AltaVista is, afaik, a decent search engine and a decent company. Better to use Hotmail (Microsoft owned) for all your spambox needs. If everyone in the world did that we'd really see if what NT could stand up to.
Didn't the Centipede story say the guy who got the new record hooked up his own controller to the machine? I thought that sounded like 'cheating'.
Re:I tend to agree, but..
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
remember, the blue hairs are going to be 4 years older, have vision worse than a cow, and more shakes than Janet Reno. These voting kiosks will also have the SAME MISTAKES that happen now. Yet, if the sw is well written, the mistakes could be corrected immediately, unlike the mess now.
I can see it now. You punch in your vote and cause an error. The screen displays your selection and an 'Are You Sure (Y/N)' dialog. If you fail to correct your error a crazy flashing light sequence ala Pokemon ensues and causes the voter to suffer a seizure.
I've heard of humanity. I just don't feel sorry for people that willfully make bad choices.
In the Libertarian world you could still give half your money to the 'less lucky' as you put them. I just choose to donate my charity elsewhere and I think it should be my choice where that charity goes, not the government's.
Maybe its the US system that doesn't work & its socialism euro style that work. Afterall what does it matter what economists say about how good or bad an economy is spose to be doing if everyone is doing ok.
The U.S. system works quite well for those who make good decisions in their life. For those who choose to party away all of their school years rather than study a useful trade and for those who decide becoming a mother before they've moved out of their parents house and those who have 10 children then claim they don't have any money to save for retirement - maybe the American way doesn't 'work' for them.
AFAIK the only problem with the American system (and even more-so the European systems) is that those who have made good decisions are forced to shoulder the burden of those who haven't.
Before you start selling it off think of the outroar people would have if they discover the government had just sold New Mexico off to a private company.
Or just think of all the happy Green Party members and other ecology-minded people would be when Yellowstone got purchased by the Sierra Club or some other ecologically friendly group.
Amongst the myriad things you can do with your freedom, I don't think screwing over the shared environment or whole nations of people should be one of them.
I like the environment too. I love Yosemite and the Grand Canyon and if the libertarians got their way and allowed me to keep the money that the republicrats have been stealing from me I would donate some of it to private organizations like the Sierra Club that would be working to buy those lands.
On the other hand, I know people where I live who couldn't care less about those places. They have no desire to visit them. I don't think it's right that they should have to support national parks that they have no interest in.
That's what Harry Browne is saying and it's what Libertarianism is all about - take care of that which is important to you, whatever that may be, and don't force others to join your crusade.
Scientific research is one of those things where everybody benefits (even if they don't realize it), and it is in everyone's interest to pool their resources to fund.
You can say the same about Education, Healthcare, The War on Drugs ("Drugs are BAD!"), Welfare, or any other program that the republicats push.
The arts have (mostly intangible) cultural value, but (with some very obvious exceptions) not much commercial value. Do we really want to let this part of our humanity go? Or is it worth some very small fraciton of our collective resources to support this endeavor?
They have value to you obviously. They don't have value to me whatsoever. I value a yacht. Should the rest of America pony up and buy me one?
That's the problem with having a government that plays parent. I say let everyone be individuals and choose what is valuable to them personally. Yes, it might take us a while longer to start living in space or achieve other far reaching goals but at least it won't be 'bought' at the point of the government's gun.
I can't presume to answer for all Americans (I assume that's who you're referring to since most of the rest of the world is Socialist already) but as someone in their late 20's I remember the cold war. As a child I was under the impression that Socialism was a step closer to Communism.
The ironic thing is, as much lip service as America pays to Anti-Socialism, we've become more and more Socialist in the last 70 years.
I think you have a skewed view of libertarianism. A true libertarian is one who supports personal freedom at all levels (both left and right or social and economic if you prefer). In a nutshell, the libertarian philosophy is "do whatever you want so long as you don't interfere with the rights of others."
Sure, anybody can call themself a libertarian but that doesn't mean they are a libertarian. The same could be said of any party though.
After having listened to Boortz periodically over the last 5 years (I catch him in the car when I can) I can say he doesn't buy into conspiracy theories. He does support the notion that the general media has a left (i.e. democratic party) slant and to me that seems self evident.
How can the man call himself a libertarian when he's profoundly anti-choice about abortion?
The same way he can support legalizing drug use without using cocaine or heroin.
For libertarians it's about personal freedom. Harry personally finds abortion objectionable for whatever reason but he realizes (correctly, IMO) that it's not the place of the government to regulate people's personal behavior.
note: I'm not looking to get into a flamefest over the abortion issue so don't bother.
"Now --- if you're not even a little interested in who's running for president, you deserve exactly what you get"
Yeah. And that very sucker, will tell you: "You voted for Harry ? You deserved it"
Are you saying Boortz (the author) would fault someone for voting for Browne? If so, that would be incorrect since Boortz is himself voting for Browne.
Please don't take this as a flame, it's not intended as such, but how can you find both of these candidates interesting? They're almost diametrically opposed to each other. I'm asking this out of curiosity because you aren't the only poster I've seen with a stance like this.
As a libertarian, I find Nader's positions more horid than even Gore & Bush. For me personally, it comes down to freedom or not. Nader clearly falls onto the side of 'not'.
With regards to tax cuts for tech types- Bush is a clear leader. Most technical workers will exceed Gore's "middle class" limits, while Bush will give them a 10% tax cut (i.e. raise).
Please don't assume I'm supporting Bush (Go Harry Browne!) but a 10% tax cut is in no way equivalent to a raise. Any tax cut is simply a mugger (i.e. the government) not robbing as much of our money.
As a side note, does it seem strange to any of you just how indestructable those NES controllers were? I mean, they were built like brick shit houses. I've beaten those things silly and they just don't give in. Many a times have I taken one of the controllers by the cord and reamed it against the wall after constantly losing at the Adventures of Lolo, Ninja Gaiden and the nefarious last levels of Megaman. In my entire NES career, which includes up to this day, I've only replaced one controller. Meanwhile, I've gone through 2 MS Sidewinders in 2 years.
They weren't that good. I had a friend who crushed a NES controller in his bare hand after losing a heated game of Tecmo Bowl. Of course the friend was the size of an NFL lineman.
The Tecmo Bowl carts weren't that sturdy either. Another friend smashed his into tiny bits with a hammer after a losing experience.
This sounds very much like a marketing issue. Red Hat is probably the most commercial of the Linux Distros and in marketing's eyes, being first to market with 80% bugfree code is better than being last to market with 100% bugfree code (I'm not in marketing but I know this happens from experience).
To some extent, it makes sense. If I remember correctly, Slackware recently skipped several version numbers to 'catch up' with Red Hat. The problem: people thought Slackware was 'behind' Red Hat because their version number was behind. Image means a lot to a product. Being first to market is a great way to garnish a customer base. I would think a bad product isn't a good way to keep them, but companies have to weigh the odds and decide when a product is good enough to grab market share without damaging their reputation. Perhaps Red Hat jumped the gun a little early this time?
In the end, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I can understand users' frustration but from what I've read, problems with x.0 Red Hat releases have traditionally been buggy. If you like Red Hat's philosophy and what they have to offer, continue using them. If not, there's lots of other distros with different philosophies that are yours for the price of a download.
Normally I wouldn't bother asking, but I'm curious. The timestamp on this story is 01:01 but the early comments have times of before 01:00 PM (EDT).
To further increase my curiousity, a friend saw the story before 01:01 and instant messaged me to tell me about it. When I went to check on it, I couldn't find it. He refreshed and it was gone from his display as well. After 01:00, we were both able to view it.
Having spent 3 years of my life working on the Y2K problem, I can honestly say I don't envy the engineers who will have to fix the Y3K problem AND keep the human race from going the way of the dinosaurs.
You've ducked the point though. If you vote yes and I vote no (for simplicity assume we're the only 2 non-politicians in America - not far from the truth probably!) then $3 gets added to the slush fund. That money comes from general taxes, of which I am a contributor. Basically, other Americans are allowed to reach into my pocket and take money from me to fund politicians who don't represent my beliefs in the least.
I do check 'NO' on that box but you left out the most important part of that line on the Federal tax forms.
According to the tax form I'm looking at (1998 federal Telefile; I doubt they've changed it) the complete quote is:
"Do you want $3 to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund? If a joint return, does your spouse want $3 to go to this fund? (Checking "Yes" will not change your tax or reduce your refund) "
So if that money isn't coming out of the pockets of those who check "Yes", where is it coming from?
While they're answering about Nader's corporate issues, maybe they can explain why he accepted matching funds, thus stealing from all U.S. taxpayers to fund his campaign?
Re:Big Brothers New Trick
on
Author Unknown
·
· Score: 1
I was thinking along the same lines.
How long do you think it will be before 'writing style' is admissable evidence in court?
Slashdot Mirror
But don't forget about the movie theatre popcorn experience.
AltaVista is, afaik, a decent search engine and a decent company. Better to use Hotmail (Microsoft owned) for all your spambox needs. If everyone in the world did that we'd really see if what NT could stand up to.
Didn't the Centipede story say the guy who got the new record hooked up his own controller to the machine? I thought that sounded like 'cheating'.
remember, the blue hairs are going to be 4 years older, have vision worse than a cow, and more shakes than Janet Reno. These voting kiosks will also have the SAME MISTAKES that happen now. Yet, if the sw is well written, the mistakes could be corrected immediately, unlike the mess now.
I can see it now. You punch in your vote and cause an error. The screen displays your selection and an 'Are You Sure (Y/N)' dialog. If you fail to correct your error a crazy flashing light sequence ala Pokemon ensues and causes the voter to suffer a seizure.
Ever heard of humanity?
I've heard of humanity. I just don't feel sorry for people that willfully make bad choices.
In the Libertarian world you could still give half your money to the 'less lucky' as you put them. I just choose to donate my charity elsewhere and I think it should be my choice where that charity goes, not the government's.
Maybe its the US system that doesn't work & its socialism euro style that work. Afterall what does it matter what economists say about how good or bad an economy is spose to be doing if everyone is doing ok.
The U.S. system works quite well for those who make good decisions in their life. For those who choose to party away all of their school years rather than study a useful trade and for those who decide becoming a mother before they've moved out of their parents house and those who have 10 children then claim they don't have any money to save for retirement - maybe the American way doesn't 'work' for them.
AFAIK the only problem with the American system (and even more-so the European systems) is that those who have made good decisions are forced to shoulder the burden of those who haven't.
Before you start selling it off think of the outroar people would have if they discover the government had just sold New Mexico off to a private company.
Or just think of all the happy Green Party members and other ecology-minded people would be when Yellowstone got purchased by the Sierra Club or some other ecologically friendly group.
Amongst the myriad things you can do with your freedom, I don't think screwing over the shared environment or whole nations of people should be one of them.
I like the environment too. I love Yosemite and the Grand Canyon and if the libertarians got their way and allowed me to keep the money that the republicrats have been stealing from me I would donate some of it to private organizations like the Sierra Club that would be working to buy those lands.
On the other hand, I know people where I live who couldn't care less about those places. They have no desire to visit them. I don't think it's right that they should have to support national parks that they have no interest in.
That's what Harry Browne is saying and it's what Libertarianism is all about - take care of that which is important to you, whatever that may be, and don't force others to join your crusade.
Scientific research is one of those things where everybody benefits (even if they don't realize it), and it is in everyone's interest to pool their resources to fund.
You can say the same about Education, Healthcare, The War on Drugs ("Drugs are BAD!"), Welfare, or any other program that the republicats push.
The arts have (mostly intangible) cultural value, but (with some very obvious exceptions) not much commercial value. Do we really want to let this part of our humanity go? Or is it worth some very small fraciton of our collective resources to support this endeavor?
They have value to you obviously. They don't have value to me whatsoever. I value a yacht. Should the rest of America pony up and buy me one?
That's the problem with having a government that plays parent. I say let everyone be individuals and choose what is valuable to them personally. Yes, it might take us a while longer to start living in space or achieve other far reaching goals but at least it won't be 'bought' at the point of the government's gun.
I can't presume to answer for all Americans (I assume that's who you're referring to since most of the rest of the world is Socialist already) but as someone in their late 20's I remember the cold war. As a child I was under the impression that Socialism was a step closer to Communism.
The ironic thing is, as much lip service as America pays to Anti-Socialism, we've become more and more Socialist in the last 70 years.
I think you have a skewed view of libertarianism. A true libertarian is one who supports personal freedom at all levels (both left and right or social and economic if you prefer). In a nutshell, the libertarian philosophy is "do whatever you want so long as you don't interfere with the rights of others."
Sure, anybody can call themself a libertarian but that doesn't mean they are a libertarian. The same could be said of any party though.
After having listened to Boortz periodically over the last 5 years (I catch him in the car when I can) I can say he doesn't buy into conspiracy theories. He does support the notion that the general media has a left (i.e. democratic party) slant and to me that seems self evident.
How can the man call himself a libertarian when he's profoundly anti-choice about abortion?
The same way he can support legalizing drug use without using cocaine or heroin.
For libertarians it's about personal freedom. Harry personally finds abortion objectionable for whatever reason but he realizes (correctly, IMO) that it's not the place of the government to regulate people's personal behavior.
note: I'm not looking to get into a flamefest over the abortion issue so don't bother.
"Now --- if you're not even a little interested in who's running for president, you deserve exactly what you get" Yeah. And that very sucker, will tell you: "You voted for Harry ? You deserved it"
Are you saying Boortz (the author) would fault someone for voting for Browne? If so, that would be incorrect since Boortz is himself voting for Browne.
Please don't take this as a flame, it's not intended as such, but how can you find both of these candidates interesting? They're almost diametrically opposed to each other. I'm asking this out of curiosity because you aren't the only poster I've seen with a stance like this.
As a libertarian, I find Nader's positions more horid than even Gore & Bush. For me personally, it comes down to freedom or not. Nader clearly falls onto the side of 'not'.
With regards to tax cuts for tech types- Bush is a clear leader. Most technical workers will exceed Gore's "middle class" limits, while Bush will give them a 10% tax cut (i.e. raise).
Please don't assume I'm supporting Bush (Go Harry Browne!) but a 10% tax cut is in no way equivalent to a raise. Any tax cut is simply a mugger (i.e. the government) not robbing as much of our money.
As a side note, does it seem strange to any of you just how indestructable those NES controllers were? I mean, they were built like brick shit houses. I've beaten those things silly and they just don't give in. Many a times have I taken one of the controllers by the cord and reamed it against the wall after constantly losing at the Adventures of Lolo, Ninja Gaiden and the nefarious last levels of Megaman. In my entire NES career, which includes up to this day, I've only replaced one controller. Meanwhile, I've gone through 2 MS Sidewinders in 2 years.
They weren't that good. I had a friend who crushed a NES controller in his bare hand after losing a heated game of Tecmo Bowl. Of course the friend was the size of an NFL lineman.
The Tecmo Bowl carts weren't that sturdy either. Another friend smashed his into tiny bits with a hammer after a losing experience.
Kennesaw, GA has a law requiring homeowners to own a firearm. I can't vouch for how effective the law is or to what degree it's enforced though.
This sounds very much like a marketing issue. Red Hat is probably the most commercial of the Linux Distros and in marketing's eyes, being first to market with 80% bugfree code is better than being last to market with 100% bugfree code (I'm not in marketing but I know this happens from experience).
To some extent, it makes sense. If I remember correctly, Slackware recently skipped several version numbers to 'catch up' with Red Hat. The problem: people thought Slackware was 'behind' Red Hat because their version number was behind. Image means a lot to a product. Being first to market is a great way to garnish a customer base. I would think a bad product isn't a good way to keep them, but companies have to weigh the odds and decide when a product is good enough to grab market share without damaging their reputation. Perhaps Red Hat jumped the gun a little early this time?
In the end, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I can understand users' frustration but from what I've read, problems with x.0 Red Hat releases have traditionally been buggy. If you like Red Hat's philosophy and what they have to offer, continue using them. If not, there's lots of other distros with different philosophies that are yours for the price of a download.
Normally I wouldn't bother asking, but I'm curious. The timestamp on this story is 01:01 but the early comments have times of before 01:00 PM (EDT).
To further increase my curiousity, a friend saw the story before 01:01 and instant messaged me to tell me about it. When I went to check on it, I couldn't find it. He refreshed and it was gone from his display as well. After 01:00, we were both able to view it.
Having spent 3 years of my life working on the Y2K problem, I can honestly say I don't envy the engineers who will have to fix the Y3K problem AND keep the human race from going the way of the dinosaurs.
You've ducked the point though. If you vote yes and I vote no (for simplicity assume we're the only 2 non-politicians in America - not far from the truth probably!) then $3 gets added to the slush fund. That money comes from general taxes, of which I am a contributor. Basically, other Americans are allowed to reach into my pocket and take money from me to fund politicians who don't represent my beliefs in the least.
I do check 'NO' on that box but you left out the most important part of that line on the Federal tax forms.
According to the tax form I'm looking at (1998 federal Telefile; I doubt they've changed it) the complete quote is:
"Do you want $3 to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund? If a joint return, does your spouse want $3 to go to this fund? (Checking "Yes" will not change your tax or reduce your refund) "
So if that money isn't coming out of the pockets of those who check "Yes", where is it coming from?
Don't push it off on Buchannan - though I agree he's no better. Nader took his matching funds. For details see:
h tml
http://votenader.org/press/000701MatchingFunds.
While they're answering about Nader's corporate issues, maybe they can explain why he accepted matching funds, thus stealing from all U.S. taxpayers to fund his campaign?
I was thinking along the same lines. How long do you think it will be before 'writing style' is admissable evidence in court?