Unlike in the UK, we don't really consider it a new government the way you guys do. It's just changing who runs the government. I know it's mostly semantics, but it affects how we view our government, and the amount of change we expect.
We expect certain things to change, but we know the vast majority of things will stay exactly the same, or continue moving in the direction it has always been moving.
Our executive branch "runs the government." The branch is mostly made up of people who aren't elected. The legislative branch writes the laws. The judicial branch is pretty self-explanatory.
The decision today doesn't have anything to do with the the fundamental ability of the government to indefinitely detain sex offenders after they've served their sentence. The court decided that back in 1997 in Kansas v. Hendricks. Todays decision was just about whether the federal government has such power. This is a federalism case, not an individual rights case.
I disagree with the '97 ruling, but powers like this given to the Federal government disturb me even further.
Science is science; what little simple-minded cretin made this decision? Someone should dig up the name and contact details, so we can mock him/her properly.
Uh, all you have to do is fine the businesses that hire them severely until hiring illegal aliens is no longer economically viable.
To find those businesses, I suggest offering green cards to illegal aliens who rat out their bosses.
You don't have to find very many. After a few businessmen lose everything, the rest will catch on. If we really need a manual labor force, we can get them here legally.
Now, I imagine that this is not the case when a country is the size of a continent. (which is pretty much what EU is turning into) If I lived in the USA, I would probably want to vote for a party that... Hmm. I am a liberal leftist and could never vote a party like the republicans, yet I would want a lot less involvement from the federal government and... Damn. I've never truly realized how fucked up the two party system is. I might just not vote.
That's exactly it-- our Federal government was never intended to be as large as it is now, or do as many things as it does now. Our de facto form of government we have now is not sustainable.
If you want to secure the border, there's two things that you have to do. First, you have to increase the number of legal immigrants so they can provide the cheap labor which our economy is dependent upon. The second is you have to support economic development in the places they come from. You can't keep them out with walls or border patrols, much less laws written down in books they'll never read. You've got to reduce the force that drives them over the border, then reduce the economic incentive for subverting the border.
Uh, all you have to do is fine the businesses that hire them severely until hiring illegal aliens is no longer economically viable.
Spoken like the typical ignorant American "libertarian"...
Try walking in the shoes of that person who can't find a job for a day and see how you like it...
I'm guessing it will take no more than a month for a combination of "conservative" and "progressive" blogs to rev up their teams of dittoheads to start flooding Twitter with politically themed messages, thus totally skewing the results. Same principle as Google-bombing, I guess. As someone who already views Twitter as almost entirely content-free, I can't say I'm particularly dismayed by this possibility. . . but anything that encourages the self-absorbed political zealots of this country can't possibly be good.
It will be similar to how most polls are biased in how they present questions and the results are manipulated to prove points.
The Internet is not immune from economic principles and forces
I would agree with this argument if ISPs engaged in actual free markets instead of the de jure and de fact monopolies they currently enjoy throughout America. The areas with "competition" are rare, and in reality they are just oligarchies.
The privacy nuts are rather like the abortion nuts. Although there are many views only one side pushes forward. Just as we never see gangs of protesters marching for abortion but only against abortion we see only the privacy freaks protesting the supposed evils of free information. Some people seem to only feel safe if they are living totally obscured from the view of all others.
Uh, that's a poor comparison. Most anti-choice (I refuse to label them pro-life, as someone can be pro-life and pro-choice without contradicting themselves) protesters are fighting to outlaw abortion, while "privacy freaks" typically are more concerned with their own privacy (and bitching about the lack thereof). I don't have a Facebook account with any real information, and I try to educate people about privacy, but I'm hardly campaigning to outlaw status updates. I think people should have the right to tell the world when they are taking a shower and what they thought about the Shawshank Redemption. I just think that they should be clearly informed of what is being done with their data and any transfer of the data to a third party should be an opt-in process.
Serious question: Why do Christians not en masse undertake suicidally hazardous activities? Surely offing yourself would be a stronger message than the currency your kind uses today, like pedophile priests, abusive pastors, shouting TV charlatans, and proven fraudulent faith "healers".
Completely blank page (scribd) until I enabled flash. I can't stand sites that have the most basic shit (plain text, etc) in flash. How is that even necessary? Good move getting off that Flash addiction.
If you take it and pass, you are telling the truth, if you take it and fail, why would you take it if you were gonna fail, clearly you are in the 10% of bad results. Win-Win.
It should never be allowed unless the defense permits it.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike in the UK, we don't really consider it a new government the way you guys do. It's just changing who runs the government. I know it's mostly semantics, but it affects how we view our government, and the amount of change we expect.
We expect certain things to change, but we know the vast majority of things will stay exactly the same, or continue moving in the direction it has always been moving.
Our executive branch "runs the government." The branch is mostly made up of people who aren't elected. The legislative branch writes the laws. The judicial branch is pretty self-explanatory.
Replying to undo accidental offtopic mod.
The decision today doesn't have anything to do with the the fundamental ability of the government to indefinitely detain sex offenders after they've served their sentence. The court decided that back in 1997 in Kansas v. Hendricks. Todays decision was just about whether the federal government has such power. This is a federalism case, not an individual rights case.
I disagree with the '97 ruling, but powers like this given to the Federal government disturb me even further.
Science is science; what little simple-minded cretin made this decision? Someone should dig up the name and contact details, so we can mock him/her properly.
AND THEY WILL KNOW OUR NAME IS THE HIVEMIND.
Uh, all you have to do is fine the businesses that hire them severely until hiring illegal aliens is no longer economically viable.
To find those businesses, I suggest offering green cards to illegal aliens who rat out their bosses.
You don't have to find very many. After a few businessmen lose everything, the rest will catch on. If we really need a manual labor force, we can get them here legally.
Now, I imagine that this is not the case when a country is the size of a continent. (which is pretty much what EU is turning into) If I lived in the USA, I would probably want to vote for a party that... Hmm. I am a liberal leftist and could never vote a party like the republicans, yet I would want a lot less involvement from the federal government and... Damn. I've never truly realized how fucked up the two party system is. I might just not vote.
That's exactly it-- our Federal government was never intended to be as large as it is now, or do as many things as it does now. Our de facto form of government we have now is not sustainable.
If you want to secure the border, there's two things that you have to do. First, you have to increase the number of legal immigrants so they can provide the cheap labor which our economy is dependent upon. The second is you have to support economic development in the places they come from. You can't keep them out with walls or border patrols, much less laws written down in books they'll never read. You've got to reduce the force that drives them over the border, then reduce the economic incentive for subverting the border.
Uh, all you have to do is fine the businesses that hire them severely until hiring illegal aliens is no longer economically viable.
Spoken like the typical ignorant American "libertarian"... Try walking in the shoes of that person who can't find a job for a day and see how you like it...
HOW? They wouldn't have shoes in the first place!
Counterstrike. I seriously doubt it will decommision in my lifetime
It's the Pacman of FPS.
Thanks AC. I didn't catch that. I'll have to check and see if I can get them running on Fedora or if I'll have to boot into another OS.
measure the frequency of positive or negative words ranging from 'awesome' to 'sucks.'
So what about "Obama doesn't suck!" or "McCain is as awesome as my grandmother who isn't awesome at all!"
Damn.
I'm guessing it will take no more than a month for a combination of "conservative" and "progressive" blogs to rev up their teams of dittoheads to start flooding Twitter with politically themed messages, thus totally skewing the results. Same principle as Google-bombing, I guess. As someone who already views Twitter as almost entirely content-free, I can't say I'm particularly dismayed by this possibility. . . but anything that encourages the self-absorbed political zealots of this country can't possibly be good.
It will be similar to how most polls are biased in how they present questions and the results are manipulated to prove points.
Am I the only one expecting a spike in accidental deaths in the event of a widespread cable tv outage?
The Internet is not immune from economic principles and forces
I would agree with this argument if ISPs engaged in actual free markets instead of the de jure and de fact monopolies they currently enjoy throughout America. The areas with "competition" are rare, and in reality they are just oligarchies.
I would have thrown a couple of bucks their way if I would have heard about this.
The privacy nuts are rather like the abortion nuts. Although there are many views only one side pushes forward. Just as we never see gangs of protesters marching for abortion but only against abortion we see only the privacy freaks protesting the supposed evils of free information. Some people seem to only feel safe if they are living totally obscured from the view of all others.
Uh, that's a poor comparison. Most anti-choice (I refuse to label them pro-life, as someone can be pro-life and pro-choice without contradicting themselves) protesters are fighting to outlaw abortion, while "privacy freaks" typically are more concerned with their own privacy (and bitching about the lack thereof). I don't have a Facebook account with any real information, and I try to educate people about privacy, but I'm hardly campaigning to outlaw status updates. I think people should have the right to tell the world when they are taking a shower and what they thought about the Shawshank Redemption. I just think that they should be clearly informed of what is being done with their data and any transfer of the data to a third party should be an opt-in process.
STATUS UPDATES ARE MURDER
Serious question: Why do Christians not en masse undertake suicidally hazardous activities? Surely offing yourself would be a stronger message than the currency your kind uses today, like pedophile priests, abusive pastors, shouting TV charlatans, and proven fraudulent faith "healers".
Because suicide is a sin. How convenient.
Nope, brand new.
I bought an Asus over the winter. Paid $450, got 4 gigs of RAM, ~300 gb HD, etc. The ~$500 sales tag of the iPad is ridiculously high.
...how can you abide to a secret law?
Once it is no longer secret, it is a law.
The Federal government isn't on our side. Anyone with a clue has already realized this.
Funny. Isn't that like some kind of cue for a people to "alter or abolish it?"
And promptly be labeled as terrorists and hated by all other Americans. And soon enough, get your citizenship stripped.
The Federal government isn't on our side. Anyone with a clue has already realized this.
Completely blank page (scribd) until I enabled flash. I can't stand sites that have the most basic shit (plain text, etc) in flash. How is that even necessary? Good move getting off that Flash addiction.
If you take it and pass, you are telling the truth, if you take it and fail, why would you take it if you were gonna fail, clearly you are in the 10% of bad results. Win-Win.
It should never be allowed unless the defense permits it.
Has anyone thought of the job losses in the oil industry?