400 sucks. I thought it was bad enough that they decided merging two interstates into one through downtown was a good idea (85 and 75) but let's see if we can add yet ANOTHER major artery in the mix and REALLY fuck it up.
What Atlanta needs is (besides good public transportation), is an aretery that goes through the city with no exits. None whatsoever. That way the people who live in Roswell and work on the southside can get on and go without dealing with merging and other nonsense. I say stack it RIGHT on top of 400/85/75.
You aren't required to drive anywhere. We already have toll-roads so this is no different.
I actually prefere almost EVERY kind of use-based taxation to the system in place. Some services (police and MAYBE fire) wouldn't work but everything else makes sense. It's the only fair tax because it's the only one you can control.
Don't feel like paying X in road taxes? You don't have to. Just don't use the road. Roads are a money-pit for governments. They suffer insane wear and tear as the tax base grows and yet a still have to vote on a tax initiative to pay for fixing the roads that I thought my taxes took care of?!?
Each tax should be earmarked for that project ONLY. None of this pulling from the coffers shit.
Road taxes are in an account for road work and maintenance. Don't you dare pool it with the other taxes and then take a percentage for road work.
Move to Atlanta and you'll see why people don't take the bus. Not every city has a public transportation as "evolved" as NYC or even SF/SJ/Bay Area.
My fiancee works for the state EPD (environmental protection division). We live north of the city and she works south of the city near the airport.
Now you would think she would take MARTA (Atlanta's "Mass Transit" *snort*) because it drops you off RIGHT inside the airport. Her office is 10 minutes from the airport. She would love to EXCEPT for one reason. The bus from the airport to her office only runs once every hour. And that bus route has multiple stops that would add 30+ minutes onto the already insane ride of 45 minutes from the northern most station to the airport.
Even on a bad day, her commute is 45 minutes. You tell me what makes more sense?
The real culprit here is urban sprawl.
I've always thought that Texas had a pretty good idea on it's HOV/Diamond lanes. They're walled off. Entirely. The exit points are actually in the middle of the overpass bridges. That way the buses that use the lanes don't have to sit in the traffic themselves. It also cuts down on the problem (which I see everyday) of jackasses using the HOV lane as a glorified passing lane. And with one person in the car.
You act as if everyone is equal. Not everyone is equal. (Yes yes equal protection under the law not withstanding). The only thing you are given is an equal shot at life, liberty and property.
I love people who bitch and moan the boss or this person or that person. Quit your fucking whining and do something about it. Someone is always going to have more of "foo" or "bar" than you. If you feel like you need a sticker to not have to sit in traffic then BUY one. If you can't afford one, save up or quit bitching.
Oh I'm sorry, this is all about those "EVIL" rich people. Guess what? Slowly but surely, more and more middle income earners are being tagged as "rich" people as the bar for what qualifies as high income is lowered. You might be one of those people some day!
I think people like to paint all software patents with a broad brush. It's actually a bigger and broader scope. Work with me here:
"All patents related to software are evil"
The fear is that (and rightly so), the patent office doesn't have the tech knowhow to decide a valid patent or not. Mailblock wants to patent "challenge and response" email. To me that is plain silly. The concept of a challenge and response has existed long before email in regards to communications. Applying such a broad concept to email is nothing new and is only a matter of who got there first.
What SHOULD happen is that a company is granted a valid patent on METHOD. At least in regards to software. Let's take Adobe. What if they were tto be granted a patent on ALL graphics designs programs? It would kill competition in it's tracks. Gimp? nope. PSP? nope. MSPAINT? probably but only because MS would pay the license fee.
You see, in terms of software, the traditional patent model does not work. There aren't enough new ideas out there. The concept of a drawing is as old as caves and berry juice. You can patent YOUR style of pen but not the concept of a pen. What happens is that companies patent more than just THIER way of doing something. Software patents in the current form are diametrically opposed to competition and freemarket operation.
The rules need to be rewritten to take into account this new model. Things like lifetime of a patent on software needs to be rethought as well as the whole process of granting the patent. In the software world, things move too fast. Patent lifetimes are NECCESARY to ensure non-stagnation.
Take the drug market. The patent on the drug (chemical makeup not concept) is the motivation for R&D. Patents encourage companies to develop something to make a profit by guaranteeing those companies the ability to have exclusive profit from that R&D. But this only goes so far. You've got only a few years before the patent expires and anyone else can make a generic version. They can't call it the same thing you do, but the can sure as hell color the pill the same as you.
What now for a company? They must reinvest the money earned from the short term exclusive right of patent and develop a better version. Or something new all together. The company that trys to live on one product dies a quick death. Ever wonder why there are so many versions of sudaphedrine? Patents FORCE innovation. The rules are simple. You come up with something new (such as a drug to inhibit HIV) and you get exclusive right to it. But only for a while. After so many years, anyone can produce it. It's now up to you (the company) to make a bigger and better HIV blocker. You know the rules. Everyone has to play by the same ones. Because a patent is public (has to be or else how would anyone know if they might infringe), you get that exclusivity= bonus for making it public. Don't like that rule? Keep it as a trade secret. The rules are different there. Much more difficult to enforce.
Almost done.
People also link patents to copyrights which have become a bastardized version of what they were. The current Micky Mouse is much better (to some) than the Steamboat Willy '46 version. Copyright terms forced Disney to make a better Mickey Mouse. The problem now (as we all know) is that Disney and the other large lobbies have decided that they don't want to play by the same rules that put them where they are. They are most undoubtedly an enemy of the freemarket and capitalism.
Sorry for such a long rant. Copyrights and patents aren't a bad thing unless misused. This is the case with the Sonny Bono Act and most software patents.
That's interesting to know. I don't have any wireless stuff in the apartment but I will when we move into our house. One of the things I plan on adding.
I wonder if there's a way around this? I'm not a wireless kind of guy so I'm not sure.
Instead of spending money on an uber-silent case and mobo (allthough a mini-itx would do the job), I'm considering this.
I figure I can hook this bad boy up to my powerhouse machine and just send it all wireless.
The only thing I'm concerned about is sound quality. I've already got a dvd player so I don't need that functionality. I just want a way to play my divx files and ogg/mp3s on the main system.
I've done some testing, converting divx to vcd but I always end up with unsynched sound. I also figure that keeping things in divx would be much better than spending the time converting them to vcd and having to change disks halfway through.
I don't believe I said anywhere that those words were specific to that document. The statements in the Declaration of Independance are insured by the Constitution.
Well I take everything I read with a grain of salt. Especially when it comes from a fairly biased source.
I thought that the main reason Chirac was so opposed to military action, was simply the "illegal" business deals he had negotiated with Iraq. I never realized that there was more to it than that. My french skills are not what they used to be (allthough I've been refreshing them recently - you'd think five years of language classes would stick!) so looking for news sources from France is not a real option. As I said before, as a frenchman in some regard, I'm curious about this attitude and that of the population of France which is why I am enjoying the discussion with ThinWhiteDuke and any other natives who want to join in.
What really has me upset is the desecration going on at American and British gravesites from WWII right now.
I think the main reason Americans are so concerned about government power is due to the roots of our country. As to government efficiency, I would wager that the majority of services performed by government could be better handled by a private industry. There are some exceptions to this of course i.e. military.
Since you enjoyed the quote so much, here is another from Jefferson that he wrote just after visting France ( a country to which he was greatly enamoured)
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
I'm sure you can guess which event lead him to make that statement?
I'm curious as to why nationalism is such a bad thing in the eyes of so many Europeans. I am to understand that in Germany, being vocally pro-Germany garners stares and concerns of racism and neo-nazi association. At one time, France was STRONGLY pro-French culture. Resistance to Euro-Disney and such. I have a legitimate concern because my family lineage is French (A great-grand something or other was a high ranking officer for the French Army during the U.S. Revolutionary war.)
As to Chirac, here is an article by a frenchman for an admittedly staunch conservative publication here in the states. Do any of the points in that article match personal experience?
The people in Gitmo are not U.S. citizens. If they wanted those rights ensured to them, they should have come to this country and becomed citizens in which case I would bitch about them being denied due process. If you ever read my website, you would see that I bitch to high heaven about Jose Padilla and Mike Hawash.
Do I believe Iraq poses a DIRECT threat to the United States? Not at this moment. An Indirect threat? Yes. Credible? Hell yes. I never considered Afghanistan and the taliban a direct threat and we see how that turned out. As much as people don't want to admit it, Al-Qaueda and The Taliban were linked at the hip.
I'm willing to trust Colin Powell and our military reports more than Kofi Annan. Why? Because Kofi Annan has done nothing to show that they are interested in protect my freedom.
I have no problems seeing a scenario where some Bin Laden somewhere, while despising Saddam as a bad muslim, goes to him for help in attacking the United States. Saddam doesn't like us so he agrees.
That scenario alone is enough for me to feel some justification in this action. Not the "liberation of Iraq" or "Deposing a ruthless dictator".
But if you want some justification for the human rights route, why is it okay to go after Milosovich and not Hussein?
Actually that's not true. I don't prefer democracy at all. Pure democracy is the worst form of government.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. Thomas Jefferson
As to giving my neighbor power over me, that's not really the case. Realising that we live in a world made up of people, there has to be a government to secure those rights. For me, the role of government is very limited. Do the things I cannot do myself i.e. national defense and ensuring that my rights are secured. The second one is handled by laws (or in John Ashcroft's case - NOT secured by creating laws that take them away) and enforcement of those laws. If a man truly believes in personal freedom and liberty, he has to be willing to give that same right to someone else. This is why, while I'm opposed to abortion on a moral level, I don't want the government making laws restricting a woman's access.
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson
I never said that I didn't want some sort of international body but I don't think the U.N. is it. The U.N. has grown into this self-important beast that can't manage itself.
And not everyone seems to believe this sadly enough. In fact I don't think the Constitution is taught enough. I've not always been this into personal liberty but as I've gotten older, it's something that concerns me more and more. Have I read other countires documents? Not many. I honestly don't see how they have limited the power of government when there are still things like socialised medicine and high rates of taxation to cover that.
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
I also am frightened by the recent lack of distinction between our government and religion. I do not begrudge our president his right to religion. I do begrudge him for trying to force that on our country with his buddy John Ashcroft. I detest the thought that the United States has some sort of moral obligation to rid the world of "evil" as well. I don't care about "evil" in the world. I consider John Ashcroft and evil man personally. That's a moral classification though and when you introduce moral dictations from a government, you end up with the Taliban.
I didn't read your post as a flame. I wasn't actively trying to flame France. I just used them as the most obvious example. Mes. Chirac has his own interests at heart as well. He was free to cater to the Muslim world but now he has to deal with those consequences.
I wasn't commenting on the "googlewashing" so much as I was commenting on the body of work that refers to "second superpower".
Third-grade grammAr you mean? What is illogical about my post? I will gladly admit it to be a rant but there is nothing that is untrue about my post or in the least nothing that isn't reasoned out.
And as you might have gathered from the post, why should I care what the rest of the world thinks about the United States much less what you think about the United States.
This is a good point. I think we do more damage with stupid shit like sponsoring Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. These kind of actions create more animosity than anything.
My personal opinion is this. We negotiate treaties VERY carefully with other countries. We avoid the "entanglements" we were warned against so long ago.
We stop all foreign aid. We go back to semi-isolationist. That's what everybody really wants anyway, right? For the US to get out of other people's business? Well we'll do that and I don't want to see anyone bitch. Put the U.N (if they have any relevence left) in Switzerland.
We will pick and choose who we do business with very carefully.
And which part of that is the job of the United States government under the Constitution? I don't remember the "we will be a nice socialist state and provide these things for you".
You know why the rich get richer? Because they work for it. I don't remember the last time a poor person signed my paycheck.
Free health care is not a role of the government in my opinion. You end up with bottom-feeder doctors and the cheapest work possible.
While a society benifits from an educated populace, education is not the pancea that many make it out to be. I've known some people who are over-educated and still stupid and without common sense and work-ethic.
I personally think our punishments aren't harsh enough. This parole shit needs to go. Actions have consequences. Unless you happen to be someone famous.
Capital punishment is not a topic to debate. It's just like abortion. It never goes anywhere and breaks down into who's emotions are stronger.
Why should the government dictate what a business can pay it's employees? Let adult people make adult decisions and agree on a contract. The companies that don't pay for shit won't have enough employees to survive. Competition. Free Market.
I have no problem with environmental concerns. It comes with having a fiancee who works for the EPD;) I've learned a bit. I just worry about bad science making decisions that can cost us too much.
I'll get back to the representation issue when I have a chance to read up on how NZ does it.
Screw the foriegn aid alltogether. We never get anything in return for it. It's not like any of the countries we've ever provided aid to have done anything in return. If you want to discuss some sort of moral obligation, I say go to church and discuss it. Keep moral issues out of government. It's why we have stupid laws banning consentual adult sex between adults when they both happen to be of the same sex. It's why a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her body is being taken away from her. FYI I'm opposed to abortion but that's a personal, moral choice. I don't want government dictating morality.
Everyone has the same chance to succeed in this country. As long as a man has his liberty, he can achieve the things he wants (as long as those desires do not rob another of his/her liberty).
Well you and I probably differ on the role of government in social programs but from a pure cost perspective treatment is cheaper than enforcement. I'd rather the government let adults make stupid decisions that only affect themselves and not try to play parent.
I've actually been outside of the United States. I was in India for a month. I was also in Zurich for a short jaunt.
As to the creator comment, the founding fathers (at least Thomas Jefferson) were fairly humanistic. I think the fact that they DIDN'T say "Jesus" or "Yahweh" or "Buddah" says quite a bit about the fact that the rights you have are inherent as a human being.
You know what? I don't care who the "second superpower" turns out to be. It can be a nation. It can be a people. What gets me is that people seem to think there has to be one.
I'm going to be point blank honest. If someone has to be the dominant superpower, I want it to be the United States.
Why? Well several reasons but the main one is that I'm a United States Citizen. It's in my best interests for the U.S. to be on top. The United Nations doesn't hold my best interests. France sure as fuck doesn't.
Another reason is that I consider the Constitution of the United States to be the single greatest document ever known to man. The United Nation's Human Rights charter tried to be that but it's little caluse about all right's being null and void if they go against the goals of the U.N. really fucked it up. The Constitution puts the power into the hands of free men and not the government.
I love how both the republicans and democrats seem to think that our rights are confered on us by the federal government. What kind of bullshit is that? Did they read the document they swore to uphold? Our rights are endowed to us by our creator. It is the governments job to safeguard those. If they fail, we have the power to put in a government that WILL.
Just as in everything, it's survival of the fittest. If another nation rises to be a superpower then bully for them. I personally think it's stupid for a government to be more concerned about what the U.S. is doing and how they stack up to the U.S. than to be concerned about it's own people.
Slashdot Mirror
400 sucks. I thought it was bad enough that they decided merging two interstates into one through downtown was a good idea (85 and 75) but let's see if we can add yet ANOTHER major artery in the mix and REALLY fuck it up.
What Atlanta needs is (besides good public transportation), is an aretery that goes through the city with no exits. None whatsoever. That way the people who live in Roswell and work on the southside can get on and go without dealing with merging and other nonsense. I say stack it RIGHT on top of 400/85/75.
You aren't required to drive anywhere. We already have toll-roads so this is no different.
I actually prefere almost EVERY kind of use-based taxation to the system in place. Some services (police and MAYBE fire) wouldn't work but everything else makes sense. It's the only fair tax because it's the only one you can control.
Don't feel like paying X in road taxes? You don't have to. Just don't use the road. Roads are a money-pit for governments. They suffer insane wear and tear as the tax base grows and yet a still have to vote on a tax initiative to pay for fixing the roads that I thought my taxes took care of?!?
Each tax should be earmarked for that project ONLY. None of this pulling from the coffers shit.
Road taxes are in an account for road work and maintenance. Don't you dare pool it with the other taxes and then take a percentage for road work.
Move to Atlanta and you'll see why people don't take the bus. Not every city has a public transportation as "evolved" as NYC or even SF/SJ/Bay Area.
My fiancee works for the state EPD (environmental protection division). We live north of the city and she works south of the city near the airport.
Now you would think she would take MARTA (Atlanta's "Mass Transit" *snort*) because it drops you off RIGHT inside the airport. Her office is 10 minutes from the airport. She would love to EXCEPT for one reason. The bus from the airport to her office only runs once every hour. And that bus route has multiple stops that would add 30+ minutes onto the already insane ride of 45 minutes from the northern most station to the airport.
Even on a bad day, her commute is 45 minutes. You tell me what makes more sense?
The real culprit here is urban sprawl.
I've always thought that Texas had a pretty good idea on it's HOV/Diamond lanes. They're walled off. Entirely. The exit points are actually in the middle of the overpass bridges. That way the buses that use the lanes don't have to sit in the traffic themselves. It also cuts down on the problem (which I see everyday) of jackasses using the HOV lane as a glorified passing lane. And with one person in the car.
Why do people confuse the matter unintentionally?
You act as if everyone is equal. Not everyone is equal. (Yes yes equal protection under the law not withstanding). The only thing you are given is an equal shot at life, liberty and property.
I love people who bitch and moan the boss or this person or that person. Quit your fucking whining and do something about it. Someone is always going to have more of "foo" or "bar" than you. If you feel like you need a sticker to not have to sit in traffic then BUY one. If you can't afford one, save up or quit bitching.
Oh I'm sorry, this is all about those "EVIL" rich people. Guess what? Slowly but surely, more and more middle income earners are being tagged as "rich" people as the bar for what qualifies as high income is lowered. You might be one of those people some day!
Well considering that "poor mexican worker" probably doesn't pay any taxes and sends all of his money home, I don't think it matters.
Would you rather the state just charge everyone or maybe raise your taxes just for this? I don't think I do.
I think people like to paint all software patents with a broad brush. It's actually a bigger and broader scope. Work with me here:
"All patents related to software are evil"
The fear is that (and rightly so), the patent office doesn't have the tech knowhow to decide a valid patent or not. Mailblock wants to patent "challenge and response" email. To me that is plain silly. The concept of a challenge and response has existed long before email in regards to communications. Applying such a broad concept to email is nothing new and is only a matter of who got there first.
What SHOULD happen is that a company is granted a valid patent on METHOD. At least in regards to software. Let's take Adobe. What if they were tto be granted a patent on ALL graphics designs programs? It would kill competition in it's tracks. Gimp? nope. PSP? nope. MSPAINT? probably but only because MS would pay the license fee.
You see, in terms of software, the traditional patent model does not work. There aren't enough new ideas out there. The concept of a drawing is as old as caves and berry juice. You can patent YOUR style of pen but not the concept of a pen. What happens is that companies patent more than just THIER way of doing something. Software patents in the current form are diametrically opposed to competition and freemarket operation.
The rules need to be rewritten to take into account this new model. Things like lifetime of a patent on software needs to be rethought as well as the whole process of granting the patent. In the software world, things move too fast. Patent lifetimes are NECCESARY to ensure non-stagnation.
Take the drug market. The patent on the drug (chemical makeup not concept) is the motivation for R&D. Patents encourage companies to develop something to make a profit by guaranteeing those companies the ability to have exclusive profit from that R&D. But this only goes so far. You've got only a few years before the patent expires and anyone else can make a generic version. They can't call it the same thing you do, but the can sure as hell color the pill the same as you.
What now for a company? They must reinvest the money earned from the short term exclusive right of patent and develop a better version. Or something new all together. The company that trys to live on one product dies a quick death. Ever wonder why there are so many versions of sudaphedrine? Patents FORCE innovation. The rules are simple. You come up with something new (such as a drug to inhibit HIV) and you get exclusive right to it. But only for a while. After so many years, anyone can produce it. It's now up to you (the company) to make a bigger and better HIV blocker. You know the rules. Everyone has to play by the same ones. Because a patent is public (has to be or else how would anyone know if they might infringe), you get that exclusivity= bonus for making it public. Don't like that rule? Keep it as a trade secret. The rules are different there. Much more difficult to enforce.
Almost done.
People also link patents to copyrights which have become a bastardized version of what they were. The current Micky Mouse is much better (to some) than the Steamboat Willy '46 version. Copyright terms forced Disney to make a better Mickey Mouse. The problem now (as we all know) is that Disney and the other large lobbies have decided that they don't want to play by the same rules that put them where they are. They are most undoubtedly an enemy of the freemarket and capitalism.
Sorry for such a long rant. Copyrights and patents aren't a bad thing unless misused. This is the case with the Sonny Bono Act and most software patents.
and then watching it go up on ebay for a few hundred dollars.
You should feel even more stupid. You do realize that codeweavers are the primary financial backer of wine?
It's not as if they take daily cvs snapshots and bundle em up for download.
That's interesting to know. I don't have any wireless stuff in the apartment but I will when we move into our house. One of the things I plan on adding.
I wonder if there's a way around this? I'm not a wireless kind of guy so I'm not sure.
Instead of spending money on an uber-silent case and mobo (allthough a mini-itx would do the job), I'm considering this.
I figure I can hook this bad boy up to my powerhouse machine and just send it all wireless.
The only thing I'm concerned about is sound quality. I've already got a dvd player so I don't need that functionality. I just want a way to play my divx files and ogg/mp3s on the main system.
I've done some testing, converting divx to vcd but I always end up with unsynched sound. I also figure that keeping things in divx would be much better than spending the time converting them to vcd and having to change disks halfway through.
Actually the xbox is of more use than any of the others. You've basically got a pretty decent spec'd PC in a small formfactor for $149 bucks.
I don't believe I said anywhere that those words were specific to that document. The statements in the Declaration of Independance are insured by the Constitution.
Well I take everything I read with a grain of salt. Especially when it comes from a fairly biased source.
I thought that the main reason Chirac was so opposed to military action, was simply the "illegal" business deals he had negotiated with Iraq. I never realized that there was more to it than that. My french skills are not what they used to be (allthough I've been refreshing them recently - you'd think five years of language classes would stick!) so looking for news sources from France is not a real option. As I said before, as a frenchman in some regard, I'm curious about this attitude and that of the population of France which is why I am enjoying the discussion with ThinWhiteDuke and any other natives who want to join in.
What really has me upset is the desecration going on at American and British gravesites from WWII right now.
I think the main reason Americans are so concerned about government power is due to the roots of our country. As to government efficiency, I would wager that the majority of services performed by government could be better handled by a private industry. There are some exceptions to this of course i.e. military.
Since you enjoyed the quote so much, here is another from Jefferson that he wrote just after visting France ( a country to which he was greatly enamoured)
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
I'm sure you can guess which event lead him to make that statement?
I'm curious as to why nationalism is such a bad thing in the eyes of so many Europeans. I am to understand that in Germany, being vocally pro-Germany garners stares and concerns of racism and neo-nazi association. At one time, France was STRONGLY pro-French culture. Resistance to Euro-Disney and such. I have a legitimate concern because my family lineage is French (A great-grand something or other was a high ranking officer for the French Army during the U.S. Revolutionary war.)
As to Chirac, here is an article by a frenchman for an admittedly staunch conservative publication here in the states. Do any of the points in that article match personal experience?
The people in Gitmo are not U.S. citizens. If they wanted those rights ensured to them, they should have come to this country and becomed citizens in which case I would bitch about them being denied due process. If you ever read my website, you would see that I bitch to high heaven about Jose Padilla and Mike Hawash.
Do I believe Iraq poses a DIRECT threat to the United States? Not at this moment. An Indirect threat? Yes. Credible? Hell yes. I never considered Afghanistan and the taliban a direct threat and we see how that turned out. As much as people don't want to admit it, Al-Qaueda and The Taliban were linked at the hip.
I'm willing to trust Colin Powell and our military reports more than Kofi Annan. Why? Because Kofi Annan has done nothing to show that they are interested in protect my freedom.
I have no problems seeing a scenario where some Bin Laden somewhere, while despising Saddam as a bad muslim, goes to him for help in attacking the United States. Saddam doesn't like us so he agrees.
That scenario alone is enough for me to feel some justification in this action. Not the "liberation of Iraq" or "Deposing a ruthless dictator".
But if you want some justification for the human rights route, why is it okay to go after Milosovich and not Hussein?
Actually that's not true. I don't prefer democracy at all. Pure democracy is the worst form of government.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson
As to giving my neighbor power over me, that's not really the case. Realising that we live in a world made up of people, there has to be a government to secure those rights. For me, the role of government is very limited. Do the things I cannot do myself i.e. national defense and ensuring that my rights are secured. The second one is handled by laws (or in John Ashcroft's case - NOT secured by creating laws that take them away) and enforcement of those laws. If a man truly believes in personal freedom and liberty, he has to be willing to give that same right to someone else. This is why, while I'm opposed to abortion on a moral level, I don't want the government making laws restricting a woman's access.
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
Thomas Jefferson
I never said that I didn't want some sort of international body but I don't think the U.N. is it. The U.N. has grown into this self-important beast that can't manage itself.
And not everyone seems to believe this sadly enough. In fact I don't think the Constitution is taught enough. I've not always been this into personal liberty but as I've gotten older, it's something that concerns me more and more. Have I read other countires documents? Not many. I honestly don't see how they have limited the power of government when there are still things like socialised medicine and high rates of taxation to cover that.
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
I also am frightened by the recent lack of distinction between our government and religion. I do not begrudge our president his right to religion. I do begrudge him for trying to force that on our country with his buddy John Ashcroft. I detest the thought that the United States has some sort of moral obligation to rid the world of "evil" as well. I don't care about "evil" in the world. I consider John Ashcroft and evil man personally. That's a moral classification though and when you introduce moral dictations from a government, you end up with the Taliban.
I didn't read your post as a flame. I wasn't actively trying to flame France. I just used them as the most obvious example. Mes. Chirac has his own interests at heart as well. He was free to cater to the Muslim world but now he has to deal with those consequences.
I wasn't commenting on the "googlewashing" so much as I was commenting on the body of work that refers to "second superpower".
Third-grade grammAr you mean? What is illogical about my post? I will gladly admit it to be a rant but there is nothing that is untrue about my post or in the least nothing that isn't reasoned out.
And as you might have gathered from the post, why should I care what the rest of the world thinks about the United States much less what you think about the United States.
This is a good point. I think we do more damage with stupid shit like sponsoring Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. These kind of actions create more animosity than anything.
My personal opinion is this. We negotiate treaties VERY carefully with other countries. We avoid the "entanglements" we were warned against so long ago.
We stop all foreign aid. We go back to semi-isolationist. That's what everybody really wants anyway, right? For the US to get out of other people's business? Well we'll do that and I don't want to see anyone bitch. Put the U.N (if they have any relevence left) in Switzerland.
We will pick and choose who we do business with very carefully.
And which part of that is the job of the United States government under the Constitution? I don't remember the "we will be a nice socialist state and provide these things for you".
;) I've learned a bit. I just worry about bad science making decisions that can cost us too much.
You know why the rich get richer? Because they work for it. I don't remember the last time a poor person signed my paycheck.
Free health care is not a role of the government in my opinion. You end up with bottom-feeder doctors and the cheapest work possible.
While a society benifits from an educated populace, education is not the pancea that many make it out to be. I've known some people who are over-educated and still stupid and without common sense and work-ethic.
I personally think our punishments aren't harsh enough. This parole shit needs to go. Actions have consequences. Unless you happen to be someone famous.
Capital punishment is not a topic to debate. It's just like abortion. It never goes anywhere and breaks down into who's emotions are stronger.
Why should the government dictate what a business can pay it's employees? Let adult people make adult decisions and agree on a contract. The companies that don't pay for shit won't have enough employees to survive. Competition. Free Market.
I have no problem with environmental concerns. It comes with having a fiancee who works for the EPD
I'll get back to the representation issue when I have a chance to read up on how NZ does it.
Screw the foriegn aid alltogether. We never get anything in return for it. It's not like any of the countries we've ever provided aid to have done anything in return. If you want to discuss some sort of moral obligation, I say go to church and discuss it. Keep moral issues out of government. It's why we have stupid laws banning consentual adult sex between adults when they both happen to be of the same sex. It's why a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her body is being taken away from her. FYI I'm opposed to abortion but that's a personal, moral choice. I don't want government dictating morality.
Everyone has the same chance to succeed in this country. As long as a man has his liberty, he can achieve the things he wants (as long as those desires do not rob another of his/her liberty).
Well you and I probably differ on the role of government in social programs but from a pure cost perspective treatment is cheaper than enforcement. I'd rather the government let adults make stupid decisions that only affect themselves and not try to play parent.
I appreciate the discussion BTW.
I've actually been outside of the United States. I was in India for a month. I was also in Zurich for a short jaunt.
As to the creator comment, the founding fathers (at least Thomas Jefferson) were fairly humanistic. I think the fact that they DIDN'T say "Jesus" or "Yahweh" or "Buddah" says quite a bit about the fact that the rights you have are inherent as a human being.
You know what? I don't care who the "second superpower" turns out to be. It can be a nation. It can be a people. What gets me is that people seem to think there has to be one.
I'm going to be point blank honest. If someone has to be the dominant superpower, I want it to be the United States.
Why? Well several reasons but the main one is that I'm a United States Citizen. It's in my best interests for the U.S. to be on top. The United Nations doesn't hold my best interests. France sure as fuck doesn't.
Another reason is that I consider the Constitution of the United States to be the single greatest document ever known to man. The United Nation's Human Rights charter tried to be that but it's little caluse about all right's being null and void if they go against the goals of the U.N. really fucked it up. The Constitution puts the power into the hands of free men and not the government.
I love how both the republicans and democrats seem to think that our rights are confered on us by the federal government. What kind of bullshit is that? Did they read the document they swore to uphold? Our rights are endowed to us by our creator. It is the governments job to safeguard those. If they fail, we have the power to put in a government that WILL.
Just as in everything, it's survival of the fittest. If another nation rises to be a superpower then bully for them. I personally think it's stupid for a government to be more concerned about what the U.S. is doing and how they stack up to the U.S. than to be concerned about it's own people.
ahh bummer. I never had the crashing problems myself. Just the nasty scrollbar artifacts and stuff. Too bad I couldn't help.
Easy fix. Go into the display properties->settings->advanced->troubleshooting and turn down hardware acceleration down one notch.
Problem solved. At least for me on my win2k dell workstation at the office.
Wouldn't this apply for the Lion's as well if the NFL were to attempt this?
;)
The Red Wings, however, are another issue
I did a largeish postfix from sendmail migration about a year and a half ago and haven't looked back.
The files are in english and it runs chroot by default.
www.postfix.org is your friend.