> There are times that I really think that the word should be changed from "debated", to "debaited".
Or "masturbated".
Our country is losing two wars abroad and sliding into a fascist dictatorship at home, and Specter's got nothing better to do than lecture a near-empty chamber about his family history under the pretense of advocating an amendment that serves no purpose but to rally some knee-jerk voters.
> Mostly I remember people INSIDE government agencies leaking this information to the press on purpose, to disclose high shenanigans and malfeasence in the Bush administration.
TFA (which I read for a change) says this is about the leaks of personal identity information.
Wouldn't any license be a headache for a small distro provider? How many packages in an average distro, for a team of 2-3 people to validate compliance on?
> Given that we don't conclusively understand the way the earth works, it strikes me as insanely arrogant to think we can CONTROL the biosphere. We should work on controlling our own (that is, INDIVIDUAL) actions before we try to tell "mother nature" what to do..
So, I gather that you don't go for the idea of importing weasels to destroy the snakes that you imported to destroy the frogs that you imported to destroy the flies that you imported to destroy the...
> are we contributing to climate change? its just too uncertain to say... possibly. But concidering how much the atmosphere changes its chemical composition from volcaic activity alone, i think its a bit presumptuous to think that our tiny contribution (in comparison to volcanic activity) means jack shit.
Amazingly, thousands of climatologists have the brass to disagree with you.
> if the world one day faces a crisis of overheating, with repercussions like melting icecaps, droughts, famines, rising sea levels and coastal flooding.
Sorry dude, but the Great Meltdown has been in progress for years already. Go count the glaciers at Glacier National Park, and then look up how many there were a few decades ago.
In one of Jack Vance's novels someone has determined that society has made things too safe in comparison to most of our evolutionary history, and people suffer some kind of debilitating angst as a result. So there's an organization whose members go around scaring the sh*t out of random people, in order to restore our species' cognitive balance.
> I really take issue with companies whose business models center around taking others to court. [...] I hope that this venture exercises some restraint in its persuits.
Man is an economic animal, and will harvest any niche the law will allow.
I'm tempted to say we should fix the law rather than relying on restraint, but the most recent patent legislation the US Congress was considering looked like it was going to 'fix' the problem by letting the big guys walk all over the little guys.
> When I read many of the reactionary complaints (from inferior types addicted to being judgmental as a way of maintaining a false superiority)its easy to detect that many of the criticisms don't stem from any virtuous concerns but are the mutterings of people with a seething nature more sympathetic to criminal elements they share an identity with.
So, are you saying we should eagerly give up our freedom for security?
> Impeaching bush isn't the answer at all, when we have an election we really only have one choice to make - which of 2 people (who have been chosen by groups of rich bastards, or corporations to become the next president) is the lesser asshole?
Personally, I think there was as huge difference in the assholiness of the two people we chose between in 2000 and in 2004.
Unfortunately, we've been making the wrong choice.
> Folks -- if they don't have enough intelligence to invade the right country then I doubt they have enough intelligence to monitor bank records.
One of the sad ironies in all this is that they probably would have seen 911 coming if they didn't have to filter out so many details as the reports of the field officers work their way up the organizational tree.
Slashdot Mirror
Leela or Amy?
for using my computer to do what I want to do with it.
> There are times that I really think that the word should be changed from "debated", to "debaited".
Or "masturbated".
Our country is losing two wars abroad and sliding into a fascist dictatorship at home, and Specter's got nothing better to do than lecture a near-empty chamber about his family history under the pretense of advocating an amendment that serves no purpose but to rally some knee-jerk voters.
> The Nixon parallels are staggering.
Bush makes Nixon look like a choirboy.
> Makes you wonder exactly what our homeland defense dept. is doing
Providing sinecures for Bush loyalists who are too big a fuckup to do a real job.
> Worse, congress debated over a flag admendment
Maybe for a suitably fraudulent definition of "debated".
> Mostly I remember people INSIDE government agencies leaking this information to the press on purpose, to disclose high shenanigans and malfeasence in the Bush administration.
TFA (which I read for a change) says this is about the leaks of personal identity information.
Just "recommendations".
Which means this is likely to have zip for effect.
...I'd guess that they post to Slashdot.
> Plenty of holes in the global warming THEORY remain.
Spoken like a true creationist...
Wouldn't any license be a headache for a small distro provider? How many packages in an average distro, for a team of 2-3 people to validate compliance on?
> Given that we don't conclusively understand the way the earth works, it strikes me as insanely arrogant to think we can CONTROL the biosphere. We should work on controlling our own (that is, INDIVIDUAL) actions before we try to tell "mother nature" what to do ..
So, I gather that you don't go for the idea of importing weasels to destroy the snakes that you imported to destroy the frogs that you imported to destroy the flies that you imported to destroy the...
> are we contributing to climate change? its just too uncertain to say... possibly. But concidering how much the atmosphere changes its chemical composition from volcaic activity alone, i think its a bit presumptuous to think that our tiny contribution (in comparison to volcanic activity) means jack shit.
Amazingly, thousands of climatologists have the brass to disagree with you.
> This idea is totally not new.
Yeah, Mr. Burns did it on an episode of The Simpsons.
> if the world one day faces a crisis of overheating, with repercussions like melting icecaps, droughts, famines, rising sea levels and coastal flooding.
Sorry dude, but the Great Meltdown has been in progress for years already. Go count the glaciers at Glacier National Park, and then look up how many there were a few decades ago.
In one of Jack Vance's novels someone has determined that society has made things too safe in comparison to most of our evolutionary history, and people suffer some kind of debilitating angst as a result. So there's an organization whose members go around scaring the sh*t out of random people, in order to restore our species' cognitive balance.
> I really take issue with companies whose business models center around taking others to court. [...] I hope that this venture exercises some restraint in its persuits.
Man is an economic animal, and will harvest any niche the law will allow.
I'm tempted to say we should fix the law rather than relying on restraint, but the most recent patent legislation the US Congress was considering looked like it was going to 'fix' the problem by letting the big guys walk all over the little guys.
Or subvert?
Never say "Johnson" and "it's so small" in the same sentence!
Clearly, we've got a slow news day in the works...
> When I read many of the reactionary complaints (from inferior types addicted to being judgmental as a way of maintaining a false superiority)its easy to detect that many of the criticisms don't stem from any virtuous concerns but are the mutterings of people with a seething nature more sympathetic to criminal elements they share an identity with.
So, are you saying we should eagerly give up our freedom for security?
> Impeaching bush isn't the answer at all, when we have an election we really only have one choice to make - which of 2 people (who have been chosen by groups of rich bastards, or corporations to become the next president) is the lesser asshole?
Personally, I think there was as huge difference in the assholiness of the two people we chose between in 2000 and in 2004.
Unfortunately, we've been making the wrong choice.
> Folks -- if they don't have enough intelligence to invade the right country then I doubt they have enough intelligence to monitor bank records.
One of the sad ironies in all this is that they probably would have seen 911 coming if they didn't have to filter out so many details as the reports of the field officers work their way up the organizational tree.
> Cheney doesnt even have the grace to be emberassed about it.
If he's not embarassed to argue in favor of torture, why should a little thing like this faze him?
> The US is in Iraq for one thing, and one thing only. Oil.
Nah, they also want to make the world safe for Israel.