We're used to the federal government always meddling with specific issues with situational principles. This causes the hypocrisy we see all the time, especially as the politicians pander to various groups with different interests.
Ron Paul answers on core principles, everything flows from that. I know, strange concept.
Fred Thompson is probably next on principles, his main flaw being support for the federal War on (Some) Drugs while endorsing federalism.
However, I haven't been able to find any evidence of principles among the Democrats. Especially Hillary, she'll switch her position in a heartbeat if she thinks it'll help her get elected.
He may not have voted for that one, but he is in favor of stricter thought crimes laws and more funding to enforce them. He sponsored the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But then that was just part of his pandering to the gay community.
The very idea of "positive liberties" should send chills down any freedom-lover's spine. Any government that has the power to grant a liberty also has the power to take it away.
I prefer inalienable rights of the people and a government grudgingly granted limited powers by the people.
There are some places I agree with Kucinich, but here's the bad:
He wants slavery reparations, and where is that going to come from? My family wasn't here during that time, but I'll still have to pay. There are blacks here whose ancestors were never affected by US slavery, do they get?
He wants affirmative action, a.k.a. state-enforced racism, and voted against removing racism from college admissions.
He voted yes on a constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning, really for free speech there.
He wants to get stricter on hate (thought) crimes. George Orwell, white courtesy phone.
He wants to ban all public smoking (freedom, where did you go?).
He votes no on school vouchers, hurting freedom and competition in education.
He would sign Kyoto, which is expressly designed to suck money and sovereignty from us.
He even voted no on reforming the UN, which has a very poor rights record (China, Nigeria, Guatemala and Cuba on the Human Rights Council, that's funny).
He's anti-gun, bye-bye Second Amendment.
Basically, Kucinich wants freedom for those things he agrees with, but not for those things he doesn't. He believes in situational freedom just as much as Bush does, just for different things, and not freedom as a principle.
On economics, his hatred of companies and of wealth will very quickly ruin our economy. What's the incentive to work harder if it's all just taken away to be shared with those who don't? Even those who came over on the Mayflower realized this, and dropping their communal system saved them. And remember, taxes are a confiscation of private property. And he wants to raise them. Thus, he wants to take private property, probably more than any other candidate. Remember, taxes are inherently evil, literally amounting to theft at gunpoint. The problem is this evil must exist, so the question is how to minimize it as much as possible.
I do like how you frame it as "roll back the tax cuts on the very wealthy." Let's rephrase: "He would take more money from people just because they worked hard and succeeded."
I like rich people. Rich people spend lots of money. I never got a job from a poor person.
The notion of having a completely unmanned reactor seems like a recipe for disaster though. The Toshiba plan of keeping a few people nearby to ensure security and to monitor the supposedly fail safe systems seems safer.
To be fair to Toshiba, this is the first of its kind, a prototype. They'll keep people on hand to monitor and in case of emergency for years. But give it a decade or so and it will probably work as advertised unattended. I'm betting they've made their automatic safety systems overly sensitive and the tech people will be there to restart after many unneeded shutdowns. But they'll gather data, and the first real installation will include the lessons learned. Besides, a lot of nuclear accidents are caused by operator mistake, and this design removes that possibility. Just give them a big "Shut Down" button.
But as you hinted, the biggest problems aren't technical, but bureaucratic.
DLA is a good idea, as long as the data stays in the country. I don't trust Mexico with my info either.
The portions of RealID relating to positive identification before the issuance of a license or ID card need to stay, too. It's just way too easy to get them now with falsified information.
Basically, I'd like to have enough to prevent fraud. But of course, the statists wrote the bill and wanted a lot more than just that.
I've been playing video games for about 30 years, and the couple decades I've always heard the hype of "Playing this game is like being in a movie." I've seen try after try, from playable games that looked nothing like movies, to movie-like games (Dragon's Lair, beautifully animated) that were not really playable.
Only recently have we hit that milestone with Heavenly Sword -- good playability, good acting (voice and facial), and art direction that is breathtaking. And most major titles at least have a pretty good script behind them these days.
I'd say the state of video games is doing quite well.
They made a temporary rig consisting of two steel poles on each side of the weapon, with a rope in between to keep the weapon from swinging.
With something this deadly you'd think they'd come up with a self-limiting system. Even my lawn sprinkler uses a more sure-fire method to ensure it doesn't traverse too far -- its own power forces it to turn the other way. These guys are supposed to be smart engineers, but I see a bit of "Hold muh beer an' watch this" going on.
Do you also think if Gore won the presidency we would be in the vulnerable, dire, position we currently are politically and fiscally?
Fiscally, we'd definitely be totally screwed. The socialist programs and the taxes to pay for them would have driven our economy into the dirt.
Politically we'd be okay as he made friends with everybody in the world, including ruthless dictators like ol' Kim in North Korea. Hey, maybe he'd have given Kim more nuclear technology on top of what Clinton did.
Security wise, we'd be screwed of course, as he makes friends with the very people who are trying to kill us and ignores the clear signs of them waging a war against us.
Privacy wise, you think he'd be any better than Bush? Don't forget, this is the man who championed a backdoor into everybody's encryption so that the government can snoop on us.
I started to lose any respect for the Prize in the late 80s, and a known terrorist receiving it just ended any respect the Prize could have possibly had left.
In fact, he uses a distro that refuses to ship nonfree software.
A question: If it now takes the GPL3 for Stallman to consider software completely free, and the Linux kernel stays with GPL2, does that mean Stallman will have to stop using Linux? Better finally get that HURD kernel up to speed.
anything that makes DRM extinct is a good thing in my book, DRM has no right to exist in this universe.
The problem Stallman has is that "DRM" is a horrible term. A lot of technologies are effectively covered under the term, and some of them are good. I would like Linux to run our voting machines with open source voting software because that means open inspection of the code to detect fraud. But I would definitely want a TiVO-like "DRM" scheme on them to ensure that nobody can mess with the machines, and I certainly don't want the local party hacks running them to have access to the keys.
And himself immature. If you don't ALWAYS say "GNU/Linux" in your publication, no interviews. What an ego. I wonder if he'd accept "Linux + GNU" these days. Probably not, doesn't put GNU first.
If he wants a "GNU/Linux" then the FSF can put out a "GNU/Linux" distro.
I already do not follow Linus Torvalds in his political ideas
I believe this rift exists exactly because Torvalds does not have political ideas in software and Stallman does. Torvalds prefers to do what's practical for to make good software, while Stallman prefers to do what pushes his political agenda.
It means they're just about ready to lower the coffin into the grave. SCO was hoping to have a jury they can confuse, but now the case will be tried in front of a judge who knows their tricks and can't be fooled.
It is very much that nukes were flown, it is a treaty violation, and a biggie.
I've seen nothing that says this was treaty-related, especially since they stayed in US airspace and couldn't have been detonated anyway. If they didn't know they were on the plane, then the plane definitely didn't receive the ability to arm and launch them.
I know the press likes to make it seem that way, but that is probably not true at all. Based on my experience I would say it isn't true at all.
Articles I read says the fact they were on the plane wasn't discovered until it landed. That means someone lost accountability for three hours. It is inexcusable.
Sorry, but I feel I need to be clear The media is implying that the nation was in some sort of dangerous situation
It's not so much that nukes were flown, but in the accountability of nuclear weapons. While the nukes were always under Air Force control and there was never any danger, the fact remains that the Air Force didn't know where six of its nukes were for three hours. They thought they were at the base when in fact they were on a plane. All of our military must have physically-verified paper accountability of all of its nuclear weapons for every second of every minute of every hour.... you get the picture.
Imagine an inspector coming up to the commander in those three hours, "Where are those nukes?" and he says "Oh, they're here in this --- OH SHIT!" You don't know at that moment if they've been misplaced or if they've been stolen. Everybody panics. The President must be informed.
Any violation of the accountability rules is taken dead seriously. You can get punished if the nukes never moved but you messed up the paperwork, so heads will roll here.
Disclaimer: I worked with nukes before, although not these.
I didn't realize how Strangelove that sounded. I wasn't thinking about automatic launch when I wrote that, only an IDS system that can pinpoint the source of the attack and target missiles accordingly. I can't think of an instance where a completely automated weapon system would be a good idea. Aegis will automatically kill everything it thinks is a bad guy in about a 100 mile radius at the push of a button -- but you still do need that person to push the button.
Being anti-Jewish is promoted in our new one-world. Even the UN Human Rights Council overlooks the massive human rights abuses that occur in most Muslim countries to complain about Israel every chance it gets.
Well, if you dont see any difference, I expect to see you in the enlistment line first thing tomorrow morning. And dont make up some BS that youve 'already served' because it will be a lie.
Not a lie. I did my war -- it's your turn.
Let me guess -- your first image is a kid that Hamas sent out to disassemble a rocket launcher after it fired on Israeli civilians, and he was killed when the Israelis destroyed the launcher in self-defense. Yes, I know that those we are currently fighting have no problem sending children to die so they can kill more of the infidel. That alone is a great reason to stop them.
BTW, seen worse, live. Pictures don't transmit the smell, which makes it much worse.
Slashdot Mirror
We're used to the federal government always meddling with specific issues with situational principles. This causes the hypocrisy we see all the time, especially as the politicians pander to various groups with different interests.
Ron Paul answers on core principles, everything flows from that. I know, strange concept.
Fred Thompson is probably next on principles, his main flaw being support for the federal War on (Some) Drugs while endorsing federalism.
However, I haven't been able to find any evidence of principles among the Democrats. Especially Hillary, she'll switch her position in a heartbeat if she thinks it'll help her get elected.
He may not have voted for that one, but he is in favor of stricter thought crimes laws and more funding to enforce them. He sponsored the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But then that was just part of his pandering to the gay community.
The very idea of "positive liberties" should send chills down any freedom-lover's spine. Any government that has the power to grant a liberty also has the power to take it away.
I prefer inalienable rights of the people and a government grudgingly granted limited powers by the people.
There are some places I agree with Kucinich, but here's the bad:
He wants slavery reparations, and where is that going to come from? My family wasn't here during that time, but I'll still have to pay. There are blacks here whose ancestors were never affected by US slavery, do they get?
He wants affirmative action, a.k.a. state-enforced racism, and voted against removing racism from college admissions.
He voted yes on a constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning, really for free speech there.
He wants to get stricter on hate (thought) crimes. George Orwell, white courtesy phone.
He wants to ban all public smoking (freedom, where did you go?).
He votes no on school vouchers, hurting freedom and competition in education.
He would sign Kyoto, which is expressly designed to suck money and sovereignty from us.
He even voted no on reforming the UN, which has a very poor rights record (China, Nigeria, Guatemala and Cuba on the Human Rights Council, that's funny).
He's anti-gun, bye-bye Second Amendment.
Basically, Kucinich wants freedom for those things he agrees with, but not for those things he doesn't. He believes in situational freedom just as much as Bush does, just for different things, and not freedom as a principle.
On economics, his hatred of companies and of wealth will very quickly ruin our economy. What's the incentive to work harder if it's all just taken away to be shared with those who don't? Even those who came over on the Mayflower realized this, and dropping their communal system saved them. And remember, taxes are a confiscation of private property. And he wants to raise them. Thus, he wants to take private property, probably more than any other candidate. Remember, taxes are inherently evil, literally amounting to theft at gunpoint. The problem is this evil must exist, so the question is how to minimize it as much as possible.
I do like how you frame it as "roll back the tax cuts on the very wealthy." Let's rephrase: "He would take more money from people just because they worked hard and succeeded."
I like rich people. Rich people spend lots of money. I never got a job from a poor person.
But as you hinted, the biggest problems aren't technical, but bureaucratic.
What can you really do with one mouse button? I need options.
I don't know, but all Macs ship with a four-button mouse (left, right, scroll click and squeeze).
DLA is a good idea, as long as the data stays in the country. I don't trust Mexico with my info either.
The portions of RealID relating to positive identification before the issuance of a license or ID card need to stay, too. It's just way too easy to get them now with falsified information.
Basically, I'd like to have enough to prevent fraud. But of course, the statists wrote the bill and wanted a lot more than just that.
I've been playing video games for about 30 years, and the couple decades I've always heard the hype of "Playing this game is like being in a movie." I've seen try after try, from playable games that looked nothing like movies, to movie-like games (Dragon's Lair, beautifully animated) that were not really playable.
Only recently have we hit that milestone with Heavenly Sword -- good playability, good acting (voice and facial), and art direction that is breathtaking. And most major titles at least have a pretty good script behind them these days.
I'd say the state of video games is doing quite well.
Fiscally, we'd definitely be totally screwed. The socialist programs and the taxes to pay for them would have driven our economy into the dirt.
Politically we'd be okay as he made friends with everybody in the world, including ruthless dictators like ol' Kim in North Korea. Hey, maybe he'd have given Kim more nuclear technology on top of what Clinton did.
Security wise, we'd be screwed of course, as he makes friends with the very people who are trying to kill us and ignores the clear signs of them waging a war against us.
Privacy wise, you think he'd be any better than Bush? Don't forget, this is the man who championed a backdoor into everybody's encryption so that the government can snoop on us.
I started to lose any respect for the Prize in the late 80s, and a known terrorist receiving it just ended any respect the Prize could have possibly had left.
#1 Yes, the creationists committed perjury according to the law by claiming they had the copyright. #2 Yes.
If he wants a "GNU/Linux" then the FSF can put out a "GNU/Linux" distro.
Learn How To Use Capital Letters At The Beginning Of Sentences!
It means they're just about ready to lower the coffin into the grave. SCO was hoping to have a jury they can confuse, but now the case will be tried in front of a judge who knows their tricks and can't be fooled.
It's not so much that nukes were flown, but in the accountability of nuclear weapons. While the nukes were always under Air Force control and there was never any danger, the fact remains that the Air Force didn't know where six of its nukes were for three hours. They thought they were at the base when in fact they were on a plane. All of our military must have physically-verified paper accountability of all of its nuclear weapons for every second of every minute of every hour.... you get the picture.
Imagine an inspector coming up to the commander in those three hours, "Where are those nukes?" and he says "Oh, they're here in this --- OH SHIT!" You don't know at that moment if they've been misplaced or if they've been stolen. Everybody panics. The President must be informed.
Any violation of the accountability rules is taken dead seriously. You can get punished if the nukes never moved but you messed up the paperwork, so heads will roll here.
Disclaimer: I worked with nukes before, although not these.
I didn't realize how Strangelove that sounded. I wasn't thinking about automatic launch when I wrote that, only an IDS system that can pinpoint the source of the attack and target missiles accordingly. I can't think of an instance where a completely automated weapon system would be a good idea. Aegis will automatically kill everything it thinks is a bad guy in about a 100 mile radius at the push of a button -- but you still do need that person to push the button.
Being anti-Jewish is promoted in our new one-world. Even the UN Human Rights Council overlooks the massive human rights abuses that occur in most Muslim countries to complain about Israel every chance it gets.
Let me guess -- your first image is a kid that Hamas sent out to disassemble a rocket launcher after it fired on Israeli civilians, and he was killed when the Israelis destroyed the launcher in self-defense. Yes, I know that those we are currently fighting have no problem sending children to die so they can kill more of the infidel. That alone is a great reason to stop them.
BTW, seen worse, live. Pictures don't transmit the smell, which makes it much worse.