I somehow have doubts that the poor people remaining in NOLA during and after Katrina would have been able to make use of these bottles, if they were available, at 385 freaking dollars!
If you what you said was true, the Supreme Court would have already rolled back mountains of law passed by this Congress. It hasn't.
The Constitution uses the phrase "promote the general Welfare" in the Preamble. And obviously, the Bill of Rights is about what the Government cannot restrict. This is basic Constitutional understanding.
Amendment X, as you say, reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Fair enough. But Congress indeed has the delegated power you say they don't. In Article 1, Section 8, it reads (and read closely): "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". Since the Congress also has the delegated power of legislation, and if legislation passes both Houses and is signed into law by the President (or becomes law without his signature), if the Congress decides it is in the general welfare of the country to pass Single Payer health insurance, it can and is fully backed up by our U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution contains *nothing* that bars government single-payer healthcare. Nothing. Congress clearly has the power to enact it, if a democratic majority in both houses and the President support it.
How about whipping out your Constitution, and then do something wild... actually read it!
It continues to amaze me the fools who believe that because any particular idea doesn't appear in the Constitution, then Congress can't write a law about it. If this were true, we would have very little law.
Wow, yet another reich-wing propagandist drunk on Wild Cherry Kool-aid. What fun it is to read baseless diatribes like this! It made my day.
The reality is that teachers are grossly underpaid in the United States for what they do. Pay them what they're worth, then the best people will want to do it and will compete for these jobs!
The idea that we should attack and ruin the people who already have tons of pressures on them is insane.
Here's an idea: How about actually supporting teachers and giving them the ability to make a good living and the tools to properly teach our children? That will work a lot better than Cato-bonehead hate.
"SchoolForge's mission is to unify independent organizations that advocate, use, and develop open resources for primary and secondary education. SchoolForge is intended to empower member organizations to make open educational resources more effective, efficient, and ubiquitous by enhancing communication, sharing resources, and increasing the transparency of development. SchoolForge members advocate the use of open source and free software, open texts and lessons, and open curricula for the advancement of education and the betterment of humankind."
Interesting theory, but I decided this was unlikely after about three seconds of thought. Mobile phones and similar devices have been in heavy use for far longer than just one year. This fact destroys the theory.
Well, putting an ad in Craiglist also requires a verifiable e-mail address. Therefore, there's an extra path of traceability available to detectives.
This also means that if the perp set up their e-mail account at a different public location than where they posted the ad (assuming both were done in public places, such as libraries), then detectives have an easier time narrowing it down, as they can do an intersection of individuals present at both scenes.
"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."
As I like to frequently say... The children will be entirely safe once freedom is entirely destroyed.
That is correct. My reading of the community is that they would prefer to spend the vast majority of their effort creating and enhancing articles. Who would have guessed that?:)
As a three-year Wikipedian, I think this is mostly a problem that will solve itself. As a social movement within, there has been an increasing push toward citing references for anything remotely disputable. Verifiability is increasingly winning the day.
For something that "can't work", it sure is working wonderfully. The work is chock-full of very good to excellent articles on a wide array of subjects, and its usefulness, already large, grows continuously.
Yeah, it simply can't work.
Name one great thing that also doesn't have flaws.
Larry Sanger, please stop with the Wikipenis-envy and shameless marketing of your failure of an elitist version of stilted human knowledge.
Wikipedia is not all about Jimbo Wales!!! It's about the work of the many thousands of contributors, the vast majority of whom are _not_ lying about themselves.
Well, this much I know: Google developed a standard for sitemap XML, and other search engines are now working with it (e.g., Yahoo), or are about to work with it (e.g., Live.com). Further, Google and Yahoo currently provides a search for Creative Commons licensed textual content, which is taggable using particular XML on a page. I think it is fathomable that Google could work with Creative Commons to come up with a way of properly tagging CC-licensed images. And like with tagging textual content, tagging images would be voluntary. And that's the point -- people will be able to choose to release their images on their webpages for use on projects like the Wikipedia.
As a nearly three-year editor on Wikipedia, I call b.s. on this.
I would have no issue with incorporating pieces of content from Citizendium if it is indeed an improvement over comparable content in a Wikipedia article. No issue at all.
And Wikipedia already has articles built from CC content, which under a particular CC license, is indeed compatible with GFDL.
I do find it interesting that Mr. Sanger seems bent on attacking all Wikipedians, as if we're all the same person, and that person is only as he describes. I believe that's called prejudice.
Slashdot Mirror
I somehow have doubts that the poor people remaining in NOLA during and after Katrina would have been able to make use of these bottles, if they were available, at 385 freaking dollars!
If you what you said was true, the Supreme Court would have already rolled back mountains of law passed by this Congress. It hasn't.
The Constitution uses the phrase "promote the general Welfare" in the Preamble. And obviously, the Bill of Rights is about what the Government cannot restrict. This is basic Constitutional understanding.
Amendment X, as you say, reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Fair enough. But Congress indeed has the delegated power you say they don't. In Article 1, Section 8, it reads (and read closely): "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". Since the Congress also has the delegated power of legislation, and if legislation passes both Houses and is signed into law by the President (or becomes law without his signature), if the Congress decides it is in the general welfare of the country to pass Single Payer health insurance, it can and is fully backed up by our U.S. Constitution.
And this meme was developed to suppress honest discussion of American right-wing excesses.
The Constitution contains *nothing* that bars government single-payer healthcare. Nothing. Congress clearly has the power to enact it, if a democratic majority in both houses and the President support it.
How about whipping out your Constitution, and then do something wild... actually read it!
It continues to amaze me the fools who believe that because any particular idea doesn't appear in the Constitution, then Congress can't write a law about it. If this were true, we would have very little law.
Yes, 1 x 1 = 2 x 1/2 (what you just said), but that doesn't make 1 = 2.
Actually, they are invalid for "proving" 1 = 2. That was my point. You created a mathematical fallacy.
But 1 is not proven to equal 2 in those equations. Try again.
Is Microsoft to FOSS like Enron was to California electricity generators?
Certainly, we must demand from Microsoft what we demanded from SCO: Put up or shut up.
Stand strong against this menace!
Wow, yet another reich-wing propagandist drunk on Wild Cherry Kool-aid. What fun it is to read baseless diatribes like this! It made my day.
The reality is that teachers are grossly underpaid in the United States for what they do. Pay them what they're worth, then the best people will want to do it and will compete for these jobs!
The idea that we should attack and ruin the people who already have tons of pressures on them is insane.
Here's an idea: How about actually supporting teachers and giving them the ability to make a good living and the tools to properly teach our children? That will work a lot better than Cato-bonehead hate.
Check it out...
"SchoolForge's mission is to unify independent organizations that advocate, use, and develop open resources for primary and secondary education. SchoolForge is intended to empower member organizations to make open educational resources more effective, efficient, and ubiquitous by enhancing communication, sharing resources, and increasing the transparency of development. SchoolForge members advocate the use of open source and free software, open texts and lessons, and open curricula for the advancement of education and the betterment of humankind."
Interesting theory, but I decided this was unlikely after about three seconds of thought. Mobile phones and similar devices have been in heavy use for far longer than just one year. This fact destroys the theory.
Whenever I see talk of banning anonymous comments, I wonder "What corporation or industry is behind this idea?"
Think about it.
Well, putting an ad in Craiglist also requires a verifiable e-mail address. Therefore, there's an extra path of traceability available to detectives.
This also means that if the perp set up their e-mail account at a different public location than where they posted the ad (assuming both were done in public places, such as libraries), then detectives have an easier time narrowing it down, as they can do an intersection of individuals present at both scenes.
Even though this is nowhere as good as Web Developer, it does provide many valuable web development tools for use in IE.
6 14
Here's the link: http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/info.aspx?page=
These upgrades are freaking huge, and take too long to download, even over DSL.
Why can't we have partial updates, like with Firefox?
I don't see a moral difference between Bush murdering 30,000 versus murdering 600,000.
"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."
As I like to frequently say... The children will be entirely safe once freedom is entirely destroyed.
That is correct. My reading of the community is that they would prefer to spend the vast majority of their effort creating and enhancing articles. Who would have guessed that? :)
As a three-year Wikipedian, I think this is mostly a problem that will solve itself. As a social movement within, there has been an increasing push toward citing references for anything remotely disputable. Verifiability is increasingly winning the day.
For something that "can't work", it sure is working wonderfully. The work is chock-full of very good to excellent articles on a wide array of subjects, and its usefulness, already large, grows continuously.
Yeah, it simply can't work.
Name one great thing that also doesn't have flaws.
Dvorak: Czech word for "grain of salt".
Larry Sanger, please stop with the Wikipenis-envy and shameless marketing of your failure of an elitist version of stilted human knowledge.
Wikipedia is not all about Jimbo Wales!!! It's about the work of the many thousands of contributors, the vast majority of whom are _not_ lying about themselves.
Cocaine and meth aren't available on the open market?
:)
Meth labs are exploding like Jiffy Pops in some parts of the country. That's *some* closed market!
Well, this much I know: Google developed a standard for sitemap XML, and other search engines are now working with it (e.g., Yahoo), or are about to work with it (e.g., Live.com). Further, Google and Yahoo currently provides a search for Creative Commons licensed textual content, which is taggable using particular XML on a page. I think it is fathomable that Google could work with Creative Commons to come up with a way of properly tagging CC-licensed images. And like with tagging textual content, tagging images would be voluntary. And that's the point -- people will be able to choose to release their images on their webpages for use on projects like the Wikipedia.
Mr. Sanger, I think you should be on the guard against intellectual blindness based on extreme envy.
Accordingly, I will be very happy to read unbiased responses to my position.
As a nearly three-year editor on Wikipedia, I call b.s. on this.
I would have no issue with incorporating pieces of content from Citizendium if it is indeed an improvement over comparable content in a Wikipedia article. No issue at all.
And Wikipedia already has articles built from CC content, which under a particular CC license, is indeed compatible with GFDL.
I do find it interesting that Mr. Sanger seems bent on attacking all Wikipedians, as if we're all the same person, and that person is only as he describes. I believe that's called prejudice.
That's not a good way to market an alternative.