By "redefining marriage", I meant taking away the husbands right to make medical decisions for his incapacitated wife. Conservatives believe the government should make those decisions for you.
By activist judges, I mean the conservatives attempt to shop their case around to find an activist judge to support their claim. There are also conservative activist judges that ignore the Constitution and interject in state electoral matters.
By "redefining freedom of speech" I mean the flag-burning amendment. Which, by the way, is unnecessary since it's already illegal to burn the flag of the United States. If I go down to the post office and take that flag and burn it, I'm burning the flag of the United States and would be properly prosecuted. If I go down to Target and buy a flag and burn it, I am burning my own damn flag and it's none of the government's damn business. I did not serve in the Marine Corps just to see our Bill of Rights chipped away at. It's offensive to me as a veteran that they plan to amend the First Amendment.
I'm amazed that you actually think that Bush is waging a war on terrorism properly. I suppose you don't mind being lied to, having deaths of American servicemembers covered up in lies, and needlessly overextending our military.
Yes, I remember Mary Jo. My 'hic' and 'hic-hic' comments were in relation to Bush's DUI and Cheney's 2 DUIs. And why don't you ask Michael Douglas about the First Lady? Oh wait, you can't, Laura (Welch) Bush killed him.
So by that reasoning, a "conservative" means "believer in maximizing immediate profit by governmental overspending, invading sovereign nations, unsustainable environmental consumption, growing federal government to record proportions, killing American service-members unnecessarily, redefining marriage, using activist judges to legislate from the bench, lying to the American public and redefining freedom of speech".
The modern "conservative" example would be George "hic" Bush or Dick "hic-hic" Cheney.
I don't believe Jefferson would be comfortable in that category either.
Actually, the 10th Amendment is that simple. It states that any power not granted to the federal government or prohibited to the States belongs to the States or the people. That means that the federal government only has the powers that the States give it.
The 14th Amendment extended restrictions on Congress to also restrict States. So if Congress is prohibited from passing laws establishing religion, so are the states. This extends restrictions to the States, it does not expand the powers of the federal government.
The Amendments serve two separate, but related, purposes.
If it's not in the Constitution then we have not authorized the federal government to do it. That's what the 10th Amendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So based on this ruling people are not going to get any help from the federal government to protect their homes. This is a battle that must be waged at the state level. Or Congress could quit wasting their time trying to pass amendments that redefine marriage and restrict free speech and instead pass an amendment that protects peoples homes.
How's that whole Contract On America working out for you?
When you pay for "internet", you are paying for access to the network. This includes resources at your ISPs facilities and at the facilities of other organziations they have contracted with, and ones they have contracted with, etc. You are not paying for the consumption of resources of content providers. You are not paying for the production of content.
It's the same with cable. When you pay for basic cable you get several channels that are supported by advertising or other means (PBS, etc). There are channels that you can only get by purchasing a cable subscription that *still* have advertising (MTV, SciFi, CartoonNetwork, etc). There are select channels that require a specific subscription that have limited or no advertising (HBO, SkinaMax, etc), though these still tend to advertise their own programming.
I pay $50 a month for a 10mb fiber connection to the internet. I (theoretically, of course) would still have to pay extra for Playboy, or a dating site, or Napster. None of those organizations get a cut of my $50/month access fee.
I have no problem with advertising-supported sites in principle. It's the pop-ups, the flash, the click-through, the invasive advertising that bothers me. If they used the same approach as a newspaper then that would be OK. The ads are spread around through the content, but don't interrupt your reading excessively. Current ads are more like those stupid cards in magazines...they force you to that page when flipping through and they fall out in your lap. First thing I do when I get a new magazine is flip through it upside down so the cards can fall in the trash. The other advertising is fine. Same thing with the 'net; pop-ups and flash have to go, but other advertising is generally fine.
>blockquote>2 - It becomes like cable TV. You know, that TV that doesn't have commercials because you pay a subscription instead.
I think that's misleading. I have to pay for a lot of cable channels that still have commercials. MTV, Comedy Central, SciFi...I have to pay to watch their commercials. And yes, I hate it!
Look at the the state of rap. When it started with Snoop and NWA back in the day it was edgy and said something about the artists culture. I don't know how it got mainstream exactly, but once it was there we got Vanilla Ice and Marky Mark.
I agree with your point, but your timeline does not support your argument. "N.W.A. and the Posse" (NWA) came out in 1987, so the timelein works for you there. And "To The Extreme" (Vanilla Ice) came out in 1990, so far so good. "Music for the People" (Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch) came out in 1991. But Snoop first appeared on "The Chronic" (Dr. Dre), which was released in 1992. If you subsitute "Ice-T" for "Snoop", then I think you make a sound argument.
However, I believe it was the phenomenal success of "The Chronic" and Snoop's album "Doggystyle" that brought rap to the mainstream. Once the record industry saw the huge amount of money they could make, all the formulaic rap artists started appearing. I wouldn't even stretch to call Vanilla Ice or Marky Mark "rap". I believe there is a big difference between that dance-oriented hip-hop and rap. The line is blurred often since the same artist will produce both styles of music, and both styles will even appear on the same albums.
You could make the prettiest, freeest, most compatible, fastest point of sale system out there that also happens to blow the user at the same time. But it doesn't accept credit cards. To me, it is lacking major functionality, and has -zero- use to me, no matter what else it has going for it. Nobody could *pay* me to use it.
My applications are much more feature-rich and perform much faster and more smoothly than they did in 1990.
The author even points out that it's the automatic spellchecking/grammar/etc features of word processing programs that tend to slow them down. Even with all the features of Word and all the eye-candy features of XP enabled, my experience is much smoother, quicker, robust and productive than it was in 1990. Don't even get me started on IDEs. I don't think the author makes much of a point.
Blair Witch Project was the worst movie I have ever seen...hands down. I waited that whole damn movie for it to get scary and the final scene just started to get scary (when that guy was standing in the corner) and then the movie was over. I blurted out "What?!" I was stunned at all the hype and how so many people said the movie was so scary. It wasn't scary at all...except for the fact that I paid money to see it.
I could have watched my dog's butt for an hour and a half and it would have been more scary. And free.
I can afford to pay for cable and watch the new Battlestar: Gallactica series.
But then I will have to pay for therapy due to my sexual fantasies about Starbuck.
Then I will not be able to afford cable.
I believe that ST:TOS depicted a silicon based lifeform. And if I recall correctly it kinda looked like a guy crawling around on the floor under a rug.
[quote]Visual Studio.NET. (Which, last I checked, was the only way to make.NET objects that run on Windows[/quote]
You don't need Visual Studio.NET to build.NET applications. You can use Notepad and csc.exe if you like. Or one of the free IDE tools, like WebMatrix or SharpDevelop.
Slashdot Mirror
By activist judges, I mean the conservatives attempt to shop their case around to find an activist judge to support their claim. There are also conservative activist judges that ignore the Constitution and interject in state electoral matters.
By "redefining freedom of speech" I mean the flag-burning amendment. Which, by the way, is unnecessary since it's already illegal to burn the flag of the United States. If I go down to the post office and take that flag and burn it, I'm burning the flag of the United States and would be properly prosecuted. If I go down to Target and buy a flag and burn it, I am burning my own damn flag and it's none of the government's damn business. I did not serve in the Marine Corps just to see our Bill of Rights chipped away at. It's offensive to me as a veteran that they plan to amend the First Amendment.
I'm amazed that you actually think that Bush is waging a war on terrorism properly. I suppose you don't mind being lied to, having deaths of American servicemembers covered up in lies, and needlessly overextending our military.
Yes, I remember Mary Jo. My 'hic' and 'hic-hic' comments were in relation to Bush's DUI and Cheney's 2 DUIs. And why don't you ask Michael Douglas about the First Lady? Oh wait, you can't, Laura (Welch) Bush killed him.
The modern "conservative" example would be George "hic" Bush or Dick "hic-hic" Cheney.
I don't believe Jefferson would be comfortable in that category either.
The 14th Amendment extended restrictions on Congress to also restrict States. So if Congress is prohibited from passing laws establishing religion, so are the states. This extends restrictions to the States, it does not expand the powers of the federal government.
The Amendments serve two separate, but related, purposes.
How's that whole Contract On America working out for you?
It's the same with cable. When you pay for basic cable you get several channels that are supported by advertising or other means (PBS, etc). There are channels that you can only get by purchasing a cable subscription that *still* have advertising (MTV, SciFi, CartoonNetwork, etc). There are select channels that require a specific subscription that have limited or no advertising (HBO, SkinaMax, etc), though these still tend to advertise their own programming.
I pay $50 a month for a 10mb fiber connection to the internet. I (theoretically, of course) would still have to pay extra for Playboy, or a dating site, or Napster. None of those organizations get a cut of my $50/month access fee.
I have no problem with advertising-supported sites in principle. It's the pop-ups, the flash, the click-through, the invasive advertising that bothers me. If they used the same approach as a newspaper then that would be OK. The ads are spread around through the content, but don't interrupt your reading excessively. Current ads are more like those stupid cards in magazines...they force you to that page when flipping through and they fall out in your lap. First thing I do when I get a new magazine is flip through it upside down so the cards can fall in the trash. The other advertising is fine. Same thing with the 'net; pop-ups and flash have to go, but other advertising is generally fine.
Or buying a cow for the milk and throwing the manure away.
>blockquote>2 - It becomes like cable TV. You know, that TV that doesn't have commercials because you pay a subscription instead.
I think that's misleading. I have to pay for a lot of cable channels that still have commercials. MTV, Comedy Central, SciFi...I have to pay to watch their commercials. And yes, I hate it!
I also don't think that Eminiem is any more serious than the others who came before him, like 3rd Bass and House of Pain.
I agree with your point, but your timeline does not support your argument. "N.W.A. and the Posse" (NWA) came out in 1987, so the timelein works for you there. And "To The Extreme" (Vanilla Ice) came out in 1990, so far so good. "Music for the People" (Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch) came out in 1991. But Snoop first appeared on "The Chronic" (Dr. Dre), which was released in 1992. If you subsitute "Ice-T" for "Snoop", then I think you make a sound argument.
However, I believe it was the phenomenal success of "The Chronic" and Snoop's album "Doggystyle" that brought rap to the mainstream. Once the record industry saw the huge amount of money they could make, all the formulaic rap artists started appearing. I wouldn't even stretch to call Vanilla Ice or Marky Mark "rap". I believe there is a big difference between that dance-oriented hip-hop and rap. The line is blurred often since the same artist will produce both styles of music, and both styles will even appear on the same albums.
I expect that you're users will gladly pay cash.
What do you think we are going to do to Iraq once we drain the oil? Yes, yes, it's a joke! Relax!
Not me, I'm spook-proof.
My applications are much more feature-rich and perform much faster and more smoothly than they did in 1990.
The author even points out that it's the automatic spellchecking/grammar/etc features of word processing programs that tend to slow them down. Even with all the features of Word and all the eye-candy features of XP enabled, my experience is much smoother, quicker, robust and productive than it was in 1990. Don't even get me started on IDEs. I don't think the author makes much of a point.
Don't you mean "Karl Rove planted this 'news' in my ass"?
Well, if being a criminal disqualifies you from being President then how do you explain that we have a convicted criminal in the office right now?
ms-help:MSVSCC2003MSMSDNQTR2003FEB1033Behaviorwork shopauthorbehaviorsreferencepropertiesfolderhtm
Actual link is ms-help://MS.VSCC.2003/MS.MSDNQTR.2003FEB.1033/Beh avior/workshop/author/behaviors/reference/properti es/folder.htm Slashdot is mangling the link in the tag.
r s/reference/properties/folder.asp
Also at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/behavio
I could have watched my dog's butt for an hour and a half and it would have been more scary. And free.
I can afford to pay for cable and watch the new Battlestar: Gallactica series. But then I will have to pay for therapy due to my sexual fantasies about Starbuck. Then I will not be able to afford cable.
[quote]How much longer until we see another "Halloween" memo?[/quote]
I believe that ST:TOS depicted a silicon based lifeform. And if I recall correctly it kinda looked like a guy crawling around on the floor under a rug.
Ok, then you are familiar with the middle button, yes?
Didn't Teledesic fail?
[quote]by the California Attorney General to fellow lawmakers[/quote] The Attorney General is not a lawmaker.
[quote]Visual Studio .NET. (Which, last I checked, was the only way to make .NET objects that run on Windows[/quote]
You don't need Visual Studio .NET to build .NET applications. You can use Notepad and csc.exe if you like. Or one of the free IDE tools, like WebMatrix or SharpDevelop.