So we end up with politicians that play nice until they get a position of sufficient power, then abuse the heck out of it until their term is done. That's supposed to fix the problem?
Hate to break it to you, but the illegals are not legally able to vote, so they don't vote for anyone
Not unless you're in a state that requires ID to vote. In the state I reside in, you can legally register just by showing a utility bill and signing a document that basically says "I swear I'm not lying". After that, nothing is required other than showing up on election day and stating your name. We passed an ID requirement but then the Dems took over and I think they repealed it. It's so weak, you can register on election day and you can have another registered voter vouch for you instead of using a utility bill. The law actually states that the requirements for registering can't be used as evidence of domicile for any other reason. Hmm.. why? Because it's so weak?
The law breaking part, to me, is the worst of it. Any type of amnesty or path to legalization or whatever you want to brand it is rewarding illegal behavior. There's no way around it, and to many, it's detestable. It's like the TV ads late night where you can settle your debt with the IRS for pennies on the dollar. The law should apply to every one equally, and that's not what's happening.
Worse, the only reason the companies listed in the summary are interested is because they see a supply of cheap labor without having to deal with annual quotas.
There's no way that people can know what a person will do once they're given a position of great power. The problem is, we elect people into positions of great power. Spread the power around, bring it closer to home, divide it up. That's the answer. It's not simply a problem of who we elect, it's what we're electing them to. We elected a "Constitutional scholar" and ended up with someone that doesn't mind trampling it. These positions invite abuse.
What "state's right crap" are you referring to? That's the system of government that we were supposed to have. Everything not delegated to the feds by the Constitution is the domain of the state or local governments. Doesn't it make sense to keep government as local as possible?
I don't think it matters who you vote for. Isn't that the Obama "yes we can" lesson of the last six years? We're more divided then ever. There's a major scandal like clockwork, every couple of weeks. People who were lobbyists when the President promised not to appoint them are now serving in government. The NSA not only spies on foreign powers, it spies on every one of us. I don't think it's the parties, I think it's the system. The federal government wields too much power, is too massive, and it makes it far to easy to use it to abuse the people. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. A new party or candidates without party affiliations won't fix this.
I don't believe that the federal government can change. It's corrupt at all levels. It's too far removed from the people. We need to push control back to the states where the power is more local and the people have more ability to ensure that their representatives actually represent them.
I think if you look back at the news from around that time, no one expected the Dem race to be that competitive. There were a lot of Dems that were certain that Hillary had the nomination locked in before anyone had even cast a ballot. Some of her results were as surprising as McCain's were.
I'm pretty sure that's how McCain won the primaries. He was regularly booed at from the audience in his own rallies, especially when it came to amnesty or "path to citizenship" or whatever you want to call it. It makes me wonder if these types of primaries are a good idea or not. My state was thinking of doing away with letting undeclared voters pick a ballot on primary day and at the time I was against it, but I can certainly see now how it could be misused. Of course then it's a matter of changing your declared party well enough in advance and then switching it back. So I'm not sure changing it really solves anything.
They expect privacy in the sense that there would be nobody (other patrons) taking photos or video of them within the theatre.
In the dark? Not something I can imagine being too worried about.
I'd rather see everyone focus their privacy concerns in places that matter, such as the NSA, TSA, and all the other TLAs. Are people fine with being groped at the airport but too afraid to go the the movies because someone might snap a picture? It seems a bit silly.
An arbitrarily set threshold is better than no threshold at all.
It's better than, say, the FCC's rule on indecency. In that case it's "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." I get what you're saying, but if I was ever on a jury, it would make me uncomfortable deciding if the motorist was truly guilty or not.
Same here. I've paid for things from non-Amazon sites using Amazon as a payment type for years. Just like Paypal, it saves reentering shipping, billing and payment details. Also keeps the credit card number out of the end merchant's hands.
I live in a small city where the outskirts get high data rates, but those of us closer to the center get lousy service. Why? Old infrastructure. Verizon (now Fairpoint) refused to invest in it because they know the people living in this area have a choice between bad service from Comcast or bad service from Verizon/Fairpoint. Why bother upgrading it if the customers can't leave for something better? I bet this happens all across the US where there's older infrastructure and no effective competition. I hope someday that Google fiber or something similar will reset this mess we're in. The public utilities commission certainly isn't helping despite constant complaints from the people harmed by it.
Perhaps you don't. Your DSL modem may connect and stay connected at 15Mb, but if it's connected to DSLAM that's over populated, you're not going to get to use that 15Mb to its full potential. The pinch point might not even be the DSLAM, but something further down the line. DSL doesn't even connect at the advertised rate necessarily. I was paying for 15Mb at one point, but the modem often negotiated something lower. Most customers wouldn't even notice that, you'd have to realize your IO rates are wrong or actually log into the modem and see what it connected at. DSL is great if the wiring in the area is decent and the provider does everything properly, but that's unlikely to be the case in a lot of areas with crappy providers such as Verizon.
If your BAC was over the limit you were lucky not to kill anybody. Drunk driving pieces of shit like you belong in prison until you learn to behave more responsibly.
Having a couple drinks doesn't mean that someone is guaranteed to be drunk. Having a BAC over an arbitrarily set threshold also doesn't guarantee that someone is drunk. They're not drunk unless they're significantly impaired. The cop in question was doing the right thing if the driver showed no signs of impairment. The officer could have gone through the roadside sobriety test, but if there's nothing other than a slight odor, I doubt it was necessary. You're advocating zero tolerance jackbooted thuggery. Shame on you, coward.
I've noticed that some sci-fi publishers on Amazon are offering ebooks that are DRM-free. It's not Amazon forcing it, the listings explicitly say it's DRM-free on behalf of the publisher's request. These ebooks don't have to be sold on Amazon. Give people an alternative and show them how to use it. You can email an ebook to a Kindle, publishers or authors could have their own site where the customer provides that email address, and there you go. Nook probably has the same thing, if it's still being sold.
I like Stross's stories, but I also like my Kindle Paperwhite. This reminds me of the television wars where innocent subscribers end up losing access to networks while the mega-corps battle each other over contracts. Here's hoping hostage-taking doesn't spill over into book distribution.
We all know it's bribery. Every system of government suffers from it. Given that, I doubt many are in favor of scorched earth to fix the problem. What would we end up with? Another system of government run by people which inevitably will lead to more corruption. At least with "lobbying", it's done in the open.
Perhaps Mozilla is too busy working on projects such as FireCEO and ensuring the "purity" of beliefs amongst its executives. There are only so many hours in a day, and so much progress to be done.
"This new Microsoft has not only removed the problematic restrictions on its licenses, but also worked with Xamarin to solicit design feedback, and published documentation under a Creative Commons license so that it can be redistributed." http://arstechnica.com/informa...
The current President lied in his campaign promises to not appoint lobbyists, but I'm sure an Internet petition signed by a bunch of geeks will change his mind.
Slashdot Mirror
So we end up with politicians that play nice until they get a position of sufficient power, then abuse the heck out of it until their term is done. That's supposed to fix the problem?
Except that they're not lower premiums. Other taxpayers are forced to subsidize the plans of many to make them affordable.
And let's not forget, "If you like your existing plan, you can keep it. Period."
Still believe that too?
Hate to break it to you, but the illegals are not legally able to vote, so they don't vote for anyone
Not unless you're in a state that requires ID to vote. In the state I reside in, you can legally register just by showing a utility bill and signing a document that basically says "I swear I'm not lying". After that, nothing is required other than showing up on election day and stating your name. We passed an ID requirement but then the Dems took over and I think they repealed it. It's so weak, you can register on election day and you can have another registered voter vouch for you instead of using a utility bill. The law actually states that the requirements for registering can't be used as evidence of domicile for any other reason. Hmm.. why? Because it's so weak?
The law breaking part, to me, is the worst of it. Any type of amnesty or path to legalization or whatever you want to brand it is rewarding illegal behavior. There's no way around it, and to many, it's detestable. It's like the TV ads late night where you can settle your debt with the IRS for pennies on the dollar. The law should apply to every one equally, and that's not what's happening.
Worse, the only reason the companies listed in the summary are interested is because they see a supply of cheap labor without having to deal with annual quotas.
Perhaps they should stop eating every thyroid they come across.
There's no way that people can know what a person will do once they're given a position of great power. The problem is, we elect people into positions of great power. Spread the power around, bring it closer to home, divide it up. That's the answer. It's not simply a problem of who we elect, it's what we're electing them to. We elected a "Constitutional scholar" and ended up with someone that doesn't mind trampling it. These positions invite abuse.
What "state's right crap" are you referring to? That's the system of government that we were supposed to have. Everything not delegated to the feds by the Constitution is the domain of the state or local governments. Doesn't it make sense to keep government as local as possible?
I don't think it matters who you vote for. Isn't that the Obama "yes we can" lesson of the last six years? We're more divided then ever. There's a major scandal like clockwork, every couple of weeks. People who were lobbyists when the President promised not to appoint them are now serving in government. The NSA not only spies on foreign powers, it spies on every one of us. I don't think it's the parties, I think it's the system. The federal government wields too much power, is too massive, and it makes it far to easy to use it to abuse the people. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. A new party or candidates without party affiliations won't fix this.
I don't believe that the federal government can change. It's corrupt at all levels. It's too far removed from the people. We need to push control back to the states where the power is more local and the people have more ability to ensure that their representatives actually represent them.
I think if you look back at the news from around that time, no one expected the Dem race to be that competitive. There were a lot of Dems that were certain that Hillary had the nomination locked in before anyone had even cast a ballot. Some of her results were as surprising as McCain's were.
I'm pretty sure that's how McCain won the primaries. He was regularly booed at from the audience in his own rallies, especially when it came to amnesty or "path to citizenship" or whatever you want to call it. It makes me wonder if these types of primaries are a good idea or not. My state was thinking of doing away with letting undeclared voters pick a ballot on primary day and at the time I was against it, but I can certainly see now how it could be misused. Of course then it's a matter of changing your declared party well enough in advance and then switching it back. So I'm not sure changing it really solves anything.
They expect privacy in the sense that there would be nobody (other patrons) taking photos or video of them within the theatre.
In the dark? Not something I can imagine being too worried about.
I'd rather see everyone focus their privacy concerns in places that matter, such as the NSA, TSA, and all the other TLAs. Are people fine with being groped at the airport but too afraid to go the the movies because someone might snap a picture? It seems a bit silly.
The Linux builds are from "approved third parties". The Windows builds come from Palemoon directly.
They are banning their use for privacy of other patrons.
Their other patrons expect privacy in a public place? I bet the cinema has plenty of surveillance cameras already aiming at those patrons.
An arbitrarily set threshold is better than no threshold at all.
It's better than, say, the FCC's rule on indecency. In that case it's "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." I get what you're saying, but if I was ever on a jury, it would make me uncomfortable deciding if the motorist was truly guilty or not.
Same here. I've paid for things from non-Amazon sites using Amazon as a payment type for years. Just like Paypal, it saves reentering shipping, billing and payment details. Also keeps the credit card number out of the end merchant's hands.
I live in a small city where the outskirts get high data rates, but those of us closer to the center get lousy service. Why? Old infrastructure. Verizon (now Fairpoint) refused to invest in it because they know the people living in this area have a choice between bad service from Comcast or bad service from Verizon/Fairpoint. Why bother upgrading it if the customers can't leave for something better? I bet this happens all across the US where there's older infrastructure and no effective competition. I hope someday that Google fiber or something similar will reset this mess we're in. The public utilities commission certainly isn't helping despite constant complaints from the people harmed by it.
Perhaps you don't. Your DSL modem may connect and stay connected at 15Mb, but if it's connected to DSLAM that's over populated, you're not going to get to use that 15Mb to its full potential. The pinch point might not even be the DSLAM, but something further down the line. DSL doesn't even connect at the advertised rate necessarily. I was paying for 15Mb at one point, but the modem often negotiated something lower. Most customers wouldn't even notice that, you'd have to realize your IO rates are wrong or actually log into the modem and see what it connected at. DSL is great if the wiring in the area is decent and the provider does everything properly, but that's unlikely to be the case in a lot of areas with crappy providers such as Verizon.
If your BAC was over the limit you were lucky not to kill anybody. Drunk driving pieces of shit like you belong in prison until you learn to behave more responsibly.
Having a couple drinks doesn't mean that someone is guaranteed to be drunk. Having a BAC over an arbitrarily set threshold also doesn't guarantee that someone is drunk. They're not drunk unless they're significantly impaired. The cop in question was doing the right thing if the driver showed no signs of impairment. The officer could have gone through the roadside sobriety test, but if there's nothing other than a slight odor, I doubt it was necessary. You're advocating zero tolerance jackbooted thuggery. Shame on you, coward.
Windows 7 Ultimate has it as well.
I've noticed that some sci-fi publishers on Amazon are offering ebooks that are DRM-free. It's not Amazon forcing it, the listings explicitly say it's DRM-free on behalf of the publisher's request. These ebooks don't have to be sold on Amazon. Give people an alternative and show them how to use it. You can email an ebook to a Kindle, publishers or authors could have their own site where the customer provides that email address, and there you go. Nook probably has the same thing, if it's still being sold.
I like Stross's stories, but I also like my Kindle Paperwhite. This reminds me of the television wars where innocent subscribers end up losing access to networks while the mega-corps battle each other over contracts. Here's hoping hostage-taking doesn't spill over into book distribution.
Unless he crossed state lines, it's not a federal matter. This was the domain of California and the local authorities.
We all know it's bribery. Every system of government suffers from it. Given that, I doubt many are in favor of scorched earth to fix the problem. What would we end up with? Another system of government run by people which inevitably will lead to more corruption. At least with "lobbying", it's done in the open.
Perhaps Mozilla is too busy working on projects such as FireCEO and ensuring the "purity" of beliefs amongst its executives. There are only so many hours in a day, and so much progress to be done.
"This new Microsoft has not only removed the problematic restrictions on its licenses, but also worked with Xamarin to solicit design feedback, and published documentation under a Creative Commons license so that it can be redistributed."
http://arstechnica.com/informa...
The current President lied in his campaign promises to not appoint lobbyists, but I'm sure an Internet petition signed by a bunch of geeks will change his mind.
Washington DC is useless to us.
If the tide is turning, why are you posting as a coward?