy. Oil prices, housing slump, and the mess that is the Federal Banking Commission.
2) Scale back the size of the Federal Government and lower taxes accordingly.
3) Get a kick-ass foreign relations team into the embassies and capitals to repair our good name.
That's all very good insight, but I want to be clear that I wasn't taking a position on the merits of Bennett's "story". I was simply summing it up for the myriads of confused slashdotters. I'd rather see ten people debate the particulars of this relatively dull story than see one more hardware "review" pop up in the firehose.
Bennett decides to sue the spammer for reasons not important to the story.
Despite the obviousness of the spam, Judge decides that the spam was not spam but was, in her legally-binding opinion, a person email.
Bennett explains that this is important because (pay attention now) the same judge that wasn't able to determine what spam looks like also sits more vital cases like child custody, property damage, and rape.
There should be a 'd' on the end of "close". It means that Macs were once unable to be internally modified without voiding the warranty. Now you can change the video card, add RAM, and do other things that PC's were known for when Macs were gaining their initial popularity.
Basically what I'm saying is that I want a proper OS, not something that runs one app at a time. I doubt I'm alone in that. Now, give me a decent OS that runs lots of things loaded into an area of Flash memory so it starts up quickly and I'm yours.
It's things listed in your post that popular OS vendors have forgotten about... We need to be pandered to. There's a reason that Vista sales are in the toilet, Linux hasn't been able to break into the market in a decade and why Apple is a cool, but small niche vendor. They need to create an OS based on what their customers want, not based on a list of features Jobs or Gates thinks is cool. Aero was written to be as slick as a Mac, and Macs have taken repeated steps to become more like PCs (close case to open case, adopting Intel architecture, etc.) Linux isn't exempt from the imitate success bandwagon. By trying to replace windows instead of doing what it does best, run apps, no distribution has been able to be both slim and fully functional. It's going to take someone thinking outside the box (pun intended) to get an OS that meets the needs of an increasingly tech-savvy and tech-reliant society to abandon windows. If that means revolutionizing the hardware and dumping the entrenched OS companies at the same time, I say bring it on.
No thanks, I'll just wait for my quantum computer with holographic crystal storage. In the meantime, I'm buying a thousand 160 GB Raptors before the ban hits. My ebay account is "mrintelhasallthedrives" when you need one.
Actually, no. The occupation of Iraq by the U.S. means that they are governed by the powers of the U.S. government. I'm of the firm belief that the Constitution follows the flag.
In a manner of speaking, you are correct, but the Constitution does not address the rights of foreign nationals under the military control of the US armed forces. That makes your example irrelevant. As for believing that the Constitution follows the flag, I'm in the same camp, but I also recognize that believing doesn't make it so.
Hence why the law must be changed. Are you honestly arguing that U.S. law should be unguided by moral resolutions and the founding principles of this country?
That's nice, but my ability to change the law begins at the ballot box and ends with email, phone calls, and letters to my elected representatives. As for moral roots to US law, I'm with you. Really, I'm with you. A decline in morals is the root of a crumbling civilization. It's why police think it's okay to taser handcuffed suspects. It's why the Patriot act is tolerated. Yet this political punditry doesn't have a lick to do with the OP. The Constitution is a social contract between the governed and the government and the citizens are affected by it.
James Madison opposed the Bill of Rights precisely because he feared that future interpreters would think that the unnamed rights would rest with the government, when they most assuredly rest with the citizens. However, that hasn't stopped us (the governed) from letting the government take those rights when our security is threatened.
They may have given away their own, but they didn't give away mine, or yours, or kdawson's or that of anybody else alive today.
You were born into it. The fact that you continue to benefit from living in this society is your affirmation that you agree with the contract. The only way to opt out is to leave society, which John Locke termed as "nasty, brutish, and short". Your choice.
I hate to break it to you, but the US government has sovereignty over its citizens and that means it can do whatever it wants (up to an including killing them) without a "howdy hay" from anyone. Read up on Plato and Socrates before you post things you don't understand. The Constitution was vetted by men who believed in a social contract and in the idea of sovereignty. Sovereignty exists in the hands of the individual until the individual gives up that right to a government and that's exactly what the people of Colonial America did in 1783. They voluntarily gave up the rights of their individual government to the will of the federal government (or state -- see "clipped sovereignty" for me info.). Every nation in the world has claims on sovereignty and regularly thumbs their noses at international laws. Usually, the more powerful countries do it more often, but they all claim to have it.
No I'm not. I'm looking at it from the perspective of "the governed" and *that* is in the Constitution. Certainly the Constitution was written *to* the government, but who was it written *from*? From the governed, the citizens, us. So when I talk about the relationship I have with the Constitution, it's because without me, there is no contract with the government and there is no Constitution.
The Constitution has limit of legal power to the *United States Government*.
Yes, but what does the Constitution limit the government from? The citizens. It is a social contract between the citizens and the government. Read up on John Stuart Mill if you haven't already. The citizenry is implied in the constitution because that's who the government governs! Of course it doesn't dictate to the citizens and you and I both know that's not what I said in my reply.
Aside from the legal issue, may I remind everyone of the *intent* of the law vs the letter:
That's all warm and fuzzy, but the application of the law is precise and the DofI isn't part of the law.
The Constitution has a limit of legal power and that limit is (surprise) to United States Citizens, unless otherwise mentioned in the document.
Not even a psychic understanding of the Founder's intentions can change this fact. The US constitution doesn't apply to British Citizens except through treaties. So it doesn't matter if the word citizen isn't used often. Application makes it so.
Why is it hard to believe that some people like windows because IT WORKS FOR THEM? I might not be typical, but if windows can just work for someone who is admittedly a bit tough on my machines, why is it a stretch to believe that it can just work for the typical user?
I think you are smart enough to answer that question yourself, but I'll humor you.
The simple fact is bot nets exist because of ignorance. You are not ignorant, and so your example of three windows machines doesn't apply. I'm talking about Joe Sixpack and Grandma Email. Sure Windows works for them, I never said it didn't. But they don't get that owning a Windows box and a broadband internet connection is a liability. They don't get that they have to maintain it like they do their car, or they will be contributing to the pollution of the internet. Linux users, by and large, aren't that way because they aren't ignorant and because Linux mass mailing worms are negligible compared with those written for windows.
I didn't say only the ignorant like windows. I said that ignorance is why windows has a high market share. I have windows boxes as well, one at home and one at work. I have them because they are required to get my job done, because they run the games I play, and because I'm not a kernel hacker.
That's really brave of you to run a windows machine with no anti-virus and no firewall. Even the most careful can get caught and not even know it. It's wise to have a multi-layered defense when it comes to PC protection (regardless of OS). I'm not proud enough to believe that I can defend myself from every kind of hacker, but between the same care you exhibit, a good firewall/anti-virus/anti-spyware suite, and the belief that I'm not a big enough fish to attract the really smart hackers, I can stay clean. This is not true for the average user (which I believe is what the OP was talking about.
Average users don't know enough to apply updates or not download things from the internet (i.e. they are ignorant). You are not ignorant, so what I said does not apply to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: Most of the founding fathers were strict adherents to a religion. They just didn't want there to be a state-sanctioned religion and crafted the Constitution accordingly. People who say that the founding fathers were "vehemently against religion" need to tone down the rhetoric and tone up the fact checking.
Which is why it'll take a President with guts to make it happen. Which is why it won't happen. Now do you see my point?
Nope. Completely missed the point.
Oil prices are a function of demand. We have plenty of domestic stock for our plastics/pesticides industry. We should instead, convert to an oil-free energy policy. This is doable, and it's doable in four years.
My plan is to reverse Bush's policy of a declining dollar, so our purchasing power will rebound and level out.
I never mentioned housing prices in my original post, but to be fair, I wouldn't touch that one. People made bad choices and they are living with it. Why should the government run to their rescue?
I agree with all of your points, however you are missing mine.
The government should not regulate the economy, but it has a responsibility to the people for regulating currency, insuring banks, and setting national agendas. One of those agendas should be how we quickly move away from foreign oil. This *can* be done through the office of president and it can be done in four years.
The housing market is what it is. I don't propose that we try to close the barn door on that escaped horse, but I do propose that we examine the circumstances that brought it about and see if current government involvement contributed to it.
Smaller Federal Government costs less, requiring less taxes, increasing money in the hands of the citizens. That helps increase spending in the local economy, increasing jobs and increasing salaries.
The economy needs only basic watch care -- anything more will act as a magnifier, not a mitigator of economic forces. Bush's policy has been to play dumb and drive down the value of the dollar. So far, this has created a larger trade deficit, increased foreign investment and grown foreign economies relative to the U.S. economy. As President, I would reverse this through balancing the budget, decreasing taxes, and setting caps on imports. All three are tough on the short term, but I'd rather wade through some lean years and take the brunt of the blame then pass the buck to the next guy. Economies are not short term systems.
Oil prices can be reduced by weaning the country off it's dependency. There will always been a need for oil, regardless of where we get our energy from (plastics, pesticides, etc.) What we need to do is remove the dependency on foreign oil. We have the technology, just not the will to move away from oil-fueled cars and power plants. As President, I would unflinchingly take the auto industry to task for keeping alternative-fuel vehicles from coming to market. I would employ the full powers of my office to wreck their industry until they provided the means to get our country driving clean, oil-free vehicles.
The Federal Reserve Bank needs to have its charter revoked and a fully governmental system should be put in its place. As Rep. Lindberg Sr. said of the bill that made the current system law: "The People are the Government. Therefore the Government should, as the Constitution provides, regulate the value of money."
I'm not going to formulate a tick for tick plan to implement anything right now. Number one, I'm not ever going to be elected to any office, let alone POTUS. Second, POTUS doesn't have to work out the details, that's what the Cabinet, exploratory committees, oh... and the U.S. Congress are for. POTUS just needs a policy platform grounded in reality. Everything else is pure influence and politics.
By the time of the elections, I will have satisfied the age requirement. I already satisfy the natural born citizen requirement. Now I just need millions of dollars and a quarter of a million people to vote for me.
1) Straighten out the economy. Oil prices, housing slump, and the mess that is the Federal Banking Commission. 2) Scale back the size of the Federal Government and lower taxes accordingly. 3) Get a kick-ass foreign relations team into the embassies and capitals to repair our good name.
Indeed. *raises eyebrows*
That's all very good insight, but I want to be clear that I wasn't taking a position on the merits of Bennett's "story". I was simply summing it up for the myriads of confused slashdotters. I'd rather see ten people debate the particulars of this relatively dull story than see one more hardware "review" pop up in the firehose.
There's definitely a buddy-buddy thing going on here, but we don't know if or how many of his "blog" entries have been denied.
For all those who are confused by Bennett's "story", don't be. Let me break it down for you...
"Page not found". Does this mean they're finally wising up and aren't giving would-be thieves a fifth chance at virtually casing out the joint?
And you must get your news on Microsoft from Microsoft.
There should be a 'd' on the end of "close". It means that Macs were once unable to be internally modified without voiding the warranty. Now you can change the video card, add RAM, and do other things that PC's were known for when Macs were gaining their initial popularity.
Basically what I'm saying is that I want a proper OS, not something that runs one app at a time. I doubt I'm alone in that. Now, give me a decent OS that runs lots of things loaded into an area of Flash memory so it starts up quickly and I'm yours.
It's things listed in your post that popular OS vendors have forgotten about... We need to be pandered to. There's a reason that Vista sales are in the toilet, Linux hasn't been able to break into the market in a decade and why Apple is a cool, but small niche vendor. They need to create an OS based on what their customers want, not based on a list of features Jobs or Gates thinks is cool. Aero was written to be as slick as a Mac, and Macs have taken repeated steps to become more like PCs (close case to open case, adopting Intel architecture, etc.) Linux isn't exempt from the imitate success bandwagon. By trying to replace windows instead of doing what it does best, run apps, no distribution has been able to be both slim and fully functional. It's going to take someone thinking outside the box (pun intended) to get an OS that meets the needs of an increasingly tech-savvy and tech-reliant society to abandon windows. If that means revolutionizing the hardware and dumping the entrenched OS companies at the same time, I say bring it on.
You mean like this: Hybrid Drive?
No thanks, I'll just wait for my quantum computer with holographic crystal storage. In the meantime, I'm buying a thousand 160 GB Raptors before the ban hits. My ebay account is "mrintelhasallthedrives" when you need one.
Actually, no. The occupation of Iraq by the U.S. means that they are governed by the powers of the U.S. government. I'm of the firm belief that the Constitution follows the flag.
In a manner of speaking, you are correct, but the Constitution does not address the rights of foreign nationals under the military control of the US armed forces. That makes your example irrelevant. As for believing that the Constitution follows the flag, I'm in the same camp, but I also recognize that believing doesn't make it so.
Hence why the law must be changed. Are you honestly arguing that U.S. law should be unguided by moral resolutions and the founding principles of this country?
That's nice, but my ability to change the law begins at the ballot box and ends with email, phone calls, and letters to my elected representatives. As for moral roots to US law, I'm with you. Really, I'm with you. A decline in morals is the root of a crumbling civilization. It's why police think it's okay to taser handcuffed suspects. It's why the Patriot act is tolerated. Yet this political punditry doesn't have a lick to do with the OP. The Constitution is a social contract between the governed and the government and the citizens are affected by it.
James Madison opposed the Bill of Rights precisely because he feared that future interpreters would think that the unnamed rights would rest with the government, when they most assuredly rest with the citizens. However, that hasn't stopped us (the governed) from letting the government take those rights when our security is threatened.
They may have given away their own, but they didn't give away mine, or yours, or kdawson's or that of anybody else alive today.
You were born into it. The fact that you continue to benefit from living in this society is your affirmation that you agree with the contract. The only way to opt out is to leave society, which John Locke termed as "nasty, brutish, and short". Your choice.
I hate to break it to you, but the US government has sovereignty over its citizens and that means it can do whatever it wants (up to an including killing them) without a "howdy hay" from anyone. Read up on Plato and Socrates before you post things you don't understand. The Constitution was vetted by men who believed in a social contract and in the idea of sovereignty. Sovereignty exists in the hands of the individual until the individual gives up that right to a government and that's exactly what the people of Colonial America did in 1783. They voluntarily gave up the rights of their individual government to the will of the federal government (or state -- see "clipped sovereignty" for me info.). Every nation in the world has claims on sovereignty and regularly thumbs their noses at international laws. Usually, the more powerful countries do it more often, but they all claim to have it.
No I'm not. I'm looking at it from the perspective of "the governed" and *that* is in the Constitution. Certainly the Constitution was written *to* the government, but who was it written *from*? From the governed, the citizens, us. So when I talk about the relationship I have with the Constitution, it's because without me, there is no contract with the government and there is no Constitution.
The Constitution has limit of legal power to the *United States Government*.
Yes, but what does the Constitution limit the government from? The citizens. It is a social contract between the citizens and the government. Read up on John Stuart Mill if you haven't already. The citizenry is implied in the constitution because that's who the government governs! Of course it doesn't dictate to the citizens and you and I both know that's not what I said in my reply.
Aside from the legal issue, may I remind everyone of the *intent* of the law vs the letter:
That's all warm and fuzzy, but the application of the law is precise and the DofI isn't part of the law.
Says you.
The Constitution has a limit of legal power and that limit is (surprise) to United States Citizens, unless otherwise mentioned in the document.
Not even a psychic understanding of the Founder's intentions can change this fact. The US constitution doesn't apply to British Citizens except through treaties. So it doesn't matter if the word citizen isn't used often. Application makes it so.
I think you are smart enough to answer that question yourself, but I'll humor you.
The simple fact is bot nets exist because of ignorance. You are not ignorant, and so your example of three windows machines doesn't apply. I'm talking about Joe Sixpack and Grandma Email. Sure Windows works for them, I never said it didn't. But they don't get that owning a Windows box and a broadband internet connection is a liability. They don't get that they have to maintain it like they do their car, or they will be contributing to the pollution of the internet. Linux users, by and large, aren't that way because they aren't ignorant and because Linux mass mailing worms are negligible compared with those written for windows.
I didn't say only the ignorant like windows. I said that ignorance is why windows has a high market share. I have windows boxes as well, one at home and one at work. I have them because they are required to get my job done, because they run the games I play, and because I'm not a kernel hacker.
That's really brave of you to run a windows machine with no anti-virus and no firewall. Even the most careful can get caught and not even know it. It's wise to have a multi-layered defense when it comes to PC protection (regardless of OS). I'm not proud enough to believe that I can defend myself from every kind of hacker, but between the same care you exhibit, a good firewall/anti-virus/anti-spyware suite, and the belief that I'm not a big enough fish to attract the really smart hackers, I can stay clean. This is not true for the average user (which I believe is what the OP was talking about.
Average users don't know enough to apply updates or not download things from the internet (i.e. they are ignorant). You are not ignorant, so what I said does not apply to you.