So then, by your definition, taking some existing piece of tech and saying "I can make this better", and then doing it, is not innovative?
Innovation rarely takes the form of creating new technologies, but in making what exists easier to use and more efficient. Or in finding different ways to use it. In other words, creating a better mouse trap. I don't think you can deny the porn industry has come up with several of those in their time.
It's far easier to stick your head in the sand
and try to pretend a problem does not exist than
it is to try to actually solve that problem. History has proven that people all around the world would much rather do the former since the latter would actually require time and effort that could better be spent watching The Simpsons reruns or surfing the 'net for pr0n.
-Rob Nolan
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
-George Bernard Shaw
(AP) - Geneva
The Vatican filed a blanket lawsuit
in the World Court today against all bio-
engineers attempting to reverse-engineer
the brain. Vatican counsel are claiming God holds
a Universal Patent, number
234,597,045,714,510,947,109,571,095, 571,094, on any biological organ that can
cause a living being to think.
The Pope refused comment on advice of
counsel, but sources within the Vatican,
who wished to remain anonymous, said
that the church has no complaints about
the science behind reverse-engineering
the brain, they are "simply trying to make
sure God's duly appointed representatives
on Earth recieve just payment for His hard
work and obvious innovation."
The US Patent and Trade Office only com-
mented that it does not recognize any
Universal Patent Office. Nor is there
any record the USPTO has granted such
a patent, therefore they cannot see how
the Vatican has "a legal leg to stand on."
And that idiot judge finds it difficult to read a statute that clearly says that "the state shall certify results by 5pm". The statute is totally unambiguous, but he decided that he didn't like the statute, so hey! Let's just rewrite the law! Why not?
That statute contradicts itself. It says in the first paragraph that the votes shall be certified by 5pm on the 7th day after the general election, but then in the second paragraph it goes on to say that the Secretary of State may accept or deny late ballots within his/her own discretion.
I think the Judge made the right decision by upholding the law. That law needs to be changed, it definitely needs to be clarified, but in the meantime it must be upheld by the courts.
What the majority of Americans don't realize is that Democracy, Pure Democracy, does not work. The U.S. is a Representative Democracy, otherwise known as a Republic. We elect others to handle the ugly details and trifling issues for us. In this way, we get to live our lives reletively free of the burdens of government.
The office of President is selected by the states for several reasons. The most important of which is to ensure the government is not monopolized by those few states with the largest populations. California has a buttload of people, whereas Delaware has very few by comparison. Ensuring that each state has a minimum of 3 votes makes each state count for more than if we had a "majority rules" system. The EC empowers voters, as they are "competing" with fewer other voters. This does cause some imbalance, as a voter in Wyoming (or Palm Beach County, Florida!) can be much more powerful than a voter in my home state of Texas. This is how it should be, tho', as it tends to balance out between all the states.
There are times when the Federal government should step in, like when people's Constitutional rights are being violated. But, when state governments are working like they are supposed to, as most are, then there is no need for the Fed to step in. California wants to legalize marijuana? Fine, let 'em. Arkansas wants to deny blacks the right to vote? Go in and put a stop to it. States Rights may have been used as a hiding place by bigots and religous zealots, so what? Does that somehow invalidate them? That's like saying the First Amendment was used as a hiding place for bigots and religous zealots, so it's invalid. I bet the ACLU would disagree with you in that case.
Are you *really* sure that state control over every aspect of life is a good idea?
Absolutely. Not only can I exert far more control over my state and local governments than I can over the Federal government, but government is far more responsive to people's needs on a local level. State run agencies tend to be far more effective and efficient than Federal agencies.
It was pointed out here the other day that the electoral college was established out of fear that the US population would be unable to educate themselves about the candidates enough to make an informed decision.
That was one of the reasons the Electoral College was created. The other reason, the one I've come to see during this election and the one that has changed my mind on the issue, is that the EC prevents the smaller, less populous states from being drowned out by the larger states. The EC prevents what Thomas Jefferson (IIRC) called the "tyranny of the majority". Thus, the EC is a good thing.
Look at the Electoral map on FoxNews.com. Gore has the popular majority, but only in approximately 20 states. Bush has the popular majority in the other 28. Without the EC, the political voices of the 28 states that voted the majority to Bush would be ignored in favor of the more populous states. In other words, Americans in less populous states would be shut out of the process. By seriously reducing the number of available votes, and making sure those votes are more or less evenly distributed, it is possible to make sure the voices of smaller states is heard.
This is precisely the reason many claim that members of other countries should have a say. A basic tenet of democracy is that those who are governed should have the chance to select who they would have govern them.
Then they should petition the U.S. Congress to become a state -- to become governed. That is the only way they would ever get a say in our elections. Of course, they would no longer be sovereign nations, but that is small price to pay if you strongly desire the ability to choose the American President.
No one should ever get used to a government repeatedly abusing it's power. The US government may be better about it than most others, but do you remember McCarthyism? Remember J. Edgar Hoover? Remember Clinton being accused of getting his opponent's records from the FBI and IRS? Carnivore may have been created with benevolent intent, but it's potential for abuse is such that it may be the single greatest threat to free speech and personal liberty in a long time.
Get used to it? Not in a million years.
The duty of a politician in any representative democracy is to represent the views of his constituents in government. Even when they conflict with the personal beliefs of the politician.
This is true. However, it is not applicable as The United States of America is not a Representative Democracy. It is a Representative Republic. Under our form of government, the elected representative can totally ignore his constituents at will.
Using your example, if 50% + 1 of Rep. Joe Blow (R - Some State)'s district support abortion, but Joe is morally opposed, then he is free to vote his conscience.
This is one of our strongest protections of individual rights, and keeping the majority from running roughshod over the minority.
How should I take this post? Do you say that the American democracy have ended?
No, I'm saying American democracy never existed in the first place.
You, the people, have voted the politicians in, and so the people==the politicians. If you don't like it, get out and vote!
That's what I was saying. Get of your lazy butt and vote.:)
Make people accept political debates on TV
I'm not too sure exactly how you mean this. Do you mean people should be made to watch the debates or do you mean everyone should be allowed to speak at the debates?
I think the debates should be open to all the candidates. This year all we'll get is the two major parties because they've made an arbitrary rule that a candidate must have at least 15% in some poll. This effectively eliminates any thrid party candidate from speaking.
Ban political TV advertising. It only leads to the person with the most money for advertising winning
I agree in principle, but disagree because of the negative effect this would have. There are a lot of people in this country whose primary source of information is the TV. By banning any and all political advertising, you would prevent these people from hearing what the candidates have to say. Then you have the free speech issues. Political speech is specifically protected under the first amendment, and political advertisements are political speech. Hopefully you would see the difficulty in creating any law that bans political advertising.
Make Bush explain what he means by "lower taxes to rip down the wall between rich and poor"...
Well, I would assume he means lowering taxes on the poor so they have more money.:)
Don't equate the American people with American politicians. That is an undeserved insult.
<rant>
But, we the people created this political bordelo. We allowed it to happen out of sheer laziness and apathy. So, who should we blame? The Republicans? The Democrats? The British or French, maybe? No, we are to blame; it's the people's fault plain and simple. If you don't like the current situation, get off your lazy butt and fix it. Get out and vote. Get your freinds out to vote. Sitting in front of your computer and bellyaching about it, refusing to take responsibility, accomplishes nothing.
</rant>
Actually, the U.S. is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Our government is modeled more on the Roman Republic than Grecian city-states such as Athens. There are not, as far as I know, any true democracies in existence today.
Dell's big push into the consumer market is a recent thing. Before 1998 the main focus of Dell's sales were in servers and workstations/desktops for small to medium businesses. Business sales still make up the majority of Dell's sales, so to say that consumer sales built the company, or made it strong, is incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when did copyright become a civil right?
-Rob
So then, by your definition, taking some existing piece of tech and saying "I can make this better", and then doing it, is not innovative?
Innovation rarely takes the form of creating new technologies, but in making what exists easier to use and more efficient. Or in finding different ways to use it. In other words, creating a better mouse trap. I don't think you can deny the porn industry has come up with several of those in their time.
-Rob Nolan
It's far easier to stick your head in the sand and try to pretend a problem does not exist than it is to try to actually solve that problem. History has proven that people all around the world would much rather do the former since the latter would actually require time and effort that could better be spent watching The Simpsons reruns or surfing the 'net for pr0n.
-Rob Nolan
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." -George Bernard Shaw
(AP) - Geneva
The Vatican filed a blanket lawsuit
in the World Court today against all bio-
engineers attempting to reverse-engineer
the brain. Vatican counsel are claiming God
holds a Universal Patent, number
234,597,045,714,510,947,109,571,095,
571,094, on any biological organ that can
cause a living being to think.
The Pope refused comment on advice of
counsel, but sources within the Vatican,
who wished to remain anonymous, said
that the church has no complaints about
the science behind reverse-engineering
the brain, they are "simply trying to make
sure God's duly appointed representatives
on Earth recieve just payment for His hard
work and obvious innovation."
The US Patent and Trade Office only com-
mented that it does not recognize any
Universal Patent Office. Nor is there
any record the USPTO has granted such
a patent, therefore they cannot see how
the Vatican has "a legal leg to stand on."
-Rob
And that idiot judge finds it difficult to read a statute that clearly says that "the state shall certify results by 5pm". The statute is totally unambiguous, but he decided that he didn't like the statute, so hey! Let's just rewrite the law! Why not?
That statute contradicts itself. It says in the first paragraph that the votes shall be certified by 5pm on the 7th day after the general election, but then in the second paragraph it goes on to say that the Secretary of State may accept or deny late ballots within his/her own discretion.
I think the Judge made the right decision by upholding the law. That law needs to be changed, it definitely needs to be clarified, but in the meantime it must be upheld by the courts.
-Rob
What the majority of Americans don't realize is that Democracy, Pure Democracy, does not work. The U.S. is a Representative Democracy, otherwise known as a Republic. We elect others to handle the ugly details and trifling issues for us. In this way, we get to live our lives reletively free of the burdens of government.
The office of President is selected by the states for several reasons. The most important of which is to ensure the government is not monopolized by those few states with the largest populations. California has a buttload of people, whereas Delaware has very few by comparison. Ensuring that each state has a minimum of 3 votes makes each state count for more than if we had a "majority rules" system. The EC empowers voters, as they are "competing" with fewer other voters. This does cause some imbalance, as a voter in Wyoming (or Palm Beach County, Florida!) can be much more powerful than a voter in my home state of Texas. This is how it should be, tho', as it tends to balance out between all the states.
There are times when the Federal government should step in, like when people's Constitutional rights are being violated. But, when state governments are working like they are supposed to, as most are, then there is no need for the Fed to step in. California wants to legalize marijuana? Fine, let 'em. Arkansas wants to deny blacks the right to vote? Go in and put a stop to it. States Rights may have been used as a hiding place by bigots and religous zealots, so what? Does that somehow invalidate them? That's like saying the First Amendment was used as a hiding place for bigots and religous zealots, so it's invalid. I bet the ACLU would disagree with you in that case.
-Rob
Are you *really* sure that state control over every aspect of life is a good idea?
Absolutely. Not only can I exert far more control over my state and local governments than I can over the Federal government, but government is far more responsive to people's needs on a local level. State run agencies tend to be far more effective and efficient than Federal agencies.
-Rob
It was pointed out here the other day that the electoral college was established out of fear that the US population would be unable to educate themselves about the candidates enough to make an informed decision.
That was one of the reasons the Electoral College was created. The other reason, the one I've come to see during this election and the one that has changed my mind on the issue, is that the EC prevents the smaller, less populous states from being drowned out by the larger states. The EC prevents what Thomas Jefferson (IIRC) called the "tyranny of the majority". Thus, the EC is a good thing.
Look at the Electoral map on FoxNews.com. Gore has the popular majority, but only in approximately 20 states. Bush has the popular majority in the other 28. Without the EC, the political voices of the 28 states that voted the majority to Bush would be ignored in favor of the more populous states. In other words, Americans in less populous states would be shut out of the process. By seriously reducing the number of available votes, and making sure those votes are more or less evenly distributed, it is possible to make sure the voices of smaller states is heard.
-Rob
This is precisely the reason many claim that members of other countries should have a say. A basic tenet of democracy is that those who are governed should have the chance to select who they would have govern them.
Then they should petition the U.S. Congress to become a state -- to become governed. That is the only way they would ever get a say in our elections. Of course, they would no longer be sovereign nations, but that is small price to pay if you strongly desire the ability to choose the American President.
-Rob
No one should ever get used to a government repeatedly abusing it's power. The US government may be better about it than most others, but do you remember McCarthyism? Remember J. Edgar Hoover? Remember Clinton being accused of getting his opponent's records from the FBI and IRS? Carnivore may have been created with benevolent intent, but it's potential for abuse is such that it may be the single greatest threat to free speech and personal liberty in a long time.
Get used to it? Not in a million years.
-Rob
The duty of a politician in any representative democracy is to represent the views of his constituents in government. Even when they conflict with the personal beliefs of the politician.
This is true. However, it is not applicable as The United States of America is not a Representative Democracy. It is a Representative Republic. Under our form of government, the elected representative can totally ignore his constituents at will.
Using your example, if 50% + 1 of Rep. Joe Blow (R - Some State)'s district support abortion, but Joe is morally opposed, then he is free to vote his conscience.
This is one of our strongest protections of individual rights, and keeping the majority from running roughshod over the minority.
-Rob
How should I take this post? Do you say that the American democracy have ended?
:)
:)
No, I'm saying American democracy never existed in the first place.
You, the people, have voted the politicians in, and so the people==the politicians. If you don't like it, get out and vote!
That's what I was saying. Get of your lazy butt and vote.
Make people accept political debates on TV
I'm not too sure exactly how you mean this. Do you mean people should be made to watch the debates or do you mean everyone should be allowed to speak at the debates?
I think the debates should be open to all the candidates. This year all we'll get is the two major parties because they've made an arbitrary rule that a candidate must have at least 15% in some poll. This effectively eliminates any thrid party candidate from speaking.
Ban political TV advertising. It only leads to the person with the most money for advertising winning
I agree in principle, but disagree because of the negative effect this would have. There are a lot of people in this country whose primary source of information is the TV. By banning any and all political advertising, you would prevent these people from hearing what the candidates have to say. Then you have the free speech issues. Political speech is specifically protected under the first amendment, and political advertisements are political speech. Hopefully you would see the difficulty in creating any law that bans political advertising.
Make Bush explain what he means by "lower taxes to rip down the wall between rich and poor"...
Well, I would assume he means lowering taxes on the poor so they have more money.
-Rob
Don't equate the American people with American politicians. That is an undeserved insult.
<rant>
But, we the people created this political bordelo. We allowed it to happen out of sheer laziness and apathy. So, who should we blame? The Republicans? The Democrats? The British or French, maybe? No, we are to blame; it's the people's fault plain and simple. If you don't like the current situation, get off your lazy butt and fix it. Get out and vote. Get your freinds out to vote. Sitting in front of your computer and bellyaching about it, refusing to take responsibility, accomplishes nothing.
</rant>
-Rob
Last I heard, the US was a democracy.
Actually, the U.S. is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Our government is modeled more on the Roman Republic than Grecian city-states such as Athens. There are not, as far as I know, any true democracies in existence today.
- Rob
Dell's big push into the consumer market is a recent thing. Before 1998 the main focus of Dell's sales were in servers and workstations/desktops for small to medium businesses. Business sales still make up the majority of Dell's sales, so to say that consumer sales built the company, or made it strong, is incorrect.
Yeah, but will it put the tape in the VCR for you, too?
-Rob