Isn't any legislation that tries to modify behavior (either encourage or discourage it) trying to legislate morality? When congress created our welfare system, wasn't it to be compassionate to the poor? Sounds like a morality thing to me.
Nope, you're just enganging in contortionist rationalizations for why welfare is bad. Next?
As for the "holy shit" comment on a live CNN broadcast, there is a huge difference between that and an intentional
Yes, there is a huge difference. The Superbowl incident was never rebroadcasted, and yet CBS got hefty fines. The "holy shit" was broadcast over and over and over again, and never fined once.
Yes, it is. There's Liberman and the guy on the FCC. How many other Democrats can you name that are luddites? Here's some Republicans I can name off the top of my head: Powell, Santorum, Fallwell, Bennett, Hatch, Coburn. Want to take any bets on the political affiliation of groups like the Parents Television Council? Next I suppose you'll imply that Democrats are as much to blame for the gay marriage hysteria because there are a couple of Democrats who supported the bans.
Luddites are now the dominant wing in the dominant Republican party. Take away those few Democrats, and nothing would change - you'd still have Republicans in Congress trying to pass huge fines. Take away the Republicans, and this issue goes nowhere.
Does this mean I excuse Liberman for being a luddite? No, of course not. But I do have a sense of proportion and know where to put most of the blame.
So what? We're talking the same USB 2.0 vs Firewire 400.
usb took some time to get decent chipsets/drivers out of the door, unfortunately
Oh I would think drive speed would be a much larger factor than drivers or chipsets. Is it a big surprise that an external drive today is a lot faster than one that was made 2-3 years ago?
Additonally, you can't use a full 420 Mbs on any single device, you'd have to have multiple devices to saturate the bus. And this is where Firewire 400 really kills USB 2.0. Firewire is a "smart" bus, independant of the computer, much like SCSI (actually Firewire is based on SCSI). USB is a "dumb" bus, dependant on the CPU, much like ATA. If you want to be moving large files across a couple of fast external hard drives while burning a DVD at 16x and using a high speed printer, Firewire is a much better option.
the graphics, while certainly decent, aren't as good as any modern PC shooter
The first Halo game would have been, for its time, if asasdf7*&*&asdf Microsfot hadn't bought out Bungie and changed the game from a Mac/Pc game to an XBox only game. I was showing some PC users the Macworld demo, and one of them said "there's no way that's rendered in real time." There are a lot of Mac gamers who don't hate Microsoft for Windows or for being a monopoly, but for buying Bungie and turning an awsome computer game into a console game. And console FPS's suck due the the controls. And having to use split screen. And the lack of user mods (just about all the new stuff in Halo 2 could have been a user mod of the first game).
Unfortunately class action law suits are generally rigged to reward lawyers, not the victims. It is gross.
Not in the slightest. In filing the suit, the lawyers take all of the risks while the members take none. As in if the case isn't won, they don't get paid. The defendant gets punished and you get some compensation, without having to do any work. You get something for nothing, and you complain because someone else got more? Just who is really being greedy here?
It's been said that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was making the world think he didn't exist. Well, the devil has been one-upped. The greatest trick in the world has been pulled by Republicans and big business, tricking people into thinking that standing up for themselves by filing a lawsuit (frequently your only option for redress) is BAD because some LAYWERS might get some MONEY! Heaven forbid!
More to the point, if you really get screwed over, why do you care who gets the money as long as it's out of the hands of the person who screwed you? Do you think that the first thought that came to the mind of the husband of Faye Martinez was, "well, I'd like to sue the plant for letting my wife die, but it's better that the plant keep its cash rather than risk giving some money to a lawyer!!!"
Lawsuits aren't just to give you money, they are to punish the guilty party. Give the money to Bill Gates or even some nice druglord from Columbia, it's more punishment for those who wronged you. Here's another example: the case that asshat supreme Tucker Carlson repeated dismissed as a jacuzzi case. In fact, everyone who pushes so called "tort reform" should read this and then drink a nice, tall glass of STFU. The details weren't published, but it has been guestimated that Edwards got $8 million out of a $25 million settlement. Do you think the parents of the girl who's guts were sucked out by a defective pool were pissed that Edwards got $8 million, or are they elated that he refused to settle and another $8 million out of the hands of the people who put their daughter on IV's and poop bags for the rest of her life?
Wasn't Bush supposed to be making legislation to make frivilous class action suits harder to press.
That's the problem with any attepts at "tort reform": it is simply impossible to block frivilous lawsuits, which are usually a red herring in the first place, without also blocking legitimate ones as well. The legislation in question has forced some cases to be brought to federal court rather than state court. What that really means is that cases will take longer to process, since federal courts are usually backlogged more than state courts. This doesn't block "frivilous" lawsuits, it just means that ALL class action lawsuits will take much longer to process, and therefore be a lot more expensive.
Why should the government implement WiFi networks when commercial businesses are doing it already?
Easy.
The city should be able to provide access far more cheaply than Verizon because the city doesn't need a high profit margin.
Anyone can use the network.
Verizon would likely provide access only to the most populated areas. Live on the edge of the city in a sprawling suburb? You're screwed. Whereas the city could provide access to everyone within city limits.
You sound like you really hate business.
Just because I don't worship business doesn't mean I hate it.
Because of the political nature of the government, state run entities are unadaptable and inefficient.
That's not a given, any more than its a given that a business will break the law and fudge its accounting. A business's first, second and third priorities are making a profit, which isn't the case with a state run entitiy. In any case, we're talking about municipalities, not states, so your point is moot.
This means that the more a country is state run, the less adaptable and efficient it becomes.
The problem with capitalism is that for it to work properly, businesses need competition. If there is no competition, a privatly run business can be just as bad as a poorly run state entity. Niether socalist government nor private enterprise are the answer for everyting, it depends on the situation.
While it might seem like the government can do better job right now, it result in a crippled industry later on.
Not at all. There will always be a market for other sources of internet service. Gamers want their low latency, downloaders want their high bandwidth and businesses want reliablity that you can't get with wireless.
Here, I'll give you a personal account of why municipal wireless would be a good thing. I live in a town of about 100,000 people, and about 3 or 4 years ago a company tried rolling out a wireless network. They went out of business. You had to buy a $200 wireless modem, and after that their monthly rates were the same as for DSL or cable, which had better speeds. Also, over 10,000 people work and attended the local university, which was pretty well wired. They didn't get a chance to put towers up on the outskirts of town, for people like my parents who are too far away to get DSL or cable.
Whereas the city could have rolled out a wireless network with moderate speeds, and we'd still have it because the city wouldn't have to turn a profit on the service. And cable and DSL companies would still have their gamers, downloaders and businesses.
I appreciate the sentiment of your post but I don't really think you outlined anything resembling a viable campaign strategy.
What, you think that was supposed to be a dissertation for a Ph.D in political science? I threw out a list of five off-the-cuff hypotheticals and they should be treated as such, not over-analyzed by someone badly in need of a bag of prunes.:)
Don't think that is a viable issue for a Democrat to run on. Only people that care are those in the miliary and their families.
Attack the enemies strengths, Karl Rove has been doing that with great success for years. Republicans have been claiming that they are the best when it comes to national security, and we've got to stop letting them get away with it. If Republicans are so hyped up on the military and "support our troops" rehtoric, then why did soldiers not have enough armor in Iraq and what are wounded veterans doing paying for their own meals in military hospitals? You don't have to change everyone's minds; just swing enough voters to make a difference or create enough doubts in the minds of Republican voters that they stay home on election day. I would certainaly think that the "fib factor" smear campaign on Gore in 2000 certainaly caused enough doubt in the minds of at least 1% of the voters, and in these days an extra 1% might be all you need.
Well I'll give you that spending it on infrastructure is better than wasting it in Iraq but your not going to win a lot of votes with it. First off its socialism
No it's not. Not going to win any votes? It would create thousands of jobs.
money is mostly going to disappear in to the pockets of corrupt construction companies, unionized labor, and mafia controlled concrete companies.
And your basis for this statement is...? This could be done like any standard project - seek bids, select the best offer, then sign a contract that provides for an incentive to finish ahead of schedule and under budget, and penalties if they are late and do a shoddy job.
When all the money was gone you would be skewered for all the fraud, waste and abuse just like the "Big Dig" was.
Yes, everyone likes to knock the Big Dig. What they don't like to do is mention how the project kept being expanded again and again.
Easy to say, nearly impossible to do. Terrorists and insurgents always have the advantage because they can pick the soft spots.
Impossible? Only if you're trying to make security foolproof, which no one is saying. You go after the easiest ways for terrorists to kill people and go to work on it; Playboy had a nice article on this very subject a year or two ago. One example: securing chlorine tanker trucks at water treatment plants. The gas is lethal at up to 20 miles away and clings to the ground, dispersing slowly. Terrorists could wait for a windy day in NYC, and blow up a truck on the windward side of Manhattan.
Part of the problem is it is nearly impossible to form a viable platform on the center-left. Anything you do to please the left is going to alienate the center and vice versa. The Republicans dont have that problem. As long as they are pro guns, pro life, pro religion and anti gay they have a huge and solid block of people who vote solely on those issues and care about nothing else. They then just have to whittle away some additional votes from the center and they can do that easily with scare tactics on things like national security.
Well said. Democrats have a reliable base of support with minorities, feminists and unions, but relying on them to battle the God-gun nut jihad just doens't cut the mustard. The Democratic party needs to get out of it's rut, find new issues to talk about and start chipping away at those Republican voting blocks, like asking where in all this "marriage protection" rehtoric are proposals to reduce divorce, and point out that Bush said he would sign a renewed assualt weapons ban.
You picked just about the two worst types of games to pick for "using controllers".
No, I didn't, I was comparing them to PC games. You only need the wheel if you want the most realism you can get - otherwise it doesn't matter. As for arcades...who cares?
and FPS's...adequitely
Depends on your definition of "adaquatly". I've watched guys with, to quote Shawn Micheals, "talent on loan from God" get 18 headshots in a row in Counter-Strike on a PC. It is simply impossible to get that kind of precision with a controller. Also, controllers are crippled on movement/aiming. In Halo for example, you have to stop moving to move your thumb over to one of the buttons if you want to switch weapons or try to butt someone with your rifle. You can also factor in the sucky detail displayed on your typical interlaced television, and the crappy split-screen jibba jabba you have to go through for multi-player.
Regardless of what you were told by the guy on the phone, or what you thought the TV ads meant, it is your legal responsibility to abide by the rental contract, the terms of which are available at any Blockbuster.
Do they make you sign a new contract to go with the new policy? If they don't, you are a dumbass, because they changed the "contract" WITHOUT YOUR APPROVAL, and it's no longer a contract.
They need to tell you the policy up front, *not* wait for you to look it up by yourself. Besides, what about the people saw the ad on TV and don't have internet, and only find out what the policy really is when they get to the store? That's called a bait-and-switch, and as far as I know it's illegal in every state.
All they would do, is evey month run a query to find out the top abusers of the system (too much upload).
Fucking impossible. Not the tracking, but calling people abusers when they are using their connection at the advertized speed for the advertized time. Even more so when they DON'T TELL YOU WHAT THE CAPS ARE.
But who are the morons, Blockbuster or their customers?
Blockbuster. Their ads don't say "read the fine print" or mention the catch, so they deserve to get pounded.
Sort of like this usenet service that I signed up for, that limited you to 200 posts a day. Well, when you're posting binaries, that doesn't cut the mustard. So I looked through the sign up process and their TOS, and they made no mention of this policy. It was buried in a FAQ on their website. I had to threaten to get a chargeback from my credit card company before they gave me a refund.
the best being drop multiple hooks to people that are suspected, and watch for the fake hook to be posted
Stop for a minute. Give Apple a few million dollars to start tons of fake projects to fish for leaks. Then give them millions more to compenate them for lost sales when consumers are disappointed that Apple really didn't just release a quad core G5 iBook and decide to wait till they do.
Once you've done all that, then you can climb back on your high horse and preach to them.
It was all Jobs's anger at a percieved "Loss of Thunder" which using the benefit of 20/20 hindsight was the equivalent of a mountain out of a molehill.
Just because Thinksecret was right this time, doesn't mean they'll be right next time. Just check out the history of the Osbourne portables to see why this can be a bad thing.
//sets timer for the usual flamebait/troll mods for daring to speak against apple.
Too bad there isn't a mod for "-1 Asshat". You've earned it.
was very quick to point out anything Bush said or didthat was remotely questionable
If by "remotely questionable" you mean "giving free passes to the extent that we'll ignore it if George Bush takes a shit on the White House lawn" then yes. Where was the press scandal when it turned out that Cheney had met Edwards on no less than three sperate occasions? Where were the editorials lambasting the Administration's shell game over "there were ties between Iraq and 9/11" and "we never said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11". This isn't anything new, either. Back in 2000, the media was so caught up with inventing myths about Al Gore that they missed it when Bush took credit in a debate for legislation he actually VETOED.
Contrast this with the flurry of press reports if Clinton so much as farted in an elevator.
Somehow the Democratic party nominated the absolute most pathetic candidate they could find, if you went looking for the absolute most pathetic candidate to nominate for President you couldn't have found anybody worse.
It's not so much that they pick weak candidates, but that they run incredibly weak, hamstrung, castrated campaigns. Why the fuck didn't we see ads after the VP debate showing pictures of John Edwards next to Dick "the first time I saw you was when you stepped onto the stage tonight" Cheney? Why didn't we see ads with clips of Bush talking about Iraqi WMD's, demanding to know where said WMD's were? Why didn't we see ads with clips of Bush saying "if you pay taxes, you get a tax cut" and then demand to know why there has been no cut in the payroll tax. Or show Bush in 2000 taking credit for Texas being the first state to allow patients to sue their HMO's, when he actually VETOED that bill as govenor and then let it pass without his signature.
Bush has a carefully constructed "everyman" image...why didn't the Democrats run a commercial like this, substituting real figures for my made up ones in brackets:
Point out that Bush really isn't from Texas.
Show clips from a few right wingers bitching about "liberal elites".
Tell viewers that the average worth of the homes that Bush lived in while growing up was {$5,000,000}
Number of near minimum wage jobs Bush has had: {zero}
When has Dubbya had to worry about succeeding, or his future? Never. So just how much does Bush really have in common with the average American?
Why else did Kerry lose? I ranted about this subject before, so here's a copy and paste:
Why he lost...to be bruttaly honest, because Kerry ran an incompetent campaign. Yes, Rove did a marvelous job at turning out even more voters from the religious right, which I didn't think was possible. But those should have been the ONLY votes Bush should have been able to count on. The Democratic party could have put a garden rake in the race against Bush, run a decent campaign, and they should have won.
More specifically, on what Kerry did wrong: first, he had no platform whatsoever. Just a bunch of talking points. He could have been as nuanced as he wanted on as many subjects as he wanted, but for gawds sakes he should have come up with a damn platform! 5 simple, easy to explain issues he would work on as soon as he got into office, and 5 reasons why not to vote for Bush. Say 1) increase minimum wage by x amount 2) increase troop pay and benefits 3) $150 billion for infrastructure (creates jobs and gets rid of pot holes 4) increase REAL domestic security, not just hassle guys named Mohammed at airports 5) redo the Bush tax package, and make a cut on payroll taxes this time.
Second, while he was busy having no platform, he stuck his best weapon in rural Ohio and left him there: John Edwards. Even the most hard core Republican has to admit that list of Bush screwups is miles long. Lets see, who's good at taking facts, not rhetoric, and putting them together in an airtight case? Goddamn John Edwards. It was his profession for a lot longer than he was a Senator. He made millions doing it. Edwards should not have been making stump speeches in rural Ohio, he should have been a highly visible fixture on TV, laying out a case on why Bush is the Worst President Ever, in such an airtight fashion that not even Rush Limbaugh could argue with it.
Lastly, and unforgivably, he let the Republicans define him. Oh, charges of flip-flopping, THAT's never happened in politics before. And WTF did I learn from Salon, rather than Kerry, that Kerry is actually the 11th most liberal Senator? And the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth guys have been dogging him since the freaking 70's. That Kerry would sit on his ass for months and not respond to them blows my mind. Why the hell do Democrats need to keep relearing the lessons of 1988? Not dignifying their opponents attacks with a responce worked SO WELL for Presi
The very odd thing is that other intelligence services (France, Germany, UK) all had the same conclusions.
Yeah, everyone was surprised that Saddam didn't have any WMD's. Americans, Europeans, conservatives, liberals, guys in comas. However, Iraq was not invaded because they had a couple of canisters of mustard gas sitting next to a scud missle:
"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Bush invaded Iraq because he insisted they were an IMMINENT THREAT that had to be taken out IMMEDIATLY. And in that stance Bush was virtually alone. The argument you cited is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at misdirection.
And in ANY case, those other countries didn't invade Iraq. Bush did. And considering he is the one ultimately in charge of both intelligence AND the military, the responsiblity for the Iraqi WMD fiasco is entirely his.
Sorry, wrong in your implications, and maybe your facts.
Not really, assuming he was talking about negative change. Mass exctinction causing meteors and volcanos cause a lot of negative change as well, but no one can prevent those. Clearcutting forests and dumping tons of mecury into the ocean is entirely preventable.
Brushland and farmland are both far more productive of things to eat than the forest was, and that's good for deer, rabbits, and bear, and the things (like us) that eat them.
No they aren't. The most productive areas are where you have a mix of clearings and forest...food and cover. Forest fires would naturally make clearings, but fires have been mostly prevented for so long that fires are a real hazard and we don't have as many natural clearings.
As for strip mining, it doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Right, it doesn't. However, good restoration efforts are the norm not the rule, and have only been around for a few decades.
Slashdot Mirror
You have got to be kidding me.
Why - it would be a similar price to buying DVD's of television seasons, and it's not like that hasn't caught on at all.
Isn't any legislation that tries to modify behavior (either encourage or discourage it) trying to legislate morality? When congress created our welfare system, wasn't it to be compassionate to the poor? Sounds like a morality thing to me.
Nope, you're just enganging in contortionist rationalizations for why welfare is bad. Next?
As for the "holy shit" comment on a live CNN broadcast, there is a huge difference between that and an intentional
Yes, there is a huge difference. The Superbowl incident was never rebroadcasted, and yet CBS got hefty fines. The "holy shit" was broadcast over and over and over again, and never fined once.
The Union Carbide Bhopal Incident was #1. a PRIVATE company #2. a CHEMICAL company As opposed to GOVERNMENT-RUN NUCLEAR plants.
Wow, did you sit around for a couuple of hours to come up with a comment that irrelevant?
Since it is used as an excuse to mutilate body parts of children?
Why'd you only bring up female circumcision? Male circumcision is just as pointless and just as painfull.
Yes, and this is exactly what everyone who claims religion thinks.
Yup, you do. The above senario - speaking out of your ass to explain things you don't understand - is the basis for every religion.
You want to know why people of some religions think the way they do? Research it.
And your point is...what? They're all variations on thunderbolts and mammoths.
If you do that, you're bypassing the scientific method and coming to a conclusion you cannot uphold.
What, like buying a bunch of crap that was made up by people living thousands of years ago?
My faith comes from not knowing all the answers. I hope nobody claims that position, because if you do, I can guarantee that you are dead wrong.
I don't know if you noticed, but your faith (Baptist) is all about telling people what the answers are. That's what religion does.
It is much easier to just blame one side
Yes, it is. There's Liberman and the guy on the FCC. How many other Democrats can you name that are luddites? Here's some Republicans I can name off the top of my head: Powell, Santorum, Fallwell, Bennett, Hatch, Coburn. Want to take any bets on the political affiliation of groups like the Parents Television Council? Next I suppose you'll imply that Democrats are as much to blame for the gay marriage hysteria because there are a couple of Democrats who supported the bans.
Luddites are now the dominant wing in the dominant Republican party. Take away those few Democrats, and nothing would change - you'd still have Republicans in Congress trying to pass huge fines. Take away the Republicans, and this issue goes nowhere.
Does this mean I excuse Liberman for being a luddite? No, of course not. But I do have a sense of proportion and know where to put most of the blame.
man, those are OLD
So what? We're talking the same USB 2.0 vs Firewire 400.
usb took some time to get decent chipsets/drivers out of the door, unfortunately
Oh I would think drive speed would be a much larger factor than drivers or chipsets. Is it a big surprise that an external drive today is a lot faster than one that was made 2-3 years ago?
Additonally, you can't use a full 420 Mbs on any single device, you'd have to have multiple devices to saturate the bus. And this is where Firewire 400 really kills USB 2.0. Firewire is a "smart" bus, independant of the computer, much like SCSI (actually Firewire is based on SCSI). USB is a "dumb" bus, dependant on the CPU, much like ATA. If you want to be moving large files across a couple of fast external hard drives while burning a DVD at 16x and using a high speed printer, Firewire is a much better option.
the plaintiff will be limitted, not the defendant, only fair that way
Why.
the graphics, while certainly decent, aren't as good as any modern PC shooter
The first Halo game would have been, for its time, if asasdf7*&*&asdf Microsfot hadn't bought out Bungie and changed the game from a Mac/Pc game to an XBox only game. I was showing some PC users the Macworld demo, and one of them said "there's no way that's rendered in real time." There are a lot of Mac gamers who don't hate Microsoft for Windows or for being a monopoly, but for buying Bungie and turning an awsome computer game into a console game. And console FPS's suck due the the controls. And having to use split screen. And the lack of user mods (just about all the new stuff in Halo 2 could have been a user mod of the first game).
and also the female equivalent, of which I just don't remember the English term
Egg. So what term would you use in what langauge?
Unfortunately class action law suits are generally rigged to reward lawyers, not the victims. It is gross.
Not in the slightest. In filing the suit, the lawyers take all of the risks while the members take none. As in if the case isn't won, they don't get paid. The defendant gets punished and you get some compensation, without having to do any work. You get something for nothing, and you complain because someone else got more? Just who is really being greedy here?
It's been said that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was making the world think he didn't exist. Well, the devil has been one-upped. The greatest trick in the world has been pulled by Republicans and big business, tricking people into thinking that standing up for themselves by filing a lawsuit (frequently your only option for redress) is BAD because some LAYWERS might get some MONEY! Heaven forbid!
More to the point, if you really get screwed over, why do you care who gets the money as long as it's out of the hands of the person who screwed you? Do you think that the first thought that came to the mind of the husband of Faye Martinez was, "well, I'd like to sue the plant for letting my wife die, but it's better that the plant keep its cash rather than risk giving some money to a lawyer!!!"
Lawsuits aren't just to give you money, they are to punish the guilty party. Give the money to Bill Gates or even some nice druglord from Columbia, it's more punishment for those who wronged you. Here's another example: the case that asshat supreme Tucker Carlson repeated dismissed as a jacuzzi case. In fact, everyone who pushes so called "tort reform" should read this and then drink a nice, tall glass of STFU. The details weren't published, but it has been guestimated that Edwards got $8 million out of a $25 million settlement. Do you think the parents of the girl who's guts were sucked out by a defective pool were pissed that Edwards got $8 million, or are they elated that he refused to settle and another $8 million out of the hands of the people who put their daughter on IV's and poop bags for the rest of her life?
Wasn't Bush supposed to be making legislation to make frivilous class action suits harder to press.
That's the problem with any attepts at "tort reform": it is simply impossible to block frivilous lawsuits, which are usually a red herring in the first place, without also blocking legitimate ones as well. The legislation in question has forced some cases to be brought to federal court rather than state court. What that really means is that cases will take longer to process, since federal courts are usually backlogged more than state courts. This doesn't block "frivilous" lawsuits, it just means that ALL class action lawsuits will take much longer to process, and therefore be a lot more expensive.
What are you talking about? Paparazzi harras celebrities all the time.
That's my point: Think Secret is tech paparazzi. They don't do any real journalism and nothing they do benefits the public.
Easy.
- The city should be able to provide access far more cheaply than Verizon because the city doesn't need a high profit margin.
- Anyone can use the network.
- Verizon would likely provide access only to the most populated areas. Live on the edge of the city in a sprawling suburb? You're screwed. Whereas the city could provide access to everyone within city limits.
You sound like you really hate business.Just because I don't worship business doesn't mean I hate it.
Because of the political nature of the government, state run entities are unadaptable and inefficient.
That's not a given, any more than its a given that a business will break the law and fudge its accounting. A business's first, second and third priorities are making a profit, which isn't the case with a state run entitiy. In any case, we're talking about municipalities, not states, so your point is moot.
This means that the more a country is state run, the less adaptable and efficient it becomes.
The problem with capitalism is that for it to work properly, businesses need competition. If there is no competition, a privatly run business can be just as bad as a poorly run state entity. Niether socalist government nor private enterprise are the answer for everyting, it depends on the situation.
While it might seem like the government can do better job right now, it result in a crippled industry later on.
Not at all. There will always be a market for other sources of internet service. Gamers want their low latency, downloaders want their high bandwidth and businesses want reliablity that you can't get with wireless.
Here, I'll give you a personal account of why municipal wireless would be a good thing. I live in a town of about 100,000 people, and about 3 or 4 years ago a company tried rolling out a wireless network. They went out of business. You had to buy a $200 wireless modem, and after that their monthly rates were the same as for DSL or cable, which had better speeds. Also, over 10,000 people work and attended the local university, which was pretty well wired. They didn't get a chance to put towers up on the outskirts of town, for people like my parents who are too far away to get DSL or cable.
Whereas the city could have rolled out a wireless network with moderate speeds, and we'd still have it because the city wouldn't have to turn a profit on the service. And cable and DSL companies would still have their gamers, downloaders and businesses.
I appreciate the sentiment of your post but I don't really think you outlined anything resembling a viable campaign strategy.
:)
What, you think that was supposed to be a dissertation for a Ph.D in political science? I threw out a list of five off-the-cuff hypotheticals and they should be treated as such, not over-analyzed by someone badly in need of a bag of prunes.
Don't think that is a viable issue for a Democrat to run on. Only people that care are those in the miliary and their families.
Attack the enemies strengths, Karl Rove has been doing that with great success for years. Republicans have been claiming that they are the best when it comes to national security, and we've got to stop letting them get away with it. If Republicans are so hyped up on the military and "support our troops" rehtoric, then why did soldiers not have enough armor in Iraq and what are wounded veterans doing paying for their own meals in military hospitals? You don't have to change everyone's minds; just swing enough voters to make a difference or create enough doubts in the minds of Republican voters that they stay home on election day. I would certainaly think that the "fib factor" smear campaign on Gore in 2000 certainaly caused enough doubt in the minds of at least 1% of the voters, and in these days an extra 1% might be all you need.
Well I'll give you that spending it on infrastructure is better than wasting it in Iraq but your not going to win a lot of votes with it. First off its socialism
No it's not. Not going to win any votes? It would create thousands of jobs.
money is mostly going to disappear in to the pockets of corrupt construction companies, unionized labor, and mafia controlled concrete companies.
And your basis for this statement is...? This could be done like any standard project - seek bids, select the best offer, then sign a contract that provides for an incentive to finish ahead of schedule and under budget, and penalties if they are late and do a shoddy job.
When all the money was gone you would be skewered for all the fraud, waste and abuse just like the "Big Dig" was.
Yes, everyone likes to knock the Big Dig. What they don't like to do is mention how the project kept being expanded again and again.
Easy to say, nearly impossible to do. Terrorists and insurgents always have the advantage because they can pick the soft spots.
Impossible? Only if you're trying to make security foolproof, which no one is saying. You go after the easiest ways for terrorists to kill people and go to work on it; Playboy had a nice article on this very subject a year or two ago. One example: securing chlorine tanker trucks at water treatment plants. The gas is lethal at up to 20 miles away and clings to the ground, dispersing slowly. Terrorists could wait for a windy day in NYC, and blow up a truck on the windward side of Manhattan.
Part of the problem is it is nearly impossible to form a viable platform on the center-left. Anything you do to please the left is going to alienate the center and vice versa. The Republicans dont have that problem. As long as they are pro guns, pro life, pro religion and anti gay they have a huge and solid block of people who vote solely on those issues and care about nothing else. They then just have to whittle away some additional votes from the center and they can do that easily with scare tactics on things like national security.
Well said. Democrats have a reliable base of support with minorities, feminists and unions, but relying on them to battle the God-gun nut jihad just doens't cut the mustard. The Democratic party needs to get out of it's rut, find new issues to talk about and start chipping away at those Republican voting blocks, like asking where in all this "marriage protection" rehtoric are proposals to reduce divorce, and point out that Bush said he would sign a renewed assualt weapons ban.
You picked just about the two worst types of games to pick for "using controllers".
No, I didn't, I was comparing them to PC games. You only need the wheel if you want the most realism you can get - otherwise it doesn't matter. As for arcades...who cares?
and FPS's...adequitely
Depends on your definition of "adaquatly". I've watched guys with, to quote Shawn Micheals, "talent on loan from God" get 18 headshots in a row in Counter-Strike on a PC. It is simply impossible to get that kind of precision with a controller. Also, controllers are crippled on movement/aiming. In Halo for example, you have to stop moving to move your thumb over to one of the buttons if you want to switch weapons or try to butt someone with your rifle. You can also factor in the sucky detail displayed on your typical interlaced television, and the crappy split-screen jibba jabba you have to go through for multi-player.
Regardless of what you were told by the guy on the phone, or what you thought the TV ads meant, it is your legal responsibility to abide by the rental contract, the terms of which are available at any Blockbuster.
Do they make you sign a new contract to go with the new policy? If they don't, you are a dumbass, because they changed the "contract" WITHOUT YOUR APPROVAL, and it's no longer a contract.
They need to tell you the policy up front, *not* wait for you to look it up by yourself. Besides, what about the people saw the ad on TV and don't have internet, and only find out what the policy really is when they get to the store? That's called a bait-and-switch, and as far as I know it's illegal in every state.
All they would do, is evey month run a query to find out the top abusers of the system (too much upload).
Fucking impossible. Not the tracking, but calling people abusers when they are using their connection at the advertized speed for the advertized time. Even more so when they DON'T TELL YOU WHAT THE CAPS ARE.
But who are the morons, Blockbuster or their customers?
Blockbuster. Their ads don't say "read the fine print" or mention the catch, so they deserve to get pounded.
Sort of like this usenet service that I signed up for, that limited you to 200 posts a day. Well, when you're posting binaries, that doesn't cut the mustard. So I looked through the sign up process and their TOS, and they made no mention of this policy. It was buried in a FAQ on their website. I had to threaten to get a chargeback from my credit card company before they gave me a refund.
Stop for a minute. Give Apple a few million dollars to start tons of fake projects to fish for leaks. Then give them millions more to compenate them for lost sales when consumers are disappointed that Apple really didn't just release a quad core G5 iBook and decide to wait till they do.
Once you've done all that, then you can climb back on your high horse and preach to them.
It was all Jobs's anger at a percieved "Loss of Thunder" which using the benefit of 20/20 hindsight was the equivalent of a mountain out of a molehill.
Just because Thinksecret was right this time, doesn't mean they'll be right next time. Just check out the history of the Osbourne portables to see why this can be a bad thing.
//sets timer for the usual flamebait/troll mods for daring to speak against apple.
Too bad there isn't a mod for "-1 Asshat". You've earned it.
was very quick to point out anything Bush said or didthat was remotely questionable
If by "remotely questionable" you mean "giving free passes to the extent that we'll ignore it if George Bush takes a shit on the White House lawn" then yes. Where was the press scandal when it turned out that Cheney had met Edwards on no less than three sperate occasions? Where were the editorials lambasting the Administration's shell game over "there were ties between Iraq and 9/11" and "we never said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11". This isn't anything new, either. Back in 2000, the media was so caught up with inventing myths about Al Gore that they missed it when Bush took credit in a debate for legislation he actually VETOED.
Contrast this with the flurry of press reports if Clinton so much as farted in an elevator.
It's not so much that they pick weak candidates, but that they run incredibly weak, hamstrung, castrated campaigns. Why the fuck didn't we see ads after the VP debate showing pictures of John Edwards next to Dick "the first time I saw you was when you stepped onto the stage tonight" Cheney? Why didn't we see ads with clips of Bush talking about Iraqi WMD's, demanding to know where said WMD's were? Why didn't we see ads with clips of Bush saying "if you pay taxes, you get a tax cut" and then demand to know why there has been no cut in the payroll tax. Or show Bush in 2000 taking credit for Texas being the first state to allow patients to sue their HMO's, when he actually VETOED that bill as govenor and then let it pass without his signature.
Bush has a carefully constructed "everyman" image...why didn't the Democrats run a commercial like this, substituting real figures for my made up ones in brackets:
Why else did Kerry lose? I ranted about this subject before, so here's a copy and paste:
Why he lost...to be bruttaly honest, because Kerry ran an incompetent campaign. Yes, Rove did a marvelous job at turning out even more voters from the religious right, which I didn't think was possible. But those should have been the ONLY votes Bush should have been able to count on. The Democratic party could have put a garden rake in the race against Bush, run a decent campaign, and they should have won.
More specifically, on what Kerry did wrong: first, he had no platform whatsoever. Just a bunch of talking points. He could have been as nuanced as he wanted on as many subjects as he wanted, but for gawds sakes he should have come up with a damn platform! 5 simple, easy to explain issues he would work on as soon as he got into office, and 5 reasons why not to vote for Bush. Say 1) increase minimum wage by x amount 2) increase troop pay and benefits 3) $150 billion for infrastructure (creates jobs and gets rid of pot holes 4) increase REAL domestic security, not just hassle guys named Mohammed at airports 5) redo the Bush tax package, and make a cut on payroll taxes this time.
Second, while he was busy having no platform, he stuck his best weapon in rural Ohio and left him there: John Edwards. Even the most hard core Republican has to admit that list of Bush screwups is miles long. Lets see, who's good at taking facts, not rhetoric, and putting them together in an airtight case? Goddamn John Edwards. It was his profession for a lot longer than he was a Senator. He made millions doing it. Edwards should not have been making stump speeches in rural Ohio, he should have been a highly visible fixture on TV, laying out a case on why Bush is the Worst President Ever, in such an airtight fashion that not even Rush Limbaugh could argue with it.
Lastly, and unforgivably, he let the Republicans define him. Oh, charges of flip-flopping, THAT's never happened in politics before. And WTF did I learn from Salon, rather than Kerry, that Kerry is actually the 11th most liberal Senator? And the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth guys have been dogging him since the freaking 70's. That Kerry would sit on his ass for months and not respond to them blows my mind. Why the hell do Democrats need to keep relearing the lessons of 1988? Not dignifying their opponents attacks with a responce worked SO WELL for Presi
Yeah, everyone was surprised that Saddam didn't have any WMD's. Americans, Europeans, conservatives, liberals, guys in comas. However, Iraq was not invaded because they had a couple of canisters of mustard gas sitting next to a scud missle:
- "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Bush invaded Iraq because he insisted they were an IMMINENT THREAT that had to be taken out IMMEDIATLY. And in that stance Bush was virtually alone. The argument you cited is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at misdirection.And in ANY case, those other countries didn't invade Iraq. Bush did. And considering he is the one ultimately in charge of both intelligence AND the military, the responsiblity for the Iraqi WMD fiasco is entirely his.
Sorry, wrong in your implications, and maybe your facts.
Not really, assuming he was talking about negative change. Mass exctinction causing meteors and volcanos cause a lot of negative change as well, but no one can prevent those. Clearcutting forests and dumping tons of mecury into the ocean is entirely preventable.
Brushland and farmland are both far more productive of things to eat than the forest was, and that's good for deer, rabbits, and bear, and the things (like us) that eat them.
No they aren't. The most productive areas are where you have a mix of clearings and forest...food and cover. Forest fires would naturally make clearings, but fires have been mostly prevented for so long that fires are a real hazard and we don't have as many natural clearings.
As for strip mining, it doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Right, it doesn't. However, good restoration efforts are the norm not the rule, and have only been around for a few decades.