First off, If I could I would, but most of the time I can't because of some poorly written piece of crap software that requires Administrator rights to the local machine. I also realize that there might be some browser based GPOs that prevent browser add-ons, however, I am not sure how to prevent Toolbars while allowing Flash/Acrobat to install/update at the same time. Not to mention all the other "browser enhancements" that people might "need".
For some reason, I see "browser enhancements" in the same way I see those ads for "Smiling Bob's" product endorsement.
Why do I need to run a system that I have to maintain in such a way that it is impossible to keep people from installing crapware? Most of the systems I have in place, used by the clueless and the apathetic, require some software or another that runs in full ADMINISTRATOR MODE. Which means that they can run and install ANYTHING they want?
Tell me, do you call this Managed?
"Trusted sources."
Trusted Sources is not the solution. A system designed to let software be installed only by authorized personnel. Windows has this capability YET it is broken by bad software most notably Microsoft Products which require Administrator or PowerUser for users to actually use (cough Outlook cough). Can you explain why a user needs Administrator or PowerUser (which allows installs BTW) to use Outlook (not install, but USE)??????
From what I can tell, Vista is a half-baked attempt to fix this, but ends up just as broken in the long run since most software is still not Vista Ready(tm), and is likely not going to be for some time (if ever).
Click Once is the biggest problem with MS software. Already we have zero click and back door click software installs. It is the bane of my daily chores to remove and recover from web based installs and applications. As a system administrator, having to run in a windows environment I struggle daily to remind the users to NOT INSTALL SOFTWARE FROM THE INTERNET.
I hate Google Toolbar, Yahoo Toolbar and all the others not because those two are not useful, because they are, but rather because they condition the user to install EVERY FREAKING "IE Toolbar" out there. No Toolbars, period!
Your average user is a clueless idiot, and will click install all sorts of crap as long as he thinks it is okay. IT IS NOT OKAY! IE7 is the latest and greatest FOOBAR automatic install from Microsoft. Hey Microsoft, having IE7 automatically install with automatic updates is a really stupid idea, fire the asshat who signed off on that one. Not everyone is running PIV with a gig of ram necissary to run IE7.
So, as for the "click once and run" crap, keep it to yourselves!
"Need a "Right to be Left The Fuck Alone" Amendment"
We have those rights. Only that most people are against one or more of them on the grounds of "Protecting the children" or "Minorities" or "Public Safety" or.....
Next time the government says you can't have This or That kind of gun, nor carry one without permission of the government, stand up and say "LEAVE ME ALONE" along with the few remaining gun toting wackos. See where your "rights" are.
"the free market will provide a solution for a fee."
or leave, leaving the market to thieves and vultures. The result being that products cost more, and are of lessor quality than in markets with civility where thieves are a nuisance, rather than a major market force.
Most people have a distorted view of Adam Smith. His theories had some basic assumptions, ones often tossed aside during these types of discussions.
"I don't give a fuck whether people are stupid enough to own a gun that they are 5x more likely to use on themselves than on a home-invader."
Lies, Damn lies and... made up statistics.
Ever try to rob a well armed store owner? Ask South Central LA, where the unarmed store owners were ransacked while the ones standing on the rooftops with rifles and shotguns were... left alone. Or that town that had a mandatory gun law had lower crime rate than the ones that have complete ban on guns (Washington DC, SF). Banning guns don't make people safer, it only makes them FEEL safter. Which is what all the left wing loons are all about. Never mind Reality, let us all FEEL better about our fantasies.
Randy Weaver is an interesting case. And just like Waco, their guns ultimately didn't save them. However, their guns provided enough light on the government activities to show how far our country has fallen. The reason most people don't give a rats ass about either of these today, is because these people were viewed as "wackos" (right-wing, religious). Had these people been left-wing hippies I'm sure the results would have been much different.
Randy Weaver's wife was unarmed holding a child when she was shot. Where was Al Sharpton protesting? Yet when street thugs are shot by police he is all over it.
Oh, and the reason the ATF was going after Randy Weaver was because of his guns. That is the best evidence I have that gun laws are screwed.
"The bottom line is pluralism acts as a brake on fanaticism."
This is not true, when fanatics become the plurality. And you have a funny idea of what a fanatic is, as I look around the world I don't see that many so-called "right wing" fanatics. I do see, however, many "left-wing" fanatics and "religious" fanatics. Climbing a tree and living in it to save the "life" of a tree is commendable for "left-wing" fanatics, while standing outside an abortion clinic is not and is equated to "right wing" fanaticism (Blowing them up would be, IMHO).
As for Newts view of "America", it indeed has a place for many different kinds of people. We Americans do not require people to give up anything to be an American, and America is one of the most tolerant and welcoming people in the world. What we do expect is that people, coming to America, adopt a certain world view that makes it this way, it is our culture.
The problem now, is that people coming to America are demanding that we change our culture to suit their culture, which is often the same culture they are fleeing from. Our American Culture is distinct, and very inclusive, but only to a point. The reason we can have Latinos, Asian, African, European aspects to our culture is because we are so accepting.
So, while your view of Multiculturalism is different than mine, doesn't mean that my view is wrong, and yours is right (or even the other way around). We Americans will, and often do take the best parts of a culture, the ones that fit within the ideals of America and integrate them with our culture. We do not, however, have to accept EVERYTHING from EVERY culture because that is impossible and insane. Some cultural items from some cultures are mutually exclusive with another culture's items. Sharia law is not acceptable to American Cultural Values. However, that doesn't prevent people who are Muslim from holding to Sharia law for themselves, we just won't accept it for everyone else.
Within the context of Newt's views, I see nothing wrong with his statement, and it isn't as exclusional as you may seem to think it is. Indeed, I would agree with Newt's Statement that the concept of America is under assault.
As for your assumption about "free speech", you should read the context of some other articles Newt has written. The very things that our country has put into place visa vi McCain Finegold, are distinctly anti-free speech that Newt is protesting. Ignoring this because the results are what you like politically is proof that you are all for "free speech" as long as it is yours, everyone else's be damned.
Can you give me one good reason why some group can't run ads pointing out the values they hold and comparing them to the values others hold because it is within 90 (three months) of an election? How is that protecting "free speech"??????
So, Newt as makes the case for "Free Speech" in another article, he shows that he is profoundly and distinctly making the case for something that is important to Americans of all political flavors, not just "right wingers", but everyone. Free Speech cannot ever be curtailed for any reason, yet McCain Finegold does exactly that.
It is clear that your view of Newt is one that is bigoted by your political view, and your idea of "free speech", but is one that really doesn't address the real problems associated with the TRUE curtailment of free speech, such as McCain Finegold. McCain Finegold scares the crap out of me, because it is just the beginning of the leftwing censorship.
I actually think that US money looks fine. There is a simple elegance to them. The multicolored overactive graphics on most Non-US based currency looks horrible or worse, like really bad play money. The Swedish 50K bill in your post is an excellent example of money trying to be too much.
What I want to know is, where is this gas station, where blind people are lining up to pay $5 in cash to get gas for their car? I don't want to be ANYWHERE near where blind people are driving!!!!
Why do you think they went after #2 first? It is much easier to get rid of #1, #3-#10 if there is no #2. Of all the things that the ACLU stands for, this is one I have NEVER seen them stand for.
Why is it, that it is okay for terrorist to say terrorist things, but I can't have my fully automatic Uzi? Which is worse?
"I don't see any evidence to suggest that his message is anything other than what's in TFA"
Right. That's because there is no transcript of the speech to refer to, so all your evidence is the article, there is no other "evidence" you've seen other than the article. So, basically you are trusting the news source (NBC blowing up cars, Washington Post reporting fictional events etc), at the expense of actually doing the research or waiting till the transcript comes out.
You obviously have more faith in "unbiased" reporters than I do, as I can clearly prove that there is no such thing as "unbiased" news. Everyone has an agenda (including me).
So, I am completely reserving judgment on this one until further review. I wasn't there, so I don't know, and I sure the hell don't believe one article on some website as "proof" that He said or didn't say anything.
I wonder though, if it is proven that he never said any such thing, if those that are lambasting him today will change their opinion of him or just chalk it up to the Dan Rather school of forged documents by saying "while the article was false, I believe that it portrayed Newt correctly"
"Either God has gone out of his way to leave little trace of his existence, save for that found in ancient books of dubious objectivity"
You personally established this as a fact, or are your relying upon people you trust? Or is it a mere assumption?
The reason I ask, is because I see evidence of a Supreme Being in all of this natural universe. Scientific evidence, starting with the laws of thermodynamics. You see, if you start where you are, you can clearly see that there is FUNCTION throughout the universe.
Mind you, you won't get this from churchianity's version of Genesis, but it is there. "It was very good" literally means "functional", and not "good" in the sense of good/evil. But what the hell do I know, I'm a wacko nutjob.
I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice. - Albert Einstein
"they were all based upon unreasoning belief in a concept or institution, and religion falls into the same category."
Speaking of which, this has been my impression of Atheists for some time. They have an UNREASONING BELIEF system, based upon unscientific thought. They have a Thesis, but have never considered the ANTITHESIS.
Their thesis is "there is no god", and have developed a whole line of reasonings to "prove" this thesis. The Antithesis is "There is a god", and I have rarely seen any atheist spend the amount of time on this consideration.
I was an atheist at one point. One of the most brilliant things that was ever suggested to me was "have you considered the alternative", which led me on the journey to where I am now. I am not a "christian" in the traditional sense, neither am I a "jew". But I am one of those wackos, who believes the Scriptures, namely because none of the claims found in it have been falsified.
Perhaps they cannot be falsified in the minds of some, but the evidence (modern and recent practices of today, circa last 150 years, found in a story 3500 years or more old) is there, if one just looks.
Slashdot Mirror
sorry, but that still leaves him 3" short
First off, If I could I would, but most of the time I can't because of some poorly written piece of crap software that requires Administrator rights to the local machine. I also realize that there might be some browser based GPOs that prevent browser add-ons, however, I am not sure how to prevent Toolbars while allowing Flash/Acrobat to install/update at the same time. Not to mention all the other "browser enhancements" that people might "need".
For some reason, I see "browser enhancements" in the same way I see those ads for "Smiling Bob's" product endorsement.
Managed Systems
Why do I need to run a system that I have to maintain in such a way that it is impossible to keep people from installing crapware? Most of the systems I have in place, used by the clueless and the apathetic, require some software or another that runs in full ADMINISTRATOR MODE. Which means that they can run and install ANYTHING they want?
Tell me, do you call this Managed?
"Trusted sources."
Trusted Sources is not the solution. A system designed to let software be installed only by authorized personnel. Windows has this capability YET it is broken by bad software most notably Microsoft Products which require Administrator or PowerUser for users to actually use (cough Outlook cough). Can you explain why a user needs Administrator or PowerUser (which allows installs BTW) to use Outlook (not install, but USE)??????
From what I can tell, Vista is a half-baked attempt to fix this, but ends up just as broken in the long run since most software is still not Vista Ready(tm), and is likely not going to be for some time (if ever).
Click Once is the biggest problem with MS software. Already we have zero click and back door click software installs. It is the bane of my daily chores to remove and recover from web based installs and applications. As a system administrator, having to run in a windows environment I struggle daily to remind the users to NOT INSTALL SOFTWARE FROM THE INTERNET.
I hate Google Toolbar, Yahoo Toolbar and all the others not because those two are not useful, because they are, but rather because they condition the user to install EVERY FREAKING "IE Toolbar" out there. No Toolbars, period!
Your average user is a clueless idiot, and will click install all sorts of crap as long as he thinks it is okay. IT IS NOT OKAY! IE7 is the latest and greatest FOOBAR automatic install from Microsoft. Hey Microsoft, having IE7 automatically install with automatic updates is a really stupid idea, fire the asshat who signed off on that one. Not everyone is running PIV with a gig of ram necissary to run IE7.
So, as for the "click once and run" crap, keep it to yourselves!
Buy at $0.01 and use the paper to wipe yourself after using the toilette
"Need a "Right to be Left The Fuck Alone" Amendment"
.....
We have those rights. Only that most people are against one or more of them on the grounds of "Protecting the children" or "Minorities" or "Public Safety" or
Next time the government says you can't have This or That kind of gun, nor carry one without permission of the government, stand up and say "LEAVE ME ALONE" along with the few remaining gun toting wackos. See where your "rights" are.
Live Free or Die!
This is not flamebait, its FUNNY! Well, it made me laugh.
http://www.unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm
..... not for long
"Only Legal Source"
"the free market will provide a solution for a fee."
or leave, leaving the market to thieves and vultures. The result being that products cost more, and are of lessor quality than in markets with civility where thieves are a nuisance, rather than a major market force.
Most people have a distorted view of Adam Smith. His theories had some basic assumptions, ones often tossed aside during these types of discussions.
"I would prefer the law"
Somalia has laws. What they don't have is ORDER. Laws do not create order. Enforcement of laws does.
"I don't give a fuck whether people are stupid enough to own a gun that they are 5x more likely to use on themselves than on a home-invader."
... made up statistics.
... left alone. Or that town that had a mandatory gun law had lower crime rate than the ones that have complete ban on guns (Washington DC, SF). Banning guns don't make people safer, it only makes them FEEL safter. Which is what all the left wing loons are all about. Never mind Reality, let us all FEEL better about our fantasies.
Lies, Damn lies and
Ever try to rob a well armed store owner? Ask South Central LA, where the unarmed store owners were ransacked while the ones standing on the rooftops with rifles and shotguns were
Randy Weaver is an interesting case. And just like Waco, their guns ultimately didn't save them. However, their guns provided enough light on the government activities to show how far our country has fallen. The reason most people don't give a rats ass about either of these today, is because these people were viewed as "wackos" (right-wing, religious). Had these people been left-wing hippies I'm sure the results would have been much different.
Randy Weaver's wife was unarmed holding a child when she was shot. Where was Al Sharpton protesting? Yet when street thugs are shot by police he is all over it.
Oh, and the reason the ATF was going after Randy Weaver was because of his guns. That is the best evidence I have that gun laws are screwed.
You made one mistake.
"The bottom line is pluralism acts as a brake on fanaticism."
This is not true, when fanatics become the plurality. And you have a funny idea of what a fanatic is, as I look around the world I don't see that many so-called "right wing" fanatics. I do see, however, many "left-wing" fanatics and "religious" fanatics. Climbing a tree and living in it to save the "life" of a tree is commendable for "left-wing" fanatics, while standing outside an abortion clinic is not and is equated to "right wing" fanaticism (Blowing them up would be, IMHO).
As for Newts view of "America", it indeed has a place for many different kinds of people. We Americans do not require people to give up anything to be an American, and America is one of the most tolerant and welcoming people in the world. What we do expect is that people, coming to America, adopt a certain world view that makes it this way, it is our culture.
The problem now, is that people coming to America are demanding that we change our culture to suit their culture, which is often the same culture they are fleeing from. Our American Culture is distinct, and very inclusive, but only to a point. The reason we can have Latinos, Asian, African, European aspects to our culture is because we are so accepting.
So, while your view of Multiculturalism is different than mine, doesn't mean that my view is wrong, and yours is right (or even the other way around). We Americans will, and often do take the best parts of a culture, the ones that fit within the ideals of America and integrate them with our culture. We do not, however, have to accept EVERYTHING from EVERY culture because that is impossible and insane. Some cultural items from some cultures are mutually exclusive with another culture's items. Sharia law is not acceptable to American Cultural Values. However, that doesn't prevent people who are Muslim from holding to Sharia law for themselves, we just won't accept it for everyone else.
Within the context of Newt's views, I see nothing wrong with his statement, and it isn't as exclusional as you may seem to think it is. Indeed, I would agree with Newt's Statement that the concept of America is under assault.
As for your assumption about "free speech", you should read the context of some other articles Newt has written. The very things that our country has put into place visa vi McCain Finegold, are distinctly anti-free speech that Newt is protesting. Ignoring this because the results are what you like politically is proof that you are all for "free speech" as long as it is yours, everyone else's be damned.
Can you give me one good reason why some group can't run ads pointing out the values they hold and comparing them to the values others hold because it is within 90 (three months) of an election? How is that protecting "free speech"??????
So, Newt as makes the case for "Free Speech" in another article, he shows that he is profoundly and distinctly making the case for something that is important to Americans of all political flavors, not just "right wingers", but everyone. Free Speech cannot ever be curtailed for any reason, yet McCain Finegold does exactly that.
It is clear that your view of Newt is one that is bigoted by your political view, and your idea of "free speech", but is one that really doesn't address the real problems associated with the TRUE curtailment of free speech, such as McCain Finegold. McCain Finegold scares the crap out of me, because it is just the beginning of the leftwing censorship.
I actually think that US money looks fine. There is a simple elegance to them. The multicolored overactive graphics on most Non-US based currency looks horrible or worse, like really bad play money. The Swedish 50K bill in your post is an excellent example of money trying to be too much.
What I want to know is, where is this gas station, where blind people are lining up to pay $5 in cash to get gas for their car? I don't want to be ANYWHERE near where blind people are driving!!!!
There is no #1 without #2.
Why do you think they went after #2 first? It is much easier to get rid of #1, #3-#10 if there is no #2. Of all the things that the ACLU stands for, this is one I have NEVER seen them stand for.
Why is it, that it is okay for terrorist to say terrorist things, but I can't have my fully automatic Uzi? Which is worse?
"I don't see any evidence to suggest that his message is anything other than what's in TFA"
Right. That's because there is no transcript of the speech to refer to, so all your evidence is the article, there is no other "evidence" you've seen other than the article. So, basically you are trusting the news source (NBC blowing up cars, Washington Post reporting fictional events etc), at the expense of actually doing the research or waiting till the transcript comes out.
You obviously have more faith in "unbiased" reporters than I do, as I can clearly prove that there is no such thing as "unbiased" news. Everyone has an agenda (including me).
So, I am completely reserving judgment on this one until further review. I wasn't there, so I don't know, and I sure the hell don't believe one article on some website as "proof" that He said or didn't say anything.
I wonder though, if it is proven that he never said any such thing, if those that are lambasting him today will change their opinion of him or just chalk it up to the Dan Rather school of forged documents by saying "while the article was false, I believe that it portrayed Newt correctly"
"The lesson is, if you want to play hardball with the MPAA, then you'd better bring your bat, glove, and catcher's mask."
I'm sure he had all of those, but since the RIAA/MPAA was going for his BALLS, he should have been wearing a cup in his jockstrap.
"What is there to examine?"
So much for inquiry. You are only interested if it fits your ideas. No different from most religious nut jobs.
No!
And I think I am speaking for all the people who don't want the WoW Hordes invading Real Life.
"Be a patriot: Murder a Republican"
A fine example of tolerance and civility you are. Let's kill anyone that differs from our view point.
I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls.
"There isn't an atheist thesis."
You just believe, without examination. How is this different from every other religious nutjob?
"Either God has gone out of his way to leave little trace of his existence, save for that found in ancient books of dubious objectivity"
t es.html
You personally established this as a fact, or are your relying upon people you trust? Or is it a mere assumption?
The reason I ask, is because I see evidence of a Supreme Being in all of this natural universe. Scientific evidence, starting with the laws of thermodynamics. You see, if you start where you are, you can clearly see that there is FUNCTION throughout the universe.
Mind you, you won't get this from churchianity's version of Genesis, but it is there. "It was very good" literally means "functional", and not "good" in the sense of good/evil. But what the hell do I know, I'm a wacko nutjob.
I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice. - Albert Einstein
http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuo
"What I'm saying is that "why" questions are circular."
WHY?
"they were all based upon unreasoning belief in a concept or institution, and religion falls into the same category."
Speaking of which, this has been my impression of Atheists for some time. They have an UNREASONING BELIEF system, based upon unscientific thought. They have a Thesis, but have never considered the ANTITHESIS.
Their thesis is "there is no god", and have developed a whole line of reasonings to "prove" this thesis. The Antithesis is "There is a god", and I have rarely seen any atheist spend the amount of time on this consideration.
I was an atheist at one point. One of the most brilliant things that was ever suggested to me was "have you considered the alternative", which led me on the journey to where I am now. I am not a "christian" in the traditional sense, neither am I a "jew". But I am one of those wackos, who believes the Scriptures, namely because none of the claims found in it have been falsified.
Perhaps they cannot be falsified in the minds of some, but the evidence (modern and recent practices of today, circa last 150 years, found in a story 3500 years or more old) is there, if one just looks.