The problem is that the internet and TV are screwing up southern-american-English. I can tell the difference between "tire" and "tar" anywhere in the southeast. Its that northern and californian "tIIIIIeer" with two vowel sounds where there should only be one thats messin everything up.
I think I'm going to form a committee and see if we can the internet blocked from here.
>You should study your nation's history and political science more careful. The electoral college was created to ensure that the people were not swayed by a populist president.
Yes but the number of electoral votes given to each state did intenionally over represent smaller population states (on a per capita basis). And this was an anti-majoritarian comprimise. So I don't see how orignal statement is wrong.
If we are going to reconsider the electoral college sytem, I'd like to revisit that whole seccession thing too. Popular vote for president
aint the system we signed up for. Ted Kennedy
and Hillary Clinton already have too much power
over a whole bunch of people that don't want anything to do with them. We don't need less
anti-majoritarian protection, we need more. If
we are going to reform the electoral college,
I say we make it mandatory that the state legislatures have to always pick them directly.... candidates would be changing their tune fast then about states rights issues. Give each state
one more electoral vote while we are at it.
The fact that you resort to a spelling flame rebuttal and a knee jerk mcarthyite label solidifies the fact that the Green Party Platform is pretty much right out of the communist manifesto. Communism really is bad. saying so doesn't make you a red-bashing-mob-member.
cmon man. cut him a little slack. I too think that the green party is basically a bunch of dirty stinkin commies. But he is simply telling people to actually investigate the choices that they have, and to vote for what they actually
believe in, instead of watching TV and voting for the cutest guy. He isn't equating the Green Party with the Libertarian Party. I'd bet that he plans on voting green (since he listed the green party first, and the others only parenthetically). Considering that, I think he actually being pretty gracious and straightforward to list the other
parties.
One of the worst things for me is the meaning of the word "or". My wife will ask me something like
"do you want chicken or beef for dinner?" and I answer "Yes" before I realize that she actually wants me to make a choice.
And when it comes to nesting punctuation, and placing punctutation inside of quotes, and stuff like that --- I long ago decided that I would write it in English as if it needed to be parsed by a compiler, grammar books be damned.
How do you regulate the group more stringently than the individual without regulating all the
individuals in the group more stringently than individuals not in the groups? An example would
probably maximize your probability of getting thru to me.
And if you really feel enslaved by corporations
(I don't)I suggest you start your own corporation.
Making lots of money off of their government enforced copyright privalege.
>What were you paying for gas last month?
a whole bunch of taxes. Also I was paying
for low-lead low-sulfur gasoline, which I'm
not saying is a bad thing, but if you want
clean air you have to pay for it. Don't blame
oil companies for that.
>What is the average American's standard of living >today, in comparison to the 1950s?
I agree with many (not all) of the conclusions of the objectivist, but think that the reasoning behind it, and the faith in that reasoning is fairly dangerous.
Its sort of funny that you are self described left-leaner, becuase I really couldn't put my finger on _why_ I was uncomortable with objectivism until I read Hayek's "Fatal Conceit", subtitled "The Errors of Socialism".
In a poorly written few lines of plain text the Fatal Conceit boils down to this : Anybody who thinks they are smart enough to redesign all of human culture and morality using just their little puny brain and some wanna-be-Euclidean system is guilty of terrible hubris. Our culture and morality exist because they kept all of our ancestors alive, so if your new home grown system is wrong you might die. If you impose it on a whole lotta other people, a whole lotta other people might die.
So my criticisms of socialism and objectivism are essentially the same: they both over estimate the power of the human mind, and seek to replace individual-human-designed systems for systems that nobody really fully understands and have taken a long damn time to evlove.
Use of the phrase "general welfare" in the constitution really isn't vague at all. It is
used purely as in an introductory or explanatory phrase both times it is occurrs.
The constitution is primarily about defining basic operations of and granting specific powers to the federal government. If they really meant to let the federal government do anything they claimed was for the "general welfare" they could have made it lots shorter and simpler. To interpret either phrase which uses the term "general welfare" as a grant of power to the federal government to do things just because they are claimed to be for the "general welfare" means you are interpreting the constitution as pretty much a grant of absolute power. Of course none of this matters too much in real life, as the federal government wipes their ass with the constitution on a regular basis.
Can you expand on your 3DES-slowness-complaint. If its slower, then (all other things being equal) its harder to brute force right? If all other things aren't equal it seems like you have to include these things when you compare algorithms.
I don't know a damn thing about blowfish or twofish. So educate me here if my reasoning is off.
Constitutional principles? From the generation that thinks FDR and Social Security and the War Drugs are all great things?
A great generation? Yes. I'm sure as as hell glad I didn't have to fight WW II. But them and the boomers together (as generalized 'generations') have done more violence to the constitution than all others.
I hate Microsoft and their software, but this lynch-mob-anti-trust crap is really disheartening.
Their whole monopoly is based on IP laws that grant too much power anyways, so its no surprise at all that they have some kind of monoply.
And as far as using their monopoly power to maintain their monopoly, exactly how purposely inept are they supposed to run their business before its OK?
Living under the rule of law, you know wether or not something you do is illegal before you do it. There is no way to know that you are illegally using monopoly power until you get screwed for it.
This isn't rule of law, its a naked grant of power to crush any company that gets "too good" without kissing the feet of the right government power holders.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the internet and TV are screwing up southern-american-English. I can tell the difference between "tire" and "tar" anywhere in the southeast. Its that northern and californian "tIIIIIeer" with two vowel sounds where there should only be one thats messin everything up.
I think I'm going to form a committee and see if we can the internet blocked from here.
>Do you have any examples in mind, or is this just another bald liberal attempt at insinuating that neither side is different from the other?
Medical Marijuana laws. Not an exlusively Republican domain of federal power grabbing, but I don't see them taking any kind of stand here.
>You should study your nation's history and political science more careful. The electoral college was created to ensure that the people were not swayed by a populist president.
Yes but the number of electoral votes given to each state did intenionally over represent smaller population states (on a per capita basis). And this was an anti-majoritarian comprimise. So I don't see how orignal statement is wrong.
If we are going to reconsider the electoral college sytem, I'd like to revisit that whole seccession thing too. Popular vote for president .... candidates would be changing their tune fast then about states rights issues. Give each state
aint the system we signed up for. Ted Kennedy
and Hillary Clinton already have too much power
over a whole bunch of people that don't want anything to do with them. We don't need less
anti-majoritarian protection, we need more. If
we are going to reform the electoral college,
I say we make it mandatory that the state legislatures have to always pick them directly
one more electoral vote while we are at it.
The fact that you resort to a spelling flame rebuttal and a knee jerk mcarthyite label solidifies the fact that the Green Party Platform is pretty much right out of the communist manifesto. Communism really is bad. saying so doesn't make you a red-bashing-mob-member.
cmon man. cut him a little slack. I too think that the green party is basically a bunch of dirty stinkin commies. But he is simply telling people to actually investigate the choices that they have, and to vote for what they actually
believe in, instead of watching TV and voting for the cutest guy. He isn't equating the Green Party with the Libertarian Party. I'd bet that he plans on voting green (since he listed the green party first, and the others only parenthetically). Considering that, I think he actually being pretty gracious and straightforward to list the other
parties.
One of the worst things for me is the meaning of the word "or". My wife will ask me something like
"do you want chicken or beef for dinner?" and I answer "Yes" before I realize that she actually wants me to make a choice.
And when it comes to nesting punctuation, and placing punctutation inside of quotes, and stuff like that --- I long ago decided that I would write it in English as if it needed to be parsed by a compiler, grammar books be damned.
whats a non-ergative language?
>ever see a pronoun in C?
void *it;
Q:If you are American when you go into the bathroom, and American when you come out of the bathroom, what are you when you are in the bathroom?
European
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
How do you regulate the group more stringently than the individual without regulating all the
individuals in the group more stringently than individuals not in the groups? An example would
probably maximize your probability of getting thru to me.
And if you really feel enslaved by corporations
(I don't)I suggest you start your own corporation.
>What had M$ been doing for over a decade?
Making lots of money off of their government enforced copyright privalege.
>What were you paying for gas last month?
a whole bunch of taxes. Also I was paying
for low-lead low-sulfur gasoline, which I'm
not saying is a bad thing, but if you want
clean air you have to pay for it. Don't blame
oil companies for that.
>What is the average American's standard of living >today, in comparison to the 1950s?
Way higher.
I'm libertarian but not objectivist.
I agree with many (not all) of the conclusions of the objectivist, but think that the reasoning behind it, and the faith in that reasoning is fairly dangerous.
Its sort of funny that you are self described left-leaner, becuase I really couldn't put my finger on _why_ I was uncomortable with objectivism until I read Hayek's "Fatal Conceit", subtitled "The Errors of Socialism".
In a poorly written few lines of plain text the Fatal Conceit boils down to this : Anybody who thinks they are smart enough to redesign all of human culture and morality using just their little puny brain and some wanna-be-Euclidean system is guilty of terrible hubris. Our culture and morality exist because they kept all of our ancestors alive, so if your new home grown system is wrong you might die. If you impose it on a whole lotta other people, a whole lotta other people might die.
So my criticisms of socialism and objectivism are essentially the same: they both over estimate the power of the human mind, and seek to replace individual-human-designed systems for systems that nobody really fully understands and have taken a long damn time to evlove.
Use of the phrase "general welfare" in the constitution really isn't vague at all. It is
used purely as in an introductory or explanatory phrase both times it is occurrs.
The constitution is primarily about defining basic operations of and granting specific powers to the federal government. If they really meant to let the federal government do anything they claimed was for the "general welfare" they could have made it lots shorter and simpler. To interpret either phrase which uses the term "general welfare" as a grant of power to the federal government to do things just because they are claimed to be for the "general welfare" means you are interpreting the constitution as pretty much a grant of absolute power. Of course none of this matters too much in real life, as the federal government wipes their ass with the constitution on a regular basis.
Is pEata.com taken?
ya yure right basically. I just couldn't pass up the psuedo intellectual flame bait opportunity.
Can you expand on your 3DES-slowness-complaint.
If its slower, then (all other things being equal)
its harder to brute force right? If all other things aren't equal it seems like you have to include these things when you compare algorithms.
I don't know a damn thing about blowfish or twofish. So educate me here if my reasoning is off.
Constitutional principles? From the generation that thinks FDR and Social Security and the War Drugs are all great things?
A great generation? Yes. I'm sure as as hell glad I didn't have to fight WW II. But them and the boomers together (as generalized 'generations') have done more violence to the constitution than all others.
Actually the executive branch enforces the law.
>This makes me happy to see that this happened.
Ditto man.
I hate Microsoft and their software, but this
lynch-mob-anti-trust crap is really disheartening.
Their whole monopoly is based on IP laws that
grant too much power anyways, so its no surprise
at all that they have some kind of monoply.
And as far as using their monopoly power to
maintain their monopoly, exactly how purposely
inept are they supposed to run their business
before its OK?
Living under the rule of law, you know wether
or not something you do is illegal before you
do it. There is no way to know that you are
illegally using monopoly power until you get
screwed for it.
This isn't rule of law, its a naked grant of
power to crush any company that gets "too good"
without kissing the feet of the right government power holders.