The reason I suggested that your comment sounded racist is the way you said "your own people."
I see.
If you want to know the full story, I originally
had written "your own organization," but I
changed it because I thought it made the Klan
sound too respectable.
Did you read anything about the decision?...Only when a cross burning is used as a means of intimidation. If am having a few people into my backyard for a cross bon fire then that is hardly intimidation.
I read
this article which says that one of the cases
under review dealt with burning a cross on
private land in rural Virginia. I interpret
``rural'' as ``away from other people,'' so
who's being intimidated?
(The other case reviewed did deal with burning
a cross on a victim's lawn. I do not defend
that, and have no problem with convictions
in that case under other laws.)
Another
article reports the three month jail sentence.
Now if these reports do not accurately convey
the facts of the case, consider me corrected.
Since others are accusing me of racism, I guess
I should retort that I'm exactly as racist
as the ACLU on this point.
Don't be too sure. The Supremes just
upheld a law that makes burning a cross
at a gathering a crime. Not on someone
else's lawn, mind you, but your own cross
on your own property among your own people.
That gets you three months in jail.
A burning cross is ``an instrument of terror,''
they say, so First Amendment protection is
not available.
If the First Amendment does not protect
``terrorists,'' how will it be able to
overturn the PATRIOT act?
Did you know that less than 150,000 modern wind turbines could supply the entire U.S. power grid demand?
Just curious. Would taking that much kinetic
energy out of the atmosphere have climate
change effects of its own? Got a back of the
envelope calculation to share?
I think the SincereChoice principles are
the correct ones.
Furthermore, they are sufficient.
There's no need to mandate purchase of
Open Source alternatives, when a SincereChoice
will naturally lead to choosing them (where
they exist).
Say there are two competing products that
meet the interoperability requirements
of SincereChoice. One is Open Source, the
other is proprietary secret source, but with
interfaces and formats suitably defined to
qualify for the SincereChoice requirements.
If I pick the proprietary one, then next year
when there's an update that fixes the security
bugs, but the updated version does not meet
SincereChoice requirements, what's gonna happen?
If the law doesn't let the purchaser buy
the update anyway, they'll have to switch.
So forseeing that, the purchaser will pick
the Open Source version because they know
the security fixes will be available without
changes that prevent update purchases under
the SincereChoice conditions.
Of course, if the SincereChoice law allows
purchase of non-compliant updates to a compliant
original purchase, then this logic does not
hold, but then the policy is a sham anyway.
There simply is not ``plenty of discretionary spending'' to re-assign to save SS.
The administration is currently pushing to make the repeal of estate taxes permanent - which will cost $10bn a year.
The US spends more on 'defense' than the rest of the world combined....
Oh for goodness sake... I'd expect a response
like that at CNN or on talk radio, but this
is Slashdot./. readers are not supposed to
be that innumerate. Did you even follow the
links I provided? Your basic points are
reasonable, but completely beside the point.
Let's say you shut down the defense department
completely. Congratulations! You've just
paid one-half of this year's Social Security
Bill. And don't forget to look at how the
two programs are growing. In 1998, SS was
22% of spending; now it is 33% of spending,
and the total budget has grown! Defense
has gone from 16% to 17% over the same
time period. And that's before you even
consider that national defense is a
constitutional duty of the federal government.
The primary purpose of the federal government
is rapidly
becoming the suctioning of $$$ out of the
pockets of workers (no matter how able to
pay!! Payroll taxes are regressive!) and
into the pockets of the retired (no matter
how much they need it.). Hardly the
republic the patriots fought for.
I have no clue where you came up with $10B
a year from estate taxes, but let's just
assumt you are right. That tiny amount
is completely beside the point -- lost in
the noise. It will cover the SS deficit
in 2014, when it will only be $8B short.
It might help a bit in 2015 when SS is $22B
short, but by the 2020s when the annual
deficit will be in the 100s of B, it will
be clear how pointless any $10B savings is.
The current SS program is simply unsustainable,
and it must be reformed. The only way to
get the magnitude of $$$ required to "save
Social Security" is through reforms of SS
itself. Private accounts
are not the whole solution, and done badly
they could be a total disaster. You are
right to be skeptical about them. But any
view that the current system can survive without
radical reform is based on fantasy.
That does not matter a whole lot because however 'insolvent' the trust fund might appear to become the US govt has plenty of discretionary spending to cut and can increase taxes if required.
Take another look at the chart on p. 60
of the
1040 instructions from the IRS. Note
that Social Security spending is 33% of
federal spending today before the
Boomers retire. That will only grow. Net
interest on debt cannot be tapped, and all
other categories are dwarfed by entitlement
spending. There simply is not ``plenty
of discretionary spending'' to re-assign
to save SS.
I also have to ask if you have any clue
just how enormous the
unfunded liability of our entitlement
programs is -- $20 Trillion. We aren't
going to come up with that shortfall by
saving dimes and pennies on other programs.
The orders of magnitude simply do not compare.
After microbes were first discovered, I bet it
really bothered people to discover they were
surrounded by gazillions of little creepy
crawlies. Very disturbing. But it had always
been so, and eventually we get used to knowing
about it.
Now we notice that there are lots of rocks
whizzing by the planet, because we're bothering
to look. But just like the microbes, it's
always been so. We're only upset because
we're noticing it.
This is the way the universe is. Get used to it.
It is not headline news.
I know some school teachers who occasionally
see a television program that is relevant to
their class. They record the program on
video tape, then carry the tape to school
and play it for the class on the school's
VCR.
Would this kind of use be permitted under
the proposed DRM scheme?
As I understand it, in Roe vs. Wade, both sides agreed that life began at conception, but the court ruled that a woman could not be made to host another human being if she didn't want to
Your understanding of Roe v. Wade is way,
way, WAY off the mark.
You know there's this thing called the Internet
you could use to locate the opinion in seconds
and read it for yourself, rather than spread
nonsense.
Like it or not, Stevens is the target for 2002.
He is the only co-sponsor of SSSCA in the
Senate who faces re-election this year. If
you do not go after him, then you wait until
2004 to make your point.
Yes, all the things mentioned make it hard
to beat Stevens, but that makes it all the
more powerful an example when we do beat him.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure would like to call up some of these bozos and ask 'WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING?!?!'
If you can't motivate voters with
a slogan like that, there's no hope.
I see.
If you want to know the full story, I originally had written "your own organization," but I changed it because I thought it made the Klan sound too respectable.
I read this article which says that one of the cases under review dealt with burning a cross on private land in rural Virginia. I interpret ``rural'' as ``away from other people,'' so who's being intimidated?
(The other case reviewed did deal with burning a cross on a victim's lawn. I do not defend that, and have no problem with convictions in that case under other laws.)
Another article reports the three month jail sentence.
Now if these reports do not accurately convey the facts of the case, consider me corrected.
Since others are accusing me of racism, I guess I should retort that I'm exactly as racist as the ACLU on this point.
Yes, and PATRIOT is aimed only at "terrorists."
I don't find either caveat particularly comforting.
Basically, if the local jury finds your point of view sufficiently offensive, you're going to jail.
A burning cross is ``an instrument of terror,'' they say, so First Amendment protection is not available.
If the First Amendment does not protect ``terrorists,'' how will it be able to overturn the PATRIOT act?
Just curious. Would taking that much kinetic energy out of the atmosphere have climate change effects of its own? Got a back of the envelope calculation to share?
Why is it not a surprise that the lucid message is the one that isn't top-posted?
Better make that two options.
The new electronic voting machines
in my area do not allow spoiled
ballots.
No need to start with such large ambitions. How about something simple like Let them buy their own drugs!
Why the wealthiest demographic should get a drug subsidy just because they've counted off sufficient birthdays is beyond me.
So when SS starts running deficits in 10-15 years, you won't expect the general funds to bail it out then?
It's a separate revenue stream after all!
See their web site for more.
Say there are two competing products that meet the interoperability requirements of SincereChoice. One is Open Source, the other is proprietary secret source, but with interfaces and formats suitably defined to qualify for the SincereChoice requirements.
If I pick the proprietary one, then next year when there's an update that fixes the security bugs, but the updated version does not meet SincereChoice requirements, what's gonna happen? If the law doesn't let the purchaser buy the update anyway, they'll have to switch.
So forseeing that, the purchaser will pick the Open Source version because they know the security fixes will be available without changes that prevent update purchases under the SincereChoice conditions.
Of course, if the SincereChoice law allows purchase of non-compliant updates to a compliant original purchase, then this logic does not hold, but then the policy is a sham anyway.
Could they make it any harder to find?
I've clicked around forever and still
can't find a simple *.tar.gz form of
the 1.1 source code release.
The administration is currently pushing to make the repeal of estate taxes permanent - which will cost $10bn a year.
The US spends more on 'defense' than the rest of the world combined. ...
Oh for goodness sake... I'd expect a response like that at CNN or on talk radio, but this is Slashdot. /. readers are not supposed to
be that innumerate. Did you even follow the
links I provided? Your basic points are
reasonable, but completely beside the point.
Let's say you shut down the defense department completely. Congratulations! You've just paid one-half of this year's Social Security Bill. And don't forget to look at how the two programs are growing. In 1998, SS was 22% of spending; now it is 33% of spending, and the total budget has grown! Defense has gone from 16% to 17% over the same time period. And that's before you even consider that national defense is a constitutional duty of the federal government. The primary purpose of the federal government is rapidly becoming the suctioning of $$$ out of the pockets of workers (no matter how able to pay!! Payroll taxes are regressive!) and into the pockets of the retired (no matter how much they need it.). Hardly the republic the patriots fought for.
I have no clue where you came up with $10B a year from estate taxes, but let's just assumt you are right. That tiny amount is completely beside the point -- lost in the noise. It will cover the SS deficit in 2014, when it will only be $8B short. It might help a bit in 2015 when SS is $22B short, but by the 2020s when the annual deficit will be in the 100s of B, it will be clear how pointless any $10B savings is.
The current SS program is simply unsustainable, and it must be reformed. The only way to get the magnitude of $$$ required to "save Social Security" is through reforms of SS itself. Private accounts are not the whole solution, and done badly they could be a total disaster. You are right to be skeptical about them. But any view that the current system can survive without radical reform is based on fantasy.
Take another look at the chart on p. 60 of the 1040 instructions from the IRS. Note that Social Security spending is 33% of federal spending today before the Boomers retire. That will only grow. Net interest on debt cannot be tapped, and all other categories are dwarfed by entitlement spending. There simply is not ``plenty of discretionary spending'' to re-assign to save SS.
I also have to ask if you have any clue just how enormous the unfunded liability of our entitlement programs is -- $20 Trillion. We aren't going to come up with that shortfall by saving dimes and pennies on other programs. The orders of magnitude simply do not compare.
Now we notice that there are lots of rocks whizzing by the planet, because we're bothering to look. But just like the microbes, it's always been so. We're only upset because we're noticing it.
This is the way the universe is. Get used to it. It is not headline news.
Would this kind of use be permitted under the proposed DRM scheme?
Yeah. It was called American Graffiti.
Your understanding of Roe v. Wade is way, way, WAY off the mark.
You know there's this thing called the Internet you could use to locate the opinion in seconds and read it for yourself, rather than spread nonsense.
let me help
Metaphysics != Religion.
I can't establish by empirical experiment what justice is, either, but that doesn't make the criminal justice system a religious institution.
Yes, all the things mentioned make it hard to beat Stevens, but that makes it all the more powerful an example when we do beat him.
So blast away at will against Ted Stevens all the way through Election Day 2002.
How much money can it take to turn an election in Alaska?
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.
They are the highest profile supporters of SSSCA who are facing election in 2002.
The IRS released today an outline of its plans to have all income tax audits performed by Arthur Andersen.